• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Biblical Universalism

thatguymd

Active member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
368
Reaction score
93
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's a short article by Tom Talbott. Any thoughts on the questions at the end? I was initially looking at arguments against universalism, but I always try to look and see how those arguments are typically responded to. I try to generally know both sides well enough to argue pro or con if I'm looking into it. I really don't see why universalism isn't at least considered a valid conclusion from the Bible - where Christians have reached many differing conclusions.
 
Here's a short article by Tom Talbott. Any thoughts on the questions at the end? I was initially looking at arguments against universalism, but I always try to look and see how those arguments are typically responded to. I try to generally know both sides well enough to argue pro or con if I'm looking into it. I really don't see why universalism isn't at least considered a valid conclusion from the Bible - where Christians have reached many differing conclusions.

Hindus would disagree with him.
 
Here's a short article by Tom Talbott. Any thoughts on the questions at the end? I was initially looking at arguments against universalism, but I always try to look and see how those arguments are typically responded to. I try to generally know both sides well enough to argue pro or con if I'm looking into it. I really don't see why universalism isn't at least considered a valid conclusion from the Bible - where Christians have reached many differing conclusions.

Universalism is contrary to Biblical teachings.
It defies logic, if you analyze it along with Scriptural verses.

Just think. What's the point of repentance.....and what's all those warnings given by Jesus Christ.....if everyone will end up getting saved anyway?

There are so many warnings in the Bible.

Like this verse:



Matthew 7
The Narrow and Wide Gates

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.


or this one:


John 3
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.



Would God contradict Himself?
 
Last edited:
You're making something so simple into something so complicated...Jehovah's will has never wavered...He created man to live on the earth, in a paradise, forever...though Satan temporarily side-tracked His purpose, it will be fulfilled...

“So my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.” Isaiah 55:10, 11

"Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more;
You will look at where they were,
And they will not be there.

But the meek will possess the earth,
And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.

The righteous will possess the earth,
And they will live forever on it." Psalm 37:10,11,29
 
Here's a short article by Tom Talbott. Any thoughts on the questions at the end? I was initially looking at arguments against universalism, but I always try to look and see how those arguments are typically responded to. I try to generally know both sides well enough to argue pro or con if I'm looking into it. I really don't see why universalism isn't at least considered a valid conclusion from the Bible - where Christians have reached many differing conclusions.

Concerning point #1... That statement is true because God proved that purpose by offering up his son Jesus Christ to death on a cross in all of our places. One man stayed true to the law of God, so we all now have a path to redemption through that one man.

Concerning point #2... While it is within God's power to create the means of which all people can be redeemed, as he already did through Jesus' death on the cross, it is not within his power to force all people to be redeemed, because people have free will and can choose to either accept redemption or to reject it. So, while he has done all that he could do to save all people, therefore making point #2 true, many people will choose to reject his free offer of redemption, and that he has no control over, given that he created people with free will. That doesn't make point #2 false on God's end, as he offers us a clear path to redemption, it's just a matter of us choosing to reject his free offer of redemption.

Concerning point #3... It is true, as are the other two points... But God won't put people out of existence altogether... We all have eternal souls, so we all will live forever, but people who don't accept God's path to redemption through his son Jesus Christ will live an eternal life completely separated from God, as quoted in many verses throughout the Bible, including the last few chapters of Revelation, and in the Gospels...

I'm not sure why this guy thinks that these propositions are inconsistent and can't all be true at the same time, but they all can be, and they all are.
 
Last edited:
Universalism is contrary to Biblical teachings.
It defies logic, if you analyze it along with Scriptural verses.

Just think. What's the point of repentance.....and what's all those warnings given by Jesus Christ.....if everyone will end up getting saved anyway?

There are so many warnings in the Bible.

Like this verse:



Matthew 7
The Narrow and Wide Gates

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.


or this one:


John 3
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.



Would God contradict Himself?

Did you look at the article? It mentions that you can cite verses that seem to support either side. But in any case, Christian Universalists (not pluralists) still believe in “hell” (quotes because of different terms all referred to with that one word). They just believe it is remedial. Why does a punishment need to never end to be worth avoiding? And it is interesting that Jesus seems to address the warnings to Jews and especially the Pharisees and the gospel with the Jewish audience (Matthew) has the most. As to your specific verse choice, do you find it interesting that the very next chapter (Matthew 8:11) Jesus says “many from east and west shall come and recline (at meat) with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the reign of the heavens”? How can many come to the reign of the heavens and few find the gate to life? Would God contradict Himself? But again, the whole point is that there are verses that the most plain interpretation would support each view and ways those verses can be harmonized with each view.

It does seem that most of the push against Universalism are the supposed consequences of it. But it also seems that any of them can also be put to the Calvinist since it is God’s irresistible predetermination who is saved and there is nothing you can do anyway. In fact, it seems worse on Calvinism because this is your only chance at pleasure before you are endlessly tormented. So why would Calvinism not be considered heresy?
 
Concerning point #1... That statement is true because God proved that purpose by offering up his son Jesus Christ to death on a cross in all of our places. One man stayed true to the law of God, so we all now have a path to redemption through that one man.

Concerning point #2... While it is within God's power to create the means of which all people can be redeemed, as he already did through Jesus' death on the cross, it is not within his power to force all people to be redeemed, because people have free will and can choose to either accept redemption or to reject it. So, while he has done all that he could do to save all people, therefore making point #2 true, many people will choose to reject his free offer of redemption, and that he has no control over, given that he created people with free will. That doesn't make point #2 false on God's end, as he offers us a clear path to redemption, it's just a matter of us choosing to reject his free offer of redemption.

Concerning point #3... It is true, as are the other two points... But God won't put people out of existence altogether... We all have eternal souls, so we all will live forever, but people who don't accept God's path to redemption through his son Jesus Christ will live an eternal life completely separated from God, as quoted in many verses throughout the Bible, including the last few chapters of Revelation, and in the Gospels...

I'm not sure why this guy thinks that these propositions are inconsistent and can't all be true at the same time, but they all can be, and they all are.

You seem to deny point #2. You are saying he cannot achieve his redemptive purpose because his grace is resistible by man’s freedom. Calvinists would argue that it is irresistible (God's end is the only end that matters).
 
You seem to deny point #2. You are saying he cannot achieve his redemptive purpose because his grace is resistible by man’s freedom. Calvinists would argue that it is irresistible (God's end is the only end that matters).

You are slightly mistaken of what I am saying. I am indeed saying that man can and will resist God's grace by their own free will, but that does not mean that God did not simultaneously fully achieve his redemptive purpose. He offered up his son on the cross for us all. He gave all of us a clear pathway to him through Jesus Christ. That makes point #2 true.

The only way that he could force all of us to accept his grace is if he did not create us with free will to begin with, which if that were the case, then our current discussion about point #2 wouldn't be happening because there wouldn't be sin and we wouldn't need to be redeemed. We would be robots, but God didn't want us to be robots; he wanted us to have free will, so he created us with free will.

Does this further clarify my stance, that I am not denying point #2, or any of the points?
 
You are slightly mistaken of what I am saying. I am indeed saying that man can and will resist God's grace by their own free will, but that does not mean that God did not simultaneously fully achieve his redemptive purpose. He offered up his son on the cross for us all. He gave all of us a clear pathway to him through Jesus Christ. That makes point #2 true.

The only way that he could force all of us to accept his grace is if he did not create us with free will to begin with, which if that were the case, then our current discussion about point #2 wouldn't be happening because there wouldn't be sin and we wouldn't need to be redeemed. We would be robots, but God didn't want us to be robots; he wanted us to have free will, so he created us with free will.

Does this further clarify my stance, that I am not denying point #2, or any of the points?

I believe I understand what you are trying to say. But #2 is “It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world”. You need to remember that #1 is “It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners to himself”. #1 states the redemptive purpose in #2. It seems that you need to slightly alter that purpose to be “make reconciliation available to all sinners” rather than having his purpose be the actual reconciliation of all sinners. So maybe you actually disagree with #1. But Christians that mention free will, usually go against #2 and want to affirm the prima facie support for #1 by the verses mentioned in the article.
 
Did you look at the article? It mentions that you can cite verses that seem to support either side. But in any case, Christian Universalists (not pluralists) still believe in “hell” (quotes because of different terms all referred to with that one word). They just believe it is remedial. Why does a punishment need to never end to be worth avoiding? And it is interesting that Jesus seems to address the warnings to Jews and especially the Pharisees and the gospel with the Jewish audience (Matthew) has the most. As to your specific verse choice, do you find it interesting that the very next chapter (Matthew 8:11) Jesus says “many from east and west shall come and recline (at meat) with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the reign of the heavens”? How can many come to the reign of the heavens and few find the gate to life? Would God contradict Himself? But again, the whole point is that there are verses that the most plain interpretation would support each view and ways those verses can be harmonized with each view.

It does seem that most of the push against Universalism are the supposed consequences of it. But it also seems that any of them can also be put to the Calvinist since it is God’s irresistible predetermination who is saved and there is nothing you can do anyway. In fact, it seems worse on Calvinism because this is your only chance at pleasure before you are endlessly tormented. So why would Calvinism not be considered heresy?

What verses did it say support universalism? Can you cite them?
 
I believe I understand what you are trying to say. But #2 is “It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world”. You need to remember that #1 is “It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners to himself”. #1 states the redemptive purpose in #2. It seems that you need to slightly alter that purpose to be “make reconciliation available to all sinners” rather than having his purpose be the actual reconciliation of all sinners. So maybe you actually disagree with #1. But Christians that mention free will, usually go against #2 and want to affirm the prima facie support for #1 by the verses mentioned in the article.

After further review, I see what you're saying in a sense. God had the power to create the pathway, and he did that with the perfect life and death of Jesus, but he did not have the power to force sinners to go through that pathway. He unlocked the door for us to go through and be redeemed, but he can't forcefully shove us through that door; we have to make the choice to walk through it by our own free will. So through your lens, I think I would be rejecting point #2?

But through my lens, I am accepting all three points because God is doing the best that he can given the fact that he chose to create people with free will. I also believe that God can simultaneously want all sinners to accept his redemption offer, but yet be realistic and realize that not all sinners will choose to accept his redemption offer, so given that, the best he could do was to unlock the door for us and give us all the option to step inside and accept his redemption, and he has done that through Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
What verses did it say support universalism? Can you cite them?

You are right that the article itself just mentions it as a consequence of support mentioned for the first two propositions. But here are a few I thought of / found with a quick search (there are others). Again, I realize people harmonize these with the hell texts to have God not reconcile all. I just don’t see why that is any better than harmonizing the hell texts with these texts to have God reconcile all. All are YLT:

Psalms 86:9 - All nations that Thou hast made Come and bow themselves before Thee, O Lord, And give honour to Thy name.

Isaiah 2:2 - And it hath come to pass, In the latter end of the days, Established is the mount of Jehovah's house, Above the top of the mounts, And it hath been lifted up above the heights, And flowed unto it have all the nations.

Isaiah 45:22-23 - Turn to Me, and be saved, all ends of the earth, For I [am] God, and there is none else. By Myself I have sworn, Gone out from my mouth in righteousness hath a word, And it turneth not back, That to Me, bow doth every knee, every tongue swear.

Isaiah 66:23 - And it hath been from month to month, And from sabbath to sabbath, Come do all flesh to bow themselves before Me, Said Jehovah.

John 12:32 - and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.

Romans 5:18 - So, then, as through one offence to all men [it is] to condemnation, so also through one declaration of `Righteous' [it is] to all men to justification of life;
Romans 11:32 - for God did shut up together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness.

1 Corinthians 15:22 - for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive,

Ephesians 1:10 - in regard to the dispensation of the fulness of the times, to bring into one the whole in the Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth -- in him;

Colossians 1:20 - and through him to reconcile the all things to himself -- having made peace through the blood of his cross -- through him, whether the things upon the earth, whether the things in the heavens.

1 Timothy 4:10 - for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all men -- especially of those believing.

Titus 2:11 - For the saving grace of God was manifested to all men,

1 John 2:2 - and he -- he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,

Revelation 21:5 - And He who is sitting upon the throne said, `Lo, new I make all things; and He saith to me, `Write, because these words are true and stedfast;'
 
After further review, I see what you're saying in a sense. God had the power to create the pathway, and he did that with the perfect life and death of Jesus, but he did not have the power to force sinners to go through that pathway. He unlocked the door for us to go through and be redeemed, but he can't forcefully shove us through that door; we have to make the choice to walk through it by our own free will. So through your lens, I think I would be rejecting point #2?

But through my lens, I am accepting all three points because God is doing the best that he can given the fact that he chose to create people with free will. I also believe that God can simultaneously want all sinners to accept his redemption offer, but yet be realistic and realize that not all sinners will choose to accept his redemption offer, so given that, the best he could do was to unlock the door for us and give us all the option to step inside and accept his redemption, and he has done that through Jesus Christ.

I think that is the sense the author was intending. Because a Calvinist might argue with you that talking about free will to deny #2 is too low a view of God’s sovereignty and power. They might then mention the verses in the article and ones that would support their irresistible grace doctrine (dead in sins, all that the father gives me,etc.). Also, my own thought is that it seems entirely possible (and definitely logically possible) that God would be able to freely bring all people he created to himself in the fullness of time. On the other side, you would reject their limit atonement doctrine as having too low a view of God’s love.
 
The Bible makes it quite clear that not all people living or who have ever lived will be saved but there will come a time when all people living on the earth will serve God...
 
I think that is the sense the author was intending. Because a Calvinist might argue with you that talking about free will to deny #2 is too low a view of God’s sovereignty and power. They might then mention the verses in the article and ones that would support their irresistible grace doctrine (dead in sins, all that the father gives me,etc.).
They might. And I personally don't view free will as reducing God's sovereignty and power simply because of what free will is. I mean, how can one control the thoughts and actions of someone who was created with free will? And if we didn't have free will, and were simply robots fully controlled by God, then we wouldn't have sinned and wouldn't have needed redemption and etc...

Also, my own thought is that it seems entirely possible (and definitely logically possible) that God would be able to freely bring all people he created to himself in the fullness of time. On the other side, you would reject their limit atonement doctrine as having too low a view of God’s love.
Yeah, limited atonement is too low of a view on God's love, and to me it rejects free will.
 
They might. And I personally don't view free will as reducing God's sovereignty and power simply because of what free will is. I mean, how can one control the thoughts and actions of someone who was created with free will? And if we didn't have free will, and were simply robots fully controlled by God, then we wouldn't have sinned and wouldn't have needed redemption and etc...


Yeah, limited atonement is too low of a view on God's love, and to me it rejects free will.

So while you’d view Calvinism and Universalism as mistaken, would you also view them both as heresy? One as heresy? Neither?
 
You are right that the article itself just mentions it as a consequence of support mentioned for the first two propositions. But here are a few I thought of / found with a quick search (there are others). Again, I realize people harmonize these with the hell texts to have God not reconcile all. I just don’t see why that is any better than harmonizing the hell texts with these texts to have God reconcile all. All are YLT:

Psalms 86:9 - All nations that Thou hast made Come and bow themselves before Thee, O Lord, And give honour to Thy name.

Isaiah 2:2 - And it hath come to pass, In the latter end of the days, Established is the mount of Jehovah's house, Above the top of the mounts, And it hath been lifted up above the heights, And flowed unto it have all the nations.

Isaiah 45:22-23 - Turn to Me, and be saved, all ends of the earth, For I [am] God, and there is none else. By Myself I have sworn, Gone out from my mouth in righteousness hath a word, And it turneth not back, That to Me, bow doth every knee, every tongue swear.

Isaiah 66:23 - And it hath been from month to month, And from sabbath to sabbath, Come do all flesh to bow themselves before Me, Said Jehovah.

John 12:32 - and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.

Romans 5:18 - So, then, as through one offence to all men [it is] to condemnation, so also through one declaration of `Righteous' [it is] to all men to justification of life;
Romans 11:32 - for God did shut up together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness.

1 Corinthians 15:22 - for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive,

Ephesians 1:10 - in regard to the dispensation of the fulness of the times, to bring into one the whole in the Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth -- in him;

Colossians 1:20 - and through him to reconcile the all things to himself -- having made peace through the blood of his cross -- through him, whether the things upon the earth, whether the things in the heavens.

1 Timothy 4:10 - for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all men -- especially of those believing.

Titus 2:11 - For the saving grace of God was manifested to all men,

1 John 2:2 - and he -- he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,

Revelation 21:5 - And He who is sitting upon the throne said, `Lo, new I make all things; and He saith to me, `Write, because these words are true and stedfast;'


Christ died for all mankind (not only for Jews) - as the ultimate sacrifice - to give the possibility of heaven and eternal life to everyone. Through Christ, mankind is reconciled with God.

The opportunity is open to all (that is where universalism comes in.)

Everyone, means including all Gentiles, sinners and non-believers (all over the world).........
everyone is invited
.......

.......however, there is a caveat to that opportunity: Jesus Christ.


Universalism stops there.


Jesus Christ. That is the condition to be met, in order to be saved.


Only in accepting and having faith in Jesus Christ, will a person be saved.
Acceptance and faith, automatically, should result in repentance (a transformation in behaviour, and thinking).


Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.


If everyone is saved (universalism).....the Commandments of God (and the instructions for faith and obedience to God) are worthless, and meaningless.
 
Last edited:
You are right that the article itself just mentions it as a consequence of support mentioned for the first two propositions. But here are a few I thought of / found with a quick search (there are others). Again, I realize people harmonize these with the hell texts to have God not reconcile all. I just don’t see why that is any better than harmonizing the hell texts with these texts to have God reconcile all. All are YLT:

Psalms 86:9 - All nations that Thou hast made Come and bow themselves before Thee, O Lord, And give honour to Thy name.

Isaiah 2:2 - And it hath come to pass, In the latter end of the days, Established is the mount of Jehovah's house, Above the top of the mounts, And it hath been lifted up above the heights, And flowed unto it have all the nations.

Isaiah 45:22-23 - Turn to Me, and be saved, all ends of the earth, For I [am] God, and there is none else. By Myself I have sworn, Gone out from my mouth in righteousness hath a word, And it turneth not back, That to Me, bow doth every knee, every tongue swear.

Isaiah 66:23 - And it hath been from month to month, And from sabbath to sabbath, Come do all flesh to bow themselves before Me, Said Jehovah.

John 12:32 - and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.

Romans 5:18 - So, then, as through one offence to all men [it is] to condemnation, so also through one declaration of `Righteous' [it is] to all men to justification of life;
Romans 11:32 - for God did shut up together the whole to unbelief, that to the whole He might do kindness.

1 Corinthians 15:22 - for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive,

Ephesians 1:10 - in regard to the dispensation of the fulness of the times, to bring into one the whole in the Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth -- in him;

Colossians 1:20 - and through him to reconcile the all things to himself -- having made peace through the blood of his cross -- through him, whether the things upon the earth, whether the things in the heavens.

1 Timothy 4:10 - for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all men -- especially of those believing.

Titus 2:11 - For the saving grace of God was manifested to all men,

1 John 2:2 - and he -- he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,

Revelation 21:5 - And He who is sitting upon the throne said, `Lo, new I make all things; and He saith to me, `Write, because these words are true and stedfast;'


If everyone is saved (universalism) - why do we even have the Bible, and the Gospels? What's the purpose?
Why do even have to know about Christ? After He'd done the dying for us....He became irrelevant.

What's praying for? Repentance? Love and good deeds?

Shouldn't we just carry on with how we are and what we do, and be happy? Nothing to worry about, therefore live life as we want to live it (and indulge).....for all is well with us?



Can you please explain that.
 
Last edited:
Christ died for all mankind (not only for Jews) - as the ultimate sacrifice - to give the possibility of heaven and eternal life to everyone. Through Christ, mankind is reconciled with God.

The opportunity is open to all (that is where universalism comes in.)

Everyone, means including all Gentiles, sinners and non-believers (all over the world).........
everyone is invited
.......

.......however, there is a caveat to that opportunity: Jesus Christ.


Universalism stops there.


Jesus Christ. That is the condition to be met, in order to be saved.


Only in accepting and having faith in Jesus Christ, will a person be saved.
Acceptance and faith, automatically, should result in repentance (a transformation in behaviour, and thinking).


Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.


If everyone is saved (universalism).....the Commandments of God (and the instructions for faith and obedience to God) are worthless, and meaningless.

Right. I think you might be still conflating Christian Universalism with Pluralist Universalism. The latter is what would say that nothing really matters as far as actions or beliefs and everyone goes straight to heaven. The former is what we are discussing here. Jesus is still the only way. Maybe think of it like a Calvinist that doesn’t believe in the limited atonement. A Christian Universalist in an honest 4 point Calvinist. I threw in the “honest” because I noticed that there are those that call themselves 4 point Calvinists that don’t believe in limited atonement but just push it back to a limited election.

In Christian Universalism, Jesus’s atonement is 100% effective and sin, evil, and death are fully defeated (not co-existing eternally in Hell). And the verses don’t say all are invited, they say all things will be made new, all things will be reconciled to God, and in the Christ all shall be made alive (not all in the Christ shall be made alive). And the part you highlighted in red – you seem to have done that as showing a condition of being saved, but it ends with every knee bowing and every tongue swearing. The part you highlighted actually helps to show that the bowing/swearing isn’t forced upon anyone as some claim.
 
If everyone is saved (universalism) - why do we even have the Bible, and the Gospels? What's the purpose?
Why do even have to know about Christ? After He'd done the dying for us....He became irrelevant.

What's praying for? Repentance? Love and good deeds?

Shouldn't we just carry on with how we are and what we do, and be happy? Nothing to worry about, therefore live life as we want to live it (and indulge).....for all is well with us?



Can you please explain that.

I believe I did address it somewhat in my first post to you. I asked why a punishment needs to never end to be worth avoiding. But in any case, I’d say that you should be motived by love and what you have to gain, not by fear and what you have to lose. Even those that believe in eternal conscious torment will admit that this is the proper motivation. A line I’ve heard several times is “God’s not fire insurance”.

Also you appear to be asking what Paul addresses in Romans 6 – “What, then, shall we say? shall we continue in the sin that the grace may abound?” Even if you don’t think the verses that preceded those questions mean universalism, they were enough that Paul thought they would lead many to the conclusion that saving grace could allow you to keep sinning and still be ultimately saved.

I’d also argue that sin and worldliness offers a shallow instant gratification but will leave you empty and unfulfilled. I want to say that Ecclesiastes is a good book on that but I’m not positive. On one hand I do understand why you’re asking, but on the other it does seem odd that everything is pointless unless most of humanity is tormented forever. Let’s not grumble because the late workers get the same wage.
 
People can hope and wish and talk all they want about Universalism, but there's is no avoiding the Lake of Fire and damnation for those who reject Jesus Christ (Revelation 21:8, etc.). Universalism is an exercise in futility.
 
So while you’d view Calvinism and Universalism as mistaken, would you also view them both as heresy? One as heresy? Neither?

I would consider Universalism (all people will ultimately be saved) to be a completely heretical belief. The Bible specifically says in Revelation 20:10-15 that unbelievers will have the same eternal fate of torment as Satan and company will have... https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+20:10-15&version=KJV

I would say that Calvinism is severely mistaken on numerous specifics, but I wouldn't say that Calvinism is heretical in the same way that I consider Universalism to be.

My current personal Christian beliefs would be very much in line with this list of beliefs:
The Prophetic Years Ministry statement of faith
 
I believe I did address it somewhat in my first post to you. I asked why a punishment needs to never end to be worth avoiding.
True, a punishment does not need to be never ending to be worth avoiding. I agree with that. But I'm not sure why you're asking that, especially given that the literal reading of Revelation 20:10-15 states that the ultimate punishment ("lake of fire") is going to be eternal torment.

But in any case, I’d say that you should be motived by love and what you have to gain, not by fear and what you have to lose. Even those that believe in eternal conscious torment will admit that this is the proper motivation. A line I’ve heard several times is “God’s not fire insurance”.
I'm personally motivated by God's willingness to sacrifice his son in order to save me from my deserved eternal fate (lake of fire, separated from God) and to instead open up the door for me to gain eternal life in his presence.

Also you appear to be asking what Paul addresses in Romans 6 – “What, then, shall we say? shall we continue in the sin that the grace may abound?” Even if you don’t think the verses that preceded those questions mean universalism, they were enough that Paul thought they would lead many to the conclusion that saving grace could allow you to keep sinning and still be ultimately saved.
Well, yes, in the sense that Jesus' death on the cross has paid for all our sins, past present and future, but at the same time, we should not be "okay" with sinning, we should still be actively repenting on a daily basis for all the wrong that we do, and we should (and it should be our spiritual nature to) strive to obey God's Commandments.

I’d also argue that sin and worldliness offers a shallow instant gratification but will leave you empty and unfulfilled. I want to say that Ecclesiastes is a good book on that but I’m not positive.
Exactly correct, and Ecclesiastes is the very book that directly addresses that, and one which I suggest reading on a semi-regular basis.

On one hand I do understand why you’re asking, but on the other it does seem odd that everything is pointless unless most of humanity is tormented forever. Let’s not grumble because the late workers get the same wage.
Why does that seem odd to you? And I'm not sure how the late worker parable applies here, because that was saying that the early worker ("lifetime" believer) gets the same wage (paradise in heaven) as the late worker (unbeliever at first, but a believer much later on in life). I would think that lifetime unbelievers would not be hired workers, thus they would get no wage.
 
I would consider Universalism (all people will ultimately be saved) to be a completely heretical belief. The Bible specifically says in Revelation 20:10-15 that unbelievers will have the same eternal fate of torment as Satan and company will have... https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+20:10-15&version=KJV

I would say that Calvinism is severely mistaken on numerous specifics, but I wouldn't say that Calvinism is heretical in the same way that I consider Universalism to be.

My current personal Christian beliefs would be very much in line with this list of beliefs:
The Prophetic Years Ministry statement of faith

That’s interesting because the only difference I see between Calvinism and Universalism in the limited atonement doctrine (which is the one Armenians disagree with the most). I see the universalist as more persuaded by the inclusive texts (and those that support points 1 and 2 in the article in combination) than they are by the texts like the one you cited. The only difference to me is which texts they are interpreting in light of the other.

Incidentally, I don’t see anywhere in those verses you cited where it says what you say it “specifically says”. Not that I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion. It seems much clearer in the next chapter when God specifically says he makes all things new (Rev 21:5) and those words are declared true and stedfast. It is also interesting that the kings of the earth (enemies in Revelation) bring glory and honour (Rev 21:24).

So why does which way you interpret mean heresy? As the article states, you must feel that the biblical warrant for 3 is stronger than that for 1 or 2. Basically it leads back to the question I asked for thoughts on in the article, “So why do so many regard it as heretical to reject a doctrine of everlasting punishment, but not heretical to limit God's love or to limit his power? Which view does more, in the end, to undermine the glory and the majesty of God?”
 
True, a punishment does not need to be never ending to be worth avoiding. I agree with that. But I'm not sure why you're asking that, especially given that the literal reading of Revelation 20:10-15 states that the ultimate punishment ("lake of fire") is going to be eternal torment.


I'm personally motivated by God's willingness to sacrifice his son in order to save me from my deserved eternal fate (lake of fire, separated from God) and to instead open up the door for me to gain eternal life in his presence.


Well, yes, in the sense that Jesus' death on the cross has paid for all our sins, past present and future, but at the same time, we should not be "okay" with sinning, we should still be actively repenting on a daily basis for all the wrong that we do, and we should (and it should be our spiritual nature to) strive to obey God's Commandments.


Exactly correct, and Ecclesiastes is the very book that directly addresses that, and one which I suggest reading on a semi-regular basis.


Why does that seem odd to you? And I'm not sure how the late worker parable applies here, because that was saying that the early worker ("lifetime" believer) gets the same wage (paradise in heaven) as the late worker (unbeliever at first, but a believer much later on in life). I would think that lifetime unbelievers would not be hired workers, thus they would get no wage.

I’m sure how to respond but feel like I should. I agree with most of what was said. To the question, it seems odd to me because all the same point is there without most of humanity tormented forever and I don’t see any point gained by having most of humanity tormented forever. Beyond that I don’t know if you want to get into a universalist interpretation of specific passages or not. It doesn’t matter what the “literal reading” is. The whole point is that there are some passages that you are going to need to deny the plain reading of to harmonize with others.
 
Back
Top Bottom