Skip to content

GOTT-July 24, 2006

Follow-Up to “Hoping that Universalism Is / Will Be True”

Andrew Dole e-mailed the below to me in response to my “Hoping…” post.  I thought I’d pass it on (with his permission), since interested readers might benefit from his reading suggestions:

….I’ve been very interested in the hope/belief distinction for a while, and there’s a literature on the subject.  The best book I know of is James Muysken’s The Sufficiency of Hope, and the subject also comes up in Lad Sessions’ The Concept of Faith as part of a broader discussion.  But most relevant to the discussion of universalism in particular is Hans Urs von Balthasar’s book Dare we hope “That all men be saved”?. In this little book Balthasar develops the belief/ hope dichotomy in a not entirely systematic way and also talks about how much flack he received within the Catholic church for flirting with universalism….

        I’m glad to see the hope/belief distinction continuing to surface–I think this discussion has the multiple distinctions of being philosophically interesting, practically significant, and fairly accessible.  And discussions of universalism, for the reasons that have emerged in the blog discussion, seem like a natural application for the distinction….

Posted by Keith DeRose | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/446774/5503975

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Follow-Up to “Hoping that Universalism Is / Will Be True”:

Comments

First of all, I desire that all be saved. Yet, when I read the Bible, it says there is only one way. This bothers me. Shouldn’t God at least be as merciful as me? 😉

Religious tolerance often leads people to universalism. The two should not be confused. One can coexist in peace with another with different beliefs. It doesn’t mean you should/must accept their theology. People ask, “Do you think I am saved?” I used to answer them with some long discourse. Then, they would get angry with me. Then I realized that they were asking me to be God by answering the question. Now, I say, “I am not God, but I have read the Bible. Read it and tell me what you think.”

I think one can not be a Christian and a Universalist. However, hoping for all to be saved should be the impetus behind both beliefs.

Posted by: Richie | July 24, 2006 at 05:09 PM

I think one can not be a Christian and a Universalist.

While that will no doubt sound quite harsh to some, it’s probably for the best that it was expressed here. Those who have been following my recent universalism posts should be aware that what Richie is expressing is a not-at-all uncommon attitude in many regions of the Church. If you believe that in Christ all will be made alive and that God will reconcile all things to Himself, you will, in many people’s books, have ceased to possibly be a Christian.

Posted by: Keith DeRose | July 24, 2006 at 06:25 PM

I don’t really claim hold on to any particular label. Call me what you want! It makes no difference to me. But all I can say is that everything I am… every fiber of my being… points to the Cross of Christ. He is the answer for everything. It’s not about us and what we believe, but about what happened on that Cross as God revealed His love for His creation. “The Cross of Christ” is the answer for every question, and the cure for every shortcoming… past and future.

Maybe they’re right… maybe that makes me NOT a Christian. I guess I don’t really know what a Christian is any more.

Posted by: bruced | July 24, 2006 at 08:41 PM

I am a Biblical feminist. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. The Word does not teach that everyone is going to be saved. I wish it did, but it does not. All who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, His death, and resurrection will be saved (Romans 10:9 confess with your mouth…, believe in your heart…), but all who reject Him will end up in hell (John 3:18, among others). God is not willing that any should perish in hell (2 Peter 3:9), but that all should be saved. Read about the rich man and Lazarus to know that some are already in hell (Luke 16:19-31).

Posted by: Kathryn | July 25, 2006 at 12:26 AM

We’ve really got to be careful when using Scripture to back up our arguments. For example, when Jesus talked about people being in hell we need to ask questions like “who was he talking to at the time?” and “what was he trying to do?”. Context is very important. If we just pick out verses that make our point we can end up being guilty of abusing the text.

I know what I believe/hope (do we need the distinction?) the Bible teaches about universalism, but a verse-by-verse analysis is not the way to ‘prove’ my case. What is needed is careful theological and contextual reading, and a concordance can’t do that for us.

Posted by: Jamie | July 25, 2006 at 04:55 AM

Kathryn,

I would be interested in your commentary where Scripture teaches us of universalism.

Posted by: Richie | July 25, 2006 at 08:10 AM

ooops Kathryn, I had a Florida ballot moment there….

I meant to address that to Jamie.

Jamie,

I would be interested in your commentary where Scripture teaches us of universalism.

Posted by: Richie | July 25, 2006 at 08:24 AM

None of my recent posts on universalism have been on the Biblical case for/against the view — though comments keep pulling some of the discussions in that direction. The Biblical case is addressed instead in my little on-line paper, “Universalism and the Bible” at
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/univ.htm
That might be a good place for some to start if they are wondering how someone might think the Bible (particularly the New Testament) supports universalism. Of course, other universalists may take somewhat different directions than I do, but it’s at least an example of how someone can be a universalist while actually holding fast to many of the claims — like that salvation is through Christ alone, and even that one must explicitly accept Christ to be saved — that people are often taught that universalists deny. And while it certainly may happen that one will disagree with my treatment of various passages, I do discuss most of the passages that people keep raising in discussion — including the parable of the rich man & Lazarus. So even to someone who ends up with a view as far away as possible from mine, it might not be a bad place to start to see what some of the relevant passages are.

Posted by: Keith DeRose | July 25, 2006 at 10:22 AM

Skip to toolbar