Why are threads on Christian universalism so popular?

[BNR32FAN]

The real question is what does your view say about God and his nature and his essence, which is love. UCT says God who knows all things before he does anything creates people who he knows he will have to torture them forever all the while saying he loves them, that’s more of a monster than a loving God. Annihilation is similar but at least he does not torture them forever just a little while. That’s better but no my idea of loving. UR said God had a plan to rescue all his creation and will do it in the end. Which view of God is the most loving?

No that’s where you are wrong. What I think or how I feel about what God has decided is completely irrelevant. This is often the biggest problem with universalists that I’ve noticed is that they are more compelled by their own thoughts rather than what the scriptures actually state. The scriptures tell us the truth about God regardless of whether or not we like it or agree with it. Like I asked before do you think Uzzah deserved to die for trying to prevent the Ark of the Covenant from falling? Regardless of what God had already foreseen about how you or I feel about it He chose to kill him.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think that we can confidently say that there are no good reason for an eternal punishment from any perspective, just as there are no good reasons for child abuse. God is not completely unknow to us - He revealed Himself perfectly in Jesus and can you really see Jesus throwing someone in a lake of fire forever?

You can say whatever you want it really means nothing. Just because we say something doesn’t change the facts. We don’t get to choose what God will or won’t do and nothing we say is going to change that. The scriptures tell us the truth about God not our thoughts or desires. Yes God revealed Himself perfectly thru Jesus. It’s Jesus that I’ve been quoting this entire time I’ve been refuting universalism. Matthew 7:21 Luke 12:10 Luke 13:6-9 Matthew 25:31-46 all statements made by Jesus.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I agree but to me that proves He hasn't chosen ECT because it's pretty easy to come up with a better idea, such as a corrective punishment instead.

Except for the fact that it isn’t scriptural and the scriptures actually refute that idea.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm not sure how it's possible to trust someone when we're not 100% certain that they're not going to torture us endlessly.

I’m 100% certain that I won’t be tortured at all.

 

[Hmm]

Except for the fact that it isn’t scriptural and the scriptures actually refute that idea.

Scripture according to you, sure. Or do you speak for all Christians?

 

[Hmm]

I’m 100% certain that I won’t be tortured at all.

And how do you know that?

 

[BNR32FAN]

1]1925 Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the sons of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). … the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a);[“Soon” in this paragraph would be about 700 BC +/-, DA]Note: This is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT any assumed/alleged bias of “modern” Christian translators. DA

Surely your not saying here that the word Hell was used in 700BC right? Because the word didn’t exist back then. Your reading an English version of this verse which very well might be translated to Hell but it was translated from Sheol.

So I’m just trying to see if I understand you correctly. Your saying that both Hades and Hell are the same place and the lake of fire is in that place? Is that correct?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Scripture according to you, sure. Or do you speak for all Christians?

No not according to me according to what is ACTUALLY written not what you want to be written. Jesus specifically said that not everyone who says to Him Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of God. You say they will eventually. Jesus said that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. You say it will eventually. You ignore the passage in Luke because it destroys the universalists interpretations of Matthew and Mark. Their explanation of Matthew and Mark and how aionios doesn’t mean for an infinite amount of time doesn’t mean anything when you compare the parallel verse in Luke that doesn’t use that word. In Luke it says “it won’t be forgiven” period. You say it will. So no it’s not according to me it’s according to what is ACTUALLY written in the scriptures. For those of us who ignore our personal feelings on the matter and allow the scriptures to dictate our doctrines rather than our personal emotions it’s easy to see. Like you yourself said earlier in the thread “who wants a God like that?” God is who He is not who we want Him to be and there’s only One God. There’s no I don’t like that God so I’ll just believe in another version of Him. That’s just a fake God that doesn’t actually exist. I’ll ask you the same question I asked another person earlier, do you think God should’ve killed Uzzah for trying to stop the Ark of the Covenant from falling?

 

[BNR32FAN]

And how do you know that?

Because I’m a follower of Christ and I know He will keep His promise.

 

[Der Alte]

And yet we know that it is.
Jesus said it was God's will that everyone who looks to the Son shall have eternal life, John 6:40. He also said that you will know the Truth and the Truth WILL set you free, John 8:32.
John wrote his epistle so that people would know the truth - as opposed to what false teachers were saying, and his Gospel so that people would believe in Jesus and have life in his name.
He could have said "might" because some people might believe and start to follow but then turn away - just as some of Jesus' disciples did, John 6:66.

I have always found it very helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond to it. You should try that.
I didn't "say" anything I quoted three Jewish historical sources. Don't like what they say take it up with those still living from among the authors.

 

[Hmm]

I’ll ask you the same question I asked another person earlier, do you think God should’ve killed Uzzah for trying to stop the Ark of the Covenant from falling?

I don't know anything about this story and I'd have to research it before I can comment which I'm not particularly interested in doing. What conclusions do you draw from it?

 

[Hmm]

That’s just a fake God that doesn’t actually exist.

Ah, that'll be the God who tortures people forever I think you'll find. But each to his own.

 

[Strong in Him]

I have always found it very helpful to actually read a post before trying to respond to it. You should try that.
I didn't "say" anything I quoted three Jewish historical sources. Don't like what they say take it up with those still living from among the authors.

What you say about reading posts is quite ironic, given that you have quoted my post which was a response to someone else.

 

[Hmm]

These universalist threads always get very negative very quickly with the usual strawman arguments but its actually a very positive message.

Gregory of Nyssa, "the father of fathers" to the Orthodox church, offered three reasons why he believed in universalism.

First, he believed in it because of the character of God. "Being good, God entertains pity for fallen man; being wise, he is not ignorant of the means for his recovery."

Second, he believed in it because of the nature of evil. Evil must in the end be moved out of existence, "so that the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all." By the "absolutely non-existent" he meant evil because he saw evil as essentially negative and doomed to non-existence.

Third, he believed in it because of the purpose of punishment. The purpose of punishment is always remedial. Its aim is "to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness." Punishment will hurt, but it's like the fire which separates the alloy from the gold or like the surgery which removes cancer.

I find these reasons compelling but I also have other reasons why I believe in universal salvation. I believe implicitly in the ultimate and complete triumph of God, the time when all things will be subject to him, and when God will be "all in all". (1 Cor. 15:28). For me, this means certain things. If just one person remains outside the love of God at the end of time, it means that that person has defeated the love of God and that seems to me to be impossible. Further, there is only one way in which we can think of the triumph of God. If God was no more than someone like Putin, then we could speak of his triumph if his enemies were agonising in prison/hell or were killed/annihilated. But God isn't like Putin, He is our Father. And no father worth the name could be happy if any of his children were for ever in torment. No father would count it a triumph to kill his disobedient children. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his children grow up to fulfil their potential and be the best person they could possibly be. The only victory a father's love can enjoy is when that love is returned. So the only possible final triumph for God is when we are all redeemed into a loving relationship with Him.

This all seems so obviously true to me, as does every argument I've ever heard for universalism, that I think it answers the question posed in the OP as to why universalism is increasing popular and has never gone away: it just makes sense.

 

[Jipsah]

Hear hear!

 

[Hmm]

Not wanting to keep the thread needlessly alive, but I've just read this quote by Max Planck and I thought it was relevant to the topic.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Whether or not Christian universalism will continue gaining support until it gains popular acceptance is of course a different question to the one Planck was addressing. It's argument is true, IMO, but that doesn't mean it is going to win out.

But with church attendance declining year on year, at least in the West, universalism does offer a helping hand. Most people I know reject Christianity because they associate it with things that are no longer acceptable in the wider moral society - sexism, racism, homophobia etc - but the hatred directed towards non Christians that is portrayed by ECT also plays a big part. Rather than being a light of love on top of a hill, the church is widely seen as a beacon of hate.

If Plank's thought above applied to the church then eventually all the people who hold onto these hatreds will die off and future Christians will look on their predecessors who portrayed and defended the concept of God as a torturer of non-Christians as we regard Christians in the past who defended the slavery of non-whites, as a shameful form of moral blindness.

 

[rebornfree]

There are no UR churches because why would anyone bother to go? Stay home and watch TV or go to a game.

I agree with much of what you write Aussie Pete, but not quite with all of that. I loved Jesus before being saved and enjoyed going to church. No doubt it was part of my journey to salvation.

That is exactly the point. Fallen man cannot have a relationship with God. Man is born dead in trespass and sin. Lord Jesus came to give Life. Those who reject God's great salvation stay dead and separated from God. This is not God's doing. God did not kill Adam. Her brought it on himself by his disobedience. God said, "You will surely die". God did not say, "I will kill you."

Yes. I think that puts the responsibility onto the right person - man! However I believe the unsaved can have prayers answered and try to live the way God wants, but there comes a point when they realise that they cannot earn their way to Heaven but need to accept the Lord's death in their place. That is when they are saved from the punishment for their sins and are born again into a relationship with God. I am not aware that this is possible after death.

In a sense UR has already happened - on the cross. John 3 v 16 says that it is for everyone. It's up to the individual to accept or not. If they refuse I believe God sadly accepts their refusal. If it hurts us to know that people reject Him I think it hurts Him much more.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I agree with much of what you write Aussie Pete, but not quite with all of that. I loved Jesus before being saved and enjoyed going to church. No doubt it was part of my journey to salvation.


Yes. I think that puts the responsibility onto the right person - man! However I believe the unsaved can have prayers answered and try to live the way God wants, but there comes a point when they realise that they cannot earn their way to Heaven but need to accept the Lord's death in their place. That is when they are saved from the punishment for their sins and are born again into a relationship with God. I am not aware that this is possible after death.

In a sense UR has already happened - on the cross. John 3 v 16 says that it is for everyone. It's up to the individual to accept or not. If they refuse I believe God sadly accepts their refusal. If it hurts us to know that people reject Him I think it hurts Him much more.

I had a prayer answered when I was 12 years old. It scared the pants off me and I did my best to rationalise it away. Lord Jesus called me a number of times, but I did not heed the call until 8 years later. It's only looking back that I can see God's mercy, love and grace. I should have died several times before I accepted Christ. The Lord knows those who are His!

 

[rebornfree]

Not wanting to keep the thread needlessly alive, but I've just read this quote by Max Planck and I thought it was relevant to the topic.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Whether or not Christian universalism will continue gaining support until it gains popular acceptance is of course a different question to the one Planck was addressing. It's argument is true, IMO, but that doesn't mean it is going to win out.

But with church attendance declining year on year, at least in the West, universalism does offer a helping hand. Most people I know reject Christianity because they associate it with things that are no longer acceptable in the wider moral society - sexism, racism, homophobia etc - but the hatred directed towards non Christians that is portrayed by ECT also plays a big part. Rather than being a light of love on top of a hill, the church is widely seen as a beacon of hate.

If Plank's thought above applied to the church then eventually all the people who hold onto these hatreds will die off and future Christians will look on their predecessors who portrayed and defended the concept of God as a torturer of non-Christians as we regard Christians in the past who defended the slavery of non-whites, as a shameful form of moral blindness.

Well racism is always bad and people should be treated with love and respect. However Christians should not aim to be popular, but to expound Biblical truth. There is a gulf between society and Christianity. The Church should preach the Christian message, which involves repentance for sin and being born again into a relationship with God and growth in Biblical living. It is not hatred which causes Christians to warn about hell, but love.

However I think that some of the ways in which it has been done is not helpful to everyone. I want people to meet Jesus and desire to come to know Him because of Who He is. I may talk about the hope of Heaven, through salvation, and that the alternative will not be good, but I see concentrating on ECT as a last resort when all else has failed.

 

[rebornfree]

I had a prayer answered when I was 12 years old. It scared the pants off me and I did my best to rationalise it away. Lord Jesus called me a number of times, but I did not heed the call until 8 years later. It's only looking back that I can see God's mercy, love and grace. I should have died several times before I accepted Christ. The Lord knows those who are His!

Yes, He does. Good testimony.

There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to salvation. Some people fall in love with Jesus. Some admire Him and want to emulate Him. One thing I am sure of. God saves sinners. I did not consider myself a bad person. I've met very few people who admit to being bad, even some who should be locked up. The Holy Spirit used God's word to convict me and scare me into the Kingdom of God! That's not why I serve the Lord now. I know Jesus and that's the only motivation I need.

I think that no "one size fits all" is so true. I've believed in Jesus since being a small child, but the need for salvation was new to me when I went to an evangelical crusade, as a 15-year old girl, in the sixties. The strong 'You're going to hell if you die tonight' message was terrifying but led to guilt about things which weren't sin. However a much kinder approach, when I was 20, led me to salvation. Your experience was obviously different so I guess the Lord uses whatever is needed with all of us.