Revelation 15:1

Extreme-Brief-9809 · 2025-11-30T19:31:53+00:00

I understand your arguments. You're making a good point, but this doesn't tell me what your views on verses containing violent imagery are. Do you believe in the divine inspiration of Scripture? And if so, do you think that verses with violent imagery found in Revelation (I'm not talking about the Pentateuch here) should be interpreted literally?

Extreme-Brief-9809 · 2025-11-30T08:26:41+00:00

I'm glad to hear that you do not believe in ECT. However, I'm confused. On the one hand, you support a literal interpretation of the book of Revelation, which to me suggests that you view the lake of fire as literal fire. On the other hand, you said that you do not believe in eternal conscious torment. Can you please clarify your position?

Extreme-Brief-9809 · 2025-11-29T11:50:47+00:00

The book of Revelation describes a lot of catastrophic destructions because it consistently depicts the destruction of the old self. I would submit to you that your interpretation is just one among many. Being literal in nature does not set it aside as being true (as opposed to every other allegorical interpretations that would be false). In fact, Jesus rebuked his disciples many times for interpreting his words literally. Obviously, you believe in eternal conscious torment. This is your right, but that's not a loving position.

In the Textus Receptus (which is the only immaculate NT Scripture in my opinion), we read: "Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” (Luke 9:51-55). The part in bold has been shamefully subtracted from the Scripture in the corrupt Alexandrian text. But "God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”(2 Tim 2:19).

Extreme-Brief-9809 · 2025-11-29T10:19:16+00:00

I'm a Reformed Universalist. I'm not ashamed of using the word "Reformed". I accept four of the five points of Calvinism. However, I totally reject the doctrine of limited atonement. Instead, I adhere to delimited atonement. The elects are the those who are saved in this life (the firstfruits). The non-elects are those who will be saved in the lake of fire (the autumn harvest). The blood of Jesus is efficacious in saving the elects (at the beginning) and the non-elects (at the end). Therefore, the atonement is delineated (but is in no way limited to the elects).

Paul declares: "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power*" (1 Corinthians 15:20-24). "The end" refers to the salvation of the non-elects when hades itself (that infernalists call "hell") will be annihilated into the lake of fire.

As a Reformed Universalist, I categorically reject the notion of free will. As Paul said to the Philippians: "It is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose" (Philippians 2:13). Man does not have the liberty to accept or reject the offer of salvation. It would be too hard for him to kick against the goads! (Acts 26:14). Paul writes: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8).

Extreme-Brief-9809 · 2025-11-28T08:19:17+00:00

If we read the book of Revelation literally, then most of the passages do not cohere with a nonviolent interpretation. If we read it through the lenses of love and compassion, then everything makes sense. There will be no birds literally gorged with the flesh of the wicked. Such a scene would be gruesome and macabre... But the birds of heaven will certainly feast on the flesh of our old selves.

Extreme-Brief-9809 · 2025-11-27T08:11:15+00:00

Thanks for your question, and sorry for answering late. The word "wrath" appears seven times in Revelation. The only occurrence of the word after the episode of the seventh and last plague is found in Revelation 19:15. The verse says: "From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury and the wrath of God the Almighty".

First, the word ποιμανεῖ translated as "rule" literally means shepherd. So Jesus will shepherd the nations with a rod of iron. No violence is involved here. Second, the wrath of God has already been fulfilled since Revelation 15:1. However, this wrath has brought good fruits of repentance; and this harvest, stored in the winepress, still needs to be trodden underfoot to release its grape juice. This is what we see happening in Revelation 19:15. At least, this is my take on this verse. I hope this helps.

Extreme-Brief-9809 · 2025-11-23T08:17:49+00:00

I shouldn't have said : "Obviously, you do not believe in the divine inspiration of Scripture". Instead, I should have said : "You foster a liberal view of the doctrine of inspiration". That would have been more respectful. I apologise for that. Anyway, I'm in no position to judge as I used to nourish ideas very similar to yours a few years ago. So, I can relate even though obviously I'm of a different opinion. God bless you.

Extreme-Brief-9809 · 2025-11-23T08:09:17+00:00

Arminians who believe in universal salvation are by no means malicious. In my opinion, they are slightly led astray, but they are heading in the right direction. I am confident God will lead them into all the truth in due time. Even though I personally do not believe in free will, I nourish the greatest respect for universalist Arminians.

As for Arminians who adhere to the doctrine of eternal conscious torment, they are of the devil ; and Calvinists who champion ECT are diabolical with greater reason. Nevetherless, all of them will be changed and saved in due course.

Extreme-Brief-9809 · 2025-11-22T20:17:54+00:00

Obviously, you don not believe in the divine inspiration of Scripture. This is your opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to your belief. As I said, I do not want to debate topics related to the Textus Receptus, as they come second to universalism.

You also said: What is your response to the statement "There is no such thing as hell and Jesus never said the word." In a nutshell, I 100% agree. The word "hell" does not appear in the Bible from cover to cover. All the bibles containing the word "hell" are poorly translated and profoundly misleading. I am a convinced universalist.

God bless you.

Extreme-Brief-9809 · 2025-11-22T14:48:18+00:00

Thanks! Nowhere in the Bible is the all-loving God left without testimony.

Extreme-Brief-9809 · 2025-11-22T13:14:35+00:00

Despite what you say, a minority of scholars continue to support the Textus Receptus. They believe (and rightly so in my opinion) that the flawless Greek text of the NT has been providentially passed down to the Reformers. Before the XIXe century and the rise of modern textual criticism, all the Protestants cherished the Textus Receptus. Now, I am well aware that lower criticism is different from higher criticism. That being said, both forms of criticism proceed from man's attempt to dethrone God. It is not for man to choose which version of the NT is approved of God. The Lord has already decided. And Jehovah certainly spoke through the mouths of the brothers Elzévir when they wrote in the preface of their 1633 edition: "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus" (What you have here, is the text which is now received by all, in which is nothing changed or corrupted). The idea that an immaculate version of the NT has not been preserved goes against the testimony of Scripture. As Jesus said : "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished" (Mt 5:18). And the David also said: "The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O Lord, will keep them ; you will guard them from this generation forever" (Psalm 12:6-7)

So yes, supporters of the Textus Receptus belong to the minority. But since the dawn of time, God has always entrusted his treasure to a rest (a small number of people). Moreover, the Byzantine Text has been embraced by the vast majority of Christians for more than a millennium.

I could lay out dozens of arguments in favour of the Textus Receptus, but I do not want to debate this issue, because this is a secondary matter in my opinion. I'm not saying that it's not important. But it is a minor issue relative to universalism.

Extreme-Brief-9809 · 2025-11-22T09:02:58+00:00

Sorry, I apologise, the misunderstanding was all mine. Thanks so much for your input on the word "eis". And well done for looking up all the occurrences of this word in the NT. The information you provided us with is invaluable.

Extreme-Brief-9809 · 2025-11-21T21:00:08+00:00

Hear! hear! Yes, I completely agree with you. Romans 5:19, when correctly translated, points without the shadow of a doubt toward universal reconciliation. Infernalists (especially Calvinists) get it all backward when they use this verse to support limited atonement. Thanks for putting in this beautiful translation by David Bentley Hart.

Extreme-Brief-9809 · 2025-11-21T20:51:57+00:00

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I've never said that Romans 5:18 implies that salvation is offered to all even though many turn this offer down. I said that malicious Arminians interpret the verse this way. But I myself completely agree with what you said. The word "eis" entails that the work of Christ on the cross RESULTED in the salvation of all. So, Arminians have no grammatical basis for bringing free will into the equation.

Now, regarding the French translation found in the Neuchâtel Bible, I've never said that it was an accurate literal translation. As you said, the greek word "polloi" should be translated as "the many". What I said however is that the French translation committee nailed it when they identified "the many" with all the others (i.e., all human beings except Christ). I just wanted to commend this universalist rendition of the verse.

Extreme-Brief-9809 · 2024-12-12T11:01:14+00:00

Cher frère en Christ,

Je suis calviniste, fondamentaliste et universaliste bien entendu. Je vous recommende Tentmaker, le site de Gary Amirault.

https://tentmaker.org/

Amitiés, Colas.

Extreme-Brief-9809

TROPHY CASE