Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

ozso · Dec 3, 2021

Fervent said:
Fair enough, but we can pretty well resolve the ambiguity in Greek through context. If it's "eternal" for eternal life, it's "eternal" for eternal punishment. And it really is that simple. To deny the eternality of the punishment is to deny the eternality of the life.

Why does it have to be about eternal life? Maybe it means life in the age to come. Perhaps the thousand year reign of Christ. I'm getting ready for bed so I'm not going to track it all down right now, but I know the Bible talks about us as being ministers and teachers in the world to come. Revelation talks about the gates never being shut and there will be those outside the city. And a few other things. There's this book about it. And the author is good friends with a couple of archbishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church, so apparently he's not considered a heretic. There's just a little too much to this for me to completely dismiss it. It's not that easily shot down.

ozso · Dec 3, 2021

Fervent said:
The central issue here is the dispute isn't about the credibility of the expert, but the argument that the expert presented. I have explained why the argument presented is a bad argument, and pointed directly at the grammatical features that render it a bad argument. I am not basing this on any sort of authority on my part, but the basic grammar that has been discussed. To then make it about the fact that the argumeent was made by an "expert," regardless of whether that is true or not, is a patent fallacy. Expert testimony is only useful if it is used as support not as the argument itself. If the arguments themselves are not understood then the proper thing to do is not take a side, but to continue to stand on an argument that has been defeated because it was made by an "expert" simply because you do not have the understanding of what is at issue is nothing more than confirmation bias and shows that this is not about a search for truth but an attempt to confirm what is desired to be believed.

Alright. I wasn't fallowing the exchange closely enough to say one way or the other what I think about it at this time.

Fervent · Dec 3, 2021

MMXX said:
Why does it have to be about eternal life? Maybe it means life in the age to come. Perhaps the thousand year reign of Christ. I'm getting ready for bed so I'm not going to track it all down right now, but I know it talks about as being ministers and teachers in the life to come. Revelation talks about the gates never being shut and there will be those outside the city. And a few other things. There's this book about it. And the author is good friends with a couple of archbishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church, so apparently he's not considered a heretic. There's just a little too much to this for me to completely dismiss it. It's not that easily shot down.

As the discussion on "aionios" has stated, it most clearly refers to things "eternal" when it refers to the things of God. The phrase "zoe aionios" is essentially universally understood as a promise of entering the life of God. But if you're willing to make eternal life finite in order to not have eternal punishment, that's your prerogative.

ozso · Dec 3, 2021

Fervent said:
As the discussion on "aionios" has stated, it most clearly refers to things "eternal" when it refers to the things of God. The phrase "zoe aionios" is essentially universally understood as a promise of entering the life of God. But if you're willing to make eternal life finite in order to not have eternal punishment, that's your prerogative.

I already said something about that. God is eternal. He's infinite in that He has no beginning or end. He's not a created being. Whereas none of that applies to man. And on top of that the "aionios" life regarding man hasn't even started yet. So from that perspective, they're quite dissimilar.

Fervent · Dec 3, 2021

MMXX said:
I already said something about that. God is eternal. He's infinite in that He has no beginning or end. He's not a created being. Whereas none of that applies to man. And on top of that the "aionios" life regarding man hasn't even started yet. So from that perspective, they're quite dissimilar.

That's fine, but the question is how the Bible uses the phrase. And that's to refer to the life where we fully partake of the Divine nature(think the Greek theosis). And of course it hasn't started, which is why the sheep go to it after final judgment.

ozso · Dec 3, 2021

Fervent said:
That's fine, but the question is how the Bible uses the phrase. And that's to refer to the life where we fully partake of the Divine nature(think the Greek theosis). And of course it hasn't started, which is why the sheep go to it after final judgment.

Well if you really want to get into it I suppose reading or even just listening to the two Greek Orthodox PhD theologians, David Bentley Hart and Brad Jersak would take you there better than anyone here. While I'm not appealing to their authority, it seems a foregone conclusion they didn't just fall of the turnip truck and have studied every angle pretty thoroughly.

Hmm · Dec 3, 2021

MMXX said:
Well if you really want to get into it I suppose reading or even just listening to the two Greek Orthodox PhD theologians, David Bentley Hart and Brad Jersak would take you there better than anyone here. While I'm not appealing to their authority, it seems a foregone conclusion they didn't just fall of the turnip truck and have studied every angle pretty thoroughly.

Agreed. Thomas Talbott has also written extensively on this particular word. There's an amazing amount of great teaching on Christian universalism out there. It's not surprising that the renewed interest in universalism has coincided with the growth of the Internet.

Der Alte · Dec 3, 2021

MMXX said:
***

MMXX said:
Why does it have to be about eternal life? Maybe it means life in the age to come. Perhaps the thousand year reign of Christ.

Maybe? Perhaps? Why the ambivalence? The NT clearly tells us the meaning of aionios and aion, several times. I have posted a list of 26 NT verses, multiple times, where aionios is unarguably described/defined as eternal, for ever, everlasting. And ain't nobody, no how ever even tried to refute me. Three times Jesus, Himself, said that "aionios life" means "shall not perish." John 3:15-16, John 10:28. Jesus must have been lying because all the UR-ites say that the adjective"aionios" never means "eternal," etc. It supposedly means the nonsensical; noun, prepositional phrase, "age during."

...but I know the Bible talks about us as being ministers and teachers in the world to come.

No it does not! The phrase "the world to come" occurs 5 times in the NT and it never refers to teachers and ministers. Matthew 12:32, Mark 10:30, Luke 18:30, Hebrews 2:5 and Hebrews 6:5

Revelation talks about the gates never being shut and there will be those outside the city. And a few other things.

And your point is?

Revelation 22:11
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Revelation 22:14-15
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Revelation 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

There's this book about it. And the author is good friends with a couple of archbishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church, so apparently he's not considered a heretic. There's just a little too much to this for me to completely dismiss it. It's not that easily shot down.

Nonsequitur. Don't need a book read the Eastern Orthodox Bible, available free online, if you want to know the truth about the eternal punishment of the wicked.[/INDENT]

Major1 · Dec 3, 2021

MMXX said:
I wish you could have conducted yourself better. Adios.

Same back to you.....adios!

I guess that means I win!!!!

Major1 · Dec 3, 2021

Shrewd Manager said:
Richie goes through Christmas past, present and future, kind of like Scrooge from the childhood favorite Dickens novel.

Past is his jolly life kicking around (his 'purple patch') and ignoring the plight of Lazarus.

Present is his rude awakening in Hades, where he grapples with the truth of his past.

Future is the confession of sin and bowing of knee to Christ, who holds the keys to death and Hades, and comes to give life, and in abundance.

What could the future hold for you, Major?

Really...really easy because you see.....I have actually read the Bible and I believe it when I read in Revelation 21:25thru 28 about the city prepared for all who believe in Christ......
"And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life."

Major1 · Dec 3, 2021

Shrewd Manager said:
The Bible already gives us the best UR slogans :

All die in Adam, all alive in Christ.
Every tongue, every knee.
Unto Him, all shall live.

Which means that all in hell will acknowledge Jesus as the Christ but they will not be leaving hell.

NO WHERE in Scripture is there a suggestion that those in hell will ever leave.

That my friend is a figment of your imagination.

Major1 · Dec 3, 2021

Der Alte said:
Maybe? Perhaps? Why the ambivalence? The NT clearly tells us the meaning of aionios and aion, several times. I have posted a list of 26 NT verses, multiple times, where aionios is unarguably described/defined as eternal, for ever, everlasting. And ain't nobody, no how ever even tried to refute me. Three times Jesus, Himself, said that "aionios life" means "shall not perish." John 3:15-16, John 10:28. Jesus must have been lying because all the UR-ites say that the adjective"aionios" never means "eternal," etc. It supposedly means the nonsensical; noun, prepositional phrase, "age during."

No it does not! The phrase "the world to come" occurs 5 times in the NT and it never refers to teachers and ministers. Matthew 12:32, Mark 10:30, Luke 18:30, Hebrews 2:5 and Hebrews 6:5

And your point is?

Revelation 22:11
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Revelation 22:14-15
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Revelation 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Nonsequitur. Don't need a book read the Eastern Orthodox Bible, available free online, if you want to know the truth about the eternal punishment of the wicked.[/INDENT]

Does it concern you that those we debate with on this subject of eternal hell seem to demonstrate so very little Bible knowledge?????

Major1 · Dec 3, 2021

Fervent said:
Fair enough, but we can pretty well resolve the ambiguity in Greek through context. If it's "eternal" for eternal life, it's "eternal" for eternal punishment. And it really is that simple. To deny the eternality of the punishment is to deny the eternality of the life.

Yes. It is just that simple.

How then do you explain the reasoning of those we debate against on eternal punishment?

I would say for myself that I'm sure there are many reasons why certain Christians don't believe that there is a place called hell. Undoubtedly the main reason is the scriptures say that God is love and they reason that it would not be loving for God to punish anyone He loves by sending them to hell.

Of course that gives themselves away as ones who do not actually study the word of God. If they should study the scriptures where they will find that God can and does hate certain people.

Psalm 5:5
"Therefore, the proud may not stand in your presence, for you hate all who do evil."

Psalm 11:5
"The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates."

Proverbs 6:16-19
"There are six things the LORD hates—no, seven things he detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, and a person who sows discord in a family."

Romans 9:13
"As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” (Quoted from Malachi 1:2-3)

They forget that God is not only "Love" but he is also just. He cannot simply overlook injustice it must be paid for either by Christ's perfect sacrifice at Calvary or by the one performing the injustice in a place of punishment.

Major1 · Dec 3, 2021

Fervent said:
The central issue here is the dispute isn't about the credibility of the expert, but the argument that the expert presented. I have explained why the argument presented is a bad argument, and pointed directly at the grammatical features that render it a bad argument. I am not basing this on any sort of authority on my part, but the basic grammar that has been discussed. To then make it about the fact that the argumeent was made by an "expert," regardless of whether that is true or not, is a patent fallacy. Expert testimony is only useful if it is used as support not as the argument itself. If the arguments themselves are not understood then the proper thing to do is not take a side, but to continue to stand on an argument that has been defeated because it was made by an "expert" simply because you do not have the understanding of what is at issue is nothing more than confirmation bias and shows that this is not about a search for truth but an attempt to confirm what is desired to be believed.

And this is exactly why the Bible must be used as the authority which supports out opinions.

Without valed authority they what we say is only what "WE SAY".

Der Alte · Dec 3, 2021

Major1 said:
Does it concern you that those we debate with on this subject of eternal hell seem to demonstrate so very little Bible knowledge?????

To the extent I consider it my mission in life to keep exposing their lists of out-of-context proof texts and specious arguments. See e.g. arguments based on "perhaps" and "maybe," above.

Major1 · Dec 3, 2021

Shrewd Manager said:
Sure, it's a compilation, nothing new under the sun and all that.

I always liked Exitus et Reditus. As all proceed from God so to Him shall all return.

It has the logical inevitability of a silver bullet.

But silver bullets returned to the Lone Ranger!

You may like "As all proceed from God so to Him shall all return." but the truth is that that phrase IS NOT IN THE BIBLE!

Now what is in the Bible is that only those who confess Christ and repent will be in heaven. In Matthew 11:20-24, we can see Jesus denouncing three cities for their unrepentant attitude despite the many miracles He performed.........

Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent.
“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you."

Major1 · Dec 3, 2021

Der Alte said:
To the extent I consider it my mission in life to keep exposing their lists of out-of-context proof texts and specious arguments. See e.g. arguments based on "perhaps" and "maybe," above.

I agree!

It is worthy calling!

Some one has to stand up for the word of God!

Major1 · Dec 3, 2021

Saint Steven said:
My, my...

So, if you really love the secretary at work, you should approach her romantically, thus disregarding your marriage vows to your wife?

That would be the sin of adultery Steve. That is also in the Bible as one of God's commandments.

So that means you either have not actually read the Bible or that you have no understanding of the 3 fold meaning of the word "Love".

IWalkAlone · Dec 3, 2021

Hmm said:
Yes, the universalist view is that "every" knee.means just that - all will confess that Jesus is Lord and so all will be saved.

Isaiah says similarly

By Myself I have sworn; Truth has gone from My mouth, a word that will not be revoked:
Every knee will bow to Me, every tongue will swear allegiance.
Isaiah 45:23, HCSB

This confession is glady and freely given and is not forced. The universalist idea is that all we gladly embrace Christ once God has broken through all their resistances - this is the purpose of corrective punishment (kolasis anionios) in "hell" - and they are able to see Him clearly.

Here's Robin Parry's explanation of this glad confession as regards the Isaiah verse:

"Many translations translate the swearing as a positive act: “swear allegiance” (HCSB, ESV, AMP, EXB, NASB, NLT, etc.); “will promise to follow me” (NCV); “solemnly affirm” (NET); “vow to be loyal to me” (GNT, WYC); “worship me” (CEV).

That this is no forced subjection of defeated enemies is clear for the following reasons. First, we see that God has just called all the nations to turn to him and be saved, and it is in that context that the oath is taken. Second, the swearing of oaths in Yahweh’s name is something his own people do, not his defeated enemies. Third, those who confess Yahweh go on to [immediately] say, “In the LORD alone are righteousness and strength,” which sounds like the cry of praise from God’s own people."

But maybe when they see Jesus face to face they will see what fools they have been and bow a knee to Him

Major1 · Dec 3, 2021

IWalkAlone said:
But maybe when they see Jesus face to face they will see what fools they have been and bow a knee to Him

Everyone will.

How tragic that people die without confessing Jesus as Lord, for a day is coming when even in death, they will be required to make this confession! If they confess Jesus as their Lord now, they reap the benefits of salvation and all the promises of God. If they do it later, it will be an acknowledgement that they were wrong and that Jesus was right; however, it will not change their eternal status.

Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

✦

✦

Well-Known Member

✦

Well-Known Member

✦

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency