Does God play by the same rules?

Are you one of those who finds it difficult to reconcile many of the acts attributed to God within the Hebrew scriptures with the dominant picture of God painted by the life and teachings of Jesus? If so, you’re not alone.

I’ve talked about this problem extensively in the past, but I return to it again because, as we’ve seen time and again, flimsy walls of apologetics constructed to hide the issue tend to result in an exit door being blasted through people’s faith. That’s why I’m devoting this post and the next to the topic.

When we talk of tension between pre-Christ and post-Christ depictions of God, defenders of inerrancy will frequently counter with observations about God’s goodness in the Old Testament and Jesus’ wrathful warnings of judgment in the New Testament. Gladly granted, there is not a sharp, uniform discontinuity between the Old and New Testament’s portrayal of all aspects of God’s nature, so we should expect to see God’s lovingkindness extolled in the Old Testament just as in the New we find assurances of a divine reckoning on oppressors. It is because of His lovingkindess that God will take drastic measures to wrest the downtrodden from the grasp of those who use His name to excuse the neglect and exploitation of His people. But we cannot contentedly ignore the obvious: the divinely enacted, sanctioned, or commanded decimation of entire people groups in the Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Canaanite conquest, etc., and the hopeful anticipation of such divine violence crystallized in the frequent imprecations in the Hebrew psalter–all of these stand in dramatic contrast to Jesus’ insistence that his followers love their enemies, pray for their persecutors, avoid calling down fire from heaven on those who reject God, etc.

The other standard response to this has been that we as fallen humans, warped by the Fall, just don’t have the equipment necessary to judge right and wrong. We must leave it up to God to tell us what’s good and bad, and even when everything that’s within us and in our scope of understanding screams that God is being described as committing evil acts, we must say, “No, it must be good, because God is doing it.” Because the Bible says it and the Bible is inerrant, of course.

This popular understanding was well articulated a few years back in the promo video for Francis Chan’s book, Erasing Hell. Critiquing the idea that humans would deny that God has done something on the grounds that we deem it to be immoral, Chan responds:

I’m like a piece of clay trying to explain to other pieces of clay what the potter is like. Think about that for a second! It shows the silliness for any of us to think we are an expert on Him. Our only hope is that He would reveal to us what He is like, and then we can just repeat those things.

And of course folks like Chan believe that such a revelation from God is exactly what we have in the Bible. I have offered several critiques against this view of the Bible in earlier blog posts, often calling to attention the impossibility of magically knowing exactly “what it says” without having to account for the myriad assumptions we bring to the table. But for people who believe as Chan does, we must not only consciously and resolutely affirm everything attributed to God within Scripture, no matter how abhorrent to our consciences, but we had better not fail to call it “good”!

In my next post I will address the question of whether we as fallen humans actually have the equipment to make valid moral judgments. But whether or not we can make good judgments, it appears we are exhorted by the authors of Scripture to make those judgments anyway. Consider the Golden Rule.

Read more…

July 28th, 2015 by Steve Douglas | 1 Comment »

DBH and the necessity of universalism

As happens with many of us who begin to see the rationale behind universalism, David Bentley Hart has lately been introducing apokatastatis into more big picture discussions of Christian doctrine. For instance, yesterday at the Creation Out of Nothing: Origins and Contemporary Significance conference at Notre Dame, Hart gave a talk that began with creation ex nihilo particularly in regard to the problem of evil, a topic for which he has become somewhat renowned since at least his book, The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami? But from there, he could not help closing the loop by bringing in a full discussion of eschatology.

Hart maintains that because creation is not theogany – not necessary to God’s nature or essence – it is theophany – a divine disclosure. Every act of history, no matter how cruel, can only be in some sense “an arraignment of God’s goodness”, for which no full answer is given “until the end of all things”. This leads to his characterization of the final judgment as a more full disclosure of Himself (starting at 9:25).

It would be impious, I think, to suggest that in his final divine judgment of creatures God also judges Himself, but one must hold that by that judgment God truly will disclose Himself, which of course is to say the same thing in a more hushed and reverential voice.

Even Paul in the tortured conditional voice of Romans 9 dares to ask whether there might be vessels of wrath stored up solely for destruction only because he trusts that there are not; that instead all are bound in disobedience and only so that God might prove Himself just by showing mercy on all. The argumentum ad baculum is a terrifying specter but it’s only momentarily conjured up so it can be immediately chased away by a more decisive and radiant argumentum ad veritatem.

The above quote only scratches the surface of his discussion on the topic, but I’ll leave the rest for you to find. He also covers a breadth of related topics, including his problems with original sin and a couple of other Reformed sacred cows (charitably, by the way). Be sure to keep an ear peeled to hear him glowingly mention this blog’s patron “saint” (let the reader understand).

Universalism is not merely a fond wish or an inconsequential theological conviction: the ultimate homecoming of all creation is nothing short of the terminus ad quem for all existence – not even merely the linchpin of the divine logic, but the goal toward which God’s mind is ever turning and toward which every act of divine will is directed. Universal reconciliation is required for the fulfillment of God’s very nature.

July 9th, 2015 by Steve Douglas | 2 Comments »

Playing 40 questions

Despite Kevin DeYoung’s claim that his 40 questions for rainbow flag-waving Christians were sincere and not rhetorical or “snarky”, I’m seeing so many linking to his post as if it were a definitive rebuttal of sorts. DeYoung surely knows that his post will be used this way–as a list from the other side would no doubt be.

Gay photoHow many of those with whom DeYoung’s questions resonated will seek out a post with 40 answers (several are already available)? And of those, how many will read past the first few responses they find dissatisfactory and avoid dismissing the whole swath of answerers with a knowing smirk? And of those, how many will seek out answers from other people who are desperately wanting to be heard out for once? How many will read the answers without trying to refute every single one, stepping out of their shoes and into those of the accused?

This doesn’t just go with this debate over the legitimacy of homosexual Christianity, much less with just the conservative side of this debate. When it comes to any hobby horse subjects, none of us really want answers to our objections; we want acquiescence. We want our difficulties with things we reject to be aired, not addressed. We know good and well what we believe already and harbor the firm conviction that anyone who knew what we knew would agree with us if only they wanted to. If they won’t agree with us, they jolly well will at least listen to our objections. They owe us that much.

This is the bone-headedness schisms are made of. Schisms are the stuff our feelings of purity are made of. Empathy, by contrast, demolishes barriers, and the resulting unification and solidarity are what produces true purity. People, not doctrinal convictions, are those Christ redeems.

John’s Gospel shows Jesus praying for the oneness of those who follow him. We in our hubris have the temerity to restrict the subject of this prayer to those we agree with, implying or stating that if they can’t at least agree on firm_conviction_x, they’re not God’s people, and don’t qualify for Jesus’ prayer. How presumptuous! How insolent! “Who are you to judge another man’s servant?”

This isn’t a call to ignore our convictions or even to stop discussing them. I’m pleading yet again with all sides of this and other theological debates to exercise humility by subjugating our convictions to our concern for one another. I’m talking about a real determination to not misrepresent our interlocutors and to demand their voices be heard, seriously considered, and engaged. God resists those who won’t show this humility and gives grace to those who will. Those who truly recognize their own need to overcome their own nearsighted, self-serving shibboleths are the ones who will be ready to receive this grace from God.

There is humility in laying out our areas of ignorance to be addressed for all to see, but questions can also be used as interrogation, to demonstrate how very satisfied we are with not questioning our own position. I suppose Ihis whole post could be boiled down to a simple plea: If you have sincere questions, pose only the ones you require to help you love the person better. After all, the key to the kingdom of God isn’t knowing the right answers. It’s true empathy.

July 4th, 2015 by Steve Douglas | No Comments »

What the forgiveness in Charleston requires of us

It is a wonderful and important turn of events that relatives and friends of the victims of the shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal are showing forgiveness toward the shooter.

Relatives of the nine people shot down during a Bible study session inside their historic black church confronted the 21-year-old suspect Friday during his initial hearing. They described their pain and anger, but also spoke of love.

“I forgive you, my family forgives you,” said Anthony Thompson, whose relative Myra Thompson was killed. “We would like you to take this opportunity to repent. … Do that and you’ll be better off than you are right now.”

This news is being proclaimed as a victory for our faith, a hallmark of the efficacy of the gospel, and evidence of the exciting viability of our Lord’s teachings. Where is thy sting, O godless spirit of the age?

Please, friends, not so fast.

The forgiveness granted by these bereaved loved ones does not mean that the story has ended happily ever after; it does not mean that the battle is over and that the Church has won. Specifically, it does not grant absolution for our racism, violence, gun rights grandstanding, the Confederate flag, or anything else.

And it definitely doesn’t suggest, as is being construed in some predictable quarters, that we can dismiss as politically opportunistic “race-baiters” all those those who insist that this story is evidence that we still have a race problem. Pretending that the targets’ race was more or less incidental is willful blindness. Emanuel AME’s choice to forgive Dylann’s blatant racism is no sanction for our hidden and often institutional prejudices.

As a Southerner* and the descendant of many different slave owners, I need to say this: the white South has far too long clung to its paltry defenses of its ancestors’ “states’ rights” principles, covering the shame of being exposed to the globe as villains with the darkness of obfuscation and the rags of denial. Localized, decentralized government may well be more ideal than the “northern aggression” of Washington in most matters of state, but can these beliefs not be proclaimed and argued without propping up and whitewashing the Confederacy? The facelift that conservative states’ rights apologists attempt to give the institution of slavery (caring paternalism in many slave owners and frequently reciprocated affection from slaves are the usual defenses) are void; no doubt there are all kinds of vile acts whose list of motivations are neither wholly evil nor, by virtue of that fact alone, somehow worth defending. We can’t and shouldn’t deny the past, and we should learn to dispassionately confront and analyze root causes accurately without caricaturing (the reasons for the Civil War did reach beyond racism), but neither can we glory in such things as the South’s sociopolitical structure as though it were some imperfect but nearly appropriate instantiation of our political principles. Build your platform from scratch rather than on the top of so rotten a foundation.

In my experience, most Southerners no longer really think of blacks (among others) as an inferior race. My impression is that “racism” per se among my generation in the South has much more to do with how the minorities experience life among the majority – how whites shut them out, how the worst is expected and assumed of them – than any real animosity or feelings of supremacy based on the color of skin on the part of whites. In my experience, whites do not as commonly feel that they are inherently superior in any way; on the contrary (though quite as bad), as in so many other areas, we just have so much more sympathy for those like us and suspicion of those unlike us. It’s more about classism or cultural supremacy, and poor, uneducated blacks tend to occupy the lowest caste in our society. We are quite content with things being this way and (surprise, surprise) we’ve resisted the gubment telling us to abolish our castes.

As usual, I’m going to steer clear of prescribing any particular political action. But if we really want the Church to earn the victory, we’ve got to prepare our hearts to begin yearning for change, something very different from reaching for our guns and rezoning to keep our kids away from them. If we desire God’s reign to be brought to bear on our world for all to see, we desperately need our pastors and religious leaders encouraging us to bring radical changes to the status quo. We can’t just continue acting nicely, treading lightly, hoping the media won’t out another abuse of blacks by white police officers, voting down the people who shout about lingering inequality, and expecting that time will heal all wounds. That expectation of healing would be tantamount to hoping that skin would grow to cover the bullet entry point: we will have to remove all trace of the projectile before healing really happens, and a craving for that difficult surgery needs to begin in our churches. It was our double-minded contentment with the status quo that fueled the deranged desire of the shooter to expose the still festering wound and claim it as health.

These believers who were left grieving after last week’s tragedy have admirably taken the essential first step, no mistake about it. But their refusal to scapegoat Dylann Roof for all the discrimination their race has suffered is not really comforting news: it’s also a serious challenge to all of the rest of us. Accepting that challenge will entail avoiding the urge to hunker down with our like-minded comrades, reaching out to restore relationships even prior to an offending party’s repentance, and resisting the knee-jerk identification of opponents in any of these ideological squabbles without first picking through the wreckage to recover the wounded. It must include rethinking many longstanding boundaries and other aspects of “the way we do things down here”–whatever it takes to fully repudiate our contentment with the world we inherited from our oppressive past.

That’s a start, anyway. The humility of Emanuel AME’s response means that we must humbly look everyone in our community in the eye and sacrifice ourselves and all of our pride for the welfare of all within it.

Only then, after that self-sacrificial work is becoming our way of life in every respect, will the Church have grounds to claim any sort of victory.


* I focus on my own region in this post, but of course this does not just apply to the South or even all communities within the South. Please look at your own region or community and apply what I say as necessary.

June 22nd, 2015 by Steve Douglas | 2 Comments »

Love is a verb with feelings

A friend of mine shared a recent post on the blog, “A Holy Experience”. The blogger, author/speaker Ann Voskamp, was so moved by the plight of poor Iranians that she visited Iran in a relief effort. She’s written a bit of other stuff regarding the humanitarian crisis there, but this was the first I ran across. There are details in this post that I could hardly bring myself to read. They are too painful to just imagine, not to mention witness, not to mention experience.

