Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your attempts at philosophy are misplaced. Universalists see God by how he has shown himself to be in Jesus. Therefore they believe that he's not going to torment/torture anyone. Quite simple really.
I've engaged in no philosophy but no, universalists have created an image of Jesus that completely ignores things like "these enemies of mine who would not have me rule over them, come and slay them before me." They also ignore that God revealed Himself as being one who is happy to dash infants against the rock. It's a contrived character of God that does not take stock of the whole picture painted by Scripture. A god built in man's image rather than man in God's image.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,405
1,617
43
San jacinto
✟128,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God isn't morally "appropriate". He is love and acts accordingly. Arbitrarily is the correct word because, in your perspective, he can do anything but he can't - he can only act according to his nature, which is the nature he revealed in Jesus. Torment/torture has no part of it.
Reveald in Jesus, yet you come up with excuses to deny the words of Jesus. You've found teachers who will tell you that a word that is well attested in BDAG as eternal, in LXX as eternal, and in the NT as eternal does not mean eternal. A speculation that only exists because of the conclusion that is indicated. It seems rather you are creating a false image of Jesus since He spoke of judgment and punishment more than any other point in the Bible and most of the texts that form the foundation of ECT are words straight from His mouth.
 
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
Conceptually, Inclusivism and Annihilationism do sound 'closer' to Universalism. So I agree with that. But if Inclusivism and Annihilationism turn out to be True rather than Universal Reconciliation, in the end, this fact still won't bring anyone back who faces oblivion after the Judgement. So, too, even if these concepts then sound 'close' or similar to one another in a forward looking outlook, they might as well be a million miles apart for all they'll do for those who miss out on God's grace in Christ.

There is one big problem with annihilationism - the elephant in the room if you will - with some/many/most of humanity reduced to permanent ashes, they still count as The Dead (not Grateful). On the other hand, the Bible states that Death is going to be destroyed.

So either,

annihilation is wrong

or

the Bible is wrong.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,160
9,957
The Void!
✟1,131,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If annihilationism "sounds" closer to universalism that's only because it's an improvement on ECT but other than that its something quite different. I've read quite a few testimonies where people move from ECT to annihilationism as a kind of half-way house/temporary resting place and then to universalism. The reconciliation of all does not allow for eternal torment or complete destruction.

See, @MMXX? Even Hmm agrees with me in this ...
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,160
9,957
The Void!
✟1,131,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There is one big problem with annihilationism - the elephant in the room if you will - with some/many/most of humanity reduced to permanent ashes, they still count as The Dead (not Grateful). On the other hand, the Bible states that Death is going to be destroyed.

So either,

annihilation is wrong

or

the Bible is wrong.

Thanks for the strawman agrument, Lazarus Short! Also, thanks for speaking "for" me when you have no clue starting out how I personally conceptualize, ground, interpret or otherwise conclude my view on Annihilationism. Don't assume that whatever you've read from other theologians (like John Stott?) who aver for Annihilationism that what they've said is somehow exactly what I have in mind. It's not.

So, being that this is the case with my view, I'd just ask you to back off, especially since this thread isn't about analyzing one of a few comparative forms of Annihilationism.

But hey! Maybe the Bible is "wrong." It wouldn't be the first time ... ... ... ... especially if Adam and Eve weren't actually historical figures. And Death isn't exactly a historical figure either. But it is a nicely touched prophetically, Jewishly intoned metaphor, for sure! As is the "Tree of Life."
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
34
Shropshire
✟186,379.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
See, @MMXX? Even Hmm agrees with me in this ...

MMXX has said he is interested in universalism but tends more towards inclusivism and annihilationist so where's my disagreement with what he has said?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,160
9,957
The Void!
✟1,131,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
MMXX has said he is interested in universalism but tends more towards inclusivism and annihilationist so where's my disagreement with what he has said?

The context here is, in case you missed it, that MMXX is the one who broached the idea that Inclusivism/Annihilationims is "closer" to UR than ECT. Not me. So, maybe you missed that flow in the thread up above?

Frankly, I couldn't care less if other people think Inclusivism or Annihilationism are close to UR or not. All that matters are the actual concepts within each framework and what they actually mean in contrast to one another.
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
34
Shropshire
✟186,379.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
The context here is, in case you missed it, that MMXX is the one who broached the idea that Inclusivism/Annihilationims is "close" to UR than ECT. Not me. So, maybe you missed that flow in the thread up above?

Frankly, I couldn't care less if other people think Inclusivism or Annihilationism are close to UR or not. All that matters are the actual concepts within each framework and what they actually mean in contrast to one another.

Close does not mean the same though. Annihilationism is closer to universalism than ECT is in that it's much kinder but its not the same thing and we all seem to agree with that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Saint Steven
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

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,160
9,957
The Void!
✟1,131,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Close does not mean the same though. Annihilationism is closer to universalism than ECT is in that it's much kinder but its not the same thing and we all seem to agree with that.

We agree on a certain, singular semantic level, but not on a plenary, Hermeneutical level, of course.

And it seems to me that for you guys who advo for UR, the only level of consideration is one involving a conceptual comparison of "amounts of kindness" that may or may not be present in any given theological framework.
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
34
Shropshire
✟186,379.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
but not on a plenary, Hermeneutical level, of course.

Well who knows? You haven't explained what you think on this level.

And it seems to me that for you guys who advo for UR, the only level of consideration is one involving a conceptual comparison of "amounts of kindness" that may or may not be present in any given theological framework.

Well, you misunderstand all the arguments that have been made then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lazarus Short
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
Thanks for the strawman agrument, Lazarus Short! Also, thanks for speaking "for" me when you have no clue starting out how I personally conceptualize, ground, interpret or otherwise conclude my view on Annihilationism. Don't assume that whatever you've read from other theologians (like John Stott?) who aver for Annihilationism that what they've said is somehow exactly what I have in mind. It's not.

So, being that this is the case with my view, I'd just ask you to back off, especially since this thread isn't about analyzing one of a few comparative forms of Annihilationism.

But hey! Maybe the Bible is "wrong." It wouldn't be the first time ... ... ... ... especially if Adam and Eve weren't actually historical figures. And Death isn't exactly a historical figure either. But it is a nicely touched prophetically, Jewishly intoned metaphor, for sure! As is the "Tree of Life."

It is too easy to say "strawman argument" but I see what I stated as a problem the annihilation position cannot get around. The ECT position has bigger problems. Your response confirms it in my mind. Also, though I did quote your post, I meant what I said to be a more general comment. Your post only reminded me of the problem, and I have yet to get back a reasonable answer...

Yes, Death is a metaphor, but so is "hell" and a lot of other things: conceptual shorthand.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,160
9,957
The Void!
✟1,131,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well who knows? You haven't explained what you think on this level.
I've alluded to it in short order at other times in this thread. And since I'm not actually here to place an extensive advo for either Inclusivism or Annihilationism, and because the focus of this thread is upon "Christian Universalism. What's not to like?," I'm not going to press my point of view.

Well, you misunderstand all the arguments that have been made then.
It might turn out that I understand many of the arguments better than you think I do. It might even be that some of your exegetical arguments are very close to the arguments I have for my position as well ...

... bet you didn't know that?

:cool:
 
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

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,160
9,957
The Void!
✟1,131,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It is too easy to say "strawman argument" but I see what I stated as a problem the annihilation position cannot get around. The ECT position has bigger problems. Your response confirms it in my mind. Also, though I did quote your post, I meant what I said to be a more general comment. Your post only reminded me of the problem, and I have yet to get back a reasonable answer...

Yes, Death is a metaphor, but so is "hell" and a lot of other things: conceptual shorthand.

Is being blotted out from the Book of Life also a metaphor? What is a metaphor, by the way, according to you?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,160
9,957
The Void!
✟1,131,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It is too easy to say "strawman argument" but I see what I stated as a problem the annihilation position cannot get around. The ECT position has bigger problems. Your response confirms it in my mind. Also, though I did quote your post, I meant what I said to be a more general comment. Your post only reminded me of the problem, and I have yet to get back a reasonable answer...

Yes, Death is a metaphor, but so is "hell" and a lot of other things: conceptual shorthand.

Also, while I'm at it, you can't say "THE" Annihilationist position to me if I've already contended that there is more than one Annhilationist position. See the further problem? You did strawman, but you maybe didn't realize you did.

At the very least, you're assuming a conflation between forms of Annihilation, one that I won't subscribe to.
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
34
Shropshire
✟186,379.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
It might turn out that I understand many of the arguments better than you think I do. It might even be that some of your exegetical arguments are very close to the arguments I have for my position as well ...

... bet you didn't know that?

It wouldn't surprise me - you sound like a reasonable chap :)
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,578
6,064
EST
✟993,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If annihilationism "sounds" closer to universalism that's only because it's an improvement on ECT but other than that its something quite different. I've read quite a few testimonies where people move from ECT to annihilationism as a kind of half-way house/temporary resting place and then to universalism. The reconciliation of all does not allow for eternal torment or complete destruction.
The number of people who believe in a particular doctrine does not legitimize that belief. If it did then we would all have to accept Islam due to the millions who are Muslims.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
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.
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,578
6,064
EST
✟993,185.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There is one big problem with annihilationism - the elephant in the room if you will - with some/many/most of humanity reduced to permanent ashes, they still count as The Dead (not Grateful). On the other hand, the Bible states that Death is going to be destroyed.
So either,
annihilation is wrong
or
the Bible is wrong
.
There is something wrong alright but it ain't the Bible or the person you are responding to.
Where does the Bible say that death is destroyed? I'm not saying it doesn't but you evidently do not know or understand the context or deliberately ignore it to push your agenda.
Revelation 21:4-8
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.​
Vs. 4, "no more death." Vs. 5. "I make all things new." The UR mantra "all means all." But vs. 8 eight groups of people are thrown into the lake of fire and it is still the "second death."
Chap. 22 also has some bad news for the Hell No! crowd.
Revelation 22:11
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.​
Wait a minute everybody is supposed to be saved, here the unrighteous are left to their sins not somehow magically transformed into believers.
Revelation 22:14-15
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.​
Some have the right to the tree of life and entry into the new Jerusalem but some are still outside.
Revelation 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.​
God said no more death in the previous chapter but here some people have their part in the book of life taken away.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.