Obviously, universalism, like with any system or idea, runs the gamut from hopeful (or agnostic) to dogmatic (certain). While I am guessing some here are dogmatists and/or certain, others are more of the hopeful variety, and even among dogmatic universalists, there was probably a time at which universalism was less convincing for you than it is now.
Given this, what do people think is the least convincing argument for evangelical universalism? Maybe b/c universalism is misunderstood and even perceived as heretical, universalists seldom engage in this type of evaluation since we probably need every argument we can find to defend against these negative claims. Yet, I feel sometimes this defensiveness, or temptation to be defensive, causes our critical thinking to atrophy somewhat.
If you think that all the arguments for universalism are similarly convincing (so that none stands out as bad), then maybe explain if you like how universalism can be “falsified”, since it is unlikely that any position is without its weaknesses, even a T position - for there is a lot within universalism (as to whether it is deterministic and/or espouses libertarian freedom) that is debated.
I guess I’m one of those hopeful universalists, although sometimes I feel like I’m more of an inclusivist because I do run across certain passages that seem to suggest that some would suffer some sort of finality other than redemption. The parable of the wheat and the tares, for instance. Or some OT passages that seem to suggest certain peoples will be hopelessly destroyed. I certainly don’t think that God will keep anyone in the eternal fires of hell for any longer than their penalty is due, for that would go against His justice. Yet at the same time, I realize that God is God and can do pretty much anything He pleases. So my hope lies in what the Bible says about His character which would seem to contradict the notion of a capricious god.
I might allow for annhiliation of certian people, as long as I would find reason enough that God would deem such persons as irredeemable. But I really don’t know where He would draw the line.
I am on the hopeful side. Personally, Universalism has the most convincing balance. Where Annihilation and ECT are both on the extreme side. ECT is the least convincing, I believe that U has the stronger case .
Annihilation is still a possibility, that holds me back from being 100 percent certain that U is 100 percent accurate. But, it is a good thing to always question and ponder different view points, much better in my opinion than to be hyper ( dogmatic) towards any view.
I think that Biblical arguments for universalism can be tendentious b/c they often rely on a correct expounding of the Greek. Granted, I think there is a persuasive case for the translating of “aion” or “aionion” punishment as not infinite. Yet, it is harder for me to understand why God would let God’s texts be even apparently inconsistent. For even if the Bible isn’t given to us as the Qu’ran is given to Muslims, completely verbatim from the Godhead, we still have to assume on any kind of classical conception of God (omnis) that God would want His revelation to be secure. So why let the Bible possibly mean Cal, Arm, Annihil, Univ. etc? Some say that God has to remain “hidden” to a certain degree, so as not to overwhelm people’s free will. Perhaps. But if God’s revelation through the Word (since we aren’t Quakers or Deists - this has to be a primary way we know God) is ambiguous, then how can we be held accountable, unless we are to discern through our hearts that Cal and Arm must be untrue? But Cals think their reasoning is even better than sentimentality in saying they’ll follow God no matter what, even if they think that they’re among the Reprobate. For many like Cals are thinking they’re doing the honorable thing in following God despite what their heart tells them. Cals say all the time: of course they’d believe in univ. if it were Biblical. Well, we univs. think it is, though I don’t think we can say it is obviously universalist, at best probably potentially or hopefully universalist, and maybe dogmatically universalist. Therefore, given this less-than-certain interp., we have to be very forgiving (and this is obviously condescending to those who are Cals or Arms ) to people who hold non-universalist views, b/c the way I see it, God has allowed these interpretations as much as anything or anyone.
So, obviously, if somebody were to tell me, just as people holding the other soteriologies, that univ. is “just in the Bible,” it cuts no mustard for me. They would, at the very least, have to unpack what they mean. And then they’d have to explain, theologically, if God is a universalist, why this is left to interpretation instead of explicit (that is, why did they have to unpack it). A problem also is that the more one leans towards univ., the less motive for God’s hiddenness and the ambiguity in the Bible. For Cals can say the Word is not meant for the Reprobate, and Arms can say that those who want to find God will seek Him (though they still believe in prevenient grace), but universalist, esp. deterministic univs., are hard-pressed IMO to find a motive for God’s obscurity, though Free-Will univs. might say that God wants us to learn certain lessons and to seek Him, even though, at the end of the day, we’re all saved.
Conversely, the best arg for universalist, imo, are heart-based: I don’t see how God could damn anybody for an infinite duration. About the worst I could see is some kind of CS Lewis hell in which people might freely reject God forever, but in some ways, their sin consoles them so that this rejection isn’t anywhere as torturous as the Dantean conception of Hell.
I should point out that while the thread topic is a fine self-critical exercise, it isn’t likely to get many substantial answers because of charity toward people who ground their universalism on points regarded as least convincing by the critic.
I could run a list, for example, but “I just feel…” or any “heart-based” “argument” (assuming an explicit argument was even provided) would be on the list. Lots of people also just feel in their hearts there is some kind of hopeless punishment for the wicked or some kind of hopelessly passive final end.
(I happen to be one of the former – I emotionally LIKE the idea of actively destroying evildoers to the point that they never have any possibility of becoming righteous. Consequently, I’m going to have an emotional motive to read the scriptures that way, disregarding any details which might suggest otherwise, and avoiding any logical problems I might sense with the principles involved. But that would be a weak reason for believing such a hopeless finality of unrighteousness to be true.)
Wow! I think you are quite candid and I applaud that. I don’t quite understand ur 1st pt regarding charity, for I take it that we all have reasons for our views, some weak and some strong. If our view is only upheld by weak reasons, then perhaps its time to discard it. But maybe I am misunderstanding u. It is interesting to know what some find convincing. In fact, in this way, I am very surprised: I think ur the first univ. (sorry, I think u prefer “Kath” if I remember ) to say that, “emotionally” (tho perhaps I should have used “according to conscience”), some sort of final (everlasting?) punishment feels/felt (for I assume uv softened since your conversion to Kath?) right to you, so a Biblical case for Kath convinced u. Ur admission certainly proves that one shouldn’t reason according to stereotypes, for I take it many accuse universalists of first feeling it w/ their heart (or conscience) and then finding Biblical justification.
I would think, though, that you are a rarer breed among Kaths (tho you have way more posts than me so I grant that our experience could be totally different) and that many more reasoned/felt w/ their hearts/consicence, and then found Kath exegeses. I mean, if you have been or are ever in a debate with a Cal, wouldn’t you argue: “Well, if reprobation wasn’t Biblical, could you believe it? More particularly, that an all-loving God could reprobate?” In my exp., many Cals answer they would b universalists except 4 the Bible affirming eternal Hell for the reprobate, that, for instance, seems to be the opinion of John Piper, whose commitment to sola scriptura, even b4 logic, let alone the heart, holds him to affirming two, admittedly contradictory, wills 4 God. (Tho, obviously, as u might be an example of, one could hold strict sola scriptura and find it affirming Kath) Yet, I think u r right and we have to be careful not to psychologize others (or ourselves) on the basis of heart reasons, certainly it is wrong to discredit people’s exegesis on the basis of their heart’s attitude, unless u can prove that it is their heart (whatever way it is pumping - Cal, Kath, Arm ) that is completely motivating them, which I think Kaths, in my exp, have been often singularly accused of.
I was also surprised by Jason’s response – not because I would have expected other of him, but because I somehow got the idea that we were looking for least-convincing scriptural arguments. For decades I knew in my heart that it was wrong for God to destroy or forever torment most of the population (I think a LOT of people know this), but I held on to ECT, then Anni, because I felt the scriptural arguments for those positions too strong to deny. It was only after I realized that scripture comes down like a granite cliff on the side of Kath that I felt justified in changing my position.
So yes, I’d agree that the argument from emotion would be for me the least convincing. I think that’s the case for a lot of people. I’d also say that an argument from reason (omitting the reasoning of scripture) in favor of universalism would come in second as least convincing. This because many people mistrust reason alone. That’s ironic, as it’s usually reason (applying the scriptures with what they consider to be logical precision) that leads them to cling to ECT (that and fear). In fact, it is the faulty exegesis of proof-texting and accepting poor translations of certain key passages and words that convinces them. It’s very difficult for them to see this though, as they’ve been proof-texting forever and have never even considered taking a passage in context of the whole bible. Alas, many of the non-clerical types haven’t even read the whole bible; they got bogged down in Leviticus or Numbers and never got back to it. They’ve read Genesis and Exodus and quite a lot of the gospels with smatterings of the epistles and Psalms/Proverbs, and that’s often pretty much it, aside from isolated verses. It is these filters of our past teaching and experience that keep us from seeing what’s really there in plain English.
