Universal Reconciliation

[John Hyperspace]

No offense whatsoever, but talking about the Sermon on the Mount is NOT talking about Scripture support for the idea that everyone inherits the Kingdom of God. The idea everyone will be saved is not only completely lacking in that Sermon, but it goes directly against the idea that everyone will inherit eventually.

I don't know what you're trying to say.

 

[John Hyperspace]

We are not for sure given the whole story as to what the rich man saw and said in hell. We know that he was afraid his five brothers could join him, so he knew others were there in that place of torment. torments /Jesus Christ did not say that this is all the rich man said or how much of him was in agonies. just thirsty
If he wanted someone to go back and warn his five brothers, then why not ask for himself to be the one sent to them?

Well in the story the rich man was having a conversation, so the "fire" in hell must be really, really weak, right? If we take that story literally, it's just absurd. Fire that doesn't hurt, but makes you thirsty; people laying in Abraham's bosom, a gulf so people can't go from one place to the other "There's a great gulf fixed so we can't pass over to one another" and you take this literally? There's a big chasm between heaven and hell. So, what, heaven and hell are in the same place, hell is just a suburb of heaven?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Okay, why are you posting that verse?

I suppose it was done because it conflicts with the "support" alleged in the OP from a particular understanding of those selected verses.

After reading through the thread and attempting to respond, I guess I realize what is being asked is can one select particular verses and build a case for Universalism. The obvious answer is yes, but so what. We could easily do the same with the posts in CF of many members, taking them out of context and make it appear they support something that is conflict with others posts the same member has made. What would be the point of showing we could do that?

If the idea needs to be "supported" by only looking at selected verses and excluding obvious Scripture contradictions to that view, like the Sermon on the Mount with humans NOT inheriting His Inheritance, what value is that "support" really?

 

[CodyFaith]

Revelation 14:10
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Revelation 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


The first verse is talking of those who take the mark, the second verse is about the beast, false prophet and Satan.
Forever and ever. Hell exists and is eternal.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I suppose it was done because it conflicts with the "support" alleged in the OP from a particular understanding of those selected verses.

No, it doesn't conflict with the idea at all. This is one of the problems here, people are looking at passages and thinking they conflict with the idea when they don't. "Eternal suffering/annihilation" definitely conflict with universal reconciliation passages; destruction passages do not conflict with universal reconciliation passages because the scripture abundantly shows that destruction precedes reconciliation:

Jer 12:10 Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion under foot, they have made my pleasant portion a desolate wilderness. destruction precedes reconciliation
Ho 13:9 O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help. destruction precedes reconciliation
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 precedes reconciliation
Lu 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. destruction precedes reconciliation
Lu 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. destruction precedes reconciliation
Mt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 'lost' same word as 'destroyed': "I am sent to the destroyed": destruction precedes reconciliation

After reading through the thread and attempting to respond, I guess I realize what is being asked is can one select particular verses and build a case for Universalism. The obvious answer is yes, but so what. We could easily do the same with the posts in CF of many members, taking them out of context and make it appear they support something that is conflict with others posts the same member has made. What would be the point of showing we could do that?

To refute the teaching that "universal reconciliation is unsupported by scripture"; and to expose that it "eternal suffering" is the doctrine that is unsupported by scripture.

If the idea needs to be "supported" by only looking at selected verses and excluding obvious Scripture contradictions to that view, like the Sermon on the Mount with humans NOT inheriting His Inheritance, what value is that "support" really?

Universal reconciliation is not only supported by scripture, it is the only doctrine that doesn't exclude any "conflicting" passages: the doctrine of "eternal suffering" is the doctrine that is not only completely unsupported by scripture, but is the doctrine in which those teaching it ignore conflicting passages, or, attempt to alter what the passages are actually saying, i.e. "the Saviour of all men" "Takes away the sins of the world" "reconcile all things to Him" etc.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Revelation 14:10
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

The first verse is talking of those who take the mark, the second verse is about the beast, false prophet and Satan.
Forever and ever. Hell exists and is eternal.

