Universalism

[Tissue]

True, biblical brothers or sisters are realted either by blood or Spirit. The ungodly are not our brothers or sisters.

To be honest, the Biblical use of 'brothers and sisters' is entirely irrelevant to the sense in which I used that word. I am emphasizing the extent to which all human beings are walking this earth in a spiritual fog of uncertainty, doing the best they can, searching for truth. Some were born with unfortunate circumstances and dispositions and are inclined to evil in such a way that they will indulge. But insofar as every man and woman is human, like us, I consider them a brother or sister.

You way over estimate the spirit of the comon man. Most are enemies of your Lord and Savior.

If they properly understood in the way I understand, they would not be so. Such problems are the fault of ignorance, and how far should one be blamed for ignorance?

Try to get them saved but don't call them family and think they are children of God until you do. Calling everyone a chil;d of god is a pantheistic approach.

Who said anything about children of God?

 

[timlamb]

LightSeaker;52424018]I understand what your saying. But for myself, I do see even the ungodly as my brothers and sisters. Why you ask? Because like myself, they were created with the God's Breath of life. So by God's own breath, I do see myself as brothers and sisters with all human beings. And from my heart and soul, I also look to them as such.

I understand what you say. I grew up with John Denver and the left over folk and hippy music that wanted to make the world a family. Sounded great but it takes people away from serving God and into serving the world. Very pantheistic and very dangerous to salvation.

Most don't even care one way or another about Jesus Christ. That does not make them enemies of Jesus Christ.

Sorry, but Yes, it does.

I can't help myself…If I see a spark of God with in the souls of others, even if they don't believe in God...I will love them as children of God. And by God's own Breath that gave all of us life, they are my brothers and sisters. Tim, my brother, you don’t need to do so, I understand your limits on seeing others as your brother and sister, but I just can’t help myself and will continue to do so. I think the world is better off that way.

They might be God's creation and in need of grace, but they are dead in spirit.

I think some might see it as more panenthistic in nature.

yep
.[/quote]

 

[Tissue]

I understand what you say. I grew up with John Denver and the left over folk and hippy music that wanted to make the world a family. Sounded great but it takes people away from serving God and into serving the world. Very pantheistic and very dangerous to salvation.

Is it really an issue, or does it merely run the risk of watering down an elitist, religious class system (the 'saved' and the 'everyone else')?

 

[LJSGM]

I can fully understand scripture, God breathed, and written and inspire by God and not have to throw out a single verse or believe what mainstream tells me even though they know in their hearts it's wrong such as that of everlasting torture.

Righty then

Good luck chuck!

 

[timlamb]

Is it really an issue, or does it merely run the risk of watering down an elitist, religious class system (the 'saved' and the 'everyone else')?

What? Pantheism? Seeing God in everything causes you to worship everything worldly. Very much against scripture and the nature of worship God calls us to.

 

[Tissue]

What? Pantheism? Seeing God in everything causes you to worship everything worldly. Very much against scripture and the nature of worship God calls us to.

I meant the 'world a family' type deal. I ignored the pantheism part, as the idea of the world as a family isn't the same thing as pantheism at all.

 

[Rajni]

I understand what your saying. But for myself, I do see even the ungodly as my brothers and sisters. Why you ask? Because like myself, they were created with the God's Breath of life. So by God's own breath, I do see myself as brothers and sisters with all human beings. And from my heart and soul, I also look to them as such.

Most don't even care one way or another about Jesus Christ. That does not make them enemies of Jesus Christ.

I can't help myself…If I see a spark of God with in the souls of others, even if they don't believe in God...I will love them as children of God. And by God's own Breath that gave all of us life, they are my brothers and sisters. Tim, my brother, you don’t need to do so, I understand your limits on seeing others as your brother and sister, but I just can’t help myself and will continue to do so. I think the world is better off that way.

"But God has shown me that I should no longer call
anyone impure or unclean." (Acts 10:28)



.
​

 

[Rajni]

God's Word is Jesus, not the Bible.
.

True that.
"In the beginning was the Word" (and not the leather-bound with lightweight, gold-trimmed paper variety either).

 

[Nadiine]

True that.
"In the beginning was the Word" (and not the leather-bound with lightweight, gold-trimmed paper variety either).

Oh back to this - now our Bible isn't God's word to man.

And we wonder where Universalism theology has its underpinnings?

How about Jesus "have you not read?" and quoting scripture after
scripture?
The writers of the NT testify that they eyewitnessed Christ
personally - or were taught by Christ and share the same
doctrines?

Go ahead and claim it's not the Word of God - that only ruins
your theology, not mine.

 

[Nadiine]

I meant the 'world a family' type deal. I ignored the pantheism part, as the idea of the world as a family isn't the same thing as pantheism at all.

it is when it sounds more like Oprah 3:16 with spiritualism than
scripture teaching.

