Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
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
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:
He loved us ALL first (1st John 4:19; Romans 5:6; Romans 5:8 ).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?
My computer is a robotic being with no free will.... for the case of this scenario.....
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.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?
Because..............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.
Benjamin Corey on Patheos said: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 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."
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.
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
Not even remotely.Revelation 17 & 18 are speaking of Jerusalem and the destruction in judgment against her which happened in AD 70.
Read the text again.Light of the East said: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.
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.
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).
I am more emotional and concerned about my Lord being used and abused, than the wicked begging for their souls.
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.
"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?"
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?