Oh, you've got a single verse supporting your entire doctrine which is contradictory to all reconciliation passages in the scripture? You've build the most horrific doctrine imaginable on a single verse in an apocalyptic book which meaning cannot be agreed upon, and which one-and-only verse is highly questionably translated into English: and you are going to build an entire doctrine of "eternal suffering" on one single verse which single verse contradicts every universal reconciliation passage is scripture: and not only are you going to preach the most demented doctrine imaginable based upon one single verse in an apocalyptic book which may or may not be translated properly, you're going to teach it like it's "the matter of fact" because there is a single passage in scripture in an apocalyptic book which may or may not be translated well.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I don't know what you're trying to say.

The claim was my "talking" was a "whole lot of nothing" without Scripture support of what I was "talking about".

As my "talk" in that instance was clearly referencing Scriptures that contradicts Universalism, my point in the reply this a response did include reference to Scripture. The fact I did not post the entire Sermon on the Mount which repeatedly and very clearly says not everyone is going to inherit the Kingdom of God does not make that a "whole lot nothing" any more than some might say the OP is "talk" about a "whole lot of nothing".

In fact the OP assumption that 20 or so odd verses are "very clear support" for Universalism is rather talk of a whole lot of nothing unless that understanding of those Scriptures can be aligned with obvious contradictions to it, like the ones repeated in the Sermon on the Mount.
So the OP idea that someone saying "there is not support" in Scripture for an obviously flawed theology (obvious in that it contradicts Scriptures) is erroneous because one can "find" one or 20 or so odd verses and claim it is supported by ones understanding of those verses; that OP premise is logically flawed itself.

In my experience when for support of a concept already believed it can be often easy to find it, especially when taken out of context and also from translations of multiple translations from multiple different copies of the original work. We need not go ancient to demonstrate the point. In looking at every post a CF member has made (even me), it is probably possible to take comments out of context and make it appear they said something indicating they believed something which given other statements same poster made is obviously not true.

If we can do that to someone posting in CF over months or even a decade looking at a few thousand posts, how much easier to do it for a writer living thousands of years ago, not present to defend his work and fluent in a language most of us are totally unfamiliar with and often much more expressive than the English words translated from it convey to us today.

 

[John Hyperspace]

The claim was my "talking" was a "whole lot of nothing" without Scripture support of what I was "talking about".

As my "talk" in that instance was clearly referencing Scriptures that contradicts Universalism, my point in the reply this a response did include reference to Scripture. The fact I did not post the entire Sermon on the Mount which repeatedly and very clearly says not everyone is going to inherit the Kingdom of God does not make that a "whole lot nothing" any more than some might say the OP is "talk" about a "whole lot of nothing".

In fact the OP assumption that 20 or so odd verses are "very clear support" for Universalism is rather talk of a whole lot of nothing unless that understanding of those Scriptures can be aligned with obvious contradictions to it, like the ones repeated in the Sermon on the Mount.
So the OP idea that someone saying "there is not support" in Scripture for an obviously flawed theology (obvious in that it contradicts Scriptures) is erroneous because one can "find" one or 20 or so odd verses and claim it is supported by ones understanding of those verses; that OP premise is logically flawed itself.

In my experience when for support of a concept already believed it can be often easy to find it, especially when taken out of context and also from translations of multiple translations from multiple different copies of the original work. We need not go ancient to demonstrate the point. In looking at every post a CF member has made (even me), it is probably possible to take comments out of context and make it appear they said something indicating they believed something which given other statements same poster made is obviously not true.

If we can do that to someone posting in CF over months or even a decade looking at a few thousand posts, how much easier to do it for a writer living thousands of years ago, not present to defend his work and fluent in a language most of us are totally unfamiliar with and often much more expressive than the English words translated from it convey to us today.

That's because all you guys are doing is talking, without showing scripture or anything (except the one single verse in apocalyptic literature which is questionably translated into some English translations in the Revelation which you seem to think "completely justifies teaching eternal suffering in conflict with the rest of scripture"): what part of the sermon on the mount contradicts universal reconciliation? How does the sermon on the mount support "eternal suffering"?

 

[CodyFaith]

Oh, you've got a single verse supporting your entire doctrine which is contradictory to all reconciliation passages in the scripture? You've build the most horrific doctrine imaginable on a single verse in an apocalyptic book which meaning cannot be agreed upon, and which one-and-only verse is highly questionably translated into English: and you are going to build an entire doctrine of "eternal suffering" on one single verse which single verse contradicts every universal reconciliation passage is scripture: and not only are you going to preach the most demented doctrine imaginable based upon one single verse in an apocalyptic book which may or may not be translated properly, you're going to teach it like it's "the matter of fact" because there is a single passage in scripture in an apocalyptic book which may or may not be translated well.

