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

[Clare73]

All the same, the actual word used in the Greek manuscripts is γέενναν (geennan) for Gehenna. Just as Ἰερουσαλὴμ (ierousalēm) is used for Jerusalem. I think translating γέενναν as "Hell" is like translating Ἰερουσαλὴμ as "Asgard".

Yes, in Greek the actual word is Gehenna, and in Greek the actual word is charis.
We translate one "hell" and the other "grace."

The problem?

 

[Clare73]

Consider that the peak of man and Gods preference is universalism,

And you know this is the peak of God's preference, how?

that’s true. The truth hounds in chat don’t care much for that particular truth though because their systematic theology is taking place of preference over emulating God, in short, their theology acts like firewall to some truths.

Theologies live in your head and live to propagate themselves, if that means calling the heart of God satanic, so be it. Anything to defend and preserve the life of the systematic that’s practically possessed the host at this point.

“I want the truth!” (For over 52 pages)

“You can’t handle the truth!!!!!”

Users want to negate or deny the value of one very meaningful truth while allowing their most definitely false systematic to run riot across their headspace.

 

[Clare73]

The great tragedy is that believers sold out on their rigid systemic now think that a head full of dogmatism, poor reasoning abilities and closed mindedness are the proper ways to express faith.
The more ignorant, close-minded and illogical they become the more godly they believe themselves to be.
Imagine that being the source of someone’s pride. All for the glory of “god.”

So where do Luke 16:15; 1 Corinthians 1:20-21, 1 Corinthians 1:27, 1 Corinthians 2:14 fit in?

 

[Clare73]

Exactly. As you say, changing your mind would be virtually impossible if you're caught up in this identification trap. If you can no longer see your thoughts as just that - as thoughts - but instead see them as being identical to The Truth, you won't be able to ever change them, as we should to as we learn more, because that would mean changing The Truth itself and would be heretical.

Losing any sense of separation between your thinking about God and the deep mystery of God means that when someone presents a different view point you see it as an attack on God and, more threateningly, an attack on yourself. Hence all the shouting down and strawmanning we often see in threads.

Sounds like God's truth can't be known. . .and a refuge for unbelief, maybe?

 

[Clare73]

It's one sin that can be committed by individuals. So Jesus did not say there are sins that are unpardonable. He said every sin would be pardonable, except that one sin.

Interesting to compare the handling of the unpardonable sin with Universalism.

Particularly when sin which can't be pardoned means there can't be universal reconciliation.

 

[Jipsah]

That's because you don't get to Heaven by your works.

But how, then? After all, salvation is By Your Own Free Will, and so you have to take the action of accepting it. Therefore salvation is totally something you do.

Nobody ended up in Hell because they broke one of the 613 (?) laws in the Old Testament.

Evereybody who end up in hell is there, by your beliefs, because of what they didn't do. Inaction is the unforgiveable sin.

They ended up in Hell because of their unwillingness to believe God to the point of repentance and salvation.

Not necessarily unwillingness, simple inaction will suffice. Right?

 

[Clare73]

Yup. Here's the problem for me personally.
The standard reading explains the "unpardonable" aspect, but it doesn't explain the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" aspect. How does that definition of the unpardonable sin fit the passage? It doesn't. And why would Jesus make a point about saying that the unpardonable sin is to not have your sins pardoned. Doesn't that go without saying? And again, how does that fit the passage? (it doesn't) Help me to understand this if I am misses the obvious here. Thanks.

"Unpardonable" in the sense that as long as you reject the testimony of the Holy Spirit as Satanic, you can never receive the testimony of the Holy Spirit regarding Jesus and, therefore, never receive and believe in him, which means your sin will never be pardoned through faith in him and his atoning work on the cross for the remission of your sin.

 

[Jipsah]

Sounds like God's truth can't be known. . .and a refuge for unbelief, maybe?

They can be known, else else we'd be deceived by every purveyor of pseudo-Biblical claptrap. For example Free Willies and peddlers of the Eternal Concious Torment dogma.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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".

What words are you referring to?

 

[Hmm]

Sounds like God's truth can't be known. . .and a refuge for unbelief, maybe?

Au contraire, if we knew God's truth we wouldn't believe, we would know. But we can't know, so we believe and trust.

 

[Clare73]

Au contraire, if we knew God's truth we wouldn't believe, we would know. But
we can't know, so we believe and trust.

Au contraire. . . 'tis the nature of faith to be certain, to know (1 John 3:14, 16, 19, 24).

 

[Hmm]

Au contraire. . . 'tis the nature of faith to be certain, to know (1 John 3:14, 16, 19, 24).

tisn't - 1 Corinthians 13:12.

 

[Clare73]

tisn't - 1 Corinthians 13:12.

'tis, too!

 

[Saint Steven]

We don't know if it's countless billions human souls/the vast majority that will go into destruction. There hasn't to be the "all will be saved" vs "most will be lost". Many Christians believe most will be saved.

No. Most Christians believe in the narrow gate and few that find it, and the broad gate that leads to destruction.

What is the current population of China? How many of those are heading for heaven? Now project backwards 5 to 10 thousand years. Did you reach countless billions yet? Easily tens, if not hundreds, of billions.

Saint Steven said: ↑
What is your understanding of God's plan?
To incinerate countless billions of human souls? (the vast majority)
How could that be far better?

 

[ozso]

What words are you referring to?

The actual place called Gehenna mostly. But also Sheol.

 

[ozso]

Yes, in Greek the actual word is Gehenna, and in Greek the actual word is charis.
We translate one "hell" and the other "grace."

The problem?

No in Greek the actual word is geennan for the place called Gehenna. Just as in Greek the actual word is ierousalem for the place called Jerusalem. Calling Gehenna "Hell" is like calling Jerusalem "Asgard". If charis had been translated as "Freyja" then you'd have an equivalency.

 

[Saint Steven]

Ahh, so you can guarantee that there would be no adverse consequences as a result of this plan?

I suppose you would have to define what you mean by "adverse consequences", but certainly at a minimum, weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus says you would be better off losing an eye or a hand. So yes, it is serious.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Most certainly.
How about a plan that restored all things to their original state of perfection?
A plan that lavished mercy on all of creation. An end to death and suffering.
Reuniting all of creation in love. This of course would require some major renovation.
As with any renovation project, some demolition would be needed to remove the old to make way for the new.

How does that sound? (Matt 19:28; Rom. 8:20-21: Rev. 21:5)

Saint Steven said: ↑
What is your understanding of God's plan?
To incinerate countless billions of human souls? (the vast majority)
How could that be far better?

 

[Saint Steven]

Are you implying that God is not capable of delivering both? Why must a choice be made?

You sidestepped the questions. For obvious reasons?

Saint Steven said: ↑
Would you prefer justice for yourself, or mercy?
If you said mercy for yourself, why would you wish "justice" on someone else?

 

[ozso]

Staying inside a theological / doctrinal box isn't necessarily a good thing either.

Jesus disagrees with you when it comes to the God-breathed Scriptures, as does Paul (1 Corinthians 4:6), in the sense of not going outside what they teach.

If I said staying within scripture isn't necessarily a good thing, that would follow. But theology and doctrine are products of the interpretation of scripture rather than scripture itself. Some Christians will insist that speaking in tongues is the only acceptable evidence of having the Holy Spirit and they won't budge from that, because they're stuck inside a doctrinal box. They're convinced that's what scripture says, rather it really being what doctrine says.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think the important thing is that we have to understand that our comprehension is far beneath God’s comprehension so we have to trust that His information on this matter is far more extensive than our’s therefore He is able to make the absolute best decision that we may not be able to comprehend.

How about if we just work with what we do know?

How do you pretty-up incinerating the majority of all humankind that ever lived?
Would anything short of a brutal tyrant do such a thing?

But you want to say that "His ways are above our ways..." we just can't comprehend how good that really is. Seriously?