I am not a holder to UR because it does not seem to set well with Scripture concerning shadow and fulfillment, and of course for other reasons as well. God is a just God and He seems to demand perfection from His created beings or they must die. This theme is prevalent throughout the Old Testament. God was destroying left and right those who were outside of His presence (meaning, outside of the Law of Moses). They never entered into His rest
I don't know if the UR people believe this but God says He does not change. His perfect holiness demands perfection. He allowed for a short time those who were the descendents of Abraham to dwell with Him only if they observed all that He commanded through the Law of Moses. But even then they were required to offer sacrifice for their sins in order to remain in His presense year after year. Its not that those sacrifices fooled the Living God into believing they were made perfect by those burnt offerings but instead was the provision He allowed for them so that His perfect will should come about in the person of Christ Jesus. He winked, as Scripture says, at their sinfulness for a short time and for a specific reason.
God utterly annilated those who resisted. 25 thousand here and a whole generation there were put to death because God's justice demands He be true to His perfection. They also never entered into His rest. So the shadow was death without hope of the promised land, for the pagans it was death because they were not of God. Both groups are now dead the verdict has been read but the sentencing phase has yet to take place.
The idea that some day all will eventually be living eternally in the presence of the King whether or not you have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb completely spits in the face of the death and resurrection of Christ. The Bible teaches that now is the appointed time. Now while today is today. We are told to work out our own salvation and with fear and trembling. By this it should be obvious that action on our part is required and essential. UR does not allow action to be important, instead it declares that you only need to have been created.
P.S.
all this may just prove how stupid I am on the subject.
Universalism and the Character of God
Last edited by _Rae on Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
*sigh* Dang it. I decided to listen to one of Steve Gregg's teachings while on a flight yesterday, and guess which one I ended up with? "Refuse to be Offended". Can you say "ambushed"?
Although these forums are a strange form of fellowship, it is fellowship nonetheless and I cannot break fellowship because of an offense. So, I'm back, though I am going to have to regulate how often I participate, due to the time demands of other obligations (like, um, having a life). This means I will probably have to be more selective in my responses. Other people have been selective in responding to my questions, so why not?
What this means, Rick, is that if I'm delayed in responding to a post of yours, don't be too quick to run up the flag and declare victory.
I can appreciate the concerns that Rick, Homer and Bob have about Christian Universalism (aka Reconciliationism, aka Evangelical Inclusivism, aka ... ). If the Hell of eternal conscious torment is true, then one should vigorously oppose contrary teachings (aka "heresy"). If the "kinder, gentler" Hell of annihilationism is true, then one should still try to prevent people from being unnecessarily euthanized for all eternity. Of course, in either case, we must be careful not to do as Augustine did and take this thought to its logical conclusion by stating that it is right to torture and even kill "heretics" lest they influence others and lead them into Hell. Calvin believed likewise, as evidenced by his participation in the burning at the stake of Michael Servetus for "heresy".
According to Calvin:
Obviously Christians today don't burn heretics at the stake or proselytize by force (Augustine's teachings on the matter though have never, to my knowledge, been rescinded by the Catholic church). Fortunately, we live in a much more open and pluralistic culture. Typically the worst violence done against supposed heretics nowadays is beratement and exclusion (and perhaps a little character assassination). Sometimes I wonder though, how it might be for people like Paidion, Todd, Steve, Mike and myself of the church had the civil power today that it held in the Dark Ages. I suppose this goes for Rick and Bob as well, since annihilationism is only slightly less fringe than CU.
I guess what I'm trying to say (in an exceptionally round-about way) is let's be careful to guard our hearts and mouths ...I mean, fingers. Or, as Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?" How is it going to look at the big FBFF reunion if half of us are on one side of the room and the rest are on the other side of the room? And the chips and dip are in the middle?
Besides, most Christians nowadays don't believe in the Hell of eternal conscious torment. Not really. This is clearly evidenced by the way they live and the priorities they set in their lives. If one is truly convinced that, for most people, a short span on earth is followed by an eternity of misery, then surely one would spend every waking hour, every penny and every ounce of energy trying to save people from it. I think most Christians who claim to believe in the traditional concept of Hell suffer from a form of cognitive dissonance which forces them to tune out and turn away from any lingering thoughts on the fate of most of their fellow humans; the people they rub shoulders with and work with and live with. Those who are unable to compartmentalize the doctrine of Hell become wild-eyed street preachers or suffer nervous breakdowns.
I suppose annihilationism is a bit easier to live with.
Do we have any good old fashioned fire and brimstone Hell believers out there or is it all girly-men universalists and cranky annihilationists?
Speaking of cranky annihilationists, Rick provided a list of what he believes are CU doctrines. It would have been more helpful if, rather than just putting (bible) after an assertion, you provided references. I would not have accused you of proof-texting (promise!). Nevertheless, I have added brief responses:
a. Salvation is possible after death.
- This is inherent to CU. If you could provide scripture that explicitly states that salvation is not possible after physical death, it would be helpful.
b. NO ONE needs to believe in God or Jesus to be saved.
