Can Universalism be Christian?

[SkyWriting]

While many cultures beyond Christianity have come to believe in some type of God(s), there is more steps to become a Christian besides believing that a God exists.
It would be unwise to use that verse to say that people who haven't heard of Christ are to be blamed for not finding out about Christ and accepting him as God's son who died for our sins.
It is not a coincidence in which before Christianity encountered the New World in 1492, there was no Christianity on those continents.

There are no additional steps outside of Faith.
I didn't say men have no excuses, scripture said that.
I hope your not making excuses.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

There are no additional steps outside of Faith.

What im trying to say is that simply being a Theist doesn't make one a Christian. There is more to Christian belief then a belief in a creator.

Sure natives could come to the conclusion that many gods or one God exist, but besides being Theists, they wouldn't have the common ground of believing in Jesus that Christians across the sea had.

So they couldn't be Christians before the Europeans arrived. Also before the Europeans came, there were no bibles nor other forms of teachings in any native language.

 

[SkyWriting]

What im trying to say is that simply being a Theist doesn't make one a Christian. There is more to Christian belief then a belief in a creator.Sure natives could come to the conclusion that many gods or one God exist, but besides being Theists, they wouldn't have the common ground of believing in Jesus that Christians across the sea had.So they couldn't be Christians before the Europeans arrived. Also before the Europeans came, there were no bibles nor other forms of teachings in any native language.

Again with the excuses.

20For since the creation of the worldGod’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so thatmen are without excuse.

This is where the scriptures come in handy:
28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired.

8 Though I am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,9 and to illuminate for everyone the stewardship of this mystery, whichfor ages past was hidden in God, who created all things.

 

[Catherineanne]

It says in 1 Timothy 2:4(God) desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

It also says in 1 John 5:14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

So, why not pray for everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth?

Hoping or praying for universalism is fine; any Christian can do that.

Actually claiming universalism is not possible; only God can determine whether that will happen, and the evidence in Scripture is that some may well not make it.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Again with the excuses.

20For since the creation of the worldGod’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so thatmen are without excuse.

This is where the scriptures come in handy:
28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired.

8 Though I am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,9 and to illuminate for everyone the stewardship of this mystery, whichfor ages past was hidden in God, who created all things.

Say what you will, I hold to the fact that it wasn't the natives fault they weren't Christians before 1492. Nor was it the fault of any other group that existed far away from Christianity origins, such as the aboriginals in Australia, etc.

 

[ViaCrucis]

LOL!

What else must Jesus say to get His point across?

"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels."

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

The word "eternal" in both places is "aionios" which means 1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be; 2) without beginning; 3) without end, never to cease, everlasting. The word "punishment" is the word "kolasis" and it means "to punish, with the implication of resulting severe suffering--'to punish, punishment.'"

Well, that's not quite what the word means. Aionios is the adjective form of the word aion, which means "age". The qualitative difference is that we look forward to the life of that coming age, which is otherwise described as immortal and incorruptable; and the same with what's to come in regard to future judgment.

I've had a hard time finding a very convincing argument that aionios, in fact, actually means "without beginning and end" etc; simply because that isn't what the word itself means. "Lasting for an age" is the principle meaning given by Liddel & Scott,

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ai)w/nios&la=greek#lexicon

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/αἰώνιος

I'm not saying it can't mean "without beginning and end" necessarily--but that's definitely not what the word itself means.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

Tell us where "eligibility" for Salavation is spoken of in Scripture.

Sometimes it's best not to use 'correct' theological jargon if being understood is the goal, Breton. But if something that Michael and I were discussing seemed unclear, rephrase it as you think necessary, and let's see if we can work through it.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Yes of course.
GOD didn't reaaasllllly say

I'm not suggesting that God did or didn't say a particular thing. I'm simply pointing out that when interpreting Revelations, one has to keep in mind the genre being employed, and allow resulting interpretations to be influenced the requisite considerations required of such a genre. So then, when I read about God being presented in corporeal form, and existing in a space with time and dimension, I understand that the language employed is not meant to invoke literal images of God (for such would be ridiculous), but to communicate some principle and meaning via the literary use of such images.

However, if this principle pervades the greater context of Revelations, then we must equally apply it when we come across passages regarding final "destinations"; for it would be a disingenuous interpretation that gives a "pass" on interpreting literally the images of God in the throne room, while concomitantly insisting upon a literal interpretation when it comes to other passages, such as those relating to hell, the lake of fire, etc.

And HE also said not to take away or add to what is written

Mans yeasty input will always remain as mans yeasty input subject to error and change

Who's adding or taking away? I'm simply pointing out some very elementary hermeneutical principles that must be applied when reading and interpreting Revelations.

 

[Hillsage]

Reminder, the op does not ask, "are universalists right?" It asks, "can universalists be christian?"

You are correct serious we are definitely off topic. As for me, I accepted Jesus at a time in life where I was selling drugs, drawing unemployment and working one night a week in my uncles bar for cash (so I could keep drawing full unemployment). I was radically saved, ended up in Campus Crusade for Christ meetings and then 6 months later received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and became a Charismatic who ended up in a homegroup where the couple leading it water baptized us in the local river and discipled us 3 days a week for 2 years. Would you say I was a Christian? Then several years later we attended a Christian retreat 500 miles away in another state. That's where I first heard of God's plan for the ultimate salvation of His beloved creation.

Now, if you think I 'was' saved (I hope ), do you believe I lost my salvation because of false doctrine? 'False doctrine' by the way is why we now have 666 "Christian denominations" who all think 'they're right' and everyone else is wrong?

 

[Albion]

Now, if you think I 'was' saved (I hope ), do you believe I lost my salvation because of false doctrine? 'False doctrine' by the way is why we now have 666 "Christian denominations" who all think 'they're right' and everyone else is wrong?

