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

[Lazarus Short]

What a nothing-burger.

The Catholic church uses "sacrament" for musterion (mystery).

Greek itself was a language of pagans, and yet it is the language of the NT word of God.

A word is nothing more whan what it means in the language.

Get over yourselves.
And "grace" is the same.

The word for grace in Greek is Charis (Χάρις), a given name derived from a Greek word meaning "grace, kindness, and life."
Charis is one of the Charites (Χάριτες) or "Graces", goddesses of charm, beauty, nature, human creativity and fertility; and is the wife of Hephaestus, a fire deity.

Oops! . . .there goes "grace"!

You're opening up quite a can of worms, there...

 

[Clare73]

You're opening up quite a can of worms, there...

Shouldn't be. . .if one isn't naive.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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, part of me would prefer Universalism was true because it would mean we have no responsibility towards God and all our loved ones who did not accept Christ will make it with us in His kingdom. For if God did offer a way or path that was easier and more comforting, why would we not take it? Granted, this does not mean Universalism is true even if I in part wanted it to be true. There is the part of Universalism that is unjust (of which is why I reject it). Universalism does not reconcile fair justice in the fact that those who do evil are not truly being properly punished (While those who do good and suffer do deserve to be in His Kingdom by the sacrifice that they made). So this is the problem I have with Universalism, and why I in part I would reject it. But ultimately of course it comes down to Scripture and Universalism is simply not Scriptural in any way. We see no Biblical support for Univeralism.

 

[ozso]

The problem is the pagan mythology of "hell" that goes along with the word "hell" being used to replace words that aren't associated with "hell".

 

[Fervent]

Would I annul God's justice? To what end?

 

[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

Do you got any good links with information about these schools? I looked around a bit, but didn't find much.

 

[ozso]

Do you got any good links with information about these schools? I looked around a bit, but didn't find much.

I just have that reference which I came across years ago.

 

[Clare73]

The problem is the pagan mythology of "hell" that goes along with the word "hell" being used to replace words that aren't associated with "hell".

And to what believer does that mythology replace words not associated with hell?

 

[Cormack]

Do you got any good links with information about these schools? I looked around a bit, but didn't find much.

If you’d like a book that argues extensively for the beliefs of the early church being more Universalistic leaning, I recommend “Universalism: The prevailing doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years.” The name isn’t very catchy, but it does what it says on the tin. Some of the hard evidence from Christian iconography in the burial catacombs is an eye opener. The schools are included in here too, if memory serves.

Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During its First Five Hundred Years

 

[Hmm]

Some of the hard evidence from Christian iconography in the burial catacombs is an eye opener.

Thanks for the link. I was scrolling through and noticed this section which sounds like it could be what you are referring to. I thought it was even interesting enough to warrant being placed on your thread so hope that's okay...

Testimony of the Catacombs.
An illuminating side-light is cast on the opinions of the early Christians by the inscriptions and emblems on the monuments in the Roman Catacombs.12 It is well known that from the end of the First to the end of the Fourth Century the early Christians buried their dead, probably with the knowledge and consent of the pagan authorities, in subterranean galleries excavated in the soft rock (tufa) that underlies Rome. These ancient cemeteries were first uncovered A.D. 1578. Already sixty excavations have been made extending five hundred and eighty-seven miles. More than six, some estimates say eight, million bodies are known to have been buried between A.D. 72 and A.D. 410. Eleven thousand epitaphs and inscriptions have been found; few dates are between A.D. 72 and 100; the most are from A.D. 150 to A.D. 410. The galleries are from three to five feet wide and eight feet high, and the niches for bodies are five tiers deep, one above another, each silent tenant in a separate cell. At the entrance of each cell is a tile or slab of marble, once securely cemented and inscribed with name, epitaph, or emblem. 13 Haweis beautifully says in his "Conquering Cross:" "The public life of the early Christian was persecution above ground; his private life was prayer underground." The emblems and inscriptions are most suggestive. The principal device, scratched on slabs, carved on utensils and rings, and seen almost everywhere, is the Good Shepherd, surrounded by his flock and carrying a lamb. But most striking of all, he is found with a goat on his shoulder; which teaches us that even the wicked were at the early date regarded as the objects of the Savior's solicitude, after departing from this life.13

Matthew Arnold has preserved this truth in his immortal verse:14

"He saves the sheep, the goats he doth not save!"
So rang Tertullian's sentence on the side
of that unpitying Phrygian sect which cried,--
"Him can no fount of fresh forgiveness lave,
Whose sins once washed by the baptismal wave!"
So spake the fierce Tertullian. But she sighed,
The infant Church,--of love she felt the tide
Stream on her from her Lord's yet recent grave,
And then she smiled, and in the Catacombs,
With eyes suffused but heart inspired true,
On those walls subterranean, where she hid
Her head in ignominy, death and tombs,
She her Good Shepherd's hasty image drew
And on his shoulders not a lamb, a kid!

This picture is a "distinct protest" against the un-Christian sentiment then already creeping into the church from Paganism.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If you’d like a book that argues extensively for the beliefs of the early church being more Universalistic leaning, I recommend “Universalism: The prevailing doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years.” The name isn’t very catchy, but it does what it says on the tin. Some of the hard evidence from Christian iconography in the burial catacombs is an eye opener. The schools are included in here too, if memory serves.

Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During its First Five Hundred Years

So do you believe Univeralism is biblical?
For me, it's not about what some men say in the past that determines what I believe, but my faith is built upon what the Bible alone says. Men in history can make up all kinds of stuff and claim it is true. But that does not mean it is true. A normal reading of the Bible does not in any way suggest Univeralism. Only a person wanting Univeralism to be true will seek to insert that idea into the Bible where it does not belong.

 

[Cormack]

So do you believe Univeralism is biblical?

It’s biblical in the same way that traditionalism and annihilationism are biblically grounded doctrines, although if you’d like to insist upon your understanding of scripture and refute universalism, I suggest you head over to the topic @LoveGodsWord created to build what they insist is a biblical case against universalism.

That’s not the purpose of this topic, the purpose of this topic is spelled out on pages one and two of the thread.

In my opinion there’s actually a lot more to this topic than those other threads because some posters have resisted the urge to argue for their own perspective, instead they simply walk a mile in another believers shoes and (hopefully) return back with an honest opinion on the view based upon its own merits or demerits.

 

[Clare73]

It’s biblical in the same way that traditionalism and annihilationism are biblically grounded doctrines, although if you’d like to insist upon your understanding of scripture and refute universalism, I suggest you head over to the topic @LoveGodsWord created to build what they insist is a biblical case against universalism.
That’s not the purpose of this topic, the purpose of this topic is spelled out on pages one and two of the thread.

In my opinion there’s actually a lot more to this topic than those other threads because some posters have resisted the urge to argue for their own perspective, instead they simply walk a mile in another believers shoes and (hopefully) return back with
an honest opinion on the view based upon its own merits or demerits.

The problem with that is God's truth is not based on human merits and demerits.

We disagree with that premise.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It’s biblical in the same way that traditionalism and annihilationism are biblically grounded doctrines, although if you’d like to insist upon your understanding of scripture and refute universalism, I suggest you head over to the topic @LoveGodsWord created to build what they insist is a biblical case against universalism.

That’s not the purpose of this topic, the purpose of this topic is spelled out on pages one and two of the thread.

In my opinion there’s actually a lot more to this topic than those other threads because some posters have resisted the urge to argue for their own perspective, instead they simply walk a mile in another believers shoes and (hopefully) return back with an honest opinion on the view based upon its own merits or demerits.

I never really jumped on the bandwagon to refute Universalism with Scripture because it is all too obvious that is not biblical in the slightest sense with basic and plain reading of the Bible. It would be like arguing that the Bible is not made up of words or something silly like that. We see the wicked will perish and they are not brought back to life again to live in God's kingdom. There are two resurrections and one is the resurrection of the just and the other is the resurrection of the damned. God's Word could not be trusted if we to try and insert Univeralism Soteriology into it. It just doesn't fit. The only reason why folks believe in Univeralism is because they simply want that belief to be true and so they seek to try and fit that into the Bible somehow. But that would be like trying to cram a square peg into a round hole. Univeralism is even worse than believing in a Flat Earth ~ IMHO. No offense (of course).

Anyways, peace be unto you in the Lord today (Even if we disagree on what the Bible says).

 

[Hmm]

The problem with that is God's truth is not based on human merits and demerits.

We disagree with that premise.

But don't you think it's an educational exercise to look at the arguments put forward in support of universalism, to put on the universalist's shoes as Cormack said and walk around in them a little to learn why universalists believe what they do? Isn't that more instructive than throwing proof texts as one another as happens on most threads?

You don't have to believe the ideas and you can take the shoes off and kick them away, never to wear them again. Taking time out to explore new ideas rather than simply trying to refute them often ends up in confirming your own ideas anyway - you find that you actually prefer your own more comfy shoes

 

[LoveGodsWord]

But don't you think it's an educational exercise to look at the arguments put forward in support of universalism, to put on the universalist's shoes as Cormack said and walk around in them a little to learn why universalists believe what they do? Isn't that more instructive than throwing proof texts as one another as happens on most threads?

You don't have to believe the ideas and you can take the shoes off and kick them away, never to wear them again. Taking time out to explore new ideas rather than simply trying to refute them often ends up in confirming your own ideas anyway - you find that you actually prefer your own more comfy shoes

Perhaps because only God's Word is true according to the scriptures and we should believe and follow it *Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29. What argument is more important than God's Word which is the very definition of what truth is (John 17:17)? If we have God's Word to tell us what truth is why would anyone want to walk about in teachings that are not true and can lead us away from God and His Word? According to the scriptures God is a Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). God's Word according to the scriptures leads us Jesus and eternal life. False teachings lead us away from God and eternal life according to the scriptures (John 8:31-36; John 3:16-20)

 

[Cormack]

If we have God's Word to tell us what truth is why would anyone want to walk about in teachings that are not biblical?

I imagine because when people develop a callous on their heart so that they refuse to see the world through other peoples eyes, they become a bit inward looking and isolated.

They end up being a “truth” bore, one of those people who spends everyday and wastes every social interaction telling people about climate change or their lifestyle diet or why Palestinians deserve to have their own state.

It’s often (not always) a huge red flag that the person you’re speaking with has no interest in you but rather is only concerned about their own self gratification.

 

[Clare73]

But don't youthink it's an educational exercise to look at the arguments put forward in support of universalism, to put on the universalist's shoes as Cormack has said and walk around in them a little to learn why universalists believe what they do?

I do not. . .for many serious reasons.

Suffice it to say Eve is a good example, she entertained Satan's idea, "Hath God said?"

Deep faith of the heart and mind is a precious gift, and it is an abuse of that gift to traffic in contra-NT ungodly ideas.

It's a matter of spiritual discernment, and in just the short time of this topic in CF, I discern a gradual dimenishment of spiritual knowlege of God in those who believe and promote that idea.

Isn't that more instructive than throwing proof texts as one another as happens on most threads?

Proof texts are a matter of deep faith for the believer, while for those who do not agree with the NT, they are simply a matter of argument.

Their argument is based in human preference rather than Spirit-wrought faith in the God-breathed Scriptures.

You don't have to believe the ideas and you can take the shoes off and kick them away, never to wear them again.

If only it worked that way . .but you can't unring the bell.

Taking time out to explore new ideas rather than simply trying to refute them often ends up in confirming your own ideas anyway - you find that you actually prefer your own more comfy shoes

I really like you, so pardon me for saying this:
you present faith as an intellectual exercise, grounded/based in human reasoning and wisdom.

 

[Clare73]

I imagine because when people develop a callous on their heart so that
they refuse to see the world through other peoples eyes, they become a bit inward looking and isolated.

Convenient justification of unbelief of the God-breathed Scriptures of the New Covenant,
not to mention setting up one's own standard of righteusness (i.e., virtual signaling).

Don't recall it being recommended anywhere in the NT "to see the world through other people's eyes."
What I find rather is that we are to see the world through the eyes of faith in the Son of God and his work in the church.

Not so sure this "counsel" to consider universalism is the godly counsel it presents itself to be.

 

[zoidar]

I imagine because when people develop a callous on their heart so that they refuse to see the world through other peoples eyes, they become a bit inward looking and isolated.

They end up being a “truth” bore, one of those people who spends everyday and wastes every social interaction telling people about climate change or their lifestyle diet or why Palestinians deserve to have their own state.

It’s often (not always) a huge red flag that the person you’re speaking with has no interest in you but rather is only concerned about their own self gratification.

You seem to be the thinking kind of guy. I just wonder what is it that makes you hold to UR. Do you know the main reason/reasons?