May I add that the “praying in tongues” digression was introduced by a former Calvinist, and still strongly anti-universalistic Arminian, who had decided after a lot of discussion here that if we weren’t Pentacostals (who unlike other charismatics regard praying in tongues to be a necessary sign of true Christian conversion) then it didn’t matter what we ever said none of us could be true Christians anyway?
The actual Christian universalists in the thread stayed pretty much on point, though with some discussion of how the popular anti-Wager version intersected with other concerns of theirs (such as controlling congregations through appeal to fear). It was the notoriously trollish anti-universalist who went off the rails.
I do occasionally wonder how long it will take the most impenitent of sinners to become completely clean of sin. I know that a thousand years are like a day to God and all that jazz but even so, can you imagine it taking that long!
As I see the lake of fire, it is light consuming darkness, heat forcing impurities to the surface- “every hidden thing brought to light”, until the last enemy is subjected and reconciled. I can’t imagine 49 billion years, but since God has been completing “the administration suitable to the fulness of times” in packages of eons totalling 1,000s of years thus far- I can’t conceive of Him waiting 49 billion years on some laggard sinner to repent
I remember talking to somone about the universal reconciliation of all to God—that all will eventually submit to God of their own free will.
The person responded, “Oh! If only that were true!”
Thanks for the thoughtful replies! Maybe instead of “Pascal’s Wager” a better term would be “catastrophic consequences.” In other words there are catastrophic consequences if we preach UR when ECT is true. The question in my mind is how would this play out SPECIFICALLY?
Practically speaking, the way I imagine the scenario is this: Imagine a missionary goes to a country like India where the majority of residents are non-Christian. Would such a missionary say that it’s OK NOT to preach the gospel, and that everyone could go right along worshipping other religions? Because at the end of the day everyone is saved anyway? Would the person decide not to even BOTHER going on missions in the first place?
If the answer to that question is YES, then I think UR has a real problem. If Christians take the approach that it’s just fine not to send missionaries, it’s fine for everyone to worship their own religion, it’s OK for Christians themselves to practice other religions, because at the end of the day UR is true, then I think the “catastrophic consequences” scenario might have a real and damaging effect. But to the extent that Christians are motivated to share the truth about the gospel notwithstanding the fact that people who don’t believe it will still be saved, then catastrophic consequences plays no role.
I have a friend who ardently non-Christian but believes in a God-like “force” in the universe. He’s aware that at least some Christians believe non-Christians will spend eternity in a lake of fire.
Let’s assume that ECT is actually correct and UR is not correct. What would that mean for me PRACTICALLY? I talk to my friend about Jesus and the Gospel. I can tell him I believe in UR. Let’s say I’m wrong and UR is not right. I still want him to be a Christian. I want him to be a Christian now, in this life.
It seems to me that the “catastrophic consequences” argument is ultimately about FEAR. It’s a tool to SCARE someone into believing in Christ. Believe in Jesus OR ELSE. Maybe that kind of an argument might work on a child, but I could not imagine telling that to my friend. Or more importantly, I couldn’t imagine that being a particularly effective tool to ultimately getting him to convert.
Christianity is about LOVE. UR is also at its core about LOVE. We want people to believe in Jesus Christ because Jesus loves them and wants a loving relationship with them. We’re not particularly interested in getting people to believe in Jesus Christ because they feel like they HAVE TO believe in him and are SCARED INTO believing in him.
At the margins, the “catastrophic consequences” might be a useful tool, but one that is narrowly tailored to control certain behavior. Make no mistake, human beings have an instinct toward RUTHLESSNESS. The stereotypical image I have in my head is Gordon Gekko played by Michael Douglas in the Wall Street movies. The ECT argument can be used to constrain bad behavior of people who are willing to be ruthless or wholly utilitarian when it comes to their eternal destinies. But at its core I don’t think that ECT can be used to change people’s hearts.
So going back to the original question, what would happen if people preach universal salvation but it turns out that eternal conscious torment is the actual reality? I would say that it depends on whether the core of Christianity itself is true in the first place. Because if it is and if Jesus is real, then I believe Christians WOULD be motivated to get others to come to know Jesus, regardless of whether UR or ECT is correct. And since I believe Christianity IS real, I’m inclined to believe that real Christians would be so motivated, and would not need to be motivated by fear.
At this point in my walk, DanielTiger, I can’t even relate to the idea that God would torture anyone at all, let alone forever and ever and ever. I simply do not believe it at all.
But this doesn’t stand in the way of sharing my faith. In fact, it enhances it. NOW I have good news to share. Before, it was kind of “Let me tell you the good news, but first let me tell you the bad news.” The “good news” depended on us making God into a demon who had to be appeased first, and then sharing that His Son had indeed appeased God, and that we get to escape God’s wrath if we say this little prayer and mean it. “As for your Hindu grandmother who died ten years ago, well, Gee . . . . Ah maaan, I’m really sorry. Nothin’ else to say, but I’m sure that, if she knows, she wants you to do this so you at least will be saved.”
That . is . not . good . news . It’s horrible news slightly alleviated by the possibility that YOU might escape the terrible fate of your beloved grandmother.
So why would people come to Jesus if He’s not going to torture them if they don’t? Like you, I find fear to be a very inferior motivational tool to induce faith in the hearer. You follow Jesus because He is good, because you want to be where He is going, because you’ve had quite enough of hell and don’t want any more, thankyouverymuch. For one thing, most of the people I talk to don’t even believe in hell, are not frightened by threats of hell, and find a God who would do such a thing monstrous. (As do I.) So a God who truly does love His entire universe and fully intends to and is fully able to save the whole shebang is frankly a much easier “sell” for most modern, educated people. Not that they don’t need the Holy Spirit as much as any other lost souls do, to draw them to Jesus. If you’re headed into the pit, it doesn’t have to be forever and ever to make it worthwhile to turn around NOW and wend your way to fairer lands. That way lies suffering, and the suffering will last until you get out of that pit. The further down you go, the further up you’ll have to climb to get out. It is worthwhile to follow Jesus, not just to escape never-ending hellfire, but more importantly, to find life sooner rather than later.
Cindy, thank you for your thoughtful response! Ultimately what I am trying to do is make the case that EVEN IF it turns out that UR is wrong and that there is no chance for salvation after death, that preaching UR is not “catastrophic” in the way that those in the ECT make it out to be.
Ultimately, I think the answer is that love trumps fear. Christians of all camps should be guided by the love of God, not by their fear of death. The fear of eternal conscious torment should not be the motivation for either a non-Christian converting to Christ or for believers to share the message of the Gospel. Those who love the Lord should want for everyone to experience the same love. The urgency to evangelize comes from love not fear.
That’s interesting. I haven’t heard about Pascal’s Wager before. I think I understand the logic of the point your making. But I think there are other options.
To me, I think it’s perfect fine to preach the good news, show people the uplifting verses and how every knee shall bow. Give them a lovely introduction.
If they studying on their own or already knew the other verses with the common mistranslations and start asking about hell and eternal damnation, then just be honest with what you’re aware of. For example, I’d let them know how there are popular theories like Universal Reconciliation, Annihilationism, Eternal Conscious Torment for the unrepentant. Just guiding them through what I’m aware of with the history of scripture and translation culture etc. If they ask me What I personally believe about hell, I’ll say what I lean more towards reconciliation and show them why. Because honestly I am not certain about this detail. Do we have to be certain about this to be certain about God’s plan with Jesus. I am not sure about this either. I can see both sides of the argument. All I know is that I can read English so I use English translations of the Bible and also know how to look up Greek and Hebrew words from the Bible while putting a certain amount of trust in these concordances. Anywho, hope this wasn’t confusing, just wanted to share.
I am starting to wonder if the after life isn’t all dissimilar to this life. Even while learning difficult and painful lessons, we still experience joy, by the grace of God. Even men who are not entirely evil (if such a thing is possible, that is, to be entirely evil) still experience God’s grace and goodness. Some of them respond, others harden for a while and some, in this life harden completely so as far as we can tell. But, my point is, if God can teach us in this life without a torture chamber, why not in the next life? If it is God’s kindness that leads us to repentance… Will it be God’s lack of kindless in the next life that causes us to repent? I hardly think that is the case. We know nothing beyond the grave and so to think God no longer teaches us the way we learn from our mistakes in this life, is to wildly speculate, in my opinion.
