|
Post by christopher on Dec 28, 2007 8:52:32 GMT -8
Hi Josh,
By your request, I'm posting this in this board.
The view of Christian Universalism
Until fairly recently, I had pretty much the same opinion that you’ve expressed here. I didn’t see Universal Reconciliation as a tenable view at all. In fact, because of the rhetoric I’d been fed by those who adamantly oppose it, I once viewed the idea as a direct affront to the cross of Christ and a dangerous heresy. I figured those who held this view were basing their view more on wishful thinking and emotions rather than biblical exegesis and were therefore pretty much self-deceived.
But since then, I made some friends that hold the view of Universal Reconciliation (not to be confused with Unitarianism) and it caused me to want to try and understand it a little more. I also learned that many respectable Christians throughout history have held this view, including some well known church fathers. Of the 6 major Christian education centers in the early church, 4 of them taught Universal Reconciliation, 1 taught Conditional Immortality, 1 taught Eternal Torment.
There is much discussion (sometimes very heated) on the TNP forum about this topic, but it’s very fragmented and sometimes hard to extract the sound arguments from the emotional rhetoric on both sides of the issue.
I’ve recently read a book that a friend loaned me entitled “The Inescapable Love of God” by Thomas Talbott that, I have to confess, has significantly softened my position against the Christian Universal Reconciliation view and indeed, I even found myself hoping that it may be true (uh-oh, there goes that wishful thinking emotional thing). How glorious would it be if God was able to eventually reconcile back to Himself all that He loves (i.e. everyone)?
I began the book very skeptical that it would change my opinion of UR even in the slightest. However, I must admit that Talbott laid out a very impressive case from both scripture and logic that I could find little fault with (and being a skeptic by nature, I usually consider myself a pretty critical thinker). He does so without diminishing the cross, the gospel, or the severity of judgment at all. In fact, I think the view he espouses may be a higher view of the victory of the cross and suggests that God loses nothing in the end (as opposed to those He would lose from the other two views). For anyone wanting to gain an honest and fair understanding of the UR view (without simply relying on the rhetoric of its detractors as I once did), I would strongly recommend reading this book.
On the other hand, applying the principle of Prov 18:17, I will also be seeking a point by point refutation on Talbott’s book to balance out the argument and apply a fair examination of the evidence.
Anyway, I remain, for the most part, agnostic on the 3 views of hell , mainly because I have not been able find any open and shut case that seems to coherently take all the scriptural data into account (to my satisfaction anyways). As Talbott concedes in his book, no matter which view you take, you need try to make sense of many verses that seem to support the opposite views on the surface. I guess that’s why there’s 3 views.
All that to say, I agree with your statement of faith presenting it as a final judgment. None of the views disagree with that very clear teaching of scripture.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jan 1, 2008 11:15:55 GMT -8
I actually wrote this for another forum board, but I think it has relevance for this thread so I'm pasting it here as well: Sorry it's so long. I want say at the outset that I’m not presenting a case for or against universalism here. I’m not a universalist (but neither am I an annihilationist, nor an eternal retributionist). The purpose of this lengthy essay is to challenge what I believe is a false notion that an argument from “feelings” has no place in debates and discussions related to universal reconciliation or any other topic for that matter. I hope to demonstrate that being made in the image of God means that we are not only rational beings, but imaginitive and emotional beings as well. And that it’s those three things together enable us to interpret revelation and develop what we believe. Without any one of them, I believe we only get a partial picture of the truth most of the time. One of the arguments I often see put forth against the doctrine of universal reconciliation is that it is based largely on “feelings” or “wishes” and therefore, by implication, the basis of believing in the doctrine is purely emotional and irrational. But is it? Is hope for an ultimate reconciliation of all people really irrational? I would say yes if, and only if, the doctrine can be empirically proven to be undeniably false. No doubt, feelings are notoriously wrong and the heart is often deceitful (Jer. 17:9). And it is certainly irrational to believe contrary to an empirical fact. However, I would assert that it is not necessarily irrational to hope for something that has the possibility of being true. If it were, than every Christian has irrational beliefs in many future things that he or she awaits for (resurrection to eternal life, being present with Jesus, etc). For until they happen, they are not an empirical fact, they are merely a hope based on a promise. That is why faith is required to believe them. In scripture, are we not encouraged to “hope” for things that are not yet realized? Heb 11:1 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. NKJVAre we not told to be prepared to explain our hope? 1 Peter 3:15 15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; NKJVIs it not one of the very virtuous things of love itself? 1 Cor 13:4-8 4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails. NKJVMany times in the gospels, Jesus commended the faith of people whose only evidence of His power to heal was likely just second hand news at best. Many of these people had much to hope for (dead children, chronic illness, blindness, etc.), but not much data to build a logical case on. But Jesus is said to have "marveled" at their faith. Yes, I believe a rational hope is a very real and valid reason to believe something. Ironically, I’ve often (almost universally) heard those that oppose the doctrine of universal reconciliation say that they could wish it could be true. Even Paul himself wrote that he wished he could trade places with his countrymen (Rom 9:3): Why is that? Could it be that they have compassion? In the OT, we see Abraham and Moses pleading with God to have compassion on the wicked (Gen 18, Ex 32:11-14). Are we to suppose that we have more compassion for the lost than God does? Or could it be that it is part of being made in the image of God to have such compassion and mercy? In my opinion, most Christians, if they are honest with their “feelings” would hope (if they were allowed to) for an ultimate reconciliation for all people. I believe that compassion and mercy is all part of being made in God’s image and we need to pay attention to that. Personally, when I imagine all of the possible final outcomes, I can’t imagine a more glorious outcome than God reconciling “all things to Himself” (Col 1:20, 1Cor 15:27-28 ) that He may be “all in all”. Why? 1. First and foremost, God gets all that He wanted for Christmas. Is it too much to hope for that God ultimately won’t suffer permanent loss of the objects He desires to love and enjoy forever? Would we not be happy for Him? 2. Sin (and all of its ill effects) and the works of the devil are ultimately undone and creation is perfectly restored. Like entropy to matter and energy, the power of sin is completely exhausted and dissipated to an impotent state and consigned to the past forever. This can’t be so if there is a corner in the universe someplace where people are forever suffering the effects of sin, or even if there are those who are annihilated, because that is still a permanent effect of sin. In essence, the power of sin would still be in effect (NOTE: memories of suffering in this life do not necessarily fit this category because the mortal suffering is temporary and it can be redeemed if the suffering has a greater eternal purpose). 3. A more glorious and perfect afterlife. The thought of loved ones suffering eternally would hinder, in some way, a perfect afterlife. Think about it. Every human being, from one’s own mother to Adolph Hitler was someone’s baby. It’s almost universally repugnant to imagine one’s newborn baby burning in hell forever and ever. Yet everybody knows and loves somebody who is not a Christian and, by traditional theology, will not spend eternity with God. This makes the final outcome less than ideal for everyone (not the least of which is God). If the final reality is less than “what might have been” than it is not the best possible outcome and therefore imperfect. Why can one not hope that God has the most perfect eternal plan imaginable? If God could somehow pull all of this off, who wouldn’t be in awe of that? If God can reconcile all people He desires (2Pet 3:9, 1Tim 2:4), and simultaneously execute perfect justice and completely destroy the power of sin, who could argue that that scenario is less than ideal? Does not this imagined outcome have some merit in the fact that God is both all-loving and all-powerful and therefore willing and able to bring it about? That’s exactly what universalists hope for if I understand them correctly. I believe that being made in the image of God makes us both rational and emotional beings. I also believe that imagination is a divine attribute as well. For example, if our traditional theology is correct, evil existed only in the imagination (or foreknowledge) of God until it became a present reality through the fall. I would assert that any argument that leaves out one of these aspects is incomplete. Revelation must inform imagination. And imagination must supplement revelation to conceive hope and give birth to faith which, when full grown, brings about reconciliation to God. For is it not the lack of imagination that makes the cross of Christ “foolishness to those who are perishing” (1Cor 1:18 )? Rational thought alone says we are to be pitied of all men for believing in the resurrection (1Cor 15). The self-sacrificial acts of obedience that are produced in the believer make no rational sense without an element of imaginative hope of future things. Hope is heroic. The entire chapter 11 of the book of Hebrews emphasizes this. Many of the greatest stories ever told are the ones that leave you hoping against all odds for the outcome of the hero. In the Lord of the Rings movies, I remember Gandalf despairing over the lack of news about Frodo, to the point that he fears the worst. When Aragorn asks him, “What does your heart tell you?” Gandalf smiles. Hope is reborn. Later on, when the armies of Gondor go up to a final battle against Mordor to buy Frodo a diversion, Sauron sends out an orc to be his mouthpiece. He presents Frodo mithril mail as evidence that Frodo has been tortured and killed and you can see the hearts of the others sink with this news. In one of my favorite scenes of the movie, Aragorn rides by and lops off the head of the foul goblin with a stroke of his sword. Gimli the dwarf says “I guess that concludes negotiations”. Aragorn turns to the others and says “I don’t believe it, I will not believe it” and the battle goes on with Aragorn leading the charge with the words “for Frodo”. That, my friends, is hope. Negotiations are concluded when hope refuses to die. Hope is not the denial of unfavorable facts. Hope often says, “the story is not over yet, and there is still a chance for the best imaginable outcome here...and therefore every reason to press on in faith”. Scripturally speaking, the doctrine of universal reconciliation indeed has many prima facie problems to overcome. However, even with all the arguments in opposition that I’ve heard given, I’m not convinced that these problems are insurmountable. Hope still has room to breathe. I’ve recently finished reading Talbott’s book (The inescapable love of God) and, to my surprise, I was very impressed with the case he made and I even found myself hoping it is true. There was very little in his arguments I could find fault with (Except one suggestion at the end of chapter 6, which we won't get into at this point). One of the points Talbott makes in his book (and I think he’s right) is that every one of the views has prima facie problems to overcome. Every view of hell has to contend with scriptures that, on the surface, seem to contradict it. This is mainly why I am, and may always remain for the most part, undecided on this topic. And I have to admit that I am very grateful that I’m not bound to any view on this topic. I can just leave that in God’s hands. Because I believe in the perfection of God, I also think that God has the perfect ultimate plan for the final chapter…a plan that will we all will be in absolute awe of. But the fact remains that none of the views can claim empirical truth. And for that reason, I believe that hope remains a valid and rational reason for someone to believe in universal reconciliation. With any of the views being equally possible (yes, I mean equally, for none have been empirically disproved in my opinion making any of them just as possible as the other), it is hope that tips the scales for the person who believes it. For those of you who have openly declared that you are universalists because of this hope, I tip my hat to you. That takes a lot of guts in a culture of Western thinking, which is still very modernistic. There is one important point I’d like to make at this time. This “hope to believe” is not sufficient to prove universal reconciliation or any other doctrine to another. It cannot win a debate because hope cannot be transferred. That is probably why the debate will rage on without a final agreement on what is true. I think that, just like the gospel itself, it’s a personal thing. Let each man be convinced before God in his own mind, and in his own heart. In conclusion, I would like to suggest that, as beings made in the image of God, our feelings like hope and doubt have a legitimate place along side logic and revelation in formulating sound theological arguments for belief, but not dogma. Of course, we cannot base our beliefs entirely on feelings. That would be absurd. But I don’t think we can give a wholesale dismissal of them either lest we cut off an important part of our God given capacity to interpret and believe. If we do not use our whole being to interpret the world around us, I believe we end up with an incomplete picture more often than not. It is for this reason that I would encourage all of us to value and respect another brother or sisters’ hope as legitimate, giving it the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it has at least some weight and significance. From there, it is completely legitimate to respectfully use logic and revelation to work towards reaching sound conclusions, or at least educated leanings and opinions. That, I believe, is reasoning with love and it makes for a more agreeable debate in my opinion. It’s completely valid to challenge something that is believed by someone else. If it’s true, it will stand up to the scrutiny. If it’s not, it should be abandoned anyway and the person should be thankful for being set free of it. However, I think there is very little value in belittling the viewpoints of another on the assumption that their “feelings” of hope have no relevance in the debate. I would disagree with that assumption. 1 Cor 13:13 13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. NKJV
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 12, 2008 20:01:05 GMT -8
I feel this way on a variety of paradoxes and conundrums now that once used to vex me.
Furthermore, on some of these (such as predestination/freewill, losing one's salvation, etc..) I've begun to get some perspective on why God might have decided not to definitively explain them. Leaving some degree of mystery to them tends to produce the best results in us. Feeling the dynamic tension between concepts such as predestination and free will, or in this case, God's mercy and his justice, is a great antitode to keep us from harmful extremes.
It's sounds like your implying that equally possible means equally probable when you say "just as possible as the other". At this point, it doesn't look at all to me that all the views are equally probable.
Bravo. I think you've got a working thesis for your (first?) book.
I love the points you make in this paragraph. You aptly avoid the two extremes of narrow-minded dogmatism and laissez-faire relativism.
So, all that said, I still don't have much to work with regarding "the case for universalism" from Scripture.
What are the key verses universalists point to first? (I can think of one or two, but I'm curious what you hear used most)
Thanks for this, btw.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jan 12, 2008 21:43:30 GMT -8
Actually, that's not what I meant to imply at all.
You are right that not all the views are equally as probable.
The actual point of the statement was that all possible outcomes are equally as possible even if it's 1% vs. 99% on the probability scale. The reason is that the final outcome is not yet passed and therefore all outcomes are equally possible. This leaves room for those who hope in one over the other.
I was hoping the example I gave of Aragorn's hope against all probability would illustrate that. Even though there was a small probability, there was still and equal possibility, and in that case, hope was heroic.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 12, 2008 22:05:32 GMT -8
Yes, of course, there is no "scale" for possible, while there is a "scale" for probable. It was the "just as" that threw me for a sec. Two possibilites are always "just as possible" as each other. So, why say "just as"? I guess you were trying to especially make the point that though we might see one as more probable than the other, there is an aspect in which both views share a level playing field.
Oh, and I can't believe I didn't comment on your LOTR tie-ins. O my gosh. Even if I didn't agree with your general thrust (the intuitive apologetic for hope) I would be tempted to if it means solidarity with Aragorn!
Tally-ho!
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jan 12, 2008 22:19:50 GMT -8
I'll just give the prima facie passages that I can remember off the top of my head, and then give some of the others that take a little more imagination later. These are by no means proof-texts because adherents of the other views can justifiably argue different meanings. They are merely verses that sound (on the surface) to be supporting UR more than the other views. Rom 5:18-19 18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. NKJVCol 1:19-20 19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. NKJV1 Cor 15:22 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. NKJV1 Cor 15:25-28 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. [second death too?: brackets mine] 27 For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. NKJV1 Tim 4:10 10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. NKJVThat's all I can think of off the top of my head for now. I'll need to consult my notes for others. There are also lesser weighty allusions to universal reconciliation in describing the character of God. Such as phrases in Psalms that say "His mercy endures forever", etc. There's also verses like: Lam 3:22 22 Through the LORD's mercies we are not consumed, Because His compassions fail not. NKJVLam 3:31-33 31 For the Lord will not cast off forever. 32 Though He causes grief, Yet He will show compassion According to the multitude of His mercies. 33 For He does not afflict willingly, Nor grieve the children of men. NKJVThese are just a few that I can think of at the moment. But the main case for UR is not a tally of proof texts lined up against the other views, but rather a "biblically informed intuition" (as Steve G puts it) or philosophical consideration based on the biblically revealed redemptive purposes of God. The main premises are: 1. The bible says it is God's will that all are reconciled to Him (1Tim 2:4, 2Pet 3:9). 2. The bible says that God is all-powerful enough to bring His will about. (Matt 19:26, Mark 10:27, Mark 14:36, etc) 3. Therefore, it God's due time, and by His perfect methods, He will ultimately reconcile to Himself all that He loves without violating the free will of His creatures. So, without violating the free will of man, God, like the master chess player, can use a variety of things like mercy and judgment to ultimately bring about willing reconciliation to all people...in other words He will win their affection and obedience once all motives and obstacles (like irrationality) for rejecting Him are removed. As the master chess player, He doesn't choose the moves of His opponents, but He uses their moves to bring about a reconciliatory check mate. In his book, Talbott explains the view more eloquently and logically than any other I've seen yet. And I have to confess, it left me hoping it is the true view...and not just for any person's sake, but for God's sake, that He gets all He wants in the end and completely destroys sin AND it's effects. I can't think of a more glorious outcome. Much more can be said, but that's all I really want to say about it at this time.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 14, 2008 21:07:32 GMT -8
OK, off the top of my head I'm only aware of Origen debatably holding this view (though it's quite likely he did and one other)lesser known pre-Nicene father. I'd like to see some support for this claim about 4/6 of the education centers. First off, even if some teachers in 4 out of 6 schools did teach this, I find it hard to believe that that many "schools" of Christian thought held and taught that view monolithically for an extended period of time.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jan 15, 2008 9:58:32 GMT -8
Good question. And you're right, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. This indeed is an extraordinary claim that is almost universally asserted by universalists. I have not personally checked their references, but I have not heard it refuted even once in all the debates I've encountered so far. Here is one exerpt from an article that lists a reference: Actually, if I'm not mistaken, I think it was the 5th council of Constantinople in the 6th century that *anathemetized Universalism and Origen, not Constantine. But, leaving the rhetorical part of the article aside, the author lists the major schools and his source. I don't have that book so I don't know how reliable that source is to be quite honest. Along with Origen, Clement of Alexandria is often cited by universalists as a poster child and I have seen a quote by him that indeed sounds very universalistic, but I'll have to spend some time finding that again. Here is a link that names many people throughout history as universalists or universalist sympathizers (which I guess is what I am at this point). www.tentmaker.org/tracts/Universalists.htmlThey give this caveat: Anyway, I do plan on digging deeper into some of the sources to these claims because I think it is very significant and has tremendous implications. But for now, I'm simply an interested "spectator" (if you will) collecting data. *BTW, this is where I become uncomfortable with the councils..."Let him be anathema" seems to be presumptive language that over steps some bounds IMO. (the apostle Paul notwithstanding).
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jan 15, 2008 10:06:07 GMT -8
OK, off the top of my head I'm only aware of Origen debatably holding this view (though it's quite likely he did and one other)lesser known pre-Nicene father. I'd like to see some support for this claim about 4/6 of the education centers. First off, even if some teachers in 4 out of 6 schools did teach this, I find it hard to believe that that many "schools" of Christian thought held and taught that view monolithically for an extended period of time. Hi Josh, Perhaps I could add some support for this historical understanding of what the early schools of Christianity taught. Please see the link below, and scroll down to page 96. You should find it there. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc12.u.ii.htmlYou could also find support for this on wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism#_note-0I hope to interject more into the conversation, but at this time I am fairly busy. God bless, Robin
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jan 15, 2008 12:26:17 GMT -8
Thanks for those citations Robin. That shows the very page the article I quoted was referring to.
I think I've also read that Tertullian and Augustine were essentially the poster children for the Eternal Torment view, and I'm not sure who were the major advocates for Conditional Immortality in the early church.
Anyway, I look forward to what you can fill us in on when you get around to it.
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jan 15, 2008 16:53:33 GMT -8
Hi Chris, From what I've been able to find, it looks like the proponents of conditional immortality would look the Justin Martyr's Dialog with Trypho, and Arnobius' Against the Heathen, and early defenders of this view. Its interesting though, I have not been able to find much support for this view in any other writings of the early church fathers.
There seems to be a number of church fathers that taught that the soul was immortal (Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa).This view would lead to one of two views, eternal torment or universalism, and I for one don't believe that a universalist necessarily needs to hold to this notion. As one who favors the universalist position, I don't think it is all that important to answer the question, seeing that I believe that God intends to reconcile the whole world to Himself.
God bless, Robin
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Jan 15, 2008 22:17:45 GMT -8
A few of thoughts on this. I really like this idea of intuition and emotion playing a role right along side logic. I think I've maybe felt this in the past, but suppressed it or something. I guess I've never heard it put like that. It’s like your rationally arguing that emotion has a place at logic’s table (which totally “feels” right ). It’s intriguing. And I have to admit I’m kind of feelin’ this UR concept right now, because one of the main beefs I had with God for a long time was the idea of hell. This is one of those things that, for me, sounds good to believe, but feels a little sketchy to promote. Its a little Pascal's wager-ish to me. A couple questions for you guys that you may or may not have a good answer for. So if feelings get to play a role along with rationale in figuring out truth, how big of role does it get? For instance, if your rational side comes to 90% probability of one side of an argument, but your "emo"-side comes to 90% on the other...which wins? Also. Do people who subscribe to the UR model believe “all things” includes the ol' devil and his minions?
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jan 16, 2008 8:45:19 GMT -8
Hi Nathaniel, In my opinion, emotions must play a part in our theology. God did create us as emotional beings. However, where our emotions conflict with a clear teaching from scripture, we must check our emotions and reconsider our emotional position. For example; the Bible clearly teaches that none will come the the Father except through Jesus. So that leaves no room for debating whether a person who refuses to come to Jesus will ever be reconciled to God until then. However this debate hangs not on the necessity of Christ, but rather at what point will a person loose their chance at repentance and submission to Christ. This is where scripture seems to be ambiguous, IMO. So I for one would not attach a % of emotion to the equation, I would simply take into account all scripture, including the character of Jesus Himself, for He is the exact image of the Father. Then I could start to draw conclusions, or at least formulate an opinion.
As for the Devil and his minions. The plan of salvation was to redeem mankind. If God intends to redeem Satan, He did not fill us in on His plan. One must also consider whether the devil is a rational being, and did he actually fall from grace? Or was he created as a tempter for mankind? This is another topic all together.
Robin
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jan 16, 2008 10:33:48 GMT -8
Hi Nathaniel, I agree with Robin that it’s not about percentages. It’s actually really about knowing a person. I like to use the following analogy: It is my hope that my wife and I will remain together for the rest of our lives. It is my hope that she will remain faithful to me until the end, and I have faith that she will. However, that does not make it a fact because it still possible that she would choose otherwise. In fact, if I go by strict probabilities based on the statistics (even among Christians), the outlook is somewhat depressing. However, what tips the scales for me is that I know her. I know what she’s like, I know how she thinks, I know her aspirations, I know her level of commitment and devotion, and that knowledge gives my hope an incredible boost. It’s the same way with God. Knowing Him and His revealed redemptive purposes and His revealed ability to do anything gives Christian Universalists the hope that He will accomplish what He means to accomplish…namely the reconciliation of all people. Like Robin said, we’re not at liberty to hope for something contrary to that which God has revealed. But to the universalist, God’s revelation does not preclude ultimate reconciliation of the wicked, even if there is a severe final judgment in store for them. I think the reason you (and most Christians if they’re honest with themselves) have a problem with the Eternal Torment view is that is creates a cognitive dissonance between the ever-loving God revealed in scripture, and the actions of God portrayed by the ET view. If ET is true, I trust that God will, in His time, make sense of that disconnect. However, knowing that God loves the lost way-WAY- WAY more than we do suggests that an eternal loss for them, is also an eternal loss for God. And because of that, Universalists suspect a different plan than what has been revealed in the traditions of the church and most of the English translations of our bibles. So, it’s not really about percentages, but allowing for biblically informed intuition to at least have hope where there is room for it. But again, I’m not sold on the idea of UR. But at this point I have to admit that I’m glad that I can still have hope for it based on the current data I have. And, paradoxically, that hope makes me want to reach the lost even more than when I felt I needed to believe in ET. I have heard many other CU’s say the same thing. It’s kind of ironic because one of the main rhetorical arguments against UR is that Christians won’t be motivated to share the gospel if they know that everyone will eventually be reconciled. I used to buy that argument, I don’t anymore. I want to add that, like many other issues, I’ve come to believe that it’s OK to remain undecided. It’s a much safer place than uncertain dogmatism IMO. Lord bless.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 9, 2008 9:50:06 GMT -8
Robin and Chris,
Regarding evidence from the early church on the occurance of the universalist view, I'm still a skeptical. The single source that was referenced (New Schaeff-Herzog encylopedia) isn't super convincing. What is really needed IMO is actual quotes from early church fathers on this topic. And other than Clement (who is somewhat vague) and Origin, I don't see much to work with.
