“whether a doctrine (of universalism) is ‘evangelical’ or not is entirely secondary to whether it is biblical or not…” at Jason Clark

Whilst I greatly appreciate the integrity of Gregory and Kevin, I find myself somewhat disturbed by their advocacy of evangelical universalism. That disquiet does not so much concern the conclusions they reach (though I do disagree with them), nor with the arguments they put forth (though I find them wanting), but rather with this simple fact: as far as I can see both of them seem to be more concerned with defending universalism as an evangelical or orthodox doctrine, than they do with defending universalism per se. Gregory writes, “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?”

My immediate response to this is WHY NOT? Why aren’t you trying to persuade me to agree with you? After all – and lets be blunt here – we’re talking about whether certain people I know and love are going to spend eternity with God, or whether they will suffer eternal torment or perhaps annihilation. It’s not as though we’re talking about flavours of ice cream! In other words, it seems to me that Gregory is more concerned with whether the particular view he holds can be counted as ‘evangelical’ than whether its true or not. And to me that is deeply problematic.

It may be somewhat odd for me to say this as the theologian at the Evangelical Alliance, but I don’t primarily care whether a particular doctrine can be counted as ‘evangelical’ or not. I care about whether it is true and for that we have to look to the Scriptures, and ask for God’s wisdom and guidance by the Spirit. It actually doesn’t matter that much whether universalism is compatible with Bebbington’s quadrilateral, or the 5th ecumenical council – it matters whether it is compatible with Scripture. This is not to say that such discussions of ecclesial orthodoxy have no place. Of course they do. But it is to say that whether a doctrine is ‘evangelical’ or not is entirely secondary to whether it is biblical or not. This is what both Gregory and Kevin seem to have overlooked.

And it is also here that both Gregory and Kevin fail to make their case. The dearth of Scriptural texts in their posts is itself telling. Whilst of course it is the case that we have many texts that appear to espouse a universalism (Rom 5:18, Col 1:20, Phil 2:11), we also have many that most clearly deny it (Mt 25:46, Luke 13:28, Rev 20:10-15). Assuming, then, that the Scriptures are not crassly contradicting themselves, we need to find some way of resolving this hermeneutical conundrum.

If we examine the main texts that appear to support universalism, we find little evidence that they actually do. So, in Romans 5, Paul appears to be saying that all people will receive life, yet it is clear that the verse serves as a summary of the previous section in which justification is clearly indicated as being appropriated through faith (Rom 5:1). Hence, the ‘all’ to which he refers is implicitly ‘all who’ve received Christ through faith’, not ‘all’ without qualification. Similarly, Phil 2:11 is often cited in support of universalism, but all that verse indicates is that all will one day acknowledge Christ as Lord. It says nothing about their eternal destiny. And when Col 1:20 says that “all things” will be reconciled to him, that does not preclude the possibility of some things being annihilated.

Gregory has made it clear that the kind of universalism he champions is what is technically known as restorative punishment (RP) i.e. that some people will be sent to hell, but that God will restore them from there to an eternity with him. RP is usually presented as the solution to the problem of reconciling the verses that suggest a universal salvation with those that suggest some form of post-mortem punishment. However, such a creative ‘solution’ is simply not required if the case for universalism has not even been made, and that is where I find myself. In addition, RP suffers from the huge problem of simply having no scriptural warrant. It is an invented solution to an imagined problem.

The point, though, is that if Gregory and Kevin want to make their case it needs to depend on a thorough reading of these Scriptures rather than just demonstrating its compatibility with ‘evangelicalism’.

No doubt, Gregory addresses these issues in his book, which I have not yet had time to finish. However, in placing the emphasis of this post on the doctrine’s evangelical orthodoxy, my fear is that Gregory is seeking approval from the evangelical community, more than he is seeking to be faithful to Scripture. And that is always a dangerous thing, for whenever we put scripture secondary to anything – including ecclesiastical blessing – we are in danger of distorting its meaning. So my plea to Gregory is please do try to persuade me, and if it turns out that you’re successful but that my new found belief is incompatible with ‘evangelicalism’ then so be it. The loss belongs to evangelicalism not to me as long as I’m faithful to Scripture.

Justin Thacker

Justin Thacker is head of theology at the Evangelical Alliance.

His regular comment on events of the week can be found at: www.eauk.org/fnt

Tagged: gregory macdonald; universalism; hell; justin thacker

Share on Facebook

47 comments

Trackback

Comment by Jason Reid

9.34 am on 27 Feb 2008

Ah, some clear fresh air
Comment by gareth

10.19 am on 27 Feb 2008

I think in your statements that you are not worried about whether universalism is evangelical or not and that you are more concerned with whether it is biblical rather proves the point. Surely in your mind the two are one and the same, your hermeneutical methodology also reveals this bias. Is not Orthodoxy Evengelicalism or you wouldn’t hold that position?

This is clear from your immediate jumping into their use of scripture rather than the quotes they used from the tradition.

And isn’t their book aimed squarely at evangelicals? As this element of the Christian tradition has had no place in its ‘canon’ (till now) for universalism of any kind whereas other elements of the faith, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox have elements within them who advocate for this position?

I think for them they seem to want to use evangelical methodology to open up the ground for a debate about whether this doctrine, which is contentious in many Christian traditions, is compatible for those who are confessed evangelicals. And that seems to be to be a good thing.

I guess the other question is whether if there is room for discussion – which you think there is as some texts are ambiguous – and whether because of that, this doctrine could be something, that whilst not central to what it means to be an evangelical, is not against that either.
Comment by Justin Thacker

11.10 am on 27 Feb 2008

I certainly hope and pray that evangelical orthodoxy and biblical orthodoxy are one and the same, but i’m also sufficiently aware of my own fallibility to know that they are not. To give a concrete historical example, the EA’s original basis of faith affirmed the ‘immortality of the soul’. For a variety of reasons, many evangelicals would now not hold to that position. Clearly then evangelical orthodoxy and biblical orthodoxy cannot simply be equated.
It is precisely for this reasons that I’m trying to encourage the authors to make the debate NOT about what evangelicals believe, but about what the Bible teaches.
As I’ve indicated, the evangelicalism to which I subscribe is one where if a doctrine can be demonstrated to be biblical, even if evangelicals haven’t yet recognised it, then it is a doctrine to which evangelicals should subscribe.
Hence, the Bible, rather than the evangelical tradition should be the focus of the discussion. And if you want to persuade this evangelical, that is what is required.
1. Comment by Katharine Moody
  
  1.24 pm on 27 Feb 2008
  
  Justin, I’m troubled by your statement advising Gregory and Kevin to ‘make the debate NOT about what evangelicals believe but about what the Bible teaches.’ I think this statement fails to see that whatever position we believe (i.e. evangelical or whatever) determines what the Bible teaches.
  
  I’m going to risk it and say that ‘what the Bible teaches’ cannot be determined apart from our particular believing communities, evangelical or otherwise.
  
  Gregory and Kevin can do no more than write about what the Bible teaches through their lenses. Similarly, you can’t write about what the Bible teaches without doing so through your own framework, which I assume is some form of evangelicalism (if, however, not evangelical universalism!). Likewise myself.
  
  I don’t talk about what the Bible teaches because there cannot be consensus on such a topic and I do not wish there to be consensus. I can only talk about what the Bible teaches AS I READ IT AS A SITUATED READER WITH A PARTICULAR HISTORICAL, CULTURAL, POLITICAL, THEOLOGICAL, SEXUAL, ETHNIC, AND GENDERED EXISTENCE.
  
  I know this is going to raise some eyebrows, maybe even some fists, but there it is… it’s out there… that’s what I think.
  1. Comment by Scott Lenger
    
    3.53 pm on 27 Feb 2008
    
    While written from the lens of Roman Catholicism, Cathleen Kaveny’s article at Commonweal, What Must I Do to Inherit Eternal Life?, makes a similar argument.
Comment by Tracy Simmons (Elle)

11.53 am on 27 Feb 2008

Jason,
The thoughts you raised in this post never crossed my mind, probably because I’ve spent four years studying both the scriptures on this topic as well as reading any book I could get my hands on that expounded on those scriptures concerning this topic! So, for me to read Gregory and Kevin tackling it from the “evangelical” standpoint was a fresh wind on my face as I’ve never heard this topic looked at from that point of view.

If people have not studied this for themselves based on scripture, then yes, I can indeed see why you’d be disturbed :-). Hopefully these discussions will send people running in that direction! I realized in reading your post just how naive I still am in assuming that everyone is searching the scriptures on this matter, and that others have read dozens of books on this topic and are already well founded and grounded in what the Scriptures teach. These posts were so refreshing to me as the “evangelical” piece of this topic was new territory not already covered in my studying.

You wrote: “…my fear is that Gregory is seeking approval from the evangelical community, more than he is seeking to be faithful to Scripture.” I think that there are so many books out there that already cover this topic from a very scriptural standpoint, and because of that perhaps Gregory was looking to cover new ground on this topic. I don’t think that detracts from the scriptural basis, it’s just one additional piece of the puzzle that needed to be looked at. To me, it felt and sounded like this: “We know that Christian Universalism (hate that term, but you know what I mean by it so I’ll use it!) can be found to have merit from a careful study of scriptures, but now we want to show that it doesn’t mean you’re a heretic if you believe this. You can still be an evangelical.” That’s a gross simplification, of course, but that’s sort of the way it hit me, though I’ve no idea if that’s what they intended.

Just a few thoughts, way too early in the morning to be any more coherent than that. I hope your post will cause those that have not already done so to be good Bereans and go running back to the Scriptures!

Tracy
Comment by Gregory MacDonald

2.22 pm on 27 Feb 2008

Justin

Thank you so much for this provocative and respectful post. I have four reflections.

1. I absolutely agree with you that the primary question is, “Is EU biblical?” and not “Is EU evangelical?” And I thought that your stance on this was very encouraging – the EA:UK are blessed to have you.

