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

[Cormack]

Yes and Yes, and I think I just maybe told you guys the correct one maybe, etc...

Excuse me if I’ve missed it, but do you believe in a literal fire that burns people up without consuming them, and that happens forever?

 

[Neogaia777]

I posted the verses in @LoveGodsWord thread a minute ago here: WHY UNIVERSALISM IS NOT TRUE?

You can view them if you like...

God Bless!

 

[Cormack]

Thank you. I’m meaning to ask about your views though, @Neogaia777. Not your views as seen through a set of verses but rather your views in plain English. For the sake of conversation and clarity.

Do you believe the fires are literal and that they consume people forever?

 

[Neogaia777]

Excuse me if I’ve missed it, but do you believe in a literal fire that burns people up without consuming them, and that happens forever?

No, no literal fire, etc...

Not in our still as of yet right now still limited conceptualizations of what is "literally literal" right now currently anyway, etc...

Because Heaven might have a different take or view, etc...

We might all be "walking burning bushes" to them right now maybe, etc, from they're perspective or view from "up there", to "down here" maybe, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Thank you. I’m meaning to ask about your views though, @Neogaia777. Not your views as seen through a set of verses but rather your views in plain English. For the sake of conversation and clarity.

Do you believe the fires are literal and that they consume people forever?

See above post.

God Bless!

 

[Cormack]

Because Heaven might have a different take or view, etc...

Doesn’t that proviso make it very hard to have a proper orthodox understanding of hell? Your view on the subject seems to paint hell as being a feeling of loss, or upset or self inflicted torment.

Has that been the majority view on hell throughout the ages?

 

[Cormack]

See above post.

God Bless!

God bless you too.

 

[Neogaia777]

Doesn’t that proviso make it very hard to have a proper orthodox understanding of hell?

I care very little about that, etc...

Your view on the subject seems to paint hell as being a feeling of loss, or upset or self inflicted torment.

"Separation" (and in this case "eternal separation forever maybe") and it's "results" maybe...

It is my belief that a lot of people in this world, and who belong to the world, are very very much more miserable in this world than they maybe fully right now know, or maybe fully realize yet, etc, and it goes way, way beyond just simple feelings of just simple loss, or just mild depression/loneliness or upset, etc...

And not really "self-inflicted", or self chosen/determined, but "predestined", or already predetermined maybe, etc...

Has that been the majority view on hell throughout the ages?

As far as I know, this is not a majority view at all yet, because I don't even know if anyone else has even proposed it yet, etc...

God Bless!

 

[zoidar]

You're a good guy. I like you and appreciate your openness to at least discuss it. Thanks.

And my grandfather was from Sweden. So you get extra credit for being Swedish. - lol

Maybe we are relatives.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Don't want to see the Eastern Othodox view of salvation eh? UR doesn't say there isn't hell. It just says it isn't what they consider to be a pointless everlasting torture chamber with billions of souls screaming in agony forever.

It’s my understanding that apocatastasis isn’t an official doctrine and the church is somewhat divided on this particular topic. So are you going to hold one side’s perspective over another’s?

 

[ozso]

It’s my understanding that apocatastasis isn’t an official doctrine and the church is somewhat divided on this particular topic. So are you going to hold one side’s perspective over another’s?

I was talking about this:

Now the Orthodox view of salvation in chairs isn't UR per se, but it was introduced to me by a UR proponent who greatly appreciated it.

 

[Clare73]

This is basically the same thing you've already posted.

And it would do you well to likewise revisit that.

Non-responsive.

 

[Clare73]

All that stuff gets argued about on CF because of different interpretations, doctrine and dogmas. Many are quite certain that their interpretation and dogma is the only absolutely correct one. Perfectly adheres to scripture and so on.

Non-responsive. . .

 

[Clare73]

That pales considerably in comparison to the doctrine of eternal torment.

And?

That's not his characterization of God, it's the characterization of God he perceives coming from damnationists, and he objects to it.

As I object to his characterization.

 

[ozso]

I'm watching an old western where a hanging is about to take place. The preacher prays, "may God have mercy on their poor souls, as He has upon all the faithful departed".

 

[BNR32FAN]

I was talking about this:

Now the Orthodox view of salvation in chairs isn't UR per se, but it was introduced to me by a UR proponent who greatly appreciated it.

This priests theory is irrelevant. I wish the video allowed comments so I could ask him how this would not contradict Matthew 7:21-23. As I said before the EOC doesn’t have an official doctrine on the subject because it is not clearly defined in the scriptures.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's ridiculous. I trust God just fine.
And I understand him well enough to know that the standard view is wrong.

Is that the plan you approve of? Pretty sick. But no one could have a better plan than that, because hey it's God, who could do better than God, right?

Perhaps you are mistaken about God's wonderful plan. Because the plan you claim to be God's is pretty messed up.

Right here you are saying that if God’s plan is eternal punishment in the lake of fire you disapprove of this plan. What I’m saying is that if that is in fact God’s plan then I have to trust by knowing His character that He has a reason for this that I do not understand. That’s what I mean by trusting in God.

 

[ozso]

This priests theory is irrelevant. I wish the video allowed comments so I could ask him how this would not contradict Matthew 7:21-23. As I said before the EOC doesn’t have an official doctrine on the subject because it is not clearly defined in the scriptures.

I doubt he and Fr. Carbo would be calling it the Orthodox view of salvation, if it wasn't so. And likewise I doubt Brad Jersak who did the first version posted, would be on such good terms with Archbishop Lazar if the chairs presentation misrepresented Orthodoxy.

 

[ozso]

Right here you are saying that if God’s plan is eternal punishment in the lake of fire you disapprove of this plan. What I’m saying is that if that is in fact God’s plan then I have to trust by knowing His character that He has a reason for this that I do not understand. That’s what I mean by trusting in God.

I'm pretty sure Steve feels quite certain that isn't God's plan. No ifs about it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

We are both working from a presumption. I have a chosen view of the final judgment and you have chosen another view. Both views are biblical. (and contradictory)

So, it's really not fair for you to automatically assume my view is wrong. It is your VIEW of the final judgment that I disagree with. Don't make the false claim that I disagree with God. (as if yours is the ONLY view, or the "right" view) That is what is WRONG with this discussion, rather than my views. Got it?

In reference to Matthew 7:21-23 the view of that from a UR perspective would be that it is not a final decision, but a temporary one. As if those lined up to enter the kingdom (cross the border) think they have their papers in order, but are stopped and sent back. Therefore not allowed to enter NOW. (come back when you have your house in order) I'm using an analogy here to explain.

The chapter context gives us some clues about this as well. Matthew 7:21-23 sits between warnings about false prophets/the tree and its fruit and hearers vs. doers of the words of Christ. These false prophets should have been recognized by their fruit. Jesus is saying they will not enter. (for now) Compare Matthew 21:31 Note: "ahead" of you. Not instead of you. If some are ahead, then some are behind. Like those wrongfully saying "Lord, Lord".

And frankly, Matthew 7:21-23 is used as an apologetic against UR. (which is probably what you are up to) Do you deny what is said in Philippians 2:10-11 ?

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Im sorry but what your adding to Matthew 7:21 directly contradicts what Jesus said so I can’t accept that as a possibility. As for Matthew 21:31 I don’t see that as meaning that the Pharisees will enter Heaven after tax collectors and prostitutes. If I said I would let ISIS into my house before I let you into my house that doesn’t mean that I’m going to let ISIS or you into my house at any point in time. What it means is that you are worse than these people who I would not let into my house. And as for Philippians 2:10-11 this is irrelevant according to Matthew 7:21.