Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum
Welcome to my forum. Feel free to post a message.
|
||
| Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Forum |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 20) |
| Author | Comment |
|
Zach
Aug 26, 07 - 12:58 AM |
Universalism and eternal security
I have been thinking about whether universalism provides a good answer to the question of whether "perseverance of the saints" is a Biblical doctrine. It seems to me that there are powerful arguments on each side, and it occurred to me that universalism could reconcile the two -- I believe it's possible for even a true believer to fall away for a time, but apostasy, under the universalist system, would not alienate a former believer from God forever (though it might conceivably have eternal consequences, as Winchester suggests). What do you think about eternal security? |
Mike Burke
 Aug 26th, 2007 - 1:51 AM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
[Quote] I have been thinking about whether universalism provides a good answer to the question of whether "perseverance of the saints" is a Biblical doctrine. [unquote] I believe it is. [Quote] I believe it's possible for even a true believer to fall away for a time, but apostasy, under the universalist system, would not alienate a former believer from God forever [unquote] Unless someone dies in apostasy, they may never have fully fallen away. If they do die in apostasy, they were never truly saved: They went forth, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us... (1 John 2:19.) Under the universalist system, this doesn't mean that they will never be saved--but it does mean that they were not part of the "church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven" (Heb. 12:23.) My understanding is that one who is truly saved can never fully fall away, and one who fully falls away was never truly saved. Many universalists (at least the hyper-dispensationalists I know of) believe this, and consider the sovereignty of God a Biblical doctrine--but never say a word about the "perseverance of the saints." The result is a distortion of Paul's Gospel, that severs it from that taught by the other Apostles (and perpetuates the errors of hyper-dispensationalists.) They see irreconcilable differences between Paul and James, though both wrote of a living faith: But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (James 2:18.) For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. (Eph. 2:10.) I believe the "perseverance of the saints" is a very important Biblical doctrine. G-d Bless. |
|
Zach
Aug 27th, 2007 - 4:27 PM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
All right. To take it a step further, do you think it's possible for a true believer to have doubts, or to temporarily disbelieve the gospel (or believe a false gospel)? |
|
Mike Burke
Aug 27th, 2007 - 7:29 PM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
Of course--that seems to have been a problem in both Corinth and Galatia: Seeing that many boast according to the flesh, I also will boast. For you put up with fools gladly, since you yourselves are wise! For you put up with it if one brings you into bondage, if one devours you, if one takes from you, if one exalts himself, if one strikes you on the face. (2 Cor. 11:18-20.) My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you...Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? (Gal. 4:19; 5:7.) I also believe it's possible for a true believer to temporarily sin grievously: For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults: And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed. (2 Cor. 12:20-21.) |
|
pam
Aug 27th, 2007 - 9:04 PM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
There was a point in my early Christian life that I decided I wanted to quit being a Christian but I couldn't. I was able to let go of Jesus but He would not let go of me. That is when I realized that my salvation didn't depend upon me but rather, I had been bought with a price and nothing could separate me from the love of God. |
|
Zach
Aug 28th, 2007 - 12:33 AM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
Not everyone would agree that those in Corinth and Galatia actually believed in a false gospel, though. One thing that interests me, though, is that Peter's case seems to prove that even a true believer can deny Christ for a time -- unless you want to take the position that Peter wasn't saved until after the crucifixion, which seems very doubtful to me, though I'm not sure if there is any undeniable proof to the contrary. |
|
Mike Burke
Aug 28th, 2007 - 6:38 AM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
[Quote] Not everyone would agree that those in Corinth and Galatia actually believed in a false gospel [unquote] Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins...Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame. (1 Cor. 15:12-17, 34.) O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? (Gal. 3:1.) Sounds like some were believing a false Gospel to me. [Quote] One thing that interests me, though, is that Peter's case seems to prove that even a true believer can deny Christ for a time -- unless you want to take the position that Peter wasn't saved until after the crucifixion, which seems very doubtful to me, though I'm not sure if there is any undeniable proof to the contrary. [unquote] Good point. There were those in Corinth who fell into grievous sin and error, and who later repented: Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. (2 Cor. 7:9.) But who can say when they were saved? Were they truly saved before they sinned, or only after they repented? You've asked a question I don't think we can answer, and I'm not sure we'd even ask it if we were able to see this as God does: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Eph. 1:3-6.) G-d Bless. |
|
Darroll Evans
Sep 8th, 2007 - 5:16 AM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
