Very well done Brother. Keep it up. Yahweh bless your efforts.

Great stuff as usual! Glad you are still making these videos!

Your arguments are valid and your videos well made! It's a pleasure to watch and easy to follow.

Glad I found this channel. Watching from Canada.

Both MacArthur and Piper teach TULIP. I wouldn't expect someone who believes and loves the heresy of Limited Atonement to offer an honest reading of any scripture that supports universal reconciliation. Either one loves the truth and comes to it, or they suppress it and hide in darkness unto depravity.

John MacArthur and John Piper speak of context and then blow Colossians 1:20 all out of context

Just found this channel today 05/19/24. Im not sure yet what i think about this concept but i appreciate your simple ,clear and no extra " noise" style of presenting it. Subscribed.

Superb teaching.

Great vid, though i would disagree that the best hermanuticle structure is to interperate scripture with other scripture. Rather the best reading of the bible (as with all theological acts) is to take a strictly Christocentric view, reading all scripture thru thelens of Gods self revelation in Christ.

It really bothers me how so many Christians so easily reject the universal perfect order being the end of all ends just because there are other verses that seem ti indicate ECT. Its like most Israelites reject Jesus as their Messiah because there are other verses in Hebrew Bible that says that Messiah will bring peace justice ans order that Jesus did not bring.

Hello. I want to become a Christian universalist, the only issue I am having is that every universalist that I know of is either bald, balding, or has a receding hairline. As someone with a full head of luscious locks I am afraid that universalism will result in my hair dissolving. What would be your advice to me? Kind regards.

Where did you find the John MacArthur quote? I would love to reference it in a paper that I’m working on.

Very worthy of pondering upon! Jesus sacrifice appears to be greater than Adam's sin....in every way😊 Really appreciate your thoroughness with this subject!

Masterfully handled once again 🙏 I’ll only leave a short comment this time, but just to say you are one of the only non-Catholics I listen to, I think you’re a brilliant and careful exegete, and your teaching deserves to be heard far and wide. Thank you again for all of your hard work with these videos 🙏

Was it Wycliffe? that said " i should have it that even the plow boy should be able to read scripture" The Universal salvation makes that possible... even for fool like me, and what joy it is !!!

If Universalism is going to spread, then prominent proponents of ECT must be taken on as is done in this excellent video. I have never respected John McArthur or John Piper and view their wide following as indicative of shallow knowledge of the Scriptures among most Christians. McArthur’s definition of “reconciled” is absurd and Piper’s parallel universe are both examples of desperation.

How does Universalism square the passages that say the fate of the unbelievers is death, perish, burned up, you will look for them and will not find them and what is the eternal punishment for them?

Yet again, thank you brother so much for this clear and concise exposition of this passage(my favourite!). The heart of Christian Universalism is written as clear as day in its verses.

I fear my comment may have been deleted. If not, apologies for commenting twice. The gist of what I said is that JMac is not someone you should respect. If you want to know why, you should look up Julie Roys’ journalism on the subject. Specifically about how he’s handled children and staff at his church. I don’t want my comment to get flagged again but it’s not good.

I think you're correct that all biblical texts must be taken seriously and not dismissed. What this means is that the apparent universalist passages cannot be isolated from the many other passages that don't seem to teach universalism. Let's continue to honestly wrestle with the texts and not be so quick to advocate for universalism. After all, the vast majority of the Church has not agreed with you for 2,000 years. Surely that must count for something.

I will take Jesus at his word, the finished work of the cross, John 19.30, and Jesus will literally drag, all people to himself, John 12:32, enough said!!!

Are you an Eastern Orthodox Christian?

I disagree that Jesus tasted death for angels. Reconciliation in Collosians in context is about the Chruch. The word "things" is not in the Greek. All is referring to the closest subject, the Church. If you take it the reconciliation is for all created things, then you would be saying Jesus died for animals and insects too, and in vain, because they did not fall. Also, why would Jesus die for non fallen Angels.

I really need help with this. If God cannot fail to achieve his will, meaning nothing can happen that he hasn't designed to happen since nothing can happen that thwarts God in any way, then that means God has specifically designed every thought we ever had or will have, every action we've ever taken, it means we have no free will and the most heinous atrocities we've ever done were designed by God and imposed on us. See, if all will be saved because it is his will and he cannot fail to achieve his will, then nothing can ever happen big or small that can run counter to his will. So that means everything that happens IS his will, every murder, all torture, all suffering and terror, all of it must be his choosing, his design. So if we don't have free will, then the argument of the existence of sin no longer works because we couldn't choose to love or not love God and thus sin cant enter the world by opposition to God because nothing in opposition to God can exist as that would violate his will, it would harm him, God would experience loss. If God can experience loss then God can lose people forever and not save them.

Do you believe everyone is saved?

When people explain away a passage, I find it to be a problem. When they incorporate new senses of a word that is found nowhere else, such as "forced into submission" for "reconcile," I am certain they are wrong. If they have to incorporate pop sci-fi understandings that don't have any bearing on real science, then it has no hope. And that reminds me of one of the stark challenges to universalism. The authors of Scripture viewed I Enoch as Scripture, with all that entails. Jude quotes it as a prophecy. This makes it inspired, pretty much by definition (an uninspired prophecy is about as sensible as a four-sided triangle). Jesus, in his dispute with the Sadducees, alluded to I Enoch 15 then read his conviction from the Scriptures the Sadducees rejected (angels do not marry I En 15 and men will be like the angels Dan 12) back into the Law. There are other references besides. It didn't make the canon, and arguably for very good reasons. However, for the writers of Scripture it was Scripture. I Enoch is not friendly to universalism at all. It is, arguably, the text from second Temple Judaism that is most hostile to it. How would you propose reconciling those passages with NT authors who we can demonstrate treated it as Scripture? Everyone but Paul and James depend on it in a substantial way somewhere. I can give evidence Paul rejected it and James never uses it). This means, for their thinking, they have to reconcile I Enoch on the same standards you're pointing out John MacArthur would have to be reconciled, and because they have to, we have to grandfather it in some on the question where on most we wouldn't need to consider it. The only use of I Enoch where I can see the how it could be reconciled is in I Pet 3.19. The others do not lend themselves so well.

