Universalism...why not?

[4meta]

My claim is that if God desires all to be saved and can save all, he would save all.

If you believe God desires to save all and can save all, why does he not save all?

God would prefer all to be saved (2 Peter 3: 9)

Questions for you are...
1) Why would God save those who do not love him? If you love the world more than God, you are an enemy of God (James 4:4, 1 John 2: 15-16).
2) Why would God want people who chooses the world over him in his kingdom?

 

[Light of the East]

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

Revelation 17 & 18 are speaking of Jerusalem and the destruction in judgment against her which happened in AD 70.

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

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:

Jerusalem. Paul even gives the time indicator in verse two, telling his disciples that the Day of the Lord is "at hand." The word there is enistēmi has the meaning of being very soon, or even present in some form. It most certainly does not mean 2,000 years later.

When the believers in Christ were surrounded by the armies of Titus and Jerusalem under siege, they remembered all that Christ had spoken in Matthew 24, along with Paul's numerous warnings, and when a window of opportunity opened for them, they fled the city and thus spared their lives.

 

[Light of the East]

Questions for you are...

1) Why would God save those who do not love him? If you love the world more than God, you are an enemy of God (James 4:4, 1 John 2: 15-16).

Wow, you really miss the whole point of God's love, doncha? Every single person who God saves from sin is someone who in some degree hates Him (i.e., loves sin more than God). How many millions were like C.S. Lewis, who wanted nothing to do with God, and when he began to believe, said of himself that "I saw the approach of belief with fear and dread." He, like all of us who love sin, wanted nothing to do with God. Hence, in your book, he was God's enemy.

Why would God save those who do not love Him. Because He has commanded us to love our enemies, and thereby we are to be "like our Father in heaven."

2) Why would God want people who chooses the world over him in his kingdom?

Because He loves all.

 

[mkgal1]

ETA: Posted prior to reading through all the posts. Light of the East's response is excellent (IMO).

God would prefer all to be saved (2 Peter 3: 9)

Questions for you are...
1) Why would God save those who do not love him? If you love the world more than God, you are an enemy of God (James 4:4, 1 John 2: 15-16).
2) Why would God want people who chooses the world over him in his kingdom?

He loved us ALL first (1st John 4:19; Romans 5:6; Romans 5:8 ).

I believe He will [eventually] cause all to love Him in return.

 

[ClementofA]

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

What does this have to do with my response or your claim that "if God wanted robotic humanoids, He would not have had to send Jesus and Jesus would not of had to die on the cross." Jesus died for our sins. The need for that doesn't change if men don't have libertarian free will.

 

[mkgal1]

A bit lengthy.....but a thorough discussion of all 3 views of hell:

 

[surrender1]

God would prefer all to be saved (2 Peter 3: 9)

Questions for you are...
1) Why would God save those who do not love him? If you love the world more than God, you are an enemy of God (James 4:4, 1 John 2: 15-16).
2) Why would God want people who chooses the world over him in his kingdom?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that all *do* choose God even if it's after death. God works with believers' souls after death. Why not unbelievers? Scripture does say God wants all people to be saved.

 

[JacksBratt]

What does this have to do with my response or your claim that "if God wanted robotic humanoids, He would not have had to send Jesus and Jesus would not of had to die on the cross." Jesus died for our sins. The need for that doesn't change if men don't have libertarian free will.

Because..............

If we were robots, we would never be responsible for our actions as they would be programed.

Any sins or "unwanted" actions, would, then be the responsibility of the programmer.

Thus, the robot could not be held accountable and, therefore not punished or even in need of retribution.........

So, there would be no need to be saved.

Hence.........no need for a savior.

 

[mkgal1]

Author Benjamin Corey has responded to the question of how Universal Restoration is compatible with free will here:

The main question this gets to is whether or not Universal Redemption can account for the matter of free will– and I believe it can.

I think one of the big pieces people misunderstand about Christian Universalism is that it still affirms the judgement of God, and can even affirm a belief in hell. The difference is that hell (whatever that is) would be ultimately temporary, and the judgement/justice of God would be a type of justice designed to restore, instead of being strictly punitive in nature. Thus, Christian Universalism honors free will by acknowledging that many will not choose reconciliation with God, that not all will immediately repent, and as a result many will be separated from God for part of eternity.~Is Christian Universalism Compatible With Free Will? Justice? Hell?

 

[The Times]

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."

Well said.

Yes, Jesus taught about the torment of hell more than any other person in the Bible, that includes the prophets, the disciples and the apostles to be. He warned, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

The very language he used is not to be taken lightly, as he clearly highlighted a severe judgment of condemnation in the afterlife for people who would face the Justice Arm of God.

“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? (Matthew 23:33)

Some want to play down hell as something pertaining to this life, after a person dies, however it is clear on numerous occasions that after the earthly body dies, there awaits people, their judgment for the works of faith done in the body, to either be awarded their crown of righteousness or to be separated from God and be damned for eternity.

Just in the statement above, one can discern that if hell was simply this lifetime or the grave, then no one escapes the grave, because all men are destined to die once, then judgment. Yet what Jesus is alluding to is the hell that could be escaped, it not so in the case of the wicked.

Jesus didn’t talk about hell just to scare people. He talked about hell to continuously warn about it, because he wanted people to know that God has provided a way of Grace/Love to escape the final judgement after one passes from this temporal life.

 

[mkgal1]

My favorite example of "restorative justice":

 

[ClementofA]

Because..............

If we were robots, we would never be responsible for our actions as they would be programed.

Any sins or "unwanted" actions, would, then be the responsibility of the programmer.

Thus, the robot could not be held accountable and, therefore not punished or even in need of retribution.........

So, there would be no need to be saved.

Hence.........no need for a savior.

If freewill is an unbiblical myth, the human w/o freewill can be required to give account of his actions, as Scripture says he will. There would be nothing stopping God from making man give an account of his actions. This would be for the man's own good, humbling or enlightenment. So, i disagree with your statement the man "could not be held accountable".

Evidently any light punishment would also be for the man's own good, with a view to his salvation from his sinful nature for endless billions of heavenly eons.

He is the Potter. We the clay. Romans 9.

 

[The Times]

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:

View attachment 198559

You showed me and others a small cartoon clip towards the end, to play at the heart strings, in order to reinforce your persuasive text that you wrote, in defining Love in the absence of Justice.

I believe that you have a gift in conveying your point of view to emotional human beings, who would ultimately be inclined to listen to you.

But let me reiterate again, that faith and the result of faith is not grounded in human emotions or human reasoning.

Jesus spoke about hell more so than any other prophet or apostle. In fact Jesus warned continuously of the coming judgment after death and that one ought to be vigilant and watchful in faith, even onto death.

What if I were to tell you that the cartoon clip you showed is a reality and true picture for the countless many and that the Justice Arm of God will be played out on a rebellious generation, more so than his Grace/Love Arm, because humanity has made its bed with the wicked one by foresaking his blood covenant and by mingling themselves with the bread of malice. What has Light to do with darkness and in this day and age many have fallen in the delusion that they can make AS ABOVE, SO BELOW concept of salvation, which is an earthly satanic gospel that has initiated the great falling away from the faith of Jesus Christ.

I am more emotional and concerned about my Lord being used and abused, than the wicked begging for their souls.

 

[Dartman]

Revelation 17 & 18 are speaking of Jerusalem and the destruction in judgment against her which happened in AD 70.

Not even remotely.
John's vision on the Isle of Patmos occured AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem, and NONE of the revelation discusses those events.

Jerusalem. Paul even gives the time indicator in verse two, telling his disciples that the Day of the Lord is "at hand." The word there is enistēmi has the meaning of being very soon, or even present in some form. It most certainly does not mean 2,000 years later.

Read the text again.
Paul is warning the Thessalonians that they should NOT believe the Day of the Lord would be "at hand"!
Because the "falling away" would happen FIRST;
Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him; 2 to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as that the day of the Lord is just at hand; 3 let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first,

 

[Light of the East]

Not even remotely.
John's vision on the Isle of Patmos occured AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem, and NONE of the revelation discusses those events.

There is no date for the writing of the Apocalypse. You assume that it was written after AD 70, but many Preterist theologians have made good case for it being written before. And without a specific date being given for it within the text of Scripture, it is up for grabs, isn't it?

Oh, and Revelation also goes against your idea. Look at this verse:

Rev 22:10

And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Not 2,000 years away. At hand, meaning very close to happening.

 

[mkgal1]

Yes, Jesus taught about the torment of hell more than any other person in the Bible, that includes the prophets, the disciples and the apostles to be. He warned, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

It's been mentioned a few times that, most likely, what many are interpreting as "the torment of hell" is the destruction of Jerusalem (look back at v. 23):


Matthew 10:23

But when they persecute you in this city

 

[Light of the East]

I have a question for those who insist upon an eternal burning hell for sinners. You guys get really bent out of shape when someone suggests that God is loving enough to forgive all sinners and restore them to Himself.

Why?

What damage is done by believing this good news? How does it hurt anything to believe that our God is a merciful Father? Tell me what your objections are personally.

I'm not talking about your misunderstanding of the Scripture, as we see being beaten around here. We can argue Scripture until we are blue in the face. I want to know what possible damage to mankind, to my soul, to my neighbor, is done by believing that God is good, loving, and forgiving, even to the point of restoring all mankind.

 

[Light of the East]

I am more emotional and concerned about my Lord being used and abused, than the wicked begging for their souls.

Then your love needs to be perfected.

 

[ClementofA]

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.

Then perhaps we can agree that the official view of the church denomination with the most members today is neutral re the doctrine of all men being saved.

As for the 100's or 1000's of other denominations that call themselves Christian or church, i haven't researched their official positions. Have you? Why bring up the subect in the first place if you didn't think your claim that none of them advocate universalism held weight? You said:

"There isn't a Christian church that officially teaches that doctrine..."

"Not a thing in that paragraph comes close to refuting the statement that Universalists are a tiny minority."

"Interesting speculation but hardly the opinion of Bible scholars, seminaries, or just about any Christian denomination you can name. How do you account for you being in such a tiny minority and so far out on that limb if it's so obvious as you think?"

In connection with that why only consider churches today? I've referred you to the early church beliefs on the subject. And let's not forget the belief of the church throughout the Dark Ages, Inquisitions, Crusades, & burning "heretics" (universalists?) at the stake. Why did you make no comment on those?

Additionally, as regards beliefs today, I wonder how many preachers in various denominations seldom if ever speak a word about endless hell. It's like it doesn't even exist, even if it's part of the official denomination doctrine that they haven't yet had the time or inclination to erase.

Also, how many today have rejected the endless torment (ET) theory & opted instead for the annihilation view? In these more enlightened times, relative to the Dark & Middle Ages of ET, is ET declining & on the way out, while the other two options are continually rising in popularity? ET ruled for over 1000 years by the sword & threats of punishment, which is in line with it's own spirit. It might take a few decades or centuries to fully extinguish its flames.

" In 2012 megachurch pastor Rob Bell’s book Love Wins, which implicitly recommends a hopeful universalism (like Balthasar’s: we can hope without knowing for sure), sparked a perfect storm of controversy both within and without the evangelical world.21 Time magazine featured the book on one of its covers. If evangelicals had not known that some of its theologians and pastors had been challenging traditional eschatology, this new book made them suddenly aware."

Will All Be Saved?

 

[Kerensa]

I have a question for those who insist upon an eternal burning hell for sinners. You guys get really bent out of shape when someone suggests that God is loving enough to forgive all sinners and restore them to Himself.

Why?

What damage is done by believing this good news? How does it hurt anything to believe that our God is a merciful Father? Tell me what your objections are personally.

I'm not talking about your misunderstanding of the Scripture, as we see being beaten around here. We can argue Scripture until we are blue in the face. I want to know what possible damage to mankind, to my soul, to my neighbor, is done by believing that God is good, loving, and forgiving, even to the point of restoring all mankind.

I can still only conclude it's because if you are utterly convinced that God will torture the unsaved forever — and this is The Only Legitimate Interpretation of the Bible — then if you dare to question (let alone reject) that belief, YOU will be in danger of eternal punishment yourself. So you just can't go there, can you?

Thanks, by the way, for all the links people have posted to sites by theologians explaining why universal salvation IS Biblically and historically justifiable (and indeed how it doesn't have to contradict the concepts of free will or Christ's atonement or justice or even hell) — very useful and helpful.