This is inspired by the thread on Michael McClymond’s very pathetic attack on Universalism. He and others have made the charge that Universalism is “cheap” grace for itching ears.
They can’t be more wrong:
Universal Reconciliation is incredibly costly. It costs God His life and much pain (that statement may need moderation for the non-Trinitarians among us, sorry if i over state that in your opinion).
It costs any victims among us huge amounts to forgive our enemies and not rail against God for wanting to pardon them
It costs any bad people among us huge amounts because they have to face their sin (and i think that’s true even if Ultra Universalism is true!!! whether it takes a long time or is short, you have to know what Christ put to death on your behalf, and you have to face your victims without any illusion of justification of your prior sins).
There’s nothing cheap about UR
Revenge on those sinners over there that don’t subscribe to our creed etc…now THAT’s cheap. THAT’s what itching ears want to hear.
For me, a compassionate ear that wants hope even for Hitler is not an itchy one…an itchy one is the nasty type that loves gossip and hearing about the bad guys getting theirs.
Anyone who buys into UR for the simple reason it gets them and their loved ones a ticket to heaven misses the point, and will likely regret that approach. Anyone that thinks it gets them out of evangelism again has missed the point, and will regret not contributing to the construction of God’s kingdom on earth. Anyone who thinks UR doesn’t do justice to God’s justice has also missed the point and misunderstands God’s justice.
We may not know how it all hangs together…whether free-will or determinism rule the day…but God is clear about what He wants, and God knows exactly how to get it. We can rely on Him, and if we work with Him, we’ll get a glimpse of how it’ll be one day.
Does anyone have anything to add to that? Or do you disagree? Would be interesting to hear!
I agree. From the argument that he makes, grace is not grace because it costs us something; and salvation is not based on grace but on works. Instead of grace costing the Lord, it costs us. It is not “undeserved favor” but is favor that we recieve based upon our right choice(s). So according to his argument if Jesus died to save all, but some are not lost, then Jesus’ death was in vain.
Grace is costly, but it is not the reciever that pays the price, but it is the giver that pays the price.
In a way grace does “cost” us; it costs us our independance and pride. We must recognize our need of God/grace and recieve Him/it. But is that something we “loose” or is it something we are freed from? I believe the later.
I never understand this argument from other evangelical Christian especially, since all evangelical Christians believe in salvation is by grace through Christ alone, that He offers total forgiveness from sin. I mean it’s part of the traditional evangelical sermons, crusades, handing out ‘are you saved’ pamphlets etc, (whatever my feelings on both their presentation and effectiveness now are), indeed it seems to take up a caricatured image of grace that some non-Christians have charged Christians with done the centuries that they have long answered (as you do eloquently above). To see it made by non-universalist evangelicals is a bit mind-boggling really, don’t they see how it contradicts (or at least it seems to me) the central belief they stand by of salvation by grace through Christ alone, that from their angle anyone truly repenting and believing is saved? I mean sometimes a current non-believer might say to an non universalist evangelical who believes in eternal torment, what if - insert favourite most evil person ever - repented before they died, and the evangelical is generally committed to believing that if it was a genuine repentance they would be saved, and could go on to justify it was the costly arguments above and others (arguments I agree on, grace is costly ).
So really it seems such a self-contradictory position for any non-universalist evangelical or orthodox Christian to make. The only real question is, is it somehow less just or ‘cheap’ for God to extend His offer of forgiveness and grace post resurrection? And I don’t really see how that is the case (particularly taking into account various different lives, exposure to truth, environmental factors, different times of death and so on and so forth), I just can’t see an arbitrary cut off of grace is more just then extending it (in fact, it would seem the reverse to me).
The phrase “cheap grace” originated with Dietrich Bonhöffer who wrote The Cost of Discipleship. The idea was that to be a disciple of Christ costs us our lives in the sense that our lives are not our own, but Christ’s. For Bonhöffer, “cheap grace” is associated with the concept that we can be saved from hell by some formula such as “accepting Christ as our personal Saviour” or “trusting in the finished work of Christ”, etc., together with the implicit belief that it is not necessary to carry out Christ’s commands because that is an attempt to be “saved by works”.
Of course, those who do hold to cheap grace deny that it is cheap grace but costly grace because, it cost Christ His life or we could not appropriate His saving grace.
I think the charge of “cheap grace” against universalism comes about on the assumption that universalists hold that everyone gets to heaven automatically and that nothing whatever is required of them.
This is true, though many believe that once the free gift is accepted then it behoves us to ‘stay saved’ by doing something.
Leaving Universalism aside, many would refute that once saved always saved applies.
A good comeback I’ve found to the accusation that Universalism cheapens grace or negates necessity or need of leading a decent life: is either to ask what it is they would be so desperate to do if they knew it made no difference to their eternal salvation, and better still to ask if they are married or have a partner, would they go about having multiple affairs if they knew absolutely for sure their partner would always be guaranteed to take them back? if they answer ‘no’ as they always do, I ask why not? They’ve then answered their own question.
But as Corpeslight has said Universalism is Very Costly.
Strangely, I’ve found a sharper conscience and greater awareness of my shortcomings as a Universalist than I did previously, I sense sadness though rather than a condemnation n(mostly) I also feel more enthusiasm for sharing what is truly Good News (albeit aware of still very much falling far short of the enthusiasm I should have).
Cheers S
Paidion, thanks for this excellent summary of the meaning of the phrase “cheap grace”. My view of salvation has significantly changed since coming to have faith in Jesus to reconcile all. No longer is salvation about getting into heaven someday, but salvation is about getting heaven into us today. Getting us into heaven has been paid for by Jesus; He has redeemed us. Getting heaven into us costs us though. It costs us our pride, selfrighteousness, idols, selfishness, lust, ect.
That’s really fascinating, Paidion. To me then it sounds like saying Universalism equates to cheap grace is hypocritical if one holds to salvation by one of those formulae at the expense of following Christ’s commands. Really connecting with God in a salvific way seems to always mean giving up your life (which is Christ’s) and contribute to the building of God’s kingdom. Almost all universalism i have encountered (certainly on this forum) seems to emphasise the importance of showing our faith with our works as James says, and cooperating with God now, not putting it off to the future.
I think so, too, corpselight. But I don’t think it’s intentional hypocricy, because they think they believe in costly grace because of the cost to Christ, just as some in this thread have been saying. And they would say that Universalism is cheap grace because Christ didn’t have to die for us since everyone is going to heaven anyway. They think that if universalism is true, then there was no purpose in Christ’s death. They sometimes quote Galatans 2:21
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
So their thinking is that justification (which to them means being counted righteous even if we are not) is through the grace of God (which they define as “the unmerited favour” of God). If it is through the law then grace is nullifed, and likewise if it is through universalism ( which they see as everyone being automaticaly justified) then grace is nullified and Christ died for no purpose.
I think I understand their position fairly well since I used to be one of them.
That is interesting, and a good point, though I think a potential self-contraction might still remain for the non-evangelical universalist making the point that way (say an Arminian or Molinist) since they are still committed to believing in forgiveness and salvation by grace through Christ alone and not of themselves. And most in that vein, while believing that one can walk away from salvation they often tend to take the stance that such persons if they truly repent and commit to follow Jesus as Lord can be restored prior to death (so a return and restoration into grace in their view is always held out, baring perhaps the possibly a person had committed the sin against the Holy Spirit), and of course those of such a view unlike Calvinists also view that God desires at least to save all, and holds out His offer of repentance of forgiveness to all in response to believing and following faith. So again, I think it remains slightly self-contradictory for evangelicals of either stripe to make this argument, since the justness of the grace (or calling it cheap if they must) remains the same for either universalist or non-universalist evangelical (since neither believes in the kind of easy grace some talk about) and the only real question then if is it somehow more just, moral or costly for God to arbitrary cut off the offer of grace at death/or at the resurrection. And I just don’t personally see that it is myself (in fact as said above given variable factors and other reasons it would actually seem less just at least), and of course this line of argument doesn’t address that question at all, and seems to possibly show a lack of consistency of position, as it (at least to me anyhow) still ends up attacking what the non-universalist is themselves committed to believe in their own world-view.
I do really like the above point about the fact that it’s grateful and responsive love and faith that follows Jesus, rather then fear being the reason to follow Him, which also makes this argument possibly related to the one that would charge that we should teach ET anyway because why would people become Christians (though I want to stress I don’t believe those who make the first one are being as opportunistic as the second one), which I think is a such a sad argument for Christians to make, perfect love casts out fear so for some to see fear rather then love and desire for reconciliatory and restorative justice as a positive motivator is just tragic and nothing more should have to be said in relation to that. I really liked at above bit, which is why I quoted it in full, thank you . And of course, we should also be once we recognise Jesus as the Truth working in our lives to anticipate by His Spirit the life to come, of which love, hope and faith are the language we are far better of learning now, and true holiness the means of being renewed into being fully human, and when seen in that light who wouldn’t want to follow after that , and to be working to bring the gospel to a world that needs it now, being the ones who God can use to bring in new creation to a hurting and damaged people and world, being part of working for His Kingdom, and both seeing Him restore things and as Christians and a community anticipating the full rescue to come. I mean who when then had seen Jesus wouldn’t want to be a part of that, adding their own unique skills, personality and talent to it, and I think these days that would have allot of purchase with people, well anyway that is to say, I agree, I feel a theology dominated by love is much more motivating .
The Bonhöffer point is definitely interesting, and very challenging and humbling, and very truthful, though if that is what they have in mind then it seems to me that they miss the target completely, it might even be a category mistake though I’m not sure, since the universalism their attack is aimed at is not the one their universalist evangelical dialogue partners believe and subscribe to in any case. So I think if this is their line of thought, then the simple response (or so it seems to me anyhow) would be their isn’t any case to respond to, since the attack is against another kind of theology altogether, and I and we could fully agree with them, but then ask if they could please return back to the discussion at hand
These are great ideas, I love the Bonhöffer quote, though I can see it setting of my scruples at some points, I definitely when thinking more clearly am both challenged and like it allot, because he right, after all how are you following Him if you are not following Him. Anyway I really liked that one.
I agree, Paidion. It’s not intentional hypocrisy. It’s more of a knee-jerk reaction. So many build their theology on the idea of escaping hell - often through no fault of their own, that it only makes sense for them to ask those sorts of questions when confronted with such a paradigm shift as this, though of course we know that the paradigm shift isn’t a departure from orthodoxy, and still requires the same things that the Bible asks of any follower of Christ - insomuch as we agree on those points
It is interesting that Paul speaks there about the law nullifying the grace of God through Christ’s death, if it had the power to save. the same is true of any law…and ultimately, Christian Universalists totally affirm the importance of the death of Christ. I’ve not heard any CU/UR/EU etc so far say anything else, or suggest that we’d be saved without Christ’s death. Even if we reject PSA, and many don’t…and many non-Universalists also reject it, so that’s not a basis for criticism either.
Thanks for your input here, i really appreciate it!
Thanks Sturmy and Grant for these thoughts.
Sturmy, your point about your conscience being more active now is apt. Personally i feel more free and excited about God and being a Christian now. I feel less like i have some nasty thing to hide if i talk about God with people that don’t believe, as well. I’m more motivated to be in an attitude of praise towards God as well, as i think about just how amazing it is to be part of His huge redemptive plan. It gives me such hope.
Grant, yeah it’s the self-contradictory aspect that gets me, though as Paidion and i have discussed, it’s an understandable reaction, even if it rankles. I’m just glad that most Christians don’t go down the “burn the heretics” route so much anymore. We have a great cloud of Universalist martyrs that weren’t so fortunate, and we might not have the formulated hope we have without their sacrifices.
Love is definitely a better motivator than fear. John wrote about that when he said that perfect love casts out fear, and that those that fear are not yet made perfect in love. Despite the warnings against sin in the NT, if you take eternal hell out of the equation, they write with hope and joy and a vision of God being victorious and all in all.
I think it is also true that perfect fear casts out love. Orwell’s 1984 illustrates that , when Winston has to go to room 209 (I think) and is threatened with his greatest fear; so great is it, that converts him: he no longer loves his lover, and now “loves” that which he hated.
This has been a very good conversation!
That’s a scary thought. I suppose it is possible to break someone like that…but Love heals, so even in that case, it could be possible, given aeons and aeons [however long that is] to undo the brainwashing. for us it might be impossible, but for God it’d be possible.
it may be an impossibility for perfect fear to conquer perfect Love…Winston may have loved his lover, but was it perfect love? maybe not…Jesus would’ve undergone [and in fact did undergo] the fear and torment, and emerged not only loving His beloved [that loved him back], but also loving His enemies.
).
Excellent.
