If universalism is true then why did God send His Son to die for our sins?

[Aaron112]

Once again, if universalism is true then why did God sent His Son to die for our sins? Certainly God is powerful enough to save everyone without the sacrifice, right?

Totally Wrong. ur is absolutely false. Totally Contrary to and Opposed to Jesus and to All Scripture.
Answering the false gospel is not only not required, it is not permitted. No conversation is permitted according to YHVH and Yashua's Word. No greeting them. No meal with them at all.
Difficult these days? Impossible on a forum filled with falsities that are not banned nor false teachers that cannot be banned. Even "Christian" or "Biblical" forums that allow those who bring or carry any false gospel end up promoting what is false , knowingly or unwittingly, I don't know.

why my UR position destroys the need for the sacrifice of The Christ?

Please stop. Nothing anyone can say or do destroys the need for the sacrifice of Yahshua the Messiah. The ones carrying a false gospel reject the sacrifice of Jesus, and cannot be helped.

 

[Hentenza]

This makes no sense to me … sorry. That is why I have asked you to explain your statement. If you are unable to articulate how you arrive at your position I suggest you take more time and give more thought to how you arrive at this conclusion. Otherwise, just tell me you don’t want to be bothered. Basically all you have done is provide a thesis statement and developed no thought to support that statement.

Blessings

Let’s look at John 6:


“Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; the one who comes to Me will not be hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never be thirsty. But I said to you that you have indeed seen Me, and yet you do not believe. Everything that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I certainly will not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of everything that He has given Me I will lose nothing, but will raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.””
‭‭John‬ ‭6‬:‭35‬-‭40‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

John 6:35-40 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; the one who comes to Me will not be hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never be thirsty. But I said to you that you have indeed seen Me, and yet y | New American Standard Bible - NASB

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; the one who comes to Me will not be hungry, and the one who believes in Me will never be thirsty. But I said to you that you have indeed seen Me, and yet y

bible.com

This Jesus recitation explaining why He came down from heaven to do the will of the Father and what the result of His sacrifice will be. Notice that the will of the Father is that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life. This is a subsection of the population and not all.

Conversely it is not the will of the Father to save those that do not see or believe in the Son. This would change God’s will and subsequently Jesus’s sacrifice. If God wants to forgive everyone’s sins then He does not need a very visual sacrifice for all to see and believe.

 

[PloverWing]

There is no need for a sacrifice if one is not needed.

I'm still not following your argument on this. You seem to be saying that if the sacrifice was powerful enough to apply to everyone, then the sacrifice was not needed. I don't see how this follows.

 

[Fervent]

Hebrews 11 says its appointed for man to die once and then the judgement, western Christians think this is heaven or "eternal Hell" , but the judgement is not that, the judgement is did you follow Jesus while in the temporary mortal body or not. If yes then to God you go, if no to the refinement you go,kolasis aionios , Gods judgement is for refinement not eternal punishment.
Its like our court system - if you are judged a murderer that judgement stands forever, you can't undo what has been done, but the punishment always has a beginning and an end.
Who is equating the remnant of Israel with the wicked shepherds ? I do not understand your last part.

That's neither here nor there, as the important part of Hebrews 11 in reply to you is its lists of people who lived by faith in a hope, and what that hope they were living for was. Specifically:

All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them

You asked how these people were saved, and it is no different than how we are saved today. By grace through faith, which side of the mystery we live on is irrelevant because Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

 

[Hentenza]

I'm still not following your argument on this. You seem to be saying that if the sacrifice was powerful enough to apply to everyone, then the sacrifice was not needed. I don't see how this follows.

See my post 122.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

I have no problem with the different beliefs that some in the early church believed and tried to formalize into mainstream church teaching. Most of those were addressed and rejected in the councils just as universalism was.

Interesting that you qualify your statement with “if you have the right understanding”. What you propose is not the mainstream or common understanding. You have to manipulate scripture to justify your belief. Your understanding of aionios is a perfect example. If aionios is defined as “for an age” then eternal life in John 3:16 would also be “for an age” rather than eternal. I’m sure that salvation is forever.

You have to understand that your belief system can not be proven from scripture. We’ve been through the verses and none justify your position.

