Is it okay to simply assume that God saves all?

[BNR32FAN]

There needn’t be something inappropriate or immoral about assuming upon the same thing that God Himself desires to be the end result of every man.

The purpose of this thread is to imply that our personal feelings can supersede what the scriptures actually state. Hmm used the verse in Galatians as a way to imply that the Bible did not support slavery even tho the verse was supportive of it. His argument is that because we have come to understand that slavery is wrong and we see verses that appear to be supportive of slavery in the scriptures then that is evidence that just because verses appear to be contradictory to universal salvation doesn’t necessarily mean that they are and we should rely on our own personal feelings on the matter rather than rely on scripture to make our determination. I’m pointing out that this reasoning is flawed because slavery while it was supported by the scriptures at that time there is nothing to indicate that it would not be abolished later on. However in the case of salvation there are scriptures that absolutely teach that all will not receive salvation. These verses are not subject to change like the verses pertaining to slavery because these verses are pertaining to what is to come not what was present at that time. They’re prophetic verses not verses pertaining to the biblical times. If Jesus says that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven then that doesn’t mean this will change at a later date. If He says not everyone who says to Me Lord Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven then that’s not subject to change at a later time. So this comparison of verses does not give evidence that our personal feelings can overrule what has been prophesied in the scriptures.

 

[Hmm]

Still to see and hold onto the picture of Christ, both the innocent victim of man’s evils and prepared to forgive those who wronged Him, that’s something else. Jesus is amazing.

That's very true. Every now and again you encounter people either in the media or in real life who have suffered terribly from evil acts and yet still somehow manage to forgive the perpetrators. These people are inspirational and show the God to the world through their peace and rejection and refusal to pay the price of toxic anger.

 

[Hmm]

Revelation 21:10-27 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God, ...[24] And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the Earth do bring their glory and honour into it.[25] And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.[26] And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.[27] And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

The Bible in its entirety.

Q.E.D.

 

[Hmm]

The purpose of this thread is to imply that our personal feelings can supersede what the scriptures actually state.

It doesn't imply that at all and I should know what my intention was. The revulsion people have against slavery, and I'm happy to take @Cormack's point and qualify this as transatlantic slavery because that forms most people's view of slavery whether they are Christian or not, is not simply a personal feeling. Our sense of what morality is goes way beyond feelings and our favourite proof texts into something objective, not subjective. Transatlantic slavery was objectively wrong.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It doesn't imply that at all and I should know what my intention was. The revulsion people have against slavery, and I'm happy to take @Cormack's point and qualify this as transatlantic slavery because that forms most people's view of slavery whether they are Christian or not, is not simply a personal feeling. Our sense of what morality is goes way beyond feelings and our favourite proof texts into something objective, not subjective. Transatlantic slavery was objectively wrong.

Ok so you weren’t implying that our sense of morality can overrule what the scriptures actually state? Because that’s what I’m reading in the OP.

I can imagine them saying that's clearly "what the Bible says", and on plain reading it seems to be, but we don't interpret it that way now and we don't feel the need to defend our interpretation with passages that oppose slavery. We just feel that it's right to assume that slavery is wrong.

This suggests that our sense of right and wrong and of what's reasonable are valid ways to think about God. Which means that, when thinking about Chrisitan universalism, it's okay to ask which view just makes more sense. In general, it's okay to ask "Would the God perfectly portrayed by Jesus in the Gospels really send anyone to an eternal hell of torture/torment?. If He's omnipotent, can He not find a way to draw all people to Himself freely?"

So our starting point when thinking about universalism doesn't have to be "How does this fit into the Bible?" It could instead be "How could God possibly allow any one of His children to be be lost/annihilated/tortured forever".

It's infernalists who try to put the burden of scriptual proof on you. But rather than entering into "sophisticated" exegetical arguments it's okay to start with the assumption that if God exists, He's a God who will one day restore all His creation.

 

[Hmm]

Ok so you weren’t implying that our sense of morality can overrule what the scriptures actually state? Because that’s what I’m reading in the OP.

