Universal Reconciliation

[G4m]

Umm.. verse 12... If we deny him, He will deny us...

Verse 13 is not saying that if we are not faith ful to Him, He will still save us, by being Faith ful to us.. it is saying that it we are not Faithful to him, He will still be Faithful to His word... He cannot deny Himself... from verse 12, He will deny us (not Himself) if we deny Him, thus, if we are not Faithful to him, He will deny us, and the promise to do so is kept in verse 13.



He didn't set us up to fail... He just knew we would... Most do not see a differeence in that, but there is one.

God didn't have to put the serpent there, could have just sent Him straight to "hell." He could have made it so no one would fall...

Think about this statement outside the topic for a moment... I see God one way, you see another. I am not confused, and yet you are. God is complex, yes.. and I do not understand him, but what I do undrstand is not confusing. God is not the author of confusion. Any understadning you have recieved from Him should not be confusing. Think about that for a bit...

I think you misunderstood me. confusing because God is allowing things contrary to His will (for a time), but ultimately His purpose is achieved. But for the time, He does allow and plan things that seem contrary to His final objective.

But what you say is very true! Most christians blindly swallow the trinity but totally admit they don't understand it...

But.. ages to do what? to continue saving mankind? Let me ask, where is sin at this point? Where does it exist? What does it affect? If Jesus Christ still mediating between sinners, and God? God cannot be int he presence of sin, thus unless Jesus is still mediating, how will the lost come to Him?

Why can't Christ continue to mediate when we die?

And God not being in the prescence of sin? What about Enoch and Elijah?

I am curious why you have "accuse" in this verse, sense it means something different than "contend" which is generally a more "correct" word to you, given the menaing of the Hebrew: riyb.

Also, God never needs to accuse us of being what we already are: sinners.

That's the NIV translation. Could you please explain what this verse means in the sense you are looking at it?

Isaiah 57
16 I will not accuse forever,
nor will I always be angry,
for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me-
the breath of man that I have created.

This isn't judgement.. "the end" here is that of the reign of man, of sin, or Satan. It will end.

And, this verse can't realluy be udsed to support or deny universalism, because it does not deal will the outcome of being sinful.

OK, but how is God all in all, if the majority of His creation are forever separated from Him?

That's the debate though: Is "Israel" in this verse all mankind? Or it Israel in this verse, all those who are saved by Faith through Grace before the rapture of the church? I lean toward the second one... A universalist leans toward the first.

Can you can show me the scripture that proves this reference to Israel, is not Israel?

Mercy does not equate to salvation.

From scripture I can only see that salvation depends on God's mercy only, otherwise we would have room to boast.

Romans 9
16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.


But, again thanks for starting this thread, I hope it can continue in truth and love...

 

[john14_20]

That is an interesting list of out-of-context proof texts.....

I am surprised at you Der Alter. I have enjoyed reading your posts in many threads.

I am surprised because you accuse me of providing a list of out of context proof verses when that is all you do too!

Let's get honest. Sit down and read the NT and if you want to find universalism, you will find it.

If you want to find Calvainsim, you will.

If you want to find Arminianism, you will.

And herein lies the problem.

Blessings to all, Pete

 

[john14_20]

Mercy does not equate to salvation.

Well, mercy is a pretty pointless exercise then, isn't it!

 

[G4m]

Isaiah 46
8 "Remember this, fix it in mind,
take it to heart, you rebels.
9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.
11 From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that will I bring about;
what I have planned, that will I do.
12 Listen to me, you stubborn-hearted,
you who are far from righteousness.
13 I am bringing my righteousness near,
it is not far away;
and my salvation will not be delayed.
I will grant salvation to Zion,
my splendor to Israel.

 

[G4m]

Sit down and read the NT and if you want to find universalism, you will find it.

If you want to find Calvainsim, you will.

If you want to find Arminianism, you will.

And herein lies the problem.

Blessings to all, Pete

Hey john14_20!

This is definately the problem and will be until God reveals all truth to each of us...

 

[Der Alte]

I am surprised at you Der Alter. I have enjoyed reading your posts in many threads.

I am surprised because you accuse me of providing a list of out of context proof verses when that is all you do too!

Let's get honest. Sit down and read the NT and if you want to find universalism, you will find it.

If you want to find Calvainsim, you will.

If you want to find Arminianism, you will.

And herein lies the problem.

Blessings to all, Pete

I am honest and I have studied the Bible, probably for about 1-2 decades longer than you have been around. I have a fairly good sized personal Theological library, including TWOT, BAGD, TDNT, Louw-Nida, and BDB, and I have three Bible programs and the BAGD on my home computer.