2. But just because the “Is EU evangelical?” question is secondary that does not mean that we should not ask it. Let me tell you why I did it.

a) Because my book is devoted to the question “Is EU true/biblical?” I did not wish to cover the same ground so thought I would use the post as a teaser to intrigue people.

b) Because in my experience evangelicals come into the discussion of ‘universalism’ with so many misunderstandings of what universalism is that before one can even ask the “Is it true?” question one must first ask the “What actually is universalism?” question. This post was designed to clarify the topic so that at least we all know what we are talking about.

c) Because some of the biblical objections to universalism (e.g., it undermines mission, it denies the centrality of Christ in salvation) are actually dealt with in the post simply by clarifying exactly what we do and do not believe.

d) Because whether a belief counts as evangelical does matter. For example, could I join an evangelical organization, speak at an evangelical event, publish with an evangelical publisher etc, etc? All such institutions have gate keepers and there are implications for me and others like me if we are counted as ‘outside the camp’ be definition. I know it is not the primary issue but it is still worth discussing. The question is this: “Will evangelicals tolerate my views as non-heretical?”

3. As I mentioned in 2a I devote a lot of space in the book to the question of the Bible so I simply don’t think it is fair to suggest that I am not interested in that question. For me it has always been the primary question.

4. As an aside – I an fascinated that you think that God can reconcile people to himself, making peace through the blood of christ, by annihilating them! (your take on Colossians 1:15-20). Obviously the Pauline concept of reconciliation through the cross and peace with God is more elastic than I thought! That was slightly naughty of me but I could not resist it.
:-)

Blessings on your important work

GM
1. Comment by Jason Pratt
  
  10.56 pm on 1 Mar 2008
  
  My thoughts exactly on the Col 1:15-20 critique, GM. {g} Kinda hard to make peace with those who are annihilated. (Or fulfill fair-togetherness with them either, which amounts to the same thing.) As long as there is life, there is hope. Not much point resurrecting the evil as well as the good just to annihilate the evil, either. Moreover, I wouldn’t adduce RevJohn 20 without going ahead and finishing out to the end–might be embarassing if God was enjoining eternal hope for the lost in chps 21 and 22, hm? {g} If it comes to that, there’s a pretty strong universalistic thrust in the climactic battle scene of chp 19, too… Butt-kicking, yes; butt-kicking for goodness (as that guy on Balder’s Gate used to say {g}), yes; but butt-kicking for something even more precious than goodness, too. (Let’s just say that RevJohn 19 is one of my favorite places to reference when I mention that I consider myself to have no advantages over the worst enemies of God. {s} I mean when the author takes THE ONE PSALM ANY CHRISTIAN IS MOST LIKELY TO KNOW and applies it to the final rebel armies, of all people… Obviously it isn’t something most readers are expecting, to say the least. {lol!})
  
  Since the discussion is really between you and Kevin and Justin, though, I’d rather hold off (myself I mean) doing exegetical debate on the things he brought up. (Though I will add that not every scripture I’ve seen referenced for universalism is one I would tally in context with that.)
  
  JRP
Comment by Brandon Vaughn

2.32 pm on 27 Feb 2008

Justin,

While I appreciate your comments (and will directly comment on a few things you say later today), I think you miss the whole point of this discussion. Gregory has at numerous times engaged in discussion about whether his belief is scriptural or not. That wasn’t the point of this current discussion. We can certainly make that the point here if everyone wants. :)

The goal in this discussion was whether such a teaching could still fit into an Evangelical world and be considered compatible with orthodoxy. That is all.

So it seems to me you are on a different topic all together (albeit, an IMPORTANT topic … but a topic that has been discussed before and wasn’t the theme of this current one).

I can’t speak for Gregory, but I think the main thrust of his book is concerned with Scripture than it is in popularity. Think about it … how popular is exclusivist universalism going to be in the Christian world? Do you know that the famous CBD book distributor doesn’t even carry his book?

If Gregory wanted to be popular in the Evangelical community, he would be better off writing the follow-up to the “Left Behind” series, and debate endlessly on who the “antichrist” is or how long the tribulation is. We’d probably make him as leader of some main line evangelical denominations then. :)

Gregory is very scriptural in what he believes in his book. And since you haven’t finished reading that book, it would seem a hard (but not impossible) task to do this “convincing” as you say online. Maybe he should just copy and paste each chapter of his book here one at a time? :)

I do agree with you on this … everything should be based on Scripture. My rants in previous posts about the early church fathers was simply that MOST evangelicals I know seem to hinge on every word of John Piper, or Max Lucado, or Billy Graham, or Tim LaHaye, or …. and some will even go back to older people like Augustine, Luther, Spurgeon, Pink, Edwards, … And my question is if you do that, then why not throw the early church fathers in that mix as well?

But if you like, then I say let’s throw them ALL out, and be sola scripture. Throw Calvin, Arminian out. Throw Augustine and Luther out. And I’m not being sarcastic in this, but that is certainly something we might want to do (and maybe should do).

Yet, to convince someone by Scripture is a daunting task in a medium like this. A one-to-one conversation, or a book, is probably the best at laying the entire groundwork through Scripture. And Gregory has already done this. So it would make sense for you to (quickly) finish the book, and then the both of you pick up that discussion here.

Lastly, I think Gregory isn’t too concerned about “winning” you over to his belief. I’m still thinking through these issues myself, so I’m not even sure if I agree with Gregory on everything he says, but I doubt that would trouble him. First of all, no matter what you believe, there isn’t “hard evidence” in the Bible to really form a definitive conclusion (I think at least right now). There are passages that suggest eternal torment, and there are passages that suggest salvation after death (e.g., every knee will bow, some will saved as though by fire, …).

But everything we discuss (to me) is the “P.S.” of the Gospel, it isn’t the Gospel itself. It would be similar to whether you believe in a literal 1,000 year reign or not. Is that the Gospel? To me, it is not. It is rather a question of how God will “wrap-up” in time what started with the Gospel.

So, you write as though Gregory is making THIS the Gospel, and I don’t believe he is. To say that belief in an actual 1,000 reign will determine the validity of the Gospel is non-sense. People vary in their interpretation of this. And there is room in the Evangelical community to DO THIS! That is the point of this discussion. NOT that you are wrong in your position, and thus you don’t have the “true Gospel” and need to be convinced. (Gregory even says you should be CAUTIOUS in changing your mind about this after much prayer and study in the Scripture.) But rather the point is can people in the Evangelical world have differences of opinion on THIS MATTER and not be labeled a “heretic” by the church. Can I, as a Christian, hold to universalistic understandings (from an exclusivist “Christ is the only way” approach) and still be welcomed in the Evangelical church? Just the same as people that gave “1988 reasons” why Jesus was coming back in 1988? Or the people who thought that Gorbachev was the “antichrist”?

That is what I thought this whole discussion was about.

Take care,
Brandon
Comment by Mark

3.37 pm on 27 Feb 2008

The question of whether EU is compatible with evangelical faith is relevant for these reasons:
1. Whether it is biblical and whether it is evangelical should be almost the same thing. The question of whether it is biblical would not be relevant to those who do not share an evangelical view of scripture.
2. The question is also whether it is something evangelicals can talk about. If it is assumed ahead of time that EU is heretical, then there will be no investigation of scripture texts that seem to support EU–the discussion will be cut off at the knees. One possibility is that new insights could be reached by considering the possibility, even if a firm conclusion of universalism is not reached. So it makes sense to me to ask the question first, whether it is something evangelicals can talk about.
3. How many passages of Scripture are needed to support a doctrine? There is one main passage (Rom 3 and quoting from the Psalms) that asserts the universal sinfulness of humanity.
4. A couple of specific passages that need to be re-investigated: Phil 2:10-11 alludes to Is 45:22-23, where the context is not to a grudging recognition of the sovereignty of God, but to a saving knowledge: “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth.”
5. Romans 9-11 clearly teaches that there are some who are lost now who will ultimately be saved, i.e. the Gentiles and Israel. “For God has imprisoned all in disobedience that he may have mercy on all.”
1. Comment by Jason Pratt
  
  11.10 pm on 1 Mar 2008
  
  Incidentally, Phil 2:10-11, and similar Pauline evocations elsewhere, are in fact about the confession of the saved–when all confess, the English is translating a Greek word used to translate a Hebrew word that is (in the OT) always connected with praising God for His mighty saving acts. So yep, it’s a universalism text.
  
  This is a little more detailed in 1 Cor 15, because there Jesus’ task will not be done until all are subjected to Him in the same way that He will then subject Himself to the Father! Now, Jesus is surely not going to subject Himself to the Father in a grudging teeth-gnashing merely formal acknowledgement, I’m pretty sure. {g}
  
  An even more specific (if poetic) image in Rom 11 for illustrating what Paul is talking about, is that of branches being grafted off and grafted back on again. It’s related to the agricultural-cleaning verb used back in Jesus’ judgment of the goats.
  
  The scriptures. OT and NT both, are chocked with universalism claims, once one knows what to look for. I’m thinking of starting a web-journal dedicated to doing an exegetical passthrough on the topic, sometime after Easter. (I try not to write primary articles about it on the Cadre Journal to keep from causing group waves there; it’s a conjunctive journal and not everyone is a universalist to say the least, though we have a few close ones.)
  
  The real problem isn’t finding scriptural texts in favor of universalism (and I mean really really solidly in favor, too.) The real problem is, why should I be interpreting some other trad-damn/anni text-verses in light of universalism instead of vice versa?
  
  Ah–that’s a question of metaphysical coherency, though.
  
  JRP
  1. Comment by Jason Pratt
    
    11.13 pm on 1 Mar 2008
    
    Though I should add that I’m discovering more and more non-universal text-references to be universalistic after all. (Notice that I refer to the same judgment of the goats as Justin did, for instance!–as a positive scriptural witness in universalism’s favor!
    
    Honestly at this point I’m more worried about overreaching by being carried away. {wry g}
    
    JRP
Comment by Brandon Vaughn

4.57 pm on 27 Feb 2008

Justin,

A few comments about “Whilst of course it is the case that we have many texts that appear to espouse a universalism (Rom 5:18, Col 1:20, Phil 2:11), we also have many that most clearly deny it (Mt 25:46, Luke 13:28, Rev 20:10-15).”

The texts you mention as denying universalism are: two parables, and a prophetic writing. Maybe these are just poor choices on your part and you might offer up more than this.

Parables should never be used as meticulous detailing the fine points of doctrine. They were meant to shock people, to get them thinking, and to impart one basic truth.

So take the parable of the lost coin. I think we miss the point if we ask questions like: “Why was the coin lost? Could she have just gotten another coin? What kind of coin was it? Silver? Gold? Did she predestine the coin to be lost in order to show everyone how great she was in finding it?”

To even say such things sound silly, don’t they? Because the whole point of that story was a central truth: the character of God toward man … that to God, man is valuable enough to turn the whole house upside to find.

Take Matthew 25 … are we to base doctrine from this parable? If so, I would ask a question … how many people do we have to give drink to in order to “qualify” for heaven? And what happened to salvation being about faith in Christ finished work? If you base doctrine (point for point) from a parable, you have just taught a salvation by works. Because IF we base our doctrine off this parable, it clearly teaches that in order to be a “sheep” and not a “goat” it is ONLY about feeding the poor, visiting the imprisoned, etc. So, in essence, you are now teaching that a person can be a Buddhist and do those things because he was inspired by the teachings of Jesus and go to heaven in the end.

I seriously doubt you believe this.

Which suggests to me simply that this parable is telling a CENTRAL TRUTH, with lots of visual elements which should not be taken as doctrinal.

Take Luke 13:28 … Jesus told another story to answer a question: Will few be saved? And something people always forget to do (me including) is to take these words in context. If you read all of Luke 13, you will find Jesus once again at odds with the religious people of His day. Why is this important? Because I think before Jesus came, the Pharisees (and the like) were considered to be THE example of what godliness and salvation was like. And Jesus kept saying, “No, this isn’t what God is like. These very people would be the LAST to enter God’s kingdom.” Now imagine in our day and time Jesus were to show up and say, “Everyone who goes to church is more likely to go to hell than those who don’t.” Wouldn’t that automatically raise questions? “Who can then be saved? It doesn’t sound like a lot of people will be saved. Are only a few saved?” So in this story, I think Jesus is telling us once again that He is the only way to the Father, not religion. And just because you “wear His name” doesn’t mean anything if you don’t know Him. Central truth. Notice v. 30 … those thought to be “first” will be “last.”

Take Rev. 20. Wow, where to begin on this … except this is one of the most debated prophetic books ever. And if you hold to a very literalist interpretation of these verses, then I wonder if you believe the rest of the book is as well. Do you believe that there will be an actual book? Will it be hard bound or paperback? Do you believe there will be an actual dragon, or do you see that as symbolic? Will it actually be at Gog and Magog, or are those symbolic of something? I think if we went through the entire book, you would see these as symbols representing something bigger.

Let’s say you went to a remote part of Africa and talked to people who had never left their village. They live in straw huts. They ask you to describe your city. How would you describe skyscrapers to them? They wouldn’t understand what on earth you were talking about. One way you could do that is through symbols … “In my ‘village’ we stack our huts on top of each other.” You are attempting to describe something that is beyond the reasoning of that person to understand. BUT when that person finally sees a skyscraper, then it is “Oh, THAT is what they were talking about.”

My interpretation of Revelation is the same way. To me, “dragon”, “666″, “Gog”, “lake of fire”, etc are symbols representing something beyond my ability to understand. They are my “huts on top of huts.”

I give no credence to a hell that God is not in charge of. To say that hell is off in some distant galaxy, and He has turned this place over to the devil is crazy to me. God IS in charge, not the devil. If God is omnipresent, then that means He will be equally in “hell” as He is in “heaven.”

Here is an interesting question … what makes “hell” hell? What is this “torment”?

In my opinion, it is God. The Bible says that God is an all-consuming fire. What would it be like to not be able to get away from this God of love that you have always said “No” to? Not to me cute, but there are some people in this world I don’t really like being around. When I am forced to be around them, I would describe that as “hell.” To not be able to escape this Holy God of love … maybe that is the very flames of hell?

And another good question … what is the purpose of such a place? God always seems to do things with purpose in mind. What is the purpose of torment? Unless maybe there is a redemptive purpose to it?

Anyway, my point is, if I were to back up a position on this, I would use more than a parable and obscure prophetic writing. I would base it more on the clear teaching of Jesus or Paul. And I’m not saying you might not be able to do this, but that is where I would base an argument sola Scripture. Think about it … if there was a passage in Proverbs or the Song of Solomon that taught universalism, would you think that is “hard evidence”? Probably not based on a proverb and song. I think the same applies to a story (parable) and prophetic writing.

Take care,
Brandon
Comment by Lyn

5.13 pm on 27 Feb 2008

I don’t really have much to add to the discussion at this point. I’m taking it all in and trying to digest everything I’ve read so far. I just wanted to say that I think the posts we have read so far this week have been of a really good quality. Equally the discussion going on in the comments section here is awesome. Thanks for putting this week together Jason. I think many have and will benefit from it.
Comment by petey*crowder

7.01 pm on 27 Feb 2008

I have to agree with some of the comments above that you can’t adopt a “simply Biblical” approach to this issue. Every ounce of what’s being thrown around is related to varying degrees of hermeneutical exposition rooted in an array of traditions. Scripture is always tempered through paradosis unless you’re part of the community it was originally formed through. And that is not possible today…
Comment by Kevin

11.09 pm on 27 Feb 2008

Justin,

Thanks for this. I agree that of fundamental and primary importance is the question whether or not EU or CU is biblically warranted. Neither of us, however, were concerned w/that question of primary importance, IN OUR POSTS. It’s not that neither of us is concerned with the question, however. Both of us I think were concerned first, as a bit of prologomena you might say, to bring clarity to an issue that has been shrouded in misunderstanding and caricature w/in evangelicalism. So the fact that there is a dearth of scripture in our posts is not at all telling, unless it simply tells that we were up to something other than making a biblical case for EU or CU.

I do wonder, Justin, whether you believe the bible presents clear and unambiguous teaching on who gets baptized and when, whether women should or should not be ordained, whether the world was brought into existence by God through natural, evolutionary means or other means, whether celebration of the Eucharist is a memorial or a holy meal in the midst of which Jesus is really present? I confess that I get a little nervous when someone conveys their view on such issues as these–AND ON THE ISSUE OF EU OR CU–and immediately precedes their presentation with the words “The bible CLEARLY teaches….” or “The bible OBVIOUSLY teaches…”

Adherents to EU or CU who seek to be true to orthodox Christian faith would not embrace a doctrine that they thought is flatly denied by scripture. GM’s view is that there is a persuasive case to be made for it. He recognizes, however, that some might look at the biblical case and disagree w/him. What he doesn’t do, however, is dismiss everyone who disagrees with him as OBVIOUSLY mistaken and outside the pale of orthodoxy. He would just like that sort of generosity reciprocated. And, as a matter of autobiographical fact, so would I.
Comment by Justin Thacker

11.15 pm on 27 Feb 2008

Thanks to all those who have left comments. They’ve been a delight to read. So here is my response to some of them.

Firstly, to those who’ve argued that we’re all situated and cannot escape our cultural positioning to ascertain pure biblical truth, I would say of course you’re right and I agree with you. My point, though, is that whilst we cannot escape our culture, we should at least be clear that what the Bible says is what we’re aiming at, even if the interpretations we end up with are inevitably fallible, influenced as they are by our own cultural prejudices. If all we ever did was reflect our own culture then scripture would never challenge us, but patently it does – everyday I hope. Hence, the fact of enculturation does not mean that we should give up the attempt of simply seeing what the Bible says.

In his response, Gregory argues that one of the reasons why it matters whether universalism is an evangelical doctrine is that certain gatekeepers of the evangelical community would close the door to someone who is a universalist. Now, while I fully recognise the dilemma that Gregory finds himself in with regard to this, may I provocatively suggest that there is something deeply troubling with this way of thinking. Let us imagine for a moment that Gregory is right on all these counts. In other words, let us imagine that he is right regarding universalism, and that he is right regarding the slammed doors that he would then discover in the evangelical community – how should Gregory respond? The implication of Gregory’s point is that he should soft-pedal his universalism, or keep it under wraps, in order to maintain his standing with the evangelical community. However, this cannot be right. If Gregory is right, then maybe he is our Luther, and what the evangelical community needs is him nailing his thesis to the door of the evangelical community, and suffering whatever consequences come as a result. I’m certain that if I found myself in Gregory’s position I wouldn’t have the courage to do that – but nevertheless it would be the right thing to do.

One of the most astute comments that Brandon raised was that I seem to be discussing a different topic to Gregory and himself. I think in response that I have to plead ‘guilty’. You may have realised from the comments I’ve already made that by far the only real debate that interests me is whether a particular view is Scriptural or not. As I’ve already indicated, evangelicals do not have a monopoly on the truth, and it is quite possible that evangelicals are wrong on this issue. What interests me, then, is not really whether it is compatible with evangelical dogma, but whether it is compatible with Scripture. Brandon writes, “But rather the point is can people in the Evangelical world have differences of opinion on THIS MATTER and not be labeled a “heretic” by the church.” Once again my response to this is to say, so what if they are labelled a ‘heretic’ as long as what they’re saying is Biblical.

I should perhaps point out that part of the reason I’m arguing in this fashion is that I believe evangelicalism is at a bit of a crossroads. It prides itself on a sola scriptura principle, yet I see increasing tendencies for evangelicals to reject particular doctrines based on nothing more than evangelical tradition. It is this tendency to which I am strongly opposed. I am an evangelical because I believe in Scripture – full stop. Hence, to my mind, I am betraying (rather than adhering to) my evangelicalism if someone convinces me that a particular doctrine is scriptural and yet I reject it because it doesn’t adhere to evangelical orthodoxy or tradition. It is for those reasons that I am perhaps addressing a different point to Brandon and Gregory. It simply doesn’t bother me (except in the obvious political / historical sense) whether universalism fits with evangelical tradition – what bothers me is whether it is Biblical. Incidentally, for that reason, I appreciated Brandon’s subsequent Biblical discussion even if I still disagree with him: parables do not just teach one point, the number they teach depends on the particular parable in question. I find it oddly reductionistic to insist on the principle he suggests.

Finally, Mark notes that if EU is considered heretical, then the discussion will be cut off at the knees, and therefore the universalist is forced to approach it by showing its compatibility with evangelical orthodoxy. Mark may be right in this, but if so, then shame on the evangelical community. As I’ve hopefully shown that is not the approach I would take. I’m happy to debate and discuss every doctrine, not least because I need reminded of the nature of the scriptural basis of my beliefs. I don’t believe them because I’m an evangelical and that’s what evangelicals do. I believe them because that is what the Bible teaches, and any opportunity to reevaluate that can only be welcomed.
1. Comment by Brandon Vaughn
  
  1.15 am on 28 Feb 2008
  
  Hi Justin,
  
  My take on the parables is traditional in hermeneutics. For example:
  
  “1. Throughout the history of the church, most Christians interpreted the parables as allegories. That is, interpreters assumed that many of the individual characters or objects in the parables stood for something other than themselves—spiritual counterparts which enabled the story to be read at two levels. A parable was not just a story about human activity but also a narrative of “heavenly reality.”
  To take perhaps the most famous parable of all as an example, the story of the prodigal son (Lk 15:11–32) was viewed not simply as a poignant drama of a Jewish father’s remarkable forgiveness for his wayward son. Rather it was assumed that a series of one-to-one correspondences could be set up so that the father stood for God, the prodigal for any sinner running away from God, and the older brother for the hardhearted Pharisee. Usually the number of correspondences was extended. The ring which the father gave the prodigal might represent Christian baptism, and the banquet could easily be associated with the Lord’s Supper.8 The robe which the newly returned son put on could reflect immortality; and the shoes, God’s preparation for journeying to heaven.9 One by one most all of the details were explained, and the spiritual significance of the story was determined.
  2. Modern scholarship has rightly rejected allegorical interpretation in favor of an approach which sees each parable as making only one main point. Down through the centuries, the artificial and arbitrary nature of the elaborate type of allegorization illustrated above became progressively clearer. A careful comparison of older expositors shows that they often did not agree on what each of the details in a given parable represented. To return to the example of the prodigal’s robe, in addition to immortality it was interpreted as standing for sinlessness, spiritual gifts, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, or the sanctity of the soul.10
  Clearly all of these views recognized that the father gave the robe to the prodigal to indicate his restoration to the family. But it was impossible to agree on how to match the robe with one particular aspect of a new Christian’s relationship with his heavenly Father. Presumably the lesson to be learned is that the robe is not meant to be allegorized. In fact even to view the father as directly standing for God is now widely held to be inappropriate. After all, God himself seems to be referred to in the parable as a separate character, however indirectly, when the prodigal speaks of sinning against his father and against heaven (vv. 18, 21). So instead of allegorizing individual details, one must seek to encapsulate the story’s message under one overarching theme, for example, “the boundless joy of God’s forgiveness.” (Blomberg, Craig: Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1990, S. 15)
  
  However, in fairness, this view is not held by everyone (including Blomberg referenced above). I tend to maybe not be as dogmatic as I sounded. To say that every parable has one and only one point to it … I think that is generally true, but maybe not always. Yet, I do firmly believe that there is only ONE MAIN point. If there are others then it is only secondary. Think if you were trying to teach a child a truth using a story. In that story, you are probably emphasizing one main thing, not 20 (unless you are doing Narnia by C.S. Lewis). But a parable is less than a story too. And a story that is only less than a paragraph long is probably not trying to convey much more than one truth.
  
  “I don’t believe them because I’m an evangelical and that’s what evangelicals do. I believe them because that is what the Bible teaches”
  
  I say a HEARTY “amen” to that! :)
  
  “Once again my response to this is to say, so what if they are labelled a ‘heretic’ as long as what they’re saying is Biblical.”
  
  Once again, I agree with your statement. After all, where would the church be today if Paul had not challenged Peter (and the whole Jewish part of the church) in regard to Gentile believers!
  
  But the only danger I see in this … WHO determines what is Biblical and what is not?
  
  Personally, I don’t think all this silliness of the “Left Behind” is Biblical. I don’t think a lot of people’s interpretation of Revelation is Biblical. Are they heretics?
  
  So, my question to you is … do you give grace to people who differ from you on the issue of tribulation? Do you give grace to people who differ in the role (if any) of Israel in the future? Can you feel confident in standing up and espousing one view of this as Biblical, and all others are in error or heretical?
  
  “Orthodox” means “right thinking.” So “heresy” would mean the opposite. Of course, today this word is loaded with negative feelings.
  
  But in terms of the creeds, how does holding a universalist perspective violate those? If they don’t, then I don’t see this as essential belief, is a matter of opinion, and thus should suggest grace on parts of people who disagree about this.
  
  Saying that Jesus isn’t the only way, that is heretical to me. Saying that Jesus didn’t come in the flesh, is heretical to me. Saying that we must earn God’s acceptance, is heretical to me. They clearly violate Biblical basis.
  
  Saying that there is an actual tribulation, that is a matter of opinion.
  Saying that heaven will be on a new earth, that is a matter of opinion.
  Saying that God might allow people to be saved after death, that is a matter of opinion.
  And in such, grace should be extended.
  
  I think it is okay to talk about it, debate it even. But just remember that we aren’t saying that this is THE Gospel. I know I keep saying this, but I think it is important. If you go to a website that is discussing the tribulation, it might easily come across that this is the ONLY truth and is the Gospel. It isn’t. It is just an opinion on something that isn’t clear in Scripture.
  
  And as such, I think it is good to have an opinion, but to hold on to is loosely. Be willing to new ideas (as long as they don’t clearly violate Scripture).
  
  Right now, I don’t see how CHRISTIAN universalism violates Scripture. Whether it is true, is the debate. But in that debate should be a lot of grace.
  
  Blessings,
  Brandon
2. Comment by Gregory MacDonald
  
  3.32 pm on 28 Feb 2008
  
  Justin
  
  Thanks. I was so hoping that you would reply to some of my other points (e.g., on Colossians 1) but you are a busy person so I don’t mind.
  
  I must confess to some continuing perplexity as why you have such a problem with my asking whether universalism is compatible with evangelical theology.
  Your response to my defence was to suggest that I soft pedel my universalism or keep it under wraps. But that is a different matter, is it not, from whether the original question is appropriate (and I explained my reasoning for asking that question above)?
  
  But in response to your new worry – that I soft-pedel my universalism – Well, it is both false and true. It is false because I have published a book on it and written numerous internet things in defence of it (none of which I had to do). It is true because when I am not Superman but merely Clark Kent I do soft-pedel it (though I do not say things which would contradict it). Should I stop being both Clark and Superman and integrate my two selves into Super-Clark? Maybe – and it is bound to happen sooner or later because Clark is getting more reckless. (And for those who like my work I am afraid to break the news to you that it is more than likely you will go, “Who?” when my identity comes out rather than, “Good Grief! It was John Piper all along!”
  
  Let me make my feeble defence. I think that it will take some time to break down walls of evangelical prejudice against Christocentric universalism (and let me be clear that I think such prejudice has helpfully protected evangelicals from unChristian versions of universalism – so they did kill the bad bacteria even if they also killed some good bacteria). I think that Clark has a ministry, albeit rather limited, in the church and I do not wish his other messages to be ignored because they are somehow guilty by association. It is not my reputation I care about. I don’t mind overly if people (mistakenly) think I am a heretic (though I would be sad that some of my friends would be very disappointed in me). But I do mind if they dismiss some of my other contributions simply because I am a universalist. Given the current context, it is in order to protect the reception of those messages that I am anonymous for now. And I am still able to play some role in perhaps changing the evangelical attitude to such views.
  
  Pax
  
  GM
Comment by Justin Thacker

11.27 pm on 27 Feb 2008

Kevin, I hope its clear from my previous post that I don’t dismiss anyone as OBVIOUSLY mistaken on anything. I’m happy to debate ANY topic. My simple point is lets centre the debate on Scripture.
And as a postscript, regarding many of the topics you listed, I don’t think the Bible is unambiguously clear.
Incidentally, in response to yours and Brandon’s posts, I do wonder if there is a British / US divide going on here. I sense that US evangelicalism has far more shibboleth’s that we do on this side of the pond.
Comment by Mark

11.45 pm on 27 Feb 2008

I agree that the main discussion should be exegetical. So, I would like for someone to respond to one issue of Scriptural interpretation: Is the OT context of Paul’s quotation in Phil 2 of Isaiah 45 relevant?

“Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return; To me every knee shall bow, every tongue confess (Is 45:22-23 NRSV).”

In its OT context, “every tongue confess” etc., is related to salvation, apparently universal salvation. Does Paul quote the verse without regard to the OT context, in a way that is contrary to the OT context?
Comment by Kevin

1.10 am on 28 Feb 2008

Justin,

Is it the case that you are not familiar w/the biblical arguments for universalism or is it that you are but you find them unconvincing? If the latter, are you willing to say that you are not yourself convinced but that you nevertheless believe that one can be both orthodox and a universalist?

