UR verses are not taken out of context its the only view that is not out of context

[Jeff Saunders]

Over and over on this forum I have seen certain people say that the verses that UR use to make the claim that Jesus is the savior of the world and not a potential savior are out of context . I submit that they are the ones who are taking verses or specifically words or word out of context, but they must do so as to not destroy the foundation of their tradition. Lets look at some verses for example; 1John2:2" and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins , and not only for our sins but also for the whole world. " We in UR say that the context is that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for all sins not a potential savoir , for Jesus to be a potential savior you must read that into the text, and just incase someone would miss it John again stated the same thing again 1John4:14" And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world." Notice he did not say potential savior of the world that would be taking the verse out of context. The only reason that the ECT tradition can say its out of context is because they believe all verses that show that Jesus is the savior of the world are out of context because it goes against the foundation of their faith ECT. 1 Tim 4:7-11 Paul is telling Timothy to reject myths then in vs 9 it says " This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance . vs 10 In fact this is why we work hard and struggle , because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of believers' 11 Command and teach these things," what's the context Paul is telling Timothy that the myth is those saying God/Jesus is not the savior of the world, notice he never says potential savior . Mater of fact Timothy is commanded to teach that God is the savior of the world, that's the context. Next look at Romans 5:12-21 this whole section of Romans is comparing what happened because of Adam to what Jesus did, vs12 " So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned." vs 15 " But the gracious gift is not like the transgression , For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many" The context is that the gift Jesus gave is greater that the Sin that Adam brought into the world. Paul is saying that Jesus's gift is greater, had grater effect than the sin of Adam not less. For ECT to be true the Paul would have had to say that Jesus's death would be less powerful that the sin of Adam . The idea that Jesus's death is more powerful then the sin of Adam undercuts the bedrock of ECT , they must have either sin is more powerful than Jesus or our will is more powerful that Jesus, they cant read these verses in context. Romans 11:11-33 vs15 "For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world" not a reconciliation of part of the world but the whole. vs 32 "For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all" it doesn't say to show mercy on a few but all, and if anyone is eternally punished I don't see how that is mercy, but we are the ones who are taking this verse out of context? Col 1:19-20 "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross-through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven" The context is that Jesus is firstborn over all creation ,all things were created by him and for him, he holds all things together in him, and he will reconcile all things to himself. It makes no sense to say he made all, holds all together, but the all in reconciling is not rally all its only some, but they must say that again to uphold the foundation of what they believe. /Is45:22-24 /Phil 2:9-11 the " every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord " In the Greek the word for confess is happily and joyfully not a forced action. the plain reading is the context God exalted Jesus above everything created and all will bow to him, not sum but all. There are many more but this is not a book , The reason they must use believe these are out of context is because anything that goes against ECT or Annihilation has to be out of context because even if it sounds like the passage is saying Jesus is the savior of the world if it goes against their foundation its out of context . I think we can play that game also, We know Jesus is the savior of the world and any verse that seems to say otherwise its out of context , our foundation is on Jesus and his accomplished work of the cross. WE also have a trump card which they reject we know that the word they used for eternal doesn't mean eternal its pertaining to the age, so any verse that says eternal torment is out of context because we know the context of the Bible its Gods love letter to the world of how he is redeeming the world to himself and just as it says in 1Cor15:28 " And when all things are subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all "

 

[Michie]

In the past several years, universalism has seen a resurgence. Many adherents prefer different names for it: inclusion, the greater faith, or the larger hope. Tentmaker calls it "The Victorious Gospel of Jesus Christ."


Universalism applies passages like Acts 3:21 and Colossians 1:20 to mean that God intends to restore all things to their original state of purity through Jesus Christ (Romans 5:18; Hebrews 2:9), so that in the end everyone will be brought into a right relationship with God (1 Corinthians 15:24–28).


But such a view runs counter to the teaching of the Bible that "all who call upon the name of the Lord" will be united to Christ and eternally saved, not all people in general.


Jesus Christ taught that those who reject him as Savior will spend eternity in hell after they die:

• Matthew 10:28
• Matthew 23:33
• Matthew 25:46
• Luke 16:23
• John 3:36

Continued below.

