This is a really interesting discussion. Talk amongst yourselves!
theopologetics.podbean.com/2011/ … rnal-fire/
Been there Done that…
While certainly an improvement over ECT, it still represents a “loss” for the God who is overwhelmingly portrayed in scripture as completely succesful in His Victory.
Bobx3
Pretty interesting interview, though, huh?
Jason, check out Fudge’s take on 1 Cor 15, it should interest you.
If I “only” looked at the passages of judgment and punishment of sin, I’d believe in annihilation. If you’ll notice, Fudge’s book looks almost exclusively at judgment and punishment of sin and only briefly mentions a couple of the passages that indicate UR and doesn’t seriously consider the merits of UR. I studied his book intently while initially considering UR. And to be honest, I would have rather believed Annihilationism because such was much more “acceptable” to main-street Christianity and does not require a complete rethinking of soteriology and eschatology like it does with UR.
What does that mean? I hear this kind of man centered lingo only from universalists. God is complete, victorious and even “successful” in Himself. He doesn’t need us to demonstrate His “success” God would still be holy, loving and even successful if ALL went to hell, if ALL went to heaven or even if ALL cease to exist. It does not add nor take away.
His love, grace, holiness and even “success” is not contingent on where we go. That is true Christian lingo.
Well, as a non universalist here, I must say that that does not make sense. If God sent Christ into the world for a mission to accomplish and He did not accomplish it, how is He successful with regards to the mission?
That depends on how you define “accomplishment” from a universalist/Christian perspective. Ultimately Jesus Christ mission was to give God the glory. Salvation was a bi-product of Christ giving God the glory.
Yes, it does depend on what you believe Jesus’ mission was. Did Jesus come to save the world, to reconcile all of creation, etc. or did Jesus only come to make salvation available to some (Arminianism) or only to save some (Calvinism). If Jesus came to save everyone, reconcile all of creation and does not accomplish that then Jesus fails to accomplish his mission. And I believe that scripture evidences that Jesus came to reconcile all of creation, to save everyone, to deliver all who are oppressed by evil.
“For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” Jn.3.17
“For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” Col.1.19-20
“Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" Jn.1.29b
And of course the list could go on and on and on! That’s why Calvinist affirm that the Atonement is Limited in Scope because the see in scripture that it is the Atonement, the blood of Jesus that effects salvation. And thus they must limit the scope of the Atonement, otherwise all would be saved which they just cannot accept because they have faith in Jesus for the damnation of others instead of the salvation of others.
Arminianists Limit the Atonement also, but they Limit the Atonement in Effect/Power not in Scope. They affirm that Jesus died for everyone, but the Atonement doesn’t actually Effect the salvation of anyone; rather, it only makes salvation available to some. Ultimately one’s salvation is dependant upon man making the right choice, some people that is for many people never even receive the chance.
The reason one only hears Reconcilists highlighting that if not all are saved then God fails is because we’re the only ones that believe both that God really loves everyone and accomplishes the salvation of all through the Cross. Everyone else limits either the Scope or the Effect of the Atonement! Neither Calvinists or Arminianists believe that Jesus came to save the world, to reconcile all of creation to God - regardless of what scripture affirms.
1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.
This view that Oxy and folks in the neo-reformed-calvinist segments of Christianity are promoting would be interesting to discuss … would someone like to start a thread for it? Oxy? Or I will later, right now I’ve gotta go take kids to the dentist. Fun. 
Sonia
I agree Jesus came to reconcile all of creation and He does in so many aspects. Reconciliation, however, is not synonymous with salvation. Your point is moot.
o-------k…I agree but us giving God the glory or not doesn’t negate God’s glory.
Oxy: I worry that you criticize that which you seem to profoundly miscomprehend.
There are myriad examples on this site where we celebrate not *man centered *glory, but that of God. Just one very recent example:
(And that of course was my complaint about Galli’s book “God Wins” – he demonstrates he doesn’t even grasp how Universal Reconcilists think.)
Bobx3
The point, of course, is that if the Father sends the Son to be the Savior of the world, but the Son does not save the world from sinning and from their sins, then a major purpose of God has been frustrated. I think the proper Calvinistic reading would be that the Son is not actively but only potentially (at most) the Savior of the world, or Savior of people all over the world; consequently there is no failure. God could have chosen to save the world from sin, and acted in a way sufficient to do so (maybe–different Calvs disagree about whether God went farther than His intention otherwise), but chose not to apply the salvation to His chosen non-elect.
Oxy has created a new thread to discuss the notion of salvation of sinners from sin being only a by-product of God’s grace and/or only a by-product of God giving God glory (so if salvation of sinners from sin doesn’t happen, no big deal). I recommend moving the discussion there and leaving this thread for discussing the Fudge interview.
Apokatallasso – to reconcile completely, to bring back a former state of harmony, to reunite, to change from one condition to another so as to remove all enmity and leave no impediment to unity and peace!
“To be restored into right relationship with God, to remove all enmity and leave no impediment to unity and peace” - sure sounds like Salvation to me, just another word for it!
Apokatallasso is a powerful concept for it affirms:
- the current state of enmity between God and some, if not most, of creation.
- the original state of unity and harmony that all was created in and
- the ultimate Goal of God being unity and harmony again with all that was created!
So I think my point and this passage is far from “mute” as you say. Jesus’ mission was to reconcile, to restore to unity and harmony, all of creation. To leave some, any of creation left in a state of disunity and disharmony with God (Hell) would be to fail to accomplish His stated mission.
“For from him and through him and to him are all things.”
I love this verse. What will return to God through Christ? Everything that came from God through Christ. Nothing good will be lost.
so much for the Fudge interview 
Well yes – very interesting for sure… Dude even gets really emotional near the end (twice!) – just like my grandfather used to do!!
Very cordial discussion between two gentlemen. I like both their attitudes for the most part.
I did think it was a bit weak of Fudge to dismiss certain points by saying things like “of course one can only make that interpretation if he’s already settled into ECT thinking…” — Well couldn’t the exact same be said of his point of view also? As it could for any of us here who argue for Universal Restoration?
Point is that one does move the direction he does based on the entirety of how he’s understood all scripture.
Funny thing for me however is that 5 or 6 years ago, I would have eaten this up in complete agreement! Confirmation for what I already believed! While for most who listen to it (I’m guessing) it is a new and radical departure away from ECT. I’m completely familiar with all the arguments he used. It’s was I was raised on.
Again though, disappointing that he so glibly signs off on the eternally lost (annihilated) because, well, wasn’t it so nice of God to actually give them a chance at salvation.
Bobx3
Sorry for my part in diverting it 
Also remembering that Fudge made a big point in his summation statement that he wanted two texts focused on (and this is one place he gets emotional and weepy…)
- John 3:16 – OK that’s a great text; but wish he’d emphasize v 17 as well…
and - Romans 6:23 for the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life…
He takes this to mean death is the final disposition of that person; I don’t see that as necessary to reading this text. Goodspeed translates this phrase as
For Fudge, death really does have the final say for a many! That’s hard to reconcile with the idea (more compelling I find) of God having the final say and that is the gift.
This interview is like a trip down memory lane for me; SDA’s really love that Rom 6;23 text too! But so do I now as a Universal Reconcilist! Yes, it’s true that sin has consequences; but so does the life and death and resurrection of Christ have consequences as well!
Bobx3