Barclay was convinced (UR)

[jriccitelli]

Other Steve, I was responding to the ‘statement’ that Todd made on Dec 1st.
It's not a UR view but still some peoples view, none the less. The argument does have application to UR in that I am trying to establish that the penalty for sins, the Cross, must be 'accepted' for forgiveness.

I think UR is riding on a slippery slope with Universalism.
That is the idea that Gods love and grace, must trump His desire to establish Justice, and a 'new' earth.
UR is saying God cannot destroy sinners because His love for them is too great.
Or God cannot destroy anything because He loves them so much.
But if they remain sinners, despite all the punishment and torture, then you include them with the people who accepted Gods love, willingly, you would still have people who still did not love Him. Obviously you wouldn’t agree with God doing that.
Barclay wouldn’t agree, he said in the article;
“If one man remains outside the love of God at the end of time, it means that that one man has defeated the love of God - and that is impossible” (I guess Barclay wouldn’t have people outside the city gates, in heaven either)
Barclay also said;
"I would believe with Origen that universalism is no easy thing. Origen believed that after death there were many who would need prolonged instruction, the sternest discipline, even the severest punishment before they were fit for the presence of God"
What God requires is a change of heart, about Him. I don’t see everyone doing that, just because they are punished.
But God said “where will I strike you again, you are covered in bruises, bleeding and ransacked” Repeated judgments do not guarantee a person will love God and accept His mercy.
The bible portrays people going right back to sinning. That is until they ‘accept’ His Son as their offering.
I still do not see any scripture saying ‘all’ people will ‘accept’ His Son, or eternal life.

I suppose there are two reasons for God releasing people from hell in UR thinking;
One would be; they paid off their sins, or sentence, through suffering.
Two they repent.
Is God releasing them near the beginning of their sentence or near the end simply because they repent, because certainly they will repent just to get out of hell? Certainly most all would repent, but will they all accept Gods Son?
As you and Michelle alluded to; It sure seems to me that UR has hell as a place where people are tortured until they make a confession. Hell seems to be a correctional institute that frees them on their good behavior.
Certainly people are not saved by atoning for their own sins, so they must make a confession of trust and faith in God.
UR’s problem is not the hope of hoping everyone will ‘accept’ Gods offer, that’s a good thing, the problem is assuming scripture teaches God ‘must’ accept or ‘will’ accept every person, for some reason. Because we may be wrong.

Should Hebrews 6:6 be changed to read; "...and if they have fallen away, it is impossible 'not' to renew them again to repentance...

[steve]

I think UR is riding on a slippery slope with Universalism.
That is the idea that Gods love and grace, must trump His desire to establish Justice, and a 'new' earth.

There is no injustice in giving people the opportunity to repent. God has not sacrificed justice in allowing our sins to be forgiven. Nor woud He sacrifice justice by letting people repent post mortem. How would the phenomenon of death somehow change the ethics of God's accepting man's repentance?

UR is saying God cannot destroy sinners because His love for them is too great. Or God cannot destroy anything because He loves them so much.

God can do anything He wants to do. The contention of most Christians, whether UR or not, is that God’s love compels Him to want to save all and to destroy none.

But if they remain sinners, despite all the punishment and torture, then you include them with the people who accepted Gods love, willingly, you would still have people who still did not love Him. Obviously you wouldn’t agree with God doing that.

Obviously not. I have never read a follower of universal reconciliation who believed that people will be saved who “remain sinners, despite all the punishment and torture.” The idea is that hell is a place that brings people to a change of heart.

Barclay wouldn’t agree, he said in the article;
“If one man remains outside the love of God at the end of time, it means that that one man has defeated the love of God - and that is impossible” (I guess Barclay wouldn’t have people outside the city gates, in heaven either)

I think Barclay would probably agree with my statement above (though I am not sure). I don’t see anything in his statement that would suggest that anyone will be saved without having a change of heart.

What God requires is a change of heart, about Him. I don’t see everyone doing that, just because they are punished.

I am not sure why this would be difficult to imagine. When we discipline our children, we hope that this will turn them around—not only outwardly, but also inwardly. You are correct to recognize that not everyone seems to be corrected in this life. The question is whether rebellion can be cured by extended treatment. I might say that “I don’t see everyone doing that,” but this would only be because not everyone is doing that now. I cannot see into the future, but the fact that some of us have had a change of heart under the dealings of God encourages me to think it possible for the same to happen to others. Why not?

Is God releasing them near the beginning of their sentence or near the end simply because they repent, because certainly they will repent just to get out of hell?

First, repentance that is not sincere will not please God. Repentance that is sincere always pleases God. Is your objection that God might confuse fake repentance for the real thing, and forgive the sinner by mistake, or is it that you object to God forgiving even genuine repentance?

I am perplexed by what appears to be an attitude in traditionalists that rejoices in the grace shown to themselves, but begrudges grace shown to others. I certainly repented "near the beginning" of my sentence. In hearing about hell as a child, it didn't take me long to see what side of the bread the butter was on. I got in while the getting was good! Should I object to God too quickly forgiving me because I too early fled from the wrath to come? How long a torture should I prefer for the poor sap who ends up in hell, before God checks back to see if he has repented?

Isn't a quick repentance the most desirable of all scenarios? Who could be disappointed if the prodigal were to come to his senses before, rather than after, a prolonged sentence in the pig trough—the older brother, perhaps?

Certainly most all would repent, but will they all accept Gods Son?

What does repentance mean, if not turning to Jesus?

UR’s problem is not the hope of hoping everyone will ‘accept’ Gods offer, that’s a good thing, the problem is assuming scripture teaches God ‘must’ accept or ‘will’ accept every person, for some reason. Because we may be wrong.

I don’t see how there is any risk in saying that God will accept all who truly repent. That seems to be one of the most documented facts of scripture. Whether God will extend the opportunity to repent even beyond the grave, and whether all will ultimately repent, if given sufficient opportunity, are the questions that UR is adding to the mix.

Should Hebrews 6:6 be changed to read; "...and if they have fallen away, it is impossible 'not' renew them again to repentance, since they 'cannot' again crucify to themselves the Son of God and 'cannot' put Him to open shame"

I have never found this verse an easy one to exegete. However, in the context, I think that the word “impossible” must be understood to be qualified by some modifier, like “impossible for man.” Remember, in a case where Jesus was discussing another group that are hard to reach, He said, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matt.19:26)

[backwoodsman]

I think UR is riding on a slippery slope with Universalism.
That is the idea that Gods love and grace, must trump His desire to establish Justice, and a 'new' earth.
UR is saying God cannot destroy sinners because His love for them is too great.
Or God cannot destroy anything because He loves them so much.

I haven't really been following this thread, just checking in from time to time, and this isn't a topic I've really given a lot of study or thought. But that's not at all what I understand Christian universalism to be saying. Rather, I understand it to say that God's love and justice, and whatever other of His attributes might be relevant, work together to bring about true repentance and salvation for all, without compromising His love, justice, or anything else. Without committing to a position on the topic, I don't know of anything in Scripture that clearly refutes the idea that that might be possible after death, as well as before.

Repeated judgments do not guarantee a person will love God and accept His mercy.

True enough. But when the one who has deceived them all their lives is taken out of the picture, and they see God for who He really is, the equation will be very different. Isn't that the point of most of God's workings in unbelievers' lives -- to bring them to repentance and salvation?

I suppose there are two reasons for God releasing people from hell in UR thinking;
One would be; they paid off their sins, or sentence, through suffering.
Two they repent.

#1 has no place in Christian thinking -- Jesus paid for our sins, because we can never hope to.
#2 is the same way you, I, and everyone else is saved, and is God's clearly stated desire for all. The question is, where is the Scripture that says death is the cutoff point for repentance?

It sure seems to me that UR has hell as a place where people are tortured until they make a confession. Hell seems to be a correctional institute that frees them on their good behavior.

The truth is, if the Bible really told us, clearly and unequivocally, much of anything about the nature of hell or the fate of those who die unsaved, this discussion wouldn't exist. About all we really know for sure is, the sooner one repents, the better. Even if Christian universalism is correct, one is still infinitely better off repenting in this life, and serving God in this life. Focusing on hell -- whatever it is -- misses the point of salvation entirely; we're saved from hell, to be sure, but that's a side effect. We're saved from our sins, and to follow God and be restored to relationship with Him; and the sooner that starts, the better. It's a tragedy when someone dies unsaved -- but whatever happens to him after that, it's also a tragedy that he lived his life without God.

UR’s problem is not the hope of hoping everyone will ‘accept’ Gods offer, that’s a good thing, the problem is assuming scripture teaches God ‘must’ accept or ‘will’ accept every person, for some reason. Because we may be wrong.

Why does it matter if we're wrong? (I know why _I_ think it matters; I want to know why _you_ think it matters.)

[Todd]

Other Steve, I was responding to the ‘statement’ that Todd made on Dec 1st.
It's not a UR view but still some peoples view, none the less.

I should probably clarify my view for those who aren't familiar. My view is different from the "standard" UR view. My view is a subset of UR. There are at least three different UR views.

1. Christian Universalism (which is mostly discussed here)
2. Eastern Orthodox - this view has the belief that everyone goes to the same 'place' in the resurrection, but once there, their experience varies depending on how they lived their mortal lives.
3. Ultra-Universalism

My view is essentially the same as the Ultra-Universalist view (named this in the 19th century). Here are the basic points of this view.

1. Victory in Christ is two-fold. First, victory in life is conditional and requires repentance and faith in Him. Second, victory over death is universal; Christ secured the reconciliation of all mankind through the sacrifice of himself.
2. Judgment & Punishment (correction) happens during our lifetime.
3. Everyone (just and unjust) is changed in the resurrection and raised in willing subjection to Christ.

I don't want to be a distraction in this great thread, so I'll bow out of this discussion going forward.

Todd

[Paidion]

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.

There's nothing at all "strange" about my position.

1. First the matter of the person not making "a free will choice". Any one having libertarian free will, when presented with two options, is able to choose either one. The man in this "thought experiment" was unable to choose either one. For the electrodes prevented him from voting for McCain. Presumably Craig would affirm that the man did make a free choice, since he wasn't compelled to vote for Obama, as he intended. For that is Craig's definition of "free will" — that nothing is compelling you. But having libertarian free will, implies that when you are faced with two or more options, you have the ability to choose any one of them.

2. You indicate parenthetically that to suffer in hell continuously is tantamount to "the electrodes are always activated." It is not the case that the sufferer cannot chose to continue to reject. There are no "electrodes" that prevent him from doing so. His pains do not force him to repent. Even in this life, when painful punishment is inflicted upon a person, he often becomes more hardened than ever. During this short life span, it is certainly possible to rebel for 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, or more, no matter how much painful punishment is inflicted upon one. But it just isn't feasible for a person to rebel forever. Though it is theoretically possible to do so, it is practically impossible — just as it is possible, when tossing a fair die, for any number but a six coming up. This may happen two, three, five, or ten times. It is unlikely to happen if one tosses the die 20 times. But theoretically, one could keep tossing the die forever, and never have a six come up. But practically, it is impossible. I know the analogy is not a good one; for dice are not conscious entities with the power of choice. But I think you get the idea.

[Colin]

I think one of the aspect of UR that I have a hard time with is the idea that those in the LOF are to repent and ask Jesus to be their lord because of some kind of punishment. I think of those accepting Jesus here on Earth as responding to his love, not responding to some kind of punishment. Why would Jesus use punishment to reach out to those in the LOF instead of love? Certainly love would be more powerful and satisfying.

One of the premises of UR seems to be that it is the love and mercy of Christ that supports the idea of UR. Why would that love and mercy be shown in the form of punishment? Where is the message of Christ's love?

[steve]

Hi Colin,

I don't quite understand this objection. Why would a punishment (or discipline) that is calculated to restore the lost man from his delusive commitment to self-destruction be considered as anything other than loving? I never disciplined my children out of any motive other than love for them.

It is common for Christians to place God's love and His wrath in tension with each other. Thus, the argument seems to be, "God is often (usually?) loving, but we cannot deny His wrath and justice. Sometimes His love is overruled by His wrath and justice." If there is really a perceived conflict between God's judgment and His love (which I do not admit), then which would trump the other? Which is more dominant in God's character? If there is a tension between these two, doesn't mercy triumph over judgment (James 2:13)?

The Bible says that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). It does not add "but sometimes God simply cannot be loving." The Bible also says "God is Spirit" (John 4:24) and "God is Light" (1 John 1:5). Is it possible to think that God is only sometimes Spirit, and sometimes not, or that God is sometimes Light, but sometimes He has to be darkness? If God is love, then it is impossible for Him ever to act contrary to love—which is His nature. "He cannot deny Himself" (2 Tim.2:13).

Since punishment can as readily be loving as unloving, why should we doubt that God, who is love, would ever punish in any way that is not loving?

[Colin]

Steve -

I think we all would condem the Spanish Inquisition, where people were tortured in an effort to get them to convert to Christianity. I guess in my mind the idea that God would use punishment to do the same thing smells wrong to me. That being said, I certainly understand parents using punishment to correct the behaviour of their children (seems I do that every day...). And I don't doubt that God could use punishment to correct non-believers if that is what he chooses to do.

But I think the real question is why? If God is willing to wait as long as it takes for people to accept his grace, why use punishment to encourage that to happen? Why not show his perfect love? Wouldn't that convince people? I guess I'm just musing. It's not my place to question God's methods.

[Roberto]

Steve -

I think we all would condem the Spanish Inquisition, where people were tortured in an effort to get them to convert to Christianity. I guess in my mind the idea that God would use punishment to do the same thing smells wrong to me. That being said, I certainly understand parents using punishment to correct the behaviour of their children (seems I do that every day...). And I don't doubt that God could use punishment to correct non-believers if that is what he chooses to do.

But I think the real question is why? If God is willing to wait as long as it takes for people to accept his grace, why use punishment to encourage that to happen? Why not show his perfect love? Wouldn't that convince people? I guess I'm just musing. It's not my place to question God's methods.

I know of one instance in which God uses discipline to restore an unbeliever- New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

remember that verse?

[TheEditor]

I haven't fully come to the UR view as of yet. I still find an appeal in CT Russell's views (whose views, btw are nothing like contemporary JW views) which are an incorporation of CI and future probation. I always felt it nicely allowed for the maximum amount of opportunity and fairness for people to accept the Gospel, without having their hand forced.










I'm also sympathetic to Russell's view and he has unfairly been connected to the JWs which he did not start as they began after his death and were a breakaway group from the Associated biblestudents.
I had asked whether anyone thought about a endgame between CI and UR which is really what Russell believed but no one responded.

Hi Steve,

I was raised a third generation JW, and so I became much more familiar with CTRs views after I stopped attending the Meetings. For most JWs, Russell's writings are mere museum pieces, but for those of us with the desire to read those books, it became immediately clear how far the JWs strayed from those ideas, most likely due to the undue influence of one drunken lawyer from Missouri.

The idea of a "restitution class" on earth seems intriguing, and satisfactory, but I don't know that one can find it as a clearly layed out concept in the Scriptures. On the other hand, it may be that since the Bible is written to believers, that the "world in general" doesn't factor into any real discussion. The admonition seems to always come back to making sure of ourselves, and not unduly concerning ourselves with what will become of others.

While Jesus does speak of those who wail, weep and gnash their teeth at his return for judgment, I also see that what God offers is a "blessed if you do opportunity", rather than a religion of last resort and/or the only alternative to doom. Ultimately how it will all work out is beyond my knowledge. To my mind, there are so many people who don’t even have a clue about anything other than their daily life routine of work and diversion. The questions I’ve posed for myself are: How is God to be viewed? How best to describe him? As a Judge to pardon or condemn? Or as a loving Father who would do anything within His righteous standards to save as many of His children as possible? To me the answer is obvious, though I admit to a limited grasp on all the particulars. Time will tell.

Regards, Brenden.