jriccitelli,
I am not sure what is accomplished by posting long passages from scripture without commentary. We all have Bibles, and most of us know these passages. We can read them in our Bibles, and don't particularly need to read them here, unless they are making a point that you or someone else wants to make from them.
From your brief comments, I gather that you are wanting to make two points:
1) That Darinhouston is wrong in saying there is some good in man, and
2) That universalists are wrong
In looking through the portions you underlined in the passages you posted, I cannot discern what it is in them that you think makes your points. Whether there is any good in man, and whether there is postmortem opportunity for repentance are not themes addressed in your passages. Perhaps more exegesis, and less mere "cutting and pasting" would make your posts more effective.
The scriptures you posted make reference to temporal judgments, not postmortem destinies. For example, you cite Isaiah 13:16—"Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces." Is it your opinion that these "little ones" went to hell? I don't think babies go to hell, but they often suffer the violent loss of their physical lives, as the passage describes. This case illustrates that your passages do not address
eschatological judgment, but only temporal judgment (in that case, the fall and judgment of ancient Babylon).
If you wish to refute the Universal Reconciliation view, it would help you to first discover what such people believe. There is no use expending all your ammunition in demolishing a shack where no one lives. Your statements sound as if you completely misunderstand the thinking of universalists. For example, in earlier posts, you made the following points, ostensibly against "universalists":
I would argue that 'most' men live honestly and do the right thing 'most' of the time.
But 'most of the time' does not excuse man.
It sounds as if you believe that someone reading this forum would assert that God will "excuse" a sinner if he simply behaves well "most of the time." I don't recall that anyone at this forum has ever suggested that man is
excused of his sinful behavior—certainly not by being good most of the time. If men are indeed good most of the time, this might be an argument for Darin's opinion that there remains
some good in fallen man, despite the marring of the divine image that sin has caused.
Christians do not believe in
excusing sin, but do affirm that Christ has
redeemed sinners. Evangelical Universalists (if they were your intended target) don't believe that men will be
excused for their sins, but that they will eventually be
forgiven due to their repentance—saved through Christ—the same as you and me...just later.
I wanted to point out something that may be being overlooked by Universalists; Humans are the most wicked vile things in the Universe, except for some Angels.
It is not clear why this fact (if fact it is) would have any impact on the question of universalism, or why you think universalists might be overlooking it. It sounds as if you think they deny the wickedness of sinners. Evangelical Universalists, like other evangelicals, don't expect salvation to be granted or denied on the basis of how wicked or vile the sinner is or is not. Salvation is granted by God's grace, not by man's virtue or lack thereof. Many people who are saved today were very wicked and vile in their earlier lives. This did not prevent their ultimately being saved. God seems to take delight in saving sinners. Where sin abounds, grace abounds much more. How does this observation of yours affect the question of universal salvation?
My statement was that we are worse than animals, if animals don't all deserve eternal life what makes man think we (all, or any) are entitled to eternal LIFE?
It sounds as if you think that Evangelical Universalists see man as "entitled" to eternal life. I don't believe there are any who believe this. Your statement that men are worse sinners than animals, and that animals do not have eternal life, seems to imply that sinful man cannot, or should not, be saved if innocent animals are not. Yet, here we are—saved men! Apparently, if God does not save animals, but
does save men, it has nothing to do with the relative sinfulness or innocence of the two groups.
In fact, the only obvious difference, that accounts for God's desire to save men, rather than animals, is that men are made in the image and likeness of God. If this image and likeness is the reason that God has saved
some men (though no animals), then would not the fact that all men bear that image and likeness similarly argue for God wishing to save
all men? Why would God favor some of those who bear His image and likeness over others?
I often find that it is the critics of Universal Salvation, not the universalists themselves, who underrate the wickedness of sin (usually their own). Whenever someone argues, "Some people are just too bad for God to want to save them," there is the subtext: "Some people's sins are worse than mine—since I was obviously savable!" I have never been able to sympathize with this mentality. I may not have sinned as scandalously as some others have, but I will not be truly repentant until I accept the notion that my sins were red like crimson prior to Christ washing them whiter than snow. It is only when I minimize the gravity of my own sin that I begin making negative comparisons of others' sins
vis-à-vis my own.
Or, to put it in Paul's words, "Who makes you to differ from another?" (1 Cor.4:7)
I think the reasoning of the Evangelical Universalist goes more like this: "My sins are wicked, vile and a grievous offense to God. If He can forgive me, He can forgive anybody and everybody!"
