Universalists: How do you explain the "problem passages"?

[Cormack]

Well, I don't think that it does amount to that.

What good reason could we have for disagreeing though?

If there isn’t a 7th, 8th or 9th school to draw our information and conclusions from, then Universalism appears to be the majority opinion drawn from the theology schools that we have.

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; 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 not known."

4 expounded on the Universalist perspective (that’s the majority,) one believed in conditional immortality, and another single school taught endless punishment (these are the minority.)

And it's not as though these theological schools at that time are analogous to today's seminaries or universities anyway.

The analogy to a seminary is imperfect, like how comparing the schools to the news media is an imperfect analogy. The point of similarity however is that they each disseminated information, another point of debate clash is that they are the hubs from where information originates.

@Saint Steven pointed this out earlier...

This points to the centers, from which everything flowed.
Obviously, the western Latin church dominated eventually. And they gave us our biased Bible translation, which you call the norm, I suppose.

Replying that these schools of theology aren’t like modern schools or media outlets isn’t dealing with the areas in which they do intersect, but those areas are the entire point.

If I was trying to use the nipples of a bat to explain to you that you’re both classed as mammals, there’s no use in trying to rebut me by saying “oh yes, but do I suck the blood from off the backs of the cows?!”

Well no, we’re assuming none of us do that, but that’s not the area of debate clash in the first place. We don’t undermine analogies by attacking where they aren’t similar.

Your information showed a diversity of opinion in the early Christian world.

Here’s why I think that reply doesn’t work. Picture when it’s time to announce the election results over there in the US, oh wrong flag imagine after the ballots have been counted someone goes on TV and reads the following...

“There was a diversity of votes. Some voted democrat, some voted republican, some voted third party. That’s all these votes have shown us.”

Nobody would accept that answer, right?

 

[chad kincham]

Fortunately many means many, much or often, just as few means little. If not then it would be difficult to understand a division between the word all and all

As many as the Holy Spirt gave power to beleive they alone have believed . Not the all as in the entirety. Like as many as the father gave the Son. They alone can come for no man can come unless the the Holy Father not seen does the work of drawing them

Strong's Concordance
polus: much, many
Original Word: πολύς, πολλή, πολύ
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: polus
Phonetic Spelling: (pol-oos')
Definition: much, many
Usage: much, many; often.

Same with the word atheist . Non believers or fools . They have their own idea what makes up faith using their imagination . Like Cain who refused to get under the hearing of authority of God word .He refused to do that which was required (bring a Lamb). . .believe God. he did not exercise the faith of Christ that worked in him to both will and do the good pleasure of God as did Abe

He as those in Hebrews 6 tasted of it but saw no value in serving a God not seen .It was proved by his pagan foundation "out of sight out of mind" Plowed Abel under the fruit of the field . No favor was bestowed on Cain as it was on Abel .The first recorded martyr and first murder of the father of lies a murdering from that beginning..

It is how the word faith is used throughout the Bible. Faith of Christ the faith of God the. . power of God that works from within new creatures. Mankind is born with none not little none. The true disciples had little faith as a gift .But it was not something they were born with the first time

First of all, the KJV translated phrase, faith of Christ, should be rendered as, faith in Christ.

Jesus does not have, or need, faith.

Jesus as God, knows all things with certainty - thus there’s nothing He has to hope for, and there’s nothing He hasn’t seen - which is what faith is defined as: the substance of things HOPED for, the evidence of things UNSEEN,

Secondly, faith, which Is the gift of the Holy Spirit that we access grace through, comes from hearing the word of God per Romans 10:17, and the Holy Spirit draws men towards Jesus, but can’t drag them to salvation.

Unlike what reformed doctrine/Calvinism claims, man has freewill, and can resist the Holy Spirit as He draws them to Christ.

As Stephen said in his Acts 7 speech to the Jews, the reason they had killed the prophets God sent, and rejected and killed their Messiah who came for them, is because they resist the Holy Spirit.

Then they killed Stephen, too.

 

[chad kincham]

The

 

[chad kincham]

Universalism has no issues with those scriptures. Hopefully you will learn something about Universalism by talking to us Christian brothers. (and sisters)

I know all I need to know, TYVM, which is enough to reject it.

You don’t get to spin the meaning of scripture, by making hell into a long time-out in the corner that the damned are eventually released from, as universalists do.

It’s clear there’s a choice between everlasting life, and everlasting torment.

