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

[RickReads]

(1) Would you agree that there are apparent contradictions in the scriptures? Agreeing to that would probably remove a lot of fire from this debate y’all are having.

(1) So while there’s no true contradiction, you wouldn’t feel that the people who affirm biblical contractions are committing intellectual Hari-kari, right? They’re being true to their voice of conscience.

(2) The only thing I’d be left wondering then is do you personally hold the opinion that there are no true biblical contradictions as an axiomatic thing, like it’s just the way that it is because we have already presupposed the impeccably of the canon, or do you hold to the no contradictions view because there really doesn’t appear to be any viable contradictions to you.
________

There are apparent contradictions.

When it comes to opinions on Bibles I only offer opinions on King James because all of my studies have been with King James.

In principle, I don`t have an issue with people who think there are contradictions as long as they don`t use them for self-serving reasons i.e. for justifying their own views and for disregarding others.

I believe King James has some minor transliteration errors and one that is somewhat serious. But is better than other translations.

I haven`t tried to reconcile the Judgement verses in quite a long time and I have advanced since I last tried. I think I could maybe do it now with the premise that there is truth in all the verses and the view that one would end up with is that God doesn`t judge everyone by the same criteria (And He won`t)

At least till now, I haven`t wanted to know the answer to that one. I prefer to say I don`t know what He will do (Which I don`t )

 

[RickReads]

As an afterthought, though it shouldn't have been.

Jesus affirmed the credibility of the Torah in several places. He clearly believed in it.

Likewise, Peter in his epistle gives Paul's writings the weight of scripture.

Credible affirmation for most of the Bible right there.

 

[Clare73]

As an afterthought, though it shouldn't have been.
Jesus affirmed the credibility of the Torah in several places. He clearly believed in it.
Likewise, Peter in his epistle gives Paul's writings the weight of scripture.
Credible affirmation for most of the Bible right there.

Time for a review of Jesus' view of Scripture:

Jesus believed all the OT, not just the Pentateuch, was the "word of God" in every detail (Matthew 15:6; Luke 5:1, Luke 11:28; John 10:35)
He believed that every jot and tittle of the Law (the OT word for the Scriptures) was the very truth of God, vested with the authority of God and backed by by power of God (Matthew 5:17-19).
To emphasize that the OT was the infallible (wholly trustworthy and reliable), inerrant (wholly true) word of God, Jesus used his regular formula for solemn assertion ("Truly, truly I say to you") when he stated "until heaven and earth disappear, not one tittle (smallest stroke of the writing pen) will by any means disappear from the Law" (Scriptures) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18; Luke 16:17)

He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Matthew 4:4-10; John 10:35). God's Word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?" "Have you not read. . .?" "Go and learn what this means..."
(Mark 12:24; Matthew 12:3-5, Matthew 19:4, Matthew 21:16, Matthew 21:42, Matthew 9:13).

Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the Word of God. He lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Luke 4:17-21; Matthew 8:16-17, Matthew 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Luke 18:31; Mark 8:31, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:33-34; Matthew 26:24; Luke 22:37; Matthew 26:53-56).
When he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Luke 24:44-47, Luke 24:25).
He presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (John 5:39-40, John 5:46-47).

And in asserting to the Jews that the OT bore divine authoritative witness to him, Jesus thereby bore divine authoritative witness to it--Scripture is the word of God.
Belief in the authority and truth of the Scriptures was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

And that included the historical accounts:
Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15),
Jonah and the whale (Matthew 12:39-40),
creation account as God's words, though they are the writer's words (Matthew 19:4-6),
murder of Abel (Matthew 23:35),
Noah and the flood (Matthew 24:37-39),
burning bush and call of Moses (Mark 12:26),
Elijah and the provision for the widow (Luke 4:25-26),
Elisha and Naaman, the Syrian leper (Luke 4:27),
Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt (Luke 17:31-33).
plague of snakes and brazen serpent (John 3:14),
manna from heaven in the desert for 40 years (John 6:31, John 6:49),
Abraham (John 8:39-40),

According to Jesus, the Word of God written enjoys absolute authority.

 

[RickReads]

Time for a review of Jesus' view of Scripture:

Jesus believed all the OT, not just the Pentateuch, was the "word of God" in every detail (Matthew 15:6; Luke 5:1, Luke 11:28; John 10:35)
He believed that every jot and tittle of the Law (the OT word for the Scriptures) was the very truth of God, vested with the authority of God and backed by by power of God (Matthew 5:17-19).
To emphasize that the OT was the infallible (wholly trustworthy and reliable), inerrant (wholly true) word of God, Jesus used his regular formula for solemn assertion ("Truly, truly I say to you") when he stated "until heaven and earth disappear, not one tittle (smallest stroke of the writing pen) will by any means disappear from the Law" (Scriptures) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18; Luke 16:17)

He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Matthew 4:4-10; John 10:35). God's Word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?" "Have you not read. . .?" "Go and learn what this means..."
(Mark 12:24; Matthew 12:3-5, Matthew 19:4, Matthew 21:16, Matthew 21:42, Matthew 9:13).

Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the Word of God. He lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Luke 4:17-21; Matthew 8:16-17, Matthew 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Luke 18:31; Mark 8:31, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:33-34; Matthew 26:24; Luke 22:37; Matthew 26:53-56).
When he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Luke 24:44-47, Luke 24:25).
He presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (John 5:39-40, John 5:46-47).

And in asserting to the Jews that the OT bore divine authoritative witness to him, Jesus thereby bore divine authoritative witness to it--Scripture is the word of God.
Belief in the authority and truth of the Scriptures was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

And that included the historical accounts:
Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15),
Jonah and the whale (Matthew 12:39-40),
creation account as God's words, though they are the writer's words (Matthew 19:4-6),
murder of Abel (Matthew 23:35),
Noah and the flood (Matthew 24:37-39),
burning bush and call of Moses (Mark 12:26),
Elijah and the provision for the widow (Luke 4:25-26),
Elisha and Naaman, the Syrian leper (Luke 4:27),
Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt (Luke 17:31-33).
plague of snakes and brazen serpent (John 3:14),
manna from heaven in the desert for 40 years (John 6:31, John 6:49),
Abraham (John 8:39-40),

According to Jesus, the Word of God written enjoys absolute authority.

Under the weight of all that I find your resistance to unfulfilled prophecies bizzare.

 

[zoidar]

(1) Would you agree that there are apparent contradictions in the scriptures? Agreeing to that would probably remove a lot of fire from this debate y’all are having.

(1) So while there’s no true contradiction, you wouldn’t feel that the people who affirm biblical contractions are committing intellectual Hari-kari, right? They’re being true to their voice of conscience.

(2) The only thing I’d be left wondering then is do you personally hold the opinion that there are no true biblical contradictions as an axiomatic thing, like it’s just the way that it is because we have already presupposed the impeccably of the canon, or do you hold to the no contradictions view because there really doesn’t appear to be any viable contradictions to you.
________
It seems as though I’m asking the same question twice here, but just as an explanatory note, (1) is to do with what you can realistically permit as being fair in the lives of other people. While (2) is more me asking about your own private opinion.

God bless @Saint Steven and @RickReads, do me a kindness and avoid the baskets dirty laundry being aired in chat. You’re both smart guys.

We have the two thieves on the cross, where one testimony says both thieves mocked Jesus and the other testimony where only one thief mocks Jesus and is rebuked by the other. That's how it is with testimonies. Every witness tells it like he/she experienced it. Does that make it a contradiction?

I can't see there are any contradictions in the Biblical message.

 

[Clare73]

Under the weight of all that I find your resistance to unfulfilled prophecies bizzare.

If you're referring to Daniel 2:44-45, you are not receiving good teaching regarding its historical fulfillment.
Maybe "the weight of all that" should give you second thoughts.

But since we have so much in common, our only disagreement being prophecy, let me bring you up to speed historically: the statue of Daniel 2 and the animals of Daniel 7, 8 are four kingdoms.

head of gold/lion (Da 2:32, 7:4) = Babylonia (Nebuchadnezzar, Da 2:37-38), 626 BC - 539 BC, conquered by:

chest, arms: silver/bear/ram (Da 2:32, 7:5, 8:3-4) = Medo-Persia (Da 2:39), 539 BC - 330 BC,
conquered by:

belly, thighs: bronze/leopard/goat (Da 2:32, 7:6, 8:5-12, 21) = Greece (Da 2:39--Ptolemies and Seleucids) 330 BC - 167 BC- - - - - -- - - - - - - - = Greece (Maccabees, Hasmoneans), 167 BC - 63 conquered by:

legs: iron/ beast (Da 2:33, 7:7) = Rome (Da 2:40-43), 63 BC - 476 AD
feet: partly iron and partly baked clay/with ten horns (Da 2:33, 7:7)

rock (Da 2:34-35) not cut by human hands, struck and smashed the feet of the statue, broke the iron, bronze, clay, silver and gold to pieces which were swept away,
divided into:

