A concise overview on the teaching of Universalism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k06tRo1Hq68
Two key takeaways for me (which confirm my own thoughts) are:
1. Universalist teaching springs from fleshly reasoning and sentiment, not from the Bible, and
2. Universalists do not typically become soul winners (everyone will be saved anyway or go to sleep for eternity so why bother).
//Universalist teaching springs from fleshly reasoning and sentiment, not from the Bible//
Not going to argue about it but this statement is patently false and shows the speaker has no idea of the biblical case that evangelical proponents of Universal Reconciliation can muster.
He can certainly disagree with their case, but to suggest they do not base their arguments on the Bible displays gross ignorance of the topic.
Todd, I've never hear any convincing argument in favor of Universalism. All of the arguments sound good on the surface but can't stand up to serious scrutiny (e.g. "only the smoke from hell is eternal; the smoke rises forever" or "God is too kind to punish sin for eternity".)
The doctrine of hell offends the natural man. Jesus deliberately made His teaching as plain as he could, so that even a child could understand it. No one with an unbiased mind who had never read the Bible before could ever read Revelation 14:11, for example, and come away thinking it said the wicked would not suffer forever.
Universalism undermines Christ's redemption, weakens the effacy of the cross, makes light of Christs suffering and death, mocks the martyrs und those whose suffer in Christ's name. It makes light of sin and cheapens holiness. It is damnable, there can be no compromise to this doctrine of demons.
Agreed narrowpath. If hell were not eternal, people could laugh in God's face at the Great White Throne Judgment. The fear of God is completely gone if the only punishment of sin is eternal sleep. One of the main arguments atheists try to use against christianity is "a loving God could never send someone to an eternal hell". To hear professing christians parrot this is mind boggling.
Nigel,
Is a transcript of Dr RT Kendall's message available?
Universalism undermines Christ's redemption, weakens the effacy of the cross, makes light of Christs suffering and death……
How can this be?
John 1:29 ”“
Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the * world *!
1 John 2:2 ”“
and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the * whole world *.
It is through universal reconciliation that the Lord Jesus, the Lamb of God, receives the * FULL * reward of His death and suffering.
It makes light of sin and cheapens holiness.
How can this be?
It is only through reconciliation that anyone can be holy before God and universal reconciliation makes ALL men and women holy before God!
One of the main arguments atheists try to use against christianity is "a loving God could never send someone to an eternal hell". To hear professing christians parrot this is mind boggling.
Our loving God * RESCUES * people from hell!
Jesus is a wonderful * SAVIOUR *!
I have said before and I say again:
I believe in biblical universal reconciliation not the "universalism" that is commonly known.
Actually I have not studied or researched on "universalism" (whatever it is) and all my views here are related to biblical universal reconciliation, totally Bible-based.
Hi Jade,
we had long exchanges over this topic.
I can accept when believers differ on secondary doctrinal differences.
Universal reconciliation is such a major deviation from the biblical doctrine of Christ's redemption that I wonder how anyone, who truly believes can entertain such a teaching.
I doubt you will find any speaker featured on SI who holds such a doctrine. As for the frequent blogger fellows here, I am sure most agree on the doctrine of eternal hell.
Jade, while Jesus Christ indeed saves those who repent of their sin and turn to Him, He is very clear that those who do not are damned eternally. In Matthew 25, when He is talking about the sheep and the goats (saved and unsaved people), He says "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (verse 46) The same Greek word is used for "everlasting" and "eternal" which is "aionios"; it means age lasting, forever. So if the punishment is not everlasting, as some universalists claim it to be, how can eternal life be?
Jade, what you believe on this subject is not Bible based; it was created by fallen angels and propagated by hardhearted reprobate men twisting the scriptures out of context. People tend to believe this doctrine because they dread eternal punishment and want to make an excuse for some sin in their lives. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but I would definitely seek God on this subject, pray for light from the Holy Spirit, and listen to some sound teachers.
//Universal reconciliation is such a major deviation from the biblical doctrine of Christ's redemption that I wonder how anyone, who truly believes can entertain such a teaching.//
William Law believed Universal Reconciliation.
Your statement ignores the actual biblical case which is actually quite strong. The standard response is to blast UR as "unscriptural” or in some way heretical but the person doing the blasting **never** actually examines the biblical case with even a semi-open mind. It is alway presuppositions and regurgitations.
I actually believe people are afraid to closely examine the biblical case.
[William Law believed Universal Reconciliation.]
Does not mean I have to.
[I actually believe people are afraid to closely examine the biblical case.]
When I find rotten mouldy food in my fridge, I can tell by the smell and sight that it is not good for consumption, no need to taste or try it. So it is with this doctrine, the Spirit alarms me already.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Todd, I've looked at the arguments for this position and found them totally unconvincing. I approach it much the same way as, say, the virgin birth of Jesus, or the doctrine of the Trinity. I wouldn't say of these doctrines "well, maybe they aren't true." I vigorously defend them because they ARE true, and the scriptures make it very plain.
A person can present a "convincing" case that homosexuality is accepted by God. These spurious arguments have been debunked over and over again, but people still hold to them, not because a case can be made, bu because they WANT it to be true. If I really wanted to, I could play "devil's advocate" and prove homosexuality is alright with God.
As for William Law, I believe the evidence shows he started out well, but he started dabbling in Jacob Bohme's heretical teachings. John Wesley called him out on it in a letter he wrote: "I have scarce met with a greater friend to darkness except 'the illuminated Jacob Bohme'. But, Sir, have you not done him an irreparable injury? I do not mean by misrepresenting his sentiments; (though some of his profound admirers are positive that you misunderstand and murder him throughout) but by dragging him out of his awful obscurity; by pouring light upon his venerable darkness. Men may admire the deepness of the well, and the excellence of the water it contains: But if some officious person puts a light into it, it will appear to be both very shallow and very dirty. I could not have borne to spend so many words on so egregious trifles, but that they are mischievous trifles: ... bad philosophy has, by insensible degrees, paved the way for bad divinity."
Aldous Huxley also admired Law's writings, and noted the parallels between his writings and heresy like Buddhism, Taoism and Sufism.
Hi Jade,
Genesis 7:13-14 - [13] In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; [14] They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
According to these verses every beast, all cattle, every creeping thing, and every fowl of every sort were saved from the flood.
What is your take on this? Do you think all were saved and why or why not?
Here is a quick historical survey of the EARLY CHURCH regarding their beliefs about HELL:
THE FIRST 500 YEARS: In the first five centuries there were six known theological schools. Four of them taught that all men would EVENTUALLY be rescued from Hell: these being the theological schools at Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea and Edessa/Nisbis. One school, Ephesus, taught Annihilationism (that sinners are totally incinerated into nothingness in Hell). Only one theological school, Rome/Carthage taught eternal punishment. Source: The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Universalism entry, p. 96, Baker Book House.
"The main Patristic supporters of the apokatastasis theory, such as Bardaisan, Clement, Origen, Didymus, St. Anthony, St. Pamphilus Martyr, Methodius, St. Macrina, St. Gregory of Nyssa (and probably the two other Cappadocians), St. Evagrius Ponticus, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. John of Jerusalem, Rufinus, St. Jerome and St. Augustine (at least initially [However, even after abandoning the doctrine of apokatastasis himself, Augustine very interestingly recognised that a great deal of Christians in his day did embrace it, 'indeed the vast majority' (immo quam plurimi). These very numerous Christians, 'albeit not denying the Holy Scripture, do not believe in eternal torments' (Ench. ad Laur. 29) page 683]), Cassian, St.Isaac of Nineveh, St.John of Dalyatha, Ps. Dionysius the Areopagite, probably St. Maximus the Confessor, up to John the Scot Eriugena,28 and many others, grounded their Christian doctrine of apokatastasis first of all in the Bible."
~~Page 11, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena, by Ilaria L.E. Ramelli (2013). Ramelli's work is comprehensive (800 pages) on this and her credentials beyond reproach. I daresay its the most comprehensive and scholarly book on the subject ever written. She is working on a shorter user friendly version soon to be published.
1ST CENTURY: PAUL. It is interesting to note that Paul never used the word Hell in any of his writings, though he was considered the theologian of the New Testament. He spoke of God's post-mortem purging fire in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, but never of Hell per se. The Gospel of John, the disciple perhaps closest to Jesus' heart, never used the word Hell in his Gospel. It is also interesting to note that the Book of Acts never mentions the word Hell, except to speak of Jesus' liberation FROM it. Acts NEVER uses the word Hell to describe any part of the Christian message which established the Church. The following passages suggests Paul's seminal thinking on the eventual and ultimate salvation of all men: Romans 5:17,18; 10:9-17; 11:25-33; 14:11; 1 Cor. 3:11-15; 15:22-28; 1 Tim. 2:1-6; 4:10; Eph. 1:10; 4:1-10; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:20, 23; Heb. 2:9.
