Yes. The theologian Karl Rahner, I believe, said before his death that it was a question in which he was interested and would like to investigate. Unfortunately, he ran out of time. Also, the great 14th-century mystic Julian of Norwich, in her Revelations of Divine Love, alluded to the possibility of universal salvation, albeit in cryptic, mystical terms.
Another Catholic theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar is often cited among Universalists. Also Father Richard John Neuhaus, founder of the journal First Things, Lutheran pastor (I think LCMS) turned Catholic priest, in his “Death on a Friday Afternoon” came out as a Universalist.
Sigh and the best we Pentecostals could do for Universalists was Carlton Pearson, and probably near the end of his life sexual predator Earl Paulk.
Though not a Universalist, Pentecostal pioneer Charles Fox Parham did believe in a final resurrection in which the vast majority of unreached humanity would get a full fair opportunity for salvation, with only the incorrigibly wicked being damned to annihilation. In this, he agreed with JW founder Charles Taze Russell and later-comer Herbert W. Armstrong.
[Livy Soprano]
It’s a racket for the jews!
[/Livy Soprano]
A question to the universalists in this thread:
I do not mean any offense but if someone was to strongly disagree with an important doctrine of their denomination and moreover was hiding this view wouldn’t that be not telling the truth? That makes me slightly uncomfortable.
Also if I remember correctly CS Lewis was a hopeful universalist.
Not if you’re Orthodox. Fundies are Protestants.
Can’t speak for other faiths, but I’m a Catholic, and I’d describe myself as a “hopeful universalist,” at least. And I’m not hiding that, and to my knowledge the Church does not consider holding a belief in universal salvation to be at odds with being a Catholic. As Friar Ted pointed out above, even Pope John Paul II admitted that it was at least possible, and that, although there is indeed a Hell, we cannot know who, if anyone, has been condemned to Hell. As Catholics, we are not required to believe that anyone is in Hell.
Fair question- IF I were in a position of authority in my church or I was involved in a subtle campaign to subvert the doctrine, or if I were required to affirm & occasionally renew that affirmation of the doctrines with which I differed, then yes, there would be some reason to question my integrity on that. But if I hold it as a private opinion I occasionally share with trusted friends, I think it puts me in the position of an essentially loyal member with a few personal differences.
More later…
I am Protestant- except for my Roman Catholic infant baptism, a few services there as a small child, and a grad school dalliance, my Church attendance has been mainly Christian & Missionary Alliance from age eight to twenty and the Assembly of God since then.
To continue to Curtis’s point-
I myself am only a Hopeful Universalist, though there are some I hope more strongly for than others. I fully believe in Universal Opportunity, that everyone will have a full fair opportunity to entrust themselves to God/Jesus, either in this life, the Afterlife, or one of the Resurrections. I concede that some may well reject any opportunity, and that God as He sees fit can in His kindness & fairness either allow them to go out of existence or to continue forever in their hostility to Him.
Thus, as I don’t deny the possibility of Eternal Hell, I’m not in total conflict with my church’s teaching.
I thought I’d posted a shorter version of this just the other day. I bet I did that in the “other ways to Heaven” thread.
Was I thinking of Polycarp? I’m sure somebody on this Board is both overtly religious and Eastern Orthodox.
Poly’s very Episcopalian. We had a regular Orthodox poster at one time named Thealogue who I haven’t seen in a while. However, it does seem to me I’ve seen someone recently who is also Orthodox.
You don’t know… the history… of psychology. I do.
But are you jumping on a couch?
(I know- I’m conflating the Oprah & the Lauer interviews.)
This has been very enlightening. I was unaware of a significant faction of fundamentalists who did not believe in psychiatry. My sister, who is a (very intelligent) fundamentalist is herself training to be a psychologist, so my response to this thread “No, they don’t”
I do want to add that a lot of the church counselors I’ve seen actually have a degree in psychology. Heck, the place my sister works for is nominally Christian.
