Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Der Alte said:

What indeed? It ain't Biblical.

Click to expand...

Then it should fit in very nicely with the "hell no" crowd.

MMXX said:

You've accumulated a lot of knowledge, Hmm.

Click to expand...

Yep......it is amazing what a person can accumulate with a google search weapon!

Major1 said:

Yep......it is amazing what a person can accumulate with a google search weapon!

Click to expand...

What do you mean?

Hmm said:

No, I'm the one who quoted the verse as it is. You are the one who added bits onto it. I asked you why and you haven't replied.

Click to expand...

You quoted it with none of the surrounding context, as if the simple sentence is enough to determine what Paul's intent was. My objection isn't that the simplest reading of that sentence alone isn't favorable to UR but that the context of Paul's letter makes it so that people reading the letter would not make the mistake of thinking that it was teaching UR and it is only when stripped of the context that it has that import.

Hmm said:

The majority of people believed at one time that the Earth was flat but that didn't mean that it was.

In any case, as Augustine testifies, there were “indeed very many” (immo quam plurimi), in the early church. It may actually be stronger than this because according to Ramelli (Christian Doctrine, 11) they were a “vast majority” because that is what the Latin word plurimi, from the adjective plurimus, implies.

Click to expand...

The issue isn't how many believe in UR or not, the only thing in question is this text in particular and whether it is Paul's intent(and by extension the intent of the Holy Spirit) to teach universalism through this sentence. By not resolving the context that the sentence you are simply imposing a meaning on the text that need not be there. So if you want to claim that here the Bible is teaching UR you must resolve the context to show that not only is the most natural understanding of the single sentence UR, but that the sentence was put forth in order that those reading would reach that conclusion.

Hmm said:

I have already asked you what this context could be and you provided so far are what ifs (Paul may have been exaggerating when he said "all" etc). If there is context that makes "all" not mean "all", please post it so that we can consider it.

Click to expand...

You are either being coy or obtuse. The context is the letter to the Corinthians and the question of what Paul was teaching in that paragraph. It is up to you to demonstrate that your contextless quote actually is intended how you are reading it based upon what Paul has written immediately before and immediately after. You claim it's teaching UR, but it seems to me that people who simply read the letter and not the single naked sentence will not draw that conclusion because there's nothing in the context to suggest it. The fact that rather than resolving the context you simply want to double down and shift the burden is telling, though.

Fervent said:

You quoted it with none of the surrounding context, as if the simple sentence is enough to determine what Paul's intent was. My objection isn't that the simplest reading of that sentence alone isn't favorable to UR but that the context of Paul's letter makes it so that people reading the letter would not make the mistake of thinking that it was teaching UR and it is only when stripped of the context that it has that import.

Click to expand...

Paul's intent? Are you aware that Paul never, not once, referred to "hell," not even in the KJV? If the Gospel includes "hell" it is just not Good News. Since Paul's Gospel does not, what's not to like?

I don't think God or His Message can be contained in the box of dogma, doctrine and theology.

Lazarus Short said:

Paul's intent? Are you aware that Paul never, not once, referred to "hell," not even in the KJV? If the Gospel includes "hell" it is just not Good News. Since Paul's Gospel does not, what's not to like?

I don't think God or His Message can be contained in the box of dogma, doctrine and theology.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion. You might want to read Romans, 2 Thessalonians, and Philippians again for a start.

Fervent said:

Thanks for your opinion. You might want to read Romans, 2 Thessalonians, and Philippians again for a start.

Click to expand...

I have read them all. Are there any verses you care to cite?

Lazarus Short said:

Paul's intent? Are you aware that Paul never, not once, referred to "hell," not even in the KJV? If the Gospel includes "hell" it is just not Good News. Since Paul's Gospel does not, what's not to like?

I don't think God or His Message can be contained in the box of dogma, doctrine and theology.

Click to expand...

I agree with your post about Paul’s letters im that he never uses the Greek words that are translated “hell.” However.....he does teach about the fate of those who reject Jesus Christ. He never gets into a lengthy discussion of it, but does make some very important remarks about the unbeliever and his or her final destination.

Notice Paul’s teaching on the fate of the wicked is that he says that these people are condemned and will suffer God’s wrath in 2 Thessalonians 2:12 which says that ........
“all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”

Paul describes God’s action against unbelievers with the word “wrath.”
Romans 2:5, 8 says....
“But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed…But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.”

Paul wrote the letter to the Galatian church to combat false teaching. He opposed the false teaching so strongly that he said in 1:8-9......
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-10 is one of the most important passages about Paul’s teaching on hell. These verses say......
“He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among those who have believed.”

Paul teaches this idea elsewhere. Galatians 6:8 says......
“The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”

So then, although Paul does not use the Greek words translated “hell,” he does speak about the destination of those who reject Jesus. He teaches that those who go to hell will endure the wrath of God, become useless, be separated from God and be distressed.

Major1 said:

Then it should fit in very nicely with the "hell no" crowd.

Click to expand...

I misread that the first time I read it and I said to myself, self I thought we were on the same side. Then I got my head screwed on right.

