The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Responding to Hope Beyond Hell

Thanks Dave, but I do not see how that answers the question. Even if it were true that God doesn’t want them to be saved, it still wouldn’t follow that every person in the world is fully responsible to trust in Christ.

I agree! I was only showing what a particular tradition has to say about the untaught billions. :smiley:

I little late to some of this discussion but. . .

STP does not talk about hell in every sermon. I think he does probably mention when talking about how wonderful God’s grace is that one of the things God’s grace does is rescue us from Hell. But he spends just as much if not much more time just talking about the joy we can have now and forever and peace we can have now and forever if we accept God’s grace through Jesus.

Kinda off topic but I’m gonna say it anyway
Sometimes I feel bad about wanting to gas spiders out of my home (bug bombs), or trapping mice on those super painful glue traps, and it is sort of for the same reason. I mean they are God’s creation and I get rid of them in a torturous way. But then I only think about it for a second and then bam I flick that bug in the toilet to die a slow death from exhaustion and drowning. I know most people don’t think bugs have souls and it is different (although mice are mammals and get people talking about dogs or other pets and animal souls gets believed a lot more). But still how can we for the most part think NOTHING of just stepping on a bug and killing it? I hope God is not like that in how he sees us or angels. But it does sometimes haunt me how easily I allow myself to help the little creatures die. Am I cruel? comparing Us to bugs and God to Us; seems like bugs would be under us in importance for sure but not nearly to the amount that we are under God in importance. How do we (as EU) feel convinced that God loves us and values us but yet so easily send a bug off to a torturous death?

I think some of the saints wrestled with this issue. I don’t like bugs or mice and am not giving up getting rid of them when they invade my house, and I also am not going to always try to get rid of them in the most humane way because I don’t have time for that. . . but I do feel a tinge of guilt and start pondering this sometimes.

Exactly!! That of course is typically in error explained away by appealing to the likes of Rom 2:14-16… but again misunderstanding that said “judgment” was in regards to “works” and speaks NOT as is so often claimed to eternal destinies but rather to “rewards” themselves.

IF Jesus came into the world to seek and to save the lost

…did Jesus succeed or did he fail? Simple question YES or NO?

Many a so-called “believer’s” faith says He failed. :cry:

STP,

From what you have said here, I think many Calvinists would actually welcome you as a fellow Calvinist. :slight_smile:

In my understanding a Calvinist would agree with you about man’s responsibility. Someone like Jim Packer would call the “mystery” of how God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility can both be true an “antimony”.

Many Calvinists also do not believe that God makes people trust in Christ against their will, but rather God effectively works in their life to make them willing, to see his beauty and WANT to trust in him.

Just to clarify, do you believe God does work effectively in some people’s lives, when he really wants to, to change them so that they willingly will turn to him for mercy, rather than continuing in their rebellion?
And do you believe that if God withholds this grace from people, that they will be unable to truly repent and believe the gospel?

Re God keeping his own rules, I agree with you that in some matters, God (or parents as another example) can make rules for others without needing to keep the rule himself.
But an important consideration is that in the matter of love for people, including love of enemies, God says "Be like me, in loving others”.
If a father said to his child “go to bed at 8pm, just like me”, and then the father went out partying until 2am - that would be a problem.

Thanks Dave.

I remember listening to a sermon by RC Sproul, talking about the fall and total depravity. He said one of the most asked questions about this subject was- ‘What about innocent little babies?’ To this RC said (going from memory here) something to the effect of “there are no innocent babies”!

I too came to realize Calvinism wasn’t the way for me.

davo said:

I wonder how many Christians ever ponder on this point?

You know, what? I always respect theology and philosophy professors. They open one up to various viewpoints - even different from their own. I found this interesting segment today: Musings about Universalism, Part 4. It’s nice to read this, as an inclusivist and Purgatorial Conditionalist:

And from that first and third paragraph, there’s no hope for any here - including our STP Baptist pastor :exclamation: :laughing:

But if you do go rafting, take a Baptist with you. :smiley: Well, STP. If I go white water rafting, would you care to join me? The video presenter is a Baptist - by the way. :exclamation: :laughing:

No no no… this cannot be right about Baptists as the bible is very clear, “the dead in Christ rise first.:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

I also found the first answer interesting, in the How am I supposed to know which denomination is correct?:

Here is the question:

Here is the first answer - which I like, by the way: :sunglasses:

I also like this part of another answer, even though I never watched the movie. Has anyone ever seen it? :sunglasses:

Now this movie trailer has made me curious, as to what Reverend Fudge concluded - regarding hell. I think it was the annihilationist position. But I’m really a universalism/annihilationism hybrid (after all, gas/electric cars are more practical), with me as an inclusivist and Purgatorial Conditionalist :exclamation: :laughing:

No, but BPW and I are going to watch it tomorrow night! It’s free if you have Amazon Prime.

How anyone can hold to the view “God does not want them to be saved” in light of clearly contrary verses is mind-boggling, e.g., [God] desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).

Probably fewer than 5%, and certainly fewer than 10% of non-believers are in active rebellion. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if at least half of all non-believers have never even heard of Christ or the gospel (consider the whole world and not just North America and Europe).

I think the few (comparatively speaking) that are in active rebellion, are mostly former Christians or people who were raised in a Christian environment. And I think even most of them are not rebelling against Christ, but against an ugly caricature of Christianity to which they were exposed in their youth.

Lancia - agreed.

Yes, of course He succeeded.

(if you just want the simple answer and no elaboration)

I’d strike the part that says “when he really wants to,” because that implies that He doesn’t really want to for others. God desires for all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I don’t know on such issues. The secret things belong to God. I don’t think anyone who would repent is kept from repenting, if that’s what you’re asking.

I agree, and God certainly loves all people. But when it comes to judgment, God specifically says, in essence, “Leave it to me” (Romans 12:19). Whether it’s of limited or unlimited duration, and whether it’s corrective or not, or whether it’s in this life or the next, it’s His place to show wrath toward sin. So, yes, we’re to love like He loves (Jesus dying on the cross for us is a HUGE example to follow), and then leave wrath/judgment/punishment to Him, however He sees fit.

Great story. I agree, there’s plenty of room within Christianity to disagree on these issues and still recognize each other as one family in Christ. I’m perfectly fine with the idea of having universalists as members of my church (heck, my wife is one of them!).

Gladly! Sounds like fun, let’s go!

I’m not sure whether to laugh with you or be offended! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :open_mouth:

I suppose it depends on how you define “active rebellion.” I take from Romans 1:18 that those who “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (talking about all Gentiles who don’t know Jesus) are in active rebellion, because they even reject what can be clearly perceived about God by looking at His creation.

I think Gabe clicked the wrong button trying to reply to BPW above – it got listed on the mod report as a spam post meant to sell something (how I have no idea; maybe a bug in the forum code. Pun not originally intended. :wink: )

I’ll redirect Gabe’s post back here. :slight_smile:

I just had a thought. Maybe Romans 12:19 isn’t talking about post-mortem punishment, or even about any kind of vengeance toward us, but about His wrath being poured out on Christ, on the cross.

I recently heard Peter Hiett wonder in a sermon whether hate truly is the opposite of love, because Ecclesiastes 3:8 says that there's a time for hate. So if there's a time for it, it must not be sin. So he wondered if the opposite of love was apathy or something like that. He didn't come to any conclusion, just wondering out loud.  
That "God is a consuming fire" (Heb 12:29) could mean that His essense includes vengeance, though admittedly, this is less clear.  
Good point. Yeah, I haven't fully grasped this aspect of it. The best I can reconcile it is that those in hell continue in active rebellion, and that any acknowledgement that they make concerning the Lordship of Christ is like that of the demons: they know it, but rebel against it.  
"When all things are subjected to him" seems to mean that all things will be under His rule. This does not necessarily rule out the possibility that some will be in prison. He will rule over them as well.  
"Throughout the ages" is missing from Hebrews 7:25 (I'm assuming the reference is beside those words in order to support that claim). Nevertheless, the verse does say, "he always lives" to make intercession for them (πάντοτε ζῶν), which I suppose could mean essentially the same thing.  
I wouldn't make too much of this. The people often didn't understand Jesus, and were very fickle. They loved Him one minute, and turned on Him the next.

Indeed, so in terms of this discussion the logic is unassailable…

:laughing: as a past Baptist myself, said with tongue planted fully in cheek. :wink:

I’d say the context reflects antemortem, not dissimilar to the likes of 2Thess 1:6 which (from my perspective) views such in terms of what was leading up to and encompassing the AD70 parousia.

As for “His wrath being poured out on Christ, on the cross” –– I think a better case for that can actually be made from an alternative understanding of Jn 12:32 where “draw all” is left without the following generic “men” or “people” that isn’t in the Gk. text (which is why it often appears in italics) and rather apply the “draw all” to the aforementioned “judgment” that was against “this world” of the previous verse, i.e., at the Cross Jesus drew ALL God’s ‘judgment’ (wrath) for sin upon himself.

Thanks Jason. I think it was a bug, but since I was on my phone, it is possible that I clicked on the wrong button.