Jump to content

universal reconciliation

Recommended Posts


about a year ago I mentioned I was looking into this view and I have to say I'm pretty much a convert.


WOW, is it solid. I thought it had no merit but I read Thomas Talbotts "Inescapable Love of God" and was floored. He's a christian philosopher and makes some incredible points.


I'm not in my second book on the issue called "The Evangelical Universalist" and its every bit as good as Talbotts.


Basically it sees the nature of God as being love. All attributes are extensions of this and therfore God seeks to reconcile all (not some as reformed argue).


Excelent book by Talbott, I recommend it to everyone.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what do they do with God's perfect Justice, etc? What about Jesus referrals to people not being allowed into the kingdom of heaven even though they think they can be? What scripture(s) is/are this theory based upon? And having said that, what are this theories views on the scriptures? Do they consider it the Word of God, or a guidebook to life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice Talobott argues is an extension of God's love. It is not just some psychotic person who serves evil with evil. Rather God draws men by humbling them with justice. The natural result of rejecting God and his nature is death. Sin results in death and wrath occurs. Therfore like the plauges of egypt it softens hearts till the person is released from sin.


The referral of people not entering the kingdom is no different then those who go to hell. Jesus died to change us NOT to change God.

God seeks to destroy the old man (sin nature) and give birth to the new man (new creation) NO ONE can be saved or reconciled outside of Christ and all who are saved/reconciled come into the kingdom of God.


Hell is still a literal place (though lake of fire, utter darkness, cut to pieces are all metaphors) that people will take on if they reject Jesus.


The scriptures are based on literal interpretations of romans, collosians, matt, mark, luke and epeshians.


Heres one that most people know.


"Every knee will bow and every tounge confess that Jesus is Lord"...


UR'ists take this literally. Talbott argues that the knee bowing is not a forced metaphor but rather a form of respect someone has for his king. The glory that God gains is by winning one to confess rather than forcing one to confess. So the view holds that God DOES NOT step on the wickeds neck in order to make them say something they do not believe but rather wins all creation so that all willingly say "God is Lord of all".


They take the word of God very serious and Gregory Mcdonald (psudonymn) argues that we read the bible wrong. While he holds that indeed there is direct instruction it also needs to be seen as a whole, that is God loves all.


Talbott and Mcdonald both argue this point.


1) God wants all men to be saved and reconciled.


2) God is powerful and CAN save and reconcile everyone.


3) Many will go to eternal destruction with no hope of reconciliation.


They argue the three cannot co-exist


Thus the calvinist denys no. 1 and says God DOES NOT want all men to be saved.


The Arminian denys no. 2 and says God wants all men to be saved but CANNOT save them due to mens free will (choice).


The Universalist claims 1 and 2 are true but no. 3 is false.

They claim God wants to save them all

God can save them all

Hell (God's wrath) is nor eternal as there are scriptures that paint these types of pictures. They also claim Eternal punishment is not just for any crime. If one argues "to deny an infinite God inherits an infinite punishment" then why is it better for Sodom and Gam than for koriazan?

Thus it is held that if God loves the wicked he will save them all.


It's much much deeper than this but this is a VERY basic overview of the position.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, "every knee shall bow and tongue confess" does not nescessarily mean that they are submissive, rather they clearly see His Lordship and authority. A pure and contrite heart is what God's looking for, not someone who does a lip-service. The captain of the soldiers who crucified Jesus admitted that Jesus was the Son of God, but scripture does not suggest that he was saved as a result. Even the demons know who God is, and are terrified.


As far as Christ being the only way to God, that is correct.


Eternal punishment not being just for any crime is a human's authority arguement, and is not based on scripture. It is based on our logic and justice system, since we cannot understant the word infinite in its entirety, nor can we truely see the true holiness of God. Once we do, we'll understand.


I agree that God loves all, AND that it is not His will that any should perish (which is another verse often used). But, there are many aspect to God's will. It is not his will that any of us should sin ever, yet we do. There is God's sovereignty in that He accomplished Christ's destiny on the cross, no matter what we did. There's also the aspect of what God WANTS to happen, and has (for some reason) decided to let us be a part of it.


All God has to work with is sinful creatures (you and I) and yet he chooses to be patient with us and use us. We have the option of disobedience, otherwise we would not be told to obey by Paul, etc.


The Bible paints a clear picture of an eternal punishment for God's enemies. I can reference these passages if you want, but I'm sure you've read them.


This view denies God's justice, and paints a picture of a God who does not care how we live, who will accept anyone because He

"loves" them. The God I worship takes sin seriously, and His Holiness will not allow anyone who is sinful to come near to Him. That is why He needed to do the work of reconciliation, not us.


Views 1 2 and 3 are all true, though I would reword 2 to say "anyone". The argument that is presented is based on human reasoning. A calvanist does not throw out any of these 3, neither does an arminianist. It is hyper-calvanists and hyper-arminianists that do this (ie fanatics).


The authority of the scripture is the final word. This view does not support what scripture says about judgement and condemnation, or about reconciliation and regeneration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually it's not humanist at all.


It totally embraced the FACT that man is sinful. However it also embraces the fact that God's love is greater than sin. It takes more than an equal force of love to save someone. God's love is underestimated by traditionalists.


The view does not deny justice but rather see justice that it is an act of Love from God.

Talbott argues that if it is Gods nature to hate sin then when does he hate it? He argues that God ALWAYS hates sin since it's his nature to hate sin. He also argues God is Love. He argues that if love is a central core of Gods nature then it WONT act in opposition (skitzophrenia) to his other characteristics.


His position is that love is the main characteristic of God. That holiness, righteoussness, faith, grace, mercy, compassion, anger are all extenstion of his love and that God's wrath is to bring people to repentance.


The 3 positions cannot co-exist except for a god who is skitzophrenic. It is TOTALLY inadequate to say God is good though he does things he tells us not to do...hate out enemies.


if logic cannot be used (we say Gods ways are high that we dont comprehend them) then NO one can say God is good and really believe it. In order for one to believe something (which God wants us to do) we have to be convinced. If I say God sins but commits no sin then it is similar in that we say God can act irrational and violent (not in compassion) since he is God. in other words, God can sin without sinning for he is God.


But I agree with Talbott that God cannot sin because it's against his nature (hes not skitzophrenic). Therfore he always acts in love, even when his harsh wrath occurs on us.


People still believe we cant see the true holiness of God yet we see it in Jesus. We have seen it. If you've seem me youv'e seen the father.

We just don't understand what it means. We're blind and mcdonald is correect about that (I believe).


He who sees Jesus sees the WHOLE, PUREFECT Holiness of God. We just don't think so because we believe the atomic structure of his light would obliterate us....as if atoms matter???


the view sees that justice stems from righteoussness which stems from love. Therfore justice is never "eye for an eye" but rather Gods kingdom of justice is "turn the other cheek"....for this is how God is...be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. Therfore IN EVERYTHING Mecry triumphs over judgement and justice is met in mercy not the law.


it seems to me you deny 2. You want to uphold that God wants to save all and many will go to hell with no end thus if you uphold number 2 you are in contradiction. If all three can be true than mormons can be right that trinity is not true as well. For if God is hides beyond our comprehension (he doesnt thats a major function in Jesus making God known to us), then mormon doctrine should be logical and reasonable.

But in fact many of us deny it because IT MAKES NO SENSE, ILLOGICAL, UNRATIONAL, UNREASONABLE.


So I agree with Talbott, the tree of knowledge of good and evil makes us aware and able to see the good but we choose to think of God as a greek god who is both murderess and compassionate, black and white, joy and sad, blessing and curse, love and hate. SKITZO!

Talbott is correct, God is not sad, curse, black, hate or dark....

He is love and all goodness is in him.



Edited by auggybendoggy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I should have been more clear on a few parts, such as seeing God's Holiness,etc. You're right, we do see the Father in Christ, the exact representation of His being, but we have not seen the Father in His spiritual state, face to face, because we're still alive. We do have access to the throne room, but in the body we will not be there literally - there's a difference.


I dont understand how you can say that God does not hate anyone. It is biblical, and God has enemies. Is it sin? Of course not, like you said, "God cannot go against his own nature." He cant sin. You dont call a mother a hypocrite when she says little Johnny has to be in bed by 7, but she stays up until 12.


Where are these scripture references that you are using to present your case? The authority of God's own Word, His revelation about Himself, is far above the logic of man, which is all i've read so far.


As far as the every knee bowing too, the context is in relation to brothers in Christ, not the world at large. cf Romans 14


The only scripture I could think that would possibly support this view is in reference to Israel (not Gentiles) in Romans 11:25-32


What about what Scripture says?

Romans 8:7,8

"The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature CANNOT please God."


Romans 9:13-18

"Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I hve mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'

It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's MERCY. ... Therefore God has mercy on whome he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."


Romans 9:27-28

"Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: 'Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, ONLY THE REMNANT WILL BE SAVED. For the Lord will carry out his sentence with speed and FINALITY.'


Romans 11:5,6

"So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace."


Romans 11:14

"...in the hpe that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save SOME of them." -Paul talking about ministering to the Gentiles and not the Jews


1 Cor 10:21

"You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's tabel and the table of demons."


1Cor 11:31

"But if we judged ourselves we would not come under judgement. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be CONDEMNED WITH THE WORLD."


That list is by no means exhaustive. By those very few verses it is completely clear that some will be saved, some will not. It is extremely prideful to declare how God does/doesnt act according to our logics of his person, as we would understand him. We should continually check our view of God against his own revelation to us (ie scripture) to see if they line up. If they dont, the scripture is not the source of the error. We cannot base our view of what love truly is on what we think we would do in God's place if we were really loving like Him. God is love, and is the source of all love. Every love on earth is a small, dim picture of his love, but we cant presume to know what love is outside of what God has revealed to us in his Word.

