The Evangelical Universalist Forum

11 Reasons Why I'm not an Evangelical Universalist

Aaron, if we only accept Jesus’ words(while in the flesh) then you and I are screwed, assuming you are also a gentile. For He came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Speaking of sheep, what man of you having 100 sheep and one goes astray wouldn’t leave the 99 behind and go after the one who was lost? I don’t know if you consider the Revelation of John to be “in bounds here” but in Revelation it says he will rule the nations with a rod of iron, that word rule is the word shepherd, the same word when He tells Peter to shepherd His sheep at the end of the gospel of John.

You know Jesus never said anything about speaking in tongues, so your speaking in tongues must be a false doctrine then if we use the same logic that we can only accept His earthly words.

Hi Gene
What verse is “I do not cast off men forever” and when left in context what is the subject of the chapter?

God’s sovereignty has established the sovereignty of man over His creation. ( Gen 1:26-28; Psalm 8:1-9) In other words, God just can’t intervene and do want He wants in peoples lives without their permission or using their authority given them in Gen and Psalms. He will not violate His word. God tells us to choose life or death, blessings or cursing. The theme of the Bible since Gen 3 is the redemption of man through Jesus Christ. Jesus has made provision for mankind to receive salvation through faith. Mankind must make a free-will choice to choose life or death.

I don’t have a problem proving the trinity in scripture. The word “Trinity” is just a descriptive word we use. Just because the word Trinity is not found in the scriptures doesn’t mean it isn’t addressed in the scriptures.

One verse is just one stroke of the brush in the picture. Leaving the verse in its setting helps to see the picture intended. Taking scripture out of context and making them say what they don’t say is not part of my methodology.( atleast I hope not…LOL) God bless.

Very true.

Enough said. Thanks for the interaction Aaron.
God bless you

Hey redhotmagma

The lost sheep of Israel were God’s #1 priority to receive the Messiah due to the fact he separated them from the world and gave them the law and the prophets (scriptures). But did Jesus only come for the lost sheep of Israel?

Jesus said in John 10:16 "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Guess who were the other sheep? Thats right, the gentiles. Yay, that means you and me. :wink:

Jesus never said anything about speaking in tongues because no one but himself would be capable of doing it before his completed work on the cross. But he did tell the disciples of the promise of the Father: to tarry in Jerasulem, until they be endued with power from on high in Luke 24:49. They received this power with ability to speak in tongues after Jesus’ resurrection in the upper room in the book of Acts 1:8; 2:4…Also Jesus spoke of the baptism in the Holy Spirit in John 7:38-39. but there were prophesies about in the the OT.

I’m sorry, are you referring Jesus teaching UR in a indirect way? If so, I would like to see the indirect scriptures Jesus taught when left in context to the subject of the chapter. There are 10 more reasons against UR to talk about if this convo has run its course. God bless.

Hi Aaron,

Do you believe it’s possible for an agnostic to debate scripture with a believer?

Hello Jeff, LOL, of course. :wink:

That’s good. I have been told before now on this forum that I’m not qualified to talk about these things - not that I have anything to say one way or the other at the moment :slight_smile:

BTW - welcome.

The Baaron is back?

Be nice, Craig! :wink: He never liked that name!

Sonia

By the same qualification that He must have said something about UR to be true, I say He must have said something specifically about tongues for it to be true. Also you won’t allow OT prophecies to count for UR, by the same logic then you must disqualify OT prophecies about tongues. Just because He spoke about the baptism of the HS, doesn’t mean that what was written in Acts counts if we’re going to go by your rules here. He never described what that meant, maybe its part of the “many more things I have to tell you that you can’t bear yet” :wink:

By the same reasoning the sheep of another fold, how do you know that means gentiles if He never directly says it? Also couldn’t that also point to UR?

God having compassion for mankind does not guarantee ones salvation.

could you kindly then explain what does :slight_smile: :question:

Never said you can’t use OT scripture to support UR. The baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking with tongues is clearly supported by scripture in multiple places. Jesus instructs His disciples to receive it without explaining the fullness of it. I’m not trying to start any new doctrine here but in (John 11:33, 38) records Jesus groaning in the spirit. Is this the same groaning in the Spirit in Romans 8:26? Could this possibly be Jesus speaking in tongues? I let you decide. I lean toward Jesus speaking in tongues. :wink:

If you look closely at John 10:16 “they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd” Apostle Paul expounds on this in Eph 2:13-15 telling us that Christ has made both Jew and Gentile one new man. There is no enmity between Jew and Gentile anymore and shall be one fold and have the same shepherd. :wink:

Yes, you could take this verse out of context and make it say what you want it to say to support UR but you would commit
hermeneutical suicide. :wink: God bless.

