Evangelical Universalism - True or False Doctrine?

[Thaddaeus]

 

 

 

 

Although both camps do have measures of truth on their sides, ultimately they fail based on the following paradigm to which I propose a 3rd alternative.

 

Reason why I reject Calvinism:

(God is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does not want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I reject Arminianism;

(God is not strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I accept Evangelical Universalism:

(God Is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is saved

 

I neither agree with one party 100%, but Universalism is not scriptural.  All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved.

 

Three years ago I too would have shared your opinion regarding universalism.  Since then my study of early church history as well as examining Scripture leads me to believe that all will eventually be saved.  Your claim that “All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved” can be contested.  I believe that most Christians have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to the view that God only saves the elect while the rest are consigned to eternal torment that they tend to read the scriptures through those lenses without giving due consideration to another view.  So in response to your assertion that all does not really mean “all" - What do the scriptures say?

 

Lk 2:10  And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 

Would the Good News still be the good news if in reality it is only for some of the people?

 

Jn 12:32  And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”  

Did Jesus lie when he said “all” knowing very well that only the elect are predestined to salvation?  The word “draw” in this verse also means “drag” as when fishermen drag their nets full of catch.  When Jesus stated that he will drag all men to himself can anyone deny that God’s will can be thwarted and cannot accomplish what he set out to do?

 

1Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 

This verse states that God saves all; not just some who believe.  The word “especially” denotes priority and particularity; it does not mean only or exclusively.

 

 

Rom 11:32  For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. 

Notice the parallelism in this verse.  If we agree that the first clause means that all of humanity are disobedient sinners, then we would have to agree that God’s mercy to all in the second clause means all of humanity as well.

 

1 Jn 2:2  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

Rom 5:15-19 

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.  For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

No one would disagree that Adam’s transgression resulted in condemnation to all men – every single one. Yet the verse also says Christ’s sacrifice resulted in justification for all men – every single one.  Paul’s use of parallelism here is unmistakable.  The gift is greater than the trespass.  To make the claim that “all” actually means “some” as it only applies to the elect is the same as saying Jesus’ power to save is less than Adam’s power to condemn. 

 

1Cor 15:22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Another example of parallelism.  If all die in Adam, all live in Christ.

 

Col 1:18-20  He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.  For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross;

If we acknowledge that Jesus is fully God, as all the Father’s fullness dwells in him; by the same token we have to acknowledge that Jesus will reconcile all to himself.

 

The plain reading of these verses indicates God will save all but we tend to limit all to “some” because that is what we have been taught.

 

There is not much of what you stated that is scriptural in any sense of the word.  The texts you quoted to show the meaning of all are all correct, but your summation is faulty on those texts.  This is so because you are conflating two different aspects of our salvation, making them all one, or the same.

 

First, Christ did indeed save not just mankind, every single human being, but the world as well.  However, Christ came to reverse the fall of man.  Christ came to get man out from the curse, the condemnation of  the fall, which was death. Physical death. Man became mortal, Adam became mortal, that is the condemnation of his sin. Gen 3:19, Rom 5:12. 

 

You then use the text that indicate that Christ saved all. He did, but from death and sin.  This is the great gift of salvation, of mercy, love and grace God gives to all men through the work of Christ.  The texts that support this (these are known as the Incarnational texts that support Christ's Incarnation which was necessary to reverse the fall) are, Rom 11:32, Rom 5:18, Rom 3:23-35, Rom 5:6,8, II Cor 5:18-19,. Col 1:20. I Cor 15:12-22, 53, Heb 2:14-17, John 4:42, I John 4:14,  Acts 25:15, Rev 20:11-13. 

 

 

Because Christ gave life to the world, and eternal existence to man, God can now be rejoined with man in an eternal union of communion which was precluded by the fall, death. This enables the Holy Spirit to call all men to repentance because God desires that all men come to know HIm.  But each man must choose for himself whether he will or desires to be joined with Christ now and for an eternity. 

 

Christ did not save anyone's soul from the Cross.  He saved all of us from death and sin, so that we could freely choose Him.  We are joined to Him by faith, and then we are required to live IN Him faithfully. 

 

We shall all be raised in the last day, Christ will not have lost one human being to death, John 6:39.  We are raised to life because Christ, bearing our fallen human nature raised it to life at His resurrection.  All men will be raised to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:53.

Those that do not choose Christ or those who did for a time but became unfaithful will be condemned to hell for an eternity.  God will met out the judgement according to what man chose and did with the Christ.

 

There is no such thing as Universalism in any shape or form.  It is actually declared a heresy at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 AD.

 

 

Why do we recognise authority in the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 AD?

 

Because it represents the Body of Christ.  The Bishops of the entire Church, which is the Body of Christ, met to decide issues, one of which was Universalism.  The Body accepted the findings of that Council.  It is the authority of the Holy Spirit through which they acted.  It was the same pattern that was initially used in the meeing of the Church in Acts 15:6ff.

 

You may not accept the authorty of Christ who is Head of His Body, but I do.

[Elhanan]

 

 

 

Although both camps do have measures of truth on their sides, ultimately they fail based on the following paradigm to which I propose a 3rd alternative.

 

Reason why I reject Calvinism:

(God is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does not want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I reject Arminianism;

(God is not strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I accept Evangelical Universalism:

(God Is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is saved

 

I neither agree with one party 100%, but Universalism is not scriptural.  All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved.

 

Three years ago I too would have shared your opinion regarding universalism.  Since then my study of early church history as well as examining Scripture leads me to believe that all will eventually be saved.  Your claim that “All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved” can be contested.  I believe that most Christians have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to the view that God only saves the elect while the rest are consigned to eternal torment that they tend to read the scriptures through those lenses without giving due consideration to another view.  So in response to your assertion that all does not really mean “all" - What do the scriptures say?

 

Lk 2:10  And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 

Would the Good News still be the good news if in reality it is only for some of the people?

 

Jn 12:32  And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”  

Did Jesus lie when he said “all” knowing very well that only the elect are predestined to salvation?  The word “draw” in this verse also means “drag” as when fishermen drag their nets full of catch.  When Jesus stated that he will drag all men to himself can anyone deny that God’s will can be thwarted and cannot accomplish what he set out to do?

 

1Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 

This verse states that God saves all; not just some who believe.  The word “especially” denotes priority and particularity; it does not mean only or exclusively.

 

 

Rom 11:32  For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. 

Notice the parallelism in this verse.  If we agree that the first clause means that all of humanity are disobedient sinners, then we would have to agree that God’s mercy to all in the second clause means all of humanity as well.

 

1 Jn 2:2  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

Rom 5:15-19 

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.  For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

No one would disagree that Adam’s transgression resulted in condemnation to all men – every single one. Yet the verse also says Christ’s sacrifice resulted in justification for all men – every single one.  Paul’s use of parallelism here is unmistakable.  The gift is greater than the trespass.  To make the claim that “all” actually means “some” as it only applies to the elect is the same as saying Jesus’ power to save is less than Adam’s power to condemn. 

 

1Cor 15:22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Another example of parallelism.  If all die in Adam, all live in Christ.

 

Col 1:18-20  He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.  For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross;

If we acknowledge that Jesus is fully God, as all the Father’s fullness dwells in him; by the same token we have to acknowledge that Jesus will reconcile all to himself.

 

The plain reading of these verses indicates God will save all but we tend to limit all to “some” because that is what we have been taught.

 

There is not much of what you stated that is scriptural in any sense of the word.  The texts you quoted to show the meaning of all are all correct, but your summation is faulty on those texts.  This is so because you are conflating two different aspects of our salvation, making them all one, or the same.

 

First, Christ did indeed save not just mankind, every single human being, but the world as well.  However, Christ came to reverse the fall of man.  Christ came to get man out from the curse, the condemnation of  the fall, which was death. Physical death. Man became mortal, Adam became mortal, that is the condemnation of his sin. Gen 3:19, Rom 5:12. 

 

You then use the text that indicate that Christ saved all. He did, but from death and sin.  This is the great gift of salvation, of mercy, love and grace God gives to all men through the work of Christ.  The texts that support this (these are known as the Incarnational texts that support Christ's Incarnation which was necessary to reverse the fall) are, Rom 11:32, Rom 5:18, Rom 3:23-35, Rom 5:6,8, II Cor 5:18-19,. Col 1:20. I Cor 15:12-22, 53, Heb 2:14-17, John 4:42, I John 4:14,  Acts 25:15, Rev 20:11-13. 

 

 

Because Christ gave life to the world, and eternal existence to man, God can now be rejoined with man in an eternal union of communion which was precluded by the fall, death. This enables the Holy Spirit to call all men to repentance because God desires that all men come to know HIm.  But each man must choose for himself whether he will or desires to be joined with Christ now and for an eternity. 

 

Christ did not save anyone's soul from the Cross.  He saved all of us from death and sin, so that we could freely choose Him.  We are joined to Him by faith, and then we are required to live IN Him faithfully. 

 

We shall all be raised in the last day, Christ will not have lost one human being to death, John 6:39.  We are raised to life because Christ, bearing our fallen human nature raised it to life at His resurrection.  All men will be raised to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:53.

Those that do not choose Christ or those who did for a time but became unfaithful will be condemned to hell for an eternity.  God will met out the judgement according to what man chose and did with the Christ.

 

There is no such thing as Universalism in any shape or form.  It is actually declared a heresy at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 AD.

 

You have not adequately dealt with the scripture passages I have quoted, instead you have lumped them together and have eisegeted them based on your doctrinal view instead of exegeting the scripture verses.

As for your claim regarding the 5th Ecumenical Council - do you realize it was convened almost 300 years after Origen was tortured and killed by the Emperor Decius in 254 AD?  If unversalism was so heretical one would certainly expect the heresy hunters to have taken action much sooner rather than waiting 3 centuries after the man died.  Furthermore the bishops bypassed the authority of the Pope and conspired with the Emperor Justinian to order that the council convene. It is questionable if the council anathematized the actual teachings of Origen or a form of Origenism, which had practically nothing in common with Origen [such as cycles of reincarnation and the Anthropomorphism]. The fifteen anathemas were proposed not by the Church but by the Emperor. There is no proof the Pope ever agreed to them, nor is there proof he ever recanted his resistance to the council.  According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

 

Were Origen and Origenism anathematized? Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations. Relying on the most recent studies on the question it may be held that:

1. It is certain that the fifth general council was convoked exclusively to deal with the affair of the Three Chapters, and that neither Origen nor Origenism were the cause of it.
2. It is certain that the council opened on 5 May, 553, in spite of the protestations of Pope Vigilius, who though at Constantinople refused to attend it, and that in the eight conciliary sessions (from 5 May to 2 June), the Acts of which we possess, only the question of the Three Chapters is treated.
3. Finally it is certain that only the Acts concerning the affair of the Three Chapters were submitted to the pope for his approval, which was given on 8 December, 553, and 23 February, 554.
4. It is a fact that Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), Gregory the Great (590-604), in treating of the fifth council deal only with the Three Chapters, make no mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not know of its condemnation.
5. It must be admitted that before the opening of the council, which had been delayed by the resistance of the pope, the bishops already assembled at Constantinople had to consider, by order of the emperor, a form of Origenism that had practically nothing in common with Origen, but which was held, we know, by one of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in corroboration of this hypothesis may be found in Dickamp (op. cit., 66-141).
6. The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked.
7. It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical council.

[angels4u]

 

 

Although both camps do have measures of truth on their sides, ultimately they fail based on the following paradigm to which I propose a 3rd alternative.

 

Reason why I reject Calvinism:

(God is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does not want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I reject Arminianism;

(God is not strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I accept Evangelical Universalism:

(God Is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is saved

 

I neither agree with one party 100%, but Universalism is not scriptural.  All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved.

 

Three years ago I too would have shared your opinion regarding universalism.  Since then my study of early church history as well as examining Scripture leads me to believe that all will eventually be saved.  Your claim that “All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved” can be contested.  I believe that most Christians have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to the view that God only saves the elect while the rest are consigned to eternal torment that they tend to read the scriptures through those lenses without giving due consideration to another view.  So in response to your assertion that all does not really mean “all" - What do the scriptures say?

 

Lk 2:10  And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 

Would the Good News still be the good news if in reality it is only for some of the people?

 

Jn 12:32  And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”  

Did Jesus lie when he said “all” knowing very well that only the elect are predestined to salvation?  The word “draw” in this verse also means “drag” as when fishermen drag their nets full of catch.  When Jesus stated that he will drag all men to himself can anyone deny that God’s will can be thwarted and cannot accomplish what he set out to do?

 

1Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 

This verse states that God saves all; not just some who believe.  The word “especially” denotes priority and particularity; it does not mean only or exclusively.

 

 

Rom 11:32  For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. 

Notice the parallelism in this verse.  If we agree that the first clause means that all of humanity are disobedient sinners, then we would have to agree that God’s mercy to all in the second clause means all of humanity as well.

 

1 Jn 2:2  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

Rom 5:15-19 

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.  For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

No one would disagree that Adam’s transgression resulted in condemnation to all men – every single one. Yet the verse also says Christ’s sacrifice resulted in justification for all men – every single one.  Paul’s use of parallelism here is unmistakable.  The gift is greater than the trespass.  To make the claim that “all” actually means “some” as it only applies to the elect is the same as saying Jesus’ power to save is less than Adam’s power to condemn. 

 

1Cor 15:22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Another example of parallelism.  If all die in Adam, all live in Christ.

 

Col 1:18-20  He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.  For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross;

If we acknowledge that Jesus is fully God, as all the Father’s fullness dwells in him; by the same token we have to acknowledge that Jesus will reconcile all to himself.

 

The plain reading of these verses indicates God will save all but we tend to limit all to “some” because that is what we have been taught.

 

 

Sorry,but I didn't study everything as much as you do,but Jesus saved me from hell when I became to realize that He came from heaven to die for my sin,so that I will be with Him for all eternity.

I don't know if I understand where's you're coming from that ALL people will be saved and go to heaven? That's not biblical.

And 'Yes" all peole will be saved but not all peole will spend eternity with Jesus,remember the story of the rich man who went to hell and how he was told that nobody can go uot of that place?

If you realize why Jesus first of all came back tyo earth  is---to sve mankind,but He also gave us a free will,He could have saved everybody for heaven right from the beginning ,but He didn't ,He gave us a free will to decide where we want to be after we die and strange as it sound ,there are people who would not want to be in heaven,they think its too boring.

The people saved for eternal punishment will go to a place seperated from Jesus and believers who believed Jesus died for their sins.

Hell sounds terrible-------------

If you have a choice-where would you want to go? Well,people have a choice!

Did you make your choice and are you trying to win people for Gods Kingdom?

 

Don't let time slip by it can be all over ver soon.

 

 Jesus saved me from hell when I became to realize that He came from heaven to die for my sins,so that I will be with Him for all eternity.

I don't know if I understand where's you're coming from that ALL people will be saved and go to heaven? That's not biblical.

And 'Yes" all peole will be saved but not all peole will spend eternity with Jesus,remember the story of the rich man who went to hell and how he was told that nobody can go uot of that place?

If you realize why Jesus first of all came back to earth  is---to save mankind,but He also gave us a free will,He could have saved everybody for heaven right from the beginning ,but He didn't ,He gave us a free will to decide where we want to be after we die and strange as it sound ,there are people who would not want to be in heaven,they think its too boring.

The people saved for eternal punishment will go to a place seperated from Jesus and believers who believed Jesus died for their sins.

Hell sounds terrible-------------and its terrible.

If you have a choice-where would you want to go? Well,people have a choice!

Did you make your choice and are you trying to win people for Gods Kingdom?

 

Don't let time slip by it can be all over ver soon.

 

 

I don't know if I understand where's you're coming from that ALL people will be saved and go to heaven? That's not biblical.

And 'Yes" all peole will be saved but not all peole will spend eternity with Jesus,remember the story of the rich man who went to hell and how he was told that nobody can go uot of that place?

If you realize why Jesus first of all came back tyo earth  is---to sve mankind,but He also gave us a free will,He could have saved everybody for heaven right from the beginning ,but He didn't ,He gave us a free will to decide where we want to be after we die and strange as it sound ,there are people who would not want to be in heaven,they think its too boring.

The people saved for eternal punishment will go to a place seperated from Jesus and believers who believed Jesus died for their sins.

Hell sounds terrible-------------

If you have a choice-where would you want to go? Well,people have a choice!

Did you make your choice and are you trying to win people for Gods Kingdom?

 

Don't let time slip by it can be all over ver soon.

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

 

 

 

Although both camps do have measures of truth on their sides, ultimately they fail based on the following paradigm to which I propose a 3rd alternative.

 

Reason why I reject Calvinism:

(God is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does not want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I reject Arminianism;

(God is not strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I accept Evangelical Universalism:

(God Is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is saved

 

I neither agree with one party 100%, but Universalism is not scriptural.  All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved.

 

Three years ago I too would have shared your opinion regarding universalism.  Since then my study of early church history as well as examining Scripture leads me to believe that all will eventually be saved.  Your claim that “All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved” can be contested.  I believe that most Christians have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to the view that God only saves the elect while the rest are consigned to eternal torment that they tend to read the scriptures through those lenses without giving due consideration to another view.  So in response to your assertion that all does not really mean “all" - What do the scriptures say?

 

Lk 2:10  And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 

Would the Good News still be the good news if in reality it is only for some of the people?

 

Jn 12:32  And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”  

Did Jesus lie when he said “all” knowing very well that only the elect are predestined to salvation?  The word “draw” in this verse also means “drag” as when fishermen drag their nets full of catch.  When Jesus stated that he will drag all men to himself can anyone deny that God’s will can be thwarted and cannot accomplish what he set out to do?

 

1Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 

This verse states that God saves all; not just some who believe.  The word “especially” denotes priority and particularity; it does not mean only or exclusively.

