Damned Nonsense! Post #10: The Orthodox View

This post is part of the Damned Nonsense! series, a collection of posts exploring the Christian doctrine of salvation. It is named after a dissertation by Ravi Holy entitled "Damned Nonsense: An Argument for Universalism Consisting of a Critique of All the Alternatives to It." While some of the series' content is adapted from Holy's work, not all opinions expressed in this series are Holy's. Please check out all the posts in this series!

Let's take a break from all this heavy reading and watch a video. In today's post Orthodox Christian priest, Steve Robinson, explains the difference between the popular Protestant view of salvation and the Orthodox view. Enjoy.




"And now, there is no place where God is not.
There is no place to escape the love of God.
There is no place that we can hide from God's love for us
that flows from His heart like a river of fire." 

"Steve Robinson is an Orthodox Christian living in Phoenix Arizona and owns his own construction company. Prior to becoming Orthodox, he was an evangelical pastor and church leader. More recently, he established one of the most popular Orthodox podcasts on the planet – Our Life in Christ– which he hosts with his friend Bill Gould."

- jmw

Tomorrow's Post: Universalism & Missions

Damned Nonsense! Post #8: What to do with hell... (Part 2)

This post is part of the Damned Nonsense! series, a collection of posts exploring the Christian doctrine of salvation. It is named after a dissertation by Ravi Holy entitled "Damned Nonsense: An Argument for Universalism Consisting of a Critique of All the Alternatives to It." While some of the series' content is adapted from Holy's work, not all opinions expressed in this series are Holy's. Please check out all the posts in this series!

In yesterday's post I explained that Jesus' teaching about hell (Gehenna) was not about an afterlife destination but rather a present, this-world reality. Specifically, Jesus warned Israel that her current praxis would turn the whole city of Jerusalem into a burning pile of rubble where men, women, and children would weep and gnash their teeth. Does this mean that there is no hell beyond this life? Does this mean that there is no afterlife? Does this mean that there is no final judgment or ultimate justice? It is to these questions that I would like to turn in today's post.

Universalism does not necessarily jettison the belief in a postmortem hell. It does, however, jettison an everlasting hell that is torturous beyond punitive purposes. Universalism emphasizes ultimate justice and thereby makes room for a kind of hell. One of the reasons that we have long held on to the concept of hell is because human beings have an innate orientation toward justice. Socrates argued that "if death were a release from everything, it would be a boon for the wicked, because by dying they would be released not only from the body but also from their own wickedness together with the soul," (McLaren, 79). In the tradition of Socrates, humankind has long affirmed the necessity for ultimate justice, heaven/hell, reward/punishment.

However, Universalism contends that the Gospel of Jesus Christ reveals God's justice, not humanity's, and that justice is expressed in the salvation of all. The Gospel reveals God's desire that all be saved and God's willingness to die in place of humanity so that his may be accomplished. Thus, while a kind of postmortem hell may indeed exist for those who have refused God in this life, it is certainly not the traditional view of hell offered in Calvinism or Arminianism.

Hell as Purification 
Universalism offers an alternative vision of postmortem hell as a kind of purification or penal education so that persons are made capable of entering the kingdom of God. Universalists find biblical grounds for arguing that God's judgment is itself salvific (Isa. 48:9-11; Jer. 9:25; 30:11-17; 31:10-37; Ezek. 16; Hos. 6:1; 11:-13; Rom. 14:10-12). As K.F. Keil writes, "Judgments of the Old Testament must not be viewed as eternal punishments; they leave the possibility for future salvation."

There is one particularly paradigmatic passage in the New Testament that deserves quoting here. In his first letter to the church in Corinth, Paul writes:

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the fire. (1 Cor. 3: 10-15)

Paul makes clear that not building upon the foundation of Jesus is a grave mistake: those who do not do so will suffer loss. But Paul also makes room for salvation after this suffering. It is not eternal damnation for the sake of 'justice'; it is God's punitive cleansing for our benefit. Let the reader be sharp about what this means: it does not mean that hell is without pain, suffering and, in Paul's words, "loss" (which, in the Greek, denotes injury and damage). Hell is indeed a terrible thought. It brings to mind the tragedy suffered by the servant in the vision of Julian of Norwhich. Building one's life on gods other than Jesus Christ brings real suffering and loss.

However, this suffering - this "hell" - does not have the final word in much of the Bible. Judgment in the Old Testament, including God's "eternal fire" is not the final word but rather a means to reconciliation with God (e.g. compare Jer. 17:4 to Jer. 31). Many of the Old Testament passages that speak of God's wrath/judgment contain nothing of the "unending punishment" that is endorsed by traditional views today. In many places we have read the modern meaning of "eternal" back into the text. The Hebrew word, olam, which is often translated "forever" and "everlasting" did not carry the same meaning in the Hebrew worldview. The word possessed connotations of intensity, not time. It was used qualitatively, not quantitatively.

In addition to the passage in 1 Corinthians 3, there are interesting wordplays in the book of Revelation that might indicate God's punishment as a purification. Though these text-critical studies are beyond the scope of this post, I will note two here. In various visions (14:10, 19:20, 20:10, 21:8) John sees the wicked being thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone to be tormented. The word for "brimstone" in Greek is theion, which closely resembles the word for God, theos. Because of this the word theion often meant "divine fire" or "fire from heaven." This wordplay between God and stone also occurs in the gospels as it applies to Jesus: the Hebrew for "stone" (eben) is applied to the "son" (ben) in the parable of the vineyard (Mark 12:10-11). In addition to these figurative meanings, the literal usage of theion was for burning a divine incense that had the power to purify and ward off disease (see lexicon image below). 

The word translated for "torment" is basanidzo. As the lexicon image shows, this word's primary meaning had to do with testing precious metals by use of a touchstone so that the metals could be purified. This does not rule out additional meanings, but it is interesting to consider what meaning it has in conjunction with theion. To give you an alternate reading allow me to paraphrase 14:10b as follows: "They will be tested and purified by a divine fire while in the presence of the Lamb."

By no means do these two words provide conclusive evidence that the lake of fire and brimstone is God's means for purifying sinners. It is nevertheless fascinating to explore. After all, God is referred to as a "consuming fire" on more than one occasion. Could Jesus be the divine fire or the touchstone that purifies? The author of Revelation describes him as having eyes like fire. And isn't it interesting that the lake of fire and brimstone in 14:10 is in the presence of the Lamb? Perhaps it is not all that far-fetched to imagine that the unsaved will, in fact, be saved - "even though only as one escaping through fire," (1 Cor. 3:15).

Many who espouse the traditional view find the Universalist version of postmortem hell dissatisfying (which is a bit scary if you think about it). Like Socrates, the traditionalists see ultimate universal salvation as an unfair gift to those who live their earthly lives in disobedience to God (see post #5). In response to this argument we might consider McLaren's words:

"What could be more serious than standing in front of your Creator - the Creator of the universe - and finding out that you had wasted your life, squandered your inheritance, caused others pain and sorrow, worked against the good plans and desires of God? What could be more serious than that? To have to face the real, eternal, unavoidable, absolute, naked truth about yourself, what you've done, what you've become?" (Last Word, 110)

Perhaps there is no greater punishment than an unavoidable encounter with the Truth.  And perhaps it is this very Truth that shall set us free.

At this point I want to insert a very important caveat to what has been said about hell as purification. There is a tendency among Christians to hold discussions about hell as if we were only talking about "them" and not "us." I want to include myself in the category of those who will be judged and purified by God. Although I have been baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus, I am not outside the judgment of the Lord. In fact, it is precisely the judgment of Jesus, the merciful one, that I am under. If this entails a kind of hell as purification, I know that I certainly need it in order to participate fully in the Trinitarian love of God.

Second Death?
The "second death" is another concept used to oppose universal salvation, particularly in the form of annihilationism. There really isn't room enough to discuss it here, but I do want to offer an alternative interpretation simply for the sake of exploration. Remember, this series is not to "prove" universalism, but to allow the reader to explore it.

In Rev. 20:14 John sees a vision in which "death and Hades [are] thrown in to the lake of fire," as well as those "whose name was not found written in the book of life." This "second death" has traditionally been understood as the final annihilation of the damned. However, a universalist interpretation argues that the text itself explains the nature of the second death. In 20:14 we read, "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death." Then, in 21:8, we read again that the wicked will be thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone and "THIS is the second death." What, then, is the second death? Being thrown into the lake of fire. What is the lake of fire? We already discussed this above, it is the divine fire of purification. 

Why this "second death" is necessary is because not all have died with Christ (as in baptism, see Romans 6:6). Thus explains Andrew Jukes: 

The "second death" (Rev. xx. 14.) therefore, so far from being, as some think, the hopeless shutting up of man for ever in the curse of disobedience, will, if I err not, be God's way to free those who in no other way than by such a death can be delivered out of the dark world, whose life they live in. The saints have died with Christ, not only "to the elements of this world," (Col. ii. 20.) but also "to sin," (Rom. vi. 10.) that is, the dark spirit-world. By the first they are freed from the bondage of sense; by the second, from the bondage of sin, in all its forms of wrath, pride, envy, and selfishness.

The ungodly have not so died to sin. At the death of the body therefore, and still more when they are raised to judgment, because their spirit yet lives, they are still within the limits of that dark and fiery world, the life of which has been and is the life of their spirit. To get out of this world there is but one way, death; not the first, for that has passed, but the second death. 

Furthermore, not only is the second death the fire of purification, the second death is the death of death itself! As Paul writes in 1 Cor. 15:26, "The last enemy to be defeated is death."

Do We Need Hell for Justice's Sake?
As you may have guessed, not all agree with the view of hell as purification. In a rather simplistic analogy, N.T. Wright suggests that life is more than a "game of chess" in which we are free to play however we like and afterward God will put all the pieces back in order. Universalism, he argues, trivializes the consequences of choices in this life. But what is Wright really saying here? Is he saying that God's universal forgiveness toward those who have wasted their earthly life trivializes the consequences of their choices or somehow minimizes "divine justice"? Once again I think we are witnessing traces of 'original ungrace.'

First of all, human begins are not pieces on a chess board! Wright's illustration fails to take seriously that human beings are living and becoming beings, not static pieces of marble. Secondly, the illustration fails to comprehend the nature of forgiveness. Forgiveness is never a return to a prior state, as if wiping a chalkboard clean or putting chess pieces back into place. Forgiveness is, in fact, a moving forward into a deeper understanding of relationship. That which has been forgiven continues to have meaning in the context of relationship. This point merits an illustration.

I recently got into a fight with a good friend. I said things that I should not have said and I hurt her feelings. Our relationship was fractured. Fortunately, we were able to reconcile after I apologized and asked for forgiveness. Now, did my friend's forgiveness trivialize the consequences of my actions? Absolutely not! The forgiveness that I received transformed my sinful behavior and gave it meaning for our relationship and it will continue to "live" in our relationship forever. It was precisely because of forgiveness that I could re-appropriate my sinful behavior into an understanding of how to exist in loving relationship. Is this not what Jesus taught Simon the Pharisee? Those who have a larger debt to be forgiven are all the more able to understand the nature of forgiveness.

Thirdly, Wright oversimplifies the idea of consequences. Unlike the simple, one-to-one chain of consequences in, say, chess, the consequences we suffer in real life are complicated. Although no one is innocent, we all suffer from undeserved and unforeseen consequences as well. This is why many today argue that all sin stems from woundedness. For example, a person who commits a crime in adulthood may be acting out of the wounds from a traumatic childhood event. Much Christian psychology has helped shed light on the woundedness behind the cyclical nature of sin.

Along with the oversimplification of consequences, Wright's argument assumes that those who disobey God in this life do not suffer consequences in the present. The Bible consistently teaches that those who disobey God suffer real consequences in the present; this is precisely what Jesus' warnings were about (see post #7). It is difficult to see how those who do not follow Jesus do not reap here and now the consequences of their actions. Is Wright saying that these consequences are not enough? Perhaps. But then again, the Universalist version of hell as punitive "cleansing" seems to speak to this dilemma.

Summary
This topic is unbelievably complex and much more could be said. If you want to research more on this topic, I highly recommend David Powys' book Hell: A Hard Look at a Hard Question. At this point, let us summarize what I have put forth in today's post:

1. Universalism does not necessarily jettison the concept of hell.
2. Hell, according to universalism, is a transitional phase for the lost to be purified for life in the Trinitarian Love of God
3. There is biblical support for the idea that the unsaved shall be saved through fire.
4. The second death is literally the death of death.
5. Universalism does not trivialize consequences.

