The Evangelical Universalist Forum

What Persuaded You?

Evangelical Universalism
#1

Hi,

I am wondering how you all came to finally believe that Jesus would save all men.

  1. What scriptures or arguments finally persuaded you?

  2. How long did it take you to break away from conventional teaching on this matter?

or

  1. Did you always see it this way?

  2. Are you hopeful or certain?

I’ve been reading the arguments about Romans 9-11. I am struggling to understand. I realize now that I’ve never understood what Paul was saying, though Chapter 9 was my tipping point into believing God’s sovereignty in election (whatever election might mean). Is Paul really saying that God cuts off Israel for a time, in order to show mercy to the Gentiles? It seems to be that he is arguing that God will save a remnant, not all of Israel. And that God is allowed to be merciful to whom he wants to be merciful, and unmerciful to whom he chooses to show no mercy.

This feels like a threat hanging over our heads all the time.

How is that consistent with the character of a loving God who requires us to be merciful? He hath told thee, O son of earth, what is good–What then is Yahweh seeking of thee, but to do justice, to delight in lovingkindness, and humbly to walk with they God? (Micah 6:8)

Seriously, Paul sounds confused to me. Why does he have to philosophize? Why can’t he just come out and say what it is he wants to say? Seems like an awful lot rests on us figuring out all the meanderings of these guys. Plato and Aristotle are easier to read than some of the writers of scripture. Or maybe their messages are just less threatening.

I will appreciate your responses.

Kelli

#2

Hi, Kelli

Just want you to know that I think about you all the time and pray for you and your husband and boys. The holidays have been difficult for both of us, though I’m sure worse for you all. I don’t want to bring up wounds, but please don’t think you’re alone. I know I’m not the only one praying for you all.

Anyway . . . I’ve been wrestling with Romans 9 too, particularly the bit about showing mercy to whom He will and hardening whom He will & etc. I even bought a special commentary, most of which I can’t understand :laughing: unless I start taking classes in biblical Greek. But it’s Romans 9-16, James G. Dunn, in case you’re curious. As far as I can see I think he believes in ECT, but he doesn’t use this passage to prove that. Maybe he’s an Arminian. Nevertheless . . . he says (and this makes sense to me) that Paul is addressing the only theory of election current in his day: the election of Israel. The point he’s making here is that the Jews needn’t think they’re special. God chose Jacob and not Esau (Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated) not because either of them had done anything good or bad, but for inscrutable reasons of His own which we have no business demanding to know. (“Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?”)

He has mercy on whom He will, or as Beauchamin puts it, “I’ll have mercy on whom I damn well please!” This passage is for the purpose of showing that not all of Israel is elect, but rather those whom God has chosen as elect are elect, whether Jew or Gentile. That was the point – not that some are rejected, but that God will use whom He will (even Gentiles) to be His elect. Now, the duty of the elect is to be a blessing to the rest of the world (the nations). Israel hadn’t been doing well at all on that account (which of course didn’t take God by surprise), and the wand was being passed to the church (mostly comprised of Gentiles).

The Jews were flummoxed at this.

“What? What!! We are the elect! WE are the chosen people.”
"Nope. I’ll choose whomever I damn well please. The first will be last and the last first.’

Part of the confusion here stems from not accepting that there is an elect people, and the rest of it comes from not understanding that the purpose of the elect is to bless the nations (the ministry of reconciliation). Israel has had at this point . . . what? two thousand years? to bless the nations, but the blessing came through Jesus only. Israel was NEVER EVER the city set on the hill or the light on the lampstand. Israel was the rich man (Dives) with Lazarus sitting at the gates starving and being given nothing, not even a crumb. Sick and defiled and not ministered to. So the torch was being passed to the nations and now Israel would be hungry and jealous for God – in order that they might also come to want HIM, not just the religion.

