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

[Saint Steven]

The Bible is the means by which God has chosen to reveal Himself to the world, as confirmed by Jesus Christ who made extensive use of the formula "It is written..." in order to justify what He said about God.

Seriously?
Jesus treated the law as if it was hearsay. "You heard that it was said to the people long ago... But I tell you..." (five times in Matt. 5+6) Deconstructed the law.

Show me where Jesus used the OT to justify what he said.

 

[Fervent]

But the biggest problem with what you are asking is that there is no consensus about what the Bible says about any subject. So, where is the "biblical authority" in that? How do you determine who is right? Anything beyond the Creeds is a no man's land. And the Creeds aren't even biblical. (not part of the Bible)

Simply because men twist the Bible does not mean it is not a trustworthy authority. It has one meaning, whether we understand that meaning or not and abuse does not preclude proper use. What you have given is a mere excuse for jettisoning its claim on you, instead placing yourself as the final arbiter of truth. Does lawyers arguing about the law diminish its function as the authority in a nation, or is it a testament of that authority?

 

[Fervent]

Seriously?
Jesus treated the law as if it was hearsay. "You heard that it was said to the people long ago... But I tell you..." (five times in Matt. 5+6) Deconstructed the law.

Show me where Jesus used the OT to justify what he said.

Just one instance, or would you like an exhaustive list? Because we can start with the temptation. Jesus did not deconstruct the law, He raised its stature and tightened its restriction. He revealed the intent behind it that had been so woefully missed by the religious authorities.

 

[BNR32FAN]

But that's EXACTLY what Jesus said. Wow. ??? !!!
- You refused my explanation of Matthew 7:21 because it wasn't what Jesus said.
- Then you turn around and say that Jesus didn't mean EXACTLY what he said in Matthew 21:31 .
- MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone knows that is a figure of speech. Use that same illustration in any way possible and the implication is that the person is being rejected. If I were picking a basketball team and I said to Ted I would pick Jerry before I pick you Ted and Jerry is the worst player available that doesn’t mean that you will pick both Jerry and Ted. That’s just common sense.

If I said I will buy a 1970 Datsun before I buy a new Ford that’s an indication that I hate both 1970 Datsun’s and fords. Common sense. Your too hung up on word games to see what is actually being said here.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Seriously?
Jesus treated the law as if it was hearsay. "You heard that it was said to the people long ago... But I tell you..." (five times in Matt. 5+6) Deconstructed the law.

Show me where Jesus used the OT to justify what he said.

When He was in the wilderness for 40 days and was tempted by satan.

 

[Saint Steven]

“Which of the two did the will of his father?” They *said, “The first.” Jesus *said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of God before you.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭21:31‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

You never answered my question. If I said I will allow ISIS to enter my house before you do you think that means that I will allow you or ISIS to enter my house?

You answered your own question. You said neither. (it was a bogus question anyway)

Therefore, wouldn't we conclude that you are claiming that Jesus was saying he would not let either tax collectors or prostitutes into heaven?

Otherwise, I have no idea what you are trying to say here, other than saying I am as bad as ISIS, which I don't appreciate.

Jesus was definitely saying that "the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you."

Saint Steven said: ↑
Wow.
Are you claiming that Jesus was saying he would not let either tax collectors or prostitutes into heaven? - lol


Matthew 21:31 NRSV
Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.

 

[Cormack]

Really? Let's review the facts.
How can you trust a God that would devise a plan to incinerate the majority of humankind? And think that somehow that sounds like a good idea. We should trust someone with such ambitions. Right?

Were you a big fan of Adolf Hitler?
The problem was that we just didn't trust him, right?

I like this idea for a few reasons. Just as an example, consider socialism. Whenever socialism fails there’s a common fall back that the failing nation wasn’t practising “real socialism.” So the theory is saved, if that wasn’t real socialism then there’s still an opportunity to do it right and get the results that socialists predict will happen.

Obviously that’s bunk and it’s easy to see why it’s bunk, national socialism, class based socialism, fascism, you name the sort and it’s all a massive failure.

So bad were the failures that no state is given the modern socialists blessing, rather they work hard to rewrite the history so as to distance themselves from their political forefathers.

But anyway, the save is that there’s still real socialism out there, and so long as we hold onto the real we can get there, it’s still a viable option.

So goes the concept of hell too. How does anyone make hell just, because when it’s described in all of its gruesome glory the idea seems to be irredeemably evil. Is there any way that God can do hell right that doesn’t compromise his character.

The most common “save” is that God is a good God, he’s super nice, and because he’s super nice and super loving, we trust that he’s going to do the right thing with this eternal conscious torment plan.

That’s not really a save, it’s just the traditionalist digging their heels in and saying it’s a mystery. We don’t know how an all loving being could arrange and execute a plan that sees his own creation tormented forever, not while remaining all loving.

The idea gets dropped and covered over in “faith,” but faith of that kind, faith without reason, that’s what atheists have been mocking Christians for for decades now.

Blind faith.

Real biblical faith is more like the word trust, and trust is grounded in reason, experience, history, logic, the sciences. Trust isn’t built on thin air.

I think it’s not that there’s a mystery to how an all loving God could have his own creation tormented forever, it’s not like a paradox that we can figure out, rather, it’s just a flat out contradiction.

A loving person doesn’t plan to have the people that he loves tormented forever, if he does plan things like that, he’s clearly not loving.

Just like “real socialism” the “right eternal conscious torment” isn’t out there, and that’s what many people are arguing for when they argue for their understanding of hell.

Universalists have a hell cope too, the notion that hell is restorative, like the fires that refine, not destroying or tormenting.

I can see a loving God refining, building and creating man right, but I can’t see him having man tormented forever.

So I suppose for that reason too, I’d much prefer it if universalism were true, because the universalists view on hell seems to be compatible with a truly loving God.

 

[Saint Steven]

Just one instance, or would you like an exhaustive list? Because we can start with the temptation. Jesus did not deconstruct the law, He raised its stature and tightened its restriction. He revealed the intent behind it that had been so woefully missed by the religious authorities.

This is WAY off topic. If we do this, it should be on an appropriate topic. If we do, you're toast. - lol

 

[Fervent]

This is WAY off topic. If we do this, it should be on an appropriate topic. If we do, you're toast. - lol

This sounds like special pleading...why should we have to establish that Jesus recognized the authority of Scripture on a topic by topic basis?

 

[Saint Steven]

So goes the concept of hell too. How does anyone make hell just, because when it’s described in all of its gruesome glory the idea seems to be irredeemably evil. Is there any way that God can do hell right that doesn’t compromise his character.

The most common “save” is that God is a good God, he’s super nice, and because he’s super nice and super loving, we trust that he’s going to do the right thing with this eternal conscious torment plan.

Yup. You can put pink frosting on that cake if you want to, but the cake underneath is hell in all its fury. There is simply no way to make that okay.

 

[Cormack]

I think it’s not that there’s a mystery to how an all loving God could have his own creation tormented forever, it’s not like a paradox that we can figure out, rather, it’s just a flat out contradiction.

A loving person doesn’t plan to have the people that he loves tormented forever, if he does plan things like that, he’s clearly not loving.

For an afterthought, Christians should really buck and fight and think their way through philosophical and logical contradictions like this in the same way we resist Bible contradictions.

 

[ozso]

I’ve based my argument on what scriptures says, not what someone says the scripture says. If Jesus specifically said that not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter the Kingdom of heaven then I’m going to accept that over someone’s commentary of Matthew 21:31. Perhaps those Pharisees will enter Heaven, perhaps they repented later in life, who knows? It still doesn’t eliminate what Jesus said in Matthew 7:21.

What Jesus said can be taken out of context. One could just as easily say Jesus clearly said rich people will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven and they have to sell everything they own if they want to get in. Matthew 7:21 often gets taken out of context, even by those who know from reading the entire passage that it's a warning to false Christian miracle workers. Your interpretation of Matthew 21:31 is just that, your interpretation. Unless you barrowed it from someone else. I interpreted it differently. Then I referred to a respected theologian to see what he had to say about it. His view agreed with mine. Neither verse you provided is solid proof that ultimate redemption is impossible. Getting back to Jesus saying it's impossible for a rich man to enter heaven, He followed that up by saying, with God all things are possible.

 

[ozso]

Yup. You can put pink frosting on that cake if you want to, but the cake underneath is hell in all its fury. There is simply no way to make that okay.

