The Evangelical Universalist Forum

An Open Offer (to publish 700 word EU case as article)

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#21

I really, really wish I had time for stuff like this, because I really feel like I could take a good whack at it. :slight_smile:

Although, I will probably have some free time a week from Saturday…

#22

I haven’t talked to him since Christmas… but I know his wife has been ill, not sure how it’s going now :neutral_face:

#23

I do this morning, thanks (although my stomach still sounds like it could erupt again. :laughing:)

And “Jason” was one of the Greek names Jews borrowed for translating “Joshua”, since the sounds and meanings are both somewhat similar in each language. “Jesus” or “Iêsous” transliterates “Yahshua” into Greek more by direct sound.

So for a Jew my name would in fact be Joshua, i.e. “Jesus”!

(This routinely blows my mind, even though intellectually I know that Joshua was one of the top five most common Jewish male names for the period. :wink: I also remind myself that “Jason” was the name of a rather notorious high priest in the century before Jesus, too. :mrgreen: )

#24

Update: the second draft is finished at currently 704 words, but at least 24 of those words are reckoned by the counter as being the portion headers (even though by human counting they wouldn’t be that many words), and then of course every ‘scripture chapter:verse’ reference is counted as at least three words (which would be at least another 36 total, maybe more).

I’m trying to trim it down to a mechanical count of no more than 700, though. :slight_smile:

It occurs to me that maybe I should be sending drafts privately rather than posting them publicly? I don’t know what kind of copyright issues are involved.

#25

I’ll likely rework it some, but here’s my initial shot.

Intro to UR Essay

A few years ago I was introduced to Universal Reconciliation (aka. Christian Universalism, Apokatastasis, the Greater Hope). I assumed that in studying the scriptures classically used to affirm UR (Isa. 25:6-8, Lam. 3:31-33, Zeph. 3:9, Rom. 5:18, Col. 1:20, Jn. 12:32, Phil. 2:10-11, 1 Tim. 4:10, etc.) that I would find they were taken out of context and did not affirm UR. However, the more I studied such passages, the more they seemed to affirm to me that God really did plan to save all of humanity and reconcile all of creation.

Because I could not dismiss these scriptures as not affirming UR, I decided to study passages on Hell, assuming the doctrine of Hell to be rock solid. I quickly ran into problems though, finding that the more I studied passages that are traditionally interpreted to affirm Hell, the more I found them to not affirm Hell; and traditional Infernalism crumbled like sand between my fingers. For example, the words translated Hell – Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna – do not mean Hell. Sheol and Hades mean grave or realm of the dead. And Gehenna is a valley/ravine SSW of Jerusalem, thus best translated as Hinnom Valley. It was/is a real place, with a real history, and spoke to the Jews of real life judgement and destruction. There is litle or no biblical evidence to suggest that Gehenna was believed to be a place of endless conscious torment. And one must stretch the bands of reason to provide a logic for the endless existance of and punishment of evil, if one assumes that God is just and loving.

Finding scriptural support of Hell to be so shaky scared me even more, so I contacted other believers I respect and love asking for their prayers and listening to see if the Holy Spirit would inspire anyone with scriptural evidence either dismissing UR or affirming Hell that I had not already seriously considered. I also began researching and studying material that was anti-UR and affirmed traditional Infernalism. I was surprised to find, in my opinion, the anti-UR material to be weak, unsubstantial. And I was even more surprised and saddened by the vicious unfounded personal attacks I received from many different people for questioning the doctrine of Hell. This motivated me to pray and study even more.

I then began a comparison of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Universalism. The differences between these three systematic theologies can most simply be explained in whether or not they affirm or deny the following four statements. (Each statement has much scriptural support as affirmed by the various groups.)

  1. God is sovereign over all.
  2. God loves all humanity.
  3. God saves all humanity.
  4. God judges all humanity and punishes evil.

Because Calvinism and Arminianism affirms that God’s punishment of evil results in the certainty of some being forever lost, both must deny two of the above statements and dismiss the scriptures that affirm them. Calvinism affirms God is 1) sovereign and 4) judges all humanity and punishes evil, but denies that God 2) loves all humanity and 3) saves all humanity. Arminianism affirms that God 2) loves all humanity and 4) judges all humanity and punishes evil, but denies that God 1) is sovereign and 3) saves all humanity.

Because Universalism affirms God’s judgment of humanity and punishment of evil, whether in this life or the life to come, is remedial and reconcilatory, it can and does affirms all four statements, that God 1) is sovereign, 2) loves all humanity, 3) saves all humanity, and 4) judges all humanity and justly punishes evil. Jesus came to save all and does not fail to save even one!

However, even though I have come to believe that Jesus really is the savior of all and does not fail to save anyone, my greatest desire is that we as brothers and sisters in Christ live in respect and love for one another, each of us humbly recognizing that “I could be wrong” and not allowing our differing understandings or misunderstandings of scripture to divide us. Let our motto be that “Loving God and loving people is enough!”

#26

Here’s the second draft. Microsoft Word counts this as exactly 700, including scripture refs and portion titles.

#27

Hi Nick

Here’s my effort. 700 words on the nose. Whether they’re good words or bad words is up to you to decide. But whatever you decide, it’s been a joy and a privilege to try and sum up the wonderful news of Christian Universalism.

Shalom

Johnny

#28

Thanks ya’ll!

I think, honestly, Jason’s the most persuasive in regards of confronting the most likely of challenges and thus being the most persuasive. I just finished TILOG today. It might have changed my mind on the entire subject. Still thinking about it.

Johnny/Sherman, thank you for your contributions!

I shall get back to you very soon!

Peace!

–Nick

#29

I just realized as well.

Jason, if you could add a brief conclusion tying both the positive case together with the answers you give to objections, I think you might have sold me on using yours.

I hate picking between all of you. I now know how God feels. :laughing:

–Nick

#30

How brief? I’m at 700 words right now, and I’ll have to trim something. :laughing:

I do provide something of the sort you’re talking about in the middle of the beginning, so to speak; perhaps I can restructure (with a bit of redesign) and put that at the end?

I’ll look into it this weekend in between helping Mom do the taxes for her and Dad this year.

(Also, keep in mind that Dr. Bob or one of the other guest authors with professional credentials may still contribute something. :slight_smile: )

I recommend that in any case there should be a link back here to this or another thread featuring members providing their stab at a 700 word case. (Maybe a new thread so as not to distract with prior drafts and side discussions.) That way, whoever you choose, everyone’s contributions have a chance to be helpful. :smiley:

#31

I was thinking jus that, a bit of restructuring and putting that near the end. And I think a link back to here should be good. :laughing:

–Nick

#32

Or, rather, everyone’s responses put on a different thread for people to peruse. :mrgreen:

–Nick

#33

Hi Nick

Just wanted to say don’t feel bad about binning my effort. Like I said, as a twice failed novelist I’m used to rejection slips. Not that I’m bitter and twisted at all. Honest. :laughing:

Seriously, I think everybody’s submissions were really good. Interesting that we all approached the subject from different angles: Allan was very eloquent and philosophical, Sherman very personal, and Jason very scripturally strong and intellectually convincing. I tried to walk the tightrope between being scriptural and satisfying to the intellect, but also appealing to your average Joe or Jane Blow. I guess you could say I was a bit Rob Bell, whereas Jason was more Robin Parry.

This does raise the interesting question of who you see your primary audience as - and of course you will know that. Because personally, I think Jason’s piece might work best with somebody who is already a Christian, and is investigating the truth of UR. Whereas Sherman’s and Allan’s and my pieces might, perhaps, appeal a bit more to agnostics?

Anyyway, just my opinion. :slight_smile: Good luck with it, it’s a brilliant thing you’re doing.

Shalom

Johnny

#34

I agree with Johnny, my piece is definitely aimed at people who already accept a ton of truth in Christianity. (Although I do try to write with at least one agnostic in mind. :slight_smile: ) But I gathered this was kind-of the point to the site requesting the article: it’s addressed to Christians.

(Actually, I’m a tad confused why there would be any articles of this sort on the site, which seems to be aimed at reviewing media. It would look to make more sense to review one of the various author books there. Or, hey, CoJ. :mrgreen:)

#35

Hi Nick,

No worries, I enjoyed the exercise and understand that different approaches touch different people. I seek to be very personal in my sharing of the Gospel because people seem to have less defenses against such. And I love to throw in a few “zingers” like “Jesus failing to save” or “there being no end of evil”, or “the kingdom of evil knows no end”, or “in Arminianism the Atonement doesn’t completely save”, etc. Because of the brevity of the article, I could only hope to plant a few seeds, raise a few points that might instigate further research as such an article did for me many years ago. It was/is a challenging exercise I’ll continue to work on. Thanks again.

Blessings,
Sherman

#36

We’re expanding, and I’m co-editor of spearheading the expansion. And I will be reviewing James Goetz’s new book as well as interviewing him in the future. :mrgreen:

–Nick

#37

I had a busy Monday at work, and probably will this morning (at least), too. But I’m hoping I can get the next revision done by tomorrow. (It shouldn’t take long once I start, but I’m a bit dubious if I’ll be able to even stay at the office today–stomach blargh returned last night.)

#38

Running a bit late, but here’s the third draft:

MSWord counts it exactly 700 words, including the scripture refs and the topical titles. :slight_smile:

#39

Wow. I look forward to posting this. :smiling_imp:

But, sincerely, thanks for all your hard work. I shall keep this post very strongly in mind, and use it in the near future.

–Nick

#40

You’re welcome. Let me know when! :smiley: