Anybody here a Trinitarian Universalist?

[Starstreak M86]

I do like the sound of this...any scripture to back it up- cos even if I like it, it doesnt make it so.

Abiel,
Sure! Lots!

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/univart.html

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/save-all.html

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/in-adam.html

http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/miscellaneous/allin.htm

http://www.dadsdayoff.net/eternalhellno.html

You are right to question first. As Christians, we need to remember to not be fooled by looks, we should cling to Truth.

The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment is a false doctrine that was created by the Chruch of Rome around 400 A.D. and became part of "Holy Tradition", and the Bible was intentionally mistranslated to teach that error. Neither the Hebrew Tanankh nor the Greek Septuagint teach "eternal punishment" for anyone.

 

[Abiel]

Abiel,

You are right to question first. As Christians, we need to remember to not be fooled by looks, we should cling to Truth.

teach "eternal punishment" for anyone.

I'll get back once I've waded through this stuff...!

 

[Abiel]

PS- if it's this obvious, why isn't it standard doctrine?

 

[Gish]

I would love for you to point me in the direction of Law's statement that reveals such theology, for I completely agree.

I will try to get back to you with a quote and a reference for that, on the specific point that the 'sanctification' must be accomplished (presumably by grace) at least in great measure in this life.

I will have to look back other his works... give me a couple of days.

The general theme of Law's take on salvation is close to the Theologica Germanica I think.

 

[Starstreak M86]

PS- if it's this obvious, why isn't it standard doctrine?

Does Christ's conversation with the Pharisees come to mind from the Gospel of Matthew?

"I find it interesting that you claim to be men of God, yet you conveniently throw out His truth to hold on to the traditions of men. You hypocrites!"

The reason that alot of chruch leaders don't preach this is because:

A) They don't know about it yet
or
B) They know it, and are being willfully ignorant and ignore any version of the Bible other than the KJV

There is a growing number of theologians and scholars that are becoming Universalists (including some Conservatives). That is why you see so many Christian Apologetics websites with sections that attempt to "disprove" Universalism.

If the Eternal Punishment doctrine is abolished, church leaders can no longer coerce people to join the Church by threatening them with eternal damnation.

 

[Card42]

The reason that alot of chruch leaders don't preach this is because:

another reason
and i think it's the biggest
comes from a little lesson
from game theory:
it's much "safer"
to believe in eternal torment
and be wrong
than to be a universalist
and be wrong
to be totally honest
i think this is one reason
why i haven't really embraced universalism
yet

 

[Starstreak M86]

another reason
and i think it's the biggest
comes from a little lesson
from game theory:
it's much "safer"
to believe in eternal torment
and be wrong
than to be a universalist
and be wrong
to be totally honest
i think this is one reason
why i haven't really embraced universalism
yet

You have a point.

But, so far I have not seen any evidence that it is wrong. Not even from Nicene and ante-Nicene fathers. Only post-Nicene fathers (who also believe in deifying Mary).

 

[Gish]

I would love for you to point me in the direction of Law's statement that reveals such theology

"Do not all Christians desire to have Christ to be their Saviour? Yes. But here is the Deceit; all would have Christ to be their Saviour in the next World, and to help them into Heaven when they die, by his Power, and Merits with God. But this is not willing Christ to be thy Saviour; for his Salvation, if it is had, must be had in this World; if He saves Thee, it must be done in this Life, by changing and altering all that is within Thee, by helping thee to a new Heart, as He helped the Blind to see, the Lame to walk, and the Dumb to speak. For to have Salvation from Christ, is nothing else but to be made like unto Him; it is to have his Humility and Meekness, his Mortification and Self-denial, his Renunciation of the Spirit, Wisdom, and Honours of this World, his Love of God, his Desire of doing God's Will, and seeking only his Honour. To have these Tempers formed and begotten in thy Heart, is to have Salvation from Christ. But if thou willest not to have these Tempers brought forth in thee, if thy Faith and Desire does not seek, and cry to Christ for them in the same Reality, as the Lame asked to walk, and the Blind to see, then thou must be said to be unwilling to have Christ to be thy Saviour."


"it cannot be true that Jesus Christ is his Redeemer, and does deliver him from his fallen State, unless it be true, that Jesus Christ helps him to a new Birth of that Light and Spirit of God, which was extinguished by his Fall. For nothing could possibly be the Redemption, or Recovery of Man, but Regeneration alone. His Misery was his having lost the Life and Light of Heaven from his Soul, and therefore nothing in all the Universe of Nature, but a new Birth of that which he had lost, could be his Deliverance from his fallen State."


"For this new Birth is not a Part, but the Whole of our Salvation. Every Thing in Religion, from the Beginning to the end of Time, is only for the Sake of it. Nothing does us any Good, but either as it helps forward our Regeneration, or as it is a true Fruit or Effect of it."



from- "The Spirit of Prayer"

 

[1Truth]

it's much "safer"
to believe in eternal torment
and be wrong
than to be a universalist
and be wrong

If Universalists are wrong, are they not guilty of overestimating God's love and mercy?
If Exclusionists (non-universalists) are wrong are they not guilty of overestimating God's wrath and anger?

I would rather be guilty of overestimating God's love and mercy.

 

[Abiel]

If Universalists are wrong, are they not guilty of overestimating God's love and mercy?
If Exclusionists (non-universalists) are wrong are they not guilty of overestimating God's wrath and anger?

I would rather be guilty of overestimating God's love and mercy.

This is a very good point. I would rather over estimate God's love than underestimate it. But it is not for me to create God as I would prefer him to be. I need to learn who He really is, and when I read the Bible, I see him being wrathful quite a lot.

 

[Starstreak M86]

This is a very good point. I would rather over estimate God's love than underestimate it. But it is not for me to create God as I would prefer him to be. I need to learn who He really is, and when I read the Bible, I see him being wrathful quite a lot.

Abiel,
He is wrathful because He is loving. He cares so much about everyone, and has such high standards and expectations of us, that He won't sit around and let us act beneath ourselves, and torment other humans (which is what all of the people that God destroyed in the Bible were doing).

God is wrathful, only to teach a lesson, and only to create a punishment suitable to the crime. He also is wrathful against sinners, because sinners often oppress and harm the righteous and the innocent (look at how the Egyptians enslaved and oppressed the Hebrews to do back-breaking labor for 470 years).

 

[john14_20]

I have been a full blooded Trinitarian Incarantional for several years now.

I quit my job to study full time and have nearly completed a degree in theology.

After all this study of Trinitarian Incarnational theology, I have become a Universalist.

The final straw came when I had to research and present a 1 hour lecture on hell.

My lecture went for 3 hours and I attacked the common views of hell being eternal, of hell's punishment having no purpose and other popular doctrines.

I was lucky that my lecturer whilst not in agreement with me at all times, was enjoying the presentation and let me go over time!

Blessings to all, Pete

 

[Starstreak M86]

I have been a full blooded Trinitarian Incarantional for several years now.

I quit my job to study full time and have nearly completed a degree in theology.

After all this study of Trinitarian Incarnational theology, I have become a Universalist.

The final straw came when I had to research and present a 1 hour lecture on hell.

My lecture went for 3 hours and I attacked the common views of hell being eternal, of hell's punishment having no purpose and other popular doctrines.

I was lucky that my lecturer whilst not in agreement with me at all times, was enjoying the presentation and let me go over time!

Blessings to all, Pete

John14_20,
Hey!

Wow, that's interesting! My becoming a Universalist took several weeks. I had been researching the Doctrine of Hell for several weeks, and came across some arguments of it not being eternal, and I never took any of them seriously. Finally, when I saw a site that based its denial of Eternal Punishment with Biblical-backing, and a study of the original Greek and Hebrew language, that confounded me. But it took 5 more days before I was seriously convinced, because of my dogmatic dedication to conventional orthodoxy.

Even when I finally took it seriously, it was at least another week and a half before I was fully convinced. It's interesting to hear another story of how the Bible changed the person, instead of the person trying to change the Bible.

Thanks for your testimony and support!

 

[Abiel]

But what about the sheep and the goats of Matthew

MT 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

 

[Starstreak M86]

But what about the sheep and the goats of Matthew

MT 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Abiel,
The Greek text says "aionian" punishment. "Aionian" means "age-long" punishment. The Greek word for "eternal" is "aidos", which is never used.

Eternal means "without beginning and without end". So, they have always been being punished and had no beginning of punishment? How can punishment be "eternal" if it began?

Also, Jesus says that we receive "aionian" (not "eternal") life, through faith in Him. That means that we truly live in this age, and when we die and we are raised again, we put on incorruptability and immortality. We don't gain "eternal" life, we simply put on immortality (like the Saints in Revelations).

In the Bible where it says "For ever and ever", in the Greek text, it says "Aiona kai aiona" which means "from age to age" (which Numbers says is "to the tenth generation" which is 400 years). As a further illustration of the meaning of aion and aionios, let me point out that in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint)--in common use among the Jews in Our Lord's time, from which He and the Apostles usually quoted, and whose authority, therefore, should be decisive on this point -- these terms are repeatedly applied to things that have long ceased to exist. Thus the AARONIC priesthood is said to be "everlasting," Num. 25:13. The land of Canaan is given as an "everlasting" possession, and "for ever," Gen. 17:8, and 13:15. In Deut. 23:3, "for ever" is distinctly made an equivalent to "even to the tenth generation." In Lam. 5:19, "for ever and ever" is the equivalent of from "generation to generation." The inhabitants of Palestine are to be bondsmen "for ever," Lev. 25:46. In Num. 18:19, the heave offerings of the holy things are a covenant "for ever." CALEB obtains his inheritance "for ever," Josh. 14:9. And DAVID'S seed is to endure "for ever," his throne "for ever," his house "for ever;" nay, the passover is to endure "for ever;" and in Isaiah 32:14, the forts and towers shall be "dens for ever, until the spirit be poured upon us." So in Jude 7, Sodom and Gomorrah are said to be suffering the vengeance of eternal (aeonian) fire, i.e., their temporal overthrow by fire, for they have a definite promise of final restoration. -- Ez. 16:55.


Obviously "for ever and ever" has to be a mistake. It must be "from age to age" like the Greek and Hebrew text say.

 

[Abiel]

My interlinear bible translates it as 'eternal' three times

 

[Starstreak M86]

My interlinear bible translates it as 'eternal' three times

Then that would be insane if it could be done like that! If age could mean "eternity", language and communication would be nearly impossible.

It only means "eternity" when used as "aidos" (a term which is only used of God and Heaven). Eternity means that it had no beginning either. Since Eternal Punishment has a beginning, it cannot be "eternal". And, "aeonian" punishment cannot be eternal if it is "aeonian" and not "aidos".

 

[Abiel]

So I've just looked at six different translations. I have found eternal, ever-lasting and for ever. Can you point me in the direction of a translation that does otherwise?

 

[Starstreak M86]

So I've just looked at six different translations. I have found eternal, ever-lasting and for ever. Can you point me in the direction of a translation that does otherwise?

The Bible translation I read (The Concordant Literal New Testament Bible), translates it as: "age-long", "age-lasting", "from age to age", and "eonian". It says that we have age-long life in Christ, and after the Rapture and Second Coming, we put on immortality and incorruptability.

 

[Abiel]

I'll try to get hold of one.