Why not Universal Reconciliation?
Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?
crgfstr1,
In your study regarding universalism I suggest you try an exercise. There are a number of passages in the New Testament understood to be descriptive of the final judgement and fate of the lost. Some appear to favor the traditional view and some the annihilationist view. Can you find even one that appears to favor universalism? The universalists have to explain away every passage that most directly addresses the subject, while their chosen arguments are philosophical.
Regarding God being the savior of all men is this actual or potential? Isn't Jesus Lord of all now, but not in a universal sense? Isn't He the savior of those He is Lord of?
In your study regarding universalism I suggest you try an exercise. There are a number of passages in the New Testament understood to be descriptive of the final judgement and fate of the lost. Some appear to favor the traditional view and some the annihilationist view. Can you find even one that appears to favor universalism? The universalists have to explain away every passage that most directly addresses the subject, while their chosen arguments are philosophical.
Regarding God being the savior of all men is this actual or potential? Isn't Jesus Lord of all now, but not in a universal sense? Isn't He the savior of those He is Lord of?
Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?
crgfstr1,
Homer is at it again, making the same false statements that he has made (and been unable to defend when challenged) for many years. He always claims that the arguments for Restorationism have to "explain away" scriptures, and are "philosophical." He cannot show that such is the case with Restorationism any more than it is for the other views.
If you have read my book on hell (Homer says he has read it, but writes as if he has not), you will find that the Restorationist view has far more scriptures in its favor than has the Traditional View—and that is when taking the scriptures at face value, not "explaining them away." The Conditionalist view has the most verses, for sheer volume, that mention "destruction," "perishing" (the same word as destruction) and "dying," though the majority of those verses can easily (without "explaining away," but by merely taking them in context) be shown to be describing earthly fates of nations, leaving postmortem destinies unaddressed.
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.
Traditionalism does not have this advantage (nor does it possess any exegetical advantage) over the other views. Conditionalism (similarly to Restorationism) is not illogical or theologically deficient—unless it is in its failure to account for why a God who has the commitments described in scripture, would annihilate rather than rehabilitate those who did not recognize Him in their brief lifetimes.
Homer is at it again, making the same false statements that he has made (and been unable to defend when challenged) for many years. He always claims that the arguments for Restorationism have to "explain away" scriptures, and are "philosophical." He cannot show that such is the case with Restorationism any more than it is for the other views.
If you have read my book on hell (Homer says he has read it, but writes as if he has not), you will find that the Restorationist view has far more scriptures in its favor than has the Traditional View—and that is when taking the scriptures at face value, not "explaining them away." The Conditionalist view has the most verses, for sheer volume, that mention "destruction," "perishing" (the same word as destruction) and "dying," though the majority of those verses can easily (without "explaining away," but by merely taking them in context) be shown to be describing earthly fates of nations, leaving postmortem destinies unaddressed.
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.
Traditionalism does not have this advantage (nor does it possess any exegetical advantage) over the other views. Conditionalism (similarly to Restorationism) is not illogical or theologically deficient—unless it is in its failure to account for why a God who has the commitments described in scripture, would annihilate rather than rehabilitate those who did not recognize Him in their brief lifetimes.
Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?
Yes, I have found a passage that seemed very clearly UR. It was why I joined this thread in the first place. I see none that describe the other views as clearly. Even death and annihilation aren't defined well enough to mean what to say for certain that the other beliefs are true. The sinner is dead. This is why Jesus said let the dead bury the dead. His point I think was that you can be called out to something special and the dead can't. I think to make "all" and have it mean not all because some wont be saved doesn't make sense. The Father is outside of time so for him they are either all saved or only some saved. It wouldn't make any sense to use all as it could easily be left out and mean what you suggested.Homer wrote:crgfstr1,
In your study regarding universalism I suggest you try an exercise. There are a number of passages in the New Testament understood to be descriptive of the final judgement and fate of the lost. Some appear to favor the traditional view and some the annihilationist view. Can you find even one that appears to favor universalism? The universalists have to explain away every passage that most directly addresses the subject, while their chosen arguments are philosophical.
Regarding God being the savior of all men is this actual or potential? Isn't Jesus Lord of all now, but not in a universal sense? Isn't He the savior of those He is Lord of?
Last edited by crgfstr1 on Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?
Thanks Steve. No I haven't read your book yet. I pointed out in my post that it is on my do to list but I don't think knowing the answer to this will change the way I live day to day. There are many things that will, so I am focusing on those first though I am curious about this topic. I didn't mention this but I have much less time for reading than I do listening. I have listened to enough of your series of lessons to get some idea of the concept and what you explained here as well.steve wrote:crgfstr1,
Homer is at it again, making the same false statements that he has made (and been unable to defend when challenged) for many years. He always claims that the arguments for Restorationism have to "explain away" scriptures, and are "philosophical." He cannot show that such is the case with Restorationism any more than it is for the other views.
If you have read my book on hell (Homer says he has read it, but writes as if he has not), you will find that the Restorationist view has far more scriptures in its favor than has the Traditional View—and that is when taking the scriptures at face value, not "explaining them away." The Conditionalist view has the most verses, for sheer volume, that mention "destruction," "perishing" (the same word as destruction) and "dying," though the majority of those verses can easily (without "explaining away," but by merely taking them in context) be shown to be describing earthly fates of nations, leaving postmortem destinies unaddressed.
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.
Traditionalism does not have this advantage (nor does it possess any exegetical advantage) over the other views. Conditionalism (similarly to Restorationism) is not illogical or theologically deficient—unless it is in its failure to account for why a God who has the commitments described in scripture, would annihilate rather than rehabilitate those who did not recognize Him in their brief lifetimes.
I have been thinking peoples biggest concern on this topic is how can one get people to be Christians if we don't know the answer to this fundamental question. I think God was purposely vague on it for a good reason. He wants sheep not goats.
Any method of leading a person completely to Christ that relies on some kind of reward or the avoidance of some kind of punishment are ultimately maintaining goats not sheep. If you want to lead any farm animal except for a sheep you need to have a big and tasty enough carrot or a big enough stick. The problem is you cant lead them out of a carrot patch using carrots nor through a small fire to avoid a larger one using a stick. They will wait until it is too late.
The shepherd can lead the sheep out of a land of plenty through the desert. The sheep don't need to know if the shepherd is leading them away because of some unforeseen danger, leading them to a land that is better or merely looking for other lost sheep. The good shepherd merely calls the sheep, raises his staff where he can be seen by the sheep and the good sheep follow. Even if that is to the slaughter. This is because the sheep trust the shepherd and know he is good. They know it is their best interest that he seeks. Why may not be for them to know.
Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?
.Homer wrote:All things we know of that are described as long lasting come to an end. They are not eternal
It may surprise some of you, but I actually agree with Homer on this particular point. "Long-lasting" implies lasting for a long time (not forever)—the same with "long-enduring." I don't think these are appropriate translations of "aionios." However, "lasting" or "enduring" (without the "long") are appropriate translations since they don't imply a termination. Thus those things which are "lasting" or "enduring" may or may not come to an end. Neither word suggests either a limited period of time or an infinite period of time. They are time-related only in indicating that the thing will last longer than a short period of time.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?
Do you consider long lasting to be more concrete than all? It doesn't say all have the opportunity to be saved. Nor does it say the savior of all who accept it. It says the savior of all. The specially those who believe could be that we are also saved in life not just in death.Paidion wrote:.Homer wrote:All things we know of that are described as long lasting come to an end. They are not eternal
It may surprise some of you, but I actually agree with Homer on this particular point. "Long-lasting" implies lasting for a long time (not forever)—the same with "long-enduring." I don't think these are appropriate translations of "aionios." However, "lasting" or "enduring" (without the "long") are appropriate translations since they don't imply a termination. Thus those things which are "lasting" or "enduring" may or may not come to an end. Neither word suggests either a limited period of time or an infinite period of time. They are time-related only in indicating that the thing will last longer than a short period of time.
Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?
Regarding 1 Timothy 4:10 (NKJV)
10. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is (Grk. present indicative) the Savior (noun) of all(?) men, especially of those who believe.
Before you get carried away into error, consider this: We find the present indicative tense in God "is", which means God is the savior of "all" men at the time Paul wrote the words. But were all saved in the sense of going to be in heaven at that point in time? Obviously not, as a great many stood condemned at that point in time:
John 3:18 (NKJV)
18. “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
In what sense is God "savior" of "all" men? And does "all" include every single person?
