Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Saint Steven said:

Not biblical at all? Here's six to get you started. Let me know when you are ready for the next six, and the next six. Thanks.
1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Titus 2:11 ESV
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,
1 Timothy 4:10
That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
1 John 4:14
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.
1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Click to expand...

Assumes the usage of a phrase now is the same usage of the phrase then. Not so.

Phrases referring to the "whole world," "all," etc. were spoken in the context of Jews vs. Gentiles, where Gentiles were excluded from Israel and God's promises, the phrases "all" and "whole world" meaning that the subject was not limited to Jews only, but also applied to Gentiles, which would make it applicable to the"whole world," or "all," because in Israel those were the only two divisions of all mankind.

The "whole world" and "all" in context simply mean "including the Gentiles," and is not a guarantee of spiritul blessings either to "all" Jews nor to "all" Gentiles, without one meeting the necessary conditions for them.

Universalism, among other things it does, isolates phrases from the context of the whole NT, not understanding them in the light of the whole NT, to arrive at its false doctrine.

Saint Steven said:

This might help.
Acknowledge means "whole-heartedly", "openly" and "without reservation".

Click to expand...

Doesn't help at all. . .steers away from the text.

The NT word in Philippians 2:11 is "confess," not "acknowledge,"
and "confess" is "to agree with."

You handle the word of God much too loosely, not rightly dividing it (2 Timothy 2:15).

deleted

Lazarus Short said:

"...poor understanding of the Greek by the UR crowd." is your opinion. Some have an excellent understanding. A different opinion on the meaning and usage of a Greek (or Hebrew) word is NOT "poor understanding."

Click to expand...

Exactly.
That is a lame comment concerning UR.
The doctrine of UR came from the east (Greek speaking) orthodox church.

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff, Editor:

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

Maria Billingsley said:

Yet truth is quite short.
Blessings

Click to expand...

We'll plan on being short with you then. - lol

Saint Steven said:

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff, Editor:

Click to expand...

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

Click to expand...

What your source is actually pointing to would be this:

In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were dozens, perhaps more than a hundred, different ideas about Jesus and the Church being offered by all sorts of people who professed to be Christians.

Your quote proves almost nothing except that the church had not yet gotten its doctrines in order at that time, hadn't so much as canonized the Bible for most of that time period, and was in general yet to surmount the many erroneous beliefs floating around.

Universalism is just one of those aberrant teachings that the Church rejected, only to have it resurface in recent times (as a very minor development), along with Mormonism, Unitarianism, British-Israelism, Sabbatarianism, Spiritualism, and more.

Cormack said:

Almost everyone in the church considers the “all” in Adam to be universal in scope, so it’s an iffy misstep to immediately switch from a universal all around Adam and death onto a restricted “all” for the all made alive in Christ.

The author was creating symmetry by repeated use of language and nearness of the whole construct, so whatever the first “all” means, the second all means something very similar.

Click to expand...

Here's a great explanation from... @public hermit

1 Corinthians 15:22 explained by Public Hermit

This is essentially a conditional statement.
It is upon the basis that all die in Adam that all also are made alive in Christ. Or better, if all had not died in Adam, then there would have been no need to make all (or any) alive in Christ.

If all died in Adam, then all are made alive in Christ.

The same set of people are being referenced in both the antecedent and the consequent. So, if "all" doesn't mean all in the consequent, then it doesn't mean all in the antecedent.

Modus tollens: If all are not made alive in Christ, then all did not die in Adam.

But, of course, all did die in Adam (according to the fans of eternal torment).

Therefore, all means all in both instances.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Maria Billingsley said:

From the very beginning, God revealed Himself. Adam and Eve knew Him, Cain and Able knew Him and many generations thereafter knew Him. Noah, preach day and night so that many could be saved. Many chose not to know Him. They hated Him. God continually revealed Himself from generation to generation. Then God chose Abraham because he was one of the few that knew Him, the one and only God.
Jesus Christ of Nazareth is God in the flesh. He is I Am. The same God that chose Moses who also knew Him .Yet many who came out of Egypt chose not to know Him, they also hated Him. Only a remnant remained.
It is within each person to know the One True God. He revealed Himself from the very beginning and continues to reveal Himself. Choosing to not know Him is the choice of each and everyone who lived , lives and will live on this earth because He has revealed Himself to everyone. We are made in His image.
Blessings.

Click to expand...

Did Jesus die to save us from God?

Albion said:

Obviously not, since the point was that something of a case can be made for either view using Scripture but that the verses which might suggest Universal Salvation are far fewer and less specific than the others.

Click to expand...

Well, "less specific" is rather subjective, isn't it? Presumptions again.
You guys like to argue that, in the Bible, "all" doesn't mean "all". (means "some")
Clearly not specific enough for you. Right?

Albion said:

The weight of Scripture is clearly not on the side of the Universalists.

Click to expand...

Should that be a big surprise, given the biased agenda from which it came? We are fortunate to have what slipped through the Damnationist gauntlet. Thank God for a few honest scribes in the lot.

Albion said:

What your source is actually pointing to would be this:

In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were dozens, perhaps more than a hundred, different ideas about Jesus and the Church being offered by all sorts of people who professed to be Christians.

Your quote proves almost nothing except that the church had not yet gotten its doctrines in order at that time, hadn't so much as canonized the Bible for most of that time period, and was in general yet to surmount the many erroneous beliefs floating around.

Universalism is just one of those aberrant teachings that the Church rejected, only to have it resurface in recent times (as a very minor development), along with Mormonism, Unitarianism, British-Israelism, Sabbatarianism, Spiritualism, and more.

Click to expand...

Well, at least you have to admit that it came from the early church now. Big improvement. We're making progress. - lol

Saint Steven said:

Well, "less specific" is rather subjective, isn't it?

Click to expand...

No, the pro-Universalist verses (for want of a better term) are definitely vague in the wording and are simply intuited by supporters as meaning something or other. But the eternal death verses are quite direct.

Consider, for instance the reference in John 1:29 to the Lamb taking away "the sin of the world." Or Acts 3:21 saying that "everything will be restored."

Some people wanting to "prove" Universal Salvation will say that such verses "prove" their contention, but of course the verses do that only if the rest of us buy the interpretation offered by those people.

The verses plainly do not say that, and they can be easily interpreted as having a different meaning.

Saint Steven said:

Well, at least you have to admit that it came from the early church now. Big improvement. We're making progress. - lol

Click to expand...

I don't see anything special about that. As said, there were innumerable false beliefs in those centuries. I also previously pointed out that Universalism was not the norm, that the church never affirmed it in any of its creeds, etc., and more that renders the idea just one among many erroneous ideas.

I cannot imagine anybody here arguing that some goofy religious notion (like the suicide cult that thought a comet was coming for them or the "Children of God" cult that taught having sex with strangers was the highest form of Christian charity) is true simply because it's appeared on the scene these days. So, why would it be so if it occurred in antiquity?

Hmm said:

What is it about universal redemption that annoys so many Christians?

Click to expand...

I think for me it was the preachers. I bought into a guilt by association fallacy where I’d judge the proponents of universalism as weedy, wimpy, lilted people.

Calvinist preacher had the same ick factor with how they’d speak, very whispery and strange, think John Piper, as if they were about to cry during every lecture.

The difference was that Calvinists have an excellent marketing campaign going on to make their camp seem very biblical and credible, just super serious about their faith. So that was appealing.

While universalists just seemed so….. vanilla. Very CoE vibes.

I would have gone through something of a culture shock if I’d exchanged messages with a beefy argumentative poster like @Saint Steven in my early twenties. Could have blown my misconceptions out of the water.

Still yeah, it wasn’t so much the content of universalism that was off putting, it was the optics. Universalism is made to look unchristian, so, wanting to grow in my faith and loving on Jesus I didn’t want to be around shy flowery Lib Dems who mistakenly believed they were Christians.

When many people attack universalism, they’re not really attacking true blue universalism, they’re hating on the optics that mainstream churches have created.

It’s mostly a strong campaign of rhetoric against universalism that turns people off.

Saint Steven said:

Should that be a big surprise, given the biased agenda from which it came?

Click to expand...

Are you sure that you want to argue that the Bible is false teaching? If so, I can hardly feature how it would be possible to argue for "Christian Universalism," even though that's the topic here and the title of the thread.

Lazarus Short said:

Given the overall goal of Christianity, I think it quite strange that any Christian would look askance at UR, when they should welcome it with (at least) tentative hope. Why should you look forward to your own salvation...while smugly picturing in your mind the lost and wicked being relegated to eternal fire?

Click to expand...

Wow. That is such a thought-provoking statement.

Some hang onto hell as if their soul depended on it. Which is probably how they feel, I suppose. Under the tyranny of fear. Spiritual extortion. (an offer you can't refuse)

Saint Steven said:

That saw cuts both ways. (sketchy references)
Here's something to consider.
Aionios mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in Matthew 25:46.
All these verses below use the same NT Greek word, "aionios", the Greek word mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in Matthew 25:46. See bold below. This shows that "aionios" cannot mean eternal or everlasting.

Click to expand...

CONTRARE!!!

All your verses below do not use aionios--"age lasting," eternal,
they use aion--this "age (world, ways of the world), dispensation, indefinite time"
which is a very different meaning.

WOW! . . .what a bait and switch.

However, all these verses below do use the NT Greek word, "aionios", the Greek word correctly translated "everlasting, eternal" in Matthew 25:46, by its being used of persons and things which in the NT are in their nature endless, everlasting, as in being used:
of God (Romans 16:26),
of his (power) might (1 Timothy 6:16),
of his glory (1 Peter 5:10),
of the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 9:14),
of the redemption effected by Christ (Hebrews 9:12),
of that redemption's consequent salvation of men (Hebrews 5:9),
of Christ's future rule (2 Peter 1:11), which is without end (Luke 1:33),
of the life received by those who believe in Christ (John 3:16), who shall never perish
(John 10:28),
of the resurrection body (2 Corinthians 5:1), which is immortal (1 Corinthians 15:53),
in which immortal body that life (of John 3:16; Titus 1:2) will be realized.

Aionios is also used of
the sin that will never be forgiven (Mark 3:29),
the judgment of God from which there is never appeal (Hebrews 6:2),
the fire, one of the instruments if his judgment (Matthew 18:8, 25:41; Jude 7), which is unquenchable (Mark 9:43).

And then aionios is used to show that the punishment is neither temporary nor remedial, but is final and retributive (eternal destruction) in 2 Thessalonians 1:9.

Therefore, the meaning of aionios, as demonstrated above, and which is the word used in Matthew 25:46, is eternal, everlasting, without end, and you have demonstrated no basis for maintaining otherwise.

For demonsration of the meaning of punishment (kolasis), see post #432 on this thread.

Matthew 13:22
The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful.
Romans 12:2
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing

Click to expand...

of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 2:8
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Ephesians 2:2
in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the

Click to expand...

ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.
Compare: Matthew 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; Luke 20:35; Ephesians 1:21
Luke 18:29-30
“Truly I tell you,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30

Click to expand...

will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.”
Aionios, the Greek word mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in the Bible (eternal hell?)

Click to expand...

Therefore, these verses do not use the word aionios, they use aion which has a different meaning.
They are a bait and switch.

Hmm said:

I've noticed an unwillingness to accept that people become universalists because of the very strong scriptural support for it. The reason, I guess, is that they perceive it as a challenge to their own interpretation if they aren't very confident in them. And that's why we have these words thrown about like confetti.

Click to expand...

The first time I recognized the phrase "not only for ours" in this verse, I knew something was up. It stopped me in my tracks. I never looked back.

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Albion said:

No, the pro-Universalist verses (for want of a better term) are definitely vague in the wording and are simply intuited by supporters as meaning something or other. But the eternal death verses are quite direct.

Consider, for instance the reference in John 1:29 to the Lamb taking away "the sin of the world." Or Acts 3:21 saying that "everything will be restored."

Some people wanting to "prove" Universal Salvation will say that such verses "prove" their contention, but of course the verses do that only if the rest of us buy the interpretation offered by those people.

The verses plainly do not say that, and they can be easily interpreted as having a different meaning.

Click to expand...

I likely won't convince you on the basis of scripture. But what does your position declare about the character of God? I guess I can use scripture to make that point. Though you will argue that is not specific to UR, however, it is specific to the character of God. You may have seen me post this before.

Jesus teaches us to love our enemies, because this is godly behavior. Scripture below.

Seems contradictory then to claim that God will incinerate his enemies, and to further package this as love and/or justice. ???

What does this say about the character of God? Does he hold himself to a lower standard than we do? Seems slanderous to make God out as a cosmic tyrant with an anger management problem. Right? I have a higher regard for God than that.

Matthew 5:43-48 NIV
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Clare73 said:

Doesn't help at all. . .steers away from the text.

The NT word in Philippians 2:11 is "confess," not "acknowledge,"
and "confess" is "to agree with."

You handle the word of God much too loosely, not rightly dividing it (2 Timothy 2:15).

Click to expand...

I doubt he sees your posts. But... Usage: (a) I consent fully, agree out and out, (b) I confess, admit, acknowledge (cf. the early Hellenistic sense of the middle: I acknowledge a debt), (c) I give thanks, praise.