The Evangelical Universalist Forum

My Top Six Scriptures That Show Jesus Will Save All People


I have.

Truly I have. Any position I take on ANYTHING I always look at the opposing view. Its how I went from a annihilationist (for about a month or two) to a universal reconciliationist. I dont like echo chambers.

To me it has to do with progressive revelation. God was playing a role among His creation when exhorting them to do what He knew they would not because He destined it otherwise. To tell a story. To bring about things out of His creation and to bring about means to display His own purpose and messages (Pharaoh comes to mind here)

It isnt till the risen Christ appears to Paul that we get a divine and outright revelation that “God is working ALL things in accord to HIS will”. This is vaguely touched upon by o.t. prophets but never barging into our understanding like a battering ram like Paul does make it to be.

When I was an annihilationist the thing that REALLY pushed me to U.R. is that U.R. could give a logical explaination of the annihilation verses but the annihilation could never give a logical explaination for the U.R. verses. And the same applies to the free will/sovereignty debate to me. Foreordainment can make sense of the “free will” verses but the “free will” verses cannot give a logical explaination for the foreordainment verses. And thus is why I am one who believe in the reconciliation of all things and believe in Gods ultimate sovereignty over His creation to subject them to what ever purpose He may have.


If I didnt want to look further into the “free wills” side of the debate I wouldnt be asking so many times how it aligns with verses that dont fit into that puzzle. I wouldnt be here if I just wanted to stay to my own bubble. It can be frustrating sometimes. Ill admit that. And I may have retaliated with snappiness or bluntness in response to feeling ignored or belittled. But I am not here just to say Im right and they are wrong or I wouldve ended this conversation like that a long time ago.

Oh and I also forgot to say good morning back to you! even though its night time now :stuck_out_tongue:


never heard of it. got a quick synopsis or source that outlines its idea?


Until God turns the light switch on, thereby drawing a man, no one can exercise the God given gift of LFW God-ward. That verse says the man comes to Him, not that God does the coming for the man. So, arguably, its synergism, not monergism, it teaches.


Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future.”


Cool. thanks for the quick explanation. The only thing that would worry me about that is that “the future is conditional” then for one could that mean He recants His salvation to any or all and for two where would this fit with “God is unchanging” verse. As well as if He doesnt know everything could He truly be said to be omniscient?


Also how could He “tell the end from the beginning” if the end is not only subject to change but dependent on what we do?

And where would that leave “He is working all things in accord with His will”?


You’re right… it was never a question but an answer (as I state above) given to inform you — but like so many answers you don’t like you just blithely read right over it…


ironic projection?

Even if such deterministic verses were applicable to only israels redemption it would STILL BE DETERMINISTIC.

My questions werent directly being answered as qaz saw. Your answer would STILL not prove free will, even relative to israel. And simple yes or no answers werent being adressed until origen posted.

You seem snark. And ive grown tired of your patronization. So comment all you want but Im done responding since you wanna tongue in cheek insults towards me.


What in the name of St Peter and all the angels does THAT mean? No true American would ever talk…oh…wait…my bad. :slight_smile:

ATR - davo is from ‘down under’. I have been advised, warned, counseled, upbraided, by experience and direct communication from davo himself - he and his ilk are fond of rattling one’s cage, hoisting one’s petard, pulling one’s leg, tweaking one’s nose - in other words, he will prank you, poke you, prod you, etc. to the point of your hair spontaneously going all a-fire - and he will chuckle. I forgive him because he’s smart, contributes a lot, and is, under that southern equatorial crust, a good guy. Ignore the taunts if you can, he will probably teach you something. I hate to say it, but I - even I, the genius behind FWED - have learned from him. I hope he doesn’t read this. LOL


God is still flourishing the fruit of patience with me and I just cant. If I give civility and it is not reciprocated I just dont have the time or patience to entertain a person that, even IF they have a point, deliver it with such contempt that it just annoys me. Maybe one day I can tolerate it. But not today, not now.

Id rather just cut off the conversation between him and I then further my frustration and lash out in anger. I know I dont have the patience so Id rather withdraw before it gets outta hand.


currently reading through that source. But to me its just not sticking.

For one it says something along the lines of “God is omnipotent but cannot do something illogical” God is the author of logic, physics, mathematics etc. And I could think of no other illogically impossible action than creating something (the universe) from nothing. Or producing good from evil (the Cross)

Furthermore it renders prophecy as “educated guesses” for a lack of better words. That would be to say God just “got lucky” with His guesses about prophecies? Some of which prophecies had not prior precedent to use as a formula to guess (such as judas betraying Christ). Is Him “DECLARING [not guessing] the end from the beginning” just an educated guess that might go wrong too?

Also God could hardly be “all knowing” if He doesnt know the future. I understand that its stating He is all knowing in regards to whats already happened, but I personally wouldnt consider that “all knowing”.

Just seems a bit off to me so far. Ill keep reading but those are just a few red flags for me imo.

I think the idea came about to reconcile the idea of “free will” and Gods foreknowledge. But when you suppose the actual conclusion is He foreknows because He foreordained then that complication is hardly a complication imo.

It seems like a lot of sophistry to prove a point when I could sum up my stance in a few verses of scripture alone; “God counsels all things according to His will” He “creates good and evil” and “subjects creation as the potter over its clay” and that ultimately “He has declared the end from the beginning” and “His counsel shall stand”. Luckily that will of His being the reconciliation of all things back to Himself and creation being wiser having gone through the experience of suffering and evil to more greatly appreciate vivification, justification,grace and harmony among all creation.


So paidion, are you going to expound the potter and the clay?


Those are some excellent points, sure I could quibble about one or two, but why quibble? I think you have sufficient grounds for defending them. Others might have sufficient grounds for differing. In the end we choose what to believe.
I might say in passing: I’ve noticed that those of a Calvinist frame of mind - in general (not pointing at anyone here) - stress, above all else, God’s Sovereignty. That’s the beginning and end of their theology - His unlimited power to accomplish all He wills.
And of course, Sovereignty is something we can be thankful for, amazed at, and worship.
At the same time, Calvinists in general (and I was one for a spell) are wary of Love, God’s love. When I was becoming most aware of where I was differing from my Calvinist brethren, it was when I would say “God is Love” and they would always respond “Yes, BUT…” and go on to tulip, or stress that love is limited by justice , or any one of certain themes that put LOve well in the background.
To quote a famous man: “GOD IS LOVE”. That is imo infinitely of greater meaning to mankind than even Sovereignty. Pagans could conceive of a big powerful god, in fact bunches of them, and that puported power brought awe and fear and attempts to satiate that god’s desires.
So Power in a ‘god’ was not a scandalous thing to say in the Pagan world.
But Love, or as I like to say, sovereign love, was and is scandalous. The God with whom we have to do is first - Love. He has the power to accomplish the love he has for us who He has made, and nothing can separate us from that, to quote another famous man. The scandal is that He is the profligate Father, running to accept those who have rejected Him, debased themselves, and come groveling back not out of love, but out of need - and for those He throws a party and bids all to come.


Can immortality be “recanted”? God’s purpose of the eons is to head up all beings in the universe “in Christ” (Eph.1:9-11). Why would Love Omnipotent achieve that & then throw it away?

God is unchanging in His nature. In other ways He effects change, e.g. He abolishes the Old Covenant. He changes His mind about destroying a person when they repent:

Ezekiel 33: 13 When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it. 14 Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; 15 If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. 16 None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.


From the beginning He knew “the end”, i.e. that God will be “all in all” (1 Cor.15:28), not necessarily every detail in between the beginning & the end.

Even when men oppose His will (Mt.23:37).


The source seems to propose it as a possibility when it states “He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions.”

Fair enough on the second point about His essence unchanging.

I really would have liked to see them try to explain the more troubling passages though such as the ones Ive provided. I mean if God simply doesnt know, and lets us decide, how could it be said “He is working all things in accord with His will”. That verse and the potter and the clay verse seem to just contradict any type of notion that we are not being subjected to His will at all times.

Eh to me thats a bit of a stretch for Him to guess and would, likewise, be just a educated guess much like prophecy according to the ideology of open theism. It cannot be for certain until it is as the ideology states. I see the word “declare” as a stronger word than “guess”.

Yes even when men “oppose” His will. He has consigned people to disobedience (romans 11:32)

Again I think that it makes more sense that God is playing a role, and progressively informs us, but before a revelation of a certain matter is given (much like the revelation of “working all things in accord with his will”) He is playing a role under what knowledge man currently has of His being and our relationship to Him.


Did God create something from nothing or from His Word?

Is the cross producing good from evil, or the overcoming of evil by good?

I would say prophecy is not educated guesses, but sure things that God arranges by controlling the circumstances & people as much as is necessary to fulfill His word.

Paidon is the Open Theist here & has addressed this point before. In Open Theism God is omniscient in the sense that He knows all that can be known. That excludes LFW choices.


nothing was meant to indicate that there was nothing before His word. Not that His word, the catalyst by which He made kosmos, was nothing.

Well the cross definitely was evil, but it produced good. Id say it could be said to be both.

I know you said you are just looking into open theism and arent exactly sure or ascribed to the idea. But thats not how its presented. And if God arranges it by “controlling the circumstances and people” Id say that much like a potter controlling clay :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

I admitted I understand thats how they define “all knowing” I was just saying thats not how Id define it.


Also if “He knows only what can be known” then that WOULD render the declaration of the end from the beginning a “educated guess” and He does NOT truly know it to be true until it happens. UNLESS he “controls the circumstances and people” which I think validates my side more than invalidates it.