The minute we accept the worldviews and philosophy of man (which
today comes heavily from new age guru's and PC'ers alike),
we're turning away from God's perspectives and we're on another
pathway to trouble.

 

[Nadiine]

I can fully understand scripture, God breathed, and written and inspire by God and not have to throw out a single verse or believe what mainstream tells me even though they know in their hearts it's wrong such as that of everlasting torture.

Righty then

Good luck chuck!

exactly.
But look at the theology comes from the worldview -
very interesting
One leans heavily in worldly philosophy/ new agism where
everybody is just fine the way they are.
(even tho Jesus said otherwise).

No need to be born again now despite what the Bible
says... besides, it isn't GOD, it's just a book.

 

[CaDan]

Shamelessly taken from Danny Coleman:

Just as there are multiple views of what Hell is, there are also multiple views of who goes there. Thomas Talbott explains these different viewpoints by listing three statements which, if given individually, most Christians would agree with and could find scripture to support. But, if given together, these three statements create a contradiction:

1. God is able to accomplish what He desires.
2. God desires that all people be saved.
3. Most people will not be saved.

To believe all three (as many Christians do) is to hold contradictory beliefs. Theologians have been wrestling with this tension for 2,000 years. They've generally ended up in one of three groups:

A) If you accept Statements 1 and 3, you are a Calvinist (aka an Augustinian). The Calvinist/Augustinian's refer to this doctrine as "election" or "predestination". This doctrine teaches that God predetermined who would be saved and, ergo, who would go to Hell. In order to accept Statements 1 and 3, one must conclude that God does NOT desire that all people be saved. In fact, Calvinists believe that God created most people in order to damn them to an eternity of torture and agony. This makes God appear as a cruel monster. Calvin went so far as to write that Christians in Heaven would look down upon the suffering souls in Hell with glee.

B) If you accept Statements 2 and 3, you are an Arminian (named after the theologian Arminius). Whereas most of the Protestant Reformers (Luther, et al) were Calvinist, most modern-day Western Christians are Arminian. Arminianism teaches that God desires that all people be saved, but they must choose to accept the gift of eternal life. Calvinists argue that this equates to salvation by works, since it means a man is saved based on what he does. This doctrine also brings up the question of what happens to those who never hear the Gospel, or hear it in a distorted fashion. Additionally, it makes what Jesus did seem like a grand failure (considering the He died for the sins of the world but most won't benefit from it).

C) If you accept Statements 1 and 2, you are a Christian Universalist. This is not to be confused with Universalism that sees all religions as being equal. Christian Universalism believes that God has reconciled the world to Himself through Christ Jesus. Most people will not discover this fact until they die and meet Him face to face. Then, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Hindu and the Atheist will all exclaim, "Ah, it was You!" Or, as scripture puts it, "Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."​

 

[timlamb]

1. God is able to accomplish what He desires.
2. God desires that all people be saved.
3. Most people will not be saved.
The are all true if God stays true to His character to loving allow his creation to be free.
THIS IS LIKE:
1. I am able to lock my daughter in her room until she is married.
2. I desire that she save herself for marriage.
3. I can't lock my daughter in her room until she is married.
I can do all these because I lovingly allow my daughter to chose.

 

[Tissue]

Let's take that a step further, Tim. Let's suppose you know who your daughter is going to marry, and you know that this guy is utter scum, and is going to drag her down.

Now, you have two main choices. You could choose to let her practice her free will (as, in a sense, it is her right). Or, you could keep her from marrying that man.

There's one very important variable to throw into the mix: whether or not you know that everything will end up ok, whether or not the man is scum. Let's say you know that everything will not end up ok if she marries this man; that he essentially ruins her life permanently. If you had this knowledge, you would be neither loving nor good for letting her marry that man (or, at least, doing everything in your power to stop her). But let's suppose you knew that everything will end up ok; that, even if she marries this man, she will end up getting a divorce, and while her life will hardly be the American ideal, it won't be totally gutted. In fact, let us suppose there is triumph after this marriage. With that knowledge, that everything will end up ok, you may be loving and good and still let her make her decision (though you will, of course, provide counsel).

The same applies to God.

 

[timlamb]

Let's take that a step further, Tim. Let's suppose you know who your daughter is going to marry, and you know that this guy is utter scum, and is going to drag her down.

Now, you have two main choices. You could choose to let her practice her free will (as, in a sense, it is her right). Or, you could keep her from marrying that man.

There's one very important variable to throw into the mix: whether or not you know that everything will end up ok, whether or not the man is scum. Let's say you know that everything will not end up ok if she marries this man; that he essentially ruins her life permanently. If you had this knowledge, you would be neither loving nor good for letting her marry that man (or, at least, doing everything in your power to stop her). But let's suppose you knew that everything will end up ok; that, even if she marries this man, she will end up getting a divorce, and while her life will hardly be the American ideal, it won't be totally gutted. In fact, let us suppose there is triumph after this marriage. With that knowledge, that everything will end up ok, you may be loving and good and still let her make her decision (though you will, of course, provide counsel).

