Universalism

I would like to recommend another very good article on universalism from an arminian perspective. This is reputable scholarship, not a quack site!

http://www.quodlibet.net/alexander-arminian.shtml

 

Yes, you're right. I did that this morning. It is a few posts above. I'm not a master at this debate thing, Yelsew. I do what I can the best I can with what I know. You'll note that I don't call people names or put down what they say or make prophecies concerning where they'll wind up with the way they think. This is the most important thing to me - to do all things in love. Your patience is asked as I develop my debating skills.

I do notice a lack of affection on the part of most people here for those who do not agree with them. That to me a far sadder than if their doctrines is correct or not.

Well, I guess that is a part of debate

In Him, GH

[ May 27, 2003, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: GH ]

 

Easy partner, I am on your side! I am not Reformed in my theology! I was agreeing with you and chiming in to show our universalist friends that there is a stipulation to becoming a child of God. I was not defending Calvinism. I am not a Calvinist! It is only because of God that we can become children of God, but we must receive Christ just as this verse informs us.

Neal

 

Well, at least you're consistant

 

Universalism does not do an adequate job handling the total of Scripture. It is not a feasible position. (Unless, of course, you do not have a high regard for Scripture, as I have seen with some universalists that I have read about.)

Is grace forced on someone if they don't want it?

Without any good justification. There is evidence to the contrary that there is a chance after this life.

Exactly, my friend. You have just hit the nail on the head. Not everyone will repent. That is the kicker.

God doesn't force a person to reject Him.

So do you just ignore Hebrews 9:27 and Revelation 20:15?

Oh, I see. The whole subjectivity thing again. Can you honestly say that the verses used to support universalism are not taken out of context? GH's post seems to show that they are. I have shown how Rom. 5:17-19 was butchered to support universalism. And what of those contrary to universalism? Universalists fail to engage meaningfully with the texts contrary to their position.

Why change for the sake of changing? I didn't say everything I believe is wrong. Universalism is not Biblical, thus I will not change to support it.

Could He be emphasizing the point? Also, I know what the beast and the false prophet represent and don't claim that they are just individual humans. My point is that there are those who are NOT in the Book of Life that will be cast in the lake of fire. Can you point me to a verse that says they will be taken out? If not, that is mere human conjecture beyond the Scripture (not just this one, but others as well) and I am not will to do that with something as important as eternal life. It is clear that there is a judgment and that we are to take the gospel to people, and they have a choice to make. And there is absolutely no indication that they can change their minds after this life and be okay. The evidence is all to the contrary. Why run that risk and start conjecturing about that which we have no evidence for, other than emotions, which fail us?

Huh?

Why? Is God too weak to already get us to that point?

Forced reception of His Son is not willful.

Even if it is forced?

They will have to live with the decision that they have made. If not, we are all wasting our time here. Let's do whatever we want now and right before we are thrown into the lake of fire, let's repent!

People are thrown into the lake of fire because of their rejection of Christ. You have no adequate explanation of the lake of fire. It is not for remedial purposes, Christ has paid the price of sin. It is not to persuade them, because that is forced persuasion. So what exactly is it then?

Neal

[ May 27, 2003, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

It's so hard for anyone to accept love and mercy isn't it?

Then the Lord ceases to love the sinner after this life? I thought you denied this earlier!

You don't know that!

I wasn't implying that. I'm just saying that just because a person rejects Christ now doesn't mean he will always do so, not even in the next life. If God still loves the sinner even in the next life, as you stated earlier, then why would he be denied the opportunity to repent in the next life?

Those scriptures only say that a person will be judged in the next life, in which we all agree.

Every body else is subjective accept you, huh?

For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. Romans 11:32 (ESV)

For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:19 (ESV)


If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Romans 5:17 (ESV)

Putting all these scriptures together tells me that all will receive Christ in the long run! The same "all" consigned to disobedience is the "all" the Lord will have mercy on! The same "many" that were made sinners will be the "many" made righteous! Notice it says "will be made righteous" , not maby! Of course they have to "receive Christ" but this is just the point. Since it emphatically states that the same "all" consigned to disobedience, and the same "many" who were made sinners will be made righteous , we know that in the long run they will receive Christ . Now does that butcher scripture for you?

