Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Der Alte]

Der Alte, I do not generally read your posts, and I have NO regard for those three Jewish sources. I do see that you did not call them "irrefutable" like you did in the past. Maybe you will again, or maybe you're making progress. I understand the appeal of scholarship, but remember that those sources come from a culture that is stuck at the "eye for an eye" level, and Jesus the Christ often pointed out their errors.
Why do you support a position regarding ancient belief, based on documents written many centuries later?

This position is incomprehensible to me. Can you provide me anything at all that will provide others with credible or reasonable understanding of what the Jews before and during the time of Jesus believed about the Jewish scriptures?
Other than what I post mostly what I see in these discussions are quotes from various "scholars" giving their unsupported opinion. And folks who believe in UR seek out those "scholars" who prop up what they already believe. The UR litmus test for scholars seems to be if they support UR they are right if they don't they are wrong.
And OBTW my lengthy post with the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud etc. has never been shown to be wrong.

 

[Andrewn]

If a word has more than one meaning, it cannot be assumed that only one of those meanings is always used.

Context indicates which is meant.

I reviewed the occurrences of "exomologeo" in the NT and there is no context in which it implies coercion, none. Moreover, here is how Thayer's Greek Lexicon comments on its meaning in Php 2:11

"to profess i. e. to acknowledge openly and joyfully: τὸ ὄνομα τινος, Revelation 3:5 Rec.; followed by ὅτι, Philippians 2:11; with the dative of person [cf. Winers Grammar § 31, 1 f.; Buttmann, 176 (153)] to one's honor, i.e to celebrate, give praise to e.(so the Sept. for לְ הודָה, Psalm 29:5 (Ps. 30:5); Psalm 105:47(Ps. 106:47); Psalm 121:4 (Ps. 122:4), etc.; [Winer's Grammar, 32]): Romans 14:11; Romans 15:9 from Psalm 17:50 (Ps. 18:50), (Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 61, 3); τινί(the dative of person) followed by ὅτι: Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21. to profess that one will do something, to promise, agree, engage: Luke 22:6 [Lachmann omits]; (in this sense the Greeks and Josephus use ὁμολογεῖν)."

Did you notice that the lexicon renders the meaning in the context of Php 2:11 as "to acknowledge openly and joyfully"?

Why is it so difficult for some people to believe that God really and truly loves the world, just as Joh 3:16 says? Why is it so difficult to believe that God loves even his enemies just as He wants us to love our enemies? Why is it so difficult to understand that God forgives those who trespass against Him as He wants us to do the same? Why do people not care to see unbelievers left in hell eternally?

The Bible does not support ECT.

 

[ozso]

Some posters like to call their opinion "the Word of God".
("Disagree with me and you can take it up with God")

Yeah, the my interpretation of the Bible is the Word of God routine is so tiresome.

Disagreeing with my interpretation... is going against God.

And then when they start getting frustrated... they warn about what's going to happen to you come judgement day for disagreeing with them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Indeed. And saying that interpretation.is unavoidable is not saying that truth is relative in the sense that everyone's opinion is therefore equally valid. There is informed interpretation and misinformed or unguided interpretation. We can't and aren't meant to work it all out for ourselves because church is a community. So who do we listen to? For me, it's reputable scholars, and of course their findings are always changing and developing, and people IRL and in virtual life like this forum who reflect politeness, rationality and a loving regard for others. This excludes, on the ground of rationality, anyone who claims that they speak for God!

Whom among scholars do we listen to? ... we listen to all of them.

 

[Der Alte]

I reviewed the occurrences of "exomologeo" in the NT and there is no context in which it implies coercion, none. Moreover, here is how Thayer's Greek Lexicon comments on its meaning in Php 2:11
"to profess i. e. to acknowledge openly and joyfully: τὸ ὄνομα τινος, Revelation 3:5 Rec.; followed by ὅτι, Philippians 2:11; with the dative of person [cf. Winers Grammar § 31, 1 f.; Buttmann, 176 (153)] to one's honor, i. e. to celebrate, give praise to (so the Sept. for לְ הודָה, Psalm 29:5 (Ps. 30:5); Psalm 105:47(Ps. 106:47); Psalm 121:4 (Ps. 122:4), etc.; [Winer's Grammar, 32]): Romans 14:11; Romans 15:9 from Psalm 17:50 (Ps. 18:50), (Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 61, 3); τινί(the dative of person) followed by ὅτι: Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21. to profess that one will do something, to promise, agree, engage: Luke 22:6 [Lachmann omits]; (in this sense the Greeks and Josephus use ὁμολογεῖν)."
Did you notice that the lexicon renders the meaning in the context of Php 2:11 as "to acknowledge openly and joyfully"?
Why is it so difficult for some people to believe that God really and truly loves the world, just as Joh 3:16 says? Why is it so difficult to believe that God loves even his enemies just as He wants us to love our enemies? Why is it so difficult to understand that God forgives those who trespass against Him as He wants us to do the same? Why do people love to leave unbelievers in hell so much?
The Bible does not support ECT.

That ain't the way the early church understood Philippians 2:11. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp who was a student of John

Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] the First Apology Chap. LII. — Certain Fulfilment of Prophecy.
… For the prophets have proclaimed two advents of His: the one, that which is already past, when He came as a dishonored and suffering Man; but the second, when, according to prophecy, He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils. And that these things also have been foretold as yet to be, we will prove. By Ezekiel the prophet it was said: “Joint shall be joined to joint, and bone to bone, and flesh shall grow again; and every knee shall bow to the Lord, and every tongue shall confess Him.” (Eze_37:7, Eze_37:8; Isa_45:24) And in what kind of sensation and punishment the wicked are to be, hear from what was said in like manner with reference to this; it is as follows: “Their worm shall not rest, and their fire shall not be quenched;” (Isa_66:24) and then shall they repent, when it profits them not. And what the people of the Jews shall say and do, when they see Him coming in glory, has been thus predicted by Zechariah the prophet: “I will command the four winds to gather the scattered children; I will command the north wind to bring them, and the south wind, that it keep not back. And then in Jerusalem there shall be great lamentation, not the lamentation of mouths or of lips, but the lamentation of the heart; and they shall rend not their garments, but their hearts. Tribe by tribe they shall mourn, and then they shall look on Him whom they have pierced; and they shall say, Why, O Lord, hast Thou made us to err from Thy way? The glory which our fathers blessed, has for us been turned into shame.” (Zec_12:3-14; Isa_63:17, Isa_64:11)

Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.] Against Heresies Chap. X. — Unity of the Faith of the Church Throughout the Whole World.
1. the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” (Eph_1:10) and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven” and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” (Phi_2:10, Phi_2:11) to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” (Eph_6:12) and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.​

 

[Saint Steven]

We don't need to get everything right theologically. But if some errors in theology is an obstacle to salvation, what does that say about God? That God is loving and just? I would say so.

ECT I won't go into here.

That's a common misunderstanding about UR. That it is an obstacle to salvation. Not true.
It is God who saves. And there are no obstacles to salvation with God.

Remember, no one is saved by theology or doctrines. Only God can save.

 

[Clare73]

You 'maybe', are taking a higher road than me, I admit. I do know that Jesus spoke pretty harshly against those religious leaders who 'thought more highly of themselves' and their false doctrine 'than they should have' in His day.
Granted, I'm not Jesus, but I have no qualms, at this point, about waiting until the day of my judgment for His opinion as to whether I'm right or wrong.

Thanks for your remarks.

And no argument there.

I was told part of 'your position above', growing up in 'The Church'. But I think they/you take too much liberty with those scriptures to prove infant baptizing.

Well, I see baptism as being the NT covenant sign as circumcision was the OT covenant sign, both are administered to infants.
God's covenant is a setting apart (sanctification, holiness) as God's people, a promise of provision and protection. I see this "sanctifying" (setting apart) in 1 Corinthians 7:14, where the unbelieving husband is "sanctified" (set apart) by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is "sanctified" (set apart) by the husband, and the children are "holy" (set apart) as God's people under his protection and provision.
If my understanding is correct, masters owned their house servants who were considered part of the household, and so everyone in the household would be baptized as set apart with God's people and under his protection and provision.

But prior to saving faith, as in infacts, I see the covenant provision as only material.
I see the spiritual benefits of the covenant as coming only through saving faith.
(con't below at Colossains 2:11). . .

IOW CONTEXT CONTEXT IMO
ACT 16:14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul. 15 And when she was baptized, with her household,
I have to assume that the Lord opened the heart of her family to also "give heed to what was said". And to do that her family had to also 'assumedly' be of an age beyond infancy to also understand and 'give heed'.
Acts 16:30 and brought them out and said, "Men, what must I do to be saved?"
31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.
Once again I have to believe that the jailers family had to "Believe in the Lord Jesus" to be saved. The jailer and his 'of age' family which were all capable of "Believing in the Lord Jesus". For me that is the only position I can accept that lines up with the rest of scripture and prerequisites for baptism.

COL 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

I'm not sure I'm following your use of this passage Clare. I believe that "real circumcision is a matter of the heart" and the "baptism of death" both contain a cognitive and spiritual encounter with the heart.

Well, baptism does not save, faith saves.
Baptisim does not remit sin, faith in Jesus' sacrifice to remit your sin remits sin.
So what does baptism do?

I see baptism as the sign of the new covenant, as circumcision was the sign of the old covenant.
Sign of what. . .it is of your entering a covenant relationship with God as part of his people, by which both signs, OT and NT, you are cutting off (OT) or putting off (NT) the flesh (sinful nature), to which we die in being buried with Christ into death and being raised to live a new life (Romans 6:2-4).
At the birth of the NT (Pentecost), the first entrants into the new covenant were adults, so the covenant sign of baptism in the beginning was of adults. But the children of those adults were also set apart (sanctified) as God's people, so they were likewise baptized.

I see NT baptism as for adults at their conversion, but also for infants of those believers, setting them all apart (sanctify) as part of God's people, under his material provision and protection, but the spritual provision of the covenant being provided only to those of saving faith.

Your thoughts, on my 'opinion' and biblical support for that 'opinion', would be?

They would be in the above.

 

[Clare73]

Good question and I don't know but I believe God will ultimately judge us by our hearts and whether we sincerely tried to carry out his two great commandments.

According to the NT, you can carry out those two commandments until your eyes fall out, but if you don't believe in and trust on Jesus' atoning sacrifice (blood--Romans 3:25) for the remission of your sin (and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," accounted righteous), you're toast.

 

[Clare73]

I reviewed the occurrences of "exomologeo" in the NT and
there is no context in which it implies coercion, none.

Who said anything about coercion?

To confess is "to agree."

I agree (confess) that the Chinese navy is greater than the U.S. Navy, but that doesn't mean I am in favor of it--no coercion involved.

 

[Lazarus Short]

This position is incomprehensible to me. Can you provide me anything at all that will provide others with credible or reasonable understanding of what the Jews before and during the time of Jesus believed about the Jewish scriptures?
Other than what I post mostly what I see in these discussions are quotes from various "scholars" giving their unsupported opinion. And folks who believe in UR seek out those "scholars" who prop up what they already believe. The UR litmus test for scholars seems to be if they support UR they are right if they don't they are wrong.
And OBTW my lengthy post with the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud etc. has never been shown to be wrong.

The trouble is, Der Alte, or so it seems from here, is that the scholars you quote are always to be believed, well supported and unassailable. OTOH, the scholars we UR advocates look to are always suspect, not supported and easily dismissed. Did I miss anything?

 

[Hillsage]

Well, I see baptism as being the NT covenant sign as circumcision was the OT covenant sign, both are administered to infants.

I see water baptism, as the following scripture states;

1PE 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

And I don't see, an infant, as being one who even needs, let alone can relate to, a "clear conscience". I believe that takes the congnitive thinking of someone older.

I see NT baptism as for adults at their conversion, but also for infants of those believers, setting them all apart (sanctify) as part of God's people, under his provision and protection, but the spritual provision of the covenant being provided only to those of saving faith.
They would be in the above.

I see 'regeneration' of the spirit as the event most call conversion. I use 'conversion' or sanctification' for a soulish event.

I believe that the wife sanctifying an unbelieving husband means the husband does not partake in 'that which' the wife took part of 'to receive' that which is imparted to the hubby. IOW The baby is under the umbrella without the ritual of water baptism being sprinkled on his head. And as I stated to begin with; water baptism is an "appeal to God for a clear conscience."

But we are OFF TOPIC, and I think it's time to move on.

 

[Hmm]

Whom among scholars do we listen to? ... we listen to all of them.

But things have to be resolved, if that's possible, where there are contradictions and established ways of looking at things have have to be abandoned when they're wrong. A simple example would be that mistranslations in English Bibles should be acknowledged and corrected even though theological views such as ECT hangs on them.

 

[Hmm]

According to the NT, you can carry out those two commandments until your eyes fall out, but if you don't believe in and trust on Jesus' atoning sacrifice (blood--Romans 3:25) for the remission of your sin (and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," accounted righteous), you're toast.

"Love God" involves believing in and trusting Him, no?

 

[Hmm]

I reviewed the occurrences of "exomologeo" in the NT and there is no context in which it implies coercion, none. Moreover, here is how Thayer's Greek Lexicon comments on its meaning in Php 2:11

"to profess i. e. to acknowledge openly and joyfully: τὸ ὄνομα τινος, Revelation 3:5 Rec.; followed by ὅτι, Philippians 2:11; with the dative of person [cf. Winers Grammar § 31, 1 f.; Buttmann, 176 (153)] to one's honor, i.e to celebrate, give praise to e.(so the Sept. for לְ הודָה, Psalm 29:5 (Ps. 30:5); Psalm 105:47(Ps. 106:47); Psalm 121:4 (Ps. 122:4), etc.; [Winer's Grammar, 32]): Romans 14:11; Romans 15:9 from Psalm 17:50 (Ps. 18:50), (Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 61, 3); τινί(the dative of person) followed by ὅτι: Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21. to profess that one will do something, to promise, agree, engage: Luke 22:6 [Lachmann omits]; (in this sense the Greeks and Josephus use ὁμολογεῖν)."

Did you notice that the lexicon renders the meaning in the context of Php 2:11 as "to acknowledge openly and joyfully"?

Why is it so difficult for some people to believe that God really and truly loves the world, just as Joh 3:16 says? Why is it so difficult to believe that God loves even his enemies just as He wants us to love our enemies? Why is it so difficult to understand that God forgives those who trespass against Him as He wants us to do the same? Why do people not care to see unbelievers left in hell eternally?

The Bible does not support ECT.

That's very useful knowledge, thanks, and I share your nonplusment over your questions at the end. I don't understand how anyone can believe any of these things about God and nor can I understand how anyone can not care about people, however bad they may have been, being eternally tortured.

 

[Hmm]

And then when they start getting frustrated... they warn about what's going to happen to you come judgement day for disagreeing with them

My friend @Clare73 in #548 said that I was going to be given toast which isn't too bad. Oh wait.. sorry, I'm going to be toast which isn't the ideal outcome I was hoping for but I'm sure I'll settle down and used to it.

 

[ozso]

My friend @Clare73 in #548 said that I was going to be given toast which isn't too bad. Oh wait.. she said I was going to be toast which isn't the ideal outcome I was hoping for but I'm sure I'll settle down and used to it.

You should change your avatar.

Or perhaps this would be more appropriate.

You'll have to consult the expert.

 

[Hmm]

You should change your avatar.

Or perhaps this would be more appropriate.

You'll have to consult the expert.

Hmm... it's so hard to choose! I think I'll go for this one:

 

[zoidar]

That's a common misunderstanding about UR. That it is an obstacle to salvation. Not true.

I will just say, we see it differently.

Remember, no one is saved by theology or doctrines. Only God can save

That I agree with.

 

[Andrewn]

The idea that we come to know the ways of God just by reasoning it out, using our own mortal faculties, seems defective to me. It's why we have divine revelation to guide us, because we otherwise couldn't figure out much that is beyond our given abilities and our own limited frame of reference.

And we should make no mistake about this: When and if we start punching holes in Scripture and deciding to affirm the parts that appeal to us and dismissing the parts that do not, and/or deciding on the basis of some book writer's opinions, we've departed from the word of God.

UR takes seriously the fact that Jesus is God. And when He said, "Forgive them, Father, for they do not know what they're doing." He really meant that his enemies be forgiven.

UR also takes seriously that God is powerful and id He wants "that all people be saved and come to know the truth" then He will be able to accomplish his desire.

An engineer who builds products of which 95% ends up in the garbage is considered a failure. God is quite capable of fixing the products of his hands.

The weight of Scripture is definitely not on the side of the Universalists. So why is this not taken seriously? The argument I get back is usually, "Oh, that part is a mistranslation, so forget it."

This is only true if one hangs to a misunderstanding of the word "eionios. Otherwise, UR is clear in the Bible for those who love God's Word.

 

[Saint Steven]

I will just say, we see it differently.

That's fine.
Can you explain why you feel that UR is an obstacle to salvation?
It seems to me that it is a misinformed comment. A misunderstanding on your part.

You have a right to your opinion, as does any poster.
But we all have the right to challenge the opinions of other posters.
It seems that your claim comes from a place of ignorance.
Correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.

Saint Steven said: ↑
That's a common misunderstanding about UR. That it is an obstacle to salvation. Not true.