Biblical Universalism

Originally posted by Helen:
if it is not mutual between Christ and the believer then there is a forced issue involved,

Calvinists take the idea of the pre-programming to respond to God.

Click to expand...

Now, Helen, you know that is not what Calvinists teach. Let's remember not to say an opponent says something when they do not.

We believe that when man is given a new heart, he responds in mutual love to God through repentance and faith.

We believe it is the new heart given in regeneration that leads to the action of the will in responding to God's love, not pre-programming. It's all about the matter of one's nature.

My dogs eat meat because it is their nature to eat meat. Before regeneration, we willfully rebel against God because it is our nature to rebel against God. After regeneration, we submit to God because it is our nature to submit to God.

Ken

Originally posted by Helen:
GH, If we are to understand what happened to Paul at all, we must take a look at his history before the trip to Damascus. He was already zealous for God. He was already dedicated in his heart to God. That is why he was a Pharisee. He seriously wanted to serve God.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that the reason Paul was inclined to convert was because he was already zealous for God? If so, then why didn't God perform the same road-to-Damascus experience for all the other Pharisees? They were ALL zealous for God, and they were all guilty of the same error. So they should all have been inclined to believe in Jesus if they were shown the truth with the same degree of drama. Why, then, did God only choose Paul and let the rest of the Pharisees remain damned? That's not a very good case for free will, is it?

Or are you saying that God specifically chose Paul because, although he was misled, he was a Pharisee who was zealous for God? (This is the same God who is not a respecter of persons, right?) So let's take a look at what Jesus thinks of these Pharisees who desire to please God but are simply misinformed as to the truth...

Matthew 15:12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?"
13 He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.

Click to expand...

Not planted by the heavenly Father? Now that's an interesting way of putting it, don't you think? Kind of reminds me of the parable of the wheat and the tares...

But here's the most interesting things Jesus has to say about these folks who are so zealous to please God...

Matthew 23
13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
15 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16 "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
23 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

Click to expand...

I think your post regarding how the vast majority of the Pharisees were explains everything...

Paul, and Nicodemus, and perhaps a couple of others somewhere along the way, were different...

To Ken:

"What must I do to be saved?"
"Believe..."

Remember that? Of course we all do. But believing came before salvation. Therefore there is only the possible option that Calvinists believe that the elect are 'predisposed' or 'pre-programmed' to believe. How else do you reconcile?

Originally posted by Helen:
How else do you reconcile?

Click to expand...

We tend to think of soteriology in a linear fashion and that is not the best way we should look at it as it leads to just these kind of debates.

The salvation process includes several items - for example, hearing, repenting, believing, publicly confessing Jesus in baptism, regeneration, positional sanctification, and progressive sanctification. To say that one must be regenerated from being dead in sin before repentance and faith take place is not to negate the necessity of the other items.

I guess the crux of the matter is that non-Calvinists and Calvinists have a different definition of what being dead in sin means and a different understanding of the capabilities of the unregenerated nature. Unless we reach agreement on these two issues, we will never agree on soteriology. And I find that to be sad.

By the way, out of curiosity, I have noticed you don't mention repentance much, if at all, in regards to salvation(unless I have overlooked it ). Is there a reason why?

Ken

Back to the subject of the thread -

Some reviews of Neal Punt's book, What's Good About the Good News?: The Plan of Salvation in a New Light from Amazon.com:

Ministry Magazine, March, 1991
This Good News premise comes across from Punt's pages like a fresh wind that almost takes one's breath away. But the Biblical evidence that he marshals is impressive, and strongly suggests that the apostles turned their world upside down with a Gospel that contained considerably better Good News that our versions of it convey today.

Here is a book that will challenge keen theologians; but it is so clearly and simply written that it will also warm the hearts of lay readers. That too is very good news.

Dr. F. F. Bruce, letter 2/20/92 with permission to quote.
I read your book with great interest. Your position is very much my own. Your exposition of the subject is thoroughly in line with the insight, 'Admittedly Christ is much more powerful to save than Adam was to ruin.' I wish your work a wide circulation; it will stimulate much fresh thought on this important subject

Book Description
The over-all message of the Bible is either: A) ALL PERSONS ARE OUTSIDE OF CHRIST EXCEPT THOSE WHO THE BIBLE EXPRESSLY DECLARES WILL BE SAVED; or, B) ALL PERSONS ARE ELECT IN CHRIST EXCEPT THOSE WHO THE BIBLE EXPRESSLY DECLARES WILL BE FINALLY LOST. Ever since the fourth century nearly all Christian theology has been structured on proposition A). This book marshals impressive Biblical evidence for proposition B). This insight has vast implications for many aspects of theology.

From the Publisher
Neal Punt has generated considerable dialogue among knowledgeable theologians with his book Unconditional Good News (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980) by showing that the Bible teaches that: "All persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible expressly declares will be lost." This insight suggests biblical answers to questions that have divided Christians for centuries such as: Are the millions of people who never heard the gospel during their lifetime eternally lost? Is there a biblical basis for believing that all who die in infancy are saved? Can we bridge the gap between Arminianism and Calvinism or must this 400-year verbal battle continue until death unites us? Is the gospel bad news (you are lost) accompanied with a good suggestion (believe and be saved)?

From the Author
As a Christian Reformed pastor I was schooled in the Calvinist tradition. I am not satisfied with the treatment of the so-called "universalistic" texts by Calvinists. I made an extensive comparison of the classical exegesis of these texts by Christian scholars over hundreds of years. I have been amazed at the number of knowledgeable Arminians and Calvinists (denominational leaders, professors, authors, pastors and others) who have responded to my first book by admitting that they have never been comfortable with the interpretation of these passages provided by their respective theological traditions. This discomfort works to the great advantage of the Absolute Universalists (those who teach that all persons will eventually be saved).

It is my hope that the reader will carefully examine what I have written and in so doing find encouragement and joy in a legitimate and God-glorifying way of understanding the good news of salvation, without being led into the error of Absolute Universalism

From the Back Cover
In 1980 I discovered Neal Punt's exciting new book titled Unconditional Good News. His notion that all are saved in Christ except those of whom the Bible says they will be finally lost is disarmingly simple yet unfathomably profound. More than that, it seemed to provide a meeting place for good-hearted and knowledgeable Calvinists and Arminians to seek common understanding, a task that had occupied high priority in my own thinking and work since Covenant Seminary days a decade before.

Now, in this new book, Neal Punt draws from his work in Unconditional Good News, as well as from his ongoing study and dialogue, as he offers his exciting thesis to a broader, popular audience. (From the Foreword by Edward Wm. Fudge)

Excerpted from What's Good About the Good News? : The Plan of Salvation in a New Light by Neal Punt. Copyright © 1988. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved
From Chapter 1: Most Christians readily admit that they have always understood the teaching of the Bible to be that all persons are outside of Christ except those who the Bible explicitly tells us will be saved. Premise A) has been deeply implanted in our mind.

It can very easily be demonstrated that all mainstream theology has been done on the basis of assumption A) above. Those acquainted with the history of theology recognize premise A) in Pelagianism, Augustinianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism and in other theological traditions.

As far back as the third century theologians have worked with perspective A). Our understanding of the over-all message of the Bible has been shaped by the assumption that lies beneath every one of the traditions mentioned above.

We do not have the luxury of saying we will not adopt either A) or B). In spite of all denials it is impossible to read, interpret, or proclaim the gospel without working with one view or the other. Without realizing it we necessarily work with one or the other.

It makes little difference whether we concentrate on the vase or the faces in our silhouette or if we simply smile as they endlessly switch back and forth. We may not, however, treat God's message in such a casual way. We must decide what Biblical basis we have for continuing with A) or B) and what the practical effects of our selection will be.

The Bible speaks of two men-two "Adams." One at the dawn of history, the other "in the fullness of time." Through the disobedience of the first Adam condemnation and death came into this world. The obedience of the second Adam (Jesus Christ) brought salvation and life.

We can either so concentrate our attention on the disobedience of Adam that we see all persons involved in his condemnation and death over against a background of those who the Bible expressly tells us will come to salvation and life; or, we give Christ the place of pre-eminence and view all persons in him over against the dark shadow of those who the Bible expressly declares will be finally lost.

