Universalism

[PT Calvinist]

My sympathy toward Universalism is based upon logic: I cannot see how a loving God and an eternal hell can be reconciled. This is, I think, a very common reason for those who sympathize with Universalism. To write this off as 'feelings' is to misrepresent the conviction.

Only God Himself can convince you otherwise.

I have less to lose than you.

 

[Tissue]

Again, even the demons believe in God. What do you think the difference is?

Mere belief is different than confession.

I believe that 2 + 2 = 4. I wouldn't ever confess this; that's not how it works.

I may one day, however, believe that I love a woman enough to marry her. This I would confess.

Do you know why Jesus replied to Thomas this way?

To affirm that those who will not have the opportunity of seeing will nevertheless be enabled to have faith.

Why does Paul say they are without excuse? Also notice how they "knew" God but by choice decided to not glorify God. Why is that? How does the verses above fit with universalism?

That is a portion of Scripture I do not understand. By every observation, there are people who do not believe because they very simply do not have a reason to believe.

I don't have an answer.

Non sequitur. It simply doesn't follow. What are the "good' things that the rich man received while alive? And when the rich man asked to be allowed to warn his family, why did Abraham reminded him that they have Moses and the prophets to listen to?

Oh, it does. Your question is asking me about something which is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, but may be assumed to have happened otherwise. Just as Jesus eating cheese is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, it isn't too much to assume that he ate it.

That is, if cheese existed at that time. I'm not a cheese expert.

As for the second part of your quote, 'if they do not listen to Moses, why would they listen to you?'

This is another portion of Scripture I don't entirely understand. If I were an unbeliever, and a dead relative appeared to me to warn me about the afterlife, I would think I would listen. Certainly others would.

I don't know what Jesus is getting at.

 

[LJSGM]

you fail to see anything aside from your emotionalism.

Don't down play emotions too much, without them we would all be Hitlers.

 

[Tissue]

Certain sort of love? God has agape love for us and he demands the same. Agape love is sacrificial not superficial nor is it sentimental nor sappy.

Who's talking about sentimental or sappy love?

Who's defining it?

What do you think Jesus meant when He gave us His commandment to love God with all our hearts and all of our soul? How do we attain this kind of love?

Good question. Reflection upon Him and the blessing and enabling of the Spirit, I would imagine.

 

[Hentenza]

My sympathy toward Universalism is based upon logic: I cannot see how a loving God and an eternal hell can be reconciled. This is, I think, a very common reason for those who sympathize with Universalism. To write this off as 'feelings' is to misrepresent the conviction.

What are the premises in your logical argument?

 

[LJSGM]

What are the premises in your logical argument?

Do you believe that God sends little children who don't know Jesus to hell?

 

[Hentenza]

Do you believe that God sends little children who don't know Jesus to hell?

Have they chosen God or had the opportunity to deny Him?

 

[LJSGM]

Have they chosen God or had the opportunity to deny Him?

They have not chosen God and have denied him, but they are only 6 years old? Are they going to hell to be tortured forever?

 

[b.hopeful]

What is loving God with heart soul and mind? emotionalism? Did God command "sit down, shut up and just nod"? Of course not....that would've been easy though....just teach people to bow to scripture and never reflect on it. You wouldn't need the Holy Spirit and Jesus certainly wouldn't have had to act loving to give us a model for God walking on Earth.We could all stand around and say Lord Lord and be done with it. Or maybe we are supposed to personally commune with God...that would explain the importance of prayer. And through that communion we develop a relationship...is that emotionalism?

Anyway....I'm pretty sure I have a grasp on the love of God and what it looks like. God gave me a pretty good model in his Son.

 

[Nadiine]

My sympathy toward Universalism is based upon logic: I cannot see how a loving God and an eternal hell can be reconciled. This is, I think, a very common reason for those who sympathize with Universalism. To write this off as 'feelings' is to misrepresent the conviction.

Tissue,
this is why I tackled your false perceptions of what God's love is.

When you project YOUR idea of love onto God, you presume to
then dictate what He can & can't do according to YOU.

That is the error.

Would you allow a sexually deviant pervert to sneak up
to a little girl, swipe her, take into a remote area and
molest for 4-5 hours then kill her?

If your answer is "NO WAY", then you've just made God
a monster by your standard of deciding that that isn't
love to LET a child be so horribly attacked.

Unless, you openly admit that in God's love, He allows
hurtful, negative things becuz He has an ultimate
purpose.
And admit that His ways & purposes are higher than yours
instead of exactly like yours.

 

[Nadiine]

What is loving God with heart soul and mind? emotionalism? Did God command "sit down, shut up and just nod"? Of course not....that would've been easy though....just teach people to bow to scripture and never reflect on it. You wouldn't need the Holy Spirit and Jesus certainly wouldn't have had to act loving to give us a model for God walking on Earth.We could all stand around and say Lord Lord and be done with it. Or maybe we are supposed to personally commune with God...that would explain the importance of prayer. And through that communion we develop a relationship...is that emotionalism?

Anyway....I'm pretty sure I have a grasp on the love of God and what it looks like. God gave me a pretty good model in his Son.

So then, you would also realize what a serious sin it is
to utterly reject the very Son who came & died; making such a
sacrifice.

If you see the depth of the sacrifice, you will see the severity
of the penalty for trampling such a loving gift.
It's an insult to wipe our feet on so great a sacrifice.

