Universalism is the teaching that through the atonement of Jesus, every person who ever lived will ultimately be saved. It is a relatively small movement in America. But this error can have some serious ramifications. Does the Bible teach that everyone who has ever lived will be saved? No. It doesn't. Find out why here.
Universalism
Universalism is the teaching that all people will be saved. Some say that it is through the atonement of Jesus that all will ultimately be reconciled to God. Others just say that all will go to heaven sooner or later, whether or not they have trusted in or rejected Jesus as savior during their lifetime. This universal redemption will be realized in the future where God will bring all people to repentance. This repentance can happen while a person lives or after he has died and lived again in the millennium (as some "Christian universalists" claim) or some future state. Additionally, a few universalists even maintain that Satan and all demons will likewise be reconciled to God.
I am Glad to see Matt did not say Universalists believe Satan and demon will be reconciled to God, but was fair in making the distinction that a few believe Satan and demons will be reconciled.
However I am one of those few.
When we limit God salvation to just man we do much damage to the scriptures, and put a limit on the only one who is without limit. We diminish the fullness of the cross of our Lord by saying it only reaches to mankind. ALL THINGS in heaven and earth and under the earth are reconciled by way of the cross. And yes that includes Satan.
Ephesians 1:10 10 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:
Philippians 2:10-1110 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Just by these two scriptures above we can see that all things in the heaven will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. But not only those things in the heavens, but those things in the earth and under the earth also confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.ALL THINGS are reconciled by way of the cross of our Lord.
Colossians 1:16-20 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Now least any say, but Col.1:16-20 says nothing about Satan being reconciled, I would point out that ALL THINGS in heaven, ALL THINGS in the earth, both visible and INVISIBLE, are reconciled.Also note that it states that THRONES, DOMINIONS, PRINCIPALITIES and POWERS are also reconciled by way of the cross.
So who are these THRONES, DOMINIONS, PRINCIPALITIES and POWERS?
Ephesians 6:12 tells us.
Ephesians 6:12 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Now according to the above scriptures even those things we war against ( devils in high places ) are reconciled by way of the cross.And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.Note that the LIGHT shineth IN the darkness.The darkness also has the Light and in the dispensation of the fullness of times, that Light is going to shine out of great darkness.Yes the darkness will be gone for only the Light that is within it will remain, same as with us.
ALL THINGS are reconciled by way of the cross , I do not place a limit on Gods salvation for it is without limit.
We can see this even more fully when we read how the Gospel is made known unto principalities and powers in HEAVENY PLACES.
Ephesians 3:8-10
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God
Praise God His cross is without limitations.
Nevertheless, both facets of universalistic belief are in serious error. People will suffer eternal damnation (Rev. 14:11) and the demonic forces have no redeemer. But, in my opinion, though universalism is a grave error, holding to the idea that all will be saved in itself does not automatically make someone a non-Christian. Please see Can a Christian be a Universalist?
However, there are those within the universalist camp (who claim to be Christian) who also deny the doctrine of the Trinity and, thereby, the incarnation of the Word of God as God the Son. They also deny the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit. Usually, these denials are held by Unitarian Universalists, though others who are not of the Universalist camp also deny the Trinity. Those who deny these essentials cannot be classified as Christians.
According to who? Surely the reader is aware Christian simply means follower of Christ. No doctrine whatsoever makes or unmakes a Christian.
We are not to be followers of man made creeds like the Nice creed Matt is referring to, but rather followers of Christ alone.
Man is the ones who made up the Nice creed NOT God, so Matt can cry all he likes about someone not being a Christian because they don’t follow the Nice creed.
So if the Nice creed is what determines who is a Christian and who is not a Christian then Paul, John, Peter and the boys cannot be said to be Christian either for the Nice creed was not around when they were.
So much for Matt setting the standard of who is or who is not a Christian.
To deny the deity of Christ, is to deny one of the essential doctrines of salvation. In this sense, those universalists who deny the deity of Christ are in a false religious belief system. Of course, when one essential doctrine is denied, many other historic biblical doctrines are also denied and salvation is void because the object of faith is false.
Matt here makes a grave error in understanding, he seems to think those who do not believe Jesus is God the Father deny Christ divinity. This is not so, for Christ being born of God makes Christ divine and gives Him the same status that the Father has.
Jesus always made a destinction between Himself and God never once saying He was God the Father.
John 20:17
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
The reader here can see Jesus Himself has a Father and a God.
Jesus is always pointing this out in the gospels, just read through them and you will see He always makes a distinction between Himself and the Father.
Where those who believe in the trinity get the idea Jesus is God comes from this verse.
John 10:30
30 I and my Father are one.
Does this mean that Jesus and the Father are the same person? Matt would have the reader to believe so, but we also read.
John 17:11
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
John 17:21
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Here the reader can see we to are to be ONE with Jesus and the Father, just as Jesus was ONE with the Father.
So I ask the readers this question: Do you believe you are God the Father? Hardly, so why then believe Jesus is the Father when He said I and the Father are one, especially when Jesus Himself always made a point of distinction between Himself and the Father.
There is no official "Universal Salvation Church" denomination but there is a Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). The UUA can be classified as non-Christian because it denies the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, etc. It is not possible to categorize all of universalists into one tidy doctrinal category. Its adherents vary in belief. Some are Arian (God is one person, Jesus is a creation). Some are Trinitarian. Others even lean toward new age concepts of man's divinity.So, universalism is not really a doctrine that identifies a group. Rather, it is a doctrine of different, even contradictory groups, who all claim universalism.
Again I am glad Matt here makes the distinction that not all Universalists believe after the same fashion.
The problem with words
The cults are particularly guilty of using biblical words with non-biblical definitions. This is absolutely necessary among them in order to maintain some sort of internal consistency of theology. So too, with many universalists. Hell can mean non-existence, after-life consciousness, or this present life on earth. Some universalists believe that all punishment is accomplished here on earth, while others believe it is future event with a loss of rewards, and not a physical punishment. The punishment in both groups is corrective and limited. It will last only as long, and only be as severe, as it takes to accomplish its corrective purpose, which is to bring all mankind to a state of holiness and happiness in obedience to God. Of course, the problem with this is that it strongly suggests that a person is made worthy to be with God through his own sufferings and corrections in the afterlife.
Matt here makes a mistake, the suffering and correction is not to make us worthy of salvation, for no man is worthy of salvation it is a free gift by Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is our pattern and just like Him the sufferings and corrections are to make us perfect.
Hebrews 2:10-11
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
1 Peter 5:10
10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.
Therefore the reader can see judgments which are all corrective are used in order to make us perfect.
In universalism, the word "eternal" means "without end" when it comes to salvation, but not when referring to damnation, even though the same word is used for both and in the same context (Matt. 25:46).
Lets look at Matt.25:46 in a few literal translations
Young's Literal Translation has it.
46And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'
Rotherham Emphasized Bible has it.
And, these, shall go away, into, age-abiding, correction, but, the righteous, into, age-abiding, life.
So as the reader can see Matt’s problem is not with the Universalists belief of the Greek word aionios but with the literal translation of the word itself.
Matt like many a brother and sister in the Lord believe aionios to mean without beginning and without end. But there is a huge problem with this understanding.
First the scriptures tell us aionios has a beginning
Titus 1:2
2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Both the word eternal and world are aionios in the Greek, thus the reader can see aionios has a beginning.
We can also see aionios has a beginning in that aionios suffering does not begin until after the judgement. So how can aionios mean as Matt would have the reader to believe without beginning and without end?
There is also another major problem with the belief that people are going to suffer for all eternity. And that major problem is that if people are alive to suffering for all eternity then they have eternal life without Christ.
How can people live eternally in a lake of fire without Christ?
It is only in Christ that one has eternal life correct?
So only two conclusions can be made from those who believe in eternal torment , they are
That people have eternal life outside of Christ, which scripture will not bare out.
Or that those suffering for all eternity have Christ within them, thus making Christ suffer for all eternity along with the sinner.
So what in fact are those who believe in eternal torment teaching people today? they are either teaching that there is eternal life without Christ or they are teaching that Christ is suffering for all eternity right along with the sinner.
They of course will tell you that is not what they are teaching at all, but what other conclusions can one come to? Either it is only in Christ one has eternal life and Christ is suffering eternal fire along with the sinner or people have eternal life outside of Christ.
Can the reader not see the major problem those who believe in eternal torment face here?
Universalists divide history and the future into different "eons" or "ages" and assert that punishment is "age-lasting," not eternal. The term "Son of God" is claimed by all groups as an accurate description of Jesus, yet to some it means a created being and to others it means God in flesh. Therefore, determining which belief is held by which universalist is often difficult and it requires digging.
Not only does the Universalist divide history and the future into different aions or ages so to does the scriptures.
Luke 20:34-35
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
World in both cases here is the Greek word aion, surely the reader can see aion here is referring to an age and not to an eternity? Or would you have us believe there are two different eternities?
1 Corinthians 10:11
11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Can the reader not see that if aion means without beginning and without end then the scriptures make no sense? Can that which is without beginning and without end come to an end as this scripture and many others proclaim?
Look up the word aion in your concordances for yourselves and read all the scriptures pertaining to aion and you will see many other instances of where the scriptures state the aions come to an end.
Matt would have you believe aion means eternity and even if that is the case (which the reader can see it is not) then the reader can see that eternity comes to an end.
In both scenarios the reader can see Matt’s belief is in error, for if aion means eternity and has an end like the above scriptures state then Matt has no ground to stand on when stating the lake of fire has no end.
Misrepresentation
Universalists often use the most negative terms to represent historic positions they disagree with. For example, regarding the damnation of the unsaved, instead of saying that historic Christianity teaches that those who reject Christ will suffer eternal damnation, they frequently say that historic Christianity teaches that "God can't save everyone and wants to torture most of humanity forever." Or, it is often implied that God will not torture people forever because "God is not sadistic enough to send people to hell." Such emotionally slanted words reveal a hostile bias against historic doctrines and is an unfair description of those beliefs. It is a surprisingly common tactic among universalists which demonstrates their lack of objectivity and sheds an automatic cloud of doubt upon their observations.
Matt says the Universalist frequently say that historic Christianity teaches that "God can't save everyone and wants to torture most of humanity forever."
This is a very strange comment coming from a Calvinist who believes that Christ’s atonement is only for the elect, therefore Jesus only came to save some people thus consigning all others to eternal torment.
So basically Matt is saying God could save all men but does not want to save all men.
What Matt does not like about these type of statements is that they show just how far into error the Calvinistic belief is.
Matt will either tell you Jesus came into the world only to save the elect or that His sacrifice was sufficient for all, but it was not efficacious for all. ( efficacious: able to effect something: having the power to produce a desired result, especially an improvement )
In other words Matt is telling you Jesus did not die for all men’s salvation, or His sacrifice was not able to effect the salvation of all men.
The first view we know contradicts scripture.
John 3:17
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 12:47
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
The second view mean Jesus failed to do what God sent Him to do.
Both views should be abhorrent to any child of God, for if the first view is correct God does not love all men and if the second view is correct God through Jesus Christ is a failure.
Yet we also know by scripture that God is love Jn.:4:8 & 16 and the love never faileth 1Co.3:8 ( charity here is the Greek word agape and means love).
Thus the reader can see that God did send Jesus to save the world and that God who is love never faileth, so in fact the world will be saved by Him.
Conclusion
As you can see, universalism covers a wide range of beliefs. Though belief in universalism, in and of itself, does not automatically void salvation, it has the potential danger of allowing false teachers to abide alongside true believers as well as deny basic Christian teaching such as eternal damnation. Therefore, to determine if a universalist is Christian, you must delve further into other areas of his belief system.
And as the reader can now see Matt’s conclusions of who a true Christian is, and who’s teachings are false doctrine has a lot to be desired.
Which bares more witness by the Spirit of Christ within you, the belief that God does not want to save all men or failed to save all men, or that God wants to save all men, sent His son for their salvation and therefore all men are assured of salvation because God cannot fail?
Christian Universalism
"Christian Universalism" is the position that all of mankind will ultimately be saved through Jesus whether or not faith is professed in him in this life. It claims that God's qualities of love, sovereignty, justice, etc., require that all people be saved and that eternal punishment is a false doctrine. Salvation is not from hell, but from sin. There are two main camps in Christian Universalism:
Those who teach that the unrepentant will be punished in a future state, and that their punishment will be proportional to the degree of sin committed in the mortal state. They generally hold that the punishment is moral and not physical. There is no hell. They do not maintain that salvation is merited through these sufferings.
Those who teach that all the punishment for sin occurs in this life and that God's discipline in our lives is for the purpose of purifying us, though this purification is not our merit for salvation. In eternity, there will be a loss of reward for those who did not trust in Christ in this lifetime.
Christian Universalists claim to hold many of the tenets of historic Christianity: Trinity, deity of Christ, deity of the Holy Spirit, salvation by grace, etc. As always, it is necessary to inquire and ask what is meant by the terms they use because the diversity that exists in universalist beliefs warrants further examination. Nevertheless, the Christian universalists claim to affirm:
Nothing I can really say here, some Universalists believe some of these things some don’t. That does not make Universalism wrong it just shows that like any other view there are different views within Universalism.
The inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible.
From what I have seen here, they hold to the orthodox position.
Many but not all Universalists believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures, what most Universalist have a problem with is the way translators have corrupted the scriptures by adding foreign words not found in the original language.
There is only one God.
From what I have encountered, most universalists who claim the title "Christian universalists" do not accept the standard doctrine of the Trinity, but lean more towards either Arianism (God is one person, Jesus is created) to modalism (God takes different forms in history). This is, of course, heretical.
There is only one God and the standard doctrine of the trinity is in error as I have already shown. Go ahead look up trinity in the concordances see if you can find it, you won’t because it is not there, wonder why? Because it is a man made doctrine.
In fact the belief in the trinity is the belief in more then one God, for the Trinitarian will tell you that the Father is God and Jesus is God oh ya and the Holy Spirit is God, that makes 3 Gods not one.
The Trinitarian however will tell you that is not what they are saying, they will tell you God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same being.
However I already showed in scripture that Jesus makes a difference between Himself and God and to make sure people understand this in the same scripture Jesus makes a difference between Himself and the Father.Jn.20:17
Therefore to say Jesus is God is the belief that there is more then one God.
Jesus is the Son of the Living God
Many cult groups say the same thing. What they mean by the phrase is what is important. The Christian Universalists tend to say the Son is a manifestation, an image, a representation of God's essence, yet he is not equal to the Father. Therefore, they are denying His true deity.
Being not equal to the Father does not take away ones divinity, unless Matt would have you believe Jesus is not divine, for Jesus Himself states in Jn.14:28 the Father is GREATER then I.
And again we see Jesus making a distinction between Himself and the Father.
But, not all who claim to be Christian Universalists deny this.
Some hold that Jesus is not God but that He is divine. This is perplexing since divinity is a quality of God, not angels or men.
It's not perplexing at all, I just showed how easily it is understood.
Jesus' Resurrection
Most Christian Universalists affirm the physical resurrection of Jesus. But, some claim he did not rise from the dead physically, but was assumed into heaven to dwell with God. "The Crucified is living forever with God, as our hope. Resurrection does not mean either a return to life in space and time or a continuation of life in space and time but the assumption into that incomprehensible and comprehensive last and first reality which we call God."1
If, by the above quote, the physical resurrection of Jesus is denied, as it seems it is, then anyone who holds to that position is indeed a non-Christian since it denies one of the essential doctrines of Christianity.
Matt seems to be reading more into that quote then what is represented, I know of no Christian Universalist that believes Jesus’ body did not rise from the dead.
That however does not mean there are none, I just have not come across any. However if anyone whether it be one who believes in the salvation of all or one who believes in eternal torment believes Jesus was not physically resurrected I agree with Matt here and say they would be in error.
The Holy Spirit is God's presence
There is a surprisingly common denial of the personhood of the Holy Spirit. (personhood is self-awareness, a will, the ability to speak, etc.). This is a serious error on the part of those who hold to it. But to be fair, many universalists affirm the Holy Spirit as the third person in the Godhead.
The Holy Ghost is not the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost is the spirit of God Himself.
There is no salvation without accepting Jesus as Savior
This statement is problematic for two reasons:
Since to many universalists, Jesus is not truly God by nature, they have an improper object of faith (denying the Trinitarian nature of God and the deity of Christ). Their faith, then, is useless since they have violated the command to worship no other God (Exodus 20) and are worshiping a false god. The Jesus they believe in, is not the real one. This means they are definitely not Christian.
Actually Exodus 20 is speaking of not worshipping graven images which are made by mans hands.
So unless Matt can show us how Jesus is made by the hands of man his point here is moot.
There is a second chance theology at work here where people who have rejected Jesus in this life can come to faith in the next life, even though he has flatly rejected Jesus' sacrificial atonement.
Just because people reject Jesus in this life does not mean they will in the next, for every knee will bow and tongue confess Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
Some Universalists believe...
in consciousness after death, others do not.
in limited punishment of sinners in a type of hell that is not of fire, but of some moral chastising.
that punishment in the afterlife was for a limited period during which the soul was purified and prepared for eternity in the presence of God.
Most Universalist know that all Gods judgments are corrective in nature.
Conclusion"Christian Universalism" really isn't Christian and it is meshed with many other unorthodox and erroneous teachings. This belief system should be avoided.
Here again Matt wants to define who is a Christian and who isn’t. I would like to know who made Matt the judge?
As to which belief system should be avoided I’ll let the reader decide for themselves.
Can a Christian be a universalist?
Is it possible for Christian to be a universalist? Some will say no, others will say yes. My position (Matt Slick) is that it is possible for a Christian to be a universalist -- note, I said "possible". But, to be clear upfront, I believe universalism to be a heresy and I would never say, "Universalists are Christians."
Nevertheless, let's say that there is a man who was not a Christian who believes that everyone will be saved. This man is on his death bed in a hospital and is visited by the hospital Chaplin. The Chaplin gives him the gospel about Jesus being God in flesh, dying for our sins, rising from the dead, the need for repentance from sin, trusting in Christ, etc. The man honestly receives Christ and then dies shortly thereafter yet he never repented of the error of universalism. Is he saved or should we say, "Sorry, even though you trusted Jesus as your savior, believed he is God in flesh, died for your sins, and rose from the dead, but because you also believe everyone will be saved, you are going to hell."? Would anyone condemn a person to eternal fire for simply believing that everyone will be saved? I cannot see that as being the case.
There are essentials of the Christian faith. I have developed a "doctrine grid" where I have tried to arrange essential and non-essential doctrines into an easily understandable system. The essential doctrines are essential because the Bible says they are. Let me give you two examples. In John 8:24 Jesus said, "Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." This is an essential doctrine because it has a penalty of damnation for denying it. Likewise 1 Cor. 15:14 says that "if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain." Here too we see an essential doctrine because there is a condition of condemnation upon its denial. So too with the other essentials (justification by faith, monotheism, and the gospel) that the Scripture declare to be essential. See my doctrine grid again.
Matt seems to be saying here that the Christian Universalists denies the scriptures, because we may differ on what those scriptures are saying. Matt says there are essential doctrines and non-essential doctrines, but how can that be? Is not scripture to be used in any doctrine? Of course it is, so all doctrines are essential if they are based on scripture.
The Christian Universalist believe those two scriptures just as Matt does, but we have a different understanding of what those scripture proclaim. We do not do away with scripture as Matt is implying, we just understand them differently.
Example: the scriptures proclaim that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world 1 John 4:14
The Universalist believes this to be true and therefore the world will be saved.
However Matt’s understanding here would probably go something like this, God sent Jesus to be the saviour of the world but the world here is only concerning the elect
Or
God sent Jesus to be the saviour of the world but Jesus could not do it.
So according to Matt’s own idea of essential doctrine who holds more true to what the scripture proclaims, the Universalist or the Calvinist?
You reader will have to decide for yourselves.
The question is whether or not universalism in itself denies any of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Though I consider universalism to be a dangerous and false belief, I cannot automatically pronounce condemnation upon a person who acknowledges the essentials of the Christian faith and also affirms universal salvation. I don't because I don't see the scriptures doing it. Would I consider someone who holds to both the essentials and universalism to be inconsistent and confused? Absolutely! Should they repent? Yes! But, should we pronounce the judgment of condemnation upon a person for believing a doctrine that the scriptures have not stated is an essential?
Matt says that Universalism is not an essential doctrine, but have we not just read the testimony of John which states.
1 John 4:14
14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
According to Matt, Johns testimony is not an essential doctrine for john say he testifies the Jesus is the saviour of the world.
Johns testimony here is EXACTLY the same as the Christian Universalists testimony that Jesus is the saviour of the world.
For those who would say yes, then are you not elevating the non-essentials to the level of essentials? It would be like a person condemning another to damnation because the latter believes in pre-trib rapture (or post, or mid, or non-cessationism). Since the scriptures do not pronounce judgment of condemnation for a rapture view or a view on the gifts, then neither should we -- and neither should we concerning predestination, election, millennial views, which day to worship on, charismatic gifts, etc., if others hold views different than we do on these issues.
Matt says here that people should not pronounce judgment on other people if they have a different view, yet is this not exactly what Matt has done when he stated that a Universalist is not a Christian if he does not believe in the trinity?
People can be saved in varying degrees of theological error. There are regenerated people who do not understand predestination, don't accept election, don't understand federal headship, are clueless about imputation, Christ's eternal priesthood, covenant, etc., yet they are regenerated. They simply haven't learned those doctrinal truths yet. Are they condemned for not rightly understanding these very important biblical teachings? No, because the ones I just listed in this paragraph are not declared to be essential doctrines by the Bible.
Matt here wants to be the one who sets the standard of what essential and non essential doctrines are. And if one disagrees with what he says is an essential doctrine then that one is not a Christian. Again I have to ask, who made Matt the judge?
And did we not just read in 1Jn.4:14 that John says he testified that Jesus is the saviour of the world?
Is the salvation of the world then not an essential doctrine? As it was Johns testimony should it not also be ours?
And yet Matt says it is not an essential doctrine or even a doctrine of any kind but is rather heresy.
Does the reader honestly believe Johns testimony is heresy? Then why believe the Christians Universalists testimony which is the same as Johns is heresy.
In fact, I did not know that Jesus had physically risen from the dead until two years after I became a Christian. I knew he had risen, but I didn't know how.1 How is that possible? Well, I wasn't taught it or I missed those sermons. But, once I heard the truth, I believed it. Would anyone say I wasn't saved until I believed Jesus physically rose from the dead even though I had received him and trusted him to forgive me of my sins? I certainly hope not. The truth is that I believed in the physical resurrection of Christ because I was saved. I did not become saved because I believed he physically rose. Likewise, for the Calvinists, does regeneration occur when we understand proper doctrine? Or is proper doctrine the result of regeneration? Remember, we are saved in (and from) our sins as well as our errors and God graciously and patiently works correction in us.
Matt here says we are saved in and from our sins as well as our errors and God graciously and patiently works correction in us.
I agree with Matt here, that it was well we were yet sinners that Christ died for us, therefore should it not then be self evident that Jesus died for mankind well man was still in their sins?
Therefore whether one believes Jesus died for their sins or not does not take away the FACT that Jesus died for their sin just as he did for the sins of those who now believe.
Therefore should it not be evident that all are made alive in Christ, and God will graciously and patiently work correction in all that Jesus died for?
Thus do we not have the salvation of the world.
Furthermore, I believe that a true Christian (if he erringly holds to universalism), will move away from that error because the Holy Spirit will work the truth within him. Eventually, he will repent and reject it.
And I believe those who hold to any doctrine other then the salvation of all will likewise be corrected by the Holy Spirit and come to see their error and reject their past teaching.
Just as I to who once believed in eternal torment rejected this teaching when the Holy Spirit corrected me concerning it.
Also, I would say that a universalist who openly and knowingly affirms universal salvation after having been clearly taught the truth in scripture, and yet continues to hold to a "second chance" doctrine (as some do), and/or punishment in the afterlife for a duration of time and then salvation occurs, is not a Christian.
Well here is the difference between Matt and myself, even though Matt has heard the truth that Jesus is the saviour of the world he has rejected it, but in no why would I judge Matt to be outside Christ, even though he judges me to be outside of Christ.
It is these issues that are so serious as to deny justification by faith. But, let me say it one more time, I believe that there can be ignorant people who erringly hold to universalism, who have not thought universalism's position through properly, and have not been properly exposed to the true teachings of the Bible who can be saved. I believe it is "possible" for them to be saved in spite of their inconsistency. That is my position.
Here Matt calls those who believe in Universal salvation ignorant people, I wonder if he would have said the same thing to John when he testified to the fact that Jesus was the saviour of the world.
Now, am I saying that all universalists can be Christian? Not at all. Do I defend universalism? No. Do I think that universalism is a serious problem that undermines the gospel? Yes, I do.
How can Universal salvation undermine the gospel when the gospel is for the salvation of the world?
Universal salvation is the only view that upholds the fullness of the gospel, all other views teach the gospel in part and will continue to do so until the perfect gospel is imparted unto them by the Holy Spirit.
But, I can see a scenario where a universalist can be a Christian (death bed) and I believe that it is possible to be saved in confusion and error -- including in the confusion and error of universalism. I do not see how believing that all will be saved automatically disqualifies a person from being saved. I don't, because I don't see the scriptures doing it. But, if someone says it does disqualify them, then they would need to demonstrate that from scripture.
I can only shake my head in wonder that Matt could say such a thing as the only why he can see a Universalist being saved is upon their death bed.
And if the reader say that is not really what Matt said, Matt said a scenario, I will only point out that if a Universalist repented of their Universalistic view (which was the other scenario Matt gave where a Universalist could be saved) in order to be saved then they can not be said to be a Universalist any longer.
____________________Note
8-23-05I have been criticized for this position. Therefore I thought I would add a bit of information for further clarification. When I was first saved the gospel was preached to me and I received Christ as my savior. I called upon the name of the Lord. I sought the Lord Jesus and asked him to forgive me of my sins and I put no reliance on anything in me in anyway. The Lord saved me and he washed me clean. But, I did not continue to go to church because I was not a church-goer. I had gone to that church that night to see a film and ended up receiving Christ. No one sought me out afterwards and no one tried to disciple me. As a result, in my ignorance and drifting, I did not attend a church. I wandered for about two years until the Lord put upon my heart to get close to him. It was at this time in a Bible study that I learned that Jesus had risen physically from the dead. For the best of my recollection I believed that he had risen, I just don't remember knowing that it was a physical resurrection. When I was taught the physical resurrection of Christ from Scriptures I immediately accepted it. But, there are those who are saying that I was not saved because of this. My response is that I did not get saved because I believed in Christ's resurrection. I believed because I was saved. I do not affirm doctrinal regeneration. But, I do very much believe that a true Christian will not deny essential doctrines and because the Holy Spirit is in him, when presented with the truth he will accept it, as did I.
Matt says he was saved before he believed in the body of Christ being physically resurrected and that he only believed in His physical resurrection because he was saved.
And I find nothing wrong with that scenario except, Matt also says that the physical resurrection of Christ is an essential doctrine one must believe in to be saved.
And that if a Universalist does not believe in Christ’s physical resurrection then he cannot be a Christian.
So my question to Matt is, which is it?
If a Universalist cannot be a Christian or saved because they do not believe in Christ’s physical resurrection, why then do you say you were a Christian or saved when you yet did not believe?
You simply cannot have it both ways Matt.
A Universalist must believe in Jesus’ physical resurrection to be saved, but you didn’t have to?
Matt you pasted yourself into a pickle here brother.
No doctrine of any kind saves or unsaves a person.
Just so the reader is aware I am a Christian Universalist an I DO believe in Jesus’ physical resurrection. But that does not make me a Christian, I believe it BECAUSE I am a Christian.
Universalism and the Cults
Universalism teaches that all people will ultimately be saved no matter what they believe here on earth. You could deny God, hate Him, blaspheme against Him, join a satanist group and murder people and still go to heaven.
Although it is true the Universalist contends all will eventually go to heaven, Matt words this as though the Universalist believes murders, blasphemers, Satanist go to heaven in the state their in.
This is NOT what the Universalist teaches and Matt is fully aware of this fact, yet in order to undermine Universalism Matt does not point this out to the reader.
So I will
In Rev.22:14-17 After everything is said and done, all judgment passed, all that go into the lake of fire already placed within we read.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Can the reader not see for themselves that those without the gates if they keep His commandments still have right to the tree of life and can enter through the gates into the city?
Who are these people outside the gates of the city?
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Can the reader not see those outside the city gates are the dogs and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
It is to these people that scriptures proclaim if they keep His commandments they have right to the tree of life and can ENTER the city.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Can the reader not see here that the Spirit and the bride still say COME, and whosoever will can COME and take the water of life FREELY.
Brothers and sister the message is clear, until the last sheep is in the fold the Spirit and the bride say COME and take of the water of life FREELY. Praise God He NEVER gives up on us, even when we give up on Him.
Bible based, non-Christian cults are those groups that claim to be Christian, use the Bible, yet have redefined God, Jesus, and the gospel sufficiently to make salvation of no effect. Part of CARM's purpose is to refute error and teach the truth so that people will not go to hell.
This is a strange statement coming from a Calvinist because the Calvinist belief is only those predestined (the elect) go to heaven and all others go to hell.
So CARMS’s purpose has absolutely no purpose, for if God predestined just the elect to go to heaven then any amount of preaching simply does not matter.
Why preach the gospel at all if God has already predestined who goes to heaven and who does not?
This believes system makes the preaching of the gospel null and void.
And yet Matt says Universalism does this, go figure.
The Calvinist view is no different then the views that the early natural Jews held, thinking that God was only their God and all nations other then theirs was in for THE Judgment.
But Jesus showed us differently, sending the gospel unto the gentile.
Universalism is definately an error that needs to be address.Let me take Mormonism, for example. Is Mormonism wrong? Is it dangerous to the soul? Does it lead to damnation? The universalist would have to say no, even though Mormonism teaches that god came from another planet, has a goddess wife, and that we can become gods (obvious false teaching), universalists teach that Mormons go to heaven. Of course universalists who claim to be Christain might assert that Mormon theology is wrong. But, they would also maintain that in the after life, they would be able to repent and follow the true God.
I already showed how those outside the gate still have right to the tree of life, and all outside the gate will repent (change their minds) and keep His commandments will then be able to enter into the city.
Logically, then, we could make the case that the universalist would encourage the spread of Mormonism since it has good morals.
Hogwash
Mormonism is not Christian. It is false. It is a compilation of lies from the devil. It damns people for believing in a false god, false gospel, and a system of works righteousness that is supposed to help them become saved. But, to the universalist, such heresy amounts only to a goof, an error in judgment, with the ultimate result being heaven.
Again hogwash, Matt would have the reader believe Universalist believe people can enter into heaven in an unrighteous state. This as I have already shown by Rev.22 is not the case.
It makes no difference if a person is a universalist, a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness, or an orthodox Christian since they are all going to heaven according to universalism.
Yes but they will not enter into the city until they keep His commandments.
Get your facts straight Matt.
To a universalist, there would be little or no need to refute Mormonism. Why? Because what is the universalist going to warn him about? Damnation in hell? Not at all. Rather, he'd have to threaten him with heaven!
Hogwash, Matt knows better then this having spoken with many Universalist, yet he still continues to spread hogwash.
The Universalist warns people because everyone reaps what they sow.
Just like in any large family the parents will tell you of one or two who is more head strong then the others and has to be corrected more because of this, beaten with many or few stripes as it were.
God will always correct the child, some just learn faster then others.
Now to Matt’s contention above that the Universalist would have no need to refute Mormonism, does this statement not sit more squarely on the Calvinist view of predestination?
Why bother warning anyone about anything if God has already decided who is going to be saved and who is not.
No amount of preaching is going to change things one iota, because God has already decided the issue.
Thus those going to hell will go to hell no matter what, and those going to heaven will go to heaven no matter what.
Thus the preaching of the gospel has become null and void.
Instead, the universalist is more concerned with converting someone to "truth of universalism." In so doing, they endanger the souls of all who they contact.
Matt say the salvation of all endangers men’s souls, need I remind the reader that John himself testified to the salvation of all in 1 John 4:14
14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
I don’t know if all readers of the KJV know this so I will point something out here.
Whenever you see italic in the KJV they are added words not found in the original language but are supplied by the translators.
So read again 1 John 4:14 without the added words to be and it will show in more force John testimony was that of universal salvation.
14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son the Saviour of the world.
The Father sent the Son the Saviour of the world.
So let me ask you readers, who’s testimony do you believe, Matt’s who says Jesus is not the saviour of the world or Johns who states Jesus is the saviour of the world?
Let me illustrate this with a Universalist witnessing to a Mormon.
Universalist: "Listen here Mormon, if you continue to believe that you can become a god, that Satan and Jesus are literal brothers, that God has a body of flesh and bones and has a goddess wife, and that you can become a god of your own world, you know what is going to happen to you? You're going to heaven! So there!"
Mormon: "Sounds good to me."
Let me use a little illustration of my own.
Calvinist: Listen here Mormon if you continue to believe that you can become a god, that Satan and Jesus are literal brothers, that God has a body of flesh and bones and has a goddess wife, and that you can become a god of your own world, you know what is going to happen to you? Your going to either heaven or hell because God has already predestined you to one of those two places. So there!
Mormon: Then I can believe and do whatever I want and it will not matter in the end because God has already decided the issue for me.
Now did either illustration prove anything? Hardly, for they are both hogwash.
So, where is the power of universalism to correct Satan's lies? Does it carry a warning for those who serve false gods except to say that it isn't nice to believe such things as Mormon doctrines? But, so what? It doesn't matter. Mormonism, and other cults, would lead to heaven.
Hmmmm even after speaking with many Universalists Matt either still does not have an understanding of what we believe.
So for the unenlightened as to Universalist belief I give forth this as to why we warn people. (I am not speaking for Universalists here, just THIS Universalist for other Universalist see this differently then I do.)
Only the Christian has a free will for only in Christ is one set free. Every man that knows not Christ do not have free will because the dead cannot change their station one way or the other. They are always in subjection to the carnal mind and the carnal mind is death. This carnal mind with all its lusts etc. can ONLY produce that which is in its NATURE.
Therefore because the carnal mind is death, death is all it can produce, and therefore by itself it cannot generate life.
Now there are two types of sin, one that is done by our old man nature AGAINST our will and the other is done freely AGAINST the will of God.
Note: that ONLY the Christian who has been set free can wilfully sin against the will of God. Those who do not know God CANNOT sin against God because they do not know Him and only do what is in their nature.
To see the sin by the old man nature AGAINST our will we read in Romans.
Ro.7:14-2514For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
If the Christian CANNOT do his own will because of the law of sin in his members what can be said of those that know not God?
The law of sin in our members are the sins against our will (again this is speaking of only those that know Christ) which causes us to sin.
These sins by the law of sin in a Christian are a sin not unto death, because they are produced by the law of sin in us.
But there is a sin unto death which ONLY those who know God can commit.
This sin which is unto death is to wilfully sin against God.
We see these two types of sin here.
1John. 5:1616If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
The sin NOT unto death are the sins that we commit because of the old man nature (law of sin) in our members.
The sin UNTO death which we are not to pray for is to sin wilfully against God. There is NO more sacrifice for wilfully sinning against the will of God.
Heb.10:26-27 26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
ONLY those who have had their will set free by Jesus Christ and come into the knowledge of the truth can commit this sin.To know the will of God and to wilfully go against it is the sin unto death.
Think of Adam Adam wilfully sinned which is a sin UNTO death.
There was no more sacrifice for Adams sin.Death was promised as punishment and death came.
The only sin for which a man is beaten with many or few stripes is the sin (wilfully) UNTO death.This sin UNTO death is blaspheme against the Holy Ghost which is not forgiven but we must reap what we have sown.This does not mean by any means that we who have committed this sin UNTO death cannot be saved, all it is saying is if you wilfully follow the old man nature instead of the Holy Spirit is that you will reap the rewards for that sin. How many times you reap that sin will determine how many stripes you will receive.
Is there orthodoxy in Universalism? Does it have the power and right to refute the errors of the cults? I don't see how. But, I do see that it is dangerous.
So to did the Scribes and Pharisees and even Paul at one time, until he received light from on high.
Matt. 25:46 and Universalism
"And these will go away into eternal punishment,but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46).
The universalists do not believe in eternal punishment. Universalists teach that all will eventually be saved through the atonement of Jesus. Therefore, when the Bible speaks of eternal punishment and hell fire, etc., the universalist interprets it to mean an inner sorrow due to loss of reward and/or they maintain that the word "eternal" does not mean "without end."
Matt here seems to want the reader to look at only half of the meaning of word eternal, that being without end, but does not point out the other half of its meaning which is without beginning.
Now why would he do this?
Could it be because he is aware that the scriptures state aionios has a beginning.
Titus 1:2
2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Both the word eternal and world are aionios in the Greek, thus the reader can see aionios has a beginning.
And as aionios has a beginning Matt’s definition of eternal CANNOT be accepted.
Aionios means age-lasting, age-during or age-abiding, it does NOT mean without beginning and without end as the reader can see clearly from Titus.
In Greek, the word "eternal" is the word "", or "aionion." This word occurs in two places in Matt. 25:46: Let's look at it again in a Greek Interlinear form:
And will go off these into punishment eternal, the but right ones into life eternal.
I don’t know what Greek Interlinear Matt is quoting from, but here is what the Greek
Interlinear from the Original language texts says.
And shall be from coming/shall be coming away these/these ones into chastening eonian the yet just/just ones into life eonian.
So as the reader can see those who go into aionios punishment is aionios chastening.
Now who do the scriptures state the Lord chastens?
Those He loves Heb.12:6 & Rev.3:19
And who is it that the Lord loves?
For God so loved the world Jn.3:16
Thus cannot the reader see that the everlasting punishment spoken of in the KJV is really the aionios chastening of the Lord and that the Lords chastening is for our correction?
The exact same word "," "aionion" is used to describe the duration of punishment as well as of the life of the righteous - those who are saved. The same word describes both conditions. If it means one thing in the first part of this sentence, then it means the same thing in the second part since they are both in the same context and both are describing time-duration of the states of the unsaved and the saved. If the punishment is eternal, then so is the life. Likewise, if, as the universalist says, the punishment is not eternal, then neither is the life. You can't pick and choose how the word is applied in this verse to suit your own theology. But the universalists do just that.
I agree whole heartedly with Matt here they must mean the same thing, and as the reader is now aware aionios/aionion means age-lasting, age-during or age-abiding, it does NOT mean without beginning and without end. And this can be clearly seen from Titus as I mentioned before.
I am glad Matt brought up this point that if the word means one thing in the first part of the sentence it MUST mean the same in the second part of the sentence, and if one changes the meaning then they are just picking and choosing how the word is used to suit their own theology.
So why is it then when we read in Ro.5:18
Romans 5:18
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
That Matt will tell you in the first part all men is all men and in the second part all men only means some men?
Again Matt backed himself into a corner here.
They want to have Jesus say that eternal life is forever but eternal punishment is not -- even though Jesus used the same word, in the same breath, to describe them both. It just doesn't fit their preconceived ideas.
Although some Universalist believe after this fashion, not all do.
This Universalist does NOT change the meaning, aionios means age-lasting, age-during or age-abiding and will always mean age-lasting, age-during or age-abiding.
Let's translate it the universalist way....
The universalists are fond of translating Bible verses and transliterating a particular word. So, I will use their style in the following translation:
And these will go away into aionion punishment,but the righteous into aionion life.1
Or, to take a little liberty, it could be translated as,
And these will go away into non "aionion" punishment,but the righteous into "aionion" life."
I inserted the word "non" here to reflect what the universalists intend the word "aionion" to mean when describing punishment -- but not life.
Notice it isn't there when describing life because the Universalist believes that the life of the righteous is without end: eternal.
As already stated some Universalist do this but not all, for myself I change nothing within the verse, in both cases it is age-lasting, age-during or age-abiding.
This is the kind of thing the universalist must do in order to justify his position. It is clearly false and demonstrates an intrusion into the text of a theological perspective.
This is also something that Matt does himself concerning Ro.5:18 in order to justify his view, a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black.
So as Matt says Universalist do this in order to justify their position and in some cases this is true, and I can only summarize they do this because just like Matt the Universalist also believes God is eternal in the sense of without beginning and without end.
But the Universalist need not change the meaning of aionios in such a fashion to understand Gods eternal (as in without beginning and without end) being. For there are other words in scripture to show forth Gods eternal (as in without beginning and without end) being.
Before I show how God is eternal in the sense of without beginning and without end lets look at a few more scriptures that will help the reader understand aionios only means age-lasting and is of limited duration.
The Hebrew word for aionios is olam, so lets look at a few scriptures from the old testament.
Habakkuk 3:6
6 He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.
The reader can see here that both the hills and Gods ways are everlasting. So if olam or aionios in the Greek means without beginning and without end then the hills had no beginning and will have no end, but we know that the hills have a beginning and we no that they have an end because they bow down.
Now the only way for those who believe in eternal torment can get around this is to say olam means one thing in the first part of the sentence and means something else in the second part of the sentence. Thus even though Matt says the Universalist must do this in order for their theology to work, we can see that those who believe in eternal torment must do this in order to make their theology to work.
But the Unversalist need not do thing in order for their theology to work, I’ll show why in a few minutes, please bare with me.
Psalm 41:13
13 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting. Amen, and Amen.
Psalm 90:1-2
1 Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. 2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Here the reader can see God is from olam/aionios to olam/aionios.
If olam/aionios means without beginning and without end then these scripture makes absolutely no sense, for can there be more then ONE eternity? Hardly, so the reader cans see olam/aionios is used in the limited sense of age-lasting.
So as the reader can see olam/aionios means age-lasting and is always used in a limited sense.
But some will say if it is always used in a limited sense then that would mean aionios life is also limited in duration. This is CORRECT, aionios life is of limited duration.
I already know many will say that’s blaspheme, but bare with me for a few more moments if you will.
Lets go back to Ps.90 for a moment and read it again.
Psalm 90:1-2
1 Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. 2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
We have already seen olam/aionios is of limited duration, but what else does this scripture tell us? It tells us that the LIFE of God is GREATER then that of olam/aionios, for God is FROM olam/aionios TO olam/aionios.
The Life of God and of Christ is not just olam/aionios but their LIFE is MORE then that, yea MUCH MORE.
Their LIFE exceeds the olam/aionios life just as a week exceeds a day, a month exceeds a week and a year exceeds a month, so to does the LIFE of God in Christ exceed olam/aionios LIFE.
The error both camps fall into is the belief that aionios life is all the life there is in God and Christ.
But as the reader just read God is FROM olam/aionios TO olam/aionios, thus is it not then clear that we to in Christ are given a LIFE far greater then just olam/aionios LIFE.
Lets read in Hebrew and you will see Christ life (and therefore ours) exceeds that of olam/aionios life.
Hebrews 7:16
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Akatalutos-Endless: indissoluble, not subject to destruction
From the root of A or Alpha: Christ is the Alpha to indicate that he is the beginning and the end
Now as Akatalutos-Endless clearly shows that of a life without beginning and without end, why did not the writers of the scriptures use Akatalutos concerning punishment and life instead of olam/aionios? Is it not because olam/aionios is of limited duration?
What we receive in Christ is a AKATALUTOS/ENDLESS LIFE, a life that spans EVERY olam/aionios age-lasting life. Just as Gods life is FROM olam/aionios TO olam/aionios so to is ours in Christ.
Lets read in Pet. To further see this life we are to inherit that is MUCH MORE then olam/aionios life.
1 Peter 1:3-4
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
Aphthartos-incorruptible: uncorrupted, not liable to corruption or decay, imperishable
Again From the root of A or Alpha: Christ is the Alpha to indicate that he is the beginning and the end
Amarantos-fadeth not away: not fading away, unfading, perennial
Again From the root of A or Alpha: Christ is the Alpha to indicate that he is the beginning and the end
Can not the reader see here just how much more grand our life is in Christ then just olam/aionios age-abiding life?
These are just a few examples of how MUCH MORE our life in Christ is then olam/aionios life.
If punishment was to be eternal in the sense of without beginning and without end surely the Holy Spirit would have use one of the words expressed above to show this, but NEVER is any of these words that express endlessness EVER used in the punishments of God.
Praise God there is MUCH MORE to life in Christ then just that of olam/aionios life, and it is because so many of God people do not realise this that they fall into the error of changing the meaning of words within the same sentence.
Brothers and sister there is absolutely no need to do this if one can but see the life we have in Christ is MUCH MORE then olam/aionios life.
Even FROM everlasting TO everlasting, thou art God.
This is something Jehovah's Witnesses do when they "translated" the Bible. They changed words to make them agree with their theology.Nevertheless, another translation according to universalist presuppositions might be:
"And these will go away into non-eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
But, the universalists state that "aionion" is an age, a period of time that can have a finish. They would then answer this objection and say that punishment is for a time and so is life, but that both of these are for an "aionion" period and after each period is another. In the case of the aionion punishment, it would end and then after that, they would have eternal life. Likewise those possessing eternal life already in the aionion "age" will continue to have it in the next age. The only problem is that that isn't what the text is saying. Jesus isn't setting up a time duration argument. He is telling us that there is eternal life and eternal death.
Just finished showing that aionios is of limited duration in both cases and how we have in Christ a life MUCH MORE then that of aionios life.
The universalists have constructed a multi-age scenario to fit their perspective.
Also have already shown how scripture itself speaks of different ages.
In so doing, they have allowed for the occurrence of salvation after death, another teaching that is unbiblical. Heb. 9:27 says, "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment," (NASB).
The quoting of Heb.9:27 does not show Universalism to be unbiblical. All’s it shows is that after men die then comes the judgment. The Universalist have no problem with this because we see all judgment as God chastening correction.
The judgment comes from God and is upon the sinner.
Let the reader be aware judgement MUST begin with the house of God, and if God judges you not then you are not His sons.
The universalist would have some sort of a judgment that leads to punishment that ends and then there is eternal salvation in the afterlife.
The only reason why this is so Matt is like I explained God people (not just Universalist) see aionios life as the fullness of life, but when they come into the realisation that His life is MUCH MORE the aionios life then they have no need to change the meaning of the words within the same sentence.
But for those who believe in eternal torment they will always have to change the meaning within the sentence in order for their theology to work. And this is clearly seen in how those who believe in eternal torment change Ro.5:18 around to suit their theology
In so teaching, they have ignored the translations of countless scholars and adopted those interpretations that agree with them in order to suit their theological bias.
The pot calling the kettle black again, Matt is fully aware that Universalist take their meanings from the original language of the scriptures, something you won’t find in those who believe in eternal torment. Wonder why that is? Because if they go by the original language their doctrine fall apart, therefore they rely on the translation of men.
This is something they do very frequently, and with a vengence since they often turn a harsh tone towards those who do not agree with them.
Matt would have the reader believe that only the Universalist does this, but I have never seen a one sided fight, it always takes two to tango.
If the Universalist kept records of the wrongs done to them, they to could have a list of the words spoken to them by those who believe in eternal torment as Matt does on CARM.
Matt Love keeps NO records of the wrong done to them.
I hope you can see the inconsistency of translating and interpreting Matt. 25:46 any other way than stating that the punishment is eternal as is the life of the righteous.
And I hope the reader can now see there is a life MUCH MORE then aionios life.
_______________
1. As a comment, with this type of translation, it is easy to confuse what the text is really saying because the reader is not familiar with the Greek word "aionion." The Universalists often do this: partially translate a verse leaving a transliterated Greek word or two in place of English words. They can then tell you what the word "really means." This can be misleading.
Reader just get yourself a good literal translation and you will see for yourself the word eternal is NEVER used in it.
Mark 3:28-29 and Universalism
The universalist states that there is no unforgivable sin because all people who have ever lived will ultimately be reconciled to God; in other words, all sins from all people who have ever lived will be forgiven. However, if there were a sin that will never be forgiven, then Universalism would be proven wrong. Mark 3:28-29 are important verses in showing that there is an unforgivable sin.
"Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" (NASB).
The Greek Interlinear of Mark 3:28-29 is as follows:
Amen I say to you that all will be sent off to the sons of the men the sins and the insults as much as if they might insult who but - might insult in the spirit the holy not he has sending off into the AGE but guilty he is of eternal sin.
Verses 28 and 29 are in contrast to each other. Verse 28 says that all sins shall be forgiven. Verse 29 clarifies the statement and flatly says that there is a sin that "never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."
Even in Matt’s quote from the interlinear Greek the word NEVER is not used, in its place we see the word AGE so never having forgiveness is not mentioned in the scriptures.
Lets look at those same scriptures from Interlinear Original Language Texts
Amen/verily I am saying to you/to ye that all shall-be-being-from-let/shall be being pardoned to the/the sons of the humans the miss-effects/penalties of sins and the harm-averments/blasphemes as much as/whatever if ever they shall be harm-averring/the shall be blaspheming
Who yet ever should be harm-averring /should be blaspheming into the spirit the holy not is having from-letting/pardon into the eon but liable is of eonian miss-effect/penalty of the sin.
Again we can see no mention of a sin that NEVER can be forgiven. Again we see EON or AGE in place of the word NEVER and we also see that it is an EONIAN/AGE-LASTING sin, not a sin without end.
Thus Matt’s case for a eternal sin falls flat, what Mk.3:28-29 is really saying is that if one blasphemes the Holy Spirit one is not forgiven in this age or in the age to come.
Note: before the death of Christ everyone was under the age of the law, after Christ death everyone is under the age of grace. It is these two ages Mark is speaking of, blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is not forgiven under law, nor is it forgiven under grace, for everyone reaps what they have sown. But during the age of Judgment or as some call it the millennium age those still in sin are pruned without the gate and once the pruning is complete they have right to the tree of life as I already have shown in Rev.22.
But lets just suppose there is a sin that NEVER can be forgiven as Matt says, what would happen?
Jesus Christ is then being eternally tormented for if we do not forgive men their trespasses then neither will the Father forgive us.Mt.6:15
Therefore if Jesus does not forgive us then He is not forgiven Himself and must be then eternally tormented.
But the good news is Jesus forgave even those who crucified Him saying Father forgive them as they no not what they do.Lk.23:34
This sin is Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit -- which is stating that Jesus did His miracles by the power of the devil.Verse 29 has the contrasting preposition "but", Greek "de." The use of the word "but" is showing that there is a contrast, or an exception to the previous statement. All sins are forgivable, but blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not. That is why the word "but" is there, to show that there is a qualification, an exception to the first statement.
Already showed that it is not forgiven in the age of law or the age of grace but is forgiven after the pruning.
So, how do the universalists answer this verse? They do it in two ways. First, they say that the word "aiona", "age" can mean a period of time that ends. Now, this is true sometimes and not others.
It is ALWAYS true, both aion and aionios deal with a limited time period, ALWAYS.
There are verses that use the word "aiona" that can refer to non-eternal duration (John 8:35; Luke 1:55) and there are verses that use it and mean eternal duration (Matt. 21:19; Mark 11:14; John 4:14; 6:51; 6:58, etc.). It is the context that determines the meaning of the word.
Matt here is playing with words in order for his views to be accepted.
Here it means an age, but here it means eternal.
Is this not what he just finished saying the Universalist does, changing the meaning of the word to suit ones theology?
Yet now Matt wants to change the meaning because context determines what it really means.
This is the same as the Universalist who states the subject determines the meaning of the word. Matt disagrees with the Universalist that says this, then turns around and says the same thing only phrasing it differently.
But I say to both these views that aion or aionios ALWAYS deals with a limited time period within an age, and is NEVER used to mean without beginning and without end.
But it is big mistake to think that "aiona" always means a finite time.
Why? Because if it does then Matt’s theology falls flat on its face.
So in order to make his theology work Matt has to play around with words.
It is a conjecture on the Universalists part that the word "age", in Mark 3:29, means a definite period of time that will end. But that isn't the case. As I said, Jesus is contrasting the second statement (unforgivable sin) with the first statement (forgivable sin).
It is not conjecture it is a FACT aonian ALWAYS deals with an AGE.
Matt himself even says sometimes it does and sometimes it does not, thus Matt wants to be the one to determine when it means one thing and when it means another. That is the perfect illustration of one who must play with words in order for their doctrine to work.
It can’t mean this here because if it does then my doctrine falls flat, so I will say it means age here but here it means eternal.
Can the reader not see the folly in people doing this? Yet this is exactly what Matt want you to believe.
Second, the Universalist will go to Matt. 12:32 which says,
And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come."
They state that "the age to come" is the 1000 year reign of Christ which will end.
Although some believe it after this fashion, I see it a little differently as the reader has already seen.
Therefore, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will be forgiven after the 1000 year reign. They then state that Mark 3:29 must be interpreted in light of Matt. 12:32. Granted, we must look at all the verses on a subject in order to get an accurate understanding what is said. But, the logic of the Universalist is wrong. Here is why.
Mark 3:29 states that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (BHS) will never be forgiven.
This verse clearly states the impossibility of forgiveness of this sin.
Matt 12:32 states that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven "in this age or the age to come."
If Matt 12:32 is interpreted to mean that BHS will be forgiven, then that contradicts Mark 3:29 which states it will not be forgiven.
If Matt 12:32 is interpreted to mean that BHS will not be forgiven, then it does not contradict Mark 3:29.
Therefore, the only way to harmonize both verses is to say that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
Well the word NEVER is nowhere found in Mk3:29 as the reader is now aware from both interlinear versions it is NOT to be found, but instead we find AGE and EON.
So again Matt’s argument falls flat.
If Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, then Universalism is wrong.
A comparison of translations
Instead of trying to define the Greek text ad nauseum explaining how and why words are translated, I've simply supplied ten Bible translations along with a commonly used Universalist translation of these two verses.
Bible Version
Mark 3:28-29
NASB
"Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"
NIV
I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
NKJV
"Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29"but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation"
KJV
Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
RSV
"Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"
1901 ASV
Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin:
Phillips
"Believe me, all men's sins can be forgiven and all their blasphemies. But there can never be any forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That is an eternal sin."
Darby
Verily I say unto you, that all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and all the injurious speeches [with] which they may speak injuriously; 29 but whosoever shall speak injuriously against the Holy Spirit, to eternity has no forgiveness; but lies under the guilt of an everlasting sin;
BWE
`I tell you the truth. All wrong things that people do and say about anyone will be forgiven. 29 But people who say wrong things against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. A person who does that will be punished for ever.'
Weymouth
"In solemn truth I tell you that all their sins may be pardoned to the sons of men, and all their blasphemies, however they may have blasphemed; 29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, he remains for ever unabsolved: he is guilty of a sin of the Ages."
Concordant(Universalist translation)
28 "Verily, I am saying to you that all shall be pardoned the sons of mankind, the penalties of the sins and the blasphemies, whatsoever they should be blaspheming, 29 yet whoever should be blaspheming against the holy spirit is having no pardon for the eon, but is liable to the eonian penalty for the sin" --
First of all, the ten translations above, all done by very reputable scholars, all say the same thing: Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven -- ever!
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
Young's Literal Translation, has it
28`Verily I say to you, that all the sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and evil speakings with which they might speak evil,
29but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness -- to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment;'
Rotherham Emphasized Bible, has it
Verily, I say unto you - All things shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, - the sins and the profanities wherewithal they shall profane;
But, whosoever shall revile against the Holy Spirit, hath no forgiveness, unto times age-abiding, - but is guilty of an age-abiding sin:
Seems Matt does not like literal translations of the scripture, this should tell the reader something.
If you notice, the Concordant version (done by Universalists) did not translate the Greek words "eon" (age) and "eonian" (eternal) into English, but left them transliterated. In fact, the word in Greek is not "eon" but "aiona." All other words are in plain English accept for these two. Why? I believe it is because they wanted to influence the way the text sounds and is interpreted. By not translating the words, and by telling you that the word "eon" only means a duration of time with an ending, then, the universalists can get you to accept the idea that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is forgivable and that their theology is correct. There is just one problem. It isn't.
Matt says all 10 translation above are done by reputable scholars, you’ll note that the concordant is the 11 translation and is done by a Universalist so according to Matt is not reputable. But as the reader can see I added 2 LITERAL translations of the scriptures and the concordant matches up more closely to a literal translation then any of the so called reputable translations.
So according to Matt’s conclusions Young’s literal translation and Rotherham Emphasized Bible must fall under the same category as the concordant, that they to are unworthy translations. And if they are so to is the Interlinear Original Language Texts.
First Matt wants to determine who is a Christian and who is not, then he wants to determine the usage of how a word is used, and now he wants to determine what is and what is not a reputable translation.
I guess any translation that shows forth anything contrary to Matt’s theology is unreliable.
1 Tim. 4:10 and universalism"For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers" (NASB). "(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe" (NIV). "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe" (KJV). Much is made out of 1 Tim. 4:10 by the Universalist to claim that Jesus wil redeem all people whether or not they accept or reject Christ as Savior here on earth. Eventually, they say, all people will repent (either here or in the after-life) and come to a saving relationship with God. 1 Tim. 4:10 is used as proof. Unfortunately, the verse does not prove what the Universalists hope it does. Can God be called the Savior of all men and yet not redeem all? Yes.
NOPE
All people are, by nature, born under wrath (Eph. 2:3) and should go to hell. Why? Because God is holy and we are sinners. Yet, we have hope in Christ. The Christian is saved by faith (Eph. 2:8) and will join the Lord in heaven.
Least the reader forget while we were yet SINNERS Christ died for us R.5:8Jesus did not die for us AFTER we believed, but BEFORE we believed.
But, the unbeliever is under judgment. John 3:18 says, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (KJV).
What does this scripture have to do with eternal torment in the next world?
It says they are condemned ALREADY.
Therefore before we believed in Christ we to were ALREADY condemned.So into the fire with us all, Praise God we all go through the fire or said in another way the fire goes through us.
For Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? 15He that walketh righteously…Is.33;14-15
Why does God not simply destroy them as is His right?
What! Jesus said I did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them. Lk.9:56
Matt here seems to want to change Jesus purpose in coming.
Because of the Christians! Because God is being patient with the unbeliever, allowing them to enjoy the blessings of life in this world without the rightful condemnation of God falling upon them.
Did we not just finish reading that they are condemned ALREADY? Yes we did Jn.3:18
This is what the Bible states:"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom. 9:22-23, NASB).As you can see, God is patient with the unregenerate. They receive a delayed judgment because of God's love for the believer.
This is such a poor understanding of what Paul is talking about in Ro.9For a clearer understanding read my article fitted to destruction.
In this sense, Jesus is the Savior of the world because He holds back His judging hand from all who rightly and immediately deserve it. Judgment is delayed. This is a blessing received from God upon the unbeliever. In fact, God often blesses the unbeliever because of the presence of a believer."And it came about that from the time he made him overseer in his house, and over all that he owned, the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house on account of Joseph; thus the Lord’s blessing was upon all that he owned, in the house and in the field" (Gen. 39:5, NASB).Consider also Matt. 13:24-30 and the parable of the wheat and the tares. In it Jesus compares the world to a field. He later interprets it by stating that "the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one," (Matt. 13:38). But in Matt. 13:20-30 Jesus states that the tares are not dealt with right away because the wheat is there among them. "But he *said, ‘No; lest while you are gathering up the tares, you may root up the wheat with them. 30 ‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest," (NASB). So, can it be said that the tares were saved from judgment? Yes...temporarily. The unbeliever enjoys a delayed judgment. But with the Christian, Jesus is especially their Savior and judgment is permanently removed from them.
Although I agree with Matt that the unbeliever is blessed because of the Christian, we part ways where Matt says judgment is permanently removed from the Christian.
Judgment MUST begin with the house of God 1Pet.4:17 and this is exactly the SAME judgment that Jesus and those crucified on the cross with Him went through.
For one who was crucified with Christ says to the other Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?/judgment
The problem opponents have with God’s judgments is they do not understand that His judgments are ALWAYS used for CORRECTION, and until God gives them this understanding they will continue to believe Gods judgments when given to the Christian are different then when He judges the sinner.
Thus they have yet to realise what manor of spirit they are of.
Luke 9:51-56 51 And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, 52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. 53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. 54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? 55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. 56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
Reread the above passage and you will see those who REJECTED Christ, you will see the FUTURE CHURCH saying consume them in the fire, you will see Jesus REBUKING the future church saying Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. 56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.
Cannot the reader see here the parallels of what today’s churches are teaching?
Do they not teach that those who reject Christ are going to be eternally tormented in fire?
But praise God Jesus says
they know not what manner of spirit they are of.All are made saveable by Jesus' sacrificeAnother way in which Jesus is the savior of all men is that He has made all people saveable. Without Jesus' sacrifice, none could ever be saved. Since Jesus, who is the word made flesh (John 1:1,14), atoned for sin, all people are now redeemable. He is the Savior of all, but especially of believers. That is, all are now redeemable due to the sacrifice of Christ, but redemption is specifically applied to those who trust in Christ.
Matt does not believe the words he just expressed above, Matt say Jesus made all people saveable, but Matt believes Jesus only came to save the elect. Therefore either Jesus failed to save all men or He did not come to save all men only the elect.
You cannot have it both ways Matt, you either believe Jesus is a failure or you believe He only came to save the elect. And both scenarios contradict scripture.
The scriptures tell us
John 3:17 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 4:42 42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
John 12:47 47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
1 John 4:14 14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
John 1:29 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
The forerunner and the follower both believed Jesus was/is the saviour of the world.Whose testimony do you believe reader Matt’s or both John’s?
Is God the Savior?
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers (1 Tim. 4:10, NASB).
1 Tim. 4:10 is referring to God in particular and not necessarily Jesus in particular. Does the title "God" include Jesus? Of course, since Jesus is God in flesh (Col. 2:9), the Savior. God, who is a Trinity, is called Savior in Psalm 106:21; Isaiah 43:3; Luke 1:47; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; Titus 1:3-4; and Titus 2:10. It is obvious that the term refers to God in the generic sense of being the Savior of all men since He brings salvation to all though it is not accepted by all. This is why it says that God (not Jesus) is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. How is it especially to believers? Simple. It is especially and specifically realized only by those who are believers.
O boy, first Jesus is a failure to save all men, now God is to. I really don’t understand how people can believe God is all powerful if He fails so miserably.
Instead of an unfailing God they teach all about a God who fails.
God sent His son into the world to save the world, ain’t going to happen, FAILURE
Jesus came into the world to save the world, ain’t going to happen, FAILURE
Talk about UNBELIEF, and we know where those who walk in unbelief go according to those who believe in eternal torment.
God is the saviour of ALL MEN, no if ands or buts about it.
When it says especially of believers it is pointing out the contrast between the overcomer or first fruits or body of Christ or elect, pick whichever name you want they amount to the same thing, the body of Christ.
To see how Jesus first saves His body and then all of mankind read my article body of Christ
Furthermore, only Jesus is the mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5) and He mediates only between the saved and God. He does not mediate His atoning work for the unredeemed. His being Savior is generic for all, but specific for the saved. Therefore, this verse does not necessitate that all will be redeemed.
What! Hogwash
Read it yourself
1 Timothy 2:1-6
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
It says plainly that Jesus gave Himself a ransom for ALL, and that we are to make supplications, prayers, INTERCESSIONS for ALL MEN.
Those who are already whole need not a physician.
1 John 2:1-2
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pet. 3:9. Is it God's will that all people be saved?
"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9).
To begin with, the answer to the question "Is it God's will that all people be saved?" must be "Yes," because that it what the Bible says.
Matt again uses double speak here, he say yes it is God will that all people be saved, but he really believes that only the elect who are predestined are the ones God wants to save and all others go into the fire.
In one point the Calvinist actually believe the same as the Universalist does, that being that if Jesus came to save the whole world and the whole world is not saved then that would make Jesus a failure. But because they believe in eternal torment they have come to the conclusion that Jesus only came to save the elect.
But here is the problem the Calvinist’s faces, if it is God will to save all people (and Matt just admitted it is) and Jesus only came to save the elect, then Jesus did not do the perfect will of the Father.
The other problem is if Jesus did come to save all people but is only going to save the elect then Jesus becomes a failure.
Both scenarios should be abhorrent in the eyes of any child of God.
But does that mean that all will be saved? The universalists believe so. They will appeal to 1 Tim. 2:3-4 and 2 Pet. 3:9 combined with other verses where God says He will accomplish what He desires. They then say that since God says He will accomplish all His desires and He desires all to be saved, then all will be saved.
". . . and I [God] will accomplish all My good pleasure," (Isaiah 46:10).
"But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases," (Psalm 115:3).
"Whatever the Lord pleases, He does," (Psalm 135:6).
So basically the Universalist believes God will, will be done because God says so Himself.
Matt however does not believe Gods own words and says God cannot fulfill His will.
Yet the Calvinist belief is that Gods will is done and nothing can stay His hand, for they believe that the elect are predestined to go to heaven and all others are to go to hell, and nothing anyone can do can change this outcome, because it is God preordained will.
So out of one side of Matt’s mouth he says Gods will, will not be done, and out of the other side he says Gods will, will be done. The perfect example of double speak.
This is a straight-forward approach, but it is also very simplistic and incomplete because it does not take into account all of scripture relating to the subject of God's desire. Instead, the Universalists "proof-text" their way into a foregone conclusion by picking and choosing certain scriptures and combining them to form an implied conclusion.
Hardly, Matt simply does not believe God will accomplish all His good pleasure when applied to all men, but Matt will maintain that God will accomplish all His good pleasure when speaking of only the elect.
Matt want his cake and eat it to.
This is how error is born and it is not good theology.
Something like your double speak Matt.
You can’t have it both ways Matt, either Gods will, will be done or not even the elect are guarantied to be saved.
Instead, the proper thing to do is to look at all of scripture on a topic and draw conclusions from the whole, not the part.
I agree, and it is something Matt obviously need to do.
I will gather a broader scope of scripture dealing with this subject and attempt to show that God's desire is not always accomplished and, therefore, the claim of the universalist that the above verses prove that all will be saved, is in error.
And if God will is not always accomplished why do you believe everyone predestined to be saved will be saved? Is predestination by the will of man or the will of God?
Matt just keeps backing himself into corner after corner.
To begin with, are God's desires always accomplished? No, they are not. God's desire is that people do what is right and not sin: "To do righteousness and justice is desired by the Lord rather than sacrifice," (Prov. 21:3). But people still sin in spite of God's stated desire. Was it the desire of God that Adam and Eve rebel? No. Was it God's will that David commit adultery? No. Yet, they did the very thing God did not want. God commands that all people repent (Acts 17:30); but not all do. Clearly, God's will is not always done. In theology, when examining this issue of God's will and His allowance of sin, we distinguish between what is called God's perfect will and His permissive will. In His perfect will, He desires that all refrain from sin. But in His permissive will, He allows sin to exist. In this sense, He has two wills regarding sin. He desires that sin not exist because it is contrary to His nature, yet He wills that it does by making provision for it in His sovereign plan. This does not mean that God brought sin into existence. It means that He simply permitted it by allowing the fall. He then uses it, and other sins, for His glory and purpose. Please recall the account of Joseph's brothers who sinned by selling him into slavery and then lying to their father about it. After many years when the family was reunited, Joseph said, "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive" (Gen. 50:20). God meant it for good? How could that be if God is only passively allowing things to occur? Here, Joseph states that God had a purpose in their sin. Though God does not want sin, He made provision for it in His divine plan. Consider also how evil people conspired against Jesus to bring Him to death. Was this God's plan that they do this?
"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28).
Do you see how God predestined Herod and Pontius Pilate to carry out His will? Didn't they sin in condemning Jesus? Yes! Did God predestine them to do what He planned? Yes! Did God make them sin? No, for God does not tempt anyone (James 1:13). Yet, God, in His sovereignty predestined them to do what they did. God is in control of history and it goes where He directs it. Though He does not desire that people sin, He makes room for it. Therefore, we can plainly see that God can desire one thing and even ordain another by giving it a place in His sovereign plan. So, how can anyone assert that based on 1 Tim. 2:3-4 and 2 Pet. 3:9 combined with Isaiah 46:10; Psalm 115:3, and Psalm 135:6 above, that all will be saved because that is God's desire and God's will is always done? They cannot. God can desire all be saved, but not ordain that all are by making provision in His plan for their damnation: "The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil," (Prov. 16:4).Again, simply because God states that He desires all people to be saved does not mean that all will be saved. This is particularly important when we notice that God elects people (Matt. 24:24,31; Mark 13:20; Rom. 8:33), predestines them (Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:1-11), appoints them to eternal life (Acts 13:48), and grants that they believe (Phil. 1:29). We must ask why doesn't God elect all, predestine all, appoint all, or grant that all believe when He has the power to do so? Is it because God is incapable of carrying out His will? Or is there something greater than God at work? Of course not. God is in absolute control. He can desire one thing (that people not sin), yet ordain another (plan that sin exist in the world). Likewise, God can desire that all be saved, yet not ordain that they are.
Now that’s a well thought out explanation Matt Just gave IF God only dealt with man in this age. But we are all well aware God does not just deal with man in this age but also in the age to come.
When God said I will accomplish all My good pleasure and that He worketh all things after the counsel of His own will Is.46:10 & Eph.1:11 it is incumbent on the child of God to believe just what God Himself proclaims.
Matt does not believe Gods will, will be done because Matt is only looking at the present age we now live it where Gods will is not yet being done.
Jesus taught us to pray Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Mt.6:9-10
To me it is obvious the Fathers kingdom has not yet come nor is His will yet being done on earth.
Thus Matt concludes because the Fathers will is not yet done on earth as it is in heaven that the Fathers will, will be thwarted, but this is just not the case, for God Himself proclaimed I will accomplish ALL my good pleasure.
In the age to come when His kingdom is on the earth His will, will be done and He will accomplish ALL His good pleasure.
When the child of God looks to understand God and His purpose they must come into the realisation that He is the everlasting God or literally the God of the ages, and when they come into this realisation then Gods word does not contradict itself.
Isaiah 55:10-1110 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
The WORD did come out from God, made in the likeness of flesh for the salvation of the whole world. And as the WORD was sent forth it will not return void but shall accomplish EVERYTHING that it was sent to do.
Why do so many still believe His WORD came in vain? The salvation of the whole world was His purpose in coming so what can we say if He does not fulfill His purpose? There is only one conclusion, His WORD returned void. Believe what you will, I believe His WORD will do exactly what He came to do. Like it or not brothers and sisters Gods WORD Jesus Christ will fulfill to the fullest exactly what He came to do, THE SALVATION OF ALL.
What Does God Want?
Some will object to the claim that God sometimes wants one thing and yet does another. They would assert that this would be a contradiction. But it is not since God has obviously done this. Is it a contradiction when a judge wants to show mercy to all people but orders that criminals be punished? Is it a contradiction when the judge says to a murderer, "You shall not murder!" but, according to the law, sentences him to death? No. Though the desire and action be different, there is no contradiction at all. The judge is under obligation to keep the Law. . . and so is God. He must remain true to His revealed Law which is a reflection of His divine character. After all, God is just and must punish sin.
I agree with Matt here, God is just and must punish sin. The problem here though is Matt sees God punishment as a bad thing, but Gods punishment is all for correction, just as any good Father punishes their children when they fall into error so to does or Father in heaven.
But again Matt does not really believe what he stated above, because he also believes the elect are not punished for their sins, he will say something to the effect of, but that is so because of Jesus sacrifice for them. But Jesus sacrifice was not just for the elect but for the sins of the whole world 1Jn.2:2.
What Matt does not understand is that we all reap what we sow, when we are bad God punishes/corrects us. It really is as simple as that.
To further illustrate the point that God can ordain something different than what He desires, please consider the scriptures below.
What God Desires What God Arranges
"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance," (2 Pet. 3:9).
"just as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not and ears to hear not, down to this very day,'" (Rom. 11:8).
"And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God; but those who are outside get everything in parables, 12in order that while seeing, they may see and not perceive; and while hearing, they may hear and not understand lest they return and be forgiven," (Mark 4:11-12).
We can see that God says He does not wish any to perish. But, we can also see that God gave Israel eyes to not see with and ears to not hear with. Likewise, Jesus, who is God in flesh, purposely spoke to people in parables so they would not perceive and repent (Mark 4:11-12). If God wants all saved, why would He arrange it so people were blinded and prevented from seeing? Some will say that the people did this to themselves. But that is not what the text says. Clearly, God is the one performing the actions in preventing them to see. In this case, He desires one thing and does another.
Already covered just covered this above, and again Matt’s problem here stem from the fact that he does not believe God continues to work in and for man in the age to come.
And the reason God gave them eyes not to see and ears not to hear was because of their rebelliousness Eze.12:2
So yes the people brought it upon themselves, contrary to what Matt would have you believe.
Another point Matt fails to realise is that it was because of Israel’s rebelliousness that they were cast off but NOT forever, for all Israel shall be saved, that the Gentile was gathered in.
Ro.11 along with Ro.5 are two of the greatest chapters in scripture that shows forth the salvation of all. We see all those who knew not Christ being grafted into Him, not only of Israel but also of the Gentile. And we see that this grafting in is for the salvation of all.
In verse 25-26 we see blindness in part happened until the fullness of the Gentile comes in and then ALL Israel shall be saved.
Does God want pain and suffering in the world? The obvious answer is no. God created Adam and Eve and put them in a perfect world without pain, without suffering, and without loss. That is God's desire because that is the way God made things in the beginning. Yet, we have pain, suffering, and loss in the world. Why? Because that is the nature of our sinful system -- and God permitted it. But are we to say that God is not in control? Again, no. In fact, God causes some of the very things we believe He does not want.
"And the Lord said to him, 'Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?'" (Exodus 4:11).
"If a calamity occurs in a city has not the Lord done it?" (Amos 3:6).
"The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these," (Isaiah 45:7).
"Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it? 38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High That both good and ill go forth?" (Lam. 3:37-38).
"The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil," (Prov. 16:4).
Can God want one thing and and yet specifically accomplish something else? Obviously the answer is yes. Let's look at some more verses.
Again Matt fails to realise why God does this, it was done in order that the Gentile could be grafted in.
Matt seems to believe God did these things just so He could eternally torment most of mankind.
That would be akin to me having 10 kids knowing all along that I am having them in order to save just one and torment the others for all eternity.
What kind of a father would I be if I was to do such a thing?
People call Hitler as sadistic human being for doing what he did, but he would pale in comparison to the Father if the Father does what Matt believe Him to do.
I would not be surprised to find out that Hitler believed in eternal torment and he burn all those people because he believed that was what God was going to do, thinking to do God a service by giving Him a helping hand.
Man has always acted out according to their view of God, so if one believes God eternally torments people then they live up to that belief. Thinking if God can do it, I am only living up to God and doing His service by doing what He is doing.
What an abhorrent view it is to believe God created man just so He could eternally torment most of them.
What God Desires What God Arranges
"And the master said to the slave, ‘Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled," (Luke 14:23).
Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, “Today if you hear His voice, 8Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me, As in the day of trial in the wilderness," (Heb. 3:7).
"And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false," (2 Thess. 2:11).
"And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go," (Exodus 4:21).
"So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires," (Rom. 9:18).
Why would God compel people to come into His house so that it can be filled and yet send a deluding influence upon the same people? Are not those people in 2 Thessalonians, at the time of the Antichrist, the same people included in the highways and hedges? Does not God compel all to enter into His house regardless of when and where they are in history? Is it not God's desire to save all? Yes it is. Yet, God actually sends a deluding influence on people and hardens the hearts of others. He desires one thing yet sometimes does another. This is both challenging and fascinating. Why would God do such a thing? The answer lies in Scripture.
Yes the answer does lie in scripture and is expressed most wonderfully in Ro.11, the casting off in order to graft in, the salvation of all. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
God is in Control
God is in control of all things and is bringing history to the prophetically determined destiny to which He has aimed it. He hardens some and softens others. He arranges things so that battles occur, people are destroyed, lives are changed, nations moved, and people saved. All of this is done in accordance with His divine plan. In fact, it is done because He has a divine plan. Please consider the following.
"this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death," (Acts 2:23).
"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28).
God did not cause the people who crucified Jesus to sin. But, He sure used their sin and He predestined all of it to occur. He used the sins of Herod and Pilate along with the Gentiles to do His divine will. In fact, God anointed them to do what they did. Why? To carry out His purpose and His plan to bring His Son to the cross, to save sinners, and to bring glory to Himself.Some may object and say that God only knew what the evil people were going to do and simply used it. But, that is not what the scripture says. Besides, God has the ability to change the hearts of people: "The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes" (Prov. 21:1). This means that man's will is subject to God. Then again, some may say that God must not violate people's freedom and will let them sin. But in response, examine Gen. 20:6 where God kept Abimelech from sleeping with Abraham's wife: "Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her." God prevented Abimelech from sinning. It was Abimelech's desire to enter Abraham's wife, yet God prevented it. God can and does control people's hearts and actions so that they will accomplish His purpose. He does this sovereignty and He does it without causing people to sin. He can even make someone's heart hard for the purpose of carrying out His plan.
Although I agree God does have a plan and that He did not cause people to sin, Matt seems to have done a complete reversal here.
First he states Gods will is not always done and now he is stating God will is done according to His plan. Which is it Matt?
So according to Matt, Gods plan is only to save the elect, that teaches us Jesus sacrifice was not for all men, it teaches us that Gods plan never included the whole world. Yet we have read time and again that God sent His son to save the world.
It teaches us Gods plan is to eternally torment people in a lake of fire. Yet the scriptures state we only reap what we sow and the wages of sin are death, not eternal torment which is what Matt would have the reader to believe.
But Matt would probably say yes the wages of sin are death, and that death is the second death which is the lake of fire and that death is eternal.
Now I agree that the death spoken of as the wages of sin is the second death. And this teaches us that even though we must suffer death there is an escape from death. For if there is no escape as the eternal torment people believe, Jesus is still suffering the wages of sin (DEATH) for He died for our sins and that death is eternal according to their belief.
And if they were to say that the death spoken of as the wages of sin is not the second death then Jesus did not pay the wages of sin for us. Which we all know goes against scripture.
Therefore the reader can see that there is a huge problem for those who believe in eternal torment, for either the wages of sin is death and Jesus is being tormented even as we speak with no hope of escape or the wages of sin is a physical death which would mean there is no judgment after the resurrection at the great white throne. For if one has already paid for their sin by dying what need then of judgment?
"But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today," (Deut. 2:30).
The NIV, NKJV, RSV, KJV, and NASB all state that it was God who hardened Sihon's heart -- not strengthened it towards its tendency.
"For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the Lord had commanded Moses," (Joshua 11:20).
The NIV says "it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts." The RSV says "it was the Lord's doing."
In Deuteronomy 2, the Lord told Moses to tell Sihon King of Heshbon to let the Israelites pass. But, we see that God deliberately hardened King Sihon's heart1 so that they could be delivered into Israel's hands and destroyed. We see in Joshua, that it was "of God" to harden the Canaanites so that they might be destroyed. Why? Because God had a greater plan and purpose than showing them mercy. What is that plan? I believe God was arranging history to lead to the ultimate goal of Christ's crucifixion, resurrection, and return, along with the redemption of God's people. This is the divine plan that God has ordained. God is in control and He has a purpose that He has revealed in Scripture.
Please consider Rev. 17:16-17 as further support for this.
"And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire. 17 "For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God should be fulfilled.
In Revelation. 17:16, God put it into the hearts of people to rebel so that His prophetic word could be fulfilled. God was, is, and will continue to control events in order to accomplish His divine plan. He is bringing these people to a place of being destroyed and it isn't simply because they are rebellious. It is because "God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose . . .until the words of God should be fulfilled"!
Again Matt is using double speak first by saying God will is not always done and now reversing it to God does everything according to His plan. Plain old fashion double speaking. What Matt’s problem is, is that he does not understand God plan.
To understand Gods plan again I ask the reader to read my articals "body of Christ" and "the great white throne"
But, some will claim that God cannot put such things in people's hearts -- in spite of the verses shown above. They will quote scripture where God says He does not desire the death of the wicked and, therefore, could not be purposely doing such a thing.
"For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord God. "Therefore, repent and live," (Ezekiel 18:32).
"Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked . . . (Ezekiel 33:11).
We clearly see that God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. That is, it is not His desire that even the wicked die.
Yet, they do and to further complicate things, as we have seen in the scriptures above, He even hardens them (Exo. 4:24-25; Rom. 9:18), deludes them (2 Thess. 2:11), and puts it into their hearts to rebel (Deut. 2:30; Rev. 17:16-17). And if that weren't enough, take a look at the following:
"And it shall come about that as the Lord delighted over you to prosper you, and multiply you, so the Lord will delight over you to make you perish and destroy you. . ." (Deut. 28:63).
The word "delight" here is the word "soos" in Hebrew and it means to exult, rejoice, display joy.
"If one man sins against another, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?" But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for the Lord desired to put them to death," (1 Sam. 2:25).
The words "desired" here is the same Hebrew word, "chaphets," used in Ezekiel 18:32 and 33:11 ("pleasure") above. It means "to delight in, take pleasure in, desire, be pleased with. It was the sons of Eli who would not listen to their father. Why? Because the Lord desired to put them to death. In other words, they would not listen because God desired to put them to death.
Likewise, the word "chaphets" occurs in Isaiah 53:10 where it says, "But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief."
In the above verses you can see that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked yet he delighted in destroying the wicked people. Is this a contradiction? No. Because God has a purpose and a plan. He has the sovereign right to accomplish His will. On one hand, He doesn't want people to suffer and die, yet on the other hand, He is delighted to carry out His divine plan which necessarily includes the death of the wicked because it is in accordance with the Law which He Himself has given us. His divine plan will be accomplished. This is further proof that God can desire one thing and bring another to pass.
Just His evil plan to eternally torment according to Matt.
Matt does not understand God purpose for death according to God plan, it is not to eternally torment man, it is to make man as he ought to be made.
Read my artical fitted to destruction
What does it all mean?
So what do we make of this difficult issue that God can desire one thing and yet arrange circumstances, influence hearts, and govern people to the contrary? I believe it is because there is something greater than God's desire that all should be saved; namely that God's divine plan will be carried out for His glory and the salvation of the elect.
Did the reader notice Matt said Gods plan will carried out for His glory and the salvation of the elect? Not the salvation of the world, just His elect.
Yet are we not told many times in scripture that God sent Jesus to save the world.
Is it not then obvious that Gods plan is for the salvation of the world and not just the salvation of His elect?
Matt would have the reader believe Gods plan ends with the elect, but the elect are just the beginning or first part of His plan for the salvation of the world.
It is true His elect are His first fruits but they are not saved for themselves, they are saved first in order that through the whole body of Christ the whole world will be saved. That is why they are called His FIRST fruits.
Again the reader can see a fuller explanation of this on my blog under “The body of Christ”
Love and kindness are not the only aspects of God's glorious being. He is also holy and righteous and has brought history through its course in order to reflect His great wisdom and justice as well as His love and mercy. Though God hates sin, He permits it for the greater glory of Himself and His plan. In this, He desires all to be saved, but has not ordained that it be so because, according to the Law, He must punish sinners.
First Matt would have the reader believe love is an aspect of God, but scripture defines God as love.1Jn.4:8 & 16. Love is not an aspect of God, God IS love. Thus when the scriptures proclaim love never fails 1Co.13:8 , they are saying God never fails
Note on 1Co.13:8 charity in the Greek is agape and agape is love.
Yes sinners must be punished, but punishment from God is correction and this is what those who believe in eternal torment just can’t seem to understand.
Paul said of himself that he was the chiefest of sinners 1Tim.1:15 so as God must punish sin then Paul himself had to have been punished by God. And this is so easy to understand when one realises punishment is correction, therefore all sinners must be corrected.
The Law is a reflection of God's character. Jesus said that out of the heart, the mouth speaks (Matt. 12:34). God spoke and the Law came forth. It is pure and perfect because it reflects God's character. God has said that the soul that sins will die (Ezekiel 18:4), that sin causes a separation between God and man (Isaiah 59:2), that He must punish the sinner (Exodus 32:34; Hosea 9:9), and that His eyes are too pure to look upon evil (Hab. 1:13). If someone sins, they must be punished because it is in accordance with God's Law.
As I just explain all sinners must be punished/corrected, but Matt does not believe that all sinners must be punished as he has been stating, for he will tell you that the elect do not have to be punished for their sins. Matt will tell you something like the reason the elect do not have to be punished for their sin is because Jesus died for their sin. But scriptures tell us Jesus died for the sin of the world Jn.1:29 & 1Jn.2:2
They also tell us that it was while we were yet sinners that Jesus died for us Ro.5:8
So as Jesus died for all men while they were yet sinners, why is it that only the elect are free from punishment as Matt would have the reader believe?
Those who believe after this fashion want a free ride into heaven, they do not want to be punished/corrected for their sins, they do not want to reap what they have sown.
But they will say Jesus died for our sins so that we don’t have to die, but that’s not what Jesus did, Jesus did not die for our sins so that we don’t have to die, He died for our sins to show us HOW to DIE TO SIN. Take up THY CROSS and FOLLOW ME.
That is why God can desire all to be saved, yet not ordain that all be saved because His Law cannot be broken. What He is doing is remaining true to His character in both His justice and grace. He is true to His justice because He rightfully judges people according to His Law. He is true to His grace because He gives people the salvation they do not deserve. In both, He is being consistent with His own character.
It’s true His law cannot be broken, yet Matt believes that the elect do not have to be punished for their sins, thus breaking the law that cannot be broken, and making a sham of His justice.
To that end, God has ordained all of history to flow to the predetermined end to which He has sent it. He has His plan and it will be carried out. He will bring glory to Himself. He will judge the wicked. He will save the believers. This is why He is enduring with such patience the wicked people.
Matt of course believes that God only and has always intended to save only the elect, which we have seen time and again goes against scripture which state Jesus came to save the world.
Matt fails to realise that it is through Gods judgments, which are all corrective in nature, that the wicked or sinner will be saved.
"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles" (Rom. 9:22-24).
God has worked all things after the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:5) and has engineered history to bring not only the cross as the means of redemption, but also the culmination of all things for the declaration of His own glory, righteousness, holiness, and character.
Hmmmm first Matt say God does not work all things after the counsel of His WILL, now He says God has worked all things after the counsel of His WILL.
As I have said before Matt believes God gets what He WILLS as long as it only concerns the ELECT.
But when the Universalist says God gets what He WILL in the salvation of all men, Matt says that Gods WILL is only God desire and God does not get all His desire.
Another corner Matt backed himself into.
Sin will be shown to be utterly sinful and horrible. The cross demonstrates His righteousness and grace and His sovereign will is carried out.
The cross also demonstrated how sin is dealt with, by JUDGMENT.
We not only see the sinner being crucified under judgment on the cross, we also see the first fruit Jesus Christ under judgment on the same cross.
We see the sinner while under judgment looking at Jesus and saying remember me and Jesus saying that today you will be with me in paradise.
Judgment is always corrective and we see the sinner under judgment saying remember me.
Judgment MUST according to the scriptures start with the house of God, those who God does not judge are not YET a part of His house.
Do 1 Tim. 2:3-4 and 2 Pet. 3:9 prove that all will be saved? No, not at all. But they do show us that God is not simplistic and that He has a divine plan that we must truly seek to fathom if we are to rightly understand His word.
And according to Matt we only rightly divide His word if we only apply Gods WILL to the elect.
What a pathetic, weak kneed, unjust, unloving view of God this is.
Objections Answered to the paper:Is it God's will that all people be saved?
Basically all Matt does here is make a reply to a Universalist who made a reply to Matt’s paper against Universalism. As I am making my own reply I am not going to go through all this again here, as all Matt does is just reaffirm the same things he has already written to which I have already given answer to. But for those who would like to read Matt’s reply here is the link
http://www.carm.org/uni/allmensavedobjections.htm
Matt closes the link by saying
This person's attempt to answer the paper fell short. It did not refute the original conclusion, but, in fact, only affirmed it. Also, something rather disturbing was that other universalists agreed with this person in affirming his "refutation" as excellent. I fail to see that with his comments.
For myself I agree with Matt here, the Universalist that made this reply to Matt’s paper failed in my opinion to make his point.
That said Matt is speaking of ONE Universalists reply to his paper, even though he says other Universalists agreed that his refutation was excellent.
But Matt does not give the reader any names of these other Universalists, or for that matter the name of the Universalist who made the refutation.
For all we know Matt made this refutation up and said it was by a Universalist and that other Universalist agreed with him. I mean if you are going to quote someone should we not expect to see the name of the one who is quoted?
After all many people make an argument for and against their own belief in order to make what they believe to stand out over the counter argument.
This all said Matt’s refutation of the Universalists refutation is just as bad as the Universalists, neither one of them made their points in my opinion.
A look at the word "aionion"
Universalism is the teaching that God will ultimately bring all people, in all times, and all places to a state of reconciliation with Him. In other words, everyone who ever lived will be saved. Consequently, universalism cannot allow the possibility of an eternal hell as a realistic biblical teaching. To get around the problem of the English Bibles translating Greek words into "eternal," "forever," and forevermore" when describing fire (Matt. 18:8) or torment (Rev. 20:10), the universalists go to the Greek. The Greek word that is translated into eternal is "aionion." It comes from the Greek root "aion" meaning "age." This fact combined with the various uses of Greek words derived from the root "aion," are what the universalists use to attempt to show that "aionion" does not always mean "eternal" but can refer to a finite period of time.
Matt says “does not always mean eternal”, but as I have already pointed out it NEVER means eternal but is AWAYS used of a LIMITED time period ie AGE.
The truth is, they are right. It can be translated into a temporal sense as it is in Rom. 16:25: "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages (aionios1) past." But the reason it is translated that way is because of context, and that is extremely important. Context determines meaning, as you will see later.
Context does NOT determine the meaning of the word, the meaning of the word determines the CONTEXT.
With the claim that "aionion" can be translated into something temporal and that its root means "age," the universalist then says that any reference to "eternal fire," "eternal torment," or "eternal punishment" is not really eternal. Instead of "eternal torment," it is "aionion torment." Instead of "eternal punishment," it is "aionion punishment." That way, to the universalist, there is no eternal hell, no eternal punishment, and no eternal damnation. Everyone will be saved.This approach by the Universalists can be confusing to someone who doesn't understand Greek and that is part of the reason that Universalism has followers.
Hardly, men like Clement, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa etc. were well versed in the use of aionion and they will all tell you that it is used in a limited sense.
It is true that the root "aion" means age. But just because a root means age, does not mean that every word derived from that root means a limited duration of time. For example consider this verse that is speaking about God:
who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen, (1 Tim. 6:16)
The context is obviously dealing with God's eternal nature.
No aionion it is NOT speaking of God eternal nature here, it is speaking of God having honour and might during the ages or age-during.
Young's Literal Translation has it
16who only is having immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no one of men did see, nor is able to see, to whom [is] honour and might age-during! Amen.
If the reader want to see Gods eternal (as in without beginning and without end) being, I refer you to the word immortality in the same verse, which in the Greek is ANTHANASIA and means undying, immortality, everlasting, and is NEVER used with Gods punishment.
If Paul wanted to show Gods honour and might in this verse to meaning undying or unending surely Paul would have use the word ANTHANASIA.
So as Paul did not use ANTHANASIA but rather aionion this tells the reader something.
That being, that Paul was making it clear there is a difference between Gods eternal (as in without beginning and without end) being then to the honour and might given to Him throughout the ages.
The word in Greek for "immortality" is "athanatos." The Greek word for death is "thanatos." The "a" in front of the word is the negator, without, non, etc. It means that God is deathless; hence, immortal. This is an eternal quality of God. Likewise, the verse states that God has eternal dominion.
Don’t know where Matt got his Greek athanatos from, both VINE and STRONG has the Greek ANTHANASIA, but used in the negative the word is as Matt says thanatos and Matt’s reasoning here is correct, immortality is speaking of Gods deathlessness.
But Matt tries to say ANTHANASIA is the SAME as aionion but as the reader has already seen this is just not the case. Matt must mix and match these words in order to make them say what he wants them to say, which is a clear case of handling Gods word in order to make it fit his theology.
The word for "eternal" is "aionios" which is derived from the Greek root "aion" which means age. But, God is not immortal for only an "age," nor is His dominion temporal.
The word "eternal" is absolutely the best way to translate the Greek "aionion" because God is immortal and eternal.
If the best way to translate aionion is eternal, why is it that when one keeps to a literal translation they use age-during? Could it be it is because age-during is the meaning of the word.
Matt must really hate Young’s and Rotherham’s literal translations of the scriptures.
Therefore, it would be wrong to translate the verse by stating that God has "aionion" dominion. Rather, He has eternal dominion.
Now what is wrong with saying God has dominion through the ages? Absolutely NOTHING, “everlasting God” is literally “God of the ages“.
How is "aionion" used in the New Testament?
The following two sections are verses that contain the word "aionion" which is translated as "eternal." Notice how using the word "eternal" in the first group is no problem. But, it is the second group with which the Universalists object. Nevertheless, the same word is used in both. See for yourself.
As I have stated more then once the Universlist does NOT have any problem with aionion, in every scripture Matt brings up below it is and ALWAYS will deal with a limited time period i.e. age or ages.
So lets go ahead and look at those scriptures Matt gives, but we will not just be looking at them through the New American Standard Bible which Matt‘s quotes come from, but will also look at them through Young’s literal translation.
John 6:47, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal (aionion) life.
47`Verily, verily, I say to you, He who is believing in me, hath life age-during;
John 20:28, "and I give eternal (aionion) life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand."
The scripture Matt is referring to here is actually Jn.10:28
28and life age-during I give to them, and they shall not perish -- to the age, and no one shall pluck them out of my hand;
Acts 13:48, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal (aionion) life believed."
48And the nations hearing were glad, and were glorifying the word of the Lord, and did believe -- as many as were appointed to life age-during;
Romans 2:7, " to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal (aionion) life."
7to those, indeed, who in continuance of a good work, do seek glory, and honour, and incorruptibility -- life age-during;
Romans 5:21, "that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal (aionion) life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
21that even as the sin did reign in the death, so also the grace may reign, through righteousness, to life age-during, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom. 16:26, " but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal (aionion) God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith."
26and now having been made manifest, also, through prophetic writings, according to a command of the age-during God, having been made known to all the nations for obedience of faith --
I will also add verse 27
27to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to him [be] glory to the ages. Amen.
Gal. 6:8, "For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal (aionion) life."
8because he who is sowing to his own flesh, of the flesh shall reap corruption; and he who is sowing to the Spirit, of the Spirit shall reap life age-during;
1 Tim. 6:16, "who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal (aionion) dominion! Amen."
16who only is having immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no one of men did see, nor is able to see, to whom [is] honour and might age-during! Amen.
1 John 1:2, "and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal (aionion) life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us"
2and the Life was manifested, and we have seen, and do testify, and declare to you the Life, the age-during, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us --
1 John 5:11, "And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal (aionion) life, and this life is in His Son."
11and this is the testimony, that life age-during did God give to us, and this -- the life -- is in His Son;
The following set of scriptures divulge the nature of eternal damnation.
Do they or do they divulge the nature of age-during damnation?
Lets look and see.
Matt. 18:8, "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal (aionion) fire.
8`And if thy hand or thy foot doth cause thee to stumble, cut them off and cast from thee; it is good for thee to enter into the life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast to the fire the age-during.
Matt. 25:41, "Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal (aionion) fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;"
41Then shall he say also to those on the left hand, Go ye from me, the cursed, to the fire, the age-during, that hath been prepared for the Devil and his messengers;
Matt. 25:46, "And these will go away into eternal (aionion) punishment, but the righteous into eternal (aionion) life."
46And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.'
Mark 3:29, "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal (aionion) sin."
29but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness -- to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment;'
Mark 10:30, "but that he shall receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal (aionion) life.
30who may not receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and fields, with persecutions, and in the age that is coming, life age-during;
Luke 18:30, "who shall not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal (aionion) life."
30who may not receive back manifold more in this time, and in the coming age, life age-during.'
2 Thess. 1:9, "And these will pay the penalty of eternal (aionion) destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,"
9who shall suffer justice -- destruction age-during -- from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his strength,
Jude 7, "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal (aionion) fire."
7as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, having given themselves to whoredom, and gone after other flesh, have been set before -- an example, of fire age-during, justice suffering.
It should be quite obvious that there is an eternal punishment and that universalism is nothing more than a hopeful wish. The Universalists are not justified in picking and choosing the meaning of a word based upon their interpretations of "aion" that suits them and depending on which verse is used.
_______________All Bible quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible.
Just as I suspected every verse according to the literal translation state age-during.
Aionion ALWAYS deals with an AGE and NEVER in the sense of without beginning and without end.
Now lets look at a few other scriptures
Romans 16:25
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
Young’s literal translation
25And to Him who is able to establish you, according to my good news, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the secret, in the times of the ages having been kept silent,
And as scripture shows aionion has a beginning does not this scripture put to flight all fancy that aionion means without beginning and without end as Matt would have the reader to believe.
Earlier Matt said that aionion was translated age here was because of context.
Yet even if context defines the meaning of the word as Matt assumes ( its really the other way around) in verse 26 this same word aionion is applied to God, and this is done in ONE sentence. There is no period after the word began at the end of verse 25 only a comma.
Thus Matt here is changing the meaning of the word aionion within one sentence in order for it to line up with his theology. Something he has been fond of accusing the Universalist of doing.
Tim.1:9, and Titus 1:2 also state aionion has a beginning, thus we have 3 scriptures bearing witness that aionion has a beginning. Thus putting to rest the argument that aionion is without beginning and without end.
One more thing I will point out here is Matt quoted Jude 7 which states
7Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
So if Sodom and Gomorrah are suffering torment without end why do the scriptures tell us Sodom will be restored?
Ezekiel 16:53-55
53 When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them: 54 That thou mayest bear thine own shame, and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, in that thou art a comfort unto them. 55 When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.
Is it not obvious to the reader that aionion is used in a limited sense, if Sodom and Gomorrah are to be restored after they endured aionion fire how can aionion mean without end?
What do Greek dictionaries say about "aionion"
Universalists place a great deal of weight on the word "aion" which means "age." From the Greek root "aion" we also have the word "aionion" which is translated in most instances in most Bibles as "eternal."The significance of this is that Universalists maintain that there is no eternal punishment in hell fire. Therefore, they assert that the word "aionion" is in reference to "age duration" and can have temporal duration. With this assertion they try to substantiate their theological position that all people everywhere will ultimately be saved.But, what do Greek Dictionaries and Lexicons have to say about the words and phrases used in Greek that are translated into the English "age", "world", "eternal," "forever", "forever and ever," etc.? Let's find out.
aion - , - age, world
"for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity; the worlds, universe; period of time, age."
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.
aionion, aionios - - eternal
"aionios," the adjective corresponding, denoting eternal. It is used of that which in nature is endless, as, e.g., of God, (Rom. 16:26), His power, (1 Tim. 6:16), His glory, (1 Pet. 5:10), the Holy Spirit, (Heb. 9:14), redemption, (Heb. 9:12), salvation, (5:9), life in Christ, (John 3:16), the resurrection body, (2 Cor. 5:1), the future rule of Christ, (2 Pet. 1:11), which is declared to be without end, (Luke 1:33), of sin that never has forgiveness, (Mark 3:29), the judgment of God, (Heb. 6:2), and of fire, one of its instruments, (Matt. 18:8; 25:41; Jude 7)."
Rom. 16:26 - " . . .according to the commandment of the eternal God. . ."
1 Tim. 6:16 - ". . . To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen."
1 Pet. 5:10 - " . . . who called you to His eternal glory in Christ,"
Mark 3:29 - " . . . never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."
etc.
SOURCE: Vine, W. E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981, Available: Logos Library System.
"describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2; or undefined because endless as in Rom. 16:26, and the other sixty–six places in the N.T.
Rom. 16:25 - " . . which has been kept secret for long ages past,"
Rom 16:26 - ". . . according to the commandment of the eternal God,"
2 Tim. 1:9 - ". . . which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,"
Titus 1:2 - "the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised" long ages ago"
SOURCE: Vine, W. E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981, [Online] Available: Logos Library System)
Eis tous aionios ton aionion - - Forever and Ever, Lit. "into the age of the ages"
"unlimited duration of time, with particular focus upon the future - ‘always, forever, forever and ever, eternally."
Phil. 4:20 - ". . .to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever."
Rev. 19:3 - " . . .Her smoke rises up forever and ever."
Rev. 20:20 - "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
SOURCE: Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989, Available: Logos Library System.
These few references and quotes should be ample evidence that eternal hell, eternal fire, is real. It is a terrible reality and it is all the more important to preach the gospel. The universalists are wrong and their theology only dilutes the need to come to Christ.
Matt fails to realise that in each of those definitions that they pertain to an age.
The word "Aionios" by itself, whether adjective or substantive, never means endless"--Canon Farrar -
"The conception of eternity, in the Semitic languages, is that of a long duration and series of ages."--Rev. J. S. Blunt-- Dictionary of Theology.
" 'Tis notoriously known," says Bishop Rust, "that the Jews, whether writing in Hebrew or Greek, do by 'olam' (the Hebrew word corresponding to "aion"), and aion mean any remarkable period or duration, whether it be of life, or dispensation, or polity."
Aionios Repeatedly Applied To Things That Have Long Ago Ceased To Exist
As a further illustration of the meaning of aion and aionios, let me point out that in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint)--in common use among the Jews in our Lord's time, from which He and the Apostles usually quoted, and whose authority, therefore, should be decisive on this point--these terms are repeatedly applied to things that have long ceased to exist.
Thus
The Aaronic priesthood is said to be "everlasting," -Numb.25:13-
The land of Canaan is given as an "everlasting" possession, and "for ever" -Gen. 17:8...Gen. 18:15-
In Deut. 23:3, "for ever" is distinctly made an equivalent to "even to the tenth generation."
In Lamentations 5:19, "for ever and ever" is the equivalent of from "generation to generation."
The inhabitants of Palestine are to be bondsmen "for ever" -Lev. 25:46-
In Numb. 18:19, the heave offerings of the holy things are a covenant "for ever."
Caleb obtains his inheritance "for ever" -Joshua 14:9-
And David's seed is to endure "for ever," his throne "for ever," his house "for ever;" nay, the passover is to endure "for ever;" and in Isa. 32:14, the forts and towers shall be "dens for ever, until the spirit be poured upon us."
So in Jude 7, Sodom and Gomorrah are said to be suffering the vengeance of eternal (aeonian) fire, i.e., their temporal overthrow by fire, for they have a definite promise of final restoration.--(Ezek. 16:55)
Christ's Kingdom Is To Last Forever & Yet
And Christ's kingdom is to last "for ever," yet we are distinctly told that this very kingdom is to end.--(I Cor. 15:24) Indeed, quotation might be added to quotation, both from the Bible and from early authors, to prove this limited meaning of aion and its derivatives; but enough has probably been said to prove that it is wholly impossible, and indeed absurd, to contend that any idea of endless duration is necessarily or commonly implied by either aion or aionios.
NOTE:
Thus Josephus calls "aeonian," the temple of Herod, which was actually destroyed when he wrote. PHILO never uses aionios of endless duration.
Aion Either Means Endless Duration Or It Does Not
Further, if this translation of aionios as "eternal," in the sense of endless, be correct, aion must mean eternity, i.e., endless duration. But so to render it would reduce Scripture to an absurdity.
In the first place, you would have over and over again to talk of the "eternities." We can comprehend what "eternity" is, but what are the "eternities?" You cannot have more than one eternity. The doxology would run thus: "Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, unto the eternities."
In the case of the sin against the Holy Ghost, the translation would then be, "it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this eternity nor in that to come."
Our Lord's words, (Matt. 13:39), would then be, "the harvest is the end of the eternity," i.e., the end of the endless, which is to make our Lord talk nonsense.
Again, in Mark 4:19, the translation should be, "the cares," not of "this world," but "the cares of this eternity choke the word."
In Luke 16:8, "The children of this world," should be "the children of this eternity."
In 1 Cor. 10:11, the words, "upon whom the ends of the world are come," should be: "the ends of the eternities."
Take next, Gal. 1:4: "That He might deliver us from this present evil world," should run thus: "from this present evil eternity."
In 2 Tim. 4:10, the translation should be: "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present eternity."
And "Now once at the end of the ages hath He been manifested," should read, on the popular view, "at the end of the eternities."
Let me state the dilemma clearly. Aion either means endless duration as its necessary, or at least its ordinary significance, or it does not. If it does, the following difficulties at once arise;
Difficulties
1. How, if it mean an endless period, can aion have a plural?
2. How came such phrases to be used as those repeatedly occurring in Scripture, where aion is added to aion, if aion is of itself infinite?
3. How come such phrases as for the "aion" or aions and beyond?--ton aiona kai ep aiona kai eti: eis tous aionas kai eti.--(see Sept. Ex. 15:18...Dan. 12:3...Micah 4:5)
4. How is it that we repeatedly read of the end of the aion?--Matt. 13:39-40-49;...Matt. 24:3...Matt. 28:20...1 Cor. 10:11...Hebr. 9:26.
5. Finally, if aion be infinite, why is it applied over and over to what is strictly finite? e.g. Mark 4:19...Acts 3:21...Rom. 12:2...1 Cor. 1:20...1 Cor. 2:6...1 Cor. 3:18, 10:11, etc. etc.
If Aion Is Not Infinite
But if aion be not infinite, what right have we to render the adjective aionios (which depends for its meaning on aion) by the terms "eternal" (when used as the equivalent of "endless") and "everlasting?"
Indeed our translators have really done further hurt to those who can only read their English Bible.
They have, wholly obscured a very important doctrine, that of "the ages." This when fully understood throws a flood of light on the plan of redemption, and the method of the divine working. Take a few instances which show the force and clearness gained, by restoring the true rendering of the words aion and aionios.
Turn to Matt. 24:3. There our version represents the disciples as asking "what should be the sign of the end of the world." It should be the end of the "age;" the close of the Jewish age marked by the fall of Jerusalem.
In Matt. 13:39-40-49, the true rendering is not the end of the "world," but of the "age," an important change.
So John 17:3, "this is life eternal," should be "the life of the ages," i.e., peculiar to those ages, in which the scheme of salvation is being worked out.
Or take Heb 5:9; Heb. 9:12; Heb. 13:20, "eternal salvation" should be "aeonian" or of the ages; "eternal redemption" is the redemption "of the ages;" the eternal covenant is the "covenant of the ages," the covenant peculiar to the ages of redemption.
In Eph. 3:11, "the eternal purpose" is really the purpose of "the ages," i.e., worked out in "the ages."
In Eph. 3:21, there occurs a suggestive phrase altogether obscured (as usual, where this word is in question), by our version, "until all the generations of the age of the ages." Thus it runs in the original, and it is altogether unfair to conceal this elaborate statement by merely rendering "throughout all ages."
In 1 Cor. 10:11 "the ends of the world" are the "ends of the ages." In 1 Cor. 2:6-7-8, the word aion is four times translated "world," it should be "age' or "ages" in all cases.
And here it is impossible to avoid asking how--assuming that aion does mean "world" in these cases--how it can yield, as an adjective, such a term as "everlasting?" If it mean "world," then the adjective should be "worldly," "of the world." And great force and freshness would be gained in our version by always adhering to the one rendering "age."
-Christ Triumphant by Rev. Thomas Allin-
Here is a link to very good study about the word aion/aionion by Louis Abbott for those who want to see the absurdity of translating aionion to mean endless.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/index.html
Forever and Ever
Is the English phrase "forever and ever" a proper translation of the Greek? Does it mean without end? Is it ever used of something not eternal? Does it refer to eternal torment? These questions are important because the universalist position denies the eternality of hell fire. Universalists take the literal Greek phrase of "eis tous aionas ton aionon, -- into the age of the ages" which is commonly translated as "forever and ever," "forevermore," and state that it refers to an age of time, a finite period of time. It is true that the basic root of "aion" means age. But it is not true that all words derived from that root mean a finite duration of time. The phrase means "unlimited duration of time, with particular focus upon the future - ‘always, forever, forever and ever , eternally."’1Additionally, the phrase is used to describe both God's eternal attributes and His eternal nature as well as eternal torment.Following is a table containing every single usage of the Greek phrase "eis tous aionas ton aionon -- into the age of the ages." It clearly shows that it means "forever," "without end." The first two verses deal with eternal condemnation and judgment. The next 16 deal with God's Glory and honor.
"into the age of the ages"Translated as "forever and ever"; "forevermore"
"And a second time they said, "Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever and ever," (Rev. 19:3).
"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever," (Rev. 20:10).
"to whom be the glory forevermore, Amen" (Gal. 1:2)
"Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever. Amen," (Phil. 4:20)
"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen," (1 Tim. 1:17).
"The Lord will deliver me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen," (2 Tim. 4:18).
"equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen," (Heb. 13:21).
"Whoever speaks, let him speak, as it were, the utterances of God; whoever serves, let him do so as by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen," (1 Pet. 4:11).
"and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen," (Rev. 1:6).
"and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades," (Rev. 1:18).
"And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever," (Rev. 4:9).
"the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne," (Rev. 4:10).
"And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever," (Rev. 5:13).
"Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever. Amen," (Rev. 7:12).
"and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things in it, and the earth and the things in it, and the sea and the things in it, that there shall be delay no longer," (Rev. 10:6).
"And the seventh angel sounded; and there arose loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever,'" (Rev. 11:15).
"And one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God, who lives forever and ever," (Rev. 15:7).
"And there shall no longer be any night; and they shall not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall illumine them; and they shall reign forever and ever," (Rev. 22:5).
Clearly, the phrase "forever and ever" is a correct translation of the Greek ""eis tous aionas ton aionon -- forever and ever" Every instance of the phrase shows eternality. But, a word of caution. The Universalist may say that Rev. 19.3 is not eternal because it is the description of smoke from the City of Babylon. But, the judgment that is cast upon her is only the beginning of the eternal punishment of the wicked, indicated in the statement that the smoke from her goes up forever and ever.The phrase is always speaking of eternal duration.Universalism is incorrect because not all will be saved because:
"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever," (Rev. 20:10).
Matt makes absolutely no point here, all he did was quote scripture and say see the scripture says eternal. But if the reader just looks up each of those scriptures in Young literal translation they will see that Matt’s reading is greatly in error. Matt further compounds his error by saying it must mean endless because the devil is cast into the fire. Seem Matt forgets the scriptures that state every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Isa.45:23, Ro.14:11 & Php.2:10 That confession is made unto salvation Ro.10:10 and no one can say Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Ghost 1Co.12:3
So again I will refer the reader to Louis Abbott link
Scriptures that say not all are saved
Universalists believe all people will be saved. They often complain against the contrary teaching that people go to hell by posing questions such as
"Do you really believe that God is going to lose most of mankind in hell and that only a few are going to be saved?"
"If most go to hell, doesn't that mean that Satan wins since God only gets a few compared to the majority who are lost?"
Of course, these kinds of questions are the wrong ones to ask. What they are doing is using emotionalism to sway someone's beliefs.
Matt would have the reader believe it is wrong to ask these type of questions because they use our emotions, but our emotions are given to us by God and Jesus Himself used them to get us to understand the Father better.
Luke 15:4
4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
Can the reader not see here Jesus using the emotional plea for the lost sheep?
He say WHAT MAN of YOU, Jesus wanted them to understand the emotion that one feels towards the lost sheep.
Now take special notice of what is being said here.
The man in reference here is Jesus Christ, the lost sheep is one wondering in sin.
So who loses something here, is the loss mans soul or is it Jesus Christ’s loss?
It is not speaking of the loss of the soul of man, it is speaking of divine loss, it is speaking of Jesus Christ losing the man.
If the sheep is not found it is Christ’s loss.
Does the reader really believe Jesus Christ can lose anything? Nay, the scriptures state He will go after the lost sheep until He FIND IT. Halleluiah, Jesus will lose none of which He came to save, and almost every Christian ( except the Calvinist, who believe He only came to save the elect) believes just as the scriptures proclaim He came for the salvation of the world.
So as the reader can see Jesus used emotion in the case of the lost sheep, so as He used emotion there is nothing wrong with the questions that the Universalist ask that are based on emotion.
The real reason Matt does not want the reader to ask themselves these type of question is because they will undoubtedly lead the reader to question the false belief in eternal torment.
What they should be asking are questions like these:
"What does the Bible teach about damnation?"
"Does the Bible tell us if most will be lost or saved?""Does it tell us that all will be saved?"
It is always good to ask questions and there is nothing wrong with the questions Matt say the reader should ask. As a matter of fact they are good question.
So what does the bible teach about damnation?
Lets look and see.
Matthew 23:33
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Mark 3:29
29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
Damnation in both cases above is the Greek word krisis and means judgment.
It is the same krisis used in these verses.
Matthew 12:18-20
18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment(krisis) to the Gentiles. 19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. 20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment(krisis) unto victory.
Here we see Gods judgment is unto victory
But what is this judgment unto victory?
John 12:31-33
31 Now is the judgment(krisis) of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. 33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.
It is the judgment of the CROSS for the WORLD, for Jesus said NOW is the JUDGMENT of this WORLD and this He said signifying what DEATH He should die.
Thus the judgment of God for the WORLD is the cross.
What does the judgment of the CROSS do in mans life?
It separates out of His kingdom which in in you the wheat from the tares. It separates all those thoughts which are the children/tares of the devil from the thoughts which are the children/wheat of God.
Thus all the works of the devil are burned up in the fire.
Now then does this damnation/judgment/krisis only come upon those that know not Christ? Which is what Matt would have the reader to believe.
Hardly, for this damnation/judgment/krisis is the righteous judgments of God that the child of God MUST go through. His damnation/judgment/krisis is OUR manifest token of His righteous damnation/judgment/krisis
Token-evidence-proof.
2 Thessalonians 1:4-6
4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment(krisis) of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: 6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
So then the reader can see that Gods damnation/judgment/krisis is the evidence/proof upon us so that we may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God.
And how is it we are made worthy?
By the removal of all the tares in His kingdom which in IN YOU.
All Gods judgments are corrective in nature, and it is because Matt and others like him who believe in eternal torment do not see and understand this that they make a mockery of the CROSS of our Lord.
The means to good biblical theology is to examine the whole of scriptures without bias so that proper and correct doctrines can be determined. Of course, no one is without bias. But, that does not mean that we should give up trying to be objective. We must endeavor to let God's word lead us rather than our emotionalism and personal preferences make decisions for us, especially about doctrine. At least, that should be the goal.
I agree, and as the reader has just seen Gods damnation/judgment/krisis upon His children is the EVIDENCE that makes us worthy of His kingdom.
So it would seem it is Matt who lets his bias cloud his understanding of the damnation/judgment/krisis of God and it purpose.
What matters is what God has revealed in His word. So, are there scriptures in the Bible that plainly state that not all are saved? Yes, there are.
"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. 14"For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it," (Matt. 7:13-14).
"For many are called, but few are chosen," (Matt. 22:14).
"And He was passing through from one city and village to another, teaching, and proceeding on His way to Jerusalem. 23And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them, 24"Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25"Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up to us!’ then He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know where you are from.’ 26"Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets’; 27and He will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you are from; depart from Me, all you evildoers,'" (Luke 13:22-27).
"And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; 28for the Lord will execute His word upon the earth, thoroughly and quickly," (Rom. 9:27).
These verses are plain and clear. Not all are saved; in fact, few are.
This is the area Matt makes his biggest mistake, those scriptures do not say not all are saved they are talking about the difference between the elect who are the first fruit or overcomes who are saved first in this age as a promise of the whole harvest in the ages to come.
These sets of scriptures are talking about entering into the kingdom of heaven by the strait gate or by way destruction. It is speaking of the difference between the overcomer and the Christian who does not overcome.
The overcomer enters into the kingdom of heaven by the strait gate all other Christians as well as those who know not God enter into the kingdom of heaven by way of destruction.
This is easily seen in Rev.2 & 3, Jesus speaking to the CHURCHES (that would be Christians) says “He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.”
Therefore we can see that Christians who do not overcome go through the second death, if this was not so then Jesus would not have warned the CHURCHES that they must overcome.
I am going to paraphrase Mt.7:13-14 in order to show this more fully.
As I already said it is speaking of entering into the kingdom of heaven so lets look at it in this light.
Enter ye into the kingdom of heaven at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which enter into the kingdom of heaven that way: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Note: does the reader really believe only a FEW will be saved? God sent Jesus to save the world, Jesus came to save the world, but He could only save a FEW. Does the reader really believe this? Did Jesus somehow miss the mark? God sent Him to save the world but somehow He just was not able to do it. Is not missing the mark the definition of sin?
Does the reader believe Jesus is a sinner? Of course not, then is it not incumbent upon you to believe in the salvation of the world? Anything less then the salvation of the world make Jesus miss the mark. He is the saviour of the world reader, believe it.
So as the reader can see both gates lead into the kingdom of heaven, but only a FEW enter in by the strait gate, all others are hurt by the second death.
This is seen more fully when we look at Revelation 22:14-17
After everything is said and done, all judgment passed, all that go into the lake of fire already placed within we read.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Can the reader not see for themselves that those without the gates if they keep His commandments still have right to the tree of life and can enter through the gates into the city?
Who are these people outside the gates of the city?
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Can the reader not see those outside the city gates are the dogs and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
It is to these people that scriptures proclaim if they keep His commandments they have right to the tree of life and can ENTER the city.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Can the reader not see here that the Spirit and the bride still say COME, and whosoever will can COME and take the water of life FREELY.
Brothers and sister the message is clear, until the last sheep is in the fold the Spirit and the bride say COME and take of the water of life FREELY. Praise God He NEVER gives up on us, even when we give up on Him.
Jesus first recorded words are I must be about my Fathers business, what was the Fathers business? The salvation of the world, and when Jesus laid down His life His last recorded words were IT IS FINNISHED, what was finished? His Fathers business the salvation of the world.
Now some might say if the salvation of the world is finished as you are saying how come is it that not everyone is saved yet?
I’ll let the writer of Hebrews answer that question.
Hebrews 2:8-9
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Whether or not we think this makes God a failure, or that it makes us sad, or upsets us, isn't really that important. If the Bible says it, that settles it. What is left is to make adjustments in our understanding and feelings in order to bring more in line with what God has stated.After all, we do not know the mind of God. His ways are higher than our ways. I prefer to accept what it says than feel my way through theology.
Well if we do not know the mind of God what in the world are you doing stating God is going to eternally torment anyone?
Matt biggest problem if he could only see it is the difference between the age we now live in to the ages which are to come. If he could understand that God is literally the God of the ages as scripture attests to he would come into a closer understanding of why indeed God has a first fruit and there purpose.
Matt seems to beleive the elect are saved just for themselves and that thier is no purpose afterwards for them, if he could but realise that they are saved first in order then sent out to save others he might come closer to understanding God purpose for them.
The unforgivable sin and the age to come
The Universalists teach that all people will eventually be saved through the atoning work of Christ. Proponents of universalism must, therefore, maintain that there is no unforgivable sin. For if there were, then their theory that all people will be saved would be proven wrong.Jesus said there was a sin that would not be forgiven in "this age or the age to come," Matt. 12:32:
"And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come."
A parallel passage is found in Luke 12:10. Jesus said,
"And everyone who will speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him."
Jesus stated, in Matt. 12:32, that there is a sin that is not forgivable either in "this age or the age to come." In Luke 12:10, He says blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven at all. The universalist qualifies their belief by stating that "the age to come" is a future age which will terminate. Therefore, they conclude that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will be forgiven after the end of "the age to come." Therefore, when they say read Jesus' words in Luke 12:10, instead of them concluding that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit won't be forgiven, they conclude it will.The important question then becomes "What is meant by 'this age and the age to come'?" Is Jesus dividing time into two periods? Are there only two ages or are there more than two? Does either or both of these ages end? I believe that the Jesus divided time into two ages and that all other ages mentioned in scripture fall within these two over-arching categories. Furthermore, "this age" is the time period we are in now, and "the age to come" is that future time when the Lord returns and eternity begins. Therefore, "the age to come" is without end.
Didn’t we already cover this? Yes we did, but as Matt likes to repeat himself I shall repeat my answer also.
But before I do I’ll point out that Matt again seems to have changed his mind concerning there being more then one age. Earlier Matt complained that the Universalist breaks aion into different ages and now he says there are different ages, but of course he limit’s the aions to just two. Seems to me he cannot make up his mind.
Lets look at those same scriptures from Interlinear Original Language Texts
Amen/verily I am saying to you/to ye that all shall-be-being-from-let/shall be being pardoned to the/the sons of the humans the miss-effects/penalties of sins and the harm-averments/blasphemes as much as/whatever if ever they shall be harm-averring/the shall be blaspheming
Who yet ever should be harm-averring /should be blaspheming into the spirit the holy not is having from-letting/pardon into the eon but liable is of eonian miss-effect/penalty of the sin.
Again we can see no mention of a sin that NEVER can be forgiven. Again we see EON or AGE in place of the word NEVER and we also see that it is an EONIAN/AGE-LASTING sin, not a sin without end.
Thus Matt’s case for a eternal sin falls flat, what Mk.3:28-29 is really saying is that if one blasphemes the Holy Spirit one is not forgiven in this age or in the age to come.
Note: before the death of Christ everyone was under the age of the law, after Christ death everyone is under the age of grace. It is these two ages Mark is speaking of, blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is not forgiven under law, nor is it forgiven under grace, for everyone reaps what they have sown. But during the age of Judgment or as some call it the millennium age those still in sin are pruned without the gate and once the pruning is complete they have right to the tree of life as I already have shown in Rev.22.
But lets just suppose there is a sin that NEVER can be forgiven as Matt says, what would happen?
Jesus Christ is then being eternally tormented for if we do not forgive men their trespasses then neither will the Father forgive us.Mt.6:15
Therefore if Jesus does not forgive us then He is not forgiven Himself and must be then eternally tormented.
But the good news is Jesus forgave even those who crucified Him saying Father forgive them as they no not what they do.Lk.23:34
How many ages are there?
" . . . and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come" (Eph. 1:20b-21).
This verse speaks about Jesus being seated at the Father's right hand and that He (Jesus) is above all rule and authority in this age and the age to come. Jesus' dominion will never end. Therefore, the age to come, singular, will not end either. This is why God the Father says of the Son, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever," (Heb. 1:8). Also, ". . . so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen," (1 Pet. 4:11).
Let's take a look at what the Bible says about "This Age and the Age to Come."
This Age
The Age to Come
We will receive 100 times as much as what we lose (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30).
People are given in marriage (Luke 20:34).
The wisdom of this world is the wisdom of this age (1 Cor. 1:20).
The rulers of this age are coming to nothing (1 Cor. 2:6).
Satan is the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4).
Jesus rescued us from the present evil age (Gal. 1:4).
The end of this age occurs at the return of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:23-24).
The tares are gathered and burned in the fire (Matt. 13:39).
We will receive eternal life (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30).
We do not marry, (Luke 20:35).
Note that in the Greek, the phrase "the age to come" is always in the singular. It is speaking of a singular age to come where we will have eternal life.
As you can see, "this age" is obviously about the present time period because in it we have marriage, rulers, evil, etc. In the age to come, however, we receive eternal life and no marriage occurs. The future reference of receiving eternal life does not mean that we do not posses it now. 1 John 5:13, says we do. Rather, Jesus is speaking of the completion of our redemption which includes our bodies as well. "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body," (1 Cor. 15:42). In the age to come, we enter into eternity because it is when we are resurrected. This happens at the return of Christ.
Matt’s problem here stems from his erroneous belief that aionios means without beginning and without end. But I have already shown aionios ALWAYS deals with a limited time period and to change its meaning is to play with words to make them fit ones doctrine.
So lets take a look at the scriptures Matt provided to prove Jesus dominion is without end and see if that is really what those scriptures say.
Ephesians 1:20-21
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
This scripture says not only in this world/age but also in that which/world or age to come.
This scripture says NOTHING about Jesus dominion being without beginning and without end. It simply is saying that Jesus has dominion in this age and also in the age to come.
&
1 Peter 4:11
11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
This scripture says Jesus will have dominion to the ages of the ages. The words ever and ever in the Greek is aion and aion and ALWAYS denotes an age.
Young’s literal translation has it
11if any one doth speak -- `as oracles of God;' if any one doth minister -- `as of the ability which God doth supply;' that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom is the glory and the power -- to the ages of the ages. Amen.
So if one reads ever/aion to be eternal as Matt would have you read it then Jesus dominion is from eternal to eternal. Can there be more then one eternal? Hardly, for if eternal is without end how can there be more then one.
Both scriptures Matt used speak of Jesus having dominion throughout the ages.
Matt also say concerning these scriptures that they state Jesus dominion will never end. He does this because of the poor use of translating aion to mean without end.
But can those scriptures really mean what Matt says they do. Hardly for we read in 1Co.15:24-26
1 Corinthians 15:24-26
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
So then how long is Jesus to have dominion or how long does Jesus reign according to the scriptures?
Until DEATH is DESTORYED.
What happens after DEATH is destroyed?
Jesus delivers up the kingdom to God the Father.
This should tell the reader a few things.
First: that Jesus reign is NOT without end as He delivers up the kingdom to the Father after DEATH is destroyed.
Second: that DEATH is destroyed, it does not continue on without end as those who believe in eternal torment would have you believe.
Third: if DEATH continues without end, this scripture will never be completed.
These things should put to rest the fancy that aion or aionios means without end, for it is clear that there is an END “then cometh the END when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father. Thus the mystery of the AGES is then complete.
Eph. 2:5-7
There is one verse the New Testament that mentions ages in a future sense. The phrase is "ages to come" and it only occurs in Eph. 2:7
"even when we were dead in our transgressions, [He] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."
This statement is not saying that there are future ages, plural, which are not defined in scripture, anyway. Rather, it is a declaration that in the future state, the Christians will enjoy the "surpassing riches of His grace" -- in the totality of the future. The phrase "ages to come" is merely an expression.
It is hardly just an expression, Matt must play with words again in order to get the meaning he wants the reader to come to.
Young’s literal translation has it
7that He might show, in the ages that are coming, the exceeding riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus,
It is clear this scripture is speaking of future ages.
This type of usage of "ages" to describe a very long time is also seen in Romans 16:25, "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past," In Greek, "long ages past" is "cronos aioniois," which is literally "time eternal(s)".
Again and again Matt’s problem is his erroneous translation of the word aionios, as I have shown time and again aionios always deals with a limited time period. And to change it’s meaning is to play with words.
Lets also read this from Young’s
25And to Him who is able to establish you, according to my good news, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the secret, in the times of the ages having been kept silent,
So the translation is cronos aionios, but cronos aionios does not mean time eternal, it means time age.
Thus in all the past ages this mystery was kept hidden.
This phrase is not saying that there are literally eternal past "ages," but that in long times past, the mystery was hidden.
Well of course its not saying there are literally eternal past ages, the word eternal is nowhere in the equation, it is however saying in the past ages.
Other verses with the same usage of ages past are 1 Cor. 2:7; 10:11; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:26; Titus 1:2; and Heb. 9:26.We can see from the table above, that all the ages past are under the umbrella of "this age" in which we have evil, suffering, etc.
Hardly, if all the ages past are under Matt’s umbrella the scriptures would not have referred to them as PAST ages, but rather as present ages. If something is PAST it is over, Matt wants the reader to believe that PAST and PRESENT have the SAME meaning.
So not only does Matt have to play with the Hebrew and Greek words in order to get the reader to believe what he does, he now is also playing with English words after the same fashion.
The End of This Age
It is important to understand when "this age" ends because it will effect our understanding of the nature of "the age to come" and further clarify that the age to come is without end.I have compiled a chart below to make this easier to see. The left column contains the events (resurrection, rapture, condemnation, etc.). To the right are the phrases used in the Bible to describe the event. With them are the verse locations.
The Event
Phrase and location describing when the event occurs
End of this Age
The Day of the Lord
LastDay
LastTrumpet
Resurrection of the dead
John 6:39,40,44, 54; 11:24;
1 Cor. 15:52;1 Thess. 4:16
Harvest/Rapture(thief in the night)
Matt. 13:39
1 Thess.4:16-5:2
Gathering of elect
Matt. 24:3,31
1 Thess.5:2
Condemnation
1 Cor. 1:8
John 12:48
Wicked burnedwith fire
Matt. 13:40; 49-50
Destruction and Salvation
1 Cor. 5:5
Sun to darkness, moon to blood
Acts 2:20
New heavens and New Earth
2 Pet. 3:10
From the above chart you can see that all the events happen at the same time. The Resurrection occurs on the Last day (John 6:39-40), which is also the last trumpet (1 Cor. 15:52). The resurrection is just before the rapture (1 Thess. 4:16-5:2) which occurs on the Day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5:2) when Jesus returns (1 Thess. 4:16-5:2).It is with/after Jesus' return, which is simultaneous with the rapture, the harvest, etc, that we receive our resurrected bodies and are forever with the Lord. It is then, the "age to come." This age will not end.
It is in "the age to come" that blasphemy is not forgiven. In other words, it isn't ever forgiven.
I have already spoken on the age and the age to come, but will add this here.
The people in Jesus day were living in a transition period, that transition being that they lived to see the end of an age and the start of another. The end of the age of the law and the start of the age of grace.
Thus when Jesus speaks of the age to come, He was speaking of the age of grace to come upon His resurrection.
It is not speaking as Matt would have the reader to believe of the age of the millennium.
That age (millennium age) is one of the ages spoken of in Eph.2:7
Ephesians 2:7
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
I will also point out Matt’s unbelievable inconsistency here.
Matt has gone to great lengths to try to prove aionios means eternal and does not pertain to an age. Yet here he is telling us that the AGE to come is eternal. In other words Matt is telling us that aion means aionios. Therefore making them both pertain to eternal in the sense of without end. Thus even in the scriptures relating to blasphemy Matt must change the meaning of the word to fit his theology. For he has just finished saying that one AION/AGE ended and the next AION/AGE is without end. By doing this he is changing the meaning of the word aion in one sentence to make it fit his theology. Which is something he say we are not to do. Talk about being inconsistent
And the word NEVER as I have pointed out twice already in the Greek is AION/AGE and has nothing to do with never being forgiven.
Heb. 6:6 and Heb. 10:26
There are two other verses which also mention a unforgivable sins.
"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame," (Heb. 6:4-6)
"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries," (Heb. 10:26-27).
In the case of Heb. 6:6, repentance is an impossibility with those who have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit and then have fallen away. If this repentance is impossible, then so is forgiveness.
Likewise, in Heb. 10:26, "if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." The universalists want to have the sacrifice of Jesus cover, pay for, and remove the penalty of all people's sins who have ever lived. But, according to this verse, there is a point when the sacrifice of Jesus is no longer available to a person.
First thing I’ll point out about these scriptures is that they are NOT speaking about those who do not know God, they are speaking of the Christian. Can the unsaved be said to be enlightened, tasted of heavenly gifts, made partakers of the Holy Spirit and received the knowledge of the truth? Hardly, yet this is the way many read those scriptures, thinking that they are speaking of the unsaved or of those who only profess to be Christians but are not. They are either trying to deceive or are deceived themselves. Does the reader really believe the unsaved of fake Christian have partaken of the Holy Spirit? Yet if the reader believes this is speaking of the unsaved or fake Christian then the reader must believe the unsaved or fake Christian is enlightened, tasted of heavenly gifts, made partakers of the Holy Spirit and received the knowledge of the truth.
So then there is a sin unto death which ONLY those who know God can commit.
This sin which is unto death is to wilfully sin against God.
1John. 5:16
16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
The sin NOT unto death are the sins that we commit because of the old man nature (law of sin) in our members.
The sin UNTO death which we are not to pray for is to sin wilfully against God. There is NO more sacrifice for wilfully sinning against the will of God.
Heb.10:26-27
26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
ONLY those who have had their will set free by Jesus Christ and come into the knowledge of the truth can commit this sin.
To know the will of God and to wilfully go against it is the sin unto death.
Think of Adam
Adam wilfully sinned which is a sin UNTO death.
There was no more sacrifice for Adams sin.
Death was promised as punishment and death came.
The only sin for which a man is beaten with many or few stripes is the sin (wilfully) UNTO death.
This sin UNTO death is blaspheme against the Holy Ghost which is not forgiven in this age or the next, but we must reap what we have sown.
This does not mean by any means that we who have committed this sin UNTO death cannot be saved, all it is saying is if you wilfully follow the old man nature instead of the Holy Spirit is that you will reap the rewards for that sin. How many times you reap that sin will determine how many stripes you will receive.
Conclusion
Therefore, the teaching that everyone will eventually be saved cannot be true.
This age and the to come are two over-arching categories that divide human existence.
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in the age to come.
At the end of this age, "the age to come" begins and it has no end.
Heb. 6:6 and Heb. 10:26 also show us that there are conditions of non-forgiveness.
Universalism is not true.
The only reason Matt says Universalism is not true is because of his insistence on his erroneous use of the words aion and aionous, his constant changing of the meaning of the word even within one sentence and his unclear hearing which boarders on unbelief in John testimony of the lamb that takes away the sin of the WORLD.
Reader I have given you a different understanding to all the scriptures Matt has brought up, it is up to you to decide who’s testimony you are going to believe, that of John’s which testifies the lamb takes AWAY the sin of the WORLD, or that of Matt’s which testifies that the lamb will bear with sin for all eternity worlds without end.
P.S. this must be just Matt’s conclusions so far, as he keeps going in his refutation of Universalism, which I’ll make a reply to as time permits.
Does God hate anyone?
The universalists repeatedly say things like, "God loves us all so much that He will save us all"; or "He hates the sin, but loves the sinner"; or "God is love, and will not send anyone to hell." Universalists teach that God is so full of love, that He simply cannot send anyone to eternal hell fire. It is against His infinite love. They want God to forgive all, even those who openly reject Him and die cursing God.I must admit, it is nice to think of God's love being so infinitely great that all will ultimately be saved. Hell is a terrible place and I don't want anyone to go there. But it does not matter what I think. It matters what the Bible says.God is love (1 John 4:8), but God also punishes the sinner and hates all who do iniquity. God is not one sided. He is not simply an infinitely loving God. He is also infinitely just. He must deal with sin. He must punish the sinner.In the truth of God's word, we find that the Lord has provided one way by which we may be saved. That single way is through Jesus' sacrifice. For all who trust in Him, salvation will come. But to those who turn away, God's wrath abides upon them: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him," (John 3:36).
Does God hate anyone?
Does God hate anyone? The answer is yes.
Psalm 5:5, "The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,"
Psalm 11:5, "The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates."
Lev. 20:23, "Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them."
Prov. 6:16-19, "There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil,19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."
Hosea 9:15, "All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels."
Are these verses hard to read? Do they make you feel uncomfortable? They should. God hates sin. But, He does not punish sin. He punishes the sinner. Sin cannot be tied up and thrown into a fire. It cannot be put in a box or glued to a stick. It is rebellion. It is rebellion in the heart. It is breaking God's Law. Sin occurs inside the heart and mind of people. Therefore, God must punish the sinner. Why? Because He is both Holy and Just and the person who sins offends God. God's Holy and Just character will not allow Him to ignore this offense. Why?....
Matt here is playing off an emotion (hate) to that which God is (love).
God is LOVE and Matt seems to want the reader to believe God is also HATE.
Thus making hate equal to or stronger then love which NEVER fails.
When people read the word hate they immediately apply it in the sense to hate with great intensity, but hate also means to find very distasteful, which is more in the lines of God very nature which is LOVE.
So God does punish the sinner, but Gods judgments as I have pointed out time and again is always corrective in nature.
What does Jesus says about hate
Luke 6:27
27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
If we are to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us, should it not go without saying that God MUST do this also? Or does the reader believe we are to love and do good where God does not? Do as I say not as I do? Are we to be more loving then He who is LOVE? Of course not, so how does one go about reconciling Gods judgments which scriptures testify to that God will pour out on the sinner? The doctrine of eternal torment cannot reconcile them, for then they must call evil good and good evil. For if God is going to eternally torment those who hate Him, that torment must be good in their eyes, for the scriptures state that God delights in the judgment of the circumcised and the uncircumcised.
Jeremiah 9:24-25
24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. 25 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;
So if God finds delight in eternal torment should not all His children find the same delight? Not many reading would dare to say they would find delight in God eternally tormenting their own loved ones.
So how does one reconcile doing good to those who hate us and the delight God finds in judgment?
The answer is really simple if one can just see ALL Gods judgments are corrective in nature. Thus when He judges the sinner it is for their good and that is why scripture tells us God finds delight in His judgment on both the circumcised and uncircumcised.
God will mend and restore us in the fire of His judgment.
God's Law is Perfect
When God said, "Let there be light," it happened. When He commanded that the oceans be, they came into existence. God's word is powerful. What He says is never futile, empty, or without power.
Yet when God said Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth Matt says it isn’t going to happen, therefore Matt talks a good talk but does not really believe what he says.
Isaiah 45:22-23
22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. 23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Matt will say something alone the lines of I do to believe every knee will bow and tongue confess, but that bowing and confessing does not mean that they will be saved, all that scripture is saying is that those people will have no choice but to bow and confess.
Matt seems to forget that confession is made unto salvation. Ro.10:10
And that Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 1Jn.4:15.
The Law is a reflection of God's character. It is pure and perfect. It is powerful. The Ten Commandments reflect God's holiness and justice. These commandments are not without punishments. A law without consequences is only an empty slogan.To sin is to break God's Law and offend His character. To sin means to challenge His character and authority. It means you go against His word. But God is not a liar. His word is true. He has said He will punish the lawbreaker.
I don’t know how many times the Universalists have to tell people this before they actually here it, but most Christian Universalists believe in Gods punishment for sin.
We just disagree that it is an eternal punishment without end. We believe God punishes the sinner in order to correct them of the error of their ways, just as any good father would correct their children.
But it does not seem to matter how many times this is repeated to our adversaries they either refuse to hear it or hear it and refuse to acknowledge it.
Matt has talked with many in Universalist circles and he is well aware of the fact that most Christian Universalists believe in God punishing sin, but he writes with the impression that the Universalist does not believe in the punishment for sin, he does this in order to get the reader to think this way so they come to the conclusion that the Universalist does not believe in Gods justice. Which is baring false witness no matter what way Matt wants to cut it.
But, praise be to God, that while we were yet sinners, Jesus died for us (Rom. 5:6).
Not only for us but for the whole world. 1Jn.2:2
The belief today of eternal torment is one of separation that states, God is our God but He is not the God of the sinners. God did this for US, but not for the sinner, His promises are for US but not for the sinner etc. etc.
This is exactly the same reasoning the Israelites of old had, God is our God, but He is not the God of the Gentiles, The messiah was promised to US, not to the Gentiles, etc. etc.
And it was in part, because of the hardness of Israel’s heart concerning those outside the covenant that God cast them off until the fullness of the gentile come in.
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Mt.8:12
He that hath an ear, let him hear
There is no way we can appease God. That is why God became one of us (John 1:1,14; Heb. 2:17), to take our place and become sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21). Therefore, people have two options:
Trust Jesus, God in flesh, as your savior and put your faith in the sacrifice that He made on the cross and in nothing you do.
Reject the cross and let the penalty of the Law fall upon you.
Already just finished saying we reap what we sow.
Matt on the other hand only believes the sinner reaps what they sow and the Christian gets a get out of jail free card.
Let me give the reader an example:
The Universalist is always asked this question “ are you saying Hitler will be saved after all the crap he did?”
The Universalist will say yes, after he has reaped what he sowed.
On the other hand lets suppose just before Hitler died he excepted Jesus Christ into his life, those who believe in eternal torment would say then his sins are forgiven and he does not have to go through the fire.
So which scenario portrays Gods justice? The one of the Universalist who states we reap what we sow or the eternal tormentist who state Hitler would not have to face Gods justice?
You the reader will have to decide which scenario fits with Gods love, mercy and justice.
Either God pays, or you do -- forever. Which will it be?
Nonsense, throwing children into the fire to appease an angry God never entered into the mind of God. Jer.32:35
"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins," (Heb. 10:26). If there is no sacrifice available for you, then God's wrath abides upon you because He hates sin and your sin is not removed (John 3:36). Trust Jesus alone or the wrath of God will abide upon you forever.
The above scripture quoted by Matt proves my point, that the Christian must reap what they have sown, just as the sinner does.
Unless the reader of course wants to believe that the sinner has received the knowledge of the truth.
Matt complains a lot about context, context, but as the reader can see Matt applies Heb.10:26 to the sinner, but the writer of Heb. Says for if WE go on sinning, thus applying it to those already in Christ.
Conclusion
The sobering fact is that God is so holy and righteous that He hates the sinner (Psalm 5:5; Lev. 20:23; Prov. 6:16-19; Hos. 9:15). Some say that we should say that God only hates the sin but loves the sinner. But, the above scriptures speak contrary to that. But it is also true that He is love (1 John 4:8). It is better to accept the love of God found in Jesus than to reject it and suffer His wrath.
Already covered all this, and the reader can judge for themselves whether God hates in the manner Matt speaks of or whether when it says God hates it is speaking of something distasteful to God.
Is Hell Eternal?
The teaching that there is an eternal hell in which hordes of mankind will suffer eternal punishment can be a difficult doctrine to accept. We hear so much about God's infinite love and how He desires that all men be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). However, those who develop their theologies based upon the "gentle" side of God do so with an incomplete picture. Not only is God loving (1 John 4:8-10), gracious (Exo. 33:19; 1 Pet. 2:3), and merciful (Exodus 34:6; Psalm 67:1; James 5:11), but He is also holy (Isaiah 6:3; Rev. 4:8), just ( Neh. 9:32-33; 2 Thess. 1:6), and hates sin (Psalm 5:5-6; Hab. 1:13). God punishes the sinner (Jer. 50:31; Ez. 44:12; Matt. 25:46; 2 Thess. 1:9; 2 Pet. 2:9; Heb. 10:29).The Bible teaches that there is a fiery hell, a place that Jesus warned people about.
"And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire," (Matt. 18:8).
Eternal fire is real. Jesus said it was. In fact, Jesus spoke a great deal about hell. It is what Jesus came here to save us from.
First things first, let the reader be aware that the word hell used in scripture is a pagan word not found in the original language. The word hell in the original language are sheol, hades, tartarus, and gehenna. Each of these words are translated hell in the KJV and other translations of the Bible. So to understand hell one must look at each word that is translated hell for they do not relate to the same thing.
For instance those who believe in eternal torment use the parable found in Lu.16:19-31 concerning the rich man in hell to support people being tormented forever in the lake of fire. But the hell mentioned here is hades and CANNOT be the lake of fire, for we are told in Rev.20:14 that hell/hades is cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death.
Thus the support that those who believe in eternal torment think they find in Lu.16:19-31 is unfounded.
The doctrine of eternal torment actually comes from heathen beliefs found in Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome. Thus the foundation of eternal torment that we find in the churches today are founded on heathen beliefs. And all the reader has to do is to quickly scan the myths belonging to Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome to see this. And these beliefs of eternal torment were believed long before the time of Christ.
Which bring up two points.
First: as Israel knew of these myths, being that they were held captive to Egypt, why is there no mention of eternal torment in the Old Testament? Surely if there was any truth to the myth of eternal torment men like Moses, Joshua etc. would have mentioned it. But we hear nothing from them concerning it.
Second: if Christ taught eternal torment, His gospel was based on Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Roman myths for they were around long before His time.
Does the reader really believe the gospel is centered around the myths of these heathen beliefs? As always this will be up to the reader to decide.
There will be a Day of Judgment when all people will face God. Those who are not covered by the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross will be cast out into hell where they will undergo eternal punishment. "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46). In this verse, the same word "eternal" is used to describe the punishment of the wicked as well as the eternal life of the believer. The punishment is endless as is the eternal life of the believer.
That is why the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4) is so important, because it saves people from eternal damnation:
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life, (John 5:24).
How many times must the word eternal/aion/aionios be covered? As I have explain more the once in this rebuttal aion and it adjective aionios NEVER mean without end but is always applied to that which is limited in duration.
And it is because the words aion and aionios are so misunderstood that the churches have come to believe those myths of heathen origin.
Does the reader not find it ironic that those who believe in the salvation of all are called heathens by those who believe in a gospel of heathen origin?
Following are a few verses that show the eternality of the hell and punishment. God uses different phrases to describe the same thing.
"And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power," (2 Thess. 1:9).
"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7).
These men are those who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever," (Jude12-13).
Again and again this understanding above by Christian come only because of the error in translating the words aion and aionios.
And this is easily seen if we look and see that people are delivered out of hell.
In Jonah 2 we see Jonah in hell, and after his repentance we see hell spit him back out.
In Psalms 86 we see were the Lord delivers ones soul from the lowest hell.
In Psalms 116 we see how the Lord delivered on form the pains of hell.
These are only a few scriptures that state hell is not eternal, for we see how the Lord delivers out of it. Take special notice of Jonah and how upon his correction ie change of mind/repentance that he was delivered out of hell. And thus like him so to all who are held in bondage to hell will be delivered upon being corrected and have a right to the tree of life.
Is "forever and ever" without end?
The phrase "forever and ever" is used both of describing God's eternal worth and the duration of eternal damnation. The exact same Greek phrase is used in each of the verses in the table below.
forever and everaionas ton aionon"ages of the ages"
Eternal - without end
Eternal Damnation
"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen," (1 Tim. 1:17).
". . . To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever" (Rev. 5:13).
"And a second time they said, "Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever and ever" (Rev. 19:3).
"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever," (Rev. 20:10).
The Greek phrase "aionas ton aionon," which is translated "forever and ever," occurs 18 times in the Greek New Testament. In 17 of them, the phrase means without end, extending into infinity.
In Rev. 19:3, the phrase is used to describe the destruction of the great whore of Babylon (Rev. 17:1,4) whose smoke ascends forever and ever. It too is eternal and it signifies the beginning of the eternal judgment that comes upon her. Also worth examining is Rev. 14:11: "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." The Greek in Rev. 14:11 is only slightly different. In the table above, "forever and ever" is translated from the Greek, "aionas ton aionon," which is literally "ages of the of ages." In Rev. 14:11, the Greek is "aionas aionon" which is literally, "ages of ages." In the latter, the single Greek word "of the" is missing. But it is not necessary and does not change the meaning of the text. Therefore, the scripture teaches the smoke of their torment goes up forever, without end.
Here we go again,
First: Matt says aionios to aionios means without end/eternal thus making a mockery of the scriptures, for how can something that is eternal be from eternal to eternal or without end to without end. So place eternal in each of the 18 times forever and ever (aionios and aionios) is used in the Greek and you have such statements as.
"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory eternity and eternity Amen,"
So then how can aionios mean eternal in the sense of without end if Gods glory is from eternity to eternity? Obviously this translation (without end/eternity) is in error because in each of the 18 scriptures they speak of two aionios/eternities. The translators should have translated it ages and ages as both Young literal and Rotherham’s emphasised has done and any confusion goes away and we read it like this.
17and to the King of the ages, the incorruptible, invisible, only wise God, [is] honour and glory -- to the ages of the ages! Amen. Young’s
To show ages to ages is a proper translation, within this very scripture there is a word used that actually means without end, that word is immortal or in the Greek aphthartos
So if the scripture was meant to convey without end should it not have rather used aphthartos instead of aionios?
Also of note is that aphthartos is NEVER used concerning Gods judgments, which if God judgments were to be without end surely the scriptures would have used it.
Second: Matt says in 17 out of the 18 times the phrase means without end, why not in all 18 times? Seems Matt has to change the meaning of the word in at least one instance in order to make it fit his doctrine.
Again the reader is going to have to decide for themselves whether aion and it adjective aionios means without end or whether it means ages and pertains to the age.
Unquenchable Fire
Some believe that the fires of hell are symbolic and/or temporal. But the following verses show that they are not.Matt. 3:12 says, "And His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." (See also Luke 3:17.)Mark 9:43 says, "And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire." The word "unquenchable" is "asbestos" in the Greek. According to the enhanced Strong's lexicon, it means "unquenchable, the eternal hell fire to punish the damned." The following citations are from Greek dictionaries and Lexicons. They show that the word "unquenchable," which is "asbestos" in the Greek, (which occurs only in Matt. 3:12, Luke 3:17, and Mark 9:43) means unquenchable, without end.
"unquenchable, inextinguishable" - Liddell, H. G., and Scott, Abridged Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 1992, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.
"not quenched" - Vine, W. E., Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell) 1981, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.
"pertaining to a fire that cannot be put out" - "unquenchable." - Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989, [Online] Available: Logos Library System
"unquenched, unquenchable" - Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995, [Online] Available: Logos Library System.
"that cannot be put out" - Wigram-Green, The New Englishman's Greek Concordance and Lexicon, (Peabody Mass: Hendrikson Publishers, 1982, p. 771.
"inextinguishable" - William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press), 1979, p. 114.
Is hell eternal? Yes it is. Are its fires without end? Yes they are. Is it a pleasant doctrine to discuss? Not really. But, hell is real. This is all the more reason to preach the gospel. Jesus said,
"And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire," (Matt. 18:8).
Just because the fire is unquenchable does not make it a fire without end, not one of the Greek dictionaries and Lexicons state that unquenchable is without end.
They all use words like, unquenchable, inextinguishable" , "not quenched" ,"pertaining to a fire that cannot be put out" - "unquenchable." ,"unquenched, unquenchable" , "that cannot be put out" ,"inextinguishable"
Not once do we see the words without end, thus Matt is adding his own definition to the meaning of the word.
So then we can see that unquenchable does not have anything to do with TIME, but rather it deals with the property of the fire, in that this fire cannot be PUT OUT.
But just because the fire cannot be put out does not mean that the fire does not go out once all that is burnable is consumed.
This is so easy to see in that Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed with unquenchable fire, and if we look to Sodom and Gomorrah we do not see a fire still burning there today. So what happened? When all that was in Sodom and Gomorrah that could be burn was consumed the fire went out.
Also if the reader reads Ezekiel 16:53-55 they will see that Sodom and Gomorrah will be restored.
So much for Matt’s belief that unquenchable mean without end.
The demonic forces will not be saved
There are some universalists who believe that Satan and all of the demonic realm will be redeemed through the atonement of Jesus. Though I have found this is a minority view among the universalists, it is still worth addressing and correcting.
I happen to be one of those few.
The demonic realm will not and cannot be redeemed. This simple reason is that they have no Redeemer. Jesus is the Redeemer of humanity, not of the demonic realm.
Matt seems to be one of those who would diminish the cross of our Lord, for the scriptures state that ALL things visible and INVISIBLE are reconciled by the blood of His cross.
Colossians 1:16-2016 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Ephesians 3:8-10
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God
There is a doctrine in theology called the hypostatic union. It is the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus. Jesus is both God and man. He was God so that He could appease God the Father with the sacrifice of infinite value. We need a sacrifice of infinite value because when we sin, we sin against an infinite God. Therefore our offense against Him has infinite consequences. No mere human can please and satisfy an infinitely holy and righteous God. Only God Himself can satisfy the infinite requirements of His own holiness. Therefore, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us," (John 1:14). Jesus became our atoning sacrifice to turn away the wrath of God (Rom. 5:9) by bearing our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). Therefore, those who trust in Christ are saved by grace (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 6:23).Likewise, the reason he needed to be a man was so that he could atone for the sins of mankind. He had to be made like one of us.
"For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. 17Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." (Heb. 2:16-17).
Hmmm, if one reads Heb.2:16-17 to the exclusion of the angelic as Matt is won’t to do, then it is also to the exclusion of the Gentile, for it says He gives help to the descendants of ABRAHAM, and the Gentiles are not of Abraham.
But we know Matt’s understanding of Heb.2:16-17 to be in error as the scriptures I already gave show the INVISIBLE are also reconciled by the blood of His cross.
And we also know that His body was sent to the Gentile, and He Himself also gave help to the Gentile.
The fallen angels do not have a sacrifice on their behalf. They do not have the infinite God becoming one of them and atoning for them. Therefore, the demonic realm will not be saved.
Hardly, just the few scriptures I just provided show that the gospel is also preached unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places.
Also if the reader will go back and read the first few post in this rebuttal I explained this in greater detail.
______
________________
John 1:14 - "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
Rom. 5:9 - "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."
1 Pet. 2:24 - "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."
Eph. 2:8-9 - "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, that no one should boast."
Rom. 6:23 - "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Yep all good scriptures, but not one of them states His blood was not shed for the angelic.
Fallen angels go to the lake of fire forever
Some Universalists maintain that even the demonic horde will ultimately be redeemed and enjoy heaven. Other Universalists deny that the demonic forces will be redeemed. You often get different answers from different Universalists. Is it important? Yes, it is.People are redeemed because they have a Redeemer, Jesus. Jesus is God in flesh (Col. 2:9) who bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Jesus bore the sins of demons.
Huh! Read it again
Colossians 1:16-2016 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Why? Because it did not happen.
Just showed by scripture that it did.
Maybe Matt would like to explain to the reader who these thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers are that are reconciled by the blood of Christ.
Better yet lets let Paul tell us.
Ephesians 6:1212 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Who are you going to believe Paul or Matt?
The reason this is important is because we can then see that the demonic realm does not have a savior and cannot be redeemed from their sins. They will remain in their sins for eternity.
Really! Please then explain who the thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers are?
And well your at it explain how one remains in their sins when the scriptures tell us that the lamb of God takes AWAY the sin of the WORLD.
We see the pattern of God's incarnation, bearing of sins, dying, resurrection, and justification by faith (Rom. 5:1). We see that God became man. We see that Jesus was both God and man (Col. 2:9). It was necessary that He be both God and man for a very simple and important reason. He had to be God in order to offer a sufficiently holy and infinite sacrifice to counter the infinite offense against God that creatures commit against Him. He had to be man in order to bear the sins of men. He had to represent the ones for whom He atoned in order for them to be atoned for.According to this pattern that we see in Scripture, for the demonic realm to be saved, God would have become one of them, bear their sins, and, somehow, redeem them through death or some other means that God would determine. Yet, there is nothing in scripture to substantiate that this has or will occur. Therefore, the demonic realm has no redeemer and their sins will be retained, forever.
Matt keeps saying there is no scripture that states the angelic are saved, yet I just showed two scriptures that tell us they are.
But some might ask, "Could God have another means by which He saves the fallen angels?" Yes. He could, most anything is possible. But mere possibilities do not make actualities. The Bible does not provide any redemptive plan for the demonic forces. Therefore, we can safely conclude that there is none. Demons are not and will not be redeemed.
Ah but the Bible does indeed provide redemption for the angelic, for the last time read it again.
Colossians 1:16-2016 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Ephesians 3:8-10
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God
Ephesians 6:1212 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Reconciling the whole world
Some Universalists maintain that all the demonic forces will be redeemed because it states so in the Bible. It doesn't. Nevertheless, following are some of the verses used by the Universalists to claim that the demonic realm will be redeemed. I've commented following each verse.
1 Cor. 15:27-28 "For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him. Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all."
This is simply stating that all things will be subject to God. Even the damned will be subject to God because in hell they are in a state of subjection to God's judgment upon them. It is God's will to judge those who are unsaved. It is according to His law and they will be subject to that righteous judgment.
The word subject in the Greek is hupotasso which is a military word, Strong’s says
A Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader”. In non-military use, it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden”.
It is also the same word used when one is to obey.
Thus hupotasso/subject is to OBEY in a military fashion, or come under the direction of their leader.
1Cor.15:27-28 therefore is speaking of ALL things being OBEDIENT unto God.
These scriptures are not talking about disobedience as Matt would have the reader to believe but they are speaking of OBEDIENCE.
Thus when ALL are subject to God all are OBEDIENT to God.
It is by this subjection/obedience that God becomes all in all, and the scripture points this out most clearly when it states the SON HIMSELF also shall be subjected to God.
What Matt would have the reader do is change the meaning of the word hupotasso within the same sentences, thus playing with words to suite his own doctrine.
Col. 1:20, "and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."
This verse does not state that the demons will be saved. Reconciliation means to bring someone or something into a right relationship with another. The lawful and proper relationship of the unsaved before God is damnation. Those who are condemned to damnation are rightly condemned and their relation to God is proper. They are eternally subjected to His judgment.
What a terrible view Matt has here, he is making the blood of the cross of non effect.
The scripture plainly says He reconciled all things to Himself, (and here is the good part on how He did it) having made PEACE through the blood of His cross.
Thus if one is to follow Matt’s understanding then Matt sees damnation as the PEACE some people receive through the blood of His cross.
Besides all that, Matt would have the reader believe that after reconciliation by the blood of His cross those who are damned are brought into their right relationship with God, that right relationship being that they are damned. But isn’t that the relationship that they had before the reconciliation?
So what did the reconciliation of PEACE by the blood of His cross do for them if they are in the same state as they were before the reconciliation took place? Absolutely NOTHING, thus making the blood of His cross of non effect.
Dear reader do you honestly see PEACE in the eternal torment Matt is speaking of?
Are not PEACE and TORMENT opposites of each other?
Like always you the reader will have to make up your own minds.
The demonic horde is not in heaven. This is speaking of God reconciling His people to Himself -- those who who have died and gone to be with God and those who are still living in this world. But, it is only the Christian who is redeemed. Those who reject Christ are not.
Huh are not those who have believed and died ALREADY reconciled? So how can it be speaking of just those who have ALREADY died in the Lord?
Matt would have the reader believe that those who died in the Lord and those yet that are living, both the visible and the invisible, be they thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers is speaking of the Christian. Thus forgetting that Paul tells us these thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers are rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places. Eph.6:12
And that to these principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God Eph.3:10.
Who are you going to believe Paul or Matt?
Rom. 8:19, "For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now."
Does creation have a will? No it does not. Obviously we have figurative usage here. This is dealing with creation as a whole, earth, sky, animals, stars, etc. All of creation was affected by Adam's sin because Adam was the one who was in charge of it. Since Adam's sin (and the sins of his progeny) are cleansed, then that which Adam represented is also cleansed; namely, creation. Creation did not have a redeeming sacrifice for its sin since creation did not sin. Rather, as sin entered the world through Adam, when all sin is finally dealt with, its effect will be removed from the creation that was given to Adam in his dominion authority.
Hmmm if sins effect is removed from creation how can there be eternal torment?
Are not those in eternal torment a part of creation? Sure they are, and like Paul says (if Matt had bothered going even one verse more) For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Paul makes plain here that these scriptures are talking about all created life, for he says they (referring to creation) like OURSELVES wait for the adoption to wit the redemption of our body.
The angels who fell were not under Adam's representation. They had their own freedom to choose what they wanted to do. They willingly sinned. They willingly rebelled. And, they have no propitiation, no atoning sacrifice to have their sins forgiven.
Does not matter how many times Matt states this is not going to make it true.
I have already shown by scripture a number of times that the reconciliation of PEACE by the blood of the cross is for all of creation both visible and invisible.
Also note that "all creation" does not always mean every created thing. Look at Mark 16:15 Jesus said, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." All creation here is not inclusive of the planets, stars, nebulae, nor the angels. We are told to preach the gospel to people. And consider Col. 1:23, ". . . the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven. . . " This is not speaking of angels, planets, etc. It is a representative usage of people all over the place.
The Gospel is to be preached to all creation, and contrary to Matt’s belief that it is not preached to angels Paul says.
Ephesians 3:8-10
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God
Thus the reader can see for themselves that the Gospel we receive is ALSO made manifest by the church the manifold wisdom of God to the angelic.
Why is this important?
The Lake of Fire was created for the devil and his angels. The devil and his fallen angels have no redeeming sacrifice the way we do. The demonic forces will be cast into hell and since they are not forgiven, their punishment is without end. Likewise, we see that people are also thrown into the Lake of Fire. Since the angels' condemnation is without end in the Lake of Fire, so to is the punishment delivered to those people who are also cast into that very same lake.
Matt. 25:41, “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.
Rev. 20:14-15, And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Mark 9:43, “And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,"
The demonic realm has no redeemer. Jesus did not bear their sins in His body. He bore OUR sins in his body (1 Pet. 2:24). Since they do NOT have a sin-bearer, they will remain in their sins. Their punishment is eternal. Since there are people thrown into that SAME lake of fire, their punishment is likewise eternal. Is hell eternal? Yes. Are all people saved? No.
As I have already covered this and covered it again I’ll just give the reader scripture that shows Jesus Christ’s sacrifice is for the whole world.
1 John 2:2
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Colossians 1:16-2016 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Ephesians 3:8-10
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God
John 1:29
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
As the reader can see Jesus did not just die for our sins but for the sins of the whole world.
Does eternal punishment deny God's justice?
Some of the proponents of Universalism maintain that eternal punishment cannot be true because if God eternally damned someone, it would mean that the punishment would never be complete. Therefore, God is not satisfied, His judgment is not realized, and justice is never accomplished. The first problem with this objection is the idea that God's eternal judgment necessarily must have an end. If it is eternal punishment, then it wouldn't end. "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life," (Matt. 25:46). Not all judgments and punishments end. Consider a person who is executed for a capital crime. His punishment is death. In effect, it is a judgment that is eternal. The judgment is completed by the accomplishment of a sentence: execution. The sentence has an eternal duration which will not end and at the same time the judgment has been accomplished. The judgment, in and of itself, is eternal by definition and this does not mean that it is not satisfied or realized. The eternal sentence of death, has been accomplished and is still in effect. Therefore, we can see that a valid punishment with an eternal result can be a reality.
First: Gods judgments are all corrective in nature.
Second: they are only for a limited duration.
Third: the wages of sin is DEATH not eternal punishment.
Forth: DEATH is to be swallowed up in victory and thus its sting is no more.
Matt would have the reader believe that death and its sting is eternal, but all the reader has to do is read 1Co.15:54-56 to see Matt’s belief runs contrary to scripture.
Second, it is not logically necessary that an eternal punishment upon a sinner be an insufficient or non-accomplished judgment. It is just as logical to say that God's infinite justice is properly accomplished with an infinite punishment. After all, an offense of infinite value would require an infinite punishment.
Well it is illogical to believe in an eternal death of punishment when the scriptures tell us death is swallowed up in victory and it sting is no more.
Thus Matt’s presentation is illogical.
Third, it would be an injustice to God's infinite righteousness and holiness to have the sinner's punishment be terminated.
Hogwash, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Of course, I am not here speaking of discipline, where the Lord chastises a person and welcomes him back into fellowship. I am speaking here of damnation, that pronouncement upon a sinner who is not covered in the blood of Christ.
Eek Gad, the damnation of hell is for discipline or chastisement unto correction.
Matthew 23:33
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Damnation here come from the Greek word krisis and means judgment, so let look and see if krisis is used for correction.
Matthew 12:18-21
18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. 19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. 20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. 21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
He we see the damnation of hell is unto victory.
Acts 8:32-35
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Here we see Jesus suffered the damnation of hell. So according to Matt’s belief Jesus must still be suffering for he believes damnation is eternal.
2 Thessalonians 1:2-5
2 Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth; 4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
Here we see the righteous damnation of God is a manifest token/evidence/proof that we may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God.
These are just a few scriptures that show how the damnation of hell are for correction and not some kind of torture chamber that is without end.
As I said above, it follows that if God is infinite and the sinner has offended God, then that is an infinite offense.
Well if when one sins against God and it is an infinite sin then all mankind will be tormented without end for all have sinned against God and fallen short of His glory.
But, but, but our sins were paid for by Christ some will holler so our infinite sin against God is forgiven.
Did you so soon forget what the two John’s said.
1 John 2:2
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
John 1:29
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
If judgment upon the sinner regarding his sinfulness were temporal, then it means that a sinner's suffering is sufficient to appease an infinite God.
This is not about suffering for suffering, it is about suffering the CORRECTION of God, and yes when one has been corrected they have right to the tree of life as is stated in Rev.22:14
That would be unjust since, Gal. 2:21 says, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." Paul is saying that if we could be please God by what we do (suffer), then Christ died needlessly.
Huh? Gal.2:21 is talking about trying to enter into the promise land without the ark/Christ and has nothing to do with suffering a fire without end.
Fourth, the universalists have stated that though the unrepentant sinners are truly forgiven in Christ, they must be "punished," "purified," "corrected," for a period of time in the after life before they are ready to be admitted into the eternal life of realized forgiveness. This is a very dangerous teaching because it strikes at the very heart of the atonement of Christ. For a person to suffer the judgment of God because of his sin until he is found worthy to be with God is to state that the atonement is insufficient and must be completed through the suffering of the sinner. This is blasphemous and must be avoided at all costs.It should be plain to see that the universalist position is incorrect.
Basically what Matt is saying here is that those who believe in Christ do NOT have to be purified and corrected because their sins are forgiven.
Yet we just finished reading that damnation is evidence/proof upon us that we may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God.
Thess.2:2-5
So what Matt is saying is that this PROOF that makes us worthy for the kingdom of God does away with or makes His atonement insufficient.
Seems Matt forgets that the gold, silver and precious stones go through the fire right along with the wood, hay and stubble.
Now since this portion is dealing with God justice I would like to set forth a scenario for the readers consideration.
Two men are brought before God’s justice, the first man has been a good father and husband, he has helped the poor, visited the widows, does not lie, cheat or steal, but never accepted Jesus as his Lord and saviour.
The second man beat his children and wife, murdered countless innocent people, man woman and children, lied stole and cheated his whole life, yet a month before his death he accepted Jesus as his Lord and saviour.
According to the church standard the first man goes into eternal fire just because he never accepted Jesus as Lord and saviour and the second man gets a free ride into the kingdom of God.
This is Gods justice? According to church standard it is.
But Gods justice demands the death of the sinner, which is our old man, and the only way God has provided for the death of the old man is by the way of the cross, that fiery law that when written in our hearts produces a cross. It is by this method that the damnation of hell is used for correction, thus making us worthy to enter into the kingdom of God.
Jesus did not die for us so that we don’t have to die, He died for us to show us the way we to are to die, thus taking up our CROSS and following Him.
Thus both the first man and the second man go through the fire to purify and correct them, for it is not enough just to accept Jesus as Lord and saviour one must overcome in order not to be hurt of the second death.
This is easily shown if the reader would keep in mind that the gold, silver and precious stone go through the same fire as the wood hay and stubble.
The Danger of Universalism
Universalism teaches that all people will eventually be saved through the atonement of Christ. It says that all mankind, even those who have openly rejected Jesus, those who have willingly committed horrible crimes and died without repentance, and without the covering of Christ's blood, will enjoy a future with God.
First no scripture states that man cannot repent in the age to come, but there is scripture that shows man repents in the age to come. Rev.22:14-15 tells us that the dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters who are without the gate have right to the tree of life if they keep His commandments and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Second Universalism does not teach that people can enjoy a future with God without the blood of Christ as a covering.
What we do believe however is that every man, woman and child is ALREADY covered by His blood, for Jesus Christ shed His blood on the cross for ALL 2000 years ago.
The problem many people have here is they think Jesus death is what saves us and because they believe this they come into the error of stating that Jesus sacrificial covering is not upon those who have rejected Christ in this life.
This is a great error that MUST be CORRECTED in the church, for it is NOT His death that saves us, rather it is His RESURRECTION that does, for we are RECONCILED by His DEATH, but SAVED by His LIFE. Ro.5:10
To many of Gods people focus on Jesus death, and not enough place the focus where the gospel should be which is on His resurrection. And they do this because they think Jesus death saves us.
However it is true that without His death there could be no resurrection, but it is a twofold work, first His death which reconciled ALL 2000 years ago should be preached to those who know not God in order that they come to know that His death and therefore reconciliation indeed applies to them. This brings them into the same hope that we who believe have which is the resurrection of the dead or salvation by His life.
The doctrine of eternal torment gives no hope for the dead, yet Paul says that if in this life only we have hope in Christ we are of all men most miserable.1Co.15:19
This belief is based upon the idea that God's love is so infinitely great, that His grace in Christ is so awesome, that everyone will be saved. This simply is not true.
I cannot believe what I just read here. Does the reader not believe that God’s love is infinitely great and that His grace in Christ is awesome? What Matt is saying is that God’s love which never fails and His grace cannot save everyone. Thus making Gods love fail, for it was BECAUSE of LOVE for the whole world that God sent Jesus into it for the worlds salvation.
So yes the salvation of all is based on God’s love that cannot fail, but this basis is not wishful thinking as those who believe in eternal torment would have the reader believe, for we find this base in scripture upon scripture upon scripture.
The danger of universalism is that it to can give someone a false sense of security about their eternal destiny.
Not if Universalism is understood correctly it doesn’t. Although some Universalist do not believe in a future age of correction, I am not one who does so.
Universalism teaches that ALL but those who overcome are hurt of the fires of the second death. Thus all men will reap what they have sown.
Therefore it is not the universalist belief that give a sense of false security, that sense of a false security rests solely on the shoulders of those who believe in eternal torment. For they go about teaching man that if they accept Jesus Christ they will magically be spared the sting of lake of fire.
Note: the lake of fire is for correction and all mankind have need of Gods corrective fire.
It can remove the need of accountability.
Not so, we all reap what we have sown, on the other hand however the belief in eternal torment removes the need of accountability for that doctrine teaches man is not accountable for their own sins because Jesus died for them.
So accept Christ into your life then live like the devil because you don’t have to worry about being accountable for you actions. They use Jesus as some type of fire insurance.
Reader you may think I am being overly dramatic here, but I can’t tell you how many Christians I have spoken with who believe in eternal torment that have said to me, “well if I believed as you do (in the salvation of all) I would go out and enjoy all the pleasures of the flesh because I am going to be saved anyway.” Does statements like the above not show what is really in their heart? Does it not show how because of fear they have taken Christ into their life as a type of fire insurance and not because of love for Him as it should be.
It can remove the fear of judgment.
Perfect love casteth out fear.
It does not require repentance.
Sure it does, it just does not require repentance in this life.
A person who adopts universalism can easily conclude that if he is going to be saved no matter what he does, then why be concerned about repentance or accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior?
Only if they do not understand that we all reap what we have sown. Some will be beaten with many stripe, some with few. Any good parent would warn their child of the stripe ahead if they continue in their sins.
This potential error is most dangerous. Especially because if universalism is not true, then the false sense of security it has given to those who have not trusted in Christ, will lead them to damnation. This is a very serious danger.
Already explain how it is not the universalist view that gives a false sense of security but rather the eternal torment view does.
Of course, simply because it is possible that people will become lax in accepting Christ if they adopt universalism, it does not mean this is what will happen. Nor does it mean that all Universalists think they can go out and sin wilfully.
No universalist that I have spoken with believes they can go out and sin wilfully and get away without paying a price for wilful sin. As I have said repeatedly Universalists believe we reap what we have sown. Does that sound like we believe that we can go out and sin wilfully to you the reader?
On the contrary, most Universalists are very moral. But, there is the inherent danger in universalism that reduces the need for repentance and salvation. This is a great risk. Eternity is a long time to be wrong and hell is a terrible place to be forever.
Well we have already seen time and again that eternity is of limited duration and that the hell of eternal torment without end does not exist.
What does Satan want?
Satan wants the destruction of people. Satan wants people to die in their sins and go to hell. He is utter hatred and complete evil. But, he is also extremely cunning with an intelligence that is vast. Universalism may very well become a tool of the evil one in the last days.
Matt says that the preaching of the salvation of all (which really boils down to the UNMERITED LOVE OF GOD for the whole world) may well be a tool of the evil one.
Would that not then make Paul a tool of Satan? For Paul states that love NEVER fails 1Co.15:8 and we all know that the reason God sent Christ into the world was because He (God) so LOVED the world, and that through Christ the WORLD might be saved. Jn.3:16-17.
If the world is then not saved, does that not equate with LOVE failing?
Sure it does, therefore we know that any doctrine that implies Gods LOVE fails is a doctrine of error.
It weakens the need to trust in Christ in this life.
Hardly, the only reason people would believe that God will save the world weakens the need for Christ in this life is because they either refuse to hear just what we believe, or are not given the chance to hear what we believe because of the powers that be. Matt is guilty of both, for he himself refuses to hear and will not allow those that would hear to hear by standing in their way in that on his carm board the salvation of all is taboo, if one even hints that God is the saviour of all the post is deleted and the poster banned.
The carm mods will say it is Matt’s house and he can do with it as he pleases, if he does not want the salvation of all spoken of in his house that his right.
But is it not suppose to be Gods house?
In Universalism, Satan can work his false doctrines through its adherents. This is clearly the case since many Universalists deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ. But in universalist theology, it really doesn't matter. Why? Because ultimately, in the after life, people will come to a true knowledge of God and repent and be saved. So, even if they are wrong now, they will be right later.
Yes Matt the truth will be brought to light and all shall see the light.
No man made set of doctrines like those set before us by the council of Nicaea will save man, man is only saved by following Christ and not by any set of doctrines set down by man.
Satan says, "Don't worry about receiving Jesus now. You can do that later.
" But it is Christ who says,
“At the acceptable time I listened to you, And on the day of salvation I helped you” ;behold, now is “the acceptable time,” behold, now is “the day of salvation" (2 Cor. 6:3).
"He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, “Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts" (Heb. 4:7).
Hmmm what right does man have to set the limit of TODAY to this age only?
Just by the two scriptures Matt quoted above we can see TODAY spans at least two ages, for the day of salvation or TODAY is mentioned by David who was under the age of law, and again mentioned by Paul who was in the age of grace.
Thus TODAY is not limited to one age, but rather is given in future ages as well.
The meaning of the day of salvation or TODAY is this: when God draws you to Him and opens your eyes and gives you a hearing ear is your TODAY or the day of your salvation.
Until this happens your TODAY or day of your salvation has not yet come upon you.
We all know that millions of people died without hearing the voice of the Son of God concerning the day of their salvation, but we also know by scripture that the dead shall hear His voice and those that hear shall live. Why? Because those outside the gate, when they keep His commandments still have the right to the tree of life. Rev.22:14-15
What would be a uniting religious concept that would tend to unite different religious systems? Universalism! Think about it. If everyone is going to be saved, then Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc. will not keep people out of hell. If all religions adopted universalism, then each could look at the other as being a different belief (or even error) that would, nevertheless, lead a person to redemption in the after-life.
What! The gospel is not about following any religion its about following Christ.
This seems to be the problem with people, they look at following Christ as a religion, well He is not a religion, He is King of kings and Lord of lords the saviour of the world.
People tend to think these other religions are nothing but error upon error, but they are not, in these other religions we can find truth, howbeit truth that is overrun in error.
All these religions have taken some truth from the word of God and corrupted it, they do this in the exact same manner Satan did when he took the word of God and tempted Jesus with it. Satan greatest asset is the word of God by way of corruption and is the reason we have so many religions today.
Most of us know Satan is one smart cookie, and what better way then to corrupt the word of God in order to undermine the truth therein.
What does Jesus save us from?
Jesus saves. But what does He save us from? Does Jesus save us from ourselves, our thoughts, our actions, our temperament, or even our sins. No.
What? Matthew 1:21
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Matt’s tunnel vision here in order to prove his doctrine right is at the expense of the scriptures themselves, for the reader can see we are indeed saved from our sins.
He saves us from the wrathful judgment of God upon us due to us because of our sinfulness. There is a natural consequence to being a sinner: judgment. God will punish the sinner (Hosea 8:13; 9:9). The one who rejects Jesus does not have a covering for sin, does not have forgiveness of sins, and has the wrath of God abiding upon him:
He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him, (John 3:36).
Jesus saves us from that wrath. Jesus saves all those who receive Him (John 1:12; Rom. 8:1) so that they can escape the judgment to come.
He therefore began saying to the multitudes who were going out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (Luke 3:7).
Universalists do not deny Gods judgments, we just don’t see them as unending, we see them as only being of the age or aeon, which is always used to denote a limited time.
Read again Rev.22:14-15 and you will see that those who are outside the gate are those who are under Gods judgment and that if they keep His commandments have the right to the tree of life and may ENTER IN THOUGH THE GATES INTO THE CITY.
Jesus warned us about hell (Matt. 5:22,29-30;23:33; Mark 9:45; Luke 12:5). In fact, He spoke more of it than He did of heaven. He does not want you to go to that place of torment. That is why He said, "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire," (Matt. 18:8).
Hogwash this just go to show how well read Matt is, instead of searching the matter out Matt stands on the company line of Jesus spoke more of hell then He did heaven.
Jesus mentions the word hell 15 times in the Gospels and of those 15 only 12 are in reference to Gehenna. 12 times Jesus mentioned Gehenna and on this 12 time those who believe in eternal torment make up their doctrine.
Yet just in the sermon on the MT. Jesus speaks of heaven 18 time. 18 time in one sermon and Matt would have the reader believe Jesus spoke more on hell then He did heaven.
Don’t believe me, look it up for yourselves.
If universalism is true, then where is the power in Jesus' warning? If universalism is true then there is no eternal fiery hell, no dread of being cast into it, no wrath to come -- but there is!
Hogwash Universalist believe in Gods fiery judgment and all the warning about it, so for Matt to state if universalism is true it mean there is no wrath to come is pure hogwash.
Hell is the real place. Jesus came to save us from it.
Well Gods judgment is most definitely real, but the mainstream idea of hell is nowhere found in the scripture. Hell as taught in the mainstream churches is of pagan origins.
But you must trust Christ and His atoning sacrifice in order to escape the wrath of God. Does universalism lead us to urgency? Does it lead us to fear the wrath to come? No.
It doesn't. It removes the urgency. It removes the fear of God.
Now, I am not saying that we must live in fear or that fear is the only motive to be saved. But, Jesus Himself warned people about hell and the Bible tells us that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," (Prov. 9:10).
Hogwash the fear of God is reverential and not something that is to be afraid of.
Do you the reader serve God because you are afraid of Him or because you are in awe of Him? His awesomeness is the beginning of wisdom and what is more awesome then to know that Jesus Christ is the saviour of the whole world. Oh taste and see that the Lord is GOOD and you have gained the beginning of wisdom in awe of our LORD.
Conclusion
Universalism can lead to complacency. It can easily lessen the concern for salvation and repentance. In this, there is danger.
Ya, ya ,ya the same thing was said about what Paul preached also (grace) by those who wanted to keep the people in BONDAGE to the LAW.
The Danger of Universalism Illustrated
Universalism teaches that all people will eventually be saved and that no one goes to the fiery-hell to suffer for their sins. It means that everyone is saved, whether or not they have accepted or openly rejected Jesus' atonement. Of course, this goes against Heb. 10:26-27 which says,
"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries" (NASB).
Matt is misrepresenting what most Universalists believe here, as I have said time and time again the universalist believe in aeonian fire, for we all reap what we sow.
There is a danger in the Universalist position. It can weaken the need for someone to receive Jesus as Savior. To prove the point I provide this "exaggerated" illustration. But, the contrived universalist sermon below contains many quotes said by universalists to me. I've just blended them in:
There is this horrible, hateful man who abused all sorts of people in countless ways. He stole from them, was foul mouthed, a habitual adulterer, and he openly mocked and blasphemed God. He repeatedly sought to destroy the Christian Church and did everything in his power to prevent the gospel from being preached. He was a wretched and evil man.This man died and, out of social obligation, all this relatives were at his funeral. There were lots of impressionable children, sweet little old ladies, and many acquaintances from work who had been appalled at the atheists horrible lifestyle yet were there nevertheless. However, some of the people there were thinking of sin, salvation, God, judgment, and what death brings. This often happens at funerals.A universalist pastor was giving the message. "We know that this man was a wretched soul who did whatever he could to oppose God and blaspheme Christ. He habitually stole, lied, cheated, coveted, swore, drank, caroused, and injured. We know that he lived his life in wanton sin and rebellion and that many people feared and hated him."But, you know what? He's going to heaven. And do you know why? Because God is too good and loving to let even this wretched, evil soul go to an imaginary place like hell. "I know. He hated God and rejected Jesus. He even cursed the cross and did everything he could to oppose Christianity. But, it doesn't matter because, ultimately, you will see him again. Only, he won't be mean and evil. He will be kind and gentle. Jesus will change him. Jesus loves him. Jesus loves him more than we can imagine. He also loves you more than you can possibly know. There is no need to fear Him at all."Some may preach that there is a hell, a place of fiery, eternal torment. But I tell you that it is a lie. It is a tool of Tormentists who cannot accept the love of God and how often enjoy the thought of people rotting in that awful place."The Bible says that Jesus is the Savior of all men. And that means even this awful, God hating, wretch of a man that has now gone on to meet his maker."I preach a message of peace, of reconciliation, of joy, and of God's redeeming power."I preach the truth."After the service, two of the impressionable young kids are talking."I liked the sermon the universalist gave. Heck, I was worried about hell. But now I don't have to be worried about it. Now I know I'm going to heaven no matter what. I know I'm not that great a person, but if that horrible man in the coffin is going to heaven, then I am sure I will too. After all, I'm not as bad as he is."His friend answers, "Yep, I don't have to give up my drugs, sleeping with my girlfriend, or stealing CD's from the music store. Life is great!""Well, I don't think it means we can go sin, though.""I know. I was just kidding. But you are right. No worries. No problem."The two walk off enjoying the new found freedom found in the love of God, but they now don't need to trust Jesus as their savior. They have no need to appeal to Jesus to save them, because there isn't anything to save them from. They walk away unredeemed.And let's not forget about the co-worker who has been thinking of going to church. He has been committing adultery and he has been fearing the judgment of God. He thinks to himself...."Whew! Am I glad to hear that message. That was great! I don't have to worry about anything. Man what a relief. No hell! I'm going to heaven! Man Oh Man! this is so cool.... Guess I don't have to go to church tomorrow and I can forget about reading what the Bible says about Jesus and sin.... no need. Okay, maybe I should stop the adultery. But, that sure was a good message from that universalist. I feel so much better about God's love. I feel so much better knowing there is no hell."He walks away not having confessed his sins to Christ (1 John 1:9), not having been cleansed, not having received Christ (John 1:12), not having been justified by faith (Rom. 5:1)........ an eon later..... heaven.....judgment seat.... God is there.... and if the universalist is wrong....Two boys and a coworker are in hell. They never did trust in Jesus as their savior. They never did confess their sinfulness and ask Jesus to forgive them. But, at least they felt good while on earth and they didn't have to listen to those people who preached hell-fire.
Why is it that Jesus warned us to not go to the "fiery place" if it isn't real? Why did He speak more about hell than heaven? Why did He tell us to turn from sin and be SAVED! Saved from what? Saved from Damnation!Universalism is a dangerous teaching. It weakens the need for a savior and that is a great risk to take for such a dubious teaching.
According to Matt’s own words this is a exaggerated" illustration.
Well I have an illustration also that is not exaggerated but really took place.
There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.40When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? Mat.21:33-40
FORGIVE THEM
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. Lu.23:34
If election is true what is the danger in universalism?
Universalism teaches that Jesus died for all people and that all will eventually be saved. It also teaches that if someone rejects Christ in this life, he can accept Jesus in the next one, even if he is a horrible person who severely blasphemed God.
A horrible person kind of like Paul who went about killing the body of Christ until Jesus was made manifest unto him. What is the difference between God saving a horrible person in this life or the next life? NOTHING, what Matt is trying to do is get the reader to do is to focus on the horribleness of the person in question as if to say see there is no way God will ever save that person, yet Paul was indeed one of those horrible persons and was saved.
The danger with this is that based on this principle in universalism, someone could adopt an attitude of complacency who would then choose to live a life of sin and rebellion and wait until the afterlife to become a true believer -- even if there is some "purification" involved in the afterlife. The obvious problem is that if universalism is wrong and the person hopes to be saved in the next life, he'll face an eternity of hell instead of heaven. This is an inherent weakness in Universalism. CARM has many discussion boards. One of them is on universalism. I have raised this issue to them many times and two responses have come forth from: one is to ignore the point all together and not admit it exists. The other is to ignore the issue and counter attack. The most prevalent counterattack against me is a challenge regarding election (I'm Reformed in theology) and ask that since God's elect cannot be deceived, how can universalism pose a threat to the elect?
Matt keeps talking about universalism giving one an attitude of complacency and of course Matt is correct it can give one an attitude of complacency. But this is the same argument those who held to the law made about Paul’s preaching of GRACE. Did Paul quit preaching grace because some might used it as an excuse to continue sinning? NO HE DID NOT Paul express it this way.
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.
Paul was fully aware that some could use the preaching of grace to continue in sin, yet Paul still preached it.
Should we hold back the truth of universal salvation just because some might use it to continue in sin as Matt would have us do, or do we take the lesson from Paul and warn those who would use it to continue in sin not to do so?
What Matt would have the Universalist do is suppress the truth just in case some might take liberty with it. Paul would not do that and neither should the universalist.
In part, the universalists deflection of the real question is understandable since they desire to defend their position at all costs, a consistent pattern with them. But, what is amazing is their inability to admit the possible danger in their position. To them, it is quite impossible to consider anything in universalism to be less than perfect. This is disconcerting. Nevertheless, I'll answer their objection, even though they refuse to address mine, in hopes of encouraging them to actually face the issue and admit the danger.
What! I just explained it according to the tradition given us in scripture.
Matt holds to the view of the Scribes and Pharisees, the Universalist hold to the view of GRACE.
You the reader will have to decide for yourselves who hold to the view of truth
Reformed theology teaches that God elects, from all eternity, those who will be saved and that this election cannot fail; those who are elected to salvation will be saved and only those who wanted to be saved are elected to be saved. Likewise, it is not possible for the elect to lose their salvation since the cross has made it secure.
Basically Matt is saying that God is only going to save the elect He has predestined, therefore making God’s predestination or lack thereof work both ways which is to say God predestined some people to go into everlasting torment.
This view would make Hitler look like an angel in comparison to God.
All the reader has to do is read Romans chapter 11 and they will see how those whom God predestined fell away and that falling was in effect to the salvation of those who had not been elected by God from the beginning.
Thus when the FULNESS of the Gentile comes in (is grafted in) then ALL Israel will be grafted in and all will be saved. Thus the salvation of all mankind.
Universalism can contribute to people procrastinating regarding salvation in the here and now in order to wait until the after-life where they have a second chance, an opportunity to be purified in a hell-like state after which they will then be able to go to heaven and be with God forever. Of course, if universalism is wrong, then those who had erringly put their hope in Universalism's second-chance-in-the-afterlife-belief would be lost forever. The question then, if election is true, does it really matter regarding universalism's truth or error?Yes it does. First, God does not want error to be taught, regardless of election or not. Universalism is an error.Second, both election and warning against false teachings are taught in the Bible. Therefore, there is no contradiction since God's word teaches both.
Election:
"And unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short," (Matt. 24:22, cf., Mark 13:20).
" . . . so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect," (Matt. 24:24, cf., Mark 13:22).
"And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other," (Matt. 24:31, cf., Mark 13:27).
"now shall not God bring about justice for His elect, who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them?" (Luke 18:7).
"Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies," (Rom. 8:33).
Well no one will argue that election is not written about in scripture for it is, but that’s not the issue Matt says he was going to answer. The question Matt says Universalists ask him is how can universalism pose a threat to the elect?
According to Matt understanding of election (which he is way off the mark because he does not understand the purpose of election) is that as God predestined the elect they could not go to hell even if they wanted to. So then how does universalism pose a THREAT to the elect? Can it sway the elect so that they go to hell? Not according to Matt, so were is the THREAT?
Warning against false teaching
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves," (Matt. 7:15).
". . .See to it that no one misleads you. "For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many," (Matt. 24:4-5; cf, Luke 21:8).
See also Acts 20:29; 2 Cor. 11:13; Eph. 4:14
Therefore, for the universalist to think that the two issues are contradictory in any way is unwarranted because the Bible teaches both concepts.
Again no one will argue that scripture gives warning against false teaching, but those warnings mention nothing about the salvation of all mankind as being a false teaching.
As a matter of FACT the restitution of all things has been spoken of since the world begin.
Acts 3:21
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Thus any other doctrine given to you other then the restitution of all things falls into the category of false teaching.
"The subject of election is God, who chooses on the basis of his sovereign will for his creation. Associated with election are theological terms such as ‘predestination,’ ‘providence,’ and ‘covenant.’"1 The elect are God's chosen people who were set apart from the foundation of the universe to be saved, to belong to God.
To what purpose does God elect Matt? Your understanding leaves the election without a purpose. Whereas Gods election is for the express purpose of grafting in those who were not of the election. Again this is all seen in Romans chapter 11.
So, if this is true how can I consistently warn people against the errors of universalism? Actually, if the universalists wanted to be consistent, why would I warn anyone about anything? Shouldn't I just sit around and do nothing because God will take care of it all regarding the elect? The answer is simple. God ordains the means as well as the ends in election. He uses Christians, freed from sin, to do His sovereign will according to His command to refute error and make disciples.
"Holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict," (Titus 1:9).
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations. . . " (Matt. 28:19).
"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur" (Acts 4:28).
Obviously God wants people to refute error, to make disciples, yet it is He who predestines people. How does this work? I am not sure.
And that is your problem Matt, your not sure how God does this work, yet you have the audacity to tell others that the salvation of all mankind is a false teaching, yet those of the election is for the express purpose of leading all of mankind to salvation.
But God has it under control. Furthermore, we do not know the criteria by which God elects, but elect He does. The Bible teaches that plainly. It is not, however, based in anything good in us for there is nothing good in us; we are sinners. That is why God shows no partiality; that is, He does not elect based on anything in us.
Hmm something we agree on, election is not based on anything of ourselves.
Also, God says the prayers of a righteous man (Christian) can accomplish much with Him (James 5:16). How can that be if He predestines all things (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:28-29)? I don't know. But, He predestines and He instructs us to pray because it makes a difference with Him. How does that work? Again, I do not know and I cannot explain the mind of God. But, God predestines, commands us to be careful about false teaching, and instructs us to go make disciples?
And again that is your problem Matt, you don’t know. When you come to the understanding that the election is for the salvation of all mankind then you will know why the prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much with God.
Is it contradictory to say that God elects and that our prayers can influence Him? Not at all, since both are true in scripture. Furthermore, I absolutely believe that God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Acts 4:28) and I believe my prayers and efforts (i.e., CARM) make a difference. In fact, I am far more evangelical than most people: I've literally got thousands of hours in evangelism experience, preaching, teaching, witnessing, apologetics, web, radio, etc, and I have many testimonials how the efforts have made a difference in peoples' lives. This all goes to prove one very important point: God ordains the means as well as the end.It isn't up to me to figure out all the nuances of God's mind and how all of it fits together.
I leave that to Him and I go forth in obedience to His declaration (predestination/election) and His command (make disciples).
Hmmm Matt would have the reader believe that because he has many followers that He is correct, but so to did the Scribes and Pharisees have many followers and that did not make them correct.
Matt preaches an election without purpose. Whereas election is for the purpose of grafting in those who were not predestined from the beginning.
A possible explanation
Alright, so I've pleaded ignorance, in part, on this subject. Nevertheless, I offer a possible explanation of how this can work.
God's total knowledge eternally encompasses all actions of all beings and all possible and actual permutations of all events of all things.
This means that from before the universe existed, in the mind of God, all potential existences and all potential combinations of all events were already known and understood by God; hence, true omniscience.
This would include all things done by "free will" creatures anytime and anyplace in the then distant future under all actual and potential circumstances.
Since all things have eternally been simultaneously known by God (even the "free will" choices made by all people), then, when He planned the universe, it is necessarily true that all things which were known and consulted by God were included in His plan of election as He placed people in and where He did according to His sovereign will to "do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur" (Acts 4:28).
It cannot be that God remains ignorant on any subject. When He created the universe He did so knowing everything that could and would be. Since He is all powerful, it is natural to state that He included all possible outcomes in His sovereign plan, including election. This election may or may not be influenced by foreknowledge concerning our actions and desires.
This plan can easily include our prayers and the resulting ramifications of the teaching of false doctrines that damn people.
Our prayers can, then, have an influence with Him from all eternity, yet, He has not changed from all eternity. The only way that this can be is if He knew everything about everything and included what He desired in the universe that He constructed and set in motion.
It is perfectly logical, therefore, that in our time reference, we can make choices, influence God, be warned about apostasy and false doctrines, and actually truly make a difference in people's lives (for good or bad), and have all these things sovereignly included in the plan of God by which He elects and predestines. This way, the idea of a false doctrine damning and God's election are not mutually exclusive.
In other words, God knew all that what we would do (good and bad) and took it all into account when He constructed the universe and put us in it and developed His sovereign plan by which He has predestined what will occur. After all it says that ". . .He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will," (Eph. 4:5). Is this predestination apart from His infinite knowledge of our influence upon Him (James 5:16) from all eternity? Of course not.
Therefore, what we do makes a difference in the lives of people. False doctrines are still dangerous and are to be warned against -- the outcome, of which, are included in God's sovereign plan of election. He still predestines, we still can influence God in our prayers (James 5:16) and God's warning about apostasy and false doctrines are still valid.
Although I agree with much of what Matt says here, it really only applies to Universalism if as the scriptures state God is LOVE and because of that LOVE He sent Jesus into the world.
Otherwise we have God knowing before He created man that most would be roasted in the lake of fire. This is akin to us having 10 children knowing before hand that 9 out of the 10 of them was going to be tormented for all eternity. This is a horrible view of Gods love for the world.
We have God knowing Jesus sacrifice was not going to save all mankind, thus God sending Jesus on an impossible task because God sent Jesus for the salvation of the world. Thus as God sent Jesus for the salvation of the world and Jesus does not save the world Jesus missed the mark of that which He was sent to do, and we all know that to miss the mark is sin.
Thus this view make Jesus not only a failure to accomplish God will, but also makes Jesus a sinner because He did not do the will of the Father.
This view give absolutely no hope for the world which Jesus came to save.
It boggles the mind that people of God believe DEATH is equal to God who is LIFE for according to the mainstream churches DEATH is as eternal as God Himself is. That DEATH is victorious over the RESURRECTION even when scripture tells us DEATH is swallowed up in VICTORY.
That God is going to live side by side with DEATH and SIN for all eternity.
That people are going to LIVE for all ETERNITY in the lake of fire without Christ, for do they not proclaim ETERNAL LIFE in TORMENT, and yet scriptures tell us the ETERNAL LIFE is only found in Christ.
Yet it is these beliefs the mainstream churches cling to even in the face of God’s LOVE for the world.
They might as well just preach God so LOVED the world that He sent His son to ETERNALY TORMENT 90% of mankind. For if Jesus was not sent then 90% of mankind would not have rejected Him, thus God knowing before hand that in sending His son into the world was going to be the means whereby He would eternally torment man.
What a horrible horrible view of God.
Objections answered
But, some universalists will object that the doctrine of election can cause the very same thing of which universalism is accused; namely, a false sense of security in salvation. Certainly, this is a possibility. But, the Bible says that God elects (Matt. 24:22,31), that His sheep will never perish (John 10:28), that those who say they know Jesus and do not keep His word are liars without the truth (1 John 2:4), and that the Christian is a new creature in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17): "Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." It is this last verse that is extremely relevant here. Being a new creature in Christ means that the Christian is no longer a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16). He is now free. A true Christian will not use the grace of God to sin (Rom. 6:1-3) and expect to be saved no matter what. Why? Because a true Christian is at war with the flesh (Rom. 7) and does not remain in sin (John 8:31; James 2:14).But, the very fact that the universalists bring up this counter-argument is an admission of the weakness of their own for they recognize it and try to apply it to a different situation as a means of defense. In so doing, they do not answer the original problem; they only change the subject and hope the problem will go away.
Hardly, I answered your question Matt, and the reason the universalist ask you the same question as you ask of them is in order to show you by your own proof of scripture the foolishness of your question. The problem with you is you want a double standard, one for your belief and something different for the Univesalist belief.
Also, election deals with Christians, universalism deals with Christians and unbelievers.
All men were unbelievers before they became believers Matt, therefore election is from unbelief to belief. And all shall BELIEVE for every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER.
The Christian is regenerated and changed and will not abide in sin; he cannot because he is not a slave to it anymore and will not use his security in Christ as a license to sin. The unbeliever is not saved and can still hope in eternal life after death so they can sin now. And it is to this charge that the universalist has failed to adequately respond.
Hogwash, time and again I have shown how ALL mankind will bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and confession is made unto SALVATION.
Another objection raised by universalists is how do you know if you are elect or not? This question demonstrates a lack of understanding of biblical theology. The Bible says that "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13). It is certainly possible, according to God's word, to know that you are elect. On a practical level, I would say that anyone who has trusted Jesus as Savior (not a false Christ as in the cults), will have the knowledge and testimony of the Holy Spirit living within him and he will observe a change in his own heart. This is a demonstration of regeneration. Furthermore, only Christians have the mind of Christ and know that Jesus is God in flesh, risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven to which the Bible says, an unbeliever cannot accept (1 Cor. 2:14).
Eek gad, Matt is saying the Universalist does not know that they have eternal life and that we do not have the knowledge and testimony of the Holy Spirit living within us.
Well whose testimony is of the Holy Spirit that always gives glory to the Father.
This one
God sent Jesus into the world to save the world and will not fail in that which He proposed to do.
Or this one
God sent Jesus into the world to save the world but will only save some.
The reader will have to make up their own mind.
Satan and universalism
Satan wants the destruction of all people. Satan wants people to die in their sins and go to hell. He is utter hatred and complete evil. But, he is also extremely cunning with an intelligence that is vast and it may just be that universalism will become a tool of the Devil in the last days. How? By teaching that people can trust in Christ in the after-life, a second chance after death.
Now, am I calling Universalists satanists? Not at all. Many of them are very godly people and serve the true God. But, whether Universalists admit it or not, the doctrine has the potential of negating the need to come to Christ in this life because it teaches you can do it in the next -- as they have claimed.
Funny how someone would think the message of the restitution of all things is a tool of the Devil. What Matt would have the reader believe is that the Devil runs around telling everyone what a good and wonderful Father God is, Does that sound like the Devil you know?
Only those who have just come into the knowledge of the restitution of all things think of it in terms of a second chance. Most of us who have believed in the restitution of all things for awhile understand that although there is a second chance scenario that will indeed play out for some, most have died never having heard the Gospel message in the first place, and how can they when the mainstream churches stand up in their pulpits and declare God is going to eternally torment people. The Gospel is the message of hope, not of no hope, the Gospel is the glad news, not the bad news, the Gospel is victory in Christ and it is not until the mainstream churches understand this will the true Gospel be preached.
If one has to hear the Gospel/good news of VICTORY in Christ after ones death it is because the preachers of today don’t give Christ the VICTORY, they place before man time and again DEATH TRIUMPHANT, and yet Jesus said if I be lifted up I will draw ALL men unto me. The preachers of today don’t lift Jesus up, but tear down everything He came to accomplish via the cross.
In Universalism, as well as most any doctrine, Satan can work various false teachings through its adherents. No doctrine is immune to being twisted. But, many Universalists deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ yet draw people in via universalist philosophy. This is dangerous. All the cults teach a false god and are false because of it. But in universalist theology, it really doesn't matter. Why? Because according to universalism, in the after-life, people will come to a true knowledge of God and repent and be saved. So, even if they are wrong now, they will be right later. So, the need to preach and teach the true God (Trinitarian) is greatly reduced. Again, this is dangerous.
No doctrine of any kind saves or condemns people, and the trinity is a doctrine and been a issue of the church since the days of Constantine. What Matt want the reader to believe is that because some might not believe doctrine after the same fashion he does that they are serving a false Christ. What Matt is doing is making a division between the people of God, in much the same manor that some proclaimed their baptism of Paul, some of Peter, some of Apollo’s and some of Jesus Christ, to which Paul proclaims IS CHRIST DIVIDED.
As to Matt’s point that the Universalist deny the Deity of Christ, it is an unfounded claim, no one I have spoken to denies Christ Deity. What Matt is doing here is saying if one does not believe in the trinity aspect then the only other conclusion is that they don’t believe in the Deity of Christ.
This is a FALSE representation, for as the Father is Deity all that are born of Him are of the same Deity.
Satan says, "Don't worry about receiving Jesus now. You can do that later." Then when people die, they find out it is too late. But, it is God who says,
“At the acceptable time I listened to you, And on the day of salvation I helped you” ;behold, now is “the acceptable time,” behold, now is “the day of salvation" (2 Cor. 6:2, NASB) - emphasis added.
"He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, “Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts" (Heb. 4:7, NASB) - emphasis added.
Some Universalists will take offense at this line of reasoning. I don't blame them. But, the Bible teaches that now is the time for salvation, not later.
I already explained what TODAY means a few post back, but as Matt likes to repeat himself I will repeat myself again also.
What right does man have to set the limit of TODAY to this age only?
Just by the two scriptures Matt quoted above we can see TODAY spans at least two ages, for the day of salvation or TODAY is mentioned by David who was under the age of law, and again mentioned by Paul who was in the age of grace.
Thus TODAY is not limited to one age, but rather is given in future ages as well.
The meaning of the day of salvation or TODAY is this: when God draws you to Him and opens your eyes and gives you a hearing ear is your TODAY or the day of your salvation.
Until this happens your TODAY or day of your salvation has not yet come upon you.
We all know that millions of people died without hearing the voice of the Son of God concerning the day of their salvation, but we also know by scripture that the dead shall hear His voice and those that hear shall live. Why? Because those outside the gate, when they keep His commandments still have the right to the tree of life. Rev.22:14-15
Some Universalists actually preach a God of love and forgiveness and the need to come to Christ now. That's fine as far as they preach the True Christ and Him crucified and not a false god as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and New Age adherants do. But what about the thousands of Universalists who deny the true God and yet teach universalism and continue to teach a false god? If Universalism is not true, then they are hindering people from coming to Christ. They are advocating a false god along with their universalist teachings, the very universalist teaching that appeals to people because it teaches a God of infinite love and grace.
Here Matt goes off again on wanting to determine who is serving God and who isn’t as if that is his call. Many people from all denominations love God and serve Him through Jesus Christ, and if they have an error in understanding God it is because of those who would teach when they have need of being taught.
For someone to stand up like Matt and say
To deny the Trinity is to deny the true God.
Is pure hogwash.
God is more then any man made doctrine, and NOTHING in scripture backs Matt’s claim up.
To deny that Jesus is God in flesh is to deny the true Christ.
Matt seems to be twisting the scriptures, John says
1 John 4:2-3
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Matt says “To deny that Jesus is God in flesh is to deny the true Christ.”
John says “confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:”
Do you see the twist?
This is incredibly dangerous because false gods do not save, only the True and Living God saves! But then, in universalism, it doesn't matter what you believe now. You'll "repent" later in the after-life and come to the true knowledge of God. Sorry. But that is not what the Bible teaches.
You mean that is not what the Bible teaches to YOU.
Only those who look at the LETTER see DEATH
Those who see beyond the LETTER into the SPIRIT see LIFE.
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Dear reader please think and pray on that.
One world government
The Bible teaches us that in the last days there will be a one world religious system which will be used by the devil in a great deception to ultimately war against God. Universalism could easily be used by the devil to help him accomplish this very thing. You see, there are a great many differences between religious systems. They cannot all be right. Because of these differences, hostilities often arise. But, if universalism were accepted by all religious systems, then it would logically greatly reduce hostilities both physical, intellectual, and spiritual. Sound good? It sure does. Except for one thing. It compromises the truth of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ who said He alone was the way the truth and the life.
Matt is mixing an matching here and as he really does know better it can only be for subterfuge. Matt is well aware that there is a difference between universalism and Christian universalism, universalism believe that all people will be saved with or without Christ, Christian universalism stand firmly on the groundwork of Jesus and fully believe He is the way, truth and life so there is no compromise with the truth as Matt would have the reader believe.
This means that all other systems are wrong! It means that Buddhism is not true. It means that Islam is not true. It means that only Christianity is true. There is no fellowship with darkness.
These type of tactics Matt is employing here should tell the reader how far from the truth eternal torment is, if one needs to deceive in order to promote their belief what can be said of their belief?
So I’ll repeat, the Christian universalist believe that JESUS CHRIST IS THE ONLY WAY WHEREBY ALL MEN SHALL BE SAVED.
Christians need to stand on God's word of truth which includes the narrow path to God of which not all will find it (Matt. 7:13-14), not man's word of "God will save everyone." Universalist philosophy, if accepted by the worlds' religions, would greatly reduce the focus of differences between them. It would greatly reduce the need for orthodoxy, for defining and preaching the true God.
I almost choked on my tea when I read the part I highlighted in brown.
Matt is saying that eternal torment is that which defines the true God, for if you believe anything other then the orthodoxy view you are not seeing or defining the true God.
Yet Jer.32:35 tells us that sacrificing children to fire never came into the mind of God.
But, the Bible teaches that Jesus alone is the savior and that now is the acceptable time of salvation... not the after-life. It teaches that there is one God, not many; that Jesus is God in flesh, not an angel or a "good man." Truth is at stake.
And you Matt have yet to show the reader where the universalist has fallen from the truth.
Truth is at stake Matt, but your view is found under the OLD covenant and those under the OLD covenant could NOT stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished, because of the vail on Moses face and on the reading of the OLD Testament, which vail is done away with in Christ. 2Co.3:12-15
It is this area of the OLD and NEW Testaments that we can learn a great truth, which is those who believe in eternal torment view scripture through the vail, whereas those who believe in the salvation of all in Christ the vail is done away and we see Him more clearly.
Example: those who believe in eternal torment view the NEW testament through the lens of the OLD, whereas those who believe in universal salvation view the OLD testament through the lens of the NEW.
Dear reader please think on this prayerfully, keeping in mind that it is only in the OLD testament that God is shown as being unmerciful, an eye for an eye God, but all through the NEW testament God is shown as LOVE, the one who would save ALL mankind.
How many people will be deceived by universalism's comfortable message that all will be saved? Who knows. Universalism in itself is not a deception, just an error. But, how many will take refuge in its comforting doctrine and not come to a saving truth of Jesus? I can not say, but even one is too many. I cannot help but notice that the secular world teaches tolerance, be-nice philosophy, and the belief that all will make it to heaven. Second chance redemption and a theology that teaches you'll make it no matter what is comfortable to the world's ears. Too bad the universalists agree with the world in this.
Matt misses a very important lesson here.
The worldly people heard Jesus readily, it was the churches of His day that rejected Him, and this same scenario is played out time and again for as the Universalist preaches Jesus Christ crucified for the salvation of the whole world, the churches rises up against the truth and crucify Him anew.
Matt also stated that if one soul is lost because of the teaching of universal salvation it is one soul to many.
It's to bad Matt does not see this when in reference to Gods salvation of man.
A Challenge to Universalists
The Bible says to "test yourselves to see if you are in the faith" (2 Cor. 13:5). This is something that we must do. We must not carelessly assume that we know all that is true in the Bible. If universalism is true, fine. But if it is not, then the eternal consequence of damnation is of utter importance. Therefore, I issue this challenge to any who claim to be Universalists. Are you a Christian?Of course, some of you will claim that you are and it is not my place to judge you.
You all ready judged just by asking this stupid shameless question.
Are you going to now tell us what we have to believe in order to be a Christian?
God is the Judge and He has revealed what His will is in the Bible about what false doctrines disqualify someone from being a Chrsitian. Therefore, it is from God's word that I challenge you. This challenge is not about the truth or error of universalism. It is about who Jesus is. Do you believe He is God, the creator of the universe, worthy of all worship and honor, equal to the person of the Father? If yes, good. If not, then you desperately need to examine yourself to see if you are in the faith because to deny this means you are not a Christian.
Hogwash no scripture tells us we have to believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same being.
Matt’s taking a man made doctrine and trying to prove that unless one believes in it one is not a Christian.
Jesus always made a distinction between Himself and the Father, between Himself and the Holy Spirit, and as He made this distinction Himself how can it be proved to show who is and who is not a Christian?
According to Matt because Jesus made the same distinction I do concerning Him and the Father both Jesus and I are not Christians.
Lets look at a few scriptures were Jesus makes this distinction.
John 14:28
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Here Jesus makes the distinction that the Father is greater then Himself. So how can Jesus be the Father?
John 20:17
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Here Jesus makes the distinction between God and Himself saying MY GOD. So if Jesus says Himself that He has a Father and a God who am I to argue with Him
John 14:16-26
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Speaking of the Holy Ghost Jesus makes the distinction between them when He said ANOTHER Comforter would come and abide with us.
So much for Matt’s proof of who is or is not a Christian, according to Matt proof Jesus Himself failed the test, go figure.
Jesus said, "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins," (John 8:24, NASB). The word "He" is not in the Greek. It literally says, "for unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins."
Jesus is speaking here of were He came from I AM not of this world, I AM from above and unless you believe that I AM from above and not of this world ye shall die in your sins.
Later in this same chapter in verse 58, Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I AM." He was alluding to Exodus 3:14, where God told Moses that His name was "I am that I am."
Jesus was not alluding to Ex.3:14 which concerns the name of God given to Moses not Abraham. Jesus was simply stating that He existed before Abraham, which if you follow the story is what the Jews were making a fuss about, your not 50 years old yet so how could you have seen Abraham, and Jesus responding before Abraham was I am.
Likewise, in 1 John 4:2-3 it says, "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."
Yes and every Christian Universalist will acknowledge Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
Very few people deny that Jesus lived; that is, that Jesus came in flesh. When John wrote this, he was not saying that you must believe that Jesus lived, but that Jesus was God in flesh. The time of the writing of First John is important. The Gnostic heresy was prominent. It taught that God was too pure to have anything to do with sinful flesh. Therefore, Gnosticism taught that Jesus could not be God in flesh. It was in this context and against this error that John was writing. Jesus is God in flesh and to deny it is the Spirit of Antichrist.
Matt’s adding his own understanding to the scriptures here, nothing in 1Jn.4:2-3 states that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh, it simply states JESUS CHRIST HAS COME
IN THE FLESH.
Matt speaks of Gnostic belief at this time, but what he did not point out was that some of these sects like Docetism promoted the belief that Christ was pure spirit and only had a phantom body; Jesus just appeared to be human to his followers.
This sect clearly shows that some at this time denied that Jesus Christ actually lived or came in the flesh.
Thus clearly showing John speaking in opposition to this sects belief’s.
Furthermore, the above verse needs to be cross referenced with John 1:1,14 (also written by John) where he states that the Word was God and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. In 1 John 4, the apostle knew what he was writing when he spoke of Jesus being in the flesh.
Yes John knew what he was writing about Matt , but that does not mean you understand what John was talking about.
Yes the Word was God and yes the Word came in the flesh, no one denies God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. This is not up for debate any Christian will agree that God was in Christ reconciling the world, the debate comes in where some (most) people take those scriptures and say it mean God was/is Christ.
Nothing in those scriptures say God was/is Christ, but God was manifest in the flesh for God was/is the life of the son.
If we are going to take those scriptures to mean that God was/is Christ then what do we do with these ones
2 Corinthians 4:10-11
10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. 11 For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.
If we use the same principal here as Matt does to determine God is Jesus Christ because God was manifested in Jesus life, then when Jesus life is manifested in our mortal flesh would mean we are Jesus Christ, which would mean that if God is Jesus Christ and we are Jesus Christ the conclusion come then that we are God the Father.
What utter nonsense, yet this is the conclusion one comes to if one follows the reasoning of the church doctrine of the trinity.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the Father , Son and Holy Spirit, and that all 3 works together in and for man, but will maintain as Jesus Himself did a distinction between Himself and the Father and between Himself and the Holy Ghost.
So as the reader can now see Matt’s challenge is not a challenge of whether one is a Christian or not Matt’s challenge is one of the doctrine of the Trinity and unless you believe that doctrine Matt say you are not a Christian.
So the bottom line is, if you disagree with Matt’s understanding of the scriptures according to Matt you are not a Christian. Thus Matt takes the judgment of who and who is not a Christian out of Gods hands where even he says it belongs and judge you according to his belief.
The Bible states that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6; 44:8).
Yes it does, and Jesus states I go to MY GOD and YOUR GOD, so if Jesus has a God as He says He does and you make Jesus your God you are not worshipping the ONE TRUE GOD.
It states that Jesus created all that exists: "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17And He is before all thins, and in Him all things hold together," (Col. 1:16-17). Jesus is the creator.In Isaiah 44:24, it says, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone." This verse shows us that the Lord God created the universe - alone. If God created the universe alone and if Jesus created all things, then Jesus is God.
Well that would be a good argument if Is.44:24 really said what Matt thinks it says.
The Septuagint has it
24 Thus saith the Lord that redeems thee, and who formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that performs all things: I stretched out the heaven alone, and established the earth.
You will note that the word MYSELF is found nowhere in this scripture, now some might argue and say true but the word MYSELF is used in other translations.
This is true but even in these other translations the word MYSELF has no definition applied to it as if the word is not there, which would make the case for the Septuagint being the more accurate translation. Case in point Strong’s has no corresponding number associated with the word myself given in verse 24.
Add to this that when God created the heaven and the earth the word for God in creation is Elohiym which is used in the plural sense, thus God did not create the heaven and the earth alone.
But some will argue but what do we do with where it says that God stretched out the heavens alone?
Nothing, for nothing need be done with it, the scripture is not saying God stretched out the heaven by himself, it is saying that God stretched out the heaven by itself, in other word God divided the heaven. Which is exactly what we read in Gen.1
Alone
H905
בּד
bad
BDB Definition:
1) alone, by itself, besides, a part, separation, being alone
1a) separation, alone, by itself
1a1) only (adverb)
1a2) apart from, besides (preposition)
1b) part
1c) parts (eg limbs, shoots), bars
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H909
Same Word by TWOT Number: 201a
Jesus is fully and completely God in flesh, second person of the Trinity. Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."
No one denies the fullness of the Godhead dwells in the body of Christ
And again, in John 5:22-23, Jesus said, "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23 in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."
Matt quotes this scripture and does not even realise the distinction Jesus put forth within it. Jesus says the Father judges no one, well if Jesus is the Father as Matt believes then the Father judges everyone, which would make Jesus a liar for say the Father judges no one.
Why is all this so important? Because it is Jesus who reveals the Father (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22), who sends the Holy Spirit of truth (John 15:26), and who opens the mind to understand scripture (Luke 24:45).
If you do not have the true Jesus, you will not know the true God. You will not know the true Holy Spirit. You will not have your mind opened to understand God's word. If you do not have the true Christ, then you simply are not a Christian.
So I challenge you, do you believe Jesus is God in flesh, worthy of the same honor has Father, the creator of all, the risen Lord? If you cannot say yes, then I suggest to you that you are not a Christian and need to re-examine your beliefs, regardless of whether or not universalism is true.Furthermore, if you deny that Jesus is God in flesh and just if universalism is false, then you would be in deep trouble come judgment day.
Again no one argues the point that it is Jesus that reveals the Father, who sends the Holy Spirit and opens the mind to understand scripture. Every Christian will agree on these points. Matt makes a big show here but has proved absolutely nothing, no doctrine of any kind make you a Christian, you know what does? LOVE, Jesus said if you love one another then the world would know you are my disciples. I’ll take Jesus word on who is his followers over any man made doctrine argument.
Don't put your hope in universalism. Put it in Jesus who is God in flesh.
Matt it is because we put our hope in the Father and the Son that we believe in universal salvation, for we simply believe in a God who cannot and will not fail to do that which He proposed to do when He sent Jesus into the world. And that purpose was for the worlds salvation.
What should you call Christianswho believe in hell fire?
Unfortunately, some Universalists like to label Christians who believe in eternal hell with words like "hellers", "tormentists", etc. Such terms are derogatory and inaccurate.
Matt makes it look like Universalists are the only ones who have used derogatory and inaccurate terms. How about letting the readers know about some of the names Universalist have been called such as sons of satan, blasphemers and the most command heretics. We can all point fingers at one another but it really does not prove anything except to show how immature we as His body still are.
I for one, do not like the idea of hell. I do not want there to be a hell. I do not want people to go to hell. It would be great if God did redeem all people, or at least annihilate those who reject Jesus. But I do not believe that is what the Bible teaches.For any Universalist to imply that we Christians somehow enjoy the idea of people going to hell, or that we want hell to exist, or want people to go there is ludicrous and inflammatory not to mention a blatant misrepresentation of what we believe.
Couple of things here.
First Matt says Universalist imply WE CHRISTIANS, a clear cut showing MATT does not believe those who believe in Universal salvation are Christians.
Second although Matt says that Universalist are misrepresenting “we Christians” that is not the case. Although many who believe in eternal torment do not like the idea of everlasting torment in hell, there are some who relish the idea, believing that the torment of others will show them how much God loved them (those not in the torment) thus incensing their joy in God.
A few examples:
Peter Lombard says---“Therefore the elect shall go forth…to see the torments of the impious, seeing which they will not be grieved, but will be satiated with joy at the sight of the unutterable calamity of the impious .”
Andrew Welwood says---“overjoyed in beholding the vengeance of God ,” and their beholding of the smoke of the torment of the wicked as “a passing delectation.”
Samuel Hopkins says---“This display of the divine character will be most entertaining to all who love God, will give them the highest and most ineffable pleasure. Should the fire of this eternal punishment cease, it would in a great measure obscure the light of heaven, and put an end to a great part of the happiness and glory of the blessed.”
Jonathan Edwards says---“The view of the misery of the damned will double the ardour of the love and gratitude of the saints of heaven.”
The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. . .Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell. . . I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss.
These should be enough to show the reader that there are some who believe in eternal torment that believe they will find others torments great joy. So as the reader can see the Univesalists who points these things out is not misrepresenting what some who believe in eternal torment believe.
The only thing that should be pointed out and made clear is that not all those who believe in eternal torment believe according to those quotes, most of those who believe in eternal torment would fined those quotes quite disturbing.
But herein then lies a big problem with the belief in eternal torment.
Most who believe in eternal torment are repulsed by the thought of people finding delight in the torment of others, Matt even seems to be repulsed by it.
But here is the problem, we are to delight in the things God delights in and God delights in the judgment.
Jeremiah 9:24-25
24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. 25 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;
So if God finds delight in eternal torment should not all His children find the same delight? Not many reading would dare to say they would find delight in God eternally tormenting their own loved ones.
So how does one reconcile doing good to those who hate us and the delight God finds in judgment?
The answer is really simple if one can just see ALL Gods judgments are corrective in nature. Thus when He judges the sinner it is for their good and that is why scripture tells us God finds delight in His judgment on both the circumcised and uncircumcised.
God will mend and restore us in the fire of His judgment.
We are not "hellers" or "tormentists." We are Christians who believe in the Holy, Infinite, Justice of God and that from that Holy, Infinite, Justice of God, the Lord will pour forth His wrath upon those who are not covered by the blood of Jesus the Christ.
Yes and as I just pointed out God delights in His judgment. So you are left with a choice Matt, either you better start to delight in the judgment of God even thou it repulses you or you are not walking in the delights of the Lord.
We believe in God's Holiness -- that He can have nothing to do with sin.
Yet you believe God will abide with sin for all eternity. Don’t forget Matt that the torment is in the presents of Christ, thus making Christ forever abide in the presence of sin.
We believe in God's Infinitude -- that sin against Him is infinitely offensive.
Yet Paul who was the chief of sinners was forgiven for sinning against the infinite God.
We believe in God's Justice -- that He must punish sinners.
You mean He must punish those who sin who do not know Him, but those who do don’t have to reap what they sow. We all reap what we sow Matt, whether we be sinner or saint.
We believe in God's Love -- that He has provide an escape from that punishment which is only found in Jesus.
Finally something we agree on.
So, if you are a Universalist, please refrain from using derogatory terms that inaccurately reflect what we believe and feel.
I agree Matt, just because a few of those who believe in eternal torment find delight in it does not mean all those who believe in eternal torment do, it simply not fair to lump everyone together like that.
But it’s a two way street Matt, you don’t like it when people do that to you, therefore you should be extra careful not to do it to others who hold a different belief.
What is Unitarianism?
Unitarianism is the belief that God exists in one person, not three. It is a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity as well as the full divinity of Jesus. Therefore, it is not Christian. There are several groups that fall under this umbrella: Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphianism, The Way International, etc. Another term for this type of belief is called monarchianism.In the context of universalism, the Unitarianism discussed here is that belief that denies the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, eternal punishment, and the vicarious atonement of Jesus. Unitarian universalists use many biblical concepts and terms but with non-biblical meanings. Unitarianism is not Christian.There is a group known as the Unitarian Universalists Association. This denomination which was formed in 1961 in the United States when the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America merged. Its membership is around 175,000.The General Convention of the Unitarian Universalists formulated the five principles of the Universalist Faith in 1899.
The Universal Fatherhood of God
The spiritual authority and leadership of His Son Jesus Christ
The trustworthiness of the Bible as containing a revelation from God
The certainty of just retribution for sin
The final harmony of all souls with God
Additional beliefs generally held by Unitarian Universalists are:
Salvation is by grace through faith and not by works in any way.
Jesus became the Son of God at His baptism.
The Holy Spirit is not a person, does not have a will, etc.
There now is and will be rewards and punishments according to one's actions but this does not consist of the traditional doctrine of hell.
Human reason and experience should be the final authority in determining spiritual truth.
This last point, "Human reason and experience should be the final authority in determining spiritual truth," is perhaps the most revealing of the character of Unitarian Universalists. Instead of God and his word being the final authority on truth and error, or right and wrong, Unitarian Universalists subject God and his word to their understanding, feeling, and reason. This is exemplified in the following quote obtain from the official Unitarian Universalist website at http://uua.org/. This was found under the heading Unitarian Universalists say:
"I want a religion that respects the differences between people and affirms every person as an individual."
"I want a church that values children, that welcomes them on their own terms—a church they are eager to attend on Sunday morning."
"I want a congregation that cherishes freedom and encourages open dialogue on questions of faith, one in which it is okay to change your mind."
"I want a religious community that affirms spiritual exploration and reason as ways of finding truth."
"I want a church that acts locally and thinks globally on the great issues of our time—world peace; women's rights; racial justice; homelessness; gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender rights; and protection of the environment."
Notice that each of the five statements begins with "I want..." This is not the humble attitude of one indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God. It is not the attitude of one who wants to put God first. It can plainly be seen that this is a religion based upon personal hopes and desires and not upon the the Bible.I cannot help but think of the five "I will's" listed in Isaiah 14:13-14:
"But you said in your heart,I will ascend to heaven;I will raise my throne above the stars of God,I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north.I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;I will make myself like the Most High.’
Many commentators believe that these five "I wills" were uttered by Satan as he sought to be exalted and equal to God. They reflect the arrogance of the evil one as his heart was filled with pride and put his own will before God's. He had his desires before God's. But notice what Isaiah says in the next verse:
"Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, to the recesses of the pit."
Jesus said, "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks," (Matt. 12:34). We can see that the Unitarian Universalists speak first from their own desires, according to their own wisdom, and not according to the wisdom of God. What does God say about this?
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God," ( 1 Cor. 3:19).
Well as I am not a Unitarian Universalists I cannot try or defend what they believe. Some of the things Matt says they believe I see nothing wrong with, yet on others I agree with Matt they are wrong about some of the other things.
But being wrong about something does not make one unchristian, this is where Matt falls into one of his greatest errors, that being he wants to be the judge of what determines what a Christian is and therefore judge who is and who is not a Christian, but this is not Matt’s call, nor is it any mans call, this is Gods call alone and every time man puts his own hands to the ark it brings forth death. This is something Gods children need to understand because every time they drive away another who is serving God and are not of their fold they are killing another child of God.
Concluding thoughts on Universalism
Universalism is a false and dangerous doctrine.
So said the Pharisees to Paul concerning grace
It is unbiblical.
Funny how something can be unbiblical and yet I used many scriptures to prove it.
Nevertheless, the teaching that God will forgive all people of all their sins is an appealing teaching. It is comforting to think that no one will go to hell forever-- especially ourselves.
The ourselves here would apply more to Matt’s teaching then Universalism, for Matt believes only the elect are saved, that he is one of the elect so he has comfort knowing he is saved and all others are dammed to eternal torment.
It means that we will escape the judgment of damnation.
How many times must one say it before it sinks in, NO ONE ESCAPES THE JUDGMENT, WE ALL REAP WHAT WE SOW.
Does the reader not find it ironic that it is the universalist that stands up for Gods judgment and those who believe in eternal torment believe they will escape the judgment, yet it is those who believe they will escape the judgment that say the universalist belief means that we will escape the judgment. Go figure.
It means we are safe even in our imperfections, our sins, our rebellion, and our blasphemies.
That is a load of hogwash, it is for the express purpose of REMOVING these imperfections, sins, rebellions and blasphemies that man experiences the judgment of God.
It means we can offend God outright, reject Him boldly, and not worry about our salvation -- because we'll all be saved no matter what they do in this life. This is, of course, wrong.
WE ALL REAP WHAT WE SOW MATT
Now here is a story of those who rejected Christ.
Luke 9:51-56
51 And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, 52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. 53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. 54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? 55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. 56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
Reread the scriptures and in them you will find those who REJECTED Christ, the future church (seen in James and John) saying BBQ them (sound familiar) and Jesus saying to the future church YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF.
Dear reader take the lesson from Christ and not from the churches of today who do not know what manner they are of.
On the other hand, if there are people going to hell, then it means that there is a God who holds them eternally accountable for their actions.
Only the universalist holds the belief that everyone is held accountable for their actions, every other belief holds to the get out of jail free card.
Let me ask the readers this.
When Jesus was crucified by the wicked hands of men (those who obviously REJECTED Him) and said Father FORGIVE THEM for they KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO. ( sounds kind of like, they know not what manner of spirit they are of don’t it) do you believe they were FORGIVEN or are to be eternally tormented?
Remember this as you answer that question, it was given unto the Son to FORGIVE MANS SINS.
It means there is absolute truth concerning condemnation. It means there exists a God who punishes sinners who reject God and separates them from His own infinite holiness.
And the Universalist have absolutely no problem with God punishing sinners, we just KNOW that all Gods judgments are for correction.
Down deep inside this can make us uncomfortable and worried. Such an idea of accountability might force us to examine ourselves and ask, "Am I saved?" "Am I going to heaven?" "Have I offended God?" "Will I be punished?" "What am I really like deep, down inside?" The answers to these questions can make us feel guilty, uncomfortable, and even worried, especially when we compare ourselves to a Holy God.
Again it is only the universalist that believes God will hold all men accountable for their actions, we don’t believe in a get out of jail free card. Therefore it is the universalist who will look inwardly to see where they have fallen short of the calling of God.
In this world of "tolerance," diluted absolutes, and creature comforts, the idea that all people will be forgiven fits right in. Universalism is a theology of tolerance, of ease, and comfort. It feels good. Psychologically it can ease our conscience because if we, in the goodness of our hearts, are wishing the forgiveness of all, doesn't it mean that we too will receive forgiveness due us because of our merciful desire towards others? Many people think this way and somehow hope that because of their own good will towards others, they will receive it themselves.
Matt has absolutely know idea what he is talking about here, the greatest preacher the world has ever seen besides Christ Himself was persecuted unmercifully for preaching the unmerited favour of God (GRACE).
Dear reader just what do you think Universalism is? Brothers and sister it is nothing but the preaching of the unmerited favour of God (GRACE) towards ALL MEN.
It is not comfortable, nor does it make us feel calm and relaxed to think that there is an infinitely Holy God who takes sin seriously and punishes sinners.
Yet it is your belief Matt that diminishes the seriousness of and judgment of sin.
The universalist believes in everyone reaping what they sow, not a get out of jail free card.
It can be terrifying to be faced with an eternity of hell fire if you have not made yourself right with God. And such is the complaint of the universalist: God is love and in Him there is no fear of eternal damnation.
There is no fear of ETERNAL TORMENT in the aspect Matt and the churches speak about today, that being a torment WITHOUT END.
As we have seen repeatedly aionious deals with an AGE.
The universalists are often guilty of pick-and-choose theology. See the papers on Matt. 25:46 and "A look at the word aionion" as examples of how they misuse Greek meanings of words.
Yes please go back and see my rebuttal to Matt’s posturing here, and determine for yourself who it is that is guilty of the pick-and-choose theology.
In addition, I have encountered many universalists who have stated that they adopted universalism because they did not like the idea of eternal damnation. In essence, to do this this is to adopt a theology based on feelings and this is wrong.
Tis true some have come to believe in Universal salvation because they did not like the idea of eternal damnation, but if you ask them what they mean by they did not like the idea of eternal damnation, they will tell you they could not reconcile a God of Love with a God who is said to eternally torment man.
So it’s not really a case of them choosing based on feeling it more a case of the word being written in their hearts before they seen it written in His word.
God punishes sinners (Matt. 25:46). Why? Because He is Holy (Isaiah 6:3; Rev. 4:8). His eyes are too pure to look upon evil (Hab. 1:13). Is He love? Yes, He is (1 John 4:8, 16). But that isn't all He is. He is also just (Neh. 9:32-33; 2 Thess. 1:6) and must punish sinners because sin is an offense against Him and sin separates us from Him (Isaiah 59:2).
Except according to Matt and the churches of today God will not punish all sinners, as some of you will get the out of jail free card. Matt and the churches of today would do well to take to heart the parable of the two men that went up into the temple to pray, and how the one lifted himself up saying I am not like other men, I do nothing but that which is good, and the other bowed himself down and smote his breast saying God be merciful to me a sinner, and how that it was the sinner that went his way justified. Lu.18:9-14
In His love He sent the Son to die for us. For those who reject Christ, God will be just and punish them.
Matt JUDGMENT MUST BEGIN WITH THE HOUSE OF GOD, for if God house is not first JUDGED of their sins how in the world are they to be of help to those in their sins.
Matt it is YOU who believes that God will not judge all sin, but if God does not judge brother no one can enter within the gates.
Hell was not made for people. It was made for the devil and his angels who rebelled against God (Matt. 25:41). But hell will also house those who reject God's provision for salvation and side with the evil one (Matt. 18:8; 25:46). This is a sad reality.
Again Matt put these thing forth as though the universalist does not believe in Gods righteous judgment, but by now I think the reader can see quite clearly that we do, we just understand ALL Gods judgments to be for correction
Will Satan too be saved according to the Universalists? No.
Yes, as I have demonstrated time and again. But I must point out that not all universalists believe that Satan will be saved.
Will the evil people who commit the most horrendous of crimes and who have blasphemed the name of God be allowed to escape their judgment even after openly rejection the Lord's sacrifice?
Paul’s not in eternal torment Matt, and neither are those who had hand in crucifying Jesus Christ, for unto the son of man is given the forgiveness of sins and those who are forgiven much love much. Father FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.
Does God simply say, "It is okay for you to reject me, my Son, the Sacrifice, the Agony on the cross. It does not matter about your blasphemies against Me. It does not matter that you have given yourself over to evil.
Matt open your eyes brother, it is not the universalist that says God will wink at sin we believe all will reap what they sow, its you that believes God will wink at your sins. Because you have accepted Him into your heart you can sin with impunity because He will just forgive your sins.
I will save you after a period of chastening in the afterlife. Enter into My rest and enjoy eternal bliss. All are saved." No, this is not so.
Yes it is so Matt, as I have proven time and time again with Rev.22 that all without the gate, the thief’s and liars and blasphemers still have right to the tree of life by becoming obedient to the commands of the Father.
"How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Heb. 10:29).
Matt how can one person in eternal torment said to be suffering a severer punishment then another in eternal torment? Wake up brother Gods judgments are for correction, thus one who sins wilfully will reap many stripes, for some will receive many stripes and some few.
The teaching of Universalism minimizes the Infinite Holiness and Infinite Justice of God which also resides within His very essence alongside Infinite Love. It does this by daring to assert that anyone, in the afterlife, through any form of suffering, are somehow "made ready" to be with God. That is false!
Matt how was Jesus made perfect? Was it not by the things which He suffered?
And if we are to be as He is brother we must also share in His suffering.
Are not His judgements on us a token of our inheritance with Him?
Yes, yes and again yes judgment MUST BEGIN with the house of God.
Hell is not a pleasant topic. It is an awful place. But it is real and it is powerful and it is eternal.
Yes it is real and yes it has a power, but no it is not eternal as I have shown time and again
No one will escape the judgment of God if they forsake Christ in this world.
No one will escape the judgment of God PERIOD.
God gave hell its power. The power of sin is the Law (1 Cor. 15:56). To sin is to offend God and to go against His word, His very nature. The Law is God's word. He said, "Thou shalt not...." Jesus said that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. God spoke the Law into existence out of the very nature of His own heart. Therefore, to go against the Law is to go against God and to offend Him. He is infinite. The offense is infinite.
Matt if offending God was infinite then NO ONE CAN BE SAVED because we have ALL SINNED and fallen short of the glory of God.
So how is it Matt that this infinite sin is not applied to you? How is it you do not have to suffer eternally?
Did you somehow get out of eternal torment, yet all others in there are not allowed out?
I mean if to offend God makes it an infinite sin because He is infinite how in the world did you escape its consequences?
He is just and is obligated to punish sin and, hence, the sinner.
Well I agree with that statement but time and again you let yourself of the hook for your sins by saying Jesus suffered and died for you, so now I don’t have to suffer. Somehow you don’t believe your own statement applies to you. Go figure, remember to two who went up to the temple to pray Matt and who it was that went away justified.
He is love and graciously provided His Son to redeem those who would be His.
Hogwash He gave His Son to redeem the WORLD just as the scriptures proclaim.
Jesus own words I have not come to judge the world but to SAVE THE WORLD.
Dear reader will you believe Matt’s proclamation of who the Son was sent to save or Jesus own testimony?
I’ll leave that up to you.
Universalism makes the latter quality of God override the other having the sinner escape eternal judgment by going through a period of suffering in the afterlife. This is wrong. When such an imbalance occurs, error is the result. And that is what universalism is: error. Its danger is that it may cause the heart to be comfortable, to not worry, and to put off seeking a savior. Such a doctrine is dangerous since it can easily encourage a casual approach to redemption.
On the contrary Matt it is what you believe that gives one a casual approach to redemption, the universalist believes we all reap what we sow, therefore people best beware of the sins they do. In your understanding all the elect has to do after they sin is say oops oh well I won’t have to suffer for that sin because Jesus suffered for my sins, but that poor bugger over there he’s going to suffer for all eternity. Yep we both lusted after the same woman, but I am ok because my lust is covered.
And you call the universalist doctrine dangerous, yikes.
Thus ends my rebuttal to Matt Slick
Much Love in the Lord
Scott
No comments:
Post a Comment