Universalism and 2 thessalonians

[apenman]

Repentance is nothing more than turning to God, or changing one's mind, and those who "love one another" have turned to God. In many cases repentance can be very subtle.

 

[mortsmune]

Reading Dan's post reminded me of a phenomina I've observed. Many Protestants seem to be members of the religion of Paul, ratrher than Christ. We are all Christians, yet not one quote from Jesus of Nazareth in the list.

What the Apostles had to say was important, but only as it supports the teaching of Christ. In the case of Paul, he is the first of the inheritor Apostles, an Apostle by appointment of the Church rather than selection be Jesus, and in fact never met the man.

So, Dan - we have an excellent view of Paul's vison of salvation - but what did Jesus teach? (somthing about sheep and goats clangs around in my head)

What did Jesus teach?

Joh 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 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.

Joh 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Regarding Paul's apostleship: Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

 

[apenman]

If you disreguard one, you might as well the other.

No need to disregard either, under the one law no one is righteous, under other law many people are righteous.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Since He is truth itself, we ought always to seek truth in its fullness in every respect...

How many Chruches/Christian's truly seek 'fullness'. Look thru the threads all over this Forum, you will see that there is very little 'fullness' in debate. It boils down to the mechanism v's the organism. Religious Christianity v's Jesus.

 

[spinningtutu]

just say no to universalism and all other idealogical drugs

 

[john14_20]

just say no to universalism and all other idealogical drugs

I'm afraid I cannot 'just say no' to the truth

 

[ahab]

Hi apenman,

To "love one another" is not part of the law of Christ, it is the law of Christ, there is no "part"

Thats your idea, not what Paul says. No Paul describes the law of Christ to the believers he addresses as “..if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.” The law of Christ is not just helping a fellow believer out of sin, and its certainly not just love one another, but it is love one another as He has loved us. This is just an expression Paul uses and an example he gives, its not a law as such its a lifestyle.
Now you asked me

The law of Christ is "love one another", and I don't believe you understand the law of Christ to any real extent

Well I don’t know fully because I haven’t experienced it fully but I know what it is through Jesus “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” Do you know what greater love is than this? If not, do you know what love is to any extent?
Jesus says “You are my friends if you do what I command” This is love that we love sacrificially as He has loved us. And to love as He has loved is to obey His commands. John 15.


Peace

 

[Raphael777]

How many Chruches/Christian's truly seek 'fullness'. Look thru the threads all over this Forum, you will see that there is very little 'fullness' in debate. It boils down to the mechanism v's the organism. Religious Christianity v's Jesus.

I would disagree with you. Truth should be intrinsic to being Christian and is intrinsic to the Church, 'the pillar and support of truth' (1 Timothy 3:15). In fact, I would argue that every human possesses an inborn transcendent desire for the fullness of truth - a desire that seeks absolute truth which has its origin in God himself. Whether Churches and Christians always and everywhere search that fullness of truth is debateable (though of course they should), but the fact people in this Forum discuss issues with such determinism demonstrates that desire for truth.

Truth does not contradict truth. But one truth impacts another truth in a profound way and illuminates a greater appreciation and understanding of it. In this way, one dogma - one teaching - is not isolated from the 'body' of beliefs that centres on Jesus Christ, 'the way, the truth and the life'.

Instead, each dogma is like a small piece of a mosaic picture, which cannot be ignored or disregarded. Though, by itself, it may seem insigificant - and objective impersonal means of obtaining this truth may appear 'mechanical' - it contributes to the beauty of that divine image, that fullness of truth, that 'organism'.

'Religious Chrisitianity' is not distinct from Jesus; He is Christianity, since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. He is that Word or Wisdom of God, that truly has 'became flesh' (John 1:14).

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I think we agree, apart from our definition of "Religious" is causing some confusion.
Religion = our attempts to find or please God = wrong.

Agree/disagree?

 

[apenman]

But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.”

Paul is simply giving an example of a way in which the law of Christ can be fulfilled, by carrying each other's burdens, nothing more. I don't think that too many people would fail to understand this.

 

[Rev. Smith]

What did Jesus teach?

Joh 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 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.

You do know that this was not a teaching of Jesus, but rather a teaching of John about Jesus? Look at the part I italiced, do you propose that John was negating all else that Jesus taught, that instead salvation is based on "magic words", that all we have to do is believe in the name? Do you realise that this means that we are all damned, since his name wasn't Jesus - it was Yeshua? Since I pray to Jesus, think of Him as Jesus and know him in my heart as Jesus, I am damned because I hath not believed in the name . How much of the "name" to I have to believe? Can I think of him as Yeshua, or do I have to say the whole name, Yeshua bar Joseph?

Can you not see that to believe in Jesus, by whatever name you care to call him, is to believe in his teaching, to live the life he prescribed. To have faith that he was the son of God, and do as he would have us do. Be as he would have us be.

The critical truth: The young man asked him "What must I do to have eternal life?" He did not answer with believe in me, he answered: "Love God, Love your neighbor". When the man asked "Who is my neighbor?" He told the story of the good samaratin - which is very deep and illustrates much; including that the way of love is active. He did not teach that the samaratin stoped and prayed for the beaton man, nor that he stuffed a few tracts in his poket and said "I love you", but rather that he actually helped the man.

Joh 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Regarding Paul's apostleship: Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

And it is, of course essential that we have faith. It is the first of the three pillars he taught for those who would have life. The second, that we love our neighbor as ourselves and the third that we keep the commandments. He further taught that he will be the judge of all mankind (and thus no man will come to the Father, save through him) {this gets very metaphysical when we view it through a trinitarian lense - no one comes to God save through God}.

And how did he say he would judge? In the sheep and the goats he tells us exactly how he will judge. He told us that the ones he will welcome into paradise are those who fed, refreshed, clothed and comforted him, by doing those things for others. He teaches this over an over and over, that those who please God do so by what they do for others.

It comes down to this: Some people think that when he taught that he is the way, the truth and the life it means that all you have to do is believe. St. Paul certainly seemed to think so. Others think that he is the way, as in a path to follow - that he is the truth, as in he has taught us rightly what we must do, and the life, as in the way life is supposed to be.

There is no religious or faith test listed in the sheep and the goats. Think this is an oversight on Jesus' part?

 

[Raphael777]

I think we agree, apart from our definition of "Religious" is causing some confusion.
Religion = our attempts to find or please God = wrong.

Agree/disagree?

I would argue that it is our duty, to seek God, whose 'invisible existence... and... everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind's understanding of created things' (Romans 1:20). It is also right that we do God's Will as best as we understand it, according to our consciences, even if we are innocently ignorant of the revelation of Christ. That is how I understand things...

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

You ... part?

You are a legend old boy!!

Jesus is the Way,the Truth and the Life, he is the only person who can judge who knows him...

but we can see the narrow thread of the Way in others, winding and weaving together the sparks of Truth in their varied and rich Life, and find Jesus with them.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

I would argue that it is our duty, to seek God

Roger that old bean. I think we're saying the same thing.
If I alter my definition of Religion to "rules to get to or please God"... does that make sense as to why it is wrong?

 

[Raphael777]

Roger that old bean. I think we're saying the same thing.
If I alter my definition of Religion to "rules to get to or please God"... does that make sense as to why it is wrong?

Depends what is meant by rules.... Aren't the Ten Commandments 'rules' that point towards love and contain within them those precepts that 'please God'?

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Depends what is meant by rules.... Aren't the Ten Commandments 'rules' that point towards love and contain within them those precepts that 'please God'?

But Jesus said there were only two commandements that matter, and these weren't very "rule-ish"!!!! - or maybe Paul "everything thind permissible but not everything beneficial".

 

[Raphael777]

But Jesus said there were only two commandements that matter, and these weren't very "rule-ish"!!!! - or maybe Paul "everything thind permissible but not everything beneficial".

However, the two commandments of love are not a replacement of the previous moral code, as such, but rather a fulfillment of it. After listing the commandments, St. Paul asserts that the Ten Commandments are summed up in the Law of love: 'Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the Law' (Romans 13:9-10). Similarly, Jesus observes, 'On these two commandments hang all the Law and the prophets' (Matthew 22:37-40). Moreover, in response to the young man's question - 'Teacher, what good deed must u do, to have eternal life?' - Jesus asserts the moral authority of the Ten Commandments, which are to be observed 'to have eternal life', (cf. Matthew 19:16-19) and He unfolds the demands and true significance of the commandments in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5:21-30).

St. Irenaeus, I think, words perfectly the understanding we should have towards the Decalogue:

'The words of the Decalogue remain likewise for us Christians. Far from being abolished, they have received amplification and development from the fact of the coming of the Lord in the flesh'.

 

[Charlie V]

Depends what is meant by rules.... Aren't the Ten Commandments 'rules' that point towards love and contain within them those precepts that 'please God'?

There's at least one passage to suggest that the Ten Commandments were made by God for man, to please man, not to please God. This passage was specific to the sabbath commandment, but may be applied to other commandments.

Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

The Pharisees had condemned the disciples for picking corn on the sabbath, and condemned Jesus for doing good and healing people on the sabbath.

It was the Pharisees who thought that we must strictly observe the sabbath to please God.

But God made the sabbath for man, and to please man. He didn't make man to please him by observing the sabbath.

Charlie

 

[Rev. Smith]

But God made the sabbath for man, and to please man. He didn't make man to please him by observing the sabbath.

Charlie

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Charlie V again.

I don't always agree with you my friend, but you always seek the essance rather than the form of truth..

and that's a good thing.
​

 

[ahab]

Hi apenman,

Paul is simply giving an example of a way in which the law of Christ can be fulfilled, by carrying each other's burdens, nothing more. I don't think that too many people would fail to understand this.

But thats what I said, it was an example, so if it is an example of a way then it is only part of the law of Christ. So when I say this why do you keep posting to the contrary?

To "love one another" is not part of the law of Christ, it is the law of Christ, there is no "part"

But you suggested

The law of Christ is "love one another", and I don't believe you understand the law of Christ to any real extent

Now I have shown I think I do. “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” Jesus laid down His life for His friends. This is the law of Christ sacrificial love.



But you asked me so let me ask you again do you know what greater love is than this?



Jesus says “You are my friends if you do what I command” This is love that we love sacrificially as He has loved us. And to love as He has loved is to obey His commands. John 15.





Peace