Mr. WM, Got Questions lists these basic tenets of inclusivsim. Would you affirm this? (1) The gospel of inclusion says that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ paid the price for all of humanity to enjoy eternal life in heaven without any need for repentance. (2) The gospel of inclusion teaches that salvation is unconditional and does not even require faith in Jesus Christ as the payment for mankind’s sin debt. (3) The gospel of inclusion believes that all humanity is destined to life in heaven whether or not they realize it. (4) The gospel of inclusion declares that all humanity will go to heaven regardless of religious affiliation.
@IndianaJoe0321 ah! I see. Yes, it seems to accurately sum up Carlton Pearson's Gospel of Inclusion... but again to be clear, I disagree with those claims and entailments.
Ummm no. I hope one of those wasn’t supposed to be a right choice! Repent and put your faith in Christ/God. That’s the gospel I know. The only gospel that saves.
Matt, you are so right! Augustine introduced and popularized so many theological errors that it's ridiculous. People are simply blinding themselves to the truth.
Love this video!! This is what it looks like to have a meaningful discussion and earnest desire to help lift your fellow Christian’s up!! You said you can’t say that you have everything right and anyone who would say that they know everything in the Bible speak out of arrogance!! Matt I after being in church and hearing my mom say just don’t blaspheme the Holy Ghost, I can remember being afraid and thinking what if o have!! Not long ago I came to the knowledge of just what you shared!! The holly spirit thy lives within us is what gives us comfort and direction and the hope of being with our savior!! I realized that blaspheming Holy Spirit meant going against the direction of it!! If we ignore and go against it committing the sun we in our flesh is at war with the spirit continue to ignore and push it down leads to our self destruction and I do believe everyone has the knowledge of that war!! I am truly a nerd!! Watching all of warren and Leightoms videos all the way until the end!! Some of the other Christians could learn to be as humble as you guys are!! Thanks so much for continually putting the word out!! I don’t see your high calv brothers ever really getting it!! Really a God who would offer his love and salvation to whosoever!!!!
Enjoyed this one. Interesting to realise even the word universal is being interpreted differently by different folk. Think I took on board all the nuances. Thanks guys
The idea that Carlton was taught that we are being protected by God, or as others say, God saved us from Himself is a Calvinistic notion, which Pearson went over the edge to refute because he judged the Bible by what others taught concerning the Bible and not how the Bible itself reads.
Warren- I support your ministry (though I wish I could do so in a more substantial way) Just want to volunteer any assistance I can for steel- manning Historic Christian Universalism whenever you make a video on that. Thanks and Blessings! Wayne
Excellent and thank you! I do plan to examine and Steelman the view, offering quotes from ECF, and other like George MacDonald. I don't hold to it, but in the camp that would love to be wrong.
@@IdolKillerthere's other material than george Macdonald lol Anhilationism doesn't understand what's being anhilated and what isn't..thats my main problem even conditional immortality ..
@@IdolKillerWarren, firstly, thank you for your work. It has blessed me in a lot of ways. Secondly, shouldn’t we take this as a clue? That as we are transformed into the likeness of Christ it seems that we increasingly hope to be wrong about the ideas we’ve got about hell? Why do we understand Gods goodness and love to be so foreign to our own conceptions of what a good father does (which seems to be what Jesus constantly invites us to do) that we have to hope against hope that God might love the way He’s commanded us to? I’m always going to leave space to be wrong and allow that Gods view of how justice fits into love is different than what I’ve interpreted about how he’s asked me to fit justice into love. But it just seems strange to be in a position of hoping God is better than we think. There are a lot of good thinkers out there right now who hold a very high view of scripture and use it to make a very good case for historic Christian universal reconciliation.
FYI: Carlton Pearson use to be orthodox. His church was the one the Christian singer Carmen attended and, wisely, left when Pearson fell away from Biblical faith and orthodoxy.
Que the Calvinists saying that anyone who doesn’t believe in Limited Atonement is a Universalist in three… two… one… (Spoiler alert: they don’t understand how Universal Atonement and Universalism are very, VERY a different)
45:36 ish I heard this saying and it may be presuppositional: 'We ask the wrong question. We ask if people believe in God. 99% of the world believes in God. What we should be asking is Do you believe God?' And that is what both Genesis & Romans say of Abraham- That he BELIEVED God. Universalism has to ignore this aspect of the relational nature of salvation, that God desires to be the Beloved and not a Sugar Daddy.
I'm not a universalist myself, though I do think there's a solid case to be made for post-mortem opportunity (which doesn't necessarily lead to universalism), but I really hope they steel-man evangelical universalism here and don't go for low-hanging fruit.
This is a contrast between Carlton Pearson's "Gospel of Inclusion" and Christian Inclusivism. I recognize there is an argument for Christian Universalism, think George MacDonald, but we do not address that here.
Yes, Christian universalism is distinct from pluralism. I intend to do an episode on it at sometime. While I don't hold to it, I know some ECF did and others like George MacDonald who I respect.
@@IdolKiller My wife is somewhat of a George MacDonald aficionado, wants to get a literature degree focusing on him. She and others who know about MacDonald say that he actually is not necessarily a universalist. He never claimed to be one, and people only pick it up from snippets of his writings here and there. It comes fro quote mining. Anyway, I only mention this because I know you put a lot of effort into researching this stuff, and I assume you wouldn't want to advance a common misconception.
Wow this was quite helpful, thanks fellas. Yeah the Lord knows my heart and he knows its a mess. Buts that's a comfort to me cuz I know im justified by faith in Jesus. And if He knows my heart than he has the antidote to every one of my problems. (The Great Physician😁) That verse about how God knows what we need before we can ask or think it is such a comfort. Its kinda funny cuz when i pray over something thats really troubling me, part of me knows that he's been leading me and waiting for me to come to him. And the answer to my prayer will probably not be what i was thinking and itll kill multiple birds with one stone. Warren what is your view of sin in the life of the believer? Personally ive come to the conclusion that a believer is no longer under condemnation. We are considered dead and crucified with Christ and our life is hid with him. The thing that does happen to us at times is we lose sight of Christ and conscience starts throwing codes and freaking out and we try justifing ourselves by our works till we finally tire ourselves out and have rest in Christ again. In fact i believe that Christian discipline is not for sins that the believer commits, but it's actually to wean us off of ourselves, our strength, and our righteousness. Spiritual adultery is when we start trusting in law keeping or trying to work for the Lord for a wage, instead of resting in the finished work of Christ. What do u think? Im kinda confused on the whole issue whats expected of me as a believer. But the more i experience, i realise that im most free from sin when im resting on the finished work of Christ. And i ride motorcycles too fast and smoke way too many ciggerettes lol.
Another great video and awesome speakers. The subject I believe is very imporant as I myself am an inclusivist exclusivist much like youself. I had to sit down with the scripture and God and really pin down what all this meant years ago. I can to the conclusion that that this is indeed how we respond to the sometimes small amount of revelation that he gives us. We will reject it and gain futher revelation of himself or will he reject it? You brought up the talents that God left people with. I agree with you that talents are equivalent to that revealtion God gives us. Those who invested were given more. My coclusions is that there is a four-fold drawing from God from all creation. 1. Creation. 2. Law/Conscience 3. Word of God\Preaching. 4. Divine Miracles/Divine Revelation. A question was ask to me a little bit ago about those who in Africa never heard the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? Scripture has the answer God has revealed himself through creation itself. Its not about did this people hear about this gospel that Jesus Lived and died for. Its about what did they do with the revelatory light that God gave then. So has everyone heard God in there lives?? Yes. What will you do with that which what is revealed to you will eventually lead to the complete knowledge of that the saving Gospel and God knows the heart and if that person truly was seeking him after revealing himself. People are less merciful then God. Think of the most loving and merciful being in the universe? And then we arrive as very tiny fraction of who God is. Gods justice is tendered with mercy. But some will still choose to not be with him and that is the sad truth.
Liked this video. Gonna check out Matt and Billy's content. Not into the modern word games of the day. To mention the biggest and oldest mentioning of Hell(Eridanus) so to double down to the feelings of others. Guess what..its happening! not mine or anybody's opinion gonna change that. What i tell people when they try that argument that the Bible was written by man. It is accounts/events of God interacting with man and men interacting with God appropriately or inappropriately. Written by men who in fellowship/ interacted/ participated in their own salvation. I choose to respond further cause i was sick of their argument. So i prayed and this is what God showed me. Glory be to God. Dare i say Merry Christmas" but i mean it w/o the tree" in Jesus. God bless u and yrs.
"I have proposed a slogan for what the gospel promises: the triumph of Jesus’ love. The slogan is too abstract to be left by itself. It is too abstract to be clear. And it is too abstract to be reliably the gospel; for the gospel is a promise addressed to our actual lives, to the hopes and fears, achievements and failures, which make their daily substance...The gospel interprets our penultimate hopes, first, by calling them possible. All hopes are invested in some of our fellows, and by their death would be interpreted “It might have been.” But hope for Jesus’ love is hope facing death; it therefore believes about itself that it will be fulfilled in spite of anything, it trusts that the individuals and communities in which it has invested itself will yet be included in the triumph of Jesus’ love. The gospel says to every man that 'there is hope for' his penultimate hopes, and that therefore they are worth pursuing". Story and Promise: a brief theology about the gospel of Jesus, by Robert W Jenson, pp. 62-63.
16:29 Actually “destroyed” does NOT *necessarily* mean “you’re gone” - look at the Greek word for “lost” as in “lost sheep” - same root word… Or Jesus saying “destroy this temple and in 3 days I will raise it”… Or that you can “destroy” your brother by the abuse of Christian liberties with regard to food laws, etc. It’s potentially more nuanced than that….
In the abstract, sure but in certain contexts it is clear it means the same as being killed which naturally points to a lack of conscious existence and life any longer.
@jordandthornburg it depends on what's being killed...or destroyed...like it's possible God destroys the old man ( sinful body) without destroying the new man ( what christ redeemed).... Consuming the wickedness...
@@TheMorning_Son it does depend on that. In context, it often speaks about the person being destroyed, which is pretty clear. I think some people just prefer not to believe that so aren’t inclined to accept it.
If you are living a lie, you lie about living, and therefore are dead. Most give themselves over to lies in order to feel better instead of doing something to make reality better. Look at all the people pretending that Trump, who signed Warp Speed, is actually fighting "the evil new world order". And many of those same people would call themselves "christian". I see those people as dead. Being out of touch with reality is like death. Continual refusal to accept reality leaves one in a state of death. You cannot have life unless it is TRUE life. God is Truth, so reality is founded on truth. So I do not think there is a simple annihilation. People will eventually be given over to their rebellion and will have to exist in what that truly is. Right now, it might not seem too bad because they can taste the fruits of truth enough. But continuous rejection will put them forever in that state. At least that's the way I see it
In terms of blasphemy of the Spirit, so how you described it, does it mean that someone who "backslides" or has supressed the truth has blasphemed the Spirit, and there is simply no hope for them? Or would you say that if someone is still alive, there is still hope for redemption?
Also what do you think about this theory I've heard about called beyond justification. There is a book that is out, and it seems to be a form of universalism, but different. It basically states that we are all saved, and then if we reject being saved we won't be. Vs a more traditional view which is weird are not saved *until* we have accepted Christ. This view says we will be saved *unless* we decide to reject the gift of eternal life at the end of our lives or whenever the judgement comes.
Warren, I appreciate your work. I'll admit that I did not listen in entirety so I may misspeak. I think the idea of progressive revelation (revelation progresses over time) would be helpful here. Also, how would this go along with the idea of a narrow path that few find? Jesus taught a very exclusive way and path but made it all inclusive by saying "simply believe"
Yeah, we don't deny the narrow path here. There is no salvation apart from Christ. To reiterate, we were critiquing Universalism (pluralism) and offering a conservative Biblical defense of inclusivism... where babies, the mentally disabled, the ignorant are not judged apart from such context, that their conscience will either condemn or excuse them per Romans 2.
Has anyone seen the movie "Hell and Mr. Fudge"? a true story about a church of Christ preacher who was challenged to prove the eternal conscious torment view and came away with something totally different. Its a great movie for those who wrestle with these things. He really shook the foundations of the so called "churches of Christ", and he was not "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination
@@IdolKiller There is a group of Primitive Baptists, who because of their extreme calvinist beliefs, their "heads exploded" and somehow ended up becoming universalists. Check out the "Primitive Baptist Universalists" which unofficially began in 1907, when an Elder's could not reconcile biblical verses which said "Christ tasted death for every man" with the Hardshell Primitive Baptist hyper calvinism. Fascinating story. I have met with some and visited 2 of their churches. Some of them believe hell is experienced in this life, while others still believe in hell, yet reject that it is eternal, and at the resurrection ALL people will be saved.
Regarding Conditional Immortality, I haven't heard a good argument against Jesus' words in Matthew 25:46, "“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”" The koine Greek word translated "eternal" in that verse describes both life as well as punishment. This seems to be a different idea than "destruction" that's found in other verses. Any Conditional Immortality insight into Mt 25:46 would be helpful.
The Greek word for "punishment " is "kolazo." Which means "chastisement." The Greek word for "everlasting" and "eternal" come from the same Greek word, "aion." Now then a Greek "aion" is an English eon, which is an age which has an end. So we can see that the goats go into eonian chastisement and not "everlasting punishment. " as the KJV erroneously translates. Even Dr.James Strong defines G 165 in a rather convoluted way. His definition is both an "age" and "eternal." ??? But then he refers back to G 165 in G 5550 and there he correctly defines "aion" as an "age," but this time, he doesn't add the word eternal. Imagine me explaining white like this: White, off-white, shaded white, cream white, blanche. Greyish white, charcoal white, black. Does anyone see a problem with my definition of white? Does anyone see a problem with Dr. James Strong's definition of G 165? Religious slant can get in the way of most Theologians.
Luk 9:56 Jesus is saying For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. "Destroy" comes from the Greek word "apollumi" which means perish, destroy, or lost. So if you are "apollumi" Jesus will seek and save you. He is sovereign and He will do it. In your question you mentioned "punishment." It is not "punishment" but "chastisement" The Greek word is "kolazo" which means chastisement. Isaiah 26;9 God says through His prophet Isaiah " for when Thy judgements are in the earth the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness. " How can God destroy any person when God clearly says that when His judgements are in the earth (future) the inhabitants of the world (That's everyone) WILL learn righteousness. God's judgements are very good because the whole world will learn righteousness. God cannot "destroy " anyone if all the inhabitants of the world are going to learn righteousness. No one can learn righteousness if they are eternally tormented or if they are annihilated. I hope this brings more clarity.
What do you think about the idea that it is not punitive what God does in response to sin, but consequence? I know this was spoken about in an earlier video, but it seems you ascribe a level of punitive justice, but I've been reading more and more about how sin has a natural consequence of death. So sin, in essence is rejecting God and the natural consequence of that is death. Thus, rather than seeing it as God punishes us for all the bad we do, God is merely warming us of the consequence that sin has, which is death
if a car, is put in a car crusher it's destroyed, it's also a cube and throw into a trash heap. It's both destroyed and not destroyed also. When I saw my father in Hell, he was destroyed, he was also in Hell, and could still speak, he said, "Don't come here."
@@MrWeebable I think he had regret. What's interesting is, if you study NDE's of people who were saw hell, they pretty much heard similar. After my experience I began studying this for over a decade, it's not that uncommon. So yes, destroyed, especially in body, and spirit, but of the mind, to some level they have to remain somewhat sane to realize why they were there in the first place. It's a even more cruel way of punishment to have that regret, and yet be of some semblance of sanity to recognize why that regret is there.
