Why are threads on Christian universalism so popular?

[public hermit]

FWIW, my position is not so much support for UR as it is opposition to ECT

I've said the same thing. ECT is unacceptable; whatever it is, it's not that. George MacDonald's Unspoken Sermons are worth their weight in gold.

Unspoken Sermons by George MacDonald

 

[Hmm]

I'm asking rhetorical questions

I've long given up asking rhetorical questions.

What's the point?

(I'm sure I've made that joke before. But does that matter?)

 

[wendykvw]

“There was a certain hesitation on the part of the early Church to include the book of Revelation in the canonical scriptures of the New Testament. The reason for this was obviously the great difficulty of interpreting the apocalyptic symbols of the book.”

-Orthodox Church of America

 

[Hmm]

My assumption, worth the price charged, is that those annihilated would never have existed. "I never knew you". If God never knew someone, then that someone never existed. The image of Christ, IMO, remains unchanged.

It's above my pay grade too but I think one of major things that makes us the person we are are the relationships we've had and I find it hard to think that that effect and the memory and of our friends and loved ones doesn't continue into heaven. Heaven wouldn't be heaven to me if so had no memory of certain people I've know in this life. Without that I would be a fundamentally different person and it wouldn't really be me anyway.

 

[ozso]

“There was a certain hesitation on the part of the early Church to include the book of Revelation in the canonical scriptures of the New Testament. The reason for this was obviously the great difficulty of interpreting the apocalyptic symbols of the book.”

-Orthodox Church of America

That and it's not entirely certain who wrote it.

 

[wendykvw]

That and it's not entirely certain who wrote it.

I think this is interesting and I have come across it several times from different sources. Really causes one to think or at least look more into it.

“ The strongest evidence that the book of Revelation is not canonical in the Orthodox Church is that it is not publicly read in the Orthodox Church. The only exceptions to this are some Alexandrian churches and the monastery on the Isle of Patmos itself.”

Source:
Is the Book of Revelation Canonical in the Orthodox Church? - The Whole Counsel Blog

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think this is interesting and I have come across it several times from different sources. Really causes one to think or at least look more into it.

“ The strongest evidence that the book of Revelation is not canonical in the Orthodox Church is that it is not publicly read in the Orthodox Church. The only exceptions to this are some Alexandrian churches and the monastery on the Isle of Patmos itself.”

Source:
Is the Book of Revelation Canonical in the Orthodox Church? - The Whole Counsel Blog

I know that the scholar, Elaine Pagels, questions the authenticity of the book of Revelation, and surprisingly, so did Luther. According to a few sources I've seen, Luther wasn't fond of Revelation in the least and had some very negative emotions about it:

“ … to my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character...

Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.”
​

I'd have to check into it more, too, in order to see if it's a factual statement, but if Luther rejected it, maybe we can too? Maybe we should? It would certainly alleviate a lot of ECT type headaches that so many people seem to have had. (I've never had those headaches, but I can understand the concern of those who have).

Then again, Revelation has been a favorite book in the Bible for me, so letting it go won't be easy.

 

[Aussie Pete]

But how could a tree contain knowledge of good and evil? My point regarding the dogs is that it's a metaphor. Revelation if full of them. Like Jesus being a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes.

You need to give some credit to God for being able to do as He pleases. If He wants to put Life into one tree and knowledge into another, who are we to argue?

 

[Aussie Pete]

I wonder if this discussion would be better served by finding out how the second temple Jews understood the word that we have translated saved in the English translation. When I read I see the word saved used more than one way, Jesus healing someone would sometimes say they were saved and all he did was heal them. We use the word to be someone who has accepted Jesus and follows him and is now going to heaven. Maybe they did not think that way, maybe it’s not a choice between heaven or hell. When the UR camp says Jesus is the savior of the world it doesn’t have to be everyone is going to heaven. Maybe it’s more like Jesus paid the price for all no one is going to be eternally dammed but not all get the same rewards. I personally see it not as a heaven or hell offer but a offer to be part of the family of God or those who will be subjects of the Kingdom reign of God.Jesus talked a number of times about a king who ruled and those he ruled over . Or when He needed money to pay the tax and he asked his disciples who pays the tax ? The Kings kids or those who are subjects of the king, or the parable of the ruler who went away and gave his servants money and those who multiplied it they became ruler’s over cities.I think Jesus was hinting at what was to come. He already paid the price for everyone but not all will be part of his rule and rein as family. Some will be thrown in prison till every last penny is paid. So maybe we need to understand how saved was used in the second temple Jew mind.

Yes, the word "saved" has lost a lot of its meaning. It's become code for going to heaven when you die. It's the reason for another hot topic, OSAS or being able to lose salvation.

The emphasis should be on being born again and on the Kingdom of God. "Saved" also means "delivered". Christians are those who are born again. They should also be progressively delivered from those things that hinder their walk with Christ and their effectiveness in God's kingdom. This is the "salvation of the soul" mentioned by Peter and James. And yes, this is completely off track!

 

[returntosender]

Because as a Christian it is so unbelievable.

 

[ozso]

You need to give some credit to God for being able to do as He pleases. If He wants to put Life into one tree and knowledge into another, who are we to argue?

Or maybe the precious "lake of fire", the damnationist golden boy, is just a metaphor.

 

[RickReads]

Or maybe the precious "lake of fire", the damnationist golden boy, is just a metaphor.

I intend to look into that. Have you?

 

[ozso]

I intend to look into that. Have you?

Yes. And I've read and heard it gone over. It's a matter of examining how the word fire is used throughout the Bible. God is a consuming fire. You will be baptized with fire. Everyone will be salted with fire and so on. I also take note that Revelation is the only book in the Bible that says anything about the lake of fire. Nothing has ever been proven about it everyone's satisfaction of course. But many I think aren't even willing to try seeing it any other way than a literal lake of fire people will be tormented in for eternity. And I'm not 100% certain it isn't.

 

[Jipsah]

Seems to me tha the Revelation has been the mainstay of heresiarchs for a long time. It's almost a biblical Rorschach test, everyone comes away with their own notions of what it means. I refused to teach it to my Sunday School kids, who were keen to read about monsters and demons and all that. The whole nature of our Lord as described in the Revelation is radically different than He is described in the rest of the New Testament, and I didn't want the young'uns confused.

 

[RickReads]

Seems to me tha the Revelation has been the mainstay of heresiarchs for a long time. It's almost a biblical Rorschach test, everyone comes away with their own notions of what it means. I refused to teach it to my Sunday School kids, who were keen to read about monsters and demons and all that. The whole nature of our Lord as described in the Revelation is radically different than He is described in the rest of the New Testament, and I didn't want the young'uns confused.

Yes, He kinda acts like the God found in the Old Testament dont He.

 

[wendykvw]

I know that the scholar, Elaine Pagels, questions the authenticity of the book of Revelation, and surprisingly, so did Luther. According to a few sources I've seen, Luther wasn't fond of Revelation in the least and had some very negative emotions about it:

“ … to my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character...

Everyone may form his own judgment of this book; as for myself, I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.”
​

I'd have to check into it more, too, in order to see if it's a factual statement, but if Luther rejected it, maybe we can too? Maybe we should? It would certainly alleviate a lot of ECT type headaches that so many people seem to have had. (I've never had those headaches, but I can understand the concern of those who have).

Then again, Revelation has been a favorite book in the Bible for me, so letting it go won't be easy.

I have read the same about Luther:

"Luther considered Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to be "disputed books", which he included in his translation but placed separately at the end in his New Testament published in 1522. "

Source:Luther's Antilegomena

 

[Saint Steven]

Also many consider the account of Adam and Eve and the serpent and the tree to be symbolic.

That's a good point for discussion.
If the account of Adam and Eve and the serpent and the tree are symbolic, how does that align with the Fall of humankind and the one transgression that caused it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have read the same about Luther:

"Luther considered Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to be "disputed books", which he included in his translation but placed separately at the end in his New Testament published in 1522. "

Source:Luther's Antilegomena

Personally, I don't think I'll be giving up the book of Revelation any time soon. It's one of the reasons I "still" believe in the Christian faith. Besides, the issue over ECT or not-ECT has never been a big one for me, probably because unlike a number of others here on CF and elsewhere I wasn't raised in a Fundamentalist, ECT minded family.

Actually, I think some of the reason for the above is because when I was a kid and before I really understood Christianity and the Bible, my mom and dad barely made us darken the door of the local PCUSA church. If I remember correctly, the minister there---of the few dozen times I heard him preach---never broached the topic of Hell in any shape or form. Like ever. And that approach fit very well with the fact that we also didn't read the Bible in my family, nor did we really go to Sunday School. Like ever. So, being that I didn't read Revelation or anything that Jesus or Paul had to say on the subject of 'Hell,' I remained safely aloof from any possibility of being worried over ECT.

Later, (at age 17) when I first began to engage the Bible seriously (and I became a Christian), I went with a friend to a Southern Baptist church, but even then I was always aware of interpretive issues I had with some of the more literalist type of readings one could have on various topics. Let's just say I couldn't get on board with the Baptist pastor's preaching on a 'rapture,' among other things. However, I can say that upon becoming familiar with the concept of 'Worms not dying and Unquenchable Fire,' the possibility of any kind of Metaphysical Demise did become a little more concerning to me at that point ...

 

[Leaf473]

It's almost a biblical Rorschach test, everyone comes away with their own notions of what it means.

Very interesting way to look at The Book of Revelation!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Seems to me tha the Revelation has been the mainstay of heresiarchs for a long time. It's almost a biblical Rorschach test, everyone comes away with their own notions of what it means. I refused to teach it to my Sunday School kids, who were keen to read about monsters and demons and all that. The whole nature of our Lord as described in the Revelation is radically different than He is described in the rest of the New Testament, and I didn't want the young'uns confused.

Is it radically different? Or is Revelation just a more prolonged explanation than what we find from either Paul, Peter or the Gospel writers? Personally, I think it's the latter.

So, in your Sunday School lessons, how did the kids take to your teaching on those "Worms and Fire" bits?