In conclusion, I'd like to offer two concise statements to recapitulate what has been put forth in this two-part post on hell.

Whatever you mean when you use the word "hell," know this:

1. The God of the Bible detests hell. 

2. The God of the Bible will bring an end to hell.

Amen.

-JMW

Next post will be Monday and will concern the dilemma of freedom.

Damned Nonsense! Post #6: How about Universalism?

This post is part of the Damned Nonsense! series, a collection of posts exploring the Christian doctrine of salvation. It is named after a dissertation by Ravi Holy entitled "Damned Nonsense: An Argument for Universalism Consisting of a Critique of All the Alternatives to It." While some of the series' content is adapted from Holy's work, not all opinions expressed in this series are Holy's. Please check out all the posts in this series!

In today's post I'd like to put forth the basic support for Universalism. Admittedly, this post may seem a bit underwhelming for some readers. I say this for a few reasons.  First, I have already presented a lot of support for Universalism in the form of arguments against Calvinsism, Arminianism, Annihilationism, Lewisim, and Original Sin (see posts 1-5).  Second, I will not deal with hell in today's post. That will be in post #'s 7 and 8. Third, the reader may be looking for something that does not exist, that is, a flawless argument for Universalism. I have noticed that many skeptics of Universalism expect its proponents to offer some kind of clear-cut answer to 'prove' that it is undeniably true. This is unfortunate and I can tell you that you will not find 'proof' in this blog series. The point is not for universalism to "win the day," but to lose its false caricature as heresy. Whether or not you discover enough material to consider Universalism as a hopeful alternative to the traditional views is up to you and God. At the end of the day, I simply wish to put forward some good thoughts on this topic and allow you the reader to explore. So let's get to it.

I concluded yesterday's post on 'Original Ungrace" with this: 

If grace is grace, and if there is nothing we can do to make God love us more or less, than how is it that some end up in heaven and others in hell? It would seem that there are only two options. Option 1: Those who end up in hell are not wanted by God (Calvinism).  Option 2: Those who end up in hell did not do their part to receive their "free grace" (Arminianism). Or maybe there is an option 3? 

Option 3 is, of course, Universalism. More specifically, option 3 is the belief that nobody remains in hell forever because the God who desires all to be saved has given pure grace to all through Christ and will therefore save all. Thus, the major point that I want to put forward in today's post is that Universalism hinges upon two biblical/orthodox claims about God: 1) God desires the salvation of all. 2) God is sovereign.

In the book Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, the Calvinist theologian Daniel Strange writes that "Talbott is indeed correct that if Christ died for everyone then everyone will be saved," (p.160, original italics). Contrary to Calvinism and Arminianism, this is exactly what Universalism champions. Christ died for all and therefore all will be saved. Let us therefore begin by examining where Universalists find support for the claim that Christ died for all.

As with any theology rightly to be named Christian, they begin with the Gospels' witness to the Incarnation of God in Jesus of Nazareth (Heb. 1:3). Firstly, let us ask if there is any indication that the God revealed by Jesus desires the salvation of all. In his life and ministry Jesus actively pursued those who were "lost" and "un-elect" (e.g. Matt. 9:9-13; Mark 5:24-34; Luke 6:27-29, John 4:7ff). One does not have to read very far into the Gospels to see that Jesus reveals a God who desires the inclusion of all and sundry. In a series of parables Jesus compares God to a shepherd who pursues a lost sheep until he finds it; to a woman who pursues a lost coin until she finds it; and to a father who breaks social norms, forgives beyond measure, and embraces his lost son because he has been found (Luke 15)! Jesus himself referred to his ministry as the year of radical debt-forgiveness (Luke 4:19) and his own death as the means to "draw all men" to himself (John 12:32). Because of this Universalists believe that Jesus unequivocally desires the salvation of all.

In addition to the four gospels, the New Testament conveys a God who desires all to be saved. The support for this is found explicitly in Acts 3:21, 1 Tim. 2:1-4, 4:10, 2 Peter 3:9; and implicitly in Rom. 11:32; 1 Cor. 15:28; 2 Cor. 5:13-19; Eph. 1:7-10; 1 John 2:2 and many others (you get the point). Universalists interpret the New Testament as communicating a strong witness to God's desire to save all.

At this point Universalists are still in good company. Many people believe that God desires the salvation of all. What separates Universalists from others is that they actually believe that God will achieve the salvation of all. This belief is rooted in the second orthodox claim: God is sovereign. This claim needs little defense because it is the presupposition of most Christian theology: if God is God, then God achieves God's purposes. (Process theology presents a slightly different view of God's sovereignty, but that is another blog series entirely!)

However, in addition to the claim that God is sovereign and therefore achieves what God wills, Universalists find evidence in the New Testament that God actually achieved the salvation of all in the Christ Event (the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus).  I'm trying not to proof text too much, but the following are among several passages that are used to support this view:

• Romans 5:18 - Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
• Romans 11:32 - For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
• 2 Cor. 5:18-19 - All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
• Col. 1:19-20 - For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
• 1 John 2:2 - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
• 1 Tim. 2:6 - Christ Jesus "gave himself as a ransom for all men"
• Heb. 2:9 - Jesus tasted "death for everyone"

In other words, Universalists answer the question "Did Christ die for all?" with a "Yes." Not everyone agrees with this view. John Piper, for example, has written on the limited nature of Christ's atonement in several places such as here. Nevertheless, Universalism proposes that the death and resurrection of Christ is the ontological event of God's salvation of all. As I understand it, the Christ Event is the eschatological judgment and salvation of all of humankind. This is why the resurrection is the beginning of the New Creation, the eschatological beginning of the New Age. (This is how I *personally* understand the New Testament at this point in time) 

Though not a Universalist himself, N.T. Wright seems to agree with Universalism that the Christ Event is efficacious for the whole world:

"There [in Romans 8], Paul outlines and celebrates the hope that one day the entire cosmos will have its own great exodus, its liberation from bondage to decay. The point is this: the covenant between God and Israel was always designed to be God's means of saving the whole world. It was never supposed to be the means whereby God would have a private little group of people who would be saved while the rest of the world went to hell (whatever you might mean by that). Thus, when God is faithful to the covenant in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and in the work of the Spirit, it makes nonsense of the Pauline gospel to imagine that the be-all and end-all of this operation is so that God can have another, merely different private little group of people who are saved while the world is consigned to the cosmic wastepaper basket." (from What Saint Paul Really Said, 163-164)

It seems that the church father St. Athanasius interpreted the Christ Event similarly: "For He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father. ...For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection." (from The Incarnation of the Word)

Theologian Jürgen Moltmann is, in fact, a Universalist and claims that "the realistic consequence of the theology of the cross can only be the restoration of all things." According to Moltmann "Christ 'suffered the true and total hell of God-forsakenness' for all people on the cross. Therefore all people are already included in the new creation which began with the resurrection. Since Christ died for all when all were sinners, 'all will be made righteous without any merit on their part'." (Holy, 13. Moltmann quotes taken from The Coming of God)

It does not take a learned theologian to notice that Univeralism is totally centered around the unique and decisive events of Jesus the Christ. In this sense, Universalism is fundamentally Christian. It does not begin with the "feel good" belief that God will save all and then run back to the Bible to dig for support. On the contrary, Universalism is rooted in the New Testament texts that communicate that God not only desires the salvation of all, but also achieved this in the Christ Event.  

I think this is a good place to stop for today. The major points that I wanted to communicate in today's post are:

• Universalism hinges upon two biblical / orthodox claims about God: 1) God desires the salvation of all. 2) God is sovereign.
• At the heart of Universalism is the conditional proposal: if Christ died for all then all will be saved.
• Universalism begins with the biblical witness, especially the Christ Event, and concludes that God not only desires the salvation of all but has ontologically / eschatologically won the salvation of all in the Christ Event

I want to conclude today's post with some wisdom from the great 20th century theologian Karl Barth.  In his colossal Church Dogmatics he reminded us that even if we cannot argue the certainty of Universalism, "We are surely commanded the more definitely to hope and pray for it!" (CD vol. 4:3:1, 478)

If you don't hope and pray for it, why not?

- JMW

Next Post: What to do with hell... (part 1)

Damned Nonsense! Post #5: Original Ungrace

This post is part of the Damned Nonsense! series, a collection of posts exploring the Christian doctrine of salvation. It is named after a dissertation by Ravi Holy entitled "Damned Nonsense: An Argument for Universalism Consisting of a Critique of All the Alternatives to It." While some of the series' content is adapted from Holy's work, not all opinions expressed in this series are Holy's. Please check out all the posts in this series!

The preceding posts have demonstrated that traditional views on salvation and hell are not simply the "clear teaching of Scripture" but rather varying 'schools' of approaching the Bible and theology. In Post #1 we learned that the traditional views have emphasized or neglected various parts of Scripture. The question before us today is why tradition has vehemently held on to hell. Why, for example, have passages about hell been given more weight than, say, passages about Christ's atonement for all? In today's post I propose, along with Thomas Talbott, that "something other than biblical exegesis lies behind the fierce opposition to Universalism that we find in tradition," (Talbott in Holy, p.1).

Whenever I bring up the topic of Universalism to fellow Christians there is an instinctive reaction against it. I use the word instinctive very intentionally because I have noticed that this reaction comes from a place of deeply embedded beliefs about the way things are. It is as if the thought of God saving all people clashes into the very essence of what is true about God and reality. This is an important observation and I encourage the reader to reflect upon whether or not this is true in your experience.

The sociologist Peter Berger referred to our deeply embedded beliefs as our "plausibility structure." It refers to all of the "unconscious assumptions 'accepted within a given society, which determine which beliefs are plausible to its members and which are not,'" (Berger in Holy, p.6). That word "plausible" indicates everything that we can even imagine as being possible. Our plausibility structure is like the lenses through which we see the world, especially as it pertains to voices of authority and credibility. The only problem with our plausibility structure is that it can inhibit us from seeing that which is outside of or contrary to it. 

A great example of this is the Newtonian view of time and space. Since Einstein came along and demonstrated that the Newtonian view was wrong, physicists have agreed with the theory of relativity. However, the majority of folk (myself included!) can't seem to break free from Newton's view that time is the "stage" upon which objects play out their existence. This *false* view is totally embedded into our world view. To get closer to the link between our plausibility structure and the topic at hand, let's try a little thought experiment (tailored for Christians):

1. When did you first learn that not all people would be saved? 

2. How did you first learn that not all people would be saved? 
3. Was it by reading by reading the Bible?
4. Or, was it taught to you?

5. When you first began to read the Bible, did you approach it with the presupposition that all would be saved? Or, did you begin with the presupposition that not all would be saved?

If you grew up in the church then it is more than likely that hell has always been a part of your plausibility structure. And, it is likely that you did not first learn about hell from reading the complete narrative of Scripture; rather, you learned from what was taught as the "truth" about God. The world into which we are born gives us are sense of what is "normal." Even people who join the church later in life are usually already informed by traditional portraits of hell. The myth of heaven/hell permeates Western culture so pervasively that it is almost impossible to break free from the traditional view of seeing God as the one who sends the unsaved to hell. Whether in comedic caricatures or serious theology, hell is embedded in our plausibility structure (e.g. just watch TV commercials, read comics, or listen to people talk).

Since the majority of Western Christians were taught about hell before they were able to study the Bible for themselves, it is not surprising that the default reading of Scripture has been one that gives more weight to passages about hell and eternal punishment rather than the scope and finality of Christ's victory. In other words, it's no surprise that the plausibility structure of tradition leads to an interpretation of Scripture that opposes Universalism.

We must ask why this view has become the norm when the Bible clearly contradicts it in many places (at least as much as Universalism is also contradicted). In other words, is there something other than "clear biblical teaching" that has kept hell in the game for so long? Along with Talbott and Holy, I believe there is. 

I believe that the our human instinct is to preserve the traditional view of hell because we are fundamentally bent toward ungrace. In the final analysis, "it is 'original ungrace' not biblical exegesis that lies behind even evangelical opposition to Universalism," (Holy, 30). In agreement with Holy, I believe that the visceral reaction against Universalism is the result of our desire to exclude those who we believe do not deserve God's grace. As Talbott puts it, it is the opinion that "God has no right to extend his mercy to a given class of persons."  