I can come pretty close. Of course we know the fire isn't literal because it wasn't literal to Jesus!
Mark 9:47-50 (ESV)
And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, [48] 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.' [49] For everyone will be salted with fire [50] Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."
Remember how I quoted Barclay as stating:"The Greek word for punishment is kolasis , which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment. That's what being salted with fire means. Notice it says "salt is good" and admonishes us to "be salted with fire". Salt is what preserves and makes things better! So when the purging fire is finished, one may go on to greater things!
This same theme is in Paul's writtings:

" each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. [14] If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. [15] If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire". 1 Cor. 3:13-15 (ESV)
So, here we have people being saved through fire! It doesn't appear to me that they are "staying in any lake of fire"

On the lake of fire, see the above. If punishment by a loving Father is not to persuade, correct, or remedy a sinful, misery causing way of life, then what is it? I'm wondering what reason an earthly father punishes his children. To say,"I told you so, now suffer"? "You had your chance when I gave it to you, so don't ask me to accept you now, there are limits on how far I can go, you know!" The only reason a loving earthly father punishes his children is to make them better. How much better is our Heavenly Father than this?

 

Well, at least you're consistant </font>[/QUOTE]What were you looking for, someone you can persuade to put on rose colored glasses like your own?

When Jesus returns to reign here on earth, he is not coming as "Casper Milktoast"! He is not going to be "the babe in a manger". He is instead coming as the mighty conquerer whose sword cuts down ALL that is false and deceptive. He will bind up Satan and his demons in a pit for a millenium while He reigns among the humans he created and Loves.

Will he come in Love? YAH! He'll absolutely LOVE destroying untruth, He'll absolutely LOVE tearing down every false religion that currently permeates mankind. He'll absolutely LOVE knocking the props out from under those who believe that "GOD IS LOVE" and that is all that God is, while forsaking all the other attributes of GOD. That includes you dear! So if I were you, I'd Go back to 'Jesus 101' and find out the truth about him and the Father. 'CAUSE YOU AIN'T GOT IT!

If as you say 'GOD IS LOVE' then LOVE IS ALL THAT GOD IS, or can be! (depends on what your definition of 'is' is!)

If on the other hand you believe that God 'has' love or that God loves, you leave room for God to have Grace, Mercy, Justice, and his many other attributes, including all of HIS many omni-attributes.

My God is in no way limited to only one of his attributes as your God is. Attributes, which I might add, all work together in perfect balance and harmony to bring Honor and Glory to everlasting God...inspite of what created and temporal man does or may do.

For eternity to now, God has not "needed man". From now through the rest of eternity God is not in need of man. Man's existance has no effect on God, afterall, </font>

• Who or what is there that can Judge God?</font>
• Who can advise God?</font>
• Who dares to tell God that He has a character flaw?</font>
• Who is wise enough to determine what a Character flaw may be in God?</font>
• Who in this natural form can even see God and live?</font>

Your wishful thinking about God has no influence whatever on what God is or Does. You cannot impact God with your incorrect assessments! God has declared that he will save the "whosoever believeth's" but that those who believeth not condemn themselves. And that condemnation is not the same as saying "bad boy". It is a one-way ticket to the lake of fire! Everyone has this natural life ONLY in which to come to the state of belief (FAITH). You won't get another chance! </font>[/QUOTE]Yelly, our dear Lord put those rose-colored, Jesus-colored glasses on me. You know, the kind that dies for love.

Blessings to you, dear brother Yelsew/Wesley, in Christ Jesus, Savior of mankind, especially of those who believe,

GH

"We have to realize that we cannot earn or win anything from God through our own efforts. We must either receive it as a gift or do without it. The greatest spiritual blessing we receive is when we come to the knowledge that we are destitute. Until we get there, our Lord is powerless. He can do nothing for us as long as we think we are sufficient in and of ourselves. We must enter into His kingdom through the door of destitution. As long as we are "rich," particularly in the area of pride or independence, God can do nothing for us. It is only when we get hungry spiritually that we receive the Holy Spirit. The gift of the essential nature of God is placed and made effective in us by the Holy Spirit. He imparts to us the quickening life of Jesus, making us truly alive. He takes that which was "beyond" us and places it "within" us. And immediately, once "the beyond" has come "within," it rises up to "the above," and we are lifted into the kingdom where Jesus lives and reigns." Oswald Chambers "My Utmost For His Highest"

 

Good argument. For some reason, people do now.

Good dodge. Besides, I don't equate love = people in heaven. That is your definition. Without justification.

About like you don't know everyone will be reconciled? At least I will take into consideration the entire Bible, not just parts.

And what evidence do you have that there is another opportunity?

Exactly. A judgment is a decision. There is no you get another chance, and another, and another, and another, etc.

I am not the one saying it depends on how you interpret it. There is only one truth, not many.

Please look at where I answered GH's post in this thread concerning Rom. 5:17-19. You left out v. 18, by the way. Rom. 11:32 says "may have," not "will have." I am sure it is of little difference to you, but it does change the meaning. And by the way, those are not the only three verses in the Bible. Does you conclusion fall in line with the rest of Scripture?

So you can't, right? And by the way, I haven't even mentioned the nature of hell. Are you assuming something with me?

So Christ didn't take away the sin of the world? You have people paying for sins that Christ paid for? Was His sacrifice not sufficient? Or is God just being mean? Talking about being unfair!

Eternal separation because of rejection of His free gift of eternal life through His Son, Jesus Christ.

For your first statement, I have never said that. And no, that is not the reason. As for the second, I can't help that you don't like the fact that from Scripture we can see of only one chance. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can change it on a whim. People are not basically good and are not innocent. They reject some knowledge of God on every level. They resist His Spirit. Why should He keep on forever?

Neal

 

1)Yes, He did. That is why everyone will ultimately be saved. Some of actually believe that when the Bible says that Jesus took away the sin of the world that it means He actually took away the sin of the world. There is no longer any eternal punishment for sin as Jesus already bore everyone's eternal punishment. God would be unjust to punish anyone for sins for which Jesus already bore the punishment. That is why if you believe that Jesus paid the price for all sin, then to be consistent you must also believe that all people will ultimately be saved. Even though our sins are paid for, God still uses the suffering and circumstances and means of this age to bring us to Jesus. God doing the same thing in the next age is no different. I do not use theology based on limited human knowledge to limit whom God saves or when He saves.

2)&3) No, and yes my Lord's sacrifice was sufficient to save anyone on an infinite number of worlds. God uses the suffering in this life to bring us to Jesus, to provide correction in this life, doesn't He? Yes, He does. Those who do not come to Jesus based on the suffering in this life will have the suffering ratcheted up in the next age so that they will come to Jesus. That is why hell is still a serious matter even though all will ultimately be saved. It is no more a matter of anyone paying for sins that Jesus has already paid for in the next age than it is in this age.

God created us and He is all-wise and more than able to do whatever is necessary to restore all of His creation to His intended purpose.

 

Ken,

Before I probe further here...I need to ask a question. Does someone have to accept Jesus Christ as their savior to receieve this salvation? And if not on this earth, sometime in the afterlife? In other words, at some point in the future, before they enter Heaven, they will need to believe in and accept Christ's sacrifice?

Because, if not, you are saying unbelievers will be in Heaven. And I am fairly certain you don't believe that. So, again, must one, at some point (this life or the next) have to accept Jesus as their savior?

Thanks in advance, and God bless,

Grant

 

Absolutely, one must come to Jesus in repentance and faith, whether in this age or the next age. I am not advocating Unitarianism. Unitarians advocate a form of universalism but they do not believe that one must come to Jesus in repentance and faith to be saved.

 

Ken,

Do you believe that one can suffer in the afterlife? And where do you believe that one suffers, if not hell?

God bless,

Grant

 

Yes. Those who do not come to Jesus in repentance and faith in this age are sent to Hell, the lake of fire, in the next age. Even knowing that God will restore all of His creation does not make me lackadaisical about wanting to go to Heaven and see my Lord's smile rather than suffer for any length of time in Hell. I have to face enough problems in this age. I don't want any more in the next age.