Why are threads on Christian universalism so popular?

[ozso]

No same people, same groups, same book, same results. Why are you conflating them ?

Revelation 20
The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21
He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Revelation 22
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Is the water of life literal water? Are the dogs outside literal dogs? Is the tree of life a literal tree?

 

[ozso]

As the OP said, the UR position has been stated here fairly often. I was made aware of UR about 15 years ago. I studied it thoroughly as I find the concept appealing. However, it can only be supported by selectively quoting scripture and ignoring those verses that contradict UR. So no, you won't change my mind.

Actually I've seen the verses that are said to contradict UR addressed rather than ignored. So probably more like they weren't accepted as a contradiction, rather than ignored.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Is the water of life literal water? Are the dogs outside literal dogs? Is the tree of life a literal tree?

I think the tree of life is literal if not then the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would not be literal either. And when he says dogs it is not an animal it was the Jews way of insulting someone.

 

[Saint Steven]

As the OP said, the UR position has been stated here fairly often. I was made aware of UR about 15 years ago. I studied it thoroughly as I find the concept appealing. However, it can only be supported by selectively quoting scripture and ignoring those verses that contradict UR. So no, you won't change my mind.

All three doctrinal positions of the final judgement have biblical support.
- Damnationism
- Annihilationism
- Ultimate Redemption

Do you oppose adherents to Annihilationism?
It contradicts Damnationism as well.

This demonstration illu8strates that in a very unbiased way.

Hell - Three Christian Views Lecture by Steve Gregg

 

[ozso]

I think the tree of life is literal if not then the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would not be literal either. And when he says dogs it is not an animal it was the Jews way of insulting someone.

But how could a tree contain knowledge of good and evil? My point regarding the dogs is that it's a metaphor. Revelation if full of them. Like Jesus being a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes.

 

[ozso]

That reminds me, I haven't gotten into an argument with Steve Gregg in a while.

 

[Jipsah]

…..Jesus is quoted as using the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He intended to say eternal death, in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.”

So either everyone lives forever by default, or God keeps the wicked alive so the can be tortured.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I think the tree of life is literal if not then the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would not be literal either. And when he says dogs it is not an animal it was the Jews way of insulting someone.

agreed

 

[Saint Steven]

But how could a tree contain knowledge of good and evil?

Something definitely happened when that "ate thereof". If the story is accurate history.

I love the unanswered question:

Genesis 3:10-11 NIV
He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

Compare: Genesis 2:25

cc: @Jeff Saunders

 

[Jipsah]

"I have to reject ECT, primarily because one has to play games with the meanings of too many Scriptures to make it work." Some examples please?

How about one I've cited a few dozen times? "The wages of sin is death."

Here's another: “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Simple binary solution set there, life or death. ECT believers have to change "perish" into "suffer torture". but the contrast between "perish" and "eternal life" make it clear it's talking life and death and not bliss v torture.

How about "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" Obviously Father Adam died when he might have lived forever because of his sin. It does not say he lives forever to be tortured.

"Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death." No caveat provided that "death" really means something other than death, it just says what it says.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Again, no clarification that death meant living forever in torment. Just "you shall surely die".

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." Once again, death here clearly means death, not eternal but extemely unpleasant life.

There are, as you well know, many others, but that'll do to go on with.

And the sole Scripture that says that people live forever by default? Just one: "But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die." courtesy of Satan his own self.

When God destroyed millions, old, young, children, infants by drowning is that too pagan for you?
When God destroyed thousands, old, young, children, infants etc. was that too pagan for you?

"

God giveth, and God taketh away. But if you tell me that He tortured those people for all eternity, yeah, that's the act of an Odin or some petulant tribal fetish, not the Righteous Judge of the Universe (I made that title up, it seems appropriate).

 

[Jipsah]

You've clearly given this a lot of thought so I'd be interested in your thoughts on these questions. At what point would God admit defeat and decide to permanently erase a life?

Far above my pay grade.

How would that act effect the experience of heaven for that person's parents, children, partner etc? And finally, how does the picture of God destroying someone fit in with the image of Christ?

My assumption, worth the price charged, is that those annihilated would never have existed. "I never knew you". If God never knew someone, then that someone never existed. The image of Christ, IMO, remains unchanged.

 

[ozso]

…..Jesus is quoted as using the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He intended to say eternal death, in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.”

Jesus never said "eternal death". He just said "death". So since he never said "eternal death" does that mean he meant temporary death?

 

[Jipsah]

Jesus never said "eternal death". He just said "death". So since he never said "eternal death" does that mean he meant temporary death?

Seriously. I object to playing that kind of game with Scripture. "Oh, A doesn't really mean A, it really means [insert doctrinal position here]" It's a mechanism to make doctrinal presuppositions appear to have a clear Scriptural basis when in fact they're pretty shaky.

 

[ozso]

Seriously. I object to playing that kind of game with Scripture. "Oh, A doesn't really mean A, it really means [insert doctrinal position here]" It's a mechanism to make doctrinal presuppositions appear to have a clear Scriptural basis when in fact they're pretty shaky.

There's that and also playing a grammar game where "all" means all people in the first half of the sentence, but it doesn't mean all people in the second half because it's a conjunctive pronoun or whatever.

 

[RickReads]

Is the water of life literal water? Are the dogs outside literal dogs? Is the tree of life a literal tree?

The living water is the Holy Spirit. The Tree of life is Yeshua ben Yahweh. You don't want to know who the dogs are.

 

[ozso]

The living water is the Holy Spirit. The Tree of life is Yeshua ben Yahweh. You don't want to know who the dogs are.

I'm not actually asking what these things really are, since I already know. I'm asking rhetorical questions to point out that Revelation if full of metaphors. perhaps "lake of fire" is yet another metaphor.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

But how could a tree contain knowledge of good and evil? My point regarding the dogs is that it's a metaphor. Revelation if full of them. Like Jesus being a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes.

I agree that Rev is hard to make sense out of what is metaphorical and what is not , but the trees were from Genesis and why could God not make a special tree if he wanted to

 

[RickReads]

I'm not actually asking what these things really are, since I already know. I'm asking rhetorical questions to point out that Revelation if full of metaphors. perhaps "lake of fire" is yet another metaphor.

That`s a possibility but I`d have to look into it before I could agree or disagree.

 

[Saint Steven]

I agree that Rev is hard to make sense out of what is metaphorical and what is not , but the trees were from Genesis and why could God not make a special tree if he wanted to

Yes.
And if the trees are metaphorical, what about the effects?
The tree of Life giving "eternal" life. The fruit bringing healing to the nations. The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil opening our minds to the enemy. (Who told you that you were naked?)

 

[ozso]

I agree that Rev is hard to make sense out of what is metaphorical and what is not , but the trees were from Genesis and why could God not make a special tree if he wanted to

A lot of the terms descriptions and language used in Revelation can be found in the old testament, which is a key to understanding Rev better. Also many consider the account of Adam and Eve and the serpent and the tree to be symbolic. Probably something better understood in the time of Moses.