Michael Murray vs. three versions of universalism

[RanRan]

This was one of the articles mentioned by my friend Professor Victor Reppert a few weeks ago when he posted a few reasons for why he is not a universalist.

First off, I enjoyed the article, so thank him for me.

To understand or discuss these things we have to try and propel ourselves into the after life - where we arrive with our presuppositions intact and usually return with the same confirmed and make our report.

I think where the paper falls down is in the presumption that the resurrection is MoreofMe. I speak here of ability and not identity. It's still me - just as it was still me when I was a five year old - but the resurrection is such a leap in ability that this now sixty year old man will be as a babe again in the rebirth of the resurrection. I am fearfully and wonderfully made - how much more so at the resurrection!

The resurrection is as much about the renewal of our heart and mind as it is about our body. Our sight will finally be perfected, we will be able to see clearly for the first time. Our awareness will be vastly improved - perhaps in multiples we cannot even envision on this side of the veil. And if our awareness, then our understanding of both self and God and thus fostering our Love, the depths of which even the resurrected may never find the bottom to. Of course, I speak here of everyone - all of mankind.

If I were to use Murray's analogy (I hate analogies, they never quite get it) - if the resurrection is simply MoreofMe and you - and the resurrection were a matter of progressive realization and growth - then the top seller would be the Happy Meal - the children's meal - perhaps with a toy to entice us to come back as we grow up again.

But the resurrection is about instantaneous change and new incredible abilities - and it is always described that way in scripture. So I see the problems with NU and SU1 about timing disappear and the autonomy problems between SU1 and SU2 become a non-factor if MoreofMe is not more inner moral conflict but super-awareness, intelligence and Love - culminating in the universal confession of the Christ who made all this renewal happen. It is that universal confession of the super-enabled and super-aware resurrected and the love they express for God in that confession that tells me that whatever torment is experienced (whatever fire we are all salted with) will more resemble the cross and the love flowing to and fro in the experience than the stubborn resistance of a five year old MoreofMe whining for a billion years.

Of course, he could argue that those are my presuppositions and my report from trying to 'see' what the after life will be like and that I don't have any more ability than he to see these things clearly on this side of the veil. I would agree. But we both rely on the same good witnesses and their reports for our conclusions. But I believe those reports were either written by or written to accommodate an audience of relative five year olds, of which, I am one.

So our Father pats us on the head and reminds us that everything will be fine. It's maddening that what has been revealed seems so scant. But it's enough for now - I have to trust His wisdom in dishing out what we need.

[RanRan]

Secondly, I would like to attack his definition of universalism.

He defines universalism as: '...the belief that all are ultimately redeemed to enjoy perfect communion with God forever.'

The word 'ultimately' then raises the questions of whether redemption is an event, or a process, or worse, a repeatable event (in terms of a price paid TO redeem).

Orthodoxy is united in the belief that Christ redeemed mankind at the Cross. He took (bore) away the sins of the world there and at no place other than the Cross. And that the work of redemption was finished there and that there is no need to repeat it since it is also complete - an acceptable LAST sacrifice to redeem us. At that very moment of completion - all who were in Adam were now in Christ, their redeemer. Lutheranism begins in universalism. Luther: 'Christ took away the sins of the world, therefore, he took away my sins."

Redemption must be universal or the resurrection would not be universal. The fact that the resurrection is universal is beyond dispute, so those wish to argue against universal redemption must find another basis for freeing those not redeemed. Good luck. He came to set the captives free and there is nothing more captivating than death - the last enemy of mankind. i.e. if some were not released from death (not resurrected) then those some were not redeemed. But that is not the case - all are released and all find life again in the resurrection. Lastly, if there is such a thing as an unredeemed human being, then why not just let the enemy (death) have them as had been the case for thousands of years?

Either he took away the sins of the world or he didn't. The problem with 'redemption' is that people have made it an accomplishment only when believed...not because it is true in and of itself. i.e He did something other than die like the rest of us.

So the better, more accurate definition of universalism would be:

'...the belief that all the redeemed will enjoy perfect communion with God forever.'

[RanRan]

Universalism is the belief that all the redeemed will enjoy perfect communion with God forever.

This definition then puts the burden of proof on our opponents and their definition of redemption. This is where the actual disagreement lies, and where the real battle is - if the Gospel is to be rescued from 20th century evangelicalism.

[RanRan]

Now let us look at Murry's claim that universalism has 'popped up' under 'increasing critical pressure' from philosophers of religion because the traditional doctrine of hell and ET is indefensible.

First, universalism is not some new fad - the early church fathers were staunch defenders of universal redemption and were consistent in that defense. i.e. Universalists.

Secondly, amongst many of today's universalists, including myself, the doctrine/belief is not a reaction to philosophical problems with hell and ET - but rather a deeper understanding of redemption itself by returning to the 1st century church and learning from them. The depiction of God as the torturer of those He had redeemed from Hades was not their vision of the Gospel. Granted, universalism was predominant with the Greek school and ET with the Roman school - the seat of thought and the seat of power.

Thirdly, universalism is (or certainly can be seen) as a reaction to the farrago of 'gospels' being offered as the Good News...offering up an 'old but new!' discovery for people to chew on...as the Paraclete continues to ever teach Christ's church. How good is the Good News? We say VERY good, indeed!

[Geoffrey]

I just wanted to raise my hand and say that I am a Christian Ultra-Universalist.

I'm rather shocked that Michael Murray is unaware of persons holding what he calls "Naive Universalism". Hosea Ballou is but one example. Ballou's position was derided in his time as "death and glory".

[Aaron]

I just wanted to raise my hand and say that I am a Christian Ultra-Universalist.

[JasonPratt]

Glad to see you're back, btw, Geoffrey!

[RanRan]

I just wanted to raise my hand and say that I am a Christian Ultra-Universalist.

I'm rather shocked that Michael Murray is unaware of persons holding what he calls "Naive Universalism". Hosea Ballou is but one example. Ballou's position was derided in his time as "death and glory".

What exactly is an Ultra-Universalist? It sounds redundant.

[JasonPratt]

Ultra-U == what Michael Murray was calling "naive universalism" == zero post-mortem punishment (or wrath of God) for anyone at all. God instantaneously transforms all sinners to completely righteous people (either immediately after death, if there is any consciousness between then and the resurrection, or at the resurrection but probably with no consciousness until then), in a fashion that could not possibly be construed as punishment.

When our forum first started off, Geoffrey was one of our big Ultra-U proponents. Several other people have arrived to take up that position (in a few varieties perhaps) since then.

[Aaron37]

Everyone.

It is absolutely amazing some of the religious doctrines that are being pushed around here. The devil is real good at what he does... some of the stuff I read is better than some of the Sci-fi movies I watch....Outside of Jim Goetz.. I have found no one with biblical doctrines that they believe in. There is nothing that is evangelical about this board.

[RanRan]

Ultra-U == what Michael Murray was calling "naive universalism" == zero post-mortem punishment (or wrath of God) for anyone at all. God instantaneously transforms all sinners to completely righteous people (either immediately after death, if there is any consciousness between then and the resurrection, or at the resurrection but probably with no consciousness until then), in a fashion that could not possibly be construed as punishment.

When our forum first started off, Geoffrey was one of our big Ultra-U proponents. Several other people have arrived to take up that position (in a few varieties perhaps) since then.

Thanks, Jason. I certainly find it viable.

Heaven won't be a place for regrets and grudges.

But everyone will be salted with fire. I wonder how that fact is addressed by Ultra-U.

[JasonPratt]

Ran,

As far as I can tell, Ultra-U "salting with fire" involves the Holy Spirit rewriting/rewiring our beliefs and desires, regardless of our consent, so that we will be righteous. Taking Mark 9:49-50 out of context of the obvious punishment imagery preceding it, which Jesus warns that we ought to avoid, then it could be read pretty straightforwardly as Ultra-U of even the insistently unrighteous. (The salting wouldn't be punishment for people cooperating with God in the first place, of course.)

But then, hey, if those preceding verses leading (consequentially with the {gar}) into 49-50 are explained away as having already been fulfilled in Christ instead of us, or fulfilled in God's wrath forty years after the cross with the destruction of Jerusalem, then the warning of Jesus concerning being thrown into Gehenna where the eonian fire is operating, might as well be ignored!--because the warning of being punished with the unquenchable fire couldn't possibly apply to anyone after that time (or those two times), right?

(Also, that would allow people to ignore the exhortation of Jesus for us to responsibly cooperate with Him in our repentance unto salvation...)


But that's a guess on my part. Hopefully Geoffrey or another actual Ultra-U will give a more accurate and detailed answer. (I'm just saying, I can see a way for Ultra-Us to apply it pretty easily, once they're doing some other things first.)

[Aaron]

Jason wrote:
But then, hey, if those preceding verses leading (consequentially with the {gar}) into 49-50 are explained away as having already been fulfilled in Christ instead of us, or fulfilled in God's wrath forty years after the cross with the destruction of Jerusalem, then the warning of Jesus concerning being thrown into Gehenna where the eonian fire is operating, might as well be ignored!--because the warning of being punished with the unquenchable fire couldn't possibly apply to anyone after that time (or those two times), right?

In another thread I wrote concerning this verse (in response to RanRan):

I view Christ's words, "everyone (pas) will be salted with fire," as meaning "all who have chosen to follow me will be refined by trying circumstances" - i.e., the "fiery trials" of 1 Pet 4:12, which, as you say, will result in the "burning away of dross" (Mal 3:2). Though Christ's words are certainly applicable to Christians of every generation, I think he was referring specifically to the first-century national judgment upon Israel of which "Gehenna fire" is employed as a figure.

Ran objected that Jesus said "everyone," to which I replied:

If you were to receive a message from your boss that reads, "Staff meeting at 8:00. Everyone is required to attend," would you understand this to mean "everyone who has ever lived or ever will live?" Of course not; it is implied that "everyone" means "every employee." I submit the same principle should be applied to this verse. If Jesus is talking about the entire human race, then sure, "pas" means every member of the human race, no exceptions. But if Christ is talking about the people of that generation who had chosen to follow him (v. 47), then "pas" should here be understood to mean "everyone who has chosen to follow me." That Christ is talking about his disciples is likely from the next verse, which is undoubtedly a reference to his disciples and not to all people without exception.

But even if you take the view that Christ is talking about everyone who was to be "thrown into Gehenna" (and I don't completely discount this view), there is nothing said here about the resurrection of the dead. Since Jeremiah's day, "Gehenna" had become an emblem for national judgment upon Israel (see Jer 19), and there's not a doubt in my mind that this was how Christ understood the word and used it when he spoke to the Jewish people of his generation. And if this is so, then the "everyone" of whom Christ speaks here is all the unbelieving Jews who went through this judgment upon their nation.

Moreover, just because something doesn't specifically apply to us doesn't mean it should just be "ignored." I doubt you see Matt 24:15-16 as directly applicable to you (assuming you don't own a time machine and haven't made plans to travel to first-century Judea ), but that doesn't mean you just ignore it!

[JasonPratt]

Ran objected that Jesus said "everyone," to which I replied:

I half-recall I had something to say about that after your reply, too.

]Moreover, just because something doesn't specifically apply to us doesn't mean it should just be "ignored." I doubt you see Matt 24:15-16 as directly applicable to you (assuming you don't own a time machine and haven't made plans to travel to first-century Judea ), but that doesn't mean you just ignore it!

I would ignore it as being inapplicable to my situation, if I didn't think it could even possibly apply to me (and the people whom I can talk to) somehow.

As it happens, I do in fact pay attention to those verses and to the ones subsequent to them, and the ones preceding them, and a bunch of other verses in context: which is why I don't think the prophecy there of "a great tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world nor ever will" was entirely fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. No more than I think the prophecy of Isaiah 7 was entirely (much less most importantly) fulfilled by the birth of Isaiah's own son named Immanuel.

(But that's two or three whole other discussions. )

[RanRan]

Ran,

As far as I can tell, Ultra-U "salting with fire" involves the Holy Spirit rewriting/rewiring our beliefs and desires, regardless of our consent, so that we will be righteous. Taking Mark 9:49-50 out of context of the obvious punishment imagery preceding it, which Jesus warns that we ought to avoid, then it could be read pretty straightforwardly as Ultra-U of even the insistently unrighteous. (The salting wouldn't be punishment for people cooperating with God in the first place, of course.)

Unless, in either case, salting is to be understood as essentially correction - then 'everyone' can remain 'everyone.'

[Aaron]

Jason wrote:
I half-recall I had something to say about that after your reply, too.

I found this quote (from the "Preterism and universalism" thread viewtopic.php?f=18&t=592&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=20#p6695), but if anything else was said (in another thread?) I must have missed it!

I mean, I very much want to comment on the exchange concerning Mark 9 (which I also consider hugely important for universalism), but that doesn’t seem to have much of anything to do with preterism per se pro or con. (Has that discussion been continued in another thread yet? I may create a new thread for it if not...)

I would be interested in getting your thoughts on this chapter (especially v. 49), so if you have already commented on it somewhere, a link would be appreciated!

As it happens, I do in fact pay attention to those verses and to the ones subsequent to them, and the ones preceding them, and a bunch of other verses in context: which is why I don't think the prophecy there of "a great tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world nor ever will" was entirely fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. No more than I think the prophecy of Isaiah 7 was entirely (much less most importantly) fulfilled by the birth of Isaiah's own son named Immanuel.

If understood literally, I'm not sure how a prophecy like this could be fulfilled partially and then entirely. The language (again, if understood literally) seems to exclude more than one fulfillment (that doesn't necessarily mean it has already been fulfilled, of course). And then when we consider the rest of the discourse, the whole scene seems pretty restricted to one place and time. From beginning to end, Christ seems to have one "day and hour" in view (v. 36).

This is from the "Matthew 24:1-35" thread:

The hyperbolic language (i.e., exaggeration for emphasis and effect) employed by Jesus in vv. 21-22 was common among the Jewish people, as can be seen from the following references: Exodus 10:14 (cf. Joel 1:2); 11:6; Ezekiel 5:8-9; 2 Kings 18:5 (cf. 2 Kings 23:25); Daniel 9:12; John 21:25. But even if taken literally, Christ's words in these verses need not be understood to emphasize so much the mere number of deaths per se, as the nature of the carnage and the intensity of the event. In addition to Josephus’ estimate that 1.1 million Jews perished during this time (Wars 6.9.2), we are also told of the starvation and cannibalism that took place during the final five-month siege of Jerusalem (Wars 5.12.3 and 6.5.1). And by the end of the war, we are told that Jerusalem, the temple, the Mediterranean, Sea of Galilee, Jordan, and Dead Sea were covered with blood and gorged with bodies (Wars 3.9.3; 3.10.9; 4.7.6; 4.1.10; 4.5.1; 5.1.3; 6.8.5; cf. Rev. 8:8-11). Josephus also reports that the Romans laid waste to Israel, and set fire to towns, cities, and trees (Wars 6.1.1; 3.7.8; 5.6.2; 3.7.1; 3.7.8; 5.6.2; 3.4.1; 6.6.2; 7.5.5; cf. Rev. 18:8). Even if we allow for a degree of exaggeration in Josephus’ words, the awful severity of the judgment that fell upon the Jewish nation at this time cannot be denied.

I would also like your thoughts (and anyone else's!) on the last 3 paragraphs from this post, when you get the chance: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=592&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=20#p6745
It pretty much summarizes my thoughts on the "multiple fulfillments" view of understanding prophecy.

[JasonPratt]

(The salting wouldn't be punishment for people cooperating with God in the first place, of course.)

Unless, in either case, salting is to be understood as essentially correction - then 'everyone' can remain 'everyone.'

True, but 'correction' isn't necessarily the same thing as 'punishment'; it could be healing instead, or training (whether cooperatively or forced upon the person without consent).

But my point was that Mk 9:49-50 can only be read as Ultra-U if the preceding verses are first negated as being a warning about avoiding punishment per se; since they appear to be stating that there is some kind of relation to the unquenchable fire which the hearer had better act to avoid. An Ultra-U reading of 49-50 doesn't involve the hearer acting to avoid some relation to the fire at all, and doesn't involve some problematic relationship to the fire by the hearer at all.

(The statement about the unsalty salt being worthless probably refers to the doctrine (or teaching) about Gehenna becoming unsalty in any case, so the Ultra-U wouldn't have to worry about that.)

[JasonPratt]

Jason wrote:
I half-recall I had something to say about that after your reply, too.

I found this quote (from the "Preterism and universalism" thread viewtopic.php?f=18&t=592&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=20#p6695), but if anything else was said (in another thread?) I must have missed it! ... I would be interested in getting your thoughts on this chapter (especially v. 49), so if you have already commented on it somewhere, a link would be appreciated!

Well, I'm not sure which thread you were quoting from with the comment about the staff meeting announcement; but back right before BA arrived (or was just arriving), I was beginning to try to catch up on the numerous (and very interesting) eschatological discussions going on at the time, and I chose as my starting place for the catchup this thread on "Gehenna...?"--which seems to have your comment about the staff meeting announcement in it. Which I definitely replied to along the way.

This hyperlink should connect to my lengthy catchup reply for that thread.

[RanRan]

Unless, in either case, salting is to be understood as essentially correction - then 'everyone' can remain 'everyone.'

True, but 'correction' isn't necessarily the same thing as 'punishment'; it could be healing instead, or training (whether cooperatively or forced upon the person without consent).

Christ must have been referring to Leviticus 2 and the salting of the grain offering - the salt made it somehow acceptable.

Here, the fire is the salt - but if the purpose is the same - making us acceptable - and everyone is salted with it - then the goal seems to be to render everyone as acceptable.

As far as salt losing it's saltiness - Christ may have been talking about that obsolete system of sacrifice disappearing. Who knows? But the more esoteric explanations I have read, just didn't cut it for me.

[Aaron]

Well, I'm not sure which thread you were quoting from with the comment about the staff meeting announcement; but back right before BA arrived (or was just arriving), I was beginning to try to catch up on the numerous (and very interesting) eschatological discussions going on at the time, and I chose as my starting place for the catchup this thread on "Gehenna...?"--which seems to have your comment about the staff meeting announcement in it. Which I definitely replied to along the way.

This hyperlink should connect to my lengthy catchup reply for that thread.

Thanks, Jason; I don't know how I missed that post.