Nine-year-old Yezidi and Christian girls can show up in headlines: Impregnated. Held, taken, violated and discarded. Sides round and swollen. Sent back to shame their communities. Pregnant little girls with dolls still in their hands. While we are having out wheaties and reading the day’s news.

ISIS sells nine year old girls in slave bazaars.

Voskamp’s site is rather popular among many Evangelical women I know, but I’m not particularly familiar with it other than the fact it seems to be a devotional/encouragement type of Christian blog.

I tell you what, though: its existence is probably justified by this one post alone.

We aren’t where we are to just peripherally care about the people on the margins as some superfluous gesture or token nicety. The exact reason why you are where you are — is to risk everything for those being oppressed out there.

You are where you are — to help others where they are. The reason your hands are where they are in this world — is to give other people in this world a hand.

Finally! All those middle-class church ladies who read her blog are being exposed to the real world! Score for social justice!

I am indeed thankful that her platform reaches this demographic. But her commentary is precisely the kind of thing that Christians – heck, humans in general – of all stripes should allow themselves to be challenged by. Not just those who cling to guns and conservative politics to protect themselves from radical Islam (or from anyone who isn’t a conservative Evangelical for that matter)–but even to those who think they know better and look down their noses at such benighted Christians. Because although she was talking above about the marginalized, the principal is equally true of everyone we share our planet with.

Caring isn’t a Christian’s sideline hobby. Caring is a Christian’s complete career. We don’t just care about people — caring about people is our job — the job every single one of us get up to do every single day. That’s it. Caring is our job, our point, our purpose.

Do you get up in the morning with the goal of giving yourself to everyone around you? Do you consciously empty yourself of your vain desires to the benefit of those you might not even like? I honestly don’t think I know anyone who could be said to approach that standard, perhaps least of all those of us who get so much pleasure out of jabbing the foibles of our ideological opposites in Christendom. We certainly must stand up against injustice, even defying our comrades in order to do so, but can’t we manage to do so without being so angry or disgusted with those comrades that we forget they are victims of their own crimes? Caring can – sometimes must – take the form of “tough love”, and no doubt exposing the vacuous and preposterous nature of a mindset is occasionally effective as a means of caring. It’s what I earnestly believe this post of mine is intended for.

But here’s what caring most definitely isn’t. Middle-school mockery. Reproachful discussion that’s just loud enough to be heard by the losers you’re talking about. Showy quarantines in front of those you want to like you, demonstrating your relative health and conscientious isolation from the unpopular, unclean people they might otherwise lump you in with. Memes and other in-jokes that have no chance of actually reforming the objects of your ridicule and stand only to separate you from them. Unbridled cheers, jeers, and crowing when those people fall or are exposed as hypocrites. Look back over your social media activity for the last couple of weeks and see how you score.

And here’s a hint: if you got upset with Voskamp’s audience for her even needing to say that kind of stuff, if your first thoughts went to accusing a group of people who just don’t “get it” rather than examining your own response to the crisis, it ought to hit you hard as well. We need to be, at our core, without limits or shibboleths, people who don’t just “love”, but care. We cannot continue to be people whose most obvious traits are being loudly more compassionate, being exceptionally good at differentiating ourselves from that other kind of Christian, and gaining pleasure by exposing others’ faults.

Maybe you’re wondering, Why is he going on and on about this? Even if Christians are sometimes tweeting excessively sarcastic comments about other Christians, it’s not as though we’re selling each other’s children as sex slaves. #firstworldproblems

I really do not want to suggest that this issue is anywhere near as urgent as the ones causing the substantial suffering of “people on the margins” as described above. And of course we can’t wait until we “feel” loving before we act lovingly. But I do believe that until we really become people who are characterized by caring at our core and who exhibit a deep-seated sensitivity in dealing with others, our outreach projects will be “sideline hobbies”. We prize our cynicism and sarcasm so highly; irreverence sometimes seems like the highest modern virtue, such that we’re so afraid of sounding pious and out-of-touch that we will laugh at things we should be upset about so long as everyone else is laughing. The snark of this generation may not stop us from lighting candles here or there, but more than that we need to actually be the lights in the darkness. The post-Evangelical crowd is now disabused of the Fundamentalist notion that being different from “the world” in every conceivable way is somehow admirable, but I fear it’s gone lopsided the other way now; it’s probably worth asking, is the fact that you may (or may not) go to church or call yourself a believer the biggest difference between you and your unbelieving friends?

Most of us have learned well the lesson that love is more than just a feeling–that it’s something you act upon. But that’s really just “the rest of the story” and not the whole story. If you go about trying to fulfill our calling of love through some mechanical sense of right without ever feeling the intrinsic motivation of emotion, you may be doing the work of the Kingdom, but only as a hired hand. The children of God must love as He loves, feel concern as He does, and out of the overflow of their heart will their actions come spilling. It’s easy enough to conjure up feelings of concern for those poor folks on the other side of the globe, but it’s harder by far to 1) act on that concern in a measurable way and 2) feel concern for those much nearer to us who deserve a good, swift kick in the pants for their boneheaded actions and attitudes.

Until we cultivate a fervent, consuming heart of compassion for all, a fundamental rewrite of our hearts’ inclinations that will put us out of lockstep with our culture, we will continue to be merely placating our consciences by sending off our monthly checks, proclaiming the righteousness of our convictions, criticizing those who don’t share them to the extent that we’d like, and then going about our self-aggrandizing business. Caring has to become a lifestyle; love has to be our hallmark as human beings, in all of our actions and interactions.

I guess it’s obvious that Voskamp’s challenging words hit me really hard. In case you’re wondering, I’m not interested in discussing the specific outreach organization she suggests at the bottom of her post. Honestly, if you’re not particularly impressed with it, the onus is literally on you to come up with a better option and not simply to criticize that one. But I do plead with you to find some way of meaningfully contributing. Maybe that will mean sending money–or maybe it will mean going. However it manifests, our caring needs to start much deeper down than our wallets.

May 19th, 2015 by Steve Douglas | No Comments »

I got published on Theologues!

Theologues is a site I have really enjoyed for several months now, dedicated to bridging “ancient and apostolic Christian wisdom with the modern Christian experience” (source: About page). They strive to bring the deep tradition of our faith to bear on our modern experience. I have really appreciated several of their podcast episodes as well. So when I was approached by another contributor about submitting something to the site, I was eager to try.

The result: Why No Explanation of Suffering is Sufficient.

We often try to take comfort in the old saw, “Things happen for a reason.” But when enduring the harshest of hardships, even entertaining the possibility that our sufferings were inflicted on us intentionally – good reason or no – seems not only to be overstepping the boundary of undisputed knowledge and experience, but opens up deeper and more painful questions regarding God’s insensitivity to our plight.

Hope you enjoy the site!

May 13th, 2015 by Steve Douglas | 1 Comment »

Roger Olson and David Bentley Hart on universalism

A few months ago I responded to a post concerning universalism on Roger Olson’s blog. What I want to focus on is not the post itself but a discussion in the comments section of the post (N.B. for clarification I have made a couple minor edits of my own comments below without always noting them. The originals can always be found at the link above.)

In responding to another commenter, I contended that, “For many of us, universalism has as much to do with our beginnings as our endings… [viz., that] 1) God created us, as Augustine suggested, in such a way that we can never be truly ‘home’ without Him; 2) Our separation from God is a result of a perversion of our intended orientation; 3) God has the ability, intent, and an eternity’s opportunity to heal everyone to at least get us to the point at which we will recognize Him as perfect goodness and as wholly lovely. At that point, any reasonable, unimpaired soul would willingly embrace the perfect good and wholly lovely. More than ‘hopeful’, it seems to be the only reasonable outcome to expect given those assumptions…”

At which point Olson joined in: “Hopeful expectation, maybe, but not dogmatic knowledge.” On several occasions he has made a sharp distinction between what is taught in Scripture, which becomes a matter of dogma, and that which is reasoned, about which we cannot claim any certainty or undue emphasis.

To this I responded that we should have more than mere hopeful expectation that all will be redeemed because if we posited either that “God could but would not heal an impaired will” or that “He designed creatures that, even once all external encumbrances were removed, would still have a desire to reject the plainly beheld utmost Good,” we would be contradicting descriptions of God that (to use his term) are revealed. Even if we don’t have what he would call dogmatic grounds for universal reconciliation, I proposed that it is at least axiomatic. “But then again,” I noted, “most all of our dogmas are based on interpretations rather than unrefracted revelations.” I wanted to make the last point because his category of “revealed” ends up being vacuous given the human element of interpretation: nothing is “revealed” in Scripture that is not then processed and shaded by human reason.

Olson declined to engage those points, choosing to shift to his most fundamental objection to universalism (that I’ve responded to before): “The larger issue,” said he, “is the relative autonomy required for a real relationship. What you call ‘healing an impaired will’ would amount to coercion.” This free-will objection is probably one of the most commonly raised against universalism.

I tried again: “It really seems you’re saying God would rather have people choose to commune with Him in violation of their own judgment than choose Him because they can accurately perceive His intrinsic goodness and love Him for that sake. If a mind rejects intrinsic goodness, it is the definition of ‘broken’–and being born in this fallen world, how could it not be broken? We’re not talking about some biology lab experiment where God creates lots of tabula rasa entities just to see which ones will choose Him: the teaching on the imago dei paints a very different picture. A God who desires all to come to repentance wouldn’t leave those whose judgment is impaired to their own devices any more than a loving father would be content to watch his mentally handicapped son play with a loaded gun, knowing what will inevitably happen and yet not interfering. The line between coercion and persuasion/coaxing/wooing is not thin at all: coercion entails a violated will, whereas the latter refer to removing hindrances” and revealing how what is already wished for can be fulfilled. “I’m not really talking some monergistic remapping of the mind, but of patient interaction with every yet-viable part of the will. (On the other hand, I don’t know that violating my toddler’s will to run into a busy street is such an unforgivable coercion.)”

I was trying to point out a realization I had that unveiled universalism as the only view I now find coherent. It was an epiphany grounded in two unlikely universalist allies, namely Augustine’s teaching (mentioned above) that man was “made for” God and can only find rest in Him and Luther’s emphasis on the bondage of the will. As I wrote some time ago, “[God] has never made a soul that could become so blind as to be utterly incapable of recognizing Him as Father, and [George] MacDonald doubted to the extreme that there ever existed a soul that would not be irresistibly drawn to Him and His goodness once it did recognize Him. Our wills are bound, bound by our biology, bound by our cultures, habits, and prejudices: what else would a loving Father do but make every effort to free His children from that bondage? ‘The will of God should be done. Man should be free—not merely man as he thinks of himself, but man as God thinks of him’ (MacDonald).”

This week it all came home to me once again as I read Eastern Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart’s unexpected foray into another comments section, this time on Fr. Aidan Kimel’s blog, Eclectic Orthodoxy. After describing himself as a “complete and unreserved universalist”, something that I don’t believe has heretofore been common knowledge, DBH explained that “freedom as defined in a purely voluntarist, spontaneous, atelic movement of the will–pure libertarian freedom…is a logically incoherent model of freedom…”

The classical Platonic-Aristotelian-Christian understanding of freedom is one in which the rational will of necessity, when set free from ignorance, wills the good end of its own nature; and perfect freedom is the power to achieve that end without hindrance. Thus God is perfectly free precisely because he cannot work evil, which is to say nothing can prevent him from realizing his nature as the infinite Good…Since, after all, all employments of the will are teleological–necessarily intentionally directed towards an end, either clearly or obscurely known by the intellect–and since the Good is the final cause of all movements of the will, no choice of evil can be free in a meaningful sense. For evil is not an end, and so can be chosen under the delusion that it is in some sense a good in respect of the soul (even if, in moral terms, one is aware that one is choosing what is conventionally regarded as “evil”); and no choice made in ignorance can be a free choice.

In simple terms, if a deranged man chooses to slash himself with a knife or set fire to himself, you would not be interfering with his “freedom” by preventing him from doing so. You would be rescuing him from his slavery to madness. This is why the free-will defense of the idea of an eternal hell is essentially gibberish.

So the moral of the story (aside from the observation that a lot of the most interesting discussion in the blogosphere comes from the comments section!) is that the libertarian or free-will objection to universalism, at least as commonly formulated, ultimately has no legs.

Now, regarding whether universalism is “revealed” in Scripture and hence eligible to be dogma for folks like Olson, we may soon begin to see progress on that front as well: according to the same comment thread, DBH stated his conviction that universalism is the only coherent way of reading Paul and his intention to write a technical work on the subject. In the meantime, he says he has been chalking up even more evidence of the prevalence of universalism (also called apokatastasis) in the New Testament as he works on a translation that he quips will deserve to be called the “Apokatastatic Standard Version”!

But even if the biblical evidence ends up falling shy of teaching universalism, I cannot see why anyone considering the above arguments has any reason to cling to that still-too-bleak belief in hopeful universalism rather than at least axiomatic universalism, in which no diseased soul can remain unhealed and God must fulfill His destiny of being all in all.

May 13th, 2015 by Steve Douglas | 4 Comments »