The Evangelical Universalist Forum

A Confession to Make

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#21

Hi Rainzbow,

Speaking as a “dogmatic universalist,” I just want to say that I in no way find your position cowardly - and I’m fairly certain that the majority of people on this forum (whether active or not) feel the same way. I’ve definitely had my share of doubts and uncertainties over the years as I’ve wrestled with the text of Scripture and sought (with quite a bit of frustration, and a lot of prayer) to arrive at a consistent, systematic understanding of what the Bible teaches that satisfies both my mind and my heart. And I’m still not there, and probably never will be “this side of eternity” (to use an evangelical cliché). I do, however, think a lot of the big pieces have fallen into place (hence my dogmatic stance on UR :slight_smile:), and for that I am thankful. Anyways, I hope your time on this forum so far hasn’t been too frustrating for you, and that you plan on sticking around! I really enjoy reading lots of different views on things, and we need more non-dogmatic folks like yourself to keep things a little more balanced around here. :mrgreen:

#22

Indeed, if that was the case.

Going around, however, trying to make those who are confident in the Gospel which includes Universal Salvation for all which is Scriptural supported, prepositionally supported, and logically sound (as sound as any belief system is) as being dogmatic, or negative in any way, is not a good way to start out and hardly sharing one’s own personal beliefs concerning universal salvation. :wink:

We all have opinions about other people, but that is neither a case for or against anything. Start talking the subjects, or don’t talk at all. I know that it may appear that I jump the gun by putting pressure on BA and Rainzbow, but time always tells.

#23

OK, I admit that was a little over the top - but it did provide you with a reality check.

Here’s My Confession

I knew Auggie before he started this thing in Aug 2008. I knew him from another forum where I was almost alone (besides Auggie) in arguing for universalism. I liked the odds - it was fun, I honed my argument there.

I joined this forum in Oct 2008 - but found this place to be Sleepy Hollow compared to the activity at the other forum. Not that the EU was lacking in content or quality of that content but that it centered (at that time) on Tom Talbot’s input - which, of course, was like debating with God himself and probably just as sporadic. In between, the tiny group here would wait for the next epiphany. It got boring and I got busy with other things.

Over the months, and now and then, I’d come and visit Sleepy Hollow and found it to be pretty much the same. Nice and quiet. Jason was cranking out threads left and right (we owe him a tribute) with very little reaction or argument. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

So a couple-three months ago, and as I got some time freed up, I had my own epiphany, right or wrong. This place is going to die on the vine. It can’t go on like this. People don’t stay long if their ideas and arguments are not responded to - or if they don’t see enough going on TO respond to. Some of the threads hadn’t seen action in months!

I did not want to see this place fail. So I started posting in earnest, challenging anyone left breathing here. Jason was my first target. “Oh my God, he’s challenging Jason!” The mods were up in arms. There were riots in the streets of Sleepy Hollow. People were returning. “This is unheard of!” Committees were formed. Discussions swirled about as to what to do with the trouble maker. Even the dogs were barking. “BAN HIM!” Meanwhile. people returning or visiting decided to stay because at least someone was responding and they started responding and others started responding. And they were outraged at times, and angry, and hurt, and offended but they couldn’t WAIT to get back in defense of their ideas. It’s that itch that keeps people coming back. Are you listening, mods?

Now. this place is setting new records for activity and, frankly, fun!

It worked!

#24

No fair RanRan, that is my job! I guess I can share.

My philosophy? Change does not come unless there is crisis! So, I create crisis, and I have no problem doing it.

Matthew 10:34-36
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”

How a person responds to this crisis…we can do it civilly, or fallacy. :smiley:

#25

Thanks for all the kind responses from most of you. I feel very disarmed.

I just want to clarify in case it has not already been made clear in my previous post that I have no problem with individuals holding dogmatic UR beliefs. My problem only is with those who claim that it is an issue or a ‘right’ or ‘correct’ interpretation of the Bible, as if the text is unambiguous. Obviously there is a truth. Obviously UR or ECT (or some other variation on eschatology) is accurate. That ambiguity would lead me (even if I believed UR with my entire core) to have to present the alternative as well. Thus, in conclusion, I think what Student of the Word and I are (at least in my mind) arguing about is A) whether or not we can claim personal infallability (I argue that I can’t) and B) whether if we accept UR we should also keep Christians and non-Christians both aware of the other historical Christians doctrines (I would argue that we should and we must, especially as ECT is the standard Christian viewpoint that one will encounter in Christendom abroad and thus, a dogma one will have to interact with on [at least] a periodic basis).

I honestly apologize if I do not seem humble in my posts. I’ve tried demonstrating humility by backing down on several occasions (as has been recognized) when warranted by either my ignorance or my outright defeat. I don’t really know what else I can do. On one hand I’m being accused of ‘not taking a side’ and on the other hand I’m being accused of overasserting my position. It’s very hard to argue for a view that takes into acount various historical doctrines on Hell because treading in such a fuzzy realm often reeks of relativism and other ‘worldly’ concepts that Christians don’t like getting near, but I’m hardly endorsing relativistic thinking. My vision of The Church involves Christians knowing the scripture, having dogma (which I have), presenting dogma (which I do), but also knowing where The Bible doesn’t seem to fit into that dogma at times and presenting those areas of The Bible anyways.

#26

A man after my own heart! I love ya man, but I miss the hat. Kick it up until the dead are awakened! Or, at least, until Christians aren’t acting as if they are dead.

#27

You’re a great guy. And a good thinker. But you need another icon other than that pale guy with the fiddle - something like David with a sword - to remind you to be BOLD and confident. Just sayin’

Christ was no weenie. 100% man. Just be like Him - He is the model for men - even gay men - women - all of us.

#28

Well, that’s a woman actually, a very bold martyr of the 2nd century, who was locked in her home which was then filled with steam in order to kill her. She survived miraculously and forced her persecutors to behead her. Even then, she lived for three days. I feel like I am being bold. I have been arguing against SoTW (and you really, and anyone else who cares to answer) about two specific points, which have been given above as A and B.

A) Can anyone on this board claim infallability? If not, isn’t it…
B) …responsible to, along with the UR dogma believed in, inform one of the overwhelming acceptance of ECT in the church (and the Bible passages that do seem to imply it).

After all, when I considered my faith, I looked at the truth claims of The Catholic Church (which do not think a protestant’s salvation is valid according to the declarations of most historical popes [the Council of Trent comes to mind]), The Calvinists, etc. before coming to my own personal views on the faith. I even looked at the claims of Islam and other world religions (although I found tham very lacking and that is why I am here). I’m not arguing that you need to teach everything, I’m just arguing that the UR view (and the ECT view) have both systemized the Bible, and along with teaching your system, you should also inform what the simple base text of the scripture says. We must remain faithful to scriptures always and that always will involve some tensions.

#29

Craig.
No disrespect…your pride and arrogance will be your downfall. “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. Better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.” (Proverbs 16:18)

#30

Dude, it’s never been about infallibility! It’s about passion! That’s how Love is! Passion only appears infallible. My hero, MY lord will save everyone! THAT to me is an infallible truth - now try and take it away from me!

Let the dead (the dispassionate) be buried in debate. It’s their due.

#31

Ranran.

The doctrine some people on this board are pettling isn’t profitable for anything except a religious movie along side Constantine. :wink:

#32

Aaron, I love you, man. Just keep on. Everything is going to work out - this is our movie - right here and right now. Let’s make it…unforgettable.

#33

Ran.
:laughing:

#34

I am passionate about this debate. I’m just not passionate in a way that want you me to be (either for or against UR). I am passionate for my view that while systematic theology is profitable for thinking about spiritual things (I personally love systematic theology and read them often), it should not replace The Bible, which is the only revelation we can know [outside of having personally known Christ, the ultimate revelation of God]. Most of all, I am passionate about Christ. He has the freedom to save all, but he is not obliged to save all (and I don’t think you think he is obliged to either). Glory to God.

I think I’ve said everything I can say here very clearly, boldly, and passionately and I feel like there is no more profit in me posting on this topic unless they can deliver more than simply passion for their own ‘correctness’ against my previous arguments (see A, B above).

#35

Indeed. So can you find the parts of the Bible that doesn’t seem to fit into that ‘dogma’? If so, present them. If there is an ambiguity it comes from lack of definition,terms, propositions and support. Which makes it that which is ambiguous, unambiguous? When knowledge is revealed and one takes time to understand it.

Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your ‘ben’ (a member of a guild, order, class).

Proverbs 1:28-31
Since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the LORD, since they would not accept my advice and spurned my rebuke, they will eat the fruit of their ways and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.

This is not about infallibility, to make such an issue is to make a broad stroke which cannot be made. None here claim infallibility and such question is a premise of a fallacy in the making. There is infallibility and then there is those who know their field of knowledge. None here corners what is all the knowledge, but many here can speak of detail and accuracy on what they do know.

Only to those who does not know, does those passages seem to imply it. The appearance of, and the reality of, is two difference things. If you are uncertain, how can you tell that those who are certain are being arrogant in their conviction by stating it as a Truth?

:open_mouth: I am going to make it clear to you, you didn’t even understand the definition of timidity and from your misunderstanding, you thought I was talking about humility; You are unable to reconcile, that in your attempt to refute me as being wrong, you have shown that it was you who was in error all a long. A practice of futility for someone who knows little to try to correct someone who knows a lot. Talk about only that which you are certain, and that which is you are uncertain only ask questions. You definitely don’t have the answers concerning that which you are uncertain, to correct someone who is certain. So stick to the issues, stay free of the fallacy. Stick to the issues, stay free from personal attacks or jabs at others.

Get personal, I will finish it. :smiling_imp:

#36

Craig.

:open_mouth: Let me make this clear to you… your pride and arrogance will be your downfall. “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. Better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.” (Proverbs 16:18) :open_mouth:

#37

Sheesh. Don’t throw down that gullet. It’s more than I can bear. A rephrase of the question or complaint?

#38

I didn’t mean to make it a throw down moment. I don’t seek to make anything personal or to ‘finish’ anyone’s train of thought (Christ knows that in reality, ‘It is finished’ already. Yet we will not know the completeness of God’s plans until heaven! I’m sure we will all be surprised in some way!) I just feel that I’m being argued with sideways instead of aproached head on. The people who are convinced of UR are convinced of UR. I’m only asking they accept that it’s a harmonization of Bible passages in a way that they understand them and that while it is a harmonization that I also agree with, I never forget the totality of the scriptures and the various ways that totality has been harmonized historically. My questions were the ones answered by SoTW above. I don’t really know how I can simplify them. God Bless.

#39

Actually, if by “obliged” one means “forced, constrained or compelled,” I do in fact think Christ is “obliged to save all!” :open_mouth: I think we’d both agree that Christ is one in purpose with the Father. And I believe that God must will and act according to who and what he is (which, according to John, is “love”). Just as God and his Son are not “free” to lie, I do not think they are “free” to do what is not in the best interests of those they love. It’s all about love. :slight_smile:

It seems to me that certain Biblical passages only seem to imply ECT when one is reading and interpreting them through the lens of a tradition that has long presupposed the doctrine. And though tradition is an inevitable starting point, I believe it must be promptly discarded when it is found to clash with the most reasonable interpretation of Scripture at which we can arrive. Also, I think it is questionable as to whether those among whom the doctrine of ECT has found “overwhelming acceptance” in fact constitute the church which Christ began to build in the 1st century…sounds like a good topic for a thread! :smiley:

#40

The Gospel is always an offense! It’s always a throw down moment in it’s true presentation, We can’t get around that offense by being sweet or nice. Come on! That’s our mission. You think universalism (The Gospel) is easier to accept? It’s ten times harder than the 20th century gospel. Few believe it.