The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Constructing a document against Universalism

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#61

Luke:

As I said before, if one is able to describe his adversary’s beliefs in terms that the adversary himself finds to be accurate and representative of his thought, then any counter arguments carry far more credibility and weight than they otherwise might… That goes for your side as well as for my side…
Yet it’s not really so easy is it…

I was, at one time, completely against what I now see as the truth of Universal Reconciliation. In time, all I’d have needed to remain content with my former understanding was for someone to offer me a coherent explanation for two things:

  1. in what way is annihilation (ECT for others) compatible with “Love” – (I love you therefore I’ll obliterate or torture you…)
    and
  2. how is it possible to assert complete Victory for God, in Christ, while some (many?) remain tortured and/or annihilated?

Words, to have any meaning at all, cannot just mean anything at all. Define “Love” as something which not only allows, but condones ECT simply means Love cannot mean what it’s bearers want it to mean. Same with Victory; say You “won” God, yet leave behind those legion souls You came and died for, and Your victory is hollow indeed.
If “Love” and “Victory” can mean ECT, then they really mean nothing at all.

God is not some sort of cosmic word spinner. If any kind of behavior can be said to be “love” merely because it is done by God, then “love” rather loses it’s meaning. “Love” becomes non-falsifiable.

I am therefore, now a Universalist…

The Gospel is far far more than God just giving we sinners “a chance” at salvation…

Bobx3

#62

I think you’ll really like it, Aaron. Probably about the only thing you’ll find significant disagreement with , is that she believes scripture is clear that there is a judgment age post mortem, post resurrection (although she does not believe there is a hell in any traditional sense). It actually makes a lot of sense the way she presents it.

Overall, it’s excellent.
I’d say the title should be: “Everything you need to know about Christian Universalism (or insert your favorite title for what we believe) and why it’s true beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt.”

#63

Two good points Bob, Alex has raised both of them before. I probably should’ve include them and may do so in a later draft.

#64

Luke I commend you for taking the steps of trying to understand Biblical universalism. Your rigorous studying and questioning is something to be imitated. You want the facts and I am thrilled that there are those who actually are trying to argue against universalism (not because I don’t want it to be true, its one of the most beautiful truths). I simply want a good argument that does not leave me unimpressed, I want to know if this belief is true (for I am always after the truth). And if you become a Universalist along the way, then Christ bless you, but I still look forward to seeing what God does in all of us.

#65

Luke, you may notice that i said i wasn’t happy that i was feeling a trifle smug :stuck_out_tongue: it’s unfortunately a natural reaction when something that is supposed to make you question your faith actually ends up being such a weak argument that it affirms it.
sorry, but i’m being honest here! i don’t mean it to be offensive (as i’m sure you didn’t, but ended up being!), but my reaction was one of shock. i was expecting some good arguments, but nothing made sense. this is why i abandoned ECT in the first place. it doesn’t work! it misses the whole point of the old testament promising salvation and an end to punishment…how could the new testament promise a better covenant if it delivered anything less? how could God be love and not love His creation? how could God be powerful and be impotent to save?

i’ve been studying this for 30 years, and this is the first time my relationship with God has made any sense when compared with the Bible. i’m sure this is the case for many others at this forum as well. your article manages to sweep all that out as rubbish without even giving it the dignity it deserves. so i felt smug that it was such an inadequate broom…well, i’m sorry! :slight_smile:

#66

Thanks for the first part of your comment, emotions often run high on internet forums.

I’m not bothered that you didn’t find it convincing, over the past year I’ve only heard a handful of strong arguments from Universalists for Universalism and had some fears about what universalism does to theodicy, justification and church tradition confirmed.

#67

give it a few more years. i’ve seen nothing but positive fruit coming from this, and i’ve seen how Scripture really does lead down this path of faith (which is all it is) when you strip away the stuff that the church added to it.

what’s the point of constructing a document against universalism if you aren’t bothered how convincing it is? and shouldn’t it be concerning if it has the opposite affect?

#68

No offence to anyone is intended, but this about sums up my opinion of the Evangelical Universalist Forum:

http://xkcd.com/386/

#69

i am sorry if i’ve caused you offense, though hopefully you can understand my reaction to some degree.
i’m not perfect, and so my reaction was that of an imperfect person!

i love xkcd (when i understand it!) and that is hilarious, but to be fair i’ve been on forums with more open warfare!

if i was to speak with more grace (one day God will teach me it, He hasn’t given up yet), i’d say thanks for at least speaking to us. i am a recent convert to this way of thought, as i said, and to me it makes more sense. i am not omniscient, however, and i know i am still wrong about most things. but God teaches us and we progress.
it’s not necessary that everyone believe the same way i do…i don’t think God wants us to be “right”, i think He wants us to be loving. and i think i failed there in that respect, so i do apologise. even if by some fluke i am “right”, i don’t have the right to act in any way less than loving.

it’s cool you’re engaging with us, and it’s cool you’re putting thought and research into your own beliefs as well as ours. hopefully we can continue to learn from each other. i still have much to learn! :slight_smile:
also, thanks for the amendments you’ve made based on some of the suggestions here.

#70

I’ve just finished going through every point in Luke’s article against Universalism and for what it’s worth, I’ve posted replies in viewforum.php?f=66

#71

What I’m confused by is why what it does to theodicy, justification and church tradition makes any difference. What serves as those things are just constructions of man, and they must pass away in the face of truth. Do we ignore truth on the basis of what it does to our institutions? (Well… practically speaking, we do, but to our detriment!)

Doctor: Excuse me, but there is a cure for cancer!

Medical Institution/ gullible public: But what will that do to our multimillion dollar cancer clinics, race for the cure fundraisers, etc., etc.

Doctor: Your point is…?

#72

A few arguments for Universalism I did not find here, and ones that, IMHO are major include:

  1. Argument from the problem of evil. John Frame admits that there is no cogent theodicy (justification of God) that one can muster from the ECT camp. It is according to him, the biggest problem in theology and the only answer he offers is the “greater good” argument, which is invalid if ECT is true. (how could ECT be the greater good for the lost?) Frame admits it cannot but then simply moves on without addressing this glaring hole in his thought. Only Universalism offers a theodicy which actually works because we can insist that all things actually do happen for a greater good for everyone.

  2. Argument a-fortiori from the love of sinful human fathers to the love of the eternal father. (Mat 7:11) “So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who keep on asking him”

From this we can reason that if God is MORE loving than man, he would not act LESS loving. And consigning his children to an eternity of torment when he can prevent it (Calvinism) or simply chose not to create those whom he fore-knows would chose wrongly (arminianism) would certainly NOT exemplify a more loving spirit but the hard-hearted spirit of a far less loving father that the worst of sinful men.

Finally - Matt 25 - does anyone understand this parable? Not many!

#73

Matthew 25 The Sheep and the Goats Parable

Few understand this parable because almost no one pays attention to the context.

Most thinks its a parable about the final judgment. It is NOT. It is a parable related to the judgement coming upon Israel for rejecting Jesus’ ministry. That’s why if follows right on the coat heels of his condemnation of the religious leaders in Matt 23.

Matt 24-25 is one long sermon. the Olivet Discourse.

It has one message. God is coming to judge the nation of Israel for its rejection of their Messiah, and coming soon. Before that generation passes away…

His disciples were admiring the Temple, and Jesus says take a good look at it cause its toast. In that context, Jesus tells his disciples this parable of a shepherd separating sheep and goats. The shepard (Jesus) is not separating individuals but nations. It is nations he gathers together for judgment here not individuals. And he did this when he ascended his throne. Before that generation passed away. just like he promised.

Why did he do this, and why does he continue to do this? Because he protects his own. Those nations that persecute his children (Christians) he punishes and those that bless them, he blesses.

In particular the nation of Israel persecuted the Christians more than anyone else.

Given that correct understanding of the parable makes it plain that the meaning of aionios is a smokescreen. It really doesn’t matter whether it means 'eternal" or “age long” because the passage does not even deal with personal eschatology. It is dealing with ethnic eschatology. That is, how Jesus deals with nations.

Within any nation, there are good people and bad. Faithful and faithless. But God brings judgment upon entire nations for wickedness even if there are good people in it. Just look at what happened to Israel in the Babylonian captivity. Some of those taken captive were not faithless. but they suffered because of the faithlessness of the nation as a whole.

So Jesus is warning that any nation that persecutes the least of his brethren, (the lowliest Christian) will be chastised.

Beside the fact that the context was not dealing with personal eschatology, another way we can know that this parable does not deal with personal eschatology is because if it did than Jesus was teaching justification by works. Whoever was good to his brethren is blessed, whoever is bad is chastised. But we are not justified by our works. We are not justified by how we treat Christians. We are justified by faith,

No, he is not dealing with personal eschatology here and the context makes that plain.

#74

I always long for the day when Luke has a shave and quits smoking (see avatar) :confused:

#75

Actually, in the Greek, there is no word “away” in verse 9. It seems this word has been added in modern times by translators with a particular theological bias.

Among the translations in my Online Bible, only the ESV, HCJB, and NASB include the word “away” in the translation of verse 9.

The following translations do NOT include it:
ASV, AV, BBE, Darby, Diaglot, EMTV, Geneva Bible, JB2000, KJ21, LO, Murdoch, NKJV, Rotherham, RWebster, TRC, WEB, YLT.

“Lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord” indicates that the Lord in the ORIGIN of the lasting destruction. And this destruction could well refer to the destruction of all that is evil in these people, so that righteousness alone may come forth.