Ken

Originally posted by Helen:
Therefore there is only the possible option that Calvinists believe that the elect are 'predisposed' or 'pre-programmed' to believe. How else do you reconcile?

Click to expand...

I don't understand why you come to this conclusion or what you think needs to be reconciled. We start out not being willing or able to believe, and God gives us the gift of faith.

Ken,

Which would you say was the focus of the apostles? A or B?

I wrote this whole humungous post on it before, Ken. But I write so much who on earth would want to go through all of it anyway...

I have seen two different kinds of repentance (and experienced both myself). The first is the 'repentance' of a child who has been caught doing something wrong. This is also the 'repentance' of a lot of adults, and for the same reason. It has nothing to do with right and wrong, but with experiencing unpleasant consequences. They repent because of the consequences. That is human repentance and we see it all the time.

However, sometimes it does seem to open up a person's eyes enough to see a little more clearly that right and wrong count, too!

In that case, it can point the way to Jesus and salvation.

But the repentance I think we both agree upon which is heart-shaking is the repentance which is a result of seeing our own hearts from a "God's Eye" point of view (another expression I beg you to forgive me for and just go for the meaning of what I am stumbling through). We both know for sure this happens after being born again. One area we probably differ on is that I think that it happens to a much lesser degree many times before being born again -- it's like God opens a person's eyes enough to see the real condition of his own heart and then the question, "OK now what are you going to do about that?"

And most people make excuses. Of those who agree that they are a real internal mess, most of those try to fix themselves. Only a few find the narrow gate and quit trying to do works and give it up to Christ and His work.

But there are degrees of repentance, for different reasons, all through a person's life. Once again -- it's the heart that matters. And God -- and God alone -- knows what kind of repentance is really going on.

Now, looking at the above, and looking at the Bible, I would tend to say that where I was using 'repentance' Paul tended to use the word 'sorrow' -- the worldly kind and the kind that leads to true repentance. Given the contexts of both of us, I think we are saying the same thing (I HOPE we are!), but today we use 'sorrow' in such a wide range of circumstances that when I see a child or a person promising to change so they will 'never do that again', the word that comes to my mind is 'repentance.' Now just what KIND of repentance it is, I think we often have to wait for time to show its true nature in the life of the person.

That's the short and sweet (?) of it as I can see it. I will add that if we ever were to really know the full extent of our sins/insults to God, I'm not sure we could handle it. We could not repent enough! But God is gracious and only reveals to us what we can deal with in godly sorrow and repentance. I don't know about you, but even after almost 30 years of being with the Lord, He will sometimes show me not just things I did as a teenager which were totally out of line but also where this same behavior is in need of change today. And when He shows me I am so embarrassed before Him. That also is sorrow and repentance! And I hope there is not too much more to go...but I think I'd rather not officially know the answer to that!

Thanks, Helen. I think while we are in these fleshly unrenewed bodies we have a long, long way to go throughout life. That's why Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us so we are now, in God's eyes, just as if we had never sinned and just as if we had always acted righteously.

Ken

npetreley,

At this point Iwould say A, but I am wondering if B may be correct.

John 1:29(NASB)The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Titus 2:11(NASB)For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

1 John 2:2(NASB)and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

The sin of the world is taken away, salvation has been brought to all men, Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

I think there are things to consider here by Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. We have to admit to the possibility that we have all been arguing with each other and right past the truth.

Maybe???????

Ken

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
I think there are things to consider here by Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. We have to admit to the possibility that we have all been arguing with each other and right past the truth.

Click to expand...

Amen!! I would go so far as to say that we not only are ignorant of why one person gets saved and another does not, but that we shall remain ignorant no matter how much we argue about it. God gave us clues, but hasn't explained everything that's going on. So sometimes when scripture seems to contradict itself with respect to choice and predestination, perhaps an element of BOTH are true in some way that we cannot possibly understand.

I've suggested this wild speculation before: What if the unsaved are somehow different -- by design -- than the saved? We have a parable that implies this very thing, yet we also have verses that seem to contradict the idea. I'm not suggesting this is the case, I'm simply pointing out that we're in no position to judge God's methods even if it IS true.

To illustrate another mystery, has anyone ever noticed that we get little insights here and there that mankind's destiny is somehow intertwined with angelic spiritual warfare? Ever notice that when Paul says that women should have their heads covered, he says almost in passing that this has something to do with the angels? Where's the connection? I can guess, but he doesn't say. But if we're a part of a war that we don't fully see or understand, how can we possibly know if or how that war affects God's motives for creating man or how God works out His plan of salvation?

IMO, we should make every effort to approach these topics with a sense of humility and the admission that we simply are not privvy to all of the facts. I get testy and certainly don't always keep those things in mind, so I'm not pointing fingers (except at myself), so please don't take that the wrong way, anyone!

(Edited for spelling.)

[ November 17, 2002, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

Originally posted by Helen:
Doesn't that make both irresistible grace and unconditional election a bit at odds with this, then? Why would Jesus say "Come" to ALL who are weary and heavy-laden when -- and if -- only the elect were allowed to come, or forced to come, or however you put it?

Click to expand...

I don't see how that is at odds at all. Jesus says Come to all who are weary and heavy laden because he will give rest to all who will come. For some reason, you continue to focus on the all instead of the "will." Those who do not come, do so because they do not want to come. If they wanted to come, they would. It seems to me that for all your talk of "free will," you sure omit the "will" far too often from this discussion. Christ does not "allow" or "force" people to come. He draws them effectually; the rest do not want to come. They are kept away by nothing other than their own free will.

Dear Helen,

You wrote:

No, I have never 'fallen in love.' I don't believe it is something you can fall into. I have fallen into infatuation when I was a teenager, though! Love, however, is something I have chosen to do, not a feeling I feel. Lots of feelings involved, and not all of them are pleasant (one really does have to decide to get up three times a night to a restless baby! It's much easier to let them cry, especially if you can hardly hear them because your room is far enough away!). God DECIDED to sacrifice Himself for our sakes. He made the decision to create us as humans, capable of freedom of choice, and thus inevitably capable of rebellion against Him. Knowing the future entirely, I cannot imagine that He created us because we make Him feel good! How the Father felt when the Son was on the cross is beyond our comprehension, I am sure.

I reply:

How well I know the cries of babies in the night! I raised three myself all well within hearing distance (lol). But I daresay, letting them cry would be unloving. I know this choice you speak of. Learning it in the furnace of affliction, having no choice but to love as I am loved by Christ.

And yes, I agree that God decided to save us knowing we couldn’t save ourselves He sent His only begotten Son. He did this to glorify HIMSELF. For the joy set before Him Jesus went to the cross. Jesus Christ, the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. I don’t think it would make Him feel very good to lose those humans you speak of. What a precious price was paid. He chooses to love all – as He requires of us.

You wrote:

Nor was I speaking about physical religious monuments, although they ARE monuments to man's DESIRE to be better than what he is. That is all entirely the wrong way, though, as you pointed out and I agree. The fact that they are wanting improvement does say something, though...

I reply:

The upward call perhaps. Father drawing them to Himself. It is the only way one can come to Christ.

You wrote:

I did disagree with your statement that we are to become as God is. This, to me, sounds too much like Mormonism. We are to be brought into maturity as part of His creation to be in the IMAGE of Him. We will reflect Him, but we will not BE like Him. If you want to think of it in terms of reflection, which analogy can go a ways here, it is as though we were cracked and distorted mirrors of Him now and that we are being fixed, bit by bit, by Him, so that we will reflect Him more and more accurately. I've never yet seen a mirror that could fix itself, by the way...

I reply:

No, I don’t believe that we become God for there is NONE like Him.

I also agree entirely with the rest of your statement.

But where we probably disagree (and this is more in line with the subject of this thread – biblical universalism) is that I have a more Calvinistic approach to salvation. As there seems to me to be clear indication from the scripture to believe it. But let’s go one step closer – all are chosen by God - some for noble use, some for ignoble use (Paul calls them vessels of wrath). I believe that He, God, is sovereign and I believe that I was chosen - not because there was anything in me, but because of His sovereign will. And so I lay at His feet and worship Him! Believing this lead to looking into those vessels of wrath that tugged at my heart. (Is my heart more loving than God's and cannot God choose to love His enemies too?)

These chosen vessels of wrath are chosen by God, I believe, to bring about the purpose of His will by His Spirit through those whom He has prepared to receive it (the chosen). God has set the chosen ones apart for His special work, but does this mean that the unchosen are unloved by God? If He commands us to love our enemies - how can it be that He would hate His, especially since He created them that way (He hardens whom He wants to harden)? Again, am I more loving than God?

Rom 9:13 Just as it is written: "Jacob (the chosen?) I loved, but Esau (the unchosen?) I hated." What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy (the chosen?), and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion (the unchosen?)." Then it goes on to say that God will have mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He HARDENS whom HE WANTS to harden.

Romans which I had read a thousand times and never saw the fullness of those verses about all dead in Adam, all alive in Christ (more than four times Paul says it in one chapter). Powerful, very powerful to me. Wait a minute here, I ask myself, I ask my Lord. ALL are made alive in Christ? Suddenly I knew that it meant all. The end of our faith Helen, which in reality is the faith of the Son of God expressed in our lives by His grace, is only part of the equation, for our Lord is the Savior of all men, "especially those", or in particular, those who place their faith in Him by His will.

Salvation flows as far as the curse is found and is expressed as "all the more" in Romans chapter 5, among other scripture verses. John also declares that Christ has made a propitiation for our sins. And, in the same breath declares that the atoning sacrifice is "not for our sins only" BUT ALSO.... for the sins of the whole world." ("but for those of the rest of the world as well.")

Here’s an important verse to consider: Rom. 11:32 For God locks up **all** together in stubbornness, that He should be merciful to **all**. 33 O, the depth of the riches and the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How inscrutable are His judgments, and untraceable His ways! 34 For, who knew the mind of the Lord? or, who became His adviser? 35 or, who gives to Him first, and it will be repaid him? 36 seeing that out of Him and through Him and for Him is all." Helen, who is going to talk back to that verse? Not me.

There is only one way to God; it flows to us by His grace. He is the Lord, that which is closed, He opens. "He will take of the things of mine and reveal them unto you," Jesus said. Paul speaks of being instructed by the Father by the giving of a "spirit of wisdom and insight into mysteries through a knowledge of Him, the eyes of your heart being enlightened that you may know what is the hope His call to you inspires." Eph. 1.

"...when it pleased God, who separated me from my mothers womb, and called me by His grace..." Like Paul, Helen, we've been chosen and called by His grace. The way is open for us, by His grace. But "God will have all mankind to be saved" (1Tim.2:4).

Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just award for all mankind for life's justifying. 19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just.

"8 and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore, also, God highly exalts Him, and graces Him with the name that is above every name, 10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, 11 and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord, for the glory of God, the Father" (Phil.2:8-11).

"But WHO may abide the day of His coming? and WHO shall stand when He appeareth? for He is like a refiner's fire and like a fuller's soap:

And He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord and offering in righteousness." Malachi 3:2,3

With God all things are possible. Blessed be God forever.\o/

Selah.

I have corresponded with Neal Punt and he sent me this extended definition of Biblical Universalism -

BIBLICAL UNIVERSALISM is the teaching that all persons are elect in Christ except those who the Bible expressly declares will be finally lost, namely, those who ultimately reject or remain indifferent to whatever revelation God has given of himself to them whether in nature/conscience or in gospel presentation.

Biblical Universalism is based upon these three biblical facts:

1) The so-called "universalistic" texts speak of a certain-to-be-realized salvation as Calvinist have consistently maintained and they do so in terms of all persons as Arminians have always affirmed (Chapter 3).

2) All persons, except Jesus Christ, are liable for and polluted by the imputed sin of Adam (original sin). However, the Scriptures do not teach or imply that anyone is consigned to eternal damnation solely on the basis of their sin in Adam APART FROM actual, willful and persistent sin on the part of the person so consigned (Chapter 4).

3) We must accept the so-called "universalistic" texts as written. We may allow only those exceptions that are necessarily imposed upon these passages from the broader context of the Scriptures as a whole (Chapter 5).

Chapter references are to the book SO ALSO IN CHRIST.

Ken

"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28) immediately follows this declaration:

"At that time Jesus answered and said, 'I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes. Yes, Father, for thus it was well-pleasing in Thy sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except teh Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." (Matthew 11:25-27)

[ November 18, 2002, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Rev. G ]