It seems impossible to explain it to you. Your or anyone else's interpretation of what scripture says is not "what the scriptures actually state" so of course I am not implying that. I'm saying that morality is objective, not subjective and dependent on our interpretation of scripture. That's why we as a society now reject slavery without feeling that we have to support our case with scripture to counter those who thought that scripture supported slavery. The question was why were we able us to do this? And the answer IMO is that its because we now see slavery as being objectively wrong - it's objective because it reflects the moral values of God, and this overrules, not what "scripture actually states" but any interpretation of it that supports slavery. What do you object to in this?

 

[Cormack]

If Jesus says that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven then that doesn’t mean this will change at a later date.

Depending on how we are prepared to take on new information that’s open to both change and interpretation. Wouldn’t you go against what you sincerely believed the Bible said if God Himself taught you differently in person?

Don’t believe even an angel from heaven if he comes to you with another gospel, though I’d be hard pressed to deny an angel if he told me that my view of scripture (and as a consequence my view of the gospel) was wrong.

Would you personally change your view of the Gospel if an angel told you to?

Would make for an interesting new topic actually.

Interpretation first (because that’s the less convincing, more loosey goosey sort of thing to the Christian listener.)

Christs claim about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is either limited, absolute or qualified, considering that the section of scripture that pertains to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is so hotly contested in interpretive circles, I’m sympathetic to many of the views. They’re not way out there views.

Check out Steve Greggs most recent view when someone phones into his daily radio show and asks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it’s an awfully difficult section of scripture to make heads nor tails of. His verse by verse walkthrough over at the Narrow path website is probably as ambiguous, and he’s been teaching the Bible for easily over 40 years.

Whether or not sinning against the Holy Sprit is an actual thing you can do right now, or rather the final state of someone who’s cast out of the Kingdom, I’m convinced nobody but God knows.

For everything we think that we know about sin against the Spirit, would you refuse to comfort someone with the Lords gospel just because you seen them commit what you believe to be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? I wouldn’t because (as they argued in the Nuremberg trials) “there is a law above the law.”

So to me there’s a Spirit of love and a law of love that goes out above something like the law or principle of hermeneutics, in the same way my objective experience of moral values and duties would supersede a reading of the scripture that seemed to me to have successfully argued for transatlantic slavery to be imposed on people in the modern world.

To reject what my sincere faith is about slavery in favour of someone’s well made argument from the Bible would mean I’m no longer living in faith, rather my words and actions would change from my heart (which hates slavery) to my hands, which would own slaves.

God however doesn’t condemn people who eat the “wrong” things, not if they eat by faith, rather He judges people who eat even the right thing if they can’t eat by faith.

Let’s move onto change here. Remember reading:

now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
​

I’ve read and spoken to atheists who believe this is a nonnegotiable proof against Gods foreknowledge, the Bibles inerrancy, ideas like that, and how come? Because to these readers the Lord wouldn’t just talk casual like that and then be convinced by some speck of a human to change His determination.

How does that exchange end? After Moses gives his speech attempting to remind God of His own promises, the Bible teaches “Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.” What does it mean to relent? It means to “abandon or mitigate a severe or harsh attitude, especially by finally yielding to a request.”

Similar to how @Hmm clarified his argument about the objective moral experience being a keystone to help understand biblical material, our faith and general disgust towards enslaving other human beings ought to trump biblically based arguments in favour of the practice.

From the Bible people can draw out a general biblical silence on the matter and rely on the fact that “secular governments” ended the transatlantic slave trade, while what they ought to be resting their case on is Natural Theology that argues from our objective moral experience.

So the greater topic question seems to be more like does the being of God mean that we can assume on universal reconciliation, it’s repurposing Abrahams question, “will not the judge of all the earth do right?”

Some argue yes, and to “do right” in this case God must torment people in the presence of the lamb and his holy angels forever and ever, that’s not something I could argue for by faith though.

You might describe that as “my feelings” superseding the Bible, but on subjects like moral experience it goes way beyond simple feelings. It’s an objective experienced set of values and duties that has informed and made the shape of everyone’s distinct heart, and to reject those duties is to live outside of faith.

To me that’s part of what it means to live righteously, to hope that the Saviour of the world really is saving the whole world.

