Universalism has a Bad Name

[legoman]

It seems most people will go to extremes to avoid believing in Universalism.  Its like it has a bad name or is an insult or something.  It seems many sound thinking goes astray here:

The scripture can't mean THAT because then Universalism would be TRUE!

Check out this article.  Its interesting the word-twisting that must take place to affirm both Calvinist and Arminian views while desperatly trying to avoid the conclusion of Universalism.


http://notjameswhite.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/romans-518-justification-of-all-men-and-universalism/

In his 2007/08/28 Dividing line, Dr White is on the Calvinist war path. This time the target is Dave Hunt and Romans 5:18.

Romans 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."

When we read Reformed exegesis somewhere in there we will see a statement along these lines: (to take one example)

"Since the Scriptures clearly teach that not all men are saved (Matt 25:31-33), we know that the "all" in this verse can't refer to every individual."

I took this from a Calvinist exegesis, and it is cut from the exact same cloth as James White's commentary. What always happens is that the opposing view is dismissed before it is even interacted with

Dr White criticises Dave Hunt for not interacting with the Calvinist interpretation during whatever radio show that Hunt made his statement. But then guess what... White fails to interact with the traditional interpretation and inserts his own straw man in its place. Do you think maybe there is more onus on him to refute the traditional interpretation and the plain meaning of the text than it is on the other side to refute his interpretation?

In Orthodoxy, this justification of Christ is an opt-out system, not an opt-in system. Christ justifies all men, but many opt out of that justification. So only by ignoring all the possibilities can one claim that this is a universalist interpretation. James accuses those using this verse against Calvinism of promoting universalism. But why is White so proud as to not realise that Christians through the ages have interpreted it as all men, and yet not been universalists? Is it only Calvinists in the history of the world who are clear headed enough not to engage in blatent contradiction? Why does White see fit to erect a straw man instead of seriously interacting with opposing understandings?

Dr White then alludes to the Calvinist interpretation, that apparently while the first "all men" really means all men, the second "all men" actually means all men in Christ. However the entire context is drawing the parallel contained in this very verse between the effect of Adam which is to all men, and the effect of Christ which we are again told is to all men. There is nothing at all in the context that would lead us to insert into the text "in Christ".

Now this is all very amusing because it parallels closely James White's arguments about John 6:44 that the group at the beginning must be the same as at the end of the verses. I'll comment on that another time, except to point out that the parallel between groups in Romans 5:18 and the context is clearly a parallel that Paul put there deliberately. In John 6, the argument is far more subtle.

So White is really guilty here of hypocrisy, in placing all his eggs into his John 6 interpretive basket, so that he can overturn the interpretation of the Fathers in both John 6 AND Romans 5:18, and in the process turning Romans 5 on its head while doing the exact same thing he accuses others of doing.

If your blinkered glasses of your world view cannot allow Christ to provide justification for men who are lost, then you have to go looking for another explanation.

Is 5:18 just an isolated case? Maybe Paul wasn't as clear this day as he could have been?

1 Tim 2:4 – salvation of all desired
1 Tim 2:6 – Christ was ransom for all
1 Tim 4:10 – Christ was savior of all, especially (and therefore not limited to) those who believe
1 Cor 15:22 – all made alive in Christ
Col 1:20 – all reconciled in Christ
1 John 2:2 Propitiation for the world
2 Cor 5:19 – reconciling the world
Romans 11:32 – mercy for all

Romans 5:18 isn't an isolated case. There's a great deal of equivocation Calvinists have to do all over the place to support a doctrine called limited atonement which is nowhere taught in scripture. When you ask to see where it is taught, instead of presenting a scripture we hear a long diatribe about the intention of God being to save the elect, but no actual verses.

Update: Dr White comments on the same thing in the 2008/12/02 Dividing Line where he pushes the Reformed view that the "all men" is all men in Christ. Of course, as many have commented, the text doesn't say "all men in Christ", and the normal rules of exegesis would make the "all men" condemned correspond to the "all men" justified. Again, White argues that to believe anything else results in universalism, again ignoring the option that God can justify all men, but some opt-out. Only by assuming an opt-in system, can he make this argument fly.

November 27, 2008

[lookingup]

i hope i'm not going off on a tangent here, if i am i apologize, when i try to share the good news with others (ETers) i constantly get the "you're twisting and adding to and taking away from the word" thing that is so popular with them. i just don't get it when in reality it is they who has to "twist" the words around and take out and insert words to support their statements.

and we are the heritics????

[lsmann2]

I'm always getting the argument that the "all" means "all" when it comes to sin and condemnation. But "all" doesn't mean "all" when it comes to the saving power of Christ's work on the cross. :dontknow:

Lee

[WhiteWings]

Some say "He'll saves all." is a misprint and should read "Hell saves all."  :laughing7:

[WhiteWings]

i hope i'm not going off on a tangent here, if i am i apologize, when i try to share the good news with others (ETers) i constantly get the "you're twisting and adding to and taking away from the word" thing that is so popular with them. i just don't get it when in reality it is they who has to "twist" the words around and take out and insert words to support their statements.

and we are the heritics????

If making fun of ETs was forbidden on this forum then we would have 777 banned members  :thumbsup:
Th ereaction you get from ETs isn't uncommon. You see that kind of defensive reacting so often in daily life.
When you challange someones views on whatever subject many get into defensive mode.
Some by debate. Most by ridiculing the messanger.

[legoman]

i hope i'm not going off on a tangent here, if i am i apologize, when i try to share the good news with others (ETers) i constantly get the "you're twisting and adding to and taking away from the word" thing that is so popular with them. i just don't get it when in reality it is they who has to "twist" the words around and take out and insert words to support their statements.

and we are the heritics????

Yes it is so ironic.  Sometimes people will quote "you are just following traditions of men" and I have to laugh.  But we'll get nowhere if the conversation devolves into this:

1.  You are twisting the bible
2.  No I'm not. You are.
1.  No I'm not. You are.
2.  Well you are following the traditions of men and not the bible.
1.  No I'm not. You are...
ad nauseum

It is so tiring and frustrating, constantly running into the same brick walls.

RE the OP, the word "Universalism" seems to be one of these brick walls.  Almost like a demeaning insult.  "Oh I see, you're a Universalist <snicker><snicker>".  Almost as if the very word should end all discussion and declare the accuser victorious. 

Because everyone knows "universalists" are just living in fanatasy world, hoping no one goes to hell, so they can sin all they want.   :sigh:

[legoman]

Some say "He'll saves all." is a misprint and should read "Hell saves all."  :laughing7:

LOL  :thumbsup:  In a sense, Hell does save all, if you equate Hell with the Lake of Fire!   :bigGrin:

[willieH]

willieH: Hi "L." & "L"... :hithere:  (Lego & Looking  :laughing7:)

i hope i'm not going off on a tangent here, if i am i apologize, when i try to share the good news with others (ETers) i constantly get the "you're twisting and adding to and taking away from the word" thing that is so popular with them. i just don't get it when in reality it is they who has to "twist" the words around and take out and insert words to support their statements.

and we are the heritics????

Yes it is so ironic.  Sometimes people will quote "you are just following traditions of men" and I have to laugh.  But we'll get nowhere if the conversation devolves into this:

1.  You are twisting the bible
2.  No I'm not. You are.
1.  No I'm not. You are.
2.  Well you are following the traditions of men and not the bible.
1.  No I'm not. You are...
ad nauseum

It is so tiring and frustrating, constantly running into the same brick walls.

RE the OP, the word "Universalism" seems to be one of these brick walls.  Almost like a demeaning insult.  "Oh I see, you're a Universalist <snicker><snicker>".  Almost as if the very word should end all discussion and declare the accuser victorious. 

Because everyone knows "universalists" are just living in fanatasy world, hoping no one goes to hell, so they can sin all they want.   :sigh:

I have been a member on an ET forum for almost 3 years... and continually, I am assaulted by members in these ways...

I maintain there AND HERE... that I am not a "Universalist", simply because it gives others a label to attach to me... 

I state to them, that I believe in the "Salvation of ALL MEN"... and it is their insatiable NEED for LABELS, that causes them to call me a "Universalist"...  :dontknow:

My answer is to post WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS... and then state "It SAYS what IT SAYS, ...believe what you will"...

Also stating that it is not my agenda to change them or their beliefs in any way, nor does it matter to me if they do!   For it is GOD's Work to do so, if in fact HE has decided that their position shall change, by enlightening them...

...willieH  :cloud9:

[Doc]

willieH: Hi "L." & "L"... :hithere:  (Lego & Looking  :laughing7:)

i hope i'm not going off on a tangent here, if i am i apologize, when i try to share the good news with others (ETers) i constantly get the "you're twisting and adding to and taking away from the word" thing that is so popular with them. i just don't get it when in reality it is they who has to "twist" the words around and take out and insert words to support their statements.

and we are the heritics????

Yes it is so ironic.  Sometimes people will quote "you are just following traditions of men" and I have to laugh.  But we'll get nowhere if the conversation devolves into this:

1.  You are twisting the bible
2.  No I'm not. You are.
1.  No I'm not. You are.
2.  Well you are following the traditions of men and not the bible.
1.  No I'm not. You are...
ad nauseum

It is so tiring and frustrating, constantly running into the same brick walls.

RE the OP, the word "Universalism" seems to be one of these brick walls.  Almost like a demeaning insult.  "Oh I see, you're a Universalist <snicker><snicker>".  Almost as if the very word should end all discussion and declare the accuser victorious. 

Because everyone knows "universalists" are just living in fanatasy world, hoping no one goes to hell, so they can sin all they want.   :sigh:

I have been a member on an ET forum for almost 3 years... and continually, I am assaulted by members in these ways...

I maintain there AND HERE... that I am not a "Universalist", simply because it gives others a label to attach to me... 

I state to them, that I believe in the "Salvation of ALL MEN"... and it is their insatiable NEED for LABELS, that causes them to call me a "Universalist"...  :dontknow:

My answer is to post WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS... and then state "It SAYS what IT SAYS, ...believe what you will"...

Also stating that it is not my agenda to change them or their beliefs in any way, nor does it matter to me if they do!   For it is GOD's Work to do so, if in fact HE has decided that their position shall change, by enlightening them...

...willieH  :cloud9:

Willie,

Martin Zender is the same way. He even has a sound clip on his website from one of his radio shows titled, "I am not a goshdarned universalist". Even though he clearly believes in universal salvation.

Because the terms universalist and universalism do carry negative connotations and can create much confusion, I personally think we're better off not using the terms of ourselves. Enough people will try to label us without us doing it for them.

[Mr.Irrelevant]

willieH: Hi "L." & "L"... :hithere:  (Lego & Looking  :laughing7:)

i hope i'm not going off on a tangent here, if i am i apologize, when i try to share the good news with others (ETers) i constantly get the "you're twisting and adding to and taking away from the word" thing that is so popular with them. i just don't get it when in reality it is they who has to "twist" the words around and take out and insert words to support their statements.

and we are the heritics????

Yes it is so ironic.  Sometimes people will quote "you are just following traditions of men" and I have to laugh.  But we'll get nowhere if the conversation devolves into this:

1.  You are twisting the bible
2.  No I'm not. You are.
1.  No I'm not. You are.
2.  Well you are following the traditions of men and not the bible.
1.  No I'm not. You are...
ad nauseum

It is so tiring and frustrating, constantly running into the same brick walls.

RE the OP, the word "Universalism" seems to be one of these brick walls.  Almost like a demeaning insult.  "Oh I see, you're a Universalist <snicker><snicker>".  Almost as if the very word should end all discussion and declare the accuser victorious. 

Because everyone knows "universalists" are just living in fanatasy world, hoping no one goes to hell, so they can sin all they want.   :sigh:

I have been a member on an ET forum for almost 3 years... and continually, I am assaulted by members in these ways...

I maintain there AND HERE... that I am not a "Universalist", simply because it gives others a label to attach to me... 

I state to them, that I believe in the "Salvation of ALL MEN"... and it is their insatiable NEED for LABELS, that causes them to call me a "Universalist"...  :dontknow:

My answer is to post WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS... and then state "It SAYS what IT SAYS, ...believe what you will"...

Also stating that it is not my agenda to change them or their beliefs in any way, nor does it matter to me if they do!   For it is GOD's Work to do so, if in fact HE has decided that their position shall change, by enlightening them...

...willieH  :cloud9:

Willie,

Martin Zender is the same way. He even has a sound clip on his website from one of his radio shows titled, "I am not a goshdarned universalist". Even though he clearly believes in universal salvation.

Because the terms universalist and universalism do carry negative connotations and can create much confusion, I personally think we're better off not using the terms of ourselves. Enough people will try to label us without us doing it for them.

I agree Doc, when someone asks me what I think on the matter, I tell them that I believe that someday every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

[lookingup]

i never knew of universalism until about 4 yrs ago. When i "stumbled" into a universalist website and discovered a LOT of the things i had thought were in line with universalism, funny, i allways thought of myself as a believer.

   the ET message at my fire and brimstone church i was raised in (my opinion) caused me to hate the god being presented there.

When i was old enough to get out on my own i was basically secular, never to go into churchianity again, i always figured i was destined for hell. Now that i have found the LOVING God that has His plan working to the final goal, there is NOTHING  in churchianity that will ever convince me of anything less than God saving all His creation.

i wish that i could have found the truth sooner, my oldest child is so heavily entrenched in the ET doctrine she is to the point of obnoxious and you can almost feel the hatred of the message of God saving all mankind

but i know it's all in His timing

All that to say this: i believe that the word "universalism" has been highjacked to mean that all will be saved reguardless of the sacrifice of Christ, which as we know the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is the ONLY way to salvation, but the ETers can't see the power of the blood to cover ALL.

Sad to see that they limit the LOVE and power of God and the POWER of the blood of the Lamb

                                            Blessings ya'll

                                                               Henry

[Mr.Irrelevant]

And on the same subject - a friend sent me this link to prove that Christ didn't really die for the sins of the whole world, but only the elect.  It's a very interesting read, but to sum it up the author's conclusion is simply that IF the Bible teaches unlimited atonement then it MUST also be teaching universal salvation - and we know that can't be right!
:happygrin:
http://pychen.xanga.com/691194837/some-thoughts-on-universal-atonement-and-the-verse/

[legoman]

It's a very interesting read, but to sum it up the author's conclusion is simply that IF the Bible teaches unlimited atonement then it MUST also be teaching universal salvation - and we know that can't be right!

Yep, universalism is so loaded with negative bias, that if anything even points to universal salvation, it is automatically discarded as a possible conclusion.  This means most people don't bother investigating universalism because they "know" everyone has already disproven it.

Part of the great delusion and deception of this world.

Peace.

[legoman]

http://pychen.xanga.com/691194837/some-thoughts-on-universal-atonement-and-the-verse/

Just reading through the article you posted.  Basically as you said he is saying universal atonement really means universal salvation, but we know that is not true because people go to hell.

I find it interesting near the beginning of the article he mentions, (paraphrasing) "when examining the bible we should not bring in our presuppositions and biases, and we should be ready to drop the traditions of men.  Traditions of men must be supported from the bible, or they cannot be used to form a doctrine!
...
Anyway let me get back to universal atonement and how the existence of HELL disproves the atonement is universal."  Hello?

It almost becomes circular:
If there is eternal hell, then there can be no universal salvation. 
Therefore since there is no universal salvation, there is an eternal hell.

Follow?   :bigGrin:

[legoman]

Ok I just skimmed the rest of that article.  All of his refutations come out to:

Universal Atonement = Jesus FAILS
OR
Universal Atonement = Universal Salavation

And since we know Jesus didn't fail, and we know Universal Salvation is false, Universal Atonement must be false!

LOL  It is quite amazing to see one person go through that many verses that plainly say "universal salvation" and still reject it.  The delusion of HELL is powerful.

Peace.

[Tim B]

I probably used to believe something along the lines of: if a belief system doesn't include Hell, then it must not be true. Now my beliefs are changed: if a belief system includes Hell (in the traditional eternal torture/eternal conscious torment sense) than it probably isn't true. lol

At least now I can back it up  :bigGrin:

[legoman]

And on the same subject - a friend sent me this link to prove that Christ didn't really die for the sins of the whole world, but only the elect.  It's a very interesting read, but to sum it up the author's conclusion is simply that IF the Bible teaches unlimited atonement then it MUST also be teaching universal salvation - and we know that can't be right!
:happygrin:
http://pychen.xanga.com/691194837/some-thoughts-on-universal-atonement-and-the-verse/

I left a comment at the bottom of this article, and now the author has responded to me and my "athiestic humanistic scholarship".  Check it out if you want, I will be leaving a reply...

[Mr.Irrelevant]

And on the same subject - a friend sent me this link to prove that Christ didn't really die for the sins of the whole world, but only the elect.  It's a very interesting read, but to sum it up the author's conclusion is simply that IF the Bible teaches unlimited atonement then it MUST also be teaching universal salvation - and we know that can't be right!
:happygrin:
http://pychen.xanga.com/691194837/some-thoughts-on-universal-atonement-and-the-verse/

I left a comment at the bottom of this article, and now the author has responded to me and my "athiestic humanistic scholarship".  Check it out if you want, I will be leaving a reply...

that was a good challenge for him legoman - though I didn't get the idea he was interested in discussing it.  You did a good job of keeping your tone respectful.  Tread lightly, as I'm afraid your discussion might quickly descend into name-calling.  (He's already started)

[legoman]

And on the same subject - a friend sent me this link to prove that Christ didn't really die for the sins of the whole world, but only the elect.  It's a very interesting read, but to sum it up the author's conclusion is simply that IF the Bible teaches unlimited atonement then it MUST also be teaching universal salvation - and we know that can't be right!
:happygrin:
http://pychen.xanga.com/691194837/some-thoughts-on-universal-atonement-and-the-verse/

I left a comment at the bottom of this article, and now the author has responded to me and my "athiestic humanistic scholarship".  Check it out if you want, I will be leaving a reply...

that was a good challenge for him legoman - though I didn't get the idea he was interested in discussing it.  You did a good job of keeping your tone respectful.  Tread lightly, as I'm afraid your discussion might quickly descend into name-calling.  (He's already started)

Yep, most people don't want to give up their traditions.  He claims he has given up the traditions of man... by becoming PROTESTANT!  Interesting... I suppose that is partially true.  But there are many traditions to be shed.

Anyway I always try to post a respectful response, at the very least someone else that finds the article will see the exchange and can draw their own conclusions.  Its a fine line between posting too little and having them easily dismiss it, or posting too much and having them be overloaded.

What can you do, its all in Gods hands anyway!   :Sparkletooth:

[WhiteWings]

He claims he has given up the traditions of man... by becoming PROTESTANT! 

Then just answer: So you admit you where wrong before!
:drama:

[WhiteWings]

And on the same subject - a friend sent me this link to prove that Christ didn't really die for the sins of the whole world, but only the elect.  It's a very interesting read, but to sum it up the author's conclusion is simply that IF the Bible teaches unlimited atonement then it MUST also be teaching universal salvation - and we know that can't be right!
:happygrin:
http://pychen.xanga.com/691194837/some-thoughts-on-universal-atonement-and-the-verse/

Made me think of the picture below.
Just replace: Scientific=UR, Creationist=ET

(http://web.mac.com/theedonfamily/Site/The_Guide_To_Thinking_Straight_files/sci.gif)

[Tim B]

To all those who replied to http://pychen.xanga.com/691194837/some-thoughts-on-universal-atonement-and-the-verse/

You guys did a good job!  :thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

I agree Tim.
I wonder how long the replies stay online.
Peace to you too Mr. Lego.

[Doc]

Yeah, nice job. As clear, concise and non-emotional (in a negative way) as you could be.  :thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

Doc, I like your signature!
A one-liner with depth.