Universalism

My friend, you don't even read what I post. I don't define love as you do. I don't see it as necessary for God to let people into heaven that have rejected His free gift. He has already demonstrated His love (Rom. 5:8).

Did Jesus ever say that there would be those who would want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven and He would not let them? (Hint: read Matthew 7:21-23)

Because Scriptural evidence is to the contrary (Heb. 9:27 & Rev. 20:15). Can you show me any evidence to affirm that they will have an opportunity?

Absolutely. I am one that believes in the stipulation given in that verse for people to have eternal life. You don't. Please notice that it does not say, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so everyone will be in heaven."

Do those words apply to everyone? Ummm....no. Go back to verse 17. That receiving seems to be the kicker. It must be received. You know, like John 1:12. There are some who do and some who don't. Also, just a little note, from Rom. 5:9-10, it seems clear that reconciliation, justification, and salvation are all separate things. It seems that universalists like to equate them (I did too for a while). But they don't appear to be.

Common sense tells me to take Scripture as a whole. First off, at best, you have all of Israel being saved, not all men. Second, there appears to be a conditional statement in verse 23.

So despite any clear indication and all the Scripture to the contrary, you will hold to this belief. Hey, it is your choice. It is not enough for me, though.

My friend, I posted those questions to show the inconsistency in your position. Remember, I am not claiming all the things that you are.

I don't recall saying 'mean' (if I did, could you show me), but the point I am making is that people cannot pay for sins or work on them in hell because they are already paid for. What is hell for, then, my friend?

I understand quite clearly. That is why sins do not call for eternal punishment. Rejection of the eternal God and His free gift does, though. People are in hell because of rejection of God's free gift, not their sins.

But those are your words and thoughts, not mine. Please note that as such.

Oh yes, the abundance of 'proof.' When you start dealing with the contrary evidence we can carry on. Until then, stop throwing up the few verses you say teaches universalism. Take the Bible as a whole, not bits and pieces. And when you talk of imply, that is absolutely subjective. Do you have any clear-cut verses that say there is another chance after this life? Hebrews 9:27 says we die then judgment. Revelation 20:15 says those not in the Lamb's Book of Life are cast into the lake of fire. Matthew 7:21-23 says there will be those who will at some point want to enter heaven and Jesus tells them no. Revelation 21:27 says that only those in the Lamb's Book of Life will enter the New Jerusalem. Do you have clear-cut Scriptures that say otherwise?

Okay, but again, the kicker. Belief. Also, God has already demonstrated His love. Please, do not forget that love is not His only attribute.

Neal

 

Justification is not salvation. Also, the interpretation you propose for this verse does not fly with the rest of Scripture, so it is not valid.

Neal

 

Then what did you mean by these responses:

Do you think God's love turns to hate when someone leaves this world unsaved?
No. Please show me where I have said this.
they just believe God's grace is extended beyond the present life.
Without any good justification. There is evidence to the contrary that there is a chance after this life.

Yes, there's a time when people will not be allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, as long as they are full of unbelief!

Balderdash! You know I've never said that! I'm constantly saying that people must eventially believe in order to have eternal life. Talk about someone not reading posts!

Of course it must be eventially be received. I've always said that.

I was just showing how a people once marked off from God's elective purpose were not marked off forever, but eventially were saved.

So you didn't read my scriptures huh?

And how inconsistant you make yourself out to be by doing so!

Quote: "So Christ didn't take away the sin of the world? You have people paying for sins that Christ paid for? Was His sacrifice not sufficient? Or is God just being mean? "

Sins are not already paid for if one enters the next life unsaved! They havn't received the gift. Remember! It must be received. Didn't you say that someplace? Hell is the purging, remedial , loving correction employed by God to bring sinners back to Himself!

But there wouldn't be any need for the free gift if people hadn't sinned to start with! The gift is given out of love. Do you think rejecting the gift of love makes God love any less. And how in the world can you say that rejecting God is not a sin?

Hewbrews 9:27 says that there is judgment after death which I agree with totally. I showed you how the fire of Rev. 20:15 was a purging fire, figurativelly speaking where being "salted with fire" makes one better! I showed where Paul stated that every man's work would be tried by fire but they come through it saved as through fire. According to Mathew 7:21-23, and Rev. 21:27, only believers will be allowed to enter the New Jerusalem. I've tried very hard to show you that eventially everyone will come a believer because God never gives up on the ones He loves! Now to give you your clearcut verse:
Matthew 12:32 (ESV)
And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. Here the Lord is clealy implying that the only sin unforgivable in this world or the world to come is "speaking against the Holy Spirit". In other words, no matter how big a sinner we are in this life, we can still find forgiveness and avoid judgment. This is also true when we enter the next life. If at this time we repent and accept the Lord, we can still avoid judgment. But if we reject the Holy spirit now and then, we encur judgment. But understand, no judgment is endless!

 

Everyone who is justified is saved. Surely you don't believe that one who is justified is not saved? No where in the Bible does it state that one who is justified is not saved. Justification is a part of the conversion/salvation process.

Romans 4:25 (ESV)
who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Romans 5:16 (ESV)
And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

Romans 3:30 (ESV)
... He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

Galatians 3:8 (ESV)
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."

Romans 3:24 (ESV)
and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Romans 3:28 (ESV)
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Romans 5:1 (ESV)
Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:9 (ESV)
Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Romans 8:30 (ESV)
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Romans 10:10 (ESV)
For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

1 Cor. 6:11 (ESV)
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Titus 3:7 (ESV)
so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

To be justified is to be "just as if I had never sinned" and "just as if I had always been totally righteous" because of the finished work of my Lord Jesus Christ.

I have been justified by faith. And, as I stated previously, I believe that one must come to Jesus in repentance and faith. My belief in universalism does not change my stance on that at all.

 

Universalism, Calvinism, and Arminianism: Some preliminary reflections.

by Tom Talbott

When I first began interpreting the New Testament along universalist lines, I was struck by how many regarded such an interpretation as not only mistaken, but utterly unreasonable and heretical as well. I found that a good many of my Calvinist friends, who did not regard Arminianism as heretical (only mistaken), and a good many of my Arminian friends, who did not regard Calvinism as heretical (only mistaken), were united in their conviction that universalism is both mistaken and heretical. This curious response started me thinking. Why should Calvinists regard universalism as any more heretical than Arminianism?--and why should Arminians regard it as any more heretical than Calvinism?
As I reflected upon these questions, I also began to reflect upon the following inconsistent set of propositions:

(1) It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners to himself;

(2) It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;

(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether.

If this is indeed an inconsistent set of propositions, as I believe it is, then at least one of the propositions is false. Calvinists reject proposition (1); Arminians reject proposition (2); and universalists reject proposition (3). But in fact we can also find *prima facie* support in the Bible for each of the three propositions. So one day I sat down and, setting aside disputes over translation and sophisticated theological arguments, began to review the obvious.

In support of proposition (1), one might cite such texts as II Peter 3:9: "The Lord . . . is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"; I Timothy 2:4: God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"; Romans 11:32: "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all"; and Ezekiel 33:11: "As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn away from his way and live . . .." All of these texts seem to suggest that God sincerely wants to achieve the reconciliation of all sinners, and that his failure to achieve this end would therefore be, in some important sense, a tragic defeat of one of his purposes.

Similarly, in support of proposition (2), one might cite such texts as Ephesians 1:11: God "accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his own will"; Job 42:2: "I know that thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of thine can be thwarted"; Psalm 115:3: "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases"; and Isaiah 46:10b & 11b: "My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose . . . I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it." These texts seem to imply that God is able to accomplish all of his purposes--including, therefore, all of his redemptive purposes. And in addition to these texts, a number of others seem to imply that God has both the will and the power to bring all things into subjection to Christ (I Corinthians 15:27-28), to reconcile all things in Christ (Colossians 1:20), and to bring acquittal and life to all persons through Christ (Romans 5:18).

But finally, in support of proposition (3), one might also cite such texts as Matthew 25:46: "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life"; II Thessalonians 1:9: "They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might . . ."; and Ephesians 5:5: "Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." These texts may seem to imply that at least some persons will be lost forever and thus never be reconciled to God.

- from www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/prolegomenon.shtml

Continued in next post...

 

After a quick review of these texts in my own mind, one point struck me as altogether obvious: Anyone who takes a position with respect to our three propositions--whether the person be a Calvinist, an Arminian, or a universalist--will end up denying a proposition for which there is at least some prima facie biblical support. And in that respect universalism is no different from either Calvinism or Arminianism. So I found myself, at this point, wanting to put several questions to those who would simply dismiss universalism as heretical: If it is not heretical for the Arminians to believe that God, being unlimited in love, at least wills (or sincerely desires) the salvation of all (proposition (1)), why should it be heretical for the universalists to believe this as well?--and if it is not heretical for the Calvinists to believe that God, being almighty, will in the end accomplish all of his redemptive purposes (proposition (2)), why should it be heretical for the universalists to believe this as well? And finally, if it is not heretical to accept proposition (1), as the Arminians do, and not heretical to accept proposition (2), as the Calvinists do, why should it be heretical to accept both (1) and (2)?

Now as a matter of logic, there is a possible answer to this last question. If the biblical warrant for proposition (3), or a doctrine of everlasting separation, were overwhelmingly greater than that for the other two propositions, then one might conclude that only (3) could not reasonably be rejected. But nothing like that seems to be true at all, and here, at least, is how I see the matter. The biblical warrant for proposition (1), that God wills the salvation of all, is simply overwhelming--so overwhelming that those who worry about heresy, as I do not, ought to regard Calvinism, not universalism, as heretical. The biblical warrant for proposition (2), that almighty God will eventually accomplish all of his redemptive purposes, is likewise exceedingly strong, as the Calvinists have always insisted. And proposition (3) is the weakest of the three. For only (3) seems to rest upon controversial *translations* as well as controversial interpretations; and whereas (1) and (2) seem to rest upon systematic teachings in Paul, the texts cited on behalf of (3) are typically lifted from contexts of parable, hyperbole, and great symbolism.

Others will no doubt assess matters differently. But to those who claim, as many do, that everlasting punishment is clearly and unmistakably taught in the New Testament, I would put this question: Which of our other two propositions would you then reject? Would you deny that God wills (or sincerely desires) the salvation of all human beings?--or would you deny that he has the power to accomplish his will in this matter? And finally, why do you believe that the biblical warrant for proposition (3) is stronger than that for propositions (1) and (2)? It is not enough, in other words, merely to cite the standard proof-texts in support of (3). For if (3) is true, then either (1) or (2) is false. To provide a full biblical defense for a doctrine of everlasting punishment, therefore, one must show that the biblical warrant for (3) is stronger than that for (1) or stronger than that for (2)--a daunting task indeed! And I know of no one who has even tried to build any such comparative case as that. So why do so many regard it as heretical to reject a doctrine of everlasting punishment, but not heretical to limit God's love or to limit his power? Which view does more, in the end, to undermine the glory and the majesty of God?

- from www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/prolegomenon.shtml

 

This Talbott fellow is a great read. He is causing me to re-think whether I should even be a 4-point Calvinist.

A simple argument for universalism

By Tom Talbott

Suppose that Christ commanded that we love our enemies and love our neighbor even as we love ourselves because such love is an essential condition of blessedness or supreme happiness. If this is true, as I believe it is, then God could not possibly bring blessedness to one person without also bringing it to all.
Here is why. If I truly love my daughter even as I love myself, then her interests and my own are so tightly interwoven as to be logically inseparable: any good that befalls her is then a good that befalls me, and any evil that befalls her is likewise an evil that befalls me. I could never be happy, for example, knowing that my daughter is suffering or in a miserable condition--unless, of course, I could somehow believe that all will be well for her in the end. But if I cannot believe this, if I were to believe instead that she had been lost to me forever--even if I were to believe that, by her own will, she had made herself intolerably evil--my own happiness could never be complete. For I would always know what could have been, and I would always experience this as a terrible tragedy and an unacceptable loss, one for which no compensation is even conceivable. Is it any wonder, then, that Paul could say concerning his unbelieving brothers and sisters whom he loved so much: "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people" (Romans 9:3)? From the perspective of his love, in other words, Paul's own damnation would be no worse an evil, and no greater threat to his own happiness, than the eternal damnation of his loved ones would be.

God could make us "happy" whilst our loved ones suffered in hell only in two possible ways: either by concealing from us the magnitude of the tragedy (blissful ignorance), or by giving us a callous and stony heart, so that we no longer truly loved those who were lost. Both of these possibilities, however, are incompatible with true blessedness. So in the end, it is logically impossible for God to bring blessedness to one person without also bringing it to all.

- from www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/basic.shtml

 

Everyone who is forgiven is saved. Everyone who is redeemed(atoned for) is saved. I don't see how anyone can believe otherwise. What you are saying, Yelsew, is that, according to your view, someone can be atoned for, redeemed, justified, and forgiven and you say that they can still be tortured by God in Hell forever and ever and ever and ever... while being in a forgiven state. That is absolutely one of the wildest ideas I have ever heard. I think that is even wilder than universalism sounds to a non-universalist.

 

Exactly what I wrote. The second one deals with God's grace, not love. There is no evidence that there are opportunities after this life. You have yet to produce any.

You miss the whole point of the parable. If these, who want to enter the kingdom, are not prime to believe on the spot, then when do they return. There is ABSOLUTELY NO INDICATION that they will have another opportunity.

What is the purpose of belief, then? Don't you see that you totally undermine it?

There is ABSOLUTELY NO INDICATION that the opportunity will go on indefinitely.

Okay. And you get universalism from that? And do ignore all conditional statements in the Bible?

I can't believe you. I engage your posts and address your Scriptures. You do not do the same courtesy for me. You ignore any tough spots and ignore the Scripture and evidence contrary to your position. I don't even know if you read half my posts, because you never respond to them.

Okay, if you say so. I don't ignore parts of the Bible because I don't like them.

First off, I statement is: God is mean for giving remedial punishment. I believe I asked you a question. Big difference. Second, it was to point out your inconsistencies. How can one pay for sins that Christ has paid for?

Now I know you don't read my posts. I have held from the beginning that people do not go to hell for their sins, but for rejecting Christ. I have clearly showed this on page one. Everyone's sins are paid for. That is what Christ came for. The free gift is eternal life. Christ has done all the work so that God may remain just and offer this free gift to all men. It is a matter of reception or rejection now.

Then you do not believe that Christ took away the sin of the world.

Okay...........

No, do you? Actually, I can say it quite easily. I open my mouth and say the words. (You asked the wrong question, you should as 'why?') It is no more a sin that receiving Christ is a good work on our part.

You didn't 'show' me. You made a connection that is strained at best with one other passage of Scripture. What of all the rest? And when I asked for clear evidence, you posted this response in question with I believe the statement, "I can come close." So you yourself admit that it is not clear.

Why would you need to try so hard if it was so clear? Wouldn't God want to make this great news as clear as possible? Your 'proof' is more like a conspiracy theory.

This is classic. Universalism seems to be built off what is implied, not clear. Now you know what Christ intended? And isn't this an oxymoron, "clearly implied?" Could not rejecting the Holy Spirit's work and conviction be a problem for a person? Is it not the Holy Spirit that reveals truth to a person? What if a person rejects that revelation? Seems to me that Christ is making it clear that all sins can be forgiven except speaking against the Holy Spirit. I would classify rejecting the Holy Spirit's work and a form of speaking against Him. And I love the way you put your own clause on this. Christ clearly says that something will not be forgiven. Yet you say it will, eventually. Classic.

Thank-you for finally addressing a few of my verses that I post to the contrary. However, you came into the ballgame late and I am getting tired. I have tried to point by point address your posts and do not get that in return. Go back, read the entire thing, and post specific responses if you don't mind. Not, "You don't think God is love" or "You think God tortures people." Give me some substance, please. We have gone round and round for 14 pages and have really gotten nowhere. I don't see much in the way of engaging opposing evidence from the universalists side, so until then, I am about through. Have fun everyone!

Neal

 

Ken, my point is that justification, salvation, and reconciliation are all separate terms. They are not interchangable becaue they mean different things. I will have to look into whether justification automatically implies salvation. I haven't thought much of it before. Thanks!

Neal

 

Glad I could stimulate some useful thought for someone. Yes, I don't see how one can be justified and be given life(as in Romans 5:18) and not be saved.

 

Yelsew,

Romans 5:18 speaks for itself quite plainly. Ken has skillfully, imo, presented a good argument for the salvation of all mankind in his posts pertaining to this particular verse. I would like to add another point that may bring more light to you in so far as where we are coming from. Please forgive me if it has already been presented for I may have missed a few posts today.

I'll begin with a question.

Did you choose to be included in the condemnation that came from Adam's unrighteous act? If your answer is yes then don't continue reading. But if your answer is no, then I propose to you that you cannot chose be included in the one righteous award that comes from Christ's faith in doing His Father's will: securing the justification/salvation for all mankind.

1. Jesus Christ is the Savior of all mankind and especially (and in particular) them that believe. 1 Tim. 4:10

2. Jesus Christ reaches in reconciliation as far as the curse is found. "All the more" is the scope of the Last Adam. Romans chapter 5

3. Jesus Christ is the expiation for our sins, AND NOT FOR OUR SINS ONLY, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2

4. "All things find in Him their origin, their impulse, the center of their being."..."He is the Source, Guide and Goal of all that is." Romans 11:36

5. "For God hath shut up all men to disobedience that He may might have mercy upon all." Romans 11:32..."That He might have mercy upon all alike."

.."the purpose which He has cherished in His own mind of restoring the whole creation to find its one Head in Christ; yes, things in heaven and things on earth, to find their one Head In Him. And you too.....having been chosen beforehand in accord with His intention...." Eph. 1:

For both He who sanctifies and those whom He is sanctifying (for both the Sanctifier and the sanctified) have all one Father (are all of one stock/ have all one origin/ all spring from One); and for this reason He is not ashamed to speak of them as brothers (to own them as His brothers). Hebrews 2

But far greater is the gift than was the transgression. For if through the offence of one many be dead, MUCH MORE the grace of God, and the gift of grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was to one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

Yelsew, if you had sufficient power would you not deliver all men from sin? I'm guessing, but I think you would say yes to this question.

Are you more merciful than the God Who made you? Again, I'm guessing but I'm pretty sure you're not (me neither).

I thank you and I praise you Almighty Father for your salvation to the uttermost through Christ our Lord, Amen. \o/

[ May 29, 2003, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: GH ]

 

Thanks for the kind words, Diane. The only argument that a non-universalist can make against the plain teaching of Romans 5:18 is that those who are justified and given life by God are not necessarily saved. And I really don't think they want to go down that road as to use that kind of reasoning could open up a whole big can of worms about all of the other salvific specific verses in the Bible. That kind of reasoning would cast doubt on whether any of us can truly hope to be saved if being justified, given life, being redeemed, don't mean that we are saved. How else would God express salvation to us than by these words? The only other method is to have confidence in man's ability and works instead of God's justification and redemption of sinners. And I don't think any Christian wants to think that salvation is based on himself and his performance.

Also, I read where Thomas Talbott is having a new book published in July entitled Christian Universalism: The Debate which answers the arguments of those opposed to the teaching of the salvation of all people. This will be a great addition to his masterful work The Inescapable Love of God. Have you read this book, Diane? I am thinking about buying it. I have some of it on the Internet.

Praise be unto God for salvation through the finished work of Christ Jesus. \o/

 

But does his interpretation fly with the rest of Scripture? Can't 5:18 be relaying the fact that salvation is available for all men because Christ has met the justification standards for all? It is absolutely, positively, without a doubt clear that salvation is based on belief.

Neal

P.S. Oops. I wasn't going to post any more. I couldn't resist. If I get time the next few days I will start another thread related to this topic.

 

Is your name written there,
On the page white and fair?
In the book of Thy kingdom,
Is your name written there?

 

Therefore we truly see these things differently, as if you believe in a different God than the biblical God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear brother, I agree that we see it differently hence the discussion. And I agree we believe in a different God. Jesus said, "Mercy triumphs over judgment." The doctrine of eternal hell and eternal damnation is based on pagan beliefs. It came into the church in full strength during time of Constantine. People with no faith ran with it to control the masses. God never intended to burn His children in the fire for eternal destruction. In fact, it never entered His mind. It is man's doctrine that has been handed down. But he who has been freed by the Way, the Truth and the Life is free indeed. We ARE burned up though in His love which heals and makes whole and restores.

Here is something for you to think about: Paul never mentions hell. Condemnation - yes, but not an eternal punishment in hell. Don't you think that the apostle to the gentiles would bring it up at least once if it was so important? He fought bravely against the Judeaizers who sought to control by law and external performance. But God preserved a remnant who worships in spirit and in truth.

Jesus said, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you." Some are chosen to bring the good news of God's love. Some enjoy that love now and worship in spirit and in truth. Someday all will see this and believe and fall on their knees and worship.

I still think that you cannot choose salvation. It is a free gift by the faith OF Jesus.

ALL Glory Honor and Praise to HIM.\o/

God bless, Diane