Universalism
March 14, 2013
Russell E. Saltzman
Pushed on the matter I guess I would confess to being something of a universalist. If it was God’s purpose to reconcile the world through Christ, I’ve never felt comfortable saying God can’t have what he wants.
There has always been a strain of Christian thought favoring it. Augustine of Hippo, who dismissed it thoroughly, admitted there were many entirely loyal to the Scriptures who denied “endless torment” for the damned. Even while still dismissing universal salvation, Augustine nonetheless cautioned Christians against judging the spiritual state of those as yet outside Christianity. God, he said, hatches plans about which we know nothing. Inspired by Augustine, I have always enjoyed this bit of doggerel:
When I arrived at heaven’s gate I saw faces I never thought I’d see
And every face showed shocked surprise, not one expected me.
There is in fact a whole body of early Christian literature—quotes and sermons and scraps of sermons—from theologians and bishops from both the ante-Nicene and post-Nicene periods disputing an eternal hell. Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, Ambrose of Milan (though perhaps more ambiguously than some)—these and others I could name never gave up the notion that the universal work of Christ made hell superfluous come the apocatastasis, the restoration. I tend to lean in their direction.
Obviously, just saying I am “something” of a universalist doesn’t solve all my theological problems with universalism, and there are many. The most obvious question about universalism is the “Hitler problem.” An Episcopal colleague and friend brought it out on every subject when he got stuck for an answer, four words to stop every argument, especially universalism: Is Hitler in hell? There is something disturbing, isn’t there, about a Hitler not in hell? If he isn’t, you might wish to reconsider your heavenly reservation.
Yet the early Fathers weren’t so certain of anyone being so far from God that God could not heal their hearts. As St. Jerome put it:
In the end or consummation of things, all shall be restored to their original state, and be again united in one body. We cannot be ignorant that Christ's blood benefited the angels and those who are in hell; though we know not the manner in which it produced such effects. The apostate angels shall become such as they were created; and man, who has been cast out of paradise, shall be restored thither again. And this shall be accomplished in such a way, that all shall be united together by mutual charity, so that the members will delight in each other, and rejoice in each other’s promotion. The apostate angels, and the prince of this world, though now ungovernable, plunging themselves into the depths of sin, shall, in the end, embrace the happy dominion of Christ and his saints.
If the sainted Jerome saw hope that the blood of Christ availed for the apostate angels and their chief, and even for those in hell, I think maybe there might be hope for me. In short, I believe the universally sanctifying death of Christ insists upon an outcome that is in magnitude universal.
I once conducted a funeral for an atheist. He was an old high school friend, dying, who had asked me to do it. Thinking what to say—he didn’t exactly hang out with “church people”—lost sheep and shepherds came to mind. But St. Luke and St. Mark both tell the story with a stuffy kicker at the end: Heaven rejoices more over the one sinner who repents than over the ninety-nine who never stray.
I’m sure heaven does, however unnerving for the never-strayed, but the conclusion is grossly incongruent with the story of an AWOL sheep that gets itself hauled back to the fold, perhaps unwillingly and quite prepared to do it again next week. There is no evidence of repentance I can see. The shepherd did it, and will do it again, no thanks to the sheep.
But St. Matthew (18:10-14) tells the story off-key with deeply universalist implications. His scene opens with Jesus speaking of “little ones”—not children, I figure, but code for people like my friend. These “little ones” have “angels in heaven [who] always see the face of my Father.” How about that? These “little ones,” even lost and not yet found, have angels before God. The shepherd searches and finds and brings them home: “So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.”
“All men are Christ’s,” Clement of Alexandria reportedly said, “some by knowing him, the rest not yet. He is the Savior, not of some and the rest not. For how is he Savior and Lord, if not the Savior and Lord of all?”
Russell E. Saltzman is dean of the Great Plains Mission District of the North American Lutheran Church, assistant pastor of St. Matthew's Church in Riverside, Missouri, and an online homilist for the Christian Leadership Center at the University of Mary. His book Speaking of the Dead is nearing completion. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
3.14.2013 | 9:08am
JDGalvez says:
Thank you so much Rev. Saltzman for this thoughtful piece.
I too hope for universal redemption and it is good to hear you make the case. However, I have serious concerns about going further than hope on this point. For me at least, the Hitler hypothesis is not particularly relevant. That is a matter of getting beyond our tendency to stand in God's place in the judgment of others (yes, even a vile figure like Hitler). The greater problem, from my perspective involves the practical consequences of a certain doctrine on this matter. If universalism advances from an acceptable "hope" to something of greater certainty its effect would seem to undercut the drama of salvation. Perhaps not the drama of salvation at the cross but the drama of salvation in our daily lives. Of course we know that the playwright is benign, but can we respond as intended if always reminded that we can trust him to arrive at a happy ending for all? If we feel certain that all works out well for all in the end, does this not affect how we embrace our vocation as Christians? Particularly in the matter of witness? Perhaps it should not affect us in this way but are we being honest with ourselves if we assert that it would not affect us at all? I think if we dare to hope for universal salvation it must remain as in the couplet you cite, a wonderful "surprise". It must be something that we whisper to ourselves, trusting that God is more loving than we can imagine or understand but it is not something that we dare affirm as concrete and certain. Anything more than hope in this matter would be a presumptuous and I think dangerous departure from tradition. My humble opinion. Peace be to all of you.
I too hope for universal redemption and it is good to hear you make the case. However, I have serious concerns about going further than hope on this point. For me at least, the Hitler hypothesis is not particularly relevant. That is a matter of getting beyond our tendency to stand in God's place in the judgment of others (yes, even a vile figure like Hitler). The greater problem, from my perspective involves the practical consequences of a certain doctrine on this matter. If universalism advances from an acceptable "hope" to something of greater certainty its effect would seem to undercut the drama of salvation. Perhaps not the drama of salvation at the cross but the drama of salvation in our daily lives. Of course we know that the playwright is benign, but can we respond as intended if always reminded that we can trust him to arrive at a happy ending for all? If we feel certain that all works out well for all in the end, does this not affect how we embrace our vocation as Christians? Particularly in the matter of witness? Perhaps it should not affect us in this way but are we being honest with ourselves if we assert that it would not affect us at all? I think if we dare to hope for universal salvation it must remain as in the couplet you cite, a wonderful "surprise". It must be something that we whisper to ourselves, trusting that God is more loving than we can imagine or understand but it is not something that we dare affirm as concrete and certain. Anything more than hope in this matter would be a presumptuous and I think dangerous departure from tradition. My humble opinion. Peace be to all of you.
3.14.2013 | 9:31am
Stuart Koehl says:
It was, I believe, Maximos the Confessor who wrote, "One should pray constantly for the Apocatastasis of all things, but one would be foolish to teach it as doctrine". That is, it is one thing to hope that God will accomplish the salvation of all, but it is presumptuous to think either than He will or must. Myself, I am hoping that Gregory of Nyssa was correct.
3.14.2013 | 10:04am
John Willems says:
I wouldn't call myself a universalist, but I think it is a respectable opinion. I don't know why some people find it so repugnant. As for the Hitler questions, my response is that I hope Hitler is in heaven, perhaps partly out of a desire for all to be saved, but mostly because if Hitler is in heaven, that certainly increases my chances for getting there. My opinion of the matter is that we should hope that universalism is true, live as though Hell is a real place, and think intellectually that the truth is somewhere in between. I guess that would make me an annihilationist.
3.14.2013 | 10:07am
patricksarsfield says:
Is God going to judge everyone worthy of Heaven? God only knows. So my best plan is to do whatever I can to live in accordance with His will (even if it proves not to be decision-affecting). And hope for the best. That's it: Faith, Hope and Charity!
3.14.2013 | 10:45am
harry says:
Origen thought that the demons could eventually be redeemed. Rufinus charges Jerome with having “written the same things which he blames in Origen.” St. Cyprian was wrong in thinking that re-baptism was necessary. St. Augustine sounds like he believes in predestination at times, as well as there being babies in hell. St. Hippolytus was an anti-pope for a while. Don't get me wrong, I love Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine and Hippolytus, but they, as well as other Church Fathers, all got something wrong. I think there is a reason that in God's Providence so many saintly Church Fathers were wrong on a few points. The reason, I think, that God allowed these rare exceptions in the teaching of otherwise outstanding Christians is hinted at in 1 Corinthians 3:
“For when one says, 'I belong to Paul,' and another, 'I belong to Apollos,' are you not merely men? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul?”
Apollos, Paul and other outstanding Christians were “merely men,” in that they still had a fallen nature. Paul is pointing out that when the Corinthians claim allegiance to Paul or Apollos or Cephas they are thinking and acting in their fallen natures and not according to the new life of grace, which is certain it will find the truth in the promised presence of the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:16, 16:13) in the “church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), and not necessarily in the potentially incorrect teaching of any mere mortal, however wise and good that individual might be.
So, yeah, Jerome may have thought the devils could be saved. If so, we'll forgive him for that and rejoice in all that he wrote so correctly and beautifully.
“For when one says, 'I belong to Paul,' and another, 'I belong to Apollos,' are you not merely men? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul?”
Apollos, Paul and other outstanding Christians were “merely men,” in that they still had a fallen nature. Paul is pointing out that when the Corinthians claim allegiance to Paul or Apollos or Cephas they are thinking and acting in their fallen natures and not according to the new life of grace, which is certain it will find the truth in the promised presence of the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:16, 16:13) in the “church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), and not necessarily in the potentially incorrect teaching of any mere mortal, however wise and good that individual might be.
So, yeah, Jerome may have thought the devils could be saved. If so, we'll forgive him for that and rejoice in all that he wrote so correctly and beautifully.
3.14.2013 | 11:25am
Delvinator says:
The most cogent argument I have run across against universalism was made by Wittgenstein, responding to a student who regretted the Church’s condemnation of Origen’s doctrine that God would abolish Hell and redeem the whole world:
"Of course it was rejected. It would make nonsense of everything else. If what we do now is to make no difference in the end, then all the seriousness of life is done away with."
"Of course it was rejected. It would make nonsense of everything else. If what we do now is to make no difference in the end, then all the seriousness of life is done away with."
3.14.2013 | 12:47pm
Chesterton Fan says:
@ patricksarsfield. Where does Scripture or Church teaching speak of God assessing our worthiness? Christ died for us because we were unworthy, and we were made alive with Christ. We are to walk in a manner worthy of our calling to be sure (Ephesians 4:1ff) But there is a difference between the person who tries to imitate the conduct of a princess out of insecurity about whther she has attained to "princess hood" and the person who is declared a princess, and therefore is urged to put off the old non-Royal behavior and put on the new behavior that comes by virtue of the status God has bestowed on her in Christ. That is the gospel. Our works are the fruit of faith and testify to the reality that we have been transformed by Christ. The moment we begin saying, "God, am I worthy enough?" we lose the hope and power of the gospel.
3.14.2013 | 12:48pm
Barry Arrington says:
Believe in Christ and be saved!
Or curse him as the Devil and be just as saved in the end. (that whole thing about the unforgivable sin -- just kidding)
Live a life of charity and grace. Go to heaven.
Be a genecidal maniac. Go to heaven too.
Delvinator's quote from Wittgenstein is appropriate.
If universalism is true, nothing matters.
Something matters.
Therefore, universalism is false.
Or curse him as the Devil and be just as saved in the end. (that whole thing about the unforgivable sin -- just kidding)
Live a life of charity and grace. Go to heaven.
Be a genecidal maniac. Go to heaven too.
Delvinator's quote from Wittgenstein is appropriate.
If universalism is true, nothing matters.
Something matters.
Therefore, universalism is false.
3.14.2013 | 1:25pm
Chesterton Fan says:
Jesus spoke of Hell and everlasting judgment more than anyone else in Scripture. Delvinator's Wittgenstein quote above is apropos. When students learn that a teacher will pass everyone in the class regardless of performance, the result is obvious. And as Universalism has spread in the Church, I dont see it as energizing more devotion to Christ. When Hell is irrelevant, it seems Christ is irrelevant. And when Hell is not a real possibility, my meditation on the cross is hardly made more significant and the wonder of my salvation made all the more astounding. That no one full of the grace of God would wish Hell on anyone, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. etc. included, I don't deny. I leave the Final Judgment in God's hands knowing that no one will be unjustly treated by Him. And, as someone once said, (C.S.Lewis??) "So much mercy....and yet...". I too hope to be surprised. But in light of "the rich man and Lazurus" I cannot offer such hope to those now in open rebellion to God.
3.14.2013 | 1:55pm
Mike M says:
Wittgenstein also famously said "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Twentieth century philosophy does not seem to gived us a definite answer to universalism. It is difficult to deny the possibility without self-righteousness and ressentiment creeping into the argument.
3.14.2013 | 1:58pm
ThomasL says:
I recommend Josef Pieper's 'The Concept of Sin'. Naturally his focus is on sin, not hell, but he makes a convincing case that the nature of sin, like the nature of love, touches the eternal. Such a sin is the active turning away from God, and toward something or someone else (including inward, to ourselves). Unrepented, such a rejection would merit eternal separation by its nature--not least of which because that is precisely what the sin wills. Surely, God could forgive it, but to forgive it when it is unrepented (ie, the sin is still willed) make repentance and free will meaningless, because they will be overpowered *against our will* in the end.
Think of salvation as a marriage proposal. You can either accept it and marry Him, or you can marry someone else, or you can stay single. What you cannot do is marry Him *and* someone else, or marry Him *and* stay single. If you reject the proposal, you aren't the bride at the wedding. But He keeps holding his hand out just in case you change your mind...
Think of salvation as a marriage proposal. You can either accept it and marry Him, or you can marry someone else, or you can stay single. What you cannot do is marry Him *and* someone else, or marry Him *and* stay single. If you reject the proposal, you aren't the bride at the wedding. But He keeps holding his hand out just in case you change your mind...
3.14.2013 | 2:10pm
Bret Lythgoe says:
Clearly the notion that, if there is a hell, Hitler being conspiciously absent from this place of torment seems unjust. And it would probably be safe to conclude that we feel instinctively that, the idea that Hitler could somehow "make up'' for the unspeakable evil he committed is unfathomable. And yet, what does the Christian Tradition say? It says that anyone, who's truly repentant, is forgiven, and heaven waits for him. This seems repugnant to my moral sense, but it is the Christian message. So why is it so much of a leap to accept that god may allow all, even the most wicked, to be saved? I'm just asking.
3.14.2013 | 2:40pm
JDD says:
Concluding that God accomplishes all that he wants and that this leads to all entering heaven ignores those who don't want to do so.
"But who wouldn't want to do so!?"
I recognize the rebellion in my own heart right now, and yet God is attempting to bring me to his side right now. Why don't I drop all of my sin immediately, this instant?
And I recognize that if I don't drop all of my sin this instant, that there is nothing saying for sure that I will drop it eventually. Though this is the path and the hope which I pursue through my prayer and petition - my relationship with Christ Jesus.
My free will exists now, this very moment - what exactly would that mean, if it has nothing that it can decide?
I experience grace and joy right now when I yield to God, and know that in a sense I am experiencing a foretaste of Heaven. In the same way I am sure that when I reject God I am in some sense in hell now, and that this is also a foretaste of a real eternal possibility.
"But who wouldn't want to do so!?"
I recognize the rebellion in my own heart right now, and yet God is attempting to bring me to his side right now. Why don't I drop all of my sin immediately, this instant?
And I recognize that if I don't drop all of my sin this instant, that there is nothing saying for sure that I will drop it eventually. Though this is the path and the hope which I pursue through my prayer and petition - my relationship with Christ Jesus.
My free will exists now, this very moment - what exactly would that mean, if it has nothing that it can decide?
I experience grace and joy right now when I yield to God, and know that in a sense I am experiencing a foretaste of Heaven. In the same way I am sure that when I reject God I am in some sense in hell now, and that this is also a foretaste of a real eternal possibility.
3.14.2013 | 3:07pm
David P says:
I have a real problem with Universalism. As several of the above arguments have stated: If we are all saved anyway, then why did we need a Savior in the person of Jesus Christ?
God's desire is that we all be saved, see John 3:16-17, but there will always be those who have heard the Gospel and continue to reject it, or even fight against it. There are many passages that talk about eternal damnation, and Jesus Himself is not shy about speaking in those passages.
If you believe in Universalism, then what do you do with John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"
And finally, Jesus' charge to the church in Great Commission at the end of Matthew's Gospel was for us to "Go and make disciples of all nations." As a Christian, I do not believe there is another way to God, except through Jesus. It is the Good News of His suffering, death, and resurrection that we are to proclaim to all the world. Let's get out there and do our job disciples!
God's desire is that we all be saved, see John 3:16-17, but there will always be those who have heard the Gospel and continue to reject it, or even fight against it. There are many passages that talk about eternal damnation, and Jesus Himself is not shy about speaking in those passages.
If you believe in Universalism, then what do you do with John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"
And finally, Jesus' charge to the church in Great Commission at the end of Matthew's Gospel was for us to "Go and make disciples of all nations." As a Christian, I do not believe there is another way to God, except through Jesus. It is the Good News of His suffering, death, and resurrection that we are to proclaim to all the world. Let's get out there and do our job disciples!
