The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Pascal's Wager and the Danger of Giving False Hope

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

I think that Pascal’s Wager can be used in a more inclusivist/universalist way but what follows is a compelling argument against inclusivism and by extension universalism by the Wager. This by the way comes from Greg Koukl, a conservative Calvinist who leads the ministry Stand to Reason.

We have two choices, either we preach the gospel with inclusivism/universalism (they are very different but I’ll lump them together since this reasoning applies to both) or we preach the gospel with exclusivism as our background assumption. There are two outcomes: either inclusivism/universalism is true, or inclusivism/universalism is false. If it (inclusivism/universalism) is true and we preach that it is true or false, we all gain since there will be more people in the New Creation regardless. If it is false and we preach that it is true, then we’ve given people false hope. Both them and probably us would end up in a very uncomfortable spot for all of eternity. If it is false and we preach that it is false then we’ve got it right. Now with this practical reasoning shouldn’t one preach exclusivism even if he thinks that inclusivism/universalism is more likely to be true? I think the answer is yes because even if the probability of it being true is high, the evidence from Scripture is ambiguous enough that it becomes practically more reasonable to assume that it is false. After all, to be responsible for leading people to suffer without end because of a set of exegetical or theological mistakes would be horrible.

The problem I see with this is that I have such a hard time believing in such an exclusivist God that I’d end up as a ‘Christian agnostic’ (a phrase mentioned in another thread) whom wants parts of Christianit to be true but cannot accept the whole package because it does not represent a God of love. So even though I kinda buy this Wager argument, I cannot bring myself to evangelize this type of gospel because it does not seem like a gospel at all. I see this so far as the strongest argument against universalism.

What will it be like to discover you were wrong about UR???
#2

I think the flaw in this argument lies in the fact that it makes the mistake of assuming too much responsibility on the part of the person doing the evangelising. If I preach the right message then I will save more souls than if I don’t. God and the Holy Spirit don’t seem to come into it - it’s just a personal set of ‘sales figures’ that has more to do with being ‘Employee of the Eon’ than it does with letting God be the God of compassion and love to, and through, the evangeliser.

I realise that these are sincere people who struggle with their responsibilities but you just don’t see much evidence of people relying on the Holy Spirit to provide the right words at the right time do you? Or seeing them loving their enemies to any real extent that could precipitate the ‘heaping of coals’ on their heads?

How do these people square the laws of the Jubilee with all of this? If an Israelite lost his land and was sold into bondage he could either buy back the land, have a near relative redeem the land for him (kinsman redeemer); in which case the man would effectively become a slave to the redeemer (which is the basis for the NT notion of being either a slave to sin or slave to righteousness. The Christian is not free but has swapped one form of slavery for another - this is not a bad thing as he/she finally becomes a brother/sister to Christ). However at the end of 49 years of bondage - regardless of no redemption being paid for the land the man was to be set free and to regain his inheritance.

Another aspect springs to mind which is the restriction on the number of stripes with which a man could be punished (40 - still quite an horrendous and severe punishment) or the man would be debased in peoples’ sight - yet God can seemingly punish for eternity in blatant opposition to his own laws.

OK! OK! Rant over - and I reiterate I realise these people are genuinely concerned by the question. They just seem to have quite a small God who has to wring his hands in frustration and worry when his top sales team aren’t ‘on message’.

#3

I suspect there are a lot of teachers and authorities in the Church who go this route. However, while it might be a pragmatic argument for teaching one idea instead of another, it is not remotely an argument for the truth of one idea instead of another.

Moreover, this kind of argument could just as easily be applied as a justification to teach the very worst things imaginable as true, so long as there is any conceivable doubt about things being better than the worst imaginable.

And this exposes the underlying fault to the scheme: it is no longer about trying to preach or teach, or (and this has to be emphasized) to act according to the best light we can see (looking for more light thereby). The whole concern for truth and, consequently, for service of other people in regard to the truth, is thrown out the window (at least in regard to this topic). Moreso, it is thrown out without regard to what consequences there will be in this life for believing and so acting according to one way rather than another.

We should be seeking to comport our lives and our actions in correspondence to objective truth, even if our perceptions of truth will necessarily be only (or also) subjective.

Also, there’s the point that Pascal set the Wager up as a final appeal to pragmatism just in case the thinker is otherwise perfectly agnostic about the topic. Greg’s argument, so far as you represented it, is not addressed to the same situation.

If, let us say, Jeff found no decisive argument one way or another, and also found that his inductive weight-expectations were perfectly balanced on the topic, and yet still was seeking some rationale for acting in one fashion instead of another, then the pragmatism of the Wager would give him grounds (perhaps?!) to act as though one way was true instead of another: hoping that that way would be true. (Something like this has to be done in the case of recognizing the qualities of our rationality as humans, by the way.)

Greg’s argument (at least as you’ve presented it) isn’t addressed to such a person, though. It is addressed to the person who is pretty sure (inductively, though not deductively) that non-exclusivism is true, and so he deploys the Wager as a conservative worst-case-scenario rationale for teaching exclusivism anyway. In effect, Greg’s application is like that of an atheistic apologist trying to deploy the Wager as a rationale for practical atheistic living and teaching over-against someone’s inductive estimation that theism (either basically or of this or that kind) is probably true.

I have a lot of sympathy for the notion that we ought to prepare for the worst, just in case, so that any surprises we may have will be nice ones. But still: if the principle is being called into play as a counterbalance to a responsibly arrived-at estimation that we can hope for God to (in technical language) continue persistently acting toward restoration of interpersonal unity, where some derivative entity is acting toward breaking this unity; then there is no reason in principle not to take the application of the principle to its logical conclusion and preach something less than orthodox trinitarianism to be true. (See my relevant comment here, in my thread concerning “Why Orthodox Christian Theism Is Important For Universalism”)

Which I doubt Greg will want to do, being a conservative Calvinist. (But then again, I tend to find even conservative Calvinists routinely denying this or that or these or those tenets of orthodox trinitarian theism, especially in order to promote and defend non-universalism. Be that as it may. :wink: )

Perhaps we could invite Greg here for a dialogue on the topic?

#4

For now I’m skipping the other posts to make my own before I forget what I was going to write.

I see it as a false dilemma. It’s either true or it isn’t, and this problem is assuming we can’t know the truth of the matter.

There are several points to make here:

  1. Though the text might seem to be unclear, we can know through context and the thematic flow of the narrative and passages exactly what is meant.
  2. By preaching something that may not be the truth, we are doing everyone a disservice. No formulas of probability will work in regards to the Holy Spirit. Why preach something if we don’t even know if it is true? Best to not say anything at all if we are unsure.
  3. This assumes that God cannot use what somebody does out of the best of intentions. I believe that God does so even with teachings of exclusivism regardless of whether they are erroneous or not, by causing His servants to put the right emphasis where it needs to be, thus not negating the entire reason for speaking and leaving some room later for needed tempering on the original thought (though often by hard blows).
  4. Just because if universalism is true everyone will be brought into the fold anyway does not mean that we can allow ourselves to speculate when the Master clearly calls us to understand. Much work can be done in the present for the sake of the kingdom and for those who would be in it, by giving a clarion call representing the eternal love of the Father for everyone and His power and unstoppable mission to save the entire human race. We would save people from any even temporary calamity they might endure. Even if universalism is true it does not mean we can play Russian roulette with their souls, withholding a message that would draw all to Him. We would not suffer them to suffer the fire for a moment longer than is necessary. A stitch in time saves nine, as they say. It will be much worse for those who refuse to turn to recieve His life in the here and now.
  5. Those who would put off salvation until another day knowing that it will ‘happen anyway’ are those who would buy fire insurance for their residence simply because they believe that the fire that is consuming their house won’t ever stop. It is the same foolishness which says, “I can never be perfect, why even try?” instead of putting one’s hand to the plow and actually following Him. But we know that those who look back are not worthy of His calling, so why keep pretending? One day they will understand, true; but today they clearly do not, if they have such an outlook. We are not saving people to traditions, catchy phrases, fancy theology or outdated rituals, which are powerless to save from anything. We are saving them, as far as we partake in God’s own saving mission, to Jesus Christ Himself and His very life incorporated into our own.
  6. Many, many more people would actually be drawn to the kingdom than walk away from it as a result of this message being preached. It is so revolutionary, and so full to the bursting of the infinite sweetness of the love of the Father, that it would be impossible for great masses of people to keep themselves away! This could be seen as an extension of Jesus’ saying that if He be lifted up, He will draw all men - when His death is seen as the recompense for the lives of the entire world. To say that we would be damning many more than we would be saving is actually not accurate to the situation. At the very least we would be bringing many more to the kingdom who would merely have a wrong idea of what was going to happen in the long run, although the entire point of their being attracted to God in the first place would be lost… which brings me to my next point:
  7. A God who is not both loving and powerful enough to save everyone in the long run is not even worth believing in! A person who has finally made the choice of what kind of God to believe in could no longer bring themselves to believing the old way. They undoubtedly see the other kind as either a tyrant or a weak-willed supplicant. They cannot be threatened into believing any other way, either. I imagine many of these brave souls would rather suffer hell in order to intercede for the lost souls still trapped there than to share a heaven with one who would not, or could not, find room for the rest, even those whom He had Himself created and knows better than they even know themselves.

