VIEWPOINT
Every belief has to start somewhere
As you know from reading any part of this site, just because a view is in the majority, that does not necessarily make it true. Universalism is a worldview that is not only in a very small minority of "believers", but it is so radically different from the "traditional" Christian and Jewish worldviews that it begs some sort of investigation. Not because it is strange, but because it claims to conform to Scripture without any variation from the word of God, but adds concepts that do not seem to be evident in Scripture. Yet, it is also a belief in concepts that no other denominations have presented or claimed.
Narrowing the subject
This is not intended to be a full analysis of all the concepts in Universalism. It's more like a search for the justification for some of their extreme conclusions. Most valid conclusions are reached because the premises provided are sound and allow for a logical determination.
For example, if I have two pennies in my left hand and two pennies in the other hand, I conclude that I have four pennies total in both hands. A sound, demonstrable conclusion. However, if I said that I have two pennies in my left hand and two pennies in my right hand, and decide that I do not have enough money to buy a new set of clothes, the conclusion is not sound because it does not cover all the bases needed for the conclusion. It is possible that my pocket or my bank account has enough money to buy the clothes, and since I own the money in my pocket and the bank, I may have the money for the clothes, just not in my hands at the moment.
Finally, if we wake up one morning and find that our car is not in the driveway, and I immediately conclude that it has been stolen, is my conclusion sound? No, there are many other possible reasons why it is not there. It may turn out that my wife moved it to make room for a delivery of barkdust in the driveway that has not yet arrived. Or, it may be attached to the trailer of the new boat that I had forgotten the we bought yesterday and it won't fit in the driveway. (I wish...)
So, what are we examining?
Several things stand out about the beliefs of Universalism. The most important one is the concept of Universal Reconciliation with God. Everyone will be saved in the end. This idea is contrary to the beliefs of every other denomination, which doesn't automatically make it false, but also appears on the surface to be contrary to the words of Scripture, which would make it false. Where did these ideas originate?
When did it start?
According to Theological Studies, U.K., an article by Richard Bauckham states that "The most famous and influential advocate of Universalism in the early church was Origen". Origen lived from about 185 A.D. to about 254/5 A.D., placing him well after the original apostles and during the beginnings of what turned out to be the modification of Christianity toward what it is today (Sunday-based, anti-semitic, law-denying rhetoric). The Romans had already convinced the "Christians" to worship on Sunday and abhor the Jewish Sabbath through intimidation by the threat of persecution, so the influence of those outside the "church" was already prevalent. The following statements on the site show the nature of Origen's understanding based on the Platonic influence of his beliefs:
Logically it might seem that Origen's conviction of the inalienable freedom of the soul ought to prevent him from teaching both universalism (for any soul is free to remain obstinate for ever) and the final secure happiness of the saved (who remain free to fall again at any time). In fact Origin seems to have drawn neither conclusion. Given unlimited time, God's purpose will eventually prevail and all souls will be finally, united to Him, never to sin again. The final restoration includes even Satan and the devils.
Origen's scheme conforms to a Platonic pattern of understanding the world as part of a great cycle of the emanation of all things from God and the return of all things to God. Despite the appeal to such texts as 1 Cor. 15: 28 ('God shall be all in all' this has always been a favourite universalist text) the final unity of all things with God is more Platonic than biblical in inspiration. The Platonic pattern of emanation and return was widely influential in Greek theology and provided the same kind of general world-view favouring universalism as Darwinian evolution was to provide for some nineteenth-century universalists, In both cases universalism is achieved by seeing both this earthly life and hell as only stages in the soul's long upward progress towards God, whereas mainstream Christian orthodoxy has always regarded this life as decisive for a man's fate and hell as the final destiny of the wicked.
Influence of Greek philosophy
Origen was not a "Christian" at this time, but his views gave the "Christians" some ideas about how to "intellectually" understand God in relation to their own lives. The "NeoPlatonism" of philosophers like Plotinus and Porphyry influenced some of the "church fathers" like Augustine (396-430 A.D.), who in turn affected the teachings of Christianity (see Wikipedia - Plato for more). Without getting into the individual discussions of possible influences, just be aware that the Greek philosophy of the time was being used by some to explain the Gospel of Christ. Remember that the language of the New Testament was originally Greek.
Notice the second sentence in the second paragraph of the statement in the box above:
Despite the appeal to such texts as 1 Cor. 15: 28 ('God shall be all in all' this has always been a favourite universalist text) the final unity of all things with God is more Platonic than biblical in inspiration.
Trying to confirm what you already believe
Starting from this position, a previously established assumption from philosophy current at the time, the Universalists began searching the Scripture for statements that either conform to this philosophy or can be interpreted as agreeing with the philosophy. If you start from a biased point, you will be able to find agreement in some verses, but you have to either ignore any verses that contradict your position, or redefine terms in order to make your position viable. Reading the Universalist book God's Plan For All, you can see this in action.
In Chapter 2, for example, you read this:
In writing God's Plan for All, our guiding principle has always been that the Bible is the Word of God and that it does not and cannot contradict itself. The problem is never with the Word of God as inspired by God through His Holy Spirit. The problem is always with translation and interpretation errors that bring contradictions into the Word of God. God is Sovereign in everything and He has allowed errors to exist in Translations, but no translation errors can prevent God from revealing His true Gospel of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ to whomsoever, and whenever, He chooses to reveal it.
From time to time, our readers ask us if there is any version of the Bible that we would recommend to them. We have not found, and we do not believe that there is any version of the Bible currently available that is error free. Of course, some versions are better than others. We are thankful that there are Translations available like the KJV, NKJV, NASB and others. These are still excellent Translations of the Word of God in spite of the fact that they contain some significant translation errors. We have extensively used these Translations, and most scriptures quoted in this book are from the New King James Version (NKJV). The Bible is truly an amazing book, living and powerful, life and spirit, and when it is studied and understood with the help of God's Holy Spirit, the infallible Word of the Spirit transcends the fallible Translations of men.
Notice that they refer to the Holy Spirit, Whom, as we find out in Chapter 26, they claim is not a part of the Trinity because they deny that the Trinity exists.
So, that means...
Now, reading the passages in the box above, what do you think will follow next? How about a "guarantee" that their interpretation is the best because it "came straight from God"? Too convenient? Two paragraphs later in Chapter 2, you read this:
We have no doubt that God inspired us to write God's Plan for All because we are simply incapable of writing such a book through our own understanding of the Bible. In our Christian journey, we have attended and have been members of both denominational and non-denominational churches, and have read many 'Christian' books and other literature. We have found that the so-called Christian world has some truth in it, but mixed with a lot of error.
In writing this book, we have not copied any material from any writer, except for certain historical dates and facts which are freely available to all in the public domain. This is why there is no reference list for us to give at the end of this book. God's Plan for All is full of truths from the Bible, and if there is any similarity in what we have written with anything previously written by any other writer, then this is due to the fact that we have used the same reference book, the Bible.
Note that the Bible is so important to them, and their "god-given" revelation from someone, that they do not even keep God's ten commandments. They disdain the fourth commandment and do not keep the Sabbath holy. I'm sure that their deep study and reasoning, the kind you will see when we continue, will show that the word "holy" does not really mean holy, but it probably means "optional". To them, God's sanctified holy day is not really the seventh day Sabbath made holy by God. To them it is an eternal period yet to come, or no longer a commandment, or secretly changed by God to Sunday, so there is no way we can even keep it now. Or some such nonsense. When you discard something blessed and sanctified by the real God, are you really "passing on" His truth and His word, as they claimed was revealed to them? When they say that the "so-called Christian world" is "mixed with a lot of error", do they even realize that they have become part of the error?
"God has spoken."...?
OK. From this point, what are we to surmise from these statements? We have been told that anything they say in the book "must" be the truth because they told us that it is from God, so we are not allowed to doubt anything they say in the rest of the book. I believe that the Mormons started out in a similar manner - with their founder speaking directly with God and Jesus - and that turned out fine, right? Should we accept both of these groups as genuine because they have informed us that they got it "straight from God"? Or, should we check to see if they follow some kind of reasoning in line with the word and will of God?
If we are to be like the Bereans of Acts 17:11
11Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
, let's approach it by comparing it to Scripture, and see if we might find any confirmations or contradictions. Fair enough?
"Universal Reconciliation"
First, by this term Universalism means that God will save everyone in the end. Everyone - including Hitler, Charles Manson, and the Devil himself with all his minions. Their main justification for this is a very convincing series of verses in the letter of Paul to the Colossians - verses 1:15-20
15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and 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.
. These verses contain the word "all" a number of times. Universalism takes this to mean that "everything", all creation, will be made clean and new and perfectly submissive and obedient to God. When they start with the assumption that this passage means that God "will" do something in the future, we see that it sets the stage for missing the intended meaning of the statement of Paul.
In their book, God's Plan For All, Chapter 4 lists the same series of verses from Colossians above, but they are from the KJV and make a small change in the words of Paul. On their page, verse 19 was rendered, "For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell," from the KJV. However, looking at the Greek, we see:
we see that the Father was pleased, as in "this has already been done". But, even more significant, they stopped their quote from Scripture at verse 20. Take a look at the next three verses that they conveniently left out:
21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation - 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. (emphasis added)
This reconciliation has already take place, with conditions. You must "continue in your faith". If you do not continue in your faith, you will not be reconciled - now or ever. That part of the Biblical gospel message cannot be ignored without perverting the message. That perversion will encourage the false conclusion that everyone, believer or not, will be saved.
"No such thing as Trinity"
Next, let's take one of the common beliefs of Christianity that Universalism claims is false - The Trinity. In fact, they devote an entire chapter to the claim, "Chapter 26 - How and Why the Trinity is False and Unbiblical". They plow through a list of verses to prove that the Holy Spirit is not a part of the Godhead. However, they did not go to Matthew 3:16, the baptism of Jesus and explain that incident:
16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.
Of course, they spend a lot of time "proving" that some verses in the English translations contain words or concepts that were "changed" by the Catholics to match their views, so we need more. Going to the Greek for Matthew 3:16, we see:
What was "changed" here by the Catholics? What do we have? The heavens are opened and the Spirit of God is descending upon Jesus. Now, I suppose this could be God Himself and not His Spirit, but we don't read about everyone who saw Him dying on the spot (Exodus 33:20
20But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."
).
How many were there at the beginning of Creation?
Another small question about the Holy Spirit arises when discussing the creation of the universe in Genesis 1:2:
2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
If God created the heavens and the earth, and the Holy Spirit was there helping, doesn't that make Him part of God? When a person says that God is one and Jesus, the creator of everything (John 1:3
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
), was there so He must be God as well. Why wouldn't another Person and part of God be there as well? That other Person would be just as much a part of God as Jesus.
Their argument for this is that God created the angels and other heavenly creatures eons before He created the earth. That would allow Him to send those "helpers" to help create the earth. But, we are not told of this pre-earth age (they call it the Pre-Adamic Age) in the Bible. However, their "revelation" from God for the book explains how they know this. The problem is, the fourth commandment, Exodus 20:8-11
8"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
, which they ignore, states:
11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Unless, of course, you think that He made something before that and did not tell us anything about it. But, if He didn't tell us, why should anyone make something up to convince people of something that doesn't make sense according to what He did tell us? Oh, that's right, He told only the Universalists so that they could do the job that He originally gave to the Israelites. Since they "failed", He needed help from humans.
The Comforter?
And then, there is the mysterious Person that Jesus sent to comfort us when He returned to His Father, mentioned in John 14:26:
26But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
He was there with God, like Jesus was, but is not part of God?
You may say that Someone who teaches the truth about Jesus and God is not a person, but I can't. And where does this idea come from? The Universalist book "God's Plan For All" conveniently handles this intruder as a servant of God sent to do the same job as Jesus, becoming our Advocate, Helper, Parakeltos, with the Father by saying this in Chapter 26 as well:
There are a few other verses, like John 7:39 and John 14:26,16-17, which are also similarly mistranslated by versions of the Bible that support the concept of the Trinity. It can easily be demonstrated that these verses are speaking about the Spiritual Presence and Power of Father God and they are not referring to the third Person of the so-called man-invented Trinity.
Where's the mistranslation?
Thus, we can "clearly" see this "mistranslation" in the Greek interlinear:
where this Holy Spirit was sent to take over for Jesus in His absence. Wait, no mistranslation...unless an Advocate (capital "A") is not a Helper (capital "H"). Hmmm. If Jesus came to earth (was sent by His Father), and is part of God, how hard is it to conceive that He also sent His Spirit to teach, Who is also part of Him? It fits better to what the Bible actually says.
"Forever or only for a while...?"
But, that is only a second issue we have with the view of the Universalists. Another major one is their interpretation of a single word aion as meaning "eternal" in one context and "the age" in another. Eternal is one meaning that means truly eternal (forever), while "the age" means a limited time. Right? While it is true, the word had different meanings in the Greek depending on the context, you cannot just change the meaning within the same context to mean something different just because that better suits your purpose.
"Forever only means forever when we say it does..."
A great example is their use of the word "aionion" from the root word "aion". In chapter 17 they explain that the same word aion can be used to describe an age that will end (Matthew 24:3
3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
), and therefore, according to the Universalists, means a limited amount of time. When speaking of God, as in Revelation 11:15
15And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
speaking of how long He will rule, it means forever. However, this causes a question of the wording. If you look at the translation of the Greek for Revelation 11:15:
you see that the phrase uses the words aionas and aionon, and translates the phrase as "the ages of the ages". Now, if that means a limited period of time, then Jesus will only reign to the end of that period. But, does that also mean that Jesus will never reign again? That verse evidently is speaking of the Millennium age (1000 years).
But, what about...
However, 1 John 2:17
17The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.
uses the same term and refers to how long the man who obeys the will of God will live - "to the age":
If that means a limited time, then righteous men will not live forever. If so, why all the bother to stay in line with God's will? If there is no more death, but a righteous man will only live to the end of the age, what happens to him? Who gets to decide which context of the word means forever and which means only for a time? And what age is meant if the Great White Throne judgment has passed and we are all living forever in an "endless age" but some things, like the temporary punishment of the Universalist belief, only happen to the "end of the age"? Do they end or not?
Was Daniel confused?
In Daniel 7:13-14
13"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."
, we see a reference to the reign of Christ that is expressed in a term that the Universalists confuse by saying that it means two different things and they have to tell you which is meant because "no one else knows". The Aramaic word alam is used to express the concept of forever, all ages to come, everlasting, perpetual. It is the same word that the Universalism book calls "owlam", and it is clearly used in the eternal sense. Can you have an "endless age" during which some things will end in "mini-ages(?)" that are supposedly within that endless age, but other things happening in that same age will not end?
"Yes, Virginia, there is a hell...but, only for a while."
The Universalists evidently think that those who have been assigned to the Lake of Fire are living in a different age that continues only until their punishment is complete, and then they get to leave that age and join the parallel "endless age". If it refers to the eternal age (forever?) and that is the same age as that of those existing in the Lake of Fire, when does their "age" end so they can stop being punished after a time and live with Christ while the rest of the "saved" supposedly pass away after a time because they only live "to the age"? How does one person live in an age that has a limit and another person live in the same age that has no limit? Either the age is limitless or it is not. It can't be both.
But, if you believe that...then
While all this discussion is about the real meaning of the terms used in Scripture, we must address whether it adds true meaning to what the Universalists claim - Universal Reconciliation. If an age has an end (the Millennium for one), then when it comes to an end, anything happening in that age will also end. But, the eternal age after the judgment will never end, nor will anything happening during it. Think about it. This whole Universal Reconciliation concept is contrary to the concept of eternal life offered only to those with real faith, and it denies the eventual need to be obedient to God, or even believe in Him at all.
What about those silly verses like Matthew 7:21
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
and Matthew 7:13-14
13Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
? How do they fit this Universalism view? If everyone makes it, Jesus lied to us. If Jesus lied, then the Word is not true. If the word is not true, then maybe the Universalists are right. If they are right, then our actions do not matter in this world or the next. "Eat, drink, and be merry, murder, steal, and be adulterers, for tomorrow it won't matter."
Etc.
There are other concepts that are expressed in their book God's Plan For All, and some of their explanations seem feasible. However, if those concepts fly in the face of other written facts in the word of God, then we should be careful of an incorrect interpretation. That's what we have been saying on this site. Make sure your understanding doesn't conflict with the entire message of the Bible.
Paul a Universalist?
On their site at God's Plan For All, Chapter 15 claims that Paul preached the "Gospel of Universal Salvation and Reconciliation":
God mightily used Apostle Paul to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul was a Universalist through and through. He preached the Good News of Universal Salvation and Reconciliation to all of the churches where he ministered in his thirty-two years of ministry. The following scriptures show and prove that Apostle Paul preached the Gospel of Universal Salvation and Reconciliation:
Romans 5:18-19, 6:10, 11:26, 32, 1 Corinthians 15:22-23a, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, Galatians 3:8-9, Ephesians 1:7-10, Philippians 2:9-11, Colossians 1:15-20, 1 Timothy 2:3-6, 4:9-10 and Titus 2:11-12.
But, what about "the rest of the story"...?
They list Romans 5:18-19
18Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
because it uses the phrase "all men" (or "all people" depending on your Bible version) in verse 18, but coveniently leave out the verse right before that. Verse 17
17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! (emphasis added)
specifies that only those who voluntarily receive the gift will benefit from that grace.
"Read this, but not this..."
Now, even worse. Look at the list of verses they use to support their view that Paul was a Universalist. They include 1 Corinthians 15:22-23a
22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits;
. That letter "a" means to just use the first part of verse 23. Are you curious about why they would exclude the second part of the verse? Well, verse 22 mentions "all will be made alive", so if you stop after verse 23a, you see that Christ was the firstfruits, then "all" come after that, right? But what does 1 Corinthians 15:22-23a
23bthen, when he comes, those who belong to him.
say. Oops. That doesn't match their premise. The "all" applies to all who believe in Christ. They are the ones who belong to Him.
Also, the Universalist position denies what was written in Hebrews 10:26-27:
26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
This says that if we accept Christ's gift, but do not repent and try to refrain from sinning, that sacrifice provided by Christ to give us a way back to God is no longer available. To claim otherwise is to say that Christ sacrificed so that we could keep on not believing and sinning without penalty. That is not the message of the Bible. Faith and obedience are required throughout the Old and New Testaments, and disobedience is punished when it is performed by those who claim to believe. For those who do not believe and obey, they have their own permanent inheritance (Hebrews 10:27 above).
You don't believe, so...nope.
Another passage that denies the Universalism philosophy is Matthew 10:32-33
32Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven.
. 33But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
. Does that sound like an offer of salvation to Hinduism, Buddhism, and atheism, and other faiths included in the Universalist "church" membership? Verses like this do not sound like a plan to reconcile all men to God regardless of whether or not they believe in, or even know, God.
The will of the Father?
Other small but ignored verses in the description of who will be allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven are Matthew 7:21
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
and Matthew 7:13-14
13Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
.
The Universalist rhetoric rambles on about everyone being saved, making the gate wide and eventually found by everyone, even if it is against their personal beliefs and their will. Of course, that will only happen because they will supposedly spend some limited length of time in the Lake of Fire until they "come to their senses". Will that length of time be based on the "severity of their non-belief" (?) or the depth of their "evilness" on earth?
Why would the Bible tell us about right and wrong, supposedly not expect us to conform, but then give us eternal life anyway? Why would we want to live forever with Someone that we have denied even exists, especially after we have been forced to "want" to live with Him after horrible, mind-numbing punishment?
Speaking of punishment
Universalism denies that hell is ever mentioned in Scripture. Even though you see the word, that is not what it means. In Chapter 16 of their book, they explain all this mistranslation by blaming it on the Catholics. All the instances of the word "hell" you read in your version of the Bible, according to the Universalists, are mistranslations of the Hebrew word "sheol" and the Greek words hades, tartarus, and gehenna to mean "hell". So, when you read that Jesus said:
9And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
know that, according to the Universalists, He did not really mean "hell". The word He used was really "Gehenna". He was merely speaking of the Lake of Fire, but only for as long as it takes to burn the sin out of you. So, you silly, un-knowing, un-educated, heathen, how could you ever think that He meant some burning, everlasting fire? Nothing so unpleasant as Hell. Duh!
Their book, "God's Plan For All" is available online, but be careful
If you read the book with the intention of finding something new to believe, you will find what you are looking for. However, their presentation is biased based on a presumption that is required before you can see things their way. You must accept that God will save everyone regardless of what He told us in the Bible. You are told, often without references of any kind, that they cannot believe that no one on earth, except them, believes the true gospel. That's because what they "know" has been deliberately hidden from the world and has now been revealed to them by God directly.
"Come as you are."
The interesting thing about their philosophy is that, you do not have to believe their way. You do not have to know or believe the truth. You do not have to follow any rules, because it does not matter if you do or if you don't. The same thing will happen either way - supposedly everyone will be saved. I don't know if their church takes an offering to help pay the "pastors" or for the building, but I suspect they do. That makes up a huge, untapped (by "Christian" churches) source of revenue they can use to continue to spew out their contradictory bile. Who wouldn't want to go to a "church" that guarantees salvation of every person in the world? Except any thinking person who actually knows the Bible, of course.
While this would be a comfortable way to live in this world, it denies the words of the Bible. If you listen to the Universalists, the Bible is not telling you what it is telling you. They will redefine everything you know and have you relax, because you will eventually be saved - no matter what. Fear God? No way. Believe in Jesus? Why bother? Believe in Buddha? Why not? Atheist? Just another free thinker without worries. It won't hurt your eventual state in the slightest. Well, maybe it will hurt if the words Jesus spoke are true. But according to the Universalists, the words He used don't mean what we think they meant. Just listen to them, they will set you straight.
Why does this sound familiar...?
Where have we heard a statement like that before? Oh, yeah, it was when someone else meddled in the affairs of God (Genesis 3:4
4"You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman.
).
Disagree? Find an error? Contact us at glenjjr@gmail.com and give us your view.