3.14.2013 | 3:22pm
Michael Root says:
I posted a response over on the "Heaven, Hell, . . . and Purgatory?" blog (heavenhellpurgatory.wordpress.com). I used to be far more open to what might be called subjunctive universalism, but am increasingly dubious. I would only note here that Jerome seems to have changed his mind on this question toward the end of his life (see the discussion in Brian Daley, "The Hope of Eternal Life: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology," pp. 103-4. Daley cites this nice passage from Jerome's Isaiah commentary: "And as we believe that the devil and all apostates and impious sinners, who say in their heart, 'There is not God,' will undergo eternal punishments, so we think that those who are sinners, even impious ones, and yet Christians will have their works tried and purged in fire, but will receive from the judge a moderate sentence, mingled with mercy."
3.14.2013 | 4:01pm
Don Roberto says:
See http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-population-of-hell-23
From reason: Free will, given to man in love (but withheld from the dogs and the worms) requires hell. From Faith: Jesus said there is hell, so there is hell. Therefore, seek your salvation in fear and trembling.
From reason: Free will, given to man in love (but withheld from the dogs and the worms) requires hell. From Faith: Jesus said there is hell, so there is hell. Therefore, seek your salvation in fear and trembling.
3.14.2013 | 4:04pm
patricksarsfield says:
"Chesterton Fan" asks me: "Where does Scripture or Church teaching speak of God assessing our worthiness? "
Try Matt. 25: 31-46 for Scripture (straight from Jesus's mouth, btw). OR Brother James's clarion: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24). Try Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sections 678-79 and sources cited for Church teaching.
To turn things around, I'd like to see "Chesterton Fan" supply the C&V for that "princess hood" stuff?
Try Matt. 25: 31-46 for Scripture (straight from Jesus's mouth, btw). OR Brother James's clarion: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24). Try Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sections 678-79 and sources cited for Church teaching.
To turn things around, I'd like to see "Chesterton Fan" supply the C&V for that "princess hood" stuff?
3.14.2013 | 4:25pm
Northern Observer says:
I recently listened to a theological debate on the idea of eternal life in the Bible and Christianity. There is a good case to be made that eternal life and heaven and hell are not clear notions in the Bible and that they refer to states we create for ourselves in the present and our decendents in the future by the way we behave in the present. This is closer to the Jewish idea that when you are dead, you are dead, until the final day of judgement. Is Hitler in Hell? No Hitler is in his grave. Hell surrounded him and his people while he lived and torments his people to this day. Is this not enough?
3.14.2013 | 4:30pm
Jordan Bissell says:
@Barry Arrington
“Live a life of charity and grace. Go to heaven.
Be a genocidal maniac. Go to heaven too.”
This is true of Christianity in general, not just Universalists—anyone who repents of their sin, even a genocidal maniac, may inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. So the question is whether Universalism entails the salvation of even the unrepentant? It doesn’t. The more piously agnostic form of it, a la Balthasar, declares that we are obliged to hope for the repentance/salvation of all, while the more confident form declares simply that all will repent and be saved.
But that is not the same thing as a kind of spiritual or moral indifferentism, which your syllogism suggests. To say that all will be saved is not to say that Christ’s crucifixion is not the means of salvation, nor is it to say that salvation doesn’t require repentance, nor again is it to say that such repentance will not entail aeonic purgation before the beatific vision is attained.
Universalists may be apathetics in fact but they are not so in principle.
“Live a life of charity and grace. Go to heaven.
Be a genocidal maniac. Go to heaven too.”
This is true of Christianity in general, not just Universalists—anyone who repents of their sin, even a genocidal maniac, may inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. So the question is whether Universalism entails the salvation of even the unrepentant? It doesn’t. The more piously agnostic form of it, a la Balthasar, declares that we are obliged to hope for the repentance/salvation of all, while the more confident form declares simply that all will repent and be saved.
But that is not the same thing as a kind of spiritual or moral indifferentism, which your syllogism suggests. To say that all will be saved is not to say that Christ’s crucifixion is not the means of salvation, nor is it to say that salvation doesn’t require repentance, nor again is it to say that such repentance will not entail aeonic purgation before the beatific vision is attained.
Universalists may be apathetics in fact but they are not so in principle.
3.14.2013 | 4:50pm
Don Roberto says:
Dear Northern Observer: Your argument sounds atheistic to me. Atheism makes no sense, because we can't prove God does not exist, so it requires blind faith, e.g., that the universe created itself from nothingess. Belief in God, on the other hand, is logical, and is supported by the testimony of the saints and by many miracles throughout history. Others might argue that God is not good. But for those who believe in a good God, Justice demands reward or punishment in an afterlife, since it is easily observed that many wicked people do not suffer in this life, and many good people suffer greatly.
3.14.2013 | 4:51pm
DeGaulle says:
Russell, excellent thought-provoking article, but some points:
1) "...I’ve never felt comfortable saying God can’t have what he wants.":
While it is natural to feel uncomfortable questioning God's omnipotence, I don't think that is primal in this case. God has given us free will, thus leaving choices regarding salvation or otherwise to the individual. He wants us all, but respects the fact that not all of us may want Him.
2). " ...“endless torment” for the damned":
The issue that a Loving God would not inflict such a destiny often arises, but it has struck me, and I'm no theologian, so please correct me if I'm wrong, that He doesn't inflict this. Is not Hell comprised of the Damned, angels and men, who have rejected Love, and thus it surely is a place dominated by the Seven Deadly Sins, where the souls therein are likely by their spiritual state to inflict suffering and torment on one another, for eternity? Perhaps Sartre wasn't so far out when he described Hell as "other people"!
3). Finally, I believe the present time that we live in, and in this it may be no different to other times, as particularly vulnerable to the sin of Presumption from talk of Universalism. I can really only speak for myself, and am very glad my Fear of God, and particularly of damnation, keeps me making some efforts to stay on the straight and narrow. Still, I often get lost and am barely able to keep to the path. I dread the thought of what I'd be like if I believed I was guaranteed salvation!
1) "...I’ve never felt comfortable saying God can’t have what he wants.":
While it is natural to feel uncomfortable questioning God's omnipotence, I don't think that is primal in this case. God has given us free will, thus leaving choices regarding salvation or otherwise to the individual. He wants us all, but respects the fact that not all of us may want Him.
2). " ...“endless torment” for the damned":
The issue that a Loving God would not inflict such a destiny often arises, but it has struck me, and I'm no theologian, so please correct me if I'm wrong, that He doesn't inflict this. Is not Hell comprised of the Damned, angels and men, who have rejected Love, and thus it surely is a place dominated by the Seven Deadly Sins, where the souls therein are likely by their spiritual state to inflict suffering and torment on one another, for eternity? Perhaps Sartre wasn't so far out when he described Hell as "other people"!
3). Finally, I believe the present time that we live in, and in this it may be no different to other times, as particularly vulnerable to the sin of Presumption from talk of Universalism. I can really only speak for myself, and am very glad my Fear of God, and particularly of damnation, keeps me making some efforts to stay on the straight and narrow. Still, I often get lost and am barely able to keep to the path. I dread the thought of what I'd be like if I believed I was guaranteed salvation!
3.14.2013 | 5:14pm
JDD says:
Mr. Saltzman, I am having trouble seeing in your argument points any support for your thesis.
Heaven rejoices over the repentant sinner, but in another passage you don't see the concept 'repentant', so this is a contradiction?
'Little ones' have angels in heaven? It's not clear at all why you believe that this means we all likely get there.
I’m sure heaven does [rejoice], ... but the conclusion is grossly incongruent with the story of an AWOL sheep that gets itself hauled back to the fold, perhaps unwillingly and quite prepared to do it again next week. There is no evidence of repentance I can see. The shepherd did it, and will do it again, no thanks to the sheep.
I don't see the incongruity read into the scene. Is the argument here really that Jesus takes us back against our own will, and that this is implying - because he doesn't include a reference to it - that unrepentance is inconsequential? By this reasoning, every time Jesus doesn't mention the entire gospel in a complete sentence every time he spoke, we would have to re-evaluate.
Finally, Matthew 7:13 seems pretty clear.
Heaven rejoices over the repentant sinner, but in another passage you don't see the concept 'repentant', so this is a contradiction?
'Little ones' have angels in heaven? It's not clear at all why you believe that this means we all likely get there.
I’m sure heaven does [rejoice], ... but the conclusion is grossly incongruent with the story of an AWOL sheep that gets itself hauled back to the fold, perhaps unwillingly and quite prepared to do it again next week. There is no evidence of repentance I can see. The shepherd did it, and will do it again, no thanks to the sheep.
I don't see the incongruity read into the scene. Is the argument here really that Jesus takes us back against our own will, and that this is implying - because he doesn't include a reference to it - that unrepentance is inconsequential? By this reasoning, every time Jesus doesn't mention the entire gospel in a complete sentence every time he spoke, we would have to re-evaluate.
Finally, Matthew 7:13 seems pretty clear.
3.14.2013 | 7:09pm
Gerald McDermott says:
The gospels present an eschatology of two different outcomes. The evidence is overwhelming. As the distinguished New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham wrote in his survey of universalist thought, “Few would now doubt that many New Testament texts clearly teach a final division of mankind into saved and lost, and the most that universalists now commonly claim is that alongside these texts there are others which hold out a universalist hope (e.g. Eph 1:10; Col 1:20).” I. Howard Marshall, another distinguished New Testament scholar, has shown that the New Testament authors both teach and assume that there is a double outcome for humanity, and this outcome is final. Jesus said he would deny before the Father those who denied him during their lives (Mt. 10:33), and that many would seek to enter the Kingdom but would not be able (Lk. 13:24). In his parables of the wheat and the tares and the dragnet, he said some would be excluded from his Kingdom (Mt. 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50). He taught that there is an eternal sin that cannot be forgiven (Mk. 3:28-30). The foolish bridesmaids and those indifferent to the needy would be given chilling sentences: “I do not know you. . . . Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mt 25:12, 41). Luke says that Jesus stressed repentance and warned that some would knock but be told by the master of the house, “Depart from me, you workers of evil” (Lk 13:25-28).
3.14.2013 | 9:07pm
tont says:
Universalism is but the flip side of the Calvinist heresy. God damns most of us regardless of our merits, or God saves all of us in spite of our just deserts. It is a denial not only of free will but of divine justice, and dismisses too readily our obligation to cooperate with God's grace to ensure its efficaciousness.
3.14.2013 | 10:12pm
Bob says:
Universalist theologians give listeners what they want to hear, offending no one. To me the scripture is clear that many are called, but few are chosen. Mt. 22:14.
Fatalism is putting everything in God's hands - hardly traditional Christianity. The classic parable of the Sheep and Goats indicated selection on the merit of action, feeding the hungry, etc. St. Paul said "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." Gal.6:7.
Fatalism is putting everything in God's hands - hardly traditional Christianity. The classic parable of the Sheep and Goats indicated selection on the merit of action, feeding the hungry, etc. St. Paul said "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap." Gal.6:7.
3.15.2013 | 11:26am
Chesterton Fan says:
@ patricksarsfield Try reading Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians in one sitting and see if the theological analogy I gave fits. (As an aside..support for the Trinity is especially in Ch1, even though there is no C &V that specifically says "Trinity") The first 3 chapters speak of what God did for us and the new status that has resulted. Then chapter 4 starts..."Therefore, walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you hav been called"... Then all the ethical exhortations about "putting off the old and putting on the new." The ground for "our doing" is "what God has done". And the passages you mention don't contradict that. Faith without fruit is not saving faith. Indeed, the demons have faith as James mentions near the passage you quote. All ethical boasting is abolished by the cross as Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians Ch1ff and as Christ made clear in the story of the differing prayers of the publican and the sinner. The latter came humbly before God as a sinner asking for mercy while the former felt his ethical life justified him before God. So, while faith without works is dead and is not saving faith, works are not what save us from the judgment of God. Salvation is an act of God's mercy in Christ and not the result of human accomplishment, moral, intellectual or otherwise. Our works and lives testify as to whether or not we have actually embraced that gift. And that is Jesus point in the story of the sheep and the goats. There are a lot of Protestants who think a response to an alter call resulted in saving faith whose lives betray that, just as there are plenty of baptized Catholics who think they are fine as long as they attend Mass regularly, if even that.
3.15.2013 | 4:31pm
patricksarsfield says:
@"chesterton fan": I agree that works are not what save us from the judgment of God. There is no question that God will judge each of us, believers and non-believers alike. Matt. 25 tells me how we will be judged. This is what the Living Lord of the Universe said to Christians (i.e., believers) about how He was going to judge us: ""Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me...."Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.'' " (Matt. 25:34-36, 41).
So, my conduct seems very much on His Mind in His description of the Judgment process. How He will exercise His Mercy in the Judgment process is something I would not try to figure out in advance. After all, His ways are so far above my ways and His thoughts above mine. So, while I will hope for His Mercy, that is hardly an operations plan for the rest of my life. Christ's Church teaches us to observe all his commands (Matt. 28:20) and that seems like the only sensible approach. Bottom line? Trying to pre-judge Christ's judgment of me seems like utter futility.
So, my conduct seems very much on His Mind in His description of the Judgment process. How He will exercise His Mercy in the Judgment process is something I would not try to figure out in advance. After all, His ways are so far above my ways and His thoughts above mine. So, while I will hope for His Mercy, that is hardly an operations plan for the rest of my life. Christ's Church teaches us to observe all his commands (Matt. 28:20) and that seems like the only sensible approach. Bottom line? Trying to pre-judge Christ's judgment of me seems like utter futility.
3.15.2013 | 6:46pm
TotalVictory says:
Yes, the "Hitler problem".
The implication seems to be that Hitler was too great a sinner to be included? Doesn't that contradict Romans 5:20? Abounding sin is met with more abounding grace. God did not come just for the "less serious" cases of sin, did He? Can we see "grace" as that force which counters sin? (the urge to rebel against God) I think so. Perhaps this is why Paul also says "As in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be made alive!" And yes, of course this seems impossible to we mere men. Shall I place my confidence in God's relentless resourcefulness to reach and heal and reconcile? -- or in man's craven and irrational ability to reject God?
Salvation happens only one way; through Jesus by God's mercy and grace.
Back to Hitler...
I love what Robin Parry (formerly known as Gregory MacDonald) has written on this question:
"Will Hitler be saved???? -->
Let's be unambiguous here:
1. Hitler does not deserve to be saved so if he is saved it would have to be by grace alone.
2. Hitler does not deserve to be saved so if he is to be saved then it would have to be through Christ's mediatorial work.
3. If Hitler is to be saved it will only be through deep, heart-felt repentance, through Spirit-inspired faith in Christ and through a renewed mind and a transformed life in the Spirit.
4. If Hitler is to be saved it will involve not merely reconciliation with God but also with his victims. And reconciliation will not be about saying, "Oh never mind! It didn't really matter!"
5. If this is to happen it has to happen in and through God. It is not humanly possible.
Will Hitler be saved? I think so. Where sin abounds grace abounds all the more."
The implication seems to be that Hitler was too great a sinner to be included? Doesn't that contradict Romans 5:20? Abounding sin is met with more abounding grace. God did not come just for the "less serious" cases of sin, did He? Can we see "grace" as that force which counters sin? (the urge to rebel against God) I think so. Perhaps this is why Paul also says "As in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be made alive!" And yes, of course this seems impossible to we mere men. Shall I place my confidence in God's relentless resourcefulness to reach and heal and reconcile? -- or in man's craven and irrational ability to reject God?
Salvation happens only one way; through Jesus by God's mercy and grace.
Back to Hitler...
I love what Robin Parry (formerly known as Gregory MacDonald) has written on this question:
"Will Hitler be saved???? -->
Let's be unambiguous here:
1. Hitler does not deserve to be saved so if he is saved it would have to be by grace alone.
2. Hitler does not deserve to be saved so if he is to be saved then it would have to be through Christ's mediatorial work.
3. If Hitler is to be saved it will only be through deep, heart-felt repentance, through Spirit-inspired faith in Christ and through a renewed mind and a transformed life in the Spirit.
4. If Hitler is to be saved it will involve not merely reconciliation with God but also with his victims. And reconciliation will not be about saying, "Oh never mind! It didn't really matter!"
5. If this is to happen it has to happen in and through God. It is not humanly possible.
Will Hitler be saved? I think so. Where sin abounds grace abounds all the more."
3.16.2013 | 3:45pm
Tom says:
Here are a few of the universalistic passages:
I Cor. 15:22: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
John 12:32: But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.
Romans 5:18: Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
Romans 11:32,36a: God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. ... For from him and through him and to him are all things.
Colossians 1:19-20: For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in [Christ], and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Isaiah 45:23: By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.
Isaiah 57:16: I will not accuse forever, nor will I always be angry, for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me-- the breath of man that I have created.
Lamentations 3:22,31: Because of the Lord's great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail. ... For men are not cast off by the Lord forever.
Revelation 15:4: Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.
Psalm 145:10a: All you have made will praise you, O Lord.
