An unfair argument for UR …


… but one which is, nonetheless relevant, revealing, and very accessible.

It works best when discussing UR with folks who have kids.

When asked how it is that a God of love can/will torture, kill, or in some other way effect eternal separation from Him, they will say they don’t know. But they know He will/does.

OK I say, tell me now which of your own children you are willing to treat that way; pick a child who deserves ECT or annihilation. Just one name please.

Of course they are appalled and wouldn’t dream of actually deciding on their own. No, they say, they trust God to make the proper choice.

I persist: isn’t it true that you love your child? (yes of course) And isn’t it true that God loves them almost infinitely more? (well, of course yes again) So how is it that the MORE love one has for this child of yours the MORE likely they are to be able to decide to torture, kill, or in some other way effect eternal separation from Himself?? Doesn’t it seem logical that the more loving one is the harder it will be to do such a thing?? What twisted definition of “love” says that as it increases to the levels where God lives and exudes it, so too does the ability to treat that loved one so horrifically??

That often gets them thinking…

Some hang in there long enough (I can only do this with people I’ve known for rather a long time…) to come up with the idea that it is a matter of knowledge; God acts this way (ie tortures, kills, or in some other way effects eternal separation from Him) because he “knows” this is the only way… He does this because (I’ve actually grown to detest this line…) God “knows” they would not be ‘happy’ in His presence.

So the solution to one who would not be ‘happy’ in God’s presence is … … … ECT or annihilation? My God! What parent on earth (earthly parents being flawed, and but partial reflections of God, the ultimate parent) would come close to such a horrific bargain??

No, the obvious solution is to rehabilitate the individual whose delusions actually imagine a God who is not the ultimate bliss.

Well, you know how the argument goes from here… (!)



Have you read The Shack? There’s a chapter in there (Here comes 'da judge, IIRC) where Wm. Paul Young makes essentially the same argument in narrative form. :mrgreen:

So, have them read The Shack first to soften them up a bit… :sunglasses:


Yes I have read it –
and yes that’s a great suggestion!



lol… loving the confrontational aproach.

Too often being a christian means throwing ones brains out the window and accepting everything one hears as fact :unamused:


Yes, that’s a very good argument. Another question I like to ask is “How many people does Jesus fail to save?” Or I just point out that the traditional doctrine presents Jesus as a failure, for He failed to accomplish His stated purpose - the salvation of all humanity.


When you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, his blood becomes the eternal blood for you. It does not become your eternal blood for you personally until you put your faith in his sacrifice. Salvation is available to whosoever will believe to receive it. :wink:


If he never saves me in what sense can he be said to be my saviour?

Suppose I play professional soccer and the manager of a particular team tries to get me to sign for his club. If I end up not signing then that person can NEVER be said in any meaningful way to have been my manager - he was only ever my potential manager.

So really Jesus should be called the potential saviour of the world. It’s ironic that for someone who insists on the literal reading of the text A37 adds the word ‘potential’ into every scripture that says Jesus is the saviour of the whole world or that he takes away the sin of the world.

If the refuse collectors in our village claimed to ‘take away the rubbish of the whole village’ but instead of jumping off their cart and collecting all the bags of rubbish they only took away the rubbish of those households that lifted up their own rubbish bags and threw them on the cart as it passed by then they would be making a false claim.


Yes, that’s the errant traditional doctrine that affirms that Jesus fails to save most of humanity. To the traditionalist, Jesus is like a lifeguard that throws out the life-ring to pull people in, but if they do not have sense enough to grap the ring, they die. So Jesus is not really the savior of all humanity as 1 Tim.4.10 notes; rather, He is only the savior of those who believe, and potentially the savior of all people. And if one is to believe the traditional doctrine, Jesus actually does not save most of humanity, and instead condemns most of humanity to suffer in their sins throughout eternity.

Of course, if the person refuses the life-ring, a good lifeguard sees a person drowning and jumps in and pulls them to safety, even if the person is out of is mind with fear, irrational, and fighting the lifeguard all the way!


They’re also very likely to kill the lifeguard trying to save them. :slight_smile:

Instinctive drowning response, which is overwhelmingly powerful, is to climb out of the water: drowners instinctively, and with adrenaline fueled strength, try to climb on top of the lifeguard, pushing him under–even when they rationally know they shouldn’t do that.


That’s very insightful Sherman, and Jason…

And Jesus Himself said “Forgive them Father, for they know NOT what they do…”

So again, why on earth do we seem to insist that the “lost” even go this direction?? For they know NOT what they do – neither do they know they are ALWAYS welcome back into the embrace of the Father who has been waiting for them all along…


The urge to kill these seeming reprobates remains the urge of flawed humans; not God’s at all…



Well, for one thing, there’s a bunch of biblical testimony to the reality and importance of human responsibility in sin, just as there’s a bunch of biblical testimony to the reality and importance of God’s own responsibility in regard to sin. I think both sides have to be kept in account.


i would like to believe that those who never trusted Christ in this life, but who would have had they known Him, may find themselves in Heaven, see the Son at the Father’s right side, and worship Him. we all need salvation, and no one can recognize Christ without God’s help. thus perhaps all will someday be able to recognize Christ, and worship Him, and be reconciled to the Father, through the Son.

remember, 2 Peter 3:9 says that God is willing that none should perish, but that all should repent. the only way for all to repent, is for all to have the chance to repent, and trust Christ. whether all will is between them, and God. but this verse presents us with the scenario that all will be given the chance to repent, put their faith in the Son, and be saved. yes, it is a personal matter. yet God’s Word holds out the hope that all may repent, and none can repent unless they first hear, and believe.


Yes, traditional theology does minimize Jesus as Savior.

For the Calvinist Jesus is only the Savior of the Elect, but not all of humanity.

For the Arminianist, Jesus only provides the pontial of salvation for all, but only actually saves those who elect to believe and repent and whatever else the group thinks in necessary. Of course, many people never even get to choose; but I suppose they should have just not chosen to be born.

Of course, scripture says that Jesus is the savior of all humanity, especially we who believe (not “only” those who believe).


Grace (and other new members),

As an aside: A37 was banned for poor attitude and unfair behavior, several weeks ago. So he can’t reply back when you address him.

I mention this mainly to protect him from the temptation to use him like a straw horse who (currently) isn’t in a position to defend himself. Also, if he doesn’t reply, that doesn’t mean he has no reply (I assure you he has plenty of replies :wink: ). It only means he can’t reply right now.

(I’m sure he believes, and doubtless feels, that we were horribly unfair and wicked to him; I just don’t want to add to his rankledness by having people address his comments while he isn’t able to reply to them. That must feel even worse.)


sorry about that! sorry, Aaron.


For what it’s worth, I didn’t think you were trying to use him that way, Grace. :slight_smile: But I wanted to head off problems at the pass, if possible.