Christian Universalism

[Guest]

Amen.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

I don't know if I'm a universalist or not. I just know that I wouldn't give up on any of my children. So I don't know why God would.

This is my final answer.

Got God in your own image, do ya?

[doug yowell]

Isn't "Christian Universalism" an oxymoron?

Minus the oxy?

[doug yowell]

[

About the only thing Universalists agree on is that everyone will somehow inherit the kingdom of God.

Compare the concept of the Universalists with the plain teachings of the Bible:

Good LDS theology!!

[pnattmbtc]

I don't know if I'm a universalist or not. I just know that I wouldn't give up on any of my children. So I don't know why God would.

God doesn't give up on themselves. If you have a child, and the child commits suicide, have you given up on the child? Will you ever get over the loss of the child? No, to both.

Love implies the possibility of the loved one to reject the love of the lover. This is a characteristic of freedom. There's nothing you can do to force a lovee to love in return. Love is awakened by love, but love can also be rejected.

If the love of God is rejected, the result is damage to one's own soul. There comes a point where the damage cannot be undone, without altering the essence of the person. For example, when Lucifer sinned, God could have altered his memories, and maybe "tweaked" him a bit so he wouldn't repeat the same mistake, and altered everybody else's memory as well, so no one would know what happened, but had he done so, Lucifer would not longer have been Lucifer.

It says something about God that He views the suffering of sin as "the lesser evil" to the sort of "tweaking" that I mentioned. You or I might alter a person to avoid the suffering, viewing this as less important than freedom, but God views freedom as supremely important.

The flaw of universalism is in not perceiving that sin can cause irreparable damage.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: SivartM

I don't know if I'm a universalist or not. I just know that I wouldn't give up on any of my children. So I don't know why God would.

God doesn't give up on themselves. If you have a child, and the child commits suicide, have you given up on the child? Will you ever get over the loss of the child? No, to both.

Love implies the possibility of the loved one to reject the love of the lover. This is a characteristic of freedom. There's nothing you can do to force a lovee to love in return. Love is awakened by love, but love can also be rejected.

If the love of God is rejected, the result is damage to one's own soul. There comes a point where the damage cannot be undone, without altering the essence of the person. For example, when Lucifer sinned, God could have altered his memories, and maybe "tweaked" him a bit so he wouldn't repeat the same mistake, and altered everybody else's memory as well, so no one would know what happened, but had he done so, Lucifer would not longer have been Lucifer.

It says something about God that He views the suffering of sin as "the lesser evil" to the sort of "tweaking" that I mentioned. You or I might alter a person to avoid the suffering, viewing this as less important than freedom, but God views freedom as supremely important.

The flaw of universalism is in not perceiving that sin can cause irreparable damage.

Said more better!!

[Guest]

I don't know if I'm a universalist or not. I just know that I wouldn't give up on any of my children. So I don't know why God would.

[Guest]

Isn't "Christian Universalism" an oxymoron?

[SivartM]

The flaw of universalism is in not perceiving that sin can cause irreparable damage.

How can anyone damage something that God can't repair?

Isn't that just like saying some people are worthless?

[karl]

Originally Posted By: pnattmbtc

The flaw of universalism is in not perceiving that sin can cause irreparable damage.

How can anyone damage something that God can't repair?

Satan and the evil angels managed to do just that.

[SivartM]

So... they are more powerful than God?

[karl]

I know with your short life span you do not understand that some people get past the point of no return. After you've got more experience you will know. Especially if you go into the medical field - psychiatry disabuses all of us of the fallacy of the inherent goodness of man. There are people who have had every intervention imaginable and they are simply irretrievable. There's one who roams the streets of our little town. He's not dangerous, but his mind is gone for any practical interaction. He can eat and sleep and walk, but he can't interact in a meaningful way with anyone. Just talks gibberish and flits from one nonsensical thought to another. We put him in the hospital and get him somewhat straightened out with medication, but he won't take the meds when he gets out and goes right back where he was. There is no way to reason with him in a meaningful way.

Sin brings on insanity. The longer it is indulged the crazier you get.

[SivartM]

What? Mentally incapacitated people can't be saved either?

[pnattmbtc]

p:The flaw of universalism is in not perceiving that sin can cause irreparable damage.

S:How can anyone damage something that God can't repair?

[Tom Wetmore]

The problem with the idea of free will as the pivotal point of the salvation equation is that it must assume a fully mature person - emotionally, spiritually, intellectually - making a rational decision based on an objective view of all the facts uncluttered by all the sin related baggage, inherited and experiential, that clouds all of the above. Once you introduce any limitaitons that result from sin damage you corrupt the decision. And if the decison is corrupted, is it fair to hold that person to the flawless standard? God even needs to fix our free will.

So the solution is to judge those too warped or damaged by sin as unfixable and throw them away.

How small does God have to be to fit in that box?

The point is that the damage has changed the person and God must change the person to fix it. Since we are sin saturated to the very core of our being, the mystery and miracle is that God can change anyone, cleansing them completely of all traces of sin and still preserve the essence of their identity.

The God I choose to believe in and follow after has said to Trust him that he can fix even the worst sinner.

I don't understand how, but a God I could understand would have to be smaller than me.

[pnattmbtc]

You're saying apart from free will?

Quote:

The God I choose to believe in and follow after has said to Trust him that he can fix even the worst sinner.

Doesn't "trust Him" involve free will?

[Guest]

Doesn't "trust Him" involve free will?

Yes it does pnatt.

[Tom Wetmore]

Trust is faith. Choice is free will. Choosing to trust is an exercise of free will, of course. How much is enough? How perfect is my trust/faith? Is it flawed? Is it biased? Has it been shaped/warped by my experience and my inherited tendencies? What might weaken or strengthen my ability to choose to trust/believe/have faith? Is mine the same as yours? What if I had not had the advantage of being raised by a loving father that set the tone of my relationship of trust with my heavenly father? The "what-ifs" are too numerous to list. There is such a huge spectrum of possibilities that include people who cannot even trust anybody or who lack even an ability to make the choice (exercise of free will) to trust, because they are so damaged by heredity or experience. They can hardly understand the options much less will themselves to go in any direction other than what circumstances, heredity and experiences compel them, very much against even what little will-power they might have.

Free will is all rather relative. If God truly leveled the playing field for everyone and gave them each a truly equal chance to decide would everyone choose life? The idea of universalism is that in time God works it out that all have that kind of opportunity, one way or the other, and all are reconciled to Him in the end. Universalism is about a complete restoration of all His creation, complete redemption and reconciliation. "Every knee shall bow and confess that Jesus is Lord. That phrase, every knee shall bow, is found throughout Scripture and seem all inclusive, leaven none out. That is a very significant text for universalists upon which they base their hope and faith.

[karl]

Would it be considered a liberal position to say that God must make everybody exactly the same in order for Him to be fair?

I believe that God can be fair in spite of the fact that we are unique individuals. I do not believe that, because somebody has bigger muscles or a fatter wallet or a nicer set of parents that they have any advantage spiritually. The decisions are the same for all people. Rich people may actually have a disadvantage in a way.

[Tom Wetmore]

Why do poor people have an advantage?

If you do not believe that having a nicer set of parents makes a difference spiritually try teaching a victim of serious child abuse by their father that God is a father figure and see how easy it is to convince them of God's love for them. Compare that with trying to make the same point to someone raised by a loving set of parents. Do you not see a possible advantage of getting that key spiritual concept?

[Tom Wetmore]

Would it be considered a liberal position to say that God must make everybody exactly the same in order for Him to be fair?

No, I would say conservatively that that would just be a gross misperception and misrepresentation of the point.

(Not everything is liberal vs. conservative... )

[doug yowell]

The problem with the idea of free will as the pivotal point of the salvation equation is that it must assume a fully mature person - emotionally, spiritually, intellectually - making a rational decision based on an objective view of all the facts uncluttered by all the sin related baggage, inherited and experiential, that clouds all of the above. Once you introduce any limitaitons that result from sin damage you corrupt the decision. And if the decison is corrupted, is it fair to hold that person to the flawless standard? God even needs to fix our free will.

So the solution is to judge those too warped or damaged by sin as unfixable and throw them away.

How small does God have to be to fit in that box?

The point is that the damage has changed the person and God must change the person to fix it. Since we are sin saturated to the very core of our being, the mystery and miracle is that God can change anyone, cleansing them completely of all traces of sin and still preserve the essence of their identity.

The God I choose to believe in and follow after has said to Trust him that he can fix even the worst sinner.

I don't understand how, but a God I could understand would have to be smaller than me.

The problem with this theory is found in it's own assumptions. Particularly the one that assumes that viable free will is only viable if it is exercised by a fully mature person. This implies that certain persons are born or raised without the capacity to properly exercise a free will. It further implies that those who are thus limited by these outside forces cannot be reached by even their Creator without a special "spiritual implant"or simply ignoring the consequences of their "limitations".This is a unique twist on the T for TULIP. On the other hand,if God asks us to trust that He can fix the worst sinner, doesn't that require an act of the will? Or does He tell us that He will save us whether we believe it or not? Leaving out the Scriptures in order to fully understand Salvation according to the Scriptures seems a little risky to me.

[karl]

Why do poor people have an advantage?

If you do not believe that having a nicer set of parents makes a difference spiritually try teaching a victim of serious child abuse by their father that God is a father figure and see how easy it is to convince them of God's love for them. Compare that with trying to make the same point to someone raised by a loving set of parents. Do you not see a possible advantage of getting that key spiritual concept?

Jesus had his worst reception amongst the privileged of this world.

Most liberals believe that being raised an Advenstist is a DISADVANTAGE spiritually. I'm not sure you can make the case that God is unfair based on the way people are raised.

[John317]

Quote:

SivartM:So... they are more powerful than God?

No, but each one of us can't say no to God and keep Him from saving us. He has the power to change us against our wills, but He refuses to do that because of His love. Love doesn't compel others to accept us.

Have you ever read a book called The Brothers Karamazov, by Feodor Dostoyevsky? It's one of four or five greatest novels ever written.

The book: http://www.bibliomania.com/0/0/235/1030/frameset.html

Book V, "Pro and Contra," Chapter 4, "Rebellion":

http://www.bibliomania.com/0/0/235/1030/frameset.html

Book V, "Pro and Contra," Chapter 5, "The Grand Inquisitor:"

http://www.bibliomania.com/0/0/235/1030/frameset.html

In two wonderful chapters, Rebellion and The Grand Inquisitor (Book 5, chapters 4 and 5), there's a profound and unforgettable discussion about evil. Ivan, an atheist, asks whether even God could ever make right all the pain and suffering that has occurred in the history of the world, especially the suffering of the innocent children, uncounted millions of whom have undergone torment and the cruelist of deaths at the hands of their own parents.

How can God ever make it up to these children? Will heaven do it?

The answer is no. The Bible itself does not tell us that God will make everything right so that it will be just as if sin never happened. The tragedies and the pain and suffering will always be a part of the past, to teach us the evil consequences of rebellion against God.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: If God truly leveled the playing field for everyone and gave them each a truly equal chance to decide, would everyone choose life?

The answer, in brief, is no.

There are many people who have much better chances to decide the right way than others, but they finally reject God, whereas some people who seemed to have little opportunity finally & permenantly accept God.

Think of those who have easy access to the Bible and to the books of Ellen White-- they know all the doctrines of the SDA church, which they studied in Adventist school, but they end their life, unrepentant, in prison after committing murder or some other crime.

Others who grow up in the dusty streets of Tijuana (or some other town), knowing nothing of Christianity or of the Bible until they're 30 years old, end up accepting the truth when they hear it and are baptized and become loyal followers of Christ for the rest of their lives.

There are also identical twins who had the same family, same kinds of experiences, and same opportunities, yet one chose Christ and the other didn't.

Why the difference?

Jesus said it's the condition of the person's heart that makes the difference-- whether a person thirsts for righteousness and truth; whether he's willing to do the will of God. Jesus gave no indication that it depends on having an equal playing field.

Here's the thing: Everyone has 24 hours in a day and 7 days a week as well as a mind with which to pray to God. Some people have bad bodies and and poor minds, but all that really matters is if they hunger and thirst for God and His righteousness. God supplies all the rest. He never promised that life would be fair or that everyone would have equal chances to be saved. Some people will be lost because Christians didn't do their God-given duty. The proclamation of the gospel really is a matter of people's life and death.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: The idea of universalism is that in time God works it out that all have that kind of opportunity, one way or the other, and all are reconciled to Him in the end. Universalism is about a complete restoration of all His creation, complete redemption and reconciliation. "Every knee shall bow and confess that Jesus is Lord. That phrase, every knee shall bow, is found throughout Scripture and seem all inclusive, leaven none out. That is a very significant text for universalists upon which they base their hope and faith.

It's important, though, to add that the idea of universalism, no matter which way you view it, is a lie and that it goes clean contrary to the Scriptures, including Jesus' plain words. Mark 16: 16; Matt. 13: 41-42; 18: 6-9.

It also helps to keep in mind the context of the words about every knee bowing and every mouth confessing that Jesus is Lord. There's nothing in it that tells us everyone will eventually be saved. (See Rev. 19: 11-21; Jude 12-15; Is. 1: 28; Mal. 4: 1-3; Romans 2: 5-11; Matt. 24.) In fact, the whole Bible stands against such an idea.

To believe in universalism, one must either not know the Bible or one must first give up belief in the Bible and in the Spirit of prophecy. See GC 666 to 674.

Your thoughts?