Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What about the Hell Yes people complaining about ad hominemz?

But seriously Major1, you don't seem to grasp what's insulting.

Seriously MMXX.......you seem to be more interested in something said to you than you do the thread itself.

From what I read about your response to "ad hominins", I really do not think you grasp what that means.
 
Upvote 0

Ceallaigh

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
18,751
9,860
The Keep
✟571,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There was no death prior to the Fall of Man…:

“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Genesis‬ 2:17‬ ........
"…and there was no sin in man until then".

Romans 5:12........
“Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man, and death as the result of sin, so death spread to all men, [no one being able to stop it or to escape its power] because all men sinned.”‬‬

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!


Lemme guess, just as "in all" can't mean the other "in all" in the same sentence, "many" can't mean the other "many" in the same sentence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ceallaigh

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
18,751
9,860
The Keep
✟571,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Seriously MMXX.......you seem to be more interested in something said to you than you do the thread itself.

That's incorrect. And not just to me.

From what I read about your response to "ad hominins", I really do not think you grasp what that means.

You mean ad hominems?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hmm
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
MMXX said:
* * * 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
Lemme guess, just as "in all" can't mean the other "in all" in the same sentence, "many" can't mean the other "many" in the same sentence.
Is this verse the only verse in the NT which addresses the subject of salvation? If there are other verses, and there are, should not the honest inquirer not read every verse which addresses this?
I say most definitely. What do you say? Quite evidently you read verses in isolation and decide what they mean irrespective of what any other verse(s) say.
Should we not read every verse that this writer wrote? This same writer, Paul, also said that 22 categories of wrongdoers have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: [no wrongdoer] 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.
Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesian 5:5 For this ye know, that [no wrongdoer] no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.​
Paul never said that these groups will someday finally have an inheritance. Was Paul lying?
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Have you ever been drunk? If so, do you accept that you will not inherit the kingdom of God?

If you've really never been drunk, then have you ever felt envious or ever revelled?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Have you ever been drunk? If so, do you accept that you will not inherit the kingdom of God?
If you've really never been drunk, then have you ever felt envious or ever revelled?
Irrelevant. I am not now in any of those categories. You might try reading those lists and include the adjacent verses. See e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:11, carefully note the tenses of the verbs. You do know what "tenses" are don't you?
Also let's include a verse from Jesus.
Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​
Where does Jesus, Himself, say "Everyone shall enter into the kingdom of heaven?"
When Jesus said "I never knew you," does He mean just the past? If Jesus was going to save all mankind righteous and unrighteous alike, no matter what, would He say "Not every one ... shall enter into the kingdom of heaven" and "I never knew you?"
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Irrelevant. I am not now in any of those categories.

Irrelevant? You quote a verse which you believe supports ECT which says that if you have ever been drunk or envious etc you will not enter the kingdom of God. I asked you if you have ever been drunk or envious and you say that's irrelevant and that you are not in that "category" now. Your logic is very hard to follow comrade Alte.

As an aside, I didn't know that there was a category of people who no longer suffer from envy. What does it feel like to be a member of this group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lazarus Short
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Irrelevant? You quote a verse which you believe supports ECT which says that if you have ever been drunk or envious etc you will not enter the kingdom of God. I asked you if you have ever been drunk or envious and you say that's irrelevant and that you are not in that "category" now. Your logic is very hard to follow comrade Alte.
As an aside, I didn't know that there was a category of people who no longer suffer from envy. What does it feel like to be a member of this group.
What is the topic of this thread? Do you even know? When did the topic change to me?
These are in the rules.
  • Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
  • Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF, or use nicknames to do so. A list of unacceptable names can be found here.. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
 
Upvote 0

Lazarus Short

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2016
2,934
3,009
74
Independence, Missouri, USA
✟294,142.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What is the topic of this thread? Do you even know? When did the topic change to me?
These are in the rules.
  • Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
  • Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF, or use nicknames to do so. A list of unacceptable names can be found here.. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.

The rules you quote might exclude the use of comments like "Wrong!" and "Rubbish!".
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hmm
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Any personal remarks are ad hominem (to the man). See? I too know some Greek ;)
That's Latin, and insults and personal asides are not necessarily ad hominems because ad hominem refers to the fallacious argumentation not simply conduct. Essentially:
"Your argument is bad because you're an idiot" would be an ad hominem, "Your argument is bad because counterfactual XYX. Also, you're an idiot." is not an ad hominem if counterfactual XYX addresses the central tenets of the argument presented. What makes your attempt to paint me as overcomplicating and major as not complicating enough is that you completely ignore the arguments that are presented and try to dismiss them for not hitting the sweet spot that allows your interpretation to squeeze by uncritically. That what you seem to believe to be the most natural reading of 1 Cor. 15:22 has been almost entirely excluded from a contextual standpoint and a grammatical standpoint. And I will point out that it is Hmm who tried to make it about grammar by introducing an "expert" who tried to argue using the English grammar and placing the preposition in the predicate and falsly claiming that the Greek is similar. All that's been presented by the UR side is patently fallacious arguments that are paper thin combined with a great deal of unwarranted self-satisfaction.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The rules you quote might exclude the use of comments like "Wrong!" and "Rubbish!".
I have been doing that here since G.H.W. Bush was president and have not been warned yet.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!


Lemme guess, just as "in all" can't mean the other "in all" in the same sentence, "many" can't mean the other "many" in the same sentence.
This is actually a much stronger verse to try to hang UR on, especially since the proper understanding has been muddied by Reformation theology equating salvation with justification. It doesn't when we have a proper theology of atonement, but that's a very complex discussion to be had which requires going through the Pentateuch and the Prophets at least.
 
Upvote 0

Ceallaigh

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
18,751
9,860
The Keep
✟571,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Is this verse the only verse in the NT which addresses the subject of salvation? If there are other verses, and there are, should not the honest inquirer not read every verse which addresses this?
I say most definitely. What do you say? Quite evidently you read verses in isolation and decide what they mean irrespective of what any other verse(s) say.
Should we not read every verse that this writer wrote? This same writer, Paul, also said that 22 categories of wrongdoers have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: [no wrongdoer] 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.
Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesian 5:5 For this ye know, that [no wrongdoer] no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.​
Paul never said that these groups will someday finally have an inheritance. Was Paul lying?

Hey, I saw that Major1 had posted Romans 5:12 and I felt prompted to keep reading. And voilà. I've read Romans before of course, but that's the first time Romans 5:15 stood out that way to me. But hey, lets deflect with what you've posted several times in this thread already.

Now the thing with 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:5 and I suppose 1 Corinthians 3:17 is that I've most often seen those verses being used against OSAS. So I'd be interested to see what the OSAS top dogs have to say about those verses. (side note; my mind isn't made up about OSAS either).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ceallaigh

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
18,751
9,860
The Keep
✟571,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This is actually a much stronger verse to try to hang UR on, especially since the proper understanding has been muddied by Reformation theology equating salvation with justification. It doesn't when we have a proper theology of atonement, but that's a very complex discussion to be had which requires going through the Pentateuch and the Prophets at least.

I don't recall having seen Romans 5:15 used as a UR proof text before. I agree, it's quite a strong one. I'm pretty familiar with the Catholic, Orthodox, Mainline and Arminian views that go against the Calvinist and Reformed views. Believe it or not I tend to lean more towards those, especially Orthodox and Lutheran. I'm personally inclined towards Orthodox Theosis and Lutheran Christification.

Then again, there's this Orthodox view of salvation:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Andrewn
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
MMXX said:
Hey, I saw that Major1 had posted Romans 5:12 and I felt prompted to keep reading. And voilà. I've read Romans before of course, but that's the first time Romans 5:15 stood out that way to me. But hey, lets deflect with what you've posted several times already.
MMXX said:
Now the thing with 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:5 and I suppose 1 Corinthians 3:17 is that I've most often seen those verses being used against OSAS. So I'd be interested to see what the OSAS top dogs have to say about those verses. (side note; my mind isn't made up about OSAS either).
About 3 weeks ago I fell and received a large gash on the back of my head. Somewhere between the fall and the hospital I lost my prescription sunglasses. I searched and called but I did not find the glasses.
I don't believe in OSAS as it is usually understood. One can't lose their salvation as I lost my glasses. It can't be done accidentally it requires conscious, deliberate action.
Hebrews 10:26-31
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,
27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people."
31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​
This passage mentions a fate worse than death without mercy. I would like to hear how my understanding of the verses I posted is incorrect. All I have ever seen is the "Neener, neener argument" i.e. "You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh huh." Saying "Another interpretation of this vs. is 'X.'" Is not a refutation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ceallaigh

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
18,751
9,860
The Keep
✟571,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That's Latin

No kidding, that was a joke. And I deserve at least one funny rating for it.

and insults and personal asides are not necessarily ad hominems because ad hominem refers to the fallacious argumentation not simply conduct. Essentially:
"Your argument is bad because you're an idiot" would be an ad hominem, "Your argument is bad because counterfactual XYX. Also, you're an idiot." is not an ad hominem if counterfactual XYX addresses the central tenets of the argument presented. What makes your attempt to paint me as overcomplicating and major as not complicating enough is that you completely ignore the arguments that are presented and try to dismiss them for not hitting the sweet spot that allows your interpretation to squeeze by uncritically. That what you seem to believe to be the most natural reading of 1 Cor. 15:22 has been almost entirely excluded from a contextual standpoint and a grammatical standpoint. And I will point out that it is Hmm who tried to make it about grammar by introducing an "expert" who tried to argue using the English grammar and placing the preposition in the predicate and falsly claiming that the Greek is similar. All that's been presented by the UR side is patently fallacious arguments that are paper thin combined with a great deal of unwarranted self-satisfaction.

Ad hominem simply means to the man. In other words, talking about the man, rather than his argument. Most of us have done that in this thread.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't recall having seen Romans 5:15 used as a UR proof text before. I agree, it's quite a strong one. I'm pretty familiar with the Catholic, Orthodox, Mainline and Arminian views that go against the Calvinist and Reformed views. Believe it or not I tend to lean more towards those, especially Orthodox and Lutheran. I'm personally inclined towards Orthodox Theosis and Lutheran Christification.

Then again, there's this Orthodox view of salvation:

I do agree it is one that has potential as a UR proof text since it is both contextually relevant and grammatically coherent.

I will say this, the way hell is taught in the west is almost certainly not true. I do find more truth in the classical Orthodox view of hell as the response of the wicked to being in the presence of God rather than a place they are sent. I don't discard any of the three positions out of hand, as I do agree it is possible to find some support for UR in the Bible. I just find it the least compelling because from my readings it has the fewest supporting passages and the most challenges within Scripture. My concern is simply fidelity to the text and solid argumentation that begins with Scripture not with human philosophy. All I've seen in this thread coming from those who hold to UR are empty boasts, hollow claims of word studies that don't seem to understand semantics, and bald fallacies.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
]Ad hominem simply means to the man. In other words, talking about the man, rather than his argument. Most of us have done that in this thread.
No, it's the ad hominem fallacy so it refers to how an argument is attempted to be refuted/supported. In a formal debate it would include errors in etiquette like addressing the person being debated but in an informal discussion like this it has to be an attempt to dismiss the argument presented or to support one's own position. For example, Hmm standing on "experts" authority is an ad hominem(and a special class at that) because it's about the person who made the argument not the argument, and your trying to dismiss major by implying he's not being critical enough/applying enough analysis is also an ad hominem. One made even more shameful when you turn around and try to dismiss my argument by implying I am being too critical/applying too much analysis.
 
Upvote 0

Ceallaigh

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
18,751
9,860
The Keep
✟571,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
About 3 weeks ago I fell and received a large gash on the back of my head. Somewhere between the fall and the hospital I lost my prescription sunglasses. I searched and called but I did not find the glasses.
I don't believe in OSAS as it is usually understood. One can't lose their salvation as I lost my glasses. It can't be done accidentally it requires conscious, deliberate action.

Right, the preferred term is you can leave your salvation.

Hebrews 10:26-31
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,
27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people."
31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

This passage mentions a fate worse than death without mercy. I would like to hear how my understanding of the verses I posted is incorrect.

I'd say to go to the Soteriology section and look for threads about OSAS, where I'm sure that's addressed.

All I have ever seen is the "Neener, neener argument" i.e. "You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh huh." Saying "Another interpretation of this vs. is 'X.'" Is not a refutation.

That explains a lot ;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ceallaigh

Veritas Vos Liberabit
Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
18,751
9,860
The Keep
✟571,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, it's the ad hominem fallacy so it refers to how an argument is attempted to be refuted/supported. In a formal debate it would include errors in etiquette like addressing the person being debated but in an informal discussion like this it has to be an attempt to dismiss the argument presented or to support one's own position. For example, Hmm standing on "experts" authority is an ad hominem(and a special class at that) because it's about the person who made the argument not the argument, and your trying to dismiss major by implying he's not being critical enough/applying enough analysis is also an ad hominem. One made even more shameful when you turn around and try to dismiss my argument by implying I am being too critical/applying too much analysis.

Pointing out that someone is overcomplicating things is addressing the method of the argument, rather than the man himself.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.