Edited by DarkArchon
Link to comment
Share on other sites


if we cannot then we cannot say it except for blind faith which is exactly what all men do. That my friend is humanism.


It is not valid to say I believe God is good simply because the bible says it. Muslims make the same claim of allah and will willingly blow up a school bus full of children YET we will claim God shows us all the logic is antithetical to his claim that allah is good. In such a system of belief (doctine) it MUST BE SOUND. This paul tells timothy about being true to sound docrtine.


Here is what is not sound...


God loves all men...

God hates his enemies... (men who hate him).


God is compassionate

God is uncompassionate (to those who resist him)


God is love

God is hate (to those who reject the truth)


God cares for people

God cares less for the wicked


Yes God hates sin but he loves his enemies thats why Jesus says

"love your enemies, therfore be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect."

He is saying God does not hate his enemies.


We conclude he does because our system (doctrine) defines justice as an act of hatred or a abusive retrubution with no attempt of correction.


Indeed no father who loves his children will abuse his children that is why Jesus affirms that God loves everyone.


Every knee bowing

from Phil

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

and gave him the name that is above every name,

10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father.

This is not JUST the church...

in heaven and under the earth is a phrase not equiv. to "his children" but rather EVERY knee.


so the question of Forced admittance or True adoration is raised.


I agree with Talbott that forced recognition does not glorify God but rather shows that many still reject his glory. Rather if all admit that he is all beautiful.


It is not Prideful at all to say God cannot act sinful. It is perfectly fine to say love does not boast...

So does God boast?

love is patient...

is God patient?


does God keep records of wrong or rights?

Love always protects

Does God proetect?


For anyone to say God wants us to love all men but he does not is TOTALLY hypocritical which Jesus makes clear the pharisees embrace such theology. Jesus makes it clear, God shows no favoritism, but rather he loves all. If God does show favoritism, then it would not be a sin and therfore we could also show favoritism (racism, discrimination).


I believe Talbott is totally correct on his view of what is true and what is not.


In the words of George Mcdonald,

"if something looks dark to you, be assured it is."



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will live and die by the authority of the scriptures. My faith is not blind, because God has revealed himself to me through them, not through man's philosophy (Paul also talks about this). The gospel is the sound doctrine that he is referring to, not men's 'logical' arguements.


About the every knee, you're right in that context - I was referring to a different one, sorry! :)


Of course God keeps a record of right and wrong - how else could there be a judgement, and how else could we answer for every careless word we say, every action we take? You seem to know your bible, so i wont reference those.


The attractive thing about this theory is that it fits God into a box for you, and morality is disregarded. If nothing we do matters, why bother becoming a disciple of Christ?


Saying God cant do/feel two things at once is saying that he actually exists in time. God is totally above time, so doing/feeling/thinking/etc 2 things (or even an infinite amount of things) is possible at the same instant (though instant cant be applied since time is irrelevant).


One last point: it is all about God's grace. God is the one who moved me to himself, the one who regenerated me, who indwelt me, who empowered me to do the good works he prepared for me, he's the one who saved me. In talking about morality, i'm convinced God would rather have us passionate and wrong than extremely moral and legalistic. But what God truly wants is me to follow him, to seek after him with all my heart, mind and soul, and to follow him unconditionally, just like He died for me while i was still his enemy. God's the only one deserving all glory. God has revealed himself to me through his Word, his special self-revelation, and natural self-revelation. He had to since he's spirit, and I am not. I look to that scripture for the source of truth about God, and will live and die by the truth of the scriptures.


If the scriptures are not our primary source of authority, then we really cannot debate this theory, since we look to two different sources for truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dark, pharisees lived and died by scripture as well and it didnt help em one bit. What matters is the truth in scripture.


My point about blind faith is that if God cannot be understood as to what is good and bad then we could never ever turn to him. Indeed the tree of knoweldge of good and evil is a dbl edge sword. We do know what is good and we should do it. If someone says God like aduletery you can rest assured that he does not. If someone says God can sin you can be sure he cannot. It's not only spoken in scripture ITS SOUND. The gospel is the Good news and sound doctrine is not only in terms of ONLY the Gospel but rather EVERYTHING that you say and think.


If love keeps no records of wrongs or rights then why does paul say love does not. Do you really believe that these characteristics of love in cor 13 are not about God. Thats like saying...."you should follow these attributes but NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE LIKE GOD but becauses I say so". Bro, we follow those attributes because THEY ARE ALL ABOUT GOD and his character.


You totally misunderstand the position that it fits God into a box. Morality is STRONGLY endorsed as UR'ists firmly endorse God wants us to be like him and seeks to transform us into the likeness of Jesus. If one reject him God's wrath will come to him INCLUDING HELL.


The difference is that they (I) see Gods wrath not being as from some sociaopathic psycho but rather from a compassionate God who seeks to save all men.


As for the "God is totally above time" I see no relevance to this discussion. It still does not resolve the point that If someone says Jesus was a liar (Immoral) he has to logically prove it from scripture. To illogically prove it means NO one (like mormonism) woul dbelieve it.

In other words God gives us all intellegence to see what is good and bad (tree of k of good and evil) and therfore we can see that Jesus is good, not because of simple words but because of his actions and his "doctrine".


UR'ists argue that grace is truly only endorsed in their view (this I am not sure about) they aregue that if it is left TOTALLY up to God to whom he calls and he wants all to be saved then he will eventually save all because he wants to have mercy on them all.


For God has bound all men over to disobedience....


Why Dark?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt read everything here, but something jumped out at me


Dark here's your quote

I will live and die by the authority of the scriptures. My faith is not blind, because God has revealed himself to me through them, not through man's philosophy


I thought the scriptures were written by men who followed jesus's philosophy. So wouldn't the scripture's be the same thing as man philosophy? or in a sense Jesus's philosophy?

Edited by NOFX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOFX: you're right for sure. The scriptures were written by men who followed Jesus' teachings, (at least the NT is) but they were inspired to write what they did by the Holy Spirit. I'm sure you remember stuff about that in the other topic discussion. It could be argued that the OT was also written as a result of Jesus, since those authors also had faith in God to provide a sacrafice for their salvation. I guess it's just a technicality. And Jesus was more human than I am, since humans were originally created to be without sin (adam and eve) and Jesus was sinless.



Pharisees lived and died by their own theology, not the scriptures. They missed God's heart in it all, and lived in 'ungrace'. They were legalistic, and made rules about how to follow the rules, and put their own interpretations on par with the Law itself, such as "dont eat with sinners".


The part about time, is this: the view says that God cannot be 2 things at once, such as angry and loving. My point is that since God is outside of time the term "at once" does not even apply. The reason this view takes this is that they see anger/happiness as opposites, when really it's a human condition because of time and finite limitations of feelings that makes it impossible to have both at once. Chrsitians please God, make him 'happy'. People sin, making God 'sad' (angry is a better term). 6 billiion people do this at once, and God is not a skitzo who flips back and forth from happiness to anger.


Sound doctrine comes FROM the gospel, for all of scripture (the OT) is all pointing to the gospel. The gospel is the climax of history - the battle is already won, and all truth comes from that sovereign act of God. It's the purpose of the whole OT is to prepare for salvation.


You say all we're called to do or not do is based on what God does or doesnt do. What about God telling us to not take revenge because He will? I definitely think that we are to love because God first loved us (while we were still enemies with Him), and that part of scripture is modelled after Him.


God himself said, "Jacob I love but Esau I hated." Either God's a liar or saying God cannot hate is lying.

Romans 3:4 "...Let God be true and every man a liar."

Romans 3:7 "Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, WHY AM I STILL CONDEMNED AS A SINNER?"


What do you do with scriptures that talk about eternal condemnation? You can't just throw them out to fit a theory.


Hebrews 9:27 "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvatin TO THEOSE WHO ARE WAITING FOR HIM." Note, it's not for everyone on earth, only those who are waiting for him.


"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

1 - We need to read the context. It's surrounded by Israel's unbelief and thus salvation for the Gentiles. (11:1-32)

2 - The fall of the Israelites is not nescessarily fixed, but salvation is now individual, not corporate like the Old covenant

3 - The language used (nun for now) is contemporary, not futuristic. Paul's using his ministry as an example.

4 - The question was could the Jews be saved having rejected the messiah? Roman Gentiles thought not, but Paul's point is that God's grace is extended to all people.

5 - Key element: context. You cant take one verse and build theology off of it. You need to look at scripture as a whole. Otherwise, you end up with false doctrine.

Edited by DarkArchon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting discussion.


I really didn't read everything but think I have the gest of the conversation. While I would really like for Auggy to be right, it's hard to discard all the verses that don't appear to agree. Since I take the scriptures literally everywhere they are presented in a literal way, I just can't accept it. It is a very interesting doctrine and this has been a good discussion.


The main points being God's love reconciled with God's judgement. I feel Christ's cross was where mercy and truth met. God in His love wanted to show mercy and grace but God in His HOLINESS, couldn't just excuse sin. So the goodness of God is shown completely in Christ, who was sent, being God's Son, to be the reconciliation of God to man and vice versa. But the reconciliation takes place when man accepts God's gift of salvation. The rejection of that gift (Gods provided salvation through His son) brings condemnation.


So, to me, God's love and judgement equally co-exist. God wants all men to receive His Son. Yet men refuse. Thus sealing their own fate. Was God not good to them? I would say He was VERY good to them. He not only sacrificed His Son for their sin he even gave them some light "God lighteth every man that cometh into the world". So His love is not exclusionary or selective but yet His Holiness could never accept man in his sinful state without the payment of a received Christ.


Mercy and truth met.


Now to the argument that God's love will eventually conquer man's heart even after rejecting Jesus in this life, I find no scripture to support. While it is appealing and I wish it were true, there are many scriptures to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok I'll try to tackle the 2 (dark and cong) at the same time.



Pharisees lived and died by their own theology, not the scriptures. They missed God's heart in it all, and lived in 'ungrace'. They were legalistic, and made rules about how to follow the rules, and put their own interpretations on par with the Law itself, such as "dont eat with sinners".

Indeed they did but it is not as though "eye for an eye" was something they made up. They lived to the word...

1) eye for an eye

2) dont eat unclean foods

3) dont do ANY work on the sabbath

They not only DID NOT MAKE THESE UP they are God's own words

yet Jesus says

1) "i tell you" turn the other cheek

2) Nothing that goes into your mouth defiles you, food is for the stomach.

3) it's ok to do Good work


While you may think you are not as corrupt as a pharisee (who twists Gods word into a legalistic religion) I believe by your own mechanics you would demand scripture from Jesus to show where in the OT the above 3. In other words I think you too would have condemned him by your own demands of "literal" interpretation and hung him on a cross.


the natural response is "Jesus can change these as he is God"...

this poses 2 problems

1) did Jesus come to uphold the OT or abolisth it or change it or endorse it, fullfill it?


2) in the time of walking with Jesus it begs the question. You seem to be claiming that scripture MUST support it but what OT scripture do you have for doing good work? My bible says CLEARLY "you do not do ANY work for it is a day of rest"


I say your as blind as a pharisee (like me, no offense as I believe we all are) and WE do not read the scriptures correctly.


You say all we're called to do or not do is based on what God does or doesnt do. What about God telling us to not take revenge because He will? I definitely think that we are to love because God first loved us (while we were still enemies with Him), and that part of scripture is modelled after Him.

Indeed he does but what if he brings vengance not JUST to brutalize them (UNLIKE US) but to turn them from their sin.

Indeed there are always scriptures that sound like God does evil...


Proverbs 16:4

The LORD works out everything for his own ends—

even the wicked for a day of disaster.


Hard line Calvinists hold that God indeed makes men for damnation (double predestination) so they use a verse like this to show God does work out the ways of the wicked for the day of disaster...


But scripture ALSO says

God does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked???


So which is it???


Show them no mercy

God is compassionate???


Perhaps Jesus didn't study the whole OT when he claims that God is merciful? Perhaps God is a young boy with an ant farm when he tells us he is compassionate (unless you tinkle em off).


Point being scripture may sound like God is going to just wack people for the sole reason of rejection of truth but I agree with Talbott who states that scripture shows God is merciful and WILL ACHIEVE his plan to save all.


and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.


Do you ever wonder why paul says to tim...

Jesus who is the savior of all men, especially of those who believe.


due to point no. 3

(many will go to eternal damnation) it is upheld that Jesus is the POTENTIAL savior. Indeed God is not sloppy with scripture though.


How about Johns words...

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.


Scripture does not say he is the POTENTIAL atonement for the sins of the world but that HE IS the atoning sacrifice. NOT ONLY FOR OURS!!!


In our traditional mind we believe he only reconciles some things...

Indeed he will reconcile ALL THINGS


Indeed we are called to do EXACTLY as God does. For doing any different would be a license to sin. Are you saying God can do what he forbids men to do? (vengance is your example).

Thus are saying it is ok for God to hate his enemies while we are called to be perfect like him and love them.


You don't seem to see the contradiction...

you are holding that God does indeed NOT love his enemies (in contrast that he calls us to love them) YET Jesus says be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect (for he loves his enemies).


This is my point scripture can have the appearance of God being

Vengful, unmerciful, murderous, boastful, ungraceful, hateful


I'm saying we read it wrong thats why we COULD NOT tell Jesus God is unmerciful. We could quote "show them no mercy" and say "Jesus you are only reading part of the bible"...


Doesn't Jesus say all of the prophets and the law hang on 2 commands..

But Jesus your leaving alot our inbetween....Indeed he is not, we read it wrong, he reads it right.


God is merciful, God does want all saved, God can save all men.


now to romans 9

Jacob I love, Esau I hated...

Read what happens to Esau when he RECONCILES back to jacob.


Calvinists use this passage to say God loves some but not all (Esau I hated) but indeed pauls overall point of Romans is that God has not cut off Isreal and that he will save ALL isreal.....For all Isreal will be saved.


The question is who is Isreal..


It is a strong argument that

1) moses is the deliverer (model of messiah)

2) Isreal is Gods chosen peopld (those who belong to God)

3) Egypt???? ahhhhh who is Egypt..


Isreal was bound to Egypt (enslaved)

for all men were bound to disobedience

the messiah comes to unleash all men from this bind


Egypt is not people who reject God but rather SIN!!!


all men are Isreal, and all Isreal will be saved

All things on earth or in heaven (things lost) will be reconciled to him


The scriptures read this to me now (I'm writing a screen play on this)

God loved his first born son Adam

Adam is the son of God

Isreal is the firstborn son of God

the messiah is the firsborn son of God

the messiah is God


God (Adams father) has left Eden to save his 2 children (adam and eve) and reconcile

them back to himself. For he is able to keep us from falling.


Romans 5:

for just as THE MANY all dies in Adam so THE MANY will be made alive in Christ.

for God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

So all Isreal (who represents the firsborn) will be saved as stated in Romans 11

Now I will tackle the eternal passages tomorrow as I'm out of time :)


If I leave you with anything I challenge you to prove using OT scripture the 3 charges

are made up by pharisees.


I'll show you in num where a man collecting wood on the sabbath was stoned (where is mercy)

and how God's own words say "you shall not do ANY work".

I'll show you where God says "dont touch or eat any unclean animal".

I'll show you where eye for an eye, hand for hand, foot for foot, life for life is the standard of law.


these are all from the Law of God (God's commands) keep them and "i will bless you"...hmmmm






Edited by auggybendoggy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed the context of Romans 11.


It's ok about the OT, I know where all those passages are. I've read over the OT several times, took a Pentateuch, OT Historical Books, the Prophets etc classes while at Bible College (Briercrest). I know my OT :)


Jesus told the Pharisees that they were to practice the former without neglecting the matter. I'm sure you remember the verse saying (paraphrase) "Keep doing what you're doing, it's good, except that you've forgotten to be merciful - You must be merciful, and continue to follow the Law." (The only thing that sets me apart from a Pharisee is grace)


The story of Jesus being merciful to the woman caught in adultery is great. I love that story, because the Pharisees were just blood-thirsty, trying to trap Jesus in His words. He schooled them.


David ate bread that was not for him but for the priests. Jesus explains this too.


I think one of the main differences is that while you say God cannot love and hate, because He can only love, I say that God can love and hate simultaneously, and demands perfection from us. It's not our 'loving' that makes us perfect like him, it's the fact that when he looks at us he see's Christ's work, and us being Christ's disciples.


If we dumb it down a little and talk about miracles of healing, Jesus often didnt act because of a lack of faith. Does that mean that people's lack of faith limitted him so that he had no more power? Of course not! Same with salvation.


It all comes back to God's HOLINESS. God (thankfully) is nothing like us, and we cant fit him into a box.

Edited by DarkArchon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed about the OT except that people dont get the fact that he wasnt making it legal to eat unclean foods at that time but rather he was CORRECTING them that food was ALWAYS for the stomach but they failed to understand God's word.


Indeed obedience to the law is special as it points to Gods love (Jesus). But in rule and regulation its just a shadow (hebrews) of realities (Jesus).


Jesus states the priests desecrate the day and yet are blameless.


I think we are close on these grounds of the law and OT. Indeed Gods Grace (Jesus) is not only the difference but also the completion that nails the rules and regulations to death.


I do love that passage of the protstitute as they do try to trap em. Funny though that he didn't ask "wheres the man and let me take them out of the city and I'LL DO THE STONING." - God's holiness must be upheld??? Indeed he shows us Gods holiness is found in forgiveness.

mercy triumphs over judgement. So yes he did school em and I love that as well. However he should have asked for the man and stoned em himself (he who is without sin). We are so legalistic that we would read the law and would have said just that. "Wheres the man, we must take em outside the city and stone em".


Thats back to my point that if we are all alive in Jesus' time w/o the new testament we SURELY would have hung him if we say ...."it's not scriptual." Major parts of the law were being "changed" or "abolished" by him (so it appears) according to a dogmatic literal reading of the text.


for example...


My bible says (God speaking to Moses)...

"Eye for an eye"


Jesus says (speaking in Matt 5)

"you've heard it said eye for an eye...but I tell you turn the other cheek"


We would SURELY ask him...

"if your truly from God why are you changing what he says?"


"if your truly from God why are you aboloshing Gods holy law?"

then we would demand OT verses stating such.


We would have found him guilty (a false prophet) and hung em.


leading me to the next point on UR.


We read the text so literal we forget that Isreal is GODS FIRST BORN SON. We think of it as a nation. Indeed it is God's first born son.

so these connections take me to a Father who loves his children.


Look at romans 8

38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


In context Paul is talking about us (christians) but is it not true of the wicked???


We want to say "no" since paul is talking about "us" then it must be that his love for those "not saved" is weak (yet he died for them/us aka wicked)


I'm convinced Paul means everyone here that if God loves the world (john 3:16) so much that he would die on a cross for us (to reconcile the world unto himself) then it must be his love for us (those he died for) is so great nothing can break it.


Isnt this true of our own children.

Talbott makes the stunning point that even when a child grows into a hideous monster (adolph hitler) the parents still love them though they hate what they do.


If your child commits a haneous crime, you would probably weep for you love your child. Though you would follow through with "justice" the love cannot be broken. Only God can fix such sorrow by restoing that which is bad (reconciling).


thus it proves enough to me that God loves us all like a mother loves her newborn child and NOTHING can stop him from loving us.


This point if furthered when asked about whether God ends his love for those he casts into hell?

Some say yes he no longer loves them thus does not seek to reconcile them any longer.


some say no, he does continue to love them and would reconcile them but hell is locked from the inside (c.s. lewis). Men just choose to stay in hell rather than go with God.


I agree with talbott the 2nd option is ludicrous and rationally impossible. People will not be sipping pinnacoladas on the beaches of molten lava :)


No. 1 is more plausible but considering the nature of love it appears to me that it is impossible to truly love a child and then end it. Suffer the little children unto me...WE ARE ALL LITTLE CHILDREN AT SOME TIME.

We are descendant of God's son (adam) and he loves us so that he would lay his life down for us (theres NO GREATER LOVE).


Dude this UR makes total sense to me :)


Dark, I do appreciate your dialouge, it helps me bounce ideas.

so thanks.


As for God loving and hating what I mean is, towards us. He hates the sin but loves the sinner. He never hates us but ALWAYS hates the sin. In this same way he ALWAYS loves us and CANNOT act in any other manner (hate) since he loves us. You cannot love and hate your child at the same time, you can hate what they do or say but them in and of themselves. If you do not have a child then wait till you do and you'll understand how much you could love someone so small. It's a perfect touchstone God gives us to him.


Indeed God cannot be put into a box that is why I must go with the most plausible and reasonable rendering of text as possible and I have found that literal interpretation is a DEAD END.


If the bible is as simple as reading tom sawyer then anyone can understand it but in Luke (the end, I forget the chapter) Jesus opens their minds to the scriptures, meaning it's not just a literal reading but a spiritual one.


I think this is a major part of that understanding is realizing God's nature and mysteries are not simple to see but must be revealed and must be sound with other scripture. So "show them no mercy" takes a TOTAL turn on its appearance.


Man these are long posts :)



Edited by auggybendoggy
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Indeed God cannot be put into a box that is why I must go with the most plausible and reasonable rendering of text as possible and I have found that literal interpretation is a DEAD END.


If the bible is as simple as reading tom sawyer then anyone can understand it but in Luke (the end, I forget the chapter) Jesus opens their minds to the scriptures, meaning it's not just a literal reading but a spiritual one.


I think this is a major part of that understanding is realizing God's nature and mysteries are not simple to see but must be revealed and must be sound with other scripture. So "show them no mercy" takes a TOTAL turn on its appearance.


Man these are long posts :)




Yeah, it sure is great being able to put what we believe to words, though words definitely limit what we can convey from our hearts! :)


I'm sure it's in Luke too, but I know Jesus talks lots about the Spirit in John 14-18, but that's just a side point ;)


Reading the bible literally, as a verse by verse alone literal interpretation is simply bad hermaneutics, and I agree with that 100%. Reading the bible literally in its context, using proper exegesis and hermaneutical methods, is the right approach. However...


You hit the nail bang on the head. The scriptures ARE spiritual, and as such when left to our own vices to study them we cannot truly understand them. We may have some head knowledge (ie I memorized James, and others could too) but it does not change our heart. That's totally the Pharisee's problem.


Some didnt see Jesus as God, and therefore declared him to be a heretic, and some really saw him and wanted him dead, since they did not like his message. Jesus, God, was changing the Law from "do this or that" to "be perfect". He upped the bar by infinity, so much so that the disciples asked, "Who then can be saved!?" "With man this is impossible, but with God ALL things are possible."


You said yourself that scripture must be sound with other scripture, and you are totally right. Heck, there's a verse in Ecc. that, if taken out of context, proves the Nihilationist theories! What I dont understand is that instead of addressing all of the passages that speak of the eternity of Hell (even the few that I've mentioned), you say that one view is more logical than another. We cant find our doctrine in a 'logical conclusion', if that conclusion does not line up with what the scriptures teach.


Here's what I find in an abundance of verses:

1 - God loves all men

2 - It's not God's will that any should perish, and he has provided a way for us to be reconciled to Himself, by His power, not ours

3 - It is with our mouth we confess and are justified, and it is with our hearts we believe and our saved

4 - Jesus will return, to slay his enemies and call the elect

5 - Hell is an eternal place where the condemned will go after judgement


How will that all look exactly? I dont know. Are they all scriptural? Totally in there. Can I have faith that God will work it all out how he wants? Yep!


Dang. I tried to keep it super short, and this got long fast! :spin2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dark, I'll try to keep em short as well...I hate long posts :)


Ok, yea, we agree scripture is spiritual and no normal logic can just put together the truths that are deep within. I am totally driven by this fact of the pharisees failure to understand God.