 

 

Rom 11:32  For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. 

Notice the parallelism in this verse.  If we agree that the first clause means that all of humanity are disobedient sinners, then we would have to agree that God’s mercy to all in the second clause means all of humanity as well.

 

1 Jn 2:2  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

Rom 5:15-19 

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.  For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

No one would disagree that Adam’s transgression resulted in condemnation to all men – every single one. Yet the verse also says Christ’s sacrifice resulted in justification for all men – every single one.  Paul’s use of parallelism here is unmistakable.  The gift is greater than the trespass.  To make the claim that “all” actually means “some” as it only applies to the elect is the same as saying Jesus’ power to save is less than Adam’s power to condemn. 

 

1Cor 15:22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Another example of parallelism.  If all die in Adam, all live in Christ.

 

Col 1:18-20  He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.  For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross;

If we acknowledge that Jesus is fully God, as all the Father’s fullness dwells in him; by the same token we have to acknowledge that Jesus will reconcile all to himself.

 

The plain reading of these verses indicates God will save all but we tend to limit all to “some” because that is what we have been taught.

 

There is not much of what you stated that is scriptural in any sense of the word.  The texts you quoted to show the meaning of all are all correct, but your summation is faulty on those texts.  This is so because you are conflating two different aspects of our salvation, making them all one, or the same.

 

First, Christ did indeed save not just mankind, every single human being, but the world as well.  However, Christ came to reverse the fall of man.  Christ came to get man out from the curse, the condemnation of  the fall, which was death. Physical death. Man became mortal, Adam became mortal, that is the condemnation of his sin. Gen 3:19, Rom 5:12. 

 

You then use the text that indicate that Christ saved all. He did, but from death and sin.  This is the great gift of salvation, of mercy, love and grace God gives to all men through the work of Christ.  The texts that support this (these are known as the Incarnational texts that support Christ's Incarnation which was necessary to reverse the fall) are, Rom 11:32, Rom 5:18, Rom 3:23-35, Rom 5:6,8, II Cor 5:18-19,. Col 1:20. I Cor 15:12-22, 53, Heb 2:14-17, John 4:42, I John 4:14,  Acts 25:15, Rev 20:11-13. 

 

 

Because Christ gave life to the world, and eternal existence to man, God can now be rejoined with man in an eternal union of communion which was precluded by the fall, death. This enables the Holy Spirit to call all men to repentance because God desires that all men come to know HIm.  But each man must choose for himself whether he will or desires to be joined with Christ now and for an eternity. 

 

Christ did not save anyone's soul from the Cross.  He saved all of us from death and sin, so that we could freely choose Him.  We are joined to Him by faith, and then we are required to live IN Him faithfully. 

 

We shall all be raised in the last day, Christ will not have lost one human being to death, John 6:39.  We are raised to life because Christ, bearing our fallen human nature raised it to life at His resurrection.  All men will be raised to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:53.

Those that do not choose Christ or those who did for a time but became unfaithful will be condemned to hell for an eternity.  God will met out the judgement according to what man chose and did with the Christ.

 

There is no such thing as Universalism in any shape or form.  It is actually declared a heresy at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 AD.

 

 

Why do we recognise authority in the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 AD?

 

Because it represents the Body of Christ.  The Bishops of the entire Church, which is the Body of Christ, met to decide issues, one of which was Universalism.  The Body accepted the findings of that Council.  It is the authority of the Holy Spirit through which they acted.  It was the same pattern that was initially used in the meeing of the Church in Acts 15:6ff.

 

You may not accept the authorty of Christ who is Head of His Body, but I do.

 

 

Christ wasn't at the Councils.  Do you accept all of the findings of all of the councils, and believe that the Pope is the head of the Church under Christ?  If the Bishops of the entire Church, which was the Body of Christ, were making decisions under the authority of the Holy Spirit then it stands to reason that ALL of their decisions held that same authority.  Also, it should be noted that any member of The Body who the Bishops represented who did not agree were cast out from the body... violently.

[TsukinoRei]

 

I stated that the lake of fire exists and the unsaved do end up there.  The question is whether they remain there for eternity.

 

What is Hell? How is Hell described in the Bible?

Part 1 of 3 (divided this out this into 3 parts

1. Hell – A place of weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Luke 13:18

There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out.

 

2. Hell – It will be a furnace of fire with wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

Matt. 13:40-43

⁴⁰ Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. ⁴¹ The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, ⁴² and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. ⁴³ Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

 

 

3. Jesus Himself said hell was eternal.

 

Matt. 18:8

⁸ And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.

 

 

4. Hell – a place of darkness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth. (Matt. 22:11-13; Matt. 25:29-30)

Matt. 22:11-13

¹¹ “But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. ¹² So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. ¹³ Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and^[a] cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Matt. 25:29-30

²⁹ ‘For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. ³⁰ And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

God bless,

GE

 

 

 

 

Hai Eagle.  <3 I like you brain too.

 

The problem that I see with the verses you quoted above is that the question is not whether 'eternal' is to be found in the English Bible.  The question posed is whether ages can/should be correctly understood to mean eternal?  Why does ages mean eternal?  I am not saying that it doesn't, I am only saying that is the question.  I don't know the answer.  

 

The use of the word Hell is also worth questioning, I think.  It appears to be another situation where what was many words in the Hebrew and Greek has been translated into just one word in English.  I can't see how this wouldn't cause confusion and misconceptions where we apply connotations to the one word which were not intended.  In the KJV the word Hell appears 54 times.  In the NKJV the word Hell appears 32 times.  In the New International Version the word hell appears 13 times.  In the Jewish translations Hell appears zero times.  There are 28 translations where Hell does not appear at all.  There are 12 translations which use the word Hell in varying numbers.  It seems that it should concern us that a thing we place such high doctrinal importance on has such a wide degree of variation between translations. 

[TsukinoRei]

 

That argument doesn't add up for me.  Whether some are predestined to be lost or all are predestined to be saved, God's foreknowledge as a Being who is All Knowing through His Omnipresence transcending time and space does not preclude free will and so does not preclude the necessity of the Cross or the whole process by which He brings some or all into right relationship with Him.

 

That makes no sense.  Jesus' sacrifice is either necessary, or it is not.  There is no gray area there.  If Universalism is true, then no substitutional sacrifice is necessary.  If Universalism is not true, then a substitutional sacrifice is necessary, and only those who accept it would be forgiven and cleansed.

 

Predestination is not something that most people clearly understand.  Predestination does not mean that God chooses to save some people and not save others ahead of time.  That would mean free will actually does not exist at all, or, at the very least, what a person does or does not do in their life time has no meaning.  And yet the Bible says exactly the opposite. Predestination means only that God knows each and every person who will choose Christ, and each and every person who also will not choose Christ, ahead of time, since He is outside of time and in control of it and sees all of it, from the beginning to the end.  Since Jesus says that few people actually choose the correct path, it is obvious that not everyone gets saved eventually through some magical formula that does not exist, biblically speaking. 

 

 

I will need you to break this down for me even more please because I am not understanding this.  If some are predestined to be saved only because God knows what each person will choose then why would all being predestined to be saved not also be because God knows what each person will choose?  And why does it remove the need for His transforming Grace, or having the sin burned out in the lake of fire?  It has been argued that the substitution sacrifice is what made universal salvation possible, so I also do not understand why you say that universalism means that no substitutional sacrifice was necessary.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

I also do believe in a literal, physical place called the lake of fire and all unbelievers end up there after the 1,000 year rule of Christ upon the earth. The point of difference between you and I is whether the unsaved are punished forever in the lake of fire or chastised in the lake of fire for an unknown (not for eternity) remedial period of time so that consequently in the end, every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess Jesus Christ as Lord. That should hopefully narrow the scope of discussion on what is already a broad subject to begin with.

 

 

 

The problem with this is the view that the lake of fire will simply be a remedial period.  The Bible NEVER presents the lake of fire as anything but an eternal death.  Furthermore, salvation is ONLY by grace through faith in the finished work on the cross.  Salvation cannot be obtained by spending time in the lake of fire. 

 

I am not a Calvinist, but neither does the Bible teach that everyone will be saved.  God's will is that everyone be saved, but that doesn't mean that everyone will be saved.  God's will is that no one murder, but yet people murder.   People do a lot of things that are against God's will.  So to say that God's will to see everyone saved will result in 100% salvation for all people doesn't stand the litmus test of Scripture.

 

Jesus teaches in Sermon on the Mount that most people will choose the broad road to destruction and only a few will find the narrow road to life. 

 

The Bible teaches that man can either have eternal life or eternal damnation (Matt. 25).  "Eternal" means the same thing in both cases.  There is no case to be made for salvation via the lake of fire.  

 

The ONLY plan of salvation the Bible presents is grace through faith in the finished work on the cross.  The Bible never presents the lake of fire as time of purification or remedial learning where a person can be made fit to enter the Kingdom of God.  You are presenting another Gospel, another way salvation and all true followers of Jesus must reject such.

 

Salvation is a transformational relationship with Jesus.  That is the only way it can be found.  Eternal life is a person, not a length of time.  Jesus is eternal life, as He claimed to be eternal life in John 14:6.  Just as no one can be made right with God through keeping a set of rules, no one is going to be saved through the lake of fire.  You simiply cannot produce a biblical platform for your case.

 

I noted that you came to this concluson by studying the early church fathers. You did not come to your view from Scripture.  The Bible is the final arbiter on all matters of Christian faith and practices.  Unless you can make a biblical case, your view stands as the product of human reasoning.

 

I clearly wrote earlier that I not only looked at church history, but also examined the scriptures - I did my homework with due diligence. I suggest you do the same thing and tell me what you come up with.  I contend that all means all.  You must explain why it only means some.  I contend that aion means an age.  You must explain why it means eternity.  I contend that God is omnipotent and more than able to save all.  You must explain why God is impotent and His arm is too short to save everyone. Eternal life is not a person as you say - it is a relationship.  One has a relationship with God as long as he or she is abiding in Him.

 

All does mean all.  The problem is not in how we are using the word "all."  The issue is the free will of man to chose or reject God's offer of salvation.  The Bible makes it clear that God has left the choice to man to accept His offer or not.

 

God is able to save everyone. That is also not in dispute. However, God has condescended to man's choice as to whether or not he will accept God's offer.  God has a perfect will, but God also demonstrates that His will has a permissiveness that allows man to violate His perfect will.   God is omnipotent  and could stop all men from murdering innocent people.  But God still permits men to choose to commit murder.  Acknowledging that doesn't make God "impotent."   It simply recognizes that there are two aspects to God's will in play.  

 

God is omnipotent in salvation, as well, but God also allows man to reject Him.  The Bible is full of examples of those who walked away, who made their choice to remain separated from God. 

 

As for the use of eternity in Scripture.  In Matthew 25:46 the Greek word aionos is used to communicate the sense of eternal (forever) both in terms of eternal punishment and eternal life.   You cannot, argue with any intellectual credibility that the same word used the same way is communicating eternal life but temporary punishment.  The usage and context simply won't allow for that. 

 

Your use of aion makes no sense in light of John 3:15-16 where death is juxtaposed with eternal life.  They are used as polar opposites.  It is not referring to physical death, since it is being cast against eternal life.  Thus the clear implication is that the one who believes in Jesus will not perish into eternal death but will have eternal life.

 

Another big problem is that if your view of a limited time in hell followed by salvation is true, there is no reaons to preach the gospel, and there is no real incentive for me to have a relationship with God in this present life.  If every one is going to be saved eventually, if hell is only temporary, then why try to reach people with the Gospel??   I mean they will be saved no matter what, according to you.  So your view is really an enemy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Furthermore, if I can obtain eternal life by burning in hell for a limited period of time, then I don't need Jesus and Jesus death on the cross was a collossal waste of time.  The death of Jesus  on the cross was redeem man from hell, but if hell can actually be a remedial location of redemption, if by going to hell a person can be made acceptable before God, the Jesus' death on the cross has little value.

 

Eternal life is not a person as you say - it is a relationship.  One has a relationship with God as long as he or she is abiding in Him.

 

But if man can go to hell in order to go to heaven, then he is gaining eternal life without the benefit of a relationship with God.  Your unbiblical view of hell precludes the need for me to love God or turn to Him for a redemptive, saving relationship.  If I follow your view to its logical conclusion,  I can get as drunk as much as I want, fornicate 'till the cows come home, murder a few people, molest children and when I die, I go  to hell for a while get all cleaned up in hell and I go on to heaven.   Jesus is out of the picture in universalism if we follow it through.

 

It is not surprising.   The importance one places on Hell will determine the importance one places on Jesus.  Those who preach Jesus do it from the motivation that the consequences of following Jesus are eternal and the consequences of rejecting Jesus are just as eternal.   There is an urgency to preaching the Gospel in the hearts of those who view hell from the biblical perspective as opposed to those who view it as a temporary holding place where one is made acceptable through fire.

 

And eternal life is a Person.  Eternal life is Jesus.  He calls Himself eternal life in John 14:6 and in John 11:25-26.  Jesus is very clear that He is both the gift and the giver.

 

You present a false Gospel that diminishes the cross and the Christ who died upon it. 

[enoob57]

 

 

I also do believe in a literal, physical place called the lake of fire and all unbelievers end up there after the 1,000 year rule of Christ upon the earth. The point of difference between you and I is whether the unsaved are punished forever in the lake of fire or chastised in the lake of fire for an unknown (not for eternity) remedial period of time so that consequently in the end, every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess Jesus Christ as Lord. That should hopefully narrow the scope of discussion on what is already a broad subject to begin with.

 

 

 

The problem with this is the view that the lake of fire will simply be a remedial period.  The Bible NEVER presents the lake of fire as anything but an eternal death.  Furthermore, salvation is ONLY by grace through faith in the finished work on the cross.  Salvation cannot be obtained by spending time in the lake of fire. 

 

I am not a Calvinist, but neither does the Bible teach that everyone will be saved.  God's will is that everyone be saved, but that doesn't mean that everyone will be saved.  God's will is that no one murder, but yet people murder.   People do a lot of things that are against God's will.  So to say that God's will to see everyone saved will result in 100% salvation for all people doesn't stand the litmus test of Scripture.

 

Jesus teaches in Sermon on the Mount that most people will choose the broad road to destruction and only a few will find the narrow road to life. 

 

The Bible teaches that man can either have eternal life or eternal damnation (Matt. 25).  "Eternal" means the same thing in both cases.  There is no case to be made for salvation via the lake of fire.  

 

The ONLY plan of salvation the Bible presents is grace through faith in the finished work on the cross.  The Bible never presents the lake of fire as time of purification or remedial learning where a person can be made fit to enter the Kingdom of God.  You are presenting another Gospel, another way salvation and all true followers of Jesus must reject such.

 

Salvation is a transformational relationship with Jesus.  That is the only way it can be found.  Eternal life is a person, not a length of time.  Jesus is eternal life, as He claimed to be eternal life in John 14:6.  Just as no one can be made right with God through keeping a set of rules, no one is going to be saved through the lake of fire.  You simiply cannot produce a biblical platform for your case.

 

I noted that you came to this concluson by studying the early church fathers. You did not come to your view from Scripture.  The Bible is the final arbiter on all matters of Christian faith and practices.  Unless you can make a biblical case, your view stands as the product of human reasoning.

 

I clearly wrote earlier that I not only looked at church history, but also examined the scriptures - I did my homework with due diligence. I suggest you do the same thing and tell me what you come up with.  I contend that all means all.  You must explain why it only means some.  I contend that aion means an age.  You must explain why it means eternity.  I contend that God is omnipotent and more than able to save all.  You must explain why God is impotent and His arm is too short to save everyone. Eternal life is not a person as you say - it is a relationship.  One has a relationship with God as long as he or she is abiding in Him.

 

The big picture lies within the reality of God Being The Only of His Kind...

As we were created in His image thus this is the given sovereignty of self determined being by choice-> for what we are in the eternal exist of God!

As God 'IS' without begin and end in Being- so -what He has performed in us in choice (original innocence garden) as Imaged of Him, we were

given eternal choice by obedience to Him "this one tree you shall not eat"... we have joined ourselves to lies by not recognizing He 'WAS', 'IS' AND 

'WILL BE'  The Only Way Truth and Life for Eternity... this is the truth that sets free- for then we can recognize that all of what we are, in composition,

is formed from lie and the source ->this world<- is etched in the darkness of deceit; hence His Living Word now becomes The Tree of Life for all to be

reborn by and this structure 'IS' made impermeable to sin and we are sealed By God The Holy Spirit to renew our minds to the Written Word...

 

Reality 'IS' what God's Word has formed forever by imaged choice- God 'IS' exactly, perfectly, in the infinitesimal unbounded choice of Who He 'IS'

and there 'IS' no other 'WAY' but His except by lie and deception saying there is... satan twists and perverts to his own increase of children in eternal

suffering 'known as Lake of fire'  where

Isa 66:22-24

22 "For as the new heavens and the new earth

Which I will make shall remain before Me," says the Lord,

"So shall your descendants and your name remain.

23 And it shall come to pass

That from one New Moon to another,

And from one Sabbath to another,

All flesh shall come to worship before Me," says the Lord.

24 "And they shall go forth and look

Upon the corpses of the men

Who have transgressed against Me.

For their worm does not die,

And their fire is not quenched.

They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

NKJV

Love, Steven

[OneLight]

The problem with your view boils down to whether forever really means forever - I contend that forever in terms of eternal punishment is a false doctrine.

It all depends on which meaning of aionas (eons or aion) one chooses to use, but there is only one true meaning.

The word eons, aion and aionas is found in the word study of G165. The simplest meaning is:

• for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
• the worlds, universe
• period of time, age

To dig even deeper, we find the following, from the Complete Word Study Dictionary for Greek

 

Age, referring to an age or time in contrast to kosmos (2889), referring to people or space. Denotes duration or continuance of time, but with great variety.

