10andBOUNCE said:

---

I am happy to learn more and understand perspectives, but I simply don't have enough time in my day to read another book on an already growing stack.

---

Fair enough my friend. You don't have to read much to understand that Christian Universalism is not the same as Unitarian Universalism. The latter is the all roads lead to God belief which is obviously false and something I would never believe. Nor would any of the saints or theologians I cited.

I guess how would you explain what happens to an atheist who understands the gospel message but clearly rejects it?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I guess how would you explain what happens to an atheist who understands the gospel message but clearly rejects it?

---

After he dies, he will be punished for correction and reconciliation with God. God desires all men to be saved.

What is your belief or concept on hell?
And not to derail, but if I am understanding your theology correctly, wouldn't the atheists disbelief and damnation be predetermined before he was born?

A "textbook" definition would be something like...a place were unrepentant sinners face the wrath of God forever. They are excluded from his favor and will be tormented in body and soul. They have no hope or relief or end.

Key ideas would include: separation from God's favor (Matt 25:41, 2 Thess 1:9) eternal fire and torment (Mark 9:43-48, Rev 20:10, Matt 13:41-42), the wrath and justice of God (Romans 2:5, Rev 14:10-11, Hebrews 10:31), and eternal duration (Matt 25:46, Rev 20:10, Daniel 12:2).

One way I think of it personally relates more to the theme of the separation from God's favor. Today, we all benefit from the fact that God does dispense his common grace both on the believer and unbeliever (the rain falls and benefits all). Hell would be a place where there is no more common grace and the common "hedge" that God places on his created order would be lifted and complete chaos and anarchy will ensue.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

A "textbook" definition would be something like...a place were unrepentant sinners face the wrath of God forever. They are excluded from his favor and will be tormented in body and soul. They have no hope or relief or end.

Key ideas would include: separation from God's favor (Matt 25:41, 2 Thess 1:9) eternal fire and torment (Mark 9:43-48, Rev 20:10, Matt 13:41-42), the wrath and justice of God (Romans 2:5, Rev 14:10-11, Hebrews 10:31), and eternal duration (Matt 25:46, Rev 20:10, Daniel 12:2).

One way I think of it personally relates more to the theme of the separation from God's favor. Today, we all benefit from the fact that God does dispense his common grace both on the believer and unbeliever (the rain falls and benefits all). Hell would be a place where there is no more common grace and the common "hedge" that God places on his created order would be lifted and complete chaos and anarchy will ensue.

---

I will only address the eternal duration verses as I believe we all have different concepts of what punishment would be.
From my reading only Matthew 25:46 mentions eternal punishment of the goats. As you are aware, I disagree with the interpretation of most translations on that verse. Revelations 20:10 only talks about three beings subjected to eternal torment. Daniel 12:2 talks about everlasting shame and contempt which is not exactly fiery torture in my opinion. Very similar to description of weeping and gnashing of teeth which I believe is remorse for not fulfilling God's purpose for your life.
So you alluded earlier to when evangelizing without the threat of hell, few people would respond.
Do you see that tactic being used in the sermons by Paul, etc. in Scripture?
Thanks

Paul wrote almost exclusively to believers only and to the first churches that had been established. I don't know why he would have a focus on the topic of eternal hell given that context.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Paul wrote almost exclusively to believers only and to the first churches that had been established. I don't know why he would have a focus on the topic of eternal hell given that context.

---

But he preached extensively and never used "turn or burn". The sermon on Mars Hill comes to mind. And the threat of hell was never used by any of the folks in Acts. Seems a lot different than what is preached and used for evangelization in the Western world.
And we will never agree but I really wish you would at least read a little about Christian Universalism so you will understand what I believe and why. I have been where you are in your beliefs so I am pretty aware of what most ECT hell folks believe. The reason I asked you about your concept is because there is wide spectrum of what ECT hell folks think the punishment is. I assume with your predestination theology that you believe the folks who end up in hell were pre ordained to end up there?
Thanks for your time and civility.
Shalom

I mean, Paul kind of addresses it...albeit it is not as clear as other passages that use "eternal"

Acts 17:30-31
The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

Previously in Acts...

Acts 13:44-46
The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.

It just doesn't track with me on a logical basis, that Paul or any of the other apostles would go to death to preach the word, just so that others would be able to escape temporal punishment and/or a refiners fire of sorts.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

It just doesn't track with me on a logical basis, that Paul or any of the other apostles would go to death to preach the word, just so that others would be able to escape temporal punishment and/or a refiners fire of sorts.

---

Well I don't believe they ever preached eternal hell. And find no Scripture to support that. Just seems odd to me that nobody in Acts mentioned hell when they were evangelizing.And I believe they would have gone to his death for his beliefs. I do not think ECT hell has to be one of those beliefs.
Seems like the belief in eternal hell is very central to your understanding of the Gospel. As it is to many Christians. Like the Gospel is a get out of hell card. And that is why the concept of Ultimate reconciliation is a no go for you. Which is fine. I understand but do not agree.

Acts references "salvation" and "being saved" numerous times. Saved from what? forgiveness of sins. Now, since Jesus clearly sides with the Pharisees views of life after death as opposed to the Sadducees, we have to look at what the Pharisees believed. Evidence shows there may have been some disagreement, but according to sources like Falvius Josephus (the same historian used by Chrisitan scholars to show that Jesus was a real person) writes that the general Pharisaical teaching at the time was that the wicked suffered eternal torment.

I know you want it spelled out super clearly in the bible, but I think at least a person should have to see that the overwhelming evidence leads towards eternal life for all, and at least some of those eternal lives are going to be bad. This was the majority belief of all of those Jews the apostles were told that Jesus saves. They would have put 2 and 2 together.

The Banned said:

---

Acts references "salvation" and "being saved" numerous times. Saved from what? forgiveness of sins. Now, since Jesus clearly sides with the Pharisees views of life after death as opposed to the Sadducees, we have to look at what the Pharisees believed. Evidence shows there may have been some disagreement, but according to sources like Falvius Josephus (the same historian used by Chrisitan scholars to show that Jesus was a real person) writes that the general Pharisaical teaching at the time was that the wicked suffered eternal torment.

I know you want it spelled out super clearly in the bible, but I think at least a person should have to see that the overwhelming evidence leads towards eternal life for all, and at least some of those eternal lives are going to be bad. This was the majority belief of all of those Jews the apostles were told that Jesus saves. They would have put 2 and 2 together.

---

I agree with punishment. Not with eternal punishment. And I think salvation means a lot more than being saved from hell.
And who is administering the punishment? And is it only for those who reject Jesus? Or for those who have not heard of Jesus?
And sorry but it just seems strange that when Paul and the Apostles in Acts were preaching and evangelizing Gentiles (who had no concept of hell) that avoidance of hell would be the first thing they would hit them with. I mean, isn't that how evangelists work today? The recipe, from what I can tell, is to convince people they are sinners and need Jesus to save them from hell. This is written on tracts, websites for evangelism, etc. It has been reduced to a cookbook formula. I just think this tactic misses the boat on what the Gospel really is and means. I will stay true to what is in Scripture. Will continue to love God, love my neighbor, and follow Jesus I will continue to tell folks about my faith without threatening them with eternal hell. Y'all do what y'all want.

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Acts references "salvation" and "being saved" numerous times. Saved from what? forgiveness of sins. Now, since Jesus clearly sides with the Pharisees views of life after death as opposed to the Sadducees, we have to look at what the Pharisees believed. Evidence shows there may have been some disagreement, but according to sources like Falvius Josephus (the same historian used by Chrisitan scholars to show that Jesus was a real person) writes that the general Pharisaical teaching at the time was that the wicked suffered eternal torment.

I know you want it spelled out super clearly in the bible, but I think at least a person should have to see that the overwhelming evidence leads towards eternal life for all, and at least some of those eternal lives are going to be bad. This was the majority belief of all of those Jews the apostles were told that Jesus saves. They would have put 2 and 2 together.

