Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[ozso]

Brian, I couldn't agree more. Now shall I go back to bashing infernalists

Can't this topic be discussed without bashing?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Can't this topic be discussed without bashing?

Should we be using the plank removed from our eye for something else?

 

[Fervent]

Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.

I'm going to keep repeating it until it sinks in. 'All the ends of the earth' - that includes you, me, the dog, the monkey and the fish.

And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. (Rev 5:13)

Behold the glory of God! The plan, the consummation, the victory.

I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. (Jn 8:50)

Yes, salvation is open to all the ends of the earth. But "every knee shall bow" is a threat of conquest not a promise of salvation, and "turn to me and be saved" is a conditional statement. That is not saying everyone will be saved, nor even that it is God's intention to save all.

The others don't even come close to anything approaching univesalism so there's no need to even comment on them.

 

[ozso]

Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.

I'm going to keep repeating it until it sinks in. 'All the ends of the earth' - that includes you, me, the dog, the monkey and the fish.

And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. (Rev 5:13)

Behold the glory of God! The plan, the consummation, the victory.

I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. (Jn 8:50)

But what about Me and My free will?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Undeniable evidence you have not read even one of my posts where I quoted the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia, 1972 Encyclopedia and the pre-Christianity Talmud.

No, I'd like to know where that is supported in the Torah, as a matter of principle.

The O.T. quotations are highlighted in blue.

All I can see is the misanthropic Talmudic interpretations of the OT quotations in blue.

Principle der Alte, not just dismembered disjunctive opinions thinly masquerading as proofs.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

But "every knee shall bow" is a threat of conquest not a promise of salvation,

Every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess. And what does it take to be saved?

if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9)

You just don't seem to believe God has the power to change every man's heart. Adam defeats Christ, eh?

The others don't even come close to anything approaching univesalism so there's no need to even comment on them.

Revelation 5:13 is not universalist?! Please explain.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

But what about Me and My free will?

I really do not understand this stumbling block of 'free will', as though man's mind, heart and soul can somehow resist the revelation of God. This is just the prison of sin to which Jesus holds the keys.

 

[Fervent]

Every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess. And what does it take to be saved?

if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9)

You just don't seem to believe God has the power to change every man's heart. Adam defeats Christ, eh?

The type of confession Paul is speaking of in Romans 10 is not the same confession meant in Isaiah/Philippians. Just as Paul can speak of those that believe, while James states that the demons believe and tremble. The confession is not the same because one is the joyous declaration of Christ as Lord and the other is the beleagured admission of a conquered foe. Every knee shall bow speaks of God's might, and no where in the context is the notion that those who oppose God to the end and do not turn willingly are saved. To admit that God is mighty is not the same as declaring Him Lord.

Revelation 5:13 is not universalist?! Please explain.

There's no mention of who will be saved within the verse, the focus is purely on Christ's glory. Though it is not on me to prove what is not in the verse, it is encumbent on you to demonstrate that what you seem to believe is there is in it. So perhaps you can explain why you believe it to be speaking of universal salvation when there is no mention of salvation?

 

[Fervent]

I really do not understand this stumbling block of 'free will', as though man's mind, heart and soul can somehow resist the revelation of God. This is just the prison of sin to which Jesus holds the keys.

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis' The Window in the Garden Wall?

 

[ozso]

The type of confession Paul is speaking of in Romans 10 is not the same confession meant in Isaiah/Philippians. Just as Paul can speak of those that believe, while James states that the demons believe and tremble.

I hear James 2:19 broght up a lot. Most often by proponents of Lordship Salavation (which appears to be virtually identical to Roman Catholic soteriology) and opponents of once saved always saved. But I'm not sure if James is saying is in context to confessing Jesus Christ is Lord, when he says "you believe that God is one". That seems to be trying to make the text say something it doesn't.

 

[Fervent]

I hear James 2:19 broght up a lot. Most often by proponents of Lordship Salavation (which appears to be virtually identical to Roman Catholic soteriology) and opponents of once saved always saved. But I'm not sure if James is saying is in context to confessing Jesus Christ is Lord, when he says "you believe that God is one". That seems to be trying to make the text say something it doesn't.

