Apostolic Friends Forum - The "Cracky" and "Wacky" Universalism

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - The "Cracky" and "Wacky" Universalism (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=33580)

Re: The "Cracky" and "Wacky" Universalism

Quote:

Originally Posted by crakjak (Post 1025544)

I have addressed all of those on other threads, however give me time and I will walk thru them again for all the newbies. :highfive

I never cared to jump in before. So now I'm game. If you want to link to old stuff, that's cool. But rather than wade hundreds of pages, I thought we could start with a fresh sheet of paper.

Looking fwd.

Re: The "Cracky" and "Wacky" Universalism

Universalist Fallacy #1

The Nature & Character of God is reduced.

Quote:

Christian theology must commence with Who God is, His character, and the recognition of how His very Being is expressed in His actions. Universalism may appear to do so, as it typically presents its argument by focusing on God’s love and His conveyance of such by grace. This is deceiving, however, for the major premise of universalism is the predetermined decree of God’s objective to save all men. This fallacious starting point posits a predetermined objective that is then used to define and justify God’s character of love and His functional grace.

Without question, “God is love” (I John 4:8,16). Love describes Who God is, not something God has in order to distribute to others. The God Who is love preceded the creation of man, and He was complete and fulfilled in His love expression from eternity-past. God did not have to save mankind through Christ in order “to prove Himself” to be love. There was no external logical mandate that necessarily implied that in order “to be true to Himself,” He had to act to save all fallen creatures. This impinges upon the absolute freedom of God to function as the God that He is, and ever so subtly binds God in a logical necessity (which deifies human logic and relegates God as the instrumentation of such).

Fowler:

Quote:

We must beware of any form of theological reductionism that tends to reduce God to a single or primary attribute or character trait, such as love. The “God is love” form of universalism is the most popular contemporary expression of universalistic thought, and its thesis finds its way into the arguments of the other forms, but there is always the danger of attempting to define God only on the basis of His love, or to explain His love in expressions analogous to human love, rather than in the singularity of the incarnational manifestation of love in the Son, Jesus Christ.

Re: The "Cracky" and "Wacky" Universalism

Universalist Fallacy #2 - God's Love

Quote:

When the omnipotence of God’s sovereign action is logically connected to the character of divine love, Christian theology can soon go astray in asserting that sovereign omnipotence must always achieve what it desires, even if by imposition or coercion.

Though the desire and “will of God” is clearly stated, for “God is not willing that any should perish” (II Pet. 3:9), this does not necessarily imply that God must bring this to pass in universal enactment, for this once again binds God in a logical necessity.

Divine love must be understood in relational context (Father/Son/Spirit). Mechanical understandings of God's love as this unilateral force, deterministically and omnipotently imposing on man the "will of God" is a great violence to the proper understanding of God's love. Relational love cannot be forced or coerced. On a human level this is called “rape,” and on the divine level such a unilateral determination to coerce man to participate in God’s love does violence to the genuine faith-love relationship that God intends by a freely chosen response and willingness of man to be intimately involved with Himself.

Re: The "Cracky" and "Wacky" Universalism

Universalist Fallacy #3 More on God's Love

God IS Love. We don't judge His love by doing, the finite judging the infinite.

Quote:

Yes, God “desires all men to be saved” (I Tim. 2:4), but His love and sovereign omnipotence must not be defined, evaluated, and legitimized by effectual universal quantification in the salvation of all men. God is love, whether He saves all men, or does not save any man. God’s love is not contingent on man’s need of salvation, or on the result of universal quantification.

More from Fowler:

Quote:

If in any manner we reason “God is love because He saves all men,” we establish God’s Being by a utilitarian process that defines God by what He does for man. This is the essence of idolatry, for idols are defined by how they serve, satisfy, and benefit man.
Idols are constructed for man’s well-being. We must not engage in the idolatry of making God a magical means to man’s ends. Universalism often ends up being both humanistic and idolatrous as it constructs a “god” who is a universal producer of egalitarian benefits and blessings for man. The benefits and blessings are then elevated for worship, instead of worshipping and glorifying God for the worthiness of His own Being. We do not worship God for what He can do for us, but for Who He is in Himself.

Re: The "Cracky" and "Wacky" Universalism

Universalist Fallacies #4 - Judgment & Divine Wrath

Universalism often reacts with emotional venom at the mention of divine judgment or wrath. God's love is not necessarily a denial of His justice and judgment. His love and justice are not competing or contradicting even.

Quote:

The loving justice of God implies intolerance and rejection of all evil and sin that are not consistent with Himself, for such thwarts divine glorification and frustrates derivative man in his created raison d’etre. God’s judgment and the reprobation of those who reject God’s love and grace do not comprise or reveal a failure of divine sovereignty or love. The God of love grieves over those who reject Him, “not willing that any should perish,” but grief and suffering are not indicative of the failure of love, but of love reacting to freely chosen rejection.

