Why are threads on Christian universalism so popular?

Hmm · May 13, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
Did you read the 9th canon? I posted it here twice. Apocatastasis and preexistence of souls were both anathematized at the 5th council.

So you keep saying but it's been refuted by the scholars quoted in post 196

BNR32FAN · May 13, 2022

Hmm said:
So you keep saying but it's been refuted by the scholars quoted in in post 196

Some scholars not all. Let me ask you this why isn’t Origen considered a Church Father in the Catholic and Orthodox Church?

Hmm · May 13, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
Some scholars not all.

Of course, there's always going to be disagreement amongst scholars. There has been for two thousand years wrt Christianity and no doubt that's going to continue for as people are around. We can only pursue the truth - we're never going to capture it alive.

So let's stop presenting our own views as though their the absolute truth. That's the prerogative of God alone, not you, me or anyone else.

BNR32FAN said:
Let me ask you this why isn’t Origen considered a Church Father in the Catholic and Orthodox Church?

I've no idea but I'd be interested in knowing why not if you care to tell me. Don't just paste the same quote though.

Why, though, is Gregory of Nyssa, who was Origen's student and an open universalist not only regarded as a church father but as the church father - the "father of fathers" as he is affectionately known in the Orthodox tradition.

He also made a major contribution to drawing up the Nicene creed. What do you make of that?

Jeff Saunders · May 13, 2022

JulieB67 said:
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.

What I want to know is why it talks of the death of the soul but not the death of the spirit? The way I understand soul is that it’s the part of us that we make in this world, what we think is important what we have built, who we are as a person. And yes that will die that’s the whole point of why Jesus said to save your life you must lose it and if you try to save your life you will lose it. The lake of fire burns all the stuff away that we have put between us and God . But it never says the spirit shall die. That’s the whole point of Heb 4:12 God can separate our soul from our spirit. Our spirit lives forever, we are made after Gods image. So the soul can be destroyed and that is a eternal judgement you get no second chance but the spirit lives forever. I think maybe God has shown us what that might be like, if someone has complete amnesia they remember nothing they still understand language and can function in the world but all they had built is gone. So I don’t think it’s to much of a stretch to see those who have been thrown into the lake of fire as being refined and there soul dead but there new body and spirit living forever on the new earth but not aloud to go into the new Jerusalem Rev 22:15 it’s like God restoration of the garden of Eden, Ibthink those who bend there knee to Christ and then are refined will be placed on the new earth just like Adam was. Adam when created had no memories because he was just created but was an adult not a baby. To me this idea fits with a God who loves his creation and has a plan to redeem it from the start.

Jesus is YHWH · May 13, 2022

Jeff Saunders said:
What I want to know is why it talks of the death of the soul but not the death of the spirit? The way I understand soul is that it’s the part of us that we make in this world, what we think is important what we have built, who we are as a person. And yes that will die that’s the whole point of why Jesus said to save your life you must lose it and if you try to save your life you will lose it. The lake of fire burns all the stuff away that we have put between us and God . But it never says the spirit shall die. That’s the whole point of Heb 4:12 God can separate our soul from our spirit. Our spirit lives forever, we are made after Gods image. So the soul can be destroyed and that is a eternal judgement you get no second chance but the spirit lives forever. I think maybe God has shown us what that might be like, if someone has complete amnesia they remember nothing they still understand language and can function in the world but all they had built is gone. So I don’t think it’s to much of a stretch to see those who have been thrown into the lake of fire as being refined and there soul dead but there new body and spirit living forever on the new earth but not aloud to go into the new Jerusalem Rev 22:15 it’s like God restoration of the garden of Eden, Ibthink those who bend there knee to Christ and then are refined will be placed on the new earth just like Adam was. Adam when created had no memories because he was just created but was an adult not a baby. To me this idea fits with a God who loves his creation and has a plan to redeem it from the start.

know we are a living soul as genesis teaches- there are souls in both heaven and hell and they are not destroyed they are eternal. the soul that sins shall die not be annihilated. death does not mean cease to exist as Jesus taught with the rich man and lazarus in Abrahams bosom

hope this helps !!!

BNR32FAN · May 13, 2022

Hmm said:
Of course, there's always going to be disagreement amongst scholars. There has been for two thousand years wrt Christianity and no doubt that's going to continue for as people are around. We can only pursue the truth - we're never going to capture it alive.

So let's stop presenting our own views as though their the absolute truth. That's the prerogative of God alone, not you, me or anyone else.

Were talking about a heresy that has never been accepted by the Catholic Church. You say scholars claim it wasn’t refuted at the 5th ecumenical council but both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church say it was. So your “scholars” are in opposition to the very Church that actually conducted the council. So you find something on the internet that supports your position and completely ignore the opposing evidence that is overwhelming. The church has always refuted universalism, there’s evidence to support that but because some guy claims it wasn’t actually refuted you prefer to accept that over the testimony of the actual church that held the council.

Hmm · May 13, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
Were talking about a heresy that has never been accepted by the Catholic Church. You say scholars claim it wasn’t refuted at the 5th ecumenical council but both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church say it was. So your “scholars” are in opposition to the very Church that actually conducted the council. So you find something on the internet that supports your position and completely ignore the opposing evidence that is overwhelming. The church has always refuted universalism, there’s evidence to support that but because some guy claims it wasn’t actually refuted you prefer to accept that over the testimony of the actual church that held the council.

I give up!

BNR32FAN · May 13, 2022

Hmm said:
I give up!

All I’m saying is that you can’t trust scholars over the Church that convened that council. There are scholars that support Mormonism, there are scholars that support Jehovah’s Witness, there are scholars that support Judaism, there are scholars that support Islam. Obviously this is irrefutable evidence that just because someone is considered to be a scholar doesn’t mean they’re right because all of these scholars I’ve just mentioned are in opposition to one another.

Hmm · May 13, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
All I’m saying is that you can’t trust scholars over the Church that convened that council. There are scholars that support Mormonism, there are scholars that support Jehovah’s Witness, there are scholars that support Judaism, there are scholars that support Islam. Obviously this is irrefutable evidence that just because someone is considered to be a scholar doesn’t mean they’re right because all of these scholars I’ve just mentioned are in opposition to one another.

I agree. What conclusion can we draw from this then? Is it not that no-one knows the truth exactly and so we shouldn't present our views to others or even think of them ourselves as being the absolute truth?

I think we have a duty to learn the best we can about things with the time we have available to do that. But we also need humility too and realise that our understanding of anything, not just religion, is always provisional and a work in progress, subject to change.

The bushmen in the Kalahari have a story about a man in the desert who sees a beautiful bird flying overhead. It was so beautiful that he thought I must see this bird again. He tried to find it but couldn't and ended up spending his whole life looking for it. Towards the end of his life he saw the bird on top of a mountain, climbed it and managed to just touch one of its feathers before h died, but he died happy because he had managed to touch the bird. The bird represents truth in this story and all we can do is try to pursue it and we're lucky if we get just a glimpse.

The bushmen have loads of stories about the animals and birds of the Kalahari desert. They're like Aesop's fables writ large and they encapsulate much of their culture. Scripture says much the same thing as this story when it talks about us now seeing through a glass darkly but then we will see clearly.

Jipsah · May 13, 2022

RileyG said:
That judgment is reserved for God alone. I am not passing judgment on anyone, only God knows their hearts. I am not saying I know anyone minds. That's not up to me to decide.

So we're agreeing that people knowingly choosing eternal torment is probably hogwash, right?

Jipsah · May 13, 2022

RileyG said:
#2. Perhaps but they cooperated.

In the same sense that someone being broken on the wheel "cooperates" by confessing to whatever the tortuirers tell him to.

#1. It is my understanding, since Satan has a perfect knowledge of time and God, he will never change because of pride.

God is God. If God
wants Nick to change, Nick changes, end of.

In Islam, I believe they teach, at the end of time, Satan will be forgiven. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not an expert on Islam, but it sounds plausible.

Jipsah · May 13, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
“This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2:3-4‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Desire
G2309
Thelo

1. to will, have in mind, intend
a. to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b. to desire, to wish
c. to love
1. to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
d. to take delight in, have pleasure

Just so. So, IMO, God being, like, you know, God, that you can pretty much bet the ranch that if He wants, delights in, wishes, loves intends, has in mond, etc, is gonna happen. The "Poor God, He just can't..." is rubbish.

Leaf473 · May 13, 2022

Hmm said:
Of course, there's always going to be disagreement amongst scholars. There has been for two thousand years wrt Christianity and no doubt that's going to continue for as people are around. We can only pursue the truth - we're never going to capture it alive.

So let's stop presenting our own views as though their the absolute truth. That's the prerogative of God alone, not you, me or anyone else.

I've no idea but I'd be interested in knowing why not if you care to tell me. Don't just paste the same quote though.

Why, though, is Gregory of Nyssa, who was Origen's student and an open universalist not only regarded as a church father but as the church father - the "father of fathers" as he is affectionately known in the Orthodox tradition.

He also made a major contribution to drawing up the Nicene creed. What do you make of that?

Gregory of Nyssa was a universalist? I didn't know that.

BNR32FAN · May 13, 2022

Jipsah said:
Just so. So, IMO, God being, like, you know, God, that you can pretty much bet the ranch that if He wants, delights in, wishes, loves intends, has in mond, etc, is gonna happen. The "Poor God, He just can't..." is rubbish.

If that were true we’d still be in the Garden of Eden and there would’ve never been a flood or any need for Christ’s sacrifice. One thing that remains constant throughout the scriptures is man has repeatedly disappointed God and you can definitely “bet the ranch on that”. So no, God doesn’t always get what He wants.

Jeff Saunders · May 13, 2022

Aussie Pete said:
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.

If death is already defeated why does Jesus say the last enemy to be defeated is death? I still see a lot of enemies still not defeated.

Hmm · May 13, 2022

Leaf473 said:
Gregory of Nyssa was a universalist? I didn't know that.

Well, I've yet to read anyone who has denied that he was a universalist.

Here are just a couple of quotes:

His [God's] end is one, and one only; it is this: when the complete whole of our race shall have been perfected from the first man to the last—some having at once in this life been cleansed from evil, others having afterwards in the necessary periods been healed by the Fire, others having in their life here been unconscious equally of good and of evil—to offer to every one of us participation in the blessings which are in Him, which, the Scripture tells us, "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard," nor thought ever reached.
- On the Soul and the Resurrection"

But those, on the other hand, who have become inured to passion, and to whom nothing has been applied to cleanse the stain–neither the sacramental water nor the invocation of divine power, nor the amendment of repentance–must necessarily find their place. Now just as the appropriate place for debased gold is the furnace, so the evil mingled with these natures must be melted away in order that, after long ages, they may be restored to God in their purity.
- Address on Religious Instruction 35

Seems pretty clear to me that he was.

Der Alte · May 13, 2022

Jeff Saunders said:
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.

I have been talking about Greek "aion" and 'aionios" NOT Hebrew "olam" and "ad."
Once again you are ignoring the fact that words are often used figuratively in the Bible. For example, Simon was not literally a stone when Jesus named him "Petros" i.e. "stone." King Herod was not literally a Fox when Jesus called him that. James and John were not literally "sons of thunder" when Jesus called them that. Jesus was speaking figuratively.
I have shown you conclusively from scripture alone that "aionios" means "eternal." Just because "ainios" refers to something that is not or cannot be eternal does not determine the meaning.
.....Here are a few verses from the O.T. where I show conclusively that "olam" and "ad" mean "eternal.

Ezekiel 28:19
(19) All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. [עד־עולם/ad-olam]

In this vs. “olam” and are juxtaposed with “never shall be”, “age(s),” a finite period, is not the opposite of “never shall be,” “eternal” is.

Ecc 3:14
(14) I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: [ עולם] nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

In this vs. “olam” is paralleled with “nothing can be added or taken away from it [God’s acts.]” “age(s),“ a finite period, does not equate to “nothing can be added or taken away from God acts,” “eternal” does.

Isa 51:6
(6) Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, [ עולם] and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

In this vs. "Olam" is paralleled with "my righteousness shall not be abolished". By definition "olam" means "for ever."

Dan 7:14
(14) He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting [ עולם] dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

In this vs. “olam” is paralleled with “will not pass away” and “never be destroyed,” “age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “will not pass away, never be destroyed”, “eternal” does.

Hab 1:12
(12) LORD, are you not from everlasting? [ עולם] My God, my Holy One, you will never die. You, LORD, have appointed them to execute judgment; you, my Rock, have ordained them to punish.

In this vs. “olam” is paralleled with “will never die,””age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “will never die,” ”eternal” does.

Isaiah 56:5
5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting [עולם] name, that shall not be cut off.

In this vs. “olam” is paralleled with “shall not be cut off, ”age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “shall not be cut off,” ”eternal” does. Unless God lied and the name of His people will be cut off.

Jeff Saunders · May 13, 2022

Der Alte said:
I have been talking about Greek "aion" and 'aionios" NOT Hebrew "olam" and "ad."
Once again you are ignoring the fact that words are often used figuratively in the Bible. For example, Simon was not literally a stone when Jesus named him "Petros" i.e. "stone." King Herod was not literally a Fox when Jesus called him that. James and John were not literally "sons of thunder" when Jesus called them that. Jesus was speaking figuratively.
I have shown you conclusively from scripture alone that "aionios" means "eternal." Just because "ainios" refers to something that is not or cannot be eternal does not determine the meaning.
.....Here are a few verses from the O.T. where I show conclusively that "olam" and "ad" mean "eternal.

Ezekiel 28:19
(19) All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. [עד־עולם/ad-olam]
In this vs. “olam” and are juxtaposed with “never shall be”, “age(s),” a finite period, is not the opposite of “never shall be,” “eternal” is.

Ecc 3:14
(14) I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: [ עולם] nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.
In this vs. “olam” is paralleled with “nothing can be added or taken away from it [God’s acts.]” “age(s),“ a finite period, does not equate to “nothing can be added or taken away from God acts,” “eternal” does.

Isa 51:6
(6) Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, [ עולם] and my righteousness shall not be abolished.
In this vs. "Olam" is paralleled with "my righteousness shall not be abolished". By definition "olam" means "for ever."

Dan 7:14
(14) He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting [ עולם] dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
In this vs. “olam” is paralleled with “will not pass away” and “never be destroyed,” “age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “will not pass away, never be destroyed”, “eternal” does.

Hab 1:12
(12) LORD, are you not from everlasting? [ עולם] My God, my Holy One, you will never die. You, LORD, have appointed them to execute judgment; you, my Rock, have ordained them to punish.
In this vs. “olam” is paralleled with “will never die,””age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “will never die,” ”eternal” does.

Isaiah 56:5
5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting [עולם] name, that shall not be cut off.
In this vs. “olam” is paralleled with “shall not be cut off, ”age(s),” a finite period, does not equate to “shall not be cut off,” ”eternal” does. Unless God lied and the name of His people will be cut off.

I was under the impression that when the Hebrew was translated into Greek they translated olam as aion that is what I read. And if olam doesn’t mean eternal why did they use aion which you say is always eternal?

Leaf473 · May 14, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
If that were true we’d still be in the Garden of Eden and there would’ve never been a flood or any need for Christ’s sacrifice. One thing that remains constant throughout the scriptures is man has repeatedly disappointed God and you can definitely “bet the ranch on that”. So no, God doesn’t always get what He wants.

It's an interesting idea, God getting what he wants or not.

In the larger sense, I think God wanted to create humans who had the capacity to disobey him. And to know the difference between good and evil, if it came to that.

So in that sense, God got what he wanted.

Does he want humans to experience the pain and suffering that they do today? No, in that sense he isn't getting what he wants.

Is he motivated to figure out a way to create kids who can disobey him and at the same time not have to torture or kill them? I think so, and I think it's possible that he will.

Saint Steven · May 14, 2022

Hmm said:
Alternatively, why has Christian universalism never gone away?

The question's not discussed in churches and if it's mentioned at all it's usually only to denounce it as a heresy. And yet the belief in universal reconciliation (UR) has been a consistent strand throughout church history. Today, in terms of books sold and YouTube videos watched - the only type of metrics possible as there are hardly any universalist churches around to allow a meaningful count of posteriors on pews - the interest in UR is increasing while mainstream church attendance is declining, certainly in the UK anyway. It seems to me that CF also shows this trend in that threads on UR have considerably more comments and, more significantly, views than those on any other subject.

Could it possibly be that the reason belief in universal reconciliation has never gone away is because it's the truth that scripture points to?

And let's remember who we are and keep it civil folks (assuming anyone replies!).

Interesting topic, thanks.

I think UR is commonly dismissed in the church based on the definition of Universalism, as in Unitarian Universalism.

Since most Christians understand that there is only one way to salvation, UR is typically dismissed as a heresy.

While most antagonists that end up on UR topics are there to debunk it, there is a fair amount of education happening. Helping to dispel the ignorance on the subject.

Why are threads on Christian universalism so popular?

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

He’s a Way of life

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Well-Known Member

my Lord and my God !

He’s a Way of life

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

He’s a Way of life

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

Similar threads