Reading Jackson Baer’s book, “What The Hell,” and the fact that my brother is about to read, and my mom has alreadyΒ read Gregory MacDonald’s (Robin Parry) The Evangelical Universalist; has made me return to MacDonald’s book to review and reconsider his argument for a 
Christian Universalism. It is obviously not the majority report amongst the history of interpretation in the Christian Church, but it is not without historical precedent; nor does it necessarily require that it be considered heresy (maybe just heterodoxy, at most).
What I want to highlight in this post is how Parry seeks to argue for universalism through biblical exegesis. In his book he works through all the difficult passages and classic passages that “seem” to teach about a literal hell that involves eternal conscious torment. But Parry isn’t totally on the defensive, which is one of the things that make his book so good; he also offers his positive case for Evangelical Universalism. To get a flavor of this let me quote Parry’s closing paragraphs of his exegesis of Colossians 2:15ff; he is using this universalist passage to provide framework and scope for the rest of his argument and biblical theology of Evangelical Universalism. He writes:
[W]hat we find in Colossians, then, is a theology that locates the origin of creation, the revelation of God, and the salvation of the world in Christ. It recognizes the massive rupture introduced into the world through sin, and it sees the solution to this problem in the death of Christ. It requires a response of obedient faith to share in Christ and in the inheritance of eternal life. It offers no hope of a nice God letting everyone into heaven no matter how they live or what they believe. However, in spite of that, it holds before us a confident hope in the salvation of the whole creation. It is God’s covenant purpose that his world will one day be reconciled in Christ. For now, only the Church shares in that privilege, but this is not a position God has granted his people so they can gloat over the world. On the contrary, the Church must live by gospel standards and proclaim its gospel message so that the world will come to share in the saving work of Christ. This is the outline of the evangelical universalist theology I wish to commend to the reader. . . .
This chapter has set out to argue that Colossians works with a vision of reconciliation for the whole creation. We have seen that this vision is perfectly compatible with a strong doctrine of sin . . . , with a Christ-centred account of salvation, with the necessity of faith, with the current division between the elect and those lost in sin, and with a high ecclesiology. This vision, I suggest, can provide the contours for an evangelical, gospel-centred universalism. . . . [Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist, (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006), 52-3]
This gives a sense into how Parry communicates, and how he will be proceeding in presenting his case for what he calls, evangelical universalism.
Without a doubt this is a controversial issue, and something that, probably most Christians know very little (to nothing) about. If you hold to the ‘Traditional’ view of hell (“Eternal, Conscious Torment”); then you need to read Parry’s book! I would imagine most Evangelical Christians wish that Eternal Conscious Torment hell was not a reality; well, MacDonald’s book provides argument that articulates a view that says that you don’t have to believe in ECT. In fact, if you are going to follow the Bible, according toΒ Parry,Β then you must reject ECT.
What do you think about this stuff?
Bobby-
Thank for continuing to post on this stuff. I very much appreciate other people, especially those who disagree with evangelical universalism, raising and discussing the issue. The fate of the unredeemed is simply one of those issues that many evangelical Christians have taken for granted and are only now in a post-Christendom environment beginning to examine again.
Tradition before Augustine was most definitely equivocal on the fate of the unredeemed in a way that it is not following him. Augustine did not invent the doctrine of eternal concious torment but he cemented its status in the tradition by teaching it with a surety and breadth that no one prior to him did. Beyond this little known fact, it is also important to note that universalism was never condemned as is so regularaly believed in evangelcial circles. The second Council of Constantinople (551) did not condemn universalism per se, but a very Neo-Platonic version that orignated with Origen and was developed beyond his speculative thoughts into something he probably would not have approved of himself. There has always been a minority report as you’ve mentioned that have at least held out hope for the universal reconcilation of humanity.
While the history is important because I feel as if it clears ground to even have the exegetical and theological discussion, the most important foci of this discussion must be Scripture. Here is where I feel as if Robin has done a great job; he has argued cogently and postitvely for universalism from Scripture (and not philosophy, etc). Yet, I’m not sure how much substantative discussion can be had because of the place of the traditional views of eternal concious torment in most evangelicals system of beliefs: it is beyond a secondary issue and holds a