Asia, Britain, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Pannonia, Samartia, Spain,

rock became a huge mountain and filled the whole world, the

everlasting kingdom (Da 2:44), never destroyed, enduring forever

Daniel 2:44 - "In the time of those kings;" i.e., the Roman empire (2:40-43), which conquered the Greek empire (2:39, 8:21), "the God of heaven will set up a kngdom that will never be destroyed."
The Messianic kingdom (2:44) was set up during the past Roman empire, at the first coming of Christ (Matthew 12:28), who is the rock (2:34; Ro 9:33; 1 Co 10:4) which breaks the iron, bronze, clay, silver and gold to pieces (2:44-45), becoming a huge mountain (kingdom of God) and filling the whole world (2:35) with the kingdom that is never destroyed and endures forever (2:44).

 

[RickReads]

If you're referring to Daniel 2:44-45, you are not receiving good teaching regarding its historical fulfillment.
Maybe the weight of all that should give you second thoughts.

But since we have so much in common, our only disagreement being prophecy, let me bring you up to speed historically: the statue of Daniel 2 and the animals of Daniel 8 are kingdoms.

head of gold/lion (Da 2:32, 7:4) = Babylonia (Nebuchadnezzar, Da 2:37-38), 626 BC - 539 BC, conquered by:

chest, arms: silver/bear/ram (Da 2:32, 7:5, 8:3-4) = Medo-Persia (Da 2:39), 539 BC - 330 BC,
conquered by:

belly, thighs: bronze/leopard/goat (Da 2:32, 7:6, 8:5-12, 21) = Greece (Da 2:39--Ptolemies and Seleucids) 330 BC - 167 BC- - - - - -- - - - - - - - = Greece (Maccabees, Hasmoneans), 167 BC - 63 conquered by:

legs: iron/ beast (Da 2:33, 7:7) = Rome (Da 2:40-43), 63 BC - 476 AD
feet: partly iron and partly baked clay/with ten horns (Da 2:33, 7:7)
divided into:

Asia, Britain, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Pannonia, Samartia, Spain.

rock (Da 2:34-35) not cut by human hands, struck and smashed the feet of the statue, broke the iron, bronze, clay, silver and gold to pieces which were swept away, and the rock became a huge mountain and filled the whole world

everlasting kingdom (Da 2:44), never destroyed, enduring forever

Daniel 2:44 - "In the time of those kings;" i.e., the Roman empire (2:40-43), which conquered the Greek empire (2:39, 8:21). . .
The Messianic kingdom (2:44) was set up during the past Roman empire, at the first coming of Christ (Matthew 12:28), who is the rock (2:34; Ro 9:33, 1 Co 10:4) which breaks the iron, bronze, clay, silver and gold to pieces (2:44-45), becoming a huge mountain (kingdom of God) and filling the whole world (2:35) with the kingdom that is never destroyed and endures forever.

The Messianic Kingdom is not established. Believing today's world is it sets the bar very very low.

 

[RickReads]

We have the two thieves on the cross, where one testimony says both thieves mocked Jesus and the other testimony where only one thief mocks Jesus and is rebuked by the other. That's how it is with testimonies. Every witness tells it like he/she experienced it. Does that make it a contradiction?

I can't see there are any contradictions in the Biblical message.

Both thieves mocked Jesus but the one who repented stopped. Both testimonies are accurate.

 

[Clare73]

The statue of Daniel 2 and the animals of Daniel 7, 8 are four kingdoms.
head of gold/lion (Da 2:32, 7:4) = Babylonia (Nebuchadnezzar, Da 2:37-38), 626 BC - 539 BC, conquered by:
chest, arms: silver/bear/ram (Da 2:32, 7:5, 8:3-4) = Medo-Persia (Da 2:39), 539 BC - 330 BC,
conquered by:
belly, thighs: bronze/leopard/goat (Da 2:32, 7:6, 8:5-12, 21) = Greece (Da 2:39--Ptolemies and Seleucids) 330 BC - 167 BC- - - - - -- - - - - - - - = Greece (Maccabees, Hasmoneans), 167 BC - 63 conquered by:

legs: iron/ beast (Da 2:33, 7:7) = Rome (Da 2:40-43), 63 BC - 476 AD
feet: partly iron and partly baked clay/with ten horns (Da 2:33, 7:7)

rock (Da 2:34-35) not cut by human hands, struck and smashed the feet of the statue, broke the iron, bronze, clay, silver and gold to pieces which were swept away,
divided into:

Asia, Britain, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Pannonia, Samartia, Spain,

rock became a huge mountain and filled the whole world, the

everlasting kingdom (Da 2:44), never destroyed, enduring forever

Daniel 2:44 - "In the time of those kings;" i.e., the Roman empire (2:40-43), which conquered the Greek empire (2:39, 8:21), "the God of heaven will set up a kngdom that will never be destroyed."
The Messianic kingdom (2:44) was set up during the past Roman empire, at the first coming of Christ (Matthew 12:28), who is the rock (2:34; Ro 9:33; 1 Co 10:4) which breaks the iron, bronze, clay, silver and gold to pieces (2:44-45), becoming a huge mountain (kingdom of God) and filling the whole world (2:35) with the kingdom that is never destroyed and endures forever (2:44).

The Messianic Kingdom is not established. Believing today's world is it sets the bar very very low.

Which has nothing to do with the truth of the word of God written.

Do some research on the prophecy of Daniel. The above has long been held in the church.

The kingdom of God is spiritual--invisible, within (Luke 17:20-21). It is not of this world (John 18:6).
Jesus refused the temporal earthly kingdom offered by the Jews (John 6:15).
He set up his own spiritual kingdom, not of this world.
Let that sink in. . .

It is not a physical kingdom. It is within us (Luke 17:20-21), where Christ reigns and rules in our hearts. . .and which has nothing to do with today's world.
It is eternal, continuing on in us into eternity.

That is NT authoritative teaching, with which all personal interpretation of prophetic riddles (Numbers 12:8) must agree if it is not to contradict the teaching of the apostles, particularly Paul, who received his teaching from Jesus Christ personally.

You, of all people, are committed to consistent interpretation of the word of God written.
Why are you agreeable to inconsistency in personal intepretation of prophetic riddles?
Too much Baptist left in you (and I love those Southern Baptists!)?

 

[Lazarus Short]

Regarding the thread title, preferences are good, but I believe an honest look at an honest translation easily proves that Christian universalism is true. I could, and did, find it in the KJV, but I had to do some digging...

 

[Servus]

Writing your own Bible these days?

Hell is not your "default" state. . .it's your only state (Romans 5:18)

That's what the word default (computer lingo) means in the way I was using it. So no, I'm not writing my own Bible.

In what universe does the mere existence of the remedy effect?
It is only the application of the remedy that effects.
Heaven is likewise nobody's default state.

Heaven is only for those who apply the remedy for the state into which we are all born (Ephesians 2:3; Romans 5:18).

That falls in line with Christian UR as I understand it.

This "theology" of universalism is not serving you well. . .taking you away from Truth rather than closer to Truth.

I think you should give more consideration to how it seems to affect you.

 

[Servus]

Except for that pesky little statement by Jesus that some sin is never forgiven (Matthew 12:32), and since there is no sin in heaven. . .no UR happenin' there.

Once again, Jesus said one sin, not some sin. "Writing your own Bible these days?". And the thing is, what Jesus is talking about regarding that one sin, is misunderstood by many. That's why there's been so many "Did I commit the unforgivable sin?" threads on CF.

Also Christian UR (as I understand it), teaches that redemption of the initially unsaved take place outside the open gates of heaven.

 

[Servus]

Regarding the thread title, preferences are good, but I believe an honest look at an honest translation easily proves that Christian universalism is true. I could, and did, find it in the KJV, but I had to do some digging...

Such an examination is probably considered "Writing your own Bible" by some.

 

[Servus]

He’s a pretty cool guy, has a daily radio show you can catch called the Narrow Path and he even answers emails if you question him on something.

I remember asking him something like how is Jesus not affected by sin when A) He was tempted like us in all things (meaning lust of the eyes,) and B. If He lusted with the eyes isn’t He guilty of polluting Himself via His own teaching that “if any man looks at a woman and lusts for her, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”?

He got back to me in like a week with a pretty boss answer. Was very satisfied by the depth he went into, considering how busy him and his team must be. I don’t remember all the details because it was so long ago, but it’s probably still bopping around my inbox somewhere.

Anyway yeah, cool guy, very down to earth.

That's been my experience with him as well.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Such an examination is probably considered "Writing your own Bible" by some.

Some, I'm sure, would say so. However, I just read, think, analyze and connect all the dots. If dots don't connect well, I find out why. Finding a term not belonging in the text (such as "Hell") because it is not found in the Greek or Hebrew, must get special attention.

 

[RickReads]

The kingdom of God is spiritual--invisible, within (Luke 17:20-21). It is not of this world (John 18:6).
Jesus refused the temporal earthly kingdom offered by the Jews (John 6:15).
He set up his own spiritual kingdom, not of this world.
Let that sink in. . .

It is not a physical kingdom. It is within us (Luke 17:20-21), where Christ reigns and rules in our hearts. . .and which has nothing to do with today's world.
It is eternal, continuing on in us into eternity.

That is NT authoritative teaching, with which all personal interpretation of prophetic riddles (Numbers 12:8) must agree if it is not to contradict the teaching of the apostles, particularly Paul, who received his teaching from Jesus Christ personally.

You, of all people, are committed to consistent interpretation of the word of God written.
Why are you agreeable to inconsistency in personal intepretation of prophetic riddles?
Too much Baptist left in you (and I love those Southern Baptists!)?

It will be a physical Kingdom at the appointed time.

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

My understanding of prophecy is no personal interpretation. It is the result of a good deal of research and study over many years and my beliefs are both logical and widely held and in full harmony with the scriptures.

I am non-denominational although the independent church I attend is considered full gospel evangelical. Unlike the Baptists, we like guitar music in the service.

 

[Servus]

Again as I understand it, the difference between the UR view and the traditional view, is that in the UR view hell is a place of correction and purification, rather than just a place of unending torment.

Which shows complete lack of understanding the magnitude of rejecting God's only Son,
the nature of unbelief, and the foolishness of the gospel to them.

I think you went too far with that statement.

 

[Cormack]

I can't see there are any contradictions in the Biblical message.

I think what you’ll find if you look long enough is that some of the answers used to reconcile apparent discrepancies within the Bible are very laboured, whether those answers be to supposed Gospel contradictions, mathematical errors, geographic errors, dating errors, charges of grammatical inaccuracies.

We have answers for every single textual issue without exception, but unless you have a Christian with the strongest inbuilt desire to defend the inerrancy of scripture reading those sometimes belaboured defences, there’s going to arise a sense of sympathy with the people who are stumbled by and begin having doubts about inerrancy.

I’m thankful for two things. First you don’t need an inerrant document to apply the historic method to an event and find that it’s true, the death and resurrection of Christ is one of those events. If inerrancy was proven wrong tomorrow (which it won’t be,) I’d still believe in the heart of the Gospel story, because I know how good history is done.

And second, the vast majority of so-called contradictions I’ve read have gone in the other direction, they’re the product of overeager web warriors searching the scriptures not for life, but for an apparent contradiction to wave over the dinner at their loving ma, pa or whomever they’re struggling with over the subject.

They’re overzealous to find error and end up walking into a simple reading error themselves, you see this all the time with people trying to use verses from the King James.

 

[zoidar]

Both thieves mocked Jesus but the one who repented stopped. Both testimonies are accurate.

It's possible, but sounds to me more like a way to make it fit, rather than just take it for what i says. To me it's no problem if there are differences in the testimonies. If anything I think it makes them more reliable. There are quite a few places in the Gospels where the testimonies don't match, like the death of Judas and the events around Jesus' grave.

 

[Cormack]

Inerrancy is actually a lot like universalism. It’s very philosophical, it’s about logical consequence like “God doesn’t make mistakes, therefore His word is without error.” That statement taken altogether isn’t something the Bible tells us, not in that ridged logically dry formula, instead it’s something we surmise by combining texts and thinking on the type of being God is. It’s something philosophical.

Even universalists have texts that say “saviour of the world” “all made new,” and “all of Israel will be saved.” The universalist perspective has more explicit plain sense of the text backing it up than do many doctrines we take for granted as Christian orthodoxy.

Still the philosophical strength of a view is nothing to thumb our nose at, it actually opens up a lot of great conversation (unlike when posters elephant hurl scripture verses at people from a word pad document they prepared earlier.)