Is it okay to simply assume that God saves all?

[Hmm]

In the past, many self-identified Christians used the Bible to justify slavery quoting passages such as Ephesians 6:5-8: “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”.

I can imagine them saying that's clearly "what the Bible says", and on plain reading it seems to be, but we don't interpret it that way now and we don't feel the need to defend our interpretation with passages that oppose slavery. We just feel that it's right to assume that slavery is wrong.

This suggests that our sense of right and wrong and of what's reasonable are valid ways to think about God. Which means that, when thinking about Chrisitan universalism, it's okay to ask which view just makes more sense. In general, it's okay to ask "Would the God perfectly portrayed by Jesus in the Gospels really send anyone to an eternal hell of torture/torment?. If He's omnipotent, can He not find a way to draw all people to Himself freely?"

So our starting point when thinking about universalism doesn't have to be "How does this fit into the Bible?" It could instead be "How could God possibly allow any one of His children to be be lost/annihilated/tortured forever".

It's infernalists who try to put the burden of scriptual proof on you. But rather than entering into "sophisticated" exegetical arguments it's okay to start with the assumption that if God exists, He's a God who will one day restore all His creation.

 

[disciple Clint]

In the past, many self-identified Christians used the Bible to justify slavery quoting passages such as Ephesians 6:5-8: “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”.

I can imagine them saying that's clearly "what the Bible says", and on plain reading it seems to be, but we don't interpret it that way now and we don't feel the need to defend our interpretation with passages that oppose slavery. We just feel that it's right to assume that slavery is wrong.

This suggests that our sense of right and wrong and of what's reasonable are valid ways to think about God. Which means that, when thinking about Chrisitan universalism, it's okay to ask which view just makes more sense. In general, it's okay to ask "Would the God perfectly portrayed by Jesus in the Gospels really send anyone to an eternal hell of torture/torment?. If He's omnipotent, can He not find a way to draw all people to Himself freely?"

So our starting point when thinking about universalism doesn't have to be "How does this fit into the Bible?" It could instead be "How could God possibly allow any one of His children to be be lost/annihilated/tortured forever".

It's infernalists who try to put the burden of scriptual proof on you. But rather than entering into "sophisticated" exegetical arguments it's okay to start with the assumption that if God exists, He's a God who will one day restore all His creation.

Well all that rationalism is fine but scripture clearly indicates that while God wants us to be saved, it is His desire that we accept the gift of salvation or at a minimum not reject it.

 

[Hmm]

Well all that rationalism is fine but scripture clearly indicates that while God wants us to be saved, it is His desire that accept the gift of salvation or at a minimum not reject it.

Do you think the verse I quoted "clearly indicates" that slavery is okay?

And if not, why not?

 

[disciple Clint]

Do you think the verse I quoted "clearly indicates" that slavery is okay?

And if not, why not?

I think that your concept of slavery and the slavery spoken of in the bible are very different. The meaning of a bible verse is based on the meaning that it had in the time and to the people it was originally delivered to.

 

[Tolworth John]

sed the Bible to justify slavery quoting passages such as Ephesians 6:5-8: “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”

This is a passage telling Christians who where slaves, how to behave towards their owner.
It does not justify owning slaves.
The bibles attitude towards slavery can br seen in
1 Timothy 1:10
New International Version
10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine , and in the OT laws against trding in slaves.

The problem of universalism, that everybody will be saved is it goes against the whole of the bible.

In the OT compliance with Gods laws was required for his blessings and failure brought punishment.
In the NT it is equally clear that some people will be saved whie others will not.

 

[Hmm]

I think that your concept of slavery and the slavery spoken of in the bible are very different. The meaning of a bible verse is based on the meaning that it had in the time and to the people it was originally delivered to.

So the meaning of a passage changes over time and depending on who is reading it?

 

[Tolworth John]

If you want a deep look at slavery in the OT may I suggest you lok at this site:-
Slavery in the OT

 

[fhansen]

In the past, many self-identified Christians used the Bible to justify slavery quoting passages such as Ephesians 6:5-8: “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”.

I can imagine them saying that's clearly "what the Bible says", and on plain reading it seems to be, but we don't interpret it that way now and we don't feel the need to defend our interpretation with passages that oppose slavery. We just feel that it's right to assume that slavery is wrong.

This suggests that our sense of right and wrong and of what's reasonable are valid ways to think about God. Which means that, when thinking about Chrisitan universalism, it's okay to ask which view just makes more sense. In general, it's okay to ask "Would the God perfectly portrayed by Jesus in the Gospels really send anyone to an eternal hell of torture/torment?. If He's omnipotent, can He not find a way to draw all people to Himself freely?"

So our starting point when thinking about universalism doesn't have to be "How does this fit into the Bible?" It could instead be "How could God possibly allow any one of His children to be be lost/annihilated/tortured forever".

It's infernalists who try to put the burden of scriptual proof on you. But rather than entering into "sophisticated" exegetical arguments it's okay to start with the assumption that if God exists, He's a God who will one day restore all His creation.

The only problem is that universalism sort of compromises or overrides the concept of justice. There must be some consequence to evil, to persistently choosing to remain in and with it instead of the good. Man is morally accountable.

