The compatibility of universalism and orthodox Christian faith..?
26 Feb 2008
You know it’s a bad sign when a response to a post is twice the length of the post itself. But I think this is an extremely important topic, one that has produced a lot more heat than light. So I would like, to the best of my ability, to shed a little light on and bring a little clarity to the issue of the compatibility of universalism and orthodox Christian faith. I want to suggest, along with Gregory MacDonald (GM), that the two (universalism and evangelical or orthodox Christian faith) are indeed compatible. Then I want to address several common objections to universalism.
First, on the issue of compatibility. Though certainly not the dominant view within historic Christianity, belief in universalism within the church is very ancient indeed. Among others, Theodore of Mopsuestia (4th century), Gregory of Nyssa (4th century), Clement of Alexandria (2nd century) and St. Isaac the Syrian (7th century) all seem to have espoused universalism and none was denounced by the Church for espousing a heresy. Gregory of Nyssa, in fact, was declared the “Father of Fathers” by the 7th Ecumenical Council. I think, therefore, that those who claim that universalism is incompatible with orthodox Christian teaching are hard pressed to show that the view contradicts anything in the so-called ecumenical creeds and hard pressed to show that the view has been denounced by any of the major and universally accepted Church Councils.
Having said that, perhaps the best known early defender of universalism was Origen (3rd century) who was in fact condemned at the 5th Ecumenical Council (553 A.D.) where the so-called 15 “anathemas” were charged against him, which included among other things, his belief in universal salvation. But, it should be pointed out that the 5th Ecumenical Council was mired in controversy, largely because it was boycotted by the Pope and called instead by an emperor.
Second, a point of clarification is in order. When GM or I speak of universalism we have in mind what I prefer to call Christocentric universalism (CU), the view that eventually all are reconciled to God through Christ. This is to be distinguished from all-roads-lead-to-Rome universalism, which holds that there are as many ways to salvation as there are religions. As I understand it, CU is by definition exclusivist in the sense that salvation is had exclusively through Christ. So it’s an exclusive (through Christ alone) inclusivism (eventually all are reconciled to God).
Christians who believe that explicit faith in Christ is required for salvation are best thought of as strong exclusivists, whereas those who do not recognize such a requirement might be called weak exclusivists. Both are exclusivists, however, insofar as both believe that it is only through Christ that salvation is to be had. (This is meant as a minor correction to GM who seems to confuse exclusivism with what I am calling “strong exclusivism”. On GM’s view, what I am calling weak exclusivism would not count as exclusivism. But this seems like a mistake, as the weak exclusivist does not deny that it is only through Christ that salvation is obtained, but just denies that explicit faith in Christ is required for salvation.)
Several objections are commonly brought against CU. For example, if universalism is true, then doesn’t it follow that our pre-mortem lives lack genuine meaning since all are going to end up in heaven? And second, if universalism is true, then why bother ever becoming a Christian before death? And wouldn’t the great commission lose its sense of urgency?
I confess to being a bit mystified by these objections. The only reason I can imagine for why life would lack genuine meaning if universalism is true is if the only meaning to be found in life is sorting out our where one is going to spend eternity. But I can’t imagine that anyone really believes that life’s meaning is exhausted by figuring out one’s eternal destination. I should have thought that life was about anticipating God’s kingdom here and now, about learning to love, to be loved, to grow in Christ-likeness, and so on.
Becoming a Christian may be a first step in that project, but it is surely not the last. If settling one’s eternal destiny exhausts what meaning there is in life, then there is no more meaning to be found in life once one becomes a Christian. But that would be awfully depressing, especially if Christ calls you to himself when you’re young. I mean, imagine all those meaningless years ahead of you. What a pity.
Now, as for the “why bother coming to Christ pre-mortem” objection, I ask this: If you break your leg, do you say to yourself, “Ah, it’s going to be healed in the New Jerusalem; so, I won’t bother fixing it now?” Of course not! If I have a cancer for which I know there to be a cure via surgery, I’m not going to forego the surgery now because I know that later in the New Jerusalem I’m going to be healed. Likewise, if we are created for a loving relationship with God, then the sooner we set about that end the better. I’m a sick soul now; and I want to be made well now. The sooner the better, seems to me.
This touches on the objection that the great commission loses its urgency if universalism is true. We human beings have been created for union with God, our fellow human beings, and the rest of the biosphere. But sin has insinuated itself into these relationships resulting in misery. Well, we Christians believe the cure to our illness is Christ, his incarnation, life, death and resurrection.
I should think we ought to be inflamed with urgency, an urgency to get the medicine to the sick as quickly as we can. Why, if eventually all are going to be made well in heaven? Because not to be reconciled to God and to others is to limp around, wounded, not having realized the end for which we’re created. That’s why.
Many also believe that if universalism is true, then human freedom is, ultimately, compromised. That is to say, some people it seems will be forced to come to Christ which is hardly consistent with God’s valuation of human freedom. Let me say three things:
1. what I am about to say assumes that some people die unreconciled to God and thus enter hell. So, if universalism is true, it follows that there are second chances after death to be reconciled, just as GM notes.
2. it seems to me pretty obvious (or as obvious as anything is in the spiritual life) that God values, and values very highly, human freedom. Therefore…
3. it seems to me that God’s desire to save all would include a desire, all things being equal, to do so in a way that preserves the freedom of human beings.
However, I don’t imagine that God values the freedom of his human creatures more than the creatures themselves. So, it seems to me plausible to hold that if there should ever come a point in the way, way, way distant postmortem future at which, if God were to allow one more exercise of freedom an individual would be forever and ultimately lost, then at that point God is faced with the following terrible situation: either to preserve human freedom at the cost of eternally and forever losing one of his beloved or yanking (for a time) the freedom from one of his beloved for the ultimate good of his beloved.
As a loving parent, I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for the view that God would take the latter course of action. It’s not best, all things being equal. But, if preserving my child’s freedom ever meant that my child would ultimately, permanently and eternally destroy his or her life, all things AREN”T equal, and I’m going to value the ultimate good of my child over the relative good of his or her freedom. So, I guess I don’t think that one’s embrace of Christ must be free. Better if it is, of course and, in a very real sense, tragic if it isn’t.
Finally, one might surmise from all of this that I am, as GM calls them, an evangelical universalist. If an evangelical universalist is someone who believes that eventually all will be reconciled, well, then, I don’t think I am. I like to put it this way.
Belief is only one possible attitude one might take toward a proposition. But there are others. For example, if I tell you that it’s raining outside you might take up any of the following attitudes: you might, as a result of me telling you, come to believe that it’s true; if you left the windows to your car down, you might come to fear that it’s true; if your home garden is parched then you might come to hope that it’s true.
I hope that universalism is true. I even pray that it’s true. But I guess I don’t believe that it’s true. The scriptures it seems to me are ambiguous on the matter. There is a good biblical case to be made both for separationism and for universalism. And in that space of biblical indeterminacy I think there is plenty of room for hoping that universalism is true, for hoping that eventually God gets what God wants and all are ultimately reconciled.
Tagged: gregory macdonald, Hell, kevin corcoran, Universalism
53 comments
Trackback
Comment by Jason Reid
9.49 am on 26 Feb 2008
If universalism is true, why then bother with church, mission or the gospel?
Comment by Samuel Linde
11.12 am on 26 Feb 2008
Did you bother to take the time to read the article before posting that question?
“This touches on the objection that the great commission loses its urgency if universalism is true. We human beings have been created for union with God, our fellow human beings, and the rest of the biosphere. But sin has insinuated itself into these relationships resulting in misery. Well, we Christians believe the cure to our illness is Christ, his incarnation, life, death and resurrection.
I should think we ought to be inflamed with urgency, an urgency to get the medicine to the sick as quickly as we can. Why, if eventually all are going to be made well in heaven? Because not to be reconciled to God and to others is to limp around, wounded, not having realized the end for which we’re created. That’s why.”
Comment by Jason Reid
3.16 pm on 26 Feb 2008
Samuel – sorry, as always I was too pithy in response to a well worded article. I struggle with uniiversalism as it seems to undermine the urgency and importance of the gospel. Sort of our christian mission is just spritual band aids until some eschatological finish line when it all gets sorted out. My mission field, the white middle classes, have no reason to change if God is going to forgive them anyway. Their lives are not miserable, in fact quite the opposite, hence my difficulty.
Comment by Brandon Vaughn
4.18 pm on 26 Feb 2008
Hi Jason,
My take on this (and I am still working through a lot on what I believe) … but one thing I notice about the early church fathers who held to this view … and if we believe that Paul held this view … you’ll notice that ideas of universalism where never part of the gospel appeal.
The gospel appeal, according to Paul, is that God has done all in Christ, and our message is that of reconciliation. Even if I do end up believing in Christocentric universalism, I doubt I would ever bring this up to anyone who wasn’t saved simply because the “good news” is not what WILL happen, but what has ALREADY happened.
The key, to me, is to answer the question: What is salvation? Is it getting sins forgiven? Is it “insurance” from hell? If that is the case, then I would agree … universalism might hinder evangelism. But again, these are all future tense. News by definition is what has happened. We announce the Good News that God has dealt with sin, and now asks if you would crawl up in His lap. It is not a pardon, but a relationship.
If we lived on the streets eating out of the dumpsters, we might eventually find we are not miserable. I imagine we might be able to hang out at certain places and even eat really good (like Olive Garden dumpsters!). If all you know is “dumpster life”, it might not appear that bad. And some who hang out at the “Olive Garden dumpster” might feel their life is much better than the “McDonald’s dumpster” which is certainly better than the “local sewer plant dumpster”.
Our message isn’t to tell them the great news that one day they will be allowed to eat at God’s table, although they might have to go through the worst hell. Our message is, why wait? Know Him now!
To me (and I could be wrong), the gospel message has nothing to do with universalism … UNLESS you define the gospel message as exclusively about forgiveness and escape from hell (which is pretty much the Americanized gospel message).
That is my take right now, anyway … whether right nor wrong. :)
Comment by Jason Reid
9.57 am on 27 Feb 2008
Thanks for a provoking and honest and lucid reply. I feel the danger you allude to in narrowing the gospel down to a hurdle to guarantee of future blessings. I sense though coming to the point of universalism in order to fully glorify Jesus and communicate the true enormity of the resurrection, there comes a ‘baby and bath water moment.’ I do like the dumpster analogy, but thinking from a universalist perspective what place is there for conversion? And thinking of my uber-comfortable friends, how do I communicate a gospel that only seems to offer the sacrifice and moralisms on a cost benefit analysis? On the outside relationship with Christ only offers them touchy sentiments and less time on the golf course or on the 60K yacht.
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Reply here
Comment by Kevin
1.45 pm on 27 Feb 2008
Jason,
Very helpful comment and analogy. A generation’s own madness seems absolutely normal to itself. And, if I might be permitted a switch metphor, many have suffered with cancer without awareness. And sadly, many of us know people who are miserable but whose self-deceit and delusion is so deep, they themselves fail to see it. If happiness and human flourishing is realizing the end or purpose for which we’ve been created, then despite perhaps protests to the contrary, there are scores of unhappy and impoverished human beings in our midst.
Is universalism part of the good news? If we think in terms of a medical analogy, and Jesus being to us and for us the great physician, the universalism and what I have been calling separationism concern the success rate of the healing, the cure that physician brings. The universalist thinks the success rate is complete and includes all and everything. The separationist thinks the success rate is partial and includes some and some things. I’m with you I think. Universalism is not part of the good news we herald.
And Jason, I’m not sure what else can be said to answer to your question about the place of conversion that hasn’t already been said by myself and others. Maybe your question isn’t what meaningful place is there for conversion within universalism, but, having heard our answers, your response is just to say “well, I don’t find those answers satisfactory.” And that’s fair enough.
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Reply here
Comment by Katharine Moody
11.22 am on 26 Feb 2008
I’m very interested in your distinctions between believing a proposition is true, and the other possibilities that you detail: hoping a proposition is true, fearing a proposition is true, etc.
As a student of religion and spirituality, I observe that there are increasing numbers of people in the current Western climate for whom belief – classically defined as adherence to propositions, as you also posit – is not a word used to describe their religiosity or spirituality. Qualitative data from a wide range of projects including Quagans (Pagan-Quakers), yoga practitioners, New Age novels, self-help literature, and, yes, even some in the emerging church conversation, do not articulate their spirituality in terms of beliefs in propositions.
So your espousal of evangelical universalism in the language of hope rather than belief is intriguing to me. Maybe you could comment a little further on the differences you draw between knowing that…, believing that…, and hoping that…?
Comment by Kevin
5.58 am on 27 Feb 2008
Katharine,
Let me start by saying that I think beliefs are essential to Christian faith. Indeed ours is a “creedal” faith. So I’m not allergic to the language of belief as are some in the emergent conversation. I *believe* God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, for example. And I *believe* in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, etc., etc. (That having been said I do appreciate the worries of those in the emergent conversation who think that fixation on and myopia with respect to belief has come at a high price.)
Here’s what I had in mind in the post. I think that most (if not all) of what we believe is not within our voluntary control. For example, I *believe* I am sitting in my living room typing on this computer. I cannot will to believe that I am on the beach in Hawaii right now. I can *imagine* that I’m on the beach, but right now I cannot choose to *believe* it. So beliefs I take to be largely out of our voluntary control. In contrast, most of the philosophical and theological views I have I *hold*, *accept*, *adopt* or *take in to* my house of knowledge quite voluntarily. Like beliefs I am willing to defend the views I hold, accept or adopt, but I come to the latter on the basis of careful thought. I’ve weighed the various reasons for and against, and have come to the conclusion that these views are true. But, for me, that’s not how it is with the view that I am sitting here in the living room or even that God exists or that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. These latter I did not come to on the basis of careful analysis. The phenomenology is radically different; they have sort of *taken hold of* me, *caught me up* in their reality as it were. And this is why I say that I *hope* that universalism is true. I understand why on the basis of scripture separationists—as I want to call them—believe what they do. It just seems to me that the biblical data under-determines the matter, that some scriptural texts seem universalist and others separationist. (Though I do think the overall trajectory of the biblical story is universalist.) And since the scriptures do not seem to me to speak unambiguously on the matter I think it is permissible to *accept* universalism or *reject* it, and so permissible also to hope and pray that it’s true. Some, I’m sure, *believe* it. For these I imagine the phenomenology to be like what the phenomenology of believing that God exists or that I am sitting in my living room is for me.
Comment by Katharine Moody
9.58 am on 27 Feb 2008
Kevin, thanks for these responses. They’ve given me a lot to think about, especially concerning beliefs and volition.
I especially like the way you articulate beliefs as taking hold of you and catching you up in their reality, in contrast to intellectual positions which are come to voluntarily on the basis of careful analysis. Some food for thought concerning post-foundationalism for sure!
Comment by Tracy Simmons (Elle)
1.07 pm on 26 Feb 2008
Jason, You’re just rockin’ my little world :-). Seriously, I love your approach to this topic.
Two comments from the peanut gallery:
(1). I just wanted to encourage readers to look further into the “why bother coming to Christ pre-mortem” that you answered. Your answers are good, but there are actually many more answers. In chapter of seven of Loyal Hurley’s writing he gives seven reasons why we continue to preach and teach the gospel even if we already know that all are to be saved eventually. (Booklet can be found and read online: http://www.tentmaker.org/books/infinitegrace.htm )
I note that the online version of this booklet does not give chapters, so if readers search for the word “objections” on this page they will come to the beginning of that chapter.
(2) You wrote: “The scriptures it seems to me are ambiguous on the matter. There is a good biblical case to be made both for separationism and for universalism.” I guess I’d have to disagree with that one. I’m coming up on four years of studying this topic. Every time I come across a scripture that seems to contradict the reconciliation of all mankind back to God through Christ, if I dig deeper and study it out, that contradiction is eventually resolved. It always brings to mind Proverbs 25:2: “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.” I love searching out the matter as it always brings me face to face with His glorious plan for all humankind! Isn’t it interesting that it is God’s glory to conceal a matter? Some of the most difficult passages to understand are explained very well in the book Hope Beyond Hell. I think it is available to order for free here (as well as can be read online): http://hopebeyondhell.net/
Thanks again for your thoughtful tackling of this subject.
Comment by Brandon Vaughn
2.38 pm on 26 Feb 2008
Why do we, as evangelicals, tend to dismiss the early church fathers so much (and I use that term globally … not about us here on this blog as much)? To me, it makes a lot of sense that we would hold Gregory in MORE (or at least equal) esteem and consideration as Augustine or Calvin. They were closer to the apostles and thus Jesus. I don’t feel we should discredit someone like Spurgeon, but why should he or Jonathan Edwards be more influential to our thinking than those before then? Is this just another case of fearing being labeled a “Catholic”? Or of fearing people might equate those writings as inerrant (since they are so close to the Bible writings)?
When I have read the church fathers (and that just in the last year) I have seen major differences in what they saw as “Christian” and what modern Evangelicalism calls “Christian”. And it seems some held to more universalism thoughts than from Augustine on. Now either we chalk that up as them being more ignorant and for some reason a man who lived thousands of years after Christ has a purer revelation of God’s ways, or … ???
If I wanted to know what it was like when the Beatles showed up in the USA for the first time, I could talk to a 20-year old historian who has read every book on the subject. Or I could talk to a police officer who was there at the airport and took them to their hotel. BOTH have truth to share. I don’t say throw the 20-year old away! But if I had to CHOOSE between the two, or if I were to hold one as more authoritative than another, which would be better?
Now imagine the cop is really a historian just like the 20-year old. Both of them are similar in terms of their core beliefs and mission/goals. Now, if you could only pick one, which would you go with?
I am thankful for Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, … but I am baffled as to why Evangelicals will spend their entire lives reading about these men and have NO clue who Gregory was. That baffles me. In the church I attend (which I just found out is heavily Calvinistic), I would almost bet that 90% of those who attend would know who Jonathan Edwards is, or John Piper. I would bet only 10% could name one church father before Augustine. And this is a major Evangelical church in this city.
Comment by Derrick
2.35 am on 27 Feb 2008
This is just a theory, but, perhaps evangelicals are remiss to go back to the Fathers before Augustine (and everyone after him until Luther) because they find these individuals a little too Catholic for their tastes. In my experience, it seems to be the case that those of us that have grown up in fundamentalist and evangelical reformed backgrounds, anything that feels too Catholic tends to be viewed (quite irrationally, I admit) suspiciously.
Comment by Helen
3.35 pm on 26 Feb 2008
Kevin, I like how you said you hope it’s true.
The reason I hoped it was true when I was a universalist was because otherwise I couldn’t reconcile the good things the Bible said about God with eternal hell.
Your comments and GM’s are helping me realize something. The problem I have with non-universalist Evangelical Christianity is – I don’t understand how people can be so different from me that some of them can never be reasoned or illumined to where they would want a relationship with an all-good God. To me, non-universalist Christianity is presumptuous in that it says, although I could be brought to that point, other people can’t. And I don’t get that – I don’t see why they couldn’t, if I could. Because I’m not that different from them. Paul even said he was the worst of sinners and yet all Jesus had to do was show up and Paul was completely turned around. If Paul could be turned around that way, why not anyone?
Comment by Helen
3.35 pm on 26 Feb 2008
Kevin, I like how you said you hope it’s true.
The reason I hoped it was true when I was a universalist was because otherwise I couldn’t reconcile the good things the Bible said about God with eternal hell.
Your comments and GM’s are helping me realize something. The problem I have with non-universalist Evangelical Christianity is – I don’t understand how people can be so different from me that some of them can never be reasoned or illumined to where they would want a relationship with an all-good God. To me, non-universalist Christianity is presumptuous in that it says, although I could be brought to that point, other people can’t. And I don’t get that – I don’t see why they couldn’t, if I could. Because I’m not that different from them. Paul even said he was the worst of sinners and yet all Jesus had to do was show up and Paul was completely turned around. If Paul could be turned around that way, why not anyone?
Comment by Jeff
4.46 pm on 26 Feb 2008
A couple of issues come to mind in this discussion that tell me I cannot embrace this form of universalism, or any other…
1) Regarding your suggestion that universalism and orthodox Christianity are not incompatible, you cite several apparent church scholars and how they were not branded heretics by certain ecumenical councils. I don’t think you’re going far back enough. Most of us who believe these two are incompatible are using the canon of Scripture itself as our authority, so citing church fathers who lived centuries after the canon was complete(and who struggled with numerous heresies)is not convincing proof of this claim.
2) In tandem with that…when I go back to the time Christianity was born, I realize it emerged in a very pluralistic, polytheistic culture–the Roman Empire. If there was ever a place for a belief in universalism to flourish, I’d think it would be here. It troubles me to think how many Christians were martyred in those days–and many more in years to come, all the way to today–over the fact that they were claiming Jesus to be the only Way, and the only Lord, in the face of Caesar, who claimed to be a god himself. If everyone is eventually going to be saved, why would these Christians put themselves at such risk, and why was their message considered offensive and rebellious to the empire? Universalistic belief certainly would not generate such hostility, much less prompt these Christians to defy the empire. I think if they believed everyone would eventually “get it”, they would have left well enough alone. But their *entire message and lifestyle* flew in the face of this mentality.
Comment by Brandon Vaughn
9.15 pm on 27 Feb 2008
Jeff,
I think your argument is valid on many points, but in response to the “heresies” part I’m not sure I can agree. Yes, there were lots of them back in the day. But are we to say that this is not the case today?
Turn on Christian tv. :)
I believe we are surrounded by MORE heresy today than they were. The only thing is that we are so isolated, and have such vast communication abilities that we don’t see the effect of this as much. How many Charismatic churches have I gone into that think the devil is God’s opposite … which is absolute heresy.
It would be much like saying that there aren’t any Episcopalian ministers who speak truth because of all the trouble in that movement right now. Paul was surrounded by heresy (as was Jesus) and spoke truth.
But, the church father should NEVER be proof of anything. All I meant was, if I was going to trust a church father versus someone like John Piper, I would go with church fathers. The great thing is we don’t have to choose. But if a person is going to be influenced by anything other than Scripture (and in honesty, who isn’t?) then I think the church fathers should be in there.
In reference to your number 2, I will stress again that to me the Gospel is NOT universalism. If universalism is true, it is only the “P.S.” of the Gospel. They died for their NOW faith, not some future event. Their message was considered offensive because of the change it brought to the NOW (e.g., refusing to sacrifice to false gods). To say they did not believe in this is an argument from silence (just as much as saying they did believe in it). I still contend that even if universalism is true, it should NOT change our message.
The Gospel is about Christ’s finished work, which is now worked out in our lives, and one day will fully culminate. How that culmination works out is what is subject to debate. And even if God is merciful enough to give people a chance to accept Him after death, that doesn’t change things right now.
Put it this way … suppose every person from since you can remember drinks out of the same water fountain, and it makes them violently sick. You know in 5 years there will be a final cure (but they don’t know about this, and actually there is some debate going around about whether such matters are true or not … some suggest that these people will just eventually die off). YOU also know how to have this cure now; you’ve experienced it first hand. Each morning you go to work to walk in the vomit of those sick. You go out to eat and the person next to you vomits on you. At some point, don’t you think you might like to share a little good news with them about how they don’t have to be sick?
Now, here is my point … what is your message? “Hey, I’ve got great news! Keep drinking the water; you will only be sick for 5 more years!” Or would it be, “TODAY, you can be well.” The good news is NOT that there will be a cure in 5 years. The good news is that TODAY you don’t have to be sick. Why on earth would someone want to stay sick for 5 years when they can be well today?
Imagine it is someone close to you even. Imagine this was a spouse, a son, a daughter, a parent … would you do most anything to reach them?
My analogy is weak in that you may not die to do this. But I think it expresses more my point that the Gospel is a NOW message, not a future message.
Faith is NOW. The Gospel is NOW.
Take care,
Brandon
Comment by Kevin
9.23 pm on 27 Feb 2008
Brandon,
Preach it, brother!
Kevin
Comment by Gregory MacDonald
5.25 pm on 26 Feb 2008
Jeff
Hello. I am an evangelical universalist. Perhaps I might make a couple of comments.
1. I appreciate your view that the Bible is the final authority. I say ‘Amen’ to that. If the Bible is against universalism then we must reject it. You are correct.
However,
(a) I do think that universalism is compatible with the teachings of Scripture. If you read my book (“The Evangelical Universalist”) you will see that I spend a long time arguing the case for universalism from the Bible. So I hope that if you read it you would at least see that it is seeking to do the very thing you say we should do. It may even open up the possibility that we are on to something.
(b) Kevin’s appeal to the church tradition is not because he sees it as a final authority of any kind. It is simply that the tradition guides us in how to interpret the Bible in Christian ways. The very fact that you see the Bible as teaching eternal Hell is itself guided by tradition (even if you did not realize it)
2. You clearly misunderstand evangelical universalism. I can understand why you are so angry with the universalist view you reject. I am too. We do not deny that Jesus is the only way to God. We afirm it. To me it is a fundamental aspect of my faith that we are only reconciled to God through Christ.
On the question of why preach the gospel if everyone will be saved eventually check out some of the discussions above and on my post. In my book I discuss that question at some length and argue that universalists have good grounds to engage in evangelism even at risk to their own life and health.
So we are not as bad as you may think . . . I hope.
Pax
GM
Comment by Jeff
7.33 pm on 26 Feb 2008
GM,
For clarity, I am not angry at universalists, evangelical or otherwise. I simply do not believe you are correct about this view. When I read what was being said I wanted to add meaningfully (hopefully) to the conversation.
I would also like to add that I recognize that at some level all our particular interpretations of Scripture are flawed in some way, so please don’t think me self-righteous or anything for disagreeing with you. I am a lifelong student of Scripture, as I’m sure you are, and none of us has it all correct. But in the light of what I do know of Scripture and of history, I simply do not come to the same conclusions that you have.
I do believe healthy discussion is a necessary element to interpreting the Scriptures, as we all try to flesh out what it all means. And that’s why I gave my opinion.
Thank you for your gracious reply.
Comment by Gregory MacDonald
8.57 pm on 26 Feb 2008
Jeff
Thanks. But me thinks that perhaps you were concerned that mission was being undermined and, if that is indeed the case, that is something to worry about. So I would not mind if you were angry. Anyway – you are not.
And thanks for your humility. I have no problem with Christians who listen to what I say and think, ‘He’s wrong but he is my brother.’ I am less keen on occasions when Christians think they know what I believe so don’t bother to listen to what I actually believe nor why I believe it. (Fortunately for you I won’t bore you with why I believe it – you can read the book for that)
Pax
GM
Pax
GM
Comment by James McGrath
5.45 pm on 26 Feb 2008
You may be interested in joining in the conversation I’ve been having with a number of other bloggers on the subject of Christianity and exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. It began with this post on my blog and now is spreading among theoblogs in particular. We’re trying to have it in a ‘blog-to-blog’ format, rather than on a single blog. I’m sure your contribution to the conversation would be a valuable one.
Comment by Tracy Simmons (Elle)
5.54 pm on 26 Feb 2008
Gregory, I just want to say that the grace with which you respond to people (both on this post and the previous one) just takes my breath away. I was very hesitant to “come out of the closet” on my views in this area for two reasons:
(1) Because of the same reason you have stated in that other Christians will often completely dismiss our entire ministry and life if they don’t agree with one part of our theology.
(2) Because so many reconciliationists (a term I prefer more than universalist based on the end part of 2 Cor. chapter 5) are so ungracious, argumentative, and contentious in their approach that I did not want to be associated with them! So, you are delighting me to no end: Someone who has studied this quite thoroughly and has a solid biblical foundation for your beliefs AND who operates from a spirit of grace and kindness and gentleness in your responses. Well done, good brother, well done!
You’re welcome to my home for dinner with my husband and I anytime :-)….if you ever get to my neck of the woods (Vermont!). Peace to you and yours! You’re in our prayers.
Tracy
Comment by Gregory MacDonald
9.07 pm on 26 Feb 2008
Tracy
Your kind words are most welcome and appreciated. I don’t get to Vermont often (confession – I have never been) but if I ever pass through I’ll let you know.
Well, all kinds of theological position come with all sorts of defenders. I too have come across some very dogmatic and rude reconciliationists (and often with rather weak arguments so one wonders why they are so sure of themselves). I have also come across very rude traditionalists. But I can assure you that there are very humble and delightful exponents of both views.
I get frustrated when people caricature those who believe in eternal conscious torment as ‘hard’ or ‘harsh’ people. Some are but many are not. They are soft hearted folks who weep at the thought that any will be damned for eternity. Funnily I often feel that I have more in common with such traditionalists than I do with some restorationists.
I have no interests in setting up a universalist church. I want a trinitarian, Christ-centred, gospel-affirming, people-loving, Spirit-filled, missional church. And if they all believe in eternal conscious torment then so be it. Universalism is peripheral (even though it is, in my view, correct).
Pax
GM
Comment by Tracy Simmons (Elle)
9.37 pm on 26 Feb 2008
GM, you wrote: “I have no interests in setting up a universalist church. I want a trinitarian, Christ-centered, gospel-affirming, people-loving, Spirit-filled, missional church. And if they all believe in eternal conscious torment then so be it. Universalism is peripheral (even though it is, in my view, correct).”
Amen! Me, too! :-).
The only area where I sometimes think this issue is not quite as peripheral as we’d like to believe is that it seems to me to reflect (in no small measure!) the very character and nature of God. A God who will allow the majority of people to be tormented for all eternity due to their “choice” is quite different from a God who is determined from the beginning to restore all creation back to Himself. I often wonder if this issue is why so many Christians have a hard time truly believing that Father is GOOD. So, I guess what I’m saying is that while perhaps we can say we ought not to make this a point to where it becomes divisive in a local body of believers (or elsewhere), I do think it might make a far larger difference in people’s very relationship to Father–and that is not at the periphery in my thinking. Interestingly, there’s a man pastoring a church in the midwest who is a reconciliationist even though his denomination and most of the people in the congregation are not. They’ve agreed to have their differences in opinion and keep on loving each other anyway. This amazes me! I have a link somewhere to their web site. When I have more time I’ll see if I can dig it out and post it here. Oh, that we could all learn to walk in that kind of love and extend that level of grace to one another!
P.S. You’ve never been to Vermont? You have no idea of what you’re missing! Our little state is gorgeous!
Tracy
Comment by Brandon Vaughn
1.56 am on 27 Feb 2008
Tracy,
I can see where you are coming from in this. I think of it this way … to me, the GOOD news (gospel) is about what God HAS done. Sin is dealt with, and now is the offer to receive Him … not pardon, or forgiveness, or “heaven”, or … but Him. Now the “P.S.” of the gospel is that “in Christ” is forgiveness, and “heaven”, and …
So, to me, the gospel is not about the rapture, or what happens in any tribulation, or even the 2nd coming of Christ. Yes, I believe in the 2nd coming of Christ, and in the sense that God fully establishes His Kingdom of love, then I can see that as part of the gospel … but still, to me that is the “P.S.” of the gospel.
Paul refers to this as the “blessed hope” but not the gospel itself. The culmination of the gospel. The gospel is the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension of Jesus, and sending of the Holy Spirit. But the end is the “hope” of the gospel. Maybe I’m making too big a deal about this.
So, if a person really sees the gospel as the announcement of what God has done in Christ, and knows the reality of God in their life today, then perhaps whatever your view on endtime isn’t that big of a deal. So, whether you believe in a tribulation, or whether you see the possibility that people can accept Christ after death, or … shouldn’t really make a difference unless that is what the gospel is about in the first place.
So, I do agree with you though … if a person holds to a gospel that God actually loves them, then this will be an issue they face at some point in their faith. Now, in ministering/witnessing to a person, if this issue comes up, I suppose it could be addressed. But to me, that isn’t THE gospel.
So I hope it doesn’t sound like I disagree with your post. I think the issue is important. But I’m not sure that it is vital to knowing that the Father is good, nor that He really loves us. But, I think if we don’t wrestle with this, we will either be forced to come up with radical ideas (e.g., God wants to damn some people), live with questions or inconsistent conclusions, or just shelve it and never think about it. Some of these could very well lead us to doubt God’s goodness or love. But I think inherent in believing fully in God’s goodness or love does put a date in our “Holy Spirit schooling” calendar to wrestle with these issues. :)
Am I even making sense? I firmly believe in God’s love and mercy. I don’t think I have to be a universalist to believe this, nor tell people about this. But really believing in God’s goodness and love does leave me with lots of questions, and thus why we all wrestle with this issue.
