Possibly stupid newie question - What makes the idea of universalism bad?

[PrincessKyre]

If you accept Christ but doesn't do what is good to do then you'll be wasting your time.
And they said, If you accept Him you'll go to heaven and if not you'll die without having a holy death.

 

[Zebra1552]

The words everlasting punishment in verse 46 have long been the subject of debate. The word translated as 'everlasting' is aiōnios, from the root word aiōn which can be translated as 'an indeterminate period of time; pertaining to an eon or age,' with many believing that to be the correct translation.

Also, I don't believe the 'lake of fire' and 'hell' are one and the same. There's sheol, meaning simply 'grave,' which has been incorrectly translated and referred to as 'hades' or 'hell,' and then there's G/gehenna or the 'lake of fire,' also known as the Valley of Hinnom, a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem.

I'll take a leaf out of one of my older posts. You talk about Greek. I wonder how much you actually know about the passages relevant to what I'm talking about with Matthew 25, Revelation, and the lake of fire.

Let's bear in mind that a Greek word can have several English meanings and it is the literary and historical context that tells us what its meaning is.


Rev 21:6 Then he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water as a gift from the spring of the water of life.
Rev 21:7 Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children.
Rev 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

Second death. The Greek for 'second' is very, very clear. You can't argue around it. Therefore, 'death' cannot be talking about a physical death. You cannot physically die twice (medically, you can, but not physically as the Bible uses it- they had no notion of being 'medically dead'). So death:

G2288
θάνατος
thanatos
Thayer Definition:
1) the death of the body
1a) that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended
1b) with the implied idea of future misery in hell
1b1) the power of death
1c) since the nether world, the abode of the dead, was conceived as being very dark, it is equivalent to the region of thickest darkness, i.e. figuratively, a region enveloped in the darkness of ignorance and sin
2) metaphorically, the loss of that life which alone is worthy of the name
2a) the misery of the soul arising from sin, which begins on earth but lasts and increases after the death of the body in hell
3) the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell
4) in the widest sense, death comprising all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in him on earth, to be followed by wretchedness in hell

Since it cannot be 1, it must be 2, 3, or 4. Any way you slice this passage, it is not talking about everyone going to heaven- certainly not immediately. They must at least spend some time in misery after they die from their sins. But wait. The passage also talks about the lake of fire. That phrase is used elsewhere.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done.
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire;
Rev 20:15 and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

You again cannot get around this verse either. Anyone's name not found in the book of life goes to the lake of fire. Whether you interpret this literally or metaphorically, the meaning is clear. Some people don't make it at the end, in the final judgment. But there's that lake of fire reference again.

Rev 20:10 And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

The lake of fire is a place where people are tormented day and night 'forever and ever'. Greek:

G165
αἰών
aiōn
Thayer Definition:
1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2) the worlds, universe
3) period of time, age
Part of Speech: noun masculine

The word is used twice. Even if you wanted to use 3, it would read 'for ages and ages'. 2 Would not make sense. Those who enter the lake of fire are tormented for ages and ages, forever.

So let's go back to Matthew 25, which there seems to be some confusion about:

Mat 25:46 "TheseG3778 will goG565 awayG565 into eternalG166 punishmentG2851, but the righteousG1342 into eternalG166 lifeG2222."

G166
αἰώνιος
aiōnios
Thayer Definition:
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting
Part of Speech: adjective

The Greek is very clear. It cannot be 1 or 2, therefore it must be 3. Those who do not meet the standard go to a punishment that has no end. The same word is then used in verse 41:

Mat 25:41 "ThenG5119 He will alsoG2532 sayG3004 to thoseG3588 on His leftG2176, 'DepartG4198 from Me, accursedG2672 ones, into the eternalG166 fireG4442 which has been preparedG2090 for the devilG1228 and his angelsG32a;

Again, the lake of fire, and again, it has no end.

 

[trek4fr]

The idea of universalism is not a bad one, and it has always been a minority view within the Christian church. But I often wonder what it is based upon and, yes, how it ties in with Jesus' warnings.

Some Christian Universalists say that Jesus' cross was so effectual in paying for sin, so efficatious in, as the apostle Paul says, reconciling the world to God, that God is no longer holding anyone's sins against them. This view certainly elevates the work of Jesus on the cross, does it not? He is truly the Savior of all mankind. But this notion does seem to go against Jesus' call for repentance and his warnings of future judgment according to works.

