True. Me also. And perhaps pushing the envelope a little bit more, is it possible that “the gospel” is not
“God loves you but you’re a sinner your sin had to be punished Jesus died on the cross in your place if you trust in him you won’t go to hell otherwise you will go to hell forever”,
but rather
“God is the saviour of the world, the whole world, and nothing less than the whole world”.
Is it possible that the experience many of us have of “I can’t believe how I couldn’t see it before” might actually have been spiritual blindness, than in fact our eyes had not yet been opened to the true gospel, and that (oh boy, this is pushing it) we had in fact previously received another gospel?
ECT not an effective way? I bet if your polled the general population of evangelical Christians thay would say that it was* the *motivating factor in bringing them to Christ. It certainly was for me at the tender age of 13. Once people started believing that they were no longer going to hell they could grow in the confidence of the Lord in living the Christian life. They no longer have that stigma of hell hanging over their shoulder.Whether or not it undermines God doesn’t seem to keep Christians from worshipping and serving God in their heart regardless.
Moreover, ECT is also the motivating factor in soul-winning. No one wants to see their friends and loved ones burn forever in a Christless hell. Certainly it has motivated compassion for those going out door-to-door and street preaching in efforts to get people saved.
Fact is, the majority of the people on this forum that have turned to UR were at one time ECTers.
Can a UR gospel have the same impact and effectiveness as the ECT gospel? I should like to see a results comparision somehow. Probably the biggest obstacle in making effective the UR gospel is getting rid of the paradigm of hell as most people view it.
I’ve been going over the evidence for a few months straight now, as well as posting on this site daily, reading tons of stuff and I’m still frustrated. The bible did NOT make it obvious. Well, let me clarify. On one hand it seems quite obvious with some verses, but on the other hand the bible seems to contradict itself with other verses. I’ve been going over the “eternal” scriptures for the umpteenth time and they are just not very clear. On the one hand, the explanation makes quite a bit of sense when I read those 2 authors who explain about aionian and aidios. On the other hand, when I read some of the verses the actual context seems to say eternal. Here is a good example:
2 Corinthians 4:18
while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are** eternal.**
compared to this:
2 Corinthians 4:18
while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are [of the ages?/age-abiding?/for a period of time?/for an age?] eternal?
I try to be really honest with this whole thing and not fool myself and the first translation makes a lot more sense than the second. That doesn’t mean that the second translation isn’t true, it’s just that I read stuff that imply that there is NO WAY any of the “eternal” verses can be read as eternal in any way, as if it is totally obvious at a casual glance and that just isn’t true to me. For whatever reason, God made it so that it was not obvious. I don’t know why. I have some thoughts but they are still in their infancy.
Hi Chris,
It took me many months of intense study before I could say I was sure of UR. There was a lot of back and forth, rewriting thinking patterns, forgetting how I arrived at conclusions and restudying over and over again. It’s a whole paradigm shift–like when they figured out that the planets revolved around the sun, not the earth. It shatters the foundations of your worldview and remakes them in another shape. Now that my thinking patterns have been reshaped, UR is obvious to me, based on the character of God and the entire flow of the testimony of scripture.
I appreciate very much your desire to do justice to the scriptures and read them honestly, and I share that.
2Cr 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal.
I think your difficulty with this verse may be in the translation of πρόσκαιρος as “temporal”, when it actually means “for a season”. Our word temporal means having to do with time, and if you make “eternal” the opposite, it seems to mean “endless” or not having to do with time.
The things which are seen are only for an short season, but the unseen things are lasting and of the ages.
Compare also to the previous two verses.
It’s akin to Jesus’ teaching us not to lay up treasures on earth, for those things perish, but to lay up our treasures in heaven.
I’m leaning towards “that which is beyond sight” but maybe Talbott’s take on “eternal” would sit better with you? From memory it’s that “eternal” is more about the quality than quantity, i.e. something related to God, see Talbott on Matthew 25:41, 46?
I agree so passages can be “unnecessarily” frustrating (i.e. if I was the author of the Bible I wouldn’t have put them in there ). I comfort myself that God has our best interests in mind, i.e. somehow it’s better for humanity that they are included
It’s an interesting question to be sure. At other times and places I’ve engaged in this very same question but in regards to
the existence of God and
God’s participation in creation
So, why isn’t it obvious that such a foundational reality as God is not more obvious?
And why isn’t it more obvious that God is creator?
But over time, all three of these things have in fact become very obvious to me! And isn’t that enough?
I mean when I fell in love with my wife all those years ago and if someone had come along and asked me to prove my love or if they asserted that it wasn’t at all obvious to them that I wasn’t “in love” with her for selfish and shallow reasons I would have laughed in their face! All that mattered was that it was obvious to me!!
And you see this sort of think where and when people are persecuted for their faith in Christ.
But I do know what you mean and do share that frustrated feeling that what is so clear to me is mocked outright by others whose faith I’ve never doubted!
As to the need for the negative (ect) as motivation, it’s easy to argue both sides it seems… God thunders and roars on Sinai likely because that’s the only thing that would hold their attention. Hell may be enough to render someone “scared straight” but if, after years and years of needing to constantly be scared straight, it seems it’d lose it’s effectiveness! Eventually the motive morphs into a freely given love!
I do find it interesting that Paul, in Romans 2, says don’t you know that it is the kindness of God that brings repentance?? So it seems as if the need for the negative motivation should be very temporary. And it’s important to recognize that the need for negative motivation may be a reflection of the immaturity of the individual. That is to say I see it as a sign of Christian maturation when the motive morphs into one of love and appreciation and gratitude towards God.
At any rate, I need to think about this some more…
dirtboy, it’s helpful to me to recall that words have different meanings, uses, and nuances. Here, it seems to me that a good translation for aionios is “eternal” as a reference to that realm that transcends-time. The spiritual world transcends time, I believe; I don’t understand that, but trust that such is the case. Judgment is a present and future reality. The kingdom of God is a past, present, and future reality from our perspective; but from God’s perspective I think it just “IS”. It’s as if we live on a time-line, but God is above that time-lime and can interact on that time-line whenever He wants to.
To me, the most compelling reason against ECT is the sparcity of biblical evidence for it. For example, if ECT was a possible threat, such would have been warned of repeatedly and specifically in scripture; but it’s not. Shoot, the OT doesn’t even have a word that can be correctly translated as Hell. And though Tartarus would have been a good Greek word to convey the concept of ECT, it is only used once in scripture, and that was not for humans and even seems to be temporary “until judgment”. Also, if ECT was true, then it would have been natural to translate the Hebrew Ga Hinnom as Tartarus instead of just transliterating it as Gehenna. And instead of Luke saying the rich man was in Hades, he’d have said he was in Tartarus - IF ECT was true; it seems that he was careful to not do such though. Something so important, paradigm shifting as ECT would surely have been specifically and repeatedly warned of in scripture, but it is not. Judgment is warned of, terrible punishment of sin is warned of, condemnation and shame is warned of, destruction is warned of, separation and chastizement are warned of, but there is little evidence that ECT is in God’s plans for anything He’s created.
Sadly though, ECT is an assumed, subconscious, foundational paradigm that most Christians are programed with from birth (spiritual and even physical). And such foundational paradigms are difficult, almost impossible to change. It really takes a lot of work, and a lot of breaking to do so for it effects everything, how we view God, how we view others, even how we view ourselves! This is especially true for those raised from childhood in traditional ECT Christianity, and those who came to faith in Christ with ECT mixed into the Gospel, the good news of God’s love for us.
To me, the most compelling reason against ECT is the sparcity of biblical evidence for it
In one way, I agree with you:
Why didn’t God warn Adam and Eve about it?
Why didn’t god warn the rest of the O.T. folks about it?
Why wasn’t it a developed idea my the time Jesus was talking about it?
On the other hand, there are numerous “proof texts” with many given by Jesus himself. True, those texts are debatable, but they are there and they are not easy. God obviously knew that ECT was going to be the dominant theology throughout history. Knowing this, He could have made the Bible clearer, but He did not. For reasons I don’t yet understand, God made it unclear.
I suppose that I expect theology to be complicated, not real simple, for several reasons. I believe:
God is so infinitely beyond what we can understand that it’s like a man born blind trying to understand color.
The effects of sin are far more devestating, blinding than we can comprehend.
The Bible was written by men from differing times, cultures, languages, paradigms, etc., from eachother, and radically differing from us.
Most of us are dependant upon English translations to even study scripture. And no translation, imo, is 100% accurate.
And 5) we all have traditions that hinder us from correctly understanding scripture.
All of these reasons point to how utterly dependant upon God we are for salvation, for revelation from Him of who He is. Without His self-revelation we’re blind and lost concerning who He is and what He’s like.
With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he[d] made known to us the **mystery **of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.
Why isn’t UR obvious? Because indeed it is a mystery…! It is God who makes known the mystery of Christ, to whomever He wants, whenever He wants. In all humility, I would be the first to acknowledge that my understanding of His will, which He purposed in Christ, is fuzzy at best. Yet I seem to have a glimpse… what a precious gift I’ve been given.
I was thinking about this further, as I’ve been reviewing the many, MANY passages that at face value seem to clearly indicate UR. The more I studied these passages in their literary context, the more “clearly” they seemed to affirm UR. On the other hand, the more I studied seemingly pro-ECT passages in context, the less they seemed to affirm ECT at all or line up with the traditional doctrine of salvation being based on faith. For example, have you noticed how scriptures that speak of aionian punishment are ususally couched in hyperbole or metaphor.
Hyperbole, overstatement not meant to be taken literally, example, “If you eye sins pluck it out…” is not meant to be taken literally, but is meant to make a point concerning being purposeful and agressive in seeking to not sin. Why then would we take the associated warning in the same passage literally instead of hyperbole also? Also, have you ever noticed that the language of punishment, though it be remedial punishment, is always couched in the most negative of terms possible, and rarely ever mentions anything that might mitigate the fear that such statements are meant to impress. Such language is meant to convey fear of punishment and mentioning that it’s for the person’s good does not help that purpose. Is hyperbole and metaphorical language meant to be taken literally? Of course not. But it should be understood based on it’s literary style.
On the other hand though, most of the UR passages are not couched in hyperbole or metaphor, but are in didactic material, especially Paul’s UR statements. Though there are some UR passages that are metaphorical, prophetic, and even poetical. To me though, the weight of scriptural evidence falls on the side of UR.
Amen! I’ve tried to explain this, when looking at some of Jesus’ parables, which being parables, are purposefully dramatic, partly to drive home the point to the big crowds, presumably from many backgrounds and with broad spectrum of education/intelligence i.e. no point presenting lots of technical details, if it will go over the heads of most of the audience (I realize Jesus had other reasons too). Quite a different literary style to say Paul’s letter to the Romans!
And yet a lot of the ECT “proof” texts *are *these dramatic parables e.g. The Parable of the Sheep & Goats, The Parable of the 10 Virgins, The Parable of the Weeds (the explanation still uses metaphorical language, like “fiery furnace”)! I’m not saying you can’t use Parables for teaching, I’m just reluctant to base “core” (that’s how ECT is portrayed by many) doctrines on their details
I was listening to the discussion with Brian McLaren on the online UR media/fellowship that Andrew noted, and he, McLaren brought up an interesting point concerning interpreting passages like the parables, highlighting the difference between interpreting them Ontologically (the nature of the way things are) as oppossed to Rhetorically (telling a story to make a point).
Concerning the simile in Mt. 25 of the separation of the kids from the flock, the point of the passage is motivating us to look out for the needs of others. And he also pointed out that it speaks of the “nations”, and wondered if this passage was encouraging us to work in our communities, whether that be our cities, states, nations, or fellowships, working to move them/us to watch out for the needs of the minorities, the disinfranchized, the poor, the prisoners, the sick, those in bondage of various types. It’s a very interesting interpretation.
Anyhow, I find it amazing that people want to translate certain parts literally, but not other parts. For example, those who affirm “eternal punishment” as being ECT in Mt. 25, in turn do not want to take the basis for the judgment metioned literally, that being how one treats the less fortunate, if one is socially compassionate or not.
I believe that you are correct in that ECT proof texts are usually couched in Rhetorical language, not Ontological or didactic. Of course, helping others to see this is very challenging. People have been taught from childhood certain concepts and it is very difficult for them, for us, to see things differently.
Great discussion folks, but I’ve been wondering lately if there is something more fundamental that we are missing. I’ve been thinking Adam’s sin and it seems to me that the DNA that has spread through humanity is the desire to be like God and to know the difference between good and evil. These are very noble goals yet I have come to the conclusion that this may be what blinds us from knowing Him. The whole idea that I can be like him brings with it the knowledge that I am not and that,in order to become like him, I must do something. This causes us to set out to do something. First we must know what is good and what is evil and make every effort to be good and not evil. This effort, again a very noble thing, causes us to trust in our efforts and not Him.
Still trying to work this out in my own mind so I know its jumbled but I wonder if this is not what Paul was saying in Romans 11:32?
We are blinded in so many ways and by so many things. I think UR is obvious to those of us who have been given eyes to see it. Fortunately, that number is growing.
There is a huge amount of religious thinking, teaching and baggage that we have to look through in order to see it, though.
I remember back when I was first presented with the idea through a completely unrelated topic (in which someone made a comment and posted a link to a universalist site), I was pretty resistant to it, even though it compelled me. I remember sitting there thinking; "could this person be right about what he’s saying (writing)? It seems to make sense to me, more than what I thought I knew, but it goes against everything I’ve been taught! Then the Holy Spirit tapped me on the shoulder, and said; “Well, how much of what you already know to be true goes against everything you have been taught?”…
). I comfort myself that God has our best interests in mind, i.e. somehow it’s better for humanity that they are included 
