The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Constructing a document against Universalism

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#41

Note: I need to try to summarize my earlier replies better, btw.

A lot of universalists do believe this, probably a majority, but I don’t know that it’s a general consensus. I wouldn’t put things that way myself.

I would say the evidence rather points to ‘eonian’ and ‘olam’ primarily referring to God, both as a Jewish euphamism and as a Greek philosophical euphamism, although the term was borrowed from a prior usage of meaning an indistinctly long time (which might or might not mean never-ending but could also mean a few years or even days, olam being a physical metaphor regarding the eastern horizon.)

This multi-variant usage explains the spread of its usage in scripture; and does so in a fashion neutral to the question of ECT vs. anni vs. UR.

It also explains why different exegetical strategies seem to all work pretty well when trying to reduce it down to one meaning (though none of them perhaps perfectly well.) Things get more complicated when related prepositional phrases (like ‘eons of the eons’) are also factored in, as well as more rarely used terms like aidios. (A term which itself could have one or even both of two distinct meanings!)

As the most important meaning would be the affirmation of the never-ending life of God, and (arguably) the next most important meaning would be the hope of the life of a saved person, it would be natural to start simplifying things for ancient evangelism (just as for modern evangelism!), and try to always simplistically read it as never-ending (despite clear scriptural counterexamples to the contrary). Considering that this would just as easily result in a threat of permanent never-ending punishment (of one or another kind), and that there is documented evidence that this was somewhat useful in scaring people into behaving rightly (and even more useful in initial evangelism), the natural tendency would be to read “eonian” (and related) threats that way, too. (A tendency reasonably reinforced by the occasional Biblical habit of using the term to parallel the life and the punishment to come.)

Add to this any tendencies toward using Christianity as a form of Roman state control, and the end result can almost be predicted. (Completely aside from any question of whether sinful people would be more or less inclined to expect no salvation from sins but would be very interested in salvation from punishment.)

#42

Luke,
You might take a look at my post: Eternal and Aionios – Comments from a linguist.

I think I tried before to explain why I think the BDAG definition of aionios ought to be questioned, but Orville explains it so much better than I’m able to.

Sonia

#43

Everyone,

2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 and Revelations 14:11; 20:10-15

What would ‘Evangelical Universalists’ say about these verses?

Sonia,

I saw some of that. I guess what I’m still trying to understand (regardless of whether or not I agree with it) is the Universalist explanation of “Eternal and Aionios”. In other-words why the mainstream explanation is the way it is. I can’t get a clear fix, I’m getting different accounts of varying plausibility. (Again, not whether I agree or not but a summary of why “eternal” is the mainstream translation and why it shouldn’t be.)

Jason,

Thanks for those comments. (I didn’t really read the whole thread but I saw you getting into a big discussion about the Trinity, which surprised me, I thought belief in the Trinity would be a distinctive of this forum. I’m glad you argued for the Trinity but I was surprised such a core doctrine was so controversial!)

#44

2Thes 1: “Eternal destruction”

Enough has been said about “eternal” meaning “age long” or “pertaining to God”, rather than “forever and ever”.

Destruction: Olethros

Definition

  1. ruin, destroy, death
    a. for the destruction of the flesh, said of the external ills and troubles by which the lusts of the flesh are subdued and destroyed

From wiki:

"In Ancient Greek mythology, Olethros was the personification of Havoc and probably one of the Makhai.

Olethros translates roughly in ancient Greek to “destruction”, but often with a positive connotation, as in the destruction required for and preceding renewal."

Paul’s point in this passage is that God will repay evil for evil, and that this repayment will be fair and measured. God is not here redressing some hypotyhetical “infinite injustice” against Himself, but a concrete and finite injustice committed against the Christians in Thessalonica. Now no one can tell me that everlasting destruction is a fair and measured return for a few years of persecution. Nor would the Christians themselves want this to happen to their enemies. After all, they have been earnestly praying for these evil people, loving them and forgiving them. Rather, they would want God in his wisdom and power to visit upon them such punishment as would bring them to their senses.

#45

Jeremiah 17:4

4You will lose the inheritance that I gave you.
I will make you serve your enemies in a land that you haven’t heard of.
I will do this because you have stirred up the fire of my anger.
** It will burn forever.
**

I hear the Hebrew is very similar to the Greek in this in some ways when it comes to aionios and olam. It is interesting that God said His anger would burn forever, but we know that it really only burned for seventy years in this case.

**Luke, perhaps forever doesn’t mean what you think it does. Perhaps it is mistranslated. **

#46

Finished; thanks for the ideas, comments and points of clarification.
post-apocalyptictheology.blogspo … alism.html

#47

i’m sure others are studying this and can give a more knowledgeable rebuttal than me…but in the short time i have to respond at the moment, i can say i am even more convinced of Universalism now than i was before!

