The problem here is our view of eternity. We live in a linear world where even two minute can seem like an eternity. If God is outside time, and so is eternity, then it is not so much a prolonged torture but an instant of either pleasure or horror.
I realise that this notion of Heaven is not particularly desirable but, it is humans that are obsessed with the afterlife and eternity. Perhaps if Heaven and hell were played down a bit then world might become a better place whereby people are looking to improve it rather than be obsessed with notions of salvation and paradise
Excellent comment! Got me smiling and nodding. I think one of Christ’s biggest themes was his message of radical inclusivity. Something he demonstrated by showing love to those forgotten and scorned by society. His message was always “all are welcome”. No “ifs”, no “buts”. I read something on another forum that stated cleanly, “‘God Loves everyone’ is a complete statement and the minimum bar to clear as ‘God’”.
I think there is a place for humility and a place for reality. We can be our own worse judges and exceed what God is looking for. God has demonstrated in the cross that perfection is not the point.
It is ironic that many Christians feel that their judgement or condemnation of others is actually both loving and altruistic. We care for their future! Surely they want to be told of the danger they are in? But, in doing so, we contradict God’s principle of not imposing Himself. God wants willing followers not fearful ones or conscripts.
Universalism is not about human beliefs at all. It is about a Universal God who loves all, not just those loyal to Him
It’s not an easy thing to translate. The Greek is πίπτει (PIP-tay), from πίπτω (PIP-toe), which is an odd form of πέτο (PAY-toe) which pretty much vanished in its initial form, enduring only as πίπτω and the middle form πέτομαι (PEH-toe-mai), and the forms diverged somewhat in meaning, the latter being “I fly, I alight” and the former “I fall/plunge” or (rarely) “I land (on)”. The first of that final pair is the standard meaning for πίπτω, so literally I Corinthians 13:8 starts out “Love is never falling” or “Love is never plunging”. It can mean to fall in battle, but also is found used of snowfall. It tends to carry the sense of remaining down, as of buildings or merely of stumbling. All that said, it comes down to context counting, and the context here is a contrast with the three following verbs – “done away”, “cease”, “pass away”, and thus the rendition “love never ends” since the falling in context is among a set of verbs indicating the termination of something (so one might even say “Love does not terminate”).
The mental impression I get from the verb is of a boxer down for the count: he has fallen, and he can’t get up. So while love may fall for a moment, it gets back up, or to adopt a sense from other NT writings, love lifts back up.
It should be noted that the passage is talking of things that come from God, so taking it as a person’s own love is a deviation. This is hinted at since it isn’t just “Love” in the Greek, it is “the love”. So this is love coming from God, and since the other verbs indicate things that come from God but through people, so is this love that is being spoken of – it is not mere human love, and though it may fall briefly, it gets back up.
Just BTW when used of a spiritual fall, πίπτω does not indicate anything final, but is soemthing that can be recovered from.
This triggers an urge to dig back through the Fathers and see if there’s a corresponding conception! Maybe there’s an online version I can search; just now I can’t even recall the major universalists among the Fathers.
One ancient writer wrote that “though it take a thousand thousand thousands of thousands” of years, all will be redeemed. We’d multiply it out to a trillion years, but the phrase really means “as long as it takes” – a thousand is a complete period of time, a thousand thousand is complete in all ways, so a thousand thousand thousands of thousands is like Jesus “not seven, but seventy times seven”: a shocking superlative.
Several church Fathers said essentially the same long before Tillich, and it’s a thought the church should never have lost.
And yet the early church saw it not just as victory, but as Christ’s coronation!
I was contemplating this two evenings ago while watching season four of The Chosen, and it struck me that I don’t hate anyone except for moments, that even the worst people I’ve ever met aren’t in a category of “put them in their place” except temporarily; it doesn’t take long for me to start wanting to see them straightened out instead.
The nearest exception I could find in myself is in regards to those in positions of power who abuse it, but even there my thought isn’t so much that they should be “put in their place” but that they should be removed from their places of power so they can’t hurt anyone more.
I pondered this, too! Many Jews wanted a “kick-ass” Messiah, and even those who understood Who Jesus was expected that to happen when He returns . . . yet how would that be consistent?
In terms of universalism, and how hard it will be for many to turn, I think of Peter’s words to Jesus: “Who else would we go to? You have the words of eternal life”. My murky grasp of how all will eventually be redeemed is that eventually it will be recognized that nothing else works, and there is no other place to go, just to Christ with His words of eternal life (and so it will be the same for all: we surrender).
Oswald Hoffman once preached a sermon called something like “Turning the World Right-Side Up”.
There was for a long time a strain in Judaism where Paradise (Eden) was emphasized and the point was to care for the land, to make the world Eden wherever one might be. It wasn’t so much making things so that they pleased the person, but so that things would be delightful for everyone.
In a people where “salvation” meant trampling enemies, and the return of Eden generally conceived as something only Messiah could do, it was never very popular. I found out about it via some medieval Christian mystics’ writings. It also isn’t very popular today, given that money is seen as more important than even hints of paradise here and now.
I like to think that in my conservation work, aimed at restoring native ecosystems after human damage, I’m doing a little bit to restore Eden.
This topic and ethical problematic is a common theme in literature.
As part of a hobby of reading sci-fi (or more widely ‘spe-fi’ - speculative fiction), I have read tens of scifi books of the type ‘space opera’, about space wars between humans and aliens or between different factions of humanity that has spread to space. Although these books sell as ‘action books’ focusing on actions in space war, the ethical questions rise up almost always, as they do in all wars and atrocities done during wars. The hero characters need to wrestle with the temptations of responding to cruelty with cruelty, or taking the judgement to their own hands. The wars with aliens bring up the added question of how to deal with non-humans, those that are not part of ‘us’. Is genocide of non-humans acceptable to protect the interests of humans?
In a series of books, the first books may be just action but towards the end of the series, the ethical questions and the beliefs (faith or lack of faith) of the writer somehow breaks through everything to the surface.
The last ‘space opera’ books I have read are written by Daniel Gibbs. He is obviously a Christian believer and the difficult moral choices and temptations to respond to evil with evil are looked from the viewpoints of different believers (Christian, Jews, Muslims, etc.) as well as agnostics and atheists. Maybe a too black-and-white warfare between the ‘good’ and the ‘evil’ forces but shows well how persons struggling with the losses and atrocities during a war have to also deal with the fundamental moral choices at the level of the heart - what are my motives and choices when facing the cruelty of violence and the losses of my dear ones?
The problem with universalism is that that is not the picture Jesus paints. Overall He seems to say that only a minority, even if that turns out to be billions, of people will ultimately be with God. He gives a stark choice - either Him and life, or not Him and death. The wide road and the narrow path. Whilst I do think those who end up being with God forever may be surprised who has been included (I suspect quite a few church goers will not be there), God’s judgement will fall on the rest. Ultimately that judgement results in final death and non-existence. I tend not to believe in the traditional understanding of ‘hell’ though I cant 100% rule it out. But universalism, no.
Whilst God himself is not bound by time, just as he is not bound by physical space, that does not mean that in the ultimate world to come time, in some sense at least, does not exist. I dont think the saved will be in heaven, but rather on a redeemed earth, and heaven (God’s realm) is weirdly connected in some way. So I think this world will indeed become a better place. Remember Jesus’ prayer, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. That is about making this world a better place whilst we’re here.
I am sorry but I have no interest in spending eternity nursing a body like this. That would be Hell not Heaven.
As far as i am concerned Heaven is to be with God. and that means to be in his presence and realm. Hell is to be separated from God, having understood what Heaven is.
The previous parables were all about our attitudes to the good news of the kingdom. This one is no different. I dont know which translation you use, but the NIV states:
‘The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.
45 ‘Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46 When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.’
Both parables are about the value of the kingdom, not the one who found it. The grammar of the text does not support your understanding. This chimes with the calling of Jesus’ disciples whom Jesus effectively asked to give up everything, ie their work, their families etc, and to follow him. For the sake of the kingdom. Similarly the rich young man was asked to give up everything, including that which he held most dear, and then to follow Jesus. For the sake of the kingdom. In these parables, Jesus is emphasizing how much the kingdom is worth to those who find it, compared to other things they have. It should mean everything.
Well I think that depends on what you define as the “self”, which is the core of my universalist argument. I think that if every man was created in the image of God, that image is indestructible and eternal. However, I think we mostly consider our “self” as the constructs will build on top of that image from birth. In that case, yes, I also think it is possible for that “self” to be gone eternally. Or maybe just parts of that self will be gone, with the parts compatible with love remaining, as 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 explains.
However, underneath all these constructs, in my opinion, is an eternal image of love. That is the foundation for my universalist theology. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the article I wrote, I explain my POV in deeper detail there!!
I suspect you would be quite happy with a perfectly healthy body, similar to Jesus’ resurrection one. More than just physical, and with no disease or death. Jesus’ glorified body was both physical and ‘spiritual’, and Paul made it clear ours will be similar. I think that is why the new earth, which Revelation explicitly refers to, is joined with heaven as our bodies will be a perfect fit for the new reality.
What is the point of making this earth a better place, and praying God’s will be done here, if in the end we just leave it altogether?
“And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
“For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.”
“Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.”
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”
It depends on how you read things. In the above I see that Jesus says that He will draw all, and that the purpose of judgment is that all shall honor the Son, that none should perish, and that He does not condemn.
So all the punishment passages can be seen as corrective, continuing until all are in fact drawn to Jesus and honor Him.
‘I think that if every man was created in the image of God, that image is indestructible and eternal’
That’s a presumption on your part, with little to no evidence. God is the only Being who is indestructible and eternal by nature. That is why Jesus could say ‘I am’. Noone else can. Being made in His image does not mean we acquire such qualities.
The impression I get from universalists is that they often refer to generalities, such as ‘love’, rather than what Jesus or the writers of the Bible actually say.
You do not get it. Healthy or not it needs maintenance. I have no interest in spending any of eternity on the toilet, or munching food, even if it was the most delicious ever tasted.
What you envisage is not life, it is existence.
What you fail to see is that life is only worth living if there is excitement, danger, emotions and so on. Remove death and you have nothing at all.
My brother the mathematician regarded the matter as God being able to use more than one “time axis” just as we can use more than one space axis. In that case He could quite literally stop at one moment in our time and spend ten thousand years there using another time axis, and even stop on that axis and spend a different ten thousand years on those two axes by using a third axis (he stopped at three to match the three space dimensions). At one point he even proposed that God can use the imaginary dimensions, i.e. those that mathematically involve the square root of minus one, to view history unfolding in possible futures, which he said would explain forecasts/prophecies that went awry because things on our real time axis didn’t go quite as foreseen on the corresponding imaginary axis.
And all this before even wondering if God has more real spatial dimensions He can make use of! (He speculated that with a couple of more spatial dimensions to work with, miracles could be explained without resort to breaking any laws of physics.)
Weird stuff, but it gives a flavor of just how different time could be for God!
I have to say I find your outlook rather odd. You seem to view this current life with contempt. Yet God made it. I didnt say anything about excitement or emotions being removed. I would imagine they will be intensified if God’s presence is continually felt. And death is good?!
