I’ve been reading the reformed website of Neil Punt, biblicaluniversalism.com/Pos … lyLost.htm
and it has been interesting reading. They take the approach that “All persons will be saved except those the Bible declares will be lost,” as opposed to how he thinks the view has changed over the millenia to “All persons will be lost except those the Bible declares will be saved,”. Therefore he is a reformed theologian who holds to an “inclusive” theology that includes the belief that ALL infants who die will be saved. This is an article on his site about who will be lost and it challenges universalism:
Oh, God. If he wants to actually “refute” universalism, he has to deal with the verses that support the points he’s arguing against! For example:
“CHILDREN OF GOD”
What about Matt 7:11 and Acts 17? Jesus clearly says God is the “Father” of “evil” people, and Paul tells pagan Greeks they’re all his children. And no universalist thinks “biological ancestry” has anything to do with whether we’re God’s children! Straw man!
“INFINITE VALUE”
This is another straw man. People, while extremely valuable, are not “infinitely valuable” if that means “as valuable as God.” They are, though, in a sense infinitely valuable because they are each individually designed and created by an infinitely loving God who gave his life (and infinitely valuable sacrifice) for all people. What this comes down to is whether one believes Jesus’ infinite sacrifice gets his money’s worth. Isaiah 53:11–he WILL be satisfied with what the toil of his soul accomplished!
“A GREATER HOPE”
Yet another straw man. No universalist believes that Jesus’ sacrifice is insufficient. In taking this line of argument, though, Punt has punted away ( )all the biblical statements about God purifying people, being a refiner’s fire, etc. Way to entirely disregard a recurring theme throughout Scripture! Gee whiz.
That argument cuts both ways. Wishing to see your enemies in eternal torment does not make it so.
If all who sin will surely die, that must include Christians too. But didn’t Christ die for us? Didn’t he die in our place?
“the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.”
“Our Father, who is in heaven…”
The value of something is determined by the price someone is willing to pay for it. God paid an infinite price for us. Therefore we are of infinite value. It’s impossible to purchase something that is worthless. The moment you put a price on something, it has value.
Note the exclusive his people. (I dislike Calvinism more with every passing day…)
Astoundingly, the author then quotes:
“The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all”. Where’s the exclusivity gone?
Yes, that’s the bad news. Now for the good news. The inherited righteousness of Christ is sufficient to bring all persons to eternal justification.
Agreed.
But because God is the wise and loving physician, no one will persistently reject God.
Sin kills us, but God’s unearned gift in Christ raises us from that death.
What a lot of bad news. Let me add some good news:
“For God has bound all men into disobedience so he can have mercy on them all.”
People who persistently reject God are lost forever. But one one will reject God forever because God’s love never fails, nor does he give his glory to another.
Good question. Only a lunatic would choose Satan, and lunatics cannot be held responsible for their actions. They need healing, not punishment.
Sadly, they only see what their minds want them to see. I found it ironic that he elected to quote a passage that UR actually uses for it’s affirmation.
“The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men” (Rom. 5:18a).
The really sad part is . . .he never added the rest of that verse. It’s as others have stated, this is a strawman argument. Or the guy is a cherry picker. When you keep the message entact in it’s original context, AND you lay down preconceived ideas and doctrines . . .it all boils down to “desire for truth”. Until we get to the place to where we can admit to ourselves that we really don’t care if we have to admit we might have been wrong before, we seriously want the “truth” of God’s message . . .until we come to that place, we’ll continue to bash our heads against each other. But after . . . his truth produces harmony over division.
I just find it soooo interesting that a person in the belief of UR can live with a person in ET, but a person believing in ET just can’t live with a person believing in UR.
That’s because we are absolutely certain that they’ll eventually come around. But they’re fearful for us – that we’ll end up in hell for not believing in hell and take others with us, too.
He pulled out the old “Satans oldest lie you won’t die”:
For the wages of sin is death, and then being tortured for all of eternity, but the gift that you’re responsible for is eternal life in Christ Jesus. Romans???
I think it also says as in adam all die (and are tortured for all eternity), so also in Christ shall those who are clever enough (which is the real meaning of all) be made alive.
This is an oversimplification. What many universalists don’t or want to understand is that universalism changes the very nature and attributes of our God not to mention turns the gospel as we understand it upside down. Until you have a God centered approach to your theology then you could not begin to understand how serious a threat universalism is to our doctrinal approach of scripture. We do not worship the same God-two different “christianities”
It’s not as simple as wanting to believe all go to heaven.
For the wages of sin is ________ but the ________gift is eternal life in Christ Jesus
What was the punishment for eating of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil?
My criticism is going and making the jump from what the serpent said, to those who embrace the victorious gospel, saying you won’t burn in hell for all eternity as being the same lie. I was using hyperbole to make my point. I was just writing in what those who want to believe in eternal torture for the vast majority of humankind for all of eternity have to think when they read those passages (me being one less than a year ago, minus the part about wanting to believe that, that was just another little jab at you oxy )
I think you really need to study what Neil Punt had to say because it is evident that there is a clear disconnect in your understanding of scripture.
We are all God’s children but “children of God” is something entirely different. You will find no where in scripture the lost being referred as “children of God”. Only those who are born again are children of God.
John 1:12
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,”
*
Romans 8:16
“The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,”*
John 11:52
“and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.”
1 John 3:1-10
“1How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,a we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure…”
when you state that “its not as simple as wanting to believe all go to heaven” you are implying that is the reason for believing in UR.
when I questioned if thats the reason you believe most people will be tortured for eternity because you want to believe that, you then said it was what you see from scripture. After more questions you stated we both have evidence, just different conclusions. Therefore, your implication that UR’s believe the way they do because they want to is fallacious.