Universal Reconciliation

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Not interested in talk for talk's sake. Again, all you're showing is that you have zero scripture to rebut the OP scripture, and one scripture to support your "endless suffering" doctrine. Also, given that one scripture in the Revelation, you're still needing to harmonize it with all the verses from the OP. How to do that? Ignore them? Change them?

I gave and others have given ways to harmonize all those verses in the OP with the idea of eternal suffering of some the Bible says will not inherit from a alignment with Jesus the opposite fate of eternal happiness. What is never harmonized in this thread is a repeated chorus of Scripture contradicted the offered selective meaning (apparently imagined very clear meaning) of the verses in the OP.

Again referencing the Sermon on the Mount, an inheritance not everyone will get by a way not all will find is hardly offering zero scripture to rebut the OP offer of an understanding of some select verses. And we note the first couple of times those Scripture references (the Sermon, the way) were made in this thread, the response to them ignored those references as if it was a zero, which was rather my point those Scriptures must be ignored to claim nothing in Scripture rebuts the idea. Rather obviously if it were ever true that nothing in Scripture contradicted Universalism then all Christians would hold to that. Many of us would hope it true, but face a reality it does not look good for many of us and we should take care ourselves less we fall.

Ignoring some Scripture, ignoring repeated themes, ignoring the repeated juxtaposition of eternal happiness with the opposite fate, ignoring the repeated urgency of getting "right" in this life, ignoring the repeated finality of the judgment of wicked to suffering starting immediately after this life, all to focus only a select a few verses out of context I guess could be considered harmonizing. It is harmonizing, but with only a song already stuck in a loop in one's head as opposed to one generated from Scripture. The only thing that Univeralism harmonizes with is the select view of those few verses while leaving out the repeated "chorus" from all the rest of the Bible. That chorus cannot even be songsung with those same verses wanting to be harmonized to Univeralism.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Because "the wicked will not inherit" does not in any way shape or form preclude the wicked being made righteous: if I say to you "a man without a tie will not enter my club" that does not mean if you have no tie, you will never enter no matter what. It means as long as you don't have a tie: if you go home and change into a tie, guess what? NOW you can come in. Get it? You're simply assuming so much into what is being said that you end up not only blatantly ingoring the passages in the OP in order to cling to your traditional (mis)understanding, you're creating doctrines out of thin air, based on nothing: and potentially the greatest form of blasphemy imaginable. And not for one second do you or others stop and think about what you're doing and teaching.



And still you go on about "eternal suffering" as though you've produced more than a single verse to support the teaching, while at the same time completely ignoring every universal reconciliation passage in scripture.

So to accept Universalism one has to "harmonize" the Act I was saying created His Inheritance to a level that when God actually said "not inherit" about the wicked, we should take that to mean the opposite. We should understand a simple and declarative "not inherit" actually means the wicked "will inherit" just like the good will inherit. A rather unique "understanding" of "not inherit" in the Sermon on the Mount.
Given it was equated as something we can do ourselves like put on a tie, it becomes unclear why Christ needed to do anything to help us. That inheritance He spoke of is claimed to be something we can all help ourselves to. Rather than needing Him to have it, we just need to see it as something we can all get/claim for ourselves in this life or in hell in the next at some point. Interesting too that God would be understood as choosing to make a have/not have distinction about inheritance, if it were true everyone will inherit. IOW there is no such distinction to be made as Universalism claims everyone inherits.

No wonder people say Universalism makes a mockery of what a man had to do to undo what a single man did.

Creating out of thin air would be expressing the idea that our Inheritance through Him would be like us showing up at Judgement (or later in Hell upon realizing it is uncomfortable there) and upon getting a negative judgement we just "go home" and put on a tie we forgot we needed in this life.

My expressions may not always be accurately reflecting the foundation of several thousand years of teaching, but I try. And at least it based on a solid foundation of consistent Christian teachings that can be appealed to, starting with the Jesus and His Apostles. Not sure how anyone could reckon that as being out of thin air - unlike the idea we gain an Inheritance like we gain access to a place by putting on a tie. I cannot gain access to the Kingdom myself by anything I do, like putting on a tie. It is only an Inheritance we can get by being judged ONCE in the next life. And only a positive (as in will inherit) if we are judged having ended this life aligned with/married to the only human who has an actual and direct claim to that inheritance. Our claim is only through Him and specifically not something we can do for ourselves (like going home and putting on a tie).

We can put on all the "ties" or "robes" we want to show up at our Judgement after this life (both the immediate and final). In the end of this life, if we are judged not "married" to Him, then in His Words we "will not inherit" internal[eternal] happiness. Which means we would be eternally suffering as opposed to happy - which harmonizes perfectly with the repeated theme contrasting those two fates. A contrast impossible to make if there is no contrast - as in everyone will be happy eternally (Universalism).

 

[John Hyperspace]

So to accept Universalism one has to "harmonize" the Act I was saying created His Inheritance to a level that when God actually said "not inherit" about the wicked, we should take that to mean the opposite.

No we take it to mean what it says. The wicked will not inherit the kingdom. The statement says nothing about the wicked being made righteous. Like, say, all men who were at one time wicked, and in their wicked state would not inherit the kingdom. But then they were made righteous, and now they will. You do understand what "conversion" means, right? In case you don't, it means to go from a state of being wicked, to being reconciled to God by the work of Christ. If it happened to you, why do you think it's so difficult for it to happen to others?

it becomes unclear why Christ needed to do anything to help us.

The work of Christ was needed to reconcile all things in heaven and earth to God:

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

The rest of your post is founded on misunderstanding and needs no reply that hasn't already been given. But what your post has once again done is completely ignore every verse in the OP and completely fail to show support for the "endless suffering" doctrine. How long can you go on in this discussion failing to show a shred of biblical support for the doctrine you teach others (which doctrine by the way again, if not true, is the highest form of blasphemy against God): how much empty talk will you engage in order to continue to potentially blaspheme God to the highest degree possible?

Again, just in case you don't understand; "blaspheme" literal means "to injure the reputation/name/fame" and if your doctrine is wrong, and God is not a mass-torturer, you would be guilty of injuring the reputation of God to a nearly unfathomable degree. At any point, do you ever consider God in your thoughts? Do you ever care about His name and reputation which you may be dragging through the proverbial mud? Most false doctrines wouldn't injure the reputation of God: but "endless suffering" doctrine, if false, would be one of very few false doctrines that would actually be causing great blasphemy against God just by teaching it.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I gave and others have given ways to harmonize all those verses in the OP with the idea of eternal suffering

No you haven't. The only thing you've done is ignore them, or, change the words from "all" to "some": all you have done is ignored or altered the scripture, in order to teach a potentially blasphemous doctrine which doesn't have a shred of biblical support.

 

[John Hyperspace]

How many times do you think God will check each person's name to see if it is found in the book of life? Show me a verse where once they are in the lake of fire they can have their name checked again in the book?

I don't have to show you a verse about how many times God will check a person's name in the book of life. All I need to do is show you supporting scripture teaching all will be reconciled (which I have done). Meanwhile, you have done nothing but post verses either irrelevant to the topic, or, which did not support "endless suffering" at all.

Since scripture states all things are reconciled, that Christ takes away the sins of the world, that Christ is the Saviour of the world, the Saviour of all men, and that all will be made alive in Christ: then it is easily concluded that at some point in the future (when "every knee bows, every tongue confesses") God will have all names written in the book of life:

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Show us where the wickeds that can never have mercy can someday change from vessels of wrath/destruction to vessels of mercy?

How would they ever be redeemed? There is no redemption without the shedding of blood. Jesus Christ arose as flesh and bone and so will all the saints be made without blood. Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

------------------
Romans 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,


Romans 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

I show you an OP of support for universal reconciliation, and you have no support at all for "endless suffering" and still you want more verses to show you what the OP already does. About "destruction" I have time and again in this thread shown by scripture that destruction precedes reconciliation, and that because something is "destroyed" does not mean it will never be reconciled or saved.

1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Destruction, that the spirit may be saved. Thus destruction does not equal "never saved"

Ho 13:9 O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.

Israel was given to destruction. But still had help in God for restoration from destruction

Jesus was send to the lost: the word "lost" is the same Greek word as "destroyed/perished/lost": if you were once destroyed, how is it you are now saved?

All you are doing is repeating the same terrible arguments over and again. What is next? You cite verses containing the word "fire" and cry "the word 'fire' over turns all scripture teaching all things reconciled, and means nothing can ever be saved and will suffering for all of time"? For the nth time?

 

[Der Alte]

Jonah told that he had prayed from hell, then days later is when he prayed from inside of the fish and got out.

If you have a point please state it? I might assume that you are trying to prove/disprove certain interpretations of sheol based on only one example. That is not how it is done! I cannot count the number of times I have read or heard someone say something was hotter than hades. That is called hyperbole. In this verse "sheol" was something a parent could save their child from by proper punishment.

Proverbs 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.[שׁאול/sheol]​

Can parental punishment save a child from death or the grave?

 

[CodyFaith]

Nvm.

 

[CodyFaith]

.

 

[Albion]

I show you an OP of support for universal reconciliation, and you have no support at all for "endless suffering" and still you want more verses to show you what the OP already does.

I don't like speaking for another member, but the fact is that the Bible is full of verses that speak of everlasting punishment for those who are evil while there is some support for Universal Salvation but it's very slim. No one with an open mind and determined to be guided by the testimony of Scripture can come down on the side of Universal Salvation IMO. We'd all kinda like it to be so, but we can't decide on that basis.

 

[Der Alte]

...
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

All men are by virtue of natural birth "in Adam," since all mankind are literal descendants of Adam. All mankind are not naturally "in Christ." That is a decision each person must make for themselves.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.​

If "in Christ shall all be made alive" means that all mankind will be made alive, no matter what, how can Jesus later say "then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity?"

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.​

When does Jesus say these words will change to "I now know you, welcome to my kingdom?" I don't mean an assumption because another verse somewhere appears, to some people, to imply that all mankind will be saved, regardless of their spiritual condition.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[John Hyperspace]

I don't like speaking for another member, but the fact is that the Bible is full of verses that speak of everlasting punishment for those who are evil while there is some support for Universal Salvation but it's very slim. No one with an open mind and determined to be guided by the testimony of Scripture can come down on the side of Universal Salvation IMO. We'd all kinda like it to be so, but we can't decide on that basis.

If the fact is, then show me the verses that support everlasting suffering. I used to believe the doctrine when I was young. The more I studied the bible, the more apparent it became to me that the doctrine was being invented by men to lord fear over others; and it had virtually no support at all in scripture; while universal reconciliation was strongly supported. Which is why I believe what I do. I believe most people who believe "eternal suffering" doctrine are, no offense, but milk-fed babes in understanding; having done very little of their own study of these things, and fully relying on what they have been told, and doctrine derived from specious English translations of some few passages.

Universal reconciliation is based on verses that are simple: they use the word "all" which in any language is not a debated word. Meaning, no one debates the meaning of the word "kol/pan/pas" it is "all".

"Eternal suffering" doctrine is not only not in scripture, but the word "eternal/everlasrting" is being translated from "olam/aionos" which is a highly debated word. So the doctrine is not only non-existent in scripture, the foundational word being employed by its believers is highly questionable in translation.

So on the one hand we have universal reconciliation which is supported by scripture, which uses simple language, and no debated words; on the other hand we have eternal suffering which is unsupported by scripture, uses complex language, and is founded on a highly debated word. Also, let's not forget that the latter if wrong is the worst form of blasphemy against God. So, teach it at your own risk, because universal reconciliation doesn't mean, no punishment prior to reconciliation.

 

[John Hyperspace]

If "in Christ shall all be made alive" means that all mankind will be made alive, no matter what, how can Jesus later say "then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity?"

The same way the Lord chose Israel, then later exiled them to Babel, then later, brought them back into the land of Israel. I guess you're not familiar with the idea of "reconciliation"?

Jer 15:1 Then said the LORD unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people: cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth.
Eze 11:9 And I will bring you out of the midst thereof, and deliver you into the hands of strangers, and will execute judgments among you.
Ho 9:12 Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them!
Jer 29:14 And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.
Mic 7:18 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.

Isa 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Ro 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

 

[Albion]

If the fact is, then show me the verses that support everlasting suffering.

Matthew 25:41 and Matthew 25:46 would be a good start.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Matthew 25:41 and Matthew 25:46 would be a good start.

Actually you're just repeating the same terrible start as everyone prior to you. Matthew 25:41 speaks of "everlasting fire" (in some English translations; again "aionos" is a highly debated word, and "everlasting" is probably not the right idea for "aionos") but says nothing about people going into it, never coming out. So, strike one.

Matthew 25:46 "punishment" doesn't equal "suffering": if God strips a professing Christian of ever speaking or teaching the word of God again, it isn't "suffering" but it is "punishment". Also, eternal death would also be "punishment"; many forms of "punishment" - but here I would also highly question your translation of "aionos" as "everlasting"; and I would then also ask how you "reconcile" the verses speaking of universal reconciliation, as well as how you reconcile the idea of eternal suffering with the idea of eternal mercy.

So not only do your two verses not support "eternal suffering", but in order to propose your doctrine, you have to first ignore the verses in the OP, or, address them in some way, since your doctrine is now in direct conflict.