Joe: Universalism - Whether to draw the line?

amy · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

About Matt. 12:32. Talbott does a great job of explaining that there are some sins that are forgiveable and then there are other ones, like denying the holy spirit, that are more problematical and stand in the way of reconciliation so need to be dealt with more severely. Of course, even if it’s not forgiveable here and not in the age to come it doesn’t imply that under different circumstances God isn’t able to forgive or doesn’t want to.
Hebrews 6:4 : Is it even possible for Calvinists that God called someone and then they fall away? Why would God call someone to really experience Him and then not continue that? It would seem weird of their understanding, right?

I don’t know how God works, why some seem more hardened than others? I also don’t understand God’s timing of things - why some come to repent sooner than others? I’m more sure that God really loves all, desires they repent, and is able to effectively make that happen. Don’t Calvinists also assert that for God nothing is impossible, that if someone believes, experiences God, that it’s because of his grace? Then, how in their view, could it ever be impossible for anyone to not return to God, if that’s what he had purposed? I guess they just figure God didn’t elect that person.

3.2 Thess. 1:8 doesn’t have the verb shut out, but rather “of.” It’s curious that it’s translated shut out. Other texts may suggest that there is a separation of a kind like the sheep and the goats. It’s interesting that people make so much of the words shut out, as if it proves something, when this is not really what the original words say.

I think how people understand “aionios” is critical. I sense this conversation is needed and coming.

He seems especially hung up with the notion that saying eternal means in the age to come, not endless, limits not only hell’s duration, but also heaven’s. I do believe this is also discussed in Talbott and/or Parry’s books.

I found difficulty with a few of his statements:

I’m not sure how sin is any less serious in our view. This seems like a characterization to me. We would agree that sin is deserving of punishment, but for a purpose. In our view God is so unhappy with sin that he effectively seeks to eradicate it and address every man’s heart. We don’t have a decreased view of sin, but we do have an increased view of the love of God.

The whole concept of justice is a great discussion too. I recently read Talbott’s article on justice and was so persuaded that justice isn’t served in punishment alone, but when there is restoration. This sense of justice makes so much more sense of a God that is consistently both love and justice.

It’s a nice thought that we’d all read our bibles and comes to our own conclusions solely from the text. But who of us is not strongly influenced by our teachers and a particular paradigm or understanding? Calvinists strike me as stuck in their paradigm of what punishment can and cannot be.
Take this for example:

Why does he pit punishment against God’s spirit? Doesn’t punishment ever correct? In so far as punishment ever serves to correct us, bring us to repentance, isn’t it doing the spirit’s bidding? Couldn’t punishment be a tool of God’s spirit? Could it be that his paradigm of punishment, as solely retributive, doesn’t allow him to make this connection? Sometimes it seems like we aren’t asking the right questions and are assuming wrong things, like that God is solely concerned with a justice that gets what is deserved. As parents we want not just for our kids to get what they deserve, but for them to turn from the error of their ways! This is our focus. I suppose the Calvinist is not beyond seeing this too? It just comes down to who does God love in a saving way?

I think he may be more accurate about our view in this statement…

Isn’t our view that God’s mercy, in desiring people’s repentance, values any step necessary for it, like wrath? I’ve heard it said that God’s justice and mercy are two sides of the same coin, united in purpose. It would seem the blogger has some grasp of our view, right?

I’m also learning right along with you, Alex. I hope I made some sense here. It’s so late and I lost my first email in taking too long to write it. I’m enjoying following your discussion and, hopefully, will learn from it too. It’s so hard to get anyone to dialogue so this great that we can experience your discussion along with you.

JasonPratt · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

Please let me know if you have any suggestions for better answers…

The Hebrews 6 ref I would answer in context of Heb 10 (among several other things in Hebrews), thus in context of Deut 32 (quoted in Heb 10), where the whole point to God’s wrath–even to the destruction of His enemies as far as they can be destroyed–is so that after they have been destroyed as far as possible they will repent and return to being loyal to God, after which God will restore them better than before.

But that’s more than a little complex, so I’m not sure how much help it would be.

