I have not thus far weighed in on the controversy surrounding the publication of Rob Bell’s Love Wins. But I will call attention to an astute analysis of the “new universalism” by Calvin College’s James K. A. Smith: Can hope be wrong? On the new universalism. I was especially struck by the following paragraph, addressed to those who persist in believing that “I-can’t-imagine-a-God-who-[fill in the blank]” is a persuasive argument:
The “I-can’t-imagine” strategy is fundamentally Feuerbachian: it is a hermeneutic of projection which begins from what I can conceive and then projects “upwards,” as it were, to a conception of God. While this “imagining” might have absorbed some biblical themes of love and mercy, this absorption seems selective. More importantly, the “I-can’t-imagine” argument seems inattentive to how much my imagination is shaped and limited by all kinds of cultural factors and sensibilities–including how I “imagine” the nature of love, etc. The “I-can’t-imagine” argument makes man the measure of God, or at least seems to let the limits and constraints of “my” imagination trump the authority of Scripture and interpretation. I take it that discipleship means submitting even my imagination to the discipline of Scripture. (Indeed, could anything be more countercultural right now than Jonathan Edwards’ radical theocentrism, with all its attendant scandals for our modern sensibilities?)
May 2nd, 2011 | 1:21 pm | #1
“The “I-can’t-imagine” argument makes man the measure of God, or at least seems to let the limits and constraints of “my” imagination trump the authority of Scripture and interpretation.”
Theological Liberal: “I can’t imagine a Divinely Sovereign, All-Knowing, and Loving God having numerous human souls going through eternal torment in Hell.”
May 2nd, 2011 | 2:00 pm | #2
David, TUAD,
Thanks for helping to jell an idea that’s been rattling around in my head for awhile. Any argument that begins “I can’t imagine a God who…” tells me next to nothing about God, but tells me a lot about the arguer. Making God bear the responsiblity for the paucity of one’s own imagination is fundamentally idolatrous. It is a species of the serpent’s argument in the Garden which could easily have been framed thusly: “Adam, I can’t imagine a good God not allowing you to eat from that delicious looking tree, can you?”
More to the point (this being the Easter season) prior to it’s happening and apart from revelation, could any of us have ever imagined an omnipotent God taking on human flesh and sacrificing himself for our redemption, and then taking up that life again three days later?
May 3rd, 2011 | 9:45 am | #3
The I-can’t-imagine strategy, if one is doing an internal critique, is arbitrary, simply mere opinion, with no justification for the position itself. The holder of the I-can’t-imagine strategy simply asserts his/her opinion and thinks that this settles the matter. No justification is offered. It is thus irrational, and should be exposed as such.
As Pastor C. rightly states, it ‘is fundamentally idolatrous’, ‘making God bear the responsiblity for the paucity of one’s own imagination’.
May 3rd, 2011 | 12:33 pm | #4
the argument “I-can’t-image-a-God-who”, is ridiculous on the fact that everything we know and understand we learned from experience or were taught, so therefore it only makes since that no one can imagine anything on God’s level because non of us have ever sat in God’s seat or been in heaven.
May 3rd, 2011 | 3:16 pm | #5
There is a theological problem that Smith appears to have overlooked. He objects to ideas that make the human being the measure of all things and makes the claim that the ‘I-can’t-imagine’ strategy does exactly that. But, it seems to me, that this strategy cuts both ways:
1) I can’t imagine a God who would condemn persons to hell.
2) I can’t imagine a God who wouldn’t condemn persons to hell.
Of course, different sorts of argument are going to be appealed to, in order to justify these claims. In the end, however, it is still a human being making the argument.
Smith’s analysis ends in a logical opposition of either/or: either God is the measure of all things, or the human being is the measure of all things.
It doesn’t seem to grasp the novelty of the doctrine of the Incarnation, i.e. this human being, in fact, is the measure of all things, because this human being is the Logos, by which all things are created.
Following the example of Christ, I should have pretty good sense of what I am called to do in this world and how I am called to do it–and why. I have to wonder, though, whether this includes pronouncing on the eternal destiny of the Gandhi’s of this world; for I am quite certain it is not on my own authority that I could pass an eternal judgment–and I am certainly in no position to pass such a judgment presently.
I noticed the one thing Smith does not do is actually condemn Gandhi to hell. When he comes to the crux of the matter, he plays with words.
May 3rd, 2011 | 3:17 pm | #6
Equally problematic is the “I’m not interested in trusting/serving/loving a God who…”
May 3rd, 2011 | 3:25 pm | #7
Richard Greydanus:
I noticed the one thing Smith does not do is actually condemn Gandhi to hell. When he comes to the crux of the matter, he plays with words.
Perhaps you have forgotten these words of Smith:
The “I-can’t-imagine” argument makes man the measure of God, or at least seems to let the limits and constraints of “my” imagination trump the authority of Scripture and interpretation.
Notice the ‘authority of Scripture’ part of this quotation. Did you miss this?
May 3rd, 2011 | 3:38 pm | #8
“There were two other pains that Darwin could not reconcile with his Christian worldview. One was the doctrine of hell. Concerning the idea of eternal punishment, Darwin wrote near the end of his life, “I can hardly imagine anyone who would wish Christianity to be true . . . The plain language of the text seems to show that men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother, and almost all my friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine” (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters, p. 87).”
Read this POST from which this excerpt was taken.
May 3rd, 2011 | 4:07 pm | #9
No, I didn’t miss Smith’s reference to the authority of Scripture–I just didn’t deal with it explicitly. Nor am I quite sure what you are objecting to.
My reference to playing with words has to do with Smith’s question, Why Gandhi? Why not Tony Soprano? (Why not Hilter? Stalin? Pol Pot? etc.) I found it strange that Smith avoided the crux of the matter and did not condemn specific persons to hell. This is what the universalist objection is directed towards: that specific persons, ones I know and can name, are going to hell.
But on whose authority would he do so? Surely not on his own. And though Scripture places a great deal of value in human specificity–the image of God, God becoming man–it doesn’t, I think, empower us to take up the divine gavel and pass eternal judgment in specific cases.
Augustine’s image of the City of God as an admixture of the damned and the saved, the divisions between which are not readily discernible to the eyes of weary pilgrims like ourselves, is a caution, I think against jumping to conclusions beyond our ability to make–and one endorsed by the Scriptures.
May 3rd, 2011 | 4:21 pm | #10
Hello Richard,
While I agree that it is not ‘our’ judgement that damns someone to hell, I think the Scriptures are pretty clear on the requirements/blessing that God requires for someone to be ‘saved’. If this is your argument, then we have nothing on this in disagreement.
May 3rd, 2011 | 4:49 pm | #11
I agree with Jamie Smith. Imagine that.
May 3rd, 2011 | 4:52 pm | #12
Something like that, yes. It is my thought that the sort of universalist argument put forward by Rob Bell can be learned from, that it reflects a set of concerns someone who thinks otherwise can nonetheless appreciate. With all this polarizing clamor about whether Bell is right or wrong, whether he should be embraced or dismissed, the danger becomes one of letting Bell define the terms of the debate.
The argument is over who gets into heaven. As long as the debate is cast as being between those who think everyone does and those who think only some persons do, whether it is appropriate for a human being (who can’t claim also to be God), and why it might or not might be appropriate, to pass judgment doesn’t get broached.
May 3rd, 2011 | 5:00 pm | #13
Hello Richard,
What can be learned from Rob Bell when he fails to justify his opinions from Scripture? This is arbitrariness, and is a fallacy of logical reasoning, thus irrational.
May 3rd, 2011 | 7:43 pm | #14
There is always something to be learned–positively or negatively.
Here’s an excellent reflection on Bell’s book: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/.
May 4th, 2011 | 8:50 am | #15
Hi Richard,
How not to reason irrationally, perhaps?
This quote from DeYoung seems to say it just about right:
“Unfortunately, beyond this, there are dozens of problems with Love Wins. The theology is heterodox. The history is inaccurate. The impact on souls is devastating. And the use of Scripture is indefensible. Worst of all, Love Wins demeans the cross and misrepresents God’s character.”
May 4th, 2011 | 12:02 pm | #16
The Scriptures are replete with examples of judgment of individuals who do not repent.
The fact that we don’t hold the divine “gavel” and make the ultimate judgment is no excuse for not making distinctions with discernment based on the evidence right now. Granted, it is pretty useless to abstractly proclaim Gandhi or Tony Soprano’s condemnation, and it’s foolish to do useless things, but the sentiment that Christians can never rightly judge people’s behavior and the (eternal) consequences of behavior is false.
May 4th, 2011 | 12:07 pm | #17
I should add, to acknowledge the post, that Smith’s point about the need to submit even our wishes and desires and feelings to the judgment of God since they can be evil, destructive, ugly and/or false is spot on. Our desires are shaped by many forces, not all of them good. Advertisers know this well.
May 4th, 2011 | 12:46 pm | #18
If it’s not permissible or not politically correct or not Christianly correct to say that Gandhi (who never made a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ) is in Hell because no one has the absolute certainty that belongs only to God, then logically speaking, no one can say that he is in Heaven either with absolute certainty.
And if absolute certainty is the measure by which the Christian Correctness Police assess discussions about eternal destinations for people, then *NO ONE* should say that any dead person is going to Heaven. Using their own measure, the Christian Correctness Police don’t have absolute certainty about whether some dead person goes to Heaven. Only God has absolute certainty about that.
So when is the Christian Correctness Police going to start banshee shrieking about Pastors conducting funerals who say that the deceased is now in Heaven with God. These pastors don’t have absolute certainty to say that according to the Christian Correctness Police.
May 4th, 2011 | 2:22 pm | #19
TUAD,
Good point. It cuts both ways. If as ‘Christians’ we are certain based on Scripture that we are going to heaven, and are assured of salvation as the ‘elect’, then why would we not be so ‘convicted’ of those who don’t pass mustard and our damned to hell? The Scriptures seem to make the distinction pretty clear.
May 4th, 2011 | 2:25 pm | #20
So here’s the question:
We can have ‘assurance of salvation’ for ourselves, but not ‘assurance of damnation’ for others?
May 5th, 2011 | 12:22 pm | #21
“TUAD,
Good point.”
Thanks Steve.
May 5th, 2011 | 1:03 pm | #22
Dear TUAD,
My question (post#18 above) still remains unanswered. I’m not sure anyone wants to touch it even with a 10-foot pole. It is addressed to all my evangelical ‘Protestant’ friends out there in the blogosphere. What say ya’ll?
May 5th, 2011 | 1:18 pm | #23
Need a theologian to weigh in here. Pastor C., you out there?
May 5th, 2011 | 4:53 pm | #24
Steve Drake,
As a follow-up to Comment #16, see the following Cartoon.
May 5th, 2011 | 5:05 pm | #25
Dear TUAD,
First time I’ve heard of The Sacred Sandwich and Chris Carmichael, but his penchant for satire, as he says in ‘Is this a Joke’,
is nothing more than lighthearted parody of current Christian issues, produced to invoke and honor the spirit of bygone days when Christian organizations such as this were committed to grounding themselves fully in the standard of God’s word, and were not ashamed to stand firm for the sake of the true Gospel.
May 5th, 2011 | 7:16 pm | #26
Steve,
I am no great theologian, but I’ve read some… Here is what the Westminster Divines say about assurance in the Cathechism:
Q: Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?
A: Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavor to walk in all good conscience before Him (1 John 2:3) may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the Truth of God’s promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made (1 John 3:14, 18, 19, 21, 24, etc.), and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God (Rom. 8:16), be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace and shall persevere therein unto salvation (1 John 5:13; 2 Tim. 1:12).”
Therefore it seems to me to be that assurance comes to us based on a firm grasp of the truth found in the revelation of Scripture and by the ministry of the Holy Spirit “witnessing to our spirit” that we are God’s child. One of the Scripturally defined ministries of God’s Spirit therefore is as the one who assures us of our salvation.
OTOH the determination of damnation is solely God’s — a function of His justice. We only know God’s mind insofar as he chooses to reveal it. And this is not something He chooses to reveal to us with any degree of certainty…
Hope that gets toward and answer…
May 6th, 2011 | 10:27 am | #27
Pastor C.,
Thanks for your theologian analysis. I don’t say that tongue in cheek, but truly appreciate your answer, especially as you reference the Westminster Standards. Our Scriptures talk a lot about judgment, both for the world and individuals. Individual nations are included in this as well.
Jesus Himself talks a lot about judgment and Hell, condemning the Pharisees as a brood of vipers, and concluding, …’how shall you escape the sentence of hell?’ (Matt.23:33).
I realize, as God, this is His prerogative to make, since He alone knows the heart of a man. In that sense, we, being finite, can never know as completely as God does the heart action of any one individual, but I can’t help but think that the Scriptures do ask us to evaluate and judge actions, and to ponder that distinction raised within the question of ‘Who will spend eternity in heaven?’, and ‘Who will spend eternity in hell?’
