The Evangelical Universalist Forum

An amazing statement by Kay Arthur on Christian radio today.

While driving today I was flipping radio stations and came across a woman who was crying while speaking. It turned out to be Kay Arthur, a famous Christian author, who was talking about a recent book about suffering. She was crying because she was speaking about her son who no longer speaks with her. He left the faith long ago and it breaks her heart. She is now 77 years old and was speaking about how not a day goes by that you don’t pray for your children who are prodigals. You could tell that she would gladly put herself in her child’s place if she could and those of us parents know that that simply is the love of a parent. Then she said this:

“God is the one that saves. I am not the savior. I am the messenger. And God assures me “He that comes to me I will in no wise case out—I will raise him up on the last day. You come to me because I have drawn you, because I have brought you…” and understanding that God doesn’t lose any of his sheep and understanding the whole picture of salvation, and I understand it. ** I know that God is sovereign over salvation.** I know that I cannot save my child. I know that I cannot turn him from darkness to light. I know that only God can; and **I know that if that’s God’s intention that God will accomplish it :open_mouth: **and that I am to rest and be about my father’s business.”

This just blew my mind. Can’t people see the problem here? Those around her heartily agreed with her statement and yet we already know that the scriptures teach that it is his will that none should perish and that Christ says that he will draw “all men” to himself. How can she rest if it is NOT God’s intention to save her boy? IF God simply has to will it for it to be done, how can he care so little about whom she would die for? Why would God NOT draw him? Her statement simply does not make any sense in light of current views of salvation. In order for her boy to go to hell it must NOT be Gods intention to save him, according to her own words. He must NOT have been drawing him. I was utterly perplexed as they all agreed with this statement. Do you all see what I’m saying?

Chris

Well said, Chris.

It’s sad that, although not stated, it would appear to some that the mother loves her child more than God does!

Unfortunately, many people interpret “all men” to mean “some people for all the people groups of the world”. Personally, I think “all men” means everyone.

EXACTLY!! I can’t imagine that I am capable of loving my son more than Almighty God. Based on what I’ve been taught (and what I’ve taught others), my love is nothing in comparison to the love of God. And this is true, of course! If she followed the logic of her statement, her son would be drawn (dragged) into the kingdom by the love of Christ!

Chris

I was really surprised in reading a discussion on Rom. chs 9-11 between Talbott and Piper, well respected Calvinist pastor, in one of the reformed journals many years ago that Piper said he’d be content if God pre-elected one of his children to hell. It really made me scratch my head. Calvinists just feel like you can’t understand God, his ways are higher, and they must submit and even take glory in it. So maybe this lady also feels the same? For me, it’s hard to draw the line at where you are worshipping a wonderful God, deserving of all our praise, or the devil and a God who, by default, is the most powerful and so we must worship. I don’t understand how Calvinists accept that God loves some in a saving way and hates others, sends them purposefully to hell as part of the glorious plan. ???

It’s funny that you brought this up because I was just going to post on it. I was going to ask for someone to explain the Calvinist frame of mind because it simply makes no sense. I’ve known some great bible teachers that were Calvinists and they seem to have a tremendous view of God and his love, but I’ve never been able to reconcile why God would have created this whole mess to start with if he was going to damn the vast majority who ever existed. It only makes sense if he truly did intend to draw all men to himself. I’m not comfortable thinking that God doesn’t want my children to be saved. I understand that I can be wrong here, but I can’t go so far as to glory in the Calvinist view, being glad that I’m on the right side. But I think that is also partly because I’ve spent a good deal of my adult life being afraid that I sinned to much against God in my backsliding and living with the fear that I was one of those who fell away in Hebrews 6. I’ve been afraid of hell for a long time now.

Chris

A few years ago, I’d have said the same. Or similar at least–my son’s not old enough to reject Christianity yet, but I have many unsaved relatives.

It never did make sense to me that God had the power to save all, but He wouldn’t. I was very uncomfortable with that, even to the point of railing at Him over it at times, or begging Him to save. I thought there must be some explanation the I wasn’t able yet to understand–that He would someday be able to explain it to me in such a way that I would be satisfied that it was right. I used to even say, “Lord, I know there must be some explanation, I’ve felt your love and your peace and I don’t understand this. But if it turns out that this is as bad as it looks to me now–I know I won’t be able to do anything to change it, but I won’t be able to worship and serve You–I’d rather go to Hell, as terrible as it is!”

But I was not quite a Calvinist, since I could not believe that Jesus died only for some. It says “God so loves the world.” But I did believe that no one would ever choose God unless God was actively working in them to draw them to Himself. I guess I never noticed that Jesus said he would draw all men to himself. :smiley:

Sonia

While I can technically sympathize with that, I have to say that if this was the case I still would worship and serve God. But I can’t say I would do so in any righteousness per se, only out of a slavishly fearful gratitude (on the one hand, seeing as how the highest love would never in this situation be able cast out this fear, but would be a lesser love than the love I thought was true) and out of a natural desire to see the butts of evil get kicked so long as they aren’t my butt (on the other).

I know my own thoughts pretty well, and I am sorry to say that I could be satisfied with hopeless butt-kicking (so long as it wasn’t my butt!) by easily killing off any love for the persons being hopelessly punished and glorying in the power displayed in their destruction instead. For some people I would have a much harder time killing off my love for them, but being a sinner I’m pretty sure I could succeed at it eventually, especially if God helped me kill off my love for them.

:laughing: :laughing:
That’s the easy way, for sure!

But the problem is that Christianity teaches us to take the narrow path: to forgive, to be unselfish, serve others and put their needs above our own. There’s a real dissonance between the Christian ideal (as taught in scripture) and the doctrine of ECT. How can one really live the ideal, knowing that ideal will suddenly come to an end to be replaced with a selfish one? That makes the Christianity Christ teaches into a temporary thing–it’s passing away, we just have to make it through this life, and then we can relax into selfish pleasure! http://serve.mysmiley.net/angel/angel18.gif

Sonia

Chris we don’t rests, infact we pray for our lost loved ones everyday :frowning: . Her statement does not make sense to YOU because of your presupposition that “ALL” will be saved. You can’t comprehend how a loving God won’t save all but any honest person will admit that “ALL” doesn’t always mean “ALL” in the bible. We put scripture first, if it is God’s will then who are we to question God.

You see Chris what you don’t understand is that God must be glorified first and foremost and if that means God’s will was for only one to be saved and the rest of us to perish then Glory be to God! I know that is hard for you to understand but that is how we understand scripture. God Bless! :slight_smile:

Calvinism is Christendom’s Islam.

That’s not fair. I don’t see Calvinists strapping bombs on their backs. God Bless! :slight_smile:

That’s also not fair, considering the fact that there are probably as many Christian (not necessarily Calvinist) terrorists as there are Muslim terrorists.

What is it that causes us to accept bad news just as a matter of course?

I mean, I understand that it’s human, but when we’re told that God is the best of the best that there could ever be, how can we continue thinking such low ideas about Him?

It’s funny how, once you have decided to grasp full, infinite love, it seems to the be the most common sense thing. What was once so outlandish and a huge dare to believe is now, for those of us who have wrestled with this, par for the course - to be accepted.

Of course I would never presume on God. If there could never be, then I suppose I’d have to accept it. But the problem comes when we once hear the much better promises of God - the YES! and the AMEN! :mrgreen:

Thank God he is nothing like our lowest opinions of him, or what we are like even in our best moments.

How was Samson different to a suicide bomber? But that’s another topic.

I would argue that the Calvinist conception of God is very similar to Allah: You cannot thwart his will; your destiny is predetermined; he seems overly fond of hell-fire; claims to be all-merciful but isn’t; and demands our worship whatever he does. In a word, he’s a bully.

I absolutely agree that all doesn’t always mean all. You must take it in context. For example, when we read:

Matthew 2:3
When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

We understand that “all Jerusalem” doesn’t mean every single person. I’m sure that the babies weren’t troubled. Neither were the pomegranite trees. The context defines for us how strenuously we are to understand the word being used. So, when we read this in Colossians:

15He is the (AJ)image of the (AK)invisible God, the (AL)firstborn of all creation.

16For (AM)by Him all things were created, (AN)both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether (AO)thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–(AP)all things have been created through Him and for Him.

17He (AQ)is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

18He is also (AR)head of (AS)the body, the church; and He is (AT)the beginning, (AU)the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

19For it was (AV)the Father’s good pleasure for all (AW)the fullness to dwell in Him,

20and through Him to (AX)reconcile all things to Himself, having made (AY)peace through (AZ)the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, (BA)whether things on earth or things in heaven.

