@15:40 the ones He reconciles are willing participants. Agreed! MacArthur is practicing the individualistic approach of "scripture interprets scripture".
Hello. I want to become a Christian universalist, the only issue I am having is that every universalist that I know of is either bald, balding, or has a receding hairline. As someone with a full head of luscious locks I am afraid that universalism will result in my hair dissolving. What would be your advice to me? Kind regards.
Just found this channel today 05/19/24. Im not sure yet what i think about this concept but i appreciate your simple ,clear and no extra " noise" style of presenting it. Subscribed.
Masterfully handled once again 🙏 I’ll only leave a short comment this time, but just to say you are one of the only non-Catholics I listen to, I think you’re a brilliant and careful exegete, and your teaching deserves to be heard far and wide. Thank you again for all of your hard work with these videos 🙏
Very worthy of pondering upon! Jesus sacrifice appears to be greater than Adam's sin....in every way😊 Really appreciate your thoroughness with this subject!
Yet again, thank you brother so much for this clear and concise exposition of this passage(my favourite!). The heart of Christian Universalism is written as clear as day in its verses.
Both MacArthur and Piper teach TULIP. I wouldn't expect someone who believes and loves the heresy of Limited Atonement to offer an honest reading of any scripture that supports universal reconciliation. Either one loves the truth and comes to it, or they suppress it and hide in darkness unto depravity.
I will take Jesus at his word, the finished work of the cross, John 19.30, and Jesus will literally drag, all people to himself, John 12:32, enough said!!!
Great vid, though i would disagree that the best hermanuticle structure is to interperate scripture with other scripture. Rather the best reading of the bible (as with all theological acts) is to take a strictly Christocentric view, reading all scripture thru thelens of Gods self revelation in Christ.
@19:53 The text says, "and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." I don't see where the text mentions Gehenna. I realize there is a distinction in the greek Hades/Gehenna, place of the dead, spirit prison, paradise, Abraham's Bosom. When the Nicean Creed states "Hell" it is referring to Hades (place of the dead) not Gehenna (place of the damned). How is the doctrine of universalism compatible with the Nicean faith? How and where? I do believe "Hopeful Universalism" is possible, it is possible but not apocatastasis.
It really bothers me how so many Christians so easily reject the universal perfect order being the end of all ends just because there are other verses that seem ti indicate ECT. Its like most Israelites reject Jesus as their Messiah because there are other verses in Hebrew Bible that says that Messiah will bring peace justice ans order that Jesus did not bring.
Was it Wycliffe? that said " i should have it that even the plow boy should be able to read scripture" The Universal salvation makes that possible... even for fool like me, and what joy it is !!!
@1:03 How do you know scripture is pointing to the right and these protestant pastors are pointing to the left? At this point, you have your interpretation and MacArthur has his interpretation so how am I to (a person on the outside looking in) to solve this obscurity of scripture issue? If it is so perspicuous it wouldn't be questioned. MacArthur is a false teacher when it comes to this text and is guilty of eisegesis, correct? I agree we need to pray for wisdom, to read widely, seek counsel and consider the whole totality of scripture. Who do we need to seek counsel from? Who are the true teachers (Romans 10:15, 1 John 2:19, Eph 4:11, Matthew 18:17). @3:17 Are you holding the Nicean Creed as a true ecclesiastical authority, if so, why? @7:15 I agree with everything you have said up to this point. Christ is a divine being the Creator of all things. @8:13 We need to keep reading. Col 1:23 IF you continue in your faith, established and firm, and DO NOT move from the hope held out in the gospel. @10:03 God is not a Calvinist. God will not force anyone to summit or force anyone to repent. God respects our freedom. This is why we can still commit daily sins even after the rebirth and reconciliation. We must not allow our hearts to grow cold or make a shipwreck of our faith, or soil our garments or become a prodigal son who does not return to the Father's banquet table. @10:55 Absolutely agree! Scripture can not contradict itself. This passage of scripture or any passage of scripture is not teaching the doctrine of apocatastasis. It is not teaching that fallen angels and Satan are going to be redeemed. @11:31 If Scripture interprets Scripture and is the best hermeneutical formula, who decides what scripture passages are to interpret what? Who becomes the final authoritative interpreter? Who decides what is obscure and what is perspicuous? What did the early Chrisitans do when faced with an issue (Acts 15) we don't see them all pulling out their bibles but submitting to the decision of the church council, correct? This other approach of "scripture interpreting scripture" leads to individualism and relativism.
I fear my comment may have been deleted. If not, apologies for commenting twice. The gist of what I said is that JMac is not someone you should respect. If you want to know why, you should look up Julie Roys’ journalism on the subject. Specifically about how he’s handled children and staff at his church. I don’t want my comment to get flagged again but it’s not good.
@@orthodoxuniversalist I think it's fair say that what your saying would be a separate vid and would, perhaps divert from the simple point made here... There are non unisals who point out Jmacs floors based more on sectarianism than a search for truth... Sorry, this was meant for @celebhintze
How does Universalism square the passages that say the fate of the unbelievers is death, perish, burned up, you will look for them and will not find them and what is the eternal punishment for them?
Perhaps you die in Christ now or later, all being salted with fire, the goodness of God leading to repentance, into all truth, who is Jesus, to whom all are drawn and in whom are reconciled unto God, as the forgiven servant who is imprisoned till he pays it forward in forgiveness.
I think you're correct that all biblical texts must be taken seriously and not dismissed. What this means is that the apparent universalist passages cannot be isolated from the many other passages that don't seem to teach universalism. Let's continue to honestly wrestle with the texts and not be so quick to advocate for universalism. After all, the vast majority of the Church has not agreed with you for 2,000 years. Surely that must count for something.
Thanks for the feedback on the videos! I appreciate your honesty and, frankly, your hesitation to jump the traditional ship. I wrestled with this doctrine for well over a decade before starting the channel. I talked to multiple pastors about it, read what was available for and against the idea, and took a close look at all the pertinent texts I could think of. I'm still ready to be proven wrong. Either way, God is still God and, by his grace, I'm going to keep following him. But the arguments rooted for the traditional view, based on the well-known proof texts, are just incredibly weak - and this is sometimes even admitted by those who use them. I definitely welcome criticism and would love for you to watch more of the videos on the channel to gain a wider view of my arguments. God bless! Thanks again for the comments!
If Universalism is going to spread, then prominent proponents of ECT must be taken on as is done in this excellent video. I have never respected John McArthur or John Piper and view their wide following as indicative of shallow knowledge of the Scriptures among most Christians. McArthur’s definition of “reconciled” is absurd and Piper’s parallel universe are both examples of desperation.
@@orthodoxuniversalist Do you belong to a particular denomination? I was baptized into RC but I am considering becoming an Eastern Orthodox. I enjoy your channel. This is a topic that has been on my mind. One thing I struggle with a lot is the traditional RC view of the "massa damnata" It has caused me a lot of anxiety and to be frank despair.
