Universalism...why not?

[Light of the East]

There's a lot of truth in that overview, but most historians will tell you that to live under a set of laws was one of Rome's greatest contributions to civilization. We ought to be more cognizant of that fact and less inclined to assume that, in the absence of law, we'd all be living in some peaceful and prosperous Utopia of mutual cooperation.

Indeed, but is our life about LAW or LOVE? This appears to really be the difference between Eastern and Western theological constructs. The Western approach is its all about love and getting punished, while the Eastern approach is about how love restores the marred image of Christ and makes us participants in the divine nature.

 

[Albion]

Indeed, but is our life about LAW or LOVE?

Both are important, but of course it's easier to appreciate LOVE.

The Western approach is its all about love and getting punished, while the Eastern approach is about how love restores the marred image of Christ and makes us participants in the divine nature.

Perhaps, but I was addressing the benefits of having a rule of LAW, and they are not all about punishing people.

 

[Light of the East]

Quite obviously, this is not correct to say. The heresies that existed in the early church were many...and yet, how many councils were called to deal with any of them? Nicaea was called because Arianism was so popular and widespread, but that was a rare exception.

But that is exactly my point. Universalism was popular and widespread!

 

[Albion]

But that is exactly my point. Universalism was popular and widespread!

I thought your point was that if a heresy arose there would be a council to deal with it and since universalism apparently wasn't the cause for any such council to be called, it couldn't have been seen as particularly disturbing.

The answer is, I think, that universalism was not seen as being as threatening as the topics dealt with by the few councils that did meet for such a purpose. The young church couldn't suffer endless confusion concerning the nature or identity of its God, but it could easily tolerate some speculation such as universal salvation amounts to.

 

[GillDouglas]

If forever is forever, why add "and ever" to it?

The Unofficial ULC Webring

The same word is used to describe time in Heaven. Is it limited as well?

 

[Albion]

Neither would an unrepentant you. Or Saul, who became Paul the apostle, who called himself the worst of sinners.

How many billions of years of punishment does Hitler deserve? Should it involve being burned alive, weeping and gnashing of teeth and torments forever and ever?

If forever is forever, why add "and ever" to it?

The Unofficial ULC Webring

You're offering us a link to a website of a 'church' that is best known for ordaining--by mail--anyone at all and without question?...and which has essentially no set doctrines?

Really?


"The Universal Life Church (ULC) is a religious denomination that has no traditional doctrine, believing merely in "that which is right". It offers anyone ordination as a minister free of charge, primarily to those who marry couples. In 1969, soon after its foundation, critics referred to it derisively as an ordination mill due to its simplified ordination procedures. The organization states that anyone can become a minister without having to go through any process." Wikipedia.

 

[Light of the East]

It's not just a theory, it is the truth concerning the atonement. Unless you believe the sinner is made holy, pure and is sinless in this life. Unless you do not believe that a sinner, without the righteousness of Christ to shield them from the Holiness of God, will not perish in His presence.

We are not natural sons and daughters of God in the way that Christ is. When God adopts us, the righteousness of Christ in imputed upon us so that when we die He may present us without spot or blemish. This is because we could not be presented on the basis of our own righteousness, lest we perish. Because even the most righteous of men's works are but 'filthy rags', because the flesh corrupts everything.

Utter Calvinist baloney!!!

Not to be found in Scripture AT ALL (unless, of course, you isolate certain texts and twist the meaning of words, along with ignoring other texts)

Rather than listen to that Prince of Heresy, let us let Scripture speak:

Total Depravity (that is, the idea that the flesh corrupts everything because nothing we do is good and righteous in His sight)

Hebrews 11: 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Nothing in there about Abel being "totally depraved." Nothing in there about this myth called "imputed righteousness." I ought to be able to stop here, but since you are deeply infected with this disease, more is required.

Hebrews 11: 33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,

How can any "totally depraved" individual do anything but sin, even in his best efforts?

Luke 1: 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

As for this myth of "imputed righteousness," it was dreamed up by Luther and perfected by Calvin because Luther was a mental ill psychotic who couldn't accept God's grace. Read his biographies. It's all there - the despair, the five hour confessions, the way he treated people. The man was deeply disturbed, and is hardly someone upon whom we should trust our biblical interpretations.

The main word used to "prove" this fallacious doctrine is the word "logizomai." Let's see what a reliable Bible dictionary and lexicon has to say about it.

From Strong's:
Strong's G3049 - logizomai

to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over

Now look at this little footnote at the bottom:
This word deals with reality. If I reckon (logizomai) that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers more to fact than supposition or opinion.

Logizomai is an accounting term. It means that you count what is really there. So when God saw Abraham's actions, He did not say "Poor Abraham. He is totally depraved, but he means well, so I will put the righteousness of Christ in his spiritual bank account so that I don't see evil Abraham, but Christ and His righteousness instead."

NO!! NO!! NO!! NO!!

How dishonest of Luther and Calvin, since they were, according to history, able to read Greek.

It means that when God saw Abraham's faith (because Romans states that faith is righteousness) that God counted it as for what it was - righteousness. God didn't have to "loan" Abraham the righteousness of Christ, for Abraham was righteous.

This is exactly why when the Lutheran emissaries came to Constantinople to seek agreement with the Greek Church in their mutual dislike of Rome, the Orthodox, after a few days of conversation, realized that these guys were preaching things that the Church had never taught - and sent them back to Germany.

We are never made completely holy, pure, and sinless in this life, as our relationship to God is more than just one of legal fiat and declaration. It is about the change of our natures into the nature of God. And that will take an eternity.

 

[Albion]

Looks like someone has the wrong idea of what "total depravity" means (even though "Gill's" post seemed to cover it adequately).

 

[GillDouglas]

Utter Calvinist baloney!!!

Not to be found in Scripture AT ALL (unless, of course, you isolate certain texts and twist the meaning of words, along with ignoring other texts)

Rather than listen to that Prince of Heresy, let us let Scripture speak:

Total Depravity (that is, the idea that the flesh corrupts everything because nothing we do is good and righteous in His sight)

Hebrews 11: 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Nothing in there about Abel being "totally depraved." Nothing in there about this myth called "imputed righteousness." I ought to be able to stop here, but since you are deeply infected with this disease, more is required.

Hebrews 11: 33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,

How can any "totally depraved" individual do anything but sin, even in his best efforts?

Luke 1: 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

As for this myth of "imputed righteousness," it was dreamed up by Luther and perfected by Calvin because Luther was a mental ill psychotic who couldn't accept God's grace. Read his biographies. It's all there - the despair, the five hour confessions, the way he treated people. The man was deeply disturbed, and is hardly someone upon whom we should trust our biblical interpretations.

The main word used to "prove" this fallacious doctrine is the word "logizomai." Let's see what a reliable Bible dictionary and lexicon has to say about it.

From Strong's:
Strong's G3049 - logizomai

to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over

Now look at this little footnote at the bottom:
This word deals with reality. If I reckon (logizomai) that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers more to fact than supposition or opinion.

Logizomai is an accounting term. It means that you count what is really there. So when God saw Abraham's actions, He did not say "Poor Abraham. He is totally depraved, but he means well, so I will put the righteousness of Christ in his spiritual bank account so that I don't see evil Abraham, but Christ and His righteousness instead."

NO!! NO!! NO!! NO!!

How dishonest of Luther and Calvin, since they were, according to history, able to read Greek.

It means that when God saw Abraham's faith (because Romans states that faith is righteousness) that God counted it as for what it was - righteousness. God didn't have to "loan" Abraham the righteousness of Christ, for Abraham was righteous.

This is exactly why when the Lutheran emissaries came to Constantinople to seek agreement with the Greek Church in their mutual dislike of Rome, the Orthodox, after a few days of conversation, realized that these guys were preaching things that the Church had never taught - and sent them back to Germany.

We are never made completely holy, pure, and sinless in this life, as our relationship to God is more than just one of legal fiat and declaration. It is about the change of our natures into the nature of God. And that will take an eternity.

'Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.' (Matthew 3:13-15)

 

[Rajni]

What you're getting at in your post is the philosophical problem of evil, which could be summed up this way: If God is good, why does evil exist?

No, that's not what I'm getting at.

In other words, if we somehow construct a scenario whereby God is not the source of evil, but due to His foreknowledge of sin, we think that it yet amounts to the same as God being the source of evil, we are in grave error, for this is not what Scripture speaks. Only God is good, and sin and rebellion is our own fault.

He says in Isaiah 45:7 that He creates evil (a.k.a. distress, misery, injury, calamity, as well as evil).

I'm surprised by your notion that salvation should be credited to us.

Where do I say salvation should be credited to us?

Also, if I understand correctly, you seem to think we are not ultimately to be blamed for our sins; that sins are merely a side effect of our current condition, and not our own doing.

Our sinful nature was imputed onto us without our consent. I've made the observation earlier in this thread along the lines of how odd it is that believers in free-will don't seem to object to this, yet they object to the notion that salvation could be imputed onto us in the very same way that sin was.

As for being blamed for specific wrongdoings, sure, I think we should be held accountable for those, and that's what our legal system is for. Not to mention that consequences are conveniently built into wrongdoings, so punishment by the crime comes around as surely as punishment for it, sooner or later. Yet there's quite a difference between an eye for an eye and infinite torture for finite wrongdoing, wouldn't you agree?

Christ preached on Hell more than He preached on Heaven

As has already been pointed out, this is a myth.

It's a bit off the point, but do you think that most people who say they don't accept a hell are primarily concerned to believe that they themselves will avoid hell, not that Jack the Ripper or Adolf Hitler will?

I can't speak for most people, but what got me on the universalism bandwagon was 1 Corinthians 15:22. My preference is that no one is left behind.

The young church couldn't suffer endless confusion concerning the nature or identity of its God, but it could easily tolerate some speculation such as universal salvation amounts to.

It must've been much stronger back then, if the reaction universalism garners around here is any indication.




-

 

[Dartman]

Oh, right, so that's annihilationism rather than eternal conscious torment-ism.

It's accepting the actual statements of Scripture .... which I admit, is rare.

 

[Rajni]

Just as an aside, bearing in mind that Paul referred to himself as the worst of sinners might help people not Godwin these threads as much.

-

 

[GillDouglas]

As has already been pointed out, this is a myth.

A myth for those who've never read, or do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. I would suggest you study Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, James, Peter, Jude, and Revelation. Then honestly address this.

 

[GillDouglas]

It's accepting the actual statements of Scripture .... which I admit, is rare.

I disagree. If you limit the duration of time spent in Hell, you must then limit the duration in Heaven.

 

[Rajni]

A myth for those who've never read, or do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. I would suggest you study Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, James, Peter, Jude, and Revelation. Then honestly address this.

No problem!

From my post on the "Why is there a hell?" thread:

The notion that Jesus spoke more about hell than about heaven is actually a myth.

I plugged in the terms over at BibleGateway.com to verify this for myself, and discovered that, for example, in the New American Standard, Jesus mentions heaven 135 times and hell 11 times. In the King James Version, he mentions heaven 141 times and hell 15 times.

Meanwhile, the New American Bible, a Catholic version, doesn't mention hell at all.

This doesn't mean that hell can't be read into verses, but given that people usually read things into scripture anyway, this alone doesn't really settle the issue (as we can see clearly with every hell-related thread that crops up ).


-

 

[Dartman]

Then please explain to me why it was preached for the first five centuries ...

All KINDS of errors were preached, and still are.

This is why the apostles were SO insistent that SCRIPTURE be relied upon, rather than the speculations and rationalizations relied upon by Universal Salvation theorists.

2 Tim 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. 16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene.


2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

 

[Albion]

Meanwhile, the New American Bible, a Catholic version, doesn't mention hell at all.

This doesn't mean that hell can't be read into verses
-

I haven't done such a survey myself, but what you report here certainly must indicate that some synonym for "hell," or a description instead of a name, is being used instead--which is far from amounting to reading hell into a verse.

 

[Dartman]

I disagree. If you limit the duration of time spent in Hell, you must then limit the duration in Heaven.

the only human who has ever, and will ever, spend time in Heaven, is Jesus. And, he's coming back.
John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Matt 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

1 thess 4:16,17 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, that's not what I'm getting at.

He says in Isaiah 45:7 that He creates evil (a.k.a. distress, misery, injury, calamity, as well as evil).

Where do I say salvation should be credited to us?

Our sinful nature was imputed onto us without our consent. I've made the observation earlier in this thread along the lines of how odd it is that believers in free-will don't seem to object to this, yet they object to the notion that salvation could be imputed onto us in the very same way that sin was.

As for being blamed for specific wrongdoings, sure, I think we should be held accountable for those, and that's what our legal system is for. Not to mention that consequences are conveniently built into wrongdoings, so punishment by the crime comes around as surely as punishment for it, sooner or later. Yet there's quite a difference between an eye for an eye and infinite torture for finite wrongdoing, wouldn't you agree?

As has already been pointed out, this is a myth.

I can't speak for most people, but what got me on the universalism bandwagon was 1 Corinthians 15:22. My preference is that no one is left behind.

It must've been much stronger back then, if the reaction universalism garners around here is any indication.




-

Actually, I'm willing to philosophically discuss the details...after I get over my initial knee-jerk reaction.

 

[Rajni]

I haven't done such a survey myself, but what you report here certainly must indicate that some synonym for "hell," or a description instead of a name, is being used instead--which is far from amounting to reading hell into a verse.

It depends on what the reader wants to see; the bible-as-mirror dynamic. This is why I hesitate to say things like "the bible clearly sez..." because what that really means is "This is what I believe the bible clearly sez..." I mean, obviously I believe the bible supports universalism, that's not newsworthy. But I'm not about to say that the bible clearly supports it because if it did, everyone would see that, and there would be no debate.

Back to the point: You're right; the English word "hell" is used as a substitute for more specific (and different) things such as Gehenna (the garbage dump outside Jerusalem, parts of which nowadays looks like a perfect picnic-spot), Sheol (simply, the grave), Hades, and Tartarus (the latter two originating in Greek mythology, from what I understand).


-