UR, Jesus, and the Atonement

[TK]

My wife and I have been having some discussions(some a tad heated, I might add) about UR-- she is reading Talbott's book but she is still pretty resistant.

The question she is asking is that if UR is true, why did Jesus have to die? I have tried to explain that the only real difference between the traditional view and the UR view of the atonement is that a proponent of UR believes that physical death does not bar the effectiveness of what Jesus did, while the traditional view would say that it does. In the UR view, the reason a person may ultimately be redeemed out of hell is because they repent and confess Jesus as Lord.

But she cannot see how, if UR is true, that the atonement was necessary, because ulitmately God could just ultimately reconcile everyone to Himself, so she does not see the sense of Jesus having to come and die.

I am hoping some of you smart folks might be able to explain this from a UR perspective, as I am failing miserably. To me, it's simple- you just erase physical death as the cut-off point. But she can't see this.

At this point I am just trying to get her to realize that UR is a viable alternative, not for her to embrace it 100%. I don't embrace it 100%, yet.

TK

[backwoodsman]

I can't explain it from a universal reconciliation perspective, but the thing that springs to mind is: There is no salvation, for anyone, ever, except through Jesus. That will never change, regardless which view of hell ultimately proves correct. I guess that would be the difference between Christian and non-Christian universalism.

Maybe she's just working through one of those common human foibles -- the tendency to think that a challenge to the "standard" belief must mean the challenger isn't really a Christian, or doesn't really believe the Bible, before having objectively thought through the issue. Of course she knows those things aren't true of you, but there might still be a bit of a mental block there.

[steve7150]

The question she is asking is that if UR is true, why did Jesus have to die?







TK,
The bible says Jesus would save men from their sins , not from hell. Jesus also said if we don't believe in him we will die in our sins, so ET or UR notwithstanding , we must be saved from our sins. We can't save ourselves according to the bible , and no one comes to the Father except by Jesus so that's the why and the how, all UR says is that our physical death does not stop God from executing his will, if UR is his will.

[steve7150]

I just realized i did'nt actually answer why Jesus had to die. IMHO to save men from their sins, he became our "penal substitute" (Isa 53) and took our place to satisfy justice and righteousness.

[steve]

To ask "If God had wanted to save everybody, why didn't He just save them without Jesus dying?" is the same question as "Why didn't God save you and me without Jesus dying?" If Jesus had not died, as we know, no one could be saved (including us!). Since Jesus died, all men might be saved. If all men were to actually get saved, it would be as much because of Jesus' death as our getting saved is because of His death. Salvation is the same thing, and obtained the same way, regardless how many people may experience it.

Jesus had to die to deliver mankind from the penalty and the power of sin. We believe that men must repent and submit to Christ, in order to be saved. This is true whether one believes the traditional view of hell, in which only some people repent, or the universalist view, in which all people repent. Those who repent will be saved. It is not clear in scripture whether repentance is possible after death, though it is also not clear why it would not be possible. It is also not clear why God would accept a man's repentance one minute before death, but not a minute after death. If that's just "the rules" then I would be curious to know where these rules are written and what motive God might have had for making it.

[RICHinCHRIST]

I think I understand what your wife is thinking because it is also something which I have thought about. For instance, UR advocates interpret the "unpardonable" or "unforgivable" sin an obscure way in my opinion. They say, "Well, it is unforgivable in this age and the next, but that doesn't mean that someone can't pay the penalty for this sin in the next life". At least that is how I've heard it explained by Steve on TNP. I am sympathetic with UR, or should I say post-mortem reconciliation (not necessarily universal reconciliation) for certain individuals. However, it would seem that if someone can "pay off" the unforgivable sin in the next life, then surely they would be able to pay off all of their other sins in the next life, thereby nullifying the need for the death of Christ. The unforgivable sin sounds like a much worse sin than any other, so if that can be paid off through a post-mortem penalty, then why can't all of them be paid off with such a penalty? It would seem then, that UR advocates who interpret the text this way would have to say that the death of Christ is only somewhat efficacious (only for those who repent in this life and escape the penalty that awaits the unrepentant--unless there is another way of reconciling these issues).

[steve]

Not all Universalists use the argument that you heard on the program. Most believe, I think, that one has to come to repentance in hell in order to be saved—rather than the idea that they pay off their debt there.

I agree that the verses about the "unpardonable sin" seem to be the most difficult ones for the universalist position. What I said on the air was that some universalists overcome it with the "paid-in-full-does-not-equal-forgiveness" argument. Some take another approach. Some say that there is not only "this age" and the "age to come" (corresponding to the Old Testament and New Testament eras, respectively), but there is then the realm of eternity. What may or may not happen in that time, who can say?

Of course, one has to allow for the wide variety of ways in which the "unpardonable sin" itself has been understood. Some think it is the commission of a specific sin, while others take it to be the mere lifelong rejection of Christ. In any case, the passage has its ambiguities. If such an ambiguous statement of scripture is the only one that stumbles universalism, then that places universalism on a much stronger footing than the traditional view, which has lots of scriptural stumblingblocks in its path.

[steve7150]

For instance, UR advocates interpret the "unpardonable" or "unforgivable" sin an obscure way in my opinion. They say, "Well, it is unforgivable in this age and the next, but that doesn't mean that someone can't pay the penalty for this sin in the next life".





On the other hand Jesus could have said that this sin is never pardonable, but he said "in this age and the age to come." An age would seem to normally have a beginning and an end, even though we may have no specific info about this , Paul did use the phrase "this present evil age" which implies an end to this age, therefore the age to come may have an end also and then it's possible for the restoration of all things.
It's a bit of an obscure answer because the statement itself is somewhat obscure to us.

[Todd]

Here is a quote from a friend of mine, Aaron, who also believes in Ultra-Universalism. This is his explaination of the necessity of the cross.

Now, here's what I think really distinguishes my view from most on this forum: I believe that one day (what is referred to as the "last day" in John's Gospel), Jesus is going to return bodily from heaven and will resurrect all who have died (as well as change all who are still alive), and that by this instantaneous change all people will be made both immortal and sinless. What does this have to do with the cross? Well, I understand the cross to be the pledge of this universal subjection to Christ, since it is because of his sacrificial death that God highly exalted Jesus and gave him all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18; Phil 2:8-11; cf. Daniel 7:13-14) - which includes the power and authority to subject all people to himself and thus reconcile all to God (Col 1:20; Phil 3:20-21). So really, I don't think anyone is instantly saved upon death. Instead, I think everyone will be instantly saved when Christ raises the dead.

Todd

[steve7150]

But she cannot see how, if UR is true, that the atonement was necessary, because ulitmately God could just ultimately reconcile everyone to Himself, so she does not see the sense of Jesus having to come and die.









Really what does UR have to do with this issue of the atonement. If God wants to reconcile all or a few it is God who decided the atonement was a necessity before the world was created to address the issue of sin.