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

[Hmm]

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!

I always think that posts to the effect that it doesn't matter what we think, it only matters what God thinks, which there's been quite a few of in this thread, opposes this appeal for adult thinking:

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.
1 Corinthians 13:11
​

Of course, critical thinking isn't everything but it is something and it is important.

 

[Clare73]

It seems to me Jesus said the Pharisees will enter the kingdom of God, but after the others.

Not as long as they continue to reject Jesus.

Did they ever change their mind?

 

[Clare73]

Once again, the focus isn't on the parable. It's on the summation. 28-30 parable. 31-32 summation.
It's not about a whole bunch of stuff. It's just about belief vs unbelief.
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.

And now you put the NT contradicting itself in Matthew 21:33-45 and John 3:36, which is the only way UR works.

You're on dangerous ground, my friend.
And since you are my friend, I will spell it out.

The entertaining and defending of the contra-Biblical gradually quenches the Holy Spirit.

And I'm watching it live happening here. . .just sayin'. . .a word to the wise, and I consider you one of those. . .all other things being true, that is.

 

[Clare73]

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?”

Review Deuteronomy 29:29, and Exodus 4:21-23 (regarding God's preference and God's secret will).

 

[Clare73]

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.

Case in point. . .

 

[Cormack]

it only matters what God thinks,

1. it only matters what God thinks.

2. what I think (e.g. my doctrine) is what God thinks.

Conclusion? It only matters what I think. That’s about as deep as the logic goes here.

 

[Fervent]

I always think that posts to the effect that it doesn't matter what we think, it only matters what God thinks, which there's been quite a few of in this thread, opposes this appeal for adult thinking:

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.
1 Corinthians 13:11
​

Of course, critical thinking isn't everything but it is something and it is important.

It's a question of origin, because ultimately we have to decide whether we're going to accept God as He tells us He exists, or if we're going to try to fashion one to our liking. Is there room for critical consideration? Sure, but when that crosses over into picking and choosing which Bible passages are true we have simply appointed ourselves as judge.

 

[Clare73]

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.

Straw man. . .

Attempt to separate the people of God from the word of God.

 

[Cormack]

but when that crosses over into picking and choosing which Bible passages are true we have simply appointed ourselves as judge.

You appoint yourself the role of judge by simply assenting to one view over all others. That kind of decision making is something we have to accept by default.

 

[Fervent]

You appoint yourself the role of judge by simply assenting to one view over all others. That kind of decision making is something we have to accept by default.

To an extent, sure. Though there is a world of difference between accepting what appears to be the most probable understanding of what is written, and rejecting what is written in favor of your opinion.

 

[Cormack]

the most probable understanding of what is written, and rejecting what is written in favor of your opinion.

Isn’t “the most probable understanding of what is written” also a matter of opinion?

Since many people don’t have your view of what the most “probable understanding” is.

 

[Hmm]

1. it only matters what God thinks.

2. what I think (e.g. my doctrine) is what God thinks.

Conclusion? It only matters what I think. That’s about as deep as the logic goes here.

Lol. You can arrive at any conclusion, however bizarre, using faulty logic. Here's Douglas Adam's talking about the Babel fish which, if you stick one in your ear, allows you to understand anything said to you in any language.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

​

 

[Fervent]

Isn’t “the most probable understanding of what is written” also a matter of opinion?

Since many people don’t have your view of what the most “probable understanding” is.

Yes, but it is the method of arriving at the conclusion that matters. I am not the judge of the text if I am seeking to find what it is saying and adjusting my opinions according to it, but I am the judge if I am taking the text and force-fitting it to what I want it to say. Ultimately, my interpretation could be wrong and such could be shown through argumentation about what is actually written. The issue is some in this thread have jettisoned the notion that the Bible is the final word entirely, which calls into question what basis they are using to correct their opinions.

 

[Cormack]

I am not the judge of the text if I am seeking to find what it is saying and adjusting my opinions according to it,

You’re the judge over what the texts mean, unless there’s an infallible Pope or magisterium over you, in that case they would be judge over what the texts mean and you would follow.

