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

[zoidar]

So in this case it’s something we agree on, since the topic has never been about the absolute fact of universal reconciliation being true or untrue. It’s always been a topic about Christian hearts and whether or not they can handle the plain task of entertaining an idea they don’t already hold.

The more interesting question is why are some people still attempting to argue in the “I don’t prefer it and here’s why” camp, because almost 1000 messages in and they haven’t provided one logically justifiable reason.

What we do find in the comments are users giving a cursory “sure” to the “would you prefer it” question, paying lip service to the question, then proceeding to write waves and waves of text about why universalism isn’t true.

To me that’s very telling.

Would God prefer that unbelievers would be saved? He would prefer them to repent so they could. Does God prefer them to perish? I don't know! Maybe that's the only way it could be? Not even God can erase what has occured. Of course, in one way He did, by sending Jesus for the forgiveness for sins of all time. If He could I believe He would have gone back in time, so the first humans didn't eat that fruit.

 

[Clare73]

No, they created doctrine from interpolation of scripture.

Eternal demnation is not interpolation of my Bible.

 

[Servus]

Eternal demnation is not interpolation of my Bible.

According to you.

 

[Clare73]

Ephesians 4:8-10.

That does not say that hell is on earth.
THat's about Christ's triumphal ascension into heaven, as Psalms 68:18 (v. 8) is about God's triumphant ascention to his throne in the temple of Jerusalem (symbol of his heavenly throne).
Captives being applied to the spiritual enemies Christ defeated at the cross.

Christ descended to earth and ascended at his ascension back into heaven.

 

[Clare73]

According to you.

According to my text. . .and the denial of it being in the text is according to whom?

Perfect refuge for unbelief. . .

 

[Servus]

In orthodoxy, it is heretical.

But not so much in Orthodoxy.

 

[zoidar]

What do you think of the apostle's response to the Judaizers in Galatians 5:12?
Unchristian?
Could it be that Biblically some heresies deserve that kind of response from the faithful?

Have you seen the video?

He was attacking Rob, not Rob's book, also laying words in Rob's mouth, that is what I had a problem with. I don't find that Christian. If it happened here on the forums, the post had been deleted by the mods.

 

[Servus]

According to my text. . .and the denial of it being in the text is according to whom?

Perfect refuge for unbelief. . .

According to your interpretation of your text, as summed up in you saying "my Bible" iow the Bible according to Clare73.

 

[Clare73]

According to your interpretation of your text, as summed up in you saying "my Bible"
iow the Bible according to Clare73.

Actually, it's the Bible not according to Brian.

 

[Servus]

IOW, the Bible not according to Brian.

Or anyone else who doesn't see things the way you do.

 

[Clare73]

Or anyone else who doesn't see things the way you do.

Or the Bible according anyone else than its writers, period.

 

[Servus]

Or the Bible according anyone else than its writers, period.

But seeing as how none of its writers are in this thread, we're left with those who interpret what they wrote.

 

[Clare73]

But seeing as how none of its writers are in this thread, we're left with those who interpret what they wrote.

Ya' think, Sherlock?

 

[zoidar]

But seeing as how none of its writers are in this thread, we're left with those who interpret what they wrote.

Agree, still some interpretations are better backed up scripture-wise and Church-wise.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Or the Bible according anyone else than its writers, period.

Um...did you know that Paul, who wrote more of the New Testament than anyone else, never once referred to "Hell"?

 

[Servus]

Ya' think, Sherlock?

It seemed like you needed the obvious stated.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Agree, still some interpretations are better backed up scripture-wise and Church-wise.

Few posters here or elsewhere provide us with the biases of their church. Almost none mention what translation they are quoting. I have yet to see any of them say, "You're right, I'm convinced." Not so many years ago, I would have been arguing against UR.

 

[zoidar]

Few posters here or elsewhere provide us with the biases of their church. Almost none mention what translation they are quoting. I have yet to see any of them say, "You're right, I'm convinced." Not so many years ago, I would have been arguing against UR.

When I wrote "Church" I meant the Early Church.

 

[Servus]

When I wrote "Church" I meant the Early Church.

"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."

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96

 

[zoidar]

"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."

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96

Sounds convincing, though I need to get more information about this to draw any conclusions. But thanks for the info!