If True, Why Isn't UR Part of the "Official Church's" Articles of Faith?

[jabcat]

From Gary;  "Again, limit the discussion, we want answers not fighting and trivia. Here's one that came in this morning:

 

If the Greek New Testament plainly teaches Universal Salvation, why is this teaching not a part of their articles of faith? Why have the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches taught Hell throughout the centuries?"

[shawn]

From Gary;  "Again, limit the discussion, we want answers not fighting and trivia. Here's one that came in this morning:

 

If the Greek New Testament plainly teaches Universal Salvation, why is this teaching not a part of their articles of faith? Why have the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches taught Hell throughout the centuries?"

Were they teaching it before 4-500 AD?  If so, I would like to see some historical evidence of such.

[jabcat]

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html    "Universalism the Prevailing Doctrine of the Early Church"

I think one reason it wasn't part of the "official church creeds" is, by the time they got around to writing them, being a follower of Yesu was already becoming institutionalized and infiltrated by the Roman Church, which was instituting its version of what they wanted Christianity to look like.  Domination, fear, and control were powerful influences and useful tools - financial and otherwise - to the hierarchy. 

The more things change...

[jabcat]

Universalism among the Early Church Fathers
Although Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants today typically treat universalism as a heresy, there was a time in the early centuries of Christianity's spread when universalism was a fairly mainstream doctrine.

The story of early Christian universalism is closely tied in with the story of Alexandria. In the third and fourth centuries, Alexandria was one of the great (perhaps the greatest) centers of orthodox Christian theology. Clement, Origen, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, the luminaries of the Alexandrian school, were all universalists. Most of Origen's contemporaries seem to have considered him a great and orthodox theologian, and in fact he coined the term homoousios that became so central to the Nicene Creed. Only after Alexandrian influence waned did two sixth-century church councils posthumously declare him a heretic. The conquest of Egypt by Islam sealed Alexandria's irrelevancy. With the decline of the East, Rome looked to a Westerner named Augustine as its theological father-- Augustine, the great champion of exclusivism and predestination.

But during the heyday of Alexandrian influence, no one was denouncing universalism as heretical. In fact, so great an orthodox thinker as Gregory of Nyssa very explicitly and publicly taught the doctrine. It was privately held, it seems, by the likes of Gregory of Nazianzus, Macrina, Basil, Jerome, and Eusebius of Caesarea. These thinkers generally didn't think universalist doctrine should be promoted-- after all, the threat of hell is a powerful motivator for people to behave ethically-- but they were universalists nonetheless. Many more proponents of universalism could also be named, though these for the most part eventually shared in the condemnation and obscurity that was the Alexandrian school's final fate.

The general public believed in universalism, too. Jerome claimed that "most people" were universalists. Augustine said it was "very many". Basil made it "the mass of men". These assertions seem to be borne out by artwork in the Roman catacombs that shows Jesus carrying over his shoulder not a lamb, but a goat.

http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2009/06/universalism-among-early-church-fathers.html

[Paul Hazelwood]

The first problem here is looking towards the "official churches" articles of faith to determine what is true in the first place.  We are not to follow organizations of men.

[urpilgrim]

I agree with Paul here. We need to stop looking at the Institutional Church for the truth, be it Greek, Russian, Catholic or otherwise.

Early church evidence as already said by Jabcat is there for those who want to see. The earliest creeds are I believe the best evidence of what the early church believed.

In the Nicene creed adopted A.D. 325, by three hundred and twenty to two hundred and eighteen bishops, the only reference to the future world is where it is said that Christ "will come again to judge the living and the dead." This is the original form.

The early creeds contained no hint of Eternal Torment, and not a word of condemnation of the doctrine of universal restoration either, as taught by Clement, Origen, the Gregories, Basil the Great, and others besides for the first several centuries.

[marie glen]

One of my questions, or points to ponder, concerning this question is, what was the perception concerning the second resurrection and what did they see as being the requirement in order to be written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

To me, it's the very first Christians only, because even at the time of the writings of the New Testament letters, there were untruths of doctrine circulating. Today most churches or groups believe one becomes saved by saying a "sinner's prayer" asking Jesus into their heart, which by all means is not a bad thing! But Jesus said, and Paul also later wrote, that if one "believed Jesus was the Son of God, and believed that He rose from the grave" (truly believed, with changes in character and life becoming evident) they were saved (adopted) and became "the children of God".

The other point to ponder along with this, is, what exactly did Jesus mean (and how did the disciples hear it) when He said to some Scribes and Pharisees "you will die in your sins". Many assume that means case closed, die in your sins before repenting and receiving and believing the truth of Jesus, and you are forever in that state. Yet is this how the disciples heard and perceived this. It is much more logical that what was being stated and understood here, was that the first resurrection (of believers "putting on immortality") far exceeds the second resurrection of still being imperfect (in one's own flaws, blindness, etc) during what is very likely (?) a very long day of the examination of all things, wherein "He will judge the living"(1st resurrection), "and the dead"(2nd resurrection, imperfect is the opposite of God thus opposite of life). I can't help but take this to mean that all of human history will be examined (as to what went wrong in all generations and peoples, etc..)

When did the apostles and first christians believe the Lamb's Book of Life became closed and nary another name written therein? When slammed shut and no other name could be added? No one able to "believe". Before Judgment/Examination Day? Or..

Where are the scriptures that explicitly say, "receive the truth of Jesus before you die or all is forever lost"..? Wouldn't that be very highly and often mentioned if it were true and perceived as true by the apostles? And also by our Lord Himself? Wouldn't it be such a critical message, it would be weaved throughout all teachings, speeches and writings of the apostles?

[Nathan]

My short answer to the original question would be . . .the same reason why the great scholars and teachers of religious law didn't have Jesus as the Messiah in "their" creeds either.  I blame it on the veil.

[PaoloNuevo]

To me, it's the very first Christians only, because even at the time of the writings of the New Testament letters, there were untruths of doctrine circulating. Today most churches or groups believe one becomes saved by saying a "sinner's prayer" asking Jesus into their heart, which by all means is not a bad thing! But Jesus said, and Paul also later wrote, that if one "believed Jesus was the Son of God, and believed that He rose from the grave" (truly believed, with changes in character and life becoming evident) they were saved (adopted) and became "the children of God".

Yeah, I think the sinner's prayer can be as artificial and rote routine as the rosary... 

The thing is if it DOES involve true humility, then it is confession of the mouth, then it is unto salvation - however a TRUE belief, not just outward gestures will leave one in awe of the love of GOD and will lead one into conversion...

[Southern Hoosier]

The mainstream church teaches a lot of thing that aren't found in the Bible. For example  they teach the wages of sins is eternal life in hell, whereas the Bible says "The wages of sin is death." Mainstream says the soul that sins shall burn in hell forever, whereas the Bible says "The soul that sins shall die."

[thinktank]

Perhaps their afraid of losing members.

[Green-Arrow]

Protective power of God usually isn't in the creeds either, and Mark 16 indicates it's among the signs that follow believers and Psalm 91 and Isaiah 54 couldn't be any plainer about it, particularly Isaiah 54 in a context of immediately following the resurrection in Isaiah 53.  Creeds at best are official guidelines on what makes us different from the all roads lead to everywhere desirable Unitarianism that's taught down the street or in order to satisfy certain governments that can otherwise be a bit meddlesome, or an attempt at preserving some form of congregational unity - no matter their level of instruction in the Scriptures.  Creeds aren't really meant to answer all of the minutia any more than the hymnal or the clergy handbooks that some preachers use to have rough ideas of what to do for weddings, funerals, or other spontaneous difficulties that can sidetrack him from his particular emphasis.  That's like asking why your favorite radio station doesn't play every flippin' thing in the particular genre it's devoted to.  Most creeds are supposed to be between one page and several pages, but can't possibly outline all 31,173 verses of the Bible!

[sheila]

Re:  If True,why isn't UR part of 'official church doctrine'  becuz........spacious and broad is the road leading off to destruction[corruption/death]  and

  strait and narrow is the road that leads to life

[eaglesway]

For the same reason Anabaptists were martyred by the Catholic(official church) church for teaching that baptism, before repentance by a person old enough to recognise their need to turn and follow God, had no edifying effect.

For the same reason Jesus was crucified by the Sanhedrin(official church) for exposing their hypocrisy.

For the same reason John Calvin(official church) supported the French Inquistion's(official church) execution of Michael Servetus because he held an unorthodox view of the Godhead

For the same reason official churches and synagogues have sponsored wars and inquisitions against one another, and together against the prophets and saints of God though out the ages.

The truth is almost never found in the "official churches". By the time they become "official" they are gutted of most of the glory hidden within the gospel and remain only as the prison cells of the decieved who are bound by their laws and lies.

[Agent X]

For the same reason Anabaptists were martyred by the Catholic(official church) church for teaching that baptism, before repentance by a person old enough to recognise their need to turn and follow God, had no edifying effect.

For the same reason Jesus was crucified by the Sanhedrin(official church) for exposing their hypocrisy.

For the same reason John Calvin(official church) supported the French Inquistion's(official church) execution of Michael Servetus because he held an unorthodox view of the Godhead

For the same reason official churches and synagogues have sponsored wars and inquisitions against one another, and together against the prophets and saints of God though out the ages.

The truth is almost never found in the "official churches". By the time they become "official" they are gutted of most of the glory hidden within the gospel and remain only as the prison cells of the decieved who are bound by their laws and lies.

That was awesome Eagle, I made that my facebook quote of the day.

[eaglesway]

Cool.

[Cardinal]

  Amen, Eaglesway..... That pretty much sums it up.