Honestly, I’d never even heard of Rob Bell beforeΒ his promo video broke for his now infamous book Love Wins! His book thrust something that I would 
imagine “most” Christians didn’t even take seriously (me included) into the forefront: Universalism (the idea that all people will end up “saved”). Of course Bell is not as forthright, and not even really willing to self-identify as a “Universalist;” but he is. His version of Universalism (as sloppy as it is) is akin to what can be called Evangelical Universalism. The reality is, is that Bell isn’t the real deal though; if you want to seriously be challenged by a “Christian-Evangelical-Universalism” from Scripture, then you must read Gregory MacDonald’s (that’s his pen name, his real name is Robin Parry) The Evangelical Universalist. He provides a cogent, razor sharp exegetical proposal for what he has rhetorically called Evangelical Universalism. Parry’s basic thesis is that in the end all people (“all nations”) will bow the knee to Jesus as Lord (not as judge, but Savior).
As I cracked his book, my curiosity was piqued, and I was ready to see how Parry was going to make his case (I didn’t think he could). There were a few crux interpretums I had in mind as I entered his book; a couple of those were found in some locus classicus ‘Hell Texts’ in the book of Revelation. As I worked through his book I came to chapter 5 where he worked through these passages (with the preceding four chapters laying a framework wherein these difficult texts could be re-interpreted through a Universalist lens). I want to give you an example of how he gets around the idea that ‘Hell” in these texts represents a place of Eternal Conscious Torment (the trad view). But before I do that I should provide this caveat: Parry’s version of ‘Evangelical Universalism’ still holds to a literal ‘Conscious Tormentuous’ Hell, he just believes that it is temporary (with the purpose of being an educative [convicting/convincing] place, and not a purifying place [like a Roman Catholic purgatory]); even though he believes its temporary, he still believes its a terrible terrible place to be avoided! With that caveat in place lets look at how he interprets Revelation 20:10-15 (of course I won’t be able to provide but a taste of his thinking, even so, the following quote is going to be a bit lengthy):
However [in response to his the apparent problem that chptr 20 poses for an Universalist interpretation], John moves on to a vision of the New Jerusalem in 21:9ff., and it is here that we find what looks very much like a universalist hope. 21:12-21 give a very elaborate description of the walls of the City. In the ancient world the walls of a city were essential for the protection of the inhabitants, but that this is not the function of these walls is clear from the fact that the wicked are no longer in a position to attack the city, and thus the gates are left open perpetually (21:25). So what is the wall for? Rissi maintains that it serves as a boundary marker between those inside the City (the redeemed) and those outside the City (who inhabit the lake of fire). This interpretation is supported by 22:14-15, in which the risen Jesus says: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.” To be outside the city walls is to be in the lake of fire (21:8); and nothing and nobody unclean can enter the city, but only those written in the Lamb’s book of life (21:27). It is the City wall that marks the boundary between the two: “a sign of separation.” So far, this hardly seems encouraging for the universalist; but then we read in 21:23-27:
The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut (indeed, there will be no night there). The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who dose what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Now we have a vision in which the nations, whom we have already established have been thrown into the lake of fire, enter the New Jerusalem via the permanently open gates! There is a continuous flow from outside of the City (clearly the lake of fire in the light of 21:8; 21:27; 22:15) into the City. In John’s visionary geography there are only two places one can be located — within the city enclosed in its walls of salvation (Isa 60:18) or outside the city in the lake of fire. The gates of this New Jerusalem are never closed. Given that those in the city would have no reason to leave it to enter the lake of fire, why are the doors always open? “In John’s interpretation of the prophetic message [of Isa 60] by means of the Jerusalem vision the motif of the open gates is given a quite new, and positively decisive significance for his entire hope for the future. . . . John announces nothing less than that even for this world of the lost the doors remain open!” In the oracle of Isaiah 60 on which this vision is based we read that the gates were left open for the purpose of allowing the nations to enter (60:11), and that is the case here too: the open doors are not just a symbol of security but primarily a symbol of the God who excludes no one from his presence forever. [first set of brackets, mine] (Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist, 114-15)
Prior to this, MacDonald has already provided an elaborate biblical theology of the Old Testament; in it, he provides a few distinctions (which also then end up appealing to a chapter where he does a biblical theology of the New Testament). It goes Israel, the Church, the Nations; without providing too much detail: Israel is chosen to mediate salvation to the nations (of which they are apart) — they fail — but a single Jew rises up from among them (Jesus) and provides salvation to them and the Nations; out of the Jews and the Nations (in the present era, since Pentecost) we end up with the Church (those who believe pre-mortem). Parry identifies the Church as the “first fruits” of Christ’s resurrection; this “first fruits” idea carries into the eschaton. In Revelation the Church are those people representative of every tribe, tongue and nation; but they are just samples from the Nations, the Nations are the rest of the world now condemned to Hell (in Revelation 20). Picking up on a motif that MacDonald has already established from his work in the O.T., the Nations all eventually get saved (see Isaiah 45:21ff and cf. with Philippians 2:8-10); which then coincides with the quote I just provided from Parry above. The Nations all finally come into and through the “open” gates of the New Heavens and Earth, the New Jerusalem (the idea from MacDonald, is that eventually, over time, each person in Hell will be convinced [just as many of us are now] of their need of a Savior — at this point they will bow the knee in faith [Parry argues that no-one ever has said that Jesus is Lord by force nor without the Spirit cf. I Cor. 12.3] and be welcomed into Heaven).