Hebrews 10:28-29)
28Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses
dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve
who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded
as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified,
and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

God's law DEMANDS sin be removed before entry to His domain.
Other verses tell us that those who live in those sins w/out
repentance & conversion that they will NOT inherit His
domain.
(there's no temporary clauses attached in those verses.
1 Cor 6:9-11, Gal. 5:19-21)

 

[LJSGM]

Tissue,
this is why I tackled your false perceptions of what God's love is.

When you project YOUR idea of love onto God, you presume to
then dictate what He can & can't do according to YOU.

That is the error.

Would you allow a sexually deviant pervert to sneak up
to a little girl, swipe her, take into a remote area and
molest for 4-5 hours then kill her?

If your answer is "NO WAY", then you've just made God
a monster by your standard of deciding that that isn't
love to LET a child be so horribly attacked.

Unless, you openly admit that in God's love, He allows
hurtful, negative things becuz He has an ultimate
purpose.
And admit that His ways & purposes are higher than yours
instead of exactly like yours.

except, what I want to know is, what purpose is there in torturing people for an eternity instead of lets say destroying them?

 

[CaDan]

that verse couldn't be more true today. That verse can be easily applied to universalism.

No, it doesn't. Or it could "be easily applied to Calvinism".

The reason these arguments go on and on and are essentially not resolvable is because the Scriptures contain multiple soteriologies, multiple eschatologies, and multiple messages. No matter how you attempt to squeeze them into a simple story of salvation history--a simple handbook of "How to Get to Heaven"--they will escape you.

Some, all, many, few. Works, faith. All of these are involved. There is not just one story.

 

[CaDan]

So then, you would also realize what a serious sin it is
to utterly reject the very Son who came & died; making such a
sacrifice.

If you see the depth of the sacrifice, you will see the severity
of the penalty for trampling such a loving gift.
It's an insult to wipe our feet on so great a sacrifice.

Hebrews 10:28-29)
28Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses
dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve
who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded
as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified,
and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Which, of course, is contradicted by "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

The Faith is deep and complicated and beautiful.

 

[CaDan]

Have they chosen God or had the opportunity to deny Him?

Answer the question. Or not.

Don't make me no never mind.

 

[Nadiine]

They have not chosen God and have denied him, but they are only 6 years old? Are they going to hell to be tortured forever?

Some claim that this has to do with age of accountability,
not being fully aware of "sin" and able to recieve Jesus Christ
in a knowledgable manner.

John 9:41
Jesus said to them, " If you were blind, you would have no sin;
but since you say, ' We see,' your sin remains.

However, just becuz people claim something like adultery
isn't wrong, doesn't mean they're blind & exempt from judgment.
There is also a "searing of the conscience" where people rebel
to a point where they dull their awareness over time.
(meaning, they knew what they did was sin at the start,
it doesn't make it ok for them later when it stops bothering them).

Honestly, this is not something ANYONE on ANY side can debate
becuz they do not know either way except to use opinion and
some verses that seem to touch on it.

All we do rely on is that God is JUST, holy, righteous and true.
Therefore, all His judgments are true whatever they will be for
whomever is before Him.

 

[CaDan]

you fail to see anything aside from your emotionalism.

Do you have an argument here or not?

 

[brinny]

No, it doesn't. Or it could "be easily applied to Calvinism".

The reason these arguments go on and on and are essentially not resolvable is because the Scriptures contain multiple soteriologies, multiple eschatologies, and multiple messages. No matter how you attempt to squeeze them into a simple story of salvation history--a simple handbook of "How to Get to Heaven"--they will escape you.

Some, all, many, few. Works, faith. All of these are involved. There is not just one story.

Jesus the Christ Himself said there is only One Way and that would be Him.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." ~John 14:6

 

[PT Calvinist]

What is loving God with heart soul and mind? emotionalism? Did God command "sit down, shut up and just nod"?

Did God say "Judge me all you want based on your feelings?" Did he also say "Use the Greek & Hebrew of the context of one verse and just by one verse suspect that it applies to all verses with that word?"

Or maybe we are supposed to personally commune with God...that would explain the importance of prayer. And through that communion we develop a relationship...is that emotionalism?

Aren't those commanded by scripture? How can you compare those to emotionalism tactics?

Anyway....I'm pretty sure I have a grasp on the love of God and what it looks like. God gave me a pretty good model in his Son.

That's right. So then it shouldn't matter whether or not we burn.

 

[LJSGM]

Some claim that this has to do with age of accountability,
not being fully aware of "sin" and able to recieve Jesus Christ
in a knowledgable manner.

John 9:41
Jesus said to them, " If you were blind, you would have no sin;
but since you say, ' We see,' your sin remains.

However, just becuz people claim something like adultery
isn't wrong, doesn't mean they're blind & exempt from judgment.
There is also a "searing of the conscience" where people rebel
to a point where they dull their awareness over time.
(meaning, they knew what they did was sin at the start,
it doesn't make it ok for them later when it stops bothering them).

Honestly, this is not something ANYONE on ANY side can debate
becuz they do not know either way except to use opinion and
some verses that seem to touch on it.

All we do rely on is that God is JUST, holy, righteous and true.
Therefore, all His judgments are true whatever they will be for
whomever is before Him.

I understand....

You don't want to say yes they are going to hell because you know it's not true and you don't want to say no they aren't because that would put you in the same boat as universalists.