---

I agree with punishment. Not with eternal punishment. And I think salvation means a lot more than being saved from hell.
And who is administering the punishment? And is it only for those who reject Jesus? Or for those who have not heard of Jesus?
And sorry but it just seems strange that when Paul and the Apostles in Acts were preaching and evangelizing Gentiles (who had no concept of hell) that avoidance of hell would be the first thing they would hit them with. I mean, isn't that how evangelists work today? The recipe, from what I can tell, is to convince people they are sinners and need Jesus to save them from hell. This is written on tracts, websites for evangelism, etc. It has been reduced to a cookbook formula. I just think this tactic misses the boat on what the Gospel really is and means. I will stay true to what is in Scripture.

---

I told myself I'd keep quiet…so in the rich man and Lazarus from Luke 16, the chasm is temporary is how we should understand the parable? And the millstone right after, it doesn't sound so bad any more I guess.

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Acts references "salvation" and "being saved" numerous times. Saved from what? forgiveness of sins. Now, since Jesus clearly sides with the Pharisees views of life after death as opposed to the Sadducees, we have to look at what the Pharisees believed. Evidence shows there may have been some disagreement, but according to sources like Falvius Josephus (the same historian used by Chrisitan scholars to show that Jesus was a real person) writes that the general Pharisaical teaching at the time was that the wicked suffered eternal torment.

I know you want it spelled out super clearly in the bible, but I think at least a person should have to see that the overwhelming evidence leads towards eternal life for all, and at least some of those eternal lives are going to be bad. This was the majority belief of all of those Jews the apostles were told that Jesus saves. They would have put 2 and 2 together.

---

I agree with punishment. Not with eternal punishment. And I think salvation means a lot more than being saved from hell.
And who is administering the punishment? And is it only for those who reject Jesus? Or for those who have not heard of Jesus?
And sorry but it just seems strange that when Paul and the Apostles in Acts were preaching and evangelizing Gentiles (who had no concept of hell) that avoidance of hell would be the first thing they would hit them with. I mean, isn't that how evangelists work today? The recipe, from what I can tell, is to convince people they are sinners and need Jesus to save them from hell. This is written on tracts, websites for evangelism, etc. It has been reduced to a cookbook formula. I just think this tactic misses the boat on what the Gospel really is and means. I will stay true to what is in Scripture.

---

I told myself I'd keep quiet…so in the rich man and Lazarus from Luke 16, the chasm is temporary is how we should understand the parable? And the millstone right after, it doesn't sound so bad any more I guess.

---

Scholars believe the rich man and Lazarus is about Hades. Not hell. And Scripture is pretty clear that Hades, the lake of fire, Gehenna, etc. are not all the same place. The millstone reference says nothing about eternal punishment. Just punishment. We will agree to disagree.
I respect your opinion a lot by the way.

And this is a good read
http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2008/07/rich-man-and-lazarus.html

My question is what did Lazarus do, except be poor, to get to Heaven (if that is where he is)? Again, the scholars I read believe he is also in Hades. He did not show faith in Jesus, say the sinner's prayer, repent, take Jesus as Ahis Lord and Savior, etc. Same thing with the sheep in Matthew 25. None of these did the Evangelical formula as a means of getting to heaven and avoiding hell.

dermdoc said:

---

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Acts references "salvation" and "being saved" numerous times. Saved from what? forgiveness of sins. Now, since Jesus clearly sides with the Pharisees views of life after death as opposed to the Sadducees, we have to look at what the Pharisees believed. Evidence shows there may have been some disagreement, but according to sources like Falvius Josephus (the same historian used by Chrisitan scholars to show that Jesus was a real person) writes that the general Pharisaical teaching at the time was that the wicked suffered eternal torment.

I know you want it spelled out super clearly in the bible, but I think at least a person should have to see that the overwhelming evidence leads towards eternal life for all, and at least some of those eternal lives are going to be bad. This was the majority belief of all of those Jews the apostles were told that Jesus saves. They would have put 2 and 2 together.

---

I agree with punishment. Not with eternal punishment. And I think salvation means a lot more than being saved from hell.
And who is administering the punishment? And is it only for those who reject Jesus? Or for those who have not heard of Jesus?
And sorry but it just seems strange that when Paul and the Apostles in Acts were preaching and evangelizing Gentiles (who had no concept of hell) that avoidance of hell would be the first thing they would hit them with. I mean, isn't that how evangelists work today? The recipe, from what I can tell, is to convince people they are sinners and need Jesus to save them from hell. This is written on tracts, websites for evangelism, etc. It has been reduced to a cookbook formula. I just think this tactic misses the boat on what the Gospel really is and means. I will stay true to what is in Scripture.

---

I told myself I'd keep quiet…so in the rich man and Lazarus from Luke 16, the chasm is temporary is how we should understand the parable? And the millstone right after, it doesn't sound so bad any more I guess.

---

Scholars believe the rich man and Lazarus is about Hades. Not hell. And Scripture is pretty clear that Hades, the lake of fire, Gehenna, etc. are not all the same place. The millstone reference says nothing about eternal punishment. Just punishment. We will agree to disagree.
I respect your opinion a lot by the way.

---

Are you sure this isn't NT Wright reading into it what he wants? Hades isn't a place of heat and flame where a drop of water offers balm, and the people also know that. Read it as you please, but I think we should tread lightly with universalism.

There are earlier ideas to consider: if humans as eternal beings can have their souls purified after death and change their eternal state, why not angels as well? I'll have to stop short of offering the full idea, but this one floats around well before your authors (being, death was introduced so humans would not stand condemned forever as the rebellious angels).

dermdoc said:

---

And this is a good read
http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2008/07/rich-man-and-lazarus.html

My question is what did Lazarus do, except be poor, to get to Heaven (if that is where he is)? Again, the scholars I read believe he is also in Hades. He did not show faith in Jesus, say the sinner's prayer, repent, take Jesus as Ahis Lord and Savior, etc. Same thing with the sheep in Matthew 25. None of these did the Evangelical formula as a means of getting to heaven and avoiding hell.

---

We're the rich man in the parable; ours is not to know what Lazarus did or didn't do. If I was looking for the keys to Lazarus, I'd search the sermon on the mound or the Magnificat…that said I'm not evangelical, so the Lord does as He pleases. My job is to obey His commands, observe the sacraments, and be a man of action instead of right-thinking.

AGC said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And this is a good read
http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2008/07/rich-man-and-lazarus.html

My question is what did Lazarus do, except be poor, to get to Heaven (if that is where he is)? Again, the scholars I read believe he is also in Hades. He did not show faith in Jesus, say the sinner's prayer, repent, take Jesus as Ahis Lord and Savior, etc. Same thing with the sheep in Matthew 25. None of these did the Evangelical formula as a means of getting to heaven and avoiding hell.

---

We're the rich man in the parable; ours is not to know what Lazarus did or didn't do. If I was looking for the keys to Lazarus, I'd search the sermon on the mound or the Magnificat…that said I'm not evangelical, so the Lord does as He pleases. My job is to obey His commands, observe the sacraments, and be a man of action instead of right-thinking.

---

And that is why I respect you so much. You might want to Google or do a little research on where the rich man and Lazarus are. Almost every scholar believes they are in Hades, an intermediate state, and not in their final eternal destinations. But they could be wrong and you could be right.

And I agree with you we are the rich man IF we don't help the poor, sick, and hungry. But Abraham was incredibly rich and was righteous. It is not about how rich or poor one is, it is their heart.

I wholeheartedly believe that Universalism is a false doctrine…there is no need for Christ to suffer on the cross and shed His blood for our sins IF God intended for all to get to Heaven anyway after temporal punishment. You repeatedly speak of the verse saying "God desires that all men be saved"….of course he does…He also gave us free will to make a choice. He also gave us Ten Commandments that He wants us to obey, but all will break some of them. Where is the verses that say "God WILL save all men?" Where are the verses that say we will receive a temporary punishment and be saved anyway in the end? Did Jesus preach temporary punishment and then ultimate reconciliation for those that don't turn to him? Did I miss that somewhere? I believe that Universalism undermines the entire Gospel…even Hebrews 2:3 states "how can we escape if we reject such a great salvation, which at the first was spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us that was heard by him"….what were they trying to escape with salvation? Eternal death or temporary punishment? To me, the Bible is clear on the consequences of sin and a life without accepting Christ…and in Matthew 25:46 Jesus used the exact same word for Eternal…or we to believe that Heaven will be forever and punishment is only temporary?

Bighunter43 said:

---

I wholeheartedly believe that Universalism is a false doctrine…there is no need for Christ to suffer on the cross and shed His blood for our sins IF God intended for all to get to Heaven anyway after temporal punishment. You repeatedly speak of the verse saying "God desires that all men be saved"….of course he does…He also gave us free will to make a choice. He also gave us Ten Commandments that He wants us to obey, but all will break some of them. Where is the verses that say "God WILL save all men?" Where are the verses that say we will receive a temporary punishment and be saved anyway in the end? Did Jesus preach temporary punishment and then ultimate reconciliation for those that don't turn to him? Did I miss that somewhere? I believe that Universalism undermines the entire Gospel…even Hebrews 2:3 states "how can we escape if we reject such a great salvation, which at the first was spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us that was heard by him"….what were they trying to escape with salvation? Eternal death or temporary punishment? To me, the Bible is clear on the consequences of sin and a life without accepting Christ…

---

The only Scripture you posted that describes eternal punishment is Matthew 25:46. And the translation of that is hotly debated. The other Scriptures you posted say nothing about eternal punishment. Being thrown in the lake of fire could suggest many things including destruction, temporal punishment, or purification. There is not a word about the eternal aspect of what it means to be thrown into the lake of fire. Please show me where it clearly states anything in that verse talks about eternal anything. You are using eisegesis.

And if only believers receive eternal life like you stated, then non believers by definition can not experience hell of any fashion. They simply remain dead.

May Iask you what you think Christian Universalists believe?

dermdoc said:

---

And if only believers receive eternal life like you stated, then non believers by definition can not experience hell of any fashion. They simply remain dead.

May Iask you what you think Christian Universalists believe?

---

How can nonbelievers by definition cannot experience hell in any fashion? Where is that in the Bible? Yes i understand the false doctrine of "Christian Universalism" that teaches that all will be reconciled to Christ. May I ask where the Bible and Jesus specifically teaches temporal punishment?

Bighunter43 said:

---

I wholeheartedly believe that Universalism is a false doctrine…there is no need for Christ to suffer on the cross and shed His blood for our sins IF God intended for all to get to Heaven anyway after temporal punishment. You repeatedly speak of the verse saying "God desires that all men be saved"….of course he does…He also gave us free will to make a choice. He also gave us Ten Commandments that He wants us to obey, but all will break some of them. Where is the verses that say "God WILL save all men?" Where are the verses that say we will receive a temporary punishment and be saved anyway in the end? Did Jesus preach temporary punishment and then ultimate reconciliation for those that don't turn to him? Did I miss that somewhere? I believe that Universalism undermines the entire Gospel…even Hebrews 2:3 states "how can we escape if we reject such a great salvation, which at the first was spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us that was heard by him"….what were they trying to escape with salvation? Eternal death or temporary punishment? To me, the Bible is clear on the consequences of sin and a life without accepting Christ…and in Matthew 25:46 Jesus used the exact same word for Eternal…or we to believe that Heaven will be forever and punishment is only temporary?

---

Here is your post. Quote "Jesus emphasizes that eternal life is conditional upon belief on Him".
Except for Matthew 25 46, which as I mentioned the translation is hotly debated, there no other Scriptures who mention eternal punishment.
And you could be right on your hell concept. It has been debated for centuries. But to just say there are no other Scriptural sound hell concepts is just false to me.
And I am not trying to anger you and if I did I am sorry.

And say Matthew 25 46 is correct and there is eternal punishment. According to Matthew 25, who goes there? And who goes to reward? Who does Jesus say are the sheep and goats? And why are they them according to Scripture?

dermdoc said:

---

And say Matthew 25 46 is correct and there is eternal punishment. According to Matthew 25, who goes there? And who goes to reward? Who does Jesus say are the sheep and goats? And why are they them according to Scripture?

---

I would say that's always been interpreted as the Sheep being the "believers" and the Goats being those that refuse to accept Christ? Your thoughts on that?

Bighunter43 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And say Matthew 25 46 is correct and there is eternal punishment. According to Matthew 25, who goes there? And who goes to reward? Who does Jesus say are the sheep and goats? And why are they them according to Scripture?

---

I would say that's always been interpreted as the Sheep being the "believers" and the Goats being those that refuse to accept Christ? Your thoughts on that?

---

Never says that. There is no mention of belief, faith, baptism, etc. Nothing about refusing to accept Christ. And what is interesting is it talks about nations. Not individuals. Which makes sense when you look at God's covenant with Israel.
the sheep are sheep because they did good towards the poor, the prisoners, etc. The goats are goats because they did not do those things. Very similar theme as the rich man and Lazarus parable.

Here are the actual verses from Matthew 25. You read and decide.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025%3A31-46&version=NIV

dermdoc said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And say Matthew 25 46 is correct and there is eternal punishment. According to Matthew 25, who goes there? And who goes to reward? Who does Jesus say are the sheep and goats? And why are they them according to Scripture?

---

I would say that's always been interpreted as the Sheep being the "believers" and the Goats being those that refuse to accept Christ? Your thoughts on that?

---

Never says that. There is no mention of belief, faith, baptism, etc. Nothing about refusing to accept Christ. And what is interesting is it talks about nations. Not individuals. Which makes sense when you look at God's covenant with Israel.
the sheep are sheep because they did good towards the poor, the prisoners, etc. The goats are goats because they did not do those things. Very similar theme as the rich man and Lazarus parable.

---

Verse 32 says He will gather the nations and separate THE PEOPLE one from another as a shepherd would the sheep and the goats. The good works (Sheep) are not the reason for their salvation, but the fruits they display are the results of their salvation.

Bighunter43 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And say Matthew 25 46 is correct and there is eternal punishment. According to Matthew 25, who goes there? And who goes to reward? Who does Jesus say are the sheep and goats? And why are they them according to Scripture?

---

I would say that's always been interpreted as the Sheep being the "believers" and the Goats being those that refuse to accept Christ? Your thoughts on that?

---

Never says that. There is no mention of belief, faith, baptism, etc. Nothing about refusing to accept Christ. And what is interesting is it talks about nations. Not individuals. Which makes sense when you look at God's covenant with Israel.
the sheep are sheep because they did good towards the poor, the prisoners, etc. The goats are goats because they did not do those things. Very similar theme as the rich man and Lazarus parable.

---

Verse 32 says He will gather the nations and separate THE PEOPLE one from another as a shepherd would the sheep and the goats. The good works (Sheep) are not the reason for their salvation, but the fruits they display are the results of their salvation.

---

Where does it say that? I am just reading the Scripture without addition. It is pretty clear who Jesus is saying are the sheep and the goats,
And I will grant you about the people. Just find it interesting about the nations.

dermdoc said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And say Matthew 25 46 is correct and there is eternal punishment. According to Matthew 25, who goes there? And who goes to reward? Who does Jesus say are the sheep and goats? And why are they them according to Scripture?

---

I would say that's always been interpreted as the Sheep being the "believers" and the Goats being those that refuse to accept Christ? Your thoughts on that?

---

Never says that. There is no mention of belief, faith, baptism, etc. Nothing about refusing to accept Christ. And what is interesting is it talks about nations. Not individuals. Which makes sense when you look at God's covenant with Israel.
the sheep are sheep because they did good towards the poor, the prisoners, etc. The goats are goats because they did not do those things. Very similar theme as the rich man and Lazarus parable.

---

Verse 32 says He will gather the nations and separate THE PEOPLE one from another as a shepherd would the sheep and the goats. The good works (Sheep) are not the reason for their salvation, but the fruits they display are the results of their salvation.

---

Where does it say that? I am just reading the Scripture without addition.

---

This is the AI answer…I'm no where near as smart as AI…although I've heard it preached this way my whole life.

Bighunter43 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And say Matthew 25 46 is correct and there is eternal punishment. According to Matthew 25, who goes there? And who goes to reward? Who does Jesus say are the sheep and goats? And why are they them according to Scripture?

---

I would say that's always been interpreted as the Sheep being the "believers" and the Goats being those that refuse to accept Christ? Your thoughts on that?

---

Never says that. There is no mention of belief, faith, baptism, etc. Nothing about refusing to accept Christ. And what is interesting is it talks about nations. Not individuals. Which makes sense when you look at God's covenant with Israel.
the sheep are sheep because they did good towards the poor, the prisoners, etc. The goats are goats because they did not do those things. Very similar theme as the rich man and Lazarus parable.

---

Verse 32 says He will gather the nations and separate THE PEOPLE one from another as a shepherd would the sheep and the goats. The good works (Sheep) are not the reason for their salvation, but the fruits they display are the results of their salvation.

---

Where does it say that? I am just reading the Scripture without addition.

---

This is the AI answer…I'm no where near as smart as AI…although I've heard it preached this way my whole life.

---

I had it preached to me like that my whole life also. Then I started reading for myself, Don't trust me or any man, Read it for yourself. And fwiw, I am not a huge AI guy.

dermdoc said:

---

Bighunter43 said:

---

I wholeheartedly believe that Universalism is a false doctrine…there is no need for Christ to suffer on the cross and shed His blood for our sins IF God intended for all to get to Heaven anyway after temporal punishment. You repeatedly speak of the verse saying "God desires that all men be saved"….of course he does…He also gave us free will to make a choice. He also gave us Ten Commandments that He wants us to obey, but all will break some of them. Where is the verses that say "God WILL save all men?" Where are the verses that say we will receive a temporary punishment and be saved anyway in the end? Did Jesus preach temporary punishment and then ultimate reconciliation for those that don't turn to him? Did I miss that somewhere? I believe that Universalism undermines the entire Gospel…even Hebrews 2:3 states "how can we escape if we reject such a great salvation, which at the first was spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us that was heard by him"….what were they trying to escape with salvation? Eternal death or temporary punishment? To me, the Bible is clear on the consequences of sin and a life without accepting Christ…

---

The only Scripture you posted that describes eternal punishment is Matthew 25:46. And the translation of that is hotly debated. The other Scriptures you posted say nothing about eternal punishment. Being thrown in the lake of fire could suggest many things including destruction, temporal punishment, or purification. There is not a word about the eternal aspect of what it means to be thrown into the lake of fire. Please show me where it clearly states anything in that verse talks about eternal anything. You are using eisegesis.

---

Matthew: whatever "eternal" means, it applies to both punishment and life.

John: no, it does not specifically say anything about eternal punishment, but one can deduce that if they don't believe and therefore don't have eternal life…they have something else.

Thessalonians: this describes eternal destruction…I think calling that a punishment is fair.

Revelation: the lake of fire is the second death (20:14). The lake of fire is described as a place of eternal torment (20:10). Also see: Matthew 25:41, Romans 6:23

I still don't think you've answered "saved from what?" Jesus saves us from temporal punishment? No way.

God loves us, but nothing is about us. It's all about His glory.

Derm,

I am curious how you respond to the criticism that if universalism is true, then why did Jesus need to suffer his Passion and death?

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Derm,

I am curious how you respond to the criticism that if universalism is true, then why did Jesus need to suffer his Passion and death?

---

Because that was required to save us from the wages of sin which is death.

I know you are not a Calvinist but you might ask them the same thing since according the elect are predestined before creation,