Talk:History of Christian universalism

Does someone have a bone to pick with Universalism?

Because whoever edited this recently posted a few scant arguments against the Universalist teachings of several church fathers as if they were undisputed truth and as if there weren't plenty of arguments towards their Universalist tendencies. The bias in this article is unmistakable and needs to be balanced out, badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.139.54 (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on balancing it out, while keeping the objections intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd12468 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. An easy first step would be to remove the "History" section, which cites as "recent scholarly research" an article from 1978 (not recent) by an author whose most recent book claims that the gospels are eyewitness accounts (not scholarly). Scrap that and you at least then start with Origen, which is an actual history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.107.207.159 (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Second Great Awakening - please provide source

This statement is moved here, until a source for it is provided:

and became popular on the American frontier during the Second Great Awakening

What is the source of this statement? To my knowledge, the prominent preachers like Finney were decidedly against universal reconciliation (see, e.g., Finney and Universalism at Google), and there was also theologically not much in common between the liberal New England theology where there definitely existed universalim influences (e.g. Emerson and Harvard) and the second awakening denominations like Baptists and Churches of Christ which are sure neither liberal nor professing universal reconciliation.

There have been a few groups at the fringes of the second awakening professing universal reconciliation (some Seventh-day Adventists, Christian Science), but that does not mean the idea was overall popular.

I found one mentioning of universalism related to Second Awakening, there it meant not universal reconciliation but that everyone has the chance to get saved - in distinction from the Calvinist double predestination of First Awakening. Irmgard 10:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write the sentance in question, but I assume it relates to mormons, who beleieve everyone has the opportunity to be saved in the second awakening, but that the wicked will choose to reject God yet again, prefering eternal damnation. Thats not exactly universal reconciliation ;) Sam Spade 15:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks to me that statement is somewhat lacking source and verifiability... I'll move it here, until the matter is cleared up. --Irmgard 19:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

removed lists

I removed the list of Bible quotes and quotes from notable people. We should be able to attribute these through reliable sources that report on them. I have moved them to User:Vassyana/universal salvation, so they are available for reference. Vassyana 14:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • “In the year [of] 1530”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Vassyana 02:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed section

I've removed the section that discussed the linguistic debate. It was a series of dictionary entries. It can be found here. We need to report what verifiable information reliable sources say about the discussion, not simply report dictionary definitions. Vassyana 21:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not then just remove the 'Definitions'. Is it that you don't like the structure of how it is written? The article in "Christianity" provides definitions in it's explaination of Christian Love "Agape" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Love The rest is verifiable, just needs more references.StudentoftheWord 22:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's good brainstorming fodder for a proper section. To be sure there is good information in there, which is why I preserved the section in a workspace for everyone's reference. Let's focus on making this article better. Vassyana 18:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Biblical Translation information

Supporters of the Universal Reconciliation doctrine make a claim that the Bible, when properly translated, supports the universalist position.

Those who are binitarian, such as the Living Church of God, claim that while the offer for salvation will be clearly made to everyone, either in this age or the age to come, and that nearly all will accept it (such as 99.9% of those that ever lived). They differ from other univeralists in that they believe that the Bible shows that some few will be condemned. And while they sometimes cite errors of translations, they hold that there are hundreds of scriptures that support the view of a clear universal offer of salvation.

It has been difficult to assess the quality of the arguments and counter-arguments for either position, as the subject is not a focus of mainstream scholarship, and methods of Bible translation remain controversial on both sides.

The section was left without reference or citation since June, since the individual or individuals who posted it original did not come back, I have moved it to discussion for further research. Thanks for the understanding █►Student Of the Word◄█ 05:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Modern Movement information for the same reason I removed the Biblical Translation information. It has been tagged for not having reference or citation. It has been moved to discussion for further research.

The post-enlightenment, universalist movement led to the formation of the Universalist Church of America, which later merged in 1961 with the American Unitarian Association to form the Unitarian Universalist Association. However, because Unitarian Universalism is officially creedless, no member of that denomination is required to believe in the doctrine of universalism. Many Anglicans also adhere to a universalist doctrine.

Early Universalists in North America include John Murray and Thomas Potter in 1770 . The story goes that God told Potter that he was to go and rescue the one swimming from a boat that had hit a sandbar and that this person would be the one he was waiting for. Murray preached to Potter's neighbours and the word spread like wildfire.

Hosea Ballou, who is sometimes called an ultra-universalist, is often recognized as the great theologian of American Universalism, having written thousands of sermons as well as essays, hymns and treatises. Ultra-universalism is the belief that all sin is directly punished by the consequences in the sinner's own life. No further recompense being necessary after death, every soul is directly reunited with God in Heaven. The more common, and less extreme version of the Universalist doctrine is that Hell does indeed exist and many souls may end up there, however, Hell is not a realm of eternal punishment. Instead God continues to care for the souls in Hell until, eventually, God's infinite, patient love will outlast the sinner's ability to resist. When, at last, the sinner who had turned away from God turns back to the God who had never turned away, the sinner will be removed from Hell to enjoy the salvation God had always intended for all creation.

Let us get some references in there so we can return it back to the article. Thanks. █►Student Of the Word◄█ 05:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The material you removed on Murray and Ballou constitutes basic history of the Universalist denomination. The article is grossly incomplete without it. References for the statements you removed regarding John Murray, Hoseah Ballou, and the Universalist Church in America, are easily documented with citations to any standard text on Unitarian Universalist history, including David E. Bumbaugh's Unitarian Universasalism: A Narrative History (Meadville Lombard 2001), and Mark W. Harris, Historical Dictionary of Unitarian Universalism (Scarecrow Press, 2004). In the Historical Dictionary you can find an entry for John Murray at pages 340-342, for Hosea Ballou at pages 38-40, and for the 1961 merger of the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America to form the Unitarian Universalist Association at pages 485-87. A web page on Rev. Hosea Ballou maintained by the Unitarian Universalist Historical Society: http:/uudb.org/articles/hoseaballou.html Eric Alan Isaacson (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A category for Christian universalists?

I think it would be good to create a category for Christian universalists which the articles on such people could be tagged with. Currently, some of them are in the Universalists category, but Christian universalism is distinct enough that I think it could use it's own category, which would be listed beneath the more general term as well. Any thoughts, objections? Jacob1207 05:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This would be best raised at WikiProject Christianity. Vassyana 21:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Christian Universalists section created. Must be distinctive for Christian Universalists or it will be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StudentoftheWord (talk • contribs) 22:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

About the parts on Catholicism and Cardinal Murphy O'Connor:

Now, despite my disagreement that what Cardinal O'Connor said about Salvation is in line with Catholic teaching, I believe he said it. So my problem with this is the site on which the article is found. It links to a Sedevacantist site. Sedevacantism believes that the post-Vatican II Church is in heresy and that there is no valid Pope at the moment.

So my suggestion is that we find a new source for those comments he made. A less biased one. Sion 21:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence, as it was false and, in fact, Cardinal O'Connor was not saying that in the interview. Hell might even be empty, but the catholic view is that it is, at least, open to people that reject God. i.e., it is impossible that apocatastasis could fit roman catholic canon. It is important not confusing a very wide view of universal atonement with universal reconciliation (in fact, this issue has already been very discussed). 161.116.80.71 20:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sentence Changed █►Student Of the Word◄█

Undoing a change should be justified with arguments. In this case, Universal Reconciliation has a very specific meaning, which is reconciliation for all mankind and atonement for all sins as stated. Cardinal O'Connor's just says that there are non-christians that will possibly go to heaven

Q: So we shouldn't be surprised if we were to meet in heaven someone who was a Muslim or an atheist on earth?

A: I hope I will be surprised in heaven... I think I will be.

which is not the same as claiming that everyone will go to heaven. In particular, practicing a wrong religion may not be condemned, but Cardinal O'Connor is not excluding (in that text) that unregretted criminals who also actively reject God may go to hell. In conclusion, strictly speaking the sentence is false and should be rewritten to be factually accurate, or removed.Oriolpont (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

REMOVED since it has nothing to do with Universal Reconciliation but Hell. Which there is already a catagory for.

Existence of Hell

Hell is defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 1033):

'We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."610 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.611 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell." '

In the words of Pope John Paul II, "The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy". An earlier catechism, however, describes the suffering of those in hell in more traditional terms, as fiery "punishment" rather than as "self-exclusion" from God.

The idea of hell as a place, in traditional Catholic circles, has been promoted in recent years by the publication of the purported visions of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima, Portugal in 1917. Mary is supposed to have revealed a vision of hell as a "great sea of fire." Many Catholics point out that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church does not require Catholics to give credence to any private revelation, though the vision has been declared worthy of belief. It is also suggested that these visions (if true) are using imagery that uneducated people might understand (the seers of Fatima were peasant children). —Preceding unsigned comment added by StudentoftheWord (talk • contribs) 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Early History

"Four of the six theological schools of thought in ancient Christendom supported universalism, and only one supported eternal damnation. Additionally, theological thought appears more varied before the strong influence of Augustine, who forcefully denied universal salvation."

This really needs clarification and citation. Asd28 03:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The citation for the six theological schools of thought is supported ^ The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 12, p. 96; retrieved April 29, 2007. “In the West this doctrine had fewer adherents and was never accepted by the Church at large. In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked.”

The Augustine phrase needs reference. █►Student Of the Word◄█ 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Alexandria

Why are "Origen," "Clement of Alexandria," and "Alexandria" each separate sub-categories of the Early Christianity section? Since Origen and Clement were teachers at the Catechetical School, surely it would be better to either simply list them as separate thinkers, or group them under a category of "Alexandria?" 68.33.152.87 (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What Jesus had to say on the matter

I am surprised that the Parable of the Lost Sheep is not mentioned anywhere in the article or in discussion of the subject. Surely this parable is amoungst the foremost of scriptual indications that there will be universal reconciliation? The Parable of the Prodigal Son is another scriptural source that comes to mind. 203.113.232.209 (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Particular judgement and Final judgement

The article should maybe offer more insights and views with regards to particular and final judgement. There is an absolute and unusual theory of reconciliation which holds that hell might be already empty right now ; there is also the more common end-of-time idea of reconciliation, which believes that hell may not be empty now, but that it might hopefully be sometime in the future at the final judgement. 69.157.229.153 (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to universal salvation

Universal reconciliation is an important concept, but the terminology tends to indicate a particularly Christian doctrine. Universal salvation on the other hand is more general, and as such can accommodate other religious views which fall under this concept. I plan to move it, if there are no objections. -Stevertigo 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

But this article is only about a Christian doctrine. Perhaps Universal salvation should be a different article that's not specifically Christian. —Angr 21:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The "reconciliation" in UR refers to something a bit different than "salvation" itself, though salvation is a part of reconciliation, and the meaning of salvation itself is becomes modified to a large degree by the meaning of "reconciliation." Ultimately the idea behind "reconciliation" comes from the idea of the "original sin" of human beings, and that God and humankind must become "reconciled" with each other —or more accurately man must become reconciled to God —as part of the ultimate fate of people and each person in general.

The idea of universal salvation being its own article is something I thought of a long time ago. What I chose to do then was to redirect it (IIRC) to salvation itself, and then at the salvation article define the different logical categories of "salvation," namely there are:

• absolute salvation - 'everyone gets saved'
• conditional salvation - salvation upon certain conditions
  • special salvation - 'only we get saved'
  • universal (or general) salvation - 'God doesn't discriminate based on theology/religion/prerequisite (to Heaven) knowledge'

Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverts regarding lede

1. 17:06, 3 August 2010 Modocc (talk | contribs) (Hell is ultimately not eternal for anyone, God, it is believed, will be "all in all", so there are no exceptions and the result is absolute) (undo)
2. 19:34, 3 August 2010 Stevertigo (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 376966962 by Modocc - "Universal reconciliation" does not mean "absolute salvation." That is a common misinterpretation of US put forth by damnationist evangelicals.) (undo)

I reverted Modocc's change and left the above comment. His comment "Hell is ultimately not eternal for anyone, God, it is believed, will be "all in all", so there are no exceptions and the result is absolute" - Modocc makes a good point about the idea that after being in hell for a long long long time, even the worst of us will be "reconciled" to God. Regarding the worst individuals, I don't think the Father works this way, but it is a valid part of what some who promote UR actually believe. But there are misconceptions among both "Unies" and Special salvationist Christians like the Evangelicals. Added to this fact is the problem that Evangelical criticism of universalism focuses entirely on the apparent misconceptions of Unies.

For example there is some ambiguity among "Unies" as to the idea of Hell being not quite as 'fire and brimstone' as its portrayed, and this leads some Unies to believe that Hell does not exist. On the other hand, the Evangelicals tend to believe that salvation is something that they have earned just simply by uttering the name "Jesus" (the name was Yashua, actually). So the article can and should get to Modocc's point about UR having an "ultimate" aspect, but it first needs to be unambiguous about what UR says about Heavenly order which is not "ultimate" and is in fact closer to what everyone else talks about, namely 'what happens just after death.' -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the first sentence of the abstract of this oxford scholar's book on this specific subject, salvation is completely universal (meaning regardless of one's past sins or beliefs, etc, as everyone gets saved eventually). Unfortunately, your revision obscured this understanding. --Modocc (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The OSB says "This monograph examines the claim that ultimately all people will be saved––i.e. that hell will not be eternal and that God will be ‘all in all’ (1 Cor. 15:28)." - This is the problem - that even the scholars at Oxford are confused about the definition of "universal," taking it to mean "absolute." We already know what "absolute" means, so we can consider the definition of "universal", which means 'applicable to all.'

definition of "universal"
Of or pertaining to the (or a) universe. Common to all members of a group or class.   Common to all society; world-wide Cosmic; unlimited; vast; infinite Useful for many purposes, e.g., universal wrench.

"Applicable [to all]" does not (by either necessity or direct implication) mean 'given [to all].' Hence, given the two choices of 1) absolute salvation, and 2) conditional salvation (see above section #Move to universal salvation) "universal salvation" falls under the latter category, 2, and not the former, 1.

The difference between one universal and for example special salvation, ie. two different forms of conditional salvation, is that universal salvation is not conditional on some theological belief as a prerequisite for eternal life, whereas special salvation / condemnationist doctrines believe that they are saved through some act, quality, or choice particular to them.

Added to the above is the problem that evangelicals often deliberately mischaracterise universal salvation as being absolute in nature, and that universalists (pejoratively called "unies") sometimes argue against Hell - either as a real place, or else as popularly conceived (its not a painting by Bosch). - Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your rebuke of the Oxford source is unconvincing and you are edit-warring your bold edit into this article. This article's lede topic sentence has been stable for years since this article's inception. Thus, it would be better to get a consensus for such a major revision. Furthermore, the disregard for adequate sourcing for your edit is against WP:Verification. Salvation, in this context, is by definition something that is given, so your argument regarding a universalism of applicability (this notion applies to the conditional case too) is moot and even if your point is somehow contrived to not be moot, you can't so casually dismiss sources without using any at all to back up what you write here or elsewhere. --Modocc (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that I should not simply rebuke a source without other sources. Would you be agreeable to collect with me as many sources as we can and list them here? Its certain that we will have to deal with the etymology of the term, which the article doesn't yet get into. Note that relying on the Oxford is not any different than relying on some other "reputable" source like Britannica, which also has errors (see WP:EBE). Im not even saying the Oxford definition is totally wrong, simply that its trying to be simple and thus is being simplistic. This topic, more than most, represents a serious misunderstanding of the meaning of "universal." I will look for some sources now. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless sources say otherwise, the meaning of universal salvation is clear, but your unsupported edit is not and I should delete it as unverified OR, but I'll tag your edit with dubious and template this article for a day or two (and maybe longer since I'm busy), since it now contradicts itself. If and when your edit is deleted by me or others, please do not put it back without an adequate source. There appears to be no problem with the understanding of term universal as you suggest and of the few uses of absolute salvation I've come across it only means an assured salvation which is not universal. --Modocc (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Modocc I don't appreciate you following me around to other articles. I won't tolerate any more of it. If you are not willing to work with me on finding sources to write the etymology for this term, then I'm sure you can find something else to do.

