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

[GenemZ]

I dread to think

My turn. Would you prefer it if Christian universalism was true? You appear undecided.

Not undecided. Its BS..(biscuit sauce)..

Why have you been so slow to catch on to what I have been telling you?

Your inability to perceive what my answer has been several times only proves how much its a waste of time to converse with you. You only want to be told what you wish were true, because the Truth you can not accept. Its like what transgenders do when they are told the real sex they are. You will refuse to get it....

 

[GenemZ]

If you don't know, you wont understand

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I
thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.
When I became a man, I put the ways of
childhood behind me." 1 Cor 13:11​

As a person matures in life its a process where he enters into different dimensions of having the ability to perceive reality.

When I was a child I thought like a child. So, I understand how someone can believe what I once did as a child. Yet, not agreeing with what I can understand someone might think? Does not mean I do not understand.

Children can not handle the harsh and necessary realties of life. They need to be sheltered until they can do so.

Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted
with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature,
who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil." Heb 5:13-14
​

The Lake of Fire is forever...

And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There
will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and
its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.” Rev 14:11​

 

[returntosender]

If one believes in Universalism he can never grow up and fully mature in Christ.

That's the problem. Why continue?

I doubt you know this. One of them told me they are a superior race, the universalists. That explains a lot.

 

[Hmm]

No comment.

 

[GenemZ]

I doubt you know this. One of them told me they are a superior race, the universalists. That explains a lot.

I'm dropping out. They probably have either made a bet, or set a goal to milk this thread forever...

Let them have their false teaching. Its all theirs to have.

In the mean time, God can not lie. And, God is immutable.


In the email notification there is an option to unsubcribe from this thread.

Its a "dead thread."

bye! (let the dead bury their own dead)

Addendum: On top of this page of this thread there is an "Unwatch Thread option."

 

[Cormack]

Its a "dead thread."

Well, to be fair here, if anyone is raising the dead or milking a dead cow, it’s you! Let’s continue onto replying to old posts anyhow! You’re welcome to join in if you’ve not yet had your fill of “the dead burying their dead” and “biscuit sauce.”

God is all things including all-powerful and all-merciful, he can save whomever he chooses at any time is what I cling to for hope that dead sinners can be saved.

Wouldn’t God choose to save everyone if He can choose “whomever” he pleases? He’s not partial and we are no less guilty than our fellow man, so wouldn’t God saving the whole world make the most sense in light of His extremist love?

Regarding the thread title, preferences are good, but I believe an honest look at an honest translation easily proves that Christian universalism is true. I could, and did, find it in the KJV, but I had to do some digging...

The longer the topic trundles on, I’m becoming more convinced that having the universalists heart state is more important than the Truth (capital T) of whether or not universalism is going to be the end state of all things.

There are philosophically and scripturally credible positions laid out by believers in traditionalism, annihilationism and universalism.

There doesn’t seem to be a credible position against the good disposition of God towards the unsaved however. Gods love for the world goes beyond being debated by most Christians, and for good reason. Phrases to the contrary like “God hates sinners” and “God created sinners for destruction” only find a place of preference with the most hardcore five point Calvinists.

So is it more important that we have the right view when choosing between these three views, or that we cultivate the most Godly disposition towards the world?

I’ve seen Christians wage their war of words about which view is most rightest in the universe to zero benefit, but I’ve almost never seen Christians trying to cultivate Gods kind of love for the world.

As I see it not that much different from that sin can feel good or even feel right, yet still be a crime against God.

Wouldn’t wanting the salvation of even our enemies be more than an ugly self seeking desire to just feel good? It’s no sin to desire or to prefer that everyone be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Surely. God Himself desires these things so it can’t be the feel good sin.

Not so many years ago, I would have been arguing against UR.

It’s cool you’ve moved into such an open and honest faith.
___________
Really gracious exchanging on your part, @Hmm. Enjoyed reading from pages 104-105.

 

[zoidar]

Wouldn’t wanting the salvation of even our enemies be more than an ugly self seeking desire to just feel good? It’s no sin to desire or to prefer that everyone be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Surely. God Himself desires these things so it can’t be the feel good sin.

I said the idea is preferable. There is nothing wrong with wanting and hoping that everyone will be saved. I wish for that too. What I'm against is saying everyone will be saved, since I see it as doing a violation against Scripture, and to be honest a violation against God.

 

[Fervent]

There doesn’t seem to be a credible position against the good disposition of God towards the unsaved however. Gods love for the world goes beyond being debated by most Christians, and for good reason. Phrases to the contrary like “God hates sinners” and “God created sinners for destruction” only find a place of preference with the most hardcore five point Calvinists.

The notion that God hates the wicked is not simply something that comes from speculative theologies, Calvinist or otherwise. It comes directly from Scripture where God hates the one whose soul loves violence and various other evil doers. But God's hatred it not contrary to His love, it is not an unjust desire to see His enemies destroyed for His own prospering nor is it malicious intent and ill wishes. We cannot edit out the verses that speak of God's hatred because they conflict with our modern sensibilities about love.

 

[Cormack]

We cannot edit out the verses that speak of God's hatred because they conflict with our modern sensibilities about love.

It’s more as if people contextualise the verses of “God’s hatred” because they conflict with the ultimate revelation of God seen through the life and healing ministry of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the perfect reflection of the Father, not the often hyperbolic Psalms that tell of God loving and hating people.

Psalms, proverbs, one or two of the first five books. They aren’t interpretive tools we need to read back into the story of Jesus to help level out God, history isn’t like that. History and the Bible are dynamic and unfolding, revealing more as we read on.

Refusing to read on and appreciate that is how people outside of Christianity get mixed up and try to debate Old Testament ethics all day with Christians trying to live in light of Christ’s love.

The clear portions of the biblical witness interpret the unclear portions (1 principle) while later revelation often helps to interpret and illuminate the former ones (2nd principle.)

So it’s up for every man to decide himself, what’s more clear, the widely contested “Jacob I’ve loved but Esau I have hated,” “The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers.” Or the words “Forgive them, Father. They know not what they do.”

Well, the first of two was from Paul (notoriously hard to understand) and the second was from the Psalms (song) book. In Romans Paul is quoting from an Old Testament text, but to get the meaning where God hates baby Esau requires that we believe Paul eisegeted the original texts, not exegeted.

I’m not interested in whether the verses travel this way or that (not yet,) but rather I’m explaining the complexity of those verses in comparison to say “Forgive them, Father.”

Absolute context in a much later historical book of the Bible that’s retelling the most important story ever told. Jesus is the exact likeness of the Father, “God created all things, even the wicked for the day of trouble” isn’t the exact likeness of the Father, it’s a proverb.

When modern Christians believe there’s some kind of equal weigh of conflict between those two verses and that they must create a tension between love and justice to excuse the verses, they are saying in essence that a fortune cookie is as good a source of information as an entire life lived to the glory of God.

An ancient proverb or song doesn’t show humanity Gods character like how Jesus can show humanity Gods character.

Let’s make it less biblical. . .

Trying to understand Steve Tyler by listening to “Dude looks like a lady” on repeat won’t get you anywhere near to the real thing, not compared to reading a biography of the man.

The notion that God hates the wicked is not simply something that comes from speculative theologies, Calvinist or otherwise. It comes directly from Scripture where God hates the one whose soul loves violence and various other evil doers.

The idea comes from theologians reading through the Bible and believing that dude looks like a lady demands place of preference alongside a documentary about Aerosmith. The problem is that those things don’t demand place of preference nor do they deserve that place, since that place is held by Jesus Christ.

 

[Fervent]

It’s more as if people contextualise the verses of “God’s hatred” because they conflict with the ultimate revelation of God seen through the life and healing ministry of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the perfect reflection of the Father, not the often hyperbolic Psalms that tell of God loving and hating people.

Psalms, proverbs, one or two of the first five books. They aren’t interpretive tools we need to read back into the story of Jesus to help level out God, history isn’t like that. History and the Bible are dynamic and unfolding, revealing more as we read on.