I guess I’m saying, how I view the “gospel” is such that if the entire Evangelical church believe in universalism and preached that, I wouldn’t consider it to make the “gospel” any better … because to me the gospel is all about what God has done, and knowing the reality of that today.
Take care,
Brandon
Comment by Tracy Simmons (Elle)
11.30 am on 27 Feb 2008
Brandon,
Yes, you’re making perfect sense :-). I agree with most of what you’ve said. I still do think, though, that if a person believes that the majority of the population of earth is going to end up being eternally tormented, it cannot help but impact just how “merciful” and “good” he or she thinks God *really* is. I’m not arguing that it *should* be that way, just that I think that is the reality of how much beliefs like that do influence our view of God. Nonetheless, your points are well taken! Thanks for sharing with a graceful pen!
On another note in response to other posts on this page, Stephen Jones has written an interesting article on Free Will examining this issue quite thoroughly. I’m only half way through it, but it seems a worthwhile issue for those struggling with the free will issue: http://tinyurl.com/2fllsg or
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.org/PDF%20Books/Free%20Will%20vs%20Ownership.pdf
Thomas Talbott also covers the free will topic here, explaining how he reconciles both man’s free will and God’s sovereign ways (way shorter than Jones’ article!):
http://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/freewill.html
I cannot help but feel God’s pleasure as we all wrestle together to understand more of His character, ways, and intents and –no matter what side of the fence we end up on concerning this issue!
Peace to all,
Tracy
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Reply here
Comment by Gregory MacDonald
2.36 pm on 27 Feb 2008
Tracy
You do have a good point. I stand corrected.
I think the logic of traditional beliefs about Hell is actually inconsistent with traditional Christian views of God. You may think me a little patronising but I think that many Christians who believe in trad-Hell have perfectly acceptable views about God’s love and the like precisely because their theology is not integrated. They hold on to their beliefs about God’s love and their beliefs about Hell and have no idea how the two can fit together. In my view this is because they don’t fit together but these Christians are saved by their agnosticism. So whilst trad-Hell does have implications for our view of God often those implications are not worked through.
More concerning are those who do work them through and maintain that God does not desire to save all people.
So it is not as peripheral as I suggested but it is still not at the heart of Christian faith.
Pax
GM
Comment by Kevin
3.15 pm on 27 Feb 2008
Tracy/GM,
A very good discussion, carried on (praise be to God) with characteristic grace and generosity. I want to try to add to the discussion. First, I think it should be pointed out that what distinguishes universalists from separationists is NOT belief in second chances beyond the grave. It is perfectly coherent for a separationist (i.e., someone who believes that at least SOME people will spend eternity separated from God)to accept that some who die unreconciled to God will be reconciled AFTER death. And the best candidates for such are those who may have been psychologically incapable of receiving the gospel premortem, e.g., those brought up perhaps in rabid, natrualistic, atheistic homes or who have experienced such horrific suffering that they were rendered literally “unable” to embrace the gospel. (Stephen Davis is one such separationist who comes readily to mind.)
So, that’s the first thing. But, second. Here’s how a separationist might reason that eternal suffering and God’s love are perfectly consistent. Suppose first that I were to argue for universalism this way: Among God’s intentions is that human beings flourish. Ultimately, God’s intentions will be realized. Human flourishing cannot occur under the conditions of eternal damnation. Therefore, eventually all will be reconciled. The alternative seems to be that we human beings can ultimately an forever thwart God’s purposes. And that seems presumptuous.
Now the separationist might say in response, granted that among God’s intentions is that all be saved stil God has other intentions, also For example, that human beings be free to choose God or not. And this intention of God’s is so valuable that God risked having his other intention (that human beings flourish) go unrealized. So, they might say, it’s out of love for God’s human creatures that he allows them to perpetually not choose him. The love God desires is reciprocated love, not imposed love.
Moreover, the medieval thought was more like this. Following Aristotle (and Plato, too, really) human flourishing has everything to do with realizing or unfolding our nature. And those in hell are in fact realizing *their* nature. They have manufactured a nature that is so twisted and perverted that damnation is actually a realization of that nature and so they are “realizing their nature” and so “flourishing”. And it is God’s love for them as autonomous creatures that he allows them to forever defer embrace.
So, when someone earlier (maybe it was Brandon, I can’t remember) asked who, when in the pit of hell and offered God’s loving offer, would reject it, the answer is someone whose nature has been so twisted that they actually misidentify suffering and impoverishment as good and wonderful.
Obviously I’m not saying that I agree with either of these lines of thinking. But I believe that some adeherents to the traditional view of hell as eternal separation from God have sought ways to reconcile their view with traditional and biblical views of God and God’s love.
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Comment by Gregory MacDonald
2.58 pm on 28 Feb 2008
Kevin
Wonderful! You are quite right that some separationists believe that Hell has an exit but that not all choose it. Jerry Walls is another name that springs to mind. It reassures me to think that there are less off-the-wall Christians than myself who also see a way out of Hell even if they are not universalists. I guess that it is rooted in that C.S. Lewis thing about Hell being locked from the inside. Those who take such a view may well be open to the idea that it can also be unlocked from the inside.
Now on the other point I find that you and Tracy are helping push me closer to state a more precise position. Tracy spotted how I overstated the case for the marginal important of EU and you are pointing out that I overstate my case for the imcompatibility of traditional views of divine love and traditional Hell. Yes – I did. And I know it. That is the problem with doing this stuff quickly. So whilst I do think that most Christians do have logically inconsistent theologies but live with that you are absolutely right that many intelligent Christians have tried to show that God’s love is consistent with traditional Hell. Now, as you know, I don’t think such attempts succeed (so I do still think that divine love is logically inconsistent with traditional ideas of Hell) but that is quite beside the point. The point is that there are many intelligent Christians (many far more intelligent than me) who think that they do have a way to hold God’s love and trad-Hell together. This allows them to have robust views of God’s love whilst believing in Hell. So to them I send my apologies for forgetting them (though I still think they are mistaken :-)).
Pax
GM
Reply here
Comment by Tracy Simmons (Elle)
3.22 pm on 27 Feb 2008
George, you wrote: “You may think me a little patronising but I think that many Christians who believe in trad-Hell have perfectly acceptable views about God’s love and the like precisely because their theology is not integrated. They hold on to their beliefs about God’s love and their beliefs about Hell and have no idea how the two can fit together.”
I don’t think it is patronizing at all. I agree completely that it’s a lack of integration somewhere along the line. The reason I don’t find that patronizing is that we ALL do that to some extent in various areas. This just happens to be one area where I could see it and set out to study to find if it could be integrated in some way; I’ve no doubt I have hundreds of un-integrated theologies in my life that I’m totally unaware of, waiting to be exposed and explored. Bring it on! :0)
Tracy
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Comment by Gregory MacDonald
3.00 pm on 28 Feb 2008
Tracy
Thanks. You are so right.
BTW – George was my novel-writing ancestor but it is an easy mistake to make. :-)
Pax
GM
Comment by Tracy Simmons (Elle)
5.08 pm on 28 Feb 2008
Whoops! Sorry about that, GREGORY! But, hey, since it’s a fake name, who cares anyway?! ;-)
I’ve finally ordered your book. Looking forward to reading it….
Tracy
Reply here
Comment by Kevin
6.42 pm on 26 Feb 2008
Following GM’s example, I think I should postpone responding to all of your comments until tomorrow. But they are all very helpful and I am keeping up w/them.
Cheers,
Kevin
Comment by Stephen Krogh
2.22 am on 27 Feb 2008
Kevin,
Thanks for the article. As usual, I think you are almost spot on; it seems that we have no choice but to hope, in a real and sincere way, that God will ultimately find all of his children reconciled to him. So, my comments ought to be read in light of our ultimate agreement on the subject.
My first comment is in reference to your statement,
‘…it should be pointed out that the 5th Ecumenical Council was mired in controversy, largely because it was boycotted by the Pope and called instead by an emperor.’
All of the councils were controversial; this is why they were convened. We are greatly indebted to Origen for many doctrines we have today (and for St. Augustine, whose doctrine was greatly influenced by Origen), and so we can imagine that it was difficult for the council to come to grips with the reality of his anathema; one can imagine that it was difficult for the first council to condemn Arius, an ordained priest, or the the third ecumenical council to condemn Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople. Further, in condemning Origen’s universalism, the church, one can speculate, certainly had St. Gregory of Nyssa’s teaching in mind. Nonetheless, we are none of us perfect, and the church has to maintain orthodoxy, regardless of the source of the threat. St. Augustine, saint to both East and West, is often reviled in the East for his teachings on original sin and the double procession of the Holy Spirit, (the latter of which even Rome is beginning to question; it is now acceptable to recite the Nicene Creed without the ‘filoque.’), but is still considered a saint. The church, therefore, has a history of repudiating her saints where they have made mistakes. I understand that your statement is no linchpin for your argument and so take this with the grain of salt it deserves; it was, nonetheless, and observation.
Secondly, I wanted to offer an alternative to your free will concern. I think it is conceivable that all can be reconciled to God without any violation of free will. What if we look at the claim modally? (1)It is not a contradiction to believe that all people, regardless of the level of perversion of their nature, will eventually freely choose God. (2) Given enough time (say, an eternity), this possibility is overwhelmingly likely (or, maybe even impossible to avoid) coming true. (3) Therefore, all can be reconciled to God while maintaining free will. In other words, if it is possible that something will happen and we are given an infinite amount of time for it to happen, then it seems that it eventually will happen. I believe Aristotle has a similar line of argument in the metaphysics (or is it the physics?) somewhere, but I am not sure. This seems intuitive. If God allows me to stew in Hell–fiery, horrible, damnation–for long enough, always with an extended hand, it seems that I will eventually choose to opt for something else. The debate, of course, lies in whether or not God’s hand remains forever extended. And C.S. Lewis show us that even if his hand is forever extended, we may still choose hell, so perhaps my argument is not so strong as I thought. Nonetheless, it is a possible third option regarding the concern of free will and universalism.
All things being equal you and I sync up almost 100% here. We both hope that God’s grace and mercy are greater than our comprehension of them (which seems necessarily true). We might reach that conclusion for different purposes (I am compelled by the tradition of my church, explicitly the fifth council), but ultimately we agree (how many times am I going to repeat that?). Thanks for the article.
Comment by Kevin
6.11 am on 27 Feb 2008
Stephen,
Thank you! Your initial paragraph makes very good, helpful points indeed. Very nicely said.
As to your remarks about free will and universalism, I too think it *possible* that all eventually freely embrace God. My original remarks were aimed at those who might object to universalism by saying that if it’s true, then freewill *must be* violated. I wanted to make the point that even if that’s the case it’s not as problematic as we might initially think.
On the other hand, I understand the reasoning of thinking that if universalism is true, then it seems metaphysically *impossible* that one should fail to embrace God *forever*. And if it’s *impossible* that one should fail to embrace God for all eternity it seems *necessary* that they embrace God eventually. And that seems to violate free will, since it seems they *must* eventually embrace God.
Now what one who could say is that while he or she grants the possibility that one could fail to embrace God for all eternity, the likelihood, given God’s infinite resources and time, is so close to nil as to make it statistically (even if not metaphysically) impossible. And it’s reasonable for one who says such a thing to be counted among universalists just as surely as someone who doesn’t think it’s metaphyically possible for someone to refuse God forever.
In any case, you’re right; there is nothing implausible about embracing both universalism and the claim that eventually all will be reconciled freely. My point in the original was really just that creaturely freedom is a *relative* good whereas the creatures themselves are *ultimate* goods. And I could see God doing everything possible, for as long possible, to create conditions under which one will freely choose God. But if a point came beyond which one would be forever and eternally lost, then I could see God stepping in and, essentially, saying “I love you too much to allow you to utterly, irreparably and eternally destroy yourself. I’m taking away your freedom.”
Comment by Stephen Krogh
2.27 am on 27 Feb 2008
So sorry, but I have one last thought. With you, I am completely baffled as to why one would question the efficacy of the Christian faith simply because all are saved. We ought to accept the truths of Christianity, and the life and living found therein, because they hold for us the fullness of life. Human beings, when living as human beings ought to live, live as Christ exemplified. The fact that we do not burn for eternity is a bonus (a huge one at that), but the meat and potatoes of the faith is that we are free to live a life genuinely pleasing to God, which eluded us before the incarnation. We can once again have a relationship with him. We can obtain the purpose for our existence. If this is the case, why would we wait? A strange objection indeed…
Comment by Derrick
2.30 am on 27 Feb 2008
While I was aware of Gregory and Origen being universalists, Theodore’s and Clement’s names (especially the latter’s, since I’m almost certain that I’ve read stuff from him that comes off as exclusivist) struck me as surprises. Could you mention what works in which they espouse these positions?
Comment by Kevin
6.13 am on 27 Feb 2008
Derrick,
I’m a little confused here. Since I take it that all Christocentric universalists are exclusivists it wouldn’t be shocking that Clement too comes off as an exlcusivist. Am I missing something here? As for sources, let me see if I can scare some up. I think though that Clement is regarded by most as embracing universalism, along with his pupil, Origen. But let me do some digging.
Comment by Derrick
7.43 am on 27 Feb 2008
Kevin,
I guess that I was taking exclusivist to mean that salvation was exclusive in the sense that not all would be saved. When I used that term, I was simply saying that I took Clement to be saying that Hell was everlasting, which would seem to imply that some would end up there forever(I think that it was somewhere in the “Miscellanies”; I’ll admit that it’s been a few years since I’ve read Clement). Anyway, thanks for looking into the sources for me.
Comment by Gregory MacDonald
2.42 pm on 27 Feb 2008
A good book on this topic is
Steven R. Harmon,
“Every Knee Should Bow: Biblical Rationales for Universal Salvation in Early Christian Thought”.
UPA, 2003
He looks at Clement, Origen and Gregory
Pax
GM
Comment by Katharine Moody
10.01 am on 27 Feb 2008
I’d recommend Alain Badiou’s (2003) Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism, which, although I haven’t read it myself, I’ve heard is very good and touches on aspects of the discussion here.
Comment by Nick
7.52 am on 28 Feb 2008
Kevin, why do you insist that you must have full biblical support to believe that E.U. is true, rather than only hope it is true? Could it be that some of the biblical authors had different views on the matter – such as how people today do – and it is our responsibility to choose the most coherent, persuasive view – not necessariliy the view that is more generally supported by the Bible. Maybe the minority view on E.U. found in the Bible is the correct one.
Comment by Kevin
2.44 pm on 28 Feb 2008
Nick,
I don’t recall insisting that one must have full biblical support to believe EU is true. In fact, I wouldn’t insist on that as a requirement for belief. My point was no more than a piece of autobiography: From my perspective, the biblical witness under-determines the matter. Yet there is enough there to give me hope that it’s true. I am just trying to make room at the table so that people like GM don’t have fear for their jobs or reputations just because they embrace a view that is, from where I stand, as permissible to hold as is infant baptism and believer baptism.
I would say something similar about the open vs. classical view of God in theology. EU and whether God is the risk taking God of Open Theism or the Ironclad, risk-free God of the classical theologians, these are peripheral issues to the good news. Peripheral, not unimportant. Indeed, I take a stand on these issues and am prepared to defend them. (Nick, in answer to Katherine in 2, I say a bit more about how I understand ‘belief’. Might be helpful. Might not.)
Comment by Kevin
2.50 pm on 28 Feb 2008
Nick,
Quick follow-up. I wonder if you think that when I say I hope EU is true I mean something thin like “it’d be really super cool, awesome if the world was like that.” That’s not what I mean. I mean I have a very deep longing, rooted in what I know about God, this world and the human beings that dwell here, and the bible, to see God ultimately and thoroughly victorious. In any case, I do think that what I said to Katharine under 2 is relevant here.
Cheers,
Kevin
Comment by Bryan Riley
12.02 pm on 4 Mar 2008
I appreciate that you hope it is true. I think we could all say that. I hope that all will be redeemed in the end and believe that God could do that and hope that one day I will discover that I was wrong about universalism’s falsity. It will not sadden me at all that I misunderstood.
I also appreciate what you have written and how you have written. This is a good post and you explain your thoughts carefully and in an easy to understand way.
However, I don’t think you have dealt with the issue of free will, nor with biblical accounts such as Revelation 20, talking about those not written in the Book of Life, or of Christ referring to the sheep and the goats. I think you have failed to account for the fact that God is both a God of mercy and of justice. Living water and consuming fire. While He chooses all of us, not all of us choose Him. Some cannot stop looking at the distractions put up by the forces of darkness and continue to hold onto false beliefs about God, fail to choose Him therefor, and will die without Him, resulting in an eternal separation from Him. I don’t know what that will look like, but I do believe it will be eternal. I hope it isn’t true, but I disagree with your conclusion nonethless. I also don’t think it is unbiblical or antithetical to God’s character to conclude as I have.
Comment by Brandon Vaughn
2.19 pm on 4 Mar 2008
Bryan,
Who is to say that God stops pursuing man after death?
Doesn’t it seem odd that we say that here is a man … and God loves him so much that he wants him to repent … the man dies … and suddenly God cannot stand this man.
Wait a minute… is this the same God?
So, why would God love a man before death, despise him after death?
You have obscure passages in Peter where he talks about the gospel being preached to the living and the dead. So, might this be literal?
I talked about Revelation 20 in another post. To me, “lake of fire” is synonymous with being “baptized” into God. And since God is a consuming fire, it effectively burns up everything that is not of Him. What is left? Possibly just faith in Him.
There is a real question though, I think, about why death must necessitate eternal separation. Is it that God can only “find the lost sheep” here in our lifetime? Is there something about death that limits God?
But if that was the case, then wouldn’t that make death greater than God?
I think the resurrection clearly shows us death’s place in relation to God.
The main revelation we have of God in the NT is that God is love (1 John). This is the way that HE chose to be known to us. Therefore, any attribute of God MUST be passed through that prism … whether God’s mercy, His wrath, His justice, His omnipresence, and so on.
And in terms of justice, we see right after man’s fall in Genesis who God pronounced judgment on. We also hear Jesus own words about what the Holy Spirit will convict (convince) the world about concerning judgment in John.
The issue that faces man today is a simple one. The issue is not SINS. Jesus is the lamb who takes AWAY the sins of the WORLD. Now, there is only one issue … what do you do with Jesus. The SIN that Jesus says the Holy Spirit will convict the world of in John … that they do not believe in Him.
If sins still had to be dealt with, Hebrews makes it very clear that Jesus would have to come and die again. That fact that He ascended tells us plainly that the issue of sin has been taken care of.
Does this give every one a ticket in?
I heard it illustrated this way once: Suppose you have a man who has died of some disease. You have the ability to bring him back to life (we will pretend). How many problems would you have to solve? If you only cured the man’s disease, you would have a healthy dead man. If you just brought the man back to life, he would quickly die of the disease again. In order to bring this man back, you would need to solve TWO problems … cure his disease … give him life.
Jesus has “cured the disease” … sin has been dealt with. And He did this for the entire world.
So, what is the issue today … “be reconciled to God” … “come to Me that you may have life” … “names written in the Book of LIFE” (emphasis mine) …
LIFE … LIFE … LIFE …
And this Life only comes in relationship with Him.
Why are the sheep and goats separated. Could it be as simple as the fact that goats don’t have “sheep life” in them?
Yet the amazing thing is that we were ALL goats at some point in time. Yet Jesus mysteriously gave us the “sheep life” and behold we are his sheep.
Why does this Gospel have to end at death? But possibly the horror of realizing that a man rejected this beautiful God of love will be a blazing fire in such a man that it HURTS?
You know, I’ve seen some children that if you told them not to touch a hot stove, they would listen.
I’ve also known some kids who just have to experience the pain themselves before they will believe.
Could this in essence explain the purpose of hell?
Blessings,
Brandon
Comment by Bryan Riley
4.56 pm on 4 Mar 2008
Brandon, thanks for your excellent reply. As to your first point, I didn’t say that God stops pursuing man after death, and, to be honest, I don’t know how that works, although I do “think” that death from the current life we know to be the cruicial point as you assumed. Again, I hope there are chances for those who have already passed from this life, but I can’t see where this is spoken of in Scripture.
Some would read Hebrews 9:27 to indicate this, where it says “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.” One can read that verse in the context of chapters 9 and 10 and begin to think that there is an expression of universalism and thus question a common interpretation of 9:27; however, if you continue on to 10:29-39 you see an incredible description of the threshold covenant, an ancient practice of the Middle East, and how it signifies the covenant God makes with us. There you find God saying that “if anyone draws back (from the Son) My soul has no pleasure in him…” (Which could be God saying I can’t stand you now, although I don’t think it is quite like that. I think it is that God still loves, but that a holy God simply cannot continue to allow one who has chosen to serve themselves to stand before Him and will allow that person to be their own god for eternity even though it is a terrible choice for them.)
As to 1 Peter 4:6, I think that actually supports the case against universalism, as you might have expected, because it is showing that the gospel has been spoken to all and therefore all will be judged. I think the reference to living and dead is a reference to their spiritual condition.
With regard to your thoughts on the lake of fire, thoughts that I think are possible, if a person has never placed their faith in Jesus and that person were to be thrown into the lake of fire and it were to consume all that wasn’t of God, it strikes me that it would consume that entire person because we know that those who are not in Christ are against Him. He that is not with Him is against Him, said Jesus Himself.
As to your questions about God’s limitations, I wrote that I believe God could save everyone (and we know that is His desire), and i do not believe that anything limits Him at all, but I also believe that He can limit Himself if He so desires. Whatever He desires is perfect. I think He limited Himself by becoming Jesus, the human, and dying on a cross, as an example of this self-limiting aspect of His nature. and, He had to do this for the remission of sin. (back to Hebrews again) And, for an outside of the bible picture of this process, the Chronicles of Narnia do a good job of portraying Jesus in Aslan, following the deep magic put in place (submitting to His own law, not because it is greater than Him but because it is Him).
i agree with you that God is love and that is demonstrated consistently. I wouldn’t limit that to the NT; that is demonstrated consistently throughout the bible, OT and NT. I also agree that our theology must be shaped by the nature and character of God – Who He Is.
And yes, I’ve thought about hell leading to repentance and ultimately giving people the realization that they need to follow Jesus, and I have hoped for that, but I think the bible gives no indication of such and portrays a different picture. We see the parable of the wedding feast, again the sheep and the goats, the picture of Jesus saying away from me, I never knew you, the Hebrew concept of Sheol, and so much more.
I would love to be wrong. God knows. Praise God He knows. And He will work it out. I also hope that those who believe as you do will nevertheless remain obedient to our call to be ambassadors for Christ and i’ve sensed that desire in the heart of this post – to continue to be and tell the good news of Jesus Christ. I sense that there are those who believe in universalism who remain faithful to our call as followers of Jesus just as those who are Calvinist. Many throughout the centuries have accused Calvinists of being against evangelism, yet the world has seen a great many evangelists who were Calvinists. May the same be true of universalists who are, as said here, weak exclusivists.
Comment by Brandon Vaughn
10.04 pm on 4 Mar 2008
Bryan,
Thanks for your comments. As you, I have no clue what happens after death … haven’t been there yet, so I don’t have a t-shirt!
Hebrews 9:27 is an odd passage in a way if you read this in context with what comes before and after it. But here is a random thought on this. This verse is obviously just a general statement, because otherwise how would people that Jesus brought back from death (like Lazurus) fit into that? If it is appointed only once for man to die, then did that mean that Lazurus didn’t have to face judgment anymore when he died a second time?
So, to me (and I could be wrong), I think this verse has to be taken as a general verse … man will die and then have to face God. I don’t think we can use that verse for or against universalism. I think we read into the verse though if we assume we know what “judgment” means. The way I was raised, that is the time the big movie screen from heaven comes down and shows me all the times I cursed, stole something, had bad thoughts, etc. I think the judgment it talks about in John 16:11 may be the judgment we face … that is, everything we thought was “reality” crumbles down to nothing. Instead of coming to that realization here on earth, there is no escaping that once we die.
