Comments Due: 11:59pm on Tuesday, November 19th, 2013.
Here are two things that I'd like you to think about regarding this topic of eternal hell, universalism, and the Christian concept of God.
First: Christian philosopher Stephen T. Davis (Claremont McKenna College) considers the following to
be one of the five best arguments for universalism that he can think of:
"How can the Blessed experience joy in heaven if friends and loved ones are in hell? Obviously
(so universalists will argue), they can't. People can only know joy and
happiness in heaven if everyone else is or eventually will be there
too. If the Blessed are to experience joy in heaven, as Christian
tradition says they are, universalism must be true."
(Note that Tom Talbott, the Christian philosopher you will be reading shortly, seems to offer a similar line of reasoning in the
essay you will read. He also more explicitly offers that reasoning here:
http://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/basic.shtml.)
Now, Davis is no universalist. (Talbott is.) But regarding the above line of reasoning he writes:
"How can the Blessed be joyous if friends and loved ones are in hell? I
do not know an adequate answer to this question. I expect that if I
knew enough about heaven I would know the answer, but I know little
about heaven. The problem is perhaps less acute for me than for those
seperationists who believe hell is a place of permanent torture. If I am
right, the Blessed need not worry that loved ones are in agony and are
allowed to hope that God's love can even yet achieve a reconciliation.
But there is still the question how, say, a wife can experience joy and
happiness in heaven while her beloved husband is in hell. And that is
the question I am unable to answer satisfactorily. It would seem to be
unjust for God to allow the wrong choices of the damned--i.e., their
rejection of God--to ruin the joy of the Blessed, who have chosen to
love God. But how God brings it about that the Blessed experience the
joy of the presence of God despite the absence of others, I do not
know."
How might you respond to this particular universalist line of reasoning?
Do you find it compelling? If so, why? If not, can you do better than
Davis here? Consider what others say and be sure to respond to each
other.
Second: This essay has been up since I
was in grad school. The essay is entitled "Universalism
and the Bible" and it is written by Keith DeRose (a Christian philosopher at Yale who,
incidentally, did his undergraduate studies at Calvin College, a Christian college in Grand Rapids, MI).
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/univ.htm
Give the essay a close read. Jot some things down while you read. Take
notes. Pause to reflect. And then respond here. Did DeRose make some
compelling points? If so, what are they? Where, if anywhere, did his
case seem weakest? What are the objections you might press? Does he have
any good replies to those objections available to him? How do DeRose's
views fit into the Walls/Talbott exchange? (You will be reading the Talbott essay here shortly.)
Be sure to interact with each other! Take advantage of this good
opportunity to engage in sustained critical reflection with others.
Press each other. Don't be satisfied with mere assertions.
First I would like to say that as a Christian, even though I have been taught otherwise, Universalism is the ideal form of retribution. The ones who believe get their reward for being faithful, the ones who did not believe get some punishment, but ultimately end up saved and blissful regardless. This is optimal and as a Christian I would like for this to be the case, if for those reason alone. That aside, not everything that I would like about Christianity is what I believe or in fact, what seems to be true. All of that being said, I appreciate that DeRose says something very similar in his essay. After reading his essay and reading the previous explanation of what universalism really is, I have come up with three points that really provoke a sort of frustration within me.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the Universalism idea gives no real benefit to being a Christian while on earth. Aside from not experiencing a period of hellish torment, the only difference in the end will be life on Earth, and it would seem that for many Christians, life is significantly harder than it would be had they just not believed. So, if in the end, I am going to wind-up in Heaven regardless, then I should just choose the easiest path. Albeit, perhaps persecution here is a lot better than actual Hell.
Second, there is no immediate reason to evangelize within the Universalism doctrine. Perhaps the period of Hell lasts a billion years. Even so, ever lasting life in heaven is eternal, and if it is true bliss, then even a billions years of hellish memories will eventually fade. So although hell may be terrible, evangelizing should only really be done for those we 'like best' and only when its convenient. For all others, to hell with them, it won't last forever anyway.
Finally, I see no purpose for God to grant free will if we are all ultimately going to choose God in the end. There is simply too much pain and suffering here on Earth to justify Universalism. If suffering on Earth is a result of free will, and God plans to take away our free will, then God was cruel for ever allowing free will in the first place.
Jacob Clagg
I agree with Jacob. I am a Christian and believe that someday I will hopefully go to heaven and not hell. I wish that the outcome could end in everyone eventually going to heaven because it seems to be too much for one to handle an ETERNAL hell with infinite pain and suffering. As we talked in class, you can think of the worst possible disaster and suffering anyone has ever gone through and still the is finite. It has an end and eventually is no longer. The Christian believe in hell on the other hand is infinite and would have no end to the pain and misery. With my small mind and thinking I do not understand why someone would or should have to spend the REST of eternity suffering when there is a truly loving God that can punish these people for not choosing him and allow them to then enter heaven eventually. Even though that would go against the point of believing and actually choosing to follow God it would still be nice to know that if you screw up you won’t end up spending the rest of your life in hell.
ReplyDeleteAs this seems like a fantastic thing to some people (mostly non-believers) it gives a cop out to those who decided to deny God and choose to live their life how they wanted to. These people would not have had a relationship with God and essentially did not want a relationship with him because so why should they be able to spend the rest of their life with him? God obviously does not want to make these people suffer because ultimately he is perfectly loving, but what choice does he have when he tells these people in the Bible that the ending punishment for not believing in him and choosing to live for him would be hell?
For the essay, I think that there are some good points brought up, but in the end I still do not agree with them because my beliefs and followings are through Gods word, the bible. I find it hard for someone to be able to reject what the bible says and still call themselves a Christian because essentially they are saying that they believe in God, but don’t think that what he says matters. If Tallbot can deny or reject this point in the bible, then what else does he reject or what else will he someday reject because he doesn’t “agree” with it himself? This does not work and therefor I do not find it necessary to consider universalism because that is not what the bible says.
Elliott Westerbeck
I will admit that I haven't given proper reflection to this topic. My freshman year, a friend of mine led a small group that looked at Rob Bell's "Love Wins" and Francis Chan's answer to that book "Erasing Hell" and it basically looked at the arguments for and against Universalism. One thing I do wonder about is the concept of freewill and coercion. I've found in Scripture as well as experience that "God woos He never rapes". I find the idea of irresistible grace almost appalling because it looks nothing like the behavior of God that I have found anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian and a pastor there are times when Universalism has come up at times, and I do find myself struggling with the concept that if one has made a genuine commitment to be a “born again” Christian and that one strive to live a life of holiness and piety while the unjust will eventually have the same eternal security as those who have been justified is troubling. While salvation is offered to all there are and will be those who refuse the invitation and yet they all will end up with the same outcome, therefor Universalism seems to make the church and evangelism irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Universalist are among those who subscribe to that of a “Social Gospel” or to say making that of the word of God which is valid something that is compromised that can be changed and twisted to suit their liking.
The first argument is quite compelling. I never really thought that far into it and this point actually makes sense. I can see how a loving wife would be in misery if her husband went to hell and she was left to agonize in heaven which isn't supposed to happen. The universalism idea can stretch the thoughts of Christians, in which I am, and make you think about what ideas you have been taught and make you think about them in a different light than what you have ever thought before. But the bible in my eyes points this out clearly about hell and I can't go against that.
ReplyDeleteNow the essay did in fact bring up good points, but I agree with Elliot. I am a follower of the word and the bible so trying to change the idea around hell just doesn't work in my eyes. I can get why people do in fact believe in such things but I just don't see them that way. I just don't understand what hell is even for then if we all go to heaven anyway in the universalism eyes. This idea just doesn't go with what I think and I just don't think I can even think that way.
Nathan Schutz
I think it is interesting to see the evolution of Religion throughout time. It says a lot about the culture and people of a given era, such as what they were interested in, what they found important and where they found their values. Universalism to me, sounds like a radical idea. I've had limited experience with the Bible, but my idea was that hell was just a part of it all. It isn't something you can wipe out or modify so your god doesn't sound so cruel.
ReplyDeleteBut it is not a new, radical idea. I learned in class that it was actually around for centuries, and our Christianity today has taken many drastic changes since then. The fire and brimstone preaching of early America comes to mind. The people of that day lived everyday with the fear and terror of hell being preached to them in the very place they worship. Now, hell is skimped around like an embarassing topic in many institutions. Or, made irrelevant by Universalist ideas of there being no "eternal" hell.
I understand the urge to change the idea of "eternal damnation" if it was present in my Religion, but I do not agree with changing the Religion itself to better fit your own personal interpretation. Hell is there, written in black and white. If you choose this as your Religion, this is your book. Read it.
Mike Gillum
Stephen T. Davis present a valid point worthy of consideration. It's improbable that one could bear the thought of their loved ones' suffering.
ReplyDeleteKeith DeRose spoke about universalism directing our attention to the usage of the word "all" in the passages. He later invites us to inspect our interpretation on God's teaching- the literalness of doctrine people abide by. Finally touched on Universalism and exclusivism, eternal punishment and concludes that "The Greek adjective (and its cognates) that our English Bibles translate as "eternal" or "everlasting" (and their cognates), literally means "age-enduring" or "pertaining to an age", and can be used in such a way that it does not imply endless duration."
I found his arguments fascinating. All who trust and favor the notion of eternal life have my blessing, though, the ideation of an ever-lasting life interests me little. I believe whatever happens happens, be it annihilation,eternal bliss, or everlasting torment. If this destines me to hell so be it, I will manage.
I feel that the life that I currently exist in should have my full attention less the concern for afterlife. I deserves the option to explore and imbue my mind with variety of perspectives. This way I will be able to rightly evaluate my choices, decisions, and be accountable for my own actions.
Emi
*I deserve... Excusez-moi. Typo.
DeleteEmi