Universalism

As an explanation, I have taken elements of Ilaria Ramelli's scholarly account of the doctrine from her book

Part One – Origin of the term
Origen of Alexandria is regarded as the founder of the doctrine of universal salvation. He embedded it in his theory of apokatastasis, the restoration of all rational creatures to the Good (ie. God their Creator). However, there is evidence that he was not the first to use the term, and in his writings he refers to an already existing Christian tradition.

The Greek term apokatastasis was in use before Christianity, indicating a "restoration, reconstitution, return" to an original state and has a wide range of meanings – the recovery of health (medicine); the return of a hostage to his homeland (ethics); the re-establishment of atoms after a collision (physics), the apokatastasis of a heavenly body to its original position after a zodiacal revolution, or the return of the sun and the moon to visibility after an eclipse (astronomy).

To the Stoics, apokatastasis indicated the periodical return of the universe to its original condition, the completion of a cosmic cycle. Stoic cosmology was articulated in aeons or 'great years' that succeed one another; each of these aeons is identical, or almost identical, to all others, with the same events, the same people, and the same behaviours. The sequence of aeons continues forever. The end of an aeon is determined by a conflagration in which everything is resolved into the fire-aether-Logos (reason)-pneuma (breath, wind) that coincides with the supreme divinity (Zeus, Jupiter). The latter each time initiates a new expansion into a cosmos.

Origen criticised the Stoic concept for two main reasons:
1) it destroyed human free will by maintaining that everything that happens is repeated again and again and again by necessity;
2) by positing an infinity of the sequence of aeons, it did not imply an end or telos to which all of history points, but a senseless eternal repetition.


Origen explains apokatastasis in human terms as a return to or restoration of a condition that is proper and original to him her. He illustrates this general meaning by reference to the medical meaning, such as the resetting of a broken limb, or a healing generally; in politics it's the reintegration of an exile, in a military sense the readmission of a soldier into a unit from which he had been chased away.

All of these meanings can metaphorically be applied to the final restoration of all human beings or all rational creatures to God.
 
Part Two – The Greek Old Testament (Septuagint)

The apokatastasis is attested in Hellenistic Judaism. The correlate verb (ἀποκαθίστημι 'to restore') is found in the Septuagint, and both the verb and the noun (apokatastasis) are attested in the New Testament.

Philo of Alexandria uses apokatastasis to indicate the periodical restitution of land to its owners (as does Flavius Josephus), the restoration of the Hebrews to their land. Philo refers apokatastasis to the liberation of the Hebrews from Egypt as an allegory of the restoration of the soul. Genesis 15:16: "at the fourth generation they will return here," was said "not only to indicate the time in which they will inhabit the Holy Land, but also to present the perfect restoration (apokatastasis) of the soul."

In the Septuagint, the noun apokatastasis ("restoration") is lacking. However, the correspondent verb ("to restore") is present, and its subject is always God – It is God who "restores." In Exodus 14:26-27, God restores the water, having it flow again so as to submerge the Egyptians. In Leviticus 13:16, the meaning is therapeutic (as it will be in the Gospels). In Job 5:18 God is said to have a person suffer, but then to restore her again. Origen will take this statement as a reference to the eventual universal restoration and the end of purifying suffering for sinners – God will restore the life of the righteous who suffers (Job 8:6 and 22:28; cf. 33:25). In Psalm 34:17 God restores the life of a person in anguish, saving her from evil. In Isaiah 23:17 God will reconstitute Tyre to its ancient state of prosperity. In Jeremiah 15:19 God will restore Israel if Israel returns to God and repents; Origen will see here, too, a reference to the eventual apokatastasis.

In Jeremiah 16:15, 23:8, and 27:19, God will restore Israel to the land of its forefathers. In Ezekiel 16: 55 God will restore Sodom and Gomorrah to their original condition prior to their destruction; this too was read by patristic exegetes as a reference to the mystery of universal restoration and salvation.
 
Part Three – The Greek New Testament

Matthew 17:11 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore (apokathistēmi) all things." (cf Mark 9:12)

Acts 3:21: "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution (apokatastasis) of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."

I̶n the New Testament, apart from the above, there are several occurrences of the verb "to restore" related to apokatastasis, and these are all rendered in the Latin Vulgate with restituo. It is notable that, consistently with the Old Testament use, the subject of the action of restoration is always God or Christ.

In four cases in the Gospels, it is Jesus who restores someone to health (Matthew 12:13; Mark 3:5; 8:25; Luke 6:10). Jesus, by performing these healing acts, shows God's therapeutic and restoring power. This power works both on the body and on the soul, as St. Gregory of Nyssa will especially point out in his holistic conception of resurrection / restoration (anastasis̶ apokatastasis) – both body and soul will be restored by God to their original, prelapsarian integrity.