And again, some (not all) of us are NOT saying there will be no judgment or “hell” in the future. We are not making light of sin, nor its consequences. I just happen to believe God is greater than our sin. Notice Hebrews 10:31, “… the Lord will judge HIS PEOPLE.” (emphasis mine) That would almost make it sound like those who are being judged are HIS PEOPLE. Now, you can either take this passage as thus referring to BELIEVERS, or this has to refer to ALL HUMANITY. If the former, then we can’t use this verse as suggesting anything against universalism. If the latter, then you have another verse supporting universalism. (Most take Hebrews as referring to Jewish “Christians” turning their back on the faith.)
You mention “but that a holy God simply cannot continue to allow one who has chosen to serve themselves to stand before Him”, and I would ask (sincerely) how you know this? What is the scriptural basis for this? I see Jesus (who I believe IS God) who seems QUITE comfortable around the worst of sinners.
And here is what FLOORS me. A woman caught in adultery. Thrown before Jesus. And God says to her, “I don’t hold this against you.” Yes, there was the “go and sin no more part”, but she didn’t even ask for that! Now, to hear people talk about “hell” sounds like the opposite of how God showed Himself to be in Jesus. Jesus didn’t make light of her sin, but neither did He hold it against her either.
In terms of 1 Peter 4:6, reading that in context, I believe this verse is in fact dealing with the spiritual state of a man and not ultimate state. I don’t agree that this verse goes against universalism though. Verse 6 doesn’t say it was preached to ALL the dead, just “to the dead”. I think it isn’t too hard to see that not everyone has heard the Gospel (a fact that we tend to not want to think about with a traditional view of hell).
The verses I was actually thinking about was 1 Peter 3:18-20. These verses seem to indicate that Jesus preached the Gospel to those before Him. If this is true, then the MAIN thing I would point out is the possibility of salvation after death. These verses would not prove that the same would be true in the future, but it would show it happened in the past.
I don’t know if I agree that fire will consume a person. God’s fire doesn’t have to do that (e.g., the burning bush). Also, God’s presence in fire at night with Israel didn’t consume them. Jesus never called men sinners (if He did He was usually quoting the Pharisees). His favorite term was “lost.” And if you think about it, why go after the lost coin unless it was valuable? Or the lost sheep unless it was valuable? So to say that there is nothing worthy in man to save and all is burned up I think is not consistent with how God viewed man in these parables. If a person has some terrible disease (like AIDS), does that mean there is no worth in that person? Would the fires of hell burn away the disease? Or the man himself?
In an earlier post, I ranted on and on about how universalism is NOT the Gospel. So, if a person quits evangelism because of their belief in universalism, it would just show me that they don’t understand the Gospel in the first place. The Gospel is NOW; faith is NOW. Universalism (if true) is only the “P.S.” of the Gospel.
Lastly, I wouldn’t consider myself (with universalist leanings) a “weak” exclusivist. Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father in my mind. Whether that is still possible after death is where the debate is with me.
I think if the parables of Jesus tell us anything, the “I don’t know you” appears to be MUCH more about religious people than not. In effect, Jesus would seem to say that people in most churches are going to crack hell open faster than prostitutes or members of the mafia would. That should be shocking to our ears (and that was the whole point). Think about it … do we really believe that we will see a porn star in heaven before Billy Graham? If we take Jesus’ parables as actual doctrine on heaven/hell, then I content we should be careful to interpret who exactly are such sheep and goats according to Jesus.
Blessings,
Brandon
Comment by Kevin
12.50 pm on 4 Mar 2008
Bryan,
Thanks for your comments. Obviously, we disagree. Fair enough. You are correct that I don’t deal w/the biblical accounts in the post. And, I also agree that sense can one can make a coherent case for eternal damnation and God’s loving character. I don’t find the latter to be convincing, however. So, as I say, we disagree. As far as what I have said about free will not persuading you (and please read my comments about freewill in my comments to the other posts)…well…I’ve done my best.
A biblical case for CU can be found in GM’s book (which I heartily recommend) and also at http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ekd47/univ.htm But I thank you sincerely for taking the time to read the post and giving it serious consideration.
Comment by Bryan Riley
5.06 pm on 4 Mar 2008
Kevin, I will check out the link. Please check out my response to brandon above as well.
Comment by Bryan Riley
5.08 pm on 4 Mar 2008
Also, I will say that I have definitely had Universalist thoughts with regard to all the verses typically quoted in support of the theory. I definitely believe that Christ finished the work for all to be saved eternally.
Comment by davo
1.57 am on 6 Mar 2008
“I hope that universalism is true. I even pray that it’s true.” Why?.. what makes one think we have more love or grace in our hearts than God?
“There is a good biblical case to be made both for separationism and for universalism.” Very true, but what IMO is totally missed is that the whole “inclusion / exclusion” argument is based wholly and solely around post-mortemism. IF folk could see that “the call of God” – “being saved” – “eternal life” i.e., “salvation” etc was ALL about service to God, and consequently to others, in this life, and NOT about eternal destinies, then we’d be more productive as believes – those “saved to serve”.
Humanity HAS been reconciled to God because of Christ’s faithfulness, but most don’t know it – which is why we as believers who most definitely DO know it, have a valid and vibrant message – the message of reconciliation.
Example: ALL Israel WERE redeemed out of bondage, the good the bad and the ugly – those believing AND those not believing. ALL were redeemed TOGETHER – yet only those of “faith” went on into find fulness of life in the Land of Promise, that is, “salvation”. Salvation is pertinent to THIS LIFE wherein reconcilation has likewise been established. I believe in what N. T. Wright describes as “life after life after death” – how that all unfolds however the Scriptures are less forthcoming on. What we do know however is that Jesus cleary defines “eternal life” in terms of a relationship with God, and that very much a this life issue [Jn 17:3, 10:10b].
davo
Comment by gene pineda
12.09 am on 16 Mar 2008
Hi,
This is my first time posting on any blog. I found this link by doing a search on GM from yahoo.
I would like to say that I am a UR (As Mr. Talbott refers to it). I find some parts of his book (GM) to be a bit vauge in what he tries to present. In particular the chapter on revelation seems to be a bit hard to understand.
I do appreciate Jason’s original entry howerver. I find that indeed this topic on forums can become quite a harsh exchange especially between those of the reformed position and the Universalist position.
I do agee with GM that UR has a strong case for evangelism and missions. Since I’ve come to embrace this position I find that some analogies of fire seem to be quite telling. For example, though we as christians believe that a fellow christian will go to heaven if he is to burn in a burning house. I imagine we all would rescue them from such a terrible event. This however has it’s drawbacks, namely that the person could have gone to be with the lord and we just rescued them from such a blessing. However, it seems that fire creates in us an awareness that no matter what we don’t want anyone to burn.
This brings me to Jesus’ point about the burning dump site. I often tell unbelieving friends that if they believe hell is so fun then they could perhaps give it a test run. take a bucket and pour about a full can of lighter fluid into it. Light the fluid in the bucket using a match. Place one of your arms in the fire and leave it there for 1 minute….ok ok….20 seconds….ok ok….5 seconds. Now does hell sound like a great time or what.
My point is that even we believers who believe hell is not forever do not take lightly that God punishes sin and deals with it.
If I would save anyone from a burning house, than why would I not want to save anyone from a far worse place than a simple house on fire.
I’ve recently been pondering the fact that many of us possibly might not even believe in hell. If we do believe in such a place and time, then we sure don’t act like it. For if I believe a man is going to burn in a house, do I not panic?
Don’t I suddenly find myself in a state of urgency.
But with unsaved friends I find myself passive and more willing to allow that their free choices grant them such a terrible fate.
I’m not dogmatic on these issues but I do believe GM is truly right. His profound view which I believe merits an applause helps us to think outside of the box. Thomas Talbott was the first to launch me off the thinking pad and now GM has done this as well.
Thank you Jason for the insightful post that UR or whatever you wish to call us can be christians. My prayer is that in time the church can deal with this issue more maturely and responsibly.
God Bless,
Gene
Comments are now closed.