christiandeconstructionist-blog - Tumblr blog

christiandeconstructionist-blog · 8 years ago

Text

That Guy Was a Universalist?

From time to time I will be posting the thoughts of well-known Christian thinkers who were universalists or who leaned universalist. First up, William Barclay, former professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at Glasgow University and the author of many Biblical commentaries and books, including a translation of the New Testament, "Barclay New Testament," and "The Daily Study Bible Series.”

Here he is on the matter: I am a convinced universalist. I believe that in the end all men will be gathered into the love of God. In the early days Origen was the great name connected with universalism. I would believe with Origen that universalism is no easy thing. Origen believed that after death there were many who would need prolonged instruction, the sternest discipline, even the severest punishment before they were fit for the presence of God. Origen did not eliminate hell; he believed that some people would have to go to heaven via hell. He believed that even at the end of the day there would be some on whom the scars remained. He did not believe in eternal punishment, but he did see the possibility of eternal penalty. And so the choice is whether we accept God's offer and invitation willingly, or take the long and terrible way round through ages of purification.

Gregory of Nyssa offered three reasons why he believed in universalism. First, he believed in it because of the character of God. "Being good, God entertains pity for fallen man; being wise, he is not ignorant of the means for his recovery." Second, he believed in it because of the nature of evil. Evil must in the end be moved out of existence, "so that the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all." Evil is essentially negative and doomed to non-existence. Third, he believed in it because of the purpose of punishment. The purpose of punishment is always remedial. Its aim is "to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness." Punishment will hurt, but it is like the fire which separates the alloy from the gold; it is like the surgery which removes the diseased thing; it is like the cautery which burns out that which cannot be removed any other way.

But I want to set down not the arguments of others but the thoughts which have persuaded me personally of universal salvation.

First, there is the fact that there are things in the New Testament which more than justify this belief. Jesus said: "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself" (John 12:32). Paul writes to the Romans: "God has consigned all men to disobedience that he may have mercy on all" (Rom. 11:32). He writes to the Corinthians: "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22); and he looks to the final total triumph when God will be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 15:28). In the First Letter to Timothy we read of God "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," and of Christ Jesus "who gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:4-6). The New Testament itself is not in the least afraid of the word all.

Second, one of the key passages is Matthew 25:46 where it is said that the rejected go away to eternal punishment, and the righteous to eternal life. The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment. The word for eternal is aionios. It means more than everlasting, for Plato - who may have invented the word - plainly says that a thing may be everlasting and still not be aionios. The simplest way to out it is that aionios cannot be used properly of anyone but God; it is the word uniquely, as Plato saw it, of God. Eternal punishment is then literally that kind of remedial punishment which it befits God to give and which only God can give.

Third, I believe that it is impossible to set limits to the grace of God. I believe that not only in this world, but in any other world there may be, the grace of God is still effective, still operative, still at work. I do not believe that the operation of the grace of God is limited to this world. I believe that the grace of God is as wide as the universe.

Fourth, I believe implicitly in the ultimate and complete triumph of God, the time when all things will be subject to him, and when God will be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 15:24-28). For me this has certain consequences. If one man remains outside the love of God at the end of time, it means that that one man has defeated the love of God - and that is impossible. Further, there is only one way in which we can think of the triumph of God. If God was no more than a King or Judge, then it would be possible to speak of his triumph, if his enemies were agonizing in hell or were totally and completely obliterated and wiped out. But God is not only King and Judge, God is Father - he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family for ever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. The only victory love can enjoy is the day when its offer of love is answered by the return of love. The only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God.

1 note · View note

christiandeconstructionist-blog · 8 years ago

Quote

Hell is to be contemplated strictly as a matter which concerns me alone. As part of the spiritual life it belongs behind the ‘closed door’ of my own room. From the standpoint of living faith, I cannot fundamentally believe in anyone’s damnation but my own; as far as my neighbor is concerned, the light of resurrection can never be so obscured that I would be allowed or obliged to stop hoping for him.”

Hans Urs von Balthasar

1 note · View note

christiandeconstructionist-blog · 8 years ago

Text

7 Myths About Christian Universalism

After reading through all of the comments on my post last night it dawned on me that most of the people disagreeing with me were under some pretty big misconceptions about what Christian Universalism is and what it isn’t. I understand part of the confusion because most peoples’ only experience with Universalism has been Unitarian Universalism, which is basically a combination of pluralism and relativism, and not something that we actually subscribe to. The way you can understand the distinction between the two is that Unitarian Universalists believe all roads and all religions lead to heaven. Christian Universalists believe that Jesus’ death and resurrection will accomplish all that it set out to do by reconciling the entire world to himself. As prominent Universalist thinker, Robin Parry, points out: “Most of us are orthodox, Trinitarian, Jesus-centered, gospel-focused, scripture-affirming, missional Christians. What makes us Universalists is that we believe that God loves all people, wants to save all people, sent Christ to redeem all people, and will achieve that goal. In a nutshell, Christian Universalism is the view that, in the end, God will redeem all people through Christ. Christian Universalists believe that the destiny of humanity is 'written' in the body of the risen Jesus and, as such, the story of humanity will not end with a tomb.”