If you think I post out-of-context proof texts, please do show me. Start with the two I posted here and show me how they are out-of-context. I have picked 3 of yours, Jn 12:47, Eph 1:11, and 1 Jn 4:14, and will do the same.

You're right, you can find Universalism in the Bible by reading/quoting texts out-of-context, and ignoring texts which do not support it.

 

[john14_20]

Hey john14_20!

This is definately the problem and will be until God reveals all truth to each of us...

That's right G4m.

I am quite happy to admit that what I believe, I do so by faith. It is an interpretation of Scripture.

What makes my blood boil is when arrogant people refuse to acknowledge that they do the same thing.

We are all believing an interpretation of Scripture, but people so often refuse to acknowledge that. They say that anyone who disagrees with them is interpreting, but they are believing what the Bible actually says!

Oh the arrogance of some.

Blessings to you, Pete

 

[john14_20]

I am honest and I have studied the Bible, probably for about 1-2 decades longer than you have been around. I have a fairly good sized personal Theological library, including TWOT, BAGD, TDNT, Louw-Nida, and BDB, and I have three Bible programs and the BAGD on my home computer.

I thought you were above this sort of thing. I am sure the pope would have said something similar to Martin Luther - didn't make him right, did it?


I have zero interest in getting into a Scriptural war with you.

You don't want to believe in UR so no amount of Scriptural eveidence will satisfy you. Trading verses helps no-one

Blessings Pete

 

[Der Alte]

That's right G4m.

I am quite happy to admit that what I believe, I do so by faith. It is an interpretation of Scripture.

What makes my blood boil is when arrogant people refuse to acknowledge that they do the same thing.

We are all believing an interpretation of Scripture, but people so often refuse to acknowledge that. They say that anyone who disagrees with them is interpreting, but they are believing what the Bible actually says!

Oh the arrogance of some.

Blessings to you, Pete

You're right some are really arrogant, talking down to people who disagree with them and making accusations behind their back.

I take this to mean that you cannot or will not show me how the scriptures I posted are quoted out-of-context or otherwise interpreted in a way contrary to the meaning of the text, as you alleged. I would suggest, if you can't back up an accusation, don't make it. Whatever you choose to do I will still show how the three verses, out of the list you posted, are deliberately quoted out-of-context, which substantially changes the meaning.

And while reading the scriptures, or any writing, does require some degree of interpretation, one should make sure their understanding is as near as possible to the meaning the writer intended. To that end I read both Hebrew and Greek.

ככלב שב על-קאו כסל שונה באולתו

sumbebhken de autoiV to thV alhqouV paroimiaV kuwn epistreyaV epi to idion ecerama​

 

[Der Alte]

I thought you were above this sort of thing. I am sure the pope would have said something similar to Martin Luther - didn't make him right, did it?

I have zero interest in getting into a Scriptural war with you.

You don't want to believe in UR so no amount of Scriptural eveidence will satisfy you. Trading verses helps no-one

Blessings Pete

What am I supposed to be above? You implied I did not study the Bible and I posted some of the well known Biblical reference works that I own.

I don't even understand your reference to Martin Luther.

"I have zero interest in getting into a Scriptural war with you." As I said before in another thread, when my neighbor's house is on fire, I will warn him, and call the F.D., even if I don't really get along with him and his dog does his business on my front lawn.

So I'm very curious why someone who is or claims to be a follower of Christ is not interested in correcting the, according to them, false beliefs of their neighbor. Seems strange that "all," someone was emphasizing doesn't extend to anyone who disagrees with them.

But I guess according to UR, it does not matter what one believes, everyone will be saved regardless. Steven, the martyr, will sit down with Stalin, Moses will fellowship with Mussolini, and Aaron will break bread with Adolf Hitler.

 

[john14_20]

Hello Der Alter, blessings to you!

You implied I did not study the Bible

No I did not. If you read that there it was not my intent. As I said earlier I have read and enjoyed many of your posts. You have always struck me as a well read and knowledegable scholar.

But that's just the point isn't it?

I said in another thread that there are some brilliant scholars who are Arminian and some equally brillian scholars who are Calvinistic.

It isn't a matter of intelligence. It isn't a clear cut academic issue. If it were, all the highly trained theologians would agree with each other.

So when you say to me, "I have studied the Bible, probably for about 1-2 decades longer than you have been around", it really doesn't prove anything, does it?

But I guess according to UR, it does not matter what one believes, everyone will be saved regardless. Steven, the martyr, will sit down with Stalin, Moses will fellowship with Mussolini, and Aaron will break bread with Adolf Hitler.

Universal reconcilliation does not necessarily lead to universalism. With your decades more study than me, I thought you would have known that.

You're right, you

can find Universalism in the Bible by reading/quoting texts out-of-context, and ignoring texts which do not support it.

Cut out the italics - anybody who wants to find it can find it. You don't and thats fine. I have no problem with that.

The Arminian will quote the verses at face value that support his argument and then go and interpret and explain the verses that don't.

The Calvinist is no different. Nor am I or the large number of other believers in UR.

We all quote our favourite verses to support our arguments and we have our ways of explaining away the problematic verses. Very few people will actually ignore the problem verses, as you unfoundedly accuse me of. I'm just not bothering getting into an argument about it because it is pointless. Many of us - if not most - will delve into the Greek and Hebrew to assist us in explaining the problem verses.

The surprise here is that I appear to be one of very few people who does not find this whole scenario problematic!

Again and again I find people who utterly refuse to admit that what they are believing is an interpretation of Scripture, as opposed to what the Scriptures actually say. But everyone is believing an interpretation of Scripture.

The sooner everyone comes down off the Scriptural and academic high horse and just admits that we all believe what we do because we think we are right, but in the end we could be wrong, we will all be alot friendlier to one another.

 

[john14_20]

As I said before in another thread, when my neighbor's house is on fire, I will warn him, and call the F.D., even if I don't really get along with him and his dog does his business on my front lawn.

So I'm very curious why someone who is or claims to be a follower of Christ is not interested in correcting the, according to them, false beliefs of their neighbor.

We are not saved by the accuracy of our theology.

We are saved by Jesus Christ.

He is at the centre of the soteriology of the Calvinist, the Arminian and the UR - it is only the 'how' question being discussed here.

I am not desperate to correct your false view (of course, false in my opinion, not necessarily false!) because your salvation is not in any way dependant on it.

We will see each other in Heaven one day and one of us will say to the other "Hey, you were right!" - And we'll have a laugh and a hug!

 

[john14_20]

I decided to start a new thread on this topic continued from the 97 page eternal torment topic..

My question there was

Will God force this reconciliation? If so, then why bother at all with Dying on the cross? If not then how will those who reject Him be reconciled?

Hey Zone Chaos - I have been posting here and realised I never addressed your question specifically!

So, here goes.

The reconcilliation of the human race, the entire human race, to the Father, has already happened in the Incarnation and Atonement of Jesus Christ. We have all already been reconciled to the Father. Why bother with dying on the cross? Because that's the way He forged that reconcilliation.

But to say that the whole world has been reconciled to the Father in Jesus is not the same thing as to say that the whole world will be in Heaven.

Blessings to all in Christ's Glorious name, Pete

 

[Received]

But I guess according to UR, it does not matter what one believes, everyone will be saved regardless. Steven, the martyr, will sit down with Stalin, Moses will fellowship with Mussolini, and Aaron will break bread with Adolf Hitler.

The important point here is that human beings are also human becomings; the person I was ten years ago -- or, for that matter, the one I was when I was pasting your reply -- is not the same as the one now: that is, in the perpetually progressing point of present unto eternity. Who Hitler was is not who he will be if indeed eternal reconciliation is true.

 

[G4m]

Just for fun...

S is for SATAN



SATAN is also known as the Devil. He is an evil-looking fellow with horns, forked tail, and bad breath.

Satan has been playing against God (See GOD) for a long time now, trying to take over control of the Universe. Of course God made up the game in the first place, so he's not too concerned about the outcome.

The pieces God and Satan play with are called People. Many of these pieces enjoy telling each other that as soon as Satan loses, the New Age will begin.

Oh yeah. Who are they trying to kid? As soon as anybody loses, the game is over. Then all the pieces go back in the box.

From:
http://www.well.com/~mick/na.s-t.html#satan

 

[Received]

I would also point out that such phrases as "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God" do not refer to eschatological events or realms, quite interestingly, but to the ontological present. Eternal life is life of quality, not duration. For example:

"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." -- John 17:3 (NASB)

"...nor will they say, "See here!' or "See there!' for indeed, the kingdom of God is within you." -- Luke 17:21 (NKJV)

Similarly, eternal punishment is not of duration, but quality. Two points bring this idea to common sense:

1) It is inconceivable to freely admit (that is, without theological limitations) that a slew of sins, regardless of their depth, aside from sheer rebellion, should be worthy of eternal torment. To claims as Anselm that the punishment depends on the subject offended -- God -- is contrary to every form of the retributivist model.
2) In the scriptural claim, "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:46), the word eternal here must mean that of perfection (the presence of God -- Rev. 14:10), for the word meaning 'punishment' in Greek, in all other uses of Greek literature, conveys the idea of retribution and rehabilitation according to such as William Barclay.

 

[Received]

Universal reconcilliation does not necessarily lead to universalism. With your decades more study than me, I thought you would have known that.

Indeed; there are different forms of Universalism that people commonly falsely juxtapose; the first is that all will be reconciled after their death, held by such as Hosea Ballou I believe; the second is the belief that we will eventually all be reconciled to God, following however long it takes for punishment to let us reveal our imperfection, which arises only from a rebellion that should not be there in the first place.

 

[ZoneChaos]

God didn't have to put the serpent there, could have just sent Him straight to "hell." He could have made it so no one would fall...

And that scenario would have made the best sense if salvation were universal.. But for whatever reason, God wanted man to have a choice to accept or reject salvation.

I think you misunderstood me. confusing because God is allowing things contrary to His will (for a time), but ultimately His purpose is achieved. But for the time, He does allow and plan things that seem contrary to His final objective.

Borderline "Perfect / permissive will"

Why can't Christ continue to mediate when we die?

Simply: He can mediate between us and God because of His dual nature of being fully god and Fully man... Father is God, Jesus is God, Jesus is Man, we are man. What happens when we die, and lose all that makes us man? Our flesh? We lose that link between us and Jesus Christ, our mediator.

Deeper: It is apoointed to man to die once, then judgement. After death, we are judged, not saved, not wait around a while, then get saved when we are ready. We die, we are judged by the merits: by what we did or did not do in Life.. namely, Beleive and accept salvation by grace through Faith. Salvation by grace, through faith is meaningless after death, because Faith is no longer required, as everything is known. Things are no longer hoped for and thigns are no longer unseen. Death takes faith out of the equation, and thus nullifies the equation: salvation no longer is possible.

And God not being in the prescence of sin? What about Enoch and Elijah?

Jesus Christ, as God, is the same yesterday, today and always. He has always been, and always will be. Jesus was our mediator then as well as now. It was Jesus Christ, the Son of god who walked with Adam in the garden. It was Jesus who was with Enoch and with Elijah.

That's the NIV translation. Could you please explain what this verse means in the sense you are looking at it?

Isaiah 57
16 I will not accuse forever,
nor will I always be angry,
for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me-
the breath of man that I have created.

Actually, contend is used int he KJV, whoch I believe is the version I quoted. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, ASV, HNV, Webster's, and Darby all use "contend".

If I were to read the verse above, I would use the definition of "accuse" where accuse it, and not "contend". I would then get a very different verse.

OK, but how is God all in all, if the majority of His creation are forever separated from Him?

Seperation does not mean He is not in control. Hell will still exist. Satan will be seperate from Him, yet God is still all in all. The Beast, the AntiChrist, all those that will go into the lake of fire will be seperate from him, and yet He is still allin all, so it is with man. Man can and will be seperate from God for eternity, if man chooses to, and God will still be God.

Can you can show me the scripture that proves this reference to Israel, is not Israel?

But it is Israel... just not the nation proper, but rather the saved. The two groups a mentioned in my last post were: All mankind or all those who were saved (non-universalist view).

From scripture I can only see that salvation depends on God's mercy only, otherwise we would have room to boast.

What scripture? I know of "salvation by faith thorugh grace... faith being key there...

Romans 9

16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

I agree with Roman's 9, but in conjuction with Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:"

Without Faith, as I asked above, how is there salvation?

 

[john14_20]

"

Why can't Christ continue to mediate for us after we die? - Simply: He can mediate between us and God because of His dual nature of being fully god and Fully man... Father is God, Jesus is God, Jesus is Man, we are man. What happens when we die, and lose all that makes us man? Our flesh? We lose that link between us and Jesus Christ, our mediator

."
Of course Christ continues to mediate for us. What's this silly talk about us ceasing to be man after we die? We will always be man and God will always be God. ANd Jesus will always be both.

Blessings, Pete

 

[ZoneChaos]

" ."
Of course Christ continues to mediate for us. What's this silly talk about us ceasing to be man after we die? We will always be man and God will always be God. ANd Jesus will always be both.

Blessings, Pete

Question...

What happenes if we fail to reconcile to God before we die?