Continuing on with our series on the false doctrine of universalism in the Bible, here we present the chapter from Charles A. Weisman’s book Is Universalism of God which demonstrates how modern universalists and racial egalitarians misuse and misinterpret the meaning of the phrase “all men” to promote their anachronistic Marxist heresies.
While Weisman focuses on how “all men” is used in the New Testament, he briefly mentions that it is similarly used in the Old Testament as well. As the phrase “all men” is a figure of speech, so too is “all Israel” — for example in Deuteronomy 31:1:
“And Moses went and spake these words unto all Israel.”
Clearly, this verse is not suggesting that Moses literally spoke these words to every single Israelite in the world. We see the same figure of speech used in Joshua 7:25:
And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.
Again, it’s not possible that every Israelite on earth could have been involved in this stoning incident — and it would be foolish to insist on such an idea.
It should also be noted that — especially in the Old Testament — the English word “man” is often translated from the Hebrew “Adam” — which all universalists ignore because it emphasizes that a “man” must be a descendant of Adam (Genesis 5:1) — and clearly not all “peoples” were descended from Adam — otherwise why mention it?
In the New Testament, the word “man” is most often translated from the Greek “anthropos,” which according to Strong’s (#444) also “answers to the Hebrew term “adam” (Strong’s #119), which means “ruddy, rosy, to show blood in the face, i.e., to blush” — and clearly does not refer to Africans and others with darker skin. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon notes that a “man” (#444) “is distinguished from beings of a different race or order.”
Thus, it can easily be demonstrated that the false doctrine of universalism is entirely dependent on taking obvious figures of speech quite literally — such as “all men” — while at the same time ignoring the biblical context and definition of “man” coming from Adam only.
Anyone who has read the Bible knows that it is full of specific verses which state that Israel is God’s people — that they are the sons of God — or that Israel has been or will be saved, redeemed, justified, sanctified, blessed, reconciled or loved by God. Yet there are no such specifics regarding the Hittite, Philistine, Edomite, Negro or Indian in these matters. Because of this dearth, Universalists resort to certain generalized words to support the concept of Universalism or ultimate reconciliation, such as the term “all things,” “all men,” or “the world.”
To get all people and all races saved, blessed, brought into the Kingdom, resurrected, reconciled, etc., they also [naturally gravitate toward] verses which contain the words “all,” or “all men” — as these broad, vague and general words can be made to fit nicely into their [broad and vague] universal doctrine.
So let us examine some of these verses (in bold) which contain these terms to see what grounds — if any — Universalists have in using them to support their doctrine.
“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” (John 12:32)
Here Jesus is saying that because of His death, He will draw “all men” to Himself. And so Universalists say that “all men” (persons) are going to accept Jesus. But since it is clear that all men have not been drawn to Him in the past 2000 years, universalists say that this will ultimately happen in the future, as in the resurrection. But those who are resurrected to an incorruptible state do not need to be drawn to Christ.
Christ clarified this matter when He said, “All that the Father gives me shall come to me” (John 6:37). Jesus did not say that the Father has given Him all people, but rather only those people will be drawn to Jesus that the Father has given Him. The “all men” drawn to Christ in John 12:32 are the “all” that the Father gives to Christ in John 6:37.
Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5:18)
Universalists often use this verse from Romans in conjunction with verse 12 which says “death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” With these verses Universalists assert that God will make all persons righteous and save them from death. This is because “all” allegedly means all human beings regardless of race — and not just Adam’s descendants or [certain descendants of] Abraham’s seed.
Once again Universalist must prove that “all men” signifies the entire global population of humans that ever existed, which they cannot do from Scripture. The word ‘all’ is used in a generalized sense only and was not intended to cover every specific person. This is revealed in verse 19 where it does not use the word “all” but rather uses the word “many” — i.e. , “many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall marry be made righteous.” Here “many” does not mean every single person. Romans 5:12 in the literal Greek reads, “And thus unto all men death came throughout.” That is, when death entered Adam, it went throughout the race of Adam, affecting his lineage only (Genesis 5:1).
Note that this free gift of righteous came upon all men — it is in the past tense. Christ’s work of justification was fully accomplished on the cross. Clearly all men are not righteous. Here is what one noted Bible authority says on these verses:
The “all men” of v. 18 and the “many” of v. 19 are the same party, though under a slightly different aspect. In the latter case, the contrast is between the one representative (Adam-Christ) and the many whom he represented….In the latter case it is the redeemed family of man that is alone in view; it is Humanity as actually lost, but also as actually saved, as ruined and recovered….Thus the doctrine of universal restoration has no place here.Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary on the Bible, vol. 2, p. 233
The point made here is that though it is a fact that a part of mankind are not saved from death, this is not the aspect intended. It deals only with all those God has redeemed — and thus will save from death. The only people that God acts as a redeemer for is Israel (Psalms 78:35; Isaiah 41:14; Isaiah 43:14; Luke 1:68). They thus are the only ones who were “represented” by Christ.
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22)
This text is relied upon by Universalists with the greatest assurance — as positive [and “irrefutable”] proof in favor of their doctrine. The verse does teach Universalism, but it is limited or qualified [according to this biblical authority]:
When Paul writes in Christ shall all be made alive, he is not teaching universalism (a heresy), nor universal resurrection (a truth, but not taught here), but universal resurrection in Christ. The two “all’s” are not identical in quantity, being limited by the prepositional phrases “in Adam” and “in Christ” (cf. Rom. 5:18). The word made alive is never used of the wicked in the NT (cf. Jn 5:21; 6:63; Rom. 8:11; Gal. 3:211; 1 Cor. 15:45). The chapter contemplates the resurrection of believers only.The Wychffe Bible Commentary, ed. C.F. Pfeiffer, Moody Press, 1962, p. 1256.
Paul wrote this letter to the Corinthians to give them comfort and assurance that their trials and persecutions for following Christ are not in vain. Thus the scope is universal but limited to all those that are in Christ — all of these will be made alive or resurrected. There is a broader scope to the resurrection, which includes the unjust or nonbelievers (Acts 24:15), but is not taught here. This verse is also limited to those that are in Adam. The Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon races — which became extinct before Adam was created — are obviously not “in Adam” [though many have claimed that some Adamics interbred with these proto-humans. CFT]. Neither are those which never came from Adam’s lineage, such as the Negro, Oriental, Polynesian, Eskimo, or Indian. 1 Corinthians 15:22 then pertains only to Adamites who are “in Christ. “
“…that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28)
Universalists use this verse to show how eventually God will be fully dwelling in everybody, and so “all” will be holy and godly. The true understanding of this phrase is as follows:
God….all in all — as Christ is all in all (Colossians 3:11; cf. Zechariah 14:9). Then, and not until then, “all things,” without the least infringement of the Divine prerogative, shall be subject to the Son, and the Son subordinate to the Father, whilst co-equally sharing his glory.Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary on the Bible, vol. 2, p. 293
The phrase God “be all in all” means only that everything will be subject to God through the Son (Christ). There is a big difference between being subject to God and having God’s Spirit dwelling in the person and merely a thing that is subject to God. Even though all things will be subject to the Son, that no more places the Hittite or the Negro as His chosen servants or possessing the Holy Spirit than it does a crocodile, a robin or a tree. To say that “all things” — both good and bad — will eventually be equally divine, is nothing but pantheistic Hinduism (see Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, Nelson, 1962, p. 964)
It is rather amazing that Universalists will use the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians to support their doctrine when it actually contains solid proof against their doctrine. It clearly refers only to the Saints who will be resurrected; and further, Paul is addressing his “brethren” or fellow Israelites (1 Corinthians 15:1, 50 & 58)
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who wilt have “all men” to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
This verse does not say all men are saved or will be saved — it merely expresses God’s desire or will, not His action or plan. “All men” are not saved anymore than all people have come to the knowledge of the truth. It is merely God’s desire that they do.
For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)
The Scriptures are replete with examples of men who will or have “perished” and are not “saved” (Luke 13:3; 1 Cor. 1:18;2 Cor. 2:15; 2 Thess. 2:10; 2Peter 2:12). Evidently God did not save them. The true meaning here is that God is a savior to all that are saved — not that “all” are saved by God.
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men. (Titus 2:11)
Using this verse Universalists claim that the grace of God and His salvation will be upon all men without exception. This text, however, is in the present tense — but to whom has the grace of God appeared? “To all of whom Paul enumerated in the different classes (v. 2-9)” (see
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary, vol. 2, p. 433)
Here in Titus the context is of those whom Paul just mentioned — the aged men and women, wives and husbands, young men, and servants and masters. But what has the grace of God been doing for them? In the next verse Paul says it is, “Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (v. l2). This is not something that has come upon all men on the planet.
We can give our answer against a universalist interpretation of any of the aforementioned verses, by analyzing the use of the words, “all” and “all men.” The word “all” is often used to indicate a part of a group or is something that is limited in some way.
The Greek word for ‘all’ is pas (#3956). Thayer’s Greek Lexicon gives the following explanation of its usage:
pas — Of a certain definite whole: all (the people), Mt. xxi. 26; by hyperbole i.q., the great majority, the multitude, Jn. iii. 26; all (just before mentioned), Mt. xiv. 20; xxii. 27 sq.; xxvii. 22; Mk. i. 27,37; vi. 39,42; Lk. i. 63; iv. 15; Jn. ii. 15,24, and very often; all (about to be mentioned), Acts ix. 32; of a certain definite whole, Phil. ii. 21. of a certain sum of things, the context showing what is meant: Mk. iv. 34; vi. 30; Lk. i. 3.Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, p. 492
We thus see there are different ways in which the term “all” can be used in which it does not mean every single item that could come within the scope of the subject matter.
Sometimes “all” means a certain definite part of the whole — so when it is said that Jesus “healed all that were sick” (Matt. 8:16), it does not mean all sick persons on the planet, or even all sick people in Judea, but all sick people He encountered.
Sometimes “all” is limited by what was previously mentioned, or is about to be mentioned (i.e., the context). In many other cases the word “all” is used as an hyperbole which is “an exaggeration for effect, not meant to be taken literally” (see Webster’s New World Dictionary, World Publishing, 1978, p. 690)
An hyperbole is thus a type of figure of speech, and as such the word “all” will mean a great many, a majority, a multitude, or a lot. The example Thayer gives is John 3:26, where the disciples of John the Baptist tell him about Jesus, who
“…was with you beyond Jordan, to whom you bare witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him” (John 3:26)
Now how many Eskimos came down from the Arctic to get baptized by Jesus? None!
There are really no cases in the Bible where the words “all men” are used to convey the idea of every human type then in existence and who ever has existed or ever will exist. Here are some illustrations from Scripture:
-Christ told His disciples, ‘You shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake” (Mark 13:13; Luke 21:17). Obviously the disciples were not hated by everyone on the planet. Many persons they encountered gladly accepted them and were baptized (Acts 2:47).
-When Jesus asked the religious leaders whether the baptism of John was of God or men they said, “If we shall say, Of men; they feared the people for “all men” counted John, that he was a prophet indeed” (Mark 11:32). Did the whole human family count John a prophet, when not one-millionth of them ever saw him, or knew of him?
-“Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men” (Acts 19:19). Did all of the American Indians see them burn their books? No. Did the universalists see it? If not, then they are not part of “all men.”
-When Jesus became separated from His disciples, they searched for Him, and upon finding Him said, “All men seek for thee” (Mark 1:37). Clearly the Australian Aborigines were not looking for Him, nor was Caesar.
-Certain Judeans stirred up a crowd against Paul crying out, “Fellow Israelites, help: This is the man that teaches all men every where against the people” (Acts 21:28). Paul was never in all parts of the world, and never taught but a tiny fraction of the people on earth.
.When Jesus healed a demon-possessed man, the man went home “and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel” (Mark 5:20). It is certain that not one person in China marveled at what this man said.
-Paul told the Philippians to “Let your moderation be known unto all men “(Philippians 4:5). It was not intended that they travel to every corner of the globe and let every person know of their moderation.
-The first converts to Christ “sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need” (Acts 2:45). It is clear that no Bushmen or Polynesians received any of their goods.
There are other examples in the New Testament, not to mention the many examples in the Old Testament, showing that “all” or “all men” does not literally mean everyone. This shows the erroneous results from a literal and universal interpretation.
Kevin Please I agree with your well written assessment of muzzys I just did not imply anything else thanks. And jew wise is pro Christian and pro white take it easy ok.
Attention James …….
I am re-directing our previous conversation to an Article I would like you to read, study and comment on. (Above)
It occurred to me on the other conversation thread that we were getting totally off the point.
“What does God say in all of this?”
Here is what I know based on Observational Reality — mixing the Races has done nothing Positive for the White Race. Nothing.
This has to mean something.
This whole conversation started because you CONGRATULATED Heeby’s ancestor for having sex with a non-adamic woman.
This is Promotion of Universalism.
I then asked you to prove Universalism using Scripture.
You still haven’t even tried to do that.
Then “mum of many” joined the conversation and empathetically proclaimed “non-whites can be saved.”
I asked ‘mum of many’ to prove her proclamation and she vanished into thin air.
Let us FIRST come into agreement on this issue of Universalism from a Scriptural Foundation — and then we can begin to ask hypothetical questions about the finer details.
Ok? I hope you will agree.
Please study the article above.
Submit your questions, objections here on this thread.
West, Your observational reality is yours? Whites have gotten a lot from other whites and non-whites.
Heeby would not be here if not for the Indian in him . That’s not promotion of anything but Heeby.
Prove Universalism ? That’s for God to judge what he created. “Mum of Many” vanished into thin air just like my questions to you.
Here is a example I know how great whites are .
It goes on and on but we know how screwed up or rotten evil and ugly traitors that Whites can be that live in the jew camp like Christian Zionists. If that can’t be fixed or not, we still need help from non-whites from the enemy of the world THE JEWS. Its all for nothing if that’s not #1.
It is your belief that —-
“….Whites have gotten a lot from non-whites….”
I don’t think you will find this a very popular opinion/feeling here at CFT, especially from the Staff and the regulars.
I will let your comment stand as a reflection of your contribution here at CFT.
You then stated — “….Prove Universalism ? That’s for God to judge what he created….”
You are acting confrontationally to what CFT has presented — In other words — you are in disagreement against the very site that you frequent and probably consider yourself to be part of some type of “brotherhood” or “fellowship”. CFT has presented articles that argue against your position —
Above are just a few of many others — https://christiansfortruth.com/?s=universalism
And I would suspect you have not commented on any of these articles.
Where are your Scriptural objections??? You have NONE.
But somehow, I am your enemy.
You asked me about Heeby. I would agree with CFT’s thoughts on Heeby —
I have tried to be friendly, patient and civil with you James. But, you have revealed yourself to have a hostile Spirit and one that I can’t be “in fellowship” with. Not that you care, so I’m sure I am not hurting your feelings.
You and I do not share the same Spirit. You do not have my “hand in friendship”. I am not responsible for your error.
I’m sad. I tried to be “brothers”, but clearly that is not happening.
If you have any specific questions for me regarding Scripture, I’d be happy to respond.
Otherwise, I seek peace with all men. I won’t respond to your comments in the future UNLESS you say something that contradicts Scripture.
I will keep you in my thoughts.
West, I have no problem with you or CFT – my views differ. Like I said Heeby has small admix of Indian that’s similar to whites to me – I know you don’t think so? But I agree with what Gene said – it’s not like he has jew or negro.
I agree with how Dr David Duke puts it:
West, we are not enemies I have kept you in my thoughts from years ago when you said it would hurt your soul to have mixed with a non white. I say more power to you. I still say if we can’t have a Raquel Welsh RIP welcomed on our side because of white purity Christianity?
This world needs all non-jews together on the jew problem not focusing on being perfect? While jews run over us all. All people even the pigmys. Ok, maybe not pigmys? That’s my frustration not that hostile and peace to you.
The problem is that you promote Universalism, which has had a detrimental effect towards the White race — the Adamites and Israelites of the Scriptures. And you do so without using Scripture to strengthen your point.
Not only do you endorse Universalism, you boast in it.
I can’t support you in that position, and it surprises me somewhat that you are allowed to continue to do so.
Eternal Life is more important than Present Life. You seem to be more concerned with present life than you do Eternal Life.
We are not going to solve the JP with non-white peoples. White Peoples — the Israelites of Scripture, need to turn back to God, if our Lands are going to be healed.
In order to do that, we need to KNOW God. Know who He is and what He requires.
Collectively, we simply don’t. The Great Falling Away is over.
Many are called, Few are chosen.
West, I’m concerned for all Eternal and present and what we leave behind. I only know what universalism is from what you say it is, and I don’t quote scripture much – it’s just my opinion on this topic .
Exposing the jew evil problem to all or they can have the jews that they want? that would definitely help? is a point ? Telling non white Christians it’s not for them – I just don’t get that because we cannot really know? I love God and what is good and the truth and freedom .
West, We whites and all others seem to be diced and divided, and we quickly think the other is an enemy people have been burned at the stake over freedom of speech, and my questions are so hard and hostile? One thing I know, we got a jew problem.
I have no idea of what you just said —- https://christiansfortruth.com/how-the-phrase-all-men-has-been-misused-to-promote-false-universalism-in-the-bible/#comment-179457
Paul wrote SEVERAL times in his letters to the “Fellowship” —
“…..Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment….”
Elsewhere he teaches us that the Holy Spirit should not be confusing. In other words — the Holy Spirit does not teach a person one thing and then another person something entirely different. My Point — there really shouldn’t be any Division within a Body of Believers.
Those who have the Holy Spirit residing in their Soul SHOULD be able to come to agreement on those things that are CLEAR and those things that are IMPORTANT in the Scriptures.
You said in a previous comment — “…..I only know what universalism is from what you say it is….”
How many times does someone have to show you the evidence before you will actually study it, and either refute it or accept it!?
Why do you resist …. Seriously? There is something going on in your soul.
And now you promote David Duke, who is anti-christ, as some kind of recommendation for Christians? Weird.
Do you even study the Scriptures? I say this with all good intent. I’m fearful for you to be honest james.
I don’t believe this topic of Universalism/Exclusivity is an “agree to disagree” issue in the Scriptures. In other words —- it is a reflection of the condition of one’s Soul.
We are not debating Eschatology.
Jesus said, “I have ONLY come for the lost sheep of the House of Israel.”
That is an emphatic statement that needs to be understood, not ignored. It is an Essential Doctrine. Something that defines “Christianity” i.e., those who follow Jesus Christ.
And it appears you simply want to avoid it.
James, you seem to be much more anti-jewish than you are pro-Christian or pro-White. Jews don’t really care about the other races, which is why they always want to live in and around Whites. We are their adversaries, not the other races. The other races won’t come to our rescue.
By ignoring what the scriptures say, you are no different than any other white or grey nationalist who thinks the Jew can be defeated through political alliances that “gang up” against the Jews. It will never happen. You need to put your faith in Christ, not the other races.
West How is Dr David Duke anti Christ ? my only question.
Kevin It seems CFT#1 is Christians for truth #2 jew problem. Most muslims know the jew problem yet what % of whites do? I have faith in God . We don’t know each other we don’t put our full names here of fear of the jews its all frustrating more anti than pro Christan and white ? anti ? is jew wise anti .
James, you seem to ignore the fact that despite all the Muslim’s “antisemitism”, they have always found common cause against Christendom.
The Jews have used the Muslims in their conquests of White Christian lands, whether Byzantium, Spain, and even the Ottoman conquest of Europe. And the same is going on today, as Muslims invade our lands in common cause with the Jews.
The Muslims see us as “infidels” and the Jews see us as “Amalek”, and they are more than willing to share the spoils of our lands. Jews promote Muslims into positions of power in all our lands, knowing full well they have a tradition of “antisemitism” because they know they can deal with Muslims not Whites.
Any Whites who think that the Muslims will side with Whites over Jews are on a fool’s errand. Muslims are in our land because of the Jews, and the Muslims will not bite the hand that feeds them at the end of the day, despite their “anti-Jewish” feelings.
“….How is Dr David Duke anti Christ ? my only question…….”
1 John 4:3.
I purposely did not quote the passage because I want you to actually open your Bible. While you are there, read some more.
Know God james. He is all that matters. The rest is secondary.
Prophecy suggests we lose this earthly war. But that doesn’t mean we don’t stop trying. But our FIRST goal is to save souls. Bring the message of “Identity” to our Peoples. Then correct their false gospel.
This is our Mission Statement. Exposing jewish perfidy is secondary to that mission. Exposing jewish perfidy is simply a “Witness” tool and nothing more.
Or here on this article ^^^^^
And I will sow her unto Me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to those who were not My people, ‘Thou art My people’; and they shall say, ‘Thou art my God.’”
All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you.
And many nations shall join themselves to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people. And I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent me to you.
Israel is supposed to be a servant to others, as Christ was. Antithetical to this would be pride. Christ did not look down on other people, even people who were not his people – the Samaritans; rather, by faith, the gentiles believed on him.
We know salvation is for all who will turn to Christ, and that many nations will turn to him.
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands.
The person who wants to be greatest in heaven is not running around defending how great they are here, but rather quietly serving. To me, if I look at the world, inescapably it seems a majority of the so-called “lower races” are the ones doing the most service; therefore to me it is very possible those who are least here, will be greatest there, but, I do not presume to know.
It may be that God made races/nations for a reason. It may be that they are best kept separate.
What is off putting in these articles is the offensive level of pride. We know from the Bible all who have pride are of the devil. It would probably good to repent of this.
I am sure after one passes away one will know very clearly if one was “very high” in heaven, or “very low”. But until then, it’s speculation.
“…..It may be that God made races/nations for a reason…….”
Alice, I find your comment very interesting. I have a few questions if you don’t mind.
Question — When or How do you believe God made “races/nations”? Do you believe all the races of men come from Adam and Eve, or do you have an alternative belief/explanation?
Second ……………… you said — “….What is off putting in these articles is the offensive level of pride.”
Could you please “copy and paste” that which you believe is offensive from the article?
Thank you. I’m curious what you believe falls into this category.
I hope you come back. I’d like to converse with you if interested.
Alice, where did you get the idea that the Samaritans were not Israelites? After all, the woman at the well, who was a Samaritan, said her patriarch was Jacob, making her an Israelite (John 4:12).
Yes, there were non-Israelites living in Samaria, and many had been moved there to replace the Israelites, but obviously there was a significant remnant of Israelites still living in Samaria at the time of Christ.
However, there was a historical tension and enmity between the Israelites in Judea and those in Samaria, and no love lost between the two groups, as attested to by historian Josephus, and the well-known warning of Christ in Matthew 10:5 to not go into those cities of Samaritans. But that verse does not prove that all Samaritans were “gentiles” or non-Israelites, as many universalist Christians believe.
Jews have worked hard to hide the fact that white Europeans are true Israelites, and they have done this out of self-interest, to destroy us before we figure out who we really are — and who they are not.
“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
The other name for this writer must be Confucius, because everything he writes here, is to confuse and confound. The reason why, I usually have a fist full of salt beside me when I read these “Christian For Truth “articles.
“The point made here is that though it is a fact that a part of mankind are not saved from death, this is not the aspect intended. It deals only with all those God has redeemed — and thus will save from death. The only people that God acts as a redeemer for is Israel (Psalms 78:35; Isaiah 41:14; Isaiah 43:14; Luke 1:68). They thus are the only ones who were “represented” by Christ.”
Thus, according to this writer, Christianity has absolutely NOTHING to do with none-Israelites(meaning Jews) and therefore those none-Jews who place their hopes on Christ are deluded.
Then he asserts;
“Thus the scope is universal but limited to all those that are in Christ — all of these will be made alive or resurrected.” (Here the writer must exclusively be speaking of Israel, since as he stated earlier; “The only people that God acts as a redeemer for is Israel (Psalms 78:35; Isaiah 41:14; Isaiah 43:14; Luke 1:68). They thus are the only ones who were “represented” by Christ.”
By his deliberate refusal to accept the Biblical message at “face value” he reduces Christianity into a “School of Discords” where each picks the Bible, interpreters it his own way, and then claims that his interpretation is “The Right One”
There are many quotes, which unreservedly confirm Universality Of The Kingdom Of God through The Christ” Here is one.
“ ‘When the Son of man comes in his glory, escorted by all the angels, then he will take his seat on his throne of glory. All nations will be assembled before him and he will separate people one from another as the shepherd separates sheep from goats. He will place the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right hand, “Come, you whom my Father has blessed, take as your heritage the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you made me welcome, lacking clothes and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me.” Then the upright will say to him in reply, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome, lacking clothes and clothe you? When did we find you sick or in prison and go to see you?” And the King will answer, “In truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me.” Mathew 25:31-40
This quote, shows that All Nations, meaning all Men, will stand before The Christ to be judged. This shows The Christ as Universal Ruler of All men. And the interesting insight revealed by this verse, is that many will be surprised when they are rewarded by The Christ for working for Him, while at the same time may will be surprised when the Christ rejects them, for rejecting Him.
Another quote, is from St. Paul, about the role of the Christ.
“ After that will come the end, when he will hand over the kingdom to God the Father, having abolished every principality, every ruling force and power. For he is to be king until he has made his enemies his footstool, and the last of the enemies to be done away with is death, for he has put all things under his feet” 1 Corinthians 15:24-26
Here, St. Paul envisions, a time when death will be eliminated, meaning that all will be resurrected, each at an appropriate time. This, is clearly a Universalistic promises, which is mean for everyone. Death will cease to exists, meaning that all will eventually be resurrected.
Then St. Peter further expounds this Universalism when he declares;
“ Then Peter addressed them, ‘I now really understand’, he said, ‘that God has no favourites, but that anybody of any nationality who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. ‘God sent his word to the people of Israel, and it was to them that the good news of peace was brought by Jesus Christ — he is the Lord of all.” Acts 10:34-36
But evidently, the writer will repudiate this argument, and impose his own interpretation, which for some reason, more private than otherwise, based on lack of proper understanding of the Scriptural message.
Bigfoot, why do you conflate Israelites with Jews? Christians that don’t know the difference can’t possibly understand the Bible. So-called Jews in the NT refer only to the southern tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi. The ten northern tribes comprise the vast majority of Israelites, and they are never referred to as “Jews”.
Second, you assume the definition of “nation” is what we understand it today, and it’s not. A “nation” in the Bible is an “ethnos”, a tribe of people with a common patriarch, as defined in Genesis 10. The Chinese or Pygmies or Hottentots are not biblical “nations” or “ethnos” that can be traced back to Adam, as this writer points out. They are not part of the the “generations of Adam” which is the subject of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. You dispute this obviously.
Show us how the Pygmies or Aboriginals or the Wild Men of Borneo can trace their ancestry back to any of the Genesis 10 nations.
Do you honestly believe that Matthew meant us to include Hottentots and Aboriginals in the ministry of Christ? Seriously? Matthew was an Israelite. He wrote that Christ said He came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt 15:24). I’ll take Christ at his word, not yours. Peter wouldn’t even talk to non-Israelites or sit down and eat with them, but you claim he was fine with Africans in the Kingdom of God.
At the time of the ministry of Christ, the Greeks thought of Africans as “tail-less apes”, but you think these hellenized Judeans were some kind of progressive Marxist utopians like yourself without any “prejudices”, just as the “Jews” today want you to believe. This is called “projection”, and it says a lot more about you than it does about the Bible.
Any “nations” that will be redeemed by Christ must have been His from the beginning, otherwise He could not redeem them. Modern nation-states are not “nations” in the Bible. Pure and simple concept really.
You will never convince me that this “ape woman” found in Mexico in the 19th century is the same species as me or that she is related to Adam.
Yes, look, she has a cross around her neck, and if the Catholic Church says she’s a Christian, she must be, but wow….
Jas. You say:-
Bigfoot, why do you conflate Israelites with Jews? ……….
(A)I conflate Israelites with Jews, in order to distinguish “The New Wine” which is Christianity with the “Old Wine” which is Israel, Judaism, Jews etc. The Ten northern Tribes disappeared, got lost, and they were never again to be heard. They were deliberately forgotten by God, since they had forgotten Him. As He Himself warned them through prophet Hosea what he intended to do, when He warned;
“My people perish for want of knowledge. Since you yourself have rejected knowledge, so I shall reject you from my priesthood; since you have forgotten the teaching of your God, I in my turn shall forget your children. The more of them there have been, the more they have sinned against me; they have bartered their Glory for Shame. They feed on the sin of my people, they are greedy for their iniquity. But as with the people, so with the priest, I shall punish them for their conduct, I shall pay them back for their deeds. Hosea 4: 6-9 The words are “I shall reject you from my priesthood” And that is what God did. The Northern Kingdom is no more. Those who claims to be “The Ten Lost Tribes” are still lost, mentally, and spiritually. God moved on. He does not remember them. Only The Christ is known by God. And we all belong to God, only through The Christ.
You say;- “The Chinese or Pygmies or Hottentots are not biblical “nations” or “ethnos” that can be traced back to Adam, as this writer points out. They are not part of the “generations of Adam” which is the subject of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. You dispute this obviously.”
(A)You are being condescending and prejudiced for no reason. After all at the end of the Day, “The Lord knows His Own” You can prance around, with pride for being of “generations of Adam” but that is your private affair, having nothing to do with the promises of the Scriptures.
You say: “Show us how the Pygmies or Aboriginals or the Wild Men of Borneo can trace their ancestry back to any of the Genesis 10 nations.”
(A)Well, everyone belongs to the Lord, even if, you evidently would wish some to be excluded. It’s no a private club……….really. Everyone is invited.
According to Revelation 21:12, the Kingdom of Heaven has only 12 gates to enter through, and these gates signify the 12 tribes of Israel. No mention of any other gates, no “back entrances” or “segregated” doors for blacks, asians, indians, etc.
Why bother have 12 gates for Israel if God intends to let in every erect biped hominoid anyway?
“And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel…”
I agree with bigfoot Jesus Christ opened salvation to all who will accept His sacrifice for them and do good
Book of Revelations says about the second resurrection of unbelievers that they will be judged and those doing good will enter into eternal life and those who have done evil will be cast into the lake of fire I am not a universalist but I pray for as many people as possible to repent and do good to their neighbor esp the poor I was hungry and you gave me something to eat
What do you mean when you say, “…… I am not a universalist….”?
I think this word “universalist” can have more than one meaning. Curious how you mean to use it.
“But evidently, the writer will repudiate this argument”
If he was alive, he might, but then again you don’t really even have an “argument” in which to repudiate.
When I finally got to the part in your comment where you were supposedly offering your confirmation of universalism there was nothing there other than you confirming your own bias. The supposed scriptural confirmation you provided only serves to prove your conclusion if we are to already assume your conclusion to be true in the first place and therefore your “arguments” are circular. It would probably serve you well to read the article on this site about the begging the question fallacy or research begging the question and circular arguments yourself independently.
After the first passage provided, you said:
“This quote, shows that All Nations, meaning all Men, will stand before The Christ to be judged. This shows The Christ as Universal Ruler of All men.”
“All nations, meaning all men” is one of the things you’re supposedly trying to “confirm”. It’s an argument you’re supposed to be making. But you didn’t make it, you just assumed it outright in your “analysis” of the passage.
The second passage provided, you said:
“Here, St. Paul envisions, a time when death will be eliminated, meaning that all will be resurrected, each at an appropriate time. This, is clearly a Universalistic promise, which is mean [sic] for everyone. Death will cease to exists, meaning that all will eventually be resurrected.”
You claim the passage is “clearly a Universalistic promise, which is mean [sic] for everyone”. But never demonstrated how it is and how it applies to “everyone” as in every person on earth as we refer to “people” today.
Aren’t you supposed to be confirming universalism by showing us that when the phrases ‘all men’ and ‘all nations’ are used, they include every person as we refer to people today (Europeans, Asians, Africans, Australian Aboriginals, etc.)? You haven’t done that. All you’ve done is copy/paste some passages that contain some of that language and then restated your conclusion as if it were self-evident.
I realize people do not like taking advice from random strangers on the internet but I would strongly encourage you to read multiple translations when studying the Bible especially the ones that are proposed as more literal and to use bible study tools to understand the meaning of the actual words and not just applying your modern understanding to a word a translator used. Biblehub is a great free online tool for this very purpose. If you do this maybe then you can come back here and properly teach us about your universalism belief, but until such a time your “arguments” and the way you go about them are amateur and fruitless.
Agrippa, I agree with everything you’ve written here. It’s as clear as day. Unfortunately, my experience with Bigfoot and other stubborn universalists is that they do not and cannot recognize their own circular reasoning, their begging the question.
Bigfoot also seems to believe that if he just repeats himself over and over without adding any more evidence, somehow he will persuade people to his view.
I have yet to see any confirmed universalist concede one single point or admit one single error in their exegesis when it’s pointed out to them, Bigfoot included.
That said, for any reader who has not made their mind up or who is open to hearing a different take on scripture, your points will be insightful.
I recently saw a tongue-in-cheek meme about “if Adam and Eve were Chinese”, the punchline being that if they had been then they would have eaten the serpent instead of the apple.
The attempted joke was too blasphemous for my liking, but it got me wondering where the humanoids, who became what we know as Chinese, were during Adam’s days.
Also, do/did Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon exist? I’ve always assumed that they did, but it dawns on me that I was only taught about them to support the (((theory))) of macroevolution.
That is the battle we we find ourselves in today, Cro-magnon vs Neandrathal.
It is also important to point out that our enemies are in contact with the Djinn in the demonic realm, and the Djinn hate our guts. It is something to keep in mind when trying to understand what’s happening here with all of the wars, etc.
The Secret Masonic Victory of World War Two Part 12 The Spanish Armada and The Occult
“Adam” in Hebrew means to turn red in the face. Caucasians are the only people who can blush.
The Secret Masonic Victory of World War Two Part 19
The “learned” rabbis claim that “Adam” refers to the red soil or earth instead of his rosy skin color in order to hide the fact that Adam was white.
If their lips are moving, they’re lying.