Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Shrewd Manager · Dec 27, 2021

John Mullally said:
it must be received by faith.

This is a bit of a misnomer that seems to have been amplified by Protestantism, methinks. The correct formulation is that we are saved by the faith OF Christ, not our faith IN Christ. The whole point is that man in his fallen state is incapable of perfect faithfulness - this is why God gives Abraham a pass up on Mt Moriah, He doesn't expect that level of sacrifice from us. Nonetheless, God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son.

So the faith of Christ is the great spiritual gift that we receive by believing. All that's asked of us is to believe, and then we are IN Christ by receiving the truth. We then grow in faith, meaning the faith of Christ grows within us, we decrease and he increases.

It is really an unfortunate mistranslation in so many Bibles to use the preposition 'in' where the genitive of source is indicated. A good example of this I was just scrutinising recently is Gal 3:22. Compare the various translations - the KJV actually gets it right, but most don't:
Galatians 3:22 But the Scripture pronounces all things confined by sin, so that by faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe.

John Mullally said:
Those receiving Jesus (i.e. termed by Paul the faithful in Christ Jesus below), are predetermined to receive the blessing of Ephesians 1:1-6.

Yes, none may come but those who are called. And who are called?

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Isa 45:22-23)

Just as Paul confirms in Eph 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:

It all stacks up, and the message? Believe and do not doubt.

Saint Steven · Dec 27, 2021

John Mullally said:
My understanding is that when Adam ate from the "Tree of the knowledge of Good & Evil", men were subject to that knowledge - which they are not equipped to handle without participating in evil. This initial and recurring sin subjects man to judgement (Spiritual death). Although Jesus paid the ransom (1 Timothy 2:6), it must be received by faith. Those receiving Jesus (i.e. termed by Paul the faithful in Christ Jesus below), are predetermined to receive the blessing of Ephesians 1:1-6.

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

Probably not saying anything anyone here has not heard in some similar form before.

Yes, based on the behavior reported in the Genesis account, A&E were clearly out of their minds after eating thereof. The unanswered question, "Who told you that you were naked?" is quite intriguing. Who indeed? At the end of the previous chapter, they were "naked and unashamed".

The fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was an invitation to the enemy to enter the minds of humankind. Spiritual death, as you put it.

The strange thing about biblical terms like predestined and elect is the obvious exclusions of everyone else. And a Damnationist would have to conclude that those outside the elect are predestined to destruction. Why would God do that? To be so fickle about the wooing of the Spirit as to overlook (bypass) the vast majority.

Shrewd Manager · Dec 27, 2021

Fervent said:
Care to actually cite somewhere where he offered anything that hints at correction of their view of hell?

Assuming the Pharasaical view of hell was eternal conscious torment for the sinner in Sheol, Hades and/or Gehenna, then there are plenty of examples of our Lord subjecting them to correction.

But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows. (Lk 12:5-7)

Message: God can, but He won't because He values you highly - but don't tempt Him.

When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. Never, I tell you, will you get free till you have paid the uttermost farthing." (Lk 12:58-59)

Message: Don't fight God by embracing sin or you'll lose everything, but you will be released (saved, but as through fire).

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. [...] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. (Mt 23:13,15)

Message: ECT believers are hypocrites and Jesus hates it - so just stop already, would ya.

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another. (Mk 9:47-50)

Message: Take drastic action to stop sinning, or God's going to have to do it the hard way.

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Mt 5:22)

Message: you're going to hell if you've had scornful thoughts about me. Reviewing the tone of your posts on this thread, I better start praying for you bro.

Question: If God told the Jews that burning children in the fire was an abominable idea that had never entered the divine mind (Jer 32:35), why do you ascribe to Him the evil heathenish works of King Ahaz (see 2 Chron 28:3)?

Saint Steven · Dec 27, 2021

Shrewd Manager said:
Question: If God told the Jews that burning children in the fire was an abominable idea that had never entered the divine mind (Jer 32:35), why do you ascribe to Him the evil heathenish works of King Ahaz (see 2 Chron 28:3)?

Exactly!

Andrewn · Dec 27, 2021

Irkle Berserkle said:
Check my profile. You aren't going to win the silly "Gotcha!" game with soimeone who spent nearly 40 years as an appellate lawyer.

I see that the death penalty is legal in Arizona, a type of "final solution" like ECT.

Irkle Berserkle said:
Universalists are a breed of fanatic that Flat Earthers would envy for their zealotry.

This does sound like lawyer talk. UR believers, in my experience, are not fanatics but rather loving dreamers who hope that no one suffers the "final solution."

Irkle Berserkle said:
I trust we will see that the fate of the unsaved is worthy of the God in whom we believe.

Yes.

Saint Steven · Dec 27, 2021

Shrewd Manager said:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Mt 5:22)

Message: you're going to hell if you've had scornful thoughts about me.

The Infernalists are stuck on this perverted "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth" idea of justice. (revenge) But what does Jesus teach us about godly behavior? What then should we expect from God toward evil persons? Less than he expects from us, or more?

Matthew 5:38-42 NIV
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Saint Steven · Dec 27, 2021

Irkle Berserkle said: ↑
I trust we will see that the fate of the unsaved is worthy of the God in whom we believe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Assuming the God we believe in is a cosmic tyrant of unfathomable hatred.

As if the gospel offers salvation rich and free (which it does), but if you either haven't heard it, or received it yet, you will be incinerated for all eternity. An offer you can't refuse. Which makes our loving heavenly Father into something more akin to a gangster godfather. A gospel which boils down to spiritual abuse through fear. (1 John 4:18)

Lazarus Short · Dec 27, 2021

We are advised in the Gospel of Matthew (7:16), "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" (KJV)

What are the fruits of ECT? First, to see humanity DIVIDED into the Saved and the Unsaved, judgment is required. In the beginning, God made the Cosmos, and He made it as a hierarchy - dualism only came in when the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was eaten. So, with good and evil at odds in the human mind, dualism is with us until we are glorified.

I have read through the entire KJV, with an eye to see behind the surface meanings of certain words. The marginal notes helped, but they were only a beginning. Many things I had to look up. Doing that, I found "judgment" rendered as "condemnation" and "condemnation" rendered as "damnation." Do you see where the Spirit of Judgment leads? Is ECT then, a fruit of dualism?

Jesus the Christ advises us to not look for good things (grapes, figs) to come to us from bad sources (thorns and thistles). Should we expect good things to come from the bad source of ECT?

Look at the fruits of ECT in history. We witness an endless series of crusades, within and without Christendom, involving massacre and the extinction of entire nations. So-called heretics were killed without mercy, the thinking being that they are going to Hell anyway, so we'll give them a good start. Witches were burned, Albigensians and Waldensians were murdered, and woe to the pagans! History has almost forgotten that Spain ever had a Protestant, but it did - all were killed. The Spanish were kinder to the Muslims and Jews...

It was so bad that during the Albigensian crusade, everyone in the town of Beziers was killed, in order that no heretic escape. History records the famous phrase from the event: "Kill them all! God will know His own."

Happily, we are just swinging words here, not swords...but dualism marches on with its judgment, condemnation and damnation. But aren't we told to NOT judge before the time for it? Did God not say that He would judge and repay??

Given the fruits of ECT/dualism/judgment/condemnation/damnation, I'll let God do that. We are not capable of doing it correctly in the here and now, as history witnesses.

I expect this post to be misunderstood...

Andrewn · Dec 27, 2021

Saint Steven said:
The strange thing about biblical terms like predestined and elect is the obvious exclusions of everyone else. And a Damnationist would have to conclude that those outside the elect are predestined to destruction. Why would God do that? To be so fickle about the wooing of the Spirit as to overlook (bypass) the vast majority.

I reread all of Romans, recently, and reached the same conclusion (post #4308).

Hmm · Dec 27, 2021

Saint Steven said:
The Infernalists are stuck on this perverted "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth" idea of justice. (revenge) But what does Jesus teach us about godly behavior? What then should we expect from God toward evil persons? Less than he expects from us, or more?

I think Jesus taught us that God's mercy and love is not separate from his wrath and justice but the trouble is that's probably not what our human teachers have taught us. So we're left wondering how God can be merciful and loving if He is also wrathful and just. It doesn't seem possible.

I only understood it when I realised that God has one mind and one will, and doesn't change his mind like we do. If God is both just and merciful then, then these cannot be opposing traits. They are part of His unchanging nature and so they must be the same thing. God's justice is merciful, and His mercy is just. They aren't opposite to each other.

I've looked into the meaning of the word "wrath"and the word in Greek is orgé. This sometimes means an outburst of violent passion but more usually a fixed opposition, a determined disposition of the will against a thing, that inner temperament that gives rise to feelings of anger. It's natural to think it means fury or rage but when it comes to God, we should be clear in our minds that God does not lose his temper like we do. So we should God’s orgé as his fixed antipathy towards sin, not a passionate rage.

So, and sorry if this is beginning to sound lecturish, if that's a word, I'm just trying to sum up what I've learn about orgé, God’s wrath should be understood as His implacable opposition to what is wrong. He can't accept imperfection and will eternally stand against it. He will never tolerate or permit sin to remain unopposed. But He does not do this out of uncontrolled outbursts of anger but rather as intentional outpouring of His being, acting always out of a mercy and love for His children.

An analogy I read was that if someone is injured or diseased and hurting, then it's merciful to heal them. If a doctor permits infection to remain, this is not merciful or kind for the patient. The doctor must stand implacably opposed to the disease in their patient, not passively tolerating it, or half-heartedly permitting any of it to remain. This opposition to disease may require an operation or injecting powerful drugs with very unpleasant side-effects. There may well be wailing and gnashing of teeth involved. But it's all for the ultimate purpose of mercy and a deep and abiding concern for the patient's wellbeing.

If the doctor’s antipathy towards the disease is not kind and merciful towards the patient then they will be purposefully making their patient worse. But if the doctor’s mercy towards the patient is not implacable against the disease, it would never fully heal the patient.

And so it is with God. If His justice and wrath towards sin is not merciful towards us then it is merely harming us and making us worse, which would be unjust. And If His mercy towards us ignores what is just and is not implacably opposed against our sin then it is ineffective and wouldn't be salvific and redemptive.

Therefore, all of God's attributes must be understood as descriptions of His unitary nature, not as multiple traits within a changing mind, each one rising or falling to affect God’s will depending on mood or circumstance. So any doctrine such as ECT that tries to split God up into opposing wills, or competing attributes is failing to understand God in the fulness of His nature. God will never ignore His sense of what is merciful in favour of His justice. But nor will He ever ignore His sense of justice in favour of a sentimental kind of mercy, something that Christian universalists have been frequently accused of believing in in this thread. God is neither a cold-blooded torturer/tormenter nor a cuddly granddad who smiles benignly at us while we misbehave at his feet.

To quote verbatim from something I've just read "Therefore we need to recognise that God will carefully but unceasingly root out our sin and destroy it in the fires of His implacable opposition, while at the same time, patiently withholding His final judgement until we are fully sanctified and able to stand before Him in robes as white as snow. Only this demonstrates both His Loving Mercy and His Just Wrath equally and unopposed to each other."

Saint Steven · Dec 27, 2021

Lazarus Short said:
Happily, we are just swinging words here, not swords...but dualism marches on with its judgment, condemnation and damnation. But aren't we told to NOT judge before the time for it? Did God not say that He would judge and repay??

