 |
| Keith DeRose |
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?
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.
9 comments:
Let me be the first to respond to this post as to prove that I have officially adjusted to day light savings time (Tommy, I pray you have fully recovered as well). This article uses several Scripture passages I would like to focus in on; if I did not confine this post to these passages, my critique would be longer than the article. Many of these passages can be interpreted to mean everyone “who have believed.” Though the verses that DeRose has selected do not have this addition in them, traditional hell theologians would argue that these passages need to be considered in light of other Scriptures that would imply such things. For instance, 1 Cor. 15:22 says, “so also IN Christ shall all be made alive.” A traditionalist would point out that it says “in Christ,” a phrase that is commonly used in reference to those who believe. Passages like Col 1:19-20, and Romans 5:18 seem to be a little more problematic, but again, a traditionalist would come right back and say, “Sure, God is able to reconcile all things to Himself through Jesus, but other passages would say that that reconciliation, for humanity at least, comes through faith.”
However, I do not find these traditionalist responses completely satisfying. The Romans 5 passage seems most problematic to me. I can reconcile verse 18 with a traditionalist view of hell by saying that Paul is addressing the issue of Jew Gentile relationships and what each of these groups’ roles are in the kingdom. What is much harder to wrestle with is verse 19. Verse 19 references that we all used to in Adam, but those who believe are in Christ. One man’s disobedience, namely Adam, led to making “many” sinners. We know from passages such as Romans 3:23 that all have sinned. Therefore, the word “many” means all. The second half of the phrase must follow the same line of exegetical interpretation. Thus, one man’s obedience, namely Christ, “many,” or “all,” will be made righteous. It seems to follow that because everyone (many) has sinned and been born into sin, because of Christ everyone’s (many) sinful condition is reversed. This is a problem for the traditionalist viewpoint of hell. What do we do? Accept universalism? Please discuss.
One of the verses that stood out to me the most in this essay was from Philippians 2:10-11 it says, “So that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” Like DeRose, I had always interpreted this verse to mean that in the end Jesus would be exalted by God and because of his glory all people would bow and realize that he is God. But, this confessing that he is God would not lead to salvation because it is too late for those who do not confess until the end when God is made apparent to them. He points out though that it doesn’t say anywhere that our decision for eternity has to be made in this life. This makes it seem as though our understanding of the doctrine of hell has been entirely wrong for centuries. Could it be that our traditional views have been mistaken for all this time?
This verse, when coupled with Romans 10:9 which says, “If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will be saved,” makes it difficult for me to see how it could be any other way besides all people being saved. In the end all people will confess so it would seem that all people are going to be saved. These two verses together make this clear. Unless there is some rule that clarifies the misinterpretation by showing that the choice of heaven has to be made while on earth. Or, it could be that these people who confess that Jesus is Lord don’t really believe in their hearts that he was resurrected. But then I am not sure why they would be confessing that he is Lord. Maybe it is not a true confession, but they are only confessing that Jesus is Lord because that is what the majority is doing, and only God can judge the motivation of these people so then he could rightfully send people to hell. However, that seems to be a bit farfetched.
Perhaps I have lost track of the main argument, but it seems to me that if Christians are suppose to be characterized by their loving and merciful attitudes toward other people then the idea of universalism shouldn’t be so foreign. Why are Christians so hell bent on sending people to hell?
~Rachel
DeRose’s argument is mostly focused on the testimony of Scripture. He’s showing how a Christian can consistently affirm the Bible and Universalism. For the most part, I think DeRose makes a very compelling case. He adequately handles any verses that threaten his view. It seems to me, however, that if we want to consider how the Bible testifies toward Universalism, we should also look at how the church fathers testify. After all, the church fathers were very close to the Apostles; many of their doctrines likely came directly from Apostles.
Prooftexts:
“Those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If, then, those who do this as respects the flesh have suffered death, how much more shall this be the case with any one who corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such an one becoming defiled [in this way], shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him.” – Ignatius (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm)
DeRose’s explanations of eternal can apply here. However, we might wonder about “shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Are we to understand this as “shall not at first inherit the kingdom of God?” That seems like a strained reading.
“[W]e say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years. And if any one say that this is incredible or impossible, this error of ours is one which concerns ourselves only, and no other person, so long as you cannot convict us of doing any harm.”
“[E]ach man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions. For if all men knew this, no one would choose wickedness even for a little, knowing that he goes to the everlasting punishment of fire; but would by all means restrain himself, and adorn himself with virtue, that he might obtain the good gifts of God, and escape the punishments.”
“And in what kind of sensation and punishment the wicked are to be, hear from what was said in like manner with reference to this; it is as follows: Their worm shall not rest, and their fire shall not be quenched; Isaiah 66:24 and then shall they repent, when it profits them not.” – Justin Martyr (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm)
These quotes might give us a little more cause for concern. Justin Martyr suggests everlasting punishment is not merely for a period of a thousand years. Of course, we could understand this to mean “longer than a thousand years but not forever,” but why bother countering what Plato says, then? Furthermore, apparently repenting while being punished does not profit the wicked. That certainly seems to be problematic for arguments against the “no further chances” view.
“[T]hus also the punishment of those who do not believe the Word of God, and despise His advent, and are turned away backwards, is increased; being not merely temporal, but rendered also eternal. For to whomsoever the Lord shall say, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, Matthew 25:41 these shall be damned for ever;” – Irenaeus (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103428.htm)
This quote from Irenaeus (who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John) seems especially problematic for Universalism. The punishment is not temporal but eternal. That seems to undermine DeRose’s reading of eternal. Furthermore, how are we to understand “for ever” if not “unending?”
There are numerous more examples, but I’ll stop there. The church fathers seem to support an understanding that undermines Universalism. If DeRose is right that Scripture supports Universalism, it seems we must claim that in only a few generations – indeed, just one person removed from being directly under the Apostles – the correct understanding of hell was lost. That seems unlikely to me, but certainly we ought to hold the Bible in higher regard than these men.
Overall, DeRose’s essay, though it failed to win me over to universalism, did convince me that it wasn’t as clear-cut an issue as many think. His use of Biblical passages to support his points impressed me greatly. Many of the passages he offered do prove confusing from a perspective of eternal punishment, and clearly must be considered very carefully. One possible response that comes to mind (I am uncertain of its merit) is that we generally regard sin as dehumanizing- perhaps before their judgment, the sin of the unsaved will warp them until they can no longer be rightly called human (We have a good case to make that this can happen in one’s life, not just after death). However, I admit that claiming this happens to all unsaved is speculative.
That having been said, pt. 7 dealing with Romans 10:9 struck me as more poorly reasoned than the rest of the essay. He briefly touches on the idea that such a confession “wouldn’t count” but fails to think this idea through fully- if it wouldn’t count, why not? He describes it in terms of “merit,” but doesn’t talk about what that merit might entail. It makes quite a bit of sense that such a confession could need to be chosen freely rather than in response to God’s overwhelming presence effectively coercing the speaker into submission. Certainly, they would honestly believe it, but only after having every other option removed- at which point they are no more responsible for their actions than a thief returning stolen goods with a truncheon-wielding policeman holding him in the air by his ankles.
^The above post is mine.
-Alex LaBreche
I've wondered why there are many passages in the Bible where it reads that "all shall be made alive"(1 Cor. 15:22), "life for all men" (Romans 5:18), "reconciling all" (Col. 1:19-20), "savior to all" (1 Timothy 4:10), etc. if it's not true that all will be saved. So my confusion over that makes DeRose's argument very appealing and I truly wish it were true that all, in the end, will be saved.
The part of his argument that I found most compelling was when he discussed Romans 10:9 and Philippians 2:11, he made a good point that I have overlooked in the past and it's something worth seeking further understanding over. As he wrote, and others here have testified as well, I've grown up in the tradition that says that we must make a choice before our physical death to place our faith in Christ if we are to be saved because after death the judgment comes and dying without Christ renders one eternally and hopelessly damned. I've not very seriously considered the possibility of being saved after death because I've always understood it to be that God is patient with us here and the reason why He doesn't wipe out all evil now is because all without Christ now would be forever damned and so God waits because He is patient and wills that all will come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). It begs to question, if in the end all will be saved (at some point in time), why God doesn't just stop all evil and suffering now because His patience only prolongs the suffering and seems to render such patience pointless.
Secondly, I don’t know that DeRose’s retort about confession and acceptance of Christ being a matter of merit holds up or not because it doesn’t have to be considered personal merit it could just be that this is the time that God has allotted for individuals to place their faith in Him and confess that He is Lord. If this is the time God has allotted, then so be it. As I said, if all would be saved in the end anyhow, why allot any time on this broken and hurting planet in the first place?
Also, I still find it compelling to cling to the argument that says sinning against an infinitely holy God makes an individual infinitely guilty and worthy of infinite punishment. Just a thought…
The aspect of universalism—as presented by DeRose (and Talbott as well)—that is the most compelling to me is the fact that it actually isn’t that terribly different from the traditional view of hell. What I mean is that although the crucial difference of whether or not hell is eternal is genuine, it seems to me that the truly important aspects of our understanding of the doctrine of hell (and salvation in general) typically associated with the traditional view of hell can still be maintained.
I find DeRose’s discussion on exclusivism to be very helpful in this regard. It is comforting to realize that one can actually affirm universalism while maintaining that salvation and reconciliation to God is only possible through Christ. It seems quite clear that exclusivism is far more central for Christianiy than the eternality of hell.
Furthermore, I find it quite remarkable that DeRose argues that there is extremely little support for a no further chance doctrine. What I find surprising is that this doctrine has always seemed unquestionable. As if there would be no possible reason to reject it. But now I’m having a hard time coming up with strong compelling reasons to affirm it. Any thoughts?
--Bayer
What stood out to me the most in this essay was also like other's above have said was the passages from Romans 10:9 and from Philippians 2:10-11.
Romans 10:9 says, "If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, believe in your heart God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
Phil 2:10-11 says, “So that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”
Like DeRose,claims that the Bible doesn't say anywhere that our decision for eternity has to be made in this life. But, I would disagree with him. Phil 2:12 says, "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling." In my mind, this seems to imply that an earthly response is required given the direct command to "fear" and to "tremble." If we really have nothing to worry about in terms of our eternal destiny then why would Paul write otherwise?
-Clay
Oveall, I thought DeRose mad a very compelling argument. Not only did he stand up very well to verses that could be considered opposing, but he also found very good verse use as counter arguments. One verse I found interesting and had never interpreted it in this fashion was Phillipains 2:10-11. From a Universalistic perspective it would seem that this verse is of great relevance for an argument such as theirs. While the Universalist's perspective seems to always be the minority idea throughout history and into the present, it is hard to deny their Scriptural interpretations and validity in certain areas.
Post a Comment