Liberalism

:laugh: Unless you've redefined "Christian Universalism" in a unique way, then you're completely dodging the fact that you're absolutely wrong.

The central beliefs of Christian Universalism are as follows:

1. God is the loving Parent of all people.
2. Jesus Christ reveals the nature and character of God and is the spiritual leader of humankind.
3. Sin has negative consequences for the sinner either in this life or the afterlife (some concept of karma or purgatory), but the penalty for sin is not eternal (i.e. doctrines of damnation to hell and annihilationism are rejected).
4. Universal reconciliation: All souls are reconciled to God without condition.
5. Theosis as the meaning of salvation: All souls will ultimately be conformed to the image of divine perfection in Christ.

Here's another link to an article on Christian Universalism.

And another.

I know what Christian Universalism is... do you?

Now the reality of what has happened is likely that you stumbled onto some anti-Dallas Willard sites and have been getting your "facts" from those sites instead of actually doing the research and thinking for yourself. You can certainly find Web sites out there that make the claim that Willard is a Christian Universalist, but the claim is absolutely false. I have shown you will Willard's own words from his Web site he believes in Hell for those who reject Christ, and I can show you many authoritative Web sites that define Christian Universalism as, among other things, rejecting Hell.

Why don't you just admit you made a mistake (or was deceived by extremist Web sites) and let's move on?

 

The other day I had a guy I know asked my friend about drinking while we were all hanging out. My friend replied that he drank one beer everyday when he got home from work and would occassionally enjoy some more, um, enlightened spirits at parties or other social gatherings. My friend made it clear that while he had problems during his college days many years ago that he hadn't been drunk in over 25 years.

This guy then proceeds to tell my friend he's an alcoholic.

My friend says no I'm not I just enjoy an occassional drink.

This guy then proceeds to tell my friend he's an alcoholic.

My friend replies that he's not because he can stop anytime he chooses.

This guy then continues to tell my friend he's an alcoholic.

And we all found ourselves in the middle of an argument fallaciously built around circular logic. It was quite sad and maddening all at the same time.

 

How can such an oxymoron exist?

 

PART 1 OF 2

Wait, I’m confused here. Which “type of universalism”?

1. I pointed out many posts ago that Willard was not a universalist.

2. You responded that he (and I) were “Christian Universalists”.

3. I pointed out we were not Christian Universalists either.

4. You insisted Willard was.

5. I assumed you were just ignorant of Willard’s writings and took a moment to check his Web site (the very site you from which you found your alleged evidence of his “universalism”) and typed “hell” in the search engine. I immediately found an article where he said he believed in hell, and it was clearly supported by scripture and good sense. Since every version of universalism I’ve ever heard of has as its basic tenet that everyone (universal) receives salvation, I assumed that you would understand that Willard is not a universalist.

6. You informed me that I should study to figure out what “Christian Universalism” means (as if I didn’t already know). I gave you three sources that backed up my position, and could not find any type of "Christian Universalism" that affirmed the reality of hell as a potential destination.

7. Now you have retreated from "Christian Universalism" to the some “type of universalism” position, whatever that happens to mean to you. Seems to me it is a made-up theological position that can’t be defined so you don’t have to admit that you’ve made false accusations.

Since you are obviously the only one of us in this conversation who really knows what “universalism” means, I’d like you to find a reputable online theological source (not some that’s not railing against Dallas Willard or the emergent movement) that defines universalism in such a way where many people can go to hell, and post a link.

Otherwise, there’s no reason to take you seriously if you just make things up when your arguments are demonstrated to be false.

Back to your assertions:

He doesn’t “imply” that at all. He simply points out that Paul teaches that God judges people by their deeds:

Romans 2:6-16
God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.​

I realize you don’t like that position, but that’s what Paul is teaching.

Where did Paul get that idea? From Jesus:

Luke 10:25-28
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."​

Now here’s the thing you need to notice… there is no one who will be able to do this in their own strength. Everyone will fail because of the sin in their lives.

Why doesn’t Willard hammer that home every time he deals with this issue? Probably because Jesus and Paul did not. Both Jesus and Paul want their audience to think through these issues for themselves and realize (with the Spirit’s conviction) that they are personally involved in sin and they are personally responsible to God. Both Jesus and Paul are making arguments to religious people regarding the nature of what God requires. Jesus goes on from the words quoted above to tell the story of the good Samaritan to point out that his hearers (the religious elite) did not truly love their neighbor very well. Paul continues his argument from Romans 2 and moves to Romans 3 and points out the problem of sin.

If you’ve read much of Willard at all, you’ll notice that he rarely speaks beyond positions taken in the scripture and trusts the Spirit to work in his readers/hearers to confront these issues. Instead of always laying everything out like many modern preachers, he confronts his audience with the teaching of scripture and lets the audience struggle with the teachings of Jesus like they are supposed to. If you’ll notice, the Bible is not a snappy little tract with everything laid out in a systematic way. In the same way, the teachings of Jesus are often hard to follow because our way of thinking has been so twisted by the fallenness of our world, our sinful nature, and the unhelpful religious presuppositions we often bring to the table.

END OF PART 1 OF 2

 

PART 2 OF 2

Back to your assertions:

I believe that is an assumption you are making, not something Willard is implying.

Again, Willard is not willing to set up a theological barrier when God has declared He will do as He pleases in this matter:

Romans 9:10-18
Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.​

Since God has declared His “privilege” to have mercy on anyone He want to have mercy on, Willard won’t presume to say it can’t happen. If you’ve read his writing or discussed these issues with him, you’ll know that he doesn’t see this as something that God does all the time for normal adults, if ever.

Many of our Calvinist brothers and sisters certainly believe this to be true. They believe God elects certain persons to be saved, and if a child dies before they can have knowledge of Christ, God will extend mercy to them if they are among the elect.

And many non-Calvinists believe the same thing about children, those who suffer from mental retardation, and the mentally ill.

Yes, we know your position. So do you think infants who die before they are old enough to understand these things are lost?

In the most fundamental sense, the gospel for us is the same as the gospel for Abraham: “Abram believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6).

Only if the Buddhist lives a sinless life (the Buddhist won’t) or God exercises His righteous prerogative and decides to have mercy.

There you go using that word again… You need to study to see what it means.

But for the record, it is not universalism (by any sane or informed definition), it is simply recognizing that scripture allows for the possibility.

No spin here.

Strictly speaking, the context is both what he is talking about and who he is talking to. Since the person he is talking to is identified as a college girl from a Christian background who is struggling with issues of faith and the relevance of Christ’s teaching, you have to take that into account or else you are likely to misinterpret it.

While the words are the same, the meaning changes according to the audience.

 

James 2:22-24, "You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

Not contrived at all, at least by me.

You’re the one who started this thread.

You’re the one who decided to bring Dallas Willard into the conversation (probably because I have Willard quoted in my signature) and you’re the one who picked the article to condemn.

You’re the one who has made all of the discussion choices in this conversation, and I’ve responded primarily with scriptural support for my positions.

You, on the other hand, have made all sorts of false accusations and have simply repeated your condemnation without much scriptural support.

I didn’t plan [contrive] our discussion, but I’m well-equipped to deal with the issues.

These verses do not make the point you claim they do. They also don’t invalidate or contradict every other scripture I have cited.

Nope, not a modalist. The doctrine of the Trinity explains it just fine.

And I (nor do I think Dallas Willard) have ever claimed that one comes to faith only by believing in the Father, exclusive of the Son.

The foundational scripture I have been quoting is “Abram/Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). Since God is Father, Son jesus and Holy Spirit, Abraham has believed in Him. I believe the reason Willard mentioned the possibility of someone not “knowing Jesus” in the context of the article is because someone may come to faith without initial knowledge of the Triune nature of God. They may not specifically know about Jesus, although they know Him and God.

:laugh: Apparently you didn’t actually check the links on my previous post where I cited three Web sites demonstrating that Christian Universalists don’t believe in hell. This was the third site I linked.

So, you’ve cited a source to defend your claim that Willard is a Christian Universalist that actually demolishes your claim…

This is a good time for you to admit you are wrong about your false charge of universalism.

Nope. In fact, I’ve cited John 14:6 and other very clear verses regarding this issue in our conversation. You’ve also quoted Willard’s affirmation that everyone who is saved is saved through Jesus. You don’t get to pretend we don’t believe it or affirm the doctrine. You are bearing false witness.

Now you’ve added modalism to your false accusations…

I can’t take this conversation seriously anymore because facts and scripture don’t seem relevant to you. One would think that a pastor would have enough integrity, humility and spiritual maturity to admit they had made a mistake instead of making more accusations and reaffirming false accusations that have already been disproven.

God, your family, the good people of your church, and folks here at BaptistBoard deserve much better.

 

Sure, everyone can see. Everyone can also see that one of your debate techniques is to sidestep scripture and questions that undermine your position in favor of making new accusations in order to change the subject.

You know, quoting scripture is not hard. Anyone can quote scripture (the evil one quotes scripture), but the hard part is taking scripture seriously and conforming one’s opinions and actions to the whole counsel of scripture.

It doesn’t appear that you want to deal with the following question from this very recent post: ...do you think infants who die before they are old enough to understand these things [quoting you: “specific knowledge of the Christ, sin, redemption, the cross, heaven hell, the wrath of God it all is the gospel”] are lost?

Never made that specific claim. You’re making another false accusation.

I have said that God can have mercy on whomever He wants to have mercy (that's scriptural, both Old and New Testament), but the pattern I’ve presented is that God has previously dealt with people without the aid of a human or written witness in order to bring them to faith. I keep pointing to Abraham, but you don’t want to deal with it because it undermines your argument. And in the contemporary example I gave of a man in Cambodia, God starting working with him and he gradually shifted over to worshiping the unknown God that was dealing with him. As he received the truth, God gave him more truth until Jesus revealed Himself to the man in a vision and sent him to the missionaries in a nearby city.

Not by any objective definition that either of us have presented.

We’ve discussed this already, and you should really take it up with Paul.

You haven’t dealt with the argument I made. You’re just reaffirming your assertion...

“A little dance on salvation”? What does that mean?

Since you don’t know anything about Willard except what you have read in one (maybe two articles), why do you think you can assume the worst about his theology? You won’t check things out for yourself. I’ve told you what he believes, but you won’t take my word for it either. I did a quick search and gave you clear evidence for his position, but you seem to ignore that too. Did you not comprehend what Willard has clearly stated about hell?

I don’t think we should regard God as happy that anyone goes to Hell. Scripture tells us that "it is not his will that any should perish." But he does permit it. That is a testimony to the great value that God places on human personality. He values it enough that he is prepared for people to be eternally lost if that is what they want. I would be very happy if Hell were not an aspect of it; Hell is a terrible thought. Even among evangelicals we have people who say such an idea is not possible. I don’t feel comfortable saying that myself, partly because of what I see as the clear teaching of Scripture and partly because of what seems to me to make a lot of sense.​

Obviously he does. The question I’m wondering is whether or not you believe anything or anyone that does not hold your opinions. I’m wondering if you are willing to believe the Bible if it contradicts your opinions.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

 

Rev,
How do you define: conservative?
thanks

 

Why do you continue to persist with such an oxymoron as Christian Universalism?

 

I am waiting for an answer too.

 

What is Christian about that?