Universalism

[preistsplace]

If it hinges on Christ and His work in our hearts then isn't that infringing upon our "free will"?

Good point Red I think the partialist agreement focuses on our accepting of the work and not necessarily the work itself. Of course it is a small difference that changes everything....

 

[PT Calvinist]

....

It should be noted that this is simply an erroneous way of interpreting a text. It doesn't allow the context speak and define it's own words. This is the same stunt that Universalists use to say that hell isn't eternal because "aion" means "a short period of time" in other passages of Scripture.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Tissue..I'm disapointed in you..you're a Wesleyan yet you don't take in Wesley's commentary on 1 Timothy 4:10

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."
​

What Wesley said about it:

In the living God - Who will give us the life he has promised.
Who is the Saviour of all men - Preserving them in this life, and willing to save them eternally.
​

More importantly..the universalis interpretation fails. the universalist interpretation of this is "God is the saviour of all men in the sense that ultimately He actualy saves every human being who has ever lived"

Firstly this is contradictory to all biblical teaching..Not all men are saved in that full spiritual sense. If this were true why would Paul have added "Specially of those that believe"..Having that phrase at the end makes no sense at all If God is the Saviour of all men. If Universalism is true why is that phrase inserted at the end?

I'm sure we can agree that nowhere in scripture is a universal doctrine ever taught

 

[one11]

Thread should be moved according to this forum's rules:

The following has been added to the Controversial Topics rule:

In addition, any topic which runs contrary to Christian Forums' Statement of Faith, such as Universalism and non-Trinitarianism, may only be discussed in the Unorthodox Theology Forum.

 

[Nadiine]

Thread should be moved according to this forum's rules:

The following has been added to the Controversial Topics rule:

In addition, any topic which runs contrary to Christian Forums' Statement of Faith, such as Universalism and non-Trinitarianism, may only be discussed in the Unorthodox Theology Forum.

Yes, I found that out this morning and asked that it
be moved to UT.
I had no idea.

 

[heavensprings]

Thread should be moved according to this forum's rules:

The following has been added to the Controversial Topics rule:

In addition, any topic which runs contrary to Christian Forums' Statement of Faith, such as Universalism and non-Trinitarianism, may only be discussed in the Unorthodox Theology Forum.

I wonder how that will gel with this, which is to come.....

6) Forum Specific Guidelines are being removed. Each forum will retain a basic outline regarding the purpose of the forum. The Congregational Areas will be a given a bit more leeway to include posting a statement of faith / documents about what group x believes etc. Every forum outline and statement of faith will follow a standardized format. After much review (even though I've never cared for FSGs to be honest) it seems that every single forum on the site had a completely different rule-set that staff (and certainly members) couldn't keep straight. This led to some pretty inconsistent moderating across the board, amongst other pesky issues. The only rule-set anyone should be required to follow is the standard set of site rules which applies to everyone equally, in any section of the board. The general complaint that moderating decisions often make little sense is a valid one to a certain degree...while we're certainly trying to improve on that aspect of the board in a whole bunch of different ways...we figured that the easiest was to make the same rules apply everywhere


The discussion of universalism is surely a topic for Christian Philosophy and Ethics. It is after all a doctrine of soteriology and philosophy.

Ah well... we don't like to think about it let alone discuss it... let's shove it down in the basement.... with the 'wild' things....

 

[brinny]

I wonder how that will gel with this, which is to come.....

6) Forum Specific Guidelines are being removed. Each forum will retain a basic outline regarding the purpose of the forum. The Congregational Areas will be a given a bit more leeway to include posting a statement of faith / documents about what group x believes etc. Every forum outline and statement of faith will follow a standardized format. After much review (even though I've never cared for FSGs to be honest) it seems that every single forum on the site had a completely different rule-set that staff (and certainly members) couldn't keep straight. This led to some pretty inconsistent moderating across the board, amongst other pesky issues. The only rule-set anyone should be required to follow is the standard set of site rules which applies to everyone equally, in any section of the board. The general complaint that moderating decisions often make little sense is a valid one to a certain degree...while we're certainly trying to improve on that aspect of the board in a whole bunch of different ways...we figured that the easiest was to make the same rules apply everywhere


The discussion of universalism is surely a topic for Christian Philosophy and Ethics. It is after all a doctrine of soteriology and philosophy.

Ah well... we don't like to think about it let alone discuss it... let's shove it down in the basement.... with the 'wild' things....

It's a topic for those who do not adhere to what the Bible, the Word of the living God, says. It belongs in a non-Christian forum.

 

[Tissue]

Haha, this is ridiculous. A belief that was held by the majority of believers before 500 AD, that was thoroughly common before Augustine threw a tantrum, and that has a reasonable amount of Scriptural evidence, and that does not necessarily run against the Nicene Creed, has now been called 'Unorthodox'.

I imagine some of you will consider this some sort of victory. But then, 'orthodoxy' is simply another name for what is popular at the time.

If this is unorthodox, then I suppose I'm a heretic. I can do no more than run after truth, and if truth lies outside of the human sketchings of the prejudiced, so be it.

 

[Nadiine]

It was NOT a doctrine held by majority,
I have notes on the background of this unorthodox
doctrine

 

[Tissue]

It's a topic for those who do not adhere to what the Bible, the Word of the living God, says. It belongs in a non-Christian forum.

This kind of attitude tells me two things.

1) You see this as a battleground, and one in which you have resolved to not yield a step. We will very likely not be able, despite all of our efforts, to display universal reconciliation in a way that you find acceptable.

2) You are unable to see the way in which Scripture does appear to speak of universal reconciliation. You will not be able, despite all of your efforts, to dissuade us from our stance.

We will both be resigned to shouting things at one another across an abyss.

 

[heavensprings]

It was NOT a doctrine held by majority,
I have notes on the background of this unorthodox
doctrine

Read your Church Fathers... PRE 400's.

 

[brinny]

This kind of attitude tells me two things.

1) You see this as a battleground, and one in which you have resolved to not yield a step. We will very likely not be able, despite all of our efforts, to display universal reconciliation in a way that you find acceptable.

2) You are unable to see the way in which Scripture does appear to speak of universal reconciliation. You will not be able, despite all of your efforts, to dissuade us from our stance.

We will both be resigned to shouting things at one another across an abyss.

There is no universal reconciliation.

The Bible, the Word of the living God, does not speak of universal reconciliation.

God's "reconciliation" to Himself is Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son of the living God. Jesus the Christ can only reconcile us to God Almighty when we repent and cry out to God for forgiveness through His only begotten Son. There is no other way to God.

It is written.

 

[Tissue]

It was NOT a doctrine held by majority,
I have notes on the background of this unorthodox
doctrine

"Under the instruction of these great teachers [Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Johannes Cassianus] many other theologians believed in universal salvation; and indeed the whole Eastern church (q.v.) until after 500 A.D. was inclined to it.

In the West, this doctrine had fewer adherents and was never accepted by the church at large. In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six known theological schools of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality [that is, I think, annihilationism]; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is unknown. Doederlein says that 'In proportion as any man was eminent in learning in Christian antiquity, the more did he cherish and defend the hope of the termination of future torments.'"
- from New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. XII, p. 96

"It is quite in vain, then, that some - indeed very many - yield to merely human feelings and deplore the notion of the eternal punishment of the damned and their interminable and perpetual misery."
- Augustine, Enchiridion, Chapter XXIX, cxii

Four out of six theological schools held Universalism, and Augustine notes that 'very many' believed in Universalism.

If the majority of believers did not hold Universalism, then it was certainly a significant minority. At any rate, it is not unreasonable to claim that the majority of learned theologians before 500 A.D. held Universalist beliefs. In City of God (xxi: 17), Augustine counts Universalist believers as among the orthodox.

 

[Tissue]

There is no universal reconciliation.

The Bible, the Word of the living God, does not speak of universal reconciliation.

God's "reconciliation" to Himself is Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son of the living God. Jesus the Christ can only reconcile us to God Almighty when we repent and cry out to God for forgiveness through His only begotten Son. There is no other way to God.

It is written.

How, then, do you reconcile a loving God with an eternal hell?

What kind of parent writes his or her child off for eternity?

What kind of parent employs punishment that does not rehabilitate (as a punishment of eternal duration with no hope of reconciliation is clearly not one geared toward rehabilitation)?

This is not the love we find of the father of the prodigal son.

Every knee will bow, on heaven and earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Doesn't say that every tongue will 'speak'. Doesn't say that every tongue will 'lash'. Says 'confess'. What more does it take than the confession of Jesus as Lord (where 'confess' often refers to a whole-hearted recognition of the true status of Jesus and of self)?

Why can't Jesus' sacrifice be applied or accepted after death? Is it not powerful enough?

Why are Christians so willing to accept 'free will' as a reason for God to allow hell? Is free will somehow more beautiful than the eternal happiness of all?

Why are Christian so willing to accept that God desires love resulting from free will, and that He is willing to sacrifice some (indeed, very many) of his children to hell in order to achieve this kind of love? That is the vision of a selfish God, not one who loves and wants the best for all.

Why must Jesus' sacrifice be accepted at all? Is it not powerful enough without the inclusion of free will?

Who, when properly and fully recognizing the status of oneself and God and all eternity, would choose hell over heaven? Hell, or Satan, or sin, is only chosen out of ignorance. What kind of a loving parent punishes his or her child for ignorance?

There must be an end to the punishment, or God is not loving, and not worthy of praise.

 

[Tissue]

Tissue..I'm disapointed in you..you're a Wesleyan yet you don't take in Wesley's commentary on 1 Timothy 4:10

There are many things that Wesley said I don't agree with.

If you understand my status as a 'Wesleyan' to mean I hold and agree with every doctrine that Wesley expounded and that is in the rule-book, then you have missed me entirely.

More importantly..the universalis interpretation fails. the universalist interpretation of this is "God is the saviour of all men in the sense that ultimately He actualy saves every human being who has ever lived"

Firstly this is contradictory to all biblical teaching..Not all men are saved in that full spiritual sense. If this were true why would Paul have added "Specially of those that believe"..Having that phrase at the end makes no sense at all If God is the Saviour of all men. If Universalism is true why is that phrase inserted at the end?

Because those who believe do not have to undertake the purging fire of hell. They experience salvation in this life, and are taken through to the next, as compared to those who only know salvation in the next life.

I'm sure we can agree that nowhere in scripture is a universal doctrine ever taught

At the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Every tongue will confess. Not 'speak'. Not 'admit'. 'Confess'.

 

[Nadiine]

There are many things that Wesley said I don't agree with.

If you understand my status as a 'Wesleyan' to mean I hold and agree with every doctrine that Wesley expounded and that is in the rule-book, then you have missed me entirely.



Because those who believe do not have to undertake the purging fire of hell. They experience salvation in this life, and are taken through to the next, as compared to those who only know salvation in the next life.



At the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Every tongue will confess. Not 'speak'. Not 'admit'. 'Confess'.

As if confessing Christ is Lord is REPENTING AND
RECIEVING SALVATION VIA FAITH?

Again you miss the ingredients that make up
conversion.

Anyone can confess that God is God once they see Him
on His throne after they died!
The Rich man in Hades knew it too, it didn't change his
situation, give him mercy (no water given to him there)
or grant him salvation.
And His family wasn't warned of that place either - they
were left to BELIEVE Moses & the prophets testimony
for belief in God.

Again, your statement doesn't prove universalism,
it's another read-in assumption.
typical in this doctrine.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
There is no universal reconciliation.

The Bible, the Word of the living God, does not speak of universal reconciliation.