#48

Luke, would you like a critique of your blog from my perspective on your blog, or just do so here, or not at all? You are correct in that it’s not likely to change any Reconcilist’s minds; for me, it only, well, irritated me because it came across as dismissive and ill-informed. But that’s always a challenge when covering so many aspects in an abreviated, almost bullet, form.

#49

ditto, though really i found it less irritating and more …ensmugging (i have coined a new word), which isn’t good either lol, as i should be humble in what the Lord has taught me.

i thought Scriptures were taken out of context and context itself malformed in such a way that it became irrelevant.
sorry if i can’t get too much deeper, i am about to leave work for a well-earned (at least in my opinion) weekend.

one thing i’ll add is that i came from a place of believing ECT as the only option available, but its not actually matching up well with the general thrust of the Bible was a key thing that led me up this path.
so for me, i’d have to unlearn things i fervently believe God has taught me to embrace anything less than UR.

#50

… “ensmugging” – I like that word! :sunglasses: I know the feeling, but I think it’s not hard to channel it into hope and joy rather than pride. :sunglasses:

Luke, I have some comments, but I’ll wait till you confirm if and where you want them posted.

Sonia

#51

I just finished reading it and it seems we didn’t do a good job explaining Evangelical Universalism to you, Luke. I can sort of see why because there are many universalists on this site who would not fit into the category of “evangelical universalist”. There are some who think Hitler will be resurrected fully reconciled to God, which I can’t see in the scripture at all. There are some who believe in hell and some who don’t. There are some who don’t believe in a literal Adam, original sin, the flood, etc. There are some who paint an overly “flowery” picture of God. In short, there are a wide range of opinions on this board. I’ve also noticed that we can be sloppy with our language at times: I’ve seen several instances where folks say in a sentence “I don’t believe in hell”, when what I think they meant was that they didn’t believe in an eternal hell. There is a huge difference between no hell and a hell that is both terrible, yet temporary.

Chris

#52

I haven’t gotten around to responding to this document in its entirety (not sure if I have time right now), but the following are some initial remarks in response to the first few parts. :slight_smile:

Since most Christian Universalists (myself included) believe that God punishes people, I’m assuming that by “punish” you mean “punish endlessly.” Christian Universalists believe that for God to endlessly punish anyone would be inconsistent with his love, justice and mercy. Justice, for example, can only be satisfied when everyone has gotten what they deserve. But what about God? What does God deserve? Answer: God deserves universal adoration and loving obedience from all of his intelligent creatures. Adoration and heartfelt, loving obedience is what we owe God. It would ultimately be unfair to God for any of his rational, image-bearing creatures to remain in permanent rebellion against him.

“Those who have continued in their rebellion?” We all continue in our rebellion until God intervenes and saves us from our sins. So what I think you should have said was, “Instead of annihilating everyone, God chooses to endlessly punish those he has chosen not to save in order to highlight his mercy to those he has chosen to save.” But refusing to save some rebels would be self-defeating and prevent God from getting what he deserves, and of which he is worthy: universal adoration and loving obedience from all of his rational, image-bearing creatures.

Again, endlessly punishing sinners would be a self-defeating act, as it would entail the perpetuation of sin and rebellion. Only until all sinners are subjected to God will God’s “standards” cease to be violated.

The horror of someone’s being endlessly punished does not become less horrible in light of the “significance of sin” and the “importance of God.” In fact, it makes it even more horrible, because it means that sin is made to be as endless a reality as the suffering being inflicted because of it. And as for the importance of God, we read in Rev 4:11 that God is worthy to receive “glory and honor and power” because he “created all things, and by [his] will they existed and were created.” While a person who was being endlessly punished by God could certainly ascribe supreme power to God, God could not be universally glorified and honored without his being universally adored and obeyed. But anything less than this would be unworthy of God.

#53

I am about halfway through reading “Raising Hell”, and I highly recommend it for everyone here, even if some of the information isn’t new to us. It’s an excellent presentation of Universal Reconciliation.

#54

Looks good; just purchased it for my Kindle!

The following video can be found on the author’s website (julieferwerda.com/).

Here it is on YouTube:

youtube.com/watch?v=lZ3WnRUx … r_embedded

:smiley:

#55

I guess one thing’s for certain, Universalism doesn’t necessarily make you a better person.

Feedback and comments.

Alex, is providing some feedback, I know him, he’s a loving guy. However, if you want to make the affirmative case for Universalism in respect to particular answers I’ve given, your welcome to here on this thread: post-apocalyptictheology.blogspo … alism.html (Anonymous comments with a pseudonym is OK and FYI comment moderation kicks in after seven days, but I’ll keep approving comments after that if all goes well.)

Dirtboy,

Thanks for the constructive comment. Well, I did have “Evangelical Universalists” in mind because you could still be a Christian and a “Evangelical Universalist” as I understand the term.

Aaron,

At Alex’s prompting, I’ve added “forever” to the first point.

#56

In my own experience, Universalism has made me a better person in many ways, but no doctrine instantly transforms one into a perfectly mature person. :sunglasses: Finding oneself becoming “ensmugged” over something is notification of repentance needed!

Thanks for allowing our comments on your blog, Luke. I’ll have some time later to see what others have already said and try not to duplicate feedback. The punishing thing was a big one. Most of us here firmly believe in the punishing of sin; just not the hopeless punishing of sin!

Sonia

#57

I’m very thankful Luke has persisted in dialoguing with me for over a year now, however, I’m also very disappointed, not only as he is one of my closest and longest friends (& cousin), but because someone** in stopping him seeing the things I’ve explained to him.

** (I honestly don’t know what. I hope it’s just the HS hardening him, like Israel, in order to bring others in??)

That’s correct, the Holy Spirit does. However, personally I’ve found it to be a great encouragement to avoid sin & try to grow in the fruits of the Spirit.

As Luke kindly posted it on my FB wall, I encourage people to post there to make the discussion “Top News” :mrgreen:

Rom 9:23 begins with “What if”, it’s rhetorical not a statement. Even if you don’t accept this, even Hell for a short period would fulfill this. i.e. it would give something to compare God’s mercy to.

Given God’s love & grace is consistent, and we know He has at least some of both for everyone now, we should expect Him to continue to love & show grace to those in Hell.

The reason God doesn’t annihilate isn’t just because He needs a target for His wrath, it’s because He loves His children! Even fallen fathers usually don’t want to annihilate their children so we should expect more of God not less.

Exactly only “salvation” not ECT/P.

God punishing someone forever is horrible as:
]sin is horrible and ECT/P allows sin to continue forever./]

]even an fallen earthly father wouldn’t punish their child forever, so it’s horrible to attribute this to our perfect heavenly Father./]

I think you might have accidentally referenced the wrong verse there with Phil 2:6?

I agree with what you’ve written about the “Nature of Hell”, however unfortunately they don’t address why I find it horrible :frowning:

#58

I’ve tried to show you evidence why it’s more restorative. You don’t have to accept it outweighs the counter-evidence but saying “there’s no evidence” is a bit harsh don’t you think? And saying I’m just “presupposing” also hurts. Why not give some counter-evidence instead?

Evidence for judgement being ultimately restorative more than retributive:

]All the promises in the Bible of eventual universal restoration. e.g. Phil 2:10-11, Col 1:20 & dozens more: A very long list of UR verses/]

]The character of God, both His universal Fatherhood and His eternal intertrinitarian love./]

]Philosophically ECT/P has major problems, which is why I’m guessing there’s growing support from this area (Philosophy lecturers at Yale, Willamette, Oklahoma, Brown, etc. & “America’s leading orthodox Protestant philosopher of God.” Alvin Plantinga)/]

]Theologically ECT/P contradicts God’s holy perfection. i.e. the universe ends up eternally being less holy than sans Creation./]

‎*]Pattern of OT punishment being followed by restoration. Ultimate example in Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection./*]

#59

You’ve improved it already, those two opening statements were very awkward, thanks.

This what I wrote on facebook: … sorry I didn’t mean to be hurtful but I’m saying there’s no evidence for it being more restorative then retributive. Judgement is a big theme throughout Scripture, it’s difficult to summarise. But if I had to pick a summative verse for retributive nature of judgement: “God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you.” (2 Thess 1:6-7)

That’s a long list of verses, but not necessarily of verses showing judgement as more restorative than retributive. What swayed me to understanding judgment as primarily retributive is Hamilton’s God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgement.

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

No, I think it’s a good place to describe the nature of Adam’s original Sin.

Like I told you on Google+, it’s primarily theodicy that keeps me from Universalism. But I’d prefer to keep discussing that privately there than here, I feel like sometimes a bit of mob mentality takes over here, like it does where any one idea is dominate one of the posters.

#60

Luke,
It’s rather unwieldy – having this conversation in bits everywhere – here, facebook, your blog. LOL Anyway, I posted the following at your blog:

Sorry about that, Luke! I’ve been the odd one out on other forums, and I know it does get hard (even impossible) to keep up with everyone talking at you at once!

Sonia