Universalism, Is it True?

[Trish1947]

Good question...I'm not real tight with the reconciliation thing, but many still believe in hell and that people will go there...they just believe that there will be another resurrection after the Great White Throne when the sinners have received the "fullness of their just punishment". At that point they believe that all of mankind will be reconciled to God.

Sounds like salvation by works to me...but I'm just a guy drinking coffee and eating donuts. I'm not quite sure how they reconcile all of it...hard to get a clear answer on it.

I'm no scholar thats plain. LOL..but just because every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord will require no faith. They see Him visably..and will be unable to say anything else. That's just recognition by all who He is.. but I don't see it as receiving the grace through faith. Faith is not required at that point. I know scripture says that there is a day coming when death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire. I don't interpret that meaning nobody went to hell or was saved out of it. People that would go there are already in a state of spiritual death or they wouldn't be there.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Hey MTK,


+++NOT with the early church. Some did . . . some did not.+++

True, some did and some did not. BUT, a lot did. My point is that many do not know church history, universalism was very prevalent in many of the churches and the church fathers. It is a valid view that to my knowledge has never been officially condemned by any councils or edicts.

+++I suppose then, being a preterist, you reconcile the passages about eternal sufferning/torment as already have taken place?+++

Of course I would as a Preterist, but I don't see them as forever and ever suffering and torment. That's a very modern idea, not an ancient one.

+++BUT, even at that . . . eternal means eternal . . . so whether they entered in 2000 years ago when the preterist see the proleptic passages as already taking place . . . or as yet to happen . . . (time for entrance really matters little for this conversation) . . . the duration is eternal . . . so they would still be in punishment now.+++

That's because the ancients, Jews included, did not view things as we do now. For example, the word for 'world' in ancient greek does not mean planet earth or any other planet - it signified a nation or country. Same thing with eternal, it doesn't mean literally forever. Ancient Jews saw time in 'ages'. So when something was noted as eternal, it often meant until the end of an age, or a passage of time.

+++So . . . do you take the whole "aion doesn't mean eternal" line (which, BTW, doesn't hold up linguistically or historically)? Or some other articulation?+++

Well, aion means age or period of time, it doesn't mean eternal as we today understand it and it wasn't used in the way we use it; other than that I'm not sure what you're getting at. But, it does hold up linguistically and historically, but more important it holds up Biblically.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]"And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age (aion), or in the age (aion) to come." Matt 12:32

As we can see, the age was clearly to end and a new age was to began according to Jesus himself. This is 100% on par with ancient Jewish thought. And that's just one example in the NT, there's many more.

Take care,

SUEDE
[/FONT]

True, some did and some did not. BUT, a lot did. My point is that many do not know church history, universalism was very prevalent in many of the churches and the church fathers. It is a valid view that to my knowledge has never been officially condemned by any councils or edicts.

I don't know of any either

That's because the ancients, Jews included, did not view things as we do now.

You mean in reference to the philosophical construct of "eternal"? Not true.

1138 The point is disputed, but the 4th Maccabees, the 4th Esdras, the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Psalms of Solomon, contain very strong passages, which Dr. Pusey has collected, l.c. 48-100, and are not invalidated by the reply of Farrar, ch. VIII. 180-221. Josephus (whose testimony Farrar arbitrarily sets aside as worthless) attests the belief of the Pharisees and Essenes in eternal punishment, Ant. XVIII. 1, 3; Bell. Jud. II. 8, 11, Rabbi Akiba (about 120) limited the punishment of Gehenna to twelve months;
but only for the Jews.
The Talmud assigns certain classes to everlasting punishment, especially apostates and those who despise the wisdom of the Rabbis. The chief passage is Rosh Hoshanah, f. 16 and 17: "There will be three divisions on the day of judgment, the perfectly righteous, the perfectly wicked, and the intermediate class. The first will be at once inscribed and sealed to life eternal; the second at once to Gehenna (Dan. 12:2); the third will descend into Gehenna and keep rising and sinking" (Zech. 12:10). This opinion was endorsed by the two great schools of Shammai and Hillel, but Hillel inclined to a liberal and charitable construction (see p. 596). Farrar maintains that Gehenna does not necessarily and usually mean hell in our sense, but 1) for Jews, or the majority of Jews, a short punishment, followed by forgiveness and escape; 2) for worse offenders a long but still terminable punishment; 3) for the worst offenders, especially Gentiles—punishment followed by annihilation. He quotes several modern Jewish authorities of the rationalistic type, eg. Dr. Deutsch, who says: "There is not a word in the Talmud that lends any support to the damnable dogma of endless torment." But Dr. Ferd. Weber who is as good authority, says, that some passages in the Talmud teach total annihilation of the wicked, others teach everlasting punishment, e.g. Pesachim 54a: "The fire of Gehenna is never extinguished." Syst. der altsynag. Poläst. Theologie, p. 375. The Mohammedans share the Jewish belief, but change the inhabitants: the Koran assigns Paradise to the orthodox Moslems, and Hell to all unbelievers (Jews, Gentiles, and Christians), and to apostates from Islam.

note 1138
from
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xiv.xxi.html

It is what it is.

Same thing with eternal, it doesn't mean literally forever. Ancient Jews saw time in 'ages'. So when something was noted as eternal, it often meant until the end of an age, or a passage of time.

That is ONE usage of the concept . . . and not, by far, the only usage. If it were the ONLY usage then you would have a good arguement . . . but alas, it is NOT. Many universalists come with this same line . . . and it does not work. aion has within its common intended meaning ETERNAL.

Well, aion means age or period of time, it doesn't mean eternal as we today understand it and it wasn't used in the way we use it; other than that I'm not sure what you're getting at. But, it does hold up linguistically and historically, but more important it holds up Biblically.

Aion means at its root A period of time . . . from the standpoint of TIME beings we have NO concept that can transcend time . . . so when we seek to express thoughts about the One who DOES transcend time we are forced to use TIME/SPACE language . . . it is the inverse of God's usage of anthropomorphisms to condescend to us . . . we are only trying to ascend to Him. This fact does not make the usage of the time/space language limited to the time/space of the expression! When the ancients sought to express the concepts they would do so in colorful ways . . . like the REDUNDANCY of Rev. 14.

Aion and its cognates have been used for HUNDREDS of years prior to Christ in the philosophical concept of ETERNITY in HUNDREDS of places in ancient lit.

BIBLICALLY speaking, it is used in 1/2 doz places in reference to GOD HIMSELF AND HIS OWN ATTRIBUTES. Sorry dude, case closed. Surely God's own attributes are not temporal? Yet the biblical authors used aion in references to His eternality and His promises and His kingdom (surely He will never cease to rule shall He!?).

Aion, has within its intended and usage of meanings ETERNAL. It did for hundreds of years before Christ and even in 1st Cent Palestinian Jewish thought.

The arguements from such like MacDonald and others are antiquated, and, to be frank, limited and do not take into account the full scope of evidence.​

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Hey MTK,


+++NOT with the early church. Some did . . . some did not.+++

True, some did and some did not. BUT, a lot did. My point is that many do not know church history, universalism was very prevalent in many of the churches and the church fathers. It is a valid view that to my knowledge has never been officially condemned by any councils or edicts.

+++I suppose then, being a preterist, you reconcile the passages about eternal sufferning/torment as already have taken place?+++

Of course I would as a Preterist, but I don't see them as forever and ever suffering and torment. That's a very modern idea, not an ancient one.

+++BUT, even at that . . . eternal means eternal . . . so whether they entered in 2000 years ago when the preterist see the proleptic passages as already taking place . . . or as yet to happen . . . (time for entrance really matters little for this conversation) . . . the duration is eternal . . . so they would still be in punishment now.+++

That's because the ancients, Jews included, did not view things as we do now. For example, the word for 'world' in ancient greek does not mean planet earth or any other planet - it signified a nation or country. Same thing with eternal, it doesn't mean literally forever. Ancient Jews saw time in 'ages'. So when something was noted as eternal, it often meant until the end of an age, or a passage of time.

+++So . . . do you take the whole "aion doesn't mean eternal" line (which, BTW, doesn't hold up linguistically or historically)? Or some other articulation?+++

Well, aion means age or period of time, it doesn't mean eternal as we today understand it and it wasn't used in the way we use it; other than that I'm not sure what you're getting at. But, it does hold up linguistically and historically, but more important it holds up Biblically.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]"And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age (aion), or in the age (aion) to come." Matt 12:32

As we can see, the age was clearly to end and a new age was to began according to Jesus himself. This is 100% on par with ancient Jewish thought. And that's just one example in the NT, there's many more.

Take care,

SUEDE
[/FONT]

I responed to this in depth and got the "check by a MOD" bug . . . so it is forth coming.

But quickly in reference the unpardonable sin . . . your citation really does nothing for your position . . . as I stated . . . it is the simple usage of limited concept trying to convey the unlimited . . . it is not surprising. Nor does it prove anything for universalism. Rather it mitigates against it . . . for we have here a sin that will NOT BE FORGIVEN. The cessation of the first age has NO BEARING upon the duration of the second age . . . and historically speaking, for both Jews and Christians . . . the age to come is the age of endlessness . . . so it is UNDERSTOOD by the hearers of the text that the second age mentioned is ETERNAL . . . UNENDING . . . for that was their belief . . . the end of the current age would be brought by Ha'Meshiach . . . and the instiution of the second would be EVERLASTING . . . there would be NO END TO HIS KINGDOM.

 

[Suede]

MTK,

+++You mean in reference to the philosophical construct of "eternal"? Not true.+++
Actually it is true. My point was to show ‘ages’ or passages of time, which you side stepped. The Pharisees believing in eternal punishment doesn’t advance the discussion any.
+++That is ONE usage of the concept . . . and not, by far, the only usage. If it were the ONLY usage then you would have a good arguement . . . but alas, it is NOT. Many universalists come with this same line . . . and it does not work.+++
Actually it does work, and I posted a few Bible verses that prove it. Sorry, but if you follow aion through Latin and finally into English, we get age (or more correctly eons), not eternal. Granted, it is not always translated as age, but that doesn’t support your argument.
+++Aion and its cognates have been used for HUNDREDS of years prior to Christ in the philosophical concept of ETERNITY in HUNDREDS of places in ancient lit.+++
True, as in the ‘ages’ or a passage of time. It carries a different meaning than how we use it.

+++BIBLICALLY speaking, it is used in 1/2 doz places in reference to GOD HIMSELF AND HIS OWN ATTRIBUTES. Sorry dude, case closed.+++
Eh, no. Sorry dude indeed. I already posted Biblical passages from the mouth of Christ himself using Aion as age – research that a bit more.


+++Surely God's own attributes are not temporal? Yet the biblical authors used aion in references to His eternality and His promises and His kingdom (surely He will never cease to rule shall He!?+++


Logical fallacy known as a non sequitur. Just because it is used in reference to God, does NOT mean it’s not used elsewhere as I Biblically demonstrated earlier.



TNA

 

[Suede]

MTK,

+++I responed to this in depth and got the "check by a MOD" bug . . . so it is forth coming.+++


Hmmm, not sure what that means exactly. A moderator is ‘watching us’?


+++But quickly in reference the unpardonable sin . . . your citation really does nothing for your position . . . as I stated . . . it is the simple usage of limited concept trying to convey the unlimited . . . it is not surprising. Nor does it prove anything for universalism. Rather it mitigates against it . . . for we have here a sin that will NOT BE FORGIVEN.+++


I didn’t mention that, but that’s ok. Are you referring to Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in Mark 3? If so, here’s a long post on that, sorry about the length.


The "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" – what was it? Mk 3:30 defines it specifically as the utterly reprehensible sin of attributing or ascribing the pre-Cross ministry of Christ [Jn 5:17, 36; 10:32; 14:10] to that of demonic origins [Mt 9:34; 12:24; Jn 7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20] – in effect insulting the Spirit of grace [Heb 10:29], as it was the Spirit that testified of Christ through his works [Jn 16:15].
Many of the religious ruling elite along with some of the people were in the precarious position of such blasphemy, so audience relevance is a determining factor in a proper understanding of this sin. Quite literally, the consequences of this blasphemous action were sheeted home to those of that generation. It was a generational sin – AD30-70, and carried overtones of Isa 5:18-21 and thus the Pharisaic woes of Jesus in Mt 23. Again, nothing of the old age would find life [forgiveness] in the consummated new age – but suffer the consequence of eternal [totality of] judgment.
Once committed, transgressions or "sinful actions" cannot be undone e.g., if I hit you it is done and cannot be taken back or undone. So the unforgivable nature of this transgression indicates the severity with which God held and would so judge this action, thus becoming part of the malediction [Mt 27:25] that came home to roost on Christ's generation in His AD70 Parousia – fulfilling Christ's own words [Mt 23:35-36]. And nothing of the Old Covenant economy, in this instance – blasphemy, would survive through it – hence not even into eis [εις] the age [Mk 3:29] …to come.

Speaking of this blasphemous sin and error of Jesus' opponents Tom Wright comments:

…and to say: 'This is the work of the devil.' To say such a thing was to paint oneself into a corner from which there was no escape. Once define the battle for your liberation as the work of the enemy, and you will never be free.

N. T. Wright: Jesus And The Victory Of God p. 454
Mt 12:31-32 "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
Matthew's account "it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age about to mello [μελλω] come" [audience relevance] suggests the nearness and permanency of such actions as touching even through the soon to be Parousia. There were those of the "this generation" who lived through the Parousia [Rev 22:11], yet they simply died in their blasphemous Old Covenant standing, not experiencing forgiveness in life "into the age to come" from that grievous old covenant sin.
We find Paul in 1Cor 3:15 describing as loss such works that will not survive the AD70 refining fire, but will deliver [purge] those passing through it. Mark demonstrates loss in terms of "eternal condemnation" [Mk 3:29], which was the judgment on dead works i.e., works of self-righteous, the same that John references in Jn 5:29. "Eternal" is to be understood in terms of totality or entirety, not the longevity of endlessness. Such an example is found in Jude 1:7 where Sodom and Gomorrah are described as languishing in flames of "eternal fire" – though in that day, long since extinguished and not literally still burning; it speaking rather of the totality of Divine judgment that had a literal fulfillment for a specific or predetermined period of time.
It is also interesting to note that Mark says "never has forgiveness" which in the Greek is in the "present indicative tense." This is similar to the intent of Jesus' words in Jn 3:18 where "he who does not believe is condemned already" – rendering the person who being in a position of continued unbelief or in this instance, constant blasphemy, as not being able to change as long as that position was being held. This thought is further strengthened as blasphemes being in the "aorist tense" means the action as having occurred at some juncture, and being in the "subjunctive mood" meaning the possibility of it reoccurring i.e., as long as they remained in that condition of heart such an action was still possible. Not dissimilar to Esau, who through many tears sought remorse – worldly sorrow, but not unto repentance – Godly sorrow [Heb 12:17; 2Cor 7:10]. So Jesus' words could well have been in this sense a warning to his nation to be careful as to where they found themselves positioned in regards to casting aspersions against him, or more importantly whom he represented i.e., their God. This indeed was Israel's sin as represented by her leadership that was not repented of, and thus in the end of age would suffer judgment [Lk 19:42-44], and so not survive into the coming age – so in this sense was not forgivable, as it was the blasphemous unrighteous work of the old covenant economy of decrying the prophet [Psa 105:15].
Lk 12:10 "And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.

​

Now to an oft related issue of a more limited and subjective nature. There may be some scope for considering this "sin of blasphemy" in terms of, or being paralleled with the post-Cross "sin unto death" of 1Jn 5:16. There are a number of different options to look at when considering this, as opposed to just consigning this to the same category as the blaspheme of the Holy Spirit carte blanche.
This 'sin unto death' in context could be applicable to the "antichrists" of whom John writes – those who had gone out from among the believers [1Jn 2:19] denying Christ's having "come in the flesh" [1Jn 4:1-3; 2Jn 1:7; Rom 9:5] i.e., as Israel's Messiah. So this again puts this sin in the context of the "this generation" scenario. Paul calls them "false brethren" – Judaizers [Gal 2:4]. Luke describes the same in Act 15:1, 5, 24. This sin leading to death does not appear to be directly related to the covenantal position of separation as found in Paul's "the death" – though indirectly in reversion to Judaism, it is.
Another possible and perhaps more directly related aspect of this "sin unto death" however hits closer to home where Scripture speaks of those brethren perpetually caught in sin, those entrapped in a persistent and undisciplined besetting sin [Heb 12:1] i.e., a transgression that is wilfully not repented of, thus becoming somewhat of a millstone. Understood in this setting the "…unto death" nature of things could be seen as a divinely orchestrated judgment whose end consequence is literal physical death, period. It is worth noting that John is only speaking of a "sin unto death" NOT a sin unto eternal conscious torment or annihilation as is often times read into this verse – John is NOT speaking of post death calamity. Thus the "sin unto death" is to be understood as physical death.
Paul further speaks of those at Corinth who are "weak" and "sick" and some who have even fallen "asleep" – literally died; terms that in context point to possible divine discipline toward wayward brethren. [1Cor 11:30-32]. Those who slept had persisted and so perished in their sin to the point where God deemed it more expedient that the wayward one be removed than for them to remain and wreak more havoc and ruin more lives around them. It is possible that Ananias and Sapphira potentially had fallen into this category [Act 5:1-10] – thus the link with blasphemy [lying] against the Spirit, i.e., it had a temporal consequence that could not be undone, in that age or the one coming. Whichmeans such actionswere more irreversible than unforgivable – as with the likes of Hymenaeus and Alexander who were to "learn not to blaspheme" [1Tim 1:20], which shows that such "discipline" was remedial and restorative, NOT punitive and permanent, as we likewise find in 1Cor 5:5 and 2Cor 2:6-10 – thus "salvation" was found, i.e., deliverance from toxic ways.
Finally, it could well be simply this: that John's "sin unto death" referenced a known criminal offence under Jewish law for which literal death was the penalty, i.e., a capital offence. Now when all's said and done this could well have been all that John had in mind. Either way, whatever this "sin unto death" was we have James' injunction to his fellow believers concerning such things, that even if should one fail and fall, no one was irretrievable:
Jas 5:19-20 Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner [a believer] from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.
So even though it was possible to commit such sin unto death in that age, such biological demise was not "the end", for as has already been shown in these Scriptures above [1Cor 5:1-5; 2Cor 2:3-8; 1Tim 1:20; 1Cor 3:13-15], such removal in the long term was again both remedial and restorative, being neither punitive nor perpetual nor permanent – such is the grace of God.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

MTK,

+++You mean in reference to the philosophical construct of "eternal"? Not true.+++
Actually it is true. My point was to show ‘ages’ or passages of time, which you side stepped. The Pharisees believing in eternal punishment doesn’t advance the discussion any.
+++That is ONE usage of the concept . . . and not, by far, the only usage. If it were the ONLY usage then you would have a good arguement . . . but alas, it is NOT. Many universalists come with this same line . . . and it does not work.+++
Actually it does work, and I posted a few Bible verses that prove it. Sorry, but if you follow aion through Latin and finally into English, we get age (or more correctly eons), not eternal. Granted, it is not always translated as age, but that doesn’t support your argument.
+++Aion and its cognates have been used for HUNDREDS of years prior to Christ in the philosophical concept of ETERNITY in HUNDREDS of places in ancient lit.+++
True, as in the ‘ages’ or a passage of time. It carries a different meaning than how we use it.

+++BIBLICALLY speaking, it is used in 1/2 doz places in reference to GOD HIMSELF AND HIS OWN ATTRIBUTES. Sorry dude, case closed.+++
Eh, no. Sorry dude indeed. I already posted Biblical passages from the mouth of Christ himself using Aion as age – research that a bit more.


+++Surely God's own attributes are not temporal? Yet the biblical authors used aion in references to His eternality and His promises and His kingdom (surely He will never cease to rule shall He!?+++


Logical fallacy known as a non sequitur. Just because it is used in reference to God, does NOT mean it’s not used elsewhere as I Biblically demonstrated earlier.



TNA

Actually it is true

Actually it is not. Plato, Aristotle and many others use the term in relation to AGELESS or NEVER ceasing.

My point was to show ‘ages’ or passages of time, which you side stepped.

No need to side step . . . I concede that the term has within its intended meaning and usage this concept of age. My contention is that this is NOT the only usage . . . and that eternal/ageless/never ceasing IS indeed one of the intended and well used meanings.

The Pharisees believing in eternal punishment doesn’t advance the discussion any.

Actually it does. It lays the foundation for 1st Cent Judaic thought in the understanding of the audience to whom Jesus spoke. Basic hermeneutics.

Actually it does work, and I posted a few Bible verses that prove it

A few verses proves nothing. Context determines meaning. A word can have one meaning in one passage per context and another in a different passage per context. The best example . . . dikaio/dikaiosune in Paul and in James (justified). Sorry.

Sorry, but if you follow aion through Latin and finally into English, we get age (or more correctly eons), not eternal.

Perhaps then here we have the problem . . .aion is NOT latin (eon/eion IS latin) . . . it is GREEK, form which the Latin is derived. You have set up a strawman. You need to go back further to a language that predates latin by some 3-500 years. The GREEK has within its ORIGINAL meaning ETERNAL and is used in this way frequently . . . esp in contection to the concepts of deity.

+++BIBLICALLY speaking, it is used in 1/2 doz places in reference to GOD HIMSELF AND HIS OWN ATTRIBUTES. Sorry dude, case closed.+++
Eh, no. Sorry dude indeed. I already posted Biblical passages from the mouth of Christ himself using Aion as age – research that a bit more

Alright . . . passages forthcoming.

More later . . .

 

[Suede]

Hey MTK,


+++Actually it is not. Plato, Aristotle and many others use the term in relation to AGELESS or NEVER ceasing.+++

I don't disagree that that is one of the meanings.

+++No need to side step . . . I concede that the term has within its intended meaning and usage this concept of age. My contention is that this is NOT the only usage . . . and that eternal/ageless/never ceasing IS indeed one of the intended and well used meanings.+++

Cool, we actually agree that it can means those things, but there is a difference I believe in how it was used in ancient times.

+++Actually it does. It lays the foundation for 1st Cent Judaic thought in the understanding of the audience to whom Jesus spoke. Basic hermeneutics.+++

I would use caution on this one. I debated someone else and they tried to force an argument on to Paul's Pharisaic past - proceed cautiously. I also researched that a bit tonight and the overwhelming consensus is that Jews do NOT believe in eternal torment or hell. A quote from Jews for Judaism states,

"We (Jews) do not believe in eternal damnation and hell. The Jewish belief is in a purgatory that purifies the soul of its spiritual blemishes prior to its return to G-d. (Psalm 49:15, II Samuel 14:13, Isaiah 45:17)

That's pretty consistent with what I've always heard too.


+++A few verses proves nothing. Context determines meaning. A word can have one meaning in one passage per context and another in a different passage per context. The best example . . . dikaio/dikaiosune in Paul and in James (justified). Sorry.+++

Well...verses do actually prove something because in your prior post you were saying that eternal only applied to the nature of God when found in the NT. BUT, way earlier I had posted a few verses that clearly show aion ended - and those were from Jesus.

+++Perhaps then here we have the problem . . .aion is NOT latin (eon/eion IS latin) . . . it is GREEK, form which the Latin is derived. You have set up a strawman. You need to go back further to a language that predates latin by some 3-500 years. The GREEK has within its ORIGINAL meaning ETERNAL and is used in this way frequently . . . esp in contection to the concepts of deity. +++

Actually it isn't a strawman at all, I was showing the progression of the word aion. When it was picked up in Latin, it became eon and then to English still it became age - it was never understood by later linguists to be eternal.

+++Alright . . . passages forthcoming....More later . . .+++

BUT, perhaps we should refocus. Do you have a specific issue with Universalism or just with aion? I think we can both agree that aion can mean various things and that might save us a lot of headache.

SUEDE

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

BUT, perhaps we should refocus. Do you have a specific issue with Universalism or just with aion? I think we can both agree that aion can mean various things and that might save us a lot of headache.

SUEDE

Universal salvation doesn't seem to fit in the universal context of scripture...

Well, OK...One more time for all the newcomers...HI!

For by grace are you saved through FAITH... Ephesians 2:8

Now FAITH is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT SEEN. HEBREWS 11:1

Salvation is a gift, offered to us by the grace of a loving God.

We receive this gift by exercising the FAITH God gave us.

Keep on going in Hebrews 11...By FAITH Abel...By FAITH Enoch...By FAITH Noah...By FAITH Abraham...By FAITH Sarah...By FAITH what?

By FAITH, they all received the promises of God. Now look at verse 13...

These all died in FAITH, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Hello!? They received the promises of God because of their LIVING FAITH. Why is that important?

Because after we have died, we have seen.

After we have seen, the evidence of things not seen doesn't exist.

If the evidence of things not seen doesn't exist for us, neither does FAITH.

If FAITH does not exist for us, then neither does salvation.

For by grace are you saved through FAITH... Ephesians 2:8

The point I was making with respect to universal reconciliation is that saving faith must be established on this side of the grave...as Hebrews 11:13 notes that they lived their faith to the very end of their lives and died still in faith.

The problem with "everybody gets saved" is that faith is required for salvation. Everybody will not be saved because everybody will not receive the promise by grace through faith. They will not die in faith and after the evidence is seen, faith is no more. If faith is no more, then neither is salvation. Grace alone is not enough.

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

I'm no scholar thats plain. LOL..but just because every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord will require no faith. They see Him visably..and will be unable to say anything else. That's just recognition by all who He is.. but I don't see it as receiving the grace through faith. Faith is not required at that point. I know scripture says that there is a day coming when death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire. I don't interpret that meaning nobody went to hell or was saved out of it. People that would go there are already in a state of spiritual death or they wouldn't be there.

An enemy who is conquered and forced to submit is an enemy just the same.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Hey MTK,


+++Actually it is not. Plato, Aristotle and many others use the term in relation to AGELESS or NEVER ceasing.+++

I don't disagree that that is one of the meanings.

+++No need to side step . . . I concede that the term has within its intended meaning and usage this concept of age. My contention is that this is NOT the only usage . . . and that eternal/ageless/never ceasing IS indeed one of the intended and well used meanings.+++

Cool, we actually agree that it can means those things, but there is a difference I believe in how it was used in ancient times.

+++Actually it does. It lays the foundation for 1st Cent Judaic thought in the understanding of the audience to whom Jesus spoke. Basic hermeneutics.+++

I would use caution on this one. I debated someone else and they tried to force an argument on to Paul's Pharisaic past - proceed cautiously. I also researched that a bit tonight and the overwhelming consensus is that Jews do NOT believe in eternal torment or hell. A quote from Jews for Judaism states,

"We (Jews) do not believe in eternal damnation and hell. The Jewish belief is in a purgatory that purifies the soul of its spiritual blemishes prior to its return to G-d. (Psalm 49:15, II Samuel 14:13, Isaiah 45:17)

That's pretty consistent with what I've always heard too.


+++A few verses proves nothing. Context determines meaning. A word can have one meaning in one passage per context and another in a different passage per context. The best example . . . dikaio/dikaiosune in Paul and in James (justified). Sorry.+++

Well...verses do actually prove something because in your prior post you were saying that eternal only applied to the nature of God when found in the NT. BUT, way earlier I had posted a few verses that clearly show aion ended - and those were from Jesus.

+++Perhaps then here we have the problem . . .aion is NOT latin (eon/eion IS latin) . . . it is GREEK, form which the Latin is derived. You have set up a strawman. You need to go back further to a language that predates latin by some 3-500 years. The GREEK has within its ORIGINAL meaning ETERNAL and is used in this way frequently . . . esp in contection to the concepts of deity. +++

Actually it isn't a strawman at all, I was showing the progression of the word aion. When it was picked up in Latin, it became eon and then to English still it became age - it was never understood by later linguists to be eternal.

+++Alright . . . passages forthcoming....More later . . .+++

BUT, perhaps we should refocus. Do you have a specific issue with Universalism or just with aion? I think we can both agree that aion can mean various things and that might save us a lot of headache.

SUEDE

I also researched that a bit tonight and the overwhelming consensus is that Jews do NOT believe in eternal torment or hell. A quote from Jews for Judaism states,

Well, what they believe now matters little to me . . . we have the documents that attest to the ancient belief that they DID, even if they do NOT now. What they believed then matters most to me because it helps construct the cultural climate and expectation that Christ ministered in and spoke in. Heremeneutics requires a proper understanding of the culture. So when Jesus speaks the parable of the sheep and the goats, in Matt's Gospel, the Jewish audience HEARS AND UNDERSTANDS eternal, never ceasing, punishment for the goats who are NOT bretheren.

Well...verses do actually prove something because in your prior post you were saying that eternal only applied to the nature of God when found in the NT

That is NOT what I said. Please re-read. I said that aion certainly means eternal in connection to the attributes and Kingdom and promises of God . . . not that it ONLY means this here. I was responding to the universalistic attempt at making aion NEVER mean eternal. BTW, this is the common current understanding of eternal in the usage of aion.

BUT, way earlier I had posted a few verses that clearly show aion ended - and those were from Jesus.

Sure, when the meaning is age . . . but aion ALSO means never ceasing. My point was simply that ONE usage of aion in reference to age as opposed to never ending, does nothing to the passages where aion CERTAINLY means never ending/eternal. That is what I meant by meaning nothing.

Actually it isn't a strawman at all, I was showing the progression of the word aion. When it was picked up in Latin, it became eon and then to English still it became age - it was never understood by later linguists to be eternal.

Well you are arguing against a GREEK usage based on a LATIN postulate. That is throwing rocks at Latin . . . but the target is Greek. That is a philosophical strawman . . . you are not "attacking" the right target. To superimpose a lack of meaning in one language who derived its word from another ONTO the original language's usage is folly. If later linguists never picked up on it in English and Latin means nothing for the Greek usage . . . for it may very well have had a much wider meaning in the original language than it did in the derrivative language.

Take eulogy . . . in English it refers to the words spoken at a funeral to speak well of the dead person . . . that is its SPECIFIC English usage . . . BUT in Greek it SIMPLY means "GOOD WORD" (eu/good and logos/word) and may be used in a BROAD sense in many ways from speaking well of someone to another to praise to God.

BUT, perhaps we should refocus. Do you have a specific issue with Universalism or just with aion? I think we can both agree that aion can mean various things and that might save us a lot of headache.

I have an issue with ALL of universalism . . . many of its tenets. I do agree that aion means various things . . . but most commonly it means age and eternal. All of the Uni. arguements that I have come across vehemently deny that aion means eternal in ANY REGARD. It is them that I have heard, when shown where aion means eternal in the Scriptures, who are backed into a corner and say aion ONLY means eternal when in reference to God . . . but all other times it means age.

 

[Suede]

Shammah Ben Judah,


+++Universal salvation doesn't seem to fit in the universal context of scripture...+++

Sure it does. It just requires that one actually study the Bible and do so without any preconceived or denominational presuppositions. It's odd at first, I admit it, I was once a Calvinist...but it's there.

TNA

 

[Suede]

MTK,


+++Well, what they believe now matters little to me . . . we have the documents that attest to the ancient belief that they DID, even if they do NOT now. What they believed then matters most to me because it helps construct the cultural climate and expectation that Christ ministered in and spoke in.+++

Right, as I posted they didn't believe in eternal hellfire, not according to Jewish sources. And they still don't today.

+++Heremeneutics requires a proper understanding of the culture.+++

+++So when Jesus speaks the parable of the sheep and the goats, in Matt's Gospel, the Jewish audience HEARS AND UNDERSTANDS eternal, never ceasing, punishment for the goats who are NOT bretheren.+++

No, sorry, I don't think they do.

+++That is NOT what I said. Please re-read. I said that aion certainly means eternal in connection to the attributes and Kingdom and promises of God . . . not that it ONLY means this here. I was responding to the universalistic attempt at making aion NEVER mean eternal. BTW, this is the common current understanding of eternal in the usage of aion.+++

I understand it can mean eternal, I also understand that it is properly understood as age. THAT understanding is also in line with understanding the culture that you mentioned above.

+++Sure, when the meaning is age . . . but aion ALSO means never ceasing. My point was simply that ONE usage of aion in reference to age as opposed to never ending, does nothing to the passages where aion CERTAINLY means never ending/eternal. That is what I meant by meaning nothing.+++

And as I mentioned earlier, culturally and historically the understanding of those words were different from how we understand them today.

+++Well you are arguing against a GREEK usage based on a LATIN postulate. That is throwing rocks at Latin . . . but the target is Greek.+++

No...I'm not. Re read it.

+++That is a philosophical strawman . . . you are not "attacking" the right target. To superimpose a lack of meaning in one language who derived its word from another ONTO the original language's usage is folly.+++

No, it's not. I'm showing how the word naturally progressed into other languages...and it wasn't as eternal...

+++Take eulogy . . . in English it refers to the words spoken at a funeral to speak well of the dead person . . . that is its SPECIFIC English usage . . . BUT in Greek it SIMPLY means "GOOD WORD" (eu/good and logos/word) and may be used in a BROAD sense in many ways from speaking well of someone to another to praise to God.+++

Yes, to say a good word about the departed. That's how we understand it, we 'get it', the Greek was correctly carried over. Sure we don't use it to say we are saying a good word about just anything, but the correct meaning is intact.

+++I have an issue with ALL of universalism . . . many of its tenets. I do agree that aion means various things . . . but most commonly it means age and eternal. All of the Uni. arguements that I have come across vehemently deny that aion means eternal in ANY REGARD. It is them that I have heard, when shown where aion means eternal in the Scriptures, who are backed into a corner and say aion ONLY means eternal when in reference to God . . . but all other times it means age.+++

Ok, well, let's look at other issues than cause I don't have time to go round and round about aion. Your assumptions are wrong in dealing with me, I know aion has more than one usage and actually I have NEVER run into a Universalist that denies that. So...let's please shift focus to a specific issue you might have with Universalism.

SUEDE

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

MTK,


+++Well, what they believe now matters little to me . . . we have the documents that attest to the ancient belief that they DID, even if they do NOT now. What they believed then matters most to me because it helps construct the cultural climate and expectation that Christ ministered in and spoke in.+++

Right, as I posted they didn't believe in eternal hellfire, not according to Jewish sources. And they still don't today.

+++Heremeneutics requires a proper understanding of the culture.+++

+++So when Jesus speaks the parable of the sheep and the goats, in Matt's Gospel, the Jewish audience HEARS AND UNDERSTANDS eternal, never ceasing, punishment for the goats who are NOT bretheren.+++

No, sorry, I don't think they do.

+++That is NOT what I said. Please re-read. I said that aion certainly means eternal in connection to the attributes and Kingdom and promises of God . . . not that it ONLY means this here. I was responding to the universalistic attempt at making aion NEVER mean eternal. BTW, this is the common current understanding of eternal in the usage of aion.+++

I understand it can mean eternal, I also understand that it is properly understood as age. THAT understanding is also in line with understanding the culture that you mentioned above.

+++Sure, when the meaning is age . . . but aion ALSO means never ceasing. My point was simply that ONE usage of aion in reference to age as opposed to never ending, does nothing to the passages where aion CERTAINLY means never ending/eternal. That is what I meant by meaning nothing.+++

And as I mentioned earlier, culturally and historically the understanding of those words were different from how we understand them today.

+++Well you are arguing against a GREEK usage based on a LATIN postulate. That is throwing rocks at Latin . . . but the target is Greek.+++

No...I'm not. Re read it.

+++That is a philosophical strawman . . . you are not "attacking" the right target. To superimpose a lack of meaning in one language who derived its word from another ONTO the original language's usage is folly.+++

No, it's not. I'm showing how the word naturally progressed into other languages...and it wasn't as eternal...

+++Take eulogy . . . in English it refers to the words spoken at a funeral to speak well of the dead person . . . that is its SPECIFIC English usage . . . BUT in Greek it SIMPLY means "GOOD WORD" (eu/good and logos/word) and may be used in a BROAD sense in many ways from speaking well of someone to another to praise to God.+++

Yes, to say a good word about the departed. That's how we understand it, we 'get it', the Greek was correctly carried over. Sure we don't use it to say we are saying a good word about just anything, but the correct meaning is intact.

+++I have an issue with ALL of universalism . . . many of its tenets. I do agree that aion means various things . . . but most commonly it means age and eternal. All of the Uni. arguements that I have come across vehemently deny that aion means eternal in ANY REGARD. It is them that I have heard, when shown where aion means eternal in the Scriptures, who are backed into a corner and say aion ONLY means eternal when in reference to God . . . but all other times it means age.+++

Ok, well, let's look at other issues than cause I don't have time to go round and round about aion. Your assumptions are wrong in dealing with me, I know aion has more than one usage and actually I have NEVER run into a Universalist that denies that. So...let's please shift focus to a specific issue you might have with Universalism.

TNA

Right, as I posted they didn't believe in eternal hellfire, not according to Jewish sources.

Um . . . they did. Check the site I linked . . . it speaks of gehenna as the abode . . . that is FIRE. I really don't know why you can't see this . . . eternal damnation was certainly one of the positions and it was held by two of the three schools.

No, sorry, I don't think they do.

Given the Talmud, and the two schools who did believe it . . . sorry but the majority would.

I understand it can mean eternal, I also understand that it is properly understood as age. THAT understanding is also in line with understanding the culture that you mentioned above.

Agreed.

And as I mentioned earlier, culturally and historically the understanding of those words were different from how we understand them today

No they are not. Our philosophical construct of "eternal" was propogated by PLATO and ARISTOTLE.

No...I'm not. Re read it.

Um . . . this:

I'm showing how the word naturally progressed into other languages...and it wasn't as eternal...

is EXACTLY what I have pointed out . . . you CANNOT, by the progression of the word, read into the words original meaning whatever lacked in the progression into other languages . . . it is the simple principle of "lost in translation."
Whatever lacked in aion's progression into Latin and English HAS NO BEARING UPON THE WAY THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY USED. That is my point.

Ok, well, let's look at other issues than cause I don't have time to go round and round about aion. Your assumptions are wrong in dealing with me, I know aion has more than one usage and actually I have NEVER run into a Universalist that denies that. So...let's please shift focus to a specific issue you might have with Universalism.

Fair enough,

Historical context
Biblical passages
Self atonement
Low view of sin
low view of God's attributes

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

Shammah Ben Judah,


+++Universal salvation doesn't seem to fit in the universal context of scripture...+++

Sure it does. It just requires that one actually study the Bible and do so without any preconceived or denominational presuppositions. It's odd at first, I admit it, I was once a Calvinist...but it's there.

TNA

Bro, I can promise you, if there's anyone who approaches the Word without preconceived or denominational suppositions...he's talking to you......I've never been a member of any denomination. What I understand about the Word...came from the Word.

Why is that the number one precept I'm hearing from virtually EVERY universalist? The redundancy is remarkable..."Cast off what you've learned and THEN you can be enlightened!"

Well, we all need to change our minds about something. I prefer to leave that to the Holy Spirit and get really uncomfortable when someone takes it upon themselves to do His job.

My big problem with the misuse of Matthew 15, Mark 7 and John 5 to name a few is that they are very often used in most "non-traditional" sects of Chriatianity to provide support for their "non-traditional" theologies. They have to do that because most people wouldn't believe them otherwise.

They use these scriptures for the purpose of denegrading the traditional theologies that they oppose. The lesser learned believer who actually may have been taught a traditional theology may not be able to discern the difference between bad traditions and sound doctrine yet. Especially if they're one of the millions who have been hurt or had a bad experience with traditional churches.

There are some really big named TV preachers who use this tactic...sometimes subtly other times blatantly. But all they're doing is fleecing the sheep. And as long as someone else knows more about how we tick than we do, they can play us however they will.

What is the effect of the tactic? It lowers or eliminates the inhibitions established in us that would otherwise prevent us from receiving the message of the "teacher".

Once the inhibitions are down, the "teacher" will find a ticklish spot in our ears and play it up. While this "teacher" is playing up the really good stuff, he's mixing in the bad.

Next thing you know, we're hooked and following a false teacher down a happy path to big trouble.

Like I said, this tactic is categorically used by all who manipulate, lie and con others. One will not believe the lie, follow the con or be manipulated until their inhibitors that would prevent it are defeated. And that's what I'm addressing.

...


This has become especially bad in some charismatic circles. There are people out there believing, teaching and doing some pretty goofy stuff in the name of the Holy Spirit. And most of the people caught up in it would've never gone there if their inhibitors hadn't first been removed.

I'm a bit alarmed because I'm hearing this from virtually all reconstructionists..."You'll never understand as long as you're caught up in the doctrines and traditions of men."

I'm not accusing anybody of anything. What I'm doing is waving a big red flag and saying HEY! Be Careful! This can be really dangerous!

Having said that...Faith and its definition still reproves the supposition that all are reconciled.

 

[Suede]

MTK

+++Given the Talmud, and the two schools who did believe it . . . sorry but the majority would.+++

For certain classes, but that 'doctrine' hasn't carried on. Besides, what the Pharisees believe has no relation on the Bible as Christians see it.


+++No they are not. Our philosophical construct of "eternal" was propogated by PLATO and ARISTOTLE.+++

And that's part of the problem. That we superimpose those things onto the Bible.



+++is EXACTLY what I have pointed out . . . you CANNOT, by the progression of the word, read into the words original meaning whatever lacked in the progression into other languages+++

Of course you can. And you and I both know if aion was 'eternal' in Latin and later in English you'd be using it as one of your 'proofs'.

+++ . . it is the simple principle of "lost in translation."+++

That ASSUMES it is lost in translation.

+++Whatever lacked in aion's progression into Latin and English HAS NO BEARING UPON THE WAY THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY USED. That is my point.+++

But it does demonstrate how a word was used. Would we take 'blue' not to mean 'blue' in a translation?? Or cold, or hot? Translation doesn't knock out an original meaning.

+++Historical context, Biblical passages, Self atonement, Low view of sin,
low view of God's attributes+++

Alright, cool. Do we want to go at them one at a time to stay focused? Should we just go in order? If so, post your 'historical context issues' in your next post. Take care,

SUEDE

 

[Suede]

Shammah Ben Judah,

+++Bro, I can promise you, if there's anyone who approaches the Word without preconceived or denominational suppositions...he's talking to you......I've never been a member of any denomination. What I understand about the Word...came from the Word.+++

Ok, but of course you understand I remain unconvinced.

+++Why is that the number one precept I'm hearing from virtually EVERY universalist? The redundancy is remarkable..."Cast off what you've learned and THEN you can be enlightened!"+++

I wouldn't say that myself. I would say keep on learning and studying. The sad fact is that most people do not study at all.

+++Well, we all need to change our minds about something. I prefer to leave that to the Holy Spirit and get really uncomfortable when someone takes it upon themselves to do His job.+++

Here's my issue when I run into people that throw this at me. One it's based on the presupposition that I myself am not also guided by the Holy Spirit. Two, it denies the fact that we are to STUDY the Bible as well, not just wait around for some so called 'divine revelation'. I fear this is how most cults are started or other nonsense groups like Westboro Baptists.

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

"But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;" 1 Th 5:21

Christianity is NOT a lazy man's faith as so many would have it be. Also I find it completely unacceptable to 'answer' or 'dismiss' a view with simply saying that the 'Holy Spirit told me otherwise'. That's total nonsense[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]. I feel if one has the truth on their side, it should be able to be 'proven'. OR at the very least have some sort of logical or reasonable steps as to why someone holds that view. Therefore, if you find Universalism to be in error, Biblically prove it then. But of course if you can't.....

Take care,

SUEDE
[/FONT]

 

[HighwayMan]

Seems like the majority of people are still wrong.

But the Bible says that many will be deceived and truth will be revealed at the end, so it's all according to plan.

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

Shammah Ben Judah,

+++Bro, I can promise you, if there's anyone who approaches the Word without preconceived or denominational suppositions...he's talking to you......I've never been a member of any denomination. What I understand about the Word...came from the Word.+++

Ok, but of course you understand I remain unconvinced.

OK...so I'm a denominational parrot? rofl, yeah right.

+++Why is that the number one precept I'm hearing from virtually EVERY universalist? The redundancy is remarkable..."Cast off what you've learned and THEN you can be enlightened!"+++

I wouldn't say that myself. I would say keep on learning and studying. The sad fact is that most people do not study at all.

The thing about "profiling" people is that it isn't always accurate. To summarize everyone who doesn't agree with your belief system as unstudied or unlearned is a sad misconception.

I suppose its easier to paint a fantasy picture of everyone who doesn't agree with you as a Biblical "caveman" who couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag. That's probably a lot more comforting than considering the possibility that they believe differently than you do for a good reason.

+++Well, we all need to change our minds about something. I prefer to leave that to the Holy Spirit and get really uncomfortable when someone takes it upon themselves to do His job.+++

Here's my issue when I run into people that throw this at me. One it's based on the presupposition that I myself am not also guided by the Holy Spirit. Two, it denies the fact that we are to STUDY the Bible as well, not just wait around for some so called 'divine revelation'. I fear this is how most cults are started or other nonsense groups like Westboro Baptists.

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

"But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;" 1 Th 5:21

I think we're in agreement about studying the Word for ourselves. But I'm not so sure that you understood what I was saying.

Without going into great detail, I'm saying that it is the Holy Spirit's job to show us what we need to change as we transform our minds in the Word. It has nothing to do with not studying...it has everything to do with someone else taking it upon themselves to try to do the Holy Spirit's job.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Romans 12:2

But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord. 2 Corinthians 3:18

The soul is a delicate balance of the sum of a man's thoughts, desires and emotions. The more the Holy Spirit has to do with fashioning it and the less man does...the better off we are. When a man says I need to trash the house that He built and start over, the man is talking to the hand 'cuz the face ain't lis'nin'.

On a side note, you may find this interesting. How is it possible for two people to hear the Holy Spirit say the same thing and yet come to different conclusions? How is it possible for two prophets to hear the same words and express them differently?

Consider Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith;

The term analogia is translated as proportion, but when you look at the actual compound, you'll see from its derivation what it means. Ana is a preposition that means in the midst of, among or from within. Among the many interpretations of Logos is the Word, the doctrines, prophecies and precepts it holds and even Christ Himself.

So when the prophet, or any of us for that matter, hear from the Holy Spirit, we will translate, understand or analogize His Word to us according to where we are individually at "within the Logos". When you factor in all of the variables, I find it very unlikely that any two people will be in exactly the same complete understanding of or positioning "within the Logos".

That's how two people can hear Him say the same thing and understand it to mean different things. So the important thing for all of us to do is to expand our territory "within the Logos".

Christianity is NOT a lazy man's faith as so many would have it be. Also I find it completely unacceptable to 'answer' or 'dismiss' a view with simply saying that the 'Holy Spirit told me otherwise'. That's total nonsense[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]. I feel if one has the truth on their side, it should be able to be 'proven'. OR at the very least have some sort of logical or reasonable steps as to why someone holds that view. Therefore, if you find Universalism to be in error, Biblically prove it then. But of course if you can't.....

Take care,

SUEDE
[/FONT]

Mmmmkaay...well, you quoted the opening statement of the post...so I know you saw it. I briefly discussed the Biblical precepts of faith...according to what the Bible says about the need for faith to receive salvation.

Your reply was:

+++Universal salvation doesn't seem to fit in the universal context of scripture...+++

Sure it does. It just requires that one actually study the Bible and do so without any preconceived or denominational presuppositions. It's odd at first, I admit it, I was once a Calvinist...but it's there.

I'm a little baffled how this applies to the faith conundrum. I'll quote it again:

BUT, perhaps we should refocus. Do you have a specific issue with Universalism or just with aion? I think we can both agree that aion can mean various things and that might save us a lot of headache.

SUEDE

Universal salvation doesn't seem to fit in the universal context of scripture...

Well, OK...One more time for all the newcomers...HI!

For by grace are you saved through FAITH... Ephesians 2:8

Now FAITH is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT SEEN. HEBREWS 11:1

Salvation is a gift, offered to us by the grace of a loving God.

We receive this gift by exercising the FAITH God gave us.

Keep on going in Hebrews 11...By FAITH Abel...By FAITH Enoch...By FAITH Noah...By FAITH Abraham...By FAITH Sarah...By FAITH what?

By FAITH, they all received the promises of God. Now look at verse 13...

These all died in FAITH, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Hello!? They received the promises of God because of their LIVING FAITH. Why is that important?

Because after we have died, we have seen.

After we have seen, the evidence of things not seen doesn't exist.

If the evidence of things not seen doesn't exist for us, neither does FAITH.

If FAITH does not exist for us, then neither does salvation.

For by grace are you saved through FAITH... Ephesians 2:8

The point I was making with respect to universal reconciliation is that saving faith must be established on this side of the grave...as Hebrews 11:13 notes that they lived their faith to the very end of their lives and died still in faith.

The problem with "everybody gets saved" is that faith is required for salvation. Everybody will not be saved because everybody will not receive the promise by grace through faith. They will not die in faith and after the evidence is seen, faith is no more. If faith is no more, then neither is salvation. Grace alone is not enough.

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

Seems like the majority of people are still wrong.

But the Bible says that many will be deceived and truth will be revealed at the end, so it's all according to plan.

Not very enlightening,,,got any Word to share on the subject?

 

[IamRedeemed]

No, it isn't there. Anyone can use the Bible to claim most anything they want. But in order to do so, one has to reject many other Scriptures.Such as in the case of Calvinism. But it doesn't make either of them true.

Jesus was a "hellmonger" according to Universalists, because He believes there is a hell.

But of course you have some Unies who believe there is no hell
while there are others who believe "yeah, there is a hell, but...."

and proceed to present a repackaged form of purgatory.

ie., it is only a temporary place where the haters of God are going, where they will pay for their own sin, (have the sin burned out of them through a purifying fire) and then say "hah!" to Jesus "I got in without your blood or without believing in you while I was on earth, and I got to endure a fire instead and now I will enter into glory and bypass the so called ONLY WAY to Heaven".

No. The Bible says no such thing.

Be not deceived. Both versions are a lie from the father of lies,
and the biggest lie since the one in the garden when he said to Eve, "you will not surely die."

There is NO Scripture whatsoever that shows us that ANYONE will survive the Second Death or will ever come out of the Lake of Fire once they receive that judgment.


Not one.

Further there is nothing that countenances a new decision for Christ,
once this life is over. The Scripture shows our fate is sealed once we have taken our last breath.

It is accounted to men, once to die, and then comes the judgment.
There is nothing that shows once the judgment is delivered that a secondary judgment or any other options are given.

Shammah Ben Judah,


+++Universal salvation doesn't seem to fit in the universal context of scripture...+++

Sure it does. It just requires that one actually study the Bible and do so without any preconceived or denominational presuppositions. It's odd at first, I admit it, I was once a Calvinist...but it's there.

TNA