Why are threads on Christian universalism so popular?

[Jeff Saunders]

I guess when people think of God, they are expecting some sort of divine overcontrol that allows the expression of freewill and genuine worship - whilst precluding "neverending torment without the possibility of ascension or choice of annihilation?".

I suppose people also consider it unjust as well. I guess it's self evident to them that the punishment is overkill (haha literally haha ).
I guess people feel there should be more insight given into the afterlife and more opportunity to avoid hell.

This is one of the areas that made me see UR in a new light, growing up in the ECT camp I could never understand if that’s what God planned all along why would he not make it hard to go to hell , I came from Arminian camp not Calvinist camp who believe God wants most of his creation to go to hell but forge saves a few, and easy to go to heaven if that was his plan? We should have to work at going to hell not heaven. When I started out to prove UR wrong and I studied hours of info both for and against I came to realize that this explained many questions I had and that it’s the only camp that completely jives with the whole story of what God is doing. Now I cannot see it any other way. I feel at peace like I never have.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Except all the verses that say it is Gods will

Yeah just like all the verses say that their punishment is eternal. You’ll quote the Greek when it supports your theology but disregard it when it suits you.

 

[BNR32FAN]

1 Timothy 2
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

New Testament, right?

“This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2:3-4‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Desire
G2309
Thelo

1. to will, have in mind, intend
a. to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b. to desire, to wish
c. to love
1. to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
d. to take delight in, have pleasure

 

[Jeff Saunders]

What your teaching people is that they don’t have to come to Christ in this lifetime, that they can live however they please and all they have to do is repent when they get to the lake of fire and they will be saved. That’s a false and dangerous gospel that undermines the very fabric of God’s word.


When did Paul say that the restoration of “all” will take place in 1 Corinthians 15? After Death has been abolished.


“The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:26-28‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The same dime that death is abolished is the same time that satan and those who weren’t written in the book of life are abolished in the lake of fire as well. So the restitution of all things refers to all things that are still in existence after death’s abolishment.

“And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭20:12-15‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

You really should read up more on what most UR people believe. Yes you do not have to accept Christ while in the mortal body, but then neither did all the OT people who followed God they had to do at after the death of the mortal body. But we never say that there is no consequences for our actions or because the lake of fire is not eternal you can do whatever you want . We know the lake of fire is awful and may last a long time maybe millions of years we have no way to know. But what we teach is the judgement and punishment are not equal the judgment is final the punishment is refining till one sees Jesus as he is and accepts him as Lord . When you understand and see God as he really is and love him the last thing you want to do is greave his heart, when we love him we are compelled to follow him not out of fear of punishment but out of love the very thing that pleases the Fathers heart. And if death is not conquered by Jesus it goes on forever in the lake of fire , it can’t be conquered if it goes on, then you make Jesus out to be a lier a place I would not want to be in.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Yeah just like all the verses say that their punishment is eternal. You’ll quote the Greek when it supports your theology but disregard it when it suits you.

As I have said the Greek does support my understanding We in UR camp chose to use the literal definition of aioni which is of the age or eon so our position is that it’s not eternal that’s all there is to it . No twisting of God having two wills or what the definition of all is ect it’s been hashed out many times

 

[BNR32FAN]

It comes down to what we believe about God is he a loving God who wants to redeem all his creation or is he a angry, jealous God whose creation is messed up and he is trying to same at least some of it. It really comes down to what lens we are going to read through.

Right here is where we differ. I don’t let my personal feeling get in the way of my interpretation of what the Bible says because I trust that whatever God has decided is far better than any decision I could make and whether He has deemed that they will suffer for all eternity or if He has deemed that they will be destroyed it makes no difference to me because I trust that He knows what is best, not me. In the end our personal feeling on the matter are irrelevant, they don’t reveal truth the scriptures do. Do you think God should’ve killed Uzzah for trying to prevent the Ark of the Covenant from falling? I don’t but He did all the same. You and I might agree that we don’t think Uzzah deserved to die but that doesn’t change the fact that he did just like you might not think people deserve eternal punishment but our feelings are irrelevant to whether they will or not. God has chosen to use both love and fear to motivate people to repent and be saved perhaps because different people in different situations require different motivation. Personally I wouldn’t attempt to take away that fear and give people a sense of security that may end up in their destruction or eternal torment. If I’m going to be wrong I’m going to be wrong in telling people to repent in this life not when it’s too late.

