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

[Cormack]

Bit of an oxymoron there, resorting to using the Bible instead of what God prefers. That sounds really strange to me.

I’m not so sure it is so long as you believe in great making properties. If you believe in those things, and that a perfect God would house those kinds of qualities to the greatest degree, it’s not hard to believe that the greatest conceivable being would prefer loving Him over torment (for example.)

Of course if you didn’t care for things like philosophy you wouldn’t care much for understanding the qualities that the greatest conceivable being would have, and as a consequence you wouldn’t care to think about the kinds of thing He would prefer above other things.

Instead you might just add place of preference to the verses or Bible systematic that you prefer.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It appears arbitrary to me a lot of the time. I see slews of verses posted against it, and I find that often many don't really even address the issue. And some that do, don't really cancel out UR. So I find that the so called majority shrinks under scrutiny.

So far I still haven’t seen an viable explanation of how UR doesn’t contradict Matthew 7:21

 

[ozso]

Do you see it that way too?

That we can never prove that our perception / conclusion of the meaning of "The Word of God" is correct, and so we do not know
???

Yep. I usually concede that I might be wrong. And that I probably have a lot more to learn. I try to remember to frame my statements with "I think", "as I understand it" and the like. I think rather than taking a "you're wrong" attitude, we should take an "I disagree" attitude. Even better yet, "so far, I disagree".

 

[Hmm]

How do you Prove (pretty sure that's a maths term) your conclusion is accurate.

Yes, it is a maths term because you can only prove things in maths. You can't even prove things in science - scientific theories can only be disproved by finding a counter example.

If you cannot prove, is it fair to say you know?

It isn't fair. Mystics may say I know because they claim to have a special insight into truth but this is always something esoteric that they can't accurately communicate so it's not of much help to anyone else.

Ought you better say "I think...", or "consensus on what the evidence indicates is that ...", or "at present, we see only that the evidence indicates..."

I agree.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Yep. I usually concede that I might be wrong. And that I probably have a lot more to learn. I try to remember to frame my statements with "I think", "as I understand it" and the like. I think rather than taking a "you're wrong" attitude, we should take an "I disagree" attitude. Even better yet, "so far, I disagree".

I actually cannot see another way???

The problem (I have) is, even if "The Word of God" were spoken to me...1) Would I understand it in the first place. 2) How can I prove to myself that my interpretation is correct.

For 2.... I can't prove my interpretation is correct, nor do I know anyone else that can, and so long as it's unproven, there remains the possibility (no matter how ridiculous or far fetched) that I have misunderstood.

 

[Albion]

How thoroughly have you looked into it?

Rather thoroughly.

But if someone can produce Bible verses that I am unaware of, I'd say they should.

However, ones that say God is merciful or loving or that Christ died for the sins of the world--which is what we usually get from proponents of universal salvation--are not proof texts for universalism, and that fact should be obvious.

 

[Albion]

Precision can be at the expense of losing the bigger picture. We can be precise and find verses that (seemingly at least) talk about eternal hell but to do so we have to ignore all the counter verses and the idea of a God of unlimited grace.

Yes, except that it's the other way around!

There are all sorts of verses that speak of the lost being lost, etc. and hardly any that seem to suggest the salvation of all.

 

[Albion]

I think what you really mean is, rather than YOUR INTERPRETATION of the word of God.

Always good to say when there's nothing with which to refute the other person, right?

But go ahead. Make the case for universalism, using the Bible. And, to go along with your own thinking about Scripture, do not base it on your own interpretation of something that is not obvious.

 

[Albion]

"Confused-by-Christianity,"

Sooo, all the people who "agree" with your thinking are saying that the Bible cannot be understood WITHOUT human interpretations being part of the process.

If so, then they who are strongly arguing for universal salvation must instead by arguing from their own human, imprecise emotions or pure speculation! How exactly does that "trump" the consensus of Christians over the course of history since ancient times?

How many Christian denominations, can you name, that today affirm universal salvation?? Are they all just plain wrong and don't have any reason, from Scripture, for the conclusion they hold to and have held to for centuries??

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Sooo, all the people who "agree" with your thinking are saying that the Bible cannot be understood WITHOUT human interpretations being part of the process.

If so, then they who are strongly arguing for universal salvation must instead by arguing from their own human, imprecise emotions or pure speculation! How exactly does that "trump" the consensus of Christians over the course of history since ancient times?

How many Christian denominations, can you name, that today affirm universal salvation?? Are they all just plain wrong and don't have any reason, from Scripture, for the conclusion they hold to and have held to for centuries??

Is this meant for me?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

How exactly does that "trump" the consensus of Christians over the course of history since ancient times?

Are you asking me (as though I claimed this), or them?

How many Christian denominations, can you name, that today affirm universal salvation??

Are you asking me (as though I claimed this), or them?

Are they all just plain wrong and don't have any reason, from Scripture, for the conclusion they hold to and have held to for centuries??

???

 

[Hmm]

Yes, except that it's the other way around!

There are all sorts of verses that speak of the lost being lost, etc. and hardly any that seem to suggest the salvation of all.

Well, here's some at least:

Ephesians 1:10: “ as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.”

Colossians 1:20: “and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.”

Philippians 2:10-11: “so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

1 Corinthians 15:22: “for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ”

1 Corinthians 15:28: “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.”

Romans 5:18: “Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.”

1 Corinthians 15:22: “for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.”

Romans 11:32: “For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.”

1 Timothy 2:1-4: 1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, 4 who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.):

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

So universal salvation is attested to biblically. The problem is that ECT is too. So where does that leave us other than saying "My verses mean more than yours"?

 

[Albion]

Are you asking me (as though I claimed this), or them?

I was just asking the question in view of the general trend that's developed on this thread.

We could go on and on forever here with me saying that the Bible indicates one answer and other people saying that it's only my "interpretation" (right while they are offering their own interpretations), or that our idea of God is of a being who wouldn't do that, etc.

Except that it's not "my" interpretation. Almost the whole of the Christian world believes that some people will be lost. What's the response to that--they're all wrong and have been wrong for centuries? They don't have anyone who knows the original languages or is a Bible expert? What?

 

[Albion]

So universal salvation is attested to biblically.

None of those verses say so. All they represent is the thinking of a person who has "read a conclusion into" the wording that he was looking to find. One after another, we could point out how these verses that you think support universal salvation actually are not saying that.

And, once again, how come there is virtually no support for your interpretations from the vast number of real Bible experts of almost all the Christians churches of the world at present and for previous centuries? You would think that there would be support from that quarter, wouldn't you, IF your thesis were persuasive?

This issue is not like faith alone vs. faith+works, or the Lord's Supper is symbolic vs. it's the Real Presence of Christ, or we should baptize only adults vs. baptizing children is appropriate...doctrinal disputes that really divide the body of Christians, long have done so, and for which each side can make at least a reasonable case from Scripture.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Except that it's not "my" interpretation. Almost the whole of the Christian world believes that some people will be lost.

Are you saying - You go with the flow of current Christian thought on the topic?

I personally wouldn't say "most people believe this, therefore, it is true"

 

[Albion]

Are you saying - You go with the flow of current Christian thought on the topic?

No.

I personally wouldn't say "most people believe this, therefore, it is true"

I wouldn't either.

 

[ozso]

Always good to say when there's nothing with which to refute the other person, right?

So far all I've seen from you is your opinion based on your view of scripture and your understanding of UR, which seems piecemeal. And you keep passing it off as THE WORD OF GOD.

But go ahead. Make the case for universalism, using the Bible. And, to go along with your own thinking about Scripture, do not base it on your own interpretation of something that is not obvious.

What?

 

[Hmm]

None of those verses say so. All they represent is the thinking of a person who has "read a conclusion into" the wording that he was looking to find.

Well, you asked for verses and I provided you with some. If you are going to dismiss them as easily as that then the point about interpretation that people have been making and that you don't like and have also been dismissing really does apply.

 

[Albion]

So far all I've seen from you is your opinion based on your view of scripture and your understanding of UR, which seems piecemeal.

What a shame. I had hoped that you would understand what I was explaining and then perhaps reply with some new thoughts on our subject.

 

[Albion]

Well, you asked for verses and I provided you with some.

Yes, and I give credit for the effort. Unfortunately, none of them leads us to universalism as a conclusion, and you didn't bother to explain why you think they do, preferring to leave us with only "So universal salvation is attested to biblically."