Why is UR harmful?

[backwoodsman]

You are suggesting that since I don’t agree with you or URs take on the bible I must not understand URs position.

As one of those who has said a number of times that you don't understand the Christian universalist position, I'd like to point out that neither I nor anyone else here has ever suggested anything remotely like the above. At this late stage in the game, after all that's been said over so long a period, it's quite disconcerting that you could still think something like this.

Let me try to explain it a little more clearly:

1. I've read quite a bit of Christian universalists' writings to learn what they believe, and thier Biblical bases for those beliefs.

2. Then I read what you say they believe, and observe that you say they believe things very differently than they say they believe.

3. Clearly, either (a) you know what they believe, and they don't; or (b) they know what they believe, and you don't. Which would you say is the more likely scenario? To me, (a) seems absurd, and (b) seems logical and rational, but I suppose I could be wrong.

If you want to shoot holes in someone's beliefs, the first thing you have to do is agree with them on what their beliefs are. Until you can do that, it's going to be pretty difficult to explain why they're wrong.

[Homer]

backwoodsman wrote:

If you want to shoot holes in someone's beliefs, the first thing you have to do is agree with them on what their beliefs are. Until you can do that, it's going to be pretty difficult to explain why they're wrong.

It would help if you (or anyone) would give some specific examples of where the universalist position is misrepresented. We have seen universalists take the position that there is no hell, all punishment for sin takes place in this life, and on the other hand suggestions that punishment (or correction, whatever) may take a thousand, or thousands, of years. And in between we have the universalist seeming to agree repentance, with salvation granted, may take no time at all. Universalists seem to have a pretty wide range of views concerning what may take place, which is to be expected with nothing more than speculation regarding a matter that is not found in the scriptures. Some universalists, at least, agree there is a hell and that people go there. Show us from scripture, how, when, and under what conditions they get out.

Also how does the "evangelical" universalist claim to be an evangelical, a word that has been long attached to those in a category that denies the universalist claims and counts universalism as heresy?

[backwoodsman]

It would help if you (or anyone) would give some specific examples of where the universalist position is misrepresented.

Do you remember my reply last time you asked me that? For your reference, it's here:
http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61711#p61711

So, what did you find when you went back through the threads to find why several of us keep saying you and John misrepresent evangelical universalism, and then researched to see if we're right? (You did do that, didn't you?)

Also how does the "evangelical" universalist claim to be an evangelical, a word that has been long attached to those in a category that denies the universalist claims and counts universalism as heresy?

Don't you think a better question would be, "How do some Christians justify calling other Christians heretics without even taking the trouble to learn what they really believe, and why they believe it, on the point on which they condemn them?"?

[Homer]

So, what did you find when you went back through the threads to find why several of us keep saying you and John misrepresent evangelical universalism, and then researched to see if we're right? (You did do that, didn't you?)

Is this a serious question? How many posts would I need to read? A few thousand? Reading them once is plenty.

Don't you think a better question would be, "How do some Christians justify calling other Christians heretics without even taking the trouble to learn what they really believe, and why they believe it, on the point on which they condemn them?"?

Evangelicals are rather jealous of the title and, I'm sure, would only need to know certain persons believe in universalism to view them as not evangelicals, same as they do not view liberals, such as the Disciples of Christ, as evangelicals. Do you think evangelicals do not view universalism as heresy?

[steve]

All my life, I have been an confessing evangelical, among confessing evangelicals. If asked, I would always have defined an evangelical as the opposite of a liberal or modernist theologian. An evangelical believes in inspiration and final authority of scripture, and affirms the Gospel taught in the same. There are very many self-identified evangelical universalists. They fit the definition of evangelical as I give it here. Why should other evangelicals have the right to redefine the term to exclude peripheral beliefs that have as much biblical basis as any other?

[jriccitelli]

Top seven reasons Universalists are misunderstood:
(But not including one reason, which would be calling these believers Universalists rather than Evangelical Universalists (or Universal Restorationists) because I still think there should be debate over whether we could group them with Evangelicals, with no further identification. It certainly is not the case that the current church would embrace EU without alarm)

But, I have been warned not to move along without addressing previous matters, so I will. In response to posts mentioned here by Backwoods and Steve (although from the related 'Hell' thread, pg.8);

‘Let's start with seven, drawn just from the past few days' posts. These same mistakes are found in both of your posts going back to the origins of this controversy at the forum. The points have never been raised without being clearly answered by others, but this doesn't stop you from coming back with the same red herrings again and again’ (Steve, pg 8 'Hell' thread)

Many people I know, would say the same to you. Because, out of curiosity, I ask people at bible studies many of the same questions I have asked here (i.e. whether people standing at the Judgment are indeed dead or alive? And likewise whether or not OT warnings apply to postmortem scenarios, etc.), so what’s going on here?
Back to your first statement from pg. 8 of the Hell thread:

1. Universalists don’t believe in a final judgment (Steve)

I addressed this in my previous post in this thread. The point is that a Judge's decision is final, where as EU/UR necessitates a ‘second’ judgment day for each individual (I suppose) following and depending on when they repent and have faith postmortem.

2. Universalism renders choices in this life meaningless (Steve, pg.8 hell thread)
Apparently, the only thing JR knows that would render a relationship with God desirable is its promise of escape from annihilation. Some Christians actually believe that there is a point in serving God throughout one's lifetime, even if deathbed repentance or post-mortem repentance are acknowledged as possibilities. Even if the only reason for serving God were (as JR seems to imagine) the escape from the horrors of hell, this reason would still pertain under the restorationist paradigm. Hell (like prison or any torture chamber) is a great place to avoid’ (Steve, ibid)

Some Christians do believe there is a point in serving God throughout one's lifetime, and I am one of them. But the depth and truth of the love in the Cross is not necessarily fully realized when we first believe. Repentance and faith are not necessitated by love alone, but by truth and understanding. I love my children but they must understand that love requires truth, honesty, maturing and knowledge. It is because we are sinners that love necessitates a knowledge of good and evil. God loved Adam and Eve, and they him, but once they sinned they needed a covering for sin and they needed to ‘know’ this before the relationship could be ‘reconciled’. In other words it is not that they simply needed to recognize God's love for them. The bible is replete with salvation given to those who 'fear' God, most people obviously are too unconcerned and unbothered with God to just 'fall in love' with Him. Nevermind that most people do not 'consider' that the wages of sin will be death. So the warning, truth and the surety of death is necessary to the understanding of salvation.
Catholics for one seem to have a deep sense of the contemplative love, adoration and devotion that goes with Gods grace and forgiveness. Yet as evangelicals we can see how this adoration is missing some very important principles and truths. Just as many of my Evangelical friends have a deep love for Christ and God, yet it seems quite often that there can be a serious unbalance here. Some of those caught up in the exclamations of love and devotion can be void of knowledge when it comes to their own sin, the sin around them and how to tell the difference. The Cross does not ‘simply’ express ‘love’ it must be understood ‘how’ that it is love. God demands that knowledge also should accompany salvation:
"… when the sin which they have committed becomes known, then the assembly shall offer a bull of the herd for a sin offering and bring it before the tent of meeting” (Lev.4:14)
“As it is written in the law of Moses, all this calamity has come on us; yet we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our iniquity and giving attention to Your truth” (Dan.9:13)
“Is it not the wheat harvest today? I will call to the LORD, that He may send thunder and rain. Then you will know and see that your wickedness is great which you have done in the sight of the LORD by asking for yourselves a king." So Samuel called to the LORD, and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day; and all the people greatly feared the LORD and Samuel. Then all the people said to Samuel, "Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, so that we may not die, for we have added to all our sins this evil by asking for ourselves a king" (1Sam.12:17-)
The Bible is replete with warnings, thunder, hailstones, fire, and punishment, these acts are not love, they are meant to vividly reveal Gods anger on sin and define his Holiness. Mortal man does not naturally ‘understand’ that his sin is grievous, bad and must be stopped. Thus knowledge and sorrow of sin must also be accepted and believed in order to reconcile man to God:
“What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?... I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification… For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6)
Paul had to remind ‘Christians’ to turn from sin, how? By reminding them of the law and that “the outcome of those things is death” and the “the wages of sin is death…”

3. On the universalist view, there is no reason to worry about whether or not one dies prepared to meet God. (Steve, ibid)

You are welcomed to show me where in the EU manual that a human will first endure ‘some’ punishment 'before' they can repent, thus making repentance in ‘this’ life absolutely necessary to avoid punishment in EU thinking (as it is in Evangelical thinking). Otherwise the absolutely dogmatic EU argument that ‘everyone is ensured a chance to repent postmortem’, can be understood to mean with assurance that ‘I will be able to repent immediately postmortem and suffer no injury or punishment’.

If the EU literature can dogmatically state that: there is no 'assurance’ that you may repent and avoid punishment immediately following death, then I would acknowledge that the inescapable and sure warnings of biblical postmortem punishment still apply to EU eschatology. Still I find no reason to give anyone hope that they can be ‘assured’ the bible allows ‘any’ postmortem repentance. This only addresses the warnings of punishment, death on the other hand is the warning of scripture, and certainly some people willingly endure or risk punishment if they know they will live afterwards. (In other words, nothing I have read in EU literature warns me that I may ‘not’ have a chance to repent and accept Christ immediately following my death, in order to avoid punishment. Where as the Traditional and Conditional position believes dogmatically you may not have a chance)

Many a child has known the fear of being taken by his father "to the woodshed"—though few imagined that their fathers would annihilate them there. These statements make one wonder whether the only thing that made JR, as a child, fear his father's wrath included the expectation that his father would exterminate him (Steve, ibid)

Again you used the father argument, but most Evangelicals do not accept the intimate father of ‘all’ idea. No one has to ‘imagine’ God in the bible could annihilate or put to death (on earth or in the LOF) because that is exactly what God of the bible clearly does.

Sorry ran out of time for now. We do understand EUs arguments, but it is only fair you allow our reasons for not accepting them.
(I did notice you went online soon after I posted, and at least an hour before I finished editing my post here. So my post will read differently than what you first read)

[steve]

JR,

Thanks for at least attempting to address the points raised to show your misunderstanding of evangelical universalism. I must say (as, I think is obvious to all who are following this topic here), that your most recent explanations only confirm that you do not understand the position you are seeking to demonize.

You wrote:

The point is that a Judge's decision is final, where as EU/UR necessitates a ‘second’ judgment day for each individual, I suppose following and depending on when they repent and have faith postmortem.

I have yet to find a universalist who believes there will be a second day of judgment for each person. I certainly see no biblical or logical evidence for there being such, even though I do see the biblical case for universal reconciliation rather clearly. This statement of yours confirms that you do not understand the evangelical universalist position. Just as you have been told. If they believed what you here claim that they believe (which they don’t), I would have the same criticism of them that you have.

I could not understand your answer to point number 2, so, until some intelligible response is given, I have to continue believing that you misunderstand universal reconciliation on this point as well. If you are saying that you see good reason to serve God, quite apart from considerations of judgment, then you must have changed your mind in the time since writing most of your posts.

You are welcomed to show me where in the EU manual that a human must first endure ‘some’ punishment before they repent, thus making repentance in ‘this’ life absolutely necessary (as it is in Evangelical thinking)… If you can show me where the EU handbook clarifies…

Here you show misunderstanding on at least two points:

First, the statement proves that you still misunderstand point #2 (above), because you are saying that repentance in this life can only be considered as “absolutely necessary” if certain postmortem punishments are thereby avoided. This is the very position I said that you take, and which you (I think) were trying to deny above.

Second, you write as if there is a universalist “manual.” I have no idea what this is supposed to refer to. Evangelical universalists use the same “manual” that you use—and that would be the Bible. However, there is no claim by universalists that the Bible answers many questions about the afterlife. There is only one claim made by universalists, and that is that God will save all that He set out to save (which, according to Jesus, was “that which was lost”). There is no claim that the Bible specifically details how He will do this, though postmortem repentance is thought to be the only conceivable means of saving those who died without Christ. What degrees of punishment may be involved, or how long it might take for anyone to repent, are mere matters of speculation, concerning which universalists do not all agree. They have no playbook to dictate standard opinions among them about such matters.

Otherwise the absolutely dogmatic EU argument that ‘everyone is ensured a chance to repent postmortem’, can be understood to mean with assurance that ‘I will be able to repent immediately postmortem and suffer no injury or punishment’. If the EU literature can dogmatically state…

That there may be dogmatic universalists, I do not doubt. However, if dogmatism is objectionable, then I suppose none at this forum can be charged with this more than this specific accuser. Most of us who speak up to challenge you would not be in the position to be dogmatic on the issues. My consistent position has been that the Bible leaves postmortem matters largely unaddressed, and therefore unclear.

…there is no ‘assurance’ that you may [not] repent and avoid punishment immediately following death… In other words, nothing I have read in EU literature warns me that I may ‘not’ have a chance to repent and accept Christ immediately following my death, in order to avoid punishment….

You raise this as an objection? Is it your view that it would be bad for people to repent earlier, rather than later? I would think that you would agree with God that repentance and avoidance of punishment are things to be desired, not bemoaned (Ezek.33:11; 2 Pet.3:9; Rev.2:21-22). If you think it unfair that some may repent before they are thrown in hell, do you also consider it unfair that you have escaped hell by prior repentance? Please, give us some reason to think your theology and sentiments about human salvation are in some measure agreeable with God’s.

Still I find no reason to give anyone hope that they can be ‘assured’ the bible allows ‘any’ postmortem repentance.

Yet another misunderstanding of universalism. I don’t think many evangelical universalists advocate giving sinners assurance that the Bible allows postmortem repentance. They hold this view as a point in their theology, but I have never met one who included this theological point in a Gospel presentation. When one is urging others to get right with God, there would seem little reason to talk to them about other opportunities they may have to do so in the future—whether postmortem or on their deathbed...or even next week.

This only addresses the warnings of punishment, death on the other hand is the warning of scripture, and certainly some people willingly will endure or risk punishment if they know they will live after.

Interestingly, traditionalists say exactly the same thing about annihilationism, namely, that it does not provide sufficient incentive to repentance, since "certainly some people willingly will endure or risk punishment if they know they will [die] after."

But is this a bad thing for them? Don’t we endure hardships knowing that there is light at the end of the tunnel—that our sufferings are temporal and will eventually end, whether in death or in improvement? We are encouraged in scripture to think this way. Why would such consolation (if true) be any more objectionable in them than it is in us?

Again you used the father argument, but most Evangelicals do not except [Sic.] the intimate father of ‘all’ idea.

"[M]ost Evangelicals" also do not accept your annihilationist viewpoint. Does this bother you? If not, why should similar disapproval from most Evangelicals deter universalists from affirming what they find in scripture?

[jriccitelli]

“I have yet to find a universalist who believes there will be a second day of judgment for each person…’ (Steve)

That’s great, but can you please explain what you would call the ‘decision’ that God would make upon a persons repentance and belief or faith (that all Evangelicals agree is necessary for salvation) post-mortem/post-last judgment.

‘… I certainly see no biblical or logical evidence for there being such, even though I do see the biblical case for universal reconciliation rather clearly..." (Steve)

True there is no second judgment (as in Joel 3, Isaiah 66). Then what is it you would call the ‘decision/choice’ God must make about a persons sincerity and acceptance? I don’t know what else to call it, seems to me it is a judgment.

‘… This statement of yours confirms that you do not understand the evangelical universalist position” (Steve)

This statement of yours does not explain ‘how’ the evangelical universalist position can be logical. Instead, can you please explain ‘how’ it is possible to have God make this second decision? “God is the Judge; He puts down one and exalts another…” (Psalm75), over and over God makes these decisions of eternal life and death, not men. And they are called ‘judgments’.

I seriously tried to think of how this could work.
It seems to me EU/UR saying that: at the last judgment, the sentence that God speaks to those condemned to punishment would have to add a clause that says ‘you can be saved without further examination or delay when you repent and believe’ (i.e. you will not be subject to a second judgment)

Don’t forget I am not what you perceive, I am hopeful and loving, I hope all is as fair as Godly possible for the rebellious unbelievers (whom of which I was once included), but I am a believer in scripture and I cant find this loophole, even to try and create my own hypothesis, still I find it implausible.

Christianity in general has believed that the last Judgment separates believers from nonbelievers, forever.
Within that framework, some have believed God could pardon questionable characters at the Last Judgment based on His knowing the heart, His Omniscience, possibly faithfulness or works, and of course election and foreknowledge. Just the same there are some who have believed this could be the time people could hear and receive a second chance for repentance/believing postmortem, but these decisions are never suggested to happen post the last Judgment.

[steve]

Universalists may wish to speak for themselves about this, but I see no reason to postulate a second judgment in the system. If, at the judgment, God declares that one must go into the lake of fire until such a time as he/she comes to repentance, then it is the condemned party, not God, that has to have the change of mind. God's judgment on the matter requires no repetition.

This should be no harder to understand than a case in which a judge sentences a man to a set term in prison. At the end of that period, there does not need to be another trial. The man is released without further deliberations from the judge.

Perhaps a better analogy would be when a judge sentences a man go through drug or alcohol rehab. Once the person is "cured" he goes home. There needn't be additional appearances before the judge about the matter. No doubt other administrative officials are involved in assessing the progress of the patient, and may be the ones to give him a clear bill of health, but the matter needn't come again to trial, unless new crimes are committed in the interim.

[jriccitelli]

I don't believe 'eternal life' (no small thing) rests on a mans self assessment of his or her being cured, and our own evaluation of ones own sincerity.

God alone is judge, only He knows the heart. I don't think the biblical framework, built soundly on Gods Law allows human decision on the entrance to His Kingdom and Eternal life. I hold that when a believers confession, heart and faith is entered and examined before God this is a judgement. We enter this as our plea, and He forgives - at that time. There is no one else between us and God. There is no one else involved at on this point.
It is just not feasible to walk out of jail (not rehab) on your own and into Gods Kingdom without first having a meeting with the King. I believe a persons confession is their meeting. Biblical confession is done to admit sins before the trial, not after.