The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Do Words Mean What They Say??

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

I came across this article which I’d not read since before my UR days. I’m curious to know your reactions.

atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=85&journal=1&type=pdf

It’s titled:
Annihilation and Biblical Inspiration: Do Words Mean What They Say?

It is obvious that the only 2 views the author has in mind are ECT hell and annihilation (the view he is trying to sustain) with nary a hint of Universalism.
I confess that on rereading it now, I find his sarcasm in insisting that words mean what they say, and comparing those who don’t use words in this way to Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s, Through the Looking Glass, to be rather annoying and sanctimonious.

Apart from his obvious ignorance of the meaning of the word “eternal” (often discussed here on our site) it troubles me that one supposedly so concerned that words must mean what they say can completely miss/ignore some other pretty explicitly stated words and concepts which we hold as being supportive of Universal Reconciliation! Ideas like “all” being made alive in Christ; Christ’s acts conquering death; and God being “all in all”. Also, he just assumes that the “death deadline” for Salvation is a reality - that death marks the end of all hope.

So, just feeling a bit frustrated here! and wondering how you react to reading this short article…

Blessings,
Bobx3

#2

The thing that strikes me as funny about the “death deadline doctrine” :wink: , is that this flies directly in the face of the resurrection. The whole point of the resurrection is that death is NOT the end…of anything. God clearly showed his lordship over and defeat of death with the resurrection. Yet this is a point that many miss, whether defending ECT or annihilation.

#3

I generally support anything that goes against ECT… and, overall, I’d say annihilationism is the most easily biblically derived doctrine, because of the language used in a few places. Annihilationism still does not solve the Problem of Evil, though, but Christians tend not to care about that in the first place.

“Words mean what they say” can’t really be applied to a book like the Bible. It’s riddled with multi-layered metaphors and historical context and references to Jewish life, and the more I read it, or about it, the less I seem to understand it. :laughing: Sometimes I’m more mad at ECT doctrine for oversimplifying (I like to say neutering) the Bible with their neat little package than at its immorality (and anyone with an appreciation of the Bible’s complexity would have difficulty clinging to any specific view).

#4

My friend. You just took a specific view that one should find it difficult in taking a specific view. So what you are saying, is that the bible is too complex to know what it is saying? then why would you say,

If the bible is too complex and one should find difficulty taking ANY specific view, then how can you take a specific stance against ECT?

Furthermore what about Jesus saving us from our sins, Jesus being God etc… Can you take specific views on those? why or why not?