Belief systems

[Athanasius]

I believe God predestines all, and does so without violating the free will he gives us. This is because His choice of us springs from eternity, whereas our choice springs from the temporal.

Predestination can't be partial. If God predestines some to heaven, then he can't not predestine others elsewhere. If someone chooses you for a marriage partner, he/she has also made the choice not to choose another to be his/her partner.

I've asked you a question in the other thread, so again, take it up there.

Unless of course God works it so that all of creation will be saved. Paul does say that all Israel will one day be saved. So who knows, maybe God gets us even if we say no to the marriage proposal.

Universalism is compatible with Calvinism, not Arminianism (keep that in mind). As for the verse you provided, it refers only to those who are 'in Christ'. But I don't see the point in further explaining, as that isn't your view... Unless you want to defend it, then provide a counter-point.

[WSGAC]

Universalism is compatible with Calvinism, not Arminianism (keep that in mind). As for the verse you provided, it refers only to those who are 'in Christ'. But I don't see the point in further explaining, as that isn't your view... Unless you want to defend it, then provide a counter-point.

I think the view that all will be saved has merit. The flow of Paul's argument in Romans 9, states that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. He then makes distinction between children of *physical descent* and children of the *promise.* In Romans 10, Paul continues to develop his argument showing the distinction between the righteousness of God which comes through faith vs. the righteousness that seeks its own way via the law. But he also begins articulating the agony of the dilemma...namely, how could Israel, God's chosen, reject the good news?(v. 16). Paul cites some passages in Isaiah, Psalms, Deuteronomy demonstrating it was God's dilemma too.

He then asks the big and provacative questions in chapter 11. First verses 1-2 - "I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew... Paul resolves the dilemma of his people's destiny by stating it is part of the plan...God gave his people a spirit of stupor, blinding them to what God is doing. It's this blinding that is the reason for their disobedience and rejection of God's good news. But this rejection is what allows the Gentiles to enter into the picture, to receive salvation!

Now what do we do with the big question he raises a few verses later: "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery?" (11:11-12). Obviously when Paul says "they", he's not talking about the "called ones" here, for he has already identified the called ones as the faithful remnant which will be saved. (11:4-5) "They" are the fallen ones who have stumbled...who have rejected the good news.

It's a provocative question because up to this point his argument seems pretty clear, that the unfaithful...those who stumbled by rejecting...those who did not receive the promise...those who are not part of the faithful remnant....they are those same who do not belong to Israel, even though they may be physically descended from Israel. And remember, "only a remnant shall be saved." (9:27)

So which is it? Is unfaithful Israel destined for wrath, not to be included as recipients of salvation, as he suggests in chaps. 9 an 10? Or are they able to be recovered? Paul's question, "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery?" suggest he's moving in that direction of recovery. Why else would he ask the question? And he answers that question with, "NOT AT ALL!"

That's odd! He's just made the case that they are objects of wrath, not true Israel, not part of the faithful remnant, non recipients of the promise....all because of their lack of faith, demonstrated in their rejection of Christ. Sounds like they're going straight to hell, if you ask me. But Paul says NOT AT ALL! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

Very strange indeed!

Paul develops his argument further in a concluding remark that makes clear God's plan. God can and does accomplish His purposes even when we, in our freedom, say NO! to God. In fact, God takes that NO!, turns it on its head, and uses it to bring about our salvation. Who could imagine that the greatest "NO!" we could ever raise to God...crucifying the only Son...could be taken by God and used to bless and save us? In our very act of treachery and rebellion against God, crucifying his Son, God is not frustrated. He takes our disobedience into Himself, and blesses us.

Paul's concluding words which underscore this,"Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound *everyone* over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them *all*." (Romans 11:30-32)


NOTE: I've posted this as a separate thread on Bible Chat, so that I remain cyberly-correct with you.

[ProjectPeter]

Tis now moved to a more appropriate section.

[Diggindeeper]

I'm not certain that "universalism" is a Christian doctrinal system.

Right, RabbiKnife! 'Universaliam' is heresy! It should not even be included in the poll as a 'Christian doctrine'.

Yes, I agree. Arminianism and Calvinism both reject universalism.
I just do not see Universalism being a Christian belief, there has to be some serious twisting of God's word to make that work.

Right, Abiding. (That is what got this thread moved to Areopagus.) This forum is for all those things Paul saw being discussed in Athens. Those folks had nothing better to do than sit around discussing all those 'philosophies' and 'other doctrines' and 'strange new ideas' or what we call today...far out stuff! So, any time 'universalism comes up...it will be moved here.

I've heard some pretty good explanations of universal salvation. I know it grates against our inner sense of justice and a good many scriptural references, but there is an argument for it.

No, these 'pretty good explanations' can easily be refuted by scrutiny of scriptures.

[WSGAC]

No, these 'pretty good explanations' can easily be refuted by scrutiny of scriptures.

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see."
- Arthur Schopenhauer.

[RabbiKnife]

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see."
- Arthur Schopenhauer.

Delightful. A gnostic genius in our midst with special secret revelation that none of us have.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Delightful. A gnostic genius in our midst with special secret revelation that none of us have.

Just a "Higher Dimension"... :-)

[RabbiKnife]

Just a "Higher Dimension"... :-)

[gringo300]

The best I can do is describe what I believe.

I believe that accepting the gift of salvation requires genuine remorse for one's sin. I don't believe it's as simple as saying, "I don't want to go to Hell, so I accept the way out.". A person can have NO remorse whatsoever and not want to go to Hell.

I absolutely believe that after a person goes past a certain point, their conscience DIES. I just don't see how a person who's gone past that point can get saved. I'm NOT saying that person's sin is too big for Jesus to wash away. It's not the AMOUNT of sin. It's the lack of remorse and the lack of CAPACITY for remorse.

This ISN'T the same as a belief in predestination, like taught by Calvinism.

[Free Indeed]

Universalism is compatible with Calvinism, not Arminianism (keep that in mind).

I'm not sure how universalism can be compatible with Calvinism, as Calvinism holds the doctrine of limited atonement.

For the record, I'm neither a universalist nor a Calvinist.