The same applies to God.

How do I not let her live free?

The other thing you guys for get:
God doesn't make predictions, He isn't a fortune teller. What God tells is prophecy. That means it is the same as having happened. God doesn't tell us how He will change the future for the better, He tells us how it WILL end.

When God says that man will reject Him and chose to serve himself or satan, that is as good as done. there is a pandora's box concerning predestination here but you must understand the nature of prophecy to understand that the choice has been made, God is knows the beginning from the end because He has seen both. We still must decide but He knows our decissions.

 

[Tissue]

How do I not let her live free?

The other thing you guys for get:
God doesn't make predictions, He isn't a fortune teller. What God tells is prophecy. That means it is the same as having happened. God doesn't tell us how He will change the future for the better, He tells us how it WILL end.

Right, so the image is even stronger for my analogy, as the knowledge of God is surely greater and more solid than the knowledge of a man regarding his daughter's future, even if that knowledge is supernaturally implanted.

When God says that man will reject Him and chose to serve himself or satan, that is as good as done. there is a pandora's box concerning predestination here but you must understand the nature of prophecy to understand that the choice has been made, God is knows the beginning from the end because He has seen both. We still must decide but He knows our decissions.

That's something I've never been able to understand. If he knows our decisions and he knows that some of us will not make the right decision, why does he allow those people to exist at all?

 

[CaDan]

Open Theism itt.

Anybody else remember when that was a forbidden topic?

 

[CaDan]

From the Records of the Life of Rev. John Murray (long out of copyright and available on Google Books). A dialog with a young lady:

"Why, sir, is Jesus Christ the Saviour of any unbelievers?

No, madam.

"Why, then, should any unbeliever believe, that Jesus is his Saviour, if he be not his Saviour?"

I say he is not the Saviour of any one, until he believes.

"Then, if Jesus be not the Saviour of the unbeliever until he believes, the unbeliever is called upon to believe a lie. It appears to me, sir, that Jesus is the complete Saviour of unbelievers; and that unbelievers are called upon to believe the truth; and that, by believing they are saved, in their own apprehension, saved from all those dreadful fears, which are consequent upon a state of conscious condemnation."

No, madam; you are dreadfully, I trust not fatally, misled. Jesus never was, nor never will be, the Saviour of any unbeliever.

"Do you think Jesus is your Saviour, sir?"

I hope he is.

"Were you always a believer, sir?"

No, madam.

"Then you were once an unbeliever; that is, you once believed, that Jesus Christ was not your Saviour. Now, as you say, he never was, nor never will be, the Saviour of any unbeliever; as you were once an unbeliever, he never can be your Saviour."

He never was my Saviour till I believed.

"Did he never die for you, till you believed, sir?"​

 

[jarrettcpr]

Right, so the image is even stronger for my analogy, as the knowledge of God is surely greater and more solid than the knowledge of a man regarding his daughter's future, even if that knowledge is supernaturally implanted.



That's something I've never been able to understand. If he knows our decisions and he knows that some of us will not make the right decision, why does he allow those people to exist at all?

For your last part...

It's like me making cookies for a party. I make some very large ones and others much smaller. I know for a fact the small ones will burn and will be thrown away, but decide to cook them anyway.

Why even make small ones? Why not split the small ones and put them with the big ones, or put all the small ones together to make a big one.

I'm not necessarily a proponent of universalism, b/c Jesus himself clearly talks about hell and eternal torment, and etc, but I hope somehow everyone gets into heaven. Though, I guess people will just say that would be a fairly tale, though there are non-believers who say what we believe is a fairly tale. Go figure.

 

[timlamb]

Right, so the image is even stronger for my analogy, as the knowledge of God is surely greater and more solid than the knowledge of a man regarding his daughter's future, even if that knowledge is supernaturally implanted.



That's something I've never been able to understand. If he knows our decisions and he knows that some of us will not make the right decision, why does he allow those people to exist at all?

That has been the source of much philosophical discussion. Some have said even a bad existance is better than never getting to exist, God values even a bad life. Others argue that God put up with those who reject Him because to have a willing chosen love is so precious.

All I know is, based on past prophecy such as Christs first comming, prophecy is 100% litteral and 100% accurate. It is not prediction it is the fore telling of truth, and it is all through scripture. I have heard it said that for every one prophecy about Christ's first coming there are at least six of the second coming.
From 2 Peter 3: 3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
Many say this is already happening and as predicted peoples hearts will grow cold and apostacy is taking place, as predicted.

All I know is just because God knows does not mean it is not our choice, and we better chose right.