Open Debate - Is Universalism Biblical - A Preterist's perspective (church, Revelation)

[svenM]

@ sciotamick, is your belief kind of Calvinist? - your exegesis of limiting "all" to only "those in the covenant" kind reminds a bit on that user who believed in that serpent seed doctrine who limited "all" to only descendants of Adam as opposed to the descendants of the devil, I think he was also a Calvinist, generally the exegesis of limiting "all" to a only a small fraction seems to be typically Calvinist.

I understand scripture and also the contexts different as you.

[sciotamicks]

Originally Posted by Thy Kingdom Come

Argument Ad Nauseam

I ask for a civil debate, and I recieve this.

This is how it works ThyKingdomCome, if you can refrain from this kind of behavior, I agree to be challeneged.

If you cannot, then don't bother with the debate.

Leave your emotional response out of this, and provide something with more credence, intellect, and maturity.

Otherwise, disengage yourself from the debate.

Anyone else?

[sciotamicks]

Originally Posted by svenM

@ sciotamick, is your belief kind of Calvinist? - your exegesis of limiting "all" to only "those in the covenant" kind reminds a bit on that user who believed in that serpent seed doctrine who limited "all" to only descendants of Adam as opposed to the descendants of the devil, I think he was also a Calvinist, generally the exegesis of limiting "all" to a only a small fraction seems to be typically Calvinist.

I understand scripture and also the contexts different as you.

Yes I am, but this has nothing to do with Calvinism. In the opening statement, I am addressing specific verse that Universalists claim support from. The issue I have set forth, is the context of those specific verses, and wherein it lies. What surrounds them.

This has nothing to do with Calvinism, but has everything to do with Christianity, being a good Berean. Rightly interpreting the Word.
Thank you for your participation.
Please elaborate on your understanding of 1 Cor 15, and others that I have mentioned, as well as whatever else in scriptures you feel present your view. Thanks.

[trettep]

Originally Posted by sciotamicks

Yes I am, but this has nothing to do with Calvinism. In the opening statement, I am addressing specific verse that Universalists claim support from. The issue I have set forth, is the context of those specific verses, and wherein it lies. What surrounds them.

This has nothing to do with Calvinism, but has everything to do with Christianity, being a good Berean. Rightly interpreting the Word.
Thank you for your participation.

You don't have any argument against universalism. Eternal Torment is the preaching of God's failure to eradiate sin. It preaches that SIN shall get an eternal dominion over its subjects where it will keep them in rebellion against God. That is exactly what eternal torment preaches and why anyone that preaches such is preaching contrary to God's word.

1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

If all the works of the devil are destroyed there can no longer be SIN. The whole preaching of eternal torment is destroyed in that verse. It works contrary to the entire purpose that Jesus came. And Moses would have rather have been blotted out of the book of life if God didn't take away the sin of the people. Imagine that.

[sciotamicks]

Originally Posted by trettep

You don't have any argument against universalism. Eternal Torment is the preaching of God's failure to eradiate sin. It preaches that SIN shall get an eternal dominion over its subjects where it will keep them in rebellion against God. That is exactly what eternal torment preaches and why anyone that preaches such is preaching contrary to God's word.

Sin is in the Law. The Law was given to a covenant people.
Christ redeemed that sin for the confirmed Covenant.

Read you Bible, that is what it says.

Secondly, I have never said anything about eternal torment.
So leave that alone.
Scripture places those outside of the covenant, outside of the New Jerusalem, outside of the city gates. That is called separation.
This is eternal, unless, "they walk by its light."

Only then, can one enter into that city.

[Thy Kingdom Come]

Originally Posted by sciotamicks

1 Corinthians 15 is about the resurrection of the dead, specifically about those that Paul is speaking to and their concern for their loved ones in the faith. This is the context. Detouring from that, puts the conclusion in error. I am pointing to the context of the entire discourse. Your view is piece-mealing the scripture to fit your paradigm.

Your pointing to the context of much of the discourse and assuming that the discourse is not allowed to go outside those bounds. Any verse that appears to go outside those bounds is reinterpreted to be inside those bounds.

Context is everything. Again, you are straying from the message. This message is to the Church.

The message was to the church. But does a message to the church have to be solely about the church?

What did John preach about the resurrection of the dead? Yes, as we saw in Revelation 20.

So that's two examples showing that the resurrection of the dead includes the just and unjust.

If you don;t want to debate properly, that's fine. I will ignore your posts. But this is a debate, not a discussion...hence...Debate.
We debate the views that are placed in the thread, piece by piece, so the ideas do not get lost or missed

I was debating properly. You complained that I am "a universalist not applying proper contextual arrangements of the text". So you want me to use the methods you consider proper. I was on-topic by pointing out that your method leads to contradictions with scripture. You end up concluding "not X" when the scriptures say exactly "X". So why would I use what I consider to be improper? I'm certainly not against examining the context. But I am against subjugating a verse to its context because I insist that the topic in context is monolithic.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

All mankind is not Israel. Jew and Gentile, In Christ is.

I didnt' say all mankind is Israel. You said that Christ only died for those who believe. I gave an exmaple of enemies of the gospel who are beloved and under the promises of God because of the believing fathers. So Christ must have died for those unbelievers.

I'm sure you know that the word "Israel" in scripture is used two ways:
1. Israel according to the flesh
2. Israel according to faith in Christ

My reading of Romans 11... it seems clear to me that verses 7-24 are about Israel according to the flesh, blinded, broken off, in contrast to the elect, the Israel of God who obtained salvation. Verse 25 states the mystery that blindness will be until... which implies that it will not be forever. Verse 26 logically follows that all Israel (both elect and blinded of verse 7) will be saved.



This verse splits physical Israel into those two parts. The believing and the blinded.

• Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

Israel according to the flesh -- cast away

• Romans 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

Israel according to the flesh -- broken off

• Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Israel according to the flesh -- unbelief in the gospel

• Romans 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear.

Israel according to the flesh -- graffed in if abide not in ubelief

• Romans 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Mystery -- blindness removed from blinded Israel -- Israel according to the flesh

• Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

God will remove ungodliness (context = unbelief, blindness) from Israel. Thus all Israel will be saved.

• Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Concerning the gospel, they (the blinded who will be unblinded) are enemies. But because of God's promises to the faithful fathers, their blindness will be removed, God seeing to the end sees them as beloved.

• Romans 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

One word. Kosmos.

There is no "kosmos" in the passage I quoted. This is what I mean. You use context from over there to turn "Christ died for every man" into it's opposite "Christ did not die for every man" even though the context about the "world" says the same thing.

• 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Exactly. Your argument was turned against you in that you chose one specific verse to prove your case and disregarded the enitre context. An infamous Universalist tactic, which is easily dismantled.

I chose the verse that launched the whole discourse: That some did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. Besides, the entire discourse is not about believers rising from the dead as you claimed earlier. Verses 21, 22 are about all men. Verses 24-28 are about enemies of Christ being brought into subjection to Christ and under Christ's feet, that God may be all in all. God will be all in all precisely because all will be made alive in Christ just as all die in Adam.

I preach that Christ reconciled the covenant God had instituted His people with. The whole premise of the gospel is to preach that covenant, so that people can enter into it. What you preach is that apart from that belief in the gospel, you are saved anyway. Which is very far from the truth.

That is not what I believe. I do not believe anyone is saved "anyway" apart from faith in Christ. Only those who trust in Christ, believe that He died and rose again for their sins. Yes, I believe that extends beyond this lifetime. That's the main difference.

[trettep]

Originally Posted by sciotamicks

Sin is in the Law. The Law was given to a covenant people.
Christ redeemed that sin for the confirmed Covenant.

Read you Bible, that is what it says.

Secondly, I have never said anything about eternal torment.
So leave that alone.
Scripture places those outside of the covenant, outside of the New Jerusalem, outside of the city gates. That is called separation.
This is eternal, unless, "they walk by its light."

Only then, can one enter into that city.

Regardless, Moses said that he would rather be blotted out of the book of life if God didn't remove the sin of those sinners. And for your information, the covenant people are Israel (which is where circumcision is of the heart - not the flesh). ALL shall be members of Israel. None shall not be a member of Israel.

Again, anything that is NOT universal salvation is preaching a god that is not almighty.

[Thy Kingdom Come]

Originally Posted by sciotamicks

I ask for a civil debate, and I recieve this.

This is how it works ThyKingdomCome, if you can refrain from this kind of behavior, I agree to be challeneged.

If you cannot, then don't bother with the debate.

Leave your emotional response out of this, and provide something with more credence, intellect, and maturity.

You're right, sorry about that.

[sciotamicks]

Originally Posted by Thy Kingdom Come

Your pointing to the context of much of the discourse and assuming that the discourse is not allowed to go outside those bounds. Any verse that appears to go outside those bounds is reinterpreted to be inside those bounds.

Here is where your view, and many other views err.
The gospels and epistles were written for us, not to us.
Just as in 1 Corinthians 15, is a letter, to the Corinthian church.
You cannot go outside of the bounds of the context or else the interpretation fails. This is hermeneutics and exegesis 101.

The message was to the church. But does a message to the church have to be solely about the church?

This is about the new Covenant, which involves the church.
The unsaved, the scoffers, the deniers, are outside of that covenant.

So that's two examples showing that the resurrection of the dead includes the just and unjust.

What is your point here? 1 Corinthians 15 is written, I will repeat, to the Corinthian congregation. Which part of this are you missing?
The entire context of this particular discourse is about the congregation's inquiries about their loved ones that were either saved in Christ, or righteous saints prior to Christ, due to the infiltration of the Judaizers and resurrection deniers. This is the context of this particular discourse. What you have done here, is divide the scripture, eisegtically, imposed another area of the Word of God, that has very little to do with this, to prove a point, that is lesser than a strawman.

The Resurrection of the Dead, overall, involved the just and unjust. But the Resurrection of the dead, in the context of 1 Corinthians 15, is about saints.
A selected group, within the entire group of the resurrection.

Same event, different contextual arrangements.

I was debating properly. You complained that I am "a universalist not applying proper contextual arrangements of the text".

You aren't, as you have shown the readers of this forum and myself.

So you want me to use the methods you consider proper. I was on-topic by pointing out that your method leads to contradictions with scripture.

Vice versa, as we have seen, your methods leads to exactly that.

Eisegesis.

I didnt' say all mankind is Israel. You said that Christ only died for those who believe. I gave an exmaple of enemies of the gospel who are beloved and under the promises of God because of the believing fathers. So Christ must have died for those unbelievers.

Yes I agree. However, in order for that blessing to take effect, one must enter into the confirmed covenant in Christ. It is that simple.

I'm sure you know that the word "Israel" in scripture is used two ways:
1. Israel according to the flesh
2. Israel according to faith in Christ

My reading of Romans 11... it seems clear to me that verses 7-24 are about Israel according to the flesh, blinded, broken off, in contrast to the elect, the Israel of God who obtained salvation. Verse 25 states the mystery that blindness will be until... which implies that it will not be forever. Verse 26 logically follows that all Israel (both elect and blinded of verse 7) will be saved.

Here is where you, and many others err. Israel, now, is Jew and Gentile. There is no more "Ethnic/Flesh Israel" in God's eyes. That was eliminated.
Israel now is us. That is what Romans 11 teaches.

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

Paul is a Jewish Christian. He represents Ethnic Israel.
Because of the Jewish Chrisitans in the first century, Ethnic Israel was grafted back into the Holy Tree, but only until the Fulness of the Gentiles was fulfilled, and then the resurrection, the Parousia, the marraige occured.

Eph 1 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

That is the Jews, who first trusted in Him.

And hath (hypotassō - Past tense aorist verb))put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church.

Consummated in the church.

There is no "kosmos" in the passage I quoted. This is what I mean. You use context from over there to turn "Christ died for every man" into it's opposite "Christ did not die for every man" even though the context you refer to says the same thing, that "Christ died for the sins of the whole world".

I was addressing this statement you made.

Now you show me a scripture that says "Christ died only for so and so" or "Christ did not die for so and so".

I showed you, in John 3:16, the sole scripture that defines Christ's sacrifice and who it entails. It entails the Government, the order, the covenant world in which God had established first in Adam when He brought him into the Garden, secondly in the Jews, and thirdly, with His death, removed the partition (Eph 2:14) to Jew and Gentile in that very covenantal order.

Christ died for all who walk by His light, who take up His cross, who lose their life for Him. That is who He died for. A ransom is paid for a slave.
We are slaves to sin. If that slave continues to live outside of what He asks for, then he will die in his sin. It is that simple.

I chose the verse that launched the whole discourse: That some did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. Besides, the entire discourse is not about believers rising from the dead as you claimed earlier. Verses 21, 22 are about all men. Verses 24-28 are about enemies of Christ being brought into subjection to Christ and under Christ's feet, that God may be all in all. God will be all in all precisely because all will be made alive in Christ just as all die in Adam.

You are wrong in bringing harm to the very word of God. I have shown you, and the readers of the forum, that you have ripped apart the Holy Word to fit your paradigm. You have ripped the verse and removed them from their contextual arrangements, and imposed you paradigm into the text, distorting the word of God. This is where you, and all Universalists stumble.

1 Corinthians 15 is all about the dead ones in Christ, or before Christ that were saints. The kin of the Corinthian congregation, nothing else. This letter was written to that very congregation, and dividing it up , as you have done, have not only removed the message from where it stood, but you have created another gospel entirely.

That is not what I believe. I do not believe anyone is saved "anyway" apart from faith in Christ. Only those who trust in Christ, believe that He died and rose again for their sins. Yes, I believe that extends beyond this lifetime. That's the main difference.

What extends beyond this lifetime? The ability to be saved?
How?

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by sciotamicks

Is Universalism a Biblical view?

Universalism is not in the Bible but "God will save all mankind (Lit. all humans)" is.

Also, 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 has God's goal for all mankind: God All in all. Not All in some. You lose. We win.