Satan's Callange to God & Universalism

[Guest]

The CUs assert that in either CI or ET that Satan would necessarily be the "winner" over God. Consider this:

(New King James Version)
Job 1:9-11

9. So Satan answered the LORD and said, “Does Job fear God for nothing? 10. Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11. But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!”

The CU turns the story of Job upside down! Job had been greatly blessed by God. Satan accused Job of only loving God for the blessings, in effect, saying that there was no other reason Job worshipped God.

Imagine in the future, after the great judgement, this scenario:

Satan says to God:"Why are you tormenting all these people who have rejected you of their own free will?

God replies: "Bringing them to repentance so they will freely love me."

Satan replies: "Stop tormenting them and they will curse you to your face."

And God replies: ___________________________________________

CUs please fill in the blank.

[Guest]

Homer,

You're premise is such a gross distortion of what CUs believe, it's astounding.

The CUs assert that in either CI or ET that Satan would necessarily be the "winner" over God.

This is blatantly false. CUs do not assert this. Satan loses no matter how you slice it. The CU position is that the victory of Christ at the cross is complete, whereas ET and CI see the victory as only partial (depending on what percentage are ultimately saved). You have twisted this into claiming that CUs assert that Satan "wins". Such tactics make it look like either you aren't able to understand the simple assertions of CU or that you are intentionally being disingenuous. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on you.

Likewise your representation of God tormenting people into repentance is not what CU teaches. Obviously, acquiescense to God as a result of torture would be a sham. Have you forgotten that the bedrock of Christian Universalism is the belief in the all-prevailing love of God?

Dude, I'm seriously disappointed.

[Guest]

Danny-

in Homer's defense, several CU posters(perhaps not you) here have said in various places that if ET is true, then Jesus is the cosmic loser when all is said and done.

you wrote:

Obviously, acquiescense to God as a result of torture would be a sham. Have you forgotten that the bedrock of Christian Universalism is the belief in the all-prevailing love of God?

i'll admit i am having some trouble understanding this. are you saying that the period of "correction" in the lake of fire, or whatver, will not be a painful (for lack of a better word) experience? I thought most CU-ers here have said that this experience will be exceedingly unpleasant, unless of course i have totally missed something.

TK

[Guest]

I have to plead guilty of being one who said that one argument for universalism is that it is the only view that makes God, who wishes to save all men, the Victor. Satan's ability to thwart this purpose would make Christ the loser—at least of some souls that He desired and died to acquire for Himself. This may not be an argument that all universalists use, but I have read it in the literature on occasion, and repeat it because it seems like a rather cogent point.

Of course, even if conditional immortality were true, God could be said to be the "winner" in that His enemies lose BIG, and He is vindicated by their overthrow. However, if He really created them wishing for them to be reconciled to Himself, it would still be a loss to Him—just as it would be a wrenching loss to a judge who was obliged to condemn His own no-good son to the electric chair.

The only non-universalists that seem able to avoid making God, in some sense, a loser of souls that He wished to save are the Calvinists. According to them, God never had a serious intention of saving the non-elect, so their damnation is "no skin off His nose."

[Guest]

There is a big difference between the following two statements:

1. The CUs assert that in either CI or ET the victory of Jesus is not complete.

2. The CUs assert that in either CI or ET that Satan would necessarily be the "winner" over God.

I would wholeheartedly agree with #1.
I would vehemently disagree with #2.

But there is still a bit more nuance than this. According to Calvinism, if only a small percentage of people are saved, that is exactly how God intended it. According to Arminianism, Jesus died to save all mankind, so if only a small percentage of people are saved, the victory is limited. If scripture backed up such an idea, it would be one thing, but scripture explicitly says otherwise.

If Satan's goal is to separate people eternally from God (which is an idea that merits some study of its own).
And if Satan is able to accomplish this (again, an idea that merits some study of its own) despite it being contrary to God's will.
Then it would appear that Satan has thwarted God's purposes in regards to those who he was able to separate.

