Universal salvation: why not?

[Bernie]

I'm curious to know what Christian readers here find as the single biggest argument against the idea of the salvation of all. Would prefer thinkers capable of intellectual honesty, no "Cause the Bible don't teach it" stuff.* If you can't make a reasonably well thought-out case, please don't post.

Try to distill your case into no more than three primary reasons, from greatest to least. Not sure I have time to get into too deep a discussion on it, and universalism has been argued to death here and in other venues, but I'm curious to get a consensus on what non-universalists see as the main stumbling block. For those who don't know, I am a Christian universalist.

Thanks in advance for your carefully deliberated opinions.

* Note that I'm not saying don't use the Bible in your response; am only asking to not use generalizations like 'the Bible doesn't teach it".

[Jnthn]

Why not pose your case for universalism and see if it stands up? Think of it like a debate. Propose the affirmative and you'll get the negative. I doubt many people will respond if you effectively say "universalism is correct" then sit back with your arms folded.

J

[themuzicman]

In every instance where salvation is described, there is an element of contingency associated with it. The most famous verse (John 3:16) demonstrates this clearly:

For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life

Notice that the condition to everlasting life is whosoever believes. There is a response required of each person before they may receive eternal life, and that response is the choice to put one's faith in Christ for eternal life. John 6:27-51 includes a larger discussion of this.

However, in the end, there will be those who believed and those who did not, and that will separate those who receive eternal life and those who do not.

Michael

[Abelard]

. . . but I'm curious to get a consensus on what non-universalists see as the main stumbling block.

“Now if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and practices iniquity, and I put a stumbling block in front of him, he will die. If you did not warn him, he will die because of his sin and the righteous acts he did will not be remembered. Yet I will hold you responsible for his blood.”
(Ezek 3:20 HCSB)

““Therefore, speak to them and tell them: This is what the Lord GOD says: When anyone from the house of Israel sets up idols in his heart, puts a sinful stumbling block before his face, and then comes to the prophet, I, the LORD, will answer him appropriately. |I will answer him| according to his many idols,”
(Ezek 14:4 HCSB)

“For when anyone from the house of Israel or from the foreigners who reside in Israel separates himself from Me, setting up idols in his heart and putting a sinful stumbling block before his face, and then comes to the prophet to inquire of Me, I, the LORD, will answer him Myself.”
(Ezek 14:7 HCSB)

““Therefore, house of Israel, I will judge each one of you according to his ways.” |This is| the declaration of the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn from all your transgressions, so they will not be a stumbling block that causes your punishment.”
(Ezek 14:7; 18:30 HCSB)

[Sparko]

In every instance where salvation is described, there is an element of contingency associated with it. The most famous verse (John 3:16) demonstrates this clearly:

For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life

Notice that the condition to everlasting life is whosoever believes. There is a response required of each person before they may receive eternal life, and that response is the choice to put one's faith in Christ for eternal life. John 6:27-51 includes a larger discussion of this.

However, in the end, there will be those who believed and those who did not, and that will separate those who receive eternal life and those who do not.

Michael

Not to mention jesus goes on to say:

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

[seanD]

Universalism is right about one thing -- Jesus paid the full price to redeem the world. But this doesn't mean the world will be saved. I give you two possible reasons:

1) Free will -- not everyone will choose to be saved.
2) God doesn't want everyone saved.

Now #1 is sort of an axiomatic truth, based on logic. For everyone to be saved, God would have to force everyone to be saved, and this won't happen. I don't necessarily stand firmly on #2, only that it's possible, and I can present scripture to back #2, but since these are just reasons behind the fact, I don't find it necessary (unless you request it).

The FACT is that we know from scripture -- throughout scripture in fact -- that there are those who won't be saved. We know this from Revelation, where there is a multitude of peeps standing at the White Throne judgment who are condemned to the lake of fire. We also know this exhaustively from Jesus' teachings -- i.e. the road that leads to destruction is broad and crowded, and the road to life is narrow with few who choose it; Jesus separates the sheep from the goats in the end times; the towns and cities that Jesus cursed to the day of judgment that rejected him, etc.

Christianity is sometimes a bitter pill for many to swallow (people sometimes walked away from Jesus just for his "offensive" teachings), because it's often times ruthless, unfair, and a horrifying reality, not exactly for those with bleeding hearts.

[Bernie]

howdy Secretary of Funk,

Why not pose your case for universalism and see if it stands up?
It'd take too long and I don't have time to do it justice. My universalism is unlike most others.

Think of it like a debate. Propose the affirmative and you'll get the negative.
I posted in the debate challenge area here several months ago. There were no takers. I've been around the block enough to expect that whatever I post, as long as the topic is the salvation of all, it'll doubtless get the negative, LOL.

I doubt many people will respond if you effectively say "universalism is correct" then sit back with your arms folded.
I think you're right, but that's not quite what I'm doing...I'm asking for opinions.
=============================================

Howdy music,

In every instance where salvation is described, there is an element of contingency associated with it.
I agree that the gospel of Christ Jesus contains much contingency. I doubt many Christian universalists would disagree with this, save maybe the most liberal-minded.

The Bible is also full of God's decree of salvation to His chosen. For example, Isa 28:15-18:
"Because you have said, 'We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we have made a pact. The overwhelming scourge will not reach us when it passes by, For we have made falsehood our refuge and we have concealed ourselves with deception.'
Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, 'Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.
"'And I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the level; Then hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters shall overflow the secret place. And your covenant with death shall be canceled, And your pact with Sheol shall not stand; When the overwhelming scourge passes through, Then you become its trampling place.'"
Not much room for choice here that I can see.

Notice that the condition to everlasting life is whosoever believes. There is a response required of each person before they may receive eternal life, and that response is the choice to put one's faith in Christ for eternal life.
Agreed. My understanding is that the believer receives his/her eternal life in time and space by the imputed righteousness of Christ--while non-believers will recieve their salvation in much harsher terms in another venue. I'll bet that the apostle Paul would agree with this.
===============================================

Hi Abelard, Not sure I understand your post. It looks like you did an Online BIble search for the phrase 'stumbling block' and printed out the results. I don't see a connection between "stumbling block" and eternal punishment. Or did you intend something else?

==============================================
Sparko wrote,

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son
Condemned to what? Condemned in what sense? I understand that orthodoxy leads us to interpret "condemned to eternal hell", but this is an interpretation, not something Jesus explicitly stated in the text.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi seanD,

Now #1 is sort of an axiomatic truth, based on logic. For everyone to be saved, God would have to force everyone to be saved, and this won't happen
Who says? God? Why do you think this is not possible?

I don't necessarily stand firmly on #2, only that it's possible, and I can present scripture to back #2, but since these are just reasons behind the fact, I don't find it necessary (unless you request it).
Actually, I'd like to see a verse or two if you're up to it.

The FACT is that we know from scripture -- throughout scripture in fact -- that there are those who won't be saved. We know this from Revelation, where there is a multitude of peeps standing at the White Throne judgment who are condemned to the lake of fire.
Where in the BIble does it say that those committed to the lake of fire are condemned to remain in it eternally?

the road that leads to destruction is broad and crowded, and the road to life is narrow with few who choose it;
How do you know this speaks to an eternal hell? How do you equate destruction with eternal hell?

Jesus separates the sheep from the goats in the end times;
Jesus is speaking figuratively here. How do you know "sheep and goats" refers to individual people? Isn't it possible, especially in light of the figurative language, that Jesus could be referring to something else, a spiritual process?

[Sparko]

You do realize that every mention in the Gospels about hell was made by Jesus himself? Why bother warning people about a place that nobody will be sent to?

1. Matthew 5:22
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

2. Matthew 5:29
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

3. Matthew 5:30
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

4. Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

5. Matthew 18:9
And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

6. Matthew 23:15
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

7. Matthew 23:33
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

8. Mark 9:43
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

9. Mark 9:45
And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.

10. Mark 9:47
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,

11. Luke 12:5
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

12. Luke 16:23
In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.

[OU812]

Hi, seanD....

Jesus separates the sheep from the goats in the end times.

However, there are those who argue that this separation took place already - back in the First Century A.D.



Christianity is sometimes a bitter pill for many to swallow (people sometimes walked away from Jesus just for his "offensive" teachings), because it's often times ruthless, unfair, and a horrifying reality, not exactly for those with bleeding hearts.

Well, this is fine, as long as we resist the temptation to say that the 'bitterness' or 'offensiveness' of the message is 'proof' that the message is true (an argument that I've seen some make).

[OU812]

Hi, seanD....


Christianity is sometimes a bitter pill for many to swallow (people sometimes walked away from Jesus just for his "offensive" teachings), because it's often times ruthless, unfair, and a horrifying reality, not exactly for those with bleeding hearts.

Well, this is fine, as long as we resist the temptation that the 'bitterness' or 'offensiveness' of the message is 'proof' that the message is true (an argument that I've seen some make).

[Bernie]

Hi Sparko,

You do realize that every mention in the Gospels about hell was made by Jesus himself? Why bother warning people about a place that nobody will be sent to?
Yep. Never said I reject the idea of hell. I reject what orthodoxy teaches hell is, though--I believe it's God's pure righteousness, and human falsity[evil] is flammable.

[seanD]

Bernie, this parable is pretty clear that it has to do with the final judgment:

Matt 13:47-50 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.


Actually, I'd like to see a verse or two if you're up to it.

The phrase "many are called, but few are chosen" (Mat 22:14) indicates group B called from group A who are not called, and then group C who are finally chosen from group B who are not chosen. Of course, this all depends on if one holds a fatalistic view with this, as opposed to just calling those to a specific task. I'm sure you hold the latter view.

In Matt 13:44, Jesus gives a parable about a man who buys the whole field (the world) to get the treasure (the chosen) out of the field. This parable is sort of meaningless if God bought the whole world so that everyone could be saved (or in the parable sense -- everyone would be the treasure). Unless you somehow twist it to mean that the field represents the globe, and the treasure are the people on it. But God didn't have to buy the globe, since he already owns it.

But I think the strongest of the three is after the Parable of the Sower (Matt 13:1-16), his disciples ask him why he talks in parables, Jesus replies:

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, 'Why speakest thou unto them in parables?' He answered and said unto them, 'Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear."

It seems pretty plain that Jesus was stating he purposely spoke in parables so they wouldn't hear and understand "lest they convert," in order to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy. In other words, this seems to imply that Jesus and God were intentionally causing Isaiah's prophecy to be fulfilled.

But again, I don't subscribe to this belief of select conversions wholeheartedly, just that it's possible.

Where in the BIble does it say that those committed to the lake of fire are condemned to remain in it eternally?


Hmm, I guess because 1) no indication that they are ever let out, and 2) this seems to be a climax before God creates everything new and wonderful -- the erasure all misery, pain, sorrow, etc. for those who are left is established. I suppose you can speculate that they are eventually let out, but this would nothing but speculation with no scripture to back it.

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,


Yep. Never said I reject the idea of hell. I reject what orthodoxy teaches hell is, though--I believe it's God's pure righteousness, and human falsity[evil] is flammable.


you are free to believe the moon is made of cheese if you want. But there is no indication in the bible that Hell is "God's pure righteousness, and human falsity[evil] is flammable" - whatever that means.

Jesus spoke of Hell as a literal place where the condemned spend eternity separated from God and the saved.

As did the other authors of the bible.

[Bernie]

Hi Sean,

Bernie, this parable is pretty clear that it has to do with the final judgment:

Matt 13:47-50 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
This is where dogmatic orthodoxy fails, Sean. I've seen hundreds of claims like this on various boards, and don't see how it cannot help but cause God grief. Instead of looking at verses using orthodox doctrine as our guiding light, look at them with a more critical eye using actual truth tests.

For example, in the Matt 13:47-50 passage; this can be broken down into two formulas:

Step One: we find (as in many cases in His teaching) Jesus beginning with metaphor, a comparison. Meaning lies not in the particular elements of the metaphor itself but beyond it. So the fishing metaphor, which corresponds to many other similar metaphors in both Testaments speaks to a separation of good from evil. On this I'm confident all may agree.

Step Two: Jesus then compared the fishing metaphor to a spiritual reality... So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Now look at the verses again, divorcing your mind from what you're been taught. Use truth alone--not doctrine--as your standard of judgment and answer these questions:
1) Is there anything in the text in the passage which identifiy an eternal punishment?
2) Is truth violated in the view that the passage in step two might also be metaphor and not literal? In other words, is it conceivable that the separation of good from evil as a literal event take place not in the separation of one individual from another, but in various elements of good and bad within each individual?

It seems pretty plain that Jesus was stating he purposely spoke in parables so they wouldn't hear and understand "lest they convert," in order to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy.
But isn't it possible that in God's power and wisdom we might yet today also misunderstand Jesus' parables just as His detractors did 2000 years ago?

Where in the BIble does it say that those committed to the lake of fire are condemned to remain in it eternally? Hmm, I guess because 1) no indication that they are ever let out, and 2) this seems to be a climax before God creates everything new and wonderful -- the erasure all misery, pain, sorrow, etc. for those who are left is established. I suppose you can speculate that they are eventually let out, but this would nothing but speculation with no scripture to back it.
Actually, there is exactly one verse in the Bible using the phrase "eternal punishment" (NASB) or "everlasting punishment" (AV): Mat 25:46. I believe it reasonable to suspect, in light of the complete absence of any other reference in the Bible to eternal punishment, that the translators used the word "punishment" for the Greek kolasis when in most other instances it's used for "correction". Hence, if (as I do) we assume God to be an eternal fire, as He has time and again likened Himself to in the OT prophets, and also assume that the essence of evil is the combustible, then the metaphorical separation of sheep from goats may be seen as a reference to elements of fragmented evil in each indiviudal being cut off and thrown into the firey furnace of God's pure Truth or righteousness.

Sheep and goats, wheat and tares, procuring a set aside "remnant" from the midst of the evil are NT metaphors that God has been shouting at humanity for centuries through His prophets, e.g. Ezek 21:2-5:
"Son of man, set your face toward Jerusalem, and speak against the sanctuaries, and prophesy against the land of Israel; and say to the land of Israel, 'Thus says the LORD, "Behold, I am against you; and I shall draw My sword out of its sheath and cut off from you the righteous and the wicked. Because I shall cut off from you the righteous and the wicked, therefore My sword shall go forth from its sheath against all flesh from south to north. Thus all flesh will know that I, the LORD, have drawn My sword out of its sheath. It will not return to its sheath again."' (my emph.)

If we pay attention to what Jesus is saying rather than to what we've been taught He is saying by a controlling, money hungry organized religion, we might see that we're missing much of the truth of the message....just as the Pharisees did on another level.

Greetings Sparko,

you are free to believe the moon is made of cheese if you want.
....?!?what?....you mean.....IT'S NOT?

there is no indication in the bible that Hell is "God's pure righteousness,
Actually there is a forest of indication that God's pure essence is a fire to it's opposite, evil. I don't know how you can read the Bible and miss it. This is one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Will post more on this later, not much time left to me presently.

human falsity[evil] is flammable" - whatever that means.
I've elected to show my signature this time; it's explained in more detail there. Briefly, my own theologyh holds either truth or falsity to be a property, a condition of existence, of all reality. To use my more abstract terminology, all existence is information, and all information exists in one of two states: true or false. When Adam died, he introduced the pathology of falsity into an otherwise wholly true (Gen 1:31). Because God is wholly and purely True, all falsity is naturally inimical to His being. Falsity is the raw material of evil, and it's the stuff of our fallen nature. This is what I meant. What hardly anyone realizes is that the only way to heaven is through hell (the Fire which is God), either gradually in sanctification in time, or in the roaring furnace of hell for unbelievers. Unlike your orthodox doctrine, mine aligns much more closely with real tests of truth.

[Jnthn]

howdy Secretary of Funk,

It'd take too long and I don't have time to do it justice. My universalism is unlike most othersSo in other words, you're expecting people to critically evluate and respond to you based on something you're too lazy to share? Come on, do you think we're stupid? Do you realise that we'd be entirely correct in assuming your "novel" take is intrinsically flawed? What would happen if we responded in kind?

"I have a robust and thorough rebuttal of universalism that has been unchallenged and remains unbeaten. Share it with you. Pfft. Haven't got the time, but I'd be interested in hearing your take on it".

Give me a break.

J

[shunyadragon]

I'm curious to know what Christian readers here find as the single biggest argument against the idea of the salvation of all. Would prefer thinkers capable of intellectual honesty, no "Cause the Bible don't teach it" stuff.* If you can't make a reasonably well thought-out case, please don't post.

Try to distill your case into no more than three primary reasons, from greatest to least. Not sure I have time to get into too deep a discussion on it, and universalism has been argued to death here and in other venues, but I'm curious to get a consensus on what non-universalists see as the main stumbling block. For those who don't know, I am a Christian universalist.

Thanks in advance for your carefully deliberated opinions.

* Note that I'm not saying don't use the Bible in your response; am only asking to not use generalizations like 'the Bible doesn't teach it".

What is more likely is the 'universal potential of salvation.' What you are going to get from individual religious world views, as already happened is the standard quotes and assertions from their own belief. When taking the whole of human history and diversity of culture and religion into account, individual ancient world views become difficult to hold IF there is 'Source' some call God(s), that is universal in perspective. Taking any one of the ancient world views as true would conclude that the Compassion for the 'Source' for ALL of creation does not hold, and the 'Source' becomes a a selective, arbitrary God that selects a few over ALL others, based on a narrow framework of belief based on one ancient scripture.

[Sparko]

bernie, please don't combine different people's posts into one reply. It makes it very difficult to separate it back out when replying to you. I don't wish to reply to your reply to other people.

Thanks.

That being said, you are still just making assertions that scripture backs up your view but I don't see any scripture.

Scripture is very clear that not everyone will be saved. I don't see how you can claim that they will be.

Rev 20:
11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

seems like you are just handwaving away most of scripture because you don't like what it says.

[Bernie]

Hello sparko, sorry that multiple responses in a single post bothers you. Trying to conserve time and still reply to all. Will keep things separated from here on out.

you are still just making assertions that scripture backs up your view but I don't see any scripture.
This is a generalization. I'd be happy to respond to something more specific if you'll elaborate.

Scripture is very clear that not everyone will be saved. I don't see how you can claim that they will be.
Is it? I interepret statements like this thus: "I've been taught to study and interpret the Bible in such a way that Scripture is very clear that not everyone will be saved." Few Christians apply actual tests of truth because they're taught [as I was] that what they're being taught is truth itself, or so close to it that we may as well turn out the lights and go home.. This is what I respect about theologians, they do apply higher standards of truth, and I read once some years ago that a great many theologians agree that the Bible does not specifically consign a single human being to eternal hell.

Actually, I believe the Bible does teach that not everyone will be saved--in time. Paul understood and taught this, too. Read Rom 11. This led Paul to make this very distinction in 1Tim 4:10:
"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers." [my emph.]

Salvation in Christ may be broken out into two basic categories,
1) How many will be saved: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." (Jn 12:32) This is salvation's eternal aspect.

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." (1Cor 15:22)

2) When one is saved: "But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
"For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all." (1Cor 15:23-28)
This is salvation's temporal aspect.

Arminian Eternal Tormentists are unable to distinguish between these two, basing eternal salvation on choice in time. Arminians are tuned to the temporal aspect of salvation, where mutability and change rule the day.

Calvinist Eternal Tormentists wtih their doctrine of election and predestination place all their eternal salvation in the eternal realm, where everything is predecided.

Universal salvation, properly understood, combines the warring sisters into "one stick" of doctrinal agreement:
1) God decided for all in eternity. [no one has a choice; all will be saved]
2) Christ died (enacted in eternity, played out in time) that fallen man, who must go through a literal purification process to be remade into perfection, may do so gradually in time [sanctification] by choice. Those who thus choose and stay the course, are refined by the same hell fire (God's pure Essence at work in human spirit, i.e., regeneration) that burns away all dross (evil), such that faith is formed. In passing, Christ's imputed faith covers the believer, as it did Daniel's friends in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace, and they enter heaven unscathed.
3) Those who don't believe and follow their own moral course pass into God's arms, where their own false righteousness is destroyed in the flames of God's purity.

Same principle, death and rebirth. To the believer, this process is gradual in sanctification. To the unbeliever, it's pure torture in hell, until all falsity is removed. All are restored to the same perfection Adam threw away. This is Biblical.

Finally, I assume that you provided the following passage from Rev 20 in your post as proof that Scripture is very clear that not everyone will be saved. Let's take a look at it...

11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
Okay, judgment here, no eternal hell so far.....

14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Let's study these verses solely on the basis of what they say and not on what others tell you they say. John was recording his apocolyptic vision here and tells us only that he was given the understanding that any name not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. The last thing this passage is clear about is the eternal status of anyone thus condemned. How does this clearly show us that these unfortunates are in an eternal hell?

[Bernie]

So in other words, you're expecting people to critically evluate and respond to you based on something you're too lazy to share?
No, I was hoping to gether information on others' opinions per the OP....for those not too lazy to actually read it.

Come on, do you think we're stupid?
We? Who are you a spokesman for?

Do you realise that we'd be entirely correct in assuming your "novel" take is intrinsically flawed?
No I didn't....would this position of correctness be based on the reading of my mind, or do you possess some other fearful power for obtaining the truth without actually understanding the beleifs of others?

Give me a break.
I'll do better. I'll give you free advice: if you don't like the way this thread is headed, quite whining, tuck your tail between your legs and go somewhere else. No thanks necessary, I give free advice all the time.

[Bernie]

Hello Shunyadragon,

What is more likely is the 'universal potential of salvation.' What you are going to get from individual religious world views, as already happened is the standard quotes and assertions from their own belief. When taking the whole of human history and diversity of culture and religion into account, individual ancient world views become difficult to hold IF there is 'Source' some call God(s), that is universal in perspective. Taking any one of the ancient world views as true would conclude that the Compassion for the 'Source' for ALL of creation does not hold, and the 'Source' becomes a a selective, arbitrary God that selects a few over ALL others, based on a narrow framework of belief based on one ancient scripture.
I've never looked at it this way before, but I expect you're right, that most if not all major religions tend to some form of elitism.

On the other hand, it seems plausible to me that in the realm of particulars (matter), God may, in shaping the universal outcome, make use of select groups, which evolve into particular religions, to achieve an ultimate purpose.

[RBerman]

John was recording his apocolyptic vision here and tells us only that he was given the understanding that any name not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. The last thing this passage is clear about is the eternal status of anyone thus condemned. How does this clearly show us that these unfortunates are in an eternal hell?
Objects at rest tend to remain at rest. The ending of Revelation in general has quite an air of finality about it. It's reasonable to expect those in the Lake of Fire to remain there, if that's the last place we see them. Otherwise, why expect those in the New Jerusalem to stay there, just because that's the last place we see them? Perhaps immediately after the end of John's vision, they were all changed into peanut M&Ms and devoured by the 24 elders! But of course, there's no positive argument for such a departure from the direction of John's story. And there's no positive argument for a departure from John's story with respect to those in the Lake of Fire either.

[Bernie]

Hellow RBerman,

Thanks for responding.

The ending of Revelation in general has quite an air of finality about it. It's reasonable to expect those in the Lake of Fire to remain there, if that's the last place we see them.
I respectfully differ. The observation "air of finality" can't properly be drawn from the text; this is an interpretive judgment. To reach finality requires that all pertinent facts be known and stand in confederation. Is it reasonable to suppose that because you last saw a yellow car sitting on the side of the road yesterday it'll still be there today?

I'll concede it at least reasonable to suppose that the damned remain in their state when Scripture is interepreted in a certain way, but there are better reasons to suppose they won't.

Most thinking Christians will agree that it goes against God's nature to destroy good. All things good of logical necessity proceed from God. We never find an instance in the Bible in which God declares that He will destroy the righteous. His wrath is always directed to unrighteousness and its correlatives. We know this intuitively.

In fact, God Himself defends this principle in the first book of the Bible.

Informed by God that He was going to Sodom to investigate and, if necessary, destroy the evil city, Abraham quickly struck up a conversation with his Creator—his nephew Lot and family were there, and Abraham doubtless had concerns about his kin being destroyed with all the others in the city. He began what today we recognize to be his famous conversation with God in Gen 18 by asking in v. 23, “….’Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?’”

Beginning here and running to the end of this chapter, God establishes a principle so fundamentally and harmoniously woven into both testaments of the Bible, it’s hard to see how the organized church has missed its significance. This prinicple—what I see as a type of spiritual essentialism—is elaborated in vv. 24-25:

"Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"

I should note at this point that there is one supervising characteristic which seems to govern all God’s other attributes: His perfection. We might assert that God is truth, just, merciful and faithful, among other things. But if He is imperfect in any of these, He is not God as we understand Him to have revealed Himself in Scripture. Abraham recognized this truth when he exclaimed, “Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and wicked are treated alike….Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?”

In removing Lot and family from Sodom before destroying it, God demonstrated His perfect faithfulness and signified the principle that He will not destroy a whole in which some good exists.

Now return to those in the Lake of Fire. I think it can be stated with a high degree of certainty that every human being has at least some good in his or her soul. This is logical on at least a couple levels...
1) to be wholly evil is a logical impossibility, as evil, which follows from the false, seeks only those constituents in harmony with it: death, decay, iniquity, wrong, etc. In short, pure evil is impossible because a thing would of necessity self-destruct before it could reach upper limit. Infinite evil equals infinite chaos, an impossibility.
2) Both good and evil must be present in the intellect to arouse moral apprehension. The wholly good (true, pure, perfect) mind feels no moral tension because falsity alone provides tension and resistance to good. This is seen in Adam and Eve in the garden not realizing they were naked. When sin was consumated and the pathology of falsity introduced into spirit (and causally, mind), they hurridly dressed lest God see them naked. Moral tension was born.

In answer to your allegation that "...there's no positive argument for such a departure from the direction of John's story. And there's no positive argument for a departure from John's story with respect to those in the Lake of Fire either.", I'd suggest first that this argument, as noted earlier, fails because certitude can't rest on assumptions.

Second, for God to either destroy or condemn to an eternity of suffering a whole in which some good exists is, as pointed out above, a direct violation of His revealed character as it renders Him imperfect, and in imperfection He becomes an insane, unstable and untrustworthy god. The only known correction for this deficiency is the rationally esoteric view of the salvation of all in Christ Jesus, wherein God destroys elemental evil in human essence and restores that essence to its original true state. Thus, all are made true in the fires of hell Himself.

And anyway, only an insane god would condemn a fallen human being to an eternity of the most horrible suffering.

[RBerman]

When all is said and done, here's the bottom line:

And anyway, only an insane god would condemn a fallen human being to an eternity of the most horrible suffering.

If the Bible taught eternal hell in the clearest, most uneqivocal way possible, that would simply cause you to reject the Bible. The Bible is only right when it agrees with what you believe already. What's the point in discussing the matter any further?

[Bernie]

If the Bible taught eternal hell in the clearest, most uneqivocal way possible, that would simply cause you to reject the Bible. The Bible is only right when it agrees with what you believe already. What's the point in discussing the matter any further?
This is it? This is your apology, your great defense of God's wish to torture humans for all eternity? Having presented what I thought were rational, reasonable responses to your previous post RBerman, all I get is "What's the point in discussing the matter any further?"

the point is to seek the truth. I believe if you were able to refute my points, you would have done it. Don't any of you get it? You're using the same aproach as the pharisees! They weren't interested in the truth either, only in promoting their dogma. Doctrine certainly contains truth, but it is not equal to or the same as, truth. If you were interested in truth, you would not judge everything by doctrine, you would try to judge everything--especially your beloved doctrine--by higher truth standards. What a sad state of affairs in the church today.

[RBerman]

This is it? This is your apology, your great defense of God's wish to torture humans for all eternity? Having presented what I thought were rational, reasonable responses to your previous post RBerman, all I get is "What's the point in discussing the matter any further?"

the point is to seek the truth. I believe if you were able to refute my points, you would have done it. Don't any of you get it? You're using the same aproach as the pharisees! They weren't interested in the truth either, only in promoting their dogma. Doctrine certainly contains truth, but it is not equal to or the same as, truth. If you were interested in truth, you would not judge everything by doctrine, you would try to judge everything--especially your beloved doctrine--by higher truth standards. What a sad state of affairs in the church today.
I'm sure your lengthy post seemed quite rational to you. I didn't engage your arguments at all, I admit. I won't even try, when you've admitted that your gut feelings would never cause you to accept any reasoned exposition of the Bible which concludes that some people will endure eternal punishment for their sins. God would have to be insane to do something like that. There's no other rational explanation. Right? And you comfort yourself by saying that I'm the one who's not willing to follow the evidence where it leads. Such protestations would be more convincing when not accompanied by confessions of your underlying bias.

[Sparko]

This is it? This is your apology, your great defense of God's wish to torture humans for all eternity? Having presented what I thought were rational, reasonable responses to your previous post RBerman, all I get is "What's the point in discussing the matter any further?"

the point is to seek the truth. I believe if you were able to refute my points, you would have done it. Don't any of you get it? You're using the same aproach as the pharisees! They weren't interested in the truth either, only in promoting their dogma. Doctrine certainly contains truth, but it is not equal to or the same as, truth. If you were interested in truth, you would not judge everything by doctrine, you would try to judge everything--especially your beloved doctrine--by higher truth standards. What a sad state of affairs in the church today.

Shouldn't it be up to you to prove your claims? We have provided scripture that talks about condemnation of unbelievers, separation from God, the lake of fire, and hell. Jesus spent a lot of time warning people about hell. Why did he spend so much time on something that God would never use?

So far all you have done is say "nuh-uh" and argue from outrage. I see no evidence that your claims are in the slightest bit true.

[Bernie]

Shouldn't it be up to you to prove your claims?
Let's try something different. Let's try to stick solely to using actual truth claims here.

What exactly are my "claims"?

We have provided scripture that talks about condemnation of unbelievers, separation from God, the lake of fire, and hell.
I believe in the condemnation of unbelievers, separation from God, the lake of fire, and hell. I've disagreed with none of these. Read my posts carefully and weigh what I say not against orthodox teaching, which presumes itself to be true but is only doctrine. Weigh what is said against truth itself.

Jesus spent a lot of time warning people about hell.
Agreed.

Why did he spend so much time on something that God would never use?
Again, I agree wholeheartedly. God does not waste His or our time with frivolousness.

So far all you have done is say "nuh-uh" and argue from outrage.
This is an absurd claim. The truth is that I have posed a great number of straightforward and relevant questios, and I don't recall that an adequate attempt has been made to answer any of them.

Please reread my posts, especially RBerman's next to last post to me, my last post to him, and RBerman's final post...to which you gave a big thumb's up. Now reread the last sentence in in this last post of yours and see if you don't feel chagrined in having posted it. [...argue from outrage? what's this supposed to mean?]

Since I've had a couple criticisms about the direction I've taken this post, let me explain what I’m doing. Non-universalist Chrsitians on theology boards use doctrine as truth. Doctrine is a general consensus that Scripture is interepreted to indicate certain principles and truths. Once armed with our “truth” [doctrine], the only tests of truth we’re willing to use to test the claims of others is doctrine. The Pharisees also practiced thusly, as do other religionists.

I’ve learned that when someone on a theology board asks for your beliefs so they can respond to them, they really only want to see what does not ring true with their doctrine. The spirit of this inquiry is corrupt; there’s no desire to actually understand and consider what is being presented, only a heart set on finding something to tear apart and destroy. I know—I used the same methodology for years. Setting oneself against evil is a good thing. But in order to do this adequately, one must necessarily be armed with actual and not supposed truth. If one is only willing to arm oneself with doctrine, regardless of doctrine’s relationship to actual truth, the image of a pure white Christian knight riding forth with the flaming sword of truth raised up—as is the image in the minds of many—is really something less.

This thread was formulated to find out if there are any actual thinkers out there by mixing my views gradually into debate while asking questions of my brethren of their beloved doctrine which they should—but rarely do—ask themselves. This has the tendency to enrage the defenders of doctrine. Why does truthful inquiry have such an effect on the very elect of God?

Below are excerpts from posts in this thread and my responses to them, as I doubt you’ll actually reread posts. Please read them carefully, then reconsider the statements in your last post to me…and judge with intelletual honesty where truth takes its strongest stand, Sparko…

"In every instance where salvation is described, there is an element of contingency associated with it."
I agree that the gospel of Christ Jesus contains much contingency. I doubt many Christian universalists would disagree with this, save maybe the most liberal-minded.

"Notice that the condition to everlasting life is whosoever believes. There is a response required of each person before they may receive eternal life, and that response is the choice to put one's faith in Christ for eternal life."
Agreed. My understanding is that the believer receives his/her eternal life in time and space by the imputed righteousness of Christ--while non-believers will recieve their salvation in much harsher terms in another venue. I'll bet that the apostle Paul would agree with this.

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son"
Condemned to what? Condemned in what sense? I understand that orthodoxy leads us to interpret "condemned to eternal hell", but this is an interpretation, not something Jesus explicitly stated in the text.

"Now #1 is sort of an axiomatic truth, based on logic. For everyone to be saved, God would have to force everyone to be saved, and this won't happen"
Who says? God? Why do you think this is not possible?

"The FACT is that we know from scripture -- throughout scripture in fact -- that there are those who won't be saved. We know this from Revelation, where there is a multitude of peeps standing at the White Throne judgment who are condemned to the lake of fire."
Where in the BIble does it say that those committed to the lake of fire are condemned to remain in it eternally?

"the road that leads to destruction is broad and crowded, and the road to life is narrow with few who choose it; "
How do you know this speaks to an eternal hell? How do you equate destruction with eternal hell?

"Jesus separates the sheep from the goats in the end times;"
Jesus is speaking figuratively here. How do you know "sheep and goats" refers to individual people? Isn't it possible, especially in light of the figurative language, that Jesus could be referring to something else, a spiritual process?

"You do realize that every mention in the Gospels about hell was made by Jesus himself? Why bother warning people about a place that nobody will be sent to?"
Yep. Never said I reject the idea of hell. I reject what orthodoxy teaches hell is, though--I believe it's God's pure righteousness, and human falsity[evil] is flammable.

"It seems pretty plain that Jesus was stating he purposely spoke in parables so they wouldn't hear and understand "lest they convert," in order to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy."
But isn't it possible that in God's power and wisdom we might yet today also misunderstand Jesus' parables just as His detractors did 2000 years ago?

human falsity[evil] is flammable" - whatever that means.
I've elected to show my signature this time; it's explained in more detail there. Briefly, my own theologyh holds either truth or falsity to be a property, a condition of existence, of all reality. To use my more abstract terminology, all existence is information, and all information exists in one of two states: true or false. When Adam died, he introduced the pathology of falsity into an otherwise wholly true (Gen 1:31). Because God is wholly and purely True, all falsity is naturally inimical to His being. Falsity is the raw material of evil, and it's the stuff of our fallen nature. This is what I meant. What hardly anyone realizes is that the only way to heaven is through hell (the Fire which is God), either gradually in sanctification in time, or in the roaring furnace of hell for unbelievers. Unlike your orthodox doctrine, mine aligns much more closely with real tests of truth.

you are still just making assertions that scripture backs up your view but I don't see any scripture.
This is a generalization. I'd be happy to respond to something more specific if you'll elaborate.

Scripture is very clear that not everyone will be saved. I don't see how you can claim that they will be.
Actually, I believe the Bible does teach that not everyone will be saved--in time.

Bernie, this parable is pretty clear that it has to do with the final judgment:

Matt 13:47-50 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
This is where dogmatic orthodoxy fails, Sean. I've seen hundreds of claims like this on various boards, and don't see how it cannot help but cause God grief. Instead of looking at verses using orthodox doctrine as our guiding light, look at them with a more critical eye using actual truth tests.

For example, in the Matt 13:47-50 passage; this can be broken down into two formulas:

Step One: we find (as in many cases in His teaching) Jesus beginning with metaphor, a comparison. Meaning lies not in the particular elements of the metaphor itself but beyond it. So the fishing metaphor, which corresponds to many other similar metaphors in both Testaments speaks to a separation of good from evil. On this I'm confident all may agree.

Step Two: Jesus then compared the fishing metaphor to a spiritual reality... So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Now look at the verses again, divorcing your mind from what you're been taught. Use truth alone--not doctrine--as your standard of judgment and answer these questions:
1) Is there anything in the text in the passage which identifiy an eternal punishment?
2) Is truth violated in the view that the passage in step two might also be metaphor and not literal? In other words, is it conceivable that the separation of good from evil as a literal event take place not in the separation of one individual from another, but in various elements of good and bad within each individual?

In answer to your claim, "So far all you have done is say "nuh-uh" and argue from outrage. I see no evidence that your claims are in the slightest bit true." , I'd ask since you, like every other who has posted here, have not answered a single question of mine nor responded with a carefully thought out and truthful response to that portion of my beliefs I've shared.....how can you ask questions like this, make the empty claims you do and not be embarassed?

[Sparko]

argument from outrage is a term for a logical fallacy where your sole reason for accepting or rejecting something is like "I can't believe a loving God would...." - in other words since you can't conceive such a thing then it must not be possible. A logical fallacy.

So you basically believe in hell and that unbelievers will go there, but only what? temporarily? then they get to heaven? Is that what you are claiming? Something like the Catholic puragotory?

[caspian]

Bernie

Are you suggesting that God will be the saviour of all mankind? That the perfect sacrifice of Christ will actually succeed in taking away the sin of the world? That in the end God will have it His way? That ultimately no one can thwart the will of God?

Ludicrous! WHAT have you been SMOKING?

[Bernie]

argument from outrage is a term for a logical fallacy where your sole reason for accepting or rejecting something is like "I can't believe a loving God would...." - in other words since you can't conceive such a thing then it must not be possible. A logical fallacy.
So you used the last sentence of my post without a single thought or response to the entire set of arguments which preceeded it? Is this an example of Christian truth-seeking?

So you basically believe in hell and that unbelievers will go there, but only what? temporarily? then they get to heaven? Is that what you are claiming? Something like the Catholic puragotory?
Roughly along these lines, yes, though this expression of it is overly simplistic. I'd appreciate it in the interest of forward moving debate if you'd respond to my earlier points. Or, if you're up to debating a single point of contention without jumping around trying to find something to club to death, I'm willing to participate.

[Sparko]

So you used the last sentence of my post without a single thought or response to the entire set of arguments which preceeded it? Is this an example of Christian truth-seeking?


Roughly along these lines, yes, though this expression of it is overly simplistic. I'd appreciate it in the interest of forward moving debate if you'd respond to my earlier points. Or, if you're up to debating a single point of contention without jumping around trying to find something to club to death, I'm willing to participate.

Yes I summarized your earlier points. I did read them but I still see no biblical argument for them. It seems to just come down to you not wanting to believe that God can send someone to hell forever.

But you don't seem to have a problem with him sending them to hell temporarily.

How long? 1 year? 100? 1 Million?

As soon as you start giving biblical support for your view I will start trying to respond to them individually.

[Bernie]

As soon as you start giving biblical support for your view I will start trying to respond to them individually.
For what particular view?

[Sparko]

For what particular view?
that hell is temporary and that everyone will be saved.

That hell is just "god's righteousness" or whatever you called it.

[Bernie]

Hey Sparko, you know what, forget it. You and other posters here have discourteously ignored virtually every question I've asked and every point I've made. I would be embarrassed to approach debate the way you do in a public forum.

First go back and respond to what I've already posted. Make this dialog a two way street instead of me posting intelligently and you throwing back contemptuous comments.

To other readers of this thread: Are there any other champions of orthodox soteriology who have the integrity to debate with intellectual honesty and would care to take a stab at my prior questions and comments?

[Sparko]

Hey Sparko, you know what, forget it. You and other posters here have discourteously ignored virtually every question I've asked and every point I've made. I would be embarrassed to approach debate the way you do in a public forum.

First go back and respond to what I've already posted. Make this dialog a two way street instead of me posting intelligently and you throwing back contemptuous comments.

To other readers of this thread: Are there any other champions of orthodox soteriology who have the integrity to debate with intellectual honesty and would care to take a stab at my prior questions and comments?

Hmm. Like I thought. you have no scripture to back up your claims. It's all just wishful thinking and argument from outrage like I said earlier.

[caspian]

"To the irreligious poor the common presentment of “endless torment” was a mere stumbling-block: to the best of the religious it was a permanent misery. The irreligious are driven to disbelieve in any punishment, because they have heard the punishment with which they are threatened described in such a way as to be utterly unbelievable; the religious accept these coarse pictures, and are either hardened by them into lovelessness or crushed into despair. Pharisaism and Infidelity are the twin children of every form of theology which obscures the tenderness of revelation, and belies the love of God."
- Canon F.W. Farrar

[Christa]

Now look at the verses again, divorcing your mind from what you're been taught. Use truth alone--not doctrine--as your standard of judgment and answer these questions:

1) Is there anything in the text in the passage which identifiy an eternal punishment?
2) Is truth violated in the view that the passage in step two might also be metaphor and not literal? In other words, is it conceivable that the separation of good from evil as a literal event take place not in the separation of one individual from another, but in various elements of good and bad within each individual?

Actually there is a forest of indication that God's pure essence is a fire to it's opposite, evil. I don't know how you can read the Bible and miss it.

But isn't it possible that in God's power and wisdom we might yet today also misunderstand Jesus' parables just as His detractors did 2000 years ago?

:yes:

[Christa]

Actually, I believe the Bible does teach that not everyone will be saved--in time. Paul understood and taught this, too. Read Rom 11. This led Paul to make this very distinction in 1Tim 4:10:
"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers." [my emph.]

Salvation in Christ may be broken out into two basic categories,
1) How many will be saved: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." (Jn 12:32) This is salvation's eternal aspect.

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." (1Cor 15:22)

2) When one is saved: "But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
"For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all." (1Cor 15:23-28)
This is salvation's temporal aspect.



:flowers:

[Christa]

I'm curious to know what Christian readers here find as the single biggest argument against the idea of the salvation of all. Would prefer thinkers capable of intellectual honesty, no "Cause the Bible don't teach it" stuff.* If you can't make a reasonably well thought-out case, please don't post.
[/I]

1.) The Hebrews' God (mine too; the same) is wrathful.
2.) This is just the hard cold reality.
3.) The whole NT is about avoiding God's wrath.
4.) Sometimes God is just downright mean.
5.) Nature is very well designed and scary as hell !
6.) Because God isn't restricted by boundaries. He doesn't set the standards. He IS the standard.
7.) The natural world is a picture for us of a side of his own nature.
8.) Why do you think the bible warns us to fear God and pray for his mercy?
9.) He means for us to see it--take a long hard look, and rightly fear him.
10.) This should be enough to convince any unbeliever to get on his good side, unless they're just plain fools.
11.) Anyway, it isn't necessarily illogical to believe that God is this way. God is violent.
12.) Once Christians realize this and stop trying apologize for God, atheists won't be able to build their strawman omnibenevolent nonsense arguments anymore.


:twitch:

[gharfish]

1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
6.)
7.)
8.)
9.)
10.)
11.)
12.)


:twitch:I did not post in this thread. I am going to again report one of your posts (this one), Christa. Stop doing this.




>

[Christa]

I did not post in this thread. I am going to again report one of your posts (this one), Christa. Stop doing this.
>

:huh:
I have nothing to hide, Christa. I INVITE people to hunt back through my posts.
>
Campus Decorum (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_decorum_admin)

1.) "Proper citation includes the author, publisher, and link (if available)."
2.) "Unless permission is given to the poster by the copyright holder to reproduce the material, the length of the posting must not exceed fair use. "
3.) "Bad arguments are not against the rules."
4.) "we recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position or faith that may at times offend some. "
5.) "Many areas of our forum are designated for debates, which at times can get aggressive. Our open debate forums, in which persons holding opposing worldviews are encouraged to participate, are not designed for persons who are easily offended or insist upon Moderator-enforced politeness at all costs. "


Nature is very well designed and scary as hell !
The natural world is a picture for us of a side of his own nature.
He means for us to see it--take a long hard look, and rightly fear him.
God is violent

Campus Decorum (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_decorum_admin)

'NO user-submitted content shall contain ...
...gratuitously blasphemous,
...or generally distasteful language"
:solly:
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." (1Cor 15:22)
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." (Jn 12:32)
"He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (1 John 4:8)

[gharfish]

:huh:

Campus Decorum (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_decorum_admin)

1.) "Proper citation includes the author, publisher, and link (if available)."
2.) "Unless permission is given to the poster by the copyright holder to reproduce the material, the length of the posting must not exceed fair use. "
3.) "Bad arguments are not against the rules."
4.) "we recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position or faith that may at times offend some. "
5.) "Many areas of our forum are designated for debates, which at times can get aggressive. Our open debate forums, in which persons holding opposing worldviews are encouraged to participate, are not designed for persons who are easily offended or insist upon Moderator-enforced politeness at all costs. "



Campus Decorum (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_decorum_admin)

'NO user-submitted content shall contain ...
...gratuitously blasphemous,
...or generally distasteful language"
:solly:
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." (1Cor 15:22)
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." (Jn 12:32)
"He who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (1 John 4:8)Are you now calling my quote above, which you have pulled into here from another thread "inappropriate material" ? Report it. Let the moderators decide. You know the rules, right ?

How am I to know that you are asking me to hold myself accountable in this thread when I had to find this out by accident ? I haven't posted in here ! Not once !

And what is this preaching smilie? for I did not break the rules in saying that. No. It's also out of the context of the sum of what I wrote on that other thread. I mean, please; even in this one paragraph, two! sentences are intentionally deleted by you before my final remark: "God is violent." Keep the paragraph intact, OK ?

Now keep your emoticon statements about material that is in another thread in the other thread, you little sneak. Debate. Discuss. Something. If you quote me, clicking-up a disapproval smilie, then you ought to be a stand-up guy or girl and *also tell me why you disagree with the quoted material you've chosen to highlight for everyone.

Say why. Counter argue it. Do some real work.



>

[RBerman]

Say why. Counter argue it. Do some real work.>
Save your breath. Christa never posts original content. Search her posts; they consist exclusively of emoticons and quotations of other people's words. She thinks it's cute to play Harpo Marx. Just ignore her; that's what I've learned to do.

[Sparko]

Christa, you are disrupting the threads you post in and quoting people out of context from other threads. This is disruptive behavior and is against our decorum. Stop or you will be moderated.


Disruptive behavior will be moderated at our discretion. There may be certain instances when behavior or comments which are technically allowable will be censored if they are used to such a degree or are of such a nature that they are unnecessarily disruptive and cease to contribute to or assist in meaningful dialog. Behavior which becomes, or can be, disruptive, such as but not limited to, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, trolling, or blatant rudeness for its own sake, will not be tolerated. Threads which become disruptive may be edited, closed, or moved to the Psychotherapy Room where said rules are more relaxed within limits. We also ask that any personal issue with another member be taken up in the Psychotherapy Room or privately as well.

[Christa]

Save your breath. Christa never posts original content. Search her posts; they consist exclusively of emoticons and quotations of other people's words. She thinks it's cute to play Harpo Marx. Just ignore her; that's what I've learned to do.

See "analytical journalism" below.

Counter argue it.
>

Counter argument Here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2634028&postcount=39)

I did not post in this thread.>

Geographical, regional, ethnic, and universal salvation are relatived topics.

Say why.
>

Why Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2634722&postcount=81)

Do some real work.
>

This is work. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (abbreviated)

"analytical journalism takes the data available and reconfigures it, helping us to ask questions about the situation or statement or see it in a different way, "

:pray:

[Christa]

I mean, please; even in this one paragraph, two! sentences are intentionally deleted by you before my final remark: "God is violent." Keep the paragraph intact, OK ?>

How do those two sentences change contextual meaning, emphasis, declaration, or the inherent fallacy? So below, so above?


I am trying to accept that I must take God as He is, wrath and all; not as I wish He would be rather. Nature alone tells [me] of his terrible power. Nature is very well designed and scary as hell ! The natural world is a picture for us of a side of his own nature. He means for us to see it--take a long hard look, and rightly fear him. Anyway, it isn't necessarily illogical to believe that God is this way. It looks to me like atheism could be a reaction to this as/if a very hard to take truth, and a way to go with naturalism instead, as Darwin did--be an atheist, rather than accept that what they see in nature is also true with God the creator of nature: God is violent. >

Association fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association)

An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

[Gabriel]

I just painstakingly read through this thread, and I must say that Bernie performed admirably.

[EphremHagos]

I'm curious to know what Christian readers here find as the single biggest argument against the idea of the salvation of all. Would prefer thinkers capable of intellectual honesty, no "Cause the Bible don't teach it" stuff.* If you can't make a reasonably well thought-out case, please don't post.

Try to distill your case into no more than three primary reasons, from greatest to least. Not sure I have time to get into too deep a discussion on it, and universalism has been argued to death here and in other venues, but I'm curious to get a consensus on what non-universalists see as the main stumbling block. For those who don't know, I am a Christian universalist.

Thanks in advance for your carefully deliberated opinions.

* Note that I'm not saying don't use the Bible in your response; am only asking to not use generalizations like 'the Bible doesn't teach it".

PRESENTING ANY ARGUMENT AGAINST THE IDEA OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR SALVATION IS COMPLETELY UNSCRIPTURAL. THE REASON WHY FOLOWS.


Universal Salvation
(ABC of Salvation)

To be really saved without any make-belief and naiveté, it is enough to look at the free-will and super-human power involved in the exercise of the following two works by Jesus Christ:

1. “RIGHT TO DIE”; and
2. “RIGHT TO RISE FROM DEATH”.

These rights were wielded at the same time, in the death of Jesus on the cross, in a final act of God’s self-revelation (John 8: 21-28; 10: 17-18, 37-38) “according to Scriptures” --the books of Moses and the writings of all the prophets (Luke 24: 25-27; John 20:9; Acts 2: 23-28; 1 Cor. 15: 3-4).

This is the mystery and power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that overwhelmed, with reverential "fear", the army officer supervising the crucifixion into acknowledgment of Jesus as “Son of God”; and drew in its first batch "many of God's people who had died raised to life", "the disciple Jesus loved", Nicodemus and Joseph. Members of the second batch included the rest of the Apostles, 120 believers, and 3,000 others. A later batch included Paul of Tarsus. In its inclusiveness and impartiality, the "salvation of God prepared in the presence of all peoples" has not left out, for example, Jews and Samaritans (John 4: 21-26); the Moslems (Koran, Sura IV, 156-159); and, unknown to many, other Gentiles featuring “the tree of life” in their cultures as a sure type of the cross of Christ (John 12: 32 –33).

When applied out of context, however, the result will be “another gospel”, i.e., counterfeit (2 Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1: 6-9)! Is there really any truth in Christianity of today?

Therefore, it is exceedingly important to know the terms of one’s salvation if one is not to “believe” in vain.

ONE CANNOT BE TOO CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT BELIEVES!

[Bernie]

I don't understand what conclusion you draw, EH. What's your point?

[faithofjob777]

Hello Shunyadragon,


I've never looked at it this way before, but I expect you're right, that most if not all major religions tend to some form of elitism.

On the other hand, it seems plausible to me that in the realm of particulars (matter), God may, in shaping the universal outcome, make use of select groups, which evolve into particular religions, to achieve an ultimate purpose.

There is inevitable "elitism" because good is never at the same level as evil. Since false religions have evil in them, then they are not at the same level as the one true religion.

If there is one God, there is one true religion speaking of His name, and the different interpretations and religions of men do not negate that fact.

How is that so? In the same reasoning that many people can have all sorts of understanding of who I really am, but I am what I am (hey isn't that a song?). Many are way offbase i if they say I am an elderly female, and are obviously wrong regardless of the efforts they make to prove that I am. There is an obvious standard which exists, even if people are either insane or stupid enough to deny that standard.

Is there a real standard about who God is? Of course there has to be, since He has created us and defined our identities by certain sets of standards too. We may apprehend those standards about who we are and who God is wrongly; but as it is with everything else, there will always be that select group of people who grow and learn from their mistakes, and better understand and teach what those standards are.

And there are those who will never know. Some end up in asylums and psychiatric wards, out of touch with reality. Many appear more "normal", but are nonetheless deceived too. Even to their deaths, they are still deceived because they choose to cling to their own standards of how God and man should be. They do not know who God is, and never will, though God also makes it clear that everyone shall know Him in the end.

The question is, shall the knowledge of those who have deceived themselves their entire lives, gain true knowledge of God in a temporary or eternal state of hell? If temporary, then they eventually go to heaven because they repented after they died. If eternal, then they are consumed by God's wrath, and that is how they shall know the holiness of God.

Which then is it: can men after they die, still repent, and go to heaven after having a temporary stay in hell? Or do their eternal state in hell convey how they always have been in this life, and shall always be forever?

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

There are verses universalists typically use. Disagreeing with them about those verses would be as fruitless as convincing Jehovah's Witnesses that Jesus is God, because they already have their own verses to supposedly disprove it.

Moreover, it does sound like God saves ALL men. There is no way around it, since 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 seem very clear that all who died in Adam, shall also all live in Christ (v. 22).

But then verse 23 says that those who are Christ's shall be made alive. This distinction is important, because Jesus Himself makes it clear that some men do not belong to Him. On the day of judgment, He tells them to depart, because He never knew (honored) them as His.

And how can men belong Christ? By what the gospel message the apostle Paul preaches: it is by faith in Christ, before men die. For only then will they be in Christ, after which they are then made eternally alive through the physical resurrection of their bodies.

It is not automatic that all men are in Christ just as all men are in Adam, simply because certain men do not believe in Christ. And because of their unbelief, they still have the curse of God on Adam for their sins (John 8:24). That curse is not taken away until they believe in God's Son. All who were in Adam shall all be in Christ, as they believe. What connects the "all" is faith that men must have in this life, and the apostles keep repeating this point. "All in Adam" who believe in Christ become "all in Christ", and they are the only ones receiving God's promise of resurrection unto eternal life.

After this life, we physically die and face judgment to either earn the fullness of eternal life, or the second death (Hebrews 9:27, Revelation 21:8). There is no promise of eternal life after the second death. On the contrary, God makes it clear that those who were NOT in the Book of LIFE shall receive their second DEATH, with no assurance that they will get out of it anytime at all.

Revelation 20:14-15 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

If all men shall ultimately be saved, then there are TWO books of Life where all men are included in one book of Life, while those who believed in Jesus during their lifetimes are in another. But that would be most unusual, because Scriptures speak of only one book of Life determining the eternal fate of men.

Jaime

[EphremHagos]

I don't understand what conclusion you draw, EH. What's your point?

My conclusion: it is impossible to argue against universal salvation unless Christians either misunderstand or misuse the Holy Bible. What I wrote is a summary of the "why" and "how" of universal salvation in Jesus Christ!

[Spartacus]

Oh boy, a shouting match! Mind if I join in? :rant:

(I reject the idea of universal salvation because it contradicts free will. Heaven is not a universal paradise, with something for everybody- it's the Presence of God. To be in the Eternal Presence of God is to be exposed to His total Love. If a person does not love God in return, then Heaven will not be Heavenly for them, no matter how long they are there)

I'm cApitaLizinG rAndoM LetTers...

[Bernie]

There is inevitable "elitism" because good is never at the same level as evil. Since false religions have evil in them, then they are not at the same level as the one true religion.
Presumably you’re referring to Christianity as the “one true religion”. If so, which brand of Christianity is the “true” one?

If there is one God, there is one true religion speaking of His name, and the different interpretations and religions of men do not negate that fact.
Your proposition isn’t a fact, 777. I don’t see that it follows that if there is one God, there must be “one true religion”. I take religion to be man’s response to an intuition of God. Because man is fallen and imperfect, it seems to follow that his religion will likewise be. What I think is closer to the truth is that if there is one God, that God is True, and to the extent a particular religion is in unity with the one God, that religion is to that same extent a faithful representation of God’s character, attributes and revelation of Himself.

We may apprehend those standards about who we are and who God is wrongly; but as it is with everything else, there will always be that select group of people who grow and learn from their mistakes, and better understand and teach what those standards are.
Why will there “always be that select group of people who grow and learn from their mistakes and better understand and teach…”? Why must this select group arise? What standards dictate that a select group will necessarily arise who possess religious veracity?

The question is, shall the knowledge of those who have deceived themselves their entire lives, gain true knowledge of God in a temporary or eternal state of hell? If temporary, then they eventually go to heaven because they repented after they died. If eternal, then they are consumed by God's wrath, and that is how they shall know the holiness of God.
Good question. How is it one gains knowledge of God? How do you know that being destroyed and rebuilt (reborn) isn’t the proper method to accomplish precisely this? How do you know that what organized Christianity calls “sanctification” is not in reality hell (the death of what is false or “dead” in spirit and its rebirth and restoration to a “true” or live state)? I believe it is, and that Scripture teaches this. Like most of Christianity today, you seem compelled to accept that free will possesses what I believe to be an illusory role in eternal salvation. This seems apparent re the argument about repentance in the throes of torment as though this is coercion. My free will brethren are convinced of the error that the power for repentance lies in the power of the human will. In fact, the torment that is hell is itself nothing more or less than a regeneration and restoration from false to true. The extent human spirit is restored to its true state is the degree to which an individual is in unity with God or Truth. To this same degree, the individual apprehends those standards you claim only a select few attain to.

The key to all this is found in the answer to the last statement in the quote above, and to my understanding only the rationally esoteric view of universal salvation is able to adequately answer it. Scripture teaches that with God all things are possible. This being so, consider the question: Is it possible that God can both destroy and rebuild simultaneously, such that the death and destruction suffered is actually a restoration to new life? This is the answer to popular Christianity’s interpretive flaws….the organized church only has eyes to see what happens holistically, to particular individuals, while the Bible is a spiritual book of correspondences which teaches by the use of particulars as metaphor to teach what takes place in essence (spirit).

And this leads to an answer to your question:
Which then is it: can men after they die, still repent, and go to heaven after having a temporary stay in hell? Or do their eternal state in hell convey how they always have been in this life, and shall always be forever?

Hell in all its instances is regeneration. Regeneration is the death of falsity in human spirit and its restoration to a true state. Human spirit, like the physical body, should be thought of as a whole comprised of many parts. The fragmented spirit gradually and fragmentally in this life undergoes the hell of sanctification in conjunction with (never because of) the participation of the will. Falsity must initially be destroyed (movement on God’s part) such that human will, having now some ground of unity with external Truth, is able to apprehend truth and moral value which arises in the intellect from it, through a glass darkly, but enough to participate with the fragmental and partial unity (spiritual light) it finds intuitively within

Again, hell is regeneration. Sanctification is hell performed in spirit gradually in this life to those who heed Christ’s call. This is enhanced by our participation, but this is the extent of the power of the human will, a weak participatory ability, and then only after being properly modified in spirit in the appropriate direction.

The lake of fire is God’s pure Truth. It is metaphorically in Scripture fire, hail, plague, etc. to the evil/falsity of human spirit. Hell (the destruction of falsity) will eventually be swallowed up in the lake of fire by human spirit becoming one with It (Jn 17:11). This truth was characterized in the account of Daniel’s friends walking unharmed in Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace, and by the Passover in Egypt. This is the faith of those who unite with Truth, Christian or otherwise. Those who believe unto faith in life find Christ’s righteousness protecting them from the lake of fire after physical death….those not thus clothed, find themselves in the embrace of pure Truth, a roaring flame to the kindred of human falsity. In any event, because God is unchanging, the hell any human experiences in any context is necessarily corrective and rejuvenating. God doesn’t hate humans, He hates that which is contrary to His own essence,Truth: e.g., falsity.

Man isn’t coerced into repentance by hell, we are set free from the impediment to unity with God. Hatred, resistance, injury, injustice, death, etc. are all products of a single raw material, inherent fragmentally throughout all human spirit: the property of falsity, what we commonly call “imperfection”. Once imperfection is erased, concepts like repentance vanish because repentance is an act performed both because of and by an imperfect intellect, which is itself formed by a correspondingly imperfect spirit. There’s no repentance or need of it in the perfection of a whole unity with truth.

[Bernie]

My conclusion: it is impossible to argue against universal salvation unless Christians either misunderstand or misuse the Holy Bible. What I wrote is a summary of the "why" and "how" of universal salvation in Jesus Christ!
Oh. I've found two people I've tried to read but just can't understand: Hegel and Ephrem Hagos. The first is corrected by reading those who can understand Hegel and read what they write of him. Fortunately for me, you're still living and can explain yourself.

[EphremHagos]

Oh. I've found two people I've tried to read but just can't understand: Hegel and Ephrem Hagos. The first is corrected by reading those who can understand Hegel and read what they write of him. Fortunately for me, you're still living and can explain yourself.

Forgive me for not resisting this interesting parallel fitting in the context of Universal Salvation. How do we understand Jesus Christ --from his witness about himself, or witness by others about him, or the witness of his ever-present works; described as invalid, unnecessary and infallible, respectively (John 5: 31-36; 10: 17-18; 37-38)?

[faithofjob777]

Your proposition isn’t a fact, 777. I don’t see that it follows that if there is one God, there must be “one true religion”. I take religion to be man’s response to an intuition of God. Because man is fallen and imperfect, it seems to follow that his religion will likewise be. What I think is closer to the truth is that if there is one God, that God is True, and to the extent a particular religion is in unity with the one God, that religion is to that same extent a faithful representation of God’s character, attributes and revelation of Himself.



The truths in nature do not change even if men fail to understand them. Ergo, the truths in Scripture do not change even if men fail to understand them either.

One true God, one true religion from the Scriptures.

You basically summarize that there can be a religion that can be the closest representation of stating who God is, which means that there is indeed that one body of truths that does speak of Him accurately, and there are men closer to that body of truths than others.

That is why I have already said that people who learn from their mistakes, actually grow in actual truth, which is what God's Word does say about those who do know Him and His will.

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

Good question. How is it one gains knowledge of God? How do you know that being destroyed and rebuilt (reborn) isn’t the proper method to accomplish precisely this? How do you know that what organized Christianity calls “sanctification” is not in reality hell (the death of what is false or “dead” in spirit and its rebirth and restoration to a “true” or live state)? I believe it is, and that Scripture teaches this. Like most of Christianity today, you seem compelled to accept that free will possesses what I believe to be an illusory role in eternal salvation. This seems apparent re the argument about repentance in the throes of torment as though this is coercion. My free will brethren are convinced of the error that the power for repentance lies in the power of the human will. In fact, the torment that is hell is itself nothing more or less than a regeneration and restoration from false to true. The extent human spirit is restored to its true state is the degree to which an individual is in unity with God or Truth. To this same degree, the individual apprehends those standards you claim only a select few attain to.

The key to all this is found in the answer to the last statement in the quote above, and to my understanding only the rationally esoteric view of universal salvation is able to adequately answer it. Scripture teaches that with God all things are possible. This being so, consider the question: Is it possible that God can both destroy and rebuild simultaneously, such that the death and destruction suffered is actually a restoration to new life? This is the answer to popular Christianity’s interpretive flaws….the organized church only has eyes to see what happens holistically, to particular individuals, while the Bible is a spiritual book of correspondences which teaches by the use of particulars as metaphor to teach what takes place in essence (spirit).


I thought we were supposed to discuss Scripture, not speculations. I guess I was wrong.

Anyone can speculate about anything that God has revealed. Why did God not stop the serpent from going into the garden to deceive Eve? Why did God not give Adam and Eve a second chance, rather than just punishing them with death? Why did Jesus not be the first Adam so that death need not have occurred? Why why why

Let us set aside speculations, and let us have God's Word speak.

Is it possible that God can both destroy and rebuild simultaneously, such that the death and destruction suffered is actually a restoration to new life?

Yes, and that new life is for the children of God. It is new life that they can appreciate greatly as coming from the grace of God, when they see how those who hated Him have been destroyed by Him. They know they should have been destroyed too, but the grace of God alone saved them. As God has said in 2 Thessalonians,

1) Regarding the damned

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

2) Regarding the righteous

2 Thessalonians 2:13-17 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

Sanctification of the righteous found in verses 13-17 contrasts the destruction of the wicked in 9-12. There is no unity between these two kinds of people.

jaime

[Bernie]

The truths in nature do not change even if men fail to understand them. Ergo, the truths in Scripture do not change even if men fail to understand them either.
I agree that the truths of Scripture do not change even if men fail to understand them. I also believe the Scriptures are inspired by God and based on an external, absolute truth.

One true God, one true religion from the Scriptures.
As noted earlier, it doesn’t follow that because God is One and Truth that any religion of man is also one and true in the same sense. Religion is the set of beliefs of any given human, and all humans are fallible. It follows that religion, though it may contain anywhere from a little to a lot of truth (e.g., unity with absolute Truth). Truth is more slippery than many seem willing to admit. It’s true for example that an individual is both one distinct entity, yet at the same time a collection of very many atoms. We Trinitarians admit a concurrent singularity/multiplicity of God, too. That something can be simultaneously one and many seems to be a contradiction, yet it can be seen in the intellect to be at the same time simultaneously true

I think it accurate to say that God’s truth is found in other religious texts, too. I happen to believe that the Christian Bible in general is the fullest expression of God’s revelation of Himself to mankind, but this doesn’t mean religion, or Christian doctrine, is identical to revealed truth. It’s possible that the fullest possession of prescriptive truth humanity can possibly have given our various limitations is found in Christianity generally. In this case, I believe Christianity as a whole (meaning conservative and liberal, universalist and eternal tormentist, Calvinist and Arminian, Catholic and Protestant, etc.) possess this knowledge in aggregate and mixes it with error. But no single group within Christianity has, holds or teaches the whole truth

You basically summarize that there can be a religion that can be the closest representation of stating who God is, which means that there is indeed that one body of truths that does speak of Him accurately, and there are men closer to that body of truths than others.
If by “one body of truths that does speak of Him accurately” you mean the Bible, I agree. If you mean in one religion generally, I concede this with qualifications….the qualification would be at its lowest level the body of professing believers we call organized Christianity, and at an arguably higher level certain individuals within the professing body as possessing a clearer understanding of that body of truth [the Bible] I’m not sure if we’re talking past each other in a problem of semantics….?

Let us set aside speculations, and let us have God's Word speak.
Okay, but this usually means: “Let us set aside your speculations and assume for the sake of argument mine are the only ones that are true and correct.” Nonetheless, let’s dance….

1) Regarding the damned

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2) Regarding the righteous

2 Thessalonians 2:13-17 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We’re in agreement on one thing: there is a dualism, good and evil. This dualism is affirmed throughout the Scripture. Organized Christianity, because it uses imo the wrong interpretive model, consistently places the subject of good and evil on the wrong object, the whole person. I believe a careful reading of ALL of Scripture reveals that God’s attention to the destruction of evil is directed not to individuals (people), but to a multiplicity within essence or human spirit, to the stain of evil or falsity. Paul saw this clearly, and the organized church twists his clear, plain universalist teaching to fit their interpretive error. But since I am routinely accused of not supporting what I say in Scripture, consider.

“It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him; If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself.” (2Tim 2:11-13) It has to be conceded that Paul is speaking here to believers, and that he, like Jesus, makes the distinction between righteous and unrighteous, believer and unbeliever. This same distinction is made throughout Scripture. Of particular interest in the above passage is the overpowering faithfulness of Christ. The question remains, how can all be saved if there are saved and unsaved?

First, we have to find in Scripture to whom Christ is faithful. He enlightens all (Jn 1:9). Enlightenment is of necessity a removal of something which darkens and replacement with something that may be considered light. Regeneration fits this description. This our Arminian brethren will typically agree with, stating (correctly imo) that His offer of salvation in this world is to those who have the ability to choose it. In enlightening all, He provides moral power (and moral culpability) to all. A careful reading of the Bible shows that He provides in this act much more than mere ability.

Organized Christianity tends to stop here instead of searching out the entire picture. “Well, some are saved, and some damned,” the orthodox Christian will say. “It’s all settled then. When Scripture seems to say something different, we’ll simply adapt this ‘error’ to the truth of our doctrine!”

But the Father spoke of His Son’s faithfulness a long time ago through the prophets: “A bruised reed He will not break, And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice.” (Isa 42:3) Now orthodoxy has a problem. If Christ enlightened all, and promises to bring forth even the bruised reed and dimly burning wick, how can any perish if all are enlightened? Will Jesus abandon the essence of Himself (truth) in any human being having once established it?
“I will lay waste the mountains and hills, And wither all their vegetation; I will make the rivers into coastlands, And dry up the ponds. And I will lead the blind by a way they do not know, In paths they do not know I will guide them. I will make darkness into light before them And rugged places into plains. These are the things I will do, And I will not leave them undone. They shall be turned back and be utterly put to shame, Who trust in idols, Who say to molten images, "You are our gods." (Isa 42:15-17) So much for “free” choice. He has promised to lead the blind….and who is more blind than they who mock and ridicule the Lord God?…in the midst of destruction to a new life of light where idols will be abandoned.

Paul saw this clearly. In Rom 10, he speaks very clearly of the distinct classes of people the organized church recognizes, summed here: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” and here: “for "WHOEVER WILL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." (v.13)

But Rom 11 introduces the universalistic Paul, whom the church has muted for centuries. He again makes the careful differentiation between saved and unsaved—perhaps most notably in the famous comparison of being grafted into (and even out of) the olive tree (Christ). But lo and behold, in the midst of preaching the saved/unsaved dichotomy, he opens Rom 11 with a startling statement:
“I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew…” How can Paul teach both rejection of the unsaved and in virtually the same breath deny their rejection? (Hint: the solution begins to unfold in the last word quoted in the passage above.]

If this statement was the only seeming contradiction in what Paul wrote in Rom 11 to the salvational duality, we could chalk it off to perhaps an error in expression on his part. But he goes on…

”I say then, they [the Jews][/b]did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be!…” (v.11)

”For if their rejection be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (v.15)

and the most remarkable statement in the chapter…..

[b]”For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB. AND THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.
“From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, in order that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all.” (vv. 25-32, my emph.) The organized church says God cannot take away the sins of the unsaved. Paul and Scripture say the opposite.

Now we may read 2Tim 4:10 without contradiction, as the organized church fails to do: ”For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.”, ditto 1Cor 15:22: ”1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. …as well as all the other universalist references Paul makes which are stifled by orthodoxy.

1. WHO IS SAVED

1a. Salvation’s eternal aspect
Now to the previous hint. Salvation consists in a dualism. God foreknew in eternity. The first part of the dualism is whom He decrees saved in eternity. This is contained in the mystery language of the Bible. It’s not a mystery because it’s not in plain sight, the mystery comes from human intellectual laziness and evil. We want “bad people” to burn, so we “see” only this in Scripture. In fact ALL people burn...Mark 9:49 "For everyone will be salted with fire.” Burning is regeneration. But I digress. God’s decrees to all flesh (do an online Bible search) reveals that His holy destruction takes place in all, and it has ever and only one purpose: to purge, sanctify, restore and make true all that is false.

1b. Salvation’s temporal aspect

Paul makes the distinctions he makes in Rom 11, 1Tim 4:10, etc. because he recognized that he and the original apostles were to make converts in time. Those who die spiritually and are unable to make proper moral judgments (all; 1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die…) are reborn and enlightened (Jn 1:9) and thus given some sufficient power to chose truth over error. Proper choice results in grafting into the olive tree of salvation received in time by sanctification to faith, such that the fire of God’s pure righteousness encountered at the point of physical death is rendered harmless, even to the inner falsity which remains in every human spirit at passing: ”But now, thus says the LORD, your Creator, O Jacob, And He who formed you, O Israel, "Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name; you are Mine! When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; And through the rivers, they will not overflow you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be scorched, Nor will the flame burn you. For I am the LORD your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I have given Egypt as your ransom, Cush and Seba in your place. Since you are precious in My sight, Since you are honored and I love you, I will give other men in your place and other peoples in exchange for your life.” (Isa 43:1-4)

You see, the Christian universalist, unlike many in the organized church, draws from ALL God’s word, Old Testament and New to mine all the truths of God’s intentions with mankind as He has graciously placed therein.

[NormATive]

I'm curious to know what Christian readers here find as the single biggest argument against the idea of the salvation of all. Would prefer thinkers capable of intellectual honesty, no "Cause the Bible don't teach it" stuff.* If you can't make a reasonably well thought-out case, please don't post.

Try to distill your case into no more than three primary reasons, from greatest to least. Not sure I have time to get into too deep a discussion on it, and universalism has been argued to death here and in other venues, but I'm curious to get a consensus on what non-universalists see as the main stumbling block. For those who don't know, I am a Christian universalist.

Thanks in advance for your carefully deliberated opinions.

* Note that I'm not saying don't use the Bible in your response; am only asking to not use generalizations like 'the Bible doesn't teach it".

First, I have to complement you Bernie, on an excellent example of true intellectual debate. There is not one word of vitriol in your responses to those who are arduously trying to rattle your cage.

Secondly, your exposition on Universal Salvation is most excellent. Although I arrive at the same conclusion in a different way, I think your synopsis is superior and worthy of a repeat posting:

Universal salvation, properly understood, combines the warring sisters into "one stick" of doctrinal agreement:
1) God decided for all in eternity. [no one has a choice; all will be saved]
2) Christ died (enacted in eternity, played out in time) that fallen man, who must go through a literal purification process to be remade into perfection, may do so gradually in time [sanctification] by choice. Those who thus choose and stay the course, are refined by the same hell fire (God's pure Essence at work in human spirit, i.e., regeneration) that burns away all dross (evil), such that faith is formed. In passing, Christ's imputed faith covers the believer, as it did Daniel's friends in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace, and they enter heaven unscathed.
3) Those who don't believe and follow their own moral course pass into God's arms, where their own false righteousness is destroyed in the flames of God's purity.

Same principle, death and rebirth. To the believer, this process is gradual in sanctification. To the unbeliever, it's pure torture in hell, until all falsity is removed. All are restored to the same perfection Adam threw away. This is Biblical.Although I am not what many would consider a "traditional Christian" (hence my eternal banishment to Unorthodox Theology), I find the theological basis of Jesus' teaching very enlightening and profitable for navigating the rough terrain of human interaction.

I also agree with your premise that often we allow our doctrinal leanings to inform our thinking on tough issues such as eternal punishment. Although stated perhaps a bit too stronly, I agree with your premise that:


only an insane god would condemn a fallen human being to an eternity of the most horrible suffering.My heritage is Jewish, and we would say that eternal torment is out of character for G-d.

I admire your attempt to come to grips with your common sense and the faith that you embrace.

Sadly, you will find little support within the Christian community at large. I've been fighting this for many years and people really do only want to believe that their god can beat up your god. It is human nature - a nature created by G-d.

I believe that G-d really does wish to redeem us everyone - in spite of our insistence that G-d become our dashboard Jesus.

Excellent Thread Bernie!

NORM

[NormATive]

See "analytical journalism" below.



Counter argument Here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2634028&postcount=39)



Geographical, regional, ethnic, and universal salvation are relatived topics.



Why Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2634722&postcount=81)



This is work. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (abbreviated)

"analytical journalism takes the data available and reconfigures it, helping us to ask questions about the situation or statement or see it in a different way, "

:pray:

:cheers: Right On!

NORM

[Bernie]

Excellent Thread Bernie!

NORM
Why thank you, Norm. I knew you weren't inimical to the idea of universalism, but not that you actually embrace it.

Although I am not what many would consider a "traditional Christian" (hence my eternal banishment to Unorthodox Theology), I find the theological basis of Jesus' teaching very enlightening and profitable for navigating the rough terrain of human interaction.
I must be naive....I only recently through a pm with a moderator here learned that because I'm a universalist, I am apparently not allowed to post in the orthodox forums here without prior permission from the powers that be. Didn't realize this before a couple weeks ago. This despite the fact that I'm Trinitarian, fundamentalist (in the original sense of the term), and my personal theology except for a couple of twists is very orthodox, doesn't deny any of the fundamentals of the faith, borrows heavily from the Greek thinkers and Schoolmen, mostly Aquinas and is quite harmonious (imo) with the Bible.

Strange world, I'll be glad when my train comes to the station and I can get ditch this popsicle stand....

[NormATive]

Why thank you, Norm. I knew you weren't inimical to the idea of universalism, but not that you actually embrace it.

As I said, I don't think it is within the Character of HaShem to roast little boys and girls on the sidewalk with a cosmic magnifying glass.

I see the Creation, and see that it is good. Yeah, there is some bad shit that goes down, but all in all it's a pleasant ride on the third rock from the Sun. I can't help but imagine that the Author and Creator of all of this would not want to rectify things completely.

I mean, what's the point of eternal torment?

Really?


I must be naive....I only recently through a pm with a moderator here learned that because I'm a universalist, I am apparently not allowed to post in the orthodox forums here

I've also had the misfortune of beginning a robust debate within, say Apology 101, only to have it swooped away from those-who's-faith-must-not-be-challenged and plopped here in UNORTHODOX purgatory. Although, if you've noticed, UT is probably the second most popular forum. :wink:

It goes to your point that many here are quite comfortable with historic orthodoxy. These are the folks who would have told Washington, Revere, Jefferson, Franklin and gang to bug off and accept the status quo.

This is why I have returned (somewhat) to my Jewish roots. Judaism has had the wherewithal to allow their faith to evolve. Sure, it took the Shoah to force the issue, but nonetheless, my fellow Jews are unafraid of questioning things that were seemingly settled eons ago.

NORM

[RBerman]

I must be naive....I only recently through a pm with a moderator here learned that because I'm a universalist, I am apparently not allowed to post in the orthodox forums here without prior permission from the powers that be. Didn't realize this before a couple weeks ago. This despite the fact that I'm Trinitarian, fundamentalist (in the original sense of the term), and my personal theology except for a couple of twists is very orthodox, doesn't deny any of the fundamentals of the faith, borrows heavily from the Greek thinkers and Schoolmen, mostly Aquinas and is quite harmonious (imo) with the Bible.
Which fundamentalists do you have in mind? Those of the late 19th and early 20th century were staunch exclusivists who believed that universalism did violate a fundamental of Christian faith.

[faithofjob777]

As noted earlier, it doesn’t follow that because God is One and Truth that any religion of man is also one and true in the same sense. Religion is the set of beliefs of any given human, and all humans are fallible. It follows that religion, though it may contain anywhere from a little to a lot of truth (e.g., unity with absolute Truth). Truth is more slippery than many seem willing to admit. It’s true for example that an individual is both one distinct entity, yet at the same time a collection of very many atoms. We Trinitarians admit a concurrent singularity/multiplicity of God, too. That something can be simultaneously one and many seems to be a contradiction, yet it can be seen in the intellect to be at the same time simultaneously true

I think it accurate to say that God’s truth is found in other religious texts, too. I happen to believe that the Christian Bible in general is the fullest expression of God’s revelation of Himself to mankind, but this doesn’t mean religion, or Christian doctrine, is identical to revealed truth. It’s possible that the fullest possession of prescriptive truth humanity can possibly have given our various limitations is found in Christianity generally. In this case, I believe Christianity as a whole (meaning conservative and liberal, universalist and eternal tormentist, Calvinist and Arminian, Catholic and Protestant, etc.) possess this knowledge in aggregate and mixes it with error. But no single group within Christianity has, holds or teaches the whole truth


Sorry, I visit this forum only once in a while. But here's my response, belated as it is:

You have made this entire group of statements, while insisting that universalism is definitely true. Even if so, how do you know that what you find as truths in those texts, are really true just as you find universalism to be true?

Your mind as your own pope, analyzing the texts with your infallible mind? You can argue all day long, and your friendly Jew will simply mock the Trinity and Jesus. So both of are you are correct? Or he is wrong but it doesn't matter, since he can treat Jesus like poop, and he still goes to heaven?

But if he is correct that Jesus can be treated like poop, then who are you to correct him? What if his Talmud says that Jesus was that magician who deserved to die? Who are you to say his own Jewish text is wrong, while you are correct?

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

Okay, but this usually means: “Let us set aside your speculations and assume for the sake of argument mine are the only ones that are true and correct.” Nonetheless, let’s dance….


Do not be sarcastic, because you will already doing THE dance before I joined this thread.

In short, take the log out of your own eye before you mock me for having my own.

Otherwise, it is always a battle of interpreting Scripture. It is stupid to assume otherwise, because we both claim to rightly interpret God's Word, while coming up with different conclusions.

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

I believe a careful reading of ALL of Scripture reveals that God’s attention to the destruction of evil is directed not to individuals (people), but to a multiplicity within essence or human spirit, to the stain of evil or falsity. Paul saw this clearly, and the organized church twists his clear, plain universalist teaching to fit their interpretive error. But since I am routinely accused of not supporting what I say in Scripture, consider.


See? You already DID THE DANCE. You already showed at the very onset of your argument about what you believe to be true, then used Scripture to prove your own presuppositions.

I rest my case. Thank you for the time you spent explaining your case. But for now, I will go shopping with my cousin and brother. I will be back soon, or maybe a little later.

Just one more comment before I go. You say,

You see, the Christian universalist, unlike many in the organized church, draws from ALL God’s word, Old Testament and New to mine all the truths of God’s intentions with mankind as He has graciously placed therein.

I like this statement, because indeed this is what we will have to dissect. Is it really about examining all of God's Word, or seeing what we want to see from the Word? By conscientiously approaching each text you have used, shall the answer be reached. We will stay where we are by faith, and God alone will perfectly vindicate who has rightly used His Word, in both word and deed. That shall come in the day of judgment. So let me sharpen the sword I will use while I go out with my friends. :)

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

We’re in agreement on one thing: there is a dualism, good and evil. This dualism is affirmed throughout the Scripture. Organized Christianity, because it uses imo the wrong interpretive model, consistently places the subject of good and evil on the wrong object, the whole person. I believe a careful reading of ALL of Scripture reveals that God’s attention to the destruction of evil is directed not to individuals (people), but to a multiplicity within essence or human spirit, to the stain of evil or falsity. Paul saw this clearly, and the organized church twists his clear, plain universalist teaching to fit their interpretive error. But since I am routinely accused of not supporting what I say in Scripture, consider.

I wish I can delete the previous three replies I made, because they were totally unnecessary for me to say. But there they are...oh well. I will be more careful next time I hope. My apologies for my immature responses there.

As for the dualism you brought up, I am curious why you did not directly address the Thessalonian verses. I know you want to consider the Scripture "as a whole", and I do too. But those verses clearly show that even the men doing wicked things shall be destroyed, while those who are righteous shall be redeemed. No hope is offered in those verses for the damned.

You then say,

“It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him; If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself.” (2Tim 2:11-13) It has to be conceded that Paul is speaking here to believers, and that he, like Jesus, makes the distinction between righteous and unrighteous, believer and unbeliever. This same distinction is made throughout Scripture. Of particular interest in the above passage is the overpowering faithfulness of Christ. The question remains, how can all be saved if there are saved and unsaved?


Because all that are saved are those chosen by Christ, not literally all men. This is why even if men are faithless, Jesus remains faithful in saving the elect of God. Those who deny Christ are denied by Him (2 Timothy 2:12), because the faithfulness of Christ is solely for His redeemed brethren.

You also say,

First, we have to find in Scripture to whom Christ is faithful. He enlightens all (Jn 1:9). Enlightenment is of necessity a removal of something which darkens and replacement with something that may be considered light. Regeneration fits this description. This our Arminian brethren will typically agree with, stating (correctly imo) that His offer of salvation in this world is to those who have the ability to choose it. In enlightening all, He provides moral power (and moral culpability) to all. A careful reading of the Bible shows that He provides in this act much more than mere ability.

Organized Christianity tends to stop here instead of searching out the entire picture. “Well, some are saved, and some damned,” the orthodox Christian will say. “It’s all settled then. When Scripture seems to say something different, we’ll simply adapt this ‘error’ to the truth of our doctrine!”

Let us pause here and tackle John 1:9. Truly, Jesus is the light of all men. His light will enlighten all, but the only question is WHEN. Since the succeeding verses show that not all men will want to receive Him (John 1:10-11), it then goes to show that only the remnant shall be called children of God (John 1:12).

But all indeed shall see the light of Jesus as Lord, and this we will see when all creatures in heaven and earth will honor Him as such (Philippians 1:9-12). Does this mean that all men will receive eternal redemption? Not necessarily, because even the demons who fell into the abyss had the light of knowledge that Jesus was the Son of God (Luke 8:28-33). But their destruction remained true, just for the damned among men shall be. Everyone will confess that Jesus is Lord and the Son of God; many people and all the angels will do it in the new heaven and earth, while other people and all the demons will weep and gnash their teeth in defeat before Him in eternal hell.

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

IBut the Father spoke of His Son’s faithfulness a long time ago through the prophets: “A bruised reed He will not break, And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice.” (Isa 42:3) Now orthodoxy has a problem. If Christ enlightened all, and promises to bring forth even the bruised reed and dimly burning wick, how can any perish if all are enlightened? Will Jesus abandon the essence of Himself (truth) in any human being having once established it?

“I will lay waste the mountains and hills, And wither all their vegetation; I will make the rivers into coastlands, And dry up the ponds. And I will lead the blind by a way they do not know, In paths they do not know I will guide them. I will make darkness into light before them And rugged places into plains. These are the things I will do, And I will not leave them undone. They shall be turned back and be utterly put to shame, Who trust in idols, Who say to molten images, "You are our gods." (Isa 42:15-17) So much for “free” choice. He has promised to lead the blind….and who is more blind than they who mock and ridicule the Lord God?…in the midst of destruction to a new life of light where idols will be abandoned.