You may agree that, yes, the question is legitimate, and we all ought to rightly ponder it, and seek on how one satisfies the demands of God, so that we may enjoy the one and avoid the other, but the ‘declaration’ and ‘final decision’ is God’s alone. To that I would heartily concur.
May 6th, 2011 | 2:53 pm | #28
Steve,
Thanks for the kind words. We are largely agreed, I believe. Certainly it is the case that the contemplation of our eternal destiny can reap great spiritual benefit in our lives. My point was to separate theological knowledge of one kind (that which we can know with certainty) from another (that which remains, ultimately, confined to the counsels of God).
That is not to say that there aren’t some things which, despite being confined to the counsels of God, we might not offer some speculation or consideration. Nor is it to deny that some speculations of that sort, may be edifying….
Have a great weekend.
May 6th, 2011 | 4:41 pm | #29
Pastor C.,
My point was to separate theological knowledge of one kind (that which we can know with certainty)
I guess I can’t help but wonder, why you and I disagree on those things stated clearly in Scripture, those things you say which can be known with certainty, revealed truth from the mind of God, and written down in propositional form in the truth of Scripture, with those things confined only to the counsel of God.
Ah, well, conversation for another day, my friend. Thanks for your feedback, and blessings to you and your family. May your sermon this Sunday be filled with the enlightenment that comes only from on High, and may your listeners be awakened, challenged, and inspired to live out the Gospel of our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
May 6th, 2011 | 5:02 pm | #30
Steve,
To be fair, I think we probably agree on a great many things “clearly stated in Scripture”, but (like most Christians) not on all. It is a wonder, but I would not expect otherwise — being fallen creatures and all.
A blessed weekend to you and yours.
May 6th, 2011 | 5:29 pm | #31
Yes, Pastor,
May we continue to ‘delve’ those statements of God, written in language and propositional form that we can understand, to clear up our finite minds as to the nature of God’s truth. I look forward to continued conversation with you in this. May we like David, ask God to ‘discern our errors, and acquit us of hidden faults’ (Ps. 19:12), keeping in mind that the ‘words of our mouth, and the meditation of our heart be acceptable in His sight, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer’ (Ps. 19:14).
Blessing to you and yours.
May 10th, 2011 | 4:47 pm | #32
I seem to recall that a few years ago, Richard Neuhaus wrote an essay in First Things in which he expressed his own hope that the combination of God’s power, love, and justice would result in hell being pretty empty.
The scriptures are very explicit about God being just. Laying aside the issue of men like the Darwins who had years to accept or reject the Anglican and other versions of Christianity, there are billions of people today, and other billions in the past, who do not have the freedom to really hear and accept the message of Jesus Christ. This is through no fault of their own, but is due to circumstances such as the tyranny of governments and societies (e.g. Chinese and Muslim), or bad timing about dying before Christ’s resurrection story was carried by missionaries into the world, as late as the 1800s in many cases. This is not a subjective issue of personal feelings versus scripture, since the scriptures insist that God is just and fair, and those terms have to have meaning within human understanding if we are to have faith in them.
So regardless of how one thinks God might deal with good people you know who have not accepted Christ as their redeemer, the great bulk of the problem is God’s own affirmation of his justice, alongside Christ’s affirmation that salvation only comes through him. Some theologians argue that there is scriptural warrant in the First Epistle of Peter, about Christ preaching to the spirits in prison, and the ancient tradition of the Harrowing of Hell, to believe that God is not done with people when they die, but that the time between death and the First Resurrection is also part of God’s dominion, and the residence there of the dead who await resurrection gives God ample opportunity to offer every person who has lived on earth the choice of knowingly accepting–or even rejecting–Christ as their Savior.
Does this concept, one with ancient roots, contradict scripture? That is not clear to me. Does it in any way diminish Christ’s role as Savior? No, it rather extends the power and reach of Christ. Does it offend God’s justice? No more than when a sinner repents and embraces Christ before his death.
And then there are the billions of young children who died before they could even make competent moral judgments of eternal consequence. When Christ told his disciples that the Kingdom of Heaven is made for children, we should question any interpretation of scripture (that human element again) that would slam the door on the very children that Jesus held up as an example of those deserving a place in Heaven.
I may not be willing to embrace an automatic universalism, but I think there are good arguments to be made that the Bible and the picture it tells us about God and Christ gives us objective reasons to be optimistic about the breadth of Christ’s saving power.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact