Create Account said:

---

If God loves everyone, then universalism is the only thing that makes sense.

---

Especially since Scripture states God desires to save all men. And is sovereign.

Ok, ONLY because this post was already bumped up to the top of the board…I thought of your post today when reading Romans 9…

Romans 9:22-24 sounds like Paul is saying…
"'If it sounds like God has created some people to be saved into eternal glory, but has also created others to be condemned and eternal damn nation, what of it?' What He says instead is that we should reconsider what we think regarding the greatest good. We are humanists, so we consider the highest well-being of the most humans to constitute the highest good, above, even the glory of God's justice, wrath, and power. But God is a theist! And He thinks that the highest good is the fullest display of His own glory. So the question is, who is right? The theist or the humanist? God or man? Paul does not even bother to elaborate the answer. Paul flatly states that for the sake of the display of 'his wrath and to make known his power,' God, 'prepared' certain people for destruction (Rom 9:22). He also 'endured with much patience' their willful unbelief and sin, all while showering them with blessings in this wonderful world He made for us. But through their rebellion and subsequent judgment, God ordained that the glories of the perfect perfection of His power, justice, holiness, and wrath would be displayed forever. Meanwhile, God prepared others - 'even us who whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles' - that is, those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and are saved, 'in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which is prepared beforehand for glory' (Rom 9:23). What does this mean? It means that God ordains the condemnation of the reprobate, not only to show forth His justice and wrath, but also to display His mercy and grace to us who equally deserve hell but receive salvation instead. Were no one ever condemned - were there no display of God's judgment and wrath - there would be no knowledge of the glories of God's grace. In that case, the true God would be unknown to His creatures, and His purpose in creation - to display the fullness of His glory - would be unrealized. Having failed in this purpose, God would no longer be God. For this reason, God's decree of reprobation is necessary."- Richard D Phillips.

(Resist the urge to come back with a comment against Calvinists)

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Ok, ONLY because this post was already bumped up to the top of the board…I thought of your post today when reading Romans 9…

Romans 9:22-24 sounds like Paul is saying…
"'If it sounds like God has created some people to be saved into eternal glory, but has also created others to be condemned and eternal damn nation, what of it?' What He says instead is that we should reconsider what we think regarding the greatest good. We are humanists, so we consider the highest well-being of the most humans to constitute the highest good, above, even the glory of God's justice, wrath, and power. But God is a theist! And He thinks that the highest good is the fullest display of His own glory. So the question is, who is right? The theist or the humanist? God or man? Paul does not even bother to elaborate the answer. Paul flatly states that for the sake of the display of 'his wrath and to make known his power,' God, 'prepared' certain people for destruction (Rom 9:22). He also 'endured with much patience' their willful unbelief and sin, all while showering them with blessings in this wonderful world He made for us. But through their rebellion and subsequent judgment, God ordained that the glories of the perfect perfection of His power, justice, holiness, and wrath would be displayed forever. Meanwhile, God prepared others - 'even us who whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles' - that is, those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and are saved, 'in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which is prepared beforehand for glory' (Rom 9:23). What does this mean? It means that God ordains the condemnation of the reprobate, not only to show forth His justice and wrath, but also to display His mercy and grace to us who equally deserve hell but receive salvation instead. Were no one ever condemned - were there no display of God's judgment and wrath - there would be no knowledge of the glories of God's grace. In that case, the true God would be unknown to His creatures, and His purpose in creation - to display the fullness of His glory - would be unrealized. Having failed in this purpose, God would no longer be God. For this reason, God's decree of reprobation is necessary."- Richard D Phillips.

(Resist the urge to come back with a comment against Calvinists)

