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

[RickReads]

Another evangelical fallacy.
There is no plan of salvation in the physical creation. No Jesus to receive or reject. So much for that theory.

A bold statement and nothing to back it up, not very credible.

9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

 

[Cormack]

YES! Jesus payment was sufficient. PAID IN FULL !!!

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

There’s a really strong argument to be made for optimal grace and justice being served by the universalist perspective. Optimal meaning ideal, best.

This is in contrast to maximal, because, at least in the universalist perspective, you’re not moving towards “maximal” retributive justice, because you can always add another day to the punishing of the condemned.

In that sense, the traditionalist perspective can’t provide maximal justice either, instead it’s working towards max justice by virtue of the punishing being forever. Which by sheer span of duration appears to be overkill anyway, and overkill isn’t justice being done, it’s just vindictiveness.

At least in some forms of traditionalism, the work around for the injustice of punishing people forever is that they never really stop sinning, not even in the bowels of hell. They’re blasphemers forever and as a consequence the only appropriate tact for God is that He allows them to be punished forever.

But isn’t an outlook like that in which hatred of God persists forever the victory of sin, not it’s defeat. If sin goes on forever isn’t it always an affront to the holiness of God and His kingdom, that’s a far cry from Christ being “all in all.”

Anyhow, none of those things are an example of optimal grace and justice being satisfied, whereas if the universalist perspective were correct, then every single sin is done justice at the cross, and every single sinner ends up experiencing the total grace of God. Grace and justice both satisfied in an optimal (or perfectly balanced) way.

For that reason, in addition to many others, I’d prefer it if universalism were true.

 

[zoidar]

The only understanding I have of God is from Scripture. Where else would I get it?

Through the Holy Spirit? By living in a relationship with God and experiencing Him in your life.

 

[zoidar]

I question the source of the "want" for justice.
And is either annihilation or damnation really justice?

What do you think? Is it?

What about someone that is a massmurderer, that lived his/her whole life to serve evil? Is it justice giving this person an eternal sentence?

 

[zoidar]

Doesn’t the cross of Christ serve justice perfectly well without the need for plain men, women (and maybe children) to be punished forever?

If Jesus’ blood is enough to see justice served in our case, why not in theirs too.

Like earlier in the topic, I’m not sure that justice is left to decay under universalism, and I’m not sure how justice is truly served by inflicting an eternity’s worth of torment for what is at worst a misspent sixty or seventy years.

The nature of the punishment is of eternal consequence, I'll leave it with that. To make up images isn't of much use, because we don't know them to be accurate.

 

[Saint Steven]

How about we start by finding out if the problem is really the Bible rather than our own understanding.

Answering Bible Difficulties

Or perhaps the problem is our understanding of the Bible. The contradictions really are contradictions. Instead we engage in Biblegate. (the cover-up)

 

[Saint Steven]

That really helps your cause. Insult and maybe he`ll go away.

He wasn't insulted, nor was I insulting him. But I see you are happy to take up the cause. Are you holding a grudge? Best forgive me quickly.

 

[Saint Steven]

The nature of the punishment is of eternal consequence, I'll leave it with that. To make up images isn't of much use, because we don't know them to be accurate.

That saw cuts both ways. Is it accurate to claim that the punishment is eternal?

Aionios, the Greek word mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in the Bible (eternal hell?)

 

[Saint Steven]

There’s a really strong argument to be made for optimal grace and justice being served by the universalist perspective. Optimal meaning ideal, best.

This is in contrast to maximal, because, at least in the universalist perspective, you’re not moving towards “maximal” retributive justice, because you can always add another day to the punishing of the condemned.

In that sense, the traditionalist perspective can’t provide maximal justice either, instead it’s working towards max justice by virtue of the punishing being forever. Which by sheer span of duration appears to be overkill anyway, and overkill isn’t justice being done, it’s just vindictiveness.

At least in some forms of traditionalism, the work around for the injustice of punishing people forever is that they never really stop sinning, not even in the bowels of hell. They’re blasphemers forever and as a consequence the only appropriate tact for God is that He allows them to be punished forever.

But isn’t an outlook like that in which hatred of God persists forever the victory of sin, not it’s defeat. If sin goes on forever isn’t it always an affront to the holiness of God and His kingdom, that’s a far cry from Christ being “all in all.”

Anyhow, none of those things are an example of optimal grace and justice being satisfied, whereas if the universalist perspective were correct, then every single sin is done justice at the cross, and every single sinner ends up experiencing the total grace of God. Grace and justice both satisfied in an optimal (or perfectly balanced) way.

For that reason, in addition to many others, I’d prefer it if universalism were true.

That's a great way to look at it. Optimal rather than maximal. The ultimate good rather than vindictive and cruel. (sadistic) An end to sin rather than a perpetual affront.

 

[RickReads]

Or perhaps the problem is our understanding of the Bible. The contradictions really are contradictions. Instead we engage in Biblegate. (the cover-up)

Have you got a better example than the one you gave? Your proverb is a nothinburger. It`s been some years but I studied the idea of contradictions. I found them to be few enough to disregard at least as far as King James is concerned which is the only translation I read since the early 90`s.

 

[RickReads]

He wasn't insulted, nor was I insulting him. But I see you are happy to take up the cause. Are you holding a grudge? Best forgive me quickly.

LOL! I forgave you but I don`t think my forgiveness will compel you to change your approach.

 

[Saint Steven]

What do you think? Is it?

What about someone that is a massmurderer, that lived his/her whole life to serve evil? Is it justice giving this person an eternal sentence?

In a way, this is actually a proof for Universalism.

Though we should certainly uphold justice in a general way, this evil desire for sadistic retribution is of satanic origin.

People want the mass-murderer you mentioned to "really suffer" for their crime. Thinking that justice is somehow better served if they witness their agony.

In this spirit (by this spirit), humankind has devised all sorts of cruel tortures and execution methods and devises. And in ancient times this same spirit directed atrocities on innocent conquered peoples.

What would drive a conquering nation to impale their innocent victims (those who had not been run through with swords) and keep all the virgin women and children for slaves?

In most of the world today, a capital punishment is life in prison. How many lifetimes is an eternal punishment? Hard to imagine anything so vindictive, cruel, or sadistic as that.

What sort of monster would create such a mechanism? To keep burning human souls alive to suffer for all eternity with no hope of escape. Frankly, anyone in that situation would be ready to repent in ten seconds.

And how could we enjoy heaven knowing this is going on down in the dungeon? And perhaps to some of our own loved ones. What's to say that we will not join them at some point?

Saint Steven said: ↑
I question the source of the "want" for justice.
And is either annihilation or damnation really justice?

 

[Saint Steven]

Have you got a better example than the one you gave? Your proverb is a nothinburger. It`s been some years but I studied the idea of contradictions. I found them to be few enough to disregard at least as far as King James is concerned which is the only translation I read since the early 90`s.

We're already way off topic here. There are lists on the internet. And you admit to finding some of your own, which you shrugged off, since you found them to be few enough. So, you swept them under the carpet. No biggie, right?

Saint Steven said: ↑
Or perhaps the problem is our understanding of the Bible. The contradictions really are contradictions. Instead we engage in Biblegate. (the cover-up)

 

[Saint Steven]

LOL! I forgave you but I don`t think my forgiveness will compel you to change your approach.

How can you claim to have forgiven when you take up an offense?

Saint Steven said: ↑
He wasn't insulted, nor was I insulting him. But I see you are happy to take up the cause. Are you holding a grudge? Best forgive me quickly.

 

[RickReads]

We're already way off topic here. There are lists on the internet. And you admit to finding some of your own, which you shrugged off, since you found them to be few enough. So, you swept them under the carpet. No biggie, right?

Saint Steven said: ↑
Or perhaps the problem is our understanding of the Bible. The contradictions really are contradictions. Instead we engage in Biblegate. (the cover-up)

Well, you misunderstand me a bit. I studied the lists. The ones I could not settle are few and I believe they are all translation errors and there is only one that I considered significant.

So again you misunderstand or what is more likely you distort what I said to try and support your own position. You wouldn`t get anywhere trying to find a so-called contradiction that I couldn't address.

 

[RickReads]

How can you claim to have forgiven when you take up an offense?

Saint Steven said: ↑
He wasn't insulted, nor was I insulting him. But I see you are happy to take up the cause. Are you holding a grudge? Best forgive me quickly.

Forgiving someone doesn`t necessarily change their behavior. The purpose of forgiving is for your own spiritual benefit. If the one being forgiven doesn`t see the need to be forgiven they will not benefit from your forgiveness or change their behavior.

 

[Saint Steven]

You wouldn`t get anywhere trying to find a so-called contradiction that I couldn't address.

Address? Does that mean gloss-over?

Here's an easy one, and it will keep us somewhat on topic. We'll get a helpful explanation from one of our forum members. (pasted below)

Does the Bible say that all will be saved, or only a few? (it says both) Thus a contradiction. You will likely claim that this verse does not mean what it plainly says.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 Corinthians 15:22 explained by Public Hermit

This is essentially a conditional statement.
It is upon the basis that all die in Adam that all also are made alive in Christ. Or better, if all had not died in Adam, then there would have been no need to make all (or any) alive in Christ.

If all died in Adam, then all are made alive in Christ.

The same set of people are being referenced in both the antecedent and the consequent. So, if "all" doesn't mean all in the consequent, then it doesn't mean all in the antecedent.

Modus tollens: If all are not made alive in Christ, then all did not die in Adam.

But, of course, all did die in Adam (according to the fans of eternal torment).

Therefore, all means all in both instances.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

 

[Saint Steven]

Forgiving someone doesn`t necessarily change their behavior. The purpose of forgiving is for your own spiritual benefit. If the one being forgiven doesn`t see the need to be forgiven they will not benefit from your forgiveness or change their behavior.

The goal of forgiveness is not to change the behavior of the one you have forgiven. That would be a wrong motive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does the Bible say that all will be saved, or only a few?

Only a few.

1 Corinthians 15: 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

And before you say something like, "We're all in Christ," explain this:

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[RickReads]

Address? Does that mean gloss-over?

Here's an easy one, and it will keep us somewhat on topic. We'll get a helpful explanation from one of our forum members. (pasted below)

Does the Bible say that all will be saved, or only a few? (it says both) Thus a contradiction. You will likely claim that this verse does not mean what it plainly says.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 Corinthians 15:22 explained by Public Hermit

This is essentially a conditional statement.
It is upon the basis that all die in Adam that all also are made alive in Christ. Or better, if all had not died in Adam, then there would have been no need to make all (or any) alive in Christ.

If all died in Adam, then all are made alive in Christ.

The same set of people are being referenced in both the antecedent and the consequent. So, if "all" doesn't mean all in the consequent, then it doesn't mean all in the antecedent.

Modus tollens: If all are not made alive in Christ, then all did not die in Adam.

But, of course, all did die in Adam (according to the fans of eternal torment).

Therefore, all means all in both instances.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

This verse is good proof for OSAS. It`s a contrast between flesh (Adam) and Spirit (Christ). However, to be made alive in Christ you have to be born Spiritually. All who are born again are made alive in Christ.

The word all is indicative of the group. The first group consists of all born in the flesh. The second group consists of all who are born in the Spirit.

This one is too easy Steve. You got any that would be a challenge?