I’ve also noticed this is why modern universalism often pairs naturally with pluralism. If God’s final act is universal inclusion, then every hard boundary begins to look provisional at best, violent at worst. I have been on the receiving end of these accusations. I hope that all shall be saved btw.
I like your balance on universalism and salvation.
Zizek (who I saw the other day in London) actually makes no sense. To me he is a loveable narcotically infused gorilla. I know what you are getting at with Zizek, I loved his perverts guide to ideology etc... but I saw Rowan Williams handle some of Zizeks propositions in a way that revealed the very interesting but highly subjective nonsense Zizek is trying to get people to accept. 'Christian Atheism' is like saying 'dry water' - it's not even an oxymoron.
There is one unforgivable sin and Zizek is recommending people commit it.
I would go even further and say that Zizek makes the very nature of human personhood the unforgivable sin, aptly using the term "death drive" to describe the core of subjectivity
"Christian Atheism" may not exist in itself, but an atheism shaped by a post-Christian understanding of human nature and the value of persons is fundamentally different from an atheism entirely separate from Christian society, no?
I don't think I'll be able to explain it well beyond what I feel. I'm not that strong of a writer haha. I think it, by virtue of its difference from an atheism unaffected by Christian thought, does make it have value beyond being different from atheism outside of current or former christian societies. From what I read in your original comment you are saying its either a non-existent or absurd position. I am saying its neither of the two. I hope I didn't misunderstand you !
Its ok, I can get your drift. I don’t class myself as a great writer either. (Im better at drawing)
I don’t think there is an atheism unaffected by Christian thought.
As for Zizek, yes I think “Christian atheism” is stupid. It’s not even provocative. Its like Richard Dawkins who wants his “church bells etc” but not the reality that inspired it. Its crazy that people really think there are apples that dont come from trees, and want us to deny the reality of trees .
Zizek is a nihilist. I don’t like saying this because I find his character fun. But he is ultimately asking people to annihilate themselves. He is a “nothing wizard”.
Hey Trey, I appreciate another thoughtful article. Usually, when I find myself being skeptical of an argument you make, it's due to a very common trap that we sometimes fall into when we articulate arguments. In this case, and I think in the last time I disagreed with an argument you made, you equivocate on two different meanings of a phrase, thus changing the proposition and making the argument logically invalid, despite the fact that it sounds successful. Essentially, the progress of your argument is roughly this:
1. It is the wrong epistemic attitude of an Orthodox Christian to believe that personally, they will certainly be saved.
2. Confident universalism asserts certainly that all shall be saved.
3. If all shall be saved, then the confident universalist will certainly, individually be saved.
4. Therefore, if one believes certainly that all shall be saved [confident universalism], one believes that they personally will certainly be saved.
5. Therefore, confident universalism necessarily entails engaging in the wrong epistemic attitude. for an Orthodox Christian.
This sounds good, I think. Nevertheless, it subtly relies on two different meanings of "saved" to work. No Orthodox, patristic universalist holds that "hell" does not exist in some sense. There are rather scary, fiery statements in Gregory of Nyssa or Origen or even Hart (see his personal reflection on the avarice of owning a large library in the opening to "A Dream Child's Progress") regarding the anguish that awaits in the purgative fires of God's love pruning the evil and darkness from those who were not saints while living. After all, Orthodox universalists confess the statements of damnation in the New Testament all the same. And so, "All shall be saved" in this sense simply means that no soul will be eternally unredeemed, not that every soul will instantly receive the joyful fruits of communion with God. We can call this sense of "salvation" the weak sense of the term.
However, your very correct statement that it is an improper epistemic attitude for an Orthodox Christian to believe that they will certainly be saved requires the strong sense of salvation. "Saved" in this case would be believing that, on account of the fact that one has achieved sanctity and properly purified oneself over the course of one's life, one will immediately encounter the highest joys of eternal bliss that the saints (or the "sheep" in Matthew's parable) will immediately encounter.
This strong sense is necessary to make the belief prideful; otherwise, it's unproblematic. A personal belief that I, ultimately, will be saved in the weak sense is simply a confident declaration of my faith that God's power, wisdom, and mercy have no limit, even for the sinners who are the worst amongst us, of whom I am first.
After all, one may believe that they'll be "ultimately saved" but have in mind that they'll come around to perfection at the same moment as Hitler and Stalin. Whereas to believe that I personally will be saved in the strong sense would be to believe that I personally am a saint, which is pride. Therefore, confident universalism only entails a problematic epistemic attitude if we equivocate on the two senses of salvation in an erroneous way.
tbh I personally found the argument in regard to Holy Scripture the strongest in the article.
how can all eventually be redeemed if the Bible speaks of eternal damnation and the unforgivable sin? surely if one is “unforgivable” they are also irredeemable, no?
how can one be eternally damned and still end up saved? even if we say wicked souls are co-signed to hell for a million years, it doesn’t matter, for one cannot eventually be saved if they are eternally damned.
I think the way universalists describe hell is what purgatory actually is. why not suppose that most souls go to purgatory instead? St. Justin Marty once said that “anybody who lived reasonable can be called a Christian”, which would suppose that many non-professing Christians end up with our Lord without having to be confident in universalism.
which leads me to believe that a sort of spiritual narcissism may be afoot, in the likes of how it was described in the article, the self-confidence we were warned against when we were told not to lean on our own understanding.
Well, on the scriptural point I dont agree but better exegetes than me--Harts book, Keith Derose has a good article, Hunter Coates in this comment section has an incredible book called Grace Abounds. I think the prominence of universalism in the Greek speaking early church probably points to the fact that the scriptural case is not nearly as dire as many claim, or in my view not dire at all.
On the point about trusting ones own reason--I dont like that attitude in churches. Because any act of reading is necessarily mediated through personal reason. It requires interpretive, rational decisions to translate scripture.
Even with texts originally in English, any act of reading utilizes ones own mind to assess what is the proper interpretation and how its various propositions ought to be put together. As the Thomistic philosopher Robert Koons says, anyone can find a bad argument in a text. Especially given that the bible is an anthology, not a single authorship, we must keep this in mind.
We can never sacrifice our intellect entirely and I dont like this approach to faith as credulity because it may seem pious when talking amongst ourselves within the context of our own tradition but if a Mormon were to bury their doubts by criticizing natural reason and invoking faith, I would think that this is a bad posture which will enshrine them in serious error and falsehood. So we must be wary of making faith into credulity in our traditions because otherwise, we can be stuck in falsehood with no way out.
hmm, I’m not trying to say that we shouldn’t trust our own reason at all, nor that one should have a blind faith, but that universalism may be a spiritual deception because to assume that all are saved is to judge the salvation of all, i.e. to imagine oneself as an authority, of having secret knowledge that in truth is only knowable to God.
for again, the argument is far more plausible to me if we speak of Purgatory instead of Hell. i tend to think that Purgatory is far, far nastier than we’d like to admit for many who lived wicked lives, yet in the end had the redeeming factor in them, like most people do, in the sense that most never commit the “unforgivable sin” like Judas did.
what I suspect is that some humans choose Hell in the same way Lucifer did by rebelling against God. Lucifer had Heaven and was by God’s side in His glory, living in perfection with Him. Yet he chose Hell all the same. Are humans any different? I’m not so sure.
so for these “eternally damned” souls, perhaps it is not so much that God is punishing them, but rather that they chose hell over God consciously and willingly. they don’t want Heaven, they refuse it. this is what it means to commit the “unforgivable sin”, to know God and choose the devil instead (i.e. Judas, “it would have been better if he were never born).
I think this is the case for very, very few people, but I do imagine that some have crossed the point of no return. yes, most are saved, but rather through the process of purgatory as opposed to the fires of Hell.
with that being said I haven’t read those books, and I’m not refuting universalism outright but these are the convictions that cross my mind when I consider it and would appreciate any clarity in regard to a faulty understanding of its precepts.
Completely agree, especially if we take the Scriptures and overall tradition very seriously, or else we are stuck trying to perpetually justify the hermeneutic of "but what they REALLY meant was ..." Like you, I wouldn't be surprised, and some arguments are convincing, but not enough to become dogmatically universalist (though I have tried lol). I take the St Silouan approach: keep thy mind in hell and despair not.
Because all others will be saved, I will be saved. This is how to make sense of the remark before the Eucharist that “I am the chief sinner.” This is how to square humility with confident universalism. And of course you know my thoughts on universalism in Scripture and Tradition (à la Grace Abounds)
Appreciate this. It has boggled my mind that so many self proclaimed Orthodox- both here and in other places- peddle the view you are describing and seem to face zero pushback from clerical authorities. I pray this changes in the future and that you continue writing on this subject.
I heard a story once from a friend, he is a universalist a rather well know one who I won’t name, he writes articles, it’s not hart.
His position was know by many priests and even some monks, they would come up to him and whisper in his ear “Issac convinced me, but we all must keep quiet about this”
I think the spirit of the mystery of Gods love is ruined in people like hart who try and make this an academic argument to be put into a syllogism, but the hopeful infernalism is also rather ill minded.
Confident infernalism is willful hatred of the person and not just their sin, this is what many thomists present themselves as, saying “God hates the sinner and his sin” where as confident universalism overplays itself in history.
Yeah... I understand and deeply respect the Universalist position, and I hope it is the case. I hope that Hell is, essentially a purgatory, or at least a potential one. The people who have had Near Death Experiences where Christ rescues them from literal Hell seem to point to this. But I don't know. Maybe, in the end, what we can say with confidence is that Christ's mercy is available to all and is extended to all, in some way. Whether all of us will respond positively in the end, though, we can't know. But I would hope that, at least, everybody gets the chance. Why not?
While I don't disagree with everything you say here (and note that I am not taking a position necessarily on universalism by pointing out the following), your insinuation that holding to 'confident universalism' is bad for the person holding it is not borne out by the evidence as far as I am aware of it. I personally know of some instances in which it was the discovery of universalism that saved someone's faith and gave them a new hope in Christ, leading to repentance and a deeper love for God.
I'll grant that some people may respond to universalism in the sense that you insinuate, becoming 'confident' in their own salvation and thus lax and prideful, in the way that a Calvinist who believes he is elected would. But I do not personally know of any cases like this.
I'm aware that some people, famous and not, have (in some people's opinion) made themselves noxious online by arguing for confident universalism. But it's dangerous to judge someone wholly by their comment box behavior, and in any case this behavior cannot necessarily be assumed to be caused by their embrace of universalism. Some anti-abortion activists can be extremely harsh and judgmental and rude - does that in itself negate their position?
Good post Trey, bit missed but over all good. In terms of the sheep’s and goats and all of that, I recommend you read the bride one of these days. Also there is always the reality that the “outer-layer” of scripture might not be communicating that which is abundantly obvious, ofc what is the deeper truth is also debatable but I think really inhabiting some of these writings (Issac’s second part talks about these things extensively) is a good start.
I’ve also noticed this is why modern universalism often pairs naturally with pluralism. If God’s final act is universal inclusion, then every hard boundary begins to look provisional at best, violent at worst. I have been on the receiving end of these accusations. I hope that all shall be saved btw.
My position seems to be the least popular. I’m not a “confident universalist,” but I am violently opposed to infernalism.
Do I deserve an eternity of bliss? I dunno, probably not.
Do I deserve to be deleted and forgotten by everyone? Maybe.
But I’m 100% sure that no one deserves to be tortured for eternity. That’s deranged.
I’m open to both Conditionalism and Universalism, but I don’t claim to know which is correct.
I like your balance on universalism and salvation.
Zizek (who I saw the other day in London) actually makes no sense. To me he is a loveable narcotically infused gorilla. I know what you are getting at with Zizek, I loved his perverts guide to ideology etc... but I saw Rowan Williams handle some of Zizeks propositions in a way that revealed the very interesting but highly subjective nonsense Zizek is trying to get people to accept. 'Christian Atheism' is like saying 'dry water' - it's not even an oxymoron.
There is one unforgivable sin and Zizek is recommending people commit it.
I would go even further and say that Zizek makes the very nature of human personhood the unforgivable sin, aptly using the term "death drive" to describe the core of subjectivity
You mean to say that zizek is twisting and contorting what the unforgivable sin is to suit his own interpretation?
Well Zizek is an atheist, so he doesn't actually believe in sin. What I think is that he unknowingly discovers the "logic" of sin ("self-relating negativity" is the term he uses), and makes it the structure of human subjectivity. I talk about it in here somewhere, I apologize if its behind a pay wall https://telosbound.substack.com/p/whole-mystery-of-christ?r=17d53e&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
"Christian Atheism" may not exist in itself, but an atheism shaped by a post-Christian understanding of human nature and the value of persons is fundamentally different from an atheism entirely separate from Christian society, no?
would you agree christian atheism is fundamentally a different flavour of atheism?
Absolutely, and it's demarcation from other atheisms and tangentiality to Christian thought, in a sense does make it exist as more than an oxymoron.
say more on 'does make it exist as more than an oxymoron' ?
I don't think I'll be able to explain it well beyond what I feel. I'm not that strong of a writer haha. I think it, by virtue of its difference from an atheism unaffected by Christian thought, does make it have value beyond being different from atheism outside of current or former christian societies. From what I read in your original comment you are saying its either a non-existent or absurd position. I am saying its neither of the two. I hope I didn't misunderstand you !
Its ok, I can get your drift. I don’t class myself as a great writer either. (Im better at drawing)
I don’t think there is an atheism unaffected by Christian thought.
As for Zizek, yes I think “Christian atheism” is stupid. It’s not even provocative. Its like Richard Dawkins who wants his “church bells etc” but not the reality that inspired it. Its crazy that people really think there are apples that dont come from trees, and want us to deny the reality of trees .
Zizek is a nihilist. I don’t like saying this because I find his character fun. But he is ultimately asking people to annihilate themselves. He is a “nothing wizard”.
Hey Trey, I appreciate another thoughtful article. Usually, when I find myself being skeptical of an argument you make, it's due to a very common trap that we sometimes fall into when we articulate arguments. In this case, and I think in the last time I disagreed with an argument you made, you equivocate on two different meanings of a phrase, thus changing the proposition and making the argument logically invalid, despite the fact that it sounds successful. Essentially, the progress of your argument is roughly this:
1. It is the wrong epistemic attitude of an Orthodox Christian to believe that personally, they will certainly be saved.
2. Confident universalism asserts certainly that all shall be saved.
3. If all shall be saved, then the confident universalist will certainly, individually be saved.
4. Therefore, if one believes certainly that all shall be saved [confident universalism], one believes that they personally will certainly be saved.
5. Therefore, confident universalism necessarily entails engaging in the wrong epistemic attitude. for an Orthodox Christian.
This sounds good, I think. Nevertheless, it subtly relies on two different meanings of "saved" to work. No Orthodox, patristic universalist holds that "hell" does not exist in some sense. There are rather scary, fiery statements in Gregory of Nyssa or Origen or even Hart (see his personal reflection on the avarice of owning a large library in the opening to "A Dream Child's Progress") regarding the anguish that awaits in the purgative fires of God's love pruning the evil and darkness from those who were not saints while living. After all, Orthodox universalists confess the statements of damnation in the New Testament all the same. And so, "All shall be saved" in this sense simply means that no soul will be eternally unredeemed, not that every soul will instantly receive the joyful fruits of communion with God. We can call this sense of "salvation" the weak sense of the term.
