Homer wrote:
I think what is missed in the ongoing discussion (of hell) is the attitude I see in many remarks made by universalist advocates, as dizerner, who is new here, quickly noticed:
Don't you realize how much "spin" it feels like these kinds of statements have? No eternal torment proponent I know of would phrase it the way you have, none of us have a desire to punish bad people, even Scripture says "vengeance is mine" and to love our enemies.
Dizerner and Homer both miss the point. My post made no allusion to anybody's motives. The fact that dizerner (and Homer) reacted as if they had been insulted speaks volumes about their objectivity in discussing this subject (now
this observation
does hint at motives, but not the ones Homer is talking about). Here is the paragraph of mine that dizerner was responding to in his words cited by Homer above:
The obvious fact is that many texts, prima facie, seem to teach that Christ is the Savior of every last person, while there are also texts that tell of severe judgment of sinners. In the process of exegesis, the texts on one side of the aisle will inevitably be chosen to inform the interpretation of those on the other side. If one thinks that God's judgment upon sinners is the governing paradigm of biblical theology, he will then find ways of accommodating the texts that speak of universal salvation to the idea of eventual condemnation. Those who think that God's redemption of the world, and the restoration of that which was lost, defines the main theme of scriptural theology, will take the opposite approach. Both sides must use this approach.
Now can anyone find a line in this where I discussed anybody's motives? I described methodology, not motives, and I said that both sides use similar methodologies. Should everybody in every camp feel attacked by this paragraph? Why should an objector get so touchy and defensive simply because truths are presented that they cannot (and need not) refute? I stated a fact that did not criticize any person. I did not address or speculate about what anybody "wanted" to be true. I mentioned that some people "think" the main theme of biblical theology is one thing, and others think it is something else. This does not address people's motives, but their opinions. This is why I say critics of universal reconciliation miss the mark. Too often they do not listen to what is said on the subject, and react emotionally.
I didn't even address my greatest objection to dizerner's approach—namely, that he does not depend on exegesis, but on the not-very-humble assertion that his interpretation differs from those of other Christians in that his are "more inspired" (meaning that he was more inspired in the process of reaching it) than are others. This could, of course, be true, but I have seen nothing in his presentations that would give any
dizerning person cause to think so. Actually, Homer, I am surprised that you do not find his approach objectionable. Is it the old "My enemy's enemy is my friend" thing?
The universalists claim for themselves the high ground; they are better for what they believe than other folks. Bad motive attributed to or implied to their opponents.
I am not sure why you would say this. No universalist with which I am acquainted thinks himself better than others. In fact, universalists argue that, since God loved and wanted to forgive them, He must equally love and want to forgive everybody. This is the opposite of proclaiming oneself better than others.
The impression I get, though, is that some of the arguments raised against universalism presuppose that the arguer is a better person (more deserving of forgiveness upon repentance) than are those who go to hell. If this presupposition does not lie behind some of their arguments, then it becomes very hard to think what does.
No thought that their opponents believe that the truth is more important than our feelings about what we honestly believe Jesus said.
Which statement by any of our universalists justify this libel on your part?
But after all, the warnings and threats are Jesus words. If all the threats and warnings were taken out of the scriptures how much would be left? A Third?
How does this relate to the subject at hand? Of all the universalists I have encountered, none has wished to dismiss any of the threats of postmortem judgment in the Bible. Is there some reason for you making this observation?
And if the threats and warnings are impotent regarding converting souls is that our fault or did Jesus and the apostles make a mistake?
Before this could be answered, it would be helpful to be shown an instance where Jesus or the apostles took such an approach to evangelism. I don't think that they made a mistake. However, if you think they should have preached hell to sinners, as a means of evangelizing them, then you apparently must think they made a mistake, since they never did this.
The universalists claim (or at least some do) that an awful hell awaits the lost who will spend perhaps a very long time there before they all repent. But if preaching hell is an improper motive in conversion, why do the universalists mention it at all?
I don't recall any universalists preaching about hell, since no one in scripture seemed to think this a necessary message to give to sinners. However, the reason they or anyone else would discuss the subject would be, I suppose, that they find it fruitful to accurately consider theological subjects discussed in scripture—especially when such study yields a more accurate picture of the God they worship and present to the world.
Which brings up an interesting subject. UR opponents are regularly accused of misrepresenting what the "evangelical" universalist believes. After these many years of discussion, I have no clear idea about what they believe about hell and how long sinners will be there, if any time at all.
Homer, I have addressed this with you before. There is not a "universalist belief" about the duration of hell. Why speculate about matters which are not discussed in scripture, and which have no relevance to the Gospel nor to Christian living. Universalists are called by that name because they affirm one thing, universal reconcilioation (while disagreeing on other things), just as "Conditionalists" are called that because of their belief about one matter, conditional immortality, while they disagree among themselves on other matters. Universalism is not a complete theological system—like Calvinism or Arminianism—which speculates on every detail of impractical subjects. It is the single conviction, shared by people of various theological systems, that God wants all men saved and that He will ultimately get everything He wants. The details of how He will accomplish His purposes are not agreed upon, nor essential.
