The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puzzle

As you probably know, the Mormons do believe in preexistence. But they have their own take on Christianity.

Hi Chris - that essay is a lot to take in and process all at once. May I ask for some clarity on a couple of things as I go along in my reading?
You wrote:

  1. (quoting CSL) : “That thing is Freedom: the gift whereby ye most resemble your Maker and are yourselves parts of eternal reality.”

  2. “Here Lewis places our freedom – that is, our power of being, our actus purus analogous to God’s own actus purus – beyond time itself and in ‘eternal reality’.”

As to (1) - I have not read every single thing CSL wrote, but I have read quite a bit of it, and that quote feels a bit off-key to me. I would think that we most resemble our Maker not by simply having freedom, but by exercising it in loving obedience; and I think CSL would agree, though I am not an expert. Could you or perhaps [tag]JasonPratt[/tag] chime in on that?

As a follow-up: why do you think CSL says above that Freedom is the gift… whereby we are “parts of eternal reality?”
Perhaps this will clear up as I read further.

As to (2) - you are saying, if I understand you, that freedom is ‘our power of being’. I think that freedom is a part of our being, but not THE power of our being. Doesn’t our Maker sustain us in Being?

Thanks. I will continue reading your essay on this fascinating subject.

Lewis is referring to the distinction between intentional action and unintentional reaction, the former being the freedom to volunteer inputs into the system beyond what the system itself would naturally produce. His theistic argument from reason involved recognizing on one hand that we necessarily presume we have such freedom for rational action, and on the other hand that we do not derive this freedom from an ultimately reactive reality nor from ourselves: consequently we should conclude supernaturalistic theism is true and deny that naturalistic atheism is true. (He refined this argument somewhat in response to criticism from the Catholic philosopher Anscombe, and presented the refined version in the 2nd edition of Miracles: A Preliminary Study in 1960, many years after The Great Divorce; but he may already have the revision in mind for TGD since that happened at the Socratic Club soon after MaPS was first published. I’m somewhat oversimplifying his argument for convenience; the revised version of the argument runs on a logical formality that’s hard to briefly explain, although I accept several versions of the argument. I also note that Lewis forgot to double-check the formal weakness the other way around, to see if it deducts theism out of the option list – having deducted atheism out he concluded theism by dichotomy, but strictly speaking he should have tested both options.)

Lewis doesn’t mean we exist prior to Nature, and his position does not necessarily imply this; he means our ability to rationally act is a direct spiritual gift from the father of spirits, Who is Himself eternal reality, the Most Real Reality, the independent ground of all reality. We act supernaturally in relation to Nature, although not in utter independence from Nature.

Lewis reconciles God’s foreknowledge with creaturely freedom, not because rationally free creatures exist extratemporally, but because God exists extra-temporally, immediately knowing by directly active experience all instances of any created system of space-time. Whether any rationally free creatures exist extratemporally or to what extents an extratemporal creature could exist, is beside that point. (I agree with Lewis on this.)

Thus as Lewis famously argued, no one thinks a person is less free to act because God presently sees the action they are choosing ‘now’; the same is true in regard to future actions.

I have always argued that Christian universalism at minimum means God persistently acts toward saving all sinners from sin. (Or rather that’s theistic universal salvation, but would be included in varieties of theistic universalism, including with uniquely Christian details if X-variety of Christianity is true.) That doesn’t mean in itself that God necessarily succeeds; a never-ending stalemate could theoretically be possible. That was in fact what I originally expected to find.

That qualification is not the same as denying that God can guarantee successful universal salvation, though. It becomes a question of God’s competency and/or a question of whether God reveals final success from an omniscient perspective. The latter is a question of publicly available (i.e. scriptural) revelation (not counting private assurances if any), and that’s an exegetical argument. As to the former, I often quip (paraphrasing Lewis from The Problem of Pain on a similar topic the other way around!) that it doesn’t take a specially robust faith to bet on God instead of the sinner being victorious. :wink: People are free to play against the Chessmaster (reffing Lewis again); people are not free to play more competently than the Chessmaster. Take that bishop if you insist, but He moves here, and here, and it is mate in three moves.

