You! Yes, you. Check out the new Majesty of Reason Discord server! Join here and chat with others about all things philosophy: dsc.gg/majestyofreason Also, be sure to check out the Majesty of Reason podcast! It has podcast versions of all my videos: open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH Finally, a correction: at 53:37 I said “doesn’t entail universalism” but meant to say “doesn’t entail the DENIAL of universalism”
It's kinda sad how little Christian channels look at the rigorous defenses of Universalism. The fact that I have to go to an agnostic channel shows how much this convo gets shushed in Christian circles.
It goes against the entire weight of Tradition. Doesn't mean it can't be attempted to be defended philosophically, but only rather unorthodox (to put it nicely) Christians are willing to defend it due to our theological commitments.
I’m not quite sure the point of being a Christian if you believe in universalism . I get that you’re supposed to be overjoyed right now in addition to in the future. But like, let’s be honest it’s not like Christianity makes people happier than other religions. (Within a group, religious people tend to be happier than non religious people. But it doesn’t matter which religion)
@@azophi i dislike universalism but i suppose one could argue that truth is inherently good and if christianity is true it's good to practice it even if universalism is true
Joe, I am legit overwhelmed by gratitude and admiration. Thank you so much for doing this! And an equally big THANK YOU to your wonderful guests: Dr. Rasmussen and Dr. Reitan. Prior to this, I was feeling very frustrated and defeated, not by your channel (always loved it), but by some of the big name apologist channels that kept refusing to even mention the high level academic defenses of universalism from these various angles by such prominent authors (Reitan, Kronen, Talbott, Parry, Rasmussen etc), let alone *engage* the arguments of these authors- and the latter is really what I’ve been asking them to do. A couple of years ago I asked a major name in UA-cam Christian apologetics if they read Talbott and Parry. They replied, “no, and I probably won’t.” I was quite taken aback. Talbott and Parry are serious “bible believing” universalists whose work engages prooftexts and philosophy. And I just kept encountering that attitude. I even offered to PAY some UA-cam apologists to publicly review TWO books on the topic, to NO AVAIL. This is morally obscene. Very recently, Cameron Bertuzzi had a guest on (named Andrew Hronich) who was actually capable of engaging the literature and issues, who did two interviews on the subject: one on Biblical evidence and one on philosophical arguments. Andrew cites Reitan and Talbott a lot. I commend those interviews to your viewers. My history with this subject is long and rough, but it’s very important to me. So, Joe, thank you again. PS. I used to be FB friends with Dr Reitan and we’d comment on each other’s philosophy and religious posts ! He was always helpful and wise. EDIT: I got rid of my FB. That’s i I say “used to be.”
Thanks to both you and Joe for making this happen! I too have been looking everywhere for discussions like this, but unfortunately Universalism seems to be grossly under-discussed
And thank you for playing a part in this. I notice your comments on other channels. They are very helpful. In fact, I accepted universalism partly because of other people commenting. So keep it up and God bless! By the way, since you have no facebook, do you discuss universalism online in any other way or on another platform?
Thank you for your attempts at pushing forward this conversation. I've also enjoyed David Bentley Hart's "That All Shall Be Saved" and of course Rob Bell's "Love Wins". Sharon Baker's "Razing Hell" is also quite good.
For the record, in 2011 Christian apologists Francis Chan and Preston M. Sprinkle wrote a book called “Erasing Hell,” in which they critique annihilationist and universalist views of hell and tried to re-accommodate the traditionalist view of eternal hell for mainstream evangelism. And yet later on (I think by 2015), Sprinkle changed his mind about eternal suffering and adopted a conditional immortalist view. “Erasing Hell” no longer speaks for him. In fact, Richard J. Bauckham in his foreword to the third edition to The Fire that Consumes (by Edward Fudge) wrote “[Annihilationism] has been more widely discussed among Evangelical Christians than ever before and the view that Fudge advocates is undoubtedly now favored by _more Evangelical Christians than ever before.”_ It's worth noting that Bauckham is the author of many conservative scholarly works that most Internet apologists love quoting, such as ‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses’ Even N. T. Wright disagrees with the view of eternal conscious torment, and he's perhaps the most conservative scholar in academia. Its absurdity has been indeed stressed by several non-progressive scholars. It isn't obvious at all that eternal suffering is the most theologically sensible view.
It's also of interest that Dr. Bauckham wrote the foreword to Ilaria Ramelli's "A Larger Hope?" . While he doesn't claim Christian Universalism for himself, he lauds Dr. Ramelli's scholarship that will positively add to this "conversation"...
Universalism is quite plausible, philosophically and biblically. But so much of the discussion online is confused (one of the biggest misconceptions is that universalism is just pluralism). So I'm glad to see a scholarly discussion on UA-cam. Joe Schmidt has done it again!
Glad to see more people talking about this. I have a podcast called Grace Saves All with lots of interviews with major players in this debate. Also have a book called Grace Saves All. Thanks for doing this interview!
David, your podcast helped me immensely during a time of crisis, where the Problem of Hell was causing me to doubt the existence of God during an already difficult period in my life. I prayed for a sign and felt an assurance that I would get it. The next day I reached for a travel guide to the Greek Islands in an airport book store, opened it and saw fresco that caught my eye - and read that it portrayed something called the "Harrowing of Hell". Research led me to your podcast, which showed me how strong the case for universalism is. I still haven't committed to "certain" universalism, but just knowing that there is a strong case for it has removed an obstacle in my journey from atheism to a strong faith in God.
Good discussion! Here are some strands of thought: 1. When it comes to the "any offense against and infinite being demands infinite punishment" idea... God can't be hurt. God expects us to forgive our enemies. God knows that we're ignorant. I feel like people treat God like an algorithm/computer, that takes an input and sends an output with no empathy, no reason, and no control. God is a person (three Persons, even), and can probably handle an ignorant person doing something offensive. I feel like that idea requires a lack of faith in God's Personhood, ability to forgive, and... Emotional stability. 2. The state of human lives and the world are unexpected under non-Universalism: Fertilized human eggs naturally die, human children die, not everybody is equal mentally/physically, disease and disorder remove moral culpability, everybody experiences and learns different things, and people don't get opportunities to make informed, important choices before death: People's lives appear to be too varied to believe that a binary, ultimate end immediately after death is reasonable. 3. Can you really be separated from God? - If God is the foundation of reality, logic, etc. then it makes no sense to say a human being can physically or spiritually exist without God completely. So this theory is shot. 4. Nature of good and bad people - If a person is selfish, prideful, evil... Why are they that way? If every human is on equal moral footing when entering life, wouldn't it HAVE to be the unchosen circumstances within their lives that was the deciding factor in their behavior and fate? I feel like morality and free-will have unique problems for non-universalists. 5. God wants everybody to be saved and created people such that they ultimately are happiest and most fulfilled when in communion with God in Heaven. So... Why would God let an ignorant person to permanently self-harm? Because that's what it necessarily is: Self-harm. If people try to stop others from self-harming, so much more would God, in whom the power to prevent it rests. The idea God creates the opportunity for the most ignorant and hurt people to permanently disconnect themselves is like handing a suicidal person a loaded gun: A good person wouldn't do that.
Well put. I also like to point out that sin is its own punishment, it's like being an addict. Is it more loving to help the addict heal or to beat the crap out of them for eternity, because they've made some wrong choices along the way? Or even to simply turn a blind eye?
Here's something else I've been thinking on: CS Lewis said that all vices and moral evils are goods sought incorrectly or in a twisted way. This seems to be a pretty widespread theory and I find it deeply plausible. However, traditionalists (I'm thinking particularly in a Catholic context) affirm that full knowledge of one's act is required for damnation (mortal sin), but if all evils are goods sought incorrectly, how could anyone with full knowledge choose evil? If they are truly seeking some good, then they will see that said good can't be reached in a lasting way through their act. Not a universalist, mainly cuz I find catholcism compelling and it seems to deny me the option, but I find this persuasive and can't undermine it.
