The Doctrine of "Universalism" (Christian Universalism or Otherwise) True or False?

[IamRedeemed]

Again, please stop derailing the thread.

The Topic here is The Doctrine of "Universalism"
(Christian Universalism or Otherwise) True or False?

Please also discontinue trying to prove doctrines with
human reasoning. Please back up your beliefs from one side or the
other from Scripture. What you "think" is neither here nor there,
if Scripture does not support what you think.

Thank you.
The OP

 

[CaDan]

Again, please stop derailing the thread.

The Topic here is The Doctrine of "Universalism"
(Christian Universalism or Otherwise) True or False?

Please also discontinue trying to prove one side or the other with
human reasoning, and please back up your beliefs from one side or the
other from Scripture. What you "think" is neither here nor there,
if Scripture does not support what you think.

Thank you.
The OP

Do unbaptized infants go to hell? Are they born evil?

 

[GraceInHim]

Those who cannot perceive repentance and their own sinfulness, God makes provision for.

where in the Bible does God say this, better yet where did Jesus say this, since he came to preach the good news?

 

[Floatingaxe]

where in the Bible does God say this, better yet where did Jesus say this, since he came to preach the good news?

Suppose we stop going off topic and you start a thread on this, eh??

 

[CaDan]

Suppose we stop going off topic and you start a thread on this, eh??

You have been arguing that everyone is born evil and deserves hell. If that is the case, it follows that the specific instance of unbaptized and unrepentant infants are evil and deserve hell.

You can either acknowledge the logical conclusion of your argument, or you can acknowledge that your original argument was incorrect. Your choice.

 

[Tavita]

Suppose we stop going off topic and you start a thread on this, eh??

All these side issues are part of reconciliation awareness, it's not just a doctrine set apart from the rest of the scriptures like you want to think. Everything that has come up in this thread relates to it.

 

[GraceInHim]

Please also discontinue trying to prove one side or the other with
human reasoning, and please back up your beliefs from one side or the
other from Scripture. What you "think" is neither here nor there,
if Scripture does not support what you think.

Thank you.
The OP

I did ask to support scripture on what someone thinks and got this following answer

Suppose we stop going off topic and you start a thread on this, eh??

in this forum we are here to debate and learn from one another.

if you can provide scripture for your thoughts, were it would make it easy for me to learn, maybe God did provide provisions as you stated.. if he did not then, ummmm.. I have to believe that I cannot judge who goes to hell or heaven.

Have enough time making sure I get in the door myself

 

[IamRedeemed]

Well, the playing rules need to be the same for everyone. If I ask you to
provide Scripture for what you say, then I should absolutely provide
Scripture if you ask me.

Did you have a question of me specifically?

I am also asking of everyone that if a post is off topic from here on out,
DO NOT FEED TROLLS, just report it or ignore it. Please.

I agree with you GraceinHim, for on topic posts, again I am asking everyone
from both sides if at all possible, leave your dogmatic opinions out of it unless you
can back it up with Scripture and let the Word of God speak, and
do not add to what is written.

Saying I believe yada yada yada because the Scripture says XYZ is fine of course.
But don't just throw some random opinion out there as though that's final.
At least, not if you expect it to be treated with any regard or you expect
sincere Scriptural replies in return.

If the Word doesn't clarify something, don't be afraid to say,
"it is not clarified in the Word", but don't make doctrine up as you go along,
(not saying anyone has or hasn't, just saying) no matter who you are or
what side of this discussion/Bible Study you are on.

Again, that is a generalized request and not
directed to you specifically GraceinHim.

I did ask to support scripture on what someone thinks and got this following answer

in this forum we are here to debate and learn from one another.

if you can provide scripture for your thoughts, were it would make it easy for me to learn, maybe God did provide provisions as you stated.. if he did not then, ummmm.. I have to believe that I cannot judge who goes to hell or heaven.

Have enough time making sure I get in the door myself

 

[IamRedeemed]

The side issues are not. That is a smoke screen for what it really is.
What it really is, is humanistic attempts at applying the philosophy of
relativistic thinking to the things of God, in an attempt to avoid at all
cost putting the doctrine of Universalism to the ultimate test of seeing
if it stands on the solid rock of the Word.

All these side issues are part of reconciliation awareness, it's not just a doctrine set apart from the rest of the scriptures like you want to think. Everything that has come up in this thread relates to it.

 

[SpiritDriven]

I remember many years ago as a teenager, travelling on a suburban train.....as usual you notice graffiti sprayed on tunnel entrances....

I spotted one piece of Graffitti at the entrance to an over pass in a quiet remote undeveloped area that i feel really does sum up the Universalist position....and incidently the sum total truth....

GOD RULES!

Peace

 

[Floatingaxe]

You have been arguing that everyone is born evil and deserves hell. If that is the case, it follows that the specific instance of unbaptized and unrepentant infants are evil and deserve hell.

You can either acknowledge the logical conclusion of your argument, or you can acknowledge that your original argument was incorrect. Your choice.

