A universalist thread

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

It does not. This is perhaps the single greatest lie spoken about the Reformed position.

Why believe a lie like this, when in plain evidence, even here on this board, are Reformed persons who turn to the Scriptures always for their answers?

 

Someone with a pitch fork, ready to stab the backside of those who disagree... Or, perhaps a typo. I'm not sure at this point. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I did not sense that M was tying to perpetrate a lie about your (and others) position. Rather, stating a commonly held thought while seeking your clarification.

 

This may be one of the most difficult passages in the Bible. Anyone who says that they can spell out definitively what is happening here is probably making a case for their own personal ideas, and not for a true biblical exegesis, but I will take a stab at what it actually says.

3:18 is clear. Peter is telling us what it is that Christ did. He is also taking a stance consistent with what Reformed theology holds, that Christ did this for us so that He could "bring us to God." His death was not permanent, but real; He really died, but He was made alive -- resurrected from the dead -- by the power of the Holy Spirit.

3:19 is where the unclear part begins, but in essence it is stating that Christ went and proclaimed His victory to those who (from context) perished before or during the time of the flood. Some have suggested that this verse says that Christ "descended into hell to preach the gospel to the lost" but that thought is in no way carried in the actual text of this passage. It would have to be eisegeted (read into) the passage from a different vantage point. Key in this thought is the Greek term used for "proclaim" which is not euangelizein, "evangelize," but rather, "kerussein, proclaim or state.

Who the "spirits" are who are "in prison" is not exactly clear except that Peter has a concept in mind of, well, imprisoned spirits. Spirits are never called "persons" in Scripture, so this probably does not mean that Jesus went to speak to deceased persons. What Jesus proclaimed was likely His victory over death. To say more than this is to start to read into the passage, but we might speculate that Jesus proclaimed His victory to the ones who most wanted to halt that victory.

Verse 20 gives further illumination as to whom it was that Jesus spoke. Evidently, these were spirits that were active in the downfall of humanity before the Noahic flood. That is the direct context of the passage. I've often wondered if there is a tie to this passage and the Genesis passage concerning the "sons of God who came to the daughters of man," but I cannot make that tie in any specific way. In any case, Jesus clearly proclaims His victory in a way that is ultimately clear. HE HAS WON and accomplished all of God's plan for the salvation of humankind, except the final implementation of that plan in the hearts of the elect.

What I do not think we can derive from these three verses is some grand scheme where Jesus evangelizes the lost in Hell. That interpretation would stray FAR from the mark set in these verses in context, where before and after Peter is speaking to the victory of Christ, which has accomplished salvation.

 

I undersand, but I wanted to call that statement out for what it is.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Menageriekeeper, I encourage you to continue your study. I fully believe that if you concentrate on the Scriptures, you will not find a "universalist" position for salvation, but I would rather that you discovered that yourself than you ended up feeling like some of us have in some sense pressed that thought upon you.

I also admire the concept of a universal salvation. That would be great -- if somehow God could just wave His almighty magic wand and make everyone tow His perfect mark and be saved, but that does not seem to be the case. That position brings with it more issues than does holding to a view of a God who is the Perfect and Just Judge (who never makes a mistake in His judgment).

You may discover that the true Universalists toss out the majority of Scripture in order to hold their doctrine in hand. That has been what I have discovered. They key in on several texts that speak to the love of God and disavow any texts that suggest that God is Just Judge. But to do that, one ends up tossing out over half of the OT and a big chunk of the NT as well, and in so doing, is that truly a "Christian" perspective or something else entirely?

 

While you guys kick the theology football around--here are a few more links on the Primitive Baptist Universalists -- known as NO HELLERS.

In the Hands of a Happy God: The "No-Hellers" of Central Appalachia (Howard Dorgan, 1997, University of Tennessee Press)

In the Hands of a Happy God: The "No-Hellers" of Central Appalachia (Google books)

Stoney Creek Primitive Baptist Church, Carter County, Tennessee: A "NO-HELLER" MEETINGHOUSE (Ancestry.com)

A Wesleyan (Methodist tradition) writes about the Primitive Baptist Universalists (Bob Evely, Grace Evangel Fellowship, 2003)​

...Bob

 

One reviewer had this to say about the "No Heller" book.

It is not a "kinder view of religion and especially the doctrine of atonement" that is important. Rather the scriptural view is important!

 

gl...

This is a universalist thread on a Baptist board. Well, I think it would be nice to discuss a universalist Baptist group -- and the Primitive Baptist Universalists NO HELLERS seem to fill the bill.

Again, I am not a universalist. However, as long as we can be civil about it--why don't we explore our NO-HELLER cousins-- their beliefs and practices.

:type:

...Bob

 

No problem with me. Just pointing out an inconsistency in the way they see things.

When we overemphasize emotions or experiences we tend to negate sound doctrine. Note that I said "overemphasize." God created emotions and also a thinking human mind, but His revelation is, at the end of the day, the only sure thing.

 

glfredrick, have you officially studied theology and if so, is it possible to list the where and what of it? It's rare to find someone whose posts actually can hold weight and yours seem to be among them. I just want to get a full picture on you since I find myself starting to follow your posts.

 

I will back off as you asked.

However, before I go, let me say I see this as a problem when we study theology (concepts about God, faith, practice, and experience) without studying the groups who try to live that theology in their world.

Furthermore, I do not think you can totally study any theological point of view without studying the social milieu in which theological perspectives are born, nurtured, theological heirs produced, and yes, buried.

Finally, in my simple dictionary, theology is man speaking to man about God, religious faith, practice, and experience.

In my opinion, the social approach to the study of theology produces better analysis of that theology than does arguing interpretation of scripture and theological abstracts. The question, I think, is this: How is a specific theology lived out in its social milieu, and how does that theology change (if it does change) as it encounters change in the world of its adherents?

. . .

Of course, I do not expect the social approach to the study of theology to be received with open arms by those who make their living piecing together and re-arranging nonsocial theological abstracts.

…Bob

 

I must have missed something. My understanding of Primitive Baptist soteriology is totally opposite from universalism. And I find it hard to believe that Pinoybaptist is a universalist.

 

I studied at Southern Seminary and before that Boyce College, the undergrad wing of Southern. I was already a pastor before starting my education, as I was saved at age 27 and began applying myself to learning God's Word when I joined a church 2 years later. Like many, I was exposed early to some teaching that was not quite sound. Not that it was in any one direction, but rather, it was all over the map -- liberal, conservative, fundamentalistic, Arminian, Calvinist, etc., all from the same church and pastor. As I started to dig into his library (see below) I discovered a book mark in almost every book he owned -- typically somewhere in the first chapter. He was all words and no substance. It was from that sort of style that I had a bit of rebellion.

I was blessed to be called to attend a school where I could sit under the men that write the books that everyone else uses in their course work. Because I did my undergrad on campus, I entered an advanced M.Div. program, where I mostly did the same seminars as doctoral level students.

For full disclosure, I pulled up short in my final year due to financial issues (after supporting a family with 2 teenage sons, and paying out $60,000 for my education over 12 years without taking loans, we were tapped out!) and graduated with a Masters in Missiology with a North American emphasis -- the first degree granted of that type (most missiology degrees are for international work).

On top of the work I did at SBTS, I also read a little... I've averaged 3-5 books a week for almost 40 years now. Sort of a long story, but I had the same teacher in a little thee-room school for 3, 4, 5, and 6 grades. She was not just a teacher, but a family friend as well. She pushed me hard to learn to read and I somehow grasped the concept. I am SO grateful for what she did back then, and it has served me well ever since. I've been tested by two different colleges and in both cases they were amazed at my capacity. I read at around 750 words per minute, and though I'm not quite "photographic" in memory, I typically retain somewhere over 90% when tested.

I've read a lot of theology over the past 25 years, which helps me to draw in principles and tendencies. And, I love to share, though I'm not against a good argument from time to time... :laugh:

I'll also make very clear... I don't have all (or even a lot) of the answers, but I know who does. "Oh praise Him!"

 

Tom, before I leave this thread, I will point again to the work of Howard Dorgan at this link:

The Primitive Baptist Universalists of Central Appalachia, Known in the Mountains as the "No-Hellers"​

Dorgan presents four divisions among Appalachian Primitive Baptists. The last division in the list are Primitive Baptist Universalists, who are separated from other Primitive Baptist divisions. And, yes, they are unique among Primitive Baptists because of their universalist theology.

A. Single Predestination: Believe in the predestination only of the "elect," those individuals identified "before the beginning of time" to be the beneficiaries of Christ's atonement for Adam's sin.

B. Double Predestination: Believe in both the predestination of the elect and in the predestination of all human conditions.

C. Progressive Primitives: Primitive Baptists who have adopted one or more of a number possible reforms in typical Primitive practices:
1. The payment of ministers' salaries.
2. The teaching of Sunday schools.
3. The holding of revivals.
4. The use of musical instruments in their churches.
5. The sponsoring of religious radio or television broadcasts.
6. And others.

D. Primitive Baptist Universalists: The "no-Hellers," Primitive Baptists who are "Universlists" and who therefore preach that Christ's atonement applies to all humans and cannot be escaped any more than Adam's sin could be escaped.​

I hope this helps.

...Bob

 

And he gets to hang out with Schreiner, Moller, & Ware—(2 name a few)-he is certainly a good writer to follow!:thumbs: