Hope as a legitimate reason to believe UR

[fredhensley]

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

[Guest]

Christopher, this is outstanding and very edifying. The thoughtfulness you've (once again) displayed brought tears to my eyes.

[Guest]

Well put, Christopher!

[Guest]

Well put, Christopher!



Ditto and may i say a hopeful thought to start the new year!

[Guest]

The greatest New Year's message I have ever encountered!

[Guest]

The greatest New Year's message I have ever encountered!

Yeah, it was a good day to read that, wasn't it?

[Guest]

Thankyou for posting this Chrostopher, it was really excellent;
I've had Talbott's book (The Inescapable Love of God) on backorder at Amazon, since before Christmas, & it actually arrived today.
I wonder if it is a sign?

[Guest]

Man, I must say that was a good read. It may be among the top posts in this whole discussion, (can't say for sure, I haven't read them all ). 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.

[Guest]

Christopher,

You wrote:

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.

How do we guard against believing an illusion if our emotions, feelings, and imagination play a significant part in what we believe to be true? I do not believe the Bereans were commended for determining truth by their imagination and/or feelings, or what they might wish to be true.

I am wondering how all three criteria you cite would relate to the Mormons, for example. There is certainly some truth mixed in with their doctrine along with a big imagination, and no doubt their feelings (the burning in the bosom) play a large role in what they believe. They know it is true because of what they feel.

One comes to a point of near despair of knowing much objective truth at all regarding Christian doctrine. Consider this scripture:

Hebrews 6:1-4 (New King James Version)

1. Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2. of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Here the writer of Hebrews clearly informs us that, among others, eternal judgement is one of the most basic doctrines of the faith. He obviously expected the Hebrews to know the basics and to move on, but you say this truth, whatever it is, can not be known. And that is certainly true if each person forms their own conception of truth by combining revelation with their imagination and feelings. We have no hope of even knowing the basics!

You also wrote:

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).

Perhaps I misunderstand your point here. Are you saying our promised future "resurrection to eternal life, being present with Jesus" has the same "possibility of being true" as universal reconciliation, the truth of which you say can not be known?

Your criteria for determining what is true seems almost post-modern, i.e. each person comes up with their own truth; there is little objective truth that is knowable.

It would appear one of the hallmarks of the Reformation,"the perspicuity of the scriptures" advocated by Luther, has been proven false, and that in regard to the most basic doctrines. We have seen that proven over and over at this forum. Protestants have little hope of knowing much truth at all. We are all like the Ethiopian eunuch, needing someone to explain the scriptures to us, but alas!, there is no one. It is too bad the Catholic Church is not what they claim to be, otherwise we could just ask them what is true and concentrate on going about doing good.

Aren't we are all wasting our time in these discussions since we can not determine the truth regarding the most basic things? (I suppose theology can be a kind of "sport" as Francis Schaeffer said.)

God bless you and all in the coming year!

Your Friendly Contrarian, Homer

[_Rick_C]

Greetings in 2008,

Christopher, thanks for an interesting "article". I've bookmarked the thread as a reference.

Comments:
"Feeling" or feelings have been a -- if not the -- trademark or identifying factor of theological liberalism since its beginnings.

Liberalism: by M. James Sawyer, Th.M., Ph.D.
Excerpted from the above:

Schleiermacher: Father of Liberal Theology

Schleiermacher’s theological program proceeded under three premises (1) The validity of the Enlightenment criticism of dogmatic Protestant Orthodoxy, (2) Romantic Idealistic philosophy gives a better soil in which to ground the Christian faith than the shallow moralistic rationalism of the Enlightenment, (3) Christian theology can be interpreted in terms of romantic idealism and thus allow mankind to be both Christian and modern while being intellectually honest.

In viewing the Neologians’ critique of orthodoxy as correct and in light of Kant’s perceived destruction of the possibility of a rational knowledge of God, Schleiermacher influenced by Romanticism, found a new seat for religion and theology, one that could not be touched by enlightenment criticism--the Gefuhl (the feeling). This feeling is not to be understood as mere emotion. It is the deep inner sense of man that he exists in a relationship of absolute dependence upon God. It is his “god-consciousness” This is the center of religion and piety.

In taking this route, Schleiermacher turned the traditional theological method on its head. Rather than starting with any objective revelation, religion was seen at its core as subjective. Experience was seen as giving rise to doctrine rather than doctrine to experience. Theological statements no longer were perceived as describing objective reality, but rather as reflecting the way that the feeling of absolute dependence is related to God. It is this experience which is seen as the final authority in religion rather than the objective revelation of an inerrant Scripture. He says “Christian doctrines are accounts of the Christian religious affections set forth in speech” (italics mine).

Liberal theologians (Old and New Schools) see subjectivism (individual experience and/or personal feelings) as a mode of revelation. "Truth" is not determined as it had or has been in traditional conservative Protestant theology; where "the Scriptures and tradition alone" are primary criteria. Rather, "what I feel is true" -- or "I hope it is true" (as with this thread) -- is an actual mode or kind of 'vehicle' of revelation.

Today, those in the (postmodernist) "evangelical left" and/or "emergent church movement" are 'open' to this leftward leaning criteria for theological truth; while evangelicals who remain theologically conservative "in all matters relating to theology" protest against feelings or subjective experience as a valid indicator of truth (ref. cit., myself, Homer, and Bob when the universalist-debate was going on on this forum).

Excerpted from this link:
Liberal Christianity

Liberal Christianity, Progressive Christianity or Liberalism is a movement of Christianity that is characterised by these points;

* diversity of opinion
* less emphasis on the literal interpretation of Scripture
* an intimate, personal, and sometimes ambiguous view of God
* wider scope in their views on salvation (including universalist beliefs)
* non-traditional views on heaven and hell
* an emphasis on inclusive fellowship and community
* an embracing of higher criticism of the Bible.

The tenets of Liberal theology

* Liberal theology is individualistic, and as such values personal and subjective religious experience above doctrines, Church authority or the literal word of scripture.
* It claims that a religion is a community of individuals united by common intuitions and experiences, and therefore the value of the Church is in providing a supportive framework in which new conceptions of God can be explored, not in issuing decrees, upholding rigid dogmas or in exercising power over the religious community.
* It maintains that, while God remains immutable, theists relationship with, and understanding of God change through history, and therefore that no religious truths are necessarily fixed, as each person's experience can reveal a novel aspect of God.

Liberal theology and religious language

Liberal theologians view religious language (i.e. descriptions of God, or of religious experience) as inevitably limited. Our language belongs to the world of phenomena, whereas religious experiences exist in the realm of noumena, so no matter how hard we try, our language can never describe God factually, but only in metaphors and analogies, symbols and myths etc.

These myths, analogies etc. are important in forming religious communities and traditions, and can be a useful way of expressing a particular thought or feeling about God, but we cannot hope for them to sum up God's nature (God is non-reducible, non-naturalisable, and essentially ineffable).

One of the original Liberal theologians, Friedrich Schleiermacher argued that theology's place was to describe internal feelings, rather than external truths or facts (italics mine).

I haven't commented (quote/reply) on what Christopher or anyone else posted; my above is more to the thread topic from my point of view. I realize that some "evangelicals" (and possibly some of you) see being named "liberal" as offensive. However, my intent is not to offend. Description is all I have in mind.

I stopped calling myself an "evangelical" several years ago in order to not be mistakenly identified with the evangelical left and/or emergent church evangelicals...as I remain theologically conservative in all matters.

I'd like to add that since the universalist-debate (on this forum), I came to realize that I'm simply "more conservative" (I'll put it that way) in my theological worldview than the universalists and/or those who are 'open' to it.

I've conceded to this fact and no longer want to debate about it....

Btw, I just got: a blog by Rick C.
"Liberal (Old and New Schools) Theology" is one of my labels. I intend to discuss these and other theology stuff...when I get to them...probably "this year"

My imos & thanks,
Rick