The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Why is Universal Salvation not Explicit?

Back on the original topic, I think the apparent number of apparent non-UR passages comes from the following factors:

1.) The terminology around eon is applied less broadly (except when conveniently not on these topics!) than its usage overall would otherwise allow. This at least neutralizes a number of key passages which then opens up other possibilities: even if the neutralization still technically allows non-UR interpretations, they can’t just be prooftexted as a lock anymore.

2.) A lot of the statements are talking about death before the general resurrection, and so simply aren’t on the expected topic at all. (This is particularly a problem for Anni proponents but I’ve seen ECT proponents prooftext things of this sort, too.)

3.) Related to (2), It’s easy to ignore or discount as a factor, especially when prooftexting, that God (and/or inspired commentary) can be emphasizing a situation and its penalty without necessarily excluding further situations. The most absurd version of this factor I’ve seen was when a Calvinist cited all of some minor prophet to me daring me to find any universal salvation in it, with the idea that if there wasn’t then UR couldn’t be true. I reported that not only couldn’t I find any UR in it, neither could I find any indication of the coming Messiah, nor that God would save any sinners at all only people who were already righteous; and moreover that the next minor prophet showed no evidence of God saving even any righteous or innocent people at all but rather destroying everyone. By his logic then he should be a nihilistic non-Christian Jew who expects God to hopelessly destroy all people, since there’s nothing Christian per se in either of those two minor prophets. There are smaller examples, too, and just as importantly there are easy counter-examples of the same supposed principle which would be ludicrous “evidence” against non-UR beliefs, which no non-UR proponent would ever reasonably accept against ECT or Anni (nor should they).

4.) Ancient Near-Middle Eastern cultural idiom should be taken into account, which is often hyperbolic for emphasis purposes, like whole populations being apparently genocided off… aannnnd then they show up perfectly fine later. This is standard rhetorical coloring for the culture (and for neighboring cultures, too). A similar example would be the king in the Matt 18 parable of the unforgiving steward who declares the embezzler will be sold into slavery with all his family, but then doesn’t do this; and when the embezzler is punished after all, there’s no indication his family takes the hit either. Why? – because by the standards of the day, the king is staking out a position for bargaining, not making a fiat and final pronouncement (even though he could do that, so the threat isn’t only a bluff). What audiences would have found surprising was that the embezzler doesn’t try to haggle but throws himself immediately on the king’s mercy – and then they’d be more shocked that the king accepts this plea immediately! (Which then sets up cultural context for the king’s eventual judgement on the unmerciful servant.)

5.) The Matt 18 unforgiving servant parable is a highly obvious example of something I’ve found to be a lot more subtly but also a lot more frequently prevalent in the Gospels (and less occasionally in the OT) when looking at non-UR prooftexts: a high proportion of apparently hopeless punishment declarations from Jesus, turn out to be character tests for His followers, along the line of Nathaniel’s “Thou art the man” to King David. (Jesus throws these at the Pharisees more obviously, too, but it isn’t often appreciated that He regarded them as erring chief servants, so the pattern still fits.) If his audience is nodding along at those people being, apparently, hopelessly zorched for something, it then turns out that they’re being punished for insisting that someone else should be hopelessly punished and/or never saved (especially from their sins) – which again the parable of the unforgiving servant is highly obvious about. Insisting that the punishments are hopeless puts us in the position of the unforgiving servant or the Pharisees who agreed that the king shall certainly be killing those murderers or the Pharisees who insisted that God would not save someone whose last state was worse than their former or the baby goats, the least of Christ’s flock, who thought they were serving Christ the whole time but who refused to save the least of Christ’s flock from various situations (typical of punishment by God) into which they themselves will be put – so should we interpret their punishment the way baby goats would, or the way the mature flock who follow the Shepherd would? (Paul does much the same gotcha switch in judgment from Rom 1 into Rom 2 when he expects his audience to be expecting him to be talking about those filthy pagan sinners over there being zorched – but they themselves are under the same judgment, and actually even moreso for expecting God to be unmerciful toward those other people.)

This factor is a huge reductor in the apparently greater number of non-UR texts. Its bolstered and complimented by frequent testimony in the OT to the effect that if you’re called by God to punish someone else, you better damn well be merciful about it or you’re setting yourself up to be zorched the same way for being unmerciful about it!

6.) Another huge reductor, sometimes parallel with (5), is just immediate, local, and extended context, putting together and harmonizing more of the story. Jude looks like things are hopeless for Sodom and for anyone (including rebel angels) punished along the same line; but extended context shows Sodom gets reconciled with slain rebel Israel and both reconciled to God eventually. Local and even immediate contexts of prooftexts often show God reconciling the people He has punished, even to death, after they learn their lesson and repent; God even goes back on the most final sounding statements this way. Those people will never be forgiven and will never even be resurrected – annnnd then they will be after all a chapter later, and everyone will live happily ever after. (I’m thinking offhand of some statements in Hosea, but there are some other examples of this extreme flipflop scattered around the OT.) This factor seems to apply most to the OT, and when applied will often result in uncovering a TON more testimony in the OT for bodily resurrection than is typically thought by scholars nowadays (Christian and otherwise). But it shows up occasionally in the NT, too: Jesus by report in GosJohn 8 prophecies that His opponents (who have all the advantages and who should definitely know better and whom Jesus could have reasonably been expecting to support Him but willfully aren’t out of spiritual pride) shall definitely be dying in their sins for refusing to believe He is “I AM”. …annnd then they will also definitely be knowing Him (in the positive and intimate sense of knowing) as “I AM” later. Non-UR prooftexting evidence will focus on the first part and completely ignore or discount the second part. But the second part at least strongly implies that the first part isn’t hopelessly final after all. Or in a more immediate-context example, non-UR prooftexts from GosJohn 6 about resurrecting to judgment instead of to eonian life, will typically ignore or discount the immediate statement for the goal and purpose of this resurrection to judgment: so that those who do not honor the Son and the Father shall come to honor the Son and the Father, where honoring is obviously connected to coming out of death and into eonian life. Which of course is why the context is ignored or discounted, because if the judged people did come to honor God (which the context indicates is certain) then they’d be saved from their sins after all which from the scope of the statements would logically entail universal salvation.

I may be missing some factors, but I’m still sleepy and I have ‘work’ work to do. Just wanted to opine in. :slight_smile:

(And some other claimed factors I don’t agree with, but I’m not going to opine on those. :wink: )

Hello davo,

The rules and standards you embrace for prophecy have little to do with the statement quoted. My comment was not about prophecy, it was about meaning God has woven into Scripture. My point: if you take the position that a historical (and in the case of the passage being considered) prophetic meaning can be the only one derived to the exclusion of all others, I think you’re wrong. This is the same sort of error as the Pharisees stood in relation to God’s word in their day. I said nothing about, nor do I contend for, the idea of “multiple fulfillments”. This seems to be thinking stuck inside the literalist box, e.g., ‘if you’re talking about further meanings the only meanings you could possibly intend would be further literal and historical fulfillments.’ You claim,* “…western Christianity…has made us think metaphorically about simple and plain time statements…”* ; I suspect the more accurate stance is that God has inspired western Christianity [through the doorway of inspired Scripture] to lead us to areas of His symbolic meaning. His symbols use historical circumstances as His stage, events as His backdrop and people as His actors upon that stage and within those events to weave masterful metaphors that provide spiritual principles.

I don’t understand what you mean by the notion that western Christianity has led us to, “think literalistically about symbolic metaphors”, especially in light of my understanding that everything God does leads to literal events or consequences on some level, either in time and space or the hereafter.