Why Universalism Is Popular, But Fatally Flawed

Universalism is a centuries-old belief that all people will be saved because of God's unconditional love. Learn why the doctrine is fatally flawed.

www.learnreligions.com

 

[Michie]

*Permission to post in full*

God is not going to constantly override our bad judgments—so there has to be something in place to account for our eternal bad judgments.

The Catholic Church has condemned what is sometimes called strong or hard universalism, the idea that we know that everybody is saved. Perhaps weak or soft universalism may be true, which is to say, perhaps everybody, at the end of the day, just so happens to be saved, though it could have been otherwise. So far as I’m aware, Catholics can maintain the soft or weak (or hopeful) universalist view. Whether there are good reasons to is a debate I will not enter now.

On the other hand, there is “infernalism,” a pejorative term for the traditional doctrine of hell. But how can hell be compatible with an all-good God? Let’s see.

Some universalists suggest that hell is impossible because of infinite opportunities for people to repent. In other words, in some sort of war of attrition, God will inevitably win us over. But this ignores a classic position—namely, the postmortem fixity of the will. The idea is that we eternally separate from God and thus eternally will the consequences and punishments thereof. Thus, properly understood, hell is not an infinite consequence for a finite sin, but rather an eternal consequence for an eternal act (orientation) of the will.

In simple terms, the account of postmortem fixity is this: to change our minds, we must either come across new information or consider the information we have from a new perspective. But a traditional understanding of the human person maintains that neither of these conditions attains upon death, when the intellect is separated from the body. In effect, we “angelize” upon death, and the orientation of our will at that point remains thereafter. Nothing “new” or “different” is going to come along to get us to consider things afresh. Although God could perform a “spiritual lobotomy” on everybody who makes the faulty judgment of willing against Gain, God—in his perfectly wise governance—orders things toward their end in accord with their nature. And our nature is one of a fallible liberty—we are free, and we are free to make mistakes, which we do.

God is not going to constantly override our faulty (though culpable) judgments, as that would amount to the constant performance of something on the order of a miracle, which would make nonsense of generating nature (particularly human nature) to begin with. And God isn’t the business of nonsense.

In my experience of introducing the concept of postmortem fixity to universalists, several of them have not only seemed unaware of this traditional teaching, but responded by calling it “strange.” The teaching, however, is not strange; rather, it follows straightforwardly from a traditional metaphysical understanding of the human person, as Edward Feser explains in this lecture. It appears to be a highly probable, if not inevitable, consequence, of good philosophical analysis of the human person.

Now, I said that our nature is one of a fallible liberty, and this too is an important point. Only God (who is subsistent goodness itself) is his own rule; God alone is naturally impeccable, always perfect. Nothing else—neither man nor angel—is like this, and so every being of created liberty must be capable of failing to consider and subsequently apply the moral rule in every instance of judgment, and therefore be capable of sin. In other words, God could no more have created an infallible free creature than he could a square circle.

To appreciate this fact is to appreciate why God, if wanting to bring about creatures like us, necessarily brings about the possibility of our sinning and turning from him. In this sense, love—which requires the uniting of free independent wills—is inherently risky, especially when only one will (God’s) is incapable of sinning.

Now, if we apply the notions above—fallible liberty and postmortem fixity—to God’s mode of governance, we can see why God not only permits our moral failures in this life, but would continue to permit our moral failure to love him in the next life. God is under no obligation to override our moral miscalculation, even if he could. Nor is God any less perfect for not doing so, since it is a matter of Catholic dogma that everyone receives sufficient grace—that is, everything he needs to love God and reject sin. Nobody fails to love God because of what God doesn’t give him; people fail to love God because they indulge in voluntary and therefore culpable ignorance (that is, fail to consider what they habitually know, and really could consider), deciding instead to love some inferior good. If that is the final choice they make, God respects it.

Again, it is not enough for the universalist to dismiss these notions as seeming archaic or strange or what have you. The claim of many universalists, after all, is that universalism is necessarily true, but these notions show that that is not the case. If we have strong independent reason to think universalism is not true—say, from Scripture and Tradition—then all we need are possibilities (not certainties) for why God allows hell and its compatibility with God’s goodness. My suggestion is that a proper understanding of finite fallible liberty, God’s being a perfectly wise governor, and the possibility of the postmortem fixity of the will provide the necessary conceptual resources we need to show the compatibility between an all-good God and the doctrine of hell.

Let me address two other arguments. I’ve heard it said by universalists that God could not be perfectly joyful if anybody were in hell, but God is perfectly joyful; ergo, there can be no one in hell. But if this argument proves anything, it proves too much. After all, if God cannot be perfectly joyful if somebody is in hell, then how can God be perfectly joyful in light of any sin or evil? The answer, obviously, is that he cannot be, and so the position makes God dependent upon creation. If that’s the case, God is no longer really God , who should be in no way dependent upon creation for his perfection. So that argument is not a good one.

Finally, justice and punishment. Part of what motivates universalists are faulty (or at least non-traditional) notions of both. Traditionally, punishment, even eternal punishment, has been seen as itself a good, itself an act of mercy and justice. Boethius stressed this point strongly: it is objectively better for a perpetrator to be punished than to get away with his crime.

As put in The Consolation of Philosophy, “The wicked, therefore, at the time when they are punished, have some good added to them, that is, the penalty itself, which by reason of its justice is good; and in the same way, when they go without punishment, they have something further in them, the very impunity of their evil, which you have admitted is evil because of its injustice . . . Therefore the wicked granted unjust impunity are much less happy than those punished with just retribution.”

If Boethius is right, then hell could—perhaps even should—be seen as God extending the most love, mercy, goodness he can to someone in a self-imposed exile. Ultimately, what would be contrary to justice (giving one what he is due) would be for somebody to eternally reject God and get away with it.

PS: For an extended rebuttal of strong-form universalism, see my recent conversation with Fr. James Rooney.

You Can't Have an All-Good God Without Hell​

God is not going to constantly override our bad judgments—so there has to be something in place to account for our eternal bad judgments.

www.catholic.com

 

[Der Alte]

Over and over on this forum I have seen certain people say that the verses that UR use to make the claim that Jesus is the savior of the world and not a potential savior are out of context . I submit that they are the ones who are taking verses or specifically words or word out of context, but they must do so as to not destroy the foundation of their tradition. Lets look at some verses for example; 1John2:2" and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins , and not only for our sins but also for the whole world. " We in UR say that the context is that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for all sins not a potential savoir , for Jesus to be a potential savior you must read that into the text, and just incase someone would miss it John again stated the same thing again 1John4:14" And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world." Notice he did not say potential savior of the world that would be taking the verse out of context. The only reason that the ECT tradition can say its out of context is because they believe all verses that show that Jesus is the savior of the world are out of context because it goes against the foundation of their faith ECT. 1 Tim 4:7-11 Paul is telling Timothy to reject myths then in vs 9 it says " This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance . vs 10 In fact this is why we work hard and struggle , because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of believers' 11 Command and teach these things," what's the context Paul is telling Timothy that the myth is those saying God/Jesus is not the savior of the world, notice he never says potential savior . Mater of fact Timothy is commanded to teach that God is the savior of the world, that's the context. Next look at Romans 5:12-21 this whole section of Romans is comparing what happened because of Adam to what Jesus did, vs12 " So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned." vs 15 " But the gracious gift is not like the transgression , For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many" The context is that the gift Jesus gave is greater that the Sin that Adam brought into the world. Paul is saying that Jesus's gift is greater, had grater effect than the sin of Adam not less. For ECT to be true the Paul would have had to say that Jesus's death would be less powerful that the sin of Adam . The idea that Jesus's death is more powerful then the sin of Adam undercuts the bedrock of ECT , they must have either sin is more powerful than Jesus or our will is more powerful that Jesus, they cant read these verses in context. Romans 11:11-33 vs15 "For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world" not a reconciliation of part of the world but the whole. vs 32 "For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all" it doesn't say to show mercy on a few but all, and if anyone is eternally punished I don't see how that is mercy, but we are the ones who are taking this verse out of context? Col 1:19-20 "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross-through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven" The context is that Jesus is firstborn over all creation ,all things were created by him and for him, he holds all things together in him, and he will reconcile all things to himself. It makes no sense to say he made all, holds all together, but the all in reconciling is not rally all its only some, but they must say that again to uphold the foundation of what they believe. /Is45:22-24 /Phil 2:9-11 the " every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord " In the Greek the word for confess is happily and joyfully not a forced action. the plain reading is the context God exalted Jesus above everything created and all will bow to him, not sum but all. There are many more but this is not a book , The reason they must use believe these are out of context is because anything that goes against ECT or Annihilation has to be out of context because even if it sounds like the passage is saying Jesus is the savior of the world if it goes against their foundation its out of context . I think we can play that game also, We know Jesus is the savior of the world and any verse that seems to say otherwise its out of context , our foundation is on Jesus and his accomplished work of the cross. WE also have a trump card which they reject we know that the word they used for eternal doesn't mean eternal its pertaining to the age, so any verse that says eternal torment is out of context because we know the context of the Bible its Gods love letter to the world of how he is redeeming the world to himself and just as it says in 1Cor15:28 " And when all things are subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all "

