Universalism

“The Question: Is the Cross of Christ more or less efficacious than the Sin of Adam and the human race?” Christ's ransom is more powerful than the Sin of Adam. You are correct in pointing to Romans 5 to show there is “no comparison” between the power of the Sin of Adam and Christ's Redemption. The blood of Christ is sufficient for the whole world, but the disagreement is whether or not it is applied to the whole world, or only the repentant during this life. Thanks for the clarifications, Pro. But for future reference, it would be best to give more specific source citations for your references, (sources WERE good for Bible verses). But your audience and opponent will be hard pressed to verify the information supporting your claims about the Early Church, Rome, and Lewis without an easier way to find what you’re citing. Searching through the entire Talmud or Church history book for a single passage without at least a chapter reference is difficult. The first sign of trouble I see with Pro’s argument is that Theology is placed above Scripture in importance, and Scripture is not even given a clear ranking above philosophy or tradition. Theology is the study of the nature of God. The only conclusive/reliable study of God’s nature is done with the oversight of what God has revealed in Scripture. Without divine revelation, (direct communication/observation of the studied party) there is no possible verification of the conclusions of a theologian. Better understanding Universalism from Pro's explanation, I tried to view the Bible from Universalism’s perspective, as I understand it, and see if there’s anything definitely contrary to that perspective. In Pro’s referenced verses and surrounding verses, I could find nothing contradictory, if you start from a Universalist perspective. Now lets address Universalism in the light of other Scripture. Pro’s Theological argument is the great lengths God will go to save even one lost lamb. True, but not all are “lambs,” (belonging to the flock). John 10:1 Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. Not all are saved. Matthew 22, the parable of the King's banquet: For many are invited, but few are chosen. Romans 9: It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. There are some who refuse to understand, and will not be redeemed because of their stubbornness, though they know the truth. In Ezekiel 11, God compares the sin of Jerusalem to an irremovable deposit from scorched meat in a pot. He does say that “you will not be clean again until my wrath against you has subsided.” but in the illustration, the city is the pot to be cleansed, and his wrath was only subsided when most of Israel was destroyed and only a remnant remained. These people did not repent during the worst siege ever recorded. Most were never redeemed, they were destroyed. Jeremiah 6: They are all hardened rebels,going about to slander.They are bronze and iron;they all act corruptly.The bellows blow fiercelyto burn away the lead with fire,but the refining goes on in vain;the wicked are not purged out.They are called rejected silver,because the Lord has rejected them. In Luke 16, the account of Lazarus and the Rich Man, we see a repentant Rich Man in Hades, and Lazarus across from him in Paradise, or Abraham's Bosom. “between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.” If I understand Universalism correctly, they would say even the unnamed Rich Man was still saved after the death of Jesus when he descended into the Grave, or some later point. This is not the case. The righteous were also in the Paradise part of the Grave until Christ paid their ransom. Then they were retrieved, but those in Hell, the other part, remain. We know the righteous also descended down to the Grave because the spirit of righteous Samuel was called up from the ground by Saul in the extra-ordinary account of 1 Samuel 28. Later Christ's redemption covered their sins, and Paradise is now empty. Matthew 22:41-46 demonstrates (and most of Isaiah) how the righteous that came before Christ still had faith in Christ before he even came. In Revelation 20:11-15, we see the ultimate fate of those who do and do not believe, and there is never any indication sinners get out of hell. Tradition and Philosophy are not without value, but unless they are backed up with Scripture, they cannot be used to prove any truth about God. Nevertheless, I will respond to a few points. Tradition: I don't see how II Peter 3 applies to this point, nor do I see how the Doctrine of Hell is used by ambitious people. Philosophy: We can see from C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain, that he indeed was not a Universalist. “From these premises it follows directly that the Divine labour to redeem the world cannot be certain of succeeding as regards every individual soul. Some will not be redeemed. There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture, and specially, of our Lord's own words; and it has the support of reason. If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it. If the happiness of a creature lies in self-surrender, no one can make that surrender but himself (though many can help him make it) and he may refuse. I would pay any price to say truthfully "All will be saved." But my reason retorts "Without their will, or with it?" If I say "Without their will" I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary? If I say "With their will", my reason replies "How if they will not give in?"[1] While I like and agree with much of what C.S. Lewis has said, he was never infallible, and his allegorical stories take many artistic liberties that cannot be taken literally. In his Silent Planet series of allegorical fiction, the main character flies to Venus and Mars to discover people there. The bus from Hell to Heaven in The Great Divorce is only a device to explore a hypothetical, and not meant to show that people actually can get from Hell to Heaven. Talmud and other commentaries might have value, but if not consistent with scripture, cannot be taken as reliable. The Talmud is not Canon, nor should it be. My opponent's quote from it states that the Talmud is Canon, and that believers in Heaven will for some reason hate studying it. This directly contradicts Jeremiah 31:31-34:“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israelafter that time,” declares the Lord.“I will put my law in their mindsand write it on their hearts.I will be their God,and they will be my people.No longer will they teach their neighbor,or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’because they will all know me,from the least of them to the greatest,”declares the Lord.“For I will forgive their wickednessand will remember their sins no more.” 1) http://books.google.com... (pg.119)