Yes I was being a touch unfair there Jason (at least about what he meant by Wager). Pascal was also a very peppery satirist - he’ll have to forgive me because all satire is unfair. And Blue should forgive me too - because both of us are making caricatures here 
That’s a wonderful broadcast Jason - you’ve have a really kind and strong voice. 
Hi, Blue Raja
I haven’t read all these posts, so please forgive me if I’m repeating anyone’s previous words. Scanning through the things you’ve said, I think you probably lack a basic understanding of the various doctrines of the Christian church regarding judgment. You sound like you come from an Arminian background. So did I, though a few years ago I’d never heard of Arminius. I’d heard of Calvin, but all I knew about him was that he was one of the reformers.
Briefly, Arminians believe (with various, erm, variations) that people determine their own destinies with regard to salvation. We choose freely whether to accept or to reject God’s free gift of salvation, offered through Christ Jesus. Arminians have been forced to add all sorts of embellishments to this doctrine to give a reasonable chance to people who have never heard the gospel, mentally incompetent folk, young children and infants who die before the (invented) “age of accountability,” & etc. & etc. In the view of the Arminian, God would love to save everyone; He loves every single person and desires intensely for each one to repent, BUT God will not abrogate our “free will” and therefore He is relegated to lose some of those He loves to hell, as He MUST condemn sinners who have not freely received the salvation offered through Jesus.
Calvinists believe (in many flavors of course) that God has chosen some people to be saved. He WILL save these people and “free will” can be, well, damned. God is sovereign and no one’s “free will” could possibly trump His free will to save these chosen ones, nor His free will to damn those He has chosen not to choose. God provisionally loves all people in this life, but when the unsaved die, that love ends. He will torment them in eternal hell with delight, as their “just” suffering underscores and illustrates His sovereign justice and hatred of sin.
So, the Arminian believes:
God loves all people
God desires to save all people
Some people will spend eternity separated from God (either in hell, or because they’ve been annihilated)
The Calvinist believes:
God loves some people
God desires to save those He loves
God WILL save those He loves.
The Arminian God is all loving and fails to save some of those He loves.
The Calvinist God is all powerful. He saves those He loves and damns those He hates.
In Calvinism, you really have no choice, so as Sonia pointed out, our preaching universalism doesn’t make any difference to God. He will do as He chooses. In Arminianism, it all boils down to us choosing life and God can’t do much for us either way.
That’s why I figure you’re Arminian – or at least you’ve been exposed to Arminianism and not so much to Calvinism.
Universalists believe the Calvinists are right. God is all powerful and can save whomever He wants to. With the Calvinist we affirm that He WILL save all those He loves. We believe the Arminians are also right. God loves all people and WILLS that all people should be saved. Both the Calvinists and the Arminians have irrefutable scripture for these doctrines I’ve mentioned. They are both right. The only thing they’re wrong about is the “death deadline.”
For centuries the church has taught that “the tree lies where it falls.” If you die unsaved, you will remain so for all eternity. There is scant scriptural support for this idea, however. Two or maybe three verses at the most (again, imo). I’m at a motel en-route back from my vacation, or I’d list them for you, but imo, they aren’t very convincing. I was literally shocked at the lack of scriptural support for a doctrine I had believed all my life had ample grounding in scripture. It just DOES NOT HAVE IT. Without our artificially imposed death deadline, God’s hands are no longer tied. He can have all the time He needs to persuade people, and He is very persuasive. I’m not talking about torturing people with literal or figurative flames either, but rather about changing hearts with patience and love, whatever it takes and however long it takes.
Now some universalists (often the more Calvinistic ones) believe that God unequivocally saves everyone more or less painlessly and quickly. I don’t think scripture supports this. You mention passages about God’s anger and His chastisement and you’re right (imo). God IS angry with the wicked, and He is NOT okay with the wicked remaining wicked. Moreover, while I do believe He can and will do all that He desires, I do NOT believe that even God can do anything in any other way than the “way it must be done.”