But as for arguments from scripture for Universalism that I’d find unconvincing . . . I suppose . . . no, actually, I can’t think of anything at the moment.
I don’t know of any arguments for universalism but I was reading William Lane Craigs “The Absurdity Of Life Without God” this morning and it’s pretty convincing to me only if I hold to universalism. It’s not really an argument proving universalism but it shows the disasterous consequences if there is no God or life after death.
But in order to be happy we must live as though there is hope. We must live as though life has value, purpose, and meaning. The leap into delusion would fall on those who don’t believe in Universalism.
Sure, ideally, but what I regard as weak arguments other people don’t – those arguments are very important to them. So for someone on the site who’s an admin and, more or less, an ‘authoritative author’, to say X-argument is weak: that can hurt feelings.
I’m speaking from experience. It isn’t a good idea.
Some of my fellow Kaths, particularly among the ultra-us, would say I haven’t softened enough. For what it’s worth, even I find several older Kaths to be far too zorchy. There are degrees, as in most things.
I wouldn’t have said “according to my conscience” back in the day, and I wouldn’t say it now. My feelings about the propriety of hopeless punishment weren’t about my conscience of sin, they were about me feeling good about triumph over my enemies. If I was talking about myself I wouldn’t have said according to conscience either, because I never really applied that idea (of the downfall of God’s enemies) to myself. But I should have.
It will sound paradoxical, but some other Kaths here on the board will agree (I think Cindy among them if I recall correctly): I came to have a much stronger appreciation for the grievousness of sin as I came to be a universalist. Before then I didn’t think it was a bad thing at all for God to enact or permit or otherwise sanction the final ultimate injustice of a person; I thought final injustice was perfectly okay in the great scheme of things, so long as the finally unjust people got stepped on. I would have been okay with annihilation by the same token – so long as evildoers were defeated it didn’t matter to me that they would never come to be good; I just didn’t think there was a scriptural case for anni, and by contrast I thought there was a strong scriptural case for ECT, though I could respect Lewis’ inclinations along that line. (I didn’t know any other annis at the time, and he didn’t have a scriptural case for it per se.)
That does actually happen, so I don’t blame non-kaths for having the stereotype. It’s when they extend the stereotype as though it’s a necessary principle, and/or try to apply it to me, that I have to call a halt.
Even so, Cindy has a point: there’s a difference between someone having feelings and putting those feelings ahead of what they think the data says, and someone having feelings but holding to the data. Someone could still charge them with interpreting the data according to wish fulfillment, but as Lewis would say that’s Bulverism – sure it happens, but the event itself is not evidence of it happening.
Fortunately, the way I came to it prevents the charge of emotional salting: I don’t naturally give much of a poop about those evildoers-over-there.
Someone could reply that once I came to think trinitarian theism pointed by logical necessity to Christian universalism, that I had an emotional stake to reconcile the scriptures to that, which then colored my interpretations. That’s not a completely unfair guess, but then one has to test the guess by comparison with the facts, and the facts are that I am habitually meticulous about bracketing out my preferences when doing interpretations including for trinitarian theism; moreover I was quiet about my theological shift for several years while I invested in a much more thorough scriptural study than previously before in my life (which I am still not finished with and probably won’t ever be, because dang y’all the scriptures are big. )
So I did have a tension to resolve, but I treated that tension with mature responsibility to minimize prejudices, precisely because I recognized I could be at risk of salting the evidence in favor of something I had some kind of (new) intellectual preference for. Then again, I had an (much older and much longer established) emotional preference for hopeless butt-kicking! – so, you know, shouldn’t I be careful to minimize my prejudices about that, too?
In my personal experience, plenty of Calvs would be emotionally prepared to believe that or even prefer it, though also many are not. Be that as it may, I strongly refuse to call up an emotional challenge on a Calv or an Arm; so no, I wouldn’t argue that. Many Kaths would (and do), but I don’t. I do go out of my way to respect if they’re taking a position according to what they think they have best reason to believe to be true, against their emotional preferences, but I don’t try to use their emotional preferences against their position.
Yep, I think someone can hold strict sola scriptura and find it affirming Kath. That wasn’t the route I myself took, but I can see (now) how someone would do it.
What I don’t think is that anyone holds ‘sola scriptura’ actually “before logic”, because it is only by logical inferences that the scriptures can be understood with any accurate and coherent meaning. The popular position taken by John Piper is, to put it bluntly, cheating; it’s a way of trying to get around logical challenges to one’s inferences about the data (whether the data is scripture or whatever). If Piper started poking holes in my scriptural rationales, and my answer was “Well, unlike you I just follow what the scriptures say before logic, whereas you’re only using human reasoning,” he would rightly regard that answer as an admission that I know my position has problems but I am flatly choosing to refuse to deal with them. I might as well put on a giant flashing sign that says PROMTPLY IGNORE WHATEVER I AM SAYING BECAUSE I KNOW I’M PROBABLY WRONG BUT I REFUSE TO LISTEN AND I INSIST ON SELF-CONTRADICTORY TWADDLE TO PROTECT MYSELF YAH YAH YAH I AM NOT LISTENING TO YOUR SUPERIOR GRASP OF THE TRUTH REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU SAY THPPPPPBBBTTTT!!!
All that being said, I know of at least one major author, Winchester in the late 1700s, who had no emotional pull toward universalism at all, and followed (and continued following) the stereotypical notion of sola scriptura where he claimed he was only going to follow scripture and if logic said anything else then to hell with logic (not in those exact words but the same idea) – and he wrote, pound for pound, the punchiest scriptural argument for Christian universalism in his day. Stonehouse wrote the longest books on universalism at around the same time, and came at it from the same rhetorical angle about sola scriptura (and thought he had a better case for binitarian theism thereby than trinitarian). Going back farther to Christian antiquity, whole point of the ancient catechetical universities of Antioch (and Edessa/Nisibis) against Alexandria (and Caesarea Palestine), was to use their version of plain-old-scriptural-testimony, what the scriptures actually say, rather than the fancy ‘spiritual’ and ‘philosophical’ interpretation techniques of their rivals. But they were just as universalistic. (And used the same kind of scriptural arguments for that matter.)
I think such approaches are being naive (at best) about how we process scriptural (or any other) data, but even on such approaches I do think it can be done.
(Obviously I think such an approach sets up a serious and inherent methodological problem – ignoring or privileging one’s own logic while rejecting even the principle of possible criticism by the same route – so such an approach would count in my least-convincing-argument-for-universalism list, in a way. )
Well, I am still interested to know what you consider to be the least convincing scriptural argument is for univ, even if u, in fact, find it convincing, b/c I am sort of on a falsifiability kick. For instance, 1 Timothy 4:10 (your verse ). I find nearly no Cals or Arms that find that as evidence of universalism; in fact, they often try to get it to score for Cal or esp. Arm. (Of course, I see it as good evidence, for it combines the view that belief is important - so as to avoid wishy-washy sentimental univ., but nonetheless stressing, as in the OT, that God will never eternally cast off any of God’s creation.) So, I want to be blithe to others when I discuss soteriology as to what are better and worse arguments, to maybe lead by example, so I don’t sound as dogmatic (even though I am more of a confused universalist and possibly deist).
If univ. is T, which I hope it is, then certainly we’d expect there to be less unconvincing or weakly convincing args, but if there were no weak or unconvincing args at all, then it is very hard to explain the diversity of Biblical interpretation, except if you think that Cals, Arms are moronic, deceived or deceiving, which I am guessing you don’t believe, though i know that some univs do think that Cals, for example, have an ulterior motive or are hopeless Bible interpreters.
Jason,
I think our seminary library had some of those “early” (18th-19th C) universalist books, and they were in plastic bags. You could read them, as long as you could finish b4 they disintegrated in your hands
Given your inclination towards Cal/Arm/Anni (I can’t really make out which u were most sympathetic in your “UFC” emotional phase), then I imagine you are like Cindy, and think that scripture is very, very universalist (though u mention that ur univ. is also strictly a theological conclusion). Then are u committed to thinking that Cals, Arms, Anni are just “bad” Bible interpreters (in either sense of the word: poor exegetes or crafty exegetes who want to prove their UFC inclinations)?
Michael,
I am a fan of WLC, esp his ability as a natural theologian and debater of the new atheists, and find his absurdity argument to be very convincing. Yet, I find many who aren’t moved by it, some who think that science will eventually overcome death, and some just through kind of a Nietzchean valiance to face a finite life, to accept it and do the best they can. Have you find a way to adjust the argument to meet these kind of objections?
I do at the moment think an overall systematic argument to a non-Kath position is exegetically wrong. I’m not sure how ‘committed’ I am to thinking a non-Kath is an inept or cheating exegete on the topic, though – I mean I don’t go into an analysis thinking they must be wrong, though by now I often go in seeing already from past experience where (I think) they’re wrong. Where I find them (on a case by case basis) to be wrong, I always default to mistake. Though in a few particular cases after a while I start to suspect intentional fudging to save their position; but only after I’ve seen a lot of evidence for how they’re going about their business.
I was Arm ECT, and not of the God-passively-lets-the-sinner-alone-to-suffer variety: that was one thing in Lewis’ approach I couldn’t understand him taking for various reasons. And the discrepancy for why he went that way on one hand, yet seemed reasonable for going that way on the other, was one of the things that led me to universalism from his theology.
Still, I did believe in what’s called inclusivism – everyone gets a legitimately and fully fair and sufficient chance to be saved from their sins that they have to consciously revoke – and I was definitely okay not only with post-mortem acceptance of Christ even by nominal enemies, but also pre-mortem acceptance of people as Christians by Christ even when they aren’t nominally Christians yet.
I could tell you what I think is the hardest scripture for Universalists, but as for the arguments toward Universalism (scripturally) that are weak? One verse in, probably 1 Kings or 1 Samuel, that says “He wouldn’t reject a person forever, but would find a way for the rejected one to be reconciled” or something like that – sorry I don’t have time just now to dig it out. It’s a great verse, and in the tradition of the exegetes of the NT (esp. Paul and Jesus), it’s definitely fair game. For our style of exegesis though, it wouldn’t fly because this is quoting a woman sent to David to persuade him to reconcile Absalom to himself after he killed his half brother for raping his sister Tamar. (David did nothing when he heard about the rape, which has always rankled, but I’m sure Father has spoken to him by now so I should let it go, I suppose . . .) Anyway, that would, I think, come off as weak because of the context.
As to the passage I find most difficult, I would go with 1 Thessalonians 1:5-10. For what I have to say about it, you can have a look at my blog if you’re interested: Eternal Destruction from the Presence of God I wrote it a long time ago, and it’s possible I’ve changed my mind since then. There are several posts, but they’re reasonably short.
You’re right to say that I don’t think damnationalists of either stripe are stupid or even stubborn. I think for the laity – for the most part – they just see what they expect to see; what they “know” is there. They’re afraid to see anything else because deep down, most of them think if they stop believing in eternal hellfire, they’ll go to hell for that. No – seriously – they do. I’ve talked to them. They’ll die a martyr’s death I’m sure to defend saved by grace through faith, but really, they think they’re mostly saved by believing correct doctrine.
Yeah . . . you’re definitely not alone, Bro. Lots and lots of people feel that way. I used to feel that way, and now I can’t remember why I did . . . .
What scripturally caused you to become Kath? Had you been brought up in the kind of Arm you described and just hadn’t thoroughly examined the Bible or was your version of Arm reasoned out and carefully exegeted and then you discovered args to overturn it?
That is a strong verse against univ., though your blog goes a long way to bringing it in line with a kind of purgatorial univ.