Therefore if the lake of fire is temporary, then heaven is only temporary.

BTW schools of theology don’t give us doctrines - the scriptures do.

I wouldn’t care if universalism was unanimous in early (or later) schools of theology, they’d all be wrong.

And our Bible waas not corrupted by the Catholic Church as you claim.

The entire New Testament was written by the Jewish apostles of Jesus, except for the contemporaneous historian and physician Luke, who doesn’t give us any doctrine, just an account of what the apostles did.

And the Jewish church at Jerusalem was the preeminent church in the first century, unlike the revisionist history of the RCC claims.

Universalism is egregious error.

 

[Der Alte]

I just threw that stuff out there. This isn`t something I`m willing to spend my time and energy on. If it was then it would have been at least a day before you heard back from me.
Britannica credible enough for you?
Talmud and Midrash - Legend and folklore

IOW you can't back up what you say. The same objection for EB. It says a lot of things about the Talmud but does not provide any examples. Here is what a Jewish source says about the Talmud. Nothing about fables and legends
What Is the Talmud? | My Jewish Learning

 

[Der Alte]

...

Hmm... not the norm?
Let's read it again. Six theological schools...
Four were Universalist, one was Annihilationist, and one was Damnationist.
What was the norm?
"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff writes :
"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; 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 not known."

This quote from "The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge" is quoted incessantly by UR-ites as if Moses himself carried it down from Mt Sinai. But other than these two sentences, Schaff-Herzog does not provide any credible, verifiable, historical evidence to back it up.

 

[RickReads]

IOW you can't back up what you say. The same objection for EB. It says a lot of things about the Talmud but does not provide any examples. Here is what a Jewish source says about the Talmud. Nothing about fables and legends
What Is the Talmud? | My Jewish Learning

I`m strugglin not to guffaw at that one. I support Israel for religeous reasons. I believe that soon all Israel will be saved. But modern Judaism is a pagan religeon developed by the enemies of Jesus after their temple was destroyed. Your Jewish sources aren`t going to tell the truth about the Talmud and the oral tradition. If I wanted too I could track down specific examples but I would be doing it to prove I can do it so not a good way to spend my time.

An Encyclopedia gives small amounts of information on any given topic. It`s not the job of EB to give you a whole book on the errors of the Talmud. I just thought that by looking at it you might realize that what I have told you about Talmud is pretty common knowledge among history buffs.

 

[RickReads]

I know all I need to know, TYVM, which is enough to reject it.

You don’t get to spin the meaning of scripture, by making hell into a long time-out in the corner that the damned are eventually released from, as universalists do.

It’s clear there’s a choice between everlasting life, and everlasting torment.

Therefore if the lake of fire is temporary, then heaven is only temporary.

BTW schools of theology don’t give us doctrines - the scriptures do.

I wouldn’t care if universalism was unanimous in early (or later) schools of theology, they’d all be wrong.

And our Bible waas not corrupted by the Catholic Church as you claim.

The entire New Testament was written by the Jewish apostles of Jesus, except for the contemporaneous historian and physician Luke, who doesn’t give us any doctrine, just an account of what the apostles did.

And the Jewish church at Jerusalem was the preeminent church in the first century, unlike the revisionist history of the RCC claims.

Universalism is egregious error.

Egregious? Faith in Catholic hell doctrine essential to salvation? If I defer reformation of my hell beliefs till the next life I believe Jesus will understand. I don`t try to win people to the Lord by threatening them with hell fire anyways.

 

[RickReads]

What good reason could we have for disagreeing though?

If there isn’t a 7th, 8th or 9th school to draw our information and conclusions from, then Universalism appears to be the majority opinion drawn from the theology schools that we have.



4 expounded on the Universalist perspective (that’s the majority,) one believed in conditional immortality, and another single school taught endless punishment (these are the minority.)



The analogy to a seminary is imperfect, like how comparing the schools to the news media is an imperfect analogy. The point of similarity however is that they each disseminated information, another point of debate clash is that they are the hubs from where information originates.

@Saint Steven pointed this out earlier...



Replying that these schools of theology aren’t like modern schools or media outlets isn’t dealing with the areas in which they do intersect, but those areas are the entire point.

If I was trying to use the nipples of a bat to explain to you that you’re both classed as mammals, there’s no use in trying to rebut me by saying “oh yes, but do I suck the blood from off the backs of the cows?!”

Well no, we’re assuming none of us do that, but that’s not the area of debate clash in the first place. We don’t undermine analogies by attacking where they aren’t similar.



Here’s why I think that reply doesn’t work. Picture when it’s time to announce the election results over there in the US, oh wrong flag imagine after the ballots have been counted someone goes on TV and reads the following...

“There was a diversity of votes. Some voted democrat, some voted republican, some voted third party. That’s all these votes have shown us.”

Nobody would accept that answer, right?

No more bat imagery please

 

[chad kincham]

Egregious? Faith in Catholic hell doctrine essential to salvation? If I defer reformation of my hell beliefs till the next life I believe Jesus will understand. I don`t try to win people to the Lord by threatening them with hell fire anyways.

What’s the universalist gospel?

Jesus came to save you from a time-out in a corner?

The Catholics didn’t invent hell - they invented a place called purgatory, or purge-a-tory where the redeemed have to go to be fully purged of sins, before they go to heaven - so they could make money selling get-out-of-purgatory tickets, called indulgences.

Read John 3 to see Jesus Himself combining proclaiming salvation along with the warning of being damned if they reject Him.

Was He a scaremonger?

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

I’d think twice before criticizing the way Jesus presented the gospel.

Shalom.

 

[RickReads]

What’s the universalist gospel?

Jesus came to save you from a time-out in a corner?

The Catholics didn’t invent hell - they invented a place called purgatory, or purge-a-tory where the redeemed have to go to be fully purged of sins, before they go to heaven - so they could make money selling get-out-of-purgatory tickets, called indulgences.

Read John 3 to see Jesus Himself combining proclaiming salvation along with the warning of being damned if they reject Him.

Was He a scaremonger?

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

I’d think twice before criticizing the way Jesus presented the gospel.

Shalom.

Telling me I criticized Jesus is a false accusation and a dishonest way to go about discussing this issue.
There aren`t any scriptures that say that I have to know what hell is like to be saved.

 

[hedrick]

What’s the universalist gospel?

Jesus came to save you from a time-out in a corner?

The Catholics didn’t invent hell - they invented a place called purgatory, or purge-a-tory where the redeemed have to go to be fully purged of sins, before they go to heaven - so they could make money selling get-out-of-purgatory tickets, called indulgences.

Read John 3 to see Jesus Himself combining proclaiming salvation along with the warning of being damned if they reject Him.

Was He a scaremonger?

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

I’d think twice before criticizing the way Jesus presented the gospel.

Shalom.

As always, I point out that there’s a big step between saying someone is condemned and saying that God is going to torture then forever.

 

[RickReads]

As always, I point out that there’s a big step between saying someone is condemned and saying that God is going to torture then forever.

Yes and he refutes with a verse that says Jesus came to save the world

 

[Albion]

If there isn’t a 7th, 8th or 9th school to draw our information and conclusions from, then Universalism appears to be the majority opinion drawn from the theology schools that we have.

It may be some sort of majority opinion among theology schools of the kind that existed then, which is not at all the equivalent of modern seminaries or universities.

These six are also all in the same geographical part of the wide expanse of Christian territory at that time.

Therefore, no norm is shown to exist among Christian people or clergy or congregations or dioceses or anything of the sort.

 

[Der Alte]

I`m strugglin not to guffaw at that one. I support Israel for religeous reasons. I believe that soon all Israel will be saved. But modern Judaism is a pagan religeon developed by the enemies of Jesus after their temple was destroyed. Your Jewish sources aren`t going to tell the truth about the Talmud and the oral tradition. If I wanted too I could track down specific examples but I would be doing it to prove I can do it so not a good way to spend my time.
An Encyclopedia gives small amounts of information on any given topic. It`s not the job of EB to give you a whole book on the errors of the Talmud. I just thought that by looking at it you might realize that what I have told you about Talmud is pretty common knowledge among history buffs.

I find this quite strange. I did a quick lookup of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article on the Talmud. It is about 15 pages long and no mention of legends or myths. And something I know about encyclopedias they almost always have a bibliography at the end of each article showing that the author didn't make everything up. Here is the bibliography from the article

Bibliography. - E. Deutsch's article on the Talmud
in the Quarterly Review, Oct. 1867 (reprinted in his Literary Remains ), is noteworthy for the great interest it aroused. For other introductions, see S. Schiller-Szinessy, articles " Midrash," " Mishnah," and " Talmud," in Ency. Brit., 9th ed.; J. Z. Lauterbach, " Mishnah," and W. Bacher, " Talmud " in the Jew. Ency.; S. Schechter, " Talmud," in Hastings' Diet. Bib., vol. v.; and also S. Funk, Entstehung des Talmuds (Leipzig, 1910). More comprehensive are the handbooks of M. 1Vlielziner, Introd. to the Talmud (Cincinnati, 1894), M. L. Rodkinson, History of the Talmud (New York, 1903), and especially H. L. Strack, Einleitung in den Talmud (Leipzig, 1908, very concise, but replete with bibliographical and other information). The works already cited in this article or in the art. Midrash, cover the most important departments of the Rabbinical literature, and may be supplemented from the critical Jewish journals, e.g. the Jewish Quarterly Review, Revue des Etudes Juives (Paris), and especially the Monatsschrift f. Gesch. u. Wissenschaft des Judentums (Breslau).
The writer desires to express his indebtedness to Mr Israel Abrahams for bibliographical and other suggestions. (S. A. C.)
Talmud - 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica - Bible Encyclopedia​

 

[Saint Steven]

Preponderance with regards to the information we have. We make choices based upon the things we do know, not the things we don’t know. So if I gave you a room of 30 people, 25 of them saying the world is round, and the remaining 5 saying it’s flat, the preponderance of opinion is that the world is round.

There might be 1000s of people outside of the sample set who believe it’s flat, but we don’t have them to inform us.

I’m writing (so far as I know) we do have those 6 schools from the area to inform us, them and not others.

Exactly.
I don't understand why there is even a disagreement about this.
The tables have turned. In the early church there was obviously a majority position for Universalism. And now it is the opposite, or worse really. Not even a denomination left to support it.

Theology schools produce pastors, pastors lead congregations.
If the majority of schools holds a doctrinal position, then the majority of pastors will hold that position and the majority of churches will hold that position. Not exactly rocket science.

 

[Saint Steven]

You don’t get to spin the meaning of scripture...

Wait, isn't that what you are doing? Here's a quote. (your spin) Claiming Jesus is NOT the Savior of all. (for shame)

"Jesus is available as savior for all, but His atonement of sins is only applied to those who believe and repent." - chad kincham

That's spin. Not what these verses plainly say.

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

1 Timothy 4:10
That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God,
who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

1 John 4:14
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

 

[RickReads]

I find this quite strange. I did a quick lookup of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article on the Talmud. It is about 15 pages long and no mention of legends or myths. And something I know about encyclopedias they almost always have a bibliography at the end of each article showing that the author didn't make everything up. Here is the bibliography from the article

Bibliography. - E. Deutsch's article on the Talmud
in the Quarterly Review, Oct. 1867 (reprinted in his Literary Remains ), is noteworthy for the great interest it aroused. For other introductions, see S. Schiller-Szinessy, articles " Midrash," " Mishnah," and " Talmud," in Ency. Brit., 9th ed.; J. Z. Lauterbach, " Mishnah," and W. Bacher, " Talmud " in the Jew. Ency.; S. Schechter, " Talmud," in Hastings' Diet. Bib., vol. v.; and also S. Funk, Entstehung des Talmuds (Leipzig, 1910). More comprehensive are the handbooks of M. 1Vlielziner, Introd. to the Talmud (Cincinnati, 1894), M. L. Rodkinson, History of the Talmud (New York, 1903), and especially H. L. Strack, Einleitung in den Talmud (Leipzig, 1908, very concise, but replete with bibliographical and other information). The works already cited in this article or in the art. Midrash, cover the most important departments of the Rabbinical literature, and may be supplemented from the critical Jewish journals, e.g. the Jewish Quarterly Review, Revue des Etudes Juives (Paris), and especially the Monatsschrift f. Gesch. u. Wissenschaft des Judentums (Breslau).
The writer desires to express his indebtedness to Mr Israel Abrahams for bibliographical and other suggestions. (S. A. C.)
Talmud - 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica - Bible Encyclopedia​

It wasn`t addressed in the encyclopedia from 109 years ago. That proves a lot. You win.

 

[Der Alte]

It wasn`t addressed in the encyclopedia from 109 years ago. That proves a lot. You win.

And it may not be addressed in the current edition there's a lot of stuff on the internet which isn't quite factual.

 

[RickReads]

And it may not be addressed in the current edition there's a lot of stuff on the internet which isn't quite factual.

Britannica is fake?

Fake news?