Universalism - any good books?

[Guest]

Rae,

Concerning your question on how the universalist deals of the text talking of it being better for Judas not being born, this is their explaination:

Matthew 24:24 in the King James Bible reads, "It had been better for that man, if he had not been born." In the KJV and its sisters "that man" refers to Judas. But other translations disagree or present another possibility. The Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 put in the margin "Gr. for him if that man." In other words it would have been good for Jesus if Judas had not been born. Martin Luther's translation, Rotherham's, Douay, Wiclif's, Tyndale's, Concordant, and many others read the same way. Rotherham has it, "well would it have been for him, if that man had not been born." Well would it have been for Jesus if that man (Judas) had not been born.

source

[Guest]

(LITV) Truly the Son of Man goes as it has been written concerning Him, but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It were good for him if that man had never been born.

Concerning your question on how the universalist deals of the text talking of it being better for Judas not being born, this is their explaination:
.....Well would it have been for Jesus if that man (Judas) had not been born.

I think that would have been a really strange thing for Jesus to mean, considering His purpose in coming to this earth in the first place!

[Guest]

I think that would have been a really strange thing for Jesus to mean, considering His purpose in coming to this earth in the first place!



Good point Suzanna, but a reasonable answer is that the term "all" may not mean every last person ever born but may be hyperbole for "great majority."

[Guest]

Good point Suzanna, but a reasonable answer is that the term "all" may not mean every last person ever born but may be hyperbole for "great majority."

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to here? (maybe 'cos it's 2am)!
Probably something further back in the post, I will have to re-read tomorrow. I mean later today.

[Guest]

Rae,

Concerning your question on how the universalist deals of the text talking of it being better for Judas not being born, this is their explaination:

Matthew 24:24 in the King James Bible reads, "It had been better for that man, if he had not been born." In the KJV and its sisters "that man" refers to Judas. But other translations disagree or present another possibility. The Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 put in the margin "Gr. for him if that man." In other words it would have been good for Jesus if Judas had not been born. Martin Luther's translation, Rotherham's, Douay,


Suzzana, It was your answer to this. But the question i think was how does the universalist deal with this verse if everyone will be reconciled to God?

[Guest]

I am a strong believer in the eventual reconciliation of all people to God. But I think it is an unnatural reading of the text to interpret it in such a way that it would have been good for Jesus if Judas had not been born. I agree with Suzanna that Jesus would not have said this, since he said elsewhere that his purpose was to die.

The reconciliationist does not need to stoop to such unnatural interpetation in order to make sense of the verse.

Certainly, it would have been better for Judas if he had not been born. For then he would not have had to endure the severe correction for ages of ages in Gehenna after he is resurrected and judged. The same could be said of countless other evil doers.

[Guest]

Well, Paidion, that's a matter of perspective.

If you had to, would you be willing to spend a very long time in gehenna in order to ultimately live with Christ forever? or would you rather not have been born? (as if you had choice in that!).

TK

[Guest]

Is it necessary that the phrase be taken literally?

We've all heard the hyperbolic threat:

"When I finish with him, he's going to wish he'd never been born".

I think hyperbole is always something to consider when reading scripture that speaks in an absolute sense.

[Guest]

Hi Homer,

We seem to have difficulty understanding each other due to misunderstanding our respective ideas regarding the meaning of separation from the love of God.

Understanding God's love (agape) as affection, love, charity, benevolence, &c, it is readily admissable that He loves everyone in the sense Jesus mentioned in Matthew:

Matthew 5:44-46 (New King James Version)

44. But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,] 45. that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

So then, in that sense, Gulley & Mulholland's statement is correct.

However, sin separates people from God and His love in another, relational sense as the scriptures make plain. He will not even hear their prayers: Isaiah 1:15, Isaiah 59:1-2

I'm a bit dubious about making a universal application of these texts in Isaiah. God is speaking (through Isaiah) to His covenant people who are walking in rebellion. In Isaiah 59:1-2 God seems to be saying that He can hear but chooses not to. In other words, He is going to ignore them because of their disobedience. This reminds me of James' statement (to believers) that "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." (James 4:3)

I believe that God does hear all prayers, but that doesn't mean He answers all prayers. I absolutely know He heard my prayers for help when I was still quite lost. God answers our prayers only as they conform to His will. This is true for believers and unbelievers alike (although a true unbeliever wouldn't even be praying so there would be no prayer to be answered).

You seem to have overlooked the implication of the quotes in my prior post from Peter and the psalmist. If God will not hear your prayers, would this not be a relational separation from God's love?

Again here we see a relational separation from God: Ephesians 2:11-13

As I already stated, the examples you gave from Peter and the Psalmist have to do with God actively opposing the wicked, not with His inability to hear their prayers.

Sin does separate us relationally from God and from each other. The disconnect though is at our end; not at God's end:

I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me;
I was found by those who did not seek me.
To a nation that did not call on my name,
I said, 'Here am I, here am I.'

All day long I have held out my hands
to an obstinate people,
who walk in ways not good,
pursuing their own imaginations-

a people who continually provoke me
to my very face,
offering sacrifices in gardens
and burning incense on altars of brick;

who sit among the graves
and spend their nights keeping secret vigil;
who eat the flesh of pigs,
and whose pots hold broth of unclean meat;

who say, 'Keep away; don't come near me,
for I am too sacred for you!'
Such people are smoke in my nostrils,
a fire that keeps burning all day.

"See, it stands written before me:
I will not keep silent but will pay back in full;
I will pay it back into their laps-

both your sins and the sins of your fathers,"
says the LORD.
"Because they burned sacrifices on the mountains
and defied me on the hills,
I will measure into their laps
the full payment for their former deeds."

This is what the LORD says:
"As when juice is still found in a cluster of grapes
and men say, 'Don't destroy it,
there is yet some good in it,'
so will I do in behalf of my servants;
I will not destroy them all.

I will bring forth descendants from Jacob,
and from Judah those who will possess my mountains;
my chosen people will inherit them,
and there will my servants live.

Sharon will become a pasture for flocks,
and the Valley of Achor a resting place for herds,
for my people who seek me.

"But as for you who forsake the LORD
and forget my holy mountain,
who spread a table for Fortune
and fill bowls of mixed wine for Destiny,

I will destine you for the sword,
and you will all bend down for the slaughter;
for I called but you did not answer,
I spoke but you did not listen.
You did evil in my sight
and chose what displeases me."

Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
"My servants will eat,
but you will go hungry;
my servants will drink,
but you will go thirsty;
my servants will rejoice,
but you will be put to shame.

My servants will sing
out of the joy of their hearts,
but you will cry out
from anguish of heart
and wail in brokenness of spirit.

You will leave your name
to my chosen ones as a curse;
the Sovereign LORD will put you to death,
but to his servants he will give another name.

Whoever invokes a blessing in the land
will do so by the God of truth;
he who takes an oath in the land
will swear by the God of truth.
For the past troubles will be forgotten
and hidden from my eyes.

(Isaiah 65)

So we can see that when Paul said nothing can separate us from the love of God, he spoke of love in a sense that was inapplicable to mankind in a general sense and irrevelent to the Universalist argument. The statement of Gulley & Mulholland is incorrect.

So then, are you saying that God doesn't love mankind?

[Guest]

STEVE7150

But the question i think was how does the universalist deal with this verse if everyone will be reconciled to God?

Yes, of course, thanks.

"all" may not mean every last person ever born but may be hyperbole for "great majority."

Christopher:

I think hyperbole is always something to consider when reading scripture that speaks in an absolute sense.

That's something I need to try & remember more often; sometimes it's the only explanation that seems to make sense in understanding some scriptures.