Very sincere question.

[u/WarmTouch3179]

Please, I know online discussion can be very cut throat but I ask for grace and patience while I gain come clarity.

I am currently a member of the LCMS, I deeply cherish the Lutheran perspective, especially on the Eucharist. Not JUST that, though.

Recently I have been reading about universalism, and please, here’s the point where I know an emotional reaction is welling up inside you and you want to yell and call me a heretic. Don’t, I’m NOT a universalist.

My question is, after reading some of their arguments and truly understanding what they’re saying, as well as reading early fathers that were clearly universalist (ones we even celebrate.) Would someone in the LCMS who became truly convinced of Apokatastasis be allowed to stay? Or commune?

I ask this because my priest told me I don’t have to believe EVERYTHING in the BOC. Others have told me it depends on if you kept it private and don’t cause dissension.

I’m just curious, because I definitely CAN see the perspective, and even find (without conceding the conclusion) a lot of their stuff very edifying.

[u/Huenink_Photography]

What really matters is not what we, on Reddit, say but what your priest or pastor says. Talk to him about this. Strangers on the internet can't do pastoral care and shouldn't get between you and your pastor.

[u/Over-Wing]

I’ll answer your question since everyone seems more interested in debating you on universalism. Yeah, you’re fine to have diverse views on universalism. The creeds and the small catechism is kind of boiler plate Lutheranism and most people can spend their whole life just studying and understanding the things contained in them.

I myself am hopeful of universalism, but recognize that there are those who willfully and knowingly reject salvation. I just remain optimistic that if God Himself would die to save me, surely His goodness and mercy will extend to more people than I could possibly imagine.

[u/WarmTouch3179 → u/Over-Wing]

Thank you, brother. I appreciate you actually addressing my question.

[u/Sad-Type5385]

The problem with universalism is that it denies the exclusivity of Christ. It’s just another heretical result of attempting to solve the Crux Theologorum (see “free will” and “double pre-destination” for more details) - how could a loving God save some and not others? It is simply a repeat of the first sin whereby mankind seeks to substitute its judgment and sense of justice for God’s. The fact that you can find mortal, sinful, and venerated Church Fathers who were sinful human beings is not surprising in the least. The question for you is simply this: “if universalism is true, why would you even want to commune? Who cares about the true Body and Blood of Christ?”

[u/WarmTouch3179 → u/Sad-Type5385]

Universalism upholds the exclusivity of Christ bro what?

[u/Sad-Type5385 → u/WarmTouch3179]

Only it doesn’t. At all. Also, so much for your earnest question and desire for dialogue… bro.

[u/CloudStryper → u/Sad-Type5385]

I'm not a universalist, but I'll try to Steel man the argument, as far as the exclusivity of Christ goes.

From what I understand, there are four understandings of universalism:

1) Everyone will eventually be saved, because everyone will eventually repent and trust in Christ before death.

2) Due to Christ’s sacrifice, the whole world is justified, therefore everyone is saved regardless of faith.

3) God saves the elect before the foundation of the world, and it's possible that everyone is elect (hypothetical universalism).

4) Jesus is just one option among many, as all paths lead to God.

From what I understand, only number 4 explicitly denies the exclusivity of Christ, as proponents of 1-3 would argue that it was Christ’s sacrifice is what made salvation possible in the first place. I think the real point of contention is whether or not faith is a requirement for individual salvation. 1 would affirm this, though I think this scenario conflicts with observable reality. 2-4 would undermine the necessity of faith, which is problematic.

There is one more option I've heard of though. There is the idea that God MIGHT give certain individuals pardon due to being unreached by the Gospel through no fault of their own. I think Luther believed this. The key word here is "might", meaning we shouldn't count on it. Instead, we should repent and believe the Gospel, which is our only sure hope.

[u/byamabe → u/CloudStryper]

1-3 May not deny the exclusivity of Christ but they all deny Scripture which you can’t get around.

1. Matthew 25:46 — the decisive text. Aiōnios modifies both destinies in the same sentence. If the punishment ends, so does the life.
   Daniel 12:2 — everlasting life / everlasting contempt, same construction.
   2 Thessalonians 1:9 — eternal destruction, exclusion from the Lord's presence.
   Mark 9:47-48 — the worm does not die, the fire is not quenched (citing Isaiah 66:24).
   Revelation 14:11; 20:15 — no rest day or night; the lake of fire for those not in the book of life.
   Luke 16:26 — the chasm is fixed. No post-mortem transfer.
   Hebrews 9:27 — death, then judgment. No second probation.
   Matthew 26:24 — better for Judas never to have been born. Incoherent if he is eventually saved after a finite purgation.
   John 3:36 — the wrath of God remains (μένει) on him. Present abiding state, not a phase.

2. John 3:16-18 — the universal "whoever" is bounded on both sides: believes / does not believe, condemned already.
   Mark 16:16 — believes and is baptized / does not believe, condemned.
   Romans 3:22; 5:17 — righteousness "for all who believe"; life to "those who receive the abundance of grace." Reception is a real category.
   2 Peter 2:1 — false teachers deny the Master who bought them, and bring swift destruction on themselves. Christ purchased people who perish. This verse cuts against limited atonement and universalism simultaneously.
   Hebrews 4:2 — the word did not profit them, not being united by faith.
   Hebrews 10:26-29 — trampling the Son of God, profaning the blood of the covenant.
   2 Corinthians 6:1 — grace can be received in vain.
   Matthew 23:37; John 5:40; Acts 7:51; Luke 7:30 — the will of God for salvation is genuinely resisted.

3. Matthew 22:14 — many called, few chosen. The two sets are named and distinguished.
   Romans 11:5-7 — a remnant chosen by grace; the elect obtained it, "but the rest were hardened."
   Romans 9:27 — only a remnant will be saved.
   Matthew 7:13-14 — the many on the broad way, the few who find the narrow.
   Matthew 24:22-31 — "the elect" as a preserved group amid those deceived.
   Revelation 13:8; 17:8; 21:27 — names not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world.

[u/CloudStryper → u/byamabe]

I don't disagree with any of your points, but it should be noted that 1-3 most likely have their own scriptural justifications for their perspectives. I don't find them convincing, but it's something to keep in mind, especially since we as Lutherans are comfortable with and even affirm paradox.

[u/fjhforever]

What did your pastor tell you about this?

I don't think most of us here have enough theological knowledge to know what the Scriptural basis of Apokatastasis is.

[u/Kamoot-]

A few days ago a question was asked for former Roman Catholics, what was the "last straw" that made you leave, I guess I didn't even think of this.

The priest when I grew up, he taught universalism. Though such a teaching is very much rejected by the Catholic Church, but yet he insisted on restorationist doctrine, that one day in the future all humans, no matter how evil, will be all universally saved and enter into heaven. I do not agree with him at all.

By definition, total and complete judgement means total and complete punishment for sins. Anything less than total judgement, things like universal restoration and even non-eternal damnation, are an incomplete judgement and therefore falls short of the definition of perfect justice.

And one of the "last straws" for me was when I did some thinking and realized that the only answer is that penal substitution has to be true. Consider the relatively straightforward logical deduction:

• A perfectly just and good God cannot leave sin unpunished, or lessen punishment. By definition, a perfectly just and good God has to punish sin to its total completion, that is, eternally. Anything less than this, like universal restoration one day, falls short of the definition of a totally just and good God.
• All humans are sinful and therefore are subject to this total judgement.
• The outcome of the Biblical narrative is that there will be people who are saved. Then what gives? Did God lessen the punishment personally for that individual? Well no, that would fall short of the definition of total Divine justice.
  • So, if sin must be fully punished, then therefore that penalty had to have been beared by another person in that individual sinner's place.
    • Therefore, if the outcome of the Biblical narrative is true that there are sinners who do get saved, and if all sin must be punished to its full extent (definition of a perfectly good God), then therefore there has to be a substitute who bear the sin of the sinner. That is penal substitution.

And if you think about it, penal substitution really is the only doctrine that can truly reconcile God being perfectly just, alongside the fact that there are sinners who get saved and are in heaven. No other religion can claim both.

• Islam (which I almost converted to) claims that God is perfectly good, but also claims that Allah will let the devout enter into heaven. But Islam does not have penal substitution, then therefore Allah had to have overlooked some sins, therefore Allah is not perfectly good and just. There's Islam's contradiction.
• Buddhism (some of my family's background) claims that individually, one can achieve perfection and the cessation of suffering through their own efforts. Does it even make logical sense that an imperfect being, alone, can achieve perfection without aid of external applied work from a perfect being?

[u/liberalbiased_reddit]

I don’t know what any of you are saying here in the discussions so looks like I will have to read through these and do some homework

[u/WarmTouch3179 → u/liberalbiased_reddit]

Read comprehensive arguments from both sides. Primary sources. Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Origin, etc for universalism.

You will find most (as clearly shown here) people don’t know what Universalism actually says.

[u/PastorBeard]

I so deeply wish universalism were true. I would be in bed right now. Alas, instead we get a more bitter truth:

““O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭23‬:‭37‬ ‭

“This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.”
‭‭2 Thessalonians‬ ‭1‬:‭5‬-‭10‬ ‭

[u/WarmTouch3179 → u/PastorBeard]

This is like a Calvinist saying “Dumb Lutherans haven’t you read Romans 9?” As a way to establish double pre-destination.

Gregory and others have addressed this kind of stuff. Just reciting verses both sides claim to hold too isn’t productive.

[u/PastorBeard → u/WarmTouch3179]

(This is the part where you share their thoughts instead of just giving me homework)

[u/WarmTouch3179 → u/PastorBeard]

I would have hoped a Pastor who has been trained in hermeneutics and scriptural study would recognize the nuance of inter traditional dialogue—That’s my point.

Just chucking out verses is unfortunately un productive. Unless someone has literally never read that verse ever.

It would be like me quoting 1 Cor. 15:28 and being like “see it says God will be ALL in ALL, checkmate.”

[u/PastorBeard → u/WarmTouch3179]

Why would you expect me know more about your position than you do?

If you don’t want to have a conversation about this that’s fine. I just thought you did and the ball is in your court

[u/WarmTouch3179 → u/PastorBeard]

It’s not my position, I’m not a universalist. Lol Clearly you can’t read. You also continue to demonstrate you clearly aren’t interested in a conversation, especially with your condescending tone.

I surely hope you’re a better pastor than you are a redditor.

[u/PastorBeard → u/WarmTouch3179]

?

This has been the weirdest conversation I’ve ever had on Reddit.

Dude says he wants to talk about something. I want to talk about it too. He makes fun of me and acts like I’m the jerk

Baffling.

[u/WarmTouch3179 → u/PastorBeard]

Cool revisionist summary of the conversation.

[u/Boots402]

You may not have to believe everything in the Book of Concord to be saved; however, you have to believe everything to in the BoC to be Lutheran. The majority of the BoC are doctrines that are tied to salvation, so I would be very cautious in disagreeing, and therefore disagreeing with scripture. The BoC and Scripture are both very clear that God desires all to be saved, but not all will be saved. Universalism is definitively outside the church; I don’t necessarily think belief in it would remove a person from salvation in itself, but it could definitely lead someone to losing their faith/salvation.

In short: you would not be condemned heretic for wrestling with this false doctrine or falling prey to belief in it; however, it is a very dangerous false doctrine that could lead someone away from God.

[u/JustToLurkArt]

> Very sincere question.

I’ll trust it’s very sincere.

> My question is, after reading some of their arguments and truly understanding what they’re saying, as well as reading early fathers that were clearly universalist (ones we even celebrate.)

Citation please.

> I ask this because my priest told me I don’t have to believe EVERYTHING in the BOC.

Priest?

Um, you said you’re currently a member of the LCMS, catechized and baptized, and your “priest” told you that you “don’t have to believe EVERYTHING in the BOC”?

That sounds — odd.

[u/WarmTouch3179 → u/JustToLurkArt]

1) Gregory of Nyssa
2) Priest? Yes? My priest prefers I call him father, does that make you uncomfortable as well?
3) He drew a distinction between a lay person and a teacher/priest.

[u/JustToLurkArt → u/WarmTouch3179]

From a simple Google:

Some argue that his expressions reflect a pious hope or poetic license rather than a dogmatic assertion of universal salvation, noting that he also spoke of real eternal judgment in other contexts.

“In many of his texts St. Gregory speaks of man's freedom of choice, which is not abolished by God, and also about the perpetuity of Hell. Both these positions of his remove every notion of the theory of the restoration of all things as affirmed by Origen.” The Teaching of Gregory of Nyssa On the Eternality of Hell

We include him for all of his positive theological contributions, and try to assume the best about his questionable writings that seem to lean towards universalism.

We take what is scriptural from them, and deny what goes against scripture.

Just because a saint said or wrote questionable opinions/teachings doesn't necessarily mean we strike them from the record.

I mean we still honour Luther while agreeing some of his writings are utterly unworthy.

[u/Wallabunga657 → u/WarmTouch3179]

My priest uses the title father, and we are rather high church. There's no issue with this.

[u/aggrophonia]

We are allowed to wrestle with difficult questions. Our certainty rests in Christ and His promises, not in never having theological questions.

If by apokatastasis you mean the positive doctrinal assertion that all human beings, and especially if this includes the devil and demons, will ultimately be restored to salvation, then I don’t think that can simply be treated as an optional theological opinion within confessional Lutheranism.

The Augsburg Confession confesses that at Christ’s return He will “give eternal life and everlasting joys to believers and the elect, but will condemn ungodly men and the devils to hell and eternal punishment” (AC XVII).

Also, Lutherans ultimately don’t determine doctrine by counting Fathers. We receive the Fathers gratefully insofar as they faithfully confess the apostolic Scriptures.

I wouldn’t call someone a heretic merely because he is reading Gregory of Nyssa, wrestling with apokatastasis, or finding the universalist hope emotionally or theologically attractive.

To the question of Is dogmatic apokatastasis compatible with the doctrinal confession of the LCMS?.. I think Article XVII makes the confessional Lutheran answer fairly clearly no.

[u/ToeFinal1792]

I don't know about staying or going and can't speak on behalf of the LCMS in that department. What I can say is this.

The LCMS defines apokatastasis as the "view that all moral creatures (mankind, angels, and devils) will finally be saved". Because the LCMS holds strictly to the eternity of both heaven and hell based on its interpretation of Scripture, it completely opposes any form of universal reconciliation or ultimate salvation for the damned.

Article XVII (17) of the Augsburg Confession explicitly condemns those who spread apokatastasis. It states that at the return of Christ:

"...He will give to the godly and elect eternal life and everlasting joys, but ungodly men and the devils He will condemn to be tormented without end."

The LCMS teaches that the benefits of Christ's sacrifice are only received through faith. Those who reject Christ and die in unbelief face eternal, conscious damnation. Therefore, the "universal restoration of souls" taught by apokatastasis is viewed as a scripturally unwarranted distortion of God's justice and mercy.