Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Hmm · Sep 23, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
I have a question ...

... since Universalists seem to have 1 Corinthians 15:22 as a primary "go to verse," how do they reconcile their interpretation of this with what Paul writes previous to this in the vary same letter in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and then later to the same group of people in 2 Corinthians 5:10?

How about you have a go at interpreting what you obviously conclude are anti-universalist verses in the light of the universalist one instead of asking others to do it the other way around?

Der Alte · Sep 23, 2021

Hmm said:
Your wish is my command:
https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/

Ephesians 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

NOT “in Christ”NOT ”in Him” NOT gathered together in one. Not "gather together in one all things into Christ." The ones already in Christ, who are "in heaven" and "on earth."

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

NOT “in Christ” NO redemption. The word "justified" is a "present passive participle" those who are are already justified.

Romans 8:1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

“Walk after the flesh” NOT “in Christ” and there IS condemnation.

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

NOT “in Christ” NOT free from the law of sin and death.

Romans 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

NOT “in Christ” NOT a member of the body.

1 Corinthians 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

NOT “in Christ” NO sanctification, NO redemption.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Not “in Christ” old things NOT passed away, old things NOT made new.

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

NOT “in Christ” NOT children of God.

Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

NOT “now in Christ Jesus” NOT ”made nigh” still far off.

2 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

NOT “in Christ” NO promise of life.

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

NOT “in Christ” NO salvation.

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

NOT “in Christ” NO salvation.

LoveGodsWord · Sep 23, 2021

MMXX said:
Atheism believes and teaches non-existence after death, like you do. That's why many atheists I know of don't fear death.

Actually I teach no such thing. Please get your facts right before posting and stop spreading misinformation. If your not sure your welcome to ask.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 23, 2021

Hmm said:
How about you have a go at interpreting what you obviously conclude are anti-universalist verses in the light of the universalist one instead of asking others to do it the other way around?

No, that's not how Hermeneutics and Exegesis are to be done...unless you're even more of an Existentialist than I am.

Also, trying to turn the tables by flipping it back at me is a very poor rhetorical device for debate or discussion, especially if you aren't exactly situated in the same social and political frame that Jesus was. I expect Him to have done that sometimes when facing corrupt leaders of His time; I DON'T expect fellow Christians to do it since NONE of us KNOWS exactly what is in the hearts of our interlocutors.

No, here's what needs to happen here. You need to show not only that you've "interpreted" a verse, but ALSO show how it fits with whatever else has been said by the same writer, especially if that verse is sitting in the context of the very same letter to the same group of people for the same occasion.

So far, you're not doing that. In fact, a lot of folks here don't. Moreover, I've noticed a general pattern: All that most of you universalistic supporters do is cite odds and ends thinkers, those who lived some time from between the 2nd century to the present. ... You need to do more than that. It's not enough to cite that "such-and-such" Church Father or medieval theologian thought (~all too often, Origen, in this case) universalism was true.

Do you understand what I'm getting at, brother Hmm?

LoveGodsWord · Sep 23, 2021

MMXX said:
Based on the info I have, universalism was outright taught for the first four centuries. Which would mean it has a first century start date. What was the start date for purgatory?

Yet not taught in the bible accept in Genesis 3:1-5 as the first lie told in the garden of Eden to Eve by the devil. The question remains who should we believe? Its not a hard question in my view.

Andrewn · Sep 23, 2021

Hmm said:
Well, let's consider the word "all" in this verse:

for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
I Corinthians 15:22
I have to go off to eat some more fish so let me pass you on to philosopher Keith deRose and his analysis.of this:

On a different note, I will quote here the interpretation of St John Chrysostom:

"Ver. 22. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

What then? tell me; did all die in Adam the death of sin [277] ? How then was Noah righteous in his generation? and how Abraham? and how Job? and how all the rest? And what, I pray? shall all be made alive in Christ? Where then are those who are led away into hell fire? Thus, if this be said of the body, the doctrine stands: but if of righteousness and sin, it doth so no longer."

So, 1Co 15:22 does not unequivocally support UR.

Maria Billingsley · Sep 23, 2021

Hmm said:
The article explains what that means. It also specifically addresses the tired and discredited interpretation you recite below and details why it is incorrect.

OK.
Thanks for engaging!

Hmm · Sep 23, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
No, that's not how Hermeneutics and Exegesis are to be done...unless you're even more of an Existentialist than I am.