The meaning of universal salvation is not "clear" as you say. Again, "universal" means something quite different from "absolute." Both unies and evangelicals (which are you by the way?) mischaracterise the concept and abuse the terminology. I suggest we not do the same here. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 15:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Currently reading Apocatastasis

Again, your edit is both dubious and unsourced, thus in violation of [wp:verification] and for what its worth its OK to review an editor's contributions for similar problems when this occurs. --Modocc (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that you are taking a constructive approach here, and are showing some energetic interest in the subject. Though its obvious, it should be stated that there is a lot of work to be done in the area of universalism in general, and to that end, I've started Template:Universalism. Please edit at will. The concept topicbox/sidebox should help give us an overview of what we have to work with. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Improved sources

Generally we don't use excised quotes of that size, even when coming from rather notable and authoritative people. It will have to be trimmed down. Can you comment on the article talk page what you want to accomplish with that quote? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 03:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What we should all want to accomplish is full, accurate, well weighted sourcing. As it stands the lack of sources, and duplication on these articles (which could be merged) is painfully evident. To this end I added in Bauckham after your last series of edits to try and get some grounding - not your fault, the original article is someone's Op-Ed and I'm glad you took a line from the ref --- However to just quote that line from Bauckham is misleading, given that there's so much non-sourced (and I would expect incorrect) "history" in the article as it stands. I have to say also I'm not confident with you trimming it, since your edits don't seem to follow sources. I don't know a great deal about this subject, and am not greatly interested in it, but it seems to be an area where wishful thinking rather than historical sources are in play. Given that Bauckham's whole paragraph is needed as an anchor at least until all the sourceless Op-Ed content gets weeded out by someone. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I trust your sense of things, but would ask that you not simply hack away material just because it is Op-Ed. Its a certain fact of our history that good articles have developed from less-good articles, and its often the case that Op-Ed has played a certain positive editorial role, even if its not quite suitable for the article itself.

What I suggest is that you go through the article and strike the passages that you think are Op-Ed, and then undo your edit. That way we can see what such a version would look like. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 08:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. That's certainly one option. But when I said "Op-Ed weeded out by someone I wasn't volunteering myself. It needs to be someone with more knowledge of the topic and access to primary sources. As it stands the scattering of "citation needed" "who?" inserts flags some of the unsourced content. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Weaseling 'Views Against' and adding it to discussion

This is an article describing Christian Universal Reconciliation, not a soap box for other religions to give their complaints on it. Refer them. Why is there no "Criticism" section? I've noticed that many similar articles seem to have them. While in reality this concept greatly contradicts the Bible and most Christian groups, the article reads like it is a mainstream Christian belief. Basically, it seems that the POV of this article contradicts reality. Is there any reason not to make such a section? Kainosnous (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Views against

Early church

Richard Bauckham has questioned the identification of some the early church advocates of universal reconciliation

Evangelical

Some Evangelicals and some related Protestant denominations have written extensively against universalism in recent decades, defending the doctrine of a perpetual hell.

A minority of Protestants, following Martin Luther's teaching of "soul sleep", regard the soul as mortal, and defend Sheol as the grave, and Gehenna as the place of annihilation.

Roman Catholicism

Roman Catholicism, unlike most other forms of Christianity, asserts the existence of purgatory. In theological terminology, "purgatory" is a separate and distinct term from "hell". It is possible to loosely describe purgatory as "a temporary hell", or as "a temporary period in hell", but these statements would, according to popular consensus among Roman Catholics, be using Catholic terminology incorrectly, since all souls in purgatory are said to be destined for Heaven.

As the Catholic Church teaches that Christians must believe in the existence of hell, it has been the standard belief of Catholics that certain people go to hell. For Roman Catholics, the doctrine of universal reconciliation is considered heterodox, although most of them do believe in purgatory, and universal reconciliation is accepted by some clergymen as compatible with current church teaching.

Eastern Orthodoxy

As noted above, the Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion of Vienna, on April 9, 2008, in his presentation at the First World Apostolic Congress of Divine Mercy at the Vatican, argued that God's mercy is so great that He does not condemn sinners to everlasting punishment. Bishop Hilarion stated that the Orthodox Catholic understanding of hell corresponds roughly to the Roman Catholic notion of purgatory.

This claim contradicts a canon of the Synod of Constantinople, held in 1722. Although the Synod declared that the teaching of the existence of purgatory is heresy, it still spoke of some sort of reconciliation for the damned:

We do not accept a third place, a purgatory, by any means, since neither Scripture nor the Holy Fathers have taught us any such thing. However, we believe these two places have many abodes [...] None of the teachers of the Church have handed down or taught such a purgatory, but they all speak of one single place of punishment, hades, just as they teach about one luminous and bright place, paradise. But both the souls of the holy and the righteous go indisputably to paradise and those of the sinners go to hades, of whom the profane and those who have sinned unforgivably are punished forever and those who have offended forgivably and moderately hope to gain freedom through the unspeakable mercy of God. [...] [W]e hope there will be comfort for them from God, but not through fire and purgatory, but through divine love for mankind, whereby the infinite goodness of God is seen.

References

I had not realized that Wikipedia was a pulpit for Universalists

Studentoftheword obviously had deemed Wikipedia to be a place to espouse and preach universalism as the one true Christian doctrine. I apologize for daring to raise the possibility that this might not be the case. Dogface (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE::

Is that the same as anyone who writes factual information concerning Eastern Orthodox Christianity in general, or any religion? So you would assume that the Wikipedia article on Christianity is a place to espouse and preach Eastern Orthodox Christianity as the one true doctrine? Where do you see "Views Against Eastern Orthodox Christianity" found within the Christianity WIKI or the Eastern Orthodox WIKI? Get a grip on reality, it is a Wikipedia article, if you want to talk about perpetual torment of sinners, make that wiki article, or expand a present article. Filter your emotions, Wikipedia is not your pulpit to espouse or preach against universalism either. You betray your NPOV tag, Dogface. ►Student Of the Word◄ 15:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC). footnote: I do not deny that I am an original contributor of this WIKI article back in 2007 but it changed much since my first attempt at an accurate fact based Wiki and it has gone a long way since.

I notice that you you wallow int he cesspit of personal insults. This tells the world everything it needs to know about you and your beliefs.Dogface (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There were no insults from me, Dogface, can't handle the heat then don't make comments that have no relevancy to this topic. If you have objection the Universalism, refer it to Christian conditionalism or Conditional salvation this WIKI article is not your forum to preach against universalism. ►Student Of the Word◄

Major Flaw: Universalism ≠ Ultimate Reconciliation

This article has a major flaw: Universalism is not the same belief as Ultimate Reconciliation; not even from the narrowest Christian definition. This article blurs the two into a muddy topic. That is the cause of some of the disagreement I'm reading. To drastically over-simplify the difference; Universalism means everyone gets a "pass," while Ultimate Reconciliation recognizes that the unrepentant get punished, but all will eventually be reconciled to Christ. --LanceHaverkamp 17:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lance W. Haverkamp (talk • contribs)

Merge

• merge from Christian Universalism

The two articles are effectively duplicates, and share the same sourcing problems.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Universal reconciliation describes a belief. Christian Universalism describes a religion. They are two separate things. In my opinion there is no need to merge. Americanseeker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

Judging by the content Universal reconciliation describes the belief of Christian Universalism, Christian Universalism is the belief in Universal reconciliation, hence so much duplication. What's the unique content to either article? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

duplicate historical content moved hereIn ictu oculi (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Cross-posting from the Christian Universalism Discussion page: Christian Universalism is a religious tradition that includes Universal reconciliation, a.k.a. Universal Salvation. I argue that maintaining both pages is necessary, as Christian Universalism includes so much more than Universal reconciliation. The article on Christian Universalism describes the history and beliefs (note: beliefs, plural) of the tradition, whereas the article on Universasl reconciliation is about the singular belief of Universal reconciliation. It would be unnecessary and confusing to merge them. Again, my opinion. Americanseeker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

Fair enough. Now that the duplicate historical section is moved the remaining Christian Universalism does mention "The remaining central beliefs of Christian Universalism are compatible with Christianity in general: * God is the loving Parent of all people, see Love of God. * Jesus Christ reveals the nature and character of God and is the spiritual leader of humankind, see New Covenant. * Humankind is created with an immortal soul which death does not end, and which God will never destroy.[3] * Sin has negative consequences for the sinner either in this life or the afterlife". .............

However it would be good if someone could go back there and wikify/ref that content. In ictu oculi (talk)

Selection blanking reversed

here In ictu oculi (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

REVERSED. There is no academically sound reason for anyone to add such a section to this article, neutrality is compromised. █►Student Of the Word◄█ 21:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but no, SECTION BLANKING is not acceptable. Or we will have to ask for page protection. There are academically sound reasons, in that the study of the named individuals has moved on from 1890s and that the claims in the Batiffol article are now known to be incorrect. For example, show evidence that Denck taught universal reconciliation, THEN add reference to Denck, etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I will ask for the page to be protected for those who violate the neutrality of the article by contesting the sources. This is a page talking about the religion, sect, belief of Universal Reconciliation (separate from Christian Universalism, the American denomination), the belief of universal salvation in Christianity. There are plenty of places for Conditional Salvation to add their view points. In order to do what you are doing, you need to prove that these are unreliable and inaccurate references, otherwise you violate the neutrality of the article. █►Student Of the Word◄█ 21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello StudentoftheWord. Firstly, to correct one misundertanding, no this is not a "a page talking about the religion, sect, belief of Universal Reconciliation" in the sense of being "for" a view. If you want that, then, with all respect, please get a blog. Wikipedia requires NPOV, which means that sources must be NPOV, scholarly and up to date. Sufficient late 20th Century references in the article already indicate that the 19th Century Universalist sources (and anything depending on them) which were placed in the article are unreliable in certain cases, e.g. Hans Denck. Which means that each and every historical reference cited requires verification in modern academic sources. The only reason not to do this would be either laziness or concern that modern sources do not exist.

Secondly references have been given in the article by modern scholars (including modern Universalist scholars that the 19thC sources are "obsolete") that these Universalist sources, particularly John Wesley Hanson require verification. It is not just a random opinion, it is a documented modern scholarly finding which itself can be supported by references. I cannot see the issue. It is in every reader's interest to have names like Hans Denck (not a Universalist) removed, and names like Jane Leade (a Universalist) added. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me quote Wikipedia's VERIFIABILTY clause, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

Since the material is verifiable, and you are the one questioning if it is a reliable source.

Further more: "All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves are not required to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed most reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say." █►Student Of the Word◄█ 01:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ecclesiological History vs. Intellectual History

This entire article, while mostly very good stuff, is largely about church history and ecclesiastical activity within the topic. The article ought to explain the development of the concept discursively and argumentatively through the centuries, and, one would think, the surrounding analysis by seminal thinkers. Yet there is no mention of the several philosophers or religion and theologians throughout history that have been most influential in this regard.

For example, we don't mention that the "man to beat" in all this, since the 1970's, is John Hick, whose monumental book "Evil and the God of Love" redefined the topic, was translated into 16 languages, went through countless printings, is required reading in every PhD program in PofR, and was called attention to by the Pope himself - yet, we have no mention of this. It's painfully incomplete. What we are reading now ought to be 50% of the article, and the other 50%, which doesn't exist yet, ought to be about the actual substance of the debate. Needs to mention not only Hick, but his detractors, e.g. Walls, Davis, and so on. The people that no respecting graduate school would allow a PofR or Theol student to avoid reading, if they dared claim any competency in this topic.

I'll try to add a section getting started in this -- others please help! Tim Musgrove —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC).

Disambiguation

Can someone please clarify what is meant by '1800s' in section 4? In order to disambiguate, I need to know if this refers to the decade or the century. Thanks, The boss 1998 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

does this fit?

This was in the article: The mixed message about the afterlife described in the Bible has been commented on by scholars as early as 1917; then, Harvey W. Scott wrote, "That there is no definite affirmation, in the Old Testament of the doctrine of a future life, or personal immortality, is the general consensus of Biblical scholarship." Some sections of the Old Testament appear to argue that no afterlife exists even for the good and just, with the Book of Ecclesiastes telling the faithful: "The dead know nothing. They have no reward and even the memory of them are lost" (although this is not the normative Jewish view).

While this is an interesting issue- I don't feel that it is relevant to Universal Reconciliation... Sethie (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Requested move 19 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move to History of Christian universalism and prepare to merge the two articles, pending a discussion on Talk:Christian universalism. This has been sitting here for over 30 days; it's time someone actually did something to close the request! (non-admin closure) Red Slash 17:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Universal reconciliation → History of Christian universalism – This article seems like it covers the same material as Christian universalism—indeed Christian universalism is given as a synonym in the first sentence—except in a chronological format. Either this should be moved to "History of Christian universalism" or there should be a merger. buidhe 14:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 00:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, I have felt cleanup was needed... and not sure where to begin.

The right now there are two main articles that touch on the subject: Christian Universalism and Universal Reconciliation

I very much agree with you that this article Universal Reconciliation is too heavy on the history.

Here is my proposal:

1. Create a new article History of Christian Universal Reconciliation and move most of the history from this article to there.
2. See what part of the history section from Christian Universalism needs to be moved there.
3. Restructure Christian Universalism so that it is the main article- with two sub articles- one covering the history one covering the idea.
4. At THAT point re-evaluate whether this article Universal Reconcilation is warranted or not.Sethie (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I as a beginning step propose moving the very lengthy history section to it's own article from this one and so

I have created the draft here [[1]]. All it needs is an intro. Sethie (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Weak disagree Seems like there's enough content for one decent article, not necessary for a split. I'm interested in seeing what ends up in the draft, tho. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I would not object to a merger. buidhe 15:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We should move this article to 'universal reconciliation' again!

I think this article should be named as Universal Reconciliation, not History of Christian Universalism. History just does not cover all the materials this article has. It has various explanations of universal reconciliation all over. 2001:4430:6816:D956:0:0:DC:24E6 (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Christian universalism means the school of theologians focusing on universal reconciliation. And if we change this article, describing what universal reconciliation is, into history of christian universalism, then something is not going on well in my point of view. 2001:4430:6816:D956:0:0:DC:24E6 (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There are so many redirects named and meant 'universal reconciliation', but the tltle of this article really doesn't fit that. Because christian universalism and unviersal reconciliation are two different concepts, and furthurmore there are huge differences between universal reconciliation and history of christian universalism. 2001:4430:50B6:438F:A591:8485:79C5:E2EF (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

History section

I have moved a large paragraph.

It is a summation of the transition from torment/anhilation to universal salvation... it feels very out of place at the begining of the history section. Sethie (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

=Lead sentence is awful

"The doctrine of Christian Universalism has been rejected by most mainstream Christian churches, which tend to maintain at least the possibility that many are not saved, but it has received support from many prestigious Christian thinkers as well as many groups of Christians"

That is not encyclopedia material at all.

It leads with a POV It states the opposing view but not the CU view. It doesn't define Christian Universalism. It is a run on sentence. Sethie (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)