Dude, I freaking LOVE this conversation! It is so fresh to hear solid theological thinking behind Universalism discussed in public. I think this conversation needs to keep happening over and over as people wake up to its 'terrifying' beauty. You all give me the courage to go a little further out on my own limb. That said, I want to (experimentally) steelman the infernalist perspective using a developmental/integral/SD framework. Luke, I know you are somewhat familiar. I wonder if these different views of hell/punishment might be understood through the evolution of consciousness. The infernalist view might be more appropriate and credible to someone coming out of a highly tribal, warrior-type situation or even a gang in a first-world country. Maybe in those situations, Universalism is something that is worked up to but not taught right out of the gate. This developmental perspective might also help Universalists avoid creating an equally ideological and intolerant position. JD (Picken Chews), your closing monologue was fire!
I am very honored by your thoughtful and rich responses to my questions; you've given me much to ponder, thanks! I'm a Universalist most of the time, but these questions summarize what sometimes cause me to dip into Annihilationism. I think Milbank put the riposte to Ivan's objection excellently: *evil is also a sin against the remedy against sin which is always- already there.* Ivan eternalizes evil by his moral judgment in not allowing that evil to be remedied; Ivan is stuck in Kierkegaard's "despair of defiance". Still, and this is the real sting of Ivan's critique: the catastrophe of evil is the perpetual thorn in the side for any faith in God.
JDW is one bold thinker; if he can make a convincing case for the version of universal salvation he's intimating here it will have the effect of spoiling Christian theology forever, in the sense that nothing less ambitious will be palatable. Of course I hope he's right, but that's a pretty big if.
I'm not so sure I buy Jordan's claim that admitting to limits of knowledge is itself some sort of inverted hubris. Claims about the limits and possibilities of knowledge are not just logical, but heavily empirical, and negating a claim might look like another version of that same claim in form, but I would argue that this is an accident of language rather than a necessary truth--I would argue for example that the postmodern claim "there are no meta-narratives" cannot itself be seen as a meta-narrative, since there is no other linguistic way to negate the truth-claim of meta-narratives. If a person on the street claim that he is God, do I need to know God to tell him that 'no you're not'? Is there not a fundamental asymmetry here? A real difference of kind? I might've missed his point though. _That he does know remains to be shown._ - Wittgenstein
Vervaeke's idea of reciprocal opening and Esther Meek's Covenant Epistemology are instructive here. I think if you consider it again in that light, you will see what Jordan is saying.
Jordan Daniel Wood seemingly argues that God necessarily and essentially desires to eliminate all moral evil - and that God's essential desires are necessarily always efficacious. Thus, Jordan's basic argument for universalism is: since God's essential desires are necessarily efficacious, and God's essential desires are such that God wills moral evil never occur, then these desires will necessarily be achieved and God will save all. Clearly, however, people sin. So, God's desires seem NOT to be efficacious at all times. Jordan therefore argues that God's desires will necessarily need to be efficacious *in the eschaton* by way of God making the past not to have been - at the eschaton, God will make it that every sin never have been committed. So, the argument is something like this: God essentially desires no sin ever occur, in any possible world or at any time; God's essential desires are always necessarily efficacious; but sin occurs now; therefore, in the future, God will necessarily make sin never have occurred. Indeed, at times Jordan implies that no sin 'really occurs' and seemingly denies that sin happens from the standpoint of God. Since sin is 'non-being,' he infers that God never factively knows that any sin has been or is being committed, and so sin never occurs relative to God's knowledge. Sin's occurrence is an 'illusion' of sorts relative to our standpoint on the timeline. This is a bad argument and a very, very, very position. And here's an obvious logical dilemma: The claim that God necessarily will make the past not to have been to eliminate moral evil from the world and from each person's own timeline (as regards making sins never have been committed) entails or implies that God has essential desires (love) that are incompatible with allowing evil to occur at any point on the timeline. And if God efficaciously desires and ensures that no sin occur at every point on a given timeline, then they should entail He is efficacious in desiring that no sin occur at every actual or possible time and in every possible world. The claim that God can make the past not to have been, and that moral evil was unnecessary for any person to achieve their salvation in God, entails or implies that God did not need to permit any sin to obtain, on any possible timeline or world. That is, God's essential desires are not such that they efficaciously ensure that no sin occur at every time - since sin is indeed committed. But, clearly, if God allowed some possible world's timeline to include moral evil, then God permitted moral evil, and His essential desires which were incompatible with moral evil were not efficacious at all such points. That is, it is impossible that I commit a sin at a given time T and that, at that same time T, God also has prevented me from committing that same sin. But then it cannot be also true that God efficaciously prevent evil at every actual/possible time and in every possible world, since there is at least one