Univeralism?

[HeirofSalvation]

I don't know what God does on that issue.

I do.
God doesn't torture babies....
If your God tortures babies...He is not the same God I worship.

He doesn't clearly say

yes, he does.
Yahweh does not torture babies...

and would if He wanted us to know.

He wanted me to know: He wanted you to know: and he wrote it down in a book to make it obvious:
The God I worship does not torture babies.
I know not what demon you may worship, but the Yahweh God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not a baby torturer.

My question is that if God does have vessels of destruction that are under the arbitrary age of 12, or 8, or 6 months, or pre-born,

He doesn't have "vessels" in the sense that you think he does.
I know you think it means God pre-determining beings he wants to torture for eternity(to include babies)...but, that isn't what it means.

as He does adult vessels of destruction, do you love and Worship Him, as the God that that would make Him out to be? anyway? still?

NO.
He would be a monster, and unworthy of worship.
I worship the YHWH God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

There are a lot of things that go down which are a challenge for us to grasp about God

There are:
One of those things is NOT the question:
"Does God torture babies for eternity for his own inexplicable reason?"
If you've ever entertained that thought for more than ten seconds, you have no place debating, preaching, or teaching Scripture.

Because God is God and we're not.

There's a charming tautology:
Here's another one:
Baby torturers are baby torturers and those who aren't aren't.

But, do we love God for Who He says He is?

Yes.

God does not say he is a baby torturer:
You think he does say that. That is sick and it is sad.

He just doesn't happen to tell us about the destiny of all unborn babies or infants, so we don't have to make up guesses about it, one way or another.

The Scriptures are CLEAR about the fate of infants.
Your Calvinist Theology is not:
It provides no satisfactory answer other than that:
"All infants are born (or still-born at less than 5 months?) disgustingly wicked in God's eyes and deserving of being tortured forever...but, some.....might incidentally be of a lucky few whom God has chosen [based upon his own inscrutable purposes] to live forever in bliss and joy.

We simply have to Worship God for what we know

I worship him because of who he is...
He is not a demon who tortures babies.
If he did, he would be unworthy of worship.

The point is, if He allows us to have anything near what Job did happen to us or someone else, do we love Him in spite of all those things like Job was Enabled by His Spirit to do?

There is no correlation between what happened to Job, God's purpose in permitting it, and what God did afterwards to God seemingly randomly choosing to torture babies eternally for no explicable reason whatsoever.
Let us count a few differences:
1.) Job was an adult, a man capable of choosing right and wrong and generally chose that which was right
2.) There was a Direct intervention of Satan upon that one man to encourage God or challenge him to treat him in a specific way for a very particular reason.
3.) There was never the threat of Job being eternally tortured forever, only temporal hardships..
4.) Satan, not God was the one who afflicted Job.
5.) God rewarded Job in the end, re-imbursing his troubles ten-fold

None of this applies to your "God tortures babies for his own glory" Theology.

That's what it takes, for the unthinkable.

"Unthinkable" doesn't mean self-evidently false:
That God loves me is "unthinkable"..
That God does not torture babies eternally for no reason....is obvious.

 

[Van]

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (Romans 5:18 ESV)

Since the Greek grammar construction of the first phrase "condemnation for all humans" is the same as for the second phrase "justification for all humans" the verse seems to suggests universalism.

Condemnation was applied to all humans in the first phrase, so why not also apply justification to all humans based on the second phrase?

One difference is condemnation to all humans, is not exactly the same as justification of life to all humans. What exactly is "justification of life?" First, we were all children of wrath, rather than "innocent" before being saved. In order to be a child of wrath, we must start out with God's wrath upon us thus we started out not as an innocent, but as a "sinner not because we had done anything good or bad, but as a consequence of Adam's sin, Romans 5:19.

Justification of life to all people refers to having the sin burden, what God has against the individual, removed such that a person goes from unholiness to holiness, from spiritually dead, separated from God to being spiritually alive, together with Christ. This reconciliation is not applied to all people, but must be "received" through credited faith in the truth.

