The Evangelical Universalist Forum

New Prooftexts, Proofpassages?

Theology Biblical Theology
#41

Cindy,

R u saying that eventually all people will freely choose God (a.k.a. “soft” universalism?) What is the guarantee, though, if God doesn’t override those who are implacable? But I guess ur saying it is okay for God to override the wills of those who never would choose Him?

I think the W ?s (and the how ? - why can’t they all be Ws so that they would all match ? :smiley: ) are important in ascertaining a text’s meaning surely, but why couldn’t God have been explicit and unambiguous about universalism? Why couldn’t Jesus have just preached on that (or mainly preached on that?) I can’t see how that message would be hard to make universally comprehensible… , and if necessary, God could reissue the message if people forgot it (tho, I guess, in away each generation of universalists is doing that)

#42

Not to speak for Cindy, but I think there are two ways in which we can address this question. 1) The guarantee doesn’t come from God overriding implacability per se. He can easily soften the hardness over time to enable a change of mind (or in cases such as the apostle Paul, make that an instant tranformation!)
2) The guarantee comes from God’s promises that all will come to know him/ be made new, although we may not be privy to the exact mechanisms by which this is accomplished.

#43

“why couldn’t God have been explicit and unambiguous about universalism?”

He could have. He chose not to. As to the why? There are speculations, but as far as I can tell, nobody really knows.

#44

I agree. I would say that this question is of a piece with questions such as why God doesn’t make his very existence explicit to us, or eradicate all evil and suffering from the world. While we can certainly explore such questions, a full, definitive and satisfying answer is forever beyond us - this side of the veil.

For what it’s worth, I think the reason Universalism isn’t clear and unambiguous in the Scriptures alone (for I believe that, when combined with the philosophical, moral and experiential arguments in its favour, it becomes utterly unambiguous) is because it is - like the beatific vision itself - something that needs to be attained, not presented as a fait accompli. I used to have a sign on my computer, when I was struggling to write a novel (still struggling, ha! :smiley: ): nothing worthwhile is easy. Nuff said.

Cheers

J

#45

My guess is because the basic universalist assumption i.e., grace to all, was never an issue from His perspective. Yes there was a blockage but that was always to be resolved, and was, in Christ. It seems to me that Christendom [as opposed to biblical Christianity] has muddied the waters with ambiguity for its own ends.