Does this mean Satan is the "winner over God"? Of course not. Satan is destroyed. God wins, but with tragically high losses of souls. Such a view certainly does seem to put a damper on the victory of Christ, not to mention call into question the omnipotence of God.

I don't believe that Jesus' life, death and resurrection was a desperate last ditch attempt to save a few. This is how it is sometimes characterized. I'll bet we all have heard the saying, "Even if only one person would be saved, Jesus still would have died for them."; which sounds really nice (and I do believe He loves each of us that much) but also seems to portray God as doing the best He could but having to settle for what He could get. Balderdash, I say! (although I don't say it very often)

Anyway, I stick to my assertion that Homer misrepresented what CUs believe by using extreme and polemical wording.

[Guest]

Hi TK,

I wrote: Obviously, acquiescense to God as a result of torture would be a sham. Have you forgotten that the bedrock of Christian Universalism is the belief in the all-prevailing love of God?

You responded: i'll admit i am having some trouble understanding this. are you saying that the period of "correction" in the lake of fire, or whatver, will not be a painful (for lack of a better word) experience? I thought most CU-ers here have said that this experience will be exceedingly unpleasant, unless of course i have totally missed something.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that, contrary to the way Homer portrayed it, CUs don't believe that God will torment people into repentance. That conjures up visions of the Spanish Inquisition ("NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!" ). The problem is that we try to reduce the things of God down to the level of human actions. I believe that the consuming fire of God's holy love will burn away that which is false, evil, sinful. His presence will be inescapable and will melt away that which is impure. It won't be like everyone is bobbing around in the Lake of Fire and then God turns down the flames for a moment and says, "Ok, who's had enough? Right, you, you and you can get out then."

I've used this analogy before and it is only a crude analogy, but I once saw a speech given by a man who was horribly burned and disfigured in an industrial accident. He described how at the burn unit in the hospital where he was treated the patients would be lowered into tubs and the nurses would begin scrubbing the dead, burnt skin off, while the patients screamed in agony. Were the nurses tormenting the patients? No, it was the only way to eliminate infection and save their lives. I think the judgement of God will be something like that.

[Guest]

thx for the clarification. you took the words right out of my mouth, because the next thing that i was going to bring up is that it's only torture if there is evil intent, and i was going to mention medical examples of painful treatment resulting in desired recovery.

i have enjoyed this discussion immensely, from both sides. i can probably speak for many other "lurkers" who are getting tons of food for thought.

i still think that rick c makes the great point that the bible doesnt seem to discuss getting "saved" after death; however if anything can be said it is that the CU folks are doing an excellent job of presenting their case.

Danny, let me ask you a question. If you are talking to someone about the things of God, and they ask you if there are people in hell right now, what would you tell them (in so many words)? i think it is important for us who dont know exactly what to think at this point how a CU would share their faith.

one other side note: let's say you are witnessing to someone, and this topic comes up. most unsaved people would probably say they believe the bible teaches eternal torment (be they right or wrong). The CU view might seem radical to them. How would you maintain credibility in this instance (i.e. what if they think you are cuckoo?)

TK

[Guest]

Danny can answer for himself separately. I would just say that there are questions an unbeliever could ask that I would not be able to answer. There is nothing wrong with saying, "You know, I'm not sure what is going on at this moment with people who have died without Christ. However, the Bible clearly teaches that there will be a day of reckoning for all people, and that those who do not surrender to Christ in this lifetime will face agonizing consequences."

Even if I believed in universalism, I would not think it necessary to say so to unbelievers. That is not because I would treat is as "an esoteric doctrine to be concealed from the masses," but because my appeal to the unbeliever is never focused upon the question of what will be going on in any of our lives a million years from now. My message is that all men everywhere are commanded by the great Creator and Judge of all the earth to turn from their sins and to embrace the One whom He has placed in the position of supreme authority. In presenting this message consistently, I will never have to worry that I am preaching something different from what the apostles preached.

On the other hand, if an unbeliever specifically expressed an objection to the doctrine of eternal torment, I would be quick to acknowledge my doubts about whether such a doctrine is actually affirmed in scripture, and my belief that the God revealed to us through Christ does not seem to be the god of Medieval theology.

[Guest]

i still think that rick c makes the great point that the bible doesnt seem to discuss getting "saved" after death; however if anything can be said it is that the CU folks are doing an excellent job of presenting their case.


The bible says we will be resurrected and judged by our works. Paul says to the believers that they will judge the world so what exactly are they judging? Are they judging how long unbelievers shall be punished? Can the resurrected unbelievers believe Jesus when they face him or is there a rule that one can only believe by faith?
Then why were Paul and James and the 500 who testified to the Corinthian church allowed to believe by seeing the resurrected Christ? Are they a special class of people? Is that how God operates?
There is nothing in the bible that precludes salvation after death and at least IMO pretty strong allusions that it's possible. (Rev 22.17)

[Guest]

Hi TK,

I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

i still think that rick c makes the great point that the bible doesnt seem to discuss getting "saved" after death; however if anything can be said it is that the CU folks are doing an excellent job of presenting their case.

The greatest weakness with any view on the afterlife (Heaven or Hell) is that the Bible provides limited information. This creates room for divergence. A lot of what we believe on the subject of the afterlife is extrapolation from what scripture tells us about the character and intent of God. It seems to me that a person's view on the fate of non-believers is directly related to their view of what God is like. There is also a lot of baggage from 2,000 years of tradition and history that gets in the mix.

Danny, let me ask you a question. If you are talking to someone about the things of God, and they ask you if there are people in hell right now, what would you tell them (in so many words)? i think it is important for us who dont know exactly what to think at this point how a CU would share their faith.

I would just tell them to read this article:
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html

Ok, I'm kidding.

I tend to give long answers to short questions (with diagrams included!). When a question such as this comes up I first explain that over the last 2,000 years Christians have had various views. I'll then explain those views, as best I can. This is the same approach I take with eschatology, atonement theories, etc. I was very influenced towards this approach by a book I once read called Revelation: Four Views. After explaining the various views, I may tell them my own view, if I think they're interested in knowing. I don't feel the need to convince anyone of my view though.

With any question like this, I always end up bringing it around to following Jesus. This is where I do become adamant. I tend to tell people to not worry so much about the afterlife (or the end-times, or sin management, or any number of other things) but to keep the focus on knowing and following Jesus here and now.

one other side note: let's say you are witnessing to someone, and this topic comes up. most unsaved people would probably say they believe the bible teaches eternal torment (be they right or wrong). The CU view might seem radical to them. How would you maintain credibility in this instance (i.e. what if they think you are cuckoo?)

I used to spend a lot of time on a forum for hardcore atheists, dialoging with them as one of the few token Christians. I enjoyed throwing them off balance by not giving the answers they expected. Once they realized I wasn't going to give them the standard fundamentalist/literalist line (which they were well prepared to mock) they would often give me an honest listen and engage me in conversation. Oftentimes, if these barriers are removed, we can get to the real stuff, which is talking about Jesus. Eternal torment is often a huge barrier that has kept people at a distance from Jesus. When people hear that you can follow Jesus and have a different understanding, it tends to open up communications. Also, perhaps because we live in a more pluralistic society, I often have people simply say, "Yeah, I've always believed that."

As far as being thought of as a cuckoo (or heretic), I've really only experienced that on this forum (which I attribute to the nature of online discussion forums). Generally people won't say something to your face that they might say in an online post. I haven't really experienced much in the way of confrontation. I do try to be very respectful and sensitive to where others are coming from (not that I'm always successful, but I do try - I wouldn't want to cause a brother to stumble).

The Christians I admire the most; for example the Anabaptists and Quakers; were considered kooks and heretics by the status quo.