Is Universalism "Necessary"?? A Review of Grace Saves All by David Artman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 авг 2024
- Follow me on Goodreads: / joel-wentz
Is "universalism" a necessary conclusion for Christian thinking? What about 'hopeful universalism'? And what's the problem with Arminian theology? How does "grace" figure into all of this, and how can we think more clearly about the prospect of grace-fueled salvific work? These are some of the questions Artman deals with in his surprisingly-short treatise on Christian Universalism.
00:00 - Introduction
00:52 - Main Idea
02:17 - Research
04:02 - Readability
05:15 - Reaction
I love David’s podcast, and I already loved this channel! I would love to hear a conversation between these two men I have a whole lot of respect for! I haven’t read this book, but it’s on my short list.
Thanks for this review. I hope you can have the author on for that conversation. I know so little about CU, and I am reflexively fearful of entertaining it as a possibility. But, I'm also suspicious of where that fear is coming from, and have a nascent attraction to theologies that don't produce fear!
Love the topic!
How can anything be a necessity?
Have you read "The Devil's Redemption" by
Michael James McClymond?
The Devil’s Redemption has been soundly refuted. I have tried to watch video interviews with the author. Despite all his research on the topic he just doesn’t seem to understand what I will call Patristic purgatorial universalism or what many prefer to call Ultimate Reconciliation.
Joel, I've become a real fan of your channel, despite being a traditional Jew. I wanted to ask you, is there a genuine philosophic difference between being a convinced universalist and a "hopeful" one? If you're hopeful, doesn't that suggest you also believe it's possible, i.e., nothing in principle prevents God from saving all? But if nothing truly stands in the way, what could possibly stop it? Is it just a kind of intellectual modesty that prevents you from crossing into the other camp?
In terms of Christian practice, being a hopeful (as opposed to unabashed) universalist means that the gospel you share with others is one that does not refrain from conceding the reality of hell for at least some unrepentant persons. This was the position of CS Lewis, another hopeful universalist, who hoped all would be saved, but also feared that he might lead others eternally astray since he could not conclude that hell does not exist.
@@paulallenscards I wish you guys could adopt a classic Judaic view that the maximum almost all people who are less than saints can spend in hell is 12 months. The "totally wicked" (and how many of those are there, really?) are destroyed, on this account.
@@KingoftheJuice18 I don’t subscribe to the eternal conscious torment perspective, I find it quite unbiblical. Was just trying to offer some perspective on your question.
@@paulallenscards I see; thank you. It's mind-boggling that so many Christians think someone could live a very moral and even God-fearing life and still be sentenced to hell for eternity. Don't they care about God's character and reputation?!
@@KingoftheJuice18 FYI there isn’t a classical view of Hell within post captivity Judaism to the end of the 1st century. There were a variety of beliefs about afterlife punishment/rewards.
The basics is -- as far as I know--that there are two kingdoms and one has to die from one kingdom to be born again into God's kingdom. The Biblical idea is that the earth is under the power/authority/rule of the evil one. A person on earth belongs to a certain kingdom while he lives and if the transfer into the kingdom of God is made, he is in the kingdom of God whether alive or dead. One belongs to a kingdom, or rather to a king. Sin is their master. The wages of sin is death. How does one define death? Jesus seems to define it as a kind of eternity where there is no "life." Life being a soul, and all things that are from God.
The problem is that hell was made for the devil and his angels. Angels --good or bad-- are immortal beings. They are eternally chained or imprisoned. Eternally. I don't understand how one can make a world that imprisons immortal spirit beings but apparently there is. So....how can God sever the human subjects from their demonic king if, in their free will, the humans did not choose God? Wouldn't God be violating the free wills of the denizens of hell by going against their wishes in order to be merciful? And if God can actually go into a prison made to create eternal souls and free the human spirits, wouldn't he be being unfair to the demons who fell? It would be unfair of God to do this. So, although the demons have no savior (that we know of, they would need to be saved and have their souls changed or regenerated.
Another thing is that God is a consuming fire. It is not that he wants to be but those in his presence cannot abide his holiness unless they are in him, by him, through him. How can God somehow make it possible for those who are not in him to abide forever yet be blessed? How can those who do not have the living Christ within them be changed sufficiently to stand in the presence of people who are made holy and pure through Jesus? Not only would it make the hard lives of those who were believers on earth be a kind of eternal sham if God democratizes his holiness just to be nice, but wouldn't those unbelievers who were redeemed from hell still have sin as their master? And would they be able to truly love those who they consider more blessed than they are? Wouldn't they taint eternity if they aren't forced by God to accept Him?
I tend to believe that the Bible allows a lot of leeway to people who have never rejected Christ. It does seem as if the gates of New Jerusalem and the leaves of the tree of life being for the healing of the nations, and even Ezekiel's future temple, seem to hint at various degrees of nearness of God. The "nations" who take of the tree of life do not take it freely as those in Christ do. And why do they need healing? And why can some folks not get into New Jerusalem? The first chapter of Romans hints that those who never knew about Christ might have some kind of salvation in the future but they will not be called children of God in the way those in Christ are called children of God. Christ is the savior of all men, especially of those who believe. So i believe that if people who lived without Christ die, they will be judged by their own consciences and their own adherence to their own laws. A bit problematical because no matter who we are or what we believe, we humans tend to sin against what little spiritual light we have. So Jesus is our mercy, and he is a mercy to everyone on earth. So it's not either hell or heaven. There is a lot of levels. A bit like Dante's Trilogy, it seems.
There's also the issue of "having suffered enough" or the "washing machine theology." Are we saying that after the trauma of hell (unless one believes in soul-sleep) all the folks will be sane enough to love God? After all that grief and suffering they've been through? And how long does it take to be cleaned up enough or punished enough?
I read a book once called Hell, the logic of damnation. And there really is a logic to being eternally damned. I wish there weren't.
So if Universalism was true, why is a place called Hell even mentioned?
Christian Universalism is clearly taught explicitly and implicitly in the Scriptures
I think Christianity has gotten far too complicated.
What do you mean, Hans Küng?
@@AxelDefrank I mean look all the many types of theologies and the different interpretations of those theologies....it makes a mockery of the death and resurrection. Keep It Simple Stupid