Universalism Like I've Never Seen

[fellside]

So on another board I'm encountering a universalist who is posing arguments I've never seen before. And busting out greek, which I do not yet know.

Is it appropriate for me to copy and paste what he said over here or to post a link to the message board? I'm not sure what the proper etiquette of the puritan board is, so I wanted to know before I started asking for help.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thank you for asking!

We do not generally approve cross-posting of commentary on other sites. Many people cannot get permission (from us) to join here to defend themselves. Nor do we want to be involved in "board wars" or proxy-attacks.

Its preferable to simply post a link to the original comments, especially if you are soliciting reactions. Definitely do not want line-refutation, line-refutation, line-refutation, line-refutation, line-refutation, on our site. In fact, the other man's comments shouldn't be directly posted here at all, so to avoid accusations of acontextual reading.

 

[fellside]

Thank you for asking!

We do not generally approve cross-posting of commentary on other sites. Many people cannot get permission (from us) to join here to defend themselves. Nor do we want to be involved in "board wars" or proxy-attacks.

Its preferable to simply post a link to the original comments, especially if you are soliciting reactions. Definitely do not want line-refutation, line-refutation, line-refutation, line-refutation, line-refutation, on our site. In fact, the other man's comments shouldn't be directly posted here at all, so to avoid accusations of acontextual reading.

Thank you for letting me know.

So just to clarify. I've had a discussion with him that we've each put in about four posts each. So the appropriate thing for me to do is to give a link of the discussion and ask people for help to what he has said. But you do not want me to get help from people here, post it there, then ask people for more help when I get a response.

Am I correct?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

More or less, you have a handle on the policy.

If YOUR conversation with PERSONX, actually becomes MY (or Q's) conversation with X, mediated by you, then I should really be joining that board, and that conversation directly anyway.

But there are plenty of people here who may well offer you suggestions on what is wrong with the other comments, and how you might go about addressing him.

But, rather than carrying that on for quite some time with, "Here's my latest, and more links to his replies," you might try deleting the previous thread, and opening a new one. Otherwise, its a fairly obvious assault on the reg.

But even that is going to get old. And its really just circumventing the purpose of the regulation, which is designed to minimize that kind of traffic.

Peace.

 

[fellside]

Okay, sounds good. Thanks.

So here is the link to the discussion. I've used several verses that I don't think he's dealt with all that well.

Universal Salvation - Page 3 - The Boreds

It starts on Page 3 between me "Fellside" and him "One Knight Stands."

He says he's a Calvinist except with Universal atonement, which leads him to universalism.

Any verse I've used to show Hell, whether from Mathew or Revelation, he's said the word either refers to the grave or a dumpster outside of Jerusalem. At one point he even said my problem was that I think like a Christian and not a Jew, so I don't understand what the NT writers are saying.

 

[Gryphonette]

Could you repost the link, please? It didn't seem to "take".

Thanks!

 

[fellside]

Fixed.

Hey! You're from Ft. Worth. I know where Christ Chapel is. Big college church.

I go to Southcliff Baptist off I-20.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Fellside,

I did not read your exchange, but I did formally debate a universalist who "broke out the Greek." I think you might find the debate helpful. Here is the link: Universalism Debate. This link is part 1 of 8. Just follow the links on my blog to the other seven parts.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

[Zenas]

Fellside,

There is not a Calvinist in existence that denies limited atonement. To accept such nonsense is to cease to be a Calvinist.

I might look at the debate later today and post some thoughts. Universalists seem, to me, to be the easiest to defeat because their assertion is so illogical on its face.

 

[caddy]

The old problem of "All doesn't mean ALL."

The Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:4, "God our Savior wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth."

It also states that God wants all men to be saved in 2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 23:37 and in Ezekiel 33:11 and 18:30. Obviously not all men are saved. How does Calvinism explain this? Does the God of Calvinism have two wills that are in direct contradiction and hence have a multiple personality disorder?

Particularly concerning 2 Peter 3:9:
It is very clear that Peter is talking to the believers. It follows, then, that in verse 9 when it says the Lord is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, he again is speaking of the believers. God's patience is here told to be toward the believers, not the unbelievers. God does not want any of them (the believers, the elect) to perish. And they won't, because God's wishes are not thwarted. But again if "any" is every individual then we again have the problem of God's desires being thwarted.

Source: All Men Saved

A very Good Resource is the DVD
Amazing Grace: The History & Theology of Calvinism (DVD) :: DVDs :: Multimedia :: Monergism Books

Much mention is made of the word "ALL" by a number of the authors in that DVD. It is explained very well. I would tell your friend if he thinks he is indeed a "Calvinist" he should consider purchasing the DVD to see how his views line up with those who really are "True Calvinist."

 

[fellside]

Let me clarify. I know he's not really a Calvinist, and he won't be persuaded simply by Calvinist doctrine. I meant that he says he holds that are men are totally depraved, that God elected us all, that Jesus died for us all, that we cannot resist his call and that we will all persevere.

So take L, and make it for everybody, and that's what he's saying.

Caddy, your argument seems to be a good one against Arminians, but all you say to the universalist argument is, "Obviously not all men are saved." But that's exactly what the discussion is about. He doesn't think that's obvious.

 

[caddy]

Let me clarify. I know he's not really a Calvinist, and he won't be persuaded simply by Calvinist doctrine. I meant that he says he holds that are men are totally depraved, that God elected us all, that Jesus died for us all, that we cannot resist his call and that we will all persevere.

So take L, and make it for everybody, and that's what he's saying.

Caddy, your argument seems to be a good one against Arminians, but all you say to the universalist argument is, "Obviously not all men are saved." But that's exactly what the discussion is about. He doesn't think that's obvious.

My brother has similiar views concerning Universalism. Very Sad indeed. The thought is, it really doesn't matter what he thinks, what I think, or what anyone thinks...OR DOES. We are all going to heaven. Live as you please.

Increadibly sad...

 

[fellside]

Hello Fellside,

I did not read your exchange, but I did formally debate a universalist who "broke out the Greek." I think you might find the debate helpful. Here is the link: Universalism Debate. This link is part 1 of 8. Just follow the links on my blog to the other seven parts.

Sincerely,

Brian

Wow. I read all of this and you really helped me out. As soon as I figure out how to do that whole "Thank you" thing, I'll do it.

If you look at the discussion I have been having I mentioned Revelation 4:9-11. He argued that "aionas ton aionos, means "to the ages of the ages" and not "Forever and ever."

Is this the same use that you discussed in you debate? Does John use αιων, or does he use αιωνιος?

 

[Zenas]

Let me clarify. I know he's not really a Calvinist, and he won't be persuaded simply by Calvinist doctrine. I meant that he says he holds that are men are totally depraved, that God elected us all, that Jesus died for us all, that we cannot resist his call and that we will all persevere.

So take L, and make it for everybody, and that's what he's saying.

Caddy, your argument seems to be a good one against Arminians, but all you say to the universalist argument is, "Obviously not all men are saved." But that's exactly what the discussion is about. He doesn't think that's obvious.

My brother has similiar views concerning Universalism. Very Sad indeed. The thought is, it really doesn't matter what he thinks, what I think, or what anyone thinks...OR DOES. We are all going to heaven. Live as you please.

Increadibly sad...

The question then is, why did Jesus die?

 

[caddy]

Let me clarify. I know he's not really a Calvinist, and he won't be persuaded simply by Calvinist doctrine. I meant that he says he holds that are men are totally depraved, that God elected us all, that Jesus died for us all, that we cannot resist his call and that we will all persevere.

So take L, and make it for everybody, and that's what he's saying.

Caddy, your argument seems to be a good one against Arminians, but all you say to the universalist argument is, "Obviously not all men are saved." But that's exactly what the discussion is about. He doesn't think that's obvious.

My brother has similiar views concerning Universalism. Very Sad indeed. The thought is, it really doesn't matter what he thinks, what I think, or what anyone thinks...OR DOES. We are all going to heaven. Live as you please.

Increadibly sad...

The question then is, why did Jesus die?

Exactly! If Universalism is true, what need of Christ's sacrifice was there?

 

[fellside]

Exactly! If Universalism is true, what need of Christ's sacrifice was there?

They wouldn't disagree with us for the need of a savior. He believes that Christ's work was necessary and that his atonement covers our sin. That is how we can have eternal life.

But they just think that gift applies to everyone. Christ's blood covers all and and is effective for all.

 

[caddy]

Understood. I had these same conversaitions with my brother. I heard the same arguments this guy's giving. It seems there are a couple of yahoo heretic's out there that talk a good game, use greek, make it sound good, but the reality is if we can do anything we want after Christ draws us to believe then we can reason that doing good is really a useless and trivial pursuit. Even if one surmises that there will be a type of punishment or loss of reward in heaven, people in their sin will always reason that "I can do the time" IF I get to live any way I want. If they are weighed down with sexual sin, if they are greedy they can rationalize their sins; and make no mistake, they will. The fact of the matter is, O.T and N.T language does not allow for living this way. Read Bosse's piece. He definately shed's light on this heresy. Do a search for other threads on the PB. I know there are a few more out there.

 

[Zenas]

If you can establish there is a single person in Hell after the sacrifice of Christ, then Universalism fails, and you can establish this because it says so in the Bible. Even Christ Himself said so.

If people are in Hell, but Christ died for everyone and they go to Heaven, then God is

A. Unjust to send people to Hell for their sins which Christ already paid for.

B. A liar because He told us people would be in Hell when they in fact wouldn't be because of His Atonement.

Either way, God is no longer Holy, and therefore, no longer God.

A universalist is a blasphemer of the worst kind; one guised as one who loves God.

 

[fellside]

Okay, so this guy has gotten more aggressive than I'm used to in discussions. He's called me a hypocrite, a viper, foolish, a blasphemer.

His claim is built around that Old Testament Jews didn't believe in eternal torment, and they would have read the NT differently that the manipulated Christian church does. He says that we don't understand the meaning of the word αιωνιον (aionios). In all these verses that I show eternal suffering, he says the word is not eternal but "ages" or "through the ages" or something. He also claims that most of the early church was annihilationists and universalists. But that the Catholic Church changed our interpretation of greek words to fit their "evil" doctrine.

Maybe I should just stop with him if he's going to be like this. But I really don't have much of an argument with him since I have no knowledge of church history.

 

[DMcFadden]

The question, David, is which verse applies to your situation: Prov 26:4 or 26:5.

If you are weak on church history, you may find the task more work than it is worth. He doesn't sound as if his goal is honest dialogue anyway.

 

[Zenas]

Fellside: I have some help for you, courtesy of Dr. N.R. Needham.

Old Testament Jews did believe in eternal torment. Who were they? The Pharisees.

"Of the other two schools of thought, people regard the Pharisees as the most authoritative interpreters of the Law. They are the leading Jewish sect. They teach that everything happens according to destiny, or the will of God; the actual decision to do good or evil rests cheifly with human beings, they say - but even so, in every human act, destiny takes a hand. They hold that every soul is immortal, but only the souls of good people recieve new bodies, while the souls of evil people go to eternal punishment.... The Sadducees utterly deny immortality of the soul, punishment in hell, and heavenly rewards. The Pharisees are bound together by a common spirit of friendship and seek to promote harmony with the common people. But the Sadducees are disagreeable, even toward each other, they treat one another with the harshness that people usually reserve for foreigners.

-Josephus, The Jewish War Book 2, chapter 7

Josephus testifies that the Jews that crucified Christ believed in eternal torment. The Sadducees were the lesser sect, not regarded as authoritative or experts in the Law. The Pharisees were the authorities. I highly doubt they were agents of the Roman Catholic church.

Also, Origen, a universalist in the early church in the 3rd century even believed in the eternality of the soul. He did not believe Hell was a place of eternal punishment, but seemed to believe in a quasi-hell/purgatory where Hell was a means of purifying rebel human souls and angels and that, ultimately, all would be purified. Where did he get this notion? From allegorical interpretation of the Bible and ignoring the plain meaning of the text.

Looks like your opponent has slim to no authority on his side.


Needham, N.R., 2000 Years of Christ's Power, Part One: The Age of the Early Church Fathers, Evangelical Press, England, 2002. pp. 42-43; 122-123.

 

[Zenas]

Okay, so this guy has gotten more aggressive than I'm used to in discussions. He's called me a hypocrite, a viper, foolish, a blasphemer.

His claim is built around that Old Testament Jews didn't believe in eternal torment, and they would have read the NT differently that the manipulated Christian church does. He says that we don't understand the meaning of the word αιωνιον (aionios). In all these verses that I show eternal suffering, he says the word is not eternal but "ages" or "through the ages" or something. He also claims that most of the early church was annihilationists and universalists. But that the Catholic Church changed our interpretation of greek words to fit their "evil" doctrine.

Maybe I should just stop with him if he's going to be like this. But I really don't have much of an argument with him since I have no knowledge of church history.

Ask him where he got his degree in Koine Greek or who he studied under.

Chances are, he read a book, and that book told him that the word meant something different. Ask him if he's performed a comprehensive word study on the greek word and what results he's turn up in what contexts, particularly in Scripture and early church writings.

 

[Ivan]

Fixed.

Hey! You're from Ft. Worth. I know where Christ Chapel is. Big college church.

I go to Southcliff Baptist off I-20.

I've visited Southcliff a number of times when Miles Seaborn was the pastor there. His son married a very good friend of mine whom I worked with at The AV Learning Center, which was located in Price Hall back in the day.

I think Miles (III) and Sherril (my good friend from SWBTS) still attend Southcliff.

I loved living in Ft. Worth. Pleasant memories.

 

[Zenas]

Ah, I have some Greek help for you, courtesey of "Micah" in Dr. White's #prosapologian mIRC channel.

Matthew 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

The same word, aionios, is used in reference to the temporal qualification of the punishment of the reporbate, and the life of the righteous.

Therefore, ask your friend, if the punishment is not eternal, how long is the life of the righteous?

A little Greek is not a dangerous thing. A little pride is.

 

[caddy]

The question, David, is which verse applies to your situation: Prov 26:4 or 26:5.

If you are weak on church history, you may find the task more work than it is worth. He doesn't sound as if his goal is honest dialogue anyway.

Good point. In the whole history of the Church, more than a handful viewed Universalism as a viable position. Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa favored it. Early on Jerome did, but later took up sides against the position. Among many Gnostics and Manichaeans it was well received. That should say something. It was not formally condemned until the 5th century. After 500 A.D. it appears that most of the Eastern Church inclined toward the view.

I suggest a long look back at the history of the movement within the Church itself. It has never been viewed as an "Orthodox" position.

Who Are Universalists?

Monergism :: Search Results

Universalism And The Reformed Churches. A Defence Of Calvin's Calvinism

Reformed Christian Studies

"Universalism: a historical survey" by Richard Bauckham

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - $5 Shipping - Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment (contribution by Sinclair Ferguson)