nikolai_42
Well-known member
Inevitably, the argument for Universal Reconciliation (UR - sometimes known variously as Christian Universalism, Universalism, The Wider Hope, The Restitution of All Things etc...) boils down to the character and nature of God - what God would or wouldn't do. Or rather, the distinction between what the mainstream evangelical believer holds and the UR believer holds is a distinction between what God has done for you and what God will do for every last person ever born. The UR believer says God will do what is according to His nature in desiring everyone to be saved. There is a point of similarity even with historic Protestant (largely Reformed) theology in that the same thought is there - God will accomplish all that He intends with great specificity. But there again, a critical difference exists - the UR believer's hope is not personal where the traditional Christian position is that the believer's hope is in what Christ did for the individual - not in what He will do for all of mankind. And that ties back again to the way a UR believer views God.
One major concern I have is that this isn't just a small difference in understanding about numbers. It isn't just an issue of how many God will save (the foundation of the universalist argument) but rather specifically who God will save. And the UR presupposes the love of God in a broad way and with indiscriminate, universal application. As such, when approaching passages that depict God as distinctly unloving, the response is almost inevitably something to the effect of God's love will win out and everything is done with one purpose in mind - the glorification of God through the salvation of every last individual. In other words, the whole of the doctrine is undergirded by an assumption that can't be directly addressed with scripture. That assumption is that God will ultimately redeem all (though He never comes out and says it with any clarity) because of His love for all. Which means, at the heart are also necessary presuppositions about the nature of God's love - and thus of the character and nature of God Himself. What this means is that if the universalist understanding of the love of God is wrong, the whole doctrine is centered in an idolatrous assumption - that God has to (be) love the way we want Him to (be) love - to save absolutely everyone. There again, you see the impersonal basis of the UR hope - it's in the corporate salvation (if God's going to save one, He has to save all). The Good News - for them - is more in the every single person rather than in what Jesus did.
Just as an example (and certainly open for specific discussion) of the questionable nature of the assumptions of God's love in UR, the universalist treats God's judgments (usually) as an inevitable means to salvation. But in so doing, they ignore the place of wrath and vengeance. We read :
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 12:19-21
The UR believer has God having to overcome evil with good (which He certainly does - but universally?) when the passage clearly states that man is not to take vengeance. Not that God doesn't. And vengeance is not in any sense salvific.
And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
Revelation 6:9-11
And we see Paul being pretty clear about the division between believers and unbelievers (and striking parallels with the Rev 6 passage) :
Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
2 Thessalonians 1:6-10
It is perfectly clear that this is not salvific. The only recourse for the UR believer is to assert the assumption that God's love will see even those who are banished from God's presence. They will eventually be saved. God's love will win out and the vengeance will make them repentant. But how does one reconcile the ultimate love of God with this :
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:27
This is not vengeance that will result in life - this is clearly a final end. Jesus Himself uses the finality of death. How is this love?
One major concern I have is that this isn't just a small difference in understanding about numbers. It isn't just an issue of how many God will save (the foundation of the universalist argument) but rather specifically who God will save. And the UR presupposes the love of God in a broad way and with indiscriminate, universal application. As such, when approaching passages that depict God as distinctly unloving, the response is almost inevitably something to the effect of God's love will win out and everything is done with one purpose in mind - the glorification of God through the salvation of every last individual. In other words, the whole of the doctrine is undergirded by an assumption that can't be directly addressed with scripture. That assumption is that God will ultimately redeem all (though He never comes out and says it with any clarity) because of His love for all. Which means, at the heart are also necessary presuppositions about the nature of God's love - and thus of the character and nature of God Himself. What this means is that if the universalist understanding of the love of God is wrong, the whole doctrine is centered in an idolatrous assumption - that God has to (be) love the way we want Him to (be) love - to save absolutely everyone. There again, you see the impersonal basis of the UR hope - it's in the corporate salvation (if God's going to save one, He has to save all). The Good News - for them - is more in the every single person rather than in what Jesus did.
Just as an example (and certainly open for specific discussion) of the questionable nature of the assumptions of God's love in UR, the universalist treats God's judgments (usually) as an inevitable means to salvation. But in so doing, they ignore the place of wrath and vengeance. We read :
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 12:19-21
The UR believer has God having to overcome evil with good (which He certainly does - but universally?) when the passage clearly states that man is not to take vengeance. Not that God doesn't. And vengeance is not in any sense salvific.
And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
Revelation 6:9-11
And we see Paul being pretty clear about the division between believers and unbelievers (and striking parallels with the Rev 6 passage) :
Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
2 Thessalonians 1:6-10
It is perfectly clear that this is not salvific. The only recourse for the UR believer is to assert the assumption that God's love will see even those who are banished from God's presence. They will eventually be saved. God's love will win out and the vengeance will make them repentant. But how does one reconcile the ultimate love of God with this :
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:27
This is not vengeance that will result in life - this is clearly a final end. Jesus Himself uses the finality of death. How is this love?
