Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Der Alte]

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.

Some folks change Matthew 25:46 to read

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into age during correction.​

But the word "kolasis" translated "correction" in the faux versions occurs one other time in the NT 1 Jn 4:18

1 John 4:18
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.[kolasis] He that feareth is not made perfect in love.​

Note the one who has "kolasis"/torment is not made perfect i.e. no correction.
Does "aionios" mean eternal or does it mean an indeterminate age?

John 3:15-16
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionios] life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionios] life.​

In these two verses Jesus parallels "aionios" with "should not perish," twice.
Did Jesus lie when He said that "aionios life" was a life that never perishes? By definition "aionios" means eternal.

​

 

[ozso]

Some folks change Matthew 25:46 to read
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into age during correction.

That's incorrect. It's "And these shall go away to [correctional] punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during".

But the word "kolasis" translated "correction" in the faux versions occurs one other time in the NT 1 Jn 4:18
1 John 4:18
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.[kolasis] He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
Note the one who has "kolasis"/torment is not made perfect i.e. no correction.
Does "aionios" mean eternal or does it mean an indeterminate age?
John 3:15-16
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionios] life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionios] life.
In these two verses Jesus parallels "aionios" with "should not perish," twice.
Did Jesus lie when He said that "aionios life" was a life that never perishes? By definition "aionios" means eternal.

All the same what I'm seeing in Matthew 25:46 is:

κόλασιν(kolasin) 2851: correction - from kolazó.

And

αἰώνιον (aiōnion) 166: agelong, eternal - from aión.

 

[Hmm]

Now that's rich

REALLY rich!

It's great to see that I'm getting better. Thanks for the encouraging feedback

 

[ozso]

It's great to see that I'm getting better. Thanks for the encouraging feedback

Don't get too smug. Remember what happened to the rich man...

 

[Hmm]

You cannot separate God and Jesus in loving God, or in salvation to eternal life. Jesus is God.
Jesus is the only way to the Father (John 14:6).

"Love God" means believing in and obeying God, in the One he has sent, who states that all those who do not believe in the Son are condemned already
(John 3:18), that the wrath of God remains on them (John 3:36).

There is no loving God apart from loving and obeying Jesus Christ, the One he as sent.

I agree but with the difference that while you probably see the words "condemned" and "wrath" as pointing towards ECT, I don't see that mentioned at all in the passage and I believe they suggest a period of correction carried out in love for the ultimate good of the person involved, in the same way that a parent corrects their child.

 

[Hmm]

The eyes have fallen out. . .no eyes on the toast.

My eyes are always on the toast if there's any going.

 

[Hmm]

So, in sum, you have a point, but only to the extent that no generalization includes every last person.

The whole point of it is that it does. God will be "all in all" as He desires to be, and this is with all creation as well, not just humankind.

Liberation free will does not mean that we have the freedom to commit ourselves to an eternity of hell against His wishes. He is God and will win us all over in the end. He's a winner, not a loser.

 

[ozso]

I agree but with the difference that while you probably see the words "condemned" and "wrath" as pointing towards ECT, I don't see that mentioned at all in the passage and I believe they suggest a period of correction carried out in love for the ultimate good of the person involved, in the same way that a parent corrects their child.

I wonder if the NT had been written in Hebrew like the OT, if the concept of eternal torment, which doesn't exist in the OT, would have been found in the NT.

 

[Hmm]

I wonder if the NT had been written in Hebrew like the OT, if the concept of eternal torment, which doesn't exist in the OT, would have been found in the NT.

Interesting thought. From the history of the development of ECT I think the establishment would have tried very hard!

ECT became official doctrine in the 6th century under the emperor Justinian when the Western church became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Justinian pushed for it because it gave a powerful way to create a fearful population and the church acceeded to it. If ECT couldn't be found in a Hebrew written NT, it would have still have been necessary to invent it, you could say.

 

[Hmm]

But if a person chooses that course of action, he cannot do it and also claim to believe that the Bible is the revealed word of God (which, however, almost every last Christian denomination officially professes).

Again, your accusation that Christian universalists don't believe in the Bible. Universalism has been a legitimate strand running throughout the history of the church right the way back to Paul.

 

[Saint Steven]

Sounds like "Believe in Christ or we'll kill you" would make a good evangelism technique, then.

As I understand it, burning heretics at the stake was invented for this reason. I wish I could find the quote of a Queen who declared that they were doing God's business to get them started burning in this lifetime based on where they were headed anyway. Barbaric.

 

[Hmm]

However, they do not go with the testimony of Scripture, preferring to make a few inconclusive verses "proof texts" for their view while ignoring the weight of Scripture which very much goes the other way.

Quite a number of biblical verses that support universal restoration have been posted by various people specifically in reply to you in this thread alone. You can dismiss them all without comment as being "few", "inconclusive" and "proof-texts" if you will.

The "weight of Scripture" is very much behind a God who does not torture His children forever I would think.

 

[Hmm]

As I understand it, burning heretics at the stake was invented for this reason. I wish I could find the quote of a Queen who declared that they were doing God's business to get them started burning in this lifetime based on where they were headed anyway. Barbaric.

Yes, I was reading about some Christian chap somewhere who was burning another chap (I've forgotten all the details) and chose to use green branches of wood because it burned slower to make it as unpleasant to the second chap as he could. This is the medieval kind of thinking we really need to grow out of.

 

[Hmm]

Your 'opinion' stands on older shoulders than you may realize.

Martin Luther
"I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want free-will to be given me…But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him."

Dillenberger, John Ed. Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings. New YORK: Garden City, 1961. 199.

"God forbid that I should limit the times of acquiring faith to the present life. In the depth of the Divine Mercy there may be opportunity to win it in the future."

Martin Luther
The After Life by Henry Buckle pg. 168

Though I do disagree with Martin, on one point. No one has to "WIN" faith". It is a gift that is given when you hear him call you, as you were "predestined" or "for ordained" to do. And if you weren't called, in this age, then your promise lies in "THE AGES TO COME".

EPH 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Yes, yes in the AGES to come even the false doctrine of 'the unforgiveable sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit' will have exceeded the age of its limits.

MAT 12:32 And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Thank God Eph 2:7 was written AFTER the gospel of Matt. Do the math, seekers of 'the truth'.

That's mere proof-texting, taking things out of context, not taking account of the Bible as a whole and.. um.. heresy, sentimental thinking and.. oh, yes, focussing on God love and ignoring His justice.. and did I say heresy?.. and not understanding ancient Greek like wot I do, being unsystematic and just very, very naughty and HERETICAL /s

(I'm confident you'll note the /s)

P.S. The heresy issue is a topic that is very much disputed amongst church historians but, be that as it may, is it not odd that every mainstream church's (including the Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church) official stance is that we should hope that universal reconciliation is true if the idea of it actually being true was in fact heretical?

 

[Saint Steven]

The "weight of Scripture" is very much behind a God who does not torture His children forever I would think.

Yes, there seems to be this idea that the one with the most verses wins. Isn't that what "the weight of Scripture" means? As if the chosen verses nullify the unchosen verses.

The idea that the verses we present CANNOT mean what they actually say. They stretch the proper use of context WAY beyond the normal use in study. The use of "near" context seems foreign to them. They prefer to open up the context wide enough to claim some disagreement with what the verse in question actually says. And "the weight of Scripture" is clearly the WORST abuse of this tactic.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, I was reading about some Christian chap somewhere who was burning another chap (I've forgotten all the details) and chose to use green branches of wood because it burned slower to make it as unpleasant to the second chap as he could. This is the medieval kind of thinking we really need to grow out of.

Yes. Those who did the actual burning could be paid to make it quicker. Even packing flamables in the victims clothes. Probably an extortion racket. Slow-burn being the norm, unless you bribed the fire master.

 

[Hmm]

Yes, there seems to be this idea that the one with the most verses wins. Isn't that what "the weight of Scripture" means? As if the chosen verses nullify the unchosen verses.

The idea that the verses we present CANNOT mean what they actually say. They stretch the proper use of context WAY beyond the normal use in study. The use of "near" context seems foreign to them. They prefer to open up the context wide enough to claim some disagreement with what the verse in question actually says. And "the weight of Scripture" is clearly the WORST abuse of this tactic.

Yes, and what invariably happens when you offer a verse that plainly describes universal reconciliation is that someone says "You're proof-texting! You've got to interpret that in the light of all these other texts, like this list I made earlier..."

Never considering that perhaps they need to interpret their favourite verses in the light of the universal reconciliation ones.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, and what invariably happens when you offer a verse that plainly describes universal reconciliation is that someone says "You're proof-texting! You've got to interpret that in the light of all these other texts, like this list I made earlier..."

Never considering that perhaps they need to interpret their favourite verses in the light of the universal reconciliation ones.

It's the preconception issue again.
What the Bible means depends on which reading glasses you choose to read it with.

Put on your UR glasses and it's a UR text with a few mistranslations to tend to. Put on your Damnation spectacles and "the weight of scripture" nullifies all those pesky UR verses. Obviously "all" doesn't mean all. Because "the weight of scripture" says, "NO! It means some."

 

[Hmm]

It's the preconception issue again.
What the Bible means depends on which reading glasses you choose to read it with.

Put on your UR glasses and it's a UR text with a few mistranslations to tend to. Put on your Damnation spectacles and "the weight of scripture" nullifies all those pesky UR verses. Obviously "all" doesn't mean all. Because "the weight of scripture" says, "NO! It means some."

All the disinformation flying around makes it an absolute minefield! I'm glad there are still plenty of voices of reason around though.

I love the image of the glasses. If we read the Bible through the lens of Jesus we will see through the cruel and manipulative concept of ECT and see more clearly our God of boundless love, mercy and grace.

 

[Saint Steven]

I love the image of the glasses. If we read the Bible through the lens of Jesus we will see through the cruel and manipulative concept of ECT and see more clearly our God of boundless love, mercy and grace.

Good point.
That reminds me that Jesus is a picture of who God is. (John 14:9)

Jesus had a specific mission to accomplish, and he did not fail.
He didn't come to save "some".

1 John 4:14
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.