I suppose the facile answer to your question, Prince, is “everybody”. For surely if Calvs and Arms really wanted to believe in UR, they would - after all, the evidence has always been strong enough to persuade a significant rump of believers. I think pretty much all of us here would say that they find the Biblical, philosophical and experiential evidence for UR more convincing than that for any other faith position. Hence it’s pretty much axiomatic that those who don’t, don’t do so because they don’t truly want to.

I would say that a similar situation pertains with homophobia in the church. Homophobic Christians appeal to the Bible to justify their homophobia - “I’d love to believe loving gay sexual relationships aren’t sinful, honest guv, but the Bible is quite clear that it is”. Meh.

James is quite right, wanting something to be true (or untrue) doesn’t either make it so or not make it so. It’s either true or it isn’t. For me, if UR is not true then God could be greater than he is - more loving, more merciful to sinners - meaning he can’t actually be God, which is an absurdity.

Cheers

Johnny

Actually, if i could elaborate on the salvation of Satan (or any bad guy, including me)…if anyone has seen Thor (the film about the Marvel version of said mythological personage)…the father wants to show love to Loki, who has always felt himself an outsider, 2nd best…but ultimately fails.
Isn’t that a bit like what those who deny UR are saying about God, that He WANTS to show ultimate forgiveness and restore people, but He can be fooled, and ultimately resisted…and it’s all very sad and tragic, but that’s “just how things are.”
Sorry, no…God is better than that. God cannot be defeated: He hopes all things, believes all things, and never fails. God keeps no records of wrongs. Paul was right on the money…even if we didn’t have John explicitly telling us that God is love (and telling us off for hating ANYONE), it’d be pretty clear that Paul is showing Love as the ultimate standard, the ultimate reality.

I think that it’s likely that those who refuse to believe UR, or even accept it as a legitimate point of view…they are living in a world of fear, where the unsaved must be afraid of God’s wrath…
John says to live with fear is to not be made perfect in love. Maybe projecting fear onto “those others over there” is an equally valid sign for not being made perfect in love.
I know i’m not there yet in regards to myself…but it seems a bit nasty to project one’s one fear onto others, almost a bit like a bully.

It’s sad that some people want to live in a world where God’s salvific will could eventually be refused (contradicting the Scriptures that tell us His will happens)…and it’s sad that some people want to live in a world where God’s salvific will is (contradicting the Scriptures again) not universal.

From my phone:

I think it is mixed fear with sometimes unforgiveness and hatred. In most cases people are brought to believe it is a heresy or beyond what they can believe and to even begin to listen to such an argument will be believed to put their eternal future or those they care for at risk (or put it in question in the case of Calvinists) and so shut down any discussion or as I said in a pm they go into crusader mode to destroy the ‘heresy’, rather then engage.

But worse are those that really don’t want it to be true but really want some people to suffer eternal torment, they truly desire it and despise anything that suggests this is not the case. Some also like thinking of themselves as the elect and chosen (forgetting what they are called and chosen to be and do) and hate the thought that even ‘those people’ might join the club. Such deserve our prayers, mercy and pity as they are in bondage to the darkness of unforgiveness, petty pride and hatred.

There are probably many other complex reason (such as just not knowing) but I think the first is a major reason and the second two are more rare (at least I hope so) but are also a factor sometimes.

George MacDonald said, “It is just so good that it must be true!”

The argument against universalism that it is basically wish-fulfillment is also used by atheists against Christianity itself. Hence, the argument works too well. If we have to abandon universalism because it’s too good to be true, then we would also have to abandon Christianity (and theism itself) because it is too good to be true.

For that matter, what does this say about your winning lottery ticket? There must be some mistake. Best throw it away and report to work."

Well said…i’ve had an agnostic use that reasoning on me before i was a Universalist, just about believing in God at all! It’s not bad reasoning…but it just assumes in the absence of proof, the most pessimistic view is safest/most likely.

I think there are many people (maybe the majority of those who call themselves Christians) who doesn’t want UR to be true, because then also the most evil persons would “go to heaven” and also many have the attitude that if everyone “goes to heaven”, they live a pious life in vain and somehow would waste their life as they allegedly have less fun than unbelievers - sad but true, it may sound hard but I consider such people not actually to be Christians.

Good point, Sven. That also makes me think of the workers in the parable who were annoyed that more workers were hired at the 11th hour at the exact same pay. It doesn’t seem fair…and the Prodigal Son’s brother was similarly annoyed!
I could say that such annoyance is understandable…i could see if fueling a 2nd rebellion of the formerly pious, even…
To me it looks like God sometimes does abandon the 99 pious sheep for that 1 that was stupid enough to get lost…how do the 99 feel about that? It’s also making me think of the Sheep and the Goats (baby goats, i know, Jason!)…the sheep are SHOCKED that with all their piety they are not saved, but it’s their own antagonism towards the goats of this world that cause their condemnation.
It is a weird one, because then it starts to look like only the sinners can get into heaven! the righteous are too guilty of pride more often than not
But Christ does say with man it is impossible, but with God anything is possible.

