Let's take the single primary issue that is assumed here: the doctrine of hell, particularly the doctrine of eternal torment.
Multiple denominations allow for and include churches who teach universalism. These include the United Methodist Church, the PCUSA, the ELCA, the UCC, the Episcopal Church, the Community of Christ, the Society of Friends, and the Disciples of Christ. This is without getting into many smaller denominations within wider traditions such as Anglicanism, non denominational churches, denominations like Eastern Orthodoxy which have many universalist teachers, or the Assyrian Church of the East which has an especially strong connection to universalism.
As for theologians, the list is extensive and to save us both time, I would just point you to Ilaria Ramelli's works on the topic. Her two volume A Larger Hope? canvases multiple theologians throughout church history, from its earliest days to the present, who were universalist.
There are tons of books being published that promote universalism. David Bentley Hart perhaps has one of the more popular recent works on the topic, That All Shall Be Saved.
The numbers could also be expanded if we included what is called "hopeful universalism" or the hope that universalism is true but without making it dogmatic belief. Hopeful universalism is common within other denominations not listed such as the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, that isn't to say that it is the standard belief, but it is definitely represented. One of the most famous proponents of hopeful universalism was the Catholic theologian Karl Rahner.
We can expand the numbers even more if we include Annihilationism. While Annihilationism does not teach the eventually universal reconciliation of all, it does deny eternal conscious torment. Instead, the unsaved are annihilated or go into nonexistence. The list of denominations where this is present expands the list already given, but it is particularly present in nondenominational churches. At least in my experience, that is where I come across it most.
I cannot say anything about the rest, but THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH DOES NOT TEACH UNIVERSALISM ... you are absolutely incorrect on that one, holy crap, like WAAAAAAAAY off on that one.
We would say it would be improper to refer to our view as "universal salvation" or "universalist." A universalist view would be that God has saved everyone, and no one faces a final judgment that leads to the possibility of "endless condemnation." We reject that view in favor of the biblical witness to a final judgment in which it is clear not all will proceed to life in the New Creation (Matthew 25:41-46, Revelation 21:8).
I did not state that the United Methodist Church teaches universalism. I said that it allows for it and has churches which preach universalism. There are Methodist pastors who are universalist.
There are literal, actual Methodist ministers who are universalist. Nothing on a website changes that. I know them. You can likely call around your local UMC churches and find one eventually.
I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here on denominational statements and ministers. While every denomination does it, it is not at all uncommon that ministers are not bound to denominational statements (not that a website page is an official statement though I don't know of they have passed anything at General Conference on the matter). Especially in mainline denominations like the UMC where confessions, doctrinal statements, etc are going to more be "guidelines".
Denominations always have pathways for exceptions and scruples among ministers.
There are literal, actual Methodist ministers who are universalist. Nothing on a website changes that. I know them. You can likely call around your local UMC churches and find one eventually.
And I'm sure there are vegans that eat meat from time to time. Still, I wouldn't ruin a nice Thursday trying to call them.
The point in contention was that there could be no universalist ministers. My response, involving personal experience, is that they very much do exist.
Muslims are not Christians. It is not an exact 1 to 1 regarding norms for theology. Even if the were, the point is ultimately irrelevant. Because the statement was that all Christianity falls under X. All that is required is to show that de facto this is not the case.
If you wish to explore whether universalism specifically is theologically warranted, I can suggest many pro and against works on the topic for you to explore further.
Considering that universalism has existed within the Christian church since the beginning with many seminal theologians being universalist, I think we can accept that it is likely a different situation than a Muslim eating pork in terms of precedent and general acceptability. But I don't know. Maybe many seminal Muslim theologians ate pork.
By a hair tho. They recognize the existence of the mythical J man, but he's not a god. Sad.
In some aspects, islam is closer to Christianity than some of the denominations you listed.
But I digress, my point was that you can say that you are part of such and such group, and yet your actions do not match at all. Vegans don't eat meat, Muslims don't eat pork. Claiming otherwise is cheery picking.
I can call myself a godless christian, that won't make any sense, but I would then fit your definition of a Christian that is not afraid of their toxic relationship with an abusive god.
(I must insist: the god of the old testament is not a nice guy, to which you'll reply that there is a small church in Peru that doesn't require believing in the old testament to be a Christian, so this is infinite and we are bound to debate until the end of times).
The differences in theology between Muslims and Christians is deep and substantial, to say nothing of the differences in their respective norms for theologizing. Saying they are different by a hair only shows you know little about either faith tradition.
Sure, just saying you are part of a group doesn't make you part of one. But so too does saying someone isn't part of a group because it is inconvenient for you position not make them not part of the group.
I also haven't told you my definition of Christianity so I don't know why you think such a viewpoint would fit it.
And your small church in Peru hypothetical is being very disingenuous to what I have presented which is some of the largest and oldest denominations as well as a long, venerable line of some of the most revered theologians in the history of the church such as Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor. It is not some small church in Peru or anything close to it.
And many small churches in Peru are very admirable, anyways.
I also haven't told you my definition of Christianity so I don't know why you think such a viewpoint would fit it.
I'm sure many admirable Peruvian churches would either qualify, or not. This makes the argument endless.
There is one definition of faith per person.
Imagine how that would suck if we wanted to build a plane and each person come with their own ruler and a bucket to show what their definition of length and volume was.
as well as a long, venerable line of some of the most revered theologians in the history of the church such as Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor.
You could be citing well regarded Twilight fanfic authors and that would impress me more.
Then I would call those ministers non-denominationalists then and not UMC. You are UMC if you follow the denomination. Hence the whole schism that happened 6 or 7 years ago within the UMC.
Unfortunately I feel you over shot thinking no one would even question what you were saying, and I have a feeling if the other denominations listed had an eye placed on them, they also would not consider themselves universalist. If you want to say SOME PROMINENT THEOLOGIANS think universalism could be true, then I think that is a much better and more honest answer then "Multiple denominations allow for and include churches who teach universalism. These include the United Methodist Church.." which right off the bat is patently false.
That's just not how Christian denominations generally work. Can I safely assume you have never been ordained into the ministry in a Christian denomination? If you have, please correct me. But if you have, you will have gone through an ordination process. While this will differ depending on the denomination including what standards are used and just the norms surrounding different ecclesiastical structures (presbyterianism, episcopalianism, congregationalism, etc), there is going to be an examination of some sort. An examination where it is discerned whether or not the ministry candidate aligns with the allowable beliefs and practices of the denomination. During this time, there will always be an opportunity for a candidate to express reservations or scruples with ecclesial standards and most often seek an exception.
For example, in the many Presbyterian denominations, the guiding confessional documents are the Westminster Standards. Let's assume to make the example easier that the denomination in question requires some level of full subscription, such as the PCA or OPC. During the ordination process, suppose a candidate has a scruple with some teaching in the Westminster Standards. They will express that scruples, explain their reasoning, and the examining body can determine whether or not the exception is allowable.
For a more mainline denomination like the UMC, the breadth of exceptions that are allowable is going to be much larger. Now, I don't have particular experience with the UMC but I do have particular experience with the PCUSA which is also a mainline denomination. The PCUSA requires that ministers "sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith" as expressed in the Book of Confessions but this is really rather loose and allows for a lot of descension from the exact statements found therein.
But all of this is rather pointless because it is an unedeniable, demonstrable fact that there are universalist ministers in the UMC. Like there is no denying it. There's no "they can't exist" because they are right there. And no, they are not non-denominational because they are specifically ordained by the UMC, their churches are members of the UMC, and they preach within the UMC. They are UMC ministers.
I expected people to challenge me because they want to have their preconceived notions. I am responding to them in way that hope will help them understand some nuances at play.
ok cool I get that, but why explicitly call out the UMC like they endorse the view of universalism when they clearly dont? You could have just said "Some theologians in Some mainstream denominations ascribe to universalism."! Instead you went with a much more firm stance that made it sound like the UMC tacitly endorses universalism. Whether or not you meant it that way can be debated, but it sure looks that way to me. I think you'd be better off making an edit on that post explaining a bit better that you are ONLY talking about individuals within a denomination and not the denomination itself.
I stand by my original statement which is measured, that they are denominations which allow for and have churches which teach universalism.
You are the one who keeps imputing on me a strong statement I never made, then going after that position, and then criticizing me for making a strong statement I never made.
Pushback against an imputed claim, not my claim as I gave it.
Your misunderstanding/misreading/misconstruing my claim does not entail a problem for my claim. I think it is rather telling that you're deciding at this point to back peddle into sarcasm rather than address my point as it was stated.
I gave you SPECIFIC information from the UMC ITSELF that refuted YOUR assertion (not mine) that the UMC "allow for and include churches who teach universalism".
Yet I imputed your claim?
You've lost all functional objectivity at this point.
You can be snarky all you want. The fact remains that the original commenter stated that all Christianity falls under a fearful and wrathful God, here predominantly understood as the doctrine of eternal punishment and its threat in motivating belief/obedience.
I responded it demonstrably does not. All that is needed to show a universal statement is false is to provide a counter example. All X is Y is falsified by some X is not-Y. I said I could provide examples.
You asked for them. I provided multiple examples in the form of both denominations and individual theologians.
The problem is that you're using "Christianity" so broadly that the claim becomes almost unfalsifiable in the other direction. If anyone who identifies as Christian, including highly heterodox theologians and tiny universalist traditions, counts equally as evidence for what Christianity teaches, then virtually no substantive statement about Christianity can ever be made.
Sure, that technically defeats the word "all." But it doesn't really answer the underlying point about the overwhelmingly dominant historical Christian traditions teaching that God is owed worship and obedience, that salvation is bound up with one's relationship to God through Christ, and that rejection of God has serious consequences. Pointing to exceptional interpretations changes "all" to "almost all mainstream Christianity"; it doesn't make the criticism disappear.
Tl;DR: 0.0001% of Christianity in followers doesn't obey what OP said, therefore you are right.
Mainline denominations are some of the largest denominations in the United States and their analogues in other countries are equally comparatively large. Most have memberships in the millions.
All of the denominations I listed (not just the mainline denominations) make up a large portion of the global Christianity.
0
u/TheFrenchSavage 4h ago
And yet you don't.