 

[RickReads]

Depending on how we are prepared to take on new information that’s open to both change and interpretation. Wouldn’t you go against what you sincerely believed the Bible said if God Himself taught you differently in person?

Don’t believe even an angel from heaven if he comes to you with another gospel, though I’d be hard pressed to deny an angel if he told me that my view of scripture (and as a consequence my view of the gospel) was wrong.

Would you personally change your view of the Gospel if an angel told you to?

Would make for an interesting new topic actually.

Interpretation first (because that’s the less convincing, more loosey goosey sort of thing to the Christian listener.)

Christs claim about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is either limited, absolute or qualified, considering that the section of scripture that pertains to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is so hotly contested in interpretive circles, I’m sympathetic to many of the views. They’re not way out there views.

Check out Steve Greggs most recent view when someone phones into his daily radio show and asks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it’s an awfully difficult section of scripture to make heads nor tails of. His verse by verse walkthrough over at the Narrow path website is probably as ambiguous, and he’s been teaching the Bible for easily over 40 years.

Whether or not sinning against the Holy Sprit is an actual thing you can do right now, or rather the final state of someone who’s cast out of the Kingdom, I’m convinced nobody but God knows.

For everything we think that we know about sin against the Spirit, would you refuse to comfort someone with the Lords gospel just because you seen them commit what you believe to be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? I wouldn’t because (as they argued in the Nuremberg trials) “there is a law above the law.”

So to me there’s a Spirit of love and a law of love that goes out above something like the law or principle of hermeneutics, in the same way my objective experience of moral values and duties would supersede a reading of the scripture that seemed to me to have successfully argued for transatlantic slavery to be imposed on people in the modern world.

To reject what my sincere faith is about slavery in favour of someone’s well made argument from the Bible would mean I’m no longer living in faith, rather my words and actions would change from my heart (which hates slavery) to my hands, which would own slaves.

God however doesn’t condemn people who eat the “wrong” things, not if they eat by faith, rather He judges people who eat even the right thing if they can’t eat by faith.

Let’s move onto change here. Remember reading:

now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
​

I’ve read and spoken to atheists who believe this is a nonnegotiable proof against Gods foreknowledge, the Bibles inerrancy, ideas like that, and how come? Because to these readers the Lord wouldn’t just talk casual like that and then be convinced by some speck of a human to change His determination.

How does that exchange end? After Moses gives his speech attempting to remind God of His own promises, the Bible teaches “Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.” What does it mean to relent? It means to “abandon or mitigate a severe or harsh attitude, especially by finally yielding to a request.”

Similar to how @Hmm clarified his argument about the objective moral experience being a keystone to help understand biblical material, our faith and general disgust towards enslaving other human beings ought to trump biblically based arguments in favour of the practice.

From the Bible people can draw out a general biblical silence on the matter and rely on the fact that “secular governments” ended the transatlantic slave trade, while what they ought to be resting their case on is Natural Theology that argues from our objective moral experience.

So the greater topic question seems to be more like does the being of God mean that we can assume on universal reconciliation, it’s repurposing Abrahams question, “will not the judge of all the earth do right?”

Some argue yes, and to “do right” in this case God must torment people in the presence of the lamb and his holy angels forever and ever, that’s not something I could argue for by faith though.

You might describe that as “my feelings” superseding the Bible, but on subjects like moral experience it goes way beyond simple feelings. It’s an objective experienced set of values and duties that has informed and made the shape of everyone’s distinct heart, and to reject those duties is to live outside of faith.

To me that’s part of what it means to live righteously, to hope that the Saviour of the world really is saving the whole world.

I think your question would make for a really interesting thread. I believe that if an angel came to straighten me out that I would be able to discern which side of the tracks the angel came from.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Depending on how we are prepared to take on new information that’s open to both change and interpretation. Wouldn’t you go against what you sincerely believed the Bible said if God Himself taught you differently in person?

Don’t believe even an angel from heaven if he comes to you with another gospel, though I’d be hard pressed to deny an angel if he told me that my view of scripture (and as a consequence my view of the gospel) was wrong.

Would you personally change your view of the Gospel if an angel told you to?

