» 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]

» Underground Universalism from Christian Universalism- The Beautiful Heresy
Universalism might be growing in popularity. At least it seems that way from my perspective. But, then again, I am putting myself in places where I can meet more and more Universalists. An interesting thing though is the danger of Universalism. I discu… [Read More]

Thanks for this thoughtful post, Keith (and the previous ones). It reminds me, with something of a shock, of how different the world of theological education/ministry is from the academic world I inhabit. In my professional circle (which includes both Christians and non-Christians) to confess that one believed in hell would be to become a social pariah. Belief in any kind of hell at all would certainly indicate fundamentalism of the worst kind. I would have thought that at least as many believers find themselves in such a context as the one you describe – equally worrying, of course.

Interesting thoughts. It also makes me wonder how many closet Arminians are to be found in Reformed churches, or how many closet Calvinists there are in Arminian traditions.For that matter, I would imagine that there is an underground movement in fundamental evangelical churches which affirms homosexual lifestyles, yet cannot “come out of the closet” because of religious pressure.However, we should let those pastors who are pressured to deem homosexuality a sin off the hook, because, I mean, really, it is too much in light of today’s progressive culture to ask them to really enforce such an outdated belief.(I hope to be shamed for my sarcasm.)

“One completely legitimate consideration one can bring to bear on the issue is the position of the church on the issue–both historically and currently, both the whole church and also some part of it that one is attached to.”

I agree that this is a completely legitimate consideration. However, maybe in a different way than you posit here. One of my contentions with the universalist stance is that it stands largely apart from both the historical and current position of the church. For me, this is huge. I believe strongly that Scripture should be read in the context of the church. To quote Kevin Vanhoozer, “The church is not simply an intersubjective community but a community whose practices have been formed and enabled by the Holy Spirit.” I am not here claiming that the church has perfectly interpreted Scripture throughout its history. I do think, however, that the Church should inform our reading of Scripture to a such a degree that our individual presuppositions do not automatically trump the view of tradition.

Keith,This is a very stimulating post. It left me pondering two questions. Are you suggesting that universalists who find themselves in this situation lack the courage of their convictions? (it remains a choice to go underground rather than to make a stand).When someone does this how do they avoid the charge of dishonesty (assuming that the creedal boundaries of their church are against universalism)?

I certainly wouldn’t say that generally. In fact, it’s hard to say anything general that’s helpful. Individual cases vary greatly. But some considerations….First, I wouldn’t describe most of the people I’m writing about as “universalists.” These are folks with at least some attraction to universalism who don’t take as pro-universalist stance as they might have at least partly b/c of fear of trouble.I don’t think many of them are such that they have a bunch of things they clearly believe (including universalism), and another bunch of things they clearly profess (including anti-universalism), where there are conflicts between those two sets. Maybe some are like this, but nobody I’ve talked to seems like that.

And for the most part, it’s also not as if they clearly believe in universalism, but just profess some kind of openess, undecidedness, or confusion on the issue: “I still have to think about that some more” — although that may be getting a bit closer to the position of a lot of the folks I’m writing about.

Rather, many profess openness, undecidedness, uncertainty, etc., where it isn’t clear, even to them, what they actually believe. While they might well be more pro-universalist were it not for the fear of trouble, it isn’t clear, even to them, to what extent fear of trouble is operating, as opposed to, for example, a legitimate desire to take into account and give appropriate weight to the position of the church on the whole, or some part of the church they’re attached to, on the issue.

I should add that I feel pretty much free as a bird on this & other theological issues. My job (I teach philosophy at Yale) is in no way threatened. I’m fine with not taking any leadership position at the church I attend, don’t think my universalism would get in the way of that, but pretty much have to stay out of church leadership due to other issues, anyway. I may take some grief for this view from some friends & family, but that doesn’t bother me much, and, anyway, I would probably take equal grief from other friends & family for taking a more traditional view.

I’m naturally very hesitant to judge those in a tougher situation, where their livelihood is at risk. Being part of a Christian institution involves big plusses as well as minuses. I myself have greatly benefitted from such institutions, and particularly from people who worked at such places whose own theological views had the potential to make their situation quite uncomfortable, and might have been in various ways happier if they had been at a place where they could be free as a bird like I am now. But there were good reasons for them to be where they were, and I greatly benefitted from their presence.

