Eschatology Decompressing: Some of the Best Books on Hell

There is something of an inner-family debate going amongst the evangelical family. At the moment, the traditionalist father is somewhat uneasily passing the potatoes to the conditionalist mothers, who is eying both the father and the kids, who are patiently waiting for the aforementioned potatoes because, well, it will get to the end eventually.

You see, the debate has become far more interesting and respectable as of late, what with the father being will to pass the now cooling potatoes to the mother and all. The mother, bless her strong heart, is happy to pass the dish either way, but she is more likely to double check with the father because...

Okay this analogy has become significantly less funny to me so I shall move on. Thanks for humoring me. Anyway.

There is an abundance of materials out now concerning the evangelical debate on the nature and duration of final punishment. While it is easy to simply google the various phrases (and if you did and ended up here, welcome!), I figured it would be helpful to simply list the various texts that have some significant pull in the world between the Church and the Academy.

I shall start with universalism, mostly because Universalism hasn't gotten a fair shake amongst many evangelicals. For good reason or not, one ought to engage with the best texts on the topic and I have listed them below:

Thomas Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God has just been released and has been quite influential in some parts of the evangelical world. It even has some traditionalist scholars praising it such as Jerry Walls.

For a broader view of the family dynamic, see Universal Salvation: The Current Debate. Reasonably respectful, though there is some sniping as to be expected, since the potatoes by this time have gotten quite cold.

Robin Parry, who is a lovely fellow, has written a book on the topic that I find quite attractive--though not enough to be an Evangelical Universalist (again). I found it far more persuasive than Talbott's and it merits some consideration.

For the traditionalist side of the family table, there are many books and a few of them are helpful. That may sound like a bit of a snipe, and it is. Unlike God, I'm allowed to not play favorites.

The singular best text that was written to explicitly defend the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment is Hell Under Fire. That said, there are issues within and the best chapter is Douglas Moo's contribution on Paul. The chapters that object to annihilationism and universalism likely won't change the mind of either party, and we're inclined to keep those potatoes at our end of the table thank you very much.

However, if one is a philosophy nerd, Jerry Walls' Hell: The Logic of Damnation is helpful. It is not the kind of book you break out at the dinner table (none of these are), but if one is partial to C.S. Lewis, one might find it attractive.

Judith Gundry-Volf's contribution (entitled "Universalism" pgs956-961) in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters directly tackles the topic of Pauline Universalism. She concludes that, “universalism may perhaps be best defended as an implication of some statements in Paul.” I found her case remarkably compelling. 

For those of us who prefer large books that are heavy enough to beat a goat to death with, Edward Fudge's The Fire that Consumes (edited by Robin Parry) is the standard weapon of choice. He tackles both Testaments and does so in a persuasive manner. Richard Bauckham notes that the book "is likely to remain a standard work to which everyone engaged with this issue will constantly return."

Hans Schwarz, Eschatology, is a helpful survey of the relevant biblical, scientific and theological terrain of the current landscape. Some may bristle at his rejections of both AN and UR, and many Dispensationalists will take offense as well, but its a great text. I reviewed and praised it here.

Samuele Bacchiocchi is a 7th Day Adventist (and pretty shockingly conservative, even for many conservatives) and he defends a synthesis of physicalism and annihilationism. I find some of his work a bit too general but his larger arguments are helpful and its a free pdf. Enjoy.

Oscar Cullmann is always awesome. I recommend him highly too, even for such a slim book its quite potent. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection from the Dead?

For a great site dedicated to the topic of final punishment, enjoy the Rethinking Hell site.

I write this post mostly due to the fact that I just finished a research paper for Dr. Oliver Crisp, and I'm so full of hell that I need to write this to decompress. Now, where are those potatoes?

NQ

Andrew Jukes, Universalism & The Critique of Annihilationism

This is taken from Andrew Jukes' essay, "The Restitution of All Things." I post this here not because I agree with it (I find a lot of his answers quite unsatisfying) but because it presents a case from a universalist perspective against annihilationism. Its a very rare thing.

The truth is, death for man is simply an end to, and separation from, some given form of life which he has lived in. Death to God is separation from His world of light, by the destruction, through the lie of the serpent, of the divine life of light and love in us. Death to sin, the exact converse of this, is the separation from the world of darkness, by the destruction, through the truth, of the dark life of unbelief and self-love. The death wrought by the law is the end of, and separation from, our fallen carnal life of self-sufficiency; while what is commonly called death, namely the death of the body, is simply our separation from the outward world, in which we live, as partakers of its outward life, while we are in the body. Once let us see that there are three worlds, each having its own life,—a light world, a dark world, and this outward seen world,—and then what is said in Scripture of the new birth, or of the varied deaths we pass through, becomes at once self-evident. For the only way into any world is by a birth into it, even as the only way out of any world is by a death to it. We have by sin died to God's light-world, to fall into and live in a spirit-world of darkness. We must by the truth, that is by Christ, die to this dark spirit-world, to return to live in God's light-world. The outward birth and death of the body, and its life, have only to do with the outward seen world.

For this reason it is that the word "destruction," as used in Scripture, never means annihilation. Take for instance the words of the 90th Psalm, "Thou turnest man to destruction: again Thou sayest, Come again, ye children of men." Can "destruction" here be annihilation? Is it not rather that dissolution which must take place if fallen creatures are ever to be brought back perfectly to God's kingdom. So, again, Job says, (Job 19:10,) "He hath destroyed me on every side, and I am gone"; and again, (Job 9:22,) "This one thing I said, He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked." But does he mean to say that he is brought to non-existence, or that the "perfect" will be so destroyed that they will exist no longer? So, again, St. Peter says, (2 Pet. 3:6,) "The world that then was perished." So, again, of the present heavens and earth it is said, (Heb. 1:11-12,) "They shall perish, . . . and be changed." So, again, both of Israel and Jerusalem it is said, (Deut. 30:18; Jer. 12:17; 15:6;) that they shall be "destroyed" and "perish." But does any one suppose that therefore they will be annihilated? So, again, as to the expression, "them that perish," sometimes translated "the lost"; (see 2 Cor. 4:3; 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15;) do we not know that these "lost," though they "perish," still exist, and exist both as "lost" ones and as "saved" ones, as text on text will testify abundantly. So as to the righteous, in the well-known passage of Isaiah; (Isa. 57:1;) "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart";—is this "perishing" non-existence? So, again, where we read, in Psalm 83:16-18, "Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek thy name, O Lord: let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame and perish; that men" (literally "they," for the word "men" is not in the Original,) "may know that Thou, whose name is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth;"—men are to be "confounded for ever and perish, that they may know Jehovah." So as to the question, "Wilt Thou shew wonders to the dead? Shall the dead arise and praise Thee? Shall thy loving-kindness be declared in the grave, or thy faithfulness in destruction?"—is the true answer, Yes, or No? Is not the "losing" or "destruction" of our fallen life the only way to a better one? Does not our Lord Himself say more than once, (Matt. 10:39; 16:25; John 12:25;) that the way to "save our life," or "soul," is to "lose it," or "have it destroyed," in its fallen form, that it may be re-created?

These last words should of themselves settle this question, for in one place, (Matt. 10:39,) they occur in immediate connexion (see Matt. 10:28,) with those other well-known words, as to "fearing him who can destroy both body and soul in hell," which are constantly quoted by some to prove, as they think, that "destruction" must be non-existence. And yet, in the very closest connexion with these words, our Lord repeats this self-same word, "destroy," (in our Authorized Version translated "lose"—it is the word ἀπόλλυμι, on which some build so much,) to express that death and dissolution of the soul, which, so far from bringing it to non-existence, is the appointed way to save it. Christ saves it, as we have seen, by death; for being fallen into sin, what is needed is "that the body of sin should be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." (Rom. 6:6.) The elect, that is the first-fruits, are the living proof of this. A "new man" is created in them, and the "old man" dies and is destroyed, while yet he in whom all this is done remains through all the same person. It may be, and is, a riddle, like "dying, and behold we live: having nothing, and yet possessing all things"; yet it is only the riddle of the Cross, that "by death God destroys him that has the power of death." Therefore, though destruction, like death, may be, and is, a ceasing from some particular form of life which has been lived in by man, yet it is never non-existence absolutely; rather it is the means to bring the fallen creature into a new life, a chaos being ever the necessary condition for a new creation.

--Nick

Origen of Alexandria on the Purification of Man

On First Principles, Chap. X, Sec. 6. Page 146-47.

6. There are many other matters too, which are hidden from us, and are known only to him who is the physician of our souls. For if in regard to bodily health we occasionally find it necessary to take some very unpleasant and bitter medicine as a cure for the ills we have brought on through eating and drinking, and sometimes, if the character of the ill demands it, we need the severe treatment of the knife and a painful operation, yes, and should the disease have extended beyond the reach even of these remedies, in the last resort the lilies burnt out by fire, how much more should we realize that God our physician, in his desire to wash away the ills of our souls, which they have brought on themselves through a variety of sins and chimes, makes us of penal remedies of a similar sort, even to the infliction of a punishment of fire on those who have lost their soul's health.

Allusions to this are found also in the holy scriptures. For instance, in Deuteronomy the divine word threatens that sinners are to be punished with 'fevers and cold and pallor', and tortured with 'feebleness of eyes and insanity and paralysis and blindness and weakness of the reigns' (Deut. 28:22, 28-29). And so if anyone will gather at his leisure from the whole of scripture all the references to sufferings which in threats against sinners are called by the names of bodily sicknesses, he will find that through them allusion is being made to either the ills of the punishments of souls. And to help us understand that as physicians supply aids to sufferers with the object of restoring them to health through careful treatment, so with the same motive God acts towards those who have lapsed and fallen into sin, there is proof in that passage in which, through the prophet Jeremiah, God's 'cup of fury' is commanded 'to be set before all nations' that 'they may drink it and become mad and spew it out' (Jerem. 25:15,16,27). In this passage there is a threat which says, 'if anyone refuses to drink, he shall not be cleansed' (Jerem. 25:28,29); from which certainly we understand that the fury of God's vengeance ministers to the purification of souls.

Isaiah teaches that even the punishments which are said to be inflicted by fire are meant to be applied as a help, when he speaks thus about Israel: 'The Lord will wash away the filth of the sons and daughters of Sion, and will purge away the blood from the midst of them by the spirit of burning' (Is. 4:4). And of the Chaldaeans he speaks thus: ' Thou hast coals of fire, sit upon them; they shall be to thee for a help' (Is. 47:14,15: LXX), and in other places he says: "The Lord shall sanctify them in burning fire' (Is. 66:16,17), and in the prophet Malachi it speaks as follows: 'The Lord shall sift and refine his people as gold and silver; he shall refine and purify and pour forth purified the sons of Judah' (Mal. 3:3).

--Nick

Moltmann, Barth and 3 Types of Universalism

 I've noticed a declining trend these days in regards to the identification of Universalism, and it's variants in the theological spectrum. Most people immediately leap to speculations involving "no hell" to "no atonement and no hell" and even utilizing the 'p' word; pluralism. Now there are certainly pluralists who consider all religions of equal standing, and some Universalists veer towards this viewpoint. However, within evangelicalism, there exist several stripes of this view.

For example a universalist could be an excusivist (ala Robert Peterson and the majority of evangelicals) or an inclusivist (ala Clark Pinnock). They could be Reformed or a Calvinist (Barth; yes I think Barth was a universalist) or a combination of Reformed and Arminian (Tom Talbott). When I was a universalist, I believed in the 4 points of Calvinism, with an Unlimited atonement (ala Arminianism). This logically lead me to universalism. What changed my mind is outside the scope of this post.

Needless to say, it is usually best to just ask a universalist their opinion and methodology. They will likely talk your ear off.

Jurgen Moltmann in his wonderful book "The Coming of God" lays out four varying positions in competition, with three of them being universalistic in varying ways.

1. Particularismus verus (true Particularism). Moltmann identifies this with Beza and Gomarus in 1618, and Augustine over a millennium before. He wraps it up in 'double predestination' and his critique of the view is that is made up of antitheses and juxtaposition. It is 'negative' salvation.

2. Universalismus hypotheticus (hypothetical Universalism). Jurgen suggests that Moyse Amyraut developed the idea of the general proclamation of the gospel, even though he foreknew that only some would be saved. God's intent is universal, but the outcome is particular.

3. Universalismus verus (true or real Universalism). Moltmann brings out the (in)famous Friedrich Schleiermacher, a Calvinist theologian. Schleiermacher, argue Moltmann, sees that the eschatological goal of God is universal salvation. The human being cannot eternally maintain his unbelief contrary to God's love. God rejects in order to elect.

4. Open Universalism. Here, Karl Barth fulfills Moltmann's example. God elects all men in Christ, and consequently, God's resolve is universal, whether you know it or not. However, Barth resists symmetry in his theology and does not embrace universalism because of his high view of God's freedom.

Moltmann's own theology is wrapped up in the Descent into Hell, and the need for reconciliation not only between God and humanity, but for humanity to be reconciled to itself. His experiences in the prison camps, where guards and slaves fought, would ultimately be undone in God's liberative love.

Much of this can be found in Moltmann, 235-255.

--Nick

Olson on Karl Barth's Universalism

Roger Olson:

As we discovered in our exegesis of Barth’s excursus about Judas in CD II/2, Barth seemed to believe that God will allow a reconciled sinner to go on living the lie, without the knowledge of his or her reconciliation with God, into hell. Perhaps for Barth “hell” is this lie and the living of it.

Therefore, insofar as “saved” means living in the joy and blessing of fellowship with God, the personal decision of faith is necessary for salvation.
We are coming, then, to the conclusion that the controversy over whether Barth was a universalist or not comes down to a matter of semantics. (Which is not to say it’s unimportant.) Apparently, in spite of some confusing ways of expressing it, Barth believed in at least two distinct senses of being “saved.” One is the objective reconciliation with God extended to all people because of Jesus Christ and his life, death and resurrection. In that sense, because of election and atonement, all are saved. No personal decision of faith is required for it to be ontologically true and real. The other is the subjective fellowship with God enjoyed by those who, through a personal decision of faith, embrace their identity as reconciled persons. Such persons alone are “Christians.” But they alone are not “saved.” At least some, if not all, of those who reject their election and reconciliation, will, in spite of being saved, go to hell, understood either literally as Lewis’ painful refuge after death or figuratively as the lie lived in misery. Even they, however, are “saved” in the objective sense. And, according to Barth, based on the statement quoted earlier, God will continue to proclaim the kerygma to them, apparently with the hope and intention that they will somehow, sometime become saved in both senses.
Our thesis and conclusion agrees almost entirely with one of Barth’s most astute German interpreters Walter Kreck in his magisterial Grundentscheidungen in Karl Barths Dogmatik: Zur Diskussion seines Verständnisses von Offenbarung und Erwählung (roughly translated Basic Decisions in Karl Barth’s Dogmatics: Toward a Discussion of his Understanding of Revelation and Election). There, in the middle of an exposition and discussion of Barth’s doctrine of election, Kreck asked whether it leads to apokatastasis. He concluded that Barth did not want to draw that conclusion, but that it seems logically to follow from Barth’s doctrine of election.[15] On the other hand, Kreck also wrote that Barth rejected “speculating” (about ultimate reconciliation) and attempted to hold to the “open situation of proclamation” (in place of a doctrine of apokatastasis).[16] However, what Barth wanted and what Barth logically implied (as necessary) appear to be two different things.
The main contribution, if it can be called that, of this research project is that Barth was and was not a universalist. The solution is not sheer paradox, however. He was a universalist in the sense of everyone, all human persons, being reconciled to God, not just as something potential but as something actual from God’s side. He was not a universalist in the sense of believing that everyone, all human persons, will necessarily know and experience that reconciliation automatically, apart from any faith, having fellowship with God now or hereafter. Without doubt, however, he was a hopeful universalist in that second sense of the word.

