The Evangelical Universalist Forum

If God were a Universalist at heart...why didn't?

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#41

It ought to be perfectly obvious to anyone who has been here a while and paying sufficient attention, but for the sake of visitors and new members…

This is not about AC’s arguments or his beliefs: we have banned more universalists from this site (both temporarily and permanently) for trollish behavior than non-universalists. Had Aaron tried to get back on the site around his 1-year ban, now converted to exactly everything I happen to believe (as a pertinent example), his new account would still have been banned because the criteria for lifting his ban had not been met.

Criteria 1: it has to be Jan 15, 2013. Which it isn’t.

Criteria 2: he has to petition the ad/mods. Which he didn’t.

Criteria 3: he has to petition by showing evidence of ongoing public behavior on other forums. Which he didn’t.

Criteria 4: the new behavior elsewhere has to be judged by the ad/mods as being significantly better than in the past. Which we couldn’t judge because criteria 3 wasn’t met.

Criteria 5: the new behavior elsewhere has to be verifiably from him (i.e. he can’t point to someone else’s behavior elsewhere claiming it’s his). Ditto.

It wouldn’t matter if Aaron had suddenly by a miracle from God become the greatest apologist for Christian universalism in all of world history (great though I would personally think that otherwise was). He could be that and still be behaving in such a poor way as to continue to be banned from the board. But even if he had suddenly become the greatest Christian universalist advocate in world history and was behaving in a perfectly acceptable social manner, if he had already been banned with those criteria for reapplication he still would have to meet those criteria to be unbanned.

#42

Understood Jason, my bad. :slight_smile:

#43

Hi pog

I read what you’re saying. But while I agree we abuse our free will to do evil and bring misery on ourselves and others, there is still a huge amount of suffering in the world that is not the product of moral evil - death, disease, disaster. I still can’t get my head around the sheer enormity of this.

Peace

Johnny

#44

Absolutely agreed, Johnny. The case of animal suffering alone is enough to show that the standard FWD is not enough - it’s only a part explanation (albeit a good part explanation).

That is why I marry it to the cosmic warfare theodicy.

If there are spiritual beings of enormous power (angels/demons) who, like us, have a degree of moral autonomy and free will that existed prior to human kind then the stanard FWD can be extended to cover pre-human animal suffering and natural disasters - since now even the ‘natural laws’ that lead to suffering can be explained in terms of abused freedom.

Note, I’m not saying that behind every earthquake there is a demon (though natural disaster could plausibly have a spiritual origin like that, look at how Jesus ‘rebuked’ the storm implying a demonic force behind it), but rather behind that introduction of chaos/entropy/death into the physical nature of the universe there is, ultimately, the devil (see the chaos vs order motif throughout scripture: God astride the sea piercing Leviathan etc)

Does that give an indication of where I’m coming from, Johnny? I’ll try my best to answer questions, but I’m no theologian. It strikes me that Hick style vale of soul-making theodices, and Plantinga (Swinburne?) style FWD theodicies, cannot answer all the issues without also a cosmic warfare view. In other words, I can’t construct a decent theodicy without recognising the existence of the devil.

#45

I tend to agree with pog on that, btw. :slight_smile:

#46

Hi pog

Thanks for your reply. You make good sense, and your free will + cosmic warfare theodicy has a strong ring of plausibility. Unfortunately I am strongly agnostic about the existence of demons. I believe in evil, and I believe it is multidimensional - moral evil, structural evil. I can even conceive of evil having a ‘cosmic’ (although impersonal) dimension.

Part of this derives from a reluctance to ‘cop out’ of my own sinfulness by blaming demonic forces. And I’m also a skeptic by nature.

I subscribe to the Irenean soul making theodicy espoused by Hick (before he spiralled off into pluralism), but as you say, this cannot ‘work’ on its own. There must be more to it, but as yet I don’t know what that is. Have you read Robert Farrar Capon on the problem of evil? He calls it a mystery to be embraced, as opposed to a puzzle to be solved. I think he may be right.

Cheers

Johnny

#47

Hi Johnny,

no, I haven’t read capon - you reckon it’s worth a read? I value your opinion so it’ll be added to my very long (and ever growing) list of books to read! One thing this website does is really increase your reading list … :slight_smile:

I too accept the idea of structural evil as well as personal evil, and indeed you are right that the multi-dimensional nature of evil needs to be considered in order to do full justice to just how horrid and deeply entrenched evil is in the world. But I see all these dimensions as facets to a greater whole.

I can understand the scepticism regarding demons, and I’m not advocating any one particular understanding of them. The exact nature of this cosmic demonic evil is beyond me. But I see it as being personal primarily because this a) makes for good theodicy and b) seems to be where Jesus was coming from. Jesus did an awful lot of exorcisms, and even when healing sometimes talked about it in terms of defeating the effect of a personal being. The apostles likewise seemed to hold to a cosmic warfare model. And of course it’s there in the OT a fair whack too, though in more mythic and less personal terms.

I should also add that believing in demons in no way gets people off the hook for bad choices. It may be true that demon possession can happen, but the vast majority of bad things are done by bad people without any need for extra demonic help. After all, I’ve done bad things and I don’t think I’m possessed …

#48

Yeah, I concur with Johnny, your OP is awesome, Cindy :slight_smile: You should seriously write a book, sister :wink:

#49

Aw thanks, Matt :blush:

I’m thinking about it – but something in fiction. Not sure just what yet, though. :sunglasses: It seems to me that a lot more truth can sometimes be transmitted via fiction and/or poetry than even an amazing non-fiction book. I’m just not quite sure how to go about it yet, tho.

#50

Welcome, sis :slight_smile:

And right you are. Stories have a way of digging their way into the heart that nothing else can…

And I’m sure you have it in you :slight_smile:

Blessings to you :slight_smile:

#51

… hence the reason why the Bible is, essentially, a collection of stories.

Good to hear from you Mr Wiley. You’ve been hiding your light under a bushel somewhat of late :smiley: .

All the best

Johnny

#52

A bit :wink: But you just gotta look around… I did pour out my heart a bit on the Neuroscience thread, in response to KelliKae pouring out hers… you might want to give that a look, may encourage you :slight_smile:

#53

Hi pog

Just in reply to your earlier question about Capon, yes, in my opinion he is very much worth reading. I’ve read six or seven of his theological works and enjoyed them all immensely. Not only are they very easy to read - Capon is lucid, contemporary and very funny at times - but they really challenge conventional thinking (mine included :smiley: ). His take on the problem of evil is called The Third Peacock. It’s quite hard to track down, although you can get it as part of a collection called The Romance of the Word. It blows traditional theodicies out of the water, although whether what it puts in their place will satisfy you I don’t know. I’d be very interested to hear what you think of it. (If you can’t find a copy, I’d be happy to lend you mine.)

Capon is *very *big on grace, and although he doesn’t define himself as a Universalist, he is as near to it as you can get without actually being one. (I think he subscribes to the Arminian possibility of a sort of eternal stand-off between everlasting mercy and wilful impenitence.) My only beef with him is that he (correctly) denies the necessity of works of any kind in salvation, but then insists that we must have faith to be saved, and that faith is not a work. I tend to disagree. To my way of thinking, if we have to do *anything * of ourselves to be saved, then we are not saved purely by grace. My own belief is that we are all *already *saved, ontologically, by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, but we only *enter into *this salvation (become saved noologically) when we a) hear the gospel and b) believe it. And it is God Himself who imparts this faith, but in a way that preserves the freedom of our will to *not *believe.

I know all that sounds pretty bloody contradictory! But after a great deal of thought I have concluded it is the only way to square God’s sovereign will that all people be saved eventually with the obvious fact that we are free to reject God and remain stubbornly unsaved - in this life, at least.

Blessings to you

Johnny

#54

Cheers for the detailed info Johnny, it sure sounds a very interesting book - and I have a soft spot for theodicy :slight_smile: IT’s only about a tenner 2nd hand on Amazon so I reckon I’ll end up with it sooner or later. It has joined my post-Xmas reading list (which grows ever longer - in part thanks to this forum :slight_smile: )

Faith/works; free-will; now/not yet soteriology; dualism or near universalism; … Sounds a hoot! :slight_smile:

#55

Personally I’m just glad to see a sober discussion continuing in the thread somewhere. :slight_smile:

#56

“Actually my question or questions were " If God was a Universalist at heart…why didn’t God stop Adam from eating the forbidden fruit? Why create man with the ability to choose against him if Universalism was God’s original plan. Because God already had made creation perfect and humans had his spiritual life… It makes no sense whatsoever to create Adam to choose to sabotage his perfect creation, allow man to choose to lose the spiritual life he was created with (which resulted man to be spiritually separated from him) just to send His Son Jesus to be crucified and resurrected to reconcile what he could of had in the beginning if he created man without free will. It would of saved Jesus and humanity a whole lot of needless pain and suffering.” -quoting someone

Me—> I’m not at all clear what is going on with this thread, or if the original poster can still even read any replies…but this one DID catch my eye, and is something I have had to examine & address with my own children, as well. :slight_smile: So, if I may… I’d like to offer this thought for your consideration…

The way I see it…the very answer is in the question itself. Not the first, but the next one, which gets to the very crux of the matter. The “create” part of that sentence/question.
Simply answered, God cannot “create” God. God is Uncreated…I am…yet, we are created.
That said, God is at work creating man in His image, His likeness. So…yes, of course, even in the beginning, when all things originated, the creation was “good.” Why? Because, God was at work. Doing.Something.Wonderful. :slight_smile:
God imparts Himself…His life… (our very breath is His) …even now.
That Life is -not created-…not at all…yet, it IS imparted to created beings. Especially man, who is being made in His likeness, as well.
So, the best way to accomplish His will, the Lord in His wisdom determined, was the way it has been set forth for each of us, as flesh & blood created children for now, -and yet even now, in these earthly dwellings, His Spirit can abide at home. As he draws and drags each of us to Himself and imparts Himself.
I do trust God that if there had been any other way to accomplish His will, (re: an easier path for His beloved- created, & without any suffering/evil/destruction known) then it would have been done *that way. But when I test other possible scenarios that come to mind…they seem rather robotic & controlling and fail a love-based outcome. Also, they would fail God Himself/His being, who DOES know evil/destruction…yet works it all for good (unlike man now). We could not be completed in His likeness if we did not ourselves know evil//destruction as He does…the WAY He does (Jesus). To destroy what destroys His Beloved…not just to destroy with no good purpose.

Bottom-line thought: God cannot create God. God pours Himself into the life of the world in Jesus. Drip by drip…into His beloved children.

Peaceful contemplation to end with: We are all (still) being made in His likeness…and as we see Him, we shall be like Him. When we see Him, we will be like Him. And remember too He said,

~Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they
shall
see
God.~

#57

Hi Song91,

I found your post interesting, and, if I understnd it correctly, there’s much there that struck a chord with me. The idea that God wants divinized full image-of-God beings but couldn’t just make them, but rather had to let them make themselves via process, is intriguing. As is the idea that to be truly God-like one must experientially know violence and evil as the victim - one must suffer.

However, I think such a view has some weaknesses. If the only method by which God could create God-like beings was through creating a universe of evil doesn’t that fall prey to protest atheism - it simply wasn’t worth the cost; one is ethically bound to ‘return one’s ticket’ so to speak? The magnitude of suffering is too great to justify even if it results in God-like beings. After all, God could have created happy non-God-like beings.

Another problem is that if victimisation is necessary for Godness, then does that imply that God has suffered evil from all eternity? From whence did that evil come from, and how is it more powerful than God?

The other difficulty is that if God chose to create a universe of suffering, even for an end good, doesn’t that imply that God did an evil act (create suffering) and that the ends are what justifies the means?

#58