Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, let's consider the word "all" in this verse:

for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
I Corinthians 15:22​

I have to go off to eat some more fish so let me pass you on to philosopher Keith deRose and his analysis.of this:

"Note the “all.” I guess there can be some question about what it means to be made alive in Christ. A cynic might suggest that some might be made alive in order to stand judgment and be tortured forever. But that’s very strained, especially after one’s read the surrounding context of this passage and has also discovered what’s usually meant by such phrases. It’s very clear, I think, that those who are “made alive” in Christ are, as it’s often put, “saved.” The question is, To whom will this happen? This passage’s answer: All! A point of grammar, which holds for the Greek as well as our English translations: The grammatical function of “in Christ” here is not to modify or limit the “all.” The passage doesn’t say, “…so also shall all who are in Christ be made alive.” If it said that, I wouldn’t be so cheered by the passage. Rather, “in Christ” is an adverbial phrase that modifies the verb “shall be made” or perhaps the whole clause, “shall all be made alive.” Thus, this passage says that all shall be made alive. How? In Christ."

ok. If I understood Keith deRose correctly, then in this particular passage, "all" means "all."

But please continue... I'm listening.

 

[Hmm]

ok. Please continue... I'm listening.

I think that's "all", for now

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think that's "all", for now

That's it?

 

[Hmm]

That's it?

Did you not find DeRose's explanation that "all" does in fact mean "all" convincing? I know it's only one verse but if even if that one verse is true then Christian Universalism is true. But luckily there isn't just this one verse and we have above all Jesus, the perfect image of God, who shows us in his life, death and being that associating eternal torment with God is an outrage.
.

 

[Albion]

I agree that any amount of verses by themselves won't prove the case because there are other verses that suggest ECT and a few that support annihilation. But I think "hint" is too weak a word given the number of "universalist type" verses

All right. "Suggest" or "intimate" perhaps. The fact is, that, there are relatively few verses that can be said to support a universalist POV; and many more that support the other, the conventional, view.

But does "life" need to be interpreted. Doesn't it simply mean life?

Does it necessarily mean life forever and ever?

The verse is this:

Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.

And by the same token, "condemnation" there does not necessarily mean irrevocably so. We were all condemned as children of our first parents, but then God in his mercy provided an escape. That this will be the fate of all men, under all circumstances, is another matter.

so it doesn't only say "lead to", it says "lead to in the same way that Adam's sin lead to our estrangement from God."

All the verse is saying there is that these two events are similar or parallel to each other in that there was estrangement from God but that there later was relief given.

And it's not so much what I hope to find, although I do, it's more what I think the Bible is saying

That's not the impression given by some of your posts. But if what you are telling me now is the fact, you are of course entitled to your belief. You have been entitled to it from the start. All that the discussion concerns is whether the Bible supports your view of this matter or if it rather supports the traditional Christian view.

 

[Clare73]

What is it about universal redemption that annoys so many Christians?

Well, we might start with its disgreement with the divine Son of God's teaching in Matthew 25:46.

Other than that small detail, we're good to go!

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Christian Universalism. What's not to like?
It is a false teaching designed to lead many away from God and His Word.
WHY UNIVERSALISM IS NOT TRUE?

Your response...

Try telling that to the influential early Christian Universalists next time you meet them in this list compiled by Patristics scholar Ilaria Ramelli:

The main Patristic supporters of the apokatastasis theory, such as Bardaisan, Clement, Origin, Didymus, St. Anthony, St. Pamphilus Martyr, Methodius, St. Macrina, St. Gregory of Nyssa (and probably the two other Cappadocians), St. Evagrius Ponticus, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. John of Jerusalem, Rufinus, St. Jerome and St. Augustine (at least initially) … Cassian, St. Issac of Nineveh, St. John of Dalyatha, Ps. Dionysius the Areopagite, probably St. Maximus the Confessor, up to John the Scot Eriugena, and many others, grounded their Christian doctrine of apokatastasis first of all in the Bible.
— Ramelli, Christian Doctrine, 11.​

Yes I believe these are all false teachers if they are teaching UNIVERSALISM and more importantly they are not the bible and teaching against what the bible says.

Take Care.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Your response...

Yes these are all false teachers if they are teaching UNIVERSALISM and more importantly they are not the bible.

Again, which Bible? The damnationist crowd seems to refuse to deal with this question. It would be nice if we had the originals, written by those from Moses to John, but we don't. For those of us with sensitivity to language, an area where theology doesn't cut it, it is all to obvious that the text has been messed with, added to, taken away from and badly translated - at least in some versions.

Statements like "false teachers!" and "not the Bible!" are less than useless, for they are a poor substitute for reasoned argument and real Biblical scholarship. They are no better than "Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaad."

 

[Clare73]

Again, which Bible? The damnationist crowd seems to refuse to deal with this question. It would be nice if we had the originals, written by those from Moses to John, but we don't. For those of us with sensitivity to language, an area where theology doesn't cut it,
it is all to obvious that the text has been messed with, added to, taken away from and badly translated - at least in some versions.

And that's where the difference lies.

Not to mention the poor understanding of the Greek by the UR crowd.

So in your opinion, which versions pass muster?

Statements like "false teachers!" and "not the Bible!" are less than useless, for they are a poor substitute for reasoned argument and real Biblical scholarship. They are no better than "Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaad."

 

[returntosender]

It's not biblical.
Most uni's that I have had contact with seem to put themselves above God even attempting to change the word to suit their beliefs. Insisting their way of thinking is far better than God's.

I'm losing my phone so I will be back in a few days to respond

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Again, which Bible? The damnationist crowd seems to refuse to deal with this question. It would be nice if we had the originals, written by those from Moses to John, but we don't. For those of us with sensitivity to language, an area where theology doesn't cut it, it is all to obvious that the text has been messed with, added to, taken away from and badly translated - at least in some versions. Statements like "false teachers!" and "not the Bible!" are less than useless, for they are a poor substitute for reasoned argument and real Biblical scholarship. They are no better than "Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaad."

Not sure what your talking about here to be honest. I am a bible crowd and anything outside of the scriptures that disagree with the scriptures is not from God in my view

 

[Lazarus Short]

And that's where the difference lies.

Not to mention the poor understanding of the Greek by the UR crowd.

So in your opinion, which versions pass muster?

"...poor understanding of the Greek by the UR crowd." is your opinion. Some have an excellent understanding. A different opinion on the meaning and usage of a Greek (or Hebrew) word is NOT "poor understanding."

In my long quest for a better Bible, beginning with a KJV gifted to me when I was a child, I have found a version called simply, "The Scriptures." It has a definite Hebraic flavor, the texts fairly shine with meaning...as if a layer of scrim has been removed...and it lacks the entire ECT vocabulary.

As you may know, I confirmed UR in my own mind with a very ordinary KJ Bible, so the UR message is not really very well hid.

 

[Clare73]

"...poor understanding of the Greek by the UR crowd." is your opinion. Some have an excellent understanding. A different opinion on the meaning and usage of a Greek (or Hebrew) word is NOT "poor understanding."

Oh, the definitions are agreed on. . .just failure to understand how they apply.

In my long quest for a better Bible, beginning with a KJV gifted to me when I was a child,

Why a quest for a "better" Bible? What does "better" mean to you?

I have found a version called simply, "The Scriptures." It has a definite Hebraic flavor, the texts fairly shine with meaning...as if a layer of scrim has been removed...and it lacks the entire ECT vocabulary.

Does "The Scriptures" contain the NT? Where may I purchase it?

As you may know, I confirmed UR in my own mind with a very ordinary KJ Bible, so the UR message is not really very well hid.

So the KJV passes muster?

 

[Lazarus Short]

Not sure what your talking about here to be honest. I am a bible crowd and anything outside of the scriptures that disagree with the scriptures is not from God in my view

What I am trying to say is that Bible versions have been prepared/translated by people from a variety of theological and theo-illogical backgrounds. Some are excellent, while others are barely better than awful. As you might expect, I have moved to reading and studying versions which lack the standard vocabulary of damnation, but I confirmed (to be above bias) UR in my own mind using an ordinary King James Bible.

So, when we discuss the Bible or the Scriptures, we need to be clear about which version we have in mind. Too often, "Bible" and "Scriptures" are bandied about as if they are a single thing. They aren't.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Oh, the definitions are agreed on. . .just failure to understand how they apply.
Why a quest for a "better" Bible? What does "better" mean to you?

So the KJV passes muster?

Is "The Scriptures" the NT. Where may I purchase it?

The definitions are always subject to tweaking. Failure to understand cuts across the board.

I quest for a better Bible precisely to avoid that "failure to understand." A modern English version helps, as long as it is not dumbed down.

I stumbled onto The Scriptures at Half-Price Books. It is the whole Bible. Find it here:

The Scriptures

You can get a sense of it in the online version, without having to invest in a hard copy. Enjoy!

 

[Ceallaigh]

It is not the truth. Those who follow man made doctrines will not inherit the Kingdom of God. This is why true Christians fight for truth. Our faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth and His Gospel.
Blessings.

Wow, it sounds like you're saying if a Christian follows one wrong doctrine, they're going to hell. Like either Calvinists or Arminians are going to hell because both doctrines can't be right; or all Baptists or all Pentecostals. Either all Catholics or all Protestants are going to hell because their doctrines can't both be right. The list is endless.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

What I am trying to say is that Bible versions have been prepared/translated by people from a variety of theological and theo-illogical backgrounds. Some are excellent, while others are barely better than awful. As you might expect, I have moved to reading and studying versions which lack the standard vocabulary of damnation, but I confirmed (to be above bias) UR in my own mind using an ordinary King James Bible.

So, when we discuss the Bible or the Scriptures, we need to be clear about which version we have in mind. Too often, "Bible" and "Scriptures" are bandied about as if they are a single thing. They aren't.

No one can know God's truth without the Spirit of the truth to guide and lead them. Are you trying to say no one can know the truth of Gods' Word? To me this claim would show a lack of understanding of the scriptures which teach us that we can only know the truth of God's Word as God is our guide and teacher. The bible is not just another book. It is the Words of God given to us by the living Word of God.

God bless

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Did you not find DeRose's explanation that "all" does in fact mean "all" convincing? I know it's only one verse but if even if that one verse is true then Christian Universalism is true. But luckily there isn't just this one verse and we have above all Jesus, the perfect image of God, who shows us in his life, death and being that associating eternal torment with God is an outrage.
.

Unfortunately, I think what you've quoted from DeRose is way too short to make a strong case. However, although I disagree with you that Universalism has a strong position, I respect your right to hold it as a personal value. And being that I'm not really here to hammer you to death, I'll just let you carry on.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The list is endless.

Yet truth is quite short.
Blessings

 

[Ceallaigh]

Yet truth is quite short.
Blessings

It seems like you're avoiding giving a more substantial answer. All Christians believe in faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth and His Gospel. But there are many side doctrines like free will and predestination etc etc, which are man made attempts to understand things in addition to what most of us agree upon as foundational truth. Are you saying that those who follow a particular side doctrine that's not correct, will not inherit the Kingdom of God?

Maria Billingsley said: ↑
It is not the truth. Those who follow man made doctrines will not inherit the Kingdom of God.