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

[RickReads]

Considering the topic of this thread, the main point of focus should be that Jesus said unbelievers will enter the kingdom of God, after the believers. There are other verses in the NT which say the same thing.

Feel free to post some quotes. I wouldn`t mind taking a fresh look at them, been a long time since I thought about reaching a decision on this issue. Maybe it`s time.

 

[ozso]

Feel free to post some quotes. I wouldn`t mind taking a fresh look at them, been a long time since I thought about reaching a decision on this issue. Maybe it`s time.

Anther 50 pages of going in circles with you? Pass.

 

[RickReads]

Anther 50 pages of going in circles with you? Pass.

That`s too bad. I was thinking about putting some time into it.

But I understand. I don`t like to rehash old debates I`ve been in.

Although, that wasn`t my intent in this case.

On the parable, we just have a disagreement about what Jesus was trying to say. You see it as a reference to the Judgement. I see it as pertaining to this side of death only.

 

[ozso]

That`s too bad. I was thinking about putting some time into it.

But I understand. I don`t like to rehash old debates I`ve been in.

Although, that wasn`t my intent in this case.

On the parable, we just have a disagreement about what Jesus was trying to say. You see it as a reference to the Judgement. I see it as pertaining to this side of death only.

You don't seem to be following what I've been saying.

 

[Cormack]

I think 1300 posts and still going is an accomplishment.

Anther 50 pages of going in circles with you? Pass.

Although I do avoid scriptural tic tac toe like a punch to the kidneys (because it’s an overwhelming and often fruitless commitment of our time,) I’ve enjoyed reading from almost everyone. It’s been an interesting topic, “diversified” for sure but that’s just how these things go.

Whether or not these new thoughts serve to renew the topic, bookend it or make no impact at all, I’m happy to have come to many new conclusions and to have helped others along the way.

There really does appear to be no good reason to prefer another view over the universal reconciliation of all things, since not only are our preferences for certain outcomes divorced from the actual ends of the thing, but it’s also the preference of our Father in heaven who teaches “Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?”

Reasons to prefer Christian Universalism.

1. Hope for lost loved ones.

2. The universalists view of hell is more compatible with an all loving God.

3. Universalism can provide justice just as well as (if not better than) traditionalism.

4. The universal reconciliation of all things provides optimal grace and optimal justice, an advantage it boasts over both traditionalism (which lacks optimal justice) and annihilationism (which lacks optimal grace.)

5. The universal reconciliation of all things is the absolute defeat and conversion of sin into righteous, while in some forms of traditionalism sin persists forever. Not truly done away with but as a separate kingdom set forever against Gods kingdom, an empire which though ruined and in submission hates God and His people nonetheless.

6. God Himself wants everyone to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

7. Preferring universal reconciliation is to fulfil the command to love our neighbour as ourselves. Nobody hates their own body or wishes that their own body be destroyed or tormented forever, but rather they wish for the redemption of their own body. We ought to wish for the redemption of every single one of our neighbours too or we are not loving them in the manner we love ourselves.

8. People can’t love an invisible God unless they first learn to love visible humanity, meaning if you can’t love visible humanity how you love yourself, you can’t begin to hope to fulfil the greatest commandment (i.e. to love God “with all of your heart, soul and mind.”)

Thanks for reading and contributing everyone.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

REASONS NOT TO PREFER UNIVERSALISM?

1. Same lie told to Eve in the garden of Eden in Genesis 3:4-5 you will not surely die if you disobey God
2. Not biblical.
3. Makes a mockery of the cross of Christ
4. Hides Gods love in His justice and judgement for sin and Gods' sacrifice and love for all mankind.
5. Leads us away from God and His Word.
6. God's salvation is conditional on believing and following His Word
7. According to the scriptures only Gods' Word is true and we should believe and follow it.

God bless you all as you seek Him who loves us through his Word.

 

[Cormack]

Since all of your reasons presuppose Universalism to be false from the outset, @LoveGodsWord, you haven’t actually shared any reasons to “prefer it if universalism were true” or not.

You aren’t willing to presuppose the mere possibility that your view of the Bible is wrong, then go from there. Your kinds of message just aren’t an example of how hypotheticals function.

Rather you’ve written just another message about why you disbelieve in universalism, which isn’t the purpose of the topic.

I really do think you’d be more comfortable arguing in your less populated topic about whose view is the most rightest and most biblical view that ever existed.

That’s not this topic and you’ve had that information for over three weeks now.

 

[Cormack]

Again as an afterthought, the reason I believe that this topic has legs is because there’s freedom here that you can’t find in many other topics about universalism. There’s an invitation to explore here, something that many churches won’t allow, they have already done the thinking for us.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

 

[Saint Steven]

Again as an afterthought, the reason I believe that this topic has legs is because there’s freedom here that you can’t find in many other topics about universalism. There’s an invitation to explore here, something that many churches won’t allow, they have already done the thinking for us.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Imagine if Universalism was the prevailing view and someone launched a topic to ask if they would prefer Damnationism if it were true?

There are actual reasons to reject Damnationism, rather than saying they rejected it simply because Universalism is true. (the prevailing view in this hypothetical)

Which brings us around to the point that there really are no good reasons to reject Universalism if it is indeed an option. And it is.

 

[Cormack]

Which brings us around to the point that there really are no good reasons to reject Universalism if it is indeed an option. And it is.

Exactly, users deciding to reassert over and over again that they believe universalism isn’t true only goes to show they don’t understand the topic.

As an example of a response to the topic done right I recommend that people check out my handling of five point Calvinism in the topic “would you prefer it if five point Calvinism were true.”

I don’t assume it’s false in that topic, I assume five point Calvinism is true(!) and then I work my way through the consequences of it being true and why that feels less than ideal for me.

Everyone who’s followed me knows how low I hold Calvinism and how strongly I can argue against its doctrines, that’s why I’m able to confidently put on the hat of a Calvinist and fairly represent their material.

 

[Hmm]

Again as an afterthought, the reason I believe that this topic has legs is because there’s freedom here that you can’t find in many other topics about universalism. There’s an invitation to explore here, something that many churches won’t allow, they have already done the thinking for us.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

One of the reasons the Spirit of the Lord appeared as a dove is that birds traditionally represented both freedom and truth. It's good to have a thread that's designed to allow an exploration of an idea, whether you subsequently come to agree, partially agree or reject it. I hope it trundles on (if threads can trundle)

 

[BNR32FAN]

I find it interesting that out all the writers of the Bible, only the author of Revelation mentions the lake of fire. According to what I've read here and there, the author was not John the Apostle.

Of the New Testament works, only Revelation names its author explicitly as “John.” Revelation is written in much poorer Greek than the Gospel and letters are, and it even spells the name Jerusalem in Greek differently than the Gospel does. So it is extremely unlikely that the same person wrote all of these books. Some scholars therefore refer to the author of Revelation as “John the seer” or “John of Patmos” to distinguish him from the purported author of the Gospel and letters.
Which John? The Elder, the Seer, and the Apostle

I'm sure there are different opinions.

I think it’s possible that John may have dictated while someone else wrote.

 

[Saint Steven]

Exactly, users deciding to reassert over and over again that they believe universalism isn’t true only goes to show they don’t understand the topic.

BINGO!
(I hope that means the same thing on your side of the pond - lol)
Apologies, if not.

One of the reasons the Spirit of the Lord appeared as a dove is that birds traditionally represented both freedom and truth. It's good to have a thread that's designed to allow an exploration of an idea, whether you subsequently come to agree, partially agree or reject it. I hope it trundles on (if threads can trundle)

That's it! (BINGO! again)
Thinking seems to not be allowed in Christian culture. The knee-jerk reaction, if it seems outside of the box, is to demand chapter and verse. And then quickly becomes Bible versus Bible. Who wins?

 

[Hmm]

BINGO!
(I hope that means the same thing on your side of the pond - lol)

Unfortunately it does.

Thinking seems to not be allowed in Christian culture.

I think it's because if you're not confident in your belief, you can't risk examining it through fear that the entire edifice will come tumbling down. But without examinination and questioning, you're never going to get that confidence. So people get their confidence from (trying to) believe what the people around them believe and shouting down everyone else. It's tribal.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think it's because if you're not confident in your belief, you can't risk examining it through fear that the entire edifice will come tumbling down. But without examinination and questioning, you're never going to get that confidence. So people get their confidence from (trying to) believe what the people around them believe and shouting down everyone else. It's tribal.

Right, tribal. Defend the camp at all cost. Thinking has nothing to do with it.
And unfortunately it boils down to a form of idolatry. We shouldn't be worshiping doctrines or a book.

 

[Cormack]

I think it's because if you're not confident in your belief, you can't risk examining it through fear that the entire edifice will come tumbling down.

Very true. Just look at the “rebuttal” that says for you and I to use our thinking faculties and have the ability to walk in another persons theological shoes = the serpent tempting Eve in the garden.

Asking someone to grow an emotional IQ and think through somebody else’s point of view is to recreate the serpents temptation of Eve in the garden. And this argument is coming from users who think they’re great respecters of the biblical material.

Are you sure guys and gals?

Oh, I can think through and explain Calvinism better than any Calvinist I know, guess that means John Calvin tempted me like in the garden, looks as though I’m a Calvinist now because I committed the cardinal sin of thinking through the TULIP systematic.

Wait, no, no that didn’t happen, in fact I’m a stronger voice against Calvinism because I’ve educated myself in the doctrine and given it a fair shake.

But why didn’t assuming the truth of five point Calvinism make me into a Calvinist?! Why didn’t the devils temptation work? Because using your brain isn’t the devils garden temptation and I’m not 4 years old. Grown ups are allowed to think about things.

 

[Cormack]

Right, tribal. Defend the camp at all cost. Thinking has nothing to do with it.
And unfortunately it boils down to a form of idolatry. We shouldn't be worshiping doctrines or a book.

Sharia Christianity.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How would that put them before the others?
Unless you are joking, you seem unable to grasp that those you consider the worst are the favored ones by God.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Well... why did Jesus say they would enter BEFORE them?

I was saying that the Pharisees would be put at the back of the line, if they repent.

 

[Hmm]

Sharia Christianity.

Yes, it's so ironic when Christians say they are opposed to legalism yet insist that their own tradition or individual take is the True one. It may be more a legalism of thought than of behaviour as is the case with Sharia supporting Muslims.

Legalism of thought is very damaging. I have known Christians who have suffered deeply because they were expected to hide their internal reality from the church they were in. I've seen this happen with depression, risky drinking and drugging, and being gay. And even people who just had natural doubts but were frightened of expressing them.

 

[Cormack]

Quran 5:101:"Believers ask not questions about things which if made plain to you may cause you trouble when the Quran is revealed. Some people before you asked questions,and on that account lost their faith"​

O people of the book! When will you stop thinking and questioning, your faith is not pure, you go after the sin of Eve and Loot, when they tasted the forbidden things. Your abode is the hellfire!