Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Fervent]

Jesus is assuring us that we are of much greater value than sparrows, and therefore not to fear God's power to destroy. Otherwise the whole sparrow allusion is redundant. Again, nowhere do we see Jesus condemning others to hell, except maybe the pharisees because that's what they're always doing to others.

Again, the inclusio makes clear that "fear not" is in reference to a fear of men. And Jesus said Himself, He had no need to condemn anyone because they are condemned already. And what were they condemned for? Not believing the Son.

Who said it was? If Jesus comes to save the world, and 90%+ are doomed, then clearly his mission would be a failure. Can you at least accept that simple proposition?

"If." Except Jesus didn't come to save the world, He came only for the lost sheep of Israel.

Those who ticked all the boxes, thought they were chosen people, the elect, heaven-bound and, well, just a bit better than everyone else, more intelligent, learned and wiser in their own sight than the mass of beggars doomed to hell...shall I continue?

Right, the Pharisee's were hypocrites. Not actually righteous. What's your point?

Who should be held accountable for the deicide? Is this a trick question? Are you suggesting that everyone is born with a divine murder conviction on their rap sheet, for which the sentence is eternal hellfire, and it's only by begging forgiveness that we can be spared, and consequently go to heaven? Talk about petty legalism.

Way to leap to conclusions.

God was victorious at the cross, by grace He gave us saving faith through His only begotten son and reconciled the world to Him. Jesus chose to lay down his life, nobody took it from him, remember?

Jesus was victorrious at the cross, but the things God prepared are for them that love Him. For those who receive the gift in faith and repentance. The wicked, as Paul said, have a fate of destruction because their god is their belly and their glory is in their shame.

 

[Fervent]

As with verses being used to disprove UR being virtually the same as those used to disprove OSAS, I see what looks like the same argument against UR that's used against predestination. That being if God predestined people to be saved, if they were going to be saved and spared anyways, if they were made as vessels of honor ahead of time... Then that renders the cross null and void, Jesus died for nothing, there was no reason for Jesus to be crucified.

It seems ironic that the same type of argument used against the idea that God chose to save a few, is used regarding the idea that God chose to save all.

But to me the simple fact is that salvation was only made possible by and through the cross, regardless if one, a few, many, most or all are saved. NO ONE, regardless of their number could ever gain salvation without Jesus having been crucified. Regardless of the number saved, there's absolutely no such thing whatsoever as, "would have been saved anyways". In my opinion that seems to be the biggest strawman ever created.

I'd like to try to clarify the argument, as it is not about how many are saved but the method of salvation and its consequents. UR proposes that there is an eternal punishment that is the just penalty for sin paid by each person until they are completely without sin, which is where the cross is rendered either null or unjust. After all, if every person is going to be subjected to the penalty of their sin then Jesus paid nothing at the cross it was simply a senseless murder. Yet if those who accept the cross in this life are spared from the purifying punishment they are left impure and unperfected by virtue of the cross. So either the cross is emptied since all bear their own weight of sin, or it is unjust and delivers from a punishment that would refine the individual.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

On 1 Pet 4:6



Yes, it's pretty clear. But it's also a fairly specific situation. It's people who didn't have a chance to hear the Gospel, and were now hearing it for the first time.

I think a parallel would be someone who when he appears before God for judgement, now realizes that things he thought there was no evidence for are actually true. It's not justification for the idea that after years of torment everyone will eventually love God.

However, this verse is widely understood as having a meaning different than the obvious one. Both of my commentaries on it take such an approach. The Hermeneia commentary suggests two non-obvious alternatives:
* The dead are spiritually dead, not physically dead
* The dead are the Christian dead. This simply explains why they heard the Gospel.

I hate to derail the discussion on 1 Peter 4:6, @Der Alte and @hedrick, but as I pointed out in my Hermeneutics thread, I don't think it's clear as to what this verse specifically refers.

And things get even worse if we hermeneutically pull in the doubts we may have about the veracity and authorship of 1 Peter, doubts that have connection, too, with its possible derivative relation to 2 Peter and what we find in the letter of Jude ...

With this in mind, I think we should take 1 Peter 4:6 with a grain of salt if we're going to assert any kind of certainity as to its actual referents.

 

[Fervent]

I hate to derail the discussion on 1 Peter 4:6, @Der Alte and @hedrick, but as I pointed out in my Hermeneutics thread, I don't think it's clear as exactly to what this verse specifically refers.

And things get even worse if we hermeneutically pull in the doubts about the veracity and authorship of 1 Peter we may have in connection, too, to its possible derivative relation to 2 Peter and to what we find in the letter of Jude ...

With this in mind, I'm thinking we should take 1 Peter 4:6 with a grain of salt when asserting any kind of certainity as to its referents.

Not only is the referent uncertain, but what is meant by "prison" is also uncertain. Whether this is human souls awaiting judgment in Abraham's bosom, or angels in Tartarus, or it was Jesus working through Noah in Noah's day, or some other situation exactly what Peter meant by Jesus preaching to spirits in prison is definitely questionable. Though, of course, if this is the sole support for the notion of repentance after death it is extremely weak grounds to stand on given this ambiguity.

 

[Der Alte]

* * * Quotations are from Ellicott's Commentary.

That is only one scholar! I can, but won't, quote at least 2-3 other scholars with a different view and I am sure you would reject them as I reject Ellicott.
That is how you interpret the several vss. I quoted, after having been indoctrinated by your denomination for a number of years. The 1st century people to whom those were written didn't have Ellicott to inform them how they should be "interpreted" so they would have understood them in their plain sense.

1 Peter 4:6 ESV
For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.

Please explain to me how "those who are dead" can be "judged in the flesh?"

That appears to be as definitive as it gets. @Der Alte, I'd be very interested in your take on that verse.

I don't think so. Let us read further in Peter.

2 Peter 2:1
1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Peter 2:4
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;
2 Peter 2:5
5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
2 Peter 2:9
9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.
2 Peter 2:12
12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.
2 Peter 2:17
17 These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.
2 Peter 2:20
20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.​

 

[ozso]

This is why I'm not as good a person as those who believe that ultimately 0% will be lost. My hope is that no more than 1% will be lost. May God's will be done.

I'm along those lines myself. I think there's some middle ground between 99% being lost and 0% being lost. I do tend to lean more towards the latter though obviously. I try in threads like this to maintain what UR is, as opposed to saying it's completely correct.

 

[ozso]

I don't think so. Let us read further in Peter.

2 Peter 2:1
1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Peter 2:4
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;
2 Peter 2:5
5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
2 Peter 2:9
9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.
2 Peter 2:12
12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.
2 Peter 2:17
17 These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.
2 Peter 2:20
20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.​

I don't really see much continuity in jumping from 1 Peter to 2 Peter. I was expecting you do something more along the lines of continuing with the rest of 1 Peter 4. I'm also not seeing how 2 Peter undoes what he said in 1 Peter 4:6. But maybe I'll see it differently later on.​

 

[Gundy22]

I don't like "the Human One" as a replacement for Son of Man. I got the Wesley Study Bible with the Common English Bible translation, and that phrase is the only thing I don't like about it. "Son of Man" is how Jesus referred to Himself - the Human One seems an attempt to be gender non-specific - I just don't like it.

 

[ozso]

On 1 Pet 4:6



Yes, it's pretty clear. But it's also a fairly specific situation. It's people who didn't have a chance to hear the Gospel, and were now hearing it for the first time.

I think a parallel would be someone who when he appears before God for judgement, now realizes that things he thought there was no evidence for are actually true. It's not justification for the idea that after years of torment everyone will eventually love God.

However, this verse is widely understood as having a meaning different than the obvious one. Both of my commentaries on it take such an approach. The Hermeneia commentary suggests two non-obvious alternatives:
* The dead are spiritually dead, not physically dead
* The dead are the Christian dead. This simply explains why they heard the Gospel.

To me it backs up the Orthodox belief that Jesus went down into hell and liberated it, which is track I was on.

The UR idea is not that after years of torment people will eventually love God. That is a total misnomer. While I'm not going to say that I think UR is a completely sure slam dunk, I am going be adamant on what UR actually does and does not say. The UR conception is one of therapeutic cleansing, like a detox of sin, similar heroin addicts going through detox. From what I understand going though heroin detox is no fun whatsoever. But usually when someone comes out of the ordeal clean, they're thankful.

 

[Fervent]

To me it backs up the Orthodox belief that Jesus went down into hell and liberated it, which is track I was on.

The UR idea is not that after years of torment people will eventually love God. That is a total misnomer. While I'm not going to say that I think UR is a completely sure slam dunk, I am going be adamant on what UR actually does and does not say. The UR conception is one of therapeutic cleansing, like a detox of sin, similar heroin addicts going through detox. From what I understand going though heroin detox is no fun whatsoever. But usually when someone comes out of the ordeal clean, they're thankful.

THis is one of the lines separating the historic "universalism" such as what was taught by Gregory of Nyssa where the proponents maintained that damnation was Biblically evident for those who in their free will reject Christ but there is a hope that all will be redeemed(I call this conditional universalism) willingly from modern universalism where it is explicitly taught that all will eventually be redeemed and God's glory is dependent upon the human response. These are two different beasts, and the latter was explicitly anathematized at 2nd Constantinople.

 

[Lazarus Short]

There is a lot of information in the Bible, most of it as plain text, and some...encoded. Let me explain. Lots of folks read through the “boring parts” and get little out of it. One of those “boring parts” is the part of the Law that God gave to Moses concerning food. Again, most folks will read through and never realize the general principles being laid out.

Consider that there are no prohibitons against any plant food – even poison mushrooms are not mentioned. Yet, most folks who read the Food Laws will never stop to question their meat-eating ways. Also, concerning meat, can you see that there is a consistent bias, if you list all the species out and look for commonalities, against eating meat-eaters, scavengers and bottom-feeders? Today, we know all about poisons and polutants getting concentrated as you go up the food chain. Back in the days of Moses, as far as I know, there was no such awareness – meat was meat. However, God, in His wisdom, wanted to save His people from the consequences of all those poisons, pollutants and parasites. Yet again, most folks will read past the principles behind the lists of species and never question their diet of pig and the like.

I remember reading a report years ago by a man who had travelled the world, eating every kind of meat he could find. His report listed species after species, his opinion of what was good and not so good, and in conclusion he said that he had no predilections, but “buzzard is not good.”

This was all easily dealt with by the church, and no alteration in the text was necessary. They just ruled that the Law, including the Food Laws, had no bearing on Christian belief and practice. It worked, mostly, except for Seventh-Day Adventists and assorted health advocates.



In my long read-through of the KJV, I did not come across anything to tip me off to any tweaking in the wording of the Food Laws. They stood to most as “Jewish” stuff, “Old Testament” stuff, “no relevance to New Testament faith & practice,” etc. There is however, another issue which cannot be dismissed that way.

How was the church to promote the up-and-coming doctrine of ECT, which they found to be so good at filling pews and offering plates, by means of the fear it involved? Dismissal, as with the fairly compact and text-limited Food Laws, would not work. Rewriting would serve as their tool. Thus,

“judgment” became “condemnation”

“condemnation” became “damnation”

various words referring to periods of time became “eternal” and/or “forever and ever”

“sheol,” “hades,” “gehenna” and “tartarus” got rendered as “hell” whenever they could get away with it

the fires so closely associated with God in the Bible got tagged as “hellfire”

the Lake of Fire” – nowhere called “hell” in the text – got tagged as “hell.”

After Dante and Milton added their epic poetry (fiction), Jonathan Edwards and a host of others had frighened the masses with sermons to convince them that Satan could drag them down to “hell” at any time and after authors like Mary K. Baxter added their own (often conflicting) accounts of “hell” – again, fiction – God versus Satan, good versus evil and heaven versus hell were firmly entrenched in the minds of almost everyone. I have posted in this thread and elsewhere why this whole paradigm is wrong, but no one that has not already seen through the illusion can see it, any more than they can read the Food Laws and realize the principles behind what may look on the surface like arbitrary prohibitions. However, God created men and pigs, so He knows why. He never created “hell” at all, and I dare anyone to show that He did.

 

[Andrewn]

I don't like "the Human One" as a replacement for Son of Man. I got the Wesley Study Bible with the Common English Bible translation, and that phrase is the only thing I don't like about it. "Son of Man" is how Jesus referred to Himself - the Human One seems an attempt to be gender non-specific - I just don't like it.

Yes, otherwise by the same token one could render "the Son of God" into "the God one."

I do, however, consult the CEB occasionally and, compared to other functional translations, I like it much more than NLT. We used to have threads about favorite translations all the time. We haven't had one of these for a while .

 

[hedrick]

Yes, otherwise by the same token one could render "the Son of God" into "the God one."

I do, however, consult the CEB occasionally and, compared to other functional translations, I like it much more than NLT.

It would be the God-like one, I think, and in some contexts even the divine one. That may actually be appropriate in many cases. But because Jesus used the father-son metaphor to describe his relationship with God, a more literal translation makes sense. I suspect, however, that the CEB translators left this one as is to avoid being lynched.

 

[Hillsage]

So do you think I am a Pharisee locking people out of the kingdom of God and you fancy yourself as the Lord? You obviously don't know me. Is that what gives you the right to call me a "Son of Hell"? Get help or maybe start a website condemning everyone you disagree with.

John, I'm just catching up here since my last post to you last night. If you go back and read it, I think you will see a 'softer' me. Why? Because I saw a 'softer' you and treated you like you have earned..IMO. I like what you are 'bringing' here since last night too.

"Am I a pharisee?" you ask; Was a pharisee born a Jew? If yes, then still a "brethren" right? Just one who didn't get along with a Sadducee, who was also born a Jew. Their disagreement caused a fight by Paul, to get him out of a tight spot. Fights haven't changed much, have they?

I'll receive anyone here as a Brother who has the 'spirit of CHRIST'. But does that mean I am going to accept them as a 'soul mate'? No, I won't. That's where it gets abrasive and haughty. I know I come down hard on people. If I'm too hard, then I have no problem with those who agree doctrinally with me to call me out. Jesus hit pharisees pretty hard, and I believe he did it justifiably so. I also feel like I do the very same thing. I've dealt with 'religious spirits' in the body of Christ most of my Christian life.

I especially take a disdain to those who want me to bow down to their degrees of man. So what if you're 'a pastor', 'a lawyer', or can parse a Greek verse. When you can prove to me that your PUBLISHED scholarship is better than the man who wrote YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION of the bible, as well as YOUNG'S BIBLE CONCORDANCE maybe we shouldn't think more highly of ourselves here, than WE ought.

After being drafted for 2 years, I could claim being called out of basic training 3 times, trying to recruit me to go to West Point in '69'. I refused, no regrets. I was then recruited, along with 7 other men "in this man's Army", according the the master sergeant, to be in the ASA. They were doing the FBI background check on me when I got orders from 'RA' (Regular Army) to go to Viet Nam. I made specialist 5th class in just over 1 year. A rank normally taking a minimum of 6 years. I could also claim Doctor status graduating with honors 41 years ago and still licensed by the Healing Arts Board of the state. But all that means LITTLE HERE to me, nor should it to you. But FYI, just don't poke the bear first, and we'll get along fine.

Let me just end by saying; The Latin motto of the Army Security Agency was Semper Vigiles (Vigilant Always), and just maybe I bring that Vigilant Always attitude to the kingdom of God, and this forum, and maybe I don't. Like I said earlier GOD KNOWS.

 

[John Mullally]

John, I'm just catching up here since my last post to you last night.

The first time Shrewd Manager called me a "Son of Hell" I told him that it was not cute. He doubled down calling it biblical and I addressed him again on that account as it was not biblical - to no avail. God Bless you.

 

[Saint Steven]

The first time Shrewd Manager called me a "Son of Hell" I told him that it was not cute. He doubled down calling it biblical and I addressed him again on that account as it was not biblical - to no avail. God Bless you.

How did you conclude that it wasn't biblical? Just curious. I thought a reference was provided. ???

 

[John Mullally]

How did you conclude that it wasn't biblical? Just curious. I thought a reference was provided. ???

The context of where Jesus used the term "Son of Hell" was stated in Matt 23:15 with Jesus confronting Pharisees. This demonstrates an extreme case for calling someone a "Son of Hell" - this thread is not that case.

 

[Saint Steven]

The context of where Jesus used the term "Son of Hell" was stated in Matt 23:15 with Jesus confronting Pharisees. This demonstrates an extreme case for calling someone a "Son of Hell" - this thread is not that case.

So, it was biblical then. But you felt it was inappropriate?
I can see why you would find it insulting, and also why @Shrewd Manager would refer to those defending hell that way.

Saint Steven said: ↑
How did you conclude that it wasn't biblical? Just curious. I thought a reference was provided. ???

 

[John Mullally]

So, it was biblical then. But you felt it was inappropriate?
I can see why you would find it insulting, and also why @Shrewd Manager would refer to those defending hell that way.

Saint Steven said: ↑
How did you conclude that it wasn't biblical? Just curious. I thought a reference was provided. ???

Please understand that its commonly not a matter of the non-Universalist defending hell, having malice, or setting themselves up as judge.

Many non-Universalists, like myself, are not damning anyone - we see that judgement is left to the Lord. Many non-Universalists see 2 Timothy 1 saying that God desires all to be saved. Unfortunately based on our interpretation of scripture, we don't see that happening.

 

[Saint Steven]

Please understand that its commonly not a matter of the non-Universalist defending hell, having malice, or setting themselves up as judge.

Many non-Universalists, like myself, are not damning anyone - we see that judgement is left to the Lord. Many non-Universalists see 2 Timothy 1 saying that God desires all to be saved. Unfortunately based on our interpretation of scripture, we don't see that happening.

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your position on this.

And you have been very generous in your description of other "non-Universalists". However, my experience with these fine folks has been considerably different than what you are seeing.

Most of them see us as a noisome pestilence that needs to be eradicated from the face of the earth. We are criticized for peddling a dangerous heresy that is sending people to hell.

Other than that... we are pretty well accepted. - lol

But we won't mention any names...