Universal Reconciliation

[nimblewillsgrace]

In conclusion, let me ask you to hold in your mind traditional Christian visions
of the future, in which many, perhaps the majority of humanity, are excluded
from salvation forever. Alongside that hold the universalist vision, in which
God achieves his loving purpose of redeeming the whole creation. Which vision
has the strongest view of divine love? Which story has the most powerful
narrative of God’s victory over evil? Which picture lifts the atoning efficacy
of the cross of Christ to the greatest heights? Which perspective best
emphasizes the triumph of grace over sin? Which view most inspires worship and
love of God bringing him honor and glory? Which has the most satisfactory
understanding of divine wrath? Which narrative inspires hope in the human
spirit? To my mind the answer to all these questions is clear, and that is why I
am a Christian universalist.

Gregory McDonald, The Evangelical Universalist

How would you answer these questions?

[Bandit]

A more detailed explanation of his understanding of "traditional" Christianity would be needed. If he has in mind a more calvinistic view of Chritianity, then I can understand his aversion to it. According to the calvinist view, most of humanity never had a chance - they were in fact created for destruction. That is a horrible perspective to have.

[nimblewillsgrace]

From what I understand Robin Parry is a trinitarian evangelical who believes that all will eventually choose God.

[Bandit]

Hello nimblewillsgrace,

I was just trying to say that if he was trying to decide between two bad perceptions of Christianity (perhaps he thinks these are the only two options, but I don't know), then perhaps his choice is driven by his aversion to one of the options. (He might rather believe in universal salvation than calvinism, but that was just an example. I don't know what this guy thinks of when he says "traditional Christianity".) But then again, he may have picked universal salvation because it tells him what he wants to hear. Lots of people hear only what they want.

As a note, I have met a few non-Christians who rejected "Chrisitanity" because the only form of Christianity they were exposed to was calvinism. (And, no, I'm not trying to start anything here with calvinists, just pointing out that I have met persons who rejected what they were told was "traditional" Christianity.) These non-Christians said that a God who created most people for destruction could not be a loving God, therefore they rejected such a God (as he was portrayed to them).

[EarlyCall]

Well, a couple things come to mind for me.

First, when presented with an argument of this type, namely that something is always true, then all you need is but one single point of truth to the contrary to disqualify it, to prove it untrue. Certainly there are scriptures to the contrary of this man's claim, thus his always true claim is proven false. This could not be more simple. The man is left with only his opinion and nothing more. But notice, that is all he has given anyway.

Further, what he does is very subtle and the reader must be aware of it. First he makes the claim and then he attempts to move his audience into a corner. He presents God's love and the sacrifice of the cross and then argues this great love could only mean that God will save everyone. He further argues this by presenting arguments in the form of questions in a further attempt to box in his audience in such a way that if they are to argue to the contrary, they are arguing against God Himself and His great love.

This is the subtlety in an attempt to force the person that would argue to the contrary to take a certain path of argument: to argue against God's great love. By doing so he has diverted them from the original claim of everyone being saved. And that is what must be argued against. Therefore his attempt to force the argument to be contrary to God's love must be avoided. The argument is against everyone being saved.

There is no shortage of scripture making it crystal clear that not everyone will be saved and no scripture exists to show that all will be saved. Ah, perhaps that is why he offers none. One must then require this man to present such scripture. It can be safely assumed I think that any forthcoming scripture will be of God's love. This would be nothing more than another attempt to force someone to argue against God's love, but again, this is not what is being argued.

I believe some people believe such things as this because they cannot bring themselves to consider others, probably others very close to them, will be lost for all eternity. They argue form emotion and opinion rather than from scripture. This of course is not that unusual and often occurs with certain subjects; capital punishment comes immediately to mind as a very similar point of disagreement between many, and one i find that is also argued not from scripture but from opinion and emotion.

So, you ask in your post how I would answer these questions... I would not. I would demand he show me scripture that clearly and without question supports his position. And I would not permit scripture speaking to God's love because that does not mention, address nor support what he is arguing. I have no doubt that he would offer the scripture saying that God would that none be lost, but this is nothing more than speaking to the desire of God's heart. While some would claim this irrefutable evidence, again, to disprove this one need only show scripture that clearly shows all will not be saved. At that point then one can reason that the scripture saying God would the tone be lost is referring to the desire of His heart and not an affirmation that none will be lost. Of course this is where logic and reason often fail to materialize in some people of they lack the ability to use either; it simply isn't their bent.

Well, that's my take on it anyway and my approach and my response.

[nimblewillsgrace]

Well, a couple things come to mind for me.

First, when presented with an argument of this type, namely that something is always true, then all you need is but one single point of truth to the contrary to disqualify it, to prove it untrue. Certainly there are scriptures to the contrary of this man's claim, thus his always true claim is proven false. This could not be more simple. The man is left with only his opinion and nothing more. But notice, that is all he has given anyway.

Further, what he does is very subtle and the reader must be aware of it. First he makes the claim and then he attempts to move his audience into a corner. He presents God's love and the sacrifice of the cross and then argues this great love could only mean that God will save everyone. He further argues this by presenting arguments in the form of questions in a further attempt to box in his audience in such a way that if they are to argue to the contrary, they are arguing against God Himself and His great love.

This is the subtlety in an attempt to force the person that would argue to the contrary to take a certain path of argument: to argue against God's great love. By doing so he has diverted them from the original claim of everyone being saved. And that is what must be argued against. Therefore his attempt to force the argument to be contrary to God's love must be avoided. The argument is against everyone being saved.

There is no shortage of scripture making it crystal clear that not everyone will be saved and no scripture exists to show that all will be saved. Ah, perhaps that is why he offers none. One must then require this man to present such scripture. It can be safely assumed I think that any forthcoming scripture will be of God's love. This would be nothing more than another attempt to force someone to argue against God's love, but again, this is not what is being argued.

I believe some people believe such things as this because they cannot bring themselves to consider others, probably others very close to them, will be lost for all eternity. They argue form emotion and opinion rather than from scripture. This of course is not that unusual and often occurs with certain subjects; capital punishment comes immediately to mind as a very similar point of disagreement between many, and one i find that is also argued not from scripture but from opinion and emotion.

So, you ask in your post how I would answer these questions... I would not. I would demand he show me scripture that clearly and without question supports his position. And I would not permit scripture speaking to God's love because that does not mention, address nor support what he is arguing. I have no doubt that he would offer the scripture saying that God would that none be lost, but this is nothing more than speaking to the desire of God's heart. While some would claim this irrefutable evidence, again, to disprove this one need only show scripture that clearly shows all will not be saved. At that point then one can reason that the scripture saying God would the tone be lost is referring to the desire of His heart and not an affirmation that none will be lost. Of course this is where logic and reason often fail to materialize in some people of they lack the ability to use either; it simply isn't their bent.

Well, that's my take on it anyway and my approach and my response.

Its obvious that you don't know much about this guy. He is not your run of the mill universalist. He is more conservative and biblical that most. He has plenty of scripture to back up his position.

http://evangelicaluniversalist.blogspot.com/

[EarlyCall]

Its obvious that you don't know much about this guy. He is not your run of the mill universalist. He is more conservative and biblical that most. He has plenty of scripture to back up his position.

http://evangelicaluniversalist.blogspot.com/

Excuse me just one second. You made the post, presented the quote from the guy and asked for responses. I give a response and you shoot back that I know little of this guy and it's obvious? I was what? Supposed to go research him? I think not. So stop where you are, back up and start one please. And further, I don't care if the guy is conservative, liberal or anything else; he is still wrong.

You mentioned he has plenty of scripture to back up what he claims. And yet you didn't bring any with you. I'll stand on my post. And remember, when someone presents something as always true, universally true in this case, another need only present one thing that is true and to the contrary to show it is false.

For example, if I say that all men with red hair have green eyes. If anyone can present a man with red hair that does not have green eyes, then my statement is proven false. I need only present one single solitary scripture that says not all will be saved to prove this business that all will be saved false. I can present more than one if you like. Would you like that? As well, they are quite clear and I am not required to use conjecture to make my case.

From your response, it would appear you agree with this man and had hoped for others to support that as well. Sorry, but I cannot make wishful thinking the basis upon that which I believe.

Finally, while this man may not be your run of the mill universalist, he is in the end just as wrong as are your run of the mill universalists!

I will add this: if it is your desire that only those that will agree with what the man has said respond in this thread, please just say so and I will bow out. I don't intend to get wrapped up in a lengthy verbal joust with you anyway. I don't find such things worthwhile anymore.

[TrustGzus]

MacDonald forgot one very important question -- Which one is the truth?

His questions appeal to emotion largely. I think the answer to all the questions is the traditional view going with a simple definition of there is an eternal hell.

[nimblewillsgrace]

Excuse me just one second. You made the post, presented the quote from the guy and asked for responses. I give a response and you shoot back that I know little of this guy and it's obvious? I was what? Supposed to go research him? I think not. So stop where you are, back up and start one please. And further, I don't care if the guy is conservative, liberal or anything else; he is still wrong.

You mentioned he has plenty of scripture to back up what he claims. And yet you didn't bring any with you. I'll stand on my post. And remember, when someone presents something as always true, universally true in this case, another need only present one thing that is true and to the contrary to show it is false.

For example, if I say that all men with red hair have green eyes. If anyone can present a man with red hair that does not have green eyes, then my statement is proven false. I need only present one single solitary scripture that says not all will be saved to prove this business that all will be saved false. I can present more than one if you like. Would you like that? As well, they are quite clear and I am not required to use conjecture to make my case.

From your response, it would appear you agree with this man and had hoped for others to support that as well. Sorry, but I cannot make wishful thinking the basis upon that which I believe.

Finally, while this man may not be your run of the mill universalist, he is in the end just as wrong as are your run of the mill universalists!

I will add this: if it is your desire that only those that will agree with what the man has said respond in this thread, please just say so and I will bow out. I don't intend to get wrapped up in a lengthy verbal joust with you anyway. I don't find such things worthwhile anymore.

Nope sorry for my last post. Please accept my apology.

[EarlyCall]

Nope sorry for my last post. Please accept my apology.

No apology necessary, but I thank you for that. I'd be interested in your thoughts even if you disagree with me.

[A Seeker]

I like what he says.

I don't know if I can agree with it. But I'd like to!

[the rookie]

Personally, I would find the conversation enjoyable if I were having it with someone that legitimately held to the view of universal reconciliation, having thought it out and worked through why they believe what they believe. Conversations about other guys out there that believe it are always inherently unfair, because their representatives in these dialogues can never really do their viewpoint justice and the conversation quickly spirals into defensiveness as folks take up for their guy, versus arguing the point....

...which was addressed and apologized for here. But still, it's indicative of what is the norm in these kinds of conversations. I would ask questions and stir dialogue about UR versus quoting someone else that holds to it, personally.

[John 8:32]

Gregory McDonald, The Evangelical Universalist

How would you answer these questions?

This is not the only day of salvation. There are a lot of people who have lived who have never even heard the only name under heaven whereby we must be saved. Will they yet have a chance in the future? The Great White Throne Judgment is all about this. The missionary with the flat tire is not going to cause someone to go into the Lake of Fire.

Paul said of the Jews, that they were blinded so that God could have mercy on them. If God blinded them to the truth , how could He condemn them? He doesn't...

Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Their day is coming.

God is not trying to save everyone right now. If He is, He is doing a lousy job of it, judging by His success rate. God does not lose, He always wins. There is coming a time, (The Last Great Day-The Great White Throne Judgment) when those who have not had a chance, will.

Unfortunately, we see in Rev 20:13-15 there will be some who refuse God's great mercy and love, but it will not be the billions that some suppose, and it will be a conscious decision, not an accident or unfortunate occurrence.

[David Taylor]

This is not the only day of salvation. There are a lot of people who have lived who have never even heard the only name under heaven whereby we must be saved. Will they yet have a chance in the future?

You attempt to put God into a box. Scripture doesn't do this. Scripture doesn't tell us, 'wait some of you, you aren't gonna get a chance during your life to repent and follow God....He's gonna avoid you, and hide from you, and not give you the opportunity until after you die some time later.'

That's pure baloney.

You many not know how God reaches out to and gives opportunity to all people, in the African Savannas, the Mayan Rain Forests, the Frozen Tundras....yet God's word says He does give all men that opportunity.

Your arguement assumes God doesn't and can't, because you can't understand when, where, and how He accomplishes it.....so you allow yourself to fabricate a 'post-death salvation event' for "some people" who never got the chance. Scripture however, never supports this notion, rather, stands against it.

Scripture gives us specific examples of pagan men living in pagan lands with no Scriptures, no missionaries, no churches or synogogues, and no access whatsoever in their lives to a means of salvation that we might recognize; yet they and the Lord still find one another, find repentance, and salvation by saving faith in Jesus Christ even though you can't understand it or discern how it happens. God is much bigger and much more engaged in His creatures than you tend to give Him credit, if you must start tending heretical views like U.R.

God is not trying to save everyone right now. If He is, He is doing a lousy job of it, judging by His success rate. God does not lose, He always wins.

Again, your view is against scripture. Scripture tells us that at the time of Noah, 8 people out of all the earth were winners...the rest losers. God's success rate saved 8.

Scripture tells us again in Matthew 7 that narrow is the way that leadeth unto eternal life, and few find it.....yet you embrace U.R. to attempt to provide a way for all to find it, and to break this scripture precedence as well.

The fact is, God isn't into success rates or measuring up to your expectation of lousy....He is saving the souls of those who in this life will faithfully follow Him. If it is only 1% of all people who ever live, the to God be the glory for those who truly chose to love and follow Him.

Fabricating and false view like U.R. to attempt to force more unbelievers into Heaven is against the scriptures, and you should abandon it.

God will not save people who refuse to repent and follow Him during the times of their life.
There is no post-death salvation second chance...today is the day of salvation. today is the appointed time.
We know not what tomorrow brings, nor if our lives will be called of us before tomorrow comes. Repent while the day is yet the day.

[Desperaux]

Gregory McDonald, The Evangelical Universalist

How would you answer these questions?

I'd say he has rose-coloured glasses on. Universalists are the flower children of Christendom. They love the flowers, but neglect the hard truth. Milk-drinkers.