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

[grasping the after wind]

And the point I made about Forgiveness?

When I forgive my neighbor who wronged me, do I need Him to desire and accept my forgiveness before he is actually forgiven by me?

Or is the power and efficacy of my forgiveness of him 100% dependent on me?

If I completely forgive my neighbor without His desire and acceptance, am I somehow FORCING something upon Him against His will?

My point is that we are discussing somethin that is not about forgiveness alone but about reconciliation. The two are not the same thing. I can forgive my neighbor but if my neighbor refuses to accept that forgiveness or if my neighbor rejects the idea he needs forgiveness at all or if my neighbor refuses to admit I even exist we are not reconciled. My forgiveness still exists but reconciliation has not been achieved.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Seriously?

Can't answer?

 

[parousia70]

My point is that we are discussing somethin that is not about forgiveness alone but about reconciliation. The two are not the same thing. I can forgive my neighbor but if my neighbor refuses to accept that forgiveness or if my neighbor rejects the idea he needs forgiveness at all or if my neighbor refuses to admit I even exist we are not reconciled. My forgiveness still exists but reconciliation has not been achieved.

So, if I'm reading your position correctly, it appears you would then agree, that Because of the work of Christ on the Cross, the sins of every human being who ever lived have been completely atoned for, and thereby 100% forgiven, by God, however, You believe that they can't enjoy the benefits of that forgiveness, even though it is complete, until they choose to be reconciled.

Is that about right?

 

[parousia70]

How can a person be forgiven by God and still owe God what God forgave?

Therein lies the conundrum.

Lots of times you need to put yourself into the audience Jesus is addressing and try to be thinking: what they would be thinking about at the time

As a preterist, let me affirm that you are preaching to the choir about this one

Jesus gives us one requirement, we often leave out, and that is going to the person we tried to forgive when he did not accept the forgiveness as charity, and explain what he did wrong and why he still owes us. We may stop with just not loaning them our car again.

This sounds more like quid pro quo than forgiveness.

God forgives unconditionally, but we do have to accept it as unconditional, undeserved, unselfish pure charity to complete the transaction.

So, God forgives unconditionally, on one condition?

 

[GallagherM]

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.

Yes. However all people are going to be judged according to if they had faith or did not have faith, given the rewards of what they sown in their life; then given their spirit bodies and placed in or outside the Heavenly Jerusalem: so universalism is untrue. Considering God is incomprehensible at least to us when it comes to our finite mind; I would believe God is still calling out to those even in the darkness (outside the kingdom of God). Desiring for them to come to the light but they need help; and the only answer to escape darkness of our mind (heart), is the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[bling]

Therein lies the conundrum.



As a preterist, let me affirm that you are preaching to the choir about this one



This sounds more like quid pro quo than forgiveness.


So, God forgives unconditionally, on one condition?

You are confusing the two: 1. God Forgives unconditionally and 2. the transaction of forgivenss is completed when the person accepts that forgiveness as it was given (as pure unconditional Love).

God does His part 100% correctly (which is the way we must forgive), but cannot really "force" His "Love" (forgiveness) on anyone since that would not be Loving on God's part and the "Love" they recieived would not be Godly type Love. (True unconditional forgiveness is part of Godly type Love).
Again, If God force a person to accept His Love it would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun (not Loving and not recieved as Love).
God is Love and is unconditionally forgiving everyone all the time (an act of Love), but people are just not willing to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure undeserved charity, so forgiveness does not take place (this is what happened in Matt. 18).

 

[anna ~ grace]

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.

Yes. I would love for that to be true; and was hopeful about it for a while.

But Christ did mention Hell, and yes, souls wind up there. I would love for UR to be true, though. But that is not what Christ, the Scriptures, or Tradition teach.

 

[returntosender]

Why would he do that?

People who question God's word and try to change it believe they are above him. They are in a very dangerous place.

 

[Tigger45]

If universalism were true then the great commission would be one of the means that God used to bring people into right relationship with Himself, surely.

Paul for example was initially turned onto the Christian brotherhood not by men preaching but rather by an encounter with Christ. In the same way none of the figures in the Old Testament who are saved were saved by ways of the great commission.



Entertaining the idea that universalism were true entails that someday everyone would find being with God or the desire to be with God enjoyable.



#42 has some helpful material on this thought. After considering those thoughts maybe you would like to rethink the main question and answer again.

I found nothing in post #42 that legitimizes universalism but I did find yet another scripture example that contradicts it. I’ll go with the straight forward reading of scripture.

Luke 16:
The Rich Man and Lazarus
19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

 

[Benam]

I don't believe any form of universalism is correct or supported in any way by scripture. Period.

But to the original question: part of me wishes it could be true, because I have loved ones that are currently not on a path to salvation and it pains me to no end. It would be a huge relief to me to believe in universalism. I suspect this is the primary reason some choose to believe in it, because they can't stand the thought of loved ones not going to heaven.

If I get to heaven (God willing) and learn that some form of it is true, then that's great, but I certainly wouldn't want to gamble on it. Ultimately God can do whatever he pleases and by definition it will be just and fair.

 

[RickReads]

People who question God's word and try to change it believe they are above him. They are in a very dangerous place.

Agreed. But I dunno who you are referring to. I thought Cormack at first. LOL!
I tried to edit away the gaffe but he busted me on it.

 

[Basil the Great]

Yes, it would be preferable if all were eventually saved, but not that those who commit grave sins like murder would immediately go to Heaven upon their deaths.

 

[returntosender]

Agreed. But I dunno who you are referring to. I thought Cormack at first. LOL!
I tried to edit away the gaffe but he busted me on it.

You came all the way back just to defend Cormack, eh?

 

[RickReads]

You came all the way back just to defend Cormack, eh?

I`m having problems with my foot and I`m stuck at home for a while. Boredom ate away at my resolve.

 

[Cormack]

Wishing you a speedy recovery, sir. A friend of mine injured a foot and broke his tibia many many months ago and he’s still in recovery. God heal you both.

 

[returntosender]

I`m having problems with my foot and I`m stuck at home for a while. Boredom ate away at my resolve.

Guess that means you won't be putting your foot in your mouth for a while, aye?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

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.

Answer: No.

Rationale:
Simple answer is - God might have to force some spirits to be alive even if they don't want that. I think some may genuinely not want to progress through heaven and meet God - God would know if it's genuine and everlasting decision or not and He would respect that decision.

Note:
I have read the Bible, but I cannot be sure I've understood it correctly. I might be wrong (I'm almost certainly wrong about a number of things). I have a long way to go.

Maybe add "potential" reality? So something can exist in potential only, but need not manifest - it's will based decision making?
So, potentially some spirits might choose to cease existing - and God would honour that if it was an everlasting will choice that will never be reversed (if thats even possible??). I don't think God would be happy about it but I think He would respect the will of His creature??
Perhaps it's possible in potential, but has never happened? Perhaps it never will happen??

I don't know haha

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I wish that everyone could be saved. I believe God would prefer if all are saved as well according to the scriptures in 2 Peter 3:9 but according to Gods Word not all will be saved (e.g. Matthew 7:13-14 as posted earlier). God gives us all free will however to choose to believe and follow His Word or not. God's salvation is conditional according to the scriptures on believing and following what his Word says.

As the scripture says, let your yes be yes and your no be no, everything else comes from the evil one.

In general, this means answer the question, and add nothing else.

The question in this case is would you prefer if everyone would be saved? You did answer the question, but then added something.

I understand the various possibilities of interpretation from the various passages with parallel interpretations - but this thread isn't about that, it's just about your motivation.

A good example of this being important is 1 Timothy 4:10, we labor and strive because God is going to save everyone. However, the motivation today is, we labor and strive because we don't want them to go to hell. This is a reversal of the apostolic teachings in application. The main sin in this application is a lack of faith in God, and need to do the job ourselves. This leads to people seeing God as entirely powerless, reliant on the schemings of men, as has transpired today.

 

[Cormack]

Answer: No.

Rationale:
Simple answer is - God might have to force some spirits to be alive even if they don't want that. I think some may genuinely not want to progress through heaven and meet God - God would know if it's genuine and everlasting decision or not and He would respect that decision.

Note:
I have read the Bible, but I cannot be sure I've understood it correctly. I might be wrong (I'm almost certainly wrong about a number of things). I have a long way to go.

Maybe add "potential" reality? So something can exist in potential only, but need not manifest - it's will based decision making?
So, potentially some spirits might choose to cease existing - and God would honour that if it was an everlasting will choice that will never be reversed (if thats even possible??). I don't think God would be happy about it but I think He would respect the will of His creature??
Perhaps it's possible in potential, but has never happened? Perhaps it never will happen??

I don't know haha

Thanks for the straightforward answer and your rationale behind the answer, @Confused-by-christianity.

Like some of the other users in the topic, it seems as though you’re not truly entertaining the presuppositions of universalists before writing if it’s your preference (e.g. people will freely choose God, the “potential” future where everyone lives becomes reality under Gods care.)

It seems as though your preference is grounded in what you see as being a believable or likely outcome. I might be wrong in thinking that and if I’m in error I’m sure you’ll understand.

But if your view is that universalism isn’t likely or even possible, for which your preference isn’t towards universalism, I’ve got a few thoughts.

Take a car crash for example.

Even if the person involved is injured fatally, and at seeing this scene I know logically that there’s no chance that he’s going to survive this terrible car wreck, still, my preference is that they would survive and recover and live.

In more regular cases like in the case of a man in need of a heart transplant or scientists treating viruses, even if I didn’t understand the medical practices that would save him, my preference is still that somebody else understands the procedure and that they can save his life.

In that sense, it seems as though our preferences act independently of things we can understand, predict with certainty or philosophically process.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Thanks for the straightforward answer and your rationale behind the answer

I don't know the answer in reality. I don't know what happens or what's right - therefore - I don't even know what I'd prefer to be true. haha I just took a blind shot at an answer for the fun of it haha

I think people are really really small and low in intelligence. I think we have a long long way to go before we understand what really happens - and can thus hypothesis a preference. Assuming you'd prefer whatever is "the good" - you would need to develop excellent judgement as well - that takes an eternity to develop haha

I think heavenly beings are amused by us. I think they listen to our conversations about this stuff and think we are really funny. Like toddlers trying to act like adults and everyone thinks it's funny how seriously they take themselves.

What do you think?

(My biggest curiosity is. Why do we think we are so smart? Why do we speak so surely about God, heaven and the scriptures - like we know what's going on?? haha)

My answer:
I defer having a preference. The reason for that is I want to prefer whatever is best in God's eyes, and, I'm not grown spiritually enough to know what that is yet.