In the rest of the New Testament, the verb "to restore" related to apokatastasis appears in Acts 1:16 and Hebrews 13:19, the subject of the action of restoration being again God. In Acts 1:16 the disciples ask the risen Lord when he will restore the kingdom to Israel; Jesus replies that this restoration is an eschatological event. In Hebrews 13:19, the author hopes to be restored or returned by God to his addressees. God restored Jesus from death to life; all the more God will be able to return the author to his addressees.

Notable also is this in St Paul:
"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

If all die in Adam, sinner and righteous alike, then all rise in Christ 'made alive' (restored) sinner and righteous alike.
 
Thanks Thomas. From my own reading the teaching of apokatastasis was quite widespread in the early Christian centuries. Just how widespread seems still to be the subject of study, even dispute. But many scholars argue that it was in fact the dominant tradition.

St Augustine changed all that, a man whose knowledge of Greek was either poor or non-existent. He relied upon the Latin Vulgate translation of the NT. From my own reading the essential distinction between the Greek aidios (eternal) and aion (an age) is blurred, even lost altogether in translation.

The Emperor Justinian followed Augustine's lead. The rest is history! Sola Scriptura and all the rest of it, with the beliefs and teachings of St Augustine dominating successive translations of the New Testament well into the 20th century.

Anyway, I don't tend to look towards any book (however translated) for any pre-eminent revelation of some transcendent Being. I tend to see Reality itself as the "revelation".
 
So, Universalism is a Christian concept, correct?

Oxford Dictionary
The belief that all humankind will eventually be saved.
"Christian universalism would insist that Christ's atonement did atone for everyone's sins"

I see this as similar to believing that a (Christian) god exists whether other Belief Systems agree or not. That Christianity is the only religion and it matters not if you follow another religion/faith/belief, because Christianity's god Yahweh will override all other Beliefs and Paths whether from the past, present, or future.
 
So, Universalism is a Christian concept, correct?
Yes. It's a concept that has developed by Christian scholars. Imo, it doesn't go well with the Gospel.
I see this as similar to believing that a (Christian) god exists whether other Belief Systems agree or not. That Christianity is the only religion and it matters not if you follow another religion/faith/belief, because Christianity's god Yahweh will override all other Beliefs and Paths whether from the past, present, or future.
The belief in One God excludes the concept of "each one his own deity". In the concepts of Christian and Muslim beliefs, God is universal.
 
Yes. It's a concept that has developed by Christian scholars. Imo, it doesn't go well with the Gospel.

The belief in One God excludes the concept of "each one his own deity". In the concepts of Christian and Muslim beliefs, God is universal.

In as much as the word "Gospel" means "Good News" I would suggest it sits very well with Universalism. However, if you are implying that it diminishes any need for evangelisation I would suggest that it is a misunderstanding. In fact, Universalism raises the bar in as much as most versions reject any idea that the "saved" are made ready for their beatitude in the "twinkling of an eye" but like everyone else, face further "refinement" beyond the grave.

Again, in every particular is the Universal. Dear old James Joyce said so, and such can be a quite an enlightening thought.

bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonner ronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!

(James Joyce, from Finnegans Wake)

"God is a shout in the street"

Just musing.
 
Yes. It's a concept that has developed by Christian scholars. Imo, it doesn't go well with the Gospel.

The belief in One God excludes the concept of "each one his own deity". In the concepts of Christian and Muslim beliefs, God is universal.
I noticed the OP began this thread with Taoist philosophy. I followed Taoism early in my life and still find it useful, the philosophy of Oneness in Taoism excludes deities and centers on the Natural Universe/World which can work with many, if not all, Belief Systems.

Taoist philosophy asserts that by harmonizing with the Objective Universe (natural laws), we can lead a life in sync with it and thereby design better control of our existence. This stands in contrast to religions that personify the Objective Universe, as Taoism doesn't imply servitude to it.
 
In as much as the word "Gospel" means "Good News" I would suggest it sits very well with Universalism. However, if you are implying that it diminishes any need for evangelisation I would suggest that it is a misunderstanding. In fact, Universalism raises the bar in as much as most versions reject any idea that the "saved" are made ready for their beatitude in the "twinkling of an eye" but like everyone else, face further "refinement" beyond the grave.

Again, in every particular is the Universal. Dear old James Joyce said so, and such can be a quite an enlightening thought.

bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonner ronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!

(James Joyce, from Finnegans Wake)

"God is a shout in the street"

Just musing.
I think he's referring to:-
"Christian universalism would insist that Christ's atonement did atone for everyone's sins"

..but this statement is not qualified i.e. does it apply to every man and woman on earth?

Jesus clearly stated in the Gospel, that people would go to "eternal hell"..
..but then how long is "eternal" ? We simply don't know. Long enough! 😖
 
In as much as the word "Gospel" means "Good News" I would suggest it sits very well with Universalism. However, if you are implying that it diminishes any need for evangelisation I would suggest that it is a misunderstanding. In fact, Universalism raises the bar in as much as most versions reject any idea that the "saved" are made ready for their beatitude in the "twinkling of an eye" but like everyone else, face further "refinement" beyond the grave.

Again, in every particular is the Universal. Dear old James Joyce said so, and such can be a quite an enlightening thought.

bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonner ronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!

(James Joyce, from Finnegans Wake)

"God is a shout in the street"

Just musing.
Mark (Mk), Luke (Lk) and the accounts attributed to Matthew (Mt) and Thomas (Th) drawing from at least three different chains of transmission, thus highly reliable, relate that Jesus (p.b.u.h) said,

(Mk, ~Mt) Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven to the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; (Th) whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, (Lk, Mt) and whoever speaks a word against the Son-of-Man will be forgiven; (Mk,Lk,Mt,Th) but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness
- (Mk) for the αἰῶν, but is guilty of an αἰωνίου sin”
- (Mt) neither in this αἰῶν or in the αἰῶν to come.
- (Th) neither on earth nor in heaven.

αἰῶν means age, lifetime, a long period, or eternity. αἰωνίου is the adjective for it; it is usually translated by "eternal". Only Mark uses it; Mt and Th offer a meaning that is not bound to time.

In my commentary on the Gospel (viewed from Islam) I have commented on this passage as follows:

First of all, we have to note that he is talking about what can be forgiven, and what can be forgiven is a sin, and a sin is what we should avoid. It would be completely wrong to understand that such blasphemy does not matter.

The version in Mark differs from the version in Luke (in Lk and Mt parallel) in that Mark could be understood as Jesus saying that all sins will be forgiven (to) the sons of men, which could be interpreted as "all our sins will be forgiven". But this is not the meaning of the sentence. Mark ends with the reason: "For they said, 'He has an unclean spirit. He - that is Jesus. The meaning in Mk is therefore to be understood as it is expressed more explicitly in Lk and Th and the second part in Mt, probably going back to Matthew. Here we read "against the Son-of-Man", where "Son-of-Man" in the language of the Gospels always refers to Jesus as a person; Jesus says that blasphemy against Him will be forgiven.

It is also worth noting that, according to each version, Jesus said not only that it can be forgiven, but that it will be forgiven. He promises to forgive all his enemies, just as he taught us to forgive, working in the Spirit of God to build His Kingdom, as he said in his message quoted above.

On the other hand, Jesus gives the message that whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. As with the previous message, this is expressed in absolute terms; not “may not be forgiven”, but “will not be forgiven”. How is it that Jesus will definitely forgive, whereas the Spirit of God will definitely not forgive?

A human being cannot know the truth behind it, but only thoughts about it. One reason that fits well with the message of the Quran may be that whoever goes so far as to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God who is in contact with us, will lose contact with God and cannot be corrected and guided, so that this person will definitely be lost.

Finally, we have the hadith version of Th, which says “Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven”.
At first glance, this seems completely out of place: Why would God promise to forgive blasphemy against Him, but not against the Holy Spirit? The hadith is weak and the other versions are strong, so we just ignore it.

If we read it a second time, we may wonder how it is that this passage, which seems absolutely absurd, could have been added to the original message heard from Jesus.
Is it possible that Jesus said that blasphemy against God would be forgiven? Of course, Jesus himself cannot promise that blasphemy against God will be forgiven, unlike what he says about himself. But if we understand Jesus as a messenger of God, it may be the direct speech of God. And God, the All-Merciful, may have decided in the same way.
Nevertheless, we should with all our will avoid challenging such a promise, even if it does not seem impossible when we think about this weak hadith, first of all because it is not confirmed in the Quran or in any other reliable scripture, but above all because we should love God with all our heart so that we can never fall into this temptation.


All four versions of teh related saying state that there is something that cannot be forgiven. The claim that all sin will be forgiven is not far from the Good Message of Jesus, but it is inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
Thank you talib-al-kalim for your analysis of various biblical passages. As I am not a believer in any particular book, such analysis is lost on me.

If you go back to my OP you will see that in essence it was about what I considered "problematic" in Universalism.

I'm more into an eschatology of the present moment rather than seeking to anticipate any possible "last" or "final" things.

However, the thread has drifted into last and final things and without being rude I will now leave it to you People of the Book to decide among yourselves the extent of your God's mercy.
 
I see this as similar to believing that a (Christian) god exists whether other Belief Systems agree or not.
Not quite/ Universalism is a subsequent doctrine, within Christianity.

That Christianity is the only religion ...
Well generally that's a given with any religion, indeed, it extends to denominations within religions.

The ethos of IO, however, is to look for common ground, rather than simply a place for people to bash others over the head with their own opinions.
 
I noticed the OP began this thread with Taoist philosophy. I followed Taoism early in my life and still find it useful, the philosophy of Oneness in Taoism excludes deities ...
Er, not quite, no ... Daoism has many gods, but holds the Way above all, and in that sense has something in common with the Christian apophatic idea of God – as something nameless, beyond all determination, beyond all modes of being, the ontological source of all.

Taoist philosophy asserts that by harmonizing with the Objective Universe (natural laws), we can lead a life in sync with it and thereby design better control of our existence. This stands in contrast to religions that personify the Objective Universe, as Taoism doesn't imply servitude to it.
Well Christianity, for one, the Abrahamics generally, do not 'personify the Objective Universe' – not sure which religions do?

Metaphysics tends to look to causes beyond the Objective Universe – the Dao is no different in that regard.

As for 'servitude' – any path worth its while makes demands upon the person. There's an apocryphal story about a woman in New York who stopped a taxi and asked, "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?" to which the driver replied, "Lady, ya gotta practice!"

"Freedom is subservience to the gods of your own choosing."

Or, as G.K. Chesterton said, "Everyone has a creed, some know it, some don't."
 
..but this statement is not qualified i.e. does it apply to every man and woman on earth?
Yes. He overcame death.

Jesus clearly stated in the Gospel, that people would go to "eternal hell"..
..but then how long is "eternal" ? We simply don't know. Long enough! 😖
Which is what Universalism is basically saying. How do we measure time in the Timeless?
 
Er, not quite, no ... Daoism has many gods, but holds the Way above all, and in that sense has something in common with the Christian apophatic idea of God – as something nameless, beyond all determination, beyond all modes of being, the ontological source of all.
The original, authentic version of Taoism as put down by Loa Tzu and the Tao Te Ching is the scripture and philosophy of Taoism
All the other nonsense came much later. There is not one mention of a deity in the Tao Te Ching. Taoism never implied there was a god and certainly has nothing to do with the Christian nonsense. If anything it would be the other way around as demonstrated by yourself, as an attachment to another religious philosophy which is common with the Abrahamic faiths.
 
Not quite/ Universalism is a subsequent doctrine, within Christianity.
So I've been told already here, thanks
Well generally that's a given with any religion, indeed, it extends to denominations within religions.
Indeed, why would anyone follow a faith if they didn't believe it was THE faith
The ethos of IO, however, is to look for common ground, rather than simply a place for people to bash others over the head with their own opinions.
Then explain the ever-present concept found in all the Abrahamic faiths that if you do not follow scripture/god's word/the rules then you will Rot in HELL, or some form of manipulative punishment.
 
The original, authentic version of Taoism as put down by Loa Tzu and the Tao Te Ching is the scripture and philosophy of Taoism
No, not according to the latest understandings. Check Encyclopedia Britannica for a shortcut, notably:
"Both Western Sinologists and Chinese scholars ... distinguished ... between a Daoist philosophy of the great mystics and their commentators (daojia) and a later Daoist religion (daojiao). This theory—no longer considered valid—was based on the view that the “ancient Daoism” of the mystics antedated the “later Neo-Daoist superstitions” that were misinterpretations of the mystics’ metaphorical images. The mystics, however, should be viewed against the background of the religious practices existing in their own times... Not only are the authors of the Daodejing, the Zhuangzi (book of “Master Chuang”), and the Liezi (book of “Master Lie”) not the actual and central founders of an earlier “pure” Daoism later degraded into superstitious practices but they can even be considered somewhat on the margin of older Daoist traditions."

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers greater detail and discussion, especially of Religious Daoism:
"It has become a sinological dogma to distinguish between the so-called Taoist school (Daojia), said to have produced the classical mystical texts …, and the so-called Taoist religion (Daojiao), often said to have begun in the Later Han period [i.e., the 1st–2nd centuries CE]. The successive Daozang [Daoist Canons] never made this distinction. When we look at the way the terms Daojia and Daojiao occur in the texts preserved in the Ming Canon [published in 1445], we see that they are practically synonymous and interchangeable."

More to the point, in current discussions:
"Daoist texts do not speak of “philosophy” or “religion”, two words that do not even exist in the premodern Chinese language."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top