Is it okay to simply assume that God saves all?

[Hmm]

What a silly non-historical, non-geographically minded and non-contexual question to ask. This is not how current notions about 'freedom' have come to light in the conscience of the Western World, Hmm. It hasn't been merely by standing side by side with William Wilberforce. The point here in my saying this is that if the structure of the argument for Christian Universalism is 'true,' it will be on lines of evaluation other than those on which anti-slavery morality is structured. So, just drop the slavery analogy.

No, it's not "only felt." It's ludicrous for you to say it is on the whole and I know you're smarter than that. So, maybe back off from this sort of positioning of your view.

Furthermore, for you to insist on asserting what grounding "IS" belies your understanding of what "philosophy" is. It's essentially a contradictory act for you to make, and where claims of knowledge are prudent, I hope you realize that your inference as to what constitutes truths of "philosophy" in contradistinction to some sort of "other truths" stands on the precipice of solipsism. It's not a good place to be, and I'm just trying to point this out to you before you make Christian Universalism sound like a mere wish well of dreams rather than a rational interpretive option for any Christian to have.

This is intellectualism of the worst sort. I cant be bothered to respond further.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is intellectualism of the worst sort.

Now you're just stooping to the cheapshot of gas-lighting. I suggest you stop this. You're free to affirm your view of Christian Universalism all you want. You're not free to go around and apply an ad hominem to me that is amply unjustified.

 

[bling]

I'm not interested in intellectual argument either. - see my previous post about feeling and slavery.To me, the conclusion that slavery and poverty etc is not intrinsically wrong and is even supported by God, can only come about through intellectual reasoning that has lost its way somewhere.

There is a huge difference between ceasing the opportunity to bring people out of poverty and slavery, to show, experience, give, receive and grow God's Love and eliminate poverty and slavery and the opportunities they provide.

 

[disciple Clint]

Non-responsive. . .you avoided answering my question.

No I suggested look at the evidence for yourself to confirm what I posted, if I post it, it is my concept, if the experts write it, it must be a fact. It is not difficult to see that slavery in biblical times is much different than the slavery we had in this nation.

 

[Hmm]

Nor did I lose it, nor was I without it when you brought me out.

I already had life, you led me to what I already had. . .in order to preserve what I already had, not to give me what I didn't have, as in Romans 5:18b.

That one isn't working, because the analogy is incorrect.

I don't to stretch the analogy too far but... life in the war zone is a life of fear, cold and starvation and being rescued gives a life of peace, warmth and security again so, even though you had life before, it's not true to say that being rescued gave you nothing you didn't have.

But I've kind of forgotten the whole point of the analogy now. It's like when you have to explain a joke!

 

[ozso]

There's different views of how salvation works.

When I was a little boy who didn't know how to swim and went under water in the deep end of a pool, a man jumped in grabbed me and saved me. That would be outright salvation without anything being done by the one who was saved.

Another way to save a drowning person is to toss a life preserver ring at then to grab onto. The savior did his part, and the drowning person has to do their part by accepting the life ring and grabbing onto it.

Then it could be a matter of lifting someone out of the water. Or it could be a matter of someone having to climb up the tether to safety. Or the person could be required to hang onto the tethered life ring the entire time the boat makes its way to shore.

 

[Hmm]

There's different views of how salvation works.

When I was a little boy who didn't know how to swim and went under water in the deep end of a pool, a man jumped in grabbed me and saved me. That would be outright salvation without anything being done by the one who was saved.

Another way to save a drowning person is to toss a life preserver ring at then to grab onto. The savior did his part, and the drowning person has to do their part by accepting the life ring and grabbing onto it.

Then it could be a matter of lifting someone out of the water. Or it could be a matter of someone having to climb up the tether to safety. Or the person could be required to hang onto the tethered life ring the entire time the boat makes its way to shore.

Glad you got rescued in the pool!

The universalist belief that everyone will one day gladly confess that Christ is Lord as scripture says will happen seems impossible on the face of it because of this need for us to make a free response. No-one knows the exact mechanics of course but, if in this life, we haven't got things right with God, God won't just give up on us but, as the Good Shepherd, will persist in reclaiming us in the next age. This is a wooing process which shows us that God's grace and love is infinite.

The general idea of how it works seems to be that God will somehow gradually strip away all our delusions, ignorance and false sense of self and independence until we see that our true happiness lies in being reunited with God. This is an educative and corrective process that, like most education and correction, involves cooperation from us and which may very well be very painful in the same way that counselling usually is. Arrogant pride means that it is not easy to admit that we got things wrong and that we are not fully independent, that our happiness depends on things external to us such as God. We are "other-powered" to use a Buddhist term. And it's not easy to acknowledge that we have hurt people in this life through being self-centred, cruel or deluded. Hopefully, most of us will not have to go through this.

So, however it works, God, being God, will eventually succeed and break through to each one of us. We will have been transformed and free from whatever was blocking us from God in this life and will freely and gladly want to be with God, as with the prodigal son.

As I understand it, this is the basic argument and it is to me iron-clad. I'm sure others will disagree but it's very hard to know what people actually think of it because of all the strawmen that are continually held up.

 

[Cormack]

So, however it works, God, being God, will eventually succeed and break through to each one of us. We will have been transformed and free from whatever was blocking us from God in this life and will freely and gladly want to be with God, as with the prodigal son.

As I understand it, this is the basic argument and it is to me iron-clad. I'm sure others will disagree but it's very hard to know what people actually think of it because of all the strawmen that are continually held up.

Exactly, “God, being God,” therefore. A certain view of God makes for a certain view of salvation. As an argument that’s very simple and very good, in my opinion.

It’s as iron clad so far as we believe Gods patience endures, or that His love for the lost remains. When the love or the patience dries up, then maybe people could argue that God no longer courts humanity and desires that they enter into communion with Him.

Does God ever cease loving? If no, then it’s hard to believe that His pursuit (even His victory) over sinful humanity ever stops.

Scripture not only says that love doesn’t fail, it also teaches that Gods anger won’t abide forever. So anger fails, but love remains, this is in small part why love is seen as the highest Christian virtue.

 

[RileyG]

If God's saves all, what would the point of the atonement, the resurrection, and being a faithful follower of Christ?

 

[Cormack]

If God's saves all, what would the point of the atonement, the resurrection, and being a faithful follower of Christ?

Doesn’t Christ bear the sins of Christian people? The atonement is for sin and unbelief that brings about death, the resurrection for new life, and following Jesus is about how to live that new life.

They’re just as valuable to 5 saved people as they are to 50 saved people, even a million.

According to universalism God doesn’t save humanity by any other means than the atonement and the resurrection, and those things end in you, I and the whole world following Jesus more faithfully. Every element that you care for is also valued by universalists.

 

[bling]

Exactly, “God, being God,” therefore. A certain view of God makes for a certain view of salvation. As an argument that’s very simple and very good, in my opinion.

It’s as iron clad so far as we believe Gods patience endures, or that His love for the lost remains. When the love or the patience dries up, then maybe people could argue that God no longer courts humanity and desires that they enter into communion with Him.

Does God ever cease loving? If no, then it’s hard to believe that His pursuit (even His victory) over sinful humanity ever stops.

Scripture not only says that love doesn’t fail, it also teaches that Gods anger won’t abide forever. So anger fails, but love remains, this is in small part why love is seen as the highest Christian virtue.

God's Love is perfect, but man's acceptance of that Love in the form of undeserved charitable forgiveness is conditional on man's part.
Think about the prodigal son's story with one change up: Suppose the young son is macho enough to take the punishment he fully deserves and stays and starves to death in the pigsty, did the father stop Loving him? The father is hurt and disappointed, but the son made the choice.

 

[Cormack]

God's Love is perfect, but man's acceptance of that Love in the form of undeserved charitable forgiveness is conditional on man's part.

About this I agree. Gods forgiveness isn’t unconditional or arbitrary but rather it’s conditional, being based upon mankind’s faith. Mankind first believes in order to receive, every group believes this bar the determinists.

Suppose the young son is macho enough to take the punishment he fully deserves and stays and starves to death in the pigsty, did the father stop Loving him?

The Father doesn’t stop loving him, no. So our view on Gods perfectly loving character is relatively the same, but how about man? Many people define hell as literal fire, others as separation, but both camps share a belief in the duration of this terrible state, eternity.

So when I read your message about the macho man taking his punishment without relenting from his thoughts, actions or outlook on life, my first thought is he’s so macho as to take forever torment? Who is this man and where’s that supernal willpower coming from, because it’s nowhere to be found in the real world. People relent and change course as simple force of habit.

Think of the oldest believer you know, how many times have they changed their point of view under far less shocking circumstances than hellfire itself? Probably many times in the space of only 70, 80 or 90 years, not to even begin writing about what goes on in forever.

The parable of the prodigal son makes sense because people know enough to know when they are in miserable circumstances, people converted to (and even believed in) Islam in huge numbers, and that was simply because they were being taxed for their unbelief.

Savage war lords could populate entire nations with faithful fighting men, men who were prepared to die for their faith, and that’s built upon taxes and religious bullying. How much greater is the Lord at attaining His hearts desire?

 

[Clare73]

I don't to stretch the analogy too far but... life in the war zone is a life of fear, cold and starvation and being rescued gives a life of peace, warmth and security again so, even though you had life before,
it's not true to say that being rescued gave you nothing you didn't have.
But I've kind of forgotten the whole point of the analogy now. It's like when you have to explain a joke!

It's not about quality of life, its about the very existence of life.

Jesus gives eternal life to the spiritually dead, he doesn't just lead into a better spiritual life than you currently have, because the not born again are spiritually dead.

 

[Clare73]

There's different views of how salvation works.
When I was a little boy who didn't know how to swim and went under water in the deep end of a pool, a man jumped in grabbed me and saved me. That would be outright salvation without anything being done by the one who was saved.
Another way to save a drowning person is to toss a life preserver ring at then to grab onto. The savior did his part, and the drowning person has to do their part by accepting the life ring

and grabbing onto it.
Then it could be a matter of lifting someone out of the water. Or it could be a matter of someone having to climb up the tether to safety. Or the person could be required to hang onto the tethered life ring the entire time the boat makes its way to shore.

The new birth is not equivalent to salvaging a spiritual life one already has.

It is giving eternal life to those who are spiritually dead.

 

[Clare73]

Exactly, “God, being God,” therefore. A certain view of God makes for a certain view of salvation. As an argument that’s very simple and very good, in my opinion.
It’s as iron clad so far as we believe Gods patience endures, or that His love for the lost remains. When the love or the patience dries up, then maybe people could argue that God no longer courts humanity and desires that they enter into communion with Him.

Does God ever cease loving? If no, then it’s hard to believe that His pursuit (even His victory) over sinful humanity ever stops.
Scripture not only says that love doesn’t fail, it also teaches that Gods anger won’t abide forever. So anger fails, but love remains, this is in small part why love is seen as the highest Christian virtue.

It's not about anger, it's about justice under God's law.

Is our court system about anger, or about justice under the law?

 

[Der Alte]

Exactly, “God, being God,” therefore. A certain view of God makes for a certain view of salvation. As an argument that’s very simple and very good, in my opinion.
It’s as iron clad so far as we believe Gods patience endures, or that His love for the lost remains. When the love or the patience dries up, then maybe people could argue that God no longer courts humanity and desires that they enter into communion with Him.
Does God ever cease loving? If no, then it’s hard to believe that His pursuit (even His victory) over sinful humanity ever stops.
Scripture not only says that love doesn’t fail, it also teaches that Gods anger won’t abide forever. So anger fails, but love remains, this is in small part why love is seen as the highest Christian virtue.

Scripture informs us in some cases God has already decided and gave some over.

Romans 1:24
(24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Romans 1:26
(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Romans 1:28
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;​

Jesus also has already decided on some.

Matthew 7:21-23
(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

 

[Hmm]

It's not about quality of life, its about the very existence of life.

Jesus gives eternal life to the spiritually dead, he doesn't just lead into a better spiritual life than you currently have, because the not born again are spiritually dead.

Does that include babies, children, people with mental healthy issues or learning difficulties who are not born again? Let alone good atheists or Muslims who care and love the poor and therefore, as Jesus said, care and love Him?

 

[Clare73]

Does that include babies, children, people with mental healthy issues or learning difficulties who are not born again? Let alone good atheists or Muslims who care and love the poor and therefore, as Jesus said, care and love Him?

Yes, we are all born without eternal life, and in spiritual death, thanks to Adam who lost it for us.

 

[Hmm]

Yes, we are all born without eternal life, and in spiritual death, thanks to Adam who lost it for us.

Let's just thrash this out a bit and take an example from one of theses categories. Suppose we have a adult with severe learning difficulties. He's spiritually dead and then dies having only been born the once. Does he go to hell?

 

[Hmm]

Scripture informs us in some cases God has already decided and gave some over.

Romans 1:24
(24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Romans 1:26
(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Romans 1:28
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;​

Jesus also has already decided on some.

Matthew 7:21-23
(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

But none of this refers to hell.

In general though, why does every sign of God's displeasure have to mean an eternal punishment? Is it the only option He has, like a human judge who can either let you go free or put you on death row but nothing in between. Is God less powerful than Judge Judy?