Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have a question ...
... since Universalists seem to have 1 Corinthians 15:22 as a primary "go to verse," how do they reconcile their interpretation of this with what Paul writes previous to this in the vary same letter in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and then later to the same group of people in 2 Corinthians 5:10?
Actually I teach no such thing. Please get your facts right before posting and stop spreading misinformation. If your not sure your welcome to ask.Atheism believes and teaches non-existence after death, like you do. That's why many atheists I know of don't fear death.
How about you have a go at interpreting what you obviously conclude are anti-universalist verses in the light of the universalist one instead of asking others to do it the other way around?
Yet not taught in the bible accept in Genesis 3:1-5 as the first lie told in the garden of Eden to Eve by the devil. The question remains who should we believe? Its not a hard question in my view.Based on the info I have, universalism was outright taught for the first four centuries. Which would mean it has a first century start date. What was the start date for purgatory?
On a different note, I will quote here the interpretation of St John Chrysostom:Well, let's consider the word "all" in this verse:
for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
I Corinthians 15:22
I have to go off to eat some more fish so let me pass you on to philosopher Keith deRose and his analysis.of this:
OK.The article explains what that means. It also specifically addresses the tired and discredited interpretation you recite below and details why it is incorrect.
No, that's not how Hermeneutics and Exegesis are to be done...unless you're even more of an Existentialist than I am.
Also, trying to turn the tables by flipping it back at me is a very poor rhetorical device for debate or discussion, especially if you aren't exactly situated in the same social and political frame that Jesus was. I expect Him to have done that sometimes when facing corrupt leaders of His time; I DON'T expect fellow Christians to do it since NONE of us KNOWS exactly what is in the hearts of our interlocutors.
No, here's what needs to happen here. You need to show not only that you've "interpreted" a verse, but ALSO show how it fits with whatever else has been said by the same writer, especially if that verse is sitting in the context of the very same letter to the same
group of people for the same occasion.
So far, you're not doing that. In fact, a lot of folks here don't. Moreover, I've noticed a general pattern: All that most of you universalistic supporters do is cite odds and ends thinkers, those who lived some time from between the 2nd century to the present. ... You need to do more than that. It's not enough to cite that "such-and-such" Church Father or medieval theologian thought (~all too often, Origen, in this case) universalism was true.
Do you understand what I'm getting at, brother Hmm?
On a different note, I will quote here the interpretation of St John Chrysostom:
"Ver. 22. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
What then? tell me; did all die in Adam the death of sin [277] ? How then was Noah righteous in his generation? and how Abraham? and how Job? and how all the rest? And what, I pray? shall all be made alive in Christ? Where then are those who are led away into hell fire? Thus, if this be said of the body, the doctrine stands: but if of righteousness and sin, it doth so no longer."
So, 1Co 15:22 does not unequivocally support UR.
The OP wanted to ask what kept people back from universalism, but it has devolved into a thread about proofs pro or con. It was entirely predictable, so I call it a predictament.
Well, if the question is "What keeps people back from universalism?" (which it is), referring the question to the testimony of Scripture is entirely appropriate and, indeed, necessary.This thread, at this point, is what I call a "predictament" - it has devolved into whether universalism is
(a) true
(b) false.
The OP wanted to ask what kept people back from universalism, but it has devolved into a thread about proofs pro or con. It was entirely predictable, so I call it a predictament.
Well, let's see... you've saying that it's okay for you to ask universalists to interpret universalist verses in the light of any anti-universalist verses you throw up but you it's bad hermeneutics, exegesis and discussion technique if you're asked to do the reverse. Correct?
This is interesting. Lazarus Short makes the case for universalism on the basis of the guidance of the Bible. That's what persuaded him, correctly or incorrectly.Yes, I was hoping people would say what they immediately think and feel when they hear the words "Christian Universalism" because that might provide an opportunity to identify and clear up any misunderstandings about what it is. I think that kind of self examination is very hard to do. It's much easier to hide behind Bible verses.
You support the same conclusion but, from what we can tell from your posts, you are persuaded by your preference for this theory coupled with the fact that there once were universalists in the church.
You disdain people who approach it that way, in the way recommended by Lazarus Short, when you say that "it's much easier to hide behind Bible verses
Nope, not exactly. What I'm saying is that it's ok for me to ask universalists to interpret universalist verses in light of the fuller literary contexts in which their supporting verses are found, and they need to do this when questioned without resorting to their own rhetorical questions in lieu of answers ...
That's what I'm attempting to say.
So, let's think of it as a point of manners or politeness: If you ask me a question first, then it would fit discussion decorum for me to do my jolly best to try to answer your question, and this would come from the sense that you, being a fellow human being of worth, have asked me a legitimate question and that (at least sometimes) I may need to be accountable for some statements I make here or there.
And the same holds for you in return, especially after I've already answered one of yours. See? It's an exchange of ideas, and although I could be wrong about this, it sounds almost like the expression or an aspect of Christian love, the kind that one brother would have for another.
Or we can just badger each other with insinuations about each other's character, motives, integrity, level of heretical beliefs, or other whatnot. But I'd rather not stoop to that. I don't think you want to either.
Luk 5:39 And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’”I suppose I could copy & paste my book manuscript here, but it would be difficult on a forum such as this, given its sheer length. Would you interested in my condensed conclusions?
I was going by what you say most of the time. I don't know what other guideline would be more reliable.You keep telling me that that the reason I'm a universalist is because it's my preference (but don't we all choose the belief system that we prefer) and because I'm swayed by its prevalence in the early church. But I've already told you that the reason I'm a universalist is because I believe it has overwhelming scriptural support so why do you keep repeating your theory about my motivations to me?
What is it about universal redemption that annoys so many Christians? Shouldn’t we be happy that God’s love and mercy are wider, higher, deeper, and broader than we could ever imagine? We all sin at times so shouldn't we welcome the thought that God is not going to annihilate or eternally torment us if we don't “accept,” “trust,” “repent,” “believe,” well enough to appropriate the grace of God?
You would think so but it seems from the recent threads on Christian Universalism that this is not the case. Why is this?
Here are some of the reasons that have been expressed in the threads:
1. ”If everyone is or will be saved, what’s the point in following Jesus?”
To me, anyone who thinks this must see following Jesus as a heavy burden, one that needs the reward of heaven to make it worth the hassle. But shouldn't following Jesus and having a good relationship with him here and now be its own reward?
It's also a misunderstanding of Christian Universalism to think it says that we don't have to receive the saving grace of Christ in order to be reconciled to God and to each other. It just says that if we don't manage to do this in this life there will be boundless opportunities to do so in the next one and that eventually every one will accept forgiveness and repent of their sins... ”that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth" (Phil 2:10)
2. "All my hard work at being a Christian has been undermined".
This is very much like 1. Shouldn't any work we do be done out of love for God, not for any personal eternal rewards?
3. ”If there is an 'us,' there has to be a 'them'"
This may be true about some things such as football: I support Manchester United so I hate Manchester City (I'm from the UK, apologies) but it needn't apply to matters of faith. If we are going to heaven when we die there doesn't have to be a group who go to hell.
These three reasons seem to have something in common and that's judgementalism. They're all essentially saying "Look, I'm a good Christian and my hard work and sacrifices has earned me membership into the very exclusive club of heaven and, sad to say it, but most other people haven't done anywhere nearly as enough as me and so, unfortunately, missed out on the opportunity." This makes you think of the work vs. faith debate ironically but, moving swiftly on from that, isn't it true that being judgemental is wrong and if that's the main reason behind our objection to Christian Universalism, shouldn't we consider that we might be misunderstanding it?
There are biblical arguments that can be made for and against Christian Universalism but there are plenty of existing threads discussing that so, assuming anyone wants to respond!, I'd be more interested in hearing what your gut, visceral reaction is, whether for or against, when you hear the words "Christian Universalism". For me, it's basically relief that God is a loving God and not a monster after all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?