The Evangelical Universalist Forum

John 11:23-26?


23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”
24 Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;
26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

Doesn’t the “the one who believes in me will live” imply in this context that only those who believe are granted eternal life? How do you explain this?


Everyone WILL believe in Him. And I use this in what the Amplified version says is the full meaning of the word “believe,” which is to rely on, trust in, cling to, adhere to. (Hopefully I’ve gotten all the stuff in there; I’m doing it from memory.) Otherwise how could you enter into the Kingdom when the Kingdom CONSISTS OF, in its essence, those who are subject to the King. If you’re not subject, you’re not A SUBJECT.


There is no reference to “eternal life”, but to “the eon” as with the following literal translation:

23 Jesus is saying to her, “Your brother will be rising.” 24 Martha is saying to Him, “I am aware that he will be rising in the resurrection in the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the Resurrection and the Life. He who is believing in Me, even if he should be dying, shall be living.” 26 And everyone who is living and believing in Me, should by no means be dying for the eon. Are you believing this? (CLV)

Compare the translations of Young, Rotherham, Emphatic Diaglott & the Greek-English interlinears here:

I take “the eon” to refer to a future age beginning with the return of Christ & lasting through the millennium (1000 years of Revelation 20). Yet Scripture refers to more than one eon (age) to come (Eph.2:7). And not everyone will not “be dying for the eon”. IOW some will die:

Isa.65:20 “Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

For further reading on related topics i’d suggest: … /eternity/

12 points re forever and ever being finite: … t-72126038

aionios life, 2 UR views, eon/ian ends, millennial eon, 1 Jn.1:2, Chrysoston, Origen, Dan 12 2-3: … t-72154410

John 3:36, 3:16, 1 Jn.1:2, aionios life: … t-72178491

Rev.14:9-11 & 20:10 & forever & ever a deceptive translation: … t-72158527 … n.8039822/ … r.8041512/ … 6.8041938/


By what Jesus says in John 5: those who do not honor the Son and the Father, and who do the bad things, will be raised to a resurrection of judgment instead of a resurrection of eonian life. But the {hina} purpose of the judgment is so that all may be honoring (positively valuing) the Father and the Son, and those who do that shall be coming out of the death and into the eonian life.

So the one who comes to honor the Son, thus also trusting in Him, will live even though they die. Same principle, just extended out in effect.


But that’s not what John 5 says at all. Verse 29 very clearly says that some will rise to live, while others will rise to be condemned. If everyone is going to live, why is that not clear here?


If anyone is going to be exterminated forever or sadistically tortured forever, why isn’t that clear there or anywhere?

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (Jn.1:29)

For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. (Jn.3:17)

They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.” (Jn.4:42)

“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” (Jn.12:32)

BTW, most versions here say “judgement”, not “condemned”:

New American Standard Bible
and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

What is the purpose of judgement:

Jn.5:23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father.

If Jason thought that applied to the wicked & Jesus was saying judgement would lead them to honour the Son, i would note that v.23 doesn’t say that judgement is that all will honor the Son, but that they will honor Him “even as they honor the Father”. But since the wicked do not honor the Father, then an argument (ECTers have made) is that this is not saying judgement by the Son will result in them honoring the Son, because they don’t honor the Father. And v.23 says that judgement is that they honor the Son even as (i.e. just like) they (already) honor the Father.


You make some good points, but the John 3:17 so often used by Universalists is extremely disingenuine because the very next verse reads “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”


I seldom refer to that verse myself when arguing for universalism from Scripture, though i’ve seen others sometimes refer to it. I prefer texts like Rom.5:18-19 & 1 Cor.15:22-28 to anything written in John’s gospel.

Have you seen a case ever made for universalism based on John 3:17?

For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. (Jn.3:17)

This appears to state God’s purpose in sending His Son. One might ask if Love Omnipotent is capable of fulfilling it and, if so, will He do so, or is there anything that could stop Him from achieving this purpose?

The Calvinist might say, no, there is nothing stopping HIm & He will save the world, but the world is only those lucky few who are chosen, not every individual in history of all mankind.

The Arminian might say, yes, there is something stopping HIm, namely free will (which God will not violate) and the time limit of this lifetime after which the Love of the Omnipotent expires for them like a carton of milk when it passes the “best by” date on the container.

But what if God’s love doesn’t expire & He seeks the lost till He finds it, like the shepherd seeks the lost sheep till He finds it (compare the parables Jesus told in Luke 15 re the lost coin & sheep & prodigal son)? What if God never gives up on anyone? What if it is mathematically impossible that anyone being tormented & “burning in hell” could reject Him continually for endless ages, i.e. forever?



Well of course you are condemned while you do not believe/trust in Jesus. No Christian universalist I know claims that it’s possible to be saved without Christ. And then, when you DO believe/trust, you are saved. We are saying that everyone will come to believe and be transformed by God’s gracious salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord. Not complicated.


Cindy said:

In all respect Cindy, how the hell can you make that statement.

There are infants and mentally challenged and people who will never because of their birth or upbringing who will NEVER know Christ.

How dare you say they will not be saved… Christ saved all.

You being an admin better maybe look at the alternatives. The lost and the infants and the unknowing all need an advocate. By gosh you should well be one.

Your statement is absolute Calvinist.

God I wonder why you said that.


I’m reading “Accepted in the Father’s Love”, a book by Mathew Simon, a universalist preterist. He does not believe there has been any condemnation since the Law was done away with in AD 70.


The animus towards Cindy’s post is undeserved.

The (to me at least) very strange world of the preterists seems to inspire sweeping statements that are imo unjustified because, frankly, the CASE IS NOT CLOSED.
Yes, prets can give a story that explains much of the biblical data. That does not equate to telling the true story. There are other justifiable ways to explain the data that lead to very different resultant world-views and hopes.

The preterist story is a mixture of insight, truth, and, I believe, error. (other stories get the same criticism) - as well as a truncated view of scripture - a view that is chosen by its adherents - and the fact that it is a choice should give one pause before jumping on others who have chosen differently.

There is a similar smugness among some trinitarians - I am not referring to JP - that the case is closed, we’ve got the truth and the rest of you don’t. It’s a close-mindedness that tends to strike out at or belittle others.

So please - you’ve made a choice you feel is correct - good for you. So have the rest of us - good for us. Let’s love one another and God and our neighbor get on with following Christ. We will all stand before Him for correction. (Yeah that’s my belief :slight_smile:)


IF one follows the universalist penchant for placing the entirety of humanity squarely “in Christ” as per 1Cor 15:22, then what does logic thereby dictate accordingly here, QED…


…who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Holy Spirit.


In trying to understand this statement, Cindy, I would like to ask a question. I am not arguing against your statement—just trying to understand it. If when you believe or trust, you are saved, just what is that from which you have been saved?


I was waiting for it… :laughing:

So IF you’re going to be consistent Dave… there IS indeed condemnation for believers who do not… “walk according to the Holy Spirit” but rather “according to the flesh” — which is what consistency dictates.


Of COURSE you were waiting for it, just as I was waiting for the retort. Isn’t this fun??
And we both know what I will say, and you will say…two different stories, and we have chosen for ourselves.


:laughing: Don’t forget Dave, I prefaced all that I said with… “IF one follows the universalist penchant…:wink:


In my frenzy to answer :laughing: I may have not given that word sufficient weight.
IOW, yep I got it now…


What are your thoughts on DaveB’s condition to your statement/quote? Do you think that people who don’t “walk according to the Holy Spirit” are condemned?