Anyone think they’re capable of refuting this refutation? Meek is a preterist like me.
Such arguments against universalism have been answered repeatedly on the forums here.
For example, the author claims that God’s desire to save all (1 Tim.2:3-6) doesn’t mean He wants to save everyone, but that He just would save “all types of people”. This is a Calvinistic type of interpretation.
Re his comments on Phil.2:9-11 see the thread:
The author says "In John 12:14 we find that Jesus will draw “all men to himself.” "
Actually the reference should be John 12:32.
So origen, you don’t think his interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4 is valid? Why not?
Well for starters Meek is NOT a prêterist like you… unlike Meek you as a prêterist you have proclaimed a ‘universalist’ belief. Secondly, Meek’s argument isn’t eschatologically based BUT evangelically based, and somewhat Calvinistic.
Challenging the “all” argument as he does is fraught with its own perils… for example: to the degree he want s to limit “all” (and there are legitimate examples of it) why should such with consistency NOT be applied to… “for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” — on what basis then should this not also have his restrictive claim applied to it?
As to the rest of his rationale… IMO his prêterism is incomplete… logic dictates that IF the last enemy to be destroyed is death THEN God has NO MORE enemies — thus the inclusive nature of the reconciliation afforded by and in Christ, ON BEHALF OF all. Such inclusion is beyond the limits of universalism.
So davo, you don’t think Meek’s case for preteristic hopeless punishment is solid?
So I may have missed it qaz, but what does Meek say about “hopeless punishment”?
His entire article is a defense of hopeless punishment, against universalism.
Yeah ok… but apart from Meek himself being a prêterist, what makes his position against ‘universalism’ per sé “prêteristic” — he’s simply trotting out the typical objections many futurists trot out.