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

[ozso]

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

How do you know that, were you there?

They are cryptids.

We have tall shaggy ones with big feet here in the PNW.

 

[AV1611VET]

I’m just happy universalists think full stop.

Well it'll be "Stop, drop, and roll" for most of them.

 

[Cormack]

Well it'll be "Stop, drop, and roll" for most of them.

For most or for all? Genuinely curious.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know that, were you there?

No, but I can get close enough.

We have tall shaggy ones with big feet here in the PNW.

What's your question then?

Let me ask you this:

In your opinion, was Paul Bunyan just a legend, or a Nephilim?

 

[ozso]

Universalists must think Peter left the gate open for them.

Indeed, Rev 21:25 saying that the gates will never be shut, is a favorite verse of universalists. One of them even used it as the title for one of his books.

 

[AV1611VET]

For most or for all? Genuinely curious.

Well, I was going to say that, but since I believe in once-saved-always-saved, I would have to concede that Christians-turned-Universalists have a reality check coming.

They'll make it to Heaven, but not because of universalism.

 

[ozso]

No, but I can get close enough.What's your question then?

Let me ask you this:

In your opinion, was Paul Bunyan just a legend, or a Nephilim?

My question was a joke. I was hoping the "" emoji I put after it would get that across.

Paul Bunyan had a thyroid problem. The Nephilim are extraterrestrials.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed, Rev 21:25 saying that the gates will never be shut, is a favorite verse of universalists.

I take it dispensation theology is anathema to them?

 

[AV1611VET]

Paul Bunyan had a thyroid problem.

Riiight -- and Sasquatch is just someone pilose?

 

[ozso]

I take it dispensation theology is anathema to them?

I don't recall them bringing it up.

 

[ozso]

Riiight -- and Sasquatch is just someone pilose?

And with a thyroid problem.

 

[ozso]

Well, I was going to say that, but since I believe in once-saved-always-saved, I would have to concede that Christians-turned-Universalists have a reality check coming.

They'll make it to Heaven, but not because of universalism.

"Christians-turned-Universalists" isn't how it goes, any more than "Christians-turned-Baptists" would.

 

[RickReads]

So let's begin with Daniel. Has Daniel 2:31-45 been fulfilled?

No it hasn`t

 

[Albion]

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?

Well, that's not what the OP asked for (and which you reiterated in several later messages).

 

[Cormack]

I’m going to steel man that message ^^^^ and assume it’s humour.

 

[public hermit]

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

Yes, I suppose so.

Whoever claims to be noble must conduct himself nobly
Noblesse oblige - Wikipedia

What is fitting for the good Creator whose nature is love? I would think it includes succeeding at creating a good creation, i.e. no evil. Obviously, it's a process but doesn't the telos of God being all in all assume the eradication of evil? Isn't God capable of eradicating evil without destroying the creature? What is more noble, more divine, saving some of creation in the process of eradicating evil or saving all creation in the process of eradicating evil? I say the latter, but we'll just have to wait and see.

"Unfortunate"

I don't think it's unfortunate. I think the scriptures are sufficiently ambiguous for my being justified in withholding judgment concerning God's final judgment. I consider it prudent. But do I wish all to be reconciled? Yes. Do I think God capable. More than yes. Do I think it necessary that hell have everlasting occupants? No, I don't see why that must be.

 

[Clare73]

And unfulfilled prophetic riddles (Numbers 12:8) are subject to more than one interpretation.

So let's begin with Daniel. Has Daniel 2:31-45 been fulfilled?

No it hasn`t

And therein lies the problem, because history shows that it has.

Daniel 2:44 - "In the time of those kings;" i.e., the Roman empire (Daniel 2:40-43), which conquered the Greek empire (Daniel 2:39,
Daniel 8:21) in 63 BC, and which reigned until the fall of Rome in 476 AD, during which past Roman empire the Messianic kingdom was set up
at the first coming of Christ (Matthew 12:28), a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor left to another people, and will endure forever,

a kingdom which is spiritual--invisible, within (Luke 17:20-21) and which Jesus' parables everywhere present as now ("is," not
"will be"), in agreement with Daniel 2:44 (Matthew 13:24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, Matthew 18:23, 2:21; Mark 4:26).

There is no future temporal Messianic kingdom along side the present eternal Messianic kingdom set up at Christ's first coming, which is just
more multiplying of events and things which are the same.

So we're back to
the NT presenting no other "age" than the church age between the first and second comings of Christ,
your "dispensations"of 1 Co 9:7 and Col 1:25 as "epochs" not with Biblical standing in the original language of the NT, and
therefore, the next age is eternity, the end of time. . .according to NT teaching.

 

[Clare73]

Well, that's not what the OP asked for (and which you reiterated in several later messages).

It's an appropriate answer if the chocolate is poisoned.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, I suppose so.

Whoever claims to be noble must conduct himself nobly
Noblesse oblige - Wikipedia

What is fitting for the good Creator whose nature is love? I would think it includes succeeding at creating a good creation, i.e. no evil. Obviously, it's a process but doesn't the telos of God being all in all assume the eradication of evil? Isn't God capable of eradicating evil without destroying the creature? What is more noble, more divine, saving some of creation in the process of eradicating evil or saving all creation in the process of eradicating evil? I say the latter, but we'll just have to wait and see.



I don't think it's unfortunate. I think the scriptures are sufficiently ambiguous for my being justified in withholding judgment concerning God's final judgment. I consider it prudent. But do I wish all to be reconciled? Yes. Do I think God capable. More than yes. Do I think it necessary that hell have everlasting occupants? No, I don't see why that must be.

I was thinking more of your noblesse oblige requirements of God. Ever give any thought to

For my thoughts are not your thoughts
neither are your ways my ways.
As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways,
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
--Isaiah 55:8-9

 

[Cormack]

It's an appropriate answer if the chocolate is poisoned.

Which for the sakes of an honest hypothetical you’d have to stop insisting on.