Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Fervent]

So why does Jesus tell them straight about the sparrows and say 'Fear not'? He's clearly starting with the common view of Gehenna (note that 'destroy body and soul' is more annihiliationist than damnationist) and then taking it somewhere (God values you too highly to do that). He goes on to say all will be forgiven but blasphemy of the HS, which presumably will result in a stint at the Gehenna re-education camp.

The "fear not" refers to his earlier declaration that they would be dragged before kings and judges and persecuted in all manners for being his disciple. It has nothing to do with his declaration that they should fear God, otherwise he would be contradicting himself immediately after making a statement. It is essentially have no fear of men, because God will judge the world.

How is God toothless in my view? He chooses to save. To just dismissively and negligently cast off would be the easy option. Salvation is Jesus' explicit mission (it's in the name), and in the Son we see the Father. I don't see anything toothless about the Omega plan.

He's a God without vengeance, a God that Ps 137:9 is completely untrue of. A god for which the imprecatory Psalms are rendered sinful rather than being righteous indignation. A god that holds none accountable, instead raging at an innocent and committing the greatest injustice in the death of Christ simply so that the rightful penalty against the guilty may be rendered void.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

What makes you think this verse refers to universal reconciliation? Please show me where God sets bail for getting out of hell? What is the bail for getting out of hell? How many farthings? Where do the dead in hell keep their farthings so they can bail themselves out of hell?

It's not bail, der Alte, it's being stripped of everything we possessed, the wheat and chaff.

What makes you think this verse refers to universal reconciliation? Please show me where God sets bail for getting out of hell? What is the bail for getting out of hell? How many farthings? Where do the dead in hell keep their farthings so they can bail themselves out of hell?

I have a suggestion for you when quoting your proof texts you should read the greater context to avoid quoting out-of-context.
Please show me the scripture which says salt saves people? Do you even know what that means?
UR-ites quote Mar 9:49, out-of-context, as if it is concrete proof that UR is true.

Mark 9:42-50
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
50 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.​

First vs. 42 begins with a warning of a fate worse than death so it hardly follows that in vs. 49 Jesus is saying all mankind will be saved, righteous and unrighteous alike, even after death.
Then Jesus describes a place where the fire is not quenched and the worm of each person in that place never dies.
Then Jesus states "every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt." What does that mean?

Ezekiel 43:23-24
23 When thou hast made an end of cleansing it, thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish.
24 And thou shalt offer them before the LORD, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up for a burnt offering unto the LORD.
Leviticus 2:13
13 And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.​

Every offering must be without blemish before they are salted, they are not made "without blemish" by the fire/salt. So vs. 49 refers only to followers of Jesus not all mankind

Now, there's always those who say 'Jesus is only speaking to believers'. Well, are there any verses where you say Jesus is telling gentiles they'll burn in hell?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The "fear not" refers to his earlier declaration that they would be dragged before kings and judges and persecuted in all manners for being his disciple. It has nothing to do with his declaration that they should fear God, otherwise he would be contradicting himself immediately after making a statement. It is essentially have no fear of men, because God will judge the world.

So what does the 2 sparrows allusion have to do with it? Why is Jesus bothering to tell the disciples that they're more valuable to God than a couple of birds?

He's a God without vengeance, a God that Ps 137:9 is completely untrue of. A god for which the imprecatory Psalms are rendered sinful rather than being righteous indignation. A god that holds none accountable, instead raging at an innocent and committing the greatest injustice in the death of Christ simply so that the rightful penalty against the guilty may be rendered void.

God's anger is but for a moment, His hesed endures forever.

Of course He holds all accountable, that's why He converts His enemies! You've been on this thread a long time Sir, but it appears you comprehend it not.

 

[Fervent]

So what does the 2 sparrows allusion have to do with it? Why is Jesus bothering to tell the disciples that they're more valuable to God than a couple of birds?

It runs in concert with the notion that God is capable of far worse than men are, in that those God chooses to care for will be cared for. The whole thing has to be considered as a unit, isolating this half paragraph renders the meaning obscure since it doesn't give any indication why the audience would be afraid of men. Which is what they are being told not to be afraid of, because God is more frightful and that same God is on their side not the side of their oppressors.

God's anger is but for a moment, His hesed endures forever.

Of course He holds all accountable, that's why He converts His enemies! You've been on this thread a long time Sir, but it appears you comprehend it not.

It either renders the cross a sham, in that those who submit to it are not spared anything...as the wrath that was directed against them was fully justified and they are still accountable to it. Or else it spares them from a discipline that is designed to bring about the best in them and leaves them unrefined. So which is it, is the cross void and the ransom still due or was the ransom paid unjustly and so those who accept Christ in this life spared from restorative discipline?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

It runs in concert with the notion that God is capable of far worse than men are, in that those God chooses to care for will be cared for. The whole thing has to be considered as a unit, isolating this half paragraph renders the meaning obscure since it doesn't give any indication why the audience would be afraid of men. Which is what they are being told not to be afraid of, because God is more frightful and that same God is on their side not the side of their oppressors.

Agree that the entire passage, and indeed the Sermon on the Mount, needs to be considered as a package, and that in the context of the Cross and the revelation of God's plan to deliver on the Abrahamic Covenant universal blessing. It's clear that Jesus is reminding the disciples here that God can do much worse than man, but he changes tack immediately and reassures them that the ignominious fate does not await them. This is supported by 'you are worth more than many sparrows', and the following verses dealing with forgiveness. The fate of the kings and judges is not at issue here. It's the Manifesto of the our King on how to be disciples.

It either renders the cross a sham, in that those who submit to it are not spared anything...as the wrath that was directed against them was fully justified and they are still accountable to it. Or else it spares them from a discipline that is designed to bring about the best in them and leaves them unrefined. So which is it, is the cross void and the ransom still due or was the ransom paid unjustly and so those who accept Christ in this life spared from restorative discipline?

I'd suggest the cross is rendered toothless, futile and shambolic where the many are doomed. The pharisees excelled at righteous conduct, but were found wanting. Christ's death and resurrection brings grace and truth into the world. Ultimately, all will be drawn to it and believe. The ransom was paid for all, not just the righteous. This is why the true victory of Christ is a more enduring, perfect victory than Caesar's - because of the true repentance and contrition it produces. The convert is left with a deep gratitude and a willingness to make good his past sins and errors.

 

[ozso]

Great excuse for hypocrisy, I suppose. Mock, insult, and use exceedingly unkind "humor," get called on it and blame the victim, and when that fails claim it goes both ways. Reciprocation, I suppose.

I think people go on threads like this to flame universalism and concurrently its proponents, and when that turns out to not be easy they start feeling victimized. Yet they stick around page after page, giving and getting. I used to do that with SDAs on sabbath threads for a while. But then I decided it wasn't particularly edifying, so I gave it a rest.

 

[Fervent]

Agree that the entire passage, and indeed the Sermon on the Mount, needs to be considered as a package, and that in the context of the Cross and the revelation of God's plan to deliver on the Abrahamic Covenant universal blessing. It's clear that Jesus is reminding the disciples here that God can do much worse than man, but he changes tack immediately and reassures them that the ignominious fate does not await them. This is supported by 'you are worth more than many sparrows', and the following verses dealing with forgiveness. The fate of the kings and judges is not at issue here. It's the Manifesto of the our King on how to be disciples.

The entire passage begins with 10:16, but "fear not" is an inclusio as it is repeating 10:26 where the object is explicitly "them." Jesus isn't telling them to fear God in one breath and then not fear God in the next, but to fear God rather than men.

I'd suggest the cross is rendered toothless, futile and shambolic where the many are doomed. The pharisees excelled at righteous conduct, but were found wanting. Christ's death and resurrection brings grace and truth into the world. Ultimately, all will be drawn to it and believe. The ransom was paid for all, not just the righteous. This is why the true victory of Christ is a more enduring, perfect victory than Caesar's - because of the true repentance and contrition it produces. The convert is left with a deep gratitude and a willingness to make good his past sins and errors.

The glory of the cross is not dependent upon its reception, even if only a single one were delivered by it Christ's glory would remain the same. And the Pharisee's were decidedly did not excel at righteous conduct, but they were whitewashed tombs making a show of "righteousness" through their religosity. What you are proposing renders the cross nothing more than empty brutality since apparently it was a price no one required and God just felt like doing a little pantomime where the innocent Jesus is beaten, mocked, spit on, and put naked on a cross to die the death of a criminal for no real purpose since each individual is going to be fully held accountable, or else no one is going to be held accountable. So which is it, is everyone being held accountable and the cross void or is no one being held accountable?

 

[Fervent]

I think people go on threads like this to flame universalism and concurrently its proponents, and when that turns out to not be easy they start feeling victimized. Yet they stick around page after page, giving and getting. I used to do that with SDAs on sabbath threads for a while. But then I decided it wasn't particularly edifying, so I gave it a rest.

Uh huh...right. Just more excuses and victim blaming. About par for the course, certainly isn't what the other poster highlighted about the typical UR-proponent on threads like these being one-note and so emotionally invested that when they find their position indefensible when sticking to what the text says turn to tactics aimed at making the one presenting the counterargument ostracized and "irrational."

 

[ozso]

Uh huh...right. Just more excuses and victim blaming. About par for the course, certainly isn't what the other poster highlighted about the typical UR-proponent on threads like these being one-note and so emotionally invested that when they find their position indefensible when sticking to what the text says turn to tactics aimed at making the one presenting the counterargument ostracized and "irrational."

Sounds like sour grapes to me bro.

 

[Fervent]

Sounds like sour grapes to me bro.

And just what is it I'm supposed to lack? No sour grapes, I just find your conduct abhorrent.

 

[ozso]

Sorry this is a discussion forum. I discuss topics here. I don't chase various websites. If you can't bring it here, forget about it. I can't find anything about harrowing hell in my Bible.
Just did a quick google. The harrowing of hell is NOT scriptural.
Prison is never called hell/the grave and hell/the grave/hell is never called prison anywhere in the Bible. That was not part of Jesus' earthly mission. Luke 4:18-19.
If Jesus' preaching in 1 Peter 3:19-20 was for the purpose of saving the dead, it was a dismal failure since only 8 people were saved, Noah and his family, and they were alive not in hell/the grave when they were saved.

According to the 2000 year old interpretation, which is what was presented to you, Peter didn't say only 8 people were saved when Jesus descended into hell, he said only 8 people were saved from drowning in the flood at the time the flood happened.

It's quite ironic to me how you scoff at interpretations given on websites by anonymous people, while being an anonymous person giving interpretations on a website.

Although in the case of what I presented, Fr. Josiah Trenham of the Eastern Orthodox church isn't anonymous, even though you erroneously labeled him as such.

 

[ozso]

And just what is it I'm supposed to lack? No sour grapes, I just find your conduct abhorrent.

Just my conduct or the conduct of those who have argued with you in this thread?

And since "abhorrent conduct" is such a serious accusation, I'd appreciate it if you'd point out what abhorrent conduct you're talking about, from me, so that I can confess it to God and ask for your forgiveness. I'm being quite sincere about that.

 

[returntosender]

I think people go on threads like this to flame universalism and concurrently its proponents, and when that turns out to not be easy they start feeling victimized. Yet they stick around page after page, giving and getting. I used to do that with SDAs on sabbath threads for a while. But then I decided it wasn't particularly edifying, so I gave it a rest.

We need to fight the good fight against those that would eliminate God's wonderful son. Rendering his death meaningless. Save the youth and newbies to such heritical views.
They have gathered together here almost alone with their nonsense. Isn't that wonderful?. They will fall on their own swords.

 

[Hmm]

I think people go on threads like this to flame universalism and concurrently its proponents, and when that turns out to not be easy they start feeling victimized.

I've noticed this victim playing too. I don't know why that is but it does seem to be related to frustration at their arguments not holding up, as you say.

 

[Hmm]

Save the youth and newbies to such heritical views.

They're not "heritical" views. They're heretical views, I think you mean.

 

[John Mullally]

I've noticed this victim playing too. I don't know why that is but it does seem to be related to frustration at their arguments not holding up, as you say.

I know many are very passionate.

Suggestion: Please find a better term for Non-Universalists than Damnationists & Infernalists.

 

[Hmm]

Suggestion: Please find a better term for Non-Universalists than Damnationists & Infernalists.

Any suggestions? They're the terms I see in the literature.

 

[John Mullally]

Any suggestions? They're the terms I see in the literature.

Non-Universalist is one - maybe someone has a better one.

 

[ozso]

If I am causing my brother to stumble by generating hatred or similar towards me by being abhorrent, then I think it's best that I discontinue posting to forums. I sincerely apologize for having offended anyone and ask for your prayers and forgiveness.

 

[John Mullally]

If I am causing my brother to stumble by generating hatred or similar towards me by being abhorrent, then I think it's best that I discontinue posting to forums. I sincerely apologize for having offended anyone and ask for your prayers and forgiveness.

FWIW: I'm not upset with you or anyone else. Its a tough subject and worth considering against the Word.