- I didn't believe in God or Jesus, yet I was saved. At what point was I saved? At the point that I entered into relationship with Him.
c. Everyone who HATES God can and will be saved.
- I hated God, yet I was saved. There are multitudes of testimonies of people who hated God yet ultimately became Christians.
d. Christ's return is NOT when He will judge humanity, fully and finally.
- I'm not aware of this being a CU teaching. Perhaps you could explain more fully what you mean.
e. EVERYONE will be saved no matter what they do.
- Isn't it true, in your belief system, that everyone can be saved in this life, no matter what they've done? If a man has lead a wicked life, but sincerely accepts Christ on his deathbed, do you not believe he is saved? Yet, seconds later, when he has passed away, if he did not accept Christ he is suddenly beyond salvation?
f. Christians are under only one of "two plans of salvation" (the Bible teaches just ONE, universalism another..."out of thin air").
- NO! There is only one plan of salvation. That is through the Lord Jesus Christ.
g. Christians get saved one way, everyone else gets saved in another way (the biblical doctrine of soteriology (salvation) applies only to Christians; another extra-NON-biblical doctrine of soteriology "of salvation after death" applies to everyone else).
- Again, NO! See f. for details.
h. Only Christians are required to obey God's commands now ("now" meaning when any people live).
- Hmmm. Do Christians obey God's commands? We try, to varying degrees and inevitably fall short. Some of the most "moral" people I've known have not been Christians and some of the most immoral I've known have been Christians.
You've brought this up several times, along the lines of "If I'm going to get saved eventually anyway, why not return to Buddhism and drinking?" To even ask such a question strikes me as missing the point of what it means to be a Christian. To me, this is like saying, "My wife is a kind and gracious woman. If I commit adultery, she will forgive me. Therefore, I might as well commit adultery." What would such a statement tell you about a husband? That he doesn't really love his wife. A loving husband would run from the prospect of adultery because he would never want to hurt his wife or damage his relationship with her. Likewise, the impetus for me to avoid sin is that I love Jesus and don't want to place barriers and blockages in between myself and Him. It is the relationship that keeps me following Him. I wouldn't give that up for anything!
i. Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of those who now believe, has believed, or will believe before they die (Bible); sinners will pay for their own sins in Hell and will be saved THAT way (universalism).
- Although some may, I don't believe that post-mortem punishment is efficacious for forgiveness of sin unto salvation. The point of any post-mortem punishment is to turn the sinner to Jesus.
Also, your statement brings this question to my mind: What happened to the billions of people who died before Jesus came? What was the plan of salvation for them?
j. Christians will inherit eternal life and the Kingdom of God (Bible); everyone will inherit them both (universalism).
- Yes, because everyone will be Christians.
k. Non-believers not only aren't "brethren" (brothers in Christ, according to the Bible) but some of them really hate God and His people and are persecuting and killing our Christian brothers and sisters as I type (and these people WON'T go to heaven for doing it). <<<period.
- Yeah! Like that Saul of Tarsus guy!
In the 1 Tim 4:10 thread, both Homer and Rick have had to resort to reinterpreting words. In Homer's case it was "savior" and in Rick's case it was "especially". In both cases, they attempted to give the words a meaning which they have nowhere else in the NT.
The clear and plain teaching of 1 Tim 4:10 is that Jesus is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe.
I know I should post this last bit in the 1 Tim 4:10 thread, but I'm having trouble keeping up with all of these "Christian Universalism" threads, especially since the same arguments are appearing in all of them. It reminds me of the guy on Ed Sullivan who used to spin the plates on the sticks. Also, didn't Rick declare the 1 Tim 4:10 thread finished? I vote for consolidating threads.
Although these forums are a strange form of fellowship, it is fellowship nonetheless and I cannot break fellowship because of an offense. So, I'm back, though I am going to have to regulate how often I participate, due to the time demands of other obligations (like, um, having a life). This means I will probably have to be more selective in my responses. Other people have been selective in responding to my questions, so why not?
What this means, Rick, is that if I'm delayed in responding to a post of yours, don't be too quick to run up the flag and declare victory.
I can appreciate the concerns that Rick, Homer and Bob have about Christian Universalism (aka Reconciliationism, aka Evangelical Inclusivism, aka ... ). If the Hell of eternal conscious torment is true, then one should vigorously oppose contrary teachings (aka "heresy"). If the "kinder, gentler" Hell of annihilationism is true, then one should still try to prevent people from being unnecessarily euthanized for all eternity. Of course, in either case, we must be careful not to do as Augustine did and take this thought to its logical conclusion by stating that it is right to torture and even kill "heretics" lest they influence others and lead them into Hell. Calvin believed likewise, as evidenced by his participation in the burning at the stake of Michael Servetus for "heresy".
According to Calvin:
Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.
Obviously Christians today don't burn heretics at the stake or proselytize by force (Augustine's teachings on the matter though have never, to my knowledge, been rescinded by the Catholic church). Fortunately, we live in a much more open and pluralistic culture. Typically the worst violence done against supposed heretics nowadays is beratement and exclusion (and perhaps a little character assassination). Sometimes I wonder though, how it might be for people like Paidion, Todd, Steve, Mike and myself of the church had the civil power today that it held in the Dark Ages. I suppose this goes for Rick and Bob as well, since annihilationism is only slightly less fringe than CU.
I guess what I'm trying to say (in an exceptionally round-about way) is let's be careful to guard our hearts and mouths ...I mean, fingers. Or, as Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?" How is it going to look at the big FBFF reunion if half of us are on one side of the room and the rest are on the other side of the room? And the chips and dip are in the middle?
Besides, most Christians nowadays don't believe in the Hell of eternal conscious torment. Not really. This is clearly evidenced by the way they live and the priorities they set in their lives. If one is truly convinced that, for most people, a short span on earth is followed by an eternity of misery, then surely one would spend every waking hour, every penny and every ounce of energy trying to save people from it. I think most Christians who claim to believe in the traditional concept of Hell suffer from a form of cognitive dissonance which forces them to tune out and turn away from any lingering thoughts on the fate of most of their fellow humans; the people they rub shoulders with and work with and live with. Those who are unable to compartmentalize the doctrine of Hell become wild-eyed street preachers or suffer nervous breakdowns.
I suppose annihilationism is a bit easier to live with.
Do we have any good old fashioned fire and brimstone Hell believers out there or is it all girly-men universalists and cranky annihilationists?
Speaking of cranky annihilationists, Rick provided a list of what he believes are CU doctrines. It would have been more helpful if, rather than just putting (bible) after an assertion, you provided references. I would not have accused you of proof-texting (promise!). Nevertheless, I have added brief responses:
a. Salvation is possible after death.
- This is inherent to CU. If you could provide scripture that explicitly states that salvation is not possible after physical death, it would be helpful.
b. NO ONE needs to believe in God or Jesus to be saved.
- I didn't believe in God or Jesus, yet I was saved. At what point was I saved? At the point that I entered into relationship with Him.
c. Everyone who HATES God can and will be saved.
- I hated God, yet I was saved. There are multitudes of testimonies of people who hated God yet ultimately became Christians.
d. Christ's return is NOT when He will judge humanity, fully and finally.
- I'm not aware of this being a CU teaching. Perhaps you could explain more fully what you mean.
e. EVERYONE will be saved no matter what they do.
- Isn't it true, in your belief system, that everyone can be saved in this life, no matter what they've done? If a man has lead a wicked life, but sincerely accepts Christ on his deathbed, do you not believe he is saved? Yet, seconds later, when he has passed away, if he did not accept Christ he is suddenly beyond salvation?
f. Christians are under only one of "two plans of salvation" (the Bible teaches just ONE, universalism another..."out of thin air").
- NO! There is only one plan of salvation. That is through the Lord Jesus Christ.
g. Christians get saved one way, everyone else gets saved in another way (the biblical doctrine of soteriology (salvation) applies only to Christians; another extra-NON-biblical doctrine of soteriology "of salvation after death" applies to everyone else).
- Again, NO! See f. for details.
h. Only Christians are required to obey God's commands now ("now" meaning when any people live).
- Hmmm. Do Christians obey God's commands? We try, to varying degrees and inevitably fall short. Some of the most "moral" people I've known have not been Christians and some of the most immoral I've known have been Christians.
You've brought this up several times, along the lines of "If I'm going to get saved eventually anyway, why not return to Buddhism and drinking?" To even ask such a question strikes me as missing the point of what it means to be a Christian. To me, this is like saying, "My wife is a kind and gracious woman. If I commit adultery, she will forgive me. Therefore, I might as well commit adultery." What would such a statement tell you about a husband? That he doesn't really love his wife. A loving husband would run from the prospect of adultery because he would never want to hurt his wife or damage his relationship with her. Likewise, the impetus for me to avoid sin is that I love Jesus and don't want to place barriers and blockages in between myself and Him. It is the relationship that keeps me following Him. I wouldn't give that up for anything!
i. Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of those who now believe, has believed, or will believe before they die (Bible); sinners will pay for their own sins in Hell and will be saved THAT way (universalism).
- Although some may, I don't believe that post-mortem punishment is efficacious for forgiveness of sin unto salvation. The point of any post-mortem punishment is to turn the sinner to Jesus.
Also, your statement brings this question to my mind: What happened to the billions of people who died before Jesus came? What was the plan of salvation for them?
j. Christians will inherit eternal life and the Kingdom of God (Bible); everyone will inherit them both (universalism).
- Yes, because everyone will be Christians.
k. Non-believers not only aren't "brethren" (brothers in Christ, according to the Bible) but some of them really hate God and His people and are persecuting and killing our Christian brothers and sisters as I type (and these people WON'T go to heaven for doing it). <<<period.
- Yeah! Like that Saul of Tarsus guy!
In the 1 Tim 4:10 thread, both Homer and Rick have had to resort to reinterpreting words. In Homer's case it was "savior" and in Rick's case it was "especially". In both cases, they attempted to give the words a meaning which they have nowhere else in the NT.
The clear and plain teaching of 1 Tim 4:10 is that Jesus is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe.
I know I should post this last bit in the 1 Tim 4:10 thread, but I'm having trouble keeping up with all of these "Christian Universalism" threads, especially since the same arguments are appearing in all of them. It reminds me of the guy on Ed Sullivan who used to spin the plates on the sticks. Also, didn't Rick declare the 1 Tim 4:10 thread finished? I vote for consolidating threads.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi TK,
It's good to see you "in" on the discussion/debate.
But now that you mention it, TK, I wonder if universalists do believe dead unbelievers can hear the Gospel being preached 'among the living' and also come to believe, becoming Christians after they die and before the end of the age?
I didn't comment but one universalist posted they believe:
Jesus Himself will preach the Gospel after His Second Coming to unbelievers in Hell who have died and been resurrected. We know Jesus said the Gospel will be preached to all nations and then the end will come. But since He didn't add, "And then I, Myself, will preach the Gospel again to those in Hell," I don't believe this will happen. This belief has many problems that are obvious to me but I won't go into any of them now.
Re: what I said or have been saying (said and meant) in my posts.
TK & all,
Rather than saying more here, I'm going to start a new thread on Romans 10 (soon, maybe this evening).
Romans 10 (italics not in Greek, nor in Paul's mind)
8But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim---now; which you don't have to believe in order to be with God forever, eventually); 9because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved,---but if you don't do this YOU WON'T BE SAVED FROM GOD'S WRATH, and yet, will still eventually be with Him forever. 10For with the heart one believes and is justified,---neither of which one needs now in order to eventually be with God,---and with the mouth one confesses and is saved---if one chooses the "saved option" before they die. 11For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."---So if you don't want to be put to shame after you die, believe and get saved now! 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him---that is, for those call on Him now or before they die. 13For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." For everyone who DOES NOT call on the name of the Lord WILL NOT BE "SAVED" but will, never the less, eventually be with God forever anyway.
If Paul had said the above...which, he didn't.....
As far as I know, the above (with italics) is compatible with universalist beliefs. I'll have the new thread on Romans 10 real soon.
Thanks for reading,
Rick
It's good to see you "in" on the discussion/debate.
It might be only 1% of Christians hold to universalism (?). I don't know the statistics. Thanks for pointing out I haven't been defending 'eternal' torment'. Where that came from I don't know...anyway....You wrote:In rick's defense, i dont see anything disrepectful at all in his posts. he is defending a position that is probably held by 99% of christians, and even Rick doesnt believe in eternal torment.
I don't think I've posted anything about the intermediate state in these debates.You also wrote:regarding the dead not being able to hear, not to misrepresent what Rick was intending, but it would seem that "unsaved" people who are dead, despite being conscious somewhere, are not able to hear what is being preached here on earth. perhaps this totally misrepresents rick's meaning, if so, sorry about that.
But now that you mention it, TK, I wonder if universalists do believe dead unbelievers can hear the Gospel being preached 'among the living' and also come to believe, becoming Christians after they die and before the end of the age?
I didn't comment but one universalist posted they believe:
Jesus Himself will preach the Gospel after His Second Coming to unbelievers in Hell who have died and been resurrected. We know Jesus said the Gospel will be preached to all nations and then the end will come. But since He didn't add, "And then I, Myself, will preach the Gospel again to those in Hell," I don't believe this will happen. This belief has many problems that are obvious to me but I won't go into any of them now.
Re: what I said or have been saying (said and meant) in my posts.
TK & all,
Rather than saying more here, I'm going to start a new thread on Romans 10 (soon, maybe this evening).
Or perhaps something like:TK also wrote:this is an extremely important issue, so i dont have a problem with a little heat in the discussion. read galatians for an example of some heat. at a minimum, the bible is extremely ambiguous about the possibility that universalism is correct. all the scriptures pointed out dont specifically say that persons can be saved after they die, and for something this important it seems that there would be, if in fact that is the truth. wouldnt Jesus, or one of the apostles, simply said something like:
"listen-- it's best if you accept the gospel truth while you are alive. you'd live a more abundant life, and you'll avoid some nasty consequences when you die. But ultimately, you will come to accept the truth, even after you are dead, and will enter into God's rest with all of humanity."
Romans 10 (italics not in Greek, nor in Paul's mind)
8But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim---now; which you don't have to believe in order to be with God forever, eventually); 9because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved,---but if you don't do this YOU WON'T BE SAVED FROM GOD'S WRATH, and yet, will still eventually be with Him forever. 10For with the heart one believes and is justified,---neither of which one needs now in order to eventually be with God,---and with the mouth one confesses and is saved---if one chooses the "saved option" before they die. 11For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."---So if you don't want to be put to shame after you die, believe and get saved now! 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him---that is, for those call on Him now or before they die. 13For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." For everyone who DOES NOT call on the name of the Lord WILL NOT BE "SAVED" but will, never the less, eventually be with God forever anyway.
If Paul had said the above...which, he didn't.....
As far as I know, the above (with italics) is compatible with universalist beliefs. I'll have the new thread on Romans 10 real soon.
Thanks for reading,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Bob, thank you for your post of November 13. What you said really resonated with many of my own thoughts.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Errata
Due to new information & insights gathered...
(That's right folks, I don't know everything and can be wrong!);
From my list (a.--thru--k.) strike all of them excepting the ones I reply to (Danny) below.
Danny, et al (Latin, "and all"),
d. Christ's return is NOT when He will judge humanity, fully and finally.
Danny replied: I'm not aware of this being a CU teaching. Perhaps you could explain more fully what you mean.
My reply:
First, I'm a "Non-Universalist" (to borrow from Steve Gregg's "Non-Calvinist" coinage). Unlike Steve Gregg, the universalists who post on this forum, and the unconvinced who read or post on this forum; I've found next to no merit in this view (which should be apparent by now).
Due to recent studies in the Book of Revelation (in the last few days), I must and should admit I'm not fully convinced of 'conditional immortality'. If I went by the NT Epistles and Gospels alone, I might be convinced or very close to it.
My initial post (d.) was from the conditional immortality viewpoint, which believes:
At Christ's return, He will judge humanity, fully and finally at what Paul called "The Judgment Seat of Christ." No one knows how long this event will take or be. Believers will be rewarded eternal life; unbelievers will be thrown into a Lake of Fire, punished, and annihilated. Only in this sense will it be that unbelievers will be judged "fully and finally" in The Second Death. Many, if not most, adherents of this view see "Hell" as the grave or realm of the dead and do not equate it with the Lake of Fire. Though no one knows how long the punishment lasts; most who hold this view see The Second Death as happening fairly quickly after Christ returns. Believers will continue to enjoy their rewards forever.
The other Non-Universalist view of 'eternal torment' believes Final Judgment will begin at the event of The Judgment Seat of Christ. In this view, the Judgment Seat is the sentencing of unbelievers to go a Lake of Fire to experience The Second Death (of which, I'm not sure what they think is. A metaphor of "dying forever" has been one explanation which doesn't make sense to me but be that as it may). This view does NOT believe unbelievers will EVER be judged "fully and finally". Rather, it goes on forever and ever and ever (and ever)...and ever. Many who hold this view equate the Lake of Fire with Hell. Believers will enjoy their rewards forever (and ever & ever).
To Danny malista (Gk, "specially and in particular, as opposed to anything else"),
hahaha,
Universalism is similar to the eternal torment view---and unlike conditional immortality---in that the judgment of unbeliever's is not "full and final" till after an indeterminate, yet significant, period of time. In other words, both 'eternal torment' and universalism think the punishment will go on (or on & on OR on & on & on & on....). No universalist that I know of states how long this will be; some say it could be millions or billions of years; others think possibly a few seconds, minutes, days, or years. Universalists believe the length of time spent in Hell (which some see as Gehenna) will be be either, a. proportional to the sins committed while these people lived, b. for as long as it takes for the unbelievers to 'become Christians' (submit their resurrected lives to Christ), or c. both. I don't know what universalists think The Second Death is or will be. They believe sinners will be "resurrected from the dead to live and get instruction in Hell". Perhaps, after they are in the Lake of Fire (or Hell or Gehenna) they will eventually be spared The Second Death? If this is the case, no one would ever have to die it. The judgment of sinners will be "full and final" after they have either paid the price for their sins, became 'Christians' (which the Bible doesn't teach is possible for the dead), or both. Believers (meaning people who became Christians before they died) will enjoy God forever, as with the Non-Universalist views.
j. Christians will inherit eternal life and the Kingdom of God (Bible); everyone will inherit them both (universalism).
Danny's reply: Yes, because everyone will be Christians.
My reply:
Some universalists believe the Kingdom of Christ and the Kingdom of God are two separate "dispensations" if I'm not mistaken. One view is both will cease to exist when "God will be all in all" (1 Cor 15:28c). I'm not sure how this works out in this system but the belief is everyone who ever lived will be with God. If this view were to be true, some will not have (or need or get) to inherit God's Kingdom. Also, eternal life will have begun for the sinners when they are resurrected to be sent to Hell. Their eternal life will involve punishment (in Hell); those who had believed while living will receive no punishment (in Hell).
"Christians" in the Bible are people who believe the Gospel while they live. The same are said to inherit God's Kingdom while they are or still were alive. We don't have any information in the Bible about Christ or anyone else preaching "an afterlife Gospel in Hell" to unbelievers, no evidence that this has ever happened, or ever will. If there were to be such a Gospel, its content wouldn't be the same as the one we have today: the current Gospel is based on faith, not sight with Jesus or an evangelist giving "corrective teaching lessons in Hell". The Biblical Gospel goes out to living people in this age before they die.
But in universalist belief (in my first paragraph j. above); at least some universalists may believe it will be possible to "be with God" without ever having become a Christian.
k. Non-believers not only aren't "brethren" (brothers in Christ, according to the Bible) but some of them really hate God and His people and are persecuting and killing our Christian brothers and sisters as I type (and these people WON'T go to heaven for doing it). <<<period.
Danny replied: Yeah! Like that Saul of Tarsus guy!
My reply:
Paul, like every Christian in history, became a believer before he died.
If anything, Danny's reply is a rebuttal to universalism.
I've withdrawn 7 of my 11 (a-k) points. The ones I've deleted will be covered in my new thread (though not point by point as here). As a preview, I'll say, "I no longer believe universalism really (exactly) teaches 'two plans' of salvation," and will leave it there for now....
Thanks for reading,
Rick
Due to new information & insights gathered...
(That's right folks, I don't know everything and can be wrong!);
From my list (a.--thru--k.) strike all of them excepting the ones I reply to (Danny) below.
Danny, et al (Latin, "and all"),
d. Christ's return is NOT when He will judge humanity, fully and finally.
Danny replied: I'm not aware of this being a CU teaching. Perhaps you could explain more fully what you mean.
My reply:
First, I'm a "Non-Universalist" (to borrow from Steve Gregg's "Non-Calvinist" coinage). Unlike Steve Gregg, the universalists who post on this forum, and the unconvinced who read or post on this forum; I've found next to no merit in this view (which should be apparent by now).
Due to recent studies in the Book of Revelation (in the last few days), I must and should admit I'm not fully convinced of 'conditional immortality'. If I went by the NT Epistles and Gospels alone, I might be convinced or very close to it.
My initial post (d.) was from the conditional immortality viewpoint, which believes:
At Christ's return, He will judge humanity, fully and finally at what Paul called "The Judgment Seat of Christ." No one knows how long this event will take or be. Believers will be rewarded eternal life; unbelievers will be thrown into a Lake of Fire, punished, and annihilated. Only in this sense will it be that unbelievers will be judged "fully and finally" in The Second Death. Many, if not most, adherents of this view see "Hell" as the grave or realm of the dead and do not equate it with the Lake of Fire. Though no one knows how long the punishment lasts; most who hold this view see The Second Death as happening fairly quickly after Christ returns. Believers will continue to enjoy their rewards forever.
The other Non-Universalist view of 'eternal torment' believes Final Judgment will begin at the event of The Judgment Seat of Christ. In this view, the Judgment Seat is the sentencing of unbelievers to go a Lake of Fire to experience The Second Death (of which, I'm not sure what they think is. A metaphor of "dying forever" has been one explanation which doesn't make sense to me but be that as it may). This view does NOT believe unbelievers will EVER be judged "fully and finally". Rather, it goes on forever and ever and ever (and ever)...and ever. Many who hold this view equate the Lake of Fire with Hell. Believers will enjoy their rewards forever (and ever & ever).
To Danny malista (Gk, "specially and in particular, as opposed to anything else"),
hahaha,
Universalism is similar to the eternal torment view---and unlike conditional immortality---in that the judgment of unbeliever's is not "full and final" till after an indeterminate, yet significant, period of time. In other words, both 'eternal torment' and universalism think the punishment will go on (or on & on OR on & on & on & on....). No universalist that I know of states how long this will be; some say it could be millions or billions of years; others think possibly a few seconds, minutes, days, or years. Universalists believe the length of time spent in Hell (which some see as Gehenna) will be be either, a. proportional to the sins committed while these people lived, b. for as long as it takes for the unbelievers to 'become Christians' (submit their resurrected lives to Christ), or c. both. I don't know what universalists think The Second Death is or will be. They believe sinners will be "resurrected from the dead to live and get instruction in Hell". Perhaps, after they are in the Lake of Fire (or Hell or Gehenna) they will eventually be spared The Second Death? If this is the case, no one would ever have to die it. The judgment of sinners will be "full and final" after they have either paid the price for their sins, became 'Christians' (which the Bible doesn't teach is possible for the dead), or both. Believers (meaning people who became Christians before they died) will enjoy God forever, as with the Non-Universalist views.
j. Christians will inherit eternal life and the Kingdom of God (Bible); everyone will inherit them both (universalism).
Danny's reply: Yes, because everyone will be Christians.
My reply:
Some universalists believe the Kingdom of Christ and the Kingdom of God are two separate "dispensations" if I'm not mistaken. One view is both will cease to exist when "God will be all in all" (1 Cor 15:28c). I'm not sure how this works out in this system but the belief is everyone who ever lived will be with God. If this view were to be true, some will not have (or need or get) to inherit God's Kingdom. Also, eternal life will have begun for the sinners when they are resurrected to be sent to Hell. Their eternal life will involve punishment (in Hell); those who had believed while living will receive no punishment (in Hell).
"Christians" in the Bible are people who believe the Gospel while they live. The same are said to inherit God's Kingdom while they are or still were alive. We don't have any information in the Bible about Christ or anyone else preaching "an afterlife Gospel in Hell" to unbelievers, no evidence that this has ever happened, or ever will. If there were to be such a Gospel, its content wouldn't be the same as the one we have today: the current Gospel is based on faith, not sight with Jesus or an evangelist giving "corrective teaching lessons in Hell". The Biblical Gospel goes out to living people in this age before they die.
But in universalist belief (in my first paragraph j. above); at least some universalists may believe it will be possible to "be with God" without ever having become a Christian.
k. Non-believers not only aren't "brethren" (brothers in Christ, according to the Bible) but some of them really hate God and His people and are persecuting and killing our Christian brothers and sisters as I type (and these people WON'T go to heaven for doing it). <<<period.
Danny replied: Yeah! Like that Saul of Tarsus guy!
My reply:
Paul, like every Christian in history, became a believer before he died.
If anything, Danny's reply is a rebuttal to universalism.
I've withdrawn 7 of my 11 (a-k) points. The ones I've deleted will be covered in my new thread (though not point by point as here). As a preview, I'll say, "I no longer believe universalism really (exactly) teaches 'two plans' of salvation," and will leave it there for now....
Thanks for reading,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:14 pm, edited 12 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Danny,
Greek Lexicon Definition: saviour, deliverer, preserver
Preserver of all men as in: Acts 17:25 (New American Standard Bible)
25. nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
Can you not see that this could be what Paul was saying regarding all men in 1 Timothy 4:10?
Please explain, Are you saying soter is not a noun?In the 1 Tim 4:10 thread, both Homer and Rick have had to resort to reinterpreting words. In Homer's case it was "savior" and in Rick's case it was "especially". In both cases, they attempted to give the words a meaning which they have nowhere else in the NT.
Greek Lexicon Definition: saviour, deliverer, preserver
Preserver of all men as in: Acts 17:25 (New American Standard Bible)
25. nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
Can you not see that this could be what Paul was saying regarding all men in 1 Timothy 4:10?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Hello Danny,
Nice to have you back!
Quote" " The clear and plain teaching of 1 Tim 4:10 is that Jesus is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe."
I agree. But we disagree with our conclusions as to what "Savior of all men" means. To me it's like saying George Bush is President of the United
States, especially for Americans. Both statements are true. But he is only the President of Americans, not Canadians, the Chinese etc. Jesus is both Lord and Savior of all men whether or not they believe in Him or even follow Him. A persons faith in or lack of faith doesn't change the truth about who Jesus is. Where we part company is when CU's insist He is the actual Savior of all men. We are talking about Jesus' title, IMO.
Quote: "I vote for consolidating threads."
I agree! Its getting too much to follow jumping from one thread to the next.
In Jesus,
Bob
Nice to have you back!
Quote" " The clear and plain teaching of 1 Tim 4:10 is that Jesus is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe."
I agree. But we disagree with our conclusions as to what "Savior of all men" means. To me it's like saying George Bush is President of the United
States, especially for Americans. Both statements are true. But he is only the President of Americans, not Canadians, the Chinese etc. Jesus is both Lord and Savior of all men whether or not they believe in Him or even follow Him. A persons faith in or lack of faith doesn't change the truth about who Jesus is. Where we part company is when CU's insist He is the actual Savior of all men. We are talking about Jesus' title, IMO.
Quote: "I vote for consolidating threads."
I agree! Its getting too much to follow jumping from one thread to the next.
In Jesus,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hello Bob 
& Homer 8),
Speaking for myself, I'd rather get sentenced to reading the entire Westminster Confession, with the added requirement of having to dissect, and refute, its eternally-NEVER-ending list of relentless and grueling proof-texts....
Have a Good Day, Boys!
Rick
& Homer 8),Danny wrote:I vote for consolidating threads.
Bob wrote:
I agree! Its getting too much to follow jumping from one thread to the next.
N.T. Wright wrote:"Many of us grew up being taught to read the Bible in one or both of two ways.
"On the one hand there was the devotional reading: A passage each morning, and one prayed and listened to hear something that 'God was saying to me today' through it. The historical and literary setting was quite unimportant; what mattered was 'What does this say to me today?'. Now that's a venerable and not unimportant practise. But if it's divorced from other readings of Scripture it can become not only self-centered but also dangerously arbitrary. God doesn't deceive people but people can be, and often are, self-deceived. Detached devotional reading gets you so far but you can easily get stuck.
"On the other hand there was 'the Bible as proof texts'. Some classical instances come to mind; The Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, with its doctrinal statements and its big biblical footnotes. That encouraged a mentality which thought of the Bible as an unsorted collection of data, belonging in principle to a unified dogmatic theology; as though God had given us the Bible like a jig-saw puzzle in a box all shaken up into bits, needing to be assembled into a single picture which, whatever it was going to look like, sure as anything wouldn’t look like what we actually have from Genesis to Revelation!"
FBFF thread link, N.T. Wright: "So What?"
Speaking for myself, I'd rather get sentenced to reading the entire Westminster Confession, with the added requirement of having to dissect, and refute, its eternally-NEVER-ending list of relentless and grueling proof-texts....
Have a Good Day, Boys!
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Hi Bob,
A better analogy of 1 Tim 4:10 would be “George Bush is the President of the whole world, especially of U.S. citizens.”
Now, imagine if I were to walk into a working-class pub in Manchester, England and blurt out that statement:
Danny: “Hey gents, George Bush is the President of the whole world, especially of U.S. citizens.”
Large Drunken Football Hooligan #1: “Oi mate, I understand you to be saying that George Bush is potentially the President of the whole world since anyone could theoretically emigrate to the U.S. and become a citizen.”
Large Drunken Football Hooligan #2: “Nah, wot ‘ee’s sayin’ is that George Bush is in some sense President of the whole world and in some other (special) sense ‘ee is the President of U.S. citizens.
Large Drunken Football Hooligan #3: “Eh, yer both wrong. ‘Ee means that George Bush is a President, in the noun sense, but ‘ee is only the President to U.S. Citizens.
Large Drunken Football Hooligan #4: “I think ‘ee’s sayin’ that George Bush is not the President of those who aren’t citizens in particular.”
Danny, hoisting a Guinness: “No, I mean just what I said: George Bush is the President of the whole world, especially of U.S. citizens.”
[There is the sound of a record scratching and the music stops; the pub instantly becomes dead silent and all heads turn towards Danny. Four large, drunken football hooligans close in menacingly. Danny is never heard from again.]
Thanks. My two days of self-imposed exile were Hell (in the eternal torment sense of the word).Nice to have you back!
The problem with this analogy is that the initial statement of “George Bush is President of the United States, especially for Americans” is not comparable to Jesus being “…the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.” In your analogy, the first object and the second object are roughly equivalent (United States & Americans – in the sense that U.S. citizens call themselves "Americans"). In Paul’s statement, the first object (“all men”) is much broader and more inclusive than the second object (“those who believe”).Danny: " The clear and plain teaching of 1 Tim 4:10 is that Jesus is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe."
Bob: I agree. But we disagree with our conclusions as to what "Savior of all men" means. To me it's like saying George Bush is President of the United States, especially for Americans. Both statements are true. But he is only the President of Americans, not Canadians, the Chinese etc.
A better analogy of 1 Tim 4:10 would be “George Bush is the President of the whole world, especially of U.S. citizens.”
Now, imagine if I were to walk into a working-class pub in Manchester, England and blurt out that statement:
Danny: “Hey gents, George Bush is the President of the whole world, especially of U.S. citizens.”
Large Drunken Football Hooligan #1: “Oi mate, I understand you to be saying that George Bush is potentially the President of the whole world since anyone could theoretically emigrate to the U.S. and become a citizen.”
Large Drunken Football Hooligan #2: “Nah, wot ‘ee’s sayin’ is that George Bush is in some sense President of the whole world and in some other (special) sense ‘ee is the President of U.S. citizens.
Large Drunken Football Hooligan #3: “Eh, yer both wrong. ‘Ee means that George Bush is a President, in the noun sense, but ‘ee is only the President to U.S. Citizens.
Large Drunken Football Hooligan #4: “I think ‘ee’s sayin’ that George Bush is not the President of those who aren’t citizens in particular.”
Danny, hoisting a Guinness: “No, I mean just what I said: George Bush is the President of the whole world, especially of U.S. citizens.”
[There is the sound of a record scratching and the music stops; the pub instantly becomes dead silent and all heads turn towards Danny. Four large, drunken football hooligans close in menacingly. Danny is never heard from again.]
Oh, okay, I get it. You're saying that Jesus is the Savior of all men but He isn't the actual Savior of all men.Jesus is both Lord and Savior of all men whether or not they believe in Him or even follow Him. A persons faith in or lack of faith doesn't change the truth about who Jesus is. Where we part company is when CU's insist He is the actual Savior of all men. We are talking about Jesus' title, IMO.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Danny,
Quote: " Oh, okay, I get it. You're saying that Jesus is the Savior of all men but He isn't the actual Savior of all men."
Yes. I see where my earlier analogy was not the best one. But you do get my point. There is a recognition of Jesus 'status' as Lord, even among the demons. Yet, a demon wouldn't recognize Him as their Savior, but rather as their 'Judge'. Jesus is both 'Lord and Christ' in title, pre-eminence, authority etc of all, but is only the Savior of His covenant people, "I came to seek and to save the lost sheep of Israel" No other group will benefit from His 'particular salvation'. The 'wicked', the devil and his angels are reserved for Judgement in the LOF-not salvation. As far as I can understand, there is nothing that would even remotely suggest that Gehenna or the LOF has any redeeming typology or value attached to it.
Bible refs; Mat 8:29,10:6,32-33, 11:27, 12:30-32, 13:30,37-43, 15:13, 22:1-14, 23:33 25:31-46...(more of the same in the other gospels)
Quote: " Oh, okay, I get it. You're saying that Jesus is the Savior of all men but He isn't the actual Savior of all men."
Yes. I see where my earlier analogy was not the best one. But you do get my point. There is a recognition of Jesus 'status' as Lord, even among the demons. Yet, a demon wouldn't recognize Him as their Savior, but rather as their 'Judge'. Jesus is both 'Lord and Christ' in title, pre-eminence, authority etc of all, but is only the Savior of His covenant people, "I came to seek and to save the lost sheep of Israel" No other group will benefit from His 'particular salvation'. The 'wicked', the devil and his angels are reserved for Judgement in the LOF-not salvation. As far as I can understand, there is nothing that would even remotely suggest that Gehenna or the LOF has any redeeming typology or value attached to it.
Bible refs; Mat 8:29,10:6,32-33, 11:27, 12:30-32, 13:30,37-43, 15:13, 22:1-14, 23:33 25:31-46...(more of the same in the other gospels)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: