Evangelical Universalism - True or False Doctrine?

[Elhanan]

 

However we disagree on whether those headed for destruction are eternally doomed or temporarily chastised in the lake of fire. That’s why so much attention has been focused on the translation/meaning of “eternal.” Furthermore, the sheep & goats are not the same as believers & unbelievers.

Ask yourself this question, Brother. If everyone was given a second chance, to be refined, why did God send Jesus to be our final Sacrifice? There would be no need at all. Once they stood before Jesus, before entering the Lake of Fire, they would know the truth which they wold be contemplating until they got it correct.

 

Not sure if I understand your entire question.  From a scriptural standpoint, God has decreed that he will reconcile all things to himself: "and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." Col 1:20  One question to ask is how is it possible to bring reconciliation to all when most human beings are "eternally" estranged from God in the lake of fire.  Estrangement and separation from God is not reconciliation.  Moreover, those who are separated from God will have to endure never-ending punishment.  Eternal punishment at the very least seems far removed from the idea of God reconciling all to himself.  In terms of second chances, would it be inconsistent with God's character to allow a second chance in the LOF?  I submit not. Perhaps God is more loving and merciful than we have been taught or can imagine?  If people do not submit to his Lordship in this life then they will have to submit to his righteous judgment in the LOF which is the subject of controversy in this thread. From a theological perspective, I think universalism encompasses all of the attributes of God without having to compromise on one or the other.  In the end, God's mercy prevails and he remains omnipotent because his desire to save all will one day be accomplished.  Hope that answers your question. 

[Floatingaxe]

 

I think universalism encompasses all of the attributes of God without having to compromise on one or the other.  In the end, God's mercy prevails and he remains omnipotent because his desire to save all will one day be accomplished.  Hope that answers your question.

 

 

Universalism chops up the attributes of God and ignores His justice, cleaving only to His love and mercy, making God a one-dimensional lightweight.

 

God will not save all, and neither does He ever claim to. That is one thing He cannot do, because He is up against the will of man He created. He will never contravene the will of man---or His design of him having self-determination.

[Guest ninhao]

 

Elhanan, on 01 Oct 2013 - 3:59 PM, said:

I guess that we will remain in disagreement over this because despite my multiple requests asking you explain why you insert the word "now" in prison into the text, you have remained silent in your response.  Instead what you have done is rephrased your wording to "in prison to this day" which is essentially the same thing. It is a risky thing to add to the biblical text in order to support your view therefore I cannot support it.

 

 

The word “now’ isn’t required to show the correct meaning of the passage I use it to convey the message more clearly. Dividing scripture requires the correct understanding of the intention of the Author and the context used.  You deny the clear context of the passages so as to cling to erroneous doctrine.

 

1Pe 3:18  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

1Pe 3:19  By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

 

Firstly notice again the context is reinforced showing how Jesus also suffered for the sake of righteousness.( in the same way we do) Secondly notice that  Jesus also preached to spirits in prison by the Holy Spirit. ( in the same way we do ).  

 

 

The correct context means dealing with the text as it is written and not interpreting it through the addition of your own words.  With all due respect, the Jehovah Witnesses do this and I'm sure you do not condone it, so why do you do it?

 

 

The correct context is Peter’s encouragement to believers as written. I’m quite surprised you deny this and it’s ironic the mention of JW’s considering your incorrect doctrine. I neither condone JW manipulation of scripture to suit their doctrine nor yours and it's ironic that JW's produced their own translation to suit. Is this why you prefer YLT ?  I'm amused at your attempts to use associations as ammunition considering the embrace of an adulterated Apostle’s Creed.     

Considering the parenthesised verses the context is clear unless you have an agenda requiring it to be different. “Now” isn’t required to interpret the passage but is used to help explain it. Again irony strikes considering your attempts to deny the clear meaning of Matthew 25:46 by translating aionios in 2 different fashions in the one sentence

 

 

 

You are correct that the Old Roman Creed does not have that phrase and frankly we don't know why it was added to the Apostles' Creed. The fact that it is was added later could just as well be to confirm what they believed Scripture taught. 

 

 

So do you still insist using the Apostle’s Creed as support for Jesus descending into hell after crucifixion ?  Considering it initially made no such reference and was adulterated by the Catholic Church I would assume you will use the original Creed now. Unless you require the adulterated Creed because it suits your agenda.  

 

 

My same argument as above; we're riding the merry-go-round here and we've beaten these ponies into the ground.

 

 

I agree and until you admit the true context there is no moving forward here.

 

 

I believe that it is best practice to translate aionios as age-biding or something similar as eternal is not an acceptable translation and I'll use Matt 25:46 as an example to thus address your concerns in my next post to you. 

 

 

Your reluctance to use “eternal” even for believers shows an obvious bias.  I’m guessing it’s safest for your doctrine to avoid using eternal completely. Matthew 25:46 shows the fate of the wicked and the righteous contrasted as 2 eternal consequences.

( Elhanan I ask again that you consider your respondents and make an effort to foramt your replies. If you need help with this please pm me or OneLight would be more knowledgeable in this area. )

[Guest ninhao]

 

Elhanan, on 01 Oct 2013 - 5:54 PM, said:

Not sure if I understand your entire question.  From a scriptural standpoint, God has decreed that he will reconcile all things to himself: "and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." Col 1:20  One question to ask is how is it possible to bring reconciliation to all when most human beings are "eternally" estranged from God in the lake of fire.  Estrangement and separation from God is not reconciliation. 

 

 

This was addressed very well by Shiloh in

 

Shiloh24/9/2013...

Not even you would argue that all things are reconciled to God at this time.  Yet look at II Cor. 5:19.   It speaks of Jesus on the cross and it says, “to wit that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.”    Now if I take that verse on reconcilation and apply the same interpretative rules you are employing then it would appear that the entire world has already been reconicled to God.   God has already done it given the past tense phraseology of II Cor. 5:19.   Yet, we know that there are many people who have not been reconciled to God.   By your standard of interpretation, there is no need for anyone to go to hell because God has already reconciled the world to Himself.  That eliminates the need for anyone to purified in hell. 

 

Take for example, your approach to Rom. 5:12-21.  According to you Paul employs parallelism wherein if in Adam all men were made sinners, then it must follow that in Christ all men are (or will be saved).   But Paul is again speaking in the past tense.  He doesn’t speak in future terms, but terms of what has already happened as historical fact.  Taken at face value, all men should already be saved.  But not even you are bold enough to claim that all men are already saved, hence the need for them to spend a season or two in hell according to your theology.

 

The use of reconciliation in Col. 1:19-20 is not the same use as is employed in Rom. 5:19 where the context is redemptive.   Col. 1:19-20 has the entire cosmic scope of the created order in view and is not using reconcilation to mean that God is going to save everyone and everything.   You are taking a hyper-literal approach that really creates a lot of problems, theologically and biblically.

The reconciliation cannot be in a redemptive sense because Col. 1:19-20 is refering to all things, not merely all people.   There is no place in the Bible that says all people will be saved.   In this passage, it refers to God reconciling inanimate objects, the entire created order, not merely human beings.   This passage is teaching us about the restoration of the created order under the Lordship of Jesus who is the “firstborn” of all creation, meannig that He is the chief, the one to whom all authority over all things has been given.  It is not saying that all people will finally be brought to salvation.

 

 

 

 Moreover, those who are separated from God will have to endure never-ending punishment.  Eternal punishment at the very least seems far removed from the idea of God reconciling all to himself. 

 

 

Eternal punishment is one premise. Annihilation allows that God has everything reconciled to Himself in the New World were only the righteous remain. However this is moot considering your confusing the reconciliation of the created order with salvation as Shiloh showed above.

 

  

In terms of second chances, would it be inconsistent with God's character to allow a second chance in the LOF?  I submit not. Perhaps God is more loving and merciful than we have been taught or can imagine?  If people do not submit to his Lordship in this life then they will have to submit to his righteous judgment in the LOF which is the subject of controversy in this thread. From a theological perspective, I think universalism encompasses all of the attributes of God without having to compromise on one or the other.  In the end, God's mercy prevails and he remains omnipotent because his desire to save all will one day be accomplished.  Hope that answers your question. 

 

 

You are yet to provide any scripture showing anyone exiting the LOF. The LOF is portrayed as the second death and the resurrection of the dead  has already occurred, there is no mention of another.

 

Rev 20:13-15  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.  (14)  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.  (15)  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

You forget the long suffering of God with man and the opportunity everyone has to know Him.  You also seem to think God will punish people into submission (?) or accept them as children and then torture them after this (?)

[Guest]

No, that would certainly be an overly broad generalization. I'll give you an example using a well-known verse - John 3:16. This verse contains the word pisteuon which most Bibles translate as "believe." However the verb pisteuon is a present active participle and should be properly translated as "believing." Therefore the relevant part of this verse should read everyone believing in Him may not perish but may have eternal [age-abiding] life. Thus, what this means for us is that ongoing, continuous belief is necessary for salvation - not just a one-time moment of belief in the past.

 

 

 

Look

 

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Philippians 2:12-13

 

Up

 

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Romans 8:15

 

See

 

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

 

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:35-39

 

~

 

Some Say Even With God's Word

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

It Is Hopeless

 

Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. Isaiah 59:1-2

 

But

 

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24

 

God Says Otherwise

 

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47

 

~

 

Believe

 

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Acts 2:21

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Joe

[OneLight]

However we disagree on whether those headed for destruction are eternally doomed or temporarily chastised in the lake of fire. That’s why so much attention has been focused on the translation/meaning of “eternal.” Furthermore, the sheep & goats are not the same as believers & unbelievers.

Ask yourself this question, Brother. If everyone was given a second chance, to be refined, why did God send Jesus to be our final Sacrifice? There would be no need at all. Once they stood before Jesus, before entering the Lake of Fire, they would know the truth which they wold be contemplating until they got it correct.

Not sure if I understand your entire question.  From a scriptural standpoint, God has decreed that he will reconcile all things to himself: "and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." Col 1:20  One question to ask is how is it possible to bring reconciliation to all when most human beings are "eternally" estranged from God in the lake of fire.  Estrangement and separation from God is not reconciliation.  Moreover, those who are separated from God will have to endure never-ending punishment.  Eternal punishment at the very least seems far removed from the idea of God reconciling all to himself.  In terms of second chances, would it be inconsistent with God's character to allow a second chance in the LOF?  I submit not. Perhaps God is more loving and merciful than we have been taught or can imagine?  If people do not submit to his Lordship in this life then they will have to submit to his righteous judgment in the LOF which is the subject of controversy in this thread. From a theological perspective, I think universalism encompasses all of the attributes of God without having to compromise on one or the other.  In the end, God's mercy prevails and he remains omnipotent because his desire to save all will one day be accomplished.  Hope that answers your question.

 

My question is really simple.  If God is going to forgive everyone in the end, why did He send Jesus to suffer and die for us. to be the final Sacrifice?

 

You post just one verse, Colossians 1:20, and ignore the rest?

 

"For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister."

The fullness of the passage refutes your claim. Scripture tells us we must be "in Him" and sets another condition "if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard".

Your idea that the LOF is where everyone has a second chance is not supported by scripture, but only a false theology you have assigned yourself to. I encourage you read scripture with a clean mind so He can show you the truth. In order to force scripture to support your theory, one would have to read scripture with the mind set to support a theory, not with the mindset to allow scripture to form your theology.

You mentioned in a post the Apostles Creed, pointing to #5 as the reason why you do not believe Jesus went to hell for this time, claiming it was added later for support. I give you Matthew 12:40 "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.". The heart of the earth was seen where Hades and Abraham's Bosom was.

[asper]

 

Hi elhanan,

you showed my point exactly. how would you or i know? my advise to you is that the next time you want to correct what the translations say that you better bring some gramarians with you. grammer is quite complicated.

i apoligize for being so abrupt with you as i actually like the way you present your case. but it is harder to win if you take the wrong position. not imposible but definitly harder.

God bless,

Tony

 

You assume it is the wrong position and believe what you hold to be "true" yet you concede that the meaning of the verse is contested.  Grammar is not as complicated as you believe.  In many cases the meaning of a contested verse can be drawn from its immediate context. Examine the context two verses later in Jn 3:18.  This verse is especially pertinent not only due to its contextual proximity to Jn 3:16 but because the word "believe" occurs 3 times in both negative and positive form and in the present and perfect tense.  It demonstrates that one does not come under judgment as long as ongoing belief is present.  If you want to continue this discussion, it would make for a good topic to start in another thread so as not to go off topic here.

 

“The one who continues trusting [pisteuon, present participle] in him is not condemned; the one who does not continue trusting [same construction but with negative particle] is already condemned [perfect passive, is in a state of condemnation] because he has not believed with abiding results [pepisteuken, perfect tense, indicating permanent attitude of unbelief] in the name of the Son of God” (Light From the Greek New Testament, Anderson Press: Warner, IN, 1959, p. 105).

 

 

 

Hi ehanan,

 

 

That’s  pretty funny.

 

 

The one way that those who are wrong try to make themselves appear right is to use treachery. Basically they lie.

 

Depending on how far gone they are they either reconcile their lying as necessary because they believe that they are right and evidently the end justifies the means or they don’t recognize that they are lying because they think that whatever they think is right because they think it.

 

Of course there is varying degrees between the two extremes.

 

A few days ago you believed that you could correctly translate John 3:16.

 

I brought up some information that you were not aware of.

 

Last night you still had not realized this so when I explained it to you became the expert again.

 

You still do not get it.

 

 

I will write it in simpler terms,

 

First what does the verse say to you.

Second what does the verse say to translators and grammarians.

Third what does the verse say to those who have written commentaries.

Forth what does the verse to everyone else.

 

 

You have this obligation to do when you decide to teach others. Certainly you don’t want to lead people astray. Or do you?

 

 

God bless,

Tony

[Elhanan]

 

 

Hi elhanan,

you showed my point exactly. how would you or i know? my advise to you is that the next time you want to correct what the translations say that you better bring some gramarians with you. grammer is quite complicated.

i apoligize for being so abrupt with you as i actually like the way you present your case. but it is harder to win if you take the wrong position. not imposible but definitly harder.

God bless,

Tony

 

You assume it is the wrong position and believe what you hold to be "true" yet you concede that the meaning of the verse is contested.  Grammar is not as complicated as you believe.  In many cases the meaning of a contested verse can be drawn from its immediate context. Examine the context two verses later in Jn 3:18.  This verse is especially pertinent not only due to its contextual proximity to Jn 3:16 but because the word "believe" occurs 3 times in both negative and positive form and in the present and perfect tense.  It demonstrates that one does not come under judgment as long as ongoing belief is present.  If you want to continue this discussion, it would make for a good topic to start in another thread so as not to go off topic here.

 

“The one who continues trusting [pisteuon, present participle] in him is not condemned; the one who does not continue trusting [same construction but with negative particle] is already condemned [perfect passive, is in a state of condemnation] because he has not believed with abiding results [pepisteuken, perfect tense, indicating permanent attitude of unbelief] in the name of the Son of God” (Light From the Greek New Testament, Anderson Press: Warner, IN, 1959, p. 105).

 

 

 

Hi ehanan,

 

 

That’s  pretty funny.

 

 

The one way that those who are wrong try to make themselves appear right is to use treachery. Basically they lie.

 

Depending on how far gone they are they either reconcile their lying as necessary because they believe that they are right and evidently the end justifies the means or they don’t recognize that they are lying because they think that whatever they think is right because they think it.

 

Of course there is varying degrees between the two extremes.

 

A few days ago you believed that you could correctly translate John 3:16.

 

I brought up some information that you were not aware of.

 

Last night you still had not realized this so when I explained it to you became the expert again.

 

You still do not get it.

 

 

I will write it in simpler terms,

 

First what does the verse say to you.

Second what does the verse say to translators and grammarians.

Third what does the verse say to those who have written commentaries.

Forth what does the verse to everyone else.

 

 

You have this obligation to do when you decide to teach others. Certainly you don’t want to lead people astray. Or do you?

 

 

God bless,

Tony

 

What's the big problem Asper?  I have offered Jn 3:18 as context for Jn 3:16.  Yet in your reply you don't deal with the text but insist your view is correct. I guess I'm supposed to take your take your word for it huh?  If by chance you choose to address Jn 3:18 start your own thread so we don't have to go off topic here.

[asper]

Hi elhanan,

 

You didn’t get the point so let’s move on,

 

 

What is the difference in this verse?

 

Mt 25:46  And these shall go away into everlasting <166> punishment: but the righteous into life eternal <166>.

 

Are both forever or are both for a short period of time?

 

It would be pretty inconsistent to make one forever and the other one for a period of time don’t you think?

 

 

 

 

 

Joh 3:36  He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting <166> life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

What does He mean by life?

 

 

 

Also where in the Bible is a unbeliever promised eternal life?

 

 

Let me know when you get a chance?

 

 

God bless,

Tony

[Elhanan]

Hi elhanan,

 

You didn’t get the point so let’s move on,

 

 

What is the difference in this verse?

 

Mt 25:46  And these shall go away into everlasting <166> punishment: but the righteous into life eternal <166>.

 

Are both forever or are both for a short period of time?

 

It would be pretty inconsistent to make one forever and the other one for a period of time don’t you think?

 

 

 

 

 

Joh 3:36  He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting <166> life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

What does He mean by life?

 

 

 

Also where in the Bible is a unbeliever promised eternal life?

 

 

Let me know when you get a chance?

 

 

God bless,

Tony

I got your point but evidently you avoid my point as you refuse to deal with the context of Jn 3:16,18 and how you interpret it.  As for Matt 25:46 refer to my next post.