Evidence for God from Science

I've started this thread, in order to discuss some issues raised in the 'Sabbath Keeping' thread which had gone 'off topic'. In particular to discuss some issues that Kurieuo drew my attention to in this older post: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 129#p48129.

Kurieuo, could you clarify a few things before I discuss my thoughts on the subject of forgiveness (/atonement) and reconciliation?

You believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that forgiveness is universal now and actual (as opposed to potential), through Christ's work on the cross, but this universal forgiveness doesn't equate to universal reconciliation? You said: ''but I see that just as the first (Adam's sin) was universal, so I see Christ's forgiveness is universal. The Gospel as I see it is a message of forgiveness which applies to everyone - Christian and non-Christian alike. No one is condemned due to an original sin, or even by their own sinful deeds. To say otherwise I see would take away from Christ's payment.''

Before we determine whether forgiveness equals or ultimately leads to atonement, could you give me some examples of scripture that support your belief in universal forgiveness?

These word from Jesus from book of John may help you...

John 6:37-40 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:41-43, "The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." 42 And they said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day...."

John 6:64-65, "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."

Bible quotes from NKJV
-
-
-

Thanks B.W for those particular quotes. They will surely be important as this topic develops.

catherine wrote:I've started this thread, in order to discuss some issues raised in the 'Sabbath Keeping' thread which had gone 'off topic'. In particular to discuss some issues that Kurieuo drew my attention to in this older post: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 129#p48129.

Kurieuo, could you clarify a few things before I discuss my thoughts on the subject of forgiveness (/atonement) and reconciliation?

You believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that forgiveness is universal now and actual (as opposed to potential), through Christ's work on the cross, but this universal forgiveness doesn't equate to universal reconciliation?

That is essentially correct, with some clarifications as per my full responses below.

Not that I want to add more thoughts to the mix, but other people even conflate universal forgiveness together with universal reconciliation. However, I personally see the two as distinct. We can forgive someone and let go of their hurt to us without their knowing. However, to be properly reconciled requires the one forgiven to realise the pain they have caused and accept such forgiveness. Only then is a healthy and legitimate relationship possible.

catherine wrote: You said: ''but I see that just as the first (Adam's sin) was universal, so I see Christ's forgiveness is universal. The Gospel as I see it is a message of forgiveness which applies to everyone - Christian and non-Christian alike. No one is condemned due to an original sin, or even by their own sinful deeds. To say otherwise I see would take away from Christ's payment.''

I still very much agree with what I wrote then. There is scope of application for forgiveness and reconciliation: 1) the whole of humanity, and 2) a personal/individual level.

I believe when Adam and Eve as the head and representatives of humanity rebelled against God, humanity rebelled against God. Thus, humanity as a whole were condemned, however through Christ humanity as a whole no longer stands condemned (Romans 5:18-19). Humanity as a whole are forgiven and even reconciled to God, however it is now an individual and personal choice as to whether we decide to receive such forgiveness and reconciliation (Romans 5:17).

catherine wrote:Before we determine whether forgiveness equals or ultimately leads to atonement, could you give me some examples of scripture that support your belief in universal forgiveness?

It is all the way through Romans, and in particular Romans 5. For example, Romans 5:10-11: "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we [Christians] have now received the reconciliation."

Hope this helps to clarify my position.

I don't normally post full articles elsewhere, but it took me a while finding it again after several years, and I believe it is well thought out so want to capture it here.

Is Forgiveness Conditional or Unconditional:

Richard David Tamayo wrote:Instead of simply categorizing forgiveness as either conditional or unconditional, understanding its deeper nature will allow us to see and realize it's amazingly both.

The objective FACT of God's forgiveness is unconditional but our personal EXPERIENCE of God's forgiveness is conditional. Through Christ's finished work, apart from faith, God does not impute our sins against us (2 Corinthians 5:19). The world was forgiven, acquitted, and justified unconditionally when Christ died but it is ONLY through the conditions of faith and repentance that we personally experience the benefits of God's pardon.

Forgiveness includes two parties: the offended and the offender; the giver of forgiveness and the object of forgiveness. The offended person can, by God's grace, pardon or forgive her offender even if he does not make amends or repent. In such case, in so far as she is concerned, she has fully forgiven her offender. The offender, on the other hand, not knowing the grace-filled heart of her victim runs away and avoids her altogether. He has no peace within fearing she will exact revenge and harm him at any time. One can therefore be fully forgiven by the person he has wronged but still be a million miles away when it comes to a personal experience of its benefits.

A strictly one-sided or single-faceted view of forgiveness which does not distinguish the divine side from the human side, the objective from the subjective, the offended from the offender, leads to the inevitable conflict of positions namely, unconditional forgiveness versus conditional forgiveness. One by necessity has to take a position either for or against on unconditional or conditional forgiveness.

On the other hand, while the Scripture may be silent in explicitly categorizing a dual-faceted perspective on forgiveness, it helps us to see that these seemingly opposite views are not really so necessarily. From a dual-faceted platform or view on forgiveness, for example, Isaiah 44:22 would clearly refer to the fact of our forgiveness while texts like 1 John 1:9 would refer to our experience of forgiveness.

The following are critical issues a strictly single-faceted view of forgiveness will have to face:

Firstly, any person, by God's grace, can choose to decide to fully forgive someone who has offended him even if his offender is unrepentant. When your spouse or child does something hurtful to you, do you tell them that they have to be sorry for what they did before you can forgive them? Do you say to your spouse, “I love you unconditionally but I can forgive you only when you're sorry?” Pope John Paul visited in jail the person who attempted to assassinate him and said to him, “I forgive you” without requiring confession and repentance from him. If we, sinful human beings as we are, are able to forgive our offenders even if they're not repentant and sorry for the sins they did to us, but teach, on the other hand, that God does not forgive sinners unless they repent, what kind of picture are we giving to people about God? I believe such a perspective of the gospel, if strictly and exclusively emphasized would seriously risk painting an unbiblical picture of God: that He is truly less forgiving than sinful, selfish, erring mortals! Please consider this: If we can forgive those who've offended and hurt us even before they repent and are sorry for their sins but God cannot and will not forgive unless they repent, wouldn't that be tantamount to saying that we're more capable of forgiveness than He is?

Secondly, if confession and repentance are absolute conditions before one can actually forgive, how could you ever forgive if the hurt and bitterness you have inside of you was caused not only by someone who never repented of his offense against you but who is also now dead? What are the chances for that person to make amends and be sorry for his sins and make things right with you? Absolutely none! Please consider this: How would it be possible for you to forgive this person if you believe his or her repentance is a necessary condition before you can forgive him or her?

Thirdly, it is biblically unjust for God to receive and welcome anyone whom He has not first forgiven and whose sins He still counts against him. The penalty of sin is death, not forgiveness (see Romans 6:23). If you don't have an acquitted status, God's only righteous action towards you is award you eternal death, not pardon. You don't come home then God signs for your pardon or acquittal. Such action will be unjust on God's part. He has to acquit you first, then, and only then will it be lawful and just for him to welcome you, if you choose to come home.

A fugitive with $10 million dollars reward on his head, who is on an active wanted and death list, who doesn't have a presidential pardon, whose orders against him are shoot-when-sighted and shoot-to-kill will be committing suicide if he decides to show up to surrender however penitent he is. He will be definitely gunned down! If sin is as serious as it really is, what makes us think we can just show up before God unforgiven and make it just because we are repentant? Through Christ's finished work, God counts or imputes no sin (forgiveness) against any sinner (atheist, Satan worshiper, Calvinist, Arminian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.) and it's because of this righteous act of God alone which makes it allowable for any sinner to return home or else even the most repentant sinner who comes home unforgiven can only expect God's righteous wrath to attend to him.

Fourthly, our special mission is to invite and lead people home to an unconditionally loving God. From an evangelistic point of view, to whom would you rather run home to? a) someone who promised to forgive you if you decide to come home? Or b) someone who has forgiven you long before you decided to come home?

If you have overstayed as a visitor in the U.S. you will likely be deported if found by the authorities. If you did overstay, you have committed a serious violation against U.S. immigration law and that is recorded against you. In such a situation, do you find yourself eager and excited to meet and chat with a U.S. immigration officer? Most likely not! But if the U.S. immigration declared amnesty and immigrant status to everyone who overstayed and printed every name concerned in a newspaper which included yours and invites each one to meet with a consul, how would that have made a difference? Many a rebel soldier have surrendered and were reunited to society because amnesty was declared long before they had intentions of giving up.

In other words, will you run home with excitement to a God who has not forgiven you, who actively counts your sins against you, who has you on His most wanted list, who sees you as one who is guilty, who has not acquitted you, who does not acknowledge you as His child, who has never signed your adoption papers, who promises to sign for everything but only when you decide and actually come home?

Or would you rather run home towards a God who never failed to see you as His child, who adopted you while you were yet enemies, who signed for your pardon and emancipation while you were weak and faithless, who now invites you to return home and experience Him whom to know is Life Eternal?

Isaiah 44:22 says, “I have swept away your sins (past tense) like the morning mists. I have scattered your offenses (past tense) like the clouds. Oh, return to me, for I have paid the price to set you free.”

You don't return home THEN God sweeps away your sins like the morning mists. You don't return home THEN God scatters your offenses like the clouds. He ALREADY has swept your sins away and no longer counts them against you while you were away in your unrepentant and lost state. He now invites you to come home. The sweeping away comes first and is already done (It is finished!).

One thing is sure: it is our sacred calling and supreme mission to invite people home to an infinitely loving Creator God. And I want to see people not only walk home but to RUN home to God. And in my experience, from this perspective of the gospel, from this snapshot of God, I've seen people not only get excited to run home to God and know Him more for who He is but also to invite others to come home to God as they did!

Kurieuo, that was a very interesting article you posted. Thank you.

From your comments and the article you quoted, it is being argued that 'forgiveness' alone, is not sufficient to produce or result in reconciliation (ie salvation).
I think the distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation (if it exists) can be cleared up if we look at the language in many of the verses you quoted, and if we bear in mind 'atonement' in conjunction with forgiveness. As I understand it, atonement comes after (or with) forgiveness and 'mops up' the 'mess' that was caused by the 'wrong'. It's 'easy' to forgive, but not so easy (for man) to undo (reconcile) the wrong. This is why Jesus had to be our atoning sacrifice. He had to shed His blood to 'right the wrongs' etc. He did the work and it is finished. And so, reconciliation is salvation obtained by the atoning forgiveness of Christ.

It seems to me that the verses you were quoting to show universal forgiveness (which I whole-heartedly believe do demonstrate that this is the case), are actually emphasisng universal reconciliation and therefore they are virtually the same thing. If we take Rom 5:10, it does not say we were 'forgiven' whilst we were still enemies. It says reconciled. If we take Rom 5: 18, this is talking of the atoning sacrifice that : 'leads to justification and life for all men' ie reconciliation. There are many other verses like John 1:29, again referring to the (universal) atoning work of the 'Lamb of God'. If we take 2 Cor 5:19, again, reconciliation is the emphasis. I think it's implied that when 'forgiveness' is mentioned, it follows that God will 'finish' the act of forgiveness and provide atonement, which we know is only through Jesus. I hope you can see where I'm coming from here. Sorry if my ideas are disjointed. I've got that many ideas and scriptures flooding my mind, and I'm trying to tie in a couple of 'themes' whilst trying to show the universal forgiveness you believe in, is in fact indistinguishable from universal reconciliation.

