 | Blogs > Tropical_Guy > Heart of God > What is the Universalism? Important read for Christians |
|
|||
Last Read: |
This is very important and it is a cult...here is the info: Universalism is the teaching that through the atonement of Jesus, every person who ever lived will ultimately be saved. It is a relatively small movement in America. But this error can have some serious ramifications. Does the Bible teach that everyone who has ever lived will be saved? No. It doesn't. Find out why here. Christian Universalism "Christian Universalism" is the position that all of mankind will ultimately be saved through Jesus whether or not faith is professed in him in this life. It claims that God's qualities of love, sovereignty, justice, etc., require that all people be saved and that eternal punishment is a false doctrine. Salvation is not from hell, but from sin. There are two main camps in Christian Universalism: Those who teach that the unrepentant will be punished in a future state, and that their punishment will be proportional to the degree of sin committed in the mortal state. They generally hold that the punishment is moral and not physical. There is no hell. They do not maintain that salvation is merited through these sufferings. Those who teach that all the punishment for sin occurs in this life and that God's discipline in our lives is for the purpose of purifying us, though this purification is not our merit for salvation. In eternity, there will be a loss of reward for those who did not trust in Christ in this lifetime. Christian Universalists claim to hold many of the tenets of historic Christianity: Trinity, deity of Christ, deity of the Holy Spirit, salvation by grace, etc. As always, it is necessary to inquire and ask what is meant by the terms they use because the diversity that exists in universalist beliefs warrants further examination. Nevertheless, the Christian universalists claim to affirm: The inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. From what I have seen here, they hold to the orthodox position. There is only one God. From what I have encountered, most universalists who claim the title "Christian universalists" do not accept the standard doctrine of the Trinity, but lean more towards either Arianism (God is one person, Jesus is created) to modalism (God takes different forms in history). This is, of course, heretical. Jesus is the Son of the Living God Many cult groups say the same thing. What they mean by the phrase is what is important. The Christian Universalists tend to say the Son is a manifestation, an image, a representation of God's essence, yet he is not equal to the Father. Therefore, they are denying His true deity. But, not all who claim to be Christian Universalists deny this. Some hold that Jesus is not God but that He is divine. This is perplexing since divinity is a quality of God, not angels or men. Jesus' Resurrection Most Christian Universalists affirm the physical resurrection of Jesus. But, some claim he did not rise from the dead physically, but was assumed into heaven to dwell with God. "The Crucified is living forever with God, as our hope. Resurrection does not mean either a return to life in space and time or a continuation of life in space and time but the assumption into that incomprehensible and comprehensive last and first reality which we call God."1 If, by the above quote, the physical resurrection of Jesus is denied, as it seems it is, then anyone who holds to that position is indeed a non-Christian since it denies one of the essential doctrines of Christianity. The Holy Spirit is God's presence There is a surprisingly common denial of the personhood of the Holy Spirit. (personhood is self-awareness, a will, the ability to speak, etc.). This is a serious error on the part of those who hold to it. But to be fair, many universalists affirm the Holy Spirit as the third person in the Godhead. There is no salvation without accepting Jesus as Savior This statement is problematic for two reasons: Since to many universalists, Jesus is not truly God by nature, they have an improper object of faith (denying the Trinitarian nature of God and the deity of Christ). Their faith, then, is useless since they have violated the command to worship no other God (Exodus 20) and are worshiping a false god. The Jesus they believe in, is not the real one. This means they are definitely not Christian. There is a second chance theology at work here where people who have rejected Jesus in this life can come to faith in the next life, even though he has flatly rejected Jesus' sacrificial atonement. Some Universalists believe... in consciousness after death, others do not. in limited punishment of sinners in a type of hell that is not of fire, but of some moral chastising. that punishment in the afterlife was for a limited period during which the soul was purified and prepared for eternity in the presence of God. Conclusion "Christian Universalism" really isn't Christian and it is meshed with many other unorthodox and erroneous teachings. This belief system should be avoided. ------------------------------------------------ Can a Christian be a universalist? Is it possible for Christian to be a universalist? Some will say no, others will say yes. My position (Matt Slick) is that it is possible for a Christian to be a universalist -- note, I said "possible". But, to be clear upfront, I believe universalism to be a heresy and I would never say, "Universalists are Christians." Nevertheless, let's say that there is a man who was not a Christian who believes that everyone will be saved. This man is on his death bed in a hospital and is visited by the hospital Chaplin. The Chaplin gives him the gospel about Jesus being God in flesh, dying for our sins, rising from the dead, the need for repentance from sin, trusting in Christ, etc. The man honestly receives Christ and then dies shortly thereafter yet he never repented of the error of universalism. Is he saved or should we say, "Sorry, even though you trusted Jesus as your savior, believed he is God in flesh, died for your sins, and rose from the dead, but because you also believe everyone will be saved, you are going to hell."? Would anyone condemn a person to eternal fire for simply believing that everyone will be saved? I cannot see that as being the case. There are essentials of the Christian faith. I have developed a "doctrine grid" where I have tried to arrange essential and non-essential doctrines into an easily understandable system. The essential doctrines are essential because the Bible says they are. Let me give you two examples. In John 8:24 Jesus said, "Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." This is an essential doctrine because it has a penalty of damnation for denying it. Likewise 1 Cor. 15:14 says that "if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain." Here too we see an essential doctrine because there is a condition of condemnation upon its denial. So too with the other essentials (justification by faith, monotheism, and the gospel) that the Scripture declare to be essential. See my doctrine grid again. The question is whether or not universalism in itself denies any of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Though I consider universalism to be a dangerous and false belief, I cannot automatically pronounce condemnation upon a person who acknowledges the essentials of the Christian faith and also affirms universal salvation. I don't because I don't see the scriptures doing it. Would I consider someone who holds to both the essentials and universalism to be inconsistent and confused? Absolutely! Should they repent? Yes! But, should we pronounce the judgment of condemnation upon a person for believing a doctrine that the scriptures have not stated is an essential? For those who would say yes, then are you not elevating the non-essentials to the level of essentials? It would be like a person condemning another to damnation because the latter believes in pre-trib rapture (or post, or mid, or non-cessationism). Since the scriptures do not pronounce judgment of condemnation for a rapture view or a view on the gifts, then neither should we -- and neither should we concerning predestination, election, millennial views, which day to worship on, charismatic gifts, etc., if others hold views different than we do on these issues. People can be saved in varying degrees of theological error. There are regenerated people who do not understand predestination, don't accept election, don't understand federal headship, are clueless about imputation, Christ's eternal priesthood, covenant, etc., yet they are regenerated. They simply haven't learned those doctrinal truths yet. Are they condemned for not rightly understanding these very important biblical teachings? No, because the ones I just listed in this paragraph are not declared to be essential doctrines by the Bible. In fact, I did not know that Jesus had physically risen from the dead until two years after I became a Christian. I knew he had risen, but I didn't know how.1 How is that possible? Well, I wasn't taught it or I missed those sermons. But, once I heard the truth, I believed it. Would anyone say I wasn't saved until I believed Jesus physically rose from the dead even though I had received him and trusted him to forgive me of my sins? I certainly hope not. The truth is that I believed in the physical resurrection of Christ because I was saved. I did not become saved because I believed he physically rose. Likewise, for the Calvinists, does regeneration occur when we understand proper doctrine? Or is proper doctrine the result of regeneration? Remember, we are saved in (and from) our sins as well as our errors and God graciously and patiently works correction in us. Furthermore, I believe that a true Christian (if he erringly holds to universalism), will move away from that error because the Holy Spirit will work the truth within him. Eventually, he will repent and reject it. Also, I would say that a universalist who openly and knowingly affirms universal salvation after having been clearly taught the truth in scripture, and yet continues to hold to a "second chance" doctrine (as some do), and/or punishment in the afterlife for a duration of time and then salvation occurs, is not a Christian. It is these issues that are so serious as to deny justification by faith. But, let me say it one more time, I believe that there can be ignorant people who erringly hold to universalism, who have not thought universalism's position through properly, and have not been properly exposed to the true teachings of the Bible who can be saved. I believe it is "possible" for them to be saved in spite of their inconsistency. That is my position. Now, am I saying that all universalists can be Christian? Not at all. Do I defend universalism? No. Do I think that universalism is a serious problem that undermines the gospel? Yes, I do. But, I can see a scenario where a universalist can be a Christian (death bed) and I believe that it is possible to be saved in confusion and error -- including in the confusion and error of universalism. I do not see how believing that all will be saved automatically disqualifies a person from being saved. I don't, because I don't see the scriptures doing it. But, if someone says it does disqualify them, then they would need to demonstrate that from scripture. ____________________ Note 8-23-05 I have been criticized for this position. Therefore I thought I would add a bit of information for further clarification. When I was first saved the gospel was preached to me and I received Christ as my savior. I called upon the name of the Lord. I sought the Lord Jesus and asked him to forgive me of my sins and I put no reliance on anything in me in anyway. The Lord saved me and he washed me clean. But, I did not continue to go to church because I was not a church-goer. I had gone to that church that night to see a film and ended up receiving Christ. No one sought me out afterwards and no one tried to disciple me. As a result, in my ignorance and drifting, I did not attend a church. I wandered for about two years until the Lord put upon my heart to get close to him. It was at this time in a Bible study that I learned that Jesus had risen physically from the dead. For the best of my recollection I believed that he had risen, I just don't remember knowing that it was a physical resurrection. When I was taught the physical resurrection of Christ from Scriptures I immediately accepted it. But, there are those who are saying that I was not saved because of this. My response is that I did not get saved because I believed in Christ's resurrection. I believed because I was saved. I do not affirm doctrinal regeneration. But, I do very much believe that a true Christian will not deny essential doctrines and because the Holy Spirit is in him, when presented with the truth he will accept it, as did I. -------------------------------------------- Universalism and the Cults Universalism teaches that all people will ultimately be saved no matter what they believe here on earth. You could deny God, hate Him, blaspheme against Him, join a satanist group and murder people and still go to heaven. Bible based, non-Christian cults are those groups that claim to be Christian, use the Bible, yet have redefined God, Jesus, and the gospel sufficiently to make salvation of no effect. Part of CARM's purpose is to refute error and teach the truth so that people will not go to hell. Universalism is definately an error that needs to be address. Let me take Mormonism, for example. Is Mormonism wrong? Is it dangerous to the soul? Does it lead to damnation? The universalist would have to say no, even though Mormonism teaches that god came from another planet, has a goddess wife, and that we can become gods (obvious false teaching), universalists teach that Mormons go to heaven. Of course universalists who claim to be Christain might assert that Mormon theology is wrong. But, they would also maintain that in the after life, they would be able to repent and follow the true God. Logically, then, we could make the case that the universalist would encourage the spread of Mormonism since it has good morals. Mormonism is not Christian. It is false. It is a compilation of lies from the devil. It damns people for believing in a false god, false gospel, and a system of works righteousness that is supposed to help them become saved. But, to the universalist, such heresy amounts only to a goof, an error in judgment, with the ultimate result being heaven. It makes no difference if a person is a universalist, a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness, or an orthodox Christian since they are all going to heaven according to universalism. To a universalist, there would be little or no need to refute Mormonism. Why? Because what is the universalist going to warn him about? Damnation in hell? Not at all. Rather, he'd have to threaten him with heaven! Instead, the universalist is more concerned with converting someone to "truth of universalism." In so doing, they endanger the souls of all who they contact. Let me illustrate this with a Universalist witnessing to a Mormon. Universalist: "Listen here Mormon, if you continue to believe that you can become a god, that Satan and Jesus are literal brothers, that God has a body of flesh and bones and has a goddess wife, and that you can become a god of your own world, you know what is going to happen to you? You're going to heaven! So there!" Mormon: "Sounds good to me." So, where is the power of universalism to correct Satan's lies? Does it carry a warning for those who serve false gods except to say that it isn't nice to believe such things as Mormon doctrines? But, so what? It doesn't matter. Mormonism, and other cults, would lead to heaven. Is there orthodoxy in Universalism? Does it have the power and right to refute the errors of the cults? I don't see how. But, I do see that it is dangerous. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt. 25:46 and Universalism "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46). The universalists do not believe in eternal punishment. Universalists teach that all will eventually be saved through the atonement of Jesus. Therefore, when the Bible speaks of eternal punishment and hell fire, etc., the universalist interprets it to mean an inner sorrow due to loss of reward and/or they maintain that the word "eternal" does not mean "without end." In Greek, the word "eternal" is the word "", or "aionion." This word occurs in two places in Matt. 25:46: Let's look at it again in a Greek Interlinear form: The exact same word "," "aionion" is used to describe the duration of punishment as well as of the life of the righteous - those who are saved. The same word describes both conditions. If it means one thing in the first part of this sentence, then it means the same thing in the second part since they are both in the same context and both are describing time-duration of the states of the unsaved and the saved. If the punishment is eternal, then so is the life. Likewise, if, as the universalist says, the punishment is not eternal, then neither is the life. You can't pick and choose how the word is applied in this verse to suit your own theology. But the universalists do just that. They want to have Jesus say that eternal life is forever but eternal punishment is not -- even though Jesus used the same word, in the same breath, to describe them both. It just doesn't fit their preconceived ideas. Let's translate it the universalist way.... The universalists are fond of translating Bible verses and transliterating a particular word. So, I will use their style in the following translation: And these will go away into aionion punishment, but the righteous into aionion life.1 Or, to take a little liberty, it could be translated as, And these will go away into non "aionion" punishment, but the righteous into "aionion" life." I inserted the word "non" here to reflect what the universalists intend the word "aionion" to mean when describing punishment -- but not life. Notice it isn't there when describing life because the Universalist believes that the life of the righteous is without end: eternal. This is the kind of thing the universalist must do in order to justify his position. It is clearly false and demonstrates an intrusion into the text of a theological perspective. This is something Jehovah's Witnesses do when they "translated" the Bible. They changed words to make them agree with their theology. Nevertheless, another translation according to universalist presuppositions might be: "And these will go away into non-eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." But, the universalists state that "aionion" is an age, a period of time that can have a finish. They would then answer this objection and say that punishment is for a time and so is life, but that both of these are for an "aionion" period and after each period is another. In the case of the aionion punishment, it would end and then after that, they would have eternal life. Likewise those possessing eternal life already in the aionion "age" will continue to have it in the next age. The only problem is that that isn't what the text is saying. Jesus isn't setting up a time duration argument. He is telling us that there is eternal life and eternal death. The universalists have constructed a multi-age scenario to fit their perspective. In so doing, they have allowed for the occurrence of salvation after death, another teaching that is unbiblical. Heb. 9:27 says, "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment," (NAS  . The judgment comes from God and is upon the sinner. The universalist would have some sort of a judgment that leads to punishment that ends and then there is eternal salvation in the afterlife. In so teaching, they have ignored the translations of countless scholars and adopted those interpretations that agree with them in order to suit their theological bias. This is something they do very frequently, and with a vengence since they often turn a harsh tone towards those who do not agree with them.I hope you can see the inconsistency of translating and interpreting Matt. 25:46 any other way than stating that the punishment is eternal as is the life of the righteous. _______________ 1. As a comment, with this type of translation, it is easy to confuse what the text is really saying because the reader is not familiar with the Greek word "aionion." The Universalists often do this: partially translate a verse leaving a transliterated Greek word or two in place of English words. They can then tell you what the word "really means." This can be misleading. ---------------------------------------------- Mark 3:28-29 and Universalism The universalist states that there is no unforgivable sin because all people who have ever lived will ultimately be reconciled to God; in other words, all sins from all people who have ever lived will be forgiven. However, if there were a sin that will never be forgiven, then Universalism would be proven wrong. Mark 3:28-29 are important verses in showing that there is an unforgivable sin. "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" (NAS .The Greek Interlinear of Mark 3:28-29 is as follows: Verses 28 and 29 are in contrast to each other. Verse 28 says that all sins shall be forgiven. Verse 29 clarifies the statement and flatly says that there is a sin that "never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin." This sin is Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit -- which is stating that Jesus did His miracles by the power of the devil. Verse 29 has the contrasting preposition "but", Greek "de." The use of the word "but" is showing that there is a contrast, or an exception to the previous statement. All sins are forgivable, but blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not. That is why the word "but" is there, to show that there is a qualification, an exception to the first statement. So, how do the universalists answer this verse? They do it in two ways. First, they say that the word "aiona", "age" can mean a period of time that ends. Now, this is true sometimes and not others. There are verses that use the word "aiona" that can refer to non-eternal duration (John 8:35; Luke 1:55) and there are verses that use it and mean eternal duration (Matt. 21:19; Mark 11:14; John 4:14; 6:51; 6:58, etc.). It is the context that determines the meaning of the word. But it is big mistake to think that "aiona" always means a finite time. It is a conjecture on the Universalists part that the word "age", in Mark 3:29, means a definite period of time that will end. But that isn't the case. As I said, Jesus is contrasting the second statement (unforgivable sin) with the first statement (forgivable sin). Second, the Universalist will go to Matt. 12:32 which says, And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come." They state that "the age to come" is the 1000 year reign of Christ which will end. Therefore, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will be forgiven after the 1000 year reign. They then state that Mark 3:29 must be interpreted in light of Matt. 12:32. Granted, we must look at all the verses on a subject in order to get an accurate understanding what is said. But, the logic of the Universalist is wrong. Here is why. Mark 3:29 states that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (BHS) will never be forgiven. This verse clearly states the impossibility of forgiveness of this sin. Matt 12:32 states that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven "in this age or the age to come." If Matt 12:32 is interpreted to mean that BHS will be forgiven, then that contradicts Mark 3:29 which states it will not be forgiven. If Matt 12:32 is interpreted to mean that BHS will not be forgiven, then it does not contradict Mark 3:29. Therefore, the only way to harmonize both verses is to say that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. If Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, then Universalism is wrong. A comparison of translations Instead of trying to define the Greek text ad nauseum explaining how and why words are translated, I've simply supplied ten Bible translations along with a commonly used Universalist translation of these two verses. Bible Version Mark 3:28-29 NASB "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" NIV I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." NKJV "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29"but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation" KJV Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: RSV "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" 1901 ASV Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin: Phillips "Believe me, all men's sins can be forgiven and all their blasphemies. But there can never be any forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That is an eternal sin." Darby Verily I say unto you, that all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and all the injurious speeches [with] which they may speak injuriously; 29 but whosoever shall speak injuriously against the Holy Spirit, to eternity has no forgiveness; but lies under the guilt of an everlasting sin; BWE `I tell you the truth. All wrong things that people do and say about anyone will be forgiven. 29 But people who say wrong things against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. A person who does that will be punished for ever.' Weymouth "In solemn truth I tell you that all their sins may be pardoned to the sons of men, and all their blasphemies, however they may have blasphemed; 29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, he remains for ever unabsolved: he is guilty of a sin of the Ages." Concordant (Universalist translation) 28 "Verily, I am saying to you that all shall be pardoned the sons of mankind, the penalties of the sins and the blasphemies, whatsoever they should be blaspheming, 29 yet whoever should be blaspheming against the holy spirit is having no pardon for the eon, but is liable to the eonian penalty for the sin" -- First of all, the ten translations above, all done by very reputable scholars, all say the same thing: Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven -- ever! If you notice, the Concordant version (done by Universalists) did not translate the Greek words "eon" (age) and "eonian" (eternal) into English, but left them transliterated. In fact, the word in Greek is not "eon" but "aiona." All other words are in plain English accept for these two. Why? I believe it is because they wanted to influence the way the text sounds and is interpreted. By not translating the words, and by telling you that the word "eon" only means a duration of time with an ending, then, the universalists can get you to accept the idea that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is forgivable and that their theology is correct. There is just one problem. It isn't. -------------------------------------- 1 Tim. 4:10 and universalism "For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers" (NAS . "(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe" (NIV). "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe" (KJV). Much is made out of 1 Tim. 4:10 by the Universalist to claim that Jesus wil redeem all people whether or not they accept or reject Christ as Savior here on earth. Eventually, they say, all people will repent (either here or in the after-life) and come to a saving relationship with God. 1 Tim. 4:10 is used as proof. Unfortunately, the verse does not prove what the Universalists hope it does. Can God be called the Savior of all men and yet not redeem all? Yes. All people are, by nature, born under wrath (Eph. 2:3) and should go to hell. Why? Because God is holy and we are sinners. Yet, we have hope in Christ. The Christian is saved by faith (Eph. 2:  and will join the Lord in heaven. But, the unbeliever is under judgment. John 3:18 says, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (KJV). Why does God not simply destroy them as is His right? Because of the Christians! Because God is being patient with the unbeliever, allowing them to enjoy the blessings of life in this world without the rightful condemnation of God falling upon them. This is what the Bible states:"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom. 9:22-23, NAS .As you can see, God is patient with the unregenerate. They receive a delayed judgment because of God's love for the believer. In this sense, Jesus is the Savior of the world because He holds back His judging hand from all who rightly and immediately deserve it. Judgment is delayed. This is a blessing received from God upon the unbeliever. In fact, God often blesses the unbeliever because of the presence of a believer. "And it came about that from the time he made him overseer in his house, and over all that he owned, the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house on account of Joseph; thus the Lord’s blessing was upon all that he owned, in the house and in the field" (Gen. 39:5, NAS .Consider also Matt. 13:24-30 and the parable of the wheat and the tares. In it Jesus compares the world to a field. He later interprets it by stating that "the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one," (Matt. 13:3 . But in Matt. 13:20-30 Jesus states that the tares are not dealt with right away because the wheat is there among them. "But he *said, ‘No; lest while you are gathering up the tares, you may root up the wheat with them. 30 ‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest," (NAS. So, can it be said that the tares were saved from judgment? Yes...temporarily. The unbeliever enjoys a delayed judgment. But with the Christian, Jesus is especially their Savior and judgment is permanently removed from them. All are made saveable by Jesus' sacrifice Another way in which Jesus is the savior of all men is that He has made all people saveable. Without Jesus' sacrifice, none could ever be saved. Since Jesus, who is the word made flesh (John 1:1,14), atoned for sin, all people are now redeemable. He is the Savior of all, but especially of believers. That is, all are now redeemable due to the sacrifice of Christ, but redemption is specifically applied to those who trust in Christ. Is God the Savior? For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers (1 Tim. 4:10, NAS .1 Tim. 4:10 is referring to God in particular and not necessarily Jesus in particular. Does the title "God" include Jesus? Of course, since Jesus is God in flesh (Col. 2:9), the Savior. God, who is a Trinity, is called Savior in Psalm 106:21; Isaiah 43:3; Luke 1:47; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; Titus 1:3-4; and Titus 2:10. It is obvious that the term refers to God in the generic sense of being the Savior of all men since He brings salvation to all though it is not accepted by all. This is why it says that God (not Jesus) is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. How is it especially to believers? Simple. It is especially and specifically realized only by those who are believers. Furthermore, only Jesus is the mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5) and He mediates only between the saved and God. He does not mediate His atoning work for the unredeemed. His being Savior is generic for all, but specific for the saved. Therefore, this verse does not necessitate that all will be redeemed. ----------------------------------------------- Objections Answered to the paper: Is it God's will that all people be saved? Someone posted a rebuttal to my paper. For the purpose of Clarification, I have color-coded this paper to make it clearer. My original paper's quote is in blue. The rebuttal to it is in purple. My response to that is in green. I've not responded to every objection because some of them weren't that important and tended to miss the main point of the immediate context. It is obvious that the person responded to my paper as he was reading instead of reading the whole thing and then responding. This accounts for his comments which I covered in the paper later, and sometimes immediately after his comments. "[sic]" means the error in either syntax or spelling is original to the author. To begin with, are God's desires always accomplished? No, they are not. God's desire is that people do what is right and not sin: "To do righteousness and justice is desired by the Lord rather than sacrifice," (Prov. 21:3). "God would rather have people obey him out of their own love/will then to obey him out of necessity as a type of "fire insurance". Are we of our own will able to save ourselves?" I fail to see how the above comment has anything to do with the point I was making in the paper at that time. It isn't a refutation. At best, it is only an opinion. But people still sin in spite of God's stated desire. "I suspect that Matt see's [sic] sin as the foremost problem in the world today, what if God in fact uses it as the solution. In fact most fundamentalist christians [sic] all they seem to discuss is sin and not the solution. They discuss what Jesus did for us and then carry on discussing how not to SIN." I am completely amazed here. Of course God uses people's sin. I said in my paper, "It means that He simply permitted it by allowing the fall. He then He uses it, and other sins, for His glory and purpose." Apparently, he didn't read it too clearly. "how could God accept creating a species with whom he would consign 90+ percent to an "everlasting" torture. Is that Good? To say that God's will is not always done is to take the view that God could be "suprised" [sic] by the actions of his creatures." Is this a refutation? Not at all. It is only a question. To ask it is to be guilty of a non-answer. God can do what He wants. He can damn all if He chooses and be perfectly just and right in so doing without changing His loving character one bit. It isn't a context of who gets the most souls. Besides, God orders that people refrain from sin, yet everyone sins. Does that make God a failure? Hardly. As I stated in my paper, it is part of God's sovereign plan. "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. 14 "For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it," (Matt. 7:13-14). See also, Luke 13:22-27. In theology, when examining this issue of God's will and His allowance of sin, we distinguish between what is called God's perfect will and His permissive will. In His perfect will, He desires that all refrain from sin. But in His permissive will, He allows sin to exist. In this sense, He has two wills regarding sin. He desires that sin not exist because it is contrary to His nature, yet He wills that it does by making provision for it in His sovereign plan. This does not mean that God brought sin into existence. It means that He simply permitted it by allowing the fall. "This of course depends on your definition of SIN. Matt as well as most ET's make SIN sound like an object. A sticky, ooze, tar like substance not particularly well defined, somewhat dark but basically bad (stay away from it)." This is ludicrous. This "refutation" is far from substantial. Sin is breaking God's law and if this person had read my definition of it on my site, he would not have stated such an absurdity. Do you see how God predestined Herod and Pontius Pilate to carry out His will? Didn't they sin in condemning Jesus? Yes! Did God predestine them to do what He planned? Yes! Did God make them sin? No, for God does not tempt anyone (James 1:13). Yet, God, in His sovereignty predestined them to do what they did. "If God predestined them, and his will was for Jesus to be crucified, did Herod and Pilate really truly sin. Did they truly fall short of God's expectations in this situation? Did Judas truly fall short of God's desire for him, Jesus told Judas to turn him over to the authorities. He could have convinced him otherwise or said nothing at all. God does not tempt anyone? Did he not tempt Judas? Did God not tempt Adam & Eve, he allowed Satan in the garden, what is the natural conclusion to those conditions. God himself may not tempt, but he allows the tempting to occur." The obvious answer is yes, they really sinned. Again, this response isn't a refutation of anything. It has no value with no point to it. Again, God allows sin to exist in the world as part of His permissive will in His sovereign plan. Again, simply because God states that He desires all people to be saved does not mean that all will be saved. "Likewise it doesn't automatically mean that they won't all be saved." It is nice to see that this person admitted one of the points of my paper. This is particularly important when we notice that God elects people (Matt. 24:24,31; Mark 13:20; Rom. 8:33), predestines them (Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:1-11), appoints them to eternal life (Acts 13:4 , and grants that they believe (Phil. 1:29). "With regards to the people that were not "predestined", "appointed", "elected" etc: what gave God the right to choose one for eternal life and another for eternal damnation. You say he decided, presumably before they were made, where they would spend eternity. What function or purpose do those that God not predestine serve?" "What gave God the right...?" This is an unfortunate question. God, by His nature of being God, has the right to do whatever He wants. Who is this person to question God? "On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?'" (Rom. 9:20). God does this after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:1-11) which I so stated in my paper and which, it seems again, was not sufficiently read by this person. We can see that God says He does not wish any to perish. But, we can also see that God gave Israel eyes to not see with and ears to not hear with. Likewise, Jesus, who is God in flesh, purposely spoke to people in parables so they would not perceive and repent (Mark 4:11-12). If God wants all saved, why would He arrange it so people were blinded and prevented from seeing? Some will say that the people did this to themselves. But that is not what the text says. Clearly, God is the one performing the actions in preventing them to see. In this case, He desires one thing and does another. "The parables were spoken so that those of a religious and rigid mind would not understand. Jesus wanted the lay person to understand but not the religious. Matt 11:25" Apparently, this critic of my paper did not read it carefully at all. I already answered this objection in the paper. Mark 4:11-12 says, "And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God; but those who are outside get everything in parables, 12in order that while seeing, they may see and not perceive; and while hearing, they may hear and not understand lest they return and be forgiven," (Mark 4:11-12). As you can see, it was not to strengthen their blindness. Jesus actually stated that He spoke in parables in order that they might not see. Instead of addressing this verse, the objector quotes Matt. 11:25 which says, "At that time Jesus answered and said, "I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes." What confuses me in this person's response is why he would quote a verse that further proves my point. As you can see above, the Father is the one hiding the truth from the "wise" on earth... etc. Again, I fail to see any point of refutation of my paper here. Does God want pain and suffering in the world? The obvious answer is no. God created Adam and Eve and put them in a perfect world without pain, without suffering, and without loss. That is God's desire because that is the way God made things in the beginning. Yet, we have pain, suffering, and loss in the world. Why? Because that is the nature of our sinful system -- and God permitted it. But are we to say that God is not in control? Again, no. In fact, God causes some of the very things we believe He does not want. "But again what is the purpose of this "SINFUL SYSTEM". Is it some cruel, sick joke being played on the human race. If people experience varying amound [sic] of pain, suffering and loss in this world why does God need to eternally punish. We have people who are in a literal hell right now on Earth. God knew the results of his actions before he did them, so again why did he do it the way he did. Perhaps you misunderstand what it is that God wants." What is this except more questions without answers? This is not how one refutes a paper. If I have misunderstood what God wants, then this person should offer something as a correction. But, he does not...again. Why would God compel people to come into His house so that it can be filled and yet send a deluding influence upon the same people? Are not those people in 2 Thessalonians, at the time of the Antichrist, the same people included in the highways and hedges? Does not God compel all to enter into His house regardless of when and where they are in history? "Lets examine this: does God compel all to be drawn to himself? Not if you accept many modern church viewpoints. People in faraway lands who have never heard of God apparently are consigned to hell without any chance of redemption. They would have you believe that he doesn't care or is unable to save. After all the "holy mother church" hasn't sent any representatives." This is another subject altogether and needs to be dealt with elsewhere. Nevertheless, whatever God does is holy and right. They will be judged according to Rom. 2:11-16. Again, this isn't a refutation at all. God did not cause the people who crucified Jesus to sin. But, He sure used their sin and He predestined all of it to occur. He used the sins of Herod and Pilate along with the Gentiles to do His divine will. In fact, God anointed them to do what they did. Why? To carry out His purpose and His plan to bring His Son to the cross, to save sinners, and to bring glory to Himself. "Again you discuss God's plan without revealing his overall divine purpose. You make it sound as though the lay person is incapable of even beginning to understand the overall design. Us uni's simply believe that he has already saved all us sinners. Most people however still lack that understanding." I did reveal what I believed was the overall purpose in God's plan. I stated in my paper, "What is that plan? I believe God was arranging history to lead to the ultimate goal of Christ's crucifixion, resurrection, and return, along with the redemption of God's people." This objector has demonstrated yet again that he did not thoroughly read the paper. As far as the rest of the statement from him, he is only begging the question by assuming the very thing under discussion as a proof for his point. God can and does control people's hearts and actions so that they will accomplish His purpose. He does this sovereignty and He does it without causing people to sin. He can even make someone's heart hard for the purpose of carrying out His plan. "Once again are interests are barely conflicting, you believe that God desires to save all men, but is either unable or unwilling to save all. We believe that God desires to save all men and is able and willing to acheive [sic] that goal." Incorrect, I fully believe God is able to achieve whatever goal He sets up. He has devised His plan and it will be carried out. Again, nothing here that refutes the paper. "And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire. 17 "For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God should be fulfilled. -- as quoted in my paper from Rev. 17:16-17. "You assume that God who did not show mercy, will never show mercy toward those he destroys/chastens. That he will be eternally vengeful. You assume they are eternally lost. The scriptures about the harlot above show that though he will try her, he will not punish forever but "until the words of God should be fulfilled." Are we not all God's people? Or are only those that say the sinners prayer "of God". And if so then how does anyone who was not "predestined" get saved? And since it is not "of works lest anyone should boast" we can't even claim to be saved by saying the sinners prayer since that would be a "work"." I assume no such thing. God indeed shows mercy to people He chastens. I am a good example. This person's opinion of what the verse means is only his opinion and nothing more. Most Christian commentators understand and accept the eternal nature of damnation. In the above verses you can see that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked yet he delighted in destroying the wicked people. Is this a contradiction? No. Because God has a purpose and a plan and He has the sovereign right to accomplish His will. On one hand, He doesn't want people to suffer and die, yet on the other hand, He is delighted to carry out His divine plan which necessarily includes the death of the wicked because it is in accordance with the Law which He Himself has given us. His divine plan will be accomplished. This is further proof that God can desire one thing and bring another to pass. "And you believe that somehow these men are hindering God's will, and therefore have to be bulldozed to make way for the "divine plan"." Again, I believe no such thing and did not say that at all in my paper. In fact, I clearly stated that all of what they did was in God's sovereign plan. It seems this person has not read my paper very clearly and is trying to read into it what I did not say. He is constructing straw-men to shoot down. Though God hates sin, He permits it for the greater glory of Himself and His plan. In this, He desires all to be saved, but has not ordained that it be so because, according to the Law, He must punish sinners. "The reason "God permits sin" is because it is the cornerstone of his plan, his plan for redemption of all. God hates sin only in that it seperates [sic] himself from us." No, the cornerstone of God's plan is Jesus' crucifixion, not sin. To say that God hates sin only because it separates Him from us is incorrect. Sin is an affront to God's very character and nature. It is breaking His law which He gave and which is a reflection of His divine character. This person's theology is too man-centered for me. It stresses God needing or wanting us. Mine, on the other hand, stresses the glory of God's righteousness and the fact that sin is an offense to His holiness and righteousness. God has worked all things after the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:5) and has engineered history to bring not only the cross as the means of redemption, but also the culmination of all things for the declaration of His own glory, righteousness, holiness, and character. Sin will be shown to be utterly sinful and horrible. The cross demonstrates His righteousness and grace and His sovereign will is carried out. "Here we have your horrible icky "SIN" thing. To Sin is nothing less then to fall short of God's expectations. It is no more horrible then [sic] a child falling short of it's parents expectations. If a person commits a heinous act during his life against another is he not usually punished by the secular world. Is it then just and righteous for God to punish him further. Are we not all God's children? Apparently you think otherwise." Again, a failure to understand what sin really is. It isn't "nothing less then [sic] falling short of God's expectations." It is an affront to God Himself. Sin is rebellion against God, violation of His law and character. It brings death and wrath. When this person demonstrates an inability to rightly understand sin, he demonstrates the tendency for further error as is demonstrated in his next response. Do 1 Tim. 2:3-4 and 2 Pet. 3:9 prove that all will be saved? No, not at all. But they do show us that God is not simplistic and that He has a divine plan that we must truly seek to fathom if we are to rightly understand His word. "Apparently only a few such as yourself are able to fathom the divine plan of God. I personally believe that which is simple, is usually the truth. Religious/buerecratic [sic] man complicates and adds layers upon layers of half truths upon virtually every thing that is good and right and true." Such mockery is not how a refutation is done. To say that that which is the simplest is the truth is to oversimplify the issue. There are difficult things in scripture and being simple about them will only lead to error. This person's attempt to answer the paper fell short. It did not refute the original conclusion, but, in fact, only affirmed it. Also, something rather disturbing was that other universalists agreed with this person in affirming his "refutation" as excellent. I fail to see that with his comments. ------------------------------------------ |
||
1/10/2006 4:14 pm |
this is essential
| ||
1/10/2006 9:14 pm |
Dennis, WOW! I want to thank you for explaining what this all is..I had never really heard of it. I appreciate you spending your time researching and looking into it all..so that you could pass it on to your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I am here with you trying to learn as much as we can. I am fired up to pursue what God wants us to do and show to others..you are helping so much..thanks to you. God bless, Sherrie 
| ||
1/11/2006 2:17 am |
Thank You Sherrie...what is going on is a cult and people need to be aware of it. There is no other way to state it unfortunately.
| ||
1/21/2006 2:39 am |
Well I have never heard of Universalism before. I have also never heard any church say that all would be saved. That would certainly go against all scripture. We are given choices and opportunities to change our lives or pay the penalities. I do not believe in Hell Fire and Brimstone that they will be burned to death. Our God is a loving God. Sometimes when one refers to God they are speaking speaking of the "Godhead" as one. This has been confusing to say the least to even Bible students throughout eternity. Marilyn Texas Senior Singles 2fitness In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Proverbs 3:6
| ||
 |
 |
 |
| Become a member to comment on this blog | ||
 |
