Christian Universalism and Universalism

[Albion]

I can't think of the handful, but here are a couple of the popular ones.
1 Timothy 2:3-4
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 John 2:2
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Yes. Personally, I think the first of those is easily seen as meaning that He would prefer it, but that's all. The second one is harder to dismiss, but we may still say that Christ is the propitiation for our sins but yet we do not get an automatic pass into heaven because of the events of 2000 years ago; so neither can we say that it applies in a different, more favorable, way when it comes to non-believers.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes. Personally, I think the first of those is easily seen as meaning that He would prefer it, but that's all. The second one is harder to dismiss.

Neither are are difficult if you understand to whom the writers we're speaking. They are not writing to the world universal. They are writing to the church universal (the elect). This is an important distinction as it helps define the world, the all, that the writers are addressing.
Far too many people fail to read the entire letter that was written. They take a phrase or sentence and create an entire doctrine around it while ignoring context and the entirety of the letter. Multiple cults have arisen from such poor exegesis.

 

[Albion]

Neither are are difficult if you understand to whom the writers we're speaking. They are not writing to the world universal. They are writing to the church universal (the elect). This is an important distinction as it helps define the world, the all, that the writers are addressing.

I guess that I will have to disagree with the idea that the 'whole world' means the Elect only.

 

[MennoSota]

I guess that I will have to disagree with the idea that the 'whole world' means the Elect only.

You will have to prove that John was addressing the whole world when he wrote his letter. Of course, the context of the letter helps.
1 John 1:3-10
...that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1 John 2:7
Beloved,
I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard.
1 John 2:7,12-14
Beloved,
I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. I am writing to you,
little children,
because your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake. I am writing to you,
fathers,
because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you,
young men,
because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you,
children,
because you know the Father. I write to you,
fathers,
because you know him who is from the beginning. I write to you,
young men,
because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

Now, please provide text in his letter that says John is writing to the entire world, including those outside of the Christian faith. I suggest that you will have to torture one verse to make your claim.
You are free to disagree. My point is that I believe I have the better argument from scripture.

 

[Josiah]

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life." A famous man said that.

God's mercy is on all.... His Son died for all.... those with faith benefit from such and have everlasting life.

The error of those Calvinists who invented Universalism is that they eliminated the "whosoever believes in Him" part. TULIP holds that if Jesus died for you, you ergo are justified.... but what these Calvinists correctly realized is what the Bible so obviously and clearly says, Jesus died for all.... ergo (oh how Calvinists LOVE that word!!!!) all are justified. Bingo: Universalism. Their error is not only that they replaced "God says" with "My brain says therefore" but also they held to the rest of TULIP, a real epiphany would be for them to reject "ULIP" and simply accept what the Bible and traditional/orthodox Christianity affirms. See above quote.




.

 

[Albion]

You will have to prove that John was addressing the whole world when he wrote his letter.

It really doesn't matter whom he was addressing when he was explaining a point about who was affected or included.


For example, you cite the following:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

According to what you are contending, his meaning is that only those people hearing his voice on that particular occasion will have their sins forgiven, no one else.

I don't think so

 

[MennoSota]

It really doesn't matter whom he was addressing when he was explaining a point about who was affected or included.


For example, you cite the following:


According to what you are contending, his meaning is that only those people hearing his voice on that particular occasion will have their sins forgiven, no one else.

I don't think so

Only the elect have their sins forgiven. John is writing only to the elect. Therefore, the whole world is the whole of the elect.
We can discern this, not only from the letter John writes, but also from the entire Bible, in which God is very consistent to address His chosen as receiving benefits that the rest of the world does not receive. The whole of scripture informs the understanding of one phrase. This is important when trying to understand a verse like 1 John 2:2.
Of course, a person can ignore the whole, create a doctrine from one phrase and then ignore or claim "mystery" when an obvious contradiction rears its ugly head. That person can even go further and develop a cult around poor exegesis and therefore point others toward a false teaching leading to damnation.

 

[Albion]

Only the elect have their sins forgiven. John is writing only to the elect.

How was he able, do you suppose, to deliver the message and keep it for the eyes of the Elect only?

 

[Andrew]

How was he able, do you suppose, to deliver the message and keep it for the eyes of the Elect only?

Maybe only the elect will take it to heart and believe with eyes to see and ears to hear and such and such

 

[Albion]

But in 1 John 2:2, John specifically speaks of "OUR" sins...and then goes on to speak of the sins of the whole world in addition. If he is speaking here only to the Elect and about the Elect, he had that covered in the first part of the verse. Who ARE the others he refers to thereafter?? Our colleague is probably going to say it means other people who are, however, also among the Elect, but there is nothing there that hints at it.

 

[psalms 91]

Problem is that when your theology is based on God having favorites and not giving everyone a chance then you end up with this theology. I dont agree with it and I think most if not all here dont either but if he chooses to believe this then so be it

 

[MennoSota]

How was he able, do you suppose, to deliver the message and keep it for the eyes of the Elect only?

You misconstrue who will read it and who the audience is to whom John writes.
Unreconciled person's may read John's first letter. If they read it and there is no reconciliation with God, they will simply find the material foolish for themselves. The elect will respond in reconciliation. Throughout the whole world and throughout the ages, the elect respond to God's call.
Is this a foreign concept to you?

 

[Andrew]

Problem is that when your theology is based on God having favorites and not giving everyone a chance then you end up with this theology. I dont agree with it and I think most if not all here dont either but if he chooses to believe this then so be it

On the flip side it means that if you are a believer you are in Gods elect, no one but God knows his chosen so the outcome is always the same no matter if you are a Calvinists or not... it's the same difference in the end

 

[Andrew]

You misconstrue who will read it and who the audience is to whom John writes.
Unreconciled person's may read John's first letter. If they read it and there is no reconciliation with God, they will simply find the material foolish for themselves. The elect will respond in reconciliation. Throughout the whole world and throughout the ages, the elect respond to God's call.
Is this a foreign concept to you?

Yes!
The book of revelation (for example) is 'cryptic' to all non believers and especially to the non-reader and non-hearer of the full gospel, so it is concealed and only understood by (or 'revealed' to) God's Elect, it's why the speaker/hearer of this book is so deemed as 'blessed' by God.

 

[MennoSota]

Problem is that when your theology is based on God having favorites and not giving everyone a chance then you end up with this theology. I dont agree with it and I think most if not all here dont either but if he chooses to believe this then so be it

This is such a man-centered take on God and ultimately a damning judgment of God's authoritative right to choose whom He pardons.
More so, to say God has favorites is to proclaim salvation by merit apart from grace.
Not agreeing with God's right to extend grace to whomsoever He wills is to proclaim that men must work to impress God by which God welcomes or does not welcome humans.
Furthermore, such a view ignores scripture, which tells us that no one seeks God, not even one.
The fact that God condescends to reconcile even one utterly rebellious sinner is cause for rejoicing, yet you portray a complete bitterness toward God for exercising His Sovereign right as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Having said this, I am sure you will not have a clue about what you have said and how utterly damning your statement is of the God you claim to faithfully trust.

 

[Albion]

You misconstrue who will read it and who the audience is to whom John writes.
Unreconciled person's may read John's first letter. If they read it and there is no reconciliation with God, they will simply find the material foolish for themselves. The elect will respond in reconciliation. Throughout the whole world and throughout the ages, the elect respond to God's call.
Is this a foreign concept to you?

On second thought, I guess such a peculiar perspective regarding Scripture is unfamiliar to me, at least part of that post--so call it foreign, if you wish.

 

[MennoSota]

No, but such a peculiar perspective on the meaning of Scripture is unfamiliar to me--or foreign, if you wish.

Paying attention to context and the whole of scripture is foreign to you?
How can we discern God's thoughts if we do not view the scripture as a holistic expression of God?

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Post #8:

It could be like in Game of Thrones where to bend the knee means to acknowledge the suzerainty of the one to whom you bend the knee.

Or maybe it could be like in the fellowship I frequented as a teenager.

There was a pushy (domineering) girl there surnamed Suzer.

People tended to bow the knee to her, too.

Could that be where the word suzerainty originated?

==============================================================================================

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Post #17:

It is possible that the universalist and the other verses really do contradict one another.

Maybe not, if looked at from a perspective that is different from the entrenched ones.

But then again, if Holy Scripture can be accused of inconsistency, that opens the way for another source of Authority to exist.

Enter the Roman Catholic Church’s claim of being just that.

Good try. But sprung. (Aussie slang meaning “caught in the act”.)

==============================================================================================

Also, the author of Post #24, states (correctly) that John is writing to church members.

He then extrapolates that to mean John’s reference to the whole world refers only to the church.

That assignment of meaning is obviously contrived. And unfortunately for the author, his choosing to impose that particular contrived meaning, throws negative light on the doctrine that that artificial contrivance was employed to support.

Some people never learn.

==============================================================================================

 

[Jason76]

Well, the biggest arguments universalists give and Christian Universalists (which I support) is simply the fact that God, as described by fundamentalists, deserves the criticism that atheists give him/her!

OK, torturing people in hell, endlessly, with no corrective purpose, is not of God's nature. Also, throwing people into hell without giving them a chance - isn't in God's nature.