Universalism...why not?

[Mike Fleming]

This whole story has it's basis in the OT, and the law of Moses, and Father Abraham. There is nothing in this to suggest a NT correlation. Jesus was speaking to Jews still under the law. If it did speak to you/me, then every Christian in America would be just as deserving of this "hell". This hell was for a man who's only 'qualifying wrongs' were he "was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day".....period, end of his wrongs. Hmmm, dare I say; HELLo America....overly rich, overly dressed, over fed and FAT...compared to most of the world. So, if you want to go to "Abe's bosom" (I prefer the bosom of Christ ) you go ahead. But, to qualify, according to this story, you must meet the standards of Lazarus; E.G. "poor, full of sores, hungry"....period.

But wait, there's hope for us in this 'story'. There was this "chasm which couldn't be crossed"!!!! Why not???? Wait a minute, PRAISE GOD, I know, I know, Because Jesus hadn't died yet. You do remember all those Chick tracts we used to hand out with the CROSS of Christ bridging the gap across the CHASM that separates us from God, I hope. Well maybe you don't remember, but hopefully there's a few around here who do.

To go to heaven does not mean to have money or to be economically poor. It means

If all means Jews and Gentiles in general rather than all men, then we can no longer use Romans 5:18 to say that Adam's one trespass led to condemnation for all men. I guess some men weren't condemned by Adam's one trespass.

If all means Jews and Gentiles in general rather than all men, then we can no longer use Romans 5:18 to say that Adam's one trespass led to condemnation for all men. I guess some men weren't condemned by Adam's one trespass.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I appreciate your input but am not sure we are understanding each other. What I was trying to at there was that I believe the term "gentile" refers to everyone else of any race and cultural experience aside from the Jews. For me, this would include "all" men. Is this not the same?

 

[surrender1]

To go to heaven does not mean to have money or to be economically poor. It means


I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I appreciate your input but am not sure we are understanding each other. What I was trying to at there was that I believe the term "gentile" refers to everyone else of any race and cultural experience aside from the Jews. For me, this would include "all" men. Is this not the same?

Romans 5:18
Therefore as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

What I'm saying is that all means the same thing in both places. Don't you agree?

 

[Mike Fleming]

Romans 5:18
Therefore as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

What I'm saying is that all means the same thing in both places. Don't you agree?

I do agree. This is the base of the gospel message. That it is available to all. I believe, however, that it is on the condition of accepting Christ based on 1 Cor. 1:2, "I am writing to God’s church in Corinth, to you who have been called by God to be his own holy people. He made you holy by means of Christ Jesus, just as he did for all people everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours." This was my intepretation of Paul's use of the term "all men," as available to anyone and everyone who calls on the name of Jesus for their salvation.

 

[Hillsage]

To go to heaven does not mean to have money or to be economically poor. It means

I don't know if you never meant to finish the sentence above, but I'm just dealing with the 'story' you presented. A story which has nothing to do with the context you applied it to IMO. That context being; accepting the work of Christ on the cross for salvation. So for you to use it in this discussion, then you are going to have to explain how it fits. I believe I've explained how it doesn't fit.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I appreciate your input but am not sure we are understanding each other. What I was trying to at there was that I believe the term "gentile" refers to everyone else of any race and cultural experience aside from the Jews. For me, this would include "all" men. Is this not the same?

I AM SURE we don't understand each other. For in these verses when ALL refers to ADAM/DEATH etc. then the 'comparative' ALL in those very same verses has to apply to everyone. Pretty simple fact IMO.

IOW, you can assume ALL means "gentile", which means 'all other men', but I don't think scripture allows you the luxury of that assumption. Especially when it comes to the sacrificial work of Christ, a point which Surrender1 just addressed, and I'll even add to.

1JO 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. EG ALL

2CO 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

The unilateral propitiation price for sin was PAID for ALL and unilateral reconciliation was made for ALL. No one has to 'accept Jesus' for the price to be paid, it WAS/IS PAID.

 

[Mike Fleming]

I don't know if you never meant to finish the sentence above, but I'm just dealing with the 'story' you presented. A story which has nothing to do with the context you applied it to IMO. That context being; accepting the work of Christ on the cross for salvation. So for you to use it in this discussion, then you are going to have to explain how it fits. I believe I've explained how it doesn't fit.


I AM SURE we don't understand each other. For in these verses when ALL refers to ADAM/DEATH etc. then the 'comparative' ALL in those very same verses has to apply to everyone. Pretty simple fact IMO.

IOW, you can assume ALL means "gentile", which means 'all other men', but I don't think scripture allows you the luxury of that assumption. Especially when it comes to the sacrificial work of Christ, a point which Surrender1 just addressed, and I'll even add to.

1JO 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. EG ALL

2CO 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

The unilateral propitiation price for sin was PAID for ALL and unilateral reconciliation was made for ALL. No one has to 'accept Jesus' for the price to be paid, it WAS/IS PAID.

So are you suggesting that ALL people are saved automatically without the need repentance from sins or the confession of faith in Jesus Christ?

 

[Hillsage]

I do agree. This is the base of the gospel message. That it is available to all. I believe, however, that it is on the condition of accepting Christ based on 1 Cor. 1:2, "I am writing to God’s church in Corinth, to you who have been called by God to be his own holy people. He made you holy by means of Christ Jesus, just as he did for all people everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours." This was my intepretation of Paul's use of the term "all men," as available to anyone and everyone who calls on the name of Jesus for their salvation.

'Consistency is most certainly a jewel to be sought for', but you guys are consistent in what scripture is NOT saying IMO. No where do I see the gospel of 'forgiveness' as not being AVAILABLE to all, as you are. That judgment of yours, again is your assumption based upon your indoctrination. But when you understand that all are not "called, drawn, chosen, predestined, ordained to believe" you force God into your 'little box' understanding which makes God a great big cosmic Hitler of eternal shameful proportions. I thank God 'our box' is a bit bigger.

MAT 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen." So, many called....OK I agree, but add 'drawn, predestined' and lastly ordained to believe.....not in any scripture I know. So share your scripture which do.

 

[surrender1]

I do agree. This is the base of the gospel message. That it is available to all. I believe, however, that it is on the condition of accepting Christ based on 1 Cor. 1:2, "I am writing to God’s church in Corinth, to you who have been called by God to be his own holy people. He made you holy by means of Christ Jesus, just as he did for all people everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours." This was my intepretation of Paul's use of the term "all men," as available to anyone and everyone who calls on the name of Jesus for their salvation.

Romans 5:18
Therefore as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Are all men condemned according to Paul? Does all mean all?

 

[mkgal1]

People seem to believe that God, being a loving God, cannot sentence someone to punishment for sin.

Why is that?

Yes, God is love, God is merciful, God would love to see all souls saved.
However, God is just. He cannot have people in His presence and spending eternity in fellowship with Him if they are sinful, tarnished, blemished, impure or as these things are described... as filthy rags. People who are unforgiven would be consumed by His total righteousness. Sin cannot exist in His presence.

First off....HUMANS aren't described as "filthy rags" anywhere in the Bible (it's "righteous" acts that are). The text of Psalm 51 mentions David's understanding of God's desire for our brokenness and contrite hearts (relationship) over any sacrifice (empty acts):

"For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." Psalm 51:16-17

I take that (and the entire plot of the Bible, actually) to mean that God's desire is our genuine relationship with Him (not empty acts ). That's the filter I read the Bible through (and, as it's already been mentioned in this thread.....we ALL read through SOME sort of filter).

I've seen the results of both a "punishment" system and a system based on "restorative justice" like this one--founded by Father Greg Boyle:

I'm of the belief that God's justice is restorative. A system of "punishment" results in the person being punished getting more isolated.....more dishonest.....more resentful, etc. I can't see that lining up with God's character.

The only way to overcome your sin is by paying the penalty, which is death.
There is no way around that. God cannot break the rules He has set out or are the laws of His universal reign.

So, Christ was the way around. He paid the price of death. God has no choice.

I could be reading this wrong.....but the way you phrased this, it almost seems as if you believe Jesus had one will (to "save" us) and God, the Father, had another (for us to get the death penalty). Is that what you believe? If so.....I disagree.

Jesus came to reveal the Father. When Jesus said (on the cross) "forgive them, for they know not what they do"......that's in agreement with the Father (not Jesus pleading for forgiveness on our behalf--as if the Father willed for something different). There is ONE God ("I and my Father are one"--John 10:30) .....Jesus said "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).

BTW--substitutionary atonement *theory* is just one of many theories the church holds to (I am not a believer of it).

 

[ClementofA]

Threads like this exist because most people refuse to accept all Scripture.
God IS the savior of all mankind, in MANY ways, but He has a very SPECIAL salvation for those who believe.
Lam 3:31 is talking about the restoration of natural Israel, not every individual.
The Scriptures you list are wonderful, but they don't make the points you claim.
Please explain the utter lack of any sermon or explanation that matches your position.

