Someone recently sent me (Gary Amirault) a link to a long article attempting to refute the teaching of Universal Salvation, particularly the type that also embraces some form of Preterism. He hoped perhaps a response had already been written on it. It's a very lengthy, well written series and it would take far too much of my time right now to respond in a thorough manner. Therefore, I've posted the article here in hopes that some of you may either take the task of writing a complete response to these articles or at least address certain points in them here on the boards. I've sent the author (Roderick Edwards) a link to this forum. He said he would check in and read the comments. He also said that if anyone wrote a rebuttal of his article and it was posted on the net (we would put the rebuttal on our site) that he would put a link to our response and probably make comments on it. One good feature of the series of articles is at the end he has a lengthy list of anti-universalist articles on the net. Those of you who want to sharpen up your apolegetics skills can go to these sites, read their articles and write rebuttals.
How many traditional Hell-fire sites do you know that post universalist articles on their site? I don't know of any. Fear holds people in ignorance. But we, here at Tentmaker, do not want people ignorant of Satan's devices, we do not want to keep people in the dark. We seek Truth around here and should be able to give a reasonable and scriptural answer for the hope we have in our hearts that Jesus is able to do what He said He would do, save the entire world.
Roderick Edwards is a Calvinist/Reformed person. Therefore, He comes from the point of view that God ordained a certain number of elect to be with Him for all eternity and also that He preordained the vast majority of mankind to be doomed to eternal torments. He holds to positions invented by men like Augustine, John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards.
Here's the series of article. Seek God's face and see He has called you to respond. Peace, Gary Amirault
Confronting Universalism (Complete 5 part series)
Universalism, as understood in Christianity is summarized as the proposition that for God to be a loving God, He will "save" all people, often regardless of their confession of Christ or even God Himself. Now, I say that is the "summarized" version, so please understand there are other aspects to Universalism, which will be detailed as we progress in this series.
The reason I have decided to write this series and especially focusing on "confronting" Universalism is due to the fact that Universalism is becoming more and more prevalent in Christian theological circles. Its prevalence is especially pronounced among "preterists" (the group of Christians that advocate that Bible teaches a first-century consummation of prophecy & return of Christ), and since I am a preterist myself, as we continue in this series I will focus on how Universalism is affecting preterists. [UPDATE: Roderick Edwards no longer identifies himself as a Full Preterist]
Before we begin this series in earnest, it is important to give a brief introduction to Universalism.
PART 1
As stated in the first paragraph, Universalism proposes that ultimately, all people will be "saved" or at the very least "not condemned". Let us look at some Bible texts that would seem to support Universalism. (utilizing the NASB)
TEXTS THAT APPEAR TO SUPPORT UNIVERSALISM
"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." – Rom 5:18 (See also Rom 5:14-18)
"Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death." – Rom 8:1-2
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive." – 1 Cor 15:22
We shall start with these three texts. Now, for preterists, these texts may even be a more powerful affirmation of the concept of Universalism, due to the fact that preterists see the Bible advocating that Christ has defeated the last enemy – death as in Rom 6:9, 1 Cor 15:26 & especially 2 Tim 1:10.
Before we examine the texts, we must understand once again the premise that underlies Universalism. It is supposed that for God to be truly loving, He must extend grace to all people. If He excludes any people, then He isn't really a loving God.
We demonstrate this from the "Winchester Profession" of 1803, which was a document attested to by some of the early Universalists in America.
WINCHESTER PROFESSION
• Article I. We believe that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain a revelation of the character of God, and of the duty, interest and final destination of mankind.
• Article II. We believe that there is one God, whose nature is Love, revealed in one Lord Jesus Christ, by one Holy Spirit of Grace, who will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness.
• Article III. We believe that holiness and true happiness are inseparably connected, and that believers ought to be careful to maintain order and practice good works; for these things are good and profitable unto men.
As you can see from article 2, there is an emphasis on God's nature which is defined as "love" – no Christian would argue with this proposition, BUT, we may argue with the definition of love. Does a loving God allow people to continue in rejection and rebellion? (Heb 12:7) But more, in article 2 we see the phrase, "who will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness". Is this truly the message of the Bible? It is interesting to note that article 3 gives a toothless warning that "believers ought to be careful" – isn't that warning pointless?
Now, let us look at the three Bible texts in question. We shall do so in reverse order.
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive." – 1 Cor 15:22
The first question that must be asked is HOW... How did people become IN ADAM and how do people become IN CHRIST? It would seem obvious that ALL men are born in Adam via natural birth, but NOT all men are born in Christ. Does this contradict the text? Not in the least bit. The text is NOT saying all who are in Adam will be in Christ, but rather it is contrasting that all that were in Adam were under death, and thus all who are in Christ (which is not everyone) will be made alive.
Let us bolster our argument with the discussion Jesus had with Nicodemus.
Jesus answered and said to him,
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." -- John 3:3-8
This text is often used by baptismal regeneration advocates to claim people must be baptized to be "born again", but it may be that the text is indicating one must be physically born (of water as in the water of a womb), and THEN reborn or born again of the Spirit – but that is not the topic, so we will interact with the fact that Jesus was telling Nicodemus that physical birth didn't automatically allow a person to "see the kingdom" let alone enter and be part of it. The person had to be born again – IN CHRIST.
The question Universalists have the most difficulty answering is how a person gets IN CHRIST. For instance, in a recent conversation with an avowed universalist, the universalist told me that even Muslims who have never confessed Christ are in Christ, but the person could not tell me how except to quote the three texts in our review.
Our next text under consideration is Rom 8:1-2.
"Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death." – Rom 8:1-2
Note at the outset we are coming under the same prerequisite – "there is no condemnation for those who are IN CHRIST JESUS". It should be clear to the reader that already a pattern is forming. Indeed, ALL are made alive and indeed there is NO CONDEMNATION, but that is for those IN CHRIST, not ALL people on the planet. The pronoun "you" in the very text should clue the reader into a specificity of the subject. In fact, the rest of the chapter of Romans 8 concurs with our premise that a person must be IN CHRIST before these things are true.
"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him" – Rom 8:9
How is it possible that some do not "belong to Christ"? Who are these people and why are they NOT in Christ?
Let us not shy away, for a common objection by universalist is that Romans 8:1-2 is specifically speaking to Jewish Christians in the first-century. Universalists claim this by noting that non-Jews would not have been under THE LAW, but the problem is that Romans 8:1-2 isn't talking about THE LAW, as in the Ten Commandments, but rather is obvious in the text "the law of sin and death". A universalist would be wise to counter with Rom 3:20 & especially Rom 5:13.
"for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." – Rom 5:13
"See", says the universalist, "Without the Law there is no sin, thus non-Jews were never imputed as sinners & thus didn't need to be set free".
WHAT? Then how does a non-Jew get IN CHRIST? How was a non-Jew's required "rebirth" any different? It seems to contradict the universalists' original premise that all were in Adam. Do they mean to say that a person only need be born of water (the flesh) and will automatically be IN CHRIST? This contradicts Jesus' very own words to Nicodemus.
But let us continue in Romans 5.
"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." – Rom 5:14
What do we see here? It seems to contradict what was just said in verse 13. We even should note the word "nevertheless". It is shown that even though sin was not imputed because THE LAW had not yet been established (as in the Ten Commandments), death still reigned even before THE LAW was given. How is it that death could reign if death only is supposed to come by way of sin? Does it not then follow that even though it wasn't revealed as sin, it was "nevertheless" sin, even if not in the likeness of the offense of Adam? So then, the universalists' attempt to attach Rom 5:13 only to Jews is erroneous.
Lastly we look at Rom 5:18.
"So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." – Rom 5:18
Once again we are told by the universalist that justification of life was made for all men. The universalist will contrast this with the fact that "through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men", thus also all men will be justified. But wait, doesn't this contradict what the universalists tried to say about Rom 5:13, that only Jews were under THE LAW? If it was only the Jews that inherited the condemnation, in that only the Jews were under THE LAW, thus imputed with sin, then verse 18 would only result in the justification of those who were under sin – which as we are told by the universalists was NOT non-Jews. This convolution of Universalist theology baffles the mind.
They suggest not all were imputed with sin because not all were under THE LAW, then they try to tell us that it is NOT required to be IN CHRIST to be justified.
To me, the entire universalist premise is built on an emotional argument – that for God to be loving He must not condemn anyone – it just wouldn't be fair.
We shall look at the origins of universalism in part 2 of the series.
PART 2
As we begin part 2 of our series on Universalism let us first address some objections left over from our introduction in part 1. Some people may have objected that there is a distinction between Universalism & Christian Universalism in that Universalism posits all people partake of "paradise" regardless what they confess, whereas Christian Universalism declares that all people will EVENTUALLY confess Christ & partake of heaven.
In part 1, I made this distinction when I purposely quoted the Winchester Profession, which clearly states that God would "finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness". In Christian Universalism, this is often predicated on Rom 14:11.
"For it is written, AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD." – Romans 14:11 (quoting Is. 45:23)
And also
"For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." – Philippians 2:9-11
The Universalist premise is that eventually (or as the Winchester Profession states – finally) every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. And the Universalist will say that such proves that eventually everyone will understand and admit Christ is Lord, if not in this life, then in the next.
Some problems with this premise arise both in preteristic and futuristic Universalism.
• Romans 14 context is speaking specifically of how some people were judging others for holding on to Jewish dietary practices (and other customs) & some were not and being judged by fellow Christians.
• Romans 14:10 speaks of how this bowing and confessing will occur before the judgment seat – most preterist think this was a one-time event that occurred on the "last day" of the old covenant system in the first century. Thus, for a preterist to use this "every knee shall bow & every tongue shall confess" as a univeralist proof-text is inconsistent. For it either cause judgment to continue beyond the "last day" or it negates the entire universalist premise of every knee and every tongue confessing beyond the first century – which would mean there is no more valid acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as Lord.
• Philippians 2 is speaking directly to people it supposes have already confessed Christ, how then when we get to verse 15 there is a contrast of Christians among "a crooked and perverse generation"? Do we take from the phrase that every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that even the crooked and perverse generation will so do?
Is it not more fitting to see that when a conquering king vanquishes His enemies, they all acknowledge Him but yet not all comport with Him? – that is just because a subjugated person is eventually forced to bow and confess a conquering king does not make that person a friend of that King. In the same manner, it may be seen that every knee would bow and every tongue would confess, because they have no choice when the spiritual reality is known. This does not lead to all people will be IN CHRIST, but merely ALL WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ACKNOWLEDGE CHRIST, either in this life or the next.
In any case, you shall find that many Preterist Universalists are hard to distinguish from Christian Universalists or general Universalists in that as a Christian Universalist seems to say people will EVENTUALLY acknowledge Christ either in this life or the next. Many Preterist Universalists I've spoken with doesn't seem to advocate that people will ever need to acknowledge Christ. There is definitely a blurring of the lines between Christian Universalism and general Universalism. So, for the rest of this series, when I use the terms "universalism" and "universalist" I mean in the Christian sense with any connection to general universalism that may also be involved.
We will come back to this subject later, but now let us address another objection raised against part 1 of this series. The objection is more over semantics than anything else. The title of this series is Confronting Universalism, thus some people took offense saying that why does it need to be confronted. Why can't its adherents simply be interacted with? The term confront in this case was selected not to mean, "to be confrontational" or argumentative, but rather "to approach openly". The title was selected specifically in response to a recent email sent out by a well-known preterist that recommended that univeralists be banned from preterist message boards. Since, I do not agree that avoiding discussion is the approach that should be taken, I have begun thus series and called to Confronting Universalism because for so long there have been two preterist approaches to this issue:
1) Ignore universalism and hope it goes away.
2) Befriend universalism without actually biblically analyzing it.
Here is my humble reply to part 1. I don't think I am a preterist. :dontknow:
Quote
As you can see from article 2, there is an emphasis on God's nature which is defined as "love" – no Christian would argue with this proposition, BUT, we may argue with the definition of love. Does a loving God allow people to continue in rejection and rebellion?
Not if Acts 17 is to be believed.
17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Quote(Heb 12:7) But more, in article 2 we see the phrase, "who will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness". Is this truly the message of the Bible?
Gen 12:3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Colossian 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind F3 by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
Revelation 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. QuoteIt is interesting to note that article 3 gives a toothless warning that "believers ought to be careful" – isn't that warning pointless?
Not at all. We have an adversary and if we know we are part of the kingdom of God we have all the more responsibility to live a life that will bring the knowledge of reconciliation to the rest of the world.
QuoteFor as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive." – 1 Cor 15:22
QuoteThe first question that must be asked is HOW... How did people become IN ADAM and how do people become IN CHRIST? It would seem obvious that ALL men are born in Adam via natural birth, but NOT all men are born in Christ. Does this contradict the text? Not in the least bit. The text is NOT saying all who are in Adam will be in Christ, but rather it is contrasting that all that were in Adam were under death, and thus all who are in Christ (which is not everyone) will be made alive.
I disagree. It is saying.. because of Adam, ALL will die. And, because of Christ.. ALL will be made alive. That whole chapter is about resurrection. What did Paul say would happen to those who had died in Christ IF Christ was not raised and IF there was no resurrection? They would perish.....just like the ones who died not "in" Christ. Not go to Hell, just perish. Never wake up. Which, by the way, is what I believe would happen to all of humanity if Jesus had not died for us Or, if He had not been raised from the dead. Paul even talked about being baptized for the dead...why would he do that?
Paul seemed to believe the just and the unjust would be raised from the dead. According to John, and Paul, it just won't be at the same time. According to Daniel, some will be raised to life and some to shame. Personally, I believe Daniel is referring to the "elect" not all of humanity. I don't believe the person who never heard the name of Jesus will be held responsible for the information that the elect have been made privy to. God is not an idiot! He is a responsible creator. He is capable of reasoning and invites us to do the same.
Quote"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Go back to 1 Corinthians 15. Christ reigns until all are subject to Him, no matter how long it takes. If He draws all to Himself, He won't leave any out...
QuoteThe question Universalists have the most difficulty answering is how a person gets IN CHRIST. For instance, in a recent conversation with an avowed universalist, the universalist told me that even Muslims who have never confessed Christ are in Christ, but the person could not tell me how except to quote the three texts in our review.
Honestly, I don't know the minute one becomes "in Christ". I don't believe as some Universalists do that all are already in Christ. If everyone was "IN Christ, I don't believe John would have said "anyone who does not believe in Christ is condemned already". We are born reconciled but salvation is a process. By condemned, I do not mean eternity in Hell...just for clarification.
QuoteALL are made alive and indeed there is NO CONDEMNATION, but that is for those IN CHRIST, not ALL people on the planet
All are made alive. But all come to Christ at different times. Romans 5:10 says
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. That pretty well says it, in my opinion.
QuoteWhat do we see here? It seems to contradict what was just said in verse 13. We even should note the word "nevertheless". It is shown that even though sin was not imputed because THE LAW had not yet been established (as in the Ten Commandments), death still reigned even before THE LAW was given.
Here is the "law" that caused death to reign even before the law was given."17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.QuoteTo me, the entire universalist premise is built on an emotional argument – that for God to be loving He must not condemn anyone – it just wouldn't be fair.
Yes, torturing billions of people would definitely fit into the "emotional" category! Which is why we should look for every indication that God has never had eternal torment in mind. Let me ask you a question, Roderick.
How many people have you tried to keep out of Hell today? Debbie
On part 2, there was not much I could comment on except to say it is the same objections everybody else has that's not universalist.
QuotePhilippians 2 is speaking directly to people it supposes have already confessed Christ, how then when we get to verse 15 there is a contrast of Christians among "a crooked and perverse generation"? Do we take from the phrase that every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that even the crooked and perverse generation will so do?
Do you believe that God commands all men to repent? Just because one is perverse and ungodly today does not mean that he will always be. Jesus said He will draw all to Himself, not that He has drawn them already.
Jude 15.... To execute judgment upon all, and to
convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Christ reigns untill all are subjected to Him.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that
justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Ro 5:6 -
For when we were yet without strength, in due time
Christ died for the ungodly.
Heb 2:9 -
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour;
that he by the grace of God
should taste death for every man.
Debbie
edit
Roderick Edwards wrote:
Universalism, as understood in Christianity is summarized as the proposition that for God to be a loving God, He will "save" all people, often regardless of their confession of Christ or even God Himself. Now, I say that is the "summarized" version, so please understand there are other aspects to Universalism, which will be detailed as we progress in this. Tony's reply:
First of all, Roderick starts out with a completly false premise. The Bible does not say that He will save all mankind because He is a loving God. It states that
- God will save all mankind because Christ Jesus ransomed all mankind (1 Timothy 2:4-6)
- and will justify and make all mankind righteous due to His obedience to the cross (Romans 5:18,19).
- and that God will reconcile all mankind making peace through the blood of Christ's cross (Colossians 1:20).
- This obedience eventuates in subjecting all mankind to Christ and then God being ALL IN ALL mankind (1 Corinthians 15:22-28).
So we see the saving of all mankind has to do with what Christ did in dying for all mankind than JUST God's love.
Of course God's love for all mankind is behind His saving all mankind.
John 3:16 says God so loved (lit. loves) the world so that He gave His only begotten son and 3:17 says God sent His Son into the world that the world may be saved. The two words "may be" are in the subjunctive mood (or mode).
Here is an example of the subjuncitve mood: I have a pen in my hand. If I loose my grip on the pen it will fall to the floor. The falling of the pen is dependent upon my loosing it. It will fall should I loose it. Likewise, the saving of the world is dependent upon God sending His Son into the world. Since He has done so, the world must be saved. It is not "maybe it will be or maybe it won't be saved." It will be saved.
Tony
http://www.saviourofall.org