[Mod edited to add: Mel isn’t saying that ETC believers are actually nuts; he’s summarizing a position taken in the video linked to. Universalists may think the video goes too far, as noted below.]
I’ve got to hand it to Martin Zender; the guy doesn’t pull any punches.
Wow! – that’s one way to say it I suppose…
Yes, I get that he’s frustrated with ECT and with feeling like he’s the minority and the heretic and the “crazy” one and part of the “cult” – but kinda hard to see that simply turning those charges around against your ideological opponent is redemptive!
Were I to imagine a winsome tribute to Universal Reconciliation, it’s not likely I’d imagine something like THIS…
The pseudo paranoid several minutes intro really didn’t work for me at all… (Gulp!!)
… Still, I DO have great sympathies with what Universalism believers have been through that prompt this sort of thing…
Bobx3
Well, as for the intro; Martin has a unique sense of humor… it comes out better in his writing than in his videos. Yes, he’s often harsh in his presentation. East Coast harsh. Like I said, he doesn’t pull any punches.
Well I certainly appreciate his conviction and his passion. And I guess I need to trust his knowledge of his own and intended audience.
And I’m just pondering that truth can be presented in many and various ways! That is to say, perhaps the presentation of the truth of UR need not be quite as monolithic as I’ve expected it to be??
Reminds me, yet again, that it is the Spirit of Truth that convicts, and not I who does… Hard sometimes to back off and let him do his work I guess.
And of course nothing of substance with which to disagree! I have myself often thought that belief in a love which torments forever badly mangles the usefulness of the word “love”.
Never so bold in saying it however as Martin is!!
Bobx3
Yes, and it’s unfortunate that the video is really only the introduction to his talk. I know he typically goes into quite a bit more detail. The other thing is that his audience is already on board with him, and I think the main point of the presentation was how to talk to people about it without being put on the defensive. His point was that WE actually come from the position of strength, and we need to realize that.
Mel, I’ve added an explanatory opening to your first post so visitors and non-universalist members won’t be wondering why we don’t tag the thread for violating forum protocols about name-calling.
If I think my grocery bill is $25 but the checkout girl says $26, does this mean one of us is slightly mad? Mistaken, yes. Mad, no.
He’s absolutely right.
It takes a lifetime of inculcating this idea of never-ending torture, inuring us to it so that we can put it right next to “God’s perfect love”. If someone bred RATS for never-ending torture, feeding and hydrating them so they would stay conscious while he administered electrical shocks, they’d be arrested, and rightly so.
N
U
T
S
Plain and simple. People have to be rocked out of somnambulance sometimes, and by any measure, calling sadism, depraved indifference, or retribution that would make the Hatfields and McCoys shudder “love” is not rational and it is not sane. It cost me my faith for well over a decade until I vomited it up and reclaimed my own heart, mind and conscience.
Right; Thanks.
Martin Zender is the Rush Limbaugh of UR, just in case we hadn’t worked that out. Similarly, a lot of it is his “style”.
Grandstanding aside, when it comes right down to it, he’s right in that it is an irrational belief if you really stop and think about it.
Thanks for the video Melch
I couldn’t agree more with his message or his approach. They are both in line with the message, approach and love of Jesus when confronted with religious people who tormented other souls with devil-inspired doctrine.
I admit, it was a little funny (if not blasphemous). But then, I’m sympathetic towards UR. I especially liked the bit where he insulted the majority of Christians completely unnecessarily — taking an axe to the very body of Christ. Though I’m not sure one can call ECTers insane or irrational — particularly the Arminians. (Rightly or wrongly) they/we hold a moderately viable theodicy and a reasonable tension with and within revelation.
You can interpret this is as pro- or anti-ECT, I don’t mind 
Exactly as Jesus said an axe would be laid to the root of every tree that did not bear good fruit:
Matt 3:10 The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
I think Christians are blind to how noxious, evil, and widely know the ECT doctrine is. It is a tree with awful, blasphemous fruit. Arminians if they believe in Omniscient Foreknowledge have no defense against the charge of insanity, because neither you nor I would create creatures knowing they didn’t have the capacity to accept extended grace. And, as anyone who’s ever seen “Cool Hand Luke” knows, everyone can be broken, so why would God create a punishment severe enough to harm eternally but never severe enough to break through?
But we know “Thou shalt break them, with a rod of iron”, and that “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess” His Lordship. How long after that happens can even a retributive punishment (sanely) continue?
Anyway, his rant is a reminder of Christ’s rebuke of the Church at Laodicea in Revelation 3:15:
“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.”
Universalism has made me recognize the Biblical prophecies of mercy are for others, and the prophecies of judgment are for me; because as you approach God, His standard for you gets higher. It is a modestly successful defense against Pharisaism. And Pharisaism (not adultery, not theft, not drunken dissipation) is the sin Christ was most stridently (insultingly!) critical of (“You Brood of Vipers! You whitewashed Tombs!”). And it’s adherents were the ones who crucified Christ.
I wrote a lengthy response and then my wireless dropped out 
Nevertheless, I have captured it’s essence below:
Your misappropriation of my metaphor isn’t really relevant, unless you’re suggesting that I, and the majority of christians throughout history are Pharisees and will be brutally hewn from the promises of God, over eschatology.
It is not insane to believe in ECT, at the worst, it is mistaken (as Allan said), at its best, it is most faithful to revelation. I assure you, I and most others want to interpret scripture accurately (and we don’t really care whether you think that makes God a monster or not), being as faithful to our transcendent God as we can – whom we truly cannot fathom! This is why I may seem to be dragging my heels, and this is why others resist you completely. (I thoroughly understand your impatience though, it frustrates me immensely that Christians cannot understand nonviolence, and perpetuate the production of “awful, blasphemous fruits”. Anyone else with a minority view should sympathize.)
Calling people mad doesn’t add anything. It reforms no one. You can’t bully minds to reason, nor hearts to love. So insulting rhetoric is rarely persuasive or rational. Evidentially, Jesus didn’t persuade the Pharisees with such language, He only managed to warn them (in fact, it ticked them off so much that they killed Him! ). His charity (and Paul’s reason) however, was employed to much greater effect. Humble, loving servitude alone conquers sin (this seems to be the most under-understood important truths of all scripture). If you want to actually edify someone and correct their mistaken theology, then it is best to take Jesus’s example of humility, (in my small opinion).
Godspeed brother,
Andrew
Hi Andrew
Pleased to meet you.
If the tree metaphor refers to the ideology rather than the people then isn’t it a good one?
I can’t quite follow this. Jesus’ example was to use shocking and extreme language towards the religious leaders who over-burdened their flock. Are you saying that Jesus’ approach to the pharisees was mistaken and of no good effect?
God bless
Pilgrim
But whether or not God IS a monster is a quite important question, and doctrine that makes God appear revolting to sane people (any non-cult member) should be…cause for concern.
If you think the above is hyperbolic, read a Chick Tract.
I’m not quite sure I would consider ECT as an ideology, but regardless, Zender and everyone else espousing these tactics are not chopping down doctrines. They’re chopping down Christians. Calling someone insane is a personal attack and is completely unnecessary.
No. I’m saying that those few* unrepentant, hypocritical religious leaders who burdened men with the Law – without discerning its spirit – should have been, and rightly were, criticized – without any immediate remedial effect. Yeshua’s criticisms were not mistaken. However, those men who “humbly” sinned, should have been, and rightly were, shown the righteous life (of love and liberty and so forth) with compassion (Yeshua) and reason (Paul). It does not follow, that ECTers (let alone all!) refuse to repent from sin and are therefore impervious to compassion and reason, and should be made subject to insults. If one considers ECT a sin, then I suppose we must have a further chat. But even if ECTers were unrepentantly sinning (simply by virtue of their ECT) then I would still recommend exercising caution in issuing insults.
[size=85]*I note that the entire Pharisaic party was not all so grossly wicked as is often implied by a superficial reading of scripture and that Yeshua’s criticisms were addressed to select Pharisees, not every Pharisee. Rabbis today will affirm (some of) the criticisms Yeshua had for this reason.[/size]
I maintain that the Arminian-God is not revolting. He loves you. You reject Him. Eternally or until He mercifully annihilates you. This is not any more “insane” then miracles.
I don’t really get this. Rebukes don’t necessarily open minds, nor cause hearts to love. Are you saying ECTers are not open to reason, nor are their hearts open to love? I don’t understand the terrorist reference either.
I do think there’s a problem with the Armenian concept of God. If God knew for certain that most of his creation would come to an eternally bad end, why create us at all? He was divinely happy without us, and under no compulsion. If a human father knew that a genetic flaw guaranteed 9 out of 10 of his children would end criminally insane, would he be righteous if he fathered 10 children anyway? Far from it. He would be revolting. But if this man was also a great doctor who knew for certain he could cure his insane children, then fathering them would be justified.