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

[Saint Steven]

What I mean is can you guarantee that there would be no adverse consequences as a result of allowing everyone into heaven? It’s basically a rhetorical question, no you can’t because you don’t know.

That's a common misunderstanding about Christian Universalism. We aren't saying everyone goes straight to heaven no matter what. We are saying everyone goes straight to hell until they are ready to enter heaven. This takes care of any "adverse effects". Jesus said:

Mark 9:49
Everyone will be salted with fire.

Saint Steven said: ↑
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]

If there is a middle position I'm taking it.

I don't believe all, but many.

Annihilationism might be an attractive choice for you. - lol
That way "the lost" are incinerated into nonexistence. None of this eternal conscious torment nonsense. (unresolved forever)

But why would the God that expects us to love our enemies do such a thing to his? Can't he live up to his own righteous standards? Doesn't make sense either.

 

[Saint Steven]

What I mean is can you guarantee that there would be no adverse consequences as a result of allowing everyone into heaven? It’s basically a rhetorical question, no you can’t because you don’t know.

Basically the church lied to us when they told us we wouldn't go to hell if we said the magic words and were faithful. (continued to fund the operation)

 

[BNR32FAN]

Based on what I understand at this point; Hell is a place in Norse mythology like Asgard, Jotunheim, Midgard, Nidavellir etc.

Whereas Gehenna is an actual place in Israel like Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth etc. You can go to Israel and visit present day Gehenna, which looks like this:

But it used to look something like this:

And here's a depiction of what Jerusalem looked like within a generation of Jesus saying those things:

Yes Gehenna was a place where they burned trash and some even offered human sacrifices there as well. But Gehenna was used by Christ as an illustration of the suffering and torment the condemned could expect in hell. When Jesus referred to Gehenna He was referring to hell not the actual burning trash pile. Matthew 10:28 gives us an indication of this.

“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (translated from Gehenna)
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10:28‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The actual place on earth known as Gehenna can only destroy the body not the soul.

 

[ozso]

Yes Gehenna was a place where they burned trash and some even offered human sacrifices there as well. But Gehenna was used by Christ as an illustration of the suffering and torment the condemned could expect in hell. When Jesus referred to Gehenna He was referring to hell not the actual burning trash pile. Matthew 10:28 gives us an indication of this.

“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (translated from Gehenna)
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10:28‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The actual place on earth known as Gehenna can only destroy the body not the soul.

Have to wonder why He used Hades instead of Gehenna in Luke 16:23 then. I thought maybe it was a translation thing having to do with Luke being Greek, but then I saw that Luke 12:5 uses Gehenna. The one time it seems most certain that Jesus was talking about "Hell" the word "Hades" is used.

I'm of the thinking that Jesus talking about ending up in Gehenna was in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem that was coming. Jesus tacking Isaiah 66:24 onto it adds to that for me.

 

[Clare73]

tisn't

You win!

 

[Clare73]

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.

Thanks.

I dont think they intended the pagan meaning of those words.

I think they used those words for the Biblical concept. . .as in agape.

 

[Clare73]

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.

Sweeping with a broad broom. .neat little haven for unbelief.
Not all Scripture is subject to interpretation.

"No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him," is not subject to "interpretation." Nor is

"All that the Father gives me will come to me." Nor

". . .whoever does not believe in the Son stands condemnded already."

". . .whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for Gods wrath remains on him."

"No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

"The man without the Spirit (natural man) does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them,"

Etc., etc. etc.

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.

Guilt by association. . .it's not hard to demonstrate either one.

 

[Clare73]

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?

Like God in the OT destroying peoples and nations?

I object to your characterization of God.

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

 

[Clare73]

Considering most Christians incorporate most or all of that into their celebration of Christ's birth and resurrection, I'd say most believers think it has something to do with Christianity.

Kinda' like firecrackers at midnight on Dec 31. . .or green on St. Patrick's day. . .or food tables on March 19, etc.?

It would serve you better to revisit that.

 

[Clare73]

Did Jesus die to save us from God?

Precisely!

To save sinners from God's wrath (Romans 5:9).

Your theology limps a little.

 

[Jipsah]

Precisely!
To save sinners from God's wrath (Romans 5:9).

At least you've cast aside the asinine "God doesn't send anyone to hell" rubbish.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's a common misunderstanding about Christian Universalism. We aren't saying everyone goes straight to heaven no matter what. We are saying everyone goes straight to hell until they are ready to enter heaven. This takes care of any "adverse effects". Jesus said:

Mark 9:49
Everyone will be salted with fire.

Saint Steven said: ↑
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?

If that were true the everyone who says to Him Lord Lord will enter Heaven and everyone who blasphemes the Spirit will be forgiven.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Basically the church lied to us when they told us we wouldn't go to hell if we said the magic words and were faithful. (continued to fund the operation)

I don’t understand what your saying here. Can you please elaborate?

 

[Fervent]

Did Jesus die to save us from God?

Jesus died so that God could remain just in showing mercy. Though if you want to get in depth about that question(what atonement is, why it had to happen, what was accomplished) that is a whole bunch of theological ground that needs to be established.

 

[ozso]

Thanks.

I dont think they intended the pagan meaning of those words.

I think they used those words for the Biblical concept. . .as in agape.

Now you're getting close to saying hell is a concept, rather than an actual place.
As for the paganism, images and descriptions of hell tend to have been barrowed from pagan mythology. Demons with whips and pitchforks etc, are not found in the Bible.

 

[ozso]

Sweeping with a broad broom. .neat little haven for unbelief.
Not all Scripture is subject to interpretation.

"No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him," is not subject to "interpretation." Nor is

"All that the Father gives me will come to me." Nor

". . .whoever does not believe in the Son stands condemnded already."

". . .whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for Gods wrath remains on him."

"No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

"The man without the Spirit (natural man) does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them,"

Etc., etc. etc.

Guilt by association. . .it's not hard to demonstrate either one.

All that stuff gets argued about on CF because of different interpretations, doctrine and dogmas. Many are quite certain that their interpretation and dogma is the only absolutely correct one. Perfectly adheres to scripture and so on.

 

[Saint Steven]

If that were true the everyone who says to Him Lord Lord will enter Heaven and everyone who blasphemes the Spirit will be forgiven.

Sounds like you misunderstood me. No worries, I'm used to it.

 

[Saint Steven]

I don’t understand what your saying here. Can you please elaborate?

We're getting pretty far off topic. Have you answered the topic question yet?

 

[Clare73]

Now you're getting close to saying hell is a concept, rather than an actual place.

A place can't be a concept. . .who made that rule?

As for the paganism, images and descriptions of hell tend to have been barrowed from pagan mythology. Demons with whips and pitchforks etc, are not found in the Bible.

Demons are definitely found in the Bible.
Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are also not found in the Bible.

Does anyone think they have anything Biblical to do with the Messiah or his resurrection. . .or that firecrackers have anything to do with midnight on Dec 31, or green with St. Patrick, or food tables with Jospeh, the husband of Mary?

What is your issue here?