2ND CENTURY: CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. Clement was the first to speak of God's fire as a "wise fire" which purges the sinner unto salvation. "God's punishments are saving and disciplinary (in Hades) leading to conversions, and choosing rather the repentance than the death of the sinner, and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh. We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, is His work, and so will he continue to operate after this life." Clem. str. 5:14.90.4-91.2; see also 5.1.9.4; and hyp. (frg. In Stahlin, Clemens Alexandrians, 3:211).
3RD CENTURY: ORIGEN: "When the Son is said to be subject to the Father, the perfect restoration of the whole creation is signified, so also, when enemies are said to be subjected to the Son of God, the salvation of the conquered and the restoration of the lost is in that understood to consist." Origen, De Principiis, Book III, Chapter 5, Section 7, Anf, Vol. 4. Origen was the first Christian Systematic Theologian. A fundamental and essential element of his theology was the doctrine of the universal restoration of all fallen beings to their original holiness and union with God. Gods mercy and goodness are all-inclusive and ultimately irresistible. Hellfire is corrective and purgative, not punitive and eternal. This doctrine was called Apocatastasis, "the restitution of all things" per Acts 3:21. Origen was the greatest enemy of Gnosticism (per his Against Celsus) and is considered the greatest theologian of the early Eastern Church. "There is hardly a major thinker who is not deeply indebted to Origen. From the middle of the Twentieth Century, focused scholarly symposia of the Greek and Latin Church have once again begun to study and critically expound the rich Origenian legacy." The Westminister Handbook of Patristic Theology, WJK.
4TH CENTURY: GREGORY OF NYSSA: "What therefore is the scope of Pauls argument in this place [1 Cor. 15:28]? That the nature of evil, at length, be wholly exterminated, and divine, immortal goodness embrace within itself every rational creature; so that of all who were made by God, not one shall be excluded from his Kingdom. All the viciousness, that like a corrupt matter is mingled in things, shall be dissolved and consumed in the furnace of purgatorial fire; and every thing that had its origin from God, shall be restored to its pristine state of purity." Tract, in Dictum Apostoli, Tunc etiam ipse Filius subjicietur, and c.p. 137, and seqq. Gregory was one of the three great Cappodadocean Fathers who protected the doctrine of the Trinity from the Arians at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople.
5TH CENTURY: Theodore of Mopsuestia. "They who have chosen the good, shall, in the future world, be blessed and honored. But the wicked, who have committed evil the whole period of their lives, shall be punished till they learn, that, by continuing in sin, they only continue in misery. And when, by this means, they shall have been brought to fear God, and to regard Him with good-will, they shall obtain the enjoyment of His grace." Assemani Biblioth. Orient. Tom. iii. Par. i. p.323.
Church history is fairly clear that this view of Hell was not just the view of a few, but rather was the majority view of the Church.
Basil the Great (329-379) said that, "The MASS of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished." De Ascetics.
Saint Jerome (347-420) said, "I know that MOST persons understand the story of Nineveh and its king, the ultimate forgiveness of the devil and all rational creatures." Homily on Jonah.
Lastly, even Augustine (354-430), who later in his life vehemently opposed Universalism, still acknowledged, "There are VERY MANY in our day, who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." Enchirdion cxii. (The Latin for "very many" is imo quam plurimi, which can be translated majority).
David Bentley Hart, Eastern Orthodox theologian and Patristic scholar, notes that the early church fathers, who knew ancient koine Greek far better than do most moderns, simply did NOT translate "aionios kolasis" as a phrase meaning "eternal punishment" to be applied to the duration and nature of Hell per Matthew 25:46.
Hart observes that ". . . patristic theologians as diverse as Origen, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Isaac of Nineveh saw in the phrase aionios kolasis (typically translated as ‘eternal punishment,’ but possible to read as ‘correction for a long period’ or ‘for an age’ or even ‘in the age to come’) no cause to conclude that hell was anything but a temporary process of spiritual purification.” Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Loc. 2059-61) Yale University Press (February 23, 2010).
