Barclay was convinced (UR)

[Paidion]

Paul's story is a good example of their thinking. By his own testimony he persecuted to death. He protected the clothes of the men who executed Stephen and was himself stoned in an attempted execution because of his belief. And the crowd cried out for his death upon hearing his testimony (Acts 22). And yet you say these were merely attempts "to change their minds"? Not very effective when they are dead.

No. I did not say or imply that it was ALWAYS the Jews' intent to merely change the mind of the Jewish Christians. I said it was their intent on the occasion recorded in Acts 4:21.

[Homer]

No. I did not say or imply that it was ALWAYS the Jews' intent to merely change the mind of the Jewish Christians. I said it was their intent on the occasion recorded in Acts 4:21.

There is not a hint in the text that the Jews aimed to change their minds. They wanted to shut them up by violence but knew the people would not stand for it.

What is your proof that the instance in Acts 4:21 was of a different character than all the other beatings and killings? That it allows you to maintain the ideas you hold? What about Philo and Josephus? How do you refute that?

[Homer]

Rich,

In reply to some of your comments:

is it possible that the lost world might be our little brother (the prodigal from the parable)?

How is the story of the prodigal son any help to universalist arguments? The father took no initiative in bringing the "dead" son home. The story would seem to contradict a universalist view, if anything.

But we have many passages in reference to God's will to save all, and that He intends to do so.

I agree that it is God's desired will that all men be saved. If there is a text to show it is His determined will that all men be saved I would like to see it. There seems to be good evidence from scripture that He gives up on some before their life ends. Why would that be if He is determined to save them?

2) Arminianism - God loves all people, and desires to save all people, but cannot do so because of the stubbornness of man. If man does not choose freely in their short lifespan, God's love will stop for them and He will punish them without any chance of restoration. His will was to save all people, but He could not accomplish His will.

He could not save them because it is His will that men freely choose Him. He wills more than one thing, and love under compulsion is no love at all.

3) Universal Reconciliation - God does love all people, and He wills that all will be saved. He will do all His pleasure, and the free will of man and the seeming finality of death will not hinder His will from being accomplished.

Evangelical universalism is a deterministic system, an extreme form of Calvinism. Take away hell and how many "conversions" do you think would occur?

It also helps us to understand that God will be victorious in salvation in the end, and that the devil or mankind will not beat God.

I cannot question His sovereign justice (Calvinism) or willingness to get beat in the end (Arminianism). I just admit it is hard to accept.

"God will be the loser" is one of the most contrived arguments I have encountered. Have you read the book of Joshua recently? How God ordered the destruction of the inhabitants of Canaan and even "fought for Israel" during the conquest? Seems like He gave up on those wicked Canaanites; I didn't realize God lost when His enemies were annihilated. I was kinda thinking God won.

[steve7150]

However, 1 Corinthians 15:28, in the context, might be speaking of a universal "all in all"... I'm not sure.





Rich,
It sounds likely as it comes right after Paul said "For he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet" 1 Cor 15.25 (all enemies i take as all unbelievers as Jesus said that you are either for him or against him) "The last enemy that shall destroyed is death" (end of the lake of fire since that is the second death) 1 Cor 15.26 "For he has put ALL THINGS under his feet" 1 Cor 15.27 All things includes all people being subject to Christ. If they are subject to Christ then he is their Lord. Death has been destroyed, no more lake of fire, everyone subject To Christ. "that God may be all in all." 1 Cor 15.28

The key to me is first all enemies are under his feet, then death is destroyed and then God will be all in all.
This is the culmination of the ages and God's will being executed IMO.

[steve7150]

I agree that it is God's desired will that all men be saved. If there is a text to show it is His determined will that all men be saved I would like to see it.






If this age was the only opportunity for salvation you would be right Homer but God is not limited by anything.

In Eph 1.11 Paul is talking to believers but he still can make a sweeping statement about God which he does,

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance being predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things after the counsel of his own will."

All things means everything so God works EVERYTHING after the counsel of HIS OWN WILL.
The only thing we don't know is when this process concerning humanity is culminated but it is being done.

[Paidion]

Evangelical universalism is a deterministic system, an extreme form of Calvinism.

How do you fit my position into your affirmation?

Clearly, I believe in libertarian freedom. I believe we all possess the ability to choose freely between alternatives. I expressed my position on the following thread:

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3834

Yet, I believe in the eventual universal reconciliation of all people to God. I believe every person will some day freely choose to submit to Christ.

[steve7150]

Evangelical universalism is a deterministic system, an extreme form of Calvinism. Take away hell and how many "conversions" do you think would occur?





First, UR does'nt take away hell as you know, it takes away eternal hell and i was converted despite being taught eternal hell not because of it. UR accepts a lake of fire where unbelievers go for an undefined time.

Secondly i take UR statements as prophetic rather then deterministic. Paul and others speak of a time when folks are unblinded because the devil is gone first, and afterwards unbelievers are thrown into the lake of fire and in the end all things are subject to Christ and then God will be all in all. Not because he coerces them, but because for the first time they really have free will, they really see clearly and sane people make sane choices.

[jriccitelli]

Rich it seems you are not yet convinced of this 'reconciliation' doctrine, and for good reason.
Rich, I agree this Barclay page is a "wonderfully succinct and honorable description of the limitless love of god".
Yet it doesn't seem to be the God of the Hebrews. I thought you, Origen or Barkley had come up with a missing chapter in the Bible or some undiscovered verses, but it seems the best are the same 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9, 1 Cor 15.25-27, are these the best or what am I missing?

God kept some things hidden or veiled, but the mysteries of the Gospel have been revealed. Things as the offering of His Son, the Gentiles chosen, the new Body and the Church were mysteries but all that God wanted to reveal has been revealed. (The hidden things belong to the Lord but the revealed things belong to us and our children forever..)

If this 'future' post mortem, post punishment reconciliation were to take place it certainly seems hidden in scripture.
The mysteries above were all alluded to in the Old Testament, fulfilled in Christ and made known plainly in much detail and example in both Old and New Testaments.

If Jesus Himself taught it, I think I would have to doubt He was the One the Prophets spoke of. It just doesn’t fit the virtual forest of scripture that expresses Gods wrath and displeasure with man and sinners;
God thrust Adam out of the Garden over one sin,
God says "I will destroy man whom I have created" in Genesis 6, and he does except for 'one' family,
God rained fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah, and saved only three people,
God strikes dead every firstborn of Egypt,
God splits open the ground and all those with Korah went alive down to Sheol,
God made a point that none of the sons of Israel would enter the Promised land, but only Joshua and those with him.
God kills and destroys, page after page; kill destroy. Disease, plague, judgment, etc.
Why is God driving home this point verse after verse, so that he can sneak in a verse at the back of the book that secretly undoes all He has been convincing us of for 700 pages.
The revelation of atonement and grace was given to us in Genesis 3 and throughout scripture, but it was not enough to save alone because it was not mixed with faith, what is faith if it is seen, it is the conviction of things not seen.

26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge His people."31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:26-31)

"As for the censers of these men who have sinned at the cost of their lives, let them be made into hammered sheets for a plating of the altar, since they did present them before the LORD and they are holy; and they shall be for a sign to the sons of Israel." (Numbers 16:38)

It seems God went through a 'lot' of work to make His point, and to accept reconciliation would to be missing the point of thousands of scriptures. The God of Abraham and Moses is not a different God than Jesus.

[steve]

Hi Homer,

You wrote:

"God will be the loser" is one of the most contrived arguments I have encountered. Have you read the book of Joshua recently? How God ordered the destruction of the inhabitants of Canaan and even "fought for Israel" during the conquest? Seems like He gave up on those wicked Canaanites; I didn't realize God lost when His enemies were annihilated. I was kinda thinking God won.

I know that you are not a Calvinist, but only a Calvinist would be expected to say the above. They believe, as you apparently do, that God's love and grace are limited—more limited, in fact, than our own love is toward our own children. Only if this is true can it be said that, in the (presumed) eternal loss of the Canaanites, God really won! It is my impression from scripture that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they should turn from their wicked ways and live. If this is really an expression of the heart of God, then how could it not be a loss for Him to experience eternally that situation that brings Him no pleasure and that deprives Him of what He wanted? Also, why would you assume that God, who can do everything He wants to do, including giving people postmortem opportunities to repent, would set up a situation where He unnecessarily deprives Himself for eternity of what He most desires?

Of course, we never actually read of the Canaanites being "eternally" lost. The problem I find in every presentation of "scriptural" arguments against universal reconciliation (and I have read many books now by the scholars presenting such arguments) is that the presenter gives examples of earthly judgments, in scripture, and then pretends that they tell us something about postmortem opportunities or lack thereof. That God judges societies (like the Canaanites) in order to remove cancers from the body of humanity tells us nothing about whether He would rather have saved them all—and might even still desire to do so.

The slaughter of infants and children by the command of God can never make sense if their earthly deaths represent the last word in God's will for these innocent victims. Most of us (regardless of what view of hell we take) believe that there is some hope of postmortem restoration for these ignorant infants. How do we know that the same God from which we hope for such mercies might not extend similar postmortem grace to the abysmally ignorant parents of those children?

[steve7150]

It seems God went through a 'lot' of work to make His point, and to accept reconciliation would to be missing the point of thousands of scriptures. The God of Abraham and Moses is not a different God than Jesus.





Wrath is from God and is plainly stated , but for how long does his wrath last. Is it eternal wrath or does it serve a purpose. I think it serves a purpose to help accomplish God's will ultimately. In fact i think that's what the verses around 1 Cor 15.28 are saying and i don't think it's that hidden.