Barclay was convinced (UR)

[Roberto]

But doesn't the verse in Hebrews 6 refer to humans reaching the point of no return? That it is "impossible to renew them again to repentance"? Doesn't this disprove universalism?

[Homer]

Paidion,

psimmond posted on the Molinism thread:

From William Lane Craig:
"Philosophically, I’m persuaded by arguments such as have been offered by Harry Frankfurt that free choice does not entail the ability to do otherwise. Imagine that a mad scientist has secretly wired your brain with electrodes so that he can control your choices. Suppose that in the last Presidential election, he wanted you to vote for Obama and had determined that if you were going to vote for McCain he would activate the electrodes and make you cast your vote for Obama. Now as it turns out, you also wanted to vote for Obama, and so when you went into the polling booth you marked your ballot for Obama, and therefore the scientist never activated the electrodes. I think it’s clear that you freely voted for Obama, even though it was not possible for you to do otherwise. What this thought experiment suggests is that the essence of free choice is the absence of causal constraint with respect to your choices; it is up to you alone how you choose.

And you denied the person made a free will choice, even though the electrodes were never activated. Yet you think people will be cast into hell were they suffer continuously ("the electrodes are always activated") and you incredibly claim they will make a free will choice to do whatever it is you imagine will save them. Very strange.

[jriccitelli]

Concerning 1 Cor. chapter 15
The beginning of a letter lays out the foundation, the basics, the first of alls, the following chapters usually add details and therefores but your foundational statements are usually laid out it the first half of a letter. This is 'way' true for the biblical epistles. In fact, if taken as one book the whole bible reads this way, Genesis is foundational for the whole revelation of God, just as the 'first few chapters' are foundation 'for the rest' of the book of Gen.
I am saying this because its not wise to use a verse in 1 Cor. chapter 15 to reinterpret major themes taught from Genesis through Romans. A verse in the back of the book can add insight and support to a doctrine 'already' laid down, but it cannot wash away and dispose of all the previous verse. You have to give more weight to the preceding chapters.

When you say you have a verse to support such a slim doctrine, and you say it is in chap. 15 of a book that starts out primarily dealing with church disipline, then spiritual gifts, 'then' the resurection of the body, it really seems Paul does not consider this issue to be of major doctrinal importance. It certainly is amazing, intensly interesting (And satisfying) But Paul seems to going over something they should already have known, heard or picked up on, in fact in 15:1 Paul says;
"Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,"
I dont know why this erks me so, maybe because this is the lesson i have to give mormons when they use a scripture back here like 15:29 to introduce a whole new doctrine.
Something as world changing, Gospel changing, as this 'news' of 'Universal Reconciliation' (that all will recieve a second chance), if Paul knew about it he would of wrote it in big letters near the beginning of the letter to the Romans, since the central theme to Romans is the reconciliation of souls to God, salvation, judgment, guilt.
This doctrine would be so monumental, that if Jesus, John or Paul knew or taught it, it would be 'front page news' not stuck hidden in other contexts, or in verses on other topics, it would certainly deserve having its own chapter or chapters.

[Homer]

jriccitelli,

Amen and amen! Universalism seems perilously close to "another gospel". An argument like "God is a loser if all are not saved" is not an argument I would like to make.

Homer

[steve7150]

if Paul knew about it he would of wrote it in big letters near the beginning of the letter to the Romans, since the central theme to Romans is the reconciliation of souls to God, salvation, judgment, guilt.
This doctrine would be so monumental, that if Jesus, John or Paul knew or taught it, it would be 'front page news' not stuck hidden in other contexts, or in verses on other topics, it would certainly deserve having its own chapter or chapters.
jriccitelli




Actually no one really knows what Paul really knew just as OT prophets may not have really understood everything they wrote. Paul was inspired to write and ultimate reconciliation is not his primary mission, it was to preach the gospel. However for some reason at least IMO he mentions the UR of all things in many places, almost in passing. Perhaps to him it's not so controversial an issue as we think it is. He may simply believe it's God's will so naturally God's will ultimately gets accomplished, unlike us who give such a lofty position to man's supposed free will.

[steve]

...you say you have a verse to support such a slim doctrine...This doctrine would be so monumental, that if Jesus, John or Paul knew or taught it, it would be 'front page news' not stuck hidden in other contexts, or in verses on other topics, it would certainly deserve having its own chapter or chapters.

The reference to universal reconciliation as a "slim" doctrine (I assume this means that the scriptural support for it is "slim" or lacking), and talking as if it is a doctrine hard to find in scripture, betrays, it seems to me, an ignorance of the scriptural case upon which the doctrine is based. This ignorance could be easily remedied by spending a short time browsing around the tentmaker.org site.

In the above post, it is suggested that some contrary doctrine is taught and developed from Genesis through the New Testament, so that a single verse suggesting universal reconciliation, in 1 Corinthians 15, cannot overthrow such an established doctrine (by the way, I don't consider the verse in 1 Corinthians 15 to be such a strong one for the point, compared to many others).

Yet, where is this contrary doctrine taught in any book of the Bible? I can claim to have read and studied every book from Genesis through Revelation, and I find no hint of a contrary doctrine in the Old Testament at all. In fact, I don't find any teaching in the Old Testament about postmortem issues.

In the New Testament, immortality is certainly "brought to light", but not in detail. All we are really told plainly is that many will be condemned to judgment and many others will receive life and a position of rulership with God that never ends. This is apparently all we really need to know. But no passage, exegeted responsibly, demands that some doctrine contrary to universal reconciliation must be embraced. Thus, if we had even two or three witnesses in the New Testament that clearly taught universal reconciliation, they could not be said to stand in tension with the witness of the rest of scripture, and would seem sufficient witness to establish it as revealed truth.

As for the positive case for universal reconciliation, apart from the thirty-something proof texts that UR people can present that appear to teach the doctrine outright, there is the additional drift of the rest of the New Testament. This drift appears to teach, in broad swaths:

1. that God loves all that He has created;

2. that He is committed to the restoration of all that has been lost;

3. that Jesus paid a price adequate for the salvation of every last man, woman and child (presumably because He intended to save them);

4. that the loss of even one sheep, one coin or one son is unacceptable to God;

5. that God is sovereign, taking orders from no higher authority than Himself, and has therefore established a universe in which everything conspires to bring about His good pleasure;

6. that man has free will, but it does not suggest that any man is so strong in his rebellion that his resistance may not eventually be overcome through prolonged inducements.

These things are taught, it seems to me, with utmost clarity—not in a few verses of scripture, but in the whole book. It is hard to know why anyone, observing these obvious lines of scriptural teaching, would find universal reconciliation a difficult conclusion to reach.

So wherefrom comes the resistance to the doctrine of universal reconciliation? Apparently from the following:

1. A very minuscule number of verses sound, at first blush, as if they speak of unending torment (I know of three or four such verses). These are all capable of alternative interpretations by employment of entirely legitimate exegetical considerations;

2. Some seem to think that postmortem repentance under divine pressure is less acceptable to God than is repentance in this lifetime under divine pressure—and that the former can be foolishly resisted eternally, while many (perhaps the better people, like us?) are wise enough to succumb to the latter. If there is any assumption lacking in scriptural foundation, it is certainly this one!

3. Some seem to feel no injustice in God forgiving them of their sins, but stand appalled at the idea of God forgiving (postmortem) Adolph Hitler's sins (and those of a little old Hindu woman in India, who died unfortunate enough to have heard the wrong message).

Are there additional reasons to reject universal reconciliation than these? I don't remember encountering them, but I welcome anyone to list them.

[Homer]

Steve,

I am puzzled why you do not just come out and say you are a universalist. Anyone reading your posts would come to that conclusion.

Homer

[steve7150]

Steve,

I am puzzled why you do not just come out and say you are a universalist. Anyone reading your posts would come to that conclusion.

Homer




I'm not that Steve, but i think it's not difficult to figure out Homer. You can figure out that when the bible speaks of the reconciliation of "all things" it could mean just that, or it could mean all things left after annhilation.

[steve]

Homer,

I have never made a secret of my sympathies for this view. It is my fondest hope that it may be true—just as it certainly must be God's fondest hope that it may be true (judging from the revelation of His heart, in Christ, toward sinners). However, to announce myself to be of that view, I would have to be fully convinced. When people have called the show to critique Conditional Immortality, I have similarly defended it against invalid criticism—and would do so again.

In fact, if somebody were to raise an illogical argument against the traditional view, I think you would find that I would take that person to task as well. I simply don't like to let arguments stand unchallenged when they seem glaringly invalid. Of course, an invalid argument may be made in favor of a true proposition. Even if I agree with the proposition, I would feel compelled to correct a bad argument for it.

It is the case that, at this stage of my researching for my book, I am reading primarily books by universalists. Any Christian who reads these book with anything like an open mind, will not be able to charge the view with "slim" support. The same is true of Conditional Immortality. It does seem that the support for the traditional view (I am also reading Buis' excellent book defending it) is the slimmest of all! It may well be that I will someday become whole-heartedly convinced of universal reconciliation. The fact that I have not gotten there yet is not due to the dearth of scriptural arguments in its support, but due to my own caution and my insistence on only embracing a view that I am sure can accommodate every relevant scripture. If I ever declare myself a universalist, you can be quite sure that I will have become overwhelmed by the weight of scriptural testimony.

Instead of inferring that I am a closet universalist (if I were, I would not object to being labelled as such), I would prefer that people interact with my points. To simply say, "you seem to be a universalist", with the implied subtext, "Since universalism is wrong, it is unnecessary to answer the points you made", is not a helpful approach to debating a biblical question.

[RICHinCHRIST]

Hi Homer,

Sorry... I have been busy the last few days and haven't been able to respond to your questions and comments.

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.

I wasn't using the parable to prove UR. Rather, I was mentioning it in passing after considering Colossians 1:18, and the phrase "who is the beginning...the firstborn from the dead". I was hypothesizing that those terms could be in reference to the church. If the church is the firstborn (as mentioned in Hebrews 12:23), or the 'beginning' of the reconciliation process... I wouldn't see why those who are lost in this life might not have a second chance in the next. I was making a comment in reference to the parable but not trying to prove the point from the parable. If the Church is the firstborn, does that mean that we could have a little prodigal brother (the lost world)? I see that many translators conclude that those terms (beginning, firstborn) are in reference to Christ and not the church. I see that as equally possible, but I don't see why it cannot be the church which is being referenced to. Perhaps a better understanding of Greek grammar would eliminate that possibility.. I'm not sure.

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.

Regarding God's determined will... this is a hard subject. Calvinists and Arminians disagree about which passages describe God's determined will, or His permissive will. I guess the real question is whether God's desires can be thwarted by death. If God desires to save people in the next life, there could easily be a scenario where He does not interfere with their free will. The question of how long they could resist His will is unknown (since the exact nature of the judgment is mysterious, that is, if UR is true). But in the UR view, God's desire to see people saved will inevitably happen after ages have commenced. God does not necessarily have to interfere with their free will to do this. Their own desires will most likely change as they see sin for what it is, and see God for who He is. This will seemingly be a much more painful and confrontative discipline which will influence them to change their minds... without doing it for them. I imagine it might be similar to our own sanctification. God teaches us about Himself, and conversely about sin. As we learn more, and as we go through the trials of this life (which God is in control of), we become purged and purified by fire and our faith is found to praise God in the end.

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

I don't understand this. I'm sure there are deterministic versions of UR, but that wouldn't be one which would make sense to me. I'm sure there are forms of UR which do not embrace a violation of free will.

You seem to be inferring that advocates of UR "take away hell". I always thought this as well, but this is not what evangelical Universalists teach. They believe in a very real hell. But if we were to take away 'hell', although it would be unwise, I don't see why it must be explained to someone in order for them to have a sound conversion, which seems to be what you're inferring. The 'fear of hell' tactics in modern and historical evangelism remind me more of Islamic forced conversions by terrorists than an appeal to be reconciled to a loving God.

"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 think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying that 'God will lose' in a sense that He will be personally weakened or affected by the neverending damnation of the lost. What I'm saying is that it is God's revealed will, as you agree, that all be saved. Therefore, we can logically conclude: "If all are not saved, then God did not get what He wanted". In that sense, God lost. God lost what He really wanted. He couldn't get His most wanted desire. Now, I'm open to the possibility that God may be very willing to lose in this way. After all, He commands us through Paul to rather be wronged than try to get what we lost from others (in the context of disagreements with other Christians - 1 Cor 6:7). God may be well pleased to lose in the end, and rightly damn His enemies. I think He would be displeased to have to do so (unless we have a distorted understanding of God's character... as if He actually took delight in people eternally burning.. in fact, many early church fathers thought this was the case, and that we also would rejoice in the burnings of the wicked all throughout eternity. Seems wacky to me! )

But will God let Himself lose in the end? It seems that through God's greatest loss, the loss of His own Son Jesus, we can learn something. If God the Father was willig to sacrifice His only Son, He was clearly willing to lose. But what did this 'loss' accomplish? This incredible loss ended up being the means by which God was able to gain the most! He was able to gain the redeemed through this incredible loss! The question comes down to this: "How much did Jesus' loss and death gain?" You and I would say, "The whole world, of course" (1 John 2:2). I don't see why, if Jesus died for the whole world, that He cannot get what He deserves from His sacrifice... that is, unless sin, death, and human stubbornness are stronger than God. And I'm not sure if that's the best theology.