Does this prove universalism?

[HypnoToad]

Someone posted this:

"I’d like to see if anyone can find fault with these verses and the logic behind them in proving, through biblical texts, that hell absolutely must be temporary and for the purpose of saving everyone. I’m just trying to test my arguments so I can refine them and toss out any that are no good. I need to find the chinks in the armor since I’ll eventually write a book on this subject.

"The Bible has a few verses that describe God’s nature. I wouldn’t call this proof-texting because these are about God’s nature, which is always the same no matter what the context.

1 - …for God all things are possible (in reference to saving mankind). (Matt 19:26)
2 - …he does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (2 Pet 3:9)
3 - The LORD does whatever pleases him in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all its deep regions. (Ps 135:6)
4 - For it is God who is producing in you both the desire and the ability to do what pleases him. (Phil 2:13)
5 - A man chooses in his heart, but the LORD directs his steps. (Pro 16:9)

Let’s take this step-by-step:

1. We’re told that God’s will is that none perish but that all come to repentance (ie. - turn from their sinful ways). (2 Pet 3:9)
   
   
2. Then we’re told that He does all His pleasure in heaven and on earth, in the seas and its deep regions (a figurative saying meant to show that He controls every little thing that happens everywhere). (Ps 135:6)
   
   
3. And we find that for God, ALL things are possible (and in that verse, it’s specifically talking about saving men’s souls). (Matt 19:26)
   
   
4. Then we’re told that He produces in us both the desire and the ability to do what pleases Him. (Phil 2:13)
   
   
5. And finally, Proverbs tells us, “A man chooses in his heart, but the LORD directs his steps.” (Pro 16:9)

"In short, if you believe all of those verses are accurate about Him, it means He absolutely must save all of mankind or the Bible is inaccurate about His nature, and He is not truly “Love” as the Bible says. Why would He go against His stated will and make people suffer in Hell forever (perish) when we’re told by Him (Jesus, specifically) that He can do all things (specifically, save someone whom it seems is impossible to save)? Is He just choosing not to save everyone for kicks and giggles? Does He make people suffer for eternity in hell to “show His glory,” as the Calvinist says, which makes absolutely zero sense being that it shows exactly the opposite? I really don’t think so. I think eternal hell doctrine completely destroys the integrity of the Bible and God’s character.

Is there any way to disprove that argument, or is that a pretty sound argument to prove that hell cannot be eternal and that God saves everyone?"

End quote.

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

Everything that happens is not necessarily according to God's will. It depends on which type of God's will is being talked about - like preceptive will vs decretive will. If something is of God's decretive will, it WILL happen. If something is of God's preceptive will, it is merely what God would PREFER to happen, but He will not force it.

For example, 1 Thessalonians 4:3 states that it is God's "will" that we abstain from sexual immorality. Yet we know sexual immorality still happens all the time.

So, what about God's will that none should perish? Which type of will does that belong to? In the light of other verses, like Jesus talking about the "goats" being sent to eternal damnation, and that those who reject the Son "will not see life"... the only logical conclusion is that God's will to save all is preceptive, it's what He wants, but will not force it.

So on that, the logic of the OP fails.

 

[Haipule]

Someone posted this:

"I’d like to see if anyone can find fault with these verses and the logic behind them in proving, through biblical texts, that hell absolutely must be temporary and for the purpose of saving everyone. I’m just trying to test my arguments so I can refine them and toss out any that are no good. I need to find the chinks in the armor since I’ll eventually write a book on this subject.

"The Bible has a few verses that describe God’s nature. I wouldn’t call this proof-texting because these are about God’s nature, which is always the same no matter what the context.

