Why not Universal Reconciliation?

User avatar
Ian
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:26 am

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by Ian » Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:48 am

As I recall you taught through the entire bible something like 35 times before you saw universalism taught there.
I have wondered about this too Steve.

It`s evident you love your children. I don`t know anything about them but it`s not a small statistical chance that one or more of them could turn out to be a "tare". And you`ve thought, "how could I as wheat be happy in heaven knowing that..." And as they`ve entered adulthood this has warmed you to UR or at least to the idea of post-mortem repentance. I hope I`m not being cheeky. But you`re human with a soft centre like many of the rest of us.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by steve7150 » Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:04 am

That is interesting. As I recall you taught through the entire bible something like 35 times before you saw universalism taught there. "Apparently" refers to something that is "open to view, clear or manifest". If that is the case, how did you not notice it for all those years? Did it suddenly become apparent because you noticed it while studying the scriptures, or was it because you read the universalist's arguments and wanted to believe them credible?











Not teaching the bible 35 times but a bible translation 35 times and if one does not know ancient greek and if one has no reason to doubt the translation of certain critically important greek words, then there is nothing to see in the bible translation except the traditional eternal torment view.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by Singalphile » Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:21 am

Hi, steve7150.
steve7150 wrote:Not teaching the bible 35 times but a bible translation 35 times and if one does not know ancient greek and if one has no reason to doubt the translation of certain critically important greek words, then there is nothing to see in the bible translation except the traditional eternal torment view.
Do you think? I was stunned to learn that there isn't one verse or passage anywhere in our translations (KJV/NKJV/NASB/etc.) that states that the wicked will suffer eternal torment (except of course for the "beast", "false prophet", and Satan). Only after that realization did I start looking at the Greek and Hebrew.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by Paidion » Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:53 am

Could you tell us which authors of the scripture you would regard as knowing God as accurately as you know Him?
It's an assumptive question.

However, I will suggest that the apostle Peter, in the only letter known to have been written by him, does not describe God as advocating revenge or penalty.
If you respond, I suspect that you may refer to Peter's rhetorical question in chapter 4:17,18

However there is nothing in that passage that is contrary to the character of the God who is fully LOVE and nothing but LOVE, all of whose judgments are remedial.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by steve » Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:20 am

Paidion,

I am not interested, at this point, in how many books of the Bible do not mention the judgment of God. I'm sure that there are several. My concern is for the books that clearly teach it (namely, the overwhelming majority of them), but which you do not accept. Take Luke's reference to Herod being struck by an angel of the Lord, for instance. The last time we discussed this, you suggested that Luke had to be mistaken, and did not realize that his view of God was sub-Christian (though you did not use these exact words, this was clearly the stance you took). Luke, who was the inseparable companion of Paul, and associated with all the apostles, did not know as well as you do that God doesn't do that kind of thing, because it is contrary to His character?

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by TheEditor » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:15 am

Greetings,

I thought I would offer something regarding the reading of the Bible and not "seeing" something for a long period of time. I was raised a JW, and, if you have ever read their literature or talked to them, you know they can have some persuasive ideas. I taught what amounts to JW catechism for many years. I can't tell you how many times I read expressions like "ALL who are led by God's spirit are God's sons" and "EVERYONE confessing Jesus is the Christ has been born of God", and still, did not think I was included in the "ALL" or "EVERYONE" category. Why? Because my Biblical paradigm did not allow for me to see it. It truly is an amazing part of human nature.

Only when someone that I trusted would not deliberately mislead me, walked me down certain mental paths, could I then see how blind I had been. I suspect that this holds true for most believers, to one degree or another.

As for UR, I remain unconvinced. But at least I can now entertain the idea without considering myself an heretic.

Regards, Brenden
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by steve » Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:54 pm

I have added to my post of Tue July 29, 2014 8:44 pm, found on the page before this one.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by Paidion » Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:56 pm

I am not interested, at this point, in how many books of the Bible do not mention the judgment of God. I'm sure that there are several. My concern is for the books that clearly teach it...
Steve, I have mentioned serveral times Jesus' words, as recorded by Luke, where He said that God is kind to ungrateful people and to evil people (Luke 6:35). It is Jesus who revealed the true character of God. To the best of my knowledge, Jesus never said that God kills people or wreaks vengeance upon anyone. Jesus Himself never killed anyone or took revenge on anyone while He walked this earth, and He bears the exact stamp of his Father's essence (Heb 1:3). If Jesus had been ready to carry out the penalties prescribed by the Mosaic law, believing them to be the Father's law, He would have agreed to the stoning of the adulterous woman. Rather He was interested in her reformation: "Go and sin no more." And as I said in a previous post, Jesus spoke of the Mosaic law as "It was said to you of old time ....but I say to you...", thereby contrasting the true law of God which He taught with the Mosaic law.