Re: The "Cracky" and "Wacky" Universalism

Universalism Fallacy #5

Reinterpreting Scripture

The only way to prove Universalism is to re-imagine, re-interpret and become creative with texts properly understood for centuries.

Also, Greek words like 'aionion and aionios' which translated into English denote "everlasting, for ever, for evermore", they say are only used in a temporary sense (eon, eon of the eons, eonian, age-during, age's past, etc.) This has poor scholarship written all over it, and it completely ignores context in which the usage of the words is given.

Universalists also propagate the inaccurate teaching that the word "all" in scripture, is "everything, all with no exceptions" --- this is also easily defeated in light of scripture.

There are more fallacies. I become interested more in the philosophical fallacies (what it means about the Gospel, the Incarnation, etc), but I'm willing to dabble with you.

So, let's jump in!

Re: The "Cracky" and "Wacky" Universalism

And just for fun -- are there sects within Universalism that believe even Satan and his angels will be properly restored as well?

Re: The "Cracky" and "Wacky" Universalism

Hell (Eternal flames of torture and punishment) makes absolutely no sense, and cannot be validated from Old Testament teachings and sound Jewish Theology. The Jews have argued this subject thoroughly, and the flaws are endless; removes the "Free Will" from men; who really goes there?; how does Mercy play in?; why does God allow the propagation of humans if most are destined to burn forever?; how does a Church describe the remedy to avoid a place they cannot see or touch?; which Church should one attend which carries the baton to Heaven?

Hell is also found in other Religions of the World, long before Christianity ever was. In fact, Hell can be traced clear back to Ancient Egypt and Greece, centuries before Jesus Christ was born. There are proven ties to the Hell of the New Testament and ancient pagan faith’s of the World.

The link below (and statement from the link) also shows translational error(s) within Scripture, proving the flaw of man and his lust for the "Fear Bound" tactic of condemning the disobedient via Spectral realms. If people can't truly question the validity of the unseen, manipulation by terror is a wide open door to those in authority.

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/He...e_Forever.html

"Dear reader, are you aware that 2000 years after the gospel was sent into the world, that there are literally thousands of languages in the earth today which do NOT have even pieces of Scriptures let alone an entire Bible? Do you understand that from Adam to the present day, probably well over 95 percent of the world never heard the one name under which men must be saved? Are you also aware that most of the world who did hear the name hear it from a Catholic priest who told them that Jesus was a piece of cracker which they had to eat in order to be saved? Are you also aware that most denominations of Christianity throughout the ages have added hundreds of other qualifications which potential converts also had to perform or rules one had to abide by in order to stay saved? The list is endless-it ranges from being a member of the "right" church or denomination to a certain form of water baptism to declaring a certain formula to having to speak in tongues, etc. Once a person is saved, there are literally hundreds of ways one can lose their salvation according to the thousands of different denominations which have formed around creeds, men, styles of buildings and worship, nationality, forms of church government, etc."

This subject has horrifying affects on those who “THINK” they know God, and I’ve personally observed abusive behavior, using HELL in debate to draw the line. Also, people are afraid to question Hell because of being indoctrinated by those who say they have the facts about the afterlife, when in reality, they don't.

Re: The "Cracky" and "Wacky" Universalism

Quote:

This subject has horrifying affects on those who “THINK” they know God, and I’ve personally observed abusive behavior, using HELL in debate to draw the line. Also, people are afraid to question Hell because of being indoctrinated by those who say they have the facts about the afterlife, when in reality, they don't.

Drive-by, on-my-way-out-the-door post... but what you described here does not describe me or anyone I have fellowship with... and we ALL believe in Hell. We have differing opinions about it, and though most of us don't feel it's a flaming torture pit, we believe those descriptions are adequate to describe the intensity of being isolated from God.

Re: The "Cracky" and "Wacky" Universalism

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite (Post 1024826)

To some, the idea of a Final Judgement seems unreasonable. This is where the idea of universalism surfaces. Some contend that those who in this life reject the offer of salvation will, after their death and Christ's second coming, be sobered by their situation and will therefore be reconciled to Christ.

While I won't pretend this is an easy matter to resolve (certainly a couple passages appears contradictory), but I believe we can understand them better in light of all scriptures on that subject. It's never good to form a doctrine on ambiguity.

Contradictory Scriptures?
Phil 2:10-11 "At the name of Jesus every knee (shall) bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Col 1:19-20 "In Christ all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."

More verses used: Romans 5:18; 11:32; 1 Corinthians 15:22.

To be continued...

What does the "Cracky" in your thread title mean?