Comments Due: 11:59pm March 19, 2013.
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 Talbott seems to offer a similar line of reasoning in the essay you have read. He also more explicitly offers that reasoning here: http://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/basic.shtml.)
Now, Davis is no universalist. 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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Here is one possible way to respond to this universalist line of reasoning:
It seems that we should be able to grant that once God has achieved his final redemptive purposes or accomplished his highest goals, he would be in a state of perfect contentment or happiness. If it turns out that God’s redemptive purposes allow for the existence of some individuals suffering in eternal hell, it would follow that God could be perfectly content, even while some suffered. I do not think it would be too much to claim that once the Blessed are in heaven, they would come to see things as God does. By this I mean that the Blessed would come to have the same values, priorities, and desires as God. So, once the Blessed are in heaven, their values, priorities, and desires would be shaped and oriented in such a way that they could experience perfect contentment even while some individuals suffer in eternal hell.
Of course, the key assumption—and the most controversial—is that God’s redemptive purposes allow for eternal hell. Here of course, we need only insert Walls’ argument that God’s purposes do allow for eternal hell. So, it seems to me that the success of this particular universalist line of reasoning depends on how strong we judge Walls’ argument to be.
--Bayer
I see the emotional appeal of this objection, but I don't see it as rationally compelling. First of all, I think we can take the structure of this objection and invert it, coming up with an objection in response: If universalism is true, then it seems to be the case that persons who have committed horrendous, atrocious crimes will reside Heaven eternally. That being so, persons like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Osama Bin Laden will reside in Heaven along with all the Blessed. How can the Blessed enjoy heaven knowing that people responsible for the cruel, gratuitous tortue of millions of innocent people will also be residing in Heaven forever?
Further, I think Bayer has a good point. Perhaps it will be the case that in heaven we will have a different perception of justice, love, and perfection, an understanding of them that is more in line with God's.
-Kim Small
Davis asks the question, "How can a wife experience joy and happiness in heaven while her beloved husband is in hell?" And, as Kim said, I can feel the emotional appeal behind this question yet it brings me to think about how we believe that God is joy and if He is then He will be the source of the most fullest of joys that anyone could experience and it almost makes me wonder if part of God's "wiping away our every tear" could be tears that are shed at the Final Judgment when what is just and right is done - the right thing is not always the easiest thing. So maybe there would be valid sadness over the right thing being done but yet if this is a legitimate interpretation of "God wiping away every tear" then maybe this is some sort of compelling evidence that God overcomes the initial sadness and restores the Blessed to the fullest of joys.
Besides that thought, I think Kim's inversion of the objection is a great point that a universalist would need to seriously grapple with as well.
While it does seem strange that people could enjoy a joyful existence in heaven despite the suffering of their loved ones in hell, it doesn't seem necessarily impossible to me. After all, their love is no greater than God’s, yet God is the one who declares judgment upon them. If God’s desire to see the condemned flourish is outweighed by his desire to see justice done to the unrepentant, then presumably a regenerate being, bestowed with moral perfection, would also desire that their loved ones receive justice due to being able to fully understand the horrific nature of their sin.
That being said… I am more inclined to believe that for humans and probably many demons, hell is eternal annihilation rather than torment. It is frequently described as “the second death” and we are told in Matthew 10:28 to “fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” It’s easier to understand those in heaven not feeling sorrow with this model, as while their loved ones may not be present, they can feel joyful in the knowledge that they are neither suffering nor able to bring suffering upon themselves through their sin.
-Alex LaBreche.
In response to Davis’ question of how the blessed can be full of joy while in heaven if their loved ones are in Hell I think it is important to recognize that our understanding of fulfilling joy is limited. We are capable of experiencing a portion of joy through the relationships that we have with our close friends, family and spouses, but this pales in comparison to the kind of fulfillment we will experience in God’s presence. And as Bayer said, the blessed will have their perception of what joy is aligned with the true perception of joy when they are in heaven. The experience will cause them to see as God sees and all longings will be satisfied by the presence of God.
Also, this issue reminds me of when the Pharisees approached Jesus and asked him if a woman were married to seven brothers who had all died and gone to heaven and then she died and joined them which one would she be married to in heaven. Jesus said that when people rise from the dead they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. I realize that Davis is talking about more than just relationships between a husband and wife, but I think that the implication of what Jesus is saying about relationships in general is applicable here. The blessed will not have the same earthly relationships as they do in heaven because they will be in a separate environment.
~Rachel M
Kim: I don’t think your inversion really works. After all, if Hitler, Stalin, et al. were in Heaven, certainly they’d be heartily sorry for their misdoings. Even if God had to intervene in some way (and regardless of the freedom-destroying result of this intervening…), their heart would have changed. Indeed, perhaps they will even do some collection of great things in order to make up for the tragedies they respectively caused. Given such circumstances, it seems like we would be encouraged by God to forgive them. Unlike in this life, where emotional trauma sometimes prevents victims from being able to forgive, God could give every victim the ability to truly forgive. Since it would be in line with God’s plan to forgive, and the victims would want to see God’s plan accomplished, they too would do everything they could to reconcile with these brutal murderers. With such a powerful reconciliation, all parties involved in the tragedy could live joyfully. My response here privileges forgiveness over revenge, which seems to be a theme in all the New Testament writings that deal with either of the topics.
My own response is this: The objection seems to be invoking a sort of “if it’s not perfect, it’s not Heaven” attitude. That is, if any person’s joy is not perfect when in Heaven, then something is lacking. But this seems to be an inevitable consequence no matter how we construe Heaven and ultimate salvation. If universalism is true, there is still only imperfect joy in Heaven. Here’s why: We’ll remember our past lives on Earth. Those past lives are filled with lots of junk. Imagine if Hitler actually accepted Christ, honestly, and reconciled with all his victims. How could he not still be in some sorrowful state about what he had done? Even if he no longer felt guilty about it, he would still regret it. But such regret seems to undermine joy. Therefore, either there is something about Heaven which shields regrets and imperfect joys (which would take care of the objection on its own right, but is unsayable), or we do violence to the concept of Heaven if we construe it as ultimate perfection. Indeed, it seems perfectly reasonable to think that we can have great joy despite imperfection. Is that not what God calls us to do here on Earth? Despite the tragedy around us, God asks us to rest in Him and find joy in Him. Why should we think God would not do the same in Heaven?
--Tommy
I agree with Bayer, in that once we are in heaven we will be striving for the same contentment and happiness that God demonstrates. But as far as Kim's question of whether or not we could fully enjoy heave if the evilest men we can think of are there too, I think that it would be hard say we still couldnt enjoy and fellowship with even the once evilest of men if we are striving and sharing God's contentment and happiness. The emotional appeal is there on both sides, on one side I want to be able to hang out with my husband in heaven despite his soul's condition and I could see how heaven wouldnt be as perfect without that person. But at the same time, the Hitler and Bin Laden example has a strong emotional appeal to it. We would think that heaven would not be pleasant with them there because we have not personally (in our earthly forms) forgave these men for the travesties they have caused. But this is a euphoric and perfect place, and at some point God will have fully forgave them for their sins, so we would be able to do the same.
I find the universalist's argument pretty compelling, and agree with Davis and Talbot in many aspects.
Rachel: Your comment on the limitations of our understanding of fulfilling joy strongly resonated with me. "We are capable of experiencing a portion of joy through the relationships that we have with our close friends, family and spouses, but this pales in comparison to the kind of fulfillment we will experience in God’s presence."
I think it is important to remember that we are unable to fully serve God in this life due to sin, but in heaven "every curse will no longer be" (Revelation 22:3). We will not be under the curse of sin any longer, so everything we do will be worship in heaven. We will never be motivated by anything other than our love for God. Everything we do will be out of our love for God, untainted by our sin nature. Because of the absence of sin, perhaps true joy can really exist despite such terrible happenings (a spouse in hell) in such a way that our depraved minds simply cannot comprehend here on earth.
But even though we will no longer have the bondage of sin to enslaves us like we do here on earth, it is still hard for me to think that my reaction to a close family member being in eternal torment while I live in paradise would be joyful. This idea is incredibly compelling. Davis's argument is quite thought-provoking and I am honestly not sure what to think of it.
-Clay
Post a Comment