The Evangelical Universalist Forum

A Short Case for EU

Thanks for that.

Also did you mention that Universalism is the only view that allows a valid theodicy (justification of God) and resolution to the problem of evil.

It does? Please explain. The problem of evil has been discussed and debated for centuries. I have never yet encountered a complete solution, and know of no one who claims that he has discovered one. I am intensely interested in such a solution, if you can offer one, together with an explanation as to how Universalism solves the problem.

Do you think it is all right for God to “allow” the many atrocities which are being perpetrated continually throughout the world, such as rapes and killing of children, torture of people, etc. as long as all victims (as well as perpetrators) will be in a state of total joy at some point in the future?

WMB wrote:
Also did you mention that Universalism is the only view that allows a valid theodicy (justification of God) and resolution to the problem of evil.

I think Universalism offers a more satisfactory explanation of the final resolution of the problems caused by evil than either ECT or Anni, if that is what is meant. But I don’t think it offers much better explanations to the problem of the existence of evil in the first place (if that were meant).

I think universalism has a bearing on theodicy (certainly no theodicy could even hope to be complete without ultra universalism), but it can only be one plank in a much bigger structure.

For completeness sake, my theodicy looks like:

Universalism + FWD + cosmic warfare theodicy + vale of soul making + open theism + theistic evolution + kenotic self-limitation

It seems I must be the only one here in the dark. But would you mind telling me exactly what you mean by MGB? :blush:

Paidion,
Do you think it’s right to inflict the excruciating pain of relocating a shoulder socket that is out of place, as long as the victim will recover and enjoy the use of her arm at some point in the future?

If we isolate our view to the atrocities themselves, and fail to recognize their benefit, and if we deny their purpose, then all we can see is evil.

I would suggest that in the EU view, at least as I see it, there is no suffering that does not bring benefit. Indeed, this is illustrated in that Jesus was made better by that which He suffered.

Therefore it is not enough, in my mind, that

but that they will have been benefitted in a way that increases their capacity for the richest fulfillment possible to them, by the very things that they have experienced.

Please tell me what benefit is derived from the suffering caused to babies whose mothers placed them in boiling water.

Please tell me what benefit is derived from the torture and rape of little girls.

Please tell me what benefit is derived from “the hot stove murder” that occurred in my own area, in which a woman refused to give three men the money which they knew she had and so they tortured her on a hot cook stove (which resulted in her death). This happened many years ago, and I have never yet heard of any benefit which resulted from it.

Even if God “allowed” that the above atrocities to bring about some unknown benefit (which He never reveals), could He not have brought about those benefits without “allowing” these atrocities to take place?

I have a different explanation of God usually doing nothing to prevent atrocities. God wants all people of their own free will to yield themselves to His care and put themselves under His authority. For if they are forced to do so, God won’t have a world of willing servants—He will have a world of mindless robots.

Paidion, I agree with you, but I also agree with Jack. The benefit is what you’ve stated. Human beings will learn to reject the evil and choose the good, and the only way to teach us that is for us to experience these things – whether as the perpetrator or as the victim. The perps will (imo) have the opportunity to experience things from the victim’s point of view too, as part of their own healing. I’m not sure how that could even be avoided.

It’s hard to imagine that anything good could come of the things you’ve mentioned, but you did also, in the next breath, tell us what good thing does come from them, and cannot come in any other way. People having chosen the evil, learn not to choose that again. Eventually. Of their own free will, they will reject and abhor the evil thing that they have done. Once they’ve seen truly, they’ll NEVER be psychologically capable of doing THAT again. And of course, neither will the victim, if they were ever (or were ever capable of being) so inclined.

Why have you put ‘allowed’ in quotation marks? He either allows it or he doesn’t, in which case it doesn’t happen

Paidion,

My response to your questions to me, would have been lacking in comparison to the response Cindy shared, so I let her response stand in place of what I would have shared.

Cindy S. thanks for sharing.

jack:

sorry, just picking this up now: MGB = maximally great being - it’s a common abbreviation on the RF forums where this was picked up from. Its to do with Plantinga’s ontological argument, but basically shorthand for a philosophical conception of God as the most awesome being imaginable.

As regards theodicy see my post that looks like an equation.

It might help for people to see the use of the term maximally great being in context. Here it is, as used in the cosmological argument from William Craig’s site*Reasonable Faith *.

  1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.

  2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

  3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

  4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

  5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.

  6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

  7. Therefore, God exists.

I put the word in quotation marks because people use the word “allowed” in two distinct senses.

A father may forbid his teenage son from getting drunk. But the son often gets drunk anyway. The father does nothing to prevent it. He believes the son must on his own learn the importance of reponsible drinking and the problems associated with drunkeness.

So does the father allow his son to get drunk? In the sense of “permit” he does not (and I think that is the proper use of “allow”). But in the sense of doing nothing to prevent him from doing so, he does. So in the first sense, God does not allow the atrocities which constantly occur throughout the world. For these atrocities are not His will. In the second sense He does “allow” them. For He usually does nothing to prevent them.

That’s right, Cindy. But that is not the benefit which most people mean. They say that God “allows” these things in order to achieve a deeper purpose, a purpose that is directly connected to the specific atrocity committed.

They say that unless God was carrying out a special plan through these atrocities, He would have prevented them from happening. They give their prime example of Jesus being crucified in great pain in order that redemption for the whole world be achieved. They also point out that Joseph’s being cast into the pit and sold as a slave into Egypt was meant for evil by his brothers, but was meant for good by God.

I see what you mean, Paidion. And I do think that God sometimes does have plans to use things like Joseph’s suffering to benefit the world. But as for most of the time, no. It’s just what people do. :frowning: I’m sure also that if Joseph’s brothers hadn’t sold him into slavery, God would have accomplished His will in some other way. It wasn’t as though He needed them to sin in order for Him to work things out for good.

I agree, Cindy.

I think God can bring good things OUT OF evil doings, but I don’t believe He “allows” the evil doings IN ORDER TO accomplish those good things.

C. S. Lewis held to that view as well. If every time a person chose to injure another, the injury was miraculously prevented (i. e., the fires went out, the bullet vanished into thin air, the knife turned into a feather, etc.), then that would be merely a roundabout way of NOT granting free will: “Yes, you can do as you choose, unless you choose to do wrong…” Or, in other words, “You can have whatever color of car you want, as long as it’s black.”

Paidon: are you a cosmic warfare theodicist ?

Thanks pog.

lancia, that too is helpful. I remember reading that somewhere, perhaps Evangelical Salvation?:The Current Debate? The concept is very much a part of my own view of God. I should and probably will adopt that phraseology now. “Maximally Great Being” :open_mouth: Yes! That’s the God I know.