Universalism...why not?

Which is it?

  • God doesn't want all men to be saved.

    Votes: 4 8.2%
  • God can't do what he wants to do.

    Votes: 2 4.1%
  • Neither, God will continue to work on unrepentant souls because his love & patience are unending.

    Votes: 40 81.6%
  • Don't know...never thought about this before.

    Votes: 3 6.1%

  • Total voters
    49

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"The LXX generally translates Olam by Aion which essentially has the same meaning. Than neither the Hebrew or Greek word in itself contains the idea of endlessness is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past, and also by the fact that it is thought desirable to repeat the word."
"... 'ad (q.v.) has substantially the same range of meaning as 'olam (usually
continuance into the future, but cf. Job 20:4)."
Harris, Archer, Waltke, Theological Wordbook Of The Old Testament, page 673.
Similarly, Greek scholar Marvin Vincent wrote:
"The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting."
"...The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, 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."
"...Words which are habitually applied to things temporal or material can not carry in themselves the sense of endlessness."
"...There is a word for everlasting if that idea is demanded."
You keep appealing to the writings of men. How about addressing these scriptures?
1 Timothy 1:17
(17) Now unto the King eternal, (1) immortal,(2) invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever (1) and ever (1). Amen.
(1) αἰών/aion (2) ̓́αφθαρτος/aphthartos
In this verse “aion” is in apposition, see def. below, with “immortal.” If “aion” means “age(s),” a finite period, God cannot be for “a finite period” and “immortal” at the same time. God is “eternal” and “immortal” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
Romans 2:7
(7) To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,(2) eternal (1) life:
Aion” is in apposition with “immortality.” If “aion” is only a finite period, believers cannot seek for “a finite period,” and “immortality” at the same time. But they can seek for “eternity” and “immortality” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
2 Corinthians 4:17-18
(17) For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal (1) weight of glory;
(18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal;(3) but the things which are not seen are eternal.(1)
(3) πρόσκαιρος/proskairos
Here “aion” is contrasted with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Aion” cannot mean “age(s)” a finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary.” “Eternal” is.
2 Corinthians 5:1
(1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal (1) in the heavens.
Here “aion house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” An “aion” house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” “Aion” means “eternal.”
Hebrews 7:24
(24) But this man, because he continueth ever,(1) hath an unchangeable (4) priesthood.
(4) ἀπαράβατος/aparabatos
Here “unchangeable” is in apposition with “aion.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Melchizadek cannot continue “for a finite period” and be “unchangeable” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
1 Peter 1:23
(23) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,(2) by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.(1)
Here “incorruptible” is in apposition with “aion.” The seed of God cannot be “incorruptible” and only for “a finite period” at the same time. “Aion” means “eternal.”
The definition of “apposition” from a Greek grammar.

III. Nominative in Simple Apposition
The nominative case (as well as the other cases) can be an appositive to another substantive in the same case. The usage is quite common. There are four features of simple apposition to be noted (the first two are structural clues; the last two features are semantic): An appositional construction inz’olz’es (1) two adjacent substantives (2)in the same case (40) (3) which refer to the same person or thing, (4) and have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the clause.
The first substantive can belong to any category (e.g., subject, Predicate nom., etc.) and the second is merely a clarification, description, or identification of who or what is mentioned.(41) Thus, the appositive “piggy-backs” on the first nominative’s use, as it were. For this reason simple apposition is not an independent syntactical category.
The appositive functions very much like a PN in a convertible proposition that is, it refers to the same thing as the first noun.(42) The difference, however, is that a PN makes an assertion about the S (an equative verb is either stated or implied); with appositives there is assumption, not assertion (no verb is in mind). In the sentence “Paul is an apostle,” apostle is a PN; in the sentence, “Paul the apostle is in prison,” apostle is in apposition to Paul.
(40)The nom. occasionally is in apposition to an oblique case, but the semantics are the same. See discussion below.
(41) An appositive, strictly speaking, is substantival, not adjectival. Thus, adjectives or Participles in second attributive position are not generally appositives, but usually hate an adjectival force.
(42) The significance of this will be seen in our discussion of the gen. case, for the gen can also involve a syntactical category, vi.t., the gen of apposition. The semantics involved in such a category are quite different from those involved in simple apposition.
With proper names typically the first noun is anarthrous and the appositional noun is articular.
Matt 3:1 παραγινεται ιωαννης ο βαπτιστης κηρυσσων

John the Baptist came Preaching
Mark 15:4 0 εν αις ην και μαρια η μαγδαληνη
among them also were Mary the Magdalene...
Luke 1:24 συνελαβεν ελισαβετ η γυνη αυτου
Elizabeth his wife conceived
Rev 1:5 ο μαρτυς ο πιστος ο πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων
the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI, 1996, Daniel Wallace, pp.48-49
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You keep appealing to the writings of men. How about addressing these scriptures?

Why? What relevance do they have to the thread topic of "universalism"?

OTOH my post #1740 is on topic.
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
39
Beer City, Michigan
✟10,618.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
If my child became a wayward soul, as any loving parent I would do everything I could to woo him back to a healthy and restorative place. I would never give up on him. I would put no time limits on my love and patience towards him.

If our Father desires all men to be saved, why can't he continue to work on their souls postmortem? If he wanted to, couldn't he do it? Can't God do what he wants to do? I think he can do what he wants to do.

So, if God desires all men to be saved and if God can do what he wants to do, he wouldn't put a time limit (i.e. upon death) on his love and patience towards us.

So, if God's love and patience run out on a soul upon death, either God doesn't want all men to be saved or God can't do what he wants to do. Which is it?

Lately, I've had the same question: Universalism, why not? It seems to me, being the first fruits, that the elect will have a part in the spiritual parenthood of the lost children who will be saved as though through the flames. They'll have nothing to show for all the time and talents they had in their earthly life, but we of the flock would not leave them out in the cold or turn them away for being "goats" or "weeds" among us any more than a mother would turn away a newborn child for being naked. We know there is no marriage (read: reproduction) in the kingdom, and I think that is quite simply because there won't be any room! ...What with all the other souls of all men, whom Messiah has saved.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Corbett

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 1, 2017
893
744
59
Severn, NC
Visit site
✟172,170.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The title of this thread is "Universalism . . . why not?"

I believe there are many reasons "why not". One reason is that the Universalist Story has the Wrong Goal. I have started a new thread on this particular topic which you will find by clicking on the link in the previous sentence.
 
Upvote 0

Robert76

Robert
Jul 19, 2017
135
110
Central Ohio
✟7,841.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If my child became a wayward soul, as any loving parent I would do everything I could to woo him back to a healthy and restorative place. I would never give up on him. I would put no time limits on my love and patience towards him.

If our Father desires all men to be saved, why can't he continue to work on their souls postmortem? If he wanted to, couldn't he do it? Can't God do what he wants to do? I think he can do what he wants to do.

So, if God desires all men to be saved and if God can do what he wants to do, he wouldn't put a time limit (i.e. upon death) on his love and patience towards us.

So, if God's love and patience run out on a soul upon death, either God doesn't want all men to be saved or God can't do what he wants to do. Which is it?

Such a terrific question! I can only suspect the answer that will perfectly satisfy this question will come when we stand before God ourselves. I think most of us here will agree that God is perfect and Holy and cannot (or will not) exist where there is sin. Also, He gives us free will because He loves us (loved us first) and wants our love in return ("you shall have no other gods before me" we read)... after all if we don't have the free will to choose to love God back then it is not love at all.

I also think we'll mostly all agree that we are sinners, have a sin nature as it were and that God's perfect plan for salvation was (from the beginning) that Jesus would be sent to die for our sins (taking our punishment upon Him, and in return giving us His righteousness).

In my very limited understanding, God DOES desire that none should perish and is long suffering (we're never told He is eternally suffering... that is, willing to just wait for forever). While God can do all things supernaturally (like how He created the universe and everything in it), but to His glory, He chooses to work through His children... why we are told to go to the corners of the world proclaiming the gospel message? If Jesus gave this command to His disciples, it would seem rather unnecessary since the Father's plan was to take care of everyone anyway, whether it be before or after they die.

Is God a god of love alone? No, among the many attributes of God, He is also just. Would a just judge send a murder, a liar, a thief, an adulterer to heaven? Yes, IF they have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior, placing their trust in Him and repenting of their sins (that is the only way any of us make it in). No, IF they don't. God cannot be called "just" if He allows every unrepentant sinner into heaven. So while God has many attributes (holy, loving, merciful, graceful, just, eternal, unchanging, etc...) He does not contradict Himself.

I cannot begin to comprehend what God's plan is, but I can trust that His plan for salvation is perfect and we can all know that we have a perfect and loving Heavenly Father... even when His plan is not what we think it should be in our limited, finite understanding.
 
Upvote 0

black.hawk

Active Member
Aug 18, 2017
215
23
34
Wiltshire
✟10,427.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I really meant to stay out of this and just read from the sidelines, but this post......sheeesh! You, sir, have been anything but respectful to the people in this thread. You have posted insinuations that we love and defend sin, that we "trample the Blood of Christ underfoot," that we deny the Atonement, that we think that all men are going to get a free pass without punishment of any sort.

If you really think what you just posted, then I would say that the ball is in your court when it comes to finger pointing and name calling.
But WHO are you to Judge the people on this forum? Matthew 7:1
 
Upvote 0

black.hawk

Active Member
Aug 18, 2017
215
23
34
Wiltshire
✟10,427.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I know how Scripture, and Jesus use the word "is", and I am willing to teach you many things, including theology.
But I think that George Carey and Rowan Williams,...Pope Francis, and Emeritus Pope Benedict etc are much better qualified to teach in light of their academic background, which are all doctorates in divinity - As opposed to BA Theology at Harvard.

Harvard is no big deal in light of those qualifications.

Since there are lots of high school teachers with BA Theology, but I suppose you want a Congressional Medal?
 
Upvote 0

black.hawk

Active Member
Aug 18, 2017
215
23
34
Wiltshire
✟10,427.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Ahhhhhh...........no, you got that wrong.

Pope John Paul II said that hell is not so much a place as a state of being, which is what I just said.

Take it up with him.
Hell IS indeed a STATE OF BEING; but it is an IMMUTABLE STATE - Contrary to "universal salvation".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

black.hawk

Active Member
Aug 18, 2017
215
23
34
Wiltshire
✟10,427.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Typical of cults, you take one verse of Scripture out of context of the chapter and use it to defend your beliefs.
Cult???

But it takes one to know one doesn't it?

Such as the so called "Conservative" Church of Moon from N. Korea.

Such as Reverend Moon pointing his finger, and calling Don Fraser a "Soviet agent", whereas in fact, he himself is from Communist N. Korea.

Pointing your finger does NOT change WHO you are:-

Matthew 7:5 - Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,989
2,480
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟555,654.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Hell IS indeed a STATE OF BEING; but it is an IMMUTABLE STATE - Contrary to "universal salvation".


And you know this how? You have actually been to hell in person and been told that hell is immutable?
 
Upvote 0