Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children

[Homer]

john6899,

You wrote:

Accusations of unkindness, whether true or not, are best not served up with unkind comments of your own. Perhaps, if you had concluded your comments before your last sentence....

My apology to Steve if he was offended. I suppose I was venting my pique at being chastised for "recycling" arguments when we are presented with the same arguments over and over again by the universalists. The reference we have heard so many times about the six schools of theology in the early church, four of which are said to be universalist is of doubtful value. I believe Steve says it is from Schaff's church history. However, in the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia, 1950 edition, there is this statement regarding the matter:

The ascription of universalism to many of the ancient, medieval, and modern theologians would be disapproved by many of the scholars of the present, probably by a majority. In many cases the expression of the "larger hope" or of doubt as to the endlessness of future punishment is all that can be fairly claimed.

[backwoodsman]

chastised for "recycling" arguments when we are presented with the same arguments over and over again by the universalists.

Discussion only works when both sides present their position, then thoughtfully consider the other's position to be sure they correctly understand it, then raise whatever objections they may have to it while thoughtfully responding to objections to their own position, all the while being careful to respond to what the other actually says and believes, rather than to their own knee-jerk initial reaction. If one party neglects to take the trouble to understand the other's position, and/or fails to adjust their own position when it becomes clear it's necessary, then the "discussion" accomplishes little or nothing and is a waste of time for everyone.

The reference we have heard so many times about the six schools of theology in the early church, four of which are said to be universalist is of doubtful value. I believe Steve says it is from Schaff's church history. However, in the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia, 1950 edition, there is this statement regarding the matter:

Apparently you didn't read the whole paragraph. Your quote comes from the end of it; the second sentence reads, "In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria [see Alexandria, School of], Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked." (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1912, Volume 12 page 96; I can't find reference to a new edition after that time, so I believe the "1950 edition" is a reprint rather than an updated edition.)

So it seems your quote is taken out of context and misused. Paidion brought this to your attention 3.5 years ago (http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=36353#p36353). Yet here we are, 3.5 years later, still at the same point on the same out-of-context quote, but expanded now to cast doubt on something that comes from the very same paragraph in the very same book. If I might presume to make a suggestion: Maybe it's time for you to carefully consider whether you're really interested in taking part in a meaningful discussion, or simply determined to defend your chosen position at any cost.

[Singalphile]

Homer,

Thank you for bringing that quote (that you quoted) from that Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia to my attention. I hadn't heard that part of it. I think it is a very relevant and important disclaimer regarding the possible existence of those views in those old theological schools.

[Homer]

Singalphile,

Thanks for your kind words!

[Homer]

backwoodsman,

Earlier I had written:

The reference we have heard so many times about the six schools of theology in the early church, four of which are said to be universalist is of doubtful value. I believe Steve says it is from Schaff's church history. However, in the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia, 1950 edition, there is this statement regarding the matter:

The ascription of universalism to many of the ancient, medieval, and modern theologians would be disapproved by many of the scholars of the present, probably by a majority. In many cases the expression of the "larger hope" or of doubt as to the endlessness of future punishment is all that can be fairly claimed.

To which you responded:

Apparently you didn't read the whole paragraph. Your quote comes from the end of it; the second sentence reads, "In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria [see Alexandria, School of], Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked."

And also:

Yet here we are, 3.5 years later, still at the same point on the same out-of-context quote, but expanded now to cast doubt on something that comes from the very same paragraph in the very same book. If I might presume to make a suggestion: Maybe it's time for you to carefully consider whether you're really interested in taking part in a meaningful discussion, or simply determined to defend your chosen position at any cost.

I type slowly so I try to be economical with my words. I can see I should have elaborated a bit; when I mentioned Steve's frequent use of the quote about the six theological schools of the first 5-6 centuries it was my understanding that Steve's source was Schaff's History of the Christian Church. Perhaps Steve's source is Schaff-Herzog, which is a much larger set than Schaff's history, which I do not have. I have the hard-copy Schaff-Herrzog set. Steve can clear up the matter as to whether his quote is of Schaff's actual words from his history or someone else quoting Schaff. It is also possible that Schaff's history is something Schaff edited but did not write all the articles; I am not familiar with his history.

I can assure you I have read the entire Schaff-Herzog article more than once and was well aware of the entire contents of the subject paragraph when I wrote:

"I believe Steve says it is from Schaff's church history. However, in the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia, 1950 edition, there is this statement regarding the matter:"

I assumed Steve was quoting the word's of Schaff and that the information from Schaff-Herzog was something that people were unaware of.

Here is some additional relevant information which you and others may be unaware of: The article in Schaff-Herzog on universalism, which contains the "six schools quote" was writen by George T. Knight, a universalist teacher at a universalist seminary, Crane Theological School, part of Tufts University in Massachusetts. The corrective note at the end of the paragraph was written by Albert Henry Newman, a contributor to Encyclopedia Brittanica, and professor of church history for more than 50 years.

Additionally, in volume 1 of Schaff-Herzog, p. 210, you will find an article on Apocatastasis. After a discussion about the earliest advocates of apocatastasis you will find the following:

"But the writers defending the Apocatastasis are decidedly in the minority;"

I will leave it to you to read the article and see if I am being misleading by not typing the entire passage.

[steve]

Homer,

Thank for those clarifications. I was quoting, of course, from Schalff-Herzog. I have Schaff's history in hardbound, but the Encyclodedia only in an electronic copy. It is helpful to have that background information.

The information about the six schools and their beliefs does not rest on the testimony of this encyclopedia alone, however. Edward Beecher, D.D., goes into much more detail, citing other authorities, ancient and modern, to confirm what is summarized in the one paragraph in Schaff-Herzog. You may read his chapter on that subject here: http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Retribut ... tion22.htm

I came across this in my general reading through Beecher's whole book, as a small part of my research. My book will have a chapter summarizing (not so briefly) the history of the doctrine of hell, both before and after Christ. Beecher's book is a very thorough source, though I am using many others, as well. To complain that Beecher was a universalist, and thus unreliable, would be like the atheists complaining that the writers of the four gospels were unreliable, because they were believers. What else would they be, given the evidence they record? (If Beecher is, in fact, a universalist, he does not say so, and it is not obvious).

In this chapter, Beecher puts the historical issue into perspective. After demonstrating that four of the six schools were, indeed, inclined toward universalism (and that they were, for this, never denounced by either the conditionalist school at Ephesus or the eternal torment school at Carthage), Beecher concludes:

If all these things are so, it does not of course follow that the doctrine of universal restoration is true. That is a question to be decided on Scriptural grounds. But it does follow that the assumption that this question was settled by the Church, so called, in a manner deserving either confidence or respect, is utterly fallacious and delusive.

"But the writers defending the Apocatastasis are decidedly in the minority;"

Since I don't have Schaff-Herzog in hard copy, could you spare me the trouble and inform me to what particular time period this statement is referring?

[jriccitelli]

I suppose the analogy to the seven schools of Revelations in chapters 2 and 3 was already brought up, but it makes me think of how only 'one' seemed to have it 'all' together. Two out of six, or four out of six doesn't matter to me. I would hate to waste my time here going over trivialities, and things repeated.

[jriccitelli]

(And was not intentionally ignoring this forum, of course not, I have been working overtime and going to school at night also)

Last year I read through many, many pages of Eschatology, etc., on this forum going back a couple years, looking for any good arguments already made for UR. I noticed it's the Universalists 'same few scriptures' and same statements over and over.
Universalists are stuck on the semantics of 'all', every knee shall bow, God 'desires' that 'all' come to repentance, Gods love (despite 'all' warnings to the contrary, and our own freewill), and how terribly disappointed God will be if they don't.
But these are pretty slim opinions when compared to the huge magnitude of verses and intent of 'all' the judgment - wrath - destruction - death - vengeance - cutting off - remnant - verse's. That was my point.

It is not 'me' rehashing the same answers the same way, I was tired of the Universalists same previous few verses so I was interested in how the Universalist responds to huge amount of scripture dealing with and detailing Gods wrath and intent to destroy men.

(I got my answer)

I also noticed the absence (in the previous threads) of 'dealing with mans expendability' and the fact we are not to think too highly of ourselves, or whether or not we are that special, as it is spoken of in scripture and in nature. There are too many verses concerning mans high opinion of himself and Gods chastisement for such thinking.
I do not see where these many Judgments from Isaiah through Malachi are dealt with or answered by the Universalists when it comes to God saving everyone, where is this debate (?) I do not see it.

I will donate 50 dollars to the Narrow Path Ministries, if someone could show me where the verses relating to man being as a beast, as chaff, as pottery, vessels of wrath, etc. were previously brought up and answered (?).

Speaking of changing my mind, I really thought I had found a teacher I really agreed with on most everything and more (and I have many teachers I do like). I was attracted to Steve's style, and also because I do not hold to an 'eternal' hell theology. I also strongly agree that the church needs, or has some assembly required. I also changed my mind about Isaiah 14 being the devil. I listened to probably all his topical lectures, and many of the verse by verse tapes, and I do not recall hearing anything I did not agree with, until I entered this forum. So you are wrong, I have changed my mind, about Steve.
I still love him, sure, but I 'no longer' agree with him on everything.

Speaking of open minded, I am not sure if that means being open to believing anything, or open to believing Gods word.
Sure God 'could' give us all a box of donuts tomorrow. I wouldn’t want to impose a strict limitation on God's love. After all God never said He would 'not' give us a box of donuts.

I think interpreting love to mean God 'must' save everyone when God has 'not' put it that way is putting your thinking into His mouth, rather than listening to what has come out of His mouth.
God has told us to believe what He has said, and believe He will bring it to past.
Ever since this Universalist UR discussion came up I feel I wandered into an episode of the Twilight Zone, everything felt right until I came upon this, but now a lot of the other silence makes sense; the Preterist doctrine opens the door for Universalism. The Preterist doctrine allows one to swipe away 'all' the judgments of scripture as if they 'all' already happened, leaving a glorious future for 'all'.
Am I wrong on this? Please tell me I am wrong!

Steve; Nov 27 said; 'You have never heard me advocating the preaching of universalism'

Sure, but defending it tooth and nail is rather telling. After all as a bible teacher you have an obligation to teach scripture and not read into the verse. I cannot think of anything I teach, that I would not preach.
After death repentance is not taught in scripture. Yet although 'anything' is possible, it is highly unlikely because God describes judgment and sentencing far too many times and in great detail - to leave little doubt as to His feelings on the matter.

'...(nor annihilationism)—though you certainly know that I would never approve preaching the traditional doctrine of hell, since it is a slander against the Father of Jesus Christ'

Well Universalism goes the opposite direction and slanders the God who has a choice and has given a warning to 'all' a freewill to repent, and believe. God created freewill, what is it there for, what will we use it for? (Because I've read this comeback a dozen times 7150, I will note; Satan only blinds people when they 'believe' the lie, when they 'refuse' to hear)

Steve said; 'I believe we are to preach the Gospel—by definition, that is the Good Tidings! Hell has never been a part of that message, in the New Testament. Hell is the opposite of Good Tidings"

Yes it is the opposite, Hell is the opposite of 'not believing' the Gospel.
The Gospel is the answer to the news of hell, before the Gospel people were all doomed -without hope - there was no hope for the heathen, only death. The Good news is a response to the surety of death, 'if' you believe. Did I mention 'if'? 'If' cannot be overlooked, 'If' - Then (and perhaps) is a central theme of Soteriology in scripture. People should be aware of Hell already (who hasn't heard of hell?), but going around saying it is something like a treatment center should be left to the cults.

People were commanded to 'Believe' the Good News, However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?"
If someone is in debt then having your debt forgiven is Good news.
If a person does 'not' believe they are in debt then forgiveness means nothing, and Good News means nothing.
So without fear, or punishment the Gospel means nothing, but is in effect something else.

I thought I stuck to the topic of why, or whether God punishes and kills generations and such, but if God brings them back, it kind of defeats the purpose, just thinking...

[steve]

I think some of you may not be paying attention. The reason that some of the points for universalism are repeated here is that they have never been answered, and the critics keep restating the fallacious points that these arguments correct.

I am not sure, but it seems to me that nine times out of ten, at this forum, the universalists only show up after they are attacked. They do not seem to be on the offensive (This thread is an example, if you will look at the first two pages). I have never proclaimed a Gospel of universalism, but I have spoken up when absurd arguments and misrepresentations of it have been made. I would do the same for annihilationism, if it were attacked with invalid arguments (in fact, I have pointed out the error of some arguments against traditionalism, when those arguments were invalid).

My interest is in looking at biblical options fairly. I can give lots of arguments for conditionalism, but no one here has recently attacked it or made false accusations against it. As many of you know, my leanings a few years ago were strongly toward conditionalism, and I can still defend it. Shucks, I can still defend traditionalism as well as anyone here has done. However, in the process of answering misrepresentations of scripture and of the universalistic position, I come out sounding like a universalist. My book will give all the views as fair and biblical an analysis as, I think, can be done or has been done by any author (I haven't read all authors, of course—only about 40 or so on this topic).

I think, if people would cease posting inaccurate statements in attacking universalism, the repetition of the arguments for universalism would probably disappear from the discussions. It is the non-universalists who seem obsessed with insulting or otherwise attacking universalism. The feebleness and invalidity of the attacks has served to make universalism look stronger. If the best arguments against it require a misrepresentation of its views and a shoddy exegesis of scripture (as the discussions here seem to indicate) then the view may prove to be very valid indeed!

It is not 'me' rehashing the same answers the same way, I was tired of the Universalists same previous few verses so I was interested in how the Universalist responds to huge amount of scripture dealing with and detailing Gods wrath and intent to destroy men.

No one who reads the Bible would deny that a great volume of material can be found there about judgment. The question is, "Which judgment?" If we are discussing hell, then we had better be using passages about the disposition of the FINAL judgment—not historical judgments. I asked Homer, and now I will ask you, jriccitelli, if you have indeed a large number of passages to quote that actually have to do with this subject, rather than passages that only talk about wars and historical calamities, please post them for us. I want to be sure not to miss any of the evidence. However, there is no sense in posting pages of cut-and-paste, material that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

I know that neither you nor Homer are defending traditionalism (eternal torment), but for any who do defend it, I would like to see six passages of scripture that seem to teach it (even on the surface), and even one passage that teaches it unambiguously.

[backwoodsman]

Here is some additional relevant information which you and others may be unaware of: The article in Schaff-Herzog on universalism, which contains the "six schools quote" was writen by George T. Knight, a universalist teacher at a universalist seminary, Crane Theological School, part of Tufts University in Massachusetts. The corrective note at the end of the paragraph was written by Albert Henry Newman, a contributor to Encyclopedia Brittanica, and professor of church history for more than 50 years.

I reread it with that in mind, and it still looks to me like you intend to cast doubt on the '6 schools' statement, which you said is of "doubtful value". Clearly the editors disagree, or it wouldn't be in their encyclopedia; not to mention, as Steve pointed out, Schaff-Herzog isn't the only (or even the best) source of that information. That's why I said your quote is taken out of context and misused. Have I correctly understood you, or have I misunderstood you in some way?

But it seems you may have missed the point of my post, which was: Trying to have a meaningful, profitable discussion, while ignoring repeated requests to back up your position with Scripture, and neglecting to offer any meaningful response to the other position, is really pretty pointless. That's why I suggested you carefully consider what you hope to gain by doing so.

Homer,
Thank you for bringing that quote (that you quoted) from that Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia to my attention. I hadn't heard that part of it. I think it is a very relevant and important disclaimer regarding the possible existence of those views in those old theological schools.

You may want to read just a little more of the article before drawing that conclusion. The paragraph in question refers to the western church. The preceding paragraph addresses the east, and closes with: "Under the instruction of these great teachers many other theologians believed in universal salvation; and indeed the whole Eastern Church (q.v.) until after 500 A.D. was inclined to it." Clearly Homer's quote doesn't mean what he wants it to say.

I don't have a dog in this fight; of course I'm always open to new information, but I've already researched this topic and come to what I believe is the best balance of what Scripture has to say on it. Maybe I'm spitting into the wind here, but I'd just like to see these discussions be a little more productive, instead of just going around in circles forever.