On a scale of 1-10, 1 being a thorough traditionalist and 10 being a convinced universalist, I am probably a 7. But that’s not my confession. I often listen to the likes of John Piper & John Macarthur (whom I respect) and find myself seriously doubting universalism. I come to these boards and go from a 5 to an 8 (on the 1-10 scale of certainty of UR being true). Here’s what I am sure of (currently
Double predestination, while not illogical, is a monstrous view of God. I’m not saying it can’t be true, as God is not obligated to save anyone. I just can’t commit to the view that God would allow anyone to be born having predestined to damnation. I thoroughly reject that view as traditionally taught in Calvinism. Barth’s single election makes so much more sense to me.
Although I’m not a believer in annihilationism, it’s not an absurd view. God gets who He wants to be with Him forever and the rest just return to dust. They were born out of nothing and return to nothing. It does make sense of the Scripture that mentions immortality as a gift from God, with the implication that those who aren’t given the gift are therefore not immortal.
I’m not sure we can dogmatically accept universalism to be true. Although Paul has a universalist theme throughout his letters, Jesus never explicitly teaches it. John certainly doesn’t teach it. It is certainly encouraging that many of the church fathers did. I wish more than anything that universalism is true, and in my heart I believe it is. I’m not 100% convinced that every word in all 66 books is inspired. Perhaps it is. I trust you will all set me straight
You’re in a pretty good spot, I’d say. I’ll comment briefly on each of your points:
At this point in my journey, I really don’t have a problem with electon or predestination, either single or double–only with what they say the election is* to*. In my understanding of scripture, some are chosen for salvation in this life–for God’s purpose–others will be saved later. Whether that election is ‘irresistable,’ as the Calvinists would say, or more of the Arminian variety, is not something I have tried to sort out yet, but in the mean time, I have no issue with the idea of God choosing some for a special calling. “he is the saviour of all men, especially of those who believe.”
Annihilation is much better than ET, but UR is even better. I prefer to believe the best of God, and I am convinced that scripture is more in favor of UR.
I believe Jesus does teach universalism–but as you say, it’s not often. The most explicit place I can think of where he teaches it is when He says that if he is lifted up He will draw all men to himself. But there are many other less explicit teachings that I also understand to be universalistic.
btw, I was in MacArthur’s church from about 1990-1997, so I’m pretty familiar with his teachings. It seems to me that he has become increasingly more Calvinist over the years. My husband grew up in that church and says it has changed a lot from when he was young. He is a very eloquent speaker, and extemely intellegent–but don’t let that trip you up.
I am literally at the exact same place as you. I have a huge respect for Barthian soteriology. However, ultimately, one thing will occur, either all will be saved or all won’t be saved. Even though Barth reconfigures the ‘decrees’ from Calvin’s configuration, the Barthian conception of sovereignty is in essence is the same as Calvin’s. The only difference is that Barth (rightly, in my opinion) takes the view that Christ demonstrates that God has our best interest in mind and Calvin takes the view that (essentially) God’s overriding attribute is his own Glory. However, how sovereignty ‘works’ is the same in both views and ultimately, if one is not found ‘in Christ’ (Christ both elect and reprobate) then that is STILL attributed to God’s sovereignty, effectively still making God elect or reprobate individual sinners as well (obviously, in accordance with their own free will: The biggest misunderstanding of Calvin and Barth is the idea that man has no free will; It’s not libertarian free will, but it ‘feels’ free.). And yet, God has the freedom to save all! He has not bound himself with decrees! Praise God!
I for one, would stay away from Piper and Macarthur as they are essentially traditionally reformed as they come. Piper scares me, because he seems great pastorally, but then he loves imagining a God who maticulously tortures man and is constantly sending specific weather formations and cancers at the beings he supposedly loves. They could not be farther apart from Barthians.
Christ’s church has been emasculated. This is really about gonads not 1 to 10 opinions. I say, if eternal torture is what you believe, then stand by it and enjoy the screams of the tortured, but stand by it! Pick a side and let your yes be yes. Do I have to remind that “whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.” Poor weenie-men who will never die for an opinion. It was Falstaff, not Christ, who said that “Discretion is the better part of valor.” And everyone serves their master. I wouldn’t want you in foxhole with me, buddy.
And the women chime, “He’s so tolerant…and like us.”
Are there any men left? “When the son of man returns, will He find faith on the earth?” It’s not a rhetorical question.
Where I stand is with God, who has not revealed an answer to the question that you proclaim you have answered for him. It is not emasculating to refuse to speak for God.
I don’t pretend to speak for God. You said yourself that you consider universalism an ‘option’ and ‘interesting’ - so sit on the fence as a ‘spectator’ or join the battle - for or against. Take a side. God hates a coward. That includes wafflers. Stand your ground - if you have any. Don’t blame your lack of loins on me!
I take the side for UR, however, I think it’s important to teach that that’s not the only option considering it’s a matter of eternal consequence. Here is a good example. I am for same sex marriage. I have prayed about it and considered the general view of how we should treat others as presented in the scriptures and that is the position I have reached. That said, do I advertise this view in church often? God forbid! There are plenty of clear scriptures against the practice so that makes the position ambiguous. Thus, while I believe it should be permitted, I hesitate to argue with the standard conservative viewpoint on the issue; I hesitate to force my agenda on the church. If someone asks me my opinion, I will tell them, and will not waffle. Same with UR. I’ll stand my ground, I just won’t pretend my ground is the only one to stand on. Doesn’t it take more ‘loins’ to admit that you don’t know something God hasn’t permitted you to know.
Also, calling Christ’s church emasculated is obviously a sexist argument, implying that the female is less than the male. Interestingly, Christ’s church is often referred to as the bride of Christ.
“whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.”
How can one be willing to do that if the Good News is judged to be at 70% on the ‘believable scale’? We might as well talk about the weather here. Or start a knitting club. I don’t think Christ is talking strictly about martyrdom in the above passage, but commitment, loyalty and passion as well.
“This is what I believe, this is where I stand. Move me, if you can!” That’s much more fun.
It was Fire’s presentation that I found objectionable. I don’t think he’s willing to take a stand on either side of the debate.
I’m somewhat familiar with Barth’s view of election. My own understanding is that election does not secure us a spot in heaven, but has to do with service in the Messianic kingdom and being progressively conformed to Christ’s likeness in this lifetime (Eph 1:4, 12; Rom 8:29-30; cf. 2 Cor 3:18). The elect are simply the “firstfruits” of the rest of mankind (Rom 8:23; James 1:18). I do not see the line drawn between the elect and the non-elect as extending beyond this mortal existence. When Christ returns bodily from heaven (John 14:2-3; Acts 1:9-11; 3:19-21; 1 Cor 15:22-23; Phil 3:20-21; 1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 John 3:2), I understand that all will be made alive in Christ and made subjects of God’s kingdom, so that God may be “all in all.”
Since I don’t know of any verse that teaches that any decision we make in this life has any effect whatsoever on whether or not we are made alive in Christ to be forever with the Lord, I simply don’t see the annihilation view as a viable option. And though annihilationism may not appear “absurd” in view of God’s sovereign power, it is (I think) absurd in view of God’s goodness and wisdom. Do we really think God is incapable of doing for every human being exactly what he did for Paul? Do we really think that God doesn’t know exactly what it would take to convert every single human being such that their unbelieving, rebellious heart is replaced by humble gratitude and love? I mean really, if it’s possible for God to transform one hardened sinner into a loyal servant, it’s possible for God to transform all hardened sinners into loyal servants. No annihilation necessary. And the only reason we should have for why all people aren’t saved right now is simply that God doesn’t WANT all people to be saved right now. I’m completely dumbfounded that Christians can look around at this fallen world and think, “What a sad picture…but I guess God’s been doing the very best that he can to save as many people as he can. Still, it’s a shame that he hasn’t been able to save more.”
I agree that Jesus didn’t explicitly teach UR during his earthly ministry - at least, he didn’t teach it with any intention of anyone “getting it” at that point. Jesus also told his disciples, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come” (John 16:12-13). Thomas Talbott notes that, “This statement undermines any argument from silence against UR. None of us can receive more revelation than we are able to bear at a given time, and things that we cannot yet bear are usually the most important truths of all.” Christ also spoke of his death and resurrection several times during his ministry knowing full well that his disciples (let alone anyone else) wouldn’t really understand what he was talking about until after the fact. Still, in view of what his death and resurrection means (and I plan on starting a thread pretty soon that lays out my position on this!), there is much that Jesus said that implicitly teaches UR, even if no one understood it in this way at the time.
For instance, Jesus said his mission in coming was “to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10). The word for “lost” (apollumi) is the same word translated elsewhere as “perish” (e.g., in John 3:16). In other words, Jesus came to seek and save “those who have perished.” And since he later tells his disciples that he had been given “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matt 28:18), I think we have good reason to think he’ll be successful at accomplishing what he was sent by God to do. Moreover, although I deny that Jesus’ statement in John 12:32 was meant to convey the truth of UR to anyone at the time he said it, it is in retrospect a pretty unambiguous declaration of UR. If this verse does not teach UR, then it can only be because the word “draw” doesn’t imply salvation, or because the word “all” doesn’t mean all people. But I don’t see any contextual reason to limit either of the words in this way. And even if one is unsure of how exactly all people will be drawn to Jesus, the fact is that all people will be drawn. And those who say that this drawing must take place before a person dies are, I believe, inadvertently contradicting the words of Jesus; for if “all” means “all people,” and the “drawing” is limited to this life, then it would not be true that “all” will be drawn to Jesus. Jesus would thus be declaring a falsehood.
We are also told that, throughout his earthly ministry, Jesus possessed an awareness that all people had been given to him by God (see John 3:35; 13:3; Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22) and that God had given him authority over “all flesh” (John 17:2) – a phrase which, in this context, undoubtedly expresses the entirety of the human race (see Numbers 16:22; Psalm 136:25; Jeremiah 32:27; Isaiah 40:5-6; 1 Pet 2:24). And in John 6:39, Jesus declares, “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.” And because all people are going to be raised from the dead by Jesus, it must be true that this very same all-inclusive group has been given to Christ by the Father. As further proof of this, we’re told by the Psalmist that, by request, God would give his Son the heathen for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession (Psalm 2:8). And in Hebrews 1:2, we learn that God has appointed his Son “the heir of all (pas),” which necessarily includes all human beings (the word “things” is not in the Greek text).
We are also told by Christ that even those on whom fell the most fearsome punishment of which he spoke during his ministry (see Matt 23:31-36) will ultimately proclaim to their Savior at some future time, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” (v. 39; cf. Matthew 21:1-11). This expression comes from Psalm 118:26 (see v. 22, which establishes its Messianic context). Christ is referring to those who rejected him as the true Messiah, and wanted nothing more than for him to die. This fact makes the prophecy all the more remarkable, as it presupposes that the men of whom Christ is speaking will ultimately receive him as the true Messiah.
Christ also taught that all who will be raised from the dead will be “sons of God.” In Luke 20:34-36, Christ declares: “The children of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” Those “considered worthy” are contrasted with the living, and simply refers to all who are dead (go here for a more detailed explanation of this verse: Should we form universalist congregations? ).
You also said that “John certainly doesn’t teach [UR].” If by “teach” you mean explicitly defend it point-by-point in his writings against contrary views, then yeah, I would agree. But I would argue that he and the other apostles were firm believers in UR, and that they all wrote with the assumption that UR was true and that this was the faith of their believing audience as well. But why would they assume it to be true? Answer: Because the truth of UR is at the very heart of the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection (again, I plan on starting a thread pretty soon that lays out this somewhat radical position). Moreover, I also believe John made statements that, quite frankly, only make sense within a UR framework. For example, he writes that Jesus is “the propitiation (or mercy-seat) for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). I plan on explaining what John means by this statement in another thread, but for now I’ll just say that Jesus’ being the propitiation for the sins of the whole world means something similar to (though much more profound than) what the annual sin-offering made on the Day of Atonement meant for the entire nation of Israel.
John also tells his readers that they knew Jesus “appeared to take away sins” (3:5) and that “the reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil” (v. 8). The “works of the devil” refers to all sin and lawlessness, which can only be “destroyed” by reconciling all people to God. In other words, John is assuming UR. John also wrote that “God is love.” If the same eternal, all-powerful, all-wise Being who gives to mankind “life and breath and everything,” and in whom we “live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:25, 28), is also love, then UR is inevitable. John also writes, “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14). What did John think Jesus was sent to save the world from? Answer: “the works of the devil” (sin) and “the evil one” in whose power we are told the “whole world” lay (5:19). Unless one believes John did not think Christ would be successful in accomplishing what God sent him to do, I think it’s pretty evident that the apostle assumed Jesus would, in fact, save the world.
I would only add that annihilationism is not really an argument but a convenience in the attempt quiet the argument that infinite punishment and torture for finite crimes is Unjust. It’s a little like the Calvinist ‘adjustment’ to non-election that all babies go to heaven - even they can’t stand the idea that God would create a baby to torture it forever. Of course, if the baby grows up, it’s ok to torture it, as that is what it was created for.
I guess what I’m saying is that annihilationism and all babies going to heaven - are a nice convenience to be able to sleep at night.
One should embrace Eternal Torture or reject it - not create an easy way out. Because it makes no sense to wake people up from the annihilation of death TO annihilate them. ‘Hi, I brought you back to life to kill you.’ In seeking to make God look ‘reasonable’ - they end up making Him look goofy.
I’ll quote John McEnroe here and say “You CANNOT be serious!”
No offense Ran Ran, but your post is utter nonsense. You didn’t attempt at all to convince me that UR is 100% true, but seemed to favor blind loyalty to one position, no matter what the position. Why even have a “discussion negative” thread index? What’s there to debate? Just pick a position and defend it! I guess you must admire Islamic extremists who blow up buildings in the name of God. Hey, they really believed it and were willing to put their life on the line. Good for them! Now those are *real *men.
At one time, I was thoroughly convinced of the ET position, and I defended it staunchly. I don’t plan on being in limbo forever, and the things I mentioned in my original post are a huge transition from my original positions, favoring ET. I may in the future staunchly defend the UR position, who’s to say? But for me to confess that I am temporarily struggling w/ being convinced of UR (more convinced than not), and then have you verbally assault me for being a wuss is only scaring people away from asking questions, much like a traditionalist does when threatening people w/ hellfire if they depart from the traditional view. You’re reinforcing my belief that you are a chauvinist (look at your ridiculous comments above). I guess rather than being honest w/ myself and the other board members, I should have just picked UR and defended it, no questions asked. There shouldn’t have been any process of changing from ET to UR. Just do it already! Wow, I’m not even sure what to say here. I can appreciate your posts, but this one has gone too far. Sorry, that’s just how I see it.
I’m not offended, I can be a real idiot at times. But I (and others) have tried to convince you by way of other threads and other objections being taken on - no one is asking for blind loyalty that I can see. Just engagement. You’d be surprised at what can be learned by taking a stand.
For example, a case can be made FOR ambivalence in these matters without hope of resolution HERE. It’s been touched on here and there, but no one has really fought for it. It would interesting to see how it holds up.
Your honesty is refreshing. I tend to vacillate a bit myself in my surety of Christian universalism, but in my heart I believe it is true. In the end, the Bible seems somewhat ambiguous to me as to the ultimate fate of people. While I think universalism presents the most logically coherent case (and biblically sound, in my opinion), I still get hung up on some passages that seem plainly in opposition. While there are reasonable explanations for those passages, I am hesitant to dismiss them in the same way people dismiss passages that are plainly universalist. When I think about it though, would it really make sense for the Bible to be overwhelmingly universalist? I wonder if that would be like telling people what the end of the movie is going to be before they’ve seen it (this may be a bad analogy). I think that there must be some value in us really having to struggle with who God is. And my experience of God and Christ pushes me strongly towards universalism.
I often consider the fact that we are ALL likely to be in for a surprise when all is said and done. When I read the gospels, I often think that I could easily have been in the shoes of the Pharisees or teachers of the Law. It might really seem to me (based on the OT) that the messiah was supposed to come and destroy all but the chosen so that they (the chosen) could live happily ever after. I wonder if a messiah being born in a shed and dying on a cross (for gentiles too?!) could even compute. When I consider that, it becomes less and less significant to me that there aren’t that many universalists out there. I hope that Christianity (speaking as a whole) doesn’t repeat history in being closed to the fact that God’s mercy might extend much farther than we think.
In the end, it really comes down to hope for me. Scripture tells us that love hopes all things, and that hope will not disappoint us. I think the greatest desire of my heart (and most of the genuine followers of Christ that I have met) is that all will come to know Christ and his love for them – can it be possible that we will ultimately be disappointed? This is probably an oversimplification, but maybe not? At the very least we should encourage Christians to not assume (as most do) that God’s desires (as stated plainly in 1 Tim 2:1-4) have already been defeated.
In regards to Piper – I have read some of his stuff, and he seems to be genuine. I was raised with a Calvinistic background, and I have experienced what it’s like to stand on both sides of the election doctrine. I know what it’s like to feel like one of the sheep, and what it’s like to NOT feel like one of the sheep. At the time when I did not feel like a sheep, God showed me some scriptures that simply don’t fit within Piper’s theology. I went to Calvin College (named after John C. himself), and the doctrine of election was treated with much care and humility there, which unfortunately seems to be rare in most treatments. It was my experience at CC that there was an awareness of the ambiguity and problems that come with that doctrine (as with many doctrines). [As a sidenote, some of the first seeds of universalism were planted while I was there.] I guess in saying all this I’m just trying to say that I understand where Piper is coming from – At one time, I comprehended God’s love in my heart, but also held to Calvinism. However, I realized while standing on the outside that there were some serious implications to hard-line Calvinism. I suspect he doesn’t know what the outside feels like… I simply don’t know if there’s any “good news” if I can’t look everyone I know in the eye and tell them that God loves them.
Just some thoughts. I hope they’re not too disorganized.
I have weighed the evidence for the Gospel that Christ died for the sins of the world and found it true and accept it. And I fight for it. The evidence that said Gospel implies UR is not clear to me from reading the scriptures and it has not been clear to many intelligent theologians over the years. Thus, I am not taking a dogmatic side of UR (although it is a ‘believable’ hope and one for all Christians to cherish). Wouldn’t it be worse to take a side when I feel that Christ hasn’t yet given us a final word on whether UR is reality or not. Wouldn’t it be worse for me to take a dogmatic side based on my own mind’s struggle with the text. As I’ve said in previous posts, isn’t the only way to certainty some special revelation? Are our personal interpretations of a text infallable?
If they aren’t infallable, shouldn’t we teach Christians to understand UR and hope for UR but let them know that there are many verses that in the history of Christianity have been interpretted in a way that simply does not gel with a UR ‘system’ of thought.
In any case, I firmly reject that this kind of caution and thinking in no way makes me lesser than those who adhere to dogmatic ECT or dogmatic UR. I question why many people on this message board continue to feel like this position is in any way cowardly.
I in no way condemn any person who admits they are uncertain and with hesitation on the truth of UR, ask our agnostic friend, Jeff. Or perhaps my athiest friend, Bernie (formerly SeekerSA from Tentmaker Forums).
I have issue with those who come to condemn others of being so sure, because they themselves are unsure to begin with. It is hypocrisy when an uncertain person is dogmatically certain that it should be uncertain. This is where my disrespect for you came, it was not from your position or opinion.
Ask me a question, I will answer you. I will not pretend to know the answer, I will demonstrate it. If you cannot understand the answer, I will take time to explain it to you. If you still cannot see it, I ask you to explain your belief and have me cross-examine it, just as you had the right to cross-examine mine. When you begin to make it a personal thing, start making arguments against me and my character as the reason why you cannot accept what I am saying, then you have shown yourself weak and without reason to find fault in what I believe. It is pretty simple with me, don’t get personal and I won’t get personal.
Already admitting you do not know much concerning the subject; being corrected that timidity is not humility, you have lost the authority and ability to make a clear judgment on what is known and not know, and who knows it or does not know it. If you were as humble as claim, this would never been an issue. Admit it, you only favor UR, you don’t believe it.
So if my boldness makes makes you feel like a coward, and my confidence makes you are less than those who adhere to conviction of the truth of UR, that is your problem and you have no one to blame but yourself. Stop projecting your hurt and insecurity on others.
This isn’t really an issue for me, but have you actually seen Jesus? I will tell you, He isn’t hiding, He still walks the Earth.
I am sure this is Aaron’s weak insult against my character or style of communication. Such a weak position Aaron37 has that he is resorting to ad hominem attacks, just like rainzbow, who claims nothing is sure, but is sure that nothing is sure a classic definition of a self-defeating paradox.
1 Corinthians 2:15
The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment (concerning these things).
I’ll comment briefly on each of your points:
