Below is a comment (edited) I made in a discussion about whether or not universalism can be considered “Christian” and whether or not it relies on the exclusivity of Christ. I’m posting it here because I would like to hear other responses from a broader audience. What do you think?
If you think about it, Christian Universalism (which isn’t something I made up or something new, but has been a report within the Church from the very beginning), is far more Christian and far more reliant on the exclusivity of Christ alone than what you and others here have intimated.
I’ll explain why…
When we talk about how your theology of last things actually plays out, one of the ways you avoid making God look like a monster who sends billions of people to hell for mere ignorance (or even those who outright reject Christ in this life) is to quote C.S. Lewis and suggest that it isn’t God who sends people to hell but we send ourselves. In this move you have already left the Biblical corpus and suggested something that isn’t in Scripture (so let’s at least be fair and not accuse me of being the only one who has left the “reservation”) Why? Well, I assume because it is tough to swallow an idea of a God who sends, as just one example of a million available, victims of genocide in primitive countries to a place of eternal separation from God’s love just because they never heard the name “Jesus” in their lifetime (I grant that this is a good theological move because it does, at least, protect an image of God that is love and one that does not look like Hitler enacting a Final Solution).
So, in the end, human free will becomes the trump card in your eschatology and is the determining factor for one’s eternity – OVER and ABOVE God’s desire and what I would argue, plan. The problem with this, though, is we have nothing in Scripture that explicitly says we have “free will.” And certainly nothing that suggests we exercise our free will to choose our eternal destiny.
Christian Universalism, on the other hand, puts all authority and judgment in Christ and Christ alone. The hope we have as it pertains to those who do not know Christ resides in the assurance we as Christians already have experienced – we know the Judge! We know the Judge to be full of love and grace and one who desires that none perish but all have life. We know the Judge to be one who even while being murdered forgave those who killed him (out of ignorance!) We know the Judge to be the one who taught us to love and pray for even our enemies (and we assume God does the same, for God does not ask us to do what God does not do). We know the Judge to be the one who welcomes sinners, tax collectors and prostitutes and is one who doesn’t stop searching until the last coin or sheep is found.
We read that God has imprisoned ALL in disobedience so that he can have mercy on ALL (Rom. 11:32). Does “all” just mean “some”?
In the end, I find it far more Christian to place all my faith and hope in Christ (in whom ALL things exist) rather than put my faith and hope in human free will or in some death-bed confession or in any number of artificial and arbitrary ways we have devised to give ourselves security that we won’t burn in hell for all eternity. If you think about it, we have created another sacrificial system. Just say “I believe in Jesus” and the gods won’t be angry anymore. Just walk down the aisle and say the sinners prayer and you can know that God won’t be ticked off at you on the day of Judgment. Our “belief” has become just one more fattened calf we offer at the Temple to appease what we perceive to be God whose fundamental posture towards us is wrath and refusal rather than love and acceptance. Has not Christ reconciled (made peace) ALL things to God? (1 Cor. 15).
God is not interested in our sacrifices. While it may appease us, and while it may give us peace of mind to know we are secure when we confess Jesus as Lord, that is not the magic sentence God is waiting for us to say before he’ll call off the dogs. The dogs have already been defeated and will one day be gone forever. Our invitation to claim “Jesus is Lord,” in this life, is a call to be redemptive agents in the world as Christ’s Body, not a formula to avoid an eternity separated from our Maker and our Father.
To quote Rob Bell, “The gods aren’t angry. You don’t have to live this way.”
Hey friend,
Here’s my bit. I’m going to use the abstract below just so I don’t have to keep scrolling back and forth. Please forgive me.
Ok, here goes.
You wrote: “The hope we have as it pertains to those who do not know Christ resides in the assurance we as Christians already have experienced – we know the Judge!”
This statement could appear as the thesis to your entire comment. It may not be, but it does draw out a few thoughts teasing out the lawcourt metaphor: (1) It could seem that justification (with all of its eschatological implications) is a work of legal fiction and not a forensic decree of status (not imputation or impartation) by a righteous judge. What I mean is that the notion of “knowing the judge” in any case or court (whether in reality or super-reality) never holds any bearing on the virdict of the one at fault. For example, my brother-in-law’s father is an appellate court judge in New Orleans, La. My “knowing him” cannot and must not affect his upholding the law (and it’s not even HIS law). As he is not above the law in this sense, neither is God in God’s sense. Both must fulfill the law and judge justly (Matthew 5:17). (2) Christ, most believe, acts a mediator – and the judge renders a righteous judgement not one those who “know him” (won’t many say, “Lord, Lord” and he say, “I never knew you”?) but those in whom “God knows through the Son.” This is my current [flexible] understanding of justification theology as it pertains to Paul’s lawcourt setting.
You wrote: “We know the Judge to be full of love and grace and one who desires that none perish but all have life. ”
I absolutely believe God is a God of love – hopefully much more than I can ever imagine. But this could appear to be a work of determinism on God’s part. Can we read out “desire” to mean “determines”? This looks to be the way it is being presented.
You wrote: “We know the Judge to be one who even while being murdered forgave those who killed him (out of ignorance!)”
Yes. But when/where does “forgiveness” shift to “salvation” – in any sense? I don’t think your trying to conflate these to ideas, are you? Because being forgiven is something that can be and is granted by the offended; the offender has no part in it. Aaaaaah, but you say, “and that is exactly my point, old friend: neither do WE have any part in our salvation.” And I’d retort, “Yes and no. It does not matter whether the offender receives the forgiveness of the offended, but it would appear it does matter when it comes to redemption.” Here is an example: I purchase, with my own sweat and blood, four dozen roses for my beautiful bride for Valentine’s Day. She had no bit in the purchase. However, if she does not do the “work” of answering the door and signing for the bouquet on Monday evening, she will not receive the benefit of her lover’s affection toward her.
You wrote: “We know the Judge to be the one who taught us to love and pray for even our enemies (and we assume God does the same, for God does not ask us to do what God does not do).”
No issues here. However, I don’t think praying for anyone, let alone enemies, directly affects their fate deterministically. Against the Charismaniac, you cannot “pray someone into the Kingdom.”
You wrote: “Of course. We know the Judge to be the one who welcomes sinners, tax collectors and prostitutes and is one who doesn’t stop searching until the last coin or sheep is found.”
Again, I agree with this point as it stands. Can we [seemingly?] conflate the shepherd/sheep figure and parables with the welcoming tax collectors, sinners, and prostitutes narratives, or are we forcing the pieces to fit in this corner of the puzzle?
Chad, I love you, bro. I have more questions than answers, and above all honor our Christ-centered friendship. Look forward to your responses.
Grace, melody, laughter-
Isaac
And thus discipleship takes on a whole new meaning. Because it no longer is “do all these church things”, it becomes “BE the church” Go out, love others, and live wisely and teach other’s also.
the free-will defence is usually the one that is used [classically] against the universal idea of reconciliation .the notion has been utterly destroyed by one of the greatest christian thinkers ever Thomas Talbott ”the inescapable love of god” suffice it to say Jesus said ”fear not for I have the keys to death and hades” but to try to give talbotts answer in concise form ” even if one could still reject GODS offer of love through Christ after death [and one could see far clearer after death] the ”free” decision to still reject him would be delusional thus how on earth could such a decision be considered ”free”
Yes, Christ has reconciled all things to God…..
………..yet the very same man who wrote those words (the Apostle Paul) ALSO said, “Be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:20)
Hence the reason we must choose to obey 2 Corinthians 5:20 and be reconciled to God.
For many (like me) that comes in the form of the sinner’s prayer, which by the way, Jesus Himself taught, when He gave us the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector and said that the tax collector went home justified because he cried out, “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
There you have it….the first recorded sinner’s prayer, in a story told by The Man Himself.
If your obedience has a part in your salvation, then it ceases from being grace. You then make it out to be about what you can do in order to get it.
exactly sister , or put another way, at what point of obedience or disobedience does your salvation depend on ? if it depends on total obedience none of us will make it !, if it requires just a little ,that councils out of lot of believers also ! so at what point does my salvation depend on my obedience ?
Salvation doesn’t depend on obedience. It depends on faith. Paul said so enough times in his epistles.
Christ reconciled all things to God…that’s GRACE.
2 Cor. 5: 20 tells us to “be reconciled to God”…that’s FAITH.
Put ‘em together…..and that’s SALVATION.
Kevin,
This “faith” that you mention, is this the key that unlocks our place in either heaven or hell after death?
Or, is this “faith” what enables us to live into the reality that is already true about us?
I read Paul saying, “you ARE reconciled” to mean this is your reality – it is true whether you believe it (have faith) or not. Therefore, he goes on to say, BE reconciled. In other words, live as God already sees you – SAVED.
Chad, let’s look at what Paul actually said…
2 Corinthians 5:18,” All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.”
It looks as if Paul is saying that God has already reconciled all things to Himself, so I would agree with you that “you ARE reconciled” means this is your reality.
However, in 2 Corinthians 5: 17, Paul says, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”
In considering your very good question, I notice that Paul said, “IF” anyone is in Christ. “IF”. That tells me that even though God has done His part through Christ, something is still missing. Because, why would Paul say “IF” anyone is in Christ? Aren’t we ALL ALREADY in Christ, according to universalist theology. Paul would say no.
Hence the reason that Paul said in 2 Cor. 5: 20 to “BE reconciled.” You put it in your own words, “live as God already sees you – SAVED,” and there’s nothing wrong with paraphrasing Paul like that.
But my point would be this: whether we say, “Be reconciled” or “Live as God already sees you,” there’s still some action that WE the recipients of grace need to take in order to make that salvation, that amazing grace EFFECTIVE in our lives. The words “Be” and “Live” are verbs, action words.
Universalists don’t wanna hear that, because in their minds, that’s somehow adding to grace, but it’s not. If you win the lottery, you still have to go and collect the money and put it in the bank. If a doctor friend graciously offers to perform a surgery free of charge, you still have to show up at the hospital and get the hospital gown on. If your parents offer to pay your college tuition, you still have to go to class and get passing grades……and if we want to experience salvation, than we have to “be reconciled,” or to use YOUR words, “live as God already sees you.”
Action is required on our part, or the grace is of no effect in our lives.
aren’t we already reconciled to GOD according to universalist theology” that you will find is a slight misunderstanding of the position , I would say the universalist position is more along these lines ”for GOD IS the saviour of all men especially of those who believe”[are in Christ already]
as for ”winning the lottery” we dont have to go to the bank and deposit it ! he has already deposited it for us ! for I can do nothing to earn my salvation, it truly is free . as for the doctor [I am was dead in my sins and was revived I didn't have to do a thing ! ]
Stuart, I’ve read plenty of books on Christian universalism, Inclusion, Universal Reconciliation, etc……and I think I get the universalist position.
If Chad wants to believe in Christian universalism, that’s certainly his perogative. I just wanted to make it plain from 2 Cor. chapter 5 that the Apostle Paul was not a universalist.
God INDEED IS the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe…because those who believe are the ones who receive this wonderful free gift.
problem is you haven’t ”made it plain” and your above explanation of that text doesn’t make sense , indeed the only one that does is the universalist understanding
for in your words ”because those who believe …..” doesn’t explain ”all men” and ”especially” !!!
for the good news of Calvinism is ”for GOD so loved the elect and everyone else is damned” doesn’t sound very good to me !
and the good news of free-will theism is, GOD at least loves everyone but is hopelessly powerless to do anything about it ! your on your own and IF [there's that word ,you will notice that word comes up heaps of times throughout the new testament so try to be consistent !] IF you fail this or that you are damned ,nope doesn’t sound like good news to me either ! compared to the real good news that every knee will bow [willingly not forced] that is a GOD worthy of worship ! that is good news
p.s. I can argue FOREVER if you want
disclaimer . the word ”FOREVER” here is used as a form of exaggeration ! all those taking it literally are in error !
“All those taking FOREVER literally are in error?”
So I guess the Psalmist was in error when he referred to God’s mercy endureth forever?? (LOL)
Actually, the word isnt’t ‘if’ in Greek, it is ‘forasmuch as’ which means ‘since you already are’ and I am laughing about Paul being a universalist…he never used labels and he certainy wasn’t a Methodist either. If you want to call Paul a universalist because he wrote about things that express the saving of all mankind then I guess you could, but just as universalist isn’t a term in his writings, neither was Methodism, Lutheranism, or Catholicism either. We have no part in making Jesus the Savior, He already IS the Savior. The idea that you believe it is wonderful and so begin your walk in faith. Just don’t put requirements on others to ‘make him their Savior’ He did that all on his own.
“..for in your words ”because those who believe …..” doesn’t explain ”all men” and ”especially.”
Sure it does. You just have bought into the universalist theology to the extent that you cannot see any other point of view. I understand.
I’m not a universalist, but I do understand the universalist theological point of view. I do not embrace it, for the same reasons that the majority of Christians don’t embrace it………but I at LEAST understand universalist theology as a viable point of view.
You, on the other hand, only see ONE viable, Scriptural point of view, and you regard Calvinism and Arminianism as nonsense.
That’s fine Stuart. Believe what you want. I don’t know you. We’re not friends.
I’m mainly here to talk to Chad, since this is his blog and since we both come from the United Methodist background.
Wow talk about belittling, I hope you don’t treat your congregation like that.
@Stuart….
Regarding 1 Timothy 4: 10….it’s very simple, “God is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe”…
…..much like Dr. Smith is the primary care physician of EVERYONE in my family, but ESPECIALLY for those who take the time to make an appointment for annual checkups and take the prescribed medicine.
In the spiritual sense, Doctor Jesus is the Savior and Great Physician of ALL humankind, there is no other…but He is ESPECIALLY the Savior of those who choose to believe in Him.
Much like John 3:18 says, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (KJV).
“p.s. I can argue FOREVER if you want.”
Argue away, Stuart. No skin off my back. Paul is not a universalist. Rob Bell is not a universalist. If Chad wants to be a universalist, I respect his right to choose his path……..and I respect your right to choose your path, too.
Thanks for reading.
Is it just me, or are there so many weird flaws in our theological methods these days? I am sad that we sit around speculating about a “salvation” that has been defined as a state way in the future after death (I wonder if God thinks “People! I will take care of that stuff, just worry about the salvation that is already at hand! Tell others about Jesus and the kingdom of God!”)
[Flaw #1: Most argument on this issue diverts from biblical meaning of salvation and, in my opinion, really waters down the grandeur of God's mission in the work of Christ]
I also am sad that we sit around speculating over “what will happen” rather than sitting around asking “What does God will?” I believe if we approached with the latter method we might find ourselves both more hopeful and more motivated to share the gospel with the world. Speculating about what will happen is a trap.
[Flaw #2: This debate often diverges from "who God is and what God wills for creation" to a distorted, anthropocentric speculation about who's in and who's out.]
I don’t know about you all, but I’m tired of debating about shit that doesn’t matter to more than half of the world. I’m gonna go tell everyone that the God of the Bible wants the salvation of all and that salvation has broken into historical reality by God’s Spirit and the work of Jesus Christ.
That’s all.
Ive rejected Calvinism and the other end of the spectrum precisely because I’ve carefully tasted their versions of god and found them to end up distasteful .
”oh taste and see that the Lord is good”
he can belittle all he wants sister [good argument by the way] my point is still valid there is only one way of harmonising the scriptures , and it is the way the first Christians viewed it also ,you can have your ”christianity” Kevin it is deeply flawed ,logically incoherent , lacks full biblical support ,and has flourished because of the fertiliser of fundamentalism.my point still stands – you have misrepresented the position and your explanation of the text in question doesn’t make sense.p.s. you have also twisted my words I didn’t say everywhere the word forever appears it isn’t meant to be taken literally .but I guess that’s your way of avoiding the implication.
@Joshua not far behind you there mate !
@Stuart,
On April 4th you said, “the word ‘FOREVER’ here is used as a form of exaggeration! all those taking it literally are in error!”
On April 5th you say, “I didn’t say everywhere the word forever appears it isn’t meant to be taken literally .”
Ummmmm…..yes you did. You said “all those taking it literally are in error!”
I’m not belittling you, I’m just showing how you contradicted yourself.
@Stuart,
I reject Calvinism, too.
I believe in Arminianism. You believe in universalism.
Could I be wrong? Sure.
Could you be wrong? Sure.
I don’t necessarily reject universalism as a possibility. I have several very nice universalist friends, and I’ve always told them that I hope God saves all.
Soooooooo…….I am humble enough to admit that my beliefs could be wrong.
Are you?
my first statement [apr 4] in no way indicates ”every time the word appears” so your accusation is patiently false ! any fair minded person reading the statement wouldn’t take it to mean what you are trying to twist it to mean.
thank-you for your second reply , humble enough to take that position when I held to free-will theism after exploring the many varied options in-between ,quiet enjoying the open view .problem is the god of free-will theism is defeated for what kind of GOD has to kill most of his creation to have victory ,the victory spoken of the the new testament is total victory .looking at the two views which one glorifies GOD more?
how about a challenge of a different kind?
@Stuart,
I’m re-reading your statement, “problem is the god of free-will theism is defeated for what kind of GOD has to kill most of his creation to have victory.”
DId the OT consider God “defeated” when He killed most of his original creation in THE FLOOD?
DId the OT consider God “defeated” when Moses had 3,000 Israelites die as a result of the golden calf?
@Stuart….
By the way, what does this mean…..”so your accusation is patiently false”?
What does “patiently false” mean? Patiently? As in patience, one of the fruit of the Spirit??
I think the phrase you’re trying to say is “PATENTLY false.” (LOL)
Anywho, I need to go to bed. Talk to you later.
Take care Stuart…..Good night brother.
The flood ended physical lives. Eternal torment doesn’t have an end. Which is more merciful?
God also promised never to destroy the earth with a flood ever again.
Jonah was sent to a pagan nation, God spared them.
God was willing to spare Sodom if just ten were found righteous.
The earth now has many more righteous, because of Christ. So why would he not spare us all now, knowing Christ dwells so many on earth?
And how about we focus on the kingdom life NOW, so we don’t waste the precious time we DO have in these human vessels? There’s enough hell going around on earth as it is and walking by faith in LOVE is a freedom we can all spread without argument, can we not?
I have intentionally directed my comments to Chad or Stuart for a reason.
If I’m not good enough to be your Facebook friend, if I’m so awful that I deserve to be deleted……then I sure as heck I’m not going to respond to you or consider your valid points on this or any other blog.
your first statement – did the old testament consider GOD defeated …….”
of course not , you however are comparing physical death with ceasing to exist all together ,so your argument falls apart at that point !
your second response – patently THAT’S IT ! [ a typo] instead of dealing with the issues raised, you belittle me again [GOD bless you by the way] and I mean that because my GOD is a GOD of love, mmm is that a fruit?
[ it's telling that you never addressed the accusation ]
if someone has deleted your facebook friendship [for whatever reason] to state
”I sure……….consider your valid points” the very fact that they are valid deserves a response !
back to a point you haven’t acknowledged , in your words I said
”the word FOREVER here is …….” I didn’t say the word FOREVER here [and in every place it appears] .it takes humility to concede a mistake ! but I’m getting to the point of not expecting one .
as for ”fruit” while you can have a go at me for being passionate I do believe I haven’t once belittled you ,the same cant be said of yourself.
another above point is this, I have examined all the beliefs on that spectrum
middle knowledge , open theism , simple foreknowledge , hard and soft determinism , molinism , partial foreknowledge , all the reformed versions , hyper-calvinism , free-will theism blah blah blah , so at some point I’ve held to your position [until a far better answer came along] so to suggest I’m the one who needs to be open fails to take that into account ! plus I still believe you have misrepresented the position .you see after reading my 18th book on the issue [and I have over 100 on my wish list or on order now both for and against ] I do believe that statement of mine is also correct.
@Stuart,
“Your second response – patently THAT’S IT ! [ a typo] instead of dealing with the issues raised, you belittle me again [GOD bless you by the way] and I mean that because my GOD is a GOD of love, mmm is that a fruit?
[ it's telling that you never addressed the accusation ]”
Why do you think I’m belittling you just because I corrected your spelling?
@Stuart….
I have nice universalism friends who are admit that they MIGHT be wrong in their beliefs, just as I admit that I might be wrong in MY beliefs. I prefer to discuss/debate universalism with them….they don’t accuse me of distorting this or misrepresenting that or avoiding this or twisting that.
I’ve read enough Gary Amirault and Thomas Talbott to understand the concept of universalism, I have my own universalism library too, Stuart. I don’t deny the possibility of God saving all, I just came here to demonstrate the fact that Paul, Peter, and Jesus were not universalists. But if you want to be a universalist, that’s fine, I’m not going to try to dissuade you.
@Chad….I respect your faith journey, Chad. I trust that you will embrace the beliefs that make sense to you, and God will use you to make disciples for Jesus Christ, which is the mission of the Body of Christ. Blessing to you.
[...] to choose AGAINST God at Judgment why can’t we get a chance to choose FOR God?” His question and reasoning can be found in this [...]
”I have come here to demonstrate the fact that Paul , Peter , Jesus Christ were not universalists”
I’m totally unconvinced ! [and as for conceding the possibility of being wrong as I've tried to point out to you that argument is far more applicable to you than for me for I once held your position!, you however are only interested in universalism to ''prove'' you are correct]
as for freewill theism ,you can keep it, that includes your version of ”Christianity” I utterly reject it for in the words of dear old Rob Bell people want nothing to do with it.
for your faith is a form of self-righteousness ,for you exercised your free will to obtain salvation [compared to those suckers you see everyday] I can do nothing to obtain salvation it really is totally free.
as for the texts that address actual judgements [where it appears salvation depends upon your deeds and beliefs don't even come into it ] that should create a problem for you also ,for if you are going to be logically consistent that would rightly mean your exclusive club has even less numbers [for there are plenty of Christians who fit either category] that too posses no problem for this position
one more thing on being humble ,that usually involves conceding a point something you simple haven’t done for any of the points that have been put to you both by myself and others ,for the arguments are sound yet you avoid the implications by pointing out ”spelling mistakes” in this case a typo caused by the program I run .
good to hear that about your universalist ”friends” but I am different because with me the truth comes first.
@Stuart….
It’s O.K. by me if you are “totally unconvinced.”
When I said that I came here to demonstrate the fact that Paul, Peter, and Jesus Christ were not universalists…..I meant that I came here to TELL CHAD that Paul, Peter, and Jesus were not universalists.
I would put it to you that any reasonably minded person should remain totally unconvinced by your ”arguments” including Chad
having read scholars far more worthy than yourself I can inform you their responses and arguments [while they have raised some good points] are thoroughly unconvincing also
”for as in Adam all sinned ,so in Christ all shall be made alive”
to use the argument that the first all means all but the second doesn’t is sheer lunacy !
can I take it from your last post you are wishing I would ”go away”
@Stuart….
“I would put it to you that any reasonably minded person should remain totally unconvinced by your ”arguments.”
If you don’t think that I am a reasonably minded person, then why are you bothering to argue universalism with me? Entertainment? Amusement? Feeling of theological superiority, thinking that you’ve “won” a victory over me? I am curious………what is your motive for continuing this “discussion.”
Since the vast majority of Christians are not universalists, in the grand scheme of things, your perception of what is and what is not a “reasonably minded person” is irrevelant.
@Stuart…
“can I take it from your last post you are wishing I would ‘go away.’”
Whether you “go away” or stay on this blog is none of my business; it’s not my blog, it’s Chad’s blog.
However, you CAN take if from my last post that it doesn’t matter if you continue your comments. I’m not gonna change your mind, you’re not gonna change my mind, I’m not interested in changing your mind………so what’s the point?
I was only interested in talking to Chad, since (again) this is Chad’s blog.
my perception of what constitutes reasonableness is just as valid as yours but the main point being that something that is reasonable is reasonable weather you like it or not. as for your argument from the majority , the very fact that the majority now, don’t hold to Christian universalism [compared to the first five hundred years] does not in and of itself ”prove” the majority are in the right ! as for the first five hundred years , are we somehow wiser than they ? when they had a far more intricate understanding of the original languages you see you are simply following the traditions of men all [there's that word again] starting with Augustine who could barely read the Greek.before this universalism rained.
and you have once again twisted my words ,I’m fully aware it is Chad’s blog but that’s besides the point
why do I argue , I’ve already given you the answer to that but it appears once again you have not read what I have said.
so once again I have countered your ”argument” but to concede a point takes humility,something it appears you are lacking in.
Good to know my points are valid. Thank you for addressing that.
to elaborate further as to why I argue, firstly because I love GOD, and his name is being smeared by the unbiblical nonsense of eternal torment
plus you have engaged me yet frustratingly your responses are either avoiding the issues ,moving to another issue , twisting my words and the list could go on
[forever]
your previous answer has also given me the answer I knew to be correct -namely you are not interested in having your mind changed ,you are only interested in arguing – so just like the calvinist has read books on free-will theism for the purpose of ammunition against ”the other side” so I believe it is with yourself simply saying ”I could be wrong” and meaning it in your heart are two different things.
p.s. your ”free-will” remains intact with the universalist position but it is the only one where GOD gets the credit.
Stuart, your perception of what constitutes reasonableness is INDEED valid…….I’m just not interested in it.
I knew that ”ALL” along
Hello. Interesting discussion. On another note, I’m wondering if it is possible to have any position that leaves us depending on our own faith. If God loves us unconditionally, it seems that he would love us regardless. If the Law is the measure of our redemption, then we must all be going to hell. If Christ has bought us, then our free will, if such a thing can exist when we must chose or accept a position in order to avoid an eternal threat, would be worthless. It seems that we can only have free will if Christ has in fact redeemed us.
Paul did not seem to have much to do with his own being blinded on the road. In fact, none of us have willed ourselves into existence. We cannot will that Christ did not die for us. In fact all of the pleas that Christ made for us to both follow the Law and to believe, which would have been tantamount to the same thing, were made before the Cross. Paul, on the other hand, puts forth peace and grace at every turn, rejects the ovations of Peter and John to follow the Law, and instead asks that we use the judgment of the least person in the church as our standard, asking that we neither take others to court nor shame or judge them under the Law.
The unfortunate history of the words “Christian” and “universalism” are a heavy burden. None of us seem to support the Inquisition, and it seems that “universalism” carries its own baggage.
Perhaps what we might ask is whether we can honestly exclude anyone from the grace of God. To offer up any sector is to place ourselves under the same Law. I believe that Paul’s term is “voluntary humility.” Will worship, the act of submitting ourselves to our own self-righteousness, will seem unutterably without rational in the face of standing before God. Rather then, it seems that absolute inclusion is the only logical conclusion.
IF we are assert that Adam is more powerful than Jesus, that one man can bring us under condemnation, but that the Son of God is not powerful enough to bring us out from that some condemnation, then we subvert the work of the cross. It seems more likely that Paul’s argument concerning the faith of Christ is the better argument. In this way, we completely avoid arguing our own faithfulness as the dead bolt of eternal security. Whose faith can compare to Christ’s?
If Christ is the author and finisher of faith, then why do I have to worry? This gives me a tremendous reason to talk about what Christ has done since he has freed me indeed. I no longer have to perform any ritual or play any mind games in order to feel the blessing of his great love for me. I do not have to lean on my own understanding of what it is that I am to have faith in in order to know that I am loved unconditionally. I no longer have to argue points of dogma with anyone, and I can easily share that God loves us all unconditionally. It’s an absolutely Christ centered position.
“Universalism” has its own background as a word, and so it does not necessarily condone this concept since only Christ is seen as the central hub. This position does handle all of the other sects of traditional Christianity by abiding by Paul’s concept of at least acknowledging that they are talking about Christ, and that’s a good thing. I think that an all-encompassing position is much more tenable than one that resubmits the Law, argues endless points of dogma, and points accusing re-probating fingers at its sister and brother churches. We will have plenty of time to laugh about our petty differences in heaven, from this position.
runningturtle87