 

[BNR32FAN]

As I have said the Greek does support my understanding We in UR camp chose to use the literal definition of aioni which is of the age or eon so our position is that it’s not eternal that’s all there is to it . No twisting of God having two wills or what the definition of all is ect it’s been hashed out many times

But your argument is that God gets everything He desires and I’ve already proven that to be false. Matthew 7:21 says everyone will not enter Heaven. Luke 12:10 says everyone will not be forgiven. Your interpretation of John 6:38-39 contradicts John 15:2, John 15:6, and Luke 13:6-9. All of my theology is backed by the early church writers all the way back to the second century.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Right here is where we differ. I don’t let my personal feeling get in the way of my interpretation of what the Bible says because I trust that whatever God has decided is far better than any decision I could make and whether He has deemed that they will suffer for all eternity or if He has deemed that they will be destroyed it makes no difference to me because I trust that He knows what is best, not me. In the end our personal feeling on the matter are irrelevant, they don’t reveal truth the scriptures do. Do you think God should’ve killed Uzzah for trying to prevent the Ark of the Covenant from falling? I don’t but He did all the same. You and I might agree that we don’t think Uzzah deserved to die but that doesn’t change the fact that he did just like you might not think people deserve eternal punishment but our feelings are irrelevant to whether they will or not. God has chosen to use both love and fear to motivate people to repent and be saved perhaps because different people in different situations require different motivation. Personally I wouldn’t attempt to take away that fear and give people a sense of security that may end up in their destruction or eternal torment. If I’m going to be wrong I’m going to be wrong in telling people to repent in this life not when it’s too late.

Oh but you do let your personal feelings get into it we all do it’s the most personal thing there is , our faith. All I know is that I am reading the same Bible that you do and I see a God who is love and would never ask us to do anything that goes against his love. When you understand the heart of the Father you would see he could never do what you say he does. He would never create people who he knows he will have to torture forever. He does not need fear to motivate people, fear is not of God, He always is motivated by love . Look at what Jesus said when he was with us , He said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. What did Jesus do why James and John wanted to call fire down on those who insulted Jesus, he said no you don’t know what spirit I am of. Or when Jesus was on the cross and he looked down on the very people who were killing him and he said Father forgive them for they know not what they do. Does this sound like the God who wants to burn forever those who don’t love him? So no it’s not about feeling it’s about knowing a loving God and trying to understand his heart. And for that I make no apology. We may disagree on the definition of translated words and that’s ok but I see a God who loves his whole creation and has a plan to redeem it all and the power to pull it off , as opposed to a God who had creation messed with and he is trying to fix at least some of it . That is the God that I read in the Bible. Fact not feeling.

 

[Hmm]

Oh but you do let your personal feelings get into it we all do it’s the most personal thing there is , our fait

Great point. Faith is having a trusting relationship with God. You (plural) may as well say you're not going to let your personal feelings get in the way of your marriage!

 

[Jeff Saunders]

But your argument is that God gets everything He desires and I’ve already proven that to be false. Matthew 7:21 says everyone will not enter Heaven. Luke 12:10 says everyone will not be forgiven. Your interpretation of John 6:38-39 contradicts John 15:2, John 15:6, and Luke 13:6-9. All of my theology is backed by the early church writers all the way back to the second century.

Have you read Origin or Gregory of Nissan (?I may have misspelled the names ) they say otherwise and many others I just can’t recall off the top of my head but can look up.

 

[Hmm]

Have you read Origin or Gregory of Nissan (?I may have misspelled the names )

I think it's Origen and either Gregory of Toyota or Gregory of Nyssa

 

[Jeff Saunders]

I think it's Origen and either Gregory of Toyota or Gregory of Nyssa

I tried to do it off the top of my head I guess I didn’t do a very good job

 

[Hmm]

I tried to do it off the top of my head I guess I didn’t do a very good job

It was a good guess. Took me a while to remember the exact names.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Oh but you do let your personal feelings get into it we all do it’s the most personal thing there is , our faith. All I know is that I am reading the same Bible that you do and I see a God who is love and would never ask us to do anything that goes against his love. When you understand the heart of the Father you would see he could never do what you say he does. He would never create people who he knows he will have to torture forever.

No I don’t let my personal feeling get in the way of scriptural doctrine. If your going to claim that I do then you should present evidence that supports it.

And I never said that eternal torment is sound doctrine. I am neutral on the subject of eternal torment or annihilation because there is equal evidence to support both. Since the scriptural evidence is inconclusive I don’t take a definitive position on either side of the debate. I simply say that both are plausible according to scripture.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Have you read Origin or Gregory of Nissan (?I may have misspelled the names ) they say otherwise and many others I just can’t recall off the top of my head but can look up.

Im familiar with Origen but not Gregory. Origen had a whole slew of anathemas charged against him and was labeled as a heretic at the 5th ecumenical council. But on the subject of universalism particularly here is the official canon that labeled Origen and his universal restoration doctrine as anathema.

IX.
If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.
Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.

 

[Hmm]

Im familiar with Origen but not Gregory. Origen had a whole slew of anathemas charged against him and was labeled as a heretic at the 5th ecumenical council. But on the subject of universalism particularly here is the official canon that labeled Origen and his universal restoration doctrine as anathema.

IX.
If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.
Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.

That's a pretty wild claim. Here's Fr Aiden Kimel on the subject:

"Over the past three centuries, however, historians have seriously questioned whether these anathemas were officially promulgated by II Constantinople. The council was convened by the Emperor Justinian for the express purpose of condemning the Three Chapters. Justinian does not mention the Origenist debate in his letter announcing the council nor in his letter that was read to the bishops at the formal opening of the council; nor do the acts of the council, as preserved in the Latin translation (the original Greek text having been lost), cite the fifteen anathemas. Hence when church historian Norman P. Tanner edited his collection of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils in 1990, he did not include the anti-Origenist denunciations, offering the following explanation: “Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council.”"

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Im familiar with Origen but not Gregory. Origen had a whole slew of anathemas charged against him and was labeled as a heretic at the 5th ecumenical council. But on the subject of universalism particularly here is the official canon that labeled Origen and his universal restoration doctrine as anathema.

IX.
If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.
Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.

Personally I don’t care who labeled him that , my military friends say the one over the target gets the most flack. Most likely he labeled as such because the last thing the church at that time wanted was to lose control you can’t keep people in line with the hell club if it’s not a eternal threat. He and others were so much closer to the original disciples and Greek was there native language that they threatened the Latin thinking that crept into the church. I would trust the thinking of them over the Catholic Church any day.The Catholic Church of that day was so corrupt it’s no surprise they would condemn him. He believed along with many others in Apokatastasis and I would follow his teaching any day. Did he get everything correct no probably not but no one does anyone who thinks they have no error in there beliefs is got blinder’s on.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

That's a pretty wild claim. Here's Fr Aiden Kimel on the subject:

"Over the past three centuries, however, historians have seriously questioned whether these anathemas were officially promulgated by II Constantinople. The council was convened by the Emperor Justinian for the express purpose of condemning the Three Chapters. Justinian does not mention the Origenist debate in his letter announcing the council nor in his letter that was read to the bishops at the formal opening of the council; nor do the acts of the council, as preserved in the Latin translation (the original Greek text having been lost), cite the fifteen anathemas. Hence when church historian Norman P. Tanner edited his collection of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils in 1990, he did not include the anti-Origenist denunciations, offering the following explanation: “Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council.”"

I see we read some of the same stuff but I am not at home so I could not look it up. So thank you for that

 

[Hmm]

I see we read some of the same stuff

You must have very good taste then!

 

[Der Alte]

“This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2:3-4‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬
Desire
G2309
Thelo
1. to will, have in mind, intend
a. to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b. to desire, to wish
c. to love
1. to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
d. to take delight in, have pleasure

How about applying that reasoning to this passage
When I first heard the Calvinist proof text about a leopard not being able to change his spots, nor the Ethiopian his skin, I needed to see the context. I found that God was speaking to the king and queen of Israel not, necessarily all of mankind, Jer 13:18. And as I read further in this chapter I found another passage, which refutes several tenets of Calvinism.
Note this passage from Jeremiah. God said “I have caused to cleave” That word is הדבקתי/ha’dabaq’thi. It is in the perfect or completed sense. God’s express will, clearly stated, for the whole house of Israel and Judah, to cling to God as a belt clings to a man’s waist.
It was done, finished, completed, in God’s sight, and, according to some arguments, nothing man can do will cause God’s will to not be done. But they, Israel and Judah, would not hear and obey, their will, vs. God’s will, So God destroyed them, vs. 14.
…..This passage very much speaks to God’s sovereign will, and man’s free will and agency. God stated very clearly what His will was, in terms that cannot be misunderstood. But, because the Israelites and Judeans would not hear, and obey, God destroyed them, instead of them being unto God, “for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory, vs. 10.”

Jer 13:1 Thus saith the LORD unto me, Go and get thee a linen girdle, and put it upon thy loins, and put it not in water.
2 So I got a girdle according to the word of the LORD, and put it on my loins.
3 And the word of the LORD came unto me the second time, saying,
4 Take the girdle that thou hast got, which is upon thy loins, and arise, go to Euphrates, and hide it there in a hole of the rock.
5 So I went, and hid it by Euphrates, as the LORD commanded me.
6 And it came to pass after many days, that the LORD said unto me, Arise, go to Euphrates, and take the girdle from thence, which I commanded thee to hide there.
7 Then I went to Euphrates, and digged, and took the girdle from the place where I had hid it: and, behold, the girdle was marred, it was profitable for nothing.
8 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
9 Thus saith the LORD, After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem.
10 This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.
11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave [הדבקתי/ha’dabaq’thi] unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
· · ·
14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.​

Note, verse 14, God said “I will NOT have pity, will NOT spare, and will NOT have mercy but destroy them.”