The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Eternal Conscious Toment - Morality Lost

Theology Philosophical
#1

** Edit - moved from Talbott’s corner to philosophical **

It seems puzzeling to us all, once we’ve crossed the bridge to Universalism, that people meddle with definitions such as love or goodness, in order to avoid the Universalism onslaught. So I’ve been trying to nail down these thoughts regarding human intuition and human responibility. Pondering these issues it dawned on me that the following might be true.

It seems that the argument Universalists make (such as Talbott) are all grounded upon a moral argument. However, when this issue is raised with non-universalists, morality becomes elusive and incoherent. The only retaliation is to say “The bible defines what good is and that is what we must simply trust” (such as limited atonement) - God torturing the objects of his love out of his own animotisy, without seeking their well being, is no longer twisted but moral.

However, it seems to me that this statement might be true:

If Christian theologians/philosophers argue against atheism, using morality as it’s proof, and they themselve argue that one cannot know what is good (or what is love) by human intuition then how can they render that anyone would be accountable to God? Seems LFW and Compatibilists (non universalist) would both suffer this point.

If the good God does is indistinguishable from the evil we see in the world then how does one know that Good (morality) exists?
In other words, Universalism might be the only Christian argument against atheism (using morality as it’s foundation). However, we would still be pressed on how God instructing to kill infants (cannanite massacre) can be construed as good.

As I understand the moral argument against atheism, it’s an attempt to reach beyond the scriptures and right into our own world. But ECT, seems to me, to force such people to take their definition right back into the scripture.

Hope I’m being clear.

#2

Auggy: In other words, Universalism might be the only Christian argument against atheism (using morality as its foundation).

Tom: Totally agree. Using your same thoughts, what do you think this implies about the ultimate reconciliation of Satan? Does God love him? Does God will his well-being and is that well-being achievable? In other words, if we save all sentient creatures with the exception of Satan and his demonic pals, then ECT does obtain for SOME sentient creatures, in which case the question is, Have we URers really gotten ourselves out from under the moral argument against God based on ECT?

Tom

#3

TGB,
I’ll comment on that but give some careful thought to any defects I might be unaware of. My main point is to say that it might be a powerful argument on Universalims behalf to utilize.

Satan being saved? Certainly, being one who actually endorses that Hell if forever in a meaninful sense, I actually believe that God himself is able to save whomever he pleases from that eternal hell. That is, God’s effectiveness of mercy (yes I’m treading irresistable grace here) is not dependent upon the dark heart of the creature. To say he is unsavable is to say God’s mercy is in-effective; God’s mercy simply does nothing to sever the darkness from the heart. But of course, I believe it does.

So do I believe God loves Satan? Well in a “talbott-ian” sense no. God hates the old man and loves the new man (his original creation). So whatever Satan was before his defection from God, I have no reason to believe God hated him, and EVERY reason to believe God loved him perfectly. But why should God give up on such creatures as finite as angels. I don’t believe he does. If it’s one thing Universalists have taught me, it’s to see deeper, into the meaning and heart of God.

#4

My thoughts lead me to believe that Universalists (or liberal theology) might be hated for this very reason by atheists. I read a book by an atheist named David Mills and over and over he stated how ridiculous liberal theology was. I realize now it’s because it’s somewhat elusive itself and that would leave even Universalism wanting.

What I mean is, suppose an atheist asks about the good of killing someone like Annanias and Saphira and the Universalist responds with something like “well it’s for their own good” or “well it’s for the good of mankind”. The atheist would then conclude that even the Universalist viewpoint leaves “good” as subjective. So perhaps it might be true that even Universalism might not be as equipped for a moral argument.

Of course God did not command anyone to kill A&S but did the bidding himself. But what to make of God killing people? And what about all the O.T.

If Universalism renders this in some positive way at all, then the moral argument may be simply too subjective at for any theology to use.

#5

Ok. Thinking out loud here.

It seems that since there are many exmaples we could use where the death of someone can be construed in a positive way and being that Universalism endorses the well being of all, then it seems that Universalism would hold it’s ground where ECT would fail.

#6

Thanks to my wife for being such a great sounding board:

Ok, in the Talbott and Peoples dialogue, Glenn appealed that he defined God’s character by what the bible revealed about God’s actions. Talbott clearly appeals to Love and Justice as being God’s character and therefore inteprets God’s actions accordingly.

The problem I’m stating here is that if Christians find this to be the case (and I think outside of Universalism it’s normally the case) then before the moral argument can be executed against an atheist, that Christian must ask the atheist if he agrees. If Morality is only objective according to scripture, then how can the atheist agree that morality exists? So the dillema seems to be;

  1. when arguing against Atheists morality is plain for all to see because by human intution we know what is good and evil.
  2. when arguing against Universliasts human intuition cannot be accessed in order to determine what is good and what is bad.

Just me rambling off an idea.

#7

Well, thanks for the compliment! :stuck_out_tongue:

#8

Auggy: So whatever Satan was before his defection from God, I have no reason to believe God hated him, and EVERY reason to believe God loved him perfectly. But why should God give up on such creatures as finite as angels. I don’t believe he does.

Tom: I think that’s the logical step too. I think the same reasons that lead us to conclude the eventual reconciliation of all human beings should lead us to conclude the eventual reconciliation of all angelic beings. For those who only extend their arguments for UR to human beings, my question would be ‘If there are circumstances under which angelic beings could render themselves irrevocably irredeemable, what precludes human beings from qualifying under the same circumstances?’ In other words, what reason do we have for believing that God’s plans for human beings will not fail if we admit that his plans for angelic beings fail?

Tom

#9

Auggy: The problem I’m stating here is that if Christians find this to be the case (and I think outside of Universalism it’s normally the case) then before the moral argument can be executed against an atheist, that Christian must ask the atheist if he agrees.

Tom: Not sure this works. What an atheist who denies absolute morals does when arguing against Christianity on the basis of ECT is just show that so far as Chrisitans affirm divine benevolence and justice (on one hand) AND ECT (on the other), their faith is self-contradictory. And so far as that goes, atheists (I think) are right. But that just shows how inconsistent ECT and divine justice and benevolent are.

I was just reading through Greg Epstein’s (he’s a humanist chaplain at Harvard I think) Good Without God and he kept talking about “human dignity” being the basis for morality. But I kept asking myself what grounds this dignity, this inherent value and worth of human beings.

Tom