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

[Saint Steven]

That isn't for us to decide on this side.

But what would you deem to be justice? One lifetime? Two? Ten? How many? How long should he burn?

MMXX said: ↑
If there were the case, then how much punishment would he deserve?

 

[Cormack]

Pope Francis consoles a boy who asked if his non-believing father is in Heaven

And that was a very naughty Pontiff. I know Catholics who weren’t best pleased by that display of public relations gold.

 

[GallagherM]

Eternal punishment or Age-during punishment last as long as a person allows it in their life right? Maybe am wrong, but it would seem to me in my own life my punishment of living in my own carnal ways had caused destruction of the body that is lived in, relationships, and there was no real relationship with God when was living for only myself while hating God, making fun of Christ and mocking other Christians. A life punishment of darkness, hatred, depression, sadness, and affliction was with-in the heart that was filled with darkness void. The punishment stopped when realizing how wrong I was for even considering myself to be a 'god'. With seeking after God and the Lord Jesus Christ; light was shed in my heart, with forgiveness and mercy that came from the Father of light.

 

[RickReads]

Your defense posture probably indicates fear. Are you afraid of UR? I suppose you should be.

This kind of remark right here is the reason we don`t really talk much Steve.

 

[RickReads]

Unhelpful and evasive.
There are lots of fine folks on this thread. Hard to keep track of where everyone is at. Could we at least get a post #?

I seem to remember assuming you were a Damnationist, but then being informed that you are an Annihilationist. Is that right?

I started the thread at the 50-yard line and undecided. You boys have moved the ball about 30-40 yards towards my ruling out Universalism as a possibility due to less than honest tactics and poor defense of your doctrine.

 

[Cormack]

hut hut hike!

 

[Lazarus Short]

I started the thread at the 50-yard line and undecided. You boys have moved the ball about 30-40 yards towards my ruling out Universalism as a possibility due to less than honest tactics and poor defense of your doctrine.

Could you cite some examples of "less than honest tactics" and "poor defense"?

I, for one, want to be able to communicate my position more clearly and convincingly.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I started the thread at the 50-yard line and undecided. You boys have moved the ball about 30-40 yards towards my ruling out Universalism as a possibility due to less than honest tactics and poor defense of your doctrine.

Scrolling back it looks to me like you were being contentious and critical pretty much from the beginning.

If you really do want to learn about UR, I'd suggest reading what Brad Jersak and David Bentley Hart have to say on the subject. Both are Orthodox PhD theologians.

 

[Albion]

Universalism doesn`t work unless we decertify the Bible....

You are correct. After all is said and done, the conventional belief that some are saved and some are lost is Biblical, while the Universalist argument rests mainly on what the human would like God to do.

So, for all the chit chat we've experienced on this thread, this is still the Controversial Christian Theology forum, and Scripture still decides this issue.

The Original Post was sensible for having asked what we would do IF we could have it our way, but inevitably the discussion drifted away from that question.

 

[Lazarus Short]

You are correct. After all is said and done, the conventional belief that some are saved and some are lost is Biblical, while the Universalist argument rests mainly on what the human would like God to do.

So, for all the chit chat we've experienced on this thread, this is still the Controversial Christian Theology forum, and Scripture still decides this issue.

The Original Post was sensible for having asked what we would do IF we could have it our way, but inevitably the discussion drifted away from that question.

Well, not exactly. Cormack asked, "So for everyone who isn’t a believer in the universal reconciliation of all things, would you prefer that universalism were true?"

Yes, I would prefer universalism to be true, but I wrangled with it while I was doing my research to see which was true, damnationism, annihilationism or universalism. I tried to be objective, and I knew that God had expressed in His Word that He wanted to save all, but I looked and looked for a text that indicated that He would do so. One day, it came to me - of course! God is omnipotent, and can do anything He wants. As He asked Job, "Is anything too difficult for Me?" Or as Jesus the Christ said later, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Since then, I view the salvation/reconciliation of all to be in process, but a done deal nonetheless.

 

[Fervent]

So you have assassinated the spiritual gift of prophecy? I guess that fits your doctrine.

Did miracles, tongues, interpretation and healing go with it? (not to mention, a message of wisdom and a message of knowledge) That would be seven gone. (for the common good?)


1 Corinthians 12:7, 11 NIV
7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. ... 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

Look at what the text says about the result of prophesy. It accuses the unbeliever, makes them aware of their sin. Now, there is a special gift of prophecy where individuals are aware of things that they should not have knowledge of and glimpses of the future but these revelations are not addendums to the canon.

 

[Albion]

Well, not exactly. Cormack asked, "So for everyone who isn’t a believer in the universal reconciliation of all things, would you prefer that universalism were true?"

Okay.

Yes, I would prefer universalism to be true, but I wrangled with it while I was doing my research to see which was true, damnationism, annihilationism or universalism. I tried to be objective, and I knew that God had expressed in His Word that He wanted to save all, but I looked and looked for a text that indicated that He would do so. One day, it came to me - of course! God is omnipotent, and can do anything He wants.

As He asked Job, "Is anything too difficult for Me?" Or as Jesus the Christ said later, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Since then, I view the salvation/reconciliation of all to be in process, but a done deal nonetheless.

Let's see if we understand you correctly. You are saying that because God CAN do anything, it's therefore the case that he DOES save everyone.

I can't see any reason to believe that to be so. The proposition itself is not logical, even if logic determined the answer to this question. And the Bible certainly doesn't support it either.

 

[Ceallaigh]

You are correct. After all is said and done, the conventional belief that some are saved and some are lost is Biblical, while the Universalist argument rests mainly on what the human would like God to do.

So, for all the chit chat we've experienced on this thread, this is still the Controversial Christian Theology forum, and Scripture still decides this issue.

The Original Post was sensible for having asked what we would do IF we could have it our way, but inevitably the discussion drifted away from that question.

If UR could be easily dismissed, I would dismiss it as well. But I've concluded that it is supported enough by scripture to be a possibility.

 

[RickReads]

Could you cite some examples of "less than honest tactics" and "poor defense"?

I, for one, want to be able to communicate my position more clearly and convincingly.

I`m not familiar enough with your posts to say much about you. The people I`m addressing know what they do. I`ll give you some pointers though in case you have a real interest.

Over the years I`ve found that people who have a deep understanding of the gospel will have solid biblical backing for what they believe and will stick to that in the course of a discussion.

Others will play games with things that you say and make it seem like you have said things that you didn`t. Dismiss your objections without dealing with them. Make additions and subtractions from the scriptures and call it interpretation. Take single verses and create entire doctrines around them. Etc.....

Someone who just wants to promote the gospel won`t do those kinds of things because it does not glorify God.

When you get to the point where you are throwing words you don`t like out of the Bible and refusing to put up scriptures to defend your doctrine I`d call that poor defense, wouldn`t you?

Reminds me of a fumble. I could offer a blistering, biblical criticism of this whole exercise. But it would be too easy and not worth my time.

 

[Albion]

If UR could be easily dismissed, I would dismiss it as well. But I've concluded that it is supported enough by scripture to be a possibility.

Try lining up those few, unspecific verses against the pile of Scriptural evidence that teaches the other view. The case for Universalism fades fast.

That's why we have read rather little that's from the Bible in all the posts here that are in favor of universal salvation. It's a cause that's primarily based upon wishful thinking.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I`m not familiar enough with your posts to say much about you. The people I`m addressing know what they do. I`ll give you some pointers though in case you have a real interest.

Over the years I`ve found that people who have a deep understanding of the gospel will have solid biblical backing for what they believe and will stick to that in the course of a discussion.

Others will play games with things that you say and make it seem like you have said things that you didn`t. Dismiss your objections without dealing with them. Make additions and subtractions from the scriptures and call it interpretation. Take single verses and create entire doctrines around them. Etc.....

Someone who just wants to promote the gospel won`t do those kinds of things because it does not glorify God.

When you get to the point where you are throwing words you don`t like out of the Bible and refusing to put up scriptures to defend your doctrine I`d call that poor defense, wouldn`t you?

Reminds me of a fumble. I could offer a blistering, biblical criticism of this whole exercise. But it would be too easy and not worth my time.

People tend to resort to those kinds of tactics when they have a very minuscule amount of actual evidence to support their position otherwise they’d be stacking the evidence against you which I don’t see universalists able to do.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Try lining up those few, unspecific verses against the pile of Scriptural evidence that teaches the other view. The case for Universalism fades fast.

That's why we have read rather little that's from the Bible in all the posts here that are in favor of universal salvation. It's a cause that's primarily based upon wishful thinking.

Do you rely on forum posts as your source for theological study? Forum posts are little blurbs people often make on their phones. Do some actual research. Many proof texts I've seen used against it here don't even apply. And ironically some have actually tended to support it.

 

[Ceallaigh]

People tend to resort to those kinds of tactics when they have a very minuscule amount of actual evidence to support their position otherwise they’d be stacking the evidence against you which I don’t see universalists able to do.

More like their evidence is arbitrarily dismissed.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Reminds me of a fumble. I could offer a blistering, biblical criticism of this whole exercise. But it would be too easy and not worth my time.

You won't do it because it would be too easy to do. It isn't worth your time, even though it was worth your time to make lots of posts in this thread. You sound like a "sore loser" to me.

 

[RickReads]

You won't do it because it would be too easy to do. It isn't worth your time, even though it was worth your time to make lots of posts in this thread. You sound like a "sore loser" to me.

This is exactly the kind of response I was talking about.

I didn`t put any work into my posts on this thread. Making a list of scriptures isn`t hard but it is time-consuming and you already said you didn`t want to have a discussion with me.

I don`t need verses about hell to refute Universalism. Lots of scriptures plainly tell us that God intends to punish the wicked, that He can and does get angry, that He will avenge His elect Etc. Etc. Etc.