This is all according to God’s plan, but why? I wonder whether the answer to that might not be “Because that’s the way to get it done.” I’ve done a teensy bit of building in my time, and while I don’t know a lot, I’ve learned that there’s a certain way to do things – an order – and he who transgresses that order will suffer. There’s a reason to do things that certain way, and if you don’t follow the way, you’ll learn why you should have followed it – guaranteed.

God knows how to build His family. He knows whether it will work best to use Jacob or Esau, and when it’s time to bring in a new building crew and why it’s important for Israel and the world to learn what He’s like – what He approves and disapproves and what He thinks of the Egyptian “gods” – through watching Pharaoh play the idiot. For a while, He used Saul as a vessel of dishonor, but His plans for Saul included Paul, and they included changing that vessel of dishonor into a vessel of honor to show His glory (that is, to display what He is like) to the world.

It hurt Paul to see that the election was passing from the physical/natural nation of Israel to the Gentiles (even though he loved the Gentiles). He agonizes over this. But eventually he does come to the point: “And so all Israel will be saved.” Or maybe you haven’t gotten to that bit yet. Romans isn’t a book to be rushed through – that’s for sure. There is a remnant of Israel who have accepted that Jesus is their Messiah, in Paul’s time. Perhaps Paul is also agonizing over Jesus’ prophecy re the destruction of Jerusalem. If Paul understood that prophecy to be as imminent as it turned out to be (even if that was but the beginning of birth pangs), then it’s no wonder he was all broken up!

Hopefully that answers some of your distress over Romans 9. I haven’t quite finished on chapter nine, so I can’t say an awful lot about ten and eleven yet. Here’s a link (if I haven’t given it to you yet) to the first post on my blog in which I shared my reasons for the (blessed) hope that lies within me. :wink: A Personal Odyssey

Love, Cindy

#3

Hi Kelli, I don’t think there was any one thing that persuaded me, but lots of things. I went through multiple questions and stages. It was several years before I became a convinced EU.

I probably never would have considered any new ideas or thought to ask any deeper questions if it hadn’t been for my dad, Bob Wilson, reading Talbott and coming home with all the stuff he was excited about. I remember it started out as a what if question for him. I’d entertain the questions with him, since I trusted him, but tell him to keep it under wraps when we were around church people. He’d say it wasn’t something he was sold on, but it wasn’t long, I’m sure it was longer than it seemed, before he was more convinced and pulling myself and my husband right along with him.

Talbott’s book, The Inescapeable Love of God, made quite an impact on me. I found his definition of love and God as love so compelling. Things, in general, just seemed to make more sense, how grace and the need to believe all fit together. I feel pretty convinced now, that if God is real, he is love. I feel like I’m still learning lots and will probably change my mind on many things I thought were decided.

I don’t know if this was already mentioned, but Talbott has a really great discussion with Piper over Romans 9. I tried to find it, but was having trouble with my computer. The name of the article is called, “God’s Unconditional Mercy:Reply to John Piper.” The link to it is listed under all of his complete list of publications. Here it is (I hope!)…willamette.edu/~ttalbott/publications.html

#4

I don’t think there was just one thing, but I guess it largely came down to wanting to be persuaded as I found hell abhorrent and even annihilationism suspect. Soon as I began to see that one could be a Christian, and more especially for me an evangelical, universalist it was just a matter of time. This website was a real catalyst in that area, I think I read most threads!
Then YouTube, then books. Now I’m pretty convinced, but I’ve only been a universalist for a short amount of time.

For me the key argument is really an emotional and ethical one. If hell is real, how come I can imagine god being better than he is? God should be greater than I can imagine, not less :slight_smile:

#5

Cindy, thank you for your prayers. And thanks, Amy and Pog, for responding to my questions.

I see that this is one of the places I am getting hung up. I have come to equate election with salvation. I will try to read this differently.

Also, I don’t know if it is just a translation issue, but I am very bothered by “Esau have I hated.” I’ve tended to see that as a bit of hyperbole meant to emphasize the difference between God’s relationship with the the elect and non-elect. But “hated” is a strong word. And it is easy to go from there to believing that all the non-elect are hated by God and therefore will not be saved. Why would he save those whom he hates?

It is funny that you mention learning Greek. I have pulled our Mounce books off the shelf (my daughter had a smattering of Greek in school) and have begun to study again. This is my second start, so we’ll see if I can stick with it.

Amy, I will look into that Piper debate. And Pog, I find the philosophical arguments very compelling. I suspect my inability to see scriptural arguments is due, largely, to the presuppositions I’ve been taught to bring to the text.

Kelli

#6

I am slogging through the Talbott/Piper debate. I am juxtaposing two passages below, one from each author. Leaving biblical exegesis aside, notice which character quality of God each is concerned with.

This is no longer a hypothetical for me. Talbott’s words echo my own sorrow and concern and love and hope for my daughter. Piper’s words fill me with terror and despair. For him, God is a just a holy judge. Where is his weeping Jesus? For Piper, love of God seems to be no more than holy fear and submission. Words like “love” and “goodness” have to take on new and impersonal meanings for him. This is what years of reformed thinking have done to me. We become nothing more than cogs in some great wheel. We begin to think of ourselves as so much metaphorical stuff: chaff or wheat, good branches or branches to be burned, good pots or bad pots, sheep or goats. But not as special creatures, loved and delighted in by God. The LORD your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing.

#7

Here is the Talbott/Piper debate, if anyone wants to read it.
predestination.pdf.zip (4.75 MB)

#8

Kelli, it’s hard to believe Piper says what he does about his sons. Talbott explains so eloquently that for God to love us, he must really love our children. His reasoning is so persuasive and full of love. This is what I was talking about earlier, that I find so convincing and really speaks to me. The whole article just gets better and better. Seriously, thank God for Talbott that he makes wonderful sense of the scripture and doesn’t leave us with the understanding that God literally hates some. I was in a biblestudy at my church a few years back where I asked this question about God hating Esau and everyone, most freewillers, just shrugged their shouldes and were resigned to thinking, “I guess so.” It all seemed so sad to me. I get the impression that some Christians believe better things about God, but assume it must be because they’ve never thought about these issues? I don’t know. It’s always bugged me this we need to believe in God, that he does what is right, even as to us what he is doing seem so unright.

#9

Kelli, it’s hard to believe Piper says what he does about his sons. Talbott explains so eloquently that for God to love us, he must really love our children. His reasoning is so persuasive and full of love. This is what I was talking about earlier, that I find so convincing and really speaks to me. The whole article just gets better and better. Seriously, thank God for Talbott that he makes wonderful sense of the scripture and doesn’t leave us with the understanding that God literally hates some. I was in a biblestudy at my church a few years back where I asked this question about God hating Esau and everyone, most freewillers, just shrugged their shouldes and were resigned to thinking, “I guess so.” It all seemed so sad to me. I get the impression that some Christians believe better things about God, but assume it must be because they’ve never thought about these issues? I don’t know. It’s always bugged me this we need to believe in God, that he does what is right, even as to us what he is doing seem so unright.

#10

Hey Kelli, when I have more time I’d like to try and give my two cents on your questions, but before then I’d just like to throw out a book title that you may want to take a look at. :slight_smile:

It’s called The One Purpose Of God by Jan Bonda, which you can order on Amazon:

amazon.com/The-One-Purpose-G … +jan+bonda

Unfortunately it’s not on Kindle, and only in book form, and runs about $20…
If you can’t afford it, and really want to get a copy, I can send you mine if you like, as I’ve already read it, and it may be awhile before I read it again, knowing me. :wink:

Anyways, it’s a great book, that’s just as scholarly and in-depth as The Evangelical Universalist and The Inescapable Love Of God.

The format is similar to Talbott’s book, but Bonda’s focus is on Romans, and a large chunk is on Romans 9-11 in particular.
Now, I admit that I’m more liberal than conservative at the moment, but from a conservative standpoint Bonda’s book is compelling, including his section on Romans 9-11, not to mention well-written, and written from a tender heart, as Bonda seemed like a really humble and gentle-spirited kind of guy (he passed away a few years ago).

He also goes in depth about the role of the Jews in the whole salvation process, which he believed is very important, and he had a heart for the Jews himself, having been close friends with some.

And you may be able to relate to him in that he comes from a Reformed background (you come from that, right?) and he was more of a hopeful universalist than a certain one.

Anyways, I’d really recommend his book as an in-depth universalist take on Romans, if that’s what you’re looking for.
Of course it’s just his take on things, but it may give you some food for thought and help you out. :slight_smile:

Blessings to you Kelli :slight_smile:

Matt

PS You may want to give Bonda’s book a look too, Cinders :wink:
But I already offered to pass on my copy to Kelli, so I can’t send it off to you, as I’ve only got the one copy :neutral_face:
They seriously need to reprint that or get it on Kindle or something, or at least get the price lowered somehow…

#11

Thanks, Matt. I will take a look. And I will check to see if my local library has the book. You just never know.

Kelli

#12

Welcome :slight_smile:

Probably not, but it’s worth a try.

Let me know if you can’t afford to buy one, and if you still really want to read it, you can send me a PM with your mailing address and such, and sometime I can send my copy off to you. :slight_smile:

Blessings :slight_smile:

Matt

#13

Thanks for the suggestion/nudge, Matt. :wink: I do have the book, but have only read the first little bit, and then got distracted by another shiny book. :unamused: Since he writes on Ro 9-11, I guess this would be an excellent time to have another look. Thanks again! And Kelly, I don’t remember what I paid, but it was a fairly good deal from Amazon Markets. I always get that sort of thing used – even then some of the better books aren’t as cheap as I might like – still . . . most likely worth it. Bonda’s book is one of the major works on this subject, I’m given to understand.

#14

Oh okay thats cool :slight_smile:

Let me know what you think of Bonda’s book when you finish reading it. :slight_smile:

And Kelli, my offer is still on the table if you can’t afford to buy your own copy at the moment. :slight_smile:

#15

Thanks for the offer, Matt. I will buy a used copy once I finish the four universalist books that I already have. = )

I think I need to push through Talbott’s Romans discussion and into the rest of the book, some of which I’d already skipped to.

Has anyone read Ferwerda’s book? I find it very helpful, but I do not know what to do with her discussion of Jewish ages, not having the background knowledge to agree or disagree. Most of the people in our grief support group are Jewish. I may muster up the courage to ask them for their views on life after death. It might be a very touchy subject though, for obvious reasons. (My husband and I laughed; they could reasonably think that we are Jewish: Dave, Josiah, Hannah, and Zachariah? I am the only one with a non-Jewish name.)

Happy Cliff Diving Day to you all (at least you United Statesians).

Kelli

#16

I found some rotten eggs the other day. What a stink. (I know a good egg when I see one.) I didn’t take them to the kitchen and make an omelet. Instead, I buried them in the garden. In a month or two, my roses will smell all the sweeter.

#17

Huh. Trying to decide if your words are related to my words. If so, I need to give this some thought. :laughing:

#18

If a doctrine smells really bad (like Piper’s view of election), toss it out the window. Whatever you do, don’t swallow it.

#19

Hi, Kelli

I think maybe you asked me this in a letter and now I’m thinking I probably owe you a letter. :blush: I will check. Anyway, I have read Ferwerdia’s book, and while there were a lot of useful things there, she said a significant number of things I couldn’t agree with as well. If I remember right, she is also of the opinion that God is the originator of evil (along with a few people here – beloved, even if I think they’re mistaken). It’s been a while since I read it. I’ll have to see if I can find it – it’s probably buried somewhere in my Kindle – and look at the discussion of Jewish ages again, because I don’t remember what she said. I probably would have held it in abeyance too, as like you, I don’t know anything about that subject.

#20

I’ve read Julie’s book. I like it a lot. I think it covers the main topics quite well. I’d be happy to answer the questions you have about the ages, from her point of view if you are interested. I tend to see them very similarly.