A simple internet search will turn up many such "explanations".

Likewise a search of this forum.

For those with an open mind & seeking heart for truth.

 

[mkgal1]

It's very appropriate that Surrender used the account of the Prodigal Son as the OP. The way this thread has continued, IMO, the responses have even made the point more clear of the contrast in that account (the "law following" son and the relational son). The older, law-following son wasn't able to rejoice with his father when his brother returned. There seems to be a similar sentiment going on in this thread.

 

[mkgal1]

Threads like this exist because most people refuse to accept all Scripture.

No.....(and I will only speak for myself) it's because ALL Scripture wasn't fitting what I had originally been told that I have arrived at my belief system. Now (believing as I do) it makes ALL Scripture fit--and I don't have difficulty accepting ALL Scripture.

BTW.....you know how we have Godwin's Law--that online discussions will eventually have the comparison to Hitler? What's it called when we know that this phrase will get used as an argument (because it certainly IS a law that we can count on that this phrase will always be used)?

 

[Kerensa]

It's very appropriate that Surrender used the account of the Prodigal Son as the OP. The way this thread has continued, IMO, the responses have even made the point more clear that there's a contrast in that account (the "law following" son and the relational son). The older, law-following son wasn't able to rejoice with his father when his brother returned. There seems to be a similar sentiment going on in this thread.

Funny, mkgal1, I was just thinking of that parable too as I've been following this thread. It struck me that at the end of the story (the part that's less often discussed), the ONLY one left out of the celebration is the older brother. Not because his father doesn't love him or isn't willing to let him in. He shuts himself out of his father's house — in his utter self-righteous indignation and outrage that his brother who doesn't deserve such attention (unlike himself, of course) is getting such unconditional, unbreakable, unrelenting love lavished upon him.

Interesting to think about in the context of universalists vs We're-The-Only-Ones-Who'll-Go-To-Heaven-ists, isn't it?

 

[mkgal1]

He shuts himself out of his father's house — in his utter self-righteous indignation and outrage that his brother who doesn't deserve such attention (unlike himself, of course) is getting such unconditional, unbreakable, unrelenting love lavished upon him.

Really well-said, Kerensa.

 

[mkgal1]

If someone is truly interested--these are what I believe are some great resources on the Universal Reconciliation belief (Apocatastasis )
Does Hell Exist? If So, Who Ends Up There, And Why? - Hellbound the Movie

Inventing Hell: Dante, the Bible and Eternal Torment: Jon M. Sweeney: 9781455582242: Amazon.com: Books

Full CD (or download): Hell, No! ~ CD

 

[ClementofA]

"burned up" .. "leave them neither root nor branch" .... "they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet".

These words (Mal 4:1-3) could be said of the people of Sodom. Have they been annihilated forever? No.

Scriptural Evidence of Universalism

 

[ClementofA]

No, Christ will turn the kingdom over to his God, in recognition that his God is "All in All" .... the SUPREME being.

All WILL be made alive! In this order:
1) Christ the first fruits (roughly 33AD)
2) Those that are Christs AT his coming (sometime future to today)
3) The wicked (1000 years after Christ's return (Rev 20))

As in Adam all die

 

[The Times]

He is a very strange Orthodox who sounds very much like he is a recent convert from Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism.

I was born into Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is not what you make it out to be. There is absolutely no teaching that has testing of soul after a person dies. Once a person dies, then immediately they are judged every man according to their works.

I have sat in countless liturgies and sermons towards the end, when the priest ministers and I have never heard of such Universalist teachings. In fact I have been well acquainted that the Christian world is heading towards Rome for a uniting of religions, Christian and others and this where Universalist teaching plays at that and references certain church fathers out of context to further the ecumenical agenda.

I don't go with the flow, I'm Orthodox and so I reflect on the churche's past teachings and will not break with them in order to support this one world religious antithesis foley.

 

[mkgal1]

I have never heard of such Universalist teachings

That's interesting. This is from OrthoWiki (I've read that this belief isn't centered in one denomination, rather there are people with the belief of Universal Reconciliation across most denominations---I guess you're confirming that).

Apocatastasis
Apocatastasis or apokatastasis (from Greek: ἀποκατάστασις; literally, "restoration" or "return") is the teaching that everyone will, in the end, be saved. It looks toward the ultimate reconciliation of good and evil; all creatures endowed with reason, angels and humans, will eventually come to a harmony in God's kingdom. It is based on, among other things, St. Peter's speech in Acts 3.21 ("Christ Jesus who must remain in heaven until the time of the final restoration of all things χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων") and St. Paul's letter to Timothy in which he says that it is God's will that all men should be saved (1 Timothy 2.4).

For Origen, this explicitly included the devil. In effect, apocatastasis denies the final reality of hell, and interprets all Biblical references to the "fires of hell" not as an eternal punishment, but a tool of divine teaching and correction, akin to purgatory. The implication is that hell exists to separate good from evil in the soul.

Among Catholics in the twentieth-century, this doctrine was reinvigorated especially by Hans Urs von Balthasar, who, in his book Dare We Hope 'That All Men Be Saved? (1988), expressed a qualified version of apocatastasis in which we may "hope" that all will be saved. Keeping in mind the conciliar condemnation of Origen, Orthodox theologians who tend towards universalism (the belief that all will be saved) usually argue that all may be saved.

 

[Rajni]

So are you suggesting that ALL people are saved automatically without the need repentance from sins or the confession of faith in Jesus Christ?

That's one scenario among a few within universalism in general, yes. Though I don't think people should be kept in the dark about the fact that they're saved, and by Whom. I'll get into that further down the post.

Back to your question: It would almost have to be that way, I would think, given that Christ was crucified from before the foundation of the world, meaning that the deed was done before anyone was around to acknowledge it, let alone make it an official confession of faith or dogma-to-die-for.

And if it is indeed a fact, then it would have to be so regardless of whether or not we believe it. That's how facts work.

1 Corinthians 15:22 says that just as all died in Adam, so also shall all be made alive again in Christ. A parallel is being drawn there; Romans 5 goes into that same parallel more in-depth.

So, how did all die in Adam? Did they have to make a confession of faith in Adam before they qualified as one of the Fallen? Did they have to answer an altar-call or say The Faller's Prayer before they could have any assurance of being one of the Fallen Ones?

No. Adam did his thing and it was automatically imputed onto all mankind. And Adam was just a human, not God Himself. Pretty influential guy for a mere mortal, right?

So just as Adam had an impact on all of mankind, so also will Christ a have an impact on the same all of mankind. If Adam can spread it around so easily, God can too.

Does this mean that people don't have to believe in Jesus in order to be saved? Technically, it's feasible, though, again, it depends on which school of universalism one subscribes to. I lean more towards yes, they're saved even as we speak.

However:

It would help them tremendously if they were filled in on what the deal is. Just like someone who doesn't know they're a millionaire would benefit from being informed of it, especially if they are, in the meantime, living as though they don't have two pennies to rub together. Sure, they don't have to be told they possess millions, but it would definitely help them. So, yes, sharing the Good Great News about God being the Savior of all mankind is still a commendable endeavor. But, unlike some Christian teachings kicking around out there, failing to get the word out doesn't mean someone is going to fry forever (what a head-game that one is... ).

That's what I think is meant by verses like 1 Timothy 4:10 regarding God being the Savior of all men, "especially" of believers. Everyone's saved, but those who realize it here and now are especially saved because they carry an awareness of it here and now, and the joy and peace of mind that comes with it. Why live under the impression of being poor if one is, in reality, a millionaire? Why live under the impression that you're doomed if you're not? Why live under the impression that, while you might be saved, your loved one(s) are likely doomed, when they're not? I won't lie—those beliefs can really mess with peoples' heads.

It's very appropriate that Surrender used the account of the Prodigal Son as the OP. The way this thread has continued, IMO, the responses have even made the point more clear of the contrast in that account (the "law following" son and the relational son). The older, law-following son wasn't able to rejoice with his father when his brother returned. There seems to be a similar sentiment going on in this thread.

It is very similar. I've observed this in the countless discussions and debates I've been in on this subject (most right here in CF). The reaction against the salvation of all is akin to the "righteous" brother's heartburn over the prodigal's open-armed welcome home from the father. But I think that attitude is only temporary. It's one of the things that restoration will remedy, both on the individual level, and at the collective level.

-

 

[mkgal1]

In fact I have been well acquainted that the Christian world is heading towards Rome for a uniting of religions, Christian and others and this where Universalist teaching plays at that and references certain church fathers out of context to further the ecumenical agenda.

This comment right here, that I quoted, sounds very fundamentalist (and I don't mean *Christian* fundamentalist....I mean fundamentalist in general).

In reading about different "branches" of religion---it seems that things can be divided between the "mystics" and the "fundamentalists". Your beliefs seem to line up with the latter.