The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Non-Univeralsist Universalists

Evangelical Universalism
#1

I’ve come across a few of these; people who teach things that sure sound like universalism, but deny that it is universalism. Example: Thomas Torrance. He goes so far as to say that Christ* “has believed for you, fulfilled your human response to God, even made your personal decision for you, so that he acknowledges you before God as one who has already responded to God in him, who has already believed in God through him, and whose personal decision is already implicated in Christ’s self-offering to the Father, in all of which he has been fully and completely accepted by the Father, so that in Jesus Christ you are already accepted by him. Therefore, renounce yourself, take up your cross and follow Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.”
*
A rose by any other name? Yet he denies he is a Universalist. C. Baxter Kruger, a student of Torrance, also does this. Both will, after asserting that Christ has done everything, including exercising faith, assert that a person still has to exercise their free will to appropriate their salvation. Its like they move the goalposts.

Anyone notice this or have thoughts on this?

#2

I definitely have. I love Barth and Torrance.
I could never figure out why they didn’t go all the way from
universal atonment to universalism.

This blog entry will explain why they believ as they do…

martinmdavis.blogspot.mx/2011/04 … -pt-8.html

For Torrance (1993:248), both universalism and the doctrine of limited atonement are “twin heresies which rest on a deeper heresy,” that is, the recourse to a logico-causal explanation of why the atoning death of Christ avails or does not avail for all humanity. As Torrance pointedly argues, “Any such an attempt at logico-causal explanation of the efficacy and range of the atonement is surely a form of blasphemy against the blood of Christ.”

Let me know if this helps…

#3

The proposal that we need to allow God the “freedom” to decide the “end of the story” and that universalism is a presumptuous attempt to snatch such freedom from God sounds to me like an exhortation that we find another God “behind the back” of Jesus Christ. God has already shown his hand in the story of Jesus. He has already chosen, in his freedom, to “be our God.” (And what kind of “freedom” are we being asked to allow God here? The freedom to damn people he could just as easily redeem? To me, this sounds like the “freedom” for God to be someone other than God. Such a “freedom” is, to my mind, an imperfection and unworthy of God). " Robin Parry

#4

Just a guess and no more, but I suspect that at least some of these people (Barth in particular comes to mind) had/have enough problems without coming out as Universalist and being branded as heretics.

Beyond that, some people feel that believing in universal reconciliation and preaching it to the masses are two different things. They feel that the mass of humanity is better off being terrified of hell and thus having that motivation for living at least somewhat restrained lives as a result.

Maybe they were and/or are right for their times and situations. Maybe God is only now revealing this truth to the mass of humanity, or at the least to a few more of the elect (We hope we’re among the elect at any rate! Even Paul seemed somewhat uncertain after all.)

Mostly speculation, but some has some basis in history.

#5

Could be they’re just not ready to take that step, for whatever reason… :neutral_face:

#6

From the Martin Davis article:

This is just Arminianism. He can call it something else, but there it is.

#7

:smiley: one could rightly turn that argument around by stating the free decision of faith makes salvation impossible

#8

Hi everyone. As a trinitarian believer (not a fan of the labels), and acquaintance of Dr. Kruger’s, perhaps I can shed a little light on this issue. Where as the term, or the thought of universalism seems to deal only with mankinds eternal destiny, trinitarian theology deals somewhat more with our life now, participating in the love and life of Father, Son, and Spirit…our ZOE, of you will. It would seem that Jesus is much more concerned about us, his brothers and sisters, living the AIONIOS ZOE (poorly mistranslated in most of our English texts as ETERNAL LIFE). It seems to me that the Jesus was taught that the quality of our current life is comsiderably more important than ‘getting to heaven’.
Please don’t take me wrong. I am not speaking FOR Dr. Kruger, nor downplaying universalism. Just my thoughts on this discussion.

#9

Everything I’ve seen so far on Trinitarian Theology sounds like they say,
“Everyone is saved, but not everyone knows it, and those who don’t know it can’t enjoy it”.

I was surprised to find this post and see that Torrence wasn’t a Universalist.

I feel like I’m getting “Hi I’m an American, but I’m not an American”.

I read the blog entry from the link above, but being a layperson, it was like reading Greek. I dropped out mentally after the second occurrence of the word, “ontological”. :confused:

#10

I just now read this at gci.org/co/1304/universalism

“Universalism is a biblically unsound doctrine, which says that in the end all souls, whether human, angelic or demonic, will be saved by God’s grace. Some Universalists argue that repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ are irrelevant. Universalists typically deny the doctrine of the Trinity, and many Universalists are Unitarians. Contrary to universalism, the Bible teaches that there is salvation only in Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). In Jesus Christ, who is God’s elect for our sakes, all humanity is elect, but that does not necessarily mean that all humans will ultimately accept God’s free gift. God desires that all come to repentance, and he has created and redeemed humanity for true fellowship with him, but true fellowship can never constitute a forced relationship. We believe that in Christ, God makes gracious and just provision for all, even for those who at death appear not to have yet believed the gospel, but all who remain hostile to God remain unsaved by their own choice.”

2 + 2 = 4, but 2 + 2 = 3 … advanced Arminianism?

#11

Andre, I think you have presented us with a red herring. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Arminianism or not.

We need to address the question as to whether universalism, if true, destroys the free decision “of faith” (whatever “of faith” means). I presume the author means the free decision to become a disciple of Christ or not. Whatever is meant, it is NOT the case that universalism, if true, “makes salvation necessary”. Even if universalism is true, a person can choose not to submit himself to Christ for as long as he wishes. It’s just that sooner or later, he WILL FREELY CHOOSE to submit himself to Christ and become His disciple.

There are various influences upon an individual, some weak and some strong, to induce the person to make particular choices. For example, a 10-year-old might be told by his parent that unless he tidies his room each day, he will not be given his allowance for that week. But that parental influence doesn’t FORCE the child to tidy his room. He can still choose not to do so. A stronger influence might be a gun held to the head of an adult with the demand from its owner, “Give me your wallet, or I shoot!” Yet, the person MAY yet choose not to give the gunster his wallet.

I have no doubt that God and perhaps some of the saints will influence to submit to Christ, post-mortem, all who have never become disciples during their life times. Some may resist for a million years or more. No one will take away their free will. But no one can resist forever. Theoretically yes, but practically, no. If they could, they would have a will as strong as, or stronger than, that of their creator. And He is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)