Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Hmm]

I don't recall ever rejecting any quoted historical source out-of-hand but I do recall presenting arguments versus such information. Perhaps you could point me to 1-2 examples. But I won't hold my breath.

The thought of going through all your posts DA to find the relevant bits is quite daunting. I'd need to go into training first.

59) He [Heracleon] is not wrong, however, when he says that the water that the Savior gives is of his spirit and power.[John 4:14]
(60) And he has explained the statement, “But he shall not thirst forever,” as follows with these very words: For the life he gives is eternal and never perishes, as, indeed, does the first life which comes from the well; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not to be taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it.

And how is any of this supportive of ECT and against UR?

 

[Der Alte]

Opposed to your rationalization is the PLAIN statement of I Corinthians 15:22 - "For even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive." from the YLT. I looked the verse up in the KJV I used to discredit "hell," (because it was handy) and found my marginal note:
"NOT: All who are in Christ shall be made alive." Yes, all who are in Christ shall be made alive, but that is not what the verse says.
I can't believe you really fail to miss the meaning DE.

But it doesn't say "all those in Christ". That's what you want it to say but it doesn't. It says "all", the same "all" that died in Adam, i.e. "all". It's like Team Hell sees a mirage when they are confronted with this verse and see things that aren't there but which they desperately wish were.

You both ignore the preposition "in" in the second clause. If "all" means "all" in both clauses, as it does, the "in " means "in" All men are NOT inherently "in Christ"
All mankind are "in Adam" because all mankind are literal descendants of Adam. However, all mankind are not inherently "in Christ."
Being "in Christ" requires an intentional, voluntary action on the part of every person individually.

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:​

Not in Christ, no redemption.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.​

Not in Christ and walk after the flesh, results in condemnation.

2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.​

Not in Christ, the veil is not taken away.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.​

Not in Christ, not a new creature, old things are not passed away.

Ephesians 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:​

Not in Christ, not gathered together.

Ephesian 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.​

Not in Christ, still afar off, not nigh.

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.​

Not in Christ, do not obtain salvation, no eternal glory.
Paul also said.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
(9) Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
(10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
(19) The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
(20) idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions
(21) and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 5:5
(5) For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17
(17) If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.​

 

[Der Alte]

* * * And how is any of this supportive of ECT and against UR?

Didn't say it did. I said for fun. Origen, in his commentary on John 4:14, gives us an iron clad, indisputable, unarguable definition of "aionios" as "eternal,""never perishes [twice],""remains.""not... taken away,""not consumed."

 

[Hmm]

I said for fun.

Well, if that's your idea of fun, who am I to deprive you of it?

 

[Lazarus Short]

After owning it for fifty years, I decided to start reading today, Charles Hapgood's book "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings." I ran into an interesting passage on page 3.

"I teach the history of science, and have become aware of the extent to which most radical discoveries (sometimes called "breakthroughs") have been opposed by the experts in the affected fields. It is a fact, obviously, that every scientist is an amateur to start with. Copernicus, Newton, Darwin were all amateurs when they made their principal discoveries. Through the course of long years of work they became specialists in the fields which they created. However, the specialist who starts out by learning what everybody has done before him is not likely to initiate anything very new. An expert is a man who knows everything, or nearly everything, and usually thinks he knows everything important, in his field. If he doesn't think he knows everything, at least he knows that other people know less, and thinks that amateurs know nothing. And so he has an unwise contempt for amateurs, despite the fact that it is to amateurs that immeasurable important discoveries in all fields of science have been due."

 

[Major1]

William B. Nelson, Jr. wrote the article on Sheol you posted. I just wondered if you knew anything about him.

I know he produced a book on "Daniel".
I know that he is a professor.

 

[Major1]

Probably because I haven't. But in general your feathers seem to get ruffled a lot.

Now that is a purely personal opinion. You have never seen my feathers ruffled neither have you seen me shed any of them.

 

[Major1]

I might disagree, but I skim your posts too much to say much.

Thats OK. I am not sure that the word "skim" would apply to how I view your posts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

After owning it for fifty years, I decided to start reading today, Charles Hapgood's book "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings." I ran into an interesting passage on page 3.

"I teach the history of science, and have become aware of the extent to which most radical discoveries (sometimes called "breakthroughs") have been opposed by the experts in the affected fields. It is a fact, obviously, that every scientist is an amateur to start with. Copernicus, Newton, Darwin were all amateurs when they made their principal discoveries. Through the course of long years of work they became specialists in the fields which they created. However, the specialist who starts out by learning what everybody has done before him is not likely to initiate anything very new. An expert is a man who knows everything, or nearly everything, and usually thinks he knows everything important, in his field. If he doesn't think he knows everything, at least he knows that other people know less, and thinks that amateurs know nothing. And so he has an unwise contempt for amateurs, despite the fact that it is to amateurs that immeasurable important discoveries in all fields of science have been due."

Isn't Charles Hapsgood the same guy who used to do seances or such?

 

[Lazarus Short]

You both ignore the preposition "in" in the second clause. If "all" means "all" in both clauses, as it does, the "in " means "in" All men are NOT inherently "in Christ"
All mankind are "in Adam" because all mankind are literal descendants of Adam. However, all mankind are not inherently "in Christ."
Being "in Christ" requires an intentional, voluntary action on the part of every person individually.

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:​

Not in Christ, no redemption.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.​

Not in Christ and walk after the flesh, results in condemnation.

2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.​

Not in Christ, the veil is not taken away.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.​

Not in Christ, not a new creature, old things are not passed away.

Ephesians 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:​

Not in Christ, not gathered together.

Ephesian 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.​

Not in Christ, still afar off, not nigh.

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.​

Not in Christ, do not obtain salvation, no eternal glory.
Paul also said.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
(9) Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
(10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
(19) The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
(20) idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions
(21) and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 5:5
(5) For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17
(17) If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.​

Even if your prepositional theology is correct, we the "no-hell" team will just counter with our confidence that ALL in the fullness of time will come in under that very preposition...

...and if so, what's not to like?

 

[Lazarus Short]

Isn't Charles Hapsgood the same guy who used to do seances or such?

I doubt it, but why should orthodoxy fail to treat Hapgood any better than they treated Vekikovsky?

 

[Hmm]

You both ignore the preposition "in" in the second clause. If "all" means "all" in both clauses, as it does, the "in " means "in" All men are NOT inherently "in Christ"
All mankind are "in Adam" because all mankind are literal descendants of Adam. However, all mankind are not inherently "in Christ."
Being "in Christ" requires an intentional, voluntary action on the part of every person individually.

Nice try comrade Alte but it doesn't work. Let's just remind ourselves of what we are talking about for anyone who has survived this conversation so far. We are talking about I Corinthians 15:22 "For even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive."

You'll note that there are two “all”s and they both occur in what is a very short and simple sentence. The first “all" refers to the everyone everywhere who has ever been born given that it’s the whole human race that died/was condemned in Adam. I expect that so far we are in agreement.

So, do you not think that it would have been extremely deceptive or actually incompetent of Paul if had meant something less than the whole human race with the second occurance.of "all" seeing that that would mean that he changed the whole context of the people he was referring to without warning mid-sentence, and a sentence that is designed to stress the parallelism between dying in Adam and living in Christ.

Is Paul really so misleading or so poor a writer that he can't express himself clearly? Would God have appointed him to write the epistles.if he was?

Both yours and @Fervent's earlier explanation as to why "all" doesn't mean "all" is, IMO, contrived, convoluted, confused and completely unconvincing. The second “all” in the verse, just as the first, refers to all people, however much you don't want it to.

This begs the question of the OP: What is it about universal restoration that annoys some people? Care to answer that?

 

[Der Alte]

Nice try comrade Alte but it doesn't work. Let's just remind ourselves of what we are talking about for anyone who has survived this conversation so far. We are talking about I Corinthians 15:22 "For even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive."
You'll note that there are two “all”s and they both occur in what is a very short and simple sentence. The first “all" refers to the everyone everywhere who has ever been born given that it’s the whole human race that died/was condemned in Adam. I expect that so far we are in agreement.
So, do you not think that it would have been extremely deceptive or actually incompetent of Paul if had meant something less than the whole human race with the second occurance.of "all" seeing that that would mean that he changed the whole context of the people he was referring to without warning mid-sentence, and a sentence that is designed to stress the parallelism between dying in Adam and living in Christ.
Is Paul really so misleading or so poor a writer that he can't express himself clearly? Would God have appointed him to write the epistles.if he was?
Both yours and @Fervent's earlier explanation as to why "all" doesn't mean "all" is, IMO, contrived, convoluted, confused and completely unconvincing. The second “all” in the verse, just as the first, refers to all people, however much you don't want it to.
This begs the question of the OP: What is it about universal restoration that annoys some people? Care to answer that?

