Evangelical Universalism – Oxymoron?

By Gregory

25 Feb 2008

The title of my book, The Evangelical Universalist was deliberately chosen to raise eyebrows and stir up curiosity (and perhaps even animosity). If there is one thing that most of think that we know it is that “evangelical universalism” is an oxymoron (and anyone who claims to be an “evangelical universalist” is just a moron).

It is certainly true that in the history of evangelicalism belief in Hell as eternal conscious torment was, and remains, the majority view. And if evangelicals have rejected Hell as never ending torment then they have embraced a version of annihilationism. But universalism? No never! Universalism is for those who have given up on the Bible or perhaps even on traditional Christianity itself. After all, universalists believe that everyone is saved and yet the Bible says that some people go to Hell so … universalists obviously disagree with the clear teaching of Scripture and thus eject themselves from the evangelical camp. Simple. Right? Wrong.

It is my conviction that, weird as it may sound, there is a version of universalism that is thoroughly Christian and even counts as evangelical. Indeed I think of myself as precisely such an evangelical universalist. The view is very simply this:

(1) a universalism that maintains the creedal orthodoxy of the main Christian traditions (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant). It affirms the Trinity, the incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension and return of Christ. It affirms the centrality of the Church and of baptism.

(2) a universalism that maintains a high view of the Bible. It affirms the divine inspiration of all Scripture and holds the Bible as authoritative for all Christian theological reflection.

(3) a universalism that maintains David Bebbington’s four distinctives of evangelicalism: (a) conversionism, (b) biblicism, (c) activism, (d) crucicentrism.

Evangelical universalists believe in one God, the creator of heaven and earth, in the goodness of the created order, the severity of sin and its terrible consequences, the necessity of divine action to effect redemption. They believe that salvation is found only through Christ’s work in becoming flesh, suffering the consequences of our sins on the cross, being raised to new life in the power of the Spirit, and ascending to reign in heaven.

It is perfectly possibly (though not essential) for an evangelical universalist to believe that people need to come to explicit faith in Christ to be saved (i.e., to be an exclusivist). They believe in final judgment and they also believe that many people will be thrown into “outer darkness” – into Hell. Yes indeed! Traditional Christian universalists DO believe in Hell!

So what precisely is distinctive about evangelical universalism? Two things:

1. Evengelical universalists believe that it is possible to be saved from Hell. We do not think that, when it comes to salvation, there is such a thing as a point of no return. It is never too late to be the recipient of grace and mercy.

2. We believe that, in the end, everyone in Hell will turn and receive divine mercy through Christ.

Now you may think that we are mistaken in those beliefs. But I am not trying to persuade you to agree with us. I am simply wanting to pose this question – Are those beliefs incompatible with evangelical faith? In the book I argue that they do not undermine the Bible (which I maintain can be interpreted in universalist ways), the creeds, any of the central evangelical distinctives, nor the centrality of mission and the passion for holiness.

Evangelicals agree to disagree about a lot of things – indeed a lot of big issues (e.g., Calvinism and Arminianism) – but such disagreements take place within the camp. All I am asking is why the issue of how many people God will eventually save cannot be counted as one those areas where we agree to disagree.

If we agree on what people need saving from (sin and death), on who saved them (God in Christ), on how they are saved (by being united by the Spirit to the death-resurrection of Christ through faith) then the gospel is hardly at stake in this debate.

If evangelical universalism is Christ-centred, trinitarian, gospel-preaching and Bible-believing then I think we have as much right to be thought of as evangelicals as Calvinists, Arminians, Dispensationalists, Covenant theologians, creationists, theistic evolutionists, and so on and so forth.

So “evangelical universalism” for me is not an oxymoron and I like to hope that I am also not a moron (but that is for others to decide).

Gregory MacDonald

The Evangelical Universalist

Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2006
London: SPCK, 2008

Tagged: , ,

115 comments

Trackback


  1. Comment by Tracy Simmons (Elle)

    11.42 am on 25 Feb 2008

    Fantastic! You have said this so well and so succinctly.

    People often ask me, “If you believe everyone is going to end up in heaven eventually, then why bother to tell anyone about Jesus, why bother ‘witnessing?’” They miss the point that my belief in this area causes me to be far more evangelical and desirous of telling people about Jesus than would be the case without it. This message is, indeed, part of the Good News!

    Well, I won’t go into all the reasons why it’s better for people to accept Christ now rather wait until “eventually….” (much as I’d like to!) but just wanted to say well done on this great post!

    Tracy

    1. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

      4.09 pm on 26 Feb 2008

      Tracy

      Thanks for the encouragement. You are quite correct to say that Evangelical Universalists have good reasons to be active in mission even if we believe that Hell has an exit.

      Pax

      GM

  2. Comment by Katharine Moody

    12.12 pm on 25 Feb 2008

    I was struck reading your book title (The Evangelical Universalist) that it is reminiscent of Dave Tomlinson’s The Post-Evangelical, in terms of syntax. Was that association deliberate on your part? I was wondering how you think a conversation between an evangelical universalist and a post-evangelical might go?

    1. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

      4.11 pm on 26 Feb 2008

      Katherine

      The link did not cross my mind.

      I am not sure how the conversation would go. I am not post-evangelical (in my view – others may beg to differ) so we may not see eye to eye on everything.

      Pax

      GM

  3. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

    5.17 pm on 25 Feb 2008

    I have been raised as an Evangelical my whole life. I adhere to the Nicene creed, and I believe the Bible to be without error. I believe Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to salvation and to the Father.

    And in recent months, I have debated my whole concept of hell. To hold to a view that God created some people for damnation just doesn’t seem to line up with Biblical truth to me. But yet, the idea that God isn’t sovereign doesn’t ring true either. The fact that God never destroyed man in the very beginning of creation (or at the flood) would suggest to me that God is actually interested in redeeming man.

    At first, I was scared of the term “universalist” because I equated it with “liberal” or “new age.” I believe in Jesus, and I believe He is the only path to the Father. And for the first time, thanks in part to Gregory’s book, I see the possibility that a “universalist” perspective can exist with the framework of Evangelicalism.

    I was thinking this morning about why missions and evangelism would even be important from this perspective. In honesty, if God has chosen some for damnation, then I don’t see a point. But from a universalistic vantage point … just because people may be saved out of hell, doesn’t mean that there is no need to evangelize. I think of my daughter who accidentally played near an ant pile. Now, I could say, “Even if she starts getting bit, even if it be hundreds of bites, I know she won’t sit there in the ants.” But what kind of parent would that be? To say, “Oh yes, this person may go to hell, but after eventual torment, they will come out of it.” If I love that person in Christ, then why would I want ANYONE to go through that?

    Especially in the light that God has reconciled all to Him through Christ? And now extends the hand of friendship to all who accept His Son? If I used to eat out of the dumpsters of life, and now sit down at the banquet table of God in Jesus, why would I be content to allow others to eat garbage when they can know NOW the goodness of God?

    I am still working through what I believe to be truth. But I’m happy to have found this site!

    Blessings,
    Brandon

    1. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

      4.18 pm on 26 Feb 2008

      Brandon

      I think your ant nest analogy is most helpful and perfectly illustrates the point that for a universalist keeping people out of Hell can still function as a motive for evangelism (although only one amongst several motives).

      Your struggling with the issue of Hell is somewhat like my own (as you will know if you have read the book). I had always assumed that universalism was liberal and heretical. I got to the point where I came to believe that God could save all people without violating their freewill. So why didn’t he? I agonized over that for a long time and even found it hard to believe that God could really be loving. In the end it was looking at the Bible with fresh eyes that awakened hope and a solution to my problem. I came to believe that God will save everyone in the end (through trust in what God has achieved in Christ). My biblical reasoning is, as you know, found in the book.

      Pax

      GM

    2. Comment by Donna Young

      8.35 pm on 14 May 2008

      My thoughts exactly!!! Thank you. I have felt very lonely in my thoughts but I am thinking now, I am not so alone. Praise God!

      Donna

  4. Comment by Rachel

    7.02 pm on 25 Feb 2008

    Hi Gregory,

    Thanks so much for this summary…I agree completely! I get more of a shocked reaction from people when I talk about Universalism than when I mention Arianism…ooh it makes me mad!

    I really only have one reservation that is keeping me from full-out accepting universalism. If universalism is true, why is the overall trajectory of church tradition so opposed to it? I feel like for a coherent doctrine of the Church we need to believe that the Holy Spirit has been guiding church tradition throughout the ages. And it seems to me that although there have always been individuals that have accepted universalism throughout church history, they have always been the minority that no one pays attention to. Kind of like the people who keep voting for Ralph Nadar election after election. What say you?

    1. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

      4.42 pm on 26 Feb 2008

      Rachel

      That is a really excellent question. Wow! I may have to go away for a year to think about it before answering. Here are some stream of consciousness first attempts to say something sensible.

      1. I love your respect for tradition. Ironically, perhaps, I share it. It is for precisely this reason that I do not say that universalism is THE TRUE Christian view but merely that it is a view permitted to Christians (and, of course, I do think it is true and am happy to explain why). It cannot be central to the faith because if it was then it would have been a much stronger theme in the tradition. So tradition is what keeps me from being overly arrogant. Presumably the Holy Spirit did not see it as something that should be central to our faith.

      2. Some of those who defended universalism – at least in the early days before it was frowned upon – were actually major players (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa). After it fell under suspicion it was much harder for people to sympathize with it. But the traditiojn only seems to me to close down certain kinds of universalism not universalism per se.

      3. The majority trajectory of the tradition ought to make any Christian pause before committing to some version of universalism. Again, perhaps ironically, I would be worried if lots of people rushed to become universalists. It is a move that should be made cautiously and after much reflection and prayer.

      4. The tradition bounds the version of universalism that I espouse so I see my theology as innovating within a tradition. I think that my view may provide a way of holding together some ideas central to the tradition that (ironically again) traditional theology on Hell actually makes very difficult (e.g., How can we maintain all of the following? God loves all people, God wants to save all people, God is soverign, God sends some people to Hell). I can maintain all of those things in a more coherent way than traditional views of Hell allow.

      5. I also think that it is not about rejecting, say, the Augustinian tradition on final judgment as a whole – there is wisdom from God in every great theological tradition and universalists need to ponder what they can learn from Augustine’s teaching on Hell even if they reject parts of what he says. The Holy Spirit is willing to tolerate some mistakes in our theology and still use us. Which, if I am wrong, is something of a relief!

      6. The tradition is not unanimous on the details of Hell – it allows room for movement.

      7. The tradition can also, sometimes, go astray (as all good Protestants would have to affirm).

      Sorry I did not answer your question adequately – give me a year on that

      Pax

      GM

      1. Comment by Rachel

        5.53 pm on 26 Feb 2008

        Thanks, Gregory- that answer was actually really helpful! I like the points you make about universalism vs. traditional views of hell not being a central point of the Christian tradition. There are many views (exclusivism, inclusivism, etc.)…why not throw universalism into the mix? Thanks again, I’m looking forward to reading your book eventually.

  5. Comment by Pam Hogeweide

    7.37 pm on 25 Feb 2008

    I recently blogged at length about the idea of God being a committed reconcilationist beyond the gates of death and hell.

    http://godmessedmeup.blogspot.com/search/label/Hell%20Stories

    (This address will take you to all the posts I’ve done about hell starting with the most recent writings.)

    I appreciate that you have taken the time and effort to undertake a project like writing a book. I don’t have any questions for you about evangelical universalism since it is already something I am well on my way to embracing.

    But what I am interested in knowing is why you are hiding behind a pseudonym? Are you a professor at a Christian college? A pastor? A church or ministry leader? The pseudonym suggests that your livelihood is in the religion business and that a public position of universalism would jeopardize your livelihood.

    I’m not intending to derail this conversation from it’s intent of dialog about universalism. But I think it is worth talking about that because the very concept is considered heretical and taboo that it warrants people to be secretive about their true beliefs. And if this is the case, it says a whole lot more about the dysfunction of The Church than disagreement on scripture and doctrinal beliefs.

    (Gregory, if you live in Oregon like I do, would you email me?)

    pamhogeweide@gmail.com

    (thanks jason for facilitating this. i think this idea has the potential to spark a kind of reformation within our lifetime…imagine if this idea of eternal reconciliationism was more broadly embraced…!)

    1. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

      4.45 pm on 26 Feb 2008

      Pam

      Why the pseudonym? If I told you I’d have to kill you. :-)

      I do work in the ‘Christian world’. Not everyone would be so sympathetic to the cause as you are. Also the bad boy inside me quite likes the idea of playing Clark Kent by day and Super Heretic by night.

      Pax

      GM

  6. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

    8.31 pm on 25 Feb 2008

    Rachel (comment 4), I can’t speak for Gregory on this, but I think a universalistic vantage point was held by many in the early church. I believe many of the early church fathers had similar ideas (in varying degrees). When the East and West Church split, the West Church seemed to be unwilling to go back to the early church fathers. And of course, Protestant churches come from the West side of the church. Every major player on that side seem to not want to go back further than Augustine. Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, … you name them, they don’t seem to really consider early Christianity or how they thought about things. So, possibly the majority in the Evangelical world have held to a non-universalist approach more out of tradition than Holy Spirit revelation. And even then, if this is indeed truth, then the Holy Spirit is obviously guiding people into this truth.

    In terms of the minority, my belief (which is just my opinion) is that most people don’t like a gospel in which God really loves us. As baffling as this is to me, most people I know hang on tight to a belief that God hates them. It makes sense to the natural mind, and it was the very thing Adam and Eve felt after the fall. In my opinion, they were afraid of God, and yet what did God do? He clothed them; He showed mercy and announced that He would indeed make things right. But man insists that God hates them, despises them, is sick of them, and so on. So to suggest that God might actually want to save everyone seems odd to most people. And some go so far as to say that God actually delights in damning people, and before time decided to segregate a group of people just for hell. In the natural (”flesh”) mind, this makes sense.

    I hear people preach that this is the “wisdom of God that baffles the wisdom of man.” But I don’t know if I agree with that. To me (and most I talk to), it baffles HUMAN wisdom to actually believe God loves everyone and desires to save everyone. It makes more “human” sense to the people I talk to to think of God as ticked off with us.

    1. Comment by Derrick

      4.30 am on 26 Feb 2008

      While I would like universalism to be the case, I don’t think that it can be bolstered by an appeal to the Fathers. The Eastern Church has been more favorable toward universalism than the Western Church (while the latter was adamant that some will be damned, the former at least holds out the hope that all might be saved), but Origen is the only Eastern figure (well, maybe Gregory Thaumaturgos as well) that I’m aware of that actually did endorse it. I would wager that the others endorsed some version of Hell, so it seems that there is a strong historical current toward particularism about salvation.

      1. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

        3.10 pm on 26 Feb 2008

        Thanks for your comment Derrick. I agree that any argument toward universalism has to be based on Scripture, and not just the church fathers. I am just amazed that Evangelicals for the most part tend to ignore the fathers all together. And I think there are hints at more fathers than you mention (e.g., in the post from today’s guest).

        1. Comment by Derrick

          2.22 am on 27 Feb 2008

          I’m not clear on what you think that “Gregory MacDonald” (a clever pseudonym, I must say)writes that implies that there are universalist voices in the Early Church. Maybe I missed something. Also, I’m not sure that you understood my original claim. While I agree that the Fathers are not infallible sources of doctrine (and ultimately, scripture has to be given its say), given the fact that they were closer to the culture of the NT than we are in many respects and the fact that they tend to agree to a high degree on this issue, it seems to beg the question of why did only a handful of voices in the early church affirm universalism?

          1. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

            3.26 am on 27 Feb 2008

            I don’t really think Gregory talks much about the church fathers, so I hope I wasn’t saying that. Mine was more a random rant. :)

            But in reply to your question about “only a handful of voices”, my initial thought was this … I don’t know how many church fathers there are, or how many writings of theirs we actually have. But the electronic version I have, while there are lots of writings, I don’t see a lot of authors.

            So, just for sake of illustration, let’s say there are 50 church fathers we have writings of. If only 1 of them writes this, that is still a lot. Maybe not a majority. If there are 4, then nearly 10% of them teach it. So, it isn’t like it is 1/1,000,000,000,000. Put it this way, if your chance of winning a million dollar lottery is 1/50, would you play it this weekend? :)

            And also, think about this … how many sermons have you ever heard (in Evangelical churches) about the ascension? Think of a typical Baptist church this coming Sunday. How many do you think will preach an entire sermon on the ascension? How many books at Amazon are on the ascension as compared to the death of Jesus? So, if we were to compile all of these, and someone was to look at our sermons and literature 1,000 years from now, would it look like we don’t believe in the ascension?

            Just because they didn’t write about it, that doesn’t necessarily mean they didn’t believe it. Nor does it prove they did. :)

            Also, in dealing with life today, this issue is not important, and that seems to be the main focus of most of their writings.

            Take care,
            Brandon

            Comments won’t nest below this level.

            Reply here

      2. Comment by Robert

        5.57 pm on 10 Jun 2008

        Hello

        In response to your post I just wanted to point out that Origen is NOT: “the only Eastern figure (well, maybe Gregory Thaumaturgos as well)” who taught universalism.

        In the Patristic age, not only Origen but Gregory of Nyssa was also a universalist. As was Evagrius, and some sixth century anti-Chalcedonian writers.

        After Gregory of Nyssa taught it, it was picked up by Maximus the Confessor and Isaac the Syrian, and survives amongst modern Orthodox theologians such as Bishop Kallistos Ware.

        It is expressed very well in the following conversation between St Silouan (of the Russian monastery on Mount Athos, who died in 1938) and a fellow hermit:

        “God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.”

        Obviously upset, the Staretz [Silouan] said: “Tell me, supposing you went to paradise, and there looked down and saw somebody burning in hell-fire–would you feel happy?”

        “It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,” said the hermit.

        The Staretz answered with a sorrowful countenance: “Love could not bear that,” he said. “We must pray for all.”

        It has also never been extinguished in the Western tradition – there has always been someone keeping it alive.

        In Christ

    2. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

      4.48 pm on 26 Feb 2008

      Brandon

      My own view is that most evangelicals believe in the traditional view of Hell because they believe that the Bible teaches it. And for this I must honor them.

      Pax

      GM

      1. Comment by Jason Pratt

        2.12 pm on 28 Feb 2008

        Yep, I have to agree with the importance of that–as far as it goes. {s} They’re doing it to be loyal to God, so far as they can see, and I think God takes that into account.

        But the same scriptures include prophetic, um, cautions let us say {g}, that there are loyalties to God that God does not ultimately care about and may even oppose. May even oppose strenuously. Typically the problem with these loyalties is that they are not first and foremost about love. “But if you had understood what this scripture means,” says Jesus, “‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice!’, you would not have accused the innocent.”

        A loyalty to God without love for our (and God’s) enemies, is possible, and is certainly better than having no loyalty to God at all, but it isn’t the best kind of loyalty.

        JRP

  7. Comment by Mak

    10.24 pm on 25 Feb 2008

    Although maybe “less” of an evangelical, I still call myself one and am will you on this – excellent articulation of the belief!
    I would also say that within evangelical universalism there are varied shades of the belief.

    1. Comment by Mak

      10.25 pm on 25 Feb 2008

      sorry for the typo – I am WITH you on this.

    2. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

      4.51 pm on 26 Feb 2008

      Mak

      Thanks. I am sure that there are shades within evangelical universalism (and Christian universalism is certainly broader)

      Pax

      GM

  8. Comment by Jason Pratt

    11.01 pm on 25 Feb 2008

    {wave!} I’m the resident orthodox universalist over at the Christian Cadre (which some of you may have heard of); we’ve got some members who are closer than others to it, and at least one EOx member who is pretty close. I’ve been gradually working out universalism for years in my apologetics (on and offline), though in the past couple of years I’ve been more specific about it. It isn’t a topic to rush into, of course.

    While I am somewhat doubtful that there has ever been anything like a majority universalism view in the post-apostolic church, I do agree with Brandon that earlier Fathers (up through Pope Gregory the Great, a contemporary of Augustine who seems to have been a closet universalist–can I call a papal trump there? {g}) were more likely than later Fathers to be universalistic. Note, I did _not_ say early Fathers were more likely to be universalistic than not _themselves_; only that the proportions seem a little greater back then. Consequently, among the Eastern branch it isn’t surprising that more universalists can be found today–again I agree with Brandon on why that’s true as a tradition factor. (As a sidenote, unlike most EOx I strongly affirm the filioque; and even consider it an important though very subtle element in universalism. So I get to be Western Orthodox, I guess. {g})

    Rachel asks why more people haven’t solidly signed onto it throughout church history–wouldn’t it be important for the Holy Spirit to guide the church better than that?

    Maybe; but at the risk of sounding like a paranoid/conspiracy minority {g} we’re also told in scripture that God will be keeping a remnant of a remnant for Himself. We’re still here, trying to be the salt of the earth; there just have never been many of us.

    Moreover, I think the Gospels show a narrative record of the disciples, even the apostles, having difficulty again and again getting even up to this. Jesus warns them during the last visit to Capernaum (Mark 9 and Synoptic parallels) that they’re badly misunderstanding the character of God (and Christ–thus misunderstanding Jesus, too, of course); and that until-and-unless they repent about this they will under no circumstances be entering into the kingdom. (Very shortly afterward, in the same recorded conversation in GosMark, Jesus explains exactly what the hell Gehenna is for, so to speak. {g} Which later scribes absolutely couldn’t fathom and so tried, as we know from the textual record, to make guesses about.)

    I don’t mean this for sake of dissing apostolic authority; I’m only pointing out that resistance to the basic charity of this idea goes back to the apostles themselves. If reticience from the Holy Spirit in making sure this is a majority viewpoint is a problem, then the ‘problem’ goes back to the apostles themselves–why should we be surprised if, as a historical fact, it stays a minority viewpoint to be discovered and/or quietly passed along for 2000 years? (This might go a long way toward explaining why the apostles largely vanish off the textual scene, too: Paul was the one who ended up being most willing to go the distance with this sort of thing, along with the ‘John’ of RevJohn/GosJohn/the Epistles, whether that’s the Apostle or someone else. And even _they_ get routinely misinterpreted.)

    It’s much the same problem Israel used to have: they were meant to grow into becoming a living witness to the salvation of the world, but they couldn’t get past their own hostilities and self-importance as God’s “elect”. Ironically, the subsequent “exclusive elect” faction is doing it again, and thinking they’ve replaced Israel as the “elect”. (Well, yeah, but Israel got stomped repeatedly and with some finality eventually, for being _that_ kind of “elect” and refusing to be anything better… {s}) The church is the New Israel; it can be expected to have the same kind of problems as Israel had, only potentially worse.

    Willful uncharity was the problem then (OT and NT both), and was the problem afterward in the post-apostolic era, and remains the problem today. But on the other hand the temptation will be strong to leap off the horse on the other side and simply disavow the concept of sin to be saved _from_; or to eliminate our own personal responsibility in cooperating with God in reconciliation.

    Still: there have always been signs that the truth is still at work like leaven in the dough, even among the staunchest non-universalists. So long as we remain in strong connection with scripture, we’re always imbibing the lesson unconsciously, like babes with milk (as it were), and the results can be seen in our habitual language. I routinely see and hear strongly universalistic statements in churches today, in sermons, in liturgy, in hymns, on billboards, by pastors and congregations who would just freak if they thought about what they were saying. {g}

    Granted, it isn’t complimentary that they aren’t really thinking about what they’re saying. {wry s} But it isn’t only heresies which slip through unnoticed by that route: God keeps universalism unconsciously operative, where not consciously professed. That seems to be the case throughout the composition of scripture, and so continues on afterward. (How often have I sighed though when I hear a congregation happily singing a verse with all their hearts, or see a pithy billboard evangelium, and I know–they don’t really mean it. They do, for the moment they’re singing it or saying it, but then they turn around and deny it…)

    Anyway, hope that’s of some help. {s}

    JRP
    Cry of Justice (hope the html comes out okay on that… {g})

    1. Comment by Jason Pratt

      11.05 pm on 25 Feb 2008

      Oh, formatting addendum: could you add links to subsequent entries in this series to the main article, Jason? Thx.

      1. Comment by Paul

        8.56 am on 26 Feb 2008

        we certainly can :)

    2. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

      4.59 pm on 26 Feb 2008

      Jason

      An Eastern Orthodox thinker who thinks the filioque is important!!! Wow! (I must confess that I always thought that it could be construed in a way that by-passes most of the concerns of the East). I agree that it is important to affirm a strong connection between the persons of the Son and the Spirit.

      Thanks for your comments. Have you read Sergius Bulgakov? He was a 20th C Orthodox universalist. Most interesting. There is a good article about his universalism in a journal (I forget which) by Paul Gavrilyuk (if that is how you spell his name).

      Pax

      GM

      1. Comment by Jason Pratt

        3.15 pm on 28 Feb 2008

        {{An Eastern Orthodox thinker who thinks the filioque is important!!! Wow!}}

        {g} Well, I can’t say I’m an Eastern Orthodox. But for what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure Kallistos Ware let the cat out of the bag a while back on this topic: a significant number of EOx theologians would be prepared to accept the filioque if a properly convened council could be held to ratify it. Which as far as I can tell isn’t going to happen again (ironically for ecumenical reasons) so long as the issue of supreme Roman papal authority exists. Without a proper council resolution on the topic, those EOx theologians cannot in good conscience teach it as a doctrine.

        But of course there are also EOx who passionately defend the procession of the 3rd Person from the Father alone; and culturally this is the position taught as nominal within the EOx.

        Anyway, I agree it can be construed in a way that bypasses most of the concerns of the East. Also, beyond affirming a strong connection between the persons of the Son and the Spirit (which strictly speaking the anti-filioque proponents wouldn’t deny), I find that the filioque helps affirm a strong distinction between the categories of being begotten (begottening? {g}) and proceeding. Otherwise ‘begotten’ and ‘proceeding’ end up being basically the same thing with a mere semantic difference.

        There are some subtle but important connections between the filioque and orthodox universalism, too (though too complicated for me to go into right now.) Which is ironic, in that the main branch of the church most prone to universalism is also most prone to denying the filioque. {s}

        {{Have you read Sergius Bulgakov?}}

        No; but I would like to. Thanks for the ref!

        JRP

  9. Comment by Timothy Wright

    11.23 pm on 25 Feb 2008

    Hi,

    I wrote to Jason about this a while back and I think the idea of an Evangelical Universalist is as clear as an Experienced Virgin. . They carry the same integrity with me.

    Tim

    1. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

      5.01 pm on 26 Feb 2008

      Tim

      I agree with Brandon. I would be interested to hear why you think the two ideas are inconsistent. It is hard to reply to an assertion when it is not backed up by any reasons but I would be more than happy to consider your reasons for making the claim.

      Pax

      GM

  10. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

    12.20 am on 26 Feb 2008

    Hi Tim,

    I was curious about your comment. Could you elaborate more on it?

    Maybe this is just semantics, but to me “Experienced Virgin” isn’t necessarily contradicting. It all depends on how you define “experienced”. Would everyone agree to one common definition of “experienced”? For that matter “virgin”?

    Perhaps you meant it like “sexually active virgin”, which I would agree is contradicting each other. But why are they contradicting? Because the are exact opposites.

    So, if this is what you meant, then I’m curious why you think that the terms “evangelical” and “universalist” are exact opposites. How do you define those terms? Do you really see universalism as the EXACT opposite of evangelicalism?

    Take care,
    Brandon

  11. Comment by Helen

    3.11 am on 26 Feb 2008

    Gregory, I was an evangelical universalist for a little while so I’ve thought through it before and don’t have any issues with what you wrote. It makes sense to me and fits better with a merciful God (in my opinion) than people in hell forever.

    The part that fascinates me is, why did you write under a pseudonym? Is it not safe to be known as an Evangelical Universalist because of how other Christians will respond to you? When you’re with other Christians do you hide this part of your belief system?

    1. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

      5.06 pm on 26 Feb 2008

      Helen

      You were (past tense) an EU because it makes (present tense) more sense than eternal conscious torment. So what do you think now (not that it is any of my business)?

      I am not in danger – I just like the fun of being an enigma. I’d also rather not bring the other Christian work I do into disrepute by association. You know the kind of attitude that says, “You have one weird idea so everything you do must be bad”. I would experience that. To be honest, I don’t mind that but it would undermine some things that I do that can help the church (nothing to do with universalism). I don’t lie about my views but I don’t go on about them either.

      Pax

      GM

      1. Comment by Helen

        6.45 pm on 26 Feb 2008

        Thanks for your response. I’m glad you’re not in danger :)

        I completely understand your not wanting to share your name because it likely would hinder the other Christian work you do. I know from my own experiences that it’s easier not to say anything and let Christians happily assume your beliefs line up with their, than to push the point that you don’t agree with theirs as much as they thought, only to find they have a rather dramatic knee-jerk response and don’t let you explain the nuances of how it’s not what they think.

        Christian Universalism is still the form of Christianity I like best because it’s the only one which I find consistent with the goodness and grace the Bible portrays as the very nature of God.

        But I came to have doubts about everything – even whether God exists, so now I’m ‘almost an atheist’. You can read about it here if you like (it’s rather long; I don’t know if you’re that interested).

        When I am posting on Christian blogs, then, like you mentioned, I don’t lie about my views and I also try not to go on about them – out of respect for the blog owners who I’m sure set up their blogs to uphold and promote their beliefs rather than my lack thereof.

        Btw I posted something your post and Kevin’s helped me realize about why Christian Universalism makes more sense to me than Christian non-Universalism over on in the comments on his post. (Oh, I see you’re reading over there – I expect you saw it already)

  12. Comment by Mark

    6.58 am on 26 Feb 2008

    I am an Evangelical Universalist and have been for many years. I’m thankful this is becoming a doctrine that many are working through these days! Dr. Stephen Jones seems to be able to put this topic in to perspective better than anyone I’ve read. It took me a year to read his writings just because I couldn’t stand the look of his website…but thankfully, I got over that! Hope you take the time to read his teachings.
    http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.org/WebLog/viewlist.cfm?CID=9

    Also, Tentmaker.org has some great articles too.

    Keep up the great work.

  13. Comment by PamBG

    11.02 am on 26 Feb 2008

    If universalism is true, why is the overall trajectory of church tradition so opposed to it?

    Because the church very quickly became an instrument of the social (imperial) domination system rather than a proclamation of the Good News and hope of God’s love for the poor and downtrodden.

    The church very early on supported the divine right of kings and of the aristocracy in a culture where people were either desperately poor or very rich. The threat of hell was one psychological tool in this system that kept the starving giving all their wealth to the wealthy who God had allegedly placed over them.

    I’ve heard many people say ‘Why be a Christian if non-Christians won’t go to hell?’ Frankly, I can only suspect that these people have not been born again if they think that there is nothing that is actually good about being a follower of Christ.

    Ironically, I don’t believe in universal salvation although I do believe in the universal offer of salvation.

  14. Comment by Tracy Simmons (Elle)

    12.01 pm on 26 Feb 2008

    I wanted to comment on this question:
    “If universalism is true, why is the overall trajectory of church tradition so opposed to it?”

    I was thinking of how that same question could have been asked at the beginning of the reformation. If people had believed the majority way was THE way, there would never have been a reformation! Perish the thought! :-)

    I also wanted to recommend a little booklet that is free that I found invaluable when I first started to study this topic. It is not too in depth, but covers almost all the basic questions initially asked when people first start to seriously consider this topic. It’s called The Outcome of Infinite Grace, and you can read it or print it out from here:
    http://www.tentmaker.org/books/infinitegrace.htm

    Tracy

  15. Comment by Kevin

    10.52 pm on 26 Feb 2008

    I thought I might toss something in here concerning Rachel and GM’s exchange in comment 4. I like to think of my Christian commitments as falling w/in a series of concentric circles. Within the inner most circle fall those commitments that, to my mind, are constitutive of orthodoxy such as are found in the Apostle’s Creed, for example. To disagree w/one of these is to locate oneself outside of Christian orthodoxy. Moving out from the center circle are other Christian claims that though important, and that I hold very definite views on, are not essential to orthodox Christian faith. For example, I hold views on what transpires in the celebration of the Eucharist, whether women should or should not be ordained, whether infants should or should not be baptized, whether God created by natural means or not, whether human beings have souls or not, whether the bible is inerrant or not, etc. All of these are issues on which I take a stand, but they fall, as GM has been saying, more toward the periphery of the series of circles. They are not essential to orthodox Christian faith. I would, along with GM, locate universalism out on one of the peripheral circles too. It’s an important issue, very important even. But it is not among the things we confess when we confess together what the church has “believed in all times and in all places”. Nor, by the way, do we confess its denial when we so confess.

    I will be utterly shocked, if upon standing before God, God says to me on judgment day: “Corcoran, okay; I’ve heard of your feeble faith in Me–three in one God–and in Jesus Christ, my only begotten son. And I have heard of you equally feeble and failed attempts to anticipate in your life and relationships my kingdom which is about to be consummated, of your feeble and failed attempts at heralding my kingdom come in Christ. Now, let me ask you, Corcoran: what are your views on universal reconciliation?” And upon hearing my answer I can’t imagine God saying, “Wrong answer! Be consigned to everlasting torment in the pit of hell!”

    Is universal reconciliation (or its denial–separationism)an important issue? Absolutely. Is it of such importance that I will refuse fellowship w/those who disagree w/me about it? No way. It’s not that important. What’s more important it seems to me is that having staked my life on the biblical story of a reconciling, redeeming, restoring God, who has come to this broken world with healing, forgiveness and redemption, I get on with the business of growing in Christ-likeness, that I learn better how to love and to live unselfishly, gratefully and in service to others, inviting all into this grand story, this new reality, brought about by the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. That’s much more important.

    I think all GM and I are trying to say is that just as it is permissible to accept infant baptism or not, Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist or not, so too ought it to be theologically permissible to accept universal salvation OR NOT.
    That’s all. It a modest claim, really. And, if I might say so, modesty does seem a virtue had by GM and it has been exemplified in all of his exchanges during this discussion.

    1. Comment by Tracy Simmons (Elle)

      12.13 am on 27 Feb 2008

      Well said, Kevin. This exchange is really helping me clarify some of my own beliefs and thoughts that I had not put into words before now. It’s also bringing me a few degrees of correction in some of my thinking that needed tweaking :). Man, I love the blogosophere and all it brings to my life in conversations like this one. Thanks to all!

  16. Comment by Timothy Wright

    11.02 pm on 26 Feb 2008

    Brandon,

    Yes it is the exact opposite. Evangelical to me has historic roots. I have never come across this idea. To me being evangelical is believing in certain doctrines of the Christine faith and Universalism is not a doctrine to me it is a hope that everything will turn out. Universalism totally denigrates the choices of people , and the choices we make are an expression of our charcter. Why would a loving god force himself on people and force them to spend eternity with himself in His kingdom. They have made their choices, could someone also choose not to be in Gods Kingdom once they were there and choose to be away from his presence.

    Universalism to me comes from the same people who are opposed to war on any grounds and won’t let people suffer the consequences for their behaviour. I see it as a character flaw more than a theological position. .

    As to the sexually active experienced virgin , that is a confused as the Evangelical Universalist.

    Tim

    1. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

      1.25 am on 27 Feb 2008

      Tim,

      Thanks for your comments on this. I’m not sure I would necessarily agree though, but I see better where you are coming from in your statement.

      But it sounds like Evangelical Premillenniumists could fall into that same category, as could Evangelical Charismatic, as could Evangelical Liturgical, as could …

      You could really make the same arguments for these. And maybe you are right? Maybe Evangelicals are just Evangelicals. Maybe there are no Evangelical Charismatics, Evangelical Premills, Evangelical Liturgical, Evangelical Calvinists, Evangelical Arminians, Evangelical Universalists … maybe there are just Evangelicals?

      I am interested in how you might define the term “Evangelical” and “Universalist”. I imagine the way you are defining it, even our guest universalists (Gregory and Kevin) would agree with you. I know that Gregory in his book believes in hell. I imagine if you ask him exactly what he believes (apart from this one thing) you might put him in leadership in any Evangelical church in the USA.

      In terms of people making their choices, I can see your point about that. But think about this … do you REALLY think most people have REALLY seen the gospel? In this world full of legalism, a message that God hates certain people, emotional froth, blab-it-and-grab-it, “Christian” freakshows on tv, … have people ever really been exposed to the true gospel? I’m not so convinced. To me, if people ever encounter the true gospel, they would want it. So I would challenge the notion that people really have “made their choices.”

      Also, we have to really ask a tough question … are we Christians out of luck/blessing to be born in a country which the gospel message can be easily heard? Are we Christians by accident/luck of birth? If we had been born in a remote area of India which has never heard the gospel, are we just out of luck? Yes, we can use Romans 1 and say creation displays God so that we are all without excuse. But, how many of these people who have already died WOULD HAVE accepted the gospel had they heard it? Are they just out of luck? Are we more blessed than them since we were born in a country in which being exposed to the gospel (repeatedly) is a common thing?

      Also, how do we handle the mentally ill or children who die early? Do we suggest that God has mercy on these individuals? So in that case, is it better to die while a child to be a recipient of God’s mercy which is not available to you at any other time? If God extends mercy and saves a person who is mentally retarded, has He indeed “forced” that person to accept Him? Or does He give them a choice after death? And if that is true, we have either 1) a God who forces salvation on some and not others, 2) a God who gives some a chance to salvation after death, or 3) a God who damns children and mentally challenged people to hell. Which do you side with?

      I have no clue. :) Or possibly there is a 4th option … that the possibility of accepting Christ as Savior does not end at death?

      But these are all questions that in the past, I would gloss over. Why? Because they challenge you to really think about what you believe. They don’t undermine my faith (although asking this in some circles might). But they do make me think about why I believe what I do.

      You ask whether a person in God’s Kingdom could choose to be away from His presence. Well, I don’t know about you, but I make stupid choices like that all the time right now. :) But what is the problem right now? Flesh. A mind and body hell-bent (no pun intended) on finding meaning and purpose in life apart from God. I can’t answer this question, least for anyone but me, but as for me … I want God. I need Him. And I said the “Thank You!” (i.e, my choice) to the gospel. I don’t really want sin, although occasionally I believe “The Lie” and think I do … or that I need something other than Him to complete me. And how do I feel afterward? He has given me a new heart … a heart in which the Son of God dwells by the Holy Spirit … and that heart does not want sin. It wants Him. I can’t imagine in a life in which this fallen body that keeps tugging at me is gone, that I would actually say “No” to this God that loves me unconditionally … I don’t want to say “No” now.

      It sounds like you have a problem with Calvinistic Universalism, in which the sovereignty of God forces a person to be saved even if they don’t want it. There are actually some good arguments for this, but I’m not sure I hold to this view myself.

      I think there is another form of universalism which says that God will always give man a choice, and they can’t fathom that man would actually say “No” if they see God without hindrance. And thus hell is to educate man into seeing exactly what his original “No” fully means. Or another view is that God loves man so much that He is willing to “burn” everything in that man until only faith is left. And what are the “flames of hell”? The Bible says that God is an all-consuming fire. Possibly the “fire” is nothing more than the love of God which will not give up on man, that will pursue man throughout eternity if need be.

      Why is it that God would give up on man at man’s death?

      Yet, I as an Evangelical would have to assert that there is only ONE pathway to the Father … Jesus.

      If you do not hold to a Calvinist perspective, then I suppose we always have to hold to the possibility that man can always say “No” for all eternity. But the question is, would God ever give up on such a man?

      By the way, I lean toward universalistic ideas (although I’m still working through issues) and I am not opposed to war on any grounds. I don’t believe in war “in the name of Christ” like the Crusades, but there are definite times in history when war was needed because of the wickedness of man. I also would let people suffer the consequences of their behavior.

      Sorry for rambling. :)

      Take care,
      Brandon

    2. Comment by Helen

      1.32 am on 27 Feb 2008

      Tim, I don’t understand why it’s so important to let people CHOOSE go to hell forever. I don’t even believe anyone would ever make that choice.