So it’s all very difficult to sort out, with lots of considerations (only some of which we’ve touched on), and, as I said, different individuals’ situations vary greatly.No doubt, there are some who are guilty of a lack of courage. But which cases are like that are very tough to say.

I find your position interesting, and it certainly makes for some entertaining blog reading. However, your arguments seem to be more on generalities now, so my thoughts are more general. IOW, please do not point out that I am not backing up my non-universalistic views with Scripture. A blog is not a book or a dissertation. Just accept that I believe my views to be as doctrinally sound and as bibically defensible as yours. I’m just responding to what I think I hear you saying in your post.

I think it is fair to say that you have a settled, perhaps one could even say “hardened,” conviction that your universlistic interpretation of the Scriptures is correct. You seem to suggest that your view is purely doctrinal, and your passion for it absent of any personal, situational, relational, or institutional influences. Yet you then seem to suggest that many (most? all?) pastors and ministers who are non-universalistic are that way only, or primarily, because of institutional influences. They simply are not free to re-interpret the Scriptures the way you do and so become enlightened about universalism because they fear the consequences. I’m not sure if this approach is just a disengeuous way to argue your point, or if you really are so confident in your view that every non-universalist interpretation of Scripture is now heterodox to you, and the millions who accept the orthodox view just don’t know it yet. You must imagine yourself as a kind of Luther in that sense.

Speaking as one who is among the hoping that universalism is true while not accepting that it is true, my position is not about fear of losing reputation, job, or teaching authority. It is about: 1) finding the universalist interpretation of specific Scriptures unacceptably rationalized and ambiguous (to me, anyway), 2) finding the teaching of judgment and eternal death in Scripture clear and unambiguous, and 3) accepting the dilemma that my human spirit does not like the idea of eternal judgment, but that God’s Spirit and Word instructs me to proclaim it.Actually, I think the ability to hold loosely the mysteries of redemption by recognizing the inherent conflict between hope and reality, yet without feeling the need to justify universalism as a universal doctrine, is a more defensible position than glossing over the overwhelming amount of Scriptures that teach the reality of judgment and eternal separation from God.

Sure, I hope that in the end maybe there is a “mustard seed” of faith in every person that God will honor and all will be saved. But that is not what the Scripture teaches. God’s image in my spirit causes me to desire, with my Creator, “all men to be saved.” I do not doubt that the love of God desires that, but neither do I doubt that the justice of God prevents it. Like predestination and free will, I consider redemption a biblical mystery that can not be definitively understood by our finite minds. In my mind, trying to press the case for universalism is the same as trying to press the case for determinism. The desire to button-down the doctrines and remove the mysteries results in artificially hardened views.

Your views are very provocative, as you know. Please know that I am not trying to “argue” with you, so much as I am trying to respond to and interact with the ideas and views in your post. It’s obviously a subject far too big for a bunch of blog posts, which is probably only useful for defining the boundaries of the debate, rather than actually engaging in it.

Clark: You should probably stick to what I’m actually saying, rather than what you think you hear me saying. B/c we don’t seem to have a good connection here: When you start reading between the lines, you come up with stuff that’s really not there.

Yet you then seem to suggest that many (most? all?) pastors and ministers who are non-universalistic are that way only, or primarily, because of institutional influences.Why the “(most? all?)“? I explicitly rule out any possible suggestion of “all”; see the paragraph that begins with “Now, I want to quickly add that…“. (Maybe I didn’t add that quite quickly enough!) And there is not, nor is there intended to be, any suggestion of “most.” What I say is “many” and “a significant number,” and even those aren’t asserted, but labeled as suspicions. Those are suspicions I feel pretty confident of, so far as suspicions go — based on communications I’ve had with people of the type in question. But in case anyone might be hearing me say more than that, let me explicitly state here that I don’t even suspect that most or all non-universalists are so only or primarily b/c of the types of pressures I’m writing about. In fact, I strongly suspect that’s not the case.

I think it is fair to say that you have a settled, perhaps one could even say “hardened,” conviction that your universlistic interpretation of the Scriptures is correct.

No, that wouldn’t be fair to say at all. In my immediately preceeding post, “Hoping that Universalism Is / Will Be True,” I not only explicitly say that I’m not certain, but I explicitly say that I’m not even comfortable saying that I believe it (!), and I try hard to explicate the stance I do take in my uncertain state — accepting it & hoping it is true. I do say my fairly uncertain stance is nonetheless “at least somewhat stable.” I’ve had it for a while, and all that time have been fairly deligently seeking out the arguments against it, so I’d have to guess that I’ve seen at least most of the best ones, so I’d also have to guess that my stance is unlikely to change in the near future. But I am extremely open to hearing arguments on the other side. Anyway, nothing in my “Hoping that Universalism Is / Will Be True” is in any way being taken back in the current post — explcitly or via suggestion. So it’s hard for me to see where your characterization is coming from. Nothing I can see in the current post. Is it perhaps this, from the “Hoping” post?:

Now I am a universalist — largely because I have a different understanding of the biblical evidence according to which universalism does win. (“Clearly?” Well, I don’t know if I’d go quite that far. But toward the beginning of my defense of universalism I do say that universalism strikes me as the fairly clear winner.)

Well, that is how it strikes me. But that is immediately followed in the next paragraph by expressions of uncertainty, and then pretty quickly by my saying that I’m not even comfortable saying I believe it. Well, it’s best for me not to speculate further on why you say what you do. I’ll just say you seem to me to have me all wrong. Like I said, I think we have a bad connection here.

In light of how I have myself characterized my position, it strikes me as completely unfair when you go on to write:

I’m not sure if this approach is just a disengeuous way to argue your point, or if you really are so confident in your view that every non-universalist interpretation of Scripture is now heterodox to you, and the millions who accept the orthodox view just don’t know it yet. You must imagine yourself as a kind of Luther in that sense.

Again, we have a very bad connection here. You seem to me to have me all wrong.

Most annoyingly, we have the same problem here that I complained about in the comments section of my first post (“‘The Problem With Universalism’?”). You say that you don’t want to argue the scriptural case:

IOW, please do not point out that I am not backing up my non-universalistic views with Scripture. A blog is not a book or a dissertation. Just accept that I believe my views to be as doctrinally sound and as bibically defensible as yours.

But then you seem also to want to state your conclusions about the scriptural case in very strong terms (the language isn’t very measured).

In particular, I wonder about your characterization of me as “glossing over the overwhelming amount of Scriptures that teach the reality of judgment and eternal separation from God.” As you know, I do not at all deny the “reality of jusgment.” So how can I be described as “glossing over” the support for the reality of punishment? The only issue between us here is the “eternal” part. I don’t know what’s supposed to count here as constituting “overwhelming,” but I’d have think that on any even halfway plausible construal, you can only reach your conclusion by counting every statement of punishment, even those completely silent about its duration. [For those interested in my treatment (“glossing over”) of the eternal punishment passages, that’s in section 10 of “Universalism and the Bible.”]

But I guess this is getting into the arguments. And I guess that’s what you don’t want to do here. But it’s hard for me to see exactly what you do want to do here. It seems you want to take your shots at my case, without giving counter-argument, and then we leave it at that.

Interesting series of articles. I disagree with Chris who says that universalism “stands largely apart from both the historical and current position of the church”. There is much written elsewhere on the history of universalist viewpoints within Christian tradition and theology, and these views in turn can be traced to universalist trends within scripture, both new testament and Hebrew.I like to think of universalism as the Calvinism turned right-side up. I’ve even seen a couple of explanations using TULIP acronyms; here’s one:http://hellmyth.blogspot.com/2006/05/flower-of-universalism-p.html

You would then also be disagreeing with Keith’s statement on the position of the church, from which I took my cue. Unless, of course, I am guilty of adding my own interpretation onto what he actually said in order to make it say what I wanted it to.hmm…Anyway, isn’t there like a quorum rule or something in Christianity that says if the majority of the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Church affirms a belief, this constitutes a “large” part of the Christian tradition?Although I’m being a little silly here, and I’m no Jaroslav Pelikan, I think you will find that the consensus view is that universalism holds a minority position in church history.

I would certainly agree that “universalism holds a minority position in church history” — and that does trouble me. However, I am cheered by the fact that I am here following many of the theologians, past and current, that I most respect.

On universalism being “Calvinism turned right-side up”: Well, I was raised a Calvinist (& went to Calvinist schools all the way through college [Calvin College]), and it does often feel that way to me. If you’re a divine determinist (that’s coming from Calvinism), and you know that God desires that all be saved (that’s coming from I Timothy 2:4), it at least looks like all should end up being saved. (Incidentally, I Tim 2:4 seems to be one of the verses that most gave Calvin fits.) Now, I gave up on divine determinism long ago. But I think I still have enough Calvinism in me to expect, perhaps more than other types of Christians, God to play the starring role in the account of why individuals get saved. And that plus I Tim 2:4 would make one expect the individuals to end up saved. What the star wants…

Right. Here’s how I put it in the B&C piece:”

…For example, I believe that God’s purposes ultimately will be realized (that God is sovereign and ultimately gets what God wants). And I believe further that among God’s purposes is that human beings flourish. Since I cannot fathom how human beings could possibly flourish if they are burning in hell forever, or even just separated from God as the source of all joy forever, I admit to experiencing a strong tug toward universalism. The alternative, it seems to me, is to believe that frail, finite creatures like ourselves can ultimately and forever thwart God’s purposes. And that thought just doesn’t travel down my reformed gullet very smoothly.”

In response to “universalism being ‘Calvinism turned right-side up'”, I find it interesting that many of the theistic philosophers who recently argue for the truth (or likely truth) of determinism also argue for the truth of universalism. Lynne Baker and Derk Pereboom are two good examples (though I am also familiar with numerous counterexamples as well). But I also think that there are other equally plausible ways of reading I Tim 2:4 that don’t support universalism. That said, I think the following is true: if I were a theological determinist, I would be a universalist.

Keith DeRose, thank you for your posts. I was already a universalist before I read your website and these recent posts, but I wholeheartedly affirm what you have said. I wanted to inform you that I am currently presenting my theological argument for universalism (à la Barth, Jüngel, et al) at my site: fireandrose.blogspot.com. I welcome your comments, and those of the other readers of GOTT.

Regarding “Calvinism turned right side up,” I do not think you need to accept divine determinism to assert that God will accomplish God’s own purposes. I think we can make this claim in a way that is both scriptural and christocentric — and thus rooted in the particular, concrete history of God’s economic activity, rather than in some abstract notion of God as the Controller of all created life.

As regards universalists who “hope that it’s true” without necessarily being convinced, Jurgen Moltmann would probably fit that category (if he ever fits categories!) and is worth a read. See especially Theology of Hope. Don’t expect neat formulas though – his eschatology is woven through his whole corpus rather than being located in a given chapter.

I resonated with much of this discussion, since some of my theological journeying of the last couple of years has led me down the universalist road. Were I to be pushed to a decision, there are a number of doctrinal statements (including that of my current church) that I couldn’t sign because of the insistance on ‘eternal torment’.

But I haven’t formulated my position, and don’t intend to.Why do we need to have this one sorted? Why can’t we hope for the best, and leave it up to God to sort out the details of ‘who’s in’ and ‘who’s out’? In the meantime, let’s get on with the business of being Kingdom people.

Re: the last paragraph above

I would have thought that trying to get such matters sorted — esp. matters of such great concern to so many “seekers” — is part of the business of being Kingdom people.

I believe that also animals and other beings, including the Devil, will be saved.

Romans 8:18-23

“In my estimation, all that we suffer in the present time is nothing in comparison with the glory which is destined to be disclosed for us, for the whole creation is waiting with eagerness for the children of God to be revealed. It was not for its own purposes that creation had frustration imposed on it, but for the purposes of him who imposed it – with the intention that the whole creation itself might be freed from its slavery to corruption and brought into the same glorious freedom as the children of God. We are well aware that the whole creation, until this time, has been groaning in labour pains. And not only that; we too, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we are groaning inside ourselves, waiting with eagerness for our bodies to be set free.” (New Jerusalem Bible).Rógvi

(Mat 7:13 KJVR) Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:(Mat 7:14 KJVR) Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.(Mat 15:9 KJVR) But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.(Mar 7:7 KJVR) Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

(Mar 7:8 KJVR) For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

(Mar 7:9 KJVR) And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

This is still true today of the institutional church. It looks to me like another tower of babel, which God is scattering abroad.

(Gen 11:4 KJVR) And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

(Gen 11:5 KJVR) And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men built.

(Gen 11:6 KJVR) And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

(Gen 11:7 KJVR) Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

(Gen 11:8 KJVR) So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Following the crowd may no be the way.