God's "reconciliation" to Himself is Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son of the living God. Jesus the Christ can only reconcile us to God Almighty when we repent and cry out to God for forgiveness through His only begotten Son. There is no other way to God.

It is written.

How, then, do you reconcile a loving God with an eternal hell?

What kind of parent writes his or her child off for eternity?

What kind of parent employs punishment that does not rehabilitate (as a punishment of eternal duration with no hope of reconciliation is clearly not one geared toward rehabilitation)?

This is not the love we find of the father of the prodigal son.

Every knee will bow, on heaven and earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Doesn't say that every tongue will 'speak'. Doesn't say that every tongue will 'lash'. Says 'confess'. What more does it take than the confession of Jesus as Lord (where 'confess' often refers to a whole-hearted recognition of the true status of Jesus and of self)?

Why can't Jesus' sacrifice be applied or accepted after death? Is it not powerful enough?

Why are Christians so willing to accept 'free will' as a reason for God to allow hell? Is free will somehow more beautiful than the eternal happiness of all?

Why are Christian so willing to accept that God desires love resulting from free will, and that He is willing to sacrifice some (indeed, very many) of his children to hell in order to achieve this kind of love? That is the vision of a selfish God, not one who loves and wants the best for all.

Why must Jesus' sacrifice be accepted at all? Is it not powerful enough without the inclusion of free will?

Who, when properly and fully recognizing the status of oneself and God and all eternity, would choose hell over heaven? Hell, or Satan, or sin, is only chosen out of ignorance. What kind of a loving parent punishes his or her child for ignorance?

There must be an end to the punishment, or God is not loving, and not worthy of praise.

God is holy. He does not take kindly to not be taken seriously nor disrespected. Jesus the Christ Himself said that not all are children of God. To those, there is the appointed judgement, facing a holy God Who will not be smiling, for as it is written, it will be a terrible day. It will be a fearful thing to face the living God if not clothed in the righteousness of His Son, Jesus the Christ.

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." ~Hebrews 10:31"

 

[Hentenza]

There must be an end to the punishment, or God is not loving, and not worthy of praise.

The end of the torment is a free gift here and now. God is a loving God and because He is a loving God He does not force His love on those that choose not to love Him. Forced love is no love at all. God is also just (justice) and an infinite, atemporal God demands an infinite, atemporal punishment. God so love the world that he sent His only begotten son to die for us so that those that believe in Him could be saved. The operative word is believe. God is perfect. He lacks nothing. What can you as a fallible, immortal, imperfect human can possibly offer God? Nothing but your love.

 

[Tissue]

As if confessing Christ is Lord is REPENTING AND
RECIEVING SALVATION VIA FAITH?

Again you miss the ingredients that make up
conversion.

'That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.' Romans 10:9 (NIV)

Doesn't seem too unlikely that those who are confessing that Jesus is Lord will also be in a position to recognize that he was raised from the dead. According to Paul, that is all that is necessary.

Anyone can confess that God is God once they see Him
on His throne after they died!
The Rich man in Hades knew it too, it didn't change his
situation, give him mercy (no water given to him there)
or grant him salvation.
And His family wasn't warned of that place either - they
were left to BELIEVE Moses & the prophets testimony
for belief in God.

Why is conversion after direct revelation/observance sub-standard, or invalid? Wasn't that how Paul was converted?

Again, your statement doesn't prove universalism,
it's another read-in assumption.
typical in this doctrine.

Who said anything about 'proving'? You want proofs, go read some Euclid, or Fermat.

I am giving reasons for my belief. If they do not strike you as valid, then so be it. They strike me as valid.

 

[Tissue]

God is holy. He does not take kindly to not be taken seriously nor disrespected. Jesus the Christ Himself said that not all are children of God.

That is, not all are saved in this lifetime.

To those, there is the appointed judgement, facing a holy God Who will not be smiling, for as it is written, it will be a terrible day.

God will be heart-broken.

It will be a fearful thing to face the living God if not clothed in the righteousness of His Son, Jesus the Christ.

But it will not be eternal.