Hmm. Actually I posted the scripture that most clearly shows the doctrine of hell, there are countless of other scriptures that could be posted (where the worm dieth not, the story of Lazarus, the very gospel itself that Jesus came to save us from sin and eternal damnation, etc. etc.) but I don't believe it would be the right thing to do to attempt to walk you through each one, lest, like Jesus said you "take it and tread on it".

Instead, I posted the most clear cut place so I could see how you would handle it. And of course, the only way to handle it is to reject the book altogether because there's no way around it.

Interesting though, that you say "prove it with scripture!" all through your posts and then when someone presents scripture, you reject an entire book altogether. Which means you probably reject the authority of the letters as well... because it would be rather foolish to believe God gave us 5/6 of scripture with complete authority, then one randomly added book that is completely false.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Hmm. Actually I posted the scripture that most clearly shows the doctrine of hell, there are countless of other scriptures that could be posted (where the worm dieth not, the story of Lazarus, the very gospel itself that Jesus came to save us from sin and eternal damnation, etc. etc.) but I don't believe it would be the right thing to do to attempt to walk you through each one, lest, like Jesus said you "take it and tread on it".

What you really mean to say is "lest you take my interpretation, terrible reasoning and potentially blasphemous teaching and reveal it as false, irrational and high blasphemy against God"

Instead, I posted the most clear cut place so I could see how you would handle it. And of course, the only way to handle it is to reject the book altogether because there's no way around it.

Interesting though, that you say "prove it with scripture!" all through your posts and then when someone presents scripture, you reject an entire book altogether. Which means you probably reject the authority of the letters as well... because it would be rather foolish to believe God gave us 5/6 of scripture with complete authority, then one randomly added book that is completely false.

I'm not rejecting an entire book, I'm questioning your translation of the verse, I'm questioning your understanding of the verse, and I'm certainly saying you're going to need a lot more than one single verse in apocalyptic literature to support your teaching of "eternal suffering": you are also the one who is rejecting entire passages which support universal reconciliation (posted in the original post, just a smattering of a great many passages teaching the concept, in opposition to your single verse)

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No, it doesn't conflict with the idea at all. This is one of the problems here, people are looking at passages and thinking they conflict with the idea when they don't. "Eternal suffering/annihilation" definitely conflict with universal reconciliation passages; destruction passages do not conflict with universal reconciliation passages because the scripture abundantly shows that destruction precedes reconciliation:

Jer 12:10 Many pastors have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion under foot, they have made my pleasant portion a desolate wilderness. destruction precedes reconciliation
Ho 13:9 O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help. destruction precedes reconciliation
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 precedes reconciliation
Lu 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. destruction precedes reconciliation
Lu 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. destruction precedes reconciliation
Mt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 'lost' same word as 'destroyed': "I am sent to the destroyed": destruction precedes reconciliation



To refute the teaching that "universal reconciliation is unsupported by scripture"; and to expose that it "eternal suffering" is the doctrine that is unsupported by scripture.



Universal reconciliation is not only supported by scripture, it is the only doctrine that doesn't exclude any "conflicting" passages: the doctrine of "eternal suffering" is the doctrine that is not only completely unsupported by scripture, but is the doctrine in which those teaching it ignore conflicting passages, or, attempt to alter what the passages are actually saying, i.e. "the Saviour of all men" "Takes away the sins of the world" "reconcile all things to Him" etc.

Again, saying I can quote a verse and offer an understanding that "supports" a particular view is not the same as claiming those verses, especially in context "very clearly support" or only support a that view.

Am no more impressed by the OP claim of Scripture support for Universalism than I have been when people have talked with me [about] why they have rattlesnakes and copperheads and drink poisons as part of their worship service near where I lived at the time.

Universalism is exclusive of the idea that "few will find it" or that some will not "inherit" an Inheritance that belongs to Him alone. Rather explains why a Universalist would ignore posts or pretend they cannot fathom why someone opposed to Universalism would mention those Scriptures.

To me when one has to ask why would someone counter with Scripture saying "few would find it" or call it a "whole lot of nothing" to point out God Himself told a crowd repeatedly not everyone will "inherit" His Inheritance, it is rather revealing that not only are major repeating themes and verses in the Bible being ignored, one has by ignoring those "found support for" exactly what was sought in creating such a list of verses in the OP.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Again, saying I can quote a verse and offer an understanding that "supports" a particular view is not the same as claiming those verses, especially in context "very clearly support" or only support a that view.

Am no more impressed by the OP claim of Scripture support for Universalism than I have been when people have talked with me why they have rattlesnakes and copperheads and drink poisons as part of their worship service near where I lived at the time.

Universalism is exclusive of the idea that "few will find it" or that some will not "inherit" an Inheritance that belongs to Him alone. Rather explains why a Universalist would ignore posts or pretend they cannot fathom why someone opposed to Universalism would mention those Scriptures.

To me when one has to ask why would someone counter with Scripture saying "few would find it" or call it a "whole lot of nothing" to point out God Himself told a crowd repeatedly not everyone will "inherit" His Inheritance, it is rather revealing that not only are major repeating themes and verses in the Bible being ignored, one has by ignoring those "found support for" exactly what was sought in creating such a list of verses in the OP.

I'm going to take it that you can produce no real support from scripture for your "eternal suffering" doctrine, and so can only offer up baseless talk devoid of reason from scripture? It seems the only way you are able to "refute" the OP passages supporting universal reconciliation is to ignore them completely, and say "eternal suffering is real" like you have the power to make truth by uttering words?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

destruction precedes reconciliation

To refute the teaching that "universal reconciliation is unsupported by scripture"; and to expose that it "eternal suffering" is the doctrine that is unsupported by scripture.
Universal reconciliation is not only supported by scripture, it is the only doctrine that doesn't exclude any "conflicting" passages: the doctrine of "eternal suffering" is the doctrine that is not only completely unsupported by scripture, but is the doctrine in which those teaching it ignore conflicting passages, or, attempt to alter what the passages are actually saying, i.e. "the Saviour of all men" "Takes away the sins of the world" "reconcile all things to Him" etc.

More assumptions required to justify the statements made of all these verses - note nothing said about either "few find it" or that plenty will NOT "inherit" it.

Note that any possible view of reconciliation is only made possible if one "finds" a "way" [. ] Scripture says "few" will find, meaning then that some will NOT "inherit" as God told the crowd [about]the Inheritance[,] that "Way" He made possible.

The rich man God Himself talked to a Jewish audience about, who He knew most believed in an afterlife that included the thought of a place of eternal suffering for "bad people", is clearly shown suffering. To deny Scripture shows people suffering eternally in the next life ignores both a lot of Scripture, a repeating theme in theme in the Bible as a whole, as well as the traditions and beliefs of the people giving mankind Christianity, and finally thousands of years of Christian history/record on the matter.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I'm going to take it that you can produce no real support from scripture for your "eternal suffering" doctrine, and so can only offer up baseless talk devoid of reason from scripture? It seems the only way you are able to "refute" the OP passages supporting universal reconciliation is to ignore them completely, and say "eternal suffering is real" like you have the power to make truth by uttering words?

I do not see as baseless the idea of God talking to people that had long held a belief, as many cultures did, in the idea of an afterlife where bad people suffered eternally and good people were in happy bliss. I get some here want to ignore that as 'evidence' in support of a view that contradicts Universalism. That it and the "inheritance" issue has to be ignore is rather obvious in the replies to those who bring it up. Ignoring it could be considered a baseless position I guess.

I do not see as baseless from Scripture that our inability to achieve "salvation" or "reconciliation" without an alignment the Bible describes like a marriage, which is then providing us an Inheritance we could not otherwise obtain. Not baseless to point out that having died with and needing that alignment in THIS LIFE BEFORE we die is repeatedly said to be the basis of a judgement of this life alone, with no mention of second chances in the next life if that judgement is a negative one. It is not baseless to point out that whenever Judgement is repeatedly discussed in Scripture, the case for each individual is always in terms of what occurs in this life, not the next. Likewise not baseless to point out there is no mention in Jewish tradition (of the Biblical age) of the idea of second chances, and also no mention of ongoing or second chances given in Jesus expressing those same very Jewish thoughts to a Jewish audience.

 

[John Hyperspace]

More assumptions required to justify the statements made of all these verses - note nothing said about either "few find it" or that plenty will NOT "inherit" it.

I've not seen you support the notion that "plenty will NOT inherit it" yet, in order to examine it. I already showed from scripture that reconcilation is preceded by destruction, so there is nothing to say about the "wide path to destruction" except that it is a wide path leading to the thing that preceds reconciliation. Neither of these things give any support whatsoever to "eternal suffering"; so in the end, harmonious with universal reconciliation - teach nothing nor support in any way "endless suffering"

Note that any possible view of reconciliation is only made possible if one "finds" a "way" Scripture says "few" will find, meaning then that some will NOT "inherit" as God told the crowd the Inheritance that "Way" He made possible.

Not true, one can "find" and one can be "shown": there is nothing at all precluding a difference between "finding the way" and "being shown the way"; and scripture supports both ideas. The few that "find" would of course be a special group of people.

The rich man God Himself talked to a Jewish audience about, who He knew most believed in an afterlife that included the thought of a place of eternal suffering for "bad people", is clearly shown suffering. To deny Scripture shows people suffering eternally in the next life ignores both a lot of Scripture, a repeating theme in theme in the Bible as a whole, as well as the traditions and beliefs of the people giving mankind Christianity, and finally thousands of years of Christian history/record on the matter.

I know you like to say "ignores a lot of scripture" but so far you're the only one ignoring a lot of scripture, the universal reconciliation passages. Some of them are in the OP and you're blatantly ingoring them. As for this "scripture shows people suffering eternally" you've so far managed to produce a single supporting passage for your teaching, from a highly apocalyptic book, and one that is questionably translated. In other words, you've shown no support for "eternal suffering" passages and completely ignore "universal reconciliation" passages.

The problem is your baseless assumption. You think that since there are verses talking about fire "that supports endless suffering" but it doesn't. It only supports fire. You think that verse talking about destruction "that supports eternal suffering" but it doesn't. It only supports destruction. And so on and so forth. Your teaching is devoid of scriptural support, and exists only in your mind as "supported" by passages in which the "support" is based on nothing but assumption of your doctrine.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Look at where Jonah first prayed from in Jonah chapter 2. Hell was a divided place between the righteous and the wicked until Jesus Christ arose and redeemed them. He took them/paradise to heaven. David wrote how He would
be redeemed from Sheol, and Paul told how Jesus Christ will bring the sleeping saints from heaven when He returns at the last trump.

I don't see the relevance, nor any scripture being used to support anything of substance here in your words. Jonah prayed from sheol, okay. People are redeemed from sheol, okay.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I do not see as baseless the idea of God talking to people that had long held a belief, as many cultures did, in the idea of an afterlife where bad people suffered eternally and good people were in happy bliss. I get some here want to ignore that as 'evidence' in support of a view that contradicts Universalism. That it and the "inheritance" issue has to be ignore is rather obvious in the replies to those who bring it up. Ignoring it could be considered a baseless position I guess.

I do not see as baseless from Scripture that our inability to achieve "salvation" or "reconciliation" without an alignment the Bible describes like a marriage, which is then providing us an Inheritance we could not otherwise obtain. Not baseless to point out that having died with and needing that alignment in THIS LIFE BEFORE we die is repeatedly said to be the basis of a judgement of this life alone, with no mention of second chances in the next life if that judgement is a negative one. It is not baseless to point out that whenever Judgement is repeatedly discussed in Scripture, the case for each individual is always in terms of what occurs in this life, not the next. Likewise not baseless to point out there is no mention in Jewish tradition (of the Biblical age) of the idea of second chances, and also no mention of ongoing or second chances given in Jesus expressing those same very Jewish thoughts to a Jewish audience.

Look, call me when you've got actually scripture to introduce to support some kind of rebuttal to the OP, or, to show some kind of support for something you teach. I'm zero interested in what "everyone believes" and I'm not interested in people's endless talk talk. All you've demonstrated is, you have no scriptural (or, otherwise) refutation of the OP verses, and, no scriptural support for your opposing doctrine (which if wrong is the highest form of blasphemy). Obviously you couldn't care less if you're blaspheming God, nothing is going to stop you from preaching "endless suffering" except Divine intervention itself.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm