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

[Saint Steven]

It should turn when we hit the posts per page limit. Come on baby, let's roll to the next page...

Nope. - lol

That was post nineteen of 20 per page. This should be 20 and the next one should go over to page 100.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm not sure if I would prefer it if Christian Universalism is true, in interest of God being able to do "more than we can imagine or think" I'm leaving some room in my expectations for God to do something way better.

Better than UR? Like what?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

But we're not at 2000 yet, woo!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Better than UR? Like what?

Something better than I can imagine or think.

So if I can imagine or think it, then that wouldn't be it.

 

[Saint Steven]

Funny. We seem to be stuck on page 99.
See if we can get the TILT - GAME OVER warning. (like a pinball table)

 

[Saint Steven]

Hooray! We made it to page 100. - Kudos to the topic originator, @Cormack

Speech, speech!

 

[Cormack]

Hooray! We made it to page 100. - Kudos to the topic originator, @Cormack

Speech, speech!

I LOVE you all, especially @2PhiloVoid!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I LOVE you all, especially @2PhiloVoid!

 

[Saint Steven]

Can we get this new one to 100 pages. (not likely)

Open and Closed Systems: What's Your Posture?

 

[Hmm]

That was post nineteen of 20 per page. This should be 20 and the next one should go over to page 100.

We'll meet again on page 200.

 

[Saint Steven]

We'll meet again on page 200.

I love your positive attitude.

 

[Hmm]

I LOVE you all, especially @2PhiloVoid!

Favouritism! Where's the universalism in that? But it's better to find out now than on page 200 I guess.

 

[Abaxvahl]

So when God says He desires that the wicked turn from their way and live, do you feel that’s one of His wills or His genuine undivided will?

That is His genuine undivided will. I do not see how God could have multiple wills either.

 

[bling]

That’s why belief is a complex word, not meaning simply intellectual assent (believe that,) but could also mean trust (to believe in.)

There’s no reason to believe that people in “hell” couldn’t believe in God. People can trust in God anywhere, unless you do something like redefine freewill or define freewill out of hell or believe he doesn’t want to save people after a certain cut off point.

I agree “trust” might be the best way to describe “faith”, but the person in hell cannot “trust” in the existence of a benevolent Creator, since he already has knowledge of the Benevolent Creator.

Like I keep saying: to make a truly free will choice there has to be likely alternatives, so here we have this person in hell, what can that person “trust” in besides God? (His bank account, his countries, soldiers, walls, friends health)

There is a “cut off point” and that is when the unbelieving sinner would never make the free will choice to humbly accept God’s charity (forgiveness) as pure undeserved charity. Yes, you could put a gun to his head and say: “trust God or stay in hell”, but that is not a free will choice.

I’m writing about the Bible though. The Bible and the most ancient reading of some parts of the Bible. It’s not written in those exact words, but it’s pretty dang close.

After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built….

For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.
​

So far as I’m aware there are only two historic readings of that material, the more modern reading that gained a lot of traction during the reformation, and the very ancient harrowing of hell.

So if you are willing to believe and trust the very ancient harrowing verses and the understanding built by early Christians, then it doesn’t say that Jesus “tried to convert the dead,” He actually did convert. He tried and was victorious.

This takes lots of words to explain, but I will be brief as I can.

I learned from my PhD. In New Testament theology the five most important rules in interpreting scripture is: context, context, context, context and context.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. (1 Pet. 3:18–20)

If Jesus is talking about preaching to dead people this is the only place where that is mentioned.

From 1 Pet. 1:17; 2 Cor. 5:10; Heb. 9:27 we learn:

1 Peter 1:17 Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear.

2 Cor.5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Heb. 9: 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

Jesus’s teaching in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man points teaches the opposite. At their deaths, the souls of Old Testament believers went immediately into the presence of God (Luke 16:22).

1 Peter 1: 10 …the prophets…11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow

In 2Peter 2:5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness (the Spirit in Him), and seven others; Peter talks about Noah really preaching by the Spirit.

Why would Jesus just go to one earlier group of dead sinners, those Noah preached to. Noah was in the Spirit, preaching salvation to those lost (like Peter is talking about Christians doing and can be expected to have lots not lessen as most in Noah’s day, even though Noah like them were being led by the Spirit of Christ). The Spirit of Christ was alive in Noah preaching to those who would not obey. Peter is referring the Christ’s Spirit and the Spirit of Christ went to those lost in the flood, by why the were alive on earth.

Why is the help in air quotes though? It’s genuine help, right? It’s not insincere or done with a mind to damn these people. I’m assuming Gods work to help the lost sinner comes from a heart that’s pure and good. God does help even the unwilling, that’s my point.

The sinner that does not change does not see it as help and it did not help them, since they did not accept the help.

Freewill is needed for almost everything, not simply love. God says “choose this day whom you will serve,” and that whenever we sin He had made a way out for us. He had prepared a way to pick by our own freewill, but we often refuse.

Freewill is about whether we choose to stay in bed or wake up, whether we grumble or be thankful. It’s not so narrow a concept as “Godly love” or not. Freewill is intrinsic to human beings.

We do most stuff as a result of our genes (instinct) and environment. The few things we really do make a free will choice to do or not do determine our destiny.

Yet we know Satan freely decided to tempt Job and even Jesus into possibly hating or acting against the Lord, and since we know God tempts nobody, it wasn’t His doing. Satan prowls around seeking to devour, that’s not robotic or in the lap of God, it’s the free choice of an evil being. Freedom is bigger than the definition you have created.

OK

The prodigal son did that himself. The same person returned, just with another outlook. He humbled himself. These aren’t two different people anymore than you were different when you might have believed inaccurate things or been selfish in the past. God wants to save us even in our bad state.

I would say, “A very different son returned to the father.”

I am glad you realized, “The prodigal son did that himself”, because that person describes the criminal kidnapper of a humble, accepting child, which is the only people who can enter the Kingdom.

I believe the word you’re going for is “grace.” Christians have the word grace and they’ve been using it for a very long time.

When you redefine grace into Godly type love and attach to it loads of presuppositions like… “freedom is about godly type love and without godly type love we don’t need freedom,” you’re really inventing your own religion.

People act freely everyday without Gods grace or love or any type of theological attachment because freedom is an innate faculty of people.

Creating “godly type love” as this thing that freewill requires and that is also a synonym for grace and that’s going to be removed from people and Satan doesn’t have it isn’t biblical. None of those things are Bible verses, but you do prefer them over very biblical beliefs that the Christian community has held dear for over 1000 years.

It’s the same with inventing our own view of the atonement, since however exciting or invigorating the new beliefs may be, they’re not the Christian faith. The Christian faith is an ancient group activity, not one mans invention.

Things like the Harrowing of hell and the Christos Victor doctrine are Christian beliefs, they’re about community and being joined into Gods revealed truths. It’s not about innovations.

Can you tell me the difference between: “grace”, “mercy”, “charity” and “Love”?

Forgiveness is an act of grace, mercy, charity, and Love.

God is Love, God is merciful, God is gracious, God is charitable, and God is forgiving all the time. The problem is not with God but with man. Man refuses God’s Love, charity, mercy, grace and forgiveness, so the transaction is not completed.

Do you believe every and all animals have free will ability and make free will choices for every choice they make?

I am not inventing what the Bible says.

Everything needs to start with the objective.

If there is this eternal intelligence it would be at the epitome of the best it could be and not in the process of improvement. It would be the ultimate bad or good but not somewhere in-between. Why be bad when He can be good just as easily? The ultimate “good” would be what is called Godly type Love (to be defined later) and is a totally unselfish type Love. Since this God would be able to direct our thinking, why would He have us think of him as being totally bad, when He could make us think bad was good and thus, He would be worthy of praise? If God were bad and we praise a “Good God” than we are not praising Him.


The difference and issues begin with misunderstanding of the objective. Most Christians like: Man’s objective is to bring glory to God” and have scripture references to support that objective, but a person can take any commandment of God given in scripture and have Biblical support for call that command: “Man’s objective”. We are certainly commanded to do that command, so why is it not man’s objective?

There are the two superior commands which all other commands are subordinate to and combined would be like: “Love God (and secondly others) with all your heart, soul, mind, and energy.” That appears to be man’s “Mission Statement”. The huge problem with fulfilling that “Mission Statement” is the fact that the “Love” needed would have to be huge, way beyond anything man could develop, learn, deserve, earn, pay back, be instinctive to man, or somehow just be forced upon humans.

Thus, the reason you have free will, is because it is required for you to complete your earthly objective.

This messed up world which includes satan roaming around is not here for your pleasure, but to help you become like God Himself in that you have the unique, unbelievable Godly type Love (God himself is Love).

There are just somethings even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), like create another Christ, since Christ has always existed, the big impossibility for us is; create humans with instinctive Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also, if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type Love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

Read the story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15, the young son was generously given more then he could, which the father would realize. The prodigal son returned to his father, not out of “Love”, but selfishly want a job he did not deserve or should even ask for. Just because the son became just willing to accept pure undeserved charity from the father he hated, allowed the father to shower him with gifts. God is that way with you.

God has created beings to shower them with the greatest gifts possible, the greatest gift being having a Love like His.

If there is this Creator of the universe out there, His “creations” could not really “do” anything for Him, so this Creator would have to be seen as a Giver (Unselfish Lover) and not trying to “get” something from His creation.

Why would God have a totally unselfish type of Love, since He personally would not get anything out of it? If God’s “Love” is some kind of knee jerk reaction, then it is really meaningless (something like; gravity which is nice to have, but everyone automatically has it). God Loves us in spite of what we have done, who we are or what we will do, so it has to be by His choice.


God would create the right universe for the sake of the individuals that will accept His gift (the most powerful force [Love] in all universes, since that force [Love] compels even God to do all He does) and thus we become like He is (the greatest gift He could give).

What keeps the all-powerful Creator from just giving whatever He wants to his creation, eliminating the need for free will and this earthly time.

This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them, burden them, to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

Sin has purpose in helping willing humans in fulfilling their objective. God does not like it but allows it.

I think what’s been done in the spiritual realm really depends on how you’re prepared to see the Bible and God.

If you’re prepared to obscure the early centuries of the Christian faith as being unguarded by Gods Spirit or lost to our communal sense of things, then the only thing that’s left is innovation and theories for people to entertain themselves with.

God bless you.

We have what the Holy Spirit wanted us to have and He protected and preserved it.

We also today have the indwelling Holy Spirit to help us.

 

[Cormack]

Notice you shared “After satan rebelled against God in heaven, satan’s free will could be taken from him, it is only needed for Godly type Love.”

To which I responded biblically.

Yet we know Satan freely decided to tempt Job and even Jesus into possibly hating or acting against the Lord, and since we know God tempts nobody, it wasn’t His doing. Satan prowls around seeking to devour, that’s not robotic or in the lap of God, it’s the free choice of an evil being. Freedom is bigger than the definition you have created.

Replying “okay” is to not appreciate the gravity of how your mistaken ideas on freewill and “Godly type love” are. I’ve shown you via scripture that Satan does things (e.g. tempt) that God would never do, meaning he’s truly free to do those things without your idea about “Godly love” being necessary for freedom.

Replying “okay” and plastering over the cracks really goes to show that this is a knock down drag out refutation of your whole belief system to do with freedom. Satan is truly free yet has no love.

 

[Cormack]

I read the entirety of your previous message and appreciate the hard work you must have gone through in composing much of it.

God love you.

 

[grasping the after wind]

If you reject those ideas then you’re (at best) an inconsistent Lutheran.

Perhaps you are right and I am at best an inconsistent Lutheran. I do not consider myself to be first of all a Lutheran. I consider myself to be first a Christian that is in communion with my fellow Christians who worship in at a house of worship which is affiliated with one denomination within the Lutheran branch of the Christian Church. I wasn't aware the various Lutheran denominations had appointed you the arbiter of which Lutherans were at best an inconsistent Lutheran. Who would be a consistent Lutheran then? Probably not Luther as he was known to change his mind from time to time. How inconsistent of him! I don't mind being inconsistent with some of the ideas of Luther. I don't find it at all a bad thing to disagree with him on the things he was clearly wrong about or the things I find no reason to believe he was right about. . At least not any more inconsistent or worse than that Catholic priest Martin Luther was when he disagreed with the RCC about the things it was wrong about. If the Lutheran denomination I belong to decides to excommunicate me because of my inconsistency I guess I could always start my own denomination and become a little more consistent with Luther's life experience anyway . Christ , not Martin Luther is the head of the Christian Church which includes every single Lutheran denomination as well as every single non Lutheran denomination as well as every single Christian individual. Martin Luther was just a human being who was right about many things and wrong about some. Luther is not considered to be infallible by Lutherans. Lutherans disagree on many things( the reason why there are various Lutheran denomination). There are many actual Lutherans who take after Luther in that they aren't afraid to challenge the status quo even if Luther is the status quo. That being the case I would expect that each one of us is in some way inconsistently Lutheran to another Lutheran's, and I guess non Lutheran's, POV.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It's been a long time since I've seen a page subdivide into a new thread, it used to happen all the time and Chrisbot would start the new thread. Site traffic used to be higher.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

This was a lot of fun, I have a theory, I'll give it a whirl.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Hmmm, post 2000 ...