I agree that psychological considerations are irrelevant to the truth UR (unless one is to make an emotional-conscience arg in favor of UR, which is valid). However, the truth of UR (or not UR) has to be discerned, and I submit that, since we are biased by nature, psychological reasons likely will interfere with our discernment.

Corpse & Johnny (I think this was both of your main pt, forgive me if its not): Yes, psychology/bias affects all that come to table, Cals as much as those who subscribe to UR. And yes, good news, just b/c it is good, shouldn’t make it less likely. However, isn’t the average person going to be tempted to believe in eternal life for everybody more than other doctrines? Sure, there may be fear to accept UR, which for many will be a new & controversial doctrine (so maybe this is a fear of non-conformity as much or more than hatred or vengeance), but surely UR, at bottom, is something people want to believe - as opposed to reprobation or the possibility that we might choose incorrectly and then be hellbound (Arm).

Perhaps a better phrasing of my ?: If UR has the best ending of all the other soteriologies, then, given our tendency to believe good things (I was about to type “to believe what we want to believe” - which is obv. a tautology - maybe this is proof that pessimism abounds ), should UR bear a greater weight of proof (scriptural, logical, theological, etc.)?

I think Geoffrey, Night Revan, Corpse (again I apologize if I am misattributing or incorrectly summing) are arguing:
Given our tendency to pessimism, non-universalists are biased against UR - as opposed to univs. being biased for it.

On which side is the bias likely to be stronger (UR or non-UR)?

Geoffrey - you said (or MacDonald - don’t know if this is your idea or MacDonald’s), that the “too-good-to-be-T” arg is also the one atheists use against Christianity in general. Is the bare existence of God “too-good-to-be-T”, esp. if the default Christianity is supposed to be Cal or Arm, where we’re likely hellbound?

Are non-univs letting pessimism construe the facts - and/or - are univs subject to wish-fulfillment? What should be the weight of possible Cal/Arm wish-fulfillment (possible revenge bias)? If both, does that mean that bias should be completely overlooked or non-univs right and the possible univ wish-fulfillment bias needs a great evidential weight to be counterbalanced? (or are univs right and pessimism or other negative bias is just as much?).

Here’s the trick - answering all these ?s w/o bias

Personally, i’d say pessimism appears to be the most likely approach for most people (in my experience). Even though i am a flaming Universalist, i still err on the side of pessimism for a lot of things. However, i think God is actually quite keen to teach us how to hope, how to trust, how to be purely optimistic because of how He is able to do all things. Paul mentions that Love hopes all things, and defines Faith as the Substance of Things Hoped For.
I don’t actually believe we’re meant to be ultimately pessimistic about God’s plans for the universe…i think that one of the devil’s lies is that things are bad and going to get worse, and maybe just maybe a privileged few will escape, because they know the right doctrine or said the right magic words. I think God says “Trust in Me, I am able to do all things: even better than you can imagine.”
Yes, of course things will be nasty for those that willfully rebel against Him out of spite or delight in doing really bad stuff to others…but God is able to save even them.
I am sure i bring bias to this discussion…i think post modernism teaches us that we can’t think outside of our spheres, and so we can’t ever claim to have a handle on absolute truth…
but i think the Scriptures show us that God, who decided what ultimate truth would be (whatever that means, post modernism i believe also teaches us also that we are limited by our languages in how much we can imagine), says “Trust in me”. That’s enough for me, i guess…whether Calv UR, Arm UR or Ultra U is true (or any other flavours floating out there)…or whether we’ve all missed something of the point (inevitable!), God is trustworthy…and i can trust Him to save my friends, family, enemies and even those over there that i disapprove of. He has declared His wish, and He can do it. He has uttered His word, and it shall not return void.

Sorry, i fear i might be rambling now, so i’ll stop!

I’ve noticed that (with vanishingly rare exceptions) the people I know who believe in never-ending Hell believe in it only for other people. Thus, Christianity for those who believe in Hell is still a comfort to them. After all, they aren’t in danger of Hell. They get to go to Heaven. Hell is for those people they don’t like.

That is true, Geoffrey. Though atheists might also recoil at the idea of being under the stricture of God’s moral law, even if they thought they were in no danger of going to eternal hell, which disapproves of many things that secular culture permits - which might make earthy life seem infinitely long and hellish.

I think that assigning probabilities to these biases is likely impossible - I just want a good response, if there is one, to the common non-univ’s objection that UR is a sweet deal so of course one is tempted to believe it. Perhaps this just means that we have to make sure our biblical and logical case is stronger to counterbalance this perceived bias (even if it is undeserved, for people impugn(ed) God and Jesus constantly and He doesn’t take the low road, but lowers Himself so that people can understand in the midst of their bias and cynicism).

If what I have said is something that universalist should do, and admit this perceived bias (even if it is undeserved or if Cals and Arms have their own equal or stronger biases), how much stronger does the case for UR biblically, logically, theologically to be counterbalance the “too-good-to-be-T” bias?

Good points Prince!
Good question - I suppose it depends on who we are talking with? The vast majority of unbelievers (and many believers) that I have talked with do no more than parrot the cliches they have picked up. Actually thinking through the implications of what one says is difficult, to be sure; but absolutely necessary once one steps into the arena, where the arguments are raging.

Someone who says “too good to be true” and has actually thought that through, would be interesting to talk to; the discussion would touch on psychology (are we ‘projecting’? Doesn’t that cut both ways?) and theology (and here we would be either cutting through a jungle of misconceptions, or watering a desert that has never really been cultivated).

In any case, the unbeliever is just as responsible for defending their position as a UR person is for defending theirs.

Just like the thought of going to school to a kid during summer holidays seems like hell, or having to work a job one day…they’ll cope

This might be what Dave means, but if we think about it a bit…IS it the easiest option? Surely the easiest option, the one people want to believe, is that the people they disapprove of will “get their comeuppance”. That of course won’t touch my family and friends…buy my annoying neighbour will go, and that guy on TV i disagree with, etc. etc.
UR REQUIRES us to set aside our unforgiveness, our spite, our covetousness, our pettiness. It requires us looking at this road to God’s Kingdom as taking up our cross. One day, i’ll have to brush shoulders with ESTATE AGENTS …and i’ll be REQUIRED to show them the love i’ve been shown. That’s a spurious example, but it won’t be easy for the Jews and gays and disabled people that Hitler persecuted, i don’t care how many aeons of healing/cleansing/purging they and he have to go through. My confidence is in God changing ME so that I embrace my enemies…when i am the older son who resents the prodigal’s return, it is ME that requires UR, not him. He’s already got it. I’m standing outside being resentful.

No, i really don’t think UR is too good to be true. i think UR is the hardest road: the one that most looks like the path to Golgotha.

As long as people can believe they won’t have to ever have a hard day accepting their difficult neighbours in the world, that they will be elsewhere getting there punishment, or that they’ll simply cease to be…THAT is the easy ride. It means we don’t have to REALLY change. we don’t have to REALLY bless those who curse us. that even God doesn’t have to put any more effort into this…He can simply give up.

I think this is bang on the money, James - and the ‘good response’ you’re looking for to those pesky naysayers, Prince . Sven called it correctly earlier in the thread: far too many so-called Christians care far more for their own supposed salvation than they do for following Christ’s teachings, and don’t really give two good hoots for the poor saps who aren’t going to make it to heaven under their theology. Pull that rug out from under them with UR and they can’t bear the idea that they’re going to have to share heaven with all those awful sinners.

Saying the sinner’s prayer and believing that magics you into the kingdom, warts and all, is way easier than believing in UR, which as James correctly points out entails doing the really hard of work of reconciling yourself to literally everybody - and that includes Mark Driscoll .

Cheers all

Johnny

Wonderful, James!

Having been following and occasionally commenting on Tom Talbott’s thread, I’m currently at the point where I believe that who we are is due to our genetic make-up plus our experiences. (I don’t know that that’s what Tom believes, it’s just what I’ve come to thinking about “free-will” etc) I really think our choices (“good” and “bad”) are derived from that and that God takes this and works with the raw material of “us” in non-coercive ways to shape us into what he wants us to be.

My point though, is that if my consciousness (without my life experiences, memories etc) was implanted into…say Idi Amin’s or even…Mark Driscoll’s , I would make the same choices he made (and makes). We are right to hate the evil in bad choices of others and point that out to them to help them and others learn, but there is no place to think we are superior in some way. It’s a hard thing to accept for me, that*** I could be Hitler*** (or a real estate agent ) if things were different. If I am wrong and my consciousness is qualitatively different,(which makes no sense to me) then it is still something I have no merit or blame for having been given me arbitrarily by God.

Yes, Steve. I don’t presume to speak for Tom, but I’m pretty sure - because he basically says as much in TILOG - that he thinks that any of us would probably have acted exactly the way Hitler did, had we had Hitler’s genes and Hitler’s upbringing and life experiences. That is a very sobering thought, and one I confess I am deeply uncomfortable with.

A very good mate of mine, a good man and an atheist (the two terms are not mutually exclusive ), once said to me during a heated discussion about the genocidal atrocities committed by the Bosnian Serbs back in the 90s that any country’s troops could have ended up doing the same things, had they been through the same brutalising experiences. At the time I thought he was wrong. He wasn’t.

Cheers

Johnny

I can’t count the number of churchmen who have told me that the ‘unjust’ notion that God would pursue and save all their fellow human beings was so troubling that they would stop doing the (miserable to earn?) things of being a Christian if they came to believe that. Thus it seems evident to me that a central obstacle to looking at arguments for universalism is how undesirable it would be to many religionists. Like others, I fear the great barrier is a lack of Jesus’ character and compassion toward the lost, the very thing we’d hope would be cultivated in his disciples.

I’ve previously reported on my Regent College Romans exegesis class with a N.T. Ph.D. who has published many commentaries and told us the whole gist of Romans is a Calvinistic monergism wherein we are saved totally by God’s grace and doing! But when I presented the U.R. interpretation of Romans 5 as allowing Paul to be a careful writer who means exactly what he says about “all men” being made righteous, he said, “Let me cut to the chase. The impossibility of that is seen by just asking how Christians in heaven would feel if they found out that Hitler had been converted. They’d be upset by such injustice!” I replied, “You’re right, Christians can be bastards who don’t really believe in grace. But what stuns me is how you can affirm Romans is about unilateral grace for undeserving sinners, and then declare the deal-breaker that settles what Paul could mean is victorious grace. This seems to justify needing to offer no explanation of Paul’s actual grammar and word usage. I thought that’s what exegesis was about.” He said, “We’re not going to discuss this,” and never returned my exegesis papers. It was tense & eye opening!

So not much rejoicing over the repentant sinner in their version of heaven, Bob . I have to agree with you. Some of the nastiest people I’ve ever come across are religious. I suppose I’m the whitest of sepulchres for feeling intolerant towards them, but quite frankly I’d rather hang out with atheists than religious people.

I haven’t read Christopher Hitchens’ book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, but I daresay he speaks a lot of truth in it.

Cheers

Johnny

Really good discussion here guys

And I really liked your first and your most recent comment, James

What you said in your last comment brings up something that I’ve been wanting to discuss, and might well be worthy of it’s own thread, namely the most difficult thing about believing in UR, which is looking at your life and looking all around you and seeing that this ‘universal reconciliation’ is only a hope and not a present reality.

Like you pointed out, it’s the hardest road, because it means everyone will have to work out their differences some time or another, one way or another. I have had a lot of relationships fade away and fall apart over the years, with family, friends, co-workers, lovers, etc, and thinking about it makes me feel kind of heavy, because there are some things I just don’t have the power to fix, even though I’ve tried. Reconciliation is two-sided, and if the other side doesn’t want to work things out, then there’s not much you can do.
I admit I could try harder, but sometimes it feels like the other person usually doesn’t even want to try, at least in most cases in my own life.

For this reason believing in universalism is painful in a way, because it gives me more of a desire to reconcile with everybody, more than I did before, but then I’m not able to, and I beat myself up for not loving others enough, for not giving enough, for not being able to work things out or connect or stay connected or… I’m sure you guys get the picture.

But it’s also a hope, and I have hope that one day I will be able to work things out with all of the people in my life that I’m estranged from or at odds with right now, and if not in this life then in the next one.

At the moment I feel like I have a lot of issues and problems, things about me that I believe need to change, but I’m trying to remember that God alone can really change me for the better, can help me to relate to others better, can help me to make peace, can help me to love, and just as God can work with me, he can work with all of those people that I need to reconcile with, and then one day he can bring us together and we can finally be at peace with one another, and truly love another, on both ends.

Everyone reconciling with God is hard enough to believe, but it’s easy by comparison when you think of everyone reconciling with one another.
Now that would be a real miracle.

Anyways, that was just something that was on my mind.

Steve, if you think that topic, about the difficulty of reconciling with others, of how UR is a hope and not yet a present reality, and how do we live with that and move forward, is worthy of another thread, feel free to move my post from here to a new thread of that topic, if you like.

Blessings to all of you and thanks for the good discussion

• Matt

I have been a Christian universalist for about 20 years now. In all that time, I have convinced exactly 2 Christians of universalism. I’ve mentioned universalism and at times argued for it to a great many Christians. Virtually none of them were even remotely interested in it. Apparently part of the attraction of Christianity for some Christians is that they receive the satisfaction of thinking that ________ [fill in the blank] are going to endlessly burn in Hell.

The case for universalism is easily strong enough that anyone who, for emotional/psychological reasons, wanted to believe in it, could simply switch over to universalism. But very, very few people do switch over to universalism, in spite of the ease in doing so. Why?

Sadly enough, I can only conclude that some Christians would feel cheated if they couldn’t contemplate the endless suffering of _________.

Thus, I think this is the answer to the charge that we universalists believe in universalism merely to make ourselves feel good. If this were true, we would be very unusual people. If the great mass of people would jump at the chance of being universalists, then most people would already be universalists. We wouldn’t be a little minority.*