Is it okay to simply assume that God saves all?

[Cormack]

I stated that universalism removes the fear motivational aspect that brings about repentance.

Which I’ve taken into account when writing “an incentive outside of threatening these people with eternal conscious torment.” So I’m not meaning to ignore or make light of the notation that we can frighten people into attending church or into signing the dotted line on a statement of faith.

The point isn’t to question a tautology of yours like “without believing in eternal hell universalists can’t scare people with eternal hell.” There’s no sense in insisting that the universalists have a monopoly on fear, it’s not something they want.

My point is to do with a question you’ve ignored more than once now. Haven’t you received good things from the Lord after having converted, and aren’t those things an awesome tool in the fight for peoples spiritual welfare?

I’m not assuming on your answer either, I’ve heard from people who have lived utterly miserable lives and attribute that upset to having become Christians.

So we were not talking about whether or not there was “an incentive.”

You have been writing about how universalism lacked an incentive:

I wasn’t referring to a license to sin for believers but instead a lack of incentive for unbelievers to repent and come to Christ.

Although I’m an onboard with having users clarify, explain and make their points more pronounced as we exchange on these topics together. So you’re absolutely sold out on the “fear incentive,” which would mean you’re happy to write that the Christian universalist may have an arsenal of other means with which to incentive the lost?

Are you happy to admit that Christian universalists have many other means with which to meet the lost persons needs?

It’s going to be difficult for me to continue if you won’t answer any of my questions.

 

[Hmm]

I explained in detail why I think it’s imperative that we teach the importance of repentance in this life.

No, that is not what you said. You said you think it's important to teach people that they will suffer the consequences of eternal torment if they don't repent. A very different thing. We all believe in repentance but only some believe in eternal torment.

 

[Der Alte]

Quoting Old Testament passages to prove New Testament truths is shaky at best. The Old Testament is obsolete and is ready to vanish. Hebrews 8:13 "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." God chose the nation of Israel but not all Hebrews were chosen by God. Romans 9:6 thru 8 "But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called. That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed."

Just because someone is a Jew does not mean they are one of God's chosen. Both Jacob and Esau were children of Issac, verse 13 "As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." These two men had the exact same mother and father yet God only chose the child of the promise, Jacob. (I have oft wondered how God could love Jacob being the scoundrel he was!) Hebrews 13:5b “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” God "chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world..." (Eph 1:4) and He will not "un-choose" us and satan can't either. If he could that means he is more powerful than is Christ, an impossibility.

I appreciate this criticism, vice critique, of my post despite it being as uninformed/misinformed as it is. It appears you did not even read my post.
What is lacking is a reasoned explanation of how the passage is not relevant.
My post directly addresses the argument nothing anyone can do will cause God's stated will to not be done. See e.g.

2 Peter 3:9
(9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

This is often used as a proof text that all mankind will be saved the righteous and unrighteous alike even after death. Jeremiah 13 refutes that.
In all your out-of-context scripture quoting above you omitted these 2.

2 Timothy 3:16
(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:​

The only scripture Paul had, and could be referring to, was the Old Testament. There was no New Testament Paul and the other NT writers were living and writing the NT.

Matthew 5:17-18
(17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
(18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.​

Heaven and earth have not passed. A jot is the Hebrew letter Yot, it looks like an apostrophe. This is the Hebrew word "Elohim" אלהים Yot י is the second letter from the left between ם and ה Tittle is the little "horn" on some letters. Here are the letters "daleth" ד and "resh" ר If daleth did not have the small "tittle" or horn it could be mistaken for the letter resh.
I don't know if you have noticed the O.T. is quoted frequently in the N.T.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, that is not what you said. You said you think it's important to teach people that they will suffer the consequences of eternal torment if they don't repent. A very different thing. We all believe in repentance but only some believe in eternal torment.

Very first sentence of that post.

But there’s a very strong downside to the universal teaching as well that as Christians we must do everything we can to avoid which is giving a potentially false hope of salvation regardless of whether or not a person repents in this life.

 

[Cormack]

No, that is not what you said. You said you think it's important to teach people that they will suffer the consequences of eternal torment if they don't repent. A very different thing. We all believe in repentance but only some believe in eternal torment.

I suspect that the hidden premise in the traditionalists thinking is that “there’s nothing attractive about repentance.” There’s nothing good about repenting to some Christians, and as a result they can’t step back from sin without the threat of eternal torment.

Though repenting in many cases is it’s own reward. I think lots of Christians only see repenting as not “doing bad things,” bad things that they secretly enjoy doing. The reward however is there, it’s in the form of becoming less of those horrible qualities that we hate so much in others.

Anger can be sinful, how many people out there want to be less angry, well, repenting is part of being cured of that. Joy, peace, patience, they’re fruits of the spirit and come while sadness, unrest and impatience retreat.

That’s wicked qualities covered, how about sinful practises? “Yeah repent of your anger, that’s great, I’d like being less angry, but I’ve always loved pornography. That’s not so simple.” Okay, very true in some cases, but how much worse can a man’s relationship with his wife become on account of that habit?

Husbands inevitably end up having less interest in their wives physically, while the wives are feeling neglected as a result. Sinful actions (just like wicked qualities) can be healed and helped by repenting, even if only for a season, the result is people coming closer together and benefiting from a life lived in an abundant harvest of the fruits of the Spirit.

“Yeah but when do I get to tell ‘em about hell?! Jesus talked more about hell than heaven. They aren’t going to repent without the threat of hell!” I’m not convinced by that idea though, people repent without the threat of hell all the time when they see how destructive sin is in this life.

Do traditionalists appreciate the toxic damage worked by sin in this life? Why does it take the threat of supernatural punishment for the traditionalists to appreciate how harmful the consequences of sin can be?

 

[BNR32FAN]

My point is to do with a question you’ve ignored more than once now. Haven’t you received good things from the Lord after having converted, and aren’t those things an awesome tool in the fight for peoples spiritual welfare?

I apologize I wasn’t trying to dodge the question, yes it is a very effective piece of evidence in bringing people to repentance. But what about those who have a better life than you do? Maybe the things you have aren't as good as what they have. They’re surely not going to see the Spiritual gifts you’ve been given. I keep trying to express the importance of this and you seem to keep ignoring it. God is the One who has chosen to use both love and fear as an incentive for people to repent. He chose to do that for a reason.

You have been writing about how universalism lacked an incentive:

No I never said anything to that effect. Please quote me where I said anything remotely similar to that. I said universalism removes the fear motivation I never said it removes the love motivation. I specifically said that God has chosen to use both love and fear to motivate people to repent and I said universalism removes the fear incentive. I never said it removes the love incentive and I never said it gives no incentive. I made it very clear that only the fear is removed.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I suspect that the hidden premise in the traditionalists thinking is that “there’s nothing attractive about repentance.” There’s nothing good about repenting to some Christians, and as a result they can’t step back from sin without the threat of eternal torment.

Though repenting in many cases is it’s own reward. I think lots of Christians only see repenting as not “doing bad things,” bad things that they secretly enjoy doing. The reward however is there, it’s in the form of becoming less of those horrible qualities that we hate so much in others.

Anger can be sinful, how many people out there want to be less angry, well, repenting is part of being cured of that. Joy, peace, patience, they’re fruits of the spirit and come while sadness, unrest and impatience retreat.

That’s wicked qualities covered, how about sinful practises? “Yeah repent of your anger, that’s great, I’d like being less angry, but I’ve always loved pornography. That’s not so simple.” Okay, very true in some cases, but how much worse can a man’s relationship with his wife become on account of that habit?

Husbands inevitably end up having less interest in their wives physically, while the wives are feeling neglected as a result. Sinful actions (just like wicked qualities) can be healed and helped by repenting, even if only for a season, the result is people coming closer together and benefiting from a life lived in an abundant harvest of the fruits of the Spirit.

“Yeah but when do I get to tell ‘em about hell?! Jesus talked more about hell than heaven. They aren’t going to repent without the threat of hell!” I’m not convinced by that idea though, people repent without the threat of hell all the time when they see how destructive sin is in this life.

Do traditionalists appreciate the toxic damage worked by sin in this life? Why does it take the threat of supernatural punishment for the traditionalists to appreciate how harmful the consequences of sin can be?

How many unbelievers will understand any of this? I’ve already said that I’m not talking about believers I’m talking about unbelievers. This whole discussion is about evangelizing to unbelievers who know nothing about the things we receive from Christ. Most of them prefer their sin over what Christ has to offer and if they hear that they can remain in their sin and still be saved well that’s even better. Narrow is the gate and few find it?

 

[Cormack]

They’re surely not going to see the Spiritual gifts you’ve been given. I keep trying to express the importance of this and you seem to keep ignoring it.

How many unbelievers will understand any of this? I’ve already said that I’m not talking about believers I’m talking about unbelievers.

I’ve personally witnessed many instances where non Christians approach fruitful, Bible believing people to ask about good qualities that they can perceive in the Christian. I’ve seen it and been approached myself.

“Where did you study?” Nowhere the gifted Bible student answers. “You’re very calming to be around.” I’ve seen interested people come into church and say these things.

It’s difficult to respond to something that someone else has witnessed, but for the sake of conversation, why would you believe people aren’t able to see those things?

This whole discussion is about evangelizing to unbelievers who know nothing about the things we receive from Christ.

My issue is that they do know, not by experience but rather by observation, just so long as we are that proverbial city atop a hill, a light that can’t be hid. Unbelievers are so greedy for the gifts that come by believing and repenting, there’s even an account in the New Testament of someone trying to purchase these gifts. The unbelievers know, just so long as we show.

 

[Cormack]

It’s also an odd idea that argues the unbelievers won’t understand patience, joy, peace and self control as modelled by a victorious Christian, but they will understand the notion of being tormented forever when explained by a Christian.

Joy, peace and the destructive consequences of sinful living seem eminently more demonstrable than does people being tormented in an eternal fire that gives no light.

 

[Hmm]

How many unbelievers will understand any of this? I’ve already said that I’m not talking about believers I’m talking about unbelievers.

I can assure you that unbelievers will find what he said makes perfect sense. What they struggle with is what you are saying, that God is infinitely loving and forgiving but will torment/torture you forever if you don't believe that.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I can assure you that unbelievers will find what he said makes perfect sense. What they struggle with is what you are saying, that God is infinitely loving and forgiving but will torment/torture you forever if you don't believe that.

What do those who refuse to repent want? They want to do whatever they want. Your theology allows them to do that giving them a false assurance that they can live as ungodly as satan himself and still be saved. Am I wrong here?

 

[Hmm]

Though repenting in many cases is it’s own reward. I think lots of Christians only see repenting as not “doing bad things,” bad things that they secretly enjoy doing.

Yes, and that's why they need a threat, and the worst conceivable threat, that of ECT, at that, in order not to do these things that they most want to do. Most people don't go around robbing others, not because of the threat of the law but because they don't want to do it. Other's do need to know that they are likely to suffer the consequences if they do.

Sinful actions (just like wicked qualities) can be healed and helped by repenting, even if only for a season, the result is people coming closer together and benefiting from a life lived in an abundant harvest of the fruits of the Spirit.

Yes, this is true repentance and it brings its rewards into this life. Compare this with the fundamentalist view that as long as Hitler repented on his death bed, he'll be fine, although too bad for his six million Jewish victims who didn't repent in the gas chambers.

 

[Cormack]

they can live as ungodly as satan himself and still be saved. Am I wrong here?

They’d repent under Christian universalism before entering into the Kingdom though, no different from any other view that pays stock into repent and believe.

No Satan is saved, only reformed sinners.

The difference is that according to the traditionalist, Gods made everything time limit sensitive, so unless you bend knee, believe on Jesus and (to some degree) speak the right doctrines in the earthly life, you’re doomed. That doesn’t sound very spiritual though.

 

[Hmm]

What do those who refuse to repent want? They want to do whatever they want. Your theology allows them to do that giving them a false assurance that they can live as ungodly as satan himself and still be saved. Am I wrong here?

Yes, the exact opposite is true. In fundamentalist theology a death bed repentance in the form of saying the correct confessional statements is good enough. Universalism is much stricter and demands a genuine repentance.

 

[Cormack]

Yes, this is true repentance and it brings its rewards into this life. Compare this with the fundamentalist view that as long as Hitler repented on his death bed, he'll be fine, although too bad for his six million Jewish victims who didn't repent in the gas chambers.

That’s unavoidable when people buy into the time limit model, because so long as we have our thief upon the cross moment, feeling this fear even seconds from the end, then everything’s going to end up on the right side of heaven for us.

That’s neglecting an earthly life lived in victory over sin though, it’s ignoring how sweet the life in Christ is.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes, the exact opposite is true. In fundamentalist theology a death bed repentance in the form of saying the correct confessional statements is good enough. Universalism is much stricter and demands a genuine repentance.

A pastor friend of mine, who baptized both my wives and buried my first wife, told of an incident he experienced 50+ years ago. A female member of his congregation, whose husband was bed ridden and uncommunicative, he visited him on a regular basis. He would read scripture and pray for him. After a period of time the man improved somewhat but could not speak. He gestured to his wife that he wanted to write something. She gave him a pad and pen and he wrote, "Bro. Tony was here. I am ready." Not long afterward he passed away.
I don't think it is in our wheel house to decide whose repentance is or is not genuine.

 

[Saint Steven]

Although I’m an onboard with having users clarify, explain and make their points more pronounced as we exchange on these topics together. So you’re absolutely sold out on the “fear incentive,” which would mean you’re happy to write that the Christian universalist may have an arsenal of other means with which to incentive the lost?

From my perspective, a "fear incentive" is extortion, plain and simple.

Like a gangster godfather might say: "Ill make you an offer you can't refuse."

 

[Hmm]

Like a gangster godfather might say: "Ill make you an offer you can't refuse."

Good analogy.

The offers were only taken seriously because they were backed up by the threat of violence. Hell, in the ECT sense, is an extension of this principle into God. God the Father becomes the Godfather who has to use violence to enforce his will. The transition is made because, although it's based on fear and violence and so is patently not Christ-like, it's also familiar and intuitive.

 

[Cormack]

From my perspective, a "fear incentive" is extortion, plain and simple.

Like a gangster godfather might say: "Ill make you an offer you can't refuse."

“The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.” What would most atheists do after professing Christ if they recovered from their deathbed? The dog would return to his vomit.

It’s naïve to think that after an unbelievers entire life of rejecting God he’s now been “won” over to the Christian faith due to a terror based confession.

So when people do have a change of heart about God on their deathbed, be that change genuine, artificial or somewhere in between, I’m of the opinion that we don’t truly know where they stood, God probably hasn’t even begun the work of perfecting them.

“Richard Dawkins will repent on his deathbed. “ Oh, you mean the same Richard Dawkins who spent decades waging a culture war against Christianity, that’s nice.

It’s ghoulish and should be a source of shame for Christians, life isn’t a basket ball game where you score on people in the closing minutes.

Although, to be so fair as I’m able, the idea is that we’re saving this person from eternal separation from God just before they go off into forever.

The buzzer really was about to sound and we saved that guy before God closed the door on his chance to repent and believe, let’s not forget, “it is appointed man once to die, and then the judgment.” We had to hover over their bed, hen pecking him until the very last.

Now we can rest assured that he’s gone to the right place. . . maybe.

Does anyone remember the recent story about 4 or 5 daughters who convinced their father to vote democrat for the first time in like 60 or 70 years? I felt a certain way about that story too.

The father was dying, literally on his deathbed, but his daughters were still pestering him over his voter preferences. It’s meant to be an inspirational story to these people, look how this man loves his daughters, they’re crying, he’s voting for Joe, Joe is perambulating to the win(!) Look at him move, so lifelike!!!!

Just like deathbed conversions my first thought was this is kinda gross. Leave that man alone.

 

[Saint Steven]

Good analogy.

The offers were only taken seriously because they were backed up by the threat of violence. Hell, in the ECT sense, is an extension of this principle into God. God the Father becomes the Godfather who has to use violence to enforce his will. The transition is made because, although it's based on fear and violence and so is patently not Christ-like, it's also familiar and intuitive.

The other side argues that God would never violate our free will "choice". But then gains followers through extortion. What's wrong with that picture?