How Universalism, ‘the Opiate of the Theologians,’ Went Mainstream

[FireDragon76]

It irks, me to see people glorifying themselves. We are all human and we are all flawed.

John Vervaeke, a Toronto cognitive scientist who is sort of an "anonymous Christian" Neo-Platonist, points out the danger of Christianity is projection. So it can become a kind of projection of the self, complete with all its dysfunctions.

The Old Testament was filled with people struggling to understand why God didn't measure up to their projections and anthropomorphisms. Which is why it's positively dangerous to take the Old Testament literally. The Old Testament peoples assimilated divinity into their national ethos and put it in a temple, and they though that was the end of things, that the nations would just flock to their obviously superior way of life and that God would grant them a great empire stretching over the entire Near East. When that didn't happen, and they discovered they were a doormat for great empires, that lead them to have doubts, or to seek new answers (the Hebrew Prophets, the story of Jonah). Some even doubled-down on the rule-keeping and boundaries (Pharisees), as if they could compel the Kingdom through simple observances and purity codes: perhaps God was angry at sinners in their midst and they simply needed more of that "old time religion? Perhaps everybody needed to live by the most rigorous priestly codes to assuage God's wrath, then God would end the exile and restore his promises?

Even Jesus didn't measure up to the religious projections of his day, which is why in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus insists on the "Messianic Secret", because he knows the burden that people place on him, seeing what they want to see in him, and they won't understand his mission unless he keeps it a secret. That's why the central act of God's self-glorification in all the Gospels, the climactic event, is the Cross, the scandalous sign of the Messianic age. It is not a coincidence that it is a symbol of desolation and death. The Cross is the final deconstruction of thousands of years of Israel's religious ideas about God, and a new birth of the religious impulse towards a transcendent vision of love, the Kingdom of God, where God's Spirit will be revealed to be poured out on all flesh. The Cross is the instrument by which God's kingdom triumphs over all human attempts to instrumentalise God.

And yet, even many Christians don't understand this "Messianic Secret" through the Cross. They understand the Cross as "fire insurance", as paying a debt to God, of Christ being punished "in my place". But they rarely understand it as a radical deconstruction of the self-centered impulse of inherited religion.

 

[Andrewn]

If God desires every creature to have communion with God, then it seems strange that he would limit this to only people who can consciously comprehend a certain culturally conditioned religion (and all forms of Christianity are culturally conditioned), when he is capable of saving anyone just by virtue of being God. I don't think this has anything to do with the universalism debate, this is just simply looking at the obvious sanctity of many non-Christians, and the character of Jesus himself, and asking if it's reasonable to think salvation is restricted to a select few in the eons of time that Homo sapiens has walked the Earth. I don't think it is.

I don't think it is, either. The Catholic Catechism does comment on the salvation of non-Christians while it upholds that there is no salvation outside the Church. Perhaps in the afterlife, spirits that had lived in a way consistent with the inner voice will consciously comprehend Christ as Lord and Savior. Even Christians may not comprehend this fully in this life.

John Vervaeke, a Toronto cognitive scientist who is sort of an "anonymous Christian" Neo-Platonist, points out the danger of Christianity is projection. So it literally can become a kind of projection of the self, complete with all its dysfunctions.

I've been following some of his videos. He often describes himself as "non-Christian," and I haven't seen the part when he talks about Christianity.

That's why the central act of God's self-glorification in all the Gospels, the climactic event, is the Cross, the scandalous sign of the Messianic age. It is not a coincidence that it is a symbol of desolation and death. The Cross is the final deconstruction of thousands of years of Israel's religious ideas about God, and a new birth of the religious impulse towards a transcendent vision of love, the Kingdom of God, where God's Spirit will be revealed to be poured out on all flesh. The Cross is the instrument by which God's kingdom triumphs over all human attempts to instrumentalise God.

Interesting view. It may also be extended to temples around the world.

And yet, even many Christians don't understand this "Messianic Secret" through the Cross. They understand the Cross as "fire insurance", as paying a debt to God, of Christ being punished "in my place". But they rarely understand it as a radical deconstruction of the self-centered impulse of inherited religion.

Perhaps we will comprehend Christ's lordship and salvation only in the afterlife. But what about those who do not listen to Christ in them, those who live as if they have no soul, the majority?

 

[FireDragon76]

Perhaps we will comprehend Christ's lordship and salvation only in the afterlife. But what about those who do not listen to Christ in them, those who live as if they have no soul, the majority?

According to the Rev. Howard Storm, people will see in the next world what they need to see. Some Buddhist teachings, incidentally, are similar to this idea, that there exist celestial beings that assume many forms, for the purposes of leading others to enlightenment, and that the transcendent Buddhas constructs "Pure Lands" where people can become enlightened in the next world. This is analogous to how people experience a wide variety of otherwordly experiences, some very earthly, others very unearthly, and there's no one consistent "world" within these experiences, but only some features that are more common than others.

Based on what I've read, it seems that state of being is akin to an imaginal realm, like Jung's collective unconscious, and all kinds of religious imagery can exist there. Christians see Jesus, Buddhist see Buddha, Hindus see Krishna or Shiva, Native Americans see their ancestors or animal spirits, etc. People with no religion often simply encounter friends or relatives. Of course what's more interesting is that sometimes people see images or figures from other religions or cultures, which suggests the experiences are veridical and aren't merely cultural expectations. This could be explained in terms of subjective idealist metaphysics.

Storm described going down a long hallway to an outer darkness and demons attacking him, when he had sepsis in a French hospital on a field trip with art students (I believe it was 1986?). Ultimately, he believes that whoever wants to be saved, will be saved. He describes his ordeal as a learning experience or warning.

Most atheists, however, do not have negative near-death experiences, though they are somewhat more likely than the general population. However, they are much less likely to identify as atheists after the experience.

 

[Andrewn]

Some Buddhist teachings, incidentally, are similar to this idea, that there exist celestial beings that assume many forms, for the purposes of leading others to enlightenment, and that the transcendent Buddhas constructs "Pure Lands" where people can become enlightened in the next world.

Interesting that you would mention Pure Land Buddhism, which Christianity might have influenced.

This is analogous to how people experience a wide variety of otherwordly experiences, some very earthly, others very unearthly, and there's no one consistent "world" within these experiences, but only some features that are more common than others. Based on what I've read, it seems that state of being is akin to an imaginal realm, like Jung's collective unconscious, and all kinds of religious imagery can exist there. Christians see Jesus, Buddhist see Buddha, Hindus see Krishna or Shiva, Native Americans see their ancestors or animal spirits, etc. People with no religion often simply encounter friends or relatives.

I'm not sure what to make of NDE's. My current view is that they represent an intermediary stage of near-death but not a true picture of what happens after death.

Of course what's more interesting is that sometimes people see images or figures from other religions or cultures, which suggests the experiences are veridical and aren't merely cultural expectations. This could be explained in terms of subjective idealist metaphysics. Storm described going down a long hallway to an outer darkness and demons attacking him, when he had sepsis in a French hospital on a field trip with art students (I believe it was 1986?). Ultimately, he believes that whoever wants to be saved, will be saved. He describes his ordeal as a learning experience or warning. Most atheists, however, do not have negative near-death experiences, though they are somewhat more likely than the general population. However, they are much less likely to identify as atheists after the experience.

The conclusion that NDE is a learning experience or warning makes sense to me. Perhaps a lot of us have NDE's that affect our perspective and enhance our faith even though we do not recall any particular images.

 

[FireDragon76]

Interesting that you would mention Pure Land Buddhism, which Christianity might have influenced.

Most scholars believe if PLB had any religious influences, it was from Zoroastrianism, not Christianity. The earliest evidence for Pure Land teachings comes from northern India and Afghanistan around the 2nd century B.C. A modern, educated Jodo Shinshu priest would tell you the source of Pure Land Buddhism lies in the religious imagination, which they interpret in idealist terms, and that commonalities represent deep structures within the human mind.

Buddhism evolved over centuries into many different forms. Over time, some people in the early Buddhist movement started developing the notion that the Buddha never really died, or that the Buddha was an emanation of a subtle, immortal being. Eventually, it became a kind of quasi-shamanistic religion full of religious symbols and a nondualist mysticism, in comparison to early Buddhism, which was more dualistic and had a flatter worldview (similar to Plato's Cave of Allegory tale). In fact, the difference between Early Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism is alot like the difference in the West between Plato and Neo-Platonism.

 

[Der Alte]

In the mid-90s I was transferred from the SF bay area to Orange county about 19 miles from Disney land. The church I joined at one time had hosted an Arabic Christian ministry. They had left a case of Arabic Bibles and other printed Arabic material. A Christian medical missionary couple, serving in a very militant Muslim country, on a fund raising trip visited our church. I mentioned the Bibles and other materials to them, they were very happy. They said that they could not keep enough Bibles on hand, the local citizens would sneak up to the hospital at night asking for the "The Book," which is what the Bible is called in the Quran. They had to smuggle the Bibles and other Christian material into the hospital, everything was inspected by the religious police. When the Muslims became Christians, they wanted to be baptized so the missionaries would construct a temporary baptismal on the roof or go out into the desert to a stream or oasis, post guards and baptize them. In Muslim countries for a Muslim to become a Christian was a capital offense.

 

[Andrewn]

In the mid-90s I was transferred from the SF bay area to Orange county about 19 miles from Disney land. The church I joined at one time had hosted an Arabic Christian ministry. They had left a case of Arabic Bibles and other printed Arabic material. A Christian medical missionary couple, serving in a very militant Muslim country, on a fund raising trip visited our church. I mentioned the Bibles and other materials to them, they were very happy. They said that they could not keep enough Bibles on hand, the local citizens would sneak up to the hospital at night asking for the "The Book," which is what the Bible is called in the Quran. They had to smuggle the Bibles and other Christian material into the hospital, everything was inspected by the religious police. When the Muslims became Christians, they wanted to be baptized so the missionaries would construct a temporary baptismal on the roof or go out into the desert to a stream or oasis, post guards and baptize them. In Muslim countries for a Muslim to become a Christian was a capital offense.

Anything less than full appreciation of Christ's Lordship and salvation deserves whole-hearted repentance.

Joh 3:18 He who believes in Him is not condemned. But he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[FireDragon76]

Bell was a golden boy in the "emergent church" sector, by virtue of being the pastor of the OTHER "Mars Hill" church. He grew that congregation to a large size through his preaching. Around the mid 00s is when he started going off on his own tangent, with the flap over "Love Wins" in 2012 leading him to resign the church in hopes of going to LA in hopes of starting a "spiritual talk show".
The reason he's not mentioned among the universalist community is for one, he never really affirmed universalism, instead positing it as a "what if it were true?" The other reason is he's more of a pop author than a serious theologian, having left the pastorate at the height of the "Love Wins" controversy.

David Bentley Hart, on the other hard, is a serious universalist theologian.

 

[Light of the East]

David Bentley Hart, on the other hand, is a serious universalist theologian.

Which is EXACTLY why people RUN from debating him and resort to pejorative and name-calling rather than address what he has said.

 

[FireDragon76]

Which is EXACTLY why people RUN from debating him and resort to pejorative and name-calling rather than address what he has said.

I agree. Although, skepticism of ECT is relatively widespread in some denominations (Anglican, Mainline Protestant), for more or less the same reasons as DBH lays out.

I think the fact some people are intimidated by universalism as a theological opinion says more about the place they are operating from psychologically, rather than the merits of the case for ECT.

 

[actionsub]

David Bentley Hart, on the other hard, is a serious universalist theologian.

Hart is pretty hardcore on universalism. I found him a bit difficult to read, not because of his assertions, but simply that he does write for an academic audience rather than the average pew sitter.

 

[Light of the East]

Hart is pretty hardcore on universalism. I found him a bit difficult to read, not because of his assertions, but simply that he does write for an academic audience rather than the average pew sitter.

Which is why (shameless plug here) I wrote my book A Layman Investigates Universal Salvation. I tried to write for the average pew sitter like me.

 

[FireDragon76]

Somebody else to read in terms of theologians is Marilyn McCord Adams' paper, The Problem of Hell: a Problem of Evil for Christians. Adams is an Episcopalian theologian. She isn't quite as hard to read as Hart, but she still is writing mostly for an academic audience.

 

[Der Alte]

Which is EXACTLY why people RUN from debating him and resort to pejorative and name-calling rather than address what he has said.

Being a good debater does not necessarily make one correct. Most people have not done extensive research on the subject, as DBH has done, and do not have a mental catalog of scripture from which they can instantly recite virtually all applicable vss. that does not make them wrong.

 

[Der Alte]

deleted post.

 

[Light of the East]

Being a good debater does not necessarily make one correct. Most people have not done extensive research on the subject, as DBH has done, and do not have a mental catalog of scripture from which they can instantly recite virtually all applicable vss. that does not make them wrong.

Let me know when you post a response and refutation to DBH's First Meditation in his book, the meditation on Creatio Ex Nihlo. If you do this, you will be the first person to ever have done so.

 

[Der Alte]

Let me know when you post a response and refutation to DBH's First Meditation in his book, the meditation on Creatio Ex Nihlo. If you do this, you will be the first person to ever have done so.

Sorry amigo if he wants to debate me bring him here. Or, you could pick 2-3 of his "best arguments" and post them here and I will be glad to respond.
Here are a few of the vss. which I think conclusively, present, if NOT, EP at least refute UR.
Jeremiah 13:11-14, Matthew 25:46, Matthew 7:21-23, Romans 1:24, Romans 1:26, Romans 1:18, Rev 21:8, Rev 22:11, Rev 22:15.

 

[drewcosten]

Here are a few of the vss. which I think conclusively, present, if NOT, EP at least refute UR.
Jeremiah 13:11-14, Matthew 25:46, Matthew 7:21-23, Romans 1:24, Romans 1:26, Romans 1:18, Rev 21:8, Rev 22:11, Rev 22:15.

I’m not going to argue about it, because I’ve already done so in my article that you refuse to read, but none of those passages even come close to refuting UR. We Scriptural Universalists can read and agree with each of those passages and know that everyone will still experience salvation by the end of the ages, thanks to what Christ accomplished.

 

[Der Alte]

I’m not going to argue about it, because I’ve already done so in my article that you refuse to read, but none of those passages even come close to refuting UR. We Scriptural Universalists can read and agree with each of those passages and know that everyone will still experience salvation by the end of the ages, thanks to what Christ accomplished.

This is a discussion forum if you have something to say, bring it here. Your thesis at another location does not allow for discussion,

 

[drewcosten]

This is a discussion forum if you have something to say, bring it here. Your thesis at another location does not allow for discussion,

It would require me to copy and paste literally the entire article here in order to truly discuss it here, since to discuss Universalism properly requires the other side to be familiar with every single argument in that article first. And of course it allows for discussion. You read it there, and reply to it here. Not hard.