So now to your point on the hell passages and your 5 points.


not tulip...:) thats love, reconcile, mouth, elect, hell

there you've got your own patented system now :)


As stated before I believe scripture points out Gods character TOTALLY.

But I don't believe its in a literal chronological format or herm. I could easily quote one verse and tell Jesus "God is unmerciful - show them no mercy, they must die man woman and child". ....

this is getting long as well :) man I'm sorry dark

Calvinists commit to this very error on predestination and election.

They commit so much to "soverigeinty they omit Love" and claim love is a small componnent of Gods nature.


I believe it is the Core nature as it is why grace exists. Jesus (God's grace) came because he loves the wicked (world). So w/o love there is no grace. Nor faith, nore patience, kindness, protections, slow to anger, no records of wrongs or rights (all from cor 13). Paul is clearly showing us Gods nature here. We just think because a verse poetically or figuratively speaks "I will smite them and pour out everlasting destrcution" then he must not LOVE THEM. For who eternally destroys those he loves....

Again he would be skitzophrenic to say

in one hand I'm trying to call them to repentance cause I love them

on the other I'm gonna work em like the worthless dirt bags they are.

it simply cannot be both ways.

I'm convinced from the story of A&E that God loves all dirt bads (man).

He's loves his son (Jesus) so much he's even called the son of man.

which literally is

Son of Adam.

and Adam is called the Son of God. (awsome I think).


so my next post will def cover the most exclusive of the eternal passages on hell. I'll also give you talbott and mcdonald (gregory mcdonald) view on these. But I have to go reasearch talbott a bit and get all the passages.


Heres a breif on the ones off my head...

1) depart from me you wicked ones into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

the argument is made from talbott that the word "everlasting" or "eternal" is ION. In greek they claim this word literally means "ages".


The response by the traditionalist is that the same must be applied to the sheep. If eternal punishment (torture) is not eternal then niether is the inheritance of the sheep who go unto eternal life.


Along with these types of passages are similar ones where like Sodom who (according to Jesus) seems to get eternal punishment is also promised restoration in Ezekiel.


53 " 'However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them, 54 so that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done in giving them comfort. 55 And your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to what they were before; and you and your daughters will return to what you were before...

61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your sisters, both those who are older than you and those who are younger. I will give them to you as daughters, but not on the basis of my covenant with you.


The eternal passages MAY be more poetic to the quality of judgement.

For example literally scripture says edoms smoke will rise for ever and ever, also in revelation. Yet you have a new heaven and new earth ALL THINGS are made new......hmmm EXCEPT FOR the bodies left burning....so we say...well their not smoking on the earth they are smoking in hell forever and ever.


I believe Talbott is right on this. The point in the poetry is not that they are cast into hell forever and ever but rather that what God does to them destroys the old nature for ever.

He thus states that the Cross is EXACTLY that. It's a suicide call of the old self...Die to yourself (the old man) and let God raise up the new man (born again). But God will DESTROY the old sinful man FOREVER.


Thats just one verse...

I'll have to go back on the Rev passages which are even more "symbolic" from a book of mass symobolism.


one last note is that talbott points to a parable of Jesus who says "he will be locked up until the last penny is paid"


Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right? 58As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way, or he may drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. 59I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.[c]"


Talbott makes the point that Jesus is not making a literal point of hell is where you pay and get out but that it does imply it is not forever. He takes the position as stated above the Old man must die and he believes Hell is Gods wrath humbling people to the foot of the cross.


He takes quite a bit of time to point how God's wrath is not just some agnry greek god who is uncontrolled but rather he is a patient loving God who seeks to reconcile all his creation (1 col).

One example is when paul says expel the immoral brother and hand him over to satan. (not just to lose the creep) but so that in the end his soul may be saved. So talbott take the position that the idea of Gods wrath is to save people. Its to humble them like nebechanezzar, or pharoa.


Mcdonald also is pointing to how Egypt is sin and not a model of man.

That Isreal is a model of men. For Isreal is the first born son of God.


I'll cover that later.


too long sorry man,



Edited by auggybendoggy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the read, and appreciate the highlighting too! :)


I'll make this super short: For the parable of the servant and the king, the man could not pay back the king, and that's why he begged for mercy. The king was merciful because there was no way for the man to pay him back. How much more then, could the man not pay him back from prison? If the man could not pay him back from prison, how could it be possible for him to ever exit prison?


lol the hardest book to read in the bible and say "I understand that" is Revelation. However, a passage clearly says "the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever." I have no idea how to interpret that as "through God's wrath they will be saved."


God certainly is patient and loving, you're right. It's the only reason any of us are alive and not currently in Hell (if the word 'currently' can even be applied, since hell is also outside of time). What scriptures support a sense of "time" after this life? If there is no sense of "time" as we know it, then how people even be in Hell for "a while?" This is just me thinking outloud.


K. I gotta end this quick before it gets long ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...