I can't help but wonder if most of Jesus' warning about Gehenna didn't pertain to that generation of unbelieving Jews who refused God's kingdom and, as a result, perished in the fires of Gehenna when Rome burned Jerusalem in AD70. At the same time, I think Jesus' call to repent from a self-centered life and to live lives of radical compassion for others transcends all generations.

Rob Bell has written an interesting book called "God Wins" where he asks us to consider how the future might pan out if God is, as Christianity has historically asserted, truly love. If God is love and loves the world, would he torment people forevermore? Some parts of Christianity say yes. They insist that God loses most. They say that there is a place where the omnipresent God is not. That say that God's love does not endure forever. They say that there will always be some place in the universe full of sin, full of rebellion against God, a place where God's mercy cannot reach.

I don't know the future. I don't know how it will all pan out. But I struggle with the notion that Jesus would tell us to love our enemies and to do good to them in order to be more like our Father in heaven when, supposedly, our Father in heaven intends to torture his enemies. To me, it makes no sense that Jesus would pray for God to forgive the ones who nailed him to the cross if Jesus believed that God would not do so. As another poster said, I find it hard to worship a God who would be more immoral than I am. If God is love, what would love do?

 

[hedrick]

I see a couple of problems with universalism:

* Jesus seems to speak against it. He speaks of judgement, and people who reject him being sent to the outer darkness, the sheep and goats, etc. There are respectable Christian interpretations of these in a universalist sense, but I think the plain sense implies that some are lost.

* It seems to imply that what we are and do doesn't matter. The whole Bible is opposed to this.

Note that there are some ideas that I think are less radical that are easier to reconcile with Jesus' teachings:

* I don't think we have to believe in eternal conscious torment. There are a could of reasonable alternatives.

* Inclusivism seems fairly acceptable in most Christian traditions. This says you don't have to be a Christian to be saved by Christ.

However there's a basic problem here, which is that we don't really know how God is going to judge the world. And by judge I mean the full OT meaning, meaning bring justice to the world. No one could have imagined Jesus' death and resurrection beforehand, despite all the pointers to it in the OT. Maybe he has something in mind that we haven't thought of. God normally manages to exceed our expectations, not fall short of them.

I think the best we can say is that what we become and what we do matters, and that those who reject God are going to be judged by him in some way that we don't really understand. We can hope that he will reconcile everyone to himself, but the only way we currently know to be his children is to live a life of faith. To me universal reconciliation can only be a hope, not something we can teach as a known fact.

 

[meliagaunt]

It would mean that the Bible does not contain completely reliable information.

I, and I guess a number of others on this forum for liberal Christians, can accept that.

 

[Zebra1552]

I, and I guess a number of others on this forum for liberal Christians, can accept that.

If the Bible isn't completely reliable, how do you know that the information you use to be a Christian is reliable?

 

[trek4fr]

If the Bible isn't completely reliable, how do you know that the information you use to be a Christian is reliable?

For me, as a liberal Christian, the essence of Christianity is to follow Jesus in living out his two commandments - loving God and loving others. I don't need to believe in a literal 6-day creation, a worldwide flood, that God sanctioned genocide, that babies are born of virgins, or that Jesus will return to destroy the world in order to love God and to love others. In fact, some of the Bible's teachings directly contradict loving others.

The Bible is reliable insofar as it points us to Jesus and Jesus points us to the kingdom of God where we can learn to live in wisdom and compassion i.e. unselfish lives marked by concern and actions for the good of others. But I wouldn't look to the Bible for answers as to dealing with epilepsy (cast out demons), healing the sick (having elders pray instead of going to the doctors), why we have bad weather (God is angry), how we should deal with slavery (slaves, obey your masters), how to deal with adulterers (stone them), or how we should deal with women (keep them silent in church). The writers of the Bible, just like us, were produces of their time and culture. They shared the "common sense" of their patriarchal and superstitious culture just as we share the "common sense" of our own times. This makes it necessary, IMO, to separate the chaff from the wheat and to discern what is best for our times.

Case in point: In the first century, Gentiles began to show faith in Jesus as the messiah and wanted to enter the Jewish church. Paul, clearly going against the scriptures, said that these Gentiles did not have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish Law. Paul did not take an "all or nothing" approach to the scriptures -- and neither should we. Jesus said the Spirit of God, not the Bible, would lead us into all truth. Can the Spirit use the Bible to do that? Certainly. But truth is reality, and not everything in the Bible reflects reality. The Bible doesn't tell us how God sees things. It tells us how ancient people saw God and their relationship to him. To attempt to make the scriptures "completely reliable" and inerrant and infallible is to make an idol out of them.

 

[Zebra1552]

For me, as a liberal Christian, the essence of Christianity is to follow Jesus in living out his two commandments - loving God and loving others. I don't need to believe in a literal 6-day creation, a worldwide flood, that God sanctioned genocide, that babies are born of virgins, or that Jesus will return to destroy the world in order to love God and to love others. In fact, some of the Bible's teachings directly contradict loving others.

And why, pray tell, does the Bible being fully reliable mean that these things are IN the Bible or that they are not loving?

The Bible is reliable insofar as it points us to Jesus and Jesus points us to the kingdom of God where we can learn to live in wisdom and compassion i.e. unselfish lives marked by concern and actions for the good of others. But I wouldn't look to the Bible for answers as to dealing with epilepsy (cast out demons), healing the sick (having elders pray instead of going to the doctors), why we have bad weather (God is angry), how we should deal with slavery (slaves, obey your masters), how to deal with adulterers (stone them), or how we should deal with women (keep them silent in church). The writers of the Bible, just like us, were produces of their time and culture. They shared the "common sense" of their patriarchal and superstitious culture just as we share the "common sense" of our own times. This makes it necessary, IMO, to separate the chaff from the wheat and to discern what is best for our times.

How is this relevant to the Bible being reliable or not?

Case in point: In the first century, Gentiles began to show faith in Jesus as the messiah and wanted to enter the Jewish church. Paul, clearly going against the scriptures, said that these Gentiles did not have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish Law. Paul did not take an "all or nothing" approach to the scriptures -- and neither should we. Jesus said the Spirit of God, not the Bible, would lead us into all truth. Can the Spirit use the Bible to do that? Certainly. But truth is reality, and not everything in the Bible reflects reality. The Bible doesn't tell us how God sees things. It tells us how ancient people saw God and their relationship to him.

That's rich. The Bible doesn't tell us how God sees things.

To attempt to make the scriptures "completely reliable" and inerrant and infallible is to make an idol out of them.

Oh? I believe that in its original form- language and original texts- the Bible is free from errors, and I do not make an idol out of the Bible. Relationship is important. I just disproved your claim. Care to address the question?

If the Bible isn't completely reliable, how do you know that the information you use to be a Christian is reliable?

 

[trek4fr]

Oh? I believe that in its original form- language and original texts- the Bible is free from errors...

You can believe anything you like, Jaws13. Many people believed the Rapture was supposed to happen yesterday. Belief does not make a thing true. What you cite, the notion that the original autographs were free from error, is a statement of faith, not of fact. We don't have any of the original autographs. Therefore, you have faith in something that does not exist.

Care to address the question? If the Bible isn't completely reliable, how do you know that the information you use to be a Christian is reliable?

I did address the question. The Bible is reliable in that it points me to Jesus whom, IMO, tells us how to live as God's compassionate people on earth. For instance, Jesus tells me to love my enemies. Moses and Joshua said the God wanted them to kill their enemies; quite a different understanding of how to treat others. So I wouldn't consider Moses or Joshua to be reliable in teaching me how to deal with my enemies. Jesus shows us "a better way."

I'm not saying that you are doing this, but people who want to make *all* the scriptures authoritative actually demean Jesus' teachings. Jesus disagrees with Moses in a number of places. Jesus also disagrees with Paul in a number of places. When there is disagreement, I generally find Jesus to be more reliable than other scripture writers.

 

[Zebra1552]

You can believe anything you like, Jaws13. Many people believed the Rapture was supposed to happen yesterday. Belief does not make a thing true. What you cite, the notion that the original autographs were free from error, is a statement of faith, not of fact. We don't have any of the original autographs. Therefore, you have faith in something that does not exist.

My statement refuted yours:

To attempt to make the scriptures "completely reliable" and inerrant and infallible is to make an idol out of them.

You want to argue belief, look in the mirror- your statement was nothing more than a belief as well.

Oh, and by the way? The original documents did and probably do exist somewhere. So it's not blind faith.

I did address the question. The Bible is reliable in that it points me to Jesus whom, IMO, tells us how to live as God's compassionate people on earth. For instance, Jesus tells me to love my enemies. Moses and Joshua said the God wanted them to kill their enemies; quite a different understanding of how to treat others. So I wouldn't consider Moses or Joshua to be reliable in teaching me how to deal with my enemies. Jesus shows us "a better way."

That doesn't address the question at all. It tells me what YOU THINK is reliable, not WHY you think some parts are more reliable than others or why you get to pick and choose and be any more right than the next person who does so. What if the unreliable parts were the parts about God being compassionate? Would you throw those out?

I'm not saying that you are doing this, but people who want to make *all* the scriptures authoritative actually demean Jesus' teachings. Jesus disagrees with Moses in a number of places. Jesus also disagrees with Paul in a number of places. When there is disagreement, I generally find Jesus to be more reliable than other scripture writers.

Jesus wasn't a writer of any part of the Bible. You say Jesus disagrees with other Bible writers, this is nothing more than an unsupported opinion. Jesus Himself said He did not come to abolish, but fulfill. Again, this doesn't relate to my question other than to state another one of your beliefs.

If the Bible isn't completely reliable, how do you know that the information you use to be a Christian is reliable?

 

[trek4fr]

You want to argue belief, look in the mirror- your statement was nothing more than a belief as well.

I agree. It's my opinion. Same thing with the biblical writers - they wrote their opinions and their beliefs. Even if you believe that the Bible is 100% in all matters, that is still YOUR opinion. Mirrors work both ways, my friend.

What if the unreliable parts were the parts about God being compassionate? Would you throw those out?

Well, I think the general drift of the Bible is toward presenting us with a view of God as love and compassion. That seemed to be the kind of God that Jesus himself generally presented. So that is where my focus is. But I am certainly NOT for throwing anything out of the Bible. Leave it all in there. It is proof-positive about how wrong we humans can sometimes be about things, especially about God and how we think he wants us to treat each other.

Jesus Himself said He did not come to abolish, but fulfill. Again, this doesn't relate to my question other than to state another one of your beliefs.

Actually, Jaws13, it relates very well. If you believe that Jesus did NOT abolish the Law, then do you keep the Law? If you do, then, yes, you find that part of the Bible reliable because you yourself RELY on the Law. If you don't, then you probably have some reason that you don't RELY on the Law, which means that that part of the Bible is not a reliable guide for you in your everyday walk. So which is it? Do you find the Law to be a reliable guide in your life and keep it?

Side note: This is drifting significantly from the OP. You may want to consider starting another thread.

 

[Zebra1552]

I agree. It's my opinion. Same thing with the biblical writers - they wrote their opinions and their beliefs. Even if you believe that the Bible is 100% in all matters, that is still YOUR opinion. Mirrors work both ways, my friend.

Mirrors only work both ways if it's a two-way mirror. Most mirrors are one way.

Well, I think the general drift of the Bible is toward presenting us with a view of God as love and compassion. That seemed to be the kind of God that Jesus himself generally presented. So that is where my focus is. But I am certainly NOT for throwing anything out of the Bible. Leave it all in there. It is proof-positive about how wrong we humans can sometimes be about things, especially about God and how we think he wants us to treat each other.

If you won't throw it out, then it's reliable.

Actually, Jaws13, it relates very well. If you believe that Jesus did NOT abolish the Law, then do you keep the Law? If you do, then, yes, you find that part of the Bible reliable because you yourself RELY on the Law.

You obviously missed the reference. Let me post it for you.

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
Mat 5:18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

If you don't, then you probably have some reason that you don't RELY on the Law, which means that that part of the Bible is not a reliable guide for you in your everyday walk. So which is it? Do you find the Law to be a reliable guide in your life and keep it?

Red herring. That's not related to my point. You rip the Law out of its context and the overall context of the Bible to say that if the Bible is reliable, it still applies. This is not necessarily the case, which is why I provided the reference.

Side note: This is drifting significantly from the OP. You may want to consider starting another thread.

It's directly related to the OP. If the Bible isn't completely reliable, universalism isn't as bad. I connected the statement to the OP, and that was the original context of my point.

 

[trek4fr]

...if the Bible is reliable, it still applies. This is not necessarily the case...

Exactly. That is my point also. I don't find *all* of the Bible to be a reliable guide to my everyday life. In fact, it is interesting to note that Jesus, in what we call the Great Comission at the end of Matt 28, did not tell his disciples to teach the Bible or the Law of Moses or to wait for the apostle Paul to show up in order to give Christianity the "true gospel." Jesus told them to teach what he himself had taught them, which mainly concerned the kingdom of God and how we are invited to participate in that in the here and now.

