Is There Harm in teaching Universalism?

[Guest]

Hello Steve7150,

Excuse my interuption between your conversation with Homer. I have observed from those who entertain CU as a viable alternative to "traditional" views regarding the final disposition of the "wicked dead",
two very critical flaws in their reasoning: 1) that the idea that God is Love
contradicts any notion of a final judgement of the wicked dead that includes either "eternal" seperation or annihillation. 2) a falicious interpretation of the distinctions between God's decretal Will of which man's will, will not nor cannot overide, and His desire to save all men.
There is a difference between what God allows man to do through his relative free-will and His absolute decree, which overides man's will.
I recognize that sometimes the line of distinction can seem a bit "fuzzy".

In the account of Adam for example, we see both God's "permissive will and prohibitative will" in the form of the commandment; "you may freely eat of the trees of the garden, but of the tree of the knowlage of good and evil, you shall not eat. For when you eat of it you shall surely die"...

Clearly, God's "desire" is that Adam 'not eat from the tree of the knowlage of good and evil". To do so would bring death and seperation from God's "desire" for Adam to eat from the "Tree of Life" and enjoy an uninteruppted fellowship with His Creator.

It may have been Adams desire to "run to the Tree of Life" and live. But, it was Gods' decretal will to keep Adam from that Life and die as the consequnce of his disobedience. God's "will" was done. Adams desire and will was overuled. Adam "perished" in a real sense in his day. Adam wanted God's Life returned to him. God denied him Life. Adam was 'cast out of Paradise' with no hope of return. The Way was blocked.

I agree that the desire of God is that "no one perish". However we must make a distinction between what God desires and what His over arching Will decrees. What God 'desires' to do does not mandate what He 'must do'. It would be entirely presumptious to think He 'must' save anyone imo.
The call and command of God is essentially the same for us today as it was for Adam then; Eat from the Tree of Life and Live. Eat from the wrong tree, perish. "Repent, and believe the Gospel or perish".

God's 'desire' is that all who hear the Gospel come to Jesus, that all men might be saved through Him. That is not the same thing as saying God is bound by His desire to save 'all men'.

Repent NOW! There is no other provision, no other commandment and no other urgency than what we are told over and over again in the gospels and the Letters, "make every effort to enter by the Narrow Path", for wide is the path that leads to destruction and many will follow it..."

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". He who believes in Me, though he die, yet shall he live"...and not perish....

THERE IS NOTHING IN JESUS' COMMAND THAT ALLOWS FOR A MAN TO DIE AND THEN COME TO REPENTANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE ORDER IS; BELIEVE NOW THOUGH YOU WILL DIE YET WILL YOU LIVE
IF YOU COME TO CHRIST NOW!

For those who are watching this debate about Universalisim, for the sake of your very souls, REJECT THIS TEACHING FOR THE LIE THAT IT IS!

[Guest]

But i think if a person gave a fair reading of all of scripture, w/o pre-conceived notions, they would come away with the idea that a decision for Christ has to be made while they are physically alive. there are so many various warnings that can only be read to mean that a person has to make a decision while yet alive.

I agree that there isn't anything in Scripture that encourages people to wait to follow Jesus. Again and again, people are urged to repent and follow Jesus now. Waiting, procrastination or rejection of this call is undeniably bad. However, we must be careful about what has been said and what has not been said.

What Scripture has said -
"Turn to follow Jesus now! Every second that is delayed results in more harm done to you, the world and God's purposes for this world and age."
What Scripture has NOT said -
"Turn to follow Jesus now! Every second that is delayed results in more harm done to you, the world and God's purposes for this world and age. Also, once you've physically died, your choice in this matter is fixed for all eternity."

This extra bit is itself a pre-concieved notion
I again assert that Scripture nowhere makes the claim that physical death eternally cements one's rejection of Christ.

However, for some reason i get a little queasy with the idea that CU could be the correct view. Why is that?

I don't know why it makes you queasy.
My first reaction to CU (when I grasped it) was awe and hope. Awe that God is much more powerful and more merciful than I had previously imagined; Hope because no one, regardless of how much they've sinned, is out of His reach to save. This fact is true in this life, why not in the next?

Dave

[Guest]

That was my reaction as well. I heard arguments for christian universalism decades ago, before I was open-minded enough to give them a fair hearing. I think my fear was that entertaining these views was 1) a mark of liberalism, 2) a rejection of what I regarded to be the plain teachings of scripture about eternal torment, and 3) pragmatically risky, in that, if it were false, it might encourage sinners with a false hope. That was back in the days when I still thought the preaching of the gospel was supposed to be presented as a "threat," rather than "good tidings of great joy...to all people."

While I still have not been able to embrace universalism to the exclusion of other possible scenarios, my more-favorable-than-previously attitude toward it is based upon 1) the recognition that it is not a mark of liberalism, but is one of several classic views from early Christian history, 2) the recognition that eternal torment is not unambiguously taught in scripture, and 3) my recognizing that the apostles did not count on fear tactics to convince men of their need to repent.

With these former obstacles out of the way, I was now free to rejoice in the possibility that, when all is said and done, God may actually someday get the very thing I have always believed that He wants!

In Jesus,

Steve

P.S. I have previously mentioned my positive impression of the universalist book, "The Inescapable Love of God," by Thomas Talbot. I just thought I'd mention that yesterday I obtained Edward Fudge's book, "The Fire That Consumes"—a famous book of almost 500 pages that is a classic defense of conditional immortality. I look forward to reading it's arguments. I was surprised and impressed to see that the foreword to the book was written by none other than one of my favorite evangelical scholars, F.F. Bruce.

[Guest]

I don't know why it makes you queasy.
My first reaction to CU (when I grasped it) was awe and hope. Awe that God is much more powerful and more merciful than I had previously imagined; Hope because no one, regardless of how much they've sinned, is out of His reach to save. This fact is true in this life, why not in the next?

Dave

Thanks for writing this, Dave. I agree. I had a similar reaction when I first read about open theism as well.

[Guest]

Dave wrote (regarding what the Bible DOES NOT say):

"Turn to follow Jesus now! Every second that is delayed results in more harm done to you, the world and God's purposes for this world and age. Also, once you've physically died, your choice in this matter is fixed for all eternity."

A great majority of Christians believe that the Bible DOES say that. The CU responses to this have been fleshed out at length in our recent discussions. No, the Bible does not contain an explicit statement as written above. But all the urgency, all the warnings, all the evangelism SEEMS to imply that the apostles (and Jesus) felt it was necessary for people to repent while alive.

When Jesus spoke to the thief on the cross, and told him that he would be with him in paradise, He didnt turn the other thief and say "Oh yeah, you too." Why not? This is not simply a silly question. Jesus didn't tell people to follow Him, and in the next breath say, "but if you dont want to that's okay too. you'll be with me some day" why not?

Let me put it this way. All the warnings, the urgency etc noted in the Bible regarding repenting NOW make it seem like NOW is indeed the appointed time (i.e while a person is still alive). In fact, scripture is so full of this type of thing that, if CU is in fact the actual truth, a person could easily get the wrong idea from reading the Bible. Therefore, it would seem necessary that there be something EXPLICIT in scripture that would set forth the CU view, if for nothing else than to correct any false impression that the urgent warnings, beseechings, etc etc might give. The absence of any explicit statement regarding the truthfulness of CU might suggest that the warnings, beseechings, etc are there for a very good reason- because now IS the time.

I hope you guys dont get the impression that I am dead set against the possibility of CU. i wouldnt be "bummed out" if it was true. How could I be? But if wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.

How sure do I have to be before I start believing CU? Can you kind of accept it as a possibility in the back of your mind but not embrace it? I guess right now that the "safe" place for my mind to be right now. Perhaps it will change over time, one way or the other.

