the answers I have given aren’t exactly in-depth , but I have tried to be as concise as possible , it seems to me you have some very valid questions and that’s a good thing perhaps if you were to read some of the books presenting u.r.
showing the evidence for the position and you may well find the answers your looking for 
Hi Revival,
You wrote:
Actually, there are verses which indicate that Jesus did, in fact, try to keep his identity from being renown during his public ministry (Matthew 8:1-4; 16:20; Mark 1:34, 40-44; 3:11-12; 8:29-30; Luke 5:12-15; 9:20-21). The circumstances are what determined when it was appropriate (or not) for Jesus to be more open with who he was. But the point is that Jesus had good and wise reasons for being more secretive or discreet at times concerning his identity during his public ministry. Some circumstances make the revealing of certain truths to people more appropriate than others. In John 16:12 Jesus told his disciples, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” In other words, it wouldn’t have been appropriate for Jesus to make known to them at that time the “many things” he still had to say to them. But later, it would be appropriate, and they would consequently be guided into “all the truth” by the “Spirit of truth” (v. 13).
Do you think the “many things” that Jesus still had to say to his disciples (but which they could not then bear) may have been truths connected with Jesus’ coming death, resurrection and ascension (which the disciples had a difficult time grasping until after these events had actually taken place)?
I’m not sure I understand your response. I don’t think you’re suggesting that Jesus’ disciples didn’t have a “sin nature” (because they seemed pretty capable of sinning during Jesus’ public ministry to me). So are you saying that the parables were intended to help people with sinful natures better understand spiritual truths?
I prefer the reason Jesus gives for why he spoke in parables. In Matthew 13 (cf. Mark 4:11-12), we read:
You asked, “Why would Jesus be secretive about a important part of the redemption of man(UR) in his teachings in the gospels?” I think it’s because there were things that needed to take place first before it would’ve been more appropriate for this truth to be made known more explicitly to the world. The truth of UR is inseparable from the truth of Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension (which is why Jesus’ most explicit mention of UR in John 12:32 is in connection with his coming death). The disciples were hardly able to understand and bear the truth that Jesus had to die and would later be resurrected, so for Jesus to have been more explicit during his ministry about a doctrinal truth that was inseparable from his death, resurrection and ascension before these events had taken place would have been inappropriate.
I don’t think you quite understood my question, so let me try to be clearer: When do you think the doctrine of ECT was first revealed by God to mankind? When do you think this doctrine was first made known by God to human beings in this world? Surely you don’t believe mankind was present when you think “God created the lake of fire for the devil and his fallen angels.”
I think you’re kind of undermining your own argument against UR (which is based on what Jesus is recorded and not recorded as having said during his public ministry) with the above statements.
-
The words translated “immortal,” “immortality,” or “incorruptible” are never connected with the words translated “spirit” and “soul” in Scripture. In fact, Scripture explicitly speaks of the “soul” as being able to die, be killed, or be destroyed. And if by our “spirit” you’re referring to the “breath of life” that was breathed into Adam’s nostrils when he became a “living soul” (and which is present in all of his living descendents, as well as in non-human creatures) this is nowhere spoken of as being something that is either mortal or immortal. That which isn’t a living thing or being cannot be considered mortal or immortal; it’s merely part of (or an attribute of) a thing or being that is either mortal or immortal. If you disagree, ok. I don’t really want to get involved in another in-depth discussion on this particular topic right now.
-
You seem to agree with me that there are different kinds of “life” that human beings can receive or have received from God. Is that correct?
Yep. But Scripture teaches we’re mortal image-bearers until we become immortal at the resurrection of the dead.
Hi Aaron
That and other things. John 14, 15 ,16 Jesus explains sending another comforter to pick up on the things that he wanted to teach that the Holy Spirit would teach them and us. 
Yep.
So, are you conceding the fact Jesus did not teach UR? So, are you saying the disciples or anyone else would not be able to understand that every human being that ever lived would eventually have right standing with God?
I know Jesus taught ECT in multiple places in the NT especially in Luke 16:19-31. I know you don’t agree with this but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong. I never done any extensive research on ECT in the OT but I’m sure its there somewhere.
Not at all, the difference is John 21:25 states the many other things Jesus did that went unrecorded were the mircacles, healings, casting out devils, etc…not secretly holding back an important part of the redemption of man (UR).
No, Adam received the life of God when he was created in Gen 2:7. Then he lost that life in Gen 3 in the fall and received the sin nature or spiritual death. Every human born since Adam has inherited this sin nature. This nature is changed with the life of God or the nature of God when you accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
- Sin nature or spiritual death
- life of God or spiritual life
Those are the different kinds of 'life" human beings can have. But they both don’t come from God. The sin nature is passed down from Adam. The life of God we receive from Jesus by faith.
Hi Revival,
I wrote:
You replied:
Well first, let me say that I think the OT prophesied UR in “germ form,” although I don’t think the saints before the advent of Christ saw and understood the ultimate future of all people as clearly as those living after the advent of Christ. But yeah, I don’t believe it was Christ’s purpose to announce the doctrine of UR to the Jewish or Gentile world during his public ministry. While I do believe he taught and lived out principles that are consistent with and even fundamental to the truth of UR, I don’t think Christ saw it as his mission to personally and explicitly make this truth known to everyone. Rather, it was the men whom Christ discipled who I believe were commissioned (and then empowered on the day of Pentecost) to make known to the world those historical facts concerning Christ which, as a Universalist, I think entail UR (and I think what Paul wrote in his epistles is good evidence that ultimate universal salvation was seen by the early Christians as the logical implication of the gospel of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and as the necessary and inevitable outcome of Jesus’ reign).
So what do I think the disciples believed about people’s “final destiny” before they received a clearer revelation of the truth of UR after Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension? Well, if their beliefs were derived primarily from the OT, then I can tell you what they didn’t believe: eternal conscious torment. While I think OT revelation was purposely meant to be somewhat ambiguous concerning the final destiny of all, I don’t think it ever reveals ECT. I see this doctrine as completely foreign to the OT. Rather, I see the OT as containing enough hints and glimpses of the future to give one hope that the wicked might be restored, even if they were to be indefinitely excluded from the spiritual blessings that would be bestowed by God under the reign of the Messiah. So Jesus’ disciples may have simply been more or less agnostic (or held to more speculative beliefs) in regards to what would be the final state of all people. If, however, the eschatological beliefs of Jesus’ disciples were initially based more on the “traditions of men” rather than on their inspired Scriptures (as seemed to be the case for the Pharisees), then they probably would’ve held to some form of ECT for the wicked, or annihilation. Either way, I don’t think Jesus’ disciples were prepared to believe “to the saving of their souls” that all people would ultimately be reconciled to God until after those events took place which Paul considered essential to the gospel. I think the truth of UR was simply too radical, and required a radical event (i.e., Jesus’ resurrection) to bring them to the place where they would be able to “bear it” and then spend the rest of their lives trying to bring others to a place where they could believe it as well, and be blessed by it. And this is what I (and others, I’m sure) are trying to do for you, although I’m becoming more and more doubtful that this is the best approach.
So you haven’t done any extensive study on whether or not ECT is in the OT but you’re “sure it’s there somewhere.” Hmm. Well perhaps you could start researching it now, and let us know what your findings are. Knowing when you think God first revealed the doctrine of ECT to mankind will help me better respond to your criticism that, if UR were true, Jesus would’ve laboured to make it known to the world.
So you don’t believe that a person can be considered as having any kind of “life,” or as being “alive” in any sense, until they are born again and receive the “spiritual life” that comes by faith? If this isn’t what you believe, then it seems we’re in agreement that there are different kinds of “life” that human beings can receive or have received from God. If this is what you believe, then we may have hit a roadblock in this discussion.
I speak in tongues every day. If you are trying to make a point, you lose. I am probably one of the few ‘Charasmatic’ Christians who trusts in the Gospel of Salvation for All, here. Speaking in tongues don’t really mean much to any one other than he who speaks in tongues.
1 Corinthians 14:4-6
Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified. Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction?
1 Corinthians 13:1
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
Your case is pretty shoddy and falls apart when examined by the Scriptures and challenged by others who also speak in tongues.
I didn’t ask you if you spoke in tongues everyday. Do you pray in tongues for hours a day for personal edification as described in 1 Cor 14:2;4? If not, then the benefits of praying in tongues taught by Paul in 1 Cor 14 is a mystery to you. God bless.
Only If your UR brethren understood this fact… instead they take scripture out of context to try to prove something that didn’t happen. I thank you for the discussion, Aaron. God bless.
Hi Revival,
You wrote:
I’m assuming you realize that I believe Jesus was affirming the truth of UR in John 12:32. All I’m denying is that Jesus’ purpose during his public ministry was to convert the Jewish or Gentile world to a belief in UR. IOW, while I do believe Jesus was affirming UR in John 12:32, I don’t think he said what he did with the intent that those listening would “get it” at the time and become believers in UR because of what he said (and I think many of my “UR brethren” on this forum would agree with me on this). I also believe Jesus taught things that were completely inconsistent with ECT, and which only make sense within a paradigm in which UR (rather than ECT) is true. And while you’re asserting that some Universalists on this forum “take scripture out of context to try to prove something that didn’t happen,” you’re basically trying to argue that something that is going to happen (i.e., Christ’s drawing all people to himself) is not going to happen. So I’m not sure you have much room to talk. I’ve found the non-UR interpretations you’ve provided for this verse to be as fanciful and strained as your interpretation of every other NT passage in which UR is so clearly affirmed. Your commitment to the doctrine of ECT forced you to come up with some rather bizarre interpretations of this verse in the past (Does “all” in John 12:32 refer to drawing all God’s wrath?), and your most recent attempt at denying what we believe Christ was affirming here is not much better (for contrary to what you said earlier, the Jews were never being “drawn to salvation” by relying on the law). But you did get it right when you said, “Jesus, and not the law and ordinances will draw all men to salvation.” But of course, you don’t even believe your own words, because you don’t think Jesus will draw all men to salvation. If you did, you’d have to abandon your belief in ECT.
Btw, a lot of Jews were relying on the law for their salvation(even though this was not the intention of the law) and in their eyes being drawn towards it so much it became a stumbling block to accept Christ. Your commitment to being a preterist UR has also forced you into some rather bizarre interpretations of scripture… Thanks again for the discussion.
TAFKABAA37. (The artist formerly known as Born Again Aaron37) Lol.