C(ouldn’t)ETA: Oh, Curtis. I’m not quite a universalist, but I am a member of my sister’s A/G church. When I signed the membership contract, I actually scratched out the parts I didn’t believe. So I don’t think I’m lying in any way, shape, or form. It’s their fault if they make assumptions about what I believe.
And FriarTed, I wonder if A/G churches are really as fundie as we assume they are. Most of the churches I know of that are my size or bigger are similarly “non-fundie.” Several people in the laity openly voted for Obama, even.
As pointed out its a pretty large group to generalise on.
One obvious reason is differing views on issues like homosexuality.
Generally counsellors/psychologists tend to be fairly left wing in Australia and my impression would be similar for the US, if not quite as much. They tend to operate from a secular framework, they have beliefs about cults that would mean they might hold mixed views about religion, particularly more ‘hardline’ christian churches etc. Some of them even do research on causes of religion based on evolution or as symptoms of mental health disorders.
In theory they also have a general commitment to the scientific method and things like evolution as an explanation for behaviour etc, although as pointed out our profession does have its own share of moonbattery making this somewhat questionable as a claim.
In short this is a two way street - psychology generally doesnt think much of fundamentalist churches either.
I forgot to mention: the best psychologist I’ve ever had attended an A/G church. He definitely didn’t see a conflict.
I could see the homosexuality thing being a problem, but I also know of a lot of psychologists who will not treat homosexual patients and pass them off on the local gay psychologist. So I’m not sure it’s that significant a problem in the US.
Also, my psychiatrist at the time, when I had an HOCD* scare, told me that he would not attempt to make someone identify as homosexual if they did not want to. I often suspected he was a Baptist (as he worked at a lot of Baptist hospitals).
*Irrational fear that you got your sexuality wrong, fueled by unwanted thoughts (or daydreams) of sexual intimacy with a gender you are not attracted to. Basically, OCD about your own sexuality.
In times in my life when I’ve considered finding a therapist, the one sticking point for me was whether they’d be religious or not. I know that therapists are supposed to be impartial and all that, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable going on one of my anti-religion rants with a doctor who’s secretly harboring some kind of zealous contempt for me.
And when I was a teen and was having the mundane issues that teens have, my mom was considering sending me to a place with some kind of drippy, banal name like Perspectives or Inspirations or something, and they weren’t staffed by psychologists so much as by “counselors” and “spiritual advisors.” If I’m laying out my problems, I don’t want to be told that I should pray more and hand my problems over to god and all that.
I don’t mind if my grocer, barber, gardener, neighbor, or anybody else is religious, but when it comes to seeking services that are based in and reliant on science, like a doctor or a psychologist, give me one that doesn’t believe in fairy tales.
So perhaps fundamentalists don’t like psychology for that reason. Psychology is based on science, trying to understand things by observing them, and not by trying to interpret documents from thousands of years ago. I’m sure if you pressed them, a fundamentalist would say he doesn’t agree with “science” in general. It’s not hard to picture an uber-religious type going on a rant about “science” and how it corrupts our babies with its cures for polio by trying to slander god.
Edit: Whoopsie, I didn’t realize this was a Curtis LeMay thread. Don’t know what I was doing taking the time to provide a reasoned answer.
Because being psychoanalyzed would show them up as the whackjobs they really are.
Try reading the thread before taking a shit in it.
I joined back around 1983 & nothing was ever said about a membership contract. At the time, I was honest but not blatant about disagreeing with the no alcohol policy and the pre-Trib Rapture doctrine. I still believed in tongues as a main sign (if not THE sign) of Holy Spirit-Baptism (I now believe it to be an experience of the Holy Spirit). I was open about believing in Universal Opportunity, but I was not open about my belief at the time that such opportunity may come through reincarnation.
So I gotta ask- what DID you scratch out?
If I ever had to sign a contract for membership renewal, I’d have to think that over!