1 - …for God all things are possible (in reference to saving mankind). (Matt 19:26)
2 - …he does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (2 Pet 3:9)
3 - The LORD does whatever pleases him in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all its deep regions. (Ps 135:6)
4 - For it is God who is producing in you both the desire and the ability to do what pleases him. (Phil 2:13)
5 - A man chooses in his heart, but the LORD directs his steps. (Pro 16:9)

Let’s take this step-by-step:

1. We’re told that God’s will is that none perish but that all come to repentance (ie. - turn from their sinful ways). (2 Pet 3:9)
   
   
2. Then we’re told that He does all His pleasure in heaven and on earth, in the seas and its deep regions (a figurative saying meant to show that He controls every little thing that happens everywhere). (Ps 135:6)
   
   
3. And we find that for God, ALL things are possible (and in that verse, it’s specifically talking about saving men’s souls). (Matt 19:26)
   
   
4. Then we’re told that He produces in us both the desire and the ability to do what pleases Him. (Phil 2:13)
   
   
5. And finally, Proverbs tells us, “A man chooses in his heart, but the LORD directs his steps.” (Pro 16:9)

"In short, if you believe all of those verses are accurate about Him, it means He absolutely must save all of mankind or the Bible is inaccurate about His nature, and He is not truly “Love” as the Bible says. Why would He go against His stated will and make people suffer in Hell forever (perish) when we’re told by Him (Jesus, specifically) that He can do all things (specifically, save someone whom it seems is impossible to save)? Is He just choosing not to save everyone for kicks and giggles? Does He make people suffer for eternity in hell to “show His glory,” as the Calvinist says, which makes absolutely zero sense being that it shows exactly the opposite? I really don’t think so. I think eternal hell doctrine completely destroys the integrity of the Bible and God’s character.

Is there any way to disprove that argument, or is that a pretty sound argument to prove that hell cannot be eternal and that God saves everyone?"

End quote.

Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

The argument is theologically based and NOT Scripturally. It has nothing do with God or His Word in spite of what you hold as true.

I gots me some time so lets go through those points:

"We’re told that God’s will is that none perish but that all come to repentance (ie. - turn from their sinful ways). (2 Pet 3:9)"

Actually, "repentance" is an ecclesiastical word and NOT God's Word. The word translated for you as "repentance" is metanoia. It is first the prefixed preposition meta(amid, among, with--loose association) + noia(mind).

God wants us all to be of a like mind so that we can be one as He promised. One body and breath, one Lord, one faith, one baptism-effect, one God of all in all and through you-all. All here is NOT referring to everyone. But, the ones that are the body of the Anointed-One who is Jesus our Lord and God.

When that finally happens, the kosmos-world, as we know it, is trash!

Now, you can quote a thousand commentators at me if you wish. And 2,000 years of tradition and every English translation and say that I'm wrong. Have fun on that wide path friend!

So then, since a little leaven leavens the whole lump, the rest of the writers 5 points are equally as erroneous!

There is no such thing as a "sin"! hamartia translated as "sin(from the Latin sinistra--left-hand)" literally means: the errant flight of an arrow flung from a bow without any concern for the harm it may cause self or others(in both Hebrew and Greek). It's figurative meaning: miss, amiss, wrong way, off course, side tracked(both Hebrew and Greek).

That is why the Hebrew word translated as "repent" means: to return, come back.

"Sin" in English is a ecclesiastical word and means whatever anyone says it means and to as many people whom are dumb enough to listen to them.

You want to author a book? I suggest you read mine first before you say something stupid: Wake Up Call: William McCoy Kindle eBooks.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Simply this. God created us with our own personal perfections. The capacity to know God is a human perction. If God has revealed Himself fully, in the measure of our capability to receive Him, and He is rejected. What more can God do? This is what Satan did. This is what the Pharisees were doing.

If there is nothing more that God can reveal of Himself to another and that other stll rejects God, then who ever does, wills to go where God is not.

 

[Haipule]

εὐ adv. (Hom.+; ins, pap, LXX; TestJob 44:3; ParJer 7:9; EpArist, Philo, Joseph.; Ar. [Milne, p. 74 ln. 1]; Just.; Tat. 17, 3; Ath. καλῶς becomes the more usual word: JLee, NovT 27, ’85, 11f.)
① pert. to that which is good or beneficial, as applied to interpersonal relationship or experience, well εὖ ποιεῖν do good, show kindness (X., Cyr. 1, 6, 30, Oec. 2, 5; Demosth. 20, 37; POxy 1292, 3 [c. 30 A.D.]; LXX; TestJob 44:3f [εὐποιεῖν]; Jos., Ant. 14, 378; Just., A I, 28, 3, D. 118, 5) τινί (Ex 1:20; Sir 12:2, 5. Usu. the acc. follows) Mk 14:7. εὖ δουλεύειν 1 Cl 16:12 (Is 53:11). εὖ πράσσειν (ποιεῖν) means as a rule get along well, be prosperous (Pind.; X., Mem. 1, 6, 8; 2, 4, 6; 4, 2, 26, Oec. 11, 8; Pla., Prot. 333d; Ps.-Pla., Alc. I, 116b; Diog. L. 3, 61; Philo, Virt. 170, Decal. 43; Jos., Ant. 12, 156 al.; cp. Ath. 25, 2. As epistolary formula farewell in POxy 115, 12; 120, 27; 527, 9; 822; PGen 59, 24; 2 Macc 9:19). This sense is poss. in Ac 15:29, but do well, i.e. act correctly or rightly gives a better sense and is supported by the Vulgate, Armenian and Coptic transl. (so Simonides, Fgm. 4, 10 D.2; X., Mem. 3, 9, 14; Ps.-Pla., Eryx. 393e; Epict. 4, 6, 20; Artem. 2, 3 p. 86, 13; M. Ant. 3, 13; Philo, Mut. Nom. 197; Jos., Ant. 4, 286; Just., A I, 28, 3. Further support is gained from recognition of the appropriateness of the phrase in Ac 15:23–29 as an official document transmitted from one group to another in the diplomatic format used, e.g., in IMagnMai 91d, which concludes 8–10 with a related grammatical structure: εὖ οὖν ποιήσετε [τ]ὸν [ἔπαινον|Σωσικλείου]ς καὶ τὰς δεδομένας αὐτῷ τιμὰς εὐνόως ἀποδεξά[μενοι ἔρρω|σθε]=‘you will do well in receiving the commendation of Sosicles and the honors awarded him. Farewell.’ εὖ πράσσειν thus expresses a fundamental feature in the reciprocity system that ran through Gr-Rom. society: recipients of a benefit ‘act correctly’ by reciprocating in some way); sim. IEph 4:2 and ISm 11:3 require some such rendering as do right. ἵνα εὖ σοι γένηται that you may prosper Eph 6:3 (cp. Ex 20:12; Dt 5:16—Gen 12:13; Dt 4:40; TestJob 46:9; ParJer 7:9). εὖ ἔχειν πρός τινα be well-disposed or gracious to someone Hs 9, 10, 7.
② pert. to meeting a standard of performance, well done! excellent! abs. as interjection (Ps.-X., Cyneg. 6, 20 Rühl v.l.) Mt 25:21, 23; Lk 19:17 v.l. (for εὖγε).—DELG s.v. ἐύ. M-M.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 401–402). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

So you pointed out the word good. Goodie for you.

As the writer points out eu, beneficial, is an adverb and NOT an adjective. The Greek adjective for "good" is agathos. Yet, I know good in English can be used as an adverb such a "good for you".

But, I am a translator and do my best to be consistent so that I know exactly which word I translated in all of it's Greek forms. So, I cannot translate an adverb as an adjective regardless of the English.

 

[Der Alte]

So you pointed out the word good. Goodie for you.
As the writer points out eu, beneficial, is an adverb and NOT an adjective. The Greek adjective for "good" is agathos. Yet, I know good in English can be used as an adverb such a "good for you".
But, I am a translator and do my best to be consistent so that I know exactly which word I translated in all of it's Greek forms. So, I cannot translate an adverb as an adjective regardless of the English.

Have you published a peer reviewed grammar and/or lexicon? BDAG which I quoted represents many, many years of scholarship. I think I will stick with BDAG unless or until you publish.

 

[1213]

Does this prove universalism?

In other parts Bible tells how not all people will not live eternally. That is why I think the idea that all are saved is wrong, in Biblical point of view. Even if God would want all to be saved, He can also want that eternal life is only for righteous people. And He can want that people can reject Him. If there are things that are not possible at the same time, I believe God chooses the righteous way.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

 

[Haipule]

Have you published a peer reviewed grammar and/or lexicon? BDAG which I quoted represents many, many years of scholarship. I think I will stick with BDAG unless or until you publish.

I am published. The book is titled Wake Up Call: William McCoy Kindle eBooks if you care for an adventure into God's Word and promised life without all the theological nonsense. Here's the link:

https://www.amazon.com/Wake-Up-Call-William-McCoy-ebook/dp/B00F8CVHJ8

 

[Der Alte]

I am published. The book is titled Wake Up Call: William McCoy Kindle eBooks if you care for an adventure into God's Word and promised life without all the theological nonsense. Here's the link:...

I took a look at your book. I did not see any reviews by knowledgeable scholars in the field. Here are a few quotes from the book.

Paul. quoting Prov 25:21-22, is referring to an ancient Egyptian custom. Whereby, anyone who was ashamed of something they had done would put burning coals on their head. probably on a plate, and publicly display their shame, In other words, if you feed a hungry enemy and give a thirsty enemy a drink, you are publicly displaying their shame.​

When I read an assertion e.g. "ancient Egyptian custom" I like to see source evidence.

The dative case also expresses a relationship. It is the case of the indirect object of a verb. It relates the verb indirectly to something”. If a noun is a person, place or thing, the Greek dative identifies that person, place or thing as a location. In the Greek, even persons are thought of as places like a house on a street, or a location on a map. It is usually translated, in a dative concerning God. as “to God “, in this example, the person God is now a place you can go into, rest in, or exit from (not recommended). The dative does not indicate proximity, direction or motion.
The Greek dative is at rest (no motion). Therefore, there is no “dative of means” as in, “by(means of-God” because, Greek datives do not move! The invented Greek “dative of means” is a grossly overused manipulative tool used by translators and teachers to magically change to” or “in” into “by” or “with” because they do not understand the Greek dative, nor the noun and/or verb in question! And in doing so, are changing nouns and adjectives into verbs, verbs into nouns or adjectives and verbs into personal pronouns! These things should not be! Means is only expressed by the preposition dia with the genitive!​

I have A.T. Robertson's 1500 page Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research. He taught graduate level Greek for 47 years and wrote more than 40 books on Greek and the NT. His discussion of the dative case covers 8 pages.
Dr. Dan Wallace has taught graduate level Greek for 30+ years. I have his "Greek Grammar beyond the Basics." His discussion of the dative covers 30 pages. He lists 27 different categories for the dative including dative indirect object, direct object, means, agency etc. He discusses verses for each category. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary I think I will stick with Robertson and Wallace.

 

[Haipule]

I took a look at your book. I did not see any reviews by knowledgeable scholars in the field. Here are a few quotes from the book.

Paul. quoting Prov 25:21-22, is referring to an ancient Egyptian custom. Whereby, anyone who was ashamed of something they had done would put burning coals on their head. probably on a plate, and publicly display their shame, In other words, if you feed a hungry enemy and give a thirsty enemy a drink, you are publicly displaying their shame.​

When I read an assertion e.g. "ancient Egyptian custom" I like to see source evidence.

The dative case also expresses a relationship. It is the case of the indirect object of a verb. It relates the verb indirectly to something”. If a noun is a person, place or thing, the Greek dative identifies that person, place or thing as a location. In the Greek, even persons are thought of as places like a house on a street, or a location on a map. It is usually translated, in a dative concerning God. as “to God “, in this example, the person God is now a place you can go into, rest in, or exit from (not recommended). The dative does not indicate proximity, direction or motion.
The Greek dative is at rest (no motion). Therefore, there is no “dative of means” as in, “by(means of-God” because, Greek datives do not move! The invented Greek “dative of means” is a grossly overused manipulative tool used by translators and teachers to magically change to” or “in” into “by” or “with” because they do not understand the Greek dative, nor the noun and/or verb in question! And in doing so, are changing nouns and adjectives into verbs, verbs into nouns or adjectives and verbs into personal pronouns! These things should not be! Means is only expressed by the preposition dia with the genitive!​

I have A.T. Robertson's 1500 page Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research. He taught graduate level Greek for 47 years and wrote more than 40 books on Greek and the NT. His discussion of the dative case covers 8 pages.
Dr. Dan Wallace has taught graduate level Greek for 30+ years. I have his "Greek Grammar beyond the Basics." His discussion of the dative covers 30 pages. He lists 27 different categories for the dative including dative indirect object, direct object, means, agency etc. He discusses verses for each category. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary I think I will stick with Robertson and Wallace.

Thanks for looking at my book and quoting!

Yes, I am self taught but, do you really think I went forward with my book without examining the works of others such as Robertson and Wallace?

There is another word for "advanced grammar" and that is "manipulation"!

"Manipulating" Scripture to suit a theological prejudice(as to what those words MUST mean according to an erroneous theological prejudice) has been the order of the day(and centuries). Dude! They took the simple to understand genitive and dative relationships and turned them into rocket science!

My book takes out all the glad-handed manipulation and shows you what God said without manipulation and prejudice. And brings the Word of God back to something the 1st century illiterate heard and understood.

And that, without the lexicon writers "150 sometimes it means" or, manipulative advance grammar that a 1st century Christian would be clueless of.

Case in point: what does a Greek anarthrous sentence construction represent?

The writers of your books are completely clueless! And they invent weird useless stuff like, "aktionsart" and "qualitati". Which practice gives them an opinion--wrong!

The Word of God does not care about anyone's opinion! It is to be taken at face value only! And that, as simply as the 1st century illiterate whom kicked butt!

The KoinE Greek language of the newer Covenants of God is absolute precision like a Swiss watch, regardless of opinion or, theologies. It is NOT open to anyone's "opinion"! English, in all of it's brilliance and massive dictionary, is a sundial at night! Comparatively.

Are you a student of God and His Word? Or, men?

 

[Der Alte]

begin

Thanks for looking at my book and quoting!
Yes, I am self taught but, do you really think I went forward with my book without examining the works of others such as Robertson and Wallace?
There is another word for "advanced grammar" and that is "manipulation"!
"Manipulating" Scripture to suit a theological prejudice(as to what those words MUST mean according to an erroneous theological prejudice) has been the order of the day(and centuries). Dude! They took the simple to understand genitive and dative relationships and turned them into rocket science!
My book takes out all the glad-handed manipulation and shows you what God said without manipulation and prejudice. And brings the Word of God back to something the 1st century illiterate heard and understood.
And that, without the lexicon writers "150 sometimes it means" or, manipulative advance grammar that a 1st century Christian would be clueless of.
Case in point: what does a Greek anarthrous sentence construction represent?
The writers of your books are completely clueless! And they invent weird useless stuff like, "aktionsart" and "qualitati". Which practice gives them an opinion--wrong!
The Word of God does not care about anyone's opinion! It is to be taken at face value only! And that, as simply as the 1st century illiterate whom kicked butt!
The KoinE Greek language of the newer Covenants of God is absolute precision like a Swiss watch, regardless of opinion or, theologies. It is NOT open to anyone's "opinion"! English, in all of it's brilliance and massive dictionary, is a sundial at night! Comparatively.
Are you a student of God and His Word? Or, men?

end

I appreciate all this unsupported personal opinion.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; ​

I speak and read more than one language. I did not sit down and teach myself. I was a helicopter pilot for 8 years, I certainly did not go out get a helicopter and teach myself. Medicine, law, accounting and many other professions require several years of education to work in those fields. Only in Christianity do people get a Bible and a Strong's concordance and become instant experts. There have been many people who come along and decide that the church and all the scholars have been wrong for 2000 years and only they have the true truth, LDS, JW, WWCG, UU, OP, UPCI, INC etc.
.....I started learning to speak Greek the year that Elvis and I were stationed in Germany and I formally studied both Biblical languages about 2 decades later. Sorry but since I know both Hebrew and Greek and I know how language works I think I will take the word of accredited scholars before the word of a self taught anonymous person online.

 

[Albion]

Is there any way to disprove that argument, or is that a pretty sound argument to prove that hell cannot be eternal and that God saves everyone?"

Personally, I do not find that any of the verses cited in your post point to Universalism. There are, however, about a half dozen other Bible verses which do. The problem is that they are hints at best, whereas the Bible has a very large number of verses and passages which say the opposite!

 

[ClementofA]

Personally, I do not find that any of the verses cited in your post point to Universalism.

I think the point was the posted verses as a whole provide a single argument in favor of universalism. Not that each of them individually do so.

Personally, I do not find that any of the verses cited in your post point to Universalism. There are, however, about a half dozen other Bible verses which do. The problem is that they are hints at best, whereas the Bible has a very large number of verses and passages which say the opposite!

What's the opposite of universalism (=all will be saved)? None will be saved? Even God?

"... the New Testament also contains a large number of seemingly explicit statements of universal salvation, excluding no one..."

Anent Garry Wills and the “DBH” Version

 

[Albion]

I think the point was the posted verses as a whole provide a single argument in favor of universalism. Not that each of them individually do so.

Well, if none of them refers to universalism, how can all of them taken together do that?

What's the opposite of universalism (=all will be saved)? None will be saved? Even God?

The opposite of universalism is that not everyone will be saved.

 

[ClementofA]

Well, if none of them refers to universalism, how can all of them taken together do that?

By logical deduction. For an example of a deductive argument:

1 Timothy 2:4 + God does all He desires = all will be saved?

The opposite of universalism is that not everyone will be saved.

IMO, the opposite of all being saved would be none saved.

 

[Haipule]

Thanks for looking at my book and quoting!
Yes, I am self taught but, do you really think I went forward with my book without examining the works of others such as Robertson and Wallace?
There is another word for "advanced grammar" and that is "manipulation"!
"Manipulating" Scripture to suit a theological prejudice(as to what those words MUST mean according to an erroneous theological prejudice) has been the order of the day(and centuries). Dude! They took the simple to understand genitive and dative relationships and turned them into rocket science!
My book takes out all the glad-handed manipulation and shows you what God said without manipulation and prejudice. And brings the Word of God back to something the 1st century illiterate heard and understood.
And that, without the lexicon writers "150 sometimes it means" or, manipulative advance grammar that a 1st century Christian would be clueless of.
Case in point: what does a Greek anarthrous sentence construction represent?
The writers of your books are completely clueless! And they invent weird useless stuff like, "aktionsart" and "qualitati". Which practice gives them an opinion--wrong!
The Word of God does not care about anyone's opinion! It is to be taken at face value only! And that, as simply as the 1st century illiterate whom kicked butt!
The KoinE Greek language of the newer Covenants of God is absolute precision like a Swiss watch, regardless of opinion or, theologies. It is NOT open to anyone's "opinion"! English, in all of it's brilliance and massive dictionary, is a sundial at night! Comparatively.
Are you a student of God and His Word? Or, men?
I appreciate all this unsupported personal opinion.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; ​

I speak and read more than one language. I did not sit down and teach myself. I was a helicopter pilot for 8 years, I certainly did not go out get a helicopter and teach myself. Medicine, law, accounting and many other professions require several years of education to work in those fields. Only in Christianity do people get a Bible and a Strong's concordance and become instant experts. There have been many people who come along and decide that the church and all the scholars have been wrong for 2000 years and only they have the true truth, LDS, JW, WWCG, UU, OP, UPCI, INC etc.
.....I started learning to speak Greek the year that Elvis and I were stationed in Germany and I formally studied both Biblical languages about 2 decades later. Sorry but since I know both Hebrew and Greek and I know how language works I think I will take the word of accredited scholars before the word of a self taught anonymous person online.

If you want to study manipulative works that also support your theological prejudice of what those words MUST mean, then feel free.

I started studying the Greek at age 13. The more I studied, the more my own theological prejudice was smashed, as the Greek looked at my theological prejudice like a brick looks at a stained glass window! Regardless of my many storied teachers teaching.

Instead, God showed me life completely counter to theology. I had to figure out: was my life lying, or the clergy?

My life is not lying!

Q: So where do these lies come from? A: seminary teacher to seminary student whom becomes a seminary professor, perpetuating the lie for 2,000 years!

I am a PK and my stepfather pastor said to me, "Your greatest advantage is that you did not go to seminary'. "You didn't have to pass or get an "A" like I did nor, pass a completely stupid ordination test, which I passed, but no longer support the theology". Which is why he is now non-denominational(ordained as a Baptist Reverend).

I watched him struggle with theology and had access to his library. I figured out early on that a life well lived is far more valuable then theology. Theology will stick you in the mud and pin you to the pew with their religious forks! I used those forks to eat the spaghetti!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This is SO CLEAR NOW.

FALSE theology (bad religion) 'proves' universalism by IGNORING SCRIPTURE.

Believe SCRIPTURE, and there is no chance at all of universalism.

This has been known, well, since the world was created and long before then.

 

[Albion]

By logical deduction. For an example of a deductive argument:

1 Timothy 2:4 + God does all He desires = all will be saved?




IMO, the opposite of all being saved would be none saved.

That's interesting enough, but if you believe that ANY human will fail to be saved, you are not a Universalist. By definition. That's theology, not mathematics.

 

[ClementofA]

That's interesting enough, but if you believe that ANY human will fail to be saved, you are not a Universalist. By definition. That's theology, not mathematics.

That's the common definition of universalism & an obvious deduction. Though i don't see what your comment has to do with mine (which you quoted).

 

[Haipule]

It's funny to me that we are discussing "Universalism" which is nothing more than comparing Scripture(such as "b" parts) with Scripture("b" parts) and attempting to say something that the Scriptures never, ever, said nor, even intended!

Paul warned us of all such nonsense. "Do not go beyond what is written!" To compare "b" parts with "b" parts is to go beyond in complete disobedience. It's been going on for centuries as people try to discover some "secret code". And when they discover the "secret code", hidden since the 1st century, they are heralded as academic geniuses!

Yet, the main topic here is "salvation". I could start a dozen threads here and ask, "Who is saved", "How are they saved", "
What does "salvation" mean, etc, etc, etc.

Yet, the Scriptures do NOT teach anything even remotely related to "salvation" in a post-reform sense.

The Scriptures, in the autographed languages, are teaching you about the life of God's promised joy, right here, right now. sOtEria means: deliverance, rescue, kept save and sound, preservation, made whole, etc.

It does not refer to one thing but, it does refer to whatever you need when ever you need it. It most definitely does NOT mean "salvation" whatever that means.

So, there are two schools of thought here and both are erroneous: Salvation and Universalism.

Shouldn't we be discussing things that actually do exist, like life? We all have to deal with life and God's Word is a real help!

Yet, we are all going in different directions as God has called us. Wouldn't it be great if we could use a forum like this to meet in the middle and give others the things we have learned in our own direction to help others go in there own direction and visa versa?

It is mandatory that we love/enjoy/take an interest(agapE) and learn form each other!

There is no other way to become as one which God promised us will be.

 

[Haipule]

You might say Bill, "You didn't address "Universalism!"

The Scriptures in the autographed languages do NOT separate the "Saved" and the "Unsaved". Only (erroneous)theology does that.

The Scriptures separate the wheat from the tares: there will be a winnowing. It also separates the Sheep from the Goats. There will be a goat tossing, into the Lake of Fire, party. As only the sheep are to be with God in paradise. GOATS ARE NOT ALLOWED!

The Sheep go to Jesus Who is God and Shepherd--and not a goat herder! Satan is a goat herder and he sucks at it

Goats do not go to God which is why they are goats. God says, "Anyone who comes to me, I will in no ways cast-out".

It also says, "No one go's to God unless they know He is there'. 'And, no one asks(begs) of God unless they know He is a hiring-wage-payer".

The Eastern Orthodox(Catholics) call that an "Epiphany" and not the moment of "salvation".

It's like I always say:

OSAS--Once a Sheep, Always a Sheep!

If you don't believe that, then read all of Luke 15.