Also, trying to turn the tables by flipping it back at me is a very poor rhetorical device for debate or discussion, especially if you aren't exactly situated in the same social and political frame that Jesus was. I expect Him to have done that sometimes when facing corrupt leaders of His time; I DON'T expect fellow Christians to do it since NONE of us KNOWS exactly what is in the hearts of our interlocutors.

No, here's what needs to happen here. You need to show not only that you've "interpreted" a verse, but ALSO show how it fits with whatever else has been said by the same writer, especially if that verse is sitting in the context of the very same letter to the same
group of people for the same occasion.

So far, you're not doing that. In fact, a lot of folks here don't. Moreover, I've noticed a general pattern: All that most of you universalistic supporters do is cite odds and ends thinkers, those who lived some time from between the 2nd century to the present. ... You need to do more than that. It's not enough to cite that "such-and-such" Church Father or medieval theologian thought (~all too often, Origen, in this case) universalism was true.

Do you understand what I'm getting at, brother Hmm?

Well, let's see... you've saying that it's okay for you to ask universalists to interpret universalist verses in the light of any anti-universalist verses you throw up but you it's bad hermeneutics, exegesis and discussion technique if you're asked to do the reverse. Correct?

Hmm · Sep 23, 2021

Andrewn said:
On a different note, I will quote here the interpretation of St John Chrysostom:

"Ver. 22. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

What then? tell me; did all die in Adam the death of sin [277] ? How then was Noah righteous in his generation? and how Abraham? and how Job? and how all the rest? And what, I pray? shall all be made alive in Christ? Where then are those who are led away into hell fire? Thus, if this be said of the body, the doctrine stands: but if of righteousness and sin, it doth so no longer."

So, 1Co 15:22 does not unequivocally support UR.

That is an opposing interpretation I agree. It does, though, sound strained to me because has to assume the existence of an everlasting hell to give it the meaning he does. The universalist position would be that some and perhaps many will have to undergo a probably long (but finite) duration of painful correction in "hell" before they can be made alive/saved.

Lazarus Short · Sep 23, 2021

This thread, at this point, is what I call a "predictament" - it has devolved into whether universalism is
(a) true
(b) false.
The OP wanted to ask what kept people back from universalism, but it has devolved into a thread about proofs pro or con. It was entirely predictable, so I call it a predictament.

I see no one is budging, so is there anyone posting on the thread who was once a member of the other camp? Time for a personal bio - I was raised in the Baptist church, so I was exposed to, and for a long time, believed in, damnationism. Then I was an atheist for some years, for reasons that seemed good to me at the time. At about age 25 or 26, God announced Himself to me. Later, I joined the SDA church and learned about annihilationism. Later still, I encountered universalism, but rejected it for a time. By about 2014 I needed to reach a decision, so I delved into an ordinary KJV to see which "theory" was correct. My rule was to find which afterlife theory jibed better with the data, the Biblical text. I found little support for annihilationism, a lot of text-tweaking in support of damnationism, but had a clear view of universalism, even in the KJV. To avoid bias, I read little on the subject during my research and generally tried to avoid bias.

I found the truth for myself, but I don't suppose those who disagree with universalism will be anymore impressed with the above than with any textual evidence I could bring to bear. When I posted the 77 UR-friendly verses, the discussion went on as if I had not.

Be aware that UR is a fail-safe position. If you are wrong about it, you will still be saved in the end, and that gives me considerable comfort. Whenever God has spoken to me in the still, small voice, He never upbraided me or condemned me. He is our Creator, our Heavenly Father. He intends to save His creation, and being God, He will.

LoveGodsWord · Sep 23, 2021

WHAT DOES "IN CHRIST" MEAN - 1 CORINTHIANS 15:22?

1 Corinthians 15:22 does not support Universalism at all. The key phrase "in Christ" is being ignored. Only those "in Christ" shall be made alive

1 Corinthians 15:22 [22], For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

Romans 6:3-6 [3], Know you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4], Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. [5], For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: [6], Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that from now on we should not serve sin.

Romans 8:1-4 [1], There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [2], For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. [3], For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [4], That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Romans 8:10-11 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. [11] But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you.

Romans 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's

1 Corinthians 1:30 But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption

Galatians 3:26 For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus

Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who sometimes were far off are made near by the blood of Christ.

Colossians 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory

Colossians 2:6 As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk you in him

.................

There is too many more scripture references that can be added here that are not included that you can look up for your self if you do a phrase passing on "in Christ". We might stop here. "In Christ" in every scripture reference is referring to those who are believers not those who are unbelievers and not the wicked who reject and are not in Christ. Therefore 1 Corinthians 15:22 is simply saying all in Christ will be given eternal life. That is all those who believe and follow God's Word.