---

How does that go with Scripture stating God desires all men to be saved? And there are those words in Roman's 9, "But what if". Paul never says God would do what Calvinists assert He would do. Create people pre ordained to eternal torment. That would make God a sinner. To my knowledge, no other theology believes God creates people preordained to damnation.
And I love Calvinists. Just like I love Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, etc. just disagree with their theology. And they disagree with my theology. This has been going on for centuries. There is a reason only about 3% of Christians are Calvinists.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+percentage+of+christians+are+calvinist&client=safari&hs=JA9&sca_esv=fcf4cfb171e5d2cf&channel=iphone_bm&sxsrf=APpeQnvcnbDPuKaQ6V_ALRT3-J06zjC5_Q%3A1787229009790&source=hp&ei=UfOGaoP5LOuzmtkPm9GckAM&iflsig=ABILxe8AAAAAaocBYT0gprMaK7M8G8bR_rwn_WLoRd-P&oq=what+percentage+of+Christians+are&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IiF3aGF0IHBlcmNlbnRhZ2Ugb2YgQ2hyaXN0aWFucyBhcmUqAggDMgQQIxgnMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESMCCAlCMC1iF4wFwAXgAkAEAmAGTAaABgRWqAQQzMi4xuAEByAEA-AEBmAIioALsF6gCCsICBxAjGOoCGCfCAg0QLhjHARivARjqAhgnwgIKEC4YxwEYrwEYJ8ICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGNEDwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAgsQLhiABBixAxiDAcICBRAuGIAEwgIEEC4YJ8ICDhAAGIAEGIoFGLEDGIMBwgIIEAAYgAQYsQOYAwzxBcovWUZR9lcLkgcEMzAuNKAHo94CsgcEMjkuNLgH4BfCBwYyLTI1LjnIB-4BgAgB&sclient=gws-wiz

And I could be wrong and Calvinists could be right. Doesn't change anything about my faith or eternal destiny. And I am going to focus on what Jesus told us to do. Love God, love your neighbor, and follow Him.
My daily readings included Psalm 100. The word elect is not in there. Just people.
And interestingly enough my next reading was 1 Corinthians 12-13. I can not read that and believe that we are "sinners in the hands of an angry God" or that God creates people preordained to eternal torment. The Bible and the Gospel is a love story. It is truly Good News.

dermdoc said:

---

I will respond if you tell me what you believe Untimate reconciliation is. And I respect the "hell" out of you.

---

I'm sorry but I moved beyond in-depth eschatological study when I left evangelicalism. Am I following His commands or not? I don't remember if the 39 articles address it or not, but it's simply not a relevant topic to our practice.

Edit: I have far more trepidation at forcing the entirety of scripture to reconcile with one verse (whether Christ is the full representation of God, or that He desires all men be saved, whatever it may be).

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I will respond if you tell me what you believe Untimate reconciliation is. And I respect the "hell" out of you.

---

I'm sorry but I moved beyond in-depth eschatological study when I left evangelicalism. Am I following His commands or not? I don't remember if the 39 articles address it or not, but it's simply not a relevant topic to our practice.

Edit: I have far more trepidation at forcing the entirety of scripture to reconcile with one verse (whether Christ is the full representation of God, or that He desires all men be saved, whatever it may be).

---

Fair enough. Do Anglicans believe in double predestination? And do you think the entirety of Scripture supports it? And that character of God? And how can Christ not be the full representation of God if you believe in the Trinity?

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I will respond if you tell me what you believe Untimate reconciliation is. And I respect the "hell" out of you.

---

I'm sorry but I moved beyond in-depth eschatological study when I left evangelicalism. Am I following His commands or not? I don't remember if the 39 articles address it or not, but it's simply not a relevant topic to our practice.

Edit: I have far more trepidation at forcing the entirety of scripture to reconcile with one verse (whether Christ is the full representation of God, or that He desires all men be saved, whatever it may be).

---

Fair enough. Do Anglicans believe in double predestination? And do you think the entirety of Scripture supports it? And that character of God? And how can Christ not be the full representation of God if you believe in the Trinity?

---

It's not that simple:

Quote:

---

Therefore, though Cranmer was strong in condemning those who made God the author of sin, by saying that He enforced the will; though he firmly maintained that Christ died to save all men, and would have all men to be saved; though he and his fellows rejected the Calvinistic tenet of final perseverance; they were yet willing to leave the field fairly open to different views of the Divine predestination, and accordingly worded the Article in strictly Scriptural language, only guarding carefully and piously against the dangers which might befal "carnal and curious persons." After long and serious consideration, I am inclined to think this the true state of the case. I am strongly disposed to believe that Cranmer's own opinions were certainly neither Arminian nor Calvinistic, nor probably even Augustinian; yet I can hardly think that he would have so worded this Article, had he intended to declare very decidedly against either explanation of the doctrine of election.

---

https://northamanglican.com/exposition-of-the-thirty-nine-articles-article-xvii-part-1/

Edit: Christ being the full representation of God, must still be reconciled with God's character throughout scripture, along with Christ's own as the law giver. The risk is marcionism.

Disagree. You have to read the OT through the lens of Christ. He is the revelation of the Law and the fulfillment of Scripture.

Create Account said:

---

If God loves everyone, then universalism is the only thing that makes sense.

---

Did the father of the prodigal son stop loving his son when his son freely left? If a human father is capable of loving a son through his terrible sin, even if he never repented, is God not capable of doing the same?

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I will respond if you tell me what you believe Untimate reconciliation is. And I respect the "hell" out of you.

---

I'm sorry but I moved beyond in-depth eschatological study when I left evangelicalism. Am I following His commands or not? I don't remember if the 39 articles address it or not, but it's simply not a relevant topic to our practice.

Edit: I have far more trepidation at forcing the entirety of scripture to reconcile with one verse (whether Christ is the full representation of God, or that He desires all men be saved, whatever it may be).

---

Fair enough. Do Anglicans believe in double predestination? And do you think the entirety of Scripture supports it? And that character of God? And how can Christ not be the full representation of God if you believe in the Trinity?

---

It's not that simple:

Quote:

---

Therefore, though Cranmer was strong in condemning those who made God the author of sin, by saying that He enforced the will; though he firmly maintained that Christ died to save all men, and would have all men to be saved; though he and his fellows rejected the Calvinistic tenet of final perseverance; they were yet willing to leave the field fairly open to different views of the Divine predestination, and accordingly worded the Article in strictly Scriptural language, only guarding carefully and piously against the dangers which might befal "carnal and curious persons." After long and serious consideration, I am inclined to think this the true state of the case. I am strongly disposed to believe that Cranmer's own opinions were certainly neither Arminian nor Calvinistic, nor probably even Augustinian; yet I can hardly think that he would have so worded this Article, had he intended to declare very decidedly against either explanation of the doctrine of election.

---

https://northamanglican.com/exposition-of-the-thirty-nine-articles-article-xvii-part-1/

Edit: Christ being the full representation of God, must still be reconciled with God's character throughout scripture, along with Christ's own as the law giver. The risk is marcionism.

---

And thanks for the link. Great read.

dermdoc said:

---

Disagree. You have to read the OT through the lens of Christ. He is the revelation of the Law and the fulfillment of Scripture.

---

Again, the problem is using that to read it all as allegory and not reading literally, as in events didn't happen or God didn't do things.

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Disagree. You have to read the OT through the lens of Christ. He is the revelation of the Law and the fulfillment of Scripture.

---

Again, the problem is using that to read it all as allegory and not reading literally, as in events didn't happen or God didn't do things.

---

I am not using it as allegory. Obviously the Israelites slaughtered a bunch of folks on orders from God or his anointed leaders. But there is no mention of eternal torment. Just death. One is just. One is sin.
The Israelites had no concept of ECT hell.

dermdoc said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2022/12/05/the-inescapable-love-of-god/
Worth a read in my opinion.

---

I have not not read the book but I am curious whether you are a "hard universalist" or a "hopeful universalist."

Or am I making a false assumption?

TIA

---

I don't know what of these phrases mean but I can tell you that Dermdoc falls under "hopeful"

---

I believe in corrective punishment that is not eternal. So I am a heretic. And please do not worry about mine or my family's eternal destination. We all know the Lord, love our neighbors, love God, and follow Jesus. And are filled with joy and peace.

---

Yes, but which God and Jesus do you follow? We can alter any god and keep the name the same but it's still making a false god.
I can believe Ronald Regan was pro abortion but that's a fictitious Ronald Regan. If you keep the name but change their principles then that person doesn't exist.

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Disagree. You have to read the OT through the lens of Christ. He is the revelation of the Law and the fulfillment of Scripture.

---

Again, the problem is using that to read it all as allegory and not reading literally, as in events didn't happen or God didn't do things.

---

I am not using it as allegory. Obviously the Israelites slaughtered a bunch of folks on orders from God or his anointed leaders. But there is no mention of eternal torment. Just death. One is just. One is sin.
The Israelites had no concept of ECT hell.

---

My point is that David Bentley hart reads it all as allegory, so you should question the basis for his conclusions given a faulty premise.