      I don’t think ANY of them are making a conscious choice, if indeed that will be their fate. “I don’t believe in life after death” is NOT a conscious choice “Yes, please, I would like to be eternally tortured!” Nor is “I believe in Allah”.

      Show me someone who deliberately, consciously, in full knowledge would choose to be eternally tortured. I have enough trouble going to the dentist :)

      I hear Christians often talk about these supposed people who would rather be eternally tortured than be with God. I don’t believe it for a minute.

      This is a main reason I think Christian Universalism makes more sense than a view in which lots of people are going to be eternally tortured. If God can’t make the choice of “Me or eternal torture?” seem good enough to choose God, what sort of God is he anyway???

    3. Comment by Mark

      5.41 am on 27 Feb 2008

      Tim said: “Universalism to me comes from the same people who are opposed to war on any grounds and won’t let people suffer the consequences for their behaviour. I see it as a character flaw more than a theological position.”

      If you see the idea that all will be saved as a character flaw, then you would have to see God as flawed. Man wants to believe they are in control of their own destiny, yet, God makes it clear they are not: Rom. 3:11 Jn. 6:44 1 Tim. 4:10 Col. 1:20
      Eph. 1:11 Romans 11:32 Ephesians 1:4 Proverbs 16:9, 19:21
      1 Kings 22:22 Daniel 4:35 Jeremiah 10:23 Proverbs 21:1
      Proverbs 20:24 Isaiah 10:15

      The first verse in Genesis makes it clear that God is the Creator of all things which means He owns all things by the right of being Creator. Since he created man from the dust of the earth, he owns man by right of His creation. From His own creation he made good and bad men and owns all as he owns all the universe.

      God applies his law to hold man accountable like this law in Ex 21:23 “If a farmer digs a well and neglects to take basic safety precautions and cover the pit, and if a neighbor’s ox falls into that pit and is killed, the “owner” of the pit is liable and must pay damages to his neighbor.”

      Another law states; “If a man lights a fire and it gets out of hand and burns the neighbor’s field, the man who lit the fire is liable, because he created the fire and therefore is its “owner”. (Ex. 22:6)

      If you look at God’s direction/law for man we can see that God clearly has applied this “flaw” to Himself. God is liable for His creation. The good and the bad. Ultimately, He did not cover the pit. He lit the fire. He set the serpent in the Garden. He created the “tree of good and evil”. We can’t really blame Satan for anything because Satan had nothing, owns nothing, created nothing. We can’t blame bad people because they are not the creators…we can’t even blame ourselves because we did not create ourselves. God created and owns it all.

      God will not go against His own laws. Yet, for years believers have been taught that we have the “will” to over ride God’s will! (yes, it is God’s WILL that all will be saved) We actually think that what Jesus did on the cross was not enough for God’s creation…when the work of the Cross was the payment that was owed by the OWNER of the pit, the field, the Garden.

      Man thinks too highly of themselves. We are still fighting the idea that we can “be like God”…in the sense of eating of the tree…making our own choice.

      Seems like this subject is much more theological than a character flaw.

      Lastly, Hell in the way we have been taught to understand it by tradition is not even based on any Scripture. From the beginning, God makes it known that HE is the consuming fire. His judgment is real and some will burn in the fires of Gehenna…for the purpose of purifying His creation. And Paul finishes it all in 1 Cor 15 that after Jesus brings ALL of creation back to the Father and submits Himself to the Father…God will be ALL in ALL.

    4. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

      1.48 pm on 27 Feb 2008

      Tim

      You do seem to have provoked some discussion here! Just a couple of brief points.

      1. Like you I do believe that freewill is important – I think that in the end all people will freely choose God (see the book to see my arguments for this).

      2. I do believe that some people will go to Hell and suffer the consequences of their behaviour (even if they will eventually get out) so perhaps my character is not flawed in the way you suggest.

      Does that help clarify things?

      Pax

      GM

    5. Comment by Jason Pratt

      3.04 pm on 28 Feb 2008

      Tim,

      {{Universalism to me comes from the same people who are opposed to war on any grounds and won’t let people suffer the consequences for their behaviour.}}

      Fwiw, I’m a just-war advocate and also an advocate of the death penalty. In fact I have to be careful that I don’t let my universalism lead me into becoming blasé about lethal force. (”Kill em all and let God sort em out”, after all, could be a pretty universalistic statement. {g} Except that it doesn’t have anything on the face of it to do with love toward the ones being killed.)

      It will be noted that I wrote a novel which features heroic battle (as well as villainous battle and various complex shades in between.) The most obviously ‘Christian’-like character in the story helps lead the battling eventually. But he also does things like comfort a dying enemy in the midst of battle, which completely stuns (and impresses) the single minor soldier over there who sees him do it (and later tells the story about this to a pub full of people.)

      That being said, yes there are universalists who diss the whole notion of punishment and culpability and even sin. Indeed (as I suppose we are all well aware) there are universalists who so completely disregard doctrine at all that their leader only decided a couple of years ago that maybe he should allow preachers to mention God from the pulpit again in order to be more relevant to the congregation. (True story. {wry g})

      But neither I nor Gregory nor most of the universalists here are in that category.

      {{To me being evangelical is believing in certain doctrines of the Christine faith}}

      I was thinking that evangelical meant proclaiming the good news; though obviously that would entail doctrines of some kind, too. {s} Believing in certain doctrines of the Christian faith as necessarily normative is ‘orthodox’ first. ‘Evangelical’ is what you do with it. {g} Anyway my universalism is based in my orthodoxy as a corollary; it follows from holding to scads and oodles of nominally recognized ‘orthodox’ doctrines, and not leaving any of them out. I can be extremely picky about rejecting positions that deny the unity of the Trinity for example; and I am on public record (if only a brief paragraph’s worth that was subsequently misunderstood {s}) as critiquing the pre-eminent Roman Catholic universalist, Balthasar, for what appears to be his insistence on the schisming of either the Persons of God or the two natures of Christ during the descent into hell. (That can be found in the First Things collection of debate and letter-commentaries between Fr. Oakes and Dr. Pitstick last year. Fr. Oakes either wasn’t sent both paragraphs of my letter, the first of which was not printed, or completely misunderstood my first paragraph, where I in fact agreed with the position he took in reply to my letter.)

      {{Universalism totally denigrates the choices of people}}

      If I thought that was true, I would reject it as being unorthodox. Free repentance and cooperation with God is still part of the package, though. What the person is not free from, is God’s continuing insistence on saving the person from sin. {s} Similarly, a person who chooses to try to be permanently apart from the presence of God is going to be in trouble, but if I affirmed that the person actually succeeds in the goal of that chosen action, then I would be the one denying orthodoxy–specifically I would be denying the omnipresence of God. A person is free to try to get away from God, but omnipresence means the person is not ever going to succeed in that attempt.

      {{Why would a loving god force himself on people}}

      Because He’s God and not a god? {shrug} We don’t really have an option about this; we, and everything else in reality, depend upon God’s continuing action for our existence. It is in Him that we live and move and have our being, and it is by Him that everything continues to hold together. Moreover, as a loving God, He cannot be satisfied with our sin; much less with the cursed and cursing effects of sin upon us (and from us upon other persons whom He also loves). Love and justice are not two things, but one thing (as David eventually came to see by revelation.) But people have a very difficult time understanding that.

      {{They have made their choices, could someone also choose not to be in Gods Kingdom once they were there and choose to be away from his presence.}}

      You mean like Satan? {g} If that’s a problem for you, you’re in trouble–it’s been done already. (Ditto for Adam and Eve. Or for any of us who know the good but go ahead and choose the evil anyway.)

      Come to think of it, depending on how one interprets chp 20 of RevJohn, there will apparently be some kind of rebellion instigated among the kingdom of God again after the initial millennial reign of Christ.

      Now, I am not going to teach that Satan has actually succeeded (or ever will actually succeed) in defying the omnipresence of God. If he ever did do that, then he would be in fact like God Most High (an independent fact in his own right). But I’m very picky about my orthodoxy. {g}

      Incidentally, I have no problem blaming Satan or any other sinner (though I’d rather be concentrating on myself in that regard) for sin. At the same time, I also agree that God ultimately shares that responsibility; and I notice that through his scriptural prophets He occasionally mentions that He does accept responsibility for our sin. There’s a subtle ethical distinction involved, of course: one of the reasons why God is not a sinner is because He does not shirk responsibility for our sin. Paying for our sin is thus part of fulfilling all righteousness. It’s still up to us to repent of our sin, though. God will help us with that, and won’t ever quit trying to help us with that.

      JRP
      Cry of Justice

  17. Comment by mark

    2.51 pm on 27 Feb 2008

    Gregory,

    What seems to be the problem is the understanding of hell. Scripturally, I don’t understand how so many have taken sheol, hades, gehanna, outer darkness, whatever, and can translate those words to mean (in what is now a traditional understanding) an everlasting place that will burn souls while God and the chosen few look on for eternity (the horrible interpretation of the rich man and lazurus). That actually means that God will hold in his hands (hell) most of mankind forever (and to be redundant) and ever…while a few people in all of history watch with God the poor choices, or as many put it, the free will that the masses had in this life.

    I think the doctrine of hell has been the most destructive doctrine in NT church history and still is. It has led the world and the church away from the Truth that God is LOVE, and his mercy endures and covers his creation. Maybe that’s why Paul never said a word about hell in the 13 books he wrote. He actually believed that God would redeem mankind and creation.

    To say that we have free will (again, in our understanding of what we call “traditional doctrine” of free will) is to delete many scriptures and teach against what God has spoken. How did man come to the conclusion that our will, will over ride God’s will? The only thing I can think of is that we still think we can be like God…or we think that the clay has the power to choose what the Potter “wills” to design.

    The hope that believers have should not be the hope that many won’t go to hell or they might (hope) to go to the Father in the end…but the hope for believers is that when our lives are done and we stand before God’s throne He says, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.”

    1. Comment by Rachel

      7.19 pm on 27 Feb 2008

      I agree with you, Mark, but you have to admit that something like, “Depart from me, I never knew you” sounds pretty damning. The “horrible interpretation of the Rich Man and Lazarus” as you describe it is kind of the most obvious reading on a cold read of scripture. Most people have only been taught to look at it that way and haven’t looked any further back in church history than Augustine, who was a HUGE proponent of eternal torment. (By the way, does anyone know how this hellfire business got started? I think I read something about Greek mythology and the underworld/afterlife or something like that.)

      What intrigues me, though, is that there were so many early Christian universalists. These were men who spoke Greek, had the Greek scriptures, and didn’t take the damning-sounding passages to mean that a large percentage of the population would finally end up in hell for eternity. I think this is powerful evidence that we need to try reading these scriptures through different lenses.

      I think this is a worthwhile pursuit not only because of the precedence in church history, but because philosophically, the mark of a good theory is how much it helps explain, and I think that a universalist reading of scripture explains A LOT, especially when it comes to issues of the character of God, the will of God, and theodicy.

      Paul never said a word about hell? Interesting observation!

      1. Comment by Jason Pratt

        3.39 pm on 28 Feb 2008

        Rachel,

        {{I agree with you, Mark, but you have to admit that something like, “Depart from me, I never knew you” sounds pretty damning.}}

        It is! {g} Even better, it’s pretty damning to people who were not only sure they were going to be accepted by Christ but through whom God was actually doing good miraculous works of power.

        That ought to be a sobering check to any Christian theologian. {s} I know it is to me!

        That being said, it has its place in the larger context. Yeah, they go into the crising–from which they will not come out until they give up the last farthing (in older English terminology.) Now, does anyone in the world really think that what the king was expecting the unmerciful servant owed was all that money?! (Hint: it wasn’t about the money. It was about the mercy, and the lack thereof. The unmerciful servant owes something to the person he refused to give mercy to.)

        {{By the way, does anyone know how this hellfire business got started?}}

        It’s in the OT; the unquenchable fire that consumes etc. It obviously has to do with punishment (in regard to sin), and it also obviously has to do with some action occurring after death.

        That being said, it shouldn’t be surprising if fire-punishment-from-authority imagery predates even the OT. And people poetically inclined to try to talk about it would also be inclined to borrow imagery from relevant cultures (especially if they had come from those cultures originally.)

        JRP

    2. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

      2.25 pm on 28 Feb 2008

      Mark

      Thanks. I think that perhaps you underestimate the place of eschatological judgment in the NT (Paul included). There is a much stronger case for traditional views of Hell than you suggest. On the surface some NT texts (inc in Paul) do seem to teach eternal doom and we universalists have to try to find a plausible way of making sense of those texts in a way that does justice to the whole of Scripture. It is harder than you might suppose. I have a go in my book. You can decide how successful I am.

      Pax

      GM

    3. Comment by Jason Pratt

      3.45 pm on 28 Feb 2008

      Mark,

      {{Maybe that’s why Paul never said a word about hell in the 13 books he wrote.}}

      I agree Paul is teaching universalism in his letters, and the hope and trust that God will save all creation (including but not limited to mankind) from sin; and it’s true that he never uses the word ‘hades’ or ‘Gehenna’.

      He does however talk about God punishing sinners (both rebel men and rebel powers/principalites/etc); and he reiterates that some people who insist on doing certain things will not be entering the kingdom. When he speaks of Christ putting all things under his feet, in the great universalism proclamation of 1 Cor 15, he’s using imagery for the wrath of God.

