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

[a-lily-of-peace]

There may be ways to justify Universal Salvation, but the Scriptural basis is much weaker than the case for some of us being lost. That's certain. So, there's always logic to turn to, if that is supposed to trump divine revelation.

But either way, the familiar argument that has shown up more than once here--God would have all to be saved--does not in any way mean that he will or has to save everyone. It's nothing more than what would be ideal if there were nothing more involved. Unfortunately for some people, there IS more involved.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord !’ ”

(Matthew 23:37-39, NKJV)

 

[John Mullally]

Of course, he can save everyone, but the reason he doesn't is not revealed in the Bible. On the other hand, the mystery of sin is how Satan, the other fallen angels, and humans could have sinned, though they were God's perfect creations. Not everything is revealed; the challenge is to submit to that fact.

If the stickler is the matter of God not desiring everybody to be saved, then there is no problem. Peter and Paul assert that God desires all people to be saved per 1 Timothy 2:4 & 1 Peter 3:9. These scripture passages are so unshakable on this point that even leading Reformist John MacArthur agrees to it in If God Desires All Men to Be Saved, Why Aren't They?

If men aren't saved (which I believe is common) its not because God desired it that way. Peace.

 

[Cormack]

I’m sensing a repeat pattern in pastor MacArthurs article.

1. “Obviously, in some inscrutable sense, God’s desire for the world’s salvation is different from His eternal saving purpose.”​

2. “How His electing grace and predestined purpose can stand beside His love for the world and desire that the gospel be preached to all people, still holding them responsible for their own rejection and condemnation, is a mystery of the divine mind.”​

3. “Crowning the Scripture’s teaching on this matter is the great truth that God has elected who will believe and saved them before the world began. What mystery!”​

4. “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!”​

5. “This is precisely the distinction theologians often make between God’s secret will and His revealed will.”
​

Really good share though, @John Mullally. Pastor John does try his best to harmonise the strong collection of scriptures that insist Gods desire is for everyone to be saved.

 

[Cormack]

David wrote many psalms praying for the destruction of his enemies and the punishment of the unrighteous.

I’ve always liked the fact that the Bible allows for people to feel their pain and pen their griefs without those things being a commandment or a bind upon Christians today.

Think of Job bemoaning the day of his birth or King David in the Psalms insisting “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks”

David even tied these feelings into justice when he added “Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell.” As though it’s an eye for an eye type situation, thankfully the old mans felt anger doesn’t work out as our commands or our code of Christian conduct. Christs example is the code.

Christs the example and He taught “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”

That’s the of compassion that every Christian is called to have.

So I can’t make a theology of it, but I hope I die with nothing but forgiveness of others in my heart and can bring that as an offering.

That’s really encouraging, @a-lily-in-the-valley. Oh dang!!! Like the lilies of the field dressed better than even Solomon (Matthew 6.) I just got that, took so long for me to figure out, how embarrassing.

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

I’ve always liked the fact that the Bible allows for people to feel their pain and pen their griefs without those things being a commandment or a bind upon Christians today.

Think of Job bemoaning the day of his birth or King David in the Psalms insisting “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks”

David even tied these feelings into justice when he added “Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell.” As though it’s an eye for an eye type situation, thankfully the old mans felt anger doesn’t work out as our commands or our code of Christian conduct. Christs example is the code.

Christs the example and He taught “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”

That’s the of compassion that every Christian is called to have.



That’s really encouraging, @a-lily-in-the-valley. Oh dang!!! Like the lilies of the field dressed better than even Solomon (Matthew 6.) I just got that, took so long for me to figure out, how embarrassing.

Clothed in the righteousness of Christ

 

[Hmm]

Luke 15 has three parables about people losing something: a woman who loses a coin, a shepherd who loses a sheep and a father who loses a son.

What do these mean? Is it about losing things or finding things or people? Surely the latter - the God as described by Jesus in the Bible doesn't give up until everything that is lost is found.

 

[Saint Steven]

Luke 15 has three parables about people losing something: a woman who loses a coin, a shepherd who loses a sheep and a father who loses a son.

What do these mean? Is it about losing things or finding things or people? Surely the latter - the God as described by Jesus in the Bible doesn't give up until everything that is lost is found.

It's a glass half full, or half empty, thing.

The heading should say The Found Coin, The Found Sheep and The Found Son.

 

[Hmm]

It's a glass half full, or half empty, thing.

The heading should say The Found Coin, The Found Sheep and The Found Son.

I agree, headlines are important because that's all some people read! Naming the parables The Lost Coin, The Lost Sheep and The Lost Son gives them a totally different emphasis.

 

[Cormack]

the God as described by Jesus in the Bible doesn't give up until everything that is lost is found.

That’s to paint the clearest picture of universal reconciliation, however, the clearer that idea gets the more believable it becomes.

It’s a beautiful story that meets the high standards set by the beauty of the storyteller, God the Father. Every other story seems below His love, below His sacrifice, below His greatness.

That believability is partly why so many posts in the topic have been used up to spread lies about what universal reconciliation means (e.g. no justice in universalism, sin amnesty, Hitlers going to do genocides in heaven.)

So many replies trying to eject universalism from the heart and mind based upon untruth about what universalism means.

The picture is obscured by untruth so that users can more easily reject it. The clearer the picture we are allowed to paint of universal restoration the more it seems to make sense.

While the opposite view (e.g. traditionalism) becomes less believable the clearer we paint it. The situation here is totally inverted, instead of clarity of thought helping to strengthen our trust in the view, we punt to mystery, Gods inscrutable mind, lopsided notions of justice measured in pounds of flesh.

_________
1. We use clarity to defend universalism.

2. We use mystery to defend hell and traditionalism.
_________
1. We attack universalism by obscuring the facts.

2. We attack hell and traditionalism by making the facts known.
____________

It’s another pesky philosophical problem that short circuits Christians into saying “just my Bible! I only need my Bible!” when in truth they’re already using their front loaded philosophical ideas about love and justice to interpret the Bible.

People shouldn’t pretend to junk in philosophical presuppositions because they simply can’t, instead they need to learn the craft and start embracing good philosophy.

“Good philosophy exists if only for the purpose of exposing bad philosophy.”
​

Users would feel much more comfortable writing about their preference for universalism to be true if they had a proper grasp of philosophy, like how Paul had a strong grasp of even pagan philosophy.

He borrowed the phrase that in God “we live and move and have our being” from a poem to Zeus(!) He borrowed “evil communication corrupts good character” from Euripides.

People ignorant of ancient scholarship like this can’t even appreciate the joke about tailors in Ancient Greece “Euripides? We fix ah these!”

On my last count there were 28 uses of pagan philosophers in the writings of Paul, which comes as no surprise when we think on the prophets great education, so, from Socrates to Plato he knew and quoted them all.

Just imagine a first century Jew complaining to Paul “only my Torah! Only my Torah!” No guys, just no, that’s not life, that’s not what God expects of Christians living in victory.

I’d recommend that people look into Paul’s use of “vain human philosophies” so that they come away with a less dismissive attitude towards how much truth those things actually contain. Even more exciting is that today we have an army of Christian philosophers(!) Believers in Jesus who can teach y’all about great making properties and why torturing people forever isn’t loving (as if you need to be taught that,) there’s really no excuse to put off jumping headlong into one small part of our Christian birthright.

 

[Saint Steven]

It’s another pesky philosophical problem that short circuits Christians into saying “just my Bible! I only need my Bible!” when in truth they’re already using their front loaded philosophical ideas about love and justice to interpret the Bible.

Right! It's those hellish tinted lenses.

 

[Cormack]

Right! It's those hellish tinted lenses.

Exactly. Jesus teaches about hades, where the worm never dies and the fires never settle, then in the same context He adds that everyone will be salted with fire. Well, that’s unpleasant. I guess we are all going to hell because “only my Bible!”

Or we could be more savvy and adult by admitting we each come to the text with different presuppositions, some formed by running away to different verses, some formed by the witness of the Spirit, and others from our own philosophical presuppositions.

Some of these presuppositions are worthy of an all loving, all powerful God, while others aren’t worthy. Still in terms of our prefer of course.

If tormenting people for years is a low view to have about let’s say… your mother….. why is it any better to prefer that God the Father is lumbered with it.

It’s up to everyone to ask themselves if their views of God are good enough for God.

 

[Hmm]

It’s up to everyone to ask themselves if their views of God are good enough for God.

Yes, God is better described by Jesus in Matthew 19 when he says that God brings about a "renewal of all things", or by Peter in Acts 3 who says God will "restore everything", or by Paul in Colossians 1 who says that through Jesus "God was pleased to... reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven."

Restoration and renewal brings God glory. Setting people alight for ever doesn't. Seems pretty obvious really.

 

[Cormack]

Restoration and renewal brings God glory. Setting people alight for ever doesn't. Seems pretty obvious really.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.​

Checkmate logic and reason.


Oddly enough, people who use that verse to defend their immoral or illogical sounding theology from its detractors, they are really saying….
________
1. Mans ways are not Gods ways.

2. Y’all are using mans ways (because you reject my theology as immoral or nonsensical.)

3. I’m using Gods ways (or at least Gods theology.)
____________

But I thought Gods ways aren’t mans ways. So, Gods ways aren’t mans ways, which justifies the insane sounding theology, but the person defending their theology is clearly doing things in Gods ways and in line with his thoughts, or else they wouldn’t be using that verse to defend their theology.

My brain, my brain! It’s melting, oh what a world what a world!

 

[Hmm]

My brain, my brain! It’s melting, oh what a world what a world!

”I cannot speak well enough to be unintelligible.”
Jane Austen, Northanger Abbey

 

[Cormack]

Watched an interesting video by the apostate prophet just now, where he argued against Allah creating people with the prior knowledge that they would sin, and how strange it is that he’s now punishing them for that sin.

First I thought to myself, boy AP needs to study up on Calvinism, knowing more about the deterministic presuppositions of Calvinism would help him understand Islam so much better.

Anyway part of their convo was also about what makes Allah “the most merciful,” and that to me was an interesting question.

The Muslims in chat twisted up the meaning of most merciful not to mean the most merciful being, but rather now most merciful means the being who has forgiven the most on the highest number of instances.

So a being could be more forgiving than Allah in terms of their nature and disposition, they just aren’t being wronged enough to forgive enough to break the world record for showing forgiveness (so Allah has the world records.)

This ^^^^ is why people need to understand great making properties.

So the being who has forgiven the most is the most merciful being, rather than the great quality of being a forgiving character.

This got me thinking.

Let’s say God or Allah or any all powerful being is going to torment 100 people, let’s keep the numbers low for me, so, he’s going to torment 100 people for eternity.

At least 1 of that 100 number could be convinced into believing throughout their life surely. God could send them a dream, he could appear in a vision, he could climb down from heaven or make the love of that persons life be a dedicated believer.

Under determinism he could just snap his fingers and the guy or gal would believe, it’s that easy.

So, again most merciful is the one who forgives most.

Wouldn’t the God who used his influence to save 1 person from that 99 number be more merciful than the God who damned all 100?

And again the God who saved and forgave 2 people, making the number of the damned 98, would he be more merciful than the character who doomed the 100? Surely yes.

If you’re a Calvinist this kind of thinking should really seal the deal on whether or not you see universalism as a viable option or a preferable option going forward.

Calvinists are often caught in bed with universalists, much to the formers disappointment, but looking into that conversation with AP really does highlight how much greater the forgiveness of God could be.

 

[Hmm]

Wouldn’t the God who used his influence to save 1 person from that 99 number be more merciful than the God who damned all 100?

And again the God who saved and forgave 2 people, making the number of the damned 98, would he be more merciful than the character who doomed the 100? Surely yes.

You would certainly think so but most of us are dualists. There must be poor people or else I can't be rich. God must damn some or many otherwise He can't show mercy to me. There must be a Hell otherwise there can't be a Heaven.

 

[Saint Steven]

My brain, my brain! It’s melting, oh what a world what a world!

I saw that movie!
Oh, wait...

 

[Lazarus Short]

You would certainly think so but most of us are dualists. There must be poor people or else I can't be rich. God must damn some or many otherwise He can't show mercy to me. There must be a Hell otherwise there can't be a Heaven.

Not everything is dualistic. One God made One Universe and one Man, Adam. Eve later, but still. Hell is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible touching Creation. The first chapter of John's Gospel explicitly states that God did it, and no one else did. So - the Creation/Universe/Earth/Men are not prizes being fought over by God and Satan, or by Heaven versus Hell. Satan, btw, is not the Prince of Hell...or even Heck. He is answerable to God (see Job 1-2) and God seems to keep him on a short leash - hardly the threat that Jonathan Edwards portrayed.

 

[Hmm]

Not everything is dualistic.

I agree. I didn't mean to include myself when I said "most of us are dualists”!

It's a form of indoctrination. Most Christians probably grew up being presented with a picture of heaven held up against a picture of hell and can't now see one without the other. Similarly with partialism, meaning the belief that the atonement was for only a part of humanity. We've heard the idea expressed on this thread "What's the point of being a Christian if were all going to heaven anyway?" As if living this life as close to God as possible wasn't a good enough reason in itself!

 

[Saint Steven]

I agree. I didn't mean to include myself when I said "most of us are dualists”!

It's a form of indoctrination. Most Christians probably grew up being presented with a picture of heaven held up against a picture of hell and can't now see one without the other. Similarly with partialism, meaning the belief that the atonement was for only a part of humanity. We've heard the idea expressed on this thread "What's the point of being a Christian if were all going to heaven anyway?" As if living this life as close to God as possible wasn't a good enough reason in itself!

YES !!!!!!!
Children at the youngest ages of Christian education grasp the concept of heaven and hell.

It's pervasive even in secular culture. How often do we encounter the words "heaven" and "hell" in everything from news articles, to books, to movies, to song lyrics, every day?