Hopefully I’ll get a chance to process this & respond soon… but feel free to give me suggestions!
Hi Alex
Looks to me like a lot of your friend’s objections can be answered by the simple expedient of rejecting PSA. Which is something a lot of Christians are doing these days - irrespective of their beliefs about EU.
Good luck!
J
I’ll take a stab at the first section – your friend is asking you to write a book, though they are all good and thoughtful questions. I wonder if he really wants to READ a book? 
I would say that absolutely, Jesus died for our sins. He died for the sins of the whole world, so they’ve been paid for – all of them. There’s nothing in scripture saying we have to validate that contract by acceptance before it becomes active. Abraham didn’t have to sign anything when God made the covenant with him. He slept through the whole thing. Abraham wasn’t capable of entering into and keeping the agreement, so God took both parts; “I covenant that I will do such and such. I further covenant that you and your descendents will do such and such. If either of us defaults on this covenant, I agree to pay with My blood.” He paid and it was and is sufficient and will BE sufficient always.
IMO, EVERYONE is saved only after a period of refining. We who bear His name are being refined here and now, and we are very blessed to have been granted the boon of believing though we do not yet see. If others must still be refined following physical death, that doesn’t seem strange to me. Jesus took the penalty (or the wages) of sin on behalf of the entire Adamic race as our representative, but He ALSO died to set us FREE from sin, according to Paul in Romans. Having our sins forgiven and being FREE from bondage to sin are two different things. One destroys the product; the other sets us free from the tyranny of the manufactury of sin. We still sin, but no longer can we say that we cannot NOT sin. In Christ we are set free, through His death and resurrection. Therefore it is not enough to be forgiven; we must also have the power to live righteously (or to put it negatively) to NOT sin. Even with the work of Christ, Paul commands the readers of his epistles to DO certain things and NOT DO other things. It is all summed up (IMO) in his exhortation to “Put on Christ.”
Therefore no one does come to the Father except through Christ, for it is through Christ that we die to our old selves and live in newness of life in Him.
In answer to (b) I would contend that Jesus did take on Himself the penalty for sins, but that this was not a punishment as though Father would punish a righteous and innocent man for the crimes of a guilty rebel. That would be unjust. Jesus took the PENALTY for sin; that is, He died. And in Him, we died, as God has put us in Christ. In Him we have also been raised. We died to this world (and its system/government/bondage) and we have been placed into the Kingdom of the Son of His love. We are no longer subject to the reign of sin; we are now the subjects of Christ. Those who have not yet placed their trust in Jesus are still subject to this world and to the wages of sin, which is death. Paul cannot be talking about physical death here or we who follow Jesus would not physically die. He is obviously talking about spiritual death – as in “we were dead in trespasses and sin but now have been made alive through Christ Jesus.” In order to be made alive however, we DO have to die to the trespasses and sin – to this world and its god. That is part of the refining, and we ALL go through that – whether now or later or a little of both.
© I’m not sure that scripture DOES teach that repentance and belief during this present age IS necessary. I see no reason to suppose so except for our tradition. Repentance and belief ARE necessary, but I don’t see the deadline (physical death) that we have placed on the transaction anywhere in scripture. I’ve looked for this diligently and I can’t find it. If you can show me persuasive evidence of it, I’d be happy to look at that.
Hope that helps you as you mull over what to say to your friend, Alex. If no one comes in and posts on the rest of his letter, I may drop back later and give it a try.
Blessings, Cindy
You slap me for no good reason. I can either slap you back, or turn the other cheek. Either way, your sin has consequences. If I slap you back, I increase the pain in the world and alienate you even more. If I forgive you, I limit the pain by bearing it all myself, and so doing, open the door to reconciliation.
These are the alternatives: bear the pain, or increase the pain.
God forgives us, and has always forgiven us. It is costly and painful. Love bleeds. It always has and always will, because that’s what love does. Love was crucified before the foundation of the world. Christ’s suffering was both necessary and inevitable because God’s love is necessary and inevitable. Yes, Christ brought forgiveness into being, but equally true, forgiveness brought Christ into being. He is the revelation of God bearing the pain. If God wasn’t by nature eternally forgiving, then Christ himself (the true icon of this God) would not exist.
Our only hope lies in a good God who is willing to bear the pain of humanity’s monstrous crimes. “Christ is the only way to the Father,” is merely another way of saying this.
All this is a million miles from judicial models of atonement. Of course it is just for God to forgive sins. The whole world belongs to Him and he can do whatever he wants with his own property. Yes, the Bible is clear an innocent victim must suffer, but that victim is God himself who willingly bears the pain. This is what forgiveness is, for crying out loud: the innocent victim bearing the pain. The crazy idea that God must find some *external *victim (Jesus) to somehow satisfy “divine justice” is unnecessary, absurd and monstrously unjust (as well as being non-Trinitarian.)
Those who believe God is good, who understand their sins are forgiven, who gaze at Christ with their mind’s eye and see the Father, who draw this Holy Air deep into their lungs, these people will begin to experience a new sort of life. Those who reject Christ (ie. refuse to believe God is good), who refuse to drink, will experience only an ever increasing thirst.
Just a thought…I wonder if Allan’s illustration on another thread may be useful here
I think you and I have friends who think in similar ways, Alex. I wonder if they think that we are saying that hell is the medicine rather than hell driving people to the medicine. They think we are saying that hell does the job that Christ’s death does, rather than God using hell to bring people to the end of themselves, to cry out in humility for the true medicine - God’s love and mercy given to us through Christ.
I find it interesting that many people appeal not to scripture, but logical arguments, and yet often seek to affirm that logical arguments are not a valid foundation of faith, only scripture. In answer to the logical arguments though I’d say that:
Your friends statements ASSUME many presuppositions that I disagree with.
First, I don’t think people are saved after refining, but saved/healed through refining, whether we are privaledged to experience such in this life and the life to come or only in the life to come. We shall all be judged! That which is lasting will be purified and that which is not lasting will be burnt up. Judgment in an “eternal” reality and we shall all experience/endure it. I’ve tasted of the judgment of God; it was bitter, even painful, going down, but it filled my heart with the power of life.
Second, I no longer think of the sacrifice of Christ in such judicial terms. Jesus did not die as a vent for the wrath of God, God abusing Himself so that He doesn’t have to abuse us. Rather, God took the abuse we deal out and did not return that abuse in kind; rather He forgave. Why did Jesus die? To reveal to us God’s love for us, to reveal to us that though we are wicked to the bone, we are still of such great value to God, loved by God, that He’d die for us! And it is this love that, well, burns the hell out of us. It was at the cross that I realized my value and the evil of my sin. God suffers because of my sin because He loves me. Why did Jesus die on the cross? To show us how to overcome anger and agression with personal self sacrifice, returning forgiveness for evil, not with returning evil for evil.
Third, the scriptures do not lie when they affirm that faith in Jesus and repentance from sin is necessary to participate in the kingdom of God. Believing that all ultimately believe and repent, if not in this life then the life to come, in no way negates the need for faith and repentance. If 100 people are drowning and the life-guard saves all 100 people, does that negate the need for the saving? Of course not!
Fourth, it seems your friend thinks of “eternal life” as only hoping to go to heaven someday, whereas I believe and have experienced that “eternal life” and the kingdom of God is a present reality with a tremendous future hope. I trust in God today and repent from sin today and can perceive the kingdom of God in operation today and trust God that He will one day make all things right. Our message is “Repent for the kingdom of God is ‘at hand’, within reach today!” not “Repent so that you can go to heaven someday.” But Repent so that your heart can be filled with heaven today.
On the other hand, I know people who are (in a way) even more Christian universalistic than I am (ultra-universalists, who deny any post-mortem punishment, compared to purga-u’s like myself), and I recall them all being very gung-ho for PSA!
I have occasionally said that if I accepted PSA I’d be even more of a universalist than I already am, by the same token. (Although less of a trinitarian, also by the same token. That’s kind of another topic, but one that I wish fellow trinitarians would notice.)
Anyway, at the risk of writing a book 
:
If anyone at all is going to be saved, then how important was Jesus’ death for those who do not believe before He dies for their sake? And if Jesus’ death eliminates any need to be led to repent of sin and accept Jesus as Lord, why does God require us to repent of sin and accept Jesus as Lord? And if Jesus’ death eliminates any need to be chastised for our sins before we’re saved, why does God goad people toward salvation before they repent of their sins and accept Jesus as Lord? (“Saul, Saul, it is hard for you to kick against the goads!”)
Perhaps Alex’s friend does not believe that God makes the heart of proud people contrite before they repent of their sins and accept Jesus as Lord; but if not, then he is the one not following the scriptural testimony on that topic. (However, he clearly does, so he agrees with us that far.)
If he does believe in preliminary chastisement from God, as a tool God can and does use where necessary for evangelization, then he either thinks preliminary chastisement contravenes Jesus’ death somehow, or that it does not: if he does think God’s preliminary chastisement contravenes Jesus’ death somehow, then he’s the one with the contradictive problem there; if not, then he agrees with us in principle in there being no problem.
If he believes Jesus’ death was not important for those who do not yet believe, then he’s the one not following scriptural testimony on that topic; if he does believe Jesus death was important for those who do not yet believe, then he agrees with us to that extent. Relatedly, if he doesn’t believe that we are baptized into the death of Jesus and must share in the death of Jesus so that we may also share in His life, then he’s the one not following the scriptural testimony on that; if he does believe such things as said by St. Paul, then he agrees with us, too, so far.
The only element left over is the question of “this life”. Notably, none of his (1a-1c) points deals with that. His 1b may involve him denying that we’re supposed to share in the death of Christ, though. He’ll have to take that up with St. Paul, if he thinks that would contravene PSA: either it doesn’t contravene PSA, or Paul wasn’t teaching PSA after all, but Paul indisputably says we are to share the death of Christ.
If Jesus’ sacrifice was necessary to save anyone, which presumably A’s friend agrees with, then Jesus’ sacrifice would also be necessary to save everyone. Arminians typically agree that Jesus was sacrificed for everyone (just that some people will finally reject it); Calvinists typically agree that Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for everyone (just that God won’t apply it to some people). Calv and Arm analogues among the Catholics believe the same thing. Nor is this a recent doctrinal development, but is a position held by the strong (if not unanimous) majority of Christian authorities throughout history. Alex’s friend isn’t opposing universalists on this, but is opposing ALL CHRISTENDOM!–possibly including his own branch, unless he’s part of a sect even more in the minority than Christian universalists. That in itself wouldn’t make him wrong, but he needn’t treat us like we’re the ones doing something weird and unusual on this topic.
At any rate he ought to take the lead there in explaining why if Jesus’ sacrifice was necessary to save some people, Jesus’ sacrifice wouldn’t be necessary to save all people. Good luck with that.
Is that supposed to be the explanation for why God’s self-sacrifice wouldn’t be necessary to save all people but would be necessary to save some people? – God only saves some people because He doesn’t love people enough to save people? Maybe Alex’s friend thinks Jesus had to convince God to save anyone at all (schisming the Trinity totally) and only succeeded in convincing God to save some people from sin because He couldn’t possibly convince God to save all people from sin?
I can quote the scriptures, too, after all: “If God loves these flowers, which are here today and tomorrow are cast into the fire, how much more does He love you!” “For God so loved the world that He gives His Son the Only-Begotten so that everyone Who believes in Him should not be perishing but may be having life eonian.” “If anyone should be sinning, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Just, and He is the propitiatory concerning our sins, and not concerned with ours only, but concerned with the whole world also.” “Prayers, petitions, pleadings and thanksgivings should be made for all persons [even for the pagan tyrants] for this is ideal and welcome in the sight of our Savior, God, Who wills that all persons be saved and come into a realization of the truth.” Is it really necessary for me to cite these famous verses? How about this one? He who hates his brother and says he loves God is a liar, and God is not in him. (“And who is my neighbor?” asked the lawyer, attempting to justify himself in the face of the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves.)
Maybe the problem is that Alex’s friend holds a much lower view of man’s importance within the love of God Most High (Who is intrinsically love and created derivative persons in His image), than God does Who sent His Son to be born of woman and die on a cross for sinners.
Which the potter reshapes on the wheel if spoiled (Jer 18:2-6), and recreates if He must shatter it afterward. Isaiah 30:12-14ff – Israel is shattered like the smashing of a potter’s jar so that not a sherd remains large enough to scoop any water or hold a coal from a fire, also Jer 19, but most of Isaiah 30 is about what happens after the shattering: YHWH deals marvelously wonderful with those people despite their hearts being far from Him, and who were not willing to repent even when the invading Assyrians came to shatter them in such a way that no human could remake them. On that day the people God has deafened due to their sins will hear, and the peole God has blinded due to their sins shall see, and righteous Israel will no longer be ashamed of his children, for they will sanctify God’s name and stand in awe of the God of Israel. God waits to be gracious and merciful to them, promising that they shall eventually repent and He shall eventually restore them with great blessing, binding up the fracture of His people and healing the bruise of His blow against them.
True, the invading Assyrians get thrown into Topheth in Isaiah 30, but rebel Israel got thrown into Topheth in Jer 19, and that didn’t stop God from leading them to repentance (compared with righteous Israel who was ashamed of them). Isaiah 45 has potter/clay language, too (and we know this chapter was on St. Paul’s mind because he quotes it several times including Rom 14), and that whole chapter is about God’s absolute ultimate power to save sinners from sin and return them to loyal allegiance to God. The scope is total salvation from sin; none remain disloyal to God, Who (per Isaiah 29 as mentioned above) does not accept false worship of lying lips and a disloyal heart.
So it is true that God hardens whom He desires, as with blind rebel Israel in Isaiah 29, and it is also true that God has mercy on whom He desires, such as blind rebel Israel in Isaiah 29! The two groups are not mutually exclusive. Which is why Paul says God endures with much {makrothemia} the instruments of wrath that He has created to pour destruction: that term is everywhere else in the New Testament related to God’s intention to save sinners from their sins. Perhaps Alex’s friend is an Arminian and so doesn’t expect God to always succeed at that, but Calvinists know what is said about that term elsewhere. (Which is why they get nervous when they notice the term is here applied to people they think are supposed to be non-elect: they remember from Rom 2 that those who disregard God’s patience to save other sinners from sin, are signing up to be punished by God themselves.)
“If God loves these flowers which are here today and tomorrow are thrown into the fire, how much more does He love you, you of little faith.”
Whereas Paul regards the blood of Christ on the cross as sufficient to reconcile all things to God, whether things in the heavens or things on the earth; and stresses that if we, when we were helpless and enemies of God, have been reconciled to God through the blood of the cross, how much more shall we be saved into the life of Christ.
So your friend isn’t a trinitarian theist then? Because we who are trinitarian Christians don’t believe one person of God has to convince another person of God to accept us, but instead believe (along with some non-trinitarians) that God already loved the world enough to send the Son while we were yet sinners, and indeed sends the Holy Spirit into our heart to convict us of sin and of the truth so that we may pray Abba, Father. Trinitarian Christian universalists don’t believe that any less than other trinitarians do.
(On the contrary, I have run into very many more supposed trinitarian non-universalists who believe in the schisming of God’s own intentions, than I’ve run into Christian universalists who believe such a schism of the Persons.)
Said by David in a prayer for salvation from sin: God doesn’t act hopelessly against us because He remembers we are but dust.
Which God does not accept to leave as it is, but instead the Father sends the Son to reconcile us to Himself.
On the contrary, the scriptures say we are already children of God, though immature and rebellious, and already loved by God as His children, and if children then also heirs, so that at the acceptable time God sends His Son that we may be raised to the status of mature heirs in the son-placement (which your friend and his sources mistakenly translate “adoption”). (Gal 4)
Heb 8 has nothing at all to say against that (and much to say about God saving those from sin who have broken the covenant); whereas Eph 2 talks about the transcendent riches of God’s freely given joy in Christ Jesus, when talking about bringing the nations into the citizenship of Israel rather than having the nations only remain as guests and travelers (although those are honored, too, especially in a Near Middle Eastern culture). In that sense the nations also become sons; in the Fatherhood of God they were sons already, except immature ones, as Paul agrees (and positively argues from) at the Mars Hill forum (Acts 17).
At any rate, Christian universalists do not appeal to the merit and value of man, but to the love and justice of God (and especially so insofar as we are dogmatic trinitarians, believing God Himself to be essentially love and positive justice in and as an actively interpersonal relationship).
If we are wrong, we are wrong for overvaluing the love and justice of God, bringing the evangel of the untraceable riches of Christ to the nations (as Paul puts it in Eph 3), not for overvaluing man.
Craig, this is excellent, and a very helpful point for me. I think this is pretty foundational but have never heard it articulated in this way.
Yes. Excellent point.