I don't have to acknowledge anything to you.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear CaDan,

I am addressing the weakness of the analogy. Things such as primogeniture and fee tail and dower and curtesy limit the distribution of estates because estates are limited.

The analogy doesn’t work then.

I dispute Mr. Hewey's claim that aion cannot mean indeterminate. He assumes time functioned in a measurable way before the creation of the kosmos and will continue after its end. I don't think that is a defensible position.

Yes but Mr Hewey has some reasons as presented, you haven’t. I can see Mr Hewey’s evidence is conclusive as opposed to your mere unsupported opinion.
Furthermore you haven’t addressed what I posted
John 11 &#8220;25</SPAN>Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
You see &#8216;ou me&#8217; means &#8216;not at all&#8217;/&#8217;by no means&#8217;/never&#8217; So if one dies one dies, if one lives one lives, they are opposites. Jesus cannot represent the life rather than the death if there is actually no death.
Just as IamRedeemed posted

Pay attention. The bottom line is that the same word is used for both eternal life as it is for
eternal damnation. So, if it isn't applicable to damnation, then it isn't applicable to
eternal life either, because not only are the words the same, so is the context,
not to mention the continuity of both throughout the Bible.
They cannot have it both ways.

Same obvious logic.

NB which of course also means Jesus cant have died to save anyone from anything let alone everyone. Universalism is actually a denial of Jesus Christ.

You have been arguing that everyone is born evil and deserves hell. If that is the case, it follows that the specific instance of unbaptized and unrepentant infants are evil and deserve hell.

You can either acknowledge the logical conclusion of your argument, or you can acknowledge that your original argument was incorrect. Your choice.

That&#8217;s not the issue of eternal. The unbaptised unrepentant infants stil either go to an eternal life or death. She shouldn&#8217;t have to answer your question, its irrelevant.

 

[Nadiine]

You have been arguing that everyone is born evil and deserves hell. If that is the case, it follows that the specific instance of unbaptized and unrepentant infants are evil and deserve hell.

You can either acknowledge the logical conclusion of your argument, or you can acknowledge that your original argument was incorrect. Your choice.

First off, didn't YOU preach "MERCY"? That God gives mercy? Why wouldn't God have mercy over a child/infant in that they couldn't understand His gospel or sin itself? God knows the level of understanding & judges accordingly.

The problem tho is that this is AGAIN off topic. The infant salvation issue came up due to someone elses post question that again led it off track... she merely mentioned her niece in it...

This is now being hammered to make it a new subject and keep us/her tied up on another issue other than Universalism.

I don't like rigid threads where the minute one goes off topic or something leads to having to deal with another topic and reports start flying. However, this has been an established pattern here. Instead of letting the infant salvation issue drop, it's being pushed.

This is becoming dissruptive to this thread as I see it.

 

[Nadiine]

I remember many years ago as a teenager, travelling on a suburban train.....as usual you notice graffiti sprayed on tunnel entrances....

I spotted one piece of Graffitti at the entrance to an over pass in a quiet remote undeveloped area that i feel really does sum up the Universalist position....and incidently the sum total truth....

GOD RULES!

Peace

Yes, He does... & that should WORRY the lost who refuse to acknowledge that Rule and Supremacy.

Hebrews 10:31
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[Nadiine]

And what abou those who are mentally disabled?
Who arent capable of making the decision to believe in God?
Does God send them to Hell?? Or is being the way they are part of God's punishment?

this isn't at you personally United - you're new to the thread -

But THIS THREAD IS ABOUT UNIVERSALISM, not infant salvation. I woke up to find a few pages hammering this and it's not the topic here - we're having a problem with someone continually taking -and/or enabling- the thread away into other subjects and it's become dissruptive.

 

[Nadiine]

All these side issues are part of reconciliation awareness, it's not just a doctrine set apart from the rest of the scriptures like you want to think. Everything that has come up in this thread relates to it.

As I remember it, this issue came up due to someone new who came in & injected a statement about God and genocide which included babies.
It was actually not about Universalism that started it, it sounded more like a rant against God & how terrible He is for allowing Israel to kill women & children actually.

I gave the initial replies about infants being spared if they were taken at young ages like that - not only becuz they'de be wandering the desert as an orphan with no adults to care for them, but also were mercifully being spared the fate of being a lost soul as they grow up in Paganism by barbarians.

That's where this stemmed from. And if the poster would have continued on that subject, we'd of asked that he make a new thread for his issues.
I also don't mind that newcomers jumped in on the issue becuz they don't know the background of this thread.

Again, I'm all for some posts here & there meandering off the path - rigid threads where no one can explore side issues imho is a sterile discussion that I question the profitability of.
But this separate topic has dominated the thread now - I came back to the thread this am. to find 2 pages on this topic. Newcomers are popping in & starting posts on it as if it's the infant salvation topic & where all that leads to in more posts.

Plus, the OP is active in this thread and has been requesting that it stay on topic - it's just respect for someone's thread.

 

[Nadiine]

I believe God can do whatever he wants and we should not say what he does or will do. we should also not judge others, where they will go or not.

example:
Jesus whom is one with God, without sin; he could of threw the first stone to the adulteress which the Pharisees brought before him.. but he did not, he rather asked her where her accusers were and said to her to go and sin no more. hmmmm.. did she repent to Jesus before he heard her fear of stones about to be thrown at her?

God judges and the book of life has not been opened; if it has, please tell me "Is my name written on it"?

Ok, but Universalists ARE saying they know what He will do... and without sufficient scripture foundation for it - and/or scripture interpretation that directly contradicts other clear scriptures saying exactly the opposite.

We CAN know what God will do according to His word (otherwise we can't even know if He will fulfill His own promises or prophecy). That's how we know most of what we understand of God and Christianity.

So I think we can form assessments & judgments based on biblical teaching; that's why God gave us this eyewitness testimony and instruction.

 

[Nadiine]

With this reasoning it sounds like you're saying that unbelievers are evil.

YES. Exactly.

Matthew 7:11
"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

Are you righteous on your own apart from Christ? The bible says NO in many, many, many places and in different ways.
And we can see this even in young children who sass their parents, steal things, lie, throw tantrums, rebel, etc. It's our nature to do what is wrong.

That's why we repent when we get saved (and after). If we don't see our true condition as corrupted people thru sin in us, we aren't repentant unto salvation becuz we're essentially denying we NEED IT on our own.
Christians don't WANT that sin nature or to feed it like they once did. They're seeking righteousness instead - and fail.

"REPENT" is what Jesus commanded. Until we see our utter NEED for His righteousness over us (covering our sin), we aren't repenting. & this is why I keep saying this of Judas. Judas "repented", but it wasn't a genuine repentance to salvation. He was still lost.

If we think we are righteous apart from God, we're SELF RIGHTEOUS.

1 Peter 4:17-18
17 For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?

18 Now

“ If the righteous one is scarcely saved,
Where will the ungodly and the sinner appear?”

 

[SpiritDriven]

What is free will?
Free will is a doctrine that teaches that man can act independently of God.
This should already ring sour to the spiritually-attuned ear.
The doctrine of free will teaches that man has the freedom to choose or reject God, never mind the verse that says no man is seeking God (Rom. 3:11).

But I remind you that we&#8217;re talking about free will; Scripture has nothing to do with this.
In other words, in the doctrine of free will, man becomes the deciding factor in his own salvation. Jesus Christ&#8217;s work on the cross, according to this doctrine, was only a potential salvation, not an actual one.

According to this doctrine, the cross of Christ never saved anybody; the cross only saves those who decide to be saved. What about the verse that says no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him? (Jn. 6:44). Never mind it. What about the verses that say God is the Savior of all mankind (1 Tim. 4:10), and that the blood of the cross will reconcile all to Him (Col. 1:20), whether those on the earth or those in the heavens?
Never mind them. Then what about the verse that says God is operating all things in accord with the counsel of His will? (Eph. 1:11) Again, never mind. I have already told you. Scripture has nothing to do with this. We&#8217;re talking about free will.

Scripture is strong medicine
Reader, if you believe in the free will of man, please investigate the ninth chapter of Romans in any version you please, come back, then tell me if you still believe in it. If you still do, then read Romans 11:32. If you still believe in free will after that, take a little tea, massage your temples, and read John 6:44. You say you&#8217;ve read these verses and you still believe in free will?
Very well; perhaps your neck needs cracked. If you do not know a good chiropractor, try it yourself. Place one hand on your head, another on your chin and yank. Ah! Now read Ephesians 1:4. Still? Perhaps bed is the answer.

Go to bed, rise tomorrow with a clear head, then read Proverbs 16:9, 19:21 and 1 Kings 22:22. If, for whatever reason&#8212;medical or otherwise&#8212;you still believe in free will, take Daniel 4:35, Jeremiah 10:23, Proverbs 21:1, Proverbs 20:24 and Isaiah 10:15 and call me in the morning. As long as you are neither pregnant nor nursing a baby, take two readings of Ephesians 1:11. Caution: do not exceed this recommended dosage. At higher doses, unbearable relief may occur.
Warning: these verses may cause excitability in theologians and seminary students. Avoid operating a motor vehicle while reading these verses. A persistent reliance on orthodox tradition may be a sign of a serious condition. If your belief in free will persists for more than a week, tends to recur, or is accompanied by rash, pride (or rash pride) and a general looking down on others, accompanied by a false estimation of self, consult your Savior.

 

[Zecryphon]

They abandoned Limbo, kind of. Limbo is clearly a part of Hell reserved for righteous unbelievers (see Dante).

Purgatory is for the saved who still need to work off a few sins before entering into the presence of the Most High.

"Purgatory is for the saved who still need to work off a few sins before entering into the presence of the Most High."

This sounds alot like the Mormon theology behind "blood atonement". They believe there are sins that the blood of Christ didn't pay for, so they have to spill their own blood or the blood of others to pay for the sin that's been committed. So which sins did Jesus blood not pay for? Also, imo, this belief makes Jesus a liar. Jesus said "It is finished", apparently not if what you present here is in fact true.