Recently arrived at this site looking for more information on Paul Cohen and Victor Hafichuk (?spell).
At this time, I do not believe the bible supports UR as firmly as many here seem to.
But, I also do not find the bible to be inerrant (something I presume is the case with many here, although IIRC here it is considered to be inspired.)
That said, I do have difficulty with those who reference the bible, but seem to overlook some aspects of what it has to say.
Regarding that, I see what seems to be oversight in Gary's commentary at http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/Matthew-25-46-Commentary-Amirault.html with regard to at least one bible verse used, and its larger context, but don't know that I'll go into that. As I recently observed (searching for more info on Gary :) ), NT writers didn't seem to necessarily consider larger context in what they referenced/quoted, so maybe Gary's usage is correct.
Don't know if I'll have anything worth contributing, nor how long I'll be around, but thought I'd register, in the event I found anything I thought worth contributing while I am around.
That said, I do have at least one observation/question, which I plan to post elsewhere, regarding possibility of eternal/eternity in NT.
You seem to be putting yourself forward as an enemy but that's OK. It's beyond useful to be able to have the views that are directly contrary to our own to keep us challenged so welcome. It's nice so many people are joining lately, I like that.
On the inerrancy of the Bible the a tricky point. Left sitting alone on a table any copy of and version of the Bible is technically inerrant because its a just meaningless characters and digits. Meaning is only provided by those who write it and those who read it. They are were any error lies. Though that does seem to include many of the original Gospel writers as examples can be shown where it seems that different Gospel writers clearly believed different things but the Bible isn't a record of what the thought so much as what they wrote and that distinction is important do we have to except what they believed or just what they wrote.
I except UR I believe with conviction that the Bible screams it is every verse. Yet I do think that some arguments used by people like us who proclaim UR are technically correct they some how go against the spirit of what is being said.
This I have concerns about which I hope to discuss later.
Welcome! I am always wanting to know more of people thoughts! I believe more in the UR. Because I feel it.
Thanks,Sarah
Welcome friend!
With regards to your quote "I do have difficulty with those who reference the bible, but seem to overlook some aspects of what it has to say", this is the type of charge that can be leveled against any theological group. For example, if 'red' scriptures appear to support Arminism, 'green' scriptures appear to support Calvinism, and 'blue' scriptures appear to support UR, you can certainly make accusations that each group focuses on their own 'color'.
This being said, one of the big differences for me is that UR people tend to be MUCH more open to discussing apparently problematic scripture of other 'colors', and finding their harmonization. In my experience, proponents of ET are extremely reluctant and dismissive of the wealth of scriptures that support UR.
Finally, I believe the furthest chronological point in the scriptures is in 1 Corinthians 15, where it says God shall eventually be All in All. Unless I see a point past that where He changes into Some in Some, or Some in All, or All in Some, I am going to believe in that final reality, no matter what judgments happen in the intervening ages.
God bless, my friend!
WELCOME!
You know, I recently finished a survey of the entire King James Authorized Version, the standard "Hell" text, and concluded that Universal Reconciliation (if we think of it as a theory) fits the data far better than the Eternal Torment paradigm. See my thread "Heaven, Yes - Hell, No" in the Hellbusters Hallow sub-forum. Given that, my survey did have some theological surprises for me. The biggest is this, concerning those tossed into the Lake of Fire. I Corinthians 3:11-15 states that their works are burned up and they suffer loss, even though they themselves are saved. I concluded from many texts that what they lose is the right to inherit in the Kingdom. Only those in the first resurrection, you see, are true sons and daughters of God, family members, and only family members inherit.
Quote from: Shev on April 19, 2016, 10:38:39 PM
Welcome friend!
With regards to your quote "I do have difficulty with those who reference the bible, but seem to overlook some aspects of what it has to say", this is the type of charge that can be leveled against any theological group. For example, if 'red' scriptures appear to support Arminism, 'green' scriptures appear to support Calvinism, and 'blue' scriptures appear to support UR, you can certainly make accusations that each group focuses on their own 'color'.
This being said, one of the big differences for me is that UR people tend to be MUCH more open to discussing apparently problematic scripture of other 'colors', and finding their harmonization. In my experience, proponents of ET are extremely reluctant and dismissive of the wealth of scriptures that support UR.
