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

[ozso]

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.

I must have missed the post you made the case for universalism, with a demonstration of your thorough knowledge of it. What post number is it?

 

[Hmm]

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.

I honestly think they speak for themselves and can't be made any clearer. I'm not saying they lead to a forced conclusion of universalism but they do point clearly in that direction.

 

[RickReads]

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.

I`ve just put my time into trying to understand what the Bible says rather than the philosophies
of men. I want to know what gentile disciples of Paul believed and I want to know what God says about things. I`m not partial to views that deviate from that.

 

[ozso]

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.

I've understood you just fine. And I have replied with my thoughts on the subject. If you're trying to be witty, I'm not seeing the wit. I'm just seeing blanket statements now that don't really follow.

 

[Albion]

I honestly think they speak for themselves and can't be made any clearer. I'm not saying they lead to a forced conclusion of universalism but they do point clearly in that direction.

"in that direction" isn't universal salvation. They and others that are similar may show us that God may be generous when it comes to his judging, that he may reward his elect in ways that we cannot yet appreciate, that the suffering of the lost is not as barbaric as is sometimes imagined, that more will be saved than we suppose and fewer lost than is usually thought, or a dozen other possibilities which are short of universal salvation. And make no mistake about it, universalism means every last person saved; nothing short of that is universalism.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

No.
I wouldn't either.

What are you saying?

I'm saying, I have a problem, and wondering if anyone else sees it too. Do they think I am correct and there is indeed a problem, or do they think I'm mistaken? If so, how?

This is the problem...
How can I prove that my interpretation of "reality" is correct.

Well - I can't.
I can be convinced, satisfied or persuaded.
But, I cannot know beyond "satisfaction".
(That would be a proof - which is not questionable).

I can't prove my interpretation is correct, and, so long as it's unproven, there remains the possibility (no matter how ridiculous or far fetched) that I am wrong - or that we all are.

 

[ozso]

None of those verses say so.

None of what verses? How about posting a few of them and then exegetically explain why they don't say so?

 

[Hmm]

And make no mistake about it, universalism mean every last person saved; nothing short of that is universalism.

I realise that and I'm beginning to think it makes the most sense. ECT makes no sense to me and I don't believe it is biblical.

 

[Albion]

None of what verses?

Did you not read post #1672?

 

[ozso]

"in that direction" isn't universal salvation. They and others that are similar may show us that God may be generous when it comes to his judging, that he may reward his elect in ways that we cannot yet appreciate, that the suffering of the lost is not as barbaric as is sometimes imagined, that more will be saved than we suppose and fewer lost than is usually thought, or a dozen other possibilities which are short of universal salvation. And make no mistake about it, universalism means every last person saved; nothing short of that is universalism.

There are varying views on the subject along with varying terms for it. What they all agree on, is that the end result of eternal conscious torment for the vast majority of mankind, is an incorrect view.

 

[ozso]

Did you not read post #1672?

Okay, now which post is the one where you exegetically explained why those verses don't say so?

 

[ozso]

I realise that and I'm beginning to think it makes the most sense. ECT makes no sense to me and I don't believe it is biblical.

ECT being an incorrect doctrine is the main consensus. Really both ECT and annihilation. But mainly ECT. However, with ETC and annihilation eliminated, what's left?

 

[Cormack]

I`ve just put my time into trying to understand what the Bible says rather than the philosophies
of men.

That’s the Bible safe space again. The problem with dismissing the idea of great making properties is that it’s an idea found in the Bible.

To be wise or to be foolish? There’s an answer to that given in the Bible that goes towards creating a hierarchy of qualities, hence the greatest conceivable being.

When you dismiss the idea as one of the “philosophies of men” you’re loosely misusing Bible terms to help deny facts confirmed by the Bible, moral intuition, philosophy, nature and plain old common sense.

I want to know what gentile disciples of Paul believed and I want to know what God says about things.

Then we should take biblical material very seriously when it testifies to sources of knowledge for God that exist outside of the Bible. I’m not going to waste my time or insult your intelligence by assuming you don’t know where these verses are, I’m sure you can already imagine a couple.

 

[ozso]

Just a reminder, this is an excellent objective lecture. The person giving it, is not a universalist.

 

[RickReads]

That’s the Bible safe space again. The problem with dismissing the idea of great making properties is that it’s an idea found in the Bible.

To be wise or to be foolish? There’s an answer to that given in the Bible that goes towards creating a hierarchy of qualities, hence the greatest conceivable being.

When you dismiss the idea as one of the “philosophies of men” you’re loosely misusing Bible terms to help deny facts confirmed by the Bible, moral intuition, philosophy, nature and plain old common sense.



Then we should take biblical material very seriously when it testifies to sources of knowledge for God that exist outside of the Bible. I’m not going to waste my time or insult your intelligence by assuming you don’t know where these verses are, I’m sure you can already imagine a couple.

I don`t believe in New Age Christianity and that is what all that sounds like.

 

[Cormack]

I don`t believe in New Age Christianity and that is what all that sounds like.

Well sir, as the judge said to the defendant: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

Great making properties have been argued for in one form or another so far back as Augustine (354-430) and Anselm of Canterbury (1093-1109.)

As much as I’d love to dunk on that shifty Augustine for being a new ager, he’s too dang old.

Although this is overlooking the fact that I’ve already shown you great making properties from the Bible (e.g. pride or humility, wisdom or foolishness, knowledge or ignorance.)

If you have ever used the prefix “omni” you’re knee deep in the waters of perfect being theology.

 

[ozso]

Well sir, as the judge said to the defendant: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

Great making properties have been argued for in one form or another so far back as Augustine (354-430) and Anselm of Canterbury (1093-1109.)

As much as I’d love to dunk on that shifty Augustine for being a new ager, he’s too dang old.

Although this is overlooking the fact that I’ve already shown you great making properties from the Bible (e.g. pride or humility, wisdom or foolishness, knowledge or ignorance.)

If you have ever used the prefix “omni” you’re knee deep in the waters of perfect being theology.

Happy 1,000th post.

 

[Charles1963]

What’s commonly referred to as Christian universalism. Everyone eventually saved and the whole of creation reconciled through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. All paths don’t lead to God, but all will someday be saved upon the one right path.

It depends... If you refer to Universalism as a mesh of all religions where every one of its leaders is on par with Jesus Christ and where Jesus is just, one of the guys, then obviously not! There is a push right now for a new world order; a push towards a One World Religion caracterised by an absolute relative and personalised meaning of truth and salvation where anything goes.

The New World Order also seems to have a very horizontal aproach to humanism (let us make a better and more just world for ourselves) The problem is that we can not make this better place for ourselves without first accessing the vertical. Loving my next door brother ? Shur, but what capacity have I to love from my own strength and will... If I want to love on the earthly plane I must not forget my heavenly sources " Jesus Christ " !

And what of " Christian Unity " Doctornaly speaking ? Most probably impossible, but what about Spiritual Unity, or, Unity of heart ??!! I often worry that when the Enemy comes, he will take advantage of our tendancy to bicker at our doctornal differences to his advantage in order to more effectivly crush us like bugs. I consider myself as a Catholic Watchman; praying for persicuted Christians, priests, pastors as well as all protestant Christians alike...

Peace, love and courage to all,

Charles

 

[Lazarus Short]

I have a question for you.

Assume we agree
1) Only God can properly perceive objective reality. We see in part.
2) Whatever is written in the Bible - is detailing some of "objective reality".
3) We read the Bible.

How do we know we have properly perceived / understood the "Objective Reality"?
Ordinarily - if you need accuracy, you devise a test of some sort and can determine accuracy. A measuring stick or something like that.

What measuring stick can we use to measure the accuracy of our conclusions drawn from the Bible?

My thoughts were this:
There is no way to know if what we have understood to be correct, is actually correct (objective reality / proven).
We can be satisfied our conclusions are true, but not prove them true.

We will just have to do our very best to sincerely review our conclusions, be honest and accept, that we don't know. Like scientists would do when they discover new per. Observe, hypothesis, test/predict, pass test/get a prediction correct / assume your conclusion is correct - you're accurate

I cannot see any other way.
Does everyone else think this is the case? Or just me?

This will not be popular, but I will say it anyway: If you want to tap into objective reality, as you say, through the pages of Scripture, it is essential that you read a version that is clear, honest and not translated according to theology. Translating according to theology puts the cart before the horse. As a bonus, stay away from versions which are married to a denomination, such as the one the Watchtower folks put out. Beyond that, I don't care to endorse any, as so few versions deserve an endorsement. Some here speak of the "Word of God," but out here in Biblereaderland, it is a jungle...

/end rant/

 

[Albion]

This will not be popular, but I will say it anyway: If you want to tap into objective reality, as you say, through the pages of Scripture, it is essential that you read a version that is clear, honest and not translated according to theology. Translating according to theology puts the cart before the horse. As a bonus, stay away from versions which are married to a denomination, such as the one the Watchtower folks put out. Beyond that, I don't care to endorse any, as so few versions deserve an endorsement. Some here speak of the "Word of God," but out here in Biblereaderland, it is a jungle...

/end rant/

This is of course true about some translations. However, very very few of the posters here on CF turn to one of those versions, from what I've observed in their posts.

It appears that most people are aware of the problem you identified.