Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Andrewn]

I think there's also the question of what makes people evil in the first place. No one started out as evil in their nature. Not even Satan. All became evil, rather than were created evil or created to become evil.

This is an important question. ECF who advocated UR believed that God did not create evil. Evil is non-Being like darkness is absence of light. It does not have substance or energy. Darkness exists only if the light is turned off.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you should dispense with your persistent assertion that you're the only one here who reads books and is educated.

I wasn't talking to you. So, don't butt in!

That's very snappy, not to mention snarky, but it carries as much substance as what's found inside a hot air balloon.

Y'know, you guys keep pushing me with the your double-speak, and I've about had enough of your pretentiousness. So, I'd humbly ask you to stop so we all can stop. Because if you don't drop it, neither will I. And I will take you to task if you keep pushing. I can. And I will.

So, drop it, brother!

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, and let's not forget how that meeting took place. It's not like Jesus strolled up and invited him to tea to discuss matters.

Right. What is it they say about God being a gentlemen that won't force himself on us? - lol

How do they explain this? (Saul's conversion)
God's plans will NOT be thwarted!

Saint Steven said: ↑
Right.
The story of Saul on the road to Tarsus is a very potent example.

Self-identified as the chief of sinners, persecuting the church, letters in hand from the synagogue rulers to bring Christians back to Jerusalem in chains, meets Jesus on the road. What happens? Instant conversion.

I think the same thing will happen in the afterlife. Instant conversions. After that, it's just barnacle removal. (ouch)

 

[ozso]

This is an important question. ECF who advocated UR believed that God did not create evil. Evil is non-Being like darkness is absence of light. It does not have substance or energy. Darkness exists only if the light is turned off.

And when the light is turned on, darkness flees.

 

[ozso]

I wasn't talking to you. So, don't butt in!

Request denied.

Y'know, you guys keep pushing me with the your double-speak, and I've about had enough of your pretentiousness. So, I'd humbly ask you to stop so we all can stop. Because if you don't drop it, neither will I. And I will take you to task if you keep pushing. I can. And I will.

So, drop it, brother!

You calling those you accuse of being illiterate and uneducated pretentious, puts me in stitches. It reminds me of when I once pretended to be a supercilious PhD on usenet.

Now how's about we all press restart and play nice going forward?

 

[Lazarus Short]

This is an important question. ECF who advocated UR believed that God did not create evil. Evil is non-Being like darkness is absence of light. It does not have substance or energy. Darkness exists only if the light is turned off.

The origin of evil is endlessly talked about and debated, but I have noted in Genesis that the same Hand that planted the Tree of Life also planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

[Hmm]

And when the light is turned on, darkness flees.

If you're used to darkness and in a pitch black place and a bright light is suddenly turned on, it's very disorientating and and it's less so if you're already in some light. That's probably stretching the metaphor too far though!

 

[Saint Steven]

The origin of evil is endlessly talked about and debated, but I have noted in Genesis that the same Hand that planted the Tree of Life also planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

YES!!!!!!!!
And planted it (the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) in the center of the garden. (where it couldn't be avoided) Sounds like a plan.

What amazes me in the story, is that they had to be tricked into eating it. Their brains were wired differently than ours before they ate. Upon eating they invited something in.

The unanswered question is very interesting. God asked Adam, "Who told you that you were naked?" Who indeed?

Devil Talkin'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Request denied.



You calling those you accuse of being illiterate and uneducated pretentious, puts me in stitches. It reminds me of when I once pretended to be a supercilious PhD on usenet.

Now how's about we all press restart and play nice going forward?

Well, if a person can't lay out a proper syllogism and/or assumes that what they have laid out is somehow automatically valid and sound just because they made the attempt, that says something. Personally, if I were to attempt the intricacies of Deductive Logic, then I'd bring in whatever guidelines for doing so are present in, say, works like:

Introduction To Logic - Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen (1990)

Logic & Philosophy: A Modern Introduction - Paul Tidman & Howard Kahane (1999)

The Power of Logic - C. Stephen Layman (1999)

Introducing Logic and Critical Thinking - T. Ryan Byerly (2017)

AND
​

Moreover, if I was to attempt Exegesis, even in the least, I'd likely rely upon:

Elements of Biblical Exegesis - Michael J. Gorman (2009)

Exegetical Fallacies - D.A. Carson (1996)
​

But, somehow, you guys are just going to come along and snub all of this and imply that you need none of this kind of thing in any kind of formal way ... no, you apparently can just "quote Scripture."

... Ok. You all "DO" your supposedly "Prophetically" driven type of Christian faith, and I'll do my type through the synergy I gain from learning from other Christian Brethren, who also come from various denominations, as well as a few secular experts who, by their education, are experts in their respective fields.

 

[Hmm]

Now how's about we all press restart and play nice going forward?

That would be good. As far as philosophy goes, it can be helpful in an informal discussion like this if it's used to draw out some inferences or highlight inconsistencies but when it's simply the constant refrain that the philosophical method isn't being applied properly it doesn't add much value. Philosophy needs to be applied and specific to the ongoing discussion at the time.

 

[Saint Steven]

If you're used to darkness and in a pitch black place and a bright light is suddenly turned on, it's very disorientating and and it's less so if you're already in some light. That's probably stretching the metaphor too far though!

I think that's spot on.
Repentance, in fact, is turning from the darkness toward the light.

 

[ozso]

That would be good. As far as philosophy goes, it can be helpful in an informal discussion like this if it's used to draw out some inferences or highlight inconsistencies but when it's simply the constant refrain that the philosophical method isn't being applied properly it doesn't add much value. Philosophy needs to be applied and specific to the discussion underway at the time.

I think one can manage to apply philosophy, without pointing it out.

 

[Hmm]

I think one can manage to apply philosophy, without pointing it out.

That's very true.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think that's spot on.
Repentance, in fact, is turning from the darkness toward the light.

@Hmm -- I also think this is evident in the discipleship of new converts. They are in an infant-like helplessness to find their way at first. We take them by the hand and lead them forward until they can gain enough strength to continue on their own. (with God's help)

 

[Der Alte]

* * *

Right. What is it they say about God being a gentlemen that won't force himself on us? - lol
How do they explain this? (Saul's conversion)
God's plans will NOT be thwarted!
Saint Steven said:
Right.

The story of Saul on the road to Tarsus is a very potent example.
Self-identified as the chief of sinners, persecuting the church, letters in hand from the synagogue rulers to bring Christians back to Jerusalem in chains, meets Jesus on the road. What happens? Instant conversion.
I think the same thing will happen in the afterlife. Instant conversions. After that, it's just barnacle removal. (ouch)

Paul's conversion was not forceful. There was no "Convert or else."

Acts 9:3-7
3 And as he [Saul/Paul] journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.​

After vs. 6 still had freedom to not go to Damascus.

 

[Hmm]

Right. What is it they say about God being a gentlemen that won't force himself on us? - lol

How do they explain this? (Saul's conversion)
God's plans will NOT be thwarted!

Yes, God doesn't force himself on us but he's pretty good at persuading people! The idea that the human will is some kind of impregnable fortress that can hold out for an eternity against God's love, reason and spiritual truth doesn't seem to match with reality. The fact is, we are all weak-willed and changeable. No one is unpersuadable, and any one can change their mind, turn, and be redeemed. We see this repeatedly again in the Bible and throughout history and in people we know.

Any decision of rebellion or rejection of God anyone can make is inherently a decision born out of ignorance and sin. Once liberated from sin and once God's goodness is revealed, our rebellious hearts will melt before Him like gold in the refiner's fire, the dross of our sin simply burning away like chaff, while our souls are transformed and made pure in His presence.

The reason we don't all find God in this life is because we see, as Paul says, only "through a glass darkly". Our perception and knowledge of God is not yet perfect but it will be when we all, even if it takes an aion/age of correction in hell, see God face to face in the next.

 

[Bruce Leiter]

What is it about universal redemption that annoys so many Christians? Shouldn’t we be happy that God’s love and mercy are wider, higher, deeper, and broader than we could ever imagine? We all sin at times so shouldn't we welcome the thought that God is not going to annihilate or eternally torment us if we don't “accept,” “trust,” “repent,” “believe,” well enough to appropriate the grace of God?

You would think so but it seems from the recent threads on Christian Universalism that this is not the case. Why is this?

Here are some of the reasons that have been expressed in the threads:

1. ”If everyone is or will be saved, what’s the point in following Jesus?”

To me, anyone who thinks this must see following Jesus as a heavy burden, one that needs the reward of heaven to make it worth the hassle. But shouldn't following Jesus and having a good relationship with him here and now be its own reward?

It's also a misunderstanding of Christian Universalism to think it says that we don't have to receive the saving grace of Christ in order to be reconciled to God and to each other. It just says that if we don't manage to do this in this life there will be boundless opportunities to do so in the next one and that eventually every one will accept forgiveness and repent of their sins... ”that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth" (Phil 2:10)

2. "All my hard work at being a Christian has been undermined".
This is very much like 1. Shouldn't any work we do be done out of love for God, not for any personal eternal rewards?

3. ”If there is an 'us,' there has to be a 'them'"
This may be true about some things such as football: I support Manchester United so I hate Manchester City (I'm from the UK, apologies) but it needn't apply to matters of faith. If we are going to heaven when we die there doesn't have to be a group who go to hell.

These three reasons seem to have something in common and that's judgementalism. They're all essentially saying "Look, I'm a good Christian and my hard work and sacrifices has earned me membership into the very exclusive club of heaven and, sad to say it, but most other people haven't done anywhere nearly as enough as me and so, unfortunately, missed out on the opportunity." This makes you think of the work vs. faith debate ironically but, moving swiftly on from that, isn't it true that being judgemental is wrong and if that's the main reason behind our objection to Christian Universalism, shouldn't we consider that we might be misunderstanding it?

There are biblical arguments that can be made for and against Christian Universalism but there are plenty of existing threads discussing that so, assuming anyone wants to respond!, I'd be more interested in hearing what your gut, visceral reaction is, whether for or against, when you hear the words "Christian Universalism". For me, it's basically relief that God is a loving God and not a monster after all.

Doesn't Christian universalism discount the Bible passages such as Matthew 25:31-46, especially verse 46. It's Jesus' figurative description of the final judgment, and the last verse is clear about the "goats'" eternal destination. That belief seems to avoid any understanding or acceptance of God's divine quality of justice, which makes his grace all the more amazing! Recently, I have read the OT prophets; those books and Romans 1:18-25 make clear that all of us are under God's just verdict of "guilty" until God frees us through Jesus' death to receive his pronouncement of "not guilty."

 

[Der Alte]

Doesn't Christian universalism discount the Bible passages such as Matthew 25:31-46, especially verse 46. It's Jesus' figurative description of the final judgment, and the last verse is clear about the "goats'" eternal destination. That belief seems to avoid any understanding or acceptance of God's divine quality of justice, which makes his grace all the more amazing! Recently, I have read the OT prophets; those books and Romans 1:18-25 make clear that all of us are under God's just verdict of "guilty" until God frees us through Jesus' death to receive his pronouncement of "not guilty."

According to the "Hell no!" crowd. In Matt 25:46 the word "aionios" does not mean "eternal" it means the silly expression "age during" and "kolasis" does not mean "punishment" it really means "correction."
Although I have shown from scripture that Jesus in 10 verses clearly defines/describes "aionios" as "eternal." And the only other occurrence of "kolasis" translated "torment" there is no correction the one who has "kolasis" is not made perfect.

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.​

 

[ozso]

Paul's conversion was not forceful. There was no "Convert or else."

What are you talking about??? It's always been "convert or else".

Especially by your reckoning; convert or else you'll go to hell where you'll scream in agony as flaming worms are put into you for all eternity. It's the ultimate ultimatum.

​

 

[ozso]

Doesn't Christian universalism discount the Bible passages such as Matthew 25:31-46, especially verse 46. It's Jesus' figurative description of the final judgment, and the last verse is clear about the "goats'" eternal destination. That belief seems to avoid any understanding or acceptance of God's divine quality of justice, which makes his grace all the more amazing! Recently, I have read the OT prophets; those books and Romans 1:18-25 make clear that all of us are under God's just verdict of "guilty" until God frees us through Jesus' death to receive his pronouncement of "not guilty."

Well think about Matthew 25:31-46 some. How literal is it, considering it's about sheep and goats? Is Jesus saying that you have guaranteed salvation if you just give someone a cup of water?