I get it now.
Fire, death, suffering they all are designed to produce repentance and your true desire to align with God.
If you confess with your mouth you will be saved.
The torment of the lake of fire teases out a confession.
Every knee will bow, every tongue confess Jesus is Lord.
I ask this only 'cause I tend to see CU Christians leaning more towards the rational, and rightly so.
Hello everyone, I believe in universal salvation because everything makes way more sense as opposed to ECT. And its more in line with God's character as well as making the sacrifice of Jesus truly victorious! However, this verse keeps throwing me off.
Revelation 14:11
New American Standard Bible 1995
11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
I have to be misunderstanding something in the verse because it heavily implies ECT for those who worship the beast and his image. "Forever and ever" sounds like without end. Can anyone help me with this?
I thought that 3:11 was a great support for fire as a cleansing purifying fire like in metal making. As in fire doesn’t mean torture forever in hell.
Then I read on to verse 12. Doesn’t that sound like people getting tossed aside and burned away into non existence? Whatever that’s called. The one where people think sinners just disappear instead of being in hell forever.
Is there some sort of understanding of first century technique that I’m missing in order to understand this better in a way that isn’t discouraging?
I feel like maybe I’m just reading what I want to hear into the text when I read things like that.
i'm aware that this passage has already come up a handful of times on this page, however i did not find the proceeding discussions in those instances to be very decisive or relevant to the true heart of the issue. i believe it is accurate to say that the death spoken of in this chapter is not an eternal, spiritual destination, but rather the departure from earthly existence into the realm of the dead/the grave (Sheol). the issue for me—which is, with full sincerity, preventing me from converting to universalism—is that this passage says the avaricious will never see the light of day again, and creates a direct contrast between the greedy, arrogant man and those who trust in The LORD as their guide with v. 15: "But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol..." (NASB95 [my emphasis]). those who go into death who trust in Adonai are delivered from its power, but those who rendered wealth and status as their god are not liberated from Sheol, and will never again see the light of day. if we are taking death within this section to be literal, physical death, then it must follow that the righteous man who is saved in v. 15 is being saved from that death and will again see the LIGHT of day. i make that point because i have seen many who, due to the likely reality that the passage speaks of earthly death, conclude that this psalm is irrelevant to the issue of the apokatastasis. however, this tension is not related to what kind of death is referenced here, but that one is saved from it (the righteous) and one never is (the wicked). i think its obvious that "the light" is an idiom from what is enjoyed by the delivered and what is withheld from those who go "into the generation of their fathers," if we are taking "light" to mean "earthly life," and if the obedient being redeemed from "Sheol" means he is saved from "earthly death."
i also do not think linguistics solves this issue, as it seems that regarding "ad nasah" here to be literally "to the end" or "until the conclusion of the age" betrays the data of the passage, as this psalm does not appear to contain any eschatological scope or concept of an approaching "end" that i can deduce, not to mention the same psalmist(s) employs living "nasah" as a contrast to undergoing decay (v. 9).
universalists, help me out here? (also, i hope i do not come off as arrogant or pompous, i am coming to this subreddit after engaging in several discussions which left me dissatisfied, so i wanted to provide conversational context) peace from our Great God and Savior, Jesus The Anointed!
After opening my heart to the idea of universal reconciliation, I have tried to do my due diligence and understand the explicit arguments against universal reconciliation in favor of eternal conscious torment (ECT) - beyond the basic "heretic" claim I grew up with.
A common argument I see is how UR can negatively affect evangelism, going as so far to say it makes a less convincing claim for the Gospel. While I understand there are many here who have disagreements on the role of evangelism and what the great commission meant, at least for me I am partial towards the mission of sharing the Gospel to the world. I understand the urgency of evangelism under the framework of ECT.
However, it got me thinking, how many athiests/agnostics in todays age would be willing to "convert to Christianity"/accept the Gospel but couldnt because of UR as opposed to ECT? Like how many athiests are going "yea...I would totally believe in the Gospel if it wasn't for the UR nonsense, however I would totally be convinced if you preached to me ECT!"
Like I get that for many athiests they have many problems with Christianity besides the doctrine of infernalism (if thats what they were taught), and I am not expecting Universal Reconciliation to be a silver bullet, especially to those that still hold to staunch materialism above all else. However it is impossible (or at least very difficult) for me to perceive of a person who would be open to the Gospel but couldnt make that leap of faith due to UR compared to ECT. If anything, isn't ECT a major stumbling block for the process of conversion/even those in the faith today?
Hi All, I am very new to this sub and frankly have only been open to the idea of universal reconciliation since last week. I was raised in a non-denom "infernalist" household for most of my life and I always thought that any form of dogmatic universalism was "heresy" at the level of denying the Trinity or Christ's physical death and resurrection. However, in that context, something akin to "hopeful" Universalism was still allowed.
I can't quite recall what it was, but earlier this week I was reading scripture that confident universalists point to (wish I remembered which one)...and all of a sudden I felt overwhelmed by the spirit and started to...cry? In the blink of a moment it all...just made sense? I was like "Oh! this is the good news the apostles were talking about and were willing to die for."
The notion of the Gospel as being THE GOOD NEWS entirely changes when you see that God will (not hopefully/maybe) reconcile all creation onto Himself through Jesus Christ. Once you view the Gospel in this light it almost feels impossible to view it any other way!
I will be honest I am deeply afraid that my heart is decieving me :(. In a sense it almost feels like I like what I am feeling has to be wrong/"too good to be true". I can already here my family saying that what I am feeling is just human emotions that have no discernment on the nature of God's justice. Anyone else been through this experience and know how to get over it? It's almost like I can't be certain of a doctrine like this unless I feel the "emotional downside" to confirm my human fallibility.
Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
Of course this is where the stereotypical gates to heaven and hell imagery comes from because thats what it sounds like. But if you actually remember where gates are during Jesus' time, he is clearly referring to a city of which there are multiple gates. He says specifically "Enter BY the narrow gate", and "many who go in BY it"
"By" definitely changes the meaning of the sentence, and is definitely out of place if this is referring to two entirely different locations.
"Dont go in the left door, go in the right door" -easily may lead to two different locations
"Don't go in by the left door, go in by the right door" -clearly Implies 1 location with 2 entrances, unnecessarily/ confusingly worded otherwise.
This detail is pretty much confirmed IMO when Jesus says in Matthew 21:31 the pharisees WILL enter the kingdom of heaven.. Only the tax collectors and harlots will do so before them.
I made this posts minutes after I became Christian universalist: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianUniversalism/s/ADzOSHTiLg . I remember when that happened happened. It was like seeing the Gospel clearly for first time. I had been doing deconstructing of my faith for some times and was already hopeful universalist. This brings us back to my new glasses.
My vision is not that bad, but when I put them first time on my nose it was like the details of the world jumped to my face. My surroundings seemed so much more beautiful and lively when I saw them fully. It was same with Confident universalism. I already saw the Gospel more clearly than many infernalist or annhilationist Christians, but with hopeful universalism there still was a blur. Now I have seen the Gospel clearly exactly three years and one month. It truly is the Good news!
It's amazing how God can teach us the gospel truths with so everyday examples like prescription glasses.
For many that grew up KJV Onlyist and from a fundamentalist background, I will go through some points and explain how the KJV is compatible with universalism or at least refutes eternal punishment.
This post isn't to convert anyone to KJV Onlyism but rather to prove to anyone who does hold the view of KJV Onlyism that the scriptures are compatible with universalism.
While this verse is primarily used to support ECT, the KJV specifically uses two different words to describe punishment and life. Life is described as "eternal", whereas punishment is described as "everlasting". While many argue that the Greek uses the same words, those who hold onto a fundamentalist view of scripture such as the KJB being inerrant can see that Matthew 25:41-46 does not use the same words for life and punishment.
We can see in other parts of scriptures that the word "everlasting" is used to describe things that are temporal such as:
A. The Priesthood (Exodus 40:15)
B. The Mountains (Habakkuk 3:6)
Therefore we can refute the claim that Matthew 25: 41-46 supports ECT.
The phrase that is the closest to "eternal punishment" is the phrase "eternal damnation", which does appears in Mark 3:29. However it is important to read the full verse which says that anyone who does commit this sin is "in DANGER of eternal damnation" - not that they're definitely going to be damned forever. The verse is an idiom used by Jesus to emphasise how it would take as long as eternity if need be for the person to be saved.
There are many different views of what the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is. I hold onto a premillennialist view that it can't be committed by Christians but only by those during Jesus' first and second advent as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit means seeing Jesus face to face and attributing his works to a demon.
Those who commit the sins are in a state where they would not accept Jesus even if he appears to them which is why Jesus says they are "in danger of eternal damnation" as it would take as long as possible for the person to come out of that state and accept Christ.
Therefore we can see that no where does the KJV use the phrase "eternal punishment". The closest phrase that does appear is "eternal damnation" and even so Jesus uses it in a way that is conditional rather than absolute.
Now finally we see in 1 Corinthians 15:22 which says "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive".
However that is just the tip of the iceberg. There are countless more verses that reveal God's plan of universal restoration - I still need to do more research on this topic.
My main points were on how the KJV refutes the doctrine of eternal conscious torment.
No offense if there are any universalist Calvinists here, I’m talking specifically about infernalist Calvinists. How do these people even function daily without constant anxiety and terror taking over them? Just only being able to hope that you’re one of the chosen and avoid suffering in the flames for eternity. Truly horrific.
I suffer from this fear daily and I’m not nor have ever even been a Calvinist, so I can’t imagine how it is for them. And also, this line of thinking seems to directly contradict 1 Timothy 2:3-4, where it clearly states that God desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.
Now, I do absolutely believe in God’s sovereignty and the concept of election, which is why Reformed Purgatorial Universalism makes the most sense to me. But I’m glad my hope has a happy ending compared to the cosmic horror of Calvinism. I can’t help but feel sympathy for this person and others who share his beliefs. John Calvin may have had good intentions, but he has tragically done so much damage to Protestantism.
My life is so painful. The people around me are so horrifying. The whole world is being hammered by war and suffering. I always wondered whether this physical world is evil and whether Jehovah is the evil lord. Do you think that all of us will be saved by the actual God after death?
…and yet be as sad as Marcus Aurelius
I know, it borders on heresy. That God the Father is judge of the soul is practically in our DNA as believers in a supreme uncreated being. And beleiving Christians largely see Christ as the payment for our sins to a judge ready to lock us up and throw away the key!
But what did Christ teach? He taught that the Father sees the wayward son coming in the distance. And that father goes in his finest to greet the son and offer his blessing and welcoming back in, not as a lowly penitant, but as an heir (again).
The Father's judgement was empathy, forgiveness, and love, and that love is what restored him to the community (who by the way would have been ready to hang him up after pissing away the kinship/clan's land and resources).
When Jesus told this to the people they would have been aghast at the parable, the Father neither judged, nor required the repentance ... it's almost a side note. I wonder even if we have it backwards, the Father's great love is the cause of the repentance.
The judge and jury you've been tap dancing for doesn't exist. When you come running up and over that hill, a long way off your Father will be there to greet you and put a fine robe and sandals on your feet.
I personally find it the most preferable eschatological route
All descriptions sound similar. What is the difference between the two?
...there is one strong evidence for it. I often wonder where the idea of eternal Hell came? Who told to people that God is sadist who tortures his children forever? Who told people that Jesus failed in his mission to save all? Who told to people that God will never be all in all (It contradicts: 1.Corinthians 15:28)? Who told to people that God who is love (1. John 4:8) looks like... well... like Satan?
Secular explanation would be that Universalism can't be used to control people. With eternal Hell believers will hang on pastor's every word. Maybe this is the explanation. I'm not god I don't know if Satan exists or is he actually allegory to human evil, and frankly I don't even care to know the answer to that question. Christ has conquered Satan anyway what ever the answer is, because where sin increased, grace abounded all the more (Romans 5:20).
Most gospel tracts available are like this one.
One of the things that turn me off of universalism is that it implies that people who do truely horrendous things like Hitler or Mussolini or Jeffrey Dahmer still get a chance to go to heaven, That seems really wrong to me
.
I know that there are a lot of people here who reject things like Biblical Inerrancy and Sola Scriptura and such, but quite a few of the Christians you talk to are fundamentalists, and many of them aren’t going to listen to arguments that aren’t based on these ideas. When you talk to these particular Christians, I think you’ll find my free Biblical Universalism eBook helpful to recommend to them, because it uses only the King James Bible (which a lot of these Christians also insist on using) to prove the salvation of all. In this book, I’ve gone over basically every “proof text” I’ve ever heard used to defend both Infernalism and Annihilationism, in order to demonstrate that these passages don’t actually contradict Universalism at all (and, in many cases, actually support the doctrine).
I should also say, even if you’re not a Biblical Inerrantist, you might still find the scriptural interpretations and arguments in the book useful for your own discussions with the various fundamentalist Christians you come across.
You can find the links to the newly updated PDF and zipped ePUB versions of the eBook here: https://www.universalism.ca