So unless we wish to predict the future and decide that God will simply somehow manage to eventually turn everyone to the right choice, in line with His will IOW, then I don't think we can ever say with certainty that universalism is true. God will do the right thing-as He always has, and we will all be satisfied that such has been done. How He works this out we don't really know.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

In the past, many self-identified Christians used the Bible to justify slavery quoting passages such as Ephesians 6:5-8: “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”.

I can imagine them saying that's clearly "what the Bible says", and on plain reading it seems to be, but we don't interpret it that way now and we don't feel the need to defend our interpretation with passages that oppose slavery. We just feel that it's right to assume that slavery is wrong.

This suggests that our sense of right and wrong and of what's reasonable are valid ways to think about God. Which means that, when thinking about Chrisitan universalism, it's okay to ask which view just makes more sense. In general, it's okay to ask "Would the God perfectly portrayed by Jesus in the Gospels really send anyone to an eternal hell of torture/torment?. If He's omnipotent, can He not find a way to draw all people to Himself freely?"

So our starting point when thinking about universalism doesn't have to be "How does this fit into the Bible?" It could instead be "How could God possibly allow any one of His children to be be lost/annihilated/tortured forever".

It's infernalists who try to put the burden of scriptual proof on you. But rather than entering into "sophisticated" exegetical arguments it's okay to start with the assumption that if God exists, He's a God who will one day restore all His creation.

I guess the question is , who are his children?
1 John 3
Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 12 not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.

 

[Hmm]

The only problem is that universalism sort of compromises or overrides the concept of justice. There must be some consequence to evil, to persistently choosing to remain in and with it instead of the good. Man is morally accountable.

I agree that there has to be justice, but what sort of justice does ECT offer? Suppose I was burgled and my beloved espresso machine was stolen. If God was going to punish whoever who did that with eternal conscious torment, would I feel that justice has been done for me? I wouldn't but if they contacted me and apologised and offered as much as they could to make up for it, even if that's nothing, I would feel a whole lot better about the whole thing.

I don't think we can ever say with certainty that universalism is true.

I agree, everything is problematic. We don't know anything for sure.

God will do the right thing-as He always has, and we will all be satisfied that such has been done. How He works this out we don't really know.

I agree. We can trust God but we don't know the exact mechanics of how He will achieve His aim. I just believe that He has promised to one day be "all in all" and that He will manage that, but of course I don't know exactly how.

Thanks for your thoughtful (as ever) post

 

[Cormack]

I agree that there has to be justice, but what sort of justice does ECT offer? Suppose I was burgled and my beloved espresso machine was stolen. If God was going to punish whoever who did that with eternal conscious torment, would I feel that justice has been done for me? I wouldn't but if they contacted me and apologised and offered as much as they could to make up for it, even if that's nothing, I would feel a whole lot better about the whole thing.

God being a just judge would seem to require of Him some response to the problem of evil in the world, but when the proposed solution to the problem of injustice is so absurd and overwrought as eternal conscious torment, sincere Christians have answered by questioning whether or not the notion of eternal punishing is not itself a perversion of justice.

Forever punishment never leads to the conclusion of complete justice being meted out, meaning the full measure of retribution or justice served up on behalf of the victimised is never actually achieved, it’s in transit but never arrives.

Does God achieve absolute justice on behalf of the victimised? Under Christian Universalism, where mankind is tested by fire until the value of their deeds are made known, and where sinners aren’t released from their prison until Christ says “you have paid the last penny” the answer is an undeniable yes. Yes justice is served by one Christian point of view.

 

[Hmm]

God being a just judge would seem to require of Him some response to the problem of evil in the world, but when the proposed solution to the problem of injustice is so absurd and overwrought as eternal conscious torment, sincere Christians have answered by questioning whether or not the notion of eternal punishing is not itself a perversion of justice.

Yes, eternal punishment can no corrective purpose because there will never be a point at which the correction is made because it simply goes on and on forever.

Some people seem to think that God changes from a forgiving father into a merciless monster at the point of our death if our faith wasn't quite good enough. But obviously God's nature doesn't change like that. He's not a Jekyll and Hyde character, sometimes being merciful and sometimes being just. He's always both at the same time because His mercy is always just and His justice is always merciful. I don't quite see how eternal torture fits into the picture but perhaps someone can send a diagram in or something to show how it does.

 

[public hermit]

What is justice but flourishing life? Anything short of that and God fails to finish what God set out to do, i.e. create a good creation where life flourishes in the divine presence. I don't think it's a sin to assume God saves all. That is what God desires, and surely God is able to bring about what God desires.

However, I wouldn't assume it will be without pain for some (many?). We are called to lose our lives for Christ's sake, which I take to mean anything not of God within us must be abandoned, or we're not fit for life in the divine presence. Faith in Christ entails dying to the self we construct. Dying to the false self we construct based on our passing desires is painful, just look at how few even try; it looks like lots of folks have tremendous suffering ahead before they are fit for such a life. It's unfortunate that so many believe a mere belief will save them from suffering when confronted with pure, eternal love. Oh well, some learn by being taught and obeying, and some learn the hard way. Still, God will be all in all. At least, that's my assumption.

 

[Blade]

sorry that belief goes against the word of God. And yes it has to be written, to go inline with the word of God. I believe most are saved and few are lost. See there are some that know God is real Christ died for the worlds sin. They know this with out any doubt and still do not want God. God can not ever go against your will. I said to Him once why not just save them force them no matter what.. He said NEVER say that again. It seems to GOD a free choice.. means everything to Him.

Most are blind and as Christ said if you were blind you would have no sin. If you say you see your sin remains.

 

[Hmm]

Dying to the false self we construct based on our passing desires is painful, just look at how few even try; it looks like lots of folks have tremendous suffering ahead before they are fit for such a life.

That's very true. It can be very difficult to admit that we we have got things wrong or have hurt others, and our pride makes it hard to accept that we depend on God. It's going to be very painful for many/most of us I expect to fully acknowledge our sins but imagine how hard this would be if they're on the scale of a Hitler. But we have an "age" to do it in and the Good Shepherd doesn't give up on any of his sheep so, eventually we will all bow and confess that Christ is lord.

 

[childeye 2]

In the past, many self-identified Christians used the Bible to justify slavery quoting passages such as Ephesians 6:5-8: “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”.

I can imagine them saying that's clearly "what the Bible says", and on plain reading it seems to be, but we don't interpret it that way now and we don't feel the need to defend our interpretation with passages that oppose slavery. We just feel that it's right to assume that slavery is wrong.

This suggests that our sense of right and wrong and of what's reasonable are valid ways to think about God. Which means that, when thinking about Chrisitan universalism, it's okay to ask which view just makes more sense. In general, it's okay to ask "Would the God perfectly portrayed by Jesus in the Gospels really send anyone to an eternal hell of torture/torment?. If He's omnipotent, can He not find a way to draw all people to Himself freely?"

So our starting point when thinking about universalism doesn't have to be "How does this fit into the Bible?" It could instead be "How could God possibly allow any one of His children to be be lost/annihilated/tortured forever".

It's infernalists who try to put the burden of scriptual proof on you. But rather than entering into "sophisticated" exegetical arguments it's okay to start with the assumption that if God exists, He's a God who will one day restore all His creation.

Reading your post brings to mind this scripture:

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above)

7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

 

[Hmm]

I guess the question is , who are his children?

I guess so. Did Hitler remain his mother's child?

 

[public hermit]

That's very true. It can be very difficult to admit that we we have got things wrong or have hurt others, and our pride makes it hard to accept that we depend on God. It's going to be very painful for many/most of us I expect to fully acknowledge our sins but imagine how hard this would be if they're on the scale of a Hitler. But we have an "age" to do it in and the Good Shepherd doesn't give up on any of his sheep so, eventually we will all bow and confess that Christ is lord.

Yeah, God is good, but God is not messing around when it comes to goodness. Hitler is hating it. Those kinds of folk will be so far removed from what is good and loving, barely an existence, and I imagine the rest will look on with great pity at the journey they must make to return. That will be the great showing of grace, the complete restoration of something from nothing, ex nihilo. Of course, that's the case for all of us lol. We just get started now by dying to self. Still, much less pain, I would think.

 

[Hmm]

Yeah, God is good, but God is not messing around when it comes to goodness. Hitler is hating it. Those kinds of folk will be so far removed from what is good and loving, barely an existence, and I imagine the rest will look on with great pity at the journey they must make to return. That will be the great showing of grace, the complete restoration of something from nothing, ex nihilo. Of course, that's the case for all of us lol. We just get started now by dying to self. Still, much less pain, I would think.

Just to add that, of course, it won't be Hitler as the Hitler we know who enters heaven but Hitler transformed into the likeness of Jesus. It's very hard for us to imagine this, just as it's hard to see Jesus in the face of a murderer or a heroin addict today. But God sees Jesus in all of us and so we should try to too.

With this, Christian universalism actually holds Hitler more accountable than infernalism do. Most infernalists I've met would say that Hitler could have avoided judgement simply by repenting just before he died. But most universalists would say that judgment would be necessary even in that scenario and that he would still have to go through a purifying process that probably won't be fun.

 

[public hermit]

Just to add that, of course, it won't be Hitler as the Hitler we know who enters heaven but Hitler transformed into the likeness of Jesus. It's very hard for us to imagine this, just as it's hard to see Jesus in the face of a murderer or a heroin addict today. But God sees Jesus in all of us and so we should try to too.

That's a great point. The image is there, always. It can be a struggle to see it, and that should probably give me more humility due to my failure to see it. What does that say about me? Maybe I don't want to see myself in the other that I despise. I don't know.

With its view of transformation, Christian universalism actually holds Hitler more accountable than infernalism do. Most infernalists I've met would say that Hitler could have avoided judgement simply by repenting just before he died. But most universalists would say that judgment would be necessary even in that scenario and that he would still have to go through a purifying process that probably won't be fun.

I agree. If Hitler can have a valid deathbed confession, then that tells me God is willing to start the process at any time , and death is no barrier to that.

Let the scripture posting begin!