In Search of a Coherent Narrative
Part 5: A Biblical Universalism
Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism
Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism
Part 6: Biblical Support for Universalism
Part 7: A Systematic Understanding of Universalism
Introduction
At the beginning of this series, I
mentioned trying to reconcile the disparities of two dominant theologies in
Christianity - Arminianism and Calvinism - but with little success. This led me
down a rather different path to what I had expected. I wanted to know what
could be strong Biblically, and hold the logical prowess of Calvinism at the
same time as keeping to the Arminian values of a God who has good will towards
all men. For me, there were not many options, and I supposed that I must
resolve myself to accept paradox and essentially give up. That is, until it
crossed my mind to look into “Universalism” - basically the belief that all people will be reconciled with God.
I had never previously looked into Universalism because I had the idea that it was an obscure, unbiblical belief that people held simply because they wanted to. I thought it was one of those beliefs that tickled people’s ears (2 Timothy 4:3) and nothing more. However on the contrary, after some research, I found that there is evidence that it was a belief widely held by the early church. There is also evidence of Universalism being taught by theological seminaries in the early church, and not only that, but it is debated whether it was declared a heresy. You can find some more information here - (scroll to the end and there is a tidy summary of this book). I would like to find a more recent assessment of the records of Universalism in the early church, though it is still thought provoking.
I still think that some of the thoughts around Universalism are potentially unbiblical or illogical, especially the idea that all roads lead (in their own right) to God, even roads apparently going in opposite directions. However, what I did find were groups dedicated to scripture such as the “Evangelical Universalists”.
Photo retrieved from http://gdwm.org/2012/04/reconcile-with-one-another-2/
I had never previously looked into Universalism because I had the idea that it was an obscure, unbiblical belief that people held simply because they wanted to. I thought it was one of those beliefs that tickled people’s ears (2 Timothy 4:3) and nothing more. However on the contrary, after some research, I found that there is evidence that it was a belief widely held by the early church. There is also evidence of Universalism being taught by theological seminaries in the early church, and not only that, but it is debated whether it was declared a heresy. You can find some more information here - (scroll to the end and there is a tidy summary of this book). I would like to find a more recent assessment of the records of Universalism in the early church, though it is still thought provoking.
I still think that some of the thoughts around Universalism are potentially unbiblical or illogical, especially the idea that all roads lead (in their own right) to God, even roads apparently going in opposite directions. However, what I did find were groups dedicated to scripture such as the “Evangelical Universalists”.
Evangelical Universalism seems to be
a belief based on a dedication to scripture. Even though there are various sub
groups under this “banner”, it was their way of looking at scripture that
caused me to view scripture from a new perspective. I took off my long held
Arminian glasses and tried to look at scriptures differently to how I had
always read them. Within Universalism there are various points of view and with caution I use the term “Universalism” because of the stigma that it holds. I merely use it as a reference to believing that all people will be saved and reconciled with God. From a Universalist point of view, the only major difference to modern mainstream Christianity is that
it anticipates the reconciliation of all people before God at some point in the
future.
Basic Framework
To believe that all things are
reconciled to God does not mean that the core framework of Christianity is
changed. Like Calvinism and Arminianism, my understanding of Universalism believes the core
fundamentals of mainstream Christianity and holds to nearly all of the common
characteristics of the Christian faith, including:
- God is all-powerful, all knowing, and
all loving (and I am sure there are many other characteristics, but these are
key).
- God created the universe as He
desired it to be.
- Humankind is sinful and is in need of
redemption.
- God used the Israelites to bring
about his redemption plan for the world. Jesus Christ the Son of God then
lived, died and rose again to make atonement for the sins of all humankind.
- Some people will believe in Christ
for salvation in this current world, and some will not. Those who put their
trust and faith in Christ will be resurrected to life and those who do not,
will not be.
- There is a “heaven” and a “hell”.
Some people will go to one and some to the other.
So what is the difference between Universalism and mainstream
Christianity? The difference is that Universalism posits that all people
will eventually be reconciled to God,
or in other words, people will not necessarily be in hell forever.
Those ambiguous words
Photo retrieved from http://www.writeawriting.com/academic-writing/literary-criticism/
One of the key areas of confusion for people is around the
word “forever”. People read “forever” and instantly think (as I did) that its
meaning is clear. However, it is not that simple. Take the Hebrew word for "forever" - olam. In Jonah chapter 2,
the prophet is praying in the belly of the fish, and in his prayer he used the
word olam to speak of the time he
spent in the “pit” (supposedly the belly of the whale or the depths of the sea).
God rescued him from this pit by causing the whale to spit him out. Clearly, olam did not mean the “forever” that we normally
think of. There are three ways that this could be interpreted to make sense for
the use of this word. One is that Jonah was speaking figuratively and taking
artistic licence. Secondly, that Jonah, being Jewish, had a completely
different understanding of that word than what has been translated down to us
in English. Thirdly, Jonah was in this “pit” conditionally, based on his
repentance or unrepentance. In other words, Jonah could have potentially been
in the belly for “forever” - as long as he was unrepentant. Jonah was not continuously
unrepentant and was therefore released. It is interesting that in this passage
the use of the word olam seems
ambiguous and brings to light the dangers of interpreting English words at face
value.
Let us go to the Greek word for forever - aion, which is commonly used in the New
Testament. Revelation 14:11 and Matthew 25:46 talk about the “forever” or aion punishment of people. Interestingly,
aion is a word that is even more
ambiguous than olam. Strong’s provides
us with the meaning of aion. Two
words are used in those verses - one a noun and the other the adjective derived
from the noun. Strong’s concordance states that the noun aion means an age or ages long rather than “forever”. Even the adjective
aionious (which is shortly translated
“forever”) does not focus on the future per se but on the quality of the age it
relates to (according to HELPS Word Studies). The Greek for “forever” or “everlasting” when considering the root
word meaning of aion, actually seems
to mean an indefinite long period of time with connection to its context. The
word is used widely throughout the Bible. As I have generally researched out
there, there is much debate about the meaning of the word, which in itself
implies ambiguity and requires caution. For example, aion has been interpreted to mean life, world, old, age or forever.
Ultimately, aion is not conclusive
about its meaning. It would be more helpful to interpret it more as an indefinite
period of time, letting the context interpret the word.
Feel free to
check out this great resource for the Greek and Hebrew translations as well as
commentaries - Bible Hub
Also here is
a collection of quotes from scholars that seem to support the notion that aion does not necessarily mean forever but
an indefinite period of time - Definition of forever
The ambiguity of aion should
throw up warning signs. It suggests that mainstream Christianity potentially
has assumed a reality based on theological “group think” passed down through
the ages. Some may say that aion has
to mean “forever” because it is also used regarding the righteous having
“eternal” life. Yes, this is a valid point – however, it is not based on any
understanding of the word itself but on a presumed theological worldview. Just
because the meaning of the word threatens our current understanding of our time
spent in heaven, for example, does not mean that we reject the meaning of the
word. If the word means more or less an indefinite period of time, it may be
that even the righteous will not live forever. However, there is no real reason
to consider that potential reality because being indefinite, it could mean that
we do live forever. God seems to desire an ongoing relationship with people,
and there is no reason (that we know of) for Him to cut that relationship
short. Either way, the word relates to a quality of time and needs to be read
with reference to the current context.
Even if aion meant
forever literally, there is no reason to think that it could not be interpreted
like olam was by Jonah. “Forever” in
hell could mean a condition upon continued dissonance with God. I note that
there is no verse that I know of that speaks directly about people “getting out
of hell” (please share if you do know), but there is much Biblical evidence
that suggests that people will, as we
shall see in the next post.
Conclusion
As we have discussed, reconciling all people to God does not
necessarily mean rejecting the notion of a hell-like existence, but merely
asserts that God will be successful in reconciling all people with Himself at
some time in the current/future aion/s.
There is much discussion out there about the words assumed to mean “forever” in
the English. On closer observation, these words have multiple meanings and are
interpreted in multiple ways. These interpretations depend on the contexts they
find themselves in and the predisposed theological doctrines of the reader. It
would be helpful to not be dogmatic about our preconceived realities, but
accept that truth may actually look different to what we have always thought.
Next...
No comments:
Post a Comment