Msg. ID: 6244
Date: Wed Mar 14 10:03:00 2001
Subject: Is Universalism Heretical?
Posted by: (Tom Talbott) 158.104.99.92

When I first began interpreting the New Testament along universalist lines, I was struck by how many regarded such an interpretation as not only mistaken, but utterly unreasonable and heretical as well. I found that a good many of my Calvinist friends, who did not regard Arminianism as heretical (only mistaken), and a good many of my Arminian friends, who did not regard Calvinism as heretical (only mistaken), were united in their conviction that universalism is both mistaken and heretical. This curious response started me thinking. Why should Calvinists regard universalism as any more heretical than Arminianism?--and why should Arminians regard it as any more heretical than Calvinism?

As I reflected upon these questions, I also began to reflect upon the following inconsistent set of propositions:

(1) It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners to himself;

(2) It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;

(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether.

If this is an inconsistent set of propositions, as I believe it is, then at least one of the propositions is false. Calvinists reject proposition (1); Arminians reject proposition (2); and universalists reject proposition (3). But in fact we can also find prima facie support in the Bible for each of the three propositions. So one day I sat down and, setting aside disputes over translation and sophisticated theological arguments, began to review the obvious.

In support of proposition (1), one might cite such texts as II Peter 3:9: "The Lord . . . is not willing that any should perish, but [wills instead] that all should come to repentance"; I Timothy 2:4: God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"; Romans 11:32: "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all"; and Ezekiel 33:11: "As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but [wills instead] that the wicked turn away from his way and live . . .." All of these texts seem to suggest that God sincerely wants to achieve the reconciliation of all sinners, and that his failure to achieve this end would therefore be, in some important sense, a tragic defeat of one of his purposes.

Similarly, in support of proposition (2), one might cite such texts as Ephesians 1:11: God "accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his own will"; Job 42:2: "I know that thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of thine can be thwarted"; Psalm 115:3: "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases"; and Isaiah 46:10b & 11b: "My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose . . . I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it." These texts seem to imply that God is able to accomplish all of his purposes--including, therefore, all of his redemptive purposes. And in addition to these texts, a number of others seem to imply that God has both the will and the power to bring all things into subjection to Christ (I Corinthians 15:27-28), to reconcile all things in Christ (Colossians 1:20), and to bring acquittal and life to all persons through Christ (Romans 5:18).

But finally, in support of proposition (3), one might also cite such texts as Matthew 25:46: "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life"; II Thessalonians 1:9: "They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might . . ."; and Ephesians 5:5: "Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." These texts may seem to imply that at least some persons will be lost forever and thus never be reconciled to God.

After a quick review of these texts in my own mind, one point struck me as altogether obvious: Anyone who takes a position with respect to our three propositions--whether the person be a Calvinist, an Arminian, or a universalist--will end up denying a proposition for which there is at least some prima facie biblical support. And in that respect universalism is no different from either Calvinism or Arminianism. So I found myself, at this point, wanting to put several questions to those who would simply dismiss universalism as heretical: If it is not heretical for the Arminians to believe that God, being unlimited in love, at least wills (or sincerely desires) the salvation of all (proposition (1)), why should it be heretical for the universalists to believe this as well?--and if it is not heretical for the Calvinists to believe that God, being almighty, will in the end accomplish all of his redemptive purposes (proposition (2)), why should it be heretical for the universalists to believe this as well? And finally, if it is not heretical to accept proposition (1), as the Arminians do, and not heretical to accept proposition (2), as the Calvinists do, why should it be heretical to accept both (1) and (2)?

Now as a matter of logic, there is a possible answer to this last question. If the biblical warrant for proposition (3), or a doctrine of everlasting separation, were overwhelmingly greater than that for the other two propositions, then one might conclude that only (3) could reasonably be rejected. But nothing like that seems to be true at all, and here, at least, is how I see the matter. The biblical warrant for proposition (1), that God wills the salvation of all, is simply overwhelming--so overwhelming that those who worry about heresy, as I do not, ought to regard Calvinism, not universalism, as heretical. The biblical warrant for proposition (2), that almighty God will eventually accomplish all of his redemptive purposes, is likewise exceedingly strong, as the Calvinists have always insisted. And proposition (3) is the weakest of the three. For only (3) seems to rest upon controversial translations as well as controversial interpretations; and whereas (1) and (2) seem to rest upon systematic teachings in Paul, the texts cited on behalf of (3) are typically lifted from contexts of parable, hyperbole, and great symbolism.

Others will no doubt assess matters differently. But to those who claim, as many conservatives do, that everlasting punishment is clearly and unmistakably taught in the New Testament, I would put this question: Which of our other two propositions would you then reject? Would you deny that God wills (or sincerely desires) the salvation of all human beings?--or would you deny that he has the power to accomplish his will in this matter? And finally, why do you believe that the biblical warrant for proposition (3) is stronger than that for propositions (1) and (2)? It is not enough, in other words, merely to cite the standard proof-texts in support of (3). For if (3) is true, then either (1) or (2) is false. To provide a full biblical defense for a doctrine of everlasting punishment, therefore, one must show that the biblical warrant for (3) is stronger than that for (1) or stronger than that for (2)--a daunting task indeed! And I know of no one who has even tried to build any such comparative case as that. So why do so many regard it as heretical to reject a doctrine of everlasting punishment, but not heretical to limit God's love or to limit his power? Which view does more, in the end, to undermine the glory and the majesty of God?

-Tom

Msg. ID: 6319
Date: Sat Mar 17 03:47:28 2001
Subject: UR is a theological error
Posted by: (Eric Landstrom) 216.243.150.40

Hello Dr. Talbott,

Forgive me doctor, for I had no intention of tracking you down, but nevertheless I am a little confused. You told me this week in an email that you didn't have time for a formal written debate at the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, citing that you only had the time to refute your published critics and that you did not have time for electronic bulletin boards. But a cursory look around has revealed that you are posting all over the place.

Doctor, I realize that scholars feel that they must be nice to one another, and exercise tolerance for even the most outlandish of unscriptural statements. Otherwise, as scholars, they feel that nothing they say will be given notice by other scholars--and for a scholar, to be ignored is worse than death itself. Fortunately, neither of us are biblical scholars. You are a philosopher and I am an apologist. Thus, I have asserted that the doctrine of universal reconciliation (UR) is a theological error: Forgive my boldness, but yes, I believe it is. I have weighed every proof verse that universalism draws on and looked at its relationship from a systematic standpoint (jargon for a topical analysis) observed what considerations the universalist gives the proof verse and how they relate it to their overall world view (that it is God's sovereign will that all shall come to repentance and be saved) and then written commentary on it. The bottom line is that universalism exists as a philosophy that holds Biblical hooks (references to Scripture), but once the biblical hooks are looked upon and examined, they are not shown to be substantive. Therefore, from my perspective, universalism can only exist in areas of philosophy. But to base ones philosophy on a system that doesn't hold to biblical truth and to be called Christian would be as a textual critic whom would look upon the Bible as just a book without regard to theological considerations, or as the apologist to explain God without an appeal to faith. It would be a conversation hamstrung from the foundations. Thus for me, the only thing that remains as for support for universalism are pure philosophical arguments and nothing from Scripture. This is because Scripture divorces itself from the idea of universalism when taken contextually, and universalism is shown to introduce more problems than it attempts to solve. Therefore Dr. Talbott, I'm interested in learning what the precepts are to your essay, "Rethinking the Free Will/Determinism Controversy," which you are currently working on because your prior arguments have all shown the attributes of God to be working in contradiction to each other and therefore illogical before theological considerations.

Warmly,

Eric Landstrom

Msg. ID: 6326
Date: Sat Mar 17 09:59:44 2001
Subject: Re: UR is a theological error
Posted by: (Tom Talbott) 158.104.99.92

Hello Eric. Fancy meeting you over here on this board. You wrote:

"Forgive me doctor, for I had no intention of tracking you down, but nevertheless I am a little confused. You told me this week in an email that you didn't have time for a formal written debate at the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, citing that you only had the time to refute your published critics and that you did not have time for electronic bulletin boards. But a cursory look around has revealed that you posting all over the place."

First of all, may I ask, as gently as possible, that you drop the affected use of "doctor"? When I responded last Saturday to your request for a formal debate at CARM, I had just discovered a major flaw in a paper of mine and had no idea how long it would take to rewrite the offending section. I needed to revise a book review that I had written as well. And when I find myself in a situation like that, I am constitutionally incapable of thinking about anything else. But fortunately, I was able to wrap all of this up by last Tuesday, much more quickly than I had expected. My comment about swearing off electronic forums, however, was probably premature; for though at the time of my comment I had posted almost nothing for several months, certainly not anything of a time consuming nature, I have indeed gotten into a couple of discussions, though again not particularly time consuming, the past few days.

Incidentally, I have expressed my reservations about the value of formal debate several times at CARM, and the piece you have written here does nothing to relieve these reservations. I fear that you are forcing me to be more blunt than I usually like to be in a public forum. But I would not even consider a formal debate with someone who could write what you have posted here. If you don't understand this, then I suggest that you run your post by an English teacher, preferably someone with no theological bias, and get his or her reaction to it as a piece of writing or as a piece of reasoning.

I invite you, however, to respond to what I have written here, if you are so inclined. Which of my three propositions would you reject? And why?

-Tom

Msg. ID: 6338
Date: Sun Mar 18 09:57:44 2001
Subject: Re: UR is a theological error
Posted by: (Eric Landstrom) 216.243.150.40

Greetings Tom,

Thank you for the platitudes. The argument you present for universalism again argues for the doctrine of universal reconciliation based upon God's sovereignty and His love. It assumes that God must always get His will and desire. In light of this assumption on your part, it is good that we visit the philosophical dilemma you have introduced by way of the Scriptures to see if your position is correct. Therefore, does God always get His will or desire? He doesn't if you believe your Bible. Lets take a look:

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." By this verse we confirm what the universalist believes; that God does not will or desire that any would perish.

2 Thessalonians 2:10 "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." But here in this verse we find that some do indeed perish. Remember, if you believe that the Bible is true, then you've got to believe the words of this verse.

Revelation 16:11 "And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deed." And by this verse we see that God does not get the desire of His heart, for He desires none to blaspheme Him.

"We find in the New Testament that Jesus and the New Testament authors will often quote a verse from Scripture and then draw logical conclusions from it. They reason from Scripture. It is therefore not wrong to use human understanding, human logic, and human reason to draw conclusions from the statements of Scripture. Nevertheless, when we reason and draw what we think to be correct logical deductions from Scripture, we sometimes make mistakes. The deductions we draw from the statements of Scripture are not equal to the statements of Scripture themselves in certainty or authority, for our ability to reason and draw conclusions is not the ultimate standard of truth--only Scripture is.
What then are the limits on our use of our reasoning abilities to draw deductions from the statements of Scripture? The fact that reasoning to conclusions that go beyond the mere statements is appropriate for studying Scripture, and the fact that Scripture itself is the ultimate standard of truth, combine to indicate to us that we are free to use our reasoning abilities to draw deductions from any passage of Scripture so long as these deductions do not contradict the clear teaching of some other passage of Scripture (guideline from John Frame).
This principle puts a safeguard on our use of what we think to be logical deductions from Scripture. Our supposedly logical deductions may be erroneous, but Scripture itself cannot be erroneous" (Wayne Grudem, Bible Doctrine, pp. 24-25).

For example, the universalist, when confronted by the Christian who would object to the conclusions the universalist has reached, then runs down a rabbit trail in search of more evidence to support their position rather than dwell on the verses in question. In fact, this is the most common of the defenses universalists utilize in their defense of universalism. In this regard, the universalist is likened to the paleontologist whom argues how old fossils are by the layer of strata they are found in, but when the paleontologist is asked how he reasons how old the layers of strata are -he reveals that it is known by the kind of fossils found within it. Like onto that does the universalist reason universalism. This is circular reasoning. Both the universalist and the paleontologist approach their field of study with preconceived notions that lead them to erroneous conclusions.

Free will (self-determinization) and universalism cannot thrive together. While it is true that the universalist attempts to argue from Scripture to support his theology. He employs the unsound practice of wishful thinking and the shifting sands of philosophy and speculation by arguing in ever-growing lazy circles.

The real question isn't if God gets His will, but if God allows man freewill. If man indeed does have freewill then one cannot escape the fact that man will at times not fulfill God's will for him. If man has not freewill then God Himself is the author of the sin he hates (God forbid!). The fact that sin exists makes it illogical and contrary to say God always gets His will and desires. Therefore, the lake of fire is God's compliment to man's freewill. By choosing not to seek God, either actively or passively, you are indeed choosing damnation.

Tom Logan exposed the hypocrisy of the universalists whom use any proof based upon God's will for all to be saved as verification of their position. Tom's argument presents that in light of God's desire that none should endure pain or suffering, right from the start, the fact that some do enter the lake of fire disproves the universalist argument based upon the deterministic will of God. However, those who are hard determinists must posit that God has determined some to be destined for the lake of fire. Because of this, they must further posit that either men acquire freedom of will in the lake of fire and are punished only until they repent -something which God had not allowed previously. Or they must admit it was simply God's desire to determine that men enter the lake of fire and suffer for a period of time and afterwards to save them. This of course denies 2 Peter 3:9, which reads: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." To call God love, yet attribute that He desires his rational creatures to endure suffrage is obscene. Yet those universalists which reject the determinist's position and argue for universal reconciliation and self-determinism must posit that men entered into the lake of fire of their own choice. This position then makes them inconsistent and belies their argument for the salvation of all based upon proof verses that follow the deterministic will of God. Therefore, the universalists who are not deterministic argue against their own belief when they argue based on God's desire or wish.

Either way universalists are unbiblical and inconsistent in either case they present for the salvation of all be it based upon determinism or self-determinism. Hence, any argument based upon a deterministic will of God runs aground.

Warmly,

Eric Landstrom

Msg. ID: 6342
Date: Sun Mar 18 12:37:02 2001
Subject: Re: UR is a theological error
Posted by: (Tom Talbott) 158.104.99.92

Hello again, Eric:

Thanks for addressing the issue I raised in my "discussion starter." I believe that yours is the first response that actually addresses the issue of God's will and power. But you did exhibit one small misunderstanding of my view when you wrote: "The argument you present for universalism . . . assumes that God must always get His will and desire." This is a misunderstanding, albeit a minor one, because I do not, in fact, assume that God must always achieve his will or satisfy his desire in every detail; nor do I assume even that he has the power to do so. I do assume, however, that God, being almighty, has the power to reconcile to himself in the end every sinner whose salvation he wills or desires; he has the power, therefore, to accomplish his overriding will and his redemptive purpose for the world.

Anyway, you and I seem to agree that God, being perfectly loving, wills or desires the salvation of every person who has fallen into sin; as you put it yourself, "God does not will or desire that any would perish." So if I have understood you correctly, you accept proposition (1), which states that God wills the salvation of all, but you reject proposition (2), which states that God has the power to accomplish his will in this matter. If so, then you may find yourself, I fear, at odds with most of those posting on this board--not, I would hasten to add, that this should worry you or deter you from articulating and defending your view. Your reason for limiting God's power in the matter of salvation is, of course, the standard Arminian one: human free will. You thus wrote:

"The real question isn't if God gets His will, but if God allows man freewill. If man indeed does have freewill then one cannot escape the fact that man will at times not fulfill God's will for him. If man has not freewill then God Himself is the author of the sin he hates (God forbid!). The fact that sin exists makes it illogical and contrary to say God always gets His will and desires. Therefore, the lake of fire is God's compliment to man's freewill. By choosing not to seek God, either actively or passively, you are indeed choosing damnation."

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the real question," but that too is probably a minor matter. If God wills that we be free in determining our own salvation and wills the salvation of all humans, then he also wills that all should freely accept his salvation. But given the nature of human freedom, the latter is just the thing that he is powerless to bring about. Is that right? Have I understood you correctly in this matter?

Thanks again for a response that addresses the issue I raised.

-Tom

Msg. ID: 6346
Date: Sun Mar 18 15:43:06 2001
Subject: Re: UR is a theological error
Posted by: (Eric Landstrom) 216.243.150.40

Good afternoon Tom,

If as you say God doesn't always get His will and desire, then God's will cannot be used as a cornerstone in support of the doctrine of universal reconciliation or your argument is self defeating. I do accept proposition 1, and I also accept proposition 2 simply on the idea that God wouldn't be infinite if He couldn't. However, in order to accept proposition 2 to mean that God will save all mankind would have God's attributes work in contradiction to each other. This is a major flaw with the philosophy of universal reconciliation.

When we begin to discuss the qualities of God, we must realize that while other beings may have these qualities -God is these qualities. Only the characteristic varies when applied to a finite being. Since finite beings are restricted by their nature of finiteness, it is not unusual for them to describe a necessary infinite Being by comparison and analogy. Therefore, things are like God in their actuality, but not in their potential, since God has no potentiality. In drawing an analogy between the finite and the infinite, we must isolate the univocal attribute or quality that both share in order to understand how the attribute relates to God. Thus when I say "I love" and that "God is love" I must be careful of my definition of "love" lest my meaning be not understood as I hoped to convey it. Therefore, when we speak of God being love, we must ask ourselves the question of what kind of love? Is it a brotherly love? a sexual love? A covetous love? Or a moral love?

I would say that when it is said that God is love, that the Scriptures are speaking of a moral love. A moral love that doesn't describe God as an attribute He possesses, but rather is. Certainly Scriptures tell us there is none more holy than God, and that God cannot sin.

A moral love is something that non Christians have difficulty understanding. A moral love is a love without sin, without blemish, and without misrepresentation. For example I have a moral love for those whom believe in universal reconciliation -yet at the same time I do not love the errors that they promote. Another example: I love my neighbor whom is a murderer, but I do not love his sin.

A moral love is that which loves the sinner but not the sin. Therefore when a moral love is applied onto God Himself; we begin to understand both the holiness of the Lord in heaven, our own depravity, and the need to separate ourselves from sin if we are to be gathered together onto the Lord in heaven. Since we are all sinners, and in this temporal life sin is inevitable, we on our own accord are completely unable to separate ourselves of sin -thus, our need of a redeemer. When one is born again from above, he is brought into a standing which never afterwards varies: he is "accepted in the Beloved." His sin and also his sins have all been imputed to Christ, and now the righteousness of Christ is imputed to him. He enters into the blessedness of a man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (ref. Romans 4:5-8). Thus, by what some have called "the higher ethic of the cross," the righteous God was able to impute His own righteousness unto His sinning people (2 Corinthians 5:19, 21).

The Scriptures reveal that God desires to possess, and indeed will have, a people to call His own that willingly love Him. Therefore, when a universalist argues for the eventual salvation of all from God's omnipotence, I would be remise in my stewardship if I did not raise two points in response. First, God's attributes do not operate in contradiction to each other. God is internally consistent in His nature. This is why the Bible insists that "It is impossible for God to lie" (Hebrews 6:18). This is also the reason that God's power must be exercised in accordance with His love. That is, God cannot do what is unloving. Second, it is unloving to force people to love Him. Forced love is a contradiction, and God cannot do what is contradictory. Love cannot work coercively but only persuasively. And if some refuse to be persuaded, as the Bible says some will, then God will not coerce them into His kingdom. The Universalist would have God do exactly this by having God "condition sin" out of the wicked in the lake of fire or in some transcendent reality of ages to come. Therefore, even when one argues for free-will and universalism, I must come to the conclusion that free-will cannot thrive if universalism were true -for it would not be a moral love God would exhibit if resistance to his will was futile, rather instead it would be rape. For example, if I were to place you in conditions that were of your greatest dislike, with the idea that all you needed to do to remove yourself from these conditions was to accept something that was contrary to your nature, then my motives for placing you in such a situation would be contrary to the nature of a loving God regardless of the outcome of your response. God doesn't force Himself upon people, for if He did, there would be no room for self-determination. Further, if there were no room for self-determination and all was predetermined, then why would God hold us accountable for things which are beyond our control? If that is indeed the case, then God would be violating His loving nature (God Forbid!).

Seems to me that you have presented the objection that it is logically inconsistent to claim that a person could choose to reject God forever and ever if he had been truly unblinded and has been freed from all bondage in the after life. The orthodox Christian perspective is that if freewill were to thrive in the age to come, then one could continue to reject God for all eternity. Therefore, we should dwell on this and reason this out together. First, it is conceivable that if freewill does exist in the after life that one could choose bondage rather than freedom just as a junkie who is all cleaned up returns to the bondage of drugs. Therefore, without grace being forced upon the wicked, what would prevent them from returning to a separated and sinful state? Second, we have an example from the Scriptures of an entire group of rational creatures, the fallen angels, falling from grace through the exercise of their freewill, though beforehand they had believed (James 2:19) and did not have the sinful nature we humans have. This further illustrates and exemplifies that unless one has the imputed righteousness of Christ, that one can fall from grace. Therefore, the basic premise of the universalist's objection rests upon speculation and not fact.

Warmly,

Eric Landstrom

Msg. ID: 6350
Date: Sun Mar 18 18:12:56 2001
Subject: You need to take a deep breath
Posted by: (Tom Talbott) 158.104.99.92

I have a suggestion, Eric. Let's slow down and go at this one tiny step at a time. Your penchant for vague generalities, for trying to discuss everything at once, and for trying to prove more than anyone possibly could within the confines of a single post leaves me utterly confused about what you are trying to say. So in a desperate (though not particularly hopeful) attempt to bring you back to earth and to keep you focused upon a simple logical point, I'm going to assume, for the duration of my discussion with you, that universalism is confused, unbiblical, and, on to of all of that, just plain false. There still remains the simple question of which, if either, of the following propositions is false:

(1*) God wills the salvation of all,

or

(2*) God has the power to accomplish his will in the matter of salvation.

Notice that (2*) says absolutely nothing about how many God wills to save; it says neither that God wills to save all, nor that he wills to save a limited elect, nor even that he wills to save a single person. It says only that God has the power to accomplish his will in the matter of salvation, whatever that will might be; or, to put it another way, he has the power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world, assuming that he has one. I emphasize this because of the following confusion in your previous post:

I do accept proposition 1, and I also accept proposition 2 simply on the idea that God wouldn't be infinite if He couldn't. However, in order to accept proposition 2 to mean that God will save all mankind would have God's attributes work in contradiction to each other. This is a major flaw with the philosophy of universal reconciliation.

But of course proposition 2, like (2*) above, says only that God has the power to accomplish his will. It says nothing about what his will is or how many God wills to save. So my question to you is: If God does not save all in the end, which proposition should we reject? Should we reject (1*), or should we reject (2*)? Or is there perhaps a way to accept both propositions and still to escape universalism. And remember: Since we are assuming that universalism is false, you can eliminate all of your normal verbosity on that score.

-Tom

Msg. ID: 6356
Date: Sun Mar 18 20:13:04 2001
Subject: Re: You need to take a deep breath
Posted by: (Eric Landstrom) 216.243.150.40

Good evening Tom,

I have argued that the deterministic will of God is not a proof for universalism. You have agreed to that. I have further argued that God's infinite love and omnipotence cannot be used as a proof for universalism. And we have reached an impasse because I failed to state that proposition (2) is made false by the assumption of proposition (1) on proposition (2); that God will save all peoples. My argument shows that if God were to save all peoples, His attributes would be working against each other.

Your objection, in the context of arguing for universalism, has a false presumption because it assumes that God will save all from the beginning rather than allowing Scripture to prove if that is the case. This is something you clearly document in your opening statement writing: "When I first began interpreting the New Testament along universalist lines." If we do slow down as you suggest; in light of what Scripture shows to be true, the argument of universalism has no biblical support. In fact universalism would allow for arguments from silence to be "more true" than clear biblical teachings. Oftentimes these arguments from silence would directly contradict Scripture itself.

For example, despite the urgings of universalists, a systematic look through the Bible in its entirety reveals that there is not one verse that shows:

1) The sins of the wicked being forgiven in the after life.
2) The wicked repenting in the after life.
3) The wicked accepting Jesus Christ in the after life.
4) The wicked avoiding judgment in the after life.
5) The wicked having sin "conditioned" out of them in the after life.
6) The wicked getting out of the lake of fire.
7) The wicked getting their names written back into the book of life.
8) Nor can we find anywhere that God repents of His judgment on the wicked in the afterlife or that His judgment is anything short of final and fixed for all eternity.

These are all teachings that the doctrine of universal reconciliation assumes to be true, yet the Bible is silent in their regard.

I hope that I have ceased being "vague." I hope you understand that my objection to universalism is that it reasons for its truthfulness without direct support from Scripture and that such reasoning is vain and worthless before the Lord in heaven. If you will recall, I stated as much in my first post, writing:

"The bottom line is that universalism exists as a philosophy that holds Biblical hooks (references to Scripture), but once the biblical hooks are looked upon and examined, they are not shown to be substantive. Therefore, from my perspective, universalism can only exist in areas of philosophy. But to base ones philosophy on a system that doesn't hold to biblical truth and to be called Christian would be as a textual critic whom would look upon the Bible as just a book without regard to theological considerations, or as the apologist to explain God without an appeal to faith. It would be a conversation hamstrung from the foundations."

If you feel that my line of argument is not valid because I refuse to accept arguments based from silence, then let us conclude.

Warmly,

Eric Landstrom

Msg. ID: 6359
Date: Sun Mar 18 21:42:09 2001
Subject: Good bye, Eric.
Posted by: (Tom Talbott) 158.104.99.92

Eric, I can only conclude that you are responding to posts without reading them. I mean, I suggest that we assume that universalism is false, and I pose a question within the context of that assumption. And do you respond by replying to my question? Not at all. Instead, you continue to pontificate and to argue against the very position that I am assuming to be false. This is not a conversation, Eric, and I see no point in continuing it.

Had I not encountered you on other boards and had I not seen first hand how you destroy virtually every conversation that you enter, I would try to be more patient with you. But my patience has run thin, and I have therefore decided to end this conversation on my side by ignoring your posts altogether.

I wish you luck in your own studies, however, and hope that you might somehow find the time to fit a course on elementary logic into your schedule. Believe me, anyone who could write a sentence like: "And we have reached an impasse because I failed to state that proposition (2) is made false by the assumption of proposition (1) on proposition (2)," is in dire need of such a course!

With all best wishes,

-Tom

Return to the Protestant Apologetics and Theology page