Do you consider the primary purpose of evangelism to be warning about hell? Do you consider the primary deterrent to bad behavior fear of hell?
Because I rather view the primary purpose and deterrent to be God's freely given universal love. Its transformative power is imperative to spread and brings heaven to earth.
Maybe you'll address this later in the series? I'm enjoying so far!
This post makes several important points for those of us who incline towards universal reconciliation. One of these is the question of immediate versus purgative salvation. My view is that it must be purgative, but that raises another question: if we don't buy the "fire insurance" concept of salvation, what is the difference between the (immediate post-death) fates of Christians (or better, Christ-followers) and others? Do Christians still sin? Yes. Are we forgiven? Yes. But do we still need purging, cleansing? I rather expect so. maybe it's in a different, heavenly environment, but to me it's a puzzle.
Another vital point is the cosmological vision. This saves us from a self-centred view of salvation and thus takes us closer to the spirit of the Gospel. (I think there are also other ways that we can be saved from that self-centred view: essentially anything which brings about a recognition of salvation from sin, and not merely salvation from the consequences of sin - this latter being all too common a presentation - is moving us in that direction.)
Moving slightly away from your post, another question which intrigues me is how recognisable our personalities will be when we are fully reconciled to God. For those people who in this life we regard as "good", it may be not that difficult, but I'd expect some joyous improvements. But for the likes of, say, Hitler or Stalin or [insert name of your locally notorious mass-murderer or paedophile], what will be recognisable about the saved, purified version of them? Quakers have an excellent discipline of "answering that of God in all people" - that maybe gives a clue or a starting point, but it surely remains a mystery.
Two or three years ago I read all the Gospels with the specific purpose of discovering the distinctive aspects of each of them. In Matthew the two main things I found were the emphasis on the Kingdom of God, and on separation, which is a strong thread throughout the gospel. How does this square with a hopeful eschatology? I think it can, and (given other parts of the NT) must, and it does fit with purgative universalism, but we don't find it (or I haven't) in Matthew alone.
Great post. I love how you specified many different possibilities.
Using your categories, I could be either inclusivist or exclusivist. I'm just not sure which. If Jesus really is the second person of a Trinity God and it is required to acknowledge that to get out of a hellish afterlife, then I guess I will have to wait till after death to make up my mind on that one since there's not enough evidence either way in this life. Say exclusivism is true. I guess even then I'm not sure why evangelism is so important. First, how can you convince people now when there just isn't sufficient evidence? And second, if it is true, why wouldn't God make it perfectly clear right after death that it is the case, in which case just about everyone will come around right then and there. Simply to avoid horrible suffering if for no other reason. If there is horrible suffering. I can't imagine a punitive hell exists, not if God is a loving God. But not being in God's community of love is bound to be pretty painful (like a continuation of the suffering we see in this life), so again, almost everyone will come around when they've had enough of that. Assuming God makes the facts clear to everyone.
I would definitely lean to cosmological rather than anthropological. God saves just humans and everything else burns? That immediately tells me God is not a God of love. I think God will restore and make perfect all of creation. And everything that has a grain of consciousness here will be conscious there.
I would be on the purgative reconciliation side. But not purgative in terms of punishment. If someone holds back from joining God's community even though the facts are made plain, that is their choice and it will hurt. Until they've had enough and come around. God does not make anyone suffer, but beings with free will can choose that route if they're determined. The second they decide to join God's community, though, God would immediately work hard on curing all that ails them while avoiding coercion (overriding free will).
Definitely restorative not retributive justice. If God punishes once someone realizes what they did wrong, then God is not good.
Definitely not dogmatic. I have almost no for-sure idea of what the truth is. I have a lot of opinions, a lot of hopes, but actual knowledge? Come on, how could I possibly know? How could anyone possibly know? We all crave certainty and it's hard not to give into that. But it just isn't justified. Embrace uncertainty. Embrace apophasis! But in the meantime, until things get made plain, speculate like wild. It's such fun.
I just wanted to say that I was never a fan of that type of evangelism that focuses a great deal on hell (or heaven). People who respond to that kind of appeal are doing so almost exclusively from self interest, saving their own skin. They then think that since they said the prayer and really meant it, they can now just sit around and wait to be taken to heaven. They were never properly taught about what we are being saved to. That is, what the Christian life post-conversion is supposed to look like.
I think this discussion corresponds well with the eastern doctrine of theosis/deification (which a number of Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians are warming to nowadays). In this view, salvation is not a one time event, but a process: we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved, if you will. Framing this discussion around that theological concept (that I think is true), it would seem “hell,” or whatever we want to call it, would be the remedial program to bring everyone to a similar state of growth. So for instance, I am not to the spiritual level of Mother Teresa. When I die, there is a gap in my maturity that needs to be backfilled. Or to use another example, does the serial killer or pedophile who professes Christ on his deathbed immediately join the ranks of Saint Anthony? I’m not sure about all this, but I’d be curious to know what others think.
If it is the work of the Holy Spirit to bring Light into each of our minds, and then a process of self awareness grows within us, always leading us closer in toward God, that same activation could occur in anyone after death. C S Lewis suggested a purgatorial cleansing something like a mouthwash at the Dentist, as one idea which doesnt feel enough for those who have lived deeply evil lives. I wonder if the possibly putative demonic influence was to be removed from Hitler types in a hellish, judgment scenario, and a blinding revelation of the Holy Spirit was given, would that start the lengthy process of self awareness? Can the capacity to love be fully extinguished from a human mind?
“Since humans are wired to privilege short-term pleasures over long-term consequence,” wouldn’t Hell itself be an ineffective means of achieving spiritual transformation? Could that explain why no gospel sermon in the book of Acts mentions Gehenna?
I am absolutely aligned with you in the thought that “we should never precisely specify our eschatology. The ultimate fate of humanity needs to be a mystery.”
This said, to your thoughts of universalists belief in hell… yes, they do. But my understanding is that the reasoning for hell’s existence is not out of humanities pending judgment. Hell was created by God as the punishment for Lucifer and the angels who follow him. It was never intended for humanity.
A curious thought would be, is there a redemption narrative for angelic beings? Perhaps by extension, why would God create a redemption narrative for humanity and not the angelic?
Do you consider the primary purpose of evangelism to be warning about hell? Do you consider the primary deterrent to bad behavior fear of hell?
Because I rather view the primary purpose and deterrent to be God's freely given universal love. Its transformative power is imperative to spread and brings heaven to earth.
Maybe you'll address this later in the series? I'm enjoying so far!
This post makes several important points for those of us who incline towards universal reconciliation. One of these is the question of immediate versus purgative salvation. My view is that it must be purgative, but that raises another question: if we don't buy the "fire insurance" concept of salvation, what is the difference between the (immediate post-death) fates of Christians (or better, Christ-followers) and others? Do Christians still sin? Yes. Are we forgiven? Yes. But do we still need purging, cleansing? I rather expect so. maybe it's in a different, heavenly environment, but to me it's a puzzle.
Another vital point is the cosmological vision. This saves us from a self-centred view of salvation and thus takes us closer to the spirit of the Gospel. (I think there are also other ways that we can be saved from that self-centred view: essentially anything which brings about a recognition of salvation from sin, and not merely salvation from the consequences of sin - this latter being all too common a presentation - is moving us in that direction.)
Moving slightly away from your post, another question which intrigues me is how recognisable our personalities will be when we are fully reconciled to God. For those people who in this life we regard as "good", it may be not that difficult, but I'd expect some joyous improvements. But for the likes of, say, Hitler or Stalin or [insert name of your locally notorious mass-murderer or paedophile], what will be recognisable about the saved, purified version of them? Quakers have an excellent discipline of "answering that of God in all people" - that maybe gives a clue or a starting point, but it surely remains a mystery.
Two or three years ago I read all the Gospels with the specific purpose of discovering the distinctive aspects of each of them. In Matthew the two main things I found were the emphasis on the Kingdom of God, and on separation, which is a strong thread throughout the gospel. How does this square with a hopeful eschatology? I think it can, and (given other parts of the NT) must, and it does fit with purgative universalism, but we don't find it (or I haven't) in Matthew alone.
Great post. I love how you specified many different possibilities.
Using your categories, I could be either inclusivist or exclusivist. I'm just not sure which. If Jesus really is the second person of a Trinity God and it is required to acknowledge that to get out of a hellish afterlife, then I guess I will have to wait till after death to make up my mind on that one since there's not enough evidence either way in this life. Say exclusivism is true. I guess even then I'm not sure why evangelism is so important. First, how can you convince people now when there just isn't sufficient evidence? And second, if it is true, why wouldn't God make it perfectly clear right after death that it is the case, in which case just about everyone will come around right then and there. Simply to avoid horrible suffering if for no other reason. If there is horrible suffering. I can't imagine a punitive hell exists, not if God is a loving God. But not being in God's community of love is bound to be pretty painful (like a continuation of the suffering we see in this life), so again, almost everyone will come around when they've had enough of that. Assuming God makes the facts clear to everyone.
I would definitely lean to cosmological rather than anthropological. God saves just humans and everything else burns? That immediately tells me God is not a God of love. I think God will restore and make perfect all of creation. And everything that has a grain of consciousness here will be conscious there.
I would be on the purgative reconciliation side. But not purgative in terms of punishment. If someone holds back from joining God's community even though the facts are made plain, that is their choice and it will hurt. Until they've had enough and come around. God does not make anyone suffer, but beings with free will can choose that route if they're determined. The second they decide to join God's community, though, God would immediately work hard on curing all that ails them while avoiding coercion (overriding free will).
Definitely restorative not retributive justice. If God punishes once someone realizes what they did wrong, then God is not good.
Definitely not dogmatic. I have almost no for-sure idea of what the truth is. I have a lot of opinions, a lot of hopes, but actual knowledge? Come on, how could I possibly know? How could anyone possibly know? We all crave certainty and it's hard not to give into that. But it just isn't justified. Embrace uncertainty. Embrace apophasis! But in the meantime, until things get made plain, speculate like wild. It's such fun.
Tim, your replies are always awesome, and they deserve to be blog posts / notes of their own. 🌱
I should take the hint. Thanks for hinting.
I just wanted to say that I was never a fan of that type of evangelism that focuses a great deal on hell (or heaven). People who respond to that kind of appeal are doing so almost exclusively from self interest, saving their own skin. They then think that since they said the prayer and really meant it, they can now just sit around and wait to be taken to heaven. They were never properly taught about what we are being saved to. That is, what the Christian life post-conversion is supposed to look like.
I think this discussion corresponds well with the eastern doctrine of theosis/deification (which a number of Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians are warming to nowadays). In this view, salvation is not a one time event, but a process: we have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved, if you will. Framing this discussion around that theological concept (that I think is true), it would seem “hell,” or whatever we want to call it, would be the remedial program to bring everyone to a similar state of growth. So for instance, I am not to the spiritual level of Mother Teresa. When I die, there is a gap in my maturity that needs to be backfilled. Or to use another example, does the serial killer or pedophile who professes Christ on his deathbed immediately join the ranks of Saint Anthony? I’m not sure about all this, but I’d be curious to know what others think.
If it is the work of the Holy Spirit to bring Light into each of our minds, and then a process of self awareness grows within us, always leading us closer in toward God, that same activation could occur in anyone after death. C S Lewis suggested a purgatorial cleansing something like a mouthwash at the Dentist, as one idea which doesnt feel enough for those who have lived deeply evil lives. I wonder if the possibly putative demonic influence was to be removed from Hitler types in a hellish, judgment scenario, and a blinding revelation of the Holy Spirit was given, would that start the lengthy process of self awareness? Can the capacity to love be fully extinguished from a human mind?
“Since humans are wired to privilege short-term pleasures over long-term consequence,” wouldn’t Hell itself be an ineffective means of achieving spiritual transformation? Could that explain why no gospel sermon in the book of Acts mentions Gehenna?
I am absolutely aligned with you in the thought that “we should never precisely specify our eschatology. The ultimate fate of humanity needs to be a mystery.”
This said, to your thoughts of universalists belief in hell… yes, they do. But my understanding is that the reasoning for hell’s existence is not out of humanities pending judgment. Hell was created by God as the punishment for Lucifer and the angels who follow him. It was never intended for humanity.
A curious thought would be, is there a redemption narrative for angelic beings? Perhaps by extension, why would God create a redemption narrative for humanity and not the angelic?