Universalism.
Well i figured that much, but what do u want me to do with it? Show how the ideas in universalism are contrary to the entire essence of new covenant biblical theology? The problem with that will be that you might cherry pick the new testament and i subscribe to it in its entirty. Anyone can make an accessment about anything. The ingredients that embody the basis of those accessments are what count, i choose the Bible, and you might choose only parts of it. We can agree to this effect, shake hands and move on w life. I wont even have interest to provide too many details about how universalism in the sense that everyone is saved is unscriptural. You can read a quarter of the NT yourself and see that! Why in the world would Jesus himself speak about hell as a place of torment so often?
And dont charge me w a hate crime. Im just relaying exactly what is spoken from the mouth of Jesus, the one who we have year markers relative to the yr of his birth.
Have you read the scripture as it was written?
Do u mean do i understand the original ancient languages?
Thatās exactly what Iām asking.
I do not, but i can tell you that i have taken classes at Trinity E Divinity and read countless books and commentaries on Scripture and have sought dozens of theological perspectives by folks who know the languages as i have prayed and agonized over understanding difficult passages of Scripture. The most recent 2 month long investigation into the meaning of a particular passage was over php 2:9-13. Here i found myself in disagreement with one of my favorite pastor/teachers and have quite a bit of confidence of its meaning. And it is glorious! I bet i checked at least a dozen sources over just these verses. I read through the passage a hundred times.
BTW, knowing the orgjnal languages means nothing in terms of understanding Scripture. I took some college religion electives by profs who knew them but made radically idiotic interpretations as per Christian theogians.
I donāt really have time to debate you on this so here are the Church Fathers (most of whom spoke Greek) who believed in universal salvation.
Bardasian
Clement
Origen
Didymus
St. Anthony
St. Pamphilus Martyr
St. Macrina
St. Gregory of Nyssa
Probably St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nazianzen
St. Evagrius Ponticus
St. Diodore of Tarsus
Theodore of Mopsuestia
St. John of Jerusalem
Rufinus
Cassian
St. Isaac of Nineveh
St. John of Dalyatha
Ps. Dionysius the Areopagite
Probably Maximus the Confessor
John Scotus Eriugena
Many others
Check them out.
Also check David Bentley Hart.
1 Like
There does seem to be some difference here between us. However, what I mean by this is not what you seem to assume here:
I also believe the Scriptures are the very words of God (I affirm inspiration and inerrancy). So Iām talking about evangelical OT scholars who seek to understand the milieu into which God chose to reveal himself and from which he chose his covenant people. Though Israelās theology is unique in many respects (especially due to its foundation in ethical monotheism), there is a ton of overlap in language, literary genre, institutions (social, political, even religious), etc., etc. Understanding that background illumines the biblical text, often influencing a change to an interpretation initially based on reading an English translation from a Western, post-Enlightenment (and 21st century American) mindset.
I think we found some clarity on where a difference lies, so thanks for that.
I will. So there is quite a difference betw the restoration of all things and the existence of hell as a place where non believers will go when unrepentant and unforgiven. Rob Bell is a good example of someone who is not welcommed as a contributer in gospel oriented groups of leaders like the gospel coalition. If any on that list are like Rob Bell, then they should not be welcommed either.
Ok. I read Craig Keener from time to time and i am agreeable to calling him my brother, but disagree about how he makes his conclusions on the interp of early genesis. We are all just sheep, phds included. I am sure that i will choose to interpret based on my circumstance or rationalized opinion fr time to time. When a theologian like Keener has a scientist brother( i think his,brother) that spews,old earth rhetoric by the gallon, then i completely understand why he might want to reinterpret Genesis in a fitting way. Is this wise? Maybe not. Afterall, this is not just a discussion about words, but one about the living God who created the universe who is watching and listening to every word we speak on His behalf. And we will be judged by Him on those words we speak.
I LOVE your listā¦ but you should just bite the bullet and take Jerome and Augustine out of the list. Itās confusing to the readers who are NEW to the idea of Universalism.
1 Like
Sure, but itās true nonetheless.
Actually, if you follow the story Abraham had faith that God would
a) Provide an alternative sacrifice (Gen 22:8)
b) Ressurrect Isaac. (Hebrews 11:19).
The bible describes Abrahamās thinking as below -
Hebrews 11:[ 17 ]By faith, Abraham, being tested, offered up Isaac. Yes, he who had gladly received the promises was offering up his one and only son,
[ 18 ] to whom it was said, āYour offspring will be accounted as from Isaac,ā
[ 19 ] concluding that God is able to raise up even from the dead. Figuratively speaking, he also did receive him back from the dead.
The entire point of the story is that God promised Abraham that his descendants would be an uncountable number and they would come from isaac. So, Abraham was confident that he would come back down the mountain with Isaac still alive.
Do you have any referencesā¦
I thought Dravidian languages were restricted to India.
Not a good story to tell children.
The bible is not a childrenās story bookā¦
Then we should ban it from kids getting hold of it. 
From Wikipedia: " In the early 1970s, the linguist David McAlpin produced a detailed proposal of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and the extinct Elamite language of ancient Elam (present-day southwestern Iran).[47] The Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis was supported in the late 1980s by the archaeologist Colin Renfrew and the geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, who suggested that Proto-Dravidian was brought to India by farmers from the Iranian part of the Fertile Crescent.[48][49] (In his 2000 book, Cavalli-Sforza suggested western India, northern India and northern Iran as alternative starting points.[50]) However, linguists have found McAlpinās cognates unconvincing and criticized his proposed phonological rules as ad hoc .[51][52][53] Elamite is generally believed by scholars to be a language isolate, and the theory has had no effect on studies of the language.[54]"
1 Like
True, but confusing. And it sullies the pristine value of the other references!
A counter-argument would be: āSure, in the beginning, before they reached the final truth!ā etc. etc. blah blah
1 Like
I find the scenario very compelling. There are affinities with loan words from Elam into Sumerian that I think would support this overall thesis. Every once in a while, all those Indians actually did interesting things!