Major1 said:

I agree with your post about Paul’s letters im that he never uses the Greek words that are translated “hell.” However.....he does teach about the fate of those who reject Jesus Christ. He never gets into a lengthy discussion of it, but does make some very important remarks about the unbeliever and his or her final destination.

Notice Paul’s teaching on the fate of the wicked is that he says that these people are condemned and will suffer God’s wrath in 2 Thessalonians 2:12 which says that ........
“all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”

Paul describes God’s action against unbelievers with the word “wrath.”
Romans 2:5, 8 says....
“But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed…But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.”

Paul wrote the letter to the Galatian church to combat false teaching. He opposed the false teaching so strongly that he said in 1:8-9......
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-10 is one of the most important passages about Paul’s teaching on hell. These verses say......
“He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among those who have believed.”

Paul teaches this idea elsewhere. Galatians 6:8 says......
“The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”

So then, although Paul does not use the Greek words translated “hell,” he does speak about the destination of those who reject Jesus. He teaches that those who go to hell will endure the wrath of God, become useless, be separated from God and be distressed.

Click to expand...

Your bolded last sentence states that Paul was teaching "hell" even when you admit he never used the word. What if God's wrath, destruction, punishment, condemnation and anger are not what you think? It appears to me that you are supplying things into the text that are not really there. The Lake of Fire fills the bill just as well as "hell," and as I found in my KJV, the LoF is made up of Godfire and meant to refine the base ore of our natures until the silver and gold appear. My essay "Godfire" explains it nicely, and is posted somewhere on this thread, IIRC. It is probably too long for you to read, given prior statements you have made, and it also releases God from your theo-illogical box.

Do you remember one of the very early mentions of Godfire in the Bible? A bush in Midian (possibly still there today) was on fire, but not consumed. It is a window into the nature of God. What's not to like?

Lazarus Short said:

Even if your prepositional theology is correct, we the "no-hell" team will just counter with our confidence that ALL in the fullness of time will come in under that very preposition...
...and if so, what's not to like?

Click to expand...

This is a tactic that heterodox groups employ often. When scripture as written contradicts their pet out-of-context proof texts; dither, bloviate, stall etc.
Note how in this particular vs.
You insist that "all" means "all" but you cannot ignore the two prepositions "in," as you are doing. Does both occurrence of "in" refer to the same condition? No! We know that all mankind are direct descendants of Adam therefore they are inherently "in Adam." Does the same condition apply to "in Christ?" We know that all mankind is NOT "in Christ." That being true "all" cannot mean all mankind because "all" mankind are NOT in "Christ."
I guess the "Hell no! crowd' want to change the present tense "in" into a future tense "all will be in Christ." If so that destroys the assumed parallel the "all" in the second clause can't mean all mankind since the "in" condition is not the same.
Vs. 22 If Paul means all mankind will be saved, no matter what, why would he make a distinction in this verse "afterward they that are Christs." If vs. 15:22 means all mankind will be saved shouldn't Paul say "afterward all mankind?"
If all mankind will be saved, vs. 15:22, why does Paul include himself as "in jeopardy every hour?
When Paul wrote vs. 15:22 do you think he forgot he wrote 9 chapters earlier these 10 groups of people have no inheritance in the kingdom of God?

Hmm said:

Fine words comrade Alte but sadly you are in error. You say that the “in Christ” limits the “all” but consider what Yale professor Keith DeRose says on the subject:
"It’s very clear, I think, that those who are “made alive” in Christ are, as it’s often put, “saved.” The question is, To whom will this happen? This passage’s answer: All! A point of grammar, which holds for the Greek as well as our English translations: The grammatical function of “in Christ” here is not to modify or limit the “all.” The passage doesn’t say, “…so also shall all who are in Christ be made alive.” If it said that, I wouldn’t be so cheered by the passage. Rather, “in Christ” is an adverbial phrase that modifies the verb “shall be made” or perhaps the whole clause, “shall all be made alive.” Thus, this passage says that all shall be made alive. How? In Christ."
So "all" means "all" after all. This is good news comrade. We will all be saved. What's not to like?

Click to expand...

I was going to ask who is Prof DeRose but looked him up instead. He is a universalist prof, at a secular university and he also promulgates the false claim that "aionios" never means eternal. I did a quick count "eternal" occurs more than 70 times in the EOB. Who should I believe? UR Prof DeRose or native Greek speaking scholars.

Hmm said:

But again, you're just making general comments about the importance of context and of course everyone would agree with that. but you need to be soecific. What is it in the surrounding context of this verse that changes the meaning of "all" to "some"? If you are unable to say, I'm not sure why you are disputing the clear meaning of the verse.

Click to expand...

If you agreed with that you would recognize the legitimacy of Der Alte's argument as it resolves the context while excluding a UR reading since the referent of "all" is different as the complete implication is "all in Adam" and "all in Christ" not simply "all men." Your argument depends on the referent being identical, but the broader context of the letter and Paul's writing in general denies that implication. So you must support your reading from the context or else you are simply quoting out of context.

Hmm said:

So why did you bring it up?

Click to expand...

I didn't, I pointed to the fact that people who read the entire text are not going to walk away thinking Paul is teaching UR. It is only if you are trying to read it into it that it appears, by removing the sentence from its context and assigning a single referent.

Hmm said:

How can I resolve the context when I see nothing to resolve. Again, if you tell me what the conflict is I'll have a go at resolving it, until then I'll naively assume that when Paul said "all" he meant "all".

Click to expand...

Resolving the context is required for any interpretation, or else you are simply engaging in eisegesis.

Hmm said:

Fine words comrade Alte but sadly you are in error. You say that the “in Christ” limits the “all” but consider what Yale professor Keith DeRose says on the subject:

"It’s very clear, I think, that those who are “made alive” in Christ are, as it’s often put, “saved.” The question is, To whom will this happen? This passage’s answer: All! A point of grammar, which holds for the Greek as well as our English translations: The grammatical function of “in Christ” here is not to modify or limit the “all.” The passage doesn’t say, “…so also shall all who are in Christ be made alive.” If it said that, I wouldn’t be so cheered by the passage. Rather, “in Christ” is an adverbial phrase that modifies the verb “shall be made” or perhaps the whole clause, “shall all be made alive.” Thus, this passage says that all shall be made alive. How? In Christ."

So "all" means "all" after all. This is good news comrade. We will all be saved. What's not to like?

Click to expand...

If you want to argue grammar, the Greek grammar doesn't support that claim because while it is absent in the English in the Greek the definite article is present. This is significant because prepositions modify the primary noun, and the addition of the article makes it clear that the primary noun is Adam/Christ. Since the article is present the sentiment being conveyed focuses on the headship of the individual "All those included in Adam die, as all those included in Christ live" is a more appropriate rendering if we are to try to present a rendering that doesn't require context.

Major1 said:

I agree with your post about Paul’s letters im that he never uses the Greek words that are translated “hell.” However.....he does teach about the fate of those who reject Jesus Christ. He never gets into a lengthy discussion of it, but does make some very important remarks about the unbeliever and his or her final destination.

Notice Paul’s teaching on the fate of the wicked is that he says that these people are condemned and will suffer God’s wrath in 2 Thessalonians 2:12 which says that ........
“all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”

Paul describes God’s action against unbelievers with the word “wrath.”
Romans 2:5, 8 says....
“But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed…But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.”

Paul wrote the letter to the Galatian church to combat false teaching. He opposed the false teaching so strongly that he said in 1:8-9......
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-10 is one of the most important passages about Paul’s teaching on hell. These verses say......
“He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among those who have believed.”

Paul teaches this idea elsewhere. Galatians 6:8 says......
“The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”

So then, although Paul does not use the Greek words translated “hell,” he does speak about the destination of those who reject Jesus. He teaches that those who go to hell will endure the wrath of God, become useless, be separated from God and be distressed.

Click to expand...

This is one of the best refutes I've seen in a while. Comprehensive and concise.

Der Alte said:

This is a tactic that heterodox groups employ often. When scripture as written contradicts their pet out-of-context proof texts; dither, bloviate, stall etc.
Note how in this particular vs.

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

You insist that "all" means "all" but you cannot ignore the two prepositions "in," as you are doing. Does both occurrence of "in" refer to the same condition? No! We know that all mankind are direct descendants of Adam therefore they are inherently "in Adam." Does the same condition apply to "in Christ?" We know that all mankind is NOT "in Christ." That being true "all" cannot mean all mankind because "all" mankind are NOT in "Christ."
I guess the "Hell no! crowd' want to change the present tense "in" into a future tense "all will be in Christ." If so that destroys the assumed parallel the "all" in the second clause can't mean all mankind since the "in" condition is not the same.

1 Corinthians 15:23
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.​

Vs. 22 If Paul means all mankind will be saved, no matter what, why would he make a distinction in this verse "afterward they that are Christs." If vs. 15:22 means all mankind will be saved shouldn't Paul say "afterward all mankind?"

1 Corinthians 15:30
30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?​

If all mankind will be saved, vs. 15:22, why does Paul include himself as "in jeopardy every hour?
When Paul wrote vs. 15:22 do you think he forgot he wrote 9 chapters earlier these 10 groups of people have no inheritance in the kingdom of God?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.​

Click to expand...

Yes, we know that all mankind are direct descendants of Adam, but... who was Adam the direct descendant of? Luke 3:38 says; Adam, the son of God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. John 1:1-3.

How is it that we are not all in Christ and through Christ and the direct descendants of God through Christ in and through whom all things were made?

Major1 said:

Paul wrote the letter to the Galatian church to combat false teaching. He opposed the false teaching so strongly that he said in 1:8-9......
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”.

Click to expand...

The expression "eternally condemned" is a rather unusual understanding of the Greek "anathema." It implies that Paul can judge someone to eternal condemnation!!

Major1 said:

Paul teaches this idea elsewhere. Galatians 6:8 says......
“The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”

Click to expand...

This is another strange translation. The word "nature" is not in the Greek!!!