Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Fervent]

Matthew 25 consists of three parables. I figure you're talking about the third parable found in Matthew 25:31-46. With emphasis on verses 41 and 46. It seems to me that whenever this is used as the primary go-to proof text, the fact that it's a parable and what it's about gets left out. In this parable Jesus is saying that those who performed a single act of charity, received eternal life in heaven. If one is to take Matthew 25:31-46 as being completely literal, then that means Jesus said all anyone has to do to receive eternal life in haven, is to give someone a cup of water. Of course virtually no one is going to say that's exactly what Jesus meant. So it's like Jesus didn't mean what he said in Matthew 25:31-46, except for verse 41 and 46. How much sense does that make? And again in Malachi, how literal was he being? As for the fate of the wicked, like ET, UR also teaches that the wicked will be judged and punished. The difference is in what form that punishment will take.



From what I've seen so far, proponents of annihilation and UR both maintain that the doctrine of eternal torment is immoral and makes God out to be a monster. So the beginning point for both is coming to the conclusion that the ET doctrine is plain wrong, and therefore the Bible must be talking about some other outcome. ET proponents can say that both put blinders on by ignoring certain verses and/or changing the meaning of certain verses and/or words, because they can't stomach the truth.

It being a parable is actually a strong point to my argument, because parables were told didactically. Their intent was to teach about things that were not directly accessible. Ultimately what UR has to resolve in both Malachi and Matthew is that there are clearly two distinct groups based on their being wicked/righteous and each of these groups are sent to divergent eternal destinies. Matthew 25 is particularly damning because it is about the strongest teaching Jesus put forth about the final state of things. Both are about final judgment and present two completely distinct fates.

Resolving this through invention of a doctrine of temporal punishment that doesn't reflect the passages themselves and then in desperation appealing to questioning word selections where context overwhelmingly indicates that this punishment is teleologic and final is little more than a fig leaf attempt to hold onto pet theologies in the face of contradictory Scripture.

 

[Hmm]

It's not a matter of interpreting it according to one or another, but looking at what the context is. I have yet to see a single passage that is didactic in intent, centering on final fates, where universal redemption is central to the point

Your "I have yet to see" is you interpreting the text.

The biggest issue with this sort of questioning is it is always from motivated inquirers. There's a pet theology they're questioning the language to support, not a dispassionate lexical inquiry.

Not at all, aionios is a complex word and serious scholars have been cited by both sides probably but certainly in support of UR. You may dismiss what they say but that is not a refutation.

 

[Fervent]

From what I've seen so far, proponents of annihilation and UR both maintain that the doctrine of eternal torment is immoral and makes God out to be a monster. So the beginning point for both is coming to the conclusion that the ET doctrine is plain wrong, and therefore the Bible must be talking about some other outcome. ET proponents can say that both put blinders on by ignoring certain verses and/or changing the meaning of certain verses and/or words, because they can't stomach the truth.

While annihilationists may have moral objections to ECT, that's not necessarily a beginning point. Malachi is a strong annihilationist text, as it is didactic and about final judgment and is presented in a way that the natural understanding is utter destruction as chaff is consumed in the fire not eternally burning.

As I have said, at present I have not been shown a verse that meets the basic criteria I laid out for saying the Bible teaches something. A didactic passage that is clearly about eschatology/afterlife where the doctrine of UR is central to the primary message of the passage itself.

 

[Hmm]

You're going to have to ask Major1, he's the one making the arrangements.

I'm doomed then!

 

[Fervent]

Your "I have yet to see" is you interpreting the text.

Yes, my interpreting the text in accordance to basic contextual criteria. If you believe there is a passage that meets these criteria, present it for discussion.

 

[Fervent]

Not at all, aionios is a complex word and serious scholars have been cited by both sides probably but certainly in support of UR. You may dismiss what they say but that is not a refutation.

Complex word? Not particularly. And how many of these "serious scholars" were hostile to UR?

 

[Hmm]

Yes, my interpreting the text in accordance to basic contextual criteria. If you believe there is a passage that meets these criteria, present it for discussion.

