Here's something I just read

[Eduard]

http://www.consider.org/library/willall.htm


How do we respond to this?

[mplsfitter539]

Here is one quote taken from this article.

This is especially true since words often change there meaning with time. As such, while the may have been a relationship between the roots of a words and it meaning at one time, this relationship may disappear completely as the meaning of the word changes.

Malachi 3
6 For I am the Lord, I change not;..............

Words may change meaning but not the Word of God. It still means what it says regardless of how we change almost constantly which is a good thing because we are not perfected yet.

[Lazarus Short]

Whoever wrote that piece is highly skilled at making deception sound reasonable.  A good thing is that he/she does not loudly proclaim UR to be a heresy from the outset.  On the other hand, an argument from language relativism puts the whole meaning of Holy Writ at risk.  Shall we compose a rebuttal and press the "Contact" button? 

[Eduard]

I think we should. Also, how can they say we're making Love more important than judgement while they are making punishment more important than the Cross and Salvation? Bias.

[micah7:9]

From the very first paragraph, "A loving God, it is claimed would not send anyone to eternal damnation Thus, those sent to hell "......If the writer can use the word "hell" the entire paper is questionable.  :HeartThrob: :dsunny:

[mplsfitter539]

From the very first paragraph, "A loving God, it is claimed would not send anyone to eternal damnation Thus, those sent to hell "......If the writer can use the word "hell" the entire paper is questionable.  :HeartThrob: :dsunny:

Perfect. If one small detail is wrong than it changes everything. How can someone who proclaims the trinity be like minded with anyone who excepts the death of the Christ. Its a small detail to the one proclaiming it but to me they worship another Jesus than I do. Making a pagan doctrine dating to the earliest religions into a "Christian" doctrine is just a clever ploy to dupe the masses.

[dajomaco]

There is another problem with such arguments. Inevitably they stress one attribute of God (in this case Love) above all others. While it is true that God is love, God is not just love. God is also a righteous God who loves justice (Ps 11:7), a God of judgement (Ps 1:5), a God of vengeance and retribution (Is 35:4). Given the sinfulness and rebellion of mankind, the real question is probably not why doesn't he save all, but why does he save any!

Using the above logic --Any one who says that God saves any one is sitting in judgment of God.

[dajomaco]

Thus this second claim fails. The Bible does speak of eternal punishment for the wicked. And the argument against such claims are based on a false understanding of the way that language works.

The authors own words or logic betray him.

Thus this second claim fails. The Bible does not speak of eternal punishment for the wicked. And the argument against such claims are based on a false understanding of the way that language works.

[dajomaco]

In addition, however, note that Paul adds "especially of those who believe." This says that in some sense that Jesus is Savior is especially true of those who believe. It is especially true, because not only is Christ their savior because he provides the means of their salvation, (as he does all men), it is especially true because, as a result of their belief they are actually saved. Thus one again the claim that this verse teaches Universal salvation is false.

His third argument is Nice (silly)

In addition, however, note that Paul adds "especially of those who believe." This says that in some sense that Jesus is Savior is especially true of those who believe. It is especially true, because not only is Christ their savior because he provides the means of their salvation, (as he does all men),

This is just plain ridiculous. To be some ones savoir you have to actually save them.
 

it is especially true because, as a result of their belief they are actually saved.

Yes the Satanic doctrine that my flesh loves : That I can save myself if I believe my belief can save me.
This doctrine puts Jesus one notch down and me one notch above.
This simple trick of logic allows me to make what Jesus did null and Void

As a result of my believe I know I am saved.
I cannot know something  that I do not know.
How can I believe in something that I do not know.

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"[g]

16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?"[h] 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:


"Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
    their words to the ends of the world."

19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says,


"I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;
    I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding."[j]

20 And Isaiah boldly says,


"I was found by those who did not seek me;
    I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."[k]

21 But concerning Israel he says,


"All day long I have held out my hands
    to a disobedient and obstinate people."[l]
Thus one again the claim that this verse teaches Universal salvation is TRUE

[Eduard]

Yes!!!!  WE do NOT do something to be saved, it's JESUS who already is Savior of All :HeartThrob:

[ded2daworld]

"God, the author and finisher of our faith."
If there was anything we could do of ourselves to obtain salvation,
by the same token, there would be something we could do to lose our salvation.

Throughout history, non-christian beliefs are all about man striving to be worthy to be with God in the afterlife.
Christianity truthfully maintains there is absolutely nothing we can do of ourselves to be worthy to be with God in the afterlife.
But he has provided a way (the shed blood of Jesus) for us to be reconciled to Him - especially to those of us that God chose to
believe this before we die. Not of ourselves, lest we think we have something to be proud of or boast about.

[jedi1989]

I like how the article states "all" does not mean "all" :doh:
We just have to reply that "forever" does not mean "forever" and WE CAN PROVE IT scientifically using cross-reference with text from the same time period, rather than simply just using speculation.

[Eduard]

And there is a word that actually means forever (Aidios) so if the punishment truly were neverending, AIDIOS would have been used and not aionios which means a period of time concerning the ages (and there are at least 5 ages mentioned in the Bible alone).

[CHB]

I like how the article states "all" does not mean "all" :doh:
We just have to reply that "forever" does not mean "forever" and WE CAN PROVE IT scientifically using cross-reference with text from the same time period, rather than simply just using speculation.

I loved the way this was worded.  :dsunny:

CHB

[Wayfaring Stranger]

Inevitably they stress one attribute of God (in this case Love) above all others. While it is true that God is love, God is not just love. God is also a righteous God who loves justice (Ps 11:7), a God of judgement (Ps 1:5), a God of vengeance and retribution (Is 35:4). Given the sinfulness and rebellion of mankind, the real question is probably not why doesn't he save all, but why does he save any!

7 Beloved, may we love one another, because the love is of God, and every one who is loving, of God he hath been begotten, and doth know God;

8 he who is not loving did not know God, because God is love.

- 1 John 4:7-8

Later on we learn:

18 fear is not in the love, but the perfect love doth cast out the fear, because the fear hath punishment, and he who is fearing hath not been made perfect in the love

- 1 John 4:18

God is a righteous judge and His judgements ultimately correct us and lead us to Him.  People like the author of this blog equate judgement with eternal torment and punishment.  Love is not just a mere attribute of God, God IS love and He loves us so much that He sent His Son to be the Savior of ALL.

[WhiteWings]

The guy has some good points but is selective in applying them. He's for example right about root words (his example of butter-fly). He also admits aionion can mean both age and eternal.

This is especially true when other verses on this subject are taken into account. For example Matt 25:46 speaks of eternal punishment (eis kolasin aionion) and eternal life (eis zoen aionion). The structure is of this verse is one of contrast, and because of this aionion (eternal) must have the same meaning for both. Thus if the life that waits the righteous is eternal, then so is the punishment of wicked. Or, put the other way, if punishment of the wicked is limited and will end, so will life of the righteous.

For starters in theory aionion in that verse can have the eternal meaning for life and the age meaning for punishment.
He's right the verse is about contrast. But again he's selective. He seems like a serious and intelligent guy to me that also knows the verse that contrasts Adam condeming all and Jesus saving all. But he 'forgot'to mention that.

Basicly he uses half his article to write things everyone agrees with. That way he sounds smart and trustworhty. Then he starts with one-side views and leaving out problematic views.
Yeah he adresses that verse but mainly by saying he doesn't agree or that it's only a possible rendering.

For the Timoty verse he repeats his strategy. He admits the verse can be read in a UR way but then adds it's a wrong understanding without backing up his claim.

[Graph1159]

Regarding Romans 5:18-19, the author wrote, "Thus it is clear that what is being contrasted here is Adam and Christ and their effects on humanity. The universal salvation view of this verse is dependant on a particular view of original sin which holds not just that the fall of Adam led to our condemnation, but that we are condemned specifically for Adam's sin regardless of what we actually do. Only with such a view is the parallel strong enough to allow universal salvation."

I was very excited to see this acknowledged. That view of original sin that he refers to is what the great majority of Fundamentalists teach. So, he basically confirmed the feeling I've had for a long time that Fundamentalism actually gives way to Universalism. Ironic, eh?