Recently I read this article on carm web site.
carm.org/can-christian-be-universalist
Curious of the thoughts of those here, who either affirm or deny the objections of Matt Slick.
Upon reading this article is appears that the author is very anti- any view that challenges his own view point. Deeming anyone who disagrees with him as a non-Christian and too ignorant to understand what scripture really says.
Hi Wendy,
To be charitable to Matt Slick, it seems that he is claiming only some universalists are heretics or non-Christians; however, he does write that all universalists are “in error”. Now, I think that is generous (though we as universalists or would-be universalists might not think so 
) as at least as many non-universalists think all universalists are both in error and are heretics. Note that one of the groups he thinks to be “in error” are Unitarian Universalists, which, given our (I’m assuming you are an evangelical universalist) stance of Christian universalism, we might agree with. And I think some of us universalists also quibble with post-mortem salvation being “purgatorial”.
Yet, though I only looked at this one post, it does seem that his refutation of universalism, in general, is very hasty.
Did you see his “doctrine grid”? It is interesting, though Slick calls universalism “a non-essential”, it is nonetheless deemed a “heresy”, though he defines “heresy” as “a lack of Biblical understanding that doesn’t negative salvation”. Hmm… that seems idiosyncratic. Also, he calls the Trinity “a secondary essential”, when other Christians might call the Trinity an essential doctrine…
I think his appeal to scripture is question-begging when there is nearly no scriptural evidence in the post adduced in favor of exclusivism, though he seems to concede that some types of universalism aren’t explicitly stated as wrong in scripture
Hi Wendy and Prince,
Thought I’d link to this fairly recent thread regarding Matt Slick (owner/operator of CARM) and his daughter. Interesting story about his daughter to say the least, but also some members general impressions of CARM and Matt Slick.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=5071
All the best,
Steve
To be fair to him, he answered the question proposed and wasn’t wrong in saying you can be a Christian and believe in universalism. Looking round his site, he does seem to have a relatively extensive look at universalism, which might be interesting to look at and study - carm.org/universalism
Although he’s put the topic of 'universalism under ‘Religious Groups and Cults’ which is a bit bizarre
That is a sad, sad story. The saddest thing to me is the self-deception, for many of us (even universalists sometimes) think we are being loving by giving others our beliefs, when really we are suppressing the thoughts of others who might agree with us for reasons other than believing we’re right (i.e. wanting to be nice or agreeable, or just not as debate or theology-oriented and so just nod when they’re really thinking, “What?”). It is not an option for some kids to have beliefs contrary to their parents, or it might be in one sense, the parents say ur free to think what u want, but obviously it is hard for many kids to contradict these things, and when they finally do, it is a complete rebellion or walking away from the parents’ beliefs. For some reason, I keep thinking of Jim Morrison’s bio here and his super strict Admiral dad, that i guess after Morrison got famous and was interviewed, he just said his parents were dead! Geez! And I bet Admiral Morrison thought he was doing good for Jim by instilling military values or whatever, not realizing that his son was just not destined 4 that route or whatever. And history is full of this (Leopold and Wolfgang Mozart is another example that reminds me of this, and his Dad gave Mozart an excellent education, really believed in him and took him on world tours, but was ironically somewhat controlling & suppressing of Mozart’s ambition to be a world-renowned composer). And while this is complete conjecture, I would say that Matt probably lived in a household where doctrine was pushed on him (though that doesn’t excuse him 4 pushing doctrine). Even if he is 100% correct and Cal is T, I think you ought to let people come to things on their own, but parents can overdo their duty to instill beliefs.
I will say that though this story is very tragic, it some ways it is irrelevant, b/c a universalist, an Arminian, an annihilationist, Deist, etc. - anybody can fall into this trap, and it should not influence our appraisal of Matt’s beliefs (in themselves) or our own, just because universalism is the “kinder” doctrine. A universalist could be just as dogmatic against other worldviews, and in fact, some are more dogmatic b/c it is such a loving doctrine and they can’t see why anybody would want to reject it or pause to think about it . No matter how T something is, it really only makes a real difference when somebody comes to it their self. That being said, I think even as ideas, Matt is weak on his defense of Calvinism, though his concession that universalism isn’t strictly forbidden in the Word is some indication of unbiased thinking.
Prince, Thank you for your kind thoughts. I do not have the link, but I do know that Matt Slick shut down a feature on his web site where Universalist could leave a reply. He wrote that universalist he found to be dis-honest.I am curious as to why he was having that experiences. If I find it I will place it here, does anyone know if he has visited this web site?
Wow , thank you for the link. .
Jonny, Thank you for the link. If you read his objections, I find them to be weak. Especially the article on Aion.
Wendy here’s a good article on CARM at Wiki/Matt Slick claimed that he shut down the thread on universalism because of universalists having insulted him for being a ‘baby burner’ etc - and having made unkind comments about his name. The posts he actually quotes don’t reveal this level of vitriol and there is no reason to think that anyone who made posts at CARM came from this site. They may have come from tentmakers because tentmakers have commented on the gag on discussion on universalism on a site that allows anyone else - including Satanists - to debate there (in order to be corrected).
I’ve had a look at CARM and personally I’m not impressed by the answers given - but that’s just me 
Thank you Sobornost. That is too bad he was insulted, he may have been more open . I agree the arguments he has are not very strong.
delete
edit for space
Yeah it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they were weak. I’ve read a few of his pieces (not on universalism) and he has a tendency to approach a subject clearly knowing what his opinion is and finding ‘enough’ justification for it so that for those readers who don’t have as much capacity to question or critique ideas will naturally go along with whatever he’s written. People who are willing to scrutinise will often find weaknesses in his arguments.
Having said that, I have read a couple of very good pieces from him. I just heavily disagree with his general approach to debating. There’s a couple of almost laughable videos of him debating random people on the street, seemingly with the sole intention of ‘winning’ an argument, an approach I really, really despise.
edit for space
edit for space
Just to be fair to Matt Slick, from the little I now know I’d say that -
He’s a charismatic Calvinist
He thinks that Trinitarian Universalists are doctrinally in error (but he must think the same of Armenians)> However he does not believe Trinitarian Universalists are necessarily ‘unsaved’.
He believes that all errors in doctrine can be used by Satan thus Trinitarian universalism can be a step on the road to Unitarian Universalism and pluralism (and the latter two he would see as irredeemable).
He compiles dossiers on all things that are not what he considers orthodox Christian – including Evolution – as a resource for Christians involved in apologetic discussions on the web
He argues using presuppositionalist methods (which generally attempt to undermine the assumptions of the interlocutor rather than building on common assumptions – so it is an aggressive form of apologetics and it may be that he can behave in a bullish way)
His troubles with his daughter may be the result of him concentrating on schooling her from an early age in pressupositianalist axiomatic stuff rather than giving her sufficient relational and affective models of truth (so he didn’t attend properly to her emotional and imaginative development)
When he first began CARM it was a welcoming place for anyone who wanted to have an argument with him.
It has gradually become more and more a site for conservative Christians rather than a debating site and the open chat rooms seem to have been closed down gradually.
Matt has particular issues about how some universalists have behaved on his site.
Matt Slick says his daughter has “become an atheist”. Eh? Shurely shome mistake?
As every good Calvinist knows, the elect cannot lose their salvation under any circumstances. So either Rachael Slick is reprobate, in which case she never had any faith to lose - she was born an atheist and will die an atheist; or she is elect, meaning she cannot ever be an atheist.
One wonders why Mr Slick (he is keen on being given his honorific) entreats us to pray for his wayward daughter, for her fate is assured. If God - as Matt announces via his personal soapbox, otherwise known as CARM - in his love and mercy and out of the kind intention of his own will, from before the foundation of the world, left Rachael to go her natural way, to damnation, then who are we to challenge that? If Rachael is going to burn in hell for all eternity because God didn’t choose to elect her that is entirely her own fault. She is a slave to her sinful nature, full of evil, an enemy of God, with nothing good dwelling in her, hateful, disobedient, and enslaved to her lusts. Matt really ought to know that, seeing as how he spells it all out in his personal statement of faith.
Indeed, seeing as how God preordains the reprobate to the everlasting barbeque “to the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures”, I’d have thought Matt would have been glad at the prospect of his own flesh and blood being a vessel via which God manifested his glory.
So here are a few cheering words from that jolly Calvinist japester Jonathan Edwards to send her on her merry way:
“God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.”
Now, nice cup of tea, vicar?
J
You never know, Johnny…this particular inconsistency could in fact cause him to warm to the idea that God will save her no matter what.Let’s not gloat too much, or say “i told you so!” or “not so nice when it’s your own daughter, is it?” or varieties of that…he made mistakes, clearly…as do we all. it sucks when someone spreads a load of lies with the best intentions (as we must assume he has, as we can’t judge his heart), but we all have followed errors before…i mean look at me! i used to believe in hell! 
As for Jonathan Edwards…if he’s going to suggest that the best thing we can do with those wonderful and beautiful and fascinating creatures called spiders (or “other” “loathsome” insects) is burn them, i’ve got two VERY rude words to say to him. And a nice back hand across the face too.
Yes James - I’m all for joining the spider lovers against Jonathan Edwards club (shall we get some tee shirts printed). Johnny is quite right in drawing attention to the rather terrible presuppositions of a presuppsitionalists and makes a career out of taking the presuppositions of others apart - but I sort of want to wish he and his daughter well and hope they arrive at a better understanding together.
Those t-shirts sound good to me 
Maybe a spider could be holding HIM over a flame 
Yeah, it’d be awesome if they were reunited!
i am happy for her in a way, but it’s always a shame when someone throws the baby out with the bathwater