Is it okay to simply assume that God saves all?

[Hmm]

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?

Nothing is more illogical than ECT.

 

[Saint Steven]

Nothing is more illogical than ECT.

Yes. And part of the threat of ECT is if you don't believe it. Reserved for unbelievers. Insidious.

The complete illogical nature of it must be accepted at face value. An idea that is even supported by secular culture. You don't have to be a Christian to know what heaven and hell are. (as taught by the vast majority)

 

[Hmm]

And part of the threat of ECT is if you don't believe it. Reserved for unbelievers. Insidious.

Yes, if you believe in ECT you won't have to endure it but the price you pay is a life of fear. And OTOH, if you reject it as the silliness it is, you're free from the associated anxiety but you'll pay the ultimate heavy price later. You can't win! Insidious indeed.

Better to let it disappear in a puff of logic.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, if you believe in ECT you won't have to endure it but the price you pay is a life of fear. And OTOH, if you reject it as the silliness it is, you're free from the associated anxiety but you'll pay the ultimate heavy price later. You can't win! Insidious indeed.

Better to let it disappear in a puff of logic.

Another angle is to consider the effect of a belief in ECT. Does it achieve the desired result? Nope.

The churches are full of individuals that saved their backsides for the sole purpose of giving the pew a proper polishing once a week.

 

[Andrewn]

Revelation 21:10-27 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God, ...[24] And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the Earth do bring their glory and honour into it.[25] And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.[26] And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.[27] And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Yes, this is absolutely true about the Heavenly Jerusalem:

Rev 21:27 However, nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does abominable or deceitful things, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Rev 22:15 Others must remain outside: the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices deceit.

I think the question that UR advocates ask is whether those outside the City will have a chance to repent and ultimately be accepted inside. This hope is plausible based on Rev 21:25 "Its gates will never be shut..."

 

[Jeff Saunders]

This is a passage telling Christians who where slaves, how to behave towards their owner.
It does not justify owning slaves.
The bibles attitude towards slavery can br seen in
1 Timothy 1:10
New International Version
10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine , and in the OT laws against trding in slaves.

The problem of universalism, that everybody will be saved is it goes against the whole of the bible.

In the OT compliance with Gods laws was required for his blessings and failure brought punishment.
In the NT it is equally clear that some people will be saved whie others will not.

Only in the mortal body in this age but not necessarily in the next age God pursuing us doesn’t stop when our heart stops beating.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

The only problem is that universalism sort of compromises or overrides the concept of justice. There must be some consequence to evil, to persistently choosing to remain in and with it instead of the good. Man is morally accountable.

So unless we wish to predict the future and decide that God will simply somehow manage to eventually turn everyone to the right choice, in line with His will IOW, then I don't think we can ever say with certainty that universalism is true. God will do the right thing-as He always has, and we will all be satisfied that such has been done. How He works this out we don't really know.

How does Christian Universalism compromise Gods justice? If some one spends a very long time in a tortured state and then are given the opportunity to accept Jesus, why is only a never ending punishment justice? Christian Universalism says all must accept Jesus but God doesn’t give up pursuing people just because their mortal body is no longer alive. And all those who reject Jesus will pay for there unbelief.

 

[Cormack]

How does Christian Universalism compromise Gods justice?

I think users on CF haven’t gotten the memo just yet, universalists on the forum have already crushed that argument 1000 times over. Traditionalists and annihilationists seem to get onboard too, if their silence on the matter is any indication of the strength of the universalists response.

The stance from traditionalists to the idea that justice is cheated under universalism goes like this: “Jesus taking on the punishment for sin is fine for me, but not for thee.”

Apparently justice is fully satisfied when they are cleared of sin by virtue of the cross, but not when the entire world is cleared.

It doesn’t sound too logical because it’s not logical.

The only recovery effort for this objection that I can imagine is one where God must display every one of his attributes to be totally glorified, including wrath (even though wrath isn’t an attribute.) That means he needs vessels of wrath to pour out his indignation against, thus justice (an actual attribute of God) is put on display for the vessels of mercy to marvel at.

If that sounds like an awful idea, it’s Calvinistic, and as has been proven many many times on CF, Calvinism is the worst.

Traditionalists (who are often free will theists) would have to share a bed with Calvinists to carry any kind of argument against justice not being done under universalism.

There’s no standing objections that say justice isn’t done under universalism, rather justice is fully satisfied at the cross of Christ.

 

[fhansen]

How does Christian Universalism compromise Gods justice? If some one spends a very long time in a tortured state and then are given the opportunity to accept Jesus, why is only a never ending punishment justice? Christian Universalism says all must accept Jesus but God doesn’t give up pursuing people just because their mortal body is no longer alive. And all those who reject Jesus will pay for there unbelief.

The human will is involved from beginning to end. God uses His grace to draw it into rectitude, in to alignment with His own will IOW. But if, for whatever reason, that simply is not desired; if the person adamantly refuses to value love and its Source above all else, then evil will continue. And that's not The Plan; that is not God's purpose or telos for man. And we get to choose whose plan we prefer. God will allow injustice-most basically defined as separation from Him- to prevail in us if we so desire. Justice demands our participation in it. And that begins with faith, as we know.

 

[Der Alte]

Nothing is more illogical than ECT.

Yes, if you believe in ECT you won't have to endure it but the price you pay is a life of fear. And OTOH, if you reject it as the silliness it is, you're free from the associated anxiety but you'll pay the ultimate heavy price later. You can't win! Insidious indeed.
Better to let it disappear in a puff of logic.

Well I guess Jesus was lying.

John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life. ​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish,” twice! Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting [aionios] punishment:[kolasis] but the righteous into life eternal. ​

Some folk argue that "aionios" does not mean eternal but see John 3:15-16 and John 3:36, above. And that "kolasis" translated "punishment" in Matt 25:46 "really means pruning" or "correction."
"Kolasis" occurs in only one other verse in the N.T. 1 John 4:18

1 John 4:18
(18) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.[kolasis] He that feareth is not made perfect in love.​

In this verse the one who has "kolasis" is not corrected i.e. "not made perfect."

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Well I guess Jesus was lying.

John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life. ​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish,” twice! Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting [aionios] punishment:[kolasis] but the righteous into life eternal. ​

Some folk argue that "aionios" does not mean eternal but see John 3:15-16 and John 3:36, above. And that "kolasis" translated "punishment" in Matt 25:46 "really means "pruning" or "correction."
"Kolasis" occurs in only one other verse in the N.T. 1 John 4:18

1 John 4:18
(18) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.[kolasis] He that feareth is not made perfect in love.​

In this verse the one who has "kolasis" is not corrected i.e. "not made perfect."




If you understand scripture you can explain 1John 4:18 like this. There is no fear in love ( if you are in love you are in God and if you are in God you have no fear) if you are in fear you are under Gods kolasis punishment and those who are under Gods kolasis punishment are not yet in God so they stand in the punishment, but once they repent they are no longer in His punishment but are in love. And yes that can happen even after the mortal body dies.

 

[Der Alte]

If you understand scripture you can explain 1John 4:18 like this. There is no fear in love ( if you are in love you are in God and if you are in God you have no fear) if you are in fear you are under Gods kolasis punishment and those who are under Gods kolasis punishment are not yet in God so they stand in the punishment, but once they repent they are no longer in His punishment but are in love. And yes that can happen even after the mortal body dies.

A totally nonsensical post. I do not require explanation of the simple language of 1 John 4:18. There is absolutely no way the simple 1st century Christians John was addressing would have understood the convoluted explanation you gave. If that was what John "really" meant he would have said that.
ETA: Unlike us John's audience did not have electronic devices with which they could instantly call up any verse compare it to 1 John 4:18 and perhaps come up with the explanation you concocted.

 

[Andrewn]

The human will is involved from beginning to end. God uses His grace to draw it into rectitude, in to alignment with His own will IOW.

Justice demands our participation in it. And that begins with faith, as we know.

I agree.

But if, for whatever reason, that simply is not desired; if the person adamantly refuses to value love and its Source above all else, then evil will continue. And that's not The Plan; that is not God's purpose or telos for man. And we get to choose whose plan we prefer. God will allow injustice-most basically defined as separation from Him- to prevail in us if we so desire.

Open theism. God fails to accomplish his desire.

 

[fhansen]

Open theism. God fails to accomplish his desire.

No, just the gospel. Was it God’s will that Adam sinned, after commanding him not to? Is it God’s will that children be tortured and killed? Is God’s will always done on earth as it is in heaven?

Why would God ever allow His will to not be done if, at the end of the day, He simply gets it done no matter what? Maybe His will is to let us make the final choice.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

A totally nonsensical post. I do not require explanation of the simple language of 1 John 4:18. There is absolutely no way the simple 1st century Christians John was addressing would have understood the convoluted explanation you gave. If that was what John "really" meant he would have said that.

Ok so what do you think it means?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

#107 was the post I was thinking of.

Thank you for the reference. If I understand the universalist argument to be about a possibility, then I suppose I have nothing against it. But if the argument is for a necessity that all will be saved and not just a possibility, then I don't think they have made their case. It is much harder to prove that something is necessarily true as opposed to potentially true. As for this:

I thought I'd also send you an accessible analysis by Keith DeRose of the issues that arise in reconciling universalism with free will. It's a philosophical treatment and so doesn't very directly involve the Biblical case for or against universalism but, though quite long, it's an interesting read.

I needed several days to process it. I do have a few observations:

"Many who have e-mailed me have been concerned about free will. Doesn’t one have to freely accept Christ in order to be saved? This is an extension of strong exclusivism. Strong exclusivism, as I have used it above, says that in order to be saved, one must somehow explicitly accept Christ. Now, we’re adding to this that the accepting must be free. Let’s call this new position fervent exclusivism. If we accept fervent exclusivism, how can we say that universalism is true?

As a Catholic, I believe that the normal path to salvation is through acceptance of Christ and the Church. But I stress "normal" because this does not preclude the possibility of God's mercy extending to those who have not learned about Christ and are not formal members of the Church, if they have recognized and followed the natural law that God planted in all human hearts to the best of their ability. So we are not bound by strong exclusivism, fervent or otherwise. Therefore it should be easier for me to accept the possibility of universal salvation than an evangelical protestant who does hold to strong exclusivism. But again that is only a possibility, not an assurance, which I gather universalism posits. The argument for compatibility between any form of exclusivism and universalism is OK, but of no concern to me.

But some seem to have a different worry — not that fervent exclusivism is incompatible with universalism, but that, if fervent exclusivism is true, then nobody, not even God, can know (or at least know for certain) that all will be saved, since nobody can know what people will freely do.

I am not impressed by that argument either. I have no problem accepting the seeming paradox that I have free will, but that God knows what choices I will make. If God were bound to travel through time the same way we travel through time, then this paradox would indeed be a problem. But if we believe that God is outside of time, the very creator of time itself, then it is not a paradox. God knows what I will do, even though I am completely free to choose what I do. Our experience of God is sequential and it appears causal to us (bound to our experience of cause and effect). That is the way God presents himself to our limited mind which cannot comprehend existence outside of time where time-based causality makes no sense. In short, I find no contradiction between free will and God's omniscience. I think I am making essentially the same arguments you were making in different words.

 

[Der Alte]

Ok so what do you think it means?

Read my post. Also see my addition to previous post,
Is it okay to simply assume that God saves all?

 

[Andrewn]

No, just the gospel.

The Gospel/Good News is that God fails to accomplish his desire?!!!! What's the bad news then?

Was it God’s will that Adam sinned, after commanding him not to?

God did not lose the game when Adam sinned. He knew before Adam sinned and had a plan to remedy the situation.

Is it God’s will that children be tortured and killed? Is God’s will always done on earth as it is in heaven? Why would God ever allow His will to not be done if, at the end of the day, He simply gets it done no matter what? Maybe His will is to let us make the final choice.

God's will is indeed to let us choose freely. The consequences are often terrible evil. But this is not the end of the game. The end of the game is our telos. Why would God create people to throw them in the garbage because they are defective. I good engineer would go back and fix his work. Are people God's work? Is He able to fix them?

Free will is never absolute. Under different circumstances, I would have bought a different car. I would have married a different wife. I would have chosen a different career. Perhaps a different religion. Perhaps I would have been a drug addict. Perhaps a murderer. Perhaps a saint.

To change the outcome, God can simply provide a different set of data. More information. Less information. Different circumstances.

 

[Hmm]

If I understand the universalist argument to be about a possibility, then I suppose I have nothing against it. But if the argument is for a necessity that all will be saved and not just a possibility, then I don't think they have made their case. It is much harder to prove that something is necessarily true as opposed to potentially true.

That's true. Universalism does posit that all will be saved, so it's an assurance and not just a possibility. I suppose it's not something that can be proved (as in maths) but more like science where we can ask whether the evidence points overwhelmingly in one direction or another. Not all will agree of course, and they don't always in science, so we have to make our minds up the best we can. For me, the evidence of scripture and especially how Jesus is portrayed, is conclusive enough. I'm not certain but I don't expect certainty in any other area of my life and I'm as certain of universalism as I am of anything else and so I guess that's why I'm comfortable with that.

As a Catholic, I believe that the normal path to salvation is through acceptance of Christ and the Church. But I stress "normal" because this does not preclude the possibility of God's mercy extending to those who have not learned about Christ and are not formal members of the Church, if they have recognized and followed the natural law that God planted in all human hearts to the best of their ability. So we are not bound by strong exclusivism, fervent or otherwise. Therefore it should be easier for me to accept the possibility of universal salvation than an evangelical protestant who does hold to strong exclusivism. But again that is only a possibility, not an assurance, which I gather universalism posits.

AFAIK the Catholic church advocates a hopeful universalism: that there is a hell but that we should hope that it is empty, but I don't know whether that has the status of a dogma. That's obviously far preferable to the fundamentalist view that the majority go to hell - because the road is narrow etc. - but I can't help thinking it's a bit of a fudge. As you say later, God is not constrained by time and He will know before He created it whether hell will end up empty or not, and if it's empty why bother creating it? IOW if it exists, it will not be empty.

One of the things I like about the Catholic church is it's idea of "invincible ignorance", that we will not be condemned for not believing in Christ if we have never heard of Him or have not really understood Him, or aren't able to do so. Although mine isn't a Catholic country, I'd say that most people are invincibly ignorant because most have had some kind of exposure to church but learnt only that God was irrational, whimsical and indifferent and, so to me, that means that they haven't heard about Christ any more than stone-age man would have done.

The argument for compatibility between any form of exclusivism and universalism is OK, but of no concern to me.

Okay.

In short, I find no contradiction between free will and God's omniscience. I think I am making essentially the same arguments you were making in different words.

Yes. I think the universalist argument is that we must freely choose Christ to be saved but God ensures that we all eventually will through making us in His image (with a God-shaped hole in us) and so we'll never be truly happy until we are united with Him. It's just a question of seeing that that's true for ourselves but because in "hell" God has an endless amount of time to teach us this, we'll all get there in the end.

 

[Saint Steven]

There’s no standing objections that say justice isn’t done under universalism, rather justice is fully satisfied at the cross of Christ.

Wow, that's a gem! Thanks.
"... justice is fully satisfied at the cross of Christ."
Well said.

From post #228