Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Major1]

Did you know that Billy Graham was a borderline universalist?

"I think there's the Body of Christ, which comes from all the Christian groups around the world. Or outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the Body of Christ" - Billy Graham (1997).

A questioner identified only as P.McN had contacted Graham and asked: “Why would a loving God send anyone to hell? I can’t reconcile the idea of hell with Jesus’ teaching about love. I’m not sure I even believe in hell anyway. Maybe everyone will be saved, even if they weren’t expecting it.”

The respected evangelical leader pointed the person to Luke 12:5, where Jesus says, “I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.”

“It may surprise you to discover that no one taught about hell or warned us against it more than Jesus – and we should take his words very seriously,” responded Graham, 92, to the questioner on the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association’s “Billy Graham’s web site.

“But listen: God doesn’t want us to go there! If we do, it will only be because of our stubborn desire to leave God out of our lives,” the well-known preacher added.
Billy Graham Tells Universalist: Hell Is Real | U.S. News (christianpost.com)

He was a great Ecumenalist.

 

[Major1]

Yes, but I've known him extremely well his entire life so.....I know his level of intelligence!!!! And I know what and how much he was taught!!!! And I know how much he knew and understood!!!!

Now I'm not saying he knew everything, or that (like the rest of us) he didn't have more to learn. But he knew and understood much.

Kind of like......Cliff Clavin?????

 

[Major1]

What I go by is that everyone has a God shaped void that needs to be filled. And those who are unsaved try to fill that void, that need, desire, hunger, longing with other things. They try to fill it with self-fulfillment. They try to fill it with drugs and alcohol etc. Of course God gives us the free will to do that, but He also knows that we will never be truly satisfied, and that we will always have that longing for Him, because that's how He designed us. It's what He designed us for.

Coincidental to that belief I have, is that the idea of universal reconciliation and restoration, which is that all mankind will be restored to what God designed and created mankind for.

Now that is true which is exactly why the understanding of the word of God is so important. When we are left to our own designs.....we will always go with what WE WANT!

His word tells us what He said and what He wants us to know.

And ALL men will be resurrected and restored. Some to heaven and some to Hell according to the word of God.



We eithe accept it or we reject it.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Also, while I'm at it, you can't say "THE" Annihilationist position to me if I've already contended that there is more than one Annhilationist position. See the further problem? You did strawman, but you maybe didn't realize you did.

At the very least, you're assuming a conflation between forms of Annihilation, one that I won't subscribe to.

You are correct - I always assumed the annihilationist position was monolithic, but I don't think I was strawmanning. Does the problem I brought up not apply to all varieties of annihilationism? From my POV, it does but YMMV.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is one big problem with annihilationism - the elephant in the room if you will - with some/many/most of humanity reduced to permanent ashes, they still count as The Dead (not Grateful). On the other hand, the Bible states that Death is going to be destroyed.

So either,

annihilation is wrong

or

the Bible is wrong.

Ok.

Here's the thing. If the book of Revelation ended specifically at chapter 20 verse 14 rather than at verse 15, and there was in fact no verse 15 and merely moved right into verse 1 of chapter 21, then I'd think the door would be at least minutely cracked open to allow the possibility---however small---that the eradication of death would also mean that those human beings who had died would (somehow) "all" live anyway.

But what do we find instead? We find in the book of Revelation a theme running through it: the Book of Life. And it is made clear that our names--anyone's name--will be found in the Book of Life according to certain conditions. Those who meet those conditions will be found to have their names written in the Book of Life; those who do not meet those conditions will not have their names written in the Book of Life.


In looking again at the end of chapter 20, we see that along with Satan and his angels, along with the Beast and the False Prophet, and along with both Hades and Death, all those persons whose names are not found written in the Book of Life at the time of the Great White Throne Judgement will be also thrown into the Lake of Fire. Moreover, we see that the writer seems to feel the need to accentuate this idea by mentioning this in verse 15, just after the completion of both Hades and Death having been thrown in to the Lake of Fire, with this accentuation seeming to indicate to the readers that that is the ipso facto end of the road for "ALL" of those persons or entities whose names were not found written in the Book of Life.

From this, the order of the themes presented at the end of Revelation 20 seems to indicate that if a person gets thrown into the Lake of Fire, then that is their final abode and he/she will not also then take part in the New Heavens and the New Earth.

So, forgive me if I continue to disagree with you, but I don't see that the fact that we find verse 14 saying what it says to be any indication that because Death (the personified metaphor that it is here) is thrown into the Lake of Fire, this somehow means that all people who have ever lived are also 'released' from Death and, also, thereby, from the Lake of Fire. No, the literary intention of verse 15, along with all of the context that is poured into the meaning of the Book of Life in Revelation doesn't seem to keep that open to us as a live exegetical option. It may be an eisegetical option, however. And if some folks want to read verse 14 and 15 and 16 in that way, I can't stop them from doing so.

 

[Saint Steven]

As I myself am more inclined towards believing in Inclusivism and Annihilationism, I feel that it's a lot closer to believing in UR than believing in ECT.