      But of course it isn’t only the wrath of God; Christ’s saving work (per that same statement) will not be complete until He can give Himself in subjection to the Father in conjunction with those who are subjected to Him. Certainly Christ will not be subjecting Himself to the Father as an impenitent rebel forced to make some grudging teeth-gnashing technical obesiance! {s}

      Anyway, as a universalist I don’t hang much on Paul not mentioning hell per se. Besides, if it came down to that, Jesus both directly and through the prophets mentions hell all the time. {g}

      JRP

      1. Comment by Jason Pratt

        4.08 pm on 28 Feb 2008

        To which I will add that some texts do include a reference to (h)a(i)de_s in 1 Cor 15:55; apparently scribes thought earlier copyists had mistakenly omitted the word in Paul’s reference to Hosea 13:14. (The term is present in the LXX version of that Hosea verse.)

        What’s amusing is that if ‘hades’ is included there, then Paul’s one mention of it would be blatantly universalistic: “Swallowed up was Death into Victory! Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting?!”

        JRP

  18. Comment by Pam Hogeweide

    7.00 pm on 27 Feb 2008

    Great discussion here.

    (Ok, Greg, since Helen and I can’t get you to cough up your name will you at least email me and let me interview you for my blog about why you use a pseudonym? I think it is fascinating, as well as disturbing, that you have to be obscure with this particular belief. Ideas are dangerous…but why are they dangerous? Though I truly understand that if someone could lose their livelihood because of one dissenting idea than there is the ethical choice of keeping mum for the sake of the whole. I get it, really I do. I just think it is effin messed up that in the body of Christ, that glorious place that is meant to be a place of light and truth and honesty, that you have to be forced to stay in the shadows.

    So, will you let me interview you (email style) for my humble Oregon based blog? :-)

    1. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

      2.26 pm on 28 Feb 2008

      Sure – contact me via gregory.macdonald@yahoo.com

  19. Comment by Timothy Wright

    8.34 pm on 27 Feb 2008

    Hi,

    Why, why , why would god ever invite us to choose if it were not so important? This is not an easy thing for me to say about Hell, my Father denied Christ and I believe he will be in Hell for ever. Not a n ice thought, but I believe it is biblical.

    Choice is important because it is the one area of our life were we are in control and hand it to Jesus. Our choices make us who we are. Our response to situations is an expression of character.

    I am an Arminianist.

    Why do we tell people about Jesus and have ALPHA courses. If everyone ends up with Jesus, why did he come. We are all in the same boat, some are in 1st class, and 2nd class, etc…We are all going to get there, its just that we have different experiences.

    We tell people out of a love for them. We urge them to be reconciled with God .o.

    If they are going to be reconciled anyway, who caress. This Kingdom Stuff is a hobby and not a command and and a calling that flows from within from Him.

    Hell was a part of why I came to Jesus, it helped me to see the value of my Sin and not just a little problem.

    Tim

    1. Comment by Rachel

      9.05 pm on 27 Feb 2008

      “If everyone ends up with Jesus, why did he come.”

      Well, Tim, if Jesus hadn’t come, then NOBODY would end up with Jesus. Are you saying that Christ’s sacrifice only makes sense if it is guaranteed that some will ultimately reject him? Sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense!

      “If they are going to be reconciled anyway, who caress. This Kingdom Stuff is a hobby..”

      “WHO CARES!?” This sentiment is deeply disturbing to me. I care because humankind was created for communion with the Holy Trinity, that’s why. This communion was ruined when sin and death entered the world but God sent his Son to become one with us because he loved us THAT MUCH! Christ has become one with us and overcome death for us so that we might live in perfect communion with God and each other forever, that’s why I care! This “Kingdom stuff” is a way of life if you truly understand how amazing it is that the God of the universe is a God of love, and not just a hobby as you suggest. Your comments insinuate that those who hope for universalism don’t appreciate the significance of the gospel and the glory of God as revealed in the incarnate Christ.

      There’s only so much I can say over this medium to convince you that Christian universalists don’t make light of the gospel or of sin. I’ll leave you to your ALPHA courses and Fire Insurance gospel, I guess.

      1. Comment by Kevin

        9.19 pm on 27 Feb 2008

        Tim,

        I think Rachel has put it as well as anyone in this discussion. But I’d still encourage you to read my post of yesterday and to buy GM’s book.

        I understand how the prospect of hell could have played a very significant role in you recognizing the severity of your sin. As Rachel has said, sin and the misery it has wreaked in our world and hearts is indeed a big deal. So big that God wrapped himself in human flesh, suffered, died, was buried and rose three days later. He did so to defeat sin and death. So the difference b/w you and Rachel is not that one of you does and the other doesn’t take sin seriously or the reality of the kingdom seriously and the other not. The difference b/w you, again, is that one of you hopes the success rate of God’s program of reconciliation will be at 100% and the other of you thinks it won’t.

        1. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

          9.44 pm on 27 Feb 2008

          Wow, Kevin … that last sentence is amazing. That really does sum it up!

          1. Comment by Rachel

            10.39 pm on 27 Feb 2008

            Yes, nicely put. I guess the difference between Kevin and me is that I’m more long-winded. :)

            Comments won’t nest below this level.

            1. Comment by Jason Pratt

              4.24 pm on 28 Feb 2008

              Same here. {s!}

              JRP

            Reply here

  20. Comment by Mark

    9.15 pm on 27 Feb 2008

    Rachel said: “I agree with you, Mark, but you have to admit that something like, “Depart from me, I never knew you” sounds pretty damning.”

    This is why we have to understand the word aion which is translated by those who choose to make it mean “forever”. There is aion time…age…beginning and end. When something in scripture is written to mean there is no end…they never use the word aion, olam, aionios, etc., but they say, “has no end” to make it clear.

    Timothy Wright said: “…my Father denied Christ and I believe he will be in Hell for ever. Not a nice thought, but I believe it is biblical.”

    How sad for you to live with that belief, especially when you know the Father and His character. There is a purpose for 2 resurrections and a purpose for God being a “consuming fire”. There was a purpose for Jesus to pay for our sins, and a purpose for Jesus to obtain the right to purchase ALL of creation and give it back to the Father.

    Most believers who look at this “doctrine” want to believe…but many who are involved with the traditional church and especially those who make their living off the church…refuse to believe (or hide) because they will be cast out as a heretic. Maybe this is why Jesus said that few will enter the narrow way.

    Time is short and it’s about time that believers shout it from the mountain tops that God is Love. He has always had a purpose for mankind and will never, ever, leave us without his grace, mercy and His love.

    1. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

      9.36 pm on 27 Feb 2008

      I was just thinking of this “Depart from me, I never knew you” and imagining me saying that to my daughter. I could imagine her believing lies about me and thinking something totally opposite of me. If I said those words to her, I could mean it as “I never want to see you again” or I could mean it as “Who do you think I am? Who do you think you are? Leave until you see what I’m saying.”

      The first meaning would be a judgment toward damnation. The second would be a judgment toward redemption.

      Maybe “hell” is like 1st grade spiritually speaking? (And I’m not making light of torment, so please forgive me.) But maybe in Jesus’ words, He is not saying, “You wretched little twit, leave me and burn!” Possibly He is saying in a DEEP sigh, “Oh no, you are SO lost, you think you know truth but you don’t even have a clue! This is SO serious that you must leave me now. The only way to possibly salvage you is for you to see exactly how far away from Me you are. But this is for YOUR good. In this, I hope you find ME and in this I hope you come to know Me.”

      I was just thinking … I wonder if Jesus appeared to people like He did Paul, how many more people would accept Him THIS SIDE of heaven? Does it seem fair that Paul had a better opportunity to know Jesus than someone whom doesn’t have a direct manifestation?

      If a person dies, and see God in His glory … like Paul did … would they change their mind (i.e., repent)? Would God then say, “I’m sorry, you had your chance! You had the Bible. You had my followers … yes, I know they acted goofy on tv, and seemed obsessed more with getting new cars than having a changed life … and yes, now that you REALLY see me, you want to change your mind … but that is just tough. I only gave Paul such an opportunity. The fact that you see it now, it is too late.”

      Something seems off to me about that.

      That is a good question though … where does the Bible even suggest that repentance is only possible before you die? Right now I can’t even think of any.

      1. Comment by Jason Pratt

        4.27 pm on 28 Feb 2008

        {{where does the Bible even suggest that repentance is only possible before you die?}}

        Actually, Paul does say something a little like this: first death, and then the crisising. This is often taken to mean that no repentance is ever possible after death.

        JRP

  21. Comment by Timothy Wright

    11.31 pm on 27 Feb 2008

    Hi Folks,

    There lots of good thoughts here. I don’t think we will persuade each other. I don’t believe fire insurance salvation. I believe in the Kingdom of God is to be expressed in the fullest way possible while we are here are this earth.

    I see it like this, God has a real big house called earth. It is His. He owns it. He desires everyone in the house to live out the two greatest command, Love God and Love others. Some of the people in the house don’t want to live by those two desires of God. Some live quite lives and really don’t bother anyone, some run from room to room and rape and steal from each other. Some help others , some hurt, some are indifferent. Every day they are saying with their lifes one of these two paths, “My will be done” or “Thy will be done “. Then one day Jesus will say to everyone “Thy will be done” some will have chosen His will and they will enjoy and flesh out that relationship with the Trinity forever, others who never wanted anything to do with the Trinity will also be honoured. For me the key concept and I think Jesus is Choice. . I do not think that can be discounted in any ones life. The folks that are for Universalism live their life around believing that choice, there are consequences for that choice. Just like the beliefs that I have consequences . All of that have to live with those choices and their consequences for eternity.

    Bless you all.

    Tim

    1. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

      4.25 pm on 28 Feb 2008

      Tim,

      An Arminian Universalist would say that man will always have the choice. And eventually, that man will obviously see the error of his ways and finally choose God. It may take an eternity, but he will eventually choose God.

      A Calvinist Universalist would say that God will make the choice for man if he is so unwise to choose the bad over the good.

      In the Arminian view, I would say that we have to leave open the possibility that a man might say “No” forever. In this view, there is the “hope” that asks, “Could a man, in full view of the God who is love, honestly say ‘No’ forever?” It baffles to even think that, thus the “hope” that eventually all will say “Yes.” If it is dependent upon choice though, I don’t think an Arminian Universalist will be as strong in his belief that all WILL be saved like a Calvinist Universalist would be … it is more a “strong hunch” or “strong hope” in that.

      Blessings,
      Brandon

      1. Comment by Jason Pratt

        4.31 pm on 28 Feb 2008

        Brandon,

        {{In the Arminian view, I would say that we have to leave open the possibility that a man might say “No” forever.}}

        I would definitely agree that that’s a technical possibility (and one endorsed by scriptural witness in various places, too.)

        I would also bet on God, though. {g} Or trust Him to keep at it, to put it more correctly.

        JRP

  22. Comment by Timothy Wright

    11.39 pm on 27 Feb 2008

    Hi,

    A Scripture for consideration :

    Exodus 20 (New Living Translation)
    New Living Translation (NLT)

    Holy Bible. New Living Translation copyright © 1996, 2004 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers.
    [NLT at Tyndale] [Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.]

    Exodus 20

    1 Then God gave the people all these instructions[a]:

    2 “I am the Lord your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt, the place of your slavery.
    3 “You must not have any other god but me.
    4 “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea. 5 You must not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for any other gods. I lay the sins of the parents upon their children; the entire family is affected—even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me.

    If we make bad choices, that affects people 3 & 4 generations away from me. people I would never meet. Thats a clear example of the choice of consequences. To some people that may seem cruel, unfair, how dare God punish me for what my relatives did.

    Tim

    1. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

      5.11 am on 28 Feb 2008

      Tim,

      I found this helpful for this passage:

      “Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children is quite literal from the Hebrew and difficult to understand. The iniquity of the fathers is literally “the evil activity of the fathers,” which in this context refers to breaking the terms of the covenant by making “graven images” and worshiping other gods (verses 3–4). Visiting the iniquity is literally “attending to [or, searching out] the evil.” (Osborn, Noel D. ; Hatton, Howard: A Handbook on Exodus. New York : United Bible Societies, 1999 (UBS Handbook Series; Helps for Translators), S. 474)

      So, I think there are a couple of things to consider. First, this was spoken in context of idols and worshiping other gods. To say “we make bad choices” that affect other people (and thus the conclusion that God punishment seems unfair) I don’t think can be supported by this Scripture. These people weren’t making “bad choices”; these people were turning their back on God.

      Second, if God loves us, He will do what He must to get our attention (as He did with Israel over and over and over and …).

      Back in those days, families lived together (often 3-4 generations under the same roof). To turn your back on God and dismiss Him for some idol would affect the entire family. It might take many generations to “purge” that out of such a family.

      If the literal Hebrew is “attend to”, I don’t see that as unwarranted “punishment.” I’m not sure I agree with the NLT phrase “lay the sins”. That word “lay” or “visit” is used elsewhere in Exodus:

      Exodus 30:12-14 — This word means to “number” or “take a census”
      Exodus 32:34; 34:7 — It is translated as “visit”
      Exodus 38:21 — It is translated as recorded.

      The last one is interesting:

      “These are the records of the tabernacle, the tabernacle of the testimony, as they were recorded at the commandment of Moses, the responsibility of the Levites eunder the direction of Ithamar the son of Aaron the priest.” (ESV, Ex 38:21)

      So, you can see that this word doesn’t have to mean something bad necessarily. So, maybe a possible rendering of that verse is:

      I have counted or numbered or attended to or searched out the sins of the fathers to …

      Anyway, it is a VERY tough verse to interpret no matter what position you hold on any of these issues. But I do think it represents something more severe than just bad choices.

