Universalism and God’s delay
There’s been some recent discussion over at the Think Tank blog about universalism, mostly revolving around Keith De Rose’s compelling biblical case for universalism.
With regards to universalism, I find myself very close to Kevin Corcoran’s position in one of the comment threads: “I hope it’s true, and even pray that it’s true. But I can’t say I believe it’s true.” De Rose gives a careful endorsement of that same position.
There are a variety of reasons why–despite my hoping and praying (and even believing that Scripture provides reason for hope) that universalism is true–I find it hard to banish all doubts about it. One of them that has troubled me lately has to do with the problem of evil. The only theodicy (and it’s not really a theodicy proper) that makes sense to me is to believe that evil has no ultimate purpose, that it represents a willful defiance of God’s will by created agents, and that God will ultimately act to bring suffering, evil, and death to an end. (If you want an impassioned and beautiful articulation of this approach to the problem of evil, read David Bentley Hart’s recent The Doors of the Sea.) Scripture speaks of this ultimate eschatological hope with a variety of images that give me incredible consolation — like the creation of a new heaven and a new earth, the promise of the parousia, and the resurrection of the dead.
But if evil serves no ultimate purpose, and if God will ultimately act to bring an end to evil, then why is God delaying? What’s taking so long? I don’t mean to scoff by asking that: I think I can distinguish my motivation for asking where God is from the motives of the “scoffers” that Peter warns about in 2 Peter 3:
First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’
These scoffers seem to be taking God’s delay as an excuse for “indulging their own lusts.” But I think there’s a way of sincerely asking God, “Where is the promise of your coming?” And it’s particularly understandable if the victim of intolerable suffering and evil asks that question.
I suppose, though, that I’ve always understood Peter’s answer to the “scoffers” to be an answer to anyone with questions about why God delays, no matter the motives behind their questions. Peter replies:
They [the scoffers] deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of the godless.
The reason for God’s delay, in other words, is God’s patience (a bone that Jason has also been chewing on recently). As Peter goes on to say,
The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.
Now, here’s where my problems with universalism arise. On the one hand, nothing about Peter’s passages are what De Rose calls “killer” verses for attacking universalism. On the contrary, God’s fervent desire that all (De Rose’s favorite word) will come to repentance and his equally fervent desire that none will perish seem to speak in favor of universalism. And the reference to the “destruction of the godless,” like so many similar passages in the New Testament, is not knockdown proof that there will be no future chances for repentance even after death. Consider, for instance, that in the context Peter is talking about the Genesis Flood, which is an example of a case where God destroyed the godless and yet gave humanity a second chance. (Incidentally, the Flood myth might be a useful story for the universalist. To any anti-universalist who thinks that God’s destruction of the earth must represent the “final chance” for humanity, the universalist could offer the Flood as a counterexample.)
Still, these passages do (to me) seem to put some pressure on a certain kind of universalism. On their face, they do imply that God is waiting for something to happen — for us to do something, namely, come to repentance — before making good on his promise to come. And they also imply that the reason God is waiting is because he does not want any to perish. Now, if the universalist is right, then God will ultimately see to it that no one will perish. But then why does he delay? If there is a way to end suffering and evil now and for all to come to repentance, then come, Lord Jesus!
As I’ve already said, my concern about God’s delay is not an argument against universalism, but it is a reason why my belief in univeralism wavers. I’m aware there are ways to explain God’s delay without rejecting universalism. Perhaps God’s delay is a point in favor of what De Rose calls “fervent exclusivism” — the position that in order to be saved, one must somehow explicitly and freely accept Christ. In fact, in his explanation of how fervent exclusivism and universalism might cohere, De Rose emphasizes that God can have as much time as he needs to bring people around to a freely chosen repentance. But in the meantime, while God’s taking his time, evil persists in the face of God’s promise that its days are numbered. And if there’s any chance that God might ultimately have to override the freedom of some in order to accomplish universal salvation, then it’s hard to swallow that the freely chosen acceptance of Christ is so important that it justifies the continued existence of a world in which genocides, tsunamis, and child abuse are perennial lacerations.
The anti-univeralist has an interpretation of these passages from Peter that has, in some respects, a better answer to this problem of evil. God is waiting because the evil of eternal torment for millions is even worse than the evils that we presently endure. I’m not saying I believe that account of God’s delay, because it doesn’t help my already fragile theodicies at all to believe that God is ultimately going to consign people I love to hell. But if I deal with that problem by embracing universalism, then I feel left with the problem of God’s delay.
At the very least, I feel I have to amend Kevin Corcoran’s position to this: “I hope universalism is true, and even pray that it’s true. But I can’t say I believe it’s true. And I hope that God will act to abolish evil very soon, and pray with eager expectation that the time is at hand. But I can’t say I believe that it is.”
Hi. Followed the trackback left on my post to here. A couple of quick comments:
Incidentally, the Flood myth might be a useful story for the universalist. To any anti-universalist who thinks that God’s destruction of the earth must represent the “final chance” for humanity, the universalist could offer the Flood as a counterexample.
Nice idea. For me, the story of the Fall plays something of the same role. We get what can look like a warning of final destruction –”for in the day that you eat of it you shall die”–, but God finds a way around the problem.
On your main point, I agree that the problem of evil looms large here. It’s a very large topic, of course. (Incidentally, I plan to be soon co-writing, with Derk Pereboom, a book on the PoE. Right now, I just have a draft of the first chapter — which doesn’t go into enough detail to be of much help here. But the interested can find it on-line at my page of on-line papers: http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/OLP.htm )
In the end, to my thinking, universalism helps with the problem of evil. On this, there should be a very relevant and interesting paper coming out by the great recent (but, alas, he died a few years ago) philosopher, David Lewis, a self-described “contented atheist.” (The work on the paper is being completed by Phil Kitcher, working from Lewis’s notes.) The paper is called “Divine Evil,” and I believe it should be coming out in a collection of papers edited by Louise Antony, called *Philosophers Without God*. Lewis argues, quite persuasively to my thinking, that the most pressing form of the problem of evil, at least for most orthodox forms of Christianity, is not the evil that God allows to occur, but the evil that, at least on many versions of Christianity, God himself perpetrates in sending people to eternal torment.
Anyway, nice post. Take care. –KDR
Comment by Keith — June 7, 2006 @ 9:00 AM
Keith,
Thanks for the response and for the recommended readings. I might agree that the problem of “divine evil” is a particularly pressing one for Christians. So in dealing with that problem, universalism is of great help. But the remaining problem of horrendous natural and human evils remains pressing in some form. As you say, though, this is a large topic. I’ll look forward to reading your work on the subject.
Comment by Recollector — June 7, 2006 @ 12:22 PM
It seems to me that God’s delay in bringing about the end of things could be related more to the redemption of creation than to the ultimate fate of individuals. Colossians 1:20 speaks of Christ’s plan to “reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” So when 2 Peter 3 speaks of “not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance,” perhaps this is a reference to the earthly situation rather than eternal fate. The Flood context might be evidence of that — the “destruction of the godless” would be very real but would not necessarily be a reference to hell as we think of it.
In other words, perhaps God delays because he not only wants to save individuals but also wants to save his creation (through bringing people to repentance) — but eventually redemption will require a destructive act.
Comment by A reader — June 7, 2006 @ 3:29 PM
Interesting idea. The 2 Peter passage does seem to be focusing on the dissolution of the elements. But it also addresses the readers themselves as a reason for God’s delay (God is “patient with you“).
You’re hitting on a larger point, though, that Keith also stresses: that universalism need not mean the denial of any form of punishment for “the godless,” only the denial of indefinite punishment. But God does not relish even that, so he waits.
Comment by Recollector — June 8, 2006 @ 8:49 AM
As a person currently leaning toward Universal Restoration, I must express my gratitude for your tact and sensitivity on the subject. It appears that you have remained teachable as a little child just as Christ suggested that we should all strive to be.
Among Universalists, there are several schools of thought. One factor for consideration is the idea that scripture speaks separately of salvation (or justification to keep the point clear) and sanctification.
Philosophically speaking, it is my understanding that the point of remaining here is to give all the opportunity to become sanctified. I believe that this process is the very reason that these events were put in motion; to give mankind a chance to face evil and overcome it (with the assistance of the Holy Spirit). The amount of time and incarnations that this will require is irrelevant.
I believe that the enemy has effectively stolen a great deal of our potency by subtly introducing twists on doctrine that sterilize the gospel and painting a false picture of our loving Father. Just like a lens on a camera, any filter we place at the head of our interpretive mechanism funnels the gospel through that filter. If we read the texts through the filter of eternal torment, every scripture will seem to support that idea. The same goes for any idea that we turn into a belief (including Universal restoration).
I don’t believe these things because of their scriptural support so much as I believe it is in line with what I know of the nature of my Father. He is love, and will do whatever it takes to bring all of His children back to Him.
Comment by Terry McGee — December 28, 2008 @ 6:55 AM
Hello,
From what I can see, you have only mentioned two possibilities concerning why God would delay concerning evil.
1) God delays because evil has no ultimate purpose.
2) God delays because evil is so great He waits as long as He can to save us from it.
I disagree with point 2 empathetically, so much so, it really disgusts my rational mind far more than my emotion of seeing some of my love ones consigned to hell.
If God is ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING, then there is no EVIL which is so powerful that God cannot save us from it.
I also disagree to Point 1, very strongly as well. I believe evil has a purpose, otherwise God would not have allowed it, or created it.
If God is ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING, and EVIL exists, then evil has a purpose.
So let us look at the two propositional conclusions:
A) If God is ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING, then there is no EVIL which is so powerful that God cannot save us from it.
B) If God is ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING, and EVIL exists, then evil has a purpose.
Therefore, we conclude with these two propositional conclusions:
God is ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING.
EVIL exists, and has a purpose.
EVIL is not powerful enough that God cannot save us from it.
The problem of evil and it’s purpose is the ability to make choices and learn from those choices: Freedom of Will.
Freedom of Will, is not self determination concerning our salvation, as Augustine and many in Arminianism want us to believe. Freedom of will has nothing to do with our salvation, it has to do with our growing and maturing process.
We were created without the knowledge of the truth, when we were created, we were created ignorant.
We as children, knew neither good or evil and so must experience both in order to understand what is true.
God is all knowing and all powerful, able to discipline us accordingly and bring all creation into righteousness.
The purpose of the knowledge of good and evil, which brings death, is so that we can be made aware of the knowledge of the truth, which is Life.
Death, in the end is swallowed up by Life.
Isaiah 25:8 NIV
He will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth. The LORD has spoken.
Craig
Comment by Craig Nolin — December 29, 2008 @ 7:18 PM
Go Craig!
Absolutely!
Evil has a purpose, and evil is not powerful enough that He cannot save us from it.
If God is all powerful and will not save everyone, then He is not all loving.
If God is all loving and will not save everyone, then He is not all powerful.
We know that He is both all loving and all powerful.
Comment by Terry McGee — December 29, 2008 @ 8:43 PM
Indeed. I didn’t even touch on the love proposition, thanks for adding that.
I think most in the comments have given some real valid points.
It is sad that Scripture has been mistaken by so many to convey that God’s plan is not logical, reasonable or understandable and so reject anything logical, reasonable and understandable to be of the flesh and not of the spirit.
Comment by Craig Nolin — December 30, 2008 @ 10:08 AM