Debunking Learnreligion.com's Article "What Is Universalism and Why Is It Fatally Flawed?"

[Harold]

Hi everyone. Today, I noticed an email sent to my [email protected] email address. Where… it’s just a link to an online article that tries to debunk Christian Universalism. I figured I would have some fun and completely debunk the entire article, since it was presented to me!



On 2023-07-06 09:42, TIMOTIN SAMA wrote:

> What Is Universalism and Why Is It Fatally Flawed?

> (learnreligions.com)<Why Universalism Is Popular, But Fatally Flawed>

> [https://www.learnreligions.com/thmb...salism-507005211-5abd0059642dca0036c4ab7f.jpg]<Why Universalism Is Popular, But Fatally Flawed>

> Why Universalism Is Popular, But Fatally

> Flawed<Why Universalism Is Popular, But Fatally Flawed>

> Universalism is a centuries-old belief that all people will be saved

> because of God's unconditional love. Learn why the doctrine is fatally

> flawed.

> www.learnreligions.com



Hello my friend Timotin Sama,



The beginning of that article mentions taht "Universalism (pronounced yu-ni-VER-sul-iz-um) is a doctrine that teaches all people will be saved.". In order to be more specific, Christian Universalism is a doctrine that teaches that all people will become believers in Christ and thus all people will be saved. This is what is meant when this verse says "all in all".



1 Corinthians 15:22-28 All will be made alive in Christ, but each in his own turn and ultimately Christ will subdue all His enemies, eliminate death and God will be all in all.



So I agree with the title of "What Is Universalism and Why Is It Fatally Flawed?" when referring to Universalism without the "Christian" in front of it, Unitarian Universalism without Christ. That doctrine teaches that all people will be saved. Yet, how can they be saved without becoming believers in Christ? Only Christ saves us from sin.



So that's the fatal flaw of Universalism without Christ. I have an article on my website where I talk about this False Universalism here: https://jesus-saves-all.com/Reb/FalseUniversalism.htm



The article says " certain cleansing period". Yet, only faith alone in Christ cleanss us of sin. Ephesians 2:8-9. No matter how much a person suffers from their sins, as long as they don't believe in Chris, then they are not saved. Someone could physically suffer much less and be saved by becoming a believer in Christ earlier than the one who physically suffers more because they believed in Christ later. All part of God's plan. Ephesians 1:10



Intersting this article even mentions "Tentmaker.org calls it "The Victorious Gospel of Jesus Christ." which is a site that I post on via their discussion forum.



and looks like they also predicted the verse I would use "everyone will be brought into a right relationship with God (1 Corinthians 15:24–28). "



The article states " Jesus Christ taught that those who reject him as Savior will spend eternity in hell after they die: "



First, what is the biblical word for eternity? It's aionios in Greek and olam in Hebrew, meaning pertaining to an age.



Second, the word hell does not appear in the Bible at all. So it's impossible for anyone to say that eternal concious torment in hell is biblical, as the concept does not appear in scripture.



Since we're on the topic of Tentmaker.org, figured I'd show a article from the Tentmaker site that proves this: Hell is Leaving the Bible Forever You know, to fit the theme lol.



Psalm 118:14 The LORD is my strength and my song; He has become my salvation. :)

 

[Harold]

Let's look at each of the scripture they use



Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 10:28 - New International Version - UK



Matthew 10:28

New International Version - UK

28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.



First, I hope we can both agree that the Bible was not written in our modern day English. So, it's important to see what was really written down.



Matthew 10:28 - Fear God Alone

hell.

γεέννῃ (geennē)

Noun - Dative Feminine Singular

Strong's 1067: Of Hebrew origin; valley of Hinnom; ge-henna, a valley of Jerusalem, used as a name for the place of everlasting punishment.



Gehenna was a physical valley in Jerusalem where bodies were burned. Therefore, if this is truly a place of "everlasting punishment" then we should be able to ask those guys in the fire how the torture's going... oh wait, they're dead! That's right. So much for everlasting punishment huh? Not even the fire is burning forever. So it's clear here "everlasting punishment" refers to "punishment pertaining to an age".



What about the smoke fumes going into people's lungs in Jerusalem? Hinnom's right beside it after all. Or, where do they get all that fire fuel? How about when the bodies are already physically burnt up? Or what if the fire spreads into the city? For these reasons and many more, it's not only impossible but impractical for the physical fire of the valley of Hinnom Gehenna to last forever.



Mt 25:46

Matthew 25:46

New International Version - UK

46 ‘Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.’



Matthew 25:46 - The Sheep and the Goats

Again, original language of the scripturees are our friend here.



eternal

αἰώνιον (aiōnion)

Adjective - Accusative Feminine Singular

Strong's 166: From aion; perpetual.



Does aion mean forever? Aion (deity) - Wikipedia

"Aion ( Greek: Αἰών) is a Hellenistic deity associated with time, the orb or circle encompassing the universe, and the zodiac " Well if you believe in the mythology of the Hellenistic deity, then maybe! But let's not forget that we're talking about "Christian" Universalism here, not Hellenistic Universalism XD.

 

[Harold]

Hey, let's stick with the Tentmaker theme and go with this article: AI�N -- AI�NIOS



Here's a good quote



The word aei from which aión is claimed to grow, is found eight times, .. in the New Testament, and in no one instance does it mean endless. Mark xv:8; Acts vii:51; 2Cor. iv:11; vi:10, Titus, i:12; Heb. iii:10; 1Pet. iii:15; 2Pet. i:12. I give two instances. The multitude desired Pilate to release a prisoner, Mark xv:8: "as he had ever done with them." Heb. iii:10: "They do always err in their heart." An endless duration growing out of a word used thus, would be a curiosity. It is alway, or always, or ever, in each text. Liddell and Scott give more than fifty compounds of aei.



But then again, Strong's Concordence says that it relates to "perpetual". What is something perpetual? It is continuos, as shown here in this next quote



Concerning Aristotle's use of the word in his famous sentence, "Life, an aión continuous and eternal," it is enough to say that if aión intrinsically meant endless, Aristotle never would have sought to strengthen the meaning by adding "continuous" and "eternal," any more than one would say, God has an eternity, continuous and endless. He has a life, an existence, an aión endless, just as man's aión on earth is limited; just as Idumea's smoke in the Old Testament is aiónios. Nor, had Aristotle considered aión to mean eternity, would he have said in this very passage: "the time of the life of each individual has been called his aión."



You can look at the article for many more proofs, but essentially, aion = pertaining to an age. Sure, you can add "perpetual" to aion to have continuous aions, yet, here, scripture merely states "aion punishment", so literally, punishment pertaining to an age



punishment,

κόλασιν (kolasin)

Noun - Accusative Feminine Singular

Strong's 2851: Chastisement, punishment, torment, perhaps with the idea of deprivation. From kolazo; penal infliction.



Oops, "torment". Not really a good look for the false Eternal Concious Torment doctrine. What was supposed to be a disproof against Christian Universalism has really just turned into a proof. My thanks to learnreligions.com.



Next verse then my friend!



Luke 16:23

New International Version - UK

23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.



Alright, gotta be real with you. This verse literally does not even say anything about the length of the torment. It's literally just the word torment. I'm sorry but, this is not a good argument my friend. Especially since the story of Lazarus is a parable. And that people are not abandoned in Hades.



Acts 2:27 ESV For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption.



What Does the Bible Say About Hades?



Literally, look at the openbible link and you'll see that that verse is right below the Luke 16:23 one. Clearly, it shows that torment in Hades has an end, since if it did not, that would be abandonment. Yet the Lord does not abandon.



John 3:36

New International Version - UK

36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.



I agree with this verse. That may surprise you my friend. We all have sin. God has wrath towards sin. Yet, when we believe in Christ, our sins are washed away by our faith in Him. So, as long as someone rejects the Son, they cannot have life since the wages of sin is death. So God's wrath "remains" on them. Yet, how long is God wrathful? Let's check scripture!



PSALM 103:8-14 The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in mercy. He will not always strive with us, nor will He keep His anger forever.



Isaiah 57:16 "For I will not contend forever, Nor will I always be angry; For the spirit would fail before Me, And the souls which I have made."



Oops! Looks like God is not angry forever. Anger = wrath. So God is not wrathful forever. So it's impossible for God's wrath to remain on someone forever, otherwise the spirit would literally fail before Him! Literally, God fails in the Eternal Concious Torment false doctrine!



And... that's it? Oh, they've got another section.

 

[Harold]

The article speaks of justice. Alright, so "Without hell, what justice would there be for murderers of millions, such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? " is what the article says.



Let's replace that for Sheol/Hades. So, Hitler, Stalin, Mao are stuck in the realm of the dead because of their sin of murder. Exodus 20:13. So I guess, for the sake of justice, following this logic, everyone with sin has gotta be stuck in there with them right! Oh, but my apologies, that means that literally every descendant of Adam is stuck in the realm of the dead! That means nobody is saved by Christ!



But clearly, the Bible teaches us that salvation through Christ is possible. So which is it, Timotin Sama, my friend. Everyone goes to Heaven or nobody goes to Heaven?



Romans 8:1 ESV There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.



The article further states that "Universalism was taught by Origen (A.D. 185–254) but was declared heresy by the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 543."



In terms of heresy, why do we trust the opinion of mere humans? Let's see the Cambridge definition = heresy



(the act of having) an opinion or belief that is the opposite of or against what is the official or popular opinion, or an action that shows that you have no respect for the official opinion:



So I assume the quote-on-quote "official" opinion in mainstream Christianity is Eternal Concious Torment? So what, theology is now just a popularity contest? We're not going to believe something just because it's unpopular.



Problem with that is, when Christianity first started out, it was extremely unpopular! So popular that they even crucfied Christ and persecuted the the early Christian believers! So, if we're just going to believe things that are popular and mainstream, then I guess we're just going to stop believing in Christianity then? That's the problem with that argument.



Let's see the next part



start quote

Critics of universalism state that the identical Greek term "aionas ton aionon," which means "ages of the ages," is used in the Bible to describe both the eternal worth of God and the eternal fire of hell. Therefore, they say, either God’s worth, like the fire of hell, must be limited in time, or the fire of hell must be neverending, like God’s worth. Critics say universalists are picking and choosing when aionas ton aionon means "limited."

end quote



"aion" literally means "pertaining to an age". So it's duration in time depends on the word added next to it. I guess the Bible is picking and choosing what it means then? If I said "limited time" and then said "long time" and then "short time", the word "time" means the same thing, yet, because of the word that follows it, the duration of the time changes. Even though the word itself remains the same. Simply put my friend, Timotin Sama, that's just how language works!



start quote

However, God himself warns against attributing human standards to him:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8–9 NIV)

end quote



And yet, just a few paragraphs before, this very same article was making the argument that because Christian Universalism was "declared heresy by the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 543", a council comprising of, get this, mere humans, that we are to reject Christian Universalism. The Concil of Constantinople is by definition a council of humans that are attributing human standards to God. So I do agree with that Bible verse, just in the context of Christian Universalism lol



start quote

Universalists reply that to correct the "errors" in translation, they are in the process of producing their own translation of the Bible. However, one of the pillars of Christianity is that the Bible, as the Word of God, is inerrant. When the Bible must be rewritten to accommodate a doctrine, it is the doctrine that is wrong, not the Bible.

end quote



Alright, so this is essentially a non-statement. That's what I like to call it, because, it does not add anything to support ECT. I could substitute this with UR and it would mean the exact same thing.



start quote

Much of universalism relies on the premise that Bible translations are wrong in their uses of the terms Hell, Gehenna, everlasting, and other words that claim eternal punishment. Despite the fact that recent translations such as the New International Version and English Standard Version were the efforts of large teams of knowledgeable Bible scholars,

end quote



I got a fun idea. Let's use the article against itself here. As this very same learnreligions.com article states "However, God himself warns against attributing human standards to him:". What are Bible translations written by? Humans! It's literally humans putting their on standards on God.



I'm really shocked though. Is this really the argument they're going for? Because there's a large team of humans and "knowledgeable" Bible scholars that these translations are accurate?



As we know, Islam is a false religion as it rejects salvation by faith alone in Christ. But how many people are muslim?

Islam by country - Wikipedia

Wikipedia says it's 1.9 billion people. Wow! That's a huuuugggeeeee team of humans! And I imagine there must be plenty of very knowledgeable and intelligent Quar'an scholars! Yet, they're wrong in their religion, despite their very rigorous academic studies. Same thing with Eternal Conscious Torment. I'm sorry, but that's just the truth, I say this with kindness.



And... and and and...? Oh wait, that's it? That's really it? Huh... I was expecting... more... you know. Well, regardless, Timotin Sama my friend, I thank you for bringing this article to my attention. You may be able to tell by the way that I word this, but I'm the type of person who enjoys writing this stuff. So please let me know if you find any other articles that try to "prove" Christian Unviersalism as false. I assure you that Christian Universalism is indeed true, no matter how many Internet websites try to say otherwise. The Lord of Hosts, Christ Jesus blesses you with this good news and happiness! Please have an amazing day Timotin Sama





--

- Harold Samson(g) www.jesus-saves-all.com

 

[quietthinker]

Hi everyone. Today, I noticed an email sent to my [email protected] email address. Where… it’s just a link to an online article that tries to debunk Christian Universalism. I figured I would have some fun and completely debunk the entire article, since it was presented to me!



On 2023-07-06 09:42, TIMOTIN SAMA wrote:

> What Is Universalism and Why Is It Fatally Flawed?

> (learnreligions.com)<Why Universalism Is Popular, But Fatally Flawed>

> [https://www.learnreligions.com/thmb...salism-507005211-5abd0059642dca0036c4ab7f.jpg]<Why Universalism Is Popular, But Fatally Flawed>

> Why Universalism Is Popular, But Fatally

> Flawed<Why Universalism Is Popular, But Fatally Flawed>

> Universalism is a centuries-old belief that all people will be saved

> because of God's unconditional love. Learn why the doctrine is fatally

> flawed.

> www.learnreligions.com



Hello my friend Timotin Sama,



The beginning of that article mentions taht "Universalism (pronounced yu-ni-VER-sul-iz-um) is a doctrine that teaches all people will be saved.". In order to be more specific, Christian Universalism is a doctrine that teaches that all people will become believers in Christ and thus all people will be saved. This is what is meant when this verse says "all in all".



1 Corinthians 15:22-28 All will be made alive in Christ, but each in his own turn and ultimately Christ will subdue all His enemies, eliminate death and God will be all in all.



So I agree with the title of "What Is Universalism and Why Is It Fatally Flawed?" when referring to Universalism without the "Christian" in front of it, Unitarian Universalism without Christ. That doctrine teaches that all people will be saved. Yet, how can they be saved without becoming believers in Christ? Only Christ saves us from sin.



So that's the fatal flaw of Universalism without Christ. I have an article on my website where I talk about this False Universalism here: https://jesus-saves-all.com/Reb/FalseUniversalism.htm



The article says " certain cleansing period". Yet, only faith alone in Christ cleanss us of sin. Ephesians 2:8-9. No matter how much a person suffers from their sins, as long as they don't believe in Chris, then they are not saved. Someone could physically suffer much less and be saved by becoming a believer in Christ earlier than the one who physically suffers more because they believed in Christ later. All part of God's plan. Ephesians 1:10



Intersting this article even mentions "Tentmaker.org calls it "The Victorious Gospel of Jesus Christ." which is a site that I post on via their discussion forum.



and looks like they also predicted the verse I would use "everyone will be brought into a right relationship with God (1 Corinthians 15:24–28). "



The article states " Jesus Christ taught that those who reject him as Savior will spend eternity in hell after they die: "



First, what is the biblical word for eternity? It's aionios in Greek and olam in Hebrew, meaning pertaining to an age.



Second, the word hell does not appear in the Bible at all. So it's impossible for anyone to say that eternal concious torment in hell is biblical, as the concept does not appear in scripture.



Since we're on the topic of Tentmaker.org, figured I'd show a article from the Tentmaker site that proves this: Hell is Leaving the Bible Forever You know, to fit the theme lol.



Psalm 118:14 The LORD is my strength and my song; He has become my salvation. :)

Tell me Harold, why your understanding of Universalism is the 'barrow' you like to push?

 

[Hillsage]

Tell me Harold, why your understanding of Universalism is the 'barrow' you like to push?

I am of the persuasion that the term "UNIVERSALISM" is really too broad of name. Harold mentioned "Christian Universalism" which is different than your 'all inclusive term'....IMO. I recently started telling people who have come to have a new interest in the old doctrine of Hell, that the "UNIVERSALISM" term is really more like the name of a big ocean that has a lot of bad fish in it. Years ago I personally switched to the term 'Ultimate Reconciliation', as a name for 'the fish doctrine' I like more. ;)

I'm relatively new here, and don't want to live here either. But concerning your question for Harold, I'd like to throw a statement into the discussion; for me personally, not believing in an 'eternal hell' may just be the most important doctrine for 'the age' we are living in. I think this doctrine weighs in strongly that God will be saving all in His grace in the "ages to come". And He'll do it the same way He did with us.

EPH 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

To God be the glory, and not me if I think I did anything to earn 'the gift of faith' by which we believe with unto salvation that's accomplished by His grace.
Anyway, that's my thoughts. Not trying to say Harold would or wouldn't agree.

 

[quietthinker]

I am of the persuasion that the term "UNIVERSALISM" is really too broad of name. Harold mentioned "Christian Universalism" which is different than your 'all inclusive term'....IMO. I recently started telling people who have come to have a new interest in the old doctrine of Hell, that the "UNIVERSALISM" term is really more like the name of a big ocean that has a lot of bad fish in it. Years ago I personally switched to the term 'Ultimate Reconciliation', as a name for 'the fish doctrine' I like more. ;)

I'm relatively new here, and don't want to live here either. But concerning your question for Harold, I'd like to throw a statement into the discussion; for me personally, not believing in an 'eternal hell' may just be the most important doctrine for 'the age' we are living in. I think this doctrine weighs in strongly that God will be saving all in His grace in the "ages to come". And He'll do it the same way He did with us.

EPH 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

To God be the glory, and not me if I think I did anything to earn 'the gift of faith' by which we believe with unto salvation that's accomplished by His grace.
Anyway, that's my thoughts. Not trying to say Harold would or wouldn't agree.

Thanks for weighing in Hillsage.
I tend to see events of the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah as types where there is finality for some and rescue for others.
Forgiveness I see is for all mankind but not all want it; not all care for the principles of the Kingdom of God. The option the majority prefer is power and control even when they don't have it and the glory of a fading reality. Giving ones life for an enemy is counterproductive, even foolish to them.

 

[Hillsage]

Thanks for weighing in Hillsage.
I tend to see events of the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah as types where there is finality for some and rescue for others.
Forgiveness I see is for all mankind but not all want it; not all care for the principles of the Kingdom of God. The option the majority prefer is power and control even when they don't have it and the glory of a fading reality. Giving ones life for an enemy is counterproductive, even foolish to them.

I hear what you're saying, since I asked those same questions....40 years ago when I was first exposed to this "heresy" doctrine .

So, let me ask you a question I had to ask myself; as to your including "Sodom and Gomorrah" in your list. What's your take on this verse below, written long past 'the temporal earthly judgments' of your Sodom and Gomorrah comment?

MAT 11:22 But I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.
23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

 

[quietthinker]

I hear what you're saying, since I asked those same questions....40 years ago when I was first exposed to this "heresy" doctrine .

So, let me ask you a question I had to ask myself; as to your including "Sodom and Gomorrah" in your list. What's your take on this verse below, written long past 'the temporal earthly judgments' of your Sodom and Gomorrah comment?

MAT 11:22 But I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.
23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

I'm reading the text you've quoted and looking at the highlighted sections but still am wondering what your angle is. Does the quoted text require questioning?.....what is it specifically you are asking?.......Ohhh, and what is the 'heresy' doctrine ?

 

[Hillsage]

I'm reading the text you've quoted and looking at the highlighted sections but still am wondering what your angle is. Does the quoted text require questioning?.....what is it specifically you are asking?.......Ohhh, and what is the 'heresy' doctrine ?

You said;

"I tend to see events of the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah as types where there is finality for some and rescue for others."

Those verses I shared, I feel support that 'the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was NOT a "FINALITY" judgment.' That's my take, or if you prefer "ANGLE" on the 'opinion' you have based your quote above, in post #8. I hope that clarifies why I'm supporting 'with scripture' an opinion that disagrees with your conclusions.

Maybe I should have quoted one more verse, to the two I did to better clarify;

MAT 11:24 But I tell you that it shall be (future tense) more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."

The "you" in that verse is Capernaum.....which was on the NW shore of the Lake of Galilee in Israel. It was the home of Jesus after leaving Nazareth on being rejected. Here Matthew was chosen. Simon, Peter and Andrew belonged there. And yet Jesus said Sodom wasn't going TO BE judged IN THE FUTURE as harshly as wickedly sinful Sodom????? What FUTURE is Jesus speaking of, in your theological position. I believe it refers to the FUTURE "AGES TO COME". Which comes from the verses I shared earlier, but you did not address. Would you please tell me how your theological POV fits the Eph 4:7,8 verses from post #6?

I struggle with motive when people ask a lot more questions of me and then not answer the 'few' that I'm asking them. I add those questions because they do fit my theological POV.

MAR 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Ohhh, and what is the 'heresy' doctrine ?

I 'jokingly' say "heresy" about my belief in 'no eternal hell' and 'the ultimate salvation of all', because I hear my beliefs called such. Sadly, I seldom find people who even know the biblical use of the Greek word 'haresis' which almost always gets 'interpreted' as meaning FALSE DOCTRINE. That word 'haresis' is only in the NT 9X. And it refers to "sadducees", "pharisees" 2x, "Nazarenes", "Paul" describing himself 2X, Others describing "Paul's doctrine" that they want to hear more of. And then 1X describing doctrines that "must be in the church". And then, a couple times, which actually make up the only definition I typically ever hear 'nominal armchair "christian" theologians' use.

I still want to keep this short, (fitting in one screen ideally) but please allow me to ask you one question;
MAR 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Can you give just a simple YES or NO as to, whether or not, you believe the people John baptized did receive "forgiveness of their "sins"?

 

[quietthinker]

You said;


Those verses I shared, I feel support that 'the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was NOT a "FINALITY" judgment.' That's my take, or if you prefer "ANGLE" on the 'opinion' you have based your quote above, in post #8. I hope that clarifies why I'm supporting 'with scripture' an opinion that disagrees with your conclusions.

Maybe I should have quoted one more verse, to the two I did to better clarify;

MAT 11:24 But I tell you that it shall be (future tense) more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."

The "you" in that verse is Capernaum.....which was on the NW shore of the Lake of Galilee in Israel. It was the home of Jesus after leaving Nazareth on being rejected. Here Matthew was chosen. Simon, Peter and Andrew belonged there. And yet Jesus said Sodom wasn't going TO BE judged IN THE FUTURE as harshly as wickedly sinful Sodom????? What FUTURE is Jesus speaking of, in your theological position. I believe it refers to the FUTURE "AGES TO COME". Which comes from the verses I shared earlier, but you did not address. Would you please tell me how your theological POV fits the Eph 4:7,8 verses from post #6?

I struggle with motive when people ask a lot more questions of me and then not answer the 'few' that I'm asking them. I add those questions because they do fit my theological POV.

MAR 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.


I 'jokingly' say "heresy" about my belief in 'no eternal hell' and 'the ultimate salvation of all', because I hear my beliefs called such. Sadly, I seldom find people who even know the biblical use of the Greek word 'haresis' which almost always gets 'interpreted' as meaning FALSE DOCTRINE. That word 'haresis' is only in the NT 9X. And it refers to "sadducees", "pharisees" 2x, "Nazarenes", "Paul" describing himself 2X, Others describing "Paul's doctrine" that they want to hear more of. And then 1X describing doctrines that "must be in the church". And then, a couple times, which actually make up the only definition I typically ever hear 'nominal armchair "christian" theologians' use.

I still want to keep this short, (fitting in one screen ideally) but please allow me to ask you one question;
MAR 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Can you give just a simple YES or NO as to, whether or not, you believe the people John baptized did receive "forgiveness of their "sins"?

Forgiveness extends to all, all the time. I don't see God living in a reality of non forgiveness. Whether people want that forgiveness is another matter.
When Jesus answered Peter's question, 'shall I forgive seven times?' his reply of forgiving seventy times seven meant you don't stop forgiving; he didn't mean, after you've forgiven them 490 times you can throw them into the dumpster.

Now, if Jesus asks us to never stop forgiving, I think we can be certain God would not ask us to do something he doesn't do himself. We can apply that principle to all the things we are asked to do; don't steal, don't lie, don't kill, don't be unfaithful etc etc

 

[Hillsage]

Forgiveness extends to all, all the time. I don't see God living in a reality of non forgiveness. Whether people want that forgives is another matter.
When Jesus answered Peter's question, 'shall I forgive seven times?' his reply of forgiving seventy times seven meant you don't stop forgiving; he didn't mean, after you've forgiven them 490 times you can throw them into the dumpster.

Now, if Jesus asks us to never stop forgiving, I think we can be certain God would not ask us to do something he doesn't do himself. We can apply that principle to all the things we are asked to do; don't steal, don't lie, don't kill, don't be unfaithful etc etc

Thanks for keeping that last post short. But it's too bad it answered none of my direct questions. When post questions appear to be repeatedly too hard to answer, it might just be because one's doctrine is too soft. Probably time for me to make better use of my time. I hope your search for truth is fruitful.

 

[St. SteVen]

Forgiveness extends to all, all the time. I don't see God living in a reality of non forgiveness. Whether people want that forgiveness is another matter.
When Jesus answered Peter's question, 'shall I forgive seven times?' his reply of forgiving seventy times seven meant you don't stop forgiving; he didn't mean, after you've forgiven them 490 times you can throw them into the dumpster.

Now, if Jesus asks us to never stop forgiving, I think we can be certain God would not ask us to do something he doesn't do himself. We can apply that principle to all the things we are asked to do; don't steal, don't lie, don't kill, don't be unfaithful etc etc

I like what you are saying here.
Many miss the obvious connection between what God expects of us
and what we should therefore expect from God.

Some seem to think God operates by a lower standard than he holds us to.
Like expecting us to love our enemies, while claiming he will torture his enemies for all eternity.
And as you mentioned, forgiveness granted to all, by us and by God.
That's granted/given, not simply offered. we don't OFFER to forgive others,
we FORGIVE them REGARDLESS of their acceptance of it.

cc: @Hillsage

 

[St. SteVen]

That's granted/given, not simply offered. we don't OFFER to forgive others,
we FORGIVE them REGARDLESS of their acceptance of it.

This may deserve a parody to drive the point home. - LOL

Person #1: I want to offer you forgiveness for what you have done.
Person #2: Offer?
Person #1: Yes. If you don't accept it, I will not forgive you.
Person #2: Why don't you just forgive me?
Person #1: That's not how forgiveness works.
Person #2: Since when?
Person #1: Since I read the Bible.
Person #2: Say what?
Person #1: God offers us forgiveness. But if we don't accept it we aren't forgiven.
Person #2: That's not how forgiveness works.
Person #1: Say what?
Person #2: Forgiveness should be granted regardless of my response.
The forgiveness isn't for my benefit, it's for your benefit.

Matthew 6:15 NIV
But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

cc: @quietthinker @Hillsage

 

[Harold]

I am of the persuasion that the term "UNIVERSALISM" is really too broad of name. Harold mentioned "Christian Universalism" which is different than your 'all inclusive term'....IMO. I recently started telling people who have come to have a new interest in the old doctrine of Hell, that the "UNIVERSALISM" term is really more like the name of a big ocean that has a lot of bad fish in it. Years ago I personally switched to the term 'Ultimate Reconciliation', as a name for 'the fish doctrine' I like more. ;)

I'm relatively new here, and don't want to live here either. But concerning your question for Harold, I'd like to throw a statement into the discussion; for me personally, not believing in an 'eternal hell' may just be the most important doctrine for 'the age' we are living in. I think this doctrine weighs in strongly that God will be saving all in His grace in the "ages to come". And He'll do it the same way He did with us.

EPH 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

To God be the glory, and not me if I think I did anything to earn 'the gift of faith' by which we believe with unto salvation that's accomplished by His grace.
Anyway, that's my thoughts. Not trying to say Harold would or wouldn't agree.

Good point Hillsage! There's definitely false types of Universalism, like "Unitarian Universalism" which believes all people to be saved in the end... without exclusivism, so by not believing Christ. A false doctrine. Belief in Christ is mandatory: exclusivism aka restrictivism. One of my sister's friends I was talking to also believes all people will be saved in the end... except their a muslim! So "Muslim Universalism". Another false doctrine.

So the term "Universalism" just refers to "All people saved in the end". Without the "Christian" part,it's false doctrine. Think that's what you mean by "big ocean that has a lot of bad fish in it" Hillsage lol. ;) So I definitely agree with that

My worry is if the same thing happens with the term "Ultimate Reconciliation". What if there's Unitarian Ultimate Reconciliationists or Muslim Ultimate Reconciliationists who borrow the term too? Hmmm... maybe if we call it Christian Exclusivism Ultimate Reconciliation? Ohhh but now the words are getting long XD

 

[Harold]

Tell me Harold, why your understanding of Universalism is the 'barrow' you like to push?

To be honest with you, I had to search up what the word "barrow" meant quietthinker.

Ummm... ok so it says like a mountain? A hill? For me, I was a Christian Infernalist (false) first, then Christian Annihlationist (false), then Christian Universalist (true). So for me, I was a Christian before I was a Universalist. But Christianity is naturally Universalistic. It's just that I lacked in my own understanding of that.

So personally, I push this "barrow" of understanding because it's what I believe to be true. Simple as that, I think.

 

[Hillsage]

Good point Hillsage! There's definitely false types of Universalism, like "Unitarian Universalism" which believes all people to be saved in the end... without exclusivism, so by not believing Christ. A false doctrine. Belief in Christ is mandatory: exclusivism aka restrictivism. One of my sister's friends I was talking to also believes all people will be saved in the end... except their a muslim! So "Muslim Universalism". Another false doctrine.

So the term "Universalism" just refers to "All people saved in the end". Without the "Christian" part,it's false doctrine. Think that's what you mean by "big ocean that has a lot of bad fish in it" Hillsage lol. So I definitely agree with that

My worry is if the same thing happens with the term "Ultimate Reconciliation". What if there's Unitarian Ultimate Reconciliationists or Muslim Ultimate Reconciliationists who borrow the term too? Hmmm... maybe if we call it Christian Exclusivism Ultimate Reconciliation? Ohhh but now the words are getting long XD

We’re on the same page, but IMO there may not be a ‘doctrinal name/fish’ that doesn’t have some mistakes in it. But some reports say Christianity has thousands of denominations. And I’ll bet there isn’t ONE that’s without error. Welcome to ‘the church’.

 

[St. SteVen]

We’re on the same page, but IMO there may not be a ‘doctrinal name/fish’ that doesn’t have some mistakes in it. But some reports say Christianity has thousands of denominations. And I’ll bet there isn’t ONE that’s without error. Welcome to ‘the church’.

Exactly.
Anyone who thinks they have this all figured out is sadly mistaken. IMHO

 

[Patrick1966]

"Christian Universalism"

It's the doctrine that ALL will eventually repent and turn to Jesus and be saved. Regular "universalism" does not require Jesus, which we followers of Jesus reject

 

[Patrick1966]

We’re on the same page, but IMO there may not be a ‘doctrinal name/fish’ that doesn’t have some mistakes in it. But some reports say Christianity has thousands of denominations. And I’ll bet there isn’t ONE that’s without error. Welcome to ‘the church’.

Doctrinal discussion is fun, fascinating, and fruitful when done correctly. I do believe that our understanding is affected by spiritual forces. The great news is that doctrinal understanding isn't important. What IS important for salvation (meaning no death, judgment, condemnation, or a trip to the "Lake of Fire") is belief in and love of Jesus, a desire to obey is commandments, and love for one another.