So I hardly need pre-existence of souls to grant either or both types of assurance about God’s persistence for all being ultimately victorious. I’m even doubtful pre-existence adds anything to the assurance – my assurance that God will save pre-existent rebel angels is not even slightly based on them being pre-existent to our own natural system, for example – but I would want to read Chris’ article before commenting on particulars there. :slight_smile:

If by pre-existence Chris isn’t talking about temporal pre-existence of souls, but only about our ontological dependence on God in a relationship superior to our dependence upon the natural system we live in, then I might have no objections, arguing much the same thing myself. But such ontological intimacy is not something missing from my universalist puzzle. :wink:

Dave,

Thanks for the questions.

In response, I will say that a) I don’t think Lewis is ultimately coherent when he says we exist ‘in eternal reality’. You’ll get to my reasons throughout the paper; and b) I think you’re making a distinction here between the power that holds us in being (God), and an additional power, given by God, that allows us to ‘give ourselves’, so to speak, back to Him and others. Is that what you’re trying to do? If so, I would agree with you. :smiley:

Yeah - this is what I argue is ultimately incoherent on Lewis’ system: i.e. to have an eternal ‘now’ composed of an infinite number of temporally present ‘nows’ is incoherent. See the article for further argument in this vein. :ugeek:

(A short argument would be, however, something like this: according to this dual picture of reality (an eternal present composed of the temporally past, present, and future) where does our freedom exist? If in both realities, which one has logical priority? If the eternal present, then our free choices are true before we make them. If the temporal reality is logically prior, then God cannot know our choices before we make them.)

Agreed. It’s the concept of temporal pre-existence that is exercising me.

Chris - (I’ve typed ‘Christ’ instead of ‘Chris’ a few times now, I hope I’ve caught the typos in time :slight_smile:) - is it temporal pre-existence that you are advocating?

Dave,

No. Technically speaking I don’t think ‘pre-temporal’ existence is something possible for created beings. I do, a few times, use the phrase ‘pre-temporal’ or 'extra-‘temporal’ loosely. By these phrases I simply mean ‘pre-mortal’ or ‘before the current time in which we inhabit our bodies.’ (I define what I mean by pre-mortal early in the article.)

Great questions. Shows how much you are grappling with this topic. It took me a while to see the issue clearly myself, especially since I had been saturated in the popular incoherent idea of God existing in an eternal now AND of His creation simultaneously interacting with Him while being in time themselves.

“At the heart of Christian teaching lie two apparently self-contradictory theses: a) all humans, without exception, have either committed moral wrong, or will once they reach a certain stage of moral development and b) no human is ever forced or determined to sin. In other words, it seems true both that all humans are free and that they will all certainly exercise their freedom in a sinful way.”

Are you putting aside, for the sake of the argument, that Christian teaching known as ‘TULIP’? I think that their question at this point would be: “Why do you say the ‘heart’ of Christian teaching is as you say? We believe that ‘in Adams’ fall, we sinned all” so that in fact we are not free; our wills are in bondage, and thus your argument presents a false dichotomy?"

Chris - I’m not a tulipian (I just made that up) but how would you answer them?
I’m not quibbling, btw, but just clarifying as I go along; I think your essay is worth some close reading. :smiley:

Another great question.

Being quite aware of TULIP and Calvinism, I would respond by saying the concept that ‘we all sinned in Adam’ is meaningless without providing a means by which we could actually sin in him. I have never yet found an answer to this question on the Calvinist scheme: how could we “sin” in Adam if we did not even exist? Indeed I won’t ever find an answer to that question, because their use of the word “sin” renders our self evident and normal understanding of it meaningless. It is a manifest contradiction to say another person “sinned” on behalf of someone else, for a sin is just that individual process of the will choosing wrongly. With no will, there is no sin. Pre-existence, however, provides a rational way to understand Romans 5 that does not destroy our God given moral intuitions.

By the way, Edward Beecher wrote a tome on this particular issue called The Conflict of the Ages which can be found online. But the response above is enough to answer the question you raise, I believe.

And I do not mind the questions at all! Ask away. :smiley:

With due respect to my Calvinist friends - I agree with your assessment re Original Sin as presented by them. I got here via Calvinism, btw.

As salvation is described in 2 Cor 4 …For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

This dawn is awakened through Christ crucified(Col. 1:16-20) in each and eventually all and is inevitable because all the paths of chaos lead to futility and no human is capable of eternal resistance, the love of God being so superior and demonstrated so clearly in this one great event from which all other events spring…this one act of wisdom and humility that breaks every heart- sooner or later.

In my opinion it is not an issue of Gods omnipotence versus man’s freedom, so much as it is understanding the inevitable and overwhelming beauty of sacrificial love that will break through every veil- eventually.

“If I be lifted up from the earth I will drall all men unto me” and “Behold I am making all things new” are the Alpha and the Omega.

I think God saw this from the beginning and in order to bring us to Himself** as friends in understanding and communion**, He allowed us to suffer chaos, to chose it and revel in it, to be broken by the emptiness of it, and now is gathering each heart as it breaks and even the hardest will break eventually because of the inevitable superiority of love.

“I dwell in the high and holy place and with the one who has a broken and a contrite heart.”

The breaking occurs in the LOF(imo) because there, as the heat of the refiner increases, and the light that shines out of darkness erupts, the secrets of the heart are revealed and each individual there will see themselves through the eyes that are as flames of fire, “for all things are open to the eyes of Him with which we have to do”.

Aparently it is a painful process on some level, and I dont doubt it, as the refiner’s fire has caused me some serious pain at times to break me and open me up, but I do not think the lake of fire forces people to become righteous. I think that God is Rock and Water and Wind and Light and Fire and all of these natural elements express facets of how He has so set the cosmos so that one aspect or another will win out over our rebellion.

He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29 Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man Acts 17

because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse Ro 1

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. Heb 4

As far as pre-existence, the way I see it is God created Adam from the dust and breathed into it and then he became a living soul. Perhaps that breath is a sparkle of the diadem of the I AM in each soul, perhaps that part could be said to have pre-existed, but I don’t think so, beyond the idea of an infinite God shaing a little piece of His own infinite being(I AM That I Am) with each soul, and thus our uniqueness is an expression of Him, but I dont see how pre-existence has a tremendous impact on the philosophical or theological conundrums of Universalists, because I believe, properly understood, the salvation of all, or UR, or UUR- is in itself the ultimate key to unlock the matrix of the scriptures and “bring it all home”, Alpha to Omega.

To know that God always intended to save all, and to save them all from themselves through the glory of Christ crucified, gives a broad enough context for all the other parts to fall in place, leaving a few fuzzy places around the edges to keep us humble :slight_smile:

I should clarify. While God is timeless and can see all events equally vividly His experience of time is unique and very different than ours. He can exist in a timeless “now” and still be within time. This is because He’s not merely timeless. He is Lord over time but immanent within time. It’s the testimony of scripture that He is temporal but not merely temporal. He is in time but also transcends time in such a way to have existence outside it. He is BOTH inside and outside of the temporal box. He is neither confined by the box neither can it keep Him out. This may do away with libertarian free will but the Bible doesn’t teach libertarian free will. In his book “Hope Beyond Hell” the Christian Universalist, Gerry Beauchmin, has a section that is completely true. He believes in the complete sovereignty of God and denies “free will”. This is what I believe. God is completely sovereign but the paradox is that man is responsible. pp. 39-40

Hi Chris - That was a good essay, that really needs to be longer to give you the space to expand some of the key ideas. I’m going to re-read it shortly. as per my usual irritating practice, I have a couple of questions.

  1. In your view, are we fully human beings if our souls have not been incarnated? Are you espousing that idea?

  2. If our pre-mortal (but not pre-existing??) state is a realm where our souls can love and rebel, it must follow that there are choices in that state, from which again it must follow that there is ‘distance’ between the presence of God and the soul, enough distance to allow for circumstances, for options, for temptations, and for fellowship. If those conjectures of mine are even close to being true, then we are building up a world before this world, a ‘spiritual world’ perhaps, but one where the eyes of our soul are opened and beholding situations and presences and choices.

I’m aware that this is not the only way to read your essay; just wanted your comments before I move on to another reading.
Thanks
Dave

The most logical way to square “pre-existence” with “universalism” would be “reincarnation” – not exactly a foreign concept in 2T Judaism given certain implications raised by Jn 9:2.

Nice find! Another verse I like that supports the idea that the Jews had some notion of pre-mortal existence is Psalm 139:15:

“My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.”

I appreciate your careful engagement this subject Dave. Let’s see what I can say about your questions.

  1. I’m not sure about this! I do want to say that we are ‘human’, in the sense that we are still ‘ourselves’, but ‘fully human’ - I don’t know. What does that mean, anyway? Are we fully human while in the womb? What about in the next life? I think I’d be content with simply saying that we existed somehow, though as to the type of body we had or exactly how we existed, I’m not sure.

  2. What do you mean by putting ‘but not pre-existing??’ in parentheses? All I mean by ‘pre-mortal’ is ‘pre-this earthly body’. Technically, ‘pre-mortal existence’ and ‘pre-existence’ do not have to mean different things.

I do think that what you say follows from a concept of pre-existence. Namely that we were created at an epistemic distance from God, enough that enables us to choose freely without being determined by what we saw as good. I’m fine with calling this a ‘spiritual world’. We could even steal from Scripture and say that it exists ‘before the foundations of the world’! :sunglasses:

Thanks Chris.

I was thinking of this paragraph in your essay:

“As far as how this particular view of pre-mortal existence differs from Origenism, more on that will be said at the end. For now I will only say that Origen posited a state of ideal pre-existence, in which the soul communed with God in a heavenly realm and was, metaphysically speaking, ‘closer’ to Him than we are now. Hence his doctrine of a heavenly fall and subsequent restoration. On the contrary, the view I shall argue for is one where the initial existential situation is not one in which the soul itself is ‘communing’ with God. Instead, it is created in a primordial state which begins, and ultimately determines, its journey towards God.”

In what way was Origen’s doctrine of pre-existence different from yours of pre-mortal existence? I have read the end of the essay and, due to a mental condition with the technical name of ‘fuzzyhead’ the penny has not quite dropped. :laughing:

Yeah! I didn’t do a very good job of separating what I believe vs. what Origen believed. I mainly put the part in there about Origen simply to appeal more towards those who wish to maintain historic ‘orthodoxy’ and distance themselves from thinkers that have been labeled, in whatever degree, heretical.

But the view I espouse does differ from Origen’s in that Origen seemed to posit a ‘heavenly fall’, whereas I’m positing more of a primordial point of spiritual origination. That is, Origen (who seems to follow Plato), seems to say that the pre-existent realm was a place in which we beheld God’s glory and the eternal truths or forms, etc. But, due to the sins of lazziness and carelessness, we fell from that vantage point by not attending to what we should have been attending to. I, on the other hand, think it’s much more reasonable to posit a ‘beginning’ point, in which we, rather than being closer to God and beholding Him, are at a distance and make an initial movement towards the Good. You could call this imperfect movement towards the good ‘a fall’, but only in the sense of someone falling as they try to climb up a set of stairs. It is not a fall from a ‘higher’ or ‘more divine’ state of being.

One positive of this view is that it’s able to square better with Universalism. If we are simply regaining a status we’ve already had, what’s to prevent us falling again? However, if we posit an initial movement of the will towards the Good, which itself conditions all our subsequent becoming, then we can say, since no act can ever be absolutely evil, all primordial acts in the pre-existent realm, however imperfect they were made, of necessity will result in the perfection of the one who made them. This happens through the particular process of temporal becoming that is appropriate given the initial, particular act that was made.

It is sort of like going into college. You make a decision, say, to be a doctor. Well, once that decision is made you’re set out on a course that furnishes you with the necessary experiences in order to become a doctor. The difference is, of course, that there can be no such thing as a choice for evil as evil. There is only stunted choices for the good. So the ‘final result’ of the temporal process of becoming is a state of absolute goodness, by purifying and perfecting the initial ‘stunted’ choice towards the Good that the soul or spirit makes.

Does that make any sense at all? :blush::mrgreen:

By the way, for an amazing summary of Orien see Mark Scott’s book: Journey Back to God: Origen on the Problem of Evil (amazon.com/dp/0190258837/ref … eml_rv0_dp)

IMO you did a great job of writing that essay - writing clearly is hard work.

Various approaches to problems of divergence/paradox have always fascinated me - whether Kant postulating the nuomenal world in his transcendental critique, or astronomers ‘saving the appearances’ by postulating the epicycles, or even Plato theorizing on why people fall in love with certain ‘types’ (because they were in the presence of certain gods/goddesses in a pre-existence - actually a very lovely theory).

Whether your move accomplishes what it set out to do or not, I’m not sure yet, but it certainly has hooked me. And I admire anyone’s effort that is put out into pubic view - it makes for a big target - especially with that provocative title! :smiley: - and I’ve got to thank you for not being thin-skinned about it, Chris.
Thanks again.
Dave

I might add… I don’t buy either pre-existence or reincarnation myself, but that these notions couldn’t have been in the hearts or minds of some in biblical times I should think a no-brainer, i.e., why like today wouldn’t some have pondered on these things?