It’s just hard to believe that someone dying without Christ would eventually make it into heaven. Even from the universalist perspective it’s funny how nobody knows how long the “purification” part of this lake of fire is. I’ve watched videos were some Jews believe that the soul must undergo torment for around a year before it can go back to God. I’m not sure if universalism is the same. It’s hard to entertain universalism and Gods justice from what I’ve been told and understood from the Bible since I’ve read and studied it. Right now I’m in a season to where I’m not even sure what to believe but that’s a whole other topic. I just need clarity or help on how you guys can understand or make peace with universalism. For example I’ve heard universalist use scripture like 1st Corinthians 15:22 : (New King James Version) 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. I understand this to mean in Adam all humanity has been made to die spiritually and literally because of sin. But those that put their faith in Christ will be made alive. Notice that those who do not put their faith in Christ will not be made a live, they will still be in a state/destiny of death. I’m just trying to find the compatibility of universalism but I can’t. Know that my reason of these points is not meant to hate anybody but I just don’t get it. I don’t get universalism or its defense in scripture.

One of the first things Jesus said in his ministry was “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:7). I just can’t see how the ideas of universalism hold up against scripture. If it were really true, we might as well have been instructed to eat donuts and sit on the couch until we die because everyone will be saved anyway, regardless if the gospel is preached. It’s a doctrine that feels good in my tummy and tickles my ears, but at the end of the day it doesn’t add up with scripture. Why would Paul express lament for those living as “enemies of the cross of Christ” in Philippians if everyone will be saved anyway? Why did Jesus talk about separating the sheep from the goats if everyone will be saved anyway? Why would Jesus tell us in the parable of the ten virgins that we ought to “keep watch” if everyone will be saved anyway? I admire the effort to say everyone will make it to heaven, but there’s just no way to really pull that out of scripture in view of the whole Bible. Certain passages might seem to suggest universal salvation, while neighboring passages refute the idea altogether. Universalist theology falls flat when the entire Bible is taken into account. Instead, it is better to celebrate the amazing grace offered through Jesus, and to share that good news with as many people as possible. “We are ambassadors of Christ, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:20) There is no need to “implore” people to repent if everyone has a guaranteed ticket to heaven anyway. But there is great reason to celebrate that we have a free gift of salvation offered to us in Christ. Bless you, brother!

First off there is no hell in the true Hebrew or Greek scriptures from cover to cover, Jesus never said it and his apostles never taught it, and second off so far in your reconciliation text, you haven't mentioned 2 Corinthians 5:18 and 19 which is the same as the Colossians text, that was God was in Christ, reconciling the cosmos to himself,!!! You're right about the reconciliation business, and you're dead wrong about Hell, hell is purely a pagan myth, and is not in the Bible from cover to cover, Hell came to us, Viva la Latin Vulgate, thanks to Mr Augustine,!!!!!!!

I'm not a big McArthur fan, but I don't get how you can say that his point is weak when he is simply making a very logical and most basic, commonly used argument. If you think that Analogia Scriptura is an exegesis of the absolute worst kind, you are opening up a massive can of worms when it comes to MANY other believes that many have held to justify some serious problematic beliefs. Case in point. How do we argue that Jesus is God, contrary to the Jehovah's Witness belief that Jesus was a creation of the Father? You have to use other scriptures like John 1:1 to argue against their main foundational scripture of labeling Jesus as "the first born of all creation". If the first born of all creation is left on its own, then it stands to reason that Jesus was created. Plus, let's use your perspective, but let's turn the tables. In Matt 12:32, regarding the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and the sin that won't be forgiven in this age or the next, if we leave that scripture as is, then it never says forgiveness will eventually happen because it doesn't elaborate more after the next "age". So you would have to give another scripture to help explain that there would be an age of the "next age" to where all will be reconciled by using a reconciliation type scripture. Of course you use this same logic of analogia scriptura. All universalists of every group use it to contradict 'salvation for some', type scriptures. So if you're saying that McArthur's argument is "exegesis of the worst kind", then you're guilty of the same thing and contradicting yourself. Plus, the bigger thing is, I've heard you do it in other videos. Bottom line is, you don't like that argument because it's a legit argument and it does rationally explain the position of "salvation for some". It doesn't mean it's true or false, but it's a fully legit argument that everyone uses whether they know they are using it or not.

The full context of Colossians 1 is important. This guy conveniently left out Col 1:23 which says: “Col 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. “ “If indeed you continue in the faith”. Salvation is by God’s grace, in faith in Christ alone in this life. Heed the words from the book of Hebrews: Heb 10:29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? Heb 10:30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." Heb 10:31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Go home John MacArthur.

You behaving as an Unitarian Universalist. You claim to be Orthodox yet disagree that salvation is within the Orthodox Church. You disagree with the consensus of the fathers, of what the great majority of saints taught, instead relying upon your own interpretation and a few hand picked examples, most of which aren't even saints. At the same time, you seem to be stuck to the Latin idea of sin as guilt, not as a sickness of the soul. Do you hold the same view of hell as the fathers of the church? Because if you see hell as a mere punishment, as having direct parallel to incarceration and judgment, then you're instead relying on a protestant view.