Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Der Alte · Dec 5, 2021

Lazarus Short said:
***

10. For the Hebrews, “sheol,” hidden, covered and unknown, was the state, condition or place of the dead. It was where the body returned to the dust and the spirit returned to God (Who gave it). See Genesis 3:19, Ecclesiastes 12:7.[/QUOTE]
According to Jewish historical writings; Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and Talmud, "sheol" was also one of the names of the place of fiery, eternal punishment.

Saint Steven · Dec 5, 2021

Lazarus Short said:
4. God made both good and evil, for the same Hand that planted the Tree of Life surely also planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, Satan did not make or create evil. See Genesis 2:9, Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38, Amos 3:6.

Wow. Very well said.

And according to the Genesis account, God planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the center of the garden, where it could not be avoided. And then he commanded that it not be eaten from. The consequences, death. (an undefined term)

Any human after Adam and Eve would have been tempted to eat. But Adam and Eve had to be tricked into eating. Until the serpent presented the case to do it, they had no intention, as far as we know.

I actually wonder if the first sin was Adam lying to Eve about what God had told him about the Tree. Eve told the serpent that they were not to even touch it. Where did that come from? (not God)

Lazarus Short · Dec 5, 2021

Der Alte said:
We appreciate this waste of band width with your biased, unsupported cogitations.

"...biased, unsupported cogitations." - with Scripture references. Of course, given how quickly you responded, you did not check my references to see if they supported my statements.

Fervent · Dec 5, 2021

Lazarus Short said:
I would need to post my entire 240+ page manuscript here to fully explain it, and I have no doubt about it being either refused a read or dismissed with a wave of the hand. I stand by the UR interpretation of First Corinthians 15. In the meantime, here's something to chew on:

1. There is no mention of Hell in God’s Creation of the Cosmos - therefore, Hell is apparently uncreated by God or anyone else. See Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 65:17, Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5. John 1:3 explicitly states that God made all, and that no other person or agency made anything. The Bible contains many instances of “heaven and earth” paired together as a term…without “hell.” You will look in vain for “heaven and hell” or “earth and hell.”

2. In the first chapter of Genesis, it is stated six times that God saw that what He had made was good, excluding Hell as being possible, as the Creation could not have been wholly good had Hell been in existence. See Genesis 1:10,12,18,21,25,31.

3. The Creation as described in Genesis is properly understood as a hierarchy, not a dualistic Heaven versus Hell – with the Earth and humans as a contested prize, fought over by God and Satan. See Genesis 1:1, Job 1 & 2, John 1:3, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 5:13.

4. God made both good and evil, for the same Hand that planted the Tree of Life surely also planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, Satan did not make or create evil. See Genesis 2:9, Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38, Amos 3:6.

5. The Bible makes no connection between Satan and Hell, so Satan is NOT the Prince of Hell. See Job 1:6-7, 2:1-2, Zechariah 3:1-2, Revelation 2:13, 12:9.

6. The prince of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 is not Satan, as it specifically refers to him as a man. See Ezekiel 26 - 28.

7. The Law God gave to Moses warned of death, but did not specify punishment in Hell, or warn of it. Punishments were delivered in the real world, and the most severe was simple, ordinary death. See Genesis 2:17, Exodus through Deuteronomy, Romans 6:23.

8. Nearly all the consequences of human disobedience to God are worked out in the real, here-and-now world – not in Hell. This includes death, destruction, perishing, God’s wrath and His cursings. See Deuteronomy 28:15-68, 30:19, Ezekiel 32:32, Romans 13:4. The only exception is the banishment of the unrighteous to the Lake of Fire – but that is for their ultimate salvation, otherwise Death cannot be defeated and God cannot become All in all...as we see in I Corinthians 15.

9. All people die, but none of them go to Eternal Conscious Torment – only to the grave or pit. See every instance of personal death in the Bible, with “hell” (if present) properly replaced with “sheol” or “hades,” as so often noted in the marginal or center-column reference. Keep in mind that “Hades” is a concept from pagan Greek mythology, just like the name of its ruling “god.”

10. For the Hebrews, “sheol,” hidden, covered and unknown, was the state, condition or place of the dead. It was where the body returned to the dust and the spirit returned to God (Who gave it). See Genesis 3:19, Ecclesiastes 12:7.

11. Eternal Conscious Torment depends on the concept of the Immortality of the Soul, and that comes, not from the Bible, but from Greek philosophy, from Socrates and Plato. It is clearly pagan.

12. Hell, by definition, opposes the Gospel (the Good News) because Hell can only be Bad News for those sent there – and thus, for most of living (and dead) humanity.

13. Hell violates God’s Law, specifically the Law of the Jubilee, which sets all those in servitude free. Those who die are freed from sin, as prophesied by the Law of the Jubilee. See Leviticus 25:8-13, Isaiah 1:18, Romans 6:7,16.

14. The idea of damnation of people to Hell is at least absurd, and possibly blasphemous, due to the presence of God’s Spirit of Life in each of us. See Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7,3:19, Ecclesiastes 12:7.

15. Hell, like Babylon, is confusion. Hell is hot, but it’s also cold as…Hell. Hell is bright with fire, but it is dark. Hell is separation from God, but Mary K Baxter depicts Jesus touring Hell, chiding the damned. To go to Hell, you must be dead, but to be in Eternal Conscious Torment, you must be alive, but you’re dead, and on and on… Fictional descriptions of Hell, especially as seen in the works of Dante, Milton and Baxter, are clearly fictional and un-Biblical.

16. God’s plan for the wicked is to destroy their wickedness, not to destroy them or send them to Hell. See Psalm 1:6, 7:9, Isaiah 1:18, Jeremiah 3:12, Habakkuk 1:12, Philippians 3:21, Hebrews 10:26-27.

17. God speaks of ransoming/redeeming ALL from death and the grave – without exception. See Psalm 49:15, Ezekiel 16:55, Romans 6:23, Ephesians 1:10.

18. God is both willing AND able to save all. Given that He is omnipotent, we can ALL look forward with confidence to our eventual salvation. See Psalm 49:15, 86:13, 103:8-14, 136, Isaiah 1:18, 6:7, 25:7-8, 26:19, 33:24, 43:25, 44:22, 45:8, 55:8-9, 57:16, 64:6-9, Jeremiah 3:12. Lamentations 3:26-32, Ezekiel 11:19, 16:55, Hosea 13:14, Micah 4:5, 7:18-19, Ephesians 1:10, Philipians 3:21, Colossians 1:19-20, I Thessalonians 1:10, I Timothy 1:15, 2:4-6, 4:10, 6:13, II Peter 3:9.

19. God compares Himself to a cleansing or refining agent – usually as Fire, but sometimes as Soap. Therefore, all instances of supernatural fire should be interpreted as being for refining and/or purification, not damnation. Fire in the Bible is never “Hellfire,” but natural fire or God’s Fire. See Malachi 3:2-3, Matthew 3:10-12, I Corinthians 3:15.

20. If God’s Fire is for baptism and refining, then that which is burned must be our carnal, sinful nature. It is symbolized by unfruitful trees, tares, chaff, wood, hay and stubble – by anything unable to endure the Fire. See Matthew 3:10-12, I Corinthians 3:11-15.

21. “Hell” is used in the King James Version (and others) to replace four other words: “Sheol,” “Hades,” “Gehenna” and “Tartarus.” None of these refer to a place of damnation or Eternal Conscious Torment. See any decent dictionary, especially the Oxford English Dictionary.

22. When we dig out mistranslations and peel away misinterpretations, we find that Hell is an imposition, an insertion into the text. With Hell so deconstructed, the Bible and God are both silent on Hell. See Numbers 23:19, John 14:2. With that out of the way, we can see clear to the salvation of all.

23. Christians should not follow the Hell of the ancient, pagan religions, such as the “Hel” we find in Norse mythology, but follow the truth of God’s Word, which does not contain either the concept of Hell or even the word “hell,” except in imperfect translations.

Only a few of your points are salient, as most deal with a specific understanding that is entirely unnecessary.
1) The lack of mention in Genesis is unsurprising considering the purpose of Genesis and the Pentateuch in general. Simply because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it wasn't created, though a created place called hell is only one possible interpretation of its existence.

4) Understanding God to have made evil is a misunderstanding. Where the OT speaks of God creating evil it is more properly understood calamity/disaster. God is pure light, in Him there is no shadow of variance. Evil is completely outside of His character and is ultimately created by others, it comes from the hearts of men.

12) The gospel is good news because of hell's existence. Without the consequence for sin, there would be no need for the gospel. And simply because some choose to reject it does not diminish its value. God's glory does not depend on the actions of men.

16) None of those passages separate the wickedness of the wicked from the wicked, in fact most of them are quite clear that it is people being talked about being destroyed not some abstract concept of "wickedness". That you give single verse references just smacks of proof texting rather than understanding verses within the context they are found in.

18) See Jesus' lament to Jerusalem in the gospels. He clearly was willing and able that they be saved, yet Jesus says they were unwilling.

I'll stop there. Given the leaps you make in this post and the blatant complete ignoring of context in some places while overcontextualizing in others I have serious doubts about the notion that your study was unbiased.

Lazarus Short · Dec 5, 2021

Der Alte said:
Read my post #3339 immediately above for the unbiased truth about hell.

Your post #3339 with THREE Jewish sources?! Looks like bias to me.

Saint Steven · Dec 5, 2021

Hmm said:
Please note if Jonah was in "hell," as the KJV has it, then Jonah escaped from a place where, according to modern theologians, there is no escape.

Oh, my. That's a solid gold comment there. Kudos. - lol

Saint Steven · Dec 5, 2021

Hmm said:
As we can see, after 350 years of saying Jonah was in "hell," the New King James finally admitted he wasn't there after all. He was in Sheol, like everyone else who has died. Many people have come out of the grave. The Bible is full of examples."

As I read your post it occurred to me that Jonah may have been writing about an NDE. (from which he was obviously revived) He even suffered the depression that often is accompanied by those returning from an NDE.

Der Alte · Dec 5, 2021

Lazarus Short said:
Your post #3339 with THREE Jewish sources?! Looks like bias to me.

That is the the dishonest ploy that you accused us of. Show conclusively that there is anything questionable about what I posted. The Jews believed what they believed which blew much of your specious argument away.

Der Alte · Dec 5, 2021

Lazarus Short said:
"...biased, unsupported cogitations." - with Scripture references. Of course, given how quickly you responded, you did not check my references to see if they supported my statements.

These references Dante, Milton and Baxter? What relevance does fiction have to the historical beliefs of the Jews centuries before Dante, Milton and Baxter existed.

Shrewd Manager · Dec 5, 2021

Fervent said:
There's nothing esoteric about case, it's about as simple as things can get. Using grammar is about the closest we can get to objective examination, simply because you do not like where the grammar leads is no reason to discard it.

Forgive me, but that remark is as asinine as it is predictable. Proof of the existence of hell does not turn on the placement of a jot or tittle. That's why we have apostolic not apostrophic teachings.

The pillars of interpretation are matters of principle, such as 'God is love', 'God wants all saved', 'Every knee will bow', 'The earth is fixed and cannot move', and 'You know neither the scriptures nor the power of God'.

That's the context - God's plan to save all through Jesus Christ. The only question is whether He'll be victorious or not. I say yes He will, because I can do naught else.

Next, you've got to consider the idiomatic aspects. For example, 'He who hateth not his parents...' Prophetic rhetoric and the like. Jesus is often talking in different registers, and in the vernacular, depending on the context.

Sorry, but you're on a hiding to nothing if you think that an approach of examining the specific linguistic and grammatical aspects of the particular text in vacuo is going to be determinative. Seems to me just obfuscation and subterfuge from someone who can't answer the basic questions.

Fervent · Dec 5, 2021

Shrewd Manager said:
Forgive me, but that remark is as asinine as it is predictable. Proof of the existence of hell does not turn on the placement of a jot or tittle. That's why we have apostolic not apostrophic teachings.

The pillars of interpretation are matters of principle, such as 'God is love', 'God wants all saved', 'Every knee will bow', 'The earth is fixed and cannot move', and 'You know neither the scriptures nor the power of God'.

That's the context - God's plan to save all through Jesus Christ. The only question is whether He'll be victorious or not. I say yes He will, because I can do naught else.

Next, you've got to consider the idiomatic aspects. For example, 'He who hateth not his parents...' Prophetic rhetoric and the like. Jesus is often talking in different registers, and in the vernacular, depending on the context.

Sorry, but you're on a hiding to nothing if you think that an approach of examining the specific linguistic and grammatical aspects of the particular text in vacuo is going to be determinative. Seems to me just obfuscation and subterfuge from someone who can't answer the basic questions.

The main problem with that is your "matters of principle" are highly subjective and essentially render interpretation to a game of emotion. What you have stated is that you must assume beforehand that God's plan is to save all and then interpret through that lens, but clearly that is not interpretation but assumption and nothing more. Grammar, critical history, lexical studies, and various other tools that bring the text itself into the center of discussion is the only way to be interpreting the text rather than dictating its contents.

ozso · Dec 5, 2021

IWalkAlone said:
There is a hell. Who will go there is the question

As I understand it Christian universalists in general believe that people will go to hell. But they don't believe that hell is a place of everlasting torment.

ozso · Dec 5, 2021

Hmm said:
That was key for me too. While UR has probably been a minority position for most of church history, all you need to do is turn to Augustine, a very influential non-Universalist, to see that it was a popular doctrine in the early church. He, in the fifth century, writes this:

"It is quite in vain, then, that some–indeed very many–yield to merely human feelings and deplore the notion of the eternal punishment of the damned and their interminable and perpetual misery. They do not believe that such things will be. Not that they would go counter to divine Scripture—but, yielding to their own human feelings, they soften what seems harsh and give a milder emphasis to statements they believe are meant more to terrify than to express literal truth.
— Augustine, Enchiridion, sec. 112.

So he's acknowledging both that universalists were "indeed very many" in the early church and also that this was a perfectly acceptable view to hold as it did not go "counter to divine Scripture".

I've mentioned the point before but when Augustine described the universalists as “indeed very many” (immo quam plurimi), what he meant is that they were a “vast majority” (Ramelli, Christian Doctrine, 11). That is what the Latin word plurimi, from the adjective plurimus, implies.

So, although Augustine himself didn’t affirm universalism, he at least recognised that it, or "apokatastasis" as it was called at the time, was an influential doctrine in the early church.

So Augustine confirmed that what the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge by Schaff-Herzog says about universalism being a largely held view of the church for the first four or five centuries.

Shrewd Manager · Dec 5, 2021

Fervent said:
The main problem with that is your "matters of principle" are highly subjective and essentially render interpretation to a game of emotion.

So God's sworn oaths are highly subjective now? Good luck with that.

Fervent said:
What you have stated is that you must assume beforehand that God's plan is to save all and then interpret through that lens, but clearly that is not interpretation but assumption and nothing more.

Nope, it's based on explicit Biblical and natural revelation. God is absolute, why do things by halves?

Fervent said:
Grammar, critical history, lexical studies, and various other tools that bring the text itself into the center of discussion is the only way to be interpreting the text rather than dictating its contents.

Right, so now Christianity is only for the learned, educated and articulate. Smells like the leaven of the Pharisee to me.

ozso · Dec 5, 2021

Fervent said:
We keep hearing this, but when the discussion turns to what the Bible says y'all just seem full of diversionary tactics. Rather than boasting about how strong a case is and yadda yadda yadda how about we just stick to discussing the place you supposedly agree is the ultimate authority and talk about what the Bible says.

Essentially claiming they are stupid, ignorant and delusional doesn't hold up and appears to be subjective prejudice.

ozso · Dec 6, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
Now, now, brother Fervent! The UR side has countered with humor, and as you and I both know, humor counts for everything ...

It tends to show me they're not "desperate".

Lazarus Short · Dec 6, 2021

Der Alte said:
That is the the dishonest ploy that you accused us of. Show conclusively that there is anything questionable about what I posted. The Jews believed what they believed which blew much of your specious argument away.

Please allow me say it in simpler language: Your consistent choice of Jewish and ONLY Jewish sources looks like bias from where I stand. You seem to assume they are infallible, but I see your sources as the product of men, like anything else man-made, and therefore suspect.

ozso · Dec 6, 2021

Der Alte said:
That is the the dishonest ploy that you accused us of. Show conclusively that there is anything questionable about what I posted. The Jews believed what they believed which blew much of your specious argument away.

I addressed problems with it in post #2691but you haven't responded to any of that so far. Instead you just keep reposting it saying it's incontrovertible and that no one has ever refuted your essays.

Hmm · Dec 6, 2021

Shrewd Manager said:
That's why we have apostolic not apostrophic teachings.

Saint Steven · Dec 6, 2021

Shrewd Manager said:
That's why we have apostolic not apostrophic teachings.

Oh, my. That is so funny. - lol
Good one.

Apostrophic would be catastrophic, if not completely off-topic.

Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

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

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

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

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

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.

Well-Known Member

✦

✦

Through him, in all things, more than conquerors.

✦

✦

Well-Known Member

✦

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

You can call me Steve

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency