You wrote:
...and, I might add, as Paul said that we also were (Eph.2:1ff). It doesn't bother any of us that such children of the devil as ourselves might be granted the mercy of being adopted as God's sons. I am not sure what could possibly seem objectionable to people such as ourselves, were God to extend the same mercy to such children of the devil as Hitler or Hefner? How would such objections differ from the attitude of prodigal's older brother?The analogy of God, as Father, to good human fathers does not hold in many respects. Your argument presupposes that God is the Father of such as the Hitlers and Hefners of this world. This is, IMO, false. They would seem to be children of the devil as Paul said of Elymas, Acts 13:10...
Is it possible that some of us who had to endure hard dealings from God before we repented might look back at those dealings as a kind of proleptic "discipline" of His [future] children? What if all of the suffering of mankind, including hell for some, turned out to be a disciplining of God's future sons? I just don't think we know enough to be sure that it isn't the case.It appears to me that God is not in the business of disciplining those who are not His children
If this giving over has only to do with their actions in this lifetime (and who could insist otherwise?), then it might still be consistent with a plan, at a later time, to break their resistance and save them. I don't know. I'm just saying there is nothing illogical about the suggestion.but, at some point at least, "gives them over" to the path they have chosen, Romans 1. Why would He ever do that if He is determined to save them?...
It would be no less just if God had established no cut-off point. There are many indications in scripture that there is a cut-off point, and that the point may be reached prior to death for some.
Yes, but Arminians, like you and me, believe that it means "every last person" in many contexts which Calvinists would dispute (especially passages about the extent of the atonement and of God's will to save). We have to grant that "all" does not always mean absolutely all, but, when dealing with Calvinists, we do think that the artificial limitation of the word without the pressure of contextual or grammatical necessity, especially when doing so has only the effect of limiting the grace of God, amounts to "special pleading" (a logical error—and an exegetical one, too).This mystery, the uniting (or summing up) of all things is clearly a reference to the gentiles being brought into the church on an equal basis with the Jews, a frequent topic of Paul's. And I should not need to prove again the obvious: "all" (pas) frequently does not literally mean all in total.
A tender heart, I suppose, can be a dangerous thing. I think the failure to have a tender heart (the opposite of which is a "hard heart") may also be an even more dangerous thing. I think the most important (and safest) thing is to have the heart of Jesus, and to assume that His Father has the same.The problem we have is one of bias. Bias that is based on noble ideas and a tender heart. It is easy to be inclined toward universalism, and the traditional and annihilationist views are not winsome. Yet the scriptures are full of threats directed to those who reject our Lord. God is not like the blustering Wizard of Oz.
[/quote]As I have argued from the beginning of this interminable discussion, souls will be lost because of the teaching of universalism. If universalism arguments are accepted, it can not be shown from scriptures that there is any time lapse at all between judgement day and when a person might repent. And this is all the unregenerate needs to hear before he decides to take his chances.
And I have argued from the beginning that the man who "accepts Christ" with no deeper intention than to hedge his bets is arguably a false disciple (that Jesus warned that there would be many such cannot be ignored).
I have heard this claim that preaching universalism will prevent some people from being genuinely saved—and perhaps it is true. I wonder if this claim is testable. The opposite assertion actually seems to have much anecdotal evidence in its favor—e.g., Mike (MDH), here at this forum, has said that he was driven away from Christ by the traditional doctrine of hell, and only came to Christ after he came to believe in universal reconciliation. He is by no means the only person with this testimony that I have met. Would anyone here would question the depth of his conversion?
Yet, I have not yet heard the testimonies of those who would say that, when they believed in universalism, they found God repugnant, but only came to love Him upon coming to the conviction that the traditional view of hell is true. There may be such people. I am not denying it. I simply would like to hear them speak up, since they would be one way to prove the assertion that preaching universalism keeps people from coming to Christ. Paul said it is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance. I think the anecdotal evidence that I have heard is that the traditional doctrine has kept more people from being saved than has an evangelical form of universalism.
I know that you feel like the Lone Ranger out here disputing the universal reconciliation position, but (while it may seem otherwise) I am personally not a convinced universalist. The reason I take many of your points to task is that I do not wish for myself, or anyone else, to reject any doctrine upon the basis of faulty exegesis or faulty logic.
