The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Greg Boyd Sermon on Rich Man & Lazarus - Must See

Be that as it may, my point is still resting on the definition of free. The situations you’ve described here (both biblical and personal) would still not put one in a place to make fully free choice, by Talbott’s definition. The reason is that in the above examples we’re still seeing the truth only in part; in other words, some level of blindness and illusion are still present. I’m not saying it is not possible for people to know the truth in part and still remain hardened to it. But my point is rather that when a sufficiently full revelation of the truth is made, that “choice” disappears; or rather, the person is made able at that point to make the fully free ‘choice’ that then is not an actual choice at all, in the usual sense.

Even believers will not become fully like Him until we see Him as He is.

:laughing: God lines up those consequences to get you to go down the path he chooses. From His perspective they are all prompts. Oh my, the foolish vanity of man that says I shall go my way. The doctrine of Universal Salvation cries out God’s sovereignty!

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they
do not know what they are doing.”

so man moves perfectly, and even oft in ignorance, according to God’s will.

:mrgreen: God lines up those consequences to get you to go down the path he chooses. From His perspective they are all prompts. Oh my, the foolish vanity of man that says I shall go my way. Does not the doctrine of Universal Salvation cry loud and clear “God’s sovereignty!”

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they
do not know what they are doing.”

… so man moves perfectly, and even oft in ignorance, according to God’s will. Thus we love the sinner and the ignorant and even the blasphemous.

All that is good and true, John. In the end, though, his sons and daughters will remain autonomous but one in love and obedience, much like the Trinity itself and able to withstand any temptation, not just because of Christ’s humility, but now their own. We are more, and always will be more, than puppets on a string.

I guess any Calvinist needs to be asked: Did the God/man love His Father because He was manipulated as a true man to do so? Or did He, as the world’s first true man, love God because he loved God freely and separate.

Now, it is true that Christ submitted to His Father’s maneuverings and will - but that submission is an act of an autonomous man. We shall be like Him.

Ah the “Mystery of Christ” and the shortsightedness of those that dissect to kill … thus God becomes three as man cuts Deity into comfortable sizes to fit his carnal reasoning. No my friend, let us quit dissecting and instead stand in awe at His Wholeness, His Oneness and His Greatness!

Why are the exact words calling God “trinity, triune, or three-in-one” missing from the Holy Scriptures. It isn’t because of less, but because there is more, much more of God that we must fathom! And fathom we will as He reveals Himself.

Beyond the eons Jesus is FATHER and furthermore Father is JESUS in the earth!

“Hear O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord” Mark 12:29

John 14…
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Isaiah (12:2) says Yahweh is become my Jesus (Yeshuah).

John 17…
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one…

Not only is Jesus the Father in human expression (Jn 14:9,) the Spirit Who is God answers to the name Jesus (Jn 14:16-18.) What’s more, the name of God is on us (Rev 3:12.) Think about that please. That we are the flesh of God in the earth (Eph 5:30), “bone of His bone,”

Yes the “Trinity” as well as “Man’s free moral agency” are but imaginations and if truth be told these imaginations are the appointed cherubim that keep carnal man from partaking of the Tree of Life. Oh, to discover the secret treasures of the the One, the All and the Naught and the All in All. This is our Great God and never a cut three shall He be!

Thanks to my friend James Rhodes some of these expressions are his. James is another who had Universal Salvation revealed to him decades ago. And then like me, he discovered the whore’s doctrines of the Trinity, Eternal Hell and Man’s Free Moral Agency. I’ll tell ya if the organized orthodox church taught it these last 1500 years it’s wrong … it is all wrong! So the appointed cherubim still stand guard in the midst of the minds of men.

In His Sweet Lord Jesus,

John

John, even you cannot prevail against Christ’s catholic (universal) church. Why not include the first 500 years when they worked out who Christ is? There were a lot of promises made to His church including who was ultimately teaching them. Now you come along…

I’m always leery of someone who hates Christianity but throws Christ’s name around.

aways a counterfeit my child … always a counterfeit

bride and whore, spirit and soul …

Jason: The short version, though, is: depends on what is meant by “libertarian choice.” Saul was free to say “Okay” or free to choose to remain blind; just as he was free to kick the goads up to that point. He wasn’t free to avoid being blinded and goaded. And he wouldn’t have been free from any unwanted consequences to remaining blind; just like he wasn’t free from any unwanted consequences to cooperating instead of rebelling. He was however free to cooperate or to rebel.

Tom: That’s my take on it too Jason. It’s not that the definition of LFW (libertarian free will) is up in the air, it’s just whether or not Paul’s choice to surrender to God was libertarian or not.

Melchi: However, under the circumstances of Paul’s Damascus road experience, I would say that the only “free” choice (ala Prof. Talbott) he had was to do what he did! Which I don’t think is what we typically think of at all when we think of libertarian choice!

Tom: If the word “free” is tripping us up and you want to reserve “free” to describe ONLY what the redeemed and overwhelmingly enlightened do, that’s OK. You can find a different word, ‘ability’ or ‘capacity’ or ‘capability’ or whatever, to describe what it is about us (or about Paul for that matter) that accounts for the responsible disposing of ourselves with respect to God. Obviously we’re responsible for what we do BEFORE we’re so overwhelmed by God we can’t do anything BUT the ‘good’. Whatever that capacity is, it’s volitional, and we’re held accountable for it. Call it whatever I guess. I’m OK calling it libertarian freedom.

Melchi: If the only way we can be free is to know the truth, then we cannot ‘freely’ choose to remain in ignorance/blindness once we know the truth in a way that is not compromised by illusions.

Tom: I’d agree that sin and misrelating (as responsible choice) require some measure of epistemic distance (some measure of ignorance). But they also require some measure of sufficient knowledge. To act responsibly we have to know enough to make the right choice, but not perceive so much that we can explain our way into the wrong choice. This is just what you’ve got with Eve’s choice. God gives us enough light to find him if we want to and enough room to reject him if we want to. Both moves require the right epistemic distance (not so close as to overwhelm and not so far away as to render incapable of the right choice).

God can be convincing, like we said. And I don’t doubt that like a good chess player he can get us in a corner that leaves us with just a single move. But given my own convictions about what love and salvation are, about the nature of loving relationships per se, I simply can’t believe that the choice to relate rightly (savingly), i.e., ultimately (in love) is the sort of choice that can be squeezed out of us back backing us into a corner and leaving us no option but to love God.

God can get Pharaoh to release the Jews, or Jonah to turn around, or (even) Paul to stop persecuting Christians or even wait for one called Barnabas to come and talk to him, or take a few days to ponder things, but the choice to surrender one’s ‘self’ in obedient submission, relationally speaking, to come to terms with grace and reconcile one’s ‘self’ to God’s offer—that’s different. And given the sort of relationship I think this is, I just don’t think it’s possible to coerce or otherwise trap people into such a relationship (or into choosing ‘for’ such a relationship). Whatever coercion Christ might have used to convince Paul to stop his terrorist activities and take a break to think things through for a few days, I don’t equate those choices with Paul’s freely choosing to relate in grace and surrender to God. No doubt sometime between falling off his horse and receiving the Spirit (and his sight), Paul took that step. But I don’t see why we should suppose that step happened—boom—instantly as Paul’s head hit the desert floor or even that it’s the only step Paul could have taken after that point. The Bible’s full of stories of people who enjoyed a revelation as great or greater than Paul’s but who turned willfully away.

Mechi: Be that as it may, my point is still resting on the definition of free. The situations you’ve [Jason] described here (both biblical and personal) would still not put one in a place to make fully free choice, by Talbott’s definition.

Tom: Sure, there’s a sense in which human beings will know the truest form of freedom in the eschaton as freedom from the possibility of sin. That’s a far more free form of existence—period—than is our present form. I don’t think libertarian freedom is the end goal or the highest form of being. Heck, it’s not even valuable in and of itself. It’s only valuable as the necessary means to a good end. But someday we’ll have so much light and revelation of God and immediate access to his presence (etc. etc.) that the only thing we’ll be FREE to do and be is do and be for God and his pleasure. I’m looking forward to the day.

But that doesn’t mean there’s no sense in which the word “free” can be employed to describe what it is, or HOW it is, that we exist in this journey and have to grow into our destinies by grace. If you want to chuck the word “free” to describe what we are when we’re capable of saying ‘yes’ AND ‘no’ to God about something, if you want to call that ‘bondage’, that’s cool. Just so you know, for understanding’s sake, that’s not how I’m using the term. The Eastern Fathers had no problem using “freedom” to describe what we’re calling libertarian freedom. So I’m in good company.


RanRan: First off, ‘redeemability’ is beside the point - if one defines redemption from death and that ‘All will be made alive in Christ’ as having anything to do with the point. Everyone is still going to be resurrected the last time I checked.

Tom: Right. I was just talking about SOME annihilationists. Whether human beings are ‘redeemable’ or not does matter to these, because these (like Greg) who are annihilationists refuse to accept the idea of the annihilation of anything that’s redeemable. God would never foreclose on ANY possibility. That’s what love does. So if someone has a future, if there’s ANY hope at all (and only God would know), then God’s gonna pursue that person. No annihilation just because they’re name is Hitler or Stalin. But should it be possible (just saying), that a person can irrevocably solidify into her rejection of God, and should there be actual cases of such solidification, then Greg would say, yeah, at THAT point the loving thing to do would be to annihilate the person. This is different from OTHER annihilationists who think God annihilates all the wicked with no thought or consideration for the question of redeemability. Sure, he could save them, but he dudn’t want to. They screwed up and didn’t get right before they died, so now justice demands that they fry into annihilation.

RanRan: Secondly, as James (our James) reminded us, the one irrevocable promise of what the future holds is that EVERY knee shall bow to Christ as their Lord.

Tom: Well, annihilationists have their explanations of this passage too. It’s not like they don’t believe it’s Scripture.

I’m not an annihilationist, RanRan. I’m just trying to describe Greg’s view (and that of other annihilationists) for whom ‘redeemability’ matters a great deal.

RanRan: There is no such thing as an irrevocably evil human being.

Tom: I agree. But it’s a difficult thing to PROVE. Greg and others aren’t convinced that it’s impossible, so they leave open the possibility of annihilation. Some people can’t live with the options open and just be uncommitted. They have to settled into a firm opinion. I can’t live not knowing all the answers on this stuff…except for eternal conscious torment! That’s #*%(#^!

Do you think it’s impossible for ANY sentient being to become irrevocably hardened/solidified into evil? What about angelic beings? What about Satan? Just curious.

RanRan: But you’re talking about evil as though it were a thing - like a hard little nugget.

Tom: μη γενοιτο! Not me! Perish the thought! I’m totally sold on the Orthodox, early patristic, view on evil as ‘privation’ or ‘non-being’. Evil has no substantial existence whatsoever. This is ONE reason why I think irrevocable solidification into evil is metaphysically impossible.

RanRan: But of this, I am certain, the inclusion of the annihilation of people in any brand of universalism is a contradiction in terms. A baffling pretense made to look like the Gospel.

Tom: It works for some, and I don’t see any obvious contradiction generated by it. God pursues all so long as there’s a possibility of their turning, and he wins them. Those who (assuming it’s possible) solidify into irrevocable rejection of God are annihilated. In the end all that exists is God and those in union with him. It’s not my view, but I don’t find it a baffling pretense.

Peace,
Tom

If ‘universalism’ means everyone will be saved - then what should we call it if not everyone will be saved? I’d call that any number of things but not universalism. "He’s toast - I’m saved’ mentality.

Here’s the pretense of annihilationists: They are trying to protect God against the charge that endless torture does not befit most (or any!) crimes. So they have God annihilate sinners to end the problem. Their ‘solution’ creates bigger problems, namely, all the universal statements that must be tweaked to mean ‘some’.

Most of the early church fathers had no problem with universalism - we’ve either lost something in translation or lack understanding after decades (centuries) of a presentation of God as horrific. “Every sin will be forgiven” But fear sticks to people like glue. The Gospel is pure good news from start to finish but people seem to only hold onto it for a second or two before returning to a prior point of unbelief.

RanRan: If ‘universalism’ means everyone will be saved - then what should we call it if not everyone will be saved?

Tom: Well, annihilationists like Boyd wouldn’t admit to unqualified universal reconciliation, as in everybody who ever exists makes it. They might admit that’s a possibility, but just in case those who irrevocably solidify into evil are annihilated, then universalism will mean the reconciliation of everybody who’s left! Basically, ‘reconciled’ beings will be the only created sort of beings left in the universe; hence, universal reconciliation. It’s less than the sort of UR you mean, but it’s as far as folks like Boyd can go.

RanRan: Here’s the pretense of annihilationists: They are trying to protect God against the charge that endless torture does not befit most (or any!) crimes.

Tom: Sure, but universalists also deny that endless torture befits God.

RanRan: So they have God annihilate sinners to end the problem.

Tom: And therein lies their pretense? I don’t see that. Are you sure “pretense” is the word you want? To me a pretense is a false show intended to deceive.

RanRan: Their ‘solution’ creates bigger problems, namely, all the universal statements that must be tweaked to mean ‘some’.

Tom: I agree. But I don’t think annihilationists are consciously trying to avoid the obvious meaning of the ‘universal’ texts and elevate the ‘destruction’ texts just because they have a “toast ‘em” mentality about which they want to deceive us. If one’s motivated by that sort of mentality, why object to eternal conscious torment (ECT) in the first place? So I wouldn’t level the charge of being pretentious against all annihilationists. Heck, I wouldn’t even level it against traditional folk who believe in ECT. I believed in ECT for years but grieved the eternal loss of people. I didn’t have a “toast ‘em” mentality—as far as I can tell. Lord knows. I just believed it because that’s what I was fed, and I just adopted the traditional way of reading the texts. But at least in Greg’s case, he (a) admits he could be wrong, and (b) really does see the ‘destruction’ passages as best explained as being ‘annihilation’ of the thing ‘destroyed’. So it’s as exegetical an issue for him as anything.

Tom

Theories and mere speculation (wild or not) not claiming to be the Gospel are, therefore, not being pretentious, I agree. It’s going that next step of claiming to be the Gospel where the problem begins. ‘Other’ gospels are pretend gospels - pretentious, man-made, and ‘cursed’ according to Paul for the confusion they create.

So is universalism a theory? Or is it the Gospel itself? It’s the later - not by theory but by scripture. So calling it ‘universalism’ is demeaning - Christ said the Gospel was worthy of dying for - it’s the foundation of His Kingdom. I wouldn’t die for a theory. How much is anyone willing to lay on the line for a mere theory? Sheesh, has faith come down to this?

One believes the good news or they don’t. Anything else is pretense. Playing the religion game. Screw all the theories. So, gird up your loins, say what you believe and are willing to die defending, not what theory you entertain (that’s for pussies), and have at it.

Debate like Paul who did give his life defending the Gospel not the next fad.

RanRan: So is universalism a theory? Or is it the Gospel itself? It’s the later - not by theory but by Scripture. So calling it ‘universalism’ is demeaning - Christ said the Gospel was worthy of dying for – it’s the foundation of His Kingdom. I wouldn’t die for a theory.

Tom: I appreciate how exhilarating UR is the closer it moves to the center, the less it is a ‘theory’ and the more it comes to just BE the gospel itself. I get that. That’s been my own experience too.

But RanRan, there’s a danger here. You can easily be interpreted as having just kicked out of the Kingdom of God everybody who isn’t a universalist. After all, if univesalism IS the gospel, and if believing the gospel is part of what places one in a saving relationship to God, then it follows that those who don’t believe in UR aren’t children of God, however sincerely they might be trusting Christ. I think that’s a big mistake.

Surely there are some beliefs that are crucial (because they’re necessary) to one’s entering the Kingdom at all. I can’t say that UR is such a belief. There’s a ‘core’ gospel message about Christ and believing that God was in Christ reconciling me to himself and that resting/trusting in this unites me to God that does not obviously require belief in UR. Surely one can perceive the Jesus died for him and believe that without also having to believe in UR…or without having to believe ANYTHING about the fate of the wicked, or even be informed about the options.

RanRan: One believes the good news or they don’t.

Tom: I wouldn’t include UR in that set of beliefs that one HAS to believe in to be saved. I’d agree that UR makes best sense of the core beliefs, that it’s a more beautiful filling-out of the core gospel message, that it’s a more beautiful theology. In that sense I’ve come to believe it, yes. I just would never suggest that folks who aren’t universalists aren’t saved.

RanRan: Anything else is pretense. Playing the religion game. Screw all the theories. So, gird up your loins, say what you believe and are willing to die defending, not what theory you entertain (that’s for pussies), and have at it.

Tom: Then I guess I’m a pu**y in your book because I’d certainly lay my head on the block for Christ (i.e., for the belief that he is God come to us, that his life and death heal us, that he was resurrected, that he’s coming again) but not JUST for UR (irrespective of these other beliefs). I mean, if the option was between (a) laying my head on the block because I believed in UR with the very same level of conviction that I have regarding my belief that Jesus died for me and rose again (on the one hand), and (b) not laying my head on the block because my commitment to UR is not equal to my commitment to the Cross and the resurrection, then that’s an easy choice, I don’t lay my head on the block. But it’s no DENIAL of the cross and resurrection to say I find the reasons for believing in them overwhelmingly convincing and consequential enough to die for but don’t find the arguments for UR as convincing and consequential enough to die for.

Tom

Why not? It’s the Gospel that says you **will **be saved. It’s not like you earned it!

Salvation is a process. How the organized church has missed that one!

Jesus has paid the price for all to be saved which literally means to be made whole in spirit and soul and body, a three-fold salvation. Some are unsaved and have not partaken of salvation in any realm. Others, have partaken of the salvation of their spirit (past) and are currently receiving the salvation of their souls through the renewing of the mind by the Word of God (present) and are earnestly groaning for the salvation of their bodies in the future. Salvation to the utmost is, to be found in Christ’ perfect image, resting in the Father, All in All. We will never be complete until the last man has been made whole so pray for your neighbor.

The Good News is all men will be saved to utmost. Aren’t you glad!

Blessings to you,

Jack

Tom: I wouldn’t include UR in that set of beliefs that one HAS to believe in to be saved.

RanRan: Why not?

Tom: Well, for starters, because I came to experience Christ’s saving power without believing in UR, as have most believers, which wouldn’t be possible if believing faith was conditional upon consenting to UR. It may be that experiencing the saving grace of Christ and the beliefs that ground its present enjoyment in fact entail (theologically, philosophically, etc.) the truth of UR. But it’s just not the case that one must perceive every truth (or even the truth of UR) that is in fact entailed in this experience in order to have the experience and be set on the journey. We may partake of salvation, participate in the saving life and grace of God in Christ, without understanding all that this experience implies. And we may get some things wrong along the way. Christ is happy to save those who don’t get it ALL right ALL the time. Thank God.

Tom

Amen to that! I don’t believe the Gospel exists as a bunch of subsets - it’s a single unit of good news. Extracting and discarding the universal salvation of sinners would create another gospel.

Now if another gospel is the benchmark by which other gospels are measured then, yes, Paul’s Gospel (where everyone is IN Christ) will seem in error.

RanRan: Amen to that! I don’t believe the Gospel exists as a bunch of subsets - it’s a single unit of good news. Extracting and discarding the universal salvation of sinners would create another gospel.

Tom: :cry: You’re not hearing what I’m saying. Ugh.

Merry Christmas anyhow ya’ll!

Tom

I suspect that the way God accomplishes this is more complex than that, but if what you say here is true, what is then ultimately the solid ground we can base the notion of universal salvation upon? If our will can in any way thwart God’s, then we are doomed, and I am hard pressed to see any other logical conclusion of this line of thinking. I understand that any discussion of free will boils down somewhat to semantics and context, however.

And I see this as pointing up the fact that there is still some level of blindness going on in the situations where there are those who turned “willfully” away, although the scripture is also clear that God hardens some (even those who have received revelation) and has mercy on some. But the choice of what and when is always ultimately God’s, not ours. “You did not choose me, I chose you.”

Understood. There are certainly various considerations in how the word ‘free’ is used in different contexts. I see the word “free” as generally referring to unconstrained and uninfluenced (by such things as hardening, blindness and illusions) with respect to choices, definitionally.

Amen to that, brother! :mrgreen:

Eph 1:11 – In Whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being PREDESTINATED according to the PURPOSE of HIM who WORKETH – ALL THINGS – after the counsel of HIS OWN WILL…

Oh, how the carnal man loves to think he chooses freely when every choice, every decision and every turn is predestined and purposed by the only free will there is. Man’s free will is an illusion wrought from the vanity God subjects us to. Thank God He relieves us of such vanity as we realize our futility in crisis. So it is, the man experiencing the greatest of all crisis, which be the grave, realizes fully the overwhelming sovereignty of God.

How can man find rest if he thinks his salvation depends on his choices. A belief in any kind of free will is the activator for dead works. Been there, done that, got the dirty garment in the closet to prove it.

Resting in Him,

John