Another great quote I read today:
"You threaten a fire that burns for a time and is quickly extinguished. Yet a fire that you know nothing about awaits the wicked in the judgment to come and an eternal punishment." - Polycarp

And another: "A woman living with a depraved husband was at first as depraved as he. But when she learned Christ's teaching she reformed and tried to induce her husband to do the same, warning him of eternal punishment." - Justin Martyr

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Disagree. You have to read the OT through the lens of Christ. He is the revelation of the Law and the fulfillment of Scripture.

---

Again, the problem is using that to read it all as allegory and not reading literally, as in events didn't happen or God didn't do things.

---

I am not using it as allegory. Obviously the Israelites slaughtered a bunch of folks on orders from God or his anointed leaders. But there is no mention of eternal torment. Just death. One is just. One is sin.
The Israelites had no concept of ECT hell.

---

My point is that David Bentley hart reads it all as allegory, so you should question the basis for his conclusions given a faulty premise.

---

I am not David Bentley Hart. And it is much easier to defend Hart than Jonathan Edwards in my opinion.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Another great quote I read today:
"You threaten a fire that burns for a time and is quickly extinguished. Yet a fire that you know nothing about awaits the wicked in the judgment to come and an eternal punishment." - Polycarp

And another: "A woman living with a depraved husband was at first as depraved as he. But when she learned Christ's teaching she reformed and tried to induce her husband to do the same, warning him of eternal punishment." - Justin Martyr

---

Dueling Church fathers is tiresome. I can site fathers who are in favor of universal reconciliation. We disagree. And that is fine..

S.A. Aggie said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2022/12/05/the-inescapable-love-of-god/
Worth a read in my opinion.

---

I have not not read the book but I am curious whether you are a "hard universalist" or a "hopeful universalist."

Or am I making a false assumption?

TIA

---

I don't know what of these phrases mean but I can tell you that Dermdoc falls under "hopeful"

---

I believe in corrective punishment that is not eternal. So I am a heretic. And please do not worry about mine or my family's eternal destination. We all know the Lord, love our neighbors, love God, and follow Jesus. And are filled with joy and peace.

---

Yes, but which God and Jesus do you follow? We can alter any god and keep the name the same but it's still making a false god.
I can believe Ronald Regan was pro abortion but that's a fictitious Ronald Regan. If you keep the name but change their principles then that person doesn't exist.

---

I follow Jesus Christ who said He would draw all men towards Him. You and I disagree on theology of hell. Do you believe that damns me?

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Another great quote I read today:
"You threaten a fire that burns for a time and is quickly extinguished. Yet a fire that you know nothing about awaits the wicked in the judgment to come and an eternal punishment." - Polycarp

And another: "A woman living with a depraved husband was at first as depraved as he. But when she learned Christ's teaching she reformed and tried to induce her husband to do the same, warning him of eternal punishment." - Justin Martyr

---

I was bored so I succumbed to dueling church fathers. Forgive me.
https://www.google.com/search?q=church+fathers+in+favor+of+apokatastasis&client=safari&hs=F9qV&sca_esv=93e19c90bfb7f1e7&channel=iphone_bm&sxsrf=APpeQnvGgia7V-U0ZQ1Z-23lBaWO-SnQHQ%3A1787840207406&source=hp&ei=z0aQaqmnFeG7qtsPwsr-sAw&biw=402&bih=714&oq=church+fathers+in+favor+of+apokatastasis&gs_lp=EhFtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1ocCIoY2h1cmNoIGZhdGhlcnMgaW4gZmF2b3Igb2YgYXBva2F0YXN0YXNpczIFEAAY7wUyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIFEAAY7wUyBRAAGO8FSKD4AVC7DViN5AFwA3gAkAEAmAGwAaABgh2qAQQzMi45uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIsoAKnHqgCMcICChAjGOoCGMAGGCfCAhAQLhjHARivARjqAhjABhgnwgITECMYnQYY6AYY3QUY6gIYwAYYJ8ICDRAjGPAFGOoCGMAGGCfCAgoQLhjqAhjABhgnwgIZECMY7QUY-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-OOB7SuugYECAEYF5IHBTMzLjExoAee3AGyBwUzMC4xMbgHgx7CBwswLjE1LjI4LjAuMcgHmQGACAE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp#lfId=ChxjMe