A QUESTION or two TO UNIVERSALISTS

[Suzana]

THIRD REQUEST( )

So why the urgency of the apostles?

My quick thoughts (I'm about to head out the door):

They just found out that Jesus with whom they've spent the last three years had been resurrected from the dead (!) and was actually the SON OF GOD, and he had given them a command to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations - of course they were anxious to carry out their assignment - their whole world and world-view had been turned upside down, what else could they do?
And as has been pointed out elsewhere, they preached the good news without reference to escape from hell as a motivation.
Hopefully others will contribute their thoughts and elaborate further!

[steve7150]

RV wrote:
THIRD REQUEST( )


I wrote:
So why the urgency of the apostles?




Jesus told them what to do and they were doing it. Next question might be why did Jesus tell them to preach if everyone may be saved anyway?
Perhaps because it was time to start to reclaim the kingdoms of this world from Satan one person at a time.

[Paidion]

Why the urgency of the apostles? Do you mean the urgency to proclaim the gospel? If so, why are you asking this question?

This statement is puzzling to me, why you would feel that way toward unbelievers and why being a Universalist would make any difference? I can't relate to your experience, never having felt that way

.

Possibly that's because you were never a Calvinist as was I. In Calvinism, there are the few elect (us) and the many who were not chosen by God, nor ever will be (them). The "others" are a different breed of human being.

[RV]

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)

What are they condemned to? That is, those that don't believe?

"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it (Matt 7:13)

Destruction of what?

Why scare someone with words when He know that would never happen?

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matt 10:28)

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

Possibly that's because you were never a Calvinist as was I. In Calvinism, there are the few elect (us) and the many who were not chosen by God, nor ever will be (them). The "others" are a different breed of human being.

Thanks, now I understand; it only makes sense.

[Homer]

Hi Suzana,

You wrote:

And as has been pointed out elsewhere, they preached the good news without reference to escape from hell as a motivation.

I have noticed that this claim is often made, but do you think a dire fate for the wicked was not generally understood? A fate that was at least implied? Why preach remission of sins if there were no consequences? Do we not usually counsel those we love to stop smoking, without adding "or else you will die of lung cancer", which is an understood risk? Many similar examples can be found.

Consider:

Acts 10:42-43 (New King James Version)
42. And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

The implication of the underlined parts seems obvious. And it must be admitted by all that they preached the gospel. We are informed of this again and again in the book of Acts. The gospel was something that must be obeyed. And we are informed of the consequences of not doing so:

2 Thessalonians 1:8-10 (New King James Version)
8. in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10. when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

I find it incredible that they would have gone about preaching the gospel, while leaving their hearers ignorant of the consequences of not obeying the message. If it is not specifically mentioned, it is necessarily implied. And Luke may have felt it was understood, and unnecessary to specifically mention in his narrative. Surely his descriptions of the sermons are to some degree condensed versions.

Hope it has cooled off for you. We live in a cooler climate. The last summer we lived in California it was 100f or higher for 57 days, so we know what its like!

God bless, Homer

[Suzana]

Hi Suzana,

You wrote:

"And as has been pointed out elsewhere, they preached the good news without reference to escape from hell as a motivation".

I have noticed that this claim is often made, but do you think a dire fate for the wicked was not generally understood? A fate that was at least implied? Why preach remission of sins if there were no consequences?

Hi, Homer

Yes, I did write that, didn’t I! – I wanted to kick things off, as it seemed a matter of urgency to RV, and since it was in a thread that I started….

Your points are probably some of the reasons why I haven’t made up my mind as to the correct teaching of scripture (between CI & UR).

Then again, some other thoughts regarding some of the issues you raised:

- "…These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord …" I’m sure you’re aware there are alternative interpretations to this verse than the traditional one. I know they're referenced somewhere on this forum.

- The Jews may have had some ideas of eternal punishment, but where did they get the teaching of ‘the dire fate of the wicked’? There’s certainly no teaching of an eternal tormenting literal hellfire in the OT – the recorded, repeated consequence of falling away from following God was DEATH. And from what others have written on this forum, there were varied teachings on the afterlife among the Jews anyway, not just one.

- Even if the apostles assumed their fellow Jews were aware of dire consequences and felt it was superfluous to mention them, when Paul preached on Mars Hill to the Athenians, what he said to them was:
Acts 17
30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

If God has overlooked previous times of ignorance, to me it doesn’t sound like He would be throwing all past generations into eternal torment.
And judging the world in righteousness surely precludes the injustice of such disproportionate & unremitting punishment as the ET doctrine proposes.
………….

Hope it has cooled off for you. We live in a cooler climate. The last summer we lived in California it was 100f or higher for 57 days, so we know what its like!

57 days! How awful. I remember you also had fires happening.

Thankfully for everyone, we have had a cool change. (The temp. in Melbourne reached 115.5 F, we only had 112F near us, but that's in the shade, and I'm sure was higher inside my lounge which always gets hot).
But I'm not complaining - feeling hot is a minor inconvenience when compared to what some people are going through - we have so many bush-fires happening right now, (the worst on record), some still out of control; & so far there have been over 130 people die in the fires in Victoria just in the last day or so; as our Prime Minister put it: "Hell and all its fury has visited..."

[Todd]

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)

What are they condemned to? That is, those that don't believe?]

They are condemned to reaping what they sow and suffering the consequences of their sin. They are condemned already because they are already realizing some of the consequences for those sins in their lifetime. Any punishment for sin is proportional (I believe).

"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it (Matt 7:13)

Destruction of what? ]

Destruction of one's life to ruin in some cases. The prodigal son is a good example. He ruined (destroyed) his life with riotous living. Fortunately he later repented.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matt 10:28)

A destroyed body is simply dead (in the grave). A destroyed soul is one like the prodigal son mentioned above. Though he was still living, he was quite miserable with himself and the circumstances of his selfish life choices. The scripture tells us he was "lost" which is the same word translated as "perish" in many places.

Luke 15:24
for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' And they began to be merry.

Todd

[steve7150]

RV wrote:
THIRD REQUEST( )


I wrote:
So why the urgency of the apostles?


BTW although they were preaching the gospel in Judea , they were not in any other countries that did exist at that time like China, India, Japan etc.
Plus Jesus had said if someone is not interested in the gospel just dust off your feet and move on which if this unbeliever were facing eternal hell would be an odd reaction considering the consequences, don't you think?

[darinhouston]

I have noticed that this claim is often made, but do you think a dire fate for the wicked was not generally understood? A fate that was at least implied? Why preach remission of sins if there were no consequences? Do we not usually counsel those we love to stop smoking, without adding "or else you will die of lung cancer", which is an understood risk? Many similar examples can be found.

I don't know about the general understanding and I also lean to CI and not UR, but in response to this question, we sometimes do counsel folks to stop smoking due to the risk of lung cancer, but even before the link to cancer was discovered, I understand some were taught not to smoke (or to quit) because they would feel better and not be cronically "sick" from the unhealthy and unnatural effect of smoking (and also for social reasons, and in some cases even out of respect for authorities who wished kids not to smoke for example). Similarly, there are other reasons not to sin -- enriching our lives, obeying the desires and commands of a Holy God, demonstrating God's holiness...