The Unconditional Election Debate: An Universalist Perspective

[Pancho Frijoles]

These are not mysteries.
Why would an atonement theory be a mystery?
Why would the CC or any denomination, present an atonement theory as a mystery?

IF it were a mystery,,,it would not be possible to explain it,
and yet there are books written on atonement theories.

The very fact that there are so many theories and debates strongly suggest that there are aspects we don't understand.
Good news is that we don't need to understand them to enjoy God's love.

Same with other concepts, like the nature of God, or the nature of the relationship of Christ and God, or the Holy Spirit, or creation, or the nature of our souls. We think we know some aspects of it, but most is unreachable to our minds.
Recognizing that they are in part mysteries should help us to approach any debate with humbleness.

After my death, I will for sure realize that I was wrong about so many things.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Atonement theories are not analogies:
They are taken from scripture and explain WHY Jesus died on the cross.

Atonement theories use analogies and metaphors or figurative language to be taught and understood better.
This is the way often God reveals Himself in the Bible.

 

[Doug Brents]

Well, leaving the metaphor "sheep" or "shepherd" aside, I believe that God is the only true and legitimate owner of every soul and every creature.
The proof is that no unsaved soul can escape God's jurisdiction and say "Since I don't belong to you, you don't have any right to make me accountable for anything." or "Why did I get terminal cancer? God has no right over my body. It belongs to someone else".

If I understand you correctly, some people have subjected themselves to the control of Satan. I agree. (Later on I will pick your question on why I am mentioning Satan, if I don't believe there is one).

Now, why do I mention Satan? Because the devil as an archetype of evil is very useful in theological dialogue, and used in the Scriptures. But that would require another thread.

Satan is a very real being.

 

[GodsGrace]

You are correct, Satan does not care about us nor does he love us. But he does have control of us, and if we die in his control then we are stuck with him for eternity. Satan will lose, and lose bigger than he ever hoped to gain, and all those who are not in Christ will spend eternity with him in Hell.

Yes, we are the offspring of God. But there are two different ways Scripture presents this. In the way you are looking at it, yes, everyone is His child, and everyone is known by God for He knows everything.
But, Scripture also presents God as only KNOWING those who are in Christ, those who have been adopted into His family. In this was of looking at what God knows, He does not know those who are not His. We see this in two places: Matt 7:23 and Gal 4:9.

What do you think of this?
We are all children of God in that HE created everything, including every single human being.

But we are not all sons of God in that we would have to freely choose to belong to the family of God...
OR be a bride of Christ....be a member of the Body of Christ.

I'm not sure there's scripture for this....
Just a thought.

 

[GodsGrace]

Well, leaving the metaphor "sheep" or "shepherd" aside, I believe that God is the only true and legitimate owner of every soul and every creature.
The proof is that no unsaved soul can escape God's jurisdiction and say "Since I don't belong to you, you don't have any right to make me accountable for anything." or "Why did I get terminal cancer? God has no right over my body. It belongs to someone else".

If I understand you correctly, some people have subjected themselves to the control of Satan. I agree. (Later on I will pick your question on why I am mentioning Satan, if I don't believe there is one).

No Pancho.
You're not repeating what I stated.
I did NOT state that SOME PEOPLE SUBJECATE THEMSELVES TO THE CONTROL OF SATAN....
I said that we all serve the master to whom we present ourselves....OK

but let's not forget the scripture I posted:
Those that DO NOT OFFER THEMSELVES TO GOD are ALREADY LOST...
John 3:18
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

UNLESS we present ourselves to God....
we are, by default, presenting ourselves to satan.

Now, why do I mention Satan? Because the devil as an archetype of evil is very useful in theological dialogue, and used in the Scriptures. But that would require another thread.

Herein is a problem:
We Christians believe satan is a real being.
I suppose you don't believe in possession...
but it's real and those that come into contact with it know
that satan is a real being.

Jesus called satan YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL....
that doesn't sound like an archetype of evil...
It sounds like a REAL being.

John 8:44
44;You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Sounds like a real "person" to me.
We either believe Jesus or we don't.

 

[GodsGrace]

The very fact that there are so many theories and debates strongly suggest that there are aspects we don't understand.
Good news is that we don't need to understand them to enjoy God's love.

I'd say that each atonement theory focuses on a different aspect of it.
Some will like one more than another.
The parties could debate WHY they like one over another.
But it should NOT be a debate over one being correct and one being wrong.

Same with other concepts, like the nature of God, or the nature of the relationship of Christ and God, or the Holy Spirit, or creation, or the nature of our souls. We think we know some aspects of it, but most is unreachable to our minds.
Recognizing that they are in part mysteries should help us to approach any debate with humbleness.

After my death, I will for sure realize that I was wrong about so many things.

Of course the above is correct.
We cannot fully know God...only what He either revealed to us
or what we can grasp because we're familiar with the idea.

 

[GodsGrace]

Atonement theories use analogies and metaphors or figurative language to be taught and understood better.
This is the way often God reveals Himself in the Bible.

I'd love to hear some of that figurative language.
Satan stole us from God through Adam.
Is that figurative or real?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I'd love to hear some of that figurative language.
Satan stole us from God through Adam.
Is that figurative or real?

From my perspective, you’re using figurative language. Even that short sentence contains 3 metaphors
1) Satan, 2) theft, and 3) Adam as mean for such theft.

Jesus used many metaphors and analogies. The apostles added even more. So soteriology is taught and learnt through these metaphors and analogies. This is beautiful as didactic tool… language that facilitates the embbending of the principles or ideas it convys… but It becomes absurd and dangerous when people take it as literal language and demand other people to accept it as literal.

 

[Doug Brents]

What do you think of this?
We are all children of God in that HE created everything, including every single human being.

But we are not all sons of God in that we would have to freely choose to belong to the family of God...
OR be a bride of Christ....be a member of the Body of Christ.

I'm not sure there's scripture for this....
Just a thought.

That is correct. God is omniscient; He knows everything and everyone.
But Scripture says that He does not KNOW those who are not in Christ ().

We are all children of God, in that He made us all.
But He adopts us as His child only when we are reborn in Christ.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

That is correct. God is omniscient; He knows everything and everyone.
But Scripture says that He does not KNOW those who are not in Christ ().

We are all children of God, in that He made us all.
But He adopts us as His child only when we are reborn in Christ.

I agree.
By the way, and going back to the question of @GodsGrace, this is another example of figurative language.

Strictly speaking, literally speaking, no one is children of God. We are creatures of God.
God revealed Himself as Father for specific purposes, but for most part of the Bible YHWH was not commonly referred to as Father.
The important thing is that God loves us as a Father… or should I say as a Mother ?
(That “Father” was chosen over “Mother” to convey the concept of love and authority had to do with the patriarchal culture of Israel, and not to gender. However, if we recited the Lords Prayer saying “Our Mother in Heaven”, we might feel distracted for the weirdness of such utterance, even when it would be as metaphorical as using the term “Father”)

 

[Doug Brents]

I agree.
By the way, and going back to the question of @GodsGrace, this is another example of figurative language.

Strictly speaking, literally speaking, no one is children of God. We are creatures of God.
God revealed Himself as Father for specific purposes, but for most part of the Bible YHWH was not commonly referred to as Father.

That was true in the OT. But as of the coming of Jesus, we were introduced to the fact that because the Father is Jesus' "father", and we can be adopted into God's family through Jesus, God can become our Father as well. This is not figurative, but is in actual fact what happens when we are adopted by Him.

The important thing is that God loves us as a Father… or should I say as a Mother ?

Nope, you should say Father. He is not our mother.

(That “Father” was chosen over “Mother” to convey the concept of love and authority had to do with the patriarchal culture of Israel, and not to gender. However, if we recited the Lords Prayer saying “Our Mother in Heaven”, we might feel distracted for the weirdness of such utterance, even when it would be as metaphorical as using the term “Father”)

The term is not metaphorical at all. God is our maker, our leader, our head, etc. He is in every respect a He in Scripture. This is not in tune with culture, but culture is in tune with God's order of things. The man is supposed to be the head of the family, just as God is the head of the Church. The woman is not called to be the head, but to support the man. This is the same relationship the Church has with God. He is the Head, and we are here to support Him (not that He needs support, but He wants our love and commitment).

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

That was true in the OT. But as of the coming of Jesus, we were introduced to the fact that because the Father is Jesus' "father", and we can be adopted into God's family through Jesus, God can become our Father as well. This is not figurative, but is in actual fact what happens when we are adopted by Him.

Nope, you should say Father. He is not our mother.

He is not our Father either, literally speaking.
That's what I am trying to say.
Of course it is a fact that God loves us with infinite love and care, as if He were the most loving Father. Of course He is our Creator, just as parents are the co-creators of our biological lives. So there are many ways in which God is our Father. But none of those ways is literal.
I was just making a reflection on the words used, Doug. Not in the reality of things underneath those words.

Literally speaking God is not our Father because He didn't beget us biologically... you know, having relationships with our mother and passing his genes to us. God is our Father in a deep and symbolic sense. More literally, we should say He is our Creator and Sustainer.

Paul considered Onesimus his son, his child, who Paul had "begotten" while in prison. This has many beautiful meanings, but none of those meanings is that Onesimus was literally the son of Paul.

Same with adoption. We are not literally adopted. Are we?
We are reconciled with God, despite our indignity, and this is perceived symbolically as having been "adopted".

I could go on and on... we all use a lot of terms in our language that we take from the metaphors and analogies found in Scripture. This is good, it is wonderful... as long as we always keep in mind that those are language tools to bring deeper truths.
Keeping this in mind will help us to be more patient and prudent when we debate with other people.

 

[TedT]

That is correct. God is omniscient; He knows everything and everyone.
But Scripture says that He does not KNOW those who are not in Christ

...which implies that there is a difference between knowing and knowing about...and His knowing someone must include some emotional connection, some love that is not included in just knowing about.

I wonder too that since it is written that GOD does not want anyone to die (in hell), and if HE is omniscient in the Greek meaning of HE knows all that can be know from all time past to all time future, they why did HE create those who will end in hell at all? Hell is empty if HE just did not create those who end there in eternal suffering but HE supposedly created them anyway ??? knowing their fate which HE does NOT want? Something is wrong with our understanding of omnisciences I think.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

...which implies that there is a difference between knowing and knowing about...and His knowing someone must include some emotional connection, some love that is not included in just knowing about.

That's right, @TedT

Another good example on who words are used with different meanings in different contexts.

To know someone, in ancient Israel, was to count with someone as member of your family, inner circle or close acquaintances. The people you trusted.

If I wanted to boast about my personal importance, I could say: "I know the king". But if the king said "I don't know that guy", even if he did know who I was, he meant "He is not a friend of mine. I don't recognize it as a loyal subject."

When Jesus says the evildoers "I never knew you", He means "You were never one of my disciples"
Jesus says that eternal life is to know The Only and True God and to know He who God sent (Jesus). But this knowledge is not academic knowledge, or physical knowledge, but discipleship, familiarity, personal experience with God, walking with God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Jesus called satan YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL....
that doesn't sound like an archetype of evil...
It sounds like a REAL being.

John 8:44
44;You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Jesus used the figure of Satan in many ways, leveraging on what was known or believed among his audience at that time.
(There are good readings/talks about Satan in ancient Judaism that may interest you).

For example, Jesus called Peter Satan.
Jesus called Judas devil.
Jesus said to have seen Satan falling from the sky like a ray.
Jesus said that, after leaving a man, the demons wandered in desert places.
Jesus accepted demons' petition to possess the bodies of pigs, and we all know what happened next. The whole episode of the pigs being possessed and throwing themselves off the cliff is a powerful spiritual metaphor.

Satan is he who opposes God, who interferes, who "gets in the way" (that's the ethimological sense in Hebrew).
He is also presented as deceiver, murderer, and accuser of our brothers.
So, from my perspective as a baha'i, every time we interfere with God's plan, every time we "get in the way" instead of submitting to his will, everytime we accuse, deceive or hurt our brothers we are Satan. If we live in opposition to God's plan for us, we are enslaved by Satan.

.

 

[Doug Brents]

He is not our Father either, literally speaking.
That's what I am trying to say.
Of course it is a fact that God loves us with infinite love and care, as if He were the most loving Father or Mother or both.
I was just making a reflection on the words used.

It doesn't really matter how you see it, Scripture says that we are His children in the general sense (He made us), and He is our Father when He adopts us when we are saved.

Literally speaking God is not our Father because He didn't beget us biologically... you know, having relationships with our mother and passing his genes to us. God is our Father in a deep and symbolic sense. More literally, we should say He is our Creator and Sustainer.

Remember, we are not just biological beings, like the other animals on Earth. We are both flesh AND spirit.
God is Spirit, and He created us as spiritual beings in His image (with His spiritual genetic code). That makes Him very much our father.

Paul considered Onesimus his son, his child, who Paul had "begotten" while in prison. This has many beautiful meanings, but none of those meanings is that Onesimus was literally the son of Paul.

That is indeed a metaphorical father/son relationship. But that is not the same relationship we have with God.

Same with adoption. We are not literally adopted. Are we?

Yes, as a matter of fact, we are adopted by God.

We are reconciled with God, despite our indignity, and this is perceived symbolically as having been "adopted".

Nope. We were stolen/killed (spiritually) by Satan in the Garden when he tricked Adam and Eve into sin. Since then, mankind has been in Satan's house, his children, and God takes us from Satan's family and adopts us when He makes us new creatures in Christ.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

It doesn't really matter how you see it, Scripture says that we are His children in the general sense (He made us), and He is our Father when He adopts us when we are saved.

Remember, we are not just biological beings, like the other animals on Earth. We are both flesh AND spirit.
God is Spirit, and He created us as spiritual beings in His image (with His spiritual genetic code). That makes Him very much our father.

That is indeed a metaphorical father/son relationship. But that is not the same relationship we have with God.

Yes, as a matter of fact, we are adopted by God.

Nope. We were stolen/killed (spiritually) by Satan in the Garden when he tricked Adam and Eve into sin. Since then, mankind has been in Satan's house, his children, and God takes us from Satan's family and adopts us when He makes us new creatures in Christ.

I agree with all the spiritual realities you have mentioned.
It seems I didn't explain myself clearly or you haven't understood me yet.

Paul was not the literal father of Onesimus. Paul was father of Onesimus symbolically.
Same with God and us. God is literally our Creator and Sustainer. God is our Father symbolically.

Mormons take God's fatherhood literally. That's why they believe we have a Heavenly Mother.
You and I are not Mormons. We know God does not need a "mother" to be our "father", because all that is figurative language.

Same with brotherhood. You call some people "my brother /my sister in Christ" not because you and those people are biological descendants from Jesus... but because you both believe in Jesus and love each other with the kind of love Jesus asked from his true disciples.

I hope this time is clearer.

 

[Doug Brents]

I wonder too that since it is written that GOD does not want anyone to die (in hell), and if HE is omniscient in the Greek meaning of HE knows all that can be know from all time past to all time future, they why did HE create those who will end in hell at all? Hell is empty if HE just did not create those who end there in eternal suffering but HE supposedly created them anyway ??? knowing their fate which HE does NOT want? Something is wrong with our understanding of omnisciences I think.

I don't think it is. If He only created those who would love Him back, then we would all appear to be robots, completely under His control and without a will of our own.

No, He gives us both a carrot reason and a stick reason to love Him. And then he allows us to make the decision for ourselves. Yes, He knew from before He created the Universe (from before the time before Gen 1:1), who would and would not love Him. But in order to have the relationship with us who do love Him, He was willing to create and then condemn those who don't love Him.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I wonder too that since it is written that GOD does not want anyone to die (in hell), and if HE is omniscient in the Greek meaning of HE knows all that can be know from all time past to all time future, they why did HE create those who will end in hell at all? Hell is empty if HE just did not create those who end there in eternal suffering but HE supposedly created them anyway ??? knowing their fate which HE does NOT want? Something is wrong with our understanding of omnisciences I think.

Thanks for sharing with us this reflection, TedT
This is the main purpose I opened the thread.

God indeed does not WANT any of his children to be tormented forever. So, God couldn't have design a plan that will not lead to what he WANTS.

Calvinists think God doesn't want to save all his children.
Arminians and Universalists share in common the view that God wants to save all his children.
The difference is that Arminians think God wants that for a little while, and Universalists think God wants it forever.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Where do you get that idea?

You mean the idea that whatever exists, exists because God sustains that existence?
I suppose we all believe that by faith, since it is inherent to the concept of God to be the source of all existence.
Doesn't the Bible say that He only has immortality? (1 Tim 6:16)

Who else, in your opinion, provides existence to anything or anyone?

In this world, that is correct. But Hell is not in this world.

Why not? Why makes you feel that beyond this world anyone else is the source of our existence?