TK

[_Rick_C]

Greetings,

I may post here again some time to give [more] support for:
"Teaching Universalism is Harmful."

But I have a quick aside to the thread, if y'all don't mind.
For now (in this post): Over the past few days I've been reflecting on this intense and consistent 'universalism debate' that's been going on for about 2 months straight on the forum. I've re-read the threads, looking over the arguments (everyone's), viewed the personal dynamics, the interactions, and the sometimes, highly emotionally charged statements, etc., etc., etc. An Overview.

I have some observations I'd like to post and think it might be best to do it on the Essays folder. I say "best" because there appears to be something like a stalemate on the debate threads: We've stated our positions and there doesn't appear to be much else to say.

The opposing sides believe they are right and have stated their reasons why and have made judgments of the other (yes, we've been 'judging each other' whether anyone wants to admit that or not). And please don't judge me for saying that!
If you do...well, never mind...go ahead if ya wanna....
I won't debate anybody about it,

Steve,

I'm supposing I should ask you this.
I'd like to know if I'm allowed to quote members on another thread and/or on the Essays board. (Most forums don't permit it is why I'm asking). I wouldn't necessarily have to "say" who said what as far as that goes. I could just have One poster wrote: "_____" or something like that (I'm thinking & wondering out loud here).

I'm also asking about this because someone could potentially get upset if I didn't "credit" them for what they said...people can be hard to please!
Not that I'm a people-pleaser or anything.....

On that note: Have a good weekend everyone,
Rick

P.S. TK, GOOD POSTS.
And a Cool new pic! What a CUTE kid! Takes after Mom, eh?
Btw, in my Essay I'll be mentioning at least one of:
"The Five Solas of conservative Protestant theology"
(sola scriptura, "only the scriptures").........Take care.

[Guest]

The absence of any explicit statement regarding the truthfulness of CU might suggest that the warnings, beseechings, etc are there for a very good reason- because now IS the time.

Certainly "Now is the time"; "Today is the day of salvation." No one denies that. The disagreement lies in WHY "Now is the time".

Believers in eternal torment think that it is important to be regenerated now in order to avoid being sent to Hell forever.

Believers in universal reconciliation to God, also think that avoidance of Hell is very important (though not the primary reason to repent). Why is it important to a believer in UR to avoid hell if everyone will eventually repent and be with God anyway? It seems obvious! Who would not want to avoid thousands or perhaps milllions of years of painful correction? We who live 70, 80, or 90 years cannot even conceive of such a length of time.

So, TK, don't you think that Jesus' warnings and the apostle's warnings against future judgment, and their urgent appeals to repent NOW, are meaningful, even if those warned will eventually repent and be reconciled anyway?

By the way, I think there are explicit statements about the truth of the Univeral Reconciliation of all to God. But I think the tendency of those who wish to deny UR, is to reinterpret these statements. I'm not saying they are not honest in their interpretations. But I think they are approaching these statements with the pre-judgment that UR is false. So what else can they do? If they accept them at face value, together with their belief that the Bible teaches eternal torment (or annihilation of the wicked), there would seem to them to be inconsistencies within the Bible itself.

There are also many honest persons who are not sure one way or the other. They are still searching for the truth. They are not certain which of the three views of Hell is the correct one. I appreciate their present indecision. For I, myself, am such an undecided searcher, not with regard to this issue, but with regard to a number of others.

[Guest]

Rick wrote:

And a Cool new pic! What a CUTE kid! Takes after Mom, eh?

Actually, it's my granddaughter (gasp!). And yes, she is adorable. She's about 2.5 months old in the pic. It will be great to have her back here for Christmas!

TK

[Guest]

Not to derail the thread, but I have to agree with Rick TK, you look dashing in that new photo (must be your accessories....the baby)

[Guest]

Babies do tend to make those holding them look better. That's probably why politicians are always kissing them!

I have a quick side question- it may not belong in this thread but it is as good as any.

Does the debate over "eternal security" have any meaning to a proponent of CU?

Thx,

TK