Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Hmm]

This is very strange.

Firstly, I said this:

This is why I asked for visceral reactions to ECT in the OP.

To which you responded, as is your God given right, with this friendly missive:

No, that's not what you said in the OP.

But then you quote me as saying just that, to whit:

"I'd be more interested in hearing what your gut, visceral reaction is, whether for or against, when you hear the words 'Christian Universalism."

I think even Francis of Assisi, the most peaceful and unargumentative of all the saints, would be raising a quizzical eyebrow or two at this, asking if this is entirely rational behaviour.

 

[Lazarus Short]

This is very strange.

Firstly, I said this:



To which you responded, as is your God given right, with this friendly missive:



But then you quote me as saying just that:



I think even Francis of Assisi, the most peaceful and unargumentable of all the saints, would be raising a quizzical eyebrow or two at this, asking if this is entirely rational behaviour.

It's all too easy to lose track in a ninety-page thread. Cut the man some slack.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well in your profile you say that you're a "wannabe philosopher", which is what Otto was.

Y'know, I've never seen that 'fish'n wanda' movie. But I have seen ~ ~~Ghost Rider ...

 

[Hmm]

It's all too easy to lose track in a ninety-page thread. Cut the man some slack.

I was refuting this:

No, that's not what you said in the OP.

I did indeed say that (whatever it was, I've already forgotten) in the OP. Not 90 pages, just one. But you're right, this thread has probably passed its expiry date.

 

[Hmm]

But you're right, this thread has probably passed its expiry date.

Pity though. Universal restoration makes so much sense of scripture, at least I've never come across an alternative that comes anywhere close in its explanatory powers, but there's so much antagonism to the idea here that a meaningful discussion is not possible.

 

[ozso]

Y'know, I've never seen that 'fish'n wanda' movie.

Really, your "Nice. Really nice." reply to the comparison gave me the distinct impression you were familiar with the character.

 

[ozso]

Pity though. Universal restoration makes so much sense of scripture, at least I've never come across an alternative that comes anywhere close in its explanatory powers, but there's so much antagonism to the idea here that a meaningful discussion is not possible.

In many but not all cases.

 

[Der Alte]

* * * Now there is a disagreement between Christians, not only Universalists, about whether you need to have explicit faith in Jesus to be saved. Some Christians, called exclusivists, say Yes and others, called inclusivists, say No. So, for inclusivists you can be saved even if, for instance, you have never heard the gospel. Inclusivists would say that if someone responds in love and faith to the truncated divine revelation that they have received then God can unite them to Christ. * * *

God already addressed this objection.

Romans 4:15
15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law.
Romans 2:14-15
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
Romans 1:18-20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.​

Murderers, robbers, thieves, etc. ALL know that their actions are wrong. The word of God says they are without excuse. Jesus never said their actions do not matter and they will all be saved in the end.

Matthew 7:22-23
22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?'
23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'​

Jesus was outside of time, when He said "never" did He just mean the past?
.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Really, your "Nice. Really nice." reply to the comparison gave me the distinct impression you were familiar with the character.

Nope. But, as fate would have it, Google is just a click away and information just magically appears when I do that ...

 

[ozso]

God already addressed this objection.

Romans 4:15
15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law.
Romans 2:14-15
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
Romans 1:18-20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.​

Murderers, robbers, thieves, etc. ALL know that their actions are wrong. The word of God says they are without excuse. Jesus never said their actions do not matter and they will all be saved in the end.

Matthew 7:22-23
22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?'
23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'​

Jesus was outside of time, when He said "never" did He just mean the past?.

The problem with using Matthew 7:22-23 here is that it's not applied to murderers, robbers, thieves, etc. But rather to those who prophesied in Jesus' name and in His name drove out demons and in His name performed many miracles.

Also UR does not say actions do not matter. In UR people are sent to hell. The only difference between the UR and ECT scenario is what hell is and how long it lasts. People commit suicide over being sentenced to jail because of how terrified they are of it. Even over a sentence of a few years. Is it that being sentenced to hell can't be terrifying unless it's eternal? And as far as being outside of time goes, what then does "eternal" come to mean?

 

[ozso]

Nope. But, as fate would have it, Google is just a click away and information just magically appears when I do that ...

The problem with that is I was only referring to the "wannabe philosopher" aspect of the character, rather than any of his other characteristics, which aren't germane to the tongue-in-cheek comparison.

 

[Der Alte]

The problem with using Matthew 7:22-23 here is that it's not applied to murderers, robbers, thieves, etc. But rather to those who prophesied in Jesus' name and in His name drove out demons and in His name performed many miracles.
Also UR does not say actions do not matter. In UR people are sent to hell. The only difference between the UR and ECT scenario is what hell is and how long it lasts. People commit suicide over being sentenced to jail because of how terrified they are of it. Even over a sentence of a few years. Is it that being sentenced to hell can't be terrifying unless it's eternal? And as far as being outside of time goes, what then does "eternal" come to mean?

Rubbish! The fact that false prophets are mentioned in vs. 22 does not limit the entire passage. Note vs. 21

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Matt 7:21​

The ONLY ones who enter the kingdom are those who do the will of the Father who is in heaven. The ones excluded are NOT limited to false prophets but anyone/everyone who does not do the will of the Father. Of these some may indeed be false prophets.
I don't understand your comment about "eternal."

 

[Der Alte]

Pity though. Universal restoration makes so much sense of scripture, at least I've never come across an alternative that comes anywhere close in its explanatory powers, but there's so much antagonism to the idea here that a meaningful discussion is not possible.

Those of us who believe Jesus when He said "These will go away into eternal punishment." could well say the same about the "Hell No." folks.
I have shown, many times, from scripture alone that "aionios" does in fact mean "eternal.""everlasting,""unending" and that "kolasis" does NOT mean "correction."
And my discussions of Matt 25:46 have never been refuted.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The problem with that is I was only referring to the "wannabe philosopher" aspect of the character, rather than any of his other characteristics, which aren't germane to the tongue-in-cheek comparison.

Oh. ok. Good to know. I guess I'll have to watch the movie, then, so I can get the full low-down on your ever so parsed referenece to "Otto."

 

[Hmm]

Those of us who believe Jesus when He said "These will go away into eternal punishment." could well say the same about the "Hell No." folks.

Well, no. The difference is that most Christian universalists were infernalists at one point but then moved away from it, often after a brief and unhappy flirtation with annihilationism. Whether you agree with universalism or not, I'm sure you will admit that this at least shows a mind that is receptive to critical thinking and to new ideas.

In contrast, I don't know and have never heard of anyone who has moved from universalism to infernalism and I doubt you have either. Why do you think that is?

 

[Der Alte]

Well, no. The difference is that most Christian universalists were infernalists at one point but then moved away from it, often after a brief and unhappy flirtation with annihilationism. Whether you agree with universalism or not, I'm sure you will admit that this at least shows a mind that is receptive to critical thinking and to new ideas.
In contrast, I don't know and have never heard of anyone who has moved from universalism to infernalism and I doubt you have either. Why do you think that is?

I remember in maybe the 6th grade getting the board of education applied to my seat of understanding. I joined in with some other students in some kind of classroom mayhem. My excuse was to no avail, "Well everybody else was doing it." To which the teacher replied, "If everybody else jumped off of a building would you do it.
The number of adherents of a certain belief or practice is not a reliable indication of the correctness of the belief or practice. See e.g. number of Mormons in the world 16.5 million. Number of Muslims in the word 2 billion.

 

[Lazarus Short]

I remember in maybe the 6th grade getting the board of education applied to my seat of understanding. I joined in with some other students in some kind of classroom mayhem. My excuse was to no avail, "Well everybody else was doing it." To which the teacher replied, "If everybody else jumped off of a building would you do it.
The number of adherents of a certain belief or practice is not a reliable indication of the correctness of the belief or practice. See e.g. number of Mormons in the world 16.5 million. Number of Muslims in the word 2 billion.

The exact same logic applies to damnationism.

 

[Andrewn]

If one is for one age, so is the other.

Yes, this is exactly true. Aionios does not mean "forever." But we know that Aionios life is forever from the following:

Luk 20:35 But those who are counted worthy to take part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36 For they can no longer die, because they are like angels and are children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

So, what are the specific exegetical principles by which you've selected and hobbled together they bits and pieces from the Bible, SM? Is this "Omega Plan" you've given me in quick fashion representative of a 'Do-It-Yourself' method, or is it one that you learned from another source?

Exegetical principles?
1. God is good = God is good = God is good.
2. Jesus = Yeshua = God's Salvation.
3. Jesus = the alpha and omega = God's salvation is the alpha and omega = God's salvation is the Omega Plan.

It's surely not the rocket surgery that got man to the firmament.

You seem to want a complexified sophisticated explanation for everything, Mr Void. Sorry to disappoint, but the beauty of the Kingdom is in its simplicity. It's the humbling reality of the ineffable truth that's been in your face all these years that you never saw-type thing.

So, would you be so kind as to falsify the following syllogism?
Major premise - God can save all.
Minor premise - God wants all saved.
Conclusion - God will save all.

Come, reason with me brother: though your sins are scarlet they shall be white as snow.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Mat 25:46 "TheseG3778 will goG565 awayG565 into eternalG166 punishmentG2851, but the righteousG1342 into eternalG166 lifeG2222."


Mat 25:46　 καιG2532 CONJ απελευσονταιG565 V-FDI-3P ουτοιG3778 D-NPM ειςG1519 PREP κολασινG2851 N-ASF αιωνιονG166 A-ASF οιG3588 T-NPM δεG1161 CONJ δικαιοιG1342 A-NPM ειςG1519 PREP ζωηνG2222 N-ASF αιωνιονG166 A-ASF　

Explain to me which αιωνιον is temporary and which is temporary in Greek and how you know the difference when used of heaven and hell in the exact same sentence? Here I thought elephant meant elephant, especially if used in the exact same sentence. Who knew it also meant pen?

Pick one single meaning for the exact same word. Are both heaven and hell eternal or are they both temporary. Perhaps you are reading meaning meaning into one and out of the other because you just don't like the truth of the singular meaning either way.

In that context it means 'worldly', 'otherworldly' or 'next-worldly'.

The sense is vernacular and hyperbolic, that 'you might wake up in a world of hurt'. The noun is kolasin, ie disciplinary/ corrective punishment - for the benefit of the punishee.

Who among us hasn't ignored a beggar or failed to do some act of corporal charity within our power? We've not sold all we own to join the Little Sisters of the Poor in the barrios of Sao Paulo. So to hell with us forever on your reading, is it? An uncompromising standard with an infinite penalty, combined with a hair trigger. Wow, what a comically sadistic deity.

If you think Jesus left the most terrifying false doctrine in Christianity to a handful of disparate scriptures that turn on the translation of a word or two and need to be read against the entire flow of the Gospel ('great joy for all mankind'), the gospels ('meek and lowly of heart') and the grace of God, I suggest you commit to some prayer and contemplation.