User talk:Coelacan/Universalism in Christianity

I am here.--GMS508 02:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that before we go further with the intro paragraph, it would be helpful to try to work out the early history of Universalism and the modern history of it. Then when we have that stuff, it will be easier for us to see what a good introduction should summarize. Origen is definitely in this history (this is a good [http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/article_universalism_bauckham.html essay that has other useful cites). By the way, what's the L'Engle link? I used to read her books as a kid. I'm intrigued. Anyway, I have the book "Sinners in the Hands of a Happy God" by Howard Dorgan, about the PBUs, and it has some history of Universalism in America since the 1700s. I can start with some of that. I also have a little personal background, I never formally joined a UU church but I've attended. I think I'll work on Winchester for a little bit because he's a pretty big player. — coelacan talk — 03:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Notable Universalist Theologians/Writers and Christian Clergy section I can not vouch for; I started this list based on Talk page information. Please delete any name you feel is questionable. L'Engle is safe; she may even be a Universalist. I put her on the bottom because I am not sure. She is popular enough that I felt that if I threw the name out someone would verify it for me--I can check though--GMS508 03:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, L'Engle does look safe. A quote I cannot be certain of but I think I trust is that she said this: "All will be redeemed in God's fullness of time, all, not just the small portion of the population who have been given the grace to know and accept Christ. All the strayed and stolen sheep. All the little lost ones." in a book called "If Grace is True". — coelacan talk — 03:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book is in my house, I have not read it, but my significant other is a major fan, I’ll ask her.--GMS508 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to mine these sites (http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/univart.html) tomorrow—tonight I need to get some sleep.--GMS508 03:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good night. Thanks for getting this article started. Later, — coelacan talk — 03:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coelacan, I think it would be beneficial to get Caroline’s help. Would you be against me asking for her help on this page, before a decision is reached about what to do at Trinitarian Universalism? She is very knowledgeable on the subject and I myself always appreciate being edited.

I pulled out some garbage that I wrote. Though, I lost track of what I was writing and recovered some of what you had written. It will have to be edited. I expanded the working summary, it helps me to have one. Please delete or rework the summary as you feel fit. When the article is finished we will delete the summary and write a real summary based on the article.

Do you think that there is any chance of getting Caroline's help?--GMS508 01:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some ideas I'd like to incorporate first, if that's cool. I kinda want to expand this until we're both dry before we open it up. Are you running low on leads? — coelacan talk — 01:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not even finished my reading.--GMS508 03:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I'm not worried about our pace. The reason I'm not enthusiastic about bringing Caroline in yet is that she does know her side but that's largely the extent of it. She wasn't aware of that some Universalists (ultra's) believe in no hell and some (restorationists) do. The distinction is actually not an advanced concept, but she's only been studying her side and this distinction was an Enlightenment-age big deal that the Unitarians and Universalists "battled" about over a century ago; not in her domain. I'd rather fill out what we can and then see where her perspective really fits in, because I agree with you that to some extent she's been making some of this TU stuff up. — coelacan talk — 03:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her "soft" universalism I'm calling "Hopeful" here, because that is one of the terms that von Balthasar uses and I've seen it elsewhere. The word seems to describe well the mood of that theology, too. I was initially surprised by the notion that saying "God might save everyone" was even considered universalism, but I forgot that in Calvinist thinking there's the whole "God has predestined most people to Hell" so from that perspective it really is radical to say that God might save everyone. — coelacan talk — 03:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, nice L'Engle quote. — coelacan talk — 02:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a section to discuss sources

Regarding the cite http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/cudoctrine.html that we inherited from Caroline, I'm going to change it in a few ways. First, we have an author, it's this guy Ken Allen. He apparently teaches at Auburn University, but they have this disclaimer on his site so I don't think we should tie Auburn in when citing him. He does call his page "True Grace Ministries" so I think that's the appropriate publisher. The title tag of the page says "Basic Doctrines of Christian Universalism" and that's shorter than what we've got so I'm going with that, And the current ref name of "Christian Universalism" will probably become pretty ambiguous later, considering the scope of this article, so I'm changing it to "Allen". I wanted to explain why I'm butchering the ref in its current form, so there you go. — coelacan talk — 04:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

notable theologians

you may want to put in Gregory MacDonald under the universalist category even though it is a pseudonym. J. McLeod Campbell got censured for saying that the atonement is universal but he would consistently deny that he is a universalist. His major book is "Nature of the Atonement." Perhaps he should go under the theologian universalists cite even though he is not one category. Other theologians who says same are Barth, Torrance and Kruger. See Kruger's "Jesus and the Undoing of Adam." Kruger has always consistently denied universalism but when asked in person has said things like, "who wouldn't want to be a universalist?" Therefore not sure if some of it is fear of censure. Also, you might want to consider David Powys "Hell: A Hard Look at a Hard Question." as well as John Stott's writings on why hell is not eternal. He was one of the theologians who came up with Conditional Immortality and his position is labelled annihilationism. He was roundly criticized for tampering with the doctrine of hell. Universalists use a lot of his arguments why 'aion' is not eteral.

Gulley and Mulhullond's "If Grace is True" is not famous but it is THE major book published by Quaker universalists. They argue that God is love and passages in the bible like God asking Joshua to commit genocide can't be from God so Joshua must have heard wrongly. Basically, they belong to the group who feels the bible is valuable but must be approached rationally and carefully because it is not 100% reliable or correct. The Quaker Universalist Fellowship has same view on bible. The other group of theologians in the paragraph above feels that God is and did what the bible says He is and did.

Note care in not using terms like 'liberal' 'conservative' 'inerrant' 'higher criticism' etc. :) Caroline1008 14:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put the Article out?

Coelacan, I would like to place the article in Wikipedia proper to see if it will generate some criticism and edits.--GMS508 00:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]