Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Saint Steven]

Why is it so difficult for some people to believe that God really and truly loves the world, just as Joh 3:16 says? Why is it so difficult to believe that God loves even his enemies just as He wants us to love our enemies? Why is it so difficult to understand that God forgives those who trespass against Him as He wants us to do the same? Why do people not care to see unbelievers left in hell eternally?

Wow. That is so well said. Thanks.

Some believe that God so loved the world. (all 5% of it) that he gave his only begotten (he obviously over-paid) to purchase a select few (while the rest will be incinerated).

Like buying the whole store and leaving with a candy bar. And then hiring an arsonist to torch the remainder. Love and justice. Say what?

 

[Andrewn]

Who said anything about coercion?

To confess is "to agree."

I agree (confess) that the Chinese navy is greater than the U.S. Navy, but that doesn't mean I am in favor of it--no coercion involved.

You confess that the Chinese navy is powerful but you do not believe that the Chinese navy is loving and benevolent. You would prefer a situation in which the Chinese navy is not powerful.

The big difference is that God will show all people that He is loving and benevolent. Everyone will be glad to confess that God is powerful.

 

[Andrewn]

I have NO regard for those three Jewish sources. I do see that you did not call them "irrefutable" like you did in the past.

As I pointed to @Der Alte in the past, the Jewish sources he quotes actually support UR. The Jewish belief is that departed souls are cleansed in Hades / Sheol / Gehenna for up to 12 months. Accordingly, in 1st century Israel, relatives of the deceased dug his bones out and put in ossuaries after 11 months.

It is quite possible that Jesus was referring to a limited period of cleansing in his statements. So, the Jewish sources support, rather than oppose, the concept of UR.

However, there is one caveat which is that Jewish sources, having been written after 70 AD, state that Christians (and some other horrible groups) stay in Gehenna forever!!!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But things have to be resolved, if that's possible, where there are contradictions and established ways of looking at things have have to be abandoned when they're wrong. A simple example would be that mistranslations in English Bibles should be acknowledged and corrected even though theological views such as ECT hangs on them.

But what if they can't be resolved? I mean, Christian scholars have been attempting to hash out the 'purest' meaning of the Scriptures now for about 1,900 years, and as far as I can tell, we're not really close to a consensus about exactly what and where in the translations there's a mistranslation of what are essentially dead languages.

Moreover, we can talk about scholars all day, but until I see some admissions as to method, then I can't really sign on the dotted line with any of the supposed 'final words' about the nature of Hell (whatever it is).

On my part, I don't see this as a contention or a "fight" between Christian parties or denominational lines; I do see it as an ongoing opportunity to explore the historical and literary nature of the biblical writings, as far as we can and without resorting to dogmatic positions.

But....that's me.

 

[Hmm]

But what if they can't be resolved? I

We lock them all in the library and don't let the scholars go home until they reach agreement.

Seriously though, I'm speaking as a layman but I imagine that there are lots of areas in biblical studies in which there there will never be consensus and there will always be a range of legitimate views. I don't think that's a problem with at all as long as we acknowledge and respect these differences. The trouble with the debate about Christian universalism is that it asks some fundamental questions about traditional beliefs and the nature of God - what it means to say that God is love - and for that reason it is perceived as threatening and it's constantly being misrepresented rather than just been disagreed with. For example, it would be very difficult for the church to admit they have been wrong about ECT all along (assuming they have and as I believe they have) even if they believe that the evidence now overwhelming shows their mistake. Professional reputations and credibility are at stake.

On my part, I don't see this as a contention or a "fight" between Christian parties or denominational lines; I do see it as an ongoing opportunity to explore the historical and literary nature of the biblical writings, as far as we can and without resorting to dogmatic positions.

It would be great if that would happen.

But....that's me

Me too.

 

[Albion]

UR takes seriously the fact that Jesus is God. And when He said, "Forgive them, Father, for they do not know what they're doing." He really meant that his enemies be forgiven.

UR also takes seriously that God is powerful and id He wants "that all people be saved and come to know the truth" then He will be able to accomplish his desire.

An engineer who builds products of which 95% ends up in the garbage is considered a failure. God is quite capable of fixing the products of his hands.


This is only true if one hangs to a misunderstanding of the word "eionios. Otherwise, UR is clear in the Bible for those who love God's Word.

I'm sorry, but rationalizations don't work for me when it comes to this issue or any of the other essentials of the faith. And I don't frankly understand how otherwise Bible-oriented Christians of any denomination can suspend their usual reliance upon the Holy Scriptures in this case when they wouldn't do it with others.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

Why is it so difficult for some people to believe that God really and truly loves the world, just as Joh 3:16 says? Why is it so difficult to believe that God loves even his enemies just as He wants us to love our enemies? Why is it so difficult to understand that God forgives those who trespass against Him as He wants us to do the same? Why do people not care to see unbelievers left in hell eternally?

I'm confused as why people are forgetting that even John 3:16 states that one must believe in Jesus in order to receive eternal life. Otherwise they will receive death.

 

[Hmm]

I'm sorry, but rationalizations don't work for me when it comes to this issue or any of the other essentials of the faith. And I don't frankly understand how otherwise Bible-oriented Christians of any denomination can suspend their usual reliance upon the Holy Scriptures in this case when they wouldn't do it with others.

Again, you're assuming that Scripture says what you believe it to say. But lots of equally informed people disagree with you. ECT is not a core Christian belief and so these other opinions are as legitimate as yours. They are also IMO far more plausible when generally accepted mistranslations re. eternal punishment are corrected and, above all, when the Bible is read through the lens of the perfectly loving and merciful Christ.

 

[Hillsage]

Hmm... it's so hard to choose! I think I'll go for this one:

View attachment 306442

As a doctor, I actually think the burnt toast is good for you because the charcoal helps get rid of toxins in the stomach. Just like the purifying fire of temporal hell. How else would all of us get along in the hereafter, since we sure don't here. If the fire of God is just eternally 'punitive' then he is just a sadistic torturer and it serves no purpose. If His fire is 'purgative' then He is a divine purifier.

MAR 9:49 For every one will be salted with fire.

YEP, cause we all need to get rid of the crap that can't go to the only true Greek word for eternity. And that word isn't AION or its adjective form AIONIOS. It is the word ADIOS.

 

[Hillsage]

I'm sorry, but rationalizations don't work for me when it comes to this issue or any of the other essentials of the faith. And I don't frankly understand how otherwise Bible-oriented Christians of any denomination can suspend their usual reliance upon the Holy Scriptures in this case when they wouldn't do it with others.

"Essentials of the faith" Tell me Albion, just where would that required
position be found in the BIBLE?

It seems to me that 'your position' is also, just a "rationalization".

And "Holy Scriptures" is just the deification of a book IMO.

Edit:
Correction 100's of differently translated BOOKS.

 

[Albion]

"Essentials of the faith" Tell me Albion, just where would that required
position be found in the BIBLE?

It seems to me that 'your position' is also, just a "rationalization".

Think whatever you want. I was just identifying my position on this matter.

It's the judgment of Scripture that carries the day.

Obviously, I'd say, there are many items that different denominations argue over, such as women's ordination, the nature of the sacraments and how many there are, and the proper mode of baptism, to name a few. But those disputes to do not rise to the level of Christian essentials. The nature of God, the nature of Man, the authority of Scripture, and the promise of salvation do, however.

 

[Hmm]

I'm confused as why people are forgetting that even John 3:16 states that one must believe in Jesus in order to receive eternal life. Otherwise they will receive death.

No mention there that this belief has to happen in this life, and you have to ignore much of the rest of scripture to make your interpretation work.

 

[Hmm]

How else would all of us get along in the hereafter, since we sure don't here.

How can you say that when the courtesy shown in this thread proves otherwise? /s

 

[spiritfilledjm]

No mention there that this belief has to happen in this life, and you have to ignore much of the rest of scripture to make your interpretation work.

if the bit of "that whosoever believeth in Him" was not meant to be conditional to receive eternal life, it would not be in there. Instead it would read, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. That all shall not perish, but have everlasting life." Instead it says that whosoever believeth in Him...therefore making it a condition.

 

[Hmm]

if the bit of "that whosoever believeth in Him" was not meant to be conditional to receive eternal life, it would not be in there. Instead it would read, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. That all shall not perish, but have everlasting life." Instead it says that whosoever believeth in Him...therefore making it a condition.

You misnderstand me. I was asking you why you assume that this belief has to be achieved in this life. I agree with you that we need to believe, and love and trust, God to be reconciled with God but there's no reason this has to occur on planet Earth before we shuffle off our mortal coil? John 3:16 certainly doesn't say or even suggest that.

 

[Der Alte]

The trouble is, Der Alte, or so it seems from here, is that the scholars you quote are always to be believed, well supported and unassailable. OTOH, the scholars we UR advocates look to are always suspect, not supported and easily dismissed. Did I miss anything?

Got a mirror around your dwelling? Are you not accusing me of doing exactly what you do? Do you not believe the scholars you or others, who believe as you do, may quote and do you not consider anything I quote, at least, false if not worse?
I quoted three sources. And yes they are irrefutable for the specific points I was discussing i.e. the Jewish views on the final fate of unrighteous people from ancient times through the time of Jesus.
Can you provide even one credible historical source which disproves anything I posted? I said historical source NOT the unsupported opinions of some UR scholar.
Here is a passage where God himself is speaking and people who are dead in sheol, speaking, being ashamed, comforted, etc. Very active for the grave.

Ezek 32:18-22, 30-31 (KJV)
18) Son of man, [Ezekiel] wail for the multitude of Egypt, and cast them down, even her, and the daughters of the famous nations, unto the nether parts of the earth, with them that go down into the pit.
19) Whom dost thou pass in beauty? go down, and be thou laid with the uncircumcised.
20) They shall fall in the midst of them that are slain by the sword: she is delivered to the sword: draw her and all her multitudes.
21) The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell [שאול] with them that help him: they are gone down, they lie uncircumcised, slain by the sword.
22) Asshur is there and all her company: his graves are about him: all of them slain, fallen by the sword::[ . . . ]
Eze 32:30-31
(30) There be the princes of the north, all of them, and all the Zidonians, which are gone down with the slain; with their terror they are ashamed of their might; and they lie uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword, and bear their shame with them that go down to the pit.
(31) Pharaoh shall see them, and shall be comforted over all his multitude, even Pharaoh and all his army slain by the sword, saith the Lord GOD.​

 

[Clare73]

I see water baptism, as the following scripture states;

1PE 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism, being a resolve to believe in and be entirely devoted to God, as well as a renouncing of the flesh, is the ground of a (legal) appeal by a good conscience, based on baptism's pledge against wrong doing.

And yes, I see in that double figure in 1 Peter 3:21--the water that was judgment (in the flood, the death of the wicked; in baptism, the death of Christ and death of the believer to the flesh--sin) is also the water that saves--a relation to both Romans 6:3-6 on baptism, and Colossians 2:11-12 on baptism, all three presenting baptism as "putting off the flesh"--death to the flesh (sin). . .as OT circumcision was the "cutting off of the flesh" to symbolize the same thing.

I see the NT as regarding baptism in the way that circumcision was regarded in the OT (hence their link in Colossians 2:11), in
1) the putting off (OT--cutting off) of the sinful flesh,
2) the children of Abrahm being included in the covenant with their father and, therefore, being circumcised, and
3) circumcision setting one apart as under the covenant.

In OT Israel, not all those under the covenant were in the covenant, just as today not all those in the (professing) church are of the churcb.
Not all Israel was true Israel, many were faithless and uncaring regarding the Promise (Genesis 22:18, Jesus Christ). There was a division in God's people, between the faithful believers of the Promise who were in the covenant, and the unfaithful, disregarders of the Promise who were only under the covenant.
But all were still under the covenant of God's material provision and protection, as were their servants.
However, only the believers and trusters in the Promise (Jesus Christ); i.e., a remnant, received the covenant's spiritual/eternal benefits.
My point being that the spiritual benefits of the covenant apply only to the believing faithful, to those in the covenant as distinct from those under the covenant.

And I don't see, an infant, as being one who even needs, let alone can relate to, a "clear conscience". I believe that takes the congnitive thinking of someone older.

Indeed it does.

I see Christian baptism, however, as having both material and spiritual effects:
its material effects being the sign of the covenant (baptism) where one enters into God's people, set apart from the world and a recipient of his material protection and provision, and
its spiritual effects being the benefits applied to the born again believers.
Keeping in mind, that in the OT, many of the people of God under the covenant by circumcision, were not truly believing but faithless. Only a remnant of them were the true Israel.
My point being that in the covenant is remission of sin only for the born again believers, as in the removal of sin for the believing faithful in the old covenant through the sacrifices,
while under the covenant is only receiving its material benefits.
There is no spiriutal issue with children being baptized, giving them the benefits under the covenant. For if, and when, they are born again into faith, they will be full participators in the covenant and its benefits.

I see 'regeneration' of the spirit as the event most call conversion. I use 'conversion' or sanctification' for a soulish event.

I'm not familiar with spirit vs. soulish events in the NT.

I believe that the wife sanctifying an unbelieving husband means
the husband does not partake in 'that which' the wife took part of 'to receive' that which is imparted to the hubby.

That's Greek to me. . .which by the way in the RSV reads:
"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified by the brother; since then the children of you is(are) unclean, but now they are holy."

IOW The baby is under the umbrella without the ritual of water baptism being sprinkled on his head. And as I stated to begin with; water baptism is an "appeal to God for a clear conscience."

But we are OFF TOPIC, and I think it's time to move on.

 

[zoidar]

That's fine.
Can you explain why you feel that UR is an obstacle to salvation?
It seems to me that it is a misinformed comment. A misunderstanding on your part.

You have a right to your opinion, as does any poster.
But we all have the right to challenge the opinions of other posters.
It seems that your claim comes from a place of ignorance.
Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.

Saint Steven said: ↑
That's a common misunderstanding about UR. That it is an obstacle to salvation. Not true.

I don't think I would have been saved if I believed UR was true. I didn't want to be a Christian you know, until I believed I was not going to enter heaven. First then I turned to God and was saved. So I believe there are others in the position I was. If I had believed UR was true, I think I would have stayed my course in Buddhism, in the religion I loved.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

You misnderstand me. I was asking you why you assume that this belief has to be achieved in this life. I agree with you that we need to believe, and love and trust, God to be reconciled with God but there's no reason this has to occur on planet Earth before we shuffle off our mortal coil? John 3:16 certainly doesn't say or even suggest that.

Hebrews 9:27. We die...and then the next thing that happens is judgment. There will be no other chance after death to accept Christ as Lord and Savior. We will be judged on whether we believed or not, ultimately, at least that will be the ultimate question. There is no in between time or anything, at least not an in between time where we will be able to do anything.

 

[Hmm]

Hebrews 9:27. We die...and then the next thing that happens is judgment. There will be no other chance after death to accept Christ as Lord and Savior. We will be judged on whether we believed or not, ultimately, at least that will be the ultimate question. There is no in between time or anything, at least not an in between time where we will be able to do anything.

That is certainly one interpretation and probably the most prevalent one of today.