The popular Christian author Philip Yancey wrote a contemporary classic called What's So Amazing About Grace? (1997) In it Yancey explains that human beings have "an inbuilt resistance" to grace and it goes "against every instinct of humanity." Indeed, the scandal of God's grace does not make sense in a world where people are supposed to get "the rewards and punishments that they deserve." 

This is precisely why most Christians cannot allow grace to be grace! Instead, traditional [predominately Arminian] Christians distort grace to mean that only those who respond to Christ in a certain way before a certain time will receive God's grace. 

Holy explains:

"This is most obvious in Yancey's proposed definition of grace as meaning that 'there is nothing we can do to make God love us more' and 'nothing we can do to make God love us less.' He stresses that our 'instinct' is that we have to 'do something in order to be accepted' by God is wrong. Yet, at the same time, he says that 'all we must do [to 'get to heaven'] is cry 'help!'. Surely, then, there is something we can do to make God love us more? It is hard to see in what meaningful sense those who 'fail' to 'get to heaven' (and, thus, presumably, end up in hell, however that is defined or conceived) are accepted and loved by God." (30)

Holy's critique of Yancey is a prime example of how Christians instinctively distort grace into ungrace. We convince ourselves: 'It is not up to God to have mercy upon whoever God pleases (Exod. 33:19), instead we must decide who gets God's grace based on our reading of Scripture and our tradition because surely we know!'

It always fascinates me to observe the dynamic between the "saved" and the "unsaved" in the Gospels. The "saved" in Jesus' day were no doubt the self-confident "children of Abraham," those who perceived themselves to be in God's favor. Yet whenever Jesus extended grace to the "unsaved" -  those who supposedly did not deserve it - the "saved" became outraged (e.g. Matt. 9:11, Luke 7:39, John 9:16). Perhaps this is why Jesus told a parable about laborers in a vineyard who each receive the same reward despite working different amounts. When payment is given there is outrage among those who are stuck in a plausibility structure of "earning" what they "deserve." The same can be seen in the parable of the Prodigal Son as the elder brother is enraged by the father's grace.  

There comes a point when we must consider that maybe our own plausibility structure has been infected by sin. What if we really are bent toward ungrace? To facilitate some reflection on this question, allow me offer a list of claims that Christians have traditionally preferred to endorse instead of the claim that God will save all. 

Consider the following:

• God simply does not love all people.
• God does not desire the salvation of all.
• God saves some and damns others to hell.
• Hell exists because God cannot stand to look upon sinners.
• God still loves those in hell, but refuses to save them.
• God doesn't love those in hell.
• Jesus did not die for all people.
• Jesus only died for the elect whom God foreknew.
• Those in hell did not do their part to accept God's grace.
• Those in hell choose to be there.
• God will annihilate those in hell against their will (out of mercy, of course).
• Those who end up in hell have the option to leave but will reject God forever.

I could go on but I will stop there. To be fair, these individual statements become more coherent within their respective systems of theology, but the point still stands. These horrific statements are ideas that most Christians are more compelled to believe than the statement 'God will ultimately save all people.' One way to interpret this opposition to Universalism is to say that the above statements are what Scripture teaches. Unfortunately (or fortunately!) there is a lot of Scripture that teaches otherwise (see Post #6 next). Another way to interpret this opposition to Universalism is what I have proposed in today's post. Allow me to summarize:

Human beings are fundamentally bent toward ungrace. We are so brilliant, so crafty, and so self-centered, that even our religion has been contaminated with ungrace. We have turned the very means of God's universal grace to humankind - the Christ Event - into a measuring stick for including ourselves and excluding those that we don't think deserve God's grace.

But if grace is grace, and if there is nothing we can do to make God love us more or less, than how is it that some end up in heaven and others in hell? It would seem that there are only two options. Option 1: Those who end up in hell are not wanted by God (Calvinism).  Option 2: Those who end up in hell did not do their part to receive their "free grace" (Arminianism). 

Or, maybe there is an Option 3?

- JMW

Next Post: How about Universalism?