Universalism...why not?

[o2bwise]

Hi surrender1,

It took me years to transition from non-universalism to universalism. One of the main things that did it for me is the biblical demographics of certain populations. Such as angelic, unfallen (Job seems to suggest unfallen realms), and human at different periods (such as just before the flood).

If assuming non-universalism is true, I could not reconcile the radical differences in % lost as a function of various populations. Angelic is 33%. Unfallen (if any) is 0%. Just before the flood would seem to be ~99.999999% lost.

I felt I saw a rough correlation between % lost and the darkness of various environments. Imagine being in the pre-flood earth a good 100 miles away from Noah who was blessed to talk gospel with Methusaleh, a man who was blessed to talk gospel with Enoch! Oh, no. We're talking jet black, practically.

The darker the environment, the higher the % lost, assuming universalism is not true. That poor antideluvian. Did he ask to inherit a sinful nature and start out life evil? Did he ask to have no direct access to God and Jesus, such as the angels did? Did he ask to be surrounded by what would seem to be an astonishing level of evil?

Given such circumstances, should universalism not be true, it seems to me for God to be love, it is like He raises His arms and exclaims, "I am sorry! It is the best I could do!"

I believe the book of Jonah is an amazing key. Jonah is sent to tell Ninevah they are gonna get destroyed. Interesting that this would come from the one prophet Jesus points to as a sign of His sacrifice. Also interesting that Ninevah is told to have 40 days, that number always symbolic of the painful refining character purifying) process. Interesting that Jesus referred to Jonah's message as preaching.

Hmmmm.

Jonah tells us that if we compare spiritual with spiritual, destruction is a conditional prophecy. And here we see another amazing population. Seemingly 100% lost and they end up 100% found.

Imagine that!

And what does God say was the problem? (See the last verse in the book.) They don't know Me!

I believe the lost are resurrected after the 1000 years and the fire that comes down is inclusive of the Sign of Jonah. Jonah is an illustration of what occurs.

I now see things as follows, appreciating time duration is required.

Being lost is akin to a two year old boy sitting alone in his bedroom crying because he is lost. Where is mommy?

She is in the bedroom next door and she is well able to find all her lost children.

Love is infinite. We are finite. Love is infinitely reasonable. We are finite.

Love >>>>>>>> anyone's lost condition.

Presently for me, the notion that God is unable to find someone is positively absurd.

He is the Finder of lost souls.


Blessings,

o2

 

[Rajni]

Did he ask to inherit a sinful nature and start out life evil?

Good question! Where was our so-called free will then*?

It's odd how the free-will camp won't question our being forced into having a sin nature, but will object to any mention of our possibly being forced out of it (if, indeed, that's how it works; God can accomplish such things without being forceful, imo).

*ETA: If the concept of pre-birth-planning (which necessitates reincarnation) is true, though (and I don't rule that out anymore), then this opens up a whole other area of this topic, but I'm leaving that part out for the purposes of this discussion.
-

*

 

[Albion]

The darker the environment, the higher the % lost, assuming universalism is not true. That poor antideluvian. Did he ask to inherit a sinful nature and start out life evil? Did he ask to have no direct access to God and Jesus, such as the angels did? Did he ask to be surrounded by what would seem to be an astonishing level of evil?

You've painted quite a picture there, O2b, but it's not an accurate representation of the Christian view of these things. It would take some doing to unravel everything that's suggested or implied or simply stated there, but it is not correct as it stands.

 

[mkgal1]

Exactly, it's easy to believe once you have seen. All will believe, when they have died and all is revealed.

So your take on that is that God basically responds with a message like, "Too late....you should have figured that out when you had the opportunity .....too bad...so sad"?

 

[o2bwise]

Hi chaela,

Good question! Where was our so-called free will then*?

Free will. Man...

I always believed in free will and was always astonished with any who did not. Now, I believe at best, free will is limited.

For the sake of this post, I am going to define free will as an autonomy that resides in man to choose to be lost or found.

Here is a hypothetical.

Let's take a human born with his sinful nature and let's say this person lacks access to any grace whatsoever. None. None at all. No concepts of divine love. No concept of God. Not even creation. Absolutely nothing!

Does such a person have the capacity to choose to be found?

I suggest not and if so, the following is (to me) even a stunning truth.

Free will cannot be a postulate!!!

Free will is not the kind of thing one starts from, it is the kind of thing that is deduced from other starting points. What might those be?

I suggest God does not have free will. Why not? Because He is perfect love and is omniscient. God will always make the perfect choice, the best choice. He cannot make a choice that is less than the best one.

What then determines God's choices?

I suggest two things. One, who He is. Two, His present circumstances.

Concerning man, who we are is variable. It changes with time. However, a choice is made at a point in time. And who we are at any point in time is a constant, whatever it is. And what our circumstances are at any given point in time is a constant as well.

How can two constants produce the possibility of more than one choice?

If I look at this as a converse, I admit to being unable to take a box and define it as such - this is where free will comes from! And then load that box up with various characteristics.

I admit that to my understanding, the box is empty.

Even saying the above, I hold out that there is free will, but it is limited. If I take that poor hypothetical guy with zero access to grace, I conclude there is some threshold of grace (a very small level of grace) such that one cannot choose to be found (and thus he has no free will). And there is some upper threshold of grace such that one cannot choose to be lost.

I hold out that between those thresholds, there may be some autonomy.

All the while confessing I have zero idea where this autonomy comes from.


Blessings,

o2

 

[o2bwise]

Hi Albion,

You've painted quite a picture there, O2b, but it's not an accurate representation of the Christian view of these things. It would take some doing to unravel everything that's suggested or implied or simply stated there, but it is not correct as it stands.

I appreciate the spirit of your post, but feel funny with the idea of proposing one can speak for "the Christian view of these things."

Personally, I am more comfortable just saying I am a sinful erring human being and this is my present sense of truth.

1 Corinthians 8:2
If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.


Blessings,

o2

 

[Albion]

Hi Albion,

I appreciate the spirit of your post, but feel funny with the idea of proposing one can speak for "the Christian view of these things."

I know, but all that was meant was that there is a body of ideas that anyone can access when it comes to knowing what Christianity as an institution has said it believes. This isn't just a personal hunch or something like that. It is knowable and anyone can figure it out. That is NOT to make oneself into some kind of spokesman for any church LOL

 

[o2bwise]

Oh, thanks, Albion.

I'm not big on assigning significance to any belief because of any afiliation to institutionalism.

 

[GillDouglas]

If you do not believe that you (and every other sinner) belong in Hell, you do not understand the simple basic teachings of the Bible. What's the bad news that makes the good news so great, if eternal damnation and Hell are not real? If you do not believe that a sinner deserves the everlasting punishment of God for the disobedience and rebellion against Him, you have never really been converted because you've never really found the need for repentance and you've never really had to flee to the Cross as your only hope of salvation.

 

[o2bwise]

Hi GillDouglas,

If you do not believe that you (and every other sinner) belong in Hell, you do not understand the simple basic teachings of the Bible. What's the bad news that makes the good news so great, if eternal damnation and Hell are not real? If you do not believe that a sinner deserves the everlasting punishment of God for the disobedience and rebellion against Him, you have never really been converted because you've never really found the need for repentance and you've never really had to flee to the Cross as your only hope of salvation.

If I understand you accurately, you describe a legal model. I am in the camp of what could be called a healing model.

I understand that outside of Christ, I am left with an evil character and damnation is a characteristic of such a character. Thank God we are veiled from that which reveals all - the holiness of God. With such a revelation, I would see so much of myself that I would naturally experience levels of shame, guilt, and more that would utterly consume me.

Only God can change my heart and a changed heart is a redeemed heart.

My understanding is that all I can do is hang my helpless soul on my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.


Blessings,

o2

 

[Albion]

If I understand you accurately, you describe a legal model. I am in the camp of what could be called a healing model.

Is this really all about personal preferences? Shouldn't our attention be directed towards the testimony of Scripture? If we decline to be guided by that divine revelation, what do we have to hold onto when it comes to any other religious issue?

 

[ClementofA]

Actually, there isn't. Aside from "wishin' and hopin'" and arguing that God must do what we'd do if we were God, there's only a handful of sketchy possible Biblical evidences for universal salvation and some of them are ambiguous. Meanwhile, the Bible is full of verses that speak of damnation and eternal punishment or "lostness" for at least some people.

The fact some people get "damnation" does not disprove universalism. You are misinformed & deluded if you think so.


Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

 

[ClementofA]

Exactly, it's easy to believe once you have seen. All will believe, when they have died and all is revealed.

Doubting Thomas got to see, believe & be saved before he died.

Why should he get saved, but those who see & believe after they die not get saved?

That wouldn't be fair of God, would it? God would be inconsistent in His dealings with men.

Additionally, why should His love expire at death?

 

[Albion]

The fact some people get "damnation" does not disprove universalism. You are misinformed & deluded if you think so.

I'm sorry that you're so agitated, but I was exactly correct and you didn't even make an attempt to explain any reasoning behind your claim.

 

[ClementofA]

I'm sorry that you're so agitated, but I was exactly correct and you didn't even make an attempt to explain any reasoning behind your claim.

I'm not agitated in the least. Just boldly speaking what i believe & know to be true.

Show me a verse with the word "damnation" or "lost" in it & i'll tell you why it doesn't disprove universalism.

 

[Light of the East]

If you do not believe that you (and every other sinner) belong in Hell, you do not understand the simple basic teachings of the Bible. What's the bad news that makes the good news so great, if eternal damnation and Hell are not real? If you do not believe that a sinner deserves the everlasting punishment of God for the disobedience and rebellion against Him, you have never really been converted because you've never really found the need for repentance and you've never really had to flee to the Cross as your only hope of salvation.

By what reasoning do you say that every human being "deserves" hell?

What kind of God, who is love, would create sentient beings, knowing beforehand (because He is omniscient) that they would Fall, and be willing to see them tormented forever? Is that a God whom the Bible says is love?

What kind of God do you, as a Calvinist, believe in who would create conscious beings only for the purpose of tormenting them forever? That sounds more like the mean little kid who pulls wings off flies for fun than the God whom the Scriptures say is love. Does love really do such a thing?

Perhaps it is you who do not understand the basics of the Christian faith, especially since you have welded yourself to a system of interpretation which A.) denies what the Early Church taught B.) came along 1500 years after the Apostles.

What was the purpose of Creation? Was it to create beings who would, for the greater part, simply live, sin, die, and suffer forever? Was that really what God had in mind for Adam and his posterity? Or was there something far greater that John Calvin completely missed in his ruminations? Something like what St. Athanasius stated: "God became man so that man might become god." Creation was not about the making of slaves to tend the Garden (which is how the Westminster Confession defines Adam). It was about God creating a son to become like Him one day. Made in the image and likeness, to mature in to godhood.

It is not about law, as Calvin taught. It is about a broken household where the son(s) have left the household and gone to the pig pens of sin. The Father is not waiting to get revenge on the son - indeed the Parable of the Prodigal shows that the father never once mentions payment for the atrocious behavior of the Prodigal. It is about restoration of the son to his rightful place in the family.

The Father waits for each soul to join Him in what Thomas Merton called "the cosmic dance of joy." Union in love with the Father. He is not holding a book of Law as Judge, He is opening His arms to receive His sons. The problem for us is that because of our broken natures and the passions of sin still resident within us, when we die, we will experience His love as fire which will burn away all that is not like Christ, and that will hurt - deeply.

No, man does not deserve the wrath you Calvinists are so fond of wishing upon people. Justice is the rendering to one what is his due. For man, made in the image of God, that justice is to be ultimately restored to the position and honor which we lost through Adam's Fall. That is how God will glorify Himself - by the forgiving of sinners and His ability to bring them to repentance and change them, even after death if necessary.

 

[mkgal1]

What's the bad news that makes the good news so great, if eternal damnation and Hell are not real?

Why does there have to be "bad news" in order for the "Good News" of God's immense love for us to be enough?

 

[mkgal1]

Show me a verse with the word "damnation" or "lost" in it & i'll tell you why it doesn't disprove universalism.

