The Doctrine of "Universalism" (Christian Universalism or Otherwise) True or False? (2)

[IamRedeemed]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "The Doctrine of "Universalism" (Christian Universalism or Otherwise) True or False?"

 

[Nadiine]

spiritdriven's post

What is free will?
Free will is a doctrine that teaches that man can act independently of God.

K, we've clarified this several times now - we haven't purported "free will", we've asserted FREE CHOICE. God allows us to make choices in our actions and decisions.
They are not the same thing.

According to this doctrine, the cross of Christ never saved anybody; the cross only saves those who decide to be saved. What about the verse that says no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him?

Despite the fact that you continue on a false assertion of our claims... these examples don't refute "free will" anyways (if free will existed).
People still obviously reject God due to His drawing - ask any atheist/humanist or agnostic. I know I did for years when I felt convicted by God - I simply ignored Him.

Reader, if you believe in the free will of man, please investigate the ninth chapter of Romans in any version you please, come back

Still continuing on an assertion we haven't made... (red herring??) We've gone over Romans 9 and YOU fail to reply to my statements that refute your interpretation here.
GOD HAS A PERFECT WILL AND PERMISSIVE WILL. If you want to claim that we do ONLY what God wills us to, then God is willing that women abort their infants in the womb, God is willing that pedophiles sexually molest small children, commit rape, beastility, torture families, bomb buildings, and any other sick thing your mind can imagine.
IS THAT GOD'S PERFECT WILL? If it is, then I'm sorry, your god isn't the one I know from my Bible!

Very well; perhaps your neck needs cracked.

More patronization? You've been refuted here several times in your Romans 9 assertion - perhaps you need the "cracking"?

 

[CaDan]

*checking in*

 

[SpiritDriven]

Nadine....you have no idea what your talking about....you do not believe the word of God when it is presented to you.

All you have is personal opinion about how God should do things your way.

Do you expect anybody here to take you seriously?

Romans 9.19 No one can resist his will....

What you have to do now...is refute that....how you are going to do that is beyond me....unless you are an unbeliever....?

Only Non believers....do not believe the word of God.

doh!

May I ask who has taught you that God will not get his way for any given person ?

Because your arguement about that is with God....not me...evidenced by Romans 9.19

 

[Joykins]

I think the questions about infant salvation do need to be answered because they are a part of the whole soteriological picture.

I see several questions here:

1. Are ALL who are not saved by specific faith in Christ condemned? (this would include babies, other innocents, and anyone who has not heard the gospel)

2. Is salvation possibly only for those with specific faith in Christ AND assorted innocents (babies, the incapable, and possibly those who have not heard the gospel)?

3. Is salvation possible only for those with specific faith in Christ, and babies and the incapable, but not for those who reject the gospel message and those who have not heard the gospel message?

4. Is salvation possible for those with specific faith in Christ, assorted innocents, and those who God chooses to forgive based upon criteria unknown to those of us who have heard the gospel?

5. Is salvation possible for everyone, given enough knowledge, experience, and time (including possibly post-death)?

I'm sure there are more options, these are just some of the ones I can think of.

The essential paradox that I think is dividing some of us here is the justice of God in contrast to his grace and forgiveness. The attitude "I got my grace, you get your justice"--true or not--is in contrast to the humility and the great commission of Christ to bring as many as we can into the shepherd's fold.

[bible]Romans 10:11-15[/bible]

 

[Nadiine]

Nadine....you have no idea what your talking about....you do not believe the word of God when it is presented to you.

All you have is personal opinion about how God should do things your way.

Do you expect anybody here to take you seriously?

Romans 9.19 No one can resist his will....

What you have to do now...is refute that....how you are going to do that is beyond me....unless you are an unbeliever....?

Only Non believers....do not believe the word of God.

doh!

Um, AGAIN YOU ARE NOT REPLYING TO MY STATEMENTS other than to make personal digs at me & reiterate your same Romans 9 argument.

You are skirting around the issues I've presented to you, why?

ONCE AGAIN:
I'm saying that God has more than ONE WILL - that His will is that ALL come to Him, BUT ALSO THE WILL WHERE HE ALLOWS US TO SIN AND REBEL becuz we know we rebel and reject God; many times right to the grave.

The fact that rejection, sin & rebellion exist, proves that God is ALLOWING US to do things HE DOESN'T WANT US TO DO, but that He allows us to do. Becuz He's also said that He wills us to OBEY HIM. HE THEN JUDGES US based on those actions.

Free choice.

Unless as I stated, YOU happen to believe that God WILLS that a mother abort her fetus ... in partial birth abortion?
The pedophile who kidnaps a little girl, sexually molests & murders her?
The rapist who breaks into an elderly woman's home & brutally rapes her?
I can list tons of attrocities - you're telling me that God is impressing HIS WILL upon that person to abort, rape, torture, murder, kidnap, lie to, steal from, & cheat others?
WHEN HIS LAW IS ' LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF'? (which is His will, is it not? - the laws of Love being the higher laws of God?)

You can use all your personal digs & detailed patronizations, but you haven't responded to the real argument; you're avoiding it.

 

[SpiritDriven]

Nadine...you posted this before....

IT'S WHY JESUS IS MANDATORY FOR SALVATION. It's the entire point of the gospel. No Jesus, No salvation.

Jesus has already been obedient unto Death on a Cross...it has already happened....the Sin debt of the entire human race has already been paid in full.

Jesus has already stated that if he be lifted up from the Earth he will draw all men unto him.

Ironicly enough many teach that if you do not believe in Christ before you die its... too late!

The Truth of the matter is that the whole Human race has already been saved for erternity with God....and because of the obedience of Jesus unto death on a Cross....it is... too late.... to stop it.

From now until the consumation....all will come to the relisation of this truth.

Not every body will be saved at the same time, because not all are given belief at the same time.

Its Gods way...his plan...not ours.
People that have no understanding of how God will accomplish 1 Timothy :2.4 of cousre will not agree and argue against that.....it wont make any difference.

The Work of the Cross is sealed in the blood of the Royal House of David....its already a done deal...too late to stop it.

 

[CaDan]

Some folks seem to consider the fate of unbaptized and unrepentant infants irrelevant to the question of universal reconciliation. I concede it is not relevant to many aspects such as the existence of hell and the duration of the same, but it is relevant to one key aspect--the economy of salvation.

Much argumentation against UR has been based upon the position that all human beings are innately evil and that all human beings must be eternally punished to satisfy God's justice. "All" means all. "All" means Eichmann and Schiavo and Dahmer and the latest thee kilo bundle of joy. All.

If the only way to eternal life is to repent of inborn human evil during this life and claim the blood of Jesus for the forgiveness and covering of that evil, then those who either by age, knowledge, or mental ability cannot do so must be eternally punished. The logic is inescapable.

If, therefore, infants and the mentally handicapped do not burn in hell for all eternity, there is another method of being saved (economy of salvation). If there is another method, then the argument that the only way to eternal life is the mental and spiritual gymnastics of an evangelical "born again" experience collapses.

This does not, of course, directly prove any sort of universal reconciliation. What it does do is refute one of the arguments against it. Refuting an argument in opposition to a position is relevant and germane to the position.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear SpiritDriven,
I suggest that before you continue telling Nadiine she doesnt know the word of God I think that if one reads all the Biblical quotes Nadiine has posted it shows you havnet applied Romans 9 very well.

You are correct that the blood of Jesus has paid the price for all mankind's sin, but thats providing they choose to accept it.
Even your statement

Jesus has already stated that if he be lifted up from the Earth he will draw all men unto him.

doesnt mean all will be saved as Jesus says He will judge all. To judge all He will in effect draw them to Him and all willmbow their knee having to acknowledge He is Lord.
You are simply making an assumption on one passage and at the same time assuming other passages dont actually mean what they say. It is perfectly possible to assume when Jesus says He will be lifted up He is referring to Numbers and the bronze snake which Jesus actually cites in John 3:16. John 3:16 says should not perish as opposed to will not perish. If its just as the bronze snake was lifted then anyone who is bitten and gazes on the snake shall live, so if they dont and live why would He say about the ones who look at the snake will live? There is a serious logical problem in universalist argument

 

[Nadiine]

Some folks seem to consider the fate of unbaptized and unrepentant infants irrelevant to the question of universal reconciliation. I concede it is not relevant to many aspects such as the existence of hell and the duration of the same, but it is relevant to one key aspect--the economy of salvation.

Much argumentation against UR has been based upon the position that all human beings are innately evil and that all human beings must be eternally punished to satisfy God's justice. "All" means all. "All" means Eichmann and Schiavo and Dahmer and the latest thee kilo bundle of joy. All.

No, the issue is Universalists claim that it doesn't matter, that all make it in anyways & If we're evil, we just repent when we see God face to face.

The infant salvation topic is NOT relevant to this thread - it's become it's own topic and goes in opposite directions that don't relate to the topic.
It details infants only (not all humanity who knowingly do wrong, it goes into God's fairness of judgment based on personal knowledge issues and I've seen 2 times where you try to go down the rabbit trail of the mentally retarded as well... all side issues) - they are not relevant in this thread.

If people want to continue it they should start a new thread on just that topic for proper in depth discussion.

 

[Nadiine]

Nadine...you posted this before....

IT'S WHY JESUS IS MANDATORY FOR SALVATION. It's the entire point of the gospel. No Jesus, No salvation.

Jesus has already been obedient unto Death on a Cross...it has already happened....the Sin debt of the entire human race has already been paid in full.

Jesus has already stated that if he be lifted up from the Earth he will draw all men unto him.

Ironicly enough many teach that if you do not believe in Christ before you die its... too late!

The Truth of the matter is that the whole Human race has already been saved for erternity with God....and because of the obedience of Jesus unto death on a Cross....it is... too late.... to stop it.

From now until the consumation....all will come to the relisation of this truth.

Not every body will be saved at the same time, because not all are given belief at the same time.

Its Gods way...his plan...not ours.
People that have no understanding of how God will accomplish 1 Timothy :2.4 of cousre will not agree and argue against that.....it wont make any difference.

The Work of the Cross is sealed in the blood of the Royal House of David....its already a done deal...too late to stop it.

Nice speech - still avoiding scriptures that have been given and basing it on a groas misinterpretation of Romans 9.
Grandstanding based on what you claim other's misinterpret... when they've said the same of you with evidence.

The whole human race ISN'T saved, it hasn't been proven here by any stretch; in fact most of it has been refuted very effectively by scripture opposition.

 

[CaDan]

No, the issue is Universalists claim that it doesn't matter, that all make it in anyways & If we're evil, we just repent when we see God face to face.

The infant salvation topic is NOT relevant to this thread - it's become it's own topic and goes in opposite directions that don't relate to the topic.
It details infants only (not all humanity who knowingly do wrong, it goes into God's fairness of judgment based on personal knowledge issues and I've seen 2 times where you try to go down the rabbit trail of the mentally retarded as well... all side issues) - they are not relevant in this thread.

If people want to continue it they should start a new thread on just that topic for proper in depth discussion.

Are you abandoning the argument that the only way to salvation is individual repentance? If you are, fine. If you are not, I'm going to keep trotting out infants and the mentally handicapped until you face up to the implications of your position.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Every time I ask for scriptures that support universalist doctrine, I don't get any. What do I get? More questions, and usually questions about what I believe and questions about other parts of scripture that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. The universalist maintains that people only suffer for a little while in Hell and then are allowed to go to Heaven. Since that is their stance they need scriptures that prove it. Every time I ask for them, I don't get them. That is very very telilng. We're not talking about Nineveh, we're not talking about Jonah, we're talking about universal salvation. Do you have scriptures that support it yes or no. I'm going with no, you don't. If you would like to discuss Jonah, start a thread about that.

My reply about Jonah was directly in response to your post:

I agree, that's why I find this universalist doctrine so heretical. I don't see any scriptures being presented that say when anyone gets out of the Lake of Fire and I don't see any scriptures that say when, after we die, we get to choose Jesus as Lord and Savior.

You are making an argument from silence. You say you can't find any scripture saying anyone gets out of the Lake of Fire. I understood this as meaning that once God announces judgment, God is certain to condemn. No mercy is possible after that.

I posted a counter-example from Jonah. Please read it carefully, because it says something about God's nature. It says something about what God's prophet knows about God's character, and what God's prophet knows about how God is known to act:

[bible]jonah 3:10[/bible][bible]jonah 4:1-4[/bible]

Those arguing against universalism have asked for scripture. Then when scripture is presented, they ignore it. I have posted this scripture from Jonah several times, and none of the opponents of universalism have engaged in any discussion of it.

Why?

Is not this scripture directly relevant?

