The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How would you sum up the case for UR?

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#1

Hi guys. I need your help as usual. :laughing: As some of you know, I’ve been struggling (as usual) with my faith. I hadn’t gone to my local Baptist church for about six weeks as I felt so flat. Anyway, the mininster called round to see how I was, and I’m sure this meeting was a divine appointment. :smiley: Having not had the chance to speak about any ‘meaty’ theologicl issues with the minister, I wasn’t sure what he was about, although I suspected he probably believed in annihaltion as he never preaches about hell etc. To cut a long story short, I mentioned how I struggle with the orthodox doctrine of hell and ECT, and he asked if I’d read a book by Rob Bell called ‘Love Wins’. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: Well, I was blown away, having just read it again a few days beforehand. And so our meeting went very well indeed and I would say he is at least a hopeful universal reconciliationst like myself. I went back to church last Sunday and everyone was so loving towards me, it was great, and this morning’s service was great too. There are two guys there that I’ve been corresponding with about hell and ECT, and as related in another thread, one of them is now convinced that ECT is not true. I’ve now recently emailed him some UR verses to consider and he’s in the process of writing up a response that refutes UR. I got to mention UR this morning to the other brother who gave the talk today, and hence why I’d like a ‘short’ or concise case for UR- an overview of the Bible references for UR that I can present to them. Both men are very busy and so I don’t want to type up too much stuff as this may be off- putting to them.

Here was how I presented my UR reasoning to one of them who is in the process of replying. If you think it’s a good argument, I’ll send it to the other brother:

(I’d initially asked Neil what he thought 1 Cor 15:22 meant. Neil replied that this was referring to ‘those in Christ’, and so here is my way of introducing UR:

*’'I’m trying to determine if Paul is only referring to ‘those in Christ’ when he mentions ‘all will be made alive’. That is certainly how orthodox Christianity understands this verse, but some other verses have got me wondering if the ‘all’ who are affected by Adam’s act, are the same ‘all’ that are affected by Christ’s act. Here is how my thinking has been going as I read the Bible:

All humans die because of Adam’s act , whether they want to or not ie Adam’s act is thrust upon man against man’s will. This is backed up in Romans 8:20 : ‘Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope,’.

So is it possible that the 'last Adam’s ‘act’ is going to affect ALL mankind and creation, in the same way that the first Adam’s act did ie it will be applied universally? Romans 5:18 seems to be saying this quite clearly: ‘Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.’ Jesus also, said an interesting thing about what would happen when He had accomplished His ‘act’:

‘But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.’ John 12:32.

Is God reconciling all men or only some men:

‘For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.’ Colossians 1:19,20.

The idea that God is going to save every single human eventually (each in his own order) is so fantastical that maybe, like me upon hearing this for the first time, you think how ridiculous such an idea is. It was only once I kept reading the verses like the ones above, that they did seem to be saying that God is reconciling all things, and to think no one will be lost and that Christ’s act can undo every consequence of Adam’s act and affect every single human, is actually the best ‘good news’ I’ve ever heard, and so I’m very much hoping this is the case, but I may be wrong. I am sure that the ‘peace’ that Christ secures as mentioned in Col 1:20, can not allow for the majority of humans to be kept conscious perpetually for the sole purpose of experiencing torment- that would not be peace surely? That would mean that Adam’s act is more successful in damning people than the second Adam’s act is, of saving people. An interesting thought.

Here are a few more verses that seem to support what I’ve been saying:

‘For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.’ Romans 11:32.

'It is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.’” Romans 14:11

‘He has showered his kindness on us, along with all wisdom and understanding. God has now revealed to us his mysterious plan regarding Christ, a plan to fulfill his own good pleasure. And this is the plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth.’ Ephesians 1:8-10.

‘This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.’ 1 Tim 2:3,4. (Does God get what He wants?).

‘That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.’ 1 Tim 4:10.

When you have time, let me know what you think. There’s no rush.

Bye for now

Catherine ‘’*
What do you think guys? :smiley:

#2

Hi Catherine

I think you do a blooming good job of summing up some of the main scriptural arguments in favour of UR yourself! :smiley:

But if you want more ammunition, you might find this thread helpful:

It includes a number of attempts by members of this forum to sum up the case for UR in 700 words or less. Jason’s excellent effort was deemed the ‘winner’. But his piece, brilliant as it is, is perhaps a *teeny *bit too intellectual for some readers. Here’s my effort, which you’re more than welcome to quote if you think it might be useful:

Peace and love to you Catherine

Johnny

#3

Johnny, brilliant argument for UR. Thank you. :smiley: I had seen that thread but ‘700’ had put me off, and having counted how long my argument was, it’s not that short of 700 words, so it’s deceiving. I’ll see how the discussions go, and will present your argument for sure. Many thanks again. I’ll let you know how it goes. I’ll check out the thread and see what the other folk have to say. :wink:

#4

You have put together a great summary ! I come from a So. Baptist background, and came up with a point by point summary. Let me know what you think…What Patristic Universalism Teaches

  1. Sin will be punished (Deut 24:16; Isa 3:11; 13:11; Ezek 18:30; Rev 20:12-13)
    The Bible is very clear that each of us will be ac-countable to God for our sins. Everyone will be punished fairly for what they’ve done here on earth. Patristic Universalism does not teach everyone avoids hell; it teaches that everyone will eventually get to heaven. There will be punishment for those who deserve it; but this punishment has as its goal the reconciliation of the sinner.