For the rest, enjoy it here.

--Nick

To What End Hell? A Brief Discourse

I think the most interesting part of the entire "hell" debate is how often everything devolves into proof texts and theological quandries. Specifically, "people choose to go to hell" or "all means all" or "God is too nice" and so on and so forth. My thoughts on this topic have been hinted at elsewhere but for the moment I want to conduct a little exercise.

I'm going to list a series of passages that I believe at face value support each view. This is not to say advocates of each view appeal to each verse, but these are the common verses I would appeal to if I was to defend each view.

Universalism --

Philippians 2:5-11. Romans 5:12-21; 11:32-26. Colossians 1:15-20. Ephesians 1:10-11; 20-22. John 3:16. 1 Corinthians 15:22-28. 2 Corinthians 5:17-19.

Annihilationism/ Conditional Immortality --

John 3:16-17. Matthew 10:28; 25:41, 46. Ecclesiastes 9:5. Jude 7. Romans 6:23. Malachi 4:1-3. Revelation 20:10-15. 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10. Isaiah 66:24. Matthew 18:8.

Eternal Conscious Torment --

Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10-15. Matthew 25:46. C.S. Lewis (yes, this is a joke).

You will notice that save for the Universalist position, Conditionalists and Traditionalists share common texts, often engaged in systemic discussions over tenses and the like. The Universalist has two issues to address: how to engage the "negative" texts in a faithful way, and how to build a positive case.

The Conditionalist and Traditionalist have an easier job, in that they appeal to varying interpretations of many of the same texts, thus not needing to answer the set of "positive universalist" texts.

In short, the three views are overlapping but there is a strong disconnect between Universalism and the other two views. Certainly Conditionalists and Universalists share a common view of the final victory of God, but the similarities are slim. Same with Traditionalists and Conditionalists regarding "final and irrevocable" punishment.

One of the few flaws in Edward Fudge's masterful The Fire That Consumes was in regarding his treatment of Universalism. Though I know Edward to be a generous soul and love his ministry, he never tries to explain the Universalist texts that seem to contradict his own interpretation. In my eyes, this is a missed chance to incorporate various prima facie contradictory verses.

This is in some ways indicative of the entire modern hell debate: Universalists react strongly against Traditionalism while more or less ignoring Conditionalism, and so on and so forth. To be fair, you do have a little bit in Thomas Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God addressing annihilationism but it is brief and doesn't do the contradictory perspective justice. Each side seems to react more towards a specific view at the exclusion of another view.

Conditionalists and traditionalists, in order to answer for themselves, need to bring Universalism into the dialogue in order to not only understand their point of view, but how to speak up. I know Edward Fudge and Robin Parry are friends, so this may have happened in private but I am looking forward to a massive anthology that incorporates all views in multiples voices that allows for dissention and dialogue.

Let's get Thomas Talbott, Robin Parry, David Congdon, Edward Fudge, Glenn Peoples, I. Howard Marshall, Robert Peterson and Christopher Morgan all together and duke this out. No more speaking past each other. Each side must explain the other texts.

Of course, I may be speaking to the choir but this is an issue that has bugged me since the beginning.

Thoughts?

--Nick

Barna, Universalism And Pluralism, What Americans Believe

This was posted a while back, so I'm a little late on this. Thanks to David Kinnaman, this is going to be a fun little exercise. I will post the relevant sections with some of my own commentary. I may ignore the section on Pluralism and Christian perspective, as my focus is more on the generation aspect of this topic.

Universalism
Broadly defined, universalism is the belief that all human beings will be saved after death. On balance, Americans leaned toward exclusive rather than inclusive views. For example, 43% agreed and 54% disagreed with the statement, “It doesn’t matter what religious faith you follow because they all teach the same lessons.”

I think already there is an issue here. On the one hand, it makes sense that Americans would prefer more exclusive views on such religious matters. On the final hand, however, I would disagree with how the question seemed to be framed. Most of the Universalists I know don't think all religious faiths teach the same lesson, so I'm not convinced the question is properly placed. But this is a minor quibble.

Interestingly, younger born again Christians stand in stark contrast to their peers, being much less open to inclusive or universalist views of eternity. Still, while they are holding firm on many matters of orthodoxy, young Christians also expressed less certainty than previous generations did about what will happen to them, personally, when they die.

Instead, this is where the heart of the issue lies. This explains the rise of the Emergent Church movement and the rising tide of neo-evangelicalism. Uncertainty is a big part of my generation, and this is something we seem to actually cherish. In many ways, I agree. Uncertainty drives me towards research and contemplation, so in most ways I'm with them.

I'll list a few examples. Peter Enns, Fuller Theological Seminary, Annihilationism, Inerrancy. All of this is driven by a younger generation (and some within the previous generation) that is simply not convinced that the traditions of old figured it all out. In many ways, this is exciting. We're seeing new theological ground being mined and stronger exegesis in regards to how we treat the texts.

So, universalism and all of these other topics aren't driven necessarily by a desire for tolerance. In many ways, I think it is the opposite. Evangelicalism is built upon questioning such things. To question them is to be truly biblicist.

Thoughts?

--Nick

Was Karl Barth a Universalist?

No, I didn't read nine thousand pages in a week. But, I did have a friend ask me if I thought Barth was a Universalist so I skipped ahead a few books. Here is part of the quote that got me thinking.

"As the reconciliation of the world to God, the justification and sanctification of man, is the reality, and indeed the living and present reality in Jesus Christ the true Witness of its truth, a limit is set both to the falsehood of man and also to his decay and destruction, to the disintegration of his existence under the dominion of the pseudo-reality of that image. War is declared on them and they are checked. We cannot withdraw or erase anything that we have said concerning the process of disintegration. But we cannot describe it without recalling that its course is also determined and conditioned by the reality of God and man in Jesus Christ which is not affected by but resist it."

It is somewhat difficult to avoid seeing the potential for a kind of universal salvation here, particularly in light of Barth's view on election and whatnot. Very interesting. What do you think?

And, I actually snapped the picture myself.

Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/3 pg476.

"So, are you a Universalist?"

A good friend of mine asked me point blank if I was a Universalist. At first, I floundered around, trying to figure out a politically advantageous answer. I mentioned a few bits about philosophy, the background of the entire debate and just stopped when it hit me:

"I don't know."

Let me both explain and qualify.

I think Scripture contains many things that are both grandly clear and sublimely ambiguous. I think the debate over libertarian free will, compatibility and determinism is one maybe that we aren't privy to. At a glance, the Old Testament seems to advance a form of openness and the New Testament counters that with much of what Paul writes, particularly in Romans(1). That does not mean we can't choose a valid option (or that they don't all have something going for them), but it does mean that I'm not convinced that Scripture all that entirely consistent in giving us one way to look at that one example. Maybe so for this doctrine of hell as well.

I don't know if everyone who isn't elect and/or chooses to reject God will be burned forever or will be eventually irreversibly destroyed. I just don't know.

Maybe the Bible doesn't want us to know, or even more dramatically, maybe God doesn't want us to know. G.K. Beale in his commentary on the Apocalypse of John seems aware of the possibility of universalism at the end of the letter being possible and he does his best to counter this. Universalist theologian Robin Parry does the same, concurring that there is indeed tension between open city gates and a lake of fire, opting for his legitimate hermeneutical bias in favor of the restoration of all things(3).

I remember a biblical scholar speaking on Origen and Universalism and to paraphrase from memory, the scholar concluded that both "Paul and Origen seemed both particularly exclusive and strongly universalistic." In other words, Origen and Paul mentioned the beauty of universal salvation in one context (specific churches e.g. Colossae) and the terrifying possibility of complete destruction in his first letter to the Thessalonians. This isn't to say I agree with the scholar, but I definitely see the tension exhibited.

Maybe God doesn't want us to know.

Knowing many of us, to know everyone will be saved could to lead to laziness. On the other hand, knowing many of us in the same way, we are very quick to use metaphorical fire to frighten "belief" into an endangered soul that ultimately leads to the possibility of apostasy or hostility towards the church. The wonderful conditionalists at ReThinking Hell have been irenic in their many conversations with me on this most difficult doctrine.

I just don't know.

I would resonate most strongly with Thomas Johnson who says,

"The case for universalism is stronger than is usually realized. God's saving love for the world is a prominent biblical theme from Genesis through Revelation. God is the Lord and Savior of all and does not want any to perish but all to be saved. God provided salvation, forgiveness, justification, and reconciliation for all, indeed for all creation. Eventually, everyone will confess Jesus Christ as Lord. Yet, we do not know how God's judgment works out with respect to individuals." (2).

I suppose it boils down to faith. Faith in the power of the Spirit to bring forth salvation and that, somehow, all would eventually reach their telos. The justification for hope that "all would be saved" is indeed something many theologians of the past and present have embraced (Balthazar, Moltmann, Volf, Walls and others).

The God who saves assures us that that He is loving and just, no one escapes from his justice and that He will be "ta panta en pasin" in 1 Cor. 15:28. I tend to take solace in this, and Scot McKnight is generous to include those that are"eschatologically agnostic" into the fold of simply not being able to at this current time fix a tension seen in Sacred Scripture. There is indeed hope beyond this life. I take great comfort in that.

--Nick

Sources:

1). Incidentally, open theism is a budding research project for me. Consider a possible thought change on this one. Maybe?

2). T.F. Johnson, "Universal Salvation? The Current Debate" pg97. In spite of his comment, Johnson is not a universalist, instead suggesting that annihilationism is the best option based on the data.

3). Gregory MacDonald aka Robin Parry, "The Evangelical Universalist" pg133-34. This remains the best case for universalism that I have read, and I'm impressed with some of his exegesis on the Apocalypse of John.

Three Views on Hell: A Universalist Response to Annihilationism

Jason Pratt:

Chris doesn't mention the goats' narrative and thematic contexts in Matt 25's judgment. But I did as evidence for universalism!

The goats are explicitly part of the Shepherd's flock. Jesus in John 10 insists that none of His flock shall be lost, contrasting this (10:10) to the brigand who comes to {apolesê}. Does the Shepherd hopelessly apollum His flock?! Flattering Jesus as a brigand gets one of Jesus' servants thrown outside with the goats (by application) in another Matt 25 parable!

Jer 7:32-33 (echoed at Jer 17:27) refers to God's wrath poured on Jerusalem that (per 7:17) won't be quenched. The wrath didn't continue, but Jerusalem wasn't annihilated: God often promises, including in Jeremiah, to restore her!

Isaiah 30:27-33: Israel has been shattered by YHWH such that no human could remake them, and aren't penitent yet when the Assyrians overrun them (vv.15-17). God still promises they shall eventually repent and be restored with great blessings. YHWH smites the invading Assyrians to death in Gehenna valley; but calling it "Topheth" indicates YHWH rejects what happens there.

Sodom suffering "eternal fire" doesn't count as evidence for annihilation, since YHWH prophecies Sodom shall be at least resurrected (Matt 10:15, 11:24 par) and apparently restored to friendship with Israel (Ezekiel 16).

Chris affirms general resurrection, so even the bodies at Isaiah 66 (much moreso their souls) aren't annihilated. Those who feel shame are the people, who had themselves been rebelling against God again, going out to give the corpses a proper burial: sacrificial mercy to fallen enemies.

Jesus explains the unquenchable fire's spiritual purpose in Mark 9:49-50: the fire salts into peace (both ancient treatments for infection), so maggots consume a person's corruption (nasty though the treatment may seem to the person.) Jesus ends Matt 18 by warning apostles to have mercy on enemies!

Matt 5:30 warns believers, amid contexts about loving our enemies; not hating lest we go to Gehenna; and being sent to prison for refusing reconciliation. Torment isn't annihilation; and release involves reconciliation.

Christ scours the chaff off each grain in Matt 3:12 / Luke 3:17; the imagery fits tough-love salvation from sin. In JohnBapt's Malachi 4:1-3 reference, "every evildoer" burned like chaff, whose roots and branches will be set ablaze, includes the rebel Israelite leaders (to whom JohnBapt was specifically speaking) from Mal 3:1-7: but there it's a refining fire that surely will save them from sin!

Jesus says the wheat and the weeds are the "sons of the kingdom" and sinners respectively. But Jesus also warns "sons of the kingdom" who don't expect those outside the kingdom to be saved, with a related threat (Matt 8:12)!

As for Paul's "vengeance" ("justice" in Greek, which shall come to be value/honored by those who experience it) of flaming fire at 2 Thess 1:7-8, why doesn't it refer even more directly to Isaiah 2 and its extended prophecy where (unlike Isaiah 66) there are specific parallel phrases?--and which predicts the punished people will eventually serve God loyally in peace with their former enemies!

The prodigal son's father draws an explicit parallel between being lost (a cognate of {apollumi}) and being dead.

Jesus doesn't say at Matt 10:28 (or Luke's parallel) that God will destroy body and soul in Gehenna, only that God can do so. Jesus instantly follows this (in Luke as well) by talking about God's concern even for small birds. This thematically parallels another saying about God valuing people much more than birds. Jesus shortly afterward (6:27-28, Matt 6:28-30) draws a similar analogy about God's provision for flowers which, explicitly unlike even people of little faith, are effectively annihilated with fiery furnace imagery! God values people more than to annihilate them.

Annihilation happens in the Day of YHWH, the Great Sabbath when God rests from finishing His work. But Jesus challenges regarding the sabbath (Luke 6:6-11 and parallels): "Is it allowed on the sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save a soul or to destroy?" GosMark uses "kill" instead of "destroy": "kill" is the meaning of {apollumi} in mind. Matthew directly connects this (via Isaiah 42) to Jesus' mission to save those whom God's people aren't expecting.

"Restless" people (Chris' description) aren't annihilated. The term for refining gold fits more with Malachi 3 than Isaiah 34. The Temple imagery parallels sacrifices being cleaned and offered to God as a pleasing incense. The verses after Isaiah 34:10 reveal animals living safely in the area, and God healing the region along with its people. When St. Paul cites Malachi 1:2 at Romans 9:13, he indicates the result of "Esau" (Edom) being "hated": "'The older will serve the younger'". This, not annihilation, fits Jacob's prophecy: Esau shall be blessed in Jacob.

Tyre wasn't permanently destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, nor even by Alexander later: Jesus evangelized many people from Tyre, and prophesied Tyre (and Sodom) would find judgment day more tolerable than Galilee! Annihilation isn't more tolerable than annihilation.

Chris thinks God overcomes death by sentencing sinners to permanent death!

If stopping an abstract kingdom's dominion parallels annihilation, God must annihilate every sinner along with our rebel dominion.

Daniel 2:44: God did not simply destroy the Roman kingdom but transformed and incorporated it into Christ's new kingdom.

Dan 7:27 refers to a king (not a kingdom) whose kingdom and dominion shall not be annihilated (in the sense required).

The false prophet and the devil are thrown into the lake of fire along with the beast to be tormented into the eons of the eons: but annihilation cannot involve continuing "torment", and the beast cannot be tormented if the beast is only an abstract kingdom.

Rev 19:20: Christ slays the final rebel kings in language directly echoing the salvific 23rd Psalm! The "kings of the earth" (same phrase) show up in chapter 21 following Christ into the New Jerusalem, bringing the nations' glories with them; echoing Ezekiel's similar prophecy that even the kings of Israel's enemies will reconcile with her in the day of YHWH.

Editor:

The original post.
The longer critical response.

Three Views on Hell: A Universalist response to Eternal Torment

Jason Pratt:

Num 16:30: if the "literal" fire killing the same rebels in verse 35 isn't literally hell (and I agree it isn't), why is the pit in verse 30?

Matt 3:12: the verse 11 fire Christ baptizes with, is regarded as salvific. The threat and the result parallel Christ's explanation for the unquenchable fire at Mark 9:49-50.

Matt 5:22: important contexts include a get-out-of-prison clause (v.26) and the rationales for each punishment (hating, and not reconciling with one's brother).

Matt 5:29-30 parallels a saying from Matt 18/Mark 9. In GosMark Christ explains everyone will be salted by the fire into peace. GosMatt includes a repeat of the 100th sheep, and a warning (to the apostles!) against insisting on hopeless punishment (yet with a get-out clause: be merciful!)

Matt 8:12 warns the kingdom's sons (Matt 13:38) who don't want others saved. Christ admonishes someone for asking if only few are saved (Luke 13:29); and punishes someone trying to flatter the king as a thuggish tyrant (Matt 25:30). Christ also warns His chief followers who abuse others (Matt 24:51).

(Ditto Matt 25, per my own essay.)

I take such warnings seriously!--they affect how I interpret material such as the wheat and the weeds!

Jude 7 doesn't end the scriptural story, or there would be no judgment for those spirits later, much less a resurrection for at least the human sinners.

Rev 14:9-11 verbally involves refining gold (scripturally tough but saving love), so long as people continue (per the Greek grammar) worshiping the beast and accepting the mark. John afterward (15:1-4) reports a time when everyone gratefully glorifies God (which rebels cannot acceptably do). Loyal souls have (per the Greek) come out from the beast and from his image and from his number, so were in those things before; to stand on the fiery sea of glass before the throne (which in Temple typology was for cleaning sacrifices to be a pleasing burnt aroma to God). Being victorious over sin elsewhere in RevJohn involves sinners ceasing to sin.

Rev 20:15 doesn't indicate the lake of fire and brimstone is hopeless. (Fire and brimstone were ancient remedies to save a person from infection, as were maggots, not-incidentally.) Subsequent chapters show people after the lake of fire judgment being seriously and successfully evangelized by the sanctified Church (cooperating with God). Another flashforward (21:1-4) reveals there will be total success, even though impenitents must suffer.

Luke 16:19-31 doesn't say the rich man will never repent; it only shows him not penitent for his sins. The chasm isn't "broad" enough to prevent communication, and certainly cannot be "broad" enough to prevent God's omnipresence: especially if the fire, per other scriptural evidence, is the Holy Spirit Himself! RevJohn's final chapters show the Church evangelizing and bringing to salvation such people after the fiery judgment; and 1 Peter 3 & 4 arguably indicate Christ Himself doing the same in hades. "Then who can be saved!?" "With God all things are possible!"

What does TKJ suggest in place of annihilation's "one size fits all" punishment?--any hopeless punishment is still equally hopeless for everyone being so punished! Neither Chris nor I am suggesting impenitent sinners ever escape: even annihilation may follow ages of punishment. How does ECT avoid TKJ's appeal to the punishment being proportionate to the crime? Anyway, universalists don't regard sin's severity as being greater than the omnicompetent God's grace: where sin exceeds grace hyperexceeds, for not as the sin is the grace.

I certainly agree that 2 Thess 1:9's referential context indicates St. Paul isn't talking about annihilation; but I find the grammar and referential contexts do indicate Paul is talking about eventual salvation of those so punished.

"If all will be saved, why not just do what I want because even though the punishment will hurt, it will stop eventually and I’ll be in bliss?" No one primarily concerned with salvation from their sins, instead of only from inconvenient results, would ask such a question. Until such people seek salvation from sin, God will lead and teach them, by punishment as necessary, even into the eons of the eons.

Are universalists mistaken that retribution means bringing rebels back under loyal tribute to proper authority? I think non-universalists have the greatest challenge to show Godly retribution means making sure rebels never return to loyal tribute to God!

If (as I agree) Romans 1 represents a free, informed decision about rejecting God, I think TKJ will have a difficult time showing support that even God's presence wouldn't be enough for such people (namely all of us) to change their minds; since then God would be impotent to save any sinner at all. I routinely find in the scriptures that God can save sinners despite sinners already having a perverse view of God. Calvinists and universalists typically agree that God is competent enough to save sinners no matter how perverse they are. (Sometimes Arminians, too, at least rhetorically in evangelism.)

As to Satan and rebel angels, my soteriology isn't based on what rebels insist on (although as a rebel and chief of sinners myself, like St. Peter, St. Paul and the publican, I am well aware of how people sin against what light they can see); but rather on what God does and is capable of.

Moreover, any argument hinging on God insistently respecting creaturely free will, has basically refuted itself if God allows creatures to permanently lose, or never to have, freedom to repent (much less freedom to ever do righteousness).

Last, I'm amazed that TKJ thinks God only reconciles with "His people" (never saying to those who are not His people "You are My people" for example); and even more amazed that TKJ thinks God only reconciles with repentant people (instead of loving us first to send Christ to reconcile us through the blood of the cross while we are still God's enemies.)

I have usually found Calvinists and Arminians both agree with me (and St. Paul in Romans for that matter) on this!

Editor:

For the longer responses, enjoy them here.
For Kurt's original post.

Three Views on Hell: An Annihilationist Response to Universalism

Joseph Dear:

This post is my condensed response to the case for Universalism by Jason Pratt. For a more comprehensive response, please visit ReThinking Hell.

Surprised by Hell

Pratt’s overarching theme is that passages traditionally used to refute universalism actually help prove the doctrine. The exegesis of three key passages/groups of passages make up most of Pratt's essay. I will thus spend most of my response explaining why they do help to refute universalism after all.

Paying Justice (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10)

Pratt’s first two points are dependent on Isaiah 2-5 teaching universalism. But even a cursory reading of the chapters shows that this is not the case. A lot of emphasis is put on hope, but that hope is explicitly for only a remnant who survive (Isaiah 4:2-3). Chapter 5 follows suit. There is no universal reconciliation there to begin with.

Furthermore, translating the verse as ‘pay the justice” doesn’t change the meaning. Nothing inherent in the Greek or context makes it mean they value their destruction. To pay the justice to one who seeks “vengeance” is suffer a penalty (such as annihilation), which they do because Christ comes in “vengeance.”

Point #3 is more substantial, although there is ambiguity regarding the use of olethros (“destruction”) in 1 Corinthians 5:5 (only one of several uses of olethros). Paul says that the man’s “flesh” will be destroyed. If “flesh” is a metaphor for sinfulness, which is what Paul often means by “flesh,” then Paul really is talking about destroying it completely (as Paul’s ultimate aim is to destroy sinfulness, not just reduce it). If literal flesh is in view, then it really depends on what was to happen when the man was excommunicated. Ultimately, we have some ambiguity, but while that helps universalism some, it doesn’t do much for it.

The Unforgivable Sin

Even if we grant that Jesus was saying that that generation was worse than it was before in Matthew 12:43-45, that doesn’t change what Jesus said in Verse 32! It simply isn't mutually exclusive from the interpretation that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven.

The whole thrust of this section is this: As evil as they were, “such a state was not beyond Jesus’ salvation--or there wouldn’t have been a controversy at all.” No explanation of how the existence of controversy proves universalism is given at all, and the rest is not exegesis, but philosophy.

Pratt also argues that Jesus says He will forgive all sins in Mark 3:28, which reads “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter;” However, the sentence continues: “but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” I almost shouldn’t have to even address this. To take the first half of the sentence as being so literal that the second half, which qualifies the first, cannot mean anything like what it says, is just not how you treat language.

Once again, it comes down to this:: “Is our sin superior to God’s grace?--or does God’s grace hyper-exceed our sins?” We already know what the answer must be, so why should we even bother studying that the Bible has to say?

The Sheep and the Goats (Matt 25:31-46)

The reference to a shepherd and his flock is not as telling it seems. Matt 25:31-46 is not a story about a shepherd that is symbolic of what will happen at the judgment. It’s a straightforward description of future events (albeit probably with some figurative language). Jesus was just saying that he’ll separate the two sides, and appealed to a common profession where things are distinguished. It was just an analogy made in passing. There’s nothing that suggests it was meant to be a key part of what Jesus was saying.

Secondly, even if the mention of sheep and goats was some key metaphor, it wouldn’t be very fitting to Pratt’s universalist interpretation. Indeed, the goats are specifically baby goats, but that does not mean that they will grow spiritually and end up like the sheep. No matter how much a goat grows, it will never be a sheep. Sorry if that sounds pedantic, but if this is a key metaphor, than it matters what the parts are. They aren’t just separated by development and age. They are two different kinds of animals. A goat will never become a sheep.

The Positive Case

- Isaiah 25, Isaiah 45, or Hosea 13-14: I invite the reader to examine these passages and see that they don’t say what Pratt says.

- 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. So long as annihilationists include the devil among those destroyed, God is all-in-all at the end of time just as universalists believe. All that opposes Him is destroyed, so there is nothing in existence for which He is not “all-in-all.” And although there is reference to “all men” in 1 Corinthians 15:22, “all” doesn’t always mean literally every person who has ever lived. Firstly, Paul only mentions believers among the resurrected in the very next verse. Secondly, those who Paul is speaking of rise in “glory” and “power” in Verse 43. This clearly does not include the unsaved, who rise to shame and damnation (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29).

- Philippians 2:14: If God destroys all that opposed Him, all that is left will be those that bow before Him.

- “Eonion/aionios.” The readers of our essays will have to investigate the issue for themselves, which they should do, as it quite fundamental to the question of universalism.

Conclusion

The passages that appeared to go against universalism still do so. Pointing out elements of the context without addressing the central claim doesn’t change that. Appealing to God’s grace doesn’t change that, at least not if we are to let the Bible guide our theology. I don’t know why God saves only some when He certainly has the power to save everyone, and having so many loved ones who do not believe, this isn’t just a lofty, theoretical problem for me. Nevertheless, the Bible teaches what the Bible teaches.

Origen's Apokatastasis

"The restoration of all beings (apokatastasis) is the most important concept in Origen’s philosophy, and the touchstone by which he judges all other theories. His concept of universal restoration is based on equally strong Scriptural and Hellenistic philosophical grounds and is not original, as it can be traced back to Heraclitus, who stated that “the beginning and end are common” (Fragment B 103, tr. J. Barnes 1987, p. 115). Considering that Origen’s later opponents based their charges of heresy largely on this aspect of his teaching, it is surprising to see how well-grounded in scripture this doctrine really is. Origen’s main biblical proof-text is 1 Corinthians 15:25-28, especially verse 28, which speaks of the time “when all things shall be subdued unto him [Christ], then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (KJV, my emphasis). This scriptural notion of God being “all in all” (panta en pasin) is a strong theological support for his theory of apokatastasis. There are, of course, numerous other passages in scripture that contradict this notion, but we must remember that Origen’s strength resided in his philosophical ability to use reason and dialectic in support of humane doctrines, not in the ability to use scripture in support of dogmatical and anti-humanistic arguments. Origen imagined salvation not in terms of the saved rejoicing in heaven and the damned suffering in hell, but as a reunion of all souls with God."

Source.

--Nick

Damned Nonsense and Additional Musings Part I

A friend on twitter, Joshua Walters recently invited me to read a blog series he plans on doing about Universalism and it's (antagonistic?) relationship with other streams of orthodoxy. He's already begun to deal with Tom Talbbot, a Christian philosopher best known for being one of the most vocal proponents of trinitarian universalism. At least, Talbott is unafraid to say that he is. The few universalists that I know don't say much about their position, as let's face it, jobs are scarce these days.

For the sake of formatting, Joshua's material will be in italics, while mine will be normal.

Thomas Talbott is a professor of Philosophy at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon.  He is best known for his work The Inescapable Love of God, which biblically and systematically argues the case for Universalism. In this post I will explain what is known as "Talbott's Triad."

For the most part I agree. I do, however, wish to calrify that Talbott doesn't offer a systematic defense of universalism in the same sense as one dealing with every objection. In fact, the closest study we have in terms of universalism is Robin Parry's "The Evangelical Universalist" and even then, I don't consider it to be a systematic defense for universalism. Though it is quite good.

Many people will argue that the weakness of the Universalist view is that it overlooks the 'clear teaching of Scripture.' But upon further inspection it appears that both Calvinism and Arminianism also overlook the teaching of Scripture, namely the texts that proclaim the scope and finality of Christ's victory. (Note: ideological sawdust in the mind's eye will blur certain texts) What Talbott makes clear is that there is no 'flawless' position on salvation and the Bible can be used to support multiple views.

I think the concept is correct here. I recall calvinist Matt Chandler mentioning that, while he wasn't going to give up his view, he found the verses in Joshua about "choose ye this day" to be a bit of a pebble in his shoe. However, one has to acknowledge that the goal of the universalist should be to provide as best an explanation for their view, and this means offering tenable exegetical and theological considerations against eternal torment and annihilationism.

I know Joshua doesn't mean this, and I agree with him and Talbott. In order to systematize the Bible, one cannot take every single verse at it's most literal face. To do so gives us days without light (Genesis 1) and a multitude of stars falling from the sky (Revelation 12). Everything requires an explanation according not only to the Greek, but to personal intent on the part of the writer.

The question that I share along with Talbott is Why do universalists get spurned when it seems that Calvinism and Arminianism are equally at fault for neglecting Scripture? The conclusion that Talbott draws is that something other than biblical exegesis is behind the visceral reaction against universalism. I will discuss this in post #5.

A good question. More often than not, trinitarian universalists often get lumped into the category of pluralists. Of course, universalists can be pluralists but I don't think it necessarily leads to that. In my own experience, though I cannot be counted (yet?) as a dogmatic or "strong" universalist, I haven't considered pluralism nor have I found inclusivism to be a sustainable option. I have yet to read Pinnock, so I am leaving that option off the table. As far as I am concerned, exclusivism blended with universalism seems to not only maintain the centrality of the christological necessity of salvation, but also works as a means of excluding other such views as pluralism.

However, I'm not quite convinced that Talbott is correct to paint such options as devious intent. It could just be that people have overlooked certain texts because of the simplistic meaning of literal english words like "hell" or "eternal" or "all." But, I'm going to bite my tongue because Talbott is also probably correct about some folks with devious intent.

So, yes and no.

About one year ago Scot McKnight  - who is an awesome NT scholar and prolific author/blogger - offered a fairly deficient critique of Talbott's Triad. His only criticism to Talbott and Universalism is that it depends on the belief that human beings may be saved after death. You can read that post here.

I love Scot McKnight, and I think McKnight is far more fair towards universalism than most evangelicals. I know McKnight is familiar with Eastern Orthodox literature on the 'harrowing of hell' and even those unusual verses about Christ descending into hell, which is reflected in the Apostles Creed. I haven't found Howard Marshall or McKnight's thoughts on 1 Peter 4:6 compelling, and am inclined to see those verses as indicating the possibility of post-mortem confession unto salvation.

I wouldn't make a doctrine out of it, but I d not think one should overlook these verses or their place in history.

You can read Joshua's post here.

--Nick

Three Views on Hell: Universalism

INTRODUCTION

In early 2000, thanks to my studies affirming trinitarian theism, I came to expect God to persist in acting toward saving all sinners from sin. I began searching the scriptures to see if such things could be true; and as I studied the details and contexts more thoroughly, I learned to my surprise that many sets of scripture commonly quoted against Christian universalism featured strong evidence in favor of it instead! Here are three examples.

PAYING JUSTICE (2 THESSALONIANS 1:6-10)

A) Paul references Isaiah 2:10,21 “from/before the terror of JEHOVAH and the splendor of His majesty”. But this ruination, in the whole prophecy of chapters 2-5, eventually shows the unrighteous being cleaned by fire, and reconciling with the righteous. And the prophecy reveals that the scope of this salvation will be total.

B) Different bibles will say the sinners “pay the penalty” or “incur the punishment”. But literally verse 9 reads that they shall come to “pay the justice”, using a cognate for positively valuing something. And Paul’s citation from Isaiah shows sinners eventually coming to value Jehovah’s justice, paying true homage.

C) Paul declares that sinners shall be wholly destroyed. But despite the strength of the compound verb, Paul uses the same word in 1 Cor 5:5 to describe the punishment of a man he expects to be saved, after this punishment, in the same day of Jehovah that Paul is speaking of here in 2 Thessalonians.

THE UNFORGIVABLE SIN

A) First, this incident is based around the problem of a man previously exorcised by Jesus (Matthew 9:32-34 and notice the flashforward topical connection there) who must be exorcised again because, by his own fault, his latter state is worse than his first. Jesus warns that some people will be the same in the day of judgment (and 2 Peter 2:20 uses the exact same phrase to talk of teachers who abuse the people). But such a state was not beyond Jesus’ salvation--or there wouldn’t have been a controversy at all!

B) The teachers opposing Jesus’ salvation of this man are contradicting their own principles in order call such a salvation the work of the devil and not of God. (Matt 12:22-37)

C) When Jesus warns these teachers about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, He emphasizes even more strongly (Mark 3:28) that every sin whatever will be forgiven men. Is our sin superior to God’s grace?--or does God’s grace hyper-exceed our sins?

THE SHEEP AND THE GOATS (MATT 25:31-46)

A) In Greek the ones being punished are baby-goats. Since they are specifically included among the flock of Christ (v.32), they are literally the least of Christ’s flock.

B) They will be hungry, thirsty, outside, dirty, imprisoned and sick now. (Rev 22:14-17) This is their punishment for refusing to cooperate with Christ in helping to save such people.

C) The narrative and thematic contexts of this final judgment declaration, critique my interpretations of any other judgment statements in the scriptures: including how I should interpret what ‘eonian’ and ‘kolasis’ mean here for the baby-goats. Do the Good Shepherd and His mature flock start acting like baby-goats to the baby-goats now? Or shall He and they continue seeking to save the least of His flock?--inviting them to slake their thirst and wash clean in the water of life flowing out of the never-closed gates, inviting them in to eat of the tree of life and be healed, freeing them from their imprisonment?

CONCLUSION

It’s fairly easy to make a positive argument from the three sets of St. Paul’s testimony most commonly appealed to by universalists: Philippians 2:10-11 in context of Isaiah 45:23 (indicating the utter scope and final result of post-mortem salvation); 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 + vv.54-58 in context of Isaiah 25 and Hosea chapters 13-14 (indicating the utter scope and persistence of post-mortem salvation); and a deduction from the implications of Colossians 1:16-22 (indicating the utter scope of God’s action in reconciliation) plus Romans 5:6-11 (indicating the utter assurance of eventual salvation for those whom God acts to reconcile).

But when evidence against God’s salvation of all sinners from sin turned out to be for it? That really impressed me.

AUTHOR

Jason Pratt is a guest author for the Evangelical Universalist forum. His epic fantasy novel CRY OF JUSTICE won the 2008 retailer poll for Novel of the Year from the Christian Small Publishers Association.

OTHER ESSAYS

Eternal Conscious Torment

Annihilationism

CRITICAL RESPONSE

Annihilationism

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Gregory MacDonald, "The Evangelical Universalist."

Thomas Talbott, "The Inescapable Love of God."

The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Three Views on Hell: Introduction

http://www.rethinkinghell.com/

I have the pleasure of hosting an extended debate on this most contentious topic. I selected several up and coming theologians, and requested from each an essay to describe their views of the nature of eternal punishment.

A few things first.

COMMUNITY 

All three essays are written by professing Christians, and as such, I expect the utmost respect to be shown to one another. Disagreement is encouraged, but condescension and a lack of charity are discouraged.

FORMAT

The goal isn't to provide an exhaustive commentary on all bible passages or philosophical arguments. Instead, this is more an attempt to boil things down to bite-size chunks that are more easily expanded upon. 

Each writer has 700 words to make their case. Their responses may be as long as they would like, but since I am moderating this series, I have the right to delete a comment or request a rewrite.

Likely, since we are all good boys and girls, this shouldn't happen.

FINAL THOUGHTS

I may add a follow up post to this series, offering links to various responses by the contributors. I know the annihilationist contributor plans on offering a response or two.

Thanks to each author!

THE ESSAYS

Annihilationism

Universalism

Eternal Conscious Torment

THE RESPONSES

These responses are much longer than the actual essays. Which is nice. Enjoy.

Annihilationist response to Universalism.

Universalist response to Annihilationism.

Annihilationist response to Eternal Conscious Torment.

May this debate continue in far greater respect than has been conducted elsewhere. Please engage and enjoy. May He be glorified.

--Nick

David Congdon, "Paul, Evangelicals & The Problem of Universalism"

David is quickly becoming a blogger that I keep returning to. Like a bad habit. Here are his thoughts about the aforementioned title. He's got a book coming out on Universalism, and he works at IVP. He's a charming fellow. Go check him out.

Congdon:

1. The Problem: Rom. 5:12-21

Few passages have exercised such a profound influence on the shape of Christian theology as Rom. 5:12-21. Moreover, as William Barclay notes, “no passage is more difficult for a modern mind to understand”[1]—though, of course, not only modern minds. The famous so-called Adam-Christ typology in these verses has vexed interpreters for centuries, particularly the universal dimension of “πάντας ἀνθρώπους” (Rom 5:12). In his treatise, “On Marriage and Concupiscence,” Augustine states that Paul does not mean “that Christ removes to life all those who die in Adam.” He then offers this interpretation:

[Paul] said “all” and “all,” because, as without Adam no one goes to death, so without Christ no man to life. Just as we say of a teacher of letters, when he is alone in a town: This man teaches all their learning; not because all the inhabitants take lessons, but because no man who learns at all is taught by any but him.[2]

Calvin, for his part, offers the standard Protestant interpretation in his commentary:

[T]he benefit of Christ does not come to all men, while Adam has involved his whole race in condemnation; and the reason of this is indeed evident; for as the curse we derive from Adam is conveyed to us by nature, it is no wonder that it includes the whole mass; but that we may come to a participation of the grace of Christ, we must be ingrafted in him by faith.[3]

Augustine and Calvin reflect the general consensus of the Christian tradition, which has insisted that passages such as Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22 are not to be interpreted as favoring a universal salvation.

Recently, the issue has become more acute among English-speaking Protestant evangelicals, who have been unimpressed with the options historically available to them: (1) a so-called Arminianism which locates salvation anthropologically in the free decision for Christ, and (2) a so-called Augustinianism-Calvinism which locates salvation in the decretum absolutum of double predestination. Two notable examples of this ongoing conversation include Universal Salvation? The Current Debate,[4] which takes its cue from the work of philosopher Thomas Talbott, especially his book, The Inescapable Love of God,[5] and The Evangelical Universalist,[6] a recent pseudonymous publication that seeks to offer a biblically grounded position on universal salvation. In these works, as well as in other articles, Rom. 5:12-21 is a central passage. While patristic theologians like Origen[7] and Gregory of Nyssa[8] and modern theologians like Hans Urs von Balthasar[9] are frequently mentioned, Karl Barth is often at the center of these discussions both as a theologian and as an exegete. Barth is often accused of (or praised for) being a universalist, generally with reference to his later theology post-Church Dogmatics II/2.[10] Few, however, consider Barth’s exegetical insights into Rom. 5. By first examining the arguments for and against a universalist interpretation of Rom. 5:12-21, I argue that while Barth’s interpretation of Romans does justice to the central concerns of each side in his formulation of a dialectical anthropology in the “shadow” of a “consistent eschatology,”[11] there are certain aspects to the Pauline text itself which Barth does not touch upon that are important in the debate over universalism.

Footnotes:

1. William Barclay, The Letter to the Romans (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), 78.

2. Augustine, “On Marriage and Concupiscence,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1.5 (New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1886), Book II.46, 302.

3. Commentary on Rom. 5:17.

4. Robin A. Parry and Christopher H. Partridge, eds., Universal Salvation? The Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

5. Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God (Parkland: Universal Publishers, 1999).

6. Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2006).

7. See Origen, On First Principles, trans. G. W. Butterworth (London: SPCK, 1936).

8. See Gregory of Nyssa, The Catechetical Oration of Gregory of Nyssa (Early Church Classics), trans. J. H. Srawley (London: SPCK, 1917); On the Soul and the Resurrection (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2.5), trans. W. Moore (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988). See also M. Ludlow, Universal Salvation: Eschatology in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

9. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Dare We Hope ‘That all Men be Saved?’ with A Short Discourse on Hell (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988).

10. Oliver Crisp, in particular, has presented a cogent argument for why Barth’s theological positions in the Church Dogmatics necessitates universalism. Of course, on purely logical grounds, Crisp is entirely right. But of course Barth’s concern for divine sovereignty and his rejection of human logic as the highest value in theology prevents him from drawing the conclusion of universalism. See Oliver D. Crisp, “On Barth’s Denial of Universalism,” Themelios 29:1 (2003), 18-29.

11. See Bruce L. McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909-1936 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 207-40. 

For my part, Romans 5 is quickly becoming the standard text by which Universalists stake their claim. Talbott offers his opening argument based on the exegesis of Romans 5, though it should be noted that Robin Parry builds his (cogent and compelling) case around Colossions 1:15-20.

Also, having just read David's opening, I'll confess that I simply don't know what to do with Romans 5. I will read through the remainder of his arguments and see what happens.

Something else I am considering (and this would have to be explained via a scholar like Parry, Talbott and Condgon) is Paul's use of 'anthropos' in Romans 5. Is he referring to simply humanity (or specifically a human being) or is it more specific? 'Anthropos' seems to have a wide lexical use, and doesn't necessarily mean the "historical" Adam. Could it just mean "human?" Or is Paul singling out the "original" human, Adam? We shall see what happens. I'm loving this so far.

Fan boy moment: I also own Barth's commentary on Romans. I shall read his section on Romans 5 and see what comes about.

For the entire post, enjoy it here.

--Nick

Balthasar on the "Christian Hope" of Universalism

Balthasar is considered one of the most influential Catholic theologians yet to grace our presence. Here are his thoughts. I don't know if I fully agree with his approach, but Balthasar is widely respected, so I take it that his word has merit.

Balthasar:

“Just as God so loved the world that he completely handed over his Son for its sake, so too the one whom God has loved will want to save himself only in conjunction with those who have been created with him, and he will not reject the share of penitential suffering that has been given him for the sake of the whole. He will do so in Christian hope, the hope for the salvation of all men, which is permitted to Christians alone. Thus, the Church is strictly enjoined to pray “for all men” (and as a result of which to see her prayer in this respect as meaningful and effective); and it is “good and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved…, for there is one God and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself over as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:1-6), who, raised up on the Cross “will draw all men to himself” (Jn 12:32), because he has received there a “power over all flesh” (Jn 17:2), in order to be “a Savior of all men” (1 Tim 4:10), “in order to take away the sins of all” (Heb 9:28); “for the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men” (Tit 2:11), which is why the Church “looks to the advantage of all men, in order that they may be saved” (1 Cor 10:33). This is why Paul (Rom 5:15-21) can say that the balance between sin and grace, fear and hope, damnation and redemption, and Adam and Christ has been tilted in favor of grace, and indeed so much that (in relation to redemption) the mountain of sin stands before an inconceivable superabundance of redemption: not only have all been doomed to (the first and the second) death in Adam, while all have been freed from death in Christ, but the sins of all, which assault the innocent one and culminate in God’s murder, have brought an inexhaustible wealth of absolution down upon all. Thus: “God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all” (Rom 11:32).”

–Hans Urs von Balthasar, Love Alone Is Credible (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 97-98.

--Nick

Kevin Miller, "Is Universalism the new Annihilationsim?"

Miller:

Thanks to a prod from Graham Ware, I’m currently reading Clark. H. Pinnock’s excellent essay The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent. Published in 1990, Pinnock’s essay critiques the “traditional” doctrine of hell as eternal torment for the wicked and argues for the (then) radical notion of Annihilationism–the belief that the “impenitent wicked suffer extinction and annihilation” rather than unending torment in hell.
Early on in the essay, Pinnock recognizes that he is embracing a minority view. Even though other prominent evangelicals, such as John Stott, were coming to similar conclusions at the time, Pinnock expresses some concerns about going public with his beliefs:

In defending the annihilation of the wicked, I realize that this is the view of a minority among evangelical theologians and church leaders and that I place myself at risk when I oppose the traditional view of hell as endless agony and torment. After all, it is a well-established tradition, and one does not oppose such a tradition without paying a price in terms of one’s reputation. Even worse, I recognize that this puts me in some odd company, a fact which is regularly used against the position I am defending, for it is usually argued that only heretics or near-heretics deny the doctrine of everlasting punishment and defend extinction. The idea is that if the Adventists or the liberals hold such a view, the view must be wrong. In this way the position can be discredited by association and not need to be taken seriously or worried about. Of course it is not much of an argument, but it proves effective with ignorant people who are taken in by rhetoric of this kind.

Fast-forward to the present, and the landscape has changed considerably. Annihilationism is still a minority position, but just over two decades after Pinnock wrote his essay, it is no longer considered an emblem of heresy or near-heresy. Even a brass-knuckled, fire and brimstone preacher like Mark Driscoll accepts Annihilationists into the fold. He still thinks they’re wrong, just not dangerously wrong. That’s a far cry from the uproar John Stott created when he “came out” as an Annihilationist in the late 1980s.

For the rest, enjoy it HERE.

--Nick