God unconditionally announced judgment on the Ninevites. At the time of judgment, they repented, and God in turn repented. The prophet says it is in God's nature to do this - that is, not to execute promised judgment.

I am not a universalist because I see instances, such as the flood in Genesis, where God does execute judgment. However, Jonah is powerful evidence that we may (and God wants us to) hope for the salvation of all. It is in God's nature to be merciful and accept repentance even after God has said judgment is sure.

Here is what God says about Jonah's attitude:

[bible]jonah 4:9-11[/bible]

Nobody who is trying to debunk universalism has discussed Jonah.

 

[Nadiine]

Are you abandoning the argument that the only way to salvation is individual repentance? If you are, fine. If you are not, I'm going to keep trotting out infants and the mentally handicapped until you face up to the implications of your position.

Infants weren't even brought into this until a poster came in on a rant about God committing genocide of women & children.
I had pointed out a suggestion of them POSSIBLY being saved thru being taken back to God early due to how they'de grow up as barbarians in a pagan climate.

It came in on the heels of something off topic that was kindly being responded to a newcomer; now you want to grab hold of it & RUN as if it's the new topic.

It's becomming it's own topic and it's not conducive to Universalism.
The bible clearly states that one must believe & repent for salvation - the issue is not WHICH ONES THEY ARE in this thread - the issue is THERE IS SAVED AND LOST.

It is not the topic of this thread to go down rabbit trails of "how about those that haven't heard a missionary?" "how about people who have no bibles?" "how about people in a coma?" "how about babies?" "how about the mentally ill?". Those are OFF TOPIC - the source of the topic is THERE IS SAVED AND LOST - universalists are saying ALL are saved, we say all are NOT saved -

This isn't about deciding which groups have the salvation or not. And the more it goes down those paths, the more it moves into "who is saved" instead of Universalism/all are saved.

SEPARATE TOPIC.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear CaDan,

Some folks seem to consider the fate of unbaptized and unrepentant infants irrelevant to the question of universal reconciliation. I concede it is not relevant to many aspects such as the existence of hell and the duration of the same, but it is relevant to one key aspect--the economy of salvation.

Ok that’s right.

Now I see your point which is a valid one. However it does nothing to support the assumption for UR and US.

 

[CaDan]

Infants weren't even brought into this until a poster came in on a rant about God committing genocide of women & children.
I had pointed out a suggestion of them POSSIBLY being saved thru being taken back to God early due to how they'de grow up as barbarians in a pagan climate.

It came in on the heels of something off topic that was kindly being responded to a newcomer; now you want to grab hold of it & RUN as if it's the new topic.

It's becomming it's own topic and it's not conducive to Universalism.
The bible clearly states that one must believe & repent for salvation - the issue is not WHICH ONES THEY ARE in this thread - the issue is THERE IS SAVED AND LOST.

It is not the topic of this thread to go down rabbit trails of "how about those that haven't heard a missionary?" "how about people who have no bibles?" "how about people in a coma?" "how about babies?" "how about the mentally ill?". Those are OFF TOPIC - the source of the topic is THERE IS SAVED AND LOST - universalists are saying ALL are saved, we say all are NOT saved -

This isn't about deciding which groups have the salvation or not. And the more it goes down those paths, the more it moves into "who is saved" instead of Universalism/all are saved.

SEPARATE TOPIC.

Wrong. Here's why.

The measure of the strength of a theory is its explanatory power, or, to use Thomas Kuhn's terminology, its ability to provide solution to puzzles.

The fate of unbaptized, unrepentant infants is a puzzle, as is the fate of the mentally handicapped. UR provides a solution to that puzzle--all are eventually, somehow saved. Standard evangelical "turn or burn" soteriology does, too, but it is not a very palatable one, because the solution is that infants and the mentally handicapped are not and cannot be saved.

Solve that puzzle without abandoning your proposed economy of salvation and we're cool.

 

[Nadiine]

Dear CaDan,
Ok that’s right.

Now I see your point which is a valid one. However it does nothing to support the assumption for UR and US.

I disagree, it's not a point - the foundation of the argument in the 2 opposing sides is:
not all are saved, and all are saved.

If someone wants to start deciding which ones are saved, then they're going into "what is salvation" topics. "Who is born again". "What is a Christian/Christianity".
Not Universalism.

This is going to head into derailment as he "trots out" every single instance of every type of person who may have some sort of challenge, lack of knowledge/ability to know something, etc.
That is not the issue at hand in this thread and I can't see it as anything more than a derailment of the thread.

 

[Nadiine]

Wrong. Here's why.

The measure of the strength of a theory is its explanatory power, or, to use Thomas Kuhn's terminology, its ability to provide solution to puzzles.

The fate of unbaptized, unrepentant infants is a puzzle, as is the fate of the mentally handicapped. UR provides a solution to that puzzle--all are eventually, somehow saved. Standard evangelical "turn or burn" soteriology does, too, but it is not a very palatable one, because the solution is that infants and the mentally handicapped are not and cannot be saved.

Solve that puzzle without abandoning your proposed economy of salvation and we're cool.

No, the issue is SAVED OR LOST,

It is not our job to seek out which ones fit which category. That is for the thread topics of "what is a Christian" etc.

This is going off in a tangent that leads AWAY from Universalism: all are saved. It's about the opposing views that not ALL are saved.
Clearly there are many adults who were born AFTER the crucifixion of Christ who DO have bibles & missionaries available to them, on top of God's personal drawing & private revelation given....

Since that's true, then there's no need for this "who is who" trail. We'll be FOREVER on "how about this group"? "how about this person"?
That is NOT the OP's question:

Here's the OP title again to refresh our memory:

The Doctrine of "Universalism" (Christian Universalism or Otherwise) True or False? (2)

It's asking if universalism is TRUE OR FALSE, not who fits the salvation category on the non universalist side.

 

[Crazy Liz]

This thread is clogged with half the posts or more seeming not to be about the topic at all, but about other people going off-topic.

How about we take a little break and try to agree what the topic is.

There are several possible positions vis-a-vis who will be saved:

The extremes are (1) Some will certainly suffer never-ending torment, and (7) All will certainly be saved; there is no hell. However, there are several positions in between. I think we can fit them in 3 rough categories:

Category 1: Certain condemnation
(1) Not all will be saved. Some will certainly suffer never-ending torment as God's eternal judgment.

(2) Not all will be saved. Some will be annihilated as God's eternal judgment.

(3) Not all will be saved. Uncertain as to whether God's eternal judgment on the unsaved will be eternal torment, annihilation, or the possibility of some other state, such as the higher levels of Dante's Inferno, i.e. separation from God without torment.

Category 2: Uncertainty
(4) Some will be saved. We cannot be certain of the eternal end of those who do not repent in this life because, while God is capable of judgment, God is also merciful, showing mercy even on those who do not deserve it.

Category 3: Certain universal salvation
(5) All will certainly be saved eventually. All punishment described in scripture is corrective, and therefore will eventually end in salvation.

(6) All will certainly be saved eventually. God will not punish those who repent, even at the very time of judgment. Once humans attain the understanding of the judgment, those who have not yet repented will repent.

(7) All will certainly be saved. There will be no hell or any other kind of punishment after this life.

My question is what positions are on the table for discussion in this thread. The proponents of position #1 have presented scriptures against position #7. Others have presented scriptures against proposition #1.

What I see is that the discussion has ground to a standstill because half the recent posts seem to be no more than claims that arguments supporting position #4, the middle position, are off-topic.

I personally don't care if the discussion wanders a bit. I find all the posts complaining about others going off-topic very annoying and disruptive. So let's take a time out and decide what we're discussing.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I disagree, it's not a point - the foundation of the argument in the 2 opposing sides is:
not all are saved, and all are saved.

If someone wants to start deciding which ones are saved, then they're going into "what is salvation" topics. "Who is born again". "What is a Christian/Christianity".
Not Universalism.

This is going to head into derailment as he "trots out" every single instance of every type of person who may have some sort of challenge, lack of knowledge/ability to know something, etc.
That is not the issue at hand in this thread and I can't see it as anything more than a derailment of the thread.

This thread was started as a spin-off from the thread, YES or NO: Is It Fair That Some People Are Going To Hell?. In that thread, some answered, "No, it is not fair, and therefore it is possible that the premise is false."

A group of posters thought it was off-topic to discuss the premise of the question, so they started this thread, and invited those who questioned the premise of the other question to discuss it here. Now, the same people are being told we cannot make the arguments in this thread we were trying to make in the other thread.