Would you prefer it if “Christian universalism” were true?

[sawdust]

Confess: ἐξομολογήσηται (exomologēsētai) 1843: to agree, confess - Usage: (a) I consent fully, agree out and out, (b) I confess, admit, acknowledge (cf. the early Hellenistic sense of the middle: I acknowledge a debt), (c) I give thanks, praise.

1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

I would encourage you to confess your sin if needed but I certainly hope you don't believe in it.

 

[ozso]

I would encourage you to confess your sin if needed but I certainly hope you don't believe in it.

I removed that after I saw I was basically repeating another post.

Isn't confessing sin believing that it is sin and therefore a matter of repentance? I'm not seeing how confessing/acknowledging and believing are mutually exclusive.

 

[ozso]

Do you see any acknowledgment in there of Him being Saviour? Let me show you some others who acknowledged Jesus is Lord and what Jesus had to say about them.

Matt.7:21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

There is no redemption for evil only eternal separation.

I confess, that is a good argument.

 

[sawdust]

I removed that after I saw I was basically repeating another post.

Isn't confessing sin believing that it is sin and therefore a matter of repentance? I'm not seeing how confessing/acknowledging and believing are mutually exclusive.

They don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive but they are not the same thing. You can acknowledge a rightful leader but it doesn't always mean you believe in them.

 

[sawdust]

I confess, that is a good argument.

... but do you believe it.

 

[ozso]

They don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive but they are not the same thing. You can acknowledge a rightful leader but it doesn't always mean you believe in them.

True. But bending the knee means you're submitting to them.

 

[ozso]

... but do you believe it.

While I think Matthew 7:21-23 is a good argument, I'm fairly sure someone could come up with a good counter argument. As I see it the debate continues and my mind is not made up.

 

[Saint Steven]

So what was the reason the gospel was preached to the dead? Go back a few verses. It was so the separation between the life of debauchery that leads to death and the life of godliness that leads to life could be plainly seen even by human standards and they can be judged, not saved. 1Pet.4:6

How many of those preached to had never heard the gospel before? Or had no idea who Christ was, or what he had done for them?

The same is true today. Countless billions have gone to the afterlife with no knowledge of Christ. I believe they will meet him there. And that they will be greeted with open arms, not a sword. Something like this...

(parody)

"Welcome, my child. (big hug) Before you come in, there are a few things we need to discuss..." - Jesus (or Abraham on Jesus day off. - lol)

 

[Saint Steven]

You forgot to bold "all who belong to Him."

1Cor.15:23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

All things are his. Everything and everyone. (Romans 11:36)

Saint Steven said: ↑
"... all will be made alive. But each in turn..."

 

[Saint Steven]

Do you see any acknowledgment in there of Him being Saviour? Let me show you some others who acknowledged Jesus is Lord and what Jesus had to say about them.

Matt.7:21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Now you are splitting hairs. How can Jesus be Lord and not be savior?
Those in your citation were not allowed to enter in their current condition. This agrees with UR. No one gets an automatic pass. Jesus said EVERYONE will be salted with fire. (Mark 9:49)

Saint Steven said: ↑
Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

 

[Saint Steven]

There is no redemption for evil only eternal separation.

If that is universally true, then there is no hope for any of us. Very sad.

Did Jesus die to save us from God?

 

[ozso]

Now you are splitting hairs. How can Jesus be Lord and not be savior?
Those in your citation were not allowed to enter in their current condition. This agrees with UR. No one gets an automatic pass. Jesus said EVERYONE will be salted with fire. (Mark 9:49)

Saint Steven said: ↑
Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus saying "get thee behind me Satan" to Peter just popped into my head.

 

[Saint Steven]

They don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive but they are not the same thing. You can acknowledge a rightful leader but it doesn't always mean you believe in them.

Hairsplitting again. It does mean that in this definition. Openly, whole-heartedly, without reservation... (get it?)

1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

 

[Saint Steven]

Jesus saying "get thee behind me Satan" to Peter just popped into my head.

Interesting.
Peter's seeming loyal declaration was undermining the acknowledgment of WHO Christ was. Jesus had just asked them, "Who do men say that I am?" (if I remember correctly) Then Peter came back with the right answer. (and Rome crowned him Pope #1) - lol

Saint Steven said: ↑
Now you are splitting hairs. How can Jesus be Lord and not be savior?
Those in your citation were not allowed to enter in their current condition. This agrees with UR. No one gets an automatic pass. Jesus said EVERYONE will be salted with fire. (Mark 9:49)

Saint Steven said: ↑
Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

 

[Saint Steven]

So for everyone who isn’t a believer in the universal reconciliation of all things, would you prefer that universalism were true?

A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.

Interesting that the negative responses seem to all revolve around claims that Universalism is not true. Which completely sidesteps the question. As if to say, "No, I wouldn't prefer it, because it isn't true."

It seems that they simply can't fathom the possibility. So complete is the brainwashing of our youth, to not even consider such a "preposterous" idea.

God is love. If you refuse to believe that, he will incinerate you. And his church will say you are to blame. What's wrong with this picture? - lol

 

[ozso]

Interesting.
Peter's seeming loyal declaration was undermining the acknowledgment of WHO Christ was. Jesus had just asked them, "Who do men say that I am?" (if I remember correctly) Then Peter came back with the right answer. (and Rome crowned him Pope #1) - lol

Saint Steven said: ↑
Now you are splitting hairs. How can Jesus be Lord and not be savior?
Those in your citation were not allowed to enter in their current condition. This agrees with UR. No one gets an automatic pass. Jesus said EVERYONE will be salted with fire. (Mark 9:49)

Saint Steven said: ↑
Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

What I was thinking is that even though Jesus spoke so harshly to Peter, calling him Satan, not evil-doer, but Satan himself, it didn't mean Peter was condemned.

 

[Albion]

It seems that they simply can't fathom the possibility. So complete is the brainwashing of our youth, to not even consider such a "preposterous" idea.

Something's wrong with that theory. Almost the whole of the Church has, for the better part of two millennia, discounted Universalism on Scriptural, traditional, and rational grounds. All the theologians, Bible experts and etc. But now you're saying that anyone who still doesn't think Universalism to be true has been "brainwashed?"

By that reasoning, the more that any proposition is shown to be true, the more that anyone who agrees with the findings has to have been deceived.

 

[Albion]

What I was thinking is that even though Jesus spoke so harshly to Peter, calling him Satan, not evil-doer, but Satan himself, it didn't mean Peter was condemned.

Of course it did not. Jesus was stern and serious but not saying that Peter literally WAS Satan. It was a turn of phrase on his part, just like some of the things we say ourselves.

Why did Jesus say to Peter, “Get behind me Satan”? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Cormack]

But now you're saying that anyone who still doesn't think Universalism to be true has been "brainwashed?"

I believe @Saint Steven was saying the refusal by many even to participate in a hypothetical in which universalism were true shows they’re brainwashed.

I suspect whether or not it’s textbook brainwashing wasn’t meant to be the point, it’s just the darnedest thing that many users jumping into the topic can’t or won’t do the bare minimum and contribute to the whole premise of the thread.

It’s more like a struggle session to some people, and that’s an awful state to be in.

 

[Albion]

I believe @Saint Steven was saying the refusal by many even to participate in a hypothetical in which universalism were true shows they’re brainwashed.

You might be right, but that's not what was written there, and there's nothing ambiguous about what is there.