(1) Age, an indefinitely long period of time or lapse of time, perpetuity, ever, forever, eternity.

...(A) Spoken of times future in the following phrases

......(1) Eis ton aiona (eis [1591] into, unto; ton [3588] the; aion [165] age) forever, without end, to the remotest time; spoken of Christ; spoken of the blessedness of the righteous; of punishment of the wicked (Jude 1:13).

......(2) The phrase eis tous aionas, unto the ages, meaning ever, forever, to all eternity, spoken of God; of Christ.

......(3) The phrase eis tous aionas ton aionon, unto the ages of the ages being an intensive form meaning forever (2 Timothy 4:18; Hebrews 13:21; 1 Peter 4:11; Revelation 1:6, 18; 4:9, 19; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; 22:5).

(2) Spoken of times past (which is not what 20:10 is speaking about, so I will not give the information for this meaning)

Since Revelation 20:10 is "eis tous sionas ton aionon", the meaning would be of 1A3 above.

G165 aionas, meaning age of the ages being an intensive form of forever and G166: aionios, meaning eternal, it is clear that 20:10 is speaking of forever eternal.

I hope this is clear enough.

[Thaddaeus]

 

 

 

 

Although both camps do have measures of truth on their sides, ultimately they fail based on the following paradigm to which I propose a 3rd alternative.

 

Reason why I reject Calvinism:

(God is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does not want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I reject Arminianism;

(God is not strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved

 

Reason why I accept Evangelical Universalism:

(God Is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does want to save everyone) = Everyone is saved

 

I neither agree with one party 100%, but Universalism is not scriptural.  All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved.

 

Three years ago I too would have shared your opinion regarding universalism.  Since then my study of early church history as well as examining Scripture leads me to believe that all will eventually be saved.  Your claim that “All through out the NT we are informed that not all will be saved” can be contested.  I believe that most Christians have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to the view that God only saves the elect while the rest are consigned to eternal torment that they tend to read the scriptures through those lenses without giving due consideration to another view.  So in response to your assertion that all does not really mean “all" - What do the scriptures say?

 

Lk 2:10  And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 

Would the Good News still be the good news if in reality it is only for some of the people?

 

Jn 12:32  And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”  

Did Jesus lie when he said “all” knowing very well that only the elect are predestined to salvation?  The word “draw” in this verse also means “drag” as when fishermen drag their nets full of catch.  When Jesus stated that he will drag all men to himself can anyone deny that God’s will can be thwarted and cannot accomplish what he set out to do?

 

1Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 

This verse states that God saves all; not just some who believe.  The word “especially” denotes priority and particularity; it does not mean only or exclusively.

 

 

Rom 11:32  For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. 

Notice the parallelism in this verse.  If we agree that the first clause means that all of humanity are disobedient sinners, then we would have to agree that God’s mercy to all in the second clause means all of humanity as well.

 

1 Jn 2:2  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

Rom 5:15-19 

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.  For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

No one would disagree that Adam’s transgression resulted in condemnation to all men – every single one. Yet the verse also says Christ’s sacrifice resulted in justification for all men – every single one.  Paul’s use of parallelism here is unmistakable.  The gift is greater than the trespass.  To make the claim that “all” actually means “some” as it only applies to the elect is the same as saying Jesus’ power to save is less than Adam’s power to condemn. 

 

1Cor 15:22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Another example of parallelism.  If all die in Adam, all live in Christ.

 

Col 1:18-20  He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.  For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross;

If we acknowledge that Jesus is fully God, as all the Father’s fullness dwells in him; by the same token we have to acknowledge that Jesus will reconcile all to himself.

 

The plain reading of these verses indicates God will save all but we tend to limit all to “some” because that is what we have been taught.

 

There is not much of what you stated that is scriptural in any sense of the word.  The texts you quoted to show the meaning of all are all correct, but your summation is faulty on those texts.  This is so because you are conflating two different aspects of our salvation, making them all one, or the same.

 

First, Christ did indeed save not just mankind, every single human being, but the world as well.  However, Christ came to reverse the fall of man.  Christ came to get man out from the curse, the condemnation of  the fall, which was death. Physical death. Man became mortal, Adam became mortal, that is the condemnation of his sin. Gen 3:19, Rom 5:12. 

 

You then use the text that indicate that Christ saved all. He did, but from death and sin.  This is the great gift of salvation, of mercy, love and grace God gives to all men through the work of Christ.  The texts that support this (these are known as the Incarnational texts that support Christ's Incarnation which was necessary to reverse the fall) are, Rom 11:32, Rom 5:18, Rom 3:23-35, Rom 5:6,8, II Cor 5:18-19,. Col 1:20. I Cor 15:12-22, 53, Heb 2:14-17, John 4:42, I John 4:14,  Acts 25:15, Rev 20:11-13. 

 

 

Because Christ gave life to the world, and eternal existence to man, God can now be rejoined with man in an eternal union of communion which was precluded by the fall, death. This enables the Holy Spirit to call all men to repentance because God desires that all men come to know HIm.  But each man must choose for himself whether he will or desires to be joined with Christ now and for an eternity. 

 

Christ did not save anyone's soul from the Cross.  He saved all of us from death and sin, so that we could freely choose Him.  We are joined to Him by faith, and then we are required to live IN Him faithfully. 

 

We shall all be raised in the last day, Christ will not have lost one human being to death, John 6:39.  We are raised to life because Christ, bearing our fallen human nature raised it to life at His resurrection.  All men will be raised to immortality and incorruptibility. I Cor 15:53.

Those that do not choose Christ or those who did for a time but became unfaithful will be condemned to hell for an eternity.  God will met out the judgement according to what man chose and did with the Christ.

 

There is no such thing as Universalism in any shape or form.  It is actually declared a heresy at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 AD.

 

You have not adequately dealt with the scripture passages I have quoted, instead you have lumped them together and have eisegeted them based on your doctrinal view instead of exegeting the scripture verses.

As for your claim regarding the 5th Ecumenical Council - do you realize it was convened almost 300 years after Origen was tortured and killed by the Emperor Decius in 254 AD?  If unversalism was so heretical one would certainly expect the heresy hunters to have taken action much sooner rather than waiting 3 centuries after the man died.  Furthermore the bishops bypassed the authority of the Pope and conspired with the Emperor Justinian to order that the council convene. It is questionable if the council anathematized the actual teachings of Origen or a form of Origenism, which had practically nothing in common with Origen [such as cycles of reincarnation and the Anthropomorphism]. The fifteen anathemas were proposed not by the Church but by the Emperor. There is no proof the Pope ever agreed to them, nor is there proof he ever recanted his resistance to the council.  According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

 

Were Origen and Origenism anathematized? Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations. Relying on the most recent studies on the question it may be held that:

1. It is certain that the fifth general council was convoked exclusively to deal with the affair of the Three Chapters, and that neither Origen nor Origenism were the cause of it.
2. It is certain that the council opened on 5 May, 553, in spite of the protestations of Pope Vigilius, who though at Constantinople refused to attend it, and that in the eight conciliary sessions (from 5 May to 2 June), the Acts of which we possess, only the question of the Three Chapters is treated.
3. Finally it is certain that only the Acts concerning the affair of the Three Chapters were submitted to the pope for his approval, which was given on 8 December, 553, and 23 February, 554.
4. It is a fact that Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), Gregory the Great (590-604), in treating of the fifth council deal only with the Three Chapters, make no mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not know of its condemnation.
5. It must be admitted that before the opening of the council, which had been delayed by the resistance of the pope, the bishops already assembled at Constantinople had to consider, by order of the emperor, a form of Origenism that had practically nothing in common with Origen, but which was held, we know, by one of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in corroboration of this hypothesis may be found in Dickamp (op. cit., 66-141).
6. The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked.
7. It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical council.

 

Obviously most of what you say is slanted to RCC.  In 553 there is no such thing as  a Pope as understood in the RCC today.  There were actually five Patriarchates and they were all equal in authority. Where then and still are that way, since Rome defected from the Church 500 years later. 

 

The fact is, Universalism has never been a believe of the Church.  And for good reason since so much of the idea contradicts most of scripture. I have already given you an explanation of the texts you used, however....

 

If you need an explanation of the verses which don't support any kind of Universalism.....

 

1Tim 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 

This verse states that God saves all; not just some who believe.  The word “especially” denotes priority and particularity; it does not mean only or exclusively.

 

the whole purpose of Christ coming was to reverse the fall.  He came to defeat death and sin. Gen 3:19, Rom 512, Heb 2:14-17.  He became INcarnated so that He could assume our fallen mortal human nature to raise it back to life, to an eternal existance again.

 

If that was His purpose, then all men will definitely be saved from death and sin, unless you can posit that man is not consubstantial with each other and we have different human natures.  Christ of necessity needed to save all men from death and sin , IF He truly desired that all men might come to know HIm and be united with HIm for an eternity.  Thus the text you quoted. He saved everyone, but especially those that would be joined to Him through faith.

 

 

 

Rom 11:32  For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. 

Notice the parallelism in this verse.  If we agree that the first clause means that all of humanity are disobedient sinners, then we would have to agree that God’s mercy to all in the second clause means all of humanity as well.

 

Which is precisely correct. But it does not support Universalism because individual man must believe, must choose either to reject Christ or accept Him.    All it means Christ reconciled the world, it is what makes HIm the Savior of the world. John 4:42, I John 4:14. II Cor 5:18-19, Col 1:20, or I Cor 15:12-22.

 

 

1 Jn 2:2  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Again correct. Could you explain just how one sacrifice, if for the sins of the world, could be separated from certain sins, or amount of sin, or kind of sins? The sacrifice was for sin, period, all sin.

 

 

 

Rom 5:15-19 

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.  For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

No one would disagree that Adam’s transgression resulted in condemnation to all men – every single one. Yet the verse also says Christ’s sacrifice resulted in justification for all men – every single one.  Paul’s use of parallelism here is unmistakable.  The gift is greater than the trespass.  To make the claim that “all” actually means “some” as it only applies to the elect is the same as saying Jesus’ power to save is less than Adam’s power to condemn. 

It can be the ONLY explanation but again it does not support UNiversalism.  If you want to call it universal reconciliation then you would be correct.  In the early Church this was called universal recapitulation of all things. 

Again, it refers only to Christ reversing the fall. From the curse of death to ADam, to the life to all through Christ's resurrection.  Death came to man through our human nature and so did life.  This is speaking about physical death and life.

 

 

 

1Cor 15:22  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Another example of parallelism.  If all die in Adam, all live in Christ.

 

Again, another summation of Christ's Incarnation.  It is why Christians have always believed in the resurrection of the dead.  The preamble of vs 22 is vs 12-21.  If Christ is not raised then neither will anyone else. We would all still be condemned through Adam.  This is also summed up in John 6:39. That resurrection will raise all men to immortality and incorruptibility I Cor 15:53.

ONce again, nothing here about universalism whereby individuals are saved, that is all will be in heaven. Wholly different aspect of our salvation.

 

 

 

Col 1:18-20  He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.  For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross;

If we acknowledge that Jesus is fully God, as all the Father’s fullness dwells in him; by the same token we have to acknowledge that Jesus will reconcile all to himself.

 

Again when ADam fell the curse was not just upon man but upon the world, the created universe. Christ needed to reconcile the world as well from death and sin.  He did not create either man or the world to be destroyed by death.

 

 

 

The plain reading of these verses indicates God will save all but we tend to limit all to “some” because that is what we have been taught.

 

Yes, He has already saved all. We shall all be raised in the last day.  But God cannot save individuals.  He has left that up to each to freely believe, to accept His offer of union with HIm. The consequences for either choice is eternal.

NOthing in any of these verses that even hint at any kind of UNiversalism as understood by either all three of your statements or any other someone might come up with.  Scripture does not contradict itself.

You apparently have difficulty following a discussion since I used all the texts you used in your original in my first explanation which put all of them together.  I hope this helps you to understand the texts.