Hope as a legitimate reason to believe UR
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:34 pm
Hi all,
I’ve been wanting to write this for several weeks, but I haven’t had the opportunity until now. I know this is a lengthy post and I don’t know if this adds anything to the discussion or not, but there is one primary point I wanted to express my opinion on.
I want say at the outset that I’m not presenting a case for or against universalism here. I’m not a universalist (but neither am I an annihilationist, nor an eternal retributionist). The purpose of this lengthy essay is to challenge what I believe is a false notion that an argument from “feelings” has no place in debates and discussions related to universal reconciliation or any other topic for that matter. I hope to demonstrate that being made in the image of God means that we are not only rational beings, but imaginitive and emotional beings as well. And that it’s those three things together enable us to interpret revelation and develop what we believe. Without any one of them, I believe we only get a partial picture of the truth most of the time.
One of the arguments I often see put forth against the doctrine of universal reconciliation is that it is based largely on “feelings” or “wishes” and therefore, by implication, the basis of believing in the doctrine is purely emotional and irrational. But is it? Is hope for an ultimate reconciliation of all people really irrational? I would say yes if, and only if, the doctrine can be unequivically proven to be undeniably false. No doubt, feelings are notoriously wrong and the heart is often deceitful (Jer. 17:9). And it is certainly irrational to believe contrary to an established fact. However, I would assert that it is not necessarily irrational to hope for something that has the possibility of being true. If it were, then every Christian has irrational beliefs in many future things that he or she awaits for (resurrection to eternal life, being present with Jesus, etc). For until they happen, they are not an established fact, they are merely a hope based on a promise. That is why faith is required to believe them.
In scripture, are we not encouraged to “hope” for things that are not yet realized?
Heb 11:1
11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
NKJV
Are we not told to be prepared to explain our hope?
1 Peter 3:15
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;
NKJV
Is it not one of the very virtuous things of love itself?
1 Cor 13:4-8
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails.
NKJV
Many times in the gospels, Jesus commended the faith of people whose only evidence of His power to heal was likely just second hand news at best. Many of these people had much to hope for (dead children, chronic illness, blindness, etc.), but not much data to build a logical case on. But Jesus is said to have "marveled" at their faith. Yes, I believe a rational hope is a very real and valid reason to believe something.
Ironically, I’ve often (almost universally) heard those that oppose the doctrine of universal reconciliation say that they could wish it could be true. Even Paul himself wrote that he wished he could trade places with his countrymen (Rom 9:3): Why is that? Could it be that they have compassion? In the OT, we see Abraham and Moses pleading with God to have compassion on the wicked (Gen 18, Ex 32:11-14). Are we to suppose that we have more compassion for the lost than God does? Or could it be that it is part of being made in the image of God to have such compassion and mercy? In my opinion, most Christians, if they are honest with their “feelings” would hope (if they were allowed to) for an ultimate reconciliation for all people. I believe that compassion and mercy is all part of being made in God’s image and we need to pay attention to that.
Personally, when I imagine all of the possible final outcomes, I can’t imagine a more glorious outcome than God reconciling “all things to Himself” (Col 1:20, 1Cor 15:27-28 ) that He may be “all in all”.
Why?
1. First and foremost, God gets all that He wanted for Christmas. Is it too much to hope for that God ultimately won’t suffer permanent loss of the objects He desires to love and enjoy forever? Would we not be happy for Him?
2. Sin (and all of its ill effects) and the works of the devil are ultimately undone and creation is perfectly restored. Like entropy to matter and energy, the power of sin is completely exhausted and dissipated to an impotent state and consigned to the past forever. This can’t be so if there is a corner in the universe someplace where people are forever suffering the effects of sin, or even if there are those who are annihilated, because that is still a permanent effect of sin. In essence, the power of sin would still be in effect (NOTE: memories of suffering in this life do not necessarily fit this category because the mortal suffering is temporary and it can be redeemed if the suffering has a greater eternal purpose).
3. A more glorious and perfect afterlife. The thought of loved ones suffering eternally would hinder, in some way, a perfect afterlife. Think about it. Every human being, from one’s own mother to Adolph Hitler was someone’s baby. It’s almost universally repugnant to imagine one’s newborn baby burning in hell forever and ever. Yet everybody knows and loves somebody who is not a Christian and, by traditional theology, will not spend eternity with God. This makes the final outcome less than ideal for everyone (not the least of which is God). If the final reality is less than “what might have been” then it is not the best possible outcome and therefore imperfect. Why can one not hope that God has the most perfect eternal plan imaginable?
If God could somehow pull all of this off, who wouldn’t be in awe of that? If God can reconcile all people He desires (2Pet 3:9, 1Tim 2:4), and simultaneously execute perfect justice and completely destroy the power of sin, who could argue that that scenario is less than ideal? Does not this imagined outcome have some merit in the fact that God is both all-loving and all-powerful and therefore willing and able to bring it about? That’s exactly what universalists hope for if I understand them correctly.
I believe that being made in the image of God makes us both rational and emotional beings. I also believe that imagination is a divine attribute as well. For example, if our traditional theology is correct, evil existed only in the imagination (or foreknowledge) of God until it became a present reality through the fall. I would assert that any argument that leaves out one of these aspects is incomplete. Revelation must inform imagination. And imagination must supplement revelation to conceive hope and give birth to faith which, when full grown, brings about reconciliation to God. For is it not the lack of imagination that makes the cross of Christ “foolishness to those who are perishing” (1Cor 1:18 )? Rational thought alone says we are to be pitied of all men for believing in the resurrection (1Cor 15). The self-sacrificial acts of obedience that are produced in the believer make no rational sense without an element of imaginative hope of future things.
Hope is heroic. The entire chapter 11 of the book of Hebrews emphasizes this. Many of the greatest stories ever told are the ones that leave you hoping against all odds for the outcome of the hero.
In the Lord of the Rings movies, I remember Gandalf despairing over the lack of news about Frodo, to the point that he fears the worst. When Aragorn asks him, “What does your heart tell you?” Gandalf smiles. Hope is reborn.
Later on, when the armies of Gondor go up to a final battle against Mordor to buy Frodo a diversion, Sauron sends out an orc to be his mouthpiece. He presents Frodo mithril mail as evidence that Frodo has been tortured and killed and you can see the hearts of the others sink with this news. In one of my favorite scenes of the movie, Aragorn rides by and lops off the head of the foul goblin with a stroke of his sword. Gimli the dwarf says “I guess that concludes negotiations”. Aragorn turns to the others and says “I don’t believe it, I will not believe it” and the battle goes on with Aragorn leading the charge with the words “for Frodo”. That, my friends, is hope. Negotiations are concluded when hope refuses to die.
Hope is not the denial of unfavorable facts. Hope often says, “the story is not over yet, and there is still a chance for the best imaginable outcome here...and therefore every reason to press on in faith”.
Scripturally speaking, the doctrine of universal reconciliation indeed has many prima facie problems to overcome. However, even with all the arguments in opposition that I’ve heard given, I’m not convinced that these problems are insurmountable. Hope still has room to breathe. I’ve recently finished reading Talbott’s book (The inescapable love of God) and, to my surprise, I was very impressed with the case he made and I even found myself hoping it is true. There was very little in his arguments I could find fault with (Except one suggestion at the end of chapter 6, which we won't get into at this point).
One of the points Talbott makes in his book (and I think he’s right) is that every one of the views has prima facie problems to overcome. Every view of hell has to contend with scriptures that, on the surface, seem to contradict it. This is mainly why I am, and may always remain for the most part, undecided on this topic. And I have to admit that I am very grateful that I’m not bound to any view on this topic. I can just leave that in God’s hands. Because I believe in the perfection of God, I also think that God has the perfect ultimate plan for the final chapter…a plan that will we all will be in absolute awe of.
But the fact remains that none of the views can claim undeniable truth. And for that reason, I believe that hope remains a valid and rational reason for someone to believe in universal reconciliation. With any of the views being equally possible (yes, I mean equally, for none have been undeniably disproved in my opinion making any of them just as possible as the other), it is hope that tips the scales for the person who believes it. For those of you who have openly declared that you are universalists because of this hope, I tip my hat to you. That takes a lot of guts in a culture of Western thinking, which is still very modernistic.
There is one important point I’d like to make at this time. This “hope to believe” is not sufficient to prove universal reconciliation or any other doctrine to another. It cannot win a debate because hope cannot be transferred. That is probably why the debate will rage on without a final agreement on what is true. I think that, just like the gospel itself, it’s a personal thing. Let each man be convinced before God in his own mind, and in his own heart.
In conclusion, I would like to suggest that, as beings made in the image of God, our feelings like hope and doubt have a legitimate place along side logic and revelation in formulating sound theological arguments for belief, but not dogma. Of course, we cannot base our beliefs entirely on feelings. That would be absurd. But I don’t think we can give a wholesale dismissal of them either lest we cut off an important part of our God given capacity to interpret and believe. If we do not use our whole being to interpret the world around us, I believe we end up with an incomplete picture more often than not.
It is for this reason that I would encourage all of us to value and respect another brother or sisters’ hope as legitimate, giving it the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it has at least some weight and significance. From there, it is completely legitimate to respectfully use logic and revelation to work towards reaching sound conclusions, or at least educated leanings and opinions. That, I believe, is reasoning with love and it makes for a more agreeable debate in my opinion. It’s completely valid to challenge something that is believed by someone else. If it’s true, it will stand up to the scrutiny. If it’s not, it should be abandoned anyway and the person should be thankful for being set free of it. However, I think there is very little value in belittling the viewpoints of another on the assumption that their “feelings” of hope have no relevance in the debate. I would disagree with that assumption.
1 Cor 13:13
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
NKJV
I’ve been wanting to write this for several weeks, but I haven’t had the opportunity until now. I know this is a lengthy post and I don’t know if this adds anything to the discussion or not, but there is one primary point I wanted to express my opinion on.
I want say at the outset that I’m not presenting a case for or against universalism here. I’m not a universalist (but neither am I an annihilationist, nor an eternal retributionist). The purpose of this lengthy essay is to challenge what I believe is a false notion that an argument from “feelings” has no place in debates and discussions related to universal reconciliation or any other topic for that matter. I hope to demonstrate that being made in the image of God means that we are not only rational beings, but imaginitive and emotional beings as well. And that it’s those three things together enable us to interpret revelation and develop what we believe. Without any one of them, I believe we only get a partial picture of the truth most of the time.
One of the arguments I often see put forth against the doctrine of universal reconciliation is that it is based largely on “feelings” or “wishes” and therefore, by implication, the basis of believing in the doctrine is purely emotional and irrational. But is it? Is hope for an ultimate reconciliation of all people really irrational? I would say yes if, and only if, the doctrine can be unequivically proven to be undeniably false. No doubt, feelings are notoriously wrong and the heart is often deceitful (Jer. 17:9). And it is certainly irrational to believe contrary to an established fact. However, I would assert that it is not necessarily irrational to hope for something that has the possibility of being true. If it were, then every Christian has irrational beliefs in many future things that he or she awaits for (resurrection to eternal life, being present with Jesus, etc). For until they happen, they are not an established fact, they are merely a hope based on a promise. That is why faith is required to believe them.
In scripture, are we not encouraged to “hope” for things that are not yet realized?
Heb 11:1
11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
NKJV
Are we not told to be prepared to explain our hope?
1 Peter 3:15
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;
NKJV
Is it not one of the very virtuous things of love itself?
1 Cor 13:4-8
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails.
NKJV
Many times in the gospels, Jesus commended the faith of people whose only evidence of His power to heal was likely just second hand news at best. Many of these people had much to hope for (dead children, chronic illness, blindness, etc.), but not much data to build a logical case on. But Jesus is said to have "marveled" at their faith. Yes, I believe a rational hope is a very real and valid reason to believe something.
Ironically, I’ve often (almost universally) heard those that oppose the doctrine of universal reconciliation say that they could wish it could be true. Even Paul himself wrote that he wished he could trade places with his countrymen (Rom 9:3): Why is that? Could it be that they have compassion? In the OT, we see Abraham and Moses pleading with God to have compassion on the wicked (Gen 18, Ex 32:11-14). Are we to suppose that we have more compassion for the lost than God does? Or could it be that it is part of being made in the image of God to have such compassion and mercy? In my opinion, most Christians, if they are honest with their “feelings” would hope (if they were allowed to) for an ultimate reconciliation for all people. I believe that compassion and mercy is all part of being made in God’s image and we need to pay attention to that.
Personally, when I imagine all of the possible final outcomes, I can’t imagine a more glorious outcome than God reconciling “all things to Himself” (Col 1:20, 1Cor 15:27-28 ) that He may be “all in all”.
Why?
1. First and foremost, God gets all that He wanted for Christmas. Is it too much to hope for that God ultimately won’t suffer permanent loss of the objects He desires to love and enjoy forever? Would we not be happy for Him?
2. Sin (and all of its ill effects) and the works of the devil are ultimately undone and creation is perfectly restored. Like entropy to matter and energy, the power of sin is completely exhausted and dissipated to an impotent state and consigned to the past forever. This can’t be so if there is a corner in the universe someplace where people are forever suffering the effects of sin, or even if there are those who are annihilated, because that is still a permanent effect of sin. In essence, the power of sin would still be in effect (NOTE: memories of suffering in this life do not necessarily fit this category because the mortal suffering is temporary and it can be redeemed if the suffering has a greater eternal purpose).
3. A more glorious and perfect afterlife. The thought of loved ones suffering eternally would hinder, in some way, a perfect afterlife. Think about it. Every human being, from one’s own mother to Adolph Hitler was someone’s baby. It’s almost universally repugnant to imagine one’s newborn baby burning in hell forever and ever. Yet everybody knows and loves somebody who is not a Christian and, by traditional theology, will not spend eternity with God. This makes the final outcome less than ideal for everyone (not the least of which is God). If the final reality is less than “what might have been” then it is not the best possible outcome and therefore imperfect. Why can one not hope that God has the most perfect eternal plan imaginable?
If God could somehow pull all of this off, who wouldn’t be in awe of that? If God can reconcile all people He desires (2Pet 3:9, 1Tim 2:4), and simultaneously execute perfect justice and completely destroy the power of sin, who could argue that that scenario is less than ideal? Does not this imagined outcome have some merit in the fact that God is both all-loving and all-powerful and therefore willing and able to bring it about? That’s exactly what universalists hope for if I understand them correctly.
I believe that being made in the image of God makes us both rational and emotional beings. I also believe that imagination is a divine attribute as well. For example, if our traditional theology is correct, evil existed only in the imagination (or foreknowledge) of God until it became a present reality through the fall. I would assert that any argument that leaves out one of these aspects is incomplete. Revelation must inform imagination. And imagination must supplement revelation to conceive hope and give birth to faith which, when full grown, brings about reconciliation to God. For is it not the lack of imagination that makes the cross of Christ “foolishness to those who are perishing” (1Cor 1:18 )? Rational thought alone says we are to be pitied of all men for believing in the resurrection (1Cor 15). The self-sacrificial acts of obedience that are produced in the believer make no rational sense without an element of imaginative hope of future things.
Hope is heroic. The entire chapter 11 of the book of Hebrews emphasizes this. Many of the greatest stories ever told are the ones that leave you hoping against all odds for the outcome of the hero.
In the Lord of the Rings movies, I remember Gandalf despairing over the lack of news about Frodo, to the point that he fears the worst. When Aragorn asks him, “What does your heart tell you?” Gandalf smiles. Hope is reborn.
Later on, when the armies of Gondor go up to a final battle against Mordor to buy Frodo a diversion, Sauron sends out an orc to be his mouthpiece. He presents Frodo mithril mail as evidence that Frodo has been tortured and killed and you can see the hearts of the others sink with this news. In one of my favorite scenes of the movie, Aragorn rides by and lops off the head of the foul goblin with a stroke of his sword. Gimli the dwarf says “I guess that concludes negotiations”. Aragorn turns to the others and says “I don’t believe it, I will not believe it” and the battle goes on with Aragorn leading the charge with the words “for Frodo”. That, my friends, is hope. Negotiations are concluded when hope refuses to die.
Hope is not the denial of unfavorable facts. Hope often says, “the story is not over yet, and there is still a chance for the best imaginable outcome here...and therefore every reason to press on in faith”.
Scripturally speaking, the doctrine of universal reconciliation indeed has many prima facie problems to overcome. However, even with all the arguments in opposition that I’ve heard given, I’m not convinced that these problems are insurmountable. Hope still has room to breathe. I’ve recently finished reading Talbott’s book (The inescapable love of God) and, to my surprise, I was very impressed with the case he made and I even found myself hoping it is true. There was very little in his arguments I could find fault with (Except one suggestion at the end of chapter 6, which we won't get into at this point).
One of the points Talbott makes in his book (and I think he’s right) is that every one of the views has prima facie problems to overcome. Every view of hell has to contend with scriptures that, on the surface, seem to contradict it. This is mainly why I am, and may always remain for the most part, undecided on this topic. And I have to admit that I am very grateful that I’m not bound to any view on this topic. I can just leave that in God’s hands. Because I believe in the perfection of God, I also think that God has the perfect ultimate plan for the final chapter…a plan that will we all will be in absolute awe of.
But the fact remains that none of the views can claim undeniable truth. And for that reason, I believe that hope remains a valid and rational reason for someone to believe in universal reconciliation. With any of the views being equally possible (yes, I mean equally, for none have been undeniably disproved in my opinion making any of them just as possible as the other), it is hope that tips the scales for the person who believes it. For those of you who have openly declared that you are universalists because of this hope, I tip my hat to you. That takes a lot of guts in a culture of Western thinking, which is still very modernistic.
There is one important point I’d like to make at this time. This “hope to believe” is not sufficient to prove universal reconciliation or any other doctrine to another. It cannot win a debate because hope cannot be transferred. That is probably why the debate will rage on without a final agreement on what is true. I think that, just like the gospel itself, it’s a personal thing. Let each man be convinced before God in his own mind, and in his own heart.
In conclusion, I would like to suggest that, as beings made in the image of God, our feelings like hope and doubt have a legitimate place along side logic and revelation in formulating sound theological arguments for belief, but not dogma. Of course, we cannot base our beliefs entirely on feelings. That would be absurd. But I don’t think we can give a wholesale dismissal of them either lest we cut off an important part of our God given capacity to interpret and believe. If we do not use our whole being to interpret the world around us, I believe we end up with an incomplete picture more often than not.
It is for this reason that I would encourage all of us to value and respect another brother or sisters’ hope as legitimate, giving it the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it has at least some weight and significance. From there, it is completely legitimate to respectfully use logic and revelation to work towards reaching sound conclusions, or at least educated leanings and opinions. That, I believe, is reasoning with love and it makes for a more agreeable debate in my opinion. It’s completely valid to challenge something that is believed by someone else. If it’s true, it will stand up to the scrutiny. If it’s not, it should be abandoned anyway and the person should be thankful for being set free of it. However, I think there is very little value in belittling the viewpoints of another on the assumption that their “feelings” of hope have no relevance in the debate. I would disagree with that assumption.
1 Cor 13:13
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
NKJV
). If you can post this as a review (amazon, alberis, or even your own website if you have one) of the book, please do so. I think this may encourage closed minded people to at least consider it. Thanks for posting this Christopher.