Well for the last 17 years, since I was 5 I have been a Southern Baptist, never deviating from free will, and eternal torment for the lost. In fact, I'm still in this camp just not as sure. Recently, I've come across some things, including my own reading of the Bible, that are making me rethink everything. First and foremost i would like to say that the One truth that I am sure of is that Jesus died for me and that there can be no hope for the world without the sacrifice of God's only son, Jesus Christ. The things that I'm questioning are who is saved? and is it in our control? Ephesians 2:8 says by grace through faith, but that this faith is a gift of God. Also Jesus talks several times in the Gospel about only the ones God chooses believes. This seems to fly directly in the face of free will. However, a doctrine I can't really accept is that God's plan is to save only a small minority of humanity --at most 5 or 10 %, but when we look at the # that actually follow Christ, more like .5% and consign the rest of creation to eternal torment without giving them a choice in the matter.
This leads me to universalism, which I had previously thought was held only by people who weren't Christians and didn't read the Bible--or at least took a few verses out of context. But how can you take 1 Timothy 2:4 out of context which says in the Greek that God intends (not desires as modern translations like to say) all men to be save. Or the verse in Romans 11 that says God gave all men over to sin so that he could have mercy on them all. Also there are key passages in 1 Corinthians 15, Romans 8, and Colossians 1 that seem to teach the reconcilliation of the whole world through the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Before I thought all who believ must be implied in these passages becaus they just don't square with my view of hell as a place of eternal separation from God and torment! But universalist explain these verses. They say that the word "aionion" in the Greek is mistranslated in the Bible. Since aion means eon or age (like in the Great Commission) then aionion couldn's possibly have a meaning besides "of the age" or as Young's 1607 translation renders it, "age enduring." In fact, sometimes, when the King James scholars couldn't translate it any other way they had to render it something differenlt besides aionion. (For instance they translated aion and aionion like 7 different ways in the first chapter of Ephesians) But usually, however, they translated aionion to mean forever, everlasting, or eternal. Interestingly, the phrase "aionion" life doesn't occur in Revelation--after the church age, instead it says forever and ever which in the Greek means "to the aions of the aions" or "ages of the ages." The universaists argue that since the wages of sin is death, the same word for death that is used when a cow dies, then saying that God gives eternal torment would be to say God is unjust. Why, they ask,didn't God tell Adam what the "REAL" wages of sin were instead of just saying that he would surely die. What they believe is that sometime in the future ages that God, through Christ's sacrifice, will eventually reconcile ALL things to himself. This, of course, is what Paul SEEMS to be saying in certain passages.
An interesting point they both make is that both Paul, in Romans 9(somewhere in the opening verses) and Moses (Exodus 32:32) both say they wish they could be cursed or cut off for Israel's sake. How could they have said this if it meant an eternity in fire? Can anyone really have this much love? Another point they make is how could the "mere" death of Jesus pay the price for mankind's sin if the real wages of sin were eternal torment. (I squirm while writing that sentence, knowing about "The Passion of Jesus Chirst" the love Jesus has for me.) Also, Universalists say even if it is only God's desire --and not something he controls-- for all to be saved then this will mean that God, in the future will be not quite satisfied, just a little bit frustrated. (Isaiah after all does say that all that God desires, he does.) Finally they make the point that the method for salvation in Romans 10 is to confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead. In Philippians, Paul says that God God has exalted his Son so that at the name of Jesus every knee may bow (will be able to bow is how the Greek says is) and every tongue will be able to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Now I've always thought that at this point it would be too late. After all, whats the MERIT in saying Jesus is lord after we see him. But then I catch myself, there is never any MERIT to grace, "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" it is unmerited favor. Maybe when the are seeing God face to face they won't really believe in their hearts God raised him from the dead, but I highly doubt it!
