Universalism and the Supposed Oddity of Our Earthly Life (original) (raw)

2001, Faith and Philosophy

In "Three Versions of Universalism," Michael Murray asks what purpose our earthly life might serve if universalism is true; and in this brief response, I suggest a possible answer. In an article that recently appeared in this journal, 1 Michael Murray puts to universalists in general, and to me in particular, a question that deserves an answer. Behind the question he raises lies the supposed empirical fact that millions of people die in unbelief and in an unrepentant state; so if they too will be perfected in the end, as I and other universalists believe, then their perfection must be completed in a post-mortem life of some kind. This leads Murray to ask: Given that "the earthly life appears to yield poor soteriological results," just what purpose does it "serve in the outworking of God's plan for his human creation?" 2 Murray goes on to comment: "Obviously, the post-mortem state in which most turn to God is vastly better suited [given the universalist's view] for the conversion of the unregenerate. But if so, why not create us all ab initio, in this latter state?" 3 Why not, in other words, just skip the earthly life, with all of the separation, trials, and tribulations it includes, and simply bring everyone to perfection, quickly and painlessly, in a post-mortem existence of some kind? The question is important because it seems to express a widespread worry among the opponents of universalism. Even as opponents of Augustinian predestination sometimes worry that our earthly life would have no intelligible purpose if the eternal destiny of the elect should be secure from the beginning, so Murray worries that our earthly life would have no intelligible