Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So, you are a Christian out of fear of hell?
Universalism doesn't say there's no hell. Just that hell doesn't consist of everlasting torment. Personally I'd be terrified of spending five minutes in hell. As for heaven, if I didn't really love God, I wouldn't want to be in the place where loving and worshiping God was the primary focus.
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 4:18Note the one who has "kolasis"/torment is not made perfect i.e. no correction.
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.
Does "aionios" mean eternal or does it mean an indeterminate age?
John 3:15-16In these two verses Jesus parallels "aionios" with "should not perish," twice.
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.
Did Jesus lie when He said that "aionios life" was a life that never perishes? By definition "aionios" means eternal.
I agree with you that "Believing or not believing in either UR or ECT will not save or condemn anyone." But it's not only a matter of preference." I think it's a matter of reading the Bible correctly in an attempt to know the mind of God.I don't see the doctrine of universal reconciliation having all that much if any less to back it up, than the doctrine of everlasting torment. As I see it, it does come down to a matter of preference regarding which one seems correct.
Good testimony, thanks.No, not at all! But that was the reason I turned to God for forgiveness. As I got forgiven and saved I started to love Jesus.
I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
— Galatians 2:20
Now that's rich!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.
You might find this interesting.Good point. It very well could be that they do burn eternally, it very well could be that they are thrown into the burning pit and die as Revelation 20:14-15 puts it. Either way, those who do not accept Christ as Lord and Savior, during their natural lives on this earth, burn in the end.
Of course there is hell. UR advocates do not deny this. They only hope that those who are confined to hell might find the love and faith of God there. And there is a lot of biblical evidence that they will.But in the end, scripture has verses about hell, and so the idea of universalism seems to be unbiblical.
It is unfortunate that this thread turned into UR advocates providing "proof texts" for their view. A more conductive approach would have been ECT advocates providing "proof texts" for their view.To some degree, you are right. 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.
You might find this interesting.
Edom
Edom was an ancient kingdom in Transjordan located between Moab to the northeast, the Arabah to the west and the Arabian Desert to the south and east. Most of its former territory is now divided between Israel and Jordan.
The destruction of Edom uses the same exaggerated language descriptions as hell in the Bible. Yet none of it lasted forever as it clearly says. And you can certainly pass through it today. For this prophecy to be taken literally it would need to be a smoking tar pit today with a bypass to get around it.
Isaiah 34:8-11
For the Lord has a day of vengeance,
a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause.
9 Edom’s streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!
10 It will not be quenched night or day;
its smoke will rise forever.
From generation to generation it will lie desolate;
no one will ever pass through it again.
11 The desert owl and screech owl will possess it;
the great owl and the raven will nest there.
God will stretch out over Edom
the measuring line of chaos
and the plumb line of desolation.
Right. Good post. Thanks.Of course there is hell. UR advocates do not deny this. They only hope that those who are confined to hell might find the love and faith of God there. And there is a lot of biblical evidence that they will.
Did Jesus die to save us from God?I understand what you're saying. Edom still met destruction though, ultimately. Sure, the end for an unbeliever may not be as bad as the Bible put it. God could merely choose to wipe them painlessly from existence. Like Edom though, ultimately, one who does not accept Christ as Lord and Savior will not see the Kingdom of God. How God chooses to actually do it is his prerogative.
I don't know which posts you have in mind, but while I could agree that the point wasn't entirely ignored, the respondents did not deal with it in any meaningful way but instead rejected it out of hand. So from what I recall, they got the point but it had no effect--no counter-argument about why that imbalance shouldn't count for anything, etc. That's not counting those who said that the Bible doesn't mean anything or that it's biased or mistranslated.What you're calling the weight of scripture isn't ignored. I've seen it addressed.
You could win that argument if you can point me to one of those posts which acknowledged that the weight of Scripture's information on this topic is strongly on the side of rejecting the idea of Universal Salvation, and that this is important.And pretty satisfactorily as well...I'm not saying I'm positive they're right, but from what I've seen all together no stone has been left unturned.
I guess we just disagree at this point in time.From what I've seen they've offered more substance than you seem to be giving them credit for.
That's probably correct to say. I too have been thinking that the discussion has been going in circles and that there is little to be gained by doing it one more time.But I'm sensing maybe you're beginning to get frustrated at this point....
Did Jesus die to save us from God?
It is unfortunate that this thread turned into UR advocates providing "proof texts" for their view. A more conductive approach would have been ECT advocates providing "proof texts" for their view.
I don't know which posts you have in mind, but while I could agree that the point wasn't entirely ignored, the respondents did not deal with it in any meaningful way but instead rejected it out of hand. So from what I recall, they got the point but it had no effect--no counter-argument about why that imbalance shouldn't count for anything, etc. That's not counting those who said that the Bible doesn't mean anything or that it's biased or mistranslated.
You could win that argument if you can point me to one of those posts which acknowledged that the weight of Scripture's information on this topic is strongly on the side of rejecting the idea of Universal Salvation, and that this is important.
I guess we just disagree at this point in time.
That's probably correct to say. I too have been thinking that the discussion has been going in circles and that there is little to be gained by doing it one more time.
...oh, 'com on! Where's your sense of sportsmanship! ??
"The punishment of the wicked dead in hell is described throughout Scripture as “eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41), “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12), “shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2), a place where “the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44-49), a place of “torment” and “fire” (Luke 16:23-24), “everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9), a place where “the smoke of torment rises forever and ever” (Revelation 14:10-11), and a “lake of burning sulfur” where the wicked are “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10).
"The punishment of the wicked in hell is as never ending as the bliss of the righteous in heaven. Jesus Himself indicates that punishment in hell is just as everlasting as life in heaven (Matthew 25:46). The wicked are forever subject to the fury and the wrath of God. Those in hell will acknowledge the perfect justice of God (Psalm 76:10). Those who are in hell will know that their punishment is just and that they alone are to blame (Deuteronomy 32:3-5). Yes, hell is real. Yes, hell is a place of torment and punishment that lasts forever and ever, with no end. Praise God that, through Jesus, we can escape this eternal fate (John 3:16, 18, 36)."
From
https//www.gotquestions.org/hell-real-eternal.html
That's probably correct to say. I too have been thinking that the discussion has been going in circles and that there is little to be gained by doing it one more time.
I think it's still alive, but as for this thread, it may have played out somewhere after the "six hundred posts" marker.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?