Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children

[steve]

Belated response to john6809, who wrote on Tue Nov 27, 2012 (page two of this thread):

Steve wrote, "Since there are numerous passages (at your request, I once listed, I believe, about 50), which provide prima facie evidence for universalism (an even larger number can be adduced for annihilationism) and very few—possibly five—that provide prima facie evidence for the traditional doctrine, it seems that the job of disproving the tradition is considerably smaller than that of disproving universalism."

Could someone please point me in the direction of that thread? Thanks.God bless.

I actually did not find the original post here, but found my research on my computer, which had served as a portion of that post. Here is the information you requested:

Verses used by proponents of Universal Reconciliation

1. The message of the Gospel is that God has acted to reconcile the whole world (not just a tiny remnant) to Himself:
Luke 2:10 / John 3:17 / John 12:47 / Acts 3:21 / Rom.5:18 /Rom.11:15 / Heb.2:9 / 1 Cor.15:54-55 / 2 Cor.5:19 / John 1:29 / 1 John 2:2 / Isa.53:6 / Col.1:19-20 / Eph.1:9-10 / 1 Tim.2:6 / 1 Tim.4:9-10 / Tit.2:11

2. God is not satisfied to have any lost ones to fail to be recovered:
Matt.18:11, 14 / Luke 15:4 / 1 Tim.2:4 / Rom.11:32 / Ezek.33:11 / 2 Pet.3:9

3. God is merciful even to His enemies, despite His obligation to justly punish sin:
Ex.33:5-7 / Psalm 103:8 / Hab.3:2 / Jonah 4:2 / Matt.5:44 / Luke 6:35-36 / Luke 23:34 / Rom.5:8 / James 2:13 / 1 John 4:8, 16

4. The penalty for sin is not endless, but proportionate and just:
Gen.18:25/ Deut.32:4 / Ps.19:9 / Ps.103:8-9 / Isa. 40:2 / Ps.30:5 / Ps. 62:12 / Ps.103:6, 9 / Rom.2:5-6 / 1 Pet.1:17 / Micah 7:18

5. Through judgment, God corrects:
Isa.26:9 / Lev.26:23-24 / Job 5:17-18 / Jer.9:6-7 / Jer.30:24 / Hab.1:12 / Rev.15:4

6. After judgment, God restores:
Jer. 23:20 / Lam.3:31-33 / 2 Sam.14:14 / Ps.107:10-13 / Isa.25:6-8 / Zeph.3:8-9

7. Every knee shall bow:
Ps.22:27, 29 / Ps.65:2-3 / Ps.66:3-4 / Ps.72:11 / Matt.12:18-21 / Rom.14:10-12 / John 12:31-32 / Phil.2:10-11 / Isa.45:22-25 / Rev.5:13

8. Christ is victorious; God will not fail: John 17:4 / Isa.42:4 / Isa.53:10-11
Ps.2:8 / 1 Cor.15:55 / Phil.3:21 / Rom.5:20

Comments on the above:

a. Not every verse listed in a category gives exactly the same information as is included in every other listed verse. The ones that are more explicit, however, by normal canons of exegesis, would be permitted to assist in the interpretation of the ones that are less explicit.

b. The verses in category #4 would support conditional immortality as readily as universal reconciliation, but would not allow for eternal torment.

c. Clearly there is a context for each passage. In most of the judgment-related passages, the context actually describes temporal, not eschatological, judgments. But since eschatological judgments are hardly (if at all) mentioned much in the Old Testament, and since the meaning of the New Testament references to eschatological judgments are the very point under dispute, it is not unreasonable to extrapolate from God’s consistent policies in this life to the probability that He is going to be the same God, manifesting the same character, and following the same policies in our next life. This may not be 100% certain, but it would be a fair assumption in the absence of any good evidence to the contrary.

d. Obviously, many of the Old Testament passages, in their context, speak of Israel, and not of the world as a whole. However, it is apparent that “God made known His ways unto Moses; His acts to the children of Israel” (Ps.103:7). In other words, God’s merciful character demonstrated to Israel was not an anomaly uncharacteristic of His sentiments and behavior in general. On the contrary, what God showed to Israel was a demonstration of “His ways” and “His acts”. If the merciful God whom He demonstarted Himself to be in the Old Testament and in Christ is not characteristic of His nature generally, then these revelations were deceptive, and do not represent a making known of “His ways.” It seems obvious to me that Israel served as a type and an example of what God desired ultimately to accomplish on a more global scale.

[Homer]

Steve wrote:

On the contrary, what God showed to Israel was a demonstration of “His ways” and “His acts”. If the merciful God whom He demonstarted Himself to be in the Old Testament and in Christ is not characteristic of His nature generally, then these revelations were deceptive, and do not represent a making known of “His ways.” It seems obvious to me that Israel served as a type and an example of what God desired ultimately to accomplish on a more global scale.

Which is a very good argument against universalism. Where do we find a "universalism" in any of this? Do not these revelations demonstrate rather clearly the destruction of the wicked and the salvation of the remnant?

[jriccitelli]

If you believe in Universal Reconciliation you are a Universalist - it seems the term no matter what group you are in means 'you believe in Universal salvation'. It doesn't really make a difference how you get there the term is Universalist. I think I had this debate last year, and I haven't forgot that the best argument that they could produce was that God is loving, I will agree God is loving.
(Note Steves list proceeding was posted Nov 23, 2011 on the 'Barclay was convinced' thread)

Am I wrong in saying UR's think;
= There is an after death chance of repentance (I am not bent on refuting this idea, although not scriptural, but I am opposed to the notion that 'all' or 'everyone' will repent. This does seem to echo the serpent's line "You shall surely not die".

= That Hell, the pit (or somewhere post mortem) is a place where the unrepentant choose to repent and confess, and are released.

= So UR, or Universalist, both think 'all' will be eventually made to dwell eternally with God.
And the reasons given always seem to boil down to; Because God would be disappointed that not 'all' repent (so God boils them all till they cry uncle).

= And that God is - too loving - to not save every single human.

I do not see the 'every knee will bow and confess' verse as meaning every knee bowed will be saved, repentant, or that it even means every single human. It could be every repentant God fearing person will bow. There is way to much verse to the contraire to think this verse is going to reverse every thing else God has said.
And the word 'all' in some contexts is taken way too far, since it can be demonstrated 'all' is used in many instances were all are not all. Besides the contradiction it imposes.
Again the UR position seems to attract liberals like white on bread.

[steve]

No new questions here that have not been thoroughly answered repeatedly. Why not simply say, "I told you already I'm not open-minded," and be done with it? Our eyes and your fingers can then devote themselves to something that hasn't been discussed to death.

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

No new questions here that have not been thoroughly answered repeatedly. Why not simply say, "I told you already I'm not open-minded," and be done with it? Our eyes and your fingers can then devote themselves to something that hasn't been discussed to death

.

Your comment about not being open minded is not kind.

You should realize people like jrriccitilli are relatively new here and are not likely to have read all the previous posts in this category. And we also have a continual stream of visitors and new contributors who haven't heard. This is similar to your radio program where you have repeated numerous times the "there were six schools in the early church, four of which were universalist" line, its a bit like water torture to the regular listener but new information to others.

[steve]

Okay.

[steve7150]

and I haven't forgot that the best argument that they could produce was that God is loving, I will agree God is loving.








I think a better argument is that it's God will that everyone be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

In Eph 1.9 Paul said "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure which he has purposed in himself".

Verse 10 goes on the say "he might gather together in one all things in Christ."

My KJV commentary says that verse 10 indicates the phrase "his good pleasure" means "for the purpose of executing it" , the "it" being his will.


In other words we know God's will and if the commentators are right from my KJV bible then God intends for his own good pleasure to execute his will.

Of course Paul also said this would happen "in the fullness of times" so we still have time also for God's judgments and then full restoration.

[john6809]

Hi Steve,

No new questions here that have not been thoroughly answered repeatedly. Why not simply say, "I told you already I'm not open-minded," and be done with it? Our eyes and your fingers can then devote themselves to something that hasn't been discussed to death

.

Your comment about not being open minded is not kind.

You should realize people like jrriccitilli are relatively new here and are not likely to have read all the previous posts in this category. And we also have a continual stream of visitors and new contributors who haven't heard. This is similar to your radio program where you have repeated numerous times the "there were six schools in the early church, four of which were universalist" line, its a bit like water torture to the regular listener but new information to others.

Accusations of unkindness, whether true or not, are best not served up with unkind comments of your own. Perhaps, if you had concluded your comments before your last sentence....

[john6809]

Steve wrote, "Belated response to john6809, who wrote on Tue Nov 27, 2012 (page two of this thread):



Steve wrote, "Since there are numerous passages (at your request, I once listed, I believe, about 50), which provide prima facie evidence for universalism (an even larger number can be adduced for annihilationism) and very few—possibly five—that provide prima facie evidence for the traditional doctrine, it seems that the job of disproving the tradition is considerably smaller than that of disproving universalism."

Could someone please point me in the direction of that thread? Thanks.God bless.


I actually did not find the original post here, but found my research on my computer, which had served as a portion of that post. Here is the information you requested:"

Thanks Steve. I should have posted earlier that I did find that post at about page 5 of the "Barclay was convinced" thread. Being quite new to both this site and anything other than the traditional view, I have very much enjoyed the interaction on this subject. I found myself very uncomfortable with the traditional view, even before I heard that there were alternative views. I now feel that I have a decent grasp of the basics of the UR view. I have to confess, I hope that it turns out to be the right view but I also feel, like others here, that the view would be much better served with a greater amount of positive scripture pointing toward it, rather than the idea that scripture does not "prevent" the view from being correct. I realize that some of the scriptures you pointed out, of which I have had a cursory read of about half of them, would be difficult for a believer in ET, but many don't inspire me to buy into the UR view with a high level of confidence. Obviously, I would need to finish reading all of the related verse and studying them in greater detail. I suspect that I still won't feel that I have reached a conclusion that totally satisfies me. However, for now, I need to start studying the third main view, conditional immortality, until I have a basic understanding of it's main points.

[Paidion]

Why not simply say, "I told you already I'm not open-minded," and be done with it?

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. I don't think it's unkind at all! — just realistic.
With JR's continual attempts to convince without offering any convincing material, he might FEEL that it was a slap in the face. At times, I have felt that from Steve, too. But I have also learned from his rebuke. JR could learn something also, if he were willing. As the old saying goes, "The truth hurts."