Pascal’s wager is deeply flawed. I am surprised more people I meet don’t see how flawed it is. It assumes too much and is almost a form of Gnosticism, in my opinion. In fact, I believe a single Bible verse can defeat the common version of it… “You believe God is one! Even the demons believe, and shudder” the knowledge and intellectual belief of said Deity would not matter one bit to it. What matters, is how you respond by how you live. Then again, that assumes the deity is good. Too many assumptions in his wager, at least with how people use it.
It look like you (DT) weren’t actually arguing for what the ancient Fathers called the doctrine of reserve, where ECT (or anni) is preached to the masses while UR is reserved as a secret belief for the mature elite (cough) Christians. You were just posing (or rather going back to) the topic for a discussion point.
Which is fine. I’m only acknowledging that here, in order to continue the hypothetical discussion.
It’s an important discussion to have because, aside from whether or not the Wager is being accurately deployed, it touches a main philosophical criticism from non-UR Christians about what (they think) UR involves.
Or the missionary called to evangelize the place has a real problem. Trivially speaking, if he’s a missionary he already knows he’s called to evangelize and has been preparing for it (at the very least enough to “go to” India)! – if he already believes UR obviously he didn’t have a problem doing that. If he doesn’t believe UR then again there’s no problem.
If he comes to believe UR, then it depends on whether he believes that somehow invalidates his life’s purpose. No evangelist I’ve ever met who came to believe in UR thinks total evangelical success invalidates their evangelical purpose in life, however. On the contrary, St. Paul himself encourages his congregations to keep on evangelizing with the confidence that comes in knowing their work will not be in vain thanks to God! (At the end of 1 Cor 15 for example – where not incidentally he has just quoted two different OT texts promising that God will successfully bring rebel Jews and rebel Gentiles out of their rebellion, even if He has already had to kill them as supervillains!)
This is the exact same topic, for the exact same reason, for any Augustinian Catholic or Protestant Calvinist in evangelism; but I know plenty of evangelical Calvs. I could pick up my phone right this very moment and be talking with only two phone calls (one to get the other numbers) to Calv preachers at a mission church I personally know. Someone with a heart for evangelism doesn’t become lazy about it because they believe the success rate will be one hundred percent. On the contrary, they’re have the peace of this gospel assurance. (Even if they come to be unsettled over a lack of Arminian gospel assurance. But that’s why Calvs and Arms convert either way. Or keep both assurances and become universalists. It also helps that Calvs routinely pretend to believe in Arm assurance of scope, and tend to market their call that way. )
Not everyone is given a special gift of evangelism of course. I don’t personally have it (yet, maybe later). But I’ve evangelized much more, and spent vastly much more of my money evangelizing, in the 15ish years (this month) since I decided I ought to believe Christian universalism to be true (in order to be consistently trinitarian), than in all my years previously as an Arminianistic Baptist. If anything, I’m a bit burned out, having spent so much of my energy on it; but I pick up after resting and press on a little more.
Again, the problem, if there is a problem, is in the heart, not with the doctrine of total evangelical victory (whether or not combined with total real evangelical scope – though that doesn’t hurt! I can be as assured as any Arminian that when I evangelize God seriously wants whomever my audience may be to repent and be saved from their sins by God.)
I will add relatedly that, in a backhanded way, a Calvinist (though not an Arminian), has another evangelical assurance: there was never any even slight possibility at all (thanks to God’s choice) that anyone who never is saved was ever going to be saved (by God, much less by any other way). That catastrophic result ends up being true if Calvinism (or Catholic Augustinianism) is true but I believe UR is true: nothing I or anyone else could ever do was ever going to make any difference. Some Arminians edge that way, too, in light of God’s foreknowledge of those who will be finally lost (though strictly speaking the difference there is that God, presently knowing all things omnisciently, presently knows what won’t or would have made a difference for anyone finally lost. But even that might not be due to faulty or lacking evangelism.)
I will also add here that I’ve sometimes run across Calvs who level this critique (why evangelize at all?) against Christian universalists, as though they had temporarily become Arminian and so have decided that someone could be lost by poor or no evangelism, or that anyone actually could be won apart from God’s intention by evangelism!
Which is bizarre. But then Calvs have an odd tendency to suddenly though temporarily become Arms. (Arms can suddenly temporarily become Calvish, too – SURELY GOD DOES NOT INTEND TO SAVE DEVILS FROM THEIR SINS – though rather less often in my experience. Not sure why the perceived frequency disparity there; something worth pondering by those who have noticed it though…)
Aren’t you talking about religious pluralism now, not about Christian universalism? You certainly aren’t talking about evangelical Christian universalism (y’know, the topic of this site ), much less about ‘orthodox’ or ‘trinitarian’ Christian universalism: no such person would think it’s OK for Christians themselves to practice other religions. (Nor would dogmatic unitarian Christian universalists, regardless of what the doctrineless pluralists who currently call themselves UUs do.)
No non-pluralist I know of, myself included, thinks it’s “fine” for everyone to worship their own religion either. We don’t think it’s necessarily damnable, and we don’t think it’s finally damnable, but we do think people are better off becoming Christians instead, and we feel sorry when other people believe what (we think) isn’t true – even if God Himself “winks” at it (as Paul daringly says in his Mars Hill address in Acts), and makes provisions according to temporary circumstances.
If God Himself takes His time evangelizing people, while also going to the cross as part of His evangelizing people, never giving up until He’s totally victorious at it, staking His own self-existence that His Word going out to call rebels to repentance will not come back in vain (as God occasionally says in the OT prophets); then I think Christians who, after all, don’t have most (any??) of God’s advantages, can follow suit both ways: charitable and strategic reserve here, giving one’s life to the final extreme there.
Jason, of all the things you said in your thoughtful reply (of which there was several that were all thought provoking!), this is the specific issue I wanted to focus on. And actually I’m not at all sure that it IS true.
What I’m saying is EVEN IF “Calvinism or Catholic Augustinianism” is true, and even if Christian universalism is widely preached (erroneously, in my hypothetical), NO catastrophe would result. That’s the argument I’m trying to make. That’s why I believe that the “catastrophic consequences” argument is incorrect, or at least overblown.
Let me ask you this, why do you think that there would be catastrophic results if Calvinism/Catholic Augustiniams turns out to be true? (Which I know you don’t believe, but just assuming it was true.) What catastrophe would result?
I think that the extermination of, or eternal torment of, the most of humanity would be a catastrophe.
I think that God’s ‘passing over’ the most of humanity would be a catastrophe.
I think that Christ’s dying for the sins of a few (comparatively) would be a catastrophe.
And the saddest thing in the world would be Calvinism being true.
And those things would be catastrophes because of what they say about the Character of God our Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.
And the reasons I’ve said these things has been spelled out by the members of the Forum for quite a while now. I’m a relative newbie.
Thanks DaveB for your response. Maybe I misinterpreted this conversation, but that wasn’t exactly the catastrophe I meant.
Assume for the moment that Eternal Conscious Torment was true. I know you don’t think it is, but assume for a moment it is. Yes it’s true that ECT itself would be a catastrophe in the way you describe. I agree with that. But that’s not at all the catastrophe I’m talking about.
People who are AGAINST Christian universalism argue that if ECT was true (which they believe it is), then it would be a catastrophe if Christians WIDELY PREACHED universalism. In this scenario, it’s the specific preaching of universalism which traditional Calvinists view to be a catastrophe. To the traditional Calvinists, ECT itself is NOT a catastrophe. (You and Jason would disagree, but in their minds it isn’t.) The catastrophe in their minds is the preaching of what they believe to be the false message of universalism.
But why? That’s the question. Even assuming ECT is true, why is the preaching of universalism in that situation in itself a catastrophe? That is the core of the argument.
My bad - I had hurriedly read only the last post or so and jumped in. I hereby reprimand myself severely, and then so I don’t overdo it, I will reward myself with a cookie!
Really - sorry for the confusion.
