Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Andrewn]

That's their translation of "Son of Man," not Jesus. They assume that Son of Man is a reference to Daniel, where there is a sequence of creatures. The final one is human. Son of man is a Hebrew way of saying human. Because a specific supernatural human is meant, they don't translate just as human, but as the Human One. It's a pretty good way of capturing what the phrase meant.

I know and I don't think that it captures what the phrase 'Son of Man' means.

 

[Ceallaigh]

There's also a number of folks who, magnetically charged as they are to their own dogmatic positions, seem to automatically assume that anyone else who differ may differ simply lives and breathes in some kind of epistemic ghetto, devoid of all rational thought or access to anything even remotely leaning toward "thorough knowledge."

And those so charged proceed to let the rest of us know that we "know nothing" and couldn't possibly be in any position to know otherwise.

Yes there's some "gurus" who think they have a unique understanding most everyone else lacks. They're easy enough to spot. Then there's others who write in an uncommon way, perhaps because they think it makes them look smarter than those around them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes there's some "gurus" who think they have a unique understanding most everyone else lacks. They're easy enough to spot. Then there's others who write in an uncommon way, perhaps because they think it makes them look smarter than those around them.

... maybe we should begin to assemble a definitive list of these two kinds of folks ... and take names.

 

[Der Alte]

Here's a nice offering by Christian Philosopher, Keith DeRose, at Yale.
https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/

I have asked a question in this thread and others but have never received an answer until now from DeRose. When and how does the transformation take place when rebellious God hating etc. people become God loving servants?
From the above link

Option 2: God could pick some time in the distant future — a time far enough off that it is overwhelmingly probable that all will have freely accepted salvation by then, given the (non-freedom-violating) means of persuasion God intends to employ — and resolve to at that time compel acceptance of any hold-outs that are then left. These would then be saved by their acceptance, though their acceptance might not be as valuable, given that it was not free.

Now, this position does give up on fervent exclusivism (though not on strong exclusivism or exclusivism simpliciter), since it holds that one can be saved even if one does not freely accept Christ. Nevertheless, it does go a fair way toward accommodating the motivation behind fervent exclusivism — the importance of human freedom — in that it has God adopting a plan by which He goes to tremendous lengths to attain free acceptance from every person. And those who hold this view can still maintain that it is far better and more valuable for a person to freely accept than for this acceptance to be coerced in a freedom-negating way. But it does deny that one must freely accept in order to be saved, and thus it does deny fervent exclusivism. Still, it’s worth considering, for it gives those who might otherwise insist on fervent exclusivism a compromise position which doesn’t simply write free acceptance off as unimportant. This potential compromise position is especially valuable if I’m right about how one would likely come to be a fervent exclusivist in the first place: That there’s no substantial scriptural support for fervent exclusivism itself, but that fervent exclusivism is the likely result of combining strong exclusivism (for which there is significant support) with a belief one might have that human freedom is important. Since the compromise position respects the importance of human freedom, it is likely to be an attractive compromise.

https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/

​

 

[Andrewn]

Pro 12:16

A fool is quick to show his anger,
but a prudent man ignores an insult.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes there's some "gurus" who think they have a unique understanding most everyone else lacks. They're easy enough to spot. Then there's others who write in an uncommon way, perhaps because they think it makes them look smarter than those around them.

I have noticed that too. Most of the folks on the UR side fit right in that category. But I doubt if most of them know an aorist from an apple or a hithpael from a hatpin.

 

[hedrick]

I have asked a question in this thread and others but have never received an answer until now from DeRose. When and how does the transformation take place when rebellious God hating etc. people become God loving servants?
From the above link

Option 2: God could pick some time in the distant future — a time far enough off that it is overwhelmingly probable that all will have freely accepted salvation by then, given the (non-freedom-violating) means of persuasion God intends to employ — and resolve to at that time compel acceptance of any hold-outs that are then left. These would then be saved by their acceptance, though their acceptance might not be as valuable, given that it was not free.

