Universalism

If you teach others to sin because of your doctrine, woe unto you.

 

The logical conclusion if Calvinism is taken to its end.

But I have just clearly shown you that people are not sent to hell because of their sins (lying, murder, adultery, etc.), it is rejection of Christ. You still have a problem with Rev. 21:27 if you believe that those who are not in the Book of Life will one day walk in God's city. Plus, there is no basis in Scripture to say that hell is remedial. Rather, it is quite the opposite. It is eternal.

Neal

[ May 25, 2003, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

And where am I teaching anyone to sin?

 

Bingo! Thank you for drawing that conclusion. Now if my fellow Calvinists would only do the same as you, brother Neal.

 

Please reread my last post on page one for the section you are addressing with this conclusion, I was evidently editing it when you responded. I don't see them as being the same thing. They are apples and oranges. God's offer of salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23). The very nature of a gift is that it can be received or rejected. But it has to be received to enjoy the benefits of it. It is clear that eternal life has a stipulation to it: belief in Jesus Christ.

Also, the more I think about it, I don't know if I would define rejecting Christ as a sin. Now I am not saying that it is okay, so don't start that. (After all, you are the one that says it is okay, according to your doctrine.) A sin is a breaking of a moral law (God's) or missing the mark. In that sense, I think rejection of Christ is different. It is what it says it is: rejection of Christ. Thus, if one does this, he is not in the Book of Life. And if he is not, there are clear ramifications as a result of this choice (Rev. 20:15).

(I have edited my last post on the first page to reflect this.)

Neal

[ May 25, 2003, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

Also, even if I defined rejection of Christ as a sin like murder, lying, adultery, etc., I still would not hold to number 3 as you say I do. Not everyone rejects Christ, so that would not have needed to be paid for in some people. Thus, according to your logic, I would hold to number 2, He paid for all of some people's sins.

But I do not hold to that, I was just pointing out your wrong conclusion. I believe that Christ paid for everyone's sins. But to enjoy the benefit of that atonement one must receive it. If they reject it, they choose eternal separation from God in hell. I do not see rejecting Christ as a sin as you are defining sin. It is not breaking a law or missing a mark. It is rejecting a gift.

Neal

 

Hi Guys,

Gee I didn't mean to stir up trouble. I was just posting on the other board and voila it winds up here. I was having a discussion with Yelsew mostly and I guess he felt the need to bring it over here to get you all going on and on about it. I just wanted to post scripture that I believe prooves the ultimate reconcilation of mankind to God through the finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary. The Savior who was slain before the foundations of the earth were laid. (translation: you and I don't have anything to do with it) It is a one-sided covenant cut by God with or without yours or my decision to accept it.

Well, that being said, I offer the following for your thoughtful and prayerful consideration. Quite often we defend our positions merely because we've been taught by others to do so. It's ok to ask God if He will reconcile all to Himself. You won't believe it unless He shows you anyway. You DO know when God is speaking to your heart, don't you?

Consider this:

If one soul goes to "eternal torment" the following promises or Words would be broken:

He would break His promises to the fathers, Abraham and Isaac: "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen. 22:18; also see Gen. 26:4, ) There are thousands of nations who either never heard the gospel or if they heard one, it was not Paul's gospel. Will all nations be blessed or won't they? How?

He would break His Word to the families of the earth: "All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you." (Psalm 22:27) All families in worship?

He would break His Word to all flesh: "O, You Who hear prayer, to you all flesh will come. Iniquities prevail against me; as for our transgressions, you will provide atonement for them." (Psalm 65:2-4) All flesh?

He would break His Word to His enemies: "How awesome are your works! Through the greatness of your power your enemies shall submit themselves to you. All the earth shall worship you and sing praises to you." (Psalm 66:3,4) Will they sing praises and worship in "hell?" All enemies will submit?

His mercy would have to end for some: "This I recall to my mind, therefore I have hope. Through the Lord's mercies we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not. They are new every morning." (Lam. 3:21-24)

This scripture would make Him a liar: "For the Lord will not cast off forever. Though He causes grief, yet He will show compassion according to the multitude of His mercies." (Lam. 3:31,32) Hell is forever, according to orthodox theology.
Adam's fall would be greater than Jesus' resurrection: "Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." (Rom. 5:17-19)

His desire or will would not come to pass: "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires (NKJV) or wills (KJV) all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2:3,4)

"Hell" means His love failed to reach someone: His "Love never fails." (1 Cor. 13:8)


I congratulate you all on making a decision for Christ, but do you really think you could do it unless the Father draw you?


"For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar!" (Romans 3:3,4) He will not fail anyone.

All glory, praise and honor to YOU, ALMIGHTY FATHER. \o/

In Him, GH

 

1 Peter 4.6 is an interesting pick for support of a universal salvation theory.

Why would you think that some are not experientially saved, assuming you guys still hold to a salvation by Grace Soteriology, why would God's Grace be witheld from any in this present life in order they would have to suffer?

I don't understand how you can/could maintain such salvation is without merit in man if all are going to receive it, but some only after enduring torment.

I don't see how you can work your way around this delimma. I will try to post more on 1 Peter 4.6 later, don't have time now.

BTW, Yelsew, Good to see you fighting the Good Fight

God Bless All

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Okay. I see that as a rather non-orthodox view of sin.

So, since we do not define sin the same way, it will be rather difficult to discuss these matters using different definitions.

Thanks though for understanding my viewpoint on universalism as being the logical conclusion to draw from Calvinism and the atonement of Christ for all sin.

Praise be unto God for salvation through the finished work of Christ Jesus. \o/

 

If you guys would read Romans 8 you would learn that the death of Christ atoned for the universe, yeah, but for unbelievers? Can't, couldn't be; how? In the original creation God 'created the heaven and the earth' and in vs. 2 this creation 'became' void and without form due to the judgement of Satan and the fallen angels, it is to this original creation that Christ's death shall ultimately restore the universe. But to extend it to reconciliation for unbelievers, this is way out of bounds of Scripture, if not, then soon you will have Lucifer and the fallen angels reconciled...why not?

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

I don't know. But then again, Calvinism has always had difficulty dealing with the idea of saving grace not being given to all, just as Arminianism/non-Calvinism has always had difficulty dealing with the idea of God creating people He knew would not be saved by their "free" will.

That is why the logical conclusion of Arminianism/non-Calvinism to attempt to mitigate that difficulty is to claim, as Open Theists do, that God does not know the future. But that goes against the Biblical doctrine of God being omniscience.

So everyone has doctrinal difficulties, from our human perspective. Maybe it just supposed to be that way.

 

There are Christian universalists who do believe that will take place. Personally, I hope that is the case, but I don't know at this point.

 

Absolutely fantastic point, Diane.

Is Adam's failure to be greater than Christ's success? Is God's will and purpose to be trumped and overridden by man's fallen "free" will? Is sin to triumph over grace?

No, no, no. A thousand times, NO!

Praise be unto God for salvation through the finished work of Christ Jesus. \o/

 

Blessed does not mean saved. I will have to investigate your how question.

Yes, even unbelievers will one day bow before Christ and confess. Still doesn't mean they are saved.

See previous statement.

See previous statement.

You have distorted the context. It is only by God's mercy that this whole world keeps going. He is longsuffering. Also, Jeremiah was talking of him and his people.

Another distortion.

You have conveniently pasted that quote together. Why not quote all the verses? Life is available to all men, some reject it. Even this passage acknowledges that.

"If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as on trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." Romans 5:17-19, ESV

Who are the many? I would venture to say the ones who receive in verse 17.

Does desire = what is done? Do you do everything you desire? Yes, that is God's desire, but He will not force someone.

No it doesn't. Why?

No, I don't. But I think God has revealed enough of Himself to draw all. Some have rejected it, at any level. (see Romans 1:18-32)

No He won't. Just because someone rejects God does not mean He has failed. God is faithful to reveal the truth to a person. But He doesn't force anyone.

It is funny how you say that we will make God out to be a liar, yet you are the one that contradicts clear passages of Scripture when you say hell is not eternal punishment. And what of all the clear passages where men were given a choice to make in regards to following God? That was just some game God was playing? "Choose! (But you really don't have one, I will bring you to me if you want it or not!)" Talk about someone who creates a less than honest God.

Neal

[ May 25, 2003, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

And you are talking about me being non-orthodox? What does it have to do with anything? You definitely are not orthodox, so why would you ever use that as a criteria for someone's argument? Also, you are the one who minimizes what Christ has done. Rejection of His free gift is the ultimate insult to the Creator. You have trivialized it to be like lying or adultery. I don't see rejection of Christ fitting into the same category as these.

What is your definition?

I understand these, but I don't agree with your over all conclusion of total reconciliation of everyone. Just want to be clear on that.

Neal

 

I challenge you to find any Scripture in the original Hebrew or Greek language in which the Bible was written that teaches eternal torture by God of His creation. You can find it in English translations but not in the original languages. I share the following quotation:

Another pleasant change which more Bible translations of the future will make deals with the subject of the words “everlasting,” “eternal,” and “for ever and ever.” These words have been used in times past to translate the Hebrew word “olam,” and its Greek counterpart “aion,” and its adjective, “aionios.” These ancient words should NEVER have been translated this way. Many modern scholars are beginning to cut against the grain of tradition and speak the truth which has been shackled by the chains of tradition long enough. It’s time for light. The body of Christ has had enough of living in the shadows. It’s time for pure light!

Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, a well-known Bible teacher, hailed as “the prince of expositors” wrote in his book “God’s Method’s With Men” on pages 185, 6, “Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how to use the word ‘eternity.’ We have fallen into great error in our constant use of that word. There is NO word in the whole Book of God corresponding with our ‘eternal,’ which as commonly used among us, means absolutely without end.”

The above statement may come as a shock to the traditional Christian in the typical Church. It was certainly a shock to me. How could he make what appeared to me such a ridiculous statement. The Bible translations I had were FILLED with verses that spoke of things which were “eternal,” “everlasting,” and went on “forever and ever.” How could he be hailed as a renowned Bible teacher and be given the honor of being called by the evangelical world the “prince of expositors” and yet make what appeared to me based upon my few Bible translations an utterly ridiculous statement? But when I decided to dig through my walls of tradition to see if what the famous Doctor Morgan said was true, I found MANY other well-known and respected scholars and Bible teachers had come to the very same conclusions to which Dr. Morgan had come.

And after doing some intensive studies comparing English Bible translations and noting great discrepancies among them, comparing translations to the original languages of the Bible and studying the teachings of the early Christian believers and leaders and aided by the Spirit of Truth whom Jesus promised to send His disciples, I came to the conclusion based upon solid facts that Dr. Morgan was correct in his assertions. The “traditional” teachings which I had consumed in the many churches I had attended over the years were false. This was a very painful discovery in one sense. It brought about division with some of my other Christian brothers and sisters who were not willing to look at these plain facts. They didn’t want to rock the boat. They were comfortable being in the majority whether they were right or wrong. The fear and respect of man had gripped them and they didn’t even know it. Jesus said that His word would divide, didn’t He? Sometimes it even divided brother from sister, father from son, etc. Even though that brought sorrow for a season, the Truth shall make you free. The freedom I found after being set free of some “traditions of men” and “doctrines of demons” which had held me imprisoned is impossible to put in words. Truly God expanded Himself greatly in my life after the religious shackles which enslaved me came off. I pray that the rest of my brothers and sisters who are still enslaved to “majority rule” thinking be given the courage to look at the truth instead of bow down to the fear of man.

- from www.tentmaker.org/articles/Hell_is_Leaving_the_Bible_Forever.html

Praise be unto God for salvation through the finished work of Christ Jesus. \o/

 

Sin is to disobey a command of God. God has commanded that we come to Jesus in repentance and faith. Refusing to do so is a sin. I believe Jesus paid for all sins. Based on how I see the Bible defining sin, you evidently do not believe that Jesus paid for all sins. But, as I said, evidently you define sin differently than I see the Bible defining sin.

Praise be unto God for salvation through the finished work of Christ Jesus. \o/

 

Revelation 20:10.

I know, now you are into limiting meanings of words when they can be used in multiple ways. Great, now we have a God who has revealed His message and it has been lost for past 400 years in the English language. Looks like you are doing more harm to Him than good.

Also, I am sure I could talk to Greek experts who would disagree with this conclusion (and we have many fine ones here on my campus). Just because you can quote someone does not mean you have proven you doctrine. You can quote someone probably for about anything you want to believe. Good try, though.

Neal

 

Please show Biblical support for you definition, if you don't mind. (Remember, look up the original language to see what the English word translates as sin. )

Neal