TeddyAg0422 said:

---

Do you have any good recommendations from your POV? I'm open to any suggestion.

---

I like NT Wright a lot. Google NT Wright view on kolasis aionios. Or David Bentley Hart. Or Greeek Orthodox view on kolasis aionios.

Interesting that Young's Literal Translation, considered by a lot of scholars to be the most accurate Bible translation, does not use the word eternal for aioniosis.

Google Young's Literal Translation translation of Matthew 25:46.

Hope you enjoy.

Thank you!

I would also recommend reading through Acts and the sermons of the apostles. Compare that with modern Western evangelists.

Hypotheticals are only logically invalid when they are internally inconsistent. You failed to demonstrate internal inconsistencies, and understood it well enough to actually answer it.

Let me demonstrate:

Quote:

---

(1) requires me to make a decision after that decision has already been made, which is logically impossible, (2) requires me to make a decision for somebody I am unable to make a decision for, which is logically impossible, and (3) requires me to assume that God is willing to allow the same people into both heaven and hell, which is logically impossible.

---

All of these objections require you to import your external beliefs in reaching heaven into the hypothetical, and are 100% irrelevant to the hypothetical itself.

Now, to be fair, I could have set it up more explicitly to avoid confusion, but in answering the hypothetical you demonstrated that you understood what I was driving at, so it seems we have fallen into a pit of semantic bickering that could have easily been avoided.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Hypotheticals are only logically invalid when they are internally inconsistent. You failed to demonstrate internal inconsistencies, and understood it well enough to actually answer it.

Let me demonstrate:

Quote:

---

(1) requires me to make a decision after that decision has already been made, which is logically impossible, (2) requires me to make a decision for somebody I am unable to make a decision for, which is logically impossible, and (3) requires me to assume that God is willing to allow the same people into both heaven and hell, which is logically impossible.

---

All of these objections require you to import your external beliefs in reaching heaven into the hypothetical, and are 100% irrelevant to the hypothetical itself.

Now, to be fair, I could have set it up more explicitly to avoid confusion, but in answering the hypothetical you demonstrated that you understood what I was driving at, so it seems we have fallen into a pit of semantic bickering that could have easily been avoided.

---

Nah. It's internally inconsistent as you set it up. Do a better job next time.

Dermdoc

I had not heard of ultimate reconciliation before, so I had to look it up. It sounds like Unitarian Univerisalist or something close to it. Correct?

The belief you're describing is usually called Ultimate Reconciliation or Christian Universalismthe idea that all people will ultimately be reconciled to God, even if judgment or correction happens after death.

Here are the main religious groups or streams associated with it:

1. Christian Universalism (Universal Reconciliation)
Not a single denomination worldwide, but a theological position
Teaches that God's love and justice will eventually restore everyone
Hell (if affirmed at all) is corrective, not eternal
Often rooted in verses like 1 Corinthians 15:2228 and Colossians 1:1920

2. Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)
Historically descended from Christian Universalism
Modern UU churches are not strictly Christian
Emphasize universal salvation, human dignity, and moral growth
Belief is pluralistic rather than doctrinal

3. Eastern Orthodox Christianity (minority view)
The official doctrine does not teach universal salvation
However, some respected theologians and early Church Fathers (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa) taught apokatastasisfinal restoration of all things
Often called "hopeful universalism" rather than dogma

4. Certain Anglican, Methodist, and Lutheran theologians
Not denominational positions, but some clergy and scholars affirm ultimate reconciliation
Thinkers like Karl Barth (Reformed) leaned strongly in this direction without declaring it outright

5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS / Mormonism) (partial fit)
Believe in post-mortal opportunity for repentance
Teach multiple degrees of glory after judgment
Not everyone ends up in the same state, but very few are eternally lost
This is restorationist, though not classical universalism



Groups that do not teach ultimate reconciliation
Roman Catholicism (allows hope, but not doctrine)
Most Evangelical Protestant denominations
Seventh-day Adventists (teach annihilation, not reconciliation)
Jehovah's Witnesses (annihilation)



In short:
If you're looking for a belief that explicitly teaches everyone will eventually be saved, Christian Universalism (or Universal Reconciliation) is the clearest answerwhether as a standalone movement or a theological stream within Christianity.

Ordinary Man said:

---

Dermdoc

I had not heard of ultimate reconciliation before, so I had to look it up. It sounds like Unitarian Univerisalist or something close to it. Correct?

The belief you're describing is usually called Ultimate Reconciliation or Christian Universalismthe idea that all people will ultimately be reconciled to God, even if judgment or correction happens after death.

Here are the main religious groups or streams associated with it:

1. Christian Universalism (Universal Reconciliation)
Not a single denomination worldwide, but a theological position
Teaches that God's love and justice will eventually restore everyone
Hell (if affirmed at all) is corrective, not eternal
Often rooted in verses like 1 Corinthians 15:2228 and Colossians 1:1920

2. Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)
Historically descended from Christian Universalism
Modern UU churches are not strictly Christian
Emphasize universal salvation, human dignity, and moral growth
Belief is pluralistic rather than doctrinal

3. Eastern Orthodox Christianity (minority view)
The official doctrine does not teach universal salvation
However, some respected theologians and early Church Fathers (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa) taught apokatastasisfinal restoration of all things
Often called "hopeful universalism" rather than dogma

4. Certain Anglican, Methodist, and Lutheran theologians
Not denominational positions, but some clergy and scholars affirm ultimate reconciliation
Thinkers like Karl Barth (Reformed) leaned strongly in this direction without declaring it outright

5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS / Mormonism) (partial fit)
Believe in post-mortal opportunity for repentance
Teach multiple degrees of glory after judgment
Not everyone ends up in the same state, but very few are eternally lost
This is restorationist, though not classical universalism



Groups that do not teach ultimate reconciliation
Roman Catholicism (allows hope, but not doctrine)
Most Evangelical Protestant denominations
Seventh-day Adventists (teach annihilation, not reconciliation)
Jehovah's Witnesses (annihilation)



In short:
If you're looking for a belief that explicitly teaches everyone will eventually be saved, Christian Universalism (or Universal Reconciliation) is the clearest answerwhether as a standalone movement or a theological stream within Christianity.

---

Agree. The problem is that people do not realize this has been a consistent theme throughout Christianity. And I will always be a hopeful Universalist.

dermdoc said:

---

Ordinary Man said:

---

Dermdoc

I had not heard of ultimate reconciliation before, so I had to look it up. It sounds like Unitarian Univerisalist or something close to it. Correct?

The belief you're describing is usually called Ultimate Reconciliation or Christian Universalismthe idea that all people will ultimately be reconciled to God, even if judgment or correction happens after death.

Here are the main religious groups or streams associated with it:

1. Christian Universalism (Universal Reconciliation)
Not a single denomination worldwide, but a theological position
Teaches that God's love and justice will eventually restore everyone
Hell (if affirmed at all) is corrective, not eternal
Often rooted in verses like 1 Corinthians 15:2228 and Colossians 1:1920

2. Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)
Historically descended from Christian Universalism
Modern UU churches are not strictly Christian
Emphasize universal salvation, human dignity, and moral growth
Belief is pluralistic rather than doctrinal

3. Eastern Orthodox Christianity (minority view)
The official doctrine does not teach universal salvation
However, some respected theologians and early Church Fathers (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa) taught apokatastasisfinal restoration of all things
Often called "hopeful universalism" rather than dogma

4. Certain Anglican, Methodist, and Lutheran theologians
Not denominational positions, but some clergy and scholars affirm ultimate reconciliation
Thinkers like Karl Barth (Reformed) leaned strongly in this direction without declaring it outright

5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS / Mormonism) (partial fit)
Believe in post-mortal opportunity for repentance
Teach multiple degrees of glory after judgment
Not everyone ends up in the same state, but very few are eternally lost
This is restorationist, though not classical universalism



Groups that do not teach ultimate reconciliation
Roman Catholicism (allows hope, but not doctrine)
Most Evangelical Protestant denominations
Seventh-day Adventists (teach annihilation, not reconciliation)
Jehovah's Witnesses (annihilation)



In short:
If you're looking for a belief that explicitly teaches everyone will eventually be saved, Christian Universalism (or Universal Reconciliation) is the clearest answerwhether as a standalone movement or a theological stream within Christianity.

---

Agree. The problem is that people do not realize this has been a consistent theme throughout Christianity. And I will always be a hopeful Universalist.

---

Nvm: there is no point. Your views are so incoherent that it's not worth discussing

light_bulb said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Ordinary Man said:

---

Dermdoc

I had not heard of ultimate reconciliation before, so I had to look it up. It sounds like Unitarian Univerisalist or something close to it. Correct?

The belief you're describing is usually called Ultimate Reconciliation or Christian Universalismthe idea that all people will ultimately be reconciled to God, even if judgment or correction happens after death.

Here are the main religious groups or streams associated with it:

1. Christian Universalism (Universal Reconciliation)
Not a single denomination worldwide, but a theological position
Teaches that God's love and justice will eventually restore everyone
Hell (if affirmed at all) is corrective, not eternal
Often rooted in verses like 1 Corinthians 15:2228 and Colossians 1:1920

2. Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)
Historically descended from Christian Universalism
Modern UU churches are not strictly Christian
Emphasize universal salvation, human dignity, and moral growth
Belief is pluralistic rather than doctrinal

3. Eastern Orthodox Christianity (minority view)
The official doctrine does not teach universal salvation
However, some respected theologians and early Church Fathers (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa) taught apokatastasisfinal restoration of all things
Often called "hopeful universalism" rather than dogma

4. Certain Anglican, Methodist, and Lutheran theologians
Not denominational positions, but some clergy and scholars affirm ultimate reconciliation
Thinkers like Karl Barth (Reformed) leaned strongly in this direction without declaring it outright

5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS / Mormonism) (partial fit)
Believe in post-mortal opportunity for repentance
Teach multiple degrees of glory after judgment
Not everyone ends up in the same state, but very few are eternally lost
This is restorationist, though not classical universalism



Groups that do not teach ultimate reconciliation
Roman Catholicism (allows hope, but not doctrine)
Most Evangelical Protestant denominations
Seventh-day Adventists (teach annihilation, not reconciliation)
Jehovah's Witnesses (annihilation)



In short:
If you're looking for a belief that explicitly teaches everyone will eventually be saved, Christian Universalism (or Universal Reconciliation) is the clearest answerwhether as a standalone movement or a theological stream within Christianity.

---

Agree. The problem is that people do not realize this has been a consistent theme throughout Christianity. And I will always be a hopeful Universalist.

---

Nvm: there is no point. Your views are so incoherent that it's not worth discussing

---

Hard to argue with that. Shalom

And you might read some St. Gregory of Nyssa or St. Clement of Alexandria. Or my favorite George MacDonald who CS Lewis called his mentor. They believed in ultimate reconciliation like me. Maybe they are more coherent.

dermdoc said:

---

light_bulb said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Ordinary Man said:

---

Dermdoc

I had not heard of ultimate reconciliation before, so I had to look it up. It sounds like Unitarian Univerisalist or something close to it. Correct?

The belief you're describing is usually called Ultimate Reconciliation or Christian Universalismthe idea that all people will ultimately be reconciled to God, even if judgment or correction happens after death.

Here are the main religious groups or streams associated with it:

1. Christian Universalism (Universal Reconciliation)
Not a single denomination worldwide, but a theological position
Teaches that God's love and justice will eventually restore everyone
Hell (if affirmed at all) is corrective, not eternal
Often rooted in verses like 1 Corinthians 15:2228 and Colossians 1:1920

2. Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)
Historically descended from Christian Universalism
Modern UU churches are not strictly Christian
Emphasize universal salvation, human dignity, and moral growth
Belief is pluralistic rather than doctrinal

3. Eastern Orthodox Christianity (minority view)
The official doctrine does not teach universal salvation
However, some respected theologians and early Church Fathers (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa) taught apokatastasisfinal restoration of all things
Often called "hopeful universalism" rather than dogma

4. Certain Anglican, Methodist, and Lutheran theologians
Not denominational positions, but some clergy and scholars affirm ultimate reconciliation
Thinkers like Karl Barth (Reformed) leaned strongly in this direction without declaring it outright

5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS / Mormonism) (partial fit)
Believe in post-mortal opportunity for repentance
Teach multiple degrees of glory after judgment
Not everyone ends up in the same state, but very few are eternally lost
This is restorationist, though not classical universalism



Groups that do not teach ultimate reconciliation
Roman Catholicism (allows hope, but not doctrine)
Most Evangelical Protestant denominations
Seventh-day Adventists (teach annihilation, not reconciliation)
Jehovah's Witnesses (annihilation)



In short:
If you're looking for a belief that explicitly teaches everyone will eventually be saved, Christian Universalism (or Universal Reconciliation) is the clearest answerwhether as a standalone movement or a theological stream within Christianity.

---

Agree. The problem is that people do not realize this has been a consistent theme throughout Christianity. And I will always be a hopeful Universalist.

---

Nvm: there is no point. Your views are so incoherent that it's not worth discussing

---

Hard to argue with that. Shalom

And you might read some St. Gregory of Nyssa or St. Clement of Alexandria. Or my favorite George MacDonald who CS Lewis called his mentor. They believed in ultimate reconciliation like me. Maybe they are more coherent.

---

Its okay to hope for ultimate reconciliation. How could you not? But if has certain downstream effects that you just can't shake.

If ultimate reconciliation is true then the following is also true:
-the fall, the flesh, and ability to choose good versus evil is ultimately negated. Against the infinity of time in the next life, however it is, a finite punishment is but a spec.
-decisions don't ultimately matter, even the decision to run from God.
-Why even believe in God in the first place? Or live a Christian life? What difference does a bit more of 'suffering' make if it always ends with a get out of hell free card.
So why even go through all of this? Why even put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden? If I ultimately can't resist God and I will accept his love.

Believing whole heartedly in ultimate reconciliation removes the impetus for spiritual precision. Why go through the hard parts of the spiritual walk? What difference does confession, communion, almsgiving even make? Why even have Christianity persist on this earth?

I know that you personally probably are not motivated like this. But to state ultimate reconciliation for all of mankind is music to the ears of the spiritually lazy and those who reject God. Its like 'once saved always saved' on steroids.

It might not stop you from producing spiritual fruit, but it certainly stops society.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

light_bulb said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Ordinary Man said:

---

Dermdoc

I had not heard of ultimate reconciliation before, so I had to look it up. It sounds like Unitarian Univerisalist or something close to it. Correct?

The belief you're describing is usually called Ultimate Reconciliation or Christian Universalismthe idea that all people will ultimately be reconciled to God, even if judgment or correction happens after death.

Here are the main religious groups or streams associated with it:

1. Christian Universalism (Universal Reconciliation)
Not a single denomination worldwide, but a theological position
Teaches that God's love and justice will eventually restore everyone
Hell (if affirmed at all) is corrective, not eternal
Often rooted in verses like 1 Corinthians 15:2228 and Colossians 1:1920

2. Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)
Historically descended from Christian Universalism
Modern UU churches are not strictly Christian
Emphasize universal salvation, human dignity, and moral growth
Belief is pluralistic rather than doctrinal

3. Eastern Orthodox Christianity (minority view)
The official doctrine does not teach universal salvation
However, some respected theologians and early Church Fathers (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa) taught apokatastasisfinal restoration of all things
Often called "hopeful universalism" rather than dogma

4. Certain Anglican, Methodist, and Lutheran theologians
Not denominational positions, but some clergy and scholars affirm ultimate reconciliation
Thinkers like Karl Barth (Reformed) leaned strongly in this direction without declaring it outright

5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS / Mormonism) (partial fit)
Believe in post-mortal opportunity for repentance
Teach multiple degrees of glory after judgment
Not everyone ends up in the same state, but very few are eternally lost
This is restorationist, though not classical universalism



Groups that do not teach ultimate reconciliation
Roman Catholicism (allows hope, but not doctrine)
Most Evangelical Protestant denominations
Seventh-day Adventists (teach annihilation, not reconciliation)
Jehovah's Witnesses (annihilation)



In short:
If you're looking for a belief that explicitly teaches everyone will eventually be saved, Christian Universalism (or Universal Reconciliation) is the clearest answerwhether as a standalone movement or a theological stream within Christianity.

---

Agree. The problem is that people do not realize this has been a consistent theme throughout Christianity. And I will always be a hopeful Universalist.

---

Nvm: there is no point. Your views are so incoherent that it's not worth discussing

---

Hard to argue with that. Shalom

And you might read some St. Gregory of Nyssa or St. Clement of Alexandria. Or my favorite George MacDonald who CS Lewis called his mentor. They believed in ultimate reconciliation like me. Maybe they are more coherent.

---

Its okay to hope for ultimate reconciliation. How could you not? But if has certain downstream effects that you just can't shake.

If ultimate reconciliation is true then the following is also true:
-the fall, the flesh, and ability to choose good versus evil is ultimately negated. Against the infinity of time in the next life, however it is, a finite punishment is but a spec.
-decisions don't ultimately matter, even the decision to run from God.
-Why even believe in God in the first place? Or live a Christian life? What difference does a bit more of 'suffering' make if it always ends with a get out of hell free card.
So why even go through all of this? Why even put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden? If I ultimately can't resist God and I will accept his love.

Believing whole heartedly in ultimate reconciliation removes the impetus for spiritual precision. Why go through the hard parts of the spiritual walk? What difference does confession, communion, almsgiving even make? Why even have Christianity persist on this earth?

I know that you personally probably are not motivated like this. But to state ultimate reconciliation for all of mankind is music to the ears of the spiritually lazy and those who reject God. Its like 'once saved always saved' on steroids.

It might not stop you from producing spiritual fruit, but it certainly stops society.

---

It is true that some of the church leaders who believed in ultimate reconciliation admitted they did not preach it because they were afraid if you removed the fear of hell from people, all hell would break lose.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

light_bulb said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Ordinary Man said:

---

Dermdoc

I had not heard of ultimate reconciliation before, so I had to look it up. It sounds like Unitarian Univerisalist or something close to it. Correct?

The belief you're describing is usually called Ultimate Reconciliation or Christian Universalismthe idea that all people will ultimately be reconciled to God, even if judgment or correction happens after death.

Here are the main religious groups or streams associated with it:

1. Christian Universalism (Universal Reconciliation)
Not a single denomination worldwide, but a theological position
Teaches that God's love and justice will eventually restore everyone
Hell (if affirmed at all) is corrective, not eternal
Often rooted in verses like 1 Corinthians 15:2228 and Colossians 1:1920

2. Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)
Historically descended from Christian Universalism
Modern UU churches are not strictly Christian
Emphasize universal salvation, human dignity, and moral growth
Belief is pluralistic rather than doctrinal

3. Eastern Orthodox Christianity (minority view)
The official doctrine does not teach universal salvation
However, some respected theologians and early Church Fathers (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa) taught apokatastasisfinal restoration of all things
Often called "hopeful universalism" rather than dogma

4. Certain Anglican, Methodist, and Lutheran theologians
Not denominational positions, but some clergy and scholars affirm ultimate reconciliation
Thinkers like Karl Barth (Reformed) leaned strongly in this direction without declaring it outright

5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS / Mormonism) (partial fit)
Believe in post-mortal opportunity for repentance
Teach multiple degrees of glory after judgment
Not everyone ends up in the same state, but very few are eternally lost
This is restorationist, though not classical universalism



Groups that do not teach ultimate reconciliation
Roman Catholicism (allows hope, but not doctrine)
Most Evangelical Protestant denominations
Seventh-day Adventists (teach annihilation, not reconciliation)
Jehovah's Witnesses (annihilation)



In short:
If you're looking for a belief that explicitly teaches everyone will eventually be saved, Christian Universalism (or Universal Reconciliation) is the clearest answerwhether as a standalone movement or a theological stream within Christianity.

---

Agree. The problem is that people do not realize this has been a consistent theme throughout Christianity. And I will always be a hopeful Universalist.

---

Nvm: there is no point. Your views are so incoherent that it's not worth discussing

---

Hard to argue with that. Shalom

And you might read some St. Gregory of Nyssa or St. Clement of Alexandria. Or my favorite George MacDonald who CS Lewis called his mentor. They believed in ultimate reconciliation like me. Maybe they are more coherent.

---

Its okay to hope for ultimate reconciliation. How could you not? But if has certain downstream effects that you just can't shake.

If ultimate reconciliation is true then the following is also true:
-the fall, the flesh, and ability to choose good versus evil is ultimately negated. Against the infinity of time in the next life, however it is, a finite punishment is but a spec.
-decisions don't ultimately matter, even the decision to run from God.
-Why even believe in God in the first place? Or live a Christian life? What difference does a bit more of 'suffering' make if it always ends with a get out of hell free card.
So why even go through all of this? Why even put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden? If I ultimately can't resist God and I will accept his love.

Believing whole heartedly in ultimate reconciliation removes the impetus for spiritual precision. Why go through the hard parts of the spiritual walk? What difference does confession, communion, almsgiving even make? Why even have Christianity persist on this earth?

I know that you personally probably are not motivated like this. But to state ultimate reconciliation for all of mankind is music to the ears of the spiritually lazy and those who reject God. Its like 'once saved always saved' on steroids.

It might not stop you from producing spiritual fruit, but it certainly stops society.

---

Because Good is good and Evil is bad?

Isn't having a loving relationship with The Creator of The Universe amazing? I know it is for me.

Is there any Christian here that would deny the benefits of salvation in this current life?

Silent For Too Long said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

light_bulb said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Ordinary Man said:

---

Dermdoc

I had not heard of ultimate reconciliation before, so I had to look it up. It sounds like Unitarian Univerisalist or something close to it. Correct?

The belief you're describing is usually called Ultimate Reconciliation or Christian Universalismthe idea that all people will ultimately be reconciled to God, even if judgment or correction happens after death.

Here are the main religious groups or streams associated with it:

1. Christian Universalism (Universal Reconciliation)
Not a single denomination worldwide, but a theological position
Teaches that God's love and justice will eventually restore everyone
Hell (if affirmed at all) is corrective, not eternal
Often rooted in verses like 1 Corinthians 15:2228 and Colossians 1:1920

2. Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)
Historically descended from Christian Universalism
Modern UU churches are not strictly Christian
Emphasize universal salvation, human dignity, and moral growth
Belief is pluralistic rather than doctrinal

3. Eastern Orthodox Christianity (minority view)
The official doctrine does not teach universal salvation
However, some respected theologians and early Church Fathers (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa) taught apokatastasisfinal restoration of all things
Often called "hopeful universalism" rather than dogma

4. Certain Anglican, Methodist, and Lutheran theologians
Not denominational positions, but some clergy and scholars affirm ultimate reconciliation
Thinkers like Karl Barth (Reformed) leaned strongly in this direction without declaring it outright

5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS / Mormonism) (partial fit)
Believe in post-mortal opportunity for repentance
Teach multiple degrees of glory after judgment
Not everyone ends up in the same state, but very few are eternally lost
This is restorationist, though not classical universalism



Groups that do not teach ultimate reconciliation
Roman Catholicism (allows hope, but not doctrine)
Most Evangelical Protestant denominations
Seventh-day Adventists (teach annihilation, not reconciliation)
Jehovah's Witnesses (annihilation)



In short:
If you're looking for a belief that explicitly teaches everyone will eventually be saved, Christian Universalism (or Universal Reconciliation) is the clearest answerwhether as a standalone movement or a theological stream within Christianity.

---

Agree. The problem is that people do not realize this has been a consistent theme throughout Christianity. And I will always be a hopeful Universalist.

---

Nvm: there is no point. Your views are so incoherent that it's not worth discussing

---

Hard to argue with that. Shalom

And you might read some St. Gregory of Nyssa or St. Clement of Alexandria. Or my favorite George MacDonald who CS Lewis called his mentor. They believed in ultimate reconciliation like me. Maybe they are more coherent.

---

Its okay to hope for ultimate reconciliation. How could you not? But if has certain downstream effects that you just can't shake.

If ultimate reconciliation is true then the following is also true:
-the fall, the flesh, and ability to choose good versus evil is ultimately negated. Against the infinity of time in the next life, however it is, a finite punishment is but a spec.
-decisions don't ultimately matter, even the decision to run from God.
-Why even believe in God in the first place? Or live a Christian life? What difference does a bit more of 'suffering' make if it always ends with a get out of hell free card.
So why even go through all of this? Why even put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden? If I ultimately can't resist God and I will accept his love.

Believing whole heartedly in ultimate reconciliation removes the impetus for spiritual precision. Why go through the hard parts of the spiritual walk? What difference does confession, communion, almsgiving even make? Why even have Christianity persist on this earth?

I know that you personally probably are not motivated like this. But to state ultimate reconciliation for all of mankind is music to the ears of the spiritually lazy and those who reject God. Its like 'once saved always saved' on steroids.

It might not stop you from producing spiritual fruit, but it certainly stops society.

---

Because Good is good and Evil is bad?

Isn't having a loving relationship with The Creator of The Universe amazing? I know it is for me.

Is there any Christian here that would deny the benefits of salvation in this current life?

---

And that is the caveat. If you really know the Lord and enjoy salvation in this life, why do you need the fear of hell to keep you in line? Any Gospel based on fear is not the true Gospel.

dermdoc said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

light_bulb said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Ordinary Man said:

---

Dermdoc

I had not heard of ultimate reconciliation before, so I had to look it up. It sounds like Unitarian Univerisalist or something close to it. Correct?

The belief you're describing is usually called Ultimate Reconciliation or Christian Universalismthe idea that all people will ultimately be reconciled to God, even if judgment or correction happens after death.

