Why are threads on Christian universalism so popular?

Leaf473 · May 12, 2022

Der Alte said:
In the movie The Patriot a "French Officer" said Bonne Chance to Mel Gibson. I assumed it meant "good Luck.

All this talk of good luck reminded me of this French short film (under 3 mins). It doesn't relate to the thread topic... or does it?

BNR32FAN · May 12, 2022

Hmm said:
My reflection on this from Iranaeus

is that darkness does not have to mean "eternal torture" as I think the poster was trying to push.

Why can't it mean something completely different such as a period of feeling God's absence so that you realise God's worth? Something educational rather than mindless eternal punishment, however controversial it may be to say that about God lol.

Why does every reference to God's displeasure or man's disobedience have to lead to eternal torture? What sort of relationship can you have on that basis?

Well because that’s what Iranaeus said about it.

so is also our walk in life required to be more circumspect, when we are directed not merely to abstain from evil actions, but even from evil thoughts, and from idle words, and empty talk, and scurrilous language: thus also the punishment of those who do not believe the Word of God, and despise His advent, and are turned away backwards, is increased; being not merely temporal, but rendered also eternal. For to whomsoever the Lord shall say, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, Matthew 25:41 these shall be damned for ever

St Iranaeus 170AD Adversus Haereses Book 4 Chapter 28

4. But God, foreknowing all things, prepared fit habitations for both, kindly conferring that light which they desire on those who seek after the light of incorruption, and resort to it; but for the despisers and mockers who avoid and turn themselves away from this light, and who do, as it were, blind themselves, He has prepared darkness suitable to personswho oppose the light, and He has inflicted an appropriate punishment upon those who try to avoid being subject to Him. Submission to God is eternal rest, so that they who shun the light have a place worthy of their flight; and those who fly from eternal rest, have a habitation in accordance with their fleeing. Now, since all good things are with God, they who by their own determination fly from God, do defraud themselves of all good things; and having been [thus] defrauded of all good things with respect to God, they shall consequently fall under the just judgment of God. For those persons who shun rest shall justly incur punishment, and those who avoid the light shall justly dwell in darkness. For as in the case of this temporal light, those who shun it do deliver themselves over to darkness, so that they do themselves become the cause to themselves that they are destitute of light, and do inhabit darkness; and, as I have already observed, the light is not the cause of such an [unhappy] condition of existence to them; so those who fly from the eternal light of God, which contains in itself all good things, are themselves the cause to themselves of their inhabiting eternal darkness, destitute of all goodthings, having become to themselves the cause of [their consignment to] an abode of that nature.

St Iranaeus 170AD Adversus Haereses Book 4 Chapter 39

Hmm · May 12, 2022

Leaf473 said:
It doesn't relate to the thread topic... or does it?

UR and the French? Tricky...

Strong in Him · May 12, 2022

Confused-by-christianity said:
Are you trying to point out that people can be spiritually "dead" and then be redeemed?

That a persons faith is a journey may include deaths and redemptions?
??

No, my question about babies was response to the statement, "we are born spiritually dead".
If that was true, then 1 hour/day/week/month old babies who died, as well as any who were still-born, would be forever separated from God.

My comment about Judas was in response to the statement about it being better for him if he had never been born. Judas may well have wished, just before he died, that he had never been born - but that is speculation on my part. I didn't know Judas and wasn't there.

The two posts are not related.

RickReads · May 12, 2022

Strong in Him said:
No, my question about babies was response to the statement, "we are born spiritually dead".
If that was true, then 1 hour/day/week/month old babies who died, as well as any who were still-born, would be forever separated from God.

My comment about Judas was in response to the statement about it being better for him if he had never been born. Judas may well have wished, just before he died, that he had never been born - but that is speculation on my part. I didn't know Judas and wasn't there.

The two posts are not related.

As we did not know Jesus, we were born spiritually dead. However, God doesn't punish people for ignorance. Our judgment apart from Christ is based on what we knew in life.

For this reason, knowledge of Christ is destructive to those who reject Him. Matthew 21:44

Strong in Him · May 12, 2022

RickReads said:
As we did not know Jesus, we were born spiritually dead.

We are born not knowing anything.

Spiritual death = spiritual, and eternal, separation from God, which is due to sin.
Adam and Eve DID die that day as God had said. They, or Adam, at least, had known what God wanted and yet deliberately disobeyed.
The fellowship between them and God was broken. They were ashamed of their nakedness, hid from God and were finally led out of the garden. From then on, people had to offer sacrifices for their sin in atonement.

Babies do not, and cannot, wilfully sin against God.

RickReads said:
However, God doesn't punish people for ignorance. Our judgment apart from Christ is based on what we knew in life.

Yes, but I was talking specifically about babies/toddlers/young children who do not know God and do not sin against him. I do not believe babies are born spiritually dead - or Jesus would have been.
Yes, he was God, but he was also fully human; a human baby.

RickReads · May 12, 2022

Strong in Him said:
We are born not knowing anything.

Spiritual death = spiritual, and eternal, separation from God, which is due to sin.
Adam and Eve DID die that day as God had said. They, or Adam, at least, had known what God wanted and yet deliberately disobeyed.
The fellowship between them and God was broken. They were ashamed of their nakedness, hid from God and were finally led out of the garden. From then on, people had to offer sacrifices for their sin in atonement.

Babies do not, and cannot, wilfully sin against God.

Yes, but I was talking specifically about babies/toddlers/young children who do not know God and do not sin against him. I do not believe babies are born spiritually dead - or Jesus would have been.
Yes, he was God, but he was also fully human; a human baby.

Jesus is the only person who has never sinned and children do not have to be taught how to sin. They do that naturally. They have to be taught how to do what is right but knowing how to do wrong is not a problem.

Jeff Saunders · May 12, 2022

Der Alte said:
None of this addresses my post and/or the 26 vss I quoted and discussed in any way. And OBTW posting a different translation/interpretation of a vs or vss. does not in any way show that anything I posted is incorrect. What is required is a grammatical and/or lexical exegesis of a word conclusively showing from scholarly sources that anything I posted is incorrect. Bonne Chance.

I have a question for you why do you think the New Testament writers used aionios instead of audios which from what I understand means eternal?

Jeff Saunders · May 12, 2022

JulieB67 said:
I agree and this is what I don't get either. It should be about Christ and only Christ.

Exactly. Common sense alone should tell us that if one is not in the book of life by the time of the final Judgement, you suffer the "second death". And death means death, whether in the Greek or English. I mean why even call it the book of life or the 'second death". If the Lake of Fire was redemptive, it would be clearly laid out in scriptures. But what is laid out in scriptures is the fact that it was prepared for Satan and his angels and that it's called the second death. It's not called a refinery.
And yes, it is God's desire, wish that all would come to repentance but we can see from scriptures they won't. It specifically states anyone not in the book of "life" is thrown into the Lake of Fire. I just don't think the word can be any more clear on the matter.

I have one question how can death be conquered if it goes on for eternity?

public hermit · May 12, 2022

Jeff Saunders said:
I have a question for you why do you think the New Testament writers used aionios instead of audios which from what I understand means eternal?

Your understanding is correct. The Greek philosophers, when they wanted to convey eternity, as that which is not bounded by time or subject to corruption, used aidion.

The nephew of Plato, Speusippus, is credited with a list of definitions (defining words was essential to the philosophy of the Academy). Here is the entry:

Aidiov: eternal; existent at all times, including past and present, without being destroyed.

And for good measure...
Theos: God; immortal living being, self-sufficient for happiness; eternal being, the cause of the nature of goodness.

From Plato: Complete Works Ed. John M. Cooper, Hackett Publishing Company 1997.

Aussie Pete · May 12, 2022

Hmm said:
My reflection on this from Iranaeus

is that darkness does not have to mean "eternal torture" as I think the poster was trying to push.

Why can't it mean something completely different such as a period of feeling God's absence so that you realise God's worth? Something educational rather than mindless eternal punishment, however controversial it may be to say that about God lol.

Why does every reference to God's displeasure or man's disobedience have to lead to eternal torture? What sort of relationship can you have on that basis?

That is exactly the point. Fallen man cannot have a relationship with God. Man is born dead in trespass and sin. Lord Jesus came to give Life. Those who reject God's great salvation stay dead and separated from God. This is not God's doing. God did not kill Adam. Her brought it on himself by his disobedience. God said, "You will surely die". God did not say, "I will kill you."

JulieB67 · May 12, 2022

Jeff Saunders said:
I have one question how can death be conquered if it goes on for eternity?

As I stated before I don't believe it goes on for an eternity. I believe it will work just as any fire does- when it consumes everything, it will eventually burn out. Ashes will be all that's left. There's no coming back from that which is why it's called the second death.

But as I stated to you, believing it goes on for millions of years is very close to ECT, you don't agree?

Aussie Pete · May 12, 2022

Jeff Saunders said:
I have one question how can death be conquered if it goes on for eternity?

Death has already been defeated, when Lord Jesus rose from the dead. Either people choose life or they continue to remain in death. Japan was defeated in 1945. The last Japanese soldier to surrender was in 1974. He lived in isolation in the jungle, not knowing the benefits of peace that the rest of the Japanese enjoyed. He rejected every attempt to tell him that the war was over. Many refuse to accept that they can have peace with God. They refuse to surrender and accept God's terms. Until they do, they remain at war. The opportunity to be at peace does not last forever. The Japanese soldier may well have died in the jungle. He may never have known peace. As it was, he lived for another 30 years, in peaceful Japan.

Der Alte · May 12, 2022

Jeff Saunders said:
I have a question for you why do you think the New Testament writers used aionios instead of audios which from what I understand means eternal?

The word is "aidios" pronounced "ai" rhymes with "eye" deeohss. Are you aware Paul used "aionios" and "aidios" synonymously in Romans? Here from my study on the word "aionios" which all the UR folks ignore.

Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

In Rom 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26, Paul, the same writer, in the same writing, refers to God as “aionios.” Paul has used “aidios” synonymous with “aionios.” In this verse by definition “aionios” means eternal, everlasting.

Der Alte · May 12, 2022

JulieB67 said:
As I stated before I don't believe it goes on for an eternity. I believe it will work just as any fire does- when it consumes everything, it will burn out. Ashes will be all that's left. There's no coming back from that which is why it's called the second death.
But as I stated to you, believing it goes on for millions of years is very close to ECT, you don't agree?

If God wants a fire to burn forever don't you think He can make that happen? I remember reading about a bush that burned but was not consumed also three Jewish slaves were thrown into a furnace but were not harmed. They didn't even have the smell of smoke on them. My God is big enough.

wendykvw · May 13, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
Not according to the 9th canon of the 5th ecumenical council.

Much of this assertion is up for debate according to church historians.

“ The state of opinion on the subject of universal salvation is shown by the fact that through Ignatius, Irenaeus, Hippolytus and others wrote against the prevalent heresies of their times, Universalism is never named among them. Some of the alleged errors of Origen were condemned, but his doctrine of universal salvation, never.”

Did the Fifth Ecumenical Council Condemn Universal Salvation?

First, the council in A.D. 553 was not the first of such meetings and Origen’s universalism had survived all such prior gatherings (i.e. A.D. 325, 381, and 431) without being condemned.

Second, Origen died around A.D. 254, which means even if his universalism was condemned in A.D. 553, this was 300 years after his death!

Third, how can it be said that Origen’s universalism was deemed heretical if Gregory of Nyssa – who held almost the same view of universalism as Origen – and who was given the title, “Father of fathers” was never condemned?

Fourth, there’s no clear indication Origen was ever condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical council in A.D. 553. As Ludlow states, Origen was never mentioned by name in the fifteen anathemas (of the 5th Ecumenical Council in A.D. 553); it was later incorrectly assumed that this council condemned universalism and Origen by name but this was not true.

JulieB67 · May 13, 2022

Der Alte said:
If God wants a fire to burn forever don't you think He can make that happen?

Of course he can but I don't believe he will. Even Satan will be turned to ashes from within just like the rest of the wicked.

Everything former will be passed away. And I truly believe the second death is the death of the soul. That is everlasting punishment. Again there's no coming back from that.

I know you believe otherwise but I choose to believe Christ's words stating it as the second death. Burning forever for an eternity is not death or perishing. It's eternal life as well just in another location. I believe perish and destroy are full destruction. When we take the complete bible as a whole we see that our Father doesn't have pleasure of even the "death" of the wicked.

Ezekiel 18:23 "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?"

Ezekiel 18:27 "Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

Again, the second death is the death of the soul. That's why it's called the second death. It's not called eternal life in the lake of Fire. We will have a new heaven and earth and the former will be "passed" away.

And if it doesn't give him pleasure for the wicked to even perish/die, it certainly isn't going to give him pleasure to burn someone for an eternity. That doesn't even make sense. Especially since we know our God is full of mercy. But if the unrepentant don't want to be with him, he will blot them out. They do not receive eternal life in hell. That is still the opposite of death.

It certainly states the wicked will be rubble, ashes. The wages of sin is death period, not eternal suffering. The fire is unquenchable in that will not burn out until it consumes everything. But once everything is turned to ash that will be it -second death.

And I've seen your walls of text so I know already you believe otherwise as I stated. But there's too many scriptures when taking the Bible as a whole in context that tells us it's death/perishing.

Hmm · May 13, 2022

The above exchange makes me very thankful that I believe in universal reconciliation so that I know a God who burns and destroys sin, not sinners.

Jeff Saunders · May 13, 2022

Der Alte said:
The word is "aidios" pronounced "ai" rhymes with "eye" deeohss. Are you aware Paul used "aionios" and "aidios" synonymously in Romans? Here from my study on the word "aionios" which all the UR folks ignore.

Romans 1:20
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal [aidios] power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 16:26
(26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [aionios] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
In Rom 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26, Paul, the same writer, in the same writing, refers to God as “aionios.” Paul has used “aidios” synonymous with “aionios.” In this verse by definition “aionios” means eternal, everlasting.

You ask for more verses I want your opinion on these . Ex 21:6 are you telling me that a slave is a slave forever? Lev 6:18 /Lev 7:36 / Num10:8 each talk about the talking about priest stuff that lasts forever, but is no longer going on. Gen 49:26/Duet 33:15 they talk of the hills and mountains will last forever , but we know that they only last till God makes a new heaven and new earth. Jonah 2:6 Jonah was in the belly of the fish till he wasn’t. 1Kings 9:3 Gods name on temple forever but 2Kings 25:8-9 tells of the temple being burned not lasting forever. Isa 32:14-17 Jerusalem desolate forever till until new life pours into it. This shows that there is precedence for those of us in UR camp you really can’t say that Olam which is used interchangeably with aion must mean forever when scripture clearly shows otherwise.

BNR32FAN · May 13, 2022

wendykvw said:
Much of this assertion is up for debate according to church historians.

“ The state of opinion on the subject of universal salvation is shown by the fact that through Ignatius, Irenaeus, Hippolytus and others wrote against the prevalent heresies of their times, Universalism is never named among them. Some of the alleged errors of Origen were condemned, but his doctrine of universal salvation, never.”

Did the Fifth Ecumenical Council Condemn Universal Salvation?

First, the council in A.D. 553 was not the first of such meetings and Origen’s universalism had survived all such prior gatherings (i.e. A.D. 325, 381, and 431) without being condemned.

Second, Origen died around A.D. 254, which means even if his universalism was condemned in A.D. 553, this was 300 years after his death!

Third, how can it be said that Origen’s universalism was deemed heretical if Gregory of Nyssa – who held almost the same view of universalism as Origen – and who was given the title, “Father of fathers” was never condemned?

Fourth, there’s no clear indication Origen was ever condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical council in A.D. 553. As Ludlow states, Origen was never mentioned by name in the fifteen anathemas (of the 5th Ecumenical Council in A.D. 553); it was later incorrectly assumed that this council condemned universalism and Origen by name but this was not true.

Did you read the 9th canon? I posted it here twice. Apocatastasis and preexistence of souls were both anathematized at the 5th council.

Why are threads on Christian universalism so popular?

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Great is thy faithfulness

Well-Known Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

social troglodyte

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Author, and Patristic Universalist Minister

Well-Known Member

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

Similar threads