Christian Universalism

[FFC]

Hello PL,

In 1 Cor. 15, Paul is dealing with the doctrine of the resurrection, and makes no reference to the final judgment of the wicked. He writes that “in Christ, all shall be made alive.” In particular, he was referring to those who are “in Christ” being made alive. Of course, the wicked will also be “made alive” to the “resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28-29). Maybe you could take a little time and expound that one for me, as well as the multitude of others that I have mentioned.

Your tirades contstitute one of the worst cases of intellectual dishonesty I've seen in a long time, PL. You're clearly twisting Paul's words to fit your theology. Look carefully, Paul writes in v.22, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.” The context of ALL is established by Paul in those who died in Adam….literally every human being on earth who every was or will be born. You can't possibly deny this fact. When Paul continues in the very same breath, “….so also in Christ all shall be made alive”, he is quite obviously referring again to exactly the same ALL who will be made alive as the ALL who are dead in Adam.

Rom 11:25-26: “For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own estimation, that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB." [my emph]

Rom 5:18-19: “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.” [my emph]

You have no valid argument whatever that Paul understood that exactly the same all who are dead will in the future be made alive. The 'Paul was referring only to Christians' is so obviously close-minded and dishonest that I can't fathom how you can make such a statement and not be wholly embarrassed.

I say so because only Christians can be saved, but I'm sure that you are familiar with the verses that clearly say such. If not, please let me know and I'll be glad to point them out.

Bernie, I have dealt with "all men" and "whole world" many times on this board. The terms are almost never universal. For you sake, I'll repeat this from my most recent post.

"Arminians usually point to passages such as this, that included the phrases "whole world", or "all men". However, such phrases are rarely, if ever, universal in their scope. This is even true in our speech today. What would you make of this TIME ONLINE Blog concerning Princess Diana: The World Grieves Online. Does the "world" refer to every single person? I have to confess that I did not grieve, and certainly not online. Perhaps my lack of grief is a sign of my still sinful heart, but I honestly didn't lose much sleep over the Diana tragedy. In any case, it is obvious that the reference here to the "world" should be applied to "many people, Diana fans from all over the planet". The birth of Christ was said to be "good news of great joy that will be for all the people" (Luke 2:10), yet somehow that good news of great joy escaped King Herod. In fact, if you go back to Luke 2:1, you'll see that Caesar Augustus sent out a decree, that "all the world should be taxed". However, the Chinese, Aborigines, and American Indians never paid a dime to Caesar.

I think you can see my point. If the "world" were taken to mean every single person on planet earth in the Scriptures, then Scripture would certainly teach universal salvation. For example, 2 Cor. 5:19 - "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ" would teach that every person on planet earth has been reconciled to God. Obviously, this is nonsense.

Most of the verses that speak of salvation of "the world" or "all men" fall into one of two categories:

1.) They were written to correct the erroneous belief that salvation was for Jews only, eg. Paul wrote 1 Timothy 2:3-4 for the express purpose of defending his ministry to the Gentiles (See 1 Timothy 2:7).

2.) They were written to a select group of people, and, in context, were meant for those people in particular. For example, 2 Peter 3:9, an Arminian mainstay, tells of a promise that was "toward us". "Us" in the passage clearly refers to the elect (see 2 Peter 1:1)."

Let's try this again. I will list the scriptures, and let you try to explain them. However, when you do so, please do not give an interpretation that the Bible itself does not give (ie. wheat and tares, according to the Bible = People, not your own private interpretation.)

No, actually the ball is in your court to show me how my interepretation is invalid. Show me the structure of your truth claims, tell me how my interpretation does not pass a legitimate test of truth. And please don't use the irrelevant 'I use the plain language of the Bible' argument. This approach is, as I mentioned before, completely irrelevant as it presupposes that your interpretation is the standard of truth by which all other interpretations must be judged. Atheists use a similar dishonest stance in metaphysical/philosophical arguments, demanding that debate conform to the standard that only matter has reality. This is a dishonest stacking of the deck--God is Spirit, and in the atheist's arena, spirit is a made-up word that has no real (material) meaning. PL, the burden remains upon you to prove to me why wheat and tares, goats and sheep are not truthfully esoteric language denoting a fragmented possession in spirit, mind and body of the qualities or properties of truth (good) and falsity (evil).

Bernie, I have already interpreted the sheep/goats and wheat/tares for you the way Jesus Christ did. With all due respect to your "esoteric language" method of interpretation, I'll go with Christ's. He was just a little bit wiser than you are, and since the parables were His parables, he alone has the right to interpret them. Your method of interpretation seeks to intepret scripture to mean what you want it to say. Then, any scripture that disagrees with your interpretation is written off as "allegory". "Intellectually honest"? Please...

I may, when I have nothing better to do, hold my nose and check out your article. In the meantime, you still haven't dealt with the Scriptures, so I will post them again. I ask you to please deal with them, or put an end to your claim of "intellectually honesty". For example, please explain your belief in the eventual salvation of Judas in light of Matthew 26:24. For your benefit, I'll post them again (and there are many more where these came from).

“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment” (Matthew 25:31-46).

“If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:43-48).

“What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? What is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and be cast away?” (Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25).

“The rich man died and was buried, and in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torments” (Luke 16:22-23).

“Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul' but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

“The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:41-42).

“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? Then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:22-23).

“He that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. Unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost, it shall never be forgiven” (Luke 12:9-10).

“Woe unto you, ye blind guides. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:16-33).

“Woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:24).

“The Lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with unbelievers” (Luke 12:46).

“He that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).

“Thou Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell” (Matthew 2:23).

“At the end of the world, the angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire” (Matthew 13:49-50).

“Then said Jesus again to them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go ye cannot come” (John 8:21).

“The hour is coming in which all that are in their graves shall hear my voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:28-29).

“they who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ shall be punished with everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9).

“he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night…” (Revelation 14:10-11)

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." (Revelation 21:8)

Hi PL, like you, I disagree with Bernie's views, for different reasons I'm sure, but I disagree nontheless...however he does make a good point about the contrast between Adam and Christ.

R

om 5:18-19: “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”

If the first all is ALL inclusive then how can the second ALL not be? This sounds like the same contradiction between the universalists statement that Eternal means one thing for the saved and another for the damned. I see three logical options here:

1. All sinned (died spiritually) and in Christ all will be Saved (recieve eternal life).
2. All (Some) sinned (died spiritually) and in Christ all (some) will be saved (recieve eternal life).
3. Adam made the choice to sin and brought the curse on all humanity, and so now through Christ all who choose Him will recieve eternal life.

I ask you honestly and respectfully. Do you see what I am saying?

[Bernie]

PL,

I've presented enough of my case for your to offer a refutation, yet all you seem capable or willing to do is insist that your interpretation of Scripture is the only valid reading, and continue to demand that I explain universal salvation according to your standards.

Dealing with your posts, I'm faced with two immediate possibilities. One, you geneuinely do not understand the ridiculousness of your position and sincerely believe that the superficial stance you take in refusing to assign truth value to any reading outside your own is actually a legitimate method of judging truth claims. Two, you're using your dishonest and inadequate line of questioning and reasoning purposefully because you recognize an inherent inadequecy to debate intelligently.

"Counterfeit" is written all over your posts, PL. How you can demand the purity of the "plain" interpretation of the Bible on the one hand, then resort to lengthy explanations of why "all" doesn't mean ALL as you've done in your last post? This is disreputable. This is a clear and obvious attempt to bury Paul's meaning under shovelsfull of horse manure rather than admit the truth. The examples you provide...

Most of the verses that speak of salvation of "the world" or "all men" fall into one of two categories:

1.) They were written to correct the erroneous belief that salvation was for Jews only, eg. Paul wrote 1 Timothy 2:3-4 for the express purpose of defending his ministry to the Gentiles (See 1 Timothy 2:7).

2.) They were written to a select group of people, and, in context, were meant for those people in particular. For example, 2 Peter 3:9, an Arminian mainstay, tells of a promise that was "toward us". "Us" in the passage clearly refers to the elect (see 2 Peter 1:1)."

....are not merely irrelevant, they are blatantly dishonest! Paul states clearly in Rom 5 and 1Cor 15 that Christ will save all. Jesus concurs: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." (Jn 12:32) Like the Pharisees who tortured and murdered the Lord, you have the truth before you and also hate it. If you didn't, you wouldn't work so hard to avoid it. There's much greater comfort in controlling Scripture to say what one wants rather than allowing God to speak through His word. He designed the power of Scripture to trip up fools, and we're all fools (I believed in eternal hell for the first 40 years of my life) until our time to hear the truth that's been right in front of us since birth.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello again FFC,

If the first all is ALL inclusive then how can the second ALL not be? This sounds like the same contradiction between the universalists statement that Eternal means one thing for the saved and another for the damned. I see three logical options here:

1. All sinned (died spiritually) and in Christ all will be Saved (recieve eternal life).
2. All (Some) sinned (died spiritually) and in Christ all (some) will be saved (recieve eternal life).
3. Adam made the choice to sin and brought the curse on all humanity, and so now through Christ all who choose Him will recieve eternal life.

How can you see three 'logical options'? Reread Paul's words....there's only one possible honest explanation: Paul understood the all who were dead in Adam to be exactly the same all whom Christ would save. Regardless of how you think he reads in other parts of his writings, his position reagarding "all" in the above passages is unmistakable.

As I mentionned, my universalism is not the same as the 'standard' universalists. I have many more universalists who disagree with me than agree....I think my universalism is too harsh for many of them to accept. I also agree that one of the primary arguments other unies use....that forever doesn't mean forever....is weak at best. Eternity applies to the length of duration falsity/evil will be removed from creation, not to the length of punishment for finite beings who commit finite sins.

[puritan lad]

Romans 9:18-19 is no problem. First, Bernie must decide if it is "all" (verse 18) or "many" (verse 19). It can't be both. The answer is clarified easily in verse 17.

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

The reference to “all men” in verse 18 refers to all who are seeds of the Second Adam, ie. Christians. Verse 17 hems in the reference to “those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness”. If Bernie's interpretation were correct, than Paul wasted his breath to identify “those who receive”. Bernie's interpretation makes verse 17 irrelevant, not to mention that he still refuses to deal with any of the Scriptures I posted. His interpretation conflicts with the rest of the Bible, as I have posted.

And 1 Cor. 15 does not teach that “Christ will save all.”. Is says that “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22). Again, the “all” is limited to those who are “in Christ”. It must be, for ““He that believeth not shall be damned (ie. not saved)” (Mark 16:16).

I dealt with your scriptures Bernie. Deal with mine. I'll limit it to just one for starters to make it easy.

Will Judas eventually make it to heaven Bernie? Please explain this in light of Matthew 26:24? If you refuse to do so, or call this statement an allegory, then I'll shake your blasphemous dust off of my feet.

PL

[Bernie]

Romans 9:18-19 is no problem. First, Bernie must decide if it is "all" (verse 18) or "many" (verse 19). It can't be both. The answer is clarified easily in verse 17.

First, I assume you're referring to Rom 5 and not 9. Second, I don't have to decide anything, Paul's writing is pretty clear. Third, you actually have a tremendous problem, PL. How can you completely dismiss Paul's obvious context by the absurd statement that all and many can't both mean the same thing? This is amazing.

v.18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Context is obvious.

v.19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
As a professing Calvinist, you've made a monkey of yourself by pretending the context of all and many are different. Tell me, in the doctrines of the church you attend, how many were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam? That's right....ALL. It's called "honesty" PL. Now you should be able to properly interpret the many who will be made righteous.

The reference to “all men” in verse 18 refers to all who are seeds of the Second Adam, ie. Christians. Verse 17 hems in the reference to “those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness”.

You have no basis to change "all" to "Christians" except that you modify Paul's very plain teaching to fit your doctrine of eternal hell. In fact, the opposite is true....Paul uses v.17 to preface the fact that Christ will save all in the next two.

And 1 Cor. 15 does not teach that “Christ will save all.”. Is says that “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22). Again, the “all” is limited to those who are “in Christ”. It must be, for ““He that believeth not shall be damned (ie. not saved)” (Mark 16:16).

The word "damned" in Mark 16:16 means to judge worthy of punishment, not commit to eternal hell. Paul teaches this principle when he warns the ecclesia, "....the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace" (Rom 8:6) He also notes that he dies 'daily' (1Cor 15:31). Regeneration is death and rebirth it's used by the Spirit to wash and renew (Titus 3:5) and is a progressive function in time. You, I and every other human being are subject to the same holy prinicples in Scripture--whether mouthed by Paul, Peter, Jesus or any other author--because we contain within our soul and body a multiplicity of falsity which affects reason and act. Many universalists dislike my theology because they want soft doctrines in which Jesus deflects the Father's wrath wholly from the whole person. In fact, His bloody, outstretched arms and bruised body deflects wrath from thing to attribute, from whole to elements, from individual to spirit. In this, perfection is achieved. All get what we deserve and God is not mocked by religious people who suppose their doctrines to be the only truth on earth.

As to Judas' eternal destination, he'll be saved along with Adolph Hitler, Attila the Hun, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussien and everyone else. To say that it would be better for someone not to be born says nothing about an alleged duration of punishment in eternity, though it does say something about one's existence in time and space. The Lord's comment in Mat 26:24 appears to be important to you, I recall that you've hit on this more than once. Personally, I find this verse to be a non sequitur with respect to eternal punishment. Anyone who has a shred of humility will admit that we all, to some degree, betray the Son of Man.

Do you believe it's impossible that Judas will be saved in eternity?

Don't you yet realize, the "evil" people in the Bible are mere actors on a stage. They represent all of us, the whole world. It says something about the fallen state of the church that so many who call themselves Chrsitian point to various sinners in the Bible and say, "Yep, that guy's gonna burn!" and, "Oh, just look at how rotten those people are! How does God put up with such evil people?" ...never realizing that we are them, and they are us. The Scriptures are a mirror into the soul of everyman.

I dealt with your scriptures Bernie.

Yes, you did. And let's go on record here that "dealing" with Scripture is not the same as properly interpreting it. To interpret properly a reasonable degree of intellectual honesty is necessary.

I notice that you've again completely sidestepped my challenge to prove my stated propositions for arriving at the esoteric view of Scripture. You've actually hit on one important point in your posts....the meat of our disagreement lies in the debate about whether it's apropos and valid to use the rationally esoteric interpretive structure I've presented. To date, you've proven yourself wholly inadequate to address this issue. Frankly, I can understand this. Virtually all Christians--Calvinist, Arminian and universalist alike--are stuck in an endless interpretive loop based on a primarily literal footing. If you could mount an effective [meaning sincere and honest] refutation of my interpretive structure, you would topple a hell-bound heretic's theology and perhaps [in your own view] save souls from eternal torment.

On the other hand, you may find yourself opposing the very Lord you claim to honor.

[puritan lad]

First, I assume you're referring to Rom 5 and not 9.

Correct...

Second, I don't have to decide anything, Paul's writing is pretty clear. Third, you actually have a tremendous problem, PL. How can you completely dismiss Paul's obvious context by the absurd statement that all and many can't both mean the same thing? This is amazing.

Amazing? Who is being "literal" now? The facts are simple. It is either "all", or it is "many". "Many" by it's mere definition, is not "all" (Most people learn that before kindergarten). Thus your interpretation has verses 18 and 19 refuting each other by making opposite statements, and rendering verse 17 irrelevant. You then take this poor interpretation of one verse, and make it contradict the rest of the Bible as a whole, like Paul's clear warning in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 (as well as similar warnings in other places. If you are strapped for time, I'd like for you to deal with that one next. Otherwise, heed his warning and "do not be deceived".

And 1 Cor. 15 does not teach that “Christ will save all.”. Is says that “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22). Again, the “all” is limited to those who are “in Christ”. It must be, for ““He that believeth not shall be damned (ie. not saved)” (Mark 16:16).

The word "damned" in Mark 16:16 means to judge worthy of punishment, not commit to eternal hell.

The word "damned" (katakrinoo) means the opposite of "saved". It means that they are not saved. In fact, Mark 16:16 uses the word in opposition to those who believe and will be saved (sozo). The verse is clear. Those who believe will be saved, and those who do not won't be. However, your definition is partly correct. They will be judged worthy of punishment, "eternal punishment" (Matthew 25:46) "into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels". (Matthew 25:41). No one could possibly have heard Jesus utter these words and concluded that every person on the planet would eventually be happy and holy in heaven. Writing these warnings off as mere "allegory" just doesn't cut it. For Jesus to have stated "eternal punishment" would have made Him a liar. That is what the doctrine of universalism does.

As to Judas' eternal destination, he'll be saved along with Adolph Hitler, Attila the Hun, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussien and everyone else. To say that it would be better for someone not to be born says nothing about an alleged duration of punishment in eternity, though it does say something about one's existence in time and space. The Lord's comment in Mat 26:24 appears to be important to you, I recall that you've hit on this more than once. Personally, I find this verse to be a non sequitur with respect to eternal punishment. Anyone who has a shred of humility will admit that we all, to some degree, betray the Son of Man.

You forgot to include universalists in your list. Matthew 26:24 clearly refutes the idea that Judas will be saved, unless you believe that it is better to have not been born then to be in heaven. There is no way that Judas is in heaven, as I will quote myself from another thread.

Psalm 69:25-28
"Let their dwelling place be desolate; Let no one live in their tents. For they persecute the ones You have struck, And talk of the grief of those You have wounded. Add iniquity to their iniquity, And let them not come into Your righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, And not be written with the righteous."

We know that "anyone not found written in the Book of Life [will be] cast into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:15). We also know that the above Psalm speaks of Judas (Compare Psalm 69:25 with Acts 1:20).

Jesus himself calls Judas "the Son of Perdition" (John 17:12), literally "the Son of Hell". We know that, according to the gospels, Satan entered Judas prioir to his betrayal (Luke 22:3, John 13:27). Satan and Heaven make strange acquaintances. We know that "Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” (Acts 1:25).

Any theology that counts on Judas being in heaven is a house built on rotten sand.

Do you believe it's impossible that Judas will be saved in eternity?

Yes, unless God can lie.

Don't you yet realize, the "evil" people in the Bible are mere actors on a stage. They represent all of us, the whole world. It says something about the fallen state of the church that so many who call themselves Chrsitian point to various sinners in the Bible and say, "Yep, that guy's gonna burn!" and, "Oh, just look at how rotten those people are! How does God put up with such evil people?" ...never realizing that we are them, and they are us. The Scriptures are a mirror into the soul of everyman.

Why would the Universalist care about "the fallen state of the church", since everyone will be in "heaven" with Hitler and Stalin. You may have this moral sewer version of "heaven". And before you start suggesting that the "fires of hell" are sin-purging fires, I'll ask you to explain why God describes the fires as "wrath", "vengeance", "fury", and "anger". Why will God "add iniquity to their iniquity", and "let them not come into thy righteousness" (Psalm 69:27)? (Just out of curiosity, I'd like your "interpretation" of Psalm 69:27.) The Fires of Hell, once again, are punitive, not reformatory. Indeed, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God (Hebrews 10:31).

I dealt with your scriptures Bernie.

Yes, you did. And let's go on record here that "dealing" with Scripture is not the same as properly interpreting it. To interpret properly a reasonable degree of intellectual honesty is necessary.

You said a mouthful there. Unfortunately, you refuse to do so on any of the Scriptures that I've posted. Your "interpretation" is no interpretation at all. It simply amounts to "this verse disagrees with my weak interpretation of Romans 5:18, so it must be allegory". In the end your not even honest with yourself. You know better.

I notice that you've again completely sidestepped my challenge to prove my stated propositions for arriving at the esoteric view of Scripture.

Not so. I have already pointed out that your interpretation of Jesus' parable of the sheep/goats and wheat/tares fly right in the face of Jesus' own interpretation. Again, I'll take His word over yours. There is no basis whatsoever for your method of interpretation, aside from mere wishful thinking.

On the other hand, you may find yourself opposing the very Lord you claim to honor.

If you are correct, then why should this matter? In fact, why do you even bother to post?

PL

[puritan lad]

Bernie,

One more question? If Judas can still be saved by "the fires of Hell", thus effecting what the Cross of Christ failed to accomplish, then to what purpose was Christ's sacrifice? If Godly discipline were all that was needed to bring about eternal salvation, could God not have just spared His only Son?

(BTW, Is Christ Divine? Just curious...)

PL

[Bernie]

Hello PL,

The facts are simple. It is either "all", or it is "many". "Many" by it's mere definition, is not "all" (Most people learn that before kindergarten).

Actually, the 'simple facts' you contend for just shot the fundamental truth of man's universal corruption to pieces.

Rom 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
v.19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

If you're suggesting that 'many' in v. 19 does not mean all, then your Calvinism is shot....you're saying only some and not all are sinners, in direct contradiction to Scripture...is this not true? Be honest now.

The word "damned" (katakrinoo) means the opposite of "saved". It means that they are not saved.

Right. Those who willingly deny the imputed righteousness of Christ leave themselves open to further punishment and correction. They're not saved from the wrath of God. What's your point?

In response to my asking you if it's impossible that Judas Iscariot is in heaven, you responded....

There is no way that Judas is in heaven

Yes, unless God can lie.

Thus with your own words, you deny the Scripture: "....for all things are possible with God." (Mark 10:27) Isn't it odd that a hell-bound, detestable universalist is contending for the integrity of the Bible, while his Calvinist antagonist--who demands only the 'plain reading' of the Scripture--denies its veracity?

Any theology that counts on Judas being in heaven is a house built on rotten sand.

Yikes, rotten sand? I wasn't aware sand could rot like vegetation....???

Why would the Universalist care about "the fallen state of the church", since everyone will be in "heaven" with Hitler and Stalin.

Why would someone ask questions like this...unless he foolishly first stereotypes another's beliefs without having the wisdom to first find out what his opponent actually believes?

before you start suggesting that the "fires of hell" are sin-purging fires, I'll ask you to explain why God describes the fires as "wrath", "vengeance", "fury", and "anger".

Finally, a few questions! Because He knows that in the darkness of the human intellect, His love seems to us like wrath, vengence, fury, etc. Because He hates falsity, while loving the sinner in whom falsity exists.

Why will God "add iniquity to their iniquity", and "let them not come into thy righteousness" (Psalm 69:27)?

Salvation has two aspects ETERNAL and TEMPORAL.

Eternal salvation--which most of Christianity mistakenly applies to virtually all verses that proclaim God's wrath--is already decided (Rom 8:29-30, etc.) for all (Jn 12:32). Most of the Bible pertains to the methodology of salvation by fire [regeneration to new life], while eternal destruction pertains to the property of falsity and the extent to which it will be removed from creation....forever and always, when perfection reigns and God is all in all. The eternal references all those traits and attributes of the cosmic and spiritual, where God's sovereignty reigns unshaken and resolute.

Temporal salvation shares the characteristics of time and space...it is subject to change, may be lost (and regained), and man's weak will is allowed some degree of choice to participate with Christ [Truth] in effecting it (Mat 10:22, etc.). All things in time and space, however, are subject to God's will in eternity (Isa 55:10-11). Once one understands this distinction, it's easy to see that being withheld from Christ's righteousness has both temporal and eternal targets. In time, many are in darkness [outside saving relationship with God] where there is gnashing of teeth and weeping. In the aspect of eternity, the Psalmist was inspired by the Spirit to prophecy the destruction of the evil which pits the created intellect against God.

Your "interpretation" is no interpretation at all. It simply amounts to "this verse disagrees with my weak interpretation of Romans 5:18, so it must be allegory". In the end your not even honest with yourself.

*sigh* Didn't we establish the worthlessness of opinion and the value of evidential justification in an earlier post? You're not doing well learning the lesson, PL.

If Judas can still be saved by "the fires of Hell", thus effecting what the Cross of Christ failed to accomplish

Yet again you call the Scriptures a lie: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." (Jn 12:32) You claim to be a believer...why do you believe the cross of Christ failed? Why don't you believe the Bible?

to what purpose was Christ's sacrifice?

To deflect the Father's wrath from individual to soul, from substance to essence, in order that all sins may be forgiven and all humans saved in perfection in eternity.

If Godly discipline were all that was needed to bring about eternal salvation, could God not have just spared His only Son?

You err. It's not discipline per se, it's spiritual salvation, the cutting off of unrighteousness from righteousness (Ezek 21:2-5), the separation of goats and sheep (Mat 25), the severing off and burning of bad branches (Jn 15), the destruction of tares from among wheat (Mat 13), the bringing forth of offspring [new life] from the mostly rotten cluster (Isa 65:8).

I suppose God could have spared His Son....you'll have to ask Him why He choose the methodology He did. I don't know.

[puritan lad]

Let's deal with Romans 5:18 in its complete context, so you won't keep referring to it in an effort to make Paul a confused Apostle, on one hand suggesting that “one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men (ie. in some universal sense), and then turning right around and warning very clearly that “ the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived” (1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; and many others). It is obvious to anyone that your interpretation conflicts with Paul's warnings, and the rest of the Bible as a whole.

In your previous post, you stated that, “You have no basis to change "all" to "Christians" except that you modify Paul's very plain teaching to fit your doctrine of eternal hell.” In fact, I have every basis for doing so, and this Book was written to Christians. The Book of Romans was written “To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: (Romans 1:7). While the message in Romans is “profitable [to us] for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16), we cannot ignore the original audience. Paul exhibits this limited audience further throughout Chapter 5…

“we have been justified by faith”
“we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”
“we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand”
“we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”
“we rejoice in our sufferings”
“hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.”

And so on. You get the picture. I'll let you add more examples as you see fit. The entire Chapter is referring to this audience. The “ungodly” that “Christ died for” is represented again by “we” who were yet sinners” (Romans 5:6, 8). Nothing even hints at universalism in this chapter, for Paul was referring to “all men” to whom he was speaking, “those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints”. (Romans 1:7). The phrase “all men” in verse 12 describes “we [who] have now received reconciliation” (Romans 5:11). While it is true that death spread to all men in a universal sense, that fact is completely irrelevant to Paul's reference here. He wasn't writing to them. He was writing to the elect, “those who are loved by God”, “called to be saints”, “are reconciled”, “have received reconciliation”, and “receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness”, etc. Thus he could refer to “all men” (those to whom He was writing) in verse 18, and then refer to the “many [who] will be made righteous” without contradicting himself. There are no two ways about it. If Romans 5:18 is taken in any universal sense, than it is a clear contradiction to Romans 5:19 (not to mention the dozens of passages already quoted here. This is usually the case with verses dealing with “the whole world” or “all men”, as I have previously pointed out.

In reference to the word "damned" (katakrinoo) Mark 16:16, you wrote that “Those who willingly deny the imputed righteousness of Christ leave themselves open to further punishment and correction. They're not saved from the wrath of God. What's your point?” Are you serious? Correction? Since when has “damned” been used in any sense to refer to correction? You are not dealing at all honestly with this passage. The word “damned” means, by definition, that they will not be saved, period. They will suffer the wrath of God, for eternity. Nothing is said about “correction”. It is perfectly clear Bernie. You're making the Scripture say what you want it to say.

In response to my asking you if it's impossible that Judas Iscariot is in heaven, you responded....
Quote:
There is no way that Judas is in heaven

Quote:
Yes, unless God can lie.

Thus with your own words, you deny the Scripture: "....for all things are possible with God." (Mark 10:27) Isn't it odd that a hell-bound, detestable universalist is contending for the integrity of the Bible, while his Calvinist antagonist--who demands only the 'plain reading' of the Scripture--denies its veracity?

Pathetic Bernie. I never suggested that it was impossible for God to have saved Judas. I said it was impossible that God DID save Judas. Two totally different statements. It was possible for God to have put Judas in Heaven. It is impossible that He did. “Possible” refers to God's ability. The fact is that Judas is NOT in heaven because God DID not save Him?

On the flip side, I'll ask you if it is impossible for Judas to be in eternal Hell? Don't forget your argument here. With God, All things are possible. Go for it Bernie…

In your defense of the "fires of hell" being sin-purging fires, described by God as "wrath", "vengeance", "fury", and "anger", you stated that this is “Because He knows that in the darkness of the human intellect, His love seems to us like wrath, vengence, fury, etc. Because He hates falsity, while loving the sinner in whom falsity exists.”

Let's “search the scriptures, to see if these things be so”.

"in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might"
(2 Thessalonians 1:8-9)

"The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD is avenging and wrathful; the LORD takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies."
(Nahum 1:2)

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."
(John 3:36) (A clear and direct refutation of your interpretation of Romans 5:18 and 1 Cor. 15:22)

"I have trodden the winepress alone, and from the peoples no one was with me; I trod them in my anger and trampled them in my wrath; their lifeblood spattered on my garments, and stained all my apparel."
(Isaiah 63:3)

If this is the exhibition of God's “Love”, as you put it, what will you make of God's hate (Psalm 5:5-6, Romans 9:13)?

You continue to interpret the Bible in direct opposition to how the Bible interprets itself. For example…

You err. It's not discipline per se, it's spiritual salvation, the cutting off of unrighteousness from righteousness (Ezek 21:2-5)

This was “Spiritual Discipline” alright. It was a prophecy concerning the Babylonian Exile (Ezek. 21:21). There is nothing here to support universalism in any way, shape or form.

, the separation of goats and sheep (Mat 25),

Jesus (who was God, by the way) says that the goats are “people” (Matthew 25:32), who will be “eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Matthew 25:41) and “will go away into eternal punishment” (Matthew 25:46). Why do you continually try to make Jesus a liar? It was Jesus' parable. He alone has the right to interpret it, and His interpretation is pretty clear.

the severing off and burning of bad branches (Jn 15)

The Branches are People again, (John 15:5-7). Again, the Bible says one thing, and you interpret it to mean the opposite.

, the destruction of tares from among wheat (Mat 13)

The field is the world, and the good seed is the children of the kingdom. The tares are the sons of the evil one, (Matthew 13:38). Why do you continue to argue with Jesus about His own parables?

, the bringing forth of offspring [new life] from the mostly rotten cluster (Isa 65:8).

What does this have to do with universalism? It simply states that God has a righteous remnant in a rotten Israel. He still does, and despite the fact that you are (probably) part of the visible church, your fruit is rotten.

PL

[FFC]

The Branches are People again, (John 15:5-7). Again, the Bible says one thing, and you interpret it to mean the opposite.

PL, I think this passage is speaking more to an abiding relationship in Christ and the subsequent fruit that comes from that, otherwise we could use it to say that a person can lose their salvation. I know you don't believe that.

[puritan lad]

The Branches are People again, (John 15:5-7). Again, the Bible says one thing, and you interpret it to mean the opposite.

PL, I think this passage is speaking more to an abiding relationship in Christ and the subsequent fruit that comes from that, otherwise we could use it to say that a person can lose their salvation. I know you don't believe that.

I believe, in particular, that this is a reference to the 70 AD Judgment. (See John the Baptist's warning in Matthew 3.) In any case, the branches are clearly people.

[FFC]

The Branches are People again, (John 15:5-7). Again, the Bible says one thing, and you interpret it to mean the opposite.

PL, I think this passage is speaking more to an abiding relationship in Christ and the subsequent fruit that comes from that, otherwise we could use it to say that a person can lose their salvation. I know you don't believe that.

I believe, in particular, that this is a reference to the 70 AD Judgment. (See John the Baptist's warning in Matthew 3.) In any case, the branches are clearly people.

Yes, I underestand that, and not to sound like Bernie (no offense, Bernie) but if this passage is about bearing much fruit as we abide in Jesus, meaning that only in Him can we do anything, then conversely the branches/people/christians who don't abide in Him would be useless...worth no more than to be picked up and thrown into a fire.

[puritan lad]

Yes, I underestand that, and not to sound like Bernie (no offense, Bernie) but if this passage is about bearing much fruit as we abide in Jesus, meaning that only in Him can we do anything, then conversely the branches/people/christians who don't abide in Him would be useless...worth no more than to be picked up and thrown into a fire.

Yes. But suggesting that those "branches" were Christians is a big assumption. If my interpretation is correct, then the branches, at least in this particular application, were Christ-rejecting Judaists, Pharisees, etc.

However, as far as a general application goes, you are correct (although I would replace the term "Christians" with "professing Christians"). This is still a far cry from Universalism.

PL

[FFC]

Yes. But suggesting that those "branches" were Christians is a big assumption. If my interpretation is correct, then the branches, at least in this particular application, were Christ-rejecting Judaists, Pharisees, etc.

I've never read it that way. Look at this:

Jhn 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Notice where He says branches in me? What I see is that a disobedient believer that does not abide in Him will be chastised (thrown into the fire of his own disobedience and circumstances)...no better motivation than suffering to get us back on track sometimes right? sometimes God doesn't have to do anything more than allow us to pursue our own selfish desires to bring about chastisement. Just look at the prodical son.

However, as far as a general application goes, you are correct (although I would replace the term "Christians" with "professing Christians"). This is still a far cry from Universalism.

Yes it is. I've gone a little off topic. Maybe we could take it somewhere else sometime when you are not busy.

BTW, I just recieved the "Death of death in the death of Christ". It looks deep. Is there a version for dummies? Thanks for the recommendation.

[puritan lad]

Notice where He says branches in me? What I see is that a disobedient believer that does not abide in Him will be chastised (thrown into the fire of his own disobedience and circumstances)...no better motivation than suffering to get us back on track sometimes right? sometimes God doesn't have to do anything more than allow us to pursue our own selfish desires to bring about chastisement. Just look at the prodical son.

True, I hold that the branches that were in Him were not saved, but were members of His visible church, as the Pharisees were. He was warning His Apostles against Apostasy, to abide in Him and not return to the "weak and beggarly elements" of Judaism (Gal 4:9), which would become a real problem in the early church (Philippians 3:2).

I tie this parable together with John the Baptist's warning in Matthew 3:7-10 for the Pharisees to "flee from the wrath to come", as well as the parable of the fig tree (Matthew 21:19-21), concerning a judgment that was to come upon that generation (Matthew 23:36, see Matthew 24:32-24).

[BTW, I just recieved the "Death of death in the death of Christ". It looks deep. Is there a version for dummies? :lol: Thanks for the recommendation.

Like I said, it is a tough read. However, it may help simplify things a little if you do the following.

1.) Skip over the sections that deal in detail with Thomas More's works, unless you are already familiar with them.

2.) Don't focus alot on the historical names that Owen addresses, or the latin phrases that he uses alot. (He was writing this to other Puritan theologians.)

3.) Go slowly. There is a ton of meat to be gleaned from this book. Owen addresses the issue from alot of different angles, such as Christ's original purpose in atonement, intercession, and what it means for both the Father and Man. I actually browsed through mine yesterday. Owen makes a great point about the still popular theory that Christ's Atonement was for the "removing of the obstacle" (sin) between God and man. If that is true, then Christ's death was for the benefit of the Father, not man, for it gave the Father the "right" to exercise mercy on mankind, a right that apparently He didn't already have. Christ work was, instead, to satisfy the Father's justice, not to "remove the obstacle" of sin.

In the end, Owen addresses every possible refutation, objections to that refutation, and the refutation to the objections of that refutation. In short, he exhausts it to the point where there isn't much left to say. He points out very clearly that both Christ's Work of Atonement and His Work of Intercession have a clear purpose of actual redemption, and that it saves all those that He intended for it to save.

God Bless,

PL

[FFC]

True, I hold that the branches that were in Him were not saved, but were members of His visible church, as the Pharisees were. He was warning His Apostles against Apostasy, to abide in Him and not return to the "weak and beggarly elements" of Judaism (Gal 4:9), which would become a real problem in the early church (Philippians 3:2).

I tie this parable together with John the Baptist's warning in Matthew 3:7-10 for the Pharisees to "flee from the wrath to come", as well as the parable of the fig tree (Matthew 21:19-21), concerning a judgment that was to come upon that generation (Matthew 23:36, see Matthew 24:32-24).

that is a very interesting take. I will look into that. However, I'm not sure a person can be in Christ and not be a believer.

In the end, Owen addresses every possible refutation, objections to that refutation, and the refutation to the objections of that refutation. In short, he exhausts it to the point where there isn't much left to say. He points out very clearly that both Christ's Work of Atonement and His Work of Intercession have a clear purpose of actual redemption, and that it saves all those that He intended for it to save.

I do look forward to reading it. I'm sure it will be a blessing.