Here are the main religious groups or streams associated with it:

1. Christian Universalism (Universal Reconciliation)
Not a single denomination worldwide, but a theological position
Teaches that God's love and justice will eventually restore everyone
Hell (if affirmed at all) is corrective, not eternal
Often rooted in verses like 1 Corinthians 15:2228 and Colossians 1:1920

2. Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)
Historically descended from Christian Universalism
Modern UU churches are not strictly Christian
Emphasize universal salvation, human dignity, and moral growth
Belief is pluralistic rather than doctrinal

3. Eastern Orthodox Christianity (minority view)
The official doctrine does not teach universal salvation
However, some respected theologians and early Church Fathers (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa) taught apokatastasisfinal restoration of all things
Often called "hopeful universalism" rather than dogma

4. Certain Anglican, Methodist, and Lutheran theologians
Not denominational positions, but some clergy and scholars affirm ultimate reconciliation
Thinkers like Karl Barth (Reformed) leaned strongly in this direction without declaring it outright

5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS / Mormonism) (partial fit)
Believe in post-mortal opportunity for repentance
Teach multiple degrees of glory after judgment
Not everyone ends up in the same state, but very few are eternally lost
This is restorationist, though not classical universalism



Groups that do not teach ultimate reconciliation
Roman Catholicism (allows hope, but not doctrine)
Most Evangelical Protestant denominations
Seventh-day Adventists (teach annihilation, not reconciliation)
Jehovah's Witnesses (annihilation)



In short:
If you're looking for a belief that explicitly teaches everyone will eventually be saved, Christian Universalism (or Universal Reconciliation) is the clearest answerwhether as a standalone movement or a theological stream within Christianity.

---

Agree. The problem is that people do not realize this has been a consistent theme throughout Christianity. And I will always be a hopeful Universalist.

---

Nvm: there is no point. Your views are so incoherent that it's not worth discussing

---

Hard to argue with that. Shalom

And you might read some St. Gregory of Nyssa or St. Clement of Alexandria. Or my favorite George MacDonald who CS Lewis called his mentor. They believed in ultimate reconciliation like me. Maybe they are more coherent.

---

Its okay to hope for ultimate reconciliation. How could you not? But if has certain downstream effects that you just can't shake.

If ultimate reconciliation is true then the following is also true:
-the fall, the flesh, and ability to choose good versus evil is ultimately negated. Against the infinity of time in the next life, however it is, a finite punishment is but a spec.
-decisions don't ultimately matter, even the decision to run from God.
-Why even believe in God in the first place? Or live a Christian life? What difference does a bit more of 'suffering' make if it always ends with a get out of hell free card.
So why even go through all of this? Why even put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden? If I ultimately can't resist God and I will accept his love.

Believing whole heartedly in ultimate reconciliation removes the impetus for spiritual precision. Why go through the hard parts of the spiritual walk? What difference does confession, communion, almsgiving even make? Why even have Christianity persist on this earth?

I know that you personally probably are not motivated like this. But to state ultimate reconciliation for all of mankind is music to the ears of the spiritually lazy and those who reject God. Its like 'once saved always saved' on steroids.

It might not stop you from producing spiritual fruit, but it certainly stops society.

---

Because Good is good and Evil is bad?

Isn't having a loving relationship with The Creator of The Universe amazing? I know it is for me.

Is there any Christian here that would deny the benefits of salvation in this current life?

---

And that is the caveat. If you really know the Lord and enjoy salvation in this life, why do you need the fear of hell to keep you in line? Any Gospel based on fear is not the true Gospel.

---

But if you love the Lord in this life, you do not need to fear separation from God in the next. That's a self solving problem without ultimate reconciliation. UR is just a salve to the mind to ease the conscious about 'what if'. This is why the average baptist is baptized 3 times.

This is Luther's main problem. Anxiety about the state of his salvation. The Catholics being corrupt he could have handled with the tools he had within his life (suffer gladly and be blameless before God just like practically everyone in the bible he was supposed to be reading about and learning from).

But if you don't fear the Lord, what is the point here? From your end or Gods?
-God is stuck with an automoton who doesn't actually love him?
-You're stuck in his presence but don't want to be there?
-The people swept up who hated God in this life only loved God once A) he revealed his full glory and B) they saw the full depths of hell? What kind of reciprocity can you provide? What kind of love is that? This is just spiritual Gold-Diggery.

This is why I love the orthodox church. There is no pride of once saved always saved. There is always something more you can do to climb jacob's ladder. There is the cycles and seasons of the church and participation in the sacraments. A healthy fear of the weight of your sin is good. But it is not a crushing weight. Your salvation is not dependent on the state of grace like a catholic. Nor artificially assured like evangelicals like to preach.

Its a marriage. I don't have to check in constantly with my wife if we are 'ok' or 'are things still good?'. We put in the work and I rest assured the next day we will still be married. Put in the work in your faith as well. (I know you do derm, just speaking broadly here).

Just like in your marriage to sin with your hand held high against one another is to break the marriage. Same for with God. Do not go your life unrepentant in your sins. This doesn't mean you have to overcome habitual sin. It means don't take pride in your sins, declare them not sins, or worse celebrate the sins and say nothing is wrong when you know there are problems.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

light_bulb said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Ordinary Man said:

---

Dermdoc

I had not heard of ultimate reconciliation before, so I had to look it up. It sounds like Unitarian Univerisalist or something close to it. Correct?

The belief you're describing is usually called Ultimate Reconciliation or Christian Universalismthe idea that all people will ultimately be reconciled to God, even if judgment or correction happens after death.

Here are the main religious groups or streams associated with it:

1. Christian Universalism (Universal Reconciliation)
Not a single denomination worldwide, but a theological position
Teaches that God's love and justice will eventually restore everyone
Hell (if affirmed at all) is corrective, not eternal
Often rooted in verses like 1 Corinthians 15:2228 and Colossians 1:1920

2. Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA)
Historically descended from Christian Universalism
Modern UU churches are not strictly Christian
Emphasize universal salvation, human dignity, and moral growth
Belief is pluralistic rather than doctrinal

3. Eastern Orthodox Christianity (minority view)
The official doctrine does not teach universal salvation
However, some respected theologians and early Church Fathers (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa) taught apokatastasisfinal restoration of all things
Often called "hopeful universalism" rather than dogma

4. Certain Anglican, Methodist, and Lutheran theologians
Not denominational positions, but some clergy and scholars affirm ultimate reconciliation
Thinkers like Karl Barth (Reformed) leaned strongly in this direction without declaring it outright

5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS / Mormonism) (partial fit)
Believe in post-mortal opportunity for repentance
Teach multiple degrees of glory after judgment
Not everyone ends up in the same state, but very few are eternally lost
This is restorationist, though not classical universalism



Groups that do not teach ultimate reconciliation
Roman Catholicism (allows hope, but not doctrine)
Most Evangelical Protestant denominations
Seventh-day Adventists (teach annihilation, not reconciliation)
Jehovah's Witnesses (annihilation)



In short:
If you're looking for a belief that explicitly teaches everyone will eventually be saved, Christian Universalism (or Universal Reconciliation) is the clearest answerwhether as a standalone movement or a theological stream within Christianity.

---

Agree. The problem is that people do not realize this has been a consistent theme throughout Christianity. And I will always be a hopeful Universalist.

---

Nvm: there is no point. Your views are so incoherent that it's not worth discussing

---

Hard to argue with that. Shalom

And you might read some St. Gregory of Nyssa or St. Clement of Alexandria. Or my favorite George MacDonald who CS Lewis called his mentor. They believed in ultimate reconciliation like me. Maybe they are more coherent.

---

Its okay to hope for ultimate reconciliation. How could you not? But if has certain downstream effects that you just can't shake.

If ultimate reconciliation is true then the following is also true:
-the fall, the flesh, and ability to choose good versus evil is ultimately negated. Against the infinity of time in the next life, however it is, a finite punishment is but a spec.
-decisions don't ultimately matter, even the decision to run from God.
-Why even believe in God in the first place? Or live a Christian life? What difference does a bit more of 'suffering' make if it always ends with a get out of hell free card.
So why even go through all of this? Why even put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden? If I ultimately can't resist God and I will accept his love.

Believing whole heartedly in ultimate reconciliation removes the impetus for spiritual precision. Why go through the hard parts of the spiritual walk? What difference does confession, communion, almsgiving even make? Why even have Christianity persist on this earth?

I know that you personally probably are not motivated like this. But to state ultimate reconciliation for all of mankind is music to the ears of the spiritually lazy and those who reject God. Its like 'once saved always saved' on steroids.

It might not stop you from producing spiritual fruit, but it certainly stops society.

---

Because Good is good and Evil is bad?

Isn't having a loving relationship with The Creator of The Universe amazing? I know it is for me.

Is there any Christian here that would deny the benefits of salvation in this current life?

---

And that is the caveat. If you really know the Lord and enjoy salvation in this life, why do you need the fear of hell to keep you in line? Any Gospel based on fear is not the true Gospel.

---

But if you love the Lord in this life, you do not need to fear separation from God in the next. That's a self solving problem without ultimate reconciliation. UR is just a salve to the mind to ease the conscious about 'what if'. This is why the average baptist is baptized 3 times.

This is Luther's main problem. Anxiety about the state of his salvation. The Catholics being corrupt he could have handled with the tools he had within his life (suffer gladly and be blameless before God just like practically everyone in the bible he was supposed to be reading about and learning from).

But if you don't fear the Lord, what is the point here? From your end or Gods?
-God is stuck with an automoton who doesn't actually love him?
-You're stuck in his presence but don't want to be there?
-The people swept up who hated God in this life only loved God once A) he revealed his full glory and B) they saw the full depths of hell? What kind of reciprocity can you provide? What kind of love is that? This is just spiritual Gold-Diggery.

This is why I love the orthodox church. There is no pride of once saved always saved. There is always something more you can do to climb jacob's ladder. There is the cycles and seasons of the church and participation in the sacraments. A healthy fear of the weight of your sin is good. But it is not a crushing weight. Your salvation is not dependent on the state of grace like a catholic. Nor artificially assured like evangelicals like to preach.

Its a marriage. I don't have to check in constantly with my wife if we are 'ok' or 'are things still good?'. We put in the work and I rest assured the next day we will still be married. Put in the work in your faith as well. (I know you do derm, just speaking broadly here).

Just like in your marriage to sin with your hand held high against one another is to break the marriage. Same for with God. Do not go your life unrepentant in your sins. This doesn't mean you have to overcome habitual sin. It means don't take pride in your sins, declare them not sins, or worse celebrate the sins and say nothing is wrong when you know there are problems.

---

I am not Orthodox and feel exactly the same. Orthodox, to my knowledge does not preach "turn or burn" theology. The question becomes is this useful? Is it Biblical? I personally do not see a fear based Gospel preached in the NT.
I am not even sure where "turn or burn" originated from. I know it was widely preached by folks like Jonathan Edwards in the Great Awakening.

Derm, here is where I get confused with some of your posts. On one hand you say that if you believed in ECT hell, you would go around warning everyone like crazy. But then you spend a lot of time criticizing those who do believe in ECT hell for preaching a sermon on it.

You admit your view could be wrong, which is admirable, but seem intolerant of those who preach on what is clearly the majority view of hell throughout church history. Doesn't mean that view is the right one, but at the very least it might be.

Now, if the Edwards, Washers, MacArthurs of the world had libraries replete with "turn or burn" type messages, I would likely share your contempt of them. But isn't it their job to preach the totality of Scripture regardless of how offensive one might find it?

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Derm, here is where I get confused with some of your posts. On one hand you say that if you believed in ECT hell, you would go around warning everyone like crazy. But then you spend a lot of time criticizing those who do believe in ECT hell for preaching a sermon on it.

You admit your view could be wrong, which is admirable, but seem intolerant of those who preach on what is clearly the majority view of hell throughout church history. Doesn't mean that view is the right one, but at the very least it might be.

Now, if the Edwards, Washers, MacArthurs of the world had libraries replete with "turn or burn" type messages, I would likely share your contempt of them. But isn't it their job to preach the totality of Scripture regardless of how offensive one might find it?

---

My point is if anyone truly believed in ECT hell, they should spend 24/7 trying to save people from it. Should not get married or have a job as they are meaningless compared to the realities of ECT hell. ETERNAL conscious torment.
I do not believe ECT hell is proven by the totality of Scripture. You and others do and that is fine. I do believe there is more Scriptural support for annihilationism and ultimate reconciliation than ECT hell.

If those pastors truly believed in ECT hell, this should be preached every week. Their primary job should be to save people from ECT hell. There should be nothing that supersedes that. It seems like they just bring it up enough to scare people. Except for Paul Washer who has famously said all of creation will be clapping and cheering watching the damned go to eternal hell.

3 reasons for my argument.
i think the hellfire guys are hypocrites. How do you go home and eat a peaceful Sunday meal after yelling at people they are going to ECT hell? And the non pastor proponents of ECT hell seem pretty apathetic about the seriousness of this doctrine also.
Secondly, I do not see this preaching in the NT. I do not see it in the 13-14 sermons in the Acts of the Apostles. Paul never mentioned hell. Yet it is so ingrained, especially in Western theology, that if you question it at all your faith is questioned. Or worse.
Thirdly, all the ECT proponents seem to just accept it add have no interest in questioning this although, if true, this should be the only thing important in this life. Avoid eternal conscious torment. Seems to be a total disconnect between belief and actions.
There are posters on here who have no idea how widespread ultimate reconciliation was in the early church and do not pursue knowledge on what should be the most important thing in this life.
That was not how the Gospel was preached in the NT. Christ in you now is so much better than this. The Gospel was never preached as a "Get out of hell" card. It was never,ever meant to be that.

I just wonder how much stronger and more vibrant the church would be without fear based theology. As a doc, I also think fear of hell has caused mental illness like depression. And this certainly should not be preached to children. Jesus never did that.

I also honestly believe that most Christians have been taught this for so long they just accept it. And I get that. But when you sit down and think about eternal conscious torment I supposed administered by God who created and loves every human, just seems bizarre. I probably think too much about things.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2021/08/02/st-augustine-of-hippo-and-the-misericordes/

I get all that. What I don't understand is your contempt for pastors who believe in ECT hell. If someone has preached hundreds and hundreds of sermons, and perhaps a handful of them warn about their perceived dangers of hell, they're hypocrites peddling a fear based theology?

And I'm not saying that ECT hell is proven by the totality of Scripture. As others have said, I see the argument for CI and I understand where you get your universalist beliefs as well. My point was that you can't avoid preaching about hell if you preach the totality of Scripture, regardless of what ones interpretation of it may be. And to be clear, I respect your view and certainly do not see it as heretical.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I get all that. What I don't understand is your contempt for pastors who believe in ECT hell. If someone has preached hundreds and hundreds of sermons, and perhaps a handful of them warn about their perceived dangers of hell, they're hypocrites peddling a fear based theology?

And I'm not saying that ECT hell is proven by the totality of Scripture. As others have said, I see the argument for CI and I understand where you get your universalist beliefs as well. My point was that you can't avoid preaching about hell if you preach the totality of Scripture, regardless of what ones interpretation of it may be. And to be clear, I respect your view and certainly do not see it as heretical.

---

So you are okay with Washer saying that all of creation and believers would be rejoicing watching the damned go to hell? And preaching that to children? Is that Biblical? As others have posted about Scott Adams supposed half way conversion, that is not contempt, that is discernment.

And if you really believe in ECT hell and that is the main purpose of the Gospel you should preach on this every possible moment in my opinion. What else could be more important?

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I get all that. What I don't understand is your contempt for pastors who believe in ECT hell. If someone has preached hundreds and hundreds of sermons, and perhaps a handful of them warn about their perceived dangers of hell, they're hypocrites peddling a fear based theology?

And I'm not saying that ECT hell is proven by the totality of Scripture. As others have said, I see the argument for CI and I understand where you get your universalist beliefs as well. My point was that you can't avoid preaching about hell if you preach the totality of Scripture, regardless of what ones interpretation of it may be. And to be clear, I respect your view and certainly do not see it as heretical.

---

So you are okay with Washer saying that all of creation and believers would be rejoicing watching the damned go to hell? And preaching that to children? Is that Biblical? As others have posted about Scott Adams supposed half way conversion, that is not contempt, that is discernment.

And if you really believe in ECT hell and that is the main purpose of the Gospel you should preach on this every possible moment in my opinion. What else could be more important?

---

I'll answer your question and hope you'll answer the one I posed in return.

Yes, based upon his full body of work, I am "okay" with what Washer said. I don't like that snippet, and like you, I have a hard time imagining that's what we'll see on judgment day. But he's clearly pulling from Rev 19 which paints that sort of picture.

I haven't listened to a whole lot of his sermons simply because his emotive style of preaching isn't my preference, but I've heard enough to know he isn't solely focused on God's judgment. And there is no denying the Kingdom work that his being done through heartcry. I may disagree with some of his takes, but I certainly don't see him as a hypocrite or a peddler of a fear based theology.

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I get all that. What I don't understand is your contempt for pastors who believe in ECT hell. If someone has preached hundreds and hundreds of sermons, and perhaps a handful of them warn about their perceived dangers of hell, they're hypocrites peddling a fear based theology?

And I'm not saying that ECT hell is proven by the totality of Scripture. As others have said, I see the argument for CI and I understand where you get your universalist beliefs as well. My point was that you can't avoid preaching about hell if you preach the totality of Scripture, regardless of what ones interpretation of it may be. And to be clear, I respect your view and certainly do not see it as heretical.

---

So you are okay with Washer saying that all of creation and believers would be rejoicing watching the damned go to hell? And preaching that to children? Is that Biblical? As others have posted about Scott Adams supposed half way conversion, that is not contempt, that is discernment.

And if you really believe in ECT hell and that is the main purpose of the Gospel you should preach on this every possible moment in my opinion. What else could be more important?

---

You realize that all preaching about accepting Jesus as your "savior" and being "saved" is necessarily about hell/eternal separation in some respect, right? If there is nothing to be saved from, then Jesus isn't a savior, which of course is another reason why ultimate reconciliation is antithetical to Christianity. Preachers can place the focus more on having a loving relationship with God/Jesus, but the ultimate expression of his love came in Jesus dying to save all of us…from hell/eternal separation. It always comes back to that one way or another.

But I've tried reasoning with you on this thread long enough. Please do not evangelize your twisted idea that everybody can reject God and still go to heaven.

AozorAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

I get all that. What I don't understand is your contempt for pastors who believe in ECT hell. If someone has preached hundreds and hundreds of sermons, and perhaps a handful of them warn about their perceived dangers of hell, they're hypocrites peddling a fear based theology?

And I'm not saying that ECT hell is proven by the totality of Scripture. As others have said, I see the argument for CI and I understand where you get your universalist beliefs as well. My point was that you can't avoid preaching about hell if you preach the totality of Scripture, regardless of what ones interpretation of it may be. And to be clear, I respect your view and certainly do not see it as heretical.

---

So you are okay with Washer saying that all of creation and believers would be rejoicing watching the damned go to hell? And preaching that to children? Is that Biblical? As others have posted about Scott Adams supposed half way conversion, that is not contempt, that is discernment.

And if you really believe in ECT hell and that is the main purpose of the Gospel you should preach on this every possible moment in my opinion. What else could be more important?

---

You realize that all preaching about accepting Jesus as your "savior" and being "saved" is necessarily about hell/eternal separation in some respect, right? If there is nothing to be saved from, then Jesus isn't a savior, which of course is another reason why ultimate reconciliation is antithetical to Christianity. Preachers can place the focus more on having a loving relationship with God/Jesus, but the ultimate expression of his love came in Jesus dying to save all of us…from hell/eternal separation. It always comes back to that one way or another.

But I've tried reasoning with you on this thread long enough. Please do not evangelize your twisted idea that everybody can reject God and still go to heaven.

---

Got it. Will do whatever you tell me to do. And they ultimately do not reject God. Saints taught ultimate reconciliation. Did they have a "twisted" idea also?
And should I quit telling people the good news?

Jesus came to save us from the consequences of sin which Scripture says is death. Not hell.

One thought that we could maybe tie together with this topic is the unforgivable sin as it came up in my Mark 3 daily reading.

I admittedly sometimes struggle (like most) in understanding what this truly is - to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. My basic understanding is to ascribe the works of Satan to Christ. This ultimately is the repetitive and persistent unbelief in Christ.

So, those that would be guilty of this sin, can there ever really be an expectation that they could be reconciled to their creator?

Mark 3:29: but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin

I would be curious what the "orthodox" interpretation of this passage is.

In Luke He distinguishes between speaking out against the Son of Man (which can be forgiven) and blasphemy against The Holy Spirit (which cannot).

I've seen many distinguish this between a sin of ignorance and a fully cognizant, unrepentant denial of God's truth.

The following are the musings of a damned, hopeless, drunkard:

I feel like I have now heard that if ECT hell were possible, then it is not worth having children, because it would be unbearable to introduce the chance they could go to an ECT hell.

The maybe unfair shot I'm going to take here is: To me this argument might follow the same thought employed by a climate zealot who believes they can't morally justify having children in a world that could be condemned to climate change.

Maybe I can correct myself and lend a more charitable interpretation of what I think I see: maybe there is a difference between a certainty of something occurring versus a "chance" of something occurring. That fits with human tendency, we are inclined to take a risk if there is only a chance of something bad occurring versus the alternative of the something bad being a certainty. But in the end, if we are talking ECT hell, is there a difference between a chance versus certainty? Even a chance should necessitate that our ENTIRE being be aligned to evangelism. However, I have heard in this thread that this would only be a necessity if you believed in ECT hell. Otherwise, just evangelize as you see fit, God will just reconcile the rest.

God said to be fruitful and multiply. Has He made any caveat that obedience to that command is contingent on the nature of heaven and hell? I don't believe so, but am willing to hear out an alternate point of view.

By any normal definition, a hopeful universalist must accept that ECT hell is a possible outcome. A hard universalist will claim much more, that ALL WILL BE reconciled and go to heaven, with certainty. I'm not sure that that this is the view held by all of the "hopeful" in this thread. To me there are some who come across as "hopeful" on this thread who might not be meeting the true definition of "hopeful".

Certainly, there were some in the early Church who were hard universalists. Guess what, there were plenty of influential people in the early Church who had no problem with Arianism. I hear "Go read St. Gregory of Nyssa" or "go read Origen". As much as I can respect the lives they lived and they contributed a lot to the Church, it doesn't mean that every belief they had was Orthodox. There are Saints that either taught or believed Material Heresy, beliefs that were later formalized as heresy. They weren't afforded a chance to be corrected, which absolutely influences culpability.

If I look out to various sites, "Tentmaker" being espoused vigorously here as some kind of scholarly authority, I see two things: the maker of this site has an axe to grind and that the portrayal of groups who are traditionally outside of their preferred view is being presented in a way that is dishonest to try and make it seem like things are changing.

Nobody knows all the answers. And everyone is a heretic to somebody.
When people as brilliant as St. Gregory and St. Augustine disagree on hell theology, it humbles me to know I don't know.
Rest in the Lord. And He was called a drunkard also. By guess who, the religious leaders. Things never change my friend. Shalom.

dermdoc said:

---

Nobody knows all the answers. And everyone is a heretic to somebody.
When people as brilliant as St. Gregory and St. Augustine disagree on hell theology, it humbles me to know I don't know.
Rest in the Lord. And He was called a drunkard also. By guess who, the religious leaders. Things never change my friend. Shalom.

---

Things do change, they just don't change the way that you want them to

You need God to be a certain way to justify your own actions.

light_bulb said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Nobody knows all the answers. And everyone is a heretic to somebody.
When people as brilliant as St. Gregory and St. Augustine disagree on hell theology, it humbles me to know I don't know.
Rest in the Lord. And He was called a drunkard also. By guess who, the religious leaders. Things never change my friend. Shalom.

---

Things do change, they just don't change the way that you want them to

You need God to be a certain way to justify your own actions.

---

What actions? What did I do? And when did I talk about changes?

dermdoc said:

---

light_bulb said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Nobody knows all the answers. And everyone is a heretic to somebody.
When people as brilliant as St. Gregory and St. Augustine disagree on hell theology, it humbles me to know I don't know.
Rest in the Lord. And He was called a drunkard also. By guess who, the religious leaders. Things never change my friend. Shalom.

---

Things do change, they just don't change the way that you want them to

You need God to be a certain way to justify your own actions.

---

What actions? What did I do?

---

Affirm that there is reasonable possibility of ECT hell. That those you evangelize should know it is a possibility and what that means.

You have said that children shouldn't be had over such claims.

dermdoc said:

---

light_bulb said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Nobody knows all the answers. And everyone is a heretic to somebody.
When people as brilliant as St. Gregory and St. Augustine disagree on hell theology, it humbles me to know I don't know.
Rest in the Lord. And He was called a drunkard also. By guess who, the religious leaders. Things never change my friend. Shalom.

---

Things do change, they just don't change the way that you want them to

You need God to be a certain way to justify your own actions.

---

What actions? What did I do? And when did I talk about changes?

---

You literally just said "things never change my friend"

I thought I was hopeless, but man old doctors must be a wreck

light_bulb said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

light_bulb said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Nobody knows all the answers. And everyone is a heretic to somebody.
When people as brilliant as St. Gregory and St. Augustine disagree on hell theology, it humbles me to know I don't know.
Rest in the Lord. And He was called a drunkard also. By guess who, the religious leaders. Things never change my friend. Shalom.

---

Things do change, they just don't change the way that you want them to

You need God to be a certain way to justify your own actions.

---

What actions? What did I do? And when did I talk about changes?

---

You literally just said "things never change my friend"

I thought I was hopeless, but man old doctors must be a wreck

---

I was talking about human nature

Affirm that there is reasonable possibility of ECT hell. That those you evangelize should know it is a possibility and what that means.

Common Dermdoc. Affirm it. Otherwise, don't consider yourself a "hopeful" universalist, that which you actually just think is hard universalism