Open discussion about UR - Chapter One

[Charlie24]

The argument against free will. cc: @Charlie24 (love you)

"What is free will? Free will is a doctrine that teaches that man can act independently of God. This should already ring sour to the spiritually-attuned ear. The doctrine of free will teaches that man has the freedom to choose or reject God, never mind the verse that says no man is seeking God (Rom. 3:11). But I remind you that we’re talking about free will; Scripture has nothing to do with this." Read more here.

The same One who created man is also the creator of free will. The entire Gospel is based on free will.

As it regards salvation of man, free will is nothing more than God allowing man to reject His plan for mankind, if he desires to do so.

God allows man to choose his own way in this life. Man cannot say that God sent him to hell, man sends himself.

 

[St. SteVen]

The same One who created man is also the creator of free will. The entire Gospel is based on free will.

Well... this is a matter of perspective. IMHO
Did God create us? Yes, I believe that. (Evolution says otherwise)
Are we capable of making our own independent decisions? Sure, in a limited sense.

Is the Gospel based on free-will? On this side of the afterlife...? ... well wait...
That's an interesting question.

I suppose we have to make a "decision". But what INFLUENCED that decision?
If the Holy Spirit drew us to Christ, how much free will was involved?
I agree that a positive "confession" is required to move forward in a relationship with God.
But to call that "free-will" is a bit much. IMHO

As it regards salvation of man, free will is nothing more than God allowing man to reject His plan for mankind, if he desires to do so.

Who is sovereign in that scenario? Humankind can thwart the eternal plan of God?
Or, God intended humankind to thwart his eternal plan? Nonsense.
You don't believe that, do you? Please tell me you don't. (I beg of you)

God allows man to choose his own way in this life. Man cannot say that God sent him to hell, man sends himself.

That's a common apologetic for a forever burning hell, with no hope of escape. Blame the victim.
You know what I would say next, right?

 

[Charlie24]

Well... this is a matter of perspective. IMHO
Did God create us? Yes, I believe that. (Evolution says otherwise)
Are we capable of making our own independent decisions? Sure, in a limited sense.

Is the Gospel based on free-will? On this side of the afterlife...? ... well wait...
That's an interesting question.

I suppose we have to make a "decision". But what INFLUENCED that decision?
If the Holy Spirit drew us to Christ, how much free will was involved?
I agree that a positive "confession" is required to move forward in a relationship with God.
But to call that "free-will" is a bit much. IMHO

Who is sovereign in that scenario? Humankind can thwart the eternal plan of God?
Or, God intended humankind to thwart his eternal plan? Nonsense.
You don't believe that, do you? Please tell me you don't. (I beg of you)

That's a common apologetic for a forever burning hell, with no hope of escape. Blame the victim.
You know what I would say next, right?

The draw of God comes through the hearing of the Gospel. The Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, according to Paul.

When the Gospel is heard the Holy Spirit makes that Gospel real in the heart. Some will be drawn to Christ but most will not.

That is the choice of the hearer. This is what we refer to as free will, the God-given ability to accept or reject that drawing.

But none of this conversation matters, in the end the UR says that all in hell will serve their time and be released in a matter of time, which is nowwhere to be found in Scripture. You know that, Steven.

 

[St. SteVen]

The draw of God comes through the hearing of the Gospel. The Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, according to Paul.

It can. But not always.
Consider Saul on the road to Damascus. (according to Paul, as you say)
On his way to persecute the church. Hearing the gospel? Sure.
Responding positively? Absolutely not!. Saved? You tell me.

When the Gospel is heard the Holy Spirit makes that Gospel real in the heart. Some will be drawn to Christ but most will not.

Most will not? Must be something terribly wrong with the product, if it is not selling, as expected.
Back to the drawing board.

That is the choice of the hearer. This is what we refer to as free will, the God-given ability to accept or reject that drawing.

Let me see if I understand the offer. Correct me if I am wrong, thanks.
"Receive the free gift of eternal life. Or... if you would prefer, you will be incinerated."
Did I get it right? Send help.

But none of this conversation matters, in the end the UR says that all in hell will serve their time and be released in a matter of time, which is nowwhere to be found in Scripture. You know that, Steven.

Looking for the meat grinder? Sorry for the crude illustration. (you can take it) Man up. - LOL

On the left we have a nice pile of bulk pork. On the far right we have a fine platter full of park sausages.
What happened in between? We are shielded from seeing the obvious. (the meat grinder)

The results indicate a process.

 

[Charlie24]

It can. But not always.
Consider Saul on the road to Damascus. (according to Paul, as you say)
On his way to persecute the church. Hearing the gospel? Sure.
Responding positively? Absolutely not!. Saved? You tell me.

Most will not? Must be something terribly wrong with the product, if it is not selling, as expected.
Back to the drawing board.

Let me see if I understand the offer. Correct me if I am wrong, thanks.
"Receive the free gift of eternal life. Or... if you would prefer, you will be incinerated."
Did I get it right? Send help.

Looking for the meat grinder? Sorry for the crude illustration. (you can take it) Man up. - LOL

On the left we have a nice pile of bulk pork. On the far right we have a fine platter full of park sausages.
What happened in between? We are shielded from seeing the obvious. (the meat grinder)

The results indicate a process.

I can understand how Finelinen got into this mess, but you, I've been wondering for years.

 

[Hillsage]

Which translation(s) do you find most trustworthy from your perspective?

When I study on my computer I have 6 translations. KJV for the Strong's reference, RSV because it was the translation I cut my 'memorizing of scripture', in my early beginning years, NAS because it was supposedly the best at one time, but now not so much according to 'some' theologians. But, when studying UR the YLT is my default because it's the only one that does justice to correctly (IMO) define the word AION as an age, and it's adjective form of AIONIOS as something that takes place during that age. Also YLT does not have the word HELL in it, not once. I actually have a list of 24 bible translations that don't have the word HELL in them. My least favorite though is the NIV, but I occasional compare it because it was a best selling translation.

It surprises me when people actually think that Jesus used the word HELL, just because that's what it says in 'their bible', when HELL wasn't even invented as a word, until 200 AD.

But, as to your question? I don't think there is a perfect translation, only a perfect representation....and His name is Jesus, and His kingdom is the kingdom of God.

 

[Hillsage]

Well, I suppose that free-will is a debatable subject. Good point though.

John 6:44 NIV
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them...

Oh, my. Did you really write that? (seems so)

Psalm 37:23 NASB
The steps of a man are established by the LORD...

Proverbs 21:1 KJV
The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

Don't forget the John 3 scriptures that deals specifically with getting 'born again', and just 'whose will' determines that new birth.

JOH 1:12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God;
13 who were born (again), not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of (the will of ) God.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Thank you, for the “Warm Welcome”, and the positive words following.

I’m still trying to figure out the ‘format’ here.
Like why, at the en of your post, is “Rightly Divided” blue and bold? Also what does (+l and ll!) even mean at the end of your post?

Also, just for clarification, what does ‘Rightly Divided’ even mean, in your opinion?

You're welcome. The Bold and Colored are 'links' to other posts on the forums.

If you 'click' on Rightly Divided you will discover a way to study God's Word Of Truth.

Thanks for the enquiry...

 

[Hillsage]

You're welcome. The Bold and Colored are 'links' to other posts on the forums.

If you 'click' on Rightly Divided you will discover a way to study God's Word Of Truth.

Thanks for the enquiry...

Thank you for your help. That was a pretty extensive study for "Rightly Dividing". The thing I missed most in your study though, was 'rightly dividing' just exactly which salvation a scripture is talking about. I see 3 when reading. The salvation of your spirit, the salvation of your soul, the salvation of your body. Not understanding the three salvations is what has given us TWO major HALF TRUTH religious understandings IMO. Calvinists better understand 'spirit salvation', but not soul. Armenians better understand soul salvation but not spirit. So they both cling to a 1/2 truth understanding, and ignore the scriptures of the other 1/2 truth IMO. My theological position provides for all three, I believe.

But then we have to also rightly divide being a dichotomy vs a trichotomy believer theologically....and the "dust thou art", with a little added "water of the word", just makes the mud get thicker.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Thank you for your help. That was a pretty extensive study for "Rightly Dividing". The thing I missed most in your study though, was 'rightly dividing' just exactly which salvation a scripture is talking about. I see 3 when reading.

Yes, that study was just to distinguish the Differences and Distinctions between God Two Different
Programs, which most like to homogenize into one, causing Massive Confusion, imho.

In God's Simple Will 'link' you will see a study of God's Three Tenses of His Salvation.

Thanks for your kind and courteous attention.

 

[St. SteVen]

A few questions from this website. (first seven questions of 40)

40 Questions against traditional Christianity and the doctrine of Hell

When I was questioning my faith and everything I believed, atheism seemed like the only alternative to traditional Christian doctrines. But atheism didn’t satisfy the longing in my heart for …

forbiddentheology.com

Questions four through seven interest me most for discussion. What do you say to these questions?
cc: @GRACE ambassador

• Why did God create Satan, if he already knew ahead of time all the evil that Satan was going to do?
• If the majority of the world won’t be saved because of the work of the enemy, then doesn’t Satan win? Why would God allow this if He is “all-powerful” and “all- knowing”?
• Who created evil in the first place? – (Isaiah 45:7)
• Do earthly parents love their children more than God does? – Earthly parents would never torture their children for disobedience, nor would they annihilate them, or separate themselves from their children for all eternity.
• Does God actually love all people the same? If so, why are some people given thousands of chances to hear the Gospel and experience his love, while other people are born into the worst conditions, simply trying to survive and begging for food, never coming in contact with a missionary in their lives?
• Does God ask us to forgive our enemies when He is ultimately not willing to do the same in the end?
• Is being punished forever for sins committed in a short lifetime really “justice”? Or can we never understand his form of justice?

 

[Charlie24]

A few questions from this website. (first seven questions of 40)

40 Questions against traditional Christianity and the doctrine of Hell

When I was questioning my faith and everything I believed, atheism seemed like the only alternative to traditional Christian doctrines. But atheism didn’t satisfy the longing in my heart for …

forbiddentheology.com

Questions four through seven interest me most for discussion. What do you say to these questions?
cc: @GRACE ambassador

• Why did God create Satan, if he already knew ahead of time all the evil that Satan was going to do?
• If the majority of the world won’t be saved because of the work of the enemy, then doesn’t Satan win? Why would God allow this if He is “all-powerful” and “all- knowing”?
• Who created evil in the first place? – (Isaiah 45:7)
• Do earthly parents love their children more than God does? – Earthly parents would never torture their children for disobedience, nor would they annihilate them, or separate themselves from their children for all eternity.
• Does God actually love all people the same? If so, why are some people given thousands of chances to hear the Gospel and experience his love, while other people are born into the worst conditions, simply trying to survive and begging for food, never coming in contact with a missionary in their lives?
• Does God ask us to forgive our enemies when He is ultimately not willing to do the same in the end?
• Is being punished forever for sins committed in a short lifetime really “justice”? Or can we never understand his form of justice?

I see a similarity with the UR and the Agnostics. They call God into question, and judge Him according their reasoning.

A very dangerous place to be, wouldn't you say, Steven?

 

[St. SteVen]

Good morning, Charlie.
These are some great comments/questions. Thank you for respectfully allowing me to address them.
Always appreciated.

I see a similarity with the UR and the Agnostics.

Oh my.
As I understand it, agnosticism is the honesty to admit that we really don't know everything.
So the alternative would be what? ______________________ (fill in your answer)

I sometimes own the label of theistic agnostic. I even launched a topic on the subject. Check it out here.

Theistic Agnosticism - The honesty to admit we don't know everything

This term came up this morning in a discussion over coffee. I thought it worth discussing further. Being raised in the church, I was held in a bubble of "we have all the answers." Now that I am an adult, I realize the reason for that. We DIDN'T have all the questions. I know, I know... (who...

www.christianityboard.com

They call God into question, and judge Him according their reasoning.

The opposite of reasonable is unreasonable. Is that where we should stand?
Should we embrace man-made doctrine that makes no sense under scrutiny?

We have given biblical support for our position. A position that was prevalent in the early church.
Not like we are making this up, or applying modrern thought to dismantle the plan of God for humankind.

A very dangerous place to be, wouldn't you say, Steven?

No, on the contrary, my good fellow.
The dangerous thing, from my perspective, is to swallow hook-line-and-sinker the information
the church has passed down to us without giving it careful consideration.

Did Jesus die to save us from God? (right, that makes no sense) = irrational conclusion.

 

[St. SteVen]

I see a similarity with the UR and the Agnostics. They call God into question, and judge Him according their reasoning.

A very dangerous place to be, wouldn't you say, Steven?

How would you answer these questions, Charlie?
Give it your best shot. Thanks.
(or do you prefer to make the accusation of agnosticism and then run and hide?) I didn't think so.

• Do earthly parents love their children more than God does? – Earthly parents would never torture their children for disobedience, nor would they annihilate them, or separate themselves from their children for all eternity.
• Does God actually love all people the same? If so, why are some people given thousands of chances to hear the Gospel and experience his love, while other people are born into the worst conditions, simply trying to survive and begging for food, never coming in contact with a missionary in their lives?
• Does God ask us to forgive our enemies when He is ultimately not willing to do the same in the end?
• Is being punished forever for sins committed in a short lifetime really “justice”? Or can we never understand his form of justice?

 

[Charlie24]

Good morning, Charlie.
These are some great comments/questions. Thank you for respectfully allowing me to address them.
Always appreciated.

Oh my.
As I understand it, agnosticism is the honesty to admit that we really don't know everything.
So the alternative would be what? ______________________ (fill in your answer)

I sometimes own the label of theistic agnostic. I even launched a topic on the subject. Check it out here.

Theistic Agnosticism - The honesty to admit we don't know everything

This term came up this morning in a discussion over coffee. I thought it worth discussing further. Being raised in the church, I was held in a bubble of "we have all the answers." Now that I am an adult, I realize the reason for that. We DIDN'T have all the questions. I know, I know... (who...

www.christianityboard.com

The opposite of reasonable is unreasonable. Is that where we should stand?
Should we embrace man-made doctrine that makes no sense under scrutiny?

We have given biblical support for our position. A position that was prevalent in the early church.
Not like we are making this up, or applying modrern thought to dismantle the plan of God for humankind.

No, on the contrary, my good fellow.
The dangerous thing, from my perspective, is to swallow hook-line-and-sinker the information
the church has passed down to us without giving it careful consideration.

Did Jesus die to save us from God? (right, that makes no sense) = irrational conclusion.

That's why I love you, Steven, I put the ax to the root of the tree and you respond in kind.

Of course, we will not see it the same, but your questions are indeed calling God into question in the effort to promote your agenda.

Anyone who reads your questions will see it's a lack of knowledge for these questions to be asked, and I speak of Scripture knowledge, which seems to run ramped among the UR.

 

[Charlie24]

How would you answer these questions, Charlie?
Give it your best shot. Thanks.
(or do you prefer to make the accusation of agnosticism and then run and hide?) I didn't think so.

• Do earthly parents love their children more than God does? – Earthly parents would never torture their children for disobedience, nor would they annihilate them, or separate themselves from their children for all eternity.
• Does God actually love all people the same? If so, why are some people given thousands of chances to hear the Gospel and experience his love, while other people are born into the worst conditions, simply trying to survive and begging for food, never coming in contact with a missionary in their lives?
• Does God ask us to forgive our enemies when He is ultimately not willing to do the same in the end?
• Is being punished forever for sins committed in a short lifetime really “justice”? Or can we never understand his form of justice?

I would answer these questions by saying, in order to ask these questions, you don't not understand the impact of God giving His own Son to redeem mankind. You do not understand that God is dead serious about the suffering His Son endured on that Cross, and for man to deny that in whatever way, is the ultimate insult and must be judged to the fullest extent of His Laws.

 

[St. SteVen]

That's why I love you, Steven, I put the ax to the root of the tree and you respond in kind.

Just to be clear, my intention is to build bridges, not walls.

course, we will not see it the same, but your questions are indeed calling God into question in the effort to promote your agenda.

Agenda? That saw cuts both ways, my friend. Do you not see that you have an agenda as well?

Anyone who reads your questions will see it's a lack of knowledge for these questions to be asked, and I speak of Scripture knowledge, which seems to run ramped among the UR.

I've never met a Christian Universalist that had a lack of scriptural knowledge.
I wish I could say that for non-Universalists.

I'm guessing you meant "rampant"?

 

[St. SteVen]

I would answer these questions by saying, in order to ask these questions,

Your answer is a non-answer. Refusal, or inability?
Seems that you don't, because you can't.

you don't not understand the impact of God giving His own Son to redeem mankind.

Seriously? UR stands for Universal Redemption.
If anything, you are LIMITING the impact of God giving His own Son to redeem humankind.

You do not understand that God is dead serious about the suffering His Son endured on that Cross,

A failed attempt to heap guilt and shame on anyone who would question the status quo.
What if Martin Luther had not questioned the status quo? Or Jesus, for that matter.

and for man to deny that in whatever way, is the ultimate insult and must be judged to the fullest extent of His Laws.

Wow. What "Laws" are we in violation of exactly? And what would be the fullest extent of punishment?
To burn forever with no hope of escape?

I think the ultimate insult is to claim God would do such a thing.

Are you REALLY incapable of addressing these questions ONE at a TIME?

• Do earthly parents love their children more than God does? – Earthly parents would never torture their children for disobedience, nor would they annihilate them, or separate themselves from their children for all eternity.
• Does God actually love all people the same? If so, why are some people given thousands of chances to hear the Gospel and experience his love, while other people are born into the worst conditions, simply trying to survive and begging for food, never coming in contact with a missionary in their lives?
• Does God ask us to forgive our enemies when He is ultimately not willing to do the same in the end?
• Is being punished forever for sins committed in a short lifetime really “justice”? Or can we never understand his form of justice?

 

[Charlie24]

Just to be clear, my intention is to build bridges, not walls.

Agenda? That saw cuts both ways, my friend. Do you not see that you have an agenda as well?

I've never met a Christian Universalist that had a lack of scriptural knowledge.
I wish I could say that for non-Universalists.

I'm guessing you meant "rampant"?

LOL, I miss your spelling correction, you always looked out for me there, and I admit I need it!

I know your intensions are in the right place, I've always given you, FinLinen, and all the rest, that respect.

But as you know, I followed FineLinen for quite a while correcting Him on the proper interpretation of all those verses he took out of context.

I will do the same with you, Steven. This thing you're teaching is wrong, it's leading many to believe there is no haste in this life to repent and accept Christ, they will have another chance in the future to make it right. The Scripture says, "today is the day of salvation."

As you put it, they will have to suffer, but that suffering comes to an end at some point in time (the Ages thing). That is a false doctrine, Steven, and God is not pleased with it!

I like you, Steven, but I can't sit back without showing you the errors you're teaching. We will all answer to what we did and didn't do in this life. As Paul said, Woe be unto me if I don't preach the Gospel of Christ," we all have a calling to pass that Gospel along in tact, and point out the false.

 

[St. SteVen]

This thing you're teaching is wrong, it's leading many to believe there is no haste in this life to repent and accept Christ, they will have another chance in the future to make it right. The Scripture says, "today is the day of salvation."

As I said to my new friend, @GRACE ambassador , nothing is left to chance.
And UR doesn't teach a "second chance". And even from your perspective, not everyone has even had a FIRST "chance".
That's were your position on "chances" falls apart.

The evangelical apologetic claims that ONLY those who have received Christ in this lifetime are "saved".
There have been countless billions, if not trillions, that have never even heard the name of Jesus.
They'll burn forever with no hope of escape, right? Seems like justice to some.

As you put it, they will have to suffer, but that suffering comes to an end at some point in time (the Ages thing). That is a false doctrine, Steven, and God is not pleased with it!

The evangelical apologetic claims POINTLESS suffering for all eternity. What is the end goal in this?
If that is true, many will have loved ones burning in the basement for all eternity.
How will they actually enjoy the bliss of heaven with that going on?
And who could trust a God like that? Such theological madness!

I like you, Steven, but I can't sit back without showing you the errors you're teaching.

I like you too. So, give me hell, brother.

We will all answer to what we did and didn't do in this life.

Indeed. On that point we agree. Which might surprise you.

As Paul said, Woe be unto me if I don't preach the Gospel of Christ," we all have a calling to pass that Gospel along in tact, and point out the false.

YES!!!!!!! Please continue to do so. The discussion MUST continue. God bless.

You really should take a shot at answering those questions. Not sure why you refuse.