The new frontier is social media platforms, where soulless machine driven algorithms are used to sort out who is who. Programmed by those who wish to suppress free speech and anything else that stands opposed to their political aims. How long before the governments start using this tool as well?

Saint Steven · Dec 27, 2021

Hmm said:
I think Jesus taught us that God's mercy and love is not separate from his wrath and justice but the trouble is that's probably not what our human teachers have taught us. So we're left wondering how God can be merciful and loving if He is also wrathful and just. It doesn't seem possible.

It seems that the pagans were tuned into this idea in their observation about a Janus-faced god. In modern culture we recognize this as two-faced and dishonest.

Saint Steven · Dec 27, 2021

Hmm said:
I only understood it when I realised that God has one mind and one will, and doesn't change his mind like we do. If God is both just and merciful then, then these cannot be opposing traits. They are part of His unchanging nature and so they must be the same thing. God's justice is merciful, and His mercy is just. They aren't opposite to each other.

Wow. That's solid gold right there. Well said, bro.

Saint Steven · Dec 27, 2021

Hmm said:
To quote verbatim from something I've just read "Therefore we need to recognise that God will carefully but unceasingly root out our sin and destroy it in the fires of His implacable opposition, while at the same time, patiently withholding His final judgement until we are fully sanctified and able to stand before Him in robes as white as snow. Only this demonstrates both His Loving Mercy and His Just Wrath equally and unopposed to each other."

That's a great quote, for anyone who missed it. (and everyone, for that matter) - lol

Saint Steven · Dec 27, 2021

Andrewn said:
Rom 11:16 Now if the firstfruit is holy, also the lump; and if the root is holy, also the branches.

From post #4308
Wow, that is powerful. Especially when laid aside Romans chapter fifteen. Each in turn...

1 Corinthians 15:20
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
1 Corinthians 15:23
But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

Saint Steven · Dec 27, 2021

Saint Steven said:
Gone... like a hot air balloon.

This was an analogy, of course.
A hot air balloon goes away because it is FULL of hot air.

hedrick · Dec 27, 2021

MMXX said:
Although I'm not entirely sure what view the Pharisees held at that time. I know Der Alte has a difficult to decipher wall of text, I pointed out several problems with, that supposedly details what the Pharisees in around 30 AD believed. But do you yourself have any evidence of what they believed? And if so can you please present it in a clear concise comprehensive manner?

What did they believe in Jesus' time?

This post is going to be based on Alan Bernstein, “Hell and its Rivals.”

First, a warning. Our actual data on beliefs in Jesus’ time is limited. What we know is primarily from the Mishnah, which dates to about 200. There seem to have been two major views, attributed to Shammai and Hillel. They were both shortly before or during Jesus’ time, but Bernstein warns that we know what their schools held, but not necessarily them, so it could be a generation later than Jesus.

With this caveat. First, apparently the Sadducees didn’t believe in resurrection. Since Jesus obviously did, that view isn’t relevant to him. That’s good, because we no virtually nothing of what they taught.

The two major views (that we know about) are from Shammai and Hillel. Both believed that Gehennon was a place of worms and fire. Is 66 was used to describe it, even though in its original context that's not the intent. Sorry but it’s not just the garage heap outside Jerusalem.

Both believed that Jews fell into one of three categories: the thoroughly good, the thoroughly bad, with most people being intermediate. The thoroughly good went immediately to eternal life, the bad immediately to Gehennon permanently. According to Shammai, the remainder (i.e. almost everyone) went to Gehennon for a maximum of a year, after which they went to eternal life. According to Hillel they went directly to eternal life.

For the thoroughly bad, just what happened in Gehennon? From what I could get out of the book, it seems like it was probably eternal, but I’m not sure there’s a clear description that credibly goes back to Jesus’ day. How many were there? Apparently there was an axiom that all of Israel has a part in the life to come. That would imply that no Jews actually stayed in Gehennon. However there were exceptions, who did stay. The list seemed to grow over time, so it’s unclear what was believed in Jesus' day. It could have been that everyone eventually ended up in eternal life except a few specific people named in the OT as notorious sinners. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

Ceallaigh · Dec 27, 2021

hedrick said:
What did they believe in Jesus' time?

This post is going to be based on Alan Bernstein, “Hell and its Rivals.”

First, a warning. Our actual data on beliefs in Jesus’ time is limited. What we know is primarily from the Mishnah, which dates to about 200. There seem to have been two major views, attributed to Shammai and Hillel. They were both shortly before or during Jesus’ time, but Bernstein warns that we know what their schools held, but not necessarily them, so it could be a generation later than Jesus.

With this caveat. First, apparently the Sadducees didn’t believe in any afterlife. Since Jesus obviously did, that view isn’t relevant to him. That’s good, because we no virtually nothing of what they taught.

The two major views (that we know about) are from Shammai and Hillel. Both believed that Gehennon was a place of worms and fire. Is 66 was used to describe it, even though in its original context that's not the intent. Sorry but it’s not just the garage heap outside Jerusalem.

Both believed that Jews fell into one of three categories: the thoroughly good, the thoroughly bad, with most people being intermediate. The thoroughly good went immediately to eternal life, the bad immediately to Gehennon permanently. According to Shammai, the remainder (i.e. almost everyone) went to Gehennon for a maximum of a year, after which they went to eternal life. According to Hillel they went directly to eternal life.

For the thoroughly bad, just what happened in Gehennon? From what I could get out of the book, it seems like it was probably eternal, but I’m not sure there’s a clear description that credibly goes back to Jesus’ day. How many were there? Apparently there was an axiom that all of Israel has a part in the life to come. That would imply that no Jews actually stayed in Gehennon. However there were exceptions, who did stay. The list seemed to grow over time, so it’s unclear what was believed in Jesus' day. It could have been that everyone eventually ended up in eternal life except a few specific people named in the OT as notorious sinners. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

Thanks for that. Very informative and easy to read.

Hmm · Dec 27, 2021

hedrick said:
First, apparently the Sadducees didn’t believe in any afterlife.

Interesting post. I do find it hard to understand though how someone can believe in God without also believing in eternal life. To me, they're kind of synonymous but I do know people who believe in God but who don't believe in an after-life. I can't quite get my head around that!

I'm not saying that the most important thing about faith is about making sure you get into heaven after you die. I think it's more about entering heaven here and now in a transforming relationship with God but still I think there has to be some kind of continuance and fulfillment after this life. Clearly not everyone enters it now but that doesn't have to mean that we won't all enter it later after a purifying and sanctifying fire.

I prefer heaven now and later IOW!

hedrick · Dec 27, 2021

Hmm said:
Interesting post. I do find it hard to understand though how someone can believe in God without also believing in eternal life. To me, they're kind of synonymous but I do know people who believe in God but who don't believe in an after-life. I can't quite get my head around that!

I'm not saying that the most important thing about faith is about making sure you get into heaven after you die. I think it's more about entering heaven here and now in a transforming relationship with God but still I think there has to be some kind of continuance and fulfillment after this life. Clearly not everyone enters it now but that doesn't have to mean that we won't all enter it later after a purifying and sanctifying fire.

I prefer heaven now and later IOW!

I think the most specific statement is that they didn't believe in resurrection. I've fixed the posting. I'd guess that they held with general OT belief. It often refers to a realm of the dead, but it's short of shadowy, without much distinction between good and evil.

I've had Jews tell me that the covenant was really a land deal. Obey me and I'll give you the Holy Land. The OT also suggested rewards and punishments in this life, though there are plenty of passages recognizing that this often doesn't happen.

But we really don't know what they taught.

Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.

You can call me Steve

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Senior Veteran

May God be with you and bless you.

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Senior Veteran

Similar threads