Thinking of universal salvation

[Hillsage]

true.

Too much disagreement to respond to. Sorry, but I meant what I said. I don't read posts that long and I assume that most others don't either. Not with any comprehensive depth anyway. Though I did read yours completely. For the most part if it won't fit on the screen without scrolling...it's too much to deal with IMO.

 

[thedudeman1990]

this is a Christian rapper preaching the words in a song he wrote about the salvation of jesus. please watch. I tried to give links but my post count must be above 50 to do that so I'll just tell you what to search on youtube. exact titles just copy n paste. the song: Christian Rap - The Rep - Could You?? the preaching about it:
The Rep - Imagine it

 

[Der Alte]

The problem with the doctrine of eternal torment, is that in order for God to not look like a monster, you have to make it look like he is desperately trying to save everyone which leads to a blatant contradiction of the scriptures.

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.​

Now most people try to twist this to mean that they couldn't hear because they were evil and so it was only their fault that they couldn't understand, when that is clearly not what Christ said.

You highlighted the wrong part of the scripture and you have knowingly or unknowingly ignored the original context. The "most people" are not the ones doing the twisting it is the universalists. God did not arbitrarily "say seeing they see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." Jesus is quoting Isaiah 6:9-10 but the complete context requires that one read Isaiah 5. The penalty of Isaiah 6 is not arbitrary but because of the willful disobedience in Isaiah 5. For example,

Isa 5:7 For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.

Isa 5:11 Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!

Isa 5:13 Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst.

Isa 5:18 Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope:

Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Isa 5:21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

Isa 5:22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:

Isa 5:25 Therefore is the anger of the LORD kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still​

There is no contradiction of scripture if one reads the fuller context and not just a few out-of-context proof texts.

 

[bling]

uh oh...I fear trouble is a coming.

Thank you for responding.

ROM 5:20 Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Unfortunately orthodoxy wants 'sin reigning in death'...eternally. Me, I say let grace and righteousness reign for all...I mean, ALL!!!!!

Question back; Does sin have some "purpose" for the 'believer'? I haven't met one who doesn't....is why I'm asking.

Did Peter’s denial of Christ three times help Peter in the end?

I can really only speak for myself: I sometimes learn of a Christian involved in some “big” time sinning and think how horrible they are since I would never do that. Through the years I have learned the things I thought I was above doing, if I just quenched the indwelling Spirit and went out on my own. I would do one thing that led to another that led to another and all of a sudden I am doing what I said I would never do. I need to involve the Holy Spirit 24/7 and sinning tells me He is not involved in what I am doing, so drop to my knees and pray for help, look around for something the Spirit can be involved in doing and do that together.

Gee, and I thought your answer was a pretty good one. I guess I may have to yield to Chaela.

The mission (statement) is stated as a command and might be: Love God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy.

Man’s objective seems to be to obtain and grow this Godly type Love.

There are just something even an all powerful Creator cannot do , this big one for us is create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it His Love. In other words: If the Love was in a human from creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

EPH 1:11 In him, according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 WE WHO FIRST HOPED in Christ have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory.

Drat, that 'glory' thing is popping up, just like a tree, again. Wonder what the significance of WE WHO FIRST HOPED is? Suppose there might some who will hope in another age? Wonder if Paul forgot about the OT saints before him????

If God is totally unselfish, He will do and allow all He can to help those that are just willing to accept His help to fulfill their objective (Love). That “all” includes: Christ going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kind, hell, evil, and even sin.

The easiest way to accept the gift is through accepting God’s forgiveness (this is after you have sinned) since forgiveness is charity, grace, mercy, Love.

I don't know. Why do 'responsible' married couples want kids? I still don't know, and I have two. Help Chaela don't leave me now...need a woman's perspective here...maybe.

The Creator of the universe: “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.

So God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gifts (the most powerful force in all universes that compels even God to do all He does) and become like He is.

“Love” compels even God to make beings that could Love like He Loves (totally unselfish [a measure of pure Love]) and thus is not for God’s sake at all, but is totally for the sake of others?

I thought God's charity was part of being in the Garden of God/Paradise...to begin with.

Just as parents have an obligation toward the children they bring into the world god would have an obligation, but what are parents really trying to do: “Mature their children to become like themselves if the parents are wonderful.”

God is Loving Adam and Eve all the time with an unbelievable undeserved selfless sacrificial Love, but to receive this Love as pure charity and not just an obligation of a wonderful parent, Adam and Eve would have to humble themselves to accept charity, but they have no reason to be humble, since they have done everything right up to their sinning.

Since “If you Love me you will obey me…” and Adam and Eve did not obey it shows they did not have this Godly type Love.

It is hard for humans to humbly accept charity.

If heaven is, as you say; "one huge love feast of Godly type love"...then there wouldn't be 'people there wanting to be loved as people perceived them to be'....would there?

They won’t be there because they do not want to be in a place of only Godly type Love and our Loving God would not force them to be where they do not want to be. They might prefer to be in heaven over being in hell (annihilated), but that is not the choice. The threat of “hell” would be like putting a gun to their head to get them to stay in heaven.

 

[bling]

]I would say that for us sin's a problem, as it does tend to create problems,
even if just on on the temporal plane.

Are they “problems” or opportunities?

As for unforgiven sin, if and where it exists, it won't remain eternally so
(either unforgiven or a problem), imo.

So are you saying you go to hell or purgatory with unforgiven sins that are later forgiven and you than go to heaven?

I believe everything has a purpose, so yeah. One can definitely learn lessons
from the consequences it brings.

I have never felt the “consequences” that sin produces and never intend to, so what are you talking about?

What “consequences” did Paul experience from torturing and murdering Christians?


[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]I agree with the statement that man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]Him forever (that's in the Westminster Confession if I'm not mistaken). [/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]Trees do bring glory to God in their own way, yes, but not in the same way [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]rocks do, or humans. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

[/FONT]
If you do anything without Godly type Love (really as your motivation) 1 Cor. 13: 1-4 would it be any benefit and/or could it bring glory to God?

In my view, relationship. I love the saying, "Let your religion be less of a
theory and more of a love affair." That's where it's at, I believe.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]If God is totally unselfish, He will do and allow all He can to help those that are just willing to accept His help to fulfill their objective (Love). That “all” includes: Christ going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kind, hell, evil, and even sin.

The easiest way to accept the gift is through accepting God’s forgiveness (this is after you have sinned) since forgiveness is charity, grace, mercy, Love.
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]See question 3.[/FONT][/FONT]

[/FONT]
So is this some self-seeking objective on God’s part?

Ideally, I would prefer to be in a place where my relationship with God wasn't
on such precarious footing, which it would be if it were entirely dependent on
my ability to obey or accept much of anything.

[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]So you see the advantages you have over the before sin situation in the garden?
[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, serif]I suspect that, at that point, perception would give way to reality, so I'm not
100% sure there would be anyone wanting to be loved for anything but the
reality of who they are. That definitely falls into the category of we'll-know-
when-we-get there.

[/FONT][/FONT]
Will God know at judgment from a person time on earth, if they would be happy in a situation where there was only unselfish (non-self-seeking) type Love?

Are there people that have lived that have too much “pride” (it can be a false pride) to of their own free will ever be humble enough to accept charity as charity? Are their people that just do not like to be “Loved” by a person that also Loves just as much the lowliest person on earth?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

[/i]I guess it boils down to the purpose behind the suffering.

Suffering happens, that's the reality, but there is a *huge* difference, imo,
between it going on endlessly for no reason other then petty retribution,
and it going on temporarily for the purpose of cultivating growth.

Not to mention that, in God's case, it flies completely in the face of all the
victory-cries about once-and-for-all salvation for the world found in
scripture.

There are twists here that are subtile but make my point. Even though some suffering here and now seems pointless for the individual, it is still for His Glory in how others (not that individual actuall suffering) benefit -even if they cannot see how they benefit now. Why I must assume the torment of the damned is not also to His Glory and also to the benefit of others is unclear to me. As would be the assumption that there torment is not self inflicted.

I also do not really know what Hell is, have not been there. Doesn't sound nice. Burning, fire and smoke are unpleasant things we can relate to. Am open to the possibility that those depictions of "Hell" do not actually represent the physical things we relate those to. All the things He made us to be (love, serve & know Good) the damned have stood against and saught the opposite - hate the Good and serve & know only self. Could be the pain/suffering/wasting is simply what happens to a sentient being -what is left of them - when left to the sole purpose they served in this life. Sin is acting against our nature and it corrupts. Being left isolated with the hatred they held for the Good, we should not be surprised that the corruption (of the individual) would continue unabated - and that it would hurt.


Assuming that all punishment must be corrective is incorrect also. Some punishment is simply to separate individuals from others, and those others are glad/better for it. That separation is one purpose of some punishment. Clearly the fate of the damned represents a separation from those in Heaven. So such separation cannot be said to be pointless.


As for victory, the end result as far as mankind is concerned is certainly a triumph of Good over evil. Those who rejected Good are forever left to themselves and separated from everyone AND EVERYTHING else, never to corrupt anything or anyone ever again. Creation is restored to the way He made it and those who would work against His Purpose for them can alter what is Very Good again. Sounds like a win to me, a win for the Supreme Good and to His Glory.

 

[Phantasman]

Suffering exists now. Am not sure why I should see the existence of suffering, either now or in the next life as a problem for God - or as making Him a monster. Either He is a monster because suffering exists or is not. Am unclear how the length of time would make a difference. I suppose we could suggest that someone who, borrowing the favorite phrasing of those who deny it, "tortures" a little bit is less of a monster than someone who "tortures" a lot. Would we really call one of them loving and merciful because he tortures less than the other?

We would still see both as monsters. So the idea that suffering makes God a monster if He allows it to never end does not wash with me, as it means He would only be less of a monster by ending it. So am not sure why anyone should be happy to see God as a limited "torturer" or how they think being a limited "torturer" makes Him more loving and merciful.

I can not understand the pursuing of knowledge for punishment of the unjust. It is taken so physically, when Christ said his words were spirit. Sure Christ says the unjust have their rewards (negative) as the just have theirs (positive, eternal). It IS a carrot and stick.

But to figure out if one has to "imagine" burning forever or being destroyed almost sounds like someone who is doing one of two things. Can I be evil and just be destroyed? Is God really that mean?

There is enough in the verse that says "it is better to cut off your hand" to just tell me that a choice exists. Was it Christs intent to scare the "hell" out of man to make him love him? I believe that is the way of all of the false idols and Gods. Fear. How much fear was used in the sermon on the mount?

Being that Christs words were spirit, I see it more spiritual than physical (fire). There is no greater spiritual pain than to lose ones souls (at judgement) when one see's the truth and the glory the spirit provides to them that loved and followed the Fathers will. A pain so great, one would rather had been flesh again and remained on fire than to lose such a glory.

When the soul "dies", the infinite spirit lives outside of that glory, (outer darkness mentioned by Christ).

The Apocalypse of Peter (accepted authorative) talks of Peter pleading for the lost and eventually God grants Peters request out of love, (FWIW).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Phantasman
We do not need to "pursue" such knowledge - suggest one ask those who would seek to pursue such "knowledg" outside of the canon of Scripture why that they feel the need to do that. We do not need to pursue it because all we were given all we need to know about it by God Himself.

And yes He made it sound like something to be feared, something physically painful and something we would want to rather self mutilate than experience. Hard to get around those statements being what it appears to be, very physical depictions of the fate of the damned.