In regard to your first point: I think there is a confusion between personal forgiveness and legal justification. God can personally forgive someone for something, but that doesn't mean that person is legally justified. If personal forgiveness was all it took for someone to be legally justified then Jesus dying on the cross would not be necessary for forgiveness and salvation. So the point would be that sinning against God is a sin of infinite magnitude, in virtue of God's infinite goodness and value. And therefore, a punishment of infinite magnitude is the legal consequence. Even if God personally forgives people for their sins, that doesn't make them legally justified. There would still be an infinite legal debt that needs to be paid. So whether you reject or accept the idea that sinning against God is an infinitely bad action that incurs an infinite debt, appealing to the idea that God personally forgives people for their sins wouldn't remove the need for legal justification. And of course, if sinning against God only incurred a finite legal debt, but someone continued to sin against God without end, then that person would end up facing eternal consequences in virtue of their unending sin.
@@Jack-z1z I agree that the the traditional idea that Jesus HAD to die on the cross in order to literally pay for the "infinite magnitude" of sin does make it seem like there's a "legal system" that exists that both God and human beings are beholden to. This perspective is confusing to me: Whatever "law" exists, God's nature is the foundation for that law. I don't think you can separate God's desires for our well-being, ability to forgive, and His own rationality from the "law" and say that the "law" exists outside or above God's personal relationship to us or the world. It honestly feels like Christians are basically reaching outside to the more materialistic worldview in which nature exerts power over us in an impersonal way to say that "God's hands are tied, people he loves have to suffer forever because that's just the way the world works." That's why I said people treat God like an algorithm rather than a person: God is the JUDGE. If a law exists, God has the power to interpret, enforce, and even WRITE that law. By saying that there's a "legal system" that exists outside of God, you're saying that God is NOT the judge, God's just another party looking for loopholes (Jesus' sacrifice) to find ways for us not to be naturally screwed by our own un-chosen original sin. I understand you'd resist this and say that God is still the law-giver/foundation and chooses to work within His own law to create an opportunity for human salvation, but for me this still seems contradictory: If God's nature is that of goodness and love then I don't think His law would include opportunities for infinite torture as punishment to begin with, just on a basic philosophical level, but especially given the fact He will design creatures that He loves but that He knows will also propagate with original sin and therefore under His own law system be screwed unless He take additional actions. So basically either God is obeying a law He didn't write/can't control (which can't be right) or God wrote a law that resists His own good, rational nature (which can't be right). That's the way I see it.
@@josephtnied I'm not claiming there is a law that exists over God that he himself is subject to. The point is that God is just, and therefore, every sin must be accounted for. If any sins were to go unaccounted for then God would be unjust. This law, the moral law, that dictates that justice must be done, comes from God's own nature. God doesn't "write" the law, as you say, the law comes from God himself and his character. It is necessary. Please don't refer to hell as "torture", that is nothing more than a caricature. It would be like me saying a person is being tortured every time they face legal consequences issued by the government for their unlawful behaviour. Or that children are tortured every time they are punished by their parents. And besides that, annihilationism could be true, in which case those who stand in rebellion to God are simply wiped out of existence in the end. Furthermore, to claim that God would create a world in which everyone inevitably chooses to be reconciled to God (which I think is what you are getting at in your second paragraph) it would have to be the case that such a world is feasible for God to create. The correct counter-factuals of creaturely freedom would need to be true in order for God to create such a world. But of course, God does not decide which counter-factuals of creaturely freedom are true. So it may simply be a non-feasible world, and thus, God could not create a world in which everyone is ultimately reconciled to himself. And it is simply beyond our ability to know whether such a world is feasible or not. One last comment I'll make is that whilst it is true that God loves us, and that we are very valuable, things like justice, righteousness, and truth are far more valuable than us. God's ultimate desire would not be to care about human wellbeing above all else, as many objectors seem to think. God would care more about justice, righteousness, and truth than he would about human wellbeing, though both would be important to him. For these reasons, I don't think your dichotomy at the end is valid. My position would escape both horns of your dilemma.
I'm glad to see this kind of dialogue on english language. I don't see it happening on romance languages. As Portuguese is my mother language and I've studied universal reconciliation the last five years, now I feel secure to preach and defend this beautiful doctrine.
Thank you for this! This dialogue is so important for those of us who grew up being taught Eternal Conscious Torment, but now find it philosophically and morally repugnant and irresponsible! And yet still seek to embrace a robust Christianity! I now view the Lake of Fire as a metaphor for spiritual transformation. As the Refiner's Fire smelts away the dross of the old selfish nature, the Divine Nature of Christ begins to shine forth from within. As such, the Lake of Fire is not a literal fire or a literal place of punishment. See Malachi 3:3. Meanwhile, Revelation 20:14 says that "death and hell" are cast into the Lake of Fire. This is because Spiritual Life swallows up the realm of death, just like Light illumines the darkness! (1 Cor 15:54) So the Lake of Fire is what triumphs over hell. It is not the same as hell. Nor by definition could a God of Love and Compassion ever allow anyone or anything to suffer eternally! God is Love (1 John 4:16). And the moment we begin to actually experience that Love, doctrines such as Eternal Torment become not just ridiculous, immoral, and cruel, but idolatrous as well. Again thank you for bringing this conversation to public attention. Two decades ago, just bringing it up got me kicked out of church!
The short story about the experiences of man at the gallows that Joe refers to at around 30:00 is "An Incident at Owl Creek Bridge" by Nicholas Dixon, first published in 1890. It was also included in Ambrose Beirce's 1891 collection of stories titled "Tales of soldiers and civilians."
It's remarkable to me that some people still prefer a diminished version of God-one who won't be able to accomplish the salvation of all-to the more powerful and more morally perfect one who can achieve universalism.
Just joined the Discord, which is very exciting! Also, there was an Oxford Uni Socratic Society debate on whether the Kalam argument was plausible (audience members could present five-minute arguments/speeches), and the majority of the crowd ended up accepting the plausibility of both premises. Quite fun - next week is on whether morality is objective.
@@amoswollen3860 I didn't join at the fair, but they have a Facebook group with a sign-up page. You can guarantee a place with paid tickets or go on a waiting list for free ones (which is what I do).
I remember being very bent towards annihilationism and universalism for a while, and frankly I still don't reject them per se, but I don't think they can be theologically adoptable--just plausible, and arguable. The best position for a Christian, I think, is to leave it up to God... not to make assumptions about who will and who won't attain Theosis and paradise, but to focus on one's own sins and aligning one's own will and union with God, and praying for the world. Not to say anyone doesn't go to Hell. Not to say that everyone goes to Heaven. Just to say, we don't know the exact mechanisms of eternity, but we know the character of God (His ultimate Mercy and Justice) and what He says brings unity with Him and separation from Him (so we may pay attention to our actions). This also seems very consistent with tradition. It's practical and doesn't leave the Christian life up to interpretation, extensively changeable philosophy and an ultimate anxiety, so much as it leaves the Christian life up to action, hope, and reverence.
I get where you are coming from and would say that focusing on the topic may be missing the point for most people. But on the other hand, we've gone too far in the other direction (emphasizing hell), and we are due for correction. I think that all views are actually true in different ways. Torment is eternal in the sense that there are no set time limits on how long one can reject God. It might as well feel as eternity, at some point time breaks down anyway. Annihilationism is true in regards to annihilating that part of the self, which is unfit for heaven. To the extent that many if not most folks have nurtured undesirable characters, at least partly, it is reasonable to say that a good chunk of their character would be annihilated, but that would in term make them new people. In that sense, the old person has ceased to exist and in some cases the new person would be completely unrecognizable. Anyway, I think too many people focus on the afterlife way too much and they miss the point that Christianity's value is for the here and now as well. It makes for a better world, society and relationships.
That is also the most practical approach. Removing sin removes suffering now, not later, so whether or not me or anyone else is saved is really not on the list of things to figure out, rather it is "what am I doing right now that is causing suffering". The practice and the fruit it delivers now in the present moment is what needs attention.
All will be saved. Want proof? 1corinthians 15:22-23 For as in Adam ALL are dying, likewise in Christ shall ALL be made alive. But to each in the own order. See that first "ALL"? yeah, that sets the precedence for the following "ALL". Do you believe that first "ALL" is indeed everyone? Well so is the next "ALL". No one is going to be tortured for all of eternity. God is not going to lose one of his creations. There is an order to things, and God has a reason for bringing this truth to the rest later. All of christendom teaches MANY lies.
Seems reasonable to say that if God truly desires some outcome. You should bet on that outcome being realised. Seems weird to bet that God not succeed.
It is surely God's desire that no one ever sins, yet people have sinned. So, this is a clear case where God's desire is not realized. I understand your intuition here, but I think it assumes God works more unilaterally than He actually does. I for one have a robust view of human freedom baked into my theology, so I simply just don't share your intuition. Saying God fails if all are not saved is to assume a sort of one-sided relationship between God and man which I think fails theologically as well as philosophically. I do however reject ECT and affirm annihilationism because I think it is both the most theologically and philosophically sound.
@@bilbobaggins9893 It's not obvious. There are two other options right. God does not exist. God exists but has no such that desire. He realises that true freedom requires some sins happening so he desires the world in which people sin (given the other options).
@@Oskar1000 hmmm, I was just responding to your original point that it would be odd that God desire something He doesn’t get. In cases where human freedom is involved, it isn’t the least bit odd. Just as you said, “He realizes that true freedom requires some sins happening so He desires the world in which people sin (given the other options).” It would be equally fair then to say that “He realizes that true freedom requires some people being lost so He desires the world in which people are lost (given the other options).”
I can't believe anyone believes that Anselmian atonement story or some Rehabilitation of it. That's why I rejected Christianity and especially the authorial response to the problem of evil by calvinists. Utterly sick stories. And Im a Christian
Very strange that there was no mention of the neoplatonic doctrine of procession and reversion (the reversion bit being the relevant part here) and its obvious influence on the early development of universalism in people like Origen. Also strange that nobody, as far as I can tell, referenced David Bentley-Hart's excellent book That All Shall be Saved on universalism.
My only concern with Reitan’s work is his comment about “infinite punishment can’t be achieved since infinity doesn’t end” The traditionalist can simply assert that the punishment must be never-ending. In that case, the fact that never-ending punishment never… ends… is the point. But he’s otherwise brilliant in his critiques.
One thing that stood out to me [and this may be because I'm watching this in pieces throughout the day], is that Josh finds evidence for what God would do through analogy of what he may do with and for his children. While this seems perfectly virtuous to me, it seemed largely unintuitive as well. He pointed out that a perfectly valid reason for why he might limit his children's freedom to play around an infinite fall, would be because of the nature of their experiences, and thus, the nature of their suffering. But what that leads me to wonder is, how large of a pit would he allow his children to play around, and for what purpose? Of course, we all recognize that his character dictates that he would stop his beloved person's from even doing something as sever as breaking a bone, most likely. But there's a large disconnect between the parent who would allow their child to do what occurs in our world, and what Josh would allow his children to freely do. For example, he would not put his children in the position to be brutally assaulted, physically and mentally, from their infantile years until their demise. Nor would he likely, intentionally, permit them to engage in circumstances where they could risk their own miscarriage, or their engagement with any kind of terminal risk, or with any kind of risk that would cause them constant suffering for a prolonged age. Although, we all must acknowledge that parental experiences as such don't translate into the kinds of permissions a God would necessarily allow, if it were to have created this world. In that sense, I struggle to see how Josh can find reasons to analogize God-hood to the love of parenthood. On a separate note, this talk has been bussin, no cap, fr fr, on god and on my mama.
I prefer to say that if my love extends so far as to desire the salvation of all, and I cannot see how God's wouldn't. And if God is so often presented as a parent and a caregiver, the analogy seems fitting.
Remember God has unlimited resources, is all powerful and knows the end from the beginning. So we as earthly parents have limits to what we can do and how we can interact. God has no limits in what or how he can interact with us, and knows what would eternally imperil us and thus as any good parent would not allow us to put ourself in such danger. Even our death is not enough to separate us from God.
for me theres only 2 options 1. annihilation because the lake of fire is called the 2nd death and 2. purification the lake of fire resembles a refinery where brimstone is removed, and only pure gold remains. Edit: theres a 3rd option follow christ now and avoid hell altogether.
Josh has probably been my favorite contemporary philosopher of religion for a couple of years now, but unfortunately I have to say that I’m very disappointed at his mishandling of Mark 3:28. The verse where Christ says “all men’s sins will be forgiven” is a subordinate clause that compares “all sins” to “the sin against the Holy Spirit” which is unforgivable according to Christ. The plain reading of the text is saying that any sin *can* be forgiven except one. I mostly agree with Josh on his interpretation of the unforgivable sin, but for him to portray this verse as a stand-alone eschatological statement without ever mentioning the subordinate nature of the first clause is very misleading and irresponsible.
Great discussion, love what everyone had to say. Btw Eric looks like what Kung Fu Panda would look like if he was a human and Meow Meow Meow is actually Henrietta Pussycat from Mr. Rogers.
1:16:54 what happens when I’m safe and I have infinite opportunities to change my mind. Can I be condemned later on if one choice is enough to be saved then one choice should be to be condemned. In both cases, I would think that we assumed that those who are condemned by the choice, wouldn’t do it while being mistaken of the actual glory of God and parallel we would expected those who want to be saved would also be in the full knowledge of the greatness of God. How do we break the parallelism here?
Actually the early church consensus with the first 3 councils is of universal salvation. It was only the later councils, that this universal salvation is set aside, so all oriental orthodox churches believe and affirm in universal salvation, some sections of EO also affirm on universal salvation while some don't, only later churches following protestant schism affirm to a limited or sectarian salvation.
It seems that the argument that only an infinite being could endure infinite punishment can be completely sidestepped by the proponent of the traditional view of hell just arguing that God makes souls temporally and spacially infinite in the afterlife.
Some objections I have to universalism: 1. Regarding evangelism helping to obtain an intrinsic relationship with God here on Earth: In the grand scheme of things regarding eternity, this infinitesimally small amount of time means quite literally nothing. Whatever relationship we end up having here on Earth with God isn't even equatable to a single atom in comparison to the entire universe. The eternity we will spend with God makes everything else a non-factor. 2. Basically the same point as above, but this is regarding the time spent in punishment. Again, infinitesimally small to the point of being a non-factor. 3. What is the point of making this existence? If we are to all end up spending eternity in Heaven with God, what was the point of all this? What's the point in enduring suffering here on Earth? Why the tests? Why have this (again) infinitesimally small amount of time in trials, hardship, love, and life here if we are all going to spend eternity with Him anyway? (Forgive me if these were answered in the video and I just completely missed them somehow! Feel free to just say watch the video again if they are answered.)
Aren't these three totally different things which apply differently? Universalism being that everyone is saved, which applies to atheists, pluralism being that a variety of religions are true and of God, which applies less to atheists, and inclusivism which says that some (not necessarily all) outside the true religion can still be saved, which would likely apply to atheists.
@@andresjimenez1724 Christian for cumilative case. Theist for philosophical reasons, Christianity, theologically, is the strongest of the world religions so far as I understand. Historically defensible, particularly in the resurrection, once certain philosophical stances have been granted like theism and possibility of miracles. The true religion is the one that describes reality, I determine it the same as I determine plenty of other things about reality: reason and experience. I accept inclusivism because I think exclusivism is not a defensible position given the world diversity of religions. In 700,000 years of human existence, Christianity existed for 2k of them, and in that time, it hasn't even been globally available. What sort of loving God who wills the salvation of all (as Christianity teaches) would make such a scenario where the overwhelming majority of humans don't have access to the true religion? I must maintain that God can save those outside any given religion.
It is impossible for any finite being doing any harm to an infinite being. Subtracting any finite number n to infinity (such that n - infinity = infinity) does nothing to infinity. In addition, God has infinite mercy, so any person would eventually be forgiven. So, no worries atheists! Everything will be okey! (I am an atheist also)
1:57:08 Don't think it would be absurd at all. Just think it's weird that the most common folk theory of which people go to hell doesn't seem represented by philosophers. I'll try to be clearer next time to avoid the derealing. Even though the derailing was fun as well.
Hi Joe. In your analysis of design arguments, you recommended Friction's fine-tuning video. I was wondering, couldn't the strategy employed there be used to undermine literally any argument for theism? Take psycho-physical harmony: just start with "bare design" and "bare non-design" as equal, then when you specify standard theism ("specific design"), the prior probability will be correspondingly lower. Hence, it's impossible for psychophysical harmony (or consciousness, beauty, discoverability, etc.) to be evidence for theism over "bare non-design." This seems to prove too much. What do you think?
Reitans response to the heart heartedness objection is very strong. But I wonder if it is perhaps too strong. If God has designed us with limits the capacity to harden ourselves against God, then presumably the opposite does not occur for those are in heaven. There is surely no chance of sin ever become alive in heaven because of the fixed natures of those there..but if God does not allow for the ability to reach a final fixed state or to have no upper bounds of fixity in character, then it would be possible eventually to expect there to be sin again in heaven, but this is false. My concerns are two atm. Firstly, once we admit that God has placed limits as to how far we can fall from him, why is there the kind of moral evil we see in this world? Why not place more limits? Even just a little? Secondly, if someone who hates God were to find out in this life that the chance of them coming to love God was, over the space of eternity, an almost mathematically certainty..well then surely the God hating individual would be correct in claiming that they don't really have the freedom to reject God ultimately. And crucially that such knowledge of the inevitable end has removed from them the belief of their own freedom which true love requires.
33:02 The opposite is the case. One CANNOT harm a God! The only way you could would be if you hurt a sentient being that it cared about, but that FAILS because, firstly, a God would be able to foresee, and stop any harm coming to a being that it loved and, secondly, the biblical gods are shown perfectly clearly as not caring about anyone, and certainly not about any other animals. Quite the reverse. ALL they are shown as caring about is obedience and being loved and worshipped, as the book of Job amply demonstrates. An eternity if Hell is NOT a punishment, as punishment implies not only a point to it, but a crime, and only a dribbling idiot would argue that not believing in the immoral, the illogical and that which is clearly without a solid foundation (unless one counts distorted myths and legends as a foundation) is a crime.
Good talk, but the free will conflict is easy to resolve. We don't possess this magical libertarian free will. How can we when we are in bondage?....those in bondage do not free themselves, even if they THINK they do...even if the illusions are strong about it, right? Regardless though, even if we did; we don't have a will that can withstand God's constant love, healing, grace, and power; period. Why would we? The entire premise is flawed and little more than vain hubris to entertain. The most stubborn among us would fold like a leaf and weep like a baby in a matter of moments facing God's divine lights and fire...look at Paul, the "chief sinner"; He was blinded for 3 days, but it was so he could see better than anyone when he could see...how much did he resist while causing chaos and death against God's church as Saul? Not at all; therefore how much easier would any other human be to be shown the light of what is good and healing and proper in Him? We, simple humans, have way too much pride to think we would pose any challenge to God's love and desire to save, with our paltry infantile will (which is in bondage to sin and the ruin of this world and which God will heal us from)
This is the sort of discussion that I expect from philosophers, speculating, musing, and playing with ideas. Only passing contact with concrete scriptural data and exegesis. The conversation mostly assumes that libertarian freedom/non-Calvinistic notions of freedom not only exist but can help overturn traditional notions of hell. Worse, more ecumenical doctrines like original sin and corruption, and the necessity of being born again are absent. How are people in hell going to be born again/regenerated? Scripture seems to assume that being born again is only possible on this side of eternity. Also assumes that Anselm's approach is the only viable defense of eternal conscious punishment. Those in hell remain unregenerate, rebels who continue to be against God and hate God. So it is appropriate that their sentence continues, since sin and rebellion continue.
I feel that universalism is too dismissive of free will and the desires of humans. If a man hates God, he will not take His presence as desirous. He lived his whole life in a way that treated God's calling as an unwanted enemy. An orthodox position is that His river of Life will be as a river of fire to those who choose to hate Him
We addressed this in the discussion🙂 check out the portion of the video on free will wherein we talk about becoming fixed in one’s rejection of God. Also check out resources (7) and (8) in the description that directly address this❤️
So, it seems the "hole" Josh mentioned removes that creepy factor--even if it's like the Mario 64 staircase for a long, long (justified) time to cross into that door you choose to open, and maybe never exit.
I'm not a Christian but universalism seems like Lovecraftian horror. We were created for a purpose and you can't reject that purpose. We can't form our own destinies. Jesus the bridegroom created the bride to inevitably love him. It's like we are no different than the oompa loompas of the chocolate factory. We were created to just sing in the clouds and be with God forever and we cannot reject it since our wills are geared towards it. The universalist God is a creepy stalker who goes around creating his oompa loompas to be with him in some prison we call "reality". And we are unable to form our own ultimate destinies by our free decision. Our destinies were predetermined by God and there is no escaping this prison we call "reality". Universalism is the worst possible world
See the free will section of the video! God can secure universal salvation even while totally respecting our libertarian freedom. We’re the ones who choose union with God, there’s no predetermination, etc.
I'm not practicing Christianity either, but I think your comment is a bad take. 1. Heaven, or communion with God, is fully receiving love, beauty, and truth. What that looks like probably isn't "singing in the clouds" or whatever; think about your life now and what gives you meaning. It's probably your relationships with others, or your ability to learn and grow, or even just the opportunity to experience basic pleasure in beauty. That's what Heaven would be, because that's what God IS; you wouldn't enjoy Heaven because you were brainwashed, you would enjoy it because it's enjoyable by virtue of what it is. Unless you think it's manipulative that God created you such that you enjoy listening to music or making your friends laugh or whatever. 2. You say universalism is the worst possible world, but how? How is having the opportunity to eventually discover love, truth, and beauty worse than a world where that opportunity is closed off forever? 3. Like others have stated, in the universalist world, you still have a choice and opportunities to learn. Your problem isn't with the choice, nor is your problem the fear that God's nature would be something unenjoyable or bad. I get that you think God creating us such that we ultimately want to and need God would be abusive. But that's absurd because God would have created you in their own nature, based on their ultimate value as love, beauty, truth, and reason itself: something inherent to God. If you don't think that's fair, well, there is no other God, no other beauty, no other truth, no other love, and no other reason to turn to. You say that's nightmarish, but literally what other Heaven could anybody possibly hope for? And if you don't want any Heaven, is what I described really worse than the nihilistic world where most lives are brief moments of intense suffering before non-existence and the truth, beauty, and love you strive to experience in life are just brain chemistry operating with no underlying value? I'm not asking what's more likely, and I'm not saying what I described is real or even possible. But I am challenging your claim about what's "better," because you've accepted what the Universalist states for the sake of argument but I don't think you represent it properly.
This is a discussion about updating the story to make it more palatable in our contemporary culture where the idea of hell is abhorrent because the west grew beyond such a childish scenario. It's like the Stryper of the philosophy of christian religion. Christianity now follows the culture. It is beyond me that two great minds here, Joe and Josh can take this seriously. There is not one piece of actual information to be found here. It is all contrivance.
Josh, I come from a long line of Meows. As a warrior tribe, we were punished for purring, and praised for knocking over innocent people’s glasses of water onto their laptops. Thug life 🤌 🐱
You! Yes, you. Check out the new Majesty of Reason Discord server! Join here and chat with others about all things philosophy:
dsc.gg/majestyofreason
Also, be sure to check out the Majesty of Reason podcast! It has podcast versions of all my videos:
open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH
Finally, a correction: at 53:37 I said “doesn’t entail universalism” but meant to say “doesn’t entail the DENIAL of universalism”
yay finally a discord group
It's kinda sad how little Christian channels look at the rigorous defenses of Universalism. The fact that I have to go to an agnostic channel shows how much this convo gets shushed in Christian circles.
Have you ever checked our our channel? Not to shill my own channel but we discuss universalism a lot from a Christian perspective
It goes against the entire weight of Tradition. Doesn't mean it can't be attempted to be defended philosophically, but only rather unorthodox (to put it nicely) Christians are willing to defend it due to our theological commitments.
I’m not quite sure the point of being a Christian if you believe in universalism .
I get that you’re supposed to be overjoyed right now in addition to in the future. But like, let’s be honest it’s not like Christianity makes people happier than other religions.
(Within a group, religious people tend to be happier than non religious people. But it doesn’t matter which religion)
@@azophi i dislike universalism but i suppose one could argue that truth is inherently good and if christianity is true it's good to practice it even if universalism is true
@@azophiThat’s a very consequentialist approach.
Learned about Universalism when I first started studying Philosophy of Religion. Read up on it and have been a universalist since
Joe, I am legit overwhelmed by gratitude and admiration. Thank you so much for doing this! And an equally big THANK YOU to your wonderful guests: Dr. Rasmussen and Dr. Reitan.
Prior to this, I was feeling very frustrated and defeated, not by your channel (always loved it), but by some of the big name apologist channels that kept refusing to even mention the high level academic defenses of universalism from these various angles by such prominent authors (Reitan, Kronen, Talbott, Parry, Rasmussen etc), let alone *engage* the arguments of these authors- and the latter is really what I’ve been asking them to do.
A couple of years ago I asked a major name in UA-cam Christian apologetics if they read Talbott and Parry. They replied, “no, and I probably won’t.” I was quite taken aback. Talbott and Parry are serious “bible believing” universalists whose work engages prooftexts and philosophy.
And I just kept encountering that attitude. I even offered to PAY some UA-cam apologists to publicly review TWO books on the topic, to NO AVAIL.
This is morally obscene.
Very recently, Cameron Bertuzzi had a guest on (named Andrew Hronich) who was actually capable of engaging the literature and issues, who did two interviews on the subject: one on Biblical evidence and one on philosophical arguments. Andrew cites Reitan and Talbott a lot. I commend those interviews to your viewers.
My history with this subject is long and rough, but it’s very important to me. So, Joe, thank you again.
PS. I used to be FB friends with Dr Reitan and we’d comment on each other’s philosophy and religious posts ! He was always helpful and wise. EDIT: I got rid of my FB. That’s i I say “used to be.”
Thanks to both you and Joe for making this happen! I too have been looking everywhere for discussions like this, but unfortunately Universalism seems to be grossly under-discussed
And thank you for playing a part in this. I notice your comments on other channels. They are very helpful. In fact, I accepted universalism partly because of other people commenting. So keep it up and God bless! By the way, since you have no facebook, do you discuss universalism online in any other way or on another platform?
@@atanas-nikolov ❤
Thank you for your attempts at pushing forward this conversation. I've also enjoyed David Bentley Hart's "That All Shall Be Saved" and of course Rob Bell's "Love Wins". Sharon Baker's "Razing Hell" is also quite good.
For the record, in 2011 Christian apologists Francis Chan and Preston M. Sprinkle wrote a book called “Erasing Hell,” in which they critique annihilationist and universalist views of hell and tried to re-accommodate the traditionalist view of eternal hell for mainstream evangelism. And yet later on (I think by 2015), Sprinkle changed his mind about eternal suffering and adopted a conditional immortalist view. “Erasing Hell” no longer speaks for him.
In fact, Richard J. Bauckham in his foreword to the third edition to The Fire that Consumes (by Edward Fudge) wrote “[Annihilationism] has been more widely discussed among Evangelical Christians than ever before and the view that Fudge advocates is undoubtedly now favored by _more Evangelical Christians than ever before.”_ It's worth noting that Bauckham is the author of many conservative scholarly works that most Internet apologists love quoting, such as ‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses’
Even N. T. Wright disagrees with the view of eternal conscious torment, and he's perhaps the most conservative scholar in academia. Its absurdity has been indeed stressed by several non-progressive scholars. It isn't obvious at all that eternal suffering is the most theologically sensible view.
It's also of interest that Dr. Bauckham wrote the foreword to Ilaria Ramelli's "A Larger Hope?" .
While he doesn't claim Christian Universalism for himself, he lauds Dr. Ramelli's scholarship that will positively add to this "conversation"...
A guy with a jawline like this I will trust always, even on the subject of my eternal fate
Amen, brotha!
Universalism is the best shot of Christianity in my humble opinion.
It’s also a necessary component for dealing with the problem of evil IMO
agreed
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns agreed..totally
Universalism is quite plausible, philosophically and biblically. But so much of the discussion online is confused (one of the biggest misconceptions is that universalism is just pluralism). So I'm glad to see a scholarly discussion on UA-cam. Joe Schmidt has done it again!
Dr. Reitan is excellent! He’s a professor at my college and we had a conversation about universalism. Very intelligent!
Wonderful to see you here!
Glad to see more people talking about this. I have a podcast called Grace Saves All with lots of interviews with major players in this debate. Also have a book called Grace Saves All. Thanks for doing this interview!
David, your podcast helped me immensely during a time of crisis, where the Problem of Hell was causing me to doubt the existence of God during an already difficult period in my life. I prayed for a sign and felt an assurance that I would get it. The next day I reached for a travel guide to the Greek Islands in an airport book store, opened it and saw fresco that caught my eye - and read that it portrayed something called the "Harrowing of Hell". Research led me to your podcast, which showed me how strong the case for universalism is. I still haven't committed to "certain" universalism, but just knowing that there is a strong case for it has removed an obstacle in my journey from atheism to a strong faith in God.
It was David Bentley Hart who converted me to universalism. Though I'm not sure about his views on classical theism.
Good discussion! Here are some strands of thought:
1. When it comes to the "any offense against and infinite being demands infinite punishment" idea... God can't be hurt. God expects us to forgive our enemies. God knows that we're ignorant. I feel like people treat God like an algorithm/computer, that takes an input and sends an output with no empathy, no reason, and no control. God is a person (three Persons, even), and can probably handle an ignorant person doing something offensive. I feel like that idea requires a lack of faith in God's Personhood, ability to forgive, and... Emotional stability.
2. The state of human lives and the world are unexpected under non-Universalism: Fertilized human eggs naturally die, human children die, not everybody is equal mentally/physically, disease and disorder remove moral culpability, everybody experiences and learns different things, and people don't get opportunities to make informed, important choices before death: People's lives appear to be too varied to believe that a binary, ultimate end immediately after death is reasonable.
3. Can you really be separated from God? - If God is the foundation of reality, logic, etc. then it makes no sense to say a human being can physically or spiritually exist without God completely. So this theory is shot.
4. Nature of good and bad people - If a person is selfish, prideful, evil... Why are they that way? If every human is on equal moral footing when entering life, wouldn't it HAVE to be the unchosen circumstances within their lives that was the deciding factor in their behavior and fate? I feel like morality and free-will have unique problems for non-universalists.
5. God wants everybody to be saved and created people such that they ultimately are happiest and most fulfilled when in communion with God in Heaven. So... Why would God let an ignorant person to permanently self-harm? Because that's what it necessarily is: Self-harm. If people try to stop others from self-harming, so much more would God, in whom the power to prevent it rests. The idea God creates the opportunity for the most ignorant and hurt people to permanently disconnect themselves is like handing a suicidal person a loaded gun: A good person wouldn't do that.
Well put. I also like to point out that sin is its own punishment, it's like being an addict. Is it more loving to help the addict heal or to beat the crap out of them for eternity, because they've made some wrong choices along the way? Or even to simply turn a blind eye?
Here's something else I've been thinking on: CS Lewis said that all vices and moral evils are goods sought incorrectly or in a twisted way. This seems to be a pretty widespread theory and I find it deeply plausible. However, traditionalists (I'm thinking particularly in a Catholic context) affirm that full knowledge of one's act is required for damnation (mortal sin), but if all evils are goods sought incorrectly, how could anyone with full knowledge choose evil? If they are truly seeking some good, then they will see that said good can't be reached in a lasting way through their act.
Not a universalist, mainly cuz I find catholcism compelling and it seems to deny me the option, but I find this persuasive and can't undermine it.
In regard to your first point: I think there is a confusion between personal forgiveness and legal justification. God can personally forgive someone for something, but that doesn't mean that person is legally justified. If personal forgiveness was all it took for someone to be legally justified then Jesus dying on the cross would not be necessary for forgiveness and salvation.
So the point would be that sinning against God is a sin of infinite magnitude, in virtue of God's infinite goodness and value. And therefore, a punishment of infinite magnitude is the legal consequence. Even if God personally forgives people for their sins, that doesn't make them legally justified. There would still be an infinite legal debt that needs to be paid.
So whether you reject or accept the idea that sinning against God is an infinitely bad action that incurs an infinite debt, appealing to the idea that God personally forgives people for their sins wouldn't remove the need for legal justification.
And of course, if sinning against God only incurred a finite legal debt, but someone continued to sin against God without end, then that person would end up facing eternal consequences in virtue of their unending sin.
@@Jack-z1z I agree that the the traditional idea that Jesus HAD to die on the cross in order to literally pay for the "infinite magnitude" of sin does make it seem like there's a "legal system" that exists that both God and human beings are beholden to. This perspective is confusing to me: Whatever "law" exists, God's nature is the foundation for that law. I don't think you can separate God's desires for our well-being, ability to forgive, and His own rationality from the "law" and say that the "law" exists outside or above God's personal relationship to us or the world. It honestly feels like Christians are basically reaching outside to the more materialistic worldview in which nature exerts power over us in an impersonal way to say that "God's hands are tied, people he loves have to suffer forever because that's just the way the world works." That's why I said people treat God like an algorithm rather than a person: God is the JUDGE. If a law exists, God has the power to interpret, enforce, and even WRITE that law. By saying that there's a "legal system" that exists outside of God, you're saying that God is NOT the judge, God's just another party looking for loopholes (Jesus' sacrifice) to find ways for us not to be naturally screwed by our own un-chosen original sin.
I understand you'd resist this and say that God is still the law-giver/foundation and chooses to work within His own law to create an opportunity for human salvation, but for me this still seems contradictory: If God's nature is that of goodness and love then I don't think His law would include opportunities for infinite torture as punishment to begin with, just on a basic philosophical level, but especially given the fact He will design creatures that He loves but that He knows will also propagate with original sin and therefore under His own law system be screwed unless He take additional actions.
So basically either God is obeying a law He didn't write/can't control (which can't be right) or God wrote a law that resists His own good, rational nature (which can't be right). That's the way I see it.
@@josephtnied I'm not claiming there is a law that exists over God that he himself is subject to. The point is that God is just, and therefore, every sin must be accounted for. If any sins were to go unaccounted for then God would be unjust. This law, the moral law, that dictates that justice must be done, comes from God's own nature. God doesn't "write" the law, as you say, the law comes from God himself and his character. It is necessary.
Please don't refer to hell as "torture", that is nothing more than a caricature. It would be like me saying a person is being tortured every time they face legal consequences issued by the government for their unlawful behaviour. Or that children are tortured every time they are punished by their parents.
And besides that, annihilationism could be true, in which case those who stand in rebellion to God are simply wiped out of existence in the end.
Furthermore, to claim that God would create a world in which everyone inevitably chooses to be reconciled to God (which I think is what you are getting at in your second paragraph) it would have to be the case that such a world is feasible for God to create. The correct counter-factuals of creaturely freedom would need to be true in order for God to create such a world. But of course, God does not decide which counter-factuals of creaturely freedom are true. So it may simply be a non-feasible world, and thus, God could not create a world in which everyone is ultimately reconciled to himself.
And it is simply beyond our ability to know whether such a world is feasible or not.
One last comment I'll make is that whilst it is true that God loves us, and that we are very valuable, things like justice, righteousness, and truth are far more valuable than us. God's ultimate desire would not be to care about human wellbeing above all else, as many objectors seem to think. God would care more about justice, righteousness, and truth than he would about human wellbeing, though both would be important to him.
For these reasons, I don't think your dichotomy at the end is valid. My position would escape both horns of your dilemma.
I'm glad to see this kind of dialogue on english language. I don't see it happening on romance languages. As Portuguese is my mother language and I've studied universal reconciliation the last five years, now I feel secure to preach and defend this beautiful doctrine.
Majesty of Universalism
Thank you MeowMeowMeow :)
Thank you for this! This dialogue is so important for those of us who grew up being taught Eternal Conscious Torment, but now find it philosophically and morally repugnant and irresponsible! And yet still seek to embrace a robust Christianity!
I now view the Lake of Fire as a metaphor for spiritual transformation. As the Refiner's Fire smelts away the dross of the old selfish nature, the Divine Nature of Christ begins to shine forth from within. As such, the Lake of Fire is not a literal fire or a literal place of punishment. See Malachi 3:3.
Meanwhile, Revelation 20:14 says that "death and hell" are cast into the Lake of Fire. This is because Spiritual Life swallows up the realm of death, just like Light illumines the darkness! (1 Cor 15:54) So the Lake of Fire is what triumphs over hell. It is not the same as hell.
Nor by definition could a God of Love and Compassion ever allow anyone or anything to suffer eternally! God is Love (1 John 4:16). And the moment we begin to actually experience that Love, doctrines such as Eternal Torment become not just ridiculous, immoral, and cruel, but idolatrous as well.
Again thank you for bringing this conversation to public attention. Two decades ago, just bringing it up got me kicked out of church!
its interesting that universalism wasn't heresy until 543 AD but we know it was believed before that.
The short story about the experiences of man at the gallows that Joe refers to at around 30:00 is "An Incident at Owl Creek Bridge" by Nicholas Dixon, first published in 1890. It was also included in Ambrose Beirce's 1891 collection of stories titled "Tales of soldiers and civilians."
Joe, German greetings of gratitude , finally had the time to see it. Great work !
Great discussion! This is a discussion I have been searching a lot! Can't appreciate more ...
It's remarkable to me that some people still prefer a diminished version of God-one who won't be able to accomplish the salvation of all-to the more powerful and more morally perfect one who can achieve universalism.
Just joined the Discord, which is very exciting! Also, there was an Oxford Uni Socratic Society debate on whether the Kalam argument was plausible (audience members could present five-minute arguments/speeches), and the majority of the crowd ended up accepting the plausibility of both premises. Quite fun - next week is on whether morality is objective.
They just haven't watched MoR videos... ;)
There's a MoR discord?
@@nahoalife5198 cf. pinned comment❤️
Yo, are you at Oxford too? How do you join this society? It sounds dope. I didn’t see it at the fair - is it still possible to join online?
@@amoswollen3860 I didn't join at the fair, but they have a Facebook group with a sign-up page. You can guarantee a place with paid tickets or go on a waiting list for free ones (which is what I do).
I remember being very bent towards annihilationism and universalism for a while, and frankly I still don't reject them per se, but I don't think they can be theologically adoptable--just plausible, and arguable.
The best position for a Christian, I think, is to leave it up to God... not to make assumptions about who will and who won't attain Theosis and paradise, but to focus on one's own sins and aligning one's own will and union with God, and praying for the world. Not to say anyone doesn't go to Hell. Not to say that everyone goes to Heaven. Just to say, we don't know the exact mechanisms of eternity, but we know the character of God (His ultimate Mercy and Justice) and what He says brings unity with Him and separation from Him (so we may pay attention to our actions).
This also seems very consistent with tradition. It's practical and doesn't leave the Christian life up to interpretation, extensively changeable philosophy and an ultimate anxiety, so much as it leaves the Christian life up to action, hope, and reverence.
I get where you are coming from and would say that focusing on the topic may be missing the point for most people. But on the other hand, we've gone too far in the other direction (emphasizing hell), and we are due for correction.
I think that all views are actually true in different ways. Torment is eternal in the sense that there are no set time limits on how long one can reject God. It might as well feel as eternity, at some point time breaks down anyway.
Annihilationism is true in regards to annihilating that part of the self, which is unfit for heaven. To the extent that many if not most folks have nurtured undesirable characters, at least partly, it is reasonable to say that a good chunk of their character would be annihilated, but that would in term make them new people. In that sense, the old person has ceased to exist and in some cases the new person would be completely unrecognizable.
Anyway, I think too many people focus on the afterlife way too much and they miss the point that Christianity's value is for the here and now as well. It makes for a better world, society and relationships.
That is also the most practical approach. Removing sin removes suffering now, not later, so whether or not me or anyone else is saved is really not on the list of things to figure out, rather it is "what am I doing right now that is causing suffering". The practice and the fruit it delivers now in the present moment is what needs attention.
All will be saved. Want proof?
1corinthians 15:22-23 For as in Adam ALL are dying, likewise in Christ shall ALL be made alive. But to each in the own order.
See that first "ALL"? yeah, that sets the precedence for the following "ALL". Do you believe that first "ALL" is indeed everyone? Well so is the next "ALL". No one is going to be tortured for all of eternity. God is not going to lose one of his creations. There is an order to things, and God has a reason for bringing this truth to the rest later. All of christendom teaches MANY lies.
Godbless
''maybe someone is always in hell, but no one stays there forever''
bro that resolves so many issues, very interesting
Seems reasonable to say that if God truly desires some outcome. You should bet on that outcome being realised. Seems weird to bet that God not succeed.
That was the first argument to make me think
It is surely God's desire that no one ever sins, yet people have sinned. So, this is a clear case where God's desire is not realized. I understand your intuition here, but I think it assumes God works more unilaterally than He actually does. I for one have a robust view of human freedom baked into my theology, so I simply just don't share your intuition.
Saying God fails if all are not saved is to assume a sort of one-sided relationship between God and man which I think fails theologically as well as philosophically. I do however reject ECT and affirm annihilationism because I think it is both the most theologically and philosophically sound.
@@bilbobaggins9893 It's not obvious. There are two other options right. God does not exist. God exists but has no such that desire. He realises that true freedom requires some sins happening so he desires the world in which people sin (given the other options).
@@Oskar1000 hmmm, I was just responding to your original point that it would be odd that God desire something He doesn’t get. In cases where human freedom is involved, it isn’t the least bit odd. Just as you said, “He realizes that true freedom requires some sins happening so He desires the world in which people sin (given the other options).” It would be equally fair then to say that “He realizes that true freedom requires some people being lost so He desires the world in which people are lost (given the other options).”
I can't believe anyone believes that Anselmian atonement story or some Rehabilitation of it. That's why I rejected Christianity and especially the authorial response to the problem of evil by calvinists. Utterly sick stories. And Im a Christian
Very strange that there was no mention of the neoplatonic doctrine of procession and reversion (the reversion bit being the relevant part here) and its obvious influence on the early development of universalism in people like Origen. Also strange that nobody, as far as I can tell, referenced David Bentley-Hart's excellent book That All Shall be Saved on universalism.
My only concern with Reitan’s work is his comment about “infinite punishment can’t be achieved since infinity doesn’t end”
The traditionalist can simply assert that the punishment must be never-ending. In that case, the fact that never-ending punishment never… ends… is the point.
But he’s otherwise brilliant in his critiques.
One thing that stood out to me [and this may be because I'm watching this in pieces throughout the day], is that Josh finds evidence for what God would do through analogy of what he may do with and for his children.
While this seems perfectly virtuous to me, it seemed largely unintuitive as well. He pointed out that a perfectly valid reason for why he might limit his children's freedom to play around an infinite fall, would be because of the nature of their experiences, and thus, the nature of their suffering. But what that leads me to wonder is, how large of a pit would he allow his children to play around, and for what purpose? Of course, we all recognize that his character dictates that he would stop his beloved person's from even doing something as sever as breaking a bone, most likely.
But there's a large disconnect between the parent who would allow their child to do what occurs in our world, and what Josh would allow his children to freely do. For example, he would not put his children in the position to be brutally assaulted, physically and mentally, from their infantile years until their demise. Nor would he likely, intentionally, permit them to engage in circumstances where they could risk their own miscarriage, or their engagement with any kind of terminal risk, or with any kind of risk that would cause them constant suffering for a prolonged age. Although, we all must acknowledge that parental experiences as such don't translate into the kinds of permissions a God would necessarily allow, if it were to have created this world.
In that sense, I struggle to see how Josh can find reasons to analogize God-hood to the love of parenthood.
On a separate note, this talk has been bussin, no cap, fr fr, on god and on my mama.
I prefer to say that if my love extends so far as to desire the salvation of all, and I cannot see how God's wouldn't. And if God is so often presented as a parent and a caregiver, the analogy seems fitting.
Remember God has unlimited resources, is all powerful and knows the end from the beginning. So we as earthly parents have limits to what we can do and how we can interact. God has no limits in what or how he can interact with us, and knows what would eternally imperil us and thus as any good parent would not allow us to put ourself in such danger.
Even our death is not enough to separate us from God.
for me theres only 2 options 1. annihilation because the lake of fire is called the 2nd death and 2. purification the lake of fire resembles a refinery where brimstone is removed, and only pure gold remains. Edit: theres a 3rd option follow christ now and avoid hell altogether.
Josh has probably been my favorite contemporary philosopher of religion for a couple of years now, but unfortunately I have to say that I’m very disappointed at his mishandling of Mark 3:28. The verse where Christ says “all men’s sins will be forgiven” is a subordinate clause that compares “all sins” to “the sin against the Holy Spirit” which is unforgivable according to Christ. The plain reading of the text is saying that any sin *can* be forgiven except one.
I mostly agree with Josh on his interpretation of the unforgivable sin, but for him to portray this verse as a stand-alone eschatological statement without ever mentioning the subordinate nature of the first clause is very misleading and irresponsible.
43:40
Even if there is never a moment where justice is served, isn't it enough that justice will always be served?
Thanks, I enjoyed that
Yes, the Good News! That’s evangelism.
Who else thinks most of the descriptions of "Hell" under Universalism sounds just like here on Earth?
Yes because people can live a “Hell” on earth. For example, the concentration camps during Nazi Germany which was pure evil.
Great discussion, love what everyone had to say.
Btw Eric looks like what Kung Fu Panda would look like if he was a human and Meow Meow Meow is actually Henrietta Pussycat from Mr. Rogers.
I can’t watch because I’m stuck on Josh’s question at the start about Meow Meow Meow lol
MEOW
I am both a hopeful and a confident Universalist,
although some might argue this as contradictory.
1:16:54 what happens when I’m safe and I have infinite opportunities to change my mind. Can I be condemned later on if one choice is enough to be saved then one choice should be to be condemned. In both cases, I would think that we assumed that those who are condemned by the choice, wouldn’t do it while being mistaken of the actual glory of God and parallel we would expected those who want to be saved would also be in the full knowledge of the greatness of God. How do we break the parallelism here?
Actually the early church consensus with the first 3 councils is of universal salvation. It was only the later councils, that this universal salvation is set aside, so all oriental orthodox churches believe and affirm in universal salvation, some sections of EO also affirm on universal salvation while some don't, only later churches following protestant schism affirm to a limited or sectarian salvation.
It seems that the argument that only an infinite being could endure infinite punishment can be completely sidestepped by the proponent of the traditional view of hell just arguing that God makes souls temporally and spacially infinite in the afterlife.
WOOO
seems like all you have to do to understand God's plan for all souls is view how people give kindness and deliver valid punishments.
I am halfway through and I don't know which guy is on which side. So it's not a debate? Ok.
Some objections I have to universalism:
1. Regarding evangelism helping to obtain an intrinsic relationship with God here on Earth: In the grand scheme of things regarding eternity, this infinitesimally small amount of time means quite literally nothing. Whatever relationship we end up having here on Earth with God isn't even equatable to a single atom in comparison to the entire universe. The eternity we will spend with God makes everything else a non-factor.
2. Basically the same point as above, but this is regarding the time spent in punishment. Again, infinitesimally small to the point of being a non-factor.
3. What is the point of making this existence? If we are to all end up spending eternity in Heaven with God, what was the point of all this? What's the point in enduring suffering here on Earth? Why the tests? Why have this (again) infinitesimally small amount of time in trials, hardship, love, and life here if we are all going to spend eternity with Him anyway?
(Forgive me if these were answered in the video and I just completely missed them somehow! Feel free to just say watch the video again if they are answered.)
On #1, do you think there is any value in alleviating the immediate suffering of a believer who is going to heaven?
¿ Universalism, pluralism or inclusivism are applied to atheists and/or agnostics ?
Aren't these three totally different things which apply differently?
Universalism being that everyone is saved, which applies to atheists, pluralism being that a variety of religions are true and of God, which applies less to atheists, and inclusivism which says that some (not necessarily all) outside the true religion can still be saved, which would likely apply to atheists.
@@vaskaventi6840 What do you believe ?
@@andresjimenez1724 Just inclusivism
@@vaskaventi6840 ¿ Are Christian and why ? How to determine " THE True religion" if there is any or god ? Why inclusivism ?
@@andresjimenez1724 Christian for cumilative case. Theist for philosophical reasons, Christianity, theologically, is the strongest of the world religions so far as I understand. Historically defensible, particularly in the resurrection, once certain philosophical stances have been granted like theism and possibility of miracles.
The true religion is the one that describes reality, I determine it the same as I determine plenty of other things about reality: reason and experience.
I accept inclusivism because I think exclusivism is not a defensible position given the world diversity of religions. In 700,000 years of human existence, Christianity existed for 2k of them, and in that time, it hasn't even been globally available. What sort of loving God who wills the salvation of all (as Christianity teaches) would make such a scenario where the overwhelming majority of humans don't have access to the true religion? I must maintain that God can save those outside any given religion.
I can hear the naysayers now: “DID HE SUGGEST PUNCHING THE QUEEN??”
It is impossible for any finite being doing any harm to an infinite being. Subtracting any finite number n to infinity (such that n - infinity = infinity) does nothing to infinity. In addition, God has infinite mercy, so any person would eventually be forgiven. So, no worries atheists! Everything will be okey! (I am an atheist also)
1:57:08 Don't think it would be absurd at all. Just think it's weird that the most common folk theory of which people go to hell doesn't seem represented by philosophers.
I'll try to be clearer next time to avoid the derealing. Even though the derailing was fun as well.
Hi Joe. In your analysis of design arguments, you recommended Friction's fine-tuning video. I was wondering, couldn't the strategy employed there be used to undermine literally any argument for theism? Take psycho-physical harmony: just start with "bare design" and "bare non-design" as equal, then when you specify standard theism ("specific design"), the prior probability will be correspondingly lower. Hence, it's impossible for psychophysical harmony (or consciousness, beauty, discoverability, etc.) to be evidence for theism over "bare non-design." This seems to prove too much. What do you think?
Reitans response to the heart heartedness objection is very strong. But I wonder if it is perhaps too strong.
If God has designed us with limits the capacity to harden ourselves against God, then presumably the opposite does not occur for those are in heaven. There is surely no chance of sin ever become alive in heaven because of the fixed natures of those there..but if God does not allow for the ability to reach a final fixed state or to have no upper bounds of fixity in character, then it would be possible eventually to expect there to be sin again in heaven, but this is false.
My concerns are two atm.
Firstly, once we admit that God has placed limits as to how far we can fall from him, why is there the kind of moral evil we see in this world? Why not place more limits? Even just a little?
Secondly, if someone who hates God were to find out in this life that the chance of them coming to love God was, over the space of eternity, an almost mathematically certainty..well then surely the God hating individual would be correct in claiming that they don't really have the freedom to reject God ultimately. And crucially that such knowledge of the inevitable end has removed from them the belief of their own freedom which true love requires.
33:02 The opposite is the case.
One CANNOT harm a God!
The only way you could would be if you hurt a sentient being that it cared about, but that FAILS because, firstly, a God would be able to foresee, and stop any harm coming to a being that it loved and, secondly, the biblical gods are shown perfectly clearly as not caring about anyone, and certainly not about any other animals. Quite the reverse.
ALL they are shown as caring about is obedience and being loved and worshipped, as the book of Job amply demonstrates.
An eternity if Hell is NOT a punishment, as punishment implies not only a point to it, but a crime, and only a dribbling idiot would argue that not believing in the immoral, the illogical and that which is clearly without a solid foundation (unless one counts distorted myths and legends as a foundation) is a crime.
I wish i could watch this but the "ums" were unbearable.
New to your channel, are you a Christian, agnostic, etc?
Hes an agnostic
Good talk, but the free will conflict is easy to resolve. We don't possess this magical libertarian free will. How can we when we are in bondage?....those in bondage do not free themselves, even if they THINK they do...even if the illusions are strong about it, right?
Regardless though, even if we did; we don't have a will that can withstand God's constant love, healing, grace, and power; period. Why would we? The entire premise is flawed and little more than vain hubris to entertain. The most stubborn among us would fold like a leaf and weep like a baby in a matter of moments facing God's divine lights and fire...look at Paul, the "chief sinner"; He was blinded for 3 days, but it was so he could see better than anyone when he could see...how much did he resist while causing chaos and death against God's church as Saul? Not at all; therefore how much easier would any other human be to be shown the light of what is good and healing and proper in Him? We, simple humans, have way too much pride to think we would pose any challenge to God's love and desire to save, with our paltry infantile will (which is in bondage to sin and the ruin of this world and which God will heal us from)
As long as I can self annihilate in any afterlife, I'm happy.
This is the sort of discussion that I expect from philosophers, speculating, musing, and playing with ideas. Only passing contact with concrete scriptural data and exegesis.
The conversation mostly assumes that libertarian freedom/non-Calvinistic notions of freedom not only exist but can help overturn traditional notions of hell.
Worse, more ecumenical doctrines like original sin and corruption, and the necessity of being born again are absent. How are people in hell going to be born again/regenerated? Scripture seems to assume that being born again is only possible on this side of eternity.
Also assumes that Anselm's approach is the only viable defense of eternal conscious punishment. Those in hell remain unregenerate, rebels who continue to be against God and hate God. So it is appropriate that their sentence continues, since sin and rebellion continue.
All of that and more is discussed in the works cited and alluded to…
I feel that universalism is too dismissive of free will and the desires of humans. If a man hates God, he will not take His presence as desirous. He lived his whole life in a way that treated God's calling as an unwanted enemy. An orthodox position is that His river of Life will be as a river of fire to those who choose to hate Him
We addressed this in the discussion🙂 check out the portion of the video on free will wherein we talk about becoming fixed in one’s rejection of God. Also check out resources (7) and (8) in the description that directly address this❤️
It's a bit creepy to think of "The Groom" designing his "bride" such that "real love" is ultimately inevitable.
It’s ultimately freely chosen🙂
So, it seems the "hole" Josh mentioned removes that creepy factor--even if it's like the Mario 64 staircase for a long, long (justified) time to cross into that door you choose to open, and maybe never exit.
@@MajestyofReason That's what's being questioned by the worry.
Maybe we could just assume that answer. 😉
It's also creepy to think "The Groom" designed his "Bride" in such a way that she either gets with him, or she gets tortured.
@@josephtnied Agreed. Good thing there are alternatives to those two views.
I'm not a Christian but universalism seems like Lovecraftian horror. We were created for a purpose and you can't reject that purpose. We can't form our own destinies. Jesus the bridegroom created the bride to inevitably love him. It's like we are no different than the oompa loompas of the chocolate factory.
We were created to just sing in the clouds and be with God forever and we cannot reject it since our wills are geared towards it. The universalist God is a creepy stalker who goes around creating his oompa loompas to be with him in some prison we call "reality". And we are unable to form our own ultimate destinies by our free decision. Our destinies were predetermined by God and there is no escaping this prison we call "reality".
Universalism is the worst possible world
See the free will section of the video! God can secure universal salvation even while totally respecting our libertarian freedom. We’re the ones who choose union with God, there’s no predetermination, etc.
Please listen to the actual arguments carefully, and see the books mentioned in the video for a more advanced discussion.
I'm not practicing Christianity either, but I think your comment is a bad take.
1. Heaven, or communion with God, is fully receiving love, beauty, and truth. What that looks like probably isn't "singing in the clouds" or whatever; think about your life now and what gives you meaning. It's probably your relationships with others, or your ability to learn and grow, or even just the opportunity to experience basic pleasure in beauty. That's what Heaven would be, because that's what God IS; you wouldn't enjoy Heaven because you were brainwashed, you would enjoy it because it's enjoyable by virtue of what it is. Unless you think it's manipulative that God created you such that you enjoy listening to music or making your friends laugh or whatever.
2. You say universalism is the worst possible world, but how? How is having the opportunity to eventually discover love, truth, and beauty worse than a world where that opportunity is closed off forever?
3. Like others have stated, in the universalist world, you still have a choice and opportunities to learn. Your problem isn't with the choice, nor is your problem the fear that God's nature would be something unenjoyable or bad. I get that you think God creating us such that we ultimately want to and need God would be abusive. But that's absurd because God would have created you in their own nature, based on their ultimate value as love, beauty, truth, and reason itself: something inherent to God. If you don't think that's fair, well, there is no other God, no other beauty, no other truth, no other love, and no other reason to turn to. You say that's nightmarish, but literally what other Heaven could anybody possibly hope for? And if you don't want any Heaven, is what I described really worse than the nihilistic world where most lives are brief moments of intense suffering before non-existence and the truth, beauty, and love you strive to experience in life are just brain chemistry operating with no underlying value? I'm not asking what's more likely, and I'm not saying what I described is real or even possible. But I am challenging your claim about what's "better," because you've accepted what the Universalist states for the sake of argument but I don't think you represent it properly.
It's like you have ten kids and you wait long enough for them to give you a hug.
That's certainly better then all any of them being tortured forever.
This is a discussion about updating the story to make it more palatable in our contemporary culture where the idea of hell is abhorrent because the west grew beyond such a childish scenario. It's like the Stryper of the philosophy of christian religion. Christianity now follows the culture. It is beyond me that two great minds here, Joe and Josh can take this seriously. There is not one piece of actual information to be found here. It is all contrivance.
They used bible and works of Christians scholars and philosophers in this video.
If only you'd been there to advise Paul on this topic before he wrote to the Romans, Corinthians, and Ephesians.
Josh, I come from a long line of Meows. As a warrior tribe, we were punished for purring, and praised for knocking over innocent people’s glasses of water onto their laptops.
Thug life 🤌 🐱