How would you define Inclusivism? I'm not familiar with that one. At least not by that name.

 

[Saint Steven]

If annihilationism "sounds" closer to universalism that's only because it's an improvement on ECT but other than that its something quite different.

Yup, oh boy.
That three-way selector is making some HUGE jumps.

Personally, I think it should be a two-way ON/OFF switch.
With ECT/Annihilationism on one side and Universalism on the other.

Maybe that would make the light come on for some of our pals here. - lol

 

[Der Alte]

* * *

Yup, oh boy.

That three-way selector is making some HUGE jumps.
Personally, I think it should be a two-way ON/OFF switch.
With ECT/Annihilationism on one side and Universalism on the other.
Maybe that would make the light come on for some of our pals here. - lol

Nah. Because it can't be supported by any one single passage of scripture. Most any heterodox teaching can be supported by a buffet serving of isolated verses.

 

[Hmm]

Yup, oh boy.
That three-way selector is making some HUGE jumps.

Personally, I think it should be a two-way ON/OFF switch.
With ECT/Annihilationism on one side and Universalism on the other.

Maybe that would make the light come on for some of our pals here. - lol

I agree. While Annihilationism agrees with universalism in that punishment isn’t everlasting (there's either no punishment or a finite period of punishment before the person is destroyed depending on the form of Annihilationism) it still seems closer to ECT than to universalism to me in that some will be denied everlasting life.

 

[Der Alte]

I agree. While Annihilationism agrees with universalism in that punishment isn’t everlasting (there's either no punishment or a finite period of punishment before the person is destroyed depending on the form of Annihilationism) it still seems closer to ECT than to universalism to me in that some will be denied everlasting life.

Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church for 2000 years +/-. Who better than the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the Eastern Orthodox Bible [EOB] know the correct translation of all the Greeks words in the NT?

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.
Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (1 Jn 4:17–18). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.
Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting [aionios] punishment: [kolasis]but the righteous into life eternal.​

Jesus certainly believed that "aionios" means eternal, for ever, everlasting.

John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [aionios] life, and they shall never [aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand”, “never perish.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’/never perish” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”

John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life.​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

 

[ozso]

Kind of like......Cliff Clavin?????

No, like you and I. Why are you attacking my loved ones now? What's wrong with you?

 

[ozso]

Should I simply start pointing out the fallacies y'all employ, since you keep introducing red herrings?

Tu quoque

You misspelled touché.

 

[ozso]

The context here is, in case you missed it, that MMXX is the one who broached the idea that Inclusivism/Annihilationims is "closer" to UR than ECT. Not me. So, maybe you missed that flow in the thread up above?

Frankly, I couldn't care less if other people think Inclusivism or Annihilationism are close to UR or not. All that matters are the actual concepts within each framework and what they actually mean in contrast to one another.

I was focusing more on inclusivism as being on the border of universal salvation.

 

[Fervent]

You misspelled touché.

Why would his blatant whataboutism make me say "touche?"

 

[Fervent]

Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church for 2000 years +/-. Who better than the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the Eastern Orthodox Bible [EOB] know the correct translation of all the Greeks words in the NT?

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.
Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (1 Jn 4:17–18). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.
Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting [aionios] punishment: [kolasis]but the righteous into life eternal.​

Jesus certainly believed that "aionios" means eternal, for ever, everlasting.

John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [aionios] life, and they shall never [aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand”, “never perish.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’/never perish” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”

John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life.​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

At this point you're just beating a dead horse. Frankly, if it weren't for the fact that people don't like what Jesus is saying in Matthew 25:46 no one would entertain questions about "aionios." Just ask them if there is any linguistic reason for questioning the translation before even getting into the discussion. It's not as if it's a hapax or even a rare word so there's not really any reason too suspect that it was misunderstood by early translators. So why even legitimize their objections by arguing them? Just press them for a reason to even examine the issue.

 

[Hmm]

Why would his blatant whataboutism make me say "touche?"

Well, I invited you to tell me what my fallacies are and I'm still waiting...

 

[Fervent]

Well, I invited you to tell me what my fallacies are and I'm still waiting...

Most common quoting out of context and arguments from authority, occasional strawman and a great big heap of begging the question.

 

[Hmm]

Frankly, if it weren't for the fact that people don't like what Jesus is saying in Matthew 25:46 no one would entertain questions about "aionios." Just ask them if there is any linguistic reason for questioning the translation before even getting into the discussion.

The reason is that many serious scholars, some of whom have been mentioned in this discussion, have questioned the translation.

 

[Hmm]

Most common quoting out of context and arguments from authority, occasional strawman and a great big heap of begging the question.

Can you be a little more specific?

 

[Fervent]

Um... The search for truth?

That's not a linguistic reason. What predicates the objection to the word? What causes the word to be scrutinized?

The reason is that many serious scholars, some of whom have been mentioned in this discussion, have questioned the translation.

A whole bunch of "serious scholars" who just happen to all need an excuse to dismiss the verse to maintain their doctine. Do any of them give a reason for questioning the word? Might want to try forwarding those rather than being impressed by letters following a name.