Thoughts on Universalism

[far_away]

ON UNIVERSALISM



Before I begin I must first state that the Universalism of which I speak is only to apply to a Christian atmosphere. I have no need Unitarian Universalism just as a Unitarian has no need for "Christian" Universalism. I tell you this because there is a huge difference between the two and if we do not focus only on the one then everything I say will be rendered foolish and useless.

The late great Dr. Craig Keen often has said that you can not be Wesleyan and not flirt with this "Christian" Universalism but I must disagree with him on this point (I know all ONU students are gasping at this point). My experience (limited I admit) leads me to believe that it is Calvinists who often find themselves flirting with Universalism. This may sound foolish at first but if we consider all the Christian theologians who were/are Universalists, Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmon to name a few, and suddenly my claim does not seem so unfounded.



One may wonder why that is, for Calvinist doctrine leaves not room for such thoughts, or does it. Before I continue allow me to explain my current situation. I find myself a Wesleyan in a Calvinist world. My father attends a Christian Reformed Church and I am currently an intern and a CRC. I love these people, I love their way of living, I love their philosophy on life. There Worship is amazing. In many ways I relate to them more than my own "denomination" and yet, doctrinally and theologically I could never be a Calvinist.



Why is this? Its simple, if I were Calvinist I would have no choice but to be a Universalist, which would probably make me a heretic, would it not. For you see, if God is the one deciding whether or not an individual receives his or her salvation and not the individual then why would God not save everyone? Surely I have heard the "Sunday school answer". God is God and I am not. Yes, I know, but we are not talking about God can do, but rather what God would do. Our Holy Book shows us nothing to be consistent with what is being said. We serve a God who loves all man, so why would we pick some and not others. Where Calvinists often get hung up on, is the very snag those who do not agree with them are accused of being caught, limiting God. By saying that God would not willfully limit himself to allow man to have free will (a force that I do not feel can be ignored) the Calvinist is indeed limiting God.

So you see, this limits us to only two options, either God leaves the individuals salvation up to him or herself, or God, being a loving and caring God, if left to his own desire, would surely chose to save all of his beloved creation, made in his image. As Calvinists, Barth and Moltmon were limited to choice number two. They had no other option, they could not accept traditional Calvinist beliefs as it was inconstant with their God.



I could talk to you about Revelation 21, of Paul’s doctrine of Universalism, of hints of Universalism in the synoptic gospel, but that is not really the issue (not to discredit the bible), the point here is the nature of God. If I believed that God was the one who chose an individuals salvation, then based on my knowledge and experience of the nature of God, I would have no choice but to be a Universalist.

But then again...

After some serious pondering I am no longer sure if I really believe in Christian Universalism, at least in a true sense. Those who have been labeled as such deny it. It is not that they are universalist, but rather that they refuse to be the ones to draw a line where God's grace ends and damnation begins.
Where does it end? Does it at all? "Hell ain't so bad Jesus is there." Maybe "Christian Universalism" is not so much that "we are all going to heaven" but rather that God's grace reaches, no floods the pits of hell (via the cross).

Maybe the lake of fire is not so much damnation but the cleansing work of God (fire has been used this way in the bible before you know).

[Fizban]

For you see, if God is the one deciding whether or not an individual receives his or her salvation and not the individual then why would God not save everyone?

Dunno. First answer this: why WOULD God save everyone?


So you see, this limits us to only two options, either God leaves the individuals salvation up to him or herself, or God, being a loving and caring God, if left to his own desire, would surely chose to save all of his beloved creation, made in his image.

Why does it limit God to only two options though? If I understand the Calvinist position correctly, then God is Sovereign and has freedom in His choice of who goes to heaven and hell.

Universalism" is not so much that "we are all going to heaven" but rather that God's grace reaches, no floods the pits of hell (via the cross).

