Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Hmm]

Why would I believe that? I do believe the position I articulated is indisputably the correct Christian position, for the reasons I stated.

It's good you're now framing it in terms of your personal belief

 

[Saint Steven]

To anyone who takes the Bible even halfway seriously, there couldn't possibly be a more false and dangerous doctrine than universalism.

That's preposterous. (and very ignorant comments)
Did Jesus die to save you from God?

 

[Saint Steven]

What's not to like is that it's completely unbiblical and as dangerously misleading as a doctrine could possibly be.

Can you take this scripture at face value, or do you have to explain it away?

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

It's good you're now framing it in terms of your personal belief

Well, OK. It seems to me that "It seems to me" should be implied in every post, unless the poster is under the illusion he's the Pope or a prophet. When I am speaking ex cathedra, I'll try to make that clear.

I noticed some discussion above of the Gospel of John. There is a fascinating hypothesis called Ur-John, which argues that John in its original version was actually the first Gospel. This would be more consistent with the author (of the original version) being the Apostle John than would one of the conventional dates likes 100 AD. It would also explain why John is so different from the Synoptics - they didn't exist.

The hypothesis argues that John was reworked over the years to address specific theological concerns and issues. This would explain why parts are so theological in nature and why the thought and Greek seem rather sophisticated (to put it mildly) for a Galilean fisherman. The proponents identify the original Gospel and the revisions on literally a line-by-line basis, and I must say I find it quite convincing.

Just FWIW.

 

[Hmm]

Well, OK. It seems to me that "It seems to me" should be implied in every post,

That would normally be the case but not when the post contains remarks like this:

If we don't like it, the solution is to find a different religion.

 

[Saint Steven]

The hypothesis argues that John was reworked over the years to address specific theological concerns and issues. This would explain why parts are so theological in nature and why the thought and Greek seem rather sophisticated (to put it mildly) for a Galilean fisherman. The proponents identify the original Gospel and the revisions on literally a line-by-line basis, and I must say I find it quite convincing.

Aren't you the guy that just wrote this? (yup)

Christianity is what it is. It's either true or it isn't.

Yet now you claim that the gospel of John was cobbled together.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

Can you take this scripture at face value, or do you have to explain it away?

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Come on, Saint Steven, I've been to a few rodeos before. Universalists are a breed of fanatic that Flat Earthers would envy for their zealotry. I know all the verses that universalists love to pull out of context and fling in my face, blithely ignoring not only the context but the vast number of other verses that are diametrically opposed, not to mention what 99.99% of all Christians have believed and taught for 2000 years. It's the universalists who must do the tap-dancing and explaining away, in spades.

You know as well I do how 1 Corinthians 15:22 is analyzed by mainstream NT scholars.

I'm going to disappoint you by declining to play your game because it's a bottomless rabbit hole of proof-texting nonsense. Believe and promote universalism if you like, but I believe you are doing a disservice to Christianity and skating on very dangerous ice.

 

[Saint Steven]

I believe you are doing a disservice to Christianity and skating on very dangerous ice.

Why?
What's so dangerous about UR ?

 

[Saint Steven]

Come on, Saint Steven, I've been to a few rodeos before.

Are you a Damnationist, or an Annihilationist?

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

Aren't you the guy that just wrote this? (yup)

Yet now you claim that the gospel of John was hobbled together.

I fail to see the inconsistency you apparently see. The Gospel of John says what it says. Whether it had multiple authors is irrelevant to its content or authority as Gospel.

Check my profile. You aren't going to win the silly "Gotcha!" game with soimeone who spent nearly 40 years as an appellate lawyer. This doesn't make me better than you in any way, shape or form, but it is fair warning that your attempts at "Gotcha!" are only going to backfire.

 

[Saint Steven]

You know as well I do how 1 Corinthians 15:22 is analyzed by mainstream NT scholars.

So I was right.
You can't take it at face value, you HAVE to explain it away.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Can you take this scripture at face value, or do you have to explain it away?

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

 

[Saint Steven]

Check my profile. You aren't going to win the silly "Gotcha!" game with soimeone who spent nearly 40 years as an appellate lawyer. This doesn't make me better than you in any way, shape or form, but it is fair warning that your attempts at "Gotcha!" are only going to backfire.

I'll ask again then, since you are dodging my questions.
Did Jesus die to save you from God?

 

[Saint Steven]

Check my profile.

Check your spelling. - lol

You aren't going to win the silly "Gotcha!" game with soimeone who spent nearly 40 years as an appellate lawyer.

 

[Hmm]

Universalists are a breed of fanatic that Flat Earthers would envy for their zealotry.

My experience, and we see it exemplified on this and the other similar threads, are that Christian universalists are calm and rational people who have concluded after careful study that universal restoration, or at least the hope of it, is more in tune with scripture when read through the lens of Christ than eternal torture is. Your accusation of fanaticism doesn't wash unfortunately.

Your 99.9% and 2000 years of Christian belief omits the early church. Quite an oversight.

 

[Saint Steven]

The Gospel of John says what it says. Whether it had multiple authors is irrelevant to its content or authority as Gospel.

Shouldn't you call it the Gospel of "John", then? (in name only)

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

Are you a Damnationist, or an Annihilationist?

I am one who believes the unsaved will suffer undesirable eternal consequences quite different from the bliss of the saved. Whatever the biblical teachings actually mean, and whatever those eternal consequences actually are, I trust we will see that the fate of the unsaved is worthy of the God in whom we believe. This is true even if the fate of the unsaved is one that might now seem to me, from my human perspective, to be ghastly.

Why?
What's so dangerous about UR ?

Well, if false it deludes the unsaved into believing they have no obligation to repent and turn to Christ, which seems like a fairly big deal to a mainstream Christian. I feel confident you have some creative version of universalism whereby this isn't true at all, but I'm really not interested.

 

[Saint Steven]

I am one who believes the unsaved will suffer undesirable eternal consequences quite different from the bliss of the saved. Whatever the biblical teachings actually mean, and whatever those eternal consequences actually are, I trust we will see that the fate of the unsaved is worthy of the God in whom we believe. This is true even if the fate of the unsaved is one that might now seem to me, from my human perspective, to be ghastly.

That would make you a Damnationist.

Who are the Elect?

 

[Saint Steven]

Well, if false it deludes the unsaved into believing they have no obligation to repent and turn to Christ, which seems like a fairly big deal to a mainstream Christian. I feel confident you have some creative version of universalism whereby this isn't true at all, but I'm really not interested.

More ignorance. Thanks.
How many posts does "not interested" get me?

 

[Hillsage]

Can you take this scripture at face value, or do you have to explain it away?

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

If ONLY they knew the translations that disagree with the theology of spiritually and nominal NEW Christianity.

Even the KJV went from "HELL" being in the BIBLE 54x to 32X in the NEW King James. Where in Hell did HELL disappear to?????

Below the # of times HELL is in, the following translations. Do any of you even know how many times it's in YOUR BIBLE? I doubt it.

Young's Literal Transation 00x
1st published in 1862. STILL published. Why? Because TRUTH can not die.

Authorized King James Version 54x
New King James Version 32x
American Standard Version 13x
New American Standard Bible 13x
New International Version 14x
Revised Standard Version 12x

Thank God I, at least, like my RSV version best. But not 'just' because it has the least # of HELL's in it. But because I am now on my 4th, and 'last' pristine copy of 'that' extinct 'Concordia House Publishing' version, since becoming a believer in 1972. The other 3 look like the copies YOU USED to see, from those who actually studied their bibles until IT looked USED and the one carrying it, DID NOT. Is it the best translation ever? NO! No 'translation of man' is, IMO.

In looking at the King James Version which went from Hell 54 times in that translation to 32 times in the NEW King James translation, just when are the spiritual, or should I say 'RELIGIOUS elites' who disagree with us here, going to start explaining THAT PROBLEM to the church of today?

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

My experience, and we see it exemplified on this and the other similar threads, are that Christian universalists are calm and rational people who have concluded after careful study that universal restoration, or at least the hope of it, is more in tune with scripture when read through the lens of Christ than eternal torture is. Your accusation of fanaticism doesn't wash unfortunately.

No, no, no. The forum I just left, which wasn't predominantly even a Christian forum, got so tired of the universalist proselytizing that they relegated any and all discussion to a single thread. It had something like 20,000 posts last time I looked. The handful of universalists posted every day, day after day, saying the same things over and over and doing their best to shout down any disagreement. They weren't nasty, but they were one-dimensional fanatics.

Granted, CF may attract a higher level of universalist. Saint Steven, God bless him, isn't inspiring confidence. But I'll bow out because my position is admittedly completely intractable and I really have no interest in what universalists have to say because I'm pretty well steeped in the theological literature.