Everyone.
Why do you believe 90-95% of bible believing Christians who do not believe in UR are in error…while the 1-5% of bible believing Christians who believe in UR are not in error? Do UR’s get some special revelation knowledge from the Holy Spirit? Look forward to your responses. 
If you had asked that question in the first century (those closest to the original manuscripts and DIRECT teaching by Paul and others) your numbers would be flipped. How do you account for that? My own theory is that something has been lost in the translations of translations of translations. The early fathers were the brightest minds on the planet at that time - they were not fooled nor fools.
And something else to think about - universalism was NEVER considered as heresy even as the that Gospel message faded and was all but forgotten for centuries as Rome became more pervasive and powerful.
*ahh, but grasshoppa, you must learn remnant principle. *
“There were the 5,000 who came to see the miracles and have their belly’s made full. Out of the 5,000, seventy were sent out to represent Him to the world. And out of that seventy, there were the twelve He explained the parables to, that they might understand the mysteries of the Kingdom. Then, of the twelve were taken the three to bare witness of Himself transfigured in all His glory. Lastly of the three there was the one of whom it is said, “Jesus loved.” That beloved one laid his head on Jesus breast.”
Ran.
First, you have no proof that 90-95% of bible believing Christians believed in UR in the first century. Second, are you saying we don’t have a translation of the bible from the original manuscripts? How do you know which manuscripts the originals would be? Are you saying God does not know how to preserve His Word, Ran?
Finally, Paul did not teach UR… neither did Jesus. We live in the 21st century Ran, so please try again and answer the question.
John.
Ahh, John and the other UR’s, “the special remnant” have special revelation knowledge from the Holy Spirit that he does not share with the 90-95%. Really John?
First, your question is an ad populum argument - if most people believe something - it must be true. Or if few believe something - it must be untrue.
Secondly, we don’t have a translation of the original manuscripts. We have translations of translations. Since we don’t have the originals we can’t be certain that we have the best translation.
I see this thread is already going south. I asked you to account for the FACT that universalism was the Gospel in the early church. You answer seems to be that the early fathers were heretics and fools. Is that accurate?
Ran.
you said: Secondly, we don’t have a translation of the original manuscripts. We have translations of translations. Since we don’t have the originals we can’t be certain that we have the best translation.
Aaron: So, you are admitting that God is not capable of preserving His Word, Ran?
C’mon Ran, you can do better than that!!! It proves that you responded with a weak response. Come stronger than that.
We do know that most of the early church theologians did believe in UR. Some major thinkers that are considered to have most contributed were Origen and Gregory of Nyssa. Origen’s thinking is often derided in the west, but Gregory of Nyssa has always remained in very high regard. After all, he did some of the greatest work in establishing the doctrine of the trinity. All Christianity is in debt to Gregory of Nyssa. The Christians in Alexandria and the other large non-Roman churches followed the Biblical interpretations of these thinkers. Perhaps not 95% of Christians, but the majority did believe in UR during the early centuries of the church.
Regarding accuracy of translations: The thing is, these early Christians weren’t working with translations of the NT. They all knew Greek perfectly. They spoke it daily. They thought in it. That’s something I’m not too sure that that all Bible translators can do. It’s certainly not something most pastors can do. The idea is that even if newer translations of the Bible are accurate, they were often done in the Roman influenced west and therefore the word choice will represent that. You act as if translation is an entirely objective thing.
Even Bible inerrantists usually only believe that the Bible is inerrant in it’s original manuscript form.
Yes grasshoppa, first smart thing you say since you come here for lessons. Maybe now you ready for election lesson. For that we call in Greek masta, Jason.
Rainzbow.
Origen was an gnostic heretic. I respect Gregory of Nyssa, but was he right? He is certainly not infallible. Christianity indebted to Gregory of Nyssa? Really? I will concede to the fact that some Christians in the first century believed in UR, but not even close to 90-95%.
John.
Let me guess. The fable starts out like this: God first saves His Elect, whom He predestined from the foundation of the world, to believe in Jesus Christ during this life before they die. They are the firstfruits with Christ, only the few, called and chosen for a special purpose and a special salvation. God’s Elect Bride will rise in the First Resurrection at Jesus Christ’s Second Coming to enter the Millennial Kingdom with Him. The glorious purpose of God’s Elect Bride, the firstfruits, is that after Jesus Christ marries her, there will be the Great Harvest of more fruits, birthed from this marriage. The union of the Bride of Christ with Jesus Christ will bear multiple billions of spiritual children born into the Eternal Kingdom of God. These spiritual children are none other than the rest of humanity who will rise in the Second Resurrection.
Ultimately, following God’s refining yet merciful Lake of Fire judgement, all unbelieving resurrected people, without any exceptions, will repent and believe in the full work of the cross through God given faith. They will all freely and thankfully accept the gift of salvation and enter into the Eternal Kingdom of God of the New Heaven and the New Earth.
How did I do John?
If there’s one thing I’ve discovered in this day and age, it’s that (generally speaking) the more people believe something to be true, the LESS likely it is to be accurate. Obviously that wasn’t always the case; but these days, the majority of folks are content to let others do their thinking for them.
Having said that though, I’d say that UR is not so much a unique revelation as a reawakening akin to genuine forms of revival. It’s gotta start somewhere, and it’s not going to be the majority that sees it first. It never is.
Mel.
Ok, because 95% of Christianity does not believe in UR, they must be wrong. Really? Revival? 1-5% of Christianity believes in it. Those are probably inflated numbers. Are you saying the body of Christ is apostate, Mel? If so, was Jesus lying in Matthew 16:18?
Grasshoppa you still confused … “fable starts out like this” show me, you need more fire … you still half baked
Good point. It’s much like orthodox preterism - which was a real eye-opener for lots of people - that, too, drew on the wisdom of the early church for understanding - and why not? Those closest to the events provide a great witness.
I remember reading one father talking about another father - “Oh yes, and he was taught by Paul.” Can you imagine?
This entire topic is just a retread of things I’ve personally already discussed in the last two weeks (and I’m sure the people who have been here longer than me have discussed it many many times) so I’m not too interested in continuing this. I will say that the truth value of something has no relation to how many people believe it (whether it’s Melchizedek who favors minority views or BA who favors majority views). If BA is really interested in the interpretation of the Christian religion that most people in the world believe in, he should become a Catholic. Also: Origen faught against gnosticism. He may have (temporarily) been declared a heretic, but his heresies had nothing to do with gnosticism (for one, he believed in the transmigration of souls). Origen also was a speculative thinker. He tried to keep his speculations within a Biblical framework and often failed, but he never held his speculations to be 100% accurate and allowed himself to be corrected(unlike some people).
Rainzbow.
Christianity is not a religion, but a family. You can’t join Christianity like other religions…you have to be born into it. Catholics make up about a billion or so, spirit filled protestants make up about 800 million or more. So, I think I will stick with the Holy Spirit’s teaching and not the traditions of men.
Having a relationship with Christ is what saves you. Christianity, by definition, is, broadly speaking, a religion.
Rain.
The world calls Christianity a religion, but those who no the difference of dead, powerless religion and being born into God’s family and having their life totally transformed by the power of God know better( Christianity). Buddhism, Hinduism, etc… you can join like a social club, but you remain the same spiritually dead person and unchanged. See the difference? Christianity is a family, not a religion. Btw, I think we are getting off topic.
Yes, we are getting off topic. However, I think it’s important to note that simply because one has had their life changed by the power of God doesn’t mean that their use of the English language will be any different than that of a secular person (meaning: English is neither secular nor Christian) in terms of what particular words mean. Someone can go to church every day, take communion, pray (they can practice the Christian religion) without having any sort of true faith at all. Because of this, we have the word religion. Most (I could argue all, but I think people like Sonshine would diagree with me) individuals who have faith in Christ also practice the Christian religion), not all people who practice the Christian religion actually have any faith.