This was the same mistake that Philip Gulley and James Mulholland made in their book If Grace is True: Why God Will Save Everyone. They assumed that God would save everyone because of grace, making it a one-party decision. Based upon what scholars have learned of the Social World of the NT, we now know that grace is a two-party deal. The Patron offers the grace or favor rather, and the Client accepts it, and should then respond with gratitude.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Dunno. First answer this: why WOULD God save everyone?
Because he gave us reason to hope this is what he intended?

Romans 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Based upon what scholars have learned of the Social World of the NT, we now know that grace is a two-party deal. The Patron offers the grace or favor rather, and the Client accepts it, and should then respond with gratitude.
I don't think that's Paul's view of grace, though! Not in the area of salvation...

Acts 18:27 When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed.

Not "those who by grace had been offered salvation"...

No, "by grace you have been saved ... and this not of yourselves."

But I agree that basing arguments on what we expect God should (or would) do is not the proper way to proceed, we must be Bereans, like those who searched the Scriptures...

Blessings,
Lee

[Fizban]

Hi everyone

Hello:tongue:


Because he gave us reason to hope this is what he intended?

Romans 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

I do believe that to be His intent or desire, but I also know that it will not happen. I was merely posing the question under a Calvinist view, though I am not a Calvinist.


I don't think that's Paul's view of grace, though! Not in the area of salvation...

It is exactly Paul's view of grace. Grace, or the Favor of the Patron, was an unmerited gift, meaning nothing could be done to deserve it. The Patron would do this out of the goodness of his heart for the betterment of the Client. These types of relationships were in abundance in the NT world as David deSilva notes in his book Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity.

God, as our Patron, sent His son to pay the debt of our sins. Through grace or favor, we had this given to us. It was God's unmerited favor, or grace, that came our salvation. :smile:

Take care,

Lee

[mickiel]

[QUOTE=far_away]ON UNIVERSALISM



Glad you are THINKING.

When we concentrate and are willing to reject traditional teaching, or at least question it, see if it really sizes up to the word of God, then our heads can be a bowl for the potter to mold, and not a brain for human influence to mold. There is a hughe difference, and that difference IS NOT THE WIDE WAY. Itys just not. Hardly none sees it.

Free will is Gods word explained and understood by the brain of mankind.

Gods will is he himself explaining himself.

Free will is the desire of man. Men doing and believing what THEY will. What THEY choose. THEY decide their own salvation, their own direction.

Reality is Gods desires. God doing and believing his own purpose. His will being done. Him deciding and desiring all to be saved.

Universalism is Gods will explaining his unilateral ability and inner feelings about his creations. It is him giving birth to his own people and not loosing any. Which is what him being the author and finisher of our faith means. If you THINK about him being that, first and last, there is NO ROOM for mankinds decision making ability in that holy equation. God STARTS IT, and FINISHES IT, not our own will. This is what the word means when it says " In Christ, we LIVE( this covers life itself, none created themselves and none can SUBSTAIN their own lives) we MOVE( this covers any physical event in our lives, all things are controlled by him, that is not free will, and HAVE OUR BEING( this covers all spiritual and mental abilities, and inntelectual as well.)

This is what the proverbs meant when it stated "the way of man is not in himself", because its in God. Well free will is the orgin of the OBJECTION to these scriptures. Free will teachs that the way of man IS in himself. That in OURSELVES, we live, move and have our being. Free will is mankinds declairation of independance from God. Universalism is mankinds point of direction back toward sanity.

[Fizban]

Free will is Gods word explained and understood by the brain of mankind.

Hmmm. I'm not sure if many philosophers would consider that the correct definition.

Free will is the desire of man. Men doing and believing what THEY will. What THEY choose. THEY decide their own salvation, their own direction.

Somewhat. Some choose salvation through Jesus Christ.

Reality is Gods desires.

So sin is a desire of God, because it is real. Care to revise that?


Universalism is Gods will explaining his unilateral ability and inner feelings about his creations. It is him giving birth to his own people and not loosing any.

One could easily say that "*Insert Deity Here* is God's will explaining his unilateral ability and inner feelings about his creations. This isn't exclusive to Universalism. I agree with the second sentence in regards to Universalism, but I do not believe it to be true within Christianity.

Which is what him being the author and finisher of our faith means.

Gotta disagree with you there. It means he gave us reason to be loyal or faithful to him, namely through His Son's crucifixion. It doesn't mean all will be saved.

If you THINK about him being that, first and last, there is NO ROOM for mankinds decision making ability in that holy equation.

It was up to each individual to accept God's grace. We could do nothing to earn it, nor save ourselves without it, but we are given the ability to reject it. That is mankind's one role in salvation, the choice between acceptance or rejection.

Free will is mankinds declairation of independance from God. Universalism is mankinds point of direction back toward sanity.

Not necessarily. It could also be his pledge of allegiance to God.

[mickiel]

God is universal, so is his pathology and his personal ways of being. No mind that thinks can understand universalism, unless it gives up on elitest, small minded groupish thoughts. Thats why no christian will ever see universalism, hell belief has limited their view of an all encompassing God. God has not willed that any perish, only religon doctrine has done that.

[Fizban]

No mind that thinks can understand universalism, unless it gives up on elitest, small minded groupish thoughts.

So did you mean for that to sound that arrogant, or was it a mistake? Otherwise I might have to give you a gold star for irony...:ahem:

Thats why no christian will ever see universalism, hell belief has limited their view of an all encompassing God.

Interesting thoughts. Wrong, but interesting. I'd just as easily say that "universalist-belief" has limited a person's view of God.

God has not willed that any perish, only religon doctrine has done that.
:rofl:
Ok, I'll bite, where's your proof? And just because God didn't will any to perish doesn't mean some don't by the nature of their own choices.

[mickiel]

:rofl:
Ok, I'll bite, where's your proof? And just because God didn't will any to perish doesn't mean some don't by the nature of their own choices.


The scriptures are proof enough to me, just not to all. Well now why is that? Because it takes MORE than scripture to understand scripture. The bible has always been in modern times, but not understanding of it. For example; Proof enough to me is Job 23:13, God is unique, who can persuade him against his will? What his soul DESIRES, THAT HE DOES. Simple enough. What does God desire? 2 Tim.2:4 , he desires all men to be saved and eventually understand the truth of that salvation. What he desires, that he does. So I believe and know he will do that, and it will not return to him void. I could careless who does not believe it, nor will I ever try and convince one TO believe it, exspically a christian mind steeped into traditional limited atonement.

People believe most will not be saved because thats the way THEY desire it to be, NOT God.

[Fizban]

The scriptures are proof enough to me, just not to all.

That's good that you have such a high view of scripture. I carry the same view toward it. However, what about scripture that says not all will be saved?

Because it takes MORE than scripture to understand scripture. The bible has always been in modern times, but not understanding of it.

That's why I read as many scholars as I can. I'm working my way through the Context Group, with a slight detour on the Synoptic Problem. Its also another reason why I disagree with universalism.

Proof enough to me is Job 23:13, God is unique, who can persuade him against his will?

None, of course.

What does God desire? 2 Tim.2:4 , he desires all men to be saved and eventually understand the truth of that salvation.

I'm guessing you got your verse wrong on 2 Timothy 2:4 as it says "No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer." Yes, I agree that He desires that all of his children be saved, but that doesn't mean it will happen. God obviously did not desire sin to enter his creation, but it did anyways.

And you are also traipsing into an interesting theological area of "would God force someone against their own free will to choose him?" It is certainly His right, but I cannot see Him doing it in regards to salvation in scripture.

I could careless who does not believe it, nor will I ever try and convince one TO believe it, exspically a christian mind steeped into traditional limited atonement.

Well, fortunately for you I am a not a "christian mind steeped into traditional limited atonement." I believe in a general atonement, if you would; basically, that while Christ's atonement is available to all people, it does not count towards a person unless they accept it. Plainly, many people have not accept his sacrifice.

