I did add support to Michael’s claims when I wrote…
Michael said that all are predestined to be with God. How is this contradictory? Some are elected to salvation in this life (the sheep who hear Christ’s voice and follow him, John 10:27) while others are not appointed unto salvation in this life (those who are not his sheep), but will ultimately be reconciled to Christ (Eph 1:10; Col 1:20). Thus, ultimately all are predestined to salvation in Jesus Christ; some in this life and some in the age to come.
The difference being is, the ones who are “saved” are predestined to be so, even having the desire “put” into them. Are you saying that this is the universalist model? It sounds (to me) more like universalism and double predestination mixed into one. Please explain how you find this as the biblical model.
There is not a singular universalist model. There are universalists that are more Calvinistic and there are those who are more Arminian in their approach to the liberty of the human will. In the book Michael referenced above, Hope Beyond Hell by Gerry Beauchemin (which you told Michael he should read again), Beauchemin says:
Beauchemin’s approach is more Calvinistic than say, Thomas Talbott, who gives more credence to human liberty. Is one more of a universalist than the other?
1824, you keep on sidestepping the question, as did Michael.
Do you believe that God has selected only a few to be saved, and all others are not saved because they are predestined not to be saved?
Bouncing back and forth with generalities is just keeping the game of contradictions in play. Just answer the question please. Are the people who are unsaved only unsaved (and stored up for punishment) because God has not “put” in them the desire for “cosmic security”?
Sure,
Central to the belief in UR is the principle that ALL of mankind will be saved, regardless of what man chooses. That means that we are subject to the will of God and not to our own will.
Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
We were made sinful and were so not willingly.
And Michael was right that we cannot choose not to sin. It is our nature. So in truth we are bound by this and do not have theological “free moral agency” where we can make any decision we want without outside influence or consequences like in a vacuum.
that in essence is at the heart of the myth of free will.
I agree that only God draws. But Michael said that some will be saved and some will be burned for eternity. That is not solid UR teaching. That is mixing UR and ECT and he said that because of their unwillingness to repent while burning, they will stay in captivity and torment for eternity. That flies in the face of “aion” meaning age and not eternity. Fundamental to UR teaching. Now not all will be in the church, but absolutely none will be burned for eternity. His doctrine is not sound. He has mixed his beliefs in other posts as well. My objection is not towards his beliefs being mixed, but his trying to sell me a bridge in New York as if he is posting like a teacher telling me something I don’t already know when he clearly hasn’t grasped the fundamentals of UR yet. If God created the Pharisees, then they were his, just that they were astray. His entire purpose for creation was to fulfill a need within his own character to save. Do you really think Almighty God himself would create anything and allow some of it to fall out of his control and will and purposes? Not a chance.
Ok, thanks. I am new to universalism, and what I am starting to see is that there are many different strands of the universalism beliefs. I became acquainted with universalism by reading the early church fathers. I have noticed that not many hold to the original universalism as was presented by the Apostolic fathers. The rejection of free will, as an ideal, is a big call. I know you feel that God’s Sovereignty is at stake…, nevertheless, to reject freewill requires that God is responsible for sin, for outside of God’s Will, nothing is possible. We are all robots in a sense. Free agency is pivotal to scripture and faith, IMO. Rejection of free will opens up a big theological can of worms. That’s another subject.
He is responsible for sin. Where do you think it came from. It had to be created. And then placed in the midst of his own creation. Only God could do that.
Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity (moral depravity), not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
We aren’t robots, but we are works in progress, being led, inspired and provoked by a benign dictator who is teaching and proving us and chastising us as sons so that we can learn to overcome and be formed in the image and the likeness of that first seed that died…Jesus Christ himself. That’s what it is all for. Everything, subject to that one purpose.
This is a complex subject that might be out of the scope of the current thread. I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think it is as simple as you are suggesting.
Yes, I agree. Free moral agency is involved in making choices as we progress; and faith, obedience and morality is a choice. I don’t see God as a dictator in any shape or form. Creation into the “image and the likeness of that first seed” is a process that involves our participation, and our free choices. For these choices we are either rewarded of “punished”. God is Sovereign regardless of whether we agree with Him or not. God’s sovereignty does not stand or fall on our compliance. That is like trying to paint God in two-tone and insisting that only two colors can paint God. God is not restricted by our strict word definitions or our weakness in seeing outside the box. That is our problem, not God’s. Anyway, that’s another topic.
I thought I was being 100% clear in my posts above, but I’ll say it another way so maybe you’ll understand me better.
I’ll not use Michael’s term “Cosmic security” as that seems to be something he coined.
God is Sovereign. If God is not sovereign then he is not God. God has ordained all things whatsoever come to pass, as there is nothing outside His sovereign control.
No man comes to Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:44). We will not otherwise come to Christ because, by nature, we do not want him. The elect are effectually drawn to Christ by the work of the Spirit in this lifetime. The non-elect are not effectually drawn to Christ in this lifetime; thus, they do not come to him that they may have life.
God has ordained all things, including the means through which the Spirit works to effectually draw all mankind to him, and the time at which He will effectually call us. The elect will be effectually called in this age. The non-elect will not be effectually called in this age, but will be effectually called in that which is to come.
As I said, I will not use the term “cosmic security.” All people remain unconverted until they are effectually drawn by God. The effectual call is necessary to incline our desires as by nature we will not desire the things of Christ.
I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from.
I’m sure that Michael can clarify for himself, but I do not see where he said that “some will be burned for eternity” in **this **thread. I do recall him saying something to that effect in another thread (but I think that is only because he is questioning things). I only meant to say that in this thread he has written nothing that is necessarily disagreeable to UR. I also agree that he should tone down the absoluteness of his posts.
By backing him up in this thread, I am attempting to show him that there is nothing in this thread that is necessarily disagreeable from a universalist perspective.
By the way, from what I have read of your posts here and in other threads, I’m pretty sure that you and I are on the same page.
You have still side-stepped my questions by answering with something else entirely: your definition of God’s sovereignty. You are avoiding the crux of my questions. What you (and Michael) are describing is double-predestination. The sheep are predestined to be saved and the goats are predestined to God’s disciplinary wrath of “the lake of fire”. By backing Michael up you are agreeing with this interpretation.
I have not heard of other universalists who believe that God has predestined the unsaved to God’s disciplinary wrath (LoF). Could you point me to any of the universalist theologians who clearly teach this Calvinist doctrine of double-predestination.
BTW., the argument against free-will is a novel approach which was not shared by the earlier universalists (as far as I know). It appears to be penned to avoid the criticisms that free agents are capable of being disobedient and punished for their rebellions. There is no problem if you remove free-will. This is a very slippery slope. Remove free-will and you make God responsible for every act of evil that has ever been done. It is diabolical.
You are the only one who wants to use the term “double predestination” which neither Michael nor I have claimed. For some reason you are bent on forcing that term on us. Michael specifically said, “Nowhere have I talked about double predestination. Go back and re-read what I wrote.” He also said, “Everyone is predestined to be with God.” - but apparently you weren’t listening.
I agree with Michael (and Watchman who said much the same) that all mankind are predestined to salvation. I said that God ordained all things that come to pass. I also said that the non-elect will not be effectually called in this age, but will be effectually called in that which is to come. I will not use the term double predestination to describe that as that term carries with it a lot of baggage.
I guess you are free to call it what you like. Do you really need to attempt to drive a wedge between yourself and everyone else on this forum? Unless you have anything of substance to add to this thread, I’ll consider this conversation over.
I was listening Dan. Both you and Michael both claimed, as your answer, that God is sovereign and God controls all things, and when I used the Calvinist term to describe your view, you then claimed that Calvinism was compatible with universalism:
While you don’t like the term "double predestination, you have endorsed the view that those who reject Christ are predestined to do so, even if they are later predestined to receive Christ. This is a very strange idea IMO.
Michael did not say this, he said that only the saved have had a desire for “cosmic securuty” put into them. You endorsed this view by claiming that God is sovereign.
I understand why you would not use the term, but you are teaching it even though you refuse the term. You can’t have it both ways. This was my original claim that Michael (and you) are weighed down with contradictions.
Dan, you decided to play hero for Michael and get involved in a subject you cannot defend and now back away from. Why did you do this? Because you have sour grapes with me over some of your friends leaving the forum after they had a dispute with me. You should not have stuck your nose in and tried to play hero. I hope you leave me alone from now on.
I support all that Steve and Pilgrim have asked/said in this thread and would only add one further comment
I am sure we all have a lot of friends who see no need to believe in God or eternal life. However I am sure we also have many such friends who in this life, in this world, seek “goodness and justice”, who “love and are loved”, many who are far better than ourselves , who experience awe and wonder, recognise their faults, are forgiving, compassionate and so on.
How is that so?
Is it not simply the natural response, albeit unknowingly to unbelievers, to the love and goodness that every human being is born with? And who but God is Love and Goodness?
, who experience awe and wonder, recognise their faults, are forgiving, compassionate and so on.