Would you prefer it if “Christian universalism” were true?

[Saint Steven]

The fact is that there has been no consensus at all.

Hmm...
How do you define consensus? Seems the majority prefer ECT to Universalism. Do I have the wrong perception?

There are only two choices. Yes, or no. (for Universalism)

 

[Albion]

Do I have the wrong perception?

Yes.

 

[bling]

To say: “I want everyone to eventually be saved in a Christian “like” heaven” and that not to be the case, means, you are against God’s reason for people being lost, the need for some to be lost and the cause for people being lost. It also shows a lack of understanding about man’s objective while spending this short time on earth, which can only be fulfilled for humans while on earth.

The universalist seems to put the blame on God if all people are not saved, so to avoid blaming God they come up with a way for everyone to be saved.

God does want all people to be saved and is doing all He can to save them, so we cannot blame God or suggest God is lacking some “Love”, but salvation is not just one-sided transaction, humans have a very needed (needed for them) part to play.

To have a “universal salvation system” would require a very different type of heaven and/or a very different “New Creature” we are to become.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes.

The majority have sided with Universalism? (I haven't read the entire topic)
Quite a shift from the norm around here if that is true. Good news indeed.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Do I have the wrong perception?

 

[Saint Steven]

... The universalist seems to put the blame on God if all people are not saved, so to avoid blaming God they come up with a way for everyone to be saved. ...

Universalism has biblical and historic support. Four of the six theological schools in the first five or six centuries of Christianity were Universalist. Unfortunately, the one school (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. They were the ones who gave us our biased Bible.

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff writes :

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What does that really mean if we are reading a mistranslation? Is it really God's word? Or is it mans word? Does that make it true, or false?

I am reminded that we are not to indulge quarrels over words, it acts like gangrene in the body of Christ - and only ruins those who listen.

 

[Saint Steven]

I am reminded that we are not to indulge quarrels over words, it acts like gangrene in the body of Christ - and only ruins those who listen.

Well, better shut down the forum then. - lol

So you are claiming that a bad translation should be accepted as the word of God just to keep the peace? That's nuts!

Saint Steven said: ↑
What does that really mean if we are reading a mistranslation? Is it really God's word? Or is it mans word? Does that make it true, or false?

 

[bling]

Universalism has biblical and historic support. Four of the six theological schools in the first five or six centuries of Christianity were Universalist. Unfortunately, the one school (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. They were the ones who gave us our biased Bible.

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff writes :

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

Answer me this:

How can you take a selfish carnal person and make them, having their own autonomous free will, choose to be sacrificially unselfish (have Godly type Love) so they are "happy" in heaven?


You can say: “Live in hell or choose to be unselfish in heaven”, but is that really their autonomous free will choice and is that really unselfish Love so they are happy in heaven?


As far as different schools of thought, by the fifth and sixth century lots of radical wrong ideas were floating around. I would like to know how you address scriptures referencing judgement?

 

[Saint Steven]

Answer me this:

How can you take a selfish carnal person and make them, having their own autonomous free will, choose to be sacrificially unselfish (have Godly type Love) so they are "happy" in heaven?


You can say: “Live in hell or choose to be unselfish in heaven”, but is that really their autonomous free will choice and is that really unselfish Love so they are happy in heaven?


As far as different schools of thought, by the fifth and sixth century lots of radical wrong ideas were floating around. I would like to know how you address scriptures referencing judgement?

Anyone that doesn't love God hasn't met him yet. End of story.

 

[Saint Steven]

I would like to know how you address scriptures referencing judgement?

We hear that all the time. You push your half dozen references at us but ignore the two dozen we provide.

History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution: the Creeds the Fathers

Also, as Clement of Alexandria pointed out, as the Greek had two words for 'punishment', the first retributive (timoria), the second corrective (kolasin), that the NT never uses the first. And correction has an object, its telos, to set straight. This would be incongruous with a translation of aionion as 'eternal' in Mt 25:46.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Well, better shut down the forum then. - lol

So you are claiming that a bad translation should be accepted as the word of God just to keep the peace? That's nuts!

Saint Steven said: ↑
What does that really mean if we are reading a mistranslation? Is it really God's word? Or is it mans word? Does that make it true, or false?

So bad translation is a good reason to disregard clear instructions in the bible?

 

[Saint Steven]

So bad translation is a good reason to disregard clear instructions in the bible?

No, Michael.
If it's a bad translation you should follow it to the letter. - lol

I can't believe you asked me that. Seriously?

 

[Saint Steven]

No, Michael.
If it's a bad translation you should follow it to the letter. - lol

I can't believe you asked me that. Seriously?

Perhaps you meant something different than what I gathered from your post @Michael Collum

But if a translation is bad, then the intent of the original author has been missed. And while we may call any translation of the Bible "scripture", a bad translation misses the mark.

I suppose what you probably meant to ask (speaking of bad translations) was whether THE CLAIM of a "bad translation" gave us permission "to disregard clear instructions in the bible". Which is a good question and probably worth its own topic.

Michael Collum said: ↑
So bad translation is a good reason to disregard clear instructions in the bible?

 

[public hermit]

I don't think most Christians would recognize God if they met him on the street. We seem to have the complete wrong idea about who he is and what he is about.

They'd probably kill him. At any rate, certain religious types are fond of killing God incarnate. I think it has to do with a warped conception of justice. Justice for them is not so much about that which leads to flourishing life, but that which leads to the punishment of sinners. Certain religious types think they're doing God a favor by killing those who don't do what God wants, even if it's God they must kill.

A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no

Definitely, yes. Justice does not obtain until God's intention for flourishing life obtains. God set out to create a good creation where love and life flourish, and since God cannot fail to do what God intends, it only makes sense that everyone will be part of that. Some might have to go through hell to get there, but thats what they get for being so mean spirited.

I know, I know, "But, the bible says!" I can't parse out all the issues the scriptures present for trying to navigate this issue. But the main thrust is pretty clear. God created us for life together in the divine presence, love is the key to participation in the divine plan, and God cannot fail. The cross and resurrection, the indwelling of the Spirit that changes hearts, all are working to ensure divine success. Come hell or high water, God will be all in all. Amen. You may now pass the plate, lol.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No, Michael.
If it's a bad translation you should follow it to the letter. - lol

I can't believe you asked me that. Seriously?

Perhaps you meant something different than what I gathered from your post @Michael Collum

But if a translation is bad, then the intent of the original author has been missed. And while we may call any translation of the Bible "scripture", a bad translation misses the mark.

I suppose what you probably meant to ask (speaking of bad translations) was whether THE CLAIM of a "bad translation" gave us permission "to disregard clear instructions in the bible". Which is a good question and probably worth its own topic.

Michael Collum said: ↑
So bad translation is a good reason to disregard clear instructions in the bible?

I tend to use an electronic bible with the strongs numbers beside the words if I'm in doubt. In general, since there are so many textual variants application of each possibility, and observing the fruit is really the only true way to be sure.

Modern translations have an issue where there are two texts to pick from, and depending on the preference of the translator, they might chimerize a passage leading to some gnarly fruit.

However, the passages regarding quarrels over words, tend to have an issue with being disregarded completely nowadays, not much of an issue of translation.

 

[bling]

Anyone that doesn't love God hasn't met him yet. End of story.

There are lots of kinds of "love".
Jesus Christ was God on earth (seeing Christ was to see God), so did everyone Love Christ?

 

[bling]

We hear that all the time. You push your half dozen references at us but ignore the two dozen we provide.

History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution: the Creeds the Fathers

Also, as Clement of Alexandria pointed out, as the Greek had two words for 'punishment', the first retributive (timoria), the second corrective (kolasin), that the NT never uses the first. And correction has an object, its telos, to set straight. This would be incongruous with a translation of aionion as 'eternal' in Mt 25:46.

This thread is not a discussion of “hell” and if there is annihilation at some point. We are talking about everyone going to heaven.

Your author breaks it down well: “Is it ultimate annihilation after just punishment, or final restoration after severe remedial punishment, or endless suffering?”

This article just shows the early church writers, most likely thought of a limited punishment, which is OK.

Would being “punished” for a while earn the person a place in heaven?

How much “punishment” would it take to “pay” the price for rebelliously disobedient against the creator of the Universe?

God has the Love to forgive sin, so “punishment” pays nothing, but the individual would need to make a free will choice to humbly accept that forgiveness as it was given (as pure undeserving charity). The sinner cannot make a truly free will choice to accept charity, without likely alternatives, so what would those likely alternatives be in hell?

 

[Saint Steven]

Certain religious types think they're doing God a favor by killing those who don't do what God wants, even if it's God they must kill.

That sounds familiar...

John 16:2
They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God.

 

[Saint Steven]

They'd probably kill him. At any rate, certain religious types are fond of killing God incarnate. I think it has to do with a warped conception of justice. Justice for them is not so much about that which leads to flourishing life, but that which leads to the punishment of sinners. Certain religious types think they're doing God a favor by killing those who don't do what God wants, even if it's God they must kill.

Well said. A "warped conception of justice." Perfect.
Reminds me of this.

1 John 4:18 NRSV
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love.

 

[Saint Steven]

There are lots of kinds of "love".
Jesus Christ was God on earth (seeing Christ was to see God), so did everyone Love Christ?

I mean meeting God in the afterlife where there is no room to doubt who it is.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Anyone that doesn't love God hasn't met him yet. End of story.