Where'd you come up with that statistic?

 

[miknik5]

I'm not suggesting that God did or didn't say a particular thing. I'm simply pointing out that when interpreting Revelations, one has to keep in mind the genre being employed, and allow resulting interpretations to be influenced the requisite considerations required of such a genre. So then, when I read about God being presented in corporeal form, and existing in a space with time and dimension, I understand that the language employed is not meant to invoke literal images of God (for such would be ridiculous), but to communicate some principle and meaning via the literary use of such images.

However, if this principle pervades the greater context of Revelations, then we must equally apply it when we come across passages regarding final "destinations"; for it would be a disingenuous interpretation that gives a "pass" on interpreting literally the images of God in the throne room, while concomitantly insisting upon a literal interpretation when it comes to other passages, such as those relating to hell, the lake of fire, etc.



Who's adding or taking away? I'm simply pointing out some very elementary hermeneutical principles that must be applied when reading and interpreting Revelations.

Revelation

And as Revelation clearly states:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ

 

[alexandriaisburning]

You are adding.

Adding what?

 

[Light of the East]

I hope you don't mind if I disagree with you and tell you this verse is about the Judgement seat of Christ...also know as the Bema seat.....and not about purgatory.

This verse is about what we have done for Christ as believers. The judgement you quoted isn't about "salvation". That Judgement is called the White Throne Judgement. This is a judgement of rewards. Some believers will receive great rewards...while others who were saved will receive little rewards. Some believers that do nothing are still saved...by the skin of their teeth...so to speak, or as if as by fire.

To be honest I don't believe the Blessed Virgin Mary, died in a state of complete submission and union to God. The bible doesn't teach this.

As for all christians they will be fully sanctified in the future. After we die we will be like Christ. We will not have the sins burned out of our soul. Our sins were removed when they were imputed to Jesus Christ..and His righteousness was imputed to us.

There is no need for a purgatory. Jesus paid the price 100%

Salvation is not about "paying a price." It is about being changed into the likeness of God. It is not about some legal fantasy cooked up by the Protestants. It is about our ontology, about what we really are. Peter speaks about this when he talks about us being those who bear the nature of God. The purpose of the Cross is to change our very being, not to pay off some legal debt.

So if you are not like God when you die, all that is in you which is not like God must be burned away so that the pure gold of God's nature can shine through you. This is what purgation is about - removing the last vestiges of all that is unlike God so that we can enter into union with Him.

 

[Hillsage]

Where'd you come up with that statistic?

I know, shame on me. I actually thought about adding a (sic) after the 666...but it really isn't a 'misspelling'. I actually was thinking I ought to delete the whole post because I just did go back and see that the OP isn't even whether people believing in universalism could 'be' Christians as SERIOUS stated. Oh well; "As it is written, so let it be."

 

[twin.spin]

Universalism downplays nothing. It does explain how your mis-translation has deceived you though. HELL YES TRANSLATION quote has a shortcoming which is more fully explained below in more scholarly translations than ECT people read. But non deceptive translations agree in both places.

YOUNGS LITERAL TRANSLATION MAR 3:29 but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness - to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment;'

MAT 12:32 And whoever may speak a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven to him, but whoever may speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is coming.

And since we believe that the plan of God is a plan of the ages, your bible simply falls short not only in the revealing of the ages. Maybe that rascal you mentioned earlier had something to do with deceiving them....and you.

Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God

And in those "ages to come" who is He going to 'shew His grace', which has saved you, to? We believe it will be those whom he did give 'faith' to believe here in this age. And neither were they "called, drawn, chosen" or, best of all "ordained TO believe"....like US. In my posts RED means 'bible' BTW.

I know, when all else fails blame the scores of theologians for their deceptive translations.

Universalism opposes the truth that God rejects 'for ever' those who reject him. Universalism is the same satanical lie spoken in Eden: "Did God really say..."

 

[Hillsage]

If you cannot replicate in your life the details of Acts 2 Day of Pentecost, then you are neither Charismatic nor Pentecostal.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion here. Pertaining to my post, all I was justifying is I'M CHRISTIAN. A testimony of which will mean more to others than you, apparently. So if I don't meet some FUNDAMENTAL standard from those who are not fun because they're more mental than spiritual, that's just where things are I guess.

But, if you also have a 'judgment' against me as CHRISTIAN, PLEASE do tell us all what the bare minimum is...to be one, by your standard. And when you do, if you tell us 'all', we might even be able to tell you which of those 666 denominations you're mentally sold out to.

 

[Hillsage]

Is that supposed to be proof of universal salvation?

If you expect 'one verse' to prove anything in Christianity, you prove one thing only.

 

[miknik5]

Agreed. Further, I always take anything and everything in Revelation with an apocalypse-sized grain of salt. This is the same book that presents God in corporeal form in a context of dimension and space/time. The extent to which anything can be taken "literally" is suspect.

Actually you took away and even said and suggested that Gods Word should not be considered as His Word since "you always take amything and everything in Revelation with an apocalypse-sized grain of salt"

Who are you to suggest your own input and take away anything from what God has said by His Word?

 

[miknik5]

If you expect 'one verse' to prove anything in Christianity, you prove one thing only.

but it actually shows a division and distinction that some will not be forgiven. Therefore where is universal salvation?

 

[miknik5]

You assume this is a judgment unto eternal condemnation. What if it is a judgment as to the amount and duration of purgation and chastening that each soul shall suffer according to the life which he/she lived here on earth? Why can that not be possible?

Do you agree that there are two resurrections?

And if so why would some be waiting for the second resurrection when the witnesses are pointing them to the....FIRST resurrection in by and through Christ Jesus