You believe that reconcilation is contingent upon (fallen) man ie man's choice to accept that God has forgiven him. How does this add up? Firstly this disagrees with the verses already quoted, that show God is indeed reconciling the world back to Him (and we know that God's will , will be done, not our will). Secondly, it would be like putting the lunatics in control of the asylum. Jesus says 'I will draw all men to Myself'. Apparently the Greek word for 'draw' has more the idea of 'dragging'. We, as malfunctioning, fallen creatures don't know what is best for us, and so to allow the unconditional forgiveness (love?) of God to hang in the balance, to be dependant on our wicked hearts, is too reckless and crazy an idea. Verses like Rom 8:20, 21 seem to be saying that God is in full control and is working things out, regardless of what we puny humans do, so that ultimately, God will be all in all (1Cor 15:28) :

'For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God'.


Finally I'll leave you with a quote of a quote:

''.......and I saw that it was true, as the Bible says, that ''as in Adam all die even so in Christ should all be made alive.'' As was the first, even so was the second. The ''all'' in one case could not in fairness mean less than the ''all'' in the other. I saw therefore that the remedy must necessarily be equal to the disease, the salvation must be as universal as the fall.''- Hannah Whitall Smith (quoted in 'The Evangelical Universalist').

catherine wrote: It seems to me that the verses you were quoting to show universal forgiveness (which I whole-heartedly believe do demonstrate that this is the case), are actually emphasisng universal reconciliation and therefore they are virtually the same thing. If we take Rom 5:10, it does not say we were 'forgiven' whilst we were still enemies. It says reconciled. If we take Rom 5: 18, this is talking of the atoning sacrifice that : 'leads to justification and life for all men' ie reconciliation. There are many other verses like John 1:29, again referring to the (universal) atoning work of the 'Lamb of God'. If we take 2 Cor 5:19, again, reconciliation is the emphasis. I think it's implied that when 'forgiveness' is mentioned, it follows that God will 'finish' the act of forgiveness and provide atonement, which we know is only through Jesus. I hope you can see where I'm coming from here. Sorry if my ideas are disjointed. I've got that many ideas and scriptures flooding my mind, and I'm trying to tie in a couple of 'themes' whilst trying to show the universal forgiveness you believe in, is in fact indistinguishable from universal reconciliation.

You believe that reconcilation is contingent upon (fallen) man ie man's choice to accept that God has forgiven him. How does this add up? Firstly this disagrees with the verses already quoted, that show God is indeed reconciling the world back to Him (and we know that God's will , will be done, not our will). Secondly, it would be like putting the lunatics in control of the asylum. Jesus says 'I will draw all men to Myself'. Apparently the Greek word for 'draw' has more the idea of 'dragging'. We, as malfunctioning, fallen creatures don't know what is best for us, and so to allow the unconditional forgiveness (love?) of God to hang in the balance, to be dependant on our wicked hearts, is too reckless and crazy an idea. Verses like Rom 8:20, 21 seem to be saying that God is in full control and is working things out, regardless of what we puny humans do, so that ultimately, God will be all in all (1Cor 15:28) :

Hey Catherine,

While these verses talk of reconciliation to God through the death of Jesus, this does not mean that we are one and all automatically reconciled in spite of a hardened heart. We are all FORGIVEN, for sure, but we are not all reconciled, as reconciliation requires the person to willingly be brought into agreement or harmony with the person/proposition. So we are all reconciled if indeed reconciliation is what we are AFTER, but this reconciliation is contingent on the person accepting the proposition. Reconciliation requires one to voluntarily show sorrow for their sin, and then to accept and grasp the outstretched Hand of God.

Dan

Kurieuo and catherine,

I wanted to post an article you both might find interesting. I am one who also believes that the atonement was universally effective (universal atonement), not simply potential, but does not believe in universal salvation. Much of my thinking on the matter comes from Zane Hodges' article What Do We Mean by Propitiation: Does it Only Count if We Accept It?.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:Kurieuo and catherine,

I wanted to post an article you both might find interesting. I am one who also believes that the atonement was universally effective (universal atonement), not simply potential, but does not believe in universal salvation. Much of my thinking on the matter comes from Zane Hodges' article What Do We Mean by Propitiation: Does it Only Count if We Accept It?.

God bless

Thanks Chris.

I began reading that article and while perhaps not directly or thoroughly, some things said in the first page aligned and helped to confirm some of what I believe regarding the application of forgiveness and reconcilation. Catherine, I will elabourate more later, but understanding the application of reconciliation is key to understanding how I can accept those passages in Romans re: our reconciliation while still enemies, while believing such reconciliation can only happen once a person receives God's forgiveness through Christ.

However, I was really shocked to read further that in a judicial sense we are forgiven and reconciled, but we still bear the natural consequences of our sinful works by our names not appearing in the book of life (which in turn means we will be thrown into the lake of fire). I personally believe such thought devoids Christ's work of any true "satisfaction" and rips a part any sense of assurance in salvation (being saved from death). Such thought also fails to grasp our inability to be without blemish, which is why we must be clothed with Christ's righteousness. And if we are clothed with Christ's righteousness, then we are heirs and found in the book of life. I would have never thought "free grace" would so cheapen the gift we are given, to the extent that while we are all forgiven and reconciled, we still stand on our own works to be found in the book of life and avoid hell. Am I misreading or misunderstanding Hodges?

catherine wrote:Kurieuo, that was a very interesting article you posted. Thank you.

From your comments and the article you quoted, it is being argued that 'forgiveness' alone, is not sufficient to produce or result in reconciliation (ie salvation).
I think the distinction between forgiveness and reconciliation (if it exists) can be cleared up if we look at the language in many of the verses you quoted, and if we bear in mind 'atonement' in conjunction with forgiveness. As I understand it, atonement comes after (or with) forgiveness and 'mops up' the 'mess' that was caused by the 'wrong'. It's 'easy' to forgive, but not so easy (for man) to undo (reconcile) the wrong. This is why Jesus had to be our atoning sacrifice. He had to shed His blood to 'right the wrongs' etc. He did the work and it is finished. And so, reconciliation is salvation obtained by the atoning forgiveness of Christ.

I can understand your logic here. However, where you believe atonement comes after/with forgiveness I have a slight different take on atonement.

I agree there is a strong correlation between atonement and forgiveness. We can be forgiven because of Christ's atonement which removes God's need to condemn us for our sin (Hebrews 2:7; Hebrews 7:27). Thus, due to Christ's atoning sacrifice, our sins are not counted against us, but we can be and are forgiven of them. This allows God to enter into a relationship with us, something He previously could not do. In the days of old, the priest maintained this relationship on behalf of Israel, today in Christ we can directly approach God ourselves.

In the levitical law priests presented a sacrifice on behalf of the people of Israel to atone for their sins committed. An atonement allowed God's righteousness to be met in dealing with sin. After atonement, forgiveness was then possible. Leviticus 6:7 supports forgiveness proceeding after atonement: "In this way the priest will make atonement for him before the LORD, and he will be forgiven for any of these things he did that made him guilty."

I am not sure if you will necessarily disagree with any of this, however the important point I wish to draw out is that atonement only deals with God's righteousness being met.

Catherine wrote:It seems to me that the verses you were quoting to show universal forgiveness (which I whole-heartedly believe do demonstrate that this is the case), are actually emphasisng universal reconciliation and therefore they are virtually the same thing. If we take Rom 5:10, it does not say we were 'forgiven' whilst we were still enemies. It says reconciled. If we take Rom 5: 18, this is talking of the atoning sacrifice that : 'leads to justification and life for all men' ie reconciliation.

When taking Romans 5:10 on its own, the "we" in "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son" can mean three things that I can think of:

1. "We" refers to each individual person being personally reconciled with God.
2. "We" refers to humanity as a whole being reconciled with God.
3. "We" refers to Christians predestined to be reconciled with God. Thus, I can be an enemy of God, yet in a sense was reconciled while an enemy on account of my coming to Christ at a future point.

You opt for 1 above. I opt for 2 above, and while I find 3 acceptable it seems overly complicated given no mention of God's predestining is mentioned by Paul. Now, on its own, "we" in the phrase I highlight in Romans 5:10 could be taken to mean any of these. However, Paul's further words in the same verse allude to 2 above being true, and other verses in chapter 5 leads me to lock in '2' above as the proper understanding.

Christ's atoning sacrifice removes God's judgement against the whole of humanity which was brought on by Adam and Eve's original sin. Thus, whereas there was a gap caused by sin between the human race and God, that sin has now been atoned for and gap filled. This is what I believe Paul means by "For if while we (the whole human race) were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son..." The verse continues, "...much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life." It seems two reconciliation events here are being alluded to. For example, I would interpret the verse as follows:

• For if while we were enemies we [the whole of humanity] were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we [Christians] are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

That Christians are being referred to in the second instance is made more obvious in the verse which follows (Romans 5:11): "More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation." Only Christians would rejoice in God through Jesus Christ. Thus, while the whole of humanity has been reconciled from humanities' original sin, only people who have received Christ are reconciled unto salvation.

To help understand what I mean by this, consider an example of a war where one nation is at war with another nation. Both nations as a whole might reconcile with each other and sign a peace treaty. However, individuals within each nation may still harvest resentment towards each other and not be reconciled unto each other. It still remains while as a whole reconciliation may be there, that individuals themselves are still to enter into reconciliation.

Further down in Romans 5:17, Paul also clarifies that it are those who receive God's grace and gift of righteousness (Christ's atonement) who will reign in life through Christ: "For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ." Thus when we include Paul's fuller words, interpreting Romans 5:10 as '1' would seem to get ruled out as contradictory to what Paul says elsewhere, leaving '2' (or '3') as the correct interpretation.

There is a common phrase Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason often says: "Never read a Bible verse". I sure you can agree since the intended meaning of the author can be lost if just reading one verse on its own without acknowledging clarifications made in the fuller passage, chapter, or even chapters.

Catherine wrote:There are many other verses like John 1:29, again referring to the (universal) atoning work of the 'Lamb of God'. If we take 2 Cor 5:19, again, reconciliation is the emphasis. I think it's implied that when 'forgiveness' is mentioned, it follows that God will 'finish' the act of forgiveness and provide atonement, which we know is only through Jesus. I hope you can see where I'm coming from here. Sorry if my ideas are disjointed. I've got that many ideas and scriptures flooding my mind, and I'm trying to tie in a couple of 'themes' whilst trying to show the universal forgiveness you believe in, is in fact indistinguishable from universal reconciliation.

Your ideas are definitely not disjointed, at least, I can fully understand what you are saying so unless I am disjointed. Notice in both passages the context of reconciliation and sin being forgiven is with "the world".

Let me draw your attention to Romans 5:12 which says: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned". Given this verse, did each of us individually commit a sin the moment Adam sinned? If you respond with "no" then I would agree. Yet, like a nation declaring war on another nation regardless of any protesters within, the whole of humanity sinned against God regardless of whether or not we had even been born to commit sin. Likewise the declaration in John 1:29 and 2 Cor 5:19 of the world respectively having its sin taken and away and being reconciled is intended in a wholistic manner.

