The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Jonathan Kvanvig....Annihilationism Meets Universalism?

Evangelical Universalism
#1

From Wikipedia re: Problem of Hell…Curious to Hear Your Thoughts.

Jonathan Kvanvig, in his book, The Problem of Hell, agrees that God would not allow one to be eternally damned by a decision made under the wrong circumstances.[9] One should not always honor the choices of human beings, even when they are full adults, if, for instance, the choice is made while depressed or careless. On Kvanvig’s view, God will abandon no person until they have made a settled, final decision, under favorable circumstances, to reject God, but God will respect a choice made under the right circumstances. Once a person finally and competently chooses to reject God, out of respect for the person’s autonomy, God allows them to be annihilated. The fact that one must believe in God or be subject to eternal damnation or annihilation, even if the choice is completely made by a person, is often perceived as a scare tactic that inevitably forces or scares one into having to believe in God, and God would seem corrupt and evil in saying, “You can believe in me or not, but if you do not, you will either suffer for all eternity in Hell (i.e., eternal damnation) or else be destroyed or obliterated out-of-existence (i.e., annihilation)”.

#2

I’ve seen this idea before–it’s quite Lewisian, and I think it’s a far more respectable position than some other things. Although I’m not entirely sure from the summary how Mr. Kvanvig avoids the result still being a scare tactic. (But I do understand how it might be avoided as such.)

I have two technical problems with it, off-hand:

1.) as presented in the summary anyway, it doesn’t much fit the portraits of condemnation in the scriptures. (A factor that I’ve found is common to this kind of annihilationism proposal. Even people who demonstrate they clearly remember how things tend to go in scripture when it comes to condemnation, like Lewis, tend to present the process in this manner.) I do think it’s possible to present the basic concept more in line with scriptural testimony, but the people who do that still tend to present it this way, too, on occasion. But they may be just reducing it to basic principles.

2.) My somewhat larger technical problem, is that annihilating a person–which obviously destroys all of whatever ‘autonomy’ the theorist can suppose the person has–seems a… um… a very peculiar way of respecting their autonomy. To say the least. :slight_smile:

(A point I’ve made before here on the forum, too, in conversation with an annihilationist apologist. Who then, in agreement, had to speculate that the person continues existing somehow after annihilation. Ooooookay…)

#3

Oh please! Who’s running the show here? Did God’s love fail you, oh sinner? Why do you even entertain nonsense such as the above?

Every shall bow (except if they don’t want to) ? There goes that prophesy… The fact is: when the ‘competent’ meet the ‘irresistible’ love of God - unconquerable goodness with prevail.

Of course, the biggest problem is if the resurrected CAN be annihilated - the idea about eternal life and immortality goes out the window. A resurrected person’s ‘autonomy’ can break scripture? Impossible.

Let’s get with the program.

#4

I am going to suppose you’re addressing this in absentia to Jonathan Kvanvig (who is not present to defend himself, and whose full rationale for why he entertains the idea is not represented in the brief summary paragraph); and not to F&B who is presenting it for discussion.

But on the off-chance that Mr. Kvanvig ever visits the forum: there are some of us here (most of us in fact–the ones who are interested in building a community here) who would be glad for him to make the best case he can, and who would attend to it carefully and respectfully, even if we still disagreed with him; instead of shutting him out from the outset with derision. He would be certainly welcome to make the best case he could for God respecting a person’s autonomy, or respecting a person in any other way, by annihilating that person, for example–even though I myself cannot imagine him succeeding very far in any logically coherent way with that. :slight_smile:

But, maybe I misunderstood what was being said, or perhaps the summary wasn’t accurate on that point. Anyway, he or proponents of his, would be welcome to correct or defend it. So long as they’re willing to show Christian chivalry to their opposition (such as you, for example) in doing so.

(And maybe even after they’re unwilling to do so, for a while. But eventually we’d show them the door if they insisted on being unchivalrous to their opponents. Because we are trying to build a community here. And if they don’t want to get with the program on that, then they should be somewhere else.)

#5

.

That sounds to me like you just called it nonsense. A rose is a rose. ‘Nonsense’ is a perfectly acceptable word for the illogical and incoherent. Part of chivalry is being forthright, isn’t it?

#6

Twice even! I wasn’t disagreeing that the concept at least as presented sure seems nonsensical.

It’s the method of delivery I’m concerned with. Personally challenging someone who is in no position to defend themselves, may be forthright. But it isn’t fair to the person being challenged.

Not at the expense of uncharity, to the person one is being forthright. That’s why I qualified my critiques in Jonathan’s favor as much as I could think to do so. (Which I believe I still would have an ethical obligation to do, even if Jonathan was around to defend himself. But that much moreso if he isn’t.)

I’m not saying I’m perfect at that yet. And many years ago I was much worse about it. If I bothered to look it up, I could link to a thread where I was grievously uncharitable to an atheistic opponent five or six years ago (or seven or eight…?), for which I was very rightly banned from the board. (And I knew after I posted it I had done the wrong thing, and actually asked them to ban me. Though it’s possible the site admin banned me before that comment was posted, too. But I wanted them to know that I knew I had done the wrong thing, and why it was wrong, and why I agreed I ought to be punished for it. I wasn’t trying to get out of it either by a reverse psychology tactic.)

Anyway, I’m glad you weren’t in fact writing that to F&B. :slight_smile: And obviously I agree that the position (at least as presented) sounds nonsensical.

Anyone else have comments on that paragraph? Or, better, a link to a longer exposition from Jonathan on the topic?

#7

Come on. You did the same thing but put a bow on it. I didn’t attack him personally - just his screwy argument. You’re being a hypocrite - if doing the same thing you criticize others of is the definition.

#8

To Jason & Ran Ran: No worries if you were concerned that I took things personally. Not at all.

As far as Kvanvig’s position itself, I will concede that is certainly a philosophical & theological agrument, not an exegetical one.

Assuming, though, that if one does not choose eternal life (assuming such a choice was ours to make, which is highly improbable in my mind) they will spend eternity apart from God and God will stop pursuing them when they have become irredeemable or simply are not interested in all things Godly, then why is Kvanvig’s proposal that absurd? It seems to me omnibenevolence would eliminate the possibility of endless suffering and pain, as there is nothing good that could come out of that state (hell) which would justify someone going through it (again, assuming it was without end). Wouldn’t it seem that out of love and respect for the human being, God would honor someone’s preference not to be with Him, even after pursuing them postmortem?

So assume these are the 3 options available to us:

a - person accepts Jesus antemortem and is with Him forever
b - person rejects Jesus antemortem and postmortem and is separated from Him forever
c - person initially rejects Jesus antemortem, but then accepts him postmortem, and is with Him forever

Most here agree that “c” is a possibility, and I think all would agree that “a” goes without saying, assuming the conversion was authentic. The main difference is that people would disgaree strongly on the details of what separation involves in the case of “b”. A traditionalist would speak in terms of a fiery hell. A universalist would reject such a notion of separation and say the individual would eventually acquiese, and annihilationists would agree on the irrevocable nature of God destruction of a human being. It seems to me Kvanvig is allowing the possibility of postmortmen redemption, but avoiding the potential “problem of hell” (the title of his 1993 book) and saving the doctrine from ridicule.

So while I tend more towards a universalist position, I don’t think the Kvanvig position is ridiculous at all, assuming one accepts a dualistic model in eternity (heaven or utter destruction). It’s certainly a major improvement on the traditionalist position, and makes heaven something that one would desire rather than making heaven simply a better alternative than pain and suffering. If it is proposed that way, no one in their right mind wouldn’t want heaven, but it would mostly be because it isn’t hell; not because of any desire to be with God, but rather to escape suffering. This is where I think the standard approach of evangelism fails miserably. People “choose” heaven to escape hell, which leads to many false conversions and surface-level Christianity. Hopefully, though, the hereafter will provide an opportunity to right these wrongs.

#9

But it’s an ‘improvement’ based on such wild speculation that one should hardly take it seriously.

It’s a slap in God’s face. If the respecting of OUR autonomy were central to defining the goodness and fairness of God - then experiencing that goodness and fairness by His allowing for the end of that experience with non-being - wipes out whatever respect one had for the other (Jason touched on this), along with the ‘sense of justice’ the annihilated may experience and love in the nano-second before obliteration. But in that split-second of adoration, he has discovered the purpose and true nature of his ‘autonomy’.

Do you see the problem with Kvanvig’s definition of ‘competency’? It rules out annihilation by self-definition. The competent no longer worship and love their autonomy, but the respecter of it. The greater love will prevail and there is no place to hide from it, and more importantly, no desire to hide.

No one loves their autonomy more than the self-righteous.

#10

The problem I have with option ‘b’ is that it denies the power of God to accomplish his purpose. If God has indeed purposed to save the world through Christ, and has given all things to Christ–who can stop him from achieving his will?

Is 14:24,27
The LORD Almighty has sworn,
"Surely, as I have planned, so it will be,
and as I have purposed, so it will stand.

  For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him?
   His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?

Is 46:9-11
Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.

I make known the end from the beginning,
   from ancient times, what is still to come.
   I say: My purpose will stand,
   and I will do all that I please.

From the east I summon a bird of prey;
   from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
   What I have said, that will I bring about;
   what I have planned, that will I do.

Is 55:10-11
As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,

so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
   It will not return to me empty,
   but will accomplish what I desire
   and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

That God is capable of changing people’s hearts is evident in Scripture–examples that come to mind are Nebuchadnezzar, and Saul/Paul. I’ve no doubt he could have done the same to Pharoah–but it was necessary to harden Pharoah’s heart to achieve his purpose at that time.

Sonia

#11

Catching up on this thread now after about a month. (Soon I’ll be catching up on threads only half a month old! Yayyy!!! :mrgreen: )

F&B,

Not having Jonathan’s whole position at my disposal for analysis, I won’t be treating your presentation as though it certainly summarizes Jonathan’s position (or your own for that matter); I will only be considering the position ‘as is’. (This is in order to fairly detach JK from a position that he might or might not actually accept himself.)

To a certain extent I can agree with this notion, depending on what is meant by ‘not being with Him’.

If one of most supernaturalistic theisms is true (including ortho-trin), or even naturalistic theism, there is nowhere ontologically for the person to be where God is not immanently present (per omnipresence). No person can exist ‘apart from’ God. (Unless atheism or some type of multi-IFism is true, like cosmological dualism, in which case we all exist ‘apart from’ God in the first place and are never going to exist in conjunction with God. Minimal or even nominal deism, which is at least ostensibly supernaturalistic theism, might allow this, too, but again those positions involve us all existing apart from God in the first place–and neither of them are conducive even to a unitarian Christianity, much less so to an orthodox style Incarnation.)

(Note: if nominal deism is true, God might accept us, perhaps, once we die and leave this natural system; but He doesn’t act within the system including to facilitate this purpose. That includes not sending or empowering or even merely inspiring a merely human prophet like a unitarian Jesus. And if minimal deism is true, God doesn’t even care that much concerning creation, as to what happens to us after we die.)

However, I can easily accept that out of respect for the human being (in various ways), God would hide His presence from the human being who rejects Him. Which might include confirming the sinner in the sinner’s choice to squint shut his eyes, stop up his ears and harden his heart (so that the sinner will not repent and be saved by God).

But is it really best for the person for God to always be doing so? I cannot imagine any way in which it would be. After all, this ‘hiding’ doesn’t abrogate God’s continual action to keep the person in existence, grant the person abilities to affect reality, etc. It isn’t as though God is ceasing to act, and even to intimately act, in regard to the sinner while the sinner is in this state. And even if God is only a singular Person, and has nothing intrinsically to do with fair-togetherness between Persons (at the level of fundamental existence of all reality), this continual action on God’s part, as a Person, to keep a derivative person (per se) in existence, involves an interpersonal relationship of some sort–at least from God’s side of the relationship.

Admittedly, if God is not intrinsically and essentially love (i.e. if ortho-trin isn’t true), then I can give no reason for why God would necessarily keep seeking to reconcile the sinner. But so long as He, as a Person, is keeping the sinner in existence as a person, it would seem countervalent (at best) for God not to be acting to restore communion with the sinner.

This is aside from the question of punishment; since omnibenevolence, and omnicompetent omnipotence, might perhaps feasibly create a reality for an unrepentant sinner to exist in, where the sinner isn’t hurting anyone else but is suffused only with superficial pleasure and power–which wouldn’t seem superficial to the sinner, in his pitiably stunted condition, but so which would be all the ‘heaven’ the sinner as a sinner could wish for. Why on the other hand would a sinner in the hands of an omnibenevolent God, Who (despite being omnibenevolent) has no particular intention of seeing justice and love fulfilled in and with the sinner (not only in relationships between God and the sinner but between the sinner and other real though derivative persons), be endlessly suffering pain?? Out of God’s frustrated ego!?–but the annihilationist theory (or this particular subcategory of anni theories anyway) is expressly concerned (and rightly so, I would say) to avoid that kind of theology.

(I say ‘subcategory’, because an annhiliationist could also just as easily believe God would annihilate sinners out of God’s own egotism, rather like an annoyed gamer giving Dawn of War the three-fingered salute after the dark eldar have managed to succeed in beating him on the field. Won the battle but didn’t win the war, then, did you?! I showed them who’s really the boss! My justice is superior after all etc.!! All hail me, lord of the computer!)

Annihilation would be pointless as fulfilling love to the sinner, unless the sinner was otherwise being kept alive in some state from which the sinner was being saved by the annihilation. If the point is to respect the sinner as a person, annihilating the sinner out of existence is exactly the opposite of respecting the sinner as a person!–so that makes no sense. Respect of the person as a person may be involved in punishment with a goal toward leading the person to repentance and salvation from sin; but why would God stop doing that? Or alternately, what victory of the sinner in his sin would outright prevent God (Who couldn’t stop such a victory??) from continuing hopefully toward this goal? God might simply choose to stop doing so at any time, if God is not intrinsically love and righteousness (or fair-togetherness), i.e. if ortho-trin is false; we need only posit the inscrutable raw choice of God, the end, period. But then, neither would annihilation necessarily be the result; God could rawly choose to hopelessly torment the sinner forever in wrath instead (if God is not essentially love). It isn’t as though tormenting the sinner takes up some finite resource of God’s power and/or knowledgable attention which He might otherwise conserve for better spending elsewhere! (Unless maybe Mormonism is true, or something of that sort.)

The basic point comes down to: why should we expect God to annihilate a person out of existence? Because God is not love? (Then He might keep the sinner in existence, too, for wholly unloving purposes of God’s own; indeed, we might expect eternal concsious torment to be more likely in such a theology!) Because God is love and so loves the sinner? But how is God loving the sinner by annihilating him out of existence? Annihilating the sinner is the very opposite of acting in positive respect to the sinner’s personhood (derivative though that personhood is in the first place)! Is God saving the sinner thereby? From what? From God’s wrath? There are other ways to do so, far more conducive to the sinner as a person (and even while keeping the sinner in existence as a person.) From the sinner’s own sin? True, but the sinner doesn’t benefit from that in any way. Nor do any persons who might still love the sinner and wish the sinner to be saved from sin while still existing. An action taken ostensibly to beneft the sinner will immediately fail if the sinner no longer exists to beneft as a result of the action! Is God saving the sinner thereby from something stronger, or more powerful, or more competent, or more fundamentally real, than God Himself (or at least on par with God)? Not only would that be a denial of any kind of supernaturalistic theism (thus kicking the dispute back up to a far more theologically fundamental level), it doesn’t even make conceptual sense; how does our lesser God beat this greater or equal God (or not-God, or anti-God)??–or why would this greater-or-equal factor allow God to triumph with such a pyrrhic victory?!

These are issues I’m just not seeing properly addressed yet in the presentation in favor of annihilation.

Also, I am failing so far to see how, if one accepts a model of heaven or utter destruction, this somehow avoids the “well, at least heaven isn’t the hell of utter destruction” mode of acceptance–not out of any desire to be with God, but rather to escape utter destruction. Wouldn’t that be just the same false conversion and surface-level Christianity attributed to traditional damnation theories–and perhaps even to universalism theories!–for which annihilationism is being promoted as a superior evangelical alternative?! After all, as you also go on to recognize, so long as the person continues to exist, and so long as God is committed to leading the person to a real repentance and conversion, “the hereafter will provide an opportunity to right these wrongs”, i.e. the wrongs of false and of surface-level conversions. But annihilationism guarantees, either by God’s choice of annihilation, or by the failure of God leading to annihilation as a result (by God? by something other than God??): those opportunities will utterly and irrevocably cease. Just like with ECT (post-mortem conversion or otherwise).

Put more simply: the only way to have the good hope of God in a theology, is to have the good hope of God in a theology. :slight_smile: Annihilationism denies the continuing good hope of God, as much as any other non-universalist soteriology. It isn’t even as hopelessly merciful to the sinner (if that phrase can mean anything coherent at all) as creating an infernal paradise for him or her to safely revel in forever.

#12

That is my understanding, and faced with that favorable circumstance, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, that Jesus is Lord to the Glory of the Father and all will be saved.

Consequently Origen had a similar view. I will paraphrase: He believed that no sane person who knows the consequences of their choices (if they be eternal destruction whether through annihilation or perpetual torment) would have made that choice in the first place knowing it would destroy them or send them to a place of perpetual torment and as a result of God’s Mercy, God does not hold them accountable for the consequence of their choice and instead they learn the true nature of God, which is love.

Origen was a strong proponent of Freedom of Will, and justified why with freedom of will how God remains Sovereign in ultimate control was since we are not all good, all knowing, or all powerful concerning our freedom of will, God remains sovereign as grace was bestowed on all humanity through His Son, and God grants mercy to those who make the wrong choices choosing Himself to give them an opportunity to learn about Him knowing beforehand through divine foresight the choices we would make in the first place.

On First Principles, Bk. 2, Ch. 9, par. 6.