Universalism

[red77]

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

What notes? Prior to Augustine, Constantine etc it was hardly "unorthodox" as Tissue has ably explained. What info have you got to rebut this?

 

[Hentenza]

He can destroy what he creates, and if he can't destroy it, how can he torture it for all eternity?



26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the LORD will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!

Nope....

Yep!!! What is in your heart?

; 23:6;

6 Surely goodness and love will follow me
all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the LORD
forever.

Ok, we CAN have everlasting life, I didn't say that we couldn't, but only if we're not destroyed. Spiritually speaking only if God's "life" is in us.

But you said that everlasting death is the opposite to everlasting life. If that is the case then you can't have one without the other if we are to spend everlasting life with God.

49:7-9;

7 No man can redeem the life of another
or give to God a ransom for him-

8 the ransom for a life is costly,
no payment is ever enough- 9 that he should live on forever
and not see decay.

Ummm... I think this is the opposite of what you wanted....

No, it is talking about man not being able to redeem man or to give God a ransom for man. Only God can pay the ransom for eternal life.

Ecclesiastes 12:7

7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

This too...

The spirit does return to God which applies the judgment of everlasting punishment.

; Daniel 12:2-3;

2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Doesn't prove everlasting torture or that God can not destroy us.

So do you simply change the meaning of everlasting depending on the use? Everlasting is forever in both uses.

Matthew 25:46;

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Already covered...

I only included it because it is the NT quote of Daniel. Matthew certainly understood the meaning of everlasting.

and 1 Corinthians 15:12-19

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

Nope....

Are the dead raised only in body? These verses are complimentary to the Daniel and Matthew verses that I quoted above. Maybe I should have put these before the others to clarify the sequence. First we physically die then we are resurrected either at the first or the second resurrection. Those that are believers will go to everlasting life (first resurrection) and those that die in unbelief will go to everlasting punishment (second resurrection). There is nothing in these verses or any others to support annihilation.

 

[Stryder06]

A point well-taken. I am sympathetic toward my fellow human, however, and think that, once they see the way the world and universe and God and Jesus and eschatology works, and properly understand what was done for them, they will believe and be saved out of choice. All of them. I think that those who die without belief in Christ do so solely out of ignorance, even if it appears that they are being willfully and mindfully wicked.

Of course, that is the sort of thing I cannot prove. It depends upon how you (or anyone else) looks at humanity. There are some wicked people, to be sure. The question is, what drives that wickedness?

Honestly it would be a beautiful thing if everyone would turn to God, but the sad thing is that that won't happen. Christ will, before He returns, declare the holy holy still, and the wicked wicked still. This is the end of all, the course has been set and however one chooses to be that's how they will be.

The wicked will not remain wicked because they are forced to be that way, they will be wicked because they will have choosen that over God, and the only thing that would convert them would be for God to force their will and make them love Him.

Before He returns Christ will do everything in His power, outside of forcing the will, to convert the unsaved. There will be no shadow of a doubt as to the reason why one is saved or lost. The sentences will be just and it will be according to the decision made by the individual.

There are people, who no matter how plainly it is laid out for them, will reject Christ because they do not want to change accordingly. They prefer to wallow in sin. They have laid up their treasure on this earth.

Think of it like this, before Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed, Lot's entire family was dragged out of the city by the two angels. They were safe, saved from the destruction that was happening behind them, but Lots wife refused to accept that salvation. She was physically separated from the city, but her heart remained there. Her true love was shown. She desired to be destroyed with her things than to live without them and as such suffered that fate. It was her choice.

The end time will be no different. The wicked will harbor no feelings of guilt or remorse for their actions. They will despise God for being who He is and for knowing that they have been justly sentenced, but they will never love Him. If they don't take the time to love Him now, then they wouldn't take the time to love Him later. Eternity would literally be a living hell for them, and they would welcome and embrace death over living forever with the God that created them.

 

[Hentenza]

here's a better question... one that's been avoided else where.... What is the purpose in torturing people forever compared to just destroying them like the bible says will happen?

the bible doesn't support annihilation. BTW- I thought this thread was about universalism.

 

[Stryder06]

here's a better question... one that's been avoided else where.... What is the purpose in torturing people forever compared to just destroying them like the bible says will happen?

Amen sister.

 

[Hentenza]

True. And as God, Christ also is with out bounds nor is limited by beliefs or even by theology.

.

Really? Can God go against His very nature?

 

[Hentenza]

How so? I believe that an almighty loving God could bring all people into the fold and a knowledge of the truth without forcing them. You haven't answered my question about how it's loving to force life onto creatures with eternal hell as a default setting. Why?

I did answer your question. How will God bring people that have chosen not to love Him into His fold?

 

[preistsplace]

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?

to signify a higher rank after all all everyone in a kingdom cannot be kings and preists... until God Becomes all in all that is

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

highly unlikely

 

[Stryder06]

How so? I believe that an almighty loving God could bring all people into the fold and a knowledge of the truth without forcing them. You haven't answered my question about how it's loving to force life onto creatures with eternal hell as a default setting. Why?

All people will be brought into a knowledge of the truth, but it doesn't mean they have to accept it.

People willingly drink and smoke knowing that it damages their bodies. People with particular health conditions will continue to indulge in activities that will cause their condition to deteriorate rapidly and bring about death just because they don't want to give up those things they enjoy.

Christ didn't create people with hell as an alternative, He created people so that they could spend eternity with Him in heaven. Consider the fact that Christ knowing He would have to die to save this fallen race, still decided to create us. That is love.

Hell isn't meant for us, and no one has to be lost. But God won't stop people from joining in with the devil if that is what they want. The life now is saturated with glitter to cover up the dross that lies beneath, while heave in all its glory waits. But people want the here and now with its passing pleasures than that which is to come with its eternal beauty and security.

That isn't God's fault. It's a result of selfishness and a refusal to accept Christ. As such their punishment is brought upon them by their own hand.

 

[Nadiine]

Originally Posted by LightSeaker

True. And as God, Christ also is with out bounds nor is limited by beliefs or even by theology.
​

God IS with bounds... bounds HE sets for Himself.

We are told directly that "God cannot lie".
Lying is out of bounds for God becuz HE CANNOT SIN.

This goes with the rest of His attributes.
He cannot NOT be Just. Or give justice for evil.
That is out of His bounds.

We don't limit Him, but He chooses to limit Himself
by His own constraints set (due to who He is)
A Holy, infinite, perfect GOD who opposes all evil.

This has nothing to do with "power" or ability,
it has everything to do with who God is.
(which universalists "universally" botch in His
character/attributes as they project onto God
what THEY think love is/justice is/peace is/
restoration is/ etc. so then God HAS to do
what they think that means to them).

These are the limitations you guys continue to
place onto God to confine Him in your self
made boxes.
YOU are limiting God, not us and not sinners
​

 

[preistsplace]

the bible doesn't support annihilation. BTW- I thought this thread was about universalism.

actually you find much more support for annihilation than you do for eternal torment

 

[red77]

Which is why forced love is no love at all.

Whoever said it had to be forced? Is a loving parent cruel to chastise their child when it's done for concern for their development and wellbeing?

 

[red77]

God IS with bounds... bounds HE sets for Himself.

We are told directly that "God cannot lie".
Lying is out of bounds for God becuz HE CANNOT SIN.

This goes with the rest of His attributes.
He cannot NOT be Just. Or give justice for evil.
That is out of His bounds.

We don't limit Him, but He chooses to limit Himself
by His own constraints set (due to who He is)
A Holy, infinite, perfect GOD who opposes all evil.

This has nothing to do with "power" or ability,
it has everything to do with who God is.
(which universalists "universally" botch in His
character/attributes as they project onto God
what THEY think love is/justice is/peace is/
restoration is/ etc. so then God HAS to do
what they think that means to them).

These are the limitations you guys continue to
place onto God to confine Him in your self
made boxes.
YOU are limiting God, not us and not sinners
[/indent]

You are the one who limits God.
You are the one who tells us that it's impossible for God to reconcile all of what He creates.
You are the one who puts the power of God into a little theological box.
The irony is overwhelming....

 

[Stryder06]

-snip- There is nothing in these verses or any others to support annihilation.

Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

Proverbs 2:22 But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and the transgressors shall be rooted out of it

Psalms 104:35 Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.

Those verses seem to indicate that the wicked shall indeed be annihilated

 

[Tissue]

What are the premises in your logical argument?

1) God exists
2) God is loving (that is, he desires that all creation be rendered good)
3) All creation is not good
4) Humans were created by God
5) Humans are not good
6) Humans are a subject of God's love
7) God is omnipotent (that is, he possesses every power that it is logically possible for him to possess)
8) God is omniscient (that is, he knows all things that are logically possible for him to know)
9) God is entirely good
10) Jesus' death enabled salvation
11) God would have all be saved
12) Some are saved without willing it (infants, the mentally handicapped, etc)
13) If there is a way to bring it about that all can be saved, God knows how to do it, God has the power to bring it about, and God would bring it about
14) It is not inconsistent with God's attributes to bring it about that all are saved
15) Thus, all are saved

This is sketchy at best; I'm sure there are a few holes that need to be plugged up (that is, missed premises).

 

[red77]

I did answer your question. How will God bring people that have chosen not to love Him into His fold?

You didn't answer my question at all. How was it loving to force life onto creatures with your traditional hell as a default setting? Please answer!
Regarding your own question I'm not of the opinion that every non Christian is willingly 'choosing' to reject God. In fact I see it as rather a smug and self righteous position to judge all those who don't believe as being so.

 

[Tissue]

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.

Unless, of course, there are extenuating circumstances. What those circumstances are, I know not.

Your argument is exactly what I am fighting against. The 'love' you are referring to is in every way weaker than the love I affirm that God truly possesses.

 

[LJSGM]

Yep!!! What is in your heart?

How does that prove that God can not destroy us?

But you said that everlasting death is the opposite to everlasting life. If that is the case then you can't have one without the other if we are to spend everlasting life with God.

I still don't understand you.

You can have everlasting life without death, and you can have everlasting death, without life.

No, it is talking about man not being able to redeem man or to give God a ransom for man. Only God can pay the ransom for eternal life.

Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death"

The spirit does return to God which applies the judgment of everlasting punishment.

This doesn't make much sense to me either... Are you saying when the spirit (which is not the soul) returns to God that he is torturing them within himself for an eternity

So do you simply change the meaning of everlasting depending on the use? Everlasting is forever in both uses.

I didn't change the meaning. It means dead... forever...

I only included it because it is the NT quote of Daniel. Matthew certainly understood the meaning of everlasting.

As do I...

Are the dead raised only in body? These verses are complimentary to the Daniel and Matthew verses that I quoted above. Maybe I should have put these before the others to clarify the sequence. First we physically die then we are resurrected either at the first or the second resurrection. Those that are believers will go to everlasting life (first resurrection) and those that die in unbelief will go to everlasting punishment (second resurrection). There is nothing in these verses or any others to support annihilation.

Acts 24:15
and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

 

[red77]

All people will be brought into a knowledge of the truth, but it doesn't mean they have to accept it.

People willingly drink and smoke knowing that it damages their bodies. People with particular health conditions will continue to indulge in activities that will cause their condition to deteriorate rapidly and bring about death just because they don't want to give up those things they enjoy.

Christ didn't create people with hell as an alternative, He created people so that they could spend eternity with Him in heaven. Consider the fact that Christ knowing He would have to die to save this fallen race, still decided to create us. That is love.

Hell isn't meant for us, and no one has to be lost. But God won't stop people from joining in with the devil if that is what they want. The life now is saturated with glitter to cover up the dross that lies beneath, while heave in all its glory waits. But people want the here and now with its passing pleasures than that which is to come with its eternal beauty and security.

That isn't God's fault. It's a result of selfishness and a refusal to accept Christ. As such their punishment is brought upon them by their own hand.

Who do you think wouldn't accept it once they'd been confronted with the fact that their very existence was own to God? How could anyone refuse to accept it? A lot of people hope for something more than this one earthly existence, is not being a born again believer equatable to conscious rejection in your view?

Yes, people live unhealthily in a lot of ways and make many bad decisions in life. I should know, I'm one of 'em! That doesn't mean to say that everyone can't be redeemed.

And without wishing to cause offence you're rather naive if you think that in general people 'gloss over the dross' in life. For many people having the "gloss" isn't even an option...

 

[Hentenza]

Whoever said it had to be forced? Is a loving parent cruel to chastise their child when it's done for concern for their development and wellbeing?

God, or a parent, would only be cruel if they forced a person to love them. God sometimes works through tribulations, just like a parent, but some decide on their own not to listen. God has revealed Himself not just in scripture but also in nature. The people that reject God's love are without excuse. God would actually be a pretty bad parent if He condoned (without punishment) the bad actions of His children, don't you think?

Let me ask you, why would God force His love on those that do not want to love Him?