People believe most will not be saved because thats the way THEY desire it to be, NOT God.

Or it could be that they're basing their teachings upon those contained in the Bible.

"Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Matthew 25: 41, 46

[mickiel]

"Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Matthew 25: 41, 46[/QUOTE]



The scripture I refered to is 1Tim.2:4.

One comment on the above. I will never.... never believe that God would punish anything forever, human or otherwise, to do such and evil thing would be insanity. I do not complettely understand those verses, but I will never accept that God will punish forever, or even for a long time. Jesus was not beaten to death so that people will be beaten for eternity.

[Fizban]

The scripture I refered to is 1Tim.2:4.

Ah. Thank you.


One comment on the above. I will never.... never believe that God would punish anything forever, human or otherwise, to do such and evil thing would be insanity. I do not complettely understand those verses, but I will never accept that God will punish forever, or even for a long time. Jesus was not beaten to death so that people will be beaten for eternity.

I can understand your objection, but I cannot agree with it.

to do such and evil thing would be insanity.

Be careful. As humans we have a limited perspective of God and cannot accurately judge his actions.

I do not complettely understand those verses, but I will never accept that God will punish forever, or even for a long time.

So in other words, you're ignoring what evidence we have in front of us? It is good for us to think with our hearts along with our heads, but we cannot ignore the evidence that is plainly in front of us.

Jesus was not beaten to death so that people will be beaten for eternity.

No, hell and punishment was going to happen irregardless. Christ provided away out because he payed the debt that was owed toward God.

However, the Bible makes it quite clear that people have to accept His atonement for themselves.

Let us not forget that we are not innocent, that no human is innocent.

Secondly, I think your view of hell is incorrect. It is not a place of endless torture. I believe that scripture attests to it being a place of stripe for stripe, that your punishment fits the crime. Beyond that, it is more a place of shame and disgrace than anything else.

I believe your intentions are good, but your theology is misguided. Will not the judge of all the earth do right? And how is it doing right to let those who haven't paid their debts into heaven? And what about those who openly rejected him, wanted nothing to do with him?

[mickiel]

.

Secondly, I think your view of hell is incorrect. It is not a place of endless torture. I believe that scripture attests to it being a place of stripe for stripe, that your punishment fits the crime. Beyond that, it is more a place of shame and disgrace than anything else.



I cannot understand this. It is impossible for anything a human can do to deserve eternal punishing, and call that fitting. If I sin 500 times a day, for 70 years, then I think , oh maybe 70 years of suffering might fit the crime. But to punish me for 188,999,777 trillion years and more is insane.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Good to meet another Lee here! Sorry for the late response, this is not a forum I usually frequent.

Lee: Because he gave us reason to hope this is what he intended?

Romans 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

Fizban: I do believe that to be His intent or desire, but I also know that it will not happen.
There are verses that tell us that all of God's intents and even desires will be accomplished, though:

Isaiah 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.

"All I please..."

Or it could be that they're basing their teachings upon those contained in the Bible.

"Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Matthew 25: 41, 46
Yes, and if God did not prepare the eternal fire for them, then in some sense they do not belong there, and then may we hope they will not stay there?

And "eternal punishment" is parallel to "eternal fire" here, as well, possibly indicating a place of eternal punishment more than an interval of eternal punishment for everyone sent there, since the righteous had eternal life before they went into eternal life! And they went "into" eternal life, indicating again, that a place may be the focus, not the start (and thus not necessarily the extent) of an interval for each person mentioned.

So then if there are possible interpretations for these verses about judgment that are consistent with all being saved, we may ask if there are verses giving reason to hope that all will be saved. And indeed, there are, if God will be "all in all", it's hard to qualify that superlative...

Blessings,
Lee

[Fizban]

I cannot understand this. It is impossible for anything a human can do to deserve eternal punishing, and call that fitting.

Interesting position. Again, though, by what basis are you determining this? Your own standard, or God's?

