Bible Teaches Universalism

[thatguymd]

I originally didn't believe the Bible taught universalism, but the more I look into it - it seems undeniable. Here's a video I found interesting:



Also, an Introduction to Theology by the same guy that made that video. On that page is An Adventure in Taking Scripture “Literally” or How to be accused of being a liberal heretic by Evangelical Christians that goes through a lot of scriptural support. My favorite verses are probably Colossians 1:20 (because I don't see any way around that being universal other than people saying it CAN'T because these other verses seem like people probably won't get reconciled - which I don't think those other verses even say at all) and Zephaniah 3:8-10 (because it shows God's wrath as purification for all to call on him). Anyway, mostly just wanted to proclaim the Good News. God loves you and will reconcile you to Himself.

 

[gfm7175]

I originally didn't believe the Bible taught universalism, but the more I look into it - it seems undeniable. Here's a video I found interesting:



Also, an Introduction to Theology by the same guy that made that video. On that page is An Adventure in Taking Scripture “Literally” or How to be accused of being a liberal heretic by Evangelical Christians that goes through a lot of scriptural support. My favorite verses are probably Colossians 1:20 (because I don't see any way around that being universal other than people saying it CAN'T because these other verses seem like people probably won't get reconciled - which I don't think those other verses even say at all) and Zephaniah 3:8-10 (because it shows God's wrath as purification for all to call on him). Anyway, mostly just wanted to proclaim the Good News. God loves you and will reconcile you to Himself.

I have yet to be convinced that the Bible teaches Universalism, because from my readings of it, I come to the opposite conclusion.

Let's start with Revelation, because that prophetic book gives an explanation of what is still to come. Revelation 20:10 states "and the devil that deceived them [Satan] was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Revelation 20:15 states that all unbelievers will experience that same fate... "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.". Revelation 21:27 explains what the new heaven and new earth will be like, and concludes in this manner... "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." This leads me to believe that unbelievers will be eternally excluded from the new heaven and new earth. That position is supported by Matthew 12:31-12 and Mark 3:28-30, which both describe the "unforgivable sin"... Matthew's account is as follows... "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Mark's account is as follows... "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit."

The presence of an "unforgivable sin", along with the length of the ultimate lake of fire destination being described as "eternal damnation, eternal torment, day and night forever and ever", leads me to believe that the Bible doesn't teach universalism, but in fact, actually teaches the opposite.

 

[thatguymd]

I have yet to be convinced that the Bible teaches Universalism, because from my readings of it, I come to the opposite conclusion.

Let's start with Revelation, because that prophetic book gives an explanation of what is still to come. Revelation 20:10 states "and the devil that deceived them [Satan] was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Revelation 20:15 states that all unbelievers will experience that same fate... "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.". Revelation 21:27 explains what the new heaven and new earth will be like, and concludes in this manner... "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." This leads me to believe that unbelievers will be eternally excluded from the new heaven and new earth. That position is supported by Matthew 12:31-12 and Mark 3:28-30, which both describe the "unforgivable sin"... Matthew's account is as follows... "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Mark's account is as follows... "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit."

The presence of an "unforgivable sin", along with the length of the ultimate lake of fire destination being described as "eternal damnation, eternal torment, day and night forever and ever", leads me to believe that the Bible doesn't teach universalism, but in fact, actually teaches the opposite.

A lot of the confusion is in the translation of aiónios to "eternal" when it is really agelong. Strong's concordance for me highlights the strangeness of it with "practically eternal". At the end of the document I linked to in the OP it discusses Church History, and universalism was arguably the majority opinion in the first few centuries. It seems like native Greek speakers were much more likely to believe in universal restoration.

A more literal translation of the "unforgivable sin" - Mark 3:29 (YLT): but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness -- to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment; (not eternal damnation) But also, the document argues that eternally destroyed stuff can/has been restored by God anyway even if it must be translated that way in your opinion.

Also, it only specifically mentions the unholy trinity being "tormented day and night for ever and ever" (literally "tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages" BTW). That doesn't mean the same for everything cast in there.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

A lot of the confusion is in the translation of aiónios to "eternal" when it is really agelong. Strong's concordance for me highlights the strangeness of it with "practically eternal". At the end of the document I linked to in the OP it discusses Church History, and universalism was arguably the majority opinion in the first few centuries. It seems like native Greek speakers were much more likely to believe in universal restoration.

A more literal translation of the "unforgivable sin" - Mark 3:29 (YLT): but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness -- to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment; (not eternal damnation) But also, the document argues that eternally destroyed stuff can/has been restored by God anyway even if it must be translated that way in your opinion.

Also, it only specifically mentions the unholy trinity being "tormented day and night for ever and ever" (literally "tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages" BTW). That doesn't mean the same for everything cast in there.

What's the "unholy trinity" in Biblical context? That one is new to me.

 

[gfm7175]

A lot of the confusion is in the translation of aiónios to "eternal" when it is really agelong. Strong's concordance for me highlights the strangeness of it with "practically eternal".

How long is an "age"?

A more literal translation of the "unforgivable sin" - Mark 3:29 (YLT): but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness -- to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment; (not eternal damnation) But also, the document argues that eternally destroyed stuff can/has been restored by God anyway even if it must be translated that way in your opinion.

I would have to again ask "how long is an age?" Why couldn't "age" be defined as "beginning at a certain point in time and extending throughout the rest of eternity?

Also, it only specifically mentions the unholy trinity being "tormented day and night for ever and ever" (literally "tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages" BTW). That doesn't mean the same for everything cast in there.

Going by the logic you present here, it doesn't specifically mention the beast and false prophet being "tormented..." either; it only specifically says that about Satan. But I would think that everything that was thrown into the same location would have the same experience... If you and I were both in the same spot in the middle of a desert with the hot sun beating down on us, would we both be sweaty and parched? Or would only I be sweaty and parched while you stood there perfectly fine?

 

[gfm7175]

What's the "unholy trinity" in Biblical context? That one is new to me.

The "unholy trinity" would include the Beast, the False Prophet, and Satan, all referenced in the book of Revelation.

This is a direct mirroring of the "holy trinity", which includes the Father (God), the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit).

 

[Daisy]

How long is an "age"?


I would have to again ask "how long is an age?" Why couldn't "age" be defined as "beginning at a certain point in time and extending throughout the rest of eternity?


Going by the logic you present here, it doesn't specifically mention the beast and false prophet being "tormented..." either; it only specifically says that about Satan. But I would think that everything that was thrown into the same location would have the same experience... If you and I were both in the same spot in the middle of a desert with the hot sun beating down on us, would we both be sweaty and parched? Or would only I be sweaty and parched while you stood there perfectly fine?

I agree and with that being said...how can death and the grave be tormented?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

The "unholy trinity" would include the Beast, the False Prophet, and Satan, all referenced in the book of Revelation.

This is a direct mirroring of the "holy trinity", which includes the Father (God), the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit).

Thank you. Google results weren't informative. The holy trinity is confusing enough for me.

 

[gfm7175]

I agree and with that being said...how can death and the grave be tormented?

Could just the inhabitants of those places be thrown into the lake of fire and not the places themselves? Since there would be no further purpose for those places after the inhabitants were transferred out of them and into the lake of fire, I would assume that death and hades would then be destroyed after that event, or else death and hades would eternally exist vacant and without purpose, which doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not sure if I understood what you asked though, and I'm sorry if I didn't.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I agree and with that being said...how can death and the grave be tormented?

That is a good question. How can the wages of sin be both death and eternal torment? I've heard the "you will be resurrected so you can be tormented" argument, but that doesn't hold much water with me for several reasons.

 

[Daisy]

That is a good question. How can the wages of sin be both death and eternal torment? I've heard the "you will be resurrected so you can be tormented" argument, but that doesn't hold much water with me for several reasons.

Exactly my point...the Lake of Fire is symbolic of eternal destruction, not fiery torment forever...

 

[Daisy]

Could just the inhabitants of those places be thrown into the lake of fire and not the places themselves? Since there would be no further purpose for those places after the inhabitants were transferred out of them and into the lake of fire, I would assume that death and hades would then be destroyed after that event, or else death and hades would eternally exist vacant and without purpose, which doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not sure if I understood what you asked though, and I'm sorry if I didn't.

Death and the grave cannot be burned or tormented, since they are not literal, abstract objects...they will be destroyed...that is what the Lake of fire represents...eternal destruction...

 

[gfm7175]

Thank you. Google results weren't informative. The holy trinity is confusing enough for me.

Hahaha completely understandable. It can be a very hard concept to grasp, even for believers.

If you were interested in a more informative explanation, you could read through this... Revelation Chapter 13 Explained

That should be starting with Revelation 13, and then you could keep clicking the "go to next section" blue link towards the bottom right of each page to keep reading through the book of Revelation (I'd say at least go through Revelation 14, if interested)... While I haven't agreed with every verse explanation that I have read on this site (I have agreed with probably 99+% of them though), I do find those explanations (even the very few that I do disagree with) to be quite informative.

This might help you to even better understand what is meant by the unholy trinity, and how it directly mirrors the holy trinity.

 

[gfm7175]

How can the wages of sin be both death and eternal torment?

If you define death as "non-existence", or more specifically "physical non-existence", then obviously there is a glaring contradiction with this, as you rightfully notice, unless there was a resurrection of those bodies for the sole purpose of eternally tormenting them, which I'm sure most of us would feel like that action would be unnecessarily cruel.

However, if you would rather define physical death as "the separation of the eternal soul from the temporary physical body", which is the way that most believers define death, then the person's soul is still in existence. The "eternal torment" would then come about as a result of the "2nd death", also referred to as "spiritual death", which is defined as "the separation of the eternal soul from God".

So, going back to the initial question, "death" (as in physical death, which is the "wages of sin") is a result of the separation of the soul from the body, and "eternal torment" (as in spiritual death) is a result of the separation of the soul from God.


Elvira and I will agree the majority of the time, but this is one specific topic where her and I happen to disagree.

 

[thatguymd]

How long is an "age"?


I would have to again ask "how long is an age?" Why couldn't "age" be defined as "beginning at a certain point in time and extending throughout the rest of eternity?


Going by the logic you present here, it doesn't specifically mention the beast and false prophet being "tormented..." either; it only specifically says that about Satan. But I would think that everything that was thrown into the same location would have the same experience... If you and I were both in the same spot in the middle of a desert with the hot sun beating down on us, would we both be sweaty and parched? Or would only I be sweaty and parched while you stood there perfectly fine?

Age is not a definitive period of time. An age could be eternal. I’m not saying it proves it is not eternal, just that it also does not prove that it is. And the author could have chosen a word like “aidios” if they wanted to definitely say it is eternal.

Elvira beat me to asking about Hades and Death. But also, do you think Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego had the same experience being thrown into the same place as others before them?

Anyway, what about the verses that, at the very least, appear to support everyone being reconciled to God? I’ve shared some of how I view the verses you mentioned that may appear to support eternal conscious torment. I don’t see any of them explicitly stating eternal conscious torment the way that Colossians 1:20 (to me as least) seems to explicitly state everyone being reconciled. How can that be interpreted in an eternal conscious torment light without just saying, “Well, it must be saying something else because….just look at these verses that seem to disagree”? I don’t need to appeal to other verses to explain your quoted verses in a universal reconciliation light. To me Colossians 1:20 (and many others) are significantly clearer than the verses that “disagree”. And shouldn’t we always interpret less clear scripture in light of the more clear? Any verses that show a condition on being saved, do not speak to the number that will meet that condition.

 

[zyzygy]

Shouldn't this be in the theology forum?

 

[thatguymd]

Shouldn't this be in the theology forum?

It could be, but I don't see why it has to (or should). It seems like the sub-forums are if you want to make sure people with certain beliefs don't comment. I thought the video would be interesting for non-Christians as well to inform them of other Christian views of the afterlife.

 

[Daisy]

If you define death as "non-existence", or more specifically "physical non-existence", then obviously there is a glaring contradiction with this, as you rightfully notice, unless there was a resurrection of those bodies for the sole purpose of eternally tormenting them, which I'm sure most of us would feel like that action would be unnecessarily cruel.

However, if you would rather define physical death as "the separation of the eternal soul from the temporary physical body", which is the way that most believers define death, then the person's soul is still in existence. The "eternal torment" would then come about as a result of the "2nd death", also referred to as "spiritual death", which is defined as "the separation of the eternal soul from God".

So, going back to the initial question, "death" (as in physical death, which is the "wages of sin") is a result of the separation of the soul from the body, and "eternal torment" (as in spiritual death) is a result of the separation of the soul from God.


Elvira and I will agree the majority of the time, but this is one specific topic where her and I happen to disagree.

Well, yeah we do usually but the Bible makes it clear that the soul itself can die...

Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so also the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul who sins is the one who will die." Eze. 18:4

Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits the belief is of pagan origin... “The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen in the East and St. Augustine in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . [Augustine’s doctrine] . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism,”

And the magazine Presbyterian Life says: “Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.”

 

[zyzygy]

It could be, but I don't see why it has to (or should). It seems like the sub-forums are if you want to make sure people with certain beliefs don't comment. I thought the video would be interesting for non-Christians as well to inform them of other Christian views of the afterlife.

I'll comment. It's all a fantasy.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Exactly my point...the Lake of Fire is symbolic of eternal destruction, not fiery torment forever...

I'm not completely endorsing this view, but it kind of matches my understanding as of now. Well, as much of an "understanding" as an agnostic can have.
The Dead Are Dead Until the Rapture or Resurrection | Truth Or Tradition?

I'll add a note that the subject of "soul death" is addressed in that link. Feel free to tell me why you think they are wrong if you like (addressed to anyone - not just Elvira).

 

[zyzygy]

I'm not completely endorsing this view, but it kind of matches my understanding as of now. Well, as much of an "understanding" as an agnostic can have.
The Dead Are Dead Until the Rapture or Resurrection | Truth Or Tradition?

It's a fairy tale.

 

[Daisy]

I'm not completely endorsing this view, but it kind of matches my understanding as of now. Well, as much of an "understanding" as an agnostic can have.
The Dead Are Dead Until the Rapture or Resurrection | Truth Or Tradition?

I agree with part of it...the resurrection...all who are dead or who have died are resting in their graves until that time...Martha, Lazarus' sister, spoke of it...John 11:20-24...

Well, except for part of the 144,000...but that's another thread...

 

[gfm7175]

Age is not a definitive period of time. An age could be eternal. I’m not saying it proves it is not eternal, just that it also does not prove that it is. And the author could have chosen a word like “aidios” if they wanted to definitely say it is eternal.

Ahhhhh, gotcha. I can respect that for the most part, and I do wonder why aidios wasn't used... I don't know enough about Greek or language translation to make much of a comment though. And I just read the YLT translation of Revelation 20:10, which is interesting, because that version specifies that all three are tormented, while the KJV reading seems to only specify Satan. Anyway, I think we both fully agree that the torment applies to all three.

But I can also try to logically reason this issue out... like, if the lake of fire wasn't fully eternal, but "practically eternal", would that mean that the unholy trinity, just like anything else thrown into the lake of fire, would then eventually get out and "reconcile with God"? That wouldn't make any sense to me, and if that were the position, then I would be much more inclined to take Elvira's position of the lake of fire symbolizing "eternal destruction", which would permanently remove all the "bad" and leave only the "good" to remain in existence. Her and I agree that the "bad" will be removed and only the "good" will remain, but where we disagree is that she believes the bad will be eternally destroyed, while I believe that the bad will eternally exist, but exist completely separate from God ("spiritual death"). Either way, her and I both agree on the part that truly matters, but we have our disagreements on the minor specifics surrounding it.

Also, then one would have to wonder whether heaven was eternal, or "practically eternal"? Or whether our souls were eternal or "practically eternal"... To conclude, I have been led by my studies to believe that people's souls, the new heaven/earth, and the lake of fire are all fully eternal, and will exist outside of time as we know it right now. God has always existed (and will always exist), so I believe that our souls will always exist in a similar fashion.

Elvira beat me to asking about Hades and Death. But also, do you think Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego had the same experience being thrown into the same place as others before them?

Good point... Those three definitely had a different experience, and would be the "perfectly fine" person standing right beside the "sweaty thirsty" person in the desert. Yet, I would say that they could only do so because of God's divine intervention, otherwise they would have had the exact same experience from the same location. So, I guess I'm not seeing the correlation...

Anyway, what about the verses that, at the very least, appear to support everyone being reconciled to God? I’ve shared some of how I view the verses you mentioned that may appear to support eternal conscious torment. I don’t see any of them explicitly stating eternal conscious torment the way that Colossians 1:20 (to me as least) seems to explicitly state everyone being reconciled. How can that be interpreted in an eternal conscious torment light without just saying, “Well, it must be saying something else because….just look at these verses that seem to disagree”? I don’t need to appeal to other verses to explain your quoted verses in a universal reconciliation light. To me Colossians 1:20 (and many others) are significantly clearer than the verses that “disagree”. And shouldn’t we always interpret less clear scripture in light of the more clear? Any verses that show a condition on being saved, do not speak to the number that will meet that condition.

I think that Colossians 1:20 is referring to the fact that we, since Jesus died on the cross for our sins, have been restored to a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ. In other words, we used to be estranged from God because of our sin, but through Jesus Christ, all who choose to believe are reconciled with God. I think that is more or less what that passage (and the surrounding passages) is saying.

 

[gfm7175]

Well, yeah we do usually but the Bible makes it clear that the soul itself can die...

Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so also the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul who sins is the one who will die." Eze. 18:4

Does "die" in that passage refer to being "destroyed" (a state of non-existence)? Or does "die" in that passage mean "separated from God" (aka spiritual death), which would be a direct mirroring of what physical death is (soul separated from physical body)?

 

[Daisy]

Does "die" in that passage refer to being "destroyed" (a state of non-existence)? Or does "die" in that passage mean "separated from God" (aka spiritual death), which would be a direct mirroring of what physical death is (soul separated from physical body)?

Doesn't really matter...a soul is soul and if it can die, it is not immortal...