I'm not at all sure how the author quoted in that article could have had enough evidence to characterize different schools as "universalist" or "CI" or "EP".
The evidence would have to come in the form of quotes/ documents. The sources could be for or against, but I'd be interested in seeing more quotes from early Church fathers regarding this.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on May 12, 2008 15:56:47 GMT -8
Hey Josh, I've been meaning to post an answer to this, but you know how it is these days. I don't know if I mentioned it before in this thread or not, but, IMO, the merits of the Universal Reconciliation view (or any other view) are not found in counting the noses of ECFs or other impressive champions for the view, but rather in the arguments set forth. It’s not really a view based in tradition or even a purely exegetical approach to the scriptures. I believe all 3 major views have significant scriptural obstacles to scale. But UR, IMO, is a biblically informed intuitive approach to philosophically reconcile some very valid questions about the nature and character of God. Although I’m agnostic on the topic, UR is the most hopeful of the 3 views and, I believe, brings God the greatest victory and glory. That’s why it is sometimes referred to as “Ultimate” reconciliation. To answer the specific question you set forth, I know of no specific quotes from the ECF’s that would indicate that the encyclopedia is accurate. The creators of it obviously had some reason to make the statement. I would think that if their credibility mattered at all to them, they would have some valid reason for doing so. But I won’t assume that to be the case. It might be not be from ECF writings at all, but instead tradition handed down from various historians like Eusebius or someone like that. I honestly don’t know. But to me, it matters very little. Like I said before, I believe the merits of the UR view are found in its biblically informed arguments rather than proponents. If you will allow me to, I’d like to turn the question around if I may: 1. What kind of quotes from the ECF’s would remove your skepticism? What could they say to impress you that it was something they believed? 2. How much credibility do later scholars that you admire (such as George McDonald) have in their opinions on the subject. 3. What do you find in the ECF writings that counter the UR view? Is there much evidence the other way that is convincing to you? Just some food for thought. Hopefully I’ll be able to continue the discussion in little bits. Robin, feel free to chime in with your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by robin on May 12, 2008 19:42:04 GMT -8
Hi Chris & Josh, I would have to echo what Chris said. The fact, if it is such, that 4 of the 6 schools of Christian teaching held to the view does not in itself indicate that it is the correct teaching. We don't decide which teachings are correct by majority rule. That fact only adds credibility to the view that UR is biblical. And conversely, cast a shadow of doubt on those who believe the bible is clearly teaches eternal torment, or CI.
Also, I don't think you will find anyone willing to dispute that the school at Alexandria taught UR, with Origin and Clement as its champions, and to me that is saying enough in itself. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Gregory of Nyssa was a proponent of UR, though he came along a little later.
I must say though, I'm not quite as skeptical as you are Josh. There seems to be no compelling reason to have this understanding so widely held, especially by scholars, if it were not the case.
Robin
|
|