Now, this position does give up on fervent exclusivism (though not on strong exclusivism or exclusivism simpliciter), since it holds that one can be saved even if one does not freely accept Christ. Nevertheless, it does go a fair way toward accommodating the motivation behind fervent exclusivism — the importance of human freedom — in that it has God adopting a plan by which He goes to tremendous lengths to attain free acceptance from every person. And those who hold this view can still maintain that it is far better and more valuable for a person to freely accept than for this acceptance to be coerced in a freedom-negating way. But it does deny that one must freely accept in order to be saved, and thus it does deny fervent exclusivism. Still, it’s worth considering, for it gives those who might otherwise insist on fervent exclusivism a compromise position which doesn’t simply write free acceptance off as unimportant. This potential compromise position is especially valuable if I’m right about how one would likely come to be a fervent exclusivist in the first place: That there’s no substantial scriptural support for fervent exclusivism itself, but that fervent exclusivism is the likely result of combining strong exclusivism (for which there is significant support) with a belief one might have that human freedom is important. Since the compromise position respects the importance of human freedom, it is likely to be an attractive compromise.

https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/

​

This is logically possible. But I see no Biblical basis for a long delay in judgement. Personally I think everyone I know, upon being confronted by a God that really does care about people, and asks for repentance, would in fact repent. But I'm by no means sure that this is universal, and in fact suspect it's not.

What would it mean to force someone to submit? There are two possibilities I can see. One is external submission without any real change. But that's not someone I'd want to be around forever. The other is to forcibly change someone's character. I assume that's possible, but for someone that is as deeply unrepentant as this alternative requires, is that really the same person, or is God destroying him and producing someone new?

1 Cor 3:12 is surely meant to describe a test that applies to Christians (indeed in the original context it's Christian leaders -- the work that's being tested is what they contributed to the Church). But I've considered what it would mean for it to apply to everyone. Once everything not built on Christ is removed, might there be people for whom not enough is left to be a real human?

 

[public hermit]

I have asked a question in this thread and others but have never received an answer until now from DeRose. When and how does the transformation take place when rebellious God hating etc. people become God loving servants?
From the above link

Option 2: God could pick some time in the distant future — a time far enough off that it is overwhelmingly probable that all will have freely accepted salvation by then, given the (non-freedom-violating) means of persuasion God intends to employ — and resolve to at that time compel acceptance of any hold-outs that are then left. These would then be saved by their acceptance, though their acceptance might not be as valuable, given that it was not free.

Now, this position does give up on fervent exclusivism (though not on strong exclusivism or exclusivism simpliciter), since it holds that one can be saved even if one does not freely accept Christ. Nevertheless, it does go a fair way toward accommodating the motivation behind fervent exclusivism — the importance of human freedom — in that it has God adopting a plan by which He goes to tremendous lengths to attain free acceptance from every person. And those who hold this view can still maintain that it is far better and more valuable for a person to freely accept than for this acceptance to be coerced in a freedom-negating way. But it does deny that one must freely accept in order to be saved, and thus it does deny fervent exclusivism. Still, it’s worth considering, for it gives those who might otherwise insist on fervent exclusivism a compromise position which doesn’t simply write free acceptance off as unimportant. This potential compromise position is especially valuable if I’m right about how one would likely come to be a fervent exclusivist in the first place: That there’s no substantial scriptural support for fervent exclusivism itself, but that fervent exclusivism is the likely result of combining strong exclusivism (for which there is significant support) with a belief one might have that human freedom is important. Since the compromise position respects the importance of human freedom, it is likely to be an attractive compromise.

https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/

​

I'm not sure why you picked that option from an appendix. At any rate, it is one possible position for UR with the specific qualifications: one must freely choose and God does not have foreknowledge of human free choices. With those qualifications, how can universalism be revealed as true? Well, the stragglers get co-opted against their will.

That's not the only position available. The position I think many would take is that universalism is revealed as true because God knows that eventually all will freely choose. One doesn't need to reject divine foreknowledge, and most don't, as in the quote you offered.

If you're worried about when and how, here's DeRose: "I see no grounds for pessimism that an infinitely resourceful God, who is able to take as much time as He needs, will be able to win over everyone eventually."

When: God has all the time God needs.

How: God has infinite resources.

Is it really a challenge for God?

 

[Der Alte]

This is logically possible. But I see no Biblical basis for a long delay in judgement. Personally I think everyone I know, upon being confronted by a God that really does care about people, and asks for repentance, would in fact repent. But I'm by no means sure that this is universal, and in fact suspect it's not.

What would it mean to force someone to submit? There are two possibilities I can see. One is external submission without any real change. But that's not someone I'd want to be around forever. The other is to forcibly change someone's character. I assume that's possible, but for someone that is as deeply unrepentant as this alternative requires, is that really the same person, or is God destroying him and producing someone new?

Your second paragraph is what I have been trying to make the more militant UR-ites realize. If prison stats in the U.S. are any indication. The recidivism rate is 60+% and the prisons are nowhere as bad as hell is portrayed. So it makes me wonder how can fiery punishment make 100% of the people in hell suddenly become God loving servants?
If God is simply going to change their minds and attitudes with or without their consent what is the purpose of the punishment?

 

[Fervent]

I'm not sure why you picked that option from an appendix. At any rate, it is one possible position for UR with the specific qualifications: one must freely choose and God does not have foreknowledge of human free choices. With those qualifications, how can universalism be revealed as true? Well, the stragglers get co-opted against their will.

That's not the only position available. The position I think many would take is that universalism is revealed as true because God knows that eventually all will freely choose. One doesn't need to reject divine foreknowledge, and most don't, as in the quote you offered.

If you're worried about when and how, here's DeRose: "I see no grounds for pessimism that an infinitely resourceful God, who is able to take as much time as He needs, will be able to win over everyone eventually."

When: God has all the time God needs.

How: God has infinite resources.

Is it really a challenge for God?

The main issue here is that it only works if there is some misunderstanding on the human end regarding who God is, and denies that any are aware of God's nature and reject Him upon it. After all, God's nature is unchanging so the persuasion cannot involve God modifying to be more palatable to the individual. So what's supposed to change in the person who God is fully revealed to in eternity that is not immediately transformed through encounter?

 

[hedrick]

Your second paragraph is what I have been trying to make the more militant UR-ites realize. If prison stats in the U.S. are any indication. The recidivism rate is 60+% and the prisons are nowhere as bad as hell is portrayed. So it makes me wonder how can fiery punishment make 100% of the people in hell suddenly become God loving servants?
If God is simply going to change their minds and attitudes with or without their consent what is the purpose of the punishment?

As I understand the early Jewish discussions Gehenna made people suffer enough that they called out to God for help, and thus repented. I’m not so convinced. Maybe scare them into some kind of conformance. There’s widespread tradition that punishment is useful.

But UR doesn’t need to depend upon punishment. Perhaps the people are simply left alone outside God’s presence. Not necessarily even in an unpleasant environment. That might stand more chance.

But I’m guessing that if someone is salvageable, meeting God face to face, and facing an honest review of their life and its impact on others would do it if anything is going to.

 

[Der Alte]

I'm not sure why you picked that option from an appendix. At any rate, it is one possible position for UR with the specific qualifications: one must freely choose and God does not have foreknowledge of human free choices. With those qualifications, how can universalism be revealed as true? Well, the stragglers get co-opted against their will.
That's not the only position available. The position I think many would take is that universalism is revealed as true because God knows that eventually all will freely choose. One doesn't need to reject divine foreknowledge, and most don't, as in the quote you offered.

Unfortunately you cannot provide any scripture to support what you think
DeRose was quoted as some kind of authority what makes what you "think" is more likely than what the "expert" said?

If you're worried about when and how, here's DeRose: "I see no grounds for pessimism that an infinitely resourceful God, who is able to take as much time as He needs, will be able to win over everyone eventually."
When: God has all the time God needs.
How: God has infinite resources.
Is it really a challenge for God?