If keeping us from "eternal damnation" were the whole reason Jesus came and died on the cross....then why didn't He devote much of His teaching on this (not directing that question to you, Clement, just sort of piggybacking off your post)?

The way His words are quoted in the NT.....it's not clear enough for the church to have arrived at any settled doctrine regarding this one topic. Does that not seem strange to some of you?

Either you'd have to believe that Jesus was a shady kind of guy that wasn't a very clear communicator....and that you're just very smart to have figured out His "coded language" and you have the Golden Ticket in your hand like Charlie Bucket in Willy Wonka.

 

[Light of the East]

When God communicates with man, He uses means which we can figure out. Some of the language is straightforward, such as "Thou shalt not steal." There is no need to try to "interpret" that verse. Those who would say this is not clear show in their hearts that they are thieves and wish to find loopholes.

In other cases, God speaks in a language not quite as clear, but in a manner nonetheless where words mean things. For instance, if God says that He is Father, does that mean that He has reproductive organs? It takes a bit of thought for one to realize that this is a metaphor, a piece of language by which we are to understand that He acts like the being we know on earth as a father. For those who have good fathers who loved them, cared for them, and encouraged them, this metaphor is most comforting.

The problem with the language which is used in the Scripture is that it is archaic in the sense that it was written in a language which we do not speak. Therefore, we are dependent upon translations. We need to read the Scriptures with the idea of finding truth rather than supporting our presuppositions. This can often be hard to do because our worldview so often colors our understanding. We are prejudiced from the beginning.

For instance, when Jesus says "This is my Body...." many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, because they have been taught in such a manner, deny the clear wording there and begin to look for a doctrinal rabbit hole into which they can jump. Yet those who were closer to the Apostles, and who were not corrupted by a couple of centuries of clever denials of this teaching, understood those words to mean exactly what they were saying. So there is value in going back to the very beginning and the society in which the Scriptures were written to try to get a proper understanding of them.

This said, when Scripture states that God is love, I am not (as I have been accused) using sentimentality or emotionalism to look at what love is, how it is described in the Bible, how Christ exemplified it in the life of God lived on earth, and by understanding all that, place a certain value of behavior upon our Father. To understand love means that I understand that the Father only seeks to do good to His poor, sinful Creatures. That He does not (in opposition to the absolutely horrendous pictures of Medieval Romanism) seek to torture souls for all eternity and thus glorify Himself through their pain. God uses the word "love" to describe Himself and love means - love. It does not mean, as we see so many people insist, hatred, anger, unending wrath, and a desire for revenge. Even our Lord Jesus, when on the Cross in the most unimaginable anguish of body and soul, did not pray to the Father:

"Father - GET THEM!!! Burn them forever and don't let any of them escape."

If Jesus and the Father are of one mind, if we have seen the Father when we see Jesus, then we see the Father forgiving even the worse of sinners who desired His death in Christ.

Words mean things - yet those who cannot understand or agree with the idea of God's love being big enough to forgive all will not accept the meaning of simple language, and resort to insulting those of us who insist that love really means love, not revenge.

 

[ClementofA]

If keeping us from "eternal damnation" were the whole reason Jesus came and died on the cross....then why didn't He devote much of His teaching on this?

If such a horrific thing awaited anyone, why wasn't it made extremely clear from Genesis to Matthew to Revelation. Why would a book like Song of Songs be included in the Bible?

The way His words are quoted in the NT.....it's not clear enough for the church to have arrived at any settled doctrine regarding this one topic. Does that not seem strange to some of you?

The church is divided into 100's or 1000's of denominations & groups with disagreements on just about every topic imaginable. Does that seem strange to you?

Either you'd have to believe that Jesus was a shady kind of guy that wasn't a very clear communicator....and that you're just very smart to have figured out His "coded language" and you have the Golden Ticket in your hand like Charlie Bucket in Willy Wonka.

The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. But that Satan is the god of this age & of the kingdoms of this world who also blinds people's minds.

And that God is a God Who hides Himself. Does it seem strange to you that He doesn't just appear & put all the atheists & agnostics doubts to rest? Does it make Him "shady" that He doesn't do so?