The Evangelical Universalist Forum

I've made peace with Anni... for now

Evangelical Universalism
#21

Not directed at you, Warren – I sympathize – but to all in general, I just have to say that when I became an annihilationist it was such a huge relief. For so long (forever it seemed) I had been trying, trying to justify God in his purported intent to torture people forever in a fiery hell, and honestly I just wasn’t getting anywhere with that. So discovering conditional immortality (as I later learned it was called) felt like a great weight had been lifted off my heart.

After that, though, I still felt so sorry for God (Arminianist here) every time I heard that someone had died, knowing that chances were, it was another beloved person that He had lost. Driving in my car I’d hear a news report of a bad accident or etc., and I’d just automatically say, “Oh Father, I’m so, so sorry!” Why? Because I know how much I love my kids and He must love so much more than I ever could, and then wouldn’t his poor heart be broken for all eternity? I know what it’s like to have a broken heart over your beloved children, and I’m not sure anyone could take that forever – maybe not even God.

Then one day, something (or maybe Someone) just HIT me out of the blue. “THAT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH!” God is better than that.

He is MIGHTY to save.
He is Father to all, and loves the WORLD.
Somehow, someway, He HAS to be able to save them ALL.

No sane person and fully informed person could ever reject His love for eternity. No one. If they did, it could only be because they didn’t know what He’s like, or because they were insane. And that’s not freedom, people. The insane are not free – the uninformed are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

God IS better than that.

And I’ll go one more round. If my loved ones are not in LIFE with me, it’s not life.
You say that surely my loved ones WILL be saved. That of all the people who ever lived, only 8% (just to pull a number) will be damned to destruction.
But I say that even if my close loved ones are saved, in order for them to be happy, all THEIR close loved ones must also be saved. And if they’re broken-hearted, then how can I be happy?
On top of that we must add that all my loved ones’ loved ones, loved ones must also be saved, and for the same reason, and so on.
Carrying this on to its logical conclusion, there is NO ONE who is expendable. Everyone who ever was has been loved by someone, or at the very least is related to someone who very much wished to be able to love them.

Based on this, it’s not only God who will be broken-hearted to lose one of his beloved children. It is all of us. Unless He plans to lobotomize the lot of us or destroy the love along with the loved one, there can be no happiness in the ages to come without the salvation of all – not for God; not for us. Not for anyone.

#22

Warren, can I ask real basic question… WHY would/do you want universalism to be true?

What if said “annihilationist” texts speak simply to the dissolution of physical life and have NOTHING to do with post-mortem existence? For example… how many of those texts coming to your mind do you actually attach or read post-mortem significance into? Is that justified?

IOW… what IF annihilation speaks to one’s physicality and NO FURTHER than that, would that make the likes universalism more palatable?

#23

Davo,

I’m pretty sure Warren would say that at the moment he doesn’t see the texts exegeting that way, only referring to physical death.

Or maybe he might agree that even experienced annihilation proponents have a bad habit of appealing to some texts that do only talk about physical death, as though evidence of death before the general resurrection is testimony in itself to annihilation, but that doesn’t change the texts talking about post-mortem death so to speak.

#24

Hello all,

Davo: I will have to look at the relevant passages again I guess. It could be that they’re talking about death in This World rather than the World to Come.

Why do I want universalism to be true? Because I think God wants it to be true.

Of course, your next question would be: If God wants it to be true, then why won’t it happen? Brother, I’ve asked that question a lot of times. God allows people to reject Him I guess? I don’t know.

Cindy: It was such a huge weight off my shoulders too! I understand what you mean re: the love of God for His creation and how could we be happy in the World to Come without all of our loved ones. I don’t know the answer to those questions.

I also wanted to say that tomorrow is the Feast of Christ the King Day, so perhaps we can all take a moment or so tomorrow to reflect on Jesus’ kingship. (It’s a Catholic feast day, but Anglicans celebrate it too). :slight_smile:

#25

Actually Warren I was thinking more like… maybe your heart would simply like it to be true; and why not, I’d think that would be natural for most believers. And yet HOW could we possibly think we have more love in our hearts for humanity than does our God?

#26

Davo,

We’re not more loving than God obviously… From an Arminian perspective I guess I would say that God really does love them but they just don’t love Him back and they would rather go out of existence (annihilation) than be in His kingdom-- and He obliges them.

I want universalism to be true in my heart and I know that God wants universalism to be true in His “heart” because the Scriptures are very clear that God wants everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, He’s not willing that any should perish but wants all to come to repentance, takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, etc. So God does want everyone to be saved but on the non-universalist Arminian view, He just doesn’t get what He wants. Why doesn’t He get what He wants? I don’t know.

#27

But, there are several Old testament verses that say God accomplishes what He pleases or desires. Here are two.

Psalm 115:3, But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.

Isaiah 55:11, So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

#28

I guess I’m just not that convinced any die-hard antagonist would genuinely choose cessationism WHEN confronted with the ultimate reality of God’s love… something IMO encountered through death’s veil.

In a similar vein I think most rancid atheism is borne out of the lousy, poor and errant presentation of God “by religion” in whatever form that may have come. IOW… I too would reject the God so often portrayed by religianity. Such heart-felt rejections are based off the ignorance of unbelief, which God is known to cut some slack for, as per 1Tim 1:13.

Again, I guess I’m just not convinced that He doesn’t, although I could be wrong.

#29

Is it more loving to carry out their wish (or preference) of annihilation than it is to continue to save them? Genuine question.

When I look at my own life, I see many things that God has given to me or allowed to happen that I do not want or at least never chose to have.

For a start, I never got a choice as to whether I ever even existed. Indeed, there are times where I wish I didn’t. But thank God that by His grace, He does not oblige me in those dark moments.

I never got a choice as to which family I was born into. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t change my family for anything but what if I was one of those people who grew up in a family environment where they were abused or neglected? These people were never given an option as to whether they would or would not like to be born into that family. They had to cope with it.

I never got a choice whether or not I ever wanted to be capable of experiencing pain. Every day there are moments when we suffer; sometimes it’s mere tiredness, sometimes it’s a headache, sometimes we may feel utterly heartbroken and despairing, sometimes we may be in serious physical pain, sometimes we may be able to do nothing but breakdown crying. How many people in the world do you think would happily have all pain and suffering taken away if they had the option? I’d wager almost all.

I never got a choice about whether I’d like to be born into a world of sin, with natural urges to sin myself. After all, it wasn’t me who sinned in the first place; I am not responsible for the sin of Adam or any curse that may have happened as a result. Yet I find myself everyday in this battle, this fight that I generally seem to lose.

I never got a choice to live in a world where I cannot see God. That may not be true in some sense; it may be argued that you can see Him in nature or in a loving action or in music or art or the Bible. But I cannot hold a normal conversation with Him whenever I want, I cannot hear Him answer my prayers straight away, I cannot see any direct physical evidence of Him in front of my eyes. Most of the time when I pray, I feel like I get nothing; no response, no answer, no voice. That includes times when I’m absolutely pleading for a reply, screaming, shouting. And I look at the walls and feel like God is looking back at me, displeased, refusing to even bother to respond.

I never got a choice as to whether Jesus died - in fact, possibly the main part about Jesus dying is to stop us conforming to our wants - “While we were sinners, Christ died for us.” He died so that we might leave behind our wants, our petty evil desires. He died to save us from the sin that kills us. If it was more loving for God to give us what we wanted or preferred, if it was more loving for Him to confirm and leave us in our sin than it was for Him to save us from it, why did he die on the cross? Why did He ever make the commitment in the first place that He would save us from our sin if it was more loving for Him to leave us in it?

If it was more loving for God to give us our wants than it was for Him to give us our needs then we would live in a pain-free world, a world of pleasures and comforts and nothing less. Yet if that was the case, then there would be no will for God, there would be no real love, there would be no sacrifice, no commitment, no fellowship of any worth, no righteousness of any strength, no unity between creatures.

I’ve come to realise that God’s purpose is far higher than our mere, feeble desires. God’s purpose is tough, God’s purpose is hard work, God’s purpose is painful, God’s purpose often takes us far away from comfort. Yet it’s the only way we reach ultimate joy, it’s the only way God creates in us the will for good, the will for Him, the will for each other, the love that He craves between all his creatures that is eternally present in Himself.

I don’t think God cares for our wants; rather He cares for our needs. That is infinitely more loving than deciding to permanently give us up to our sinful desires; that would be a clear defeat and nothing more. No, instead He cares deeply for our needs - He couldn’t care more for them in fact. Ultimately, I believe God wants to achieve an end where our wants and needs are one and the same thing - that is what a free will is, not this thing we’re stuck with at the moment. That means that He does indeed sometimes give us up to what we want; He does not force Himself onto us otherwise we would never develop any actual will for Him. But I fail to believe that He ever hands us permanently over to our wants until they are everything that He wants and everything that we need.

Thank God for His relentless love and grace that never gives up on us :smiley:

#30

Beautifully put, Jonny. Thanks. :slight_smile:

#31

Yes, very well put Johnny.

To put it in my more blunt style:
Would a loving parent acquiesce to a child’s irrational request for suicide?

#32

Beautiful post, Jonny. Thank you for that.

Blessings,
Patty

#33

Guys, guys: Warren understands the theological/philosophical arguments.

It’s the scriptural arguments he wants to put on hold, though with a current weight toward anni (in his estimation), until he goes to seminary and gets much more training in how to read the languages, hermeneutics, etc.

#34

Jason-

Thank you! :laughing:

#35

Not if he thinks it is more loving for God to ‘oblige’ us in our preference to be put out of existence than to continue saving us from our sin.

#36

Jonny,

I don’t think it’s more loving. I was grasping at straws to try to explain the Arminian position. I think you guys are right theologically/philosophically. And when I look at the issue in a few years I wouldn’t at all be surprised if the Bible teaches universalism, or at least hints at it.

But right now I don’t have enough knowledge of the biblical texts to say that I’m a universalist. If someone asked me, what about such-and-such a verse that seems to be imply some will be lost or such-and-such a verse that implies annihilation, I couldn’t answer them. I know what I think in my heart but my knowledge of scripture has to catch up to that or else I won’t be able to explain my view except in terms of philosophy and emotion. And as a biblical Christian and someone who believes God is calling him into ministry, I cannot claim to believe something if I can’t back it up scripturally yet. It would be “epistemologically irresponsible”. :slight_smile:

#37

I totally understand.

I face (d?) a similar issue. Still, to some degree, unresolved, in that in seems clear (if anything is clear) that the bible is so ambiguous that it can easily be interpreted in a hellist, Anni or EU fashion, and that there’s no single, right, super-strong exegesis that blows the others out of the water.

What will you do if you find that the exegetically stronger position is Anni, yet this position is riddled with logical, ethical and theological inconsistencies?

#38

That’s absolutely fine mate, I totally understand. It’s just that if you know that there’s a clear error in your explanation (as you obviously acknowledge when you say you were at grasping at straws) then I wouldn’t try and defend such a position. It’s probably just best to say that you don’t know, rather than try an explanation that you don’t really believe in your heart.

#39

Pog,

If I find that Anni is the exegetically stronger position then I will have to teach it as a minister, while also acknowledging its inconsistencies. That’s the best I could do as a bible teacher I guess, Annihilationist but hopeful universalist (which is what I am already).

Jonny,

It’s true that I don’t know, but who does, except God? I guess I can believe something in my heart, but not advertise it because I wouldn’t have the tools to defend it biblically (although I certainly could philosophically or emotionally). And I don’t talk about this subject AT ALL in my everyday life, not even with other Christians. I’ve spoken with my parents about it but that’s pretty much it. I guess I just want to have some sort of answer so that when I’m in seminary and church ministry, it never comes up that I truly don’t have an answer at all.

“What will happen to people who rejected Jesus?” “The Bible seems to teach they will be annihilated, but there are some passages that suggest all could be saved, and that view has a lot going for it philosophically. We should hope for the salvation of all, but beyond hope I’m not sure we can be dogmatic”

That is a much better answer than “I don’t know.” At least to theologically-minded church leaders and seminary professors.

Oh well. What do I know? :smiley:

#40

I guess therein lies the biggest difference between us, and the likely reason why am I EU rather than hellist or Anni. I cannot accept a God who is illogical or immoral, or believe that which is incoherent or unethical is reflective of a perfect being. I would not have come to Christ if He was a murderer or torturer or if he said that the earth was flat or that up was down.