Give me some scripture which states, suggests, implies that anyone in hell will eventually become willing, loving servants of God.
Meanwhile,

John 9:4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Psalms 88:10-11
10 Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? shall the dead arise and praise thee? Selah.
11 Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction?
Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
Isaiah 38:18 For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.
1Thessalonians 4:13
(13) But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
Ephesians 2:12
(12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Isaiah 26:14 They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.
Psalms 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?
JPS Prov 24:20
(20) For there will be no future to the evil man, the lamp of the wicked shall be put out.
Psalms 115:17
17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.
​

 

[public hermit]

DeRose was quoted as some kind of authority what makes what you "think" is more likely than what the "expert" said

Did you read the article? You quoted the article to me. If you didn't read it or don't want to discuss it, why reply quoting it?

Give me some scripture which states, suggests, implies that anyone in hell will eventually become willing, loving servants of God

Oh, clearly you didn't read it. You should read the discussion on being reconciled after death.

 

[Andrewn]

DeRose was quoted as some kind of authority what makes what you "think" is more likely than what the "expert" said?

DeRose mentioned that he is attracted to what he called zealous incompatibilism and fervent exclusivism. He admitted that zealous incompatibilism was a very uncommon position. This is the belief that freedom of will and foreknowledge of God are incompatible. I certainly do not uphold this position. Do you?

 

[Der Alte]

As I understand the early Jewish discussions Gehenna made people suffer enough that they called out to God for help, and thus repented. I’m not so convinced. Maybe scare them into some kind of conformance. There’s widespread tradition that punishment is useful.
But UR doesn’t need to depend upon punishment. Perhaps the people are simply left alone outside God’s presence. Not necessarily even in an unpleasant environment. That might stand more chance.
But I’m guessing that if someone is salvageable, meeting God face to face, and facing an honest review of their life and its impact on others would do it if anything is going to.

I have seven pages of similar quotes from the ECF

From Hippolytus of Rome (212AD)
Standing before [Christ’s] judgment, all of them, men, angels, and demons, crying out in one voice, shall say: ‘Just is your judgment!’ And the righteousness of that cry will be apparent in the recompense made to each. To those who have done well, everlasting enjoyment shall be given; while to the lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment. The unquenchable and unending fire awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which does not die and which does not waste the body but continually bursts forth from the body with unceasing pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no appeal of interceding friends will profit them (“Against the Greeks 3”)
From Cyprian of Carthage (252 AD)
An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life (“To Demetrian” 24)
Clement of Rome (150AD)
If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment (“Second Clement” 5:5)
But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory to their God saying, ‘There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart!’ (“Second Clement” 17:7)​

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

I can’t keep up with this thread – sorry – but I was so pleased with myself after my morning run in ghastly weather conditions that I decided to tackle Saint Steven’s challenge regarding 1 Corinthians 15:22. This will serve, I think, to underscore the larger points I've been making. (All Bible verses are NASB.)

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.​

Three points:

1. All of Paul’s letters are written to believers. There are few statements regarding the fate of unbelievers. 1 Corinthians is essentially nothing but instructions and advice to the believers at Corinth.
   
   
2. The above verse appears in the context of a lengthy discussion of the resurrection of believers and how it will “work.” Universalists – at least those of Saint Steven’s ilk - ignore this context and pluck the verse out of the epistle as though the Holy Spirit had suddenly inspired Paul to preach universalism.
   
   
3. For Saint Steven’s position to be correct, we would have to believe that Paul was in fact a universalist – i.e., this was his theology. Was it?
   
   Paul wrote epistles both before and after 1 Corinthians. Can they reasonably be read, as a whole, as universalist in character? To suggest this is, frankly, absurd – laughable.
   
   Let’s look at some verses from Paul’s epistles. Because Paul was writing to believers and not to unbelievers, the fate of unbelievers is typically discussed in an offhand way. In selecting these verses, I've omitted those about the predestination of the elect, about “vessels of wrath made for destruction,” and other obvious choices.
   
   Remember, all these are from the author of 1 Corinthians 15:22. If you insist your completely out-of-context interpretation of 15:22 supports universalism, you must also tap-dance your way through all of these – not to mention the huge portions of Paul’s epistles that simply can’t be read as consistent with universalism.
   
   Bear in mind as well that, for the reasons stated above, Paul’s epistles are really among the weakest NT sources for the doctrine of Hell (or at least for the reality that many people will not be saved and will experience an undesirable fate).
   
   Lastly, I will emphasize again that before I adopted a non-traditional position such as universalism, I'd give deep prayerful consideration to what the NT and Jesus specifically say about the prevalence of false doctrine in the End Times.

From 1 Corinthians itself

6:9-10
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.​

11:32
But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.​

Others:

2 Thessalonians

1:9-10
These people will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified among His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—because our testimony to you was believed.​

Romans

2:5-8
But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will repay each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, He will give eternal life; but to those who are self-serving and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, He will give wrath and indignation.​

2 Corinthians

2:15-16
For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing: to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life.​

4:3-4
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they will not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.​

Galatians

5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.​

6:8
For the one who sows to his own flesh will reap destruction from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit.​

Ephesians

5:5-6
For this you know with certainty, that no sexually immoral or impure or greedy person, which amounts to an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.​

Philippians

3:18-19
For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even as I weep, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who have their minds on earthly things.​

 

[Der Alte]

DeRose mentioned that he is attracted to what he called zealous incompatibilism and fervent exclusivism. He admitted that zealous incompatibilism was a very uncommon position. This is the belief that freedom of will and foreknowledge of God are incompatible. I certainly do not uphold this position. Do you?

Not quite what I believe. God has infinite knowledge. The best thing man can say to God is your will be done. The worst thing God can say to man is your will be done.

Romans 1:24
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Romans 1:26
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Romans 1:28
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;​

 

[public hermit]

So what's supposed to change in the person who God is fully revealed to in eternity that is not immediately transformed through encounter

I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you think nothing changes in the person to whom God is fully revealed. I believe, and I bet some changes would occur in me given that situation.

If you're saying someone's belief would not change with a full revelation, I find that to be a hard position to defend. You and I believe based on the Gospel and the witness of the Holy Spirit. In other words, our belief originates with testimony, which under usual circumstances is consider a fairly weak justification for belief. Gratefully, we still do. But having a direct encounter is probably the strongest justification for belief. So, I don't think it's unlikely that beliefs could change under those conditions; it seems highly likely they would! Hence, every knee bows and every tongue confesses. But, maybe I misunderstood your point?

 

[Ceallaigh]

I have noticed that too. Most of the folks on the UR side fit right in that category. But I doubt if most of them know an aorist from an apple or a hithpael from a hatpin.

I've never come across a UR proponent who talks like the Architect character in the Matrix.

 

[hedrick]

I just did something I should have done before: I read through Matthew, looking at judgement. By and large statements about judgement are in parables and stories that seem sufficiently non-literal to suggest hyperbole. As in Luke, mentions of hell (gehenna) are in non-literal or hypothetical contexts.

The one reference that might literally suggest ECT is Mat 25:36, but I don’t think one reference to eternal punishment is enough to create a doctrine of ECT. (The other standard reference is the Rich Man and Lazaurus. But (1) it’s Hades, not Gehenna, and that’s temporary, (2) despite attempts to claim that it’s not, it’s a story that shows signs of being based on traditional images. Do we really think good people are going to be carried off by angels to be with Abraham in a literal way? This is a Jewish version of referring to St Peter and the Pearly Gates.) Unlike some conservatives, I don't believe in making the most extreme statement control our interpretation.

In contrast to many early fathers, Jesus doesn’t have any descriptions of hell or its suffering, just single phrases that you can understand as referring to it.

However he certainly does speak of judgement. One that is in a literal context is “I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Mat 12:36-37). Condemn in this context need not, and probably does not, imply damnation. I think every Christian has at some time uttered a careless word. I understand many of Jesus' teachings about judgement to apply to Christians. Judgement involves dealing with remaining sin. (Not that I'm not talking about purgatory.)

I certainly think there will be a real judgement. I suspect not all will end up in eternal life. I do not think Jesus gives us a literal statement about what will happen to them. I don’t think it makes sense for Christians to use rabbinical speculation from a very different point of view to define it. It seems unlikely that they will continue permanently in rebellion, as that contradicts Paul.