Most Christians are not universalists. In fact, most believe that God eternally tortures non-Christians. Some hold to a more inclusivist model where the faithful in all traditions are accepted by God because they are doing the best they can given their context. For example, if a person is born in Saudi Arabia and raised a strict Muslim, never really hearing the Gospel, is it fair that god damn that person? Inclusivists say it's not fair. While I believe the inclusivist position is the better of the two, it still has its problems. As I will show, and I'm indebted to Thomas Talbott for this, the logic of who God is leads to the conclusion that God will save all people.
Profesor Talbott suggests a simple exercise in logic, an exercise which distinguishes three different groups of Christians based on their denial of one of the three proposed points, which I have taken some liberties with here, but which lead to the same conclusion. They are as follows:
1. God loves all people and desires their salvation.
2. God is ultimately able to accomplish what God desires.
3. Most people will be separated from God and tortured in hell forever.
The third premise does not seem to follow the first two. The third only makes sense, in fact, if we deny one or both of the other two points. Calvinists escape this logical conundrum by denying that God loves all people and desires their salvation. According to Calvin, God only desires the salvation of some--the elect. Arminians, though they faithfully confess that God is love, deny the second proposition by positing that human freedom stops God from accomplishing God's will, even in the afterlife. Christian universalists, such as myself, affirm the first two propositions and so deny the third. Because we believe that God is love and desires the salvation of all, and because we believe that God can bring God's will about ultimately, we deny that the unrepentant will be eternally lost. They may experience a time of punishment in hell, but not for eternity.
Much of God's will is not accomplished on earth because God has given creation freedom. We can do as we wish without God intervening to stop us. In this sense, we do many things that thwart God's will. Where God desires peace, we make war; where God desires love, we hate; where God desires compassion, we are selfish. However, there is no reason why this logically carries over to the next life. I do not mean that there are not consequences for sin in this life or the next, only that our ability to thwart God's will on earth does not mean that we will be able to do so in the afterlife. While freedom is important, it is not the end all. God is the end all, and all things will be subjected to him, according to St. Paul. Every will will be in alignment with God, and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord. This is not because God will lobotomize unbelievers so that they do what God says. God is not a "sky bully." Rather, the reality that God is Love in essence, and wants us to be supremely happy--wants what is in our best interest and will provide us with lasting joy--should persuade us toward God. Do we reject a loving parent, a parent that not only wants what is best for us, but brings it about? Any rejection of those who love us, requires valid reasons, but if there are no valid reasons for rejecting God, why would we do so? (I'm assuming here that our various philosophical objections to theism or the problem of evil will be asnwered in an adequate manner). A rejection of God in the afterlife, once the truth has been made known to us, would require such irrationality that we could say that such a person is not actually free, but still clinging to old wounds or stubbornness. The removal of such afflictions does not require a breach of one's freedom any more than a removal of cancer does.
Profesor Talbott suggests a simple exercise in logic, an exercise which distinguishes three different groups of Christians based on their denial of one of the three proposed points, which I have taken some liberties with here, but which lead to the same conclusion. They are as follows:
1. God loves all people and desires their salvation.
2. God is ultimately able to accomplish what God desires.
3. Most people will be separated from God and tortured in hell forever.
The third premise does not seem to follow the first two. The third only makes sense, in fact, if we deny one or both of the other two points. Calvinists escape this logical conundrum by denying that God loves all people and desires their salvation. According to Calvin, God only desires the salvation of some--the elect. Arminians, though they faithfully confess that God is love, deny the second proposition by positing that human freedom stops God from accomplishing God's will, even in the afterlife. Christian universalists, such as myself, affirm the first two propositions and so deny the third. Because we believe that God is love and desires the salvation of all, and because we believe that God can bring God's will about ultimately, we deny that the unrepentant will be eternally lost. They may experience a time of punishment in hell, but not for eternity.
Much of God's will is not accomplished on earth because God has given creation freedom. We can do as we wish without God intervening to stop us. In this sense, we do many things that thwart God's will. Where God desires peace, we make war; where God desires love, we hate; where God desires compassion, we are selfish. However, there is no reason why this logically carries over to the next life. I do not mean that there are not consequences for sin in this life or the next, only that our ability to thwart God's will on earth does not mean that we will be able to do so in the afterlife. While freedom is important, it is not the end all. God is the end all, and all things will be subjected to him, according to St. Paul. Every will will be in alignment with God, and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord. This is not because God will lobotomize unbelievers so that they do what God says. God is not a "sky bully." Rather, the reality that God is Love in essence, and wants us to be supremely happy--wants what is in our best interest and will provide us with lasting joy--should persuade us toward God. Do we reject a loving parent, a parent that not only wants what is best for us, but brings it about? Any rejection of those who love us, requires valid reasons, but if there are no valid reasons for rejecting God, why would we do so? (I'm assuming here that our various philosophical objections to theism or the problem of evil will be asnwered in an adequate manner). A rejection of God in the afterlife, once the truth has been made known to us, would require such irrationality that we could say that such a person is not actually free, but still clinging to old wounds or stubbornness. The removal of such afflictions does not require a breach of one's freedom any more than a removal of cancer does.
1 comment:
I enjoy reading your posts, and I saw the comment section was a little dry, so here is something for the comment section. You propose that a literal, eternal hell cannot exist logically because of two presuppositions.
1. God loves all people and desires their salvation.
2. God is ultimately able to accomplish what God desires.
But, where in scripture is it said that God will accomplish what God desires? I love logic and your conclusion can only be logically sound if all of your points are true. I just don't know point 2 to be true. It is claimed to be true by Talbott, but that doesn't make it true.
Also, I wonder what would be the point of the great commission, if no matter what, we are all saved. Just to avoid a period of torment? In your example, even a time of torment goes against God's loving nature. But I understand that God is just and even so in his punishment. God gives us every chance, and is merciful, but does that mean he that his justice is limited by his mercy?
I don't accept the doctrine of eternal hell or universal reconciliation, or annihilation. I am still learning. Thanks for taking the time to write such deep thoughts.
Post a Comment