A Hell of a Problem! (Or, Univeralism and the Problem of Hell)

So lately I've been reading The Evangelical Universalist. In the book the author seeks to answer each of the following questions in the affirmative: Can an orthodox Christian, committed to the historical faith of the church and the authority of the Bible, be a universalist? Is it possible to believe that salvation is found only by grace, through faith in Christ, and yet to maintain that in the end all people will be saved? Can one believe passionately in mission if one does not think that anyone will be lost? Could universalism be consistent with the teachings of the Bible? I must say this is quite intriguing, but I'm afraid a travesty as well. This post will primarily focus attention on one of the author's philosophical problems with traditional Christian teachings on hell. 

The philosophical argument I'll address is what the author calls "The Problem of the Joy of the Redeemed." The basic principle here is that if the redeemed have eschatological bliss, then they cannot know of anyone they love who is suffering eternally with no hope of salvation. Here is his argument.

1. Supremely worthwhile happiness (or eschatological bliss of the redeemed) must (a) survive complete disclosure of the truth concerning the universe and (b) the redeemed (S) must be filled with love for others.
2. Given 1.a, Supremely worthwhile happiness cannot be based on deception or false factual beliefs. And given 1.b, Supremely worthwhile happiness cannot exist if S knows people but does not love them.
3. Supremely worthwhile happiness can be jeopardized if S loves someone who eternally suffers with no hope of salvation. 
4. Therefore, supremely worthwhile happiness exists if and only if S has genuine knowledge of the fate of loved ones and remains happy.
5. S can only remain happy concerning loved ones if their fate is ultimately a blessed one.
6. Therefore, S can only have supremely worthwhile happiness if no loved ones eternally suffer with no hope of salvation. 

This argument seems to be logically valid in that each premise follows from the other(s), but the soundness of 1.a should be firmly rejected. For example, Bill Craig suggests that complete disclosure of the truth concerning the universe does not entail that the redeemed (S) must be aware of the fate of the damned. Craig provides us with two valid possibilities: either 1) God could wipe away S's memory of loved ones who suffer or (2) the ascetics of the eschatological state might be so all-consuming that S never thinks about them. 

But the universalist isn't quite ready to concede just yet. For here the author replies with a rejection of both Craigian options. The memory-wipe option would lead to deletion of huge chunks of past memories, memories about eternally suffering loved ones who were instrumental to S's salvation. And the second option does not mean that S will be made less aware of pains of others but more. In other words, the escaton would makes us more aware that God loves the righteous and hates the wicked. 

Perhaps the universalist has a point, but for now I'm still persuaded that they are missing the point. S's eschatological bliss is primarily about the joy and memory they have towards a God who saved him/her. Yes eternally damned individuals in S's memory bank could cause them to not be happy, but why is that memory crucial for self awareness? Moreover, the point seems to be that God saved S who remembers clearly that they needed to be saved, but the instrument used by God is secondary and not essential for self awareness or perhaps better said self identification. 

Next, I think the universalist's rejection of Craig's second option seems possible, but what can be said about S's overwhelming happiness for a God who ultimately saved him/her that it overshadows the reality that there are people S loved who are suffering? What I'm trying to say is that if S's joy and happiness is primarily and supremely directed towards God because of S's need to be saved, them why would S ever think about the secondary instruments used by God?

I hope this provides some good food for thought, and what do you think about all of this?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument and Libertarian Inconsistency

In an earlier post, I made the suggestion that some libertarians are guilty of being inconsistent if they hold to a certain cosmological argument for God's existence. The cosmological argument I have in mind is the kalam cosmological argument. However, amongst the responses a friend was more than willing to reject this version because he felt it had too many presuppositions built into it. Therefore, what I would like to do here is lay out the three premises of the argument, and in hopes of defending it provide proof for the inconsistency of the libertarian.

First of all, here are the premises:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Quickly notice that the argument is quite simple and easy to remember. Also notice the argument's validity and soundness. For if one was to reject the conclusion (premise 3), then he/she must prove either premise 1 or 2 to be false because the conclusion necessarily follows from the two premises. Lastly, notice the direction the argument is going in. Namely, the universe must have a beginning, and since nothing begins to exist without a cause, there must be a transcendent creator of the universe. 

So this is the question and challenge for the libertarian: Either what reasons do you have to reject this argument? Or how do you account for such validity and soundness and still claim that your actions, which have come into existence, have no transcendent cause?

Athanansius' Logical Argument against Arianism

While completing what right now seems endless reading for my summer course- Trinitarian and Christological Controversies, I came across a most intriguing logical argument from Athanansius for the divinity of Jesus, the Son of God. Also, the thoughts here are a further result of the class notes and presentation of the class notes by my prof- Dr. Don Fairbairn. 

In Athanansius' Orations Against the Arians, he sets forth three types of arguments: Direct Biblical Arguments; Biblical/Logical Arguments; and Biblical/Soteriological Arguments. And again, the most interesting one to me was his logical argument. 

The logical argument in particular that caught my eye responded to Arius' understanding of who Jesus is. Specifically, Athanasius is responding to the Arian notion that the Father is the One (God) and Jesus is the first one and greatest of all created beings. In other words, Arianism pushes the subordination of the Son to a logical conclusion (which Origen might have already implicitly stated) and explicitly denies the Son's deity. The Son is a creature whom the Father has created out of nothing, and is only God in the sense that he has been given the dignity of deity.

This Arian thinking caused many (Athanasius included) to respond quite harshly, and this brings us Athanasius' logical response to such a notion. First, Athanasius begins with distinguishing between partaking and entire participation within the Godhead. If the Son partakes of the Father's deity, then he is not a true Son at all. The Son must entirely participate in the Father nature (physis or ousia) in order for the Son to be divine and thus save humanity. In other words, the Son participates by nature in the Godhead. He is naturally God just like the Father.

He then argues that if the Son was not eternally a Son, then the Father was at one time a one, then a two and then three. Now, it was not important to Arianism to uphold a trinitarian understanding, but what would have been important was upholding the Father as ineffable, immutable and unchangeable. So, for the Father to at one time not be a father and at another time be a father would be impossible, since this would imply an imperfection and change in God (the Father). In other words, if there was ever a time when God had no Son, then he was not always Father. Moreover, if God were not always a Father, then what could one say about a time when God would stop being a trinity? Perhaps either adding or subtracting another. 

But Athanasius must address the Scriptural teaching that the Son was begotten by the Father. While Arius claimed that if the Son was begotten then he was created, Athanasius made a distinction between divine and human begetting. Human beings become fathers and sons temporarily, but the Father produces or becomes a father eternally. 

Athanasius proves to be one of Christianity's most able defenders of orthodoxy as it relates to our beliefs about how Jesus is. Well done Athanasius...well done.

Some Thoughts on Being Devotional in Academic Reading

This morning, while completing some reading for my summer course- The Trinitarian and Christological Controversies, I came across a most delightful, and in many respects encouraging and challenging quote from C.S. Lewis. In the Popular Patristics Series published by St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Lewis writes an introduction for St Athanasius’ On the Incarnation and on page 8, Lewis writes:

“For my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await many other. I believe that many who find that “nothing happens” when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology.”

How true this is for me, but seldom heard from many in the church. What Lewis is getting at here is the needless division between two types of Christian books: those that tend to spiritualize and devotionalize matter and those that tend to be more academically rigorous and technical. We all know what books and authors I am referring to here, and while both have their usefulness, I cannot tell you how many doctrinal, academically rigorous books have caused the devotional cords of my heart to sing. Of course part of Lewis’ quote gets to the issue that the devotional books don’t really say anything. Now I don’t mean that every devotional/pastoral book out there is guilty of such criticism, but the best books for spiritual devotion seem to be “a tough bit of theology” because of what it forces one to do. That is, think much harder and deeper about the issue at hand.

I would like to conclude with what I think this really gets at today. Namely, this quote both encourages and challenges the Christian to read rather difficult doctrinal books and not separate the spiritual and devotional aspects of the literature from the academic rigor. For how often do we as Christian do that? I know I have heard this method told to me many times! For example, there were several instances in my undergraduate education, where students and professors alike told me that in addition to my classroom assignments and studies I need to have a personal “quite time.” But why?! Is not Scripture just that-Scripture? Are we to ever separate those spiritual teachings found in the Word from our academic study? As it seems Paul would respond, “mh… gevnoito” or “Certainly not!” Shouldn’t we always be devotional in every aspect of our study of the Word (whether we are dealing with the Word itself, or a secondary source)? In other words, shouldn’t our study of the Word always be applied to matters of our Christian life? I think so. And I think Lewis is encouraging and challenging us to do the same.

The Context, Controversies and Future of Evangelicalism

Introduction 

I would like to state up front that I am a confessing evangelical, a graduate of an evangelical bible college and currently a graduate student of an evangelical seminary. So rest assured that this is not an attack on evangelicalism, but hopefully a helpful reminder of where we have come from and anticipating where we are going. Given this disclaimer, it is important to state that evangelicals are not unaware of the controversies and debates of specific doctrinal issues that took place and are taking place under the evangelical tent. Moreover, these evangelical disagreements have been the topic of discussion in some of my seminary classes and cause for some interesting dialogue (in many respects, much of what follows in the product one of those classes and its notes). Therefore, I would like to briefly outline the contexts of some of these controversies, which may help us in understanding our disputes better and perhaps settle them (maybe), and conclude with a suggestion on how to move evangelicalism forward in the 21^st century.

The Context and Controversies of Evangelicalism

First the context of the 20^th century posed some interesting controversies. Without going into great detail the point of these evangelical diversities points us in the direction of the existence of theological differences within the movement. In the early 20th century, millennial debates and dispensationalism were of huge interest. The mid-century introduced us to the charismatic movement. The 1960s produced controversies concerning gender roles as they related to women ordination. The 1970s-80s saw issues of contemporary worship and defining and defending the inerrancy of Scripture. Most recently, the meaning of justification has been the hot bottom topic within evangelicalism.

Many of the age old debates, such as Calvinism and Arminianism, the nature of the Spiritual gifts, gender roles, the sacraments (e.g. baptism and the Lord’s Supper), find their supporters among the evangelical camps and are till an issue today. In other words, as a group we have not solved these debates. Even our high view of Scripture, which I’ll mention soon, has not led to a consensus understanding of how to interpret Scripture. In fact, there are considerable differences about “how” to interpret the Scriptures and this of course results in biblical/theological differences. These evangelical biblical/theological differences have caused evangelicalism to define itself, and in light of the disagreement within academia and the church, who decides what answers are “correct”? Moreover, who decides what issues we must argue on in order to be an evangelical?

In an effort to define evangelicalism, the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) provides a doctrinal basis that one must sign every year in order to be a member of the society. It reads, “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.” First, such a statement is often associated with notions of the essentials of evangelicalism and in it we find a specific understanding of the authority and nature of Scripture as well as the nature of the trinity. However, is this enough to establish evangelicalism and one as an evangelical? Yes there are many doctrinal aspects that evangelicals must agree on: such as, the final authority of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ and a need for personal faith in him; however, what about the nature of Christ’s work on the cross? What did it primarily accomplish? Victory and defeat of Satan’s hold on humanity, a satisfaction of God’s wrath, a moral example, etc.? Furthermore, the nature of humanity and the necessity to live a life spiritually transformed? Lastly, what about the importance of mission work for furthering the kingdom (whatever it looks like)? Therefore, along the similar vain of the in the previous paragraph, what confessions are essential and who decides that?

So the doctrinal aspects of a definition of evangelicalism are quite diverse among confessional evangelicals (e.g. evangelical Methodists and Presbyterians). There may be some affirmation of essential doctrines and thus in a sense unity, but it does not take too long to find many aspects of doctrinal diversity within the essential doctrines and then some. As a result, it seems that the theological characteristics and professions of evangelicalism are not enough to primarily hold it together and define it.

Not even cultural definitions can hold evangelicalism together. While evangelicalism is commonly identified as “politically conservative” (e.g. the republican party), who defend ethical issues such as pro-life and anti-gay marriage, there are many evangelicals who vote for different parties. Moreover, there are many non-evangelicals who are also “culture conservatives” (e.g. Roman Catholics and Mormons). Also, there are many who seek to hold evangelicalism together from a scientific approach, but this is flawed as well. For while evangelicals are typically labeled as “scientifically conservative” (e.g. creationism and intelligent design), who hold certain scientific notions about the age of the earth and anti-evolutionary theories, there are many evangelicals who hold an old earth view as well as certain notions of evolutionary theological theories (check out BioLogos http://biologos.org/).

In light of the insufficiency to define evangelicalism with a doctrinal/theological profession, and culturally political and scientific standpoints, many scholars have gone the route of defining evangelicalism in light of historical paradigms. George Marsden suggests a Protestant paradigm as it understands evangelicalism’s close association to the heritage of the Protestant Reformation. I think Marsden rightly notices this, but there seems to be more to evangelicalism historically than just the Protestant Reformation. As a result of many unanswered historical influences, Donald Dayton claims that a Pentecostal paradigm is best as it notices a common heritage in the revivals of the 19^th (2nd Great Awakening) and 20^th (Pentecostal) centuries. But still there seems to be things that Dayton’s paradigm leaves out. In light of the diversity here, Daryl Hart asserts that no paradigm is sufficient to account for the diverse heritage of evangelicalism. There are many historical narratives and heritages that relate to characteristics of evangelicals, so which one is best? As seen above, elements of the protestant reformation (e.g. faith alone) and historical revival movement find there respective roots in evangelicalism (e.g. the urgency of conversion and para-church ministries), so how can we say one is more prominent than another? The later option might be the better one at the moment, since it seems that no single paradigm can account for all the moving (evangelical) parts.

What seems to best define and unite evangelicalism is what it stands against. In other words, what best defines evangelicalism is not what it is but what it is not. For example, evangelical’s battle with modernism is the common enemy of evangelicals and in a sense an accurate defining aspect of the movement. Our attacks against the ethical relativists, the religious atheists, liberal Jesus scholars (e.g. Bart Ehrman, and the “scholars” of the Jesus Seminar), etc are just as much a definitional aspect of who we are as a movement as what our creeds say.

Conclusion: The Future of Evangelicalism  

The contexts and controversies of evangelicalism are quite numerous and there is more to be explored. There are two books coming out that I need to read on this topic before I make any more concluding remarks regarding what the future of evangelicalism will look like: Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism and Evangelicalism: What Is It and Is It Worth Keeping? by D.A. Carson. But some thoughts would be that we must clearly define what we are and I think that evangelicalism can only do that if it sees itself as a movement instead of a religious group or organization within Protestant Christianity. My reason for saying this is because there seems to be too much infighting than actual agreement on specific issues. If we understand evangelicalism as a religious movement within Protestant Christianity, then the things we stand for can often be associated with reforming and reviving specific Christian groups.