Would you prefer it if “Christian universalism” were true?

[Saint Steven]

There are many ways that this "restoration" wouldn't necessarily mean universal salvation.

Let's count them.

 

[Albion]

No, iet's agree to the obvious, which is that something being restored does not necessarily tell us what the something is, when it will occur, etc, but you want to believe it has to mean that everyone will be in heaven forever. I've restored the finish on my coffee table, but I surely do not think the table has been given eternal existence because of it.

 

[Fervent]

So Gods preference is for universalism? Meaning to be the most Christlike our preferred hope should be the universal reconciliation of all things, is that fair?

I'm not sure the first is necessarily correct. When I read passages about God willing all men, I don't take it to be a desired end but that God has provided access for all men. God's preference is to save them that believe, though God is not what separates the condemned from the saved. It is the most Christlike to seek the salvation of all, but recognize that those who ultimately and continually refuse are condemning themselves.

 

[Hmm]

It is the most Christlike to seek the salvation of all, but recognize that those who ultimately and continually refuse are condemning themselves.

That sounds very plausible on the face of it but the universalist response is that no-one would continue to refuse God forever (or some may accede that that's possible but that the probability becomes vanishingly small over time so that the confidence you can have in universal salvation would be far higher than for practically any other belief you might hold). The reason they think that is that we all are made in the image of God and so we can only really be happy and fulfilled once we become united with God. And sin only brings unhappiness as the prodigal discovered.

So the universalist belief is that God, who desires all to be reconciled with him, will eventually succeed in this aim because he has an endless amount of time in "hell" to win everyone over by removing every selfish delusion and false idea they have that they will be happier independent of him. And if course the only way he can do this is by gradually revealing His love and goodness to them. Many people don't know God in this life, sometimes for very good reasons and sometimes for bad, but the idea that this instantly qualifies for ECT at the moment of death is absurd.

 

[Fervent]

That sounds very plausible on the face of it but the universalist response is that no-one would continue to refuse God forever (or some may accede that that's possible but that the probability becomes vanishingly small over time so that the confidence you can have in universal salvation would be far higher than for practically any other belief you might hold). The reason they think that is that we all are made in the image of God and so we can only really be happy and fulfilled once we become united with God. And sin only brings unhappiness as the prodigal discovered.

So the universalist belief is that God, who desires all to be reconciled with him, will eventually succeed in this aim because he has an endless amount of time in "hell" to win everyone over by removing every selfish delusion and false idea they have that they will be happier independent of him. And if course the only way he can do this is by gradually revealing His love and goodness to them. Many people don't know God in this life, sometimes for very good reasons and sometimes for bad, but the idea that this instantly qualifies for ECT at the moment of death is absurd.

That's all well and good, but it amounts to an assertion and nothing more. The Bible presents a judgment with two groups, resurrection unto salvation and resurrection unto damnation. That can't be overthrown because of assertions and speculation.

 

[Cormack]

When I read passages about God willing all men,

“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”

So that’s not only the number of who the Lord wills to be saved, but also the fact that He desires everyone “come unto the knowledge of the truth.” This is echoed by many other Bible verses that travel along similar lines.

“As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.”

Notice the preference ^^^

“not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

I don't take it to be a desired end but that God has provided access for all men.

That’s a bit like the fire marshal saying “I want to provide the means for everyone to escape the burning building, but I don’t want everyone to escape.”

Scripture seems to cast your idea that God wills the means but not the salvation of everything as conjecture. Notice how God takes no pleasure in the wicked death, and that He doesn’t merely want everyone saved, but He even specifies how He wants everyone saved.

God's preference is to save them that believe,

Yes that’s the how they’re saved, not the how many. Scripture appears to argue that God wants the how, meaning to save those who believe, but also He wants everyone to avail themselves of that same means of salvation.

He wants everyone to receive the knowledge of the truth, to repent and believe, and as a final word on His feelings God explains He takes zero pleasure in the death of wicked men as opposed to those same people turning and being saved. God would rather they “turn from their evil way and live.”

So it appears the preference of God is indeed for universal salvation, not simply universal opportunity to be saved.

 

[Cormack]

"Preference" is the word that gets used a lot these days as a euphemism for both bigotry and judgment...so, no, it's not any better.

I mean the normative use of the word preference.

Preference = a greater liking for one alternative over another or others.

I "prefer" that God's will be done, not mine.

Notice #1866 shares that Gods desire or preference is for everyone who’s wicked to turn from their evil way and live, rather then continue on in that way and face the consequences.

Do you share that preference with God?

 

[Cormack]

It would be cognitively dissonant to pray for something we simultaneously think is impossible.

That’s interesting and I’ve never really considered it in that way. Thank you.

So, Gods will is that everyone turns from evil, comes to the knowledge of the truth, and lives, so after appreciating that will we pray His will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

In that case, do you think savvy Christians who are conscious about Gods will are praying for universal salvation?

 

[Fervent]

“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”

So that’s not only the number of who the Lord wills to be saved, but also the fact that He desires everyone “come unto the knowledge of the truth.” This is echoed by many other Bible verses that travel along similar lines.

“As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.”

Notice the preference ^^^

“not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”



That’s a bit like the fire marshal saying “I want to provide the means for everyone to escape the burning building, but I don’t want everyone to escape.”

Scripture seems to cast your idea that God wills the means but not the salvation of everything as conjecture. Notice how God takes no pleasure in the wicked death, and that He doesn’t merely want everyone saved, but He even specifies how He wants everyone saved.



Yes that’s the how they’re saved, not the how many. Scripture appears to argue that God wants the how, meaning to save those who believe, but also He wants everyone to avail themselves of that same means of salvation.

He wants everyone to receive the knowledge of the truth, to repent and believe, and as a final word on His feelings God explains He takes zero pleasure in the death of wicked men as opposed to those same people turning and being saved. God would rather they “turn from their evil way and live.”

So it appears the preference of God is indeed for universal salvation, not simply universal opportunity to be saved.

The issue here is the concept of desire is an anthropomorphism. God doesn't have desires, because desire implies a need and God is self-sufficient. Reading it as God dragging all men into salvation causes the Bible to speak against itself, as there are clear indications of a group that is unsaved, just as Jesus desired that Jerusalem be saved but they wouldn't have it. When it speaks of God desiring all men be saved it is a contraindication, God doesn't take pleasure in condemnation. So we should preach with the fervor that seeks all men, but we must also recognize the reality painted by salvation unto damnation and other places in the Bible that speak of condemnation. It is neither preferable nor admirable to give the damned cause to be comfortable in their condemnation.

 

[Cormack]

just as Jesus desired that Jerusalem be saved but they wouldn't have it.

Still you’re able to establish and believe in the notion that Jesus really did want Jerusalem to be saved. While in the case of God the Father you’re pointing towards anthropomorphisms and contraindications rather than His own plain revelation that He would rather the wicked sinner turned from his ways and came to a knowledge of the truth.

I do understand your presuppositions about unsaved people groups and the like, but right now we are on the topic of Gods preference for the earthly sinners you and I meet everyday.

So far as I’m reading you seem to be saying no, no God doesn’t desire that they turn from their ways and live. He would rather they died and were punished.

Which would be to contradict the plain words of scripture for theological presuppositions you already hold (e.g. hell, saved vs. unsaved, “resurrection to condemnation.”) I’m not meaning to say those presuppositions are valid or invalid or somewhere in between, just that Gods preference for the lost seems to be absolutely rock solid.

There’s no ambiguity in those verses other then the kinds we introduce in order to preserve other theological ideas we have nurtured previously.

 

[RDKirk]

Notice #1866 shares that Gods desire or preference is for everyone who’s wicked to turn from their evil way and live, rather then continue on in that way and face the consequences.

Do you share that preference with God?

That is not universalism.

 

[Fervent]

Still you’re able to establish and believe in the notion that Jesus really did want Jerusalem to be saved. While in the case of God the Father you’re pointing towards anthropomorphisms and contraindications rather than His own plain revelation that He would rather the wicked sinner turned from his ways and came to a knowledge of the truth.

I do understand your presuppositions about unsaved people groups and the like, but right now we are on the topic of Gods preference for the earthly sinners you and I meet everyday.

So far as I’m reading you seem to be saying no, no God doesn’t desire that they turn from their ways and live. He would rather they died and were punished.

Which would be to contradict the plain words of scripture for theological presuppositions you already hold (e.g. hell, saved vs. unsaved, “resurrection to condemnation.”) I’m not meaning to say those presuppositions are valid or invalid or somewhere in between, just that Gods preference for the lost seems to be absolutely rock solid.

There’s no ambiguity in those verses other then the kinds we introduce in order to preserve other theological ideas we have nurtured previously.

Again, it's a matter of conception. We can't truly speak of "preferences" for God in the same way we speak of our own preferences. It is fair to say that God did not create any for the purpose of damning them, which is how I take statements about desiring all men be saved. Just as Jesus did not intend that Israel turn to idols and ultimately reject Him as king. Yet this is not the same as a desire in us, because frustrated desires in us are unfulfilled needs and God has no need that is external to Himself. So it doesn't truly make sense to speak of God having "preferences" in this manner, especially when the context doesn't force us to read it that strictly and reading it in that way renders the Bible contradictory.

 

[Cormack]

That is not universalism.

Universalism is the idea that everyone is ultimately saved through Jesus. We specifically call it Christian Universalism and it’s been defined from about page 2 of this topic.

 

[Cormack]

We can't truly speak of "preferences" for God in the same way we speak of our own preferences.

The Holy Spirit inspired biblical authors could speak that way and Christians everywhere speak that way everyday. Right now it just seems as though you’re rejecting the biblical witness for some kind of airy fairy idea that voids God of any content.

Losing God in mystery in order to preserve our theology.

 

[Fervent]

The Holy Spirit inspired biblical authors could speak that way and Christians everywhere speak that way everyday. Right now it just seems as though you’re rejecting the biblical witness for some kind of airy fairy idea that voids God of any content.

The Holy Spirit also inspired writers to speak of God repenting. It's an anthropomorphism, an analogy because God is incomprehensible. He doesn't desire as we desire, He doesn't regret as we regret, but we can speak of Him having these sensations for our own understanding. The issue is forcing the analogy into being a 1:1 reference, not a problem in the analogy itself. What I speak of doesn't cause any kind of conflicts, nor undermine what is being said in those passages in context it merely undermines people trying to force an argument that creates contradictions in the Biblical corpus.

 

[Albion]

Universalism is the idea that everyone is ultimately saved through Jesus. We specifically call it Christian Universalism and it’s been defined from about page 2 of this topic.

But what you have been saying in these most recent posts is not universalism. RDKirk's right about that.

You appeared to make the case from Scripture that God would prefer all to be saved but not that he's going to impose it on everyone. Of course, having all mortals be exactly what they should be and therefore deserving of heaven is the ideal. Why wouldn't it be so? But that doesn't mean, nor do any of the verses cited, that he will arrange it no matter what. That would clearly be to go against his preferences.

 

[Cormack]

The Holy Spirit also inspired writers to speak of God repenting. It's an anthropomorphism, an analogy because God is incomprehensible.

Of course you’d have to cherry pick which of those ideas you would like to believe is an anthropomorphism and which weren’t.

Again that’s just as strange as saying God doesn’t love because humans love and God isn’t to be so quickly likened unto humanity. It’s an attempt at voiding God of content and leading into absolute mystery.

Paul spoke boldly against the idea of an unknown God just so Christians could box him up again. It’s very odd.

Still just so far as your beliefs go. You do believe there are an unsaved section of humankind who are going to be lost, tormented or something to that effect. Fair?

Does God want those people with him in heaven or does he want them without him in hell?

I mean the whole junking in the biblical witness and its language makes it difficult to even ask the question.

 

[Albion]

Still just so far as your beliefs go. You do believe there are an unsaved section of humankind who are going to be lost, tormented or something to that effect. Fair?

Does God want those people with him in heaven or does he want them without him in hell?

I mean the whole junking in the biblical witness and its language makes it difficult to even ask the question.

No. All you are saying here is that if God would have all to be reconciled to him rather than some at least remaining opposed to him, then he automatically saves everybody regardless.

Huh? What? That is not only illogical but it mocks him for having said he would have them turn from their sins. It renders any sort of divine judgment meaningless, and makes the standards that are constantly put before the eyes of Bible readers just advisory.

 

[Cormack]

But what you have been saying in these most recent posts is not universalism. RDKirk's right about that.

Preferring that everybody be saved through Jesus and come to the knowledge of the truth is simply a preference for Christian universalism. I’ve exchanged with @RDKirk about whether or not he shares the desire of God that wicked men “turn from their ways and live.” That’s simply a synonym for universal. They turn and they live and there’s no grand hellfire waiting for them in eternity.

Of course we may just be retracing old ground with people not wanting to define universalism properly again.

Although so far as my exchange with @RDKirk goes, I could write universalism in several ways and via several Bible verses without having to write the exact name.

You appeared to make the case from Scripture that God would prefer all to be saved but not that he's going to impose it on everyone.

Well, that’s as far as those verses go. It wouldn’t be very helpful to try and make those verses say anything else. They’re strong verses to establish that Gods preference is that everyone be saved, that’s the preference for universalism and not traditionalism.

But that doesn't mean, nor do any of the verses cited, that he will arrange it no matter what.

@Hmm and others have already explained that God doesn’t arrange the salvation of humanity no matter what or by any means, rather He does so through Jesus in His own time.

The main thing that’s really being hammered home here is that yes God does indeed prefer universalism.

 

[Cormack]

All you are saying here is that if God would have all to be reconciled to him rather than some at least remaining opposed to him, then he automatically saves everybody regardless.

No I’m only establishing Gods preference.

Huh? What?

You wrote it dude.

That is not only illogical but it mocks him for having said he would have them turn from their sins. It renders any sort of divine judgment meaningless, and makes the standards that are constantly put before the eyes of Bible readers just advisory.

Okay. It’s good I’m not mocking God or being illogical or responding to my own messages then, because I’ve not made any argument like the one you’re invested in debunking.