Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Clare73]

Why do you say some people are children of God and some are mere creatures? If you are born someone's child, you are always their child, no?

You aren't born God's child, you are born a condemned human being by Adam's sin (Romans 5:18), by nature (with which we are born) an object of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), and become his child only by being reborn of his Spirit (John 1:12-13).

 

[Hmm]

You aren't born God's child, you are born a condemned human being by Adam's sin (Romans 5:18), by nature (with which we are born) an object of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), and become his child only by being reborn of his Spirit (John 1:12-13).

Doesn't Jesus tell us to become like children? If you're right, wouldn't this be telling us to become like little "condemned human beings"?

”Whoever becomes humble like this object of wrath is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven" sounds a bit odd to me.

 

[Clare73]

Doesn't Jesus tell us to become like children? If you're right, wouldn't this be telling us to become like little "condemned human beings"?

No, this is telling us to become trusting, dependant, open and sincere as little children.

Death is the result of sin. So why do infants die? When did they sin?

 

[zippy2006]

Anti-intellectual, that's a new one. I'll add it to the list, thanks.

Yes, when you claim that things are true because you like them, you are being anti-intellectual. It is not rational to ground your positions in the fallacy of argumentum ad passiones. This is a wonderful example of what our atheist friends refer to as wishful thinking.

 

[Hmm]

Death is the result of sin. So why do infants die? When did they sin?

They didn't sin I agree. They died because of the Fall, not because they are "objects of God's wrath." However I guess I this is becoming OT.

 

[Hmm]

Yes, when you claim that things are true because you like them, you are being anti-intellectual. It is not rational to ground your positions in the fallacy of argumentum ad passiones. This is a wonderful example of what our atheist friends refer to as wishful thinking.

Mind-reading is pretty anti-intellectual too. That's not what I think and I've never said that anywhere.

The rational way to proceed on a forum if you wish to know what someone thinks is either to ask them or to check with them that your understanding of what they have said is correct.

 

[Strong in Him]

People teach it because the Bible teaches that God wills and desires universal redemption for all and for all creation.

It also teaches that not all will be reconciled to God.
Whoever does not accept God's free gift of eternal life through Christ, will perish, John 3:16, John 3:18, John 3:36, John 5:24, John 5:29, 1 John 5:12.

Christian universalism doesn't say that Jesus taught that. It's Christocentric and says that salvation will only come after you have bowed your knee and praised Him as any other tradition does.

Ok.

I agree with that too. I think the only difference is that you think this response has to be given in this lifetime.

It does.
The Bible makes it clear that God honours faith:
Jesus said "Because you have seen me, you believe; blessed are those who have not seen and still believe", John 20:29.
Paul said "we live by faith, not by sight", 2 Corinthians 5:7.
The author of Hebrews says that "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see", Hebrews 11:1.
After death, everyone will see God; there will be no need for faith.

The Gospel that was preached by Jesus and the early church was that people should repent NOW and make a decision for God before it was too late. Why the urgency to preach the Good News before Jesus returns if everyone will have the ability to respond after death? How and why would they have urged people to accept Christ, live for him, preach the Gospel to all and be salt and light in an evil world if, in fact, the Gospel said "all these folk you are preaching to will meet God one day and will trust in him only after they are able to see him"?

No one can come to the Father except through Jesus, John 14:6.
So if a person dies without Jesus, they die unreconciled to God.

The Harrowing of Hell for instance suggests that God doesn't simply give up on us at the moment of death.

We are told that all die, and then face judgement, Hebrews 9:27.

Having eternal life now - living in a good relationship with God - is obviously a good thing for universalists and non-universalists alike.

Yes - but I suggest that there is no need for anyone to preach a Gospel of repentance, far less give their life for it, if everyone who rejects Jesus will one day repent and still be saved.
Nor is there a need to teach that God rewards those who live by faith, if one day, thousands will believe when they see him.

Universalism agrees, there has to be sincere repentence and a free coming to God.

Yet it also teaches that if people don't, they have another chance after death?
If so, why would they need to?

What about all the verses that express God's intention of being "all in all" and saying that all will be saved?

There are also many verses which say that those who don't believe and receive, will perish.
There would be no sense of urgency to preach the Gospel and teach repentance otherwise. Our message would surely be "repent and believe the Good News - but if you don't want to, you will be able to do so when you're dead."

I have always rejected the idea of God as eternal tormenter.

Me too - because it's false.
But some people give the impression that God creates people just to send them to hell, and that it is his will to do so.

He would to force anyone because, as you say, you can't force anyone to love you. But God knows what we need to be able to see Him clearly and so love Him freely

God has already provided what we need to see him clearly.
Even people like Abraham, Noah, Moses, etc etc were able to see God, trust, love and follow him.
Yet we have Jesus, his teachings, his death and resurrection, the Holy Spirit, the Bible and 2000 years of Christian witness - people like Francis of Assisi, William Booth, George Muller, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, David Watson, who trusted God, served him and had fantastic spiritual gifts and ministries.

Hell is a state without God - he is not, and cannot be, in hell.

The only difference I've seen in anything you've said and in what Christian universalism says is whether death is the end of our opportunity to learn about God and thus to love Him.

I can't see that the Bible teaches anything else.
As I said, the Gospel would otherwise be, "repent and come to Jesus - if you want to; if not, don't worry about it, you can carry on living in sin but repent after death, when you see him face to face."

Universalism is a traditional Christian that says that we are only saved through Christ.

We ARE only saved through Christ - all those who do not have Christ are not saved.
But I see no evidence that people can die unsaved, without Christ, in their sins, then meet him, repent
and everything will be fine.

That's obviously just a quick response to your post and I hope I haven't appeared to be dismissive of any of your points.

Not at all; thank you for your reply.

 

[ozso]

Christian universalism,.definition of an oxymoron.

What would Christiane exclusivism be the definition of?

 

[ozso]

You aren't born God's child, you are born a condemned human being by Adam's sin (Romans 5:18), by nature (with which we are born) an object of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), and become his child only by being reborn of his Spirit (John 1:12-13).

That sounds like Calvin's view. I wonder what the Orthodox view is.

 

[ozso]

Yes, when you claim that things are true because you like them, you are being anti-intellectual. It is not rational to ground your positions in the fallacy of argumentum ad passiones. This is a wonderful example of what our atheist friends refer to as wishful thinking.

But that's like saying chocolate isn't the best flavor of ice cream

 

[Andrewn]

I have always rejected the idea of God as eternal tormenter. My relief was in learning that there is a Christian tradition, albeit a minority view nowadays, that goes back throughout church history that thinks the same and that a belief in ECT and God as the embodiment of live is not compatible in any way.

In a previous post, you recommended certain authors. Because the biblical evidence of UR is clear to me, I wanted to read more about opinions of Church Fathers who spent their lives studying and meditating on the Bible and spoke its Koine Greek. I recently ordered "A Larger Hope?, Volume 1: Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian of Norwich" by Ilaria L. E. Ramelli and Richard Bauckham.

Do you strongly recommend other books?

 

[Andrewn]

God doesn’t want anyone to sin and every single person who’s ever lived has disappointed Him, from the very first to the very last except One. God didn’t want to kill everyone in the flood but He had to in order set His plan in motion. God didn’t want the Israelites to worship the golden calf or other idols yet they did repeatedly throughout their history. If God got everything He wanted Christ wouldn’t have had to die on the cross to begin with.

You aren't born God's child, you are born a condemned human being by Adam's sin (Romans 5:18), by nature (with which we are born) an object of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), and become his child only by being reborn of his Spirit (John 1:12-13).

As I suspected, it's not only a matter of misinterpretation of few verses. This conversation may just be starting or ending, depending on whether everyone wants to get into these issues. I’m not sure whether everyone here has the appetite to discuss these misunderstandings.

 

[BNR32FAN]

As I suspected, it's not only a matter of misinterpretation of few verses. This conversation may just be starting or ending, depending on whether everyone wants to get into these issues. I’m not sure whether everyone here has the appetite to discuss these misunderstandings.

You said God will get everything He wants, I just proved that He doesn’t.

 

[Andrewn]

What your saying is that they will be forgiven when they cease to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. The scriptures say 3 times in 3 different ways that it will not be forgiven, that they never have forgiveness, that they have committed an eternal sin. In all three gospel accounts of this message the contrast is between all sins that will be forgiven as opposed to the one sin that will not be forgiven.

Mat 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Not to mention that this would also contradict Matthew 7:21 if all who say to Him Lord Lord will enter Heaven. You acting as if aeon can’t mean eternity or forever when it absolutely can. Unless you think that God’s kingdom, power, and glory is only for a limited time. Or that His reign is only temporary, or that those who are in Christ Jesus will only live for a limited time, or the fig tree that died and withered will only cease to produce fruit for a limited time. So it’s not as if the word aeon used in these verses cannot refer to eternity or forever, because it is used in the context of an unlimited amount of time over and over throughout the scriptures. Now I’m not saying that it always refers to an unlimited amount of time I’m just pointing out that it often does.

When did I say any of these things that you attribute to me? Please read more slowly to understand and quote any passage that is not clear. False witness is a sin, in fact it's mentioned in the 10 Commandments.

As for Mat 7:21, just at the heading of this passage in my Bible says, "Watch out for false prophets." False prophets will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Clare73]

They didn't sin I agree. They died because of the Fall, not because they are "objects of God's wrath." However I guess I this is becoming OT.

They died because they are born with Adam's sin (transgression of law) which was accounted to them, just as Adam's sin was accounted to all those between Adam and Moses who died when there was no law to transgress, because Adam's sin was accounted to them also (Romans 5:12-17), as it is to all mankind (Romans 5:18).

The wrath of God is not limited to the OT, same God in the NT: John 3:36; Romans 1:18, Romans 2:5, Romans 5:9, Romans 9:22, Romans 13:4; Ephesians 2:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Revelation 6:16, Revelation 9:15.

 

[Clare73]

That sounds like Calvin's view. I wonder what the Orthodox view is.

Hopefully, it is the same as Romans 5:18; Ephesians 2:3 and John 1:12-13. However, Scripture, in agreement with the rest of Scripture, governs.

 

[Clare73]

You aren't born God's child, you are born a condemned human being by Adam's sin (Romans 5:18), by nature (with which we are born) an object of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), and become his child only by being reborn of his Spirit (John 1:12-13).

As I suspected, it's not only a matter of misinterpretation of few verses. This conversation may just be starting or ending, depending on whether everyone wants to get into these issues. I’m not sure whether everyone here has the appetite to discuss these misunderstandings.

They aren't "misunderstandingings" until Biblically demonstrated to be so.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

You said God will get everything He wants, I just proved that He doesn’t.

God does get what He wants. He doesn't want to save those who don't believe in Him. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. That whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." Those who believe. Sure God would love it if everyone believed, but they don't, therefore, He does not want those who don't. That is why all who are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life perish in the end.

 

[Hmm]

In a previous post, you recommended certain authors. Because the biblical evidence of UR is clear to me, I wanted to read more about opinions of Church Fathers who spent their lives studying and meditating on the Bible and spoke its Koine Greek. I recently ordered "A Larger Hope?, Volume 1: Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian of Norwich" by Ilaria L. E. Ramelli and Richard Bauckham.

Do you strongly recommend other books?

I've not read it but I've heard that it's a very well researched work and and presumably there are more volumes that follow? I'm reading my very first ever universalist book without pictures and that's The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott. He's a philosopher and great at biblical exegesis and the combination's good and I would highly recommend it. I'm reading the second edition which apparently has been substantially expanded from the first edition.

 

[Hmm]

They died because they are born with Adam's sin (transgression of law) which was accounted to them, just as Adam's sin was accounted to all those between Adam and Moses who died when there was no law to transgress, because Adam's sin was accounted to them also (Romans 5:12-17), as it is to all mankind (Romans 5:18).

The wrath of God is not limited to the OT, same God in the NT: John 3:36; Romans 1:18, Romans 2:5, Romans 5:9, Romans 9:22, Romans 13:4; Ephesians 2:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Revelation 6:16, Revelation 9:15.

That's true (original sin) for the mainstream western traditions but not for the Eastern Orthodox church which has the more meaningful concept of ancestral sin.