"What about Christian Universalism?" was the question. Is Evangelical Universalism an example of something falling into the category of theologoumena (Something that is neither a teaching that all orthodox believers are expected to adhere to, nor something that they must avoid at all costs)?
I've got permission to publish the full dialogue to-date here on this blog. My reasons for doing this are two fold:
- I want to continue the conversation in a space dedicated to this question.
- I want to make this available generally for the benefit and contribution of others.
Anonymous said...
It's hard to know the best way to ask the question, I'll have a go.
I'm an Evangelical Universalist. I believe almost everything a Calvinist Evangelical believes, except that God will give people the opportunity in Hell to repent and accept Jesus as King. Therefore, eventually Hell will become empty and He will have permanently eradication Evil everywhere, including Hell.
I believe God tells us this in His inspired Word in many places, and that there are logical and biblical ways to view some of the passages that appear on the surface to teach otherwise.
To relate it back to your post, should I break fellowship with my mainstream church? Should my church break fellowship with me? Does this view of Hell fall into the category of Theologoumena?
December 14, 2010
Joe Towns said...
Re: Theologoumena, and Universalism
It's also hard to know the best way to answer your question, as I don't know your context, history, practice, involvement in church, to name a few important factors in giving a reliably and complete response. But I'll also give it a go.
Starting with the first aspect to your question which relates to theologoumena: 'Does Universalism fall into the category of something that is neither a teaching that all orthodox believers are expected to adhere to, nor something that they must avoid at all costs)?'
No the view of hell that is created by Universalism does not fall into the category of 'theologoumena.' All recipients of God's special revelation through his word are called to repent and trust in Christ now in this life in view of certainty of otherwise eternal judgment following death in the body. This is an elementary truth of Christianity (Hebrews 6:3).
And so universalism is something that should be avoided because followed it through to it's consequential conclusions, its endpoints distort almost every other doctrine of the Bible including every other aspect of the gospel: from creation to new-creation; from sin and evil to God's righteousness and justice; from the Bible's notion of pre-destination and justification to condemnation and everlasting judgment; from our understanding of the cross through to his second-coming and his eternal purposes which he accomplished in Christ.
As mentioned earlier all doctrine is interrelated and interdependent and we must humbly accept all of God's word as God's word, regardless of what we would otherwise believe and presently want to believe: hard bits and easy, likable and not, emotionally comforting and emotionally unthinkable, intellectually satisfying and intellectually torturous.
However, and it is a big HOWEVER: the same applies to Arminianism and for that matter every other common misunderstanding of any key vital gospel truth, as with every other man-made doctrinal system that has its origin in our history rather than His story.
These things are common and I have NOT in my article placed these types of general difficulties in doctrine and thinking among Christians necessarily into the category of 1. Questionable Christianity, 2. False Teaching, or 3. Disobedient but true Christianity. It's of course possible that belief in Universalism could and does spill over into one or multiple of those categories, but not necessarily.
Because of this the answer to the second aspect of your question -- about whether or not you should in good conscience break fellowship with your mainstream Evangelical church -- depends a lot on a number of things you need to consider, some of which I will try to briefly list (not comprehensively) in a follow on comment.
December 15, 2010
Joe Towns said...
Re: Whether Universalists should break with mainstream Evangelicals
There are a number of factors that need to be considered together and held together within the one decision, like separate arcs of the one circle:
(1). It depends on your direction
Are you on the way in or on a journey directed outwards; that is, are you working through these questions and struggling through with these difficulties and wrestling with concepts of universalism that you can't help presently entertaining, or are you becoming increasingly set in that paradigm and becoming further entrenched in a new mindset that is leading you to further revisions of doctrine? I know you'd want to say neither, but if forced to put yourself on one side of the fence, which would it be?
If your on the way out in your thinking, then leave. If you're on the way in (albeit ever so struggling and maybe never getting there but always trying), then stay.
(2). It depends on your fruit
Are you displaying in good conscience the fruit of the spirit, and increasingly so, so that the Holy Spirit testifies with you and reveals to others that you are more and more being given over to abounding love that comes from a certain faith in Christ's work for you to give you the hope of eternal rescue from everlasting damnation; or are you increasingly being given over to divisiveness, contention, dischord and questioning of the faithful work of evangelists and preachers who hold unswervingly to Jesus' warnings about a hell whose torment does not die?
If you are growing in the fruit of righteousness and the obedience that comes from a love of the truth, then stay. But if you are becoming a threat to the faith of others and potentially endanger the work of good teachers by your universalism, then leave.
(3). It depends on your self-control
Are you able to recognise that universalism is serious and so outside what others you respect consider to be an acceptable reading of the New Testament that you have enough doubt in yourself to at least be happy to remain silent in your views in this area; or are you resolved to spread your ideas and increasingly passionate about their importance, determined to voice them and possibly even convert others to universalism?
If you've got the self-control of the former, then stay, but if the latter, then go.
(4). It depends on whether you're a leader, let alone a teacher.
Leaders are required to give account for all of their beliefs and should be open to question by the Christian community let alone their church members; teachers even more so will be judged more strictly and must like all elders and senior leaders in the church conform to a full soundness of doctrine, regardless of whether they are required to teach on every point of 'orthodox' belief.
If you're a leader let alone a teacher, and not prepared to step down in that role, then go. If your not in that role, or you're prepared to step down temporarily until you work it through, or indefinitely if the end is not insight with your struggles in this area, then stay.
--
It's hoped that these variables will help you to form a framework for how you might assess that decision and evaluate what you should do. It's still not a complete answer. I'd like to talk about the examples of C S Lewis, John Stott, Mark Driscoll, because those things help get practical with real scenarios. I'd of course like to talk more directly about the subject of Universalism with you to find out whether you're convinced that you've considered that position adequately and are open to a re-think. But tempted as I am, I won't go there. You've not asked me that question, and I've said enough already for now.
December 15, 2010
Anonymous said...
I appreciate you taking the time to explore this with me. Like you, I'll break my response into the two issues.
"the view of hell that is created by Universalism does not fall into the category of 'theologoumena.'" Not surprisingly, I disagree. However, I'm not surprised that you say that, as I think it right to question things, particularly things that aren't mainstream :)
"All recipients of God's special revelation through his word are called to repent and trust in Christ now in this life in view of certainty of otherwise eternal judgment following death in the body. This is an elementary truth of Christianity." I totally agree, except for the "in this life" restriction of God's mercy. Where do you find this restriction in the bible?
"its endpoints distort almost every other doctrine of the Bible" That's a very big statement, remembering that I hold mainstream Evangelical views, as far I know, on almost all other doctrines. Please give me an example, of what and how another doctrine is distorted?
"we must humbly accept all of God's word as God's word, regardless of what we would otherwise believe and presently want to believe: hard bits and easy, likable and not, emotionally comforting and emotionally unthinkable, intellectually satisfying and intellectually torturous." I totally agree, although I humbly suggest that there are many passages that Calvinists don't accept on face value. For example, "we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."(1Tim 4:10b ESV) Note the Greek word translated "people" is anthropos, i.e. humans. This is a good passage as it also shows God is the only Saviour and that there's still a definite benefit of being a believer now.
"as with every other man-made doctrinal system that has its origin in our history rather than His story." Please show me how Universalism has it's origin in our history whereas somehow Calvinism doesn't?
"These things are common and I have NOT in my article placed these types of general difficulties in doctrine and thinking among Christians necessarily into the category of 1. Questionable Christianity, 2. False Teaching, or 3. Disobedient but true Christianity. It's of course possible that belief in Universalism could and does spill over into one or multiple of those categories, but not necessarily." Sorry I don't understand what you mean here?
December 15, 2010
Anonymous said...
"(1). It depends on your direction" I've been a mainstream Evangelical Christian for about 25 years. About 10 years ago I came across Universalism but ended up leaving it in the too hard to prove basket. 6 months ago, I came across some very well written and biblically based books which presented the arguments for it. I've rigorously discussed and prayed about it with my family and an Anglican Minister. And briefly with one of my church leaders, who said he'd have to look into it more before giving me his opinion. The more I look into it the more bible passages leap out of the page as God reveals them. So obviously it's not something I've taken on-board lightly, but neither is it something that I would give away lightly now that I believe it to be biblically true.
"(2). It depends on your fruit" Well I'm glad you asked, because it's be really remarkable. I've found myself loving people more, praying more, reading the bible more, obeying God more and generally thinking about God more. Hopefully, people who know me see the fruits too. Obviously it saddens me when preachers teach endless conscious torment (ECT), but I realise they're probably doing so because that's what they have been taught/believe, and still love, pray and support them. If I knew them personally, I might have a quiet conversation afterwards but probably leave it at that.
"(3). It depends on your self-control" Obviously when I see people misunderstanding the bible or even worse misrepresenting God, I feel the urge to speak. However, so far I have restrained myself a lot, for the sake of harmony. It's only possible by God's Spirit for people to see His Truth, so I may try to explain things, like I'm doing here, but it's up to God what happens next. I try not to push it on people, if that's what you're getting at.
"(4). It depends on whether you're a leader, let alone a teacher." I'm not a leader or teacher, and never have been. I agree that they need to be held extra accountable.
"I'd like to talk about the examples of C S Lewis, John Stott, Mark Driscoll, because those things help get practical with real scenarios." Please do, as I am a fan of CS Lewis and Mark (I just haven't read much of John Stott).
"I'd of course like to talk more directly about the subject of Universalism with you to find out whether you're convinced that you've considered that position adequately and are open to a re-think." For now, anonymously is all I can do as I don't want my family to loose their community over my beliefs. Hopefully, one day we can talk more directly :)
December 15, 2010
Joe Towns said...
Can I first say well done for adopting your sincere approach and genuine questioning: As you say, it is right to question these things, particularly if you find you’re beginning to cease aligning with what has been mainstream Christian thought throughout church history.
And let me also so that I deeply believe the discussions on this topic (in particular) should always be given accompanied by a sincere sadness of spirit (if not weeping, at least a broken heart) as we contemplate God’s sentence on the unrepentant. And so in this regard I genuinely ask for God’s forgiveness and mercy as I approach this topic with a far from adequate godliness, remembering Christ who wept over Jerusalem and Paul who could have entertained the notion of being accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of his people.
December 16, 2010
Joe Towns said...
Re: Where do you find a “in this life” restriction in the Bible on the possibility of God’s mercy?
Throughout the NT but three quick examples for the sake of brevity:
1) Matthew 12:32. Whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven “either in this age or in the age to come.” The context is people’s response in the present life. The second reference to the age to come thereafter keeps this text from being ambiguous. All sins will be forgiven men except this one sin; in other words, this is the sin that condemns people to hell: despising the Holy Spirit. This is unforgivable because, as God has no other Son to offer for our sins if he be rejected, God has no other Spirit to make Christ’s work effectual to us if the Holy Spirit is despised.
2) Hebrews 6:2ff. It is impossible to bring back to repentance those who have fallen away after once being enlightened in this life, because they are crucifying Christ a second time. Although of course this verse does not apply directly to your ‘average Joe’ who simply continues in unbelief in this life up until his death, it does apply indirectly to all as a clear warning of the consequence of rejection in this life leaving no possibility for future repentance or mercy thereafter.
3) 2 Thessalonians 1:8. Those who do not know God or obey the gospel, at Christ’s coming (which is at a discrete finite time-event) will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction. The following reference to being shut out from the presence of the Lord unavoidably must go together with the notion of eternal punishment, so that this sentence is irreversible.
In the NT all descriptions of judgment – whether ‘fire’, ‘punishment’, ‘destruction’, or ‘judgement’ – are described as eternal and so irreversible.
December 16, 2010
Joe Towns said...
Re: An example of Universalism distorting other doctrines:
Please note that I realise that universalism is very diverse with as many different varieties as people writing about it. So this of course makes it difficult to give examples that are specifically true in all instances. While I’d want my criticism to take into account the complexities, the examples below are generalisations.
Two quick examples for now: (If all have the hope of eternal life both before and beyond death, then --)
1.The biblical doctrine of sin is leaked of its full gravity: instead of sins against an infinitely holy and glorious God being infinitely evil and so deserving eternal punishment, sin is less serious because regardless of the greatness of God sins against him are committed by finite and ignorant people and do not deserve the punishment that God in his justice has promised to deliver.
And rather than people being inescapably sinful except for the mercy of God to give them repentance and faith by his grace alone, so that those in hell continually refuse to acknowledge God and so deserve continual punishment, instead every person has the ability to turn to God and will do so if pressed hard enough, even if it requires preliminary torture in hell to cause them to change their minds.
Consequently God’s justice cannot demand eternal punishment because that would be ‘unjust’, because the sins of every person in this view do actually come to an end. Punishment, rather than God’s spirit, causes people in hell to eventually stop sinning. And where they stop sinning, God’s punishment must stop. By default then at that moment they must be admitted into eternal life by God.
2.The biblical doctrine of eternal punishment (Heb 6:2) is gutted: rather than it paralleling ‘eternal’ life (as in Mt 25:46), which all agree to be truly everlasting, ‘eternal punishment’ adopts a nullified definition of “eternal” (no longer actually meaning ‘everlasting’ as eternal life does) together with a demoted definition of “punishment” (no longer referring to deserved and ‘final’ justice without mercy, but instead it actually becomes another form of mercy because it serves to actually ‘discipline’ people in order to teach them and so cause them to repent).
December 16, 2010
Joe Towns said...
Re: 'Many Calvinists don’t accept many passages on face value'
Agreed: Already reaffirmed that point in previous comments related to Infant Baptism.
December 16, 2010
Joe Towns said...
Re: 1Timothy 4:10b, “God, who is the Saviour of all people”
Don’t make too much of ‘anthropos’, which may even be translated as ‘husband’ depending on context. From the little Greek I know, and checking back with my Gk-Eng dictionary anyway, ‘anthropos’ means when plural: People; mankind, humanity; husband; son; servant.
