What Is Christian Universalism?

[@1FoundSheep]

Really appreciate the crystal clear delivery of such beautiful and Holy subject matter! I know this is much appreciated by a vast amount of people who are just beginning to uncover what all of this means in very micro to macro view of this "Great Salvation" in our lives and very being. Not only to ourselves as individuals, but to the whole of humanity. Of which, I are one! 😊

[@Mr.Wahoo77]

I'm glad you're back.

[@MrHwaynefair]

Excellent presentation! I especially appreciated the commentary references regarding kolasis and aionios👍 Keep up the (very) good work!

[@jasonbell9975]

Excellent content! Thank you for referencing the Winchester Convention. I was not aware of it. 🙌🏼🙏🏼

[@warrenroby6907]

I hope this video gets a wide circulation.

[@acetheo6864]

I TEACH THIS MOST EVERY DAY ON MY CHANNEL.

[@IsaacNussbaum]

*I* --TEACH-- *DECEIVE PEOPLE ABOUT THIS MOST EVERY DAY ON MY CHANNEL.*

[@7bag7]

I read this on someones blog. Any takers? Have you ever asked why it doesn’t say “to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven or under the earth”? Why does Paul omit “under the earth”? And I say that because he uses that phrase in Philippians 2:10, when he says that every knee will bow to Jesus and confess that he’s Lord - every knee “in heaven and on earth and under the earth.” Even the unsaved will grant that Jesus is Lord.

[@CyntheaAnderson]

I love George MacDonald. I have many of his books, novels and sermons and poetry.

[@jeremeyla]

This is a topic that I can't seem to shake when I read through the scriptures. I'm just a simpleton, but it does seem to me that the sacrifice of Christ would far exceed both the sin and its effects that came from Adam. And for those of you interested in reading about a little AI experiment I did the other day related to the subject of this video, you may find the following rather fascinating: I gave ChatGPT some prompts, assuming it was the world’s foremost authority on scriptural understanding, the original biblical languages, and free from bias or presuppositions tied to any specific denomination or religious background. I then asked what it determined the overall message and eschatological purpose of the Bible to be and the results were pretty shocking to me. But before I post the final conclusion below, I must state the obvious: that none of us should be basing our theology on something generated by ChatGPT. I just personally found the results rather interesting and thought some of you may be interested in reading its conclusion. I hope you find it as interesting as I did. Response from ChapGPT: Conclusion: Ultimate Restoration for All, Through Judgment and Repentance In light of the cultural, historical, and linguistic context of the New Testament, the most consistent interpretation is that God’s ultimate plan is universal restoration, not only for a select few but for all of creation. However, this process involves judgment, which is corrective and purifying, leading individuals to repentance and restoration. In this view, resurrection is universal-everyone is raised. Judgment serves as a means of correction, but it ultimately leads to restoration for all, even if some go through intense purification (the “fire”) before reaching that restoration. This interpretation honors both the justice and mercy of God and aligns with the overarching biblical narrative of God’s desire to redeem and restore all things to Himself. It avoids the harshness of eternal, irredeemable punishment while maintaining the seriousness of sin and the necessity of repentance. - ChatGPT

[@Noemie291]

Hey! It's weird because even when I try and manipulate chatgpt to defend universalism it's always so unconvincing.. :( one thing no Universalists can ever explain or just don't want to see it as true... how can you be purified if you have lost your soul? I lost mine, I'm not joking unfortunately. So there is nothing left to save or purified... how would you explain universalism for these people?... the damned like me. ..

[@jeremeyla]

Hey, first off, I wouldn’t necessarily call myself a Universalist, but I definitely desire that as the ultimate outcome. I’m really sorry if this comes across the wrong way, but from what you’ve shared, it seems like you may be deceived into believing your soul is lost and it’s possible that you may not be seeing the full picture. Please hear me out. Psalm 139:8 says, ‘If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!’ (Actually, reading this whole Psalm might bring you some comfort.) And in Ezekiel 18:4, God declares that all souls belong to Him. So I can’t help but think that either you’ve been misled into believing you’ve lost your soul, or maybe you’ve even convinced yourself of this. But I believe there is more hope for you than you realize. I keep coming back to Scripture because I think it’s the best medicine for our souls. Even if you’ve heard this story before, I encourage you to revisit Luke 15:11-32-the Parable of the Prodigal Son. It’s a reminder that even when we feel totally lost, God is still waiting to embrace us with open arms. And consider Ezekiel 37, where God brought life to an entire valley of dry bones. The people of Israel thought they were beyond hope, but God restored them. The fact that you’re able to comment here tells me you’re still very much alive and that there’s still so much hope for you, too. I want to leave you with Romans 8:38-39, which says, ‘For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.’ Not even your belief that you’ve lost your soul can separate you from God’s love. His grace is bigger than our darkest thoughts, our deepest wounds, or even our greatest despair. So whether we’re talking about universal salvation or not, the core of the Christian faith is that no one is beyond God’s redemption. That’s a promise rooted in the limitless grace of God and the power of Christ’s sacrifice. May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

[@1FoundSheep]

@jeremeyla Wow! I hear what your saying about drawing conclusions based on chatGPT, but wow! What concise evaluation! I will remember this. Thanks for sharing 👍!!

[@LogicOfChrist888]

Thanks Brother ❤

[@vcR7132]

Fantastic video! 👍🏻 Acts 4:12: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" ✝️

[@christianuniversalist]

Origen deserves to be a Saint in the Eastern Orthodox church. It’s a damned shame he isn’t.

[@JohnMaximovich-r8x]

And yet, all we have from the Fathers are condemnations, both at the 5th Ecumenical Council and local councils/fathers. Seems pretty obvious, if you're an Orthodox Christian, that you shouldn't be looking to Origen. Influential as he was, what we have distilled thru the Cappadocian Fathers in terms of Christology is sufficient.

[@christianuniversalist]

@JohnMaximovich-r8x always when Orthodox (and Catholics) debate this question, the dogmatic authority of the Fifth Ecumenical Council is eventually invoked: this council, traditionalists allege, solemnly anathematized Origen and condemned all forms of apokatastasis. EO theologian David Bentley Hart’s reply is to the point: “In point of fact, no-absolutely not”: “It is true that something remembered by tradition as “Origenism” was condemned by someone in the sixth century, and that Origen was maligned as a heretic in the process; and it is also true that for well more than a millennium both those decisions were associated with the Council of 553 by what was simply accepted as the official record. But, embarrassingly, we now know, and have known for quite some time, that the record was falsified. And this is a considerable problem not only for Orthodoxy, but for the Catholic Church as well, inasmuch as the authority of the ecumenical councils must in some way be intimately-if obscurely-bound to some notion of the indefectibility of the Church’s transmission of the faith. (And, frankly, the prejudices of ecclesial fundamentalists are as impervious to historical fact)” When Hart says that the record was falsified, he is referring to the 15 anathemas against Origenism, which have traditionally been attributed to II Constantinople. But what many people do not realize is that historians have long debated whether they in fact belong to the council. There is no mention in the acts of the council that the anathemas were ever discussed or voted upon. Historians presently hypothesize that the Emperor Justinian, at some point prior to the formal opening of the synod, submitted the anathemas to the bishops then present in Constantinople. Presumably these bishops communicated their approval, or at least acquiescence, in some manner; but regardless their “decision” does not possess canonical authority. However the council did anathematize Origen by name in the anathemas directed against the Three Chapters: “If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema.” (h/t Al Kimel)

[@christianuniversalist]

But always when Orthodox (and Catholics) debate this question, the dogmatic authority of the Fifth Ecumenical Council is eventually invoked: this council, traditionalists allege, solemnly anathematized Origen and condemned all forms of apokatastasis. David Bentley Hart’s reply is to the point: “In point of fact, no-absolutely not”: It is true that something remembered by tradition as “Origenism” was condemned by someone in the sixth century, and that Origen was maligned as a heretic in the process; and it is also true that for well more than a millennium both those decisions were associated with the Council of 553 by what was simply accepted as the official record. But, embarrassingly, we now know, and have known for quite some time, that the record was falsified. And this is a considerable problem not only for Orthodoxy, but for the Catholic Church as well, inasmuch as the authority of the ecumenical councils must in some way be intimately-if obscurely-bound to some notion of the indefectibility of the Church’s transmission of the faith. (And, frankly, the prejudices of ecclesial fundamentalists are as impervious to historical fact as are the naivetes.) When Hart says that the record was falsified, he is referring to the 15 anathemas against Origenism, which have traditionally been attributed to II Constantinople. But what many people do not realize is that historians have long debated whether they in fact belong to the council. There is no mention in the acts of the council that the anathemas were ever discussed or voted upon. Historians presently hypothesize that the Emperor Justinian, at some point prior to the formal opening of the synod, submitted the anathemas to the bishops then present in Constantinople. Presumably these bishops communicated their approval, or at least acquiescence, in some manner; but regardless their “decision” does not possess canonical authority. However the council did anathematize Origen by name in the anathemas directed against the Three Chapters: “If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema.” (h/t Al Kimel)

[@zelenisok]

All you have from the fathers is condemnations of Origen? How about Gregory of Nazianzus and Basi the Great making a compilation of his quotes and calling it Philocalia, love of the beautiful /good? How about Gregory the Wonderworker talking about him as an inspired man? How about Didymus saying he was teacher second only to the apostles? The church used Origen's writings to teach catechumens and theologians for centuries, until the emperor Justinian forced the bishops to add him to a list of condemned people (which was dome without mention of what he is being condemned for), and forcing some bishops to sign a list of anathemas against Neo-origenism, then was then falsely added to the documents of the Fifth ecumenical council.

[@Titoroski187]

0:16 Earth cosmology, when is brought up

[@orthodoxuniversalist]

@@Titoroski187 Agreed! Great point!

[@laurelin3422]

Do you think that Universalism and the Athanasian Creed are compatible? One of the Ministers at my church seems to think that it isn’t. I don’t think that necessarily true. I think everyone in the end will and must and want to accept the “Catholic faith”.

[@orthodoxuniversalist]

Great question. The Athanasian Creed is of a rather late date (5-6th century, not written by Athanasius himself). Moreover, interpreting what it means when it refers to the “everlasting” life/fire to come requires taking into account the wider patristic witness, which for the first 500 years didn’t condemn universalism. If one takes it as a condemnation of universalism, therefore, an explanation is needed as to why it contradicts the verified allowances for universalism which were well-known up to that point.

[@davidlyons6235]

For the sake of simplicity I would classify myself a biblical universalist.

[@JRDS214]

Godspeed bro❤❤❤❤❤

[@caslook.kalliades]

Thank you !

[@caman171]

sounds a lot like what Primitive Baptist Universalists believe, a form of calvinism that believes ALL things have been predestined to reconciliation and salvation

[@timwilkins2008]

Universalism isn't limited to a particular theological perspective but yes, Primitive Baptist Universalists do hold to a very similar viewpoint.

[@stephenbailey9969]

I would imagine there must be a difference between beings that were perfect from origin in contrast with those that were born with sin (hamartia=to miss the mark). For the former, it was an informed and direct choice to turn from the perfect light. Just as at the end of this age in the resurrection of the body, with the light of Jesus before their eyes, it would be an informed choice for those who reject him and the divine authority. The revelation of scripture is that some beings will simply choose to be their own gods, come what will.

[@JesusIsAlphaOmega001]

Perhaps however we know God Is. And therefore nothing about God is left behind.

[@carlostome2542]

For as in Adam all die,so in Christ all will be made alive. cor 15-22

[@martinmasten4107]

A friend, referred me to this video. I think there is some trickeration in the language. You say Christian Universalism does not mean all roads lead to heaven. And does not mean we don’t need to lead godly lives. But then on the other side of your mouth, you say it really doesn’t matter in the end. No matter what road you take you will ultimately bow before Christ and be saved. And in the end, it doesn’t matter if you live a godly life or you don’t, you will be saved. It seems to me that you have to add to text things that are not there. I think Matthew 25 is a classic case. Jesus seems to make a very clear distinction between sheep and goats. If I believed what you said, I believe he should have added at the end “just kidding everyone is a sheep!” When Paul says do not be deceived People who practice certain things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Again, he must’ve been just joking. What he really meant was you will not enter the kingdom of God for now. But no big deal you will ultimately enter. When Jesus says, enter by the narrow way for broad is the way that leads to destruction. I think he should’ve added if he was a Christian Universalist actually in the end, it doesn’t really matter. I have tried to listen carefully. It seems fair to me to say there is no such thing as goats. And the idea that eternal in the very same passage means to absolutely diametrical things. Is very problematic. Jesus says one is lead away for eternal destruction and the other to eternal life. But even though they’re the same words, one means something absolutely different than the other. Why?

[@orthodoxuniversalist]

Great questions! Thanks for commenting. To clarify my position, I believe in hell and believe that unbelievers may be bound in it for a very long time. I just believe that, ultimately, hell will be empty. This is what the early Christian Universalists believed. So I don’t believe that the wicked will get a free pass. They aren’t sheep. But we were all goats at one time. I simply believe those who die as goats do not entirely lose the capacity to become sheep at some future time. In regard to the life and the punishment to come both being described as “eternal,” I give a more thorough explanation in the video “Universalism Debunked?”. I’d be interested in your feedback on that video. Thanks again for watching and commenting!

[@martinmasten4107]

@@orthodoxuniversalist Thank you for your kind response. Do you know if there is a good civil debate by a qualified believer in Christian Universalism and a believer that there is an ultimate eternal judgement. I don't feel qualified to dice the word meanings. I only have seen on KZbin those saying yea or nay. If you would it would be helpful if you could address Jesus' seeming neglect or Paul's neglect or John's neglect to explicitly teach universalism. Why didn't Jesus add the appropriate qualifications. As an example on a different topic, one that I think we would be much more in agreement on. I have wondered why those who believe in Calvinism and TULIP seem to mentally rewrite John 3:16. If I understand Calvinism correctly and TULIP in particular it should read. "For God so loved the preselected that He gave His only begotten Son for the preselected that only the preselected who are compelled to believe will not perish but have everlasting life." In the two texts I referenced there seems to be lacking the qualifications or addendums. There seems to be lacking the teaching, Hitler 100 years punishment, Joe blow 5 years hard time. When Paul wrote in I Corinthians 6 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]homosexuals, nor [b]sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were [c]sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God AT LEAST FOR A LONG LONG TIME ? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]homosexuals, nor [b]sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. ACTUALLY CHECK THAT ALL OF THEM ULTIMATELY WILL!!!! 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were [c]sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. AND SO WILL EVERYBODY! Jesus words 13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 [c]Because narrow is the gate and [d]difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Should He have said: 13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. BUT THE DESTRUCTION IS JUST TEMPORARY! 14 [c]Because narrow is the gate and [d]difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. OF COURSE EVERYONE WILL FIND IT EVENTUALLY, IT JUST MIGHT TAKE A LITTLE LONGER!!! This seems to be lacking. All these types of text seem to need to be rewritten or qualified in some way to get to the Christian Universalist meaning. Again thanks so much.

[@CurtisMiller-w9m]

Please consider using King James Version. You will not offend a greater amount of fundamentalist Christians and they will be more open to listening! You even left out words quoting from the ESV, which modern mammon versions do often.

[@alwaysadawg6488]

The KJV is not an accurate translation. It is traditional and popular, but not accurate. Case in point, it translates the OT Hebrew word "sheol" as "hell". The problem is that "sheol" means "the grave" or "the realm of the dead", a place where ALL souls went after death. This is NOT the same as hell, but that's how the KJV translates it as "hell" anyway. Further, the KJV (and other translations) show Jesus using the word "hell". Jesus never said "hell". It is a word that comes from Norse mythology and it did not exist in Jesus' day. What Jesus actually warned the Jews and others of is ending up in the "Valley of Hinnom" or "Gehenna". This was an actual valley in Jerusalem that was seen by the Jews as a place of God's impending EARTHLY judgement on Israel. Jesus said the Valley of Hinnom", but the KJV translates it as "hell". That is incorrect. Further, in Matthew 25:46 (sheep and the goats), the KJV says that Jesus warned of "eternal punishment". That is also wrong. He actually warned of "age-lasting chastisement", corrective punishment for an age.

[@jesusisthesalt]

so... when Jesus said that the path to destruction was wide, and that many people would find it... what did he mean by 'destruction'?

[@Ethan-wh1ng]

I lot of what I consider to be “me” will not make it past the purifying fire.

[@Noemie291]

​@@Ethan-wh1ng the damned have lost their soul. So nothing to save or be purified. That's why they are in the book of the dead. And are thrown into the lake. The ones that were in Hell and are still in the book of life (those who still have souls) are saved before the lake. The damned are ... well damned. Forever. They are only carcass and spirit. Spirits are immortal. Thus the eternal torment. I know becausr I lost my soul. Where is it written the damned are given new soul?

[@paulatomlins1852]

I think that it means that the path to destruction IN THIS LIFE is wide. Just look around you. It comes to mind alcoholism or drug addiction in a family, where it not only destroys the addict, but their family and friends around them.

[@MrCman321]

@@Ethan-wh1ng Exactly. Most of what we are is not "us" in the sense of our true being. Our true honest being is us fully realized in Christ. Everything else is sin cancerously stuck onto our spirits, and that will be burned off in the purifying fire. And its going to hurt, but we will come out on the other side being perfect as Christ died for.

[@martinmasten4107]

@@paulatomlins1852 I think this is pure rationalization. Just simply adding your own language and altering what seems the stark intent. It seems there must be a reinvention of thought to reach this.

[@stephengreater1689]

Heresy

[@alwaysadawg6488]

Neither the original Hebrew OT text or the Greek NT support eternal punishment. It is only supported by provably inaccurate translations.

[@IsaacNussbaum]

@@alwaysadawg6488 Yes. Punishment is one-and-done, quickly enforced and then over. ✴ _“…the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.”_ (2 Peter 3: 7, NIV)

[@marvalice3455]

Dogmatically condemned is what it is.

[@timwilkins2008]

You mean by a poorly worded anathema from a corrupt Catholic Emperor....no, it doesn't hold up. Also, Universalism was never condemned by name. It was Origin as the "enemy" of Justin 300 years after Origin's death. The Cappadocians and Gregory of Nyssa who was the author of the Nicene Creed and considered fully orthodox by the Church yet he is an Universalist. So....a worthless anathema is overruled by the greatest Church father....