Sure, Paul explains in Colossians 1:22-23.

22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a ministe

Based on the scripture above to be presented holy and unblameable and unreproveable to God…you must:

  1. Continue in the faith grounded and settled.
  2. Be not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you have heard.
  3. To receive verse 22 you must do verse 23…therefore salvation is conditional upon what you believe.

The Christian who overcomes and continues in the faith and does not get moved away by false doctrine guarantees one salvation for eternity. :wink: God bless.

There are many scriptural reasons that I believe in the reconciliation of all people to God. Perhaps this is an appropriate place to post again the best “proof text” which teaches that the unrighteous are corrected after they are judged. I have added somewhat to the original post which is found on another thread.

[size=150]The Best “Proof Text” of Correction After Judgment[/size]

Here it is! The best “proof text” in the Bible concerning the correction of the unrighteous after they are judged!

The Lord knows how to deliver the devout out of trial, but to reserve the unrighteous for a day of judgment, to be corrected. 2 Peter 2:9

Here is an interlinear for your consideration:

οιδεν—κυριος— ευσεβεις εκ πειρασμου ρυεσθαι— αδικους
knows the Lord- devout—out of trial—— to deliver-unrighteous

δε -εις —ημεραν κρισεως—— κολαζομενους τηρειν
but into a day—- of judgment to be corrected to keep (2 Peter 2:9)

The whole strength of this “proof” lies in the translation of the lexical form of κολαζομενους, that is, “κολαζω” as “to correct”.

I realize that some may object to this translation, but the Online Bible Greek Lexicon gives the primary meanings of “κολαζω”as:

  1. to lop or prune
  2. to chastise, correct, punish

Abbott-Smith’s A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament gives the meanings:

  1. to curtail, dock, prune
  2. to check, restrain
  3. to chastise, correct, punish

Originally, the word was used to reference to the pruning of trees, shrubs, or vines with a view to correcting their growth by shaping them. Later it was used figuratively with reference to the correction of people, e.g. children.

To translate the word as “punish” is also correct as long as it is understood to be reformative rather than retributive. In English, “punish” may have either connotation, although it is more often taken in the latter sense, or in the sense of administering a penalty.

In Greek, the word “τιμωρεω” has the meaning “to punish” in the retributive sense. Indeed, every lexicon I have checked gives the primary meaning as “to avenge”. Strong’s indicates that the word was derived from the two words “τιμη” (honour) and “οὐρος”(guard). Put them together, and you have the concept of a person guarding his honour through vengeance. In recording Paul’s own words concerning his treatment of disciples of Christ prior to Paul’s becoming a disciple himself, Luke wrote:

Acts 22:5 "as also the high priest bears me witness, and all the council of the elders, from whom I also received letters to the brethren, and went to Damascus to bring in chains even those who were there to Jerusalem to be punished (τιμωρεω).
Acts 26:11 "and I punished (τιμωρεω) them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.

One of the best ways to get a sense of how a Greek word is used is to note how it is used in literature. The word is used in 4 Maccabees 2:12 to indicate correction of children. No good parent punishes his children out of vengeance, but corrects them out of love.

*[The law] takes precedence over affection for children, so that one corrects them for their misdeeds.
*

4 Macabees is thought to have been written sometime between 100 B.C. to 100 A.D., that is, in the period in which the New Testament was written. It seems the author had been strongly moved by his reading of the deeds of Antiochus Ephiphanes against the Jews in 1 and 2 Macabees. So much of his “philosophical” thought and “devout reason” centers around the history he read there. In the following sentence he uses both “τιμωρεω” and “ κολαζω“ in a single sentence!

The tyrant Antiochus was both punished (τιμωρεω) on earth and is being corrected (κολαζω) after his death. (4 Maccabees 18:5)

The Judaistic belief at the time was that people’s souls survive death. So the sentence seems to say that while Antochus’s enemies got their revenge on him and his armies here on earth, God began to correct his soul after death. The author apparently held that post-mortem punishment was remedial. Otherwise he would not have chosen the word “κολαζω” but would have maintained the word “τιμωρεω” for his punishment after death, too.

Here is an example from the Septuagint translation of Ezekiel 43:10-11:

And you, son of man, show to the household of Israel, the house, and show its appearance and its arrangement,that they may cease from their sins. And they shall receive their κολασις concerning all their doings, and you shall describe the house, and its entrances and its foundation, and all its systems, and you shall make known to them all it regulations and describe them in their presence, and they shall guard all my righteous ordinances and all my commands and do them. (Ezekiel 43:10-11)

In this passage, God states His purpose in asking Ezekiel to show the house to Israel, namely that they may cease from their sins. He immediately follows this with And they shall receive their κολασις concerning all their doings. If God wants them to cease from their sins, and then gives them κολασις, is he punishing them retributively, or is He correcting them? The answer seems plain. Furthermore the conclusion of the matter is that the Israelites will guard all my righteous ordinances and all my commands and do them.

Surely this is reformation, and not mere revenge for their wrongdoing in the past.

Here is the Concordant translation of the verse in question:

The Lord is acquainted with the rescue of the devout out of trial, yet is keeping the unjust for chastening in the day of judging.

Hi Revival,

Suppose a man knows for certain that 90% of his children will end up raging lunatics locked away forever in padded cells. If he goes ahead anyway and fathers 10 children, will he be righteous or wicked?

Now suppose this same man is a great doctor who knows he can cure his children though they descend into lunacy. It will take all his skill, all his wealth, yet he longs to share his love. He is prepared to make every sacrifice to save them. He goes ahead and fathers 10 children. Is this man righteous or wicked?

The God of the Bible knows the end from the beginning. If this God, needing nothing, knows his act of creation will fill everlasting hell with teeming multitudes, yet He goes ahead and creates Adam anyway, I judge this God to be contemptable, wicked, unloveable, and unworthy of my worship.

But if God knows from the beginning that he will cure each and every one of his wayward creatures and bring us into everlasting joy, if He knows this will cost him all he has yet He is prepared to make that sacrifice for us, this God I judge worthy of my deepest love. Don’t you?

We must judge for ourselves what is right. We all must choose the God we will serve.

Hi Paidion

I appreciate the effort you put into this post but I respectfully disagree.I don’t recall many UR’s using this as a proof text but I may be wrong. I’m no Greek expert but I know how to look them up and use the scholars interpretation to help. Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D. is a Greek and well respected Greek scholar.This is his interpretation of the Greek word kolazo used in 2 Peter 2:9.

Timoria is the vindictive character of the punishment as the predominate thought which satisfies the inflicter’s sense of outraged justice. Kolasis, on the other hand, conveys the notion of punishment for the correction and bettering of the offender. It does not always, however, have the the same meaning in the NT. For instance, in Matthew 25:46 kolasis aionios, does not refer to temporary corrective punishment and discipline; rather it has more of the meaning of timoria, a punishment, because of the violation of the eternal law of God. It is the punishment with finality with which our Lord threatens the offenders in Mark 9:43-48. In this sense it does not imply the bettering of one who endures such punishment. In kolasis we have the relation of the punishment to the punished while in timoria the relationship is to the punisher himself.

I don’t recognize the Apocrypha as the word of God. God bless.

Hi Allans
I understand what you are saying but we can’t let our sentimental emotions interpret scripture. We must accept what has been established in scripture by leaving it in context and leave our emotions out if it. God bless.

Dr. Zodhiates offers no justification for his opinion that “in Matthew 25:46 kolasis aionios, does not refer to temporary corrective punishment and discipline.” So why does he make this claim? I suggest that he is simply expressing his belief in everlasting conscious punishment. He does not seem to recognize that “kolasis aionios” could mean “lasting correction”.

Indeed, the exact phrase “kolasis aionios” occurs in a Greek fragment of the well known Greek writer, Philo (20 B.C.-50 A.D.). The Greek scholar, Dr. Charles Yonge translated the passage in which the expression occurs as follows:

“It is better absolutely never to make any promise at all than not to assist another willingly, for no blame attaches to the one, but great dislike on the part of those who are less powerful,and intense hatred and long enduring punishment from those who are more powerful, is the result of the other line of conduct.”

It would be strange indeed if Dr. Yonge had translated the phrase as “eternal punishment”, for how could mere human beings bring eternal punishment to anyone?

Neither do I. But that’s irrelevant. Don’t you think the Greek writers of the Apocrypha, whoever they were, knew how to properly use Greek words? Can we not learn from them more about the usage of Greek words? — in the case, the word “kolasis”?

Exactly, religion don’t care about anything but the religion, why would it go and find out what the Greek words actually mean, it may destroy their religion.