Towards a biblical view of universalism

[IoanC]

Do you own a bible, or do you just use commentaries, as that is likely why you post what you post.

Listen,

By one man.... SIN and Death came in this world... and upon us all....and that one man is Adam.
Adam's SIN is the fall of us all.
Had Adam not sinned, then Christ didnt need to die for your sin.
Adam rebelled, and rebellion is Iniquity, and iniquity is sin.

Yes, only The Father through The Son (Jesus Christ), in The Holy Spirit can save us since our fall. We are that affected.

I probably just comment based on my opinions most of the time. I don't read the Scriptures a lot. Being an Orthodox Christian, there is Holy Tradition, The Holy Liturgy, The Saints, The Sacraments, in addition to The Scriptures that serve towards the knowledge and formation of a Christian. Going to Church (Liturgy), the Sacraments (Confession and Eucharist), praying can be enough to survive as an Orthodox.

 

[drewcosten]

Do you believe Jesus when He said "Not everyone will enter the kingdom of heaven?"

Matthew 7:21-23​

(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.​

(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?​

(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

Neither the Father nor Jesus, themselves, ever said that all mankind will enter the kingdom of heaven.
In this passage Jesus says, "Not every one shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." Then He says, "Many," NOT a few will say to Him "In that day" i.e. the day of judgement "Lord, Lord, have we not ...in thy name done many wonderful works? Then Jesus will tell them, "I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity." When Jesus says never He means never not some day by and by.

That’s correct. Not everyone will experience the type of salvation Jesus was referring to there, it’s true. The words “salvation,” “save,” and “saved” refer to different things in different passages, though, and there are multiple types of salvation, some of which only a few will experience and at least two of which everyone will experience.

At the end of the day, the only way to conclude that the Bible teaches never-ending punishment in hell is to read it completely out of context. I’ve sent this article that I wrote to hundreds of Christians over the last couple years now, and while I’ve had multiple Christians get back to me telling me they’ve become Universalists after reading it, I’ve yet to have a single Christian be able to (or even attempt to) refute the interpretations of Scripture in it, so I’d suggest reading it if you actually believe in never-ending punishment: What the Bible really says about heaven, hell, judgement, death, and salvation

 

[Der Alte]

That’s correct. Not everyone will experience the type of salvation Jesus was referring to there, it’s true. The words “salvation,” “save,” and “saved” refer to different things in different passages, though, and there are multiple types of salvation, some of which only a few will experience and at least two of which everyone will experience.

At the end of the day, the only way to conclude that the Bible teaches never-ending punishment in hell is to read it completely out of context. I’ve sent this article that I wrote to hundreds of Christians over the last couple years now, and while I’ve had multiple Christians get back to me telling me they’ve become Universalists after reading it, I’ve yet to have a single Christian be able to (or even attempt to) refute the interpretations of Scripture in it, so I’d suggest reading it if you actually believe in never-ending punishment: What the Bible really says about heaven, hell, judgement, death, and salvation

Sorry amigo. I have heard this false song and dance for several decades. I read both Biblical languages. I have in my personal library the latest Greek and Hebrew grammars and lexicons. The last thing I am going to do is even read and/or accept anything suggested by an anonymous poster online, who didn't even extend me the courtesy of reading and addressing what I posted and who probably does not know a hithpael from a hatpin or an aorist from an aardvark. As I said Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it.

 

[drewcosten]

Sorry amigo. I have heard this false song and dance for several decades. I read both Biblical languages. I have in my personal library the latest Greek and Hebrew grammars and lexicons. The last thing I am going to do is even read and/or accept anything suggested by an anonymous poster online, who didn't even extend me the courtesy of reading and addressing what I posted and who probably does not know a hithpael from a hatpin or an aorist from an aardvark. As I said Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it.

You’re under no obligation to read it. But until someone can refute the arguments in it, I have no reason to believe that those of us in my church are wrong, and after almost 2 years of sharing it, the only result I’ve seen from people who have actually read it carefully is conversion to Universalism. So honesty, if you don’t want to become a Unie, you probably shouldn’t read it.

 

[Der Alte]

You’re under no obligation to read it. But until someone can refute the arguments in it, I have no reason to believe that those of us in my church are wrong, and after almost 2 years of sharing it, the only result I’ve seen from people who have actually read it carefully is conversion to Universalism. So honesty, if you don’t want to become a Unie, you probably shouldn’t read it.

Don't expect me to even read or address what you posted when you did not extend me that same courtesy. You personally, not some copy/paste, address and refute anything I posted.

 

[drewcosten]

Don't expect me to even read or address what you posted when you did not extend me that same courtesy. You personally, not some copy/paste, address and refute anything I posted.

Why would I refute something I agreed with? I agreed with every word you posted in that post, from what I recall.

Anyway, it sounds like you aren’t interested in that article, so that’s fine. I’m sure there are others who will be interested, and who will read it and become Universalists, and if that isn’t you, that’s okay (although you will become one in the future, even if not until the Great White Throne Judgement).

 

[Der Alte]

I don't mean this in a mean why, Michie, but you (and I) couldn't carry David Bentley Hart's briefcase. He is brilliant, scholarly, well-read in the classics, and understands Greek and Hebrew. For you to call him a joke shows you know absolutely nothing about the man.

I realize this was not addressed to me so PMFBI. The only writings of DB Hart I am familiar with is what has been quoted in this forum. I see no point in trying to discuss anything with him in his arena. Every out-of-context proof text he could possibly provide is easily refuted by simply quoting from the Eastern Greek Orthodox [EOB] translation of the N.T. Please see link below.
I am quite sure the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the EOB are at least as qualified, and very likely more qualified, in Greek than DBH. After all they have at their disposal 2000 years +/- of uninterrupted Greek history and scholarship.

The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The New Testament (The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible)

archive.org

 

[Der Alte]

Why would I refute something I agreed with? I agreed with every word you posted in that post, from what I recall.
Anyway, it sounds like you aren’t interested in that article, so that’s fine. I’m sure there are others who will be interested, and who will read it and become Universalists, and if that isn’t you, that’s okay (although you will become one in the future, even if not until the Great White Throne Judgement).

I'm a bit confused. My post was refuting universalism.

 

[drewcosten]

I'm a bit confused. My post was refuting universalism.

The point is that what you wrote doesn’t contradict Universalism at all. We Universalists agree completely that not everyone will enter the kingdom of heaven. The problem with trying to refute Universalism (at least Scriptural, Concordant Universalism) is that one first has to understand what it is we even mean when we say that everyone will eventually experience salvation. So few Christians have the first clue what it is we actually believe about soteriology, much less why we believe what we do, which leads them to attack straw-men doctrines that we don’t even believe in the first place. That’s why I was directing you to my article.

 

[zippy2006]

More important for our purpose is the fact that the great majority of the ‘hard sayings’, the passages which warn most clearly and unmistakeably of eternal punishment, are found on the lips of Jesus Himself. This is the point at which the usual argument comes dangerously close to cutting off the branch it sits on. It says ‘God is love’: but we know that principally (since it is not self-evidently true) through the life and death of Jesus Christ. We cannot use that life and death as an appeal against itself—which is precisely what happens if we say that, because God is love, the nature of salvation is not as it is revealed in the teaching of Jesus and in the cross itself, the place where God has provided the one way of salvation. (If there were other ‘ways of salvation’, the cross would have been unnecessary.) I begin here because we need to be reminded of the uncompromising warnings which the evangelists place on the lips of Jesus Himself (and if they were creations of the early church, they are quite unlike anything else that the early church created). Nor is there any tension between statements of God’s love and warnings of God’s judgment. If this is a problem for us, it certainly was not for them: compare John 3:16–21. Perhaps this is why many advocates of universalism abandon the attempt to argue their case from the Bible at all.

Continued below.

Towards a biblical view of universalism - The Gospel Coalition

‘There are two Biblical ways of looking at salvation. One says that only Christian believers will be saved: the other says that all men will be saved. Since the latter is more loving, it must be true, because God is love.’ This argument (though the words are mine) is regularly used by university...

www.thegospelcoalition.org

This is an interesting piece. It was written by N. T. Wright in 1978 when he was only 29 years old. Still, it is cogent and compelling, as we have now come to expect from this great scholar. The PDF is available here. The same issue includes Bauckham's excellent piece on the history of Universalism.

 

[Der Alte]

The point is that what you wrote doesn’t contradict Universalism at all. We Universalists agree completely that not everyone will enter the kingdom of heaven. The problem with trying to refute Universalism (at least Scriptural, Concordant Universalism) is that one first has to understand what it is we even mean when we say that everyone will eventually experience salvation. So few Christians have the first clue what it is we actually believe about soteriology, much less why we believe what we do, which leads them to attack straw-men doctrines that we don’t even believe in the first place. That’s why I was directing you to my article.

You have not clarified my confusion. If "not everyone will enter the kingdom of heaven" that contradicts/is contradicted by "everyone will eventually experience salvation." I'm not aware of a two-tiered salvation system in the Bible.
I have a little anecdote I like to use. Several years ago I was flying from the west coast to Va. for training by my rich uncle in DC. The man sitting in the seat next to me was reading the Bible. To start a conversation I said, "That's a good book. I like how it ends." He smiled then I said, "You are a military aviator." He looked surprised and asked, "Do I have a sign my forehead?" I said, "No the [military] glasses and the [military] haircut." I had the same glasses and previously had the same haircut. Having said that, I have read the end of the book.

Revelation 22:11
(11) He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.​

The last book, last chapter, 10 more vss. no more salvation, no more death only "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still:" The end, roll end credits, fade to black. Where are those who are unjust, and filthy? Outside the New Jerusalem.

Revelation 22:15
(15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.​

 

[drewcosten]

You have not clarified my confusion. If "not everyone will enter the kingdom of heaven" that contradicts/is contradicted by "everyone will eventually experience salvation." I'm not aware of a two-tiered salvation system in the Bible.
I have a little anecdote I like to use. Several years ago I was flying from the west coast to Va. for training by my rich uncle in DC. The man sitting in the seat next to me was reading the Bible. To start a conversation I said, "That's a good book. I like how it ends." He smiled then I said, "You are a military aviator." He looked surprised and asked, "Do I have a sign my forehead?" I said, "No the [military] glasses and the [military] haircut." I had the same glasses and previously had the same haircut. Having said that, I have read the end of the book.

Revelation 22:11​

(11) He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.​

The last book, last chapter, 10 more vss. no more salvation, no more death only "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still:" The end, roll end credits, fade to black. Where are those who are unjust, and filthy? Outside the New Jerusalem.

Revelation 22:15​

(15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.​

That’s why I linked you to the article I wrote on the topic, since it explains all this well. I can see why you’re confused, though. You’re assuming that Revelation is the end of the story, but it actually isn’t even close to discussing the final part of God’s plan for the ages. Paul actually discusses what will happen looong after the events discussed in Revelation take place. Again, though, I went into detail on all that in the article, so if you ever want to know why we Scriptural Universalists can agree that not everyone will enter the kingdom of heaven while still experiencing salvation, you’ll need to read it carefully, all the way through from beginning to end (while clicking all the links for all the scriptural references). You don’t have to read it, of course, but as a rule I won’t explain the details of what I already covered in the article, or discuss the majority of the particulars, to anyone who isn’t already familiar with the interpretations of the Bible as laid out in that article.

 

[Der Alte]

This is an interesting piece. It was written by N. T. Wright in 1978 when he was only 29 years old. Still, it is cogent and compelling, as we have now come to expect from this great scholar. The PDF is available here. The same issue includes Bauckham's excellent piece on the history of Universalism.

I skimmed that article it is about 13 pages too many to even consider reading. I did not see any scriptural comments refuting any vss. such as Matthew 25:46. Quoting ECF is meaningless to me unless they are exegeting scripture. Unsupported opinions of ECF and/or "scholars" are no more compelling than the scribblings on a public facility wall.

 

[Der Alte]

That’s why I linked you to the article I wrote on the topic, since it explains all this well. I can see why you’re confused, though. You’re assuming that Revelation is the end of the story, but it actually isn’t even close to discussing the final part of God’s plan for the ages. Paul actually discusses what will happen looong after the events discussed in Revelation take place. Again, though, I went into detail on all that in the article, so if you ever want to know why we Scriptural Universalists can agree that not everyone will enter the kingdom of heaven while still experiencing salvation, you’ll need to read it carefully, all the way through from beginning to end (while clicking all the links for all the scriptural references). You don’t have to read it, of course, but as a rule I won’t explain the details of what I already covered in the article, or discuss the majority of the particulars, to anyone who isn’t already familiar with the interpretations of the Bible as laid out in that article.

Sorry amigo, I have heard this song and dance before. The discussion is here, I can't interact with a PDF at a link. If you think you have some really compelling information at your link which will refute anything I have posted bring it here and address my specific points. Otherwise sayonara.
I went back and did a little reading I found this in the "Editorial" of the article.

Tom Wright presents us with a Biblical view of Universalism. In this article he examines the claims that are made, that Paul taught a form of ‘universalism’ and vindicates the apostle from the charge that for him salvation included ‘all men’. He also carefully considers those texts that are frequently adduced in defence of universalism and provides a careful exegesis, which leads to the conclusion that universalism inevitably fails to deal justly with the plainest meaning of scripture. A new contributor to Themelios then adds his different perspective on the general theme. Dr Blum has contributed an article considering the whole question of ‘universalism’ within the framework of a useful apologetic for the church. He shows how the whole concept of ‘universalism’ involves a denial of the essentially biblical emphasis and is derived from an interpretive principle of ‘sovereign love’ which is the deciding factor in humanistic thinking, rather than Christian and Biblical thinking. He is also clear in the way in which scripture teaches an inescapable doctrine of Hell and he makes clear the absolute sinfulness of sin.​

 

[drewcosten]

Sorry amigo, I have heard this song and dance before. The discussion is here, I can't interact with a PDF at a link. If you think you have some really compelling information at your link which will refute anything I have posted bring it here and address my specific points. Otherwise sayonara.

Sayonara it is, then, because I won’t argue about something with someone who isn’t already familiar with my position. It’s just a waste of time for everyone involved. But don’t worry, you’ll be a convinced Universalist eventually, even if perhaps not for a very long time.

 

[Der Alte]

Sayonara it is, then, because I won’t argue about something with someone who isn’t already familiar with my position. It’s just a waste of time for everyone involved. But don’t worry, you’ll be a convinced Universalist eventually, even if perhaps not for a very long time.

I went back and added this to my previous post. From the Editorial at your link.

Tom Wright presents us with a Biblical view of Universalism. In this article he examines the claims that are made, that Paul taught a form of ‘universalism’ and vindicates the apostle from the charge that for him salvation included ‘all men’. He also carefully considers those texts that are frequently adduced in defence of universalism and provides a careful exegesis, which leads to the conclusion that universalism inevitably fails to deal justly with the plainest meaning of scripture. A new contributor to Themelios then adds his different perspective on the general theme. Dr Blum has contributed an article considering the whole question of ‘universalism’ within the framework of a useful apologetic for the church. He shows how the whole concept of ‘universalism’ involves a denial of the essentially biblical emphasis and is derived from an interpretive principle of ‘sovereign love’ which is the deciding factor in humanistic thinking, rather than Christian and Biblical thinking. He is also clear in the way in which scripture teaches an inescapable doctrine of Hell and he makes clear the absolute sinfulness of sin.​

https://tgc-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/themelios/Themelios4.2.pdf

 

[drewcosten]

I went back and added this to my previous post. From the Editorial at your link.

Tom Wright presents us with a Biblical view of Universalism. In this article he examines the claims that are made, that Paul taught a form of ‘universalism’ and vindicates the apostle from the charge that for him salvation included ‘all men’. He also carefully considers those texts that are frequently adduced in defence of universalism and provides a careful exegesis, which leads to the conclusion that universalism inevitably fails to deal justly with the plainest meaning of scripture. A new contributor to Themelios then adds his different perspective on the general theme. Dr Blum has contributed an article considering the whole question of ‘universalism’ within the framework of a useful apologetic for the church. He shows how the whole concept of ‘universalism’ involves a denial of the essentially biblical emphasis and is derived from an interpretive principle of ‘sovereign love’ which is the deciding factor in humanistic thinking, rather than Christian and Biblical thinking. He is also clear in the way in which scripture teaches an inescapable doctrine of Hell and he makes clear the absolute sinfulness of sin.​

https://tgc-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/themelios/Themelios4.2.pdf

I’m not sure what Tom Wright has to do with anything. I assume you’re referring to a discussion with someone else and accidentally replied to me.

 

[Der Alte]

I’m not sure what Tom Wright has to do with anything. I assume you’re referring to a discussion with someone else and accidentally replied to me.

Did you even read what you linked to? That was copied from the editorial at your link. There is more of same in the editorial. Here's the link again.

https://tgc-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/themelios/Themelios4.2.pdf

 

[drewcosten]

Did you even read what you linked to? That was copied from the editorial at your link. There is more of same in the editorial. Here's the link again.

https://tgc-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/themelios/Themelios4.2.pdf

I think you’re replying to the wrong person. There was no editorial at my link. My link was What the Bible really says about heaven, hell, judgement, death, and salvation – KJV Gospel Resources and had nothing to do with Tom Wright.

 

[Der Alte]

I think you’re replying to the wrong person. There was no editorial at my link. My link was What the Bible really says about heaven, hell, judgement, death, and salvation – KJV Gospel Resources and had nothing to do with Tom Wright.

My bad I did reply to the wrong person.