Jesus' revelation of the Father's nature is good enough for me. I must take Jesus' depiction of his Father's kindness to ungrateful and evil people, rather than the words of the vengeful ancient Hebrews who, I believe, projected their own attitudes and practice upon Yahweh. Jesus knew the character of his Father better than anyone.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by steve » Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:17 pm

Steve, I have mentioned serveral times Jesus' words, as recorded by Luke, where He said that God is kind to ungrateful people and to evil people (Luke 6:35).
I don't know why I go over these answers to your points again and again, since you do not accept the testimony of scripture, upon which I base my beliefs. However, this oft-repeated statement of yours (which constitutes your entire case, according to our previous discussions) is the perfect example of why I refer to your view of God as "one-dimensional." There is nothing in these words to cancel out the rest of the scriptural testimony, including the rest of Jesus' teaching, about God's judgments on the wicked. It is quite legitimate to say about a certain judge, "He is very kind to his personal enemies, but he is likewise very just in meting out severe punishments to offenders, according to their crimes."

This is, in fact, exactly what Paul said about God:

Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds”... to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek." (Romans 2:4-9)

Of course, God said the same thing about Himself when He appeared to Moses and declared His name (His glory) to him:

Now the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.” (Ex.34:5-7)

Moses' face glowed after that encounter—something Paul took at face value as a true account (2 Cor.3:7).

I know that you doubt Paul's authority (and that of any other prophet or apostle) whenever he disagrees with your opinion, but it is clear that he found no problem affirming the goodness and the wrath of God in the same paragraph. You seem to be the only person I know who cannot see God as possessing more than one mode of dealing with mankind. You cannot deny that Paul disagrees with you (as we could have deduced by the fact that Luke, Paul's companion, disagrees with you). Sadly for your case, Jesus also disagreed with you.
To the best of my knowledge, Jesus never said that God kills people or wreaks vengeance upon anyone. Jesus Himself never killed anyone or took revenge on anyone while He walked this earth...
Neither did Noah ever go about killing anyone, nor did the prophets—points equally irrelevant as yours to our topic. However, they had no difficulty warning their generation that the judgment of God was soon to fall upon them. Jesus did precisely the same (Luke 11:50-51)

What Jesus did along these lines while on earth is not as instructive as what the Book of Revelation claims He will do at His return. I know that you are one who would "take away from the words" of the Book of Revelation, since it, too, contradicts you. I would be more concerned, if I were you, about the warnings given to those who do this.
Jesus' revelation of the Father's nature is good enough for me.
Then you have no problem with Jesus depicting God as a King who sent His armies to destroy Jerusalem (Matt.22:1-7). In Luke, Jesus spoke about the Jews who killed Jesus, and said that His Father will "come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others." Like yourself, His listeners said, "Certainly not!" (Luke 20:15-16). Of course, they were contradicting Jesus, just as you do when you say the same thing.

Jesus obviously believed in the flood and in the destruction of Sodom by fire from heaven (Luke 17:26-29). Since God spoke to Noah, and supernaturally gathered the animals before the flood, and since God appeared to Abraham, foretelling the destruction of Sodom—and in both places claimed that He (God) was going to pull off both of these calamities—Jesus' reference to them presupposes His acceptance of the Genesis accounts. In any case, His listeners were expected to be familiar with, and to accept, the accounts in Genesis, which, if they misrepresented God's character, Jesus was remiss in failing to correct.

I don't understand why you don't come right out and plainly say, "Stop using scripture against my position! I have already declared that I reject the testimony of most of the scriptures! I have my own sentimentalized view of Christ, contrary to that of historic Christianity, and even the Bible will not change my mind." If you had stated this as plainly when you began posting here years ago as you have stated it in these recent conversations, it would have saved a lot of keystrokes on the part of people who thought that appeal to scripture counts for something in theological discussions with you.

By your rejection of the authority of just about every biblical writer, and your twisting of Jesus' teaching to make even Him conform to your opinions, you give those here who believe the Bible to be authoritative excellent reason to doubt any theological position you espouse—since you will inevitably trust your intuitions even to the rejection of the Word of God. The whole of scripture stands against your position. Can't you be humble enough to admit that the apostles might have understood Christ as well as you do?

I feel uncomfortable being this direct in confronting a friend, but I believe you are very much in need of either embracing the scripture or ceasing to quote it to make your points. It seems disingenuous and harmful.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by Homer » Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:59 pm

Steve,

Earlier you wrote:
I am willing to accept any view taught in scripture, which is why I can "see" that all three are apparently taught there. Obviously, only one of the three can be correct, and really taught in scripture. However, the inability to see the scriptural case for any of the three simply testifies to unwillingness to acknowledge what others see clearly enough.
I do not see how anyone can be considered to be unwilling to see a doctrine taught when presented with a series of proof texts, some of which are parts of sentences. Long ago you maintained that the burden of proof is always on the person presenting an unorthodox position. And the universalist falls far short of that standard. It seems to me that universalism is diametrically opposed to the other two views, both of which hold some will be saved and some eternally lost. How can it be that both are taught?

In Hebrews 6:1-2 we find a short list of elementary doctrines of Christianity. one of them is eternal punishment. Another is repentance. If some teacher(s) came along an taught something diametrically opposed to the necessity of repentance, and you or I failed to see it in scriptures, we could hardly be said to be unwilling, I would think.

If the doctrine of eternal punishment is apparently taught in scripture in ways diametrically opposed, it would seem to call into question the capability of those who wrote the scriptures. Certainly, as you say, only one view is correct, and a plethora of warnings, threats, and promises are presented throughout the scriptures. Surely they were expected to be understood.

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”