Finally, I believe the furthest chronological point in the scriptures is in 1 Corinthians 15, where it says God shall eventually be All in All. Unless I see a point past that where He changes into Some in Some, or Some in All, or All in Some, I am going to believe in that final reality, no matter what judgments happen in the intervening ages.
God bless, my friend!
Ooh, maybe someone should create a spectrum Bible to mark all these red, green and blue passages.
To be honest I don't like to use the 'all in all' passage in support of anything as I think it is enormously vague. What is excluded from the all, there must be some things or it wouldn't make sense. I can't transpose 'all' with countless other words any it still make sense or seem right. I prefer passages that clearly say God seeks the salvation of all and will attain the salvation of all, I think those are hard to argue with.
Quote from: Lazarus Short on April 20, 2016, 12:57:18 AM
WELCOME!
You know, I recently finished a survey of the entire King James Authorized Version, the standard "Hell" text, and concluded that Universal Reconciliation (if we think of it as a theory) fits the data far better than the Eternal Torment paradigm. See my thread "Heaven, Yes - Hell, No" in the Hellbusters Hallow sub-forum. Given that, my survey did have some theological surprises for me. The biggest is this, concerning those tossed into the Lake of Fire. I Corinthians 3:11-15 states that their works are burned up and they suffer loss, even though they themselves are saved. I concluded from many texts that what they lose is the right to inherit in the Kingdom. Only those in the first resurrection, you see, are true sons and daughters of God, family members, and only family members inherit.
I don't agree. It's a strange idea to distinguish salvation from the kingdom like that. But I saw this argument presented on another thread I think I'll give my answer to it there at some point if i can.
Quote from: Lazarus Short on April 20, 2016, 12:57:18 AM
WELCOME!
I Corinthians 3:11-15 states that their works are burned up and they suffer loss, even though they themselves are saved. I concluded from many texts that what they lose is the right to inherit in the Kingdom.
I agree with the above but not what you said below.
Quote from: Lazarus Short
Only those in the first resurrection, you see, are true sons and daughters of God, family members, and only family members inherit.
Reason being is, I think, and this is just the way I see this.
Who had works? The Israelites and anyone else who believes that works is how to inherit salvation. I believe the Kingdom of God was promised to Israel not Gentiles. When I say Kingdom of God, I mean the time period where the twelve apostles sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. This is before all is in all. Hope I made some sense.
CHB
Quote from: CST on April 20, 2016, 02:15:37 PM
Ooh, maybe someone should create a spectrum Bible to mark all these red, green and blue passages.
You haven't hear of the Amazing Technicolor Translation? (ATT) :laughing7:
Quote from: CST on April 20, 2016, 02:15:37 PMTo be honest I don't like to use the 'all in all' passage in support of anything as I think it is enormously vague. What is excluded from the all, there must be some things or it wouldn't make sense. I can't transpose 'all' with countless other words any it still make sense or seem right. I prefer passages that clearly say God seeks the salvation of all and will attain the salvation of all, I think those are hard to argue with.
I think any vagueness to 'All in All' would only be if the phrase is taken in isolation. 1 Corinthians 15 builds up to this climatic point throughout the chapter, including showing that the only one not subject to Christ is the One who subjected all things to Him. So it gives it's own description of 'All in All' in the build up. I can't imagine someone reading that chapter and thinking that something is left out of being subject to Christ.
Quote from: Shev on April 21, 2016, 12:23:12 AM
Quote from: CST on April 20, 2016, 02:15:37 PM
Ooh, maybe someone should create a spectrum Bible to mark all these red, green and blue passages.
You haven't hear of the Amazing Technicolor Translation? (ATT) :laughing7:
No, should I have? I didn't think I was being entirely serious about that I didn't think you were either, way to many points which aren't exactly clear. If you are being serious and there is such a translation then do I take it is KJV based?
Quote from: Shev on April 21, 2016, 12:25:47 AM
Quote from: CST on April 20, 2016, 02:15:37 PMTo be honest I don't like to use the 'all in all' passage in support of anything as I think it is enormously vague. What is excluded from the all, there must be some things or it wouldn't make sense. I can't transpose 'all' with countless other words any it still make sense or seem right. I prefer passages that clearly say God seeks the salvation of all and will attain the salvation of all, I think those are hard to argue with.
I think any vagueness to 'All in All' would only be if the phrase is taken in isolation. 1 Corinthians 15 builds up to this climatic point throughout the chapter, including showing that the only one not subject to Christ is the One who subjected all things to Him. So it gives it's own description of 'All in All' in the build up. I can't imagine someone reading that chapter and thinking that something is left out of being subject to Christ.
What but what is included in the 'all' like what could it be taken that God would become life I the living and death in the dead, come it be read that way. God can be all things to all people but not everything to every person at exactly the same time.
Not unless there are fewer things for everything to comprise of.
Hi CST,
Welcome to the forum. I welcome a rational and careful analysis of God's Word on this subject. My own experience is that I debated this subject so intensely with a non fellow universalist when I was studying it. I was an annihilationist at that time.
I hope I can find where you post at to engage in the discussion.
Paul
Quote from: CST on April 21, 2016, 05:38:32 PM
No, should I have? I didn't think I was being entirely serious about that I didn't think you were either, way to many points which aren't exactly clear. If you are being serious and there is such a translation then do I take it is KJV based?
I was not being serious, and I did not think you were either.
As far as All in All meaning death in the dead, surely there would then have to be scriptures that describe God as Death, rather than the very many that describe Him as Life? Again, to me the chapter itself lays out its own definition of what all in all means - going all the way back to "As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive".
Quote from: trettep on April 21, 2016, 06:30:24 PM
Hi CST,
Welcome to the forum. I welcome a rational and careful analysis of God's Word on this subject. My own experience is that I debated this subject so intensely with a non fellow universalist when I was studying it. I was an annihilationist at that time.
I hope I can find where you post at to engage in the discussion.
Paul
Thanks, there's places to discuss all sorts here you can have conversations in any colour as long as it's white. (on UR)
Quote from: Shev on April 21, 2016, 06:37:11 PM
Quote from: CST on April 21, 2016, 05:38:32 PM
No, should I have? I didn't think I was being entirely serious about that I didn't think you were either, way to many points which aren't exactly clear. If you are being serious and there is such a translation then do I take it is KJV based?
I was not being serious, and I did not think you were either.
As far as All in All meaning death in the dead, surely there would then have to be scriptures that describe God as Death, rather than the very many that describe Him as Life? Again, to me the chapter itself lays out its own definition of what all in all means - going all the way back to "As in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive".
True, there are JEPD bible though although they're now out of print (except for one).
I'd agree with you about God being Death except that's easy to do because we're Universalists. That said we can't pretend there aren't an awful lot of destructive things that God does in the Bible He certainly is painted as having full authority over death. But I was really just using a hyperbole (tenuous) to make a point.
Hi CST,
Remember that God will have all to bow and call Jesus the Lord. The Bible makes it clear that we can only call Jesus Lord by the Holy Spirit. That means that ALL shall have the Holy Spirit.
Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Php 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
1Co_12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Yes, good. I'm not arguing against Universalism here. My point is about how strong certain verses really are to demonstrate it. I would take that one as stronger than the "all in all" one which could, in theory, be taken all sorts of ways.
Quote from: CST on April 22, 2016, 02:31:04 PM
Yes, good. I'm not arguing against Universalism here. My point is about how strong certain verses really are to demonstrate it. I would take that one as stronger than the "all in all" one which could, in theory, be taken all sorts of ways.
Yes, "ALL" has to be in context. But I gave the verses in my last post to show that the "ALL" is in a context of everyone, clearly to show that the message of salvation is truly universal.
Yeah, but it clearly means everyone in 'as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.' But we still seem to be the ones who are struggling uphill.
Quote from: CST on April 22, 2016, 07:16:28 PM
Yeah, but it clearly means everyone in 'as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.' But we still seem to be the ones who are struggling uphill.
Yes, the all in Adam are the same as the ALL in Christ. This really is everyone.
hi! and :welcome: (i'm often late and a dollar short.. :laughing7: )
Quote from: ps on April 19, 2016, 12:31:57 PM
That said, I do have at least one observation/question, which I plan to post elsewhere, regarding possibility of eternal/eternity in NT.
..you never posted your question! I'm just curious.. no pressure! :smile:
Welcome to Tentmaker forum! :hiya: