1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 Timothy 4:10
(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
Romans 5:18
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
Colossians 1:20
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Isaiah 45:23
Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear
Additionally, it is argued that of the six main Christian schools known to exist in the first four centuries, four taught universalism (Alexandria, Edessa, Antioch and Caesarea); while only one taught annihilationism (Ephesus); and one taught eternal torment (Rome).
Those who take this view often believe that dead unbelievers suffer for their sins until judgment day, at which point they confess Jesus as Lord and enter paradise.
What are your thoughts regarding universal Reconciliation?
5 comments:
I can't go real deep here...don't know enough. But I would say that those verses at least argue against Limited Atonement. When i was in a room with 600 Calvinists, I felt a little radical for being Arminian...I think if I was a universalist, I'd have feared being shot. (i know they wouldn't shoot me, they were very kind people, but Universalism is at the other end of the spectrum)
I'd say it is hard to argue for universalism or annihilationism strictly on biblical grounds...but then philosophical constructions are always suspect as well.
How's that for a firm, informative answer:)
I have a hard time arguing concretely for any of the 3 views on biblical grounds :)
Calvinists, of course, are very interesting. They continually say everything depends on God's will and that His will is always accomplished. And yet there are verses that say it is God's will that none should perish.
The grace extended through the death and resurrection of Jesus is good for the entire world. His actions have reconciled humanity, as a whole, to the Father in teh power of the Holy Spirit. If this were not true, then there would be conditions under which some people wouldn't have "merited" Christ's work. This, of course, would mean that others did "merit" Christ's work. If people could be saved based on merit, then there would have been little need for God to become human to redeem humanity. Instead, the good people would have made it. Thus, it is true that the atonement is good for all people.
On the other hand, the Scriptures are just as clear about faith as they are about unlimited atonement. Being saved doesn't necessarily take "the prayer" or regular involvement in church; it takes faith. Faith is the substance of our hope that Jesus is who He said He is - I AM - and that He did what was prophesied long before His life on earth. Faith is the substance of our hope for eternal life, reconciled to our eternal Lord. While a person can never "work" hard enough to "merit" salvation, Jesus did tell His followers that their work was to believe on the One whom the Father sent (Jesus). Thus, the substance of our hope that Jesus really did atone for our sins, reconciling us to the Father, is faith without which no person can be saved.
To put it briefly, then, the atonement is universal, but human faith is not.
I certainly agree with both Joe and Lynn that these verses are great arguments against calvinism and for the umlimited atonement.
But I wonder how good of an argument they are for ultimate universal reconciliation. Personally, I am not very persuaded by the ideas of universal reconciliation.
There major argument, it seems, is to point out that God is the Victor. And they argue that it's not much of a victory if so many people end up on satan's side.
Regarding whether God can be seen as victorious with so many not going to heaven:
C.S. Lewis in Great Divorce provides an analogy of hell that suggests it is too small and insignificant to negatively impact heaven. This is obviously not a biblical or theological construction but can be helpful.
If we dare, we might borrow from our calvinist brothers in suggesting that God can receive glory when justice is done, when people are where they chose to be.
In answering these questions, I am always afraid to come up with a solution that sits well with me and my understanding of God that might be wrong. These are very emotion-related questions.
Post a Comment