However, your very correct statement that it is an improper epistemic attitude for an Orthodox Christian to believe that they will certainly be saved requires the strong sense of salvation. "Saved" in this case would be believing that, on account of the fact that one has achieved sanctity and properly purified oneself over the course of one's life, one will immediately encounter the highest joys of eternal bliss that the saints (or the "sheep" in Matthew's parable) will immediately encounter.
This strong sense is necessary to make the belief prideful; otherwise, it's unproblematic. A personal belief that I, ultimately, will be saved in the weak sense is simply a confident declaration of my faith that God's power, wisdom, and mercy have no limit, even for the sinners who are the worst amongst us, of whom I am first.
After all, one may believe that they'll be "ultimately saved" but have in mind that they'll come around to perfection at the same moment as Hitler and Stalin. Whereas to believe that I personally will be saved in the strong sense would be to believe that I personally am a saint, which is pride. Therefore, confident universalism only entails a problematic epistemic attitude if we equivocate on the two senses of salvation in an erroneous way.
God bless brother
I appreciate the comment - this is what I came here to post, but you put it much better than I likely would. Thank you!
tbh I personally found the argument in regard to Holy Scripture the strongest in the article.
how can all eventually be redeemed if the Bible speaks of eternal damnation and the unforgivable sin? surely if one is “unforgivable” they are also irredeemable, no?
how can one be eternally damned and still end up saved? even if we say wicked souls are co-signed to hell for a million years, it doesn’t matter, for one cannot eventually be saved if they are eternally damned.
I think the way universalists describe hell is what purgatory actually is. why not suppose that most souls go to purgatory instead? St. Justin Marty once said that “anybody who lived reasonable can be called a Christian”, which would suppose that many non-professing Christians end up with our Lord without having to be confident in universalism.
which leads me to believe that a sort of spiritual narcissism may be afoot, in the likes of how it was described in the article, the self-confidence we were warned against when we were told not to lean on our own understanding.
Well, on the scriptural point I dont agree but better exegetes than me--Harts book, Keith Derose has a good article, Hunter Coates in this comment section has an incredible book called Grace Abounds. I think the prominence of universalism in the Greek speaking early church probably points to the fact that the scriptural case is not nearly as dire as many claim, or in my view not dire at all.
On the point about trusting ones own reason--I dont like that attitude in churches. Because any act of reading is necessarily mediated through personal reason. It requires interpretive, rational decisions to translate scripture.
Even with texts originally in English, any act of reading utilizes ones own mind to assess what is the proper interpretation and how its various propositions ought to be put together. As the Thomistic philosopher Robert Koons says, anyone can find a bad argument in a text. Especially given that the bible is an anthology, not a single authorship, we must keep this in mind.
We can never sacrifice our intellect entirely and I dont like this approach to faith as credulity because it may seem pious when talking amongst ourselves within the context of our own tradition but if a Mormon were to bury their doubts by criticizing natural reason and invoking faith, I would think that this is a bad posture which will enshrine them in serious error and falsehood. So we must be wary of making faith into credulity in our traditions because otherwise, we can be stuck in falsehood with no way out.
hmm, I’m not trying to say that we shouldn’t trust our own reason at all, nor that one should have a blind faith, but that universalism may be a spiritual deception because to assume that all are saved is to judge the salvation of all, i.e. to imagine oneself as an authority, of having secret knowledge that in truth is only knowable to God.
for again, the argument is far more plausible to me if we speak of Purgatory instead of Hell. i tend to think that Purgatory is far, far nastier than we’d like to admit for many who lived wicked lives, yet in the end had the redeeming factor in them, like most people do, in the sense that most never commit the “unforgivable sin” like Judas did.
what I suspect is that some humans choose Hell in the same way Lucifer did by rebelling against God. Lucifer had Heaven and was by God’s side in His glory, living in perfection with Him. Yet he chose Hell all the same. Are humans any different? I’m not so sure.
so for these “eternally damned” souls, perhaps it is not so much that God is punishing them, but rather that they chose hell over God consciously and willingly. they don’t want Heaven, they refuse it. this is what it means to commit the “unforgivable sin”, to know God and choose the devil instead (i.e. Judas, “it would have been better if he were never born).
I think this is the case for very, very few people, but I do imagine that some have crossed the point of no return. yes, most are saved, but rather through the process of purgatory as opposed to the fires of Hell.
with that being said I haven’t read those books, and I’m not refuting universalism outright but these are the convictions that cross my mind when I consider it and would appreciate any clarity in regard to a faulty understanding of its precepts.
Fair enough
Completely agree, especially if we take the Scriptures and overall tradition very seriously, or else we are stuck trying to perpetually justify the hermeneutic of "but what they REALLY meant was ..." Like you, I wouldn't be surprised, and some arguments are convincing, but not enough to become dogmatically universalist (though I have tried lol). I take the St Silouan approach: keep thy mind in hell and despair not.
Because all others will be saved, I will be saved. This is how to make sense of the remark before the Eucharist that “I am the chief sinner.” This is how to square humility with confident universalism. And of course you know my thoughts on universalism in Scripture and Tradition (à la Grace Abounds)
Appreciate this. It has boggled my mind that so many self proclaimed Orthodox- both here and in other places- peddle the view you are describing and seem to face zero pushback from clerical authorities. I pray this changes in the future and that you continue writing on this subject.
I heard a story once from a friend, he is a universalist a rather well know one who I won’t name, he writes articles, it’s not hart.
His position was know by many priests and even some monks, they would come up to him and whisper in his ear “Issac convinced me, but we all must keep quiet about this”
I think the spirit of the mystery of Gods love is ruined in people like hart who try and make this an academic argument to be put into a syllogism, but the hopeful infernalism is also rather ill minded.
Confident infernalism is willful hatred of the person and not just their sin, this is what many thomists present themselves as, saying “God hates the sinner and his sin” where as confident universalism overplays itself in history.
Yeah... I understand and deeply respect the Universalist position, and I hope it is the case. I hope that Hell is, essentially a purgatory, or at least a potential one. The people who have had Near Death Experiences where Christ rescues them from literal Hell seem to point to this. But I don't know. Maybe, in the end, what we can say with confidence is that Christ's mercy is available to all and is extended to all, in some way. Whether all of us will respond positively in the end, though, we can't know. But I would hope that, at least, everybody gets the chance. Why not?
While I don't disagree with everything you say here (and note that I am not taking a position necessarily on universalism by pointing out the following), your insinuation that holding to 'confident universalism' is bad for the person holding it is not borne out by the evidence as far as I am aware of it. I personally know of some instances in which it was the discovery of universalism that saved someone's faith and gave them a new hope in Christ, leading to repentance and a deeper love for God.
I'll grant that some people may respond to universalism in the sense that you insinuate, becoming 'confident' in their own salvation and thus lax and prideful, in the way that a Calvinist who believes he is elected would. But I do not personally know of any cases like this.
I'm aware that some people, famous and not, have (in some people's opinion) made themselves noxious online by arguing for confident universalism. But it's dangerous to judge someone wholly by their comment box behavior, and in any case this behavior cannot necessarily be assumed to be caused by their embrace of universalism. Some anti-abortion activists can be extremely harsh and judgmental and rude - does that in itself negate their position?
Good post Trey, bit missed but over all good. In terms of the sheep’s and goats and all of that, I recommend you read the bride one of these days. Also there is always the reality that the “outer-layer” of scripture might not be communicating that which is abundantly obvious, ofc what is the deeper truth is also debatable but I think really inhabiting some of these writings (Issac’s second part talks about these things extensively) is a good start.
I will be the last one in hell
Hehehehe