The power of a question
Just a quick post. I'll respond to comments later.
"How can an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God create billions of people knowing most will be tormented in hell forever?"
From Hope Beyond Hell, by Gerry Beauchemin. This helpful pro universalist book is free online here.
Those of us, like myself, who do not consider ourselves Universalists ought not to brush such questions to one side too quickly.
Labels: Universalism
posted by Chris Tilling @ 4:09 PM
41 comments
41 Comments:
I had a teacher in 3rd grade who told me, "James, I didn't give you a D- you earned it"
If people experience the torments of hell they have only themselves to blame since they are free to receive God's gift of salvation.
God didn't make people for hell. People make themselves for it.
Tilling,
Have you heard the theological idea that Hell is actually not the place "where God is not" but the place where human beings experience God in his fullness, but without the salvation that comes through Jesus? It solves the problem of sayig God is omnipresent - except in hell - and may do away with the notion of God actually ascribing torment on others, or creating a place purely for torment.
Just wondering what your thoughts are on this.
What about annihilationism? Hell being non-existence?
I find the argument for eternal extinction (annihilation) much more compelling than universalism. Although I find it difficult to believe either one (as much as I would love to), I believe that it is much easier to say that everyone who does not receive eternal life through Christ will be destroyed fully and finally by the wrath of God.
For starters, the theme of "the ban" (cherem) carries over nicely from OT theology into NT theology. Secondly, one may exploit the hardly-developed notion of eternity in Jewish lit. prior to Hellenistic/Persian incusion.
(seeing that Persian and incursion rhyme, I feel that's a perfect spot to stop this comment and get back to work on my Barth paper)
NB:Persian and incursion rhyme only when spelled correctly.
The Bible speaks of an ultimate Judgement Day "when the books shall be opened and the judgement set". It does not speak of life after death, but rather of life after Judgement Day.
The following statements are typical of a recurring theme throughout the Old Testament:
"Our days on the earth are as a shadow and there is no abiding." (1Chr 29:15)
"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." (Ps 146:4)
"For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything at all...whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol, whither thou goest." (Ecclesiastes 9:5-10).
Step by step we see:
There is no abiding on the earth;
When we die our thoughts perish;
There is no reward of any kind immediately upon death;
There would be no need to open the books on Judgement Day if judgement had already been carried into effect.
Jesus used the word Gehenna, which was synonomous with fire, human sacrifice and idolatory, as a symbol to illustrate the 'spiritual' horrors accompanying 'spiritual' isolation from the one, true God of Israel.
Martha, the sister of Lazarus, provides us with a clear and unambiguous statement of what the followers of Jesus believed about death and its immediate aftermath.
Check John, Chapter 11, taking particular note of "...I know that he (Lazarus) shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day."
For Martha - there was only the grave until that day came.
Jesus' next words and actions confirmed that death meant only the grave and that life was to be lived only on this earth.
How has it escaped attention that the 4 days dead Lazarus should already have been received into heaven or damned to hellfire for all eternity?
Jim's a little harsh.
I'd say: As the pinnacle of creation God has great respect for man. God also has great respect for man's will and freedom of choice. This freedom of choice must include an option to reject God and 'live without Him' or live without reference to Him. As such, although it pains God immeasurably, God respects man's choice to live without him. God is not willing that any perish, says the bible, but this does not mean God will force his will on man. If man could not choose this 'destiny' then man wouldn't be what he is but some kind of automaton.
Jim was correct though.
Hmm, going with the danny zacharias comment for a minute. . .
It seems that humanity is created to experience God. Just what that experience is going to be is left open to the individual. Thus, the spirit-fire metaphor which stands for the Holy Spirit is quite telling for the NT perspective here: if one accepts the single experience of the coming baptism of the spirit and fire (Luke 3:16-17) then the reverberations might just be carried out to a cosmic level.
If people are left to the eternity which is the fulfillment of that which they have made the central motif of their life, then the question of the universalist is diffused. Revelation's overall message seems to go in this direction, the emphasis being the fulfillment of one's own desires - whether or not that is god is an open question.
Chris - this might provide some further info on where I would like to go with Max (@ LST).
"Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell."
As I see it, the reason this topic is still being argued over is that theologians have no fear of God.
Answer: I don't know.
J.Henry
"I believe that it is much easier to say that everyone who does not receive eternal life through Christ will be destroyed fully and finally by the wrath of God."
What sort of a statement is this? You may find it easy to say, but it is not easy to read (nor should it be).
My goodness Jim - that is a truly simplistic argument. How does one ever do enough bad to earn the eternal terments of hell? Of course, you might give the traditional answer that my question is to understate the seriousness of sin, but such a response seems to me to understate the seriousness of eternal torment.
Looney - a verse out of context is not an argument, and to critique theologians for having some degree of uncertainty about the future seems a little dogmatic.
By the way, if you are wondering why i am staying anonymous, it is because defenders of traditional positions are notorious witch hunters (hence McDonald's use of the pseudonym). Thus, anonymity is not a mark of cowardliness, but a necessary response to fundamentalist approaches to theology.
Why should God change His plans and not create humanity because of their disobedience? Wouldn't that have allowed evil to conquer God's plans?
"Looney - a verse out of context is not an argument, and to critique theologians for having some degree of uncertainty about the future seems a little dogmatic."
I understand. And the only context that is valid is the one conjured up in a seminary - not the Biblical one.
How does Jim think still born babies are 'free to receieve God's gift of salvation?'
Or do they have salvation imposed upon them by force?
If we have free will to "choose" hell now... do we have free will in heaven?
Hey Looney,
Interesting thought. However, that such a result may be possible does not mean that such a result will be inevitable (i.e. sure, God may have the POWER to damn a person to hell, but whether or not God will actually utilise that power is a whole different story). Consequently, I don't think the issue is still being debated because theologians do not fear or reverence God sufficiently. Rather, I think that the debate continues because what we are attempting to describe in doctrines of hell/annihilation/universal salvation, is a type of knowing that does not belong within the realm of certitude. There are some things we know fairly certainly, some things we don't know at all, and some things we know in part -- and because our knowledge is partial what we do know may appear to be contradictory. However, that this area of faith is removed from the realm of certitude frees us to hope. I like to phrase it this way:
Either God will save all or he has planned something that is even better than that for all.
Grace and peace.
Oh look at what you have stirred up Chris. And sitting back giggling like a gradeschooler no doubt. Good on you!
I must admit that this is one of those daunting topics for me. I'd love to be a universalist and lean that way as often as I can. But there is something to be said for justice in all this too. Not in a simplistic way - I don't think hell fits the bill as a just response. But it does point to an expectation of recompense for the way we live our lives in the present.
I find it easy to believe that hell is not a pre-judgement reality and I would like to believe that it is not ever a human reality too. Pre-judgement scenarios of hell are far too dualistic to be proper interpretations. Just watch the plethora of visions folks have had of hell and you will see how much they lack critical distance from these experiences.
But what it really comes down to is that I'm convinced that hell doesn't matter. It doesn't matter enough to be defended or denied theologically. There are bigger fish to be fried here.
The type of Christianity that is bred by an emphasis on hell tends to be fear based and does not orient people to the world which God so loved. How can one expect to flee God's wrath and sit smugly waiting for heaven while the world cries out in pain for the manifestation of the Sons of God? I can't see it.
Second, the language of hell, heaven and death are used to speak to the living. They should orient us towards life, but when the balance is off they do not. But this is a langauge that goes beyond the realm of knowing. Is it not enough to know that God purposes beyond this life? Is that not a faith in the resurrection? I think so. My hope is not in heaven, but in the resurrection. I long for the inbreaking of heaven and resist the current reign of hell on this Earth. For me the langauge must be turned to the temporal or it is of no real value.
Helluva topic Chris!
Dan wrote - "here are some things we know fairly certainly, some things we don't know at all, and some things we know in part -- and because our knowledge is partial what we do know may appear to be contradictory."
What I do know 100% is that Jesus publicly preached the possibility of hell on multiple occasions to everyone and threatened a few individuals specifically. (Although unlike Jim, I can't see where he specifically mentioned Chris Tilling.) Jesus also preached about hell in the middle of the squishy love, Sermon on the Mount. I have always been inspired by a good "turn or burn" sermon. If the theology doesn't permit the pastor to give a graphic description of the fires of hell and the torment of those engulfed, then it needs some correction!
Dear Anon.:
"What sort of a statement is this? You may find it easy to say, but it is not easy to read (nor should it be)."
Exegetically easier, not emotionally or socially. NT statements on what we call "hell" are rooted in OT imagery, or a Hellenistic image here or there (esp. "Hades").
If I wish to argue against the statement I imitially made about annihilation, I must first establish the innate eternality of all souls (not just believers). This is more difficult to do that one might initially think. (I am reminded of some of the debates between Oscar Cullmann and English-speakers in the mid-20th century.)
Peace, Jon
Chris,
I would argue that the traditional understanding of "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" are a bit misleading. That is why I use the terminology "most-knowing" and "most-powerful" and "able to be wherever He wants". This allows us to stop pigeon-holing God into our tight categories. It gives us a way to speak of Him without closing Him off. Moreover, it seems to be a true description of God's nature as He can limit Himself. If He chooses not to know, use power or be somewhere, He surely can do any of that.
www.michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com
Chris,
I would argue that the traditional understanding of "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" are a bit misleading. That is why I use the terminology "most-knowing" and "most-powerful" and "able to be wherever He wants". This allows us to stop pigeon-holing God into our tight categories. It gives us a way to speak of Him without closing Him off. Moreover, it seems to be a true description of God's nature as He can limit Himself. If He chooses not to know, use power or be somewhere, He surely can do any of that.
www.michaelhalcomb.blogspot.com
Starting with Genesis we are told that what God made, he considered it good. All of it. 1 Cor. 15 explains that ALL die in Adam but ALL will be made alive in Christ, each in his own order (which seems to be the problem with this because most haven't understood the ages or order of things 'til ALL is complete). At the end of ALL ages (as we know it), Jesus gives ALL of creation back to the Father, submits himself and God will be ALL in ALL.
Throughout Scripture we understand that God is a consuming fire. How hell became this place of eternal torment is not so hard to figure out. But what we do know, it didn't come from the Scriptures. But God's judgement is pure and holy and a consuming fire, and as most know, this picture is constant throughout.
How simple it is to see that the OT never speaks of hell-fire and to take Gehanna and turn it into a hell-fire eternal burning, is to change what scripture says. How merciful is God when He uses His loving consuming fire to make us pure...each in our own turn.
As far as man having free-will that will overide God's Will...like most of man-kind will burn forever...that seems to make those who believe in ultimate free will have more power than God.
If we believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, we only have to look at the laws God gave and see that the laws of "Ownership" overide this free-will mentality that gives man more power than God. Simply stated, If God owns the world (which He does) he takes the ultimate responsibility for it. So when man fell in the garden (due to his "free-will" or choice - like God didn't know that was going to happen!) God's law states that if someone is injured while on someones property (because the owner of that property dug a hole, created a tree, etc.,)and the person got hurt because of it, the Owner would be responsible to pay back the one who was hurt.
Glad you all are talking about this. I can't wait for the "Good News" to get out.
Mark
"How merciful is God when He uses His loving consuming fire to make us pure...each in our own turn."
But Mark,
There is repeated statements of the lack of mercy or the fear of judgment the ungodly or those who don't "obey the gospel" will receive from God. This is OT and NT stuff. It fits the pattern of the extra-biblical literature as well. Though it is all clearly pre-Barthian, are we to accuse nearly every writer of not being Christocentric enough?
I realize the theological motive to argue for universalism, but exegetically it seems dead (as I expect Chris will show). It seems rather similar to those who want to argue for the Koran endorsing a "religion of peace". It is not straightforwardly exegetical, but rather a loose, creative, theological interpretation.
I am a universalist myself (of course I am afraid I'll be left out). But I don't think the Bible helps my case. Even Paul's more sweeping statements like "all being made alive" in Christ are addressed as comfort or reassurance to those "in Christ". Texts like John 5:25-30ish seem clear about a "double" resurrection.
Tony
"Starting with Genesis we are told that what God made, he considered it good. All of it."
And yet evil came in.
"All of it. 1 Cor. 15 explains that ALL die in Adam but ALL will be made alive in Christ, each in his own order (which seems to be the problem with this because most haven't understood the ages or order of things 'til ALL is complete)."
Here Paul establishes a universal resurrection, not a universal redemption. The New Testament affirms that both the righteous and wicked will be resurrected (John 5:28-29 and Acts 24:15). Paul is affirming that basic tenet of the Christian faith. It is not that all will be redeemed.
"At the end of ALL ages (as we know it), Jesus gives ALL of creation back to the Father, submits himself and God will be ALL in ALL."
Is "all" referring to categorically universal or individually universal? If the former, then Paul is not speaking of a universal redemption, but a redemption of creation that is not bounded by "class" (for lack of a better term).
"Throughout Scripture we understand that God is a consuming fire. How hell became this place of eternal torment is not so hard to figure out. But what we do know, it didn't come from the Scriptures. But God's judgment is pure and holy and a consuming fire, and as most know, this picture is constant throughout."
Gehenna became associated with eternal fire because of:
A) Gehenna was associated with fire by the preaching of Jesus. Matthew 5:22, 18:9, and Mark 9:43-48. Additionally, James relates Gehenna with fire in James 3:6.
B) Gehenna is clearly related with judgment. In Matthew 5:21-22 and Matthew 23:33, we see Gehenna being related to a judgmental sentence. Additionally, Gehenna is clearly referred to as a punishment, such as in Matthew 10:28. Finally, Gehenna is contrasted with entrance into the kingdom of God in Mark 9:43-47 and like in Matthew 18:9.
C) From those previous two points, a picture of Gehenna is developed. A place of fire reserved as a punishment in judgment. It is never explicitly spoken of as "eternal," but neither is it explicitly referred to as "temporary" either. And because of this picture, it is linked with the lake of fire in Revelation (Revelation 19:20, 20:10, 20:14-15), because of the usage of fire and it being the result of the judgment. Now the word Gehenna isn't used in Revelation, but that does not mean the author could be referring to the same thing. The similarities outweigh the fact that the word Gehenna is not explicitly used.
D) The lake of fire is explicitly said to be the place for eternal torment for the beast and the false prophet (Revelation 20:10). Therefore, it is unreasonable to generalize that for all who enter into the lake of fire. Furthermore, there is an "eternal fire" that one might be thrown into in Matthew 18:8, which is immediately followed be in 18:9 with speaking about fiery hell. So considering the context, one would presume "eternal fire" and "fiery hell" to be the same thing, so one could develop the idea of "eternal fiery hell."
This idea is clearly derived from Scripture.
"How simple it is to see that the OT never speaks of hell-fire and to take Gehanna and turn it into a hell-fire eternal burning, is to change what scripture says."
And while it is correct to say that the OT doesn't have the eternal fire image, it never denies it either. Just as the OT doesn't speak of some of the things that Jesus was. But yet this absence in the Old Testament does not deny the development of Gehenna as a eternal fire in the NT. And there are hints of the eternal punishment, or at least contempt, within the Old Testament into which Gehenna as an eternal fire can fit into. See Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 66:22-24, and Jeremiah 20:11.
"As far as man having free-will that will overide God's Will...like most of man-kind will burn forever...that seems to make those who believe in ultimate free will have more power than God.
If we believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, we only have to look at the laws God gave and see that the laws of "Ownership" overide this free-will mentality that gives man more power than God."
Just because God doesn't use His power doesn't mean He lacks the power. This argument is based upon the idea that power must be exercise for it to be power. But if God allows Himself for free choice, it does not deny His own power.
"If God owns the world (which He does) he takes the ultimate responsibility for it."
Or He could throw it away and not worry about it. Ownership does not is not equated with responsibility if one is not bound to that higher up. And God certainly is not bound to take responsibility for creation. He can, if He wants, allow for free will and then also allow for a route of redemption. But He is not obligated to do it at all, nor do it universally.
"God's law states that if someone is injured while on someones property (because the owner of that property dug a hole, created a tree, etc.,)and the person got hurt because of it, the Owner would be responsible to pay back the one who was hurt."
God's law also states that people shall not seek vengeance. Does that mean then that God Himself is obligated to never seek vengeance?
As most know, can we really translate olam or aion to mean forever, or eternal? It would seem that would have to be translated properly to even come to any understanding. Each has to study that for themselves. As far as judgement goes, once we are judged and come to judgement, did not Jesus stand in our place? Did He not overcome the world? Was his death and resurrection not enough? Was the ransom not paid? I think Scripture explains that from the foundation of the world, His purpose was in place. To redeem the world. Why is that so hard to see...unless eyes are blind because God (over our will) has kept us blind.
Judgement is not a bad thing. Why do we see it that way?
Gehanna is a picture of fire...as well as, the lake of fire. Revelation is full of symbols...except when someone decides certain things are not.
mark
"Judgement is not a bad thing. Why do we see it that way? "
1) Because the word has an ambiguous meaning, but mostly negative. Because the writers of Scripture often reserve judgment for some and life for others. It seems an especially bad thing when only some must endure it.
Of course other passages speak of "all" being judged for their lives or deeds. Those passages would seem to lose their rhetorical force if they just meant "all cases will be heavily scrutinized, but everyone will get a pass".
The writers clearly don't have the "judgment" of the cross in mind either, and yet to charge all of these writers (the very writers from whom we learn of Christ) as insufficiently sensitive to the work of Christ because of this is odd, to say the least.
It seems better just to be honest about this matter exegetically wherever one falls out theologically.
Tony
"As most know, can we really translate olam or aion to mean forever, or eternal? It would seem that would have to be translated properly to even come to any understanding. Each has to study that for themselves."
But therein lies where Universalism lives and dies. One must argue that Christian tradition has been so stupid or had such an agenda to understand "aiwn" (and "aiwnios") as "eternal." Bu the general consensus of the early Church Fathers (who would have a natural understanding of "aiwn" and "aiwnios") was that there was an everlasting punishment or life to be had. There are only two exceptions that I am aware of, Origen and Clement of Alexandria
Secondly, the argument against "aiwn" and "aiwnios" being eternal is seemingly only applied for punishment, but when applied to life, there is the consensus then that it does refer to living forever. If we should strip away the idea of eternal judgment, we might as well strip away the idea of eternal life. Therefore, our future life could be with end. But I have only once seen that actually argued, and the rest that accept universalism accept that our life will last forever without the possibility of losing our existence. In that, there is the "have our cake and eat it too" mentality.
"As far as judgement goes, once we are judged and come to judgement, did not Jesus stand in our place? Did He not overcome the world? Was his death and resurrection not enough? Was the ransom not paid?"
For whom was it paid that (not who can receive it). Was the sacrifices of Israel (the context of Christ's sacrifice) for every single Israelite, or only those who were not cut off? There was clearly an exclusiveness in some manner in the Old Testament sacrificial system, of which Christ is the fulfillment.
This argument has, at the root, the idea if God does something, once again it can not be based upon free will at all. If Christ died for our sins, it must be accomplished entirely for all people, or so the argument goes. Once again though, this is an attempt at a argument of reason, but it is faulty in its basic assumptions.
"I think Scripture explains that from the foundation of the world, His purpose was in place. To redeem the world. Why is that so hard to see..."
His purpose was in place, but nowhere do the texts dictate universal salvation. There are not texts which one can clearly find that redemption was meant to be universally applied to all individuals, as opposed to all "categories." Christ came to redeem all of creation and humanity, regardless of class, and hence the usage of "all" at certain places.
"unless eyes are blind because God (over our will) has kept us blind.""
Thank goodness I wear glasses so I can see things then and am not longer afflicted with blindness...
"Judgement is not a bad thing. Why do we see it that way?"
This seems to be implying that something bad can not come from God, thus judgment can not be eternal.
But judgment is bad. Jesus' language implies this... Better to enter into the kingdom with one eye than enter into hell (the result of judgment). Clearly, there, judgment is envisioned as being something bad. Paul also. In Romans 2:6-9, Paul speaks of the judgment of deeds and says those who do evil with receive "tribulation and distress." That seems to be denoting something bad. And Matthew 25:46 refers to those who do not take care of others receiving a "punishment." The language and its connotations are clear, judgment is bad.
"Gehanna is a picture of fire...as well as, the lake of fire. Revelation is full of symbols...except when someone decides certain things are not."
At some point though, the language must be understood literally. This argument of symbolism is applied so as to say "well, you can't use that" while then not addressing what it should be. It attempts to take out texts that contradict an idea by explaining it away as symbolism, without actually addressing a plausible meaning of such texts.
Besides, the possibility of symbolism comes from symbols and not merely words. The symbolic parts of Revelation come from images, not merely words themselves. "Forever and ever" is not very image invoking, so one is harder pressed to find a symbolic meaning in those words. Whereas "lake of fire" might be, and probably in some degrees, but it is doubtlessly influenced by the image of a fiery Gehenna.
But if it is symbolic, then what then is the symbolic meaning of "forever and ever" and how does it invoke that image?
Hi Chris
Very sorry but could you resend your email, I couldn't open the last one. Thanks!
....But therein lies where Universalism lives and dies. One must argue that Christian tradition has been so stupid or had such an agenda to understand "aiwn" (and "aiwnios") as "eternal."....
SO the question would be, who can be trusted in the translation of the Hebrew and Greek? As far as my Jewish friends say, olam means age and never forever. SOme of the Greek scholars say aion is the translation of olam which means age . Due to the inconsistent understanding of what scholars it comes down to one thing, Translators are traitors. They translate due to their understanding and their belief or their agenda. This is why Jesus said, I will send my Holy Spirit...to teach you.
....But judgment is bad. Jesus' language implies this... Better to enter into the kingdom with one eye than enter into hell (the result of judgment). Clearly, there, judgment is envisioned as being something bad. Paul also. In Romans 2:6-9, Paul speaks of the judgment of deeds and says those who do evil with receive "tribulation and distress." That seems to be denoting something bad....
Judgement is the mercy of God. TO be judged by a Righteous Judge and then released by His mercy is good. But because of man's need to condemn those whom they choose because of their lack of undersanding, keeps the agenda of man, rather than God. My son was judged and sent to prison, then after paying the price of his guilt, was released and walks now, humbly before the Lord. If man can judge in this way, is it not possible for God?
....But if it is symbolic, then what then is the symbolic meaning of "forever and ever" and how does it invoke that image?....
"Forever and ever" is redundant. It's bad English..hence the trouble with translators.
Mark
"SO the question would be, who can be trusted in the translation of the Hebrew and Greek? As far as my Jewish friends say, olam means age and never
forever."
Genesis 21:33 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the *Everlasting* God.
I guess we should just render that God of an Age?
Exodus 3:15:
God also said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the Israelites, "The Lord, [6] the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you': This is my name *forever*, and this my title for all generations.
I guess that should be rendered that it was God's name only for an age.
Exodus 15:18:
The LORD shall reign *forever* and ever
God shall only reign for an age and ever?
Deuteronomy 13:16:
Then you shall gather all its booty into the middle of its open square and burn the city and all its booty with fire as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God; and it shall be a ruin *forever*. It shall never be rebuilt.
Here, clearly olam means forever, because it is rephrased to say "It shall never rebuilt."
While olam can mean just an age, it clearly can and does mean eternal in many instances, so I'll disagree with those Jewish friends of yours.
"SOme of the Greek scholars say aion is the translation of olam which means age . Due to the inconsistent understanding of what scholars it comes down to one thing, Translators are traitors. They translate due to their understanding and their belief or their agenda. This is why Jesus said, I will send my Holy Spirit...to teach you."
Obviously, Jesus didn't send the Spirit to the early church then because we only have two witnessed among a plethora of them that didn't believe in an eternal judgment (Clement of Alexandria and Origen).
"Judgement is the mercy of God."
how is having a body and soul destroyed in Gehenna (Matthew 10:28) mercy?
"To be judged by a Righteous Judge and then released by His mercy is good."
Of course that positing that one is released. But to argue against eternal judgment by saying it isn't bad but good because God will release us is circular reasoning.
"But because of man's need to condemn those whom they choose because of their lack of undersanding, keeps the agenda of man, rather than God."
So what is that whole thing about God rewarding people for their deeds, good or bad? Maybe I missed something...
"My son was judged and sent to prison, then after paying the price of his guilt, was released and walks now, humbly before the Lord. If man can judge in this way, is it not possible for God?"
Sure. But isn't it also possible that there are offenses for which God will not release someone? But we aren't talking about possibilities though. God can do as He pleases. We are talking about what is reality, and arguing for a possibility does not determine the actual reality.
""Forever and ever" is redundant. It's bad English..hence the trouble with translators."
No. It isn't bad English. It is language used to emphasize something. For instance, if someone says "He went on and on and on," its redundant for emphasis. Likewise, "forever and ever" (or "tous aiwnas twn aiwnwn" in Greek) is used for emphasis. Maybe it isn't technically precise English, but neither is the Apocalypse in higher-class Greek. It is in the common vernacular.
Hi Jim,
“God didn't make people for hell. People make themselves for it.”
Point taken, but I don’t know if that answers the question. If God knew what would happen when he created, and if so many were to go to hell, then how would a good God create such a world?
Hi Danny, that is an interesting thought. One could also say that if God ‘is’ in hell, then one must remember that God is love. So God is love in hell.
Hi Arni,
“What about annihilationism? Hell being non-existence?” Certainly if one subscribes to a version of annihilationism, then the contrast isn’t as stark. But the question is still forceful as to why God created such a universe, as well as a question about God’s ability to actually do his will and succeed in his plans for creation – as he is indeed willing that all come to repentance.
J.Henry,
At the moment, I agree with you!
Interesting thoughts, :Mic, I need to ponder them. It does sound to me like these thoughts aren’t really in the texts, however
Hi Looney
“As I see it, the reason this topic is still being argued over is that theologians have no fear of God”
I remember vividly when I first heard about an exegetical universalism, i.e. a universalism based on the NT texts. I was horrified that anybody could be so stupid! Admittedly, having read what these guys are saying, I realise that they have a case, perhaps a strong one in the realm of theological exegesis. So I don’t anymore think it is a lack of fear of God that motivates them, even if I understand your frustration.
Hi Owen (I’ll try to tackle each comment as it comes),
“Why should God change His plans and not create humanity because of their disobedience? Wouldn't that have allowed evil to conquer God's plans?”
Because if God is love, then endless torment for most of his creation sounds like an odd expression of creative power for one who knows everything and loves endlessly. And if these plans were always God’s, who is to say that these plans don’t themselves appear evil if that is the known end result. It is not evil triumphing in stopping such a creation, but the torment of most humans for ever.
Slapdash,
A good question, of course, but one impossible to answer, I think. After all, our eschatological language that some of us want to claim is inspired only points in the right direction. As in all of this, an eschatological humility is needed, or we end up speaking with an overrealised eschatological epistemology. So I wouldn’t even know how to answer that question. Paul struggled enough with resurrection bodies in 1 Cor 15!
Dan,
“Either God will save all or he has planned something that is even better than that for all.”
Fascinating! This thought has come back to me over the weekend a few times. I HOPE you are right!
Frank, that is one of the most beautiful things I have ever read from your pen. A true delight! Seriously. Thanks! And I found myself nodding vigorously as I read your comment!
T Michael Halcomb,
Interesting thoughts, thanks. I must admit, I need to ponder that.
Mark, Tony and Owen, I have enjoyed reading your developing debate. I would take issue on the importance of the ‘eternal’ issue. I think it depends not on how it could be used, but on how it was used. And I think Wright’s / Caird’s / Perriman’s rereading of eschatological language in the Jesus traditions has much to speak for it. If they are right, the hell and eternal Jesus refers to should probably be understood more historically, i.e. in a way potentially favourable to either a universalist or annihilationist reading.
Owen, on 1 Cor 15 you write:
“Here Paul establishes a universal resurrection, not a universal redemption”. I suspect this may be sticking an exegetical hammer where it ought not exist in this chapter.
“Just because God doesn't use His power doesn't mean He lacks the power. This argument is based upon the idea that power must be exercise for it to be power. But if God allows Himself for free choice, it does not deny His own power.”
OK, but if God is love ... surely we have theological grounds to assume certain actions will be performed by God. Is God free to deny his own nature?
“God's law also states that people shall not seek vengeance. Does that mean then that God Himself is obligated to never seek vengeance?”
And does not the NT base much of its ethics, especially related to loving and forgiving attitudes between humans, on God’s nature?
Mark
“Judgement is not a bad thing. Why do we see it that way?”
To be fair, I think most who read the bible will get a bad impression of judgment, and the sort of language and themes associated with it.
Owen,
“But therein lies where Universalism lives and dies.”
I would be to differ there. To be provocative: universalism is certainly exegetically supportable, (even if not correct) and is based on 1) God’s is love 2) God is not willing that any should perish 3) God is able to fulfil his plans 4) better answers questions of theodicy. It doesn’t fall on the meaning of the word for eternal.
Owen, Tony, Mark. Thanks for your thought provoking posts. There is much to think through, there!
"I suspect this may be sticking an exegetical hammer where it ought not exist in this chapter."
I disagree. The clear view of Paul is the resurrection of Christ. I think it important to recognize the nature of Paul's argumentation. People denied the resurrection. Paul returns to say all will rise again. I think making it an issue of salvation is to add more to the topic than is clearly addressed. Should we not presume discussion about resurrection, given thats the topic, till evidence provides otherwise?
"OK, but if God is love ... surely we have theological grounds to assume certain actions will be performed by God. Is God free to deny his own nature?"
But what is God's nature precisely? Is it totally encompassed by the the word "love" or does it merely describe His nature in part? Shall we forget the Old Testament's picture of God's wrath? While it is not the focal point of the New Testament, that can be explained because of the New Testament focuses primarily upon the God's redeemed people, upon which wrath is not a subject that is of essential focus for them.
In other words, is God so loving so as to exclude wrath? That is the pivotal question here.
"And does not the NT base much of its ethics, especially related to loving and forgiving attitudes between humans, on God’s nature?"
Yes. But it is based upon the nature of God that we are to follow, considering our status. Because God is God, He may reserve certain things for Himself, such as judgment and vengeance, which we ourselves are not called to partake of. Our moral code to follow does not in itself describe the totality of who God is, because we are subject to God and we are not to encroach on His domain. At least that is how I see it.
"I would be to differ there. To be provocative: universalism is certainly exegetically supportable, (even if not correct) and is based on 1) God’s is love 2) God is not willing that any should perish 3) God is able to fulfil his plans 4) better answers questions of theodicy. It doesn’t fall on the meaning of the word for eternal."
But it does. If the meaning of aiwn and aiwnios indicates forever, the Universalism is in itself untenable, because the witness of the whole Bible, Old and New, speaks in opposition to it. God is love, but does that deny God can also be angry, and even hateful? Whether they are theologically correct or not is a matter up for debate, but the Old Testament Psalmists thought so (See Psalms 5:5). And the word of God through the prophets at certain times indicate so also.
The crux of the argumentation is a logic that may or may not be wrong, but it bases itself on certain assumptions. Does God's love exclude God's wrath? Could God's fulfilling His purpose include only saving those who come to Him? Can we truly think our answers to the theodicy are likely to be correct when we know very little about the nature of God ultimately?
I am not denying the use of reason here, but I think we have to recognize to speculate based upon what we presume the nature of God is, past what is revealed, is to try to go into a realm which we lack the knowledge. When we reason in areas we lack full knowledge, we may not understand the semantics of things and create a false conclusion. So I would point to the Biblical points on "eternal" and say it "trumps" the logical arguments in areas that can not be ultimately determined because we have a lack of full knowledge to be able to comprehend. Don't know if that makes sense or not, though. Hopefully it did.
"Because if God is love, then endless torment for most of his creation sounds like an odd expression of creative power for one who knows everything and loves endlessly."
Whom does God love endlessly?
"And if these plans were always God’s, who is to say that these plans don’t themselves appear evil if that is the known end result."
That leads me to ask the follow question. What is evil? Is it based upon appearance?
"It is not evil triumphing in stopping such a creation, but the torment of most humans for ever."
Depends on what the specific purpose of creation was. Something that we really can not understand,
Forgot to add to my last comment:
I think we have to ask the question is the creation itself the purpose of creation? If so, one could very well argue that a fallen world would need to be redeemed, since the purpose of God's creation, itself, would be foiled. However, is God's purpose for the creation for Himself? If so, could there not be a scenario where God's purposes is fulfilled regardless of whether all are redeemed or only some?
Not that that proves anything, but it leaves us to recognize that we don't fully understand the purpose of God's creation, so to argue that a loving God must redeem all creation is based upon an assumption that for creation to fulfill its purpose, all must be redeemed.
Owen,
Not sure what translation you're using, but it seems to me, the scriptures you quoted are not translated properly. Age - age induring - fits perfectly within the context of the verses. Young's Literal Translation or maybe the Concordant would help, or you could just translate it yourself.
Judgement can be harsh...going through the "fire" will be hard...but after the judgement, comes mercy, forgiveness. It's still a good thing to know our Father can love, discipline, forgive and administer mercy.
mark
"Not sure what translation you're using, but it seems to me, the scriptures you quoted are not
translated properly. Age - age induring - fits perfectly within the context of the verses. Young's Literal Translation or maybe the Concordant would help, or you could just translate it yourself."
First off, I would appreciate it if you would stop the arrogant comments like being blind and sarcasm such as "or you could just translate it yourself."
Secondly, very literally "olam" does mean age-enduring. But the word has certain connotations to it. Lets look again at one verse.
Deuteronomy 13:16:
Then you shall gather all its booty into the middle of its open square and burn the city and all its booty with fire as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God; and it shall be a ruin *forever*. It shall never be rebuilt.
BTW, the translation is from the NASB, one of the most literal translations out there.
Change that last segment to what you say it should be understood at.
"it shall be a ruin for an *age*. IT shall never be rebuilt."
How long is this age? It is clear from context, forever, because it shall NEVER be rebuilt.
And this meaning is a large part of the usage of "olam." God lasts for a "olam" and His name has been from "olam". Does it really, when you get down to it, mean to last for a limited age or an unlimited age, eternity?
"Judgement can be harsh...going through the "fire" will be hard...but after the judgement, comes mercy, forgiveness. It's still a good thing to know our Father can love, discipline,
forgive and administer mercy."
I disagree with this understanding of it, of course. I think judgment is clear, eternal condemnation. But nevertheless...
Here is a question regarding this though. Where is there a single narrative that talks about the actual redemption of those condemned in judgment? For such an important idea, we don't see any *narrative* it anywhere in the prophets or Revelation. Why is that?
Owen,
I'm certainly not trying to be arrogant, nor does it matter to me to try and persuade you to believe what I believe. We are all blind to a degree, because we all see in part. Until the Lord returns and changes us, ALL of us, we will struggle and not have complete understanding.
The NSAB translation, as well as many other translations, are great. But again, translators translate by using their understanding, and trying to use the context of the subject.
In this case,the NSAB translates Deuteronomy 13:16 that this city will be in ruin forever and never be built again. We don't know from the context what city. All we know is it's in Egypt. If you look at the Young's literal translation it translates this particular verse in this way:... "and all it's spoil thou dost gather unto the midst of its broad place, and hast burned with fire the city and all it's spoil completely, before Jehovah thy God, and it hath be a heap age-enduring, it is not built anymore."
As you can see by this translation, in the age that it was destroyed, it was not built back again during that age. We see and read about destruction like that about Damascus and even Jerusalem in other passages of scripture.
We sing about Jesus reigning "forever" using the passage in Revelation. Yet, Paul says, that when the ages are complete, Jesus will turn everything, all of creation, back over to the Father and then He will Himself, submit to the Father. Does Jesus reign "forever" or is Paul wrong in his understanding? Or...are both of those statements true? We see in part. Yet hopefully, as we discuss and search the scriptures, the Lord gives us more to see when the time is right. This discussion will certainly make me think and dig deeper, and I hope it challenges you to think and dig deeper. I pray that that is the point Chris is wanting to create here...for all of us to dig deep and see what the Lord uses to teach each of us as we search the Scriptures.
Mark
Hi Owen, great to read your interaction. I need to make clear again: I’m not a universalist. I’m trying to simply provoke discussion with my comments. As Mark wrote: ‘I pray that that is the point Chris is wanting to create here...for all of us to dig deep and see what the Lord uses to teach each of us as we search the Scriptures’. That is exactly what I’m trying to do!
In the following, my comments are all in italics following your comments.
I disagree. The clear view of Paul is the resurrection of Christ. I think it important to recognize the nature of Paul's argumentation. People denied the resurrection. Paul returns to say all will rise again. I think making it an issue of salvation is to add more to the topic than is clearly addressed. Should we not presume discussion about resurrection, given thats the topic, till evidence provides otherwise?
Well, I beg to differ with you on that, but it’s getting late so I’ll skip on. I would simply point you to commentaries like Thiselton’s and Garland, and suggest the immediately preceding context of Paul’s argument (vv. 14ff) be accounted for.
"OK, but if God is love ... surely we have theological grounds to assume certain actions will be performed by God. Is God free to deny his own nature?"
But what is God's nature precisely? Is it totally encompassed by the the word "love" or does it merely describe His nature in part? Shall we forget the Old Testament's picture of God's wrath? While it is not the focal point of the New Testament, that can be explained because of the New Testament focuses primarily upon the God's redeemed people, upon which wrath is not a subject that is of essential focus for them.
“Shall we forget the Old Testament's picture of God's wrath?”
Of course not – and 1 John also states God is light! But that God is love is to mean that God cannot not be loving – even when he is wrathful. I’ll deal with this point in the main blog page as I suspect there may be some misunderstanding. And you won’t be alone! Cf. Calvin’s attempt to exegete the ‘God is love’ passages in 1 John! Would you want to argue that God is only ‘just’ or ‘righteous’ sometimes but not always?
In other words, is God so loving so as to exclude wrath? That is the pivotal question here.
The old doctrine of the simplicity of God is rather helpful. And so I respond with another question: Does God’s wrath exclude his love? A key theological question which I shall be addressing exegetically in the main blog page is whether God is love also in hell. I suspect that universalists have made too much of certain verses in Paul to support their case, but the theological question continues to haunt ...
Yes. But it is based upon the nature of God that we are to follow, considering our status. Because God is God, He may reserve certain things for Himself, such as judgment and vengeance, which we ourselves are not called to partake of. Our moral code to follow does not in itself describe the totality of who God is, because we are subject to God and we are not to encroach on His domain. At least that is how I see it.
Certainly the above argument would be a rather subversive reading of certain NT texts, but I wouldn’t actually deny your argument – I wanted to simply provoke thought!
But it does. If the meaning of aiwn and aiwnios indicates forever, the Universalism is in itself untenable, because the witness of the whole Bible, Old and New, speaks in opposition to it.
Don’t forget the principles of modern linguistics. A word means what it does in a certain context. And appeal to other contexts doesn’t solve the argument. This is a point just as much against the universalists as your own position. Eternal may mean different things in different contexts. There is no blanket one definition. Besides, I would also suggest a meaning of ‘forever’ without contradicting a possible universalist position (cf. Perriman).
God is love, but does that deny God can also be angry, and even hateful?
Well, Talbott looks at the ‘hate’ passages in Rom and seeks to show why literal hate is not meant. And that God is love, I would think, should necessitate that he gets angry and hates actually. But it is still love.
The crux of the argumentation is a logic that may or may not be wrong, but it bases itself on certain assumptions. Does God's love exclude God's wrath? Could God's fulfilling His purpose include only saving those who come to Him? Can we truly think our answers to the theodicy are likely to be correct when we know very little about the nature of God ultimately?
I understand your concern here, but what many universalists are trying to do is think theologically in light of God’s Word to us in Christ. Yes God remains hidden in unapproachable light, but he has still spoken and revealed himself in Christ, his ultimate Word. He was seen, touched, and heard as in 1 John.
Whom does God love endlessly?
Well, if God is love, and if God loved the sinful world (John 3:16), and if, for example, the Psalmist is correct in 145, then he is loving to all he has made. Further, it was sinners God showed his love to. And would you suggest that while God loves all he has made now, he will stop doing so at a later time? Is that really God’s future, his victory, God all in all? Remember the simplicity of God doctrine.
"It is not evil triumphing in stopping such a creation, but the torment of most humans forever."
Depends on what the specific purpose of creation was. Something that we really cannot understand
Sound like an apologetic move here. I would be unconvinced by such a ploy.
I think we have to ask the question is the creation itself the purpose of creation? If so, one could very well argue that a fallen world would need to be redeemed, since the purpose of God's creation, itself, would be foiled. However, is God's purpose for the creation for Himself? If so, could there not be a scenario where God's purposes is fulfilled regardless of whether all are redeemed or only some?
I think God himself is his ultimate aim (Edwards!), not his creation, but it is nevertheless bound up in God and his nature. Certainly Paul is sure this is so: God will be all in all. The glory of God is tied to the glory of his church, too.
Thanks again for your comments and the discussion, Owen. I’ve enjoyed this!
Post a Comment
<< Home