When the Church rejected this high view of God's goodness and replaced it with a view of God as an eternal torturer, the dark ages began, almost to the day. Ever since, there has remained a constant and stubborn strand of those embedded in the Church who believe Hell is not an eternal torture chamber, but rather God's final crisis-center, a cosmic ER station where God performs complicated, intense and painful surgery on human souls in order to remove all the false sin-identites accumulated over their lifetimes.
While the early church Fathers are not authoritative, many of them did indeed believe in eternal conscious torment.
"The way of darkness is crooked, and it is full of cursing. It is the way of eternal death with punishment." Epistle of Barnabas 70-130 AD
"Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death. how much more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God. for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him." Ignatius of Antioch 110 AD
"But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory to their God saying, ‘There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart!’" Clement of Rome 150 AD
"Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire." Martyrdom of Polycarp 155 AD
"We are persuaded that when we are removed from the present life we will live another life, better than the present one…or, if they fall with the rest, they will endure a worse life, one in fire. For God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, who are mere by-products. For animals perish and are annihilated. On these grounds, it is not likely that we would wish to do evil." Athenagoras of Athens 175 AD
"Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven,, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess’ to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send ‘spiritual wickednesses,’ and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning of their Christian course, and others from the date of their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory."
Against Heresies 1:10:10
"The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . [I]t is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,’ they will be damned forever." Against Heresies 4:28:2
Irenaeus 189 AD
Biblical scholar Richard Bauckham said:
"The history of the doctrine of universal salvation (or apokatastasis) is a remarkable one. Until the nineteenth century almost all Christian theologians taught the reality of eternal torment in hell. Here and there, outside the theological mainstream, were some who believed that the wicked would be finally annihilated (in its commonest form, this is the doctrine of 'conditional immortality').[11] Even fewer were the advocates of universal salvation, though these few included some major theologians of the early church. Eternal punishment was firmly asserted in official creeds and confessions of the churches. It must have seemed as indispensable a part of universal Christian belief as the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation."
Todd, even if most of the early church were Universalists (and I am not convinced they were) all that would prove is that the majority was wrong, as majorities have been countless times through history.
And trying to make Paul a Universalist is ridiculous.
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” Galatians 1:8,9
Bible scholar Charles Wanamaker notes that "destruction” in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 can be interpreted as a literal annihilation or as having a metaphorical meaning of punishment, not a literal destruction. He says, "As there is no evidence in Paul (or the rest of the NT for that matter) for a concept of final annihilation of the godless, the expression ‘eternal destruction’ should probably be taken in a metaphorical manner as indicating the severity of the punishment awaiting the enemies of God.” (From Christian Worldview Press)
The fact that you think punishing the wicked is an "eternal torture chamber" shows me what you really think of sin ,that it's just a character flaw or a false identity, and not willful rebellion, no big deal. In that view, even if someone does not want to go to heaven, if they love their sin, God will forcibly "cleanse" them and drag them there anyway.
To Nigel ; Amen!!
To Todd; regarding the early church... perhaps Paul could bring some light -
;Acts 20:)
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
(for me) this plainly states that he (Paul) has and can clearly see what’s happening regarding the inevitable corruption that would be as a cancer on the early church till it was surgically removed yet apparently as is oft the case with cancers (rebellions) it came back, which itself is not so surprising but the willingness of the host being so blatant is 🤷🽔♂ï¸
To say that God tortures someone into loving Him is the grossest perversion. God gives every man free will, and people in hell have made their final decision. Jesus said "This is the condemnation, that men loved darkness rather than light." They CHOOSE darkness. Men have wicked hearts.
Plus, I can't think of one Universalist in the 21st century who is a soul winner. On the contrary, many of them lead wicked, immoral, compromised lives.
Just look at Wendy Francisco (Don Francisco's wife), a big proponent of Universalism. Look on her facebook page and you'll see cursing and swearing, anger and bitterness; her own daughter is living in blatant sin, but Wendy doesn't care at all, because preaching to her would be a waste of time; she'll "go to heaven anyway."
Nigel and Philip,
I can see you are celebrating a victory.
Dr. RT Kendall, a highly regarded speaker and writer, has spoken.
You have won.
I humbly rest in God alone.
If this preaching of universal reconciliation is not of God, it will certainly fail.
But if it is of God, no one will be able to fight against God.
Many hearts have embraced God’s will and desire for ALL men to saved (1 Tim. 2:4) and made God’s will and desire their own.
Prayers are rising to God, as sweetest incense, pleasing to God, for ALL men (1 Tim. 2:1).
God will surely give His saints the desires of their heart for they are God’s very own.
In the unseen highways and hedges, simple hearts known only to God are celebrating God’s goodness and lovingkindness and rejoicing in God’s great love.
I can feel so much hostility and condemnation being poured out on this thread. I will not let any of this take root in my heart. I will open my heart to God’s great love alone.
Lam. 3:22 ”“
The LORD’S lovingkindnesses indeed never cease,
For His compassions never fail.
The love of God our Father and the grace of our Lord Jesus be with all.
I am leaving this thread.
No further comment.
Jade, I am not celebrating anything, but rather I am saddened that believers are divided over this subject. I am not discounting your faith, or Todd's; I love you both and it concerns me deeply when I see people have a distorted view of God's justice and love. Sometimes, though, a line has to be drawn in the sand; this is a very important facet of christianity.
Just so you know I was praying about this right before I posted this comment; asking God for grace and love, that my own pride would be abased and that I could address this subject in love and patience.
I apologize if anything I said seems harsh or judgmental.
I may seem harsh in my stand against universal reconciliation, but it is because it is not just a matter of differing views or opinion.
In this doctrinal matter the eternal fate of souls are at stake. If you put a sinner at ease to continue in his sin, because in the end it does not matter, you take serious guilt upon yourself.
Likewise, if you suggest to the saint, take it easy and do not be overzealous, you get there anyway, you spoil a precious soul.
It says in
2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
There are heresies that are damnable, especially in the field of salvation or Christology.
I appeal to anyone, who believes in universal reconciliation to seriously consider the foundation of their faith.
The Spirit himself witnesses to the truth. There can be no compromise. Faith has to be defended, it is always under attack. I am sure false teaching caused more casualties then persecution.
Church leaders are under obligation to watch out for propper doctrine, if they do not do it, they are charged with neglect, as you can see in the Revelation 2 and 3. You cannot leave them room in a fellowship, lest the destroy the faith of others. False teachers are pictured as wolves, who feed do not feed the sheep but feed on sheep. False doctrine always appeals to the flesh and delivers deadly poison.
As for Jade and Todd, I do not denounce you in person, but I think it is right to address this matter in the same way the apostles addressed false teaching who told their congregation to refrain from fellowshipping with their proponents.
However, as SI is not a church, this does not quite apply here, so we can discuss it.
I am not a proponent of UR.
What I object to is the flippant assertion that the idea has no biblical support. The sole reason I posted about the early church fathers was to show that *they* thought there was biblical support for the idea. To suggest they were idiotic heretics is a bit much.
Surely, men like Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and St. Gregory of Nyssa knew their Bibles.
On another point, someone objected to the the characterization of the traditional concept of hell as an "eternal torture chamber.”
If that’s not what it is, then what is it? What does "eternal conscious torment” mean?
Todd, the connotation I hear so often, if not said right out loud then implied, is that people who believe in an eternal hell believe in a kind of divine Josef Mengele.
Hell is separation from God; that's what makes it hell. The people who go there don't WANT God or His presence, so He gives them what they desire.
Well, there is little doubt that in the traditional construct the punishment is infinitely worse than the crimes. Folks say things like "sin is an eternal crime against an eternal God that requires eternal punishment.” That sounds ok I guess but I am not sure it’s found in scripture.
You are slightly mischaracterizing what folks who defend UR say about hell. They would never say that God is forcing people to love Him. The general idea is that given enough time, everyone will ultimately repent of their own free will.
This is certainly a very broad topic with lots of moving parts which makes it difficult to discuss in a forum.
But I still feel that the best argument against the traditional view is that, if true, Jesus is the cosmic *loser* to satan. Even in the LOF, satan will know that the vast vast majority of souls created by God are his. I have not heard a convincing counter to this argument.
"Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Philippians 2:9-11
I firmly believe that the only way people can be forgiven of their sin is by the blood of Jesus. This concept that people burn their sins off in hell sounds a lot like purgatory to me. It sounds like a works based religion. The UR view assumes that everyone would want to be saved, and that with a little more knowledge of God's goodness, they would choose salvation. What about Satan, who had perfect knowledge of God's goodness, who actually saw Him, and still rejected Him?
Will the majority of mankind be lost? If you believe Jesus, then yes. It does not make Him a loser, because He has given us free will to accept or reject Him. By that logic, He was a loser in the first century because most people that knew Him rejected Him then.
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13,14. Notice there He does not say those on the narrow way would get VIP access, and everyone else on the broad way would be let in later.
It is interesting that Jesus said "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." D. L. Moody interpreted this to mean heaven will be mostly children. How many children die in the womb, or before the age of accountability? Surely a vast number.
My question is if all are going to be saved regardless of how they live, why doesn't the Bible just say that? Why these elaborate interpretations that we need a guru to explain to us? Surely the translators of the Bible in every language aren't dumbbells who ALL got it wrong...
23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:
26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.
27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.
28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.
No honest, straightforward reading of this text could ever conclude other than what Jesus Himself clearly states when questioned on this very topic....
yet here we are 2000 yrs later attempting to use the sword (word) to broaden the narrow way as such making the straight gate seem crooked !
No wonder we are under such judgments, may God have His mercy and may we indeed receive a love for the truth and repent from this shameful foolishness ðŸ™ðŸ»
//I firmly believe that the only way people can be forgiven of their sin is by the blood of Jesus.//
Absolutely; a believer in the evangelical version of UR agrees with this statement. There is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved.
In regard to the narrow gate passage, keep in mind that there is indeed a real hell in the UR construct. People who do not repent and believe in this life must go there, and it will not be pleasant. How long may some be there? Perhaps very very long, but something less than eternity.
"if” there was a "way out” of hell would not the consistent and repeated warnings of Christ Himself be purposefully misleading??
For there is not one scripture where Jesus states or alludes to that even being a possibility, yet there are (as previously posted in this thread) numerous statements to the fact of it being final and eternal and again, not even one that plainly states (or even suggests) otherwise... 🤷🽔♂ï¸
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:10-11
Paul says "every” very plainly and he says it twice. Therefore it appears the burden of proof shifts to those who say every does not mean every.
** duplicate post
Yes, every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord but that doesn't mean all will be saved. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. Heb. 9:27 And so those who died without accepting Christ will be convinced of the truth that Jesus is in fact Lord, but knowing this and confessing this will do them little good. They are still appointed to Hell. And I'm almost sure that when the full revelation of everything is obvious to them at that time, they will even agree that they deserve Hell.
-Daniel
Amen!
Yes indeed every knee will bow when Christ is unveiled and then Judgement 💯
I listended to R.T.Kendall's Message. He states that the main propagator of universal reconciliation is the Swiss-German theologian Karl Barth, whom he describes as some of the most dangerous theologians of the last century, because of his far-reaching influence.
Barth states that not only Christ's vicarious death but also his vicarious faith translates everyone finally to heaven. What a nonsense! It is interesting to know that Karl Barth's secretary lived with the Barth family in the same house and they lived in a platonic triangular relationship, to say the least. He loved Charlotte von Kirschbaum but stopped short of divorcing his wife. No wonder that such theologians opt for an escape from eternal hell. Strange enough, he is seen by some as a leading figure associated with the "confessing church" in Nazi Germany, that went through persecution. Nice to work from the safety of Switzerland surrended by a wife and mistress of sorts.
Some people are impressed by the depth of his thoughts. The late Art Katz often referred to him, makes me scratch my head..
It is interesting to know that Karl Barth's secretary lived with the Barth family in the same house and they lived in a platonic triangular relationship, to say the least. He loved Charlotte von Kirschbaum but stopped short of divorcing his wife. No wonder that such theologians opt for an escape from eternal hell.
My thoughts exactly. I think most people who hold to these views (specifically the ones that take a hard line, dogmatic stance) NEED this to be true; they know they are not living right and are terrified of the consequences. I don't think people generally arrive at these conclusions by honest scriptural study. Keith Green mentioned a famous Bible teacher who shocked everyone by starting to teach Universal Reconciliation... then it came out that he was having homosexual encounters with some of his students.
//Yes, every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord but that doesn't mean all will be saved.//
Paul uses the term "confess” eleven times, and he never refers to a begrudged or coerced confession. There is no hint that the word ever refers to a forced confession of a rebel.
Further, to confess Christ as "Lord”, per Paul, is that which *saves* a person(Rom. 10:9) and can *only* be done by the prompting of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3).
In addition, Paul says this confession by every tongue is "to the glory of God the Father.” God would not be glorified in a begrudged confession made under threats of torture. If a man were to ask a woman, "Do you find me witty and handsome? And she replied, "Yes I do,” he would rightly be flattered. But what if he asked the same question and the woman said, "Not particularly.” If he were then to place a gun to her head and say "How about *now*?” she might answer in a more agreeable manner, but can we suppose any sane man would feel honored by the woman’s praise under such conditions? Proponents of UR argue that God is glorified only in worship of sincere believers, not coerced confessions (as in the Spanish Inquisition) and that this passage cannot reasonably be said to describe any other.
An easily overlooked but important point is that in the Greek all this bowing and confessing is said to occur *in* the name of Jesus, not *at* the name of Jesus. Paul seems to be suggesting that all people will eventually worship God *in the name of Jesus*. That which is truly done in the name of Jesus is only done by believers (Col. 3:17).
//I think most people who hold to these views (specifically the ones that take a hard line, dogmatic stance) NEED this to be true; they know they are not living right and are terrified of the consequences.//
This is a gross over generalization and you have no proof of same. The pure fact is that the vast majority of Christians who hold to the traditional view are not "living right” either. Shall I list out all the evangelical pastors involved in sex scandals in the last 30 years?
The argument is a straw man at best.
Confess Is to agree ... that Jesus is Lord ðŸ™ðŸ»
Strong's Definitions: á¼Î¾Î¿Î¼Î¿Î»Î¿Î³Îω exomologéÅ, ex-om-ol-og-eh'-o; from G1537 and G3670; to acknowledge or (by implication, of assent) agree fully:””confess, profess, promise.
I was talking specifically about people holding to an unbiblical theological position to quiet their consciences. Most professing christians I know are not born again. Many times the cause of this is they want to go to heaven but they also want to hold on to their sin. The Universalist position can't be summed up better; there are no consequences for sin, so even if you want to live an immoral life, no problem, just go to purgatory to burn your sins away.
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23
Why didn't Jesus put an addendum on this and say "They won't enter into the kingdom of heaven right away, but give it time"?
And I don't think it is an over generalization. Bad doctrine always leads to bad practice.
Nigel, you make this "burning away” sound like a pleasant picnic in the park that’s really not a very big deal. Why do you do this? No proponent of UR does.
Proponents of Universal Reconciliation have a distorted view of God's character, and a distorted view of what hell actually is. Maybe I'm using hyperbole to make a point.
Hell is described in scripture as a lake of fire, a place of eternal suffering and torment, a place where the worm does not die, and the fire is never quenched. People that end up there want to be there, they have chosen it, and do not want God's presence. In their sinful state heaven would be hell to them. If it were only to last a thousand years, or a million even ("what kind of God would torture people for a million years!") it takes all of the sting out of it if it doesn't last forever.
"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." Revelation 22:11
"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still - This must refer to the scenes beyond the judgment, and must be intended to affirm an important truth in regard to the condition of people in the future state. It cannot refer to the condition of human beings on this side the grave, for there is no fixed and unchangeable condition in this world. At the close of this book, and at the close of the whole volume of revealed truth, it was proper to declare, in the most solemn manner, that when these events were consummated, everything would be fixed and unchanging; that all who were then found to be righteous would remain so forever; and that none who were impenitent, impure, and wicked, would ever change their character or condition. That this is the meaning here seems to me to be plain; and this sentiment accords with all that is said in the Bible of the final condition of the righteous and the wicked.
See Matthew 25:46; Romans 2:6-9; 1 Thessalonians 1:7-10; Daniel 12:2; Ecclesiastes 11:3. Every assurance is held out in the Bible that the righteous will be secure in holiness and happiness, and that there will be no danger - no possibility - that they will fall into sin, and sink to woe; and by the same kind of arguments by which it is proved that their condition will be unchanging, is it demonstrated that the condition of the wicked will be unchanging also. The argument for the eternal punishment of the wicked is as strong as that for the eternal happiness of the righteous; and if the one is open to doubt, there is no security for the permanence of the other. The word "unjust" here is a general term for an unrighteous or wicked man. The meaning is, that he to whom that character properly belongs, or of whom it is properly descriptive, will remain so forever. The design of this seems to be, to let the ungodly and the wicked know that there is no change beyond the grave, and by this solemn consideration to warn them now to flee from the wrath to come. And assuredly no more solemn consideration can ever be presented to the human mind than this.
And he which is filthy, let him be filthy still - The word "filthy" here is, of course, used with reference to moral defilement or pollution. It refers to the sensual, the corrupt, the profane; and the meaning is, that, their condition will be fixed, and that they will remain in this state of pollution forever. There is nothing more awful than the idea that a polluted soul will be always polluted; that a heart corrupt will be always corrupt; that the defiled will be put forever beyond the possibility of being cleansed from sin.
And he that is righteous, let him be righteous still - The just, the upright man - in contradistinction from the unjust mentioned in the first part of the verse.
And he that is holy, let him be holy still - He that is pure, in contradistinction from the filthy mentioned in the former part of the verse. The righteous and the holy will be confirmed in their character and condition, as well as the wicked. The affirmation that their condition will be fixed is as strong as that that of the wicked will be - and no stronger; the entire representation is, that all beyond the judgment will be unchanging forever. Could anymore solemn thought be brought before the mind of man?" From Albert Barnes' Commentary
//it takes all of the sting out of it if it doesn't last forever//
What if it lasts one day shy of forever?
Like I said I’m not sure burning for a million years would be on anyones list of Top Ten Things To Do.
Thank you for sharing ðŸ™ðŸ»
These verses and that specific point (Rev 22) is (for me), unassailable-
The fact that it is an eternally fixed position fits perfectly with the "whole council” of the word for precisely the reason Barnes illustrates. Namely that if there were any possibility of reprieve it would not only not be necessary to say what that passage of scripture says but would clearly be a willfully misleading thing to do so... and that itself would be inconsistent with the "whole council of the word”. This is not to mention (as was pointed out) that this verse occurs after judgement and is itself the final declaration that states we will be in one of two fixed positions.
one of the tactics our enemy has employed is to invest in changing people’s attitudes and perceptions of basic things and then waiting for them to retroactively apply said change in perception/attitude to the foundational truths of the scriptures. An easy example is the gender issue, if a person is convinced and believes that there are more than two then when they read or hear that God made them both male and female, male and female made He them they are instantly going to reject it because they believe that to be fundamentally incorrect and if they can’t reasonably relate to the first few pages of the Bible... it’s not likely they will be disciples.
This is part of a greater strategy of erasing things simply by changing perceptions/attitudes relating to them.
Recently there was the thread about wether Jews are a race, and if the same metrics that were employed there had been commonly accepted, it would be the first in a series of races that were erased, because if those same metrics were applied to the Chinese for example they would completely fail to qualify as would Indian, etc..
another attempt to change perceptions/attitudes is in the attempts to erase hell as a place of eternal punishment, to do so would effectively devalue the finished work on the cross by pretending to fully actualize it, which is the same method used in the previous two examples.
We are called to earnestly contend for the faith that was handed down to us by the apostles, and we can only do that if we’ve first received it. I believe it’s available to everyone and though many want it, few are willing to give up enough of their life in the world to clear out the space to receive it in full so in many cases we stop the process before it is complete in that we either get comfortable, distracted, or get frustrated and give up, so we never come to maturity where Christ is fully formed in us and that’s not because God is unwilling or incapable, rather it’s because we loved fornicating with the world (James 4:4) and refused to give up the right to do so... it’s almost as if we want to be saved "in” the world not "from” it...
(For me) these topics are clearly "of the world” by their very existence, meaning they are as seeds and every seed bears fruit after its own kind, I’ve seen enough of the fruit to know the root and all of these attempts to erase core precepts and fundamental principles in an effort to erode the foundation built on the apostles and prophets will fail and not only fail but will ultimately serve to strengthen the body which unites under the headship of Christ to depose it ðŸ™ðŸ»
What if it lasts one day shy of forever?
Kind of misunderstanding what forever means...It isn't million upon millions of years, time will cease to exist. Kind of makes one think, if there is time no longer, how can people in hell be reformed in a specific amount of time?
I agree with Nigel, most who believe in things like universal reconciliation or eternal security or easy believism/sinners prayer believe in it because they want it to be true.
Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.
Donate