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

[Clare73]

Definitely, yes. Justice does not obtain until God's intention for flourishing life obtains. God set out to create a good creation where love and life flourish, and since God cannot fail to do what God intends, it only makes sense that everyone will be part of that.

The noblesse oblige assumption regarding the intent of the divine wisdom?

Some might have to go through hell to get there, but thats what they get for being so mean spirited.

I know, I know, "But, the bible says!" I can't parse out all the issues the scriptures present for trying to navigate this issue.

"Unfortunate". . .

But the main thrust is pretty clear. God created us for life together in the divine presence, love is the key to participation in the divine plan, and God cannot fail. The cross and resurrection, the indwelling of the Spirit that changes hearts, all are working to ensure divine success. Come hell or high water, God will be all in all. Amen. You may now pass the plate, lol.

 

[AV1611VET]

Over 500 messages in and I’m still waiting on a valid reason to prefer another view over universalism.

Freewill.

 

[Clare73]

Somewhere in here we have do admit that those who recognize that God is not only loving but just as well. That's a difficult point to arrive at in debates like this one, but somewhere or other it has to be acknowledged.

Justice meaning giving everyone his due, what one is justly owed.

 

[ozso]

You are mistaken. "Corn" refers to the most common or characteristic grain. In the USA, that's Maize...so we Americans call it "corn" and think that we're necessarily referring to those yellow kernels that grow on what we call ears. However, in another country where Maize is uncommon, corn is something else.

CORN - Definition from the KJV Dictionary (av1611.com)

So you're saying "corn" is the proper translation of "wheat"?

 

[Cormack]

Freewill.

Which has already been explained to you as an invalid strawman of what universalists believe. “Freewill” is no reason to prefer any other view over universalism.

They affirm freewill, even the change of heart going forward to everyone who’s eventually saved. So, Hitler wouldn’t ultimately be doing the things we know Hitler for, not in universalism, he would eventually be saved and would experience that renewal of the spirit that’s first required to share in Christ’s life.

You didn’t understand that though, because you… reject logic and reason.

 

[Clare73]

There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Kind of like when you got saved. (remember) - lol
Better to pluck an eye out or lose a hand... (a common literary exaggeration)
Jesus said...
Mark 9:49
Everyone will be salted with fire.

So everyone goes to hell?

So in this kind of universalism, everyone goes to hell instead of heaven.

That oughta' fill the pews.

The prophet said...

Malachi 3:2
But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.

 

[Albion]

I pointed out that the word universalism has nothing to do with determinism, replying that people all wind up saved isn’t much of a response....

Let's be even clearer then. Universalism, by definition, means that all will be saved. BUT for that to be possible, even in theory, it requires God to MAKE it happen after death, so that rules out the free will that you want to build into your own definition. And it still does not have the support of Holy Scripture. Let's not overlook that fact and make guesswork be all that matters.

The mechanics of how people arrive in the Kingdom according to the vast majority of universalists is via libertarian freewill, not determinism.

It makes no difference what people who consider themselves to be universalists think about it. Universalism is what it is; it has a definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

They affirm freewill, even the change of heart going forward to everyone who’s eventually saved.

So why don't they call it "freewill" then, if it's the same?

 

[Albion]

So you're saying "corn" is the proper translation of "wheat"?

In a country in which wheat is common but maize is not, yes. To the best of my knowledge, maize is not the most common crop in either England or Israel.

 

[Cormack]

BUT for that to be possible, even in theory, it requires God to MAKE it happen,

That’s a very limiting view of God there. I don’t why God couldn’t get everyone saved in a variety of ways while preserving their freewill in tact, presumably not much different from Him saving you.

Since you assert that God couldn’t get everyone saved without violating their freewill (even in theory!) I’m assuming you have some reason to insist upon that.

It makes no difference what people who consider themselves to be universalists think about it.

It has everything to do with it if you’d stop strawmanning them for five minutes. I mean it’s just silly, if you refuse to interact with the universalists actually theology, then you’re not doing anything meaningful.

 

[Cormack]

So why don't they call it "freewill" then, if it's the same?

Why don’t universalists call what freewill? Universalists explicitly promote a freewill theism, which should be enough for any sensible person.

 

[AV1611VET]

In a country in which wheat is common but maize is not, yes. To the best of my knowledge, maize is not the most common crop in either England or Israel.

That's why I think it took a miracle to fulfill Isaac's blessing on Jacob.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why don’t universalists call what freewill? Universalists explicitly promote a freewill theism, which should be enough for any sensible person.

Okay with you then, if I call them "frewillists"?

 

[Albion]

That’s a very limiting view of God there.

Not at all. God could do that if he chose to do so.

But that isn't the issue here.

You have been contending that if God did indeed choose to do that, universal salvation would nevertheless be a matter of free will on the part of the souls in question and, also, that every last soul would freely choose God and none, not one, would persist in refusing Him.

There is no basis for either of those, not reason and not Scripture. No basis other than "I'd prefer it if that were how it will be," which is what we were originally asked about. You wanted to know what our preference is, but now it's apparently become "you should choose to believe in universal salvation."

 

[Cormack]

Okay with you then, if I call them "frewillists"?

That might get a bit confusing, since Calvinists already bash Arminianism and Arminians as freewillists and freewillians and other rude variations, rather than simply calling them by their usual name…

 

[ozso]

In a country in which wheat is common but maize is not, yes. To the best of my knowledge, maize is not the most common crop in either England or Israel.

Looking it up some I see that corn was used roughly the same as meat was used to describe food in general.

Now that that's settled, what about the KJV unicorns?

 

[AV1611VET]

Looking it up some I see that corn was used roughly the same as meat was used to describe food in general.

Does it bother you that Jacob had corn flakes for breakfast?

Now that that's settled, what about the unicorns?

They are cryptids.

 

[Cormack]

You wanted to know what our preference is, but now it's apparently become "you should choose to believe in universal salvation."

Sure but that also comes with knowing what you’ve based that preference on.

If I offered you two ice cream cones, one vanilla and another chocolate, and I asked “which flavour of ice cream do you prefer?” and you replied “well, I’ll pick the chocolate because the other is poison. I prefer chocolate over poison.”

That’s not an appropriate answer, right? By appropriate I mean logically justifiable, it’s not logically justifiable because you just rejected one of those ice creams over something it’s not. You refused one because you’re insisting on something that’s not germane to the thing.

Anybody can give any reason they want, but if your reason is a mess, I’ll probably tell you that your reasoning is a mess.

 

[AV1611VET]

Universalists must think Peter left the gate open for them.

 

[Cormack]

Universalists must think Peter left the gate open for them.

I’m just happy universalists think full stop.