Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Clare73]

But some, like you, accuse people of going against the Word of God, when in reality they just don't agree with your interpretation of it.

It sounded like you were implying the destination was hell.

I deliberately avoided what I had in mind, which was not hell, it comes before hell.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Paul is fighting with himself in all of this. There is 'no fight' one wins, when one FIGHTS God. Paul is revealing that 'in him' he does not have "the fullness of the stature of the image of Christ" in him. And that 'fight' isn't for going to heaven, it is a fight to get heaven into your soul here on earth. Your OSAS spirit is your ticket INTO heaven in the hereafter. Not your works here on earth AFTER you've been born again.

Your not addressing the fact that the Greek word thelō was used 5 times in a context of want or desire not in the context of something that is decreed to become certain. That was the whole point of presenting Romans 7:15-21. It proves that your definition of thelō is incomplete. It is not only used meaning something that is certain to be but can also be used as something one desires or wants to be.

 

[Clare73]

Accusing someone of "going against the Word of God" or "calling God a liar" etc because they don't agree with your interpretation,
is wrong no matter who does it.

Depends on what is being interpreted. Some things in the gospel are non-negotiable.

 

[ozso]

I deliberately avoided what I had in mind, which was not hell, it comes before hell.

If you want to truthfully explain what you were getting at, you should come right out and say it, instead of being cryptic, which makes you look untruthful.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The very fact that the word for "DETERMINED" is also revealed as showing the 'active' difference, with thelo, when compared in the 'passive' definition of another word boulomai, should give one a clue something is a bit fishy at worst, but revelatory also....IMO. I'm taking the last POV.

I just disproved that by Paul’s usage of the word thelō in Romans 7:15-21. Just because boulomai has a similar meaning doesn’t mean that thelō must have a different meaning. It’s called a synonym every language has them.

 

[ozso]

Depends on what is being interpreted. Some things in the gospel are non-negotiable.

All the same your opinion is not the Word of God, so I wish you would stop saying it is.

 

[Hmm]

The driving force of the Universalist argument here has been "Universal Salvation would be wonderful if it were true, so I'm making it my belief."

You've obviously misunderstood the argument made then. You have been saying that people believe in universal redemption because they think it would be nice and cuddly if it was true but no-one who does believe in it has been saying that. It's almost like you're arguing with yourself...

 

[BNR32FAN]

You know what? You're right, and I apologize for that. It just feels like those who work so hard to justify such a fate for God's creation, just make us feel like it should apply. Again, bad assumption for me to write. I can only ask for forgiveness from you.

I apologize brother I could’ve and definitely should’ve handled that much more politely than I did. I see many indications in the scriptures that some will not enter Heaven. Another example would be when Jesus said that for the one who betrays Him it would be better for him if he had never been born. If Judas was ever destined to enter Heaven then it certainly wouldn’t be better if he had never been born. Then there’s Luke 12:10 he who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven but he who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. In the parallel verses in Matthew it’s written neither in this world/age or the next. In Mark 3 it’s written he never has forgiveness but is guilty of an eternal sin. Taking all of these into consideration reveals that there’s a contrast between the sins that will be forgiven and the sin that won’t be forgiven. All three of these parallel verses say the same message but in three different ways. They must be interpreted in a way that coincides with each other. I know most universalists will point to Matthew 12:32 and argue the definition of the word aiōn but you have to examine the context of all three parallel verses and even in Matthew 12:31 He specifically said it shall not be forgiven. No one can enter Heaven with unforgiven sins. Yes Jesus died for all men, he is the propitiation for the whole world. I absolutely agree with this but only those who abide in Him will He acknowledge before The Father and only those will be saved. He will be the one to decide who He will forgive and who He will not because He paid the price. My beliefs have nothing to do with my wants or desires they are the result of my studies on the word of God regardless of my feelings because I know that no matter what God decided I fully trust that He knows what’s best and He will always make a better decision than I ever could. I don’t question it I just believe what the scriptures tell me and in the end if I’m wrong I’ll still be content knowing that I didn’t allow my personal feelings get in the way of my beliefs or my preaching. I appreciate your apology and I wholeheartedly forgive you and ask your forgiveness in return for my rudeness in my reply. May God bless us both with understanding of His word the way He intended it. God bless you brother.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You've obviously misunderstood the argument made then. You have been saying that people believe in universal redemption because they think it would be nice and cuddly if it was true but no-one who does believe in it has been saying that. It's almost like you're arguing with yourself...

In his defense I have seen many threads hinting to that notion, saying things like how could an all loving God punish people in the lake of fire for all eternity. Arguments like that are deriving from a human perspective on love and logic rather than scriptural evidence. So I think there is some weight to @Albion ‘s claim there.

 

[Clare73]

If you want to truthfully explain what you were getting at, you should come right out and say it, instead of being
cryptic, which makes you look untruthful.

Who made that rule?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Wouldn't this be a great day for Satan and his demons!!!

Absolutely not since they will be burning just like the rest of those who reject Christ. The lake of fire was prepared specifically for satan and his children.

 

[Clare73]

All the same your opinion is not the Word of God, so I wish you would stop saying it is.

Sorry. . .talk is cheap. . .not the way it works.

Biblical assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.

If you assert that it is not the word of God, you must demonstrate such for your assertion to have merit.

 

[Hmm]

In his defense I have seen many threads hinting to that notion, saying things like how could an all loving God punish people in the lake of fire for all eternity. Arguments like that are deriving from a human perspective on love and logic rather than scriptural evidence. So I think there is some weight to @Albion ‘s claim there.

That may/may not be so but he claimed that the "driving force" of the pro-universalist argument made in this discussion is that "it would be wonderful it it were true" which is clearly false and mildly patronising. The driving force has been Scripture, just a different interpretation of it than his.

 

[ozso]

Sorry. . .talk is cheap. . .not the way it works.

Biblical assertion without Biblical demonstration is without Biblical merit.

If you assert that it is not the word of God, you must demonstrate such for your assertion to have merit.

In other words you're going to keep calling your opinions the Word of God

 

[ozso]

Who made that rule?

Common sense. Your evasiveness indicates duplicity.

 

[Clare73]

In other words you're going to keep calling your opinions the Word of God

Have you Biblically demonstrated they are not?

 

[Clare73]

Common sense. Your evasiveness indicates duplicity.

Perhaps seemingly to some, but not necessarily. . .

 

[BNR32FAN]

That may/may not be so but he claimed that the "driving force" of the pro-universalist argument made in this discussion is that "it would be wonderful it it were true" which is clearly false and mildly patronising. The driving force has been Scripture, just a different interpretation of it than his.

Well I certainly wouldn’t say that is the driving force behind all universalists but from what I’ve seen I think it’s safe to say that it is for many universalists.

 

[Hmm]

Well, universalism is no more a monolithic block than is any other Christian tradition but I would imagine that Scripture is the driving force for all Christians of all persuasions. What would anyone identify as a Christian if it wasn't?

 

[zippy2006]

What's not to like?

This reminds me of the Beach Boys' "Wouldn't it be Nice?"

"Maybe if we think and wish... it might come true."​

Unfortunately this sort of fallacious reasoning underlies most of Universalism. Just because you like something doesn't make it true. It is remarkable how common this kind of fallacy is today, although it was the same sort of anti-intellectual optimism that led the People of God astray in the time of Jeremiah.