It’s a wonder that no one is brave enough to preach this message! Oh, maybe someday a few of us will gain the courage to not shrink back! One could almost wonder how many there are of those who not only do not have the guts to speak it but to even believe in it…

#5

Stellar, I not only believe it but want to shout it from the rooftops. My pastor, who also believes it, will not preach about it, I suppose, for what he feels are good reasons.

I believe that the doctrine of endless punishment in Hell keeps more people away from the Church than it keeps in the Church. If a pastor would boldly preach the truth about God’s everlasting love, I believe that more people would be drawn into the congregation than driven from it, provided of course the elders would allow a bit of time for this to happen, and not sack him on the spot.

#6

Precisely. Amen.

The thing is, it’s used as an element of control. There are many churches today which do not seek to control their parishioners in any devious or completely external way; but they do want to keep their members in line morally, and religiously; the problem is that none of these “morals” or religious rituals or liturgy have anything to do with Jesus Christ, the freedom giver. There is much, much more than just universalism at stake; it’s the whole life-blood and body of Jesus, His very own body! Tied up and constrained by Satan himself. But He cannot be kept down forever, as He proved on the cross; His personal body was not able to be defeated by death forever, and so neither will the body as formed by His people.

We will be persecuted, I imagine, in coming times, for these things and others, but our freedom will be utterly uncontrolled.

This thing is so difficult, not difficult to live out personally, because it’s so delightful, so filled with ecstasy. It’s extremely difficult to stand against the spirit of this age, though. One has to make sure not to be threatened by the systems of this world, and at the same time to look within and be emboldened by His power and love and might, all while living our everyday lives, trying to make sense of things, and not lose sight of the unseen. Who can perform this huge task?

And the answer comes in the stillness of the night: only His Spirit alone.

It almost makes me want to cry sometimes, thinking that all this effort that is necessary to be put into this great endeavor is not mine, but His alone… but how? Sometimes I wonder how He will take more and more control over me… and how far I’ve become from Him.

Oh well. It’s late, maybe too late for me to make sense.

Goodnight everyone.

Justin

#7

Justin

you said: It almost makes me want to cry sometimes, thinking that all this effort that is necessary to be put into this great endeavor is not mine, but His alone… but how? Sometimes I wonder how He will take more and more control over me… and how far I’ve become from Him.

Aaron: There is no need to cry or wander…just look in God’s Word for the answer. The answer lies in Romans 12:1-2; 8:26-27. Pray in the Holy Spirit or pray in tongues for personal edification and mortification and you will submit to him more. In order for you to be able to pray in tongues you must receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit or be filled with the Spirit.

Btw, if you are interested in receiving the baptism in the Holy Spirit and learn more about the benefits of praying in tongues go to this website and download this book for free…Its called The walk of the Spirit- The walk of power. daveroberson.org

God bless,
Aaron

#8

That’s actually really good advice… but not infallible. There’s a point where praying in tongues even runs dry. It can produce a trickle, but not with the same ferocity as actually capturing a nice glimpse of God’s eternal purpose throughout the ages… spiritual force must invade the mind and understanding as well as the heart in order to fully overcome the body.

#9

Justin

Please, read the book The walk of the Spirit- The walk of power. You can download it for free ( PDF e-book) visit daveroberson.org. This book will energize your walk if you receive the information inside. This book is the best book on the benefits of praying in tongues…it will blow your socks off…Do yourself a favor and read the book.

God bless,
Aaron

#10

Actually Gospel means “Good News”; the traditional message called the Gospel is not “Good News” at all. The traditional message in a short phrase, “Turn or Burn”, is not Good News. Change your beliefs, put your faith in Christ; if you don’t you’ll burn forever in Hell. This is in no way “Good News”.

Actually this is a “logical fallacy”, not “practical reasoning”. The consequences of a belief have no bearing at all upon whether or not the belief is true. Also, in the above errant logic one must assume that the consequences are correct; and in this case I do not believe they are. In fact, I believe that many people do not put their faith in Christ or fellowship in the Church because in their hearts they cannot reconcile the concept of God being Love with God torturing people forever. And of course, the traditional “gospel” (turn or burn) is not Good News at all! Furthermore, I believe that the fear that the traditional doctrine of Hell produces in believers is not healthy. In fact, perfect love casts out fear! And didn’t Jesus say that as we follow Him we shall come to know the truth and the truth shall set us free! And shouldn’t we seek the truth, regardless of the consequences!

I believe that Jesus calls us to be honest though we be in error. In other words, even if UR is in error, if I believe it, I have a responsibility to be honest about such. In fact, when I first came to believe in UR, I was very hesitant to share such with others because I knew rejection and persecution would follow, and I’d loose the love and respect of others whom I love and respect. In stead of saying the I had come to believe in UR, I’d only say that I was studying it and finding much interesting information in support of it. One day during worship, God spoke very clearly me simply powerfully saying, “Stop Lying!” That’s all He said, but I knew exactly what He meant. He meant for me to stop saying that I was “studying” UR and openly confess that I had come to believe that God ultimately reconciles all humanity to Himself, that Jesus truly does triumph over death, hades, and the grave, that the sacrifice of Christ is not limited in either scope or effect, rather it fully accomplishes the salvation of all whom God loves and God loves all creation!

So I’ve come out of the closet, so to speak, and begun sharing the Good News of salvation in Christ for all humanity. And as I feared, it has cost me the respect and love of others whom I love and respect. And some have accused me of all manner of evil falsely, and worse. But in this I rejoice because the Lord said to rejoice whenever we’re persecuted for being honest, for righteousness because our reward in heaven shall be great!

As you can see, I do not see Pascal’s Wager as a valid logical argument; rather, it is logically errant, an appeal to assumed and arguable consequences, a false dilema.

#11

Hi all,

I’m new to the forum and have been exploring UR. I recently finished MacDonald/Parry’s book The Evangelical Universalist, saw the documentary Hellbound?, and have been reading through various threads in this wonderful forum.

With all due respect, I think it’s best if everyone from BOTH sides of the UR/ECT debate exercise significant restraint in “evangelizing” about their respective positions. Not to say that you shouldn’t think through and debate and discuss these issues with fellow believers. But maybe it’s better to be silent about the question with the larger public.

Here’s why: The “Pascalian wager” point made by Kohkl, Jay Wesley Richards, and others is actually a REALLY REALLY GOOD ARGUMENT. ImagoDei above calls it “the strongest argument against universalism.” And how do I know it’s such a good argument? Partly it’s because of how LITTLE dialogue there is about it on this forum! What I’ve noticed right away is that people here are very good at formulating well thought out arguments regarding the meaning of Greek words like kolasis or aionoin. People are not afraid to jump in, and there are long threads with hundreds of messages on these kind of topics.

By contrast, despite searching, I’ve found very little conversation on this particular issue. You would think that the “strongest argument against universalism” would garner a great deal of traffic. But at least from what I can see it hasn’t really. While Jason Pratt and a few others have some thoughtful things to say against the Pascalian wager, even this thread itself quickly veers away to different topics, like praying in tongues. What does this mean? As painful as it is, I see the relative silence as a quiet acknowledgment that there’s a point to be made behind the wager that can’t be dismissed.

Here’s the thing though: The Pascalian wager is actually NOT an argument about the MERITS of the UR/ECT debate. It doesn’t go into what the Bible says or even reasoning about God’s election. I see it as really more an argument about WHAT TO DO ABOUT UNIVERSALISM as a matter of evangelism. This is where I think silence is the most prudent choice. You may be 100% convinced in the truth of UR. For you it may be as absolutely certain as the truth that Christ rose from the dead. But objectively speaking there IS SOME ambiguity based on some of the passages in the Bible. Also where one stands on the UR/ECT debate does not determine whether anyone is a “true” Christian. In other words, you don’t need to believe in UR to be “saved.” So given the risk, however small, that preaching UR can lead to a false hope that potentially has CATASTROPHIC ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES, why not just remain silent on the topic when evangelizing to the larger audience?

For me, by the way, this holds true for those who believe in ECT as well. Both UR’s and ECT’ers believe in the “CT” of ECT. That is, most UR’s believe in the possibility of “conscious torment” in hell until post-mortem salvation. It’s really the “E” in ECT that is at issue. I don’t think it’s necessary for traditional Calvinists to preach the E in ECT any more than it’s necessary for UR’s to preach against the E.

If I’m being honest, I would say that most of my Calvinist friends do NOT spend much time thinking about UR/ECT. The question may bubble up in their head once in a while but for the most part I’ve found that many of them don’t lose much sleep over it. It’s not an issue that needles them. They’re just not wired that way. To that extent, people in this forum are truly a select crowd!! =)

I’m the complete opposite. I was raised a Christian, and the UR/ECT question has riddled me from the VERY BEGINNING. I’ve spent YEARS wracked in tortured thought about this question. How could a loving God DELIBERATELY choose NOT to save everyone? But the result of all of this questioning and thought (with some amount but not nearly enough prayer) has led me to UR.

Those who care about UR will find their way to UR. A healthy debate between UR and ECT can and will continue. But based on the Pascalian wager, I would say that this debate need not be in the front headlines of the Christian community. For many people, I think there is something to be said for just leaving the question alone. Especially since it’s not a belief that is required to be a follower of Christ.

#12

Hi, Daniel!

Sorry for the delay in your post going up: new members have their first two or three posts automatically sent into a mod limbo until one of us can get around to checking to make sure they aren’t spambots (or the occasional live spammer). Unfortunately, only a couple of ad/mods are in the habit of doing this, and I’m one of them, and I was out over the weekend. :blush:

Anyway, once we’ve told the system a couple of times you’re a real human being an not a sockpuppet or robot, it should let you through henceforth without further trouble. :slight_smile:

In regard to Pascal’s Wager and the danger of false hope: I understand what you’re saying but I wish people would call it something other than Pascal’s Wager. The Wager wasn’t addressed to a situation of prudent scepticism, where even a little doubt is supposed to be grounds for disbelieving a potentially dangerous position; it was addressed as a positive apologetic tool in favor of a proposition where the thinker judges the evidential case on either side as being equal.

In other words: if you’ve weighed all the evidence and you’re still agnostic either way, and one belief would help if true but wouldn’t hurt if false, then choose that belief.

I haven’t read this thread in a while, but I bet I said the same thing upthread. :wink: Pascal’s Wager would only apply if someone is (1) still, or now, agnostic on the topic about whether or not God saves all sinners from sin; and (2) judges one position to help if true but not hurt if false.

However, on the question of whether it is better to reject a belief if even a little doubt could possibly remain and also if accepting the belief has potentially catastrophic eternal consequences – how is that not an argument for total religious, philosophical, and ethical agnosticism, including against taking an agnostic position (thus self-refuting)??

Anyone after all could (and often do) say that that accepting X belief could have (or even certainly does have) potentially catastrophic eternal consequences.

And what are the eternal catastrophic consequences of being mistaken about God saving all sinners from sin? Presumably no more than the disappointment of finding out God has chosen not, or has finally failed to, save some loved one from sin: which is a risk of disappointment that someone either lives with or already, psychologically, accepts and deals with as a reality (she died without doing such and such which would signal to me she is of the elect, or which would signal to me she convinced God to save her). You acknowledge that where one stands on the issue does not determin whether anyone is a “true” Christian, so it isn’t as though gnosticism on this topic saves someone gnostically. :wink: (Much less that gnosticism, salvation by doctrinal assent, is true!)

My guess is that this is why the topic of prudent paranoia isn’t brought up much or taken very seriously by most people here (ImagoDei and some other members aside).

Beyond that, I make sure to bring it up when evangelizing (though not when simply doing apologetics unless the topic logically connects) for these reasons:

1.) Because I firmly believe that, aside from my own strength of conviction about its truth, if it’s true then it’s important as a proclamation of good news about God, over-against lesser claims about God. I have a positive ambassadorial responsibility to preach it as part of announcing God and what God has done for us.

2.) Because preaching it is the only way to include both sets of gospel assurances, split up otherwise between Arms and Calvs (and their catholic analogues). God certainly loves you with saving love – not maybe you, and not maybe with only incidental love; and you can trust God to save you from your sins – not maybe fail at it or give up eventually.

3.) Somewhat less importantly, but still important to those on the receiving end of evangelism, because one or another doctrine of final unrighteousness, whether a finally hopeless fate or a finally hopeless punishment, is a stumbling block to accepting Christ. Now, something can be true and still a stumbling block – I try to be lenient about people accepting trinitarian theism for example even though I think it’s both true and very important, because I know that’s a stumbling block to a lot of people. But if I think a stumbling block can be removed, then I have a positive responsibility to remove it for sake of evangelism. Much of an apologist’s work is precisely aimed at removing stumbling blocks in the way of evangelism! And I have discovered from long experience (including since before I decided some kind of Christian universal salvation must be true), that sometimes this acts as a strong stumbling block in the background even if the topic I’m addressing has nothing to do with it topically: the mere possibility that accepting an argument somewhere might lead by association to accepting final perdition, turns out to be an emotional stumbling block against accepting even arguments that have nothing specifically to do with that topic one way or another.

#13

In A Framework for Understanding the Rob Bell Controversy, it simply addresses the differences between inclusivism and universalism. Inclusivism answers the question “What is the mechanism of salvation?”. Universalism answers the question “How far does God’s grace reach in effective redemption?” I always wondered if there are people that are both excusivists (What is the mechanism of salvation? Is it known and confessed faith in Christ) and universalists (How far does God’s grace reach in effective redemption? All people ultimately saved) at the same time?

#14

I agree with Jason, Daniel. Pascal’s “wager” doesn’t seem important to me in the way it is usually used (not talking about Jason’s more accurate historical understanding of it) unless one wants to frighten people into saying the sinners’ prayer. Even as an ECT believing Christian, I never ever found Pascal’s “wager” effective in proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ. Inevitably people will point out that the news that Jesus is willing to save us from His Father (though they’re both supposed to be the same) by offering Himself as a sacrifice (to appease His Father’s wrath and wounded sense of “justice”) is kind of disturbing. Honestly, I have to agree with them.

As a rule I don’t find that atheists are typically glad to hear that God intends to save all. This invalidates the great bulk of their ammunition, and they frankly resent that. If God isn’t the monster they had supposed, then what reason do they have to keep sniping at Him?

