Hi Homer,
I wrote:
Homer is at it again, making the same false statements that he has made (and been unable to defend when challenged) for many years.
To which you replied:
My reaction to this was that I had encountered "road rage" on the narrow path. Do you mean knowingly false as in lies?
My words are correct as they were written. It is uncharitable to read into them negative implications that are not there. I made no accusation that you have lied—only that your statements are untrue. If you do not know that they are untrue, then you have not lied. However, it is hard to explain how you could not know that they are false, since it has been pointed out to you that Restorationism does not explain anything away. I assume you mean that Restorationists "explain away" verses that support the Traditional View and Conditionalism. I have never observed this to be a regular practice of Restorationists—certainly not more so than is the practice of adherents to the other views. What you call "explaining away" is what most objective people would call "exegesis," and "taking things in context."
As I mention in my book, each view has some verses that,
prima facie, are difficult to accommodate. This seems less so for Restorationism than for Traditionalism. Responsible exegesis applied to all texts is the proper way to sort through the confusion. When proper exegesis shows that a verse has been improperly used in the defense of a certain position, those of that position may feel that their "proof text" has been explained away. I can think of, perhaps, two or three verses in the Bible that are difficult for the Restorationist view. I can find a far greater number that are difficult for the Traditional View. Yet, you say Restorationism "explains away" these two or three verses, but you do not make the same charge against Traditionalists—who have to "explain away" almost the whole of the Bible. It sounds like the "road rage" is on your side of the road.
You wrote:
Some years back you provided a long list from the Old Testament which purported to support universalism. I could not find that support in any of them. They all could easily be understood otherwise. And interestingly I found your book to move me more toward the traditional position, though I lean toward CI.
As I recall, you challenged me to provide verses of scripture which,
prima facie, support universal reconciliation. I provided a list of (I think) about thirty (your memory may serve better than mine as to the actual number). A handful of them would, naturally, have been from the Old Testament, since we would expect the truth to be the same in both testaments, but the bulk of the support for Restorationism comes from the New Testament...especially Paul. Since 90% of the support for Conditionalism (which you prefer) comes from the Old Testament, I don't know why you would object to the use of Old Testament in the support of other views.
You wrote:
The tactics of the Universalist are the same as the other liberal positions employ regarding feminism and homosexuality. Get the most direct scriptural statements out of the way (example: "I do not permit a woman to teach") and then move the argument to the ambiguous passages and philosophy.
Hmmm. Would it be asking too much to request documentation of this broad charge? I have not found these "tactics" among Restorationists. Perhaps you have read different advocates of the position than those that I have read. Could you give some examples, or are you simply content to make charges against brethren without any exhibits A, B or C to back them up? When I criticize your arguments, I regularly point out the examples of your "tactics", as I am doing here. It would show honesty and decency for you to do the same.
You wrote:
Perhaps you can take up the challenge to find one passage in scripture, parable or otherwise, descriptive of the final judgement and fate of the lost, that is favorable to universalism.
Unlike the other views, Evangelical Universalism is not based primarily on proof texts about the day of judgment. There are few such texts available in scripture that are specific enough to prove or disprove Universal Reconciliation. Restorationism is based, not on ambiguous proof texts about the final judgment, but on what the Bible, and especially Jesus, tells us about the character and purposes of God. If this is not clear to you, then I recommend that you read the chapters in my book (I believe you have a copy) that are relevant to this viewpoint.
I wrote:
While Restorationism is at least as "scriptural," to the objective exegete, as is any other view, it also may be the most "philosophically" coherent (or most "theologically" harmonious with the biblical view of God), in that it makes the most logical sense of certain known scriptural facts, namely:
1) that God desires all men to be saved,
2) nothing prevents God from extending the opportunity for salvation beyond the grave, or however long as He wishes, to obtain His desire, and
3) it is not known whether any human being is capable of resisting the unending dealings of omnipotent Providence without eventually changing.
These three statements are factual. Taken together, they make Restorationism a very "philosophically" and "theologically" sound option.
Though you challenged two of these three "facts," you did not show that any of them is untrue or unscriptural. Instead you engaged in ther irrelevancy of maintaining a non-existent distinction between "fact" and "truth." I wonder what you might have answered, had I simply called these facts "truths" instead. It would have changed nothing, except for removing your ability to distract from the validity of the points presented. I maintain that all three are indeed facts, and that the only way you can disprove this claim would be to find and produce exceptions to them.
You disagreed with #2: "nothing prevents God from extending the opportunity for salvation beyond the grave, or however long as He wishes, to obtain His desire."
If this statement is incorrect (i.e., not factual) then please tell us what it may be that necessarily prevents God from extending such opportunities beyond the grave. I await your answer with abated breath.
You disagreed with #3: "it is not known whether any human being is capable of resisting the unending dealings of omnipotent Providence without eventually changing."
If you wish to show this statement to be false to fact, please tell me precisely how it is that we know the thing which I said is not known to us.
If you cannot meet these challenges, then my three facts remain un-toppled, and my point unanswered.
Your most recent post cites certain passages as teaching something about final judgment—but, as usual, without any exegesis. Good exegesis in support of your view would have to demonstrate two important assumptions to be true:
1) that these passages are about the final judgment, and
2) that the agonies described will never be reversed by repentance, despite numerous statements of scripture about future universal worship and confession of Christ.
I await your exegesis.
You wrote:
The problem we have is that we all are inclined to believe what we want to believe.
You have told us that you don't like the idea of people suffering in hell, yet you believe in it. Thus you apparently believe you have overcome this human tendency. Do you suppose you are the only one? On previous occasions, when you have made this same point, I have told you that I have never liked the Traditional view of hell. However, I taught it for 40 years because I thought this was the teaching of scripture. In other words, the tendency of human nature was no more dictating my theology than you think it dictates yours (though your recent shift from Traditionalism to Conditionalism may indicate that you are not any more immune from human tendencies than anyone else). I still have the same feelings about the Traditional view that I always had. It is my study of scripture—not some newly acquired revulsion to it— that has caused me to reject it.
You wrote:
The wife, for example, who refuses to believe the signs that her husband is a philanderer, although all around her see it
This analogy seems to liken God to the philandering husband, and the universalist to the trusting wife who believes him to be honorable. One difference is that the wife in the illustration is trusting in the integrity of a mere man—not a safe thing to do, nor recommended in scripture (Jer.17:5). By contrast, the Christian's trust is in the character of God. No Christian is a fool to defend God's own statements about His own character against slanderous accusations against Him.
I have no desire that people suffer in hell but I feel compelled to defend what I believe is true. Jesus and the Apostles thought it needful to give all the threats and warnings and why would they leave the impression they give if untrue? They weren't politicians. I think it is wrong to diminish their words or explain them away.
It is good to have every side defended here. However, a defense that resorts to transparently false accusations against an opposing view only makes your position appear the weaker. If you can attempt to refute exegetically the points made by the view that you are objecting to, your case will appear stronger.