For about 200 more, see http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/proclamations-of-hope/
For the Hitler problem, I recommend Appendix A of http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/univ.htm, in which the author argues that some will likely be punished in the afterlife (before being saved) a lot more than others, and the quality of one's heavenly existence may depend on one's earthly life.
I Cor. 15:22: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
John 12:32: But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.
Romans 5:18: Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
Romans 11:32,36a: God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. ... For from him and through him and to him are all things.
Colossians 1:19-20: For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in [Christ], and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Isaiah 45:23: By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.
Isaiah 57:16: I will not accuse forever, nor will I always be angry, for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me-- the breath of man that I have created.
Lamentations 3:22,31: Because of the Lord's great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail. ... For men are not cast off by the Lord forever.
Revelation 15:4: Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.
Psalm 145:10a: All you have made will praise you, O Lord.
For about 200 more, see http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/proclamations-of-hope/
For the Hitler problem, I recommend Appendix A of http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/univ.htm, in which the author argues that some will likely be punished in the afterlife (before being saved) a lot more than others, and the quality of one's heavenly existence may depend on one's earthly life.
3.16.2013 | 8:54pm
Manny says:
Excellent piece and excellent discussion. In my various discussions on Universalism it seems to me that the answers to these several questions decides the issue.
1. Is the human will fixed once we have entered into the metaphysical sphere?
2. Does God still draw souls to Him in that metephysical sphere?
3. Is God's love infinite, including for the damned?
We believe the answer to the third question is yes.
The answers to the first two is unknown or better put, unrevealed. However we have the example of purgatory where souls do change and they are still drawn to God.
I see it this way. If God's love is infinite, and our human wills can change and the pull of God is a persuasive voice toward love, then I lean toward universal salvation. Given infinite time and infinite love, God will persuade the most hardened soul to accept His love.
That doesn't mean hell doesn't exist and that Christ was not telling the truth in the Gospels. It means that the full nature of the afterlife has not been revealed. Just as scientists discover more about the physical universe, and therefore expand their understanding of nature, so too there are more things in heaven and earth that are known to our current metaphysical understanding.
1. Is the human will fixed once we have entered into the metaphysical sphere?
2. Does God still draw souls to Him in that metephysical sphere?
3. Is God's love infinite, including for the damned?
We believe the answer to the third question is yes.
The answers to the first two is unknown or better put, unrevealed. However we have the example of purgatory where souls do change and they are still drawn to God.
I see it this way. If God's love is infinite, and our human wills can change and the pull of God is a persuasive voice toward love, then I lean toward universal salvation. Given infinite time and infinite love, God will persuade the most hardened soul to accept His love.
That doesn't mean hell doesn't exist and that Christ was not telling the truth in the Gospels. It means that the full nature of the afterlife has not been revealed. Just as scientists discover more about the physical universe, and therefore expand their understanding of nature, so too there are more things in heaven and earth that are known to our current metaphysical understanding.
3.16.2013 | 10:19pm
sc says:
1. The Hitler Question- The question itself is Semi-Pelagian. While Hitler's way of life is to be surely condemned. We must remember that Hitler's Spiritual Pride is merely our spiritual pride in a different form. We were the ones that crucified him.
As far as Hitler in Heaven- We don't know. This is God's problem alone. We can't really assume anything. It would seem to be a logic position that Hitler was Mentally Ill so therefore we never want to place such individuals outside the Grace of God.
2. I've been accused of being a Universalist in a Post-ELCA World. I reject the label since this would be a claim that Word and Sacrament don't matter. Nor do I reject the possibility of Gehenna and Hades. Yet I never want to approach these questions with specific prescriptions of how God must act.
3. Many arguments made for Universalism are based on Moralistic Deism where by people like to argue for Salvation for their own friends based on some false definition of goodness. These arguments should be confronted.
As far as Hitler in Heaven- We don't know. This is God's problem alone. We can't really assume anything. It would seem to be a logic position that Hitler was Mentally Ill so therefore we never want to place such individuals outside the Grace of God.
2. I've been accused of being a Universalist in a Post-ELCA World. I reject the label since this would be a claim that Word and Sacrament don't matter. Nor do I reject the possibility of Gehenna and Hades. Yet I never want to approach these questions with specific prescriptions of how God must act.
3. Many arguments made for Universalism are based on Moralistic Deism where by people like to argue for Salvation for their own friends based on some false definition of goodness. These arguments should be confronted.
3.18.2013 | 8:45am
JDD says:
Manny: "Given infinite time and infinite love, God will persuade the most hardened soul to accept His love."
Then why have the demons not?
Then why have the demons not?
3.18.2013 | 10:48pm
Manny says:
@JDD
Are demons souls? Have we even begun to exhaust infinity?
The least revealed, least detailed aspect of the Bible is the after life. We have very little understanding to its the nature and condition. Is the after life a stasis or a process? Purgatory would suggest that some element of it is a process.
Are demons souls? Have we even begun to exhaust infinity?
The least revealed, least detailed aspect of the Bible is the after life. We have very little understanding to its the nature and condition. Is the after life a stasis or a process? Purgatory would suggest that some element of it is a process.
3.19.2013 | 11:27am
JDD says:
[[Manny] "Are demons souls?"
Demons are angels who have rejected God's love. They were in the presence of perfect love, and chose against it. Whether we use the precise term "souls" or not, they were real creations of God, loved by God, and yet turned away.
Part of infinite love is that it is given freely and may be rejected. The case of the demons show that it was rejected. Then, what makes us any different?
What do you think of Matthew 7:13 ?
Demons are angels who have rejected God's love. They were in the presence of perfect love, and chose against it. Whether we use the precise term "souls" or not, they were real creations of God, loved by God, and yet turned away.
Part of infinite love is that it is given freely and may be rejected. The case of the demons show that it was rejected. Then, what makes us any different?
What do you think of Matthew 7:13 ?
3.19.2013 | 11:21pm
Manny says:
If demons turned awqay from God, that's another substantiating datum that the afterlife is a process and not stasis. That's the central question: Is the afterlife a static existence for eternity or is there the possibility of change?
JDD: "What do you think of Matthew 7:13 ?"
I said I don't deny the existence of hell. I'm sure the road to heaven is narrow. I never said universal salvation was instantaneous. I said given infinity and given the process of change (if that's possible in the afterlife) then eventually God's loving persuasion will work on all souls. By the way Mat 7:13 doesn't even mention purgatory, so it can't be conclusive.
JDD: "What do you think of Matthew 7:13 ?"
I said I don't deny the existence of hell. I'm sure the road to heaven is narrow. I never said universal salvation was instantaneous. I said given infinity and given the process of change (if that's possible in the afterlife) then eventually God's loving persuasion will work on all souls. By the way Mat 7:13 doesn't even mention purgatory, so it can't be conclusive.
3.21.2013 | 1:39pm
JDD says:
[Manny] "I never said universal salvation was instantaneous. I said given infinity and given the process of change (if that's possible in the afterlife) then eventually God's loving persuasion will work on all souls....By the way Mat 7:13 doesn't even mention purgatory, so it can't be conclusive."
Matthew 7:13 says, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." It is quite conclusive that many enter through it, and there is no hint that 'destruction' is a temporary condition.
When you use the term 'purgatory,' I wonder in what sense? I don't know much about how widely it is used outside of Catholic theology, and in the Catholic meaning it is not a 'final decision point.' It is rather the final result of the decision for God. In Catholic theology, therefore, we would not expect to find any mention of purgatory in Matthew 7:13, because purgatory has nothing to do with the actual decision of which road to take.
What the Scripture should make clear is that the love of God is not accepted by all. But this is not then a proof that God's love is not infinite. It is instead a proof that God's love is not coercive.
Matthew 7:13 says, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." It is quite conclusive that many enter through it, and there is no hint that 'destruction' is a temporary condition.
When you use the term 'purgatory,' I wonder in what sense? I don't know much about how widely it is used outside of Catholic theology, and in the Catholic meaning it is not a 'final decision point.' It is rather the final result of the decision for God. In Catholic theology, therefore, we would not expect to find any mention of purgatory in Matthew 7:13, because purgatory has nothing to do with the actual decision of which road to take.
What the Scripture should make clear is that the love of God is not accepted by all. But this is not then a proof that God's love is not infinite. It is instead a proof that God's love is not coercive.
3.21.2013 | 9:15pm
Manny says:
JDD
I've said it several times, I'll say it once more. We don't know what the nature of the afterlife is. If it is a static condition based on the state when one dies, then there is no universal salvation. If the nature of the afterlife is a process that involves change, as is our earthly life, then the afterlife holds the possibility of universal salvation.
Revelation is unclear on the issue, and no one has ever come back to tell us. There are certainly contradictory data points.
So to address your points, what exactly does "destruction" mean for an eternal soul? Can a soul be healed after destruction? You seem to think you know what the afterlife is like.
No, God's love is not accepted by all, but no where does it say that they won't change.
You seem to think everything has been revealed and I'm taking the humble position saying it has not.
I've said it several times, I'll say it once more. We don't know what the nature of the afterlife is. If it is a static condition based on the state when one dies, then there is no universal salvation. If the nature of the afterlife is a process that involves change, as is our earthly life, then the afterlife holds the possibility of universal salvation.
Revelation is unclear on the issue, and no one has ever come back to tell us. There are certainly contradictory data points.
So to address your points, what exactly does "destruction" mean for an eternal soul? Can a soul be healed after destruction? You seem to think you know what the afterlife is like.
No, God's love is not accepted by all, but no where does it say that they won't change.
You seem to think everything has been revealed and I'm taking the humble position saying it has not.
3.22.2013 | 10:35am
JDD says:
[Manny] "We don't know what the nature of the afterlife is...Revelation is unclear on the issue..."
We seem to agree on the principle of revelation; it's not 'unhumble' for me to disagree with you on the scope. I'm trying to understand your foundational assumptions. You do seem to believe that some things are revealed to us - #3 in your original post. Well, Catholics believe that God has also revealed #1 and that our decision time is now. What I'm challenging you to think on is that, earlier, in response to my question about demons, you responded: "Given infinite time and infinite love, God will persuade the most hardened soul..."
You also wrote: "If demons turned away from God, that's another substantiating datum that the afterlife is a process..."
We both believe that God has infinite love, but I would point out that you acknowledge here that there is a certain time after which the demons made a decision regarding that love. They did not have 'infinite time' to be persuaded by God. We believe the same is true with us.
I think you're combining the period of making a decision with the living out of that decision. Agreed, the afterlife is infinite and not static, but the decision of how we are to spend that eternal life is, at some point, by us, made.
[Manny] "No, God's love is not accepted by all, but no where does it say that they won't change."
Jesus, in Matthew 7:13, says about as directly as one can, that many don't change. If you're going to argue about terms like 'destruction' ...it's going to be difficult to get much farther. May I ask you to consider Matthew 25:46 and words like 'eternal punishment'. Jesus has actually revealed quite a lot about the afterlife.
We seem to agree on the principle of revelation; it's not 'unhumble' for me to disagree with you on the scope. I'm trying to understand your foundational assumptions. You do seem to believe that some things are revealed to us - #3 in your original post. Well, Catholics believe that God has also revealed #1 and that our decision time is now. What I'm challenging you to think on is that, earlier, in response to my question about demons, you responded: "Given infinite time and infinite love, God will persuade the most hardened soul..."
You also wrote: "If demons turned away from God, that's another substantiating datum that the afterlife is a process..."
We both believe that God has infinite love, but I would point out that you acknowledge here that there is a certain time after which the demons made a decision regarding that love. They did not have 'infinite time' to be persuaded by God. We believe the same is true with us.
I think you're combining the period of making a decision with the living out of that decision. Agreed, the afterlife is infinite and not static, but the decision of how we are to spend that eternal life is, at some point, by us, made.
[Manny] "No, God's love is not accepted by all, but no where does it say that they won't change."
Jesus, in Matthew 7:13, says about as directly as one can, that many don't change. If you're going to argue about terms like 'destruction' ...it's going to be difficult to get much farther. May I ask you to consider Matthew 25:46 and words like 'eternal punishment'. Jesus has actually revealed quite a lot about the afterlife.
3.24.2013 | 9:55pm
Tom says:
Thoughts on the word "eternal:"
In His book “God’s Methods with Man” the Rev. G. Campbell Morgan says this about the word “eternal”: “Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how we use the word “eternity.” We have fallen into great error in our constant use of that word. There is no word in the whole Book of God corresponding with our “eternal,” which, as commonly used among us, means absolutely without end. The strongest Scripture word used with reference to the existence of God, is–“unto the ages of the ages,” which does not literally mean eternally. Let us remember however that the self-same word, which is thus used in connection with the existence of God, is also applied to the loss of the human soul. Men have divided the Church, separated from each other, and persecuted one another, upon a thought conveyed by an English word which has no equivalent in the Bible.”
-- G. Campbell Morgan, Conservative Bible expositor of the early 20th Century
In His book “God’s Methods with Man” the Rev. G. Campbell Morgan says this about the word “eternal”: “Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how we use the word “eternity.” We have fallen into great error in our constant use of that word. There is no word in the whole Book of God corresponding with our “eternal,” which, as commonly used among us, means absolutely without end. The strongest Scripture word used with reference to the existence of God, is–“unto the ages of the ages,” which does not literally mean eternally. Let us remember however that the self-same word, which is thus used in connection with the existence of God, is also applied to the loss of the human soul. Men have divided the Church, separated from each other, and persecuted one another, upon a thought conveyed by an English word which has no equivalent in the Bible.”
-- G. Campbell Morgan, Conservative Bible expositor of the early 20th Century
3.24.2013 | 10:06pm
Tom says:
Thoughts on the word "punishment" [kolasis]:
"I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment."
-- Relatively Conservative Commentator and Greek Expert William Barclay
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/barclay1.html
"I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment."
-- Relatively Conservative Commentator and Greek Expert William Barclay
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/barclay1.html
3.25.2013 | 1:16am
Tom says:
Finally, an excerpt from the Jewish philosopher Philo, who lived near Christ geographically (Alexandria) and chronologically (20 BC – 50 AD) …
"It is better not to promise than not to give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and æonian punishment (chastisement) from such as are more powerful."
Here Philo used the same phrase that Christ used in Matthew 25:46 “æonian kolasin,” which is translated “eternal punishment” in most of our Bibles, to denote temporary punishment.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html
"It is better not to promise than not to give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and æonian punishment (chastisement) from such as are more powerful."
Here Philo used the same phrase that Christ used in Matthew 25:46 “æonian kolasin,” which is translated “eternal punishment” in most of our Bibles, to denote temporary punishment.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html
3.25.2013 | 1:20pm
JDD says:
I appreciate the quotes from several authors.
I have no background in ancient languages, but arguments about Greek to English word equivalents I think tend to miss the forest. To quote someone as saying, "...in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment," ignores the words Jesus used all around that word, and his many teachings on the subject. I can pull apart any sentence and all and change the entire meaning if I just look askance at each word one at a time - a far too common mistake, I think. And designating these authors as 'conservative' or 'relatively conservative' doesn't change that.
To put it more succinctly, why does Philo's use of a phrase have any bearing at all on what Christ meant by it? I might as well say that no one ever talked about God as Father, so that's surely not what Christ could have really meant.
Finally, I'd note that English translations are exactly that - translations - and much collective wisdom is applied to this cause. We choose our words appropriately, and sometimes use phrases to emphasize the full meaning. I presume the words 'eternal punishment' were chosen on purpose to convey a very particular meaning, and with full knowledge of what they meant in English. Universalism has to assume quite a lot has been mistranslated, (and I still don't know how the decisions of the demons fit into the picture if God's love will eventually win over all.) Here's one more from Luke 16:26 - "And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us."
I have no background in ancient languages, but arguments about Greek to English word equivalents I think tend to miss the forest. To quote someone as saying, "...in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment," ignores the words Jesus used all around that word, and his many teachings on the subject. I can pull apart any sentence and all and change the entire meaning if I just look askance at each word one at a time - a far too common mistake, I think. And designating these authors as 'conservative' or 'relatively conservative' doesn't change that.
To put it more succinctly, why does Philo's use of a phrase have any bearing at all on what Christ meant by it? I might as well say that no one ever talked about God as Father, so that's surely not what Christ could have really meant.
Finally, I'd note that English translations are exactly that - translations - and much collective wisdom is applied to this cause. We choose our words appropriately, and sometimes use phrases to emphasize the full meaning. I presume the words 'eternal punishment' were chosen on purpose to convey a very particular meaning, and with full knowledge of what they meant in English. Universalism has to assume quite a lot has been mistranslated, (and I still don't know how the decisions of the demons fit into the picture if God's love will eventually win over all.) Here's one more from Luke 16:26 - "And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us."
3.26.2013 | 10:08pm
Tom says:
Thank you for your response JDD.
Yes, I believe that Jesus could have used these words (æonian kolasin) in Matthew 25:46 the same way Philo did, to denote age-long (i.e. temporary) purifying punishment. This understanding would certainly harmonize better with the universalistic verses I cited above. Also, the link in my last post argues that Josephus used these words the same way that Philo did.
As for the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16), here is a Christian Universalist interpretation … http://www.mercifultruth.com/lazarus.html ... for anybody who may be interested. This alternative interpretation coherently and convincingly (in my opinion) explains the meaning of all of these details …
1. The rich man’s identity
2. Why Abraham is central to this account
3. Why Abraham is addressed as “Father”
4. Purple
5. Linen
6. Dogs
7. Sores
8. Crumbs
9. The (singular) flame
10. Torment
11. The chasm
12. Why the rich man had 5 brothers, and not 3 or 4 or 6
13. Resurrection
Yes, I believe that Jesus could have used these words (æonian kolasin) in Matthew 25:46 the same way Philo did, to denote age-long (i.e. temporary) purifying punishment. This understanding would certainly harmonize better with the universalistic verses I cited above. Also, the link in my last post argues that Josephus used these words the same way that Philo did.
As for the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16), here is a Christian Universalist interpretation … http://www.mercifultruth.com/lazarus.html ... for anybody who may be interested. This alternative interpretation coherently and convincingly (in my opinion) explains the meaning of all of these details …
1. The rich man’s identity
2. Why Abraham is central to this account
3. Why Abraham is addressed as “Father”
4. Purple
5. Linen
6. Dogs
7. Sores
8. Crumbs
9. The (singular) flame
10. Torment
11. The chasm
12. Why the rich man had 5 brothers, and not 3 or 4 or 6
13. Resurrection
3.27.2013 | 11:56am
JDD says:
Tom,
The article at your link is well presented, but seems to practice the troubling pattern I mentioned earlier; focusing so intently on one word or another, (or on a missing word,) to the detriment of interpretation.
In the second paragraph, "If this story is literal, then the logical implication is that all the rich are destined to burn in hell, while all the homeless and destitute will be saved. Does anyone believe this to be the case?" Later on, the writer argues that the rich man is 'buried', but Lazarus is not, therefore the story can't possibly be literal because that's a contradiction? What type of reasoning is this?
Further, the teaching about the afterlife in this parable doesn't hinge on whether the story is a literal snapshot or not - that entire need for clarification seems to be assumed by the author, and an awful lot of energy is devoted to that discussion.
When the article gets to the 'great gulf', there seems to be a fundamental disconnect from the purpose of the essay. The gulf is linked to disbelief of the Jews - all well and good. But no explanation of how, "those who want to pass ...cannot..." Universalism appears to hinge on discarding that "cannot."
And still no mention of the demons.
Read just a bit more into William Barclay. Uses his own translation of the Scriptures, and denies the Trinity? Is this what you meant by "relatively conservative"?
Let me ask one final question: Why this: "If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts," [Heb 3:15, Ps 95] if it doesn't really matter and your heart will be eventually melted anyway?
The article at your link is well presented, but seems to practice the troubling pattern I mentioned earlier; focusing so intently on one word or another, (or on a missing word,) to the detriment of interpretation.
In the second paragraph, "If this story is literal, then the logical implication is that all the rich are destined to burn in hell, while all the homeless and destitute will be saved. Does anyone believe this to be the case?" Later on, the writer argues that the rich man is 'buried', but Lazarus is not, therefore the story can't possibly be literal because that's a contradiction? What type of reasoning is this?
Further, the teaching about the afterlife in this parable doesn't hinge on whether the story is a literal snapshot or not - that entire need for clarification seems to be assumed by the author, and an awful lot of energy is devoted to that discussion.
When the article gets to the 'great gulf', there seems to be a fundamental disconnect from the purpose of the essay. The gulf is linked to disbelief of the Jews - all well and good. But no explanation of how, "those who want to pass ...cannot..." Universalism appears to hinge on discarding that "cannot."
And still no mention of the demons.
Read just a bit more into William Barclay. Uses his own translation of the Scriptures, and denies the Trinity? Is this what you meant by "relatively conservative"?
Let me ask one final question: Why this: "If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts," [Heb 3:15, Ps 95] if it doesn't really matter and your heart will be eventually melted anyway?
3.28.2013 | 10:36pm
Manny says:
@JDD, you said:
"We both believe that God has infinite love, but I would point out that you acknowledge here that there is a certain time after which the demons made a decision regarding that love. They did not have 'infinite time' to be persuaded by God. We believe the same is true with us."
My point is that they can turn back to God's love at some point in the future. Eternity has not run out of time, and I believe God's plan is an absorbing back of all. The fact that they changed suggests the nature of the after life is not a static one.
The term "destruction" does not preclude reconstitution. Given we don't have full revelation of the after life, it's possible that once we get there we will have an "ah-ha" moment where we realize the full meaning.
The term "eternal punishment" is impossible to parse. So yes that and a few other places in the bible you will have reference to eternal damnation. Those are what I refer to as datum in support of your position. As Tom points out, and as purgatory suggests, and as the demons's change imply, there are datum where the after life continues to be a process, and therefore possibly contain universal salvation.
"We both believe that God has infinite love, but I would point out that you acknowledge here that there is a certain time after which the demons made a decision regarding that love. They did not have 'infinite time' to be persuaded by God. We believe the same is true with us."
My point is that they can turn back to God's love at some point in the future. Eternity has not run out of time, and I believe God's plan is an absorbing back of all. The fact that they changed suggests the nature of the after life is not a static one.
The term "destruction" does not preclude reconstitution. Given we don't have full revelation of the after life, it's possible that once we get there we will have an "ah-ha" moment where we realize the full meaning.
The term "eternal punishment" is impossible to parse. So yes that and a few other places in the bible you will have reference to eternal damnation. Those are what I refer to as datum in support of your position. As Tom points out, and as purgatory suggests, and as the demons's change imply, there are datum where the after life continues to be a process, and therefore possibly contain universal salvation.
3.31.2013 | 8:01pm
Tom says:
JDD,
I appreciate your taking the time to read the article. Here are my responses to most of your questions …
Paragraph 2 (of your last post) – Regarding the article’s possibly faulty reasoning … If you’re referring to “If this story is literal, then we have a contradiction in the Bible,” I believe this refers to the few sentences following, rather than to the few sentences preceding. If this isn’t what you were referring to, or you still feel that there’s a logic problem, please provide the exact quote.
Paragraph 4 – Christian Universalists believe that all of the Hell passages either (a) don't specify a time period or (b) use a word ("aionion") that sounds like, and means, of an "eon," a finite period of time. ("Aionion" may also mean ”of the ages” or "divine" (John 17:3).) LatRM falls into the first category. We’re not told in this passage how long the Rich Man will not be able to cross the great gulf.
And, if the article is correct, LatRM isn’t a Hell passage at all. Rather, Christ, in LatRM, uses the Pharisees’ beliefs about Hell as a metaphor for the Jews having to experience Deut. 28 on earth down through the A.D. centuries, and being blinded by God to the truth. Fortunately, Romans 11 reveals that this persecution and blinding won’t last forever.
Paragraph 5 –See Manny’s comments.
Paragraph 6 – You’re right. I retract “Relatively conservative.”
Paragraph 7 – (a) Because it’s better to get any good thing sooner rather than later. Here we are talking about the new birth, spiritual and emotional healing, agape love, joy, hope, peace, purpose, and abundant life. (b) Because the quality of our heavenly life will probably depend in part on the quality of our earthly life. (c) Because the Lake of Fire, though finite in duration, is worth avoiding at all costs.
I appreciate your taking the time to read the article. Here are my responses to most of your questions …
Paragraph 2 (of your last post) – Regarding the article’s possibly faulty reasoning … If you’re referring to “If this story is literal, then we have a contradiction in the Bible,” I believe this refers to the few sentences following, rather than to the few sentences preceding. If this isn’t what you were referring to, or you still feel that there’s a logic problem, please provide the exact quote.
Paragraph 4 – Christian Universalists believe that all of the Hell passages either (a) don't specify a time period or (b) use a word ("aionion") that sounds like, and means, of an "eon," a finite period of time. ("Aionion" may also mean ”of the ages” or "divine" (John 17:3).) LatRM falls into the first category. We’re not told in this passage how long the Rich Man will not be able to cross the great gulf.
And, if the article is correct, LatRM isn’t a Hell passage at all. Rather, Christ, in LatRM, uses the Pharisees’ beliefs about Hell as a metaphor for the Jews having to experience Deut. 28 on earth down through the A.D. centuries, and being blinded by God to the truth. Fortunately, Romans 11 reveals that this persecution and blinding won’t last forever.
Paragraph 5 –See Manny’s comments.
Paragraph 6 – You’re right. I retract “Relatively conservative.”
Paragraph 7 – (a) Because it’s better to get any good thing sooner rather than later. Here we are talking about the new birth, spiritual and emotional healing, agape love, joy, hope, peace, purpose, and abundant life. (b) Because the quality of our heavenly life will probably depend in part on the quality of our earthly life. (c) Because the Lake of Fire, though finite in duration, is worth avoiding at all costs.
4.1.2013 | 12:02pm
JDD says:
[Manny] "My point is that they can turn back to God's love at some point in the future."
Just a difference in our beliefs, then. The Catholic position is that the demons have been given full knowledge of God and have made a decision of how they want to spend eternity. They don't eternally have that open option.
[Manny] "...it's possible that once we get there we will have an "ah-ha" moment where we realize the full meaning."
This is at least analogous to the Catholic understanding of the moment of our death. We will indeed see him face to face, and will see ourselves clearly as well. But this is a different question than the question of how many then choose God as their all. In my March 14th post I mentioned a bit about how I am forming my own final choice by my choices right now, and I sense my own rebellion right now. And yet God is present to me right now. To me this is a counterpoint to the idea that no-one will - or can - really resist God's love, which seems to be the implicit foundation of Universalism.
[Manny] "...Those are what I refer to as datum in support of your position. As Tom points out, and as purgatory suggests, ...there are datum where the after life continues to be a process,...."
Manny, I appreciate your candor. The Catholic teaching of purgatory is that it is not a final decision point; it's simply the purifying result of one's decision for God. Souls that don't want God don't go there. Also, I think that your statement about datums brings up an important point, which is that the Scriptures need an authoritative interpreter.
For more on eternal life, I highly recommend this link:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm
Just a difference in our beliefs, then. The Catholic position is that the demons have been given full knowledge of God and have made a decision of how they want to spend eternity. They don't eternally have that open option.
[Manny] "...it's possible that once we get there we will have an "ah-ha" moment where we realize the full meaning."
This is at least analogous to the Catholic understanding of the moment of our death. We will indeed see him face to face, and will see ourselves clearly as well. But this is a different question than the question of how many then choose God as their all. In my March 14th post I mentioned a bit about how I am forming my own final choice by my choices right now, and I sense my own rebellion right now. And yet God is present to me right now. To me this is a counterpoint to the idea that no-one will - or can - really resist God's love, which seems to be the implicit foundation of Universalism.
[Manny] "...Those are what I refer to as datum in support of your position. As Tom points out, and as purgatory suggests, ...there are datum where the after life continues to be a process,...."
Manny, I appreciate your candor. The Catholic teaching of purgatory is that it is not a final decision point; it's simply the purifying result of one's decision for God. Souls that don't want God don't go there. Also, I think that your statement about datums brings up an important point, which is that the Scriptures need an authoritative interpreter.
For more on eternal life, I highly recommend this link:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm
4.1.2013 | 5:03pm
JDD says:
[Tom] "Christian Universalists believe that all of the Hell passages either (a) don't specify a time period ... LatRM falls into the first category. We’re not told in this passage how long the Rich Man will not be able to cross the great gulf."
We're told the gulf 'cannot' be crossed. It seems to me that the default position would be that a length of time isn't specified because a length of time isn't required.
[Tom] "Because it’s better to get any good thing sooner rather than later. Here we are talking about the new birth, spiritual and emotional healing, agape love, joy, hope, peace, purpose, and abundant life. (b) Because the quality of our heavenly life will probably depend in part on the quality of our earthly life. (c) Because the Lake of Fire, though finite in duration, is worth avoiding at all costs.
I get that. But Christ doesn't seem to be teaching that we're just talking about degrees of happiness and satisfaction alone. Instead He, (and the Old Testament and Epistles) talks about the urgency of the repentance. There seems to be an overall urgency of the gospel and of Jesus's mission. He moved on to another town when he was rejected by one. He didn't linger in one place, even when they were still bringing him the sick and the possessed. He spoke about the ten virgins and the fate of the five whose oil had run out. He taught that, for the unresponsive, (given the gift of faith and the means to respond,) "...even what they have will be taken from them." [Matt 25:29]
We're told the gulf 'cannot' be crossed. It seems to me that the default position would be that a length of time isn't specified because a length of time isn't required.
[Tom] "Because it’s better to get any good thing sooner rather than later. Here we are talking about the new birth, spiritual and emotional healing, agape love, joy, hope, peace, purpose, and abundant life. (b) Because the quality of our heavenly life will probably depend in part on the quality of our earthly life. (c) Because the Lake of Fire, though finite in duration, is worth avoiding at all costs.
I get that. But Christ doesn't seem to be teaching that we're just talking about degrees of happiness and satisfaction alone. Instead He, (and the Old Testament and Epistles) talks about the urgency of the repentance. There seems to be an overall urgency of the gospel and of Jesus's mission. He moved on to another town when he was rejected by one. He didn't linger in one place, even when they were still bringing him the sick and the possessed. He spoke about the ten virgins and the fate of the five whose oil had run out. He taught that, for the unresponsive, (given the gift of faith and the means to respond,) "...even what they have will be taken from them." [Matt 25:29]
4.7.2013 | 8:37pm
Tom says:
JDD,
Here is how I see it …
If the article’s (http://www.mercifultruth.com/lazarus.html) interpretation of LatRM is true, as I believe, then the punishment ends when all Israel is saved (Rom. 11:26).
If the article’s interpretation of LatRM is false, and LatRM really is describing punishment in the afterlife, then its finite duration is implied by the verses I quoted above, namely Psalm 145:10a, Lam. 3:22,31, Isa. 45:23, 57:16, John 12:32, Rom. 5:18-20, 11:32,36a, I Cor. 15:22,28 & Rev. 15:4. (Also see Gen. 12:3, I Chron. 16:34, Psalm 22:27, 30:5, 65:2-3, 66:3-4, 107:1, 136, Isa. 25:6-8, 53:10-11, Ezek. 16:53,55, Luke 3:38, John 1:29, Acts 3:21, Rom. 3:3-4,24, Eph. 1:9-11, 3:6, I Tim. 2:3-6, 4:9-11, Titus 2:11, Heb. 2:9, 7:25, James 1:18, I Pet. 4:6, I John 2:2, 4:8,14,16, Rev. 1:17-18, 5:13, 21:5, 22:3,17 http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/Hope-for-All.html)
It is true that the 5 foolish virgins (and most real people) will not inherit the Kingdom of God. However, praise be to God, this is not the end of the story (http://www.mercifultruth.com/links-chosenkingdom.html).
Here is how I see it …
If the article’s (http://www.mercifultruth.com/lazarus.html) interpretation of LatRM is true, as I believe, then the punishment ends when all Israel is saved (Rom. 11:26).
If the article’s interpretation of LatRM is false, and LatRM really is describing punishment in the afterlife, then its finite duration is implied by the verses I quoted above, namely Psalm 145:10a, Lam. 3:22,31, Isa. 45:23, 57:16, John 12:32, Rom. 5:18-20, 11:32,36a, I Cor. 15:22,28 & Rev. 15:4. (Also see Gen. 12:3, I Chron. 16:34, Psalm 22:27, 30:5, 65:2-3, 66:3-4, 107:1, 136, Isa. 25:6-8, 53:10-11, Ezek. 16:53,55, Luke 3:38, John 1:29, Acts 3:21, Rom. 3:3-4,24, Eph. 1:9-11, 3:6, I Tim. 2:3-6, 4:9-11, Titus 2:11, Heb. 2:9, 7:25, James 1:18, I Pet. 4:6, I John 2:2, 4:8,14,16, Rev. 1:17-18, 5:13, 21:5, 22:3,17 http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/Hope-for-All.html)
It is true that the 5 foolish virgins (and most real people) will not inherit the Kingdom of God. However, praise be to God, this is not the end of the story (http://www.mercifultruth.com/links-chosenkingdom.html).
Hitler in heaven? (And why, oh why, does the example ALWAYS have to be Hitler?) No, of course not. Because if his spirit ever got there, he would have been purified of all that we know as "Hitler." That identity would no longer exist, just as a great deal of our own present identities will no longer exist because they are mortal and perishable.
It's fascinating to understand, though, that Hitler and his buddies had no doubt whatsoever that they were on the side of the angels. God was whispering in Hitler's ear, advising him of the cunning steps he would have to take to defeat the diabolical Jews and Bolsheviks. Figures such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh were in lock step with him on those issues, even if they would have balked at genocide. When Ford and Lindbergh met, they spoke of little else than the international Zionist conspiracy. Anne Morrow Lindbergh wrote an interesting little book in 1940 called "The Wave of the Future," in which she argued that it was folly to oppose the obviously superior new civilization that was being built by the fascists.
Hitler in heaven? Many people we admire today apparently had no problem with the idea. As for Dante, he sometimes had popes in hell in his poetry, but I don't believe that was necessarily a permanent condition. As I pointed out, "All things are possible with God."