Why hasn't Christian universalism ever gone away?

[Hmm]

So you agree with this...



...?

God bless.

I don't see the connection you made but I agree with the remark you quoted, yes.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I don't see the connection, sorry.

Hmm...

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I don't see the connection you made but I agree with the remark you quoted, yes.

Now you change your response.

Well, I find it a little creepy that someone can agree that the Scripture cannot "settle this argument" when no one from the universal salvation crowd is trying to address the points I have made.

So do you believe that faith, love, and hope are the only promises of God in the Word of God?

Do you believe that...

The scriptures are the authoritative witness to the Word, and so they are also called "word of God," but those two are not the same; they are not even close.

...?

I guess we have two entirely different ideas as to what qualifies as creepy.


God bless.

 

[public hermit]

So you agree with this...



...?

God bless.

To degrade another's faith and understanding and then top it off with "God bless" is creepy enough, sure. That being said, it's not as creepy as a God that loves creatures enslaved to sin and then tortures them forever for not freeing themselves. That's down right scary.

 

[Der Alte]

To degrade another's faith and understanding and then top it off with "God bless" is creepy enough, sure. That being said, it's not as creepy as a God that loves creatures enslaved to sin and then tortures them forever for not freeing themselves. That's down right scary.

Was Jesus a liar?

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”​

Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years ago +/-. Note, the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars, translators of the EOB, translated “aionios,” in Matt 25:46, as “eternal,” NOT “age.”
Who is better qualified than the team of native Greek speaking scholars, translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB], quoted above and below, to know the correct translation of the Greek in the N.T.?
Link to EOB online:
The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
…..The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., 1st occurrence Matt 25:46, above, and the 2nd occurrence 1 John 4:18., below.

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.​

In the EOB the Greek word “kolasis” is translated “punishment” in both Matt 25:46 and 1 John 4:18. Some mis/uninformed folks claim “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correction.” However, that is an etymological fallacy. According to the EOB Greek scholars “kolasis” means “punishment.”
Note: in 1 John 4:18 there is no correction, the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect. Thus “kolasis” does not/cannot mean “correction.”
…..It is understood that modern Greek differs from koine Greek but I am confident that the Greek speaking EOB scholars, backed up by 2000 years +/- of Greek scholarship, are competent enough to know the correct translation of obsolete words which may have changed in meaning or are no longer in use and to translate them correctly. Just as scholars today know the meaning of obsolete words which occur in the KJV and to translate them correctly.

 

[public hermit]

Was Jesus a liar?

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”​

Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years ago +/-. Note, the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars, translators of the EOB, translated “aionios,” in Matt 25:46, as “eternal,” NOT “age.”
Who is better qualified than the team of native Greek speaking scholars, translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB], quoted above and below, to know the correct translation of the Greek in the N.T.?
Link to EOB online:
The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
…..The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., 1st occurrence Matt 25:46, above, and the 2nd occurrence 1 John 4:18., below.

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.​

In the EOB the Greek word “kolasis” is translated “punishment” in both Matt 25:46 and 1 John 4:18. Some mis/uninformed folks claim “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correction.” However, that is an etymological fallacy. According to the EOB Greek scholars “kolasis” means “punishment.”
Note: in 1 John 4:18 there is no correction, the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect. Thus “kolasis” does not/cannot mean “correction.”
…..It is understood that modern Greek differs from koine Greek but I am confident that the Greek speaking EOB scholars, backed up by 2000 years +/- of Greek scholarship, are competent enough to know the correct translation of obsolete words which may have changed in meaning or are no longer in use and to translate them correctly. Just as scholars today know the meaning of obsolete words which occur in the KJV and to translate them correctly.

Jesus was not a liar and I agree: don't fear God because God is love. Finally, we agree on something. Nay, two somethings!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Now you change your response.

Well, I find it a little creepy that someone can agree that the Scripture cannot "settle this argument" when no one from the universal salvation crowd is trying to address the points I have made.

So do you believe that faith, love, and hope are the only promises of God in the Word of God?

Do you believe that...



...?

I guess we have two entirely different ideas as to what qualifies as creepy.


God bless.

For me, I reserve my usage of the term "creepy" to imply what I feel about bats, spiders and something like The Amityville Horror ...

... but to attribute this when I see people disagree about the meaning of the Bible, not so much.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I don't see the connection you made but I agree with the remark you quoted, yes.

Now you change your response.

Well, I find it a little creepy that someone can agree that the Scripture cannot "settle this argument" when no one from the universal salvation crowd is trying to address the points I have made.

So do you believe that faith, love, and hope are the only promises of God in the Word of God?

Do you believe that

The scriptures are the authoritative witness to the Word, and so they are also called "word of God," but those two are not the same; they are not even close.

For me, I reserve my usage of the term "creepy" to imply what I feel about bats, spiders and something like The Amityville Horror ...

... but to attribute this when I see people disagree about the meaning of the Bible, not so much.

I would agree with that, lol.

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

To degrade another's faith and understanding and then top it off with "God bless" is creepy enough, sure.

I never "degraded" you faith, but your understanding, yes.

How I sign off on my posts is sincerely meant, because my hope is that God will use the posts to bless others.

That you would find a blessing creepy is a new one.

That being said, it's not as creepy as a God that loves creatures enslaved to sin and then tortures them forever for not freeing themselves. That's down right scary.

That might be because it is meant to be scary, hence...


Matthew 10:28
King James Version

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


If the everlasting destruction and punishment Christ taught was not in fact everlasting, He would not have taught it so.

He doesn't kill the soul (person) and body in Hell, He destroys them in Hell.

This doesn't mean that the person ceases to exist:


Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


Israerl was in a state of destruction that is no different than the state of destruction those in Hell—the Lake of Fire—will be in.

They will be dead (not having received the Life of Christ), they will be separated from God (as they were when they were born into this world), and they will be in everlasting torment.

Scary? That word doesn't even come close to what that is. Horrifying gets a little closer.

So don't think that I must accept your teaching, nor assume that you have received the life of Christ. While I won't question your salvation, I will question Doctrine that is not Christian or Biblical, and teaches the exact opposite of what Scripture teaches clearly.

There is no argument, Scripture teaches that there will be two groups at the end of this creation, the lost and the saved. If you choose to ignore Christ's teachings that is your choice. Being in error doesn't mean you aren't saved, but it doesn't give you liberty to interject your opinions in what is itself clearly stated as a Doctrinal Debate Forum.

It takes the Word of God in order to examine doctrine, and opinion has no place in presentations meant to support one doctrine or another.

That's what Facebook is for.

The Second Death has no fear for those who are in Christ. But it does create fear in those who have not the hope of Christ.

Rejecting part of Scripture is pretty much rejecting all of Scripture.

God bless.

 

[public hermit]

part of Scripture is pretty much rejecting all of Scripture

Your biblical inerrantism, along with various other assumptions, is noted. Again, I disagree with a bunch of it. I definitely disagree with your certainty regarding ECT. Where should we go from here?

 

[Hmm]

Now you change your response.

You haven't understood what I meant at all but that's okay.

 

[zippy2006]

That's a surprising and disappointing review coming from Cooper, whom I have a lot of respect for. Not what I would have expected from Hart.

I agree, but Hart has become polemical over time. Earlier I said:

If it was proved beyond a doubt that Constantinople II did condemn the relevant view of Universalism, I do not believe the positions of people like yourself would change. So it's a moot point.

This is also true of Hart, for he says in an online comment:

"...But no authentic finding of the council condemns universalism as such.

Not that I would care if it did. That very imperial “ecumenical ” council is an embarrassment in Christian history, and I sometimes think it a mercy that such a hash was made of its promulgation that we literally do not know what was truly determined there. For my money, if Origen was not a saint and church father, then no one has any claim to those titles. And the contrary claims made by a brutish imbecile Emperor are of no consequence."
​

...and this should explain why I don't waste time arguing with people like Hart or Hmm about Ecumenical Councils. They themselves don't take the basis of their own arguments seriously. Were their argument to fail, they would not be bothered in the least.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, and do you know what that is? Cherry-picking verses also do not refute or contract other scriptures.

amen!

Scripture has very little to do with one’s commitment to the Lord or reverence for His word and everything to do with the theological presuppositions or model one holds to.

Depends on the willingness of the person to ignore scripture whenever it crosses their POV/Preference. If their method is always to "explain away" whatever scripture refutes their bias - and embrace anything that is more amenable to being bent-or-wrenched via an unhealthy dose of extreme inference - then yeah they can make "scriptures of none effect" as Jesus warned.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye

If one accepts that God will punish people eternally in hell, passages are interpreted one way; if it is believed God will eventually annihilate the wicked, passages are interpreted another way; and if one holds that all will eventually be saved, there is yet a third possibility.

It is true that slashing scripture with one's own "confirmation bias" they can delete/dismiss disconfirming texts with almost no consciousness of being in error. Saul (before he became Paul) was doing some of that same work himself at one time.

 

[BobRyan]

...and this should explain why I don't waste time arguing with people like Hart or Hmm about Ecumenical Councils. They themselves don't take the basis of their own arguments seriously. Were their argument to fail, they would not be bothered in the least.

The Bible flat out condemns universalism in Matt 7 with Christ's "wide road" vs "narrow road" teaching so I reject it on the basis of God's Word condemning it. But as for your statement above "I don't waste time arguing with people like Hart or Hmm about Ecumenical Councils" - I also choose your same solution there - but for a different reason.

 

[BobRyan]

Matthew 10:28
King James Version

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


If the everlasting destruction and punishment Christ taught was not in fact everlasting, He would not have taught it so.

He doesn't kill the soul (person) and body in Hell, He destroys them in Hell.
This doesn't mean that the person ceases to exist:

The idea that "destroy" means - "gets eternal life and exists forever" is not once a claim in scripture.

Your argument above is for the wicked having both immortal bodies and immortal souls that even God himself is not able to destroy as in "kill". That is quite a stretch!! It is sticking a big "NOT!" in front of Christ's statement rather than allowing the "progression of concept" Christ presents where he goes BEYOND kill to outright destroy.

To kill a body and go beyond that to also DESTROY the body is not even remotely "so of course would not kill the body". That statement of Christ has not logical way to spin back around on itself the way you suggest.

=================

No wonder the "final end of the wicked" is expressed this way in scripture..



Destruction: Matt 10:28
Which is what we find in Luke 17 regarding Sodom
Luke 17:29
but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. (destroy - Apollumi )


Which is why it is so instructive to see in 2 Peter 2 "destroyed by reducing them to ashes" that we see in 2 Peter 2

2 Peter 2:6
6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes,


"cease to be" - Satan - the covering cherub... reduced to ashes as well.

Ezek 28: 14
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.
16 By the abundance of your trade
You were internally filled with violence,
And you sinned;
Therefore I have cast you as profane
From the mountain of God.
And I have destroyed you, you covering cherub,
From the midst of the stones of fire.
17 Your heart was haughty because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor.
I threw you to the ground;
I put you before kings,
That they may see you.
18 By the multitude of your wrongdoings,
In the unrighteousness of your trade
You profaned your sanctuaries.
Therefore I have brought fire from the midst of you;
It has consumed you,
And I have turned you to ashes on the earth
In the eyes of all who see you.
19 All who know you among the peoples
Are appalled at you;
You have become terrified
And you will cease to be forever.”’”

The wicked ... consumed/devoured... Rev 20
7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. 9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

 

[wendykvw]

Again, no address of the posts presented to deny the view "God does not force anyone to confess or bow in worship."

Just another "Oh, yeah? What about—"




Actually, we have men falling down in worship unto other men, not God:


Isaiah 45:14
King James Version

14 Thus saith the Lord, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.


Again, it denies your assertion. This is the repentance of Judas and Simon the sorcerer.

They acknowledge God to other men.

"They shall fall down" is worship.


Continued...

1.I have looked over all of your replies. So far, nothing you have presented refutes my views, and based on most of your replies, it is evident you have a poor understanding of Universalism.

2. You have used Isa 45:14 many times to suggest that those who were in chains were being forced to worship God. And while that is one way to interpret this passage, it is certainly NOT the only way. As just one example, here is John Gill's (not a universalist) interpretation of the chains in v. 14:

"being subdued and conquered by the grace of God, shall come in the chains of efficacious grace, drawn with the cords of love, and bands of a man; and yet shall come willingly, being made willing in the day of the power of divine grace upon their souls"

Other non-universalist commentaries (including the very well-respected The Keil & Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary) also agree with my understanding. That doesn't prove me right and you wrong. But what it does prove is that people can read the same passage and interpret it differently. We'll always disagree on many passages of the Bible because we are viewing the same words through different lenses.

 

[Servus]

1.I have looked over all of your replies. So far, nothing you have presented refutes my views, and based on most of your replies, it is evident you have a poor understanding of Universalism.

Either a poor understanding or intentional strawmen.

 

[Servus]

The Bible flat out condemns universalism in Matt 7 with Christ's "wide road" vs "narrow road" teaching so I reject it on the basis of God's Word condemning it.

You guys usually apply Matt 7 to anyone who's not a Saturday Sabbatarian.

 

[Servus]

no one from the universal salvation crowd is trying to address the points I have made.

So you've been saying for a while now. And as I pointed out a while ago, the reason for that is on your end.

 

[wendykvw]

You said "Again, there is no Scripture to support universal salvation and universal salvationists cannot address the Scripture that teaches everlasting punishment." Which is so true. If they address it at all they try to say that "aionios" does not mean "eternal" it really means, the silly expression, "age during" and "kolasis" does not mean "punishment" it really means "prune" or "correction," which is an etymological "root" word fallacy.

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”​

Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years ago +/-. Note, the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars, translators of the EOB, translated “aionios,” in Matt 25:46, as “eternal,” NOT “age.”
Who is better qualified than the team of native Greek speaking scholars, translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB], quoted above and below, to know the correct translation of the Greek in the N.T.?
Link to EOB online:
The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
…..The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., 1st occurrence Matt 25:46, above, and the 2nd occurrence 1 John 4:18., below.

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.​

In the EOB the Greek word “kolasis” is translated “punishment” in both Matt 25:46 and 1 John 4:18. Some mis/uninformed folks claim “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correction.” However, that is an etymological fallacy. According to the EOB Greek scholars “kolasis” means “punishment.”
Note: in 1 John 4:18 there is no correction, the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect. Thus “kolasis” does not/cannot mean “correction.”
…..It is understood that modern Greek differs from koine Greek but I am confident that the Greek speaking EOB scholars, backed up by 2000 years +/- of continuous Greek scholarship, are competent enough to know the correct translation of obsolete words which may have changed in meaning or are no longer in use and to translate them correctly. Just as scholars today know the correct meaning of obsolete words which occur in the KJV.

1.In regards to kolasis, nobody is saying it doesn’t mean punishment, only that its purpose is remedial and not retributive.

2.You keep saying ‘aionios’ always means eternal. You really need to stop saying that because it simply is not true. Marvin Vincent (who is NOT a universalist), author of the very respected, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, disagrees with you when he writes, “The adjective aionios in like manner [to aion] carries the idea of time. Neither the noun [aion] nor the adjective [aionios], in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting…Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods.” (Vincent, Marvin, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol IV, p. 59)

In fact, Vincent addresses Matt. 25:46 specifically and again disagrees with you when he writes, “Kolasis aionios rendered everlasting punishment (Matt. xxv. 46) is the punishment peculiar to an aeon other than that which Christ is speaking.” (ibid., p. 60).

3. Regarding the fact that your Greek scholars translated the word ‘aionios’ as ‘eternal’ and not ‘age’ doesn’t prove anything. Young’s Literal Translation translates ‘aionios’ in Matt. 25:46 with that “silly” expression, ‘age-during’. Who is right? This just proves my point that interpretation is “profoundly” influenced by one’s presuppositions. As Klein, Hubbard, and Blomberg (not universalists) note, “No one comes to the task of understanding as an objective observer. All interpreters bring their own presuppositions and agendas, and these affect the ways they understand as well as the conclusions they draw.” (William Klein, Robert Hubbard, Craig Blomberg, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, p. 8, emphasis mine). Kaiser and Silva (also not universalists) echo this same sentiment when they wrote, “Whether we mean to or not, and whether we like it or not, all of us read the text as interpreted by our theological presuppositions.” (Walter Kaiser and Moises Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 306, emphasis mine)

Now, I know what you’re thinking, “But I don’t read the bible with any presuppositions.” If so, you’re deceiving yourself. As Kaiser and Silva wrote, “But we fool ourselves if we think we can approach the text of Scripture with unprejudiced minds.” (Ibid., p. 283). Klein, Hubbard, and Blomberg agree, “But anyone who says that he or she has discarded all presuppositions and will only study the text objectively and inductively is either deceived or naïve.” (William Klein, Robert Hubbard, Craig Blomberg, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, p. 87)

4. We all come to scripture with presuppositions, myself included, and therefore, the best thing to do is recognize this fact rather than pretending it doesn’t exist (Walter Kaiser and Moises Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 306). So please, enough with the childish accusations that everyone who disagrees with you isn’t interpreting scripture correctly or "taking it out of context".

5. We come to the text of Scripture with two very different presuppositions. You assert that God will only be able to save a very small fraction of those that Satan destroyed. I start with the understanding that God will eventually save all that Satan destroyed. Those are two very different starting points which means there are many passages we will never agree on. But I’m comfortable with my presupposition since it teaches that Christ is stronger than Satan because He will be able to save as many as Adam destroyed. Contrast this with your view that Christ is weaker than Satan since He cannot save as many as Adam destroyed.