Romans 5:11
And not only this, but we also celebrate in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
2 Corinthians 5:20
Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Thus people did not receive the reconciliation when Christ died, but must receive the reconciliation and be reconciled during their lifetime when and if God credits their faith in the truth as righteousness and transfers them into Christ where they undergo the washing of regeneration.
​

 

[taisto]

I do.
God doesn't torture babies....
If your God tortures babies...He is not the same God I worship.

yes, he does.
Yahweh does not torture babies...

He wanted me to know: He wanted you to know: and he wrote it down in a book to make it obvious:
The God I worship does not torture babies.
I know not what demon you may worship, but the Yahweh God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not a baby torturer.

He doesn't have "vessels" in the sense that you think he does.
I know you think it means God pre-determining beings he wants to torture for eternity(to include babies)...but, that isn't what it means.

NO.
He would be a monster, and unworthy of worship.
I worship the YHWH God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

There are:
One of those things is NOT the question:
"Does God torture babies for eternity for his own inexplicable reason?"
If you've ever entertained that thought for more than ten seconds, you have no place debating, preaching, or teaching Scripture.

There's a charming tautology:
Here's another one:
Baby torturers are baby torturers and those who aren't aren't.

Yes.

God does not say he is a baby torturer:
You think he does say that. That is sick and it is sad.

The Scriptures are CLEAR about the fate of infants.
Your Calvinist Theology is not:
It provides no satisfactory answer other than that:
"All infants are born (or still-born at less than 5 months?) disgustingly wicked in God's eyes and deserving of being tortured forever...but, some.....might incidentally be of a lucky few whom God has chosen [based upon his own inscrutable purposes] to live forever in bliss and joy.

I worship him because of who he is...
He is not a demon who tortures babies.
If he did, he would be unworthy of worship.

There is no correlation between what happened to Job, God's purpose in permitting it, and what God did afterwards to God seemingly randomly choosing to torture babies eternally for no explicable reason whatsoever.
Let us count a few differences:
1.) Job was an adult, a man capable of choosing right and wrong and generally chose that which was right
2.) There was a Direct intervention of Satan upon that one man to encourage God or challenge him to treat him in a specific way for a very particular reason.
3.) There was never the threat of Job being eternally tortured forever, only temporal hardships..
4.) Satan, not God was the one who afflicted Job.
5.) God rewarded Job in the end, re-imbursing his troubles ten-fold

None of this applies to your "God tortures babies for his own glory" Theology.

"Unthinkable" doesn't mean self-evidently false:
That God loves me is "unthinkable"..
That God does not torture babies eternally for no reason....is obvious.

Am I to understand that the God of the Old Testament is not the God of the Bible?

"Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” And the Lord sent you on a mission and said, ‘Go, devote to destruction the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’"
- 1 Samuel 15:2-3,18

 

[old regular]

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (Romans 5:18 ESV)

Since the Greek grammar construction of the first phrase "condemnation for all humans" is the same as for the second phrase "justification for all humans" the verse seems to suggests universalism.

Condemnation was applied to all humans in the first phrase, so why not also apply justification to all humans based on the second phrase?

Romans 5:17 has already placed a restriction on the all Note :[They which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ ] All universally do not meet the restrictions placed , Christ has been given power over all flesh'' As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.'' plus or minus none. Looking at two verses I understand the suggestion looking at three verses removes it from possibility.
Romans 5:17

“For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)”

 

[Van]

Romans 5:17 has already placed a restriction on the all Note :[They which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ ] All universally do not meet the restrictions placed , Christ has been given power over all flesh'' As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.'' plus or minus none. Looking at two verses I understand the suggestion looking at three verses removes it from possibility.
Romans 5:17

“For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)”

I am sure your post had a point, just not sure what it is. That Universalism is not taught by Romans 5:17? If so, we agree.

 

[percho]

I am sure your post had a point, just not sure what it is. That Universalism is not taught by Romans 5:17? If so, we agree.

Does either of his verses, "actually," eliminate one?

Just for the sake of argument.

 

[percho]

Lo, all the souls are Mine, As the soul of the father, So also the soul of the son -- they are Mine, The soul that is sinning -- it doth die.

What did God do about 400 years after this was said relative to dead souls?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Am I to understand that the God of the Old Testament is not the God of the Bible?

I'm not accusing you of understanding anything.

"Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt.

So, we have established that this command is in response to intentionally sinful acts as a punishment, and also to eliminate a threat to Israel's future.

Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have.

No mention of arbitrarily torturing babies here.

Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

Still waiting for God's command to torture babies (or donkeys for that matter).
Does this passage speak of using the rack on sheep perhaps in another translation?

And the Lord sent you on a mission and said, ‘Go, devote to destruction the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’"

Consumed or tortured?
Is it recompense for willful sin (as established in this passage already) or arbitrary and universal?

- 1 Samuel 15:2-3,18

Why do people think randomly quoting an irrelevant passage which says nothing about the topic at hand is constructive thing to do?
What is the argument you are making here? That God can be straight-up gangster if he needs to be? We all understand this rather elementary point. No arguments from me (or likely anyone here on BB).
But, this says nothing about the topic I was responding to.

 

[taisto]

I'm not accusing you of understanding anything.

So, we have established that this command is in response to intentionally sinful acts as a punishment, and also to eliminate a threat to Israel's future.

No mention of arbitrarily torturing babies here.

Still waiting for God's command to torture babies (or donkeys for that matter).
Does this passage speak of using the rack on sheep perhaps in another translation?

Consumed or tortured?
Is it recompense for willful sin (as established in this passage already) or arbitrary and universal?

Why do people think randomly quoting an irrelevant passage which says nothing about the topic at hand is constructive thing to do?
What is the argument you are making here? That God can be straight-up gangster if he needs to be? We all understand this rather elementary point. No arguments from me (or likely anyone here on BB).
But, this says nothing about the topic I was responding to.

When did those Amalekite babies do something that deserved their death?

You are trying to dance around God's command and excuse God while still attempting to say that God doesn't torture babies.

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him."
- Numbers 31:17

Do you wish to take back your bolded exclamation that says God doesn't torture children?

 

[Van]

Does either of his verses, "actually," eliminate one?
Just for the sake of argument.

1) In post #64, Old Regular cited and quoted Romans 5:17, one verse, not more than one.
2) In post #64, OR quotes my citation of Romans 5:18.

3) If these are the "verses" you were referring to, then yes, both eliminate the doctrine of Universalism.
4) I have presented the contextual meaning of "justification of life to all men" as providing the opportunity of salvation to all humanity.
5) If you have a question, please quote my statement, and then ask your question.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

When did those Amalekite babies do something that deserved their death?

Those particular babies did nothing. Then again...this is a particular scenario, not a Universal one. Thus, it does not provide an example of what God does generally.

You are trying to dance around God's command

No. I fully acknowledge God's moral rightness in doing what he did, commanding what he commanded. I have zero problems with that passage meaning exactly what it says. It says God told the Israelites to literally destroy/kill everything and everyone.
You need me to be dancing around that, and you would have an argument if I did. But, alas, I do not.

and excuse God

God was perfectly consistent with his holiness and morality in that command, no excuse needed. God had perfectly justified moral reasons for doing so.
Again, you need me to be making excuses and dancing around it in order for you to sound as though you have an argument here....but; sorry, I do not.

while still attempting to say that God doesn't torture babies.

He doesn't.
And you have provided zero Biblical evidence that God does.

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him."
- Numbers 31:17

Still, no Biblical evidence of God torturing babies:
Keep looking:
You may learn something.

Do you wish to take back your bolded exclamation that says God doesn't torture children?

Sure.....
As soon as you show us the Biblical passage which states that God does so.
I'm happy to wait.
I'll be pleased to know you will have scoured the Scriptures repeatedly from Genesis to Revelation in search of it. That will do you nothing but good.

 

[Van]

We must conclude Christ's sacrifice brought and bought the means of justification of life to all humans. So "condemnation to all humans" might be interpreted as Adam's sin brought the means of condemnation to all men, which God utilized to justly make all humans sinners. OTOH, God utilizes Christ's sacrifice to justly bestow mercy upon human sinners of His choosing.

Bottom line, Romans 5:18 if properly understood is consistent with only a subset of humanity receiving the reconciliation provided to all humans by Christ's substitutionary sacrifice.

 

[percho]

1) In post #64, Old Regular cited and quoted Romans 5:17, one verse, not more than one.
2) In post #64, OR quotes my citation of Romans 5:18.

3) If these are the "verses" you were referring to, then yes, both eliminate the doctrine of Universalism.
4) I have presented the contextual meaning of "justification of life to all men" as providing the opportunity of salvation to all humanity.
5) If you have a question, please quote my statement, and then ask your question.

I am not arguing for or against.

Your understanding or what you call the contextual meaning is the, "elimination," not what is written in either of those verses. IMHO.

 

[Van]

I am not arguing for or against.

Your understanding or what you call the contextual meaning is the, "elimination," not what is written in either of those verses. IMHO.

Yet another "taint so" post devoid of any substantiation.
The "elimination of Universalism" from Romans 5:17-19 is based on what is specifically said.

Rom 5:17
For if by the offense of the one, death reigned through the one, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Rom 5:18
So then, as through one offense the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness the result was justification of life to all mankind.

Rom 5:19
For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

1) Those who received indicates a prospective reception of grace, not a universal reception of grace.

2) While condemnation of the many resulted in "the many were made sinners," only a prospective future action will result in "the many will be made righteous.

3) Thus "justification of life to all mankind" simply provides the opportunity for salvation to all mankind.

 

[taisto]

Those particular babies did nothing. Then again...this is a particular scenario, not a Universal one. Thus, it does not provide an example of what God does generally.

No. I fully acknowledge God's moral rightness in doing what he did, commanding what he commanded. I have zero problems with that passage meaning exactly what it says. It says God told the Israelites to literally destroy/kill everything and everyone.
You need me to be dancing around that, and you would have an argument if I did. But, alas, I do not.

God was perfectly consistent with his holiness and morality in that command, no excuse needed. God had perfectly justified moral reasons for doing so.
Again, you need me to be making excuses and dancing around it in order for you to sound as though you have an argument here....but; sorry, I do not.

He doesn't.
And you have provided zero Biblical evidence that God does.

Still, no Biblical evidence of God torturing babies:
Keep looking:
You may learn something.

Sure.....
As soon as you show us the Biblical passage which states that God does so.
I'm happy to wait.
I'll be pleased to know you will have scoured the Scriptures repeatedly from Genesis to Revelation in search of it. That will do you nothing but good.

Your whole post is you "dancing around" your statement which is: "God doesn't torture babies...."
I gave you biblical examples of God commanding the killing of babies and your post here is you dancing around this fact.

Are babies born sinless, or are they born in corruption that needs God to extend grace to them, just like all sinners?

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."
- Psalm 51:5

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Your whole post is you "dancing around" your statement which is: "God doesn't torture babies....

I don't dance around it, I state it clearly and unapologetically.
God doesn't torture babies.
You have, so far, shown zero Biblical passages stating as much. And you will also never find them. I also think you know that, and are doubling and tripling down to save face somehow, but, perhaps not.

I gave you biblical examples of God commanding the killing of babies

You needn't have done so. I don't deny (I think no one here on BB denies them or is unfamiliar with them.)
I'm fully aware of those passages and accept them as both historical fact and God acting with morally sufficient reasons to command the slaughter of children.

and your post here is you dancing around this fact.

No, I accept those passages as fact.
You Want me to be avoiding them or explaining them away, but I do not, and I will not do that for you; even though methinks you so desperately wish I would.
You most likely assumed I would.
No such luck. Deal with it.

Are babies born sinless, or are they born in corruption that needs God to extend grace to them, just like all sinners?

I do not believe they are born guilty, but they are born into corruption.

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."
- Psalm 51:5

Yup, I know that one. I invariably don't believe it means what you think it means, but, whatever it says:
It isn't "God tortures babies".
I await with baited breath your posting of that passage.
Keep looking.

 

[Alcott]

I'm not in the disposition to argue theology right now, so all I can say is that I'm getting tired of reading msg boards and every time a deceased person-- usually a celebrity-- is brought up, with a birthday or anything else, there will be multiple msgs of "Happy Birthday in Heaven!" Most of you likely know how futile it is to protest that on a secular msg board or social media. You might even get a response such as "Hell is only for evil tyrants and religious bigots-- one is usually the other!"

 

[taisto]

I don't dance around it, I state it clearly and unapologetically.
God doesn't torture babies.
You have, so far, shown zero Biblical passages stating as much. And you will also never find them. I also think you know that, and are doubling and tripling down to save face somehow, but, perhaps not.

You needn't have done so. I don't deny (I think no one here on BB denies them or is unfamiliar with them.)
I'm fully aware of those passages and accept them as both historical fact and God acting with morally sufficient reasons to command the slaughter of children.

No, I accept those passages as fact.
You Want me to be avoiding them or explaining them away, but I do not, and I will not do that for you; even though methinks you so desperately wish I would.
You most likely assumed I would.
No such luck. Deal with it.

I do not believe they are born guilty, but they are born into corruption.

Yup, I know that one. I invariably don't believe it means what you think it means, but, whatever it says:
It isn't "God tortures babies".
I await with baited breath your posting of that passage.
Keep looking.

Has God ordered the killing of babies? I provided scripture. You attempted to dance your way around the fact that God has done so. This means your statement is not universally true.
God is not evil for ordering the destruction of babies right alongside the destruction of others. When God sent the flood, he killed many, many babies by drowning them. At the end of the age God will burn them with their parents. It will be just and right.

Babies are not guiltless. They need gracious pardon like all humans need. David indicates to us that God does indeed graciously pardon, but there is no place in scripture that says God will not annihilate babies. In fact, we see that he has, in the past, ordered just such a thing.
Now, you can deny, twist, and explain away, but the facts are right in your Bible.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Has God ordered the killing of babies? I provided scripture. You attempted to dance your way around the fact that God has done so.

No, stop lying. I freely and completely admit God ordered the slaying of children.
Tell the truth for crying out loud.

God is not evil for ordering the destruction of babies right alongside the destruction of others.

Tell me something I don't know, and haven't already said myself in this pointless exchange with you.

When God sent the flood, he killed many, many babies by drowning them. At the end of the age God will burn them with their parents. It will be just and right.

YUP! I know, you are beginning to bore me by repeating the same stuff I've already agreed to a zillion times.

Babies are not guiltless.

I disagree.

but there is no place in scripture that says God will not annihilate babies. In fact, we see that he has, in the past, ordered just such a thing.

Yeah, I know...I said so myself already...

Now, you can deny, twist, and explain away, but the facts are right in your Bible.

I don't. Stop lying.

God does not torture babies.
You have shown no passages of Scripture which show that.
You will never show them because they do not exist. I think you know that and are trying to pass off God's command to kill the children off as evidence. It's not going to work. It's not just that I see right through it, but, everyone on BB will see right through it.

 

[old regular]

I am sure your post had a point, just not sure what it is. The points of my post are quite simplistic.1] Universalism is not taught in scripture . 2] Christ was only to give eternal life to those who were given him of the Father. John the in the 17th chapter even speaks of a world that Christ himself would not even pray for , the strange notion that he would redeem all in the universal sense , in light of scriptures taken as a whole appears to be nonsensical.