As for the notion that X is described as eternal and so irreversible: I would adduce, among other things, Hebrews 6 to that!

See, Heb 6 (and similar statements in chapters 4 and 10) talks about people who, even though the specific phrase isn’t used, are getting life eonian–there are other phrases being used which necessarily indicate this. Yet they’re going to be punished for falling away. Your respondent reads that as meaning they must not end up with life eonian after all! So, apparently “eonian” means irreversible only when talking about damnation, not about our salvation!

The same point can be made if your respondent acknowledges the existence of rebel angels. Do angels not have zoe eonian?? If loyal angels do not, that would be exceedingly bizarre (leaving aside the question of whether unfallen man originally had zoe eonian); but rebel angels used to be loyal angels. So do devils (deo-fols, foolish gods) still have eternal life? Or not? If not, then once again “eonian” apparently only has triumphant permanence for ultimate wickedness! This would point to an utterly different kind of theology than even supernaturalistic theism (much less trinitarian theism)–not to add that it sounds like the weakest and most backward kind of “gospel” ever imagined.

Sherman · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

It’s an interesting discussion. I wonder if he’ll desire to open the discussion to others. And I always find it amazing that Protestants often appeal to the Catholic denunciation of UR, as if in some way recognizing the “authority” of the Catholic church to do so. Well, anyhow, I hope you have a good discussion with him. I’ve been asked to engage a discussion of UR on another site and plan to do so after the holidays. I’m hesitant to invite other URs to join the site and discussion because I don’t want to overwhelm them. Sometimes a little salt is more tolerable than a whole lot. Love is gentle and patient.

SLJ · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

Sherman,
I was thinking along the same lines–too many people in the discussion, and it gets too cluttered and confusing. I’ve encountered that just in the little 3 person study my husband and I are doing with a pastor/friend.

I’m also following the conversation with interest, Alex. Your friend seems a good one to discuss with! His objections are pretty much the standard ones–nothing wrong with that–and he states them well and intelligently.

I have an answer for every normal objection–but that doesn’t mean the answer that satisfies me will satisfy everyone–and you’ve found the same I know–with Luke, for instance! But we all have One Teacher, and in the end we will be sure to come to the Truth.

Thanks for sharing, Alex!
Sonia

SLJ · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

I should also add that just because I claim to have answers does not mean that my answers are the best and most true answers! And that my answers “satisfy” me on some level does not mean I’m fully satisfied on every level with my understanding whatever the issue at hand is! The more I delve into scripture, the more I realize just how deep the waters are!

And yet, the important thing still remains simple: Love! Without it all knowledge is worthless; if we have love it doesn’t matter how little knowledge we have: we are sure to grow into true knowledge.

Sonia

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

Thanks for all the awesome comments!

In an exciting turn of events, On the way to a big (in Tasmanian terms) Christian event last night, I decided I must tell my church friend Joe (the author of the blog I’ve been anonymously posting on) that it was me, but after the event so not to potentially ruin it for him! Obviously, I was nervous about how he would react Anyway, when I arrived, he coincidently (I think) met me at the door and we sat together. Another friend, Sam, who I had organised to meet up and discuss EU with, sat down on the other side of me. Very nervous, would Sam mention it in front of Joe Fortunately, the event got underway. Funnily enough the first few songs felt, at least to me, to be really promoting UR! Anyway, the event went really well. At the end Joe turns to me and says, “What should I do is an anonymous person was posting on my blog and I knew who it was, but went a long with it?” I almost fell off my chair! I confessed it was indeed me and praise God he then burst into a smile and we both had a good laugh We both had been loosing sleep over it and stressing about how the other person would react. Huge relief, now I can talk openly with him and invite him here.

Feeling really pumped, I then went over to my church leader and confessed to him too. He laughed and told me he and the other leaders had known for months!!! If it were possible, I was even more relieved! He’s also happy to read TEU

On a roll, I went over to another church leader, who is high up in the Presbyterian church of Australia and told him too. He raised an eyebrow, but we had a great conversation and he ended up saying he wished it were true but couldn’t see the biblical evidence, however, he was keen to read TEU!

I than told another cousin and cousin-in-law.

Wow, what an evening! Unfortunately, when I got home I found the forum had vanished So that dampened my mood. It was hard to get to sleep last night.

JasonPratt · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

Awesomeness!

Also, the forum is back up now.

amy · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

This is such great news, Alex, that they treated you so well and seemed willing to read the book!!! How funny that it was no surprise to them. I wondered, as passionate as you are, how you were keeping it under wraps. Their willingness to engage you speaks of how much they value you, I think.

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

I’m going to post my replies to Joe’s original post here, after I post them on his blog.

I:

I agree there are many types of universalism and that many are in both of our minds, outright heresy. e.g. pluralism, liberalism to the extent of throwing out the bible, or at least great chunks of it!

“1.The biblical doctrine of sin is leaked of its full gravity: instead of sins against an infinitely holy and glorious God being infinitely evil and so deserving eternal punishment, sin is less serious because regardless of the greatness of God sins against him are committed by finite and ignorant people and do not deserve the punishment that God in his justice has promised to deliver.”

The problem with this is that your sins and mine were “sins against an infinitely holy and glorious God being infinitely evil and so deserving eternal punishment” and yet God, through Christ’s sacrifice, was able to solve this for you and I, without leaking sin of it’s full gravity. Secondly I do believe God will punish many, just not for an infinite period of time, and I see this as His promise.

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

JasonPratt · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

I would have added that Arms and Calvs both agree that God has no problem chastening/disciplining us in this life in order to lead us to repentance! The Hebraist whom Joe likes to reference has some strong things to say about that, to give only one of very many scriptural examples.

If Arms and Calvs can accept this as a valid way of instruction and purgation by God without ethically rejecting it as being “preliminary torture” (and obviously they can), then they ought to have no problem accepting the same principle in practice later. (Ditto for “Arms” and “Calvs” among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, too, of course.)

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

I agree Jason.

I:

“Consequently God’s justice cannot demand eternal punishment because that would be ‘unjust’, because the sins of every person in this view do actually come to an end. Punishment, rather than God’s spirit, causes people in hell to eventually stop sinning. And where they stop sinning, God’s punishment must stop. By default then at that moment they must be admitted into eternal life by God.”

Your sins will actually come to an end, and that doesn’t undermine God’s justice. Why should God’s mercy to someone (or even everyone) else undermine His justice? God is already showing some mercy to people in Hell by sustaining them, otherwise they would cease to exist. God’s doesn’t change, and His attitude towards all creation is merciful now, so it makes sense that this would continue. i.e. God’s Spirit would be at work in Hell.

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

“2.The biblical doctrine of eternal punishment (Heb 6:2) is gutted: rather than it paralleling ‘eternal’ life (as in Mt 25:46), which all agree to be truly everlasting, ‘eternal punishment’ adopts a nullified definition of “eternal” (no longer actually meaning ‘everlasting’ as eternal life does) together with a demoted definition of “punishment” (no longer referring to deserved and ‘final’ justice without mercy, but instead it actually becomes another form of mercy because it serves to actually ‘discipline’ people in order to teach them and so cause them to repent).”

If the Greek word “aionios” doesn’t mean infinite duration of time, but rather “pertaining to God”, “lasting” or “an age of”, then nothing is gutted and Mt 25:46 still makes sense. I think the author was more focused on the quality (i.e. with God) rather then the duration. However, we find in other passages that the New Creation has no rust, decay or death, so we can imply from that it is indeed infinite. So I agree the life is everlasting, but not because I think the word is “everlasting”. Punishment motivated by mercy is no less valid then punishment motivated by hatred of sin, in fact from the perspective of the ones receiving it, it will feel just as painful.

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

I:

“Don’t make too much of ‘anthropos’, which may even be translated as ‘husband’ depending on context. From the little Greek I know, and checking back with my Gk-Eng dictionary anyway, ‘anthropos’ means when plural: People; mankind, humanity; husband; son; servant.”

1Ti 4:10b (YLT) “God, who is Saviour of all men-especially of those believing.”

Ok, let’s look at the content of “anthropos” to try to determine what it probably means. “God, who is Saviour” doesn’t restrict it, in fact the Greek word appears to support an inclusive “all” in John 4:42b (YLT) “[Jesus] is truly the Saviour of the world-the Christ”, 1Tim 2:3b-4a (YLT) “God our Saviour, who doth will all men to be saved” and John 4:14b (YLT) “the Son-Saviour of the world”. “especially of those believing” doesn’t restrict it, but supports it, if believers especially have God as Saviour, imply that non-believers have God as Saviour to a lesser degree (I would say this fits nicely with the concept of the Church of believers now, being the firstfruits in God’s plan of salvation).

“The verse just reads “all men,” similar to the way for example that Acts 2:17 speaks of “all flesh” receiving the outpouring of the Spirit, not at all meaning all flesh ‘on the planet’.”

If you were a post-milleniumist, you would say that indeed God will pour out his Holy Spirit on “all flesh” on the planet. Even if this isn’t the case, generally “all” means “all”, unless you can find immediate context that restricts it.

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

Paragraph by paragraph takes a while, but I want to try to engage, albeit partially, with everything that he raises. Is there a way to move a selection of posts to a new topic? i.e. all the ones from Joe’s blog into a new topic called “Joe: Universalism - Whether to draw the line?”

I:

“God is of course also elsewhere referred to as the Judge of ‘all’ and the Father of ‘all’, but in those situations we would not dare to conclude from those references alone a Universal ‘judgment’ on all nor a Universal ‘adoption’ of all. Only when we look at these texts with a broad view within their context, as we need to with all texts, including 1 Tim 4:10, do we keep ourselves from speculating about them from isolation. We see from the broader context what is intended by the reference to “all” and “saviour” (and “judge” and “father” of all):”

I was under the impression that all of us would face God on Judgement Day, and that only those found in Christ will be spared Hell. I find Rom 11:36 to be helpful for the broader view, “seeing that out of Him and through Him and into/for Him is all: to Him be the glory into/for the eons! Amen!” (CLV). What came out of God? All. What came through God? All. What is going back to God? All. Also another picture is found in Rev 5:13 “And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all in them, I hear also saying, ‘To Him who is sitting on the throne- to the Lambkin- be blessing and honor and glory and might into/for the eons of the eons!’” (CLV) John goes to great lengths to show that all creatures, without exclusion, will worship God. And in case it’s suggested this is forced/fake worship, John 4:24 tells us that true worship requires the Spirit.

I:

“There was only ever one Saviour for all Israel in the context of Israel’s history. The Prophets of Old declared that. But this fact did not result at that time in ‘salvation’ for all Israel, because the people of which God was Saviour rejected him as their Saviour. And the permanent destruction of the 10 northern Israel tribes by the Assyrians, only leaving Judah behind, is a grim picture (albeit on the temporary stage of his kingdom as revealed in Israel as nation) of the irreversibility of God’s final judgment when it falls.”

I don’t think this show it as irreversible, but rather a long complex process in which God works to bring about His promises. Romans explains that the above chapter of history was to allow the salvation to be extended to everyone, before completing the promised salvation of all Israel.

amy · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

Enjoying reading your responses, Alex! I think you are doing a fine job. I’m convinced!

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

Thanks Amy

JasonPratt · April 9, 2018, 4:27pm

Note: Alex has also presented a (relatively) brief article from Joe, for site commentary, in our “Discussion Negative” subcategory in the thread "Why I’m not a Universalist-5 initial reasons against UR ".

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:40am

I:

“For example the “all flesh” in Acts 2:17 can’t be read as meaning every single individual in existence without exception will receive baptism in the Spirit. Firstly we bring to this text a context that helps us see that it is immediately restricted to a subset: God’s people. And within that, Israel were excluded by default (‘no-one will see the KOG unless he is born again’) and included only when/if they believed, as did Peter himself. And of those who believed, then in context “all” without distinction were to be recipients. However, judging by in the immediate context of the reference itself, it seems that “all types” of people was most likely the type of use that is view: ‘all’ meaning women as well as men, young as well as old, servants as well as free, all types of people in this new age will have the Spirit.”

Act 2:17-21 (ESV):

And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

I don’t know why you would immediately restrict it to existing Christians, as it certainly sounds like it’s a passage trying to cover everyone. Given that the “wonders in the heavens” haven’t occurred yet, I assume this prophesy is for the end of the “last days”, rather than now. The Spirit coming to everyone isn’t a problem for postmillennialism. Ponder the Lord’s Prayer “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.” What % of heaven does God’s will? All. Therefore, when we pray “as it is in Heaven”, we are praying that all earth does God’s will! The only way that could happen, is if God gives His Spirit to everyone.

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:41am

I:

“And I assume you understand the origins of the doctrinal system that has emerged through history that is now Universalism. Until recently only a small minority have held to Universalism. I’m aware of Origen’s view which was later condemned at the 553AD Council. I’m not sure if you’ve heard of Arnobius of Sicca and his defence in 300ish. And of course then came Aquinas’ views. By my reading, Universalism only emerged ‘seriously’ in the English world in the late 1800s and then into evangelical theology in the late 1900s, but now has very recently been defended in detail. Before that it was only a very small minority of writers, to my knowledge. And these views go against the very widely held views of the majority of writers & scholars throughout history.”

I agree with C.S. Lewis who said in that the strongest arguments for Universalism actually come from the writings of the Apostle Paul I don’t claim to be very strong on Church history, however, I have looked into this area a bit and Robin’s new book explores this question in a lot more detail. As far as I know, Origen’s universalism wasn’t actually condemned, it was his other crazy views. Anyway, Gregory of Nicaea (who oversaw the Nicene Creed and was named the “Father of the Fathers” by the seventh ecumenical council in 787) was openly a universalist. Also Augustine said it was a common view. It was people (Constantine and/or Justinian?) outside the Church (or at using the Church as a political tool) who forcibly shut it down, not the Church. Unfortunately, it got mixed up and confused with Unitarianism in the late 1800s. So yes, whilst sadly it has been a minority view for hundreds of years, it’s finally growing again.

“My question, then to you, is that if you had never read CS Lewis in the first place, much less the recent big defence you discovered 10 years and that you read only 6 months ago, would you honestly think that you would have arrived at these new beliefs, just by: 1, reading the Bible alone, and 2, getting it to bare on your thinking so as to, 3, continually revise your own understanding into conformity with it by, 4, a continual process of stripping away your own false understandings that come from natural presuppositions that we all unavoidably bring to the bible, which effecting our comprehension of it?”

Possibly. Over 15 years ago, when I hadn’t read much CS Lewis, I remember wrestling with the apparent contradictions in the Bible between God’s Love and Justice. The traditional explanations never felt very satisfactory. The fact that someone had to suggest to me a better way to hold those verses together, doesn’t mean it can’t be true.

I:

“That’s why we need to take serious care to bring our presuppositions to the Bible in order for them to be stripped away, rather than allow them to sit over the Bible and change our reading of it, and so ‘interpret’ it for us; whether Calvinism or anything else. In fact, it is not our business to ‘interpret’ the Bible; our job is to ‘comprehend’ the Bible’s own self-interpretation of itself.”

I agree, particularly mainstream presuppositions, which are harder to notice. Where does the translation from Greek/Hebrew to English come into it?

“What don’t you understand? The original article talks about: 1, Questionable Christians, 2, False Teachers, and, 3, Disobedient but true Christians. A sincere Evangelical Universalist (as you’ve described yourself) who is otherwise living as a Christian in fruitful obedience (as I believe you are from your description) does not fit into any one of these three categories unless of course you begin teaching Universalism, which I believe would begin opening you up to the charge of ‘false’ teaching.”

Thanks, I only wasn’t sure which category, if any, you had put me in

I’ve now replied to all the points in his first thread. Now to try to do the same with his next post: talkingchristianity.blogspot.com … itial.html