What I have compiled below is Parry’s direct answers to the common myths about Universalism—condensed slightly to more specifically address my readers’ concerns. I share because his view are my views. My own remarks are in italics to help distinguish between the two.

Myth #1 Universalists Don't Believe in Hell

Historically all Christian Universalists have had a doctrine of hell and that remains the case for most Christian Universalists today. The Christian debate does not concern whether hell will be a reality but, rather, what the nature of that reality will be. Will it be eternal conscious torment? Will it be annihilation? Or will it be a state from which people can be redeemed? Most Universalists believe that hell is not simply retributive punishment but a painful yet corrective/educative state from which people will eventually exit (some, myself included, think it has a retributive dimension, while others do not).

So it is not hell that Universalists deny so much as certain views about hell.

Myth # 2 Universalists Don't Believe the Bible

Historically, Christian Universalists have been Bible-affirming believers and that remains the case for many, perhaps the majority, today. The question is not 'Which group believes the Bible?' but, 'How do we interpret the Bible?'

The root issue is this: there are some biblical texts that seem to affirm Universalism (e.g., Romans 5:18; 1 Corinthians 15:22; Colossians 1:20; Philippians 2:11) but there are others that seem to deny it (e.g., Matthew 25:45; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; Revelations 14:11; 20:10-15).

At the heart of the biblical debate is how we hold these two threads together. Do we start with the hell passages and reread the Universalist texts in the light of them? That is the traditional route. Or, do we start with Universalist passages and reinterpret the hell texts in the light of them? That is what many Universalists do.

Or do we try to hold both sets of biblical teachings in some kind of tension (and there are various proposals for how we might do that - some leaning towards traditionalism, others leaning towards Universalism)?

There is also the question of wider biblical-theological themes and their relevance. For instance, biblical teaching on God's love, justice, punishment, the cross-resurrection, covenant, etc. How might reflection on those matters influence our theology of hell?

This is not just about finding 'proof texts' to whip your opponent with (both sides are capable of that) but about making best sense of the Bible as a whole. And when we follow the big plot line of the scriptures, which ending to the story has the best 'fit'? Universalists believe that the ending in which God redeems his whole creation makes the most sense of the biblical meta-narrative. Traditionalists disagree.

Myth # 3: Universalists Don't Think Sin is Very Bad

Universalists 'obviously' think that sin isn't something to get too worked up about - after all they believe that God's job is to forgive people, right?

Once again we are in the realm of mythology. Propose a view on the seriousness of sin as strong as you wish and you'll find Universalists who would affirm it. Does sin affect every aspect of human life? Is it an utter horror that degrades our humanity and warrants divine wrath? Does it deserve eternal punishment?

Universalists could affirm all of these things so long as they believed that God's love, power, grace, and mercy are bigger and stronger than sin. Universalists do not have a low view of sin, they have a high view of grace: 'Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.'

Myth #4: Universalists Believe in God's Love but Forget His Justice & Wrath

Christian Universalists have a lot to say about God's holiness, justice, and even his wrath. Typically they think that God's divine nature cannot be divided up into conflicting parts in such a way that some of God's actions are loving (e.g., saving sinners) while others are just and full of anger (e.g., hell).

They see all of God's actions as motivated by 'holy love'. Everything God does is holy, completely just, and completely loving.

So whatever hell is about it must be compatible not simply with divine justice but also with divine love. Which means that it must, in some way, have the good of those in hell as part of its rationale.

Myth #5: Universalists Think That All Roads Lead to God

Again, many have confused Christian Universalism (the view that God will one day save all people through Christ) with pluralism (the view that there are many paths to God and that Jesus is simply one of them). But Christian Universalists deny pluralism. They insist that salvation is found only through the atoning work of Christ. Without Jesus nobody would be redeemed.

There is some disagreement between Christians about whether one needs to have explicit faith in Jesus to share in the salvation he has bought. Some Christians, called exclusivists, think that only those who put their trust in the gospel can be saved. Others, called inclusivists, think that it is possible to be saved through Christ even without explicit faith in him.