Logically, you can’t hang the siding on your house until you’ve built the walls. You’re not powerless to hang the siding, but you DO have to build the walls first. God cannot make free-willed, and righteous people without training them to freely choose that which is good and loving, from their own hearts. In order to do that, we must agree that it’s wrong to cause suffering to other people and to our Father in heaven and to ourselves. Some learn this lesson easier than others, and that is what hell (however you define it and whenever you experience it) is for. I’ve learned not to judge hurting parents of wayward children by BEING such a parent. I’ve learned not to judge drivers who drive badly by on occasion driving badly myself and suffering the consequences. I am no better than anyone else. I see this over and over. Perhaps Hitler (to use the perennial example) must learn that it is wrong to torture people, by literally feeling their pain. This is purgatorial universalism, and I believe scriptures uphold it.
Now as Jason pointed out, there is no way to explain this doctrine to you in a “nutshell,” but if you will take the time to seek God, search the scriptures, and contemplate for yourself, you’ll come to the conclusions you come to. No one else can make this journey for you, and it is a long one. BUT, if you want to be free from fear, there is no other way.
The good news is this. Jesus died to save sinners FROM THEIR SIN. (Not their sins, but their SIN – their slavery to sin.) He did not fail. As scripture says, He is the savior of the world. Sin leads to death. He died the death for us, and we can (in Him) also die this death to the world system and be spiritually raised with Him. THEN and only then can we learn to live by HIS life and not in the power of our own strength (of which we have none). It isn’t about fear; it’s about freedom. Sin’s penalty is death, but the gift of God is Life (And this is aionian life; that they might know You and Jesus Christ whom You have sent). Knowing Him is life. Until you know Him, you have no life – but everyone will eventually come to know Him.
It isn’t about knowing the right “facts,” but about knowing Jesus. You can’t skate along not seeking Him and expect to inherit eternal life – you have to follow Him. If you don’t follow Him, you won’t get to where He is going (until you change your mind and start following Him, which you eventually will do). As George MacDonald said, “No one ever GETS home without GOING home.”
Love, Cindy
Good post Cinders That’s the Gospel for you.
That’s a great outline, Cindy.
a) The single verses might be vague, but together the case for universalism is very strong I think - the verses that seem to teach “eternal” damnation are also vague and indeed few in number (though often the opposite is claimed)
b) I think one shouldn’t focus on the words aion/aionios, God does NOT save all men because ‘aeonian’ punishment is limited BUT because God is the savior of all men, ‘aeonian’ punishment cannot be endless, it works that way, not the way round. It is not up to universalists to proof that aionios never means eternal, but up to infernalists to proof that aionios always means eternal, which is not the case; they have built their doctrine on this very word, not the universalists
c) This is true but overwhelmingly applies to the Old Testament which teaches no postmortem punishment at all, if taken 100% literally, these verses suggest the annihilation of the wicked rather than conscious torment. I understand them as a mere earthly death penalty that does not equate annihilation and does not prevent their ultimate salvation
Meant to say thanks for that earlier – may I return the compliment on your new avatar profile photo!
For full disclosure, I was reading from a prepared finale, which always makes me sound more professional than I am 
(and even then I stuttered at least ten times, I should have slowed down 
) – but one of the things I learned in broadcast communication is that a lot of professionals make sure to write out and work from prepared material as much as possible, even on the radio when it sounds like they’re winging it off the cuff, because that sounds more professional. 
My opening arguments, and my rebuttal, were also both prepared material, so it’s all the stuff in between that required serious speaking talent. Which I doubt I sound nearly as good at.
But anyway, thank you for the compliment. 
Well, thats a LOT of replies! I honestly didn’t expect so many. I wish I could make a detailed reply to everyone, I really do. Suffice to say to the posters here that I appreciate all of your input and support. Thanks all around!