The typical UR bait and switch. No, you do NOT "know" that the Greek word "aionios" "really means" "pertaining to an age." No. 1, "aionios" is an adjective and "age" is a noun. An adjective cannot be translated as a "noun." Phony on-line wannabe scholars try to push that false narrative and UR-ites will search the internet high and low for something, anything, by somebody, somewhere which they can claim supports them. Why does one and only one Greek adjective, in the entire NT, require 4 words to translate it into English? I have repeatedly shown quoting 24 vss. of scripture which conclusively show that "aionios" is defined/described as "eternal." It is never similarly defined/described as any lesser period.
See my 2 posts at these links, where I list 24 vss which define/describe "aionios" as eternal. Which have never been addressed and certainly never been refuted.

the wrath of God

In the Chart I provided, and of which you responded to regarding "ainion," not once is God described as eternal. All the uses of eternal regard God's promises to us. Are you saying that all of the 71 times that "ainion" is used does not mean eternal? As for your claim without evidence: You...

www.christianforums.com

the wrath of God

In the Chart I provided, and of which you responded to regarding "ainion," not once is God described as eternal. All the uses of eternal regard God's promises to us. Are you saying that all of the 71 times that "ainion" is used does not mean eternal? As for your claim without evidence: You...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Michie]

Critics of universalism state that the identical Greek term "aionas ton aionon," which means "ages of the ages," is used in the Bible to describe both the eternal worth of God and the eternal fire of hell. Therefore, they say, either God’s worth, like the fire of hell, must be limited in time, or the fire of hell must be neverending, like God’s worth. Critics say universalists are picking and choosing when aionas ton aionon means "limited."


Universalists reply that to correct the "errors" in translation, they are in the process of producing their own translation of the Bible. However, one of the pillars of Christianity is that the Bible, as the Word of God, is inerrant. When the Bible must be rewritten to accommodate a doctrine, it is the doctrine that is wrong, not the Bible.


One problem with universalism is that it imposes human judgment upon God, saying that logically he cannot be perfect love while punishing sinners in hell. However, God himself warns against attributing human standards to him:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8–9 NIV)

Why Universalism Is Popular, But Fatally Flawed

Universalism is a centuries-old belief that all people will be saved because of God's unconditional love. Learn why the doctrine is fatally flawed.

www.learnreligions.com

 

[Michie]

Universalism directly contradicts what Scripture teaches.

Is universalism / universal salvation biblical? | GotQuestions.org

Is universalism / universal salvation biblical? If Jesus died for the sins of the entire world, does that mean that everyone in the world is saved?

www.gotquestions.org

Christian Universalism — The Think Institute

Will God really send innocent people to Hell for all eternity? Learn what the Bible actually says and whether "Christian Universalism" is a thing. Get equipped to share and defend your faith with the Think Institute.

thethink.institute

Three Biblical Arguments Against Universalism | Rethinking Hell

Below are three biblical arguments against universalism (and an extra one for further reading!). While they offer more than simple proof texts, it would take a much longer article to develop them more…

rethinkinghell.com

 

[Lukaris]

Matthew 12:31-32

 

[Der Alte]

