The "Evangelical Universalist" is Revealed! (interview)

[Homer]

Hi Steve, et al,

It seems steve7150 is the only one who caught the point I was attempting to make and addressed my concern. Earlier Steve (Gregg) had written:

A man is saved when he denies himself, and places God's interests above his own. Until then, he is just playing at religion—a game that might not keep him from hell anyway.

In my post I listed a few scriptures that indicate salvation (justification) is by faith. To my mind Jesus' story of the tax gatherer in Matthew 18:13 perfectly illustrates the idea: we are saved by admitting our helplessness and casting ourself, by faith, on the mercies of our Lord. These scriptures are unambiguous. As steve7150 has pointed out, statements like the quote above leave a person unsure of exactly what level of conformity to the ideal is sufficient. And they leave a feeling that, as Paul said of the Law, only brings condemnation, for we do not always put God's interests above our own, or even know what His interest is.

Perhaps an illustration will help. We have a large yard with a number of mature deciduous trees. There will soon be a huge amout of leaves to clean up. I have rakes and an old gas powered leaf blower that doesn't work very well. I am thinking when I go into town tomorrow that I will buy a good leaf blower. But what are God's interests in the matter? Should I rake them by hand, a huge and time consuming task, and give the price of the leaf blower to the poor? Hire some kids to rake leaves? Or will God be satisfied with whatever decision I make? Or does our giving that we routinely do "give us a pass" on this one? I do not know.

I occasionally listen to and enjoy R. C. Sproul, although I am not at all a Calvinist. But I regard him as a brother and respect him. The other day he made an honest and humble confession. He said that the greatest commandment was to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. And he confessed that there was not a day in his life that he could say he lived up to that commandment. Is R. C. saved or lost? It seems to me he is in the same place as the tax collector I referenced earlier.

I realize I am off-topic here and perhaps this requires a new thread, but I can not think of a more important topic.

[steve]

Homer,

These concerns arise from a wrong view of God. They forget that He is a Father and we are His children, and seem to proceed on the assumption that He is like the IRS tax auditor, looking for any defect in our tax return so that He can nail us for the slightest error.

I am a father, and I can not imagine dealing with my son in such a way as to make him as nervous as one who worries whether or not God will be displeased by the purchase of a leaf blower. I do believe that such decisions, for the Christian, must be made in full view of our stewardship responsibilities. However, I would seldom find occasion to sit down and wonder whether I am adequately putting God's interests above my own in buying the name brand of breakfast cereal rather than the store brand.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. However, the whole trajectory of the genuine Christian's life is to put the interests of God and His kingdom above those of any earthly agendas. We may mistake the will of God in a minor matter, but this is no reflection on our intention to please God in all of our decisions.

The decision to put God's interests first is a one-time life decision (called "conversion"), which is manifested in the motivations for the smaller decisions that are made every day. The Christian does not perfectly live out his commitments, any more than my children are perfect in their obedience or judgments. That has nothing to do with my acceptance of them, nor is it an occasion of nervousness in them.

[Paidion]

I appreciate your reply, Steve. Your analogy of a loving earthly father well expresses our relationship with the Heavenly Father. The writer of Hebrews also uses this analogy:

Hebrews 12: 3-5 Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? ... 7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?


When I have emphasized the words of Christ when He taught the cost of discipleship, forsaking all to follow Him, taking the narrow path that leads to life, etc., I have been bombarded with opinions that I am teaching "perfectionism", with the questions, "How do you know when you've done enough good works to be saved?", "Do you consider yourself to have arrived at sinless perfection?", etc. etc. etc.

I find that all of them see "salvation" as salvation from hell rather than from sin, and that they see "justification" as some sort of celestial legal contract, by which we are given Christ's cloak of righteousness, and are pronounced forgiven even though we continue in sin, for "it's not of works you know." They don't seem to understand, that it's the orientation of our whole life:

Have I forsaken all to follow Christ? Or do I only have to "believe"?

Did Jesus "pay it all" so that I can go free and live as I please? Or is my life lived in service to Christ?

Does Christ's sacrifice cover my sin so that when God looks at me He does not see my sin but Christ's righteousness? Or does Christ's sacrifice deliver me from sin and make me new?

Am I forgiven of all sin: past, present, and future ... so that I may sin with impunity?

Did Christ's sacrifice "pay" for my sin so that I don't have to? If so, why do I need forgiveness?

If our works have no relation to salvation, then what did Paul mean by the following?

For he will render to everyone according to his works: to those who by perseverance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give lasting life; but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth, but are persuaded by wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. Romans 2

[RickC]

I need to clarify some things re: the White Vs. Forsters debate where --

Interestingly, White argued that either Calvinism or Universalism has to be correct.
Need to listen to this one again too.

After another listen to both White Vs. Forsters debates, I can't affirm White actually said this. (I may have missed it, as I listen to 'talks' when I go to sleep and sometimes fall asleep during them)! At one point in one debate White said something to the effect that Calvinism and Universalism have the most 'biblical support'. It seems he meant that Calvinism and Universalism utilize 'more texts as proofs' for their positions, as contrasted with Conditional Immortality. This may be true. At any rate....

Homer said something about starting a new thread on a sub-topic (or sub-topics) that have come up on this thread. And since I linked to three Unbelievable! radio program interviews, I'm kind of "all over the place" in my thinking here! Well, one more paragraph, then I'll go....

I'm still studying Hell, but it's more along the lines of its significance with reference to partial-preterism (as I'm a partial-preterist). The thing is, theological topics overlap! One leads to another. Eventually, it's like they're all-tied-together. We all seek to have a unified, cogent worldview. One 'theme' that arose in the debates I linked to and on this thread is the idea of "God ultimately 'getting' what He wants." I'm thinking about that. However, I really don't want to debate about Universalism. Well, I'd best go for now. 'Need a cuppa coffee.

Thanks!

[Suzana]

I need to clarify some things re: the White Vs. Forsters debate where --

I wrote:Interestingly, White argued that either Calvinism or Universalism has to be correct.
Need to listen to this one again too.



After another listen to both White Vs. Forsters debates, I can't affirm White actually said this. (I may have missed it, as I listen to 'talks' when I go to sleep and sometimes fall asleep during them)! At one point in one debate White said something to the effect that Calvinism and Universalism have the most 'biblical support'. It seems he meant that Calvinism and Universalism utilize 'more texts as proofs' for their positions, as contrasted with Conditional Immortality.

Hi Rick, thanks for that clarification. :)

[Suzana]

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. However, the whole trajectory of the genuine Christian's life is to put the interests of God and His kingdom above those of any earthly agendas. We may mistake the will of God in a minor matter, but this is no reflection on our intention to please God in all of our decisions.

Thank you, that sums it up well for me (but I think would work even if we mistake the will of God in a major matter?).

I recently came across a quote in a book by Elisabeth Elliott that I really like, where someone told her that “following God is not like walking a tightrope.”

I don't think that God wants us to be constantly fearful of putting a foot wrong, but wants us to be prepared to act according to His leading.
In Homer's example regarding the leaf-blower for instance, I would think that if he decided that buying a new leaf-blower would be good stewardship, he should do that; however, if having decided that, he then felt prompted by the Holy Spirit to hire some kids to rake leaves instead, he should be willing to be obedient even if that turned out more costly, realising that it's actually God's money & he is just a steward of it.

As I was writing this (thinking out loud here...) I remembered that verse:

Philippians 2:12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; (NASB)

but also
1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. (NASB)

So is it then a matter of balance between a healthy fear and paranoia? Being careful to abide in Christ, and not to drift away? We love Him, because He first loved us.

1Jn 4:16 ESV
(16) So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.


And even if we mess up badly -

Psa 51:10-12 KJV
(10) Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
(11) Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
(12) Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.


There needs to be joy...surely there can't be joy if there is constant fearfulness, as if walking that tightrope.

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

It may surprise you to know your last post is very much like my own view. Early on in this thread you wrote something capable of being understood in more than one way and I have been "testing all things" to determine if I am on the right path, or on the path at all.

You wrote:

A man is saved when he denies himself, and places God's interests above his own. Until then, he is just playing at religion—a game that might not keep him from hell anyway.

In this sentence I see the tension between faith and works that theologians comment about. When you say a person "is just playing at religion" a red flag goes off in my mind and I think "unsaved"; someone who is not a Christian at all. So then I question what self denial entails. Since most all Christians I know only appear to do this by degree, or more precisely imperfectly, we are left not knowing where the line is, or how good we must be. And then, on the other hand, we have our heart attitude to consider. Perhaps that is what counts. And then you use "might" in reference to hell, which softens what you say a bit, and I was left confused.

And you wrote:

Until a person is more concerned that God should get what He deserves than that the sinner (self) should avoid getting what he deserves, we have not really repented of the self-centered core that makes us sinners.

And here again I understand you to say the person is unsaved. He has not repented of selfishness because he came to Christ to avoid hell. Perhaps this is not what you meant, as a week or so ago on the Narrow Path program you indicated you agreed with my contention that most people become Christians because of fear of the consequences of their state (this was in a conversation you had with someone else). The statement quoted above appears to require a person to be a couple steps up Bernard's "Ladder of Love" to be a Christian at all. And again it appears I misunderstood you.

The decision to put God's interests first is a one-time life decision (called "conversion"), which is manifested in the motivations for the smaller decisions that are made every day. The Christian does not perfectly live out his commitments, any more than my children are perfect in their obedience or judgments. That has nothing to do with my acceptance of them, nor is it an occasion of nervousness in them.

With this I fully concur. If the Christian "dies to self", this is when it occurs, Romans 6. We die with Christ and rise to a new life. Perhaps our Father is not the cause of nervousness in His children but He is "helped out" at times by those of us who teach and preach the word.

God bless you brother, Homer

[Todd]

Todd wrote:

A life overcome in sin is a miserable existence.

This is no doubt often the case, but, as Homer has sometimes pointed out, there are many sinners who seem to be quite oblivious to the "fact" that they are miserable—and the Psalms often puzzle over this observation (e.g., Psalm 73). Paul felt that he, and others in his condition (though righteous), were "of all men most miserable" (1 Cor.15:19).

I do not think that we can count on a sinner's life in this world being his "hell"—since, for many sinners, this life is a paradise. We cannot even speculate that the sinner's secret heart is tormented by the burden of his guilt. It seems to me that the most exquisite pangs of guilt and self-reproach are reserved for those seeking to be holy—"O wretched man that I am!"

Steve,

Gal 6:7-8
Be not deceived ; God is not mocked : for whatsoever a man soweth , that shall he also reap.
For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption,

If we believe that this verse is true, then we must accept that those who are carnal-minded will be corrupted on some level. I think we sometimes look at the outward things (wealth, social standing, power) and are puzzled why God sends rain on the just and unjust. Christ is after the hearts of men and his blessings are spiritual (joy, peace, etc.).

Homer has brought up the case of Hugh Hefner who has made a fortune appealing to the fleshly temptations of men. No doubt, leading many astray. Is there some post-life recompense for him? Has he suffered any retribution in this life for this? God knows. I believe that there can be no satisfaction making a profit on things that harm others; rather, only guilt or shame.

My contention is that God is fully capable of raising the dead in full subjection to Christ and I believe this is what the scriptures promise. "The dead shall be raised incorruptible" (1 Cor 15:52). There is no need for post-death punishment.

1 Cor 15:28
28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

Todd

[steve]

Gal 6:7-8
Be not deceived ; God is not mocked : for whatsoever a man soweth , that shall he also reap.
For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption,

If we believe that this verse is true, then we must accept that those who are carnal-minded will be corrupted on some level.

The idea that all unrepentant sinners are secretly miserable would be as legitimate a conclusion to reach from this verse as that all righteous people are free from such misery and are secretly delighted. This may be true, but if it is, I am going to have to change most of my assessments of who is evil and who is righteous (and exclude myself from the latter), and adopt a philosophy like that of Job's counselors. They were pretty sure that heaven and hell were the earthly experiences of the righteous and the wicked, respectively. The Bible does not vindicate their philosophy.

We must admit that Jesus said the rewards of the righteous "reap" are in "the resurrection of the just" (Luke 14:14; cf., Heb.11:35), which suggests that the sinners also reap their ultimate rewards in the next life.

[Todd]

The idea that all unrepentant sinners are secretly miserable would be as legitimate a conclusion to reach from this verse as that all righteous people are free from such misery and are secretly delighted.

God is no respecter of persons. No one is purely righteous and therefore even Christians reap what they sow when they sin.

This may be true, but if it is, I am going to have to change most of my assessments of who is evil and who is righteous (and exclude myself from the latter), and adopt a philosophy like that of Job's counselors. They were pretty sure that heaven and hell were the earthly experiences of the righteous and the wicked, respectively.

We must admit that Jesus said the rewards of the righteous "reap" are in "the resurrection of the just" (Luke 14:14; cf., Heb.11:35)

While I do believe that all receive spiritual rewards and punishments in this life, I would not say that heaven is an earthly experience because I do believe in the resurrection and immortality. I also concede that there may be various rewards for acts of service in the resurrection.

which suggests that the sinners also reap their ultimate rewards in the next life.

While one might draw that conclusion, these verses do not state as you have suggested.

All that being said, I fully admit that I could be wrong in these assertions, but they make the most sense to me with my current level of understanding the scriptures and my own observations and experiences.

Todd