...

[TreesTrees]

...

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[Hillsage]

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.

I would say 'I agree' but then that depends on whether you are talking about the salvation of your spirit, or soul, or body. And that's when you find out just how much 'fun, fascination and fruit'...or not...there is between brothers and sisters in Christ 'discussing' the 'doctrines' and commandments of man. ;)