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?
No comments:
Post a Comment