If he was given a whole bit on nbc news, he's just gotta be legit. I'm surprised Oprah didn't do a special for him. Rev 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Note: This indicated a state of conciousness
Warren, have you ever considered reading 'The gospel precisely' by Matthew Bates? It hits on your question to the gentlemen about what the gospel is. The gospel centers on Christ and how he is a reigning King. We aren't part of it. We have a chance to respond, but our response is not the gospel precisely. That's why bad soteriology does not damn you. It just means you're wrong about how to respond to the gospel.
I believe unbelievers, who don’t want anything to do with God, will get their wish, and spend eternity without him and without all the good things that come from God, such as light, laughter, love, food, water companionship, sound, sight etc. In other words, spending eternity in complete and utter darkness, in silence, by yourself. This to me, is more realistic and terrifying than burning with demons.
Post-mortem opportunity makes far more sense to me than the inclusivist model of salvation. It doesn't seem realistic to me that someone raised in idolatry is going to reason their way into monotheism, though it may technically be possible. See James Beilby on The Analytic Christian fir a good defense of post-mortem opportunity.
The notion of postmortem opportunity implies that people might actually avail themselves of this opportunity. This assessment of human nature is extremely optimistic. The bible seems to make the opposite assessment of humanity. The notion also implies that premortem opportunities are somehow insufficient. The bible seems to make the opposite claim. The incarnation, death, and resurrection (assuming, and only if they actually occurred) are profoundly absolutist phenomena, whose nature can't be surpassed, at any stage of our existence. We should expect this to be the case.
I was just listening to a man who gives prophetic words on you tube, saying that God is going to silence the critics and then he began warning us about those who wish to speak into our lives to manipulate us, and then going on and on about how Agabus prophesied OK but that he was wrong in not wanting Paul to go to Jerusalem. Well, I thought I should look into that. Acts 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem. Does that verse say anything about bonds or afflictions? No. Does it say anything about all the trouble Paul will have to endure? No. Well, what does it say, and what is "through the Spirit"? Are we only going to get to hear people speak into our lives if they are a part of an organized elite, that has special knowledge of the Bible? Paul told the Church "Ye may all prophesy." I imagine I could even tell people about how they will find a full, rich life in Christ as they continue on with him. I imagine I could do that, and that even I could be led by the Spirit to prophesy. Isn't that what the Bible says? Or, are we all to be warned against hearing prophetic words from those whose understanding of something isn't the same as us? Must we warn them all of them, just because they don't understand some things as we do, have been taught or trained in some higher school that they haven't been to, and is their understanding of something about Paul or what people prophesied to him in Acts to be the litmus test of who may prophesy? Yet, Paul said, "Ye all may prophesy." Suppose I saw a "No Fishing" sign on a river bank, and somebody wanted to fish. Would I be so wrong to say, "No, no, Don't fish there."? ....."but I have all my fishing gear and I've purposed in my heart to do this on opening day ..." I understand that we may have some disagreements on certain things in the Bible, and that is just going to happen. When that happens, I go to Romans 14. That's usually where I am led and that is usually where I end up at, and I believe that is where the Spirit of God usually takes me, when those sorts of things happen. When have I gone too far because of something I believe? Is it when I tell people, that if somebody wants to speak into their life but they don't believe as I do, that they might be trying to manipulate them?
I understand that you’re responding to this specific person but it would have been nice if you noted that he is not presenting a very specific universalism view of which a lot of Christian Universalists, like me, would disagree with.
At 19:00 - He is the savior of all men, because by Daniel's 70th week prophecy, mankind was doomed for judgement exactly seven years after Christ's death. He is the savior of "especially those who beleive" because though all mankind was saved temporarily, those who believe are saved eternally. This is what you get for standing under Origen's heretical eschatology rather than scripture.
This might seem like a stupid question, even a old one, but I would love to hear an answer. If the unsaved are just eventually anihilated, what would be the motivation for someone to repent who doesnt love God? Sure, we shouldnt just repent to not go to hell, but just seizing to exist doesnt seem all that bad. If I meet someone who has had a terrible life and doesnt believe God exists, telling them that hell is only for a short time and then they would just be destroyed almost sounds good, or atleast it would to them. I'm probably not articulating myself well, but would love to hear some thoughts on this.
There is still a fiery punishment. They would also miss out on eternal life doing what they were designed to do. Scaring people to Jesus isn't a good long-term approach. The ones who are hearing and learning from God will respond to the story of Jesus, and we help disciple them.
I don’t know if everyone who believes in annhilationism beleives this but I do.. so there is also the biblical afterlife of “Sheol” where unbelievers remain before going to hell (the lake of fire). Unbelievers are thrown in the lake of fire after the second coming of Christ I believe. But while in Sheol it is a complete separation from God so that is utter and complete torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth and I do believe people are in a state of consciousness during this time. And there are some who have been in Sheol now for thousands of years. Then they are thrown in the lake of fire until eventual annihilation. Trust me no one would ever want to be separated from God even if it is not ETERNAL conscious torment
Trust me I don’t think anyone would even want to spend 5 minutes in complete separation from God. And that is probably way to conservative of a number. Not even a minute in complete separation.
@@Loves2HugItOut I agree, but I do think that insight is only possible for those who know and love God. To me it seems that it does seem that if we lose th eternity aspect of hell, it does not have the same effect on the phyche
@AnniEast One can argue that eternal conscious torment has a positive AND negative effect on the psyche, and since it includes a negative and God is perfect, it cannot be the ultimate truth.
Do you understand that Paul's argument about the clay, "why did you make me like this," is the argument for conditional immortality? Does God not have the right to make eternal conscious beings? If so, then if those being choose to love darkeness rather than light (which is torment by nature), then why is it unjust for God to torment them eternally for their choice? Appeals to implicit belief that "God is not like that" is a total rejection of his autonomy. Those people spend eternity in hell because they reject eternity with God. They spend eternity tormented "day and night, forever and forever" for a very specific reason. For us, who spend eternity with God, there is no night. God is the light of the world, and in him there is no darkness. We spend eternity with him, in whom there is no darkness, and therefore, no night. However, they, having rejected God's person, his nature, and his goodness, will spend eternity outside of him, in the lake of fire and outer darkness. If they took toward him, they will see fire, if they look away, they will see darkness, but per their choice, they have chosen eternity outside of God. What you people fail to grasp is that you are saying that God does not have the right to make eternally conscious creatures (i.e. "why did you make me like this.") You are saying that he has the right to make eternally conscious creatures, but if they reject them, he has to unmake them, as if he was mistaken to have made them, rather than they having been mistaken to have rejected their creator. I don't think you understand the insubordnate blasphemy of your position. God does not owe peace to those who reject the peace he has made at the sacrifices of Christ. It is for the rejection of that peace that the just penalty of eternal torment is received. How can you compell God to reward peace (oblivion) to those who reject peace?
Although I somewhat agree with your conclusion, I do not see that verse in Romans 9 as an applicable defense, as the objection was not whether someone receive hell, but rather a flakky response suggesting that somehow if their evil deeds accomplished something in accordance with God's plan, in this case the murder if the Messiah, how can they be guilty and punsihed? It is a attempt to avoid taking responsibility and acknowledge the sovereignty of God to use hard, obstinate clay any way He wants. Paul however wrote in 2 Tim that even though in a house there are vessels used for honour and dishonour, IF a dishonourable vessel cleanses themselve they can be used for honour. We are to take responsibility for our actions regardless how God chooses to use them.
I don't understand why God would punish people and THEN eternally destroy them. If He's going to destroy them anyway, punishing them first seems superfluous. Can some one fill me in on what I'm missing on that view?
If the means of destruction are arduous/painful, then the experience of being destroyed could be described as a punishment before the destruction, even if it was all just part of the destruction punishment.
@@Laugical what does punishment accomplish if those who are punished will cease to exist? Why is punishing them before erasing them from existence superior to just erasing them immediately? Why shouldn't this be seen as just as pointless and cruel as ECT is?
If my opinion happens to hold any weight whatsoever (very light weight, featherweight, if anything, lol)- Much like the most of the rest of the book of Revelation are prophetic visions and thus not really literal, I believe stuff like being punished is itself possibly just another nonliteral thing in the vision. So maybe they are just destroyed (ie, die forever). Or something like that. And there might be verses form books other than Revelation, as well, that I'm missing. Just a thought. :)
Andrew the word "punishment" is used only once in the entire New Testament, and it is found in Hebrews 10:29. The Greek word is "timōria" G 5098, and it is used only once. The Greek word for punishment in Matt 25: 46 comes from the Greek word "kolazo," which is defined as "chastisement." Nobody chastises their child until until they are annihilated. And no one chastises their child endlessly or for eternity.
Regarding the nature of punishments, a dynamic God can change his plans for the future, or just leave it partially undecided until a later time. There doesn't have to be a right answer that will inevitably apply to everyone permanently.
God tells us that there is coming a time when ALL OF HUMANITY will learn righteousness. Isaiah 26;9 God says that when His judgements are in the earth the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness May I also add that the favour of God by sending rain and sunshine on the unrighteous will never cause them to learn righteousness but God's judgements most assuredly will. But I say with Isaiah, who hath believed our report? Is there a scripture that says that when God's judgements are in the earth the inhabitants of the world will NOT learn righteousness? No? Well then, why will you not believe what God has said? Its a simple question, will the inhabitants of the world ever learn righteousness? No? Then youve just called God a liar and His words are not to be trusted. There is coming a time when ALL OF HUMANITY will Acclaim Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father . You will notice that I used the word ACCLAIM instead of confess because the Greek word behind the word "confess" in the KJV is "exomologeo" which according to Thayer's Greek Definitions is to ACKNOWLEDGE OPENLY AND JOYFULLY. Can you see a boot on the neck forcing all tongues to "openly and joyfully acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord? I've heard preachers say, "God is in the business of breaking knees that won't bow." And who are they that are going to make this acclamation? God tells us: 1. Celestials 2. Terrestrials 3. Subterranean. Who is left out? The Gospel of Inclusion is very scriptural. You have just read it with your own eyes. God desires ALL men to be saved. Isaiah 46:10 God says "Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done saying My Council shall stand and I WILL DO ALL MY PLEASURE. " (or desire as in desiring All to be saved. God does not lie.
Warren, I'm glad you mentioned Billy Graham, but pluralism wasn't his only misunderstanding of God and the Bible. He was pro Roman Catholic, often sending "converts" to the RCC, and he taught a quick, simply salvation... say this little pray and you're saved for eternity (no working out your salvation or Book of James). Instead of of singing "Just as I Am", Billy should have been singing "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star"!
Usually, when someone says the lord spoke to me and told me what i thought was God's word and God told me we were wrong. Sorry but like the garden, the first lie, was did God say" ? And seems like Satan told him that, or at least demonic influence to question God. Like joseph smith and muhammhad and i was expecting this to be about how the west thinks of inclusion like what we would call DEI, and I feel that is the gospel of the 21st century. The good news is be the true you and most reject God, makes no sence.
Your guest said that if there is going to be people from every tribe and nation, and they have to understand certain facts there is going to be a problem. So a Calvinist has a problem answering this question? So the Calvinist who believes the bible when it said that God loved Jacob before he was born, they have a problem. So when God says He predestined some to be conformed into the image of His Son, they have a problem? So the belief that all elect children will be in heaven, that causes a problem for there being people in heaven from every people group. No one knows how many children are elect. It could be all babies that die God chose to elect. The Calvinist's system says that God regenerates before you believe and you guys say that is crazy. You say that a person must respond even if that is on to general revelation and that person is saved. Then you say all children are saved even though they didn't respond to anything. So you do believe in a God who can regenerate a person before they believe , don't you. You just reject the plain teaching of scripture that salvation is all of God for everyone. Because you don't have a problem believing in the Calvinist's God when it comes to saving children. Also if your beliefs are what is taught in scripture please give the text . It should be simple because as you guys said, we can't know anything unless it has been revealed. We should be able to read right through the text and it should say what you are claiming. That is what we should expect if the bible actually teaches this system don't you think. James White can walk you right through Rom. 9 using the Greek to show how God works through election. Surly you guys have a text you could walk us through that teaches inclusion is the way God saved all men? Thanks
Back in the 90's I lived in Tulsa for three years, and Carlton Pearson was my pastor. If I recall correctly, he was raised Church of God in Christ, was not a Calvinist, and he earned his M.Div from Oral Roberts University at a time when it was still associated with the [charismatic] Methodist Church. After I moved across the country, congregants who were still at Higher Dimensions Family Church said that Carlton had an emotionally difficult time believing that his loving grandparents, who were not believers, were burning alive in Hell ... and he ended up creating his Gospel of Inclusion.
Universalism exposes the synergist view that Jesus died for every person's sins, because that is the case then everyone is saved. But synergist refuse to accept that therefore they rationalize it way but if they follow their logic honestly. They must become a universalist.
@@IdolKiller I will admit that my last post was not as precise as I wanted it to be, but the spirit remains. What I find intriguing is that people who detest Calvinism and the Calvinism god have a disconnect referring to the doctrine of hell. I do not think your camp really thinks of the implications of an eternal hell, and how the Universalist looks at your god the same way your camp looks at the Calvinists god.
This guy seems to be definining love abritarily rather than scripturally. It is morally just for God to hate sinners. If sinners refuse to repent, they choose eternally to remain in the direction of God's hate. God loves his creatures, but he did not create sinners. Satan did.
if you reject Christ - then there is no salvation. and there is eternal judgment in hell that is the message of the gospel the good news - good news for those who accept Christ
@89bavaro89 right. This video isn't on Christian Universalism, but rather Carlton Pearson's "Gospel of Inclusion" vs Biblical Inclusivism. I do plan to do a video highlighting Christian Universalism, it's historic adherents and defenses and offer a critique.
@@IdolKiller Pearson actually wandered around on this issue. He started off as a Christian Universalist trying to support his views with the Bible, but eventually rejected the authority of Scripture and embraced Unitarian Universalism.
Mr. WM,
Got Questions lists these basic tenets of inclusivsim. Would you affirm this?
(1) The gospel of inclusion says that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ paid the price for all of humanity to enjoy eternal life in heaven without any need for repentance.
(2) The gospel of inclusion teaches that salvation is unconditional and does not even require faith in Jesus Christ as the payment for mankind’s sin debt.
(3) The gospel of inclusion believes that all humanity is destined to life in heaven whether or not they realize it.
(4) The gospel of inclusion declares that all humanity will go to heaven regardless of religious affiliation.
That's the "Gospel of Inclusion" Carlton Pearson was teaching which we refuted, so no... I wouldn't affirm it.
Remember the "Gospel of Inclusion" is NOT synonymous with Christian Inclusivism.
@@IdolKiller: I think the OP may have been asking if you agree with Got Questions' assessment of the Gospel of Inclusion.
@IndianaJoe0321 ah! I see. Yes, it seems to accurately sum up Carlton Pearson's Gospel of Inclusion... but again to be clear, I disagree with those claims and entailments.
Ummm no. I hope one of those wasn’t supposed to be a right choice! Repent and put your faith in Christ/God. That’s the gospel I know. The only gospel that saves.
Matt, you are so right! Augustine introduced and popularized so many theological errors that it's ridiculous. People are simply blinding themselves to the truth.
It really bugs me that solid, evangelical Bible scholars will elevate Augustine & [metaphorically] put him up on some sort of pedestal.
54:50 love this perspective, this is so helpful- if you are hearing and learning from the father you WILL be drawn to the son.
Praise God!
Thanks and appreciate all the time and hard work you put in ❤️
Thank you!
I love Billy and Matt. Great guys to have on here.
Great conversation! Everyone needs to hear this and understand what you guys are saying!
Love this video!! This is what it looks like to have a meaningful discussion and earnest desire to help lift your fellow Christian’s up!!
You said you can’t say that you have everything right and anyone who would say that they know everything in the Bible speak out of arrogance!!
Matt I after being in church and hearing my mom say just don’t blaspheme the Holy Ghost, I can remember being afraid and thinking what if o have!!
Not long ago I came to the knowledge of just what you shared!! The holly spirit thy lives within us is what gives us comfort and direction and the hope of being with our savior!! I realized that blaspheming Holy Spirit meant going against the direction of it!! If we ignore and go against it committing the sun we in our flesh is at war with the spirit continue to ignore and push it down leads to our self destruction and I do believe everyone has the knowledge of that war!!
I am truly a nerd!! Watching all of warren and Leightoms videos all the way until the end!!
Some of the other Christians could learn to be as humble as you guys are!!
Thanks so much for continually putting the word out!! I don’t see your high calv brothers ever really getting it!! Really a God who would offer his love and salvation to whosoever!!!!
Enjoyed this one. Interesting to realise even the word universal is being interpreted differently by different folk. Think I took on board all the nuances. Thanks guys
Finally, brother Warren. I'll be looking forward to it. God bless.
Yay! Brodown guys!!
The idea that Carlton was taught that we are being protected by God, or as others say, God saved us from Himself is a Calvinistic notion, which Pearson went over the edge to refute because he judged the Bible by what others taught concerning the Bible and not how the Bible itself reads.
Warren- I support your ministry (though I wish I could do so in a more substantial way)
Just want to volunteer any assistance I can for steel- manning Historic Christian Universalism whenever you make a video on that.
Thanks and Blessings!
Wayne
Excellent and thank you! I do plan to examine and Steelman the view, offering quotes from ECF, and other like George MacDonald. I don't hold to it, but in the camp that would love to be wrong.
@@IdolKillerthere's other material than george Macdonald lol
Anhilationism doesn't understand what's being anhilated and what isn't..thats my main problem even conditional immortality ..
@@IdolKillerWarren, firstly, thank you for your work. It has blessed me in a lot of ways. Secondly, shouldn’t we take this as a clue? That as we are transformed into the likeness of Christ it seems that we increasingly hope to be wrong about the ideas we’ve got about hell? Why do we understand Gods goodness and love to be so foreign to our own conceptions of what a good father does (which seems to be what Jesus constantly invites us to do) that we have to hope against hope that God might love the way He’s commanded us to? I’m always going to leave space to be wrong and allow that Gods view of how justice fits into love is different than what I’ve interpreted about how he’s asked me to fit justice into love. But it just seems strange to be in a position of hoping God is better than we think. There are a lot of good thinkers out there right now who hold a very high view of scripture and use it to make a very good case for historic Christian universal reconciliation.
FYI: Carlton Pearson use to be orthodox. His church was the one the Christian singer Carmen attended and, wisely, left when Pearson fell away from Biblical faith and orthodoxy.
Que the Calvinists saying that anyone who doesn’t believe in Limited Atonement is a Universalist in three… two… one…
(Spoiler alert: they don’t understand how Universal Atonement and Universalism are very, VERY a different)
😂 too true
I get labeled that in a millisecond before I even finish the sentence "universally offered, limitedly applied."
45:36 ish
I heard this saying and it may be presuppositional: 'We ask the wrong question. We ask if people believe in God. 99% of the world believes in God. What we should be asking is Do you believe God?' And that is what both Genesis & Romans say of Abraham- That he BELIEVED God. Universalism has to ignore this aspect of the relational nature of salvation, that God desires to be the Beloved and not a Sugar Daddy.
I would love to here a conversation between you and Robin Perry!
There is actually a whole debate about God's name really being "I Will Be what I Will Be" as opposed to "I AM"
I'm not a universalist myself, though I do think there's a solid case to be made for post-mortem opportunity (which doesn't necessarily lead to universalism), but I really hope they steel-man evangelical universalism here and don't go for low-hanging fruit.
This is a contrast between Carlton Pearson's "Gospel of Inclusion" and Christian Inclusivism. I recognize there is an argument for Christian Universalism, think George MacDonald, but we do not address that here.
Like a chance after death to believe? Man. I'd love to hear that about view point.
@@ThemCoversMB Read "That All Shall be Saved" by David Bentley Hart
I'm a Christian universalist, and I DO believe the entire Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
Yes, Christian universalism is distinct from pluralism. I intend to do an episode on it at sometime. While I don't hold to it, I know some ECF did and others like George MacDonald who I respect.
@@IdolKiller You sound like someone who examines things fairly and honestly. I look forward to that episode.
@@IdolKiller My wife is somewhat of a George MacDonald aficionado, wants to get a literature degree focusing on him. She and others who know about MacDonald say that he actually is not necessarily a universalist. He never claimed to be one, and people only pick it up from snippets of his writings here and there. It comes fro quote mining.
Anyway, I only mention this because I know you put a lot of effort into researching this stuff, and I assume you wouldn't want to advance a common misconception.
I also like how Matt's and Warren's name is spelled out, but then it's "Billy W."
Wow this was quite helpful, thanks fellas.
Yeah the Lord knows my heart and he knows its a mess. Buts that's a comfort to me cuz I know im justified by faith in Jesus. And if He knows my heart than he has the antidote to every one of my problems. (The Great Physician😁)
That verse about how God knows what we need before we can ask or think it is such a comfort.
Its kinda funny cuz when i pray over something thats really troubling me, part of me knows that he's been leading me and waiting for me to come to him. And the answer to my prayer will probably not be what i was thinking and itll kill multiple birds with one stone.
Warren what is your view of sin in the life of the believer? Personally ive come to the conclusion that a believer is no longer under condemnation. We are considered dead and crucified with Christ and our life is hid with him.
The thing that does happen to us at times is we lose sight of Christ and conscience starts throwing codes and freaking out and we try justifing ourselves by our works till we finally tire ourselves out and have rest in Christ again.
In fact i believe that Christian discipline is not for sins that the believer commits, but it's actually to wean us off of ourselves, our strength, and our righteousness.
Spiritual adultery is when we start trusting in law keeping or trying to work for the Lord for a wage, instead of resting in the finished work of Christ. What do u think? Im kinda confused on the whole issue whats expected of me as a believer. But the more i experience, i realise that im most free from sin when im resting on the finished work of Christ. And i ride motorcycles too fast and smoke way too many ciggerettes lol.
Another great video and awesome speakers. The subject I believe is very imporant as I myself am an inclusivist exclusivist much like youself. I had to sit down with the scripture and God and really pin down what all this meant years ago. I can to the conclusion that that this is indeed how we respond to the sometimes small amount of revelation that he gives us. We will reject it and gain futher revelation of himself or will he reject it? You brought up the talents that God left people with. I agree with you that talents are equivalent to that revealtion God gives us. Those who invested were given more. My coclusions is that there is a four-fold drawing from God from all creation. 1. Creation. 2. Law/Conscience 3. Word of God\Preaching. 4. Divine Miracles/Divine Revelation.
A question was ask to me a little bit ago about those who in Africa never heard the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?
Scripture has the answer God has revealed himself through creation itself. Its not about did this people hear about this gospel that Jesus Lived and died for. Its about what did they do with the revelatory light that God gave then. So has everyone heard God in there lives?? Yes. What will you do with that which what is revealed to you will eventually lead to the complete knowledge of that the saving Gospel and God knows the heart and if that person truly was seeking him after revealing himself. People are less merciful then God. Think of the most loving and merciful being in the universe? And then we arrive as very tiny fraction of who God is.
Gods justice is tendered with mercy. But some will still choose to not be with him and that is the sad truth.
Liked this video. Gonna check out Matt and Billy's content. Not into the modern word games of the day. To mention the biggest and oldest mentioning of Hell(Eridanus) so to double down to the feelings of others. Guess what..its happening! not mine or anybody's opinion gonna change that. What i tell people when they try that argument that the Bible was written by man. It is accounts/events of God interacting with man and men interacting with God appropriately or inappropriately. Written by men who in fellowship/ interacted/ participated in their own salvation. I choose to respond further cause i was sick of their argument. So i prayed and this is what God showed me. Glory be to God. Dare i say Merry Christmas" but i mean it w/o the tree" in Jesus.
God bless u and yrs.
Merry Christmas!
"I have proposed a slogan for what the gospel promises: the triumph of Jesus’ love. The slogan is too abstract to be left by itself. It is too abstract to be clear. And it is too abstract to be reliably the gospel; for the gospel is a promise addressed to our actual lives, to the hopes and fears, achievements and failures, which make their daily substance...The gospel interprets our penultimate hopes, first, by calling them possible. All hopes are invested in some of our fellows, and by their death would be interpreted “It might have been.” But hope for Jesus’ love is hope facing death; it therefore believes about itself that it will be fulfilled in spite of anything, it trusts that the individuals and communities in which it has invested itself will yet be included in the triumph of Jesus’ love. The gospel says to every man that 'there is hope for' his penultimate hopes, and that therefore they are worth pursuing".
Story and Promise: a brief theology about the gospel of Jesus, by Robert W Jenson, pp. 62-63.
Do more honest Calvinist conferences. I wish to see the elect convene about being truthful as Christians should.
I am working on more Honest Calvinist Conference materials, as well as an Honest Calvinism Saturday Morning Cartoon Special.
@@IdolKiller Yaaaay!
16:29 Actually “destroyed” does NOT *necessarily* mean “you’re gone” - look at the Greek word for “lost” as in “lost sheep” - same root word…
Or Jesus saying “destroy this temple and in 3 days I will raise it”… Or that you can “destroy” your brother by the abuse of Christian liberties with regard to food laws, etc.
It’s potentially more nuanced than that….
In the abstract, sure but in certain contexts it is clear it means the same as being killed which naturally points to a lack of conscious existence and life any longer.
@jordandthornburg it depends on what's being killed...or destroyed...like it's possible God destroys the old man ( sinful body) without destroying the new man ( what christ redeemed)....
Consuming the wickedness...
@@TheMorning_Son it does depend on that. In context, it often speaks about the person being destroyed, which is pretty clear. I think some people just prefer not to believe that so aren’t inclined to accept it.
If you are living a lie, you lie about living, and therefore are dead.
Most give themselves over to lies in order to feel better instead of doing something to make reality better. Look at all the people pretending that Trump, who signed Warp Speed, is actually fighting "the evil new world order". And many of those same people would call themselves "christian".
I see those people as dead. Being out of touch with reality is like death. Continual refusal to accept reality leaves one in a state of death.
You cannot have life unless it is TRUE life. God is Truth, so reality is founded on truth.
So I do not think there is a simple annihilation. People will eventually be given over to their rebellion and will have to exist in what that truly is. Right now, it might not seem too bad because they can taste the fruits of truth enough. But continuous rejection will put them forever in that state. At least that's the way I see it
@@jordandthornburg one man’s “clear” is another man’s enigma… “now we see through a glass darkly”
In terms of blasphemy of the Spirit, so how you described it, does it mean that someone who "backslides" or has supressed the truth has blasphemed the Spirit, and there is simply no hope for them?
Or would you say that if someone is still alive, there is still hope for redemption?
Also what do you think about this theory I've heard about called beyond justification. There is a book that is out, and it seems to be a form of universalism, but different. It basically states that we are all saved, and then if we reject being saved we won't be. Vs a more traditional view which is weird are not saved *until* we have accepted Christ. This view says we will be saved *unless* we decide to reject the gift of eternal life at the end of our lives or whenever the judgement comes.
Hi
Looking forward to learn
Warren, I appreciate your work. I'll admit that I did not listen in entirety so I may misspeak.
I think the idea of progressive revelation (revelation progresses over time) would be helpful here.
Also, how would this go along with the idea of a narrow path that few find? Jesus taught a very exclusive way and path but made it all inclusive by saying "simply believe"
Yeah, we don't deny the narrow path here. There is no salvation apart from Christ. To reiterate, we were critiquing Universalism (pluralism) and offering a conservative Biblical defense of inclusivism... where babies, the mentally disabled, the ignorant are not judged apart from such context, that their conscience will either condemn or excuse them per Romans 2.
Has anyone seen the movie "Hell and Mr. Fudge"? a true story about a church of Christ preacher who was challenged to prove the eternal conscious torment view and came away with something totally different. Its a great movie for those who wrestle with these things. He really shook the foundations of the so called "churches of Christ", and he was not "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination
Yeah, it's a good movie. Definitely worth the watch
@@IdolKiller There is a group of Primitive Baptists, who because of their extreme calvinist beliefs, their "heads exploded" and somehow ended up becoming universalists. Check out the "Primitive Baptist Universalists" which unofficially began in 1907, when an Elder's could not reconcile biblical verses which said "Christ tasted death for every man" with the Hardshell Primitive Baptist hyper calvinism. Fascinating story. I have met with some and visited 2 of their churches. Some of them believe hell is experienced in this life, while others still believe in hell, yet reject that it is eternal, and at the resurrection ALL people will be saved.
Regarding Conditional Immortality, I haven't heard a good argument against Jesus' words in Matthew 25:46, "“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”"
The koine Greek word translated "eternal" in that verse describes both life as well as punishment. This seems to be a different idea than "destruction" that's found in other verses.
Any Conditional Immortality insight into Mt 25:46 would be helpful.
Check out my interview with Chris Date (here on the channel) as well as the resources over on rethinkinghell.com
The Greek word for "punishment " is "kolazo." Which means "chastisement."
The Greek word for "everlasting" and "eternal" come from the same Greek word, "aion."
Now then a Greek "aion" is an English eon, which is an age which has an end.
So we can see that the goats go into eonian chastisement and not "everlasting punishment. " as the KJV erroneously translates. Even Dr.James Strong defines G 165 in a rather convoluted way. His definition is both an "age" and "eternal." ???
But then he refers back to G 165 in G 5550 and there he correctly defines "aion" as an "age," but this time, he doesn't add the word eternal.
Imagine me explaining white like this:
White, off-white, shaded white, cream white, blanche. Greyish white, charcoal white, black.
Does anyone see a problem with my definition of white?
Does anyone see a problem with Dr. James Strong's definition of G 165?
Religious slant can get in the way of most Theologians.
Luk 9:56 Jesus is saying For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.
"Destroy" comes from the Greek word "apollumi" which means perish, destroy, or lost.
So if you are "apollumi" Jesus will seek and save you. He is sovereign and He will do it. In your question you mentioned "punishment." It is not "punishment" but "chastisement" The Greek word is "kolazo" which means chastisement.
Isaiah 26;9 God says through His prophet Isaiah " for when Thy judgements are in the earth the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness. "
How can God destroy any person when God clearly says that when His judgements are in the earth (future) the inhabitants of the world (That's everyone) WILL learn righteousness.
God's judgements are very good because the whole world will learn righteousness.
God cannot "destroy " anyone if all the inhabitants of the world are going to learn righteousness.
No one can learn righteousness if they are eternally tormented or if they are annihilated. I hope this brings more clarity.
What do you think about the idea that it is not punitive what God does in response to sin, but consequence? I know this was spoken about in an earlier video, but it seems you ascribe a level of punitive justice, but I've been reading more and more about how sin has a natural consequence of death. So sin, in essence is rejecting God and the natural consequence of that is death.
Thus, rather than seeing it as God punishes us for all the bad we do, God is merely warming us of the consequence that sin has, which is death
Carlton Pearson is dead. That is the guy in the clips. He believed and taught weird stuff. Which is where Michael Todd gets his theology
if a car, is put in a car crusher it's destroyed, it's also a cube and throw into a trash heap. It's both destroyed and not destroyed also. When I saw my father in Hell, he was destroyed, he was also in Hell, and could still speak, he said, "Don't come here."
So he was destroyed yet still cared enough about you to warn you and also he was able to express that warning by speaking?
@@MrWeebable I think he had regret. What's interesting is, if you study NDE's of people who were saw hell, they pretty much heard similar. After my experience I began studying this for over a decade, it's not that uncommon. So yes, destroyed, especially in body, and spirit, but of the mind, to some level they have to remain somewhat sane to realize why they were there in the first place. It's a even more cruel way of punishment to have that regret, and yet be of some semblance of sanity to recognize why that regret is there.
@@MrWeebable so yes with a caveat to your question.
If he was given a whole bit on nbc news, he's just gotta be legit. I'm surprised Oprah didn't do a special for him.
Rev 20:10
The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Note: This indicated a state of conciousness
Warren, have you ever considered reading 'The gospel precisely' by Matthew Bates?
It hits on your question to the gentlemen about what the gospel is. The gospel centers on Christ and how he is a reigning King. We aren't part of it. We have a chance to respond, but our response is not the gospel precisely.
That's why bad soteriology does not damn you. It just means you're wrong about how to respond to the gospel.
I believe unbelievers, who don’t want anything to do with God, will get their wish, and spend eternity without him and without all the good things that come from God, such as light, laughter, love, food, water companionship, sound, sight etc. In other words, spending eternity in complete and utter darkness, in silence, by yourself. This to me, is more realistic and terrifying than burning with demons.
Post-mortem opportunity makes far more sense to me than the inclusivist model of salvation. It doesn't seem realistic to me that someone raised in idolatry is going to reason their way into monotheism, though it may technically be possible. See James Beilby on The Analytic Christian fir a good defense of post-mortem opportunity.
I don't see it as an either or.
@@IdolKillerGood point.
It’s not really “reasoning their way” but actually listening to and following the witness and guidance that comes from God.
The notion of postmortem opportunity implies that people might actually avail themselves of this opportunity. This assessment of human nature is extremely optimistic. The bible seems to make the opposite assessment of humanity.
The notion also implies that premortem opportunities are somehow insufficient. The bible seems to make the opposite claim. The incarnation, death, and resurrection (assuming, and only if they actually occurred) are profoundly absolutist phenomena, whose nature can't be surpassed, at any stage of our existence. We should expect this to be the case.
If you believe in being annialated is the final judgment and Jesus took on that judgement for us how is Jesus not annialated?
I was just listening to a man who gives prophetic words on you tube, saying that God is going to silence the critics and then he began warning us about those who wish to speak into our lives to manipulate us, and then going on and on about how Agabus prophesied OK but that he was wrong in not wanting Paul to go to Jerusalem. Well, I thought I should look into that.
Acts 21:4
And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem.
Does that verse say anything about bonds or afflictions? No. Does it say anything about all the trouble Paul will have to endure? No. Well, what does it say, and what is "through the Spirit"?
Are we only going to get to hear people speak into our lives if they are a part of an organized elite, that has special knowledge of the Bible? Paul told the Church "Ye may all prophesy." I imagine I could even tell people about how they will find a full, rich life in Christ as they continue on with him. I imagine I could do that, and that even I could be led by the Spirit to prophesy. Isn't that what the Bible says? Or, are we all to be warned against hearing prophetic words from those whose understanding of something isn't the same as us? Must we warn them all of them, just because they don't understand some things as we do, have been taught or trained in some higher school that they haven't been to, and is their understanding of something about Paul or what people prophesied to him in Acts to be the litmus test of who may prophesy? Yet, Paul said, "Ye all may prophesy."
Suppose I saw a "No Fishing" sign on a river bank, and somebody wanted to fish. Would I be so wrong to say, "No, no, Don't fish there."? ....."but I have all my fishing gear and I've purposed in my heart to do this on opening day ..."
I understand that we may have some disagreements on certain things in the Bible, and that is just going to happen. When that happens, I go to Romans 14. That's usually where I am led and that is usually where I end up at, and I believe that is where the Spirit of God usually takes me, when those sorts of things happen.
When have I gone too far because of something I believe? Is it when I tell people, that if somebody wants to speak into their life but they don't believe as I do, that they might be trying to manipulate them?
I understand that you’re responding to this specific person but it would have been nice if you noted that he is not presenting a very specific universalism view of which a lot of Christian Universalists, like me, would disagree with.
Right on. I do plan to do an episode on Christian Universalism.
calvanism is the moral monster.
Travel the world and get out of countries with churches on each street corner, and you will begin to lean towards universal salvation.
At 19:00 - He is the savior of all men, because by Daniel's 70th week prophecy, mankind was doomed for judgement exactly seven years after Christ's death. He is the savior of "especially those who beleive" because though all mankind was saved temporarily, those who believe are saved eternally. This is what you get for standing under Origen's heretical eschatology rather than scripture.
My personal current favourite sacred cow / idol to have absolutely nothing to do with is Christian Zionism ; )
I changed my mind too on The eternal torment view for the Ci view cuz the biblical data for ect was shockingly weak when I really looked into it.
This might seem like a stupid question, even a old one, but I would love to hear an answer.
If the unsaved are just eventually anihilated, what would be the motivation for someone to repent who doesnt love God? Sure, we shouldnt just repent to not go to hell, but just seizing to exist doesnt seem all that bad.
If I meet someone who has had a terrible life and doesnt believe God exists, telling them that hell is only for a short time and then they would just be destroyed almost sounds good, or atleast it would to them.
I'm probably not articulating myself well, but would love to hear some thoughts on this.
There is still a fiery punishment. They would also miss out on eternal life doing what they were designed to do.
Scaring people to Jesus isn't a good long-term approach. The ones who are hearing and learning from God will respond to the story of Jesus, and we help disciple them.
I don’t know if everyone who believes in annhilationism beleives this but I do.. so there is also the biblical afterlife of “Sheol” where unbelievers remain before going to hell (the lake of fire). Unbelievers are thrown in the lake of fire after the second coming of Christ I believe. But while in Sheol it is a complete separation from God so that is utter and complete torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth and I do believe people are in a state of consciousness during this time. And there are some who have been in Sheol now for thousands of years. Then they are thrown in the lake of fire until eventual annihilation. Trust me no one would ever want to be separated from God even if it is not ETERNAL conscious torment
Trust me I don’t think anyone would even want to spend 5 minutes in complete separation from God. And that is probably way to conservative of a number. Not even a minute in complete separation.
@@Loves2HugItOut I agree, but I do think that insight is only possible for those who know and love God. To me it seems that it does seem that if we lose th eternity aspect of hell, it does not have the same effect on the phyche
@AnniEast One can argue that eternal conscious torment has a positive AND negative effect on the psyche, and since it includes a negative and God is perfect, it cannot be the ultimate truth.
Do you understand that Paul's argument about the clay, "why did you make me like this," is the argument for conditional immortality? Does God not have the right to make eternal conscious beings? If so, then if those being choose to love darkeness rather than light (which is torment by nature), then why is it unjust for God to torment them eternally for their choice?
Appeals to implicit belief that "God is not like that" is a total rejection of his autonomy. Those people spend eternity in hell because they reject eternity with God. They spend eternity tormented "day and night, forever and forever" for a very specific reason.
For us, who spend eternity with God, there is no night. God is the light of the world, and in him there is no darkness. We spend eternity with him, in whom there is no darkness, and therefore, no night. However, they, having rejected God's person, his nature, and his goodness, will spend eternity outside of him, in the lake of fire and outer darkness. If they took toward him, they will see fire, if they look away, they will see darkness, but per their choice, they have chosen eternity outside of God.
What you people fail to grasp is that you are saying that God does not have the right to make eternally conscious creatures (i.e. "why did you make me like this.") You are saying that he has the right to make eternally conscious creatures, but if they reject them, he has to unmake them, as if he was mistaken to have made them, rather than they having been mistaken to have rejected their creator. I don't think you understand the insubordnate blasphemy of your position. God does not owe peace to those who reject the peace he has made at the sacrifices of Christ. It is for the rejection of that peace that the just penalty of eternal torment is received. How can you compell God to reward peace (oblivion) to those who reject peace?
Although I somewhat agree with your conclusion, I do not see that verse in Romans 9 as an applicable defense, as the objection was not whether someone receive hell, but rather a flakky response suggesting that somehow if their evil deeds accomplished something in accordance with God's plan, in this case the murder if the Messiah, how can they be guilty and punsihed? It is a attempt to avoid taking responsibility and acknowledge the sovereignty of God to use hard, obstinate clay any way He wants. Paul however wrote in 2 Tim that even though in a house there are vessels used for honour and dishonour, IF a dishonourable vessel cleanses themselve they can be used for honour.
We are to take responsibility for our actions regardless how God chooses to use them.
I don't understand why God would punish people and THEN eternally destroy them. If He's going to destroy them anyway, punishing them first seems superfluous. Can some one fill me in on what I'm missing on that view?
If the means of destruction are arduous/painful, then the experience of being destroyed could be described as a punishment before the destruction, even if it was all just part of the destruction punishment.
@@Laugical what does punishment accomplish if those who are punished will cease to exist? Why is punishing them before erasing them from existence superior to just erasing them immediately? Why shouldn't this be seen as just as pointless and cruel as ECT is?
If my opinion happens to hold any weight whatsoever (very light weight, featherweight, if anything, lol)-
Much like the most of the rest of the book of Revelation are prophetic visions and thus not really literal, I believe stuff like being punished is itself possibly just another nonliteral thing in the vision. So maybe they are just destroyed (ie, die forever).
Or something like that. And there might be verses form books other than Revelation, as well, that I'm missing. Just a thought. :)
Andrew the word "punishment" is used only once in the entire New Testament, and it is found in Hebrews 10:29.
The Greek word is "timōria" G 5098, and it is used only once.
The Greek word for punishment in Matt 25: 46 comes from the Greek word "kolazo," which is defined as "chastisement."
Nobody chastises their child until until they are annihilated.
And no one chastises their child endlessly or for eternity.
@@Ken-do4oy thanks for the reply, but you didn't really address my point.
It's ok, Matt looks like a Wendell. 😂
Facts! 🤣
Regarding the nature of punishments, a dynamic God can change his plans for the future, or just leave it partially undecided until a later time. There doesn't have to be a right answer that will inevitably apply to everyone permanently.
God tells us that there is coming a time when ALL OF HUMANITY will learn righteousness.
Isaiah 26;9 God says that when His judgements are in the earth the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness
May I also add that the favour of God by sending rain and sunshine on the unrighteous will never cause them to learn righteousness but God's judgements most assuredly will.
But I say with Isaiah, who hath believed our report?
Is there a scripture that says that when God's judgements are in the earth the inhabitants of the world will NOT learn righteousness?
No? Well then, why will you not believe what God has said?
Its a simple question, will the inhabitants of the world ever learn righteousness? No?
Then youve just called God a liar and His words are not to be trusted.
There is coming a time when ALL OF HUMANITY will Acclaim Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father . You will notice that I used the word ACCLAIM instead of confess because the Greek word behind the word "confess" in the KJV is "exomologeo" which according to Thayer's Greek Definitions is to ACKNOWLEDGE OPENLY AND JOYFULLY.
Can you see a boot on the neck forcing all tongues to "openly and joyfully acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord?
I've heard preachers say, "God is in the business of breaking knees that won't bow."
And who are they that are going to make this acclamation?
God tells us:
1. Celestials
2. Terrestrials
3. Subterranean.
Who is left out?
The Gospel of Inclusion is very scriptural.
You have just read it with your own eyes.
God desires ALL men to be saved.
Isaiah 46:10 God says "Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done saying My Council shall stand and I WILL DO ALL MY PLEASURE. " (or desire as in desiring All to be saved.
God does not lie.
Clearly he does not understand in any way the Holiess of God.
Warren, I'm glad you mentioned Billy Graham, but pluralism wasn't his only misunderstanding of God and the Bible. He was pro Roman Catholic, often sending "converts" to the RCC, and he taught a quick, simply salvation... say this little pray and you're saved for eternity (no working out your salvation or Book of James). Instead of of singing "Just as I Am", Billy should have been singing "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star"!
Usually, when someone says the lord spoke to me and told me what i thought was God's word and God told me we were wrong. Sorry but like the garden, the first lie, was did God say" ? And seems like Satan told him that, or at least demonic influence to question God. Like joseph smith and muhammhad and i was expecting this to be about how the west thinks of inclusion like what we would call DEI, and I feel that is the gospel of the 21st century. The good news is be the true you and most reject God, makes no sence.
Your guest said that if there is going to be people from every tribe and nation, and they have to understand certain facts there is going to be a problem. So a Calvinist has a problem answering this question? So the Calvinist who believes the bible when it said that God loved Jacob before he was born, they have a problem. So when God says He predestined some to be conformed into the image of His Son, they have a problem? So the belief that all elect children will be in heaven, that causes a problem for there being people in heaven from every people group. No one knows how many children are elect. It could be all babies that die God chose to elect. The Calvinist's system says that God regenerates before you believe and you guys say that is crazy. You say that a person must respond even if that is on to general revelation and that person is saved. Then you say all children are saved even though they didn't respond to anything. So you do believe in a God who can regenerate a person before they believe , don't you. You just reject the plain teaching of scripture that salvation is all of God for everyone. Because you don't have a problem believing in the Calvinist's God when it comes to saving children. Also if your beliefs are what is taught in scripture please give the text . It should be simple because as you guys said, we can't know anything unless it has been revealed. We should be able to read right through the text and it should say what you are claiming. That is what we should expect if the bible actually teaches this system don't you think. James White can walk you right through Rom. 9 using the Greek to show how God works through election. Surly you guys have a text you could walk us through that teaches inclusion is the way God saved all men? Thanks
Back in the 90's I lived in Tulsa for three years, and Carlton Pearson was my pastor. If I recall correctly, he was raised Church of God in Christ, was not a Calvinist, and he earned his M.Div from Oral Roberts University at a time when it was still associated with the [charismatic] Methodist Church.
After I moved across the country, congregants who were still at Higher Dimensions Family Church said that Carlton had an emotionally difficult time believing that his loving grandparents, who were not believers, were burning alive in Hell ... and he ended up creating his Gospel of Inclusion.
Universalism exposes the synergist view that Jesus died for every person's sins, because that is the case then everyone is saved. But synergist refuse to accept that therefore they rationalize it way but if they follow their logic honestly. They must become a universalist.
Your statement seems to operate on some unstated premises... such as an affirmation of PSA.
@@IdolKiller I will admit that my last post was not as precise as I wanted it to be, but the spirit remains. What I find intriguing is that people who detest Calvinism and the Calvinism god have a disconnect referring to the doctrine of hell. I do not think your camp really thinks of the implications of an eternal hell, and how the Universalist looks at your god the same way your camp looks at the Calvinists god.
This guy seems to be definining love abritarily rather than scripturally. It is morally just for God to hate sinners. If sinners refuse to repent, they choose eternally to remain in the direction of God's hate. God loves his creatures, but he did not create sinners. Satan did.
if you reject Christ - then there is no salvation.
and there is eternal judgment in hell
that is the message of the gospel the good news - good news for those who accept Christ
Thanks for commenting. Be sure to tune in and comment during the livestream, letting us know your thoughts
A Christian universalist believes all will be saved through Christ.
@89bavaro89 right. This video isn't on Christian Universalism, but rather Carlton Pearson's "Gospel of Inclusion" vs Biblical Inclusivism. I do plan to do a video highlighting Christian Universalism, it's historic adherents and defenses and offer a critique.
@@IdolKiller Pearson actually wandered around on this issue. He started off as a Christian Universalist trying to support his views with the Bible, but eventually rejected the authority of Scripture and embraced Unitarian Universalism.
@@JewandGreek right. We address his specific statements and contrast them against Scripture and Christian Inclusivism