We understand Paul to really mean ALL as in every single one. The Jehovah’s Witnesses hate this verse so they make an interesting change. They put the word “other” in brackets so that it reads “all [other] things”. It really bothers them that Paul means “all things” because this would make Jesus God and they just don’t want that to be the case so they try to minimize the meaning of “all”. Fortunately, in this case, Paul was extra careful to make sure that we understood exactly what he was saying because he was saying something that was absolutely critical. ALL things really did mean ALL things. Oxy, what did Paul mean by “all things” here in Colossians? I’d like to hear your response to this question and then I will respond to the rest of what you said.

Chris

The Calvinist belief is based on Ephesians 1:4 where the Calvinist reads the verse essentially as God chose us (meaning you and me specifically) to be in Christ before the foundation of the world (before anything was created) for salvation.

Further, Total depravity for Calvinist means you are dead, annihilated, incapable and incapacitated. You can only do evil not that you necessarily do the worse evil possible but that you are only bent towards doing evil. Thus, God has to reach into the pit of death where you are wallowing around in the muck of sin and regenerate you (rebirth you again/be born again) before you can EVEN hear the gospel, before you can EVEN see the error of your ways, before then placing you in Christ for salvation. The Calvinism view is Predetermine election, reborn again by the Spirit, placed in Christ, then you hear the gospel, then you know your sin and then you can repent and become sanctified.

Consequently, salvation is only for the elect. The elect are only those that God chose beforehand or predetermined to be given to Christ for redemption through his death. God did this by His good grace and will and man is incapable of understanding why God selected some and left others to damnation. But, we understand that we are lucky to be chosen because God didn’t have to choose anyone at all because we are all in sin. We accept the lost ones because it is God’s will and who are we to question God. So we are to become resigned to accept that others are marked for death by God and that is the end of it.

In Ephesians 1:4 the Calvinist sees the “Chose” being operational on the “us.” Thus, they have God chose us. The view from Arminianism is to place the emphasis on God’s foreknowledge, thereby, saying God pre-knew our demonstration of faith and so he placed us in Christ beforehand.

Personally, I disagree with both views. The “us” in Ephesians 1:4 references a “type of people.” It is not a specific person such as-- “your name–” as many come to read it. The “us” references believers. The verse really reads: Accordingly, God chose us [believers in Christ] at the foundation of the world, that we [whosoever believes] should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestined us [believers] unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

Here more clearly you see that it isn’t you [the individual] who is at the foundation of the world but rather God’s plan for the salvation of man which is Christ our Saviour. So, whosoever believes in Christ [the Anointed One, the Messiah], will be saved for God has by His good will predestined that anyone who believes will be saved and conformed to the image of Christ and be holy and blameless.

So it isn’t in respect to an individual person (personal salvation) but rather to a type of people: believers in God’s son. The verse is really only saying that God established at the foundation of the world his plan for salvation and that plan is that anyone who believes in His son (whom God sent as the Messiah) will be saved, for God has promised to save them.

So, who can believe in God or who can believe in the Gospel? Anyone can, right? Hold on there. The Calvinist say no because we are in total depravity so we can’t hear the message and “elect” or reject to be saved or to chose Christ, remember God chose us and not we chose God.

Thus, I disagree with the Calvinist view on total depravity too. For us per Calvin’s view, to be annihilated by sin gives sin sovereignty over God’s created work in us (we are created in God’s image). Sin distorts, lies, deceives but it is God who brings us to death because of our sin and evil ways. Sin doesn’t have the authority of destruction; God does.

Our death is established in two parts as it relates to our now broken relationship to God and our physical bodies which God has appointed to die. God has to repair the relationship and draw us back to Him and consequently promises to give us a new uncorrupted body upon our resurrection.

Further we ate from the fruit of Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL and not just EVIL alone as Calvin(ist) have so constructed. It isn’t that we can’t comprehend good or distinguish good from evil (Matthew 7:9-11). But rather, our evil is in reference to been apart from God (1 John 3:10) for righteousness is the absence of sin.

Also, there is grace and Spirit in the Gospel message of Christ for it is from God, so it isn’t so much that I’m saying we are of such worth to become saved but to say that there is sufficiency in the Word of God alone to bring forth salvation.

We are cleansed of our sins; it isn’t that we become an entire new construction of being. (You still have your same old personality and you have to become sanctified/drawn from your desire for sin.) We are born again because we are born with the Spirit of God again, as it was intended from the beginning. Unfortunately, we don’t have that new shiny bod yet (how nice that will be).

Finally, the Calvinist argues that if you make God having died for the whole world then you have people going to hell whom Christ died for and that makes Christ in error or fallible. We know not all are saved or will be saved as Judas is given as a prime example. So, Christ can only die for the elect where his death is in perfect alignment with those saved and those not saved are in hell because Christ didn’t die for them.

The problem here is that the Calvinist has flubbed the understanding of Christ’s death and sacrifice. You have to turn to the understanding of the “Day of Atonement” in the Jewish sacrifice to understand what happened at the cross for the purpose of God’s salvation.

First off, we aren’t saved by his death but rather we are saved by his blood. His death served to satisfy God’s wrath against our sin. Consequently, we are under grace for the sin of the world was removed by his death. Christ became sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21). In the Jewish sacrifice there are two goats. The first one serves to have the sin of ALL (everyone) transferred to it and then that goat is released into the wilderness to disappear. The second one serves to be killed and the blood is to be sprinkled on the mercy seat of God to serve as an atonement of sins (meaning doesn’t exist anymore) for those who have a personal identification with the sacrifice.

So, Christ DIED FOR THE WHOLE WORLD for everyone is in sin. Thereby, all (everyone) is under the salvation grace of God for an appointed period of time rather than His wrath. But, not everyone has a personal relationship to Christ such to be covered by the blood of Christ and thus saved. When God ends His grace (noted as the coming of the rapture) then whoever remains not covered by the blood will be subject to the wrath of God which he will pour out onto the earth in the end of days.

We are chosen for salvation based on our relation to our sacrifice for it reflects our reverence to God Himself. God accepts us and places us in Christ to His predestination of salvation. But, this only occurs based on personal identification to Christ’s death and shedding of his blood on the cross. Most related to this via their Baptism (where we identify with him per a death at the cross as well). Those who don’t accept Christ are rejected and they don’t have a sacrifice, don’t have the blood of Christ and so their sins are not atoned for; thereby, they are subject to the wrath of God and judgment onto damnation by Christ. For Christ says, I never knew you implying the personal identification (Matthew 7:23).

Sorry so long but I get worked up on the subject of Calvinism.

Blessings to you, from PenguinTodd.

Pleased to meet you Penguin and thank you for a well-written post.
I like your explanation of Ephesians 1:4 but I wonder if you could give me some clarification on the following:

and you explain that his death was for the whole world so am I right in saying that God’s wrath with every single person in the world is now satisfied?

-so God is not angry with anyone for ‘an appointed period of time’? Actually, ‘under the salvation grace of God’ seems to suggest that everyone is temporarily ‘saved’. What is this ‘appointed period of time’ and can this be related to the goats or not?

Ah, so the ‘appointed period of time’ ends at the rapture and at that point, God’s Wrath, which WAS satisfied by Jesus death, then becomes ‘dis-satisfied’ with Jesus death? Is this what you are saying and can you give OT evidence for this temporary satisfaction? Is there anything from the goats to suggest a lack of permanence?

Thank you for the reply and thoughtful inquiries of what I posted. Good questions they are! Hopefully my response will help clarify my post and answer your questions.

The issues you raised are in respect to the meaning of salvation grace, Christ’s death versus his blood in respect to our sins, and how is it that there is wrath at the end of days, if God’s wrath was satisfied?

First, let us turn to the first time God poured out his wrath on earth. God flooded the world because of the evil of men and the ways of the world (Genesis 6:5-7). Only Noah was found to be righteous and he was protected by the arc. The arc was built by Noah and his family but per the direction and instruction of God; further, only after God had declared Noah as righteous. Following the command to build the arc (a vessel of protection), God provided Noah time to build an arc to protect him from God’s judgment or wrath. However, did this end the presence or the influence of evil? Unfortunately, it did not.

Evil in the form of sin permeates all of creation still. Some commentary I have read suggests that sin exists even in the ground and pollutes the food we eat. This is in respect to God’s judgment for Adam’s disobedience that the ground was cursed and man will have to toil to produce good crop; that bad fruit can spring up from the ground as well because of the curse and pollute us by it (Genesis 3:17).

The point here is that the wrath is in respect to God’s relationship to man and his evil ways but not to the elimination and completion of dealing with evil itself or our sins. God is always angered by sin and evil. So, by Christ’s death God is satisfied in His relationship to man THROUGH Christ and this of course never ends. Further, it is available to everyone. Everyone can have their sins atoned for through Christ. This is what I mean by the salvation grace. Christ’s death provided for a grace that we might come to a righteous relationship to God THROUGH Christ. An additional point is that the death of Christ deals with the establishment of his authority (more on that later).

We aren’t forgiven because Christ died. If that were the case, then everyone would be automatically forgiven upon his death and to what purpose would a call to sanctification and ministry serve? Thus, Calvinism says that Christ must have only died for the few since some are saved and some are not. This is why I was making a point that with Calvinism we are saved by Christ’s death and that this is not true for we are SAVED BY THE BLOOD of Christ that was shed at the cross; a righteous blood.

God dealt with His relationship to man by Christ’s death but he deals with our sins (atone for them) by the blood of Christ. Both are needed for the completion of our salvation. Coarsely, think of it as Christ’s death served to keep God from hitting the re-boot button.

With the first wrath God poured out it leads to man’s death (and animals too). In the second pouring out of his wrath it leads to the death of His Son. The third pouring out of His wrath, which is just prior to the return of Christ, will be to put the evil of man to death. If we look at revelations we see that all not written in the Lamb’s book of life WILL worship the beast (Revelations 13: 8). Here we see that there is a black and white distinction between evil and Christ.

I mentioned before that Christ’s death was to the establishment of authority as well. If we return back to Genesis we see that God created Adam and gave him authority over the beasts of creation. Adam’s responsibility was to serve God in obedience and responsibility under the authority given to him.

Well, what happened? Adam and Eve eat of the forbidden fruit and sin enters the world. Essentially, Adam sold his birthright or inheritance for a meal; a meal that he ate out of disobedience, out of wanting (desirous) and not of need. We see this again with Esau and Jacob (Genesis 25: 29-32) after which Esau is not to be recognized by Isaac as having the authority of the firstborn as it transferred to Jacob. When Adam sinned the authority given to him by God was no longer recognized. It was transferred by trickery to Satan and by the disregard of Adam. Likewise, the authority of birthright for Esau was transferred by trickery, as Jacob dressed such that his father would think he was Esau, and by the disregard of Esau. (There is also a relationship of woman serving as third party coordinator in each instance, but I’ll defer from going in to that.)

Now in respect to going to the cross Christ served in fullness of his authority or mission as given to him by God, something that Adam failed to do. Upon his resurrection we have Christ saying to his disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” By his death, Christ purchased back the original authority that was given to man and was lost to Satan. Christ returns to Heaven but with all the authority in Heaven and earth.

Satan is still doing his work and evil still persists but he under the authority of Christ and will held accountable. Likewise, we are answerable to Christ for our sins for it is written that every knee shall bow (Romans 14:11). The wrath to deal with Satan and sin is not poured out so that man has time to come to the righteousness of Christ—salvation grace.

By the blood of Christ we are purchased into righteousness. But, without the blood we are still in sin and in disobedience to the authority of Christ. After his ascension, Christ sent the Holy Spirit to bring men to the righteousness of Christ, to the gospel news and to his blood which was poured out as atonement for man’s sin. This is the salvation grace I spoke about in the prior post and it this grace which affords us a time to reconcile our sins to God through Christ by the blood of Christ. Failure to do so will lead to our judgment before the throne of Christ.

With Blessings, I hope this serves well to answer your questions.

Thank you, PenguinTodd.

I became a Christian Universalist when I realized that I do not, under any circumstances condone torture. By definition, I am a faulty, sinful human being and therefore, I CANNOT have a better understanding of morality than God. Therefore, God must have sent Jesus to save everyone somehow. Also, I was taught that faith is a gift. If someone does not have this gift, how can they be condemned? I wound up believing that salvation can also occur after death. After all, our lifetime is a a thousandth of a second (maybe) compared to eternity. And God is everywhere and everywhen. Bishop Carlton Peterson’s first book, The Gospel of Inculsion was of great help to me because he came from a charasmatic background like me.

Then I read Love Wins which just cemented my belief, along with Raising Hell and Razing Hell. John 3:16 does not say “For God so loved the World that he established hell.”, it says He sent His Son to Die For us so that Whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life". I don’t see any timelimits in there. It dosen’t say whoever believes in Him during their first lifetime on Earth—it just says believes.

I think Kay Arthur will be pleasantly surprised in Heaven and I am sorry she is enduring unnecessary sorrow on Earth.