  2. Salvation comes only through faith in Christ (Acts 16:31; Rom 10:9; Eph 2:8; 1 Pet 1:5)
    As soon as people here the word “universalism” they immediately think you’re advocating pluralism. That may be true of other forms of universalism, but it’s not what the universalism of the early church taught. To be saved, everyone must receive Christ as their Lord and Savior; they cannot be saved apart from faith in Christ. The only difference from the traditional view is that death does not end a person’s chance to accept Christ.

  3. God continues to evangelize to people even after they die (1 Chron 16:34; Isa 9:2; Matt 12:32; Rom 8:35-39; Eph 4:8-9; 1 Pet 3:18-20; 4:6)
    The main problem with the traditional view – and one that has never been satisfactorily ad-dressed – is how can one “accept Christ” if they have never heard of Christ, or were unable to understand the message (i.e. too young, mentally handicapped, etc.). The traditional view seems much less appalling when viewed from the balcony of Middle America where there is a church on nearly every corner and Bibles available in multiple translations. But this is not the experience of many people in the world. Many struggle from day-to-day just to get enough to eat. To suggest they will spend eternity in hell because they didn’t stop and “accept Christ” to me is not only ludicrous, it’s highly arrogant and extremely uncaring. Given the environment most people live in throughout the world, a belief in post-mortem evangelism is the only view that makes sense. After all, didn’t Paul tell us that Christ is the God of both the living and the dead (Rom 14:9)?

  4. Everyone will be judged when they die (Matt 12:36; 16:27; Rom 2:16; 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:10-15; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 20:12-13)
    No honest believer would suggest they were perfect here on earth and if that’s true, how can we say any of us are ready for heaven? We will all come before God with much “wood, hay, and straw” (1 Cor 3:12) that will need to be “burned up” (v. 15) prior to entering through heaven’s gates. The problem I see with modern evangelism is the idea that once someone has said the “sinner’s prayer,” they believe they are immune from all punishment which can result in a lazy faith – the kind of faith that produces indifference to others and apathy about one’s own spiritual health. So contrary to the popular view that universalism minimizes or completely eliminates judgment for sin it actually takes a stronger stance than the traditional view by taking the passages seriously that talk about the believer’s accountability to God. What this means to the believer in terms of the type of punishment nobody knows. All I can say for sure is that there will be a process of removing the dross from the silver for every person.

  5. The purpose of hell is remedial not retributive (1 Chron 21:13; Prov 3:12; Isa 19:22; Heb 12:7-11; Rev 3:19)
    Closely linked with the belief that all will be saved is the understanding that the purpose of hell is remedial. Rather than simply a place where non-believers are discarded and forgotten, hell actually serves the purpose of helping to bring about reconciliation with God. This means that even “believers” might spend some time in the purifying fires of hell to prepare them for heaven by removing any remaining “hay” or “straw” (1 Cor 3:10-15). Christ is our savior and we cannot be saved apart from Him, but that doesn’t mean that all who profess Him are ready for heaven. Think of believers you know of who “aren’t there yet.” If non-believer’s can’t live anyway they want to and be saved, why should we think believers can? Sometimes Christians abuse the grace of God by believing they’re already in heaven and so become more focused on worldly things. Patristic Universalism reminds everyone that none of us are “there yet.”

  6. The duration of hell is limited not eternal (Exodus 34:6-7; Psalm 30:5; 77:7-9; Psalm 86:5; Jer 23:20; 30:24; Lam 3:31-32; Matt 6:14-45; Luke 12:47-48)
    If the purpose of hell is to restore the sinner then obviously its duration cannot be eternal. I know the classic argument has always been that a crime committed against an eternal God must be punished with an eternal sentence but this concept completely breaks down when we remember that the Bible describes degrees of punishment for sinners. How can there be degrees of eternality? Is the lesser offender slapped in the face for all eternity while the more offensive sinner is burned for all eternity?

  7. Everyone will eventually be saved (John 1:29; Rom 11:25-26, 32; 1 Cor 15:22, 28; 1 Tim 4:10)
    This is not to say there is no hell or that people are not held accountable for their sins, but only that after the proper punishments have been administered whether they be medicinal, pedagogical, or purificatory, then all will be ready for entrance into Heaven’s sinless domain.

#5

Hey Wendy, I love how you’ve summarised Patristic Universalism in seven points. I think it’s important to stress how punishment or the kolasis, is a necessary part of God’s plan to reconcile all things and so we’re not advocating a wrathless God. :smiley:

The only part I would view slightly differently is point 3: ‘God continues to evangalise to people after they die’. The verses you quote don’t actually say this, although maybe the Ephesians one might suggest it, but I don’t think states it strongly. I believe that when you die you’re dead so you’re not conscious of anything and you’re awaiting the resurrection, and so I think your point is still true if it can be said that those who’ve died without ‘knowing’ Christ will be given the opportunity to know Him after their resurrection (ie the gates of the city are always open for those outside to come in as and when they’ve been rehabilitated?? Rev 21:25). So I agree that the Bible doesn’t teach that death seals your eternal fate and so the verses you quote for point 3 are good at demonstrating that God’s love surpasses death. :sunglasses:

Many thanks for your summary. It will be a great help to me when I start debating this with my friends. :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue:

#6

Members with summary cases are encouraged to repost them in a new official thread inspired by Catherine’s request (possibly with alterations per special rules for that thread–see opening post for details).

#7

That’s great Jason. :stuck_out_tongue: