Top 10 UR Verses

[Guest]

Greetins mattrose,
I am encouraged by your courage to endevour to understand scripture and to do it with such kindness.

I have not studied all the viewpoints but I am (currently) a subscriber to UR. I was not totally convinced by talbott or Mcdonald but I was philosophically moved by talbot (Mcdonald shared the same experience in the introduction of his book).

For me the scriptures you quote are a bit telling for a UR but I find Talbotts strategy a lot more persuasive. His defense of the consitency of God's nature as being Just and Love all the time seems to be to be UNTOUCHABLE.

But the passages that caused me to move to the UR camp were ones that are not of a DIRECT relation.

One scripture is Jesus' prayer on the cross to forgive them for their ignorance.

It seems to me this verse is perhaps ONE of the most telling scriptures of the character of God.
namely, that God does not require you to ask for forgiveness (repent) for God to forgive you.

As a traditionalist, I was raised my whole life believing that I have to forgive in order to be forgiven. But Jesus prayer is not just a request.
He is the Living God who DOES Forgive sin. It seems to me that God did forgive us as he was upon the cross. It makes no sense to think Jesus did not forgive but asked God to forgive us.

this is IN DIRECT TENSIONS with romans that seems to state They DID KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING FOR GOD HAS MADE IT PLAIN TO SEE. or Genesis that stated THEY KNOW GOOD FROM EVIL.

So is Jesus wrong, did they know or not know what they were doing?

Paul also states a VERY similar point that FLYS in the face of NON-Universalists. God had mercy on me because of my IGNORANCE and UNBELIEF.

Since when does God bless the unbeliever? When is "ignorance" an excues?

So I find that non-U present NOTHING to explain away the grace of God which is in conflict with the law and our trying to be good to attain righteousness.

Mr. Talbott has presented the ideas that God indeed does as he pleases and where you state
Talbott doesn't even seem to dialogue with the difference b/w COULD & WOULD. He quotes a couple passages that argue that God DOES do everything He WANTS to do, but this is clearly not the case in my opinion. I wonder where how do you come to the conclusion that God does NOT WANT to do everything he wants.

I find it much more scriptual that God does indeed do what he wants. Nothing THWARTS his will.

Seems the only explanation, which Talbott requests from the reader, is what is the alternative. God DOES NOT get what he most wants?

So the question comes full circle,
Does God want MOST for all men to be saved?

Seems that the arm. defense of "God wants a real relationship" and therfore must allow the child to choose eternal damnation is exteremely weak.

I can say, I do not choose to love anyone. When my son and daughter were born, I just loved em. NO questions of will. No questions of freedom. I simply loved em and I DO NOT CARE if it is PROGRAMMED into my DNA or if its all up to randomn.

I believe God BOUND ALL MEN to disobedience for a purpose as steve 7150 eludes to.
God says twice in Isiah that he will do everything he wants to do and IMO at least, that's precisely why you can't find physical death as the deadline for salvation of the soul. Another words God has left that option open and it seems to me there would be only one reason that this option remains open, because in some way He plans to use it.

...To have mercy on them all.

I still have to admit, I have not studied Anihilationism or other views.
Only Eternal Torment and I read a bit on Anh. So I consider it a open viewpoint but I do find that UR sees the correct wavelength of scripture that is...
It is God who humbles the arrogant
we were all born arrogant
THE ARROGANT CANNOT CHANGE UNTIL GOD HUMBLES THEM
The Arrogant are NEVER ABLE to break their own arrogance (for that is the nature of arrogance)
leaving God the ONLY one to save us.
That to me is a HUGE problem for the free will camps who think we are born "non arrogant" due to Prev. grace.
I find that EVERY MAN IS BORN ARROGANT and that is why we all need to be saved. So in essence our nature is not free from arrogance but is still today in bondage and God is seeking us all out to find us and bring us back to Eden.

Sincerely, Auggy

[Guest]

Hey Auggy

I think you make a good point that some of the most persuasive UR verses may be one's that aren't 'directly' on the topic of the fate of the wicked. Jesus prayer, from the cross, asking the Father to forgive is certainly worthy of much contemplation. That being said, I don't think a non-UR reading of this passage 'makes no sense' as you seem to indicate. There are plenty of verses in Scripture that talk about forgiveness being accessible only through repentance and/or after offering forgiveness to others. In my opinion, Jesus wasn't commanding that the Father forgive them, He was expressing that forgiveness was still, for His part, being offered. Many times a victim will be ready to forgive before the victims family. You can offer to forgive (and God does!), but forgiveness only takes place when two parties are actively involved (one repenting and one willing to forgive).

You also stated...

I wonder where how do you come to the conclusion that God does NOT WANT to do everything he wants. I find it much more scriptual that God does indeed do what he wants. Nothing THWARTS his will.

I'm not sure if you mis-typed. Obviously I don't conclude that God does not WANT what He WANTS! So I'll assume you're referring, as your next lines suggest, to my claim that God doesn't always DO what He WANTS. But I think even a casual reading of Scripture will reveal that not everything God wants to happen happens. God does not WANT anyone to perish, for example, and yet every single person perishes. God never WANTS humans to sin, but sometimes, in that regard too, He doesn't GET what He WANTS.

I can say, I do not choose to love anyone. When my son and daughter were born, I just loved em. NO questions of will. No questions of freedom. I simply loved em and I DO NOT CARE if it is PROGRAMMED into my DNA or if its all up to randomn.

Well you chose a very specific example of your own flesh and blood. I choose to love people all the time. And I'm sure you do too. We are naturally selfish and loving people often requires selflessness. It's a choice, I'd suggest, in most relationships.

That to me is a HUGE problem for the free will camps who think we are born "non arrogant" due to Prev. grace. I find that EVERY MAN IS BORN ARROGANT and that is why we all need to be saved.

I am unfamiliar with many (any?) in the free will camp that think we are born non-arrogant (without sin). I am thinking that you may misunderstand the wesleyan doctrine of Preveniant Grace.

[Guest]

Sorry Mattrose,
I did mis-speak myself. Yes we do disagree that I believe IN THE END God gets what he wants or else I'm not assured he is the victor. Perhaps he doesnt want satan to win but then again, he doesn't always get what he most wants : ) - I'm being a bit on the joking side. I do think their is weight to what you are saying. I just saw that opening and had to take it : )

As for the arm view. Yes, you are probably right that I'm not real well versed on the doctrines of Arm. I've read olsen and cotrell and was raised on it. However, being raised on it I was never taught the deeper reasons of why man has a free choice.

My words are a bit harsh as I do prescribe the notion that arm's believe that men are not born arrogant because I find it to be a natural part of their system. Much like I prescribe calvinism to make God the author of sin THOUGH THEIR SYSTEM DENYS SUCH IDEAS.

I meet with Mormons weekly and they too deny salvation by works. But I have come to the STRONG conclusion their system does just that.

I don't mean to sound like arm's are just wrong because I'm pretty unlearned. Besides some of the guys who have BLOWN me away like Joel B Green are arm. (I'm a HUGE KEITH GREEN FAN TOO).
something about those greens : )

So when I say I prescribe it, I simply am stating a complaint (I believe) arminians make.

To make myself clear, I believe every man is born a sinner (disobedient or ARROGANT). He is in rebellion to God and needs salvation (to be humbled). I find that Talbott has led me down this road to rethinking the rational argument he makes quite often. That being that if a man fully understands and knows God and fully understands and knows sin and makes a free choice he will ALWAYS choose God. I agree.
This line of thought led me down the road that the reason men do not choose God is because they are arrogant. The nature of this arrogance is to rebel against needing God. Thus mankind is stuck in a perpetual circle of hopelessness which only God can break. Translasted it is God ALONE who saves.

The probelm I see with arm. is (from the ones I've been dialouging with) it seems to me they endorse that Prev grace has broken this bondage (arrogance) that men are freely able to choose God or continue in their arrogance.

I find this to be false as I have come to agree with Talbott that if the person knows that sin is like drenching yourself with lighter fluid and lighting yourself on fire vs. eternal bliss and contentment with God they would always choose God if they are free from their blindness (arrogance).

Thus I find that in the arm. school of thought it is required that the arrogance of men has been broken by the death of Christ that man can now approach God. I find this faulty. I'm not sure about it, I'm just at this place at this time.

However, my point is not to say look how wrong anh. or et are. But rather that there are deeper philisophical views of scripture (which Talbott raises massively) that are more powerful then the usual verses.

Perhaps one of the most EYE openening is when Paul writes to timothy that God had mercy on him becuase of........
The calvinist wasnt to say because of election.
The arminian wants to say because of repentance.
Pauls words....
"because of my ignorance and my unbellief".
I have not been able to find scriptual evidence to prove that God shows compassion on people because of their "unbelief".

This reasons well with UR as it states God is in love with the wicked and plans on getting them back. He allows us to make free choices, to a point.
And like the prostitute at Simons house, "But he who has been forgiven little loves little." In other words I think Talbott is on to something that the person who realizes he is already forgiven is the one who loves God. So who has he forgiven. This is partly where we part ways. I FULLY believe Jesus was declaring forgiveness for the whole world. For he knew they were ignorant (which is why paul received mercy).

Again, this gives great weight to the OUT OF THE BOX thinking Mr. Talbott has presented.

For me it makes great sense that a good God has created a world of which real free choices are made (to a point) but in the end his will is accomplished with or without determinsml; with or without free will.

God Bless,

Auggy

[Guest]

Auggy,

You wrote:

As a traditionalist, I was raised my whole life believing that I have to forgive in order to be forgiven.

You were raised correctly on this point. There is not one doctrine in scripture more plainly taught than this. Jesus repeatedly said it.

And you wrote:

One scripture is Jesus' prayer on the cross to forgive them for their ignorance.

It seems to me this verse is perhaps ONE of the most telling scriptures of the character of God.
namely, that God does not require you to ask for forgiveness (repent) for God to forgive you.
One scripture is Jesus' prayer on the cross to forgive them for their ignorance.

I would suggest you carefully consider the narrative in Acts 2 where Peter preaches that those in his audience were directly responsible for Jesus' crucifixion and commands them to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins. Jesus' prayer from the cross. "Father, forgive them..." was answered at Pentecost, but not without their repentance. IMO (don't want you to think I'm arrogant ).

God bless, Homer

[Guest]

Homer,
in speaking with mormons for near 3 months now I have trouble with their viewpoint that one gets what one deserves. The notion that God gives grace to those who come to deserve it by obedience seems to me to be a system of works.

The mormons sincerely promote that it is by grace that any of these things are done and therfore without the grace of God no one could be saved regardless of works. HOWEVER they do promote a system of works.

The reversal of which Joel B Green endorses in his commentary on luke seems to me very persuasive. However I'm sure he would disagree with me on the point that I made in my last post. He's a daring guy (even giving credit to Gregory Mcdonald for "the Evangelical Universalist" so perhaps he would sympathize. The reversal (for me) is that God indeed forgives us BEFORE we ever come to realize we need the forgiveness.

There is no doubt in my mind (perhaps in yours) that God upon the cross forgave those whom put him on the cross. Perhaps the point I think your missing is that he did not cry out "forgive them for they know not what they do" NOT "forgive them for theyr going to figure out what they did wrong". I'm afraid I disagree with you on the grounds for forgiveness.

This is for me the MOST telling and UNACCEPTABLE (by mans standards) act of mercy imaginable. Men put the one God upon the cross and he forgives them. Now that is what's so amazing about grace. It is not that grace is extended to those who do good. It is extended to everyone and everyone is evil. That extension of grace displayed upon the cross as the grace of God died (Jesus) goes against our legalistic views and presses a FATHER AND SON relationship.

I do not know if you have a son Homer but if he was sick (sinful) and did something back (due to his sickeness) would you forgive him if he did not ask. Now you may reason that he does not deserve it because justice demands he not be forgiven until he conceeds his wrong doing. But EVEN in the U.S. courts, wisdom (of God) is published. The courts recognize that if the defendant is proven insane he is not to be treated as one who is sane. My point is if YOU KNOW your son is sick do you blame him for his actions caused by the sickness. It's similar to being angry to the point of NOT FORGIVING your infant child.

I clearly believe that those in sin are arrogant and blind. They (we) need God to break them (us) in order to give us the clear vision of goodness and evil. When we have come to this fork in the road WE WILL ALWAY CHOOSE GOD. For if we don't we are still in our arrogance and have not been broken.

So what is my take of needing to earn forgivenss. I believe the scriptures are built upon tensions (I underestand from other Karl Barth thought along these lines). That being we don't earn forgivenss. Those who are forgiven, love and love births forgiveness. In other words, when we realize that the one who does us wrong acts in foolishness (as sin is always the case) then we realize they acted in IGNORANCE. For if one is to say some act in FULL RATIONAL then one would only ask why he prefers to burn like sulfur over being in bed with the woman of his dreams (song of solomon metaphor). Why would one like to go through the meat grinder than spend eternity fishing with his dad. For such a person is not rational but ONLY THINKS HIS DECISION is beneficial in his rebellion THINKING the consequence of sin is not ALL THAT BAD. FOOLISHNESS.

I always share with friends....
"so you're gonna party in hell, huh?"
"why don't you give it a try here on earth?"
Go to the market and buy a can of lighter fluid. Go to a swimming pool.
Drench yourself with the lighter fluid and light a match and light yourself on fire. Hang on as long as you can before you cant take it and jump in the pool to put the flames out. Then you can see CLEARLY if your gonna party in hell is worth it. You know that old song "I'm on the highway to hell" the only reason their singing it is because they never tried my test.
I guarantee if they try it, they'll not sing that song anymore : )

So back to the point.
I simply find scriptures that say things like...Exodus 21
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property
and think to myself.....Is God for slavery?
Perhaps if it's not a racial thing God's ok with beating your servant.

What I realize is that the scripture is not written in a systematic form. So though it says "work out your salvation" I believe it does not mean work hard to keep your salvation. Though is says "we are not justified by faith alone but also by what we do" I do not believe our works have anything to do with justification (as nt wright seems to). I believe our works are subsequent of faith and I believe it is not our works but his that justifies us.

As Paul states God had mercy on him because of his UNBELIEF, a notion that is TERRIBLE trouble to the mormon as well as the arminian.

Aug,
(and I could be wrong about this, I'm not saying you guys are wrong, it simply makes ALOT of sense to me).

Aug

[Guest]

Here are a couple of other Key passages which support the reconciliation:

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:9-11

coupled with

... if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

According to these two passages, every one under the earth (seemingly a reference to those in Gehenna) will bow their knees and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, and thus confessing, according to Rom 10:9 will be saved.

The following seems to be another key passage:

But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself. Philippians 3:20,21

Hello Paidion,
Didn't you say in another place that God doesn't know the future? Namely, the future choices of free will beings. So how can the passages you cite prove universalism if God doesn't even know if everyone thrown in the lake of fire will eventually call Jesus Lord? Phil 2:9-11 are simply God's hope, not something God can know for certain.

[Guest]

Sorry I need to ammend my last post on the issue of God's forgiveness not requiring action from us.

I stated There is no doubt in my mind (perhaps in yours) that God upon the cross forgave those whom put him on the cross. Perhaps the point I think your missing is that he did not cry out "forgive them for they know not what they do" NOT "forgive them for theyr going to figure out what they did wrong". I'm afraid I disagree with you on the grounds for forgiveness.

What I meant to say is that perhaps the point I think you are missing (homer) is that he DID not cry out "Father forgive them for they are going to repent and realize the wrong they do". What he DID cry out flys against our sense of justice "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". His forgivenss was not contigent upon their repentance but upon their ignorance. In other words Jesus did not forgive them because they came to feel bad ANY more than paul was confronted by God on the road to damascus because he was feeling guilty of killing christians. God forgave them based on their not knowing what they were doing.

Sorry about the error to confuse the reader.

Sincerely,
Auggy

[Guest]

Aug, you may want to read and consider the following thread on true forgiveness:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... ht=forgive

[Guest]

Piadon,
I read through most of it but not all posts.

Everyone has their struggle with the character (grace) of God. It seems that for God to forgive people and not bring about the justive they deserve is problematic.

Still yet the prayer on the cross is a dramatic difference of what we know. I realize forgiveness seems conditional upon repentance but I find the only reason we repent is due to his ABILITY to break our arrogance. This is CLOSELY related if not the EXACT same idea of regeneration from the reformed group.

I won't however make claims that the calvinist theory of regeneration is exactly correct but I do hold that it is close to the truth that I am endorsing.

I simply see that God forgives men due to their arrogance or God having mercy on Paul for his unbelief and his ignorance is a tension that most people will reject. However I feel comfortable that most people rejected the Son of God and for scriptual good reason.

So I feel I'm in good company to say that God is much much better than we think.

Sincerely,

Aug

[Guest]

Phil 2:9-11 are simply God's hope, not something God can know for certain.

Okay, let it be something God cannot "know for certain". Does that make any difference as to the certainty of it?

Let me make an analogy. Suppose you have a thousand ordinary coins in a box, but with a special glue on the "tails" side of each. The glue has the property of causing a coin which lands as "heads" to stick to the box. Now the coins are randomly tossed into the box. You don't KNOW that any of them will turn up "heads". They could ALL turn up "tails" so that none would stick to the box. But by the "laws of probability" about half of them will turn up as "heads" and stick to the bottom of the box. However many stick to the box, you move the box upward to toss the coins again. After this second toss, there will probably be more of them turn up "heads" and stick to the bottom of the box. But again, there might not be any. What if you continue tossing? Do you think that eventually ALL of the coins will turn up "heads" and be stuck to the bottom of the box? Personally I would feel that they would, probably in fewer than 50 tosses. But if not, one could continue tossing until they did.

However, it is POSSIBLE that you might toss the coins for an hour every day for a month, and still a few coins would "hold out" and turn up as "tails". In that case, you could carry on for a year. Or if, in the unlikely event that after a year there were still coins that never turned up as "heads", you could toss them for the rest of your life. The likelihood of there being at least one of more "tails" still turning up and thus not sticking to the box becomes infinitesimal. Yet, it is theoretically possible that at the time of your death, there will still be coins which have always turned up as "tails". If you were immortal, you could just continue tossing the coins until they all DID turn up as heads.

Even though no one knows for certain when or even if, any individual coin will turn up as "heads" at a particular interval of time, can we not be CERTAIN that ALL will eventually do so.

Of course, coins are not people. They have no free will. Nevertheless, I think the same principle of CERTAINTY applies. I have no doubt that in Gehenna, the Lake of Fire, many will be rebels, who will be unwilling to submit to the authority of God. They may hold out for a long time, even for ages, without being willing to "bow the knee" at the name of Jesus.
But the eternal God has as much time as He needs to ensure that it will eventually happen. Although free will shall continue in Gehenna, and God will never remove that free will, because of that which the inmates will undergo, more and more of them will "turn up heads and be stuck to the bottom of the box" until eventually ALL of them will bow to Jesus and confess Him as Lord. Oh, there will be plenty of incentive for them to do so! Nevertheless, their wills, their ability to choose will not be violated.

This certainty is stated as a fact in the following passage:

Romans 14:11 for it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God."

Everyone will eventually CHOOSE, of his own free will, to do so.