The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Hopeful Universalism

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

Hi All, thanks for all the helpful comments and pushing on my last post. Here’s some questions I have on hopeful universalism HU.

  1. It seems like the view is that everyone should at least be a hopeful universalist, and if they’re not there’s something wrong with them — morally or otherwise. Question: If I receive news reports from more than one very trustworthy sources all reporting that a dirty bomb has been detonated in NYC and that there are some confirmed dead, and suppose I believe this, should I hope that none are dead? If I don’t, is there something wrong with me — moral or otherwise?

  2. Given HU logic, should I/we be:

a. A hopeful errantist? That is, should I hope the Bible is unreliable or errant in its reports of God killing a lot of people via the flood? Hope that the Bible unreliably or errantly reports that God commanded some men, woman, children, and animals to be killed through harem warfare? Etc.

b. Be a hopeful young earth creationist? If YEC were true, there would be millions less cases of animal and human suffering. Shouldn’t I at least hope this were true?

c. Hope no human has ever gone to hell for any time at all? That is, hope everyone has gone straight to heaven upon their death. Robin Parry and most scholarly “evangelical universalists” seem to believe in the existence of hell and that some people will spend some time there. Shouldn’t they hope this is false? To put a finer point on it: Robin Parry says that libertarianism and compatibilism are both true. So, take the set of all humans {H}. Now, some members of {H} choose Jesus before they die via their libertarian free will. So this set, {L} goes straight to heaven when they die. Left over is {H} — {L}, which we’ll call those God could get to believe in Jesus via compatibilistic means, the set {C}. So we should hope God gets them to compatibilist freely choose Jesus before they die, thus allowing all the members of {C} to go straight to heaven. If God can do it, wouldn’t he? So we should hope that those like Parry are wrong about a finite remedial hell.

d. In line with ©, if one doesn’t like compatibilsm, shouldn’t we hope that pluralism is true, that all roads lead to heaven? This will dramatically decrease the number of those who go to hell to a minimalism. If Jesus is the mountain, all roads lead up Jesus to heaven. Shouldn’t we at least hope that pluralism is true.

Thanks for your consideration

#2

Hi DualCitizen,
Your suggestions seem playful rather than making any serious comparison with the hope of hopeful universalists. You can be “hopeful” for whatever you like, but the hopeful universalist hopes for a happy ending to which the scriptures clearly point. The other “hopes” you mention may have a philosophical moral or humanist motivation, but I don’t see how they relate to anything God has promised…

#3

I don’t believe everyone should be a “hopeful universalist”. To me the phrase, hopeful universalist, implies more than just wanting everyone to be saved; it implies that the person believes that there is at least the possibility that “all” will be saved. For people who believe in the certainty of damnation of some of humanity, they can not be hopeful universalists and be a person of integrity. The person could want everyone to be saved, but not have any “hope” that such is the case. And I believe that being a person of integrity, honest with yourself and others regardless of your beliefs is more important than just espousing a certain belief.

Scripture does affirm that God desires, even wills the salvation of all humanity; and I believe that if we love even our enemies, then we too will desire the salvation of everyone, though we might not have any hope, much less faith, that all shall be saved.

To me the “moral high ground” is being a person of integrity, not just espousing to a certain belief. If a person really believes Jesus fails to save some of humanity and instead damns them to ECT then that’s what they should say.

The above statement is a “Straw Man”, a misrepresentation of what Christian Universalists belief. Chistian Universalists do not “hope the Bible is unreliable”. And we accept that God commanded some men, women, children, and animals to be killed through warfare, both Israel taking the land of Cannan, and Israel being overrun by her enemies. In fact, God himself killed everyone except Noah and his family in the flood.

Your questions above are based on the assumption that everyone “should be” a hopeful universalist; but as noted above, I don’t believe that everyone “should be” a hopeful universalist. I myself am not a “hopeful universalist”; rather, I am a “convinced universalist”. And I have no expectations of everyone being like me, in this life anyhow; though I do believe that one day, in the age to come, every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord.

Based upon my understanding (or misunderstanding) of scripture I have faith in Jesus that He really is the savior of all humanity, that Jesus fully accomplishes His mission to reconcile all of creation to God, that He will ultimately draw all of humanity to Himself! But I do not claim UR to have the “high moral ground”. If Jesus really is not the savior of all humanity, and He does not reconcile all of creation to God, and He does not draw all of humanity to himself, then to have such “faith” in Him as such is foolishness. And for a person to profess to believe in Christ for the salvation of all humanity and not really believe such would be immoral.

#4

Nicely put Sherm.

#5

Sherman has made some good points already, but I’ll also throw in my two cents’ worth. :slight_smile:

DC, you seem to think that people like HU for emotional reasons. This is a straw man, at least in regards to my belief. I do find some emotional appeal to HU, but my reasoning for HU is biblical. I find repeated statements throughout the Bible that God truly desires to save all people or to have mercy on all people. As if biblical statements regarding God’s character weren’t enough, I find in 1 Timothy a clear link between God’s desire for the salvation of all people, and what my attitude towards people should be.

God welcomes prayer for “all people” because “he wants all people to be saved.” This is the grounds by which Paul urges that many kinds of prayers be prayed “on behalf of all people.” When I think about it, this makes sense. Unless my hope is in God’s hope for “all people,” why would I waste my time praying for “all people”?

(I suppose one could find reason to redefine “all people” in this passage not to mean “all people,” but that opens up all kinds of other issues with not just UR but with standard Christian theology–and even the Bible! But if “all” here means “all,” we have a consistent ethic of love based on God’s salvific love for all–cf for example Matt 5:43-48, Luke 6:32-36)

Here, Paul connects the work of his (and Timothy’s!) ministry to the hope that God is indeed the Savior of all. Why would Paul connect these two things if he wasn’t trying to justify being a HU?

Apologies if you’re looking for a rigorous philosophical defense–I can’t really argue past what I find in the Bible… :wink:

I’d also like to take a stab at this. :slight_smile: Would your metaphor change if you knew that the person who planted the bomb had raised you from the dead and had also (on more than one occasion!) affirmed to you that he himself hopes for all people to not end up dead? Would your hopes change based on what you knew he had done for you and what he appears to will for all people exposed to the blast? :wink: I guess, though, you could cling to the fact that “there are some confirmed dead,” you “believe this,” and that there is thus no hope whatsoever for them.

As the rest of your questions seem to assume the absurdity of believing something just because it’s nice, I’ll leave them. I agree with you that it’s ridiculous to believe something only on the grounds that it’s nice and inoffensive. :smiley:

#6

Hi Revdrew,

I can assure you my question was not “playful.” First, the Scripture “clearly points” part misses the point. If you believe that, that’s called “dogmatic hopeful universalism.” I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about, see below.

Hi Sherm,

Since you don’t believe that “everyone should be a hopeful universalist” then my post doesn’t apply to you. However, many scholarly universalists do believe this and have made this claim. As Keith DeRose has noted, “As I’ve been asked: How can Christians possibly be against even hope on this matter?” DeRose also points out that,“Perhaps spurred on by the release of and subsequent discussion of Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, there seem to have been from Christian sources a lot of recent expressions of hope that all people will be saved.” James K.A. Smith has received the question enough that he wrote a post, “Can Hope Be Wrong.” And of course, even on this very discussion forum, Alvin Plantinga’s YouTube comment was point out, with laudatory comments by some. Says Plantinga, “That’s called universalism. And I don’t myself quite believe it, but I don’t disbelieve it either. I think it’s something that a Christian should at least hope for.” DeRose tells us that, “As I know from recent facebook discussions, some Christians (as well as interested non-Christians) are dumbfounded that any Christians would reject even hope on this matter.” On Dr. Victor Repert’s blog, he writes, “Some who don’t embrace universalism nevertheless at least hope it’s true. If we can, and should, hope for the soul of each person individually, then should we not also hope for the soul of all persons collectively?” And Robin Parry, Thomas Talbott, and others suggest in many places that we should all at least be hopeful universalists.

So, while I recognize my question don’t have relevance to you, it seems to me that they do for the majority of the scholarly universalist community. Other than that, you misread several of my questions, but I won’t get into that since the argument doesn’t, as you say, pertain to you.

Thanks again!

#7

The hopeful angle I have found is a great way to introduce the topic of EU to someone.

I’ve learned to say something like: “Based on many scriptures in the Bible I hold to a very strong hope that one day all of mankind will be saved and restored to a right relationship with God.”

This is much better than starting out with something like: “I believe that in the end everyone will be saved.”

The second intro usually starts a fight. The first one does also but it quickly puts the other person in the position of having to argue against hope.

I haven’t found anyone that outspokenly wants to take the opposing position by stating: “Based on many scriptures in the Bible I hold to a very strong hope that at least one person will enter into ECT.”

I have found however that some (many?) actually do want at least one person to burn forever but they don’t want to express it as a strong hope. Rather it comes out more like: “Well, you know some people just will never change and repent of their evil ways and so God has no choice but to ECT them.”

With intro 1 it seems I can often get to a point where people will look at a particular scripture and admit that at face value the scripture does appear to support my hopefulness. Then we can talk about presuppositions on both sides in a somewhat less fearful or hostile manner.

So, to turn around your question DualCitizen:

Why are people not arguing openly for their strong hope that God will send at least one person to ECT?

#8

Well I’d call myself a convinced universalist, so I’m probably not the right person to answer. But it does seem strange that any Christian would want some or any other people to be punished forever. Isn’t that what HUs are getting at? If we look for Biblical examples of people who held this kind of attitude we have Jonah, we have the prodigal’s elder brother, we have the early workers in the vieyard. None of these are great role models for Christians… :sunglasses:

#9

I suppose if one defines “hopeful universalism” as simply desiring that all be saved (as is likely what is meant by the people you quoted), then it seems that even God is a “hopeful universalist” for scripture says that God does not wish any to perish but that all shall be saved. So if we believe that we are to be like Jesus and mirror the desires of God, then we too should not desire (hope for) any to perish, but desire (hope for) all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:10).

Of course, it is often argued that “desire” (thelo) in 1 Tim. 2:10 is a much stronger word than the English words wish or hope convey, but one that implies volition and purpose, a determination to see one’s will accomplished. Thus if one believes that God is sovereign and believes that God wills to save all of humanity, then logically one would deduce that God accomplishes His will and saves all humanity. But of course, Arminianists, because they believe that Jesus fails to save all humanity and some are certainly lost, limit the sovereignty of God and make man sovereign in regards to his own salvation (that a person’s salvation is ultimately up to the choice of the individual). So in regards to human salvation, God is not sovereign, man is sovereign. In effect, God steps off His throne and allows man to sit on it. Man’s will rules, not God’s.

Of course, Calvinist’s do not run into this issue because they do not believe that God wills, hopes, or desires all to be saved; but only wills the salvation of some of humanity.

#10

Okay, so RevDrew and Sherm, the question is back on the table. If I “should” be a HU, should I also at least hope that those other things were true?

And, yes, Sherm, I am a Calvinist and so I don’t read those verses that way. Also, HU just is defined that way. That’s why there’s a distinction between HU and dogmatic hopeful universalism. The Evangelical Universalist makes this distinction in several places.

#11

“A hopeful errantist?” Maybe it isn’t the bible that one hopes is in error, but cannot one hope that one’s interpretation is wrong if said interpretation seems unlivable or extremely difficult? Suppose a believer were to believe that the scriptures taught that an only a very few would be saved, such as one percent of one percent of the planet? Wouldn’t it be ok to hope that further research yielded a happier answer?

#12

DualCitizen, here’s a shot at answering your very good questions.

  1. Given HU logic, should I/we be:

a. A hopeful errantist?
No. Should we hope that whatever the OT is communicating will in the end be consistent with the culmination of a joyful ending for all? Yes. Does this mean the scriptures must be errant for this to occur? No.

b.-c.
Should we hope that there is a joyful ending to be revealed for all the suffering in general and for each person that has suffered individually since the fall? Yes. Do I have to accept the assertions you make in b and c to have this hope? No.

d. … shouldn’t we hope that pluralism is true, that all roads lead to heaven?
Should we hope that each man in his journey, by the grace and love of God, will at some point find and take that one road that leads to life? Yes. Do I have to accept pluralism to have this hope? No.

#13

I don’t know that there is any evidence that God desires or wills the other things you mentioned, so no.

Being a Calvinist then you do not believe that God wills all to be saved, and thus it would be foolish for you to hope that all will be saved. And being you do not believe that God wills all to be saved, you “should” also not will or hope that all should be saved. The comment that a person “should” be a hopeful universalist is usually predicated upon the assumption that the person believes that God wills the salvation of all. If God wills it, then the person “should” will it also and hope in God to fulfill His will.

#14

DINGDINGDINGDING jackpot! :mrgreen:

#15

Actually, I would suggest that even a Calvinist should be a hopeful universalist based on Romans 9 - A commonly quoted Calvinist passage. Didn’t Paul wish to take the place of his brethren and be cut off from Christ in their place? In the NIV his emotions are described as “unceasing anguish” that many Israelite people had not accepted Christ. I think it’s fairly clear that he hoped for their salvation. It came down to his love for people. The same love those of us who know Christ have for our friends and neighbors that don’t - and that love causes us hope for their salvation, to hope for them to know God.

Let’s bring this to a smaller scale… DualCitizen, do you hope for the salvation of the people you live and work with? If so, do you think that is from God? Now let’s go to a bigger scale… For the people that you and I don’t know that aren’t Christians - there are likely Christians who are hoping for their salvation… do you think that’s a good thing? That doesn’t quite get us to all people, but I’m sure you get the point.

Your questions suggest that universalists are just looking for things to be easier. Your questions suggest that universalists can’t see that love can and needs to be harsh at times. We understand the nuances… However; what we are hoping is that love will ultimately mean reconciliation and mutual love no matter how hard it might be to get there.

In all seriousness, where are we if we don’t hope for Christ’s love to be spread around?

Anyway, I’ll get off my soapbox. Welcome to the forum.

Andrew

#16

After sleeping on it, I thought I should more directly answer your original question.

I think Sherman’s previous answer just about says it.

I think much of this comes down to personal judgment.

A. No, I don’t hope for A. Although I will say that I’m not comfortable with those passages. However, I don’t see a good reason to not believe it.

B. No, I don’t hope for B. Although it requires a more nuanced view of Genesis, the scientific evidence is close to overwhelming - I’m a geologist, so I have spent some time thinking about this.

C. I’m on the fence on this one. Sure it would be great if everyone repented before death, so I guess to some degree I do hope for this. However, evidence both Biblical and physical seem to point against this. So, I don’t see a lot of reason to hope for this.

D. I don’t hope for this. The Bible seems clear that Christ is the way. And, I don’t think we should hope that people miss out on understanding the beauty of Christ.

In regards to universalism… Yes, I hope that all people are saved. Do I think the Biblical case is airtight? No. But, my reading of the Bible along with my experience of God suggests that there is hope that all people may be saved. Much of this hinges on the Bible’s slant towards love. It lends a certain consistency to the whole of the story. Are there passages that seem to suggest otherwise? Sure. Are there passages that seem clearly universalistic? I think so. Is there a component of personal judgment here? Sure. Most notably, my experience of God’s love plays a role here - without that, I’m not sure I would bother to spend much time hoping for universal salvation. Experiencing God’s love leads me to hope that others experience it, and I think that is a natural outgrowth. I also think the Bible is supportive of those sentiments. I’m just putting things together the best I can.

So, in my previous post, I stated that your questions suggest that hopeful universalists just want to make things easier. I still think your questions suggest that. That may be true for some, but I would suggest in most (or many) cases, it is a synthesis of things that leads to hoping for universalism.

#17

Paul Manata and I had a very similar discussion a couple of months ago at Victor’s site (referenced by DC) in the comments to this thread. I think we came to a common agreement there on the topic.

To recap Paul’s explication there:

#18

I do however think there is a far more subtle ethical question in the background concerning the relative value of soteriologies. But it depends on spelling out what the salvation is supposed to be from and to: from being unethical (i.e. from sin) to being ethical (i.e. to righteousness).

Keeping in mind that other factors also apply (and ought to be discussed in relation to the question below), the question in principle comes out to this:

Is it more ethical or less ethical to hope (i.e. “should” or “ought” we hope, in an ethical sense) for all unethical persons to eventually be brought to be ethical persons, compared to hoping for only some unethical persons to eventually be brought to be ethical persons?

#19

I think the key here is the degree of certainty a person has as to what the scriptures say about man, salvation, death, and judgment. The typical Calvinist thinks it is not only a waste of time, but also wrong because it casts doubt on the scriptures and the gospel. This is fascinating to me because I can see it through 2 sets of glasses since I’ve been a Calvinist for over 4 decades and have been studying/leaning toward Universalism for several months now. I used to think that the scriptures were black and white/crystal clear, though it is funny how many different verses I would overlook that didn’t fit into my theology. Even while I thought it was all clear there were dozens and dozens of verses that were very unclear, but I would just put these aside, without questioning my theology. Now I look at the bible, with the same reverence, but with the realization that all the things that I thought were so clear aren’t nearly so clear. The scriptures are foggy enough to be a hopeful universalist. I don’t think any Calvinists will ever admit this…I don’t think they can see this. Asking them to be hopeful is asking them to doubt what they already think they know to be a fact.

#20

I should add (in case I wasn’t clear enough, which I probably wasn’t) that I agree with several of our posters above (plus PaulM) that, as Christians, if we think the scriptures testify to X, we should believe X unless we have good reason to believe we’ve gotten the interpretation wrong ourselves (and/or have misunderstood the genre of what was being said.)

Consequently people should be Arms or Calvs (or Kaths!) if that’s what they find the scriptures pointing to; although for sake of self-criticism we all (Kaths or non-Kaths) should be engaging with specialists who have studied various things more than we ourselves are in a position to do. (Meaning I don’t blame the normal layman in the pew who doesn’t have time or skill to do such study, for believing what people who do have time and skill tell them, and trying to do the best they can with that. This is why teachers are held more accountable, including by God in the Bible!)

When I formulate the ethical question in my prior post, this might (if valid) count as weight that an interpretation has gone wrong somewhere. I don’t mean that, even if valid, it should be taken as an end-all be-all ground, especially not against what seems heavy weight in another direction.