Kevin’s note: There are also inclusivists who deny Universalism (e.g., C.S. Lewis) and exclusivists who affirm Universalism (e.g., Robin Parry would likely be in this camp).

Myth #6: Universalism Undermines Evangelism

Must Universalism undermine evangelism? Not at all. There are many reasons to engage in mission and evangelism, not least that Christ commands it. And it is a huge privilege to join with God in his mission of reconciling the world to himself. The gospel message in God's 'foolish' way of setting the world right so, of course, Universalists will want to proclaim it.

Fear of hell is not the only motivation for mission. And, what is more, the majority of Universalists do fear hell. While they may not view it as 'the end of the road', they still consider it to be a dreadful state to be avoided.

And historically Universalists have not run from mission. Here are the words of an eighteenth century Baptist Universalist, Elhanan Winchester, who was himself an evangelist: 'There is no business or labor to which men are called, so important, so arduous, so difficult, and that requires such wisdom to perform it [as that of the soul-winner]. The amazing worth of winning souls, makes the labor so exceeding important, and of such infinite concern' (sermon on the death of John Wesley, 1791).

Myth #7: Universalism Undermines Holy Living

During 17th, 18th and 19th centuries many Christians were especially worried that if the fear of hell was reduced people would have little to constrain their sinful behavior. Thus Universalism, they feared, would fuel sin.

But the fear of punishment is not the only motive for avoiding sin and, even if it were, Universalism does, as has already been mentioned, have space for some such fear. But far more important for holy living - indeed the only motive for heartfelt holy living - is the positive motivation inspired by love for God.

Who, after all, would reason, 'I know that God created me, seeks to do me good, sent his Son to die for me, and that he will always love me...so I must hate him!'? On the contrary, the revelation of divine love solicits our loving response (1 John 4:19).

Clearly there is an important debate to be had but if we desire more light and less heat we need to start by getting a clearer understanding of the view under discussion.

For further reading, I highly recommend Parry’s book: The Evangelical Universalist, which was originally written under the pseudonym Gregory MacDonald.

3 notes · View notes

christiandeconstructionist-blog · 8 years ago

Text

9 Problems with the Doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment

1. It makes God out to be worse than ISIS. Anyone who saw that internet video a while ago of ISIS setting fire to a man in a cage was understandably repulsed and horrified. Yet somehow many Christians continue to believe that God will do basically the same thing to that Buddhist barista they get their coffee from every morning. Only it won’t be over in a day. Or a thousand years. Or two thousand years. Or a million years. Or a trillion years. Or three trillion years. Yes, if you believe in eternal conscious torment, you have to believe that that sweet girl behind the counter who attends services at the Buddhist temple each week is currently on her way to a flame cage worse than the one ISIS came up with. And she isn’t getting out.

2. It makes life pointless. If eternal conscious torment is real and you think something you could share with someone could prevent them from going there, then why are you ever watching Netflix? Or BBQing? Or going to work? Or saving for retirement? Or feeding your dog? Or arguing with someone like me on Facebook? Seriously, get up off your ass, go outside with a megaphone right now and start screaming at everybody. If eternal conscious torment is real and you aren’t devoting at least 20-30 hours a week to warning people about it, then you just aren’t doing it right. Everything else is pointless compared to it.

3. It makes life pointless #2. If eternal conscious torment is real and you DON’T think there is anything you could share with someone that could prevent them from going there, then you are probably a Calvinist who believes in predestination. At this point you have another pointless option. You could join the Westboro Baptist Church (who are intellectually consistent Calvinists) and get on the bandwagon of hate. Because, let’s be honest, if God created hell and decided who would go there before anyone was born, he hates them. And you have to admit there’s a certain logic to agreeing with God about this and then telling others about his hate. If God hates people and you agree with him, you are probably safer than someone like me who keeps telling people that he loves them. At least one of us is agreeing with God. But this too is pointless.

4. It makes you a bad parent. And not because you are telling your kids that God is the type of God who would eternally torment people forever. No, you are a bad parent because you rolled the dice and actually had kids. You had no idea what those kids were gonna do. They might end up talking to their Buddhist barista who convinces them to go to Buddhist church. And then they get “Buddhist saved” and now God has to torment them for more than 200 years in hell (I used 200 years because it’s easier to wrap one’s head around than, say, a billion X a billion). I meet a lot of people who say things like, “I’m worried about bringing kids into this world.” If eternal conscious torment is real, you should be.

5. It makes church really awkward. The stage, the lights, the pastor cracking jokes, the donuts, the coffee, the children’s ministry with the slick programming, the promotional videos set to modern secular pop songs, the cheesy parody video your church did to Bruno Mars’ Uptown Funk two years ago before the Super Bowl, your potluck casserole that you just can’t wait to try out on Sunday. Cause while all that is going on, every seven seconds someone is dying apart from Christ, and that person’s fate is being sealed for all eternity. But you’re too busy chuckling at Good Times Gary’s sermon illustration to notice. Awkward.

6. It makes for a really awkward sales pitch. “Jesus loves you, but if you don’t love him back he will consciously torment you for all of eternity. Wanna come to church with me on Sunday?” So awkward.

7. It puts your message above the apostles’ message in the book of Acts. Funny thing about Acts (which is a book all about the guys who lived around or during the time of Jesus preaching sermons and spreading the gospel), there’s not a single mention of hell in the entire book. You were told that the good news was that if you believed the right intellectual stuff about God then you could avoid hell and go to heaven when you die. But apparently no one thought to tell Peter, Paul, or Steven this. Cause they don’t bring up hell in their sermons at all. Not once. Not even for shock value. What are these guys missing, right? Stop clownin around, apostles. We’ve got work to do!

8. It does nothing to answer two of the biggest objections to Christianity: The Problem of Evil and The Problem of Pain. Why does an all-powerful, all-good God allow suffering and evil to exist? The only view that can even come close to adequately answering these questions is some form of universalism where every hurt, scar, trial, grievance, broken relationship, act of unkindness, painful moment, or apparent tragedy ultimately gets sorted out and redeemed in the end. In that scenario, it’s actually possible for there to be some resolution to this whole thing—and maybe even an ending that surpasses the beauty of the beginning. If hell is eternal, most people live lives of quiet desperation, die, then enter an ongoing period of torment that will. just. never. end. Evil is never eradicated from the cosmos. Sin and death are never destroyed, but instead endlessly perpetuated. And Christ is not ultimately successful in his rescue mission. So, why does an all-powerful, all-good God allow so much pain and suffering? Ball’s in your court, traditionalists.

9. It isn’t in line with the heart of Jesus. You ever meet or read about one of those Christians who is tortured in prison for Christ? I’ve read quite a few of these accounts over the years and the one thing I never see one of these guys saying is, “I hope my tormentors get what’s coming to them in the end!” No, without fail, almost everyone I’ve ever encountered who has suffered at the hands of another human being for the sake of Christ wants nothing more than their captors to be reconciled to Jesus. This Jesus-like spirit that lives in their hearts is beautiful beyond words, and I wonder if I could ever see the world in such a way as them were I ever to be in their shoes. But if the closer you get to Jesus the less you want to see people in hell, doesn’t that mean that Jesus doesn’t want to send people there either? Aren’t his eyes and his heart and his wishes being imparted to these suffering saints? I think we have to say so. If the closer someone got to Jesus the more callous they looked towards the lost then I think we might have reason to conclude that Jesus is callous towards the lost as well. But it’s never that way. The God on the cross who prays, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” is not a God who delights in the death of the wicked or who invents ways to endlessly torment others.

1 note · View note

christiandeconstructionist-blog · 8 years ago

Text

God is Love. Period.

“God is love, but...”

No. Stop. Don't say it. Don't think it. Just sit with this deepest of all truths, the eternal truth that God is love. Sit with it and let it sink in until there's nothing more to be said.

- Brian Zahnd

One of the most common objections I hear to the idea of Universal Reconciliation goes something like this, “Yes, Kevin, God is loving, but he’s also just.” Or, “Yes, I agree that God is merciful, but he’s also wrathful.”

In the modern evangelical mind, each of God’s attributes are weighted equally and are often pited against eachother. A problem that stems from a failure to distinguish a difference between God’s essential essence and God’s other attributes.

His love is at war with his justice, his mercy at war with his anger, his sovereignty is at war with his desire to give humans real choices, etc. It’s as if God can’t make up his mind and is constantly in conflict with his own desires.

Different theological paradigms have tried to deal with this issue in different ways. Calvinists invented something called Limited Atonement to explain how God could be both just and loving simultaneously. This is the idea that when Jesus went to the cross, he did not atone for the sins of the whole world, but only for the sins of the elect. So in this way God gets to be loving (to the elect) and just (to the unelect) simultaneously.

God is no longer at war with himself because different groups of people allow him to display his different attributes at the same time.

Here is John Calvin himself on the matter:

God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation.

Of course, of all the things Calvinists believe, this has always been their weakest position, and Arminians are right to point them back to the pages of the Bible where it is far more frequently implied that “God so loved the world…” than it is that “God so loved the elect…”

This is also why Reformed churches are practically swarming with people who, when asked what they think about the five points of Calvinism, will say something like, “I’m a strong four pointer.” Or, “I’m a four and a half pointer.” There’s just something about Limited Atonement that rubs even a lot of Calvinists the wrong way.

The Arminians have tackled this issue a little differently. And Arminians, for you non theology nerds, are really just a group that rejects Calvinist notions of predestination, and instead emphasize human free will. They are named after Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian who lived in the 1500’s, in the same way that Calvinists are named after John Calvin (who was a super laid back dude and totally never tried to kill anyone for disagreeing with him).

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

The adherents of both schools of thought comprise the two biggest camps found in Protestantism today.

Anyway, Arminians attempt to solve the problem by saying that God is loving towards everyone and wants them all to be saved, but if you don’t allow him to be loving then he goes all justice on you and sends you to hell forever.

In the Arminian view, it’s your choice that sends you to hell, not God’s choice. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but basically, God wants to love and save everyone but not everyone will allow him to do it. God’s default mode is love and mercy but he can always fall back on his justice and wrath if you can’t get your act together.

Of course, the Calvinists are right to point Arminians back to the overwhelming support in scripture for God seeking people out and choosing them. It really isn’t as simple as humans just making a free choice to seek God or not.

Over and over again, scripture points out that it is God who seeks and saves people. It is God who chooses a people for himself (i.e., Israel). It is even God who chooses individuals for himself. God practically imposes himself on guys like Abraham and Paul just to name a couple. And like the Godfather, he makes them an offer they can’t refuse.

So if Calvinists have good reason to believe that God can and will save whoever he chooses, and Arminians have reason to believe that God loves and wants to save everyone, what are we supposed to do with the those verses that seem to indicate on the surface of it that many people will spend eternity in hell? Good question and I hope to come back to this another time. For now, I’ll try to swing back to the original topic though: the essential essence of God verses the attributes of God. What those of us who believe in Universal Reconciliation want to say is that God’s essential essence is love. This is a unique idea in all of scripture. God is love. Love is the only attribute mentioned of God that is used in this way (1 John 4:8,16). Is God just? Yes, but he is not justice itself. Is God wrathful? Yes, but he is not wrath itself. Is God merciful? Yes, but he is not mercy itself. These other attributes are a part of God but they are only manifestations of God’s love. Even his wrath.

As theologian Greg Boyd points out, “It must, therefore, be asserted emphatically that God’s wrath is his reaction to injustice and defiance (see Rom 1:18), and not a divine affect, not one of God’s dark sides, and certainly not a divine attribute [in the sense that love is]. If God’s very eternal essence is love, then to experience God is to experience perfect love. If some experience God as fierce wrath, therefore, it is not because there is something else in God alongside his love. Rather this is how their hard hearts experience God’s love.”

Maybe you agree with this to an extent but you still find yourself pushing back and wondering if perhaps something like God’s holiness or his sovereignty are better descriptors of his essential essence. Surely, if those take precedence over the love of God then something like eternal hell could possibly make more sense.

But think about what those other terms mean. The Hebrew word for holy, for instance, is “qodesh” and means “apartness, set-apartness, separateness, sacredness.” Yes, God is set apart but set apart from what? Well, he’s set apart from his creation. But is holiness a word that would have made sense to ascribe to God prior to him having a creation to relate to? Not exactly. Because before God created the world he had nothing to be set apart from.

What about sovereignty? Sovereignty has to do with control and governance. If someone is sovereign it means that that someone rules over something. But prior to God creating everything, sovereignty as we understand it is also a word that would have made little sense to ascribe to God. For nothing existed besides God’s self and there was nothing to be presided over.

Whatever God’s essential essence is had to be something that always needed to exist. And that is why we say that God’s essential essence is love. Because prior to the creation of the universe there existed just God in three persons and those three persons existed in a perfect relationship of love.

There was no need for the members of the trinity to be set apart from one another or to rule over one another or to be wrathful or merciful or just to one another. There was simply love.

Love birthed this universe into existence and this is why we can affirm that love will reconcile it. God’s essential essence of love manifests itself many different ways in response to a sin stained cosmos—often in ways that we can’t fully understand—but we should never think for even a second that whatever is behind all of this beauty and pain and struggle is anything but a personal being whose very essence is love, and whose eternal intentions toward us are loving.

And that is just one more reason why those of us who embrace Universal Reconciliation don’t think that God’s anger or wrath will ultimately edge out his love in a single remote corner of this universe. And why “Yes, God is loving but he’s also just” really isn’t an argument. God is love. Period.

1 note · View note