As you all can see, the Universalist arguement is pretty convincing and so I find myself on the fence. I'm waiting for a champion of orthodoxy to stand up and refute this nonsense, to show me how aionion can mean eternal, and why sinners really do deserve everlasting punishment in a place like where the rich man, in the rich man and lazarus was. For myself, I have never questioned the idea that because of my sins I deserve to die, but it does not com enatural to me to say that because of my sin I deserve the same fate of the rich man ETERNALLY. One last thing the Universalists say is that God is a purifying fire and the fires of hell are all about getting people--the unsaved-- ready for God's kingdom.
This leads me to universalism, which I had previously thought was held only by people who weren't Christians and didn't read the Bible--or at least took a few verses out of context. But how can you take 1 Timothy 2:4 out of context which says in the Greek that God intends (not desires as modern translations like to say) all men to be save. Or the verse in Romans 11 that says God gave all men over to sin so that he could have mercy on them all. Also there are key passages in 1 Corinthians 15, Romans 8, and Colossians 1 that seem to teach the reconcilliation of the whole world through the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Before I thought all who believ must be implied in these passages becaus they just don't square with my view of hell as a place of eternal separation from God and torment! But universalist explain these verses. They say that the word "aionion" in the Greek is mistranslated in the Bible. Since aion means eon or age (like in the Great Commission) then aionion couldn's possibly have a meaning besides "of the age" or as Young's 1607 translation renders it, "age enduring." In fact, sometimes, when the King James scholars couldn't translate it any other way they had to render it something differenlt besides aionion. (For instance they translated aion and aionion like 7 different ways in the first chapter of Ephesians) But usually, however, they translated aionion to mean forever, everlasting, or eternal. Interestingly, the phrase "aionion" life doesn't occur in Revelation--after the church age, instead it says forever and ever which in the Greek means "to the aions of the aions" or "ages of the ages." The universaists argue that since the wages of sin is death, the same word for death that is used when a cow dies, then saying that God gives eternal torment would be to say God is unjust. Why, they ask,didn't God tell Adam what the "REAL" wages of sin were instead of just saying that he would surely die. What they believe is that sometime in the future ages that God, through Christ's sacrifice, will eventually reconcile ALL things to himself. This, of course, is what Paul SEEMS to be saying in certain passages.
An interesting point they both make is that both Paul, in Romans 9(somewhere in the opening verses) and Moses (Exodus 32:32) both say they wish they could be cursed or cut off for Israel's sake. How could they have said this if it meant an eternity in fire? Can anyone really have this much love? Another point they make is how could the "mere" death of Jesus pay the price for mankind's sin if the real wages of sin were eternal torment. (I squirm while writing that sentence, knowing about "The Passion of Jesus Chirst" the love Jesus has for me.) Also, Universalists say even if it is only God's desire --and not something he controls-- for all to be saved then this will mean that God, in the future will be not quite satisfied, just a little bit frustrated. (Isaiah after all does say that all that God desires, he does.) Finally they make the point that the method for salvation in Romans 10 is to confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead. In Philippians, Paul says that God God has exalted his Son so that at the name of Jesus every knee may bow (will be able to bow is how the Greek says is) and every tongue will be able to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Now I've always thought that at this point it would be too late. After all, whats the MERIT in saying Jesus is lord after we see him. But then I catch myself, there is never any MERIT to grace, "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" it is unmerited favor. Maybe when the are seeing God face to face they won't really believe in their hearts God raised him from the dead, but I highly doubt it!
As you all can see, the Universalist arguement is pretty convincing and so I find myself on the fence. I'm waiting for a champion of orthodoxy to stand up and refute this nonsense, to show me how aionion can mean eternal, and why sinners really do deserve everlasting punishment in a place like where the rich man, in the rich man and lazarus was. For myself, I have never questioned the idea that because of my sins I deserve to die, but it does not com enatural to me to say that because of my sin I deserve the same fate of the rich man ETERNALLY. One last thing the Universalists say is that God is a purifying fire and the fires of hell are all about getting people--the unsaved-- ready for God's kingdom.