Hope this is helpful

Hmm · Sep 23, 2021

Lazarus Short said:
The OP wanted to ask what kept people back from universalism, but it has devolved into a thread about proofs pro or con. It was entirely predictable, so I call it a predictament.

Yes, I was hoping people would say what they immediately think and feel when they hear the words "Christian Universalism" because that might provide an opportunity to identify and clear up any misunderstandings about what it is. I think that kind of self examination is very hard to do. It's much easier to hide behind Bible verses.

Albion · Sep 23, 2021

Lazarus Short said:
This thread, at this point, is what I call a "predictament" - it has devolved into whether universalism is
(a) true
(b) false.
The OP wanted to ask what kept people back from universalism, but it has devolved into a thread about proofs pro or con. It was entirely predictable, so I call it a predictament.

Well, if the question is "What keeps people back from universalism?" (which it is), referring the question to the testimony of Scripture is entirely appropriate and, indeed, necessary.

That's because the great majority of Christians, those who are believers in the authority of the Bible and who reject universalism, are "kept back" from universalism by the testimony of the word of God in Scripture. It's no more confounding than that.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 23, 2021

Hmm said:
Well, let's see... you've saying that it's okay for you to ask universalists to interpret universalist verses in the light of any anti-universalist verses you throw up but you it's bad hermeneutics, exegesis and discussion technique if you're asked to do the reverse. Correct?

Nope, not exactly. What I'm saying is that it's ok for me to ask universalists to interpret universalist verses in light of the fuller literary contexts in which their supporting verses are found, and they need to do this when questioned without resorting to their own rhetorical questions in lieu of answers ...

That's what I'm attempting to say.

So, let's think of it as a point of manners or politeness: If you ask me a question first, then it would fit discussion decorum for me to do my jolly best to try to answer your question, and this would come from the sense that you, being a fellow human being of worth, have asked me a legitimate question and that (at least sometimes) I may need to be accountable for some statements I make here or there.

And the same holds for you in return, especially after I've already answered one of yours. See? It's an exchange of ideas, and although I could be wrong about this, it sounds almost like the expression or an aspect of Christian love, the kind that one brother would have for another.

Or we can just badger each other with insinuations about each other's character, motives, integrity, level of heretical beliefs, or other whatnot. But I'd rather not stoop to that. I don't think you want to either.

Albion · Sep 23, 2021

Hmm said:
Yes, I was hoping people would say what they immediately think and feel when they hear the words "Christian Universalism" because that might provide an opportunity to identify and clear up any misunderstandings about what it is. I think that kind of self examination is very hard to do. It's much easier to hide behind Bible verses.

This is interesting. Lazarus Short makes the case for universalism on the basis of the guidance of the Bible. That's what persuaded him, correctly or incorrectly.

You support the same conclusion but, from what we can tell from your posts, you are persuaded by your preference for this theory coupled with the fact that there once were universalists in the church. But it's not because the Bible settles the issue for you. You disdain people who approach it that way, in the way recommended by Lazarus Short, when you say that "it's much easier to hide behind Bible verses."

Hmm · Sep 23, 2021

Albion said:
You support the same conclusion but, from what we can tell from your posts, you are persuaded by your preference for this theory coupled with the fact that there once were universalists in the church.

Who's "we"? This is your opinion.

You keep telling me that that the reason I'm a universalist is because it's my preference (but don't we all choose the belief system that we prefer) and because I'm swayed by its prevalence in the early church. But I've already told you that the reason I'm a universalist is because I believe it has overwhelming scriptural support so why do you keep repeating your theory about my motivations to me?

Albion said:
You disdain people who approach it that way, in the way recommended by Lazarus Short, when you say that "it's much easier to hide behind Bible verses

I don't disdain anyone. I have disdain for your accusation though.

Hmm · Sep 23, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
Nope, not exactly. What I'm saying is that it's ok for me to ask universalists to interpret universalist verses in light of the fuller literary contexts in which their supporting verses are found, and they need to do this when questioned without resorting to their own rhetorical questions in lieu of answers ...

That's what I'm attempting to say.

So, let's think of it as a point of manners or politeness: If you ask me a question first, then it would fit discussion decorum for me to do my jolly best to try to answer your question, and this would come from the sense that you, being a fellow human being of worth, have asked me a legitimate question and that (at least sometimes) I may need to be accountable for some statements I make here or there.

And the same holds for you in return, especially after I've already answered one of yours. See? It's an exchange of ideas, and although I could be wrong about this, it sounds almost like the expression or an aspect of Christian love, the kind that one brother would have for another.

Or we can just badger each other with insinuations about each other's character, motives, integrity, level of heretical beliefs, or other whatnot. But I'd rather not stoop to that. I don't think you want to either.

Fair enough. I was probably too lazy to answer your question so threw it back instead, apologies

Andrewn · Sep 23, 2021

Lazarus Short said:
I suppose I could copy & paste my book manuscript here, but it would be difficult on a forum such as this, given its sheer length. Would you interested in my condensed conclusions?

Luk 5:39 And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’”

Albion · Sep 23, 2021

Hmm said:
You keep telling me that that the reason I'm a universalist is because it's my preference (but don't we all choose the belief system that we prefer) and because I'm swayed by its prevalence in the early church. But I've already told you that the reason I'm a universalist is because I believe it has overwhelming scriptural support so why do you keep repeating your theory about my motivations to me?

I was going by what you say most of the time. I don't know what other guideline would be more reliable.

As for the 'overwhelming scriptural' support, that's a new one, too.

DavidPT · Sep 23, 2021

Hmm said:
What is it about universal redemption that annoys so many Christians? Shouldn’t we be happy that God’s love and mercy are wider, higher, deeper, and broader than we could ever imagine? We all sin at times so shouldn't we welcome the thought that God is not going to annihilate or eternally torment us if we don't “accept,” “trust,” “repent,” “believe,” well enough to appropriate the grace of God?

You would think so but it seems from the recent threads on Christian Universalism that this is not the case. Why is this?

Here are some of the reasons that have been expressed in the threads:

1. ”If everyone is or will be saved, what’s the point in following Jesus?”

To me, anyone who thinks this must see following Jesus as a heavy burden, one that needs the reward of heaven to make it worth the hassle. But shouldn't following Jesus and having a good relationship with him here and now be its own reward?

It's also a misunderstanding of Christian Universalism to think it says that we don't have to receive the saving grace of Christ in order to be reconciled to God and to each other. It just says that if we don't manage to do this in this life there will be boundless opportunities to do so in the next one and that eventually every one will accept forgiveness and repent of their sins... ”that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth" (Phil 2:10)

2. "All my hard work at being a Christian has been undermined".
This is very much like 1. Shouldn't any work we do be done out of love for God, not for any personal eternal rewards?

3. ”If there is an 'us,' there has to be a 'them'"
This may be true about some things such as football: I support Manchester United so I hate Manchester City (I'm from the UK, apologies) but it needn't apply to matters of faith. If we are going to heaven when we die there doesn't have to be a group who go to hell.

These three reasons seem to have something in common and that's judgementalism. They're all essentially saying "Look, I'm a good Christian and my hard work and sacrifices has earned me membership into the very exclusive club of heaven and, sad to say it, but most other people haven't done anywhere nearly as enough as me and so, unfortunately, missed out on the opportunity." This makes you think of the work vs. faith debate ironically but, moving swiftly on from that, isn't it true that being judgemental is wrong and if that's the main reason behind our objection to Christian Universalism, shouldn't we consider that we might be misunderstanding it?

There are biblical arguments that can be made for and against Christian Universalism but there are plenty of existing threads discussing that so, assuming anyone wants to respond!, I'd be more interested in hearing what your gut, visceral reaction is, whether for or against, when you hear the words "Christian Universalism". For me, it's basically relief that God is a loving God and not a monster after all.

Of the 3 main views, eternal conscious torment, annihilationism, and universalism, only 2 of them are possibilities. The one that isn't is universalism. Personally, I like the idea of universalism. But the problem is, the Bible does not support it or even hint at the possibility. Why entertain something that the Bible is not even supporting? Those that think otherwise are simply misunderstanding and misapplying the Scriptures they think support this.

As to the lost, the ones cast into the LOF, there are two deaths involved and only one resurrection involved. Anything having to do with death requires a resurrection in order to live again. There is no resurrection after the 2nd death. The resurrection precedes the 2nd death, not follows it, nor that another resurrection follows it. How then do they rise from the 2nd death if there is no resurrection to rise in? As to the first death there is a resurrection to rise in following that death, but the same is not true after the 2nd death. In order for universalism to even be a possibility there has to be another resurrection following the 2nd death, but there isn't.

Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Similar threads