The above quote about changing your view along with the biblical text, rather than changing the biblical text to suit your own views, that’s an opinion about how you have approached the text that you liberally provide for yourself while denying it to others.

Though I’m certain holier, better educated men than you have come to conclusions about the Bible that go directly against your understanding and mine too.

But by your logic they’re the judges and you are not?

 

[Clare73]

You appoint yourself the role of judge by simply assenting to one view over all others. That kind of decision making is something we have to accept by default.

Just as I assent to one view of the resurrection over all others (physical),
to one view of the incarnation over all others (both fully God and fully man),
to one view of salvation over all others (without works),
to one view of justification over all others (apart from works),
etc., etc., etc.,

Imagine that! . . .giving heresy no ground (Galatiains 1:6-9). . .what a concept!

Your response wasn't to me, was it?

Oh, well. . .its still true anywayl

 

[Clare73]

1. it only matters what God thinks.

2. what I think (e.g. my doctrine) is what God thinks.

Conclusion? It only matters what I think. That’s about as deep as the logic goes here.

Your first mistake. . .you stop too short. . .God's truth is is more than just human logic.

Those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells don't buy your premise that God's truth cannot be known,
it's all just opinion.

Someone with a whole lot more savvy, power and authority gives them to know that God's truth is knowable, that it's not just a matter of personal opinion.

 

[Fervent]

You’re the judge over what the texts mean, unless there’s an infallible Pope or magisterium over you, in that case they would be judge over what the texts mean and you would follow.

The above quote about changing your view along with the biblical text, rather than changing the biblical text to suit your own views, that’s an opinion about how you have approached the text that you liberally provide for yourself while denying it to others.

Though I’m certain holier, better educated men than you have come to conclusions about the Bible that go directly against your understanding and mine too.

But by your logic they’re the judges and you are not?

Not at all, I'm not speaking to having differences of opinion that are supportable. Certainly, each of our interpretations is not the same thing as the Bible itself. You seem to have made an assumption about me that is unwarranted, and uncharitable. The only thing I am commenting on is the move away from the Bible, especially as that move completely removes the common ground that we have as believers.

 

[Cormack]

I wonder if that lack of charity is really on my end, @Fervent

What sense does it make to liberally allot sincerity (to ourselves,) while miserly giving no such thought to specialists in koine Greek or Old Testament Hebrew who disagree with our understanding of Christianity?

You insist others are breaking up or shaping Gods word to fit their own needs, “force-fitting” was the term you used. You however are sincerely reading the Bible and returning with the most probable interpretation that doesn’t move us in any way “away from the Bible,” meaning the Bibles true message?

While many who disagree with you are changing the word to suit their needs and have arrived at false “force-fitted” conclusions that “remove the common ground we have as believers.”

Reading those conclusions just strikes me as a long string of question begging. By repeating your messages it’s hard to see how I’m being uncharitable here.

 

[Fervent]

I wonder if that lack of charity is really on my end, @Fervent

What sense does it make to liberally allot sincerity (to ourselves,) while miserly giving no such thought to specialists in koine Greek or Old Testament Hebrew who disagree with our understanding of Christianity?

You insist others are breaking up or shaping Gods word to fit their own needs, “force-fitting” was the term you used. You however are sincerely reading the Bible and returning with the most probable interpretation that doesn’t move us in any way “away from the Bible,” meaning the Bibles true message?

While many who disagree with you are changing the word to suit their needs and have arrived at false “force-fitted” conclusions that “remove the common ground we have as believers.”

Reading those conclusions just strikes me as a long string of question begging. By repeating your messages it’s hard to see how I’m being uncharitable here.

I'm not speaking to experts in Greek or Hebrew, I am speaking exclusively to someone who says "Well, the Bible is just the opinions of men," when confronted with contradictory data rather than someone who has a different interpretation of what the text means. As I said, there's room for disagreements(outside of a few core issues) but if a given position comes to demeaning God's word as the opinions of men it is illegitimate.

 

[RickReads]

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

Disagreeing with you doesn`t mean I misunderstood you.