You miss my point. You were accusing others of interpretation but objectivity for yourself. It's all a matter of interpretation. The best we can do is to be as informed and open as we can.

 

[Hmm]

Complex word? Not particularly. And how many of these "serious scholars" were hostile to UR?

I did say that the meaning of aionios has been the subject of a lot of study by serious scholars on both sides (probably) of the universalist argument. You can put "serious scholars" in quotes but they do exist. No one thinks things are particularly complex until they begin to learn about them.

 

[Hmm]

Yes, my interpreting the text in accordance to basic contextual criteria. If you believe there is a passage that meets these criteria, present it for discussion.

Okay, what context that relates to Corinthians 15:22 "for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ" gives it a non-universalist meaning?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Complex word? Not particularly. And how many of these "serious scholars" were hostile to UR?

It's probably more like not wanting to be branded as a heretic, than being hostile to UR.

 

[Ceallaigh]

While annihilationists may have moral objections to ECT, that's not necessarily a beginning point. Malachi is a strong annihilationist text, as it is didactic and about final judgment and is presented in a way that the natural understanding is utter destruction as chaff is consumed in the fire not eternally burning.

As I have said, at present I have not been shown a verse that meets the basic criteria I laid out for saying the Bible teaches something. A didactic passage that is clearly about eschatology/afterlife where the doctrine of UR is central to the primary message of the passage itself.

All I know is the preambles I've read so far in presentations of an annihilation (or whatever they want to call it like "dualistic conditional immortality") doctrine, is that ET the doctrine is immoral and God isn't a monster (or words to that effect).

You and Der Alte both use a specific criteria you came up with, that you're certain can't be met, which automatically renders UR invalid for you. I'm sure there's probably several doctrines one can do that with.

 

[Hmm]

You and Der Alte both use a specific criteria you came up with, that you're certain can't be met, which automatically renders UR invalid for you. I'm sure there's probably several doctrines one can do that with.

I do hope God was aware of this minimum criteria before He created the universe otherwise it might disappear in a puff of logic and He'll have to start again.

 

[Andrewn]

As I have said, at present I have not been shown a verse that meets the basic criteria I laid out for saying the Bible teaches something. A didactic passage that is clearly about eschatology/afterlife where the doctrine of UR is central to the primary message of the passage itself.

So long you, and others, insist that "aionios" means "endless" or "everlasting" there will be no satisfactory interpretation other than ECT. This is the beginning and the end of the story for you and there is no point in discussion.

 

[Hmm]

So long you, and others, insist that "aionios" means "endless" or "everlasting" there will be no satisfactory interpretation other than ECT. This is the beginning and the end of the story for you and there is no point in discussion.

Exactly.

"’When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all."

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

 

[Major1]

How much do you know about William B. Nelson, Jr.?

How much do you know about Oliver B. Breen?

 

[Major1]

And that's known as, the pot calling the kettle black, and people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

But I am the one who has NEVER said that you insulted me!

 

[Major1]

Why is Steve my partner? Why not Hmm or Lazarus Short? I mean if I'm going to be forced into a partnership with someone, I have a right to know why.

Here's the deal, if you say something that's accurate about UR, then I won't have to correct you on it. I'll say something like "that's a good point".

YOU and Steve believe the same thing!

Birds always flock together because there is safety in numbers.

So far......I have not said one single thing about UR that incorrect!
I have said several things which you do not agree with but that is two very different things.

 

[Lazarus Short]

So far......I have not said one single thing about UR that incorrect!

I might disagree, but I skim your posts too much to say much.

 

[Ceallaigh]

YOU and Steve believe the same thing!

Birds always flock together because there is safety in numbers.

So far......I have not said one single thing about UR that incorrect!
I have said several things which you do not agree with but that is two very different things.

But why Steve and not Hmm? I think his feelings are hurt.

 

[Ceallaigh]

But I am the one who has NEVER said that you insulted me!

Probably because I haven't. But in general your feathers seem to get ruffled a lot.