Confronting Universalism (part 3)

[Gary Amirault]

Parts 3, 4

PART 3







Now, let us continue:  The Origins of Universalism.



Again, we are mainly addressing universalism as it is impacting preterism, but we will touch some on the traditional origins of Universalism.  First, let us say that many Preterist Universalists did NOT come from a Universalist background and thus often have no knowledge of the traditional origins of universalism.  However, there is a remarkable possible link in both the Christian Universalism and the emergence of preteristic universalism.  It seems many preterists that advocate universalism come from a background of "Arminianism" (simplified: the position that all people have the capacity choose Christ).  Why would this lead to universalism in a preterist?



Arminianism supposes that ALL people have the capability to choose Christ, in that all people are "spiritually alive" enough to seek after God.  They often quote John 3:16 –



"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." – John 3:16



And then say that God loves everyone on the face of the planet and calls everyone on the face of the planet to believe in Christ and thus for that to be possible everyone on the face of the planet must have the capability to believe.  For, according to the Arminian it would be unfair for God to say "whoever" and then limit the capability of some.



Arminians will pair John 3:16 up with 2 Pet 3:9 –



"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." – 2 Peter 3:9



From this, the Arminian surmises that God wants to "save" everyone but somehow God just doesn't have the power to actually do it.  I mean, the salvivic model of an Arminian would go something like this:






 

·        God wills for everyone to come to repentance but God has no power to make it happen.



·        Christ died for all people but could have hypothetically been for no one if no one repented.



·        The Holy Spirit convicts all people but some resist.



·        Christ is advocating before the Father on the behalf of all people but for some it won't matter unless they choose.









As you can see, in the Arminian model, it is possible for the creature to completely thwart the plan of the Creator.



Perhaps the reader wonders how we got on to the subject of Arminianism when the topic is universalism.   Well, we had to diverge a moment to explore a possible connection between the two.



Arminianism supposes ALL PEOPLE are in view, if God is to be loving and fair.

Universalism supposes ALL PEOPLE are in view, if God is to be loving and fair.



So, it is not a big leap for universalism to say that since God wishes that none shall perish, indeed that ultimately NONE will perish but will EVENTUALLY; all will bow their knee and confess with their tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord.



The universalism we see emerging today doesn't appear to have its roots in traditional Christian Universalism, but rather today's universalism is more a reactionary trend against doctrine based Christianity. That is, the origins of today's universalism is coming about as more people want to flee what they consider rigid, judgmental aspects of "traditional Christianity". To many universalistic-minded people it is more about "worship sessions" & everyone having a good time than sitting down and really hammering out what the Bible is actually saying.



Now, I already know the types of responses I will receive from Universalists; that I'm being self-righteous or overly critical.  They will pretend I don't know anything about what they believe.  But in actuality it is often they who are very ambiguous (read: "nuanced" is an often used catch phrase of Universalists) about what they are advocating.



The origin of traditional universalism is easy enough to track.  It didn't come from Roman Catholicism, as it is clear that Roman Catholicism is often criticized for being historically exclusionary.  It didn't come from the Reformation, as it is clear, especially from Lutheran and Calvinistic theology that what the Reformers espoused was limited to the justified faithful (hence: "justification by faith").



So when we trace traditional Christian Universalism1 we see it emerging in the 1800s, and ironically enough, about the time dispensationalism emerged. We have already discussed how Arminianism & Universalism seem to have obvious connections, but how can Universalism be connected to dispensationalism?



Well, anyone has ever interacted with dispensational theology knows it very emotional-based.  Dispensationalism will often point to experiential evidence or proof-texts for its various tenets, rather than base its conclusions on the whole text.  We see this same approach with many Universalists (I can almost hear the roar of objections).  But in discussion after discussion with those who advocate universalism or some derivative of it, you will find yourself being accused as "mean" or wanting to see people burn in hell.



But where is modern universalism coming from?



Again, as we pointed out before there are many people fleeing "traditional Christianity" in search of a feel-good brand.  We see this with many of the new fad movements: Generous Orthodoxy, Emergent Church, postmodernism, Trans...whatever.  As a matter of fact the various catch phrases end up meaning the same thing.  Postmodernism is an almost egotistical term that technically means "beyond common".  Thus, you will often find people who use the term, speaking deridingly of "traditional" or common concepts.  It is as if those who espouse "postmodern" concepts are BETTER than common people – they are beyond common.



We saw this in the series on the Transmillienalism™2, how they see themselves as "beyond preterism".  



Perhaps someone can say that preterism itself is "emerging" and is "non-traditional", but even a causal study of Christian theologians throughout history will show that most theologians were inconsistent in their eschatology.  For example, many advocated they were currently in the "new heavens and new earth" (new covenant), yet if they were consistent they would have seen that chronologically then; Christ would have come, as He said He would at the establishment of the new heavens and new earth.



Universalism has been completely unconvincing.  It is built on emotionalism, psychology, and an almost "hippie" mentality.  Universalists object to what they would consider an "unfair and unloving God" unless that God makes all vessels unto honor.  And lastly, anyone that objects to universalism is labeled as a mean-spirit person that just wants to be the only one in "heaven".  This accusation just continues to show how universalism takes "grace" and makes it out to be nothing.



In the next part of this series we shall interact in more detail with some of the objections universalism (especially Preterist Universalism) raises.

[arcticmonster2003]

edit