“I would have to wonder how a God of love can enjoy love from creatures that is not given freely. Of course, someone might argue that, in the end, every creature will freely offer love to God and be saved (e.g., Moltmann). I would just call that optimism. There’s no way to believe that true other than a leap of optimistic hope.” (Roger Olson, Patheos.com)
In the article this quote is taken from Roger Olson is very clear that he is no universalist nor is he in any way sympathetic to its point of view but instead desires to keep it at arm’s length. But consider his statement in light of the following Scriptures:
“Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'” Matthew 19:26
“Is anything too difficult for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, at this time next year, and Sarah will have a son.” Genesis 18:14
“Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, ‘So shall your offspring be.'” Romans 4:18
“Love never fails.” 1 Corinthians 13:8
According to Roger Olson “optimism” is not a good thing. Or it is at least a highly naive thing to embrace in his estimation. But what exactly is the definition of “optimism”? It literally means “best thing.” It is defined as “hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something.” In philosophy it is the belief that good must ultimately prevail over evil in the universe. I would ask Roger Olson if he would judge whether the above Scriptures give us any reason to believe, to have confidence, to have hope that good will overcome evil by “destroying the works of the Devil” and “the last enemy which is death”? Would he grant that these verses are optimistic?
As you are examining the context of the Christian Story what would you consider to be a “successful outcome”? Would it not be the attainment of Christ’s goal to be “The Savior of the world” and to “seek and to save that which was lost”? Would it not mean that “all would come to repentance” and “none would perish”? Especially since we are told that is God’s desire?
In looking further into the meaning of this word choice by Olson we see that some of the synonyms for “optimism” are “hopefulness, positiveness, …and good cheer.” That reminds me specifically of a verse I learned as a child:
“These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)
Jesus says that He has overcome the world! Apparently there is something so cosmic that has happened to the universe that we are told we can be of good cheer in the midst of the most horrendous tribulation. The world and all its evil has been entirely overcome! And look how He has put it in the past tense!
Proverbs says, “hope deferred makes the heart sick.” To have the view that most of God’s image-bearers will fail to find His salvation and instead bear unredemptive and unimaginable torment and pain forever is, I would say, enough to make the “heart sick.” Contemplate that as including any number of your loved ones and friends and that generates utter hopelessness.
But how can this be when Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4:13 that “we are not of those who have no hope”? He cannot be referring to just me, myself and I, that is–my own personal salvation, how selfish! God created our lives to be inextricably bound together. The fate of others affects us as we “weep with those who weep.” But we are told we are not those who have no hope …period. And that must mean for anyone and everyone. Paul in Romans 15:13 tells us, “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.”
Abound in hope…Wow. Is the Church abounding in hope? Does the world see a “hope” for which they ask the reason? In light of these verses we need to question whether the Bible’s view of hope has any room for the utter pessimism most of the Church has assigned to the Story of God. There are primarily two versions. One has been the Reformed/Calvinist view which says that there never was any hope offered in the first place for most of the human race as they were predestined before they were born, to be damned. Or, as Roger Olson would have it, hope is only a possibility–and the scope of the cross and resurrection only extends hope to the fortunate ones who possess a sane and healthy enough “free-will” to choose the salvation offered in Christ.
In addition, according to the article below, it appears that another objection of Olson’s would be toward any universalist who denies the wrath of God and the true nature of sin. The Evangelical Universalist believes that theology matters and that what the Scriptures have to say about the wrath of God and the reality of sin is to be taken seriously. The Evangelical Universalist does not deny sin nor its consequences.
Responding further to Olson’s defense of “free-will” as the reason behind rejecting the ultimate reconciliation of all: He believes that true love must operate within a relationship of true freedom in order for it to be authentic. Absolutely, we agree. The question that is up for debate is whether man is truly free to choose the good on his own without the Son who “makes him free indeed.”
And what does the culmination of Romans chapters 9-11 mean when Paul says, “God consigned all to disobedience that He might have mercy on them all”? (Romans 11:32)
Is the bowing and confessing of Philippians chapter 2 a forced obeisance or a heartfelt worship?
Do you think it possible that God’s love and grace will prove in the end alluring enough to draw all?
Will His word return to Him empty who said “My word shall not return to Me empty”? (Isa 55:11)
To read more on the nature of free-will see our three part series:
http://godslovewins.com/blog/?p=203
We wonder if Roger Olson sings any of the worship songs we find in most churches today. We have found them to be astoundingly… optimistic.
In closing, we want to express our appreciation of the fact that Olson differentiates between a “mistaken universalist” and a liberal one who denies sin and judgment and/or Christ’s divinity. Also it is gracious of him to clarify how we all are potential heretics, including himself.
I have called universalism “the most attractive heresy.” For a lover of God’s love, universal salvation might seem to be necessary. (I guarantee you that some neo-fundamentalist will take that sentence out of context and attribute it to me without acknowledging what follows.)
However, I’m not a universalist. On the other hand, I’d rather be a universalist than a true Calvinist (i.e., a five point Calvinist who believes in double predestination).
Someone once asked me whether I would still worship God if somehow I became convinced the Calvinist view of God is correct. I had to say no. Sheer power is not worthy of worship. Only power controlled by love is worthy of worship.
If somehow I became convinced that universalism is correct, would I still worship God? Yes, but….
I would have to wonder how a God of love can enjoy love from creatures that is not given freely. Of course, someone might argue that, in the end, every creature will freely offer love to God and be saved (e.g., Moltmann). I would just call that optimism. There’s no way to believe that true other than a leap of optimistic hope.
I think universalism is a minor heresy SO LONG AS it does not interfere with evangelism. (See my earlier post here about why universalism should NOT interfere with evangelism.) I also evaluate the seriousness of universalism by its context–viz., why does the person affirm it? If universalism is evidence of a denial of God’s wrath and/or human sinfulness, then it is much more serious. Barth’s universalism (yes, I believe Karl Barth was a universalist and I’ll post a message here about why later) did not arise out of those denials which is why he didn’t like the appellation “universalist.” The term is usually associated with liberal theology. In that case, as part of an overall liberal/modernist theology, I consider it very serious indeed.
Strictly historically speaking, any universalism is heresy–according to all major branches of Christianity. The Catholic church allows hope for universal salvation but not confident affirmation of it. But, of course, as Luther demonstrated, all branches of Christianity can be wrong. That is why I reject paleo-orthodoxy and any appeal to absolute authority of tradition. Tradition gets a vote but never a veto. The Bible trumps tradition.
When universalism is believed on biblical grounds (as in The Evangelical Universalist by Gregory McDonald–a pseudonym), it is much less serious than when it is believed as part of a liberal theology that denies the wrath of God and the sinfulness of all human beings (except Jesus Christ, of course).
(Sidebar regarding neo-fundamentalism: A neo-fundamentalism is someone who will take what I have written here and claim I have affirmed universalism or at least given aid and comfort to heretics. A neo-fundamentalist, like a straightforward fundamentalist, is a person who cannot distinguish between non-absolute condemnation of error and error itself. Count on it. Some probably Southern Baptist heresy-hunting neo-fundamentalist will pick up on this blog post and spread it around as “proof” that Roger Olson harbors sympathies with universalism. That is, however, evidence of either a weak mind or ill will.)
So, what is my final word on universalism? I don’t have a “final word” on it because “it” is not all that clear. What kind of universalism? Based on what? I consider all positive affirmations of universal salvation that include denial of everlasting hell heretical. But not all are equally bad or condemnable. Some are based on confusion. Some are based on liberal theology. Some (e.g., Karl Barth’s) are based on the logic of God’s love and electing grace (viz., “Jesus is victor!”). All are wrong, but not all are equally bad.
Let me be clear. (This is necessary because of the power of neo-fundamentalists within evangelicalism today!) I am not a universalist nor do I sympathize with universalism. I am simply trying to get people to consider the possibility that not all versions of universalism are on the same level of error. There is egregious error and there is simple error. One kind of universalism (based on denial of God’s wrath and human sinfulness) is egregious error. Another kind (based on confusion about God’s love requiring his overriding free will) is simple error. I hope I don’t hold any egregious errors, but I’m sure I hold some simple errors. I am open to having those pointed out to me. (emphasis mine)
Article found here:
Be First to Comment