What is the reference for the Augustine quotation? It's not at all clear from the quotation as given that the "very many": isn't just rhetorical flourish; is (somehow) equivalent to "the vast majority"; is referring (exclusively? at all?) to those within the Church. The case you've built up so far appears to be circular.
Enchiridion (Handbook on Faith, Hope & Love), Ch. 29. I don't know Latin, nor do I know of any authorities on the language. It is worth noting, however, that "some, indeed very many" at that time were Arians. In other words, being in the majority proved nothing, for the majority could very well be wrong.
There is surely a lot of abrasiveness coming out, from the "universal love" end of the table. Yup 70-80% of the Church were Arians at the time. "A great many" did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. That is not patristic witness as far as I'm concerned. We can go by the guardrails of the Councils on these issues. The councils have been pretty severe on the "universal love" party in question.
Thanks for the reference! I was thinking of pagans as well. Christians weren’t the only ones who believed in an afterlife. It seems to me that one would need to be a ‘strong’ predestinarian to accept universalism, as it is antecedently unlikely that all people would exercise their free will to repent and love God. Here is the full quote from Augustine. In no sense is this historical evidence that the “vast majority” in Augustine’s time were universalists. For each man has for himself while living in the body earned the merit whereby these means can benefit him after death. For they do not benefit all. And yet why should they not benefit all, unless it be because of the different kinds of lives men lead in the body? Accordingly, when sacrifices, whether of the altar or of alms, are offered for the baptized dead, they are thank offerings for the very good, propitiations for the not-so-very-bad non valde malis, and, as for the very bad--even if they are of no help to the dead--they are at least a sort of consolation to the living. Where they are of value, their benefit consists either in obtaining a full forgiveness or, at least, in making damnation more tolerable. 111. After the resurrection, however, when the general judgment has been held and finished, the boundary lines will be set for the two cities: the one of Christ, the other of the devil; one for the good, the other for the bad--both including angels and men. In the one group, there will be no will to sin, in the other, no power to sin, nor any further possibility of dying. The citizens of the first commonwealth will go on living truly and happily in life eternal. The second will go on, miserable in death eternal, with no power to die to it. The condition of both societies will then be fixed and endless. But in the first city, some will outrank others in bliss, and in the second, some will have a more tolerable burden of misery than others. 112. It is quite in vain, then, that some--indeed very many--yield to merely human feelings and deplore the notion of the eternal punishment of the damned and their interminable and perpetual misery. They do not believe that such things will be. Not that they would go counter to divine Scripture--but, yielding to their own human feelings, they soften what seems harsh and give a milder emphasis to statements they believe are meant more to terrify than to express the literal truth. "God will not forget," they say, "to show mercy, nor in his anger will he shut up his mercy." This is, in fact, the text of a holy psalm.237 But there is no doubt that it is to be interpreted to refer to those who are called "vessels of mercy,"238 those who are freed from misery not by their own merits but through God's mercy. Even so, if they suppose that the text applies to all men, there is no ground for them further to suppose that there can be an end for those of whom it is said, "Thus these shall go into everlasting punishment."239Otherwise, it can as well be thought that there will also be an end to the happiness of those of whom the antithesis was said: "But the righteous into life eternal." But let them suppose, if it pleases them, that, for certain intervals of time, the punishments of the damned are somewhat mitigated. Even so, the wrath of God must be understood as still resting on them. And this is damnation--for this anger, which is not a violent passion in the divine mind, is called "wrath" in God. Yet even in his wrath--his wrath resting on them--he does not "shut up his mercy." This is not to put an end to their eternal afflictions, but rather to apply or interpose some little respite in their torments. For the psalm does not say, "To put an end to his wrath," or, "Afterhis wrath," but, "In his wrath." Now, if this wrath were all there is in man's damnation, and even if it were present only in the slightest degree conceivable--still, to be lost out of the Kingdom of God, to be an exile from the City of God, to be estranged from the life of God, to suffer loss of the great abundance of God's blessings which he has hidden for those who fear him and prepared for those who hope in him240 --this would be a punishment so great that, if it be eternal, no torments that we know could be compared to it, no matter how many ages they continued. 113. The eternal death of the damned--that is, their estrangement from the life of God--will therefore abide without end, and it will be common to them all, no matter what some people, moved by their human feelings, may wish to think about gradations of punishment, or the relief or intermission of their misery. In the same way, the eternal life of the saints will abide forever, and also be common to all of them no matter how different the grades of rank and honor in which they shine forth in their effulgent harmony.
Is that based on evidence or conjecture? I've never heard St. Jerome or the Cappadocian Fathers accused of Arianism but I'm game to learn new things.
Acts 16:29-31, universalist version: Act 16:29 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Act 16:30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Act 16:31 And they said, Relax, you will be saved -- you and your household -- regardless of anything you do or believe. Matthew 7:13, universalist version: Enter by the narrow gate, or enter by the wide gate and take the easy way. Either way will get you to the same, wonderful destination. Don't let anyone talk to you about "destruction;" that's just not going to happen.
At this point it's willful ignorance to mischaracterize the Christian universalist position this way. Mockery, when it's not based on an honest reckoning of the facts, isn't a refutation. It's just libel.
I don't think we help the situation by thius line of discussion. There is much in life, and in the Christian Life which is not simply legalism, but grace and mystery. I am not a universalist, myself, for one thing I can not comprehend the urgency of the gospel which is clearly seen in scripture. None the less I am also compelled by the universality of God's Love, and the universal reach of the arms of Christ Crucified stretched out for the salvation of all. I am clearly not an Arian, and I think most who have encountered anthing I have said or written would perceive that I am a Nicene Christian. So whilst I do not support the Arian position, I also recognise that we do ourselves no service by suggesting that Arians believe something other than what they say. Arius diod not say that Jesus is not God, what he did say was 'there was a time when the Son was not'. Arians as such are Christians, or at least should be. Generally an Arian will recite the Apostles Creed without problems, but will struggle with the Christology of the Nicene Creed. A little bit of graciousness goes a long way in life and in debate.
Well, you're free to correct our understanding by showing in what way universalism is consistent with the actual content of those verses. Because the way I wrote it reflects our concept of the violence universalism does to those scriptures. We honestly see it that way. Not trying to mock, libel, or exaggerate in the least. So the ball is in your (or your fellow universalists') court to show why we're not seeing your position accurately, if such be the case.
Honestly, I don't see a point in continuing. You've mischaracterized me twice so far and I see no indication that you plan to stop.
To help nail down what is meant by a Universalist, I think the definition provided in Rev. Robert Eden's The Churchman's Theological Dictionary gives a pretty good representation (though I've noted my difference of opinion on the charge the universalism was actually condemned by the fifth council). See below: It's an umbrella term that covers a multitude of theologies. As for me, I fall into the school of Universalism that believes punishment for sin extends into the future life, as do the Church Fathers who were universalists, so far as I know.
Well, look. Here is what our Lord said: Mat 7:13-14 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. If all people will eventually receive mercy and eternal life and will exist "in a state of perfect and endless holiness and happiness," then the wide gate/easy way does not lead to destruction, and the number of people who take the path leading to life are everyone, not "few." I don't think I have mischaracterized you or the universalist position. Rather, I think the universalist position mischaracterizes the Bible truth that most human beings will follow a life-path that leads to destruction. Now, I have never heard of "temporary destruction;" have you? Whatever is destroyed is forever destroyed. Act 16:29-31 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” The essence of 'salvation' is to be made whole: wholeness in relationship with God, wholeness in peace, wholeness in holiness, wholeness in joy, etc. If all people will eventually live "in a state of perfect and endless holiness and happiness," then all people will be saved, isn't that right? Therefore, what must a person do to be saved? According to universalism, the answer is: nothing must be done, because in the end of time everyone will be saved. Believers, unbelievers, repentant sinners, unrepentant sinners. All will be "in." But is that what Paul and Silas taught? No! Paul and Silas did not teach universalism. They taught that salvation is given only to those who "believe in the Lord(ship of) Jesus." John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. If all people will ultimately live with God "in a state of perfect and endless holiness and happiness," why did Jesus emphasize the importance of believing in Him? Why did Jesus say, "whoever believes...may have eternal life" and is not condemned, "but whoever does not believe is condemned"? Jesus said that whoever believes in Him will not perish, and the implication is that any who do not believe will perish (which dovetails perfectly with His statement about the "destruction" that awaits the vast majority). These scripture verses are not isolated. They reflect a common theme woven into the fabric of the word of God. Would you like to see more examples of that?
Rexlion says this is what Paul and Silas taught. But Paul, Silas and Rexlion are wrong, salvation can also be given to a believers household.
I have always understood it to mean that he and his household could believe and be saved. This way of understanding it harmonizes with the other scriptures. Taking it as meaning that a head of household can save his unbelieving family members, through his own personal faith, would contradict and clash with many other scriptures. That harmonization of scriptures, and interpretation of individual verses in light of the whole of Scripture, is a key step in good Bible hermeneutics. When we look at the verses upon which universalists depend, those scriptures are theoretically capable of being interpreted either for or against their position; they choose to interpret them as supports for their belief, but the contexts of those verses do not demand such an interpretation. On the other hand, the verses I've cited are a few (of many) for which no universalist-supportive interpretation is possible; indeed, those verses demand the opposite interpretation. The proper way to look at Scripture is to start with whatever is stated in no uncertain terms, and then see how the verses with uncertain meanings harmonize and fit in. Otherwise, it's like having a jigsaw puzzle in which some puzzle pieces have bulges & notches and some have none, and trying to put the puzzle together by first assembling the smooth-sided (no notches, no bulges) puzzle pieces, adding a few notch/bulge pieces that obviously match the pattern, and throwing out any notch/bulge puzzle pieces that don't appear to match up with the wrong pattern that's been assembled.
Acts 16:29-31 nrsv The jailer called for lights, and rushing in, he fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them outside and said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They answered, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’ I understand that you do want to individualise the response to grace and salvation. Yet to some extent I think that may be back reading some of our contemporary post enlightenment thinking and understanding on earlier times, and that may not be entirely fair. In our day and age we often seem to dismiss community as simply the sum total of the individual components of the group. In earlier times the understanding was that the individual gained their meaning, purpose and identity by virtue of being part of the community. This meant that questions of family, town, tribe and nation had a much greater significance. The head of the houshold did make decisions for the household. This did not absolve the individual from responsibility, however much of that responsibility was in the context of the community. It makes perfect sense in our era to assume individual responsibility as that sits with our current philosophical outlook, however I don't think it is fair on the text to seem to re-write it in order to satisfy our need for consistent messaging. Sometimes I wonder why we don't teach more unsystematic theology. So whilst I am not a Univeralist, I do value the universalist's position, as I believe they have something of value to teach us.
Isn't it equally plausible that post-enlightenment thinking is responsible for the interpretation that the one believer caused his entire household to be saved? I looked at the following commentaries: Adam Clarke (early 1800s) Albert Barnes (mid 1800s) John Gill (mid 1700s) Matthew Henry (around 1700) All four of these individuals understood the passage to mean that the individuals within the household believed (and were baptized), and they specifically discount the notion that the one believer as head-of-household was sufficient for the salvation of all. It is worth noting that all household members were addressed with the Gospel message (verse 32), so all of them might believe. The Geneva Bible (of 1557, long before the enlightenment) translates it thusly, and states specifically that all members of the household came to faith in Christ: Act 16:31 And they saide, Beleeue in the Lorde Iesus Christ, and thou shalt be saued, & thine houshold. Act 16:32 And they preached vnto him the worde of the Lord, and to all that were in the house. Act 16:33 Afterwarde he tooke them the same houre of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized with all that belonged vnto him, straigthway. Act 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meate before them, and reioyced that he with all his houshold beleeued in God. This is as far back as I can go in history (perhaps someone has a quote from an early churchman on the subject of this passage?); these references show a general historical understanding of this account that faith on the part of each member of the household was a prime element in their individual salvations.
The Hermeneia Commentary points out that the phrase “and your household” is commonly used in Acts, and in each case refers to instances in which an entire household received baptism and believed. The use of the phrase in v. 31 is merely anticipating the result described in v. 34.