Or put lipstick on a pig.

You answered your own question. You said neither. (it was a bogus question anyway)

Therefore, wouldn't we conclude that you are claiming that Jesus was saying he would not let either tax collectors or prostitutes into heaven?

Otherwise, I have no idea what you are trying to say here, other than saying I am as bad as ISIS, which I don't appreciate.

Jesus was definitely saying that "the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you."

I thought he was saying that tax collectors and prostitutes are as bad as ISIS.

Supposedly God said, I will let tax collectors and prostitutes (or ISIS or Hitler) into heaven, before I let you in - as if it was a purely sarcastic remark.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Otherwise, I have no idea what you are trying to say here, other than saying I am as bad as ISIS, which I don't appreciate.

That was definitely not my point brother. I only used that as an example of the worst type of person I could think of which is what I believe Jesus’ illustration was intended to represent. I did not mean that in any sort of impolite manner towards you, I assure you.

 

[Saint Steven]

That was definitely not my point brother. I only used that as an example of the worst type of person I could think of which is what I believe Jesus’ illustration was intended to represent. I did not mean that in any sort of impolite manner towards you, I assure you.

Fine, fine. No worries. But do you understand that Jesus WAS saying that tax collectors and prostitutes WERE getting into the kingdom ahead of them? Because the tax collectors and prostitutes were obeying the Father.


Matthew 21:28-31 NRSV
“What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and went. 30 The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir’; but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Have to wonder why He used Hades instead of Gehenna in Luke 16:23 then. I thought maybe it was a translation thing having to do with Luke being Greek, but then I saw that Luke 12:5 uses Gehenna. The one time it seems most certain that Jesus was talking about "Hell" the word "Hades" is used.

I'm of the thinking that Jesus talking about ending up in Gehenna was in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem that was coming. Jesus tacking Isaiah 66:24 onto it adds to that for me.

Sorry I just now saw this. Lazarus and the rich man were in Sheol. Hades is a reference to the place of torment in Sheol. I believe Hades and hell are two different places. From what I understand according to the scriptures no one actually goes to hell until Judgement Day. Instead they wait in Hades until then.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Fine, fine. No worries. But do you understand that Jesus WAS saying that tax collectors and prostitutes WERE getting into the kingdom ahead of them? Because the tax collectors and prostitutes were obeying the Father.


Matthew 21:28-31 NRSV
“What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and went. 30 The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir’; but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.

No one will go unless they repent. That’s the point of the parable. “Which of the two did the will of The Father?” So provided that the prostitutes and tax collectors repent as well as the Pharisees then yes the prostitutes and tax collectors will enter before them. This does not teach that they will enter without doing the will of The Father.

 

[Saint Steven]

No one will go unless they repent. That’s the point of the parable. “Which of the two did the will of The Father?” So provided that the prostitutes and tax collectors repent as well as the Pharisees then yes the prostitutes and tax collectors will enter before them. This does not teach that they will enter without doing the will of The Father.

Well... why did Jesus say they would enter BEFORE them?

 

[Clare73]

What Jesus said can be taken out of context. One could just as easily say Jesus clearly said rich people will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven and they have to sell everything they own if they want to get in.

One could also just as easily say Jesus said hell would freeze over on Judgment Day.

What does that have to do with anything?

Depends on how well one understands the whole counsel of God.

Matthew 7:21 often gets taken out of context, even by those who know from reading the entire passage that it's a warning to false Christian miracle workers. Your interpretation of Matthew 21:31 is just that, your interpretation. Unless you barrowed it from someone else. I interpreted it differently. Then I referred to a respected theologian to see what he had to say about it. His view agreed with mine. Neither verse you provided is solid proof that ultimate redemption is impossible. Getting back to Jesus saying it's impossible for a rich man to enter heaven, He followed that up by saying, with God all things are possible.

So, what's the problem?

 

[ozso]

Sorry I just now saw this. Lazarus and the rich man were in Sheol. Hades is a reference to the place of torment in Sheol. I believe Hades and hell are two different places. From what I understand according to the scriptures no one actually goes to hell until Judgement Day. Instead they wait in Hades until then.

The way I've usually heard it is, they go to hell, then go to heaven to get judged on judgement day, and then get tossed into the lake of fire.