Does the Bible teach Universalism?
Is Universalism Biblical?
This is a Christian vs Christian debate.
I am a Christian Trinitarian Universalist. This is a debate I had with my friend Dr Chris Claus on whether Universalism (the doctrine that through Christ alone, not merely some but all souls he died for will be reconciled to God) is Biblical. Let me know your thoughts on the debate.
Some After Thoughts
What baffles me is that Bobo asserts no Christians have called me out to repent of the heresy of Universalism, yet Bobo577 has never personally told me to repent of Universalism, only Chris Claus took up this debate. Rather in the past Bobo has tried to debunk my Biblical case for Universalism on his YouTube channel and on his blog, attempting to make corrections. He has never contacted me personally or publicly told me to repent. What is even more bizarre is that I have challenged Bobo at-least twice in Sam Shamoun's chat forum to have a public debate on whether Universalism is Biblical (this can be confirmed by Jaihabor). However both invitations were ignored by Bobo. However, Dr. Chris Claus at-least took up the challenge and tried to expose me publicly, hence Bobo himself fails his own criterion and fails to realize that Chris Claus is a Christian who fulfills his criterion. Hence not only has Bobo not publicly debated me, he has never called me to repent in private or in public. I will issue the challenge again to Bobo to debate this topic whether in written or audio format. If he is more comfortable with written format, I have no problem dissecting his responses and making it a formal written exchange.
Keith Thompson asserts God is angry with me, yet I have no idea how he would claim to know this apart from divine revelation, and the Bible no where condemns Universalism (one could argue contradicts, but there is no condemnation), nor is Keith a prophet. Presumably he thinks I am invading the Church and spreading a false heresy, but it not made clear how Trinitarian Universalism is a heresy, unless he is appealing to a late council of which he himself would not accept in totality, nor are either of us obligated to accept all Church councils, so this is neither here nor there.
Thompson who quite clearly dislikes me, seems to give the implicit admission that I won this debate since in his final comment he says Chris Claus was ill-equip to handle the Biblical case for the Universalist position since Chris avoided exegeting the passages I had submitted. However while he thinks that Chris failed to address these passages, he himself gives no explanation, or challenge to debate such texts, so presumably Thompson himself doesn't think he can win against me or refute my Biblical case for Universalism.
UPDATE: Bobo's Blunders
Notice that Bobo has said Universalism is a heresy, yet I was not present in the room, when he made these assertions. Nor has Bobo publicly or privately ever said to me: "Dk you need to repent from Universalism" but only tried to show the Bible contradicts the position. Finally I have never taught Universalism in the Jesus or Mohamed room, I have debated Universalism with Chris Claus, but the goal of the room is not Christian/Christian debate. In fact the only time Universalism has ever come up even in other rooms is when it is being contested, not taught. Further more Bobo has never specified whether Universalism is a damnable heresy (putting one outside the faith) or whether it is merely a heresy in the sense of religious error. Now since Bobo thinks Calvinism is heresy in the latter sense (as in it's not biblical and contains some error), but not the former sense (damnable doctrine). But if he thinks Universalism is not a damnable heresy then why is he now calling me to repent, but not Keith Thompson? And why hasn't Bobo explained any of this to me if he is calling me to repent?
UPDATE II: Bobo's Big Mistakes
After Bobo complained about no Christian calling me to repent, Bobo has now (ironically) conceded he himself was one of these Christians:
"Looking back, I should have given you an exhortation to repent in the article."And:
"Ps. I should have said to Dk man to repent publicly and for failing that I apologise."
Bobo also claims that he specified on his blog that Universalism was a damnable heresy:
Universalism IS a damnable heresy in light of what I have written in my papers on it. This is what I said in a previous paper:
"If Universalism is true, Then we can happily embrace it and those who teach such, but if it can be shown that Universalism is in fact false and that the scriptures teach to the contrary, then those who teach it are teaching a doctrine of demons and those who believe in the heresy of universalism need to repent and shun it. The apostles gave us numerous warnings NOT to fellowship with false teachers and that doing so means partaking of their evil deeds."
So much for claiming I never specified.
Bobo needs to learn to read carefully since in context I wasn't referring to him saying this any where at any stage, rather in the overall context I claimed he didn't inform me:
"Further more Bobo has never specified whether Universalism is a damnable heresy (putting one outside the faith) or whether it is merely a heresy in the sense of religious error. Now since Bobo thinks Calvinism is heresy in the latter sense (as in it's not biblical and contains some error), but not the former sense (damnable doctrine). But if he thinks Universalism is not a damnable heresy then why is he now calling ME to repent, but not Keith Thompson? And why hasn't Bobo explained any of this TO ME if he is calling ME to repent?"
Hence Bobo failed on two counts. He failed to call me to repentance (while complaining about others for doing the same thing), but further more he failed to inform me the serious nature of my heresy. And obviously I can't be expected to read Bobo's blog and posts unless he informs me they are directed to me or even that he has written such posts!
But what is even more thought provoking is that the very definition that Bobo provided to assert Universalism must be judged as a damnable heresy, actually matches Calvinism aswell. Just substitute the word Universalism for Calvinism:
""If Calvinism is true, Then we can happily embrace it and those who teach such, but if it can be shown that Universalism is in fact false and that the scriptures teach to the contrary, then those who teach it are teaching a doctrine of demons and those who believe in the heresy of calvinism need to repent and shun it. The apostles gave us numerous warnings NOT to fellowship with false teachers and that doing so means partaking of their evil deeds."
The only criterion Bobo specifies is that something is in fact false if it is contrary to Scripture, then it's demonic. Well, Bobo, is Calvinism contrary to Scripture or not? According to Bobo it is, hence it's a doctrine of demons.
But what is rather baffling is that Bobo then asserts Calvinism which he thinks is contrary to Scripture is not actually a damnable heresy!
"Second, Calvinism and Arminianism are not a salvation issue. I don't use the word heresy lightly, I NEVER even use the word when referring to a non damnable error. Despite disagreements with Keith, I don't believe it is heresy. Keith is my brother in Christ despite our differences. Calvinism and Arminianism are not an issue of salvation. Universalism on the other hand, IS an issue of salvation and one who holds to it is outside the faith."
But in the very same breathe Bobo again affirms anything that contradicts the Bible is a false gospel and demonic:
"Addendum: If Universalism contradicts the Bible, it is false, period, ergo, condemned as false teaching and a false gospel."
That's twice! Does limited atonement contradict the Scriptures or not? Does unconditional election contradict the Scriptures or not?
Truly incompetent double standards from a person who has a chip on their shoulder rather than a heart for God's word and his truth. Bobo has no actual explanation as to why one is heresy and one is not other than his own cognitive bias.
The sense in which I affirm that Arminians and Calvinists abide by heresy is in the lesser known sense of religious error. Bobo should take a page from Reverend Matthew Slick:
"Is it possible for a Christian to be a universalist? Some say no. Others say yes. My position is that it is possible for a Christian to be a universalist--note, I said "possible." However, to be clear, I believe universalism to be a heresy, and I would never say, "All universalists are Christians."
Not all forms of universalism are the same though all are in error. Christian universalism teaches that Jesus is the only way, all will be saved, and salvation occurs quickly after death for those who have not become Christians in this life. This view erringly states that salvation can occur after dying. I find nothing in Scripture that requires believing in eternal damnation in order to be a true Christian. And it is only for this reason that I do say that Christian universalism does not "make one unsaved."" (CARM)
Unlike Bobo, Matt Slick actually gives good justification for why some Universalists cannot be excluded from the Christian faith. As a Trinitarian Universalist, I accept all known orthodox doctrines that are essential and compatible with salvation. Can Bobo show a single passage that says belief in eternal conscious torment is a prerequisite for salvation? If he can't but he insists you can only be saved if you accept all Biblical truth, and nothing that contradicts the Bible, then why are Calvinists "saved" and Universalists "unsaved"?
Finally Matt Slick seals the deal:
"Ignorance
Nevertheless, let's say that there is a man who was not a Christian who believes that everyone will be saved. This man is on his death bed in a hospital and is visited by the hospital Chaplain. The Chaplain gives him the gospel about Jesus being God in flesh, dying for our sins, rising from the dead, the need for repentance from sin, trusting in Christ, etc. The man honestly receives Christ and then dies shortly thereafter, yet he never repented of the error of universalism. Is he saved or should we say that even though he trusted Jesus as his Savior--believed Jesus is God in flesh and that Christ died for his sins and rose from the dead--and the man fully received Christ but because he also believed everyone will be saved, he is then going to Hell? Would anyone condemn a person to eternal fire for simply believing that everyone will be saved? I cannot see that as being the case.
There are essentials of the Christian faith.
I have developed a "doctrine grid" where I have tried to arrange essential and non-essential doctrines into an easily understandable system. The essential doctrines are essential because the Bible says they are. Let me give you two examples. In John 8:24 Jesus said, "Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." This is an essential doctrine because it has a penalty of damnation for denying it. Likewise 1 Cor. 15:14 says that "if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain." Here, too, we see an essential doctrine because there is a condition of condemnation upon its denial. So, too, with the other essentials (justification by faith, monotheism, and the gospel) that the Scripture declare to be essential. See my doctrine grid again.
Though I consider universalism to be a false belief, I cannot automatically pronounce condemnation upon a person who acknowledges the essentials of the Christian faith and also affirms universal salvation. I don't because I don't see the Scriptures doing it. Would I consider someone who holds to both the essentials and universalism to be inconsistent and confused? Absolutely! Should they repent? Yes! Does it mean he is unsaved? I can't say that it does."And finally:
"Issues to Consider
There are essential and non-essential doctrines (see doctrine grid). Denial of the essentials negates salvation. Denial of non-essentials does not. If a professing Christian also believes in universalism means that he is not saved, then it must mean that the person has denied an essential doctrine. Where then are the Scriptures that state belief in eternal damnation is within the essentials of the Christian faith.
If believing in universalism automatically disqualifies a person from being a Christian, then please specify the logic (with Scripture) used to make such a pronouncement.
If you say that it is because they deny the eternal punishment of God, then please demonstrate how such a denial means a person is automatically not saved."
UPDATE III: Bobo Baffling Standards
Bobo asserts:
"My point in context of the paper is referring to Universalism. I am saying contradicts the Bible, it is a doctrine of demons. That is not the same as something which is a disputable matter such as Calvinism and Arminianism. My statement about Universalism was addressing universalism in the paper.The statement from me in context could be applied to false teaching but not disputable matters."
In context you are referring to Universalism, however I am extracting the criterion you use to judge Universalism. The very standard you use to reckon Universalism as a demonic-non-Christian heresy. The only criterion you give to show that universalism is unbiblical was that it is a doctrine contrary to scripture and/or that it contradicts Scripture. However this is as equally as applicable to Calvinism since according to you Calvinism is contrary to the Scripture, yet you say one is a heresy but not the other. It's time to be consistent, or stop writing "responses" that don't address the substance of the issue.
My question remains unanswered:
"The only criterion Bobo specifies is that something is in fact false if it is contrary to Scripture, then it's demonic. Well, Bobo, is Calvinism contrary to Scripture or not? According to Bobo it is, hence it's a doctrine of demons."
Again Bobo, shows us his standard is that if a doctrine contradicts scripture it is condemned (damnable heresy):
"That was the context of my addendum. it was pointing out that if one argues that universalism contradicts scripture, it results in condemnation.
Again, no one questions you were referring to if Universalism contradicts Scripture then it results in condemnation. Yet Bobo's double standards are glaring, if Calvinism contradicts Scripture it does not result in condemnation, yet if Universalism contradicts Scripture it does result in condemnation? Based on what? Where did you get this from? Stop saying that a doctrine contradicting Scripture is your criterion to determine heresy, because it's not! If Universalism contradicts the Bible clearly that does not make it a heresy, since you can't say the same about Calvinism, you need to find consistent standards. Does Calvinism contradict Scripture or not? If so it results in condemnation and you should be calling Keith Thompson to repent. Simply asserting one is a disputable matter of faith and one is not is begging the question. But not only do you relentlessly beg the question, you fail to address the positive case from Matt Slick.
Bobo again collapses:
"Sorry, but I don't share what Matt has said regarding Universalists. I have always seen it as a heresy. No where (And I have written papers on this) does the Bible tell us that all men are saved by Christ. Both scripture and early church fathers I quote don't open that door."Why couldn't I just say something virtually identical about Bobo?
"Sorry, but I don't share what Bobo has said regarding Keith Thompson (and other calvinists). I have always seen it as a heresy. No where (And I have written papers on this) does the Bible tell us that Christ died only for some. Both scripture and early church fathers I quote don't open that door."
Again your statements can all be applied to the position of Calvinism, please stop publicly exposing your double standards, and repent and admit you are in error. Either both Calvinism and Universalism are disputable matters of faith, or they are both outside the fold, make up your mind or present a positive case for one being a damnable heresy and one being a disputable matter of faith. All the standards you have employed show that if we measure Universalism by this criterion, Calvinism must fall aswell.
UPDATE IIII Bobo Blasted
Bobo says "well Calvinisim is not on trial, Universalism is". No Bobo, what is on trial is your consistency, if something contradicts or is contrary to the Scripture then it is damanable heresy (per you). You cannot selectively cherry pick one doctrine and not another. Either your standards are consistent or they are inconsistent, and yours are truly inconsistent, so inconsistent, that you have abandoned your own criterion selectively. If you are not capable of being consistent, you are not capable of being honest, which means a debate about Biblical Universalism with you would be obsolete. First you must demonstrate you are prepared to let go of your ego, and admit when you are in error. Simply declaring something is a disputable matter of faith and something is not is arbitrary and irrelevant to me. I am looking for a positive case, not a faith based blind assertion. Matt Slick gave a compelling case for why Universalism (while in error; he thinks) is not salvific issue, you did not, you merely begged the question. First show your commitment to truth, consistency and honesty before you debate Universalism, or are you incapable of such?
No comments:
Post a Comment