Would you prefer it if “Christian universalism” were true?

Cormack · Jun 26, 2021

RickReads said:
Some have suffered greatly at the hands of others and look to Jesus for justice.

The Lord is my avenger let my enemies beware.

Will that do?

I think that’s probably one of the most honest reasons someone would prefer the eternal torment view over universalism. Although if it’s about settling their personal grievance, rather than the grievance of others, I’m not so sure they are after justice.

So far as I’m concerned, it’s not an impressive reason to prefer hell or annihilation over universalism. To me the Christian who wants God to avenge them hasn’t made things right with their enemy, not publicly or in their heart of hearts, they’re carrying around some kind of untreated trauma and want satisfaction on account of that. In that case God’s the vehicle for their anger, not their healing.

Some scriptures come to mind that many users will feel invalidate my point, and these verses can help preserve their desire that God retaliate on their behalf.

“But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”

“They called out in a loud voice, 'How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”

I read verses of this variety not as a means to invalidate others or to negate the specific commands of God to “love our enemies” and “pray for those who persecute,” even the command to pray for all people, instead they are examples of God allowing man to complain and indulge in the bitterness of his soul.

God doesn’t want to retard those feelings any more than He wanted Job to boot strap and stop his mourning over loss, instead Job didn’t sin in everything he felt and said, even the bitter feelings.

For users tempted by verses in the Bible where people are permitted to feel their pain and mourn their loses, I’d point towards psalms as an extreme example of felt pain that we aren’t meant to follow. From psalm 137:9.

Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

Like in the case of many other Bible verses, that’s not an example of feelings we ought to emulate or prefer as opposed to other states of mind that the Bible impresses upon us.

In short, Rick, I think your answer is better than many of the answers that others have given. Many answers and questions I’ve ignored responding to, not because I’m trying to be mean spirited, but because the answers make no grammatical or logical sense. Many answers are confused. Your reason for preferring non universalism is similar to the one that @Albion shared, and I did find value interacting with those thoughts.

Is it a good answer? Is it good enough? That’s up for everyone to decide include you after having read my response. In my opinion, no. I think on reflection it shouldn’t sway either of us to prefer that others are punished and lost eternally, because that’s allowing our grievances with the person to eclipse Gods gospel, His love, gifts and even His desire for that person (1 Timothy 2:4.)

BrotherJJ · Jun 26, 2021

RickReads said:
Moot. The universalists say we are all victims of bad translation and erroneous views of hell that developed during the dark ages.

1st, People are free to believe, teach, preach & express their personal opinions.

MY NOTES below express my thoughts to what's been presented here as the universalists dogma.

Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(MY NOTE: All scripture is God-breathed. To include 2 Thes 1:8-9 & Matt 25:41 shared in post #116)

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
(MY NOTE: Void of God-breathed scripture, replaced with because we universalists say so, Truly Moot. The intentions of the universalists heart have been discerned.)

2ndly, the 1 Thes 1:8-9 & Matt 25:41 verses shared via 1611 King James version post #116.

Have been shared in a revised & updated 2000 Jubilee Bible version. Hardly the dark ages!

Jubilee Bible 2000
1 Thes 1:
8 with flaming fire, to take vengeance on those that do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,

9 who shall be punished with eternal destruction by the presence of the Lord and by the glory of his power
Bible Gateway passage: 2 Thessalonians 1 - Jubilee Bible 2000

Matt 25:41 Then he shall also say unto those who shall be on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels;
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 25 - Jubilee Bible 2000

RickReads · Jun 26, 2021

Cormack said:
I think that’s probably one of the most honest reasons someone would prefer the eternal torment view over universalism. Although if it’s about settling their personal grievance, rather than the grievance of others, I’m not so sure they are after justice.

So far as I’m concerned, it’s not an impressive reason to prefer hell or annihilation over universalism. To me the Christian who wants God to avenge them hasn’t made things right with their enemy, not publicly or in their heart of hearts, they’re carrying around some kind of untreated trauma and want satisfaction on account of that. In that case God’s the vehicle for their anger, not their healing.

Some scriptures come to mind that many users will feel invalidate my point, and these verses can help preserve their desire that God retaliate on their behalf.

“But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”

“They called out in a loud voice, 'How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”

I read verses of this variety not as a means to invalidate others or to negate the specific commands of God to “love our enemies” and “pray for those who persecute,” even the command to pray for all people, instead they are examples of God allowing man to complain and indulge in the bitterness of his soul.

God doesn’t want to retard those feelings any more than He wanted Job to boot strap and stop his mourning over loss, instead Job didn’t sin in everything he felt and said, even the bitter feelings.

For users tempted by verses in the Bible where people are permitted to feel their pain and mourn their loses, I’d point towards psalms as an extreme example of felt pain that we aren’t meant to follow. From psalm 137:9.

Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

Like in the case of many other Bible verses, that’s not an example of feelings we ought to emulate or prefer as opposed to other states of mind that the Bible impresses upon us.

In short, Rick, I think your answer is better than many of the answers that others have given. Many answers and questions I’ve ignored responding to, not because I’m trying to be mean spirited, but because the answers make no grammatical or logical sense. Many answers are confused. Your reason for preferring non universalism is similar to the one that @Albion shared, and I did find value interacting with those thoughts.

Is it a good answer? Is it good enough? That’s up for everyone to decide include you after having read my response. In my opinion, no. I think on reflection it shouldn’t sway either of us to prefer that others are punished and lost eternally, because that’s allowing our grievances with the person to eclipse Gods gospel, His love, gifts and even His desire for that person (1 Timothy 2:4.)

I gave my answer in post #40 and it was a yes with the proviso that I believe my perspective will change when all things are known to me.

I put the post up because you said no one gave a valid reason to oppose Universalism.

You alter my answer when you suggest it`s about settling personal grievances or making God a vehicle for personal anger. Doing that makes it easier to deflect my answer but you miss or avoid my point.

By forgiving enemies, we put our faith in God to set things right. If we pursue true forgiveness then in our hearts we have released God to be our sovereign. The avenging aspect is a promise of God to His elect and IMO is part of the forgiveness process. In my case, I worry about what will happen to some people I have known in my life. My preference is for mercy, always.

RickReads · Jun 26, 2021

BrotherJJ said:
1st, People are free to believe, teach, preach & express their personal opinions.

MY NOTES below express my thoughts to what's been presented here as the universalists dogma.

Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(MY NOTE: All scripture is God-breathed. To include 2 Thes 1:8-9 & Matt 25:41 shared in post #116)

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
(MY NOTE: Void of God-breathed scripture, replaced with because we universalists say so, Truly Moot. The intentions of the universalists heart have been discerned.)

2ndly, the 1 Thes 1:8-9 & Matt 25:41 verses shared via 1611 King James version post #116.

Have been shared in a revised & updated 2000 Jubilee Bible version. Hardly the dark ages!

Jubilee Bible 2000
1 Thes 1:
8 with flaming fire, to take vengeance on those that do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,

9 who shall be punished with eternal destruction by the presence of the Lord and by the glory of his power
Bible Gateway passage: 2 Thessalonians 1 - Jubilee Bible 2000

Matt 25:41 Then he shall also say unto those who shall be on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels;
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 25 - Jubilee Bible 2000

Any man-made translation is fallible.

Cormack · Jun 26, 2021

RickReads said:
I gave my answer in post #40 and it was a yes with the proviso that I believe my perspective will change when all things are known to me.

By writing your answer I only mean insofar that you’ve shared the answer, I’m not meaning to write it’s your first choice or one of your choices. You’ve shared the answer as an idea or an abstraction and that’s how I’m happy to interact with the message.

RickReads said:
You alter my answer when you suggest it`s about settling personal grievances or making God a vehicle for personal anger. Doing that makes it easier to deflect my answer but you miss or avoid my point.

The reason I’ve read your message in that way is because you’ve written about people who have “suffered greatly,” people who want God to settle that situation.

I’m not meaning to strawman you but rather to tease out as many arguments as I can from the message.

The only other understanding of your message that I could tease out is that (at least in your opinion) Christians have some kind of dry disinterested desire to see retributive justice done against the people who have wronged them in life.

Though to me it seems naive to imagine that such a dispassionate desire even exists.

The idea that we would like people who have wronged us to receive their just deserts, but also that the whole of the desire is divorced from resentment or our interaction with the person, it seems more like theatre than real life.

Notice I brought my earlier conversation with Albion into the exchange, because both our discussion and my previous conversation with him seem to share some features. If you haven’t already, you can catch up on the exchange by reading #67 and my response #71.

Our point by the end of the conversation was related to your points too. Since there’s the strong philosophical argument that Christian universalists could have justice while also seeing that no people would have to suffer from eternal separation from God.

So again I’m not sure why you and I would prefer an idea of dispassionate demands for justice at the expense of the people who have wronged us, while we could just as easily have dispassionate demands for justice that aren’t at the expense of the people who had wronged us.

It seems to me that the only meaningful difference is that your line of thinking requires retributive justice extracted from ordinary men and women, not simple justice, it’s defining feature is that it’s personal retribution.

The universalist picture however already has divine justice without that element of personal retribution. They have the just judge without the damning of their enemies.

Hence the preference question again. The universalists picture seems to be more preferable while the other stance is more like Christian theatre. Almost like Christian virtue signalling.

Gregory Thompson · Jun 26, 2021

LoveGodsWord said:
I am sorry if I answer the question based on scripture which is what I believe and follow. Are you seriously trying to say that if we answer a question based on scripture it is from the devil? I will leave that between you and God to work through as I do not judge you *John 12:47-48. For me however, only God's Word is true and we should believe and follow it *Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29. What we think is not important or necessarily true.

Scripture to instruct use of scripture. James 3:13-18 applies here for sure.

God is already right, and that is enough.

Saint Steven · Jun 26, 2021

RickReads said:
Moot. The universalists say we are all victims of bad translation and erroneous views of hell that developed during the dark ages.

Right. Like this gem.

Aionios, the Greek word mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in the Bible (eternal hell?)

Saint Steven · Jun 26, 2021

RickReads said:
Some have suffered greatly at the hands of others and look to Jesus for justice.

The Lord is my avenger let my enemies beware.

Will that do?

No, it will not do. IMHO
I believe that a heart for revenge is evil.

I don't think God wants us to look to him to avenge us so we can gloat over the misfortunes of our enemies. Jesus taught us to love our enemies. Not to hat them in silence while we wait for God to clobber them. That's not love. And it's not forgiveness.

It seems that Christians hate sin and sinners more than God does. Why are we rich in mercy? The church seems to be stuck on "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." What did Jesus say in the Sermon on the Mount?

Matthew 5:38-42 NRSV
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

Saint Steven · Jun 26, 2021

Michael Collum said:
God is already right, and that is enough.

But are we understanding him correctly?

Gregory Thompson · Jun 26, 2021

Saint Steven said:
But are we understanding him correctly?

As the scripture also says.

May God be true and every man a liar.

So sometimes agreeing that God is right, is best.

RickReads · Jun 26, 2021

Saint Steven said:
No, it will not do. IMHO
I believe that a heart for revenge is evil.

I don't think God wants us to look to him to avenge us so we can gloat over the misfortunes of our enemies. Jesus taught us to love our enemies. Not to hat them in silence while we wait for God to clobber them. That's not love. And it's not forgiveness.

It seems that Christians hate sin and sinners more than God does. Why are we rich in mercy? The church seems to be stuck on "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." What did Jesus say in the Sermon on the Mount?

Matthew 5:38-42 NRSV
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

Gloating over another's misfortunes or hating them in silence would be sin. You falsely accuse me by implying I have a heart for revenge. Tell God about it. He made the promise.

35 To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.

43 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.

If angry denial is the only way you can deal with these scriptures then you demonstrate that Universalism is a false doctrine.

Saint Steven · Jun 26, 2021

Michael Collum said:
As the scripture also says.

May God be true and every man a liar.

So sometimes agreeing that God is right, is best.

What does that really mean if we are reading a mistranslation? Is it really God's word? Or is it mans word? Does that make it true, or false?

Saint Steven · Jun 26, 2021

RickReads said:
Gloating over another's misfortunes or hating them in silence would be sin. You falsely accuse me by implying I have a heart for revenge. Tell God about it. He made the promise.

35 To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.

43 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.

If angry denial is the only way you can deal with these scriptures then you demonstrate that Universalism is a false doctrine.

That saw cuts both ways. Are you falsely accusing me of "angry denial"?
I'm not accusing you of anything. Interesting that you owned it though. - lol
What should we conclude?

And whatis with those scripture references? All you gave us was verse numbers.

Saint Steven · Jun 26, 2021

BrotherJJ said:
... Have been shared in a revised & updated 2000 Jubilee Bible version. Hardly the dark ages! ...

Does it match what the "Dark Ages" version says? (yes) Well, why do you suppose that is?

RickReads · Jun 26, 2021

Cormack said:
By writing your answer I only mean insofar that you’ve shared the answer, I’m not meaning to write it’s your first choice or one of your choices. You’ve shared the answer as an idea or an abstraction and that’s how I’m happy to interact with the message.

The reason I’ve read your message in that way is because you’ve written about people who have “suffered greatly,” people who want God to settle that situation.

I’m not meaning to strawman you but rather to tease out as many arguments as I can from the message.

The only other understanding of your message that I could tease out is that (at least in your opinion) Christians have some kind of dry disinterested desire to see retributive justice done against the people who have wronged them in life.

Though to me it seems naive to imagine that such a dispassionate desire even exists.

The idea that we would like people who have wronged us to receive their just deserts, but also that the whole of the desire is divorced from resentment or our interaction with the person, it seems more like theatre than real life.

Notice I brought my earlier conversation with Albion into the exchange, because both our discussion and my previous conversation with him seem to share some features. If you haven’t already, you can catch up on the exchange by reading #67 and my response #71.

Our point by the end of the conversation was related to your points too. Since there’s the strong philosophical argument that Christian universalists could have justice while also seeing that no people would have to suffer from eternal separation from God.

So again I’m not sure why you and I would prefer an idea of dispassionate demands for justice at the expense of the people who have wronged us, while we could just as easily have dispassionate demands for justice that aren’t at the expense of the people who had wronged us.

It seems to me that the only meaningful difference is that your line of thinking requires retributive justice extracted from ordinary men and women, not simple justice, it’s defining feature is that it’s personal retribution.

The universalist picture however already has divine justice without that element of personal retribution. They have the just judge without the damning of their enemies.

Hence the preference question again. The universalists picture seems to be more preferable while the other stance is more like Christian theatre. Almost like Christian virtue signalling.

Your response to this, as well as Saint Steven's, is interesting to me. You both want to make the issue about me instead of about God`s judgment. You blame my opinion on my shortcomings or according to Saint Steven perhaps the sin in my heart. In doing so you protect the universalism doctrine.

The problem for you both is that my position is more just my opinion. It`s completely Biblical.

First off, if somebody gloats over another's misfortune or hates them then certainly they haven`t forgiven. That`s a total oxymoron.

Secondly, near as I can tell, all of God`s judgement on sin is retributive in nature. To take that out would mean we believe that there will no punishment for sin. If that is the case then we both know universalism wouldn`t be viable.

Thirdly, God avenging the righteous is a promise made by God Himself, in cases where He shows mercy good things will happen that the righteous will approve of. If Universalism is going to deny that, then it can be dismissed as the wrong doctrine.

Lastly, you say that somebody who would like God to Judge cannot be "divorced from resentment." and you go on to call it theatre. Hardly theatre. God is going to judge, has nothing to do with what we want or don`t want. And somebody who does not divorce from resentment will carry poison in their heart that will create all kinds of spiritual problems. You talk to anyone who has been through terrible things and you will find that the only way any of them come out of it whole is to forgive and divorce from resentment. It`s the only way to recover.

Cormack · Jun 26, 2021

Saint Steven said:
No, it will not do. IMHO
I believe that a heart for revenge is evil.

I don't think God wants us to look to him to avenge us so we can gloat over the misfortunes of our enemies.

Hoping to contain the topic here, since it’s still about the appropriate Christian preference for any one view, not about whether or not the views are true (God knows we have enough of those topics here on CFs.)

Your point though is a good one, @Saint Steven. The heart of men who want eternal revenge or destruction against their enemies (even divine revenge) would have a hard time arguing that they weren’t still at enmity with those people.

And once again if the topic’s on proper Christian preference there’s no obvious reason why we should want retributive justice paid for from the blood of other humans rather than the blood of Christ.

Why not prefer the shed blood of Jesus that can save to the utmost ends of the earth rather than the blood of some poor fool why cheated on his taxes or even cheated on his wife.

The idea that preferring another view over universalism is about “justice” doesn’t hold up when we see that justice is a feature of the universalists view already.

The faint hint of an idea that justice isn’t part of the universalists perspective could mean that non universalists only see justice as being done when another sinful human is being punished.

Hmm · Jun 26, 2021

Cormack said:
The idea that preferring another view over universalism is about “justice” doesn’t hold up when we see that justice is a feature of the universalists view already.

The faint hint of an idea that justice isn’t part of the universalists perspective could mean that non universalists only see justice as being done when another sinful human is being punished.

That's a very good point which hadn't occured to me before. I want justice done but I also hope that everyone makes it to heaven, not least because I believe God would grieve more than we could ever know if even one person was lost. If universalism can accommodate both hopes then what's not to like? I imagine some people will try very hard to find something lol.

RickReads · Jun 26, 2021

Saint Steven said:
That saw cuts both ways. Are you falsely accusing me of "angry denial"?
I'm not accusing you of anything. Interesting that you owned it though. - lol
What should we conclude?

And whatis with those scripture references? All you gave us was verse numbers.

By listing what you believe people's motives are you implied in my direction. I`ve struggled with forgiveness issues in the past. Faith in God`s justice delivered me from it. My position on this is born of both study and personal issues.

Deutoronomy 32, Romans 12, 1 Thessalonians 4

Albion · Jun 26, 2021

BrotherJJ said:
1st, People are free to believe, teach, preach & express their personal opinions.

MY NOTES below express my thoughts to what's been presented here as the universalists dogma.

Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(MY NOTE: All scripture is God-breathed. To include 2 Thes 1:8-9 & Matt 25:41 shared in post #116)

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
(MY NOTE: Void of God-breathed scripture, replaced with because we universalists say so, Truly Moot. The intentions of the universalists heart have been discerned.)

2ndly, the 1 Thes 1:8-9 & Matt 25:41 verses shared via 1611 King James version post #116.

Have been shared in a revised & updated 2000 Jubilee Bible version. Hardly the dark ages!

Jubilee Bible 2000
1 Thes 1:
8 with flaming fire, to take vengeance on those that do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,

9 who shall be punished with eternal destruction by the presence of the Lord and by the glory of his power
Bible Gateway passage: 2 Thessalonians 1 - Jubilee Bible 2000

Matt 25:41 Then he shall also say unto those who shall be on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels;
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 25 - Jubilee Bible 2000

What I'm getting from this discussion is that most of us would like everyone to come to Christ and be saved. If we had our way, that's what it would be.

And why not?

However, it's not in accord with God's word (Holy Scripture), so that fact should settle the matter of whether or not that preference means much of anything.

grasping the after wind · Jun 26, 2021

parousia70 said:
Airtight?
This could devolve into an OSAS discussion pretty easliy...

Is there evidence that suggest that one that is reconciled with God will not reap the benefits of God's forgiveness? If not, and I have not found any such evidence, then the case seems to me to be airtight. I cannot find such strong evidence of reaping the benefits of God's forgiveness for those that are not willing to be reconciled with God. If you are of the mind that those that reject God's forgiveness will reap those benefits anyway perhaps you would like to present the evidence for that case. Keep on mind that God's sovereignty does not require Him to do anything but allows Him to do whatever pleases Him. The argument that God can do something does not mean that He will, or must, or does do any particular thing. So the fact that God could afford the benefits of His forgiveness to even those that reject Him, and believe they do not require His forgiveness, does not mean that he will afford those benefits to them. God will do as He pleases and what I would prefer does not matter. I am content with God's decisions whatever they happen to be. If he decides on universal salvation I will be content. If He decides on salvation only of the willing I will still be content. It is not for me to tell God what He should do. It is also not my place to criticize Him for doing other than what I consider to be the more moral, or fair/just or loving action.

Would you prefer it if “Christian universalism” were true?

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

That's grasping after the wind

Similar threads