A personal thought: I have been watching this discussion of “eternal security” with great interest. Michael has covered the greatest portion of the Universalist thought on the subject, but I have jumped in even though I am not a strict Universalist. It seems to me that the Universalist position offers the only true security, although to many Christian Universalists it is not “eternal” security. Since only God is truly eternal, it should probably be referred to as “security forevermore.” In that we should look to the Hebrew word Olam and the Greek aioon neither of which refers to eternity. The traditional Universalist position does not rule out the Lake of Fire, but it gives purpose to it. When the Bible tells us that “to You all flesh will come” (Ps 65:2), Christian Universalists actually believe it whereas mainstreamers reject the Bible on that point. When the Bible says, “All nations whom You have made shall come and worship before You, O Lord, and shall glorify Your name” (Ps 86:9), Christian Universalists actually believe the Bible. If you define eternal security as eternal, you must redefine eternal, and that may not work too well. There is only one eternity and we are already in it! Eventually all shall be reconciled to the Father and in that we find security. |
|
spiffy
Feb 2nd, 2008 - 8:49 AM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
Zach wrote, "I have been thinking about whether universalism provides a good answer to the question of whether "perseverance of the saints" is a Biblical doctrine. It seems to me that there are powerful arguments on each side, and it occurred to me that universalism could reconcile the two -- I believe it's possible for even a true believer to fall away for a time, but apostasy, under the universalist system, would not alienate a former believer from God forever (though it might conceivably have eternal consequences, as Winchester suggests). What do you think about eternal security?" The beauty of CU is that it does answer the alleged conundrum, in the same vein and manner in which CU sets itself against the doctrine of eternal torment. I think it all boils down to making certain dualistic distinctions, in this case specifically, the eternal/temporal distinction. Paul's writings are full of this....read Rom 11, Paul alludes repeatedly to the temporal aspect of salvation (the church) while adamantly maintaining the eventual (eternal) salvation of all throughout this book, a distinction maintained in his other epistles. In time, things are subject to change, and salvation (meaning one's judicial standing as righteous or unrighteous)itself can change. The beauty is that all things temporal proceed in deference to God's eternal, sovereign decree of restoration to all. I.e., the destruction that befalls the backslidden individual actually works to "destroy" that which hinders his or her walk toward God. All spiritual destruction results in rebirth, changing the individual internally--evil dies and is replaced with good. Hence, Jesus' words don't give us the whole story... "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." (Jn 3:36) ....and the mind set on fear sees only the immediate consequence of sin, not its final end. We have to piece the rest of Scripture together to get the whole picture, which ends in that beautiful heresey we know as Christian universalism. To sum, both Arminian and Calvinist are correct, but only as two aspects of a single, greater truth...in time, salvic standing can be lost, regained and lost again, but only to that form of love/destruction (wrath directed to the evil which causes the fall) which eventually restores--leading to the eternal truth that no temporal loss is able to overcome the eternal decree of God that all will be restored. My two cents anyway. |
|
Mike Burke
Feb 2nd, 2008 - 9:37 AM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
[quote] My two cents anyway. [unquote] I thought that was very well put, and I thank you for putting your two cents in. The only thing I would disagree with is your characterization of Christian Universalism as a "beautiful heresey." It might be considered a heresy by some, but I don't believe it can rightly be called heresy when it's supported by scripture, and one of it's most outspoken proponents (Gregory of Nyssa) was declared a defender of the faith by the same ecumenical council that condemned the peculiar teachings that had become associated with the name of Origen (a well developed system which seems to have been condemned because of it's Christological implications.) G-d Bless. |
|
spiffy
Feb 2nd, 2008 - 3:33 PM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
"The only thing I would disagree with is your characterization of Christian Universalism as a "beautiful heresey." Actually, it's not mine, Mr. Burke...I stole the phrase from a blog by the fellow (Brian Smith, maybe?)who runs the message board by the same name.... http://euniversalism.forum5.com/index.php It's a tongue-in-cheek reference to accomadate those who consider CU heresey, presumably. |
|
Mike Burke
Feb 2nd, 2008 - 10:50 PM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
[quote] It's a tongue-in-cheek reference to accomadate those who consider CU heresey, presumably. [unquote] Maybe, but there are anti-Church types who seem to pride themselves on being "heretics," and there is this scriptural warning about calling things by their right names: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isa. 5:20.) G-d Bless. |
|
Barry
Feb 3rd, 2008 - 9:01 AM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
Hi Mike JMO but I think Jesus and Paul used tongue-in-cheek type references quite often. I do agree that there are some who glory in being called heretics. Then there are those who glory in being called heretics by those who fail to understand God's incredible love for all. Just a thought. Blessings Barry |
|
Mike Burke
Feb 4th, 2008 - 10:01 AM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
[Quote] JMO but I think Jesus and Paul used tongue-in-cheek type references quite often. [unquote] Point taken, but I think we should make it clear that there is such a thing as heresy--and that we're not in favor of it. [Quote] I do agree that there are some who glory in being called heretics. Then there are those who glory in being called heretics by those who fail to understand God's incredible love for all. [unquote] Perhaps it would help if heresy were put in quotation marks (to show that that's what our enemies call us, and not what we consider ourselves.) Paul (in effect) did this in Acts 24:14-15. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. [Quote] Blessings Barry [unquote] Blessings to you too Barry. BTW: Here is a definition of "heresy" that some might find helpful: Easton's Bible Dictionary Heresy From a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5,14; 26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character. Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks "heresies" with crimes and seditions (Galatians 5:20). This word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Corinthians 11:19). In Titus 3:10 a "heretical person" is one who follows his own self-willed "questions," and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Peter 2:1). http://www.studylight.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?number=T1750 This ignores the negative connotation Paul was apparently aware of in Acts 24:14, but (aside from that) it's a good summation of how the word was actually used by the writers of the New Testament. |
|
Barry
Feb 4th, 2008 - 2:16 PM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
Hi Mike, (and everyone) How do you think we should handle the subject of heresy in today's framework of denominationalism? I know it's a big question, but I don't know your own background or personal perspectives so as to be more spesific. Having studied with Baptists, Catholics, JW's, Seventh day Adventists, premill, postmill, Amill and every mill out there, LOL. I've seen a tendency for each to try and re-frame the concept according to their own focuses. Hope you don't mind me asking. Don't see an edit button here so I'll watch my typos, as I ussually got a few. :) In His Love, Barry |
|
Mike Burke
Feb 5th, 2008 - 6:50 PM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
To define heresy, you must first define what is essential to the Christian faith, and I think the following passage is a good place to start. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. ( 1 Cor. 3:11-15. ) Paul not only says that Christ is the foundation, but he speaks of low and high grade building materials being added to that foundation. I believe this implies both that basic truths about Christ are essential to the Christian faith, and that beyond these basic truths there's a lot we can (and probably will) disagree on. But I think it should be noted that the foundation Paul's speaking of is the Jesus that he and the other Apostles preached: For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve...Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. ( 1 Cor. 15:3-5,11. ) And this Jesus did not begin His existence in Bethlehem. let this mind be in you that [is] also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made (Phil. 2:5-7, Young's Literal Translation.) ...in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created, and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted. (Col. 1:16-17, Young's Literal Translation.) All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (John 1:3.) And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. (John 17:5.) Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58.) I am the LORD (HaShem-"I AM"), that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images (Isa. 42:8.) Building upon this foundation with wood, hay, and straw is not heresy, but replacing this Jesus with "another Jesus" is. ...I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted--you may well put up with it! (2 Cor. 11:3-4.) For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 7.) |
|
Barry
Feb 5th, 2008 - 6:53 PM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
Touching on Zack's, the "perseverance of the saints" and also some scriptures that Mike brought up, I find the following context truly fascinating! YLT caps are mine: 2Cr 10:4 for the weapons of our warfare [are] not fleshly, but POWERFUL TO GOD for bringing DOWN OF STRONGHOLDS, 2Cr 10:5 REASONINGS BRINGING DOWN, and every high thing LIFTED UP AGAINST the KNOWLEDGE of God, and bringing into captivity EVERY THOUGHT to the obedience of the Christ, 2Cr 10:6 and being in readiness to AVENGE EVERY DISOBEDIENCE, whenever YOUR OBEDIENCE IS FULFILLED. IMO we have in this context, the "perseverance of the saints". Apparently we also have in this context an avenging of disobedience, when the perseverance of the saints is fulfilled. [My paraphrase of course]. However it seems that the overall purpose has much to do with bringing down "imaginations" or "reasonings" that would stand, or try to stand, against the knowledge of God. The implication being, "for the ultimate good". Not a purposeless avenging just for the sake of doing it but a purposeful avenging. Like saying, "God is love". So instead of thinking of the "perseverance of the saints" as having only the benefit of staving off one's own "punishment", but rather being participants in the ultimate benefit of all, in the KNOWELDGE OF GOD. Ultimately then all are brought to that knowledge. The saints then being called to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. Love even your enemies. Even, a self sacrifice, a reasonable service of worship. This IMHO is the major problem with the concept of limited reconciliation. It has little to buffer the ego of those "called to be saints". Called to "serve" in a priestly way. Priests were not priests just to themselves. Comprehensive reconciliation then, does not ignore either the "destruction of the ungodly" nor the "perseverance of the saints". But brings all the knowledge of God. |
|
spiffy
Feb 5th, 2008 - 7:16 PM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
You make some good points in your last post, Barry. Interesting stuff, though the tendency toward the notion of more illusory than concrete expressions of evil could be (and is, by some of our more progressive univeralist brethren) taken down a somewhat Gnostic road, it seems to ring true with a more traditional view of Christianity, which I happen to hold. |
|
Barry
Feb 7th, 2008 - 12:42 PM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
Hi all, Thanks for the input on the last post. Doing a study now that seems to relate in some way to the topic at hand. Here are some of the highlights of it. Hope this is not an inappropriate place to post this. It is kind of a follow up to my previous post. 1Ti 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; 1Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, BECAUSE I did [it] IGNORANTLY IN UNBELIEF. 1Ti 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 1Ti 1:15 This [is] a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came INTO THE WORLD TO SAVE SINNERS; of whom I AM CHIEF. 1Ti 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for A PATTERN to them which should HEREAFTER believe on him to life everlasting. 1Ti 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, [be] honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. 1Ti 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; 1Ti 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith HAVE MADE SHIPWRECK: 1Ti 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have DELIVERED UNTO SATAN, that they may LEARN NOT TO BLASPHEME. One of the first things we might see is that Paul is “chief sinner” or one of the chief type sinners. No one is going to be worse or in a worse category than Paul. Neither they who crucified Jesus nor those of the sort like Hymenaeus and Alexander. Another point we might pick up on is that whatever “delivered unto Satan” means, it was to the ultimate benefit! Not the preferred way, and not without it’s own consequence but to the ultimate benefit of the person being “delivered” or “handed over”. The same can be said of the context in 1 Cor. 5:5. 1Cr 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FLESH, that THE SPIRIT MAY BE SAVED in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1Cr 5:6 Your glorying [is] not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 1Cr 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: We have “the perseverance of the saints” and yet within that perseverance as seen in the purging “out the old leaven” there is an ultimate benefit to the one being delivered over to Satan. Without discussing the “details” we can see the overall or global principle at work. Another point we may see in our original text is that Paul, is being used by God, as some sort of “pattern”. This is truly interesting! What kind of example or pattern did this establish? Here are some points that may help us: He is chief sinner! Yet salvation is not kept from him. Is this some type of pattern for such that we could call “chief like sinners”? People like those who crucified Jesus and persecuted the church. People like Hymenaeus and Alexander? Look at Paul’s point here: “I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.” Now compare this to what Paul says here: 1Cr 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 1Cr 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 1Cr 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: FOR HAD THEY KNOWN [IT], THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CRUCIFIED THE LORD OF GLORY. Wow! Ignorant and unbelieving for sure! Now the words of Jesus: Luk 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, FORGIVE THEM; for they KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. It would, at least for me, be hard to imagine that Paul is trying to establish some sort of like “pattern” for all the “converts” that had already been made to that point. Paul didn’t listen to Steven the deacon and say, “Yes I repent and believe!”. Paul had his “reasonings”, his “imaginations” “cast down” by being overwhelmed! His high thoughts that stood against the KNOWLEDGE OF GOD where brought “into captivity” to the “obedience of Christ” by being overwhelmed by the very presence of Christ. There was nothing left for his reasonings to hang onto. Are we to think that the next sermon that Paul would have overheard from some other believer like Steven would have swayed him from going to the next town to imprison Christians? Indeed this seems far from what the implications seem to be. Paul’s “pattern” seems to indicate a different “pattern” from that of the one already taking place. Distinct from Acts 2. Distinct from Acts 7 where Steven, lands up being stoned! Rather Paul saw something of a pattern in himself that showed forth that “all Israel shall be saved”. Paul saw that God is the savior of all men, especially those that believe. Phl 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Phl 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; Phl 2:11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Phl 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. We have the perseverance of the saints. We have the salvation of all men. And we have the especially saved. And we have the destruction of the ungodly. It is all there. Barry |
|
Mike Burke
Feb 8th, 2008 - 1:42 PM |
Re: Universalism and eternal security
{Quote] We have the perseverance of the saints. We have the salvation of all men. And we have the especially saved. And we have the destruction of the ungodly. It is all there. Barry [unquote] Well said. Thanks Barry (and G-d Bless.) |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Forum |
Next |
Last |
powered by
bravenet.com