Agreed there’s nothing specific. But as I think I’ve heard Craig say in one of his talks, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. On the other hand most references to annihilation are found in metaphoric language. As noted above, God uses physical events, history and people to paint broader meaning pictures and this leaves open the possibility that the soul could be annihilated given supporting passages like Mat 10:28.

In response to my statement about second fruits, you say,

I didn’t use the term as a doctrinal statement but as artistic license, used in discussions to convey ideas and possibilities. I hardly find a narrow, literalist exposition on the subject of firstfruits compelling. Man has worked for centuries try to control Scripture’s meaning by informing others of the parameters within which they’re expected to form their theology, base their faith and the “obvious” and stark doctrines to which these parameters lead. Are you a universalist? I find it hard to see how your understanding of Scripture could allow for the salvation of all.

the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit either yet we still believe in it

the NT trumps the Old and it tells us ‘mercy triumphs over judgement’.

Incidentally, there is such a thing as second-fruits (though not called that specifically) in the Temple services. The first firstfruits are Rashith, given at Pascha (Passover); the second firstfruits are Bicourim, given at Pentacost. That’s why both Christ and believers can be called firstfruits yet distinctly with one coming after the other.

There was an interesting article today, by a Catholic blogger:

Advice for Catholic gentlemen: You weren’t meant to be ‘a good person’ — you were meant to be a saint

True.

Who is this “we”? Whoever it is, it does not include me.

Hi Bart…

Well that’s ok IF you have shown otherwise, but you haven’t. My point would be that (and in the case of the passage being considered) as per the likes of Jer 2:3a, that Israel fits as its primary application and fulfillment. Now IF beyond that one wants to adopt in principle such to one’s own life I don’t have an issue with that. There are any number of biblical texts that have NOTHING to do with US directly, but we can in faith imbibe of the truths contained therein; as per the likes of Jas 1:21; Acts 20:32; Psa 19:7 et al.

I made that statement with biblical prophecy in mind, but given own stated “My comment was not about prophecy, it was about meaning God has woven into Scripture” then it becomes somewhat of a moot point.

I’m not so much disagreeing with that but my thought is such things are best primarily understood within the biblical narrative. The HOW these things get transposed to us beyond the biblical narrative is for sure, always up for discussion.

Well, again that comment’s focus was the prophetic and how post-biblical Christendom has handled, or mishandled such, IMO. As I understand it… prophecy, to a large degree, is figurative language describing temporal (historic) events in terms of their spiritual significance. E.g., Israel and in particular her Temple becoming as the ever-burning ‘gehenna’ (rubbish-heap) was a very literal event (AD 70) portraying the greater covenantal (spiritual) reality of the death of old covenant Judaism.

I could be reading you wrong but the first part of this above sounds similar to the italicised part of my last statement above… so maybe (??) we’re on a similar page at some point.

You do the very self-same thing in claiming… “If universalism is true, I’d take it a step further; if Israel was firstfruits, Christianity is secondfruits,…

I agree that the reconciliation of humanity to God is an established and present reality, though not all realise it in this life… hence the gospel. Ignorance of this reality, however, does not negate this truth.

As for being a universalist… more properly speaking I’m an inclusive prêterist aka a Pantelist.

Coooool.

I land in the middle on this. I accept that the concept of the Trinity as a doctrinal stance is Biblical and has merit intellectually, but no longer hold this to be a “necessary” or fundamental doctrine by which to gauge one’s Christianity. Accepting the Deity of Christ seems to me a more proper yardstick.

Hello davo,

I’ve been reading on the Pantelist site. Interesting reading but I can’t trace a logical path from Preterism to Universalism. The concept of forcing a literal, historical reading on Scripture is one of the types of literalism that’s like chalk on a blackboard to me, as you’ve probably gathered.

What I’ve read on the Pantelist site leaves me wondering how Pantelism would work. For example writings on the site suggest there’s too much thought spent on salvation postmortem, which you appear to support in your comment, “…the reconciliation of humanity to God is an established and present reality, though not all realise it in this life… hence the gospel. Ignorance of this reality, however, does not negate this truth.” Right, it doesn’t. But if Pantelism says we should focus our thoughts about salvation on this life and stop talking about being saved in the next, I have to wonder if Pantelists are oblivious to the fact that we live short lives here then all die in various states of imperfection? This is confusing to me. I have no issue with the idea that Scripture may be read to understand some are elected to special service to God for man in time, or the idea that much in the Bible alludes to a temporal salvation for those who properly conform to God’s standards, but I’m lost in grasping how this trumps a dismissal of salvation postmortem? A common argument of atheists is that theists generally and Christians in particular fail to reach their potential in this life because we’re too focused on the next. Except for extreme cases (e.g., Jonestown in the 70s) I don’t find this criticism compelling, but Pantelism seems to level similar charges. Seems to me all you’re doing is forming Universalism into a Preterist mold and calling it something different [inclusivism]. What am I missing?

With regard to your comment re my position that the literal is secondary in importance to Scripture’s allegorical meaning: “…that’s ok IF you have shown otherwise, but you haven’t. My point would be that (and in the case of the passage being considered) as per the likes of Jer 2:3a, that Israel fits as its primary application and fulfillment.”. You’re correct. I haven’t shown otherwise. This message board isn’t the proper venue to present the theology I contend for. I begin with a primary, abstract metaphysical concept and work from there to what I believe is a systematic unfolding of that abstraction to a comprehensive logical, ordered allegorical structure for salvation in Scripture. I will retire in a couple weeks and my first goal is to edit and publish the partial chapters and hundreds of pages I’ve compiled the last 24 years working on this. My understanding is that this message board will end soon so maybe I’ll bump into you on another board somewhere in the future and you can critique the position I contend for in another venue.

You know what puzzles me? The statement “search the scriptures”. They did not have the Internet, or search engines, back then :laughing:

sorry…by ‘we’ I meant Christians in the mainstream of Churchdom/ Christianity…people who hold to ‘traditional’ church doctrines which I do, apart from the doctrine of eternal/everlasting/ never ending punishment in Hell, which I believe is ultimately redemptive…didnt mean to generalize or apply ‘we’ to all and every single Christian believer or to yourself…

qaz… what is “strange” and somewhat annoying is that you would say this when clearly up the page I’ve stated this to Bart…

As I have noted elsewhere… universalists holds to the self-same belief of a postmortem Hell as do infernalists, the ONLY DIFFERENCE being the degree of time someone assigned there is said to endure such… for one it is endless, the other it is limited, BUT the basic nature of the experience remains the same.

Pantelism however has a COMPLETELY differing view as to ‘the lake of fire’ as opposed to that which universalists and infernalists typically affirm in the sense of an apparent postmortem experience/outcome — my view is distinctly different.

If you affirm ‘the Virgin birth’ is it adequate to categorise you as a Catholic? and thus claim that you… “for some strange reason refuses to be categorized as one”? :open_mouth:

Maybe I’m missing something here, Davo. I believe that all (or most of) the mainline Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, affirm the virgin birth. I think it’s part of the Nicene and Apostles creeds. Do you know of any exceptions to this? Especially if they believe, the bible is NOT subject to error (i.e s inerrancy). :smiley:

See, for example:

Are there any denominations that reject Mary’s virgin conception of Jesus?

And to the questionnaire’s question. If Christ can be raised from the dead…Can’t he be born of a virgin…But infused with all the family genetic traits?

Hey Zombie, it might have been a bit of a lame example, but my point being… a certain positional stance doesn’t necessitate definitive identification, as per qaz’s suggestion, especially when I’ve stated otherwise here already. I might be into full immersion baptism but that doesn’t have to mean I’m a Baptist. Or I may favour tongue-speaking, but I might not need to be a card-carrying swinging from the rafters Pentecostal etc.

Ok qaz I surrender to your simplistic rationale, but on these terms…

I believe 100% in election, just NOT according to Calvinism. I believe some form of unpleasant reckoning may occur for some postmortem; but not in terms of torture or torment or fiery flames, nor any thought of exclusion from God. I believe in annihilation as pertaining solely to the physicality of man alone, no more and no less, and THIS predominately in terms of divine judgement as typically meted out against disobedient Israel or her enemies in the basic loss of one’s physical life. I believe in the universal i.e., comprehensive scope of God’s grace as encapsulating all.

The teaching of universal salvation is made very explicit by Romans 5:18:19. This includes a comparison between the effect of Adam’s sin with that of Christ’s sacrificial death, as follows:

So therefore, just as through one offence condemnation came to all men[1], so also through one righteous act justification of life comes to all men[2]. For as through the disobedience of one man the many[1] were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one righteous man the many[2] will be made righteous.

The first point to note is that the reasoning of both verses are linked, as indicated by the word ‘for’ at the beginning of verse 19. Verse 19 explains verse 18. It is also worth noting that verse 19 does not say that ‘many will be made righteous’; it says ‘the many will be made righteous’. The definite article here clearly refers back to a previous, indefinite noun as it does in other passages where the phrase ‘the many’ is used (c.f. Mark 6:2; 9:25, 26; Romans 5:12-16; 12:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10, 17 & 33; 2 Corinthians 2:17). In this case, verse 19 refers back to the phrase ‘all men’ in verse 18.

The first group of ‘the many’ [1] is ‘all men’, as this is the corresponding phrase to which it is linked in the first sentence. We also know that the phrase, ‘all men’ in that sentence must mean literally every single human being on the planet, because of the Bible’s clear teaching regarding the universality of sin.

For the same reasons, the second group that is described as ‘the many’ [2] must also refer back to the ‘all men’ in the previous verse. Unless we can show that this does not literally mean ‘all men’ as in the first clause, then the normal rules of exegesis require us to interpret this phrase in exactly the same way. We would otherwise have to conclude that ‘all men’ had two completely different meanings in the very same sentence, even though there was absolutely no evidence that this was the case!

The only conclusion that we can draw from all of this, therefore, is that verse 19 is telling us in a very direct way that in the end ‘all men will be made righteous’. Elsewhere in the Bible we are told that ‘the righteous’ are God’s sheep, who will never perish (John 10:28), as nothing now or in the future can separate them from the love of God (Roman’s 8:39). This must, then, be the joyful fate of ‘all men’, as all of us will eventually be ‘made righteous’.

Yours in Christ

Robert

Well qaz it’s clearly meeting some need of yours to tag me specifically as a universalist, despite my numerous clarifying explanations given to you over some time now. I have no aversion to the moniker but just find it so inadequate and inaccurate of my oft-stated position which can better be described as an inclusive prêterism aka pantelism which is actually beyond universalism and prêterism i.e., universalism is inadequate and comes up short on the understanding of quite a number of biblical texts (as does prêterism but to a lesser degree) which pantelism “IMO” handles much better.

I suspect qaz you will probably read right over that… you’re not the first, and that’s ok if it’s meeting a need. :astonished:

For myself, the Isaiah text (and subsequent NT passages that allude to it) that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess is a clincher. As has been discussed in this forum, the question for many is what is God going to do with the sinner after he she does the confessing? Or can we really think that this means we will confess without truly understanding? Of maybe some will confess in this physical life and some after physical death?

I tend to like the image of an unending sea of humanity coming to the realization of who God truly is. :smiley:

qaz said

The interesting twist is how God does deal with those he has destroyed. Will he destroy them in this physical life and then they will bow but God will somehow continue to punish/correct them?

And some will say that the Isaiah passages only deal with Israel. :open_mouth:

A mystery.

Beautiful thought :slight_smile:

Rev 5:13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying,

“To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”

I tend to look at this verse as the fulfillment of Phil 2:9-11