And you many indeed be correct about differences depending on which side of the pond one is located, but I’m not sure. Also, I noticed that you misspelled “center”. (-;

Cheers,
Kevin
Comment by Brandon Vaughn

5.37 am on 28 Feb 2008

Justin,

I have two Scripture passages I would love your comments on. I am not trying to prove universalism per say in just these two things (like I said, I’m trying to come back to a consensus on what I believe about this right now).

My question is this: What appears to be the role of God’s punishment according to 1 Cor. 5:1-5?

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. 2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. 3 For though aabsent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. 1 Co 5:1-5 (ESV)

To me, this sounds like the purpose of punishment is redemptive, not damnation. Now I’m not saying this is “hell”, but it seems logical with SUCH harsh language here by Paul, that “hell” might be something similar.

Or how about this verse from Lamentations:

22 The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; 23 they are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.

and also…

31 For the Lord will not cast off forever, 32 but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; 33 for he does not willingly afflict
or grieve the children of men. (La 3:22-23,31-33, ESV)

Now of course in context, this was spoken to Israel. But my point is that notice HOW God deals with them. This clearly states to me that God does not use punishment for any other reason but redemption.

Unfortunately, I think that the term “wrath of God” is too often heard as being “so mad that I hate you.”

But God IS love according to 1 John. So ALL of God’s attributes must be looked at through this revelation.

So what is the “wrath of God”? My child walks out in the middle of a busy intersection. What is my reaction? To sing happy songs?! No! I yell, I scream, I shout, I run violently toward her. Now, to a bystander not seeing my child, someone might think, “What is his problem? Who is he hating?!” But what appears like hatred is actually love! And it is an ANGRY LOVE, a love that says, “NO, I will NOT let this happen you crazy, foolish, stupid child.”

Is it too much to think of God to love man so much that He steps in and says, “NO, I will NOT let his happen you crazy, foolish, stupid child. I will jump in and die for you.” And would it be too far-fetched to see such a God willing to do anything to bring man to Himself, even a “hell” in which man knows full well what utter silliness it is to think we can find meaning and purpose apart from Him? And why? To damn us? Or to ultimately redeem us in Jesus Christ?

Blessings,
Brandon
Comment by gareth

2.16 pm on 28 Feb 2008

Justin it still seems that although you are positing a difference between whether its evangelical or whether it biblical – whereas the approach that argues for sola scripture albeit with the provisos of cultural context is an evangelical hermeneutic through and through. Sans cultural context and it could be a fundamentalist hermeneutic, add in tradition as equal to scripture and you would have a more Roman Catholic hermeneutic, or maybe if we give scripture priority but add in reason and then tradition you’d have a more Anglican hermeneutic.

So this is not a question of what is orthodox, as none of us can answer that unless we are privy to the actual other in a concrete way – it is rather is this argument persuasive for me/us in my/our tradition.

ps Were we at LBC together?? I think so – I have a feeling you were in the first year whilst I was in the 3rd?? Anyhow well done of the EA post – good development :-)
Comment by Justin Thacker

3.16 pm on 28 Feb 2008

Some more thoughts.
In response to Kevin, I reject the premis of your question. I don’t think of people as either orthodox or unorthodox. Rather, I think of beliefs as either orthodox or unorthodox. And as I read the Bible and understand its teaching, universalism is unorthodox. Having said that, I, fortunately, am not the guardian of orthodox beliefs. Out of all the things I believe, the one thing I’m certain of, is that some of them will be right and some of them wrong (otherwise I’d be claiming infallibility). The problem, of course, is that I don’t know which is which as if I did, I’d just get rid of the unorthodox beliefs I hold. Therefore, I hold a mixture of orthodox beliefs and unorthodox beliefs – just as we all do. Given that, the question of whether someone can be a universalist and orthodox simply doesn’t make sense as in my view no-one is orthodox, except God.

Again in response to Brandon, I try to give grace to those I disagree with, even if I still disagree with them. On the 1 Cor passage, I think Paul’s reference to ‘deliver him to Satan’ in context can only mean not eternal punishment, but the church’s responsibility to remove him from the church. After all, the church can’t deliver anyone to Satan, only God can.
1. Comment by Kevin
  
  3.47 pm on 28 Feb 2008
  
  Justin,
  
  Fair enough. Beliefs, not believers, are orthodox or unorthodox. Would you say the same about “evangelical”? Are beliefs evangelical or people? Let me try again:
  
  Is it the case that you are not familiar w/the biblical arguments for universalism or is it that you are but you find them unconvincing? If the latter, are you willing to say that you are not yourself convinced but that you nevertheless believe that one can be both evanglical and a universalist?
  
  And if that doesn’t work, I think you can massage it into proper, meaningful form. The bottom line is just this: Is there room at the table of the orthodox/evanglical for the likes of GM and those like me, and apparently quite a few others, who either believe universalism is true or hope that it’s true?
2. Comment by Brandon Vaughn
  
  4.06 pm on 28 Feb 2008
  
  Justin, I thought I was clear in how I phrased it, but if I wasn’t I apologize. I wasn’t saying that the 1 Cor. passage was about eternal punishment. My point was that whatever that means, it doesn’t sound good. :)
  
  But in it is a form of judgment. But the purpose is not damnation. But of redemption. That is very clear in that scripture to me.
  
  So my point was not to prove universalism in that passage, but to suggest that we mistake judgment always with damnation, when Scripture would seem to indicate that judgment has a view toward restoration/redemption. After all, isn’t that the story of Israel? Rebels, God judges … but why? To restore them. For them to rebel, God judges … but why? To restore them.
  
  If I were God, I would have been quick to say, “You know what? Forget you Israelites! I ban you all to damnation. Burn in hell. All I need is David and his family.” Or “I finally have Mary, so now I’m just going to wipe out this wicked little Israelites because I don’t need them anymore.”
  
  Now beyond the idea of covenant (which I do not make light of), I just see over and over again this view that God is patient, and his judgments/wrath come not to damn forever, but to redeem/correct/restore. EVEN when they DON’T deserve it. Did they ever? Do we ever?!
  
  If we take the passage of 1 Peter 4:6 literally, then the Gospel message is not JUST for the living. It reminds me of the parable Jesus told of the workers … how those who only worked a few hours got the SAME pay as those who worked all day. Parables are meant to shock us … “That isn’t fair!” And this is what some might say about chances to receive Christ after death. But why isn’t it fair? If God SO loves the world, doesn’t it make sense that He will always give man a choice to receive Him? Why must that chance end at our death?
  
  How can we hold that view when scripture after scripture reveals to us a God who is long suffering, who wants to redeem man, and even when man SPITS in His face He still pursues man?
  
  Again, a silly analogy, but if you have a child that got lost in a city, and you know you will eventually find them, will you ever give up? If “death” could an analogized as meaning that the child ends up in a place where they can no longer contact you, would that mean you stop looking? Can death stop God? I would argue that in the resurrection of Jesus, that answer is a simple “NO!!!!”.
  
  God is holy, which means He is other. Above time, space, dimension. I think our problem is we tend to limit God according to our limitations. So to us, death is this finality sort of thing. To God, I think it is just the “comma” at the beginning of the 1st sentence in the 1st paragraph.
  
  I do agree with your statement that no-one is orthodox except God.
  
  So, I guess here is my question for you … if you met a person who is a CU … adheres to the creeds … believes that Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father … but believes that there is the possibility of receiving Christ after death …
  
  Would you be okay with such a person? Would you allow them in leadership positions in church? Would you allow them to work in your organization if they are PASSIONATE about missions?
  
  I guess this is what I’m trying to get insider your head about in my questions. Yes, we can return to whether or not it is Biblical (and I’m sure your answer will reflect that). But my question is, do you think THIS position is EQUAL to a position that says that Jesus is one way among many to salvation?
  
  To me, they are NOT equal. What say you?
  
  We can leave the label “heretic” because maybe we don’t agree on that term? But like I said, I may not think that the “666″ referring to a micro-chip under our skin is Biblical, but I wouldn’t say that person is a danger to our faith. I wouldn’t have a problem letting such a person serve in leadership in church, even though I would most certainly believe they are in error.
  
  A person like Wayne Dyer, who I think has some neat stuff to say, but who obviously believes in some form of “we are God” and that Jesus “was an enlightened man like we all are” … ok, now I have a problem with that. That type of man I will love, but I’m not putting them into leadership.
  
  BOTH I think are not Biblical. One is a point of difference, the other is a damnable lie.
  
  Where do you see a person who holds to CU. NOT universalism in general. But specifically to CU?
  
  Take care,
  Brandon
Comment by Gregory MacDonald

3.46 pm on 28 Feb 2008

Justin

Granted it is beliefs that are orthodox and unorthodox I think that you use those terms too broadly here. You seem to take ‘orthodox’ beliefs to be ‘all true theological beliefs’ and ‘unorthodox’ beliefs are the opposite. But surely the set or orthodox beliefs is a subset of the set of true theological beliefs. So for instance, I happen to think that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a false theological belief but it is hardly unorthodox. Whether universalism is true or false is a good question. You think it is false. Fine. But that does not make it unorthodox (i.e., contrary to the contral confessions of the historic faith as found in the ecumenical creeds and so on). So my question to you is this – Is Christocentric universalism merely false (which is, of course, a major problem) or is it unorthodox (which is worse than a major problem – it makes the view false and unChristian)? And that, my dear Watson, is indeed the question my original blog started to address.

Pax

GM
1. Comment by Kevin
  
  3.59 pm on 28 Feb 2008
  
  GM,
  
  Right! I take orthodoxy to be set out by the ecumenical creeds. CU/EU does not, so far as I can tell, fall outside those borders. It may be false. Fair enough. But it sure doesn’t seem to me that it’s unorthodox. Maybe Justin can weigh in here on whether he believes that the set of true theological beliefs is coextensive w/the set of orthodox beliefs, and whether the set of unorthodox beliefs is coextensive w/theologically false beliefs. I don’t think they are coextensive.
Comment by Kevin

4.31 am on 29 Feb 2008

Brandon,

Well put. I think you, GM and myself are asking essentially the same question of Justin. It’s a fair question and,in a way, brings us full circle, back to the substance of GM’s inaugural post.

I hope Justin will get round to answering.
Comment by Nick

10.06 pm on 29 Feb 2008

Justin, yea it doesn’t matter so much that EU is compatible with evangelicalism – what is important is that it is true, evangelical or not. Still, the point of the blog posts were the former, not so much the latter.

I think you make a mistake of assuming that if the Bible does not support a particular belief, then that belief must not be true. You presuppose that the Bible contains the “Truth” and does not contain anything that contradicts this unified “Truth”. But why? Isn’t it possible that some teachings of the Bible are false – they were afterall written by mere humans? How are you so sure that the Bible has is most authoritative resource regarding EU?
Comment by Jason Pratt

11.49 pm on 1 Mar 2008

I’m trying to leave the scriptural discussion to the main invited guests (though I couldn’t resist making some comments today as I went through. Sorry. {s})

However, I can add something in regard to Gregory’s desire not to get kicked out of his place where he can help move things toward universalism if he stays. Personally, that isn’t me, I’d rather just say it and go. But I don’t have a wife and family or whomever to protect and serve with my career, either. And I would not have a career among conservative evangelicals if I tried to be universalistic. Nor, incidentally, would I have one among liberal congregations, due to my extremely picky orthodoxy. {g}

But I do know that evangelicals nominally care about orthodoxy, which (as it happens) I believe to be true doctrinal statements about God and His relationships to the rest of reality. Moreover, as a matter of personal history, I was finally convinced in favor of universalism (after a lifetime of wondering and hoping but being unwilling to step against what I thought and still believe to be true if that truth entailed non-universalism) eight years ago while working on a book of orthodox metaphysics. My universalism comes from my orthodoxy; and I believe orthodoxy is what the scriptures ultimately are teaching even though we all know perfectly well that nowhere in the scriptures is the full doctrinal creed set out. The data has to be put together, and in the process we decide in favor of some meanings over against other possible meanings, because that makes the most coherent sense on the large scale. That’s why systematic theologians don’t just stop with fifteen or sixteen verses from the scriptures and proclaim orthodoxy from those. (And even if we did, we’d still be putting together the implications into a set of doctrines to belief.)

Consequently, since around 2000 I have concentrated first, not on promoting universalism per se, but on developing a reputation (small and relatively unpublished though it may be {g}) for being a strongly orthodox apologist. Even as a logical factor, that has to come first: put oversimply, there is no point debating whether universalism is true if atheism is true. {g} Very many things, as a matter of coherent theology, have to be in place first before universalism can be inferred as a conclusion and preached as coherent theology.

If I’m not going to be theologically coherent, hey, I can play Forge of Freedom instead and go to church on Sundays and sing hymns and help the poor and do a bunch of other perfectly worthwhile things (some of which Christ apparently cares more for than coherent theologizing per se, btw {wry g}), and that’s all fine, but it would be ridiculous for me to try to be an apologist. If I’m going to bother to be an apologist, then I’ve got to get my theology coherent.

So, that’s what I’ve concentrated on first, and a belief of orthodox universalism is the result of that. And now if I try to talk about it, I have at least a little hope that I can do so in a context where I am coherently affirming the tenets of orthodoxy as I go along. (Brandon’s occasional mention of omnipresence is a good example, but the connections to orthodoxy are very far from limited to that.)

Is it Biblical? Yes, it is extremely Biblical. Then again, traditional damnationists and annihilationists (who are also a minority) also believe their positions are extremely Biblical. To some extent this can be debated at the textual and contextual level (e.g. the judgment of the goats uses a verb for punishment that connotes hopeful cleaning with an eye toward restoration, via an agricultural analogy). But eventually it has to be done at the level of coherent theology, and that’s a metaphysical question. A couple of Psalms that might look by themselves to preach annihilationism come to mind; and for all I know the Psalmists actually were thinking along those lines! I know how I would interpret them in the larger context of universalisms; the traditional damnation theoriests have their ways of doing so, too; and obviously the annihilationists would say “Duh! Annihilationism!” {g} We can’t decide who’s right merely by comparing scriptures, or even by tallying up to see which verses seem to be a majority. (Or if we did, we sure weren’t getting that principle from scripture. Or if we were, why were we not interpreting that principle along some other line instead…? etc.)

This is why I say, and why I emphasize, that no matter which way we go, it’s going to come down to metaphysical analysis sooner or later. Otherwise we have no way of telling whether we’ve got the correct interpretation or not; or for that matter whether we should be paying attention to these scriptures rather than those over there instead.

Anyway, that’s my… um… $2.00. {g} Back to regularly scheduled debate; hope that was helpful to someone anywhere… {s}

JRP
Comment by Gregory MacDonald

7.48 pm on 2 Mar 2008

JRP

Thanks – that is helpful. I too see my universalism as springing from my orthodox theology. It was the attempt to hold certain orthodox beliefs together in a consistent way that drew me to universalism.

Thanks for trying to leave all the biblical discussion to me, Kevin and Justin. In actual fact we three have avoided them. I have certainly kept out of those discussions. Not because they are not important and not because I don’t have anything to say. It is mostly because I have already said most of what I’d want to say on such issues in the book. The other reason is that making a good biblical case for universalism takes more time and patience (on the part of readers) than a blog would permit.

My dilemma was that my feeling is that in the past, in pop contexts anyway, debates on universalism amounted to traditionalists throwing Hell verses at universalists (“Ha! This proves we are right!”) and universalists throwing universalist texts at traditionalists (“Ha! This proves that we are right!”). I wanted to get away from such sterile debates by setting all such texts within a theological framework and a biblical metanarrative. This takes three quite dense chapters in the book before I even look at the specific Hell texts.

So how was I to do the Bible in the space a blog would permit? I could take a universalist text (e.g., Colossians 1) and argue that it supports universalism – which it does – but I’d be doing exactly what I have tried to get away from: trying to settle a complex debate by appeal to a single text (or a group of texts).

So I thought that I would not even try to do biblical stuff here – I’d do a post that got people talking and they could read the book if they were interested and wanted the biblical discussions. In other words I have avoided the main issue in this context – but not elsewhere.

So feel free to do some biblical thinking – I have found some of the proposals that others have made suggestive and helpful.

Pax

GM
Comment by Justin Thacker

8.59 pm on 2 Mar 2008

Some responses

GM – fair enough. I accept your defence of your dual personality. On the orthodox /unorthodox question, you’re right we’re using the terms in two different senses. I ascribe to them a literal theological meaning – correct doctrine. You apply to them what is effectively a sociological meaning – what the historic churches have believed. My defence of my view is simply that compared to what is right doctrine, I’m simply uninterested in what the historic churches have always believed, as least as normative for my faith. This does not mean I can’t learn things from the tradition – I’ve learnt most of my Christianity from the tradition. But it remains the case that the tradition has gone seriously wrong time and time again, and therefore if we make it normative we are in serious danger. That does not mean that by ignoring the tradition I am guaranteed infallibility – far from it as I’ve already written. But my point as ever has been let’s make the debate about the Bible, rather than about the tradition per se.

Kevin – Firstly, I’m familiar with the arguments, but remain unpersuaded by them. Secondly, I understand the question you and GM and raising about universalism and evangelicalism. However, I’m going to resist answering it for the simple reason that in this context (an internet debate), I think it’s the wrong question to be asking. There is a place for defining ecclesiastical boundaries but it should be done hesitantly, only after much prayer, and only in community. Irrespective of my ecclesiastical position I have no right or authority to pronounce on evangelical boundaries by myself in an internet debate – and I’m not going to do so. As I’ve said, the right question we should all be debating is whether Universalism is Biblical or not – and on that I’m unpersuaded. (NB same response applies to Brandon)

Nick – I don’t think God would give us a Bible that deliberately deceives us. There is, of course, truth outside the Bible, but that’s another question.

Jason – I’ve loved the exegetical discussion, even if I’ve disagreed with your conclusions.
1. Comment by Brandon Vaughn
  
  10.07 pm on 2 Mar 2008
  
  Justin,
  
  I can and do respect your position on this. But the main question I had for you remained unanswered. :)
  
  In your opinion … and only your opinion … would you place a Christian universalist in the same category as a person who doesn’t believe Jesus came in the flesh?
  
  Or would you place a person in the same category as someone who has a different perspective than your view on end times?
  
  Your suggestion that the right question is whether universalism is Biblical or not it spot on to me. But within that question, there are different types of “un-Biblical”ism. Some are differences of opinion. Some are damnable heresies (sorry for that use of term) by which the whole fabric of the Gospel hinges.
  
  So am I reading too much into your answer to say that you believe that this issue is just the former and not the latter? I wasn’t asking that you establish for the entire church what area this falls in … just what you think. :) Thus my question about whether you would let someone work in your organization that held the same position as Kevin or GM.
  
  Blessings,
  Brandon
2. Comment by Kevin
  
  5.09 am on 3 Mar 2008
  
  Justin,
  
  Unlike Brandon, who respects your position on this, I’m disappointed. I think this is a kind of Christian community. And we’re not asking you to speak for the church catholic. We’re asking for yourview, what you believe. So, I don’t understand why, for the reasons you’ve given, it’s the “wrong” question. It seems to me that if we were discussing infant baptism, Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist or evolutionary creation, you wouldn’t be hesitant in speaking to their compatibility w/orthodoxy. Yet whether or not these are compatible w/orthodox Christian faith is a different question from whether these views are “biblical”. I just don’t see the difference b/w universalism and any of the views I’ve just mentioned w/respect to orthodoxy. You apparently do. But for the life of me I can’t see why. And you haven’t offered us any account for the difference you see.
  
  Is this a fair question: what is the relevant and significant difference w/respect to orthodoxy b/w infant baptism (or believer baptism), Christ’s real presence at the Eucharist (or memorialist construals of the Lord’s supper), evolutionary creation (or Creationism) and Christo-centric universalism (or separationism)? Why are none (or not all) of the former issues issues of “ecclesiatical boundaries” (by which I take you to mean the boundaries of orthodoxy, outside of which lies heterodoxy and heresy) but the latter (CU) is an issue that threatens those boundaries?
3. Comment by Gregory MacDonald
  
  1.19 pm on 3 Mar 2008
  
  Justin
  
  Thanks. OK – I think that we have exhausted the compatibility discussion.
  
  You want a biblical discussion? Well, I have deliberately avoided engaging in the biblical interpretation debates for reasons explained in post 23 above. But you obviously wish to move the discussion in that direction so, against my better judgment, I will take the bait in a modest way (i.e., focused on a single text). I want to return to Colossians 1 – a text you raised in your original post. Here is the text
  
  Colossians 1:15-23 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fulness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. 21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behaviour. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation– 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
  
  Some simple observations.
  1. The “all things” that are reconciled to God (through the peace achieved by the cross of Christ) are the same “all things” that are created through Christ (compare v. 16 and v. 20). In other words “all things” means ‘all created things’ and so must surely include all human beings. I don’t see any way around that.
  2. The ‘all things’ are said to be ‘reconciled’ and this is explicated in terms of God “making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” You said in your post that this was compatible with annihilation. I think that thou art surely jesting my man!
  a) For starters Paul’s use of the concept (Rom 5:10; 1 Cor 7:11; 2 Cor 5:18-20) and language (1:22; Eph 2:16) of reconciliation is uniformly in terms of positive redemption and not final punishment.
  b) How can annihiliation be part of the peace-making work of the cross?
  c) Paul applies v. 20 to his readers in vv. 21-22 and there we see very clearly that he is speaking of salvation.
  
  For the life of me I am at a loss to know why you think that for some people God reconciles them by annihilating them. If that made sense then one could argue that if, per impossible, God annihilated every human being who ever lived in Hell then this is compatible with his reconciling them to himself by making peace through his blood shed on the cross. Why would God need the cross to annihilate people in Hell? It maketh no sense at all – at least to this feeble mind.
  
  I am very interested to see whether a plausible non-universalist of Colossians 1 is available. I have never seen one but I am open to persuasion. Your turn. :-)
  
  Pax
  
  GM
  1. Comment by Jason Pratt
    
    3.00 pm on 3 Mar 2008
    
    GM,
    
    Don’t forget just how far Paul’s “all things” scope goes, too. “Whether things in the heavens or things on earth.” Which things in the heavens need reconciliation to God?
    
    I bring this up to forestall a potential objection, and also to perhaps bring up a potential objection: we have to be including the rebel angels in this, too. For many people this will be an intolerable inclusion, and by itself would be considered grounds for thinking that Paul has to be talking about something else here. On the other hand, if we deny the inclusion of the rebel spirits, then we’re the ones introducing some kind of caveat into the interpretation: ‘yeah but Paul didn’t really mean that God intends to reconcile all things that need reconciliation with Him!’
    
    If we do that, then the anti-universalist doesn’t even need to go any further–we’ve already denied we’re really being universalistic about the verse. If we do do that… well, we have to be prepared for the probable strength of rejection. Most people find it simply inconceivable that God would even be trying to save Satan from his sin and bring him home.
    
    JRP
4. Comment by Jason Pratt
  
  2.46 pm on 3 Mar 2008
  
  {{Jason – I’ve loved the exegetical discussion, even if I’ve disagreed with your conclusions.}}
  
  Which I’ll (try to {g}) leave to the actual guest authors. {g!} Though if I see a detail not being brought out sufficiently I may say something. (This isn’t always in favor of a universalistic interpretation per se. To repeat a previous example, while I can easily see how the 1Cor ’saved as though by fire’ verse fits into an overall universalistic theology, I can’t in honesty rate it as pertaining specifically to universalism.)
  
  For what it’s worth I’m more concerned about correct doctrine (being a hyper-doctrinaire and all {g}) than I am about what has traditionally been believed to be correct doctrine. Well, duh, since most of the time the tradition is more in favor of hopeless-existence condemnation than in favor of hopeless annihilation or hopeful condemnation! Again, one half of the historic church has more-or-less come down against the filioque; I can hardly be agreeing with them if I affirm the filioque instead (which I do).
  
  But it has generally been long understood that ‘orthodox’ means, as a socio-cultural definition, holding to a few dozen metaphysical beliefs as being normatively true about God’s characteristics and His relationships to not-God entities (including that there are not-God entities at all.) I agree and believe those to be true–right-representation (i.e. of God given in testimony) in the slightly-less-literal meaning of orthodoxy. (The most literal meaning would be right-seeming. {g})
  
  Consequently, if I say that I am an ‘orthodox universalist’, it means that I care about doctrinal truth and am prepared to stand up for that. (I like to quip sometimes that it’s a fancy way of saying that I believe God is love and that I’m prepared to get all picky about it. {g}) Yet it also means that you can expect me (unless I’m simply clueless or dissembling) to hold to the two-natures doctrine, and to be a supernaturalistic trinitarian theist neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance, and to believe in the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation the death and resurrection of Christ (historically, not merely mythically, under Pontius Pilate) and the coming judgment when Christ returns, and so forth. You shouldn’t expect me to be a pantheist or an atheist after all, or to introduce a schism between the human and divine natures of Christ (which is one of my problems with Balthasar, incidentally), or to affirm that there was only one nature and/or will of Christ’s (then I’d be a Coptic universalist {g}, though otherwise still pretty orthodox), or to schism between the intentions of the Father and the Son, or to deny God’s omnipresence or omniscience or omnipotence, etc.
  
  So the socio-cultural connotations turn out to be important as a shorthand for what you can expect me to care about, and profess, as truth.
  
  And I suspect the same is true for Gregory. {s}
  
  JRP
5. Comment by Nick
  
  4.30 pm on 3 Mar 2008
  
  Okay, how are you sure that God gave us the entire Bible? This is not fact, but a belief based on little or no evidence. My point is that just because the Bible may not fully support EU, we should not condlude that EU is not true. We shouldn’t be asking whether EU is biblical, but rather whether it is rational and consistent with characteristics that nearly every human understands as virtues such as love, selflessness, forgiveness, patience, etc., which also happen to be descriptions of Jesus Christ. The Bible may contain error that could mislead us, but time-tested human virtues surely point to the attributes of God and thus the ways God interacts with humanity. I think EU is most consistent with universal and Christ-like virtues.
  1. Comment by Brandon Vaughn
    
    1.10 am on 4 Mar 2008
    
    Nick,
    
    I think that some of us would not equate “evangelical” with the belief that “the Bible may contain error that could mislead us.” Simply because, what if this “error” is about Jesus Christ Himself? So, what if the very virtues you describe of Jesus are in fact “error”?
    
    The way you write, it sounds more like universalism and not evangelical (Christian) universalism.
    
    While I do see humans reflecting some attributes of God (e.g., a mother and a new born child), still this is too much in the wind. Today, we find mothers killing their babies (sometimes in the name of “God”), we find wars, we find prejudice, and so on.
    
    We live in a society in which the white man (of which I am one) rules most things.
    
    So if I were to take human attributes as the main truth of God, I would probably be a Calvinist (non-universalist). :)
    
    I think the Bible is a unified book of the God and His love toward man. I don’t come to it as a book full of errors, and thus trust it as a guide in these matters. Most people think that the Bible is containing “errors” simply because we don’t read things in context, don’t read the OT from a perspective of the revelation that God is love from the NT, poor translations from the Hebrew or Greek, and so on.
Comment by Nick

12.55 am on 5 Mar 2008

I didn’t know “evangelical” means you have to believe in exhaustive biblical inspiration. The word “evangel” means “good news” doesn’t it? I still believe in the good news that Jesus came to show us what God is like (being himself God in human form) – shouldn’t that be enough to be considered an evangelical? Am I still a Christian in your view? If not, I don’t really care. I follow Jesus Christ – what does it matter what term is used? The fact is is that the Bible was written by fallible men and nobody can be sure it does not contain error – you can trust in this all you want to – but the idea that the Bible is entirely inspired by God and authoritative – basically claiming that a huge book written by humans is perfect – is, in my opinion, an incredibly implausible notion.
1. Comment by Brandon Vaughn
  
  1.36 am on 5 Mar 2008
  
  Nick,
  
  Please notice I said “some” not “all.”
  
  Maybe I’m just reading into your words, but it sounds like this is a sensitive issue with you. If so, I am sorry for that.
  
  I was using the term “evangelical” to refer to its traditional use today, but you are right in the broad sense of the word. And in that sense, most would probably fall under that definition including Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. But I wonder if you ask them if they are “Evangelical” if they might agree? Semantics for sure.
  
  And when did I say you weren’t a Christian?! Jesh! :)
  
  And the fact you “don’t care” … well, get on with your bad self! :) (sorry, weak attempt at humor)
  
  I do find it ironic that you believe that God can come and indwell a body in Jesus Christ … incarnate virgin birth … and yet you find it hard to believe that God might work with fallible men?
  
  The only problem I would have is then why do you have faith in the story of Jesus (which is something you didn’t answer in my original post)? Because how do you know that THIS part of the Bible is true?
  
  I’m curious (and sincere) … what in the New Testament do you find in error? Do you find some of Jesus’ sayings in error? Or Paul’s teachings?
  
  And lastly (and again sincerely) … how do you determine what is error and truth? Or do you basically minimize the Bible in your life?
  
  I would say that this argument is not valid: “nobody can be sure it does not contain error” I would argue the exact opposite as well … nobody can be sure it does contain error. Can you definitively prove that claim? Otherwise, it sounds like a matter of faith we are talking about.
  
  Blessings,
  Brandon
Comment by Justin Thacker

9.06 pm on 5 Mar 2008

Brandon asks:
In your opinion … and only your opinion … would you place a Christian universalist in the same category as a person who doesn’t believe Jesus came in the flesh?

No, I wouldn’t, because one of them is a universalist, and one of them is a docetic, and those two things are different. I’m not trying to be funny here – there’s a serious point at stake. Your question assumes that I have some category – labelled heresy – and when I come across those with different views to mine, I decide whether to throw them into that category, or into another category (which you also presumably think I have) which is labelled – evangelicals who disagree with me on unimportant issues. I’m afraid my ecclesiology just doesn’t work that way. I don’t like putting people into categories, as I’ve tried to say repeatedly on this blog, as an individual believer – Justin thacker – I only ever put beliefs into different categories. People are far more complex.

You also suppose that I’m putting universalism into the category of secondary issues over which evangelicals can legitimately differ. I’m afraid I won’t take the bait – for the simple reason that I think we are deluding ourselves if we think we can accurately decided on whether a particular doctrine is a primary or secondary issue. In that sense, every issue is for me a primary issue. However, when it comes to the practical questions of what that means – will I allow GM into my organisation for instance, then rightly that gets decided not just by me, but by a whole group of people. In addition, the specific answer that is given to that question depends on the specific question being asked.

So, lets get practical here – and see if I can spell out my view more clearly. Would I allow GM to work in a senior position for the EA. My answer would almost certainly be no – but the reason is simply this. The EA has an agreed position on universalism, we would expect senior members of staff to defend that position. I would not ask or expect a senior member of staff to lie about their own beliefs, and therefore how could they work for the Ea in such a capacity and retain their integrity. They couldn’t – therefore they shouldn’t work for us.

But if you ask whether I would allow GM to speak at an event I was hosting, then the answer (presuming he’s got some speaking ability – I have no idea) would possibly be yes, though I wouldn’t ask him to speak on universalism, at least not on the EA’s behalf. Having said that, it would depend on what the conference was about, who were the audience, what was the context etc. These are all the kinds of factors that go into these decisions – and such a decision should always be taken by a group.

Finally, would I allow him to lead the home group I run, or speak in my church etc, then the answer is yes. I’d ask him not to speak on universalism, and respect what I’m trying to teach the church – but he would not be on my black list for the simple reason I don’t have one.

The broader point I’m making here is that because I don’t have these categories of heretic and non-heretic (as I’ve said we’re all a mixture of orthodox and unorthodox views), the specific answer to whether I would allow a universalist a place at the evangelical table can only be answered on a case by case basis, depending on what is at stake – membership of an organisation, speaking at an event etc. etc., and also only on the decision of a group – not me as individual.

Kevin asks:
what is the relevant and significant difference w/respect to orthodoxy b/w infant baptism (or believer baptism), Christ’s real presence at the Eucharist (or memorialist construals of the Lord’s supper), evolutionary creation (or Creationism) and Christo-centric universalism (or separationism)? Why are none (or not all) of the former issues issues of “ecclesiatical boundaries” (by which I take you to mean the boundaries of orthodoxy, outside of which lies heterodoxy and heresy) but the latter (CU) is an issue that threatens those boundaries?

I don’t accept the premis of your question. It assumes that there is one ‘ecclesiastical boundary’ and with respect to any particular issue (e.g creationism), its either within the boundary (and therefore an acceptable matter of dispute), or outside the boundary (and therefore not a matter of acceptable dispute). As I’ve said about, I don’t accept this distinction between primary and secondary issues at least not in the rigid form in which you’re presenting it. The EA as an organisation, and out of pragmatic necessity needs to set boundaries of those it will / will not employ in senior positions. That boundary is defined by our basis of faith, and therefore excludes universalists. However, as I’ve indicated, in relation to other forms of participation at the evangelical table, the boundary would be placed elsewhere. For instance, in relation to personal membership the EA has a long tradition of the right to private judgement. This means that individual members frequently do hold views that are odds with the leadership of the EA, and yet we don’t throw them out because of that (consider the recent penal substation debates). Now, of course, you could throw this back at me and say we’re being inconsistent, but it all depends on what kind of church you want.

You seem to want a church that has rigid boundaries, clearly defining who’s in and who’s out, and that these boundaries remain the same across the board (ie. the same list of primary / secondary issues exists for senior staff, members, etc). In respect of universalism you want to argue for that to be one of the issues of legitimate dispute within the boundary.

My reading of the New Testament just doesn’t present that paradigm – and therefore I’m trying to challenge it. The NT is clear that in different contexts different boundaries do need to be set, but in the example of Paul and Jesus I see a pattern that has much greater flexibility that you seem willing to allow. To be clear, I believe universalism to be an unorthodox belief – but what that means I do with someone who espouses that belief will vary from situation to situation. And I think that approach is right (though of course I could be wrong).

I apologise I can’t spend more time dealing with the exegetical issues, or even anymore posts – but I’ve got to get back to throwing the heretics out of the EA!
1. Comment by Jason Pratt
  
  1.54 am on 6 Mar 2008
  
  Jason,
  
  I’m sorry the conversation can’t continue, though I certainly sympathize with time constraints. I know I, for one, was more than a little bit curious how you were going to defend annihilationism as consonant with the section from Colossians Gergory and I (among others) were commenting on! If you ever do a journal entry on that, I hope you’ll drop us some emails.
  
  I agree with your grouping policies, btw, and how those would be different in different circumstances and (I suppose?) distinguished from making judgments about whether someone is actually being ‘a Christian’ or not.
  
  That being said, it seems clear enough that you do in fact classify universalism in the same category as docetism: unorthodox, i.e. a heresy (even if not in the same subcategories of heresy.) You may not find it very polite to say so, but nevertheless there it is. I suspect that this is what Brandon was really meaning to ask about; though he may have also been meaning to ask about what you believed to be true about the spiritual condition of the people who hold such beliefs. (In which case I think you answered that, too, generally in charitable favor of the other person. As a hyperdoctrinaire I applaud the distinction and application between categories, though of course I believe universalism to be entirely and even necessarily orthodox. {g} In any case, it beats the attitude of, say, Steve Hays at Triablogue who had some highly interesting things to say about me and Thomas Talbott a few months ago after a debate on Victor Reppert’s DangIdea site. {grateful g!})
  
  May Christ never lose any of “the everything” that was given to Him by the Father!–something we all can agree to hope for (however we may understand it)!
  
  JRP
2. Comment by Gregory MacDonald
  
  11.54 am on 6 Mar 2008
  
  Justin
  
  Thanks – that is helpful. I don’t think I’d employ me at the EA either. That said – I am curious. Does the EA have a line on universalism? Probably. Your report “The Nature of Hell” does say that universalism is incompatible with evangelicalism (though perhaps if they had read my book . . . I’m joking). But that report also says that the EA used to consider annihilationism unevangelical and no longer does – so there is room to move here. But in terms of an official position one would look to the basis of faith. Here is part of the basis of faith from your website
  
  “The personal and visible return of Jesus Christ to fulfil the purposes of God, who will raise all people to judgement, bring eternal life to the redeemed and eternal condemnation to the lost, and establish a new heaven and new earth.”
  
  Now I’m sure that those who framed the basis intended “eternal condemnation” to rule out universalism. I can see how it might . . . but then again . . . Here is the funny thing – I can see a way of affirming that clause as a universalist. I interpret “eternal condemnation” to mean “the condemnation of the eternal age” (arguments for this are in my book) and this is compatible with redemption from Hell. I know that the framers of the basis would say, “That is not what we mean!” My defence is that the language of the basis is consciously alluding to NT language of kolasin aionion (eternal punishment) and olethron aionion (eternal destruction). I maintain that this NT language is universalist-compatible (see the book) and on that basis I would be happy to affirm the EA basis of faith. So “condemnation of the eternal age” may not be what the framers mean by “eternal condemnation” but it is what I mean.
  
  Here is my question – Am I extracting the urine by doing this?
  
  Pax
  
  GM
Comment by Jason Pratt

2.01 am on 6 Mar 2008

Oh, crap, I did the exact same thing Tracy did back in comment four: I wrote “Jason” when I meant to write “Justin”. (I even have less excuse, being a Jason myself. Argh.)

JRP

Comments are now closed.

Jason Clark

“whether a doctrine (of universalism) is ‘evangelical’ or not is entirely secondary to whether it is biblical or not…”

47 comments

Comment by Jason Reid

Comment by gareth

Comment by Justin Thacker

Comment by Katharine Moody

Comment by Scott Lenger

Comment by Tracy Simmons (Elle)

Comment by Gregory MacDonald

Comment by Jason Pratt

Comment by Brandon Vaughn

Comment by Mark

Comment by Jason Pratt

Comment by Jason Pratt

Comment by Brandon Vaughn

Comment by Lyn

Comment by petey*crowder

Comment by Kevin

Comment by Justin Thacker

Comment by Brandon Vaughn

Comment by Gregory MacDonald

Comment by Justin Thacker

Comment by Mark

Comment by Kevin

Comment by Brandon Vaughn

Comment by gareth

Comment by Justin Thacker

Comment by Kevin

Comment by Brandon Vaughn

Comment by Gregory MacDonald

Comment by Kevin

Comment by Kevin

Comment by Nick

Comment by Jason Pratt

Comment by Gregory MacDonald

Comment by Justin Thacker

Comment by Brandon Vaughn

Comment by Kevin

Comment by Gregory MacDonald

Comment by Jason Pratt

Comment by Jason Pratt

Comment by Nick

Comment by Brandon Vaughn

Comment by Nick

Comment by Brandon Vaughn

Comment by Justin Thacker

Comment by Jason Pratt

Comment by Gregory MacDonald

Comment by Jason Pratt

Related Entries