The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Joe: Why I'm not a Universalist-5 initial reasons against UR

Tonight, at dinner, my dad was explaining Aaron’s view about how it was the people in 70 A.D. that were salted and his view of destruction, that now, of course, I can’t recall. It’s amazing how many ways to look at things there are. And until it’s explained to me it never even occurs to me that there is another way to see it. It’s understandable that there are so many outlooks. It’s hard for me to understand how there are some that see things so black and white. It’d be nice, at least, if people could appreciate the complexity of scripture and acknowledge the reasons for our differences, that we genuinely see scripture differently - not that we are trying to twist everything up. Sometimes it feels as if the more I learn, the less I know. It can be disconcerting. Most of us just want to be told what to believe. It sure would be easier that way. I’m so glad God doesn’t care that we have all the things sorted right in our head.

I’m nervous for you Alex. I hope the people you share with treat you well. I think they are decent enough people, but even decent enough people with the views that Joe expressed about the reasons for why one should leave their church can justify in their minds reasons to exclude people like you, even as you are desiring to be tolerant of them. But let’s think positive, right!

I’m following in Sonia’s pessimism here. Uh oh!

Amy, don’t worry, Joe’s a good guy, he won’t be nasty to Alex, although I can’t imagine either of them changing their mind. But I hope you guys sit inside, 30 degrees in Hobart will melt the asphalt.

I can relate to this, Amy! But I think if God had wanted that, He’d have handed us a manual of Systematic Theology–not the hodge podge mix of letters, narrative, poetry, prophecy and visions that the Bible is. There’s good reason for it, I’m sure. It’s not just about knowing the right facts, it’s a real and living relationship with a God too big to fit in that kind of a box. That would be kinda like what He gave Israel when they came out of Egypt–and we see how well that worked out!

:laughing: I’m only a short-term pessimist, in the long run I’m very optimistic! :smiley:

Sonia

I’m so glad, Luke. :stuck_out_tongue: I imagine that Joe is a good guy. It’s been my experience, too, that minds aren’t easily changed. I think convictions take time to develop and are affected by our experiences.

Sonia, I could resist teasing about your pessimism. And it’s true that, as EU’s, we all are really optimists! You can’t believe in EU and be a pessimist, I guess.

This is exciting. I especially like Sherm’s reply (as usual, of course! :wink:)

Just more fodder for my book… hopefully I’ll get around to begin writing it up and putting it together soon…

Do not some scholars see the age to come as unending, though?

The meeting with Joe, over iced tea and coffee, went well. Good to catch up with him and talk about non-EU, common interest stuff first :sunglasses:

Briefly talked about which view was more glorious, and then 1 Tim 4:10, but unfortunately ran out of time.

He gave me some Carson, Packer, etc. to read. I’ll try to get electronic versions to post on forum, or just post the interesting bits as I go along.

Alex, my dad (Bob Wilson) this summer saw Packer up at Regent College, in Canada, this summer when he was taking a class. He went to one of his seminar. He was saying that Packer is convinced that Col. 1:20 means all things. He said he was dying to ask him about it and why then God only elects to save some, but it was off limits since people were mostly just getting to know him. Maybe my dad can comment on this more.

Alex, I commented somewhere in the past to what Amy alludes. Packer offered a class on exegesis of Colossians, and I made sure that I sat in when he got to 1:20. I believe he clearly enunciated that the “all” in 1:20 in context (being all things created) can have no exception, and those who try to limit its’ total reconciliation are violating the text. Then, curiously he said, “I know that sounds then like universalism which we know is a false teaching (and I believe Packer rejects annihilationism). But I am simply not going to talk about how 1:20 can be reconciled with a non-universalist conclusion!” I admired his honesty about what Colossians says, but it felt like a cop-out to explicitly refuse to address the tension with his traditional Calvinism that his good exegesis acknowledged.

Very interesting. I’ll keep that in mind. Maybe we should invite Packer as a guest :sunglasses: