The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Not My Children / Two Separate People

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

One of the major differences between the Reformed view and the UR view is that UR’s consider every single human being as a child of God, and as such, God not only loves them and will bring them into His glorious presence, BUT HE IS OBLIGATED TO DO SUCH. Expressions like, “A loving father would never give up on his children” or “If I treated my children the way Calvinists say that God treats His, I’d be arrested for child abuse” or “I’m a better father to my kids than Calvin’s God is” litter the forum.
The Reformed view is that not all human beings are His children, only the Elect-and that through adoption. The whole of Scripture reveals two separate peoples with two different destinies; those who are foreknown, predestined and called of YHWH to be His people in His Kingdom and those who are not. What follows is a list of names / labels / descriptions taken from Scripture or in a couple of cases, church history to illustrate the point of two peoples. Please bear in mind that this list is by no means exhaustive and contains no commentary.
1)The offspring of the woman / the offspring of the serpent. Genesis 3.
2)Abel / Cain. Genesis 4.
3)The godly line of Seth / ungodly line of Cain. Genesis 5.
4)Noah / un-named ones destroyed in the Flood. Genesis 6.
5)Sarah / Hagar. Genesis 16-17, Galatians 4.
6)Isaac, the son of promise / Ishmael, the son of a slave who is not to receive the inheritance. Galatians 4.
7)Jacob-Israel / Easu-unholy, sold his birthright and was rejected / hated. Found no chance to repent though he wept. Genesis 25, 27 & Hebrews 12.
8)Moses / Israel / Pharoah / Egypt-“That you may know that the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.” i.e. those covered under the blood of the Lamb and those under the Destroyer. Exodus 11.
9)The righteous / elect / the wicked / reprobate. General.
10)Prophets called by YHWH / false prophets to be put to death. Deuteronomy 18, general.
11)Good soil / barren-thorny-rocky fruitless soil. Matthew 13.
12)Wheat / chaff & wheat / tares-tares refered to as sons of the evil one to be thrown into the fiery furnace. Matthew 13.
13)Good fish / bad fish-thrown into the fiery furnace. Matthew 13.
14)Sheep / goats-illustrative of a shepherd separating animals. Sheep for the Kingdom, goats for the fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Matthew 25.
15)Abraham’s children doing what Abraham did / the devil’s children doing what he did. John 8.
16)Sheep that are known by God and know His voice and come when called. John 10.
17)The High Priest prays for those whom the Father has given Him out/not of the world-does not pray for the world. John17.
18)"…led by the Spirit of God are sons of God" / Those not led are not sons. Romans 8.
19)"…it is NOT the children of the flesh who are the children of God, BUT the children of the promise ARE counted as offspring." “He helps the offspring of Abraham.” Romans 9 & Hebrews 2.
20)So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills." Romans 9.
21)Vessels of wrath prepared for destruction / vessels of mercy, prepared beforehand for glory. Romans 9.
22)Believer / unbelievers-no fellowship between light and dark, Christ and Belial. “Go out from their midst and be separate…and I will be a father to you.” Not so for the unbelievers. 2 Corinthians 6.
23)Anyone proclaiming a different gospel is anathema-accursed-cut off-devoted to destruction. Galatians 1.
24)"…and because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father!..and if a son, then and heir through God." Galatians 4.
25)Those foreknown by God / depart from me, I NEVER knew you.
26)“For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus / sons of disobedience, children of wrath…” Ephesians 2.
27)With regard to believers who have died, we do not grieve as pagans who have lost loved ones and HAVE NO HOPE.
1 Thessalonians 4.
28)“For you are children of light, children of day…we are not of darkness and night.” 1 Thes 5.
29)The godly delivered from trials / the ungodly kept under punishment until judgment / the destruction of the ungodly.
2 Peter 2&3.
30)Christ / antichrist / children of God / children of the devil. Pretty much all of 1 John.
31)Pretty much all of Jude.
32)Those found in the Book of Life / those not found in the Book of Life-thrown into the lake of fire where they will be tormented night and day forever and ever. Revelation 20.
33)“The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be His God and he will be my son…but the ungodly will have their portion in the lake of fire, which is the second death.” Revelation 21.
Again, this list is by no means exhaustive.

Matt

#2

God loves Paul, but hates Saul. One man. Two people. A son of God. A son of the devil. A sheep and a goat. Wheat and weed. Gold and dross. Paul is elect and destined to glory. Saul is damned and destined to destruction.

“Who shall deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

#3

One of the serious consequences of (wrongly) treating the Bible as modern history is that we end up getting the wrong message.

“God loved Jacob, but hated Esau.” Ok. If these men are historical, we suddenly have God showing partiality. This not only is morally wrong, it contradicts the clear teaching of scripture. However, if Jacob and Esau represent good and evil, light and dark, wisdom and folly, heaven and earth, then of course God loves Jacob and hates Esau.

Similarly, God commands Joshua to exterminate the Amalekites, man, woman and child. Which he does. Thoroughly. It seems we have a God of the worst possible kind who commands genocide, racial cleansing etc. But do we? Funnily enough, even in the Biblical account, the Amalekites are back again in force a few years later! Prolific breeders, those Amalekites. Even when they’re dead, they’re having babies.

Now archeologists tell us 2 million Hebrew slaves did not pour out of Egypt, and that the actual movements of people, conquest etc in Palestine were much more complex. This is good news. If the genocides of Joshua, Saul and such didn’t happen in history, we can hardly accuse God of commanding them.

Suppose the Amalekites are in fact a personification of all that is evil in ourselves and in the world, and our task as God’s people is to wage total war on these evils. Suddenly the stories make very good sense.

#4

Along the same lines as Allan’s first comment, the assumption of these in/out categories seems to be that they cannot change - once you are out, you are hopelessly, forever out. But I think this is difficult to establish from scripture.

For example Matt, in your number 17 from John 17, there are those of the world / those who believe in Christ. But Christ’s prayer in this same chapter (v21-23) is that the unity of believers will bring the world to believe. Do we believe that God will answer Christ’s prayer? I don’t see any time limit placed on this prayer.
John 3:16 says that God loves the world. Luke 19 says that Christ came to seek and to save the lost. I think it is difficult to believe that “the world” and “the lost” only includes “the elect” (in a Calvinistic sense) in these type of passages.

Similarly, in number 26, you mention Eph 2 contrasting the objects of God’s wrath/ believers. But in v 3,4 “we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God…made us alive.” So those who were once objects of his wrath, were also objects of his great love and could be saved.

1 Like
#5

Hi jaxxen,

This is a misunderstanding. Evangelical universalism does not teach that everybody is a child of God, but that everybody will eventually become a child of God.

1 Like
#6

Well, it depends on what sense “child of God” is being used; Christian universalists don’t teach we all start off (or at least remain) loyal to God – in that sense we stop being children of God when we stop following the light of the Holy Spirit.

We do tend to teach that we do start off as rational spirits who can and do deserve punishment when we rebel; and that our spirits originate and continue to exist from God, not from some independent entity other than God. In that sense we tend to teach (certainly I do) that we are all children of God. So does St. Paul, when he’s evangelizing among the Gentiles, as per the Mars Hill incident: he meets the pagan philosophers on the point they both affirm, that we are all the offspring of God, “since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things, and He made from one every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, to be seeking God, if consequently they might surely grope for Him and be finding Him, though He is not far from each one of us, for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring’. Being then the offspring of God…” Paul goes on to admonish them about idol worship etc. (Acts 17:22-31) Certainly judgment is coming (v.31), but God overlooks (literally winks at!–in a sense of condoning in a friendly way!) the times of ignorance, now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent {pantas pantachoum metanoein}.

I’ll have much more to say about this later. Writing up a reply now (with scriptural exegesis, too, and lots of it. :wink: But I’ll mostly stay focused on the verses Jaxxen mentioned, so as not to bird-dog off on things like Acts 17. :slight_smile: )

1 Like
#7

As some writers have already suggested, the distinction between our views seems over-simplified. Of course, the Bible often distinguishes people as being in different status’ with God, and in many senses, most are not ‘children of God.’ But it seems to me that other passages clearly imply that everyone is God’s beloved offspring, and valued as those made in his image. Do both sides here agree with both propositions? If so, it seems to me that the challenge is then focused on distinguishing different senses of being God’s children.

1 Like
#8

I appreciate the clarification in this thread. I’ll clarify that the Bible does say that all humans are beloved offspring of God, but then there is the specific concept of being God’s reborn child. For example,

In this case, evangelical universalists typically agree that all humans are not automatically reborn child of God, but eventually all humans will chose divine spiritual rebirth.

1 Like
#9

Allan, I’ve heard this variation before and I believe it is insufficient. In Romans 9, Paul does not use himself as an example, ie Saul / Paul. He uses two different people, ie Moses / Pharaoh and Israel / Esau. In keeping with the example of Jacob /Esau, Rebecca is the “same lump” yielding two different vessels with two different ultimate fates.
With regard to the wheat / tares and sheep / goats, again it is clear that Jesus is referring to two separate people groups simultaneously at the judgment, not one person being transformed.
As to your quote of Romans 7:24-25, it’s BEAUTIFUL!

Matt

#10

I’ll have to disregard this post with the exception to correct that racial / ethnic cleansing is not the reason given. YHWH was and still is creating a people for Himself, set apart from the nations. He swore to Abraham that his descendants would possess the land when the measure of the Amorites wickedness was full.
Oh yeah, I am the personification of evil in myself-apart from God’s grace-and I need no help from any Amalekites, real or imagined.

Matt

#11

Hi Craig, sorry for any confusion. I certainly would never say that anyone now who is not a believer could never become one! Now, in the omniscient mind of YHWH, yes, the numbers are fixed. However, from our point view those who do not profess faith may do so in the future, and those who do profess faith now may likewise show themselves to be apostates / false brethren in the future.
In John 17:20-23, the ESV reads as follows, V20 “I do not ask for these only (speaking of His immediate disciples), but also for those who will believe in me through their word, V21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they may also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. V22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, V23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.”
I fail to understand this as a prayer for every human being in existence to believe. Quite the opposite, as I noted in my OP, it seems to say that “I AM NOT praying for the world.” Again, I am currently using the ESV. What translation were you you using so I can compare the differences?
The time limit, of course, would be death. This will open up a whole other can o’ worms as it pertains to post-mortem salvation / repentance etc, so I’m not going to delve into that right now.
As far as seeking the lost goes, I believe this is answered in John 10. His sheep know His voice and come when called. Clearly, not everyone responds. Same with John 3:16. It is qualified by “whosoever believes”. Apart from that, the wrath of God remains on people, and men love the darkness rather than the light because their deeds are evil.

Matt

#12

Hi James, please forgive me if I have misconstrued something. It is by no means my intent to misrepresent anyone’s belief in order to support my own. Believe me, as I alluded to in another thread, I feel that that has happened here to Calvinism enough and I’m not seeking to create any strawmen agruements.
I arrived at the conclusion I have by reading countless posts on this forum. From way back even until the present. There’s currently a thread about UR diminishing evangelism and it boldly states that a primary tenet of UR is the Fatherhood of God of all men. This type of thinking is legion on this forum. That’s not to say there are some dissidents, but I can’t really think of any off hand.
James, it seems to me that your objection seems to be somewhat semantics. Everybody will in fact, eventually become a child of God. So, how does the LORD view them now? Are they going to be co-heirs with Christ in His Kingdom?
Part of the problem that I find with UR is that it seems to be very incoherent, lacking any systematic agreement with its members. Everything from being a Trinitarian or not, purgatory or not, innerrancy or not, soul sleep or not, homosexuality pro or con, miracles in Scripture being real or symbloic… For being the truth of God, supposedly having a majority of schools in the early church, heavy hitters such as Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, William Barclay, all the way through the present, I’d kind of expect a bit more unity. Now, granted Calvinists also have their disagreements. Infra / supralapsarianism, paedo / credo baptism / immersion /sprinkling, premil / amil. But in light of what I posted above, our disagreements seems somewhat minor. I’m sure that all of this contributes to my having misunderstood at least one important component of UR. I look forward to you and Bob clarifying some things.

Matt

#13

Bob, I agree that in many senses, most are not children of God. I’m curious as to see that everyone is God’s beloved offspring, and I do agree that man as an image-bearer is wholly unlike any other created being and worthy of respect. I also believe that any man or beast that kills and image-bearer, apart from being an accident, should be put to death.
We’re obviously not quite in agreement yet, but I look forward to you and James clarifying things and perhaps we’ll have a better platform to launch from.
Thanks again for your clear, concise well-worded posts!

Matt

1 Like
#14

jaxxen,

You are always gracious and clear, and I appreciate your dialogue. I’m afraid I’m unsure what we are clarifying. Is it that you doubt that we should see everyone as offspring loved by God (albeit also lost and condemned)? You appear to agree that all are created in His likeness with great value. Is it concluding that God “loves” them that seems incorrect? Or is it the semantics of “offspring”? I think of my children as ones (pro)created, or brought into life, with derivation and similarities to me. Do you see Acts 17:18 as agreeing with the Athenians that we are God’s “children” (NAS) or “offspring”?

Grace be with you,
Bob

P.S. I suspect that perceptions of incoherence are influenced by our vantage points. I suppose that if “Calvinist” is defined as a whole set of beliefs, then it would be less diverse than universalists, who by definition tend to a wide embrace. But I see huge diversity among those who use the label, reformed (most of my formers profs included). Of course you could keep Calvinism more uniform by insisting that you wouldn’t accept many of them as ‘Calvinists.’

#15

If you play two discordant notes simultaneously, the resultant noise is the complex overlapping of both notes. This is called superposition. If you pass this noise through the correct filter, you will be left with a pure note.

Similarly, you can break any journey into its northerly and easterly components. A walk 1km North added to a walk 1km East is equal to a walk 1.41km NorthEast. Or looking at it the other way round, a journey NorthEast is in fact a journey North and a journey East happening simultaneously.

Again, we can say space has 3 dimensions because there is absolutely nothing north about east, and absolutely nothing up about sideways.

We’re told there is no fellowship between light and darkness. There is nothing good about evil, and nothing evil about good. Good and evil are like North and East. They exist as two different moral dimensions.

If a sinner is 100% evil, there is nothing to love, since God cannot love evil. Conversely, a sinner cannot be 100% good, because that would be silly.

If I am loved by God, yet disciplined by God, it follows that I exist in two moral dimensions simultaneously. Just as I can walk both north and east simultaneously, just as two notes can vibrate in the air simultaneously, so I exist in both moral dimensions simultaneously. I am both good and evil. The good in me is 100% good, just as the northerly component of any journey is 100% north. And the evil in me is 100% evil. I am a child of God, born of God, loved by God. I am also a child of the devil, born of the devil, hated by God.

The day of judgment will be a day of salvation and a day of damnation. The good will be saved; the evil destroyed. The discordant noise which is my soul will be passed through a filter, leaving only the purest tone. The process may well be painful, a sort of spiritual chemotherapy.

#16

Hi jaxxen,

I first clarify that I by no means try to represent UR in general, but I present my own views in the context of church history.

Second, may I get some clarification of your views? Concerning the elect, I assume that most Calvinists believe that the elect are originally lost and then are irresistibly saved. Does that represent your view or is your view different?

#17

Hi Bob, thank you for the kind words. I feel the same about you-and others on this forum, as well. I’d say that no, God does not indeed love everyone. It would also be the semantics of “offspring”. In a general, generic sense it is the LORD who cares for and preserves all of His creation (who else could do it?). In that sense He exhibits a type of what we’d call “parental care” for all of humanity. He causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. As you know, this is one aspect of what Reformed theology refers to as “common grace”. It is the unmerited favor of God, but it does not lead all into salvation. Bob, I know that you know this, I’m writing this now for those who may be perusing this thread and have not heard of this before. I believe that Paul, as Jason pointed out, was quoting from a Greek poet as a type of evangelistic tool to identify common ground for the very religious / superstitious Athenians, who would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new. As far as “offspring” is concerned, I believe Paul qualifies it by saying, “In him we live and move and have our being”. This is by no means the fullness of the term “offspring” or “sons” or “children” when used to describe those in covenental relationship with YHWH. As Paul continues to try to elaborate in greater detail from general religion to Christianity, some mocked, some said, “We’ll hear more” and some believed. Those who believed were, in the foreknowledge of God, children of the promise. And as many of them believed, those were the ones who were ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48).
As you referenced your children, I’d say this; you have a special relationship with them for they are yours. You may have an outwardly good relationship with some of the neighborhood kids-perhaps letting them eat at your house, taking them to soccer practice and the like, but ultimately you will not include them in your will. Now, imagine if you knew the thoughts of these other children, and they were nothing but hatred to you and your true children? Even to the point that they were conspiring to murder your children and steal their inheritance! I hope that clarifies things a little bit.
Also, I agree with your commenting on our vantage points and remarks about Calvinism and Calvinists. I look forward to hearing back from you and your take on the OP.

Matt

#18

Hi James, fair enough on not representing UR in general. I reckon that would pertain to myself as well with the Doctrines of Grace. I do, however, believe for now that I’m pretty much in the standard realm of Reformed theology to the extent that I understand it, with some differences popping up here and there.
Now, to try to answer your good question: The elect are no different than the reprobate in our natures-so yes, we were lost, under the righteous wrath of the true and living God, following the course of this world as all do. But God, who is rich in mercy, for His own good pleasure, and for the fulfillment of the promise to His beloved Son to present to Him a kingdom, has chosen to redeem a people for Himself out of the nations of the earth. In the mind of God, He has always foreknown whom He would call. And His calling is always effective. So in that sense, yes, His grace is irrestible. He sovereignly, monergistically causes His elect to be born again, replacing a heart of stone with a heart of flesh. Upon being born again / from above, the person will respond with faith and repentance and be adopted as a son to receive the promised inheritance. James, like I told Bob upthread, I’m sure you know this to be what we Calvinists refer to as the “ordo saludis” or the “order of salvation”. I write this for the sake of those who may not be aware of this tenet of Reformed theology. I hope this helps to clarify and answer your question. Is this similar to what you believe, with the obvious exception of the difference in the quantity of people saved? If not, would you elaborate on your view, please? Thanks, James. I look forward to our discussion.

Matt

#19

Hi Matt,
Thanks for the time and care you are putting into all of this.
In John 17, (I may be wrong, and happy for you to show me if I am) I understand that there are 3 groups of people that Christ refers to.
1 Those whom the Father has already given to Christ v6-18. When Christ prays for these in v9 He is not praying for the world.
2 Those who will believe in Christ through the message of the first group v20.
3 The world.
All 3 groups are referred to in v21-23.
The NIV says (but I don’t think the particular translation makes a lot of difference in this case)

21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

I understand v21-23 as Christ praying that all believers may be one, so that the world may believe that the Father has sent Him.

So if Jesus prays for the unity of believers so that the world might believe, and yet most of the world doesn’t believe, then I would think that God has not fully granted his request -at least not yet.

This would be like me praying that God would speak through the minister’s sermon so that my friend Bill might hear the gospel and be saved. If Bill wears ear plugs and listens to some music so that he doesn’t hear the gospel and is not saved, I would think that God has not fully granted my request - at least not yet.

Similar examples would be Jesus praying from the cross “Father forgive them (not just a small percentage of them) for they know not what they do” Lk 23:34 and Paul in Rom 10:1 "My heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites (not just a small percentage of them) is that they may be saved.

Matt, you may be different, but in the Calvinist circles I move in 10% would be considered very generous as an estimate of the percentage of the world who are/have been true christians throughout history.The desire/will of God (1 Tim 2:4, 2 Pet 3:9) for all to be saved, and the prayers of Jesus and Paul point in a very positive direction if these prayers are to be answered and desires fulfilled.
I understand that you probably see these verses teaching very different things to me, but that is the way I’m seeing it at this stage.

#20

Hi Matt,
Just some of further thoughts on the child of God/ child of the devil issue.

John 8:44 (NIV)You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

When Jesus spoke to the Jews about having the devil as their father, I don’t think he was meaning it in the sense of their creator, or their biological father. It was in the sense of their similarity in character and desires.
Those who are unrepentant, and not yet believers may be children of the devil in this sense, but it is still true that they are children of God in another sense. They may not acknowledge it, but the truths of Psalm 139:13 are still true of them.

“For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”

God is still their father in a very real sense, even if they do not resemble him in character and desires.

God has done more to bring us all into existence than any human father has ever done, and yet we expect a human father to act in a certain way toward his children. It would be strange for God to act in a less caring way toward those He has brought into existence, than a loving human father would. I think the analogy of God toward all people and a human father toward his children is still a valid one.