In light of the enormous amount of passages to which declare we must receive Christ, that Christ as the only way, that the path to God is narrow and only few find it (I actually have a list of 100 passages in Scripture lying somewhere along these lines), it seems to me unreasonable to isolate an interpretations of the verses you mention away from such knowledge.

I feel my explanation above responds to the rest of your post, but I am happy to discuss further if anything is not clear.

Regarding your final quote:

Catherine wrote:''.......and I saw that it was true, as the Bible says, that ''as in Adam all die even so in Christ should all be made alive.'' As was the first, even so was the second. The ''all'' in one case could not in fairness mean less than the ''all'' in the other. I saw therefore that the remedy must necessarily be equal to the disease, the salvation must be as universal as the fall.''- Hannah Whitall Smith (quoted in 'The Evangelical Universalist').

I can accept that Christ atones for "all of humanity" just as "all of humanity" sinned in Adam. That is, humanity taken as a whole, and not all individuals within humanity. There is no longer a gap between humanity and God thanks to Christ's atonement. To quote the verse used (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." That life, as we learn in the previous verse (Romans 5:17) is open to all who receive it.

Many blessings.

Jac, I've not read the article you've posted yet, but I will do. Thank you.

Kurieuo,

I can 'see' what you are saying, and how you are distinguishing between universal reconciliaton which boils down to individual 'choices' (so it's more of a principle) and universal really meaning universal and therefore contradicting the many verses that you rightly mention that don't seem to support 'full' universal reconciliaiton (B.W quoted other such verses). I will have to ponder these things for a while. I've still got two dilemmas, if what you are saying is true (and I suspect it could well be):

1. understanding your comment: 'There is no longer a gap between humanity and God thanks to Christ's atonement.' and how that works out in the real world ie I still feel that 'gap'. The world is in no way reconciled to God as I can see it (even theoretically), and so how does this universal forgiveness or reconciliation practically apply? It seems 'illusory' rather than 'real', it's lying dormant. I always understood forgiveness and reconciliation to involve action that involves BOTH parties but may not involve action by both parties and that takes me to my second problem:

2. The onus on salvation is placed firmly with the 'wrong' party (malfunctioning, 'evil' man), who as Jeremiah puts it: 'I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own;
it is not for man to direct his steps.' and Jer 17:9: 'The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?'

If the forgiveness is given 'against' or outside of our wills, then why not the reconciliation? If you saw a drowning man and he shouted not to help him, you would still help him against his will. If we imagine the day we stand face to face with Jesus and His love penetrates our hard hearts (I'm talking about unbelivers now)and takes away the malfuctioning parts of our 'hearts' (some believe that is what the Lake of fire actually does, it refines away the 'sin' parts of us) is it really possible to reject Jesus? Will Jesus ever stop looking for any lost sheep or will his actions or work continue until He 'finds' every lost sheep and brings them back into the fold? How can love ever fail or give up? This is why I have a problem with the 'eternal conscious torment' doctrine (and the idea that we decide our eternal fate, not God). I have no problem with a person having to undergo suffering which ultimately teaches and transforms them from their fallen states (for as long as it takes), but for God to have 'given up' on even one person and allow them to remain in conscious torment without any hope of being freed from that leaves me 'turned off' to the classic view of Jesus. That's another big subject that's been debated vigorously already and so I'll not go on about that.

When Judas is resurrected to 'face the music' on Judgment Day, and can hardly look Jesus in the eye, but says to Him, 'I realised what I'd done was the worst thing anyone could do and so I killed myself because I was sorry for what I'd done and couldn't live with myself. Can you ever forgive me?' What do you think Jesus will say?

I'll ponder your reply some more and I'll come back to you on this.

I was just making a bacon butty and pondering on the 'drowning' analogy and it struck me; the forgiveness that is 'out there' is like someone standing on the edge of the water with a rubber ring. They won't throw it to the drowning person until the person asks them to throw it. (I know we probably don't get to the bottom of things by using these silly analogies, but it's too tempting not to). Now, the idea of such a situation- rubber ring is available but drowning man doesn't want it, does seem to reflect man's situation with regards to salvation. We are dying and need to be saved, and the Saviour is there waiting for us to ask Him to save us (I'm always asking Him to save me-from myself usually). If we have a million people all drowning and someone is shouting to them, 'hey I've got a ring here for you. Just say the word and I'll throw it to you', many will say 'yes, throw it to me quickly', many will be drowning so badly they won't be capable of asking, so what happens to the 'many' that don't seem able to 'ask'? If I take myself as an example. I'm capable of asking Jesus to save me, but as yet I've not been able to love Him the way we're meant to. I can't appreciate His standards (I watch films that are rude or violent, I'm selfish and lose my patience, I doubt every day that Jesus is even real). I can't conjure up love in my heart for someone who may not be real. I try to be as good as I can be in my own power but it's easy to not always make the effort I could make. Now, if we take all those people who 'appear' in the hell experiences. You hear of people going to hell and seeing how others they knew e.g drug addicts, criminals, relatives, are now suffering and many accounts say these people warn the one 'visiting' to not come to this place (this reminds me of A Christmas Carol- old Marley). These people I'm sure would freely accept to leave 'hell' but now they can't because they died without having asked and now their fate is locked for all eternity. They were stuck in situations e.g drug addiction, alcoholism, that meant they died as 'prisoners'.

I can't get my head round a passive God who just offers and doesn't cajole or woo people into a position where they can understand what is being offered to them. The way salvation seems to work for 'orthodox' Christianity, is rather like the drowning person having to be able to manage to climb onto the bank and grab the ring for himself, which of course is impossible if you're drowning. The point I'm making here is that many people are incapable of asking or knowing about the salvation that is 'out there' and available. Only a mad or 'ill' person would reject your offer of a life line. My husband can't accept Jesus' offer of salvation because he doesn't believe in Him for starters and doesn't appreciate sin and culpability etc. I can't envisage a God who doesn't forcefully save people in the end. The remedy for the fall, must surely be administered powerfully and not passively.

catherine wrote:I was just making a bacon butty and pondering on the 'drowning' analogy and it struck me; the forgiveness that is 'out there' is like someone standing on the edge of the water with a rubber ring. They won't throw it to the drowning person until the person asks them to throw it. (I know we probably don't get to the bottom of things by using these silly analogies, but it's too tempting not to). Now, the idea of such a situation- rubber ring is available but drowning man doesn't want it, does seem to reflect man's situation with regards to salvation. We are dying and need to be saved, and the Saviour is there waiting for us to ask Him to save us (I'm always asking Him to save me-from myself usually). If we have a million people all drowning and someone is shouting to them, 'hey I've got a ring here for you. Just say the word and I'll throw it to you', many will say 'yes, throw it to me quickly', many will be drowning so badly they won't be capable of asking, so what happens to the 'many' that don't seem able to 'ask'? If I take myself as an example. I'm capable of asking Jesus to save me, but as yet I've not been able to love Him the way we're meant to. I can't appreciate His standards (I watch films that are rude or violent, I'm selfish and lose my patience, I doubt every day that Jesus is even real). I can't conjure up love in my heart for someone who may not be real. I try to be as good as I can be in my own power but it's easy to not always make the effort I could make. Now, if we take all those people who 'appear' in the hell experiences. You hear of people going to hell and seeing how others they knew e.g drug addicts, criminals, relatives, are now suffering and many accounts say these people warn the one 'visiting' to not come to this place (this reminds me of A Christmas Carol- old Marley). These people I'm sure would freely accept to leave 'hell' but now they can't because they died without having asked and now their fate is locked for all eternity. They were stuck in situations e.g drug addiction, alcoholism, that meant they died as 'prisoners'.

I can't get my head round a passive God who just offers and doesn't cajole or woo people into a position where they can understand what is being offered to them. The way salvation seems to work for 'orthodox' Christianity, is rather like the drowning person having to be able to manage to climb onto the bank and grab the ring for himself, which of course is impossible if you're drowning. The point I'm making here is that many people are incapable of asking or knowing about the salvation that is 'out there' and available. Only a mad or 'ill' person would reject your offer of a life line. My husband can't accept Jesus' offer of salvation because he doesn't believe in Him for starters and doesn't appreciate sin and culpability etc. I can't envisage a God who doesn't forcefully save people in the end. The remedy for the fall, must surely be administered powerfully and not passively.

Catherine,

Without getting into the whole premise of this thread, I just wanted to comment on your analogy of the drowning person here and take it even one step further as this is how I've always thought about it. The man with the ring (I presume you mean God here) is not simply standing there waiting for someone to ask Him to throw the ring to them. He really and actually tosses a ring to everyone, regardless of whether or not they asked for it. It then becomes the drowning person's decision to hang on to the ring or not. If they do hang to it they are saved. Is it by their own effort, can they boast about saving themselves? Of course not, they were drowning. But they did cooperate with the saving process and that's what God requires of us, our cooperation.

The next question that usually comes up after that is well, why do some people cooperate and some don't (if one is not a Calvinist that is). And that is one of the oldest questions that has plagued theologians for ages, to which no completely satisfactory answer is yet found.

catherine wrote:Kurieuo,

I can 'see' what you are saying, and how you are distinguishing between universal reconciliaton which boils down to individual 'choices' (so it's more of a principle) and universal really meaning universal and therefore contradicting the many verses that you rightly mention that don't seem to support 'full' universal reconciliaiton (B.W quoted other such verses). I will have to ponder these things for a while. I've still got two dilemmas, if what you are saying is true (and I suspect it could well be):

1. understanding your comment: 'There is no longer a gap between humanity and God thanks to Christ's atonement.' and how that works out in the real world ie I still feel that 'gap'. The world is in no way reconciled to God as I can see it (even theoretically), and so how does this universal forgiveness or reconciliation practically apply? It seems 'illusory' rather than 'real', it's lying dormant. I always understood forgiveness and reconciliation to involve action that involves BOTH parties but may not involve action by both parties and that takes me to my second problem:

Good point. And it requires a detailed response to even attempt to adequately deal with it.

I don't know about you, but I personally found it hard even grasping original sin. Why was I being held responsible for Adam and Eve's sin? I didn't commit it. Such a universally applied sin didn't make sense to me. I examined Scripture thinking it may be more tradition, but then I found Scripture supported this idea. It still felt more illusory than real. In any case, I felt it was a small matter since I know I obviously sinned myself anyhow. Now I see it can only be understood that original sin applies to all of us united under humanity. If a race of aliens attacked Earth, would it matter to us if not all the aliens wanted to attack us? No. A divide would exist between both races. Likewise, when Adam showed himself to be at odds with God by going against Him, a very real divide was caused between the human race and God. God could no longer have a direct and immediate relationship with us because of it. Hence, the need for a holy priestly order in Israel to intercede with God on Israel's behalf, and our final need for Christ.

Christ coming and atoning for our sin meant the very real divide between humanity and God became closed, and some semblence of a relationship between us and God could now be possible through Christ. Yet, the world is very much hostile to God and even those who believe in Christ. Humanity does not enjoy the full benefit of its reconcilation. For sure, the full benefits of our reconciliation are not realised here. However, we are encouraged in 1 Peter 1:3-9 to persevere:

• 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes rthough it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, 9 obtaining wthe outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

I believe we are all undergoing a process of maturing and testing throughout our lives, however this will come to an end when our temporary world passes away. In its place, God promises to set up a new kingdom wherein He will dwell with His people, and “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Revelation 21:4) Then, the full benefits of our reconciliation will be experienced and obvious.

Catherine wrote:I always understood forgiveness and reconciliation to involve action that involves BOTH parties but may not involve action by both parties...

To tackle this last sentence of your point '1', are you saying you see it both ways - that forgiveness and reconciliation involves both parties and than at the same time in a different sense it only requires one party? I would myself agree with this.

I use to always see forgiveness was a two way streak. It required someone to forgive, and the other to accept the forgiveness. Then I realised through life experience, and being hurt by and holding a lot of resentment towards life and other people, that to forgive only requires one person. Forgiving enables us to put behind any hurt and pain and positively move forward for the better. I then realised the story of the prodigal son with the father having forgave his son even before his return supported this, as did other Scripture. However, in order for a transaction of forgiveness to take place, I still see forgiveness must be received. Herein lies the key to understand why I believe God has forgiven everyone, and yet many still perish. A transaction requires two people, the one doing the sending and the other the receiving. So while we are all forgiven, the transaction of forgiveness can only take place if we turn to our Heavenly Father and receive it (as the prodigal son returned to his father). However, for varying reasons - denial of any wrong doing, bitterness and resentment, feeling wronged, denial of the One who forgave, denial of God's existence and many others - many remain with their sin despite the complete forgiveness on offer. God harvests no ill, but loving us as He does, He allows us the freedom to freely respond in love back to Him. For only freedom allows true love to form. Sadly that means many freely reject Him and the forgiveness He offers, and it seems to me God will lock their decisions in for eternity at death and cast such persons out of His presense.

So forgiveness only requires one person to forgive, but two for the transaction to be effectual. Reconciliation on the other hand requires more than forgiveness, it requires both parties being willing to enter into a relationship. Forgiveness generally has to do with the past, reconciliation the future. Forgiveness can exist without reconcilation. For example, someone physically abused may forgive their abuser, but this does not mean they should open themselves up to more hurt by continuing in a relationship with them. Only when the abuser owns their behaviour, admits their guilt and brings about fruit evidencing change should an abusee even consider being reconciled into a relationship with such a person. Hopefully that helps to clarify some distinctions between forgiveness and reconcilation.

Catherine wrote:2. The onus on salvation is placed firmly with the 'wrong' party (malfunctioning, 'evil' man), who as Jeremiah puts it: 'I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own;
it is not for man to direct his steps.' and Jer 17:9: 'The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?'

If the forgiveness is given 'against' or outside of our wills, then why not the reconciliation?

Hopefully my explanation given here above helps to answer this. If not I am happy to elaborate anything. Also, I do not know if you have read Boundaries by Cloud and Townsend (great book!), but in it they define the difference and I am happy to send you some pages from it on forgiveness and reconcilation if interested.

Catherine wrote:If you saw a drowning man and he shouted not to help him, you would still help him against his will.

Perhaps I wouldn't... Seriously, if I knew he'd endanger my life and then we both could die, I'd ensure I would be safe. Or, if he had wronged me really bad, like abused my children, I'd definitely want to let him drown.

However, I get your example. Even if I would save him against his will, it is different when it comes to God and us. God respects our decision and will not force Himself onto us. There is no doubt Scripture says God does not wish any one of us to perish, and furthermore the Holy Spirit is constantly drawing each of us. However, God values our freedom to choose or deny Him. Which is the reason He endowed us with ability to freely choose. Only then is it possible for the greatest good to happen - love. Love must be a free response.

Catherine wrote:If we imagine the day we stand face to face with Jesus and His love penetrates our hard hearts (I'm talking about unbelivers now)and takes away the malfuctioning parts of our 'hearts' (some believe that is what the Lake of fire actually does, it refines away the 'sin' parts of us) is it really possible to reject Jesus? Will Jesus ever stop looking for any lost sheep or will his actions or work continue until He 'finds' every lost sheep and brings them back into the fold? How can love ever fail or give up? This is why I have a problem with the 'eternal conscious torment' doctrine (and the idea that we decide our eternal fate, not God). I have no problem with a person having to undergo suffering which ultimately teaches and transforms them from their fallen states (for as long as it takes), but for God to have 'given up' on even one person and allow them to remain in conscious torment without any hope of being freed from that leaves me 'turned off' to the classic view of Jesus. That's another big subject that's been debated vigorously already and so I'll not go on about that.

Firstly, yes I think it is very possible to reject Jesus even in His very presence. For example, I'd imagine many would feel in awe and quite numb seeing Christ's very nature. Adding on top the realisation of their own sinful self, a realisation they were wrong, and so on they would probably feel extreme fear and shame and simply want to hide from His very presence. CS Lewis seems to have thought if there was any chance a person would turn to Christ, in life or in death, that they could simply walk the chasm into eternal life. But in his book, The Great Divorce, Lewis portrays those in hell as being essentially trapped within themselves.

Something tells me, when we die, who we are becomes solidified. We can no longer change or be refined. We are like the angels who were either for or against God. God locks in our decisions for eternity. However, then a part of me believes Christ would for example take into his arms regardless those who may have had a tortured and short life (for a horrible example, a small child who only ever experienced sexual abuse before being snuffed out in a shortly lived life). In all honesty, I can produce theories, but I do not really know how it works, whether there are chances in the hereafter. Scripture seems quite silent in this respect.

I do know that Scripture and Christ Himself seemed to have placed all the emphasis on our life lived in the here and now. I would not want to take that chance in the hereafter. Think of it this way. Would you prefer to be wrong telling someone that they don't need Christ or His forgiveness because we are all saved, or would you prefer to be wrong telling someone they need Christ and should receive His forgiveness otherwise they will be eternally cast out from God. I believe the second, but certainly hope I am wrong as it means all the more people will be saved. But that is sadly not what I am led to believe when I read Christ's words or Scripture.

Catherine wrote:When Judas is resurrected to 'face the music' on Judgment Day, and can hardly look Jesus in the eye, but says to Him, 'I realised what I'd done was the worst thing anyone could do and so I killed myself because I was sorry for what I'd done and couldn't live with myself. Can you ever forgive me?' What do you think Jesus will say?

Your "can hardly look Jesus in the eye" aligns more with my own thinking. I believe Judas won't even be able to look at Christ, and will want rocks to fall on him (so-to-speak) and hide from Christ's presence. Judas died feeling extreme guilt, and it really depends on whether he will remain that way in the hereafter once raised. We just do not know how it works in the hereafter with who we are, whether we can change, remain static or are locked into who we became here on Earth.

However, obviously Judas was sorry for what he did since he hung himself. Given your scenario is possible, then Judas' sins are already forgiven, it remains for him to accept such forgiveness and be reconciled. I believe Christ would openly welcome Him as He did with Peter hereon Earth who also betrayed Christ by denying Him three time. Again, we are discussing scenarios we do not know whether are possible. And again, the emphasis from Christ and in Scripture is on the here and now. I would not want to take the risk, and would certainly not encourage others to.

Many blessings.

Byblos wrote:

catherine wrote:I was just making a bacon butty and pondering on the 'drowning' analogy and it struck me; the forgiveness that is 'out there' is like someone standing on the edge of the water with a rubber ring. They won't throw it to the drowning person until the person asks them to throw it. (I know we probably don't get to the bottom of things by using these silly analogies, but it's too tempting not to). Now, the idea of such a situation- rubber ring is available but drowning man doesn't want it, does seem to reflect man's situation with regards to salvation. We are dying and need to be saved, and the Saviour is there waiting for us to ask Him to save us (I'm always asking Him to save me-from myself usually). If we have a million people all drowning and someone is shouting to them, 'hey I've got a ring here for you. Just say the word and I'll throw it to you', many will say 'yes, throw it to me quickly', many will be drowning so badly they won't be capable of asking, so what happens to the 'many' that don't seem able to 'ask'? If I take myself as an example. I'm capable of asking Jesus to save me, but as yet I've not been able to love Him the way we're meant to. I can't appreciate His standards (I watch films that are rude or violent, I'm selfish and lose my patience, I doubt every day that Jesus is even real). I can't conjure up love in my heart for someone who may not be real. I try to be as good as I can be in my own power but it's easy to not always make the effort I could make. Now, if we take all those people who 'appear' in the hell experiences. You hear of people going to hell and seeing how others they knew e.g drug addicts, criminals, relatives, are now suffering and many accounts say these people warn the one 'visiting' to not come to this place (this reminds me of A Christmas Carol- old Marley). These people I'm sure would freely accept to leave 'hell' but now they can't because they died without having asked and now their fate is locked for all eternity. They were stuck in situations e.g drug addiction, alcoholism, that meant they died as 'prisoners'.

I can't get my head round a passive God who just offers and doesn't cajole or woo people into a position where they can understand what is being offered to them. The way salvation seems to work for 'orthodox' Christianity, is rather like the drowning person having to be able to manage to climb onto the bank and grab the ring for himself, which of course is impossible if you're drowning. The point I'm making here is that many people are incapable of asking or knowing about the salvation that is 'out there' and available. Only a mad or 'ill' person would reject your offer of a life line. My husband can't accept Jesus' offer of salvation because he doesn't believe in Him for starters and doesn't appreciate sin and culpability etc. I can't envisage a God who doesn't forcefully save people in the end. The remedy for the fall, must surely be administered powerfully and not passively.

Catherine,

Without getting into the whole premise of this thread, I just wanted to comment on your analogy of the drowning person here and take it even one step further as this is how I've always thought about it. The man with the ring (I presume you mean God here) is not simply standing there waiting for someone to ask Him to throw the ring to them. He really and actually tosses a ring to everyone, regardless of whether or not they asked for it. It then becomes the drowning person's decision to hang on to the ring or not. If they do hang to it they are saved. Is it by their own effort, can they boast about saving themselves? Of course not, they were drowning. But they did cooperate with the saving process and that's what God requires of us, our cooperation.

The next question that usually comes up after that is well, why do some people cooperate and some don't (if one is not a Calvinist that is). And that is one of the oldest questions that has plagued theologians for ages, to which no completely satisfactory answer is yet found.

Catherine,

Also consider the story of Lazarus and the rich man:

• 27"[The rich man] answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
  29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
  30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

You are presuming that everyone wants to be with Christ, or if they knew the truth then they would accept Him. What reason is there to believe this? To use your analogy, the person wanting to drown is like the person who doesn't want to live with God. I think it would be more wrong for God to force such a person to live with Him (akin to divine rape), than to allow such a person their own decision.

• 2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
  
  1 Tim 2:1-6: "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone... This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

Question: If God doesn't want anyone to perish, and God wants everyone to be saved, then what is stopping God? There is really only one answer I can think of. Because He values our decision to freely choose or deny Him.

All I can recommend is that you persist with your husband. He has heard the message, and God can see the heart of a person, their openness or closedness towards Him regardless of their belief. Scripture is quite clear we are without excuse for God can be plainly seen through what has been made (Romans 1:20). My wife was also once a non-believer, but thankfully God worked through me to reach out to her, and eventually the veil lifted and God revealed Himself to her personally. I pray the same might happen with you and your husband.