More Universalism thoughts

My previous Universalim post.

I think it'd be interesting to quote 2 Peter 3:9 to Calvinists

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Simply taking this at what it plainly says, either the Calvinist understanding of The Sovereignty of God (that nothing happens He doesn't want to happen) is false, or Universalism is true (in which case other aspects of Calvinism are not true).

The Calvanist rationalization would probably be that that verse only means the Elect.  But the context doesn't support that, this is eschatological, Peter is talking about ungodly unbelieving men all through this chapter.

But the Sovereignty of God is the Calvansit's strongest argument, after Biblically refuting all five points and Biblically proving Free Will in a debate with one, they just resort to shouting "how dare you insinuate God doesn't always get His way".  Before I was willing to consider Unversalisim a valid option I had a response to that Calvansit argument I had posted on this blog.  But I didn't really cite Bible verses there, I just made a logical argument.

Does Universalism deny free will as much as Calvanism does?  Depends how you look at it, many would say you can choose to reject God, it's just the consequence of that won't be endless punishment but rather separation from God (being not allowed into New Jerusalem).  But some popular Universalist proof texts imply Jesus is drawing all men to Him, not just saving them from damnation., mainly John 12:32.  But the stronger Universlaism proof text of that chapter is verse 47, 32 is easier for anti-Unisersalists to interpret differently without denying the plain reading.

The easiest Point of Calvanism to refute is Limited Atonement, they have no verses in support of it and we have countless verses showing Jesus shed Blood covered All Sin even of unbelievers.  But the one thing Calvanists fall back on is the logical argument of, "how can that be the case if some (even most in the opinions of many Evangelicals) of those people are damned anyway?"  The standard Arminian view is He paid the penalty for your Sin regardless, but if you don't accept Him it will have to be paid twice.

That's enough talking about Calvanism for now.

Back before I was willing to entertain Universalism there was nothing in my Theology that wasn't Conservative.  It was only on political and social issues I'm a Liberal SJW Libertarian.

There are Universalists with a wide variety of views on other issues.  Many Unversalists are full on Progressive Christians with theological views I can't accept.  Some incorporating a Preterist argument for how to deal with the "gnashing of teeth" and Outer Darkness references in Matthew, making it about what happened to Israel in 70 AD.  Long before I changed my perspective on Universalism I had already shown that the Outer Darkness is outside New Jerusalem in the New Heavens and New Earth.

I feel the Unviersalism I'm now pretty convinced of is dependent on a Futurist and Premillenial Eschatology.  It's only taking Revelation 21-22 literally not figuratively that I feel it can be shown our Eternal Destiny isn't as simple as some people are damned and some are saved.  As well as with Chapter 20 for showing that the contemporary after life (whatever it looks like) is NOT our Eternal Destiny.

Lots of Universalists also default to what I criticized on this blog often when I was just arguing for standard Eternal Security, appealing to the authority of the Early Church Fathers.  While many would object to the claim that Universalism was believed by as many of them as proponents claim, certainly no Pre-Nicean father besides Tertulian contradicted it, and same with most Post-Nicean fathers till Augustine of Hippo.

None of those previous posts of mine insists they were wrong on everything, my ultimate point is they should be irrelevant one way or the other.  Universalism supporting statements have been cited from both among the ones I've been the most sympathetic to (like Ireneaus and his pupil Hippolytus) and most suspicious of (like Clement of Alexandria and his pupil Origen).

It does concern me that the Universalists who most lean on the Early Church Fathers for Universalist arguments are also sometimes the most inclined to combine that with other views I don't like, like Denying a Bodily Resurrection, or denying Substitutionary Atonement.  Like in this Book you can read online for free.

Now an argument from Early Church History used against Universalism tends to be attempts to associate it with the Gnostics.  Certainly not all Gnositics believed it as Augustine being all for Eternal Damnation shows.  Universlaism supporters have made a point out of that none of the many books written by Early Church Fathers against the Gnostics cite Universalism as a reason they are heretics.

What's most interesting to me isn't how many Early Fathers might have been Universalists, but who is the first to clearly not be.

Tertulian was also the first Church Father to write in Latin, which is why he is important to the argument that Eternal Damnation has it's origins in flawed translations of the Scriptures into Latin.  But Jerome to whom the Vulgate is attributed (I suspect the Vulgate as it is now has been changed by Catholic editors a lot from what Jerome originally did) has also been cited as supporting Universalism (in quotes I talked about before).  And Jerome has also been quoted as labeling Tertulian not a true Church Father.

Tertulian is also popular with the Jesus Words Only people I've talked about before because in Against Marcion he was incredibly hostile to Paul, denying his status as an Apostle.

What I find interesting in that correlation is that Paul uses Aionion in a way that clearly contradicts it meaning Eternal.  In Romans 16:25, but the KJV doesn't render it Eternal here like it does other times.  "which was kept secret since the world began" there is no Greek word for began here, only Aionon's root Aion being sometimes translated "world" supports using that word here.  He's saying it was kept secret Aionios, but in verse 26 it is clear this secret is made known now.

Paul also wrote many of the strongest Universlaist proof texts.  Most listed here are from Paul.  And I would add to those another from Romans 11 "All Israel shall be Saved" a verse loved by Dispensationalists.  But taken fully literally it means every Israelite, even Ciaphas and Ananias and Judas Iscariot and Dathan and Korah.  Nothing there supports saying only all Israel alive at that time, I believe this eschatological Salvation of Israel is tied to the resurrection of the dead in Ezekiel 37.

Universlaism can be argued for Independent of Paul, but so can Faith Alone and Eternal Security yet that doesn't stop the Jesus Words Only people from thinking rejecting Paul is enough to destroy those doctrines.

Tertulian of course also held views I agree with.  He alone among the Early Church Fathers supported the half brothers of Jesus being born of Mary.  And he did seem to believe in Eternal Security for those who Believed in Jesus in this life.  He said that only the Marytrs go directly to God's presence when they die (where they're seen in Fifth Seal n Revelation 6) the rest of the believers go to Hades/Sheol like the unbelievers but a different compartment, Abraham's Bosom.  A subject which could be worthy of it's own post.

I just want to say one more thing on the Aionion debate.  When Josephus described the Pharrisees as believing in eternal punishment he used the terms eirgmos aidios (eternal imprisonment) and timorion adialeipton (endless torment) not aionion kolasin (age-long chastisement) which Jesus used.

You know the concept that forgiveness is for your own sake not the person you're forgiving?  Well The Bible applies that to God himself.  Isaiah 43:25.

I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

When you understand that concept, Universalisim makes even more sense, it shows He will not be forgiving only those who ask forgiveness.

I support the House Church movement.

I don't want to retread the reason for it that others have gone into on why Biblical Churches were House Churches.  Chuck Missler and Rob Skiba and others do a good Job of that though they also hold views I don't like.  I do like to repeat that there were no Church Buildings till the third century.

For me this overlaps with my objections to the modern concept of a Pastor and why I object to 501c3 Churchs.

The Pastor I do not like to name did a sermon against the House Church Movement.  He of course said a Church could meet in houses.  His main issue was that he said The Church should grow and any successful Church should eventually become too big to fit into a house.  When a Church becomes too big is when it should split up into smaller churches, every city had many churches in NT times as the NT shows, while still not being the majority population anywhere.

This same Pastor when he preached against Women Pastors, criticized certain Churches who will claim to agree with his view, but let a famous Woman in the Christian world speak while calling it a "Seminar" rather then a "Sermon".  That is easy to mock because basically Sermons are Seminars.

Sermons are Biblical, Jesus did Sermons and so did Peter and Paul, and I believe the reason 1 John lacks the usual Epistle introduction is because it is really a transcript of a Sermon.  I've grown Spiritually a lot from listening to Sermons and Seminars from believers I both agree and disagree with.  But that's not what a Biblical Church is supposed to be.

If you look at the instructions given in Corinthians, a worship gathering is supposed to be multiple believers preaching and prophesying and testifying.  It should be everyone edifying each other.  It's not supposed to be one man giving a long speech while everyone else just nods in agreement.

A study of the History of the Synagogue will show that they also began as House Synagogues and buildings showed up later.

Critics of The New Testament love to attack The Gospels and Acts for referring to Synagogues because "the modern Synagogue didn't exist till the 2nd Century, after the Second Temple was Destroyed".  The Emphasis is on modern, I don't know why they think the not very detailed NT descriptions imply it's Synagogues had any of the characteristics that started after 70 AD.  I see no NT evidence any were ruled over by a single Rabbi.  And I so no clear evidence that they weren't house Synagogues.

Josephus is proof the term Synagogue was used before 70 AD, and Archaeologists have identified plenty of Synagogue buildings that go back to Hasmonean times.

People who object to Rabbinic additions to Judaism may desire to object to the idea of Synagogues.  But the Epistle of James does use it as a synonym for Christian Churches, but the KJV translated it Assembly, in Acts 13:43 the KJV translates it Congregation.  There is also one place the NT uses the word commonly translated "church" to refer to something in the Old Testament,

Acts 7:38 used it to refer to the congregation in the wilderness in the days of Moses.  Two Hebrew words are commonly translated Congregation in Exodus, Strongs number 5712 and Strongs number 4150.  Both of them are also used in Psalm 74.  That is the same Psalm that is the only place the word Synagogue gets used in English translations of the Hebrew Bible, including the KJV in verse 8, to translate Strongs number 4150, this same word is also used in verse 4 but translated Congregations there.

The Greek word translated Church comes in it's Secular origin from a term used to refer collectively to the entire citizenry of a city-state, that is the sense being drawn on for The Church, we're Citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, but can also refer to any gathering together of Citizens, that is the local church.

Strongs number 4150 is also sometimes translated Feasts in Leviticus 23.  It refers to times appointed for God's people to gather together.  But only 3 of the Feasts required everyone to gather in Jerusalem (or wherever the Tabernacle was), the rest could be just a local gathering.  Under the New Testament, The Church is The Temple, so even most Christians who think we're still under the Mosaic Law don't see Christians as being required to Pilgrimage to any certain location, (besides Catholics).  And The Sabbath is an Appointed Time itself because it's discussed in verse 3 of Leviticus 23.

So that Synagogues also originally met in houses is further backing for the House Church position in my view.

This is also why I don't necessarily consider church buildings bad.  Even mega churches can serve God.  But what I am very suspicious of is any church that operates like it's a business.  I believe if you have a building it should be legally the private property of a member of that church choosing to share it with the rest of the congregation.

A Biblical Church shouldn't need a 501c3 status, it should be taxation proof to begin with because no one is paid a salary and all money given are freely given gifts.  I support abolishing the 501 tax exempt status period for both secular and religious institutions.  A Church that behaves like a corporation should be taxed like one.

For Sin is the Transgression of The Law

1 John 3:4

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

This verse is popular with the people who insist they're not Legalists but sure talk like they are.  Who feel as long as they aren't saying it's necessary for Salvation they don't qualify as Judiazers.   Problem is I know too many people who started out that way and then slowly slid into full blown legalism.

They usually only quote the second half.  In context an argument can be made this means every Sin is a transgression of the Law, but not every transgression of The Law a Sin.  At the very least the cause and effect they have reversed, they like to say if there is no Law there is no Sin.  In fact The Law exists to tell us what is sinful, Paul said in Romans 1 the Romans were without excuse even though they were Pagans who never knew the Law of Moses.

And they insist this verse should tell us what Paul means by Sin every time he used the word, even though this isn't a Paulian Epistle.  Regardless of the validity of that lexical assumption, there is a deeper issue.

There is this popular Video online of a Pastor putting a row of kids on stage to demonstrate a deconstructive chain reaction that begins with saying there is no Sin without The Law.  The full testimony of the New Testament, (however you view this verse of 1 John) says that The Law exists to help us know when we're Sinners (Romans 7:7, Galatians 3:19).  So that destroys his entire chain reaction, The Law exists because of Sin not the other way around.

They think the word "Law" must mean the Law of Moses every time it's used even in the New Testament.  Forgetting that the Book of Esther spends a lot of time talking about Laws that aren't Hebraic at all.

But they insist on defining ever use of the word Sin based on this verse, how about we define every use of Law based on Galations 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.".  Which has a second witness in what Jesus said about the two greatest commandments.

Jeremiah 31 foretells a new Covenant coming, and says in verse 33.

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Now to this day Rabbinic and other Jews insist this refers to merely a re-instituting of the Mosaic Covenant.  But Paul clarifies this in the Book of Hebrews. In Chapter 8 where he explains that the Law of Moses was always imperfect, and the New Law is written on our Hearts not in Stone.

Romans 13:10 refers to the Law of Love.  James 1:25 and 2:12 refer to the Law of Liberty.

In 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23 Paul says "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me," and then the following statement is different.

I can again recommend reading Romans 14.

But I keep hearing people equating saying we're not under The Law of Moses to Christians arguing we don't have to Obey God.  It is important we obey God, but his instructions come from The Holy Spirit now.  The Word is still a useful guide to help The Holy Spirit in instructing us, but it is not a means for us to Judge other people, fellow Believers or not.

But still the word Obey never occurs in John's Gospel.

Now people like to quote John 14:15

"If ye love me, keep my commandments."

What is ignored is the very next verse where He promises to send the Comforter (The Holy Spirit), the Commandments He means by that are those which come from The Holy Spirit.

A Believer letting The Holy Spirit lead them while following The Golden Rule and what Jesus called the Two Greatest Commandments should have little trouble keeping from doing the most obviously evil things.

But there are grey areas, and areas where His instructions may be different for different believers depending on the different plans God has for them.

Things like the Dietary Laws, and Keeping the Sabbath and the Holy Days are by no means a vital issue worth being divisive over.

Now I am also against the Reverse-Legalists as I like to call them.  Independent Baptists and others who think keeping Jewish Holidays and getting Circumcised as an adult is somehow now a Sin.

It is certainly never a Sin to do what Jesus did because Jesus was without Sin, and He observed Tabernacles in John 7 and Hanukkah in John 10.

Choosing to keep The Law under no delusion that it effects Salvation can be good for spiritual Growth, so long as you don't try to impose it upon others or think it makes you better (more right with God) then anyone else.

I close with 1 Timothy 1:8-9.

"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners,".

Jesus talked about Hell more then Heaven???

This is a claim often made by Hellfire preachers.  One that has me thinking there must be a Fifth Gospel I'm not familiar with.  I've never seen them give a mathematical breakdown of how that claim is accurate.

Part of the problem here may of course come from people forgetting contemporary Heaven is NOT the paradise we're looking forward to, we're looking forward to the New Heaven and New Earth.

Jesus talked about the Kingdom constantly, it's in mind in almost every speech He gave, including the ones about Hell.  He definitely talked about it way more then Hell, even if we include the Outer Darkness references that I disagree with interpreting as about Hell.

Now a simple word search can be misleading.  But still the three different words translated Hell appear in only 24 verses of the entire New Testament.  15 verses in the KJV use some word form of Damn, and only 7 refer to "weeping and gnashing of teeth", among those 7 are every reference to "outer darkness".  And only 5 verses mention the Lake of Fire.  Again that's the entire New Testament.  Also Perdition appears in the KJV only 8 times and only one of those is by Jesus being a unique statement about Judas.

Heaven appears 141 times in the Four Gospels alone.  Kingdom appears 121 times in the Four Gospels alone.  Among those are 32 verses in Matthew's gospel that use Kingdom of Heaven.

Some people like to say everything you need to know to be saved is in John's Gospel.  That seems to be based on some of what's said at the end.  I know the Pastor I do not like to name uses this argument against saying repentance is necessary for Salvation, he is one of the vilest of all Hellfire preachers.  However the word Hell is never used in John's Gospel.  But there are three verses in John where Jesus talks about His Kingdom, 3:3-5 and 18:36.  And Heaven appears 17 times.  The couple times Jesus says negative things about Judas are dwarfed by His promises to the other disciples.

Protestants and Evangelicals like Chuck Missler love to call Romans the definitive statement of Christian Doctrine.  But Hell isn't mentioned in Romans.  In fact the only time any of the three words translated Hell is ever uttered by Paul (in his Epistles or speeches recorded in Acts) is in 1 Corinthians 15:55, which is also the only time any of the three words in question is NOT translated Hell by the KJV, because I suspect the organized Anglican Church didn't like this being part of the Hell doctrine.  So it's instead translated Grave.  But it's not majorly distinct from other uses of Hades in the Greek, in fact the specific spelling is identical to the parable in Luke 16.

"O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?"

The opposite of trying to tell us to be afraid of it.

Monarchism and The Bible

Occasionally, American Christians will point to how Israel wanting a King in 1 Samuel is not a portrayed as a positive thing.  But then equally American Christians like Chuck Missler will point to how Jacob was promised Kings would come out of him, and to instructions for Kings in The Torah to say that is taken out of the grander context of The Bible and argue the problem was only they couldn't wait for David.

The problem is that the demand for a King is equated with rejecting God as King.  And whenever Israel wants to do what the other nations are doing it is always presented as bad.  Monarchy in principle also seems to be vilified in the Abimelech narrative.

God knew this would inevitably happen, and so He planned for the bloodline He was going to incarnate into to become Israel's Royal Family.  But Israel wanting a human King is still inherently a rejection of God.

Throughout the Book of Judges the narrative voice often says "and there was no King in the Land" which gets interpreted by Royalists as like the "everyone did what was right in their own eyes" comment as an explanation for why Israel kept falling into Sin and Idolatry during this period.  Again that is consistent with their not respecting God as their King being the problem.

Instructions for The King are in The Torah, but not till Deuteronomy, which otherwise mostly only repeats or expands on laws given earlier.  This suggests it was a very low priority.

The references to the Messianic Era in Ezekiel 40-48 and Zechariah 14 define it as The LORD ruling Israel as King again.  Which I consider Old Testament proof that the Son of David would have to be God in The Flesh.

Shiloh was where The Ark and The Tabernacle were during the Judges period.  Ezekiel 40-48's geography I feel places the vicinity of Shiloh as being where The Temple will be during The Messianic Kingdom.  I think that is a good symbolic suggestion that in-spite of all that period's problems the Judges system is the ideal form of Human Government God intended for his people.

In Ezekiel The LORD is King and there is a "Prince" but the word for "Prince" here isn't Sar or Nagyim either of which could be viewed as a royal title, it's Nasi.  Nasi is the title the Hasmonean leaders used originally before they started calling themselves Kings with the sons of Hyrcanus.  It's also the term used to refer to the head of the Sanhedrin.  It seems Nasi was the title used by the Exilarchs often as well.  It's been suggested it's most accurate English translation would actually be President.  Interestingly Ezekiel 34-37 seem to identify this Nasi as David himself resurrected.

Bible skeptics usually don't consider the NT era Sanhedrin to be a descendant of the council of 70 Elders mentioned in Numbers, but a development of Greek influence during the Hellenistic era.  In Jesus time the Pharisees controlled the Sanhedrin and controlling that was the source of their power.  Jesus said they sit in Moses seat, so He endorsed the notion of a line of descent.

The Sanhedrin in the NT is sometimes just called "the Elders of the people" if you search for similar references to "elders" in the Hebrew Bible you'll find their presence throughout Israel's history can be felt.  Exactly how it was organized and manifested may have changed, but it was always there.

Monarchy isn't the only from of government that can go bad, and it's possible for an Absolute Monarch to be pretty good.  But over all it is very risky to give any one man that kind of power.

Reason why I feel the false perception of Biblical support for Human Monarchy can be dangerous among American and politically non Monarchist Christians is I feel it can overlap with the desire to give the office of "Pastor" too much power.

Jerry Fawell said he wouldn't run for President because he wouldn't accept the demotion.  That reminded me of the Justice League Unlimited episode were Luthor said to The Question "Do you realize how much power I'd have to GIVE UP to be President".  Saying something like that is a sign of a megalomaniac.

I'm rethinking Universalism

I made a post on Universalism before.  Where I argued against it.  My admitting to on some level wanting to believe it gives a certain context to my changing my mind on it.  The reason I wanted to believe though is because I feel the way 1 Peter 3:9 said God feels, it is His preference that none shall perish.  Still at this moment I'm still not willing to consider myself entirely convinced.

Really the word Eternal was the main thing keeping me from becoming convinced.  And while I argued in my prior post about the whole Ageless analogy for the meaning of Aionion, I had no evidence for it, and in other areas I've been aware that ending with an "on" in Greek tends to be a way of making a word plural, more then one age is not the same as ageless.

Only that the same word is used to describe our Eternal Life was my argument.  Because as much as I want to believe in Universalism I am equally certain the Life promised to Believers will never end.  Well I looked at this thread on a Universalist forum where they discussed the word.

People there argued that a word can refer to something Eternal without meaning Eternal.  And suggested lasting as a more accurate translation.  I later made my own thread on that forum about Lamentations 3:31.  Lots of interesting pro Universalist arguments were made.

Then there is this Blog post.  He does not consider himself a Unviersalsit but holds a view that can indeed be described as Universalist.  He makes lots of good arguments particularly about how to define what being Lost means.

But the reason he does not consider himself a Universlaist is because traditional Christian Unviersalists believe that everyone will EVENTUALLY by Saved.  He believes in terms of eternal Salvation everyone already is, and everyone referenced as "Shall be Saved" in The Bible is about physical death or punishment in this world.  He does not believe in an "After Death Gehenna" and believes Revelation is all allegories so does not take the Lake of Fire seriously at all.

It is absolutely true that many uses of "Shall be Saved" are about physical salvation, particularity in the Olivite Discourse.

But Jesus told certain people "They Faith has Saved thee" that makes no sense to be about something Physical.  When Paul talks about us being Justified by Faith, and Saved by Grace through Faith, he is talking about us being saved from the Second Death.  And I firmly believe when you accept Jesus you are Saved from ever entering The Lake of Fire at all.  How permanent being in the Lake of Fire is is a separate debate.

His insistence that believing you need Faith is itself a work is Biblically invalid, it may by logical to Secular Logic but not Biblical logic.  Because every time Paul talks about Faith and Works is all about differentiating them and contrasting them virtually as opposites.  But indeed it is not intellectual belief that Saves us, it is a change of Heart.

I return again to 1 Corinthians 3:15.  "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."  This is the Bema Judgment, and this proves some Believers will fail to earn rewards but are still Saved.

This is used as a verse supporting Purgatory sometimes, and that affiliation is why I think many Protestants avoid it.  But the Catholic view of Purgatory is all about getting people in this world to think their prayers and money can effect the fate of people already dead.  That has no Biblical support at all.

A Universalist who has a different chronological view of Prophecy then me may argue that the Bema and White Throne Judgments are the same and this proves you can enter the Fire but still be Saved, because it does refer to Fire.  I will even agree that this Fire and the Fire of The Lake have the same source, God Himself, which I argued for in a post I'll link to later.

The difference is for the Saved person at the Bema Judgment this Fire won't be painful, or at least.... well.... ya know what I'm going to use Game of Thrones to make an illustration here, Season 1.  It's like the difference between Viserys Targeryen and Daenerys Targaryen.  One is Burned by fire, the other is not.

Chronologically I feel Revelation 11 clearly places the Bema Judgment after the 7th Trumpet, the White Throne Judgment is after the Millennium and the Gog-Magog War.  I do theorize both Judgments will take place on Yom Kippur.

In my prior Universalism post I linked to my Outer Darkness post.  I did not really refute the Unviersalist usage of Revelation 21:27, just provided an alternate explanation.

A number of Bible verses do imply different states of damnation among the damned.  Jesus said it would be better for the Men of Sodom on the day of Judgment then it will be for the Pharisees.  He makes similar statements about Tyre and Sidon.  Sometimes though it's not how evil someone is but how much of an opportunity to believe they had that makes the difference, which is an odd thing for Calvinists to deal with.  In fact we're told certain people would have believed if they'd seen what the Jews of Jesus day saw, is it really fair to permanently damn those people?

If the Judgment on the Unbelieving is Eternal Fire, it's hard for me to comprehend the Judgment being different, that the flames are somehow more or less hot in different parts of the lake is difficult to see mattering if it's Eternal.  But if the matter is how long they are in the lake, that makes more sense.  The worst human sinners, The Beast and The False Prophet, entered it first and are still there when Satan is cast in at least one thousand years later.

For many Christians the rejection of Universalism seems to come down to "what's the point of the Great Commission then?", "Why bother spreading The Gospel".  Well for starters I think saving people from entering The Lake even momentarily is a big deal.  Even if for most it is only an hour, being burned a whole hour by even normal fire is an unimaginable pain, and even after it's over it'd be psychologically scarring besides physically.  But the Fire of God?  Imagine how much worse that is.

But there is a benefit to Believing too.  What we are supposed to be doing is recruiting people for The Kingdom.  Not all Believers will even get the rewards, but you have to be a Believer to be eligible for them.  We have the opportunity to Co-Rule with him.

So a lot of it comes down to different statuses we'll have in the New Heaven and New Earth (or for some the Millennium but I believe The Church skips that), and the Unsaved who die before that are also not Resurrected till after.

The difference between Church Age believers and other ages is mostly geographical, there is more to it then that but that how it's easiest to explain here.  We of The Church are New Jerusalem, but there are Nations of The Saved outside New Jerusalem.

Believers who aren't of the Church either because of when they were Saved or perhaps losing inheritance will dwell in other Nations, some ruling, some not.  Israelites in the other parts of Israel outside Yahweh-Shammah, and Gentiles in other lands.  In the lands promised to Abraham but not included in the Tribal allotments of Ezekiel are where the Ishmaelites and other Abrahamic saved will live.  And beyond that Isaiah 19 describes a special arrangement between Egypt and Assyria.

Based on the Parable of the Sower I argued the Saved have at least 3 Categories.  Those who earn Crowns will be Co-Rulers, Kings and Priests with him.  Believers who are in mind in 1 Corinthians 3:15 will not be Co-Rulers but will not lose Sonship.

There is a possible difference even between Believers who were just worldly and didn't do much works, and those who fell away.  While neither can lose Sonship, it's possible there could be a further distinction between that and losing your Citizenship of The Kingdom.  Meaning there are at least 3 basic statuses.

All that is just what I believed as someone still firmly NOT a Universalist, but someone who as much as I wanted to believe that still thought it was impossible.

In light of what I'm considering now, it could be for the Christians who fully lose their Citizenship by falling away, that their status once in the New Creation is not any better then the best of those who never believed, but they still will never enter the Lake of Fire.  It can also be possible to have different social statuses even among the non citizens, which means even the unbelievers could earn something from the good they do.

Going back to the idea of how long people are in the Lake of Fire being different.  A major skepticism of the Unvierslaist view is that Revelation 20-22 don't seem to show anyone getting released from there.  I've argued before that I think the White Throne judgment happens on Yom Kippur, and that New Jerusalem descends on the first day of Tabernacles, and on the Eight day of Tabernacles is when Time (as we know it at least) ends.  All of that is something to consider.  Yom Kippur was also supposed to be the day the Jubilee happened, which among other things included debts being forgiven and slaves being set free.

It could be the perception of time is different within The Lake of Fire, it comes from God who is timeless after all.  And so maybe to the perspective of those outside it all happens on Yom Kippur.

One disagreement among Universalists is if Satan, the Fallen Angels and Demons will also be saved eventually too.  I'm inclined to believe that our eligibility for Salvation is possible only because of our kinship with Adam and Eve.  It's interesting that the Fire is defined as being for The Devil and his Angels, that men will be cast into it is merely something extra.

My mind remains unmade on this now, so if anyone wants to offer their own arguments for or against feel free to leave a comment.

Update: September 5th 2015

Jude 1:7 describes God's Judgment on Sodom and Gommorah as Aionion Fire, same term Jesus used in Matthew 25.  But Ezekiel 16:53-55 says Sodom will be restored to her former estate.

Sodom being restored is a pretty telling example.  Sodom had no survivors, Lot was a stranger living among them to start with, and his descendants became their own nations, Moab and Ammon.  So it's not a City being restored to future descendants of Sodom.  It must be the same people God destroyed, not one of whom was Righteous, that are being restored.

Actually the Sheeps and Goats Judgment is the only place that Aionion Fire is used in a clearly eschatological sense.  And I like others have seen that as a Judgment of those still living after Armageddon has happened, before The Millennium.  But maybe I was wrong on the timing of that and it is the same as the White Throne Judgment, but a less literal depiction being a parable.

Thing about the Sheeps and Goats Judgment is that Goats are still Levitically clean Animals, acceptable offerings to God.  There is no Biblical Basis for representing Satan as a Goat, Satan has claimed the Goats because he wants to claim title of Jesus, Jesus is the Yom Kippur Sin Offering (a Goat) as much as he is the Passover Lamb.

Maybe it's even a wrong assumption that everyone who waits til the Second Resurrection to be Resurrected goes into the Lake of Fire.  It says all who's names are not written in the Book of Life are cast into the Lake of Fire.

In the past I'd rejected the view that the Book of Life and the Old Testament Book of The Living are the same, but maybe I should change my mind on that.  Believers have a promise our names won't be blotted out in Revelation 2-3.  But maybe that doesn't mean we're the only ones who's names don't get blotted.  I still of course believe having your Part taken out (in Revelation 22) isn't the same as being . Blotted out.  They are in the same book, if they meant the same thing the same term would have been used.

There is a difference between having your name in the Year Book (which itself requires graduating) and having accomplishments under your names.

That PureUnadulteratedGrace Blog has a study on Luke 16 and the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, arguing it's a parable.  Good argument but I must reject his mention of saying Satan/The Devil isn't a literal entity, The Bible is unambiguous on them being real.

Update: September 7th 2015

This video has an interesting discussion of Universalism that starts at 43 Minutes in, it's Rob Skiba interviewing John Gabrielson.

Update: September 12th

I started another thread on that Forum about Judas, and had a pretty interesting discussion.

Update 2016:  I have a follow up post on Universalism now.

The problem with people who oppose Capitalism is

[Update: I'm not a Libertarian Anymore]