The third (and supposedly final) exit from a Biblical paradox is theological.
Here at last is where most find their exit from the contradictory teachings of eternal hell and universal restoration. The problem is, there are two exits. The traditionalists find one, the universalists find the other. Then they each go back to re-exegete the critical passages, reinterpreting them in light of their preferred exit - their theological grounding. Suddenly one set of passages becomes much clearer than the other. And, one way or another, the other set is (even if with some difficulty) re-explained in light of some other overriding theological precept.
So what theological issues are really in contention here? There are several I think, but the overriding one is the nature of God’s love (or mercy) and God’s righteousness (or justice). How will these two (seemingly conflicting) attributes of God ultimately influence what God will actually do with all us sinners - believers and unbelievers? And then secondarily (or perhaps primarily) what does Christ’s death and resurrection have to do with it all?
Now we find ourselves at the very soul of Christianity. And this explains why the question of universal restoration pushes people’s buttons and stirs the emotions to the boiling point. It is why some have to use pseudonyms when they write about it.
There are many who believe that Christianity has no meaning without an eternal hell. To them, a temporary hell - regardless of how severe - is no hell at all. Being saved from such a hell depreciates Christ’s atonement, compromises God’s justice and makes being a Christian meaningless. What’s the point, after all, if everyone will be saved in the end? Why not eat, drink and be merry and believe whatever you want? Nothing matters anyway.
On the other hand, universalist theology believes that Christianity has no meaning with an eternal hell. An eternal hell represents the ultimate failure of God and a permanent victory for sin, death and Satan. It makes man’s will sovereign over God’s will, compromises God’s power, love and mercy, and ultimately turns Christianity into a self-centered, exclusive, highly judgmental religion based on fear. It is, in the end, no different from any other religion - where we are ultimately responsible for saving ourselves and others.
To those of us Lutherans who take a high view of Scripture, the question becomes - which of these two theological exits is the most consistent with the overarching message of Scripture?
When Law and Gospel collide, what is trump? Does love prevail or does it fail? When God appears to be defeated by man's rebellion, is he really?
Does Scripture portray God’s wrath and judgment as disciplinary and redemptive? Or is it portrayed as purely punitive - something God is required to do because of his righteous nature?
What are we to make of Jesus’ teachings to forgive seventy times seven and love our enemies? Does God ask this of us without requiring it of himself?
Are the chosen of God (Israel and the church) portrayed as the “frozen chosen” or are they the first-fruits, the part that represents the whole, the visible pledge of God’s promise to the whole world?
Does the Bible ever portray God’s attributes of mercy and righteousness to be in conflict, so that sometimes one wins out over the other? Or are they essentially the same, always in harmony - so that God’s mercy is righteous, and God’s righteousness is merciful? And if that is so, is it possible to reconcile this nature of God with the concept of an eternal hell?
Theologically, it seems to me that a Lutheran can believe in a universal restoration without being in conflict with any other of Dr. Luther’s teachings. In fact, it seems to me that all Lutheran doctrines fall much more neatly into place with universal restoration than without it. So (to me) it is quite remarkable that there is not much more interest, study and discussion of it within Lutheranism.
That brings me to my final point - Luther’s mysterious fourth exit from a Biblical paradox.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I've wondered as well why there have not been more Lutheran universalists. As you said, universal redemption ultimately fits better with Lutheran views on grace and the extent of the atonement.
At the same time, I'm aware that in conservative Bible-believing minds there is a stigma that attaches to universalism because of its association with modern Unitarianism, which is better known than the eschatology of Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa.
Universalism is certainly widely misunderstood and quickly dismissed by most traditionally conservative Christians. Its association with unitarianism (and liberal theology in general) is probably just one of many reasons.
It would seem, however, that there are more and more conservative evangelicals reconsidering the Biblical basis for a Christ-centered universalism - as believed by the early church fathers you cite.
And conservative Lutherans may eventually feel compelled to study it more seriously also.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Another "exit" that I thought of--typological. I think of Jerome's comment that in his day it was widely believed that the conversion of Nineveh and its king represented the eventual repentance of the Devil and his cohorts. While I have sympathy for that interpretation, I believe the story of Jonah himself, who went down unrepentant into a type of "hell", called out to the Lord and was heard, speaks more clearly to the point.
Your comment reminds me of my oft-postponed resolve to re-read the Bible again from cover to cover.
I think that once unlimited salvation is thought to be possibile, various parts of the Bible have the potential to take on a richer, fuller (and more amazing) meaning.
The parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin and the prodigal son come to mind.
Not only are you a heretic from the standpoint of historical confessional Lutheranism, you despicable son of Satan,
You are a heretic from the standpoint of the Historic Church, which existed before Martin ever thought of his 95 Theses, and exists to this day.
ANATHEMA SIT.
May you be accursed in Hell, for ALL TIME AND ETERNITY.
-Fr. John
I think true Christian cannot be Universalist
You have really great taste on catch article titles, even when you are not interested in this topic you push to read it
I didn't understand the concluding part of your article, could you please explain it more?
Universalism is grievous error. Christ only died for the elect. Only the elect will be saved. All the non-elect will be cast into hell for all eternity. God is not unjust to do so. All deserve hell. His grace is towards the elect only, in that He saves them through Christ. That He saves any at all is grace. That He condemns the rest is justice. Even grace requires justice at the expense of Christ. That is the testimony of the Bible.
Fr. John, you should be ashamed of yourself. The Catholic Church does not teach that Lutherans are going to hell. And your judgmental garbage is what Jesus warned about. Yes the Pharisees thought in the perversed ways you did.
Kingsherald, nowhere in the bible is such a filthy theology supported. Your perversed ideals of everyone deserving Hell are lies from the bowels of Satan. God did not make us in such a way. Your god is only love to you, because your selfish theology has exulted you above everyone else. God creates no one to suffer forever. Only a cruel monster would do such a disgusting thing.
Post a Comment