The verse just reads “all men,” similar to the way for example that Acts 2:17 speaks of “all flesh” receiving the outpouring of the Spirit, not at all meaning all flesh ‘on the planet’.
God is of course also elsewhere referred to as the Judge of ‘all’ and the Father of ‘all’, but in those situations we would not dare to conclude from those references alone a Universal ‘judgment’ on all nor a Universal ‘adoption’ of all. Only when we look at these texts with a broad view within their context, as we need to with all texts, including 1 Tim 4:10, do we keep ourselves from speculating about them from isolation. We see from the broader context what is intended by the reference to “all” and “saviour” (and “judge” and “father” of all):
There was only ever one Saviour for all Israel in the context of Israel’s history. The Prophets of Old declared that. But this fact did not result at that time in ‘salvation’ for all Israel, because the people of which God was Saviour rejected him as their Saviour. And the permanent destruction of the 10 northern Israel tribes by the Assyrians, only leaving Judah behind, is a grim picture (albeit on the temporary stage of his kingdom as revealed in Israel as nation) of the irreversibility of God’s final judgment when it falls.
That is the context and language that the New Testament picks up. This is why Paul adds the reference, “the Saviour of all men, and especially of those who believe” because they are the ones of whom he is not only their only possibility of finding a Saviour, but also the ones of whom he does in the end give salvation.
It may be, in my view, quite impossible from some of these references ALONE to know definitively which of several possible meanings of the word “all” is in view (whether it means ‘every instance without exclusion’ or ‘all categories/types without exclusion’ -- two example of different meanings of the use of ‘all’).
We need to start with verses that we can be 100% clear about, and work back from there to allow those to set the context for others that may on face-value be read in multiple ways.
For example the “all flesh” in Acts 2:17 can’t be read as meaning every single individual in existence without exception will receive baptism in the Spirit. Firstly we bring to this text a context that helps us see that it is immediately restricted to a subset: God’s people. And within that, Israel were excluded by default (‘no-one will see the KOG unless he is born again’) and included only when/if they believed, as did Peter himself. And of those who believed, then in context “all” without distinction were to be recipients. However, judging by in the immediate context of the reference itself, it seems that “all types” of people was most likely the type of use that is view: ‘all’ meaning women as well as men, young as well as old, servants as well as free, all types of people in this new age will have the Spirit.
December 16, 2010
Joe Towns said...
Re: 'How has Universalism had its origin in our history whereas somehow Calvinism hasn’t?'
Both do. You know of course about the origins of Calvinism as a Reformed system of Theology, and I agree that unfortunately it can and is often used to interpret the Bible, rather than coming to it in order to comprehend it in its own, and endeavouring to strip away those ideas that we bring to it in the first place.
And I assume you understand the origins of the doctrinal system that has emerged through history that is now Universalism. Until recently only a small minority have held to Universalism. I’m aware of Origen’s view which was later condemned at the 553AD Council. I’m not sure if you’ve heard of Arnobius of Sicca and his defence in 300ish. And of course then came Aquinas’ views. By my reading, Universalism only emerged ‘seriously’ in the English world in the late 1800s and then into evangelical theology in the late 1900s, but now has very recently been defended in detail. Before that it was only a very small minority of writers, to my knowledge. And these views go against the very widely held views of the majority of writers & scholars throughout history.
My question, then to you, is that if you had never read CS Lewis in the first place, much less the recent big defence you discovered 10 years and that you read only 6 months ago, would you honestly think that you would have arrived at these new beliefs, just by: 1, reading the Bible alone, and 2, getting it to bare on your thinking so as to, 3, continually revise your own understanding into conformity with it by, 4, a continual process of stripping away your own false understandings that come from natural presuppositions that we all unavoidably bring to the bible, which effecting our comprehension of it?
That’s why we need to take serious care to bring our presuppositions to the Bible in order for them to be stripped away, rather than allow them to sit over the Bible and change our reading of it, and so ‘interpret’ it for us; whether Calvinism or anything else. In fact, it is not our business to ‘interpret’ the Bible; our job is to ‘comprehend’ the Bible’s own self-interpretation of itself.
December 16, 2010
Joe Towns said...
Re: Not understanding what I meant reference back to my original 3 categories in my article.
What don’t you understand? The original article talks about: 1, Questionable Christians, 2, False Teachers, and, 3, Disobedient but true Christians. A sincere Evangelical Universalist (as you’ve described yourself) who is otherwise living as a Christian in fruitful obedience (as I believe you are from your description) does not fit into any one of these three categories unless of course you begin teaching Universalism, which I believe would begin opening you up to the charge of ‘false’ teaching.
December 16, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment