Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Der Alte]

* * *

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

Someone criticized me for beginning some of my replies Wrong! But this deserves one. So Wrong! Having been here for more than 2 decades I venture to say I have heard/read virtually every UR argument and every out-of-context proof text multiple times. Having realized that early on I started saving all my replies and updating as I go along so I don't have to reinvent the wheel every time someone argues about e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:22. I already have a reply.
And as I said in a previous post this thread. If "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Sets up a parallel the parallel is broken all [men] are inherently in Adam, being literal descendants of Adam, but all [men] are not inherently in Christ. "in" and "in" are not parallel.
You want a parallel that ain't no parallel. Kemo Sabe.

 

[Hmm]

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

I'm think you're right. Sad though isn't it, you'd think, or'd like to think, that Christians, of all people, would seek the truth? I used to believe that but I don't now. But I don't take that as a bad thing. My faith in God is intact, and actually has never been better, but like Gandhi I more and more find myself loving the Christian God but not so much the typical Christian. So, all good and I'm also encountering some great Christians in all these heretical universalist threads

 

[Lazarus Short]

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

Orthodox science, so-called science, opposed Velikovsky, even threatening his publisher. If you heard bad things about Hapgood, it is probably in the same vein. But...did you read the quoted paragraph? I thought it had a bearing on some of the posters here. Or...maybe not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Orthodox science, so-called science, opposed Velikovsky, even threatening his publisher. If you heard bad things about Hapgood, it is probably in the same vein. But...did you read the quoted paragraph? I thought it had a bearing on some of the posters here. Or...maybe not.

I read your quote, but being that I study Philosophy of Science and the Nature of Science, I can't get on board with Hapgood's affirmation about 'amateurism.'

As for your quote's application and bearing upon some of the posters here ...

... I won't comment further.

 

[Fervent]

But that's not what the verse says. It says "for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ".To it's "all", you have added "who are raised in Christ." Why?

The broader context denies your interpretation of "all" meaning every last individual. In fact, what you are doing is simply stripping out a single sentence and trying to build meaning around it rather than looking at the paragraphs surrounding it to see what Paul's primary intent was. Whether "all" means all is, in fact, not all that cogent to the question of meaning here so zeroing in on a single word in that manner is inherently fallacious.

 

[Hmm]

The broader context denies your interpretation of "all" meaning every last individual.

Can you say what this broader context is that says "all" doesn't mean every individual?

Or can you not?

I know which way I'd bet

 

[Der Alte]

Can you say what this broader context is that says "all" doesn't mean every individual?
Or can you not?
I know which way I'd bet

I've told you what the broader context is, I told MMXX in post 2761 above.
Your imagined "parallel" is busted. The elements of the parallel don't match. They have to match exactly and they don't. No amount of manipulation can make them match.

 

[ozso]

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.

Yeah, I know what footnotes are. But footnotes are gobbledygook without a index explaining their meaning. You don't strike as a "big dog" at all. You strike me as an average anonymous layman.

 

[ozso]

Someone criticized me for beginning some of my replies Wrong! But this deserves one. So Wrong! Having been here for more than 2 decades I venture to say I have heard/read virtually every UR argument and every out-of-context proof text multiple times. Having realized that early on I started saving all my replies and updating as I go along so I don't have to reinvent the wheel every time someone argues about e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:22. I already have a reply.
And as I said in a previous post this thread. If "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Sets up a parallel the parallel is broken all [men] are inherently in Adam, being literal descendants of Adam, but all [men] are not inherently in Christ. "in" and "in" are not parallel.
You want a parallel that ain't no parallel. Kemo Sabe.

Yeah I get it, you've had a long time to iron out kinks and craft some "masterpieces". But the fact that you have a library of mostly cut and paste material that you keep reusing, indicates that you have a limited scope.

 

[ozso]

I'm think you're right. Sad though isn't it, you'd think, or'd like to think, that Christians, of all people, would seek the truth? I used to believe that but I don't now. But I don't take that as a bad thing. My faith in God is intact, and actually has never been better, but like Gandhi I more and more find myself loving the Christian God but not so much the typical Christian. So, all good and I'm also encountering some great Christians in all these heretical universalist threads

The problem is a lot of Christians are firmly indoctrinated. And of course when someone is firmly indoctrinated, for them the truth begins and ends within that indoctrination.

 

[Der Alte]

* * *

Yea, I know what footnotes are. But footnotes are gobbledygook without a index explaining their meaning. You don't strike as a "big dog" at all. You strike me as an average anonymous layman who's mostly a cut and paste guy.

Evidently you don't know what footnotes are. I have found it very helpful to actually read posts before trying [and failing] to respond. You might try that. Those notes occur within the definition and they are present in both the print and digital editions. When quoting a lexicon definition it is a monumental waste of time to try to eliminate the notes. I even said the bibliography is in the front of print editions and the back of the digital editions. I know that because I have both. Around $60 each. People who know what they are doing simply ignore them while reading.
Yeah I'm a copy/paster you didn't know what the notes were until I explained it. If you had ever actually used a lexicon you would have known that and not have posted what you did.
You quite evidently are the one who can only copy/paste and that not even your own study but copy/pastes from some anonymous Hell no! website.
I'll tell you what when posting to you I will dumb my posts down quite a bit so you can understand them.

 

[Der Alte]

* * *

Yeah I get it, you've had a long time to iron out kinks and craft some "masterpieces". But the fact that you have a library of mostly cut and paste material that you keep reusing, indicates that you have a limited scope.

Cut and paste implies plagiarism. Unlike the great majority of UR-ites I read the big guns not biased websites e.g. Tentmakers, once there was another one, Hell Busters. I have a moderate library. I don't cut and paste as I said I read the big guns and always cite my sources and provide links to the primary sources whenever possible. I have researched and saved replies to most of the UR arguments and out-of-context proof texts.

 

[ozso]

Cut and paste implies plagiarism. Unlike the great majority of UR-ites I read the big guns not biased websites e.g. Tentmakers, once there was another one, Hell Busters. I have a moderate library. I don't cut and paste as I said I read the big guns and always cite my sources and provide links to the primary sources whenever possible. I have researched and saved replies to most of the UR arguments and out-of-context proof texts.

You're pretty much just repeating what I already said.

 

[ozso]

Evidently you don't know what footnotes are. I have found it very helpful to actually read posts before trying [and failing] to respond. You might try that. Those notes occur within the definition and they are present in both the print and digital editions. When quoting a lexicon definition it is a monumental waste of time to try to eliminate the notes. I even said the bibliography is in the front of print editions and the back of the digital editions. I know that because I have both. Around $60 each. People who know what they are doing simply ignore them while reading.
Yeah I'm a copy/paster you didn't know what the notes were until I explained it. If you had ever actually used a lexicon you would have known that and not have posted what you did.
You quite evidently are the one who can only copy/paste and that not even your own study but copy/pastes from some anonymous Hell no! website.
I'll tell you what when posting to you I will dumb my posts down quite a bit so you can understand them.

Yeah, I know what you're doing. You're lifting and pasting without any editing or reformatting which comes out as a jumbled mess. I've actually edited some of it myself in order to make it legible enough to reply to. You're welcome.

 

[ozso]

I read the big guns

What big guns have you read?

 

[Fervent]

Can you say what this broader context is that says "all" doesn't mean every individual?

Or can you not?

I know which way I'd bet

1) You're the one trying to use this text as evidence of your position, so it is up to you to establish that the context implies that it was the intent of the author for it to be understood to mean universal restoration. It is not on us to disprove your proof text.

2) There are multiple contextual issues that have to be dealt with, for example the author(Paul) has a habit in his letters of writing in a polemic almost hyperbolic fashion. He states positions in extremes for rhetorical purposes. So even if we allowed that the most natural read of that single sentence were "all means all" it does not entail that Paul intended for it to be understood so simplistically, instead exagerating for effect. The fact that most readers, when reading the whole passage, do not come away with the understanding that Paul is teaching universal restoration here is alone sufficient to cast serious doubt on your usage of it, especially as your use is patently fallacious. As D.A. Carson said "Text without context is a pretext..."

 

[Hmm]

1) You're the one trying to use this text as evidence of your position, so it is up to you to establish that the context implies that it was the intent of the author for it to be understood to mean universal restoration. It is not on us to disprove your proof text.

No, I'm the one who quoted the verse as it is. You are the one who added bits onto it. I asked you why and you haven't replied.

2) There are multiple contextual issues that have to be dealt with, for example the author(Paul) has a habit in his letters of writing in a polemic almost hyperbolic fashion. He states positions in extremes for rhetorical purposes. So even if we allowed that the most natural read of that single sentence were "all means all" it does not entail that Paul intended for it to be understood so simplistically, instead exagerating for effect. The fact that most readers, when reading the whole passage, do not come away with the understanding that Paul is teaching universal restoration here is alone sufficient to cast serious doubt on your usage of it, especially as your use is patently fallacious. As D.A. Carson said "Text without context is a pretext..."

The majority of people believed at one time that the Earth was flat but that didn't mean that it was.

In any case, as Augustine testifies, there were “indeed very many” (immo quam plurimi), in the early church. It may actually be stronger than this because according to Ramelli (Christian Doctrine, 11) they were a “vast majority” because that is what the Latin word plurimi, from the adjective plurimus, implies.

As D.A. Carson said "Text without context is a pretext..."

I have already asked you what this context could be and you provided so far are what ifs (Paul may have been exaggerating when he said "all" etc). If there is context that makes "all" not mean "all", please post it so that we can consider it.

 

[Hmm]

The problem is a lot of Christians are firmly indoctrinated. And of course when someone is firmly indoctrinated, for them the truth begins and ends within that indoctrination.

Yes, I think from what we have heard so far, this is the answer to the question posed in the OP about why so many feel annoyance towards the idea of universal reconciliation.

Go to the top of the class

 

[ozso]

In any case, as Augustine testifies, there were “indeed very many” (immo quam plurimi), in the early church. It may actually be stronger than this because according to Ramelli (Christian Doctrine, 11) they were a “vast majority” because that is what the Latin word plurimi, from the adjective plurimus, implies.

You've accumulated a lot of knowledge, Hmm.

 

[Hmm]

You've accumulated a lot of knowledge, Hmm.

Much of it from you guys. I was glad when I started to learn about universalism because suddenly Christianity all made sense. That word "all" again!

Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken;
Or like stout Cortez when with eagle eyes
He star'd at the Pacific—and all his men
Look'd at each other with a wild surmise—
Silent, upon a peak in Darien

Keats, On First Looking into Chapman's Homer.

If I ever meet stout Cortez, I'll give him a pat on the back and tell him I know just how he felt.