I still get hung up on God’s motive for allowing the soteriological confusion - why make these things knowable to only those who have the ability to study Gk? You know? That 1 Thess verse will sound to the vast majority like hellfire, though your and Talbott’s construal of the Gk makes very good sense. Even granting that the Bible was written by fallible humans, who could not have foreseen how their Gk would be badly translated 1,500-2,000 yrs hence, you would think that God would want a much less surfacely ambiguous text for the average Joe or Jane. I believe God works through people, and, obviously, univ. like yourself and others here are God’s workers in bringing this interpretation to the fore. I still have trouble understanding why God would let this go to chance so much. If I were a parent (much less a perfect one), I would want to reinforce all the time that I love my children - I wouldn’t let something like an ambiguous Bible stand in the way of that message. The only motive I could see for God wanting to be less than clear would be, if indeed, something like Cal or Arm was T. For, if necessary as a universalist God, I would just reissue the message if it was mistranslated. (Of course, in the OT, even when God is much more direct, people still reject, so maybe God has wisened up.) Still I would like to think that many Cal and Arms would convert to univ. with less of these ambiguities, for the ambiguities, to me, speak in favor of Cal or Arm, since the Elect will find the “true” meaning, etc.
At least, w/ universalism, this ultimately doesn’t matter as everybody will be reconciled, but it sure causes a lot of temporal pain that does seem largely avoidable, but maybe God must stay hidden to most for some reason that God’s failure to influence in OT demonstrates. How do you deal with this: the fact that you are sure that univ. is T, but most people don’t realize it and are in much pain b/c they don’t know.
I think George MacDonald said something like this: “Maybe the punishment for being able to believe a doctrine like ECT is to believe it.” Naturally, he said it much more beautifully than that. Best I can remember, though.
Or as Jesus said, “To him who has will more be given, and to him that has not, even that which he has will be taken away.” It sounds harsh, but really, I think a lot of people just don’t have the appetite for a doctrine like Christian universalism. Unfortunately as we’ve seen here, those people turn around and impose their doctrine of demons on sensitive hearts and do a LOT of damage. There are stacks and buckets of passages that say plainly that God is the Father of all, God loves all people, Jesus came to save all people, and more and more. Calvinists (and Arminians) can explain them all away. "Oh ‘all’ doesn’t mean ‘all’. It just means some of all kinds of people.’ HUH? Where does it say that? Where does it, anywhere in the bible say that? Even way out of context?
It’s like telling the story of a miracle you experienced to a determined atheist. They WILL find a reason not to believe it. You can explain anything away and you don’t even have to try very hard. The thing (whatever it is) just has to tell you something you don’t want to hear. People can see if they want to. Father will show them. I know people who have had the HS say to them while reading one or another scripture (inerrantists no less), “That’s not right.” Personally I’d “make” the Spirit say, “You’re not understanding that right.” because I do want the bible to be true. Either way, I do think God reveals these things to people who “have an ear to hear.”
My theology, thus also my version of Arminianism, wasn’t as carefully reasoned out and carefully exegeted as it could have been; it was in the self-disciplinary process of more carefully reasoning out my theology more broadly speaking that I came to conclude that Arminianism was only half right.
What made the most significant scriptural difference to me at first, though this still took a while, was Jesus’ strong judgmental injunctions about forgiving the sins of those who forgive the sins of other people – mostly a Synoptic theme, though later I started seeing points of this in GosJohn, too. Lewis used to write that we are offered forgiveness on no other terms but that we forgive those who sin against us. When I saw that added to warnings of punishment coming to those who refuse to be merciful, and added to the observation that most of what Jesus had to say about coming punishment was directed toward lazy and/or uncharitable servants of His, I came to realize my attitude wasn’t only not-right, but apparently also condemnable.
Adjusting my attitude also meant adjusting my theology, though.
) to people who hold non-universalist views, b/c the way I see it, God has allowed these interpretations as much as anything or anyone.
For what it’s worth, even I find several older Kaths to be far too zorchy. There are degrees, as in most things.
)
There are stacks and buckets of passages that say plainly that God is the Father of all, God loves all people, Jesus came to save all people, and more and more. Calvinists (and Arminians) can explain them all away. "Oh ‘all’ doesn’t mean ‘all’. It just means some of all kinds of people.’ HUH? Where does it say that? Where does it, anywhere in the bible say that? Even way out of context?