Page 1 of 1

Olson Blog on Universalism

Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:48 am
by mattrose
I thought this was a good blog post by Roger Olson. I especially found this quote interesting...

"Universalists are Calvinists with soft hearts and a true vision of the love of God shown in Jesus Christ. Arminians are immune to universalism because we believe God’s love includes permitting the beloved to walk away and reject God’s mercy."

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/01/2627/

Re: Olson Blog on Universalism

Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:54 am
by dizerner
[user account removed]

Re: Olson Blog on Universalism

Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:36 pm
by Paidion
"Universalists are Calvinists with soft hearts and a true vision of the love of God shown in Jesus Christ."
I believe in the ultimate reconciliation of all people to God, and yet I strongly reject Calvinism. I don't call myself a "Universalist" because to many people's minds, this designation implies the belief that all people will automatically go to heaven, with or without repentance. My belief is that everyone will have to repent and submit to the authority of the Messiah, just as you and I did, in order to get right with God, and that everyone will, in fact, do that, sooner or later, of his own free will. As one character in a novel by George MacDonald said to another, "You'll either repent now, or you'll repent in hell!"

"Arminians are immune to universalism because we believe God’s love includes permitting the beloved to walk away and reject God’s mercy."
I, also "believe that God’s love includes permitting the beloved to walk away and reject God’s mercy." But I am not an Arminian.

Re: Olson Blog on Universalism

Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:22 pm
by Homer
Hey, Olson has stolen that idea from me! I have long argued that universalism is as deterministic as Calvinism. Good example are the Primitive Baptists who out do the Calvinists regarding Calvinism and are universalists.

Re: Olson Blog on Universalism

Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:48 pm
by Paidion
Yes, there are a number of universalists who believe God will override free will in order to save all. I don't think they are in the majority.

ONE BRANCH of the Primitive Baptists hold to universalism. But the main original group does not.

Here is their website:

http://www.primitive-baptist.com/

Re: Olson Blog on Universalism

Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:59 pm
by Paidion
Here's an issue of The Remnant, a publication of the main Primitive Baptist group, which clearly teaches that Jesus died for only the elect:

http://www.primitive-baptist.com/remnan ... 9-MA14.pdf

Re: Olson Blog on Universalism

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:48 am
by Choosethisday
I automatically receive the emails from the Patheos forum whenever Roger Olson posts articles there. I find him and Steve among the limited number of people who, and I don't feel this way just because I generally agree with them, make cogent arguments that avoid the constrictions of the traditionalists understanding of Scripture. Several days ago, in reviewing a book written by a Calvinist, he coined or repeated a phrase I had not heard before. He used the term "Popes" in referring to the many popular evangelistic leaders who seem to shape and define evangelistic theology. So many evangelicals defer to these popes without ever critically examining their positions. Even my pastor tried to sustain a position him and I disagree over based on John Piper's position. Right or wrong, we should defer to Scripture and coherent logic instead of popular leaders. I urge others to read more of Olson's postings.

Re: Olson Blog on Universalism

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:29 pm
by mattrose
My comment on Olson's blog was that calvinists are more likely to become dogmatic universalists, in my opinion. Arminians are more likely to become hopeful universalists. Of course, there are always exceptions.

Re: Olson Blog on Universalism

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:24 pm
by steve
Here's an issue of The Remnant, a publication of the main Primitive Baptist group, which clearly teaches that Jesus died for only the elect:

http://www.primitive-baptist.com/remnan ... 9-MA14.pdf
I read part of the lead article and found it amusing (and alarming) that the author quoted a number of scriptures about God "hating" and "abhoring" the "workers of iniquity" (which would have to include "the elect" prior to their conversions!), and then went on to affirm that Jesus did not die to atone for those whom He hated and abhorred.

Yet, the Bible says that, "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom.5:8). While we were yet sinners, many of us were "the wicked" and and "the workers of iniquity"—yet Jesus died for us, according to Paul. How, then, can it be denied that Jesus died for those whom He "hated" and "abhorred"?