Savior in this place is a noun. It tell us what God is:
Isaiah 43:11 (NKJV)
11. I, even I, am the Lord,
And besides Me there is no savior.
And savior is used interchangeably with both God and Jesus:
Titus 2:13 (NKJV)
13. looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
IMO Paul's greater point is that God is savior, there is no other, He is the living God as opposed to the idols made with human hands.
Acts 19:26 (NKJV)
26. Moreover you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people, saying that they are not gods which are made with hands.
So how is He savior of all men, especially those that believe? The Greek soter (savior) encompasses three roles: savior, deliverer, preserver. Now consider how, at the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy, God was the savior of all men:
Acts 17:25 (NKJV)
25. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.
The very existence of all men depends on God. And He is especially savior of those who believe. As Jesus said above, we are no longer under condemnation.
10. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is (Grk. present indicative) the Savior (noun) of all(?) men, especially of those who believe.
Before you get carried away into error, consider this: We find the present indicative tense in God "is", which means God is the savior of "all" men at the time Paul wrote the words. But were all saved in the sense of going to be in heaven at that point in time? Obviously not, as a great many stood condemned at that point in time:
John 3:18 (NKJV)
18. “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
In what sense is God "savior" of "all" men? And does "all" include every single person?
Savior in this place is a noun. It tell us what God is:
Isaiah 43:11 (NKJV)
11. I, even I, am the Lord,
And besides Me there is no savior.
And savior is used interchangeably with both God and Jesus:
Titus 2:13 (NKJV)
13. looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
IMO Paul's greater point is that God is savior, there is no other, He is the living God as opposed to the idols made with human hands.
Acts 19:26 (NKJV)
26. Moreover you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people, saying that they are not gods which are made with hands.
So how is He savior of all men, especially those that believe? The Greek soter (savior) encompasses three roles: savior, deliverer, preserver. Now consider how, at the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy, God was the savior of all men:
Acts 17:25 (NKJV)
25. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.
The very existence of all men depends on God. And He is especially savior of those who believe. As Jesus said above, we are no longer under condemnation.
Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?
Steve,
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.
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. 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.
1) is a fact
2) And nothing prevents God from setting a time limit. I believe there is biblical support for the idea that for all practical purposes the time for some persons runs out before death.
3) And it is not known that there are unending dealings with omnipotent providence post judgement.
I sympathize with your predicament. We too have ones we dearly love and are unsaved.
You wrote:
My reaction to this was that I had encountered "road rage" on the narrow path. Do you mean knowingly false as in lies?Homer is at it again, making the same false statements that he has made (and been unable to defend when challenged) for many years.
]If you have read my book on hell (Homer says he has read it, but writes as if he has not), you will find that the Restorationist view has far more scriptures in its favor than has the Traditional View—and that is when taking the scriptures at face value, not "explaining them away."
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.
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. 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.
IMO you have only one fact: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.
1) is a fact
2) And nothing prevents God from setting a time limit. I believe there is biblical support for the idea that for all practical purposes the time for some persons runs out before death.
3) And it is not known that there are unending dealings with omnipotent providence post judgement.
I sympathize with your predicament. We too have ones we dearly love and are unsaved.
Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?
Homer, I don't understand how points 2 and 3 from Steve's statement which are possibilities (don't have to be probabilities) can be refuted by other alternative possibilities. In order to say that 2 and 3 aren't possibilities, scripture needs to be provided that clearly shows they aren't possibilities. Stating other possibilities neither rules them out or in as alternative possibilities.Homer wrote:IMO you have only one fact: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.
1) is a fact
2) And nothing prevents God from setting a time limit. I believe there is biblical support for the idea that for all practical purposes the time for some persons runs out before death.
3) And it is not known that there are unending dealings with omnipotent providence post judgement.
I sympathize with your predicament. We too have ones we dearly love and are unsaved.
Re: Why not Universal Reconciliation?
This question seems to be addressed to me, since you quoted me. Why are you comparing "long lasting" to "all"? I have no idea why you are asking the question, or what it means.cgr... wrote:Do you consider long lasting to be more concrete than all?
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.