Universalism- basic tenants

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

We need to trust Him that He can give each person the Light they need before they die.

I need to trust Him to give me all the light I need before I die.  To trust Him, I need to know Him.  How can people trust Him who have never had an opportunity to know Him?  If we all just trusted God to give people the light they need before they die, why do we bother to send out missionaries?

I understand your position and your argument.  The only way I can wrap my head around how God treats those who never had a chance to know Him - many who were raised from birth in direct rebellion to His ways.  They need a chance!  Would God resurrect all of them to righteousness if they never had a chance to make an intelligent, informed, free-will choice to serve Him?  What if some of those resurrected decided they didn't "like" God's ways?  Saying "God knows who will choose Him and only resurrect them" is predestination.

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

"He is able to save to the uttermost."

Sounds like a good argument for Universalism.

[JoeMo]

Just now, The Wanderer said:

Did the thief on the cross, for one of many examples, have "time" to get to "know Him?"  I believe that YES! He did! Your post assumes that people have to reach a certain level of understanding, or, knowing Him, before they pass the test. And that is NOT Biblical.

The thief on the cross at least knew who Jesus was and believed He was who He said He was.  Salvation complete.  Probably more than 75% of the people who have ever lived have never heard the name of Jesus; so how can they believe?

To me, the only thing necessary is for salvation is John 3:16.  The 75% of the people I mentioned above never had a chance to believe.

[8thdaypriest]

21 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

While I would agree that everyone will get a chance to "decide;" I cannot agree that this statement is true. The Bible does not speak in prophecy about some sort of special resurrection for people to have a second chance like this. Everyone gets what they need to decide before they die.

I once had a fellow tell me that God "can have a relationship with a four-celled embryo".   I don't buy that one either.   There are millions of human beings who have lived and died in ignorance of God and of Christ.   They should be given a FIRST change, NOT a "second chance".

BOTH righteous and wicked will be raised at the SC (Daniel 12:2-3) to hear judgment pronounced.   Those who are part of "the Beast" and "the False Prophet" will be thrown into the "lake of fire" at THAT judgment.  There's no reason to pull them out, to judge them again, to execute them again.  That would be OVERKILL.  

Guess I would ask you to prove that "the rest" ARE the lost from this 6000 year age.  

I see three groups of people - over and over and over.  

There's the righteous, the filthy, and "the rest".  

There's those "under the Law", those "not under the Law", and "those outside the Law" (also said to be without the Law).  

Some raised "to everlasting life", those "raised to shame and everlasting condemnation", and "the rest" (who are NOT RAISED at the SC).  

 

[8thdaypriest]

Are there any passages that associate "fire" with human cleansing?   

[8thdaypriest]

13 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I understand your position and your argument.  The only way I can wrap my head around how God treats those who never had a chance to know Him - many who were raised from birth in direct rebellion to His ways.  They need a chance!  Would God resurrect all of them to righteousness if they never had a chance to make an intelligent, informed, free-will choice to serve Him?  What if some of those resurrected decided they didn't "like" God's ways?  Saying "God knows who will choose Him and only resurrect them" is predestination.

Paul makes clear the condition of people who have not yet HEARD of Christ, much less chosen to believe in Him.

Ephesians 2:11 “Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called  "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (which is done in the body by human hands)-- 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world” (NIV).

Sounds "lost" to me.

Galatians 3:22 “But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”

Before you can believe, you must HEAR (and by implication, understand).  

    I Thessalonians 3:16   [Persecution by Jews and pagans] “forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved,”

        To paraphrase Paul, “If we don’t speak to the Gentiles about Christ, they cannot be saved.”

You must HEAR the truth, to BELIEVE it.  

Infants, the mentally disabled, and pagans living before the missionaries could reach them - could NOT HEAR.  

[8thdaypriest]

22 hours ago, JoeMo said:

The scripture passage below is often used by Universalists to prove their point.  I've never come up with a good rebuttal,  Have any of you?

 "By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.  If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw,  their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.  If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward.  If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames."  (1Cor.3:10-15)

This is what I need Joe, Universalist arguments and the texts they use, to study them  - then build a better argument re:Universalism.  

The Universalist argument #1 is that God is responsible for all sin, including yours and mine, therefore  it is God's responsibility to save everyone from sin/evil.

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone." (NKJ)

God does not tempt anyone, at any time.  OK.  But He allows Satan to tempt us.  He allows fellow human beings to tempt us.  Is that not tempting us - indirectly?

Deuteronomy 8:2 "And you shall remember that the LORD your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not." (NKJ)

Certainly sounds like God set up a TEST situation.  

Are not ALL OF US still living in this "wilderness" filled with sin and testing?  

NOTE:  I do believe that every person who made immortal will have been tested.   Humans cannot read minds/hearts.  They cannot judge the heart.  They can only judge the actions/works.  The actions of the avowed "believer"  - in response to testing, will be the evidence upon which fellow humans may judge whether God has been just with that person.  

Any time to tell a human being (especially a child) to do something, or not to do something, that person will definitely think about whether that action is in his/her best interest.  

Allowing Satan into the garden, definitely set up a TEST/Temptation.   It doesn't surprise me one bit, that Eve lingered near the tree, to hear the serpent's side of things.  I probably would have too.   It was like putting a 2yr old on the sofa, and telling him NOT to eat the candy on the coffee table.  

Military basic training conditions recruits NOT to think about the action - just to follow orders - and quickly.  

God speaking: 

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light and create darkness,   I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things."

 Isaiah 54:16 "Look, I create the craftsman, who fans the coals into a fire and forges a weapon.28 I create the destroyer so he might devastate." ( NET)

If God created "the destroyer" (Satan) who dug the pit, and we then fall into the pit, is God then not RESPONSIBLE when we fall?   And if so, then is HE not responsible for the salvation of every human being who has fallen into that pit?  

[8thdaypriest]

Without FREE WILL there can be no "love" for love must (by definition) be freely given.  (CS LEWIS paraphrase).

God desired to love and to be loved - therefore HE created beings with FREE WILL, and in that act He created the possibility of evil (the opposite of good).  

Therefore ALL evil is ultimately God's responsibility.   I can go along with that.  

God HAS accepted the responsibility and the blame.  He has paid the greatest price for that.  That being said,

what methods may God use to induce FREE WILL beings to turn away from evil, towards the good?  

He can allow them to suffer the consequences/results of evil - to teach them what is NOT in their best interest.   

He can shower them with good/blessings, to teach them what IS in their best interest.  

He can offer to assist them (with His indwelling spirit) in the struggle with their tendencies to sin.  

He can show them His character of LOVE.  (The cross was a message from God.  THIS is how much I love you!)  

He can also tell them that He will not tolerate evil behaviors forever (in His creation).  

 

BUT - can HE ever overpower FREE WILL, to force a choice for the good?   I say NO!   That would make it no longer FREE or a CHOICE.   

Which brings me to the Universalist argument that the "Lake of Fire" is not annihilation, but rather is cleansing - and human beings will come forth from that "fire" as "gold tried in the fire", and as "refined silver".   

How to refute that one?   

That's what I'm looking for.  

I know it is called "the second death", but where is the proof that there is no resurrection from THAT "death" ?

[8thdaypriest]

I know it is called "the second death", but where is the proof that there is no resurrection from THAT "death" ?

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

) Why do you want to "refute" this? Can you pin it down to a specific scripture that would say something in objection to their theory of "cleansing" fire? As I read this thread, I am having trouble figuring exactly why you want to oppose that belief? I think it would be helpful if we could narrow it down some?

I believe the Lake of Fire is annihilation, for those raised to "shame and everlasting condemnation".  

My friend Michele believes it is NOT annihilation, but rather cleansing.  

I'm looking for Scripture support for my belief.

[8thdaypriest]

20 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I know it is called "the second death", but where is the proof that there is no resurrection from THAT "death" ?

Guess it's hard to prove what's NOT THERE.

[8thdaypriest]

Michele sited the story of King Nebuchadnezzar loosing his mind for 7 years, as evidence that the LORD does manipulate FREE WILL at times.  

What do you think?  Did HE?

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/17/2018 at 2:44 PM, The Wanderer said:

Ecc 9:5  For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Ecc 9:6  Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun

If the DEAD have no more portion for ever in anything under the sun - that applies to EVERYONE - righteous, wicked, or ignorant.   

That would mean the righteous dead ALSO have no more a portion.   

The passages does not say the wicked have no more portion, but the righteous dead will have a portion.  

So - I'm going to add a clarifying caveat.  They have no more a portion UNTIL they are resurrected.  They have no more portion WHILE they remain dead.  

The essential words are "the dead know nothing".  

If the Lake of Fire is "the second death" and no third resurrection is mentioned in Scripture, that implies those who die "the second death" will STAY DEAD - and will therefore never "know" anything.   They will never be conscious again, so how could they resume their lives (even to be righteous or free from sin).  

Of course, Michele says the "lake of fire" is not literal death,  but is only spiritual death, like when Paul says, "I died" or "I die daily", or that we who are baptized partake of Christ's death.  

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

I dont have any access right now to references, but I think that that thing with Nebuchadnezzar was not a manipulation of any kind on God's part. It would, however, depend on what a person's point of view. I think that Nebuchadnezzar had that happen as a result of his wild partying and life style he was leading...God simply gave him strength to see it through and decide if he wanted to choose God's way or the hiway. I will comment more on this point later tonight.

When the King "came out of his madness" and realized that he still had a kingdom,  at that moment he also realized that the God of Daniel had preserved his kingdom.  7 years is a long time in royal circles with parties vying for royal control.   That is why Nebuchadnezzar THEN CHOSE - of His own FREE WILL, to serve the God of Heaven.  

One wonders why we don't see more of this in the archaeology of the period.  There is no record - outside the Bible - that Nebuchadnezzar worshiped Yahweh.

[Gustave]

On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 8:25 PM, The Wanderer said:

I am duly impressed that we have found agreement! Seems The Holy Spirit can work wonders and preach the same truths to different people. Which brings me to the point regarding Universalism, so called. Universalism is actually not needed, because Jesus knows how to do it right the first time. Jesus doesnt need a second chance to get it right. (I am presuming Universalism means something differentl, not what I think you believe)

My guess is that you would say the same thing pertaining to OSAS, Original Sin & the Rapture, its likely that we hold the same or similar beliefs as to those things as well. 

[JoeMo]

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I know it is called "the second death", but where is the proof that there is no resurrection from THAT "death" ?

Check out Matt. 25:31-46.  It says the goats go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; and calls it eternal punishment (not eternal punishing).  The only eternal punishment is eternal separation from God - the second death.

[8thdaypriest]

28 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Check out Matt. 25:31-46.  It says the goats go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; and calls it eternal punishment (not eternal punishing).  The only eternal punishment is eternal separation from God - the second death.

Interesting that Jesus does NOT SAY anything about teaching good doctrines.   This is why I believe that charity, and unselfish giving, and treating all others with love and respect, is MORE IMPORTANT than doctrines.  

[8thdaypriest]

10 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Before Nebuchadnezer was eating grass; He did have a dream revealed to him, and this was a part of that dream:

"Till thou knowest" does not suggest any kind of forcing the will or manipulating the will by God. Rather; it suggests that God "allowed" this to happen to Nebuchadnezzar so that he could recognize and accept God. Its almost like God was just saying: "that should take a guy like you about 7 years!" (in other words, it was all planned).

Who knows.  Guess we can ask ole King Neb someday.  He may have told Daniel that He needed proof.   

Be careful what you ask for!

[JoeMo]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Interesting that Jesus does NOT SAY anything about teaching good doctrines.   This is why I believe that charity, and unselfish giving, and treating all others with love and respect, is MORE IMPORTANT than doctrines.  

Agreed - except for one required doctrine (at least in my opinion):

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” (Acts 16:31)

" Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Check out Matt. 25:31-46.  It says the goats go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; and calls it eternal punishment (not eternal punishing).  The only eternal punishment is eternal separation from God - the second death.

The word translated as "punishment" is Strong's #2851, which can convey the meaning of "correction" rather than annihilation.  

ko,lasij kolasis {kol'-as-is} 
Meaning:  1) correction, punishment, penalty

I'm just giving Michele's responses.  Guess if you add the word "eternal" - which means "without end" - then the punishment would last for eternity.  

[8thdaypriest]

I just keep looking for a verse that uses words like "everlasting death"  as opposed to everlasting life.  

[8thdaypriest]

NRS  Isaiah 38:18 For Sheol cannot thank you, death cannot praise you; those who go down to the Pit cannot hope for your faithfulness. (also NIV, )

NKJ  Isaiah 38:18 For Sheol cannot thank You, Death cannot praise You; Those who go down to the pit cannot hope for Your truth. (NKJ)

NET  Isaiah 38:18 Indeed Sheol does not give you thanks; death does not praise you. Those who descend into the pit do not anticipate your faithfulness. (NET)

NAU  Isaiah 38:18 "For Sheol cannot thank You, Death cannot praise You; Those who go down to the pit cannot hope for Your faithfulness. (NAU)

I keep coming back to the "second death" actually being DEATH.   

No one changes WHILE they are DEAD.  

Without a resurrection from the "second death" (which is not mentioned) this "death" cannot be any kind of rehabilitation or change.  

Yes.  People do go through "fires" of persecution or trouble, but those "fires" happen WHILE THEY ARE ALIVE - not after they are dead.  

Universal Restorationists quote Revelation 21:5 a lot.

"Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new."  (NKJ)  They say that "all things" must include all created sentient beings.  

They quote Hebrews 13:5 and say it applies to ALL people.   "I will never leave you or forsake you." (Heb 13:5 NRS)

[JoeMo]

On 9/19/2018 at 12:08 PM, The Wanderer said:

So which Jesus are we talking about?

The one in the Bible; which is not necessarily the same (at least character-wise) as some denominations teach.

[8thdaypriest]

Was talking to my hubby re: arguments for Universalism.
He said it reminded him of kids who tell their parents "I didn't ask to be born" and demand their parents provide everything for them.  
Even if they end up in jail for drug selling, they EXPECT their parents to mortgage their home to bail them out.  
I thought the analogy a good one.

If the LORD has provided the means, it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY" to avail ourselves of that means - assuming of course that we have HEARD about the means,
and UNDERSTAND how to avail ourselves of that means.  

My hubby agrees that God will not manipulate free will - not ever.  
He also agrees that GOD MUST make all aware of the means, which is why children, ignorant pagans (including modern ones), and those mentally disabled,
must be resurrected at the 8th Day to HEAR about the means, and then to CHOOSE whether they will avail themselves of that means, 
and then to be TESTED to see whether they will continue in obedience for some time period.  

I suppose the time period might be debated.  A condemned person might argue that he would have reformed, had he been given additional time.  
I've wondered about THAT argument. 

This is what makes me think that more folks may be resurrected at the 8th Day than I previously thought.  
Not just the ignorant, but also those who might plead their case based upon a need for "additional time". 
It does look like a thousand years will be the limit.  If one cannot make up his mind, and demonstrate his decision within a millennium, 
he's never going to. 

[8thdaypriest]

I shared with Michele the argument that there is no mention of a third resurrection.  Only TWO deaths.

She sited a THIRD type of death - the "dead to sin" that Paul sites.   Gonna have to study abit to look at that one. 

Is that a THIRD type of death?

[JoeMo]

Like so many other topics (e.g., Trinity, Nephilim, rapture, works vs. grace, millennium), there are strong biblical arguments to support both sides of Universalism.  I think the side that debunks Universalism has a stronger argument; but that could just be because of my lifelong "preconditioning".  This may be a battle where you may just have to agree to disagree; and let the Spirit sort it out.  Besides, winning a specific battle doesn't guarantee you will win the war. For me, encouraging people to fall in love with Jesus is the most important. To me, Universalism gives us a license to sin just as much as we want, because there is nothing we can do to become unsaved - whether we want to be saved or not.

If Universalism teaches that satan and his fallen angels will eventually be saved and reinstated, I could never believe that.