Refusing to read on and appreciate that is how people outside of Christianity get mixed up and try to debate Old Testament ethics all day with Christians trying to live in light of Christ’s love.

The clear portions of the biblical witness interpret the unclear portions (1 principle) while later revelation often helps to interpret and illuminate the former ones (2nd principle.)

So it’s up for every man to decide himself, what’s more clear, the widely contested “Jacob I’ve loved but Esau I have hated,” “The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers.” Or the words “Forgive them, Father. They know not what they do.”

Well, the first of two was from Paul (notorious hard to understand) and the second was from the Psalms (song) book. In Romans Paul is quoting from an Old Testament text, but to get the meaning where God hates baby Esau requires that we believe Paul eisegeted the texts, not exegeted.

I’m not interested in whether the verses travel this way or that (not yet,) but rather I’m explaining the complexity of those verses in comparison to say “Forgive them, Father.”

Absolute context in a much later historical book of the Bible that’s retelling the most important story ever told. Jesus is the exact likeness of the Father, “God created all things, even the wicked for the day of trouble” isn’t the exact likeness of the Father, it’s a proverb.

When modern Christians believe there’s some kind of equal weigh of conflict between those two verses and that they must create a tension between love and justice to excuse the verses, they are saying in essence that a fortune cookie is as good a source of information as an entire life lived to the glory of God.

An ancient proverb or song doesn’t show humanity Gods character like how Jesus can show humanity Gods character.

Let’s make it less biblical. . .

Trying to understand Steve Tyler by listening to “Dude looks like a lady” on repeat won’t get you anywhere near to the real thing, not compared to reading a biography of the man.



The idea comes from theologians reading through the Bible and believing that dude looks like a lady demands place of preference alongside a documentary about Aerosmith. The problem is that those things don’t demand place of preference nor do they deserve that place, since that place is held by Jesus Christ.

Often the people "contextualizing" it in this manner forget that Jesus embraced some of the harsher aspects of the law(putting to death children who cursed their parents) and spoke of swift justice. "Contextualizing" in such a manner is just a nice way of saying they read the Bible eisegetically.

 

[Cormack]

Jesus embraced some of the harsher aspects of the law(putting to death children who cursed their parents) and spoke of swift justice.

The same Jesus who taught “let he who is without sin cast the first son” in order to excuse a woman from receiving the death penalty, He would approve of a child being stoned to death for cursing?

 

[Fervent]

The same Jesus who taught “let he who is without sin cast the first son” in order to excuse a woman from receiving the death penalty, He would approve of a child being stoned to death for cursing?

Have you not read the gospel of Matthew?

 

[Cormack]

Have you not read the gospel of Matthew?

If you answer my question I’ll be happy to answer yours. In my experience conversations become messy when people reply the way you just have, rather than responding to the point.

 

[Fervent]

If you answer my question I’ll be happy to answer yours. In my experience conversations become messy when people reply the way you just have, rather than responding to the point.

I responded to the point, the gospel of Matthew records Jesus speaking positively(and affirming that it is from God) of the law that says to put to death children who curse their parents. As I said, often the ones claiming the type of interpretive method you reference build an idea about who Jesus is and then force-fit the Bible to that image rather than allowing the Bible to reveal Jesus for who He is, because the same Jesus that spared the woman caught in adultery caused the flood that wiped out humanity. And gave the law that required merciless application of the death penalty to any who would even suggest defecting from God.

 

[Cormack]

I responded to the point,

I asked a very plain question. You didn’t answer the question but tried to walk the conversations off into a wider point that you believe is relevant. So one again. The question.

Would Jesus approve of a child being stoned to death for cursing their parents?

It’s not a difficult question for most people.

Jesus embraced some of the harsher aspects of the law

the gospel of Matthew records Jesus speaking positively

He “embraced” and was “speaking positively” and for serious, answer the question.

The Jewish people pointed out “we have a law” and by this law the adulterous woman ought to be put to death by stoning. Jesus didn’t support their efforts but rather undid their cause and the woman went free, free with a warning that something worse could happen if she didn’t mend her ways.

I don’t see the same Jesus who saved this woman’s life and suffered the little ones to come unto him as being the sort of character who would approve of stoning children.

So, once again, my question. In plain.

 

[Fervent]

I asked a very plain question. You didn’t answer the question but tried to walk the conversations off into a wider point that you believe is relevant. So one again. The question.

Would Jesus approve of a child being stoned to death for cursing their parents?

It’s not a difficult question for most people.

Do you think God gave laws for things He would disapprove of? If properly applied, yes Jesus would approve of the law being instituted.

He “embraced” and was “speaking positively” and for serious, answer the question.

The Jewish people pointed out “we have a law” and by this law the adulterous woman ought to be put to death by stoning. Jesus didn’t support their efforts but rather undid their cause and the woman went free with a warning that something worse could happen if she didn’t mend her ways.

I don’t see the same Jesus who saved this woman’s life and suffered the littlest ones to come unto him as being the sort of character who would approve of storing children.

So, once again, my question. In plain.

This is where contextual issues come in, because the text tells us why Jesus challenged the men with their sin. And it wasn't directly for the woman's sake, it was because the accusers were abusing the law as a means of trapping Him. There is no justice in a poorly administered law, but Jesus Himself is the cause of that law as law-giver. Had the law been properly applied, as written, and not simply been a farcical tool to trap Jesus the woman's fate may well have been different.

 

[Cormack]

If properly applied, yes Jesus would approve of the law being instituted.

So your indirect answer to the question would Jesus approve of stoning children is “yes, in the right circumstances.”

I don’t think there’s ever a “properly applied” circumstance in which you could throw a rock into a small child’s face though. It’s contextual of course, but my efforts of contextualising are considered bad faith by yourself.

When atheists challenged me on those verses I pointed out that the “child” in question is drunken and blasphemous and clearly out of control, more akin to unrestrained adult behaviour. Not to mention dipping into a lot of Jewish tradition that seems to push the age forward considerably beyond modern ideas.

Meaning the area moves towards respect towards familial authority, not child murder or child abuse amidst the Jews.

You however believe there are “contextual issues,” not in children having stones thrown into their face, but rather about Jesus challenging sin. Your contextualising is of course a more noble enterprise than what others are doing, since you’ve already castigated that word on their end. Christ preserved the adulterous woman’s life not “directly for the woman’s sake. . .”

I’m pretty sure Jesus was a lot more direct than you’d prefer.

Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil
​

See to my simple question “would Jesus approve of stoning children?” You have not replied simply yes or no, you’ve replied.

Have you not read the gospel of Matthew?

Do you think God gave laws for things He would disapprove of?

I responded to the point, the gospel of Matthew records Jesus speaking positively(and affirming that it is from God) of the law that says to put to death children who curse their parents.

You must be a five pointer with answers like this. Right?

 

[Cormack]

What I'm against is saying everyone will be saved, since I see it as doing a violation against Scripture, and to be honest a violation against God.

Which is fine but lacks force when people don’t see the scriptures your way. If a Christian said those things about universal salvation while violating neither his own conscience or his understanding of scripture, would that too be either the sin of attempting to feel good or counted as sin against the man?

“If we condemn ourselves, how much more does God condemn.” But we know universalists are very comfortable in their views, the only people who condemn them are other believers.

So far as I’m aware where there’s no knowledge of sin sin doesn’t spring to life and bring about death. Universalists sincerely believe that God will be “all in all” and that God the Father was in Jesus “reconciling the world to Himself.”

 

[returntosender]

The hatred is in the uni's hearts for God, not ours. We hope that those that are lost and others to be saved with God's laws not yours.

 

[Cormack]

In short, @zoidar, I’m asking if the universalist sincerely believes in his own heart of hearts that “every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Would he be held guilty of sin?

If he believes that Jesus was “making all things new,” and that newness results in life for everyone, God may correct him in your view, but would God condemn the man and need to find a place for his sin upon the cross?

I don’t see that sin upon the cross, for the reasons I’ve shared.