      Take care,
      Brandon

    2. Comment by Jason Pratt

      4.45 pm on 28 Feb 2008

      {{To some people that may seem cruel, unfair, how dare God punish me for what my relatives did.}}

      I suppose you’re aware that God also clarifies in Ezekiel 18 (a very famous chapter, though admittedly not as well known as the 10 Commandment chapter {g}) that this has nothing to do with punishment and repentance per se. In fact, He gets pretty torqued about people thinking that that’s what verses of that sort are really about. {g}

      “What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, ‘The fathers eat the sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge’!? As I live,” declares the Lord God, “you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore. Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.” After which He then goes through several examples for people in case they don’t get it. {s}

      None of that chapter addresses what the purpose of the punishment and death is–that’s addressed elsewhere–and neither does it deny that consequences do indeed follow upon subsequent generations for the misdeeds of the ancestors; consequences which God takes active and positive responsibility for Himself (as in Exodus 20).

      JRP

  23. Comment by Mark

    1.30 am on 28 Feb 2008

    Timothy Wright said: “For me the key concept and I think Jesus is Choice. . I do not think that can be discounted in any ones life.”

    So do we delete the scriptures that say God gives us the faith to believe, He gives us the gift of faith, or the one that says NO MAN seeks God? Paul makes it clear that it all is a gift…just so that we can’t brag about US doing anything.

    Timothy Wright said: “The folks that are for Universalism live their life around believing that choice, there are consequences for that choice. Just like the beliefs that I have consequences. All of that have to live with those choices and their consequences for eternity.”

    For eternity? Ouch! No mercy or grace there. We all live with our consequences…if I touch a hot fire I will get burned. God said that his WILL (Greek – boulema, “plan, or higher intention)was that all men would be saved. Many translate the word “will” using the Greek -thelema, which is God’s will being instructed by law. Paul uses the boulema will in Romans 9 when he talks about Pharaoh and God’s higher intention “will”: “You will say to me then, Why does He still find fault? For who resists His WILL? [Greek: boulema, “plan, or higher intention”]? God used Pharaoh to bring about his will. Pharaoh had no “choice” in the matter. As you or I didn’t have the choice to believe…God gave us the faith to believe. He is the Potter as you know.

  24. Comment by Nick

    6.36 am on 28 Feb 2008

    Awesome stuff, Gregory. I wanted to let you all know that I started a “group” on Facebook.com titled “evangelical universalism” – just search for it and join if you are on Facebook. On there, I have posted some links to writings on this controversial, yet beautiful view of reality.

    I believe in E.U., but I have some questions lingering in my mind. I believe all will choose Christ, eventually, chiefly because I cannot imagine someone rejecting the amazing God of Love forever. It is surely impossible for a free agent to reject perfect love for eternity! God has all the time in the world to wait, and eventually (maybe hundreds or even thousands of years after Earthly death) even the most cold-hearted will crack and cry “Abba!”.

    But given that God gives us libertarian free-will, is it possible that someone could choose (1) to extinguish their soul, or (2) hand over their soul or free-will to another agent (i.e., Satan)? Situation (1) would certainly thwart God’s desire for all to be saved. Also, I don’t think the argument for E.U. based on God’s ultimate victory is a strong one, because I don’t see how God cannot be victorious. Even if some people choose to committ soul-suicide or reject Him forever – God is still victorious in giving them this freedom. It is the creation of innate human freedom and the offer of love that makes God victorious, not what humans do with the freedom and the love offer.

    1. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

      2.34 pm on 28 Feb 2008

      Nick

      Facebook? No I am not there. I don’t even exist let alone have a face.

      On the question of freewill and whether we can freely choose to resist God forever (if we have libertarian freedom) see chapter 1 of my book. I know that’s a annoying response but it takes a long time to set out the arguments and blog visitors might not a super-long comment from me.

      Pax

      GM

  25. Comment by Timothy Wright

    12.31 pm on 28 Feb 2008

    Hi Brandon,

    I agree what you are saying about that verse and it makes sense.

    Mark

    For eternity? Ouch! Yes for eternity!

    I know that we won’t agree, we see things so differently. I see Jesus as some one whom respects our choices. Respect is a value. So Jesus only respects and honors our choices when they line up with His values and not ours. I had a teacher like that once, it really wasn’t respect it was about power. Thats not how I see Jesus. If everyone regardless of their actions, values, and choices are part of the kingdom, then it seems like any choice we make now really isn’t that important in an eternal sense, on;y in a temporal sense, because our choices will be nullified by Jesus.

    Tim

    1. Comment by Helen

      1.48 pm on 28 Feb 2008

      I don’t see respecting someone’s choice to be tortured for eternity as a virtue.

      That’s like watching a small child run in front of a truck and not doing anything because I ‘respected his choice’.

      That doesn’t make any sense to me, Tim.

      What would make a lot more sense is stopping that child until he has enough information and is old enough to make a wise decision about whether he wants to run in front of a truck. We know what he will decide (unless he is depressed which means he is not capable of making a wise decision at that point – his brain is not functioning correctly).

      Why does anyone believe people who are fully informed will choose hell over God? I can only think they have a strange view of God or of human nature which doesn’t line up with God being love and doesn’t line up with humans not being masochists.

      1. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

        2.39 pm on 28 Feb 2008

        Helen

        You are quite right – again. It makes absolutely no sense to imagine anyone making a fully informed, rational decision to go to Hell. Anyone who chose Hell is either insane (so not genuinely free in their choice and we may choose not to respect it) or not fully aware of what they are choosing (in which case we God work to enlighten them).

        Pax

        GM

        1. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

          2.41 pm on 28 Feb 2008

          I meant “in which case God would work to enlighten them”

  26. Comment by Mark

    2.53 pm on 28 Feb 2008

    Excellent comment Helen!

    It seems that we must first come to an understanding of free will vs. choice. I believe that God’s will is a bit more powerful than ours. I believe scripture says this clearly. From before the creation Christ Jesus was prepared to redeem and restore what was to be created. God in His plan allowed all and is still allowing us all to choose to make choices but those choices will never over ride God’s will. It can’t…unless we are more powerful than God. I believe our choices will ultimately (in this life or even after death and after death is thrown into the Lake of Fire and whatever may be after that) lead us to the ultimate will of God that “every knee will bow and tongue confess the Jesus Christ is Lord” and to the last sheep that was lost, the Shepherd will leave the 99 to find and restore to the flock.

    This is the Good News that I believe was to be preached to the ends of the earth! But still we hear from the pulpit that Jesus loves you so much He came to die for you so that you can be saved…BUT, if you refuse this Good News…You will burn forever. I would say this is not all that great of news to most.
    This news is preached by using fear as it’s foundation instead of the true character of God who is Love.

    Yes, we all will choose our beliefs and it’s good to work through these things…but ultimately, whomever is right or wrong in this, it will not change God’s will! Being one who has walked fairly alone in this doctrine for many years, it’s just good to see that others are coming to a place of needing to question the traditional teachings and it’s good to see so many who love God and cherish Him will all their heart no matter where you stand on this particular doctrine. Blessings!

    1. Comment by Helen

      4.10 pm on 28 Feb 2008

      Mark wrote: Yes, we all will choose our beliefs and it’s good to work through these things…but ultimately, whomever is right or wrong in this, it will not change God’s will!

      Rather than think about God’s will vs man’s will I find it more helpful to think in what I believe are actually Calvinistic terms – that God makes it possible for man to make a good choice. This is not ‘forcing’ man’s will or overriding it. It’s simply enabling him to make a good choice just like I would do if I told you that I saw someone slip poison into your favorite drink, so you have that information before you drink it. I’m not ‘forcing’ you not to drink it. I’m just making sure you fully understand your choices.

      And part of that would be providing convincing evidence your drink really is poisoned – which to me is HUGE in all this. Because most people who are thought to be going to hell aren’t choosing hell – they simply don’t believe they will go there. They haven’t seen convincing evidence. And yet they are labelled as arrogant, stubborn, unrepentant, refusing God (to pick up on how you depicted a usual announcement of the Good News),…and more. When they might actually be people whose lives are as unselfish and caring as most Christians.

      I don’t think it reflects well on God’s character to believe he’s going to divide people up for eternal bliss or torture based on something relatively superficial when deep down they are pretty similar in such things as whether they lived for themselves or other people.

      It seems to me that this is one of the foundational differences: Christian Universalists can’t believe “God is awesome” AND “eternal hell is the real future of countless numbers of people” whereas other Christians are able to believe both of those – either by appealing to something such as God’s justice (although the Bible never says God IS Justice although it does say God IS Love) – or by believing humans choose hell (which as I already said is not a choice I believe any human would intentionally make because nothing could be worse than hell).

  27. Comment by Timothy Wright

    4.35 pm on 28 Feb 2008

    Hi Helen,

    I agree that no sane person would choose HELL if they knew HELL existed and could walk in the revelation of Jesus for His kingdom. But and this is a big but , , the kingdom of God is experienced through faith. God wants trust. Blessed are those who believe but do not see. I am not saying that God does not live through Love and sent Jesus because of His love, but for us to actually experience his love and walk in the freedom of his forgiveness we must walk by faith. The people who reject Jesus do so by faith. I see no contradiction in the character of God if he tortures my earthly Father forever and God’s goodness. My Father made a choice as my children will make that choice.

    Thats why I am in fulltime ministry because the love of Jesus has been deposited in my life and the freedom that he enables me to walk in. . I want people to know the love of Jesus and be part of his redemptive Kingdom.

    Not fire Insurance, but faith working itself through love.

    Tim

    1. Comment by Helen

      8.29 pm on 28 Feb 2008

      Thanks for your response Tim. I hear what you’re saying. Faith is a problem for me because, once I had a lot of it and it turned out that when I did, it was because I was mentally ill.

      Since then faith and illness have been associated (for me) and I haven’t wanted anything to do with either of them.

      I’m not saying everyone with faith is mentally ill – of course not – I’m just saying why it’s a problem for me. If I believe things I can’t prove it might be because I’m ill – so I feel much more comfortable staying within the arena of what’s demonstrable.

      There are probably lots of people like me, who have had bad experiences which are somehow associated with faith (not necessarily mental illness) which make them want to stay away from it in future.

  28. Comment by Yoeshka

    4.53 pm on 28 Feb 2008

    Thanks for the articles by GM and KC. I have read their posts elsewhere and am so grateful that as an “evangelical” of 32 years I have happened upon this doctrine that, until recently, I was completely unaware of! I wish I had time to stay and read every last word: I will do so later.

    Brandon Vaughn: you leave no link?!? I appreciate your commonsense and love-guided interpretation of scripture. I’d be glad to hear more.

    GM and KC: thanks for grace and articulation; some early discoveries of EU or CU or reconciliationism made it hard to accept. Keith DeRose’s article at http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ekd47/univ.htm, helped immensely when I thought that it must be incompatible with scripture.

    Helen: glad you’re here!

    love, joe

    1. Comment by Helen

      8.18 pm on 28 Feb 2008

      Thanks Joe :)

    2. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

      3.08 pm on 5 Mar 2008

      Joe,

      Sorry I never commented to this. I appreciate your kind words. I don’t really have a link to anything. I’m not big like Kevin or GM. Just a lowly college professor (statistics) who loves the beautiful trinitarian God and who has been preaching for the last 20+ years (since I was 16).

      I’m always happy to talk about things, so if you ever want to write me, let me know and I will tell you how (although I’m pretty easy to find via Google).

      Blessings,
      Brandon

  29. Comment by Yoeshka

    4.59 pm on 28 Feb 2008

    sorry about the link (it didn’t like the added comma!)
    try this http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ekd47/univ.htm

  30. Comment by Jason Pratt

    4.59 pm on 28 Feb 2008

    Tim

    {{I see no contradiction in the character of God if he tortures my earthly Father forever and God’s goodness.}}

    The relevant question here, though, is whether God is acting toward fulfilling fair-togetherness with your father. Has he stopped acting toward that and is now acting toward fulfilling non-fair-togetherness? (This would be the Arminian position.) Or did He never even intend to fulfill fair-togetherness with your father at all? (This would be the non-Arminian Calvinist position.)

    If the answer is yes to either of those questions, then that is the same as saying that God’s goodness has nothing necessarily to do with fulfilling fair-togetherness.

    There are theisms which, if true, that could (and indeed would) be true as well. But they aren’t orthodox trinitarian theism. {s} God’s own self-existent reality involves the fulfillment of fair-togetherness between distinct Persons, both in Himself and in all He creates which are not-Himself. (This is the word in Greek that we typically translate “righteousness”; the word in Hebrew is similar though not as detailed.)

    JRP

    1. Comment by Jason Pratt

      5.04 pm on 28 Feb 2008

      And I trust and hope in your heavenly Father that He will be strong to save your earthy father. {s} That’s a very crucial part of what it means to affirm the name of “Jesus”, y’know. “The Lord Saves/is salvation”?

      JRP

  31. Comment by Mark

    5.18 pm on 28 Feb 2008

    Helen,

    God is just because God is love.

    When God put the tree and serpent in the Garden he gave Adam the choice to eat or not. There was no evidence of what would happen should Adam partake…just a choice and a warning from God to not eat of it. God knew what Adam would choose and allowed it so that, for what ever reason we are here today – and one day the whole earth will once again be filled with the Glory of God.

    Calvinist cling to the belief of predestination for the chosen few, yet choose to delete the scripture that “In Adam All die, but in Christ All will be made alive…EACH in his own order.”
    Obviously, there is no evidence for that, but by faith I believe what Paul wrote as much as I believe that God laid out his plan for mankind (from before the foundations of the world) and will not deviate from His plan or “will” to allow Christ Jesus to have All things subjected under him and when it is all done, Jesus Himself will also be subjected to God so that God may be everything to every one or in a better understanding/translation, God will be all in all.

    We are allowed choices….when we make the wrong choice, let’s say refusing to believe in Jesus, the consequences are real as Timothy Wright pointed out. For Adam it was judgment and death. For us it is judgment and death. But we also know that the last enemy Jesus destroys is death.

    1. Comment by Helen

      9.44 pm on 28 Feb 2008

      Thanks Mark.

  32. Comment by Timothy Wright

    5.21 pm on 28 Feb 2008

    Hi,

    YUCK! Fairness! Thats the last thing I want in God. I want Him to be Just not fair.

    I don’t see God portrayed anywhere in the Bible as fair. I reject, Calvinism, and Arminian theology.

    Hey, I could be totally wrong. That would honestly be really good if I have totally messed up in my understanding of The Bible. Everybody wins. I may end up sharing a room with Hitler and my father.

    Tim

    1. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

      5.33 pm on 28 Feb 2008

      Ha ha … it is okay to laugh, right?! :)

      I think if God were fair, we would all be in hell for starters.

      I think God’s intent to save comes FROM His justice.

      In regard to Hitler, is his sin (as GREAT as it was) too much for the sacrifice of Jesus? If he had genuinely accepted Christ before his death (and we will leave this hypothetical apart from suicide) … but if he had accepted Christ, should God have said “No”?

      But in terms of God’s fairness, I think we have different definitions on fairness. The Gospel is that God is NOT fair. The parables of Jesus spell this out clearly. If God was fair, the prodigal son would have become a slave of the house, the workers who had worked only one hour would have barely got paid anything compared to those who had worked all day, … The Pharisees hated Jesus because He described a God who was NOT fair to them.

      After all, to the religious mind, why would it be fair to send a person to hell who lives a good life, gives to the poor, helps rehabilitate drug users, … but doesn’t believe in Jesus? Compared to a person that kills others, and does all sorts of terrible things to humans, and yet repents and believes upon Jesus?

      To the religious mindset, that is not fair! But that is the point. God is NOT fair. That is the Good News!! :)

      Unfortunately, we equate the word “just” with a court-room (thanks Augustine … appreciate that influence!!). It never was meant in that sense.

      And without going into it all, I say that God’s justice is the reason He saves us, and the reason why he isn’t “fair” and throws the whole lot of us in hell in the first place.

      Brandon

    2. Comment by Caroline

      5.40 am on 10 Mar 2008

      We need to be careful about applying human understanding of justice to God. If someone stole all my money, what good would it do me to put him in jail? I just want my money back. If someone raped and murdered my niece, what good would it do me if that person was executed? I just want my niece back, whole and healed.

      True justice is about the restoration of what was lost or broken; it is about redemption of the sinner; it is reconciliation between the sinner and God and the sinner and the one sinned against.

      The doctrine of universalism reflects true divine and biblical justice. As we walk through shadows of injustice, calamities and suffering, we believe that one day, Christ will be all in all. We hold on to the hope that eventually, it will all be all right.

      Caroline

  33. Comment by Timothy Wright

    6.50 pm on 28 Feb 2008

    Hi Brandon,

    I was not trying to be funny. Maybe I am totally wrong and these may be my best mates in the Kingdom. Hitlers sin and my sin, no difference, the ramifications for our sin and their consequences may be different in their manifestation but not in their root.

    I may be totally wrong and that would be great, I want everyone to be part of God’s Kingdom, I just think its going to come out that way. The best message that I have heard about Hell is by Tim Keller called “Hell: Isn’t the God of Christianity an angry Judge?” on this page:

    http://www.thereasonforgod.com/media.php

    Bless you. I am enjoying this though I am not sure if I am changing, but it is stretching to think differently and be asked to see things in a way that I have never considered before.

    Tim

    1. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

      9.35 pm on 28 Feb 2008

      Hey Tim,

      Woops! Sorry.

      I respect your views. Not sure if I agree with them, but then again I’m working through my own. :)

      I always seem to reply to yours, and I certainly hope I don’t come across as saying I’m right about everything and you aren’t. None of us may come out of here changed by the other …

      But at the same time, I disagree. :)

      I’ve met what seems like a great brother in the Lord.

      I’m better for it, and blessed as well because of that.

      And that goes for all of you.

      It is nice to talk about things, disagree in love, and be able to turn around and see that person bless you.

      Take care,
      Brandon

      1. Comment by Kevin

        9.58 pm on 28 Feb 2008

        Everyone,

        Two things about this discussion have warmed my heart and restored my confidence. One is the outrageous generosity, civility and tolerance that has been on display during this discussion. There has been genuine disagreement, maybe even heated at times; but, the tone of the discussion has been almost universally generous and extraordinarily civil. Jason–and I mean this–thank you for creating a safe space for the free and healthy exchange of conversation about church, and theology.

        Second, I have been absolutely delighted and heartened–I hope no one minds me saying–by the representation of women in this discussion. One thing that has troubled me a bit about emergent/emerging (at least here in the States) is that it is still a conversation largely dominated by white men. There are occasional contributions by women, but I think it’s fair to say that it remains largely male (and white) dominated. Not so here. So, again, thanks, Jason, for creating a safe space where all feel welcome and invited to participate and where everyone (seems)to feel that their views will be heard and respected.

        It’s just one more hint of that kingdom that has come and is coming still. And it’s a beautiful thing.

        1. Comment by Tracy Simmons (Elle)

          12.03 am on 29 Feb 2008

          Kevin, you’ve said it perfectly, so I’ll just add my most hearty Amen, and thank you for saying it!
          Tracy

    2. Comment by Jason Pratt

      10.29 pm on 1 Mar 2008

      Hi Tim!

      {{YUCK! Fairness! Thats the last thing I want in God. I want Him to be Just not fair.}}

      Yeah, I hear that a lot. Then when I point out this means an unfair justice, I hear complaints. {g} Or I hear what amounts to ‘But I want Him to be unfair in _my_ favor!’

      {{I don’t see God portrayed anywhere in the Bible as fair.}}

      Whereas I find it all the time. But possibly you’re thinking in terms of mere eglatarianism or some flat equality. There isn’t much of that in the scriptures!

      {{That would honestly be really good if I have totally messed up in my understanding of The Bible.}}

      Well, yes, I agree that it would be really good if Hitler and your father were saved from their sin and their sinning. Yet we can’t expect and trust the One Who is Good, to be always acting toward that goal??

      I can and do expect and trust God on that–to save your father, as well as Hitler. (Or anyway to always be acting toward that goal.) The hope I have for myself is the hope I have for them, too.

      And for what it’s worth, I do not in fact consider myself to have any advantages over Hitler, even in my penitence. We both have rebelled and fallen short. The immediate scope is different, but that doesn’t change the principle. God’s grace is sufficient for me; and for him as well.

      (Also, I think Brandon was laughing with you, at me. {s!} So, no foul there.)

      Brandon,

      {{I think if God were fair, we would all be in hell for starters.}}

      If you mean God would salt everyone with the unquenchable eternal fire in Gehenna, if He was fair–that’s precisely what Jesus promises! (Mark 9:49-50) Moreover He says it’s a good thing (even the best thing), and that when we accept this into ourselves then we will be at peace with one another.

      More specifically, the scriptures teach that none of us shall be in hades per se, eventually (thanks to the resurrection of the good and the evil); and all of us shall be in the eternal fire–that’s the Holy Spirit. (Unless there is more than one eternal fire, in which case we have more basic matters of orthodoxy to be discussing. {s})

      So we all in fact are resurrected, and all of us are salted with the Spirit. That some of us may continue rebelling is not God’s fault!–nor does that mean that God will just quit. Even if every man is untrustworthy, at least may God be true!

      {{I think God’s intent to save comes FROM His justice.}}

      I agree and never said anything different. {s} But then, I’m not dichotomizing between His justice and His love, either. The fulfilling of righteousness is simply the same as the fulfilling of justice; and righteousness is quite literally ‘fair-togetherness’. (But this gets obscured in the translations from the Greek and Hebrew. sigh. {s})

      {{If God was fair, the prodigal son would have become a slave of the house}}

      You’re thinking in terms of some sort of mere unloving law. As it is, there is nothing (despite what N. T. Wright would have us believe {wry g}–long story there) that says the younger brother is going to be ranking any higher–in mere rank. (Though the older brother may get tossed if he keeps complaining! {g}) Whereas, on the other hand, he did in fact become worse than a slave as a result of his actions!–before he repented.

      But even in terms of the law, the complaint of the householder in the next parable you referenced was that the money was his to do with as He wanted, and he paid out exactly what he had struck the bargain for. The real complaint of the other workers wasn’t about fairness; it was about the generosity of their master.

      {{The Pharisees hated Jesus because He described a God who was NOT fair to them.}}

      It would be more accurate, I think, to say they hated Him because He claimed to be God loving His enemies. True, they might have put it in terms of ‘not fair’; but that is because they had a notion of fairness that had nothing to do with love per se.

      Not surprisingly, if our righteousness (i.e. our fair-togetherness) does not super-exceed that of the Pharisees, we will not under any circumstances be inheriting the kingdom! The first step of which has to be to get away from the concept of an unloving ‘fairness’.

      {{After all, to the religious mind, why would it be fair to send a person to hell who lives a good life, gives to the poor, helps rehabilitate drug users, … but doesn’t believe in Jesus? }}

      Yet in the parable of the sheep and the goats, that’s exactly what happens! (The sheep are surprised at being let in; they had no clue when they were serving Jesus.)

      The only kind of fairness the ‘religious mind’ understands, is the kind of fairness that involves them inducing God to do something out of legal obligation. That kind of person would think the sheep unwittingly earned their way in. In reality, the sheep were being children of the inheritance already–whereas the goats have to go in for some agricultural cleaning. {g} (That’s the term typically translated ‘punishment’ or ‘judgment’ there.)

      {{Compared to a person that kills others, and does all sorts of terrible things to humans, and yet repents and believes upon Jesus?}}

      He repented of his sins? Why would it be reckoned ‘unfair’ then for him to be saved?

      {{Unfortunately, we equate the word “just” with a court-room (thanks Augustine … appreciate that influence!!). It never was meant in that sense.}}

      True. It was supposed to be meant in the sense of fair-togetherness. {g} Continuing Augustine’s schism would not be my first recommendation to opposing Augustine’s schism. {s!}

      Good scriptural comments, though, afterward! {beam!} The GosJohn discourse concerning the three things the HS will convict the world of, is even more interesting than you put it, I think. And if I recall correctly, the grammar can be read that Christ is slain from the foundation of the world. (Even as. It is not only in the Divine Logos, though that, too, but Christ in which all things cohere and through which all things were created.)

      {{I often wonder if “hell” is just the fact that man can’t get away from this God of love.}}

      I believe this to be true with all my heart (and with all my understanding, too. {orthodox g!})

      {{Lastly, could a universalist perspective help explain such obscure verses like “All Israel will be saved”? Or “some will be save as though by fire”?}}

      It isn’t “some”, if I recall correctly (my texts are somewhere else right now). But to be fair, I think an exegete would in that particular case not require the lack of specific distinction to mean all: that verse more particularly refers to those who have built their work on Christ. (It’s definitely a strong verse for Roman Catholic purgatory doctrine, though, as far as they go with it.)

      In the Markan verse I mentioned a minute ago, though, it is emphatically all who shall be salted (and clearly saved) by the fire that burns in Gehenna.

      And I agree completely about the “all Israel saved”.

      JRP

  34. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

    4.58 am on 1 Mar 2008

    I was thinking today:

    1) About the fall of man in Genesis. Have you ever noticed that God did NOT curse man? He cursed the serpent and the ground. To man He announced a salvation plan.

    2) Jesus is called “the Lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the world” (emphasis mine). That seems to suggest that in the heart of God, even before man fell, the issue of sin was dealt with. In time, that dealing became manifest. But sin did not take God by surprise.

    3) John tells of how Jesus said the Holy Spirit would convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. I find interesting that the sin the Holy Spirit convicts man of has to do with belief in Jesus. Given point #2, the sins of the world has long been dealt with … so it is no longer a sin issue, but a Son issue. And judgment. Now, you would think the Holy Spirit would convict us of a coming hell, or damnation. But what does He convict us of? What judgment? That the ruler of this world has been judged. Interesting.

    4) I was thinking of when Peter denied Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, and Peter went away a broken, “lost” man. And yet, Jesus made it a point to “go tell my disciples AND Peter” (emphasis mine). I found it interesting that Jesus loved Peter, and one look broke Peter. But for what reason? Redemption, restoration. I often wonder if “hell” is just the fact that man can’t get away from this God of love. Think about it, if man says “No” to God, and spends an eternity (albeit in torment) separated from God, then he got exactly what he wanted. So what torment is in that? But what if such a man cannot get away from this God of love? What if, like Peter, hell is the realization that a man looked the God of love to His “eye” and said “I don’t want You.” Could they have the same reaction Peter did? And is that the end of them like Peter? Or is their “hell” to have a more redemptive side to it, like Peter?

    5) Lastly, could a universalist perspective help explain such obscure verses like “All Israel will be saved”? Or “some will be save as though by fire”?

    Blessings,
    Brandon

    1. Comment by Tracy Simmons (Elle)

      1.43 pm on 1 Mar 2008

      Brandon,

      I’ll like where you’re heading with this! The one thing that I think is so key to determining whether or not one can grasp at least the possibility of God’s redemption of all mankind is at point that person begins. If they start with man, it is very hard to see redemption of all. But if they start with God, it is very easy to see the redemption of all. I quote from Dan Stone on this very thing just a few days ago:
      http://thebestparts.blogspot.com/2008/02/ultimate-purpose.html

      (For the record, Stone is not talking about the redemption of all mankind here, but the point he makes is very valid to our discussion here. Stone was not a universalist to my understanding.)

      Starting at the proper place makes all the difference in the world as to where we end up. We have to start with God’s ultimate purpose, NOT man’s need for redemption. Otherwise, I think it is very hard to see clearly into His plan.

      Tracy

      1. Comment by Kevin

        2.11 pm on 1 Mar 2008

        Brandon/Tracy,

        I do find the most persuasive argument for CU to be the one I mentioned in a previous post, namely, that ultimately God intentions will be realized, and that among God’s intentions is that human being flourish. Since human beings can’t flourish apart from God, eventually all will be reconciled. I can think of several ways to block the argument. One is the one I mentioned; namely, that God has other intentions that trump this intention, such as that human beings enjoy free will. Another is to deny that God intends all human beings to flourish, that creates some just to destroy. I can’t imagine that myself. But to the first objection two things can be said. First, that God could save all w/o violating the free will of any. Or second, that free will is only a relative good (not an ultimate good) and that God’s valuesthe ultimate good of the free creature trumps is relative value of that creatures freedom.

        In short, I’m with you Tracy; start w/God and it seems to me one is pushed in the direction of univesalism. There are ways to avoid that conclusion, but those ways involve paying a pretty hefty price.

        1. Comment by Helen

          5.04 pm on 1 Mar 2008

          free will is only a relative good (not an ultimate good) and that God’s values the ultimate good of the free creature trumps is relative value of that creatures freedom.

          You expressed this well, Kevin – although I can’t see that this would really come into play since as I’ve already said I can’t imagine anyone thinking there is anything worse than eternal torture, therefore anyone who ever has a choice “eternal torture or something else” will choose something else. Even God.

          Alternatively, if we say people will choose against God, then God is in fact worse than eternal torture and those who’ve chosen God are much to be pitied for the unwise choice they’ve made.

          1. Comment by Kevin

            6.59 pm on 1 Mar 2008

            Helen,

            I guess I can imagine it b/c I know people in this life who are miserable and who, when presented with options that are likely to lead them to life and happiness and options that are destructive of their own lives and will only compound misery, choose the latter over the former, over and over again. The idea that no one in their right mind would choose eternal torment over eternal felicity with God assumes that the agent is in their right mind, so to speak. But the medieval idea is that those in hell have so twisted their nature and wills that when given the relevant options they will eterhnally choose their own demise.

            I find that persuasive. Now I also find the folin need of healing and God, being the great physician, will eventually bring it about that either their nature is mended at least to the point where they freely choose God over destruction or, if that becomes impossible, God will step in and rescue them from their misery against their will . Once healed and made well, they will see things clearly and freely choose God.

            Comments won’t nest below this level.

            1. Comment by Kevin

              7.22 pm on 1 Mar 2008

              Oops! Don’t know what happened there. I meant to say:

              I also find the following compelling, that such people are sick and in need of healing….

            2. Comment by Helen

              7.31 pm on 1 Mar 2008

              Kevin, I guess that’s what I think too – although I certainly hadn’t thought it through as much as you. I’m appreciating your articulation of how universalism might play out.

              One might even argue that we see a very abbreviated picture of this in the rich man and Lazarus story where the rich man is becoming less selfish before our eyes in hades: request 1 is for his relief then request 2 and 3 is to save his brothers from the same fate (he is obviously thinking that being with God would be better even though at that point the indications are that it’s not an option for him)

              (Off topic aside: has anyone else except me noticed the irony of God saying even a man rising from the dead wouldn’t persuade the brothers – since, isn’t the Resurrection of Jesus supposed to be The Proof Jesus is alive and Lord?)

              Anyway, regarding God healing evil people – I was taught God is going to do something very drastic to Christians to remove their ’sin nature’ when they get to heaven – it seems to me that if God is willing to do that for them why would he not offer similar ‘healing’/’surgery’ for other people? Which possibly goes along with what you said.

              1. Comment by Rachel

                7.43 pm on 1 Mar 2008

                Helen,

                Interesting thoughts on the Rich Man and Lazarus. I just read a chapter on that parable by an NT scholor named Ken Bailey and he had a little different take on it. He said that the Rich Man asking Lazarus to cool his tounge was more like an order, like Lazarus was still his subordinate. The same thing with his request for Lazarus to go tell his brothers…it was a command, not a request. The Rich Man also appealed to family ties (Father Abraham!) to weasel his way out of hell. So pretty much, the Rich Man doesn’t repent of walking by Lazarus every day doing nothing for him while the dogs licked his sores. And not only that, he is still banking on his worldly social status to get him what he wants.

                Bailey is not even close to being a universalist, but I found his take interesting. What struck me was not that the Rich Man begged for mercy and God said, “too bad,” it was that the Rich Man never repented! Maybe Abraham’s remark, “And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed,” is a sigh of, “you just don’t get it, do you?”

            Reply here

      2. Comment by Rachel

        4.52 pm on 1 Mar 2008

        Tracy,

        Right on! I always like to tell people that my mental protest against eternal torment started with studying Trinitarian theology. We need to not only start with what God’s will is, but who God IS!

        1. Comment by Caroline

          5.31 am on 10 Mar 2008

          My Calvinist/Reformed background plus Trinitarian theology primed me for universalism. Reading the Evangelical Universalist was the catalyst.

          People frequently ask me what is the point of Evangelicalism if everyone is saved. I’m often surprised by that question. Do pastors look at their saved members and think, “they’re saved so I don’t need to do anything with them anymore”?

          The Good News is that people are loved and saved and are invited to participate in the life of the Trinity. Those who don’t know need to be told so that they can be connected to Jesus Christ, their head, via the Holy Spirit and come to know their Father’s intentions towards them – His good, pleasing and perfect will. They, along with those who do know, need encouragement, mercy, forgiveness, healing, support and teaching so that, eventually, God’s will will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

          Caroline

      3. Comment by Gregory MacDonald

        6.32 pm on 2 Mar 2008

        Tracy

        I am 100% with you on this

        GM

        1. Comment by LSGU

          8.40 am on 20 Jul 2008

          Gregory, what are your thoughts on the narrow gate? And Jesus’ comment that only “a few” find life?

          – LSGU

    2. Comment by Mark

      2.24 pm on 1 Mar 2008

      Good thoughts Brandon.

      5) Lastly, could a universalist perspective help explain such obscure verses like “All Israel will be saved”? Or “some will be save as though by fire”?

      I still have trouble how some keep saying that Scriptures shows this literal burning in hell forever…From the early writings we start seeing God as the consuming fire (God in the burning bush, Israelites led by fire, etc., which ended) and then we get to Jesus talking about the literal Gehenna which would obviously not burn forever but was put out at some time…then looking at Revelation and the Lake of Fire making this a literal place when most of Rev is obviously not literal…GOD is seen as this burning fire, consuming fire, tongues of fire…and He judges.

      To understand that Jesus was prepared before the foundation of the world to bring redemption, and we know God brings judgment as he did in the garden, we see the purpose of God to save all of Israel, and save some as through fire.

      Tracy, read your blog and quote from Stone. Great. We do need to start at the right place don’t we! Isn’t it funny how we think it’s all about us and not all about God?!

  35. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

    5.38 am on 2 Mar 2008

    Ok, another random thought … and this might be stretching things a bit, but hang tight … :)

    (And apologies if some authors say this in any books. Gregory might indeed give this argument, but I never finished the book as I gave it away yesterday to a friend … got to get another copy now. :) )

    Ok … fire in the Bible often refers to God. Just to name a few:

    “And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night.” (Exodus 13:21, ESV)

    “If I say, “I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name,” there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot.” (Jeremiah 20:9, ESV)

    “And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”” (Luke 24:31-32, ESV)

    “John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”” (Luke 3:16-17, ESV)

    “Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 12:28-29, ESV)

    So what is my point? :)

    Simply this. God is often equated with fire in the Bible.

    I content that this fire has everything to do with His love, in all its splendor, glory, and passion. Consider:

    “When all the people of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the Lord on the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the ground on the pavement and worshiped and gave thanks to the Lord, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever.”” (2 Chronicles 7:3, ESV)

    “Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm, for love is strong as death, jealousy is fierce as the grave. Its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the Lord.” (Song of Solomon 8:6, ESV)

    Ok … so what?

    Well, just this … if fire is this passionate love that God has for … a love that “burns” up everything but dependency on Him …

    And if He baptizes us with the Holy Spirit AND fire …

    What is baptism? The Greek word means to dunk. It was used when women would take cloth and dip into dye to change its color. It was used of ships that sank. So, one could say that “baptize” would mean to “drown” in a sense. And how is baptism realized? By water.

    So, here is my point … Revelation talks of those thrown into the “lake of fire.” What is a lake? WATER!

    Is it possible, that when it says they were thrown into the lake of fire, we could in essence say that they were “baptized” into God’s love? And it isn’t some 5 second dip. But they are “thrown” or totally immersed in the God of love that they are foolish enough to believe they don’t want. A love that burns so hot for them that they can’t escape.

    Now, what purpose is such a “baptism”. Well, fire does one of two things: destroys or purifies. So somethings that are immersed in God’s love are totally wiped out (beast & false prophet (Rev. 19:20), the devil (Rev. 20:10), and so on).

    But man is different. Man (in Adam) bought The Lie at the very beginning, and God promised salvation to all:

    “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2, ESV)

    “We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19, ESV)

    “save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.” (Jude 23, ESV)

    “If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” (1 Corinthians 3:15, ESV)

    We see in these verses how fire is used not to destroy, but redeem man, to “burn up” anything not of God, to purify him.

    Car washes are pretty cool inventions. I take my car filthy with dirt, in fact it doesn’t even look like a car, yet it comes out the other end of “baptism” clean. The dirt is no match for those high power water streams. Yet the car still comes out.

    I imagine if I were to send a car made out of paper through that. Would it come out the other end? I doubt it. There is no substance.

    So if the “lake of fire” is the love of God through which all things pass through at the end of time, then what manages to come through that? What survives this “baptism”. Certainly not death. Paper car. Certainly not the devil. Paper car.

    But perhaps, just maybe … man is a real car with a LOT of dirt on him, dirt he probably thinks he actually wants. But being “baptized” into this love, this beautiful burning love … what result might that have?

    Blessings,
    Brandon

    1. Comment by Mark

      11.39 pm on 2 Mar 2008

      Excellent Brandon! It’s all about LOVE.

  36. Comment by Brandon Vaughn

    3.47 am on 16 Mar 2008

    Among the many great books that are out there, I wanted to recommend a Christian fiction book … The Shack by William P. Young (www.theshackbook.com).

    Some may have issues with things in the book, but it really does challenge you.

    What is interesting is the discussion of judgment. From what I understand, the author is/was an ultimate reconciliation person (which I suppose is CU) but took this part out of the book due to concerns from the publisher. Still … as you read this, I think it coincides nicely with GM or Talbott. Of course, this is a fiction book, so don’t use it like a theology book.

    Blessings,
    Brandon

  37. Comment by Caroline

    6.22 pm on 18 Mar 2008

    Hi Brandon;

    It is the best fictional depiction of our Triune God and perichoresis that I’ve ever read. Although the bookseller told me it was fiction, I had to check online after reading half the novel because I wondered if it could have been based on real people and real events. It was that compellingly a story. At least I didn’t trek out to Oregon to look for the shack or Mack as some other readers have been reported to do.

    I plan to give a copy to my Pastor and his wife this weekend. Normally I give/loan them my copy of a book but I bought another copy of the Shack as I’m keeping mine.

    Blessings,

    Caroline

  38. Pingback by The Evangelical Universalist « UKCBD: The Christian Bookshops Blog

    8.37 pm on 9 May 2008

    [...] Author’s Blog: The Evangelical Universalist Discussions Elsewhere: Chrisendom | Generous Orthodoxy Thinktank | Jason Clark | An Oxymoron? [...]

  39. Comment by Phil Groom

    9.10 pm on 9 May 2008

    Thank you, Gregory. And thanks to all who’ve commented thus far. I think this is an important issue: it says so much about our concept of God and our understanding of love… but in the end can even God’s love bring about reconciliation at the level we’re talking about — between, say, 6,000,000 Jews and Hitler? I’d love to believe it… but I honestly can’t see it…

    1. Comment by Caroline Wong

      1.09 pm on 10 May 2008

      One by one and nation by nation in the same way He brought about reconciliation between Corrie Ten Boon and her German concentration camp guard. As the man held out his hand in friendship towards her, she realized that she could not forgive him. Her sister, Betsie, had died in that camp. But she could forgive him in the power of the Sprit with the forgiveness of the Father, bought and paid for by the Son. It was that power which moved her arm to clasp his hand in forgiveness.

      This is not a null sum game where one wins and one loses. They both won. God won. How much more so the victory in the fullness of the kingdom when Christ is all in all.

Comments are now closed.