The Narrow Path Ministries

Here is an excerpt I transcribed from the Wright (atheist) vs. Reynolds (Christian) debate (see under Christian Evidences and Challenges category):

Wright:
Could I ask you a question in terms of reasonable? Do you believe a Buddhist who lives a morally exemplary life does not go to heaven because he didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God?.........Do you believe the Buddhist goes to hell?

Reynolds:
Do I believe Buddhists as Buddhists go to hell? Yes, I believe Buddhists as Buddhists go to hell. Do I believe a particular Buddhist will go to hell? It depends on his relationship with God and what happens to him. Do I believe Buddhism as a mechanism to change the problems inside of humanity is sufficient to change us? No I don't believe it, so Buddhists, as Buddhists, do not go to heaven when they die.

Wright:
Well, see, that to me does not withstand the test of reason in a certain sense or at least kind of my notions of justice that are informed by reason. I can not imagine a good God saying that you lived your life doing nothing but sacrificing yourself for other human beings and doing your best to align yourself with moral truth, but because you didn't buy this one historical claim you're going to hell, I just don't get that.

Reynolds:
Notice that I didn't say that it wasn't because I didn't buy one historical claim. It could be that your problem is in terms of your being that that you're broken inside and that heaven as a place would be more painful for you than hell so a just God has to put you where you would experience the least pain, namely, away from His presence.

Here is the philosophical problem, in a nutshell, expressed by the universalist. The universalist position, like that expressed by Wright, is largely based on philosopical notions. As such, how does the universalist explain the necessity of the Buddhist going to hell for even a second? If he is morally good, when he confronts Jesus, why can he not immediately confess his ignorance and go to heaven?

Interestingly, many universalists have changed their belief system. Their champions (Ballou, Murray) once held the position that Todd holds and were referred to as "no-hellers". Based on humanist considerations as expressed by Wright, Todd would seem to have the best argument among those posting here.

Here is the philosophical problem, in a nutshell, expressed by the universalist. The universalist position, like that expressed by Wright, is largely based on philosopical notions. As such, how does the universalist explain the necessity of the Buddhist going to hell for even a second? If he is morally good, when he confronts Jesus, why can he not immediately confess his ignorance and go to heaven?

Interestingly, many universalists have changed their belief system. Their champions (Ballou, Murray) once held the position that Todd holds and were referred to as "no-hellers". Based on humanist considerations as expressed by Wright, Todd would seem to have the best argument among those posting here.








You're an interesting guy Homer since when you call Steve on the air you sound so reasoned and thoughtful yet on this topic you just can't grasp anything other then eternal hell for almost everyone who has ever lived.
So to make your position sound more reasonable you claim that Todd's position makes the most sense for universalism since you apparently can't grasp the idea of hell being something that ultimately can be productive.
You call universalism a philosophy yet you do know that Steve Gregg has said eternal hell has the least scriptural support of the 3 main beliefs about hell. You seem to respect Steve regarding every other doctrine yet in this issue nether him nor Paidion nor anyone else has ever pursuaded you one inch off your vision of hell.
One of your counters has been regarding the amount of time it might take to reform a sinner which implies that most people once they see Christ would be like Paul and fall on their face and accept Christ as Lord immediately , so why have a hell at all. As you know scripture does'nt answer this but we do know justice is a major attribute of God therefore i think if one has not made Christ their Lord in this life , they must in some way be punished for their sins before having the opportunity to receive Christ as Lord. I'm sure God can work out the details.
Neither eternal hell nor "no hellers" have any justice in their belief systems. In your belief system God makes Hitler look like a schoolgirl and in Todd's system God looks like a doormat thus the truth probably is somewhere in the middle.

Here is an excerpt I transcribed from the Wright (atheist) vs. Reynolds (Christian) debate (see under Christian Evidences and Challenges category):

Wright:
Could I ask you a question in terms of reasonable? Do you believe a Buddhist who lives a morally exemplary life does not go to heaven because he didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God?.........Do you believe the Buddhist goes to hell?

Reynolds:
Do I believe Buddhists as Buddhists go to hell? Yes, I believe Buddhists as Buddhists go to hell. Do I believe a particular Buddhist will go to hell? It depends on his relationship with God and what happens to him. Do I believe Buddhism as a mechanism to change the problems inside of humanity is sufficient to change us? No I don't believe it, so Buddhists, as Buddhists, do not go to heaven when they die.

Wright:
Well, see, that to me does not withstand the test of reason in a certain sense or at least kind of my notions of justice that are informed by reason. I can not imagine a good God saying that you lived your life doing nothing but sacrificing yourself for other human beings and doing your best to align yourself with moral truth, but because you didn't buy this one historical claim you're going to hell, I just don't get that.

Reynolds:
Notice that I didn't say that it wasn't because I didn't buy one historical claim. It could be that your problem is in terms of your being that that you're broken inside and that heaven as a place would be more painful for you than hell so a just God has to put you where you would experience the least pain, namely, away from His presence.

Hi Homer,

I think Reynolds' final answer is a cop out. I've never heard Hell described as a place "where you would experience the least pain."

If I were Wright, the next question I would have asked Reynolds would have been this: If I am a Buddhist and I become at this moment persuaded by your argument and I pray to accept Christ as my personal Lord and Savior but then just after I finish the prayer I have a heart attack and die, do you believe I will go to heaven?

If Reynolds' answer was "yes", I would follow up with, "How is that not avoiding Hell by buying this one historical claim?"

Here is the philosophical problem, in a nutshell, expressed by the universalist. The universalist position, like that expressed by Wright, is largely based on philosopical notions.

I don't think it holds much water to claim an Atheist has expressed the Christian Universalist position. Just as you probably wouldn't get far by quoting Steve Gregg and likening it to "the Atheist position."

I've noticed, Homer, that you often rail against "philosophy." When I see it I am reminded of Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride when he said, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Philosophy, in its broadest definition, is trying to apply reason and logic in order to understand reality. From that jumping off point there are many different schools and methods. Much of what we do on this forum, especially when we are reasoning with one another, is philosophical in nature. You do it as much as anyone. Everyone engages in philosophy, in the same way that everyone engages in theology (in that, everyone thinks about God--even if it is to deny His existence). Our theology--as well as our philosophy--may not be well examined or developed, but it is there nonetheless. Aquinas called philosophy "the handmaiden to theology."

Paul, as you know, was well educated in ancient Greek philosophy and rhetoric. He often applied these skills in his epistles. In his presentation at Mars Hill in Athens, Paul cited the Stoic philosopher Aratus (Acts 17:28). Yet in Colossians 2:8 Paul writes, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (NIV)

In Paul's day, the Greek word philosophia had a variety of meanings including "speculation' and "religion." It was a word applied to many things; not just Plato and Socrates. Hellenistic Jews of that time period (such as Josephus) sometimes referred to Judaism as a philosophia.

It appears that some type of aberrant teaching had gotten into the Colossian church and Paul was trying to root it out. It may have been Jewish Mysticism or it may have been something else. In Colossians, Paul warns against getting caught up in dietary rules and religious festivals and New Moon celebrations and the worship of angels, etc. These all seem to have been part of this "deceptive philosophy" that Paul was concerned about.

So by warning against this "philosophy" in Colossians 2:8, Paul was not rejecting the study and application of all philosophy or even of Greek philosophy per se. There is not necessarily a conflict between philosophy and the Gospel. Paul used Greek and Jewish philosophy as tools to further the Gospel.

As such, how does the universalist explain the necessity of the Buddhist going to hell for even a second?

As a Christian Universalist, I don't see any necessity for the Buddhist to go to Hell, even for a second. This is, in part, because I don't believe that Hell (as it is commonly characterized) exists.

If he is morally good, when he confronts Jesus, why can he not immediately confess his ignorance and go to heaven?

Indeed.

Interestingly, many universalists have changed their belief system. Their champions (Ballou, Murray) once held the position that Todd holds and were referred to as "no-hellers". Based on humanist considerations as expressed by Wright, Todd would seem to have the best argument among those posting here.

I think you mistake the fact that there are Universalists with different opinions for "universalists hav[ing] changed their belief system." Just as their are different opinions about the particulars of eschatology or baptism or any number of other doctrines, so there are different opinions among Christian Universalists about the details. I would venture that a certain percentage of Christian Universalists today have never read Ballou or Murray--or even heard of them--much less consider them "champions."

Homer wrote:Here is an excerpt I transcribed from the Wright (atheist) vs. Reynolds (Christian) debate (see under Christian Evidences and Challenges category):

Wright:
Could I ask you a question in terms of reasonable? Do you believe a Buddhist who lives a morally exemplary life does not go to heaven because he didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God?.........Do you believe the Buddhist goes to hell?[/

According to Paul, "God commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). This He does, I believe, primarily through the influence of the Holy Spirit at work in the hearts of all men calling us to repentance. The Buddhist has been encouraged by the Holy Spirit to lead this type of life. Through his obedience to the leading of the Spirit he has obtained eternal salvation according to this scripture.

Heb 5:9
And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

Homer wrote:Interestingly, many universalists have changed their belief system. Their champions (Ballou, Murray) once held the position that Todd holds and were referred to as "no-hellers". Based on humanist considerations as expressed by Wright, Todd would seem to have the best argument among those posting here.

Homer, although I understand why you would label me as a "no-heller", I am a firm believer that we reap what we sow and that God rewards everyone according to his works. If one reaps corruption due to his choices and actions, he does so against the tormenting call of the Spirit to repentance. This person is in "hell" while he still lives. Salvation is the changed life which results from following the lead of the Spirit. It is through this obedience that saves, and God rewards the follower with love, joy, peace, etc.

Now concerning what happens after death, and the return of Christ, the order of events as described in scripture are not given with much detail and description. But we do know that the creation (mankind) will be delivered right along with the sons of God unto a glorious liberty.

Rom 8:21
because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Todd

Steve7150,

You wrote:

You're an interesting guy Homer since when you call Steve on the air you sound so reasoned and thoughtful yet on this topic you just can't grasp anything other then eternal hell for almost everyone who has ever lived.

I am surpised by the underlined part of the quote. I thought I had made clear in the past that I am undecided between the traditional view and CI (and probably leaning CI). I am familiar with the UR arguments and as I have stated find them much weaker than the arguments for Calvinism. You probably have taken my statements against Universalism as belief in a Jonathan Edwards kind of literal hell-fire (the Universalists seem to believe in that also with the added idea that people will finally get out) but I see it as a place away from God's presence, in "outer darkness".

And you wrote:

You call universalism a philosophy yet you do know that Steve Gregg has said eternal hell has the least scriptural support of the 3 main beliefs about hell. You seem to respect Steve regarding every other doctrine yet in this issue nether him nor Paidion nor anyone else has ever pursuaded you one inch off your vision of hell.

I agree with Steve on a great number of things - more than anyone I have ever heard on Christian radio, but not everything, and the biblical teaching on judgement and the age to come is one area where he and I disagree.


It actually takes more courage to post here against universalism than the more traditional position. Being against universalism is sure to make one seem malevolent and the universalist can claim to be on higher moral ground, but my concern is for truth, uninfluenced by "carnal sentimentality" as I have heard from a well known teacher.

Hey Danny!

You wrote:

As a Christian Universalist, I don't see any necessity for the Buddhist to go to Hell, even for a second. This is, in part, because I don't believe that Hell (as it is commonly characterized) exists.

We may be in agreement here! That is, if you mean Jonathan Edwards' view of hell. I am inclined to CS Lewis' view.