I guess what I’m trying to say is this: I guess I’m really an agnostic. It feels like I always was one, even when I felt like a believer in my younger years due mostly to the fear of hell. A fear which, btw, I fully admit still lingers on. But to someone who is not a Christian, be they agnostic, atheist, hindu, muslim, jew or any other metaphysical perspective, Christian universalism may or may not look like so puzzling a view that it makes the Christian faith seem inauthentic. I don’t know, because universalism is typically debated among Christians themselves. But if one did not believe the Bible or Christianity to be of divine origin, I think there is a good chance that they would see the universalism vs. annihilationism vs. hell debate to be a sizeable red flag saying that this religion is not true. Why would such a crucial topic be so intensely debated, when a book authored by God ought to be clear and literal on the matter? In fact, it almost looks like a typical case of societal evolution.
Christianity was very diverse in the first few hundred years of its existence (even more so than it is today). This is would be expected since it was a loosely organized belief, with little structure or authority in it to force a dogma on people. But then huge numbers eventually came to believe. Yet it was still well before the modern era. And in the ancient world, the concept of ‘human rights’ – free conscience, punishment fitting the crime, love over fear and such – was an ideal considered by most people to be, at best, a beautiful suggestion. Many more would have thought such beliefs to be the ravings of lunatics. And society was still mostly kept in line through authoritarianism and brutality; you just couldn’t get many people to even fake ‘just getting along’ like we do now That is the story of most of human history; being kind, understanding and truly, authentically civilized is quite the recent occurence. And now Christian Universalism is becoming popular. Its a beautiful worldview. But historically accurate? It really seems like a skeptic’s ‘ultimate proof’ that the Bible has lots of contradictions or vagueness because its written by many different flawed mortals over long periods of time, and people really do just re-interpret it to suit whatever the prevailing ideology is. Even annihilationism almost comes accross as some politically correct version of hell.
I hope not to sound offensive or anything, but honestly, could you really fault someone for passionately suspecting that to be true? Because I’m starting to. I’ve been reading more about universalism and it really is starting to look like that. If you look at this as an outside observer, and try your best not to have a stake in the fight, the great debate over one’s eternal fate starts to look like a mere product of flawed, diverse human opinion in which numerous views are justifiable, and some consensus usually comes about only when the values of society demand it.
Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know how this will effect my lingering fear of hell. But I just can’t understand why a divine book wouldn’t be more clear, why universalism comes along when people are free and how one would argue to other skeptics that its not just seeing whatever patterns one wants to see.
Hi Blue Raja
Thanks for sharing your honest opinions with us. It’s only by being honest about our doubts and fears, I reckon, that we will ever get anywhere near the truth - wherever that may lie.
I share a lot of your scepticism. As I said in my earlier post, I think the Bible is quite patently riddled with error, and with doctrinal paradoxes - Universalism vs eternal damnation being one of the deepest, most polarised, and most serious, in some respects. (After all, what more can ever be at stake for a human being than their eternal soul?)
But look at it this way: what if Universalism is indeed true, is - as many of us here believe it to be - the ‘golden thread’ of hope running throughout history? If so, then ultimately (and that is an important qualification), nobody will ever have lost anything by believing the wrong doctrine. If God - as I personally believe - is one day going to bring about the most glorious apokatastasis, restoring all things to perfection and eternal bliss, in the process somehow (in a way I can’t begin to explain or understand) ‘undoing’ all the bad and pain and suffering, then what any given individual believes at any given moment in history is not important. What matters is the ‘end game’.
And what if that ‘end game’ could only be achieved through a progressive revelation of the truth - a progressive revelation which preserves our freedom, a freedom many of us have abused greatly, including by subscribing to harmful, erroneous doctrines?
Now you might argue that the Holy Spirit could simply convict us all of the truth of Universalism, and banish all the erroneous doctrines at a stroke. I would argue that He is indeed doing that. But in a way that truly preserves our freedom to think otherwise. One day all people will come to believe in, and be united to, God. But that must happen of their own free will. And until that day comes, many people will continue to believe in error.
At least that’s how I see it .
Shalom
Johnny
TBR, no offense taken, I understand. I do want to point out a couple of notes, though.
1.) Universalism didn’t just appear in the past couple of centuries. It was around, though a minority, during the first several Christian centuries (at a time when Christians themselves were often not especially “free”!), and was held by Christian authorities who not only exercised strong formative influence on trinitarian orthodoxy but also on how new Christians were instructed in the faith. Even by the mid-400s, Augustine complained that most Christians, broadly speaking, were more merciful about hell (he wasn’t specific about the details of this majority and may have had various ideas in mind, although he was also replying briefly to Christian universalism) than he thought was accurately true. There is strong evidence that even Augustine started out a Christian universalist at his conversion, and made his initial arguments against his former Manichaeism precisely on those grounds, though for some reason he changed his mind and became vociferously anti-universalistic not long afterward (possibly in reaction to more serious problems perceived to be true about Origen, whose legacy as the greatest scholar in Greco-Roman history still loomed strongly.)
Even among non-universalists, Christian authorities in the pre-Imperial (and to some extent even in the early Imperial) phases of Christian development did routinely emphasize such things as free conscience, punishment fitting the crime, love over fear and such. And many non-Christians did regard such beliefs to be the ravings of lunatics. The trinitarians of the 400s had a hard object lesson from the previous century, too, since the majority of that century had involved Arian instead of trinitarian Christians acting with highest political support in oppression against trinitarian religious authorities. Starting in the 380s with the return of an orthodox Emperor to the throne, trinitarians began to reply in kind to keep ultimate political power from ever shifting again. And the principles of Christian universalism became increasingly inconvenient for any Christian authority (universalistic or non-universalistic) to hold. (To be fair to the Arians, the temptations of secular power on a level inherited through the Roman Imperial system, would have been hard for anyone to resist using ruthlessly, and by the nature of things those who did so would be more likely to pull ahead quickly; so a solidly trinitarian Imperial court in the 300s wouldn’t necessarily have behaved any better than they did from the late 300s onward.)
2.) I think you acknowledge that the natural human condition trends toward competition and domination against opposition over resources. Survival of the fittest and might making right, non-morality and non-rationality, are pressures on all human people. From a standpoint of social evolution, it shouldn’t be surprising that human ideals will tend to lean increasingly in that direction even when opposed, since opposition after all might most easily involve application of such principles! – and so the vicious circle perpetuates.
In other words, regardless of how beautiful and good any religion might potentially or ideally be, crap will tend to accrue, weigh it down, and point it back into a variation of natural human behavior.
But here’s the thing: you yourself are distinguishing morally between better and worse behavior. And while that might very well only be a subjective taste of yours due to your own socio-environmental pressure, the objective fact of the matter is that one kind of behavior fits a reality where at bottom only non-reasoning, non-moral application of power to cause effects constitutes fundamental behavior; and the other kind of behavior fits a reality where at bottom rational and moral fair-togetherness between persons constitutes fundamental behavior. Humanity may mix those two concepts in various flavors and to various degrees and in various modes, but the concepts are notionally distinct.
And however you came to be there, you’re judging (at the moment) in consonance with the idea that fundamental reality is a unity of fair-togetherness between persons, and therefore that subordinate reality ought to match up with that, and so should be critiqued for failing to do so.
The misbehavior of Christians only counts as misbehavior according to the standard proposed and defended by a particular set of Christians, those who believe that the one and only fundamental reality is an actively mutually supportive interpersonal relationship. Misbehaving Christians are misbehaving by their own standard (or the standard of that large subset anyway, which became the ‘orthodox’ belief even on a merely sociological notion of orthodoxy.)
But if reality isn’t fundamentally something of that sort, then people who behave differently from that may be behaving more in line with what reality fundamentally is, and so are not in fact misbehaving. But then your moral critique against them will not only fall to the ground, it will be an example of real misbehavior against the principles of whatever reality fundamentally is instead!
In short, your critique of non-universalism as not being “beautiful” etc., and your critique of Christians misbehaving just as badly as various non-Christians in various ways (ways which are coherent with the non-rational, non-moral application of power to cause reactions to the power), only makes sense if trinitarian Christian universalism is in fact true.
Put another way: one thing I occasionally hear, even once from my Christian but non-universalistic brother, is that Christian universalism is “too good to be true”. But that statement literally makes no sense. If fundamental reality is something different, then Christian universalism is at best ‘bad’ in the sense of being in error. We cannot have an idea of the good which is actually superior to whatever the principles of fundamental reality really are.
But if people routinely fall short of measuring up to fundamental reality (and even aside from ethical failure any non-omniscient entity is going to fall short of that mark sometimes), then it should not be surprising that there is dispute among humans about what the truth of fundamental reality is and how we ought to behave. We aren’t the Borg; we do all have free will and are all in a position where we each have to do the best we can with what we’re provided, and we aren’t always going to get things right, and when that happens we’re naturally going to be at opposition with one another, and so the temptation comes in to act in ways which don’t aim toward the fulfillment of fair-togetherness between persons.
The question is whether we are acting more or less in communion with fundamental reality by acting toward fulfilling non-fair-togetherness between persons, or toward fulfilling fair-togetherness.
Hi Blue Raja –
Hey I hope I didn’t annoy you when I was doing the reducing to absurdity shtick with you above . I wasn’t trying to trip you up. I just wanted to make you think outside the box that’s all .
People from other metaphysical perspectives have the same debate about universalism! Judaism. Islam, Hinduism and (in a sense) Buddhism all have universalist traditions within them as well as non universalist traditions. The same was true of ancient Zoroastrianism.
Perhaps the concept of human rights (as you list them) has evolved out of the mustard seed of the Gospel. Gregory of Nyssa the ancient universalist Church Father was the first Christian to argue systematically for the abolition of slavery – and he did so on universalist grounds. There has been a tradition of universalism within Christianity throughout its history – sometime stronger sometimes weaker but it has always been there (it’s not a new thing). One of the things that appeals to me about universalism is the witness of the lives of universalists of the past.
Blessings
Dick
Hi Blue,
I sympathize that if it required that the Bible’s meaning was unmistakable, or that there was religious consensus, then it’s harder to deem one religious interpretation better than another. I too am not sure why a ‘divine’ book wouldn’t be more clear (though many reasons have been offered on this site, including Johnny’s avoidance of coercing our freedom). I frankly agree with your perception that universalism became more popular again when societal values had evolved in that direction.
Still, I perceive that though these values evolved slowly over time, it was Jesus’ approach that influenced such Western values (just as it finally affected views on slavery, women, violence, homosexuals, etc). That would leave your original question as to whether objective exegesis warrants a universalist conclusion, or if you were correct that supposed support passages use ambiguous language. Since you didn’t much engage those who argued that the language of many such passages is not terribly unclear, I continue to think that the values that encourage my hope of love’s victory have some real support.
All the best in your honest reflections,
Bob
Andrew Jukes taught that the scriptures both veil and reveal the truth, just as Jesus’ human form was both a veil and a revelation of His nature. I have no doubt that God has some redeeming purpose for this.
Sonia
One cannot live his life based on “What if”. I think it is better to live with conviction and humility. “I believe…but I could be wrong” is a powerful way of living. I think one should live based on the convictions of his beliefs, and yet with the humility to seek to grow in knowledge and wisdom. If you have no convictions on an issue, ok. If you think it’s an important issue though, then pray, study, research, interview people, etc. until you come to a conviction, but maintain humility recognizing that your convictions could very well be wrong.
For example, concerning life on other planets (aliens), I do not have any conviction, any firm belief. And considering I’ve never encountered an alien or know anyone whom I personlly love and respect who has encountered an alien, and have no need or desire to “know” or have a conviction concerning the existance of aliens, I have invested no time in researching the issue; instead, I’m ok with it remaining a non-issue for me, an issue of non-conviction, and I’m ok with that.
Concerning UR though, for me that was an important issue. I was an Infernalist, was raised an Infernalist, my world-view was strongly tinted by the red of Infernalism. When challenged to study UR and effectively dismiss it, I started studying the Bible and praying about the topic, ASSUMING that scripture would only reinforce my long-held Infernalism. But the more I studied and prayed, the more it seemed to me that scripture affirmed UR and the traditional case for Infernalism fell apart. For me it was a Copernican Revolution! I thought the world was flat, but found out that it was round! My world-view changed.
After years of study and prayer on this issue, I no longer believe in Hell. I believe we shall all face judgment, good rewarded and evil burnt up, destroyed. And I’ve come to believe that we shall all weep and gnash our teeth when we see the truth concerning our lives, but that God will wipe away every tear.
UR has changed my world-view. I no longer worry about me or anyone getting into heaven “someday”, trusting God with everyone’s “someday”; instead, I seek to help get heaven into mine and others hearts “today”! I no longer see “us vs. them”; instead I see “us and us”. No longer is the unbeliever NOT my family; rather, you are my brother, my sister regardless of what you believe right now for I believe that one day we shall all be reconciled to God OUR Father, God OUR Mother, God OUR Savior and Redeemer, God OUR…
I believe… but I could be wrong! I live with conviction founded in my beliefs, and one of my beliefs is that I could be wrong; and I’m ok with that. In fact, I research, study, pray, interview others, etc. as I seek to grow in knowledge and wisdom.
Blue,
My impression is that many of us have tried to follow Scripture, and you have not much engaged that discussion of what the Bible texts actually say. As an evangelical, it seems to me that such failure to engage God’s Word on this leaves a real possibility that you also may be wrong. Is it your belief that God would be o.k. with you if it turns out that your beliefs are faulty, but that God could have no grace toward me if my understanding was mistaken**?** Since we disagree on which interpretation is most harmful, on which most magnifies or defames God, and on which is Biblical, you would need to show me how convictions that both his love and power are victorious would be an unforgiveable error. I’d welcome your case for that.
Ok everyone, I’ve decided to try to give a more detailed response to all the people here. Some who have criticised me for not taking a more hard-working approach to this are, in retrospect, correct. I’ve been a little lazy , and I do appologize.
I hope to get around to every issue brought up by the various posters here within the next 24 hours, give or take a few. I’m looking foreward to a more lengthly debate, and truly I appreciate all of your responses thus far.
looking forward to it!
btw, i edited one of my responses above…hopefully it makes sense. let me know if not.
Eh, not criticising you so much, TBR, for not taking a hard-working approach to it (after all, it’s a hugely detailed topic and not everyone has the time, energy and skill to do so).
But asking for nutshell answers when you’re already prepared to argue in reply that nutshell answers are too simplistic (as many of us would also agree), doesn’t quite seem fair.
Ok, it looks like I’ll need another 24 hours, give or take a few. My appologies for the delay. I’m really trying to research these topics better and I just need a bit more time to respond.
No rush. This is a study for decades.
Ok, its been longer than I anticipated but here come the responses:
Bob Wilson,
For instance, that everything will be “reconciled” to Christ, can just mean that he will eventually have complete dominion over the entire earth, but not necessarily that everyone will be saved when it happens. And “all persons” will eventually be made righteous…well, I guess I haven’t read the Bible enough. Which verses make such claims?
Corpselight,
A) Don’t most people say that the “all” raised in Christ are just people who believe in him? Isn’t that a possible interpretation?
B) Ok, so “aionios” does not necessarily mean “eternal”. But has it sometimes been used to mean that, and can you rule out “eternal” in other passages? We can’t simply assume it means “less than eternal”. So, a phrase like “eternal destruction” or “everlasting shame & contempt”…why should we assume these mean something finite? They might, but can you demonstrate it from the context?
C) It does seem a bit unfair that God was not telling people in literally every other page of the Old Testament that their sinning could easily get them an eternity in Hell. I suppose a skeptic would question the divine inspiration of the Bible in that regard. But universalism suits that mystery rather well, come to think of it. If everyone is saved in the end than threatening them with hell all the time might be rather pointless.
Sherman,
I guess we’d have to know all the places the Bible uses the word “aidos” to help make sense of the issue. I’m not sure where and when it does. And how often does the Bible speak of fire used to “refine” rather than "destroy, besides the Lamentations passage?
Sobornost,
Yes, the idea of eternal conscious torment, or even annihilationism, is difficult for a compassionate person. It can be very sad thinking that God would be so cruel to so many people. I would NOT wish that fate on ANYBODY, and being compassionate to so many doomed people whom God himself [if he really is like that] apparently doesn’t care about could almost drive a person crazy. Still, if that was my only ticket out of damnation, I guess I’d have to believe in and preach it. In fact if I became, or become, a Christian who believes that, I’d almost want to just live my life as a monk or something, so that I didn’t have to spend much time face-to-face with that tragic world out there in which most people are probably not holy enough to avoid hell.
SLJ,
Technically, one would have to be able to rule all the non-universalism out as an absurdity not worthy of serious consideration in order to justify teaching that universalism is true. Because of simple math. You can’t afford to be wrong about such a topic as the eternal fate of a person’s soul, and if universalism was just a “theory”, even a well supported one, but NOT “official” or “provable” doctrine, then you couldn’t risk being wrong. Sad, but true.
watchman1706,
I guess I am kind of hedging my bets. I dunno, I guess this topic just scares me too much to think in all that clear-headed a manner about it.
johnnyparker,
The little guy is adorable! Yes, its true that describing God as incredibly loving seems pretty incompatible with sending people to eternity in hell. But I suppose the calvinists might answer that he’s only loving towards those who serve him, and hates everyone else. A horrifying thought, and one thats been difficult for many Christians. But lets face it; it also clouds judgement to the degree that it makes a person paranoid of even considering any other view. That perpetual “what if I’m wrong, what if I’m wrong?!?!” in the back of a person’s head might well prevent universalism from ever being taken seriously. Fear really is an unimaginably powerful force.
Cindy Skillman,
Arminianism does seem like a silly idea. In the Old Testament, one would be hard pressed to find God overlooking sin, refusing to punish it and saying “I see that you are sinning a great deal, but of course, I would never use force to push you into holiness, because that would interfere with your free will, and free will is sacred to me.” God uses force all the time in the Old Testament, NOT out of cruely, but to get people back on the right track to worshipping him. Why not in the afterlife as well?
And even if God did respect free will, why not just put the souls out their tormented misery (annihilationism), or in Limbo like Dante’s first circle of Hell or something? Eternity in the lake of fire is just pure sadism. But thats what the calvinists believe, and it scares me to think they’d be right.
Also, I agree that post-mortem salvation is far from ruled out. In fact I’ve never seen an ECT-type answer the simple question: “if God wants everyone saved, and judges everyone on judgement day, what happens if they repent on judgement day?” A lot of them get enraged at such a seemingly childish nitpick. But the theory seems quite plausible to me.
Jason,
You da expert! I think I’ll give a separate post to yours within the next day or two, as you’ve covered a lot of topics (though feel free to respond to anything I’ve said to any of the other posters above if you wish). You are quite well informed about the subject and so I’ll need to do some more research.