Progressive Evangelical theologian and philosopher Randal Rauser wrote a fascinating post about belief in universal salvation and wishful thinking.

What are your thoughts on this?

I am both an annihilationist and an inclusivist and utterly reject the idea that people dying as non-Christians will be automatically excluded from heaven.

But I do believe that people not sincerely desiring the crucified God won’t inherit the gift of eternal life.

I find it extremely hard to believe that Jesus was an universalist if he said to Judah it would have been better for him never to be born.
Clearly, after a purgatory and billions of year spent in bliss, Judah would be extremely glad to have seen the light of this world.

So it is very likely that Christ would have chosen** completely different words** if He believed in the betrayer’s ultimate redemption.

Hi Marc,

I read the post on Randal’s blog a few days ago and can’t say I disagree with the philosophical point he makes. Not much discussion about universalism per se in the comments, unfortunately. Some of the atheists that comment tend to strain at gnats and take the comments down endless (and tedious) rabbit holes. I would really like for Randal to do attempt a philosophical rebuttal to Tom Talbott’s argument at some point.

That being said, I am more interested in your contention that Jesus was not a universalist. It might be worth presenting as a separate thread, but I’m sure you would get a lot of input to a “Jesus was NOT a universalist” thread.

Why not discuss it here if there is still this one-post-per-week constraint?

What would one have expected Jesus to say if he believed in Judah’s ultimate redemption?
What would one have expected if he believed in his damnation?

Which possibility provides the best fit to his sayings?

Correct me if I’m wrong (I’m not poking fun here) but I think you meant “Judas” and not “Judah”? If that’s the case, I think I’d chalk it up to ancient near eastern hyperbole. What Judas did was despicable and had serious consequences for him and Jesus’ point was to emphasize this. I really don’t think he meant that Judas was literally better off if he’d never been born. Jesus also said, “And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.” This is also hyperbolic. He is emphasizing the seriousness and consequences of sin, but does he really want people to gouge their eyes out?

Edit: What other passages make you think Jesus was not a universalist, Marc?

Marc, would you like to change the name of your topic to attract more readers? I can’t remember whether you have to be a moderator to do that. If you’d like to change the name and find you can’t do that, let me or Steve know and one of us will be glad to change it to whatever you like.

No doubt emotions do drive a certain degree of how we view God. Any view is going to attribute those emotions. For instance I did see a recent survey that indicated men, more than women have a higher degree of emotional desire to see punishment.

So I could change the title of the topic.

Now I want the discussion to be focused on the alleged belief of Jesus in universal salvation.

I think that my interview with Chris Date made it clear that Jesus most likely believed in the destruction of the wicked.

Yet he never threatened tax collectors, homosexuals and whores but religious bigots and those failing to help their small neighbors in need.

Thus I consider it very probable that Fred Phelps won’t inherit eternal life.
After an humiliating judgment, he will be no more.

The problem I have with annihilation is that God is going to raise all mankind for judgement. All.

Raising people to kill them again does not seem like something that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God would do. This would make God into a killer rather then the life giver.

The philosophy that Jesus taught was love.
He is said to have come to seek and to save that which is lost(same word as destroy).
One parable that seems to teach universalism is the 99 sheep and the one that was lost.
Matthew 18
11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

As we know all are lost in Adam.

John 3
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

How did Jesus use the word might?
Maybe? possibly?

Of did he use it the same as this verse:
“But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." (Matt. 26:56)

Does God ever stop loving the perishing?
Jesus was sent to take away the sin and to seek and to save the lost (perishing).

I’m thinking that Jesus most certainly knew/knows that his life would/will save the world, not just a portion of it, but the entirety of it.

.

Literally the words are: “Woe to that man by whom the son of man is delivered up. It was good for him if that man had not been begotten.”

Some say the “him” in red, refers to “the son of man” (Jesus) rather than Judas. They say that it means it would have been good for Jesus if that man (Judas) had not been begotten. Good for Jesus in what sense? In the sense that He would not have had to endure that painful death on the cross.

Hi Marc

In regards Jesus’ remark about Judas, I’m inclined not to base a theological position on this. I believe it is either as Alec has suggested typical hyperbole or as Paidion has suggested.

As formerly believing much as you do, among many other things one of the things that I have found very persuasive is this:

As an Annihilationist I believed that a person Fate was effectively sealed at the end of one’s life; that in spite of God’s love and His enduring mercy that all chances of changing ones mind and falling on this mercy, accepting Christ, were done.

At the same time I believed that everyone - indeed All creation - will one day bow in worship to Jesus and declare Him as Lord.
This then was to include both the saved and the unsaved ( after which the unsaved were to be Anihilated presumably). It couldn’t include only the saved because it declares ’ All creation’.

This means these ‘unsaved’’ have changed there beliefs/ understanding / former position, that they held in this life but seemingly too late.

But further reading of course indicates that this worship, brings glory to God. Now it seems to me difficult to see how the inevitable destruction of one of Gods children that He has loved from eternity, died for and desired to save, brings Glory in any way.
He cannot be in the business of self-gratification: that He has been vindicated for the way He finally has dealt with sin, but lost forever one of His beloved creation.

We also read from the words of Jesus that the type of worship that God desires (and therefore must bring Him glory) is that offered in Spirit and in Truth.
It seems that this type of worship could only be offered by the Redeemed - in other words of All creation!

This is of course only one of many persuasive parts of scripture (for me anyway).

God bless in your endeavours Marc
Cheers S

Lotharson,

I agree with you that if Jesus (was) is a universalist; it is odd why there are some verses that favor annihilationism. I am not sure this means that annihilationism is T, or that universalism is F, it does mean, IMO, that unless we have particularly good evidence or arguments, that we should be somewhat humble as opposed to dogmatic in our theology no matter what side of the aisle we’re on.

Another assumption I think both universalists and annihilationists make is that the “elect” or saved will receive endless life (a life of infinite duration) from God. It might be argued that God annihilates the “elect” after a certain time, maybe after thousands or millions of years. While this is more a philosophical than exegetical consideration (although, take for instance, Adam and Eve in the garden b4 the Fall, is there unambiguous indication that they would have lived forever had they not disobeyed God?) While I think universalists are right that eternal Hell is monstrous, sometimes they/we can be presumptuous in thinking, just b/c eternal Hell can’t exist; therefore, everybody must live an infinite amount of time. Not to mention that infinite life for finite beings is sort of contradictory (or at least hard to conceive). I have also heard some argue that apokatastasis could simply mean that (though I know, however, that Paidion has furnished good reasons to doubt this construal of apokatastasis), while we aren’t annihilated per se, we will all return to God in such a way that our current individual existence/consciousness will be fundamentally changed - reintegrated to God (but, hey, maybe this is better than universalism as we typically tend to construe it, if we’ve forgotten that we are God - excuse me if that is blasphemous but you could look it at that way I think).

Wendy,

I agree that emotions can cloud our theological judgment (but sometimes emotions are a guide to T than reason); however, since this cuts all ways, I think it is tendentious to cite that men are more likely to believe in punishment than women. I realize you didn’t perform the survey or whatever, but I don’t see its relevance - anybody can hold to their beliefs for reasons other than those beliefs being objectively T. Why second guess people due to ad hominem or “psychological” reasons? Take this, probably the greatest number of Christian universalists currently are Western, bourgeois individuals. If we compared this to all the other Christians, in all other socio-economic groups and countries, then people might go away thinking from that universalism must be F as it largely a “rich, privileged” religion. Of course, that would be grossly unfair reasoning, perhaps universalism isn’t popular among the lower classes b/c they don’t have time to study Gk; perhaps universalism isn’t popular in Asia and Africa b/c the missionaries to those countries were Catholic or non-universalist Protestants. This is to say that these studies all describe a set of phenomenon - they don’t explain it. Maybe men are more likely to believe in punishment not because they are more inclined to be merciless but b/c they happen to be more cognizant that there is somewhat of a Biblical case that can be made for Hell or maybe they think that punishment is the only tool that God has to persuade some people to accept him. Of course, maybe I am being defensive b/c I am a man and I don’t like the generalization , but I think it is wrong to psychologize.

I also think universalists should be very careful when we are tempted to psychologize b/c we are so often psychologized. I’m guessing that “psychological” argument is the biggest (most common) “proof” against universalism , “Well, of course, you are a universalist b/c you want to be. Who wouldn’t want to believe that they are definitely going to Heaven no matter what they do?” Yet, obviously, a Cal, an Arm, an annihil - anybody can hold their beliefs for “psychological” reasons, and really nobody is in a position (except God) to know…

I agree with you, the original post was referring to a blog who described a belief in universalism as being based solely a human emotional need. The blogger referred to a mother who lost her son, who died as a atheist. The blogger accused the mother of changing her view to universalism based on her inability to cope with her sons death. However, this post has changed since leaving my reply, so to clarify. My point is that the same can be said of having an emotional need for annihilation and Eternal Hell. I brought also up the survey to point out how generalizations in human emotions can be said about any view. Man or women, it is a human experience to desire judgement and justice for crimes. But, we all fall short, we all commit ’ crimes’ against loving our neighbor.

Those who refute the universal restoration error in misunderstanding that UR is not releasing wrong doing as being irrelevant, however the cure for such is educative and rehabilitative. A drastic difference than being exterminated like a bug, or tormented forever ( which is lacking in love, compassion and mercy). The restorative model in my opinion is the only one that is consistent with the nature and character of God.

One could presume many things about the comment about Judas. But it doesn’t refute the restoration of Judas, Christ is only making the observation that the actions of Judas would continue for generations ( in a negative context, it is tragic for the legacy of Judas name) , but it in no way is making the final destiny of Judas as being grim. For Christ made many comments to the 12 disciples that one could assume a negative outcome. Such as the comment to Peter as
*
’ Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” Mt 16:23*

The same can be said of any human being, both Judas and Peter are limited in their thinking, but that is what Grace is for, no human being is full of unlimited knowledge. Judas, Peter, John, James, or Paul.

Judas, in my point of view felt great regret , and he was unable to cope, thus his suicide. But, in God’s great compassion, He had Mercy. This is why Christ gets glory.

“if we are faithless, he remains faithful”…2 Tim 2:13

Doesn’t Jesus thank God that He’ll lose none of those given to Him? And isn’t He given the whole world? Was He speaking only of His disciples there? It’s hard to know.

I don’t believe Jesus was NOT a Universalist, because that is the message of God, and Jesus is the Son of God. I think Jesus was doing what His Father wanted, and Universal Salvation is the end result of all the ground-work He was laying. Jesus didn’t teach us the full story, or there’d be nothing for Paul to say. There are lots of details to fill in based on what Jesus DID say. Jesus didn’t teach the Trinity, or tell us which Eschatological perspective was true, ie Pre/Mid/Post-Trib/Amillenialist/Preterist/etc views…He said be perfect as your Father is perfect, be forgiving as your Father is forgiving, and many many more things that overturned the social order of His time (and would do ours as well). His teaching clearly leads to Universal Reconciliation because As He is lifted up, ALL MEN ARE DRAGGED UNTO HIM. He is the good Shepherd that goes out and finds the lost Sheep. His Father is the Father of the Prodigal Son. His Father knows how to give good gifts to us, His evil children.

Yes, there are final mentions of judgement, but even some of those (such as in Matthew 5) that talk about Gehenna also lead to the portion where He speaks about the prisoner imprisoned until He pays the last farthing.

Super-busy at work (and will be for a while, plus other projects outside work), but as an aside: Judah = Judas. The two names mean the same thing (like Jude and Judah), and if I recall correctly are spelled the same way in the Greek texts. English translations habitually to spell it “Judas” to help distinguish characters. German translations might not.

Somewhere around here I’ve posted detailed notes about the “better for him” verse; grammatically I agree it’s talking about being better for Judas, although that isn’t as easy to establish as it might seem!

More relevantly, though, the saying is habitually used in scripture everywhere else to be a cry for salvific pity on the object of the saying (which also lends weight for this to apply to Judas, as the “better for him” and “not been born” parts both typically apply to the same person elsewhere).

Admittedly, it’s also typically a reflexive saying, where the speaker is talking about himself and begging for pity and salvation; but while that would fit okay with Jesus being the first ‘him’ it wouldn’t with Jesus being the second ‘him’, which may be why I’ve never seen anyone try to claim both ‘hims’ refer to Jesus!

At any rate, I would argue that there is also a strong though implicit theological argument from the subsequent scene in GosJohn’s final discourse where Jesus is trying to get the disciples prepared to forgive and reconcile with Judas. Obviously they had trouble with that later (if Peter’s opening speech in Acts is anything to go by). I’m kind of wasted this morning, though, and I don’t recall if I’ve posted it on site yet anywhere.

Oh, yay, I did already collect the analyses here!

Better for Judas if Judas had not been born

Jesus’ intentions about Judas part 1 (and first half of Final Discourse generally)

Jesus’ intentions about Judas part 2 (GosJohn 17)

Comments can come back to this thread for convenience, of course; just be aware I’m spottily in and out of the forum right now.

Reading back over the argument, I see that my grammatic conclusion was only decisive about “if that very man had not been born” referring to Judas; grammatically “better regarding him” could refer to either Jesus or Judas. The argument from stylistic unity, i.e. how the saying is typically used, is what lands the first “regarding-him” (third-person singular pronoun in the dative case) on Judas instead of Jesus.

Sturmy: I am a inclusivst who believes that God will still try to reach out to people beyond the grave.
But He will respect their desire NOT to be with Him.

Wendy
“One could presume many things about the comment about Judas. But it doesn’t refute the restoration of Judas, Christ is only making the observation that the actions of Judas would continue for generations ( in a negative context, it is tragic for the legacy of Judas name) , but it in no way is making the final destiny of Judas as being grim. For Christ made many comments to the 12 disciples that one could assume a negative outcome. Such as the comment to Peter as”

I don’t buy it because an eternity of bliss would LARGELY outshine millions of years spent in shame

" ALL MEN ARE DRAGGED UNTO HIM. "
This is the theological speculation of John and probably not a true saying of Jesus.
Moreover, it can be interpreted as meaning that all men will be submitted to Him as their Judge and not necessarily as their Savior.

Jason: I’ll take a look!

Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by bliss largely outshine of shame ? Can you explain what you mean ? I would think that restoring all that God creates would far outshine destroying most of it or some of it because it escaped the creators knowledge in how to transform a wayward disciple.

That isn’t John’s speculation at all, that’s you selectively ignoring a text you think is difficult.

How is God triumphant if He loses anyone at all? It doesn’t work. God is Love, and Love never fails. There’s no arguing this point. Jesus as the Son of God did divest Himself of His divinity to walk among men (if Trinitarianism is true), and that means He may have lost a chunk of knowledge of the over-all plan (so as to show us how to walk trusting in the Father’s knowledge above our own), but i still believe firmly that the judgements He promised for evil-doers was not ever intended to be permanent.