Answering Matt Slick's article against Universalism

[pneuma]

Like my other rebuttal on confronting Universalism my replies will all be in blue and Matt's writing in black.

This is a long article so I will be posting as I am making an answer, it may take some time before I am finished so for those interested please bare with me, as I am a slow writer.

Universalism is the teaching that through the atonement of Jesus, every person who ever lived will ultimately be saved. It is a relatively small movement in America. But this error can have some serious ramifications. Does the Bible teach that everyone who has ever lived will be saved? No. It doesn't. Find out why here.

Universalism
Universalism is the teaching that all people will be saved. Some say that it is through the atonement of Jesus that all will ultimately be reconciled to God. Others just say that all will go to heaven sooner or later, whether or not they have trusted in or rejected Jesus as savior during their lifetime. This universal redemption will be realized in the future where God will bring all people to repentance. This repentance can happen while a person lives or after he has died and lived again in the millennium (as some "Christian universalists" claim) or some future state. Additionally, a few universalists even maintain that Satan and all demons will likewise be reconciled to God.


I am Glad to see Matt did not say Universalists believe Satan and demon will be reconciled to God, but was fair in making the distinction that a few believe Satan and demons will be reconciled.

However I am one of those few.

When we limit God salvation to just man we do much damage to the scriptures, and put a limit on the only one who is without limit. We diminish the fullness of the cross of our Lord by saying it only reaches to mankind. ALL THINGS in heaven and earth and under the earth are reconciled by way of the cross. And yes that includes Satan.


Ephesians 1:10
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Philippians 2:10-11
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Just by these two scriptures above we can see that all things in the heaven will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. But not only those things in the heavens, but those things in the earth and under the earth also confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

ALL THINGS are reconciled by way of the cross of our Lord.

Colossians 1:16-20
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Now least any say, but Col.1:16-20 says nothing about Satan being reconciled, I would point out that ALL THINGS in heaven, ALL THINGS in the earth, both visible and INVISIBLE, are reconciled.

Also note that it states that THRONES, DOMINIONS, PRINCIPALITIES and POWERS are also reconciled by way of the cross.

So who are these THRONES, DOMINIONS, PRINCIPALITIES and POWERS?

Ephesians 6:12 tells us.


Ephesians 6:12
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Now according to the above scriptures even those things we war against ( devils in high places ) are reconciled by way of the cross.


And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Note that the LIGHT shineth IN the darkness.

The darkness also has the Light and in the dispensation of the fullness of times, that Light is going to shine out of great darkness.

Yes the darkness will be gone for only the Light that is within it will remain, same as with us.

ALL THINGS are reconciled by way of the cross , I do not place a limit on Gods salvation for it is without limit.

We can see this even more fully when we read how the Gospel is made known unto principalities and powers in HEAVENY PLACES.

Ephesians 3:8-10
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God

Praise God His cross is without limitations.

Nevertheless, both facets of universalistic belief are in serious error. People will suffer eternal damnation (Rev. 14:11) and the demonic forces have no redeemer. But, in my opinion, though universalism is a grave error, holding to the idea that all will be saved in itself does not automatically make someone a non-Christian. Please see Can a Christian be a Universalist?
However, there are those within the universalist camp (who claim to be Christian) who also deny the doctrine of the Trinity and, thereby, the incarnation of the Word of God as God the Son. They also deny the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit. Usually, these denials are held by Unitarian Universalists, though others who are not of the Universalist camp also deny the Trinity. Those who deny these essentials cannot be classified as Christians.

According to who? Surely the reader is aware Christian simply means follower of Christ. No doctrine whatsoever makes or unmakes a Christian.

We are not to be followers of man made creeds like the Nice creed Matt is referring to but rather followers of Christ alone.

Man is the ones who made up the Nice creed NOT God, so Matt can cry all he likes about someone not being a Christian because they don't follow the Nice creed.

So if the Nice creed is what determines who is a Christian and who is not a Christian then Paul, John, Peter and the boys cannot be said to be Christian either for the Nice creed was not around when they were.

So much for Matt setting the standard of who is or who is not a Christian.

To deny the deity of Christ, is to deny one of the essential doctrines of salvation. In this sense, those universalists who deny the deity of Christ are in a false religious belief system. Of course, when one essential doctrine is denied, many other historic biblical doctrines are also denied and salvation is void because the object of faith is false.

Matt here makes a grave error in understanding here, he seems to think those who do not believe Jesus is God the Father deny Christ divinity. This is not so, for Christ being born of God makes Christ divine and gives Him the same status as that of the Father has. Jesus always made a separation between Himself and God never once saying He was God the Father.

John 20:17
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. 

The reader here can see Jesus Himself has a Father and a God.
Jesus is always pointing this out in the gospels, just read through them and you will see He always makes a separation between Himself and the Father.

Where those who believe in the trinity get the idea Jesus is God comes from this verse.

John 10:30
30 I and my Father are one.

Does this mean that Jesus and the Father are the same person? Matt would have the reader to believe so, but we also read.

John 17:11
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17:21
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Here the reader can see we to are to be ONE with Jesus and the Father, just as Jesus was ONE with the Father.

So I ask the readers this question: Do you believe you are God the Father? Hardly, so why then believe Jesus is the Father when He said I and the Father are one, especially when Jesus Himself always made a point of separation between Himself and the Father.




There is no official "Universal Salvation Church" denomination but there is a Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). The UUA can be classified as non-Christian because it denies the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, etc.
It is not possible to categorize all of universalists into one tidy doctrinal category. Its adherents vary in belief. Some are Arian (God is one person, Jesus is a creation). Some are Trinitarian. Others even lean toward new age concepts of man's divinity.
So, universalism is not really a doctrine that identifies a group. Rather, it is a doctrine of different, even contradictory groups, who all claim universalism.

Again I am glad Matt here makes the distinction that not all Universalists believe after the same fashion.

[pneuma]

The problem with words
The cults are particularly guilty of using biblical words with non-biblical definitions. This is absolutely necessary among them in order to maintain some sort of internal consistency of theology. So too, with many universalists. Hell can mean non-existence, after-life consciousness, or this present life on earth. Some universalists believe that all punishment is accomplished here on earth, while others believe it is future event with a loss of rewards, and not a physical punishment. The punishment in both groups is corrective and limited. It will last only as long, and only be as severe, as it takes to accomplish its corrective purpose, which is to bring all mankind to a state of holiness and happiness in obedience to God. Of course, the problem with this is that it strongly suggests that a person is made worthy to be with God through his own sufferings and corrections in the afterlife.

Matt here makes a mistake, the suffering and correction is not to make us worthy of salvation, for no man is worthy of salvation it is a free gift by Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is our pattern and just like Him the sufferings and corrections are to make us perfect.

Hebrews 2:10-11
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,


1 Peter 5:10
10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.

Therefore the reader can see judgments which are all corrective are used in order to make us perfect.

In universalism, the word "eternal" means "without end" when it comes to salvation, but not when referring to damnation, even though the same word is used for both and in the same context (Matt. 25:46).

Matt is being deceitful here, for he is well aware that the Universalist hold the word eternal to be age-lasting or age-during or age- abiding with both cases.

Edit: I have to make an apology to Matt here as I said he was being deceitful when he said Universalists believe the above.  Matt was correct here in part for some Universalists do believe it just as Matt stated above. I am not one of those who believes it after this fashion however.

And just so the reader is aware eternal is not a word found in the Greek scriptures, it is always translated age-lasting, age-during or age-abiding in any good literal translation of the Greek.

Lets look at Matt.25:46 in a few literal translations

Young's Literal Translation has it.

46And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'

Rotherham Emphasized Bible has it.

And, these, shall go away, into, age-abiding, correction, but, the righteous, into, age-abiding, life.

So as the reader can see Matt's problem is not with the Universalists belief of the Greek word aionios but with the literal translation of the word itself.

Matt like many a brother and sister in the Lord believe aionios to mean without beginning and without end. But there is a huge problem with this understanding.

First the scriptures tell us aionios has a beginning

Titus 1:2
2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;   

Both the word eternal and world are aionios in the Greek, thus the reader can see aionios has a beginning.

We can also see aionios has a beginning in that aionios suffering does not begin until after the judgement. So how can aionios mean as Matt would have the reader to believe without beginning and without end?

There is also another major problem with the belief that people are going to suffer for all eternity. And that major problem is that if people are alive to suffering for all eternity then they have eternal life without Christ.

How can people live eternally in a lake of fire without Christ?

It is only in Christ that one has eternal life correct?

So only two conclusions can be made from those who believe in eternal torment , they are

That people have eternal life outside of Christ, which scripture will not bare out.

Or that those suffering for all eternity have Christ within them, thus making Christ suffer for all eternity along with the sinner.

So what in fact are those who believe in eternal torment teaching people today? they are either teaching that there is eternal life without Christ or they are teaching that Christ is suffering for all eternity right along with the sinner.

They of course will tell you that is not what they are teaching at all, but what other conclusions can one come to? Either it is only in Christ one has eternal life and Christ is suffering eternal fire along with the sinner or people have eternal life outside of Christ.

Can the reader not see the major problem those who believe in eternal torment face here?

Universalists divide history and the future into different "eons" or "ages" and assert that punishment is "age-lasting," not eternal. The term "Son of God" is claimed by all groups as an accurate description of Jesus, yet to some it means a created being and to others it means God in flesh. Therefore, determining which belief is held by which universalist is often difficult and it requires digging.

Not only does the Universalist divide history and the future into different aions or ages so to does the scriptures.

Luke 20:34-35
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

World in both cases here is the Greek word aion, surely the reader can see aion here is referring to an age and not to an eternity? Or would you have us believe there are two different eternities?

1 Corinthians 10:11
11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 

Can the reader not see that if aion means without beginning and without end then the scriptures make no sense? Can that which is without beginning and without end come to an end as this scripture and many others proclaim?

Look up the word aion in your concordances for yourselves and read all the scriptures pertaining to aion and you will see many other instances of where the scriptures state the aions come to an end.

Matt would have you believe aion means eternity and even if that is the case (which the reader can see it is not) then the reader can see that eternity comes to an end.

In both scenarios the reader can see Matt's belief is in error, for if aion means eternity and has an end like the above scriptures state then Matt has no ground to stand on when stating the lake of fire has no end.




Misrepresentation
Universalists often use the most negative terms to represent historic positions they disagree with. For example, regarding the damnation of the unsaved, instead of saying that historic Christianity teaches that those who reject Christ will suffer eternal damnation, they frequently say that historic Christianity teaches that "God can't save everyone and wants to torture most of humanity forever." Or, it is often implied that God will not torture people forever because "God is not sadistic enough to send people to hell." Such emotionally slanted words reveal a hostile bias against historic doctrines and is an unfair description of those beliefs. It is a surprisingly common tactic among universalists which demonstrates their lack of objectivity and sheds an automatic cloud of doubt upon their observations.


Matt says the Universalist frequently say that historic Christianity teaches that "God can't save everyone and wants to torture most of humanity forever."

This is a very strange comment coming from a Calvinist who believes that Christ's atonement is only for the elect, therefore Jesus only came to save some people thus consigning all others to eternal torment.

So basically Matt is saying God could save all men but does not want to save all men.

What Matt does not like about these type of statements is that they show just how far into error the Calvinistic belief is.

Matt will either tell you Jesus came into the world only to save the elect or that His sacrifice was sufficient for all, but it was not efficacious for all. ( efficacious: able to effect something: having the power to produce a desired result, especially an improvement )

In other words Matt is telling you Jesus did not die for all men's salvation, or His sacrifice was not able to effect the salvation of all men.

The first view we know contradicts scripture.

John 3:17
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

John 12:47
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

The second view mean Jesus failed to do what God sent Him to do.

Both views should be abhorrent to any child of God, for if the first view is correct God does not love all men and if the second view is correct God through Jesus Christ is a failure.

Yet we also know by scripture that God is love Jn.:4:8 & 16 and the love never faileth 1Co.3:8 ( charity here is the Greek word agape and means love).

Thus the reader can see that God did send Jesus to save the world and that God who is love never faileth, so in fact the world will be saved by Him.



Conclusion
As you can see, universalism covers a wide range of beliefs. Though belief in universalism, in and of itself, does not automatically void salvation, it has the potential danger of allowing false teachers to abide alongside true believers as well as deny basic Christian teaching such as eternal damnation. Therefore, to determine if a universalist is Christian, you must delve further into other areas of his belief system.


And as the reader can now see Matt's conclusions of who a true Christian is, and who's teachings are false doctrine has a lot to be desired.

Which bares more witness by the Spirit of Christ within you, the belief that God does not want to save all men or failed to save all men, or that God wants to save all men, sent His son for their salvation and therefore all men are assured of salvation because God cannot fail?

P.S. this is not the conclusion of Matts arguments, just the conclusions to his openning statements.

[pneuma]

Christian Universalism
"Christian Universalism" is the position that all of mankind will ultimately be saved through Jesus whether or not faith is professed in him in this life. It claims that God's qualities of love, sovereignty, justice, etc., require that all people be saved and that eternal punishment is a false doctrine. Salvation is not from hell, but from sin.
There are two main camps in Christian Universalism:
Those who teach that the unrepentant will be punished in a future state, and that their punishment will be proportional to the degree of sin committed in the mortal state. They generally hold that the punishment is moral and not physical. There is no hell. They do not maintain that salvation is merited through these sufferings.
Those who teach that all the punishment for sin occurs in this life and that God's discipline in our lives is for the purpose of purifying us, though this purification is not our merit for salvation. In eternity, there will be a loss of reward for those who did not trust in Christ in this lifetime.
Christian Universalists claim to hold many of the tenets of historic Christianity: Trinity, deity of Christ, deity of the Holy Spirit, salvation by grace, etc. As always, it is necessary to inquire and ask what is meant by the terms they use because the diversity that exists in universalist beliefs warrants further examination. Nevertheless, the Christian universalists claim to affirm:

Nothing I can really say here, some Universalists believe some of these things some don't. That does not make Universalism wrong it just shows that like any other view there are different views within Universalism.


The inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible.
From what I have seen here, they hold to the orthodox position.

Many but not all Universalists believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures, what most Universalist have a problem with is the way translators have corrupted the scriptures by adding foreign words not found in the original language.  



There is only one God.
From what I have encountered, most universalists who claim the title "Christian universalists" do not accept the standard doctrine of the Trinity, but lean more towards either Arianism (God is one person, Jesus is created) to modalism (God takes different forms in history). This is, of course, heretical.

There is only one God and the standard doctrine of the trinity is in error as I have already shown. Go ahead look up trinity in the concordances see if you can find it, you won't because it is not there, wonder why? Because it is a man made doctrine.

In fact the belief in the trinity is the belief in more then one God, for the Trinitarian will tell you that the Father is God and Jesus is God oh ya and the Holy Spirit is God, that makes 3 Gods not one.

The Trinitarian however will tell you that is not what they are saying, they will tell you God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same being.

However I already showed in scripture that Jesus makes a difference between Himself and God and to make sure people understand this in the same scripture Jesus makes a difference between Himself and the Father.Jn.20:17

Therefore to say Jesus is God is the belief that there is more then one God.

Jesus is the Son of the Living God
Many cult groups say the same thing. What they mean by the phrase is what is important. The Christian Universalists tend to say the Son is a manifestation, an image, a representation of God's essence, yet he is not equal to the Father. Therefore, they are denying His true deity.

Being not equal to the Father does not take away ones divinity, unless Matt would have you believe Jesus is not divine, for Jesus Himself states in Jn.14:28 the Father is GREATER then I.

And again we see Jesus making a separation between Himself and the Father.


But, not all who claim to be Christian Universalists deny this.
Some hold that Jesus is not God but that He is divine. This is perplexing since divinity is a quality of God, not angels or men.

It not perplexing at all, I just showed how easily it is understood.


Jesus' Resurrection
Most Christian Universalists affirm the physical resurrection of Jesus. But, some claim he did not rise from the dead physically, but was assumed into heaven to dwell with God. "The Crucified is living forever with God, as our hope. Resurrection does not mean either a return to life in space and time or a continuation of life in space and time but the assumption into that incomprehensible and comprehensive last and first reality which we call God."1
If, by the above quote, the physical resurrection of Jesus is denied, as it seems it is, then anyone who holds to that position is indeed a non-Christian since it denies one of the essential doctrines of Christianity.

Matt seems to be reading more into that quote then what is represented, I know of no Christian Universalist that believes Jesus' body did not rise from the dead.

That however does not mean there are none, I just have not come across any. However if anyone whether it be one who believes in the salvation of all or one who believes in eternal torment believes Jesus was not physically resurrected I agree with Matt here and say they would be in error.


The Holy Spirit is God's presence
There is a surprisingly common denial of the personhood of the Holy Spirit. (personhood is self-awareness, a will, the ability to speak, etc.). This is a serious error on the part of those who hold to it. But to be fair, many universalists affirm the Holy Spirit as the third person in the Godhead.

The Holy Ghost is not the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost is the spirit of God.

There is no salvation without accepting Jesus as Savior
This statement is problematic for two reasons:
Since to many universalists, Jesus is not truly God by nature, they have an improper object of faith (denying the Trinitarian nature of God and the deity of Christ). Their faith, then, is useless since they have violated the command to worship no other God (Exodus 20) and are worshiping a false god. The Jesus they believe in, is not the real one. This means they are definitely not Christian.

Actually Exodus 20 is speaking of not worshipping graven images which are made by mans hands.

So unless Matt can show us how Jesus is made by the hands of man his point here is moot.

There is a second chance theology at work here where people who have rejected Jesus in this life can come to faith in the next life, even though he has flatly rejected Jesus' sacrificial atonement.


Just because people reject Jesus in this life does not mean they will in the next, for every knee will bow and tongue confess Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.


Some Universalists believe...
in consciousness after death, others do not.
in limited punishment of sinners in a type of hell that is not of fire, but of some moral chastising.
that punishment in the afterlife was for a limited period during which the soul was purified and prepared for eternity in the presence of God.

Most Universalist know that all Gods judgments are corrective in nature.


Conclusion
"Christian Universalism" really isn't Christian and it is meshed with many other unorthodox and erroneous teachings. This belief system should be avoided.


Here again Matt wants to define who is a Christian and who isn't. I would like to know who made Matt the judge?

As to which belief system should be avoided I'll let the reader decide for themselves.

[pneuma]

Can a Christian be a universalist?

Is it possible for Christian to be a universalist? Some will say no, others will say yes. My position (Matt Slick) is that it is possible for a Christian to be a universalist -- note, I said "possible". But, to be clear upfront, I believe universalism to be a heresy and I would never say, "Universalists are Christians."

Nevertheless, let's say that there is a man who was not a Christian who believes that everyone will be saved. This man is on his death bed in a hospital and is visited by the hospital Chaplin. The Chaplin gives him the gospel about Jesus being God in flesh, dying for our sins, rising from the dead, the need for repentance from sin, trusting in Christ, etc. The man honestly receives Christ and then dies shortly thereafter yet he never repented of the error of universalism. Is he saved or should we say, "Sorry, even though you trusted Jesus as your savior, believed he is God in flesh, died for your sins, and rose from the dead, but because you also believe everyone will be saved, you are going to hell."? Would anyone condemn a person to eternal fire for simply believing that everyone will be saved? I cannot see that as being the case.

There are essentials of the Christian faith. I have developed a "doctrine grid" where I have tried to arrange essential and non-essential doctrines into an easily understandable system. The essential doctrines are essential because the Bible says they are. Let me give you two examples. In John 8:24 Jesus said, "Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." This is an essential doctrine because it has a penalty of damnation for denying it. Likewise 1 Cor. 15:14 says that "if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain." Here too we see an essential doctrine because there is a condition of condemnation upon its denial. So too with the other essentials (justification by faith, monotheism, and the gospel) that the Scripture declare to be essential. See my doctrine grid again.



Matt seems to be saying here that the Christian Universalists denies the scriptures, because we may differ on what those scriptures are saying. Matt says there are essential doctrines and non-essential doctrines, but how can that be? Is not scripture to be used in any doctrine? Of course it is, so all doctrines are essential if they are based on scripture.

The Christian Universalist believe those two scriptures just as Matt does, but we have a different understanding of what those scripture proclaim. We do not do away with scripture as Matt is implying, we just understand them differently.

Example: the scriptures proclaim that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world 1 John 4:14

The Universalist believes this to be true and therefore the world will be saved.

However Matt's understanding here would probably go something like this, God sent Jesus to be the saviour of the world but the world here is only concerning the elect

Or

God sent Jesus to be the saviour of the world but Jesus could not do it.

So according to Matt's own idea of essential doctrine who holds more true to what the scripture proclaims, the Universalist or the Calvinist?

You reader will have to decide for yourselves.


The question is whether or not universalism in itself denies any of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Though I consider universalism to be a dangerous and false belief, I cannot automatically pronounce condemnation upon a person who acknowledges the essentials of the Christian faith and also affirms universal salvation. I don't because I don't see the scriptures doing it. Would I consider someone who holds to both the essentials and universalism to be inconsistent and confused? Absolutely! Should they repent? Yes!
But, should we pronounce the judgment of condemnation upon a person for believing a doctrine that the scriptures have not stated is an essential?

Matt says that Universalism is not an essential doctrine, but have we not just read the testimony of John which states.

1 John 4:14
14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

According to Matt, Johns testimony is not an essential doctrine for john say he testifies that Jesus is the saviour of the world.

Johns testimony here is EXACTLY the same as the Christian Universalists testimony that Jesus is the saviour of the world.




For those who would say yes, then are you not elevating the non-essentials to the level of essentials? It would be like a person condemning another to damnation because the latter believes in pre-trib rapture (or post, or mid, or non-cessationism). Since the scriptures do not pronounce judgment of condemnation for a rapture view or a view on the gifts, then neither should we -- and neither should we concerning predestination, election, millennial views, which day to worship on, charismatic gifts, etc., if others hold views different than we do on these issues.

Matt says here that people should not pronounce judgment on other people if they have a different view, yet is this not exactly what Matt has done when he stated that a Universalist is not a Christian if he does not believe in the trinity?

People can be saved in varying degrees of theological error. There are regenerated people who do not understand predestination, don't accept election, don't understand federal headship, are clueless about imputation, Christ's eternal priesthood, covenant, etc., yet they are regenerated. They simply haven't learned those doctrinal truths yet. Are they condemned for not rightly understanding these very important biblical teachings? No, because the ones I just listed in this paragraph are not declared to be essential doctrines by the Bible.

Matt here wants to be the one who sets the standard of what essential and non essential doctrines are. And if one disagrees with what he says is an essential doctrine then that one is not a Christian. Again I have to ask, who made Matt the judge?

And did we not just read in 1Jn.4:14 that John says he testified that Jesus is the saviour of the world?

Is the salvation of the world then not an essential doctrine? As it was Johns testimony should it not also be ours?

And yet Matt says it is not an essential doctrine or even a doctrine of any kind but is rather heresy.

Does the reader honestly believe Johns testimony is heresy? Then why believe the Christians Universalists testimony which is the same as Johns is heresy.


In fact, I did not know that Jesus had physically risen from the dead until two years after I became a Christian. I knew he had risen, but I didn't know how.1 How is that possible? Well, I wasn't taught it or I missed those sermons. But, once I heard the truth, I believed it. Would anyone say I wasn't saved until I believed Jesus physically rose from the dead even though I had received him and trusted him to forgive me of my sins? I certainly hope not. The truth is that I believed in the physical resurrection of Christ because I was saved. I did not become saved because I believed he physically rose. Likewise, for the Calvinists, does regeneration occur when we understand proper doctrine? Or is proper doctrine the result of regeneration? Remember, we are saved in (and from) our sins as well as our errors and God graciously and patiently works correction in us.

Matt here says we are saved in and from our sins as well as our errors and God graciously and patiently works correction in us.

I agree with Matt here, that it was well we were yet sinners that Christ died for us, therefore should it not then be self evident that Jesus died for mankind well man was still in their sins?

Therefore whether one believes Jesus died for their sins or not does not take away the FACT that Jesus died for their sin just as he did for the sins of those who now believe.

Therefore should it not be evident that all are made alive in Christ, and God will graciously and patiently work correction in all that Jesus died for?

Thus do we not have the salvation of the world.

Furthermore, I believe that a true Christian (if he erringly holds to universalism), will move away from that error because the Holy Spirit will work the truth within him. Eventually, he will repent and reject it.

And I believe those who hold to any doctrine other then the salvation of all will likewise be corrected by the Holy Spirit and come to see their error and reject their past teaching.
Just as I to who once believed in eternal torment rejected this teaching when the Holy Spirit corrected me concerning it.

Also, I would say that a universalist who openly and knowingly affirms universal salvation after having been clearly taught the truth in scripture, and yet continues to hold to a "second chance" doctrine (as some do), and/or punishment in the afterlife for a duration of time and then salvation occurs, is not a Christian.

Well here is the difference between Matt and myself, even though Matt has heard the truth that Jesus is the saviour of the world he has rejected it, but in no why would I judge Matt to be outside Christ, even though he judges me to be outside of Christ.

It is these issues that are so serious as to deny justification by faith. But, let me say it one more time, I believe that there can be ignorant people who erringly hold to universalism, who have not thought universalism's position through properly, and have not been properly exposed to the true teachings of the Bible who can be saved. I believe it is "possible" for them to be saved in spite of their inconsistency. That is my position.

Here Matt calls those who believe in Universal salvation ignorant people, I wonder if he would have said the same thing to John when he testified to the fact that Jesus was the saviour of the world.