And I must bring this up again. I belive that your view of hell is Biblically incorrect. It is not a place of endless torture, I believe. The evidence in the Bible would suggest that it is a place of exclusion from fellowship with God. I'm a little busy at the moment (I'm young and gotta go look for a job), but I'll work on bringing a scriptural summary of hell to the fore either today or tomorrow.

Till then

[Fizban]

Hi everyone,

Good to meet another Lee here! Sorry for the late response, this is not a forum I usually frequent.


Yes, I fear that our name is getting rarer. Well, I have met many girls with the name "Leigh". Unfortunately, sometimes I get mail from companies addressed to me thinking I'm a woman:hmph:. Hehe, oh well.

And better a late response than never, I would imagine.

Isaiah 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.

In context, though, that verse is referring to Israel's earned captivity in Babylon and God's purpose to bring them out of it. Secondly, if universalism is correct, we must establish a basis as to what God's purpose is.

Yes, and if God did not prepare the eternal fire for them, then in some sense they do not belong there, and then may we hope they will not stay there?

I think you are unfortunately grasping at straws here. While some may misconstrue this as an Argument from Silence, wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that if the punishment did end, there would be mention of it at somepoint in the NT? Fortunately, I don't rest my case on that, I am merely offering it as food for thought.

And "eternal punishment" is parallel to "eternal fire" here, as well, possibly indicating a place of eternal punishment more than an interval of eternal punishment for everyone sent there, since the righteous had eternal life before they went into eternal life! And they went "into" eternal life, indicating again, that a place may be the focus, not the start (and thus not necessarily the extent) of an interval for each person mentioned.

Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh note in their commentary on the Synoptic Gospels that "the outcomes are remarkable: the former [sheep] received endless life in 'the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world,' the latter endless punishment in 'eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" pg. 126

The text is quite explicit and clear about the consequences of a person's decision. Christ said that they will depart into eternal punishment. Intimating that the "place" is strictly eternal instead of the individual's punishment is reading into the text that which is not there.

Again, also, we have no mention in the Bible of those who return from eternal punishment. Paul writes in Ephesians 2:12 "remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. " Paul says that those outside of Christ are without hope and without God, that they are not members of the New Covenant in other words. Why would Paul say that there was no hope if there was hope for those who didn't accept Christ?

Romans 2:6-10 Paul writes "God 'will give to each person according to what he has done.' To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." Clearly, we are given according to what we have done. Since we are all sinful, God has prepared punishment for us. But through the atonement, we are justified before God, and are allowed into intimate fellowship with Him.

Paul later writes in Romans 3:10 "As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one;'". Why would God allow an unrighteous being into his presence? Fortunately, we can become righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. "This righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Notice though that Paul says this righteousness comes to all who believe, not everyone

Daniel wrote in Daniel 12:2 that "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." [emphasis mine] Again, here, we have a picture of the punishment being everlasting in nature. (And specifically notice that the punishment is of shame and contempt, not torture!)

There are many verses beyond this, especially in the NT, that demonstrate once you are excluded from fellowship with God, it is permanent.

we may ask if there are verses giving reason to hope that all will be saved

It would be interesting to see how many of these verses that support universal salvation when examined in context will still support universal salvation.

The ball is in your court at the moment.

Take care

[lee_merrill]

Hi Lee,

I'm going to have to write Fizban, though, otherwise people won't be able to tell who is the author of each quote!

Fizban: Well, I have met many girls with the name "Leigh". Unfortunately, sometimes I get mail from companies addressed to me thinking I'm a woman.
My name is actually spelled that way, as Leigh, so its seems you know that this is a reason I have tended to adopt the alternate spelling!

Isaiah 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.

Fizban: In context, though, that verse is referring to Israel's earned captivity in Babylon and God's purpose to bring them out of it.
Yes, and must we not say that "all I please" must mean more than "all I please in this instance?"

"I make known the end from the beginning," not "I make known this end from this beginning," thus I think we have a general statement in what follows in the next clause, as well..

Fizban: Secondly, if universalism is correct, we must establish a basis as to what God's purpose is.
I agree! It is required next, to know if God has a purpose to save the whole world, as in every person without exception.

Lee: Yes, and if God did not prepare the eternal fire for them, then in some sense they do not belong there, and then may we hope they will not stay there?

Fizban: While some may misconstrue this as an Argument from Silence, wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that if the punishment did end, there would be mention of it at some point in the NT?
I agree! As here, may we say?

Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Then we may note this verse, which we must expect Jude was aware of:

Eze 16:53 "‘However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them..."

Thus giving hope even for those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

I would mention Tyre and Sidon as well (re Lk. 10:13), for if they would indeed have repented, if the miracles done in Korazin had been done there, then may we not hope that God will bring this about, after they perished in unbelief?

And there is hope here, as well, from Paul:

Ro 10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.

Now he had also said "only the remnant will be saved," so again, is there an indication that it is possible for their punishment to end, if Paul is praying in the will of God? And does this not indicate a purpose that God has, to save all of them?

As in Jesus weeping over Jerusalem.

Lee: And "eternal punishment" is parallel to "eternal fire" here, as well, possibly indicating a place of eternal punishment more than an interval of eternal punishment for everyone sent there, since the righteous had eternal life before they went into eternal life!

Fizban: The text is quite explicit and clear about the consequences of a person's decision. Christ said that they will depart into eternal punishment. Intimating that the "place" is strictly eternal instead of the individual's punishment is reading into the text that which is not there.
But then "the bottomless pit" means no one cast in there can come out of there, either?

Re 20:3 He threw him into the bottomless pit, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

Ephesians 2:12 "remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. "

Fizban: Paul says that those outside of Christ are without hope and without God, that they are not members of the New Covenant in other words. Why would Paul say that there was no hope if there was hope for those who didn't accept Christ?
But he says the Ephesians were once without hope, so it must be possible for those "without hope" to yet have hope in the future.

"This righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

Fizban: Notice though that Paul says this righteousness comes to all who believe, not everyone.
I agree! All must repent, and have faith in Jesus, in order to be saved, and I believe that repentance is by God's decision, not ours, and faith comes solely from him, and "not of ourselves" (Eph. 2:8), and so God decide how, and when, and where, a person will be saved, "by grace, through faith."

Fizban: Daniel wrote in Daniel 12:2 that "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." [emphasis mine] Again, here, we have a picture of the punishment being everlasting in nature. (And specifically notice that the punishment is of shame and contempt, not torture!)
Yes, and is shame and eternal contempt possible alongside salvation? It may well be that it is:

Eze 16:63 Then, when I make atonement for you for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed and never again open your mouth because of your humiliation, declares the Sovereign Lord.

Fizban: There are many verses beyond this, especially in the NT, that demonstrate once you are excluded from fellowship with God, it is permanent.
I would be glad to discuss this further, here is a verse I would mention, in this regard:

Ro 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!

"They" being exactly those who stumbled...

It would be interesting to see how many of these verses that support universal salvation when examined in context will still support universal salvation.
Well, here are some...

Ro 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

1Co 15:28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Ro 14:11 It is written: "‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.’"
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

And the NASB has "swear allegiance" in Isa. 45:23, which is the verse being quoted here, so this is not a mere mental assent, it would seem...

Plunk! High lob over the net to the right-hand corner...

Blessings,
Lee

[Fizban]

Sorry its been awhile. Started working, doing Vacation Bible School at my church this week. At the moment I'm so tired I can't even see straight, so I'll lay out some brief comments.

Yes, and must we not say that "all I please" must mean more than "all I please in this instance?"

We can, but we need to be very careful about how we apply it. I don't know if theologians make a distinction between what God desires and what God wills, but it is easy to note that there are certain desires of God that have not come to pass because of our own choices in the matter. Evidence of this are the Fall, that Israel failed mostly in its mission to be a kingdom of priests to the world, etc. (I'm obviously not writing this from a calvinist viewpoint)

Yes, and is shame and eternal contempt possible alongside salvation? It may well be that it is:

It is. Those who have accepted Christ's sacrifice have eternal life, while those who don't have shame and contempt as their rewards. This would mean they do not have fellowship with God. Hell may not be a distinct place, but rather a state; those who are in hell will experience the shame and contempt befitting their actions and having rejected God's grace and not allowed into fellowship with God.

I'm a little too tired at the moment to do this--hopefully I'll be back later today (if not then, tomorrow).

Lee

[lee_merrill]

Hi Lee,

Blessings on your VBS, no rush, I know there are priorities more important than posting on the Internet!

I don't know if theologians make a distinction between what God desires and what God wills, but it is easy to note that there are certain desires of God that have not come to pass because of our own choices in the matter. Evidence of this are the Fall, that Israel failed mostly in its mission to be a kingdom of priests to the world, etc.
Was the fall God "binding all men over to disobedience, so he may have mercy on them all," though? I think we can place this under God's decision, though certainly he does not delight in sin, per se.

And Israel will indeed be a kingdom of priests to the world!

Zechariah 8:23 Thus says the Lord of hosts: In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'

Those who have accepted Christ's sacrifice have eternal life, while those who don't have shame and contempt as their rewards.
Sorry, I meant shame and contempt being true of people who nevertheless are saved, though, "when I make atonement for you ... you will remember and be ashamed..."

"The Christian is one who has forever given up the hope of being able to think of himself as a good man. He is forever a sinner for whom the Son of God had to die because by no other means could he be forgiven." (Lesslie Newbigen)

"When we enter upon the spiritual we should consider, and examine to the bottom, what we are. And then we should find ourselves worthy of all contempt, and such as do not deserve the name of Christians." (Brother Lawrence)

"Humility is the very essence of holiness and of blessedness. It is the displacement of self by the enthronement of God. Where God is all, self is nothing. Never, never, even in glory, can we be other than ransomed sinners." (Andrew Murray)

Blessings,
Lee

[Rowland]

ON UNIVERSALISM



Before I begin I must first state that the Universalism of which I speak is only to apply to a Christian atmosphere. I have no need Unitarian Universalism just as a Unitarian has no need for "Christian" Universalism. I tell you this because there is a huge difference between the two and if we do not focus only on the one then everything I say will be rendered foolish and useless.

The late great Dr. Craig Keen often has said that you can not be Wesleyan and not flirt with this "Christian" Universalism but I must disagree with him on this point (I know all ONU students are gasping at this point). My experience (limited I admit) leads me to believe that it is Calvinists who often find themselves flirting with Universalism. This may sound foolish at first but if we consider all the Christian theologians who were/are Universalists, Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmon to name a few, and suddenly my claim does not seem so unfounded.



One may wonder why that is, for Calvinist doctrine leaves not room for such thoughts, or does it. Before I continue allow me to explain my current situation. I find myself a Wesleyan in a Calvinist world. My father attends a Christian Reformed Church and I am currently an intern and a CRC. I love these people, I love their way of living, I love their philosophy on life. There Worship is amazing. In many ways I relate to them more than my own "denomination" and yet, doctrinally and theologically I could never be a Calvinist.



Why is this? Its simple, if I were Calvinist I would have no choice but to be a Universalist, which would probably make me a heretic, would it not. For you see, if God is the one deciding whether or not an individual receives his or her salvation and not the individual then why would God not save everyone? Surely I have heard the "Sunday school answer". God is God and I am not. Yes, I know, but we are not talking about God can do, but rather what God would do. Our Holy Book shows us nothing to be consistent with what is being said. We serve a God who loves all man, so why would we pick some and not others. Where Calvinists often get hung up on, is the very snag those who do not agree with them are accused of being caught, limiting God. By saying that God would not willfully limit himself to allow man to have free will (a force that I do not feel can be ignored) the Calvinist is indeed limiting God.

So you see, this limits us to only two options, either God leaves the individuals salvation up to him or herself, or God, being a loving and caring God, if left to his own desire, would surely chose to save all of his beloved creation, made in his image. As Calvinists, Barth and Moltmon were limited to choice number two. They had no other option, they could not accept traditional Calvinist beliefs as it was inconstant with their God.



I could talk to you about Revelation 21, of Paul’s doctrine of Universalism, of hints of Universalism in the synoptic gospel, but that is not really the issue (not to discredit the bible), the point here is the nature of God. If I believed that God was the one who chose an individuals salvation, then based on my knowledge and experience of the nature of God, I would have no choice but to be a Universalist.

But then again...

After some serious pondering I am no longer sure if I really believe in Christian Universalism, at least in a true sense. Those who have been labeled as such deny it. It is not that they are universalist, but rather that they refuse to be the ones to draw a line where God's grace ends and damnation begins.
Where does it end? Does it at all? "Hell ain't so bad Jesus is there." Maybe "Christian Universalism" is not so much that "we are all going to heaven" but rather that God's grace reaches, no floods the pits of hell (via the cross).

Maybe the lake of fire is not so much damnation but the cleansing work of God (fire has been used this way in the bible before you know).

Wow, Far Away, did you hit the nail on the head! I was a Roman Catholic for most of my life. While I was a Catholic I read St. Thomas Aquinas and discovered that he taught predestination as did another Catholic saint, St. Augustine, 800 years earlier. Luther was an Augustinian monk and stated in his book, Freedom of the Will , that his (Luther's) doctrine of predestination was the major difference between himself and Rome. The Catholic Church had, I guess, moved into the free will camp sometime after St. Aquinas' time. The Dominican theologians had been predestinationists for a long time and fought against the Jesuits who have always supported the free will thesis. In fact the Jesuits shut down the Port Royal movement in France which was a pro Calvinist Catholic movement whose spokesman was none other than Blaise Pascal.

Any way, I was a Calvinist Catholic for many years. I left the Catholic church over the issue of biblical inerrancy; I am for it. And the church's indifference to the worship of Mary that I saw happening among Catholic Hispanics and Filipinos. Officially the Catholic Church proclaims that the Bible is inerrant, unofficially, Catholic priests and lay people are similar in attitude toward the Bible to the liberal main line Protestant churches.

After leaving the Catholic Church, I joined a small Reformed church. I also used to listen to Harold Camping on the radio. Finally, my friend, I am getting to my point and your post. My Augustinian/Calvinistic theology of salvation by pure grace from God led my slowly but surely to the belief in universal salvation. I told my Reformed pastor that the gospel of grace taught in the Reformed church led me to espouse the teaching of universal salvation ( I do
not believe in the liberal kind of universalism. I firmly believe that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. I simply believe that God will bring those who died in unbelief to faith and love of Jesus during the next age to come. The age in which the "lost" will be raised to an age of shame, an age in which their false self will be "burned" away. "Olam" in the OT and "aionian" in the NT translates into "age long", not "eternal" as these words are normally translated.)

I told my Reformed pastor that I was more Calvinist than Calvin. If we are saved by grace then this means no one should go to hell as no one deserves heaven any more than the worst sinner. For me the theology of divine sovereignty and grace as taught by the Reformed and other Calvinist churches leads inexorably to belief in universal salvation. That people like Harold Camping and other Reformed preachers do not believe in universal salvation leads me to question their confession that salvation is all of grace.

The free will people have problems too. Who in his right mind would ever freely choose to be separated from God? If a person is not in his right mind then his choices are not free. And if anyone is free it is not the person enslaved to sin. Addiction (to use a modern term) to sin is the antithesis of freedom. In fact, I believe that one of the major effects of salvation is a will that is free. If every human being has free will this to me means that no one needs salvation. Everybody is already free. I want to be saved precisely because in my sinful state I am not free. I want freedom!

Rowland