@@jacobnuesca7181 I regularly attend/ participate in a mainline Protestant denomination. I think highly of the RC and EO but understand (perhaps mistakenly) that the view I share on this channel would not be approved in these traditions. “Hopeful” universalism is somewhat acceptable but dogmatic universalism is not. Non-denominational Protestant churches are, in my experience, the most open to the concepts I share, as long as they are held in private and not promoted at any formal gathering within the church. I’ve personally been encouraged by the RC shift on this view, however, which is described in this article: www.wordonfire.org/hope/
Do I believe everyone “is” saved? I wouldn’t state it that way. But I do argue that everyone WILL BE saved. Not all paths lead to God and not everyone will avoid the punishment of hell. And yet, everyone will be reconciled unto peace with God through the blood of Christ.
@@ethanlash914 Great question! “Forever and ever” is an interesting term. I don’t often like to construct an argument for universalism based on bad English translations of biblical texts, but I will at least say that the case for unending conscious torment based on the texts that refer to a punishment that will last “forever and ever” is just incredibly weak. One of the big reasons for this is because the terms translated “forever” and “ever” are plural (Revelation 14:11). Obviously, the idea of “forevers and evers” is nonsensical. Yet what is without doubt in this passage in particular is that Christ himself will be present during this punishment (verse 10). Even in the lake of fire, the Light of the world is there. This gives me hope.
@@orthodoxuniversalist so you dont think sinning against an eternal God deserves eternal punishment if people dont trust in Jesus for forgiveness? I think historically it is believed people either go to heaven eternally or hell eternally right?
@@ethanlash914 Yes, some people think that sinning against an infinite God makes a person deserving of infinite punishment. John Piper advocates for this view. So does Augustine. But the opposing argument asks the following question: does the righteous act of an infinite God-made-flesh not produce an infinite blessing? It’s hard to image that we, as finite, can accomplish more than Christ, who was/ is infinite. Romans 5 explains that the work of Christ accomplished “much more” than the fall of Adam. If all without exception are subjected to sin and death through Adam, how can we believe that “much more” is being accomplished through Christ unless, as a minimum, all without exception are redeemed through the gospel? I fully believe in eternal punishment and eternal life, but I don’t believe that many understand how these terms were originally used by the early church. I certainly didn’t for most of my life and I’m still growing in my understanding. I talk about this in more depth in the video “Universalism Debunked?.”
I'm not a big McArthur fan, but I don't get how you can say that his point is weak when he is simply making a very logical and most basic, commonly used argument. If you think that Analogia Scriptura is an exegesis of the absolute worst kind, you are opening up a massive can of worms when it comes to MANY other believes that many have held to justify some serious problematic beliefs. Case in point. How do we argue that Jesus is God, contrary to the Jehovah's Witness belief that Jesus was a creation of the Father? You have to use other scriptures like John 1:1 to argue against their main foundational scripture of labeling Jesus as "the first born of all creation". If the first born of all creation is left on its own, then it stands to reason that Jesus was created. Plus, let's use your perspective, but let's turn the tables. In Matt 12:32, regarding the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and the sin that won't be forgiven in this age or the next, if we leave that scripture as is, then it never says forgiveness will eventually happen because it doesn't elaborate more after the next "age". So you would have to give another scripture to help explain that there would be an age of the "next age" to where all will be reconciled by using a reconciliation type scripture. Of course you use this same logic of analogia scriptura. All universalists of every group use it to contradict 'salvation for some', type scriptures. So if you're saying that McArthur's argument is "exegesis of the worst kind", then you're guilty of the same thing and contradicting yourself. Plus, the bigger thing is, I've heard you do it in other videos. Bottom line is, you don't like that argument because it's a legit argument and it does rationally explain the position of "salvation for some". It doesn't mean it's true or false, but it's a fully legit argument that everyone uses whether they know they are using it or not.
Thanks for sharing your take! I really appreciate you taking the time to respond. However, if you consider everything I said about the use of Analogia Scriptura, I think you'll find that I fully endorse it. It's not Analogia Scriptura that I take issue with. Rather, it's MacArthur himself that goes off the rails. He names Analogia Scriptura, claiming it's the route he took to arrive at his destination, and then proves by his explanation that he did no such thing. Consider the fuller context of my statements from the video below. I think you'll find that we see eye-to-eye. "It is an exegesis of the absolute worst kind to simply gloss over certain texts of the Bible - such as MacArthur does with this text - because he holds other texts in a higher regard. Don’t get me wrong. I think interpreting scripture by scripture is the best hermeneutical formula. But this doesn’t mean we cancel out the implications of one scripture on the basis of another, but rather that we take the full weight of every scripture, even if they seem contradictory, and refuse to stop digging for understanding until we can appreciate how the unbridled emphasis of each scripture individually contributes to the clearest image of truth when they are taken synthetically."
@@orthodoxuniversalist Okay, I hear you. I just don't understand in your explanation why you think he was off in the first place. Why did you have to say that Analogia Scriptura was a problem when he used it to explain why Paul was saying that 1 Col 16-20 was within a context? John wasn't cancelling out the implications of 1 Col. He was just interpreting it differently than you were. At the end of the day, all of our disagreements come down to the angle in which we are interpreting something. The way he is interpreting it is the way it was always interpreted by the majority throughout history. It's a pretty normal interpretation. The only time it gets challenged over the centuries is when a Universalist movement rises up, and then later dies down after it fizzles out.
The full context of Colossians 1 is important. This guy conveniently left out Col 1:23 which says: “Col 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. “ “If indeed you continue in the faith”. Salvation is by God’s grace, in faith in Christ alone in this life. Heed the words from the book of Hebrews: Heb 10:29 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 10:30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." Heb 10:31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
“This guy” here 🤣 Fair observation @ferncampos385. The reason I didn’t cover 1:23 is because it’s directed at those already reconciled “now,” where there is unanimous agreement that the reconciliation of 1:20 is something completed but not yet manifest. 1:23 takes nothing away from the assurance that all will be reconciled. It simply speaks to the condition of those who have already experienced this. There is no hint in the text that this limits the declaration of “all things” being reconciled, given in verse 20. If anything, 1:23 might be a warning to all those who already believe to not take their standing for granted. The same can be said of the references you shared from Hebrews 10. Yet, again, neither of these texts limit the scope of Colossians 1:20 and other texts like it.
I disagree that Jesus tasted death for angels. Reconciliation in Collosians in context is about the Chruch. The word "things" is not in the Greek. All is referring to the closest subject, the Church. If you take it the reconciliation is for all created things, then you would be saying Jesus died for animals and insects too, and in vain, because they did not fall. Also, why would Jesus die for non fallen Angels.
I really need help with this. If God cannot fail to achieve his will, meaning nothing can happen that he hasn't designed to happen since nothing can happen that thwarts God in any way, then that means God has specifically designed every thought we ever had or will have, every action we've ever taken, it means we have no free will and the most heinous atrocities we've ever done were designed by God and imposed on us. See, if all will be saved because it is his will and he cannot fail to achieve his will, then nothing can ever happen big or small that can run counter to his will. So that means everything that happens IS his will, every murder, all torture, all suffering and terror, all of it must be his choosing, his design. So if we don't have free will, then the argument of the existence of sin no longer works because we couldn't choose to love or not love God and thus sin cant enter the world by opposition to God because nothing in opposition to God can exist as that would violate his will, it would harm him, God would experience loss. If God can experience loss then God can lose people forever and not save them.
Your concerns are absolutely legitimate. Obviously, I can’t answer for everyone but I absolutely believe in free will. The illustration that I’ve heard/ used in reference to this before, is that our free will and God’s sovereignty mesh together somewhat like a game of chess. We are like toddlers playing a game of chess with a world champion grandmaster. Yes, we have the freedom to move the pieces as we’d like. And we will be judged based on those moves. But in the end, the grandmaster is going to win the game. I explain this tension throughout several videos on the channel, within the playlist called “Worldview and Agency.” Specifically, the last five videos in that playlist will touch on this most directly. I pray you find the answers you need.
@@orthodoxuniversalist Thank you, I'm trying to figure it out, because all 3 views pose serious conflicts I feel. I guess its an issue of absolutism. If Gods will is absolute then free will can't exist because the only things that could happen would be of his doing, including evil. But if his will isn't absolute, then this undercuts the argument of "he wills all to be saved therefore all will be saved" I think. OR is it possible to say that it was his will that free creatures could overrule his will to a certain limit? But then we have another conflict in that he knew what would happen before creating them and knew all variable simulations of creating free creatures and for some reason chose this one rather than one that had 100% free choosing of God. I know you don't have all the answers. I know God exists, but nothing is making sense to me anymore. Theres too many contradictions within the aspect of Gods absolute will and evil. We say evil is that which is in violation of Gods will, but to say Gods will is absolute means there is no other will that could run counter to God and thus be evil. But evil can't be a part of Gods will, but if all things that happen are predetermined by God, then it has to be.
When people explain away a passage, I find it to be a problem. When they incorporate new senses of a word that is found nowhere else, such as "forced into submission" for "reconcile," I am certain they are wrong. If they have to incorporate pop sci-fi understandings that don't have any bearing on real science, then it has no hope. And that reminds me of one of the stark challenges to universalism. The authors of Scripture viewed I Enoch as Scripture, with all that entails. Jude quotes it as a prophecy. This makes it inspired, pretty much by definition (an uninspired prophecy is about as sensible as a four-sided triangle). Jesus, in his dispute with the Sadducees, alluded to I Enoch 15 then read his conviction from the Scriptures the Sadducees rejected (angels do not marry I En 15 and men will be like the angels Dan 12) back into the Law. There are other references besides. It didn't make the canon, and arguably for very good reasons. However, for the writers of Scripture it was Scripture. I Enoch is not friendly to universalism at all. It is, arguably, the text from second Temple Judaism that is most hostile to it. How would you propose reconciling those passages with NT authors who we can demonstrate treated it as Scripture? Everyone but Paul and James depend on it in a substantial way somewhere. I can give evidence Paul rejected it and James never uses it). This means, for their thinking, they have to reconcile I Enoch on the same standards you're pointing out John MacArthur would have to be reconciled, and because they have to, we have to grandfather it in some on the question where on most we wouldn't need to consider it. The only use of I Enoch where I can see the how it could be reconciled is in I Pet 3.19. The others do not lend themselves so well.
Paul quoted pagan writings more than once. He knew that “all truth is God’s truth.” I Enoch was clearly in wide circulation but precisely that it did not make the canon indicates that it had problematic content according to the ancients. Paul clearly teaches universalism and he is the most prolific NT writer after Luke. So Paul’s omission of I Enoch is significant.
@@warrenroby6907 Paul is probably the only NT writer we can make an argument rejected I Enoch. It's not an airtight case, but I think it's a decent one. He, therefore, wouldn't be relevant to the question. However I'm not making a canonical argument. I wouldn't support putting it in the canon. That's been settled, and with the exception of some regional variations, I tend to treat substantial changes to it as sin. However it wasn't set when the NT was being written, and we can demonstrate most of them did use it as Scripture. Therefore an universalist reading of someone who did accept it needs to be balanced with their acceptance of the book, and it has to be read seriously and not explained away.
@@warrenroby6907 Sorry, I neglected to mention, the uses of I Enoch are different than Paul's use of pagan poets or Ps 24's use of the Baal Cycle, or the like. Jude calls it a prophecy, Jesus calls it Scripture, and multiple authors allude to it as a source of divine revelation. For pagan poets or any other such writing to be a valid comparison, then it has to have similar usage. If the quote does not, then it means those features of I Enoch usage shouldn't be taken indicative of Scripture. I could use the same reasoning to deny, say, Jeremiah. We read a given canon back, and none of them existed. There's a similar effect around the LXX and the Targums; they deeply challenge what we think of inspiration, because the NT treats them in ways our theories do not allow.
I agree the canon was not settled when Paul wrote and that there are views of inspiration which are too narrow. In fact the argument can be made that much of Genesis draws on “pagan” sources. I am comfortable with much of the NT going through many redactions into the second century. I believe Gods oversaw the process.
One of the first things Jesus said in his ministry was “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:7). I just can’t see how the ideas of universalism hold up against scripture. If it were really true, we might as well have been instructed to eat donuts and sit on the couch until we die because everyone will be saved anyway, regardless if the gospel is preached. It’s a doctrine that feels good in my tummy and tickles my ears, but at the end of the day it doesn’t add up with scripture. Why would Paul express lament for those living as “enemies of the cross of Christ” in Philippians if everyone will be saved anyway? Why did Jesus talk about separating the sheep from the goats if everyone will be saved anyway? Why would Jesus tell us in the parable of the ten virgins that we ought to “keep watch” if everyone will be saved anyway? I admire the effort to say everyone will make it to heaven, but there’s just no way to really pull that out of scripture in view of the whole Bible. Certain passages might seem to suggest universal salvation, while neighboring passages refute the idea altogether. Universalist theology falls flat when the entire Bible is taken into account. Instead, it is better to celebrate the amazing grace offered through Jesus, and to share that good news with as many people as possible. “We are ambassadors of Christ, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:20) There is no need to “implore” people to repent if everyone has a guaranteed ticket to heaven anyway. But there is great reason to celebrate that we have a free gift of salvation offered to us in Christ. Bless you, brother!
Most of your questions are answered by the fact that most Christian Universalists believe in post mortem salvation. Everyone still needs to repent and believe in Jesus, just many do that post mortem. Not to mention that most of this can be leveled at Calvinists (our ultimate fate is sealed already, so who cares what we do).
@@devindaniels1379 maybe we’re both presenting caricatures of the actual theology, mine of the Universalist view, and you of the Calvinist view. Paul says “it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure,” and in that same breath he tells readers to “work out your own salvation through fear and trembling.” Scripture presents a tension that exceeds human reasoning, and i believe it is best to allow that tension, otherwise we are drawing conclusions from our limited human point of view. God is totally sovereign (I doubt you would disagree) and yet we are told to work out our own salvation so as to make our calling/election certain. I only want to adhere to what scripture says. I’d be happy to hear of any scripture that supports Universalism without making any big stretches or generous assumptions. I’m willing to be wrong on my view, I just want to see it proven through scripture.
@@devindaniels1379 “Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.” Hebrews 12:12-17 Passages like this make it very difficult for me to believe in universal salvation.
@@joshuaaubreyjackson7199 I really appreciate your approach and fairness. I do think we all agree that God is sovereign and ultimately whatever happens is going to be just and right. I will add though that I have seen from several sources that the word eternal is not the original meaning, i believe originally the word/phrase means “until”. So, perhaps it is possible that those who have rejected and continue to reject Christ on Earth will be sent to a purifying fire through which either they will have the postmortem reconciliation to Christ or they will continue to deny Him. However, all knees will bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord. So, maybe there won’t be such an opportunity. I don’t know, I only know that I become distressed thinking about those individuals, even kids perhaps who of no fault of their own were born into a Muslim family and try to honor God (the god they are taught) and aren’t sufficiently exposed to Christ, and then die without confessing Him. Surely they will not be cast out into ETERNAL torment simply because God created them in a region/time that didn’t provide them the good news
Your sadly correct my friend… CU would be the truth if God was wholly good and loving. He is not. God designed hell and a lake of fire for torturing His creation. NDE’s have seen hell and come back to tell of it. It has gang rapes, mutilation, and unimaginable tortures. It’s the most grotesque things imaginable and God created it. That’s not something a good deity would do. Period. You can try to twist scripture to push the idea of a loving God, but it just doesn’t work. God is good and loving to His elect and that’s it. To everyone else, he’s a maniacal tyrant.
First off there is no hell in the true Hebrew or Greek scriptures from cover to cover, Jesus never said it and his apostles never taught it, and second off so far in your reconciliation text, you haven't mentioned 2 Corinthians 5:18 and 19 which is the same as the Colossians text, that was God was in Christ, reconciling the cosmos to himself,!!! You're right about the reconciliation business, and you're dead wrong about Hell, hell is purely a pagan myth, and is not in the Bible from cover to cover, Hell came to us, Viva la Latin Vulgate, thanks to Mr Augustine,!!!!!!!
It’s just hard to believe that someone dying without Christ would eventually make it into heaven. Even from the universalist perspective it’s funny how nobody knows how long the “purification” part of this lake of fire is. I’ve watched videos were some Jews believe that the soul must undergo torment for around a year before it can go back to God. I’m not sure if universalism is the same. It’s hard to entertain universalism and Gods justice from what I’ve been told and understood from the Bible since I’ve read and studied it. Right now I’m in a season to where I’m not even sure what to believe but that’s a whole other topic. I just need clarity or help on how you guys can understand or make peace with universalism. For example I’ve heard universalist use scripture like 1st Corinthians 15:22 : (New King James Version) 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. I understand this to mean in Adam all humanity has been made to die spiritually and literally because of sin. But those that put their faith in Christ will be made alive. Notice that those who do not put their faith in Christ will not be made a live, they will still be in a state/destiny of death. I’m just trying to find the compatibility of universalism but I can’t. Know that my reason of these points is not meant to hate anybody but I just don’t get it. I don’t get universalism or its defense in scripture.
Thanks for the comment. I really appreciate your honesty. I also really admire your hesitancy to “make peace” with universalism. Smart move! All of your questions are completely valid and, frankly, there are a lot more questions that need to be answered as well before universalism will/ might seem like an acceptable doctrine. That’s why I made the channel. I really don’t say this in an effort to self-promote but I can only give you partial answers in the comments feed whereas in the videos on the channel I can demonstrate a more detailed (while perhaps not exhaustive) overview of why Christian Universalism is tenable. Regarding your question on 1 Corinthians 15:22, I would recommend the video entitled “Will God Be All In All?”. I would also recommend the video “Universalism Debunked?”. These may be good starting points if you really want to dig into this issue. All said, however, I definitely don’t think that everyone will be convinced of the Christian Universalist view, nor do I believe that everyone necessarily should. Rather, I think we should all be united around the hope that we set in “the living God” (1 Timothy 4:10) over and above any doctrine we form concerning what he might or might not do in the future. I strongly believe that universalism is a secondary issue, and that we should remain devoted to majoring on the major issues of the faith: following Christ, building up the church, engaging in the Great Commission. Thanks again for the comment! I pray the Lord will offer you discernment in your journey of discovery.
@@orthodoxuniversalist yea I’ll give those videos a watch. I believed I watched the all in all video but I’ll give that one a rewatch. But that’s the thing. It just sounds like theory rather than fact. Like it sounds like there isn’t enough of a definite argument or truth to it like eternal conscious torment or annihilation. I guess I’m just a person who wants to be absolutely sure something is true especially in a state of eternity. I would hate to die believing the wrong thing and suffer for all time because of it. If that makes sense.
@@orthodoxuniversalist I mean I’ll give your videos a watch and continue to try to find bullet proof evidence on universalism. But how do you come to terms with it. It’s just a lot of theories. I also heard the brimstone was used for purifying substances but the Bible just says there will be a lake with fire and brimstone. Like if universalism was true It would be more convenient for everyone if the word of God just made it clear that those who are condemned will only experience hell for a time and how long that would be, before being brought back to God.
You behaving as an Unitarian Universalist. You claim to be Orthodox yet disagree that salvation is within the Orthodox Church. You disagree with the consensus of the fathers, of what the great majority of saints taught, instead relying upon your own interpretation and a few hand picked examples, most of which aren't even saints. At the same time, you seem to be stuck to the Latin idea of sin as guilt, not as a sickness of the soul. Do you hold the same view of hell as the fathers of the church? Because if you see hell as a mere punishment, as having direct parallel to incarceration and judgment, then you're instead relying on a protestant view.
Fair questions/ accusations! I’m not Orthodox. I explain on my website (and have explained on TH-cam as well) that the name of the channel was chosen to honor Gregory of Nyssa, who was declared by the first council of Constantinople to be the pillar of orthodoxy, yet he was an open universalist. My theology of postmortem punishment is rooted, on the one hand, in what he and the other, early universalists said. In Nyssa’s Catechetical Discourse, for example, he discusses the “painful life of transgressors” to come, and explains that it is not “comparable to any of the things that pain the senses here… even though the PUNISHMENTS there are called by the names known here.” And on the other hand, my understanding is rooted in texts like Matthew 25:46. I definitely don’t claim to have a perfect understanding of all that God will accomplish with hell, but I believe punishment is the biblical and historical term associated with it, yet likewise believe that the conclusions that are outlined in Colossians 1 (and so many other texts like it) are clearly universalistic and cannot be avoided exegetically. I try to read as widely as I can. I definitely don’t just read Saints. But I will say, for the record, that none of my “interpretations” originated in me. I am completely indebted to others who have lead the way in this area, both ancient and modern. Thanks for the feedback!
Your arguments are valid and your videos well made!
It's a pleasure to watch and easy to follow.
@15:40 the ones He reconciles are willing participants.
Agreed! MacArthur is practicing the individualistic approach of "scripture interprets scripture".
Glad I found this channel. Watching from Canada.
Great stuff as usual! Glad you are still making these videos!
Hello. I want to become a Christian universalist, the only issue I am having is that every universalist that I know of is either bald, balding, or has a receding hairline. As someone with a full head of luscious locks I am afraid that universalism will result in my hair dissolving. What would be your advice to me? Kind regards.
Follow the Spirit's prompting then shave your head. Be pro active!😊
🤣🤣🤣 I'm dying! Thanks for that.
- A balding universalist
aomasgd found
Just found this channel today 05/19/24. Im not sure yet what i think about this concept but i appreciate your simple ,clear and no extra " noise" style of presenting it. Subscribed.
Welcome to the channel and thanks for the encouragement!
@@orthodoxuniversalist thanks 😁
Very well done Brother. Keep it up. Yahweh bless your efforts.
Masterfully handled once again 🙏 I’ll only leave a short comment this time, but just to say you are one of the only non-Catholics I listen to, I think you’re a brilliant and careful exegete, and your teaching deserves to be heard far and wide. Thank you again for all of your hard work with these videos 🙏
Very worthy of pondering upon! Jesus sacrifice appears to be greater than Adam's sin....in every way😊 Really appreciate your thoroughness with this subject!
Superb teaching.
Excellent!
Yet again, thank you brother so much for this clear and concise exposition of this passage(my favourite!). The heart of Christian Universalism is written as clear as day in its verses.
Both MacArthur and Piper teach TULIP. I wouldn't expect someone who believes and loves the heresy of Limited Atonement to offer an honest reading of any scripture that supports universal reconciliation. Either one loves the truth and comes to it, or they suppress it and hide in darkness unto depravity.
I will take Jesus at his word, the finished work of the cross, John 19.30, and Jesus will literally drag, all people to himself, John 12:32, enough said!!!
Great vid, though i would disagree that the best hermanuticle structure is to interperate scripture with other scripture. Rather the best reading of the bible (as with all theological acts) is to take a strictly Christocentric view, reading all scripture thru thelens of Gods self revelation in Christ.
Where did you find the John MacArthur quote? I would love to reference it in a paper that I’m working on.
www.preceptaustin.org/colossians_115-29#1:20
@19:53 The text says, "and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." I don't see where the text mentions Gehenna. I realize there is a distinction in the greek Hades/Gehenna, place of the dead, spirit prison, paradise, Abraham's Bosom. When the Nicean Creed states "Hell" it is referring to Hades (place of the dead) not Gehenna (place of the damned). How is the doctrine of universalism compatible with the Nicean faith? How and where? I do believe "Hopeful Universalism" is possible, it is possible but not apocatastasis.
John MacArthur and John Piper speak of context and then blow Colossians 1:20 all out of context
They do the same thing on passages about women in ministry. They only use the exegesis they’re talking about when it suits their platform.
It really bothers me how so many Christians so easily reject the universal perfect order being the end of all ends just because there are other verses that seem ti indicate ECT.
Its like most Israelites reject Jesus as their Messiah because there are other verses in Hebrew Bible that says that Messiah will bring peace justice ans order that Jesus did not bring.
Was it Wycliffe? that said " i should have it that even the plow boy should be able to read scripture"
The Universal salvation makes that possible... even for fool like me, and what joy it is !!!
@1:03 How do you know scripture is pointing to the right and these protestant pastors are pointing to the left? At this point, you have your interpretation and MacArthur has his interpretation so how am I to (a person on the outside looking in) to solve this obscurity of scripture issue? If it is so perspicuous it wouldn't be questioned. MacArthur is a false teacher when it comes to this text and is guilty of eisegesis, correct? I agree we need to pray for wisdom, to read widely, seek counsel and consider the whole totality of scripture. Who do we need to seek counsel from? Who are the true teachers (Romans 10:15, 1 John 2:19, Eph 4:11, Matthew 18:17).
@3:17 Are you holding the Nicean Creed as a true ecclesiastical authority, if so, why?
@7:15 I agree with everything you have said up to this point. Christ is a divine being the Creator of all things. @8:13 We need to keep reading. Col 1:23 IF you continue in your faith, established and firm, and DO NOT move from the hope held out in the gospel. @10:03 God is not a Calvinist. God will not force anyone to summit or force anyone to repent. God respects our freedom. This is why we can still commit daily sins even after the rebirth and reconciliation. We must not allow our hearts to grow cold or make a shipwreck of our faith, or soil our garments or become a prodigal son who does not return to the Father's banquet table. @10:55 Absolutely agree! Scripture can not contradict itself. This passage of scripture or any passage of scripture is not teaching the doctrine of apocatastasis. It is not teaching that fallen angels and Satan are going to be redeemed. @11:31 If Scripture interprets Scripture and is the best hermeneutical formula, who decides what scripture passages are to interpret what? Who becomes the final authoritative interpreter? Who decides what is obscure and what is perspicuous? What did the early Chrisitans do when faced with an issue (Acts 15) we don't see them all pulling out their bibles but submitting to the decision of the church council, correct? This other approach of "scripture interpreting scripture" leads to individualism and relativism.
I fear my comment may have been deleted. If not, apologies for commenting twice. The gist of what I said is that JMac is not someone you should respect. If you want to know why, you should look up Julie Roys’ journalism on the subject. Specifically about how he’s handled children and staff at his church. I don’t want my comment to get flagged again but it’s not good.
Thanks for the heads up!
@@orthodoxuniversalist
I think it's fair say that what your saying would be a separate vid and would, perhaps divert from the simple point made here...
There are non unisals who point out Jmacs floors based more on sectarianism than a search for truth...
Sorry, this was meant for @celebhintze
How does Universalism square the passages that say the fate of the unbelievers is death, perish, burned up, you will look for them and will not find them and what is the eternal punishment for them?
Perhaps you die in Christ now or later, all being salted with fire, the goodness of God leading to repentance, into all truth, who is Jesus, to whom all are drawn and in whom are reconciled unto God, as the forgiven servant who is imprisoned till he pays it forward in forgiveness.
I think you're correct that all biblical texts must be taken seriously and not dismissed.
What this means is that the apparent universalist passages cannot be isolated from the many other passages that don't seem to teach universalism.
Let's continue to honestly wrestle with the texts and not be so quick to advocate for universalism.
After all, the vast majority of the Church has not agreed with you for 2,000 years.
Surely that must count for something.
Thanks for the feedback on the videos! I appreciate your honesty and, frankly, your hesitation to jump the traditional ship.
I wrestled with this doctrine for well over a decade before starting the channel. I talked to multiple pastors about it, read what was available for and against the idea, and took a close look at all the pertinent texts I could think of. I'm still ready to be proven wrong. Either way, God is still God and, by his grace, I'm going to keep following him. But the arguments rooted for the traditional view, based on the well-known proof texts, are just incredibly weak - and this is sometimes even admitted by those who use them.
I definitely welcome criticism and would love for you to watch more of the videos on the channel to gain a wider view of my arguments.
God bless! Thanks again for the comments!
If Universalism is going to spread, then prominent proponents of ECT must be taken on as is done in this excellent video. I have never respected John McArthur or John Piper and view their wide following as indicative of shallow knowledge of the Scriptures among most Christians. McArthur’s definition of “reconciled” is absurd and Piper’s parallel universe are both examples of desperation.
It's fair enough to share thoughts respectfully enough on their public formats.
Are you an Eastern Orthodox Christian?
I’m not. The name was chosen in reference to Gregory of Nyssa.
@@orthodoxuniversalist Do you belong to a particular denomination? I was baptized into RC but I am considering becoming an Eastern Orthodox. I enjoy your channel. This is a topic that has been on my mind. One thing I struggle with a lot is the traditional RC view of the "massa damnata" It has caused me a lot of anxiety and to be frank despair.
@@jacobnuesca7181 I regularly attend/ participate in a mainline Protestant denomination. I think highly of the RC and EO but understand (perhaps mistakenly) that the view I share on this channel would not be approved in these traditions. “Hopeful” universalism is somewhat acceptable but dogmatic universalism is not.
Non-denominational Protestant churches are, in my experience, the most open to the concepts I share, as long as they are held in private and not promoted at any formal gathering within the church.
I’ve personally been encouraged by the RC shift on this view, however, which is described in this article: www.wordonfire.org/hope/
Do you believe everyone is saved?
Do I believe everyone “is” saved? I wouldn’t state it that way. But I do argue that everyone WILL BE saved. Not all paths lead to God and not everyone will avoid the punishment of hell. And yet, everyone will be reconciled unto peace with God through the blood of Christ.
@@orthodoxuniversalist if you believe that, what about when scripture says how people will be in the lake of fire forever and ever in revelation?
@@ethanlash914 Great question!
“Forever and ever” is an interesting term. I don’t often like to construct an argument for universalism based on bad English translations of biblical texts, but I will at least say that the case for unending conscious torment based on the texts that refer to a punishment that will last “forever and ever” is just incredibly weak. One of the big reasons for this is because the terms translated “forever” and “ever” are plural (Revelation 14:11). Obviously, the idea of “forevers and evers” is nonsensical. Yet what is without doubt in this passage in particular is that Christ himself will be present during this punishment (verse 10). Even in the lake of fire, the Light of the world is there. This gives me hope.
@@orthodoxuniversalist so you dont think sinning against an eternal God deserves eternal punishment if people dont trust in Jesus for forgiveness? I think historically it is believed people either go to heaven eternally or hell eternally right?
@@ethanlash914 Yes, some people think that sinning against an infinite God makes a person deserving of infinite punishment. John Piper advocates for this view. So does Augustine. But the opposing argument asks the following question: does the righteous act of an infinite God-made-flesh not produce an infinite blessing? It’s hard to image that we, as finite, can accomplish more than Christ, who was/ is infinite.
Romans 5 explains that the work of Christ accomplished “much more” than the fall of Adam. If all without exception are subjected to sin and death through Adam, how can we believe that “much more” is being accomplished through Christ unless, as a minimum, all without exception are redeemed through the gospel?
I fully believe in eternal punishment and eternal life, but I don’t believe that many understand how these terms were originally used by the early church. I certainly didn’t for most of my life and I’m still growing in my understanding. I talk about this in more depth in the video “Universalism Debunked?.”
I'm not a big McArthur fan, but I don't get how you can say that his point is weak when he is simply making a very logical and most basic, commonly used argument. If you think that Analogia Scriptura is an exegesis of the absolute worst kind, you are opening up a massive can of worms when it comes to MANY other believes that many have held to justify some serious problematic beliefs. Case in point. How do we argue that Jesus is God, contrary to the Jehovah's Witness belief that Jesus was a creation of the Father? You have to use other scriptures like John 1:1 to argue against their main foundational scripture of labeling Jesus as "the first born of all creation". If the first born of all creation is left on its own, then it stands to reason that Jesus was created. Plus, let's use your perspective, but let's turn the tables. In Matt 12:32, regarding the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and the sin that won't be forgiven in this age or the next, if we leave that scripture as is, then it never says forgiveness will eventually happen because it doesn't elaborate more after the next "age". So you would have to give another scripture to help explain that there would be an age of the "next age" to where all will be reconciled by using a reconciliation type scripture. Of course you use this same logic of analogia scriptura. All universalists of every group use it to contradict 'salvation for some', type scriptures. So if you're saying that McArthur's argument is "exegesis of the worst kind", then you're guilty of the same thing and contradicting yourself. Plus, the bigger thing is, I've heard you do it in other videos.
Bottom line is, you don't like that argument because it's a legit argument and it does rationally explain the position of "salvation for some". It doesn't mean it's true or false, but it's a fully legit argument that everyone uses whether they know they are using it or not.
Thanks for sharing your take! I really appreciate you taking the time to respond.
However, if you consider everything I said about the use of Analogia Scriptura, I think you'll find that I fully endorse it. It's not Analogia Scriptura that I take issue with. Rather, it's MacArthur himself that goes off the rails. He names Analogia Scriptura, claiming it's the route he took to arrive at his destination, and then proves by his explanation that he did no such thing. Consider the fuller context of my statements from the video below. I think you'll find that we see eye-to-eye.
"It is an exegesis of the absolute worst kind to simply gloss over certain texts of the Bible - such as MacArthur does with this text - because he holds other texts in a higher regard. Don’t get me wrong. I think interpreting scripture by scripture is the best hermeneutical formula. But this doesn’t mean we cancel out the implications of one scripture on the basis of another, but rather that we take the full weight of every scripture, even if they seem contradictory, and refuse to stop digging for understanding until we can appreciate how the unbridled emphasis of each scripture individually contributes to the clearest image of truth when they are taken synthetically."
@@orthodoxuniversalist Okay, I hear you. I just don't understand in your explanation why you think he was off in the first place. Why did you have to say that Analogia Scriptura was a problem when he used it to explain why Paul was saying that 1 Col 16-20 was within a context? John wasn't cancelling out the implications of 1 Col. He was just interpreting it differently than you were. At the end of the day, all of our disagreements come down to the angle in which we are interpreting something. The way he is interpreting it is the way it was always interpreted by the majority throughout history. It's a pretty normal interpretation. The only time it gets challenged over the centuries is when a Universalist movement rises up, and then later dies down after it fizzles out.
The full context of Colossians 1 is important. This guy conveniently left out Col 1:23 which says:
“Col 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. “
“If indeed you continue in the faith”. Salvation is by God’s grace, in faith in Christ alone in this life.
Heed the words from the book of Hebrews:
Heb 10:29 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 10:30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE."
Heb 10:31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
“This guy” here 🤣
Fair observation @ferncampos385.
The reason I didn’t cover 1:23 is because it’s directed at those already reconciled “now,” where there is unanimous agreement that the reconciliation of 1:20 is something completed but not yet manifest. 1:23 takes nothing away from the assurance that all will be reconciled. It simply speaks to the condition of those who have already experienced this. There is no hint in the text that this limits the declaration of “all things” being reconciled, given in verse 20.
If anything, 1:23 might be a warning to all those who already believe to not take their standing for granted. The same can be said of the references you shared from Hebrews 10. Yet, again, neither of these texts limit the scope of Colossians 1:20 and other texts like it.
I disagree that Jesus tasted death for angels. Reconciliation in Collosians in context is about the Chruch. The word "things" is not in the Greek. All is referring to the closest subject, the Church. If you take it the reconciliation is for all created things, then you would be saying Jesus died for animals and insects too, and in vain, because they did not fall. Also, why would Jesus die for non fallen Angels.
I really need help with this. If God cannot fail to achieve his will, meaning nothing can happen that he hasn't designed to happen since nothing can happen that thwarts God in any way, then that means God has specifically designed every thought we ever had or will have, every action we've ever taken, it means we have no free will and the most heinous atrocities we've ever done were designed by God and imposed on us. See, if all will be saved because it is his will and he cannot fail to achieve his will, then nothing can ever happen big or small that can run counter to his will. So that means everything that happens IS his will, every murder, all torture, all suffering and terror, all of it must be his choosing, his design. So if we don't have free will, then the argument of the existence of sin no longer works because we couldn't choose to love or not love God and thus sin cant enter the world by opposition to God because nothing in opposition to God can exist as that would violate his will, it would harm him, God would experience loss. If God can experience loss then God can lose people forever and not save them.
Your concerns are absolutely legitimate. Obviously, I can’t answer for everyone but I absolutely believe in free will. The illustration that I’ve heard/ used in reference to this before, is that our free will and God’s sovereignty mesh together somewhat like a game of chess. We are like toddlers playing a game of chess with a world champion grandmaster. Yes, we have the freedom to move the pieces as we’d like. And we will be judged based on those moves. But in the end, the grandmaster is going to win the game.
I explain this tension throughout several videos on the channel, within the playlist called “Worldview and Agency.” Specifically, the last five videos in that playlist will touch on this most directly.
I pray you find the answers you need.
@@orthodoxuniversalist Thank you, I'm trying to figure it out, because all 3 views pose serious conflicts I feel.
I guess its an issue of absolutism. If Gods will is absolute then free will can't exist because the only things that could happen would be of his doing, including evil. But if his will isn't absolute, then this undercuts the argument of "he wills all to be saved therefore all will be saved" I think.
OR is it possible to say that it was his will that free creatures could overrule his will to a certain limit? But then we have another conflict in that he knew what would happen before creating them and knew all variable simulations of creating free creatures and for some reason chose this one rather than one that had 100% free choosing of God.
I know you don't have all the answers. I know God exists, but nothing is making sense to me anymore. Theres too many contradictions within the aspect of Gods absolute will and evil. We say evil is that which is in violation of Gods will, but to say Gods will is absolute means there is no other will that could run counter to God and thus be evil. But evil can't be a part of Gods will, but if all things that happen are predetermined by God, then it has to be.
When people explain away a passage, I find it to be a problem. When they incorporate new senses of a word that is found nowhere else, such as "forced into submission" for "reconcile," I am certain they are wrong. If they have to incorporate pop sci-fi understandings that don't have any bearing on real science, then it has no hope.
And that reminds me of one of the stark challenges to universalism. The authors of Scripture viewed I Enoch as Scripture, with all that entails. Jude quotes it as a prophecy. This makes it inspired, pretty much by definition (an uninspired prophecy is about as sensible as a four-sided triangle). Jesus, in his dispute with the Sadducees, alluded to I Enoch 15 then read his conviction from the Scriptures the Sadducees rejected (angels do not marry I En 15 and men will be like the angels Dan 12) back into the Law. There are other references besides.
It didn't make the canon, and arguably for very good reasons. However, for the writers of Scripture it was Scripture. I Enoch is not friendly to universalism at all. It is, arguably, the text from second Temple Judaism that is most hostile to it.
How would you propose reconciling those passages with NT authors who we can demonstrate treated it as Scripture? Everyone but Paul and James depend on it in a substantial way somewhere. I can give evidence Paul rejected it and James never uses it). This means, for their thinking, they have to reconcile I Enoch on the same standards you're pointing out John MacArthur would have to be reconciled, and because they have to, we have to grandfather it in some on the question where on most we wouldn't need to consider it.
The only use of I Enoch where I can see the how it could be reconciled is in I Pet 3.19. The others do not lend themselves so well.
Paul quoted pagan writings more than once. He knew that “all truth is God’s truth.” I Enoch was clearly in wide circulation but precisely that it did not make the canon indicates that it had problematic content according to the ancients. Paul clearly teaches universalism and he is the most prolific NT writer after Luke. So Paul’s omission of I Enoch is significant.
@@warrenroby6907 Paul is probably the only NT writer we can make an argument rejected I Enoch. It's not an airtight case, but I think it's a decent one. He, therefore, wouldn't be relevant to the question.
However I'm not making a canonical argument. I wouldn't support putting it in the canon. That's been settled, and with the exception of some regional variations, I tend to treat substantial changes to it as sin. However it wasn't set when the NT was being written, and we can demonstrate most of them did use it as Scripture. Therefore an universalist reading of someone who did accept it needs to be balanced with their acceptance of the book, and it has to be read seriously and not explained away.
@@warrenroby6907 Sorry, I neglected to mention, the uses of I Enoch are different than Paul's use of pagan poets or Ps 24's use of the Baal Cycle, or the like. Jude calls it a prophecy, Jesus calls it Scripture, and multiple authors allude to it as a source of divine revelation.
For pagan poets or any other such writing to be a valid comparison, then it has to have similar usage. If the quote does not, then it means those features of I Enoch usage shouldn't be taken indicative of Scripture. I could use the same reasoning to deny, say, Jeremiah. We read a given canon back, and none of them existed. There's a similar effect around the LXX and the Targums; they deeply challenge what we think of inspiration, because the NT treats them in ways our theories do not allow.
I agree the canon was not settled when Paul wrote and that there are views of inspiration which are too narrow. In fact the argument can be made that much of Genesis draws on “pagan” sources. I am comfortable with much of the NT going through many redactions into the second century. I believe Gods oversaw the process.
Rightly divide?
One of the first things Jesus said in his ministry was “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:7). I just can’t see how the ideas of universalism hold up against scripture. If it were really true, we might as well have been instructed to eat donuts and sit on the couch until we die because everyone will be saved anyway, regardless if the gospel is preached. It’s a doctrine that feels good in my tummy and tickles my ears, but at the end of the day it doesn’t add up with scripture. Why would Paul express lament for those living as “enemies of the cross of Christ” in Philippians if everyone will be saved anyway? Why did Jesus talk about separating the sheep from the goats if everyone will be saved anyway? Why would Jesus tell us in the parable of the ten virgins that we ought to “keep watch” if everyone will be saved anyway? I admire the effort to say everyone will make it to heaven, but there’s just no way to really pull that out of scripture in view of the whole Bible. Certain passages might seem to suggest universal salvation, while neighboring passages refute the idea altogether. Universalist theology falls flat when the entire Bible is taken into account. Instead, it is better to celebrate the amazing grace offered through Jesus, and to share that good news with as many people as possible. “We are ambassadors of Christ, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:20) There is no need to “implore” people to repent if everyone has a guaranteed ticket to heaven anyway. But there is great reason to celebrate that we have a free gift of salvation offered to us in Christ. Bless you, brother!
Most of your questions are answered by the fact that most Christian Universalists believe in post mortem salvation. Everyone still needs to repent and believe in Jesus, just many do that post mortem. Not to mention that most of this can be leveled at Calvinists (our ultimate fate is sealed already, so who cares what we do).
@@devindaniels1379 maybe we’re both presenting caricatures of the actual theology, mine of the Universalist view, and you of the Calvinist view. Paul says “it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure,” and in that same breath he tells readers to “work out your own salvation through fear and trembling.” Scripture presents a tension that exceeds human reasoning, and i believe it is best to allow that tension, otherwise we are drawing conclusions from our limited human point of view. God is totally sovereign (I doubt you would disagree) and yet we are told to work out our own salvation so as to make our calling/election certain. I only want to adhere to what scripture says. I’d be happy to hear of any scripture that supports Universalism without making any big stretches or generous assumptions. I’m willing to be wrong on my view, I just want to see it proven through scripture.
@@devindaniels1379 “Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.” Hebrews 12:12-17
Passages like this make it very difficult for me to believe in universal salvation.
@@joshuaaubreyjackson7199 I really appreciate your approach and fairness. I do think we all agree that God is sovereign and ultimately whatever happens is going to be just and right.
I will add though that I have seen from several sources that the word eternal is not the original meaning, i believe originally the word/phrase means “until”. So, perhaps it is possible that those who have rejected and continue to reject Christ on Earth will be sent to a purifying fire through which either they will have the postmortem reconciliation to Christ or they will continue to deny Him.
However, all knees will bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord. So, maybe there won’t be such an opportunity. I don’t know, I only know that I become distressed thinking about those individuals, even kids perhaps who of no fault of their own were born into a Muslim family and try to honor God (the god they are taught) and aren’t sufficiently exposed to Christ, and then die without confessing Him. Surely they will not be cast out into ETERNAL torment simply because God created them in a region/time that didn’t provide them the good news
Your sadly correct my friend…
CU would be the truth if God was wholly good and loving. He is not.
God designed hell and a lake of fire for torturing His creation. NDE’s have seen hell and come back to tell of it. It has gang rapes, mutilation, and unimaginable tortures. It’s the most grotesque things imaginable and God created it.
That’s not something a good deity would do. Period.
You can try to twist scripture to push the idea of a loving God, but it just doesn’t work. God is good and loving to His elect and that’s it. To everyone else, he’s a maniacal tyrant.
First off there is no hell in the true Hebrew or Greek scriptures from cover to cover, Jesus never said it and his apostles never taught it, and second off so far in your reconciliation text, you haven't mentioned 2 Corinthians 5:18 and 19 which is the same as the Colossians text, that was God was in Christ, reconciling the cosmos to himself,!!! You're right about the reconciliation business, and you're dead wrong about Hell, hell is purely a pagan myth, and is not in the Bible from cover to cover, Hell came to us, Viva la Latin Vulgate, thanks to Mr Augustine,!!!!!!!
It’s just hard to believe that someone dying without Christ would eventually make it into heaven. Even from the universalist perspective it’s funny how nobody knows how long the “purification” part of this lake of fire is. I’ve watched videos were some Jews believe that the soul must undergo torment for around a year before it can go back to God. I’m not sure if universalism is the same. It’s hard to entertain universalism and Gods justice from what I’ve been told and understood from the Bible since I’ve read and studied it. Right now I’m in a season to where I’m not even sure what to believe but that’s a whole other topic.
I just need clarity or help on how you guys can understand or make peace with universalism.
For example I’ve heard universalist use scripture like 1st Corinthians 15:22 :
(New King James Version)
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
I understand this to mean in Adam all humanity has been made to die spiritually and literally because of sin. But those that put their faith in Christ will be made alive.
Notice that those who do not put their faith in Christ will not be made a live, they will still be in a state/destiny of death.
I’m just trying to find the compatibility of universalism but I can’t. Know that my reason of these points is not meant to hate anybody but I just don’t get it. I don’t get universalism or its defense in scripture.
Thanks for the comment. I really appreciate your honesty. I also really admire your hesitancy to “make peace” with universalism. Smart move!
All of your questions are completely valid and, frankly, there are a lot more questions that need to be answered as well before universalism will/ might seem like an acceptable doctrine. That’s why I made the channel. I really don’t say this in an effort to self-promote but I can only give you partial answers in the comments feed whereas in the videos on the channel I can demonstrate a more detailed (while perhaps not exhaustive) overview of why Christian Universalism is tenable. Regarding your question on 1 Corinthians 15:22, I would recommend the video entitled “Will God Be All In All?”. I would also recommend the video “Universalism Debunked?”. These may be good starting points if you really want to dig into this issue.
All said, however, I definitely don’t think that everyone will be convinced of the Christian Universalist view, nor do I believe that everyone necessarily should. Rather, I think we should all be united around the hope that we set in “the living God” (1 Timothy 4:10) over and above any doctrine we form concerning what he might or might not do in the future. I strongly believe that universalism is a secondary issue, and that we should remain devoted to majoring on the major issues of the faith: following Christ, building up the church, engaging in the Great Commission.
Thanks again for the comment! I pray the Lord will offer you discernment in your journey of discovery.
@@orthodoxuniversalist yea I’ll give those videos a watch. I believed I watched the all in all video but I’ll give that one a rewatch. But that’s the thing. It just sounds like theory rather than fact. Like it sounds like there isn’t enough of a definite argument or truth to it like eternal conscious torment or annihilation. I guess I’m just a person who wants to be absolutely sure something is true especially in a state of eternity. I would hate to die believing the wrong thing and suffer for all time because of it. If that makes sense.
@@christian865 Totally makes sense. 👍
@@orthodoxuniversalist I mean I’ll give your videos a watch and continue to try to find bullet proof evidence on universalism. But how do you come to terms with it. It’s just a lot of theories. I also heard the brimstone was used for purifying substances but the Bible just says there will be a lake with fire and brimstone. Like if universalism was true It would be more convenient for everyone if the word of God just made it clear that those who are condemned will only experience hell for a time and how long that would be, before being brought back to God.
Go home John MacArthur.
You behaving as an Unitarian Universalist. You claim to be Orthodox yet disagree that salvation is within the Orthodox Church. You disagree with the consensus of the fathers, of what the great majority of saints taught, instead relying upon your own interpretation and a few hand picked examples, most of which aren't even saints.
At the same time, you seem to be stuck to the Latin idea of sin as guilt, not as a sickness of the soul. Do you hold the same view of hell as the fathers of the church? Because if you see hell as a mere punishment, as having direct parallel to incarceration and judgment, then you're instead relying on a protestant view.
Fair questions/ accusations!
I’m not Orthodox. I explain on my website (and have explained on TH-cam as well) that the name of the channel was chosen to honor Gregory of Nyssa, who was declared by the first council of Constantinople to be the pillar of orthodoxy, yet he was an open universalist.
My theology of postmortem punishment is rooted, on the one hand, in what he and the other, early universalists said. In Nyssa’s Catechetical Discourse, for example, he discusses the “painful life of transgressors” to come, and explains that it is not “comparable to any of the things that pain the senses here… even though the PUNISHMENTS there are called by the names known here.” And on the other hand, my understanding is rooted in texts like Matthew 25:46.
I definitely don’t claim to have a perfect understanding of all that God will accomplish with hell, but I believe punishment is the biblical and historical term associated with it, yet likewise believe that the conclusions that are outlined in Colossians 1 (and so many other texts like it) are clearly universalistic and cannot be avoided exegetically.
I try to read as widely as I can. I definitely don’t just read Saints. But I will say, for the record, that none of my “interpretations” originated in me. I am completely indebted to others who have lead the way in this area, both ancient and modern.
Thanks for the feedback!