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

[Clare73]

Once again, Jesus said one sin, not some sin. "Writing your own Bible these days?".

In keeping with what Jesus said, when some are guilty of it, it is some sins.

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.

Which has nothing to do with its never being forgiven.

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

THe "only problem" being what "UR teaches" is not in agreement with authoritative NT teaching.

How do the damned get to the gates of heaven?

 

[Servus]

Yeah, maybe that was why. I saw an interview with Rob Bell. I'm sure it's still on youtube. The interviewer really attacked Rob in a very unchristian fashion. That was not allright.

It goes to show the level of hostility that springs up when someone doesn't go along with eternal torment.

 

[Servus]

In keeping with what Jesus said, when some are guilty of it, it is some sins.

It's the unpardonable sin. Singular, not plural.

Which has nothing to do with its never being forgiven.

It has to with lack of understanding of what the one and only unpardonable specifically is.

THe "only problem" being "UR teaching" is not in agreement with authoritative NT teaching.

What you consider to be authoritative NT teaching is based on your interpretation of what it teaches.

How do the damned get to the gates of heaven?

Perhaps we will go out to them the same as Jesus went out to the dammed here on earth.

The Pharisees hated it when He did that.

 

[Clare73]

It will be a physical Kingdom at the appointed time.

There is no Biblical warrant for two temporal Messianic kingdoms.
The one Jesus set up at his first coming is without end.

You are multiplying events which are the same, characteristic of dispensationalism, with no NT didactical warrant.

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.

Widely held indeed. . .

And new to the church in the last 200 years. . .somehow the apostles missed it all.

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.

Were your parents from two different denominations?

 

[Clare73]

I think you went too far with that statement.

You would have to if you agree with UR.

 

[Clare73]

It's the unpardonable sin. Singular, not plural.

singular X people = plural.

It has to with lack of understanding of what the one and only unpardonable specifically is.

Which has nothing to do with it being eternal, the point under discussion.

What you consider to be authoritative NT teaching is
based on your interpretation of what it teaches.

And it's agreement with all Scripture and disagreement with none, which UR does not enjoy.

Perhaps we will go out to them the same as Jesus went out to the dammed here on earth.
The Pharisees hated it when He did that.

And you see no difference between earth and hell. . .serious miscalculation.

 

[Servus]

singular X people = plural.

It's one sin that can be committed by individuals. So Jesus did not say there are sins that are unpardonable. He said every sin would be pardonable, except that one sin. And many misunderstand why that one sin can't be pardoned.

Which has nothing to do with it being eternal, the point under discussion.

I think it does. Based on my understanding of what that it is that makes that one sin unpardonable.

And it's agreement with all Scripture and disagreement with none, which UR does not enjoy.

Based on your interpretation.

And you see no difference between earth and hell. . .serious miscalculation.

No that's an assertion you made up to knock down.

However, the Bible says that hell is on earth, and that Satan is the ruler of this fallen world that's full of horrors and suffering.

 

[RickReads]

There is no Biblical warrant for two temporal Messianic kingdoms.
The one Jesus set up at his first coming is without end.

You are multiplying events which are the same, characteristic of dispensationalism, with no NT didactical warrant.

Widely held indeed. . .

And new to the church in the last 200 years. . .somehow the apostles missed it all.

Were your parents from two different denominations?

You continue to ignore scriptural proofs I offer that are pretty cut and dry. No point for me to go any further.

 

[Clare73]

I like the fact that the Bible has contradictions and discrepancies. That just goes to show that it wasn't doctored up. Individual eyewitness accounts don't normally match up perfectly, and start looking suspicious when they do.

No "mismatch" in the accounts. . .differences do not equate to "mismatch."

 

[Clare73]

Is there such a thing as a Christian universalist church or movement? What's the "official" Christian view on universalism: is it "respectable” or heretical?

In orthodoxy, it is heretical.

 

[Clare73]

I can't I'm surprised but it is a sad indictment on the church that such a grace centred view which has a good amount of biblical support is heretical while views such as limited atonement are deemed acceptable. I've heard of the Rob Bell book but not read it. It was a best seller I believe.

Wow! . . .human judgment/preference as the measure for the truth of God. . .Wow!

 

[Clare73]

However, the Bible says that hell is on earth,

Refresh my memory. . .where is that found in Scripture?

 

[Hmm]

Wow! . . .human judgment/preference as the measure for the truth of God. . .Wow!

No, I was saying that there is biblical support for UR. Nothing wrong with using discretion in interpreting scripture though - in fact that's one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Clare73]

I believe I've heard that fear of hellfire was used as a weapon by the Holy Roman Empire to get what they wanted.

Sounds like propaganda. . .

So they added to the Scripture to accomplish their purpose?

 

[Servus]

Sounds like propaganda. . .

So they added to the Scripture to accomplish their purpose?

No, they created doctrine from interpolation of scripture.

 

[Clare73]

It depends on what you mean by agreeing on “the UR idea.” I’m assuming we both agree with the idea that it’s better to prefer the universal reconciliation of everyone, rather than to have a preference for people being divorced from Gods love and then punished forever.

It is never better to prefer what God does not ordain.

Are you more holy than he?

 

[Servus]

Refresh my memory. . .where is that found in Scripture?

Ephesians 4:8-10.

 

[Clare73]

So in this case it’s something we agree on, since the topic has never been about the absolute fact of universal reconciliation being true or untrue. It’s always been a topic about Christian hearts and whether or not they can handle the plain task of entertaining an idea they don’t already hold.
The more interesting question is why are some people still attempting to argue in the “I don’t prefer it and here’s why” camp, because almost 1000 messages in and they haven’t provided one logically justifiable reason.

Which demonstrates your false premise.

What we do find in the comments are users giving a cursory “sure” to the “would you prefer it” question, paying lip service to the question, then proceeding to write waves and waves of text about why universalism isn’t true.

To me that’s very telling.

Indeed!

That you don't understand logic is not the source of faith.

 

[Clare73]

Yeah, maybe that was why. I saw an interview with Rob Bell. I'm sure it's still on youtube. The interviewer really attacked Rob in a very unchristian fashion. That was not allright.

What do you think of the apostle's response to the Judaizers in Galatians 5:12?
Unchristian?
Could it be that Biblically some heresies deserve that kind of response from the faithful?

 

[Servus]

No, I was saying that there is biblical support for UR. Nothing wrong with using discretion in interpreting scripture though - in fact that's one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

It seems according to Clare73 there's no Biblical support for UR, because they can't find it.