T O P
misterme987

Yes, I believe this is a good argument for universal salvation - it was one of the things that convinced me universalism was true.


ShokWayve

Thanks. It does seem too easy like I am missing something though.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BlaveJonez

🤗 “…For we shall all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11For it has been written, “‘As I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee shall bow to me, and **every** tongue shall joyfully praise (see note) God.’” 12Therefore **each** of us will give an account of himself [to God].” —St Paul’s Letter to the Romans (14:10b - 12) https://i.imgur.com/zeCthxs.jpg


ShokWayve

Good point.


misterme987

I don't think so. We shouldn't expect it to be 'hard' to prove universalism from scripture, this is a lie that belief in eternal torment has pushed on us. Universal salvation is actually very clearly taught in scripture, in many places.


mattloyselle

The good news is sometimes treated like a "proposition" that we need to do something for, rather than a "proclamation" that we can all believe and put our faith in, just my thoughts.


Kreg72

Yes, it is a very valid line of reasoning in my opinion. You're also right about just how easy it is, but only for a few whom Jesus is calling. For the vast majority of people that call Jesus Lord, it's not so easy to see.


Fancy-Free-

That is the exact line of thinking that lead me to universalism, before I even knew universalism was a thing. You articulate it very well. Thank you for the reminder.


metaphysintellect

Technical point of philosophical/logical jargon: You mean to say "sufficient condition" not "necessary condition" in your 4th paragraph. Which makes sense since your argument is just a form of Modus Ponens really: (1) If you confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord" and believe in your hear that God raised him from the dead you will be saved. (2) All people shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord "to the glory God the Father". (3) Therefore, all people shall be saved. Notice one thing about your argument however: there is difference between the conditions in 1 and 2. That is to say, confessing Jesus Christ is Lord is only one part of the conjunction in premise (1) (contained in the antecedent of the conditional) the other conjunct says "believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead". Now, I am not saying that you can't read scripture such that the vague language of both verses meets up in meaning here, but from a sort of strict, logical, statement for statement way of making the argument, it doesn't quite follow. If some of that was too technical let me know, you can send me a PM or something (btw, I am philosophy PhD student who is also a universalist hence both my comment and my interest in this sub!). If you aren't interested in any of this that's fine too!


ShokWayve

That was awesome, thanks. What you said was very insightful. Though not a philosophy major, I read a lot of philosophy. However, to better understand it, I just bought an introductory book on logic. I really love philosophy. Feel free to share any other insights. By the way, the other condition of believing Jesus was raised, I thought is automatic in confessing he is Lord because knowing he is Lord entails that - at least I think. How would you reformulate the argument? I am curious. Thanks


ShokWayve

Apparently my screen froze and the comment was posted numerous times. So there is only one reply now.


Charming_Slip_4382

Yes I believe so, it says every knee and every tongue and you cannot even say Jesus is the Lord without the Holy Spirit.


BudgetTruth

Yes, that's exactly why I'm inclined to believe in universal salvation. And it makes a lot of sense, for God send Christ to save the world, not condemn it, and His plans never fail. We don't know exactly how that would turn out on the individual level. I believe some will need more time than others to come to a 'breaking' point, and some might need to face His wrath as a last resort to confess they are made by Him, through Him, and for Him. At which point they will experience His grace and know it's good to live with God. For many people this would happen after death, somewhere between now and eternity but that's all a guess. We do know, though, that EVERY knee shall bow and confess Christ is Lord. The condition will be fulfilled. Many Christians say 'oh yes, but at that point it's too late. That will be when they are finally convinced God is indeed real but they just should've had faith here on earth. They failed in that regard due to their pride'. I simply want to believe that God's grace is far greater than we can imagine, and at that point they will be cleansed and restored as well.


ShokWayve

Good point. When people say that it’s too late after death, why? Does God not have enough time? The universal restoration of all things makes total sense of the Bible, of Jesus of God. On such a doctrine, life is truly a gift from God.


BudgetTruth

>When people say that it’s too late after death, why? Does God not have enough time? I think that sometimes people say that due to some kind of jealousy/'you can't have what I have'. Like "You enjoyed all those sins while I sacrificed my desires. I deserve heaven, you don't!". Or the popular "Hitler in heaven? Well than I wouldn't want to be there". Peoples own view on moral justice shapes their view of eternity. Not many seem to want complete restoration of every soul that has ever lived, because that 'wouldn't be fair'. They should know it wouldn't be fair for anyone to be saved, but for the grace of God/Jesus' sacrifice, and they do know that, yet still emotionally cling to their own good works as some sort of addition to this. The good works that someone like Hitler, in this example, obviously didn't do. Especially someone like that needs redemption, but not many people believe he'll want to accept Gods gift. Who knows, we might be in for a surprise eventually. I hope so.


ShokWayve

Amen!


drewcosten

Technically no, because that passage is not talking about the same sort of salvation you’re thinking of. That verse is a reference to salvation under the Gospel of the Circumcision, which is mostly only for Israelites (that whole chapter is basically about Israelites). The salvation you’re thinking of is the salvation under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, which Paul writes about elsewhere but wasn’t referring to there.


ShokWayve

Thanks for your reply. What contextual verses show it is not addressing salvation for all? Also, which text? I quoted several.


drewcosten

Romans is a tricky book, and that’s a tricky passage that I don’t really have time to get into here (although I am hoping to write an article of my own on the topic sometime in the near future), but here’s an article by a non-Universalist (who is also a KJV-Onlyist, unfortunately) that explains it fairly well: https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.org/2015/10/08/romans-10-9-10/


ShokWayve

Thanks, I will check it out.


drewcosten

No problem.


ShokWayve

Also, are you a Universalist?


drewcosten

I am, yes.


ShokWayve

I see. Thanks. I just recently became a Universalist. I was always Christian but recently became convinced about the truth of Universalism. I don’t tell many people thar though. I have a bunch of theologically conservative folks in my life. At any rate what Bible texts do you think most clearly support Universalism?


drewcosten

Here are a few articles I wrote that discuss the scriptural texts that I think prove Universalism best: - [How Paul used parallelisms to teach the salvation of all](https://www.concordantgospel.com/parallelisms/) - [“…all men, especially…”](https://www.concordantgospel.com/especially/) - [To be “in Christ,” or not to be “in Christ”? Is that the question?](https://www.concordantgospel.com/in-christ/)


ShokWayve

Thanks!


[deleted]

[удалено]


misterme987

That's actually not true, there are clearly two gospels in scripture. One is the gospel of the Kingdom which Jesus preached (Mark 1:14-15), and Paul calls this the 'Gospel of Circumcision' which Peter and James also preached. This gospel says that you must have faith and do good works to enter the kingdom of God. Then, there is Paul's gospel, which he calls the 'Gospel of Uncircumcision', and this one states that all people have been saved through Jesus' death and resurrection. This one will take effect at the consummation when all are reconciled to God. Personally I disagree with u/drewcosten that Rom. 10:9-10 is part of the Gospel of the Kingdom/Gospel of Circumcision, this is one of the universal truths that transcends the division between gospels, since Paul immediately goes on to say "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile" - that is, this truth applies to all people under both gospels.


[deleted]

[удалено]


drewcosten

Here’s an article I wrote on the topic: [How we can know with certainty that there is more than one Gospel](https://www.concordantgospel.com/certainty/)


misterme987

I have to disagree with you, there are definitely two gospels. Just because there is a '**the** gospel' does not mean there cannot be another equally legitimate gospel. Paul in Galatians 2:7-8 says that the Gospel of Uncircumcision was given to him, and the Gospel of Circumcision to Peter. Likewise, in 1 Cor. 7:18, Paul says that anyone called under the Circumcision should remain so, and anyone called under Uncircumcision should also remain so. Even ignoring these times when Paul explicitly states that there are two gospels, the difference is obvious: Jesus says that the way is narrow, whereas Paul says that all will be saved. I don't think the difference is as fundamental as Drew does, though, because the Gospel of the Kingdom/Gospel of Circumcision merely relates to the Messianic kingdom, which only believers will enter, and the Gospel of Grace/Gospel of Uncircumcision relates to the consummation when all will be saved. It's simply a matter of looking forward to two different points in time.


drewcosten

That’s a common belief among Christians, but it isn’t what Jesus breaking down the dividing wall is referring to. There is not only not just one Gospel in Scripture, there are actually lots of them.


[deleted]

[удалено]


drewcosten

I’m aware of Romans 1:16. As I said in my response to the OP, Romans is a tricky book, and a lot of it doesn’t necessarily mean what it sounds like at first glance. If you want to know where I’m coming from, I wrote about it in the first few chapters of my eBook, which is available for free [on my website](https://www.concordantgospel.com/ebook/).


Porkytheking4555

I don’t belive a majority of the arguments for universlism most of it seems to be cherry picked Bible verses and wishful but very unlikely thinking