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.
The other side argues that God would never violate our free will "choice". But then gains followers through extortion. What's wrong with that picture?
Yes. And part of the threat of ECT is if you don't believe it. Reserved for unbelievers. Insidious.Nothing is more illogical than ECT.
And part of the threat of ECT is if you don't believe it. Reserved for unbelievers. Insidious.
Another angle is to consider the effect of a belief in ECT. Does it achieve the desired result? Nope.Yes, if you believe in ECT you won't have to endure it but the price you pay is a life of fear. And OTOH, if you reject it as the silliness it is, you're free from the associated anxiety but you'll pay the ultimate heavy price later. You can't win! Insidious indeed.
Better to let it disappear in a puff of logic.
Yes, this is absolutely true about the Heavenly Jerusalem:Revelation 21:10-27 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God, ...[24] And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the Earth do bring their glory and honour into it.[25] And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.[26] And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.[27] And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Only in the mortal body in this age but not necessarily in the next age God pursuing us doesn’t stop when our heart stops beating.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.
How does Christian Universalism compromise Gods justice? If some one spends a very long time in a tortured state and then are given the opportunity to accept Jesus, why is only a never ending punishment justice? Christian Universalism says all must accept Jesus but God doesn’t give up pursuing people just because their mortal body is no longer alive. And all those who reject Jesus will pay for there unbelief.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.
How does Christian Universalism compromise Gods justice?
The human will is involved from beginning to end. God uses His grace to draw it into rectitude, in to alignment with His own will IOW. But if, for whatever reason, that simply is not desired; if the person adamantly refuses to value love and its Source above all else, then evil will continue. And that's not The Plan; that is not God's purpose or telos for man. And we get to choose whose plan we prefer. God will allow injustice-most basically defined as separation from Him- to prevail in us if we so desire. Justice demands our participation in it. And that begins with faith, as we know.How does Christian Universalism compromise Gods justice? If some one spends a very long time in a tortured state and then are given the opportunity to accept Jesus, why is only a never ending punishment justice? Christian Universalism says all must accept Jesus but God doesn’t give up pursuing people just because their mortal body is no longer alive. And all those who reject Jesus will pay for there unbelief.
Nothing is more illogical than ECT.
Well I guess Jesus was lying.Yes, if you believe in ECT you won't have to endure it but the price you pay is a life of fear. And OTOH, if you reject it as the silliness it is, you're free from the associated anxiety but you'll pay the ultimate heavy price later. You can't win! Insidious indeed.
Better to let it disappear in a puff of logic.
Well I guess Jesus was lying.
John 3:15In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish,” twice! Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.
(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.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting [aionios] punishment:[kolasis] but the righteous into life eternal. Some folk argue that "aionios" does not mean eternal but see John 3:15-16 and John 3:36, above. And that "kolasis" translated "punishment" in Matt 25:46 "really means "pruning" or "correction."
"Kolasis" occurs in only one other verse in the N.T. 1 John 4:18
1 John 4:18In this verse the one who has "kolasis" is not corrected i.e. "not made perfect."
(18) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.[kolasis] He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
If you understand scripture you can explain 1John 4:18 like this. There is no fear in love ( if you are in love you are in God and if you are in God you have no fear) if you are in fear you are under Gods kolasis punishment and those who are under Gods kolasis punishment are not yet in God so they stand in the punishment, but once they repent they are no longer in His punishment but are in love. And yes that can happen even after the mortal body dies.
A totally nonsensical post. I do not require explanation of the simple language of 1 John 4:18. There is absolutely no way the simple 1st century Christians John was addressing would have understood the convoluted explanation you gave. If that was what John "really" meant he would have said that.If you understand scripture you can explain 1John 4:18 like this. There is no fear in love ( if you are in love you are in God and if you are in God you have no fear) if you are in fear you are under Gods kolasis punishment and those who are under Gods kolasis punishment are not yet in God so they stand in the punishment, but once they repent they are no longer in His punishment but are in love. And yes that can happen even after the mortal body dies.
The human will is involved from beginning to end. God uses His grace to draw it into rectitude, in to alignment with His own will IOW.
I agree.Justice demands our participation in it. And that begins with faith, as we know.
Open theism. God fails to accomplish his desire.But if, for whatever reason, that simply is not desired; if the person adamantly refuses to value love and its Source above all else, then evil will continue. And that's not The Plan; that is not God's purpose or telos for man. And we get to choose whose plan we prefer. God will allow injustice-most basically defined as separation from Him- to prevail in us if we so desire.
No, just the gospel. Was it God’s will that Adam sinned, after commanding him not to? Is it God’s will that children be tortured and killed? Is God’s will always done on earth as it is in heaven?Open theism. God fails to accomplish his desire.
Ok so what do you think it means?A totally nonsensical post. I do not require explanation of the simple language of 1 John 4:18. There is absolutely no way the simple 1st century Christians John was addressing would have understood the convoluted explanation you gave. If that was what John "really" meant he would have said that.
Thank you for the reference. If I understand the universalist argument to be about a possibility, then I suppose I have nothing against it. But if the argument is for a necessity that all will be saved and not just a possibility, then I don't think they have made their case. It is much harder to prove that something is necessarily true as opposed to potentially true. As for this:#107 was the post I was thinking of.
I needed several days to process it. I do have a few observations:I thought I'd also send you an accessible analysis by Keith DeRose of the issues that arise in reconciling universalism with free will. It's a philosophical treatment and so doesn't very directly involve the Biblical case for or against universalism but, though quite long, it's an interesting read.
As a Catholic, I believe that the normal path to salvation is through acceptance of Christ and the Church. But I stress "normal" because this does not preclude the possibility of God's mercy extending to those who have not learned about Christ and are not formal members of the Church, if they have recognized and followed the natural law that God planted in all human hearts to the best of their ability. So we are not bound by strong exclusivism, fervent or otherwise. Therefore it should be easier for me to accept the possibility of universal salvation than an evangelical protestant who does hold to strong exclusivism. But again that is only a possibility, not an assurance, which I gather universalism posits. The argument for compatibility between any form of exclusivism and universalism is OK, but of no concern to me."Many who have e-mailed me have been concerned about free will. Doesn’t one have to freely accept Christ in order to be saved? This is an extension of strong exclusivism. Strong exclusivism, as I have used it above, says that in order to be saved, one must somehow explicitly accept Christ. Now, we’re adding to this that the accepting must be free. Let’s call this new position fervent exclusivism. If we accept fervent exclusivism, how can we say that universalism is true?
I am not impressed by that argument either. I have no problem accepting the seeming paradox that I have free will, but that God knows what choices I will make. If God were bound to travel through time the same way we travel through time, then this paradox would indeed be a problem. But if we believe that God is outside of time, the very creator of time itself, then it is not a paradox. God knows what I will do, even though I am completely free to choose what I do. Our experience of God is sequential and it appears causal to us (bound to our experience of cause and effect). That is the way God presents himself to our limited mind which cannot comprehend existence outside of time where time-based causality makes no sense. In short, I find no contradiction between free will and God's omniscience. I think I am making essentially the same arguments you were making in different words.But some seem to have a different worry — not that fervent exclusivism is incompatible with universalism, but that, if fervent exclusivism is true, then nobody, not even God, can know (or at least know for certain) that all will be saved, since nobody can know what people will freely do.
Read my post. Also see my addition to previous post,Ok so what do you think it means?
The Gospel/Good News is that God fails to accomplish his desire?!!!! What's the bad news then?No, just the gospel.
God did not lose the game when Adam sinned. He knew before Adam sinned and had a plan to remedy the situation.Was it God’s will that Adam sinned, after commanding him not to?
God's will is indeed to let us choose freely. The consequences are often terrible evil. But this is not the end of the game. The end of the game is our telos. Why would God create people to throw them in the garbage because they are defective. I good engineer would go back and fix his work. Are people God's work? Is He able to fix them?Is it God’s will that children be tortured and killed? Is God’s will always done on earth as it is in heaven? Why would God ever allow His will to not be done if, at the end of the day, He simply gets it done no matter what? Maybe His will is to let us make the final choice.
If I understand the universalist argument to be about a possibility, then I suppose I have nothing against it. But if the argument is for a necessity that all will be saved and not just a possibility, then I don't think they have made their case. It is much harder to prove that something is necessarily true as opposed to potentially true.
As a Catholic, I believe that the normal path to salvation is through acceptance of Christ and the Church. But I stress "normal" because this does not preclude the possibility of God's mercy extending to those who have not learned about Christ and are not formal members of the Church, if they have recognized and followed the natural law that God planted in all human hearts to the best of their ability. So we are not bound by strong exclusivism, fervent or otherwise. Therefore it should be easier for me to accept the possibility of universal salvation than an evangelical protestant who does hold to strong exclusivism. But again that is only a possibility, not an assurance, which I gather universalism posits.
The argument for compatibility between any form of exclusivism and universalism is OK, but of no concern to me.
In short, I find no contradiction between free will and God's omniscience. I think I am making essentially the same arguments you were making in different words.
Wow, that's a gem! Thanks.There’s no standing objections that say justice isn’t done under universalism, rather justice is fully satisfied at the cross of Christ.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?