That’s a tough question but I’d have to say on this particular topic it’s irrelevant since this hypothetical situation hasn’t occurred. I’m confident that no one in this thread has had an angel come down from Heaven and tell them that universal salvation will occur and I wouldn’t believe them if they did make that claim unless I experienced it myself.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You might describe that as “my feelings” superseding the Bible, but on subjects like moral experience it goes way beyond simple feelings. It’s an objective experienced set of values and duties that has informed and made the shape of everyone’s distinct heart, and to reject those duties is to live outside of faith.

To me that’s part of what it means to live righteously, to hope that the Saviour of the world really is saving the whole world.

But there’s a very strong downside to the universal teaching as well that as Christians we must do everything we can to avoid which is giving a potentially false hope of salvation regardless of whether or not a person repents in this life. I think it’s absolutely imperative that we prepare for the worst possible outcome and not ignore the scriptural evidence, evidence from the early church writers, and the teachings of the apostolic churches when it comes to this particular subject because the consequences could be irreversible and absolute. I see universal reconciliation as potentially dangerous as what the serpent said to Eve in the Garden of Eden, “surely you will not die”. So in light of all the evidence I find it irresponsible to teach universal salvation based on personal feelings about what we feel that God should do rather than what He said He would do, what the earliest writers of the church said that the apostles taught, and what the church has also said has always been taught. Yes Origen taught universal reconciliation but he was also refuted by the 5th ecumenical council where it was labeled as heresy. Some refuse to accept that claiming that those canons were later added but there’s no evidence to support that claim and the evidence of the early church writers prior to the 5th council confirm it as a heretical teaching. So if I’m going to be wrong on this subject when I stand before God I would much rather say to Him that my efforts were calculated by the evidence and information I had at the time and I felt it was necessary to warn people of the potential danger rather than giving them a false sense of security allowing them to remain disobedient resulting in their condemnation. It’s evident to me that God has chosen to use both fear and love to motivate people to repent and universalism diminishes that fear incentive. I just don’t want to be responsible for giving people false hope in salvation that allows them to continue in disobedience resulting in the ultimate consequence. I think that’s a very important aspect that we must consider.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think your question would make for a really interesting thread. I believe that if an angel came to straighten me out that I would be able to discern which side of the tracks the angel came from.

in this particular case on this particular subject how much different would it be from what the serpent said to Eve?

 

[RickReads]

in this particular case on this particular subject how much different would it be from what the serpent said to Eve?

I think I know the scriptures better than Eve did. I would hopefully catch it when the serpent contradicted the gospel.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think I know the scriptures better than Eve did. I would hopefully catch it when the serpent contradicted the gospel.

But that is basically what universalism is teaching. If you don’t repent in this life surely you will not die or suffer eternal torment. I’m not saying that universalism is a teaching of satan I’m just saying it could be and it is a potentially dangerous teaching as opposed to teaching people that it is absolutely imperative that they repent in this lifetime before it’s too late.

 

[RickReads]

But that is basically what universalism is teaching. If you don’t repent in this life surely you will not die or suffer eternal torment. I’m not saying that universalism is a teaching of satan I’m just saying it could be and it is a potentially dangerous teaching as opposed to teaching people that it is absolutely imperative that they repent in this lifetime before it’s too late.

Yeah, unfortunately, I have been forced to reject universalism at every juncture. I tried to give them a chance to convert me on several occasions.

 

[Cormack]

But that is basically what universalism is teaching. If you don’t repent in this life surely you will not die or suffer eternal torment.

Christian universalists teach Christ’s death, burial and resurrection for sin, that’s the issue being lost when you or I focus exclusively on some of their distinctive notions, notions not shared by traditionalists.

Universalists teach and preach Jesus Christ without the carrot of limitless sin or the escape from Satans forever sauna, although the license to sin is the most common caricature used by ordinary Christian’s when met with the universalists doctrine. You don’t meet the fruits of what a community believes at the level of caricature though.

It’s evident to me that God has chosen to use both fear and love to motivate people to repent and universalism diminishes that fear incentive.

To remove the “fear incentive” doesn’t result in only bad, it’s a matter of human psychology. The vast majority of unbelievers aren’t brought into the Christian community by threats, instead they are repulsed by Christians as a result of the seeming intimidation.

Employing the fear factor of eternal conscious torment isn’t some kind of universal good, not how many Christians believe, but rather it’s doing a lot of harm. Not to begin mentioning what the doctrine can do to the rare believer who enjoys ruminating on the notion of sinners being tormented, that’s far from Jesus’ heart on the matter.

 

[ReverendRV]

In the past, many self-identified Christians used the Bible to justify slavery quoting passages such as Ephesians 6:5-8: “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”.

I can imagine them saying that's clearly "what the Bible says", and on plain reading it seems to be, but we don't interpret it that way now and we don't feel the need to defend our interpretation with passages that oppose slavery. We just feel that it's right to assume that slavery is wrong.

This suggests that our sense of right and wrong and of what's reasonable are valid ways to think about God. Which means that, when thinking about Chrisitan universalism, it's okay to ask which view just makes more sense. In general, it's okay to ask "Would the God perfectly portrayed by Jesus in the Gospels really send anyone to an eternal hell of torture/torment?. If He's omnipotent, can He not find a way to draw all people to Himself freely?"

So our starting point when thinking about universalism doesn't have to be "How does this fit into the Bible?" It could instead be "How could God possibly allow any one of His children to be be lost/annihilated/tortured forever".

It's infernalists who try to put the burden of scriptual proof on you. But rather than entering into "sophisticated" exegetical arguments it's okay to start with the assumption that if God exists, He's a God who will one day restore all His creation.

As a Sola Scripturist, I'd say that our starting point when thinking about Universalism has to be "How does this fit into the Bible?". For the Christian, it's really all about the Book. Christianity can be summed up by comparing our Love for Scripture by singing "Jesus Loves me, this I know; for the Bible tells me so"...

Everything we believe should agree with the Bible. I've had someone tell me since God is Love, we should interpret the Bible through that Lens; I told him it would lead people to embrace Universalism. I told him that since Love is a Primary Attribute of God, it's a great Idea to interpret the Bible by it. But I said there are at least three of these Primary Attributes of God in the Bible; God is Love, God is Light, and God is Truth. The Bible teaches us that God is Truth; and his Word is Truth; using the Point that God is Truth to interpret the Bible leaves me with the Belief that God does not Love everyone. Yes, let's use "God is Love" as a Hermeneutic; but let's never stop using "God is Truth" as an equal and undeniable Hermeneutic... @Jesus is YHWH

 

[BNR32FAN]

Universalists teach and preach Jesus Christ without the carrot of limitless sin or the escape from Satans forever sauna, although the license to sin is the most common caricature used by ordinary Christian’s when met with the universalists doctrine. You don’t meet the fruits of what a community believes at the level of caricature though.

I wasn’t referring to a license to sin for believers but instead a lack of incentive for unbelievers to repent and come to Christ. When unbelievers hear the universalist gospel it doesn’t convey the absolute necessity to repent since everyone will just end up in heaven anyway. That’s what I was referring to.

 

[ReverendRV]

The purpose of this thread is to imply that our personal feelings can supersede what the scriptures actually state. Hmm used the verse in Galatians as a way to imply that the Bible did not support slavery even tho the verse was supportive of it. His argument is that because we have come to understand that slavery is wrong and we see verses that appear to be supportive of slavery in the scriptures then that is evidence that just because verses appear to be contradictory to universal salvation doesn’t necessarily mean that they are and we should rely on our own personal feelings on the matter rather than rely on scripture to make our determination. I’m pointing out that this reasoning is flawed because slavery while it was supported by the scriptures at that time there is nothing to indicate that it would not be abolished later on. However in the case of salvation there are scriptures that absolutely teach that all will not receive salvation. These verses are not subject to change like the verses pertaining to slavery because these verses are pertaining to what is to come not what was present at that time. They’re prophetic verses not verses pertaining to the biblical times. If Jesus says that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven then that doesn’t mean this will change at a later date. If He says not everyone who says to Me Lord Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven then that’s not subject to change at a later time. So this comparison of verses does not give evidence that our personal feelings can overrule what has been prophesied in the scriptures.

The Golgatha Purchase ~ by ReverendRV

2nd Peter 2:1 KJV; But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

I’ve recently been debating with an Atheist who uses Slavery as a reason to not believe in the God of the Bible. I told him about the Voluntary Servitude the Bible endorses, but he insists on debating about God endorsing Involuntary Servitude; citing Leviticus 25. I said, “I see what you are saying; you're drawing a distinction between the acceptable Servitude of a Jew to a Jew, and the unacceptable Slavery of Gentiles to a Jew. May I suggest that these verses are a Type for the New Testament; If Israel were not permitted to buy people, then Peter couldn’t have said Jesus bought the Heretics.” The Lord Jesus Christ couldn’t have Purchased the World if it were not legal for Jews to purchase Gentiles and be their Sovereign…

If it were illegal for Jews to own Slaves, the Jewish Jesus Christ would not have been able to buy the World from Satan, who gained Dominion from Adam through the Fall. It is like the Louisiana Purchase; Dominion over the Land and the People was purchased. ~ But you Object, “What’s all this Slavery guff? I’ve never been a Slave”. When you Sin, you’re a Slave to Sin and Satan; have you ever told a Lie? What do YOU call people who Lie to you? If you’ve ever found yourself compelled to tell a Lie and you couldn’t help yourself, you are a Slave to Sin and Satan; or you were. You’re still a Slave to Sin but now you are Christ’s Slave as he paid for his Kingdom with his Blood. Your Lies used to deliver you out of trouble but now that you have a new Master, they bring you under his Judgment. As God Incarnate, the Son of God owns you; but through the 'Golgatha Purchase', the Man Jesus Christ bought all of Humanity. ~ If the Bible is true, then you are the Slave of Christ; awaiting either swift destruction; or Forgiveness of Sin...

Forgiveness of Sins is found only in one Name under heaven. ~ For God so loved the World he gave us his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not swiftly perish but have everlasting Life. Jesus Christ bore the Sin of the world while dying on a Cross, to pay the Death Penalty God requires for our Trespasses and Sins; but he arose from the Grave to prepare a place for us in Heaven to be with him. We’re Saved by the Gracious Forgiveness of God, through Faith in Jesus Christ and what he’s done for us, instead of anything we could ever do for ourselves. Repent of your Sins, Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord God, and become his Voluntary Servant at a Bible loving Church. ~ Sinners are Involuntary Servants of Jesus Christ, as they choose their Sin over their Righteous Master; remaining Voluntary Slaves of Sin…

1st Corinthians 7:22-23; KJV; For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord's freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.

 

[Hmm]

I think it’s absolutely imperative that we prepare for the worst possible outcome

But God doesn't prepare the worst possible outcome for us. You may think He does but why try to burden others with it?

So in light of all the evidence I find it irresponsible to teach universal salvation based on personal feelings about what we feel that God should do rather than what He said He would do

All you're saying here that views you don't agree with are "based on personal feelings" but your own views are about "what He said He would do". We could all say that.

Yes Origen taught universal reconciliation but he was also refuted by the 5th ecumenical council where it was labeled as heresy. Some refuse to accept that claiming that those canons were later added but there’s no evidence to support that claim and the evidence of the early church writers prior to the 5th council confirm it as a heretical teaching

There's heaps of evidence. Here's some from the Eastern Orthodox priest Fr Aiden Kimel

"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.”"

o if I’m going to be wrong on this subject when I stand before God I would much rather say to Him that my efforts were calculated by the evidence and information I had at the time and I felt it was necessary to warn people of the potential danger rather than giving them a false sense of security allowing them to remain disobedient resulting in their condemnation.

I would rather stand before God and tell him that I tried not to put people off Him by portraying Him as a torturer.

It’s evident to me that God has chosen to use both fear and love to motivate people to repent and universalism diminishes that fear incentive.

Repentance isn't about mouthing certain statements. It means a sincere turning away from sin and you can't scare people into sincerity. God doesn't use fear because His love is perfect and "perfect love casts out fear".

 

[Hmm]

When unbelievers hear the universalist gospel it doesn’t convey the absolute necessity to repent since everyone will just end up in heaven anyway.

We don't "just" end up in heaven. It takes a lot of work from God to achieve this. The point of being a believer isn't just to go to heaven anyway, it's to live a life with God here on Earth.