Be blessed

The problem I see is that we are using two different languages, I am using the language of the early church, before what I believe is wrong thinking, you are using the language of modern church based off of Augustine's belief of merging pagan Greek philosophy and trying to combine that with the gospel.
I understand your language, I have been in full time ministry most of my adult life, so I know why you believe what you believe.
If you would go back and read what the early church fathers said, being people who the Greek of that day was there language, they understood the gospel differently than the Augustine model, if you were to do that you might understand the argument better.
Yes what propose is not mainstream now, but 2000 years ago it was, and I reject the way it is being used today.
If you understood aionios you would understand that our life in Jesus is eternal because it is in Jesus and he is eternal, because of the cross Jesus bought all of humanity and now he lives in all people, most are just blind to the truth that Jesus is in all, because of the cross, our job is to awaken to what God/Jesus/Spirit has already accomplished
Its about union and not separation.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

Totally Wrong. ur is absolutely false. Totally Contrary to and Opposed to Jesus and to All Scripture.
Answering the false gospel is not only not required, it is not permitted. No conversation is permitted according to YHVH and Yashua's Word. No greeting them. No meal with them at all.

When did the LORD anoint you to be His prophet my brother? Perhaps you might take the time to share some Scripture to support your stance on what is or is not permitted?

Difficult these days? Impossible on a forum filled with falsities that are not banned nor false teachers that cannot be banned. Even "Christian" or "Biblical" forums that allow those who bring or carry any false gospel end up promoting what is false , knowingly or unwittingly, I don't know.

If you are so unhappy here on CF, and think the owners are allowing such heretical views to be discussed, why not stay out of the “Controversial Theology” forum?

Please stop. Nothing anyone can say or do destroys the need for the sacrifice of Yahshua the Messiah. The ones carrying a false gospel reject the sacrifice of Jesus, and cannot be helped.

I never stated anything could destroy the need for the sacrifice of Jesus. In fact, that is the very question I am trying to have my brother Hentenza answer? Perhaps you should spend less time telling grownups what they should and should not do.

blessings

 

[Hentenza]

The problem I see is that we are using two different languages, I am using the language of the early church, before what I believe is wrong thinking, you are using the language of modern church based off of Augustine's belief of merging pagan Greek philosophy and trying to combine that with the gospel.
I understand your language, I have been in full time ministry most of my adult life, so I know why you believe what you believe.
If you would go back and read what the early church fathers said, being people who the Greek of that day was there language, they understood the gospel differently than the Augustine model, if you were to do that you might understand the argument better.
Yes what propose is not mainstream now, but 2000 years ago it was, and I reject the way it is being used today.
If you understood aionios you would understand that our life in Jesus is eternal because it is in Jesus and he is eternal, because of the cross Jesus bought all of humanity and now he lives in all people, most are just blind to the truth that Jesus is in all, because of the cross, our job is to awaken to what God/Jesus/Spirit has already accomplished
Its about union and not separation.

I understand your argument, however, a good portion of the early church fathers did not subscribe to UR so to argue that the language of the early church backs up your argument fully is still lacking. Some that argue for UR, like Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, had many detractors like Basil the Great and John Crysostom. So many, using the same language of the early church that you claim to use, argued against UR so even back then it was a highly debated belief.

 

[Jipsah]

Love never fails indeed. So why would Jesus force anyone that hates Him to spend eternity with Him?

"Unbelievers hate Jesus" is a Damnationist canard. And the idea that the charitable alternative to having to be around Jesus forever is eternal torture reflects a pretty ghastly vision of the justice and mercy of God. Fof God so loved the world that He'll have most of the people He created tortured forever."

blessings to you too.

 

[Jipsah]

No where in scripture does it say that there is salvation post mortem.

Argument from silence, The same is true for for the contrary position as well, though. There's nothing in Sripture that says there is not salvation post mortem.

What scripture does say in droves is that faith is necessary for salvation

I haven't seen anyone disagree with that.

and every one of those verses are directed strictly to the living.

He only ones who can read, perhaps?

Once again, if universalism is true then why did God sent His Son to die for our sins?

As well ask why God needed to send His Son at all. He could obviously have saved any individual or group at any time He so desired. How do you reckon it's different saving some as opposed to all? If it's necessary for our Lord to die to save some, why, in your thinking, would He not have to die to save everyone? Would saving everyone have been easier?

Certainly God is powerful enough to save everyone without the sacrifice, right?

I don't see how the number to be saved has any bearing on why our Lord had to die.

 

[PloverWing]

See my post 122.

If God wants to forgive everyone’s sins then He does not need a very visual sacrifice for all to see and believe.

So, I think your argument is this: The purpose of Jesus' sacrifice is to help us believe. Without Jesus' sacrifice, we wouldn't believe; and without our belief, God wouldn't forgive us. Have I understood you correctly?

 

[Hentenza]

So, I think your argument is this: The purpose of Jesus' sacrifice is to help us believe. Without Jesus' sacrifice, we wouldn't believe; and without our belief, God wouldn't forgive us. Have I understood you correctly?

In a simple way yes. John 6 makes the argument for the purpose of the sacrifice and the basis for forgiveness based on God’s will. I’m arguing that universalism deviates from God’s will because belief is no longer necessary for forgiveness and consequently salvation.

 

[Hentenza]

"Unbelievers hate Jesus" is a Damnationist canard. And the idea that the charitable alternative to having to be around Jesus forever is eternal torture reflects a pretty ghastly vision of the justice and mercy of God. Fof God so loved the world that He'll have most of the people He created tortured forever."

You guys are really good at fearmongering which you use to try to covert people to your error. I have a lot more faith that many will be in fact saved.

 

[Hentenza]

Argument from silence, The same is true for for the contrary position as well, though. There's nothing in Sripture that says there is not salvation post mortem.

I haven't seen anyone disagree with that.

What you say no one disagrees with is what proves what you state is an argument from silence.

He only ones who can read, perhaps?

What?

As well ask why God needed to send His Son at all. He could obviously have saved any individual or group at any time He so desired. How do you reckon it's different saving some as opposed to all? If it's necessary for our Lord to die to save some, why, in your thinking, would He not have to die to save everyone? Would saving everyone have been easier?

Read John 6:35-40. What is the will of God?

I don't see how the number to be saved has any bearing on why our Lord had to die.

And yet you fearmonger with the many that you claim will be tortured for eternity. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

I understand your argument, however, a good portion of the early church fathers did not subscribe to UR so to argue that the language of the early church backs up your argument fully is still lacking. Some that argue for UR, like Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, had many detractors like Basil the Great and John Crysostom. So many, using the same language of the early church that you claim to use, argued against UR so even back then it was a highly debated belief.

Yes there was debate but they never broke fellowship or called each other heretic like we see today.
They like us read scripture through the lens of who we understand God to be, is he love, life, and light and in him is no darkness. For me the idea that Gods love changes when this temporary mortal body dies, is not love, or the idea that God creates people who he knows will miss understand him and he creates them knowing he must burn them for all eternity for miss understanding, that is truly darkness, and it bothers me to see people slander my God with those lies.
Maybe the idea that God has a plan to reconcile the world to himself in Jesus does not fit your idea of God and that is a bridge to far for you, thats ok, God is infinite and any idea we have will always fall short, the western Augustine gospel is a bridge to far for me.
I see all humanity as part of the body of Christ and will not break fellowship even with those who see differently, I was at a similar place as the one you are at, its just for me this way of reading scripture is the only way I can understand Gods loving plan, I can't go back to the separation model now that I see union with God as his plan for all humanity.
Its been a good conversation, who knows maybe someday you may see things differently.

 

[Hentenza]

Yes there was debate but they never broke fellowship or called each other heretic like we see today.

Is not like they could just go to the church down the road though. lol Look, we have a difference in our soteriology views. Mine is orthodox yours is unorthodox. Otherwise we probably agree on most everything else. Tell you what I won’t call names if you don’t.

They like us read scripture through the lens of who we understand God to be, is he love, life, and light and in him is no darkness. For me the idea that Gods love changes when this temporary mortal body dies, is not love, or the idea that God creates people who he knows will miss understand him and he creates them knowing he must burn them for all eternity for miss understanding, that is truly darkness, and it bothers me to see people slander my God with those lies.

The thing is that God’s plan is His own. You can’t claim to judge or fully understand an infinite, all powerful, all knowing being. A pastor I know told me one time that there is an infinite difference between an infinite being and a finite being. So true. I know that when we get to heaven we will then fully understand God’s plan and will be in complete agreement.

Maybe the idea that God has a plan to reconcile the world to himself in Jesus does not fit your idea of God and that is a bridge to far for you, thats ok, God is infinite and any idea we have will always fall short, the western Augustine gospel is a bridge to far for me.
I see all humanity as part of the body of Christ and will not break fellowship even with those who see differently, I was at a similar place as the one you are at, its just for me this way of reading scripture is the only way I can understand Gods loving plan, I can't go back to the separation model now that I see union with God as his plan for all humanity.
It’s been a good conversation, who knows maybe someday you may see things differently.

I won’t see things differently, at least not in this life. In the afterlife…..I‘m fully open to what the Lord will show me. I enjoyed talking with you. Be blessed.

 

[Jipsah]

What you say no one disagrees with is what proves what you state is an argument from silence.

You apparently lost the thread there. You contend gthat there's noneing that says that anyone can be saved after death. True. It is also true that there's also nothing in Scripture says that no one can't be saved after death. The Bible says nothing either way, and your claim that silence suports your position is simply nonsense.. Sorry, no worky.

What?

Try to keep up.

Read John 6:35-40. What is the will of God?

Just what it says.

Here's something more to the point:
1 Timothy 2:3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6Who gave himself a ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time.

)All emphasis obviously mine) THis is where the Damnationist "Poor God, There's Just Nothing He Can Do" comes into play. "Yeah", they say, "that's God Will, but He's helpless to pull i off because His dimwitted creatures just thwart Him at every turn. Being omnipotent just isn't all it's cracked up to be, because the even the dumbest cluck He created can easily set His will at nought. That summarizes the Damnationist position, doesn't it?

And yet you fearmonger with the many that you claim will be tortured for eternity. You can’t have it both ways.

Fearmonger? Hmmmm.. remind me again which of us it is who believes that most of the people God has ever created will be roasted screaming over a slow fore for all eternity? Hint: It ain't me. I think that's grotesquely false. I believe that the Will of God will be done, and of. Ifm as Scripture tells us (see above) is for "all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." You say His will can't be done. I say God's will can't be stopped. You're the fearmonger here. I believe that God will save everyone: A) because He wants them to be, and B) because nothing can can hinder His will.

BTW, I don't know what the thing about "having it both ways" means. I see the Damnationist view as arrant rubbish. There;s nothing about it I want to "have". You paint God as a merciless, pitiless, malevolent despot Who will grant those of His creatures with eternal life just so they can be tortured forever. Simply ghastly, and at odds with Scripture. I believe that God either saves a, or causes them never to have been.

 

[Jipsah]

You guys are really good at fearmongering

Sorry mate, but we don't believe there's anything to fear. Y'all are the fire and brimstone party.

which you use to try to covert people to your error.

So you're telling me that in your belief God doesn't roast most of the people He creates for all eternity, keeping them alive for that very purpose? Hmmmm...

I have a lot more faith that many will be in fact saved.

Ah, so some won't be tortured forever, eh? Well that's good to know. But you do believe that Eternal Totture is the default sentence, don't you?

 

[Fervent]

Argument from silence, The same is true for for the contrary position as well, though. There's nothing in Sripture that says there is not salvation post mortem.

Arguments from silence aren't necessarily bad, the question is whether or not we would reasonably expect a position to be vocalized if it were true.

Though post-mortem salvation is a separate question from whether or not universalism is true. The former seems to have some support in more orthodox sources, the latter only has one orthodox voice that a strong case could be made embraced as much(though even Nyssa's universalism is debateable given comments he made in On Baptism)

It is one thing to hope for the salvation of all mankind, another to teach it. One is forgiveably naive, the other is reckless.

 

[Hentenza]

Sorry mate, but we don't believe there's anything to fear. Y'all are the fire and brimstone party.

So you're telling me that in your belief God doesn't roast most of the people He creates for all eternity, keeping them alive for that very purpose? Hmmmm...

Ah, so some won't be tortured forever, eh? Well that's good to know. But you do believe that Eternal Totture is the default sentence,

My brother you have no argument. Your post lacks substance. If you disagree with me at least make an attempt at arguing your position.