Therefore, and just speaking for myself, while I find the whole of the scriptures interesting, I don't believe in trying to reinstitute the 10 commandments or teaching people the Four Spiritual Laws or the Romans Road. To me, these things have it backwards. It is the teachings of Jesus which he wanted taught, not Moses or Paul.

But, interestingly, it is Jesus who seems the most exclusive while Paul insists that the whole world has been reconciled to God through the cross of Christ. Christianity is definately a challenging religion, isn't it?

Thanks for chatting with me! I look forward to further conversations!

 

[Zebra1552]

Exactly. That is my point also. I don't find *all* of the Bible to be a reliable guide to my everyday life. In fact, it is interesting to note that Jesus, in what we call the Great Comission at the end of Matt 28, did not tell his disciples to teach the Bible or the Law of Moses or to wait for the apostle Paul to show up in order to give Christianity the "true gospel." Jesus told them to teach what he himself had taught them, which mainly concerned the kingdom of God and how we are invited to participate in that in the here and now.

Therefore, and just speaking for myself, while I find the whole of the scriptures interesting, I don't believe in trying to reinstitute the 10 commandments or teaching people the Four Spiritual Laws or the Romans Road. To me, these things have it backwards. It is the teachings of Jesus which he wanted taught, not Moses or Paul.

But, interestingly, it is Jesus who seems the most exclusive while Paul insists that the whole world has been reconciled to God through the cross of Christ. Christianity is definately a challenging religion, isn't it?

Thanks for chatting with me! I look forward to further conversations!

Obviously you aren't interested in honest discussion, given that you ignore the question I asked and its relevance to the OP to make a point completely unrelated to the one I'm making, then say we agree and go so far as to rip my statements out of context and quote several words out of an entire paragraph. To the contrary, if this is how you're going to interact with me, I'll be avoiding you.

My point in saying that the Law does not apply is not to abolish, dismiss, ignore, or in any way shape or form diminish it. Jesus Himself said that the Law and Prophets are summed up by loving God and loving our neighbor, that being defined as everyone. The principles of the Law- eating healthy, loving and obeying God, and others- still apply perfectly. Jesus fulfilled the requirements by dying on the cross. The principles are still there and are fully in effect.

Furthermore, Paul never insists that the entire world has been reconciled. You rip Paul and Moses and say Jesus is contrasting with them. Even a casual look at Paul and Moses shows that they do not contradict anything Jesus taught. Paul came after, and Moses came before. The Law was incomplete.

So when I say the Bible can be reliable and the Law not apply, I mean we don't have to follow the letter of the Law as the Pharisees tried to do, we must go deeper and further and obey its principles as well. The entire Bible is completely relevant to today.

As it stands, you still have yet to answer my question: How do you determine what is and is not reliable if the Bible is not, in fact, reliable?

 

[trek4fr]

As it stands, you still have yet to answer my question: How do you determine what is and is not reliable if the Bible is not, in fact, reliable?

I have answered your question, Jaws13, it is just that you don't accept my answer, which is understandable given your point-of-view. What it comes down to for me is that Jesus said that a tree would be known by the kind of fruit that it bears. A good tree bears good fruit. If principles found in the Bible bear good fruit (feed the poor, shelter the homeless, visit prisoners, heal the sick, cloth the naked, seek peace and justice, have compassion), then I find those things reliable and worth relying on.

But if other things found in the Bible do not bear good fruit (make war, kill women and children, slaves should obey their masters, obey governmental leaders because they rule by divine right, keep women silent in church, kill homosexuals and adulterers and anyone who breaks the commandments, the notion of everlasting torment), then I don't find those things reliable and worth relying on.

You asked how *I* determine what is reliable and what is not. Now you know.

Have a good day!

 

[Zebra1552]

I have answered your question, Jaws13, it is just that you don't accept my answer, which is understandable given your point-of-view. What it comes down to for me is that Jesus said that a tree would be known by the kind of fruit that it bears. A good tree bears good fruit. If principles found in the Bible bear good fruit (feed the poor, shelter the homeless, visit prisoners, heal the sick, cloth the naked, seek peace and justice, have compassion), then I find those things reliable and worth relying on.

But if other things found in the Bible do not bear good fruit (make war, kill women and children, slaves should obey their masters, obey governmental leaders because they rule by divine right, keep women silent in church, kill homosexuals and adulterers and anyone who breaks the commandments, the notion of everlasting torment), then I don't find those things reliable and worth relying on.

You asked how *I* determine what is reliable and what is not. Now you know.

Have a good day!

In other words, you pick and choose from what you like and what you don't like based on your own understanding of the aforementioned references, regardless of whether your own understanding is accurate. This is why universalism is bad. It does the same.

 

[trek4fr]

In other words, you pick and choose from what you like and what you don't like based on your own understanding of the aforementioned references, regardless of whether your own understanding is accurate.

Well, it's not quite as simple as picking and choosing "what I like", and my understanding is always subject to change (if it wasn't, I would still be a conservative fundamentalist). For instance, being human, I don't "like" the teaching that I should forgive and love those I might consider to be my enemies. But it is the right and Christ-like thing to do. It is best for me and best for them. Being human and often selfish, I don't "like" living my life for the sake of others. But, again, it is the right and Christ-like thing to do. So it is not at all a matter of me taking the easy way out and adhering to easy-believism.

This is why universalism is bad. It does the same.

And so does "everlasting torture," my friend. It ignores Paul's statement that, in Christ, God reconciled the whole world to himself, not holding mankind's sins against them. It ignores Paul's view that God will someday be all in all. It ignores Paul's assertion that every tongue will someday acknowledge Jesus as Lord, a confession almost all Christians say constitutes salvation. It ignores Paul's belief that Jesus is the savior of all men. It ignores the notion that God plans to redeem all of creation and to destroy sin forevermore. "Everlasting torture" says that there will always be some place in God's creation in rebellion against him and that sin will always and forevermore exist.

So it seems to me that we are all "cherry-pickers." I choose to believe in a God of love. It's just that I acknowledge that not every image of God that the writers of the Bible gave us is not an image of love.

 

[Zebra1552]

Well, it's not quite as simple as picking and choosing "what I like", and my understanding is always subject to change (if it wasn't, I would still be a conservative fundamentalist). For instance, being human, I don't "like" the teaching that I should forgive and love those I might consider to be my enemies. But it is the right and Christ-like thing to do. It is best for me and best for them. Being human and often selfish, I don't "like" living my life for the sake of others. But, again, it is the right and Christ-like thing to do. So it is not at all a matter of me taking the easy way out and adhering to easy-believism.

I do believe you missed what I am saying.

And so does "everlasting torture," my friend. It ignores Paul's statement that, in Christ, God reconciled the whole world to himself, not holding mankind's sins against them.

Paul never said that.

It ignores Paul's view that God will someday be all in all.

Paul never said that.

It ignores Paul's assertion that every tongue will someday acknowledge Jesus as Lord, a confession almost all Christians say constitutes salvation.

"Even the demons believe... and shudder."

Way to rip that too out of context.

It ignores Paul's belief that Jesus is the savior of all men.

Jesus came to save all people, yes, if they accept Him. Unless you can actually start quoting sources with your ridiculous claims, I don't see why I should pay them any heed.

It ignores the notion that God plans to redeem all of creation and to destroy sin forevermore.

Again, ripped out of context. Redeeming all creation by creating a new heaven and a new earth, and Hades gives up the dead to be judged with some being sent to the lake of fire that burns forever and ever. I mean, did you bother to read the information I provided earlier?

"Everlasting torture" says that there will always be some place in God's creation in rebellion against him and that sin will always and forevermore exist.

Like I said, unless you can start quoting your sources...

So it seems to me that we are all "cherry-pickers." I choose to believe in a God of love. It's just that I acknowledge that not every image of God that the writers of the Bible gave us is not an image of love.

I don't cherry pick. If you want to try to test that theory on me, shoot me a PM or something or start a new thread.

 

[trek4fr]

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits,
after that those who are Christ's at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. (I Cor. 15:20-26)

For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. (Col. 1:15-20)

For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. (1 Tim. 4:10)

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." (Rev. 5:13)

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. (Romans 5:15-21)

Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. " I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in ighteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. "They will say of
Me, 'Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength.' Men will come to Him, And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame. "In the LORD all the offspring of Israel Will be justified and will glory. (Isaiah 45:22-25)

...being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:8-11.)

In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fulness of the times, that is, the
summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth (Ephesians 1:8b-10)
For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. (Romans 11:32)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I always found this passage curious because the bride is not revealed until after the judgment .
Revelation 22:17

17And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

So who would you venture the bride and the spirit are saying come to?

i mean there's all these theologies about the bride being the church who follows and spreads the message of Jesus . or being born again . or whatever it all means for now . so if that "especially" group from 1st Timothy 4:10 .. is already resurrected and everyone's judged ..

who are they saying "come" to? did i mention the bride is not revealed until after the judgment?