You guys want to ignore the rest of the Bible when arguing your proof texts. If "all" has the same relationship so too the preposition "in" also has the same relationship. What is that relationship? All mankind are inherently "in Adam" since all mankind are literal descendants of Adam. But all mankind are not inherently "in Christ." "he that believeth not in Christ is condemned already." Remember that? Jesus said that. Jesus did not say I'm going to save "all" no matter what.
Read all those "in Christ/Jesus" verses I posted. Why didn't Paul say if you're not in Christ don't worry about it, Jesus is going to save you anyway, no matter what? Instead what did Paul say? He said 22 categories of people have NO inheritance in the kingdom of God. You consider my explanations "contrived, convoluted, confused and completely unconvincing" because you isolate your proof texts and ignore the overall context of the Bible.
When Paul wrote all those "no inheritance" verses do you think he forgot what he wrote in Corinthians, Galatians and Ephesians? Or vice versa.

 

[Der Alte]

Even if your prepositional theology is correct, we the "no-hell" team will just counter with our confidence that ALL in the fullness of time will come in under that very preposition...
...and if so, what's not to like?

What indeed? It ain't Biblical.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I doubt it, but why should orthodoxy fail to treat Hapgood any better than they treated Vekikovsky?

What? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You may need to explain it to me.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Now that is a purely personal opinion. You have never seen my feathers ruffled neither have you seen me shed any of them.

Agreed. A man's molting is his own business.

 

[Ceallaigh]

The thought of going through all your posts DA to find the relevant bits is quite daunting. I'd need to go into training first.

That's the whole idea of a gish gallop. To overwhelm. Who can work with:

"B-D-F §365; RLudwig: D. prophet. Wort 31 ’37, 272–79; JLee, NovT 27, ’85, 18–23; B-D-F §365.—Pla., Hdt. et al. [Kühner-G. loc. cit.]; SIG 1042, 16; POxy 119, 5, 14f; 903, 16; PGM 5, 279; 13, 321; LXX; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 11 [Stone p. 46]; JosAs 20:3; GrBar 1:7; ApcEsdr 2:7".

I seriously doubt Der Alte himself has much of a handle on it.

 

[Hmm]

gish gallop

Nice phrase

 

[Der Alte]

* * *

That's the whole idea of a gish gallop. To overwhelm. Who can work with: "B-D-F §365; RLudwig: D. prophet. Wort 31 ’37, 272–79; JLee, NovT 27, ’85, 18–23; B-D-F §365.—Pla., Hdt. et al. [Kühner-G. loc. cit.]; SIG 1042, 16; POxy 119, 5, 14f; 903, 16; PGM 5, 279; 13, 321; LXX; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 11 [Stone p. 46]; JosAs 20:3; GrBar 1:7; ApcEsdr 2:7".
I seriously doubt Der Alte himself has much of a handle on it.

I most certainly do have a handle on it. This is part of footnotes from a definition, of one word, in Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek lexicon of the Bible.
They are not part of the definition, per se, and most of the time the reader will not be concerned with them. But for a scholar who wishes to review more information on a particular word he/she can locate one of the identified sources and read to their hearts delight . These are all abbreviations the full title can be found in the bibliography. IIRC correctly in print BDAG they are in the front of the book. In the digital version in the back.
The first one in your list. B-D-F §365 section 365

B-D-F = FBlass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, ed. ADebrunner9 (Bl-D.) 1954; translation (with some modifications and additions based on unpublished work by Debrunner) by RFunk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 1961; ordinarily cited by paragraph
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.​

Hope this helps. If you want to run with the big dogs you have to think like a big dog.

 

[Ceallaigh]

As you have rejected every piece of scholarship that has been offered to you, why don't you specify exactly what would constitute credible or verifiable evidence to you and I'll see what I can do. As far as historical evidence goes, you have already rejected the writings of Gregory of Nyssa, Origen and other Early Church Fathers and I don't think I can get much more historical than that unless I conduct an expedition to the Holy Land to find even earlier documents. I'm more than happy to do that though if you can assure me that you would accept photographic evidence and won't require the original manuscripts.

Bro, he's just running you in circles. No matter how far you get, he'll just take it all back to square one.