world or timeline where I commit a sin. Consequently, it cannot be true that God has essential desires to prevent all moral evil, AND that those desires are efficacious at every possible world and every time, as that would imply a contradiction. It is false that no sin is ever committed. There's just an implicit contradiction in the initial argument. By the same token, if God's essential desires are not always efficacious, God necessarily permits moral evil at some times, then (given God has good reasons for whatever evil He permits) He has good reasons to permit evil whenever He permits it to occur. God can have reasons compatible with His essential desires that entail those desires are not always efficacious, at every time on every possible timeline. But then the claim that God has essential desires to prevent all moral evil does not entail that God cannot permit any evil on our timeline, on pain of contradiction. Since the claims about God's essential desires need to be such that God's essential desires are not always efficacious on every possible timeline or world, etc., there is nothing in the argument that shows God's essential desires would be incompatible with God having good reasons to permit damnation on some possible timeline, in some possible world. Also, it looks incompatible with revealed Scripture in many ways. Here's one. If the eschaton involves God making the past not to have been, and eliminating all moral evil, then at the eschaton Christ's sacrifice on the Cross will never have occurred. If this is true, the Lamb in the eschaton will have become the Lamb who was never slain. Then Revelation's depiction of the eschatological feast of the Lamb 'who was slain' would be false. And there is no indication in Scripture that Christ will cease being the Lamb who was slain at any point in the eschaton - that is, there is no indication that Christ is at one point the Lamb and then after a given point ceases to be the slain Lamb. So, this position that God will - at the eschaton - make the past crucifixion not to have been is directly contradicted by revealed Scripture.
@@grailcountry With which part? I have given an argument (first) that JDW's position is logically incoherent, because it involves a contradiction. If you think it does not contain a contradiction, you have to explain how it does not, since I identified the contradiction. Then, I gave a (second) argument that JDW's position contradicts revealed Scripture explicitly. Again, if you think there is a way around this contradiction, then you should explain how it does not contradict the claims made that Christ will be forever the Lamb once slain. If the crucifixion ceases to occur, at some time in the future, then Christ will not forever be the Lamb who was slain. I would also note that universalism does not require JDW's strange position on which God could make the past not to have been. There are very decisive reasons to reject his views (namely, they're incoherent), and nothing in universalism depends on embracing it.
@@stmichael71 I know who you are, I know what your views are. Also, I've read Transfiguration to my listeners on multiple occasions and I stand with Muir and Jordan. You have not contemplated deeply enough what it means for God to forget sins. I am not going to debate you. I don't debate for the same reasons alcoholics don't drink. The problem with debate is that it's about winning and not about truth. If you want to have a real conversation, I will see if Jordan is open to it. It has to be a real attempt and dialogue though, or I will shut it down right away.
Another comment: From what I’ve seen in this corner, many of you guys are careless about identity. This person identifies as trinitarian. This person identifies as unitarian. This person identifies as an annihilationist. You guys identify as universalist. These are not proper Christian identities. Meaning, they don’t serve you in navigating through the story. They actually are working against it. Identify with the soul, with humanity, with the self, with the kingdom to come, with comfort, goodness, justice, and meaning. These ^ are Christian identities which will serve you.
It’s probably that my expectations are too high for fellow Christians right now, but at the same time, Christianity must start to fulfill its promise. This is going to begin with affirming and believing in the soul. Jesus is a bridge to the soul. How often does this corner explicitly discuss the soul? What are the implications of having a soul within you? When you are acting in the world, is it you (human) acting or is it your soul acting through you? What would it look like if your soul is dominating your life while wanting to remain hidden from you? Why would it want to hide from you?
@@mcmosav Many of you clearly have a faith that is hungry for more, but the soul isn’t cooperating. This uncooperative aspect of the soul is the immature child who doesn’t want to grow up. The human part of you who is ready for progress needs to individuate from the immature child and take control of the wheel. You can do this through the pain of personal failure, by consciously holding onto the painful memory. The immature child will never do this willingly, so when you do this, you know the immature child is not the one holding the wheel, dominating you. Once this dynamic is established, then you can begin to relate directly to your soul, like a parent relating to their child, or like a therapist relating to their patient.
Great conversation. I hope some excerpts get posted.
2:03:55 all three of us! Im in the superfan club
2:31:01 thank you Nate for letting me ask my question and thank JDW for answering it.
Dude, I freaking LOVE this conversation! It is so fresh to hear solid theological thinking behind Universalism discussed in public. I think this conversation needs to keep happening over and over as people wake up to its 'terrifying' beauty. You all give me the courage to go a little further out on my own limb.
That said, I want to (experimentally) steelman the infernalist perspective using a developmental/integral/SD framework. Luke, I know you are somewhat familiar. I wonder if these different views of hell/punishment might be understood through the evolution of consciousness. The infernalist view might be more appropriate and credible to someone coming out of a highly tribal, warrior-type situation or even a gang in a first-world country. Maybe in those situations, Universalism is something that is worked up to but not taught right out of the gate. This developmental perspective might also help Universalists avoid creating an equally ideological and intolerant position.
JD (Picken Chews), your closing monologue was fire!
I am very honored by your thoughtful and rich responses to my questions; you've given me much to ponder, thanks! I'm a Universalist most of the time, but these questions summarize what sometimes cause me to dip into Annihilationism. I think Milbank put the riposte to Ivan's objection excellently: *evil is also a sin against the remedy against sin which is always- already there.* Ivan eternalizes evil by his moral judgment in not allowing that evil to be remedied; Ivan is stuck in Kierkegaard's "despair of defiance". Still, and this is the real sting of Ivan's critique: the catastrophe of evil is the perpetual thorn in the side for any faith in God.
Glad you were a part of this, Oskar. Always nice to hear from you.
Thank you Luke; you have a generous spirit and your curiosity and conviction are a blessing to TLC.
Threefold swag.
JDW is one bold thinker; if he can make a convincing case for the version of universal salvation he's intimating here it will have the effect of spoiling Christian theology forever, in the sense that nothing less ambitious will be palatable. Of course I hope he's right, but that's a pretty big if.
666 views Streamed 22 hours ago Uh oh 🙂 Sorry I missed it I was sick in bed all day.
I'm not so sure I buy Jordan's claim that admitting to limits of knowledge is itself some sort of inverted hubris. Claims about the limits and possibilities of knowledge are not just logical, but heavily empirical, and negating a claim might look like another version of that same claim in form, but I would argue that this is an accident of language rather than a necessary truth--I would argue for example that the postmodern claim "there are no meta-narratives" cannot itself be seen as a meta-narrative, since there is no other linguistic way to negate the truth-claim of meta-narratives. If a person on the street claim that he is God, do I need to know God to tell him that 'no you're not'? Is there not a fundamental asymmetry here? A real difference of kind? I might've missed his point though.
_That he does know remains to be shown._ - Wittgenstein
I think it’s more basic in that if you claim that I can’t know, you’re claiming to know what I can’t. At least in some way.
Be careful you who judge…
Vervaeke's idea of reciprocal opening and Esther Meek's Covenant Epistemology are instructive here. I think if you consider it again in that light, you will see what Jordan is saying.
Jordan Daniel Wood seemingly argues that God necessarily and essentially desires to eliminate all moral evil - and that God's essential desires are necessarily always efficacious. Thus, Jordan's basic argument for universalism is: since God's essential desires are necessarily efficacious, and God's essential desires are such that God wills moral evil never occur, then these desires will necessarily be achieved and God will save all.
Clearly, however, people sin. So, God's desires seem NOT to be efficacious at all times. Jordan therefore argues that God's desires will necessarily need to be efficacious *in the eschaton* by way of God making the past not to have been - at the eschaton, God will make it that every sin never have been committed. So, the argument is something like this: God essentially desires no sin ever occur, in any possible world or at any time; God's essential desires are always necessarily efficacious; but sin occurs now; therefore, in the future, God will necessarily make sin never have occurred. Indeed, at times Jordan implies that no sin 'really occurs' and seemingly denies that sin happens from the standpoint of God. Since sin is 'non-being,' he infers that God never factively knows that any sin has been or is being committed, and so sin never occurs relative to God's knowledge. Sin's occurrence is an 'illusion' of sorts relative to our standpoint on the timeline.
This is a bad argument and a very, very, very position. And here's an obvious logical dilemma:
The claim that God necessarily will make the past not to have been to eliminate moral evil from the world and from each person's own timeline (as regards making sins never have been committed) entails or implies that God has essential desires (love) that are incompatible with allowing evil to occur at any point on the timeline. And if God efficaciously desires and ensures that no sin occur at every point on a given timeline, then they should entail He is efficacious in desiring that no sin occur at every actual or possible time and in every possible world.
The claim that God can make the past not to have been, and that moral evil was unnecessary for any person to achieve their salvation in God, entails or implies that God did not need to permit any sin to obtain, on any possible timeline or world. That is, God's essential desires are not such that they efficaciously ensure that no sin occur at every time - since sin is indeed committed.
But, clearly, if God allowed some possible world's timeline to include moral evil, then God permitted moral evil, and His essential desires which were incompatible with moral evil were not efficacious at all such points. That is, it is impossible that I commit a sin at a given time T and that, at that same time T, God also has prevented me from committing that same sin. But then it cannot be also true that God efficaciously prevent evil at every actual/possible time and in every possible world, since there is at least one world or timeline where I commit a sin.
Consequently, it cannot be true that God has essential desires to prevent all moral evil, AND that those desires are efficacious at every possible world and every time, as that would imply a contradiction. It is false that no sin is ever committed. There's just an implicit contradiction in the initial argument.
By the same token, if God's essential desires are not always efficacious, God necessarily permits moral evil at some times, then (given God has good reasons for whatever evil He permits) He has good reasons to permit evil whenever He permits it to occur. God can have reasons compatible with His essential desires that entail those desires are not always efficacious, at every time on every possible timeline. But then the claim that God has essential desires to prevent all moral evil does not entail that God cannot permit any evil on our timeline, on pain of contradiction. Since the claims about God's essential desires need to be such that God's essential desires are not always efficacious on every possible timeline or world, etc., there is nothing in the argument that shows God's essential desires would be incompatible with God having good reasons to permit damnation on some possible timeline, in some possible world.
Also, it looks incompatible with revealed Scripture in many ways. Here's one. If the eschaton involves God making the past not to have been, and eliminating all moral evil, then at the eschaton Christ's sacrifice on the Cross will never have occurred. If this is true, the Lamb in the eschaton will have become the Lamb who was never slain. Then Revelation's depiction of the eschatological feast of the Lamb 'who was slain' would be false. And there is no indication in Scripture that Christ will cease being the Lamb who was slain at any point in the eschaton - that is, there is no indication that Christ is at one point the Lamb and then after a given point ceases to be the slain Lamb. So, this position that God will - at the eschaton - make the past crucifixion not to have been is directly contradicted by revealed Scripture.
I appreciate the engagement, I obviously disagree.
@@grailcountry With which part? I have given an argument (first) that JDW's position is logically incoherent, because it involves a contradiction. If you think it does not contain a contradiction, you have to explain how it does not, since I identified the contradiction. Then, I gave a (second) argument that JDW's position contradicts revealed Scripture explicitly. Again, if you think there is a way around this contradiction, then you should explain how it does not contradict the claims made that Christ will be forever the Lamb once slain. If the crucifixion ceases to occur, at some time in the future, then Christ will not forever be the Lamb who was slain.
I would also note that universalism does not require JDW's strange position on which God could make the past not to have been. There are very decisive reasons to reject his views (namely, they're incoherent), and nothing in universalism depends on embracing it.
@@stmichael71 I know who you are, I know what your views are. Also, I've read Transfiguration to my listeners on multiple occasions and I stand with Muir and Jordan. You have not contemplated deeply enough what it means for God to forget sins. I am not going to debate you. I don't debate for the same reasons alcoholics don't drink. The problem with debate is that it's about winning and not about truth. If you want to have a real conversation, I will see if Jordan is open to it. It has to be a real attempt and dialogue though, or I will shut it down right away.
Another comment:
From what I’ve seen in this corner, many of you guys are careless about identity.
This person identifies as trinitarian. This person identifies as unitarian. This person identifies as an annihilationist. You guys identify as universalist.
These are not proper Christian identities. Meaning, they don’t serve you in navigating through the story. They actually are working against it.
Identify with the soul, with humanity, with the self, with the kingdom to come, with comfort, goodness, justice, and meaning.
These ^ are Christian identities which will serve you.
Most importantly, identify with the Son of Man.
It’s probably that my expectations are too high for fellow Christians right now, but at the same time, Christianity must start to fulfill its promise.
This is going to begin with affirming and believing in the soul. Jesus is a bridge to the soul.
How often does this corner explicitly discuss the soul?
What are the implications of having a soul within you?
When you are acting in the world, is it you (human) acting or is it your soul acting through you?
What would it look like if your soul is dominating your life while wanting to remain hidden from you? Why would it want to hide from you?
Sounds like you’re gonna have to get your hands dirty and bring those subjects to the fore! You gotta hop on and play sometime.
We talk about souls a lot. Often we talk about the soul as person though @@ctucker1129
@@mcmosav
Many of you clearly have a faith that is hungry for more, but the soul isn’t cooperating. This uncooperative aspect of the soul is the immature child who doesn’t want to grow up.
The human part of you who is ready for progress needs to individuate from the immature child and take control of the wheel.
You can do this through the pain of personal failure, by consciously holding onto the painful memory. The immature child will never do this willingly, so when you do this, you know the immature child is not the one holding the wheel, dominating you.
Once this dynamic is established, then you can begin to relate directly to your soul, like a parent relating to their child, or like a therapist relating to their patient.