• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,393
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,356.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So you don't think God has cared enough to similarly watch over His Word and make sure we have what He intended ???
Did God "watch over His Word" when the translations mentioned below were made? Did we get "what He intended"?

Saint Steven said:
The same free will we have was applied to the Bible. Of course God would allow it. The same God that allowed Young to make his translation. (which you marginalized as not being "majority") If you really believe God is sovereign over the Bible, how did this happen? Same goes for the JW and SDA translations. Don't make an idol out of a book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hmm
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
15,554
10,400
79
Auckland
✟440,050.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, I'm not saying that.
But it certainly doesn't fit the category you have invented for it.

Steve it is best if we address the message rather than slur the messenger.

If you agree that God has watched over His word and we have what we need, then main stream translations are carrying the meaning He intended - yes??
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,393
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,356.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Steve it is best if we address the message rather than slur the messenger.

If you agree that God has watched over His word and we have what we need, then main stream translations are carrying the meaning He intended - yes??
Yes, we have what we need.
But I disagree with everything else in your post.

If the messenger messed up, and I believe they did, then they deserve to be criticized. If God "watched over His Word" we wouldn't have conflicting and erroneous translations. The message is what we are all debating here.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
15,554
10,400
79
Auckland
✟440,050.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, we have what we need.
But I disagree with everything else in your post.

If the messenger messed up, and I believe they did, then they deserve to be criticized. If God "watched over His Word" we wouldn't have conflicting and erroneous translations. The message is what we are all debating here.

So the bible as it is, combined with the Holy Spirit's help, is adequate for our understanding of essential truth in this age?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,144
EST
✟1,123,493.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
St Steven said:
Did God "watch over His Word" when the translations mentioned below were made? Did we get "what He intended"?
Saint Steven said:
The same free will we have was applied to the Bible. Of course God would allow it. The same God that allowed Young to make his translation. (which you marginalized as not being "majority") If you really believe God is sovereign over the Bible, how did this happen? Same goes for the JW and SDA translations. Don't make an idol out of a book
.
What some folks don't know or maybe ignore because it does not fit their narrative.
"Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible was first translated in 1862 by Robert Young, a Scottish publisher who was self-taught and proficient in various ancient languages. Young also compiled Young’s Analytical Concordance and Concise Critical Comments on the New Testament. A revised version of the YLT was published in 1887 and a new revised version in 1898, a year after Young’s death."
https://www.gotquestions.org/Youngs-Literal-Translation-YLT.html
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Lazarus Short
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,393
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,356.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So the bible as it is, combined with the Holy Spirit's help, is adequate for our understanding of essential truth in this age?
The Bible, despite the way it is, with the Holy Spirit's help, is barely adequate for us to debate the truth in this age. That's why there is no consensus. All according to plan. There is no salvation in doctrine. Only God can save. And he will. Every last one of us. Love wins.

Saint Steven said:
Yes, we have what we need.
But I disagree with everything else in your post.

If the messenger messed up, and I believe they did, then they deserve to be criticized. If God "watched over His Word" we wouldn't have conflicting and erroneous translations. The message is what we are all debating here.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,144
EST
✟1,123,493.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have found so often that Dr Thomas Talbott has something useful to say and he says this about the hardening of hearts in "The Inescapable Love of God", chapter 5, basically that, yes, God does effectively “blind” people’s eyes to the truth but only for a while and always for his ultimately salvific purposes:
"By literally shutting sinners up to their disobedience and requiring them to endure the consequences of their own rebellion, God reveals the self-defeating nature of evil and shatters the illusions that make evil choices possible in the first place.
This extract from earlier in the chapter might help to explain this (my emphases):
… Paul explicitly states that God’s severity towards the disobedient, his judgment of sin, even his willingness to blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the disobedient, are expressions of a more fundamental quality, that of mercy, which is itself an expression of his purifying love. In Romans 11:7 he thus writes: “What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened” (or blinded). He then asks, “have they [the nonremnant who were hardened or blinded] stumbled so as to fall?” and his answer is most emphatic: “By no means!” (11:11). By the end of the following verse, he is already speaking of their full inclusion: “Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!” (11:12). And three verses later he is hinting that their acceptance will mean “life from the dead” (9:15). He then generalizes the whole thing: God blinded the eyes and hardened the hearts of the unbelieving Jews, we discover, as a means by which all of Israel might be saved (Romans 11:25-26) — all of Israel including those who were blinded and hardened. There is simply no way, so far as I can tell, to escape the universalistic implication here. The specific point that Paul makes in Romans 11 is this: Though the unbelieving Jews were in some sense “enemies of God” (11:28), they nonetheless became “disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy” (11:31-NIV). But the general principle (of which the specific point is but an instance) is even more glorious: “For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all” (11:32— Talbott’s emphasis).
According to Paul, therefore, God is always and everywhere merciful, but we sometimes experience his mercy (or purifying love) as severity, judgment, punishment. When we live a life of obedience, we experience his mercy as kindness; when we live a life of disobedience, we experience it as severity (see 11:22). Paul himself calls this a mystery (11:25) and admits that God’s ways are, in just this respect, “inscrutable” and “unsearchable” (11:33)."
Btw, this chapter and chapters 9 and 11 can be downloaded for free from his website at Thomas Talbott- The Inescapable Love of God - 2nd Edition
Edited to actually put my emphases in.
Anybody can make the Bible say almost anything, support almost any doctrine by quoting selective verses out-of-context as has been done in this post.
Romans 11:5
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant [of Jews] according to the election of grace.​
Only a remnant of the Jews NOT all Israel?
Romans 11:14
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.​
Why does Paul have to "provoke to emulation" to save some of his fellow Jews if they are all going to be saved no matter what?
Romans 11:20-22
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:​
Paul's fellow Jews were broken off because of their unbelief. and gentiles grafted into Jesus, If all mankind are going to be saved, no matter what, why are gentiles warned to fear?
21 For if God spared not the natural branches,[Jews] take heed lest he also spare not thee.[gentiles]​
If Paul said all mankind Jews and gentiles alike will be saved why do the gentiles have to take heed or God might not spare them?
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.​
If gentiles do not continue in God's goodness they will be cut off, like Israel was, NOT saved.
Romans 11:23
23 And they also, if they [Jews] abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.​
If the Jews remain in unbelief they will not be saved, grafted in again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fervent
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,721
2,913
45
San jacinto
✟206,453.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Bible, despite the way it is, with the Holy Spirit's help, is barely adequate for us to debate the truth in this age. That's why there is no consensus. All according to plan. There is no salvation in doctrine. Only God can save. And he will. Every last one of us. Love wins.
It's not the Bible that is at fault, as the disagreements between those who place it at center tend to be overstated by critics. And of course we have people who divorce themselves from what the Bible says entirely who think their opinions carry equal weight to exegetical disagreements that only appeal to the Bible when it is useful to their argument and try to disregard everything else that make it seem like there is a greater degree of disagreement than there is.
 
Upvote 0

Cormack

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”
Apr 21, 2020
1,469
1,408
London
✟102,307.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Clearly they did not all repent.

Pauls care for them was alive and active even without their repentance, no? Moses would stand in the space if God would allow for his nation and so too would Paul, and of course Christ died for the sins of the world.

does the potter not have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one object for honorable use, and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with great patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon objects of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 namely us, whom He also called, not only from among Jews, but also from among Gentiles

However we read in the climax to the entire argument that by provoking the nation and bringing in the gentiles “all of Israel will be saved.” During that section there’s a clear distinction being made between Israel as the Jewish people and the gentile world, so it’s not an effort at hyping up and promoting the salvations of an otherworldly “spiritual Israel,” rather it’s the salvation of the actual nation of Jews. “All of Israel will be saved” actually occurs in the Bible so far back as Jeremiah and Isaiah, where the only Israel that was known was the people, the literal descendants of the man Israel.

That’s not to write Paul doesn’t make a provision for this category of spiritual descendants, he actually makes it in Romans nine, but even there it’s not in view of God creating people for eternal damnation, rather it’s with a mind to show that the gentiles too have access to salvation. Gentiles too can be the sons of God because there’s a spiritual category of son, but Paul doesn’t write that in an effort to disqualify Jews from the blessing.

Harmonising the verses was done a page or two back when we read how God was hardening for a purpose, namely for the ingrafting of the gentiles. The section you quoted is actually followed by four Old Testament citations where Paul stresses the ingrafting, though just sharing one should be enough. . .

As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”
Since Romans 11 is arguing for hope and salvation in the case of the wicked Jewish nation, there’s no use in you or I thinking that Romans 9 is a judgment passage that’s trying to allude to people created for eternal conscious torment. Rather the “objects of wrath prepared for destruction,” like in the case of psalms, are about to suffer temporal destruction in the war where the second temple falls.

What is that group’s ignoble purpose, Carl? Not to be doomed from the womb and suffer torment forever, surely not. That’s betraying the whole cultural and historic context. Instead the dishonourable use was that the Jewish people rejected and murdered their own messiah to the advantage of the gentiles.

Now the ingrafting of a wild olive branch can move the natural branches that have been cut off to jealousy. Romans 11 really answers your concerns shared in Romans 9 and gives both you and I a thorough conclusion to the whole line of argument that Paul is going through.

Stopping and making base camp midway through his argument doesn’t do our theology any favours.

Looking at this passage the wolves were created to be wolves...

That would be the dishonourable use theme and something Paul and God expect or wish to redeem.

Are you a determinist or do you believe in any of the five points of Calvinism?
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
15,554
10,400
79
Auckland
✟440,050.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Pauls care for them was alive and active even without their repentance, no? Moses would stand in the space if God would allow for his nation and so too would Paul, and of course Christ died for the sins of the world.



However we read in the climax to the entire argument that by provoking the nation and bringing in the gentiles “all of Israel will be saved.” During that section there’s a clear distinction being made between Israel as the Jewish people and the gentile world, so it’s not an effort at hyping up and promoting the salvations of an otherworldly “spiritual Israel,” rather it’s the salvation of the actual nation of Jews. “All of Israel will be saved” actually occurs in the Bible so far back as Jeremiah and Isaiah, where the only Israel that was known was the people, the literal descendants of the man Israel.

That’s not to write Paul doesn’t make a provision for this category of spiritual descendants, he actually makes it in Romans nine, but even there it’s not in view of God creating people for eternal damnation, rather it’s with a mind to show that the gentiles too have access to salvation. Gentiles too can be the sons of God because there’s a spiritual category of son, but Paul doesn’t write that in an effort to disqualify Jews from the blessing.

Harmonising the verses was done a page or two back when we read how God was hardening for a purpose, namely for the ingrafting of the gentiles. The section you quoted is actually followed by four Old Testament citations where Paul stresses the ingrafting, though just sharing one should be enough. . .

As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”
Since Romans 11 is arguing for hope and salvation in the case of the wicked Jewish nation, there’s no use in you or I thinking that Romans 9 is a judgment passage that’s trying to allude to people created for eternal conscious torment. Rather the “objects of wrath prepared for destruction,” like in the case of psalms, are about to suffer temporal destruction in the war where the second temple falls.

What is that group’s ignoble purpose, Carl? Not to be doomed from the womb and suffer torment forever, surely not. That’s betraying the whole cultural and historic context. Instead the dishonourable use was that the Jewish people rejected and murdered their own messiah to the advantage of the gentiles.

Now the ingrafting of a wild olive branch can move the natural branches that have been cut off to jealousy. Romans 11 really answers your concerns shared in Romans 9 and gives both you and I a thorough conclusion to the whole line of argument that Paul is going through.

Stopping and making base camp midway through his argument doesn’t do our theology any favours.



That would be the dishonourable use theme and something Paul and God expect or wish to redeem.

Are you a determinist or do you believe in any of the five points of Calvinism?

Theology doesn't do much for me...

I simply post verses when I feel the face value meaning is being ignored.

Have a good day.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Cormack
Upvote 0

Cormack

“I bet you're a real hulk on the internet...”
Apr 21, 2020
1,469
1,408
London
✟102,307.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
If Paul had intended to say it was a done deal he would not have used the subjunctive

If Paul had intended to say it wasn’t a done deal he wouldn’t have made the two points parallel each other.


This is simply my opinion and my high standard of doing things, so it’s not intended as a slight on you. But if your Greek knowledge is based upon copying and pasting to others from an online interlinear, then you don’t know Greek. Almost everyone online does this and they don’t know Greek either.
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
35
Shropshire
✟193,879.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Topics like the one linked below are the issue. I couldn't find the topic I was looking for, but this one below is of the sort.

Thanks for the link. I had a quick scroll through and saw this link to a DBH article so thought I'd share it here too.

It appears likely that Origen was never actually condemned. Saint Origen | David Bentley Hart. And that even the spurious condemnations don’t include most forms of universalism.
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,393
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,356.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for the link. I had a quick scroll through and saw this link to a DBH article so thought I'd share it here too.
Thanks.
Right, the condemnation of Origen was not in reference to Universalism, but to other issues of his teaching.
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
35
Shropshire
✟193,879.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Thanks.
Right, the condemnation of Origen was not in reference to Universalism, but to other issues of his teaching.

Yes, and 300 years after his death. He was disgracefully treated by the church and his reputation should be restored but, as DBH, said that would involve the church admitting it had got it wrong and that's always a hard thing to do, even for a church. It's interesting to read though that the Orthodox church has never condemned universalism as a heresy. From the article:

"Not that there really is much of an argument to be had on the matter. Orthodoxy’s entire dogmatic deposit resides in the canons of the seven ecumenical councils—everything else in Orthodox tradition, be it ever so venerable, beautiful, or spiritually nourishing, can possess at most the authority of accepted custom, licit conjecture, or fruitful practice—and the consensus of the most conscientious and historically literate Orthodox theologians and scholars over the past several decades (Evdokimov, Bulgakov, Clément, Turincev, Ware, Alfeyev, to name a few) is that universalism as such, as a permissible theologoumenon or plausible hope, has never been condemned by the Church. Doctrine is silent on the matter. So live and let live."

I always have to consult a dictionary whenever I read DBH. Theologoumenon means a theological statement or concept in the area of individual opinion rather than of authoritative doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,846
4,331
-
✟724,827.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But this same Greek word is used in the scriptures to describe God’s glory, His reign, His power, our life after this world for those who are in Christ Jesus, and the fig tree that Jesus caused to wither that won’t bear anymore fruit and many more applications that are clearly never ending.

For now that I realize the aeon/eternal debate is yet another distraction
Exactly, if "aionios" meant "endless" there would have not been any debate about UR among Early Church Fathers to whom Koine Greek was the first language, and who understood its meaning very well.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,487
10,856
New Jersey
✟1,338,592.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
It’s also not clear that it is a heresy for the Catholic Church. Certainly hopeful universalism has been taught by Catholic authorities recently.

Conservative Protestants see it as a heresy because many of them don’t think there’s anything to Christianity other than a way to avoid hell. I’m not sure if the same is true of conservative Catholics and Orthodox.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,393
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,356.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I always have to consult a dictionary whenever I read DBH. Theologoumenon means a theological statement or concept in the area of individual opinion rather than of authoritative doctrine.
Yes, he has a remarkable vocabulary.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hmm
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,846
4,331
-
✟724,827.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.