Bible Verses Universalist and Non-Universalist views

[Kelly_S]

I don’t think we should go out and read the Bible to prove what we believe. I think we should read the Bible and believe what it says. The former brings division and contention, the later, unity and understanding to those seeking truth. In my lay person big o, the whole of Scripture leans in the direction of full reconciliation.

[_oxymoron]

The former brings division and contention.

It doesn’t bring division as we are already divided. There is absolutely no unity between universalism teaching and orthodox teaching.

[_oxymoron]

For verses like John 12:32 and Colossians 1:20 and Ephesians 1:10 there is the Universalist Interpretation and the Non-Universalist Interpretations, which is correct, who is to say

Well there can only be one truth. We both can’t be right but we both can be wrong.

[Sherman]

Garfield, ultimately each person has to be convinced in his own heart and mind. We can only answer for ourselves and live according to what we believe, no matter what one believes. Who is right? Well, God is right and it’s likely we’re all wrong in much of what we believe. The key is to be open hearted and open minded and diligent to study like the Bereans were. If that’s the case, then God can lead us to learn and grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Anointed One. Based on my studies, prayer, and interaction with other believers, I’ve come to believe UR. And the more I study scripture and prayerfully consider the topic, the more convinced I become. But concerning all my beliefs, I recognize that I could be wrong, and realize that I am likely wrong in maybe 30%-50% of my beliefs; I just don’t know which 30%-50%. If I did, I’d repent.

[dirtboy]

For verses like John 12:32 and Colossians 1:20 and Ephesians 1:10 there is the Universalist Interpretation and the Non-Universalist Interpretations, which is correct, who is to say

I have not yet heard a traditional interpretation of Colossians 1 that was coherent. I was talking with a Calvinist who said that it was not talking about salvation. Yet Paul explicitly says in the very text that he IS talking about salvation. Look:

19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to **reconcile **to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of[g] your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Notice the areas that I underlined. “Reconcile, peace, blood, cross”. If those four words aren’t enough to convince you that Paul was speaking about salvation, then Paul goes on to tell you what he means by reconcile when he reminds the readers that they were reconciled to God through the gospel by faith. There simply is no other way to read it that I have seen explained. I have a Tyndale and a Pulpit commentary in my possession and they both agree that it is salvific. You have to butcher the text to come up with a reconciliation that is non-salvific.