Why not Universal Reconciliation?

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by Homer » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:09 pm

crgfstr1,

You asked:
Homer, I don't understand how points 2 and 3 from Steve's statement which are possibilities (don't have to be probabilities) can be refuted by other alternative possibilities. In order to say that 2 and 3 aren't possibilities, scripture needs to be provided that clearly shows they aren't possibilities. Stating other possibilities neither rules them out or in as alternative possibilities.
I think you, and possibly Steve, are confusing "fact" and "truth". A fact is literally "that which has been done". Facts are always true but something may be true and not be a fact. Something that is a possibility is by definition not a fact.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by Paidion » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:54 pm

Yes, "fact" has its origin in the Latin "factum"— "that which has been made or done." But that is now considered to be an obsolete or archaic meaning. The word now means "that which is actual" or "that which is known to be true."

Concerning the current meaning, you might want to check dictionaries:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... glish/fact

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

crgfstr1
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:55 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by crgfstr1 » Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:29 pm

Homer wrote:crgfstr1,

You asked:
Homer, I don't understand how points 2 and 3 from Steve's statement which are possibilities (don't have to be probabilities) can be refuted by other alternative possibilities. In order to say that 2 and 3 aren't possibilities, scripture needs to be provided that clearly shows they aren't possibilities. Stating other possibilities neither rules them out or in as alternative possibilities.
I think you, and possibly Steve, are confusing "fact" and "truth". A fact is literally "that which has been done". Facts are always true but something may be true and not be a fact. Something that is a possibility is by definition not a fact.
Thanks Homer. When a statement is made that includes the term "it is possible that" or some similar qualifier then it can still be a fact. In order for it to be not a fact one has no to prove "no it is not possible". If the statement doesn't include a qualifier then one need merely prove that other options exist. That would then disprove it.

To say that it is possible that someone is young can be a fact unless you prove they are old. To say it is possible that they are old can also be a fact unless proven that the person is indeed not old.

Steve put:
2) nothing prevents God from extending the opportunity for salvation beyond the grave, or however long as He wishes, to obtain His desire, and
You put:
2) And nothing prevents God from setting a time limit. I believe there is biblical support for the idea that for all practical purposes the time for some persons runs out before death.

Both are facts and I agree with both unless someone can prove from scripture that one or the other isn't possible. They don't cancel each other out. They are two alternatives.

My position (and I believe Steve's) is that the bible is inconclusive and all three options are possible. None can be completely ruled out by scripture. It seems to me like you are stating that scripture dictates that UR is not an option. Please let me know if that is the case one way or the other.

I am not interested in which of the 3 options are best right now based on the best interpretations. The question is there anything in scripture that completely and definitively rule out one of the options.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by Homer » Wed Jun 08, 2016 9:53 am

crgfstr1,

When I read the various statements that Jesus made in scriptures regarding the final judgement I find it highly improbable that universalism is true. Jesus' words, particularly in His parables seem to rule it out. Tares thrown in the furnace, virgins refused entry into the wedding feast though they cried Lord, lord, open up for us, the sheep and the goats, etc. These are not difficult to understand.

I think John Wenham hit the nail on the head:
And let it be quite clear that these realities are awful indeed. Jesus and his disciples taught again and again in terrible terms that there is an irreversible judgment and punishment of the unrepentant. Warnings and loving invitations intermingle to encourage us to flee the wrath to come.
The problem we have is that we all are inclined to believe what we want to believe. The wife, for example, who refuses to believe the signs that her husband is a philanderer, although all around her see it.

I have no desire that people suffer in hell but I feel compelled to defend what I believe is true. Jesus and the Apostles thought it needful to give all the threats and warnings and why would they leave the impression they give if untrue? They weren't politicians. I think it is wrong to diminish their words or explain them away.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by steve » Wed Jun 08, 2016 10:45 am

Hi Homer,

I wrote:
Homer is at it again, making the same false statements that he has made (and been unable to defend when challenged) for many years.
To which you replied:
My reaction to this was that I had encountered "road rage" on the narrow path. Do you mean knowingly false as in lies?
My words are correct as they were written. It is uncharitable to read into them negative implications that are not there. I made no accusation that you have lied—only that your statements are untrue. If you do not know that they are untrue, then you have not lied. However, it is hard to explain how you could not know that they are false, since it has been pointed out to you that Restorationism does not explain anything away. I assume you mean that Restorationists "explain away" verses that support the Traditional View and Conditionalism. I have never observed this to be a regular practice of Restorationists—certainly not more so than is the practice of adherents to the other views. What you call "explaining away" is what most objective people would call "exegesis," and "taking things in context."

As I mention in my book, each view has some verses that, prima facie, are difficult to accommodate. This seems less so for Restorationism than for Traditionalism. Responsible exegesis applied to all texts is the proper way to sort through the confusion. When proper exegesis shows that a verse has been improperly used in the defense of a certain position, those of that position may feel that their "proof text" has been explained away. I can think of, perhaps, two or three verses in the Bible that are difficult for the Restorationist view. I can find a far greater number that are difficult for the Traditional View. Yet, you say Restorationism "explains away" these two or three verses, but you do not make the same charge against Traditionalists—who have to "explain away" almost the whole of the Bible. It sounds like the "road rage" is on your side of the road.

You wrote:
Some years back you provided a long list from the Old Testament which purported to support universalism. I could not find that support in any of them. They all could easily be understood otherwise. And interestingly I found your book to move me more toward the traditional position, though I lean toward CI.
As I recall, you challenged me to provide verses of scripture which, prima facie, support universal reconciliation. I provided a list of (I think) about thirty (your memory may serve better than mine as to the actual number). A handful of them would, naturally, have been from the Old Testament, since we would expect the truth to be the same in both testaments, but the bulk of the support for Restorationism comes from the New Testament...especially Paul. Since 90% of the support for Conditionalism (which you prefer) comes from the Old Testament, I don't know why you would object to the use of Old Testament in the support of other views.

You wrote:
The tactics of the Universalist are the same as the other liberal positions employ regarding feminism and homosexuality. Get the most direct scriptural statements out of the way (example: "I do not permit a woman to teach") and then move the argument to the ambiguous passages and philosophy.
Hmmm. Would it be asking too much to request documentation of this broad charge? I have not found these "tactics" among Restorationists. Perhaps you have read different advocates of the position than those that I have read. Could you give some examples, or are you simply content to make charges against brethren without any exhibits A, B or C to back them up? When I criticize your arguments, I regularly point out the examples of your "tactics", as I am doing here. It would show honesty and decency for you to do the same.

You wrote:
Perhaps you can take up the challenge to find one passage in scripture, parable or otherwise, descriptive of the final judgement and fate of the lost, that is favorable to universalism.
Unlike the other views, Evangelical Universalism is not based primarily on proof texts about the day of judgment. There are few such texts available in scripture that are specific enough to prove or disprove Universal Reconciliation. Restorationism is based, not on ambiguous proof texts about the final judgment, but on what the Bible, and especially Jesus, tells us about the character and purposes of God. If this is not clear to you, then I recommend that you read the chapters in my book (I believe you have a copy) that are relevant to this viewpoint.

I wrote:
While Restorationism is at least as "scriptural," to the objective exegete, as is any other view, it also may be the most "philosophically" coherent (or most "theologically" harmonious with the biblical view of God), in that it makes the most logical sense of certain known scriptural facts, namely:

1) that God desires all men to be saved,

2) nothing prevents God from extending the opportunity for salvation beyond the grave, or however long as He wishes, to obtain His desire, and

3) it is not known whether any human being is capable of resisting the unending dealings of omnipotent Providence without eventually changing.

These three statements are factual. Taken together, they make Restorationism a very "philosophically" and "theologically" sound option.
Though you challenged two of these three "facts," you did not show that any of them is untrue or unscriptural. Instead you engaged in ther irrelevancy of maintaining a non-existent distinction between "fact" and "truth." I wonder what you might have answered, had I simply called these facts "truths" instead. It would have changed nothing, except for removing your ability to distract from the validity of the points presented. I maintain that all three are indeed facts, and that the only way you can disprove this claim would be to find and produce exceptions to them.

You disagreed with #2: "nothing prevents God from extending the opportunity for salvation beyond the grave, or however long as He wishes, to obtain His desire."

If this statement is incorrect (i.e., not factual) then please tell us what it may be that necessarily prevents God from extending such opportunities beyond the grave. I await your answer with abated breath.

You disagreed with #3: "it is not known whether any human being is capable of resisting the unending dealings of omnipotent Providence without eventually changing."

If you wish to show this statement to be false to fact, please tell me precisely how it is that we know the thing which I said is not known to us.

If you cannot meet these challenges, then my three facts remain un-toppled, and my point unanswered.

Your most recent post cites certain passages as teaching something about final judgment—but, as usual, without any exegesis. Good exegesis in support of your view would have to demonstrate two important assumptions to be true:

1) that these passages are about the final judgment, and

2) that the agonies described will never be reversed by repentance, despite numerous statements of scripture about future universal worship and confession of Christ.

I await your exegesis.

You wrote:
The problem we have is that we all are inclined to believe what we want to believe.
You have told us that you don't like the idea of people suffering in hell, yet you believe in it. Thus you apparently believe you have overcome this human tendency. Do you suppose you are the only one? On previous occasions, when you have made this same point, I have told you that I have never liked the Traditional view of hell. However, I taught it for 40 years because I thought this was the teaching of scripture. In other words, the tendency of human nature was no more dictating my theology than you think it dictates yours (though your recent shift from Traditionalism to Conditionalism may indicate that you are not any more immune from human tendencies than anyone else). I still have the same feelings about the Traditional view that I always had. It is my study of scripture—not some newly acquired revulsion to it— that has caused me to reject it.

You wrote:
The wife, for example, who refuses to believe the signs that her husband is a philanderer, although all around her see it
This analogy seems to liken God to the philandering husband, and the universalist to the trusting wife who believes him to be honorable. One difference is that the wife in the illustration is trusting in the integrity of a mere man—not a safe thing to do, nor recommended in scripture (Jer.17:5). By contrast, the Christian's trust is in the character of God. No Christian is a fool to defend God's own statements about His own character against slanderous accusations against Him.
I have no desire that people suffer in hell but I feel compelled to defend what I believe is true. Jesus and the Apostles thought it needful to give all the threats and warnings and why would they leave the impression they give if untrue? They weren't politicians. I think it is wrong to diminish their words or explain them away.
It is good to have every side defended here. However, a defense that resorts to transparently false accusations against an opposing view only makes your position appear the weaker. If you can attempt to refute exegetically the points made by the view that you are objecting to, your case will appear stronger.

crgfstr1
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:55 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?

Post by crgfstr1 » Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:53 am

Homer wrote: I have no desire that people suffer in hell
Are you more loving then God? Does God desire to see people suffer? What good is the suffering if it neither ends nor eventually brings people to God?

No doubt as you point out and I agree the Tares are thrown in the furnace or lake of fire. It is indeed an awful thing to go through. The question is why would a loving God do such a thing? Doesn't fire purify?

The concept that a Loving God would punish people for eternity keeps many many people away from God. We need to be sure it is accurate if we tell others this, otherwise we may wrongly scare people away from God rather than leading them to Him.

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”