#15

The popular application, logically speaking, doesn’t even lead to that! If there’s even the slightest possible doubt that anyone at all (not even just you) could have about reality more instead of less hopeful, then don’t talk to people about the more hopeful position at all?

So we’re only supposed to talk about atheism or some kind of Satanism, whichever is worse!?? Of course not!

Granted, we aren’t supposed to talk about a groundless hope. We’re supposed to talk about our grounded hope. Well, if Christian evangelists believe universal salvation in Christ is at least as grounded as whatever else they’re talking about when evangelizing, then they should talk about that.

Eh, I’ve seen atheists go several ways on that, but it depends on their underlying attitudes at the time (as with all of us). Once atheists finally got it through their heads that I’m a Christian universalist, most of them stopped challenging me altogether, and the remaining few (who were always good-natured) were willing to continue friendly sparring on this or that technical point as before.

The more hostile atheists tend to split three ways: now being politely interested in Christianity (but not being willing to discuss it much, since hostility still grounds their interaction with the faith); simply not caring either way; or mockingly deciding (against what I’ve almost certainly also said, such people not being great at reading for detail anyway :wink: ) that this means they can just do whatever they want so it doesn’t matter.

One relatively famous internet atheist even took that farther and decided it meant I was WORSE THAN a regular Christian because it meant I was more pathologically deluded and also more dangerous in deluding other people by being a universalist as well as a Christian! (Incidentally or not, he has made a bit of a career out of trying to get a deductive anti-religious argument out of what amounts to the popular application of Pascal’s wager: people should believe the less hopeful instead of the more hopeful if there’s anyone anywhere who has even a possible doubt about something better. He isn’t at all consistent about this application of course, but… :wink: )

#16

There certainly were, and maybe still are, Christian universalists who believe that anyone (usually of the age of responsibility) who isn’t already solidly and consciously Christian when they die (in the sense of having done specific belief professions and/or rituals) go to hell, and not in any minimal way either like good pagans going to limbo. Furthermore they tend(ed) to believe such non-Christians would stay in hell at least through the second coming and the millennial reign; and maybe necessarily after the general resurrection, too, for eons of the eons.

So yes, there are Christian universalists far more zorchy than I am! :laughing: Elhannan Winchester is a famous example; Stonehouse (slightly later, also the only binitarian Christian author I’ve ever read) a less famous but somewhat more prolific example (most of his works now being lost unfortunately, since they would be important and interesting at least in regard to dispute with the Wesleys). Stonehouse went so far as to (try to) meticulously calculate exactly how many years various classes of unbeliever would be necessarily punished in hell, based on various uses of “eon” and its cognates (whether Hebrew or Greek). If I remember correctly, “eons of the eons”, which was his maximal calculation, tallied up (on his eclectic system) over 49 billion years. :open_mouth:

#17

May I add that the “praying in tongues” digression was introduced by a former Calvinist, and still strongly anti-universalistic Arminian, who had decided after a lot of discussion here that if we weren’t Pentacostals (who unlike other charismatics regard praying in tongues to be a necessary sign of true Christian conversion) then it didn’t matter what we ever said none of us could be true Christians anyway?

The actual Christian universalists in the thread stayed pretty much on point, though with some discussion of how the popular anti-Wager version intersected with other concerns of theirs (such as controlling congregations through appeal to fear). It was the notoriously trollish anti-universalist who went off the rails. :wink:

#18

I do occasionally wonder how long it will take the most impenitent of sinners to become completely clean of sin. I know that a thousand years are like a day to God and all that jazz but even so, can you imagine it taking that long!

#19

As I see the lake of fire, it is light consuming darkness, heat forcing impurities to the surface- “every hidden thing brought to light”, until the last enemy is subjected and reconciled. I can’t imagine 49 billion years, but since God has been completing “the administration suitable to the fulness of times” in packages of eons totalling 1,000s of years thus far- I can’t conceive of Him waiting 49 billion years on some laggard sinner to repent :laughing:

#20

I remember talking to somone about the universal reconciliation of all to God—that all will eventually submit to God of their own free will.
The person responded, “Oh! If only that were true!”