For those holding to some form of Universal Reconciliation

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Inevitably, the argument for Universal Reconciliation (UR - sometimes known variously as Christian Universalism, Universalism, The Wider Hope, The Restitution of All Things etc...) boils down to the character and nature of God - what God would or wouldn't do. Or rather, the distinction between what the mainstream evangelical believer holds and the UR believer holds is a distinction between what God has done for you and what God will do for every last person ever born. The UR believer says God will do what is according to His nature in desiring everyone to be saved. There is a point of similarity even with historic Protestant (largely Reformed) theology in that the same thought is there - God will accomplish all that He intends with great specificity. But there again, a critical difference exists - the UR believer's hope is not personal where the traditional Christian position is that the believer's hope is in what Christ did for the individual - not in what He will do for all of mankind. And that ties back again to the way a UR believer views God.

One major concern I have is that this isn't just a small difference in understanding about numbers. It isn't just an issue of how many God will save (the foundation of the universalist argument) but rather specifically who God will save. And the UR presupposes the love of God in a broad way and with indiscriminate, universal application. As such, when approaching passages that depict God as distinctly unloving, the response is almost inevitably something to the effect of God's love will win out and everything is done with one purpose in mind - the glorification of God through the salvation of every last individual. In other words, the whole of the doctrine is undergirded by an assumption that can't be directly addressed with scripture. That assumption is that God will ultimately redeem all (though He never comes out and says it with any clarity) because of His love for all. Which means, at the heart are also necessary presuppositions about the nature of God's love - and thus of the character and nature of God Himself. What this means is that if the universalist understanding of the love of God is wrong, the whole doctrine is centered in an idolatrous assumption - that God has to (be) love the way we want Him to (be) love - to save absolutely everyone. There again, you see the impersonal basis of the UR hope - it's in the corporate salvation (if God's going to save one, He has to save all). The Good News - for them - is more in the every single person rather than in what Jesus did.

Just as an example (and certainly open for specific discussion) of the questionable nature of the assumptions of God's love in UR, the universalist treats God's judgments (usually) as an inevitable means to salvation. But in so doing, they ignore the place of wrath and vengeance. We read :

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Romans 12:19-21

The UR believer has God having to overcome evil with good (which He certainly does - but universally?) when the passage clearly states that man is not to take vengeance. Not that God doesn't. And vengeance is not in any sense salvific.

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Revelation 6:9-11

And we see Paul being pretty clear about the division between believers and unbelievers (and striking parallels with the Rev 6 passage) :

Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

2 Thessalonians 1:6-10

It is perfectly clear that this is not salvific. The only recourse for the UR believer is to assert the assumption that God's love will see even those who are banished from God's presence. They will eventually be saved. God's love will win out and the vengeance will make them repentant. But how does one reconcile the ultimate love of God with this :

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:27

This is not vengeance that will result in life - this is clearly a final end. Jesus Himself uses the finality of death. How is this love?
 

theophilus

Well-known member
Is it loving to remove the wolves from amongst the flock?

Said wolves would no longer bite and devour and tear the sheep to pieces.

Was it love to nail our Lord to the tree?

Yes, yes and Amen.

Tis also a love we will not understand looking through our side of the glass.
 

musterion

Well-known member
I don't know about any other types but dispensational universalists tend to come down to the argument of, "If we wouldn't damn someone for eternity while claiming to love them, then how could God do it?"
 

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
It isn't just an issue of how many God will save (the foundation of the universalist argument) but rather specifically who God will save.

Who will God save? All who will accept the salvation of the Father through Jesus Christ.

Will everyone accept the Father's salvation? Time will tell.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Is it loving to remove the wolves from amongst the flock?

Said wolves would no longer bite and devour and tear the sheep to pieces.

Was it love to nail our Lord to the tree?

Yes, yes and Amen.

Tis also a love we will not understand looking through our side of the glass.

In UR circles, love has to ultimately mean the salvation of all or else God's love is partial and unfair, unjust and isn't (they say) the God of the bible.

Again, it seems to go back to the idea of a corporate (generic) salvation rather than a personal salvation. Even though many in the UR camp would speak of a personal salvation, that seems to be subordinated to the love of God for (the) all of mankind in such a way that (the) all are saved. So while it may actually be loving to remove wolves from among the sheep, if all are to be saved, then that definition lacks a certain clarity...anyone can be a wolf at any time (but will be eventually saved...)
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
I don't know about any other types but dispensational universalists tend to come down to the argument of, "If we wouldn't damn someone for eternity while claiming to love them, then how could God do it?"

There certainly seems to be an anthropomorphic God (and partly why I mentioned idolatry in the OP) that is found to a great degree in UR circles. Not all hold that view - but a great many do - that blurs the distinction between man's love and God's love. God just becomes the one who simply loves more and on a larger scale than a man can.

But again, I don't think that's true of everyone in UR. Many have a far more nuanced understanding (and certainly far more biblical view) of God.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member

Mark 10:21 is quite a verse. And I think it does indicate something more about God's love than most have understood. Jesus said to the Pharisees that His harsh words were given so that they might be saved (John 5:34) even though He said (just 6 verses later!) that they wouldn't come to Him that they might have life. So there are - I believe - far greater issues at stake here than just getting as many people saved (as possible....or as are elected unto salvation - depending on which side of the Reformed fence one sits). Ephesians 3:8-11 says that God's purpose is to show His wisdom via the church. So it isn't just to get people saved, but for His own glory.

Almost paradoxically, I note that Ephesians 3:9 calls it a mystery. As I heard last night, the understanding of mystery is that God kept something hid from men for a great while. As such, there was nothing in His Word (before the NT) that made it clear what He was saying about Jesus, the church and the Gentiles (though there were some strong hints). Which means, that if there is a truth to universalism, God has not only not revealed it in His Word, but hid it in some very strong language about destruction. So I could see someone holding out universalism as a private hope, but that would have to be partnered with a fidelity to the scriptures that are clear about the folly of rejecting God. If someone is able to do that and remain faithful to the scriptures, I could see someone entertaining some form of reconciliation as a hope - but only in the sense that Paul says that he would that he were accursed from Christ that his brethren after the flesh would benefit eternally (Romans 9:3). Not as a hope that one rests on - since we are told specifically that we are to trust in Christ and His finished work on the cross - there is life in no other. Nor are we to trust that His sacrifice will be universally efficacious as being our own hope - but our own hope is in the application of His blood to us individually.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Who will God save? All who will accept the salvation of the Father through Jesus Christ.

Will everyone accept the Father's salvation? Time will tell.

The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.
The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth.
He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them.
The Lord preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.

Psalm 145:17-20

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
John 6:37

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Hebrews 7:25
 

musterion

Well-known member
One thing seems sure. One side is greatly overestimating grace/underestimating sin, or vice versa. No middle ground that I can see.
 

Lilstu

New member
Billions will die. Perhaps burn in Hell, screaming in agony for all eternity.
But don't worry...Jesus loves you.
 

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
People lose trust in God's judgement, and so they change God to suit what they feel is right.

The early Christians were martyred under the impression that they were receiving eternal life in their faith, as opposed to the reprobates who demanded they render to their government and deities.
It's stupid that one should even have to explain the purely obvious for people to see such a ridiculous error that 'universalism' is :AMR:
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Billions will die. Perhaps burn in Hell, screaming in agony for all eternity.
But don't worry...Jesus loves you.

This is where the UR argument goes off the rails. If it were merely a belief about numbers (distinct from the traditional view that not all will be saved, the universalist might believe simply that all will on the basis that God will do so) but it clearly is not for most such universalists. That argument places the definition of love in man's court (love is giving me what I want) and makes man's happiness the goal. Contrary to that, Paul says in Ephesians that the purpose of the church is to declare the manifold wisdom of God (Eph 3:10). Manifold wisdom in Ephesians becomes single purpose in universalism - as though there is only one reason to even consider the scriptures (escape judgment). Certainly, it may be that early 20th century fundamentalism may have contributed to this by its hyper-focus on evangelism and defending the inerrancy of scripture from modernist attacks (both good things, but not at the expense of discipleship). The devaluation of salvation down to "fire insurance" may well be a considerable reason for the reaction of the modern "Christian Universalist" (as characterized in the above quoted post). After all, even the Pharisees were looking to escape judgment! But what did John the Baptist tell them :

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Matthew 3:7-8

The one who is looking for "fire insurance" isn't looking to know God and be reconciled to Him - he's just looking to avoid punishment. And that is the (nearly) uniform complaint of the URist! On the one hand, they decry (generally) a salvation that doesn't require relationship with ones Heavenly Father, but then take that to the extreme (He has to save all men) because they are repulsed by something that is clearly spoken of in scripture. Indeed, it is this relationship upon which salvation is based - and not all want it. And to that end, I reiterate what Jesus Himself said :

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:27

He may not be speaking explicitly of torment, but He is clearly saying that not all want to submit to God. Many actually hate Him and resent Him. Which (not surprisingly) is what scripture talks about elsewhere when it talks about salvation. We were once enemies, but there are some who were made His friends (not all, otherwise Jesus would have no reason to say or do what He did above). And this (again) is where the UR fixation on the nature of punishment slips in and has them reverting back to corporate salvation instead of individual salvation. Which seems a little ironic to me considering the emphasis most URists seem to put on relationship with a loving Father.
 
Top