Yes. So now we connect these promises of God in Isaiah with the words of Christ in Matthew 11. It is a pretty long chapter, but here Jesus does command the one who has ears to hear, should be able to hear (Matthew 11:15). That person is enabled to hear, because God Himself through His Son is going to give that person the eyes, ears, and heart to understand; this is what Jesus assures John the Baptist regarding the Son's ministry of physical and spiritual healing (Matthew 11:4-6).

But then we see another portion of the condemnation of men who definitely will not hear nor understand Jesus, and we find this at the remaining portion of Matthew 11. In Matthew 11:20-24, He denounces the men of Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Capernaum for their unbelief. No promises of redemption is given to them; He only gives it to those who could hear Him.

This is then followed by the prayer of Jesus to the Father, wherein He says this:

Matthew 11:25-29

25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Jesus is clearly saying that only the "little children" (whose characteristics are further defined in the beatitudes) will see who He is. They are the children of God. Those who claim to be "wise and understanding" (translated as proud in what they claim to be their own sophisticated knowledge, which is always against Christ), they shall remain blind, because God will purposely hide His truths from them (Matthew 11:25-26); it is for the purpose of honoring God's grace that He wills upon those He has chosen (Matthew 11:26- 27).

This is how I shall tie up the promises of God in Isaiah with the words of Christ in Matthew. There are many more intertwining books and chapters regarding this topic, but I will stop here for now. In a day or two, perhaps before or after I return from Las Vegas, I will proceed with tackling your use of the words of the apostle Paul in the Book of Romans.

Goodbye for now,

Jaime

[Bernie]

Which fundamentalists do you have in mind? Those of the late 19th and early 20th century were staunch exclusivists who believed that universalism did violate a fundamental of Christian faith.
From Wikipedia:

"Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian academics and theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the first decade of the Twentieth Century. It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations during and immediately following the First World War. The movement's purpose was to reaffirm orthodox Protestant Christianity and zealously defend it against the challenges of liberal theology, German higher criticism, Darwinism, and other "-isms" which it regarded as harmful to Christianity."

1. The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
2. The virgin birth of Christ.
3. The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
4. The bodily resurrection of Christ.
5. The historical reality of Christ's miracles

I adhere to the five points above and Christian Universalism, unlike Unitarian Universalism, denies none of these. Some versions I've read include premillennial belief as a fundamental, but I reject this as eschatological belief is not essential to the Christian faith.

That some or all of those who brought the fundamentals forth were non (or even anti-) universalists is irrelevant. It remains to be properly and honestly shown by my zealous orthodox brethren that Christian universalism denies any of these. To date, no one here has even come close to accomplishing this.

[RBerman]

I agree that Christian universalism does not deny any of the five points you listed above. However, the fundamentalists were staunch exclusivists as well, so it would be misleading to identify yourself, a universalist, as a fundamentalist.

[Bernie]

However, the fundamentalists were staunch exclusivists as well, so it would be misleading to identify yourself, a universalist, as a fundamentalist.
What is your definition of "exclusivist"? What you're proposing doesn't make sense to me.

[Bernie]

You have made this entire group of statements, while insisting that universalism is definitely true. Even if so, how do you know that what you find as truths in those texts, are really true just as you find universalism to be true?
Personal revelation. How do you know that universal salvation is not true?

Your mind as your own pope, analyzing the texts with your infallible mind?
Yeah, right….something like that.

You can argue all day long, and your friendly Jew will simply mock the Trinity and Jesus. So both of are you are correct?
Correct about what, specifically? Btw, are you implying that only friendly Jews mock the Trinity, not unfriendly ones?

Do not be sarcastic, because you will already doing THE dance before I joined this thread.
I wasn’t being sarcastic. There is, I admit, a growing constituency who would readily (if not eagerly) agree with the notion that I am an arrogant, sarcastic SOB, but my statement, “Okay, but this usually means: “Let us set aside your speculations and assume for the sake of argument mine are the only ones that are true and correct.” is only my honest assessment of what I’ve run into in several years of dialog with eternal tormentists. Just as one learns that the atheist uses primarily the same old arguments against the idea that God exists (and we theists use primarily the same old arguments that He does), the Christian universalist also quickly learns that the lion’s share of eternal tormentist’s arguments consist in mostly what I stated above. To date you’ve shown nothing new in this regard; I keep hoping to run into an honest eternal tormentist strong enough in intellect (i.e., blessed enough by God) to question his or her propagandized beliefs.

When I stated “Nonetheless, let’s dance….”, I meant only “let’s debate”. Don’t get your panties in a knot, FOJ777. We’re hardly begun.

See? You already DID THE DANCE. You already showed at the very onset of your argument about what you believe to be true, then used Scripture to prove your own presuppositions.
Huh? Is there something wrong with this? How do you know that I did not properly and correctly interpret the Scriptures as opposed to searching the Scriptures to prove my presuppositions? How can you be sure I was not shown by the Spirit of God how the Scriptures are to be interpreted in order to reveal the mysteries of His salvation? How do you know you are not the one who argues from presupposition?

I rest my case.
Excellent! I enjoy debating with people with rested cases.

indeed this is what we will have to dissect. Is it really about examining all of God's Word, or seeing what we want to see from the Word?
If we dance long enough, time may well tell.

By conscientiously approaching each text you have used, shall the answer be reached. We will stay where we are by faith, and God alone will perfectly vindicate who has rightly used His Word, in both word and deed. That shall come in the day of judgment. So let me sharpen the sword I will use while I go out with my friends. :)
By all means, let’s work together to see where truth lies in this discussion to the glory of God, FOJ777.

[Bernie]

Hello again JamieFOJ777,

I am curious why you did not directly address the Thessalonian verses. I know you want to consider the Scripture "as a whole", and I do too. But those verses clearly show that even the men doing wicked things shall be destroyed, while those who are righteous shall be redeemed. No hope is offered in those verses for the damned.

1) Regarding the damned

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2) Regarding the righteous

2 Thessalonians 2:13-17 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This was actually answered in my initial answer to the post in which the quotes above appeared, if you put the pieces together. The subject in 2Thes is the division of believer and unbeliever and belongs to the temporal aspect of salvation…that is, the separation from an existence of unbelief to salvation through sanctification to faith. This is the salvation believers in time.

Short version: There is an exclusive remnant of the whole saved in time (the body of Christ) by sanctification (inner restoration of the spirit by holy fire) to faith. The remainder are saved by the same means (inner restoration of the spirit by holy fire), only in a terrible day of anguish.

Here’s a longer version and the Biblical principles involved:
1) God’s pure essence (Truth) is righteousness.“For the LORD is righteous; He loves righteousness; The upright will behold His face.” (Psa 11:7)
“Righteous art Thou, O LORD” (Jer 12:1)
“And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” (1Jn 1:5)


2) Man’s essence (spirit) is a combination of truth and falsity. This constitutes our ‘fallenness’. In sinning, we infect ourselves with falsity, the raw material of antithesis to the true. This principle of fallenness, that from which we need to be saved, is established in the story of the fall and attested to throughout the Bible:
"And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” (Jn 3:19-20)
“The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?” (Jer 17:9)
“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.” (Mat 15:19)

3) God’s holy righteousness is by nature described throughout the OT and often in the NT as a flame or fire to human falsity. (also as sword, plague and hail)
“For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.” (Deut 4:24)
“At night my soul longs for Thee, Indeed, my spirit within me seeks Thee diligently; For when the earth experiences Thy judgments The inhabitants of the world learn righteousness. Though the wicked is shown favor, He does not learn righteousness; He deals unjustly in the land of uprightness, And does not perceive the majesty of the LORD. O LORD, Thy hand is lifted up yet they do not see it. They see Thy zeal for the people and are put to shame; Indeed, fire will devour Thine enemies. LORD, Thou wilt establish peace for us, Since Thou hast also performed for us all our works.” (Isa 26:9-12)
“Therefore, as a tongue of fire consumes stubble, And dry grass collapses into the flame, So their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away as dust; For they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts, And despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.” (Isa 5:24)
“and say to the land of Israel, 'Thus says the LORD, "Behold, I am against you; and I shall draw My sword out of its sheath and cut off from you the righteous and the wicked. Because I shall cut off from you the righteous and the wicked, therefore My sword shall go forth from its sheath against all flesh from south to north. Thus all flesh will know that I, the LORD, have drawn My sword out of its sheath.It will not return to its sheath again."' (Ezek 21:3-5 my emph)

4) God foreknew the fall and planned in eternity to save all
“First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1Tim 2:1, 3-4)
“And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.” (1Jn 4:14)
“And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1Jn 2:2)
“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” (Jn 12:32)

5) Salvation defined:
a) the removal of impediment (falsity) from human spirit, allowing the soul the unity with God which is naturally denied it in its antithetical (fallen) state;
b) the restoration of the individual to the original state of perfection and unity with God as described by conditions in the garden of Eden in Gen 1 and 1Cor 15:28.
c) the process of destruction and rebirth in human spirit which accomplishes a and c.
“And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.” (Jn 17:3)
“AND THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS.” (Rom 11:27)
“And this is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.” (1Jn 2:25)
"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith." (1Jn 5:4)

6) Regeneration is the destruction of falsity in human spirit or essence (death) and its simultaneous restoration to a true state (rebirth)
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1Pe 1:3)
“for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding word of God.” (1Pe 1:23)
2 "But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.
"And He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the LORD offerings in righteousness. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD, as in the days of old and as in former years." (Mal 3:3-4)
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." (Jn 12:24)
"Therefore through this Jacob's iniquity will be forgiven; And this will be the full price of the pardoning of his sin: When he makes all the altar stones like pulverized chalk stones; When Asherim and incense altars will not stand." (Isa 27:9)
"And it will come about in all the land," Declares the LORD, "That two parts in it will be cut off and perish; But the third will be left in it. And I will bring the third part through the fire, Refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them; I will say, 'They are My people,' And they will say, 'The LORD is my God.'" (Zech 13:8-9)

7) Sanctification is progressive regeneration in time. As falsity is fragmentally removed and human spirit is gradually reborn, the mind is correspondingly set free from its disposition to darkness. Hence, unity (and thus, relationship) with God takes place and faith in Christ’s sufficiency is established:
“if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.” (Eph 4:21-24)

Thus, salvation = regeneration, accomplished in sanctification in time:
"Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord." (Heb 12:14)
"Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (Jn 3:3)

8) One regeneration/sanctification in two modes: Eternal and Temporal
Hell is the torment involved in the destruction of inner falsity. All humans then are destined for hell; “For everyone will be salted with fire.” (Mrk 9:49); “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Mat 10:34); “Because I shall cut off from you the righteous and the wicked, therefore My sword shall go forth from its sheath against all flesh from south to north. Thus all flesh will know that I, the LORD, have drawn My sword out of its sheath. It will not return to its sheath again." (Ezek 21:4-5)

As a result of this wondrous work of God’s love, all are destined for heaven (see #4 above).
Sanctification is the progressive and gradual hell of regeneration applied in time, establishing faith, in those who participate with Christ willingly; “For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith.” (1Jn 5:4); “Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us” (Heb 12:1); “For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.” (1Tim 4:10) The believer will be spared the lake of fire (see Dan 3:8-23); any remaining falsity in spirit of the saints upon encountering the lake of fire in the immediate afterlife, will be finished to a perfect, true state in peace: “Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.” (1Cor 15:51-52); “Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.” (Isa 28:16)

Unbelievers who die sans faith are also saved by hellfire, but having rejected Christ in time, they face the roaring furnace of hellfire—God’s pure Truth; the Father Himself is the lake of fire—the falsity of their spirit unprotected for lack of faith (hence not covered by Jesus’ protective righteousness) from the second death. Nonetheless, because God’s character does not change, the same fire which cleansed the saints in time will then also destroy (and restore to life) the unbeliever:
“And I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the level; Then hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters shall overflow the secret place. And your covenant with death shall be canceled, And your pact with Sheol shall not stand; When the overwhelming scourge passes through, Then you become its trampling place. As often as it passes through, it will seize you. For morning after morning it will pass through, anytime during the day or night. And it will be sheer terror to understand what it means.” (Isa 28:17-19); “I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins.” (Jn 8:24); “And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” (Rev 20:15); “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.” (1Cor 3:11-15); “Now I will shortly pour out My wrath on you, and spend My anger against you, judge you according to your ways, and bring on you all your abominations. And My eye will show no pity, nor will I spare. I will repay you according to your ways, while your abominations are in your midst; then you will know that I, the LORD, do the smiting.” (Ezek 7:8-9)

More later. Time is in short supply currently on this end…..

[IncRus]

I'm curious to know what Christian readers here find as the single biggest argument against the idea of the salvation of all. Would prefer thinkers capable of intellectual honesty, no "Cause the Bible don't teach it" stuff.* If you can't make a reasonably well thought-out case, please don't post.

Try to distill your case into no more than three primary reasons, from greatest to least. Not sure I have time to get into too deep a discussion on it, and universalism has been argued to death here and in other venues, but I'm curious to get a consensus on what non-universalists see as the main stumbling block. For those who don't know, I am a Christian universalist.

Thanks in advance for your carefully deliberated opinions.

* Note that I'm not saying don't use the Bible in your response; am only asking to not use generalizations like 'the Bible doesn't teach it".
I believe this saying of Jesus is the biggest argument against the idea of the salvation of all: "But he who endures to the end shall be saved" (Matt. 24:13).

Please note that God sent Jesus into the world that the world through him might be saved (John 3:17) and anyone who believes in him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life (John 3:16). And everything Jesus said or speak is a command from God (John 12:49).

If Jesus is indeed the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6), then only those who endure until the end shall be saved and a single person that will not endure to the end and therefore will not be saved destroys the silly idea of salvation of all.

[RBerman]

What is your definition of "exclusivist"? What you're proposing doesn't make sense to me.
Exusivists are those who believe that eternal salvation (heaven, the comfortable presence of God, etc.) are exclusively for those who, during this life, have faith in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins.

Inclusivists are those who believe that in addition, some (but not all) other people get eternal salvation, based on some other criteria than personal faith in Christ during this life.

Universalists believe that all men get eternal salvation, whether by virtue of universal post-mortem faith in Christ, or based on a denial of the necessity of faith at all, or some other reason.

The fundamentalists of the early 20th century were exclusivists who were staunchly opposed to the inclusivist and universalist movements within mainline Protestantism. So even though exclusivism was not one of the "five fundamentals" you named earlier, there's still no such thing as a "universalist fundamentalist."

[Bernie]

Hello RBermam,

Exusivists are those who believe that eternal salvation (heaven, the comfortable presence of God, etc.) are exclusively for those who, during this life, have faith in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins.

Inclusivists are those who believe that in addition, some (but not all) other people get eternal salvation, based on some other criteria than personal faith in Christ during this life.

Universalists believe that all men get eternal salvation, whether by virtue of universal post-mortem faith in Christ, or based on a denial of the necessity of faith at all, or some other reason.

The fundamentalists of the early 20th century were exclusivists who were staunchly opposed to the inclusivist and universalist movements within mainline Protestantism. So even though exclusivism was not one of the "five fundamentals" you named earlier, there's still no such thing as a "universalist fundamentalist."

Moderate/conservative universalists are, in fact, exclusivist by its more moderate expression:

"Exclusivists believe that Jesus Christ is the sole criterion by which all religions, including Christianity, should be understood and evaluated. Calvin Shenk explains:

Christ did not come just to make a contribution to the religious storehouse of knowledge. The revelation which he brought is the ultimate standard. Since in Christ alone is salvation and truth, many religious paths do not adequately reflect the way of God and do not lead to truth and life. Jesus is not, therefore, just the greatest lord among other lords. There is no other lord besides him."

from: http://www.leaderu.com/theology/salvific.html

As I suspected, you're trying to force a radical expression of the term on universalists. That most of the founders of fundamentalist movement likely stood against universalism is doubtless true, but irrelevant; your trying to build a rabid anti-universalism by the founders into the picture in an attempt to deny fundamentalist belief to the universalist is absurd.

As I stated earlier...

1. The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
2. The virgin birth of Christ.
3. The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
4. The bodily resurrection of Christ.
5. The historical reality of Christ's miracles

I adhere to the five points above....
Despite your gymnastics, it is perfectly appropriate for me or any other universalist who chooses to deem him or herself a fundamentalist based on the original list of published fundamentals of the Christian faith, as universalism, properly understood, denies none of these. I belong to the group of Christian Universalists who recognize that there is an exclusive body of Christ in opposition to unbelievers in time who are saved by Christ's atonement, while affirming that though they are not part of the exclusive body of Christ in time, unbelievers nonetheless are saved in eternity, yet also by Christ Jesus' atonement for them.

The gospel salvation of faith is achieved in conjunction with the limited power of the human will in time , while the salvation of all in eternity is wholly of God's sovereign choice and is the supervising principle of both salvation of any human in any context. In any case, the Christian univeralist assigns exclusivity to the atonement of Christ alone.

[Bernie]

Hi JamieFOJ777,

Because all that are saved are those chosen by Christ, not literally all men. This is why even if men are faithless, Jesus remains faithful in saving the elect of God. Those who deny Christ are denied by Him (2 Timothy 2:12), because the faithfulness of Christ is solely for His redeemed brethren.
First, look up what I said in past posts about proving doctrine with doctrine. You offer doctrinal teaching as proof that doctrinal teaching is true. Second, I’ve tried to patiently explain my position, that salvation can be seen as a dualism. Some are saved in time, the rest in eternity. Christian Universalism has no argument against the teaching that there are believers in Christ who attain to their eternal salvation in time by means of sanctification to faith.

Let us pause here and tackle John 1:9. Truly, Jesus is the light of all men. His light will enlighten all, but the only question is WHEN. Since the succeeding verses show that not all men will want to receive Him (John 1:10-11), it then goes to show that only the remnant shall be called children of God (John 1:12).

But all indeed shall see the light of Jesus as Lord, and this we will see when all creatures in heaven and earth will honor Him as such (Philippians 1:9-12). Does this mean that all men will receive eternal redemption? Not necessarily, because even the demons who fell into the abyss had the light of knowledge that Jesus was the Son of God (Luke 8:28-33). But their destruction remained true, just for the damned among men shall be. Everyone will confess that Jesus is Lord and the Son of God; many people and all the angels will do it in the new heaven and earth, while other people and all the demons will weep and gnash their teeth in defeat before Him in eternal hell.
*sigh* Jamie, Jamie, Jamie. Please reread my posts. You’re simply posting orthodox teaching about salvation. I’m quite aware of this stuff, having defended it for the first 40 or so years of my life.

But then we see another portion of the condemnation of men who definitely will not hear nor understand Jesus, and we find this at the remaining portion of Matthew 11. In Matthew 11:20-24, He denounces the men of Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Capernaum for their unbelief. No promises of redemption is given to them; He only gives it to those who could hear Him.
Stop parroting churchspeak and try something very different: think this through on your own, divorcing yourself as best you can from what you’ve been taught (or from the stuff you’re cramming on between posts?). Here are the verses you refer to:
21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22 "Nevertheless I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you.
23 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You shall descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.
24 "Nevertheless I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you."

Now answer these questions honestly:
1. Does Jesus state anywhere in these verses that anyone is going to an eternal hell?
2. Is it possible that the expression “woe to you” could mean no more than that there will come a day of punishment for spiritual hard-heartedness and defiance toward God?
3. Does the comparison of the behavior of people as worse even than those known for their wickedness place either group necessarily in eternal hell?

This is an example of honest examination of what the Bible says.

This is then followed by the prayer of Jesus to the Father, wherein He says this:

Matthew 11:25-29

25 At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Jesus is clearly saying that only the "little children" (whose characteristics are further defined in the beatitudes) will see who He is. They are the children of God.
Okay.

Those who claim to be "wise and understanding" (translated as proud in what they claim to be their own sophisticated knowledge, which is always against Christ), they shall remain blind, because God will purposely hide His truths from them (Matthew 11:25-26);
Let’s look at the passage and play the honesty game again….
25 At that time Jesus answered and said, "I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes.
26 "Yes, Father, for thus it was well-pleasing in Thy sight.
1. Where does it say in the passage what you assert, that “Those who claim to be "wise and understanding"…shall remain blind” Remain blind for how long? Eternity? Does the passage state this? Read it again and answer honestly.

This is how I shall tie up the promises of God in Isaiah with the words of Christ in Matthew
You might consider reevaluating your methodology, bro. You’ve not actually responded to any of the points made in my posts.

[Bernie]

Hi IncRus,

Thanks for responding.

I believe this saying of Jesus is the biggest argument against the idea of the salvation of all: "But he who endures to the end shall be saved" (Matt. 24:13).
Read my posts....this is consistent with the salvation of the body of Christ in time. Those enduring to the end will be spared the day of wrath reserved for those who die in their sins, for these have not the covering of the righteousness of Christ to save them from the pure righteousness of the Father, which is like a roaring flame to man's stain of unrighteousness

Please note that God sent Jesus into the world that the world through him might be saved (John 3:17) and anyone who believes in him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life (John 3:16). And everything Jesus said or speak is a command from God (John 12:49).
First, it appears Jn 12:49 does not state what you claim: "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me commandment, what to say, and what to speak." Jesus seems to be saying that He speaks what the Father commands Him, not that all that He speaks is a command....though there may be some sense in which this notion has merit....but that's a different thread.

Second, if it is true that "everything Jesus said or speak is a command from God", then your assertion, "Please note that God sent Jesus into the world that the world through him might be saved", being itself a command, must itself be true. Therefore, welcome to the ranks of Christian Universalism!

If Jesus is indeed the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6), then only those who endure until the end shall be saved and a single person that will not endure to the end and therefore will not be saved destroys the silly idea of salvation of all.
Your "if/then" proposition is faulty. Again, note the distinction between temporal and eternal modes of salvation in my posts. Once you understand the parameters, you will find that the eternal torment of even a single human being is itself a silly idea.

If you want to discredit my understanding of CU, find the fault in my presentation. How would you disprove the notion of the temporal and eternal formula I use to show Biblical universalism?

[RBerman]

Moderate/conservative universalists are, in fact, exclusivist by its more moderate expression:

"Exclusivists believe that Jesus Christ is the sole criterion by which all religions, including Christianity, should be understood and evaluated. Calvin Shenk explains:

Christ did not come just to make a contribution to the religious storehouse of knowledge. The revelation which he brought is the ultimate standard. Since in Christ alone is salvation and truth, many religious paths do not adequately reflect the way of God and do not lead to truth and life. Jesus is not, therefore, just the greatest lord among other lords. There is no other lord besides him."

from: http://www.leaderu.com/theology/salvific.html

As I suspected, you're trying to force a radical expression of the term on universalists. That most of the founders of fundamentalist movement likely stood against universalism is doubtless true, but irrelevant; your trying to build a rabid anti-universalism by the founders into the picture in an attempt to deny fundamentalist belief to the universalist is absurd.

It's not absurd to say the founders of fundamentalism were rabidly anti-universalist. They were rabidly anti-universalist. We'll get to that in a moment. But as for comments off the internet, if you want to play "battle of the hyperlinks" here are the first ones that came up when I googled "definition Christian exclusivism."

1 (http://www.geocities.com/athens/Delphi/8449/exclus.html)
2 (http://www.comereason.org/exst_god/exs050.asp)
3 (http://books.google.com/books?id=aI3wK5cmxDYC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=definition+christian+exclusivism&source=bl&ots=WQFQ7k4S1m&sig=rg3sz3ks-eh2ZQnmmGHejqUmwEw&hl=en&ei=BSczSqK7BNmMtgfxxfX4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6)
4 (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/middle1.html)
5 (http://www.xenos.org/essays/pluralsm.htm)

These were 5 of the first 6 links that came up, and they are all empatically anti-universalist. The sixth link was this one (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=114) from the Trinity Foundation. It's railing against pluralism and doesn't specifically mention universalism either way, but I know this website, and trust me, they would have a seizure if you tried to tell them that universalism was compatible with fundamentalism, or Christianity in general.

Again, your belief in the "five fundamentals" of the early 20th century is not the question. But why limit "fundamentalism" to that short list? Go read any of the leading lights of that fundamentalist movement. Go read any of the leading lights of that movement-- Torrey, Machen, Warfield, Moody, Darby, etc-- and find them saying anything nice about universalism. You can't. They hated universalism as a Satanic doctrine. Fundamentalism sprang from the late 19th century Niagara Bible Conference (http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/n/i/Niagara_Bible_Conference.html), which had as one of its 14 tenets:

13. We believe that the souls of those who have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation do at death immediately pass into His presence, and there remain in conscious bless until the resurrection of the body at His coming, when soul and body reunited shall be associated with Him forever in the glory; but the souls of unbelievers remain after death in conscious misery until the final judgment of the great white throne at the close of the millennium,when soul and body reunited shall be cast into the lake of fire, not to be annihilated, but to be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power: Luke 16:19-26; 23:43; 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil 1:23; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Jude 6:7; Rev. 20:11-15.

Furthermore, "The Fundamentals" were not simply a set of five brief statements. They were a set of 90 essays (http://www.eaec.org/bookstore/the_fundamentals.htm) widely distributed as a group to many pastors in North America in response to a variety of false teachings including Biblical errancy, the non-existence of miracles, and yes, universalism. One of those essays was "What Christ Teaches Concerning Future Retribution" (http://www.godrules.net/library/torrey/NEWtorrey_c5.htm) by William Proctor, which says in part:

The current objections to the orthodox doctrine of hell are made by those who allow their hearts to run away with their heads, and are founded more on sickly sentimentality than on sound scholarship... Not only is there no vestige of foundation in Our Lord’s words for the doctrine of universalism, there is also no shadow of a suggestion of any restoration of the wicked hereafter.

Similar sentiments are sprinkled throughout the rest of the essays that comprise "The Fundamentals." I don't know who sold you on the impression that universalism is compatible with fundamentalism, but he was sorely mistaken.

[RBerman]

Moderate/conservative universalists are, in fact, exclusivist by its more moderate expression:

"Exclusivists believe that Jesus Christ is the sole criterion by which all religions, including Christianity, should be understood and evaluated. Calvin Shenk explains:

Christ did not come just to make a contribution to the religious storehouse of knowledge. The revelation which he brought is the ultimate standard. Since in Christ alone is salvation and truth, many religious paths do not adequately reflect the way of God and do not lead to truth and life. Jesus is not, therefore, just the greatest lord among other lords. There is no other lord besides him."

from: http://www.leaderu.com/theology/salvific.html

As I suspected, you're trying to force a radical expression of the term on universalists. That most of the founders of fundamentalist movement likely stood against universalism is doubtless true, but irrelevant; your trying to build a rabid anti-universalism by the founders into the picture in an attempt to deny fundamentalist belief to the universalist is absurd.

It's not absurd to say the founders of fundamentalism were rabidly anti-universalist. They were rabidly anti-universalist. We'll get to that in a moment. But as for comments off the internet, if you want to play "battle of the hyperlinks" here are the first ones that came up when I googled "definition Christian exclusivism."

1 (http://www.geocities.com/athens/Delphi/8449/exclus.html)
2 (http://www.comereason.org/exst_god/exs050.asp)
3 (http://books.google.com/books?id=aI3wK5cmxDYC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=definition+christian+exclusivism&source=bl&ots=WQFQ7k4S1m&sig=rg3sz3ks-eh2ZQnmmGHejqUmwEw&hl=en&ei=BSczSqK7BNmMtgfxxfX4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6)
4 (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/middle1.html)
5 (http://www.xenos.org/essays/pluralsm.htm)

These were 5 of the first 6 links that came up, and they are all emphatically anti-universalist. The sixth link was this one (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=114) from the Trinity Foundation. It's railing against pluralism and doesn't specifically mention universalism either way, but I know this website, and trust me, they would have a seizure if you tried to tell them that universalism was compatible with fundamentalism, or Christianity in general.

Again, your belief in the "five fundamentals" of the early 20th century is not the question. But why limit "fundamentalism" to that short list? Go read any of the leading lights of that movement-- Torrey, Machen, Warfield, Moody, Darby, etc-- and find them saying anything nice about universalism. You can't. They hated universalism as a Satanic doctrine, and it comes out clearly in what they say about Hell. Fundamentalism sprang from the late 19th century Niagara Bible Conference (http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/n/i/Niagara_Bible_Conference.html), which had as one of its 14 tenets:

13. We believe that the souls of those who have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation do at death immediately pass into His presence, and there remain in conscious bless until the resurrection of the body at His coming, when soul and body reunited shall be associated with Him forever in the glory; but the souls of unbelievers remain after death in conscious misery until the final judgment of the great white throne at the close of the millennium,when soul and body reunited shall be cast into the lake of fire, not to be annihilated, but to be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power: Luke 16:19-26; 23:43; 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil 1:23; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Jude 6:7; Rev. 20:11-15.

Furthermore, "The Fundamentals" were not simply a set of five brief statements. They were a set of 90 essays (http://www.eaec.org/bookstore/the_fundamentals.htm) widely distributed as a group to many pastors in North America. One of those essays was "What Christ Teaches Concerning Future Retribution" (http://www.godrules.net/library/torrey/NEWtorrey_c5.htm) by William Proctor, which says in part:

The current objections to the orthodox doctrine of hell are made by those who allow their hearts to run away with their heads, and are founded more on sickly sentimentality than on sound scholarship... Not only is there no vestige of foundation in Our Lord’s words for the doctrine of universalism, there is also no shadow of a suggestion of any restoration of the wicked hereafter.

Similar sentiments are sprinkled throughout the rest of the essays that comprise "The Fundamentals." I don't know who sold you on the impression that universalism is compatible with fundamentalism, but he was sorely mistaken.

[IncRus]

Hi IncRus,

Thanks for responding.

I believe this saying of Jesus is the biggest argument against the idea of the salvation of all: "But he who endures to the end shall be saved" (Matt. 24:13).
Read my posts....this is consistent with the salvation of the body of Christ in time. Those enduring to the end will be spared the day of wrath reserved for those who die in their sins, for these have not the covering of the righteousness of Christ to save them from the pure righteousness of the Father, which is like a roaring flame to man's stain of unrighteousness
Sorry, but I don't see how your post is consistent with what Jesus said in Matt. 24:13. What Jesus said concerns people whose "love of God does not grow cold" (Matt. 24:12) until the end of their natural life or the end of the world.

Those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of Christ will be destroyed in flaming fire (2 Thes. 1:8-9). They will be burned on judgment day (2 Peter 3:7), when the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up (2 Peter 3:10).

Those who "endure until the end" will be saved from all this.

On the day Christ will come again, "the dead in Christ will rise first. Then those "who are alive and remain (in Christ) shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; And thus they shall always be with the Lord" (1 Thes. 4:16-17).This is the first resurrection.

"But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years" (Rev. 20:5-6)

This is what salvation means to those who "endure until the end."

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also, there was no more sea. Then, I John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is in with man, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying; and there shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away" (Rev. 21:1-4).

Those who do NOT endure until the end will be cast into the "lake of fire."

"The sea gave up the dead who were in it. Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to ghis works. Then death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:13-15).

"And the devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false proophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev. 20:10).
Please note that God sent Jesus into the world that the world through him might be saved (John 3:17) and anyone who believes in him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life (John 3:16). And everything Jesus said or speak is a command from God (John 12:49).
First, it appears Jn 12:49 does not state what you claim: "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me commandment, what to say, and what to speak." Jesus seems to be saying that He speaks what the Father commands Him, not that all that He speaks is a command....though there may be some sense in which this notion has merit....but that's a different thread.
I don't see any exception in what Jesus said, If Jesus did not speak on his own authority, then it means that everytime Jesus spoke, it was a command from God.

Second, if it is true that "everything Jesus said or speak is a command from God", then your assertion, "Please note that God sent Jesus into the world that the world through him might be saved", being itself a command, must itself be true. Therefore, welcome to the ranks of Christian Universalism!
You missed the word "might" which indicates that the salvation of the world is NOT an absolute certainty.

If Jesus is indeed the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6), then only those who endure until the end shall be saved and a single person that will not endure to the end and therefore will not be saved destroys the silly idea of salvation of all.
Your "if/then" proposition is faulty. Again, note the distinction between temporal and eternal modes of salvation in my posts. Once you understand the parameters, you will find that the eternal torment of even a single human being is itself a silly idea.
Rev. 20:10 is not a silly idea to me.

If you want to discredit my understanding of CU, find the fault in my presentation. How would you disprove the notion of the temporal and eternal formula I use to show Biblical universalism?
What happens on judgment day as I posted above discredits your understanding of CU. Your notion of temporal and eternal formula does not show "Biblical universalism."

[Bernie]

It's not absurd to say the founders of fundamentalism were rabidly anti-universalist.
And of course I've said no such thing. In fact, here's what I did say: "That most of the founders of fundamentalist movement likely stood against universalism is doubtless true, but irrelevant;"

It is absurd to deny the status "fundamentalist" to anyone who claims Christ's atonement, universalist, Jehovah's witness, Mormon, etc. if they hold in their personal theology to the five points established by a conservative consensus in the early 20th century in response to a perceived rising tide of progressive thought in Christianity. Of course, there are many, perhaps most of those non-orthodox groups who do not adhere to the fundamentals as so defined, and these rightly will not be called "fundamentalists" in this sense of the word. It ain't rocket science, RB, it's a simple matter of your trying to force a definition where it does not belong.

The...founding fathers....were rabidly anti-universalist.
Despite the fact this point carries no actual weight in the discussion, who are "they"? You make broad claims wtih no documentation. The establishment of the five fundamentals was circulated among a large number of scholars before being hammered out....are you claiming you know for a reasonable fact that all who were involved in this in any category were rabid anti-universalists?

Again, your belief in the "five fundamentals" of the early 20th century is not the question.
And again, it most certainly turns precisely on this point. You are trying hard, obviously due to your personal bias of universalism itself, to twist the simple point I'm making back against me. Hence, although I have little doubt you're correct, your comment, "...I know this website, and trust me, they would have a seizure if you tried to tell them that universalism was compatible with fundamentalism, or Christianity in general." is as meaningless as yours....unless you or they can actually come up wtih valid reasons why my universalism denies any of the fundamentals, you're all only playing your little elitest/exclusivist games. You folks are the ones who go out and high five each other in the bar with Jesus after "defeating" the evil of universalism in cyberspace.

RBerman, to this point all you've done is offer opinions. Thanks for that, I do enjoy reading others' opinions. If you're able to provide actual evidence that any of my beliefs deny any of the five fundamentals listed above, please, have at it. If you can't, this issue is really an aside to the OP; opinions without real evidence is detrimental to forward-moving discussion and is serving no real purpose.

[Bernie]

Hello IncRus,

Sorry, but I don't see how your post is consistent with what Jesus said in Matt. 24:13. What Jesus said concerns people whose "love of God does not grow cold" (Matt. 24:12) until the end of their natural life or the end of the world.
Here's the verse.....
"But the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved."
That there is an end in sight is obvious. On this we can agree. I believe the end is the end of an individual's material life, you seem to insist that it extends to all eternity. Why, since there is nothing in this verse to suggest eternity, do you force it onto the text?

Those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of Christ will be destroyed in flaming fire (2 Thes. 1:8-9). They will be burned on judgment day (2 Peter 3:7), when the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up (2 Peter 3:10).
And if you understood my universalism, you'd know that it doesn't deny this.

Those who do NOT endure until the end will be cast into the "lake of fire."
Ditto. You seem to have not read my posts and tried to understand them. You're parroting doctrine as though it is identical to truth. This is, as I've noted in this thread and elsewhere, the scourge of deadness in orthodox Christianity, the high water mark of her blindness and fallenness.

I don't see any exception in what Jesus said, If Jesus did not speak on his own authority, then it means that everytime Jesus spoke, it was a command from God.
Suppose you had the authority to command me to speak, and ordered me to suggest to a group of people that they should do this or that. The command is valid from you to me; there is no command per se to be passed on, only suggestion. My point was, because Jesus admitted to obeying His Father's command doesn't mean that everything He heard from the Father and passed on to us is itself a command. Actually, a moral command has much to do with the spiritual condition of the hearer. For example:

"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Mat 5:48) Some believers in Christ will, due to an inner spiritual state, "hear" only a harsh command from the Lord here. Others will hear a wonderful promise. The truth the statement contains is placed there by God; the "hearing" of it on different levels depends on the state of the spirit of the hearer.

[shunyadragon]

There is inevitable "elitism" because good is never at the same level as evil. Since false religions have evil in them, then they are not at the same level as the one true religion.

I would agree in principle, but how are you defining 'evil' here. How would you define Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith as 'evil'?

Out if the thousands of years of human history and the divisions there of, how would you propose to evaluate them all in a relatively unbiased manner to come up with only 'one true religion?'

If there is one God, there is one true religion speaking of His name, and the different interpretations and religions of men do not negate that fact.

In response to this assertion the question still stands, out of the many different beliefs and interpretations how do you propose to come up with the 'one true religion?'

I believe there is one 'Source' some call God(s), but there are thousands of diverse cultures and languages over the millenia. Is God that selective to have only one name in one language, and reveal his truth to only one people leaving the rest of the world in the dark?

How is that so? In the same reasoning that many people can have all sorts of understanding of who I really am, but I am what I am (hey isn't that a song?). Many are way off base i if they say I am an elderly female, and are obviously wrong regardless of the efforts they make to prove that I am. There is an obvious standard which exists, even if people are either insane or stupid enough to deny that standard.

True. So what? What standard?

Is there a real standard about who God is? Of course there has to be, since He has created us and defined our identities by certain sets of standards too. We may apprehend those standards about who we are and who God is wrongly; but as it is with everything else, there will always be that select group of people who grow and learn from their mistakes, and better understand and teach what those standards are.

There has to be? Which select group of people?

The question is, shall the knowledge of those who have deceived themselves their entire lives, gain true knowledge of God in a temporary or eternal state of hell? If temporary, then they eventually go to heaven because they repented after they died. If eternal, then they are consumed by God's wrath, and that is how they shall know the holiness of God.

In your view the millions of people over the thousands of years of human history are apparently self-decieved when they were apparently not informed.

In the end? Maybe, but while living over the millennia, how about those that were never informed by your measure. They represent most of the people that ever lived on th eplanet.

[RBerman]

And of course I've said no such thing. In fact, here's what I did say: "That most of the founders of fundamentalist movement likely stood against universalism is doubtless true, but irrelevant;"
Yeah, I misread you there. Sorry. It was too late to edit by the time I realized my mistake.

It is absurd to deny the status "fundamentalist" to anyone who claims Christ's atonement, universalist, Jehovah's witness, Mormon, etc. if they hold in their personal theology to the five points established by a conservative consensus in the early 20th century in response to a perceived rising tide of progressive thought in Christianity. Of course, there are many, perhaps most of those non-orthodox groups who do not adhere to the fundamentals as so defined, and these rightly will not be called "fundamentalists" in this sense of the word. It ain't rocket science, RB, it's a simple matter of your trying to force a definition where it does not belong.My point is that "the five points" are not an adequate definition of fundamentalism. They are a summary of fundamentalism, but like all summaries they have unspoken assumptions. To uncover those assumptions, you need to learn more about what the fundamentalists believed, beyond those five sentences. You're laying claim to a heritage that doesn't fit.

Despite the fact this point carries no actual weight in the discussion, who are "they"? You make broad claims wtih no documentation. The establishment of the five fundamentals was circulated among a large number of scholars before being hammered out....are you claiming you know for a reasonable fact that all who were involved in this in any category were rabid anti-universalists?I am. Produce a counter-example, if you can.

[Bernie]

Hello RBerman,

Yeah, I misread you there. Sorry. It was too late to edit by the time I realized my mistake.
No biggie. It happens.

My point is that "the five points" are not an adequate definition of fundamentalism.
You're building a straw man. All you can possibly suggest is that they are not your and others' adequate definition of fundamentalism. Don't really care, not interested in joining your club , thanks anyway.

The links you provided are essentially rants against religious pluralism. To post these suggests a lack of understanding of the Christian Universalist position. There are a growing number of moderate and conservative Christian universalists like me who embrace the exclusivity of the salvation of all by Christ's atonement alone. Though I noted this point earlier, you ignored it. Moderate/conservative CUs are not pluralists. Obviously, religious pluralism is much more commonly embraced by our progressive brethren, and I walk with them in this as far as my conscience allows...that is, I believe truth exists fragmentally in every religion, including Christianity, but that God's fullest expression of truth exists in a God-inspired Bible....hence, I take the fullest expression of truth in religion on earth to be Christianity. This is another form of exclusivism most CU's agree on.

Of the five links you posted, there was brief mention of univeralism by Craig, but only the last actually touched on the topic in any significance Unfortunately, the author of this article seems himself largely uninformed of what CU's believe. Surprise, surprise.

For example, from Christian Witness in a Pluralistic Age by
Jim Leffel:

"Hick thinks that only the salvation of all humanity through various religious traditions is morally acceptable and rationally compelling. This facet of pluralism is called universalism."
Wrong. This is called pluralistic universalism. It has little in common with CU.

"...simply asserting that all religions are legitimate paths to God, as pluralists do, doesn't result in universal salvation. Indeed, it seems that if universalism is true, then it really doesn't matter what a person believes or what they do with their life. Universalism actually has nothing to do with the pluralistic view of religion. Consequently, pluralism does not overcome Hick's moral objection to Christian exclusivism."
This is a typical parroting of a trite, worn-out theme by eternal tormentists. CU's neither teach nor believe that it doesn't really matter what a person believes or what they do with their life. If ETs would actually study what CU contends for....especially my version of Christian Universalism, arguably the most in-depth account of Christian universalism to hit the twentieth & twenty-first century....they would doubtless stop echoing the same inadequate accusations and we would be able to establish forward-moving dialog.

"More importantly, universalism trivializes the meaning of divine love. This is so because if there is no ultimate accountability for our lives, no judgment, then the choices we make in life are of no final consequence. Without judgment, there is no way to distinguish between heaven and hell."
CU's teach accountability, and so, for that matter, do many pluralistic (progressive) universalists. The above is propaganda typical of the ET crowd.

"After all, how would you characterize eternity with an unrepentant Hitler? In what sense could this be heaven? Further, how would six million Jews think about the love of God if it didn't make any ultimate difference to him what Hitler and the Nazis did?"
This emotionalistic nonsense is why I want no part of your "good ole boy fundamentalist club" RBerman. The above is surprisingly carnal in thought for an allegedly conservative constituency. Luckily for us all, the spiritual stain which prevented Hitler and the Nazi's from finding reprentence in life is removed in the loving embrace of God the Father, whose pure righteousness is a roaring lake of fire to the falsity which stains human spirit. The raw material of their sin has been scorched away, and the smoke of their torment is gone up from them forever and ever. To also apply an unspiritual "well, the Jews are gonna be mad at God for forgiving Hitler" mentality shows a decided lack of understanding about God's love and character. If this is your model of exclusivity, you can have it. In the perfection of restoration, Hitler, his ilk and those whose persecution they brought about are at peace and unity of spirit with one another and with God. This is the power of spiritual restoration. Arguments like these show the bankruptcy of modern religious thought. The love of God seen though the eyes of the Christian universalist is greatly superior to rants like this, bro.

"Universalism does not uniquely allow for the love of God as pluralists suppose. It makes God indifferent to cruelty and trivializes the significance of human freedom by dislodging choices from their consequences. Any meaningful definition of God's love must also affirm his justice."
Bull. I've posted logical challenges to ETs here and on other boards showing how the tortue of human souls for all eternity itself violates the character of God on a number of levels. To date, not a single ETer has refuted these propositions.

Speaking of which, to date you have failed to show me how my universalism violates or stands in contradiction to even one of the published fundamentals. All you seem capable of doing is building your staw man in each successive post. Seems to me if you can provide a legitimate challenge, I'll have to bow to your appeal to stop identifying myself as an adherent of the published fundamentals of the Christian faith.

Time to you-know-what or get off the pot, dude.

[RBerman]

Bernie, I already showed you that "The Fundamentals" were not a set of five statements, but a set of 90 essays, several of which explicitly say that the damned experience eternal torment, a belief diametrically opposed to your universalism. You have not even attempted to produce a single theologian from the foundational era of fundamentalism (whether defined by the 5 points or the 90 essays) who has anything kind to say about your views. Instead, you simply assert that you prefer to define fundamentalism by the narrow set of five points. This is a misdirection tactic, an attempt to avoid any responsibility for finding even a single prominent fundamentalist universalist in the early 20th century. It's a wise tactic, since you probably know that your search would be a vain one. There were none. You're a victim of the same semantic drift that allows some modern "evangelicals" to deny the existence of Satan, hell, the atoning work of Christ, etc.

[Bernie]

Bernie, I already showed you that "The Fundamentals" were not a set of five statements, but a set of 90 essays, several of which explicitly say that the damned experience eternal torment, a belief diametrically opposed to your universalism. You have not even attempted to produce a single theologian from the foundational era of fundamentalism (whether defined by the 5 points or the 90 essays) who has anything kind to say about your views. Instead, you simply assert that you prefer to define fundamentalism by the narrow set of five points. This is a misdirection tactic, an attempt to avoid any responsibility for finding even a single prominent fundamentalist universalist in the early 20th century. It's a wise tactic, since you probably know that your search would be a vain one. There were none. You're a victim of the same semantic drift that allows some modern "evangelicals" to deny the existence of Satan, hell, the atoning work of Christ, etc.
And yet another pointless post presents you wholly inadequate to show how my universalism denies even one of the fundamentals of the faith. At this point I'm wondering how you can continue this charade without embarrassment...?

[IncRus]

Hello IncRus,

Sorry, but I don't see how your post is consistent with what Jesus said in Matt. 24:13. What Jesus said concerns people whose "love of God does not grow cold" (Matt. 24:12) until the end of their natural life or the end of the world.
Here's the verse.....
"But the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved."
That there is an end in sight is obvious. On this we can agree. I believe the end is the end of an individual's material life, you seem to insist that it extends to all eternity. Why, since there is nothing in this verse to suggest eternity, do you force it onto the text?
When an "individual's material life" (or natural life) ends, he dies and lies in the grave (Psalm 88:5) . That's the end of him, never to rise and will never wake up while the sky endures (Job 14:10-12). The dead know nothing. They have no further reward; they are completely forgotten. Their loves, their hates, their passions, all died with them. They will never again take part in anything that hapens in the world (Eccl. 9:5-6).

Therefore, a man that does not endure until the end of his life is forever lost and will not be saved on judgment day.
Those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of Christ will be destroyed in flaming fire (2 Thes. 1:8-9). They will be burned on judgment day (2 Peter 3:7), when the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up (2 Peter 3:10).
And if you understood my universalism, you'd know that it doesn't deny this.
How can universalism not deny this? Will people who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of Christ and will be burned on judgment day be saved? Christian universalists say ALL will be saved, don't they?

Those who do NOT endure until the end will be cast into the "lake of fire."
Ditto. You seem to have not read my posts and tried to understand them. You're parroting doctrine as though it is identical to truth. This is, as I've noted in this thread and elsewhere, the scourge of deadness in orthodox Christianity, the high water mark of her blindness and fallenness.
These doctrines that I'm "parroting" are the the truth, aren't they? Just because you omitted the verses I referenced doesn't make these doctrines less than the truth.

I don't see any exception in what Jesus said, If Jesus did not speak on his own authority, then it means that everytime Jesus spoke, it was a command from God.
Suppose you had the authority to command me to speak, and ordered me to suggest to a group of people that they should do this or that. The command is valid from you to me; there is no command per se to be passed on, only suggestion. My point was, because Jesus admitted to obeying His Father's command doesn't mean that everything He heard from the Father and passed on to us is itself a command. Actually, a moral command has much to do with the spiritual condition of the hearer. For example:

"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Mat 5:48) Some believers in Christ will, due to an inner spiritual state, "hear" only a harsh command from the Lord here. Others will hear a wonderful promise. The truth the statement contains is placed there by God; the "hearing" of it on different levels depends on the state of the spirit of the hearer.
I understand what you are saying. However, I don't believe that ALL will be saved on judgment day.

Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of my hand" (John 10:27-28). Please note that Jesus did NOT promise to give etrnal life to those who hear his voice and do NOT follow them.

One who hears the voice of Jesus and follow them, whether he thinks these are commands of God or not, is a sheep of Jesus and is assured of salvation on judgment day. One who hears the voice of Jesus and decides NOT to follow them because he THINKS it is NOT a command from God will NOT be saved. It is as simple as that.

[Bernie]

Hi IncRus,

One who hears the voice of Jesus and decides NOT to follow them because he THINKS it is NOT a command from God will NOT be saved. It is as simple as that.
I don't think it's that simple.

When an "individual's material life" (or natural life) ends, he dies and lies in the grave (Psalm 88:5) . That's the end of him, never to rise and will never wake up while the sky endures (Job 14:10-12). The dead know nothing. They have no further reward; they are completely forgotten. Their loves, their hates, their passions, all died with them. They will never again take part in anything that hapens in the world (Eccl. 9:5-6).

Therefore, a man that does not endure until the end of his life is forever lost and will not be saved on judgment day.
First, you appear to contend for a form of soul sleep, correct me if I'm wrong. Second, this interpretation is interesting, but passages like Heb 9:27, the parable of lazarus and the rich man in Luke 17 and others seem to suggest spiritual/intellectual consciousness immediately following death. Third, and most important, Jesus' admonition that the one who endures to the end need not be pinned on the end of one's life. More likely, the Lord is referring to that finished state of faith achieved in sanctification. In this case, the "end" would be obviously different for different people. It could mean any point in between relative youth (e.g., beyond the age of accountability) to immediately prior to physical death.

Scripture speaks of a process undergone to a state of approval:

"Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him." (Jas 1:12) Sanctification understood as a process which concludes in time at a point before physical death makes sense in light of Peter's teaching in 1Pet 1. Paul's teaching that the believer receives eternal salvation in time also suggests this same sort of "end" at some point in this life: "And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation" (Heb 5:9) through the process of sanctification: "But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth." (2Thes 2:13), "Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord." (Heb 12:14).

I'd have to reject your proposition, "Therefore, a man that does not endure until the end of his life is forever lost and will not be saved on judgment day." based on further evidence in Scripture.

Originally posted by IncRus
Those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of Christ will be destroyed in flaming fire (2 Thes. 1:8-9). They will be burned on judgment day (2 Peter 3:7), when the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up (2 Peter 3:10).
And if you understood my universalism, you'd know that it doesn't deny this.

How can universalism not deny this? Will people who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of Christ and will be burned on judgment day be saved? Christian universalists say ALL will be saved, don't they?
My universalism denies the orthodox interepretation of what Godly fire produces. The Father places in front of our eyes in both Testaments questions we have to properly answer to correctly interpret the mysteries of His written word. Consider possibly the shortest chapter in the OT, Ezek 15:

1 Then the word of the LORD came to me saying,
2 "Son of man, how is the wood of the vine better than any wood of a branch which is among the trees of the forest?
3 "Can wood be taken from it to make anything, or can men take a peg from it on which to hang any vessel?
4 "If it has been put into the fire for fuel, and the fire has consumed both of its ends, and its middle part has been charred, is it then useful for anything?
5 "Behold, while it is intact, it is not made into anything. How much less, when the fire has consumed it and it is charred, can it still be made into anything!
6 "Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, 'As the wood of the vine among the trees of the forest, which I have given to the fire for fuel, so have I given up the inhabitants of Jerusalem;
7 and I set My face against them. Though they have come out of the fire, yet the fire will consume them. Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I set My face against them.
8 'Thus I will make the land desolate, because they have acted unfaithfully,' "declares the Lord GOD.
Even staunch literalists usually admit that the vine is metaphorical language indicating God's chosen nation, Israel (see Isa 5) Assuming that Israel as God's chosen is itself a metaphor representing all those in every nation and time chosen to eternal perfection by God, the question, 'of what value or possible use could God's chosen attain to even though charred by fire?' needs to be answered.

The Lord doesn't answer the question in this chapter; we have to study and interpret all His word to understand what He's getting at. Look at v.7. How does the organized church interpret this mystery of coming out of the fire, yet being simultaneously consuming by it? Orthodoxy only has eyes to see what it wants; it sees the "consuming" and not the "coming out".

Godly fire (and hail, plague, wind and sword) serves the same purpose in Scripture because its presence in the human intellect is always and ever from the same set of circumstances: God's pure righteousness is a roaring flame to the imperfection of falsity in human spirit. Study Scripture, you'll find that truth is also a sword, and just as the fire burns, the sword slashes and divides. Orthodoxy says it destroys, my universalism says if orthodoxy will look beyond the realm of particulars, it will see that God uses the mystery of the single entity as both one and many to show how He saves. The sword repairs by performing surgery. Read Ezek 21:2-5, the righteous and unrighteous are being separated from the single entity, Israel. In a single entity, a field, wheat and tares are being separated; in the judgment of humankind, sheep and goats are separated.

Destruction = reconstruction. Sanctification is sword and fire, destroying elements within spirit to produce a certain result. This is regeneration. The lake of fire, as the effect of God's righteousness on human imperfection, does not perform a different work in different people; God does not identify different people to destory, in His perfect love and justice, He identifies only the universal impediment wtihin each individual which prevents unity with Him. What is destroyed is our spiritual death, which is simultaneously reborn to life . The false is restored to true. This hurts. It hurts much less in sanctification in time than it will in God's embrace in the lake of fire. Sanctification is the progresive and fragmental death/rebirth to the extent necessary to establish faith in the mind....holding still in spiritual surgery in time to the end suggests to the point faith is complete. This is the exclusive reward of the believer of Christ and the basis for staements by Paul like 1Tim 4:10.

Armed with these principles, the interpretation of Rev 21:6-8...

"And He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." ....is that the one who perseveres in their own spiritual death and rebirth in time will be spared the same--though highly intensified--procedure following physical death.

All Godly destruction/cleansing will accomplish the same thing: the Lord does not change.

22 And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God, the Almighty, and the Lamb, are its temple.
23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.
24 And the nations shall walk by its light, and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it.
25 And in the daytime (for there shall be no night there) its gates shall never be closed;
26 and they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it;
27 and nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life. In the end, when the smoke clears, all are found in the book of life because life is what God is about.

Thus, the true character of God, which the organized church denies; in the end, even God's wrath (death and destruction) is simultaneously His love (rebirth to perfection).

I understand what you are saying. However, I don't believe that ALL will be saved on judgment day.
But I think if you really understood what I was saying and applied legitimate truth tests to it, you would believe, IncRus.

These doctrines that I'm "parroting" are the the truth, aren't they? Just because you omitted the verses I referenced doesn't make these doctrines less than the truth.
No, the doctrines you parrot are generally established (orthodox) interpretations of Scripture. What makes doctrine less than truth is whether they are truly and correctly interpreted, and because God chooses not to speak out loud to humanity in time, we struggle to interepret. Doctrines are parroted imho when they are accepted as the same as truth despite the fact that they possess contradictions. Perfect truth demands perfect unity. When doctrine--mine, yours and everyone else's-- achieves perfect unity, it'll be true. In the meantime, I believe on the subject of salvation, the interpretation I use trumps orthdoxy as it is able to bring into unity and rest most of the contradictions orthodoxy accepts and ignores.

[IncRus]

Hi IncRus,

One who hears the voice of Jesus and decides NOT to follow them because he THINKS it is NOT a command from God will NOT be saved. It is as simple as that.
I don't think it's that simple.
You can make salvation as complicated any way you want, but the truth is, anyone who does NOT believe Jesus does NOT have life but the wrath of God abides in him (John 3:34).

When an "individual's material life" (or natural life) ends, he dies and lies in the grave (Psalm 88:5) . That's the end of him, never to rise and will never wake up while the sky endures (Job 14:10-12). The dead know nothing. They have no further reward; they are completely forgotten. Their loves, their hates, their passions, all died with them. They will never again take part in anything that hapens in the world (Eccl. 9:5-6).

Therefore, a man that does not endure until the end of his life is forever lost and will not be saved on judgment day.
First, you appear to contend for a form of soul sleep, correct me if I'm wrong. Second, this interpretation is interesting, but passages like Heb 9:27, the parable of lazarus and the rich man in Luke 17 and others seem to suggest spiritual/intellectual consciousness immediately following death. Third, and most important, Jesus' admonition that the one who endures to the end need not be pinned on the end of one's life. More likely, the Lord is referring to that finished state of faith achieved in sanctification. In this case, the "end" would be obviously different for different people. It could mean any point in between relative youth (e.g., beyond the age of accountability) to immediately prior to physical death.
Although the Bible refers to death as sleep, we can read from Eccl. 12:7 (TEV) that "Our bodies will return to the dust of the earth, and the breath of life (spirit - KJV) will go back to God who gave it (Gen. 2:7)." A living man is a living soul. Hence, a dead man is a dead soul.

Heb. 9:27 and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 17 do not suggest "spiritual or intellectual consciousness immediately following death." This suggestion CONTRADICTS the word of God WRITTEN in the Bible.

There are only TWO "ends" that do NOT require more than one interpretation with regards to salvation - the end of man's natural life or end of the world.

Apostle Peter wrote about "looking forward to new heavens and new earth" (2 Peter 3:13). The Bible teaches that "the heavens and the earth which now exist are kept in store by the same word, reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men" (2 Peter 3:7). And the heavens will pass away with the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:10).

Therefore, we know that salvation will be attained on judgment day for those who will be saved. We also know from what the Bible teaches that the dead will not rise again until the heavens pass away.

Therefore, when Jesus said "he who endures to the END will be saved" he meant those who remain his sheep until the day they died, which is the END of their natural life or until the day Jesus comes again, which is the END of the world.

Scripture speaks of a process undergone to a state of approval:

"Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him." (Jas 1:12) Sanctification understood as a process which concludes in time at a point before physical death makes sense in light of Peter's teaching in 1Pet 1. Paul's teaching that the believer receives eternal salvation in time also suggests this same sort of "end" at some point in this life: "And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation" (Heb 5:9) through the process of sanctification: "But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth." (2Thes 2:13), "Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord." (Heb 12:14).

I'd have to reject your proposition, "Therefore, a man that does not endure until the end of his life is forever lost and will not be saved on judgment day." based on further evidence in Scripture.
The words "persevere" in Jas. 1:12 and "obey" in Heb. 5:9 indicates what kind of "endurance" is required by Jesus until the "END." One who remains a SHEEP of Jesus until the END is one who remains "sanctified" until the END. The Bible teaches, "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of truth, there NO LONGER remains a sacrifice for sins" (Heb. 10:26). Therefore, one who has been sanctified but sins willfully thereafter, will not be saved.

Those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of Christ will be destroyed in flaming fire (2 Thes. 1:8-9). They will be burned on judgment day (2 Peter 3:7), when the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up (2 Peter 3:10).
And if you understood my universalism, you'd know that it doesn't deny this.
How can universalism not deny this? Will people who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of Christ and will be burned on judgment day be saved? Christian universalists say ALL will be saved, don't they?
My universalism denies the orthodox interepretation of what Godly fire produces. The Father places in front of our eyes in both Testaments questions we have to properly answer to correctly interpret the mysteries of His written word.
The coming of the Son of God with its accompanying fire that will melt the earth and all the works that are in it (2 Peter 3:10), is real - NOT a metaphor as Jesus himself explained:

"But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them away, so also will the coming of thge Son of Man be" (Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17: 26-30).

[Bernie]

Hello IncRus,

I have no desire to discuss soul sleep. It's of no relevance to the OP and of little interest to me personally.

Heb. 9:27 and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 17 do not suggest "spiritual or intellectual consciousness immediately following death." This suggestion CONTRADICTS the word of God WRITTEN in the Bible.
Okay, this presentation of personal opinion as though it carries weight in discussion is what I try to avoid. Don't give me your opinion, let's seereasons, dude.

There are only TWO "ends" that do NOT require more than one interpretation with regards to salvation - the end of man's natural life or end of the world.
I have no idea what this means. BTW, using capitalization on occasion is okay as a form of adding an extra punch to our expresions. I use it from time to time. But when too frequent, it's just 'shouting'. Don't shout; I can hear you fine.

Apostle Peter wrote about "looking forward to new heavens and new earth" (2 Peter 3:13). The Bible teaches that "the heavens and the earth which now exist are kept in store by the same word, reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men" (2 Peter 3:7). And the heavens will pass away with the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:10).

Therefore, we know that salvation will be attained on judgment day for those who will be saved. We also know from what the Bible teaches that the dead will not rise again until the heavens pass away.
Huh? How on earth do you jump from "Peter wrote about "looking forward to new heavens and new earth" and "The Bible teaches that "the heavens and the earth which now exist are kept in store by the same word, reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men" and "the heavens will pass away with the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ"...

...to arrive at "Therefore, we know that salvation will be attained on judgment day for those who will be saved"? Okay, the Bible speaks of the material world having an end. So what? How does this prove that the salvation of the human soul is plastered to this timetable?
It appears that this.....
]quote]Therefore, when Jesus said "he who endures to the END will be saved" he meant those who remain his sheep until the day they died, which is the END of their natural life or until the day Jesus comes again, which is the END of the world.[/QUOTE]
....ties everything together in your thinking. Sorry, this is just incoherent. I stand on my assertion that the stronger reading of holding fast to Christ "to the end" suggests a work accomplished in time. As noted earlier, this can certainly culminate in the final moments of one's life, but need not be so. In Jn 8:24, Jesus said, "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins." He doesn't stipulate when the finishing of this belief to faith is achieved.

The words "persevere" in Jas. 1:12 and "obey" in Heb. 5:9 indicates what kind of "endurance" is required by Jesus until the "END
Right. This fits just fine with my interpretation of it.

One who remains a SHEEP of Jesus until the END is one who remains "sanctified" until the END.
Ditto.

The Bible teaches, "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of truth, there NO LONGER remains a sacrifice for sins" (Heb. 10:26). Therefore, one who has been sanctified but sins willfully thereafter, will not be saved.
You give this verse the typical superficial reading propagandized doctrine teaches us to provide. Let's look at the whole passage....

26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.

For good measure, let's throw in Paul's teaching from Heb 6:4-8, which covers essentially the same set of circumstances....

4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.
7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.

In my previous post I explained this: "My universalism denies the orthodox interepretation of what Godly fire produces." This is underlined because I want you and any other readers of this thread to see whose view is unified and coherent. We all know that unity, congruity, coherence, accord, harmony, etc. are correspondents of truth. Does your orthodox reading of one being cast away to eternal punishment unite with Paul's teachings, e.g., "If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire." (1Cor 3:15, my emph.)? You have humans denied in eternal fire; Paul sees them saved in it. Who is right, you or Paul?

Godly fire produces rebirth in the midst of destruction. It destroys what is false (the stuff antithetical to God's essence) and restores this falsity to a true state. Death to sin and rebirth to righteousness is the summary of the gospel. Your orthodoxy only sees the death and destruction, because in the evil of its brand of exclusivity, adherents smugly consider themselves, most typically by forcing upon Scripture its most base meaning as though this is its only meaning, on the outside of the furnace looking in. Thus, "...a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES" references those portions of spirit which produce adversarial content in the mind and, causally, in act.. The threat is also God's wonderful promise. If the "adversaries" are burned up, they will no longer produce adversity and the burning itself will produce stronger unity with God in faith. You have humans losing. God takes our loss and turns it into victory. Are you of your Father's will in this or your own?

Likewise, Paul is teaching in Heb 6:4-8 that those fallen deeply enough away in apostacy become hardened to repentance. A large portion of orthodoxy has the backslidden sinner burning in an eternal punishment. The Christian universalist sees in the same passage the sinner being lovingly restored to repentance and forgiveness by Him who inspired the apostle to write, "If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself." (2Tim 2:13) No wonder the Lord said, "I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!" (Luke 12:49) If His fire was already kindled and performing its work, He would not have been murdered by us for telling the truth. Fortunately for us, murderers will not see the kingdom of heaven; the murderer will be burned out of us all before we get there. This is the love of God to the whole world.

Think of human spirit like the physical body, as a single entity in one aspect but at the same time a multiplicity. Viewing spirit in this way is more coherent than viewing it holistically; there are varieties of goods and evils in the intellect, and a wholly evil or wholly clean spirit would produce only evil or good fruit.

The coming of the Son of God with its accompanying fire that will melt the earth and all the works that are in it (2 Peter 3:10), is real - NOT a metaphor as Jesus himself explained:

"But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them away, so also will the coming of thge Son of Man be" (Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17: 26-30).
This is the totality of your response to a long post in which I laid the foundations of warrant for what I believe? One verse? Does your doctrine of eternal torment rest on this sort of scholarship?

[RBerman]

And yet another pointless post presents you wholly inadequate to show how my universalism denies even one of the fundamentals of the faith. At this point I'm wondering how you can continue this charade without embarrassment...?
Bernie, we're not making any headway. I've already shown you how one of the 90 essays which comprise "The Fundamentals" is specifically written in support of the doctrine of Universal Torment, which stands opposed to your doctrine of universalism. You know full well that none of the founders of fundamentalism were universalists. But since you persist in your desire to define "fundamentalism" in such a way that you qualify, and since you are now resorting to insinuations against my character, further conversation is fruitless. I do commend the study of The Fundamentals (the essays, not just the five points) to you, in hopes that you will come to a proper understanding of the more important issue: Universalism is a Satanic doctrine.

[C Thomas]

You can make salvation as complicated any way you want, but the truth is, anyone who does NOT believe Jesus does NOT have life but the wrath of God abides in him (John 3:34).



It says "the indignation of God is remaining on him" but you infer "the indignation of God is remaining on him forever and ever".

Jn 21:22 Jesus is saying to him, "If I should be wanting him to be remaining till I am coming, what is it to you? You be following Me!"

Remaining does not mean remaining forever and ever.

[Bernie]

Bernie, we're not making any headway. I've already shown you how one of the 90 essays which comprise "The Fundamentals" is specifically written in support of the doctrine of Universal Torment, which stands opposed to your doctrine of universalism. You know full well that none of the founders of fundamentalism were universalists. But since you persist in your desire to define "fundamentalism" in such a way that you qualify, and since you are now resorting to insinuations against my character, further conversation is fruitless. I do commend the study of The Fundamentals (the essays, not just the five points) to you, in hopes that you will come to a proper understanding of the more important issue: Universalism is a Satanic doctrine.
There were no insinuations against your character and you know it, RBerman.

I wonder, what will you and others who think as you do say to your Lord in the afterlife upon learning that He has saved all humanity from their sins? How will you "satanic doctrine" of universalism weigh in then?

BTW, you still stand inadequate to show how my universalism denies any of the five points of fundamentalism. In light of this, silence from you on this, the real issue here, is but par for the course. God bless you in your walk.

[JeromeD]

As one jumping into a cultivated thread, I don't know know how much I have to offer, but after a skim and reading through most of the last posts, I thought it would be worth a shot anyhow.

Bernie is correct in that universalism and the fundamentals of fundamentalism are not in prima facie contradiction to each other. You can have Christ and the salvation of all; it's absurd to say that Christ's Atonement wouldn't be enough for the salvation of all.

However, where I would break off with Bernie's universalism is that, while I do believe all can be saved, I do not, and cannot, have the knowledge of whether all will be saved until the end of time. While the "fire" Paul speaks of wherein a person will be saved through it, this is traditionally interpreted as being a figure of purgatory, or for the Orthodox, Hades (which is a part of Hell, but from which people can be saved, if I am remembering correctly). In addition, there is also the "fire" of the Petrine epistle (1 Peter 1:7) which is concordant with Paul's thought on the "Godly fire." Dante in his Divine Comedy interpreted the same way that Bernie did as far as this fire (for Dante, after climbing Mount Purgatorio, all the Church Suffering had to come through a 'wall of fire' before arriving in Paradiso), which is an orthodox expression/metaphor of this fire.

So, because fundamentalism precludes the idea of purgatory, then one could be forced to conclude that the wall of fire must admit all (universalism) for some to be saved, or none (universal damnation), which is contradictory to fundamentalism in its belief that man can be saved through the grace of God.

However, that is not my belief. I could be called a "weak universalist," because while I do believe all can be saved, I am also admitting an insurmountable ignorance this side of time, so I cannot state with certainty whether all shall be saved. On the other hand, I admit a real hope of universal salvation, as we are commanded to "hope all things." (1 Cor. 13:7)

[RBerman]

I wonder, what will you and others who think as you do say to your Lord in the afterlife upon learning that He has saved all humanity from their sins? How will you "satanic doctrine" of universalism weigh in then?
I could turn the question back on you from my perspective. We'll all find that out together, won't we?

BTW, you still stand inadequate to show how my universalism denies any of the five points of fundamentalism. In light of this, silence from you on this, the real issue here, is but par for the course. God bless you in your walk.
Bernie, you seem like a smart guy, and I can't figure out for the life of me why you think I'd want " to show how [your] universalism denies any of the five points of fundamentalism." I've already stipulated that universalism is compatible with those five points, but that those five points are only a small subset of the doctrine taught in "The Fundamentals," the 90 essays which are the comprehensive defining statements of fundamentalist doctrine. If you haven't understood this by now, I guess you're not going to.

[Bernie]

I could turn the question back on you from my perspective. We'll all find that out together, won't we?
Yes, we will.

I can't figure out for the life of me why you think I'd want " to show how [your] universalism denies any of the five points of fundamentalism." I've already stipulated that universalism is compatible with those five points,
If this is so, an apology is required on my part. Could you please direct me to the post in which you conceded this point, I totally missed it.

but that those five points are only a small subset of the doctrine taught in "The Fundamentals," the 90 essays which are the comprehensive defining statements of fundamentalist doctrine. If you haven't understood this by now, I guess you're not going to.
And you seem oblivious to the fact that I've never made any claim that I was in agreement with all the doctrines that fundamentalists, past and present, hold in consensus. If the founding fathers would have thought universalism important enough to include in the five points, they would have. Obviously, universal salvation, despite what the consensus held, is starkly absent from the list.

I've stated in truth and continue to state that my universalism does not deny any of the five points of fundamentalism, and that because I am in agreement with these I consider myself a fundamentalist in this sense of the term. Intellectual honesty demands only concession of this point, yet you've stubbornly avoided this, using repeated irrelevant arguments.

This is what you seem unable to grasp, RBerman. I have never, nor have I any intention of claiming consensus with modern fundamentalists. I agree with them that the five points of fundamentalism were important to establish in the face of increasing progressive thinking from certain areas of Christianity.* Your stating over and over again that I'm not a fundamentalist because most fundies oppose universalism is irrelevant to my point. All this really boils down to is that it seems important to you to deny me membership in your "we hate universalism, therefore we are true fundamentalists" club. Obviously, I want no part of this; I've been brought through hell itself to arrive at my personal theology, I don't intend to tread underfoot this pearl of great price and decline to agreement with the good old boys....which club, btw, I was proud to have belonged for many years.

* Now that the Lord is opening eyes throughout Christianity to His intention to save all, it will, I feel confident, in time be shown rationally and reasonably that the founding fathers and all other fundamentalists who stand against universal salvation by the atonement of Jesus of Nazareth are wrong on this point. We are gradually, in God's good time, being brought to see His truths. Instead of continuing in our corruption and fighting against Him on His plan to save all humans, we should welcome His grace wtih open arms. Unfortunately, a casual reading of the Bible quickly shows that prescriptive truths like this are always met with hostility. His will be done.

[RBerman]

If this is so, an apology is required on my part. Could you please direct me to the post in which you conceded this point, I totally missed it.
In this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2693007&postcount=71) I said that universalism did not violate the five points. In this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2695382&postcount=76) I said that exclusivism was not one of the five points. In this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2695936&postcount=80), which was somehow inadvertantly duplicated as this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2695938&postcount=81), I said that your adherence to the five points was not a matter of dispute between us, meaning that I agree that you, a universalist, adhere to the five points. In every other post I've made, the thrust of my message is this: The question, "Am I a fundamentalist?" is not best answered by looking at the five points, which I agree that you hold. It is best answered by looking at the documents circulated under the title, "The Fundamentals." Those documents represent the true breadth of the discussion that went under the heading "fundamentalism" in the early 20th century. (In the later 20th century, "fundamentalism" came to mean "religious intolerance," which is a whole other ball of wax.)

I myself cannot claim to be a fully-fledged fundamentalist, because premillenial eschatology featured heavily in that movement, and I am amillenial. I do find wide agreement with fundamentalism on other topics, however. So if asked, I would say, "I adhere to the tenets of fundamentalism, except its premillenialism." A similar statement from you might look like, "I adhere to the tenets of fundamentalism, except they believed in universal torment, and I am a universalist."

And you seem oblivious to the fact that I've never made any claim that I was in agreement with all the doctrines that fundamentalists, past and present, hold in consensus. If the founding fathers would have thought universalism important enough to include in the five points, they would have. Obviously, universal salvation, despite what the consensus held, is starkly absent from the list.

I've stated in truth and continue to state that my universalism does not deny any of the five points of fundamentalism, and that because I am in agreement with these I consider myself a fundamentalist in this sense of the term. Intellectual honesty demands only concession of this point, yet you've stubbornly avoided this, using repeated irrelevant arguments.
My concern is that the five points are not an adequate summary of what the fundamentalists believed. I believe that if you would converse with whoever it was who extrapolated the five points out of the 90 essays, and you asked him/them, "I am a universalist who endorses these five points. Should I consider myself part of your movement?" you would have been emphatically (but hopefully pastorally) counseled that you had no part in them, that the five points must be interpreted as a summary statement of the 90 essays, and that the omission of eternal torment from the five points was not a "stark absence" pregnant with meaning, but rather a point so obvious that it didn't get a separate heading.

[Bernie]

In this post I said that universalism did not violate the five points.
I stand corrected and apologize for the oversight. Very sloppy on my part to have missed this.

I myself cannot claim to be a fully-fledged fundamentalist, because premillenial eschatology featured heavily in that movement, and I am amillenial. I do find wide agreement with fundamentalism on other topics, however. So if asked, I would say, "I adhere to the tenets of fundamentalism, except its premillenialism." A similar statement from you might look like, "I adhere to the tenets of fundamentalism, except they believed in universal torment, and I am a universalist."
You must be a closet legal positivist, which is odd for a proclaimed conservative, in that you've now taken this argument of yours--

"...the fundamentalists were staunch exclusivists as well, so it would be misleading to identify yourself, a universalist, as a fundamentalist."

...which as I noted long ago is essentially irrelevant-- to new heights of extremism by denying even yourself the right to be called a fundamentalist because you reject premillennialism.

Let's cut through the BS; anyone who agrees with the original intent and spirit of fundamentalism--that there was and continues to be a rising tide of progressive thought eroding the fundamentals of the Christian faith--by accepting as essentially true the published fundamentals of the faith, may, by reasonable and common sense standards, call themselves "fundamentalist". You appear so intent on "winning" a debate that you're willing to pin even yourself into the same absurd legalistic definition you wish to impose on me.

Lots of cops don't agree with all the laws they uphold, yet they aren't stripped of the right to be cops for this.

Lots of Catholics don't agree with all Catholic doctrine, yet they aren't forced out of Catholicism for it. Ditto Protestants and Protestantism.

Lots of Christians don't agree with every single point in every single article written by every single writer on the subject of fundamentalism, yet until you came along in this thread, I've never heard those who hold the core beliefs of fundamentalism being denied the right to think themselves fundamentalists in some legitimate sense.

Here, the spotlight turns its questioning glare on RBerman....

My concern is that the five points are not an adequate summary of what the fundamentalists believed. I believe that if you would converse with whoever it was who extrapolated the five points out of the 90 essays, and you asked him/them, "I am a universalist who endorses these five points. Should I consider myself part of your movement?" you would have been emphatically (but hopefully pastorally) counseled that you had no part in them, that the five points must be interpreted as a summary statement of the 90 essays, and that the omission of eternal torment from the five points was not a "stark absence" pregnant with meaning, but rather a point so obvious that it didn't get a separate heading.
If this is really your concern, you might consider seeking pastoral counseling yourself to help overcome this rigid legalism you impose on yourself and others. You might also consider studying the concept of freedom in Christ, and practice extending similar latitude to others who name Christ Lord. I hope this waste of 'cyperink' is now concluded.

[RBerman]

My point, which you continue to somehow miss, is that exclusivism is a core belief of fundamentalism. It's not one of the five points that makes the list to which you keep appealing, but it's a core belief nonetheless, and I have no question that the founders of fundamentalism saw it that way.

As far as premillenialism, it's not "rigid legalism" at work when I acknowledge a point of disagreement between myself and the fundamentalists. Indeed, the Evangelical Free denomination, which holds to "liberty in non-essentials," nonetheless lists premillenialism among the "essentials" required of its clergy. I consider this an error, but I understand the origin of the error, which dates back to the importance of premillenialism to the fundamentalists in their struggle against the modernists. Sometimes premillenialism makes lists of "five fundamentals" and sometimes it doesn't, depending on whom you ask.

[Bernie]

My point, which you continue to somehow miss, is that exclusivism is a core belief of fundamentalism. It's not one of the five points that makes the list to which you keep appealing, but it's a core belief nonetheless, and I have no question that the founders of fundamentalism saw it that way.
You're completely wrong, RB. I have gotten your point all along. I believe the radical exclusivism much of Christianity finds itself in the embrace of today to be a large part of the corrupt arrogance so prevelant in the organized church today. This is why I noted earlier that I see it as an evil. But as to your well worn "point", It's irrelevant to anyone but those who find it somehow fulfilling to pound meaningless points into the dirt ad infinitum. That's okay, though; since no one else is mounting a debate to the point of the op right now, I'm finding our exchange entertaining, even educational.

As far as premillenialism, it's not "rigid legalism" at work when I acknowledge a point of disagreement between myself and the fundamentalists.
I think you missed my point; the theme of your posts is a lesson in legalism. That you find it at all beneficial to continue forcing an inessential subjective opinion as to the legitimacy of my personal use of the term "fundamentalist" as though it holds some great significance in relation to my universalism is, at least, an interesting study in human nature.

Whether you (or I, or anyone else) accepts or rejects premillennialism is an insignificant point in whether or not one stands in agreement with the spirit of the conservative fundamentals of the faith. The entire assault you've mounted here is a lesson in the delicate art of building minutia into scenic bluffs, if not foothills.

Indeed, the Evangelical Free denomination, which holds to "liberty in non-essentials," nonetheless lists premillenialism among the "essentials" required of its clergy.
I find this interesting, as my family and I attended an E-Free church for some years immediately prior to my conversion to the truth of Christian universalism, some 15 years ago. I knew most members were premillennial, as was I at the time, but didn't know this was required of clergy.

Are you E-Free? I had pretty much come to the conclusion you're most likely a Calvinist based on your overall approach to this discussion.

Have to admit, I'm greatly amused by your perseverance. Are you an attorney by chance?

[RBerman]

I am not an attorney, but I am reminded of a quip by Benjamin Franklin that most people hate to argue, "excepting attorneys and Presbyterians." I am indeed a Presbyterian.

"Legalism" is a canard which might be directed at those who act differently than you do, an attempt to paint their behavior as an attempt to earn salvation. Not only does it not fit Presbyterians (who are notorious for their emphasis on grace over works in salvation), but our debate is not about actions anyway, so I can only conclude that your accusation of "legalism" against me is simply a kitchen-sink assault, mustering all the pejorative theological terms you've stockpiled, regardless of their applicability.

Similarly, "arrogance" is an assessment of why I might believe what I believe, whereas I'm more interested in talking about what you believe and how it fits (or doesn't) into the mileu of evangelicalism and fundamentalism. To call exclusivism "radical" is simply a value judgment that you believe exclusivism is wrong. Even if exclusivism were not the historic doctrine of the church (and thus not worthy of being called "radical" except in comparison to the beliefs of the world), the fact remains that the fundamentalists were committed exclusivists, which is why I'm puzzled at the vehemence with which you wish to be associated with them.

You do not "stands in agreement with the spirit of the conservative fundamentals of the faith" because for the fundamentalists, exclusivism was not minutia, not a "foothill of the faith." The doctrine of Hell was quite important to them. Perhaps your community, like mine, has churches which emblazon their signage with words like "KJV only" and "fundamental." I suggest you ask some of them how they feel about universalism, since it's obvious that my opinion carries no currency with you.

[Bernie]

"Legalism" is a canard which might be directed at those who act differently than you do, an attempt to paint their behavior as an attempt to earn salvation.
Yes, it might. But in this case I intended nothing about your earning salvation, only about a generally legalistic building up of an irrelevant point, much as the legalistic Pharisees of Jesus' day did with the Law given them. If the universal defect legalism is projected in one who practices it to the earning of his or her salvation, that is a concern of Christ's, not mine.

Not only does it not fit Presbyterians (who are notorious for their emphasis on grace over works in salvation), but our debate is not about actions anyway, so I can only conclude that your accusation of "legalism" against me is simply a kitchen-sink assault, mustering all the pejorative theological terms you've stockpiled, regardless of their applicability.
Being "notorious on their emphasis of grace over works" are fine words, but I've heard them before and they rarely mean much. The Lord led me some years ago very powerfully during my "training" to a very small Calvinist denomination, which I stuck with for two years. In this time, He used the Arminian teachings I grew up in and the sovereign grace doctrines to impress on me a metaphor of these two from Scripture, that of the warring sisters, Judah and Israel in Ezek 37. What followed over that three years was a theme the Lord then often used with me, the joining of metaphorical Israel (Arminianism) and Judah (Calvinism) into one stick of doctrinal agreement (the salvation of all), both of whom refuse to give up their soteriological dogma in similar manner to the fallenness of their metaphorical counterparts. Indeed, eternal tormentists have shown almost no interest in scrutinizing their dogma using legitimate truth tests.

The Calvinist church I was sent to disfellowshipped me for telling them the truth....thus the Lord showed me, again in metaphor but this time using my own history, why all men reject Him: we hate truth. He allowed me to be "crucified" for the same reason He was, for stinging the "horrible thing" deep in the hearts of men. The Calvinists I joined with also decreed fiercely that they were believers in grace, not works. This is, in virtually all Calvinists I've met or conversed with, a deception of the heart. Legalism is very definitely alive and well in all facets of Christianity because we all hate the truth equally (Jn 3:19). BTW, to date, over the 10 years I've presented my views of universalism, not one eternal tormentist has come close to refuting it. Few take the time to actually understand it. Would you like to give it a shot, RB?

No kitchen sink assault mounted here, only painting what I see, and methinks the nature of your posts bear me out quite accurately.

[RBerman]

Bernie, I don't think we have the same definition of Legalism, just as we don't have the same definition of Fundamentalism. I'm not surprised that the Calvinists disfellowshiped you for your persistence in heresy. I pray that one day the Lord will allow you to see their action for the loving concern that it (hopefully) was.

As far as your desire to be engaged on the content of your universalism, I'll refer you to posts 21-25 in this very thread, where you expressed your underlying prejudice against open discussion quite eloquently.

[Bernie]

Bernie, I don't think we have the same definition of Legalism
I think you're right. I'm using the term in a more generic sense; "strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit."...
...and you seem to be imposing a theological sense..."a. the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works.
b. the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws."

I'm not surprised that the Calvinists disfellowshiped you for your persistence in heresy.
Of course you're not. Your apprehension of what transpired consists in a single sentence or two provided by me in this thread. I was there, I now know, at least in part, why I was placed there and why events transpired as they did. You're likely under the impression I was rejected for universalism. This is not correct; at this point I had not yet made the connections I was experiencing to the conclusion that Christ will save all, which slowly unfolded over the next couple years or so.

I pray that one day the Lord will allow you to see their action for the loving concern that it (hopefully) was.
Thanks for your concern, but I was made quite aware of why events went as they did within a week or so afterward.

As far as your desire to be engaged on the content of your universalism, I'll refer you to posts 21-25 in this very thread, where you expressed your underlying prejudice against open discussion quite eloquently.
Comments like this are astonishing to me RB, especially in light of the fact that anyone reading here who embraces intellectual honesty can also do back to posts 21-25! Upon reading, they'll find that you made what I consider to be a weak argument, speaking of those found in Revelation in the lake of fire:

Objects at rest tend to remain at rest. The ending of Revelation in general has quite an air of finality about it. It's reasonable to expect those in the Lake of Fire to remain there, if that's the last place we see them. Otherwise, why expect those in the New Jerusalem to stay there, just because that's the last place we see them?

What kind of interpretive gymnastics do you use to arrive at the conclusion that those found in the lake of fire remain because "objects at rest remain at rest"? This is getting to be about what I expect from you ETers. Also, it doesn't follow that because we see the eternality of blessing of those in the new Jerusalem that we must also impose eternality on those in the lake of fire. This argument seems designed for the more popular Christian universalism found today based on an interpretation of words pertaining to the "eternal". My universalism is quite different from this and doesn't use these arguments.

I followed your comment with a sincere attempt in post #22 to establish a few of the foundational tenets of my universalism, hoping to engage in an honest debate, to which your only response was, "The Bible is only right when it agrees with what you believe already. What's the point in discussing the matter any further?". Wow. Good comeback. I have to ask you again, how can you not be embarrassed by your responses in these exchanges? Let’s go a step beyond the posts 21-24 and look at your response in #25:

I'm sure your lengthy post seemed quite rational to you. I didn't engage your arguments at all, I admit. I won't even try, when you've admitted that your gut feelings would never cause you to accept any reasoned exposition of the Bible which concludes that some people will endure eternal punishment for their sins.
As I stated earlier in this thread, apparently from a failure on your part to adequately address the points I made, you completely ignored the real meat of my arguments—which at least you had the honesty to admit—and focussed on a single, offhand comment at the end of my post. This is not honest debate, it's a smoke-n-mirrors tactic designed to escape what you could not answer by switching to the offensive. This is incredible to me in light of your charge that , “you expressed your underlying prejudice against open discussion quite eloquently.” Sheesh.

You and the others who stand against God’s plan to save all humanity are remarkably superficial in your steadfast sidestepping of honest, forward-moving discussion. Are there any intellectually honest ETers out there willing to engage in honest debate?

[RBerman]

The reason I didn't engage your arguments is that they were followed by what Sparko rightly called an "appeal to outrage." If you really believe that God would have to be insane to act as the church has always held God acts, then your bias is so strong that reasoned argumentation is very unlikely to bear fruit. If you'd like to retract that statement as a moment of hyperbolic passion not truly representing your frame of mind, then I'm willing to dive back into your argument in posts 21-25.

[Bernie]

No, I won't retract my statement. It is illogical for a God of love to torture a human being for all eternity. To accept God acting this way as righteousness (as I did for many years) or from some sense of justice, when in fact such an act defies the perfection of justice, as I've noted a number of times with no attempt at refutation. The notion that only an insane God would torture humans for eternity leaves in imperfect, insane God in control of His creation. I mean what I say, this is not hyperbole, metaphor or exageration.

You and sparko can invent pseudo arguments all the day long if you wish. They are meaningless in light of your inability to debate the theology behind the statement.

Now, have you got what it takes to dance, RB? If so, where would you like to start?

[RBerman]

Now, have you got what it takes to dance, RB?
A gauntlet thrown! I can almost hear you licking your chops. I can't help but think in the scene in Back to the Future II where Biff calls Marty "chicken" if he refuses to fight. But I'll stand by what I said in posts 21-25. If you really believe that the only possible explanation for the orthodox view of Hell would be that God is insane, then your bias against the truth is so thoroughly ingrained that we're past the point of argumentation before we even begin. So I'll pass. Your turn, Biff.

[Bernie]

If you'd like to retract that statement as a moment of hyperbolic passion not truly representing your frame of mind, then I'm willing to dive back into your argument in posts 21-25.
RB, you are incredibly predictable. I wish I were a betting man. I recognized instantly that your challenge was a contrivance. You knew full well I would not agree to your ridiculous retraction and you would thus not have to debate anything.

How convenient.

I'll stand by what I said in posts 21-25. If you really believe that the only possible explanation for the orthodox view of Hell would be that God is insane, then your bias against the truth is so thoroughly ingrained that we're past the point of argumentation before we even begin. So I'll pass. Your turn, Biff.
Had you simply asked me why I stated that the God who would eternally torment a living soul would be insane instead of erroneously imposing your own rationalization on my statement, I would have gladly told you that after being brought to an understanding of God's intention to save all, the pure logic of this act--the only soteriological stance within Christianity which grants to God the perfection of His character--itself reveals the notion of the torture-God to be an insanity born of the minds of corrupt human reasoning.

Do you get it? You assume I thought God mad a priori , that I sought to build a doctrine to prove this. Rather, I was first shown the doctrine of the salvation of all and found upon learning it that the perfection of God is made complete in it. It follows naturally from this that the eternal torment God painted by orthodox Christianity is of necessity insane and imperfect.

But hey, if you are not adequate to tackle me and refute my heresey head on, don't feel bad. Neither, apparently, is any other eternal tormentist here. My offer still stands, though. I'll make it easy for you...am planning on issuing a new challenge in a new thread in unorthodox theology soon. (Don't get me wrong, am enjoying our conversation, but it's not producing much fruit, you know.....) In this challenge I'll begin by listing the foundational tenets of my universalism. Lay it out for any eternal tormentist to come after with his or her spiritual "meat cleaver". That's what most folks who post to theology boards want, something to tear apart, somethin' to gnaw with their teeth. Something to feed on. Maybe you could team up with five or six other ETers so as to make a go at it, RB?

[RBerman]

I said nothing about the order in which you came to your beliefs, only that your current state of mind is not open to reasoned discussion. As for the "meat cleaver" aspect, I think it's pretty clear, to anyone who may be reading this thread, which of us is itching for a fight.

[shunyadragon]

RB, you are incredibly predictable. I wish I were a betting man. I recognized instantly that your challenge was a contrivance. You knew full well I would not agree to your ridiculous retraction and you would thus not have to debate anything.

How convenient.


Had you simply asked me why I stated that the God who would eternally torment a living soul would be insane instead of erroneously imposing your own rationalization on my statement, I would have gladly told you that after being brought to an understanding of God's intention to save all, the pure logic of this act--the only soteriological stance within Christianity which grants to God the perfection of His character--itself reveals the notion of the torture-God to be an insanity born of the minds of corrupt human reasoning.

Do you get it? You assume I thought God mad a priori , that I sought to build a doctrine to prove this. Rather, I was first shown the doctrine of the salvation of all and found upon learning it that the perfection of God is made complete in it. It follows naturally from this that the eternal torment God painted by orthodox Christianity is of necessity insane and imperfect.

But hey, if you are not adequate to tackle me and refute my heresey head on, don't feel bad. Neither, apparently, is any other eternal tormentist here. My offer still stands, though. I'll make it easy for you...am planning on issuing a new challenge in a new thread in unorthodox theology soon. (Don't get me wrong, am enjoying our conversation, but it's not producing much fruit, you know.....) In this challenge I'll begin by listing the foundational tenets of my universalism. Lay it out for any eternal tormentist to come after with his or her spiritual "meat cleaver". That's what most folks who post to theology boards want, something to tear apart, somethin' to gnaw with their teeth. Something to feed on. Maybe you could team up with five or six other ETers so as to make a go at it, RB?

The problem is this view is nice, but it does not fit the Biblical God. The eternal torment God of orthodox Christianity come from the Bible.

[Bernie]

The problem is this view is nice, but it does not fit the Biblical God. The eternal torment God of orthodox Christianity come from the Bible.
I disagree; the eternal torment God is a carnal-based interpretation of the Biblical texts. God hides Himself from us, not only in material and spiritual reality, but in His word. We search for Him only (Psa 14:2-3) superficially, but this is normal. Who wants to fling himself willingly into a roaring furnace? Look to the burning bush; He's hidden just there, in the flames....and this flame holds both wrath and cleansing forgiveness, depending on from who's doorstep we're viewing it.

[Bernie]

your current state of mind is not open to reasoned discussion.
Right. This is why neither you nor any other eternal tormentist has provided an intelligent response to any of my posts here...because my mind is not open to reasoned discussion.

I think it's pretty clear, to anyone who may be reading this thread, which of us is itching for a fight.
You're on the right track here, RB....but it's not really a fight I'm lookin for. I'm trying to find carefully reasoned, well thought-out, honorable debate with an Eternal Tormentist. True, I often goad, but it's only to see if I can get somebody to the dance. I'm much too old and good looking to fight these days.

[RBerman]

Right. This is why neither you nor any other eternal tormentist has provided an intelligent response to any of my posts here...because my mind is not open to reasoned discussion.
That sums it up nicely.

I'm much too old and good looking to fight these days.
Well, at least you made me smile once. This exchange hasn't been a total loss!

[shunyadragon]

I disagree; the eternal torment God is a carnal-based interpretation of the Biblical texts. God hides Himself from us, not only in material and spiritual reality, but in His word. We search for Him only (Psa 14:2-3) superficially, but this is normal. Who wants to fling himself willingly into a roaring furnace? Look to the burning bush; He's hidden just there, in the flames....and this flame holds both wrath and cleansing forgiveness, depending on from who's doorstep we're viewing it.

IT is based on the Bible. Check out the Book of Revelation.

[IncRus]

You can make salvation as complicated any way you want, but the truth is, anyone who does NOT believe Jesus does NOT have life but the wrath of God abides in him (John 3:36).
It says "the indignation of God is remaining on him" but you infer "the indignation of God is remaining on him forever and ever".

Jn 21:22 Jesus is saying to him, "If I should be wanting him to be remaining till I am coming, what is it to you? You be following Me!"

Remaining does not mean remaining forever and ever.
Of course, "remaining" does not mean "remaining forever and ever" IF the condition is met. For example, anyone who does NOT believe Jesus shall not have life but "will REMAIN under God's punishment" (John 3:36 TEV).....FOREVER, if he dies without believing Jesus or until the day he believes Jesus before he dies.

Note that one who dies unbelieving will not have another chance to believe before judgment day.

[EphremHagos]

I disagree; the eternal torment God is a carnal-based interpretation of the Biblical texts. God hides Himself from us, not only in material and spiritual reality, but in His word. We search for Him only (Psa 14:2-3) superficially, but this is normal. Who wants to fling himself willingly into a roaring furnace? Look to the burning bush; He's hidden just there, in the flames....and this flame holds both wrath and cleansing forgiveness, depending on from who's doorstep we're viewing it.

I beg to differ, in the strongest possible terms, about your view of God being hidden the burning bush when in, in fact, "the flame coming from the middle of a bush on fire but not burning up" is a vision of God's self-revelation to one man (Moses) as self-sufficient fire (Ex. 3: 1-15). The initial vision included a promise of a greater vision for future generations confirmed in the terms of the "new covenant" (Jer. 31: 31-34) and finally sealed at the death of Jesus Christ on the cross as self-sufficient "source of life" (John 8: 21-28; 14: 15-21; 19: 30-37).

Since "all are to know the LORD from the least to the greatest" (Jer.) on the visions of self-sufficiency of fire and life, it is a serious error to say that God is hiding himself in the flames and, by implication, on the cross of Jesus Christ!

[Bernie]

Hi EH,

I beg to differ, in the strongest possible terms, about your view of God being hidden the burning bush....Since "all are to know the LORD from the least to the greatest" (Jer.) on the visions of self-sufficiency of fire and life, it is a serious error to say that God is hiding himself in the flames and, by implication, on the cross of Jesus Christ!
God is hidden from man for good reason. In this life, the human spirit is to a large degree kindling and God's essence is simultaneously a roaring furnace/sword/plague/hail. This is the natural tension and resistance between righteousness (truth) and unrighteousness (falsity).

But all do not currently "know the LORD from least to greatest" nor have all ever thus known Him in any age. This knowing is yet future, when all falsity is removed and everything is again "very good" (restored to a true state) as in the garden.

We'll have to disagree on this one, EH. I thank God that He hides Himself from me. He drew me near to Him slowly once over a three year period and I was scorched and ripped to shreds. Don't want Him close to me like that again till the time of purification is through. There's a healthy reason we're to fear the Lord in time and space.

[EphremHagos]

Hi EH,


God is hidden from man for good reason. In this life, the human spirit is to a large degree kindling and God's essence is simultaneously a roaring furnace/sword/plague/hail. This is the natural tension and resistance between righteousness (truth) and unrighteousness (falsity).

But all do not currently "know the LORD from least to greatest" nor have all ever thus known Him in any age. This knowing is yet future, when all falsity is removed and everything is again "very good" (restored to a true state) as in the garden.

We'll have to disagree on this one, EH. I thank God that He hides Himself from me. He drew me near to Him slowly once over a three year period and I was scorched and ripped to shreds. Don't want Him close to me like that again till the time of purification is through. There's a healthy reason we're to fear the Lord in time and space.

I believe that "knowing the LORD from the least to the greatest" is the potential or possibility. Their actual number is however severely limited by the qualification of the few who find eternal life on the hard way and narrow gate of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross (Matt. 7: 14-15).

[shunyadragon]

I believe that "knowing the LORD from the least to the greatest" is the potential or possibility. Their actual number is however severely limited by the qualification of the few who find eternal life on the hard way and narrow gate of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross (Matt. 7: 14-15).


I believe such a criteria is problematic that the standards or qualification for salvation would be reserved for a select few. It sounds like a contradiction that God being the creator would set the bar so high only a few can make it and the rest would suffer for an eternity. But. nonetheless if you consider an ancient work like the Bible reflecting an ancient world view as the only standard than your view fits.

[barnasha]

Nobody in the realm of God's creation can dictate the standard which is set by the unknowable and most high.

[peteresther]

Sorry to bring this thread up again, but please can anyone here tell me what the accepted meaning of 1 Timothy 4:10.."Jesus Christ saviour of all men especially those who believe."?

Kind regards, Esther:)

[caspian]

Since this is a "universalist" thread, I though I'd give you one of the many possible "universalist" views:

A dispensational "universalist" (like myself) would say that those who believe now have a special salvation. Salvation is a common noun referring to a number of different possible ideas. Those who do not believe in this life do not have the gift of life in the oncoming ages. They will undergo distress and afflication at the great white throne in the future age; believers do not undergo this. This is one sense in which believers have a special salvation. Another important sense is that while the rest of mankind--unbelievers--will be "saved" from death when they are made alive at the consummation of the ages, when death is finally abolished, believers are saved from death when Christ appears--at the "former resurrection" for the bride of Christ and at the so-called rapture for the body of Christ, which will most probably (in my opinion) be long, long before the rest of mankind, who will be in unconscious oblivion (death).

[EphremHagos]

Sorry to bring this thread up again, but please can anyone here tell me what the accepted meaning of 1 Timothy 4:10.."Jesus Christ saviour of all men especially those who believe."?

Kind regards, Esther:)

Good of you to bring this thread up again! It will certainly serve to clear the air.

The meaning of 1 Tim. 4:10 (similar to John 3:16) is based on the scope of salvation defined both in terms of the potential and the actual populations and the immense difference between the two. Some examples are: the radical differences between the easy or hard “road” and the wide or narrow “gate” leading to “hell” or to “life”, respectively (Matt. 7: 13-14); and the twice repeated warning: “Many are called but few are chosen” (Matt. 20:16; 22:14).

Specifically, the universality of salvation is assured through the unexplained and unacknowledged prevalence (even by Christianity) of the “Tree of life” (or the Cross of Christ) in many of the cultures of the world. God surely works in mysterious ways!

[Adze]

The real Jesus religion was universal salvation.
There is another Gospel out there which is not the same as Jesus's.

I do not hold that salvation (to me personally) is about getting to heaven, it is about a way of knowing Gd or having life (as defined by Jesus in John commentary Chapt. 17), this does not exempt people (be them many Christians , Jews , Muslims, Hindus etc.) from knowing Gd when they get to day of perfect (physical death).

Even many Christains don't like the Jesus Gosple (Gd love and forgives you), and they take offense, because they are still under a belief system that Gd needs to be fed blood, fruits, special grains, virgins, infants etc.
These have to wait to know (have life) Gd.

[Adze]

Good of you to bring this thread up again! It will certainly serve to clear the air.

The meaning of 1 Tim. 4:10 (similar to John 3:16) is based on the scope of salvation defined both in terms of the potential and the actual populations and the immense difference between the two. Some examples are: the radical differences between the easy or hard “road” and the wide or narrow “gate” leading to “hell” or to “life”, respectively (Matt. 7: 13-14); and the twice repeated warning: “Many are called but few are chosen” (Matt. 20:16; 22:14).

Specifically, the universality of salvation is assured through the unexplained and unacknowledged prevalence (even by Christianity) of the “Tree of life” (or the Cross of Christ) in many of the cultures of the world. God surely works in mysterious ways!

I see this as the difference between those who have life now (Know Gd as defined by Jesus in John commentary 17), and those who have to get to heaven to know Gd.

Those who are "believers" are those spoken of in Jesus's Gospel in Matthew's commentary 11;

the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the forgiveness of sins / good news proclaimed to them.
And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me."

[Adze]

If you want to offend a person just tell him that his sins are forgiven, no strings attached.

They will make claim that you think you are Gd.
That only Gd can forgive sins, and who are you to relay this assurance?
They will tell you you have to believe in some doctrine of magical properties in blood (human or animal), or some other work to appease the angry deity.

[Bernie]

believe that "knowing the LORD from the least to the greatest" is the potential or possibility. Their actual number is however severely limited by the qualification of the few who find eternal life on the hard way and narrow gate of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross (Matt. 7: 14-15).
This is commonly thought to represent individuals, but look deeper....it's one of the dozens of uses of metaphor representing how salvation of all is accomplished. On a deeper level, it represents fragmentally every individual. There's a remnant saved...few find the narrow path....many tares are gathered up and burned....sheep are separated from the goats. Only a few were saved out of Sodom. Listen to what Jesus is saying beyond the milk the organized church bathes in.

[Adze]

Jesus and his followers believed that a person could "taste" of the age to come; day of perfection / be as if physically dead and freed from transgression and the law or alive in the cosmic type spirit (Paul mentions this in his commentary in Rom. 6).
Many Christians confuse this "day of perfect" (when we physically die) with being saved (Life eternal = knowing Gd).
They think it is about getting into heaven.
So to them getting saved is escaping the firey expectation after physical death; when it is really about escaping the expectation of it (see commentary in Heb. 10:27).

Primarily, because of their guilt associated with intentional transgression which they have committed, in which their never was or is a sacrifice to cover such things (See Num. 15:27-31 and reference made known in in commentary in Heb. 10:26).

They assume everyone else is the same as they are (into guilt and guilt transfer upon others). So they constantly need to appease or feed Gd in some fashion just like their fathers had too.

[Adze]

Can you see it?

Knowledge of truth = Jesus good news that Gd loves and forgives you, you never ever really had to feed or appease him like some pagan deity.

If you intentionally or wilfully transgress after the knowledge of truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin, and you will go back into the slavery of a firey wrath expectation of Gd thought process (destroys life).

[peteresther]

Thank you for the responses...I have been entertaining the concept of UR, (universal reconcilliation) and what I have discovered is that I think the Bible has good support for UR, ET (Eternal torture) and annihilation.

I have left this up to finding out finally one day, but at least I have a hope which I never had, when I believed there was only biblical support for eternal torture!

I went to a site called Tentmaker to find out about UR, and I must say, following Bernie's debate here, and interacting and seeing the posts at Tentmaker forum, these are really "nice" Christians, for lack of a better way of putting it. If we are to judge by the fruits of some Christians, I see only good fruit from UR's!

Esther:)

[Adze]

Thank you for the responses...I have been entertaining the concept of UR, (universal reconcilliation) and what I have discovered is that I think the Bible has good support for UR, ET (Eternal torture) and annihilation.

I have left this up to finding out finally one day, but at least I have a hope which I never had, when I believed there was only biblical support for eternal torture!

I went to a site called Tentmaker to find out about UR, and I must say, following Bernie's debate here, and interacting and seeing the posts at Tentmaker forum, these are really "nice" Christians, for lack of a better way of putting it. If we are to judge by the fruits of some Christians, I see only good fruit from UR's!

Esther:)

Yes they are...top knotch.
I have been there before.

I would never let any Christian lead you into disbelief in Gd of Jesus or the actual Gospel that Jesus spoke (not the other one).

[EphremHagos]

Can you see it?

Knowledge of truth = Jesus good news that Gd loves and forgives you, you never ever really had to feed or appease him like some pagan deity.

If you intentionally or wilfully transgress after the knowledge of truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin, and you will go back into the slavery of a firey wrath expectation of Gd thought process (destroys life).

Sorry, not Scriptural at all!

The gospel is much more than God's love and forgiveness. In fact, the "good news" is nothing less than the promised, vision-based, firsthand and personal knowledge of the self-revelation of God in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross with all of its benefits (John 1: 47-51; 14: 15-21; 19: 30-37). This is the "truth", knowledge of which makes one "free" to worship God, as he is, i.e., in the Spirit and freedom; and not as conceived by man's divergent religions (John 4: 21-26).

If we sin thereafter (as we are likely to), "streams of life-giving water pouring out from our heart" will keep cleansing us indefinitely. Therefore, "the slavery of a firey wrath ..." is reserved only for those who die stubbornly in their sins of refusal to know Jesus Christ as he is, i.e.,self-sufficient life and more to spare (John 8: 21-28; 11: 25-26)

[Adze]

Sorry, not Scriptural at all!

The gospel is much more than God's love and forgiveness. In fact, the "good news" is nothing less than the promised, vision-based, firsthand and personal knowledge of the self-revelation of God in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross with all of its benefits (John 1: 47-51; 14: 15-21; 19: 30-37). This is the "truth", knowledge of which makes one "free" to worship God, as he is, i.e., in the Spirit and freedom; and not as conceived by man's divergent religions (John 4: 21-26).

If we sin thereafter (as we are likely to), "streams of life-giving water pouring out from our heart" will keep cleansing us indefinitely. Therefore, "the slavery of a firey wrath ..." is reserved only for those who die stubbornly in their sins of refusal to know Jesus Christ as he is, i.e.,self-sufficient life and more to spare (John 8: 21-28; 11: 25-26)

I am talkling about the Jesus Gospel that Jesus preached in commentary in Matt. 11;

the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the forgiveness of sins / good news proclaimed to them.
And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me."

Thats why I said, that I don't let anything a Christian says deter my faith in Gd and his love and forgiveness towards me and his creation.
Alot of them don't believe.

There never ever was (and still isn't) a sacrifice which removes or atones for guilt from sins of intentional knowledge (see Numbers 15:27-31, and commentary in Heb. 10:26).
Sacrifices were really meant to atone for sins of ignorance (those which became known) for those who never believed that Gd really forgave them (Gospel) unless the appeased or fed him.

Another way to look at it. To the nations of unbelievers;

Now having just come to this knowledge of truth (Jesus Gosple, Gd loves and forgives you) , and if you wilfully sin after this truth, the Jesus sacrifice isn't gonna work for you. Your conscience will still bear witness to your sin.

[EphremHagos]

I am talkling about the Jesus Gospel that Jesus preached in commentary in Matt. 11;

the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the forgiveness of sins / good news proclaimed to them.
And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me."

Thats why I said, that I don't let anything a Christian says deter my faith in Gd and his love and forgiveness towards me and his creation.
Alot of them don't believe.

There never ever was (and still isn't) a sacrifice which removes or atones for guilt from sins of intentional knowledge (see Numbers 15:27-31, and commentary in Heb. 10:26).
Sacrifices were really meant to atone for sins of ignorance (those which became known) for those who never believed that Gd really forgave them (Gospel) unless the appeased or fed him.

Another way to look at it. To the nations of unbelievers;

Now having just come to this knowledge of truth (Jesus Gosple, Gd loves and forgives you) , and if you wilfully sin after this truth, the Jesus sacrifice isn't gonna work for you. Your conscience will still bear witness to your sin.

Here is my personal understanding open for discussion!

Knowledge of the truth, based on firsthand and personal experience of the deeply mysterious, exceedingly powerful and life-transforming LIVE vision of the self-revelation of God at the death of Jesus Christ on the cross complete with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, strictly "according to the Scriptures", is exactly like "Anyone who has had a bath and is completely clean and does not have to wash himself, except for his feet" (John 13:10)

In other words, there is no greater "HOME RUN" --a gift that allows any sinner to make a circuit of all bases in life and secure a run and a cause of great happiness (Ps. 32: 1-2 quoted in Rom. 4: 7-8).

[Adze]

I simply believe in the Gospel of Jesus, that Gd has forgiven me, because he loves me....no strings attached (thats the truth and I am stickin too it).
Gd can do this because he is TRUE Gd....he doesn't need special animals or humans, or magical blood to forgive.

What happens is that have tendancies to reject this, because they still believe some work needs to be done by them or for them until their idea of a deity can be appeased (guilt).

Thats why Jesus and his followers were so rejected. The Gd appeasers / feeders (comes from the nations integrated into Israel) did not believe that Gd would just simply forgive their sin (because he is Gd and he can do this), because they thought this violated Gds justice..

Jesus asked if his "cup" could be passed, because he knew the rejection would cause him to die.
In other words, Jesus did not die because Gd needed the sacrifice, as the nations believed. He sacrificed himself because THEY DID NOT BELIEVE HIM (Gd loves and forgives them...no strings attached).

People have tendancies to think that Gd planned a human sacrifice so that his death is justified. Thats not correct IMO.
Jesus dies not for sins....but because of sin ( still holding to sacrifices of blood etc. for guilt removal)

Died for my sins (this is an excuse, as fi people are really justified in bringing a sacrifice) vs. died because of my sin (no excuse, he never really had to die).

[EphremHagos]

I simply believe in the Gospel of Jesus, that Gd has forgiven me, because he loves me....no strings attached (thats the truth and I am stickin too it).
Gd can do this because he is TRUE Gd....he doesn't need special animals or humans, or magical blood to forgive.

What happens is that have tendancies to reject this, because they still believe some work needs to be done by them or for them until their idea of a deity can be appeased (guilt).

Thats why Jesus and his followers were so rejected. The Gd appeasers / feeders (comes from the nations integrated into Israel) did not believe that Gd would just simply forgive their sin (because he is Gd and he can do this), because they thought this violated Gds justice..

Jesus asked if his "cup" could be passed, because he knew the rejection would cause him to die.
In other words, Jesus did not die because Gd needed the sacrifice, as the nations believed. He sacrificed himself because THEY DID NOT BELIEVE HIM (Gd loves and forgives them...no strings attached).

People have tendancies to think that Gd planned a human sacrifice so that his death is justified. Thats not correct IMO.
Jesus dies not for sins....but because of sin ( still holding to sacrifices of blood etc. for guilt removal)

Died for my sins (this is an excuse, as fi people are really justified in bringing a sacrifice) vs. died because of my sin (no excuse, he never really had to die).

There is only one valid and reliable source of information for knowledge of God's or Jesus' love to the world and faith thereof.

According to Jesus Christ, hearsay evidence ("the Bible tells me so") is questionable (John 1:50). The essence of the Good News is "seeing" Jesus, firsthand and personally, in a standard vision, first promised in terms of : "heaven opening and God God's angels going up and coming down on the Son of Man" (Ibid 1:51); with reminder of imminence given at Jesus' last hearing as defendant before the Jewish Council: "From this time on you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right of the Almighty and coming on the clouds of heaven!" (Matt. 26:64); and finally accomplished or "finished" at Jesus' death on the cross complete with Holy Spirit baptism by "the Son of the living God" in terms of "water" and "blood" flowing from the pierced side of Jesus (John 19: 30-37; 1 John 5: 6-12).

It is of utmost importance to note that "believing", as an underlying and fundamental "Be-attitude" (Matt. 5: 3-11), is composed of two constituent words, viz.: "be" and "li(e)ving" with a sense of divine aspirations like "the living God". The issue is, therefore, to have or not to have a simple desire to do what God requires (Ibid, verse 6) without any apologetical constructs whatsoever!

ONE CANNOT AT ALL AFFORD TO BE VERY CASUAL ABOUT WHAT ONE BELIEVES.

[OneSizeFit]

I simply believe in the Gospel of Jesus, that Gd has forgiven me, because he loves me....no strings attached (thats the truth and I am stickin too it).
Gd can do this because he is TRUE Gd....he doesn't need special animals or humans, or magical blood to forgive.

What happens is that have tendancies to reject this, because they still believe some work needs to be done by them or for them until their idea of a deity can be appeased (guilt).

Thats why Jesus and his followers were so rejected. The Gd appeasers / feeders (comes from the nations integrated into Israel) did not believe that Gd would just simply forgive their sin (because he is Gd and he can do this), because they thought this violated Gds justice..

Jesus asked if his "cup" could be passed, because he knew the rejection would cause him to die.
In other words, Jesus did not die because Gd needed the sacrifice, as the nations believed. He sacrificed himself because THEY DID NOT BELIEVE HIM (Gd loves and forgives them...no strings attached).

People have tendancies to think that Gd planned a human sacrifice so that his death is justified. Thats not correct IMO.
Jesus dies not for sins....but because of sin ( still holding to sacrifices of blood etc. for guilt removal)

Died for my sins (this is an excuse, as fi people are really justified in bringing a sacrifice) vs. died because of my sin (no excuse, he never really had to die).


you got ill theology, i dig it. in lots of way Jesus did die to free our conscious so we can approach the Father without guilt...and when I pray; I say Father forgive me for the following sins, I offer the blood of Jesus as my sacrifice...trip. And I get that bolt of energy, that love that tells me I am forgiven.

[Adze]

You said this;
you got ill theology, i dig it. in lots of way Jesus did die to free our conscious so we can approach the Father without guilt...and when I pray; I say Father forgive me for the following sins, I offer the blood of Jesus as my sacrifice...trip. And I get that bolt of energy, that love that tells me I am forgiven.

Of course it is theological.
In fact Hebrews commentary in Heb. 10;

Otherwise, would not the sacrifices have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, once cleansed, would no longer have had any consciousness of sins

But in those sacrifices there is only a yearly remembrance of sins,

let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience



I don't believe in god or Gd appeasement / feeding, blood etc., neither by man or humans.

Like my brothers so speak;


Isaiah 1

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the LORD; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand(literally from your hand), to trample My courts?

Jer. 7

For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices;

For those who just can't or don't believe Gd forgives them, they can always go back to sacrifice (deity feeding) to get their forgiveness.
Jesus can be this for you if you want.

Not everyone in the world needed or needs a sacrifice to understand Gds forgiveness or be atoned (assured) of it.
Unbelievers need sacrifices (please don't be offended, because it has nothing to do with getting to heaven, just understanding the Gospel of Jesus).

[Adze]

There is only one valid and reliable source of information for knowledge of God's or Jesus' love to the world and faith thereof.

According to Jesus Christ, hearsay evidence ("the Bible tells me so") is questionable (John 1:50). The essence of the Good News is "seeing" Jesus, firsthand and personally, in a standard vision, first promised in terms of : "heaven opening and God God's angels going up and coming down on the Son of Man" (Ibid 1:51); with reminder of imminence given at Jesus' last hearing as defendant before the Jewish Council: "From this time on you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right of the Almighty and coming on the clouds of heaven!" (Matt. 26:64); and finally accomplished or "finished" at Jesus' death on the cross complete with Holy Spirit baptism by "the Son of the living God" in terms of "water" and "blood" flowing from the pierced side of Jesus (John 19: 30-37; 1 John 5: 6-12).

It is of utmost importance to note that "believing", as an underlying and fundamental "Be-attitude" (Matt. 5: 3-11), is composed of two constituent words, viz.: "be" and "li(e)ving" with a sense of divine aspirations like "the living God". The issue is, therefore, to have or not to have a simple desire to do what God requires (Ibid, verse 6) without any apologetical constructs whatsoever!

ONE CANNOT AT ALL AFFORD TO BE VERY CASUAL ABOUT WHAT ONE BELIEVES.

So are you saying you don't believe?
Or am I misunerstanding you?

No one can force another person to believe.

I can just assure them that Gd has forgiven their sins.
Now try not to sin intentionally or you (not you personally, but whoever is not saved) will go back into the guilt mode.

Saving knowledge teaching from Jesus.

[EphremHagos]

So are you saying you don't believe?
Or am I misunerstanding you?

No one can force another person to believe.

I can just assure them that Gd has forgiven their sins.
Now try not to sin intentionally or you (not you personally, but whoever is not saved) will go back into the guilt mode.

Saving knowledge teaching from Jesus.

What I am trying to express, very inadequately, is that the Scriptures have the highest possible (or absolute) standard for "believing" --a word used in its literal meaning of "being immortal", i.e., [be-li(e)ving], by sole virtue of knowing that Jesus Christ (as immortal) lives in the individual (2Cor. 13:5) which was made possible in the well-documented, perfect (diacritical) death of Jesus on the cross (the "tree of life"), viz.: the test of his immortality (John 8: 21-28; 11: 26-27)! This is the GOOD NEWS of Jesus Christ and man's only assurance of salvation and forgiveness of sins!

Therefore, a good place to start is to test and judge oneself to find out whether one is living in real faith or make-belief. Otherwise, "no one can force another person to believe" (Adze).

[RBerman]

I don't believe in god or Gd appeasement / feeding, blood etc., neither by man or humans. Like my brothers so speak;

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the LORD; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand(literally from your hand), to trample My courts?

For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices;

For those who just can't or don't believe Gd forgives them, they can always go back to sacrifice (deity feeding) to get their forgiveness. Jesus can be this for you if you want. Not everyone in the world needed or needs a sacrifice to understand Gds forgiveness or be atoned (assured) of it. Unbelievers need sacrifices (please don't be offended, because it has nothing to do with getting to heaven, just understanding the Gospel of Jesus).
Isaiah 1 is not an announcement that God wants the Israelites to stop offering sacrifices. Rather, he is telling them that their sacrifices are "meaningless" and "detestable" and "evil" (Isaiah 1:13) as long as they keep living wickedly (Isaiah 1:16-20). Indeed, Isaiah's vision of the idyllic future triumph of God is one in which men bring offerings to the temple (Isaiah 66:19-21).

Jeremiah 7 is speaking of the immediate circumstances of the Exodus: God did not give any instructions about burnt offerings at that time. However, the Children of Israel soon stopped at Sinai, where God did give a whole book (Leviticus) full of instructions about sacrifices.

[Adze]

Isaiah 1 is not an announcement that God wants the Israelites to stop offering sacrifices. Rather, he is telling them that their sacrifices are "meaningless" and "detestable" and "evil" (Isaiah 1:13) as long as they keep living wickedly (Isaiah 1:16-20). Indeed, Isaiah's vision of the idyllic future triumph of God is one in which men bring offerings to the temple (Isaiah 66:19-21).

Jeremiah 7 is speaking of the immediate circumstances of the Exodus: God did not give any instructions about burnt offerings at that time. However, the Children of Israel soon stopped at Sinai, where God did give a whole book (Leviticus) full of instructions about sacrifices.

There is some really bad interpretations out there.
The key is "literally from your hand" (not Gds hand).
The Gd whisperer said sacrifice or circumcison was not authorized by Gd.
Gd was trying to break Israel free from the system of sacrifice from the nations, not give them a heavenly system.

There is no sacrifice or circumcision in heaven. It comes from captivity of the nations.


And the Gd whisperer said this;

Ex. 34:7;

keeping mercy unto the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and unto the fourth generation.'


Sacrifices are meaningless to the Jesus Gospel because;

1)Gd is not a god or deity that needs to be fed blood so a person can be forgiven.
2)Israel did not believe the forgiveness (were still held captive).

Its called disbelief.

For this reason Jesus became a sacrifice for the many (they did not believe).

the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the forgiveness of sins / good news proclaimed to them.
And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me."



So the Gd whisperer so spoke.

[Adze]

What I am trying to express, very inadequately, is that the Scriptures have the highest possible (or absolute) standard for "believing" --a word used in its literal meaning of "being immortal", i.e., [be-li(e)ving], by sole virtue of knowing that Jesus Christ (as immortal) lives in the individual (2Cor. 13:5) which was made possible in the well-documented, perfect (diacritical) death of Jesus on the cross (the "tree of life"), viz.: the test of his immortality (John 8: 21-28; 11: 26-27)! This is the GOOD NEWS of Jesus Christ and man's only assurance of salvation and forgiveness of sins!

Therefore, a good place to start is to test and judge oneself to find out whether one is living in real faith or make-belief. Otherwise, "no one can force another person to believe" (Adze).

Okay, I see what you are saying.
Jesus was assurance for those who believed in an afterlife, that there was more than just this present place (a day of perfection).

But what about all those who actually believed Gd had already forgiven them and did not believe in sacrifices or sacrificial concepts of the nations (deity appeasement / feeding blood etc.), like some of the Qumran sects and Mandeanns like John the B?
They were already believers in truth (Gds forgiveness withgout going back to pagan captivity)?

[Adze]

I am more in line with Jesus, Maimonides, Ibn Ezra and Nahmanides the sacrifices are symbols, or to wean Israel away from idolatry and pagan sacrifice.

[shunyadragon]

I am more in line with Jesus, Maimonides, Ibn Ezra and Nahmanides the sacrifices are symbols, or to wean Israel away from idolatry and pagan sacrifice.

This would be comparable to the Baha'i view, but universally all cultures are weaned away from sacrifice practices and idolatry.

[EphremHagos]

Okay, I see what you are saying.
Jesus was assurance for those who believed in an afterlife, that there was more than just this present place (a day of perfection).

But what about all those who actually believed Gd had already forgiven them and did not believe in sacrifices or sacrificial concepts of the nations (deity appeasement / feeding blood etc.), like some of the Qumran sects and Mandeanns like John the B?
They were already believers in truth (Gds forgiveness withgout going back to pagan captivity)?

Admittedly, there were exceptions only of the following two kinds:

1) Those who embraced in advance, either wholeheartedly or imperfectly, Jesus' death on the cross, per se, as the "hard way and narrow gate to life" include: the wife of Zebedee and her two sons (Matt. 20: 20-28; John 19: 25-27); Nicodemus (John 3: 1-21; 19: 30-42); Mary of Bethany who rejoiced in wild anticipation and prepared Jesus' body for burial even before he died (John 12: 1-8); Joseph (Luke 24: 50-56; John 19: 38-42); and

2) Famous detractors like John the Baptist who needed no apology (Matt. 11: 1-15) and Simon Peter whose earlier confession was immediately followed by oppostion to the cross, and three times denial all the way to the end. Simon was not rehabilitated before 40-days rehearsal and the coming of the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1 and 2).

The minimum requirement remains John the Baptist for "he who is least in the Kingdom is greater than John" (Matt. 11:15).

[Adze]

Admittedly, there were exceptions only of the following two kinds:

1) Those who embraced in advance, either wholeheartedly or imperfectly, Jesus' death on the cross, per se, as the "hard way and narrow gate to life" include: the wife of Zebedee and her two sons (Matt. 20: 20-28; John 19: 25-27); Nicodemus (John 3: 1-21; 19: 30-42); Mary of Bethany who rejoiced in wild anticipation and prepared Jesus' body for burial even before he died (John 12: 1-8); Joseph (Luke 24: 50-56; John 19: 38-42); and

2) Famous detractors like John the Baptist who needed no apology (Matt. 11: 1-15) and Simon Peter whose earlier confession was immediately followed by oppostion to the cross, and three times denial all the way to the end. Simon was not rehabilitated before 40-days rehearsal and the coming of the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1 and 2).

The minimum requirement remains John the Baptist for "he who is least in the Kingdom is greater than John" (Matt. 11:15).

Even Christians are confused by their own theology (its hard to get them to believe Gd forgives them).
Where does the Tanach say people have to embrace a Roman / Jesus concept of anything?
It doesn't.
Because the nations came to understand Gd through a man (Gd is evidenced in his creation) , and became their replacement to end pagan sacrifice, does not mean that it is righteous?
This is not to say that some Jews also were not held captive to these pagan concepts (weaning period), but trading pagan sacrifice for another pagan sacrifice doesn't make the sacrifice righteous...and certainly has nothing to do with erning your way to heaven (since this was never the purpose of the law, especially a law of human sacrifice which is not in Holy Word).

I don't think you would see many of them believe or embrace that a human sacrfice was a "literal" replacement of Levitical sacrifice.
Alot of this stuff makes Jesus more mytholocial, as if he is made up, not real. I personally believe he was a real person.

[Adze]

This would be comparable to the Baha'i view, but universally all cultures are weaned away from sacrifice practices and idolatry.



Yes, I have heard that.

All cultures are supposed to be weaned. This was the purpose of Israel. Israel did not always = Judaism.
There were many different people and religions within the Jewish nation.
The Word just says; they will be "admitted to the congregation" (see Deut. 23:8-9).

Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land. The children of the third generation that are born unto them may enter into the assembly of the LORD

The sages changed this understanding of joining Israel, to joining the Jewish religion (covenant) through circumcision, immersion in a ritual bath / mikvah, and bring a sacrifice.
The idea was not to give legitimacy to Gd needing to be fed or appeased through sacrifice so a person could be "at-one-with-Him". This was supposed to be temporary until the nation grew.

Oh my gosh! Another heretical movement!

The evil Baha'i movement!

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I have heard that.

All cultures are supposed to be weaned. This was the purpose of Israel. Israel did not always = Judaism.
There were many different people and religions within the Jewish nation.
The Word just says; they will be "admitted to the congregation" (see Deut. 23:8-9).

Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land. The children of the third generation that are born unto them may enter into the assembly of the LORD

The sages changed this understanding of joining Israel, to joining the Jewish religion (covenant) through circumcision, immersion in a ritual bath / mikvah, and bring a sacrifice.
The idea was not to give legitimacy to Gd needing to be fed or appeased through sacrifice so a person could be "at-one-with-Him". This was supposed to be temporary until the nation grew.

Oh my gosh! Another heretical movement!

The evil Baha'i movement!

Israel has no more unique purpose in the universal scheme of all humanity than any other culture or people of the world. In the east the cultures were progressively weaned away from sacrifice without any contact with the ancient Hebrews. This a part of the natural spiritual evolution of humanity that is universal. Exclusive claims are a product of ancient world views and today only lead to a greater destructive violence, disunity and seperation in humanity.

[Adze]

Israel has no more unique purpose in the universal scheme of all humanity than any other culture or people of the world. In the east the cultures were progressively weaned away from sacrifice without any contact with the ancient Hebrews. This a part of the natural spiritual evolution of humanity that is universal. Exclusive claims are a product of ancient world views and today only lead to a greater destructive violence, disunity and seperation in humanity.

Biblicaly they do.
I believe in ancient Hebrew traders.

[Adze]

And no I don't believe in blood / racial supremacy, as some of the radical racists teach about the Jews creation of a white mans bible.
Its got nothing to do with it.
Don't you think that Jews came from the east?

[EphremHagos]

Even Christians are confused by their own theology (its hard to get them to believe Gd forgives them).
Where does the Tanach say people have to embrace a Roman / Jesus concept of anything?
It doesn't.
Because the nations came to understand Gd through a man (Gd is evidenced in his creation) , and became their replacement to end pagan sacrifice, does not mean that it is righteous?
This is not to say that some Jews also were not held captive to these pagan concepts (weaning period), but trading pagan sacrifice for another pagan sacrifice doesn't make the sacrifice righteous...and certainly has nothing to do with erning your way to heaven (since this was never the purpose of the law, especially a law of human sacrifice which is not in Holy Word).

I don't think you would see many of them believe or embrace that a human sacrfice was a "literal" replacement of Levitical sacrifice.
Alot of this stuff makes Jesus more mytholocial, as if he is made up, not real. I personally believe he was a real person.

I accept conditionally all your reservations at the level of words (claims that they are).

If, on the other hand, we begin to converse at the level of the works of Jesus Christ leading to his death on the cross, including his baptism work in the Holy Spirit, none of anybody's views and words will matter at all! For verification, please see "The Self-Portrait of Jesus Christ" I posted on 22/7/09.

[Adze]

EHag,

You said this;

I accept conditionally all your reservations at the level of words (claims that they are).

Claims?
I am not the one who has made claim the idea of Gd needs sacrifices to be appeased, and especially that Jesus is a literal replacement of an Orthodox Jewish understanding of Tanach atonement sacrifice, in violation of Torah.
My prophets and I just lay waste to it.

But I understand your method and your heart in being kind to me.

[EphremHagos]

EHag,

You said this;

I accept conditionally all your reservations at the level of words (claims that they are).

Claims?
I am not the one who has made claim the idea of Gd needs sacrifices to be appeased, and especially that Jesus is a literal replacement of an Orthodox Jewish understanding of Tanach atonement sacrifice, in violation of Torah.
My prophets and I just lay waste to it.

But I understand your method and your heart in being kind to me.

I appreciate deeply your honesty.

The "level of words" I referred to apply equally to all sides (mine and yours included). Therefore, I look forward to further debate at the "level of works" present in what I called the "Self-portrait of Jesus Christ". Together, we can and will discover much more to give us unity of thought! I do hope you agree. GBY!

[RBerman]

There is some really bad interpretations out there.
The key is "literally from your hand" (not Gds hand).
The Gd whisperer said sacrifice or circumcison was not authorized by Gd.
Gd was trying to break Israel free from the system of sacrifice from the nations, not give them a heavenly system.

That is quite a distortion of the OT's overall teaching about sacrifices.

Sacrifices are meaningless to the Jesus Gospel because;

1)Gd is not a god or deity that needs to be fed blood so a person can be forgiven.
2)Israel did not believe the forgiveness (were still held captive).

Its called disbelief.
"Need" is not the right word. However, God did give Israel a sacrificial system, and God did ordain Christ to die as a sacrifice. The book of Hebrews explains this at great length. Here's a sample excerpt, which gives the flavor of the argument that God intended the OT sacrifices to point to Christ's sacrifice:

In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep." In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

[Adze]

Torah has a much later date of authorship than Exodus.
Israel was already an established agrarian society.

______(fill in the blank), did not ordaine the sacrifice of Jesus.
Because there is a will does not mean the creator ordaines the death.
Sacrifices were / are for those who don't believe in the creators love and forgiveness.
Some people make Jesus an excuse (Gd ordaines his sacrifice therefore his death was justified).
There is no excuse for his sacrifice.

[Adze]

I appreciate deeply your honesty.

The "level of words" I referred to apply equally to all sides (mine and yours included). Therefore, I look forward to further debate at the "level of works" present in what I called the "Self-portrait of Jesus Christ". Together, we can and will discover much more to give us unity of thought! I do hope you agree. GBY!

Bring your arguments forward, and maybe I will play, if I understand.

[RBerman]

Torah has a much later date of authorship than Exodus.
Israel was already an established agrarian society.
That may be, but when the NT looks back at the sacrificial system, it doesn't say, "What a mess!" It says, "That looks just like Jesus."

[Adze]

It depends on what a person believes was the purpose of sacrifice.

Jesus doesn't meet the definition of a Levitical atonement sacrifice.

[OneSizeFit]

That may be, but when the NT looks back at the sacrificial system, it doesn't say, "What a mess!" It says, "That looks just like Jesus."

more like what a hassle. hahaha.

Numbers 15

Laws concerning Offerings


1 Then the Lord told Moses, 2 “Give the following instructions to the people of Israel.
“When you finally settle in the land I am giving you, 3 you will offer special gifts as a pleasing aroma to the Lord. These gifts may take the form of a burnt offering, a sacrifice to fulfill a vow, a voluntary offering, or an offering at any of your annual festivals, and they may be taken from your herds of cattle or your flocks of sheep and goats. 4 When you present these offerings, you must also give the Lord a grain offering of two quarts[a] of choice flour mixed with one quart of olive oil. 5 For each lamb offered as a burnt offering or a special sacrifice, you must also present one quart of wine as a liquid offering.

6 “If the sacrifice is a ram, give a grain offering of four quarts[c] of choice flour mixed with a third of a gallon[d] of olive oil, 7 and give a third of a gallon of wine as a liquid offering. This will be a pleasing aroma to the Lord.

8 “When you present a young bull as a burnt offering or as a sacrifice to fulfill a vow or as a peace offering to the Lord, 9 you must also give a grain offering of six quarts[e] of choice flour mixed with two quarts[f] of olive oil, 10 and give two quarts of wine as a liquid offering. [B]This will be a special gift, a pleasing aroma to the Lord.

11 “Each sacrifice of a bull, ram, lamb, or young goat should be prepared in this way. 12 Follow these instructions with each offering you present. 13 All of you native-born Israelites must follow these instructions when you offer a special gift as a pleasing aroma to the Lord. 14 And if any foreigners visit you or live among you and want to present a special gift as a pleasing aroma to the Lord, they must follow these same procedures. 15 Native-born Israelites and foreigners are equal before the Lord and are subject to the same decrees. This is a permanent law for you, to be observed from generation to generation. 16 The same instructions and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigners living among you.”

[EphremHagos]

I am talkling about the Jesus Gospel that Jesus preached in commentary in Matt. 11;

the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the forgiveness of sins / good news proclaimed to them.
And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me."

Thats why I said, that I don't let anything a Christian says deter my faith in Gd and his love and forgiveness towards me and his creation.
Alot of them don't believe.

There never ever was (and still isn't) a sacrifice which removes or atones for guilt from sins of intentional knowledge (see Numbers 15:27-31, and commentary in Heb. 10:26).
Sacrifices were really meant to atone for sins of ignorance (those which became known) for those who never believed that Gd really forgave them (Gospel) unless the appeased or fed him.

Another way to look at it. To the nations of unbelievers;

Now having just come to this knowledge of truth (Jesus Gosple, Gd loves and forgives you) , and if you wilfully sin after this truth, the Jesus sacrifice isn't gonna work for you. Your conscience will still bear witness to your sin.

I am in perfect agreement with your presentation of a study in the following contrasts:

1) Extent of the benefits of firsthand and persosnal knowledge of Jesus Christ
(Matt. 11: 4-6)
the blind can see
the lame can walk
those who suffer from the dreaded skin-diseases are made clean
the deaf hear
the dead are brought to life
the poor are preached the good news

2) Outright condemnation of those who resist knowledge of Jesus Christ


Self-condemnation to death (Num. 15:31)
Dying in one's sins (John 8:24)

Very good to talk to you. GBY!

[EphremHagos]

I believe such a criteria is problematic that the standards or qualification for salvation would be reserved for a select few. It sounds like a contradiction that God being the creator would set the bar so high only a few can make it and the rest would suffer for an eternity. But. nonetheless if you consider an ancient work like the Bible reflecting an ancient world view as the only standard than your view fits.

... only because firsthand and personal knowledge of the LORD is the "incorruptible seed" that stands the test of time whether ancient or modern. GBY!

[shunyadragon]

... only because firsthand and personal knowledge of the LORD is the "incorruptible seed" that stands the test of time whether ancient or modern. GBY!

Other than the fact that your absurd arrogant claim of first hand and personal knowledge from a fallible human perspective just does not pass muster. Yes, 'the LORD is the "incorruptible seed" that stands the test of time whether ancient or modern.'

[EphremHagos]

Other than the fact that your absurd arrogant claim of first hand and personal knowledge from a fallible human perspective just does not pass muster. Yes, 'the LORD is the "incorruptible seed" that stands the test of time whether ancient or modern.'

Let my claim stand or fall on the "substance and evidence" for universal vision of and salvation by the self-revealing LORD as a very well-documented development in the Scriptures, complete with patterns and promises in a long series of highlights spanning the time from man's creation in the image of God (i.e.,"life-giving breath") (Gen. 2: 7-17); going through the specific terms and seal of the "new covenant" (Jer. 31: 31-34); and climaxing at the perfect and diacritical death of Jesus Christ on the cross exclusively by own will and power and complete with baptism in the Holy Spirit for recreating humanity in his image (John 3: 1-21; Mark 10: 38-39; Matt. 26: 26-29; John 19: 30-37; 1 John 5: 6-7; Rev. 5)!

What an "incorruptible seed", indeed! PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[shunyadragon]

Let my claim stand or fall on the "substance and evidence" for universal vision of and salvation by the self-revealing LORD as a very well-documented development in the Scriptures, complete with patterns and promises in a long series of highlights spanning the time from man's creation in the image of God (i.e.,"life-giving breath") (Gen. 2: 7-17); going through the specific terms and seal of the "new covenant" (Jer. 31: 31-34); and climaxing at the perfect and diacritical death of Jesus Christ on the cross exclusively by own will and power and complete with baptism in the Holy Spirit for recreating humanity in his image (John 3: 1-21; Mark 10: 38-39; Matt. 26: 26-29; John 19: 30-37; 1 John 5: 6-7; Rev. 5)!

What an "incorruptible seed", indeed! PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

. . .but not in your absurd arrogant claim of first hand and personal knowledge from a fallible human perspective.

[EphremHagos]

I see this as the difference between those who have life now (Know Gd as defined by Jesus in John commentary 17), and those who have to get to heaven to know Gd.

Those who are "believers" are those spoken of in Jesus's Gospel in Matthew's commentary 11;

the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the forgiveness of sins / good news proclaimed to them.
And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me."

2 QUESTIONS

1) What is John commentary 17?
2) How is God defined by Jesus in 1) above for our knowing?

Answers please!

[EphremHagos]

. . .but not in your absurd arrogant claim of first hand and personal knowledge from a fallible human perspective.

Universal salvation, based on faith (born in firsthand and personal knowledge of the self-revelation of the divine), is the exclusive work of Jesus Christ at his perfect and diacritical death on the cross. Therefore, there is no room whatsoever for any absurd and arrogant claim by a fallible human like me.

For verification by any serious student, this is exactly what the Good News of Jesus Christ is all about as repeatedly introduced on Day 1 (John 1: 35-51), developed over time (John 8: 21-28; 14: 15-21) and "finished" on the Last Day (John 19: 30-37).

It goes without saying that such faith, based on the select seed of the self-revelation of Christ, sprouts, grows and bears fruit without any additional effort by the beneficiary (Mark. 4: 26-29). If not, it was mere make-belief, not real faith, in the first place! Hence Paul's words: "Put yourselves to the test and judge yourselves, to find out whether you are living in faith. Surely you know that Christ Jesus is in you? --unless you have completely failed." (2 Cor. 13:5) God forbid!

[Bernie]

Originally posted by EphremHagos
... only because firsthand and personal knowledge of the LORD is the "incorruptible seed" that stands the test of time whether ancient or modern. GBY!
Other than the fact that your absurd arrogant claim of first hand and personal knowledge from a fallible human perspective just does not pass muster.
I don't see EH's statement as absurd or arrogant. I can't say exactly how EH intended the remark, of course, but in the finest tradition of the rationally esoteric view, which sees all reality in not only a materially fragmented state (e.g., reduction of of entities into their constituent components), but existing in a simultaneously fragmented qualitative (spiritual) mode of being, the statement makes sense. From this latter perspective, the fractional possession of "incorruptable seed" logically produces in the intellect a firsthand and personal knowledge of God. Granted that much of the testimony of individual Christians within the organized church is superficial, even the most shallow desire to be included as a professor of Christ or child of God is part of the signature [faith] of rebirth upon the soul.

[shunyadragon]

I don't see EH's statement as absurd or arrogant. I can't say exactly how EH intended the remark, of course, but in the finest tradition of the rationally esoteric view, which sees all reality in not only a materially fragmented state (e.g., reduction of of entities into their constituent components), but existing in a simultaneously fragmented qualitative (spiritual) mode of being, the statement makes sense. From this latter perspective, the fractional possession of "incorruptable seed" logically produces in the intellect a firsthand and personal knowledge of God. Granted that much of the testimony of individual Christians within the organized church is superficial, even the most shallow desire to be included as a professor of Christ or child of God is part of the signature [faith] of rebirth upon the soul.

The problem is such claims first hand and personal knowledge are anecdotal and qualitative based on personal experience and than interpreted as 'truth.' It is very circular and relates only to ones owne belief system, and fails to address the universal of human experience. This is arrogant and absurd.

[Bernie]

The problem is such claims first hand and personal knowledge are anecdotal and qualitative based on personal experience and than interpreted as 'truth.' It is very circular and relates only to ones owne belief system, and fails to address the universal of human experience. This is arrogant and absurd.
Okay, but you raise new problems. To what extent is your or my ability to discern the "anecdotal and qualitative" status of another's claims of true knowledge itself deficient? The standards by which we might deem another's claims absurd may themselves be absurd. If I understand what you're saying, we should automatically reject the truth claims of others as not true simply by virtue of not being able to experience them ourselves.

In your description, truth is unknowable, not because it's actually unkowable but because it can only ever belong to a personal and subjective set of beliefs. Are you taking a subjectivist stance, saying all objective truth claims external to oneself are illegitimate?

I do agree that truth claims arising from personal experience are at best anecdotal (they contain truth fragmentally because all beliefs consist as a multiplicity of information which itself consists in a fragmented true/false state), but this doesn't mean such claims cannot contain truth. To argue that they are absurd on the basis that they're unprovable is itself an absurd argument. That we believe some claims are not true and others are is one thing, but to denounce all such claims as false because they're subjectively experienced doesn't make sense. I try to find truth by comparing claims with both inner and external identifiers, which is the best any of us can do.

[EphremHagos]

The problem is such claims first hand and personal knowledge are anecdotal and qualitative based on personal experience and than interpreted as 'truth.' It is very circular and relates only to ones owne belief system, and fails to address the universal of human experience. This is arrogant and absurd.

What a highly constructive debate! Personally, I love it.

Let me remind Shunyadragon et al. that I have already introduced, for debate, another Title, viz.: "Self-Portrait by Jesus Christ" exclusively composed by his verifiable, objective, valid and reliable works for all based entirely on Scriptures and without any known period of expiry.

If my claims of firsthand and personal knowledge of God, therefore, were merely anecdotal, qualitative and subjective experience devoid of supernatural phenomena in our midst, I would willingly accept even the charges of blasphemy and false witness of God in addition to arrogance and absurdity!

(Perhaps it is time to move to the Post referred to above.) GBY!