In so far as universalism is concerned, the different usages are relevant since it is more about what Paul has said than what James says. The biggest issue as far as OSAS is concerned is that it reduces salvation to a single element in justification, and then never defines the moment at which we are justified. Certainly, those who are saved are saved eternally but practically speaking none of us know we are among that number until we have completed the course. Unless, of course, we happen to have a moment where God personally comes to us and declares us righteous. Returning to universalism, the confession Paul is speaking to isn't simply a statement of fact or a recognition of God's rightful position but a willing, uncoerced submission to Christ's Lordship.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The type of confession Paul is speaking of in Romans 10 is not the same confession meant in Isaiah/Philippians. Just as Paul can speak of those that believe, while James states that the demons believe and tremble. The confession is not the same because one is the joyous declaration of Christ as Lord and the other is the beleagured admission of a conquered foe. Every knee shall bow speaks of God's might, and no where in the context is the notion that those who oppose God to the end and do not turn willingly are saved. To admit that God is mighty is not the same as declaring Him Lord.

There's no perfunctory genuflection in the victory of Christ. That's precisely what differentiates the power of God from the power of Satan. Because God's former enemies are truly converted, not forced to their knees and waiting for the first opportunity to rise up and stab Him in the back. The demons tremble at this prospect, which terrifies them infinitely more than does enforced servitude.

Paul cites this verse in Rom 14:11:

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

The word for confess is Strong's Greek: 1843. ἐξομολογέω (exomologeó) -- to agree, confess, of which Strong's defines as:

1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Does this sound like forced and grudging confession to you? By no means! This is confession in spirit and in truth.

There's no mention of who will be saved within the verse, the focus is purely on Christ's glory. Though it is not on me to prove what is not in the verse, it is encumbent on you to demonstrate that what you seem to believe is there is in it. So perhaps you can explain why you believe it to be speaking of universal salvation when there is no mention of salvation?

Revelation 5:13 is John's testimony to every creature worshipping God. What's the distinction you're wanting to make between salvation and worship? Is it about God's glory or your comfort?

 

[Fervent]

There's no perfunctory genuflection in the victory of Christ. That's precisely what differentiates the power of God from the power of Satan. Because God's former enemies are truly converted, not forced to their knees and waiting for the first opportunity to rise up and stab Him in the back. The demons tremble at this prospect, which terrifies them infinitely more than does enforced servitude.

Paul cites this verse in Rom 14:11:

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

The word for confess is Strong's Greek: 1843. ἐξομολογέω (exomologeó) -- to agree, confess, of which Strong's defines as:

1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Does this sound like forced and grudging confession to you? By no means! This is confession in spirit and in truth.

First, confess is about complete agreement but what the tongue confesses is agreement with God's judgment and God's right to proclaim that judgment. The context that has to be considered is primarily Isaiah where the statement is made in conjunction with oracles of judgment against the nation. It is not the confession of Christ as Lord over their lives. Second, the Philippians reference again has to be understood in context and the next chapter denies any sort of universalist interpretation since Paul explicitly writes of a group whose destiny is destruction. So it is only by isolating the phrase and trying to create a meaning for it that universalism can be maintained, since both contexts make clear that God will judge the wicked. In fact the Hebrew phrase is a declaration of a military victory in which the residents of the conquered city are dragged out and put on their knees to confess their unconditional surrender, it is not a joyous declaration of fealty but a pure recognition of judgment.

Revelation 5:13 is John's testimony to every creature worshipping God. What's the distinction you're wanting to make between salvation and worship? Is it about God's glory or your comfort?

That is quite the leap you're making. Revelation 5:13 is purely about Christ's worthiness, and Christ's worthiness alone. There is simply no connection with salvation in the verse, no where is salvation being indicated and the only way to get that out of the verse is if you supply it as a reader. So all your attempt to use this verse shows is that you engage with Scripture eisegetically.

 

[ozso]

In so far as universalism is concerned, the different usages are relevant since it is more about what Paul has said than what James says. The biggest issue as far as OSAS is concerned is that it reduces salvation to a single element in justification, and then never defines the moment at which we are justified. Certainly, those who are saved are saved eternally but practically speaking none of us know we are among that number until we have completed the course. Unless, of course, we happen to have a moment where God personally comes to us and declares us righteous. Returning to universalism, the confession Paul is speaking to isn't simply a statement of fact or a recognition of God's rightful position but a willing, uncoerced submission to Christ's Lordship.

As I'm sure you know universalism isn't saying it's a coerced confession or conversion. But rather a dynamic conversion followed by confession similar to what Paul experienced.

Some who argue against the UR position have said there will be those who will bend the knee and confess that Christ is Lord who don’t really mean it and are only doing so before being sent to eternal damnation because they will be forced to.

But as far as I can see a coerced confession that Jesus Christ is Lord would be meaningless and pointless from any angle.

And also I don't think James saying "you believe that God is one" is talking about those who bend the knee and confess that Jesus is Lord.
.

 

[Fervent]

As I'm sure you know universalism isn't saying it's a coerced confession. Some who argue against the UR position have said there will be those who will bend the knee and confess that Christ is Lord who don’t really mean it and are only doing so before being sent to eternal damnation because they will be forced to. But as far as I can see a coerced confession that Jesus Christ is Lord would be meaningless and pointless from any angle.

And also I don't think James saying "you believe that God is one" is talking about those who bend the knee and confess that Jesus is Lord.
.

I'm aware, but the verses often used to prop up universalism often imply conquest. For example every knee shall bow contains an implicit image of a military conquest, declaring that God's enemies will be overtaken one way or the other. Expressing a conditional hope that all will of their own will submit is certainly not an issue, but it is a hope that is contrary to the picture painted by the Bible itself. Jesus speaks of a resurrection to damnation, every instance of the final judgment implies two groups of individuals going to divergent fates, and on and on. Free will is an issue for universalism because both Biblically, and from ordinary experience, it is clear that some reject God because they hate Him rather than because they are ignorant of Him and there's no rectifying that. Either God violates free will and produces a coerced declaration, or those who hate God face some form of eternal judgment because they are evil.

 

[ozso]

I'm aware, but the verses often used to prop up universalism often imply conquest. For example every knee shall bow contains an implicit image of a military conquest, declaring that God's enemies will be overtaken one way or the other. Expressing a conditional hope that all will of their own will submit is certainly not an issue, but it is a hope that is contrary to the picture painted by the Bible itself. Jesus speaks of a resurrection to damnation, every instance of the final judgment implies two groups of individuals going to divergent fates, and on and on. Free will is an issue for universalism because both Biblically, and from ordinary experience, it is clear that some reject God because they hate Him rather than because they are ignorant of Him and there's no rectifying that. Either God violates free will and produces a coerced declaration, or those who hate God face some form of eternal judgment because they are evil.

What about Paul who was an archenemy of Christ, until Chirst appeared to Paul in all His glory?

 

[Fervent]

What about Paul who wss an archenemy of Christ, until Chirst appeared to Paul in all His glory?

Paul was an ignorant zealot who willingly repented when it was made clear that he was persecuting the very God for which he had such a zeal. Perhaps some when God is revealed in full will recognize and repent but to assume that this will be the case with all seems rather naive. And it seems to me the defense against people rejecting God in full knowledge and of their own will is often an appeal to God's omnipotence with the implication that He will overpower their objections through coercive force. In fact it is the only possibility to maintain universalism, since God making Himself more palatable to those who reject God with full knowledge would entail God becoming evil Himself. So the experience of these individuals to being in God's presence is not joyful exaltation, but a self-inflicted torment that has traditionally been described as hell.

 

[ozso]

Paul was an ignorant zealot who willingly repented when it was made clear that he was persecuting the very God for which he had such a zeal. Perhaps some when God is revealed in full will recognize and repent but to assume that this will be the case with all seems rather naive. And it seems to me the defense against people rejecting God in full knowledge and of their own will is often an appeal to God's omnipotence with the implication that He will overpower their objections through coercive force. In fact it is the only possibility to maintain universalism, since God making Himself more palatable to those who reject God with full knowledge would entail God becoming evil Himself. So the experience of these individuals to being in God's presence is not joyful exaltation, but a self-inflicted torment that has traditionally been described as hell.

That seems like intentionally presenting it as a catch 22 situation to show why it couldn't work. Do people who reject God truly know Him? Has any convert ever said they had a true understanding of God prior to conversion?

 

[Fervent]

That seems like intentionally presenting it as a catch 22 situation to show why it couldn't work. Do people who reject God truly know Him? Has any convert ever said they had a true understanding of God prior to conversion?

It's not so much presenting it as a catch-22 because the free will decision of every individual is unknown. Certainly, it's possible that every human being when God is revealed in full will find themselves willingly and joyfully submitting. But that cannot be presumed to be the case, nor is such speculation built upon anything resembling Biblical exegesis(instead coming from human philosophy). And such speculation is dangerous because if it is untrue then the only thing it does is give a reason for people to not take Christianity's claims seriously. It is superficially attractive to hope that everyone in creation is one day redeemed but that superficial hope not only depends on too many variables but also denies the full extent of human evil treating it instead as a superficial obstacle.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

God is revealed in full will recognize and repent but to assume that this will be the case with all seems rather naive.

Naive, wow. For those of us who've been born again, there's no question, because we know, as we are known. None can stand in the presence of God, and to suggest otherwise betrays a complete ignorance of the incomprehensible majesty and transformative power of the Spirit that raises the dead, creates the world and does all manner of miracles. What a thought, that man's will can overcome God's. Open your heart to Christ, perhaps he'll come in.