The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Grace ALONE leads to UR

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#1

All:

Have engaged in a discussion on a site most of whose members belong to my denomination. (SDA; annihilationists, very Arminian) It intrigued me because the writer of the essay began by talking about “once saved always saved” (which SDA’s have traditionally strongly condemned) and predestination. I decided to write because he interprets Romans 5:18 much like we here do; that is, the all who died in Adam are the very same group who live because of Christ. ie everyone. Thus he believes the cross and it’s salvation apply to/are intended for everyone. He places himself over/against Luther who held that we are saved by “accepting” the offer of grace; this might be construed as a “work” however so he believes he finds a way around being saved by the “work” of accepting by saying that salvation is (my words here;) something like the default stance or starting point because of Christ’s act and that we are only lost if we “opt out” which are his words.

Well.

I suggested that to “opt out” is just as much an act or work than any other choice which effects our salvation. One simply cannot logically claim that our damnation does result from our acts (or works) while our salvation doesn’t. That seems inconsistent to me. Thus I’m suggesting that the reason we are not to boast is because our salvation has nothing to do with volition. If we insist that our damnation is based on a volitional act, then we can correctly insist that our salvation depends on a volitional act. Which is of course problematic because we say saved by grace – and that NOT of ourselves.

So I think you can see where this is going and I’m wondering if you like, or have every used this line of defense for UR. (I agree there are better ones…)

If volition has nothing to do with our salvation, then it also has nothing to do with our damnation. There are strong implications then if this is true. To avoid them one of two paths follow: First, we could say that our acts actually DO play a contributing role in our salvation – which is (my understanding could be incorrect on this…) sort of where the RCC stands. And of course these Arminians wouldn’t dream of going this route. So The Second option is to create a false distinction between choices that save and ones that damn; one is volitional (damnation) the other (salvation) is somehow not. And this seems to be the route they take.

However, this distinction seems clear to me to be deeply inconsistent and incoherent. Which means that we must say volition plays no role (eg: hence no boasting… ) in the salvation drama. What I’m trying to do is suggest the question (may actually state it overtly…)

And I of course, and most of us here too, believe this is not an issue because we aren’t lost!

In short then, we are saved by Grace… and that NOT of ourselves. That "not of ourselves" must also logically apply to our damnation. Thus the only play to be made, is not between damnation and salvation, but between rolling with God and going the easy way, or rolling with Satan and going the hard way.

That is to say, that since death has been destroyed, it is, quite literally, NOT an option any more. There may BE other options (options meaning choice – which free will believers insist on having) but eternal damnation is not one of them. (death having been defeated)

Anyway, I think you see the issues and possibilities here and wonder about your views of this approach and if this reasoning seems a valid affirmation of UR…

Thanks for your consideration; I eagerly await your advice/wisdom!
Bobx3

PS – I have not yet been “outed” as UR; they don’t know that I’m UR…

#2

Hi Total Victory,

Your post recalls to me the distinction between single and double predestination, where Luther pointed to salvation being determined by God, but people were sent to Hell by their own volition, whereas Calvin thought strictly logically (uncomfortable with some of the paradoxes and tensions that Luther’s thought suggests) that predestination had to be double, since those passed over for faith had no choice (i.e. no volition) to do anything but reject God. Are you thinking along these lines at all - obviously, Luther and Calvin referred to Hell and not annihilationism, but it seems the distinction fits with your idea?

#3

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Eph 2:8-9 ESV

In order to understand this, we need to examine it in the light of its context. The very next sentence reads:

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

We should not decry works as some do, but understand that we are God’s workmanship created for good works. God’s work within in us to make us what we are is His grace!

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:11-15)

So God’s grace trains us to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives, and our Savior Jesus Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works.” So Christ’s death was not to appease the wrath of an angry God; it was not to “bear our punishment so that we woudn’t have to.” The purpose of Christ’s death was to deliver us from sin and thus to purify for Himself a people of His own who are zealous for good works.

But all of this does not imply monergy as the Calvinists proclaim. Rather, the apostle Paul taught synergy:

Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. (2Cor 6:1)

Unless we coöperate with God’s enabling grace, it will have no effect. We will be “receiving the grace of God in vain.”

