Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Hmm]

Yes, I know. There are multiple combinations. But Billy Graham was no universalist, and we should be clear on that.

MMXX didn't say he was a universalist but that he was borderline. Many Christians are "hopeful" universalists or inclusivist without being universalists. Barth, von Balthasar, Desmond Tutu and Rowan Williams spring to mind.

 

[ozso]

Inclusivists are found in all Christian traditions including universalism but a belief in UR does not have to be inclusivist and usually isn't. Christian universalism is Christocentric and adheres to the Nicene creed etc.

I wasn't thinking of inclucivism as the all paths lead to God idea, but rather that many who don't meet the standard requirements of believe, repent, be baptized, much less commitment, obedience and perseverance, can still be included as being in Christ. As Graham said, of the Body of Christ due to their inclination of being drawn towards Christ.

 

[Saint Steven]

On this side of the Pond, we might refer to "exciting golf." I think that is an oxymoron.

Yes; even the applause are suppressed. (the golf clap)

 

[Hmm]

I wasn't thinking of inclucivism as the all paths lead to God idea, but rather that many who don't meet the standard requirements of believe, repent, be baptized, much less commitment, obedience and perseverance, can still be included as being in Christ. As Graham said, of the Body of Christ due to their inclination of being drawn towards Christ.

Yes, I meant it in that way too. Someone who makes a positive response to Christ without explicitly knowing that.

 

[ozso]

Yes, I know. There are multiple combinations. But Billy Graham was no universalist, and we should be clear on that.

No, but his statements struck me as being closer to it than probably many would expect. To me anything outside of the rigid requirements of salvation that many say must be met, is a step closer to believing Christ redeemed everyone. What Graham said certainly seems to be backed up by Romans 5:15

 

[Saint Steven]

First of all, Satan is completely fallen and is given over to evil. There is no room in his heart for repentance.

That seems like conjecture on your part. Are we not also COMPLETELY fallen? Or was our fall only partial compared to Satan's fall?

 

[Saint Steven]

Second, since SIN must be atoned for and angels have no atoning sacrifice. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross is for people, not for angels. What is important to understand is that in the one person of Jesus are two natures, God and man. As God the Son, Jesus can offer a sacrifice that can appease God the Father. As a man, he can offer a sacrifice on behalf of men. This is why we are able to be saved. The atonement of Christ is offered on our behalf.

If that is true, then what happens if you slip up while enjoying heavenly eternal bliss? Will you be shuttled off to the hot tub to join the demons?

 

[ozso]

That seems like conjecture on your part. Are we not also COMPLETELY fallen? Or was our fall only partial compared to Satan's fall?

Going by Calvin's tulip, we are totally depraved.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, but his statements struck me as being closer to it than probably many would expect. To me anything outside of the rigid requirements of salvation that many say must be met, is a step closer to believing Christ redeemed everyone.

Well yeah. I'm sure there are a number of folks out there who know of Billy Graham but don't realize that he was an Inclusivist, although he still believed in a form of Hell. A long lasting Hell at that, unless of course he changed his mind further on the nature of Hell before he died.

The point here is that I think it borders on conflation to suggest that Billy Graham was some kind of hidden universalist or that he was even leaning in that direction. I don't think he was, at least not any more than I am, and I'm an Inclusivist, Annihilationist.

 

[Saint Steven]

Therefore, even if Satan were to repent of his great sins, (which it is not possible) he must have an atonement that would be sufficient for angels. Since Jesus became a man to die for men, there would have to be some sort of corresponding angelic manifestation on behalf of the Divine Word becoming angelic. This is not taught in Scripture and does not seem to be possible.

With God, all things are possible. And we are told that EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue confess... Do demons have knees and tongues? (seems so) "My name is Legion, for we are many..." (Mark 5:9)

 

[Saint Steven]

Our sins are against God. Our sins have offended God and we need a way to undo the offense. We need to have a way to make amends. Biblically, this is done through atonement, where a death is involved (Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22) to undo the death that is due us. God tells us that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and that sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2).

So, Satan's sins were NOT against God? What's the difference?

 

[Saint Steven]

My posts are all validated by the Scriptures.

More like... your faulty opinions are bolstered by flimsy doctrines and bad translations. What makes your opinions superior? Not the Bible. (don't blame God)

Saint Steven said: ↑
That is an insulting and demeaning opinion.
Why do you suppose YOUR opinion is superior to anyone else's?

 

[Saint Steven]

Matt. 8:29..........
"And suddenly they [demons] cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"

That verse reveals that the demons already know what their future destiny will be, that is, torment not annihilation.

Consequently, this verse and Rev. 20:10 together give us in-depth insights into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:Then He will also say to those on the left hand, "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mt. 25:41, NKJV).

That means that Satan and his demons can not and will not be saved.

Once again, your presuppositions are leading you to a conclusion. No worries, we all do it.

 

[ozso]

Well yeah. I'm sure there are a number of folks out there who know of Billy Graham but don't realize that he was an Inclusivist, although he still believed in a form of Hell. A long lasting Hell at that, unless of course he changed his mind further on the nature of Hell before he died.

The point here is that I think it borders on conflation to suggest that Billy Graham was some kind of hidden universalist or that he was even leaning in that direction. I don't think he was, at least not any more than I am, and I'm an Inclusivist, Annihilationist.

As I myself am more inclined towards believing in Inclusivism and Annihilationism, I feel that it's a lot closer to believing in UR than believing in ECT.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As I myself am more inclined towards believing in Inclusivism and Annihilationism, I feel that it's a lot closer to believing in UR than believing in ECT.

Conceptually, Inclusivism and Annihilationism do sound 'closer' to Universalism. So I agree with that. But if Inclusivism and Annihilationism turn out to be True rather than Universal Reconciliation, in the end, this fact still won't bring anyone back who faces oblivion after the Judgement. So, too, even if these concepts then sound 'close' or similar to one another in a forward looking outlook, they might as well be a million miles apart for all they'll do for those who miss out on God's grace in Christ.

 

[Hmm]

Conceptually, Inclusivism and Annihilationism do sound 'closer' to Universalism. So I agree with that. But if Inclusivism and Annihilationism turn out to be True rather than Universal Reconciliation, in the end, this fact still won't bring anyone back who faces oblivion after the Judgement. So, too, even if these concepts then sound 'close' or similar to one another in a forward looking outlook, they might as well be a million miles apart for all they'll do for those who miss out on God's grace in Christ.

If annihilationism "sounds" closer to universalism that's only because it's an improvement on ECT but other than that its something quite different. I've read quite a few testimonies where people move from ECT to annihilationism as a kind of half-way house/temporary resting place and then to universalism. The reconciliation of all does not allow for eternal torment or complete destruction.

 

[Fervent]

Many Christians are taught X and they stick with it, discarding anything to the contrary. Others learn things outside of their initial indoctrination and switch over to it. Christian UR is based on scripture and church history, rather than it being a philosophy that has no foundation. One can argue that their belief regarding scripture and church history is incorrect, but it can't be truthfully said that they don't rely upon those factors.

While many do not escape their initial doctrinal positions, if this thread is any indication of the kinds of textual support for UR it seems to me it is only supportable through inconsistent hermeneutics that are, essentially, designed to find support for a moral philosophy that precedes the readings. And this is of both the Bible and the historic writers as the modern universalist position that denies the eternality of hell largely relies on not understanding the historical context of some early writers. In fact, the only one who has works attributed to him that clearly present such a thing is Origen and there are anathema's that seem to directly indicate those works as well as reasons to suspect that they were pseudonomous.

Now while I'm sure there are universalists who mainly go by their feelings what sounds good to them, that doesn't apply to all of them. Many who already knew scripture and theology quite thoroughly, switched over to UR after having put it through a lot of scrutiny. Others like me are willing to consider it a possibility, again after having put it through a lot of scrutiny.

Every heretic has his verses. It's not about Scriptural knowledge, it's about the ad hoc manner that Scripture is handled.

That's probably true of some, but not all. Not all of them came out of the gate rejecting ECT. Many and perhaps most believed in and even taught ECT for a long time. And they didn't just abandon it overnight the minute they heard about UR. For many it was a slow painstaking process.

The evidence in this thread speaks for itself.

 

[Fervent]

This way of looking at God, thinking that he is free do whatever he wants to us, even torture us forever, because he's God and we have no right to complain, comes from seeing him above all as a God of power which gives him the right to act as arbitrarily as he wishes, cf. Caligula or Kim.Jong-Il

However, God showed us in Jesus that He is also a God of love and forgiveness and He behaves towards us like a Father.

It's not about Him acting arbitrarily, it's about Him being the one who is in the best position to determine what is morally appropriate.

 

[Hmm]

It's not about Him acting arbitrarily, it's about Him being the one who is in the best position to determine what is morally appropriate.

God isn't morally "appropriate". He is love and acts accordingly. Arbitrarily is the correct word because, in your perspective, he can do anything but he can't - he can only act according to his nature, which is the nature he revealed in Jesus. Torment/torture has no part of it.

 

[Fervent]

Aren't ECT and annihilation proponents usually emotionally attached to their own beliefs? I have seen people just go off the rails when I brought up the idea that "hell" does not exist.

Should I simply start pointing out the fallacies y'all employ, since you keep introducing red herrings?

Tu quoque