Over and over on this forum I have seen certain people say that the verses that UR use to make the claim that Jesus is the savior of the world and not a potential savior are out of context . I submit that they are the ones who are taking verses or specifically words or word out of context, but they must do so as to not destroy the foundation of their tradition. Lets look at some verses for example; 1John2:2" and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins , and not only for our sins but also for the whole world. " We in UR say that the context is that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for all sins not a potential savoir , for Jesus to be a potential savior you must read that into the text, and just incase someone would miss it John again stated the same thing again 1John4:14" And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world." Notice he did not say potential savior of the world that would be taking the verse out of context. The only reason that the ECT tradition can say its out of context is because they believe all verses that show that Jesus is the savior of the world are out of context because it goes against the foundation of their faith ECT. 1 Tim 4:7-11 Paul is telling Timothy to reject myths then in vs 9 it says " This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance . vs 10 In fact this is why we work hard and struggle , because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of believers' 11 Command and teach these things," what's the context Paul is telling Timothy that the myth is those saying God/Jesus is not the savior of the world, notice he never says potential savior . Mater of fact Timothy is commanded to teach that God is the savior of the world, that's the context. Next look at Romans 5:12-21 this whole section of Romans is comparing what happened because of Adam to what Jesus did, vs12 " So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned." vs 15 " But the gracious gift is not like the transgression , For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many" The context is that the gift Jesus gave is greater that the Sin that Adam brought into the world. Paul is saying that Jesus's gift is greater, had grater effect than the sin of Adam not less. For ECT to be true the Paul would have had to say that Jesus's death would be less powerful that the sin of Adam . The idea that Jesus's death is more powerful then the sin of Adam undercuts the bedrock of ECT , they must have either sin is more powerful than Jesus or our will is more powerful that Jesus, they cant read these verses in context. Romans 11:11-33 vs15 "For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world" not a reconciliation of part of the world but the whole. vs 32 "For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all" it doesn't say to show mercy on a few but all, and if anyone is eternally punished I don't see how that is mercy, but we are the ones who are taking this verse out of context? Col 1:19-20 "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross-through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven" The context is that Jesus is firstborn over all creation ,all things were created by him and for him, he holds all things together in him, and he will reconcile all things to himself. It makes no sense to say he made all, holds all together, but the all in reconciling is not rally all its only some, but they must say that again to uphold the foundation of what they believe. /Is45:22-24 /Phil 2:9-11 the " every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord " In the Greek the word for confess is happily and joyfully not a forced action. the plain reading is the context God exalted Jesus above everything created and all will bow to him, not sum but all. There are many more but this is not a book , The reason they must use believe these are out of context is because anything that goes against ECT or Annihilation has to be out of context because even if it sounds like the passage is saying Jesus is the savior of the world if it goes against their foundation its out of context . I think we can play that game also, We know Jesus is the savior of the world and any verse that seems to say otherwise its out of context , our foundation is on Jesus and his accomplished work of the cross. WE also have a trump card which they reject we know that the word they used for eternal doesn't mean eternal its pertaining to the age, so any verse that says eternal torment is out of context because we know the context of the Bible its Gods love letter to the world of how he is redeeming the world to himself and just as it says in 1Cor15:28 " And when all things are subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all "

That ain't what Jesus says! Anyone can take a bunch of random verses out-of-context, as done here, jam them all together as if they formed one continuous narrative and appear to prove almost anything.
Here is what Jesus, Himself, said NO ifs, ands or buts.

Matthew 7:21-23​

(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.​

(22) Many [NOT a few] will say to me in that day, [i.e. Judgement day] Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?​

(23) And then will I [Jesus] profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

And OBTW whenever I say that a vs. is out-of-context I show exactly how that it true.​

 

[Jeff Saunders]

In the past several years, universalism has seen a resurgence. Many adherents prefer different names for it: inclusion, the greater faith, or the larger hope. Tentmaker calls it "The Victorious Gospel of Jesus Christ."


Universalism applies passages like Acts 3:21 and Colossians 1:20 to mean that God intends to restore all things to their original state of purity through Jesus Christ (Romans 5:18; Hebrews 2:9), so that in the end everyone will be brought into a right relationship with God (1 Corinthians 15:24–28).


But such a view runs counter to the teaching of the Bible that "all who call upon the name of the Lord" will be united to Christ and eternally saved, not all people in general.


Jesus Christ taught that those who reject him as Savior will spend eternity in hell after they die:

• Matthew 10:28
• Matthew 23:33
• Matthew 25:46
• Luke 16:23
• John 3:36

Continued below.

Why Universalism Is Popular, But Fatally Flawed

Universalism is a centuries-old belief that all people will be saved because of God's unconditional love. Learn why the doctrine is fatally flawed.

www.learnreligions.com

Please show me were UR does not believe that " all who call upon the name of the Lord (Jesus) " Every one that I have read would say you are correct that the only way to the Father is through Jesus, the only difference is that no place does scripture say that can only happen while the mortal body is alive, we are not a body that has a spiritual experience we are a spiritual person that starts out with a mortal body but that is temporary. Why do you think that Yahwey only pursues us while we are in the mortal body?

 

[Michie]

Please show me were UR does not believe that " all who call upon the name of the Lord (Jesus) " Every one that I have read would say you are correct that the only way to the Father is through Jesus, the only difference is that no place does scripture say that can only happen while the mortal body is alive, we are not a body that has a spiritual experience we are a spiritual person that starts out with a mortal body but that is temporary. Why do you think that Yahwey only pursues us while we are in the mortal body?

Everyone that calls on Jesus. Many do not. God is not going to force anyone to go against their will. Your religion is false. It is a very twisted version of Scripture out of context.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

That ain't what Jesus says! Anyone can take a bunch of random verses out-of-context, as done here, jam them all together as if they formed one continuous narrative and appear to prove almost anything.
Here is what Jesus, Himself, said NO ifs, ands or buts.

Matthew 7:21-23​

(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.​

(22) Many [NOT a few] will say to me in that day, [i.e. Judgement day] Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?​

(23) And then will I [Jesus] profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

And OBTW whenever I say that a vs. is out-of-context I show exactly how that it true.​

you keep making the same mistake over and over , I agree that after this mortal body dies many will hear those words , they must go to the Lake of Fire but that is not the end of the story , Jesus will still pursue those until they do the same thing all people must do bend the knee to Jesus till scripture is complete and then "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord" You really don't know the whole story, stop thinking that just because you pull a group of scriptures out of context and look at then like that's the end of the story . please show me how the verses I gave are out of context except for the idea that anything that goes against eternal torcher is out of context, that is a week argument.

 

[Michie]

you keep making the same mistake over and over , I agree that after this mortal body dies many will hear those words , they must go to the Lake of Fire but that is not the end of the story , Jesus will still pursue those until they do the same thing all people must do bend the knee to Jesus till scripture is complete and then "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord" You really don't know the whole story, stop thinking that just because you pull a group of scriptures out of context and look at then like that's the end of the story . please show me how the verses I gave are out of context except for the idea that anything that goes against eternal torcher is out of context, that is a week argument.

Haha. Eternal torcher. That says it all...

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Everyone that calls on Jesus. Many do not.

you are making the same mistake as most who believe in ECT . Yes in this life that is true but don't forget this mortal time is not the whole story its just the beginning, most need to go to the refiners fire to get the dross removed then they will call on the name of Jesus.

 

[Michie]

you are making the same mistake as most who believe in ECT . Yes in this life that is true but don't forget this mortal time is not the whole story its just the beginning, most need to go to the refiners fire to get the dross removed then they will call on the name of Jesus.

People that go to purgatory do so without the stain of mortal sin.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Critics of universalism state that the identical Greek term "aionas ton aionon," which means "ages of the ages," is used in the Bible to describe both the eternal worth of God and the eternal fire of hell. Therefore, they say, either God’s worth, like the fire of hell, must be limited in time, or the fire of hell must be neverending, like God’s worth. Critics say universalists are picking and choosing when aionas ton aionon means "limited."


Universalists reply that to correct the "errors" in translation, they are in the process of producing their own translation of the Bible. However, one of the pillars of Christianity is that the Bible, as the Word of God, is inerrant. When the Bible must be rewritten to accommodate a doctrine, it is the doctrine that is wrong, not the Bible.


One problem with universalism is that it imposes human judgment upon God, saying that logically he cannot be perfect love while punishing sinners in hell. However, God himself warns against attributing human standards to him:

Why Universalism Is Popular, But Fatally Flawed

Universalism is a centuries-old belief that all people will be saved because of God's unconditional love. Learn why the doctrine is fatally flawed.

www.learnreligions.com

Please show me one verse that is false that if you replace eternal with of the age. example you will say God is eternal and that is correct so then aionios means eternal, but is God not the God of this age? so to say that God is the God of this age is a correct , so to translate aionios as of this age is correct unless you don't believe that God is the God of this age. I can't find anyplace that if you translate aionios as pertaining to this age it makes the statement false, so why do you believe that is a false translation? besides to say eternal of the eternities doesn't even make sense.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

People that go to purgatory do so without the stain of mortal sin.

show me the scripture to back that up

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Matthew 12:31-32

The way I see this verse is that God is the God of the ages not just this age, scripture is clear that it is the Holy Spirit that convicts the heart and if you reject that its blasphemy , and if your mortal body dies without surrendering you die in your sin . In the next age you do not receive forgiveness until you bend the knee to Jesus , if you continue in rebellion you remain in unforgiveness till you repent, so even in the next age you still must repent and bend the knee to Jesus until then you remain in unforgiveness. But we know that no one can resist God forever that is why scripture says " every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord" If this doesn't happen then scripture would be in error.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

*Permission to post in full*

God is not going to constantly override our bad judgments—so there has to be something in place to account for our eternal bad judgments.

The Catholic Church has condemned what is sometimes called strong or hard universalism, the idea that we know that everybody is saved. Perhaps weak or soft universalism may be true, which is to say, perhaps everybody, at the end of the day, just so happens to be saved, though it could have been otherwise. So far as I’m aware, Catholics can maintain the soft or weak (or hopeful) universalist view. Whether there are good reasons to is a debate I will not enter now.

On the other hand, there is “infernalism,” a pejorative term for the traditional doctrine of hell. But how can hell be compatible with an all-good God? Let’s see.

Some universalists suggest that hell is impossible because of infinite opportunities for people to repent. In other words, in some sort of war of attrition, God will inevitably win us over. But this ignores a classic position—namely, the postmortem fixity of the will. The idea is that we eternally separate from God and thus eternally will the consequences and punishments thereof. Thus, properly understood, hell is not an infinite consequence for a finite sin, but rather an eternal consequence for an eternal act (orientation) of the will.

In simple terms, the account of postmortem fixity is this: to change our minds, we must either come across new information or consider the information we have from a new perspective. But a traditional understanding of the human person maintains that neither of these conditions attains upon death, when the intellect is separated from the body. In effect, we “angelize” upon death, and the orientation of our will at that point remains thereafter. Nothing “new” or “different” is going to come along to get us to consider things afresh. Although God could perform a “spiritual lobotomy” on everybody who makes the faulty judgment of willing against Gain, God—in his perfectly wise governance—orders things toward their end in accord with their nature. And our nature is one of a fallible liberty—we are free, and we are free to make mistakes, which we do.

God is not going to constantly override our faulty (though culpable) judgments, as that would amount to the constant performance of something on the order of a miracle, which would make nonsense of generating nature (particularly human nature) to begin with. And God isn’t the business of nonsense.

In my experience of introducing the concept of postmortem fixity to universalists, several of them have not only seemed unaware of this traditional teaching, but responded by calling it “strange.” The teaching, however, is not strange; rather, it follows straightforwardly from a traditional metaphysical understanding of the human person, as Edward Feser explains in this lecture. It appears to be a highly probable, if not inevitable, consequence, of good philosophical analysis of the human person.

Now, I said that our nature is one of a fallible liberty, and this too is an important point. Only God (who is subsistent goodness itself) is his own rule; God alone is naturally impeccable, always perfect. Nothing else—neither man nor angel—is like this, and so every being of created liberty must be capable of failing to consider and subsequently apply the moral rule in every instance of judgment, and therefore be capable of sin. In other words, God could no more have created an infallible free creature than he could a square circle.

To appreciate this fact is to appreciate why God, if wanting to bring about creatures like us, necessarily brings about the possibility of our sinning and turning from him. In this sense, love—which requires the uniting of free independent wills—is inherently risky, especially when only one will (God’s) is incapable of sinning.

Now, if we apply the notions above—fallible liberty and postmortem fixity—to God’s mode of governance, we can see why God not only permits our moral failures in this life, but would continue to permit our moral failure to love him in the next life. God is under no obligation to override our moral miscalculation, even if he could. Nor is God any less perfect for not doing so, since it is a matter of Catholic dogma that everyone receives sufficient grace—that is, everything he needs to love God and reject sin. Nobody fails to love God because of what God doesn’t give him; people fail to love God because they indulge in voluntary and therefore culpable ignorance (that is, fail to consider what they habitually know, and really could consider), deciding instead to love some inferior good. If that is the final choice they make, God respects it.

Again, it is not enough for the universalist to dismiss these notions as seeming archaic or strange or what have you. The claim of many universalists, after all, is that universalism is necessarily true, but these notions show that that is not the case. If we have strong independent reason to think universalism is not true—say, from Scripture and Tradition—then all we need are possibilities (not certainties) for why God allows hell and its compatibility with God’s goodness. My suggestion is that a proper understanding of finite fallible liberty, God’s being a perfectly wise governor, and the possibility of the postmortem fixity of the will provide the necessary conceptual resources we need to show the compatibility between an all-good God and the doctrine of hell.

Let me address two other arguments. I’ve heard it said by universalists that God could not be perfectly joyful if anybody were in hell, but God is perfectly joyful; ergo, there can be no one in hell. But if this argument proves anything, it proves too much. After all, if God cannot be perfectly joyful if somebody is in hell, then how can God be perfectly joyful in light of any sin or evil? The answer, obviously, is that he cannot be, and so the position makes God dependent upon creation. If that’s the case, God is no longer really God , who should be in no way dependent upon creation for his perfection. So that argument is not a good one.

Finally, justice and punishment. Part of what motivates universalists are faulty (or at least non-traditional) notions of both. Traditionally, punishment, even eternal punishment, has been seen as itself a good, itself an act of mercy and justice. Boethius stressed this point strongly: it is objectively better for a perpetrator to be punished than to get away with his crime.

As put in The Consolation of Philosophy, “The wicked, therefore, at the time when they are punished, have some good added to them, that is, the penalty itself, which by reason of its justice is good; and in the same way, when they go without punishment, they have something further in them, the very impunity of their evil, which you have admitted is evil because of its injustice . . . Therefore the wicked granted unjust impunity are much less happy than those punished with just retribution.”

If Boethius is right, then hell could—perhaps even should—be seen as God extending the most love, mercy, goodness he can to someone in a self-imposed exile. Ultimately, what would be contrary to justice (giving one what he is due) would be for somebody to eternally reject God and get away with it.

PS: For an extended rebuttal of strong-form universalism, see my recent conversation with Fr. James Rooney.

You Can't Have an All-Good God Without Hell​

God is not going to constantly override our bad judgments—so there has to be something in place to account for our eternal bad judgments.

www.catholic.com

If Gods will is dependent on our will then then he is dependent on his creation. You make the claim that our will trumps Gods will , I believe Gods will trumps our will. Scripture says " Its Gods will none parish"1 Tim2:3-6 Gods will always trumps mans will , He will lose none of his creation, we are not truly complete till we yield to Jesus , we are all made in Gods image and he made us in such a way that we can't reject him forever he will pursue us till we are found like the one lost sheep who didn't walk back but Jesus carried it back. Why else would scripture say "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord" , if he really meant some will bow and some will confess?

 

[Der Alte]

you keep making the same mistake over and over , I agree that after this mortal body dies many will hear those words , they must go to the Lake of Fire but that is not the end of the story , Jesus will still pursue those until they do the same thing all people must do bend the knee to Jesus till scripture is complete and then "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord" You really don't know the whole story, stop thinking that just because you pull a group of scriptures out of context and look at then like that's the end of the story . please show me how the verses I gave are out of context except for the idea that anything that goes against eternal torcher is out of context, that is a week argument.

I don't have the time or inclination to try to address all the vss. you quoted. And you should know in addition to English, I read 3 more languages and do not require any explanation of what anything really means in the Bible.
If you think I quoted anything out-of-context show me exactly how?

 

[Michie]

If Gods will is dependent on our will then then he is dependent on his creation. You make the claim that our will trumps Gods will , I believe Gods will trumps our will. Scripture says " Its Gods will none parish"1 Tim2:3-6 Gods will always trumps mans will , He will lose none of his creation, we are not truly complete till we yield to Jesus , we are all made in Gods image and he made us in such a way that we can't reject him forever he will pursue us till we are found like the one lost sheep who didn't walk back but Jesus carried it back. Why else would scripture say "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord" , if he really meant some will bow and some will confess?

Not biting I’m not going to debate a false Gospel with you. It’s like debating Jack in the Beanstalk. If I have something to say, I’ll say it. Scripture is right there to read in it’s full context. Universalism is false.