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

[Cormack]

Like I said, that is a dangerous game to play.

I don’t see anything dangerous about exposing a strawman (which is a falsehood,) nor do I see anything dangerous or devilish about being able to entertain complex ideas in a way that the people who hold those ideas find fair and respectful.

Now what might be devilish and dangerous is committing informal logical fallacies (repeatedly,) having such a hard heart that you can’t entertain ideas that aren’t your own, in addition to fabricating the position of people you don’t agree with so that they are easier to defame and argue against.

 

[ozso]

I got you beat on that one. . .and I consider it a blessing.

There are some things I kind of wish I had never heard of, but that's not one of them.

 

[ozso]

Nope. . .much is clearly stated, no reasoning needed.

"All who reject the Son. . .remain under God's wrath." (John 3:36)

"All those who do not believe in the Son are condemned already." (John 3:18)

Damnationism, antihalationism, reconciliationism etc.

"No one comes to Jesus unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65)

Catholicism, Protestantism, Calvinism, Arminianism etc.

"Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." (Romans 4:3)

"However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited to him as righteousness." (Romans 4:5)

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can
boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Lordship salvation, free grace etc.

Etc., etc., etc.

Indeed.

 

[Clare73]

I don’t see anything dangerous about exposing a strawman (which is a falsehood,) nor do I see anything dangerous or devilish about being able to entertain complex ideas in a way that the people who hold those ideas find fair and respectful.

Now what might be devilish and dangerous is committing informal logical fallacies (repeatedly,) having such a hard heart that
you can’t entertain ideas that aren’t your own,

"Nice" euphemism for contra-Biblical thinking.

in addition to fabricating the position of people you don’t agree with so that they are easier to defame and argue against.

It's dangerous to seek ways to overthrow and wiggle one's way around authoritative NT teaching regarding
sin not being forgiven even in the next life (Matthew 12:32)--no universal reconciliation,
burning of the tares/weeds (Matthew 13:39)
unquenchable fire for unforgiven sin (Mark 9:47-48)
burning of the chaff with unquenchable fire (Luke 3:17),
no eternal life, only wrath for those who reject Christ (John 3:36).

The danger being to your spiritual life. . .and faith. . .evidence of which I'm already seeing in some.

 

[ozso]

I find the extreme views of both questionable. Both eternal punishing and the no consequence for sin view of universalism.

I find both to be unreasonable and dismissive of those who question it.

Secular universalism believes in no consequences. Christian universalism teaches that there are indeed consequences and that hell does exist, the same as the rest of Christianity. It's just that in their view hell is a place of correction.

 

[Clare73]

Damnationism, antihalationism, reconciliationism etc.
Catholicism, Protestantism, Calvinism, Arminianism etc.
Lordship salvation, free grace etc.
Indeed.

You're confusing unbelief with lack of clarity.

 

[Cormack]

"Nice" euphemism for contra-Biblical thinking.

Thank you. The rest of your reply is simple presuppositionalism around Bible verses in an effort to prove your doctrines, which nobody asked for. In fact I’ve written against people doing that in the topic for some time now, since that’s not the purpose of the thread.

Respectfully you can return that point about “did God really say?” back to the Kingdom Hall, where it most often inhabits.

Your presuppositional material isn’t the purpose of the topic and I’ve made that clear from page one.

 

[Clare73]

Secular universalism believes in no consequences. Christian universalism teaches that there are indeed consequences and that hell does exist, the same as the rest of Christianity. It's just that in their view hell is a place of correction.

Substituting their preference for the word of God.

It's never called "correction" in the NT. It's called
condemnation (judgment against),
damnation (ruin, not "correction"),
second death (from which there is no reprieve, Revelation 20:14-15, Revelation 20:10).

There is no Biblical reason to deny the above authoritative NT teaching, other than unbelief.

 

[Clare73]

Thank you. The rest of your reply is simple presuppositionalism around Bible verses in an effort to prove your doctrines, which nobody asked for. In fact I’ve written against people doing that in the topic for some time now, since that’s not the purpose of the thread.

Respectfully you can return that point about “did God really say?” back to the Kingdom Hall, where it most often inhabits.

Not quite. . .it was "Hath God said. . ."

Don't know anything about "Kingdom Hall" and what "inhabits" there.

Your presuppositional material isn’t the purpose of the topic and I’ve made that clear from page one.

It addresses your point, and goes to the requested "rationale" of the OP as to why I picked "no."

 

[Cormack]

It addresses your point, and goes to the requested "rationale" of the OP as to why I picked "no."

Until you’re prepared to do the supposedly unbiblical exercise of assuming universalism were true, you aren’t actually choosing your preference between two options, you aren’t allowing one of the two to be an option. You have some kind of inbuilt distaste for assuming the truth of universalism.

You literally can’t assume a preference between two options if you refuse to entertain the truth of both options first.

 

[Cormack]

Not quite. . .it was "Hath God said. . ."

I hope you’re a child with a reply like that

 

[ozso]

.
It's never called "correction" in the NT. It's called
It's never called "correction" in the NT. It's called
condemnation (judgment against),
damnation (ruin, not "correction"),
second death (from which there is no reprieve, Revelation 20:14-15, Revelation 20:10).

There is no Biblical reason to deny the above authoritative NT teaching, other than unbelief.

You're right, in the NT it isn't called "correction" or "condemnation" or "damnation" for that matter. It's called something in Greek that can be translated into English as those words. I've read and heard studies on that, but I don't remember the particulars well enough to write them down at the moment.

What I have to wonder is why are there dedicated Christian scholars and theologians who have found problems in translation and traditional doctrine, if none exists? Why were words I know to be Gehenna and Sheol etc collectively translated as "Hell"? Why is it that neither Moses nor a single Prophet, all of whom described numerous punishments and judgements, never described a place of eternal torment?

There's lots of legitimate questions that I'd have to shut my mind to in order to pretend they don't exist.

 

[Clare73]

Until you’re prepared to do the supposedly unbiblical exercise of assuming universalism were true, you aren’t actually choosing your preference between two options, you aren’t allowing one of the two to be an option. You have some kind of
inbuilt distaste for assuming the truth of universalism.

PRECISELY!!!

It's called faith in the word of God written, which universalism is NOT.

You literally can’t assume a preference between two options if you refuse to entertain the truth of both options first.

That is dancing with the devil.

Did Jesus "entertain the truth" of Satan's "options" in Matthew 4:3-10. . .WHY NOT?

Did Jesus "entertain the truth" of Peter's "option" in Matthew 16:23. . .WHY NOT?

When you understand what that is about, you may be able to understand what your "options" are about.

 

[Cormack]

that is dancing with the devil.

Then you aren’t taking part in the spirit of the topic, you tried to say you were in post #330, but you’re not.

You refuse to presuppose any view that isn’t your own, for which you won’t take up the exercise upon which the topic is based.

You can see yourself out any time

 

[Clare73]

I hope you’re a child with a reply like that

Indeed! . . .a believing child of God.

Are you?

 

[ozso]

PRECISELY!!!

It's called faith in the word of God written, which universalism is NOT.

That is dancing with the devil.

Did Jesus "entertain the truth" of Satan's "options" in Matthew 4:3-10. . .WHY NOT?

Did Jesus "entertain the truth" of Peter's "option" in Matthew 16:23. . .WHY NOT?

When you understand what that is about, you may be able to understand what your "options" are about.

Personally I like to weigh things out through study and make educated determinations.

Although there are things I consider to be too much of a distraction, like all the variables of eschatology. Which is why I don't spend time in eschatology threads.

 

[Cormack]

Personally I like to weigh things out through study and make educated determinations.

You bad seed

 

[ozso]

You bad seed

I blame it on the bad example set by those Bereans.

 

[Clare73]

You're right, in the NT it isn't called "correction" or "condemnation" or "damnation" for that matter. It's called something in Greek that can be translated into English as those words. I've read and heard studies on that, but I don't remember the particulars well enough to write them down at the moment.

What I have to wonder is why are there dedicated Christian scholars and theologians who
have found problems in translation and traditional doctrine, if none exists?

They seem to manage somehow not to give weight to all the Scriptures, e.g., the last group of five posted below.

Why were words I know to be Gehenna and Sheol etc collectively translated as "Hell"?

Why not? There is no "hell" in Greek, it is a word chosen to translate "Gehenna."

Sheol was the holding place of the dead, with two parts, Paradise (place of blessing, Abraham's bosom) and Hades (translated "hell"),
place of punishment, as seen in Luke 16:19-31, vv. 23-24.

Why is it that neither Moses nor a single Prophet, all of whom described numerous punishments and judgements,
never described a place of eternal torment?

Absolutely irrelevant. . .absolutely!

Did they reveal that God is three in one? (Matthew 28:19)
Did they reveal that the Kingdom of God was spiritual, not physical? (Luke 17:20-21)
Did they reveal that the kingdom would be taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles? (Matthew 21:43)
Did they reveal that salvation is by faith without works? (Ephesians 2:8-9)

There's lots of legitimate questions that I'd have to shut my mind to in order to pretend they don't exist.

Nothing is "legitimate" that contradicts the clear authoritative NT teaching of:

sin not being forgiven even in the next life (Matthew 12:32)--no universal reconciliation,
burning of the tares/weeds (Matthew 13:39)
unquenchable fire for unforgiven sin (Mark 9:47-48)
burning of the chaff with unquenchable fire (Luke 3:17),
no eternal life, only wrath for those who reject Christ (John 3:36).

Questioning in the name of reconciling Scriptures which seem opposed is one thing, in the name of unbelief is another.

You'll never really understand Scripture if it has to prove its truth to you.
Until you come to Scripture believing that it is all the true word of God written, that the only issue you have is reconciling what seems contradictory to you, and which is not the same as "untrue" to you, you won't have full access to the Book.

 

[ozso]

You're confusing unbelief with lack of clarity.

I'm saying there's a slew of doctrines and theologies (and denominations) that one can pick and choose from that neither save nor condemn a believer.