Is there a case for Universalism?

[SSTeacher]

JMJ_coder;5454897:

And did you catch the big fat NOT

that preceded it. You forget that there are two types of justification.

It might not be forgetfulness. It might be a belief that there is no distinction between justification and sanctification, don’t you think?

One before God by faith Romans 5:1 and the before man through works. The latter is what James is talking about. James is not telling us how to be saved but what we should be doing after salvation.

How can you be certain that your interpretation here is correct?

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Sin is the central problem of the human race. I don’t see why a tendency toward Universalism should lead a Christian to rethink his or her ideas about sin.

Maybe I don’t understand this right, but universalism is the idea that everyone is saved, right? So what about people who commit sins even when they know they are sins and don’t repent?

How so?

Because this knowledge written on your heart would presumably include the existance of God.

I don’t think I’d go so far as to say there is no hell but I’d respectfully suggest – merely as a possibility – that God’s plan of salvation involves the eventual salvation of every person that He has created in His image since the beginning of time.

I’d kind of like it if it was. The bible is clear however. Mathews 25:40-42

40"The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, (AM)to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

41"Then He will also say to those on His left, '(AN)Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for (AP)the devil and his angels;

42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5447187:

Sin is the central problem of the human race. I don’t see why a tendency toward Universalism should lead a Christian to rethink his or her ideas about sin.

Maybe I don’t understand this right, but universalism is the idea that everyone is saved, right? So what about people who commit sins even when they know they are sins and don’t repent?

Universalism is indeed the idea that everyone is saved. Within this view, people who commit sins and don’t repent would be in the same position as people who commit sins and do repent. Everybody would be saved by grace.

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[JMJ_coder]

You forget that there are two types of justificaion. One before God by faith Romans 5:1 and the before man through works. The latter is what James is talking about. James is not telling us how to be saved but what we should be doing after salvation.

You are separating and distinguishing where there is none. You cannot claim that you have faith in God if that faith doesn’t bring you to good works – to think otherwise is wrong.

 

[JRKH]

I thought I would interject a new idea and see what others think about it.

Unless I am mistaken there are places in the Bible wherein God declares some covenent or sign or practice to be “for all time”, or “forever between us” or word to that effect. This how the Jews view circumcision for example. Another might be the covenent between God and Abraham. Yet in each case the covenent was superceded by a new, more encompasing covenent.
Now we live under the “New Covenent” of the Blood of Christ. Jesus teaches salvation for those who “Do the Will of the Father in Heaven”, and damnation for those who do evil.

It is certainly possible then to speculate that, Given that God has revised covenents in the past, he might sometime in the future make a new covenent and release all from damnation who wish to be redeemed. Those who are so corrupted and so completely owned by Satan might then be simply willed from existance for since there is no more time there is no more need of hell.

It certainly makes for interesting speculation. However it is highly dangerous theology.
If we aim for Heaven and miss, we land in Purgatory.
If we aim for Purgatory and miss, we land in hell.
If we think or hope for reprieve from their, we may well be miserably disappointed.
Far better for us to aim firmly for heaven and hope in the Love and Mercy of our heavenly Father to do what is best for His creation.

Peace
James

 

[JMJ_coder]

I thought I would interject a new idea and see what others think about it.

Unless I am mistaken there are places in the Bible wherein God declares some covenent or sign or practice to be “for all time”, or “forever between us” or word to that effect. This how the Jews view circumcision for example. Another might be the covenent between God and Abraham. Yet in each case the covenent was superceded by a new, more encompasing covenent.
Now we live under the “New Covenent” of the Blood of Christ. Jesus teaches salvation for those who “Do the Will of the Father in Heaven”, and damnation for those who do evil.

It is certainly possible then to speculate that, Given that God has revised covenents in the past, he might sometime in the future make a new covenent and release all from damnation who wish to be redeemed. Those who are so corrupted and so completely owned by Satan might then be simply willed from existance for since there is no more time there is no more need of hell.

It certainly makes for interesting speculation. However it is highly dangerous theology.
If we aim for Heaven and miss, we land in Purgatory.
If we aim for Purgatory and miss, we land in hell.
If we think or hope for reprieve from their, we may well be miserably disappointed.
Far better for us to aim firmly for heaven and hope in the Love and Mercy of our heavenly Father to do what is best for His creation.

Peace
James

No, the “New and Eternal Covenant” is the last covenant between God and man. All of mankind is incorporated under it (not just one family, tribe, or nation). Through Jesus Christ, true God and true man, the covenant is perfectly kept. There is no one else left to incorporate (everyone is invited and those who are willing accept that invitation). There is no imperfection left in the covenant – God speaks for both parties.

Read Hebrews, it’s all in there.

Hebrews 7:22-28
This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself. Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever.

 

[SSTeacher]

I thought I would interject a new idea and see what others think about it.

Unless I am mistaken there are places in the Bible wherein God declares some covenent or sign or practice to be “for all time”, or “forever between us” or word to that effect. This how the Jews view circumcision for example. Another might be the covenent between God and Abraham. Yet in each case the covenent was superceded by a new, more encompasing covenent.
Now we live under the “New Covenent” of the Blood of Christ. Jesus teaches salvation for those who “Do the Will of the Father in Heaven”, and damnation for those who do evil.

It is certainly possible then to speculate that, Given that God has revised covenents in the past, he might sometime in the future make a new covenent and release all from damnation who wish to be redeemed. Those who are so corrupted and so completely owned by Satan might then be simply willed from existance for since there is no more time there is no more need of hell.

It certainly makes for interesting speculation. However it is highly dangerous theology.
If we aim for Heaven and miss, we land in Purgatory.
If we aim for Purgatory and miss, we land in hell.
If we think or hope for reprieve from their, we may well be miserably disappointed.
Far better for us to aim firmly for heaven and hope in the Love and Mercy of our heavenly Father to do what is best for His creation.

Peace
James

James,

You lost me completely. You opened by stating that you thought you’d interject a new idea but you seemed to jettison it before you finished your thought and ended up delivering a sermon that included notification of the results “we” can expect within certain mindsets.

But you never said if you think there’s a case for Universalism. What do you think about the main question?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[JRKH]

James,

You lost me completely. You opened by stating that you thought you’d interject a new idea but you seemed to jettison it before you finished your thought and ended up delivering a sermon that included notification of the results “we” can expect within certain mindsets.

But you never said if you think there’s a case for Universalism. What do you think about the main question?

Curiously,
Mick

Oh well - Sometimes I don’t know what I’m talking about either -

My basic point is that, since God has modified covenents in the past, he may do so in the future. Each time it has become more inclusive as JMJ pointed out. The covenent as it stands now and forever is that those who are condemned are condemned for all eternity and we have no other hope than to believe and strive for heaven.
This present circumstance does not however preclude God from modifiying the covenent after the end of time to redeem those in hell.

Is that any clearer?

peace
James

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;5486663:

James,

You lost me completely. You opened by stating that you thought you’d interject a new idea but you seemed to jettison it before you finished your thought and ended up delivering a sermon that included notification of the results “we” can expect within certain mindsets.

But you never said if you think there’s a case for Universalism. What do you think about the main question?

Curiously,
Mick

Oh well - Sometimes I don’t know what I’m talking about either -

I wish my wife made statements like that.

My basic point is that, since God has modified covenants in the past, he may do so in the future. Each time it has become more inclusive as JMJ pointed out. The covenant as it stands now and forever is that those who are condemned are condemned for all eternity and we have no other hope than to believe and strive for heaven.
This present circumstance does not however preclude God from modifying the covenant after the end of time to redeem those in hell.

OK so far.

Is that any clearer?

Yes. You’re not going to tell me if you think there’s a case for Univeralism.

peace
James

Peace,
Mick

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I thought I would interject a new idea and see what others think about it.

Unless I am mistaken there are places in the Bible wherein God declares some covenent or sign or practice to be “for all time”, or “forever between us” or word to that effect. This how the Jews view circumcision for example. Another might be the covenent between God and Abraham. Yet in each case the covenent was superceded by a new, more encompasing covenent.

I believe you are mistaken. You give examples of two covenants that as you say have been superceded by a new and more encompassing covenant. The first is circumcision. This covenant has never been superceded by anything. The manner of it’s execution has simply been changed.
Romans 2:25For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Here is a covenant with Abraham which has been fullfilled to the letter
2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

The blessing here refered to is Jesus

Now we live under the “New Covenent” of the Blood of Christ. Jesus teaches salvation for those who “Do the Will of the Father in Heaven”, and damnation for those who do evil.

Hasn’t this been the way it always has been?

It is certainly possible then to speculate that, Given that God has revised covenents in the past,

What covenants has He revised?

he might sometime in the future make a new covenent and release all from damnation who wish to be redeemed. Those who are so corrupted and so completely owned by Satan might then be simply willed from existance for since there is no more time there is no more need of hell.

This really belies a misunderstanding of the state of the dead. The dead are not in heaven or hell now they are dead.
Psa 146:4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

They are asleep in the grave awaiting the resurrection.

 

[JRKH]

I believe you are mistaken. You give examples of two covenants that as you say have been superceded by a new and more encompassing covenant. The first is circumcision. This covenant has never been superceded by anything. The manner of it’s execution has simply been changed.
Romans 2:25For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Here is a covenant with Abraham which has been fullfilled to the letter
2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

The blessing here refered to is Jesus

Hasn’t this been the way it always has been?

What covenants has He revised?

You may well be right in this. It may simply be that my understanding of thest things are insufficiant.

he might sometime in the future make a new covenent and release all from damnation who wish to be redeemed. Those who are so corrupted and so completely owned by Satan might then be simply willed from existance for since there is no more time there is no more need of hell.

This really belies a misunderstanding of the state of the dead. The dead are not in heaven or hell now they are dead.
Psa 146:4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

They are asleep in the grave awaiting the resurrection.

hmmmmm - -
So who was with Jesus at the Transfiguration?
Also,
Didn’t Jesus that God is a God of the Living and not of the Dead?

Peace
James

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Yes but not in your narrow and flawed perspectives using the limited thinking from one faith one must embrace science and all religions even the fictional and most odd. And accept all life and all faiths and all dieties are true in some part of the many worlds and then embrace this in its perfection: In an eternal nearly infinite universe the only thing we humans in this reality as we experience it are sure of is the most absurd of realities must be considered as true as the most mundane.

 

[JRKH]

I wish my wife made statements like that.

OK so far.

Yes. You’re not going to tell me if you think there’s a case for Univeralism.

Peace,
Mick

To clarify further and try to answer your question.

Under the current covenent, as recorded in the Bible, based on the teachings of Christ, and taught by the Church there does not seem to be a case for universalism. Hell is for eternity just as Heaven is. This is clearly stated. So there is no case for universalism.

While speculation about an ultimate universal redemption may be interesting, it has no practical value in our day to day journey. It is our task to seek the glory of God and to seek His kingdom in this life.
Seek then the perfection of Christ in your heart and become perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect. Perfect in Love for God and Love your neighbor as yourself.

Peace
James