Universalism...why not?

[The Times]

Your problem is that you assign to God human feelings and characteristics, making justice the need for revenge

No I don't. For all men are destined to die once then they are judged. There is no more purging or testing after we die. The apostle Paul clearly states that once a believer departs from this temporal life, they await their crown of righteousness and that ends their race of faith.

Justice being served by God is not revenge, but is Justice, for God is Love. In this life we have been shown his grace, through a path of reconciliation, within the blood covenant of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ. In the afterlife life, God serves Justice, meaning either to award eternal life or to take it away in the second death.

But that is not the definition of justice. Justice is giving a person that which he is due. What then is man due?

Yes, that is right, Justice is due after a person dies, for all men are destined to die once, then judgement/Justice follows.

That is why Jesus warned countless number of times to be vigilant and watchful in faith for you do not know the hour of your judgement, after you pass from this temporal life.

1. For his sins and rebellion - chastening.

2. That he is made in the image of God - God's love.

3. That his sins are of a limited nature - limitation to the scourging of chastisement.

These are human arguments against the sovereign God. It is you who is assigning to God human feelings and characteristics

The Western Church has painted God in the image of the Roman Overseer in a court of law. That is not God.

The Catholic fathers were right. God oversees the whole world and in those days all roads led to Rome. Christianityis a Monarchy and our crowned Monarch is Jesus Christ, the anointed Most Holy. What are you saying that you do not belong under God's Monarch.

God is Father, and by using that analogy in Scripture to define Himself to us, we are led to understand that He acts as a father acts. No father tortures his children for

Again human reasoning against a sovereign God. Do you know what you are saying or the implication thereof?

No father tortures his children for their misdeeds, but chastens them so that they are corrected and learn. No father, discovering his child has done wrong, would imprison his child forever in a house of the most gruesome tortures as a punishment for his wrongdoing.

Your repeating yourself. You give me the impression that you are under a guilty complex, that I don't want to address nor entertain.

That is not a father nor just. That is a monster and our God is not a monster.

Two words...
Guilt complex.

The sovereign God will do what the sovereign God wills to do, not you or I or significant others will be able to veto what he does, because he sits on the white throne of Judgement and Righteousness and will execute Judgement and Justice, without needing our approval or blessings.

 

[ClementofA]

I don't see my computer doing anything that I don't tell it to do. If there is a problem and my computer "sins" against me, as it is equivalent to a robotic being, it is usually something that I have neglected to do.......Where is the need for my computer to ever need saving...

Now, my children, being of free will.........totally different story...



Sorry, don't agree with this parallel. Not at all.... I, as a Christian, can still get stuck somewhere and need that kind of "salvation"...That is not the salvation we are talking about here. Animals are not in need of Christ's salvation. But.........many times are stuck....

Your computer is not a living, willing, feeling, thinking being who sins & needs the deliverance from sin that Christ crucified gives the whole world.

Evidently the entire creation needs & will recieve His deliverance from the curse of sin, as per Romans 8:19-23.

 

[The Times]

Marriage is a Sacrament. It is ordained of God and comes from Him as a representation of the Holy Trinity. I really don't care what the pagans do or how they approach it. They are godless and have no connection to the truth. Therefore, to discuss marriage, we do not discuss it as the pagans and unbelievers in our world do - as a mere civil ceremony, which is essentially a contract.

Read scripture, God declares it to be a legally binding contract.

And were was the blood of the marital covenant shed? By some civil authority offering a blood sacrifice? No. Of course not. It was the blood of the nuptial bed.

Please read Hebrews 9:14-18 and discern that blood is the means to institute our adoption, without blood exists no relationship with God and his Christ. Likewise we too must drink from the bitter cup of Christ by signing out with our own blood, in order to claim our eternal inheritance awarded to the judged righteous.

In the context of this conversation, I am not understanding the point you are trying to make here. Yes, both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are ratified in blood. What is your point?

Blood is the means God uses. Blood to blood, through kinship in Christ Jesus, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

I studied the Covenant of God closely for two years before leaving Protestantism, which is anti-covenantal in its precepts. I think I know a little about covenant. Not all, but a pretty fair amount. I am always willing to discuss the Covenant of God and its principles with anyone who wishes to talk.

Ok, good!

Kindly, eh? Well, that is one of the nicer insults I've gotten around here for a while

You didn't highlight my previous comment before this one, otherwise you would in honesty have acknowledged that I included myself within that statement also. So there is no selfishness or pun intended on my behalf other than to state the truth.

 

[Shempster]

Sorry to but in again, but I was just thinking....
This is all just a random thought that kind of came to me.
Let's say that the penalty for sin is death. Someone refuses to submit to God and dies. And they die. Dead. Lights out. In no state of consciousness. They will not be alive at all during the thousand years of the reign of Christ. They missed out on a millenium of amazement and peace.
Then after armageddon at the end of the thousand years, they find themselves awoken and taken to the great white throne. The books are opened and the dead are judged by their works. If anyone's name was not found in the book of life they were thrown into the lake of fire. But that statement would have to claim that some, maybe even the majority DID have their name in the book of life. He said before that "if" there name was not there....so that sounds like some will and some wont.
So it could be possible that the vast majority of humans will be saved in the end while it's actually only a few that will be lost.
And all of the talk about inheriting eonian life or not inheriting it is actually referring to the millenium, not the full scope of eternity.

Maybe?

 

[Rajni]

If everyone is going to be saved anyway, what value is righteousness and obedience??

Because there's nothing wrong with getting a jump-start on a Heavenly lifestyle before we get there. Because bringing a little bit of Heaven down to earth just makes everyone's day. Because such things increase the quality of earthly life. Because a love-relationship with the Lord results in these things.

Granted, words like "righteousness" and "obedience" are very broad, and will mean different things to different people.

Far simpler would it be to simply keep in mind the Greatest Commandment, which is to love God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind. The second, which is like it, is to love our neighbor as ourselves. Legalists who are all about Law-keeping can simply be reminded of what Jesus had to say about that, which was that all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

And there are those who want everyone to make it, regardless of the Scriptures that contradict their wishes.

More accurately, regardless of Scriptures that are interpreted in such a way as to contradict their wishes.

But the wish for the salvation of all is much more in line with that of God, who Scripture says wants everyone to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). Actually, some translations phrase it in a far more proactive way, wording it as "God will have all be saved..."

So if God says He desires all mankind to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), and He also says that He will do all His desire (Isaiah 46:10), I think it's safe to say that the future is bright for everyone in that regard. But I understand that those who have a list of folks with whom they don't want to spend eternity in heaven will interpret scripture to say otherwise. Totally natural; who am I to judge?

When you read your sentence carefully, it is apparent you are pitting Scripture AGAINST Scripture.

Not necessarily.

However, I'm very much aware that Scripture, even though it contains much wisdom, was penned by fallible humans, and therefore certain human shortcomings, such as the desire for revengeful punishing of those who don't do what we want, could be projected onto God, resulting in the seemingly vindictive deity found therein. Therefore, I do believe that there are contradictions to be found in there. Overall, though, it's got great teachings, and I hesitate to throw any babies out with the bathwater.

Thank you! I think I've fixed it.

Awesome; thanks!

 

[Dartman]

Heretics did not stay in the Church.

Of course they did. The mainstream Church didn't stay with the preaching of the apostles.

Please go read some Church history.

I teach Church History.

Men like Arias did indeed preach within the Church, but as their heresy gained ground, the Church confronted them and cast them out of the Church. Many other heretics, such as Luther and Calvin, did not wish to stay in the Church, but left of their own accord and set up their own little enclaves of heretics to follow them.

Luther and Calvin merely represent daughters of the "Mother of Harlots". (Rev 17:5)

As for your second premise, note that Paul is speaking about the Day of the Lord, which was "at hand" and about to happen. His warning is specific for the believers of that time, and the falling away is speaking about the Jews falling away from their religion and being destroyed for it.

Read the text again .... when does the falling away end? What destroys it?

 

[JacksBratt]

Your computer is not a living, willing, feeling, thinking being who sins & needs the deliverance from sin that Christ crucified gives the whole world.

Evidently the entire creation needs & will recieve His deliverance from the curse of sin, as per Romans 8:19-23.

My computer is a robotic being with no free will.... for the case of this scenario.....

 

[JoeP222w]

If our Father desires all men to be saved,

Contextually, meaning all kinds of men, meaning that salvation is not limited to social status. It is an often misapplied and misinterpreted passage. It does not mean every single human being that has ever existed.

why can't he continue to work on their souls postmortem?

There is no indication of post mortem salvation. There is clear indication that death is the end of salvation for those who are unregenerate.

Hebrews 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

God is not obligated to save anyone.

Can't God do what he wants to do?

He can and He does.

Romans 9:13-23 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." (14) What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! (15) For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (16) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (17) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." (18) So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (19) You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (20) But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" (21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

So, if God's love and patience run out on a soul upon death, either God doesn't want all men to be saved or God can't do what he wants to do. Which is it?

Or you are misinterpreting the passage.

 

[JoeP222w]

Does God desire to save all souls?

Every human being that has ever existed, no. God does not desire something, then fail to achieve it. God is not eternally frustrated that He could not save someone. God is sovereign, not man.

since the soul has to cooperate in some way.

You will find nothing in the Bible that supports this (there is no synergism in the Bible).

 

[JoeP222w]

It seems a bit odd that The Father put us in a place where we have no physical proof that He actually exists (to the unbeliever) yet threatens punishment if we fail to recognize it.

He has shown Himself, in all of creation, in His word of the Bible, and most importantly, in Jesus Christ.

 

[Albion]

You welcome. I have been following this from my research going back to the 80s. The eastern religions in the 70s, but especially the 80s were being infused within western cultures and lightly sprayed with Jesus, for this is what Unitarian Universalism is. What they have done is to drop off the term Unitarian to bolster their deceptive ploys to conscript more unsuspecting Christians to their ideology and cause.

The Universalist Church that goes back to the 1790s and the Unitarian Church that is nearly as old predate all that Eastern/New Age/Hippie influence you are thinking of, so I don't think we can lay all the blame on that movement of recent decades. But "when push comes to shove" there just isn't enough evidence and backing for the idea of universal salvation in Christian history and in the Bible to offset the huge amount that supports the idea of God rewarding and punishing different people, even unto eternity. And we certainly are not on good ground to take the position that many universalists do, i.e. "that's not a God that I would approve of, so I won't believe in him."

 

[Albion]

If your trust is in majority opinion, then in Noah's day God would have drowned you in the flood.

BTW, the largest Church today, the RCC, teaches a hope for universalism & a possibility of hell. IOW everyone may be saved.

If you were advocating for a position in which we hold out the hope for universal salvation, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

What we're dealing with is a claim that it's the reality, period. You know that that is NOT the view of the Catholic church or the Eastern Orthodox churches. And no one has argued that the majority makes right.

However, if there is a lot of evidence for anything in life and almost none for the opposite perspective--as is the case with this issue--that speaks for itself and cannot simply be sneered at as though we were taking a poll of people's opinions.

 

[Dartman]

Because there's nothing wrong with getting a jump-start on a Heavenly lifestyle before we get there. Because bringing a little bit of Heaven down to earth just makes everyone's day. Because such things increase the quality of earthly life. Because a love-relationship with the Lord results in these things.

This rationalization changes "Thou shalt not.." to "Thou should not..".
Sorry, but I will not value rationalization over the actual statements of Scripture.

Granted, words like "righteousness" and "obedience" are very broad, and will mean different things to different people.

Agreed.
God, however, understands those terms perfectly, and holds us accountable to come to His understanding. He made sure we have His spirit/thinking in written form .... the same words/logos/spirit for every one who "seeks".

Far simpler would it be to simply keep in mind the Greatest Commandment, which is to love God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind. The second, which is like it, is to love our neighbor as ourselves. Legalists who are all about Law-keeping can simply be reminded of what Jesus had to say about that, which was that all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

Jesus was a legalist, and was VERY insistent that those who love him, keep ALL his commandments, which were NOT his, but his God's.
John 12:49-50 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
John 14:23-24 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
John 20:17 ... go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"

More accurately, regardless of Scriptures that are interpreted in such a way as to contradict their wishes.

But the wish for the salvation of all is much more in line with that of God, who Scripture says wants everyone to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). Actually, some translations phrase it in a far more proactive way, wording it as "God will have all be saved..."

So if God says He desires all mankind to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), and He also says that He will do all His desire (Isaiah 46:10), I think it's safe to say that the future is bright for everyone in that regard.

This twist of the Scriptures is human rationalization, and doesn't even begin to match the REST of Scripture. These verses are being pitted AGAINST the rest of Scripture, rather than being exegeted in the context of all Scripture.
Of course God desires all mankind, each and every person, to be saved..... BUT that REQUIRES that they make the choices He has commanded.
John 3:16-21 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

But I understand that those who have a list of folks with whom they don't want to spend eternity in heaven will interpret scripture to say otherwise.

Here is only one of Jehovah/YHVH's list;
Mal 4:1-3 For, behold, the day cometh, it burneth as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Jehovah of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings; and ye shall go forth, and gambol as calves of the stall. 3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I make, saith Jehovah of hosts.

And, we KNOW when this happens;
2 Peter 3:7 but the heavens that now are, and the earth, by the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
2 Peter 3:13 But, according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Rev 20:11-15 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and books were opened: and another book was opened, which is (the book) of life: and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, (even) the lake of fire. 15 And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.

However, I'm very much aware that Scripture, even though it contains much wisdom, was penned by fallible humans, and therefore certain human shortcomings, such as the desire for revengeful punishing of those who don't do what we want, could be projected onto God, resulting in the seemingly vindictive deity found therein. Therefore, I do believe that there are contradictions to be found in there. Overall, though, it's got great teachings, and I hesitate to throw any babies out with the bathwater.

This is merely MORE rationalization, attempting to justify your judgment of God's words.

 

[Light of the East]

These are human arguments against the sovereign God. It is you who is assigning to God human feelings and characteristics

Something strange is going on here. You keep using the word "sovereignty" along with other phrases that make me think of my days as a Presbyterian Calvinist rather than being Orthodox.

When we are given words and language by God to work with, it is understood that words convey certain meanings. When we speak of "love" for instance, love is not a feeling. If it were, Jesus the Christ would never have been able to speak of loving our enemies.

Love is a verb, that is, it is doing good to others. It is acting in their best interests. Let's parse this idea down into humanity and God.

1. Is it or would it ever have been in the best interest of mankind to create mankind with the foreknowledge (omniscience) that man would Fall and that because of that, billions would suffer an eternity of torment?

2. Is it or would it ever have been in the best interest of mankind to condemn those who never heard of the saving work of Christ, as the Roman Church once insisted upon?

3. Is it or would it ever have been in the best interest of mankind to create sentient beings, capable of suffering, and then choose to save only a very small amount of them, condemning the rest to suffer forever?

These and other condemnations which the hellists put forth for eternal torment are simply not consistent with love, that is, doing the best for the other. None of the above represents doing the best for us as poor creatures utterly dependent upon God's goodness.

It is love, however, to come to rescue every single man, woman, and child who ever lived from the state of separation from God by becoming man and undoing what Adam did. It is completely just that if one man condemned the whole human race to separation from God (that separation is called "death" in Scripture) that the act of one God/Man should also undo this for all mankind who will ever live.

Furthermore, it is love, that is, doing the best for us, that we be scourged with the fire of His love in the next life to A.) be justly punished for our sins, B.) to come to recognize how evil we have been and C.) to be brought to a state where we repent after having been scoured.

This appears to be the idea that most people have of Jesus:

 

[Light of the East]

Of course they did. The mainstream Church didn't stay with the preaching of the apostles.

Prove it. Just making an accusation is not proof. Bring out your Chick tracts and your dog-eared copies of Lorraine Boetner's "Roman Catholicism" and let's have at it.

I teach Church History.

Which brand? SDA "church history?" Baptist "Trail of Blood" church history. Calvinist church history? Methodist church history?

Or do you teach the truth?

Luther and Calvin merely represent daughters of the "Mother of Harlots". (Rev 17:5)

Methinks you are SDA by that comment. And to call the Church, the Bride of Christ a "harlot," whew, you should be glad Jesus loves you!

Read the text again .... when does the falling away end? What destroys it?

The end of the Old Covenant and the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

 

[Light of the East]

Of course God desires all mankind, each and every person, to be saved..... BUT that REQUIRES that they make the choices He has commanded.

In this we are agreed, especially about the part of making the choice to unite in love with Him. But the open-ended question is this: is this choice limited to only this life and if you say yes, then please show me proof.

Does God's love for all, including the worst of sinners, end when we die? I don't think so because God is immutable and unchangeable. It is reasonable to believe therefore that He would be open to repentance even in the next life. So then the question becomes whether or not sinners can repent in the next life and submit to His scourging for their sins in order to cleanse them and make them pure.

Of course, that is a kind of Roman view I just posted. The Orthodox view is that the fire of God's love burns away all that is not like Him. All our sins, our passions, the evil desires hidden deep in our hearts where not even we know them, shall encounter the fire of His love and be turned to ashes.

And it will HURT!!!! But like all medicine that hurts, it will also heal us and make us fit for His love. As wood, when put in fire, becomes fire, so when we are put in the fiery love of God, we become that love by the burning away of our passions. The only question really is whether sinners can resist this eternally. And I think that is so vague to us as human beings that the hope of eternal life for all remains at least a very good hope.

 

[Albion]

Jesus was a legalist, and was VERY insistent that those who love him, keep ALL his commandments, which were NOT his, but his God's.

On the contrary, Jesus frequently departed from convention in his teachings, often to the great consternation of the Jewish religious leaders who heard him. As we know, he taught that what's in our hearts and minds counts as much or more than adherence to the written rules; and he rebuked all those who pointed out to him that his words or actions violated some religious rule or other.

 

[Rajni]

This rationalization changes "Thou shalt not.." to "Thou should not..".

This twist of the Scriptures is human rationalization, and doesn't even begin to match the REST of Scripture. These verses are being pitted AGAINST the rest of Scripture, rather than being exegeted in the context of all Scripture.

This is merely MORE rationalization, attempting to justify your judgment of God's words.

Evidently your rationalizations and my "rationalizations" don't match.
But hey, at least we're rational, so that's something, right?

 

[Rajni]

For all men are destined to die once then they are judged.

Given that individual humans have been known to die more than once, I've often wondered if this passage is referring to the collective death of humankind through Adam, which happened once. The judgment that follows, and which also seems to be presented as a singular event (at least the way the KJV words it), would've been dealt with by Jesus at the cross, given that the punishment for sin is said to have been taken on by him.

Just a thought. Carry on!

-

 

[Dartman]

Prove it. Just making an accusation is not proof.

Your comment that I should look at church history implies you have some knowledge of the topic. Church History proves who the Great harlot is. She is the ONLY religious organization in the last 2000 years, which has fulfilled John's vision in Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication ....
If you TRULY know Church History, there is no question.

Which brand? SDA "church history?" Baptist "Trail of Blood" church history. Calvinist church history? Methodist church history?

None of the above. (Here is a hint, research the New Testament and see what the most common name for the Church.)

The end of the Old Covenant and the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Nope; 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: