Confronting Universalism (part 4)

[Gary Amirault]

PART 4

As we begin part 4 of this series we have been increasingly called upon to interact with preteristic universalism (PU), more specifically with the named advocates of PU.  Up to this point we have purposely dealt in generalities, avoiding any appearance of going after any individual, so as not to be accused of "attacking" people (though the accusation has still been bandied). So, in part 4 we shall indeed interact with specific individuals, or rather the concepts of those individuals.



Before we do that, let us review our conclusion thus far and consider those conclusions as we interact with what advocates of PU have written.





CONCLUSIONS ABOUT PRETERISTIC UNIVERSALISM






 

It is often espoused out of emotionalism – A desire to make God love everyone.
It is often espoused from the Arminian theological perspective – That man's will plays the major part in salvation.
It often leads to ambiguity of other theological perspectives – It leads to a form of relativity.






Let us quote first from one of the main PU websites -- http://www.infinite-grace.com



"Introduce the topic of universalism and many Christians will point out instantly that it contradicts Holy Scripture. And when one peruses its pages, it may appear so. But one thing is undeniable by anyone whose heart goes out to others: We intuitively hope universalism is true." -- Universalism - An Utterance of the Heart by Steve Jones (http://www.infinite-grace.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3)



Here we are, one of the very first articles posted on the premier PU websites fully admitting that many Christians would reject universalism because why?  Because when a person peruses the pages of the Bible, universalism seems to contradict Scripture.

What is the first proposition by the writer of the article?



EMOTIONALISM:

"But one thing is undeniable by anyone whose heart goes out to others: We intuitively hope universalism is true."



This kind of reasoning is a non-starter, it would seem pointless to continue to read the rest of the article, but since I promised PU advocates that I would interact with what they have posted on their websites, we shall continue on.



The writer continues bolstering our first conclusion about PU.



"The kind-hearted and merciful wish that God might finally bring all humanity into the circle of His grace. If they could, they would decree the redemption of every person on the planet."



What?  The antithesis of this statement is that people, who believe God's justice is ALSO love, are not "kind-hearted & merciful".



Next we see our conclusion of point 2 on PU borne out by the writer of this article:





"At this point, many will object. Rightly so, they will tell us that an ardent desire for something doesn't make it true. The church, they insist, must always be guided by Scripture only. But there is one example of a doctrine that Christians have embraced on the basis of intuition, not the Bible. It's the belief that all who die in infancy are saved. The near unanimous voice of the Church has shouted down centuries of belief in infant damnation. And this without a line of Scripture. The basis is our inner conviction. The concept of babies in hell is abhorrent to our sensibilities. The Church has, accordingly, applied universal redemption to those dying below "the age of accountability."





As you can see, the writer is appealing for the reader to abandon Scripture for "intuition", which would even confirm our point 3 of the conclusions.  The entire concept of an "age of accountability" is purely an emotionally driven form of Arminianism – "God can't judge little babies – it's not fair!!!"  -- Odd, I wonder how many "innocent babies" died in the Flood? 



Do the advocates of PU really want to build their doctrine "without a line of Scripture"?



Further in this article posted on the premier PU website we have this quote:



"There is also an inward pressure to make allowances for the heathen. The shrinking of our world has brought us into contact with people outside the Christian realm, making it more difficult than ever to sustain the old view. So unpalatable is the thought of entire cultures and civilizations perishing that even evangelicals are looking for ways to get around it."





This is just more emotionalism, looking for "ways around" Scripture! All of this only solidifies what we have been saying about PU & we haven't even moved beyond the first article example.  But let us conclude with this author.



"It may be a matter of time before a new notion of heathen salvation joins infant salvation as an intuitive doctrine of the heart."



We agree, that is as more and more people begin to embrace "intuitive doctrine of the heart" (read: emotionalism) over Scripture, it is more likely to generate more PU advocates. As a side note, at the time of the writing of this part of the series, out of the 7 months of articles posted on this PU site, this article was the second most read article, so it certainly was of top interest to those who frequent that site – in case they try to claim it was simply an obscure article.



On another PU website called www.womenbeyond.com (originally called preteristwomen.com & independent it is now considered a "sister site" of the Transmil/Presence Movement) From this site we interact with an article by Tim King of Transmil called "Comprehensive Grace" (an early code term used by PU advocates trying to distance themselves from the bad reputation of universalism).



In King's article we shall see more of our conclusions validated by his very own words. (http://www.womenbeyond.com/faq-5b.htm)



"Universalism offers an alternative, but it comes at an exegetical price. For the Universalist, salvation is 100% efficacious and universal in scope. Universalism is the belief that all individuals will be saved. I finds its argumentation based upon what it feels is the inconsistency between the judgment of God regarding sin and his will for all to be saved."



Even King implies universalism is less than completely exegetical and even further he sees that universalism grapples with making God "fair" regarding judgment & salvation.

The next quote by King is the bombshell affirmation that I've been trying to warn people about whom are teetering toward PU.





"The biggest problem with the modern Universalist movement is that it tends to marginalize Christ and Scripture regarding the salvation of mankind."



We keep calling for PU advocates to clearly demonstrate how someone gets "IN CHRIST", but yet they continue to tell us everyone is in Christ, even if they don't yet realize it.



King further supports our conclusion that the Christian Universalism we see today grew out of the late 1800s and typically leads to psychological & sociological movements & relativism.





"While the early proponents of Universalism had a high regard for Scripture and Christ as its revealer (1803 Universalists convention and 1870 reaffirmation), by the time of the 1st World War, Universalism was immersed in German rationalism, biblical criticism and the Social Gospel movement."





But lest anyone think I am trying to show how Tim King doesn't agree with universalism, let the reader continue.



King, as many PU have done, repackages universalism under other labels; Infinite/Comprehensive/Fulfilled/Common Grace.





"Simply stated, man is changed because his world changed. Man is reconciled to God because he no longer lives under the rule of sin and death as determined by the Mosaic world. Through the gift of Christ he dwells in a world of righteousness and life. The issue is cosmic and corporate, not individual and limited."





Here at the start of King's introduction to his brand of universalism we can see the problem –



1) he assumes that sin & death only had to do with the "Mosaic world",

2) he is advocating everyone is already corporately in Christ without really telling us how they get there.





As we correctly stated in part 2, the PU advocates premise is that if people don't confess Christ while physically alive, no matter, they will at some point or another, and thus everyone will eventually be "IN CHRIST".  To facilitate this concept they quote Col 2:9-11 as we see King doing here.



"It is before this God that 'every knee bows' and 'every tongue confesses'--even those 'under the earth'".



But as we have stated before, just because a conquering king causes every knee to bow & every tongue to confess, doesn't mean those bowing and confessing are in accord with the king – indeed they may still be enemies, but subjugated enemies.  It brings to mind Mt 7:22-23



Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'"  -- Mt 7:22-23 (NASB)





Before someone objects that this verse only speaks of the impending first-century judgment of Israel, keep in mind that the people being depicted here are not Christ rejecting Jews, but people whom obviously at least feigned allegiance to Christ. 



Further interesting is that many PU advocates will say there is no more law. (We aren't talking only about the Mosaic Law)  But I wonder if even the "commandments of Christ" have been dissolved in the PU's reasoning?



"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." – John 14:15 (NASB)



Are the PU advocates trying to tell us this is no longer required?  Now, everyone "loves Christ" even when they not only don't keep His commandments, but many openly ridicule Christ?  Now everyone is automatically "IN CHRIST" & doesn't need to "love Him"?


An astonishing quote from this Comprehensive Grace article comes in contradiction to a fundamental preterist understanding.



"And what of the fate of the billions of others ("every creature," Rev. 5:13) who came to see and praise the One who alone possesses immortality? Was their fate to be cast aside or brought into this victory?"



First off, most preterists understand the concept of "every creature" doesn't mean every single individual on the face of the planet.  It is one of the main propositions that preterists point out about the preaching of the Gospel to the entire world – to "every creature".



"if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister." – Col 1:23



It is the common preterist contention that "every creature" does NOT mean every individual, otherwise the futurists would be correct in their objection that the Gospel has not yet been preached to every individual, thus "the end" could not have come.

So, it is surprising to see a preterist using the "every creature" phrase to as to mean all people will be "saved".   



Again, the article's author assumes everyone (every knee and every tongue) will eventually "come to see and praise" Christ.



King bears out point 3 of our conclusions with this next quote from his article.



"Comprehensive Grace is content to leave the judging of the individuals to God for he alone has the knowledge of good and evil and he alone understands all that is needed to prepare the way for his holy and righteous love."



See the ambiguity in that comment?  Wait, I didn't think anyone was going to be judged anymore?  I didn't think "evil" came into the equation anymore?



More ambiguity:



"The message of Comprehensive Grace is not one that affords us to the luxury of determining ourselves who is "in" or "out" for eternity. We accept our humble station as servants who know only what the Father deems necessary."



What is it that "the Father deems necessary"?  Is this found anywhere in Scripture?  How about a profession of faith? How about a conversion? How about a rebirth? How about a heart of stone turned to a heart of flesh? How about keeping Christ's commandments to show you love Him?  Is any of that necessary?  Not to many advocates of PU.



Next we see both of our PU author's converging on the same point – that universalism isn't clearly in the text but must be teased out of it.



"Without a careful (and broad) reading of the text, one could arrive at the conclusion that the ministry of Jesus was indeed one of exclusivity. Exclusivity comes naturally to us."



King says this after telling us that Jesus came only to the Houses of Israel & Judah, but he as many PU advocates do, makes the mistake in trying to proclaim Christ only came to those "houses" – but they neglect that many "Gentiles" came & were "saved" as well. (Mt 15:20-28, Lk 10:33, Lk 17:15-16, John 4:9-42) So, this "exclusivity" that the PU advocates see in the Bible is indeed there, but it is not just to the Houses of Israel & Judah as they suppose, but to the faithful – those who would believe upon Christ & keep His commandments, not just anyone.



We have now interacted with 2 articles by PU advocates.  One article from the premier PU website, which again is the second most read article on that website, and we have interacted with an article by a main advocate of PU, thus let it no longer be said that we are not addressing what they have written, or that we are misrepresenting them.



We shall begin part 5 of the series Confronting Universalism where we are leaving off.  We shall discuss the rest on Tim King's article and get more into the soteriological implications of universalism in contrast to the biblical proclamations.

[arcticmonster2003]

edit