Surfing the net I have encountered this man. I most certainly do not agree with his position agains UR. On the other hand, he has written many arguments and I am looking for ways in which they could be refuted. Thanks for the help in advance.
ovrlnd.com/Universalism/allthealls.html
Also, look at the Christian Unviersalism part of the website.
Interesting, he has also dialogged with Talbott a few times:
ovrlnd.com/Universalism/ttvsel.html
ovrlnd.com/Universalism/TomT … alism.html
ovrlnd.com/Universalism/Dial … lbott.html
I wonder if he would be interested in visiting?
It’s interesting that his first assertion is that the lie of Satan in the Garden is what is taught in UR. Of course, he reads into “die” the concept of ECT, which it does not mean. When Adam and Eve sinned, they did die; they were separated from God, came under the dominion of sin and Satan, and inaugurated what Paul calls “this present evil age” (Gal.1:3-4). It is from this present death, this present slavery to sin and Satan that Jesus came to redeem us from. The Genesis passage is not warning of ECT, but of this present evil age which we were all born into as a result of the sin of Adam. We were created for perfect relationship with God and with one another, but sin killed that.
Oh, and it’s interesting in his chart that he equates Gehenna with Hell, though Jesus warned of Gehenna to the Jews who had the concept of Abraham’s Bosom. And of course, Gehenna itself, to the Pharisees did not warn of ECT, but primarily spoke of a type of Purgatory.
Also, it’d be interesting to note how many of the passages he noted on judgment were based judgment on Works, not on grace or faith; most I’d dare say. And yet, I hope he still affirms that salvation is by grace.
Well, I could go on and on, but not now. I’ll likely be online little the next 5 or so days.
Blessings,
Sherman
The name “Eric Landstrom” set off little weird bells in my head. Had he been mentioned before here?
So I did a search; yes, rarely (mostly in this thread and in some links by Rodger Tutt). But the first mention?
Sonia asking BAaron if he was Eric Landstrom posting pseudonymously, in BA’s Introduction thread.
He wasn’t, and I don’t hold that against EL. But checking the thread to see who Sonia was asking about, I accidentally ran across BA’s first attempt at “evangelizing” Jeff, if one wants to call it that… 
I strongly recommend, for everyone’s peace of mind, that you avoid looking up the name “Eric Landstrom” on this site for a while. 
Jason, you made me laugh.
Sherman, since you brought up Gehenna, I was just wondering if you’d had a chance, or were aware, that my dad recently did an outline of his ideas on Gehenna? I know you said it was your study of hell and what it was not that led to your current view, so maybe the paper would interest you? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. You can find it under Bob Wilson’s corner.
I’m enjoying following the first link you gave, Alex, of the discussion between Talbott and Eric. I’m so glad Talbott is answering because otherwise I’d want to jump right in. He does a much better job of explaining things! It’s as if Eric has never heard this view before judging by the way he says, “Your argument is unique.” 
I’ll have to read more, but he doesn’t seem very familiar with Talbott’s perspective. He probably is now, right?
Ouch!!!
Talbott is not trying to make a case for why he is right because others, too, have believed like he does. He only brings up others that have shared his perspective in pointing out Eric’s inconsistency in accusing him of giving a private interpretation, while at the same time accusing him of relying on extra-biblical writers. I’m not sure I’m seeing clearly here, but it seems like Eric does not get Talbott at all! Eric does not do a good job saying why Talbott’s view of Rom. 5:18 ins’t valid. Earlier he seems to miss that the many is the same as all in Talbott’s view, right? And instead thinks Talbott is contradicting himself when he is not.
And this just after Talbott has just finished explaining, emphaticly, that his view does not conflict with John 3:16.
I can see why Talbott bowed out of this discussion. Did they pick it up anywhere else? I thought maybe they’d get back to their discussion on free will. It really seemed, though, like Eric just needed to read his book.
Yes, I remember that. I had recently read those discussions he had with Tom Talbott (not long before I found this forum), and remembered that Landstrom had the same hangup about there not being clear testimony in scripture of people repenting and being saved after this life.
I was surprised at the time to realize that Landstrom posted those discussions on his own website, when it seemed to me that Talbott bested him. But I am biased, being already convinced of UR, so maybe my judgment is skewed.
Sonia
Nice analysis, Amy!
I’d agree with this!
Sonia
It surprises me too that Landstrom would post that discussion on his site. Seems like an indicator, once again, that he doesn’t see what we see. Well, clearly he doesn’t because he isn’t convinced of UR. If he saw it he’d be just as convinced as we are!
What am I getting wrong about Calvinism and Arminianism?
Nimble,
So he doesn’t bother to distinguish himself between Arms and Calvs? I mean particularly so, other than noticing there’s a distinction of some kind?
Which link did that paragraph come from?
So in fact EL recognizes that Calv theology treats Jesus as only acting in atonement to save the elect! EL certainly doesn’t believe this himself, yet “universalists” are supposed to be dividing and conquering those who oppose universal reconciliation by focusing on a false dichotomy between Arms and Calvs on this topic. 
I think Eric is trying to reply to a line of argument that Arms are just as limited in the scope of their atonement theology as Calvs. Of course, if he doesn’t include rebel angels (for example) in the scope of Christ’s atonement, as a real option, then he is in fact teaching limited atonement as the Calvinists do in principle, just with a somewhat wider scope of limitation. 
But that’s hardly an argument for universalism per se. (And I don’t know if Eric in fact understands the atonement to be restricted by God only to fallen humans among all sinners. Maybe he doesn’t. {shrug})
What EL does not understand is that amongs EU’s there are CALV and ARM who can relate to each other just fine. I do understand Calv very well, being one since I was 16years old and studying at a Calv seminary. On the other hand, I believe that EU brings the best of Calv and Arm filling what each other lacks.
I am not willing to argue about which theological group is more biblical because one thing I have learned from EU is that it brings unity in the Church Universal. Also because, like I said, EU brings the best of both theological groups.
By reading EL I understand more and more that he does not understand EU and he only does one thing, which I believe is what he does the best… he shoots from the hip without not understanding his oponents theology. By saying that EU’s are trying to put Arm and Calv theologicans agains each other he just proves he is aufully wrong.
Those are my two cents about EL’s lame apologetcs agains EU.