This is just to barely touch Parry’s proposal. He works through most and any of the Texts you could ever think of, and he anticipates very well; I found myself (as I was reading) thinking of objections, and I’d flip the page and he was addressing those very passages or objections (I kid you not, that happened multiple times as I read). This isn’t John Hicks (pluralist universalism), it’s not J.A.T. Robinson’s (Christian Universalism), it’s definitely not Rob Bell’s version (Parry’s work makes what Bell is articulating sound like kindergarten, I’m trying to be nice π ). If you want to denounce universalism, for my money (which I don’t have a lot of), you have to work through MacDonald to do so. I’d like to see The Gospel Coalition deal with MacDonald’s stuff (you know, the “Meatier” stuff).
What do you think?
I’m reading the book now. I’ve read the intro and the first two chapters so far. As you know, I’m a bit predisposed to like his argument. I was a bit put off by the analytical stuff of chapter 1, but I just kept reminding myself of what he was doing – demonstrating how traditional thinking, which is prone to analytical constructions, buckles under its own weight. I was certainly more into the constructive stuff in chapter two working from Colossians. What I’d really like, though am pretty sure I won’t find, is a dogmatic argument that works from a thorough treatment of God’s triune being and relation of freedom and love toward creation. He has appealed to the 1 John idea that “God is love” several times, making it do some serious philosophical/theological work, but without giving that concept a robust theological explication. Even a brief appeal to something like Barth’s CD II.1 development of a doctrine of God as the “the One who loves in freedom” would go a long way for me. Anyway, beyond that minor complaint, I’m very much enjoying the book. I think I’d still hold back from calling myself a universalist, preferring Torrance’s strategy of resisting drawing eschatological conclusions based on logical deductions from theo-logical premises. Still, with a gun to my head given the choice between limited atonement, free-will theism, and evangelical universalism, the choice wouldn’t be hard.
I’m enjoying reading your thoughts on this stuff, Bobby.
Does MacDonald believe that Satan will be saved too?
Hey Bobby….Interesting thoughts I must say…Have you ever heard of the book called Her Gates Will Never Be Shut:Hell, Hope, and the New Jerusalem by Brad Jersak? I haven’t read it, but it has also piqued my interest to study this area of theology…I might have to pick up a copy of Parry’s book…
Chris
I too would like to see the folks from the Gospel Coalition and the like deal with this presentation from Mr.Parry as well. Thank you brother for tackling it and not just setting up straw men to burn.
Glen,
Makes the point, evil is a persona (person) or personification, it is not dualism, but God allowing and using evil for His purpose and glory. Thank God our problem of theodicy is solved by the Book of Job, God is Sovereign.. etc.! And God is not a universalist…note: “the election of grace.” God will only save “His” people. (John 10:26-27, etc.)
when do we take this teaching on the city and its walls as literal and when do we allow the symbolic descriptions to stand as vague ideas? i would like to see the warrant for the symbolic (if indeed that is what it is) pressed into the literal in as much as we can allow it to ground our understanding on hell. i would like to see the doctrine of god as the basis for the teaching on hell, not from a interpretation of a text from revelation. revelation has been used for just about every idea and i stay clear from basing many teachings on its teachings. the whole canon as it refers to god and humanity and what the one recieves from the other and why seems to be a better, wholistic, and more promising field to mine in. that said i think we might be amazed that after we do a biblical theology on who god is, hell (etc) might fit perfectly well with the being god is. no amount of symbolic fancy cities and gotcha questions on open gates can take away from the fact that god allows for untold hells in the biblical narrative and in our space/time existence while still being just. bottom line for me is not so much about a text/s on hell but about god in the full bloom of the story.
And Bobby, I don’t press this through the TULIP, as really the reality that Christ has and will have a redemptive people, who are called and saved…being saved until the end. And as we both believe part of this remnant will come out of National Israel. God always has a “remnant of grace”. (Rom.11:5) π @irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert
@Adam,
Yeah, after his opening chapter on the analytic stuff, I almost put the book down; but I pressed on, and was glad I did. While his exegesis is solid, the analytic precision seems to continue to drive many of his interpretive moves and assumptions; which in the end is one of the primary weaknesses. I think JAT Robinson provides what you’re looking for in re. to a dogmatic Christian universalism, grounding his thoughts in the life and love of God. At the end of the day, though, I’m not a universalist; Jesus and Paul won’t let me π (you’ll notice that even Parry believes that Jesus did not teach a universalism (but then you’ll see how he works around that “constructively” so to speak through his a priori hermeneutic). I’d like to hear what you think once you’ve finished the book, Adam. Thanks.
@Glen,
He notes how some folks try to depersonalize satan and make him a principle of evil (like structural); he himself doesn’t take that tact, and simply chooses to remain agnostic about both satan and the demons. Yet, given his prior argument on Phil. 2:8-10; to me he is very inconsistent here — which definitely is a flaw (he’s unwilling to bite as hard as he ought on the bullet he has created).
@Michael Smith,
Yes, I’m surprised that TGC didn’t deal with this book when it came out. It just shows what’s really going on with them; “culture wars.” Thanks bro!
@Fr Robert,
I thought theodicy was solved by the cross π .
@Kenny,
Remember this is already chapter 5. This is more like icing on the cake; he’s already made his winning/losing (depending on your take) argument in the preceding chapters. His interpretation of Revelation is contingent upon prior interpretive decisions; which I tried to allude to throughout the post. I do agree with you about how he’s interpreting things in Revelation (somewhat self-serving), but in order to discount him you really need to read his whole argument (which there’s no way I can unfold here on the blog); there’s much more substance involved than his interp. on Revelation might reflect (but even so, if he can’t make his case with the texts in Revelation, then all else fails, which methodologically is really the greatest weakness of Parry’s argument — you must follow every little “fine” step and move he makes, if you don’t [and its elaborate] you won’t make it over the top as he does — that’s probably my greatest critique of Parry, along with what I noted with Adam Nigh). Having said that, I don’t share your pessimism on Revelation (but there are certainly clearer passages of Scripture from whence to establish “dogmatic points”, and Parry does understand and do that first).
@Fr Robert,
Yeah, in the end I agree (even though we disagree on the particularities); “you’re either for Christ or against Him” (and I take that to be instantiated pre-mortem!).
Thanks all for your feedback, this was really a challenging book for me to read (one of the most challenging I’ve ever read, seriously). At the end of the day,though, I believe (along with Myk Habets — we’ve briefly discussed this) that “EC” offers the best alternative . . . viz. Universal atonement, but not universal salvation (Col. 1 offers this “polarity” straightaway — of course Parry uses this text as one of his primary interpretive keys, but wrongly, methinks, in the end).
Thanks guys!
Bobby,
I’ve got the book on order and plan on reading through it next week. I’m sure it will be interesting.
Brian
@Chris,
Oops, sorry, bro, I almost didn’t see your comment π . . . No I haven’t heard of that book. Parry doesn’t mention it or ref. it; I would take Parry’s book to be the gold standard exegetical argument for Evangelical Universalism. If you want to be challenged I would read this one, at least first. Great hearing from you bro!
@Brian,
It is. Wouldn’t you already consider yourself an “Evangelical/Christian Universalist?”
Hey Bobby,
What does it mean for the New Jerusalem to come down to the Earth? Is hell then literally outside it in some geographical sense for Parry? Ithink the openes of the gates has more to do with the gentiles coming in than implying a universalistic thesis.
But the main problem ISTM with univeralists is that they suppose that it is impossible for people to fix themselves in vice. But why think that? If the goodness of being prevents that, why wouldn’t it prevent sinning in the first place?
Their anthropological position then seems no more plausible to me than the Edwardian one.
Bobby,
Yeah if God is a universalist? Then let’s just party! π But then there is that old idea from Leibnitz again,i.e. Theodicy, which comes btw from natural theology.
Hey Perry,
I agree with your point on the open gates and the Gentiles, but then, so does Parry (the other Parry π ). As I alluded to in the post, he believes the Nations are like the 3rd and final stage in salvation history (he appeals to passages like Is 45; Is 19 and more) which speak of, at the “end,” all the Nations being together in final reconciliation and salvation. His argument for the Nations is, to me (from his OT work) not persuasive (you’d have to read the book to know what I mean). Anyway, he doesn’t disagree with you about the “Gentiles,” but he argues that Rev. 20, and Rev. 21 reflect two distinct scenes (in a durative/chronological sense); and so those condemned to the Lake of Fire in Rev 20 are the same ones who eventually bow the knee to Jesus and are saved entering through the proverbial gates. He argues that the “fire” and the language of “forever and ever” relative to the torment and fire of hell should evoke the same ideas that it did from its usage in the OT. He argues that when such language is used relative to God’s judgment of the Nations (or even Israel) in the OT, it is not meant to be taken as “forever” literally; instead it is hyperbolic and speaks to the intensity of the judgment (but, as he argues, obviously, the “forever” didn’t mean forever, because once the judgment had done its job it ended — he appeals to something like Is 19 where Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are altogether as one, eschatologically — this is the way we should understand the way that John uses this language in Revelation, that the fires/judgment is real, but temporal).
I agree with you on the idea of fixation, that’s true; either in/out — for/against — being saved/destroyed. The most important point to make is that this is all pre-mortem. Parry would agree with you too, it’s just that he extends this whole discussion into a post-mortem one (he doesn’t see that as a decisive eschatological shift, so to speak).
@Fr Robert,
I don’t really like theodicy, I don’t think it’s a proper “Christian” category of thought; which as you note, the methodology is really what’s behind that whole issue.
Parry, doesn’t think that ethics should be affected by the temporal nature of hell; he argues that it’s still hell, terrible, and while temporary could last for a long long long time still. Yet, in the end, I agree with you on that too; if Universalism truly was the case (no matter what form), then, at the least, a call for Christian holiness could be blunted. But then again, Christian holiness is not based upon fear or hell, but love and gratitude for God’s person in Christ and in the monarchia itself!
@Bobby,
Yes theodicy is a construct, but lighty held or pressed.. I think not a bad one. But as I said, though I am something of a Calvinist, I am Thomist also, and closer to Brunner than Barth.
Parry’s book was just a “theological” ‘what if’ to my mind, and does not make the climb or case. Just an hour spent in real life, shows that up badly!
Indeed the “Monarchia” of God! And starts with the Father.. @Bobby Grow
@Bobby Grow
Fr Robert,
Yes, our differences are well noted π .
I think there is more to Parry’s book than you seem to think. But I do agree, it’s not theologically robust; and so in the end that becomes a primary fault (since many of his interpretive decisions take shape from his analytic philosophical assumptions and deductions . . . which as Adam N. notes is not so great . . . but as a Thomist you should have no problem with that π ).
Bobby: My Calvinism and Thomism bump heads often! lol @Bobby Grow
i want to read the work but it isnt on kindle and i dont want to wait for the paper back to be shipped to norway. you are just going to have to be the mediator
Bobby,
Well, I am not clear on how we get from the reconciliation of the nations, to the reconciliation of every individual. Does he have one example of someone ever getting out of the torment of hell? All of the language relative to hell seems final, that God has nothing to do with them.
If the language is not meant to be taken literally with respect to hell, then why take it literally with reference to Christ, God or anywhere else? Why not then temporalize deity? It seems like special pleading to argue otherwise from his position.
I am not sure how your explication of his views on post-mortem existence get to what I was pointing out. It seems fairly common among universalists to argue, either explicitly or implicitly, from the goodness of being to the eventual reconciliation of every being by way of the premise that being can never be fixed in evil. That implies that no persons can fix themselves in vice. But my worry is that this confuses person and nature such as to render inexplicable the fall in the first place. Moreover, if people canβt be fixed in vice, why think they can be fixed in virtue? What do the saints have that Adam didnβt have?
At the end of
the day it seems they need to resort to the same line as Augustinians that God kept some grace back, which I find unhelpful to say the least.
@Fr Robert,
π .
@Kenny,
I’m afraid this is the end of my mediation π .
@Perry,
To be clear, I’m not arguing for this position; instead, I’m reporting how MacDonald argues, and to be honest, in the space I have, I think I’ve represented him fairly. His is a case of “exegesis,” he doesn’t engage or develop anything dogmatic (only analytic, which is not dogmatic, per se). I’m the “reporter” in this instance, if you really want to press and argue with Robin then I suggest you head over to his blog π : http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/
He does provide an “exegetical” argument for individuals and the community, but you’ll have to read the book if you want to understand that. In the end I do think he special pleads his exegesis, but not more so than anyone else; that’s not the decisive thing, it’s the dogmatic, or lack thereof, precision that’s at issue as the informative stuff that shapes his special exegesis; that’s my take with Parry.
I am thankful for the interaction going on here at your blog. I am with you on universal atonement, as grounded in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, and not universal salvation.Your blog really helps me to work through things Scripturally and in the Spirit of Christ… π
Chris,
Good, unfortunately not all feel the same way; oh well π . That’s my hope. Of course I know that’s the hope of others who oppose the views I espouse here.
@Bobby Grow
Bobby,
Not really. I am open to the possibility of universal salvation, but I do not believe that the scriptures necessarily lead inevitably to that conclusion. These are issues that I am still working through, and so I am interested in what this book will have to add to my understanding of the subject.
Right now, I believe that there is a strand of universalist thought that runs throughout scripture, and so I see it as a theological possibility; but this universalistic logic works more on the corporate level. At this point, I’m not sure how the individual fits into all of this; although I am not convinced with regard to eternal conscious torment.
Basically, I think that the universal reconciliation of all things is inevitable in a narrative historical sense; meaning that God’s purpose for humanity and creation will ultimately be brought to fruition. I’m not sure if this necessitates a universal resurrection unto life for every individual that has ever lived. I do think that universal salvation would be consistent with the character of God.
Bobby,
I don’t feel like I’m smart enough to keep up with most of the conversation here, but I would say this:
I am not a universalist. I can’t see how it can really be supported in scripture.
But I sure think it would be nice to find out once we get to Heaven that this man’s idea was closer to the truth than mine.
I worry that if we soften the blow of what Scripture teaches about Hell, we will go soft on preaching in season and out of season. That might leave blood on my hands. . .
Just my rambling thoughts
Craig
@Craig,
I agree with you. It would be great if somehow MacDonald’s case was solid, but I just don’t see it in Scripture (not the way he does). Ramble away, that’s all I do too π .
Seems to me like universalism is an attempt to dodge the question of “how can a loving God send anyone to Hell?”
Seems to me like the accurate answer to this is found in God’s answer to Job. “Where were you when I created? Explain, since you know. Who is this who attempts to instruct Me?”
I have often wondered if when we get to Heaven God will be able to give us the simple answer and then we will slap our forheads and say “Duh, why didn’t I see that? It all seems so simple now!”
If anyone can save everyone eventually, it is Him. And if He does, He will get the glory.
In the meantime, I am to obey.
Craig
@Craig,
Yes, honestly, and this could come off sounding holier than thou, to some; but I agree, this comes down to a matter of trusting the Lord. One of the most telling moves about the reason for MacDonald’s shift to accepting Universalism was “why.” He says that he was worshiping God in Church, through music one Sunday, and he could just not reconcile how this loving good God He was singing to could also be the same God that could send people to a place of eternal conscious torment. This was what initially led him to what finally gave expression in his book. Yet, for all his argument, to me, it remains unconvincing. He makes many exegetical decisions that I don’t believe the context or the Text demand or even, at points, suggest; so then the only other way to assess how he ends up where he does is to go back to the church service and the contradiction he felt as he worshiped the Lord.
I think Job is a good analogy. I think Jesus is a good one too π !