Now, am I saying that all universalists can be Christian? Not at all. Do I defend universalism? No. Do I think that universalism is a serious problem that undermines the gospel? Yes, I do.

How can Universal salvation undermine the gospel when the gospel is for the salvation of the world?
Universal salvation is the only view that upholds the fullness of the gospel, all other views teach the gospel in part and will continue to do so until the perfect gospel is imparted  unto them by the Holy Spirit.

But, I can see a scenario where a universalist can be a Christian (death bed) and I believe that it is possible to be saved in confusion and error -- including in the confusion and error of universalism. I do not see how believing that all will be saved automatically disqualifies a person from being saved. I don't, because I don't see the scriptures doing it. But, if someone says it does disqualify them, then they would need to demonstrate that from scripture.

I can only shake my head in wonder that Matt could say such a thing as the only why he can see a Universalist being saved is upon their death bed.

And if the reader say that is not really what Matt said, Matt said a scenario,  I will only point out that if a Universalist repented of their Universalistic view (which was the other scenario Matt gave where a Universalist could be saved)  in order to be saved then they can not be said to be a Universalist any longer.
____________________
Note
8-23-05
I have been criticized for this position. Therefore I thought I would add a bit of information for further clarification. When I was first saved the gospel was preached to me and I received Christ as my savior. I called upon the name of the Lord. I sought the Lord Jesus and asked him to forgive me of my sins and I put no reliance on anything in me in anyway. The Lord saved me and he washed me clean. But, I did not continue to go to church because I was not a church-goer. I had gone to that church that night to see a film and ended up receiving Christ. No one sought me out afterwards and no one tried to disciple me. As a result, in my ignorance and drifting, I did not attend a church. I wandered for about two years until the Lord put upon my heart to get close to him. It was at this time in a Bible study that I learned that Jesus had risen physically from the dead. For the best of my recollection I believed that he had risen, I just don't remember knowing that it was a physical resurrection. When I was taught the physical resurrection of Christ from Scriptures I immediately accepted it.
But, there are those who are saying that I was not saved because of this. My response is that I did not get saved because I believed in Christ's resurrection. I believed because I was saved. I do not affirm doctrinal regeneration. But, I do very much believe that a true Christian will not deny essential doctrines and because the Holy Spirit is in him, when presented with the truth he will accept it, as did I.


Matt says he was saved before he believed in the body of Christ being physically resurrected and that he only believed in His physical resurrection because he was saved.

And I find nothing wrong with that scenario except, Matt also says that the physical resurrection of Christ is an essential doctrine one must believe in to be saved. And that if a Universalist does not believe in Christ's physical resurrection then he cannot be a Christian.

So my question to Matt is, which is it?
If a Universalist cannot be a Christian or saved because they do not believe in Christ's physical resurrection, why then do you say you were a Christian or saved when you yet did not believe?

You simply cannot have it both ways Matt.
A Universalist must believe in Jesus' physical resurrection to be saved, but you didn't have to?

Matt you pasted yourself into a pickle here brother.

No doctrine of any kind saves or unsaves a person.

Just so the reader is aware I am a Christian Universalist an I DO believe in Jesus' physical resurrection. But that does not make me a Christian, I believe it BECAUSE I am a Christian.

[pneuma]

Universalism and the Cults

Universalism teaches that all people will ultimately be saved no matter what they believe here on earth. You could deny God, hate Him, blaspheme against Him, join a satanist group and murder people and still go to heaven.


Although it is true the Universalist  contends all will eventually go to heaven, Matt words this as though the Universalist believes murders, blasphemers, Satanist go to heaven in the state their in.

This is NOT what the Universalist teaches and Matt is fully aware of this fact, yet in order to undermine Universalism Matt does not point this out to the reader.

So I will

In Rev.22:14-17  After everything is said and done, all judgment passed, all that go into the lake of fire already placed within we read.

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Can the reader not see for themselves that those without the gates if they keep His commandments still have right to the tree of life and can enter through the gates into the city?

Who are these people outside the gates of the city?

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Can the reader not see those outside the city gates are the dogs and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

It is to these people that scriptures proclaim if they keep His commandments they have right to the tree of life and can ENTER the city.

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Can the reader not see here that the Spirit and the bride still say COME, and whosoever will can COME and take the water of life FREELY.

Brothers and sister the message is clear, until the last sheep is in the fold the Spirit and the bride say COME and take of the water of life FREELY. Praise God He NEVER gives up on us, even when we give up on Him.



Bible based, non-Christian cults are those groups that claim to be Christian, use the Bible, yet have redefined God, Jesus, and the gospel sufficiently to make salvation of no effect. Part of CARM's purpose is to refute error and teach the truth so that people will not go to hell.

This is a strange statement coming from a Calvinist because the Calvinist belief is only those predestined (the elect) go to heaven and all others go to hell.

So CARMS's purpose has absolutely no purpose, for if God predestined just the elect to go to heaven then any amount of preaching simply does not matter.

Why preach the gospel at all if God has already predestined who goes to heaven and who does not?

This believes system makes the preaching of the gospel null and void.

And yet Matt says Universalism does this, go figure.

The Calvinist view is no different then the views that the early natural Jews held, thinking that God was only their God and all nations other then theirs was in for THE Judgment.

But Jesus showed us differently, sending the gospel unto the gentile.


Universalism is definately an error that needs to be address.
Let me take Mormonism, for example. Is Mormonism wrong? Is it dangerous to the soul? Does it lead to damnation? The universalist would have to say no, even though Mormonism teaches that god came from another planet, has a goddess wife, and that we can become gods (obvious false teaching), universalists teach that Mormons go to heaven. Of course universalists who claim to be Christain might assert that Mormon theology is wrong. But, they would also maintain that in the after life, they would be able to repent and follow the true God.

I already showed how those outside the gate still have right to the tree of life, and all outside the gate will repent (change their minds) and keep His commandments will then be able to enter into the city.


Logically, then, we could make the case that the universalist would encourage the spread of Mormonism since it has good morals.


Hogwash


Mormonism is not Christian. It is false. It is a compilation of lies from the devil. It damns people for believing in a false god, false gospel, and a system of works righteousness that is supposed to help them become saved. But, to the universalist, such heresy amounts only to a goof, an error in judgment, with the ultimate result being heaven.

Again hogwash, Matt would have the reader believe Universalist believe people can enter into heaven in an unrighteous state. This as I have already shown by Rev.22 is not the case.

It makes no difference if a person is a universalist, a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness, or an orthodox Christian since they are all going to heaven according to universalism.

Yes but they will not enter into the city until they keep His commandments.
Get your facts straight Matt.

To a universalist, there would be little or no need to refute Mormonism. Why? Because what is the universalist going to warn him about? Damnation in hell? Not at all. Rather, he'd have to threaten him with heaven!

Hogwash, Matt knows better then this having spoken with many Universalist, yet he still continues to spread hogwash.

The Universalist warns people because everyone reaps what they sow.
Just like in any large family the parents will tell you of one or two who is more head strong then the others and has to be corrected more because of this, beaten with many or few stripes as it were.

God will always correct the child, some just learn faster then others.

Now to Matt's contention above that the Universalist would have no need to refute Mormonism, does this statement not sit more squarely on the Calvinist view of predestination?

Why bother warning anyone about anything if God has already decided who is going to be saved and who is not.

No amount of preaching is going to change things one iota, because God has already decided the issue. Thus those going to hell will go to hell no matter what, and those going to heaven will go to heaven no matter what. 

Thus the preaching of the gospel has become null and void.


Instead, the universalist is more concerned with converting someone to "truth of universalism." In so doing, they endanger the souls of all who they contact.

Matt say the salvation of all endangers men's souls, need I remind the reader that John himself testified to the salvation of all in 1 John 4:14

14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

I don't know if all readers of the KJV know this so I will point something out here.
Whenever you see italic in the KJV they are added words not found in the original language but are supplied by the translators.

So read again 1 John 4:14 without the added words to be and it will show in more force John testimony was that of universal salvation.

14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son the Saviour of the world.

The Father sent the Son the Saviour of the world.

So let me ask you readers, who's testimony do you believe, Matt's who says Jesus is not the saviour of the world or Johns who states Jesus is the saviour of the world?


Let me illustrate this with a Universalist witnessing to a Mormon.
Universalist: "Listen here Mormon, if you continue to believe that you can become a god, that Satan and Jesus are literal brothers, that God has a body of flesh and bones and has a goddess wife, and that you can become a god of your own world, you know what is going to happen to you? You're going to heaven! So there!"
Mormon: "Sounds good to me."

Let me use a little illustration of my own.

Calvinist: Listen here Mormon if you continue to believe that you can become a god, that Satan and Jesus are literal brothers, that God has a body of flesh and bones and has a goddess wife, and that you can become a god of your own world, you know what is going to happen to you? Your going to either heaven or hell because God has already predestined you to one of those two places. So there!
Mormon: Then I can believe and do whatever I want and it will not matter in the end because God has already decided the issue for me.

Now did either illustration prove anything? Hardly, for they are both hogwash.


So, where is the power of universalism to correct Satan's lies? Does it carry a warning for those who serve false gods except to say that it isn't nice to believe such things as Mormon doctrines? But, so what? It doesn't matter. Mormonism, and other cults, would lead to heaven.

Hmmmm even after speaking with many Universalists Matt either still does not have an understanding of what we believe.

So for the unenlightened as to Universalist belief I give forth this as to why we warn people. (I am not speaking for Universalists here, just THIS Universalist for other Universalist see this differently then I do.)

Only the Christian has a free will for only in Christ is one set free. Every man that knows not Christ do not have free will because the dead cannot change their station one way or the other. They are always in subjection to the carnal mind and the carnal mind is death. This carnal mind with all its lusts etc. can ONLY produce that which is in its NATURE. Therefore because the carnal mind is death, death is all it can produce, and therefore by itself it cannot generate life.

Now there are two types of sin, one that is done by our old man nature AGAINST our will and the other is done freely AGAINST the will of God.

Note: that ONLY the Christian who has been set free can wilfully sin against the will of God. Those who do not know God CANNOT sin against God because they do not know Him and only do what is in their nature.

To see the sin by the old man nature AGAINST our will we read in Romans.

Ro.7:14-25



14For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


If the Christian CANNOT do his own will because of the law of sin in his members what can be said of those that know not God?

The law of sin in our members are the sins against our will (again this is speaking of only those that know Christ) which causes us to sin.

These sins by the law of sin in a Christian are a sin not unto death, because they are produced by the law of sin in us.

But there is a sin unto death which ONLY those who know God can commit.

This sin which is unto death is to wilfully sin against God.

We see these two types of sin here.

1John. 5:16

16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

The sin NOT unto death are the sins that we commit because of the old man nature (law of sin) in our members.

The sin UNTO death which we are not to pray for is to sin wilfully against God. There is NO more sacrifice for wilfully sinning against the will of God.



Heb.10:26-27

26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

ONLY those who have had their will set free by Jesus Christ and come into the knowledge of the truth can commit this sin.

To know the will of God and to wilfully go against it is the sin unto death.

Think of Adam

Adam wilfully sinned which is a sin UNTO death.

There was no more sacrifice for Adams sin.

Death was promised as punishment and death came.

The only sin for which a man is beaten with many or few stripes is the sin (wilfully) UNTO death.

This sin UNTO death is blaspheme against the Holy Ghost which is not forgiven but we must reap what we have sown.

This does not mean by any means that we who have committed this sin UNTO death cannot be saved, all it is saying is if you wilfully follow the old man nature instead of the Holy Spirit is that you will reap the rewards for that sin. How many times you reap that sin will determine how many stripes you will receive.

Is there orthodoxy in Universalism? Does it have the power and right to refute the errors of the cults? I don't see how. But, I do see that it is dangerous.

So to did the Scribes and Pharisees and even Paul at one time, until he received light from on high.

[pneuma]

Matt. 25:46 and Universalism

"And these will go away into eternal punishment,
but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46).
The universalists do not believe in eternal punishment. Universalists teach that all will eventually be saved through the atonement of Jesus. Therefore, when the Bible speaks of eternal punishment and hell fire, etc., the universalist interprets it to mean an inner sorrow due to loss of reward and/or they maintain that the word "eternal" does not mean "without end."

Matt here seems to want the reader to look at only half of the meaning of word eternal, that being without end, but does not point out the other half of its meaning which is without beginning.

Now why would he do this?

Could it be because he is aware that the scriptures state aionios has a beginning.

Titus 1:2
2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;    

Both the word eternal and world are aionios in the Greek, thus the reader can see aionios has a beginning.

And as aionios has a beginning Matt's definition of eternal CANNOT be accepted.
 
Aionios means age-lasting, age-during or age-abiding, it does NOT mean without beginning and without end as the reader can see clearly from Titus.


In Greek, the word "eternal" is the word "", or "aionion." This word occurs in two places in Matt. 25:46: Let's look at it again in a Greek Interlinear form:

And will go off these  into punishment eternal, the but right ones into  life eternal.

I don't know what Greek Interlinear Matt is quoting from, but here is what the Greek Interlinear from the Original language texts says.

And shall be from coming/shall be coming away these/these ones  into chastening eonian  the yet just/just ones into life eonian.

So as the reader can see those who go into aionios punishment is aionios chastening.

Now who do the scriptures state the Lord chastens?

Those He loves Heb.12:6 & Rev.3:19

And who is it that the Lord loves?

For God so loved the world Jn.3:16

Thus cannot the reader see that the everlasting punishment spoken of in the KJV is really the aionios chastening of the Lord and that the Lords chastening is for our correction?

The exact same word "," "aionion" is used to describe the duration of punishment as well as of the life of the righteous - those who are saved. The same word describes both conditions. If it means one thing in the first part of this sentence, then it means the same thing in the second part since they are both in the same context and both are describing time-duration of the states of the unsaved and the saved. If the punishment is eternal, then so is the life. Likewise, if, as the universalist says, the punishment is not eternal, then neither is the life. You can't pick and choose how the word is applied in this verse to suit your own theology. But the universalists do just that.


I agree whole heartedly with Matt here they must mean the same thing, and as the reader is now aware aionios/aionion means age-lasting, age-during or age-abiding, it does NOT mean without beginning and without end. And this can be clearly seen from Titus as I mentioned before.

I am glad Matt brought up this point that if the word means one thing in the first part of the sentence it MUST mean the same in the second part of the sentence, and if one changes the meaning then they are just picking and choosing how the word is used to suit their own theology.

So why is it then when we read in Ro.5:18

Romans 5:18
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.    

That Matt will tell you in the first part all men is all men and in the second part all men only means some men?


Again Matt backed himself into a corner here.


They want to have Jesus say that eternal life is forever but eternal punishment is not -- even though Jesus used the same word, in the same breath, to describe them both. It just doesn't fit their preconceived ideas.


Although some Universalist believe after this fashion, not all do.
Note: see my apology to Matt regarding this issue in post 2 of this rebuttal under the problem with words..

This Universalist does NOT change the meaning, aionios means age-lasting, age-during or age-abiding and will always mean age-lasting, age-during or age-abiding.





Let's translate it the universalist way....
The universalists are fond of translating Bible verses and transliterating a particular word. So, I will use their style in the following translation:
And these will go away into aionion punishment,
but the righteous into aionion life.1
Or, to take a little liberty, it could be translated as,
And these will go away into non "aionion" punishment,
but the righteous into "aionion" life."

I inserted the word "non" here to reflect what the universalists intend the word "aionion" to mean when describing punishment -- but not life.

Notice it isn't there when describing life because the Universalist believes that the life of the righteous is without end: eternal.

As already stated some Universalist do this but not all, for myself I change nothing within the verse, in both cases it is age-lasting, age-during or age-abiding.


This is the kind of thing the universalist must do in order to justify his position. It is clearly false and demonstrates an intrusion into the text of a theological perspective.

This is also something that Matt does himself concerning Ro.5:18 in order to justify his view, a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black.

So as Matt says Universalist do this in order to justify their position and in some cases this is true, and I can only summarize they do this because just like Matt the Universalist also believes God is eternal in the sense of without beginning and without end.

But the Universalist need not change the meaning of aionios in such a fashion to understand Gods eternal (as in without beginning and without end) being. For there are other words in scripture to show forth Gods eternal (as in without beginning and without end) being.

Before I show how God is eternal in the sense of without beginning and without end lets look at a few more scriptures that will help the reader understand aionios only means age-lasting and is of limited duration.

The Hebrew word for aionios is olam, so lets look at a few scriptures from the old testament.

Habakkuk 3:6
6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.

The reader can see here that both the hills and Gods ways are everlasting. So if olam or aionios in the Greek means without beginning and without end then the hills had no beginning and will have no end, but we know that the hills have a beginning and we no that they have an end because they bow down.

Now the only way for those who believe in eternal torment can get around this is to say olam means one thing in the first part of the sentence and means something else in the second part of the sentence. Thus even though Matt says the Universalist must do this in order for their theology to work, we can see that those who believe in eternal torment must do this in order to make their theology to work. But the Unversalist need not do this in order for their theology to work, I'll show why in a few minutes, please bare with me.



Psalm 41:13
13 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting. Amen, and Amen.

Psalm 90:1-2
1  Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.   2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Here the reader can see God is from olam/aionios to olam/aionios.
If olam/aionios means without beginning and without end then these scripture makes absolutely no sense, for can there be more then ONE eternity? Hardly, so the reader cans see olam/aionios is used in the limited sense of age-lasting.

So as the reader can see olam/aionios means age-lasting and is always used in a limited sense.

But some will say if it is always used in a limited sense then that would mean aionios life is also limited in duration. This is CORRECT, aionios life is of limited duration.

I already know many will say that's blaspheme, but bare with me for a few more moments if you will.

Lets go back to Ps.90 for a moment and read it again.

Psalm 90:1-2
1  Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.   2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

We have already seen olam/aionios is of limited duration, but what else does this scripture tell us? It tells us that the LIFE of God is GREATER then that of olam/aionios, for God is FROM olam/aionios TO olam/aionios.

The Life of God and of Christ is not just olam/aionios but their LIFE is MORE then that, yea MUCH MORE. Their LIFE exceeds the olam/aionios life just as a week exceeds a day, a month exceeds a week and a year exceeds a month, so to does the LIFE of God in Christ exceed olam/aionios LIFE.

The error both camps fall into is the belief that aionios life is all the life there is in God and Christ. But as the reader just read God is FROM olam/aionios TO olam/aionios, thus is it not then clear that we to in Christ are given a LIFE far greater then just olam/aionios LIFE.

Lets read in Hebrew and you will see Christ's life (and therefore ours) exceeds that of olam/aionios life.

Hebrews 7:16
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Akatalutos-Endless: indissoluble, not subject to destruction
From the root of A or Alpha: Christ is the Alpha to indicate that he is the beginning and the end

Now as Akatalutos-Endless clearly shows that of a life without beginning and without end, why did not the writers of the scriptures use Akatalutos concerning punishment and life instead of olam/aionios? Is it not because olam/aionios is of limited duration?

What we receive in Christ is a AKATALUTOS/ENDLESS LIFE, a life that spans EVERY  olam/aionios age-lasting life. Just as Gods life is FROM olam/aionios TO olam/aionios so to is ours in Christ.

Lets read in Pet. To further see this life we are to inherit that is MUCH MORE then olam/aionios life.

1 Peter 1:3-4
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,  4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,  

Aphthartos-incorruptible: uncorrupted, not liable to corruption or decay, imperishable
Again From the root of A or Alpha: Christ is the Alpha to indicate that he is the beginning and the end

Amarantos-fadeth not away: not fading away, unfading, perennial
Again From the root of A or Alpha: Christ is the Alpha to indicate that he is the beginning and the end

Can not the reader see here just how much more grand our life is in Christ then just olam/aionios age-abiding life?

These are just a few examples of how MUCH MORE our life in Christ is then olam/aionios life.

If punishment was to be eternal in the sense of without beginning and without end surely the Holy Spirit would have use one of the words expressed above to show this, but NEVER is any of these words that express endlessness EVER used in the punishments of God.

Praise God there is MUCH MORE to life in Christ then just that of olam/aionios life, and it is because so many of God people do not realise this that they fall into the error of changing the meaning of words within the same sentence.

Brothers and sister there is absolutely no need to do this if one can but see the life we have in Christ is MUCH MORE then olam/aionios life.

Even FROM everlasting TO everlasting, thou art God.


This is something Jehovah's Witnesses do when they "translated" the Bible. They changed words to make them agree with their theology.
Nevertheless, another translation according to universalist presuppositions might be:
"And these will go away into non-eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
But, the universalists state that "aionion" is an age, a period of time that can have a finish. They would then answer this objection and say that punishment is for a time and so is life, but that both of these are for an "aionion" period and after each period is another. In the case of the aionion punishment, it would end and then after that, they would have eternal life. Likewise those possessing eternal life already in the aionion "age" will continue to have it in the next age. The only problem is that that isn't what the text is saying. Jesus isn't setting up a time duration argument. He is telling us that there is eternal life and eternal death.

Just finished showing that aionios is of limited duration in both cases and how we have in Christ a life MUCH MORE then that of aionios life.

The universalists have constructed a multi-age scenario to fit their perspective.

Also have already shown how scripture itself speaks of different ages.

In so doing, they have allowed for the occurrence of salvation after death, another teaching that is unbiblical. Heb. 9:27 says, "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment," (NASB).

The quoting of Heb.9:27 does not show Universalism to be unbiblical. All's it shows is that after men die then comes the judgment. The Universalist have no problem with this because we see all judgment as God chastening correction.

The judgment comes from God and is upon the sinner.

Let the reader be aware judgement MUST begin with the house of God, and if God judges you not then you are not His sons.

The universalist would have some sort of a judgment that leads to punishment that ends and then there is eternal salvation in the afterlife.

The only reason why this is so Matt is like I explained God people (not just Universalist) see aionios life as the fullness of life, but when they come into the realisation that His life is MUCH MORE the aionios life then they have no need to change the meaning of the words within the same sentence.

But for those who believe in eternal torment they will always have to change the meaning within the sentence in order for their theology to work. And this is clearly seen in how those who believe in eternal torment change Ro.5:18 around to suit their theology  

In so teaching, they have ignored the translations of countless scholars and adopted those interpretations that agree with them in order to suit their theological bias.

The pot calling the kettle black again, Matt is fully aware that Universalist take their meanings from the original language of the scriptures, something you won't find in those who believe in eternal torment.  Wonder why that is? Because if they go by the original language their doctrine fall apart, therefore they rely on the translation of men.

This is something they do very frequently, and with a vengence since they often turn a harsh tone towards those who do not agree with them.


Matt would have the reader believe that only the Universalist does this, but I have never seen a one sided fight, it always takes two to tango.

If the Universalist kept records of the wrongs done to them, they to could have a list of the words spoken to them by those who believe in eternal torment as Matt does on CARM.

Matt Love keeps NO records of the wrong done to them.

I hope you can see the inconsistency of translating and interpreting Matt. 25:46 any other way than stating that the punishment is eternal as is the life of the righteous.

And I hope the reader can now see there is a life MUCH MORE then aionios life.
_______________
1. As a comment, with this type of translation, it is easy to confuse what the text is really saying because the reader is not familiar with the Greek word "aionion." The Universalists often do this: partially translate a verse leaving a transliterated Greek word or two in place of English words. They can then tell you what the word "really means." This can be misleading.

Reader just get yourself a good literal translation and you will see for yourself the word eternal is NEVER used in it.

[pneuma]

Mark 3:28-29 and Universalism
The universalist states that there is no unforgivable sin because all people who have ever lived will ultimately be reconciled to God; in other words, all sins from all people who have ever lived will be forgiven. However, if there were a sin that will never be forgiven, then Universalism would be proven wrong.

Mark 3:28-29 are important verses in showing that there is an unforgivable sin.
"Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" (NASB).
The Greek Interlinear of Mark 3:28-29 is as follows:

Amen I say to you that all will be sent off to the sons of the men the sins and the insults as much as if they might insult who but - might insult in the spirit the holy not he has sending off  into the AGE but guilty he is of eternal sin.

Verses 28 and 29 are in contrast to each other. Verse 28 says that all sins shall be forgiven. Verse 29 clarifies the statement and flatly says that there is a sin that "never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."

Even in Matt's quote from the interlinear Greek the word NEVER is not used, in its place we see the word AGE so never having forgiveness is not mentioned in the scriptures.

Lets look at those same scriptures from Interlinear Original Language Texts

Amen/verily I am saying to you/to ye that all shall-be-being-from-let/shall be being pardoned to the/the sons of the humans the miss-effects/penalties of sins and the harm-averments/blasphemes as much as/whatever if ever they shall be harm-averring/the shall be blaspheming

Who yet ever should be harm-averring /should be blaspheming into the spirit the holy not is having from-letting/pardon into the eon but liable is of eonian miss-effect/penalty of the sin.

Again we can see no mention of a sin that NEVER can be forgiven. Again we see EON or AGE in place of the word NEVER and we also see that it is an EONIAN/AGE-LASTING sin, not a sin without end.

Thus Matt's case for a eternal sin falls flat, what Mk.3:28-29 is really saying is that if one blasphemes the Holy Spirit one is not forgiven in this age or in the age to come.

Note: before the death of Christ everyone was under the age of the law, after Christ death everyone is under the age of grace. It is these two ages Mark is speaking of, blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is not forgiven under law, nor is it forgiven under grace, for everyone reaps what they have sown. But during the age of Judgment or as some call it the millennium age those still in sin are pruned without the gate and once the pruning is complete they have right to the tree of life as I already have shown in Rev.22.

But lets just suppose there is a sin that NEVER can be forgiven as Matt says, what would happen?

Jesus Christ is then being eternally tormented for if we do not forgive men their trespasses then neither will the Father forgive us.Mt.6:15

Therefore if Jesus does not forgive us then He is not forgiven Himself and must be then eternally tormented.

But the good news is Jesus forgave even those who crucified Him saying Father forgive them as they no not what they do.Lk.23:34   

This sin is Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit -- which is stating that Jesus did His miracles by the power of the devil.
Verse 29 has the contrasting preposition "but", Greek "de." The use of the word "but" is showing that there is a contrast, or an exception to the previous statement. All sins are forgivable, but blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not. That is why the word "but" is there, to show that there is a qualification, an exception to the first statement.

Already showed that it is not forgiven in the age of law or the age of grace but is forgiven after the pruning.

So, how do the universalists answer this verse? They do it in two ways. First, they say that the word "aiona", "age" can mean a period of time that ends. Now, this is true sometimes and not others.

It is ALWAYS true, both aion and aionios deal with a limited time period, ALWAYS.


There are verses that use the word "aiona" that can refer to non-eternal duration (John 8:35; Luke 1:55) and there are verses that use it and mean eternal duration (Matt. 21:19; Mark 11:14; John 4:14; 6:51; 6:58, etc.). It is the context that determines the meaning of the word.

Matt here is playing with words in order for his views to be accepted.
Here it means an age, but here it means eternal.
Is this not what he just finished saying the Universalist does, changing the meaning of the word to suit ones theology?

Yet now Matt wants to change the meaning because context determines what it really means. This is the same as the Universalist who states the subject determines the meaning of the word. Matt disagrees with the Universalist that says this, then turns around and says the same thing only phrasing it differently.

But I say to both these views that aion or aionios ALWAYS deals with a limited time period within an age, and is NEVER used to mean without beginning and without end.


But it is big mistake to think that "aiona" always means a finite time.

Why? Because if it does then Matt's theology falls flat on its face.
So in order to make his theology work Matt has to play around with words.


It is a conjecture on the Universalists part that the word "age", in Mark 3:29, means a definite period of time that will end. But that isn't the case. As I said, Jesus is contrasting the second statement (unforgivable sin) with the first statement (forgivable sin).


It is not conjecture it is a FACT aonian ALWAYS deals with an AGE.

Matt himself even says sometimes it does and sometimes it does not, thus Matt wants to be the one to determine when it means one thing and when it means another. That is the perfect illustration of one who must play with words in order for their doctrine to work.

It can't mean this here because if it does then my doctrine falls flat, so I will say it means age here but here it means eternal.

Can the reader not see the folly in people doing this? Yet this is exactly what Matt want you to believe.

Second, the Universalist will go to Matt. 12:32 which says,

And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come."

They state that "the age to come" is the 1000 year reign of Christ which will end.

Although some believe it after this fashion, I see it a little differently as the reader has already seen.

Therefore, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will be forgiven after the 1000 year reign. They then state that Mark 3:29 must be interpreted in light of Matt. 12:32.
Granted, we must look at all the verses on a subject in order to get an accurate understanding what is said. But, the logic of the Universalist is wrong. Here is why.
Mark 3:29 states that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (BHS) will never be forgiven.
This verse clearly states the impossibility of forgiveness of this sin.
Matt 12:32 states that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven "in this age or the age to come."
If Matt 12:32 is interpreted to mean that BHS will be forgiven, then that contradicts Mark 3:29 which states it will not be forgiven.
If Matt 12:32 is interpreted to mean that BHS will not be forgiven, then it does not contradict Mark 3:29.
Therefore, the only way to harmonize both verses is to say that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

Well the word NEVER is nowhere found in Mk3:29 as the reader is now aware from both interlinear versions it is NOT to be found, but instead we find AGE and EON.

So again Matt's argument falls flat.

If Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, then Universalism is wrong.
A comparison of translations

Instead of trying to define the Greek text ad nauseum explaining how and why words are translated, I've simply supplied ten Bible translations along with a commonly used Universalist translation of these two verses.

Bible Version   Mark 3:28-29
NASB   "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"

NIV   I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

NKJV   "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29"but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation"

KJV   Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

RSV   "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"

1901 ASV   Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin:

Phillips   "Believe me, all men's sins can be forgiven and all their blasphemies. But there can never be any forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That is an eternal sin."

Darby   Verily I say unto you, that all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and all the injurious speeches [with] which they may speak injuriously; 29 but whosoever shall speak injuriously against the Holy Spirit, to eternity has no forgiveness; but lies under the guilt of an everlasting sin;

BWE   `I tell you the truth. All wrong things that people do and say about anyone will be forgiven. 29 But people who say wrong things against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. A person who does that will be punished for ever.'

Weymouth   "In solemn truth I tell you that all their sins may be pardoned to the sons of men, and all their blasphemies, however they may have blasphemed; 29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, he remains for ever unabsolved: he is guilty of a sin of the Ages."

Concordant
(Universalist translation)   28 "Verily, I am saying to you that all shall be pardoned the sons of mankind, the penalties of the sins and the blasphemies, whatsoever they should be blaspheming, 29 yet whoever should be blaspheming against the holy spirit is having no pardon for the eon, but is liable to the eonian penalty for the sin" --


First of all, the ten translations above, all done by very reputable scholars, all say the same thing: Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven -- ever!


Wait a minute, wait a minute.

Young's Literal Translation, has it

28`Verily I say to you, that all the sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and evil speakings with which they might speak evil,
29but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness -- to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment;'

Rotherham Emphasized Bible, has it

Verily, I say unto you - All things shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, - the sins and the profanities wherewithal they shall profane;

But, whosoever shall revile against the Holy Spirit, hath no forgiveness, unto times age-abiding, - but is guilty of an age-abiding sin:

Seems Matt does not like literal translations of the scripture, this should tell the reader something.


If you notice, the Concordant version (done by Universalists) did not translate the Greek words "eon" (age) and "eonian" (eternal) into English, but left them transliterated. In fact, the word in Greek is not "eon" but "aiona."
All other words are in plain English accept for these two. Why? I believe it is because they wanted to influence the way the text sounds and is interpreted. By not translating the words, and by telling you that the word "eon" only means a duration of time with an ending, then, the universalists can get you to accept the idea that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is forgivable and that their theology is correct. There is just one problem. It isn't.

Matt says all 10 translation above are done by reputable scholars, you'll note that the concordant is the 11 translation and is done by a Universalist so according to Matt is not reputable. But as the reader can see I added 2 LITERAL translations of the scriptures and the concordant matches up more closely to a literal translation then any of the so called reputable translations.

So according to Matt's conclusions Young's literal translation and Rotherham Emphasized Bible must fall under the same category as the concordant, that they to are unworthy translations. And if they are, so to is the Interlinear Original Language Texts.

First Matt wants to determine who is a Christian and who is not, then he wants to determine the usage of how a word is used, and now he wants to determine what is and what is not a reputable translation.

I guess any translation that shows forth anything contrary to Matt's theology is unreliable. 

[Paul Hazelwood]

I noticed some things I want to comment on.

Edit: I have to make an apology to Matt here as I said he was being deceitful when he said Universalists believe the above.  Matt was correct here in part for some Universalists do believe it just as Matt stated above. I am not one of those who believes it after this fashion however.

Matt actually may be deceitful, just not about what you spoke of.   Matt makes singular statements about what universalists believe to make one point, then later talks about the variations in universalist belief that makes it hard to know what they actually believe to make another.   

Matt has double dipped ridiculousness with this one.  First he contradicts himself then he causes Christianity to become suspect by saying that variations in belief is criteria to suspect Universalism.  Good Job Matt, now we can suspect Christianty because Christians cannot make up thier mind what it really takes to be truly saved.

BRAVO MATT BRAVO.

If you notice, the Concordant version (done by Universalists) did not translate the Greek words "eon" (age) and "eonian" (eternal) into English, but left them transliterated. In fact, the word in Greek is not "eon" but "aiona."
All other words are in plain English accept for these two. Why? I believe it is because they wanted to influence the way the text sounds and is interpreted. By not translating the words, and by telling you that the word "eon" only means a duration of time with an ending, then, the universalists can get you to accept the idea that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is forgivable and that their theology is correct. There is just one problem. It isn't.

I think Matt is plenty deceitful that you can get a pass on your previous accusation.  I believe he is playing on the majority of people who think you must be a scholar or a linguist to study scripture and their greek and hebrew words.

For instance 

Aion is the greek word.   EON,  MATT, is a plain english word.

e·on   Pronunciation[ee-uhn, ee-on] –noun
1. an indefinitely long period of time; age. 
2. the largest division of geologic time, comprising two or more eras. 
3. Astronomy. one billion years. 

And olam is the Hebrew word  Matt.   And it is not intended to mean eternal, it is used in context with ages of time and whether you want to speculate on the reasoning it is still translated to a plain english word.

e·o·ni·an also ae·o·ni·an     
adj.   Of, relating to, or constituting an eon.


Whatever point Matt is trying to make here  it is made moot simply by him stating that they kept the greek and hebrew words in the text of the translation and that is flat out untrue.

If the translators wanted to preserve the thought of ages of time by thier CHOICE OF ENGLISH WORDS then that is not something to be ashamed of since it is a reasonable perspective of word translation in the first place.

[pneuma]

Hi Paul, I don't think Matt is deceitful on purpose (at least I hope thats not the case) but see him as being more confused.
Matt has probably talked to more Universalsit then I have and as we know not all Universalist beleive after the pattern, the only common ground we all have is the salvation of all, but how God works out that salvation is still debated within Universalist circles.

So what I think what Matt has done is take the most prevailing thoughts by Universalists and is making his arguments from that perspective.

The problem I have with that is Matt makes it look as though this is the way ALL Unversalist deal with the scriptures.
And that just ain't the case.

[pneuma]

1 Tim. 4:10 and universalism
"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers" (NASB).
"(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe" (NIV).
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe" (KJV).

Much is made out of 1 Tim. 4:10 by the Universalist to claim that Jesus wil redeem all people whether or not they accept or reject Christ as Savior here on earth. Eventually, they say, all people will repent (either here or in the after-life) and come to a saving relationship with God. 1 Tim. 4:10 is used as proof. Unfortunately, the verse does not prove what the Universalists hope it does. Can God be called the Savior of all men and yet not redeem all? Yes.

NOPE


All people are, by nature, born under wrath (Eph. 2:3) and should go to hell. Why? Because God is holy and we are sinners. Yet, we have hope in Christ. The Christian is saved by faith (Eph. 2:8) and will join the Lord in heaven.

Least the reader forget while we were yet SINNERS Christ died for us R.5:8
Jesus did not die for us AFTER we believed, but BEFORE we believed.

But, the unbeliever is under judgment. John 3:18 says, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (KJV).

What does this scripture have to do with eternal torment in the next world?
It says they are condemned ALREADY.

Therefore before we believed in Christ we to were ALREADY condemned.

So into the fire with us all, Praise God we all go through the fire or said in another way the fire goes through us. For Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? 15He that walketh righteously...Is.33;14-15

Why does God not simply destroy them as is His right?

What! Jesus said I did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them. Lk.9:56
Matt here seems to want to change Jesus purpose in coming.


Because of the Christians! Because God is being patient with the unbeliever, allowing them to enjoy the blessings of life in this world without the rightful condemnation of God falling upon them.

Did we not just finish reading that they are condemned ALREADY? Yes we did Jn.3:18

This is what the Bible states:
"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom. 9:22-23, NASB).
As you can see, God is patient with the unregenerate. They receive a delayed judgment because of God's love for the believer.

This is such a poor understanding of what Paul is talking about in Ro.9
For a clearer understanding read my article fitted to destruction here.

http://indefenceofthecross.blogspot.com/



In this sense, Jesus is the Savior of the world because He holds back His judging hand from all who rightly and immediately deserve it. Judgment is delayed. This is a blessing received from God upon the unbeliever.
In fact, God often blesses the unbeliever because of the presence of a believer.
"And it came about that from the time he made him overseer in his house, and over all that he owned, the Lord blessed the Egyptian's house on account of Joseph; thus the Lord's blessing was upon all that he owned, in the house and in the field" (Gen. 39:5, NASB).
Consider also Matt. 13:24-30 and the parable of the wheat and the tares. In it Jesus compares the world to a field. He later interprets it by stating that "the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one," (Matt. 13:38). But in Matt. 13:20-30 Jesus states that the tares are not dealt with right away because the wheat is there among them. "But he *said, 'No; lest while you are gathering up the tares, you may root up the wheat with them. 30 'Allow both to grow together until the harvest," (NASB).
So, can it be said that the tares were saved from judgment? Yes...temporarily. The unbeliever enjoys a delayed judgment. But with the Christian, Jesus is especially their Savior and judgment is permanently removed from them.

Although I agree with Matt that the unbeliever is blessed because of the Christian, we part ways where Matt says judgment is permanently removed from the Christian.

Judgment MUST begin with the house of God 1Pet.4:17 and this is exactly the SAME judgment that Jesus and those crucified on the cross with Him went through. For one who was crucified with Christ says to the other  Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?/judgment

The problem opponents have with God's judgments is they do not understand that His judgments are ALWAYS used for CORRECTION, and until God gives them this understanding they will continue to believe Gods judgments when given to the Christian are different then when He judges the sinner. Thus they have yet to realise what manor of spirit they are of.

Luke 9:51-56
51 And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up,  he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, 52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. 53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. 54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? 55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. 56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

Reread the above passage and you will see those who REJECTED Christ, you will see the FUTURE CHURCH saying consume them in the fire, you will see Jesus REBUKING the future church saying Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. 56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.

Cannot the reader see here the parallels of what today's churches are teaching?
Do they not teach that those who reject Christ are going to be eternally tormented in fire?
But praise God Jesus says they know not what manner of spirit they are of.

[Paul Hazelwood]

1 Tim. 4:10 and universalism
"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers" (NASB).
"(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe" (NIV).
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe" (KJV).

Much is made out of 1 Tim. 4:10 by the Universalist to claim that Jesus wil redeem all people whether or not they accept or reject Christ as Savior here on earth. Eventually, they say, all people will repent (either here or in the after-life) and come to a saving relationship with God. 1 Tim. 4:10 is used as proof. Unfortunately, the verse does not prove what the Universalists hope it does. Can God be called the Savior of all men and yet not redeem all? Yes.

NOPE

If I am correct, Matt is a calvinist.  Unfortunatly, from his point of view with this specifically, he is technically correct.

Scripture in some places shows us that "ALL" can mean,  "as many as".

The calvinist position is that God has predestined man to either Go to hell or heaven.  So to the calvinist Jesus is the Savior of all men of the group predestined to go there, or as many as God decides to save.

The argument for the word all stands this way, from this point of view.

The greater position against Matts view point is the passage where every one will confess the name of Jesus.   Typically, once that verse is brought up the ET believer,  no matter what their viewpoint will have to start saying things that aren't in scripture to justify how someone at any time can confess the name of Jesus as Lord and still go to hell.

Just some thoughts

[pneuma]

1 Tim. 4:10 and universalism
"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers" (NASB).
"(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe" (NIV).
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe" (KJV).

Much is made out of 1 Tim. 4:10 by the Universalist to claim that Jesus wil redeem all people whether or not they accept or reject Christ as Savior here on earth. Eventually, they say, all people will repent (either here or in the after-life) and come to a saving relationship with God. 1 Tim. 4:10 is used as proof. Unfortunately, the verse does not prove what the Universalists hope it does. Can God be called the Savior of all men and yet not redeem all? Yes.

NOPE

If I am correct, Matt is a calvinist.  Unfortunatly, from his point of view with this specifically, he is technically correct.

Scripture in some places shows us that "ALL" can mean,  "as many as".

The calvinist position is that God has predestined man to either Go to hell or heaven.  So to the calvinist Jesus is the Savior of all men of the group predestined to go there, or as many as God decides to save.

The argument for the word all stands this way, from this point of view.

The greater position against Matts view point is the passage where every one will confess the name of Jesus.   Typically, once that verse is brought up the ET believer,  no matter what their viewpoint will have to start saying things that aren't in scripture to justify how someone at any time can confess the name of Jesus as Lord and still go to hell.

Just some thoughts

Hi Paul I to have seen those who change the all to the many and like you said thier arguments fall flat when confronted with every knee bowing etc.

They also must jump through hoops in Ro.5:18

But even in 1Tim.4:10 there all meaning many falls flat for if the all is only the elect who then are the espeacially beleivers?

They can't say there the same group as the scripture itself makes the seperation.

That why I just said NOPE.

But in my next post I'll speak more on who I see the espeacially are and thier purpose.

Thanks for reading and your thoughts

God bless

[Craig]

If I am correct, Matt is a calvinist.  Unfortunatly, from his point of view with this specifically, he is technically correct.

Scripture in some places shows us that "ALL" can mean,  "as many as".

Correct. I have have tried to communicate this to those who continue erroneously to believe 'all' means 'all', without taking into consideration the parameters the context provides. In this way, the Calvinist and the Arminian proudly refute a Universalist and then where is a Universalist to go?

I think this in terms of sales, you only get one chance to submit your pitch, and if the customer finds flaw in your reasoning, not only will they not buy what you are presenting, they will disregard everything you represent even if the rest is reasonable.

Why would we want to go down that road in the first place?  I am glad there is another who can attest that the 'all' argument is not always effective and is a non-starter debate.

I think Matt is plenty deceitful that you can get a pass on your previous accusation.  I believe he is playing on the majority of people who think you must be a scholar or a linguist to study scripture and their greek and hebrew words.

For instance

Aion is the greek word.   EON,  MATT, is a plain english word.

e·on   Pronunciation[ee-uhn, ee-on] –noun
1. an indefinitely long period of time; age.
2. the largest division of geologic time, comprising two or more eras.
3. Astronomy. one billion years. 

Yes, Matt is either purposely deceitful or is completely stooped in deception. He commits what is called a Semantic Anachronism where the meaning of a modern word is read back into the biblical occurrence. Very sloppy apologetics and research for the man who created 'Christian APOLOGETICS & Research Ministry' In this case, as you point out, he uses the english definition for eon, which is an English/Latin word derived from the Greek AION, which though are similar do not hold the exact same meaning today as it did yesterday in the time it was written 2000 years ago.

[pneuma]

All are made saveable by Jesus' sacrifice
Another way in which Jesus is the savior of all men is that He has made all people saveable. Without Jesus' sacrifice, none could ever be saved. Since Jesus, who is the word made flesh (John 1:1,14), atoned for sin, all people are now redeemable. He is the Savior of all, but especially of believers. That is, all are now redeemable due to the sacrifice of Christ, but redemption is specifically applied to those who trust in Christ.

Matt does not believe the words he just expressed above, Matt say Jesus made all people saveable, but Matt believes Jesus only came to save the elect. Therefore either Jesus failed to save all men or He did not come to save all men only the elect.
You cannot have it both ways Matt, you either believe Jesus is a failure or you believe He only came to save the elect. And both scenarios contradict scripture.

The scriptures tell us

John 3:17
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

John 4:42
42 And said unto the woman,  Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

John 12:47
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

1 John 4:14
14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

John 1:29
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 

The forerunner and the follower both believed Jesus was/is the saviour of the world.
Whose testimony do you believe reader Matt's or both John's?

[pneuma]

Is God the Savior?
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers (1 Tim. 4:10, NASB).
1 Tim. 4:10 is referring to God in particular and not necessarily Jesus in particular. Does the title "God" include Jesus? Of course, since Jesus is God in flesh (Col. 2:9), the Savior. God, who is a Trinity, is called Savior in Psalm 106:21; Isaiah 43:3; Luke 1:47; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; Titus 1:3-4; and Titus 2:10. It is obvious that the term refers to God in the generic sense of being the Savior of all men since He brings salvation to all though it is not accepted by all. This is why it says that God (not Jesus) is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. How is it especially to believers? Simple. It is especially and specifically realized only by those who are believers.

O boy, first Jesus is a failure to save all men, now God is to. I really don't understand how people can believe God is all powerful if He fails so miserably.

Instead of an unfailing God they teach all about a God who fails.

God sent His son into the world to save the world, ain't going to happen, FAILURE
Jesus came into the world to save the world, ain't going to happen, FAILURE

Talk about UNBELIEF, and we know where those who walk in unbelief go according to those who believe in eternal torment.

God is the saviour of ALL MEN, no if ands or buts about it.

When it says especially of believers it is pointing out the contrast between the overcomer or first fruits or body of Christ or elect, pick whichever name you want they amount to the same thing, the body of Christ.

To see how Jesus first saves His body and then all of mankind read my article body of Christ here

http://indefenceofthecross.blogspot.com/



Furthermore, only Jesus is the mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5) and He mediates only between the saved and God. He does not mediate His atoning work for the unredeemed. His being Savior is generic for all, but specific for the saved. Therefore, this verse does not necessitate that all will be redeemed.

What! Hogwash

Read it yourself

1 Timothy 2:1-6
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;  2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.  3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 

It says plainly that Jesus gave Himself a ransom for ALL, and that we are to make supplications, prayers, INTERCESSIONS for ALL MEN.

Those who are already whole need not a physician.

1 John 2:1-2
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.



1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pet. 3:9. Is it God's will that all people be saved?
"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"
(1 Tim. 2:3-4).
"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9).
To begin with, the answer to the question "Is it God's will that all people be saved?" must be "Yes," because that it what the Bible says.


Matt again uses double speak here, he say yes it is God will that all people be saved, but he really believes that only the elect who are predestined are the ones God wants to save and all others go into the fire.

In one point the Calvinist actually believe the same as the Universalist does, that being that if Jesus came to save the whole world and the whole world is not saved then that would make Jesus a failure. But because they believe in eternal torment they have come to the conclusion that Jesus only came to save the elect.

But here is the problem the Calvinist's faces, if it is God will to save all people (and Matt just admitted it is) and Jesus only came to save the elect, then Jesus did not do the perfect will of the Father.

The other problem is if Jesus did come to save all people but is only going to save the elect then Jesus becomes a failure.

Both scenarios should be abhorrent in the eyes of any child of God.


But does that mean that all will be saved? The universalists believe so. They will appeal to 1 Tim. 2:3-4 and 2 Pet. 3:9 combined with other verses where God says He will accomplish what He desires. They then say that since God says He will accomplish all His desires and He desires all to be saved, then all will be saved.
". . . and I [God] will accomplish all My good pleasure," (Isaiah 46:10).
"But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases," (Psalm 115:3).
"Whatever the Lord pleases, He does," (Psalm 135:6).

So basically the Universalist believes God will, will be done because God says so Himself.

Matt however does not believe Gods own words and says God cannot fulfill His will.

Yet the Calvinist belief is that Gods will is done and nothing can stay His hand, for they believe that the elect are predestined to go to heaven and all others are to go to hell, and nothing anyone can do can change this outcome, because it is God preordained will.

So out of one side of Matt's mouth he says Gods will, will not be done, and out of the other side he says Gods will, will be done. The perfect example of double speak.


This is a straight-forward approach, but it is also very simplistic and incomplete because it does not take into account all of scripture relating to the subject of God's desire. Instead, the Universalists "proof-text" their way into a foregone conclusion by picking and choosing certain scriptures and combining them to form an implied conclusion.

Hardly, Matt simply does not believe God will accomplish all His good pleasure when applied to all men, but Matt will maintain that God will accomplish all His good pleasure when speaking of only the elect.

Matt want his cake and eat it to.


This is how error is born and it is not good theology.

Something like your double speak Matt.
You can't have it both ways Matt, either Gods will, will be done or not even the elect are guarantied to be saved.


Instead, the proper thing to do is to look at all of scripture on a topic and draw conclusions from the whole, not the part.

I agree, and it is something Matt obviously need to do.


I will gather a broader scope of scripture dealing with this subject and attempt to show that God's desire is not always accomplished and, therefore, the claim of the universalist that the above verses prove that all will be saved, is in error.


And if God will is not always accomplished why do you believe everyone predestined to be saved will be saved? Is predestination by the will of man or the will of God?

Matt just keeps backing himself into corner after corner.



To begin with, are God's desires always accomplished? No, they are not. God's desire is that people do what is right and not sin: "To do righteousness and justice is desired by the Lord rather than sacrifice," (Prov. 21:3). But people still sin in spite of God's stated desire. Was it the desire of God that Adam and Eve rebel? No. Was it God's will that David commit adultery? No. Yet, they did the very thing God did not want. God commands that all people repent (Acts 17:30); but not all do. Clearly, God's will is not always done. In theology, when examining this issue of God's will and His allowance of sin, we distinguish between what is called God's perfect will and His permissive will. In His perfect will, He desires that all refrain from sin. But in His permissive will, He allows sin to exist. In this sense, He has two wills regarding sin. He desires that sin not exist because it is contrary to His nature, yet He wills that it does by making provision for it in His sovereign plan. This does not mean that God brought sin into existence. It means that He simply permitted it by allowing the fall. He then uses it, and other sins, for His glory and purpose. Please recall the account of Joseph's brothers who sinned by selling him into slavery and then lying to their father about it. After many years when the family was reunited, Joseph said, "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive" (Gen. 50:20). God meant it for good? How could that be if God is only passively allowing things to occur? Here, Joseph states that God had a purpose in their sin. Though God does not want sin, He made provision for it in His divine plan. Consider also how evil people conspired against Jesus to bring Him to death. Was this God's plan that they do this?
"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28).
Do you see how God predestined Herod and Pontius Pilate to carry out His will? Didn't they sin in condemning Jesus? Yes! Did God predestine them to do what He planned? Yes! Did God make them sin? No, for God does not tempt anyone (James 1:13). Yet, God, in His sovereignty predestined them to do what they did.
God is in control of history and it goes where He directs it. Though He does not desire that people sin, He makes room for it. Therefore, we can plainly see that God can desire one thing and even ordain another by giving it a place in His sovereign plan.
So, how can anyone assert that based on 1 Tim. 2:3-4 and 2 Pet. 3:9 combined with Isaiah 46:10; Psalm 115:3, and Psalm 135:6 above, that all will be saved because that is God's desire and God's will is always done? They cannot. God can desire all be saved, but not ordain that all are by making provision in His plan for their damnation: "The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil," (Prov. 16:4).
Again, simply because God states that He desires all people to be saved does not mean that all will be saved. This is particularly important when we notice that God elects people (Matt. 24:24,31; Mark 13:20; Rom. 8:33), predestines them (Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:1-11), appoints them to eternal life (Acts 13:48), and grants that they believe (Phil. 1:29). We must ask why doesn't God elect all, predestine all, appoint all, or grant that all believe when He has the power to do so? Is it because God is incapable of carrying out His will? Or is there something greater than God at work? Of course not. God is in absolute control. He can desire one thing (that people not sin), yet ordain another (plan that sin exist in the world). Likewise, God can desire that all be saved, yet not ordain that they are.


Now that's a well thought out explanation Matt Just gave IF God only dealt with man in this age.

But we are all well aware God does not just deal with man in this age but also in the age to come.

When God said I will accomplish all My good pleasure and that He worketh all things after the counsel of His own will Is.46:10 & Eph.1:11 it is incumbent on the child of God to believe just what God Himself proclaims.

Matt does not believe Gods will, will be done because Matt is only looking at the present age we now live in where Gods will is not yet being done.

Jesus taught us to pray Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Mt.6:9-10

To me it is obvious the Fathers kingdom has not yet come nor is His will yet being done on earth.

Thus Matt concludes because the Fathers will is not yet done on earth as it is in heaven that the Fathers will, will be thwarted, but this is just not the case, for God Himself proclaimed I will accomplish ALL my good pleasure.

In the age to come when His kingdom is on the earth His will, will be done and He will accomplish ALL His good pleasure.

When the child of God looks to understand God and His purpose they must come into the realisation that He is the everlasting God or literally the God of the ages, and when they come into this realisation then Gods word does not contradict itself.

Isaiah 55:10-11
10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

The WORD did come out from God, made in the likeness of flesh for the salvation of the whole world. And as the WORD was sent forth it will not return void but shall accomplish EVERYTHING that it was sent to do.

Why do so many still believe His WORD came in vain? The salvation of the whole world was His purpose in coming so what can we say if He does not fulfill His purpose? There is only one conclusion, His WORD returned void. Believe what you will, I believe His WORD will do exactly what He came to do. Like it or not brothers and sisters Gods WORD Jesus Christ will fulfill to the fullest exactly what He came to do, THE SALVATION OF ALL.

[Reverend G]

I really have to wonder how any denomination with a belief in an "elect" could have survived.  I did get a kick out of a show on History channel a few weeks back that showed one of the negative effects of this doctrine, one I had wondered about myself.  It seems that some time back a group of people belonging to this set of beliefs had it all figured out:  Either I'm part of the elect and nothing I do will keep me out of heaven, or I'm not in the elect and nothing I can do will save me.  So they set out to "live it up", spending their time having drunken orgies.

[Craig]

Modern day Capitalism came from Calvinism's duality of the elect and non-elect, check it out, it is well documented.

[Paul Hazelwood]

  So they set out to "live it up", spending their time having drunken orgies.

I will say that there are many who inquire about universalism in the same manner.   But I think all walks of life can have that effect.

An atheist could take a similar approach to life since to them there is no spiritual reward or punishment and upon dying you are just gone.

[Reverend G]

Modern day Capitalism came from Calvinism's duality of the elect and non-elect, check it out, it is well documented.

Actually they did cover that on that show as well.

I understand how some UR people can validate bad behavior through their beliefs, and atheists as well.  What surprised me was this teaching, I guess I was raised that there was no such thing as "get into heaven" free cards, for anybody.  I could never conceive of an idea where God arbitrarily picked some but not others, with no basis on faith or works.  I could understand those who said we had to "earn" salvation, even if I disagree, but to try and "earn" it, only to be told "sorry" when someone else denies Him and is welcomed?

[willieH]

willieH: Hi RG!   :happy3:

I really have to wonder how any denomination with a belief in an "elect" could have survived.  I did get a kick out of a show on History channel a few weeks back that showed one of the negative effects of this doctrine, one I had wondered about myself.  It seems that some time back a group of people belonging to this set of beliefs had it all figured out:  Either I'm part of the elect and nothing I do will keep me out of heaven, or I'm not in the elect and nothing I can do will save me.  So they set out to "live it up", spending their time having drunken orgies.

They only showed with this ridiculous conclusion, that they were NOT of the "elect"... as they must've completely missed where PAUL said:

Eph 2:10  For we are HIS workmanship, created in CHRIST JESUS unto GOOD WORKS, which GOD hath BEFORE ORDAINED that we should WALK IN THEM [good works, not drunken orgies]

Those who do not "WALK IN THEM", are not BEFORE ORDAINED...  :dontknow:

Most NON-Universalists will say of Universalism... "Hey -- if we are all gonna be saved in the end, why not DO WHAT YOU WANT?"

In their minds, to them, ...this FOOLISH response, appears to dismiss Universalism, ...but all it really does is indicate... WHAT they truly in their hearts, ...WANT TO DO...   :mshock:

Which finds them hungering and thirsting after SIN, [having drunken orgies, ...dismissing RIGHTEOUSNESS in their bodies] ...

Instead of hungering and thirsting after RIGHTEOUSNESS [following CHRIST and thereby, ...dismissing SIN in their bodies]...  :dontknow:


peacE...
...willieH  :Sparkletooth:

[Paul Hazelwood]

Most NON-Universalists will say of Universalism... "Hey -- if we are all gonna be saved in the end, why not DO WHAT YOU WANT?"

In their minds, to them, ...this FOOLISH response, appears to dismiss Universalism, ...but all it really does is indicate... WHAT they truly in their hearts, ...WANT TO DO...   :mshock:

Yes, this is very true.   As God changes me,  I myself through my study contemplate doing something with the thought that,  now that I see hell is not eternal, why not......


But then I realize that what I was taught most of my life till I was drawn to study on my own was to FEAR HELL,   not.....  not.....    LOVE GOD.


As I once said,  you do not have to LOVE a terrorist to FEAR the consequenses he sets before you.

But now I want to learn what it means to LOVE the Lord and be LOVED by HIM.

[pneuma]

What Does God Want?
Some will object to the claim that God sometimes wants one thing and yet does another. They would assert that this would be a contradiction. But it is not since God has obviously done this. Is it a contradiction when a judge wants to show mercy to all people but orders that criminals be punished? Is it a contradiction when the judge says to a murderer, "You shall not murder!" but, according to the law, sentences him to death? No. Though the desire and action be different, there is no contradiction at all. The judge is under obligation to keep the Law. . . and so is God. He must remain true to His revealed Law which is a reflection of His divine character. After all, God is just and must punish sin.

I agree with Matt here, God is just and must punish sin. The problem here though is Matt sees God punishment as a bad thing, but Gods punishment is all for correction, just as any good Father punishes their children when they fall into error so to does or Father in heaven.

But again Matt does not really believe what he stated above, because he also believes the elect are not punished for their sins, he will say something to the effect of, but that is so because of Jesus sacrifice for them. But Jesus sacrifice was not just for the elect but for the sins of the whole world 1Jn.2:2.

What Matt does not understand is that we all reap what we sow, when we are bad God punishes/corrects us. It really is as simple as that.


To further illustrate the point that God can ordain something different than what He desires, please consider the scriptures below.
What God Desires What God Arranges
"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance," (2 Pet. 3:9).
"just as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not and ears to hear not, down to this very day,'" (Rom. 11:8).
"And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God; but those who are outside get everything in parables, 12in order that while seeing, they may see and not perceive; and while hearing, they may hear and not understand lest they return and be forgiven," (Mark 4:11-12).
We can see that God says He does not wish any to perish. But, we can also see that God gave Israel eyes to not see with and ears to not hear with. Likewise, Jesus, who is God in flesh, purposely spoke to people in parables so they would not perceive and repent (Mark 4:11-12). If God wants all saved, why would He arrange it so people were blinded and prevented from seeing? Some will say that the people did this to themselves. But that is not what the text says. Clearly, God is the one performing the actions in preventing them to see. In this case, He desires one thing and does another.

Already covered this in my last post, and again Matt's problem here stem from the fact that he does not believe God continues to work in and for man in the age to come.

And the reason God gave them eyes not to see and ears not to hear was because of their rebelliousness Eze.12:2

So yes the people brought it upon themselves, contrary to what Matt would have you believe.

Another point Matt fails to realise is that it was because of Israel's rebelliousness that they were cast off but NOT forever, for all Israel shall be saved, that the Gentile was gathered in.

Ro.11 along with Ro.5 are two of the greatest chapters in scripture that shows forth the salvation of all. We see all those who knew not Christ being grafted into Him, not only of Israel but also of the Gentile. And we see that this grafting in is for the salvation of all.
In verse 25-26 we see blindness in part happened until the fullness of the Gentile comes in and then ALL Israel shall be saved.

Does God want pain and suffering in the world? The obvious answer is no. God created Adam and Eve and put them in a perfect world without pain, without suffering, and without loss. That is God's desire because that is the way God made things in the beginning. Yet, we have pain, suffering, and loss in the world. Why? Because that is the nature of our sinful system -- and God permitted it. But are we to say that God is not in control? Again, no. In fact, God causes some of the very things we believe He does not want.
"And the Lord said to him, 'Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?'" (Exodus 4:11).
"If a calamity occurs in a city has not the Lord done it?" (Amos 3:6).
"The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these," (Isaiah 45:7).
"Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go forth?" (Lam. 3:37-38).
"The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil," (Prov. 16:4).
Can God want one thing and and yet specifically accomplish something else? Obviously the answer is yes. Let's look at some more verses.


Again Matt fails to realise why God does this, it was done in order that the Gentile could be grafted in.


Matt seems to believe God did these things just so He could eternally torment most of mankind.

That would be akin to me having 10 kids knowing all along that I am having them in order to save just one and torment the others for all eternity.

What kind of a father would I be if I was to do such a thing?

People call Hitler as sadistic human being for doing what he did, but he would pale in comparison to the Father if the Father does what Matt believe Him to do.

I would not be surprised to find out that Hitler believed in eternal torment and he burn all those people because he believed that was what God was going to do, thinking to do God a service by giving Him a helping hand.

Man has always acted out according to their view of God, so if one believes God eternally torments people then they live up to that belief. Thinking if God can do it, I am only living up to God and doing His service by doing what He is doing.

What an abhorrent view it is to believe God created man just so He could eternally torment most of them.




What God Desires What God Arranges
"And the master said to the slave, 'Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled," (Luke 14:23).
Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, "Today if you hear His voice, 8Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me, As in the day of trial in the wilderness," (Heb. 3:7).
"And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false," (2 Thess. 2:11).
"And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go," (Exodus 4:21).
"So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires," (Rom. 9:18).
Why would God compel people to come into His house so that it can be filled and yet send a deluding influence upon the same people? Are not those people in 2 Thessalonians, at the time of the Antichrist, the same people included in the highways and hedges? Does not God compel all to enter into His house regardless of when and where they are in history? Is it not God's desire to save all? Yes it is. Yet, God actually sends a deluding influence on people and hardens the hearts of others. He desires one thing yet sometimes does another. This is both challenging and fascinating. Why would God do such a thing? The answer lies in Scripture.


Yes the answer does lie in scripture and is expressed most wonderfully in Ro.11, the casting off in order to graft in, the salvation of all. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

[pneuma]

God is in Control
God is in control of all things and is bringing history to the prophetically determined destiny to which He has aimed it. He hardens some and softens others. He arranges things so that battles occur, people are destroyed, lives are changed, nations moved, and people saved. All of this is done in accordance with His divine plan. In fact, it is done because He has a divine plan. Please consider the following.
"this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death," (Acts 2:23).
"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28).
God did not cause the people who crucified Jesus to sin. But, He sure used their sin and He predestined all of it to occur. He used the sins of Herod and Pilate along with the Gentiles to do His divine will. In fact, God anointed them to do what they did. Why? To carry out His purpose and His plan to bring His Son to the cross, to save sinners, and to bring glory to Himself.
Some may object and say that God only knew what the evil people were going to do and simply used it. But, that is not what the scripture says. Besides, God has the ability to change the hearts of people: "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes" (Prov. 21:1). This means that man's will is subject to God.
Then again, some may say that God must not violate people's freedom and will let them sin. But in response, examine Gen. 20:6 where God kept Abimelech from sleeping with Abraham's wife: "Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her." God prevented Abimelech from sinning. It was Abimelech's desire to enter Abraham's wife, yet God prevented it. God can and does control people's hearts and actions so that they will accomplish His purpose. He does this sovereignty and He does it without causing people to sin. He can even make someone's heart hard for the purpose of carrying out His plan.

Although I agree God does have a plan and that He did not cause people to sin, Matt seems to have done a complete reversal here.

First he states Gods will is not always done and now he is stating God will is done according to His plan. Which is it Matt?

So according to Matt, Gods plan is only to save the elect, that teaches us Jesus sacrifice was not for all men, it teaches us that Gods plan never included the whole world. Yet we have read time and again that God sent His son to save the world.

It teaches us Gods plan is to eternally torment people in a lake of fire. Yet the scriptures state we only reap what we sow and the wages of sin are death, not eternal torment which is what Matt would have the reader to believe.

But Matt would probably say yes the wages of sin are death, and that death is the second death which is the lake of fire and that death is eternal.

Now I agree that the death spoken of as the wages of sin is the second death. And this teaches us that even though we must suffer death there is an escape from death. For if there is no escape as the eternal torment people believe, Jesus is still suffering the wages of sin (DEATH) for He died for our sins and that death is eternal according to their belief.

And if they were to say that the death spoken of as the wages of sin is not the second death then Jesus did not pay the wages of sin for us. Which we all know goes against scripture.

Therefore the reader can see that there is a huge problem for those who believe in eternal torment, for either the wages of sin is death and Jesus is being tormented even as we speak with no hope of escape or the wages of sin is a physical death which would mean there is no judgment after the resurrection at the great white throne. For if one has already paid for their sin by dying what need then of judgment?







"But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today," (Deut. 2:30).
The NIV, NKJV, RSV, KJV, and NASB all state that it was God who hardened Sihon's heart -- not strengthened it towards its tendency.
"For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the Lord had commanded Moses," (Joshua 11:20).
The NIV says "it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts." The RSV says "it was the Lord's doing."
In Deuteronomy 2, the Lord told Moses to tell Sihon King of Heshbon to let the Israelites pass. But, we see that God deliberately hardened King Sihon's heart1 so that they could be delivered into Israel's hands and destroyed. We see in Joshua, that it was "of God" to harden the Canaanites so that they might be destroyed. Why? Because God had a greater plan and purpose than showing them mercy. What is that plan? I believe God was arranging history to lead to the ultimate goal of Christ's crucifixion, resurrection, and return, along with the redemption of God's people. This is the divine plan that God has ordained. God is in control and He has a purpose that He has revealed in Scripture.
Please consider Rev. 17:16-17 as further support for this.
"And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire. 17 "For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God should be fulfilled.
In Revelation. 17:16, God put it into the hearts of people to rebel so that His prophetic word could be fulfilled. God was, is, and will continue to control events in order to accomplish His divine plan. He is bringing these people to a place of being destroyed and it isn't simply because they are rebellious. It is because "God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose . . .until the words of God should be fulfilled"!

Again Matt is using double speak first by saying God will is not always done and now reversing it to God does everything according to His plan. Plain old fashion double speaking. What Matt's problem is, is that he does not understand God plan.

To understand Gods plan again I ask the reader to read the body of Christ and the great white throne here.

http://indefenceofthecross.blogspot.com/




But, some will claim that God cannot put such things in people's hearts -- in spite of the verses shown above. They will quote scripture where God says He does not desire the death of the wicked and, therefore, could not be purposely doing such a thing.
"For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord God. "Therefore, repent and live," (Ezekiel 18:32).
"Say to them, 'As I live!' declares the Lord God, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked . . . (Ezekiel 33:11).
We clearly see that God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. That is, it is not His desire that even the wicked die.
Yet, they do and to further complicate things, as we have seen in the scriptures above, He even hardens them (Exo. 4:24-25; Rom. 9:18), deludes them (2 Thess. 2:11), and puts it into their hearts to rebel (Deut. 2:30; Rev. 17:16-17). And if that weren't enough, take a look at the following:
"And it shall come about that as the Lord delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so the Lord will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you. . ." (Deut. 28:63).
The word "delight" here is the word "soos" in Hebrew and it means to exult, rejoice, display joy.
"If one man sins against another, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?" But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for the Lord desired to put them to death," (1 Sam. 2:25).
The words "desired" here is the same Hebrew word, "chaphets," used in Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11 ("pleasure") above. It means "to delight in, take pleasure in, desire, be pleased with. It was the sons of Eli who would not listen to their father. Why? Because the Lord desired to put them to death. In other words, they would not listen because God desired to put them to death.
Likewise, the word "chaphets" occurs in Isaiah 53:10 where it says, "But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief."
In the above verses you can see that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked yet he delighted in destroying the wicked people. Is this a contradiction? No. Because God has a purpose and a plan. He has the sovereign right to accomplish His will. On one hand, He doesn't want people to suffer and die, yet on the other hand, He is delighted to carry out His divine plan which necessarily includes the death of the wicked because it is in accordance with the Law which He Himself has given us. His divine plan will be accomplished. This is further proof that God can desire one thing and bring another to pass.


Just His evil plan to eternally torment according to Matt.
Matt does not understand God purpose for death according to God plan, it is not to eternally torment man, it is to make man as he ought to be made.

Read fitted to destruction here

http://indefenceofthecross.blogspot.com/

[pneuma]

What does it all mean?
So what do we make of this difficult issue that God can desire one thing and yet arrange circumstances, influence hearts, and govern people to the contrary? I believe it is because there is something greater than God's desire that all should be saved; namely that God's divine plan will be carried out for His glory and the salvation of the elect.


Did the reader notice Matt said Gods plan will carried out for His glory and the salvation of the elect? Not the salvation of the world, just His elect.

Yet are we not told many times in scripture that God sent Jesus to save the world.
Is it not then obvious that Gods plan is for the salvation of the world and not just the salvation of His elect?

Matt would have the reader believe Gods plan ends with the elect, but the elect are just the beginning or first part of His plan for the salvation of the world.

It is true His elect are His first fruits but they are not saved for themselves, they are saved first in order that through the whole body of Christ the whole world will be saved. That is why they are called His FIRST fruits.

Again the reader can see a fuller explanation of this on my blog under "The body of Christ"



Love and kindness are not the only aspects of God's glorious being. He is also holy and righteous and has brought history through its course in order to reflect His great wisdom and justice as well as His love and mercy. Though God hates sin, He permits it for the greater glory of Himself and His plan. In this, He desires all to be saved, but has not ordained that it be so because, according to the Law, He must punish sinners.

First Matt would have the reader believe love is an aspect of God, but scripture defines God as love.1Jn.4:8 & 16. Love is not an aspect of God, God IS love. Thus when the scriptures proclaim love never fails 1Co.13:8 , they are saying God never fails

Note on 1Co.13:8 charity in the Greek is agape and agape is love.

Yes sinners must be punished, but punishment from God is correction and this is what those who believe in eternal torment just can't seem to understand.

Paul said of himself that he was the chiefest of sinners 1Tim.1:15 so as God must punish sin then Paul himself had to have been punished by God.  And this is so easy to understand when one realises punishment is correction, therefore all sinners must be corrected.



The Law is a reflection of God's character. Jesus said that out of the heart, the mouth speaks (Matt. 12:34). God spoke and the Law came forth. It is pure and perfect because it reflects God's character. God has said that the soul that sins will die (Ezekiel 18:4), that sin causes a separation between God and man (Isaiah 59:2), that He must punish the sinner (Exodus 32:34; Hosea 9:9), and that His eyes are too pure to look upon evil (Hab. 1:13). If someone sins, they must be punished because it is in accordance with God's Law.


As I just explain all sinners must be punished/corrected, but Matt does not believe that all sinners must be punished as he has been stating, for he will tell you that the elect do not have to be punished for their sins. Matt will tell you something like the reason the elect do not have to be punished for their sin is because Jesus died for their sin. But scriptures tell us Jesus died for the sin of the world Jn.1:29 & 1Jn.2:2

They also tell us that it was while we were yet sinners that Jesus died for us Ro.5:8

So as Jesus died for all men while they were yet sinners, why is it that only the elect are free from punishment as Matt would have the reader believe?

Those who believe after this fashion want a free ride into heaven, they do not want to be punished/corrected for their sins, they do not want to reap what they have sown.

But they will say Jesus died for our sins so that we don't have to die, but that's not what Jesus did, Jesus did not die for our sins so that we don't have to die, He died for our sins to show us HOW to DIE TO SIN. Take up THY CROSS and FOLLOW ME.


That is why God can desire all to be saved, yet not ordain that all be saved because His Law cannot be broken. What He is doing is remaining true to His character in both His justice and grace. He is true to His justice because He rightfully judges people according to His Law. He is true to His grace because He gives people the salvation they do not deserve. In both, He is being consistent with His own character.

It's true His law cannot be broken, yet Matt believes that the elect do not have to be punished for their sins, thus breaking the law that cannot be broken, and making a sham of His justice.

To that end, God has ordained all of history to flow to the predetermined end to which He has sent it. He has His plan and it will be carried out. He will bring glory to Himself. He will judge the wicked. He will save the believers. This is why He is enduring with such patience the wicked people.


Matt of course believes that God only and has always intended to save only the elect, which we have seen time and again goes against scripture which state Jesus came to save the world.

Matt fails to realise that it is through Gods judgments, which are all corrective in nature, that the wicked or sinner will be saved.



"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles" (Rom. 9:22-24).
God has worked all things after the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:5) and has engineered history to bring not only the cross as the means of redemption, but also the culmination of all things for the declaration of His own glory, righteousness, holiness, and character.

Hmmmm first Matt say God does not work all things after the counsel of His WILL, now He says God has worked all things after the counsel of His WILL.

As I have said before Matt believes God gets what He WILLS as long as it only concerns the ELECT.

But when the Universalist says God gets what He WILL in the salvation of all men, Matt says that Gods WILL is only God desire and God does not get all His desire.

Another corner Matt backed himself into.



Sin will be shown to be utterly sinful and horrible. The cross demonstrates His righteousness and grace and His sovereign will is carried out.

The cross also demonstrated how sin is dealt with, by JUDGMENT. 
We not only see the sinner being crucified under judgment on the cross, we also see the first fruit Jesus Christ under judgment on the same cross.
We see the sinner while under judgment looking at Jesus and saying remember me and Jesus saying that today you will be with me in paradise.
Judgment is always corrective and we see the sinner under judgment saying remember me.

Judgment MUST according to the scriptures start with the house of God, those who God does not judge are not YET a part of His house.


Do 1 Tim. 2:3-4 and 2 Pet. 3:9 prove that all will be saved? No, not at all. But they do show us that God is not simplistic and that He has a divine plan that we must truly seek to fathom if we are to rightly understand His word.


And according to Matt we only rightly divide His word if we only apply Gods WILL to the elect.

What a pathetic, weak kneed, unjust, unloving view of God this is.

[Paul Hazelwood]

What does it all mean?
So what do we make of this difficult issue that God can desire one thing and yet arrange circumstances, influence hearts, and govern people to the contrary? I believe it is because there is something greater than God's desire that all should be saved; namely that God's divine plan will be carried out for His glory and the salvation of the elect.

What he says here is a great example of the self serving nature of many people who teach from the bible with the perspective that God will not save all.

This perspective comes from the teacher believing that they are safe from hell.   All the words of Love, all the great testamonies, all that comes from believing that they either are fortunate to have been selected as the elect, therefore safe or that they were wise enough (as compared to someone who currently hasn't accepted Christ yet) to come to Christ and that pleased God and they are safe.

Here is the problem,  take a good listen to preachers that talk about coming to christ.  Take a good listen to the perspective that we must make this choice on our own.   They do not give a scripture reference for such a perspective.  They will quote a scripture here or there till they get to the part where we have the power over our own destiny.  Then, no scripture.

Matt believes here that there is something greater than all being saved?   You have got to be kidding.   Does Matt understand that in the end, under his perspective, he could be the one saying,  "But Jesus, didn't I fight all the universalists in your name?" "I mean comeon God, SAVE ALL?,  Oh man thats a good one dude"  "Didn't I spread the gospel to 4 million a year in your name"  "Didn't I make my ministry in you name?"   only to hear, "Depart from me, I never knew you"   What then Matt?  Will you be as gleeful over this "GREATER" purpose?    And of course, no scripture reference to something as important as the greatest purpose God would have. 


Hi, My name is Matts God,   Matt thinks he is saved and that I picked him to be one of the elect.  Even though I state that I will all mankind to be saved,  there really was no reason that I said that other than to tease you folks that are not the elect.   HAHA funny huh?   I thought so,  I hope you have a sense of humor.
I am a good loving God that Matt believes in, but when you are in hell apart from all hope,  when all hope is lost and you realize that your doomed forever with no mercy,  you will understand.

Love Matts God,  have a great day.