So it’s not “grace alone”; it’s “grace with our coöperation” that saves us from sin, through Christ.

Perhaps if salvation were by “grace alone” WITHOUT our coöperation, this would lead to universal reconcilation.
Actually grace with our coöperation does, too, for eventually all will choose to coöperate!

#4

Hi BobBobBob

Interesting question - as always :smiley: . My brief response would be that to claim that we can damn ourselves by an act of volition but we cannot save ourselves is as incoherent, nonsensical and dishonest as Luther’s single predestination claptrap. As Prince points out, at least Calvin was consistent in his view of predestination. Consistently a heartless bastard, but consistent nonetheless :smiley: .

And I agree wholeheartedly with Paidion. God does the saving, by his grace alone. It is a done deal. We cannot opt out of it. But we can choose not to cooperate with it for the longest time. And then there’ll be hell to pay …

All the best

Johnny

#5

Jonny: Precisely! I recently pointed out that very inconsistency in a review of an incoherent author who believes that we can do nothing to save ourselves but who also LACKS confidence in universal salvation:

Everyone who accepts both pure grace and God’s love for all people should logically end up in your camp.

TotalVictory: I prefer the expression “salvation by love” to “salvation by grace”.
If there is such a thing as libertarian free will which God respects (as true love entails) you cannot be confident that everyone will inherit eternal life for some people might very well reject God on BOTH sides of the grave.
But if they cease to exist instead of being eternally tormented, God’s victory will truly be total under the assumption that a decision for Him must be genuinely free.

#6

Total, except of course for those not granted immortality…that had to be given up on. that isn’t total victory.

I think if someone believes grace alone…then this reasoning seems good to me, and might help them accept UR as a viable belief system.

#7

Thanks for your observations men; appreciate them.

And it’s not like we’ve never been over this ground before. (I must hasten to add here that Gene initiated a great discussion along these lines 3 years ago… here evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1268 which he titled FREE WILL AND BOASTING) But on reading the essay I am responding to, there seemed such a surprised joy (some insisting they’ve “always seen it”) at the discovery that Christ’s saving actions are directed at all (ie the proper way to read Romans 5:18) that my first instinct was to say something along the lines of “Oh! you yet have no idea (knowing none of them even consider UR) just how complete and effective and inclusive Grace really is!!”

Which is to say, I dared to dream that I had, with their insight, an avenue to suggest the possibility of UR – but only indirectly. (Am trying not to “out” myself too soon because surely people then just outright reject UR) So once again – and many of you have made this observation over the years – I find myself in the really uncomfortable position of having to agree, at least in part, with Calvin! (ie I agree that if we are predestined to be saved, logically those lost are also predestined to that end… Also, I/we agree with Calvin’s critique of Arminian’s view of God’s sovereignty…) Thus, as Prince notes, Luther veers away from Calvin’s consistency when he says that predestination influences only our salvation – not our damnation. (I think I got that right)

Well, my SDA friends also disagree with Luther; except they see their disagreement as being because Luthers “must accept” language is an endorsement of works. I was hoping to build on this disagreement and get them to see the logical inconsistency of not being saved by works, but being damned by works. From there maybe have a clearer path to considering UR. Which is to say, maybe volition (and free will and so on) are not really what we should be focusing on at all at this point; instead on the Total sufficiency of God’s Grace.

Which shades the question slightly differently… I like what you say Paidon but there raises this possibility. (Which I’m not sure you would agree with…) When we say Grace Alone (which is a paraphrase of “that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God…) is it synonymous to say Grace is both necessary and sufficient?? What my SDA friends seem to imply is that while no, we are not saved by works, they do have a role. Which would be something like saying works are necessary, but not sufficient. But once you’ve allowed that they are necessary, (which you seem to do??) then God’s Grace is less than completely sufficient it would seem… (I realize you haven’t used these words…)

Now of course it’s almost impossible (maybe impossible) to speak the language of reconciled relationships and salvation with no reference at all to our “response”, or what “we do” which must be, in at least some minimal way, “volitional”. The problem is that once we allow volition in the door, it tends to just take over and dominate – to the point where it is allowed the capacity of literally destroying us forever. (not just destroying our false selves as Talbott speaks of…)

So it’s a very tight line we have here: some volition seems necessary. But give it too much power and it will damn forever. Except this can’t be because that same volition is not given the credit for the opposite; saving us. The only answer then is along the lines Johnny suggests (and Talbott and others too of course…) which is that our will only has power over taking the easy road or the hard road to salvation.

(My fear is that we will end up on a discussion of free will which, important as it is, I’ve never seen succeed with an Arminian. It simply ends up with them insisting that “love isn’t love without freedom” and “well that would be the love of a robot and therefore unacceptable to God” and so on and on… Leaving them with a kind of “all-or-nothing” view of freedom… Sigh…)

Thanks for your wisdom all!!

Bobx3

#8

Yeah i think you’re on to something with this! if it just softens hearts, that’s a good thing. we don’t have to convince the world, after all…though naturally everyone would be a lot happier if they believed it :laughing:

btw, my comment about the non-totality of victory viewed as annihilationism was not directed at you, BobBobBob…it was in response to lotharson, in case that isn’t clear.

#9

Yes corpselight – no worries!

Having once believed in annihilationism, I of course have great sympathy for those who hold that understanding – one held by all the folks I’m conversing with over there.

(Sorry, not up to speed on your specific convictions lotharson, but certainly do welcome you to the site and appreciate your company on this journey of understanding! I do realize that some of those on this site have not embraced UR, but also that most have. Sorry if it sounds like I’m only talking to “them”…)

But to hold, as Arminians must, that Salvation is by faith/grace but damnation (be it ect, or annihilation) is by choice, is logically inconsistent and incoherent it seems to me. One must say that both are by choice, or neither is by choice. Thus given Arminian’s aversion to claiming salvation by choice, (which gets too uncomfortably close to the “work” of the “will”) showing that it belongs in the very same category as does “damned-by-choice” should, I’m suggesting, force a complete re-evaluation of the nature of free will and choice. ie the seriousness of it’s limits…

However, to say that in a way that respects everyones understandings of logic and coherence and free will — well, that’s the challenge!!!

Bobx3

#10

Nicely put!

Yeah i was Annihilationist for a couple years myself, so i sympathise. Certainly the “plain reading” supports that a lot more than ECT. I think it’s definitely valid, i just think personally i can see some problems with it that keep me from going back.

It’s good to have a possible argument about damnation=works for those that believe in grace only…if only to just give them pause for thought! but of course love is the most important thing!

#11

Since I know this will come up (the debate between free will and boasting), I’d like to just copy this brilliant post by TGB from a few years back. Guys hits it right on the head.

#12

Oh my yes!

This very quote is highlighted in my own records! Incredibly insightful… and Tom, (as TGB insisted he be called; he left because of academic demands and such… hope he is well!!) has been as helpful as any in my pantheon of UR explainers! (ie Jason Pratt here, and Bob Wilson, and Tom T and Robin Parry and all the rest ) But this insight (yes, of course there must be some sort of “synergy” going on (-- which is much what Paidion is saying, as I read his wisdom…) is important, (and real and genuine etc) but my purpose here is directed in a slightly different direction…

Namely, to get my Arminian friends (in this context, in an SDA blog post and ensuing comments) to see/grasp that this synergism is not what actually saves us… That, has already been done…

Thus, what may appear like the “choices” that save us, are actually the choices which (I hate to use the word “merely” here… but, oh well…) help us enjoy the fruits of Christ’s work a bit sooner than perhaps we would otherwise. UR is heavily into helping folks realize (perhaps we need to start a thread about how UR alters our evangelical emphasis….) what has already been “done” by Christ to effect (and win) our salvation.

Tom, however, never comes close to saying that our synergism (ie as I read him, our choice to join Christ in what he has already done) actually “saves” us.

Great pick up Chrisguy90!

Bobx3

#13

Hi all:

My thoughts have evolved enough so that I think it’s an entirely new topic (though of course quite related) which I started over here
evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5439

appreciate your great thoughts and prodding.

Bobx3