» Keith DeRose Universalism Posts from The Prosblogion
Keith DeRose has three posts at Generous Orthodoxy Think Tank on universalism that might interest readers of this blog. “The Problem With Universalism”? deals with a worry some have raised about universalism, i.e. that it asks the wrong question. Accor… [Read More]

» Keith DeRose Universalism Posts from The Prosblogion
Keith DeRose has three posts at Generous Orthodoxy Think Tank on universalism that might interest readers of this blog. “The Problem With Universalism”? deals with a worry some have raised about universalism, i.e. that it asks the wrong question. Accor… [Read More]

» The Hell With It from ePiscoSours
You know, Ive tried and I tried, and I just cant really bring myself to believe in Hell, or at least not the version where youre condemned for eternity to horrific torture for the slightest of sins. Yes, I know Hell is mentioned in… [Read More]

I hear you, brother. I think that Brian has good intentions in inviting us to reflect on ways in which the good news of Jesus Christ bears on this life. All the same though, God’s ultimate character and reconciling action in the Son are at the center of our lives and practice. While I don’t ID myself as a “Christian universalist” per se, I do think the question is deserving of prayerful consideration.

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with Mike that these questions do deserve “prayerful consideration.” If nothing else, we should be hopeful that this is true. Too often these questions are too quickly dismissed because they may not conform to an imaginary “standard view.” I think these questions are well worth considering whether we end up calling ourselves universalists or not.

I look forward to reading your article online.

i think you are asking good questions that some seem to shy away from.

What will God do with “this” that he has created? The Gospel speaks to something entirely more complex than a binary system of 1’s and 0’s/glorification or damnation.

Hey, Keith:

Kudos! When I address the issue of universalism and separationism in my introductory level courses, two objections emerge every semester. Here they are in the form of questions: If univeralism is true, then doesn’t it follow that our lives lack meaning; and second, if universalism is true, then why bother ever becoming a Christian before death?

I confess to being mystified by these objections. The only reason I can imagine for why life would lack meaning if universalism is true is if the only meaning to be found in life is sorting out our eternal destiny. But I can’t imagine that anyone really believes that the meaning to be found in life is exhausted by settling one’s eternal destiny. I should have thought that life was about learning to love, to be loved, to grow in Christ-likeness, and the like.

And as for the “why bother coming to Christ pre-mortem” objection, I always ask my classes this question: If you break your leg, do you say to yourself “Ah, it’s going to be healed in the New Jerusalem; so, why bother fixing it now?” Of course not! If I have a cancer that could be cured via surgery I’m not going to forego the surgery NOW b/c I know that LATER in the New Jerusalem I’m going to be healed. Likewise, if we are created for loving relationship with God, then the sooner we set about that end the better. I’m a sick soul right now; and I want to made well now. The sooner the better, seems to me

Anywho, keep it up, Keith!

Keith,
Thanks for an interesting post.

One of the struggles I have with Mclaren is that he conveniently calls into question the assumptions of others in a way that plays directly into his predetermined point of view. For example: in the first quote you posted, Mclaren states that, “The question assumes that the purpose of the gospel is to get individual souls into heaven after they die.” who does Mclaren have in mind here? I don’t know too many theologians that are willing to reduce the gospel to heaven or hell. But heaven and the existence of a hell does seem important. After all, most of what the scriptures have to say about hell comes from the gospels! I like Kevin Corcoran’s point that the gospel includes healing of human desire and sin, however, I see no reason why one’s understanding of the gospel cannot include both earthly healing and eternal security.

I also wonder if Kevin’s broken leg metaphor really does the work it sets out to do. He writes, “I’m a sick soul right now; and I want to made well now.” My question is this: what does this assume about the degree or severity of sin in the lives of humans? Has sin infected the human race like a common cold or has sin caused spiritual death?

I have to confess that I often struggle with arguments in support of universalism. The ones I have encountered seem to lack a sense of “there’s something at stake here”. After all, what are we to do with missions if universalism is true? Also, what role does the Holy Spirit play in the lives of “believers” as opposed to those who profess no belief at all? What is the church to do with the sacrament of baptism? Is the symbolism of moving from death to life really comparable to a broken leg? Finally, is the purpose of the church simply pragmatic or is there more to the language of “new creation” and “body of Christ” then universalism permits?

Matt writes:

“After all, what are we to do with missions if universalism is true? Also, what role does the Holy Spirit play in the lives of “believers” as opposed to those who profess no belief at all? What is the church to do with the sacrament of baptism? Is the symbolism of moving from death to life really comparable to a broken leg? Finally, is the purpose of the church simply pragmatic or is there more to the language of “new creation” and “body of Christ” then universalism permits?”

Well, I don’t see how universalism’s being true should have any effect on missions. If I have the cure for a deadly disease I’m going to want to get the medicine to those suffering from the disease with urgency.

As for the symbolism of moving from death to life, I guess I’d see it this way: We human beings are diseased and “dead in our trespasses”, we’re in desperate need of healing, of life. As I see it, Christ came with healing and life. I don’t see that this diminishes in any way the symbolism of moving from death to life. Universalism just adds that eventually all are cured, saved, made whole.

Finally, I’m not sure what connection Matt sees b/w “new creation”, “body of Christ” and universalism.

btw: I am not myself committed to universalism. I hope it’s true, and even pray that it’s true. But I can’t say I believe it’s true.

Peace,

Kevin

Kevin,
Thanks for the response. I am still unsure how your example of bring medicine to sick people works. It seems to me that if universalism is true, then there is no truly deadly (spiritual) disease. There are only various degrees of sickness nothing to worry too much about. If we are all okay in the end, and we might be, then it is unclear to me how you can possible see how holding this belief would not have any effect on missions.

I appreciate your comment on praying and hoping that universalism is true. Ever since I read your article in books and culture, I have had a hard time understanding how someone hopes or places hope in universalism. Perhaps you could post a few thoughts on this.

Matt,

You say: “It seems to me that if universalism is true, then there is no truly deadly (spiritual) disease.”

Why do you think that? Universalism–or at least Christocentric Universalism–agrees w/separationists on the following: We human beings are in desperate shape; we’re perverted by sin and stand in need of salvation; and the way to salvation? Jesus Christ, his incarnation, life, death and resurrection; that’s our only hope, the only solution to this mess. Who will avail themselves of the escape, the cure, the medicine for our disease? Here is where the univesalist and the separationist part company. The separationists says “only some human creatures will avail themselves of the cure, and all others will be eternally damned.” The universalist says: “Eventually, everyone will avail themselves of the cure.”

So, the disagreement b/w separationists and universalists is NOT that the one (the separationist) says we are dead in our trespasses and need salvation, and the other (the universalist) says there’s no problem, no need for salvation. Both agree about the need for a savior, the profound need for healing. They just disagree about the success rate of the cure. The universalist says, eventually all are cured while the separationist says only some are, and the rest are eternally damned.

Now how does someone hope universalism is true? Well, here’s one way. If one thinks the scriptures under-determine the matter, i.e., if one doesn’t think the scriptures are unambiguous on the issue, and one loves people who have not embraced Christ pre-mortem, then it seems plausible for this person to hope and pray that universalism turns out to be true.

In the B&C essay you reference, I end by saying that I cannot imagine erasing from the telephone answering machine the last message I received from my dear friend, Sam. If God’s love for Sam eclipses my love for Sam by a wide margin, then I think I’ve got good reason to hope that maybe I feel this way about Sam b/c God does too. In other words, if I can’t bear the thought of losing Sam’s voice from my answering machine, perhaps God cannot bear the thought of losing Sam, forever, and that God’s love will eventually prevail and Sam embrace God’s love in Christ. As I say, I hope (and pray) that’s true!

Cheers,

Kevin

It seems to me that the real question is, “Was Jesus a universalist?” Frankly, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with integrity the plain words of the Savior with the rationalized idealism of universalism (Matt. 3:12, 10:28, 12:32, 13:47-50, 25:41-46, Luke 8:11, John 3:36, and more). Certainly, I would prefer to think God will save everyone (or better, ultimately redeem everything and everyone He has made), but I would have to deny the plain teaching of His Word to do so. I tell myself that it’s possible that God will honor the real and potential faith of every person He has created, and yet He certainly does not say that He will in His Word. It seems clear to me that I am called by the Savior, and like the Savior, to make the choice between spiritual life and spiritual death–heaven and hell–plain and unequivocal. I would rather err on the side of what is clearly described and prescribed in Scripture, than on the side of what I wish and hope must be really in the heart of God but is never clearly taught. We can’t just make stuff up, no matter how appealing it is.

I would rather err on the side of what is clearly described and prescribed in Scripture, than on the side of what I wish and hope must be really in the heart of God but is never clearly taught. We can’t just make stuff up, no matter how appealing it is.

The whole web page I reference in the post is devoted to making the scriptural case for universalism, so I won’t just repeat the case. I guess you found it somehow lacking. It is focused on Pauline passages. That’s b/c it’s there the issue seems most directly addressed. I do discuss the parable of the sheep and the goats, which is in your list above. As Kevin has explained so well, I don’t at all deny that Jesus calls us “to make the choice between spiritual life and spiritual death.” As for positive statements from Christ’s own lips, my favorite is:
But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself (John 12:32).

I still stand by my statement. The heartfelt hope that God will, in the end, be a universalist deity is commendable and understandable. However, I believe that that human desire drives the interpretation of Scripture in favor of universalistic understandings. I really don’t want to provoke a theological tit-for-tat, but I personally found your biblical arguments to be exercises in proof-texting, and your exegesis interesting but ambiguous at best, and misleading at worst, in light of the clear teaching of all Scripture, and a couple of millennia of church doctrine.

You said in your article:

Still, if there are passages which teach that universalism is false with anything close to the force that the above passages carry in favor of universalism, we’re going to have to consider re-adjusting our understanding of the above passages.

Well, I find many, many more passages that teach unambiguously that there is, indeed, an eternal judgment, that heaven and hell are real, and that we will all live eternally either with (eternal life) or without (eternal death) God. I don’t find that doctrine attractive, but it is God’s revelation whether I like it or not. You, though, seem to want to give far more weight to the few ambiguous passages you cite, than to the dozens of unambiguous passages that should cause you to “consider re-adjusting.” That was my point in showing that the words of Jesus reveal He was not a universalist.

And, incidentally, I love the passage you quoted by Christ: But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself. But your use of this passage as a universalistic argument only reveals the eisogetic lengths you are willing to go to make your case. Clearly, Jesus is saying his crucifixion will draw all kinds of people to Him–ie, not just Jews, but Gentiles. Just before that statement, Greeks had come seeking Him, an event which Jesus himself said set redemptive history in motion, and which prompted God Himself to speak to validate the authority of His son. When the people wondered what God said, Jesus explained that “judgment is upon this world,” and that now (implied in the context) not just Jews but “all people” would be drawn to Him. The fact that the statement is directly related to “judgment” means that, although all will be “drawn,” not all will believe. The context is about salvation being avaiable to the world (John 3:16), and no longer just through the Jews.

I admire your desire to find a way to justify your universalistic beliefs, but I don’t find your arguments convincing.

But your use of this passage as a universalistic argument only reveals the eisogetic lengths you are willing to go to make your case. Clearly, Jesus is saying his crucifixion will draw all kinds of people to Him

I’m not sure who’s going to great lengths here. It says “all men.” It could easily have said “All kinds of men.” I’m ready to hear that it really means not what it says (“all men”) but rather this other, nearby thing (“all kinds of men”), just two words away. But that it clearly doesn’t mean what it says but rather the nearby thing is a bit much. That’s not a case of ambiguity. Like any other statement, it is subject to the doubt that it doesn’t mean what it says but rather some nearby thing.

Having said all that, the reason John 12:32 isn’t in my web page is that it doesn’t seem as good as the Pauline passages I do use. But, comparatively, I do think it’s a lot clearer in favor of universalism than several of those you cite as counting against. (And why isn’t that a case of “proof-texting”?) But many of the reasons for that is in the web page. Namely, I don’t deny divine punishment. So passages that teach that don’t bother my position. Eternal punishment would be a problem — and II Thessalonians 1:9 is by far the most troublesome passage. But given that the Greek here not only can mean something that doesn’t imply endless duration, but that it is actually clearly so used by Paul himself in other places would seem to make this one of the “ambiguous” passages that seem to worry you so much.

I guess I can’t tell what kind of response you’re looking for, Clark. You write:

I really don’t want to provoke a theological tit-for-tat

But you do want to start some arguments, complaining about the “lengths I’m going to” in dealing with one passage (when it’s not one of the passages I mainly rely on and I’m only taking it to be saying what it straightforwardly says), and you want to conclude,

but I don’t find your arguments convincing.

Well, if you just want to state that, without addressing the arguments I give, OK, I guess. But when I’m in the position of responding, I either say what’s wrong with the arguments or I don’t bother to issue my conclusion about them.

Kevin,
Hi, thanks for the comment. I appreciate the clarification regarding the need for salvation within universalism.

I guess right now I am not convinced that the tradition of the Church and the scriptures are under determined regarding the existence of hell. I’m not particularly fond of the idea, but most of our information about hell comes from Jesus. What does a Universalist do with the texts that seem to reference hell directly?

However, I believe that that human desire drives the interpretation of Scripture in favor of universalistic understandings.

Clark, I think human desire can drive the interpretation of scripture in the opposite direction as well. There is perhaps more vested interest in the Christian tradition to avoid conclusions which allow for universalism than the other way around.

Again, keep in mind that universalists do not deny the existence of hell or the claim that some people spend time there. What the universalist denies is the claim that some will be there FOREVER. So, the universalist accepts all the passages that address hell directly. Some of those passages say nothing of the duration of time spent there, and others do. Those that do are open to interpretation. Does the word that gets translated “eternal” in the relevant passages mean FOREVER? This is open to dispute. The same word, for example, that Paul uses in II Thes. 1.9 clearly does not mean eternal in other places he uses it.
But here I just point you to Keith’s website as he has done more than anyone I know of treating the relevant biblical texts.

I must confess that I am wee bit skeptical of the “the real question is: Was Jesus an F?” (Was Jesus a universalist? a believer in infant baptism? a premillenilist? an evolutionist? etc., etc.) Jesus had a lot to say about hell, that’s for sure. But as to the duration of hell for those who don’t come to him, I don’t find as much.

Finally, one more word on the plausibility of hoping that universalism is true. I take it that human beings function properly when they love and develop attachments to earthly things like other human beings, and when they grieve when that which they love is altered or lost or destroyed. (Here I show my anti-Augustinian colors!) One of the ways we image God is that we human beings (when things go right) exist in deep unity with each other. So it is in keeping with our created nature to love, to form attachments and to grieve at their loss. Jesus wept over Jerusalem. We are icons of God. When an icon of God is wounded, lost or destroyed, God is wounded. When I sorrow over the loss of someone I love, God sorrows. God sorrows b/c a mirror of himself has been lost or destroyed. And if the sorrowing is directly related to the loving, is in fact a function of the loving, then I have reason to hope that God’s love will ultimatley prevail and that which is loved will utimately be restored. If I can’t bear the thought of losing forever that which I love, I suspect that God too cannot bear the thought of losing forever that which he loves, with a love far greater and deeper than my own. And this is not to create God in my own image. I am suggesting that things are so with me b/c I am in fact created in his image.

Kevin

This is my first reading of a Universalist’s Blog, I am intrigued and will add you to my RSS reader. Thanks for the thoughts. It hits me where my last blog post was coming from.

Sorry for the second comment, but I had a thought that it might be fun to do an interview with a universalist. I run a podcast with a guy and would love to know what you think The Nick and Josh Podcast pod-serve.com/podcasts/show/the-nick-and-josh-podcast

I myself cannot subscribe to universalism…dont believe that Scripture teaches it…etc.

But as I read the distinction later on…
I could empathize with the statement that one can be non-universalist and yet long for universal salvation.

Addressing Matthew Draft’s concern about McLaren’s straw man:

“One of the struggles I have with Mclaren is that he conveniently calls into question the assumptions of others in a way that plays directly into his predetermined point of view. For example: in the first quote you posted, Mclaren states that, “The question assumes that the purpose of the gospel is to get individual souls into heaven after they die.” who does Mclaren have in mind here? I don’t know too many theologians that are willing to reduce the gospel to heaven or hell.”

I agree with you to an extent. I have never met anyone who we would call a theologian that sees fit to boil everything down to heaven vs. hell.
However, what about Johnny Biblebelt? I have seen numerous preachers, met many honest Christ-followers who do in fact boil everything down to where you’re spending eternity.

So, if you interpret the assumption McLaren attacks as being an assumption held by well-read, scholarly, critical-thinking Christ-followers, you have indeed found a straw man.
But if you interpret that assumption in question as an assumption held by some members of certain subcultures of Christendom that make attempts to “get people saved,” there might indeed be a bigger picture that the assumption-holder is failing to see.

I realize the next recent comment was a month and a half ago, but I just was wondering if anyone else shares my experience…

Grace & Peace to you all.
-Russell

In line with Russell’s point/observation, I certainly wouldn’t want to deny that there are Christians who treat questions about who’s going to heaven/hell as the all-important questions to answer. I don’t know how many theologians that’s true of: perahps few-to-none, I just don’t know. But there certainly seem to be many preachers and lay Christians out there with something like that point of view. And McLaren’s novels don’t seem to be aimed primarily at theologians. So I wouldn’t accuse McLaren of taking on a merely imaginary target. The point of view he’s questioning seems really to be out there. What I do mean to call into question is Neil’s* pinning that point of view on universalists in particular. (*Here I distinguish between the character McLaren creates from McLaren himslef. I don’t see sufficient grounds for ascribing Neil’s point of view to McLaren himself.) Universalists need not assume that addressing the question they ask is the sole purpose of the gospel, nor need they suppose that getting individual souls into heaven after they die is the purpose of the gospel to the exclusion of the other goals Neil goes on to mention.

I was a hopeful dogmatic universalist, but had difficulties with the absence of any explicit teaching on it in the bible, especially in the passages about the last things (hell, etc). Not to mention the ‘problem passages’ (the “narrow road” to salvation that “few find”, etc). I came across a plausible (and perhaps more biblical) alternative in a modified Amyraldism.

This is a view that Jesus died for all out of love, but love was not the reason God predestined some to believe. God’s main goal was to create free human beings, period. Out of love, he died on the cross for their sins. But all rejected the offer of redemption, so having done all he could without violating their free will, he elected some for his own purpose. Since he didn’t predestine out of love, he was free to override the free will of the elect.

Why does this seem more biblical than universalism? First, it affirms that God loves everyone and died for all. Second, it acknowledges that the gift of salvation is available to all by free choice (i.e., no one is predestined to hell). Third, it recognises that only the elect will be saved through God’s gift of faith. Fourth, it upholds God’s impartiality, because he offered salvation to all, and was no longer bound by an obligation to be impartial after all rejected the offer (e.g., if no one wants my money, I’m free to do whatever I want with it). However, he did elect all kinds of people, so in that sense, was impartial. Fifth, it affirms that hell is the final destination of the unsaved (but the biblical evidence suggests that this is destruction, not eternal torment, with due reward/punishment beforehand for good/bad behaviour). Sixth, it concludes that God is ultimately not frustrated, because he succeeded in his main goal, to create free human beings. He also succeeded in reversing the Fall, through the elect who will populate the New Creation.

It may be argued that it doesn’t make sense for God to create free human beings when he knew they would all reject him and die. But if his main goal was the existence of free (rather than obedient) human beings, then it makes sense that he was willing to tolerate the bad choices they made (and paid for those bad choices on the cross)for the sake of the freedom they momentarily enjoyed. This modified Amyraldism is just a hypothesis right now, it would be nice if others (esp. theologically qualified people) could weigh in on it. Thx.

Your interpretation of scriptures is exegetically flawed.

Example… For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22 KJV)

This entire chapter is discussing the RESURRECTION. 1 Cor.15:22 simply states that ALL died in Adam and that ALL SHALL BE RESURRECTED (which the Bible clearly states; Rev. CHAPTER 20) There is nothing in here that states that ALL shall be saved. IT SIMPLY STATES THAT ALL WILL BE RESURRECTED.

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. AND WHOSOEVER WAS NOT FOUND WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE WAS CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE. (Revelation 20:13-15 KJV)

Another example: For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe. (1 Timothy 4:10 KJV)

You are interpreting this scripture to say… “God will send all to heaven… especially those who believe”. The flaw in interpretation here is obvious.

Another example: And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (Matthew 25:46 KJV).

Your interpretation of the word “eternal” (aionios) is again flawed because if eternal does not really mean eternal but temporary… what do you do with other scriptures that use the same word (aionios) – scriptures such as… Everlasting life, Eternal God, Eternal Gospel, Eternal Power, Everlasting Consolation. ETC., ETC., ETC.. Is the Eternal (Aionios)GOD also as temporary as Everlasting (Aionios) punishment?

You say it is not fair or just for God to punish someone the way the Bible “appears” to say. So then, a man like Hitler kills millions of innocents, kills himself to avoid punishment, yet goes to sleep in death and awakens to find that he is saved and has no need to pay for his crimes. And yet you call that Justice. I suppose you believe the Judge down the street at the courthouse should just let every murderer and rapist go with a light sentence because after all he is a “loving man”.

My friend… YOU ARE DECEIVED.

Charles, my friend, you are not a very good reader, I fear. (I take it you’ve been reading my “Universalism and the Bible” web page as well as this post.)

You say it is not fair or just for God to punish someone the way the Bible “appears” to say

It’s hard for me to even tell what part of my writing you might be misreading here. I simply don’t say anything remotely like this. Fairness or justice simply don’t enter my argument, and I explicitly say that punishment is not at all ruled out by the universalism I put forward. I have to suspect you’re just making stuff up here. Perhaps you have some pre-conceived idea of how universalists argue, together with a pre-packaged spiel about why it’s wrong & you’re just going to read them as saying that & give your little spiel no matter what they actually say/write?

Your interpretation of the word “eternal” (aionios) is again flawed because if eternal does not really mean eternal but temporary. . .

I never say it ever *means* temporary. What I say is that it certainly doesn’t always mean something that implies everlasting (and I give an example of a use of the word by Paul himself where it clearly can’t mean anything that implies everlasting) and that it sometimes at least means something compatible with temporary — that at least leaves it open that what is “age-enduring” is temporary. But leaving something open is different from meaning that thing.

. . .what do you do with other scriptures that use the same word (aionios) – scriptures such as… Everlasting life, Eternal God, Eternal Gospel, Eternal Power, Everlasting Consolation. ETC., ETC., ETC..

Did you miss the part of “Universalism and the Bible” where I address that issue? Please see the second-to-last paragraph of section 10 of that web page. If you did read but just weren’t convinced, it would help if you said what you think is wrong with the reasoning. But I fear you’re just working from a prepackaged “how to debate universalists” handbook.

I find your reading of being made alive in Christ quite bleak and implausible (given other NT uses of the like of “alive,” “life,” etc.), but I suppose it’s a possible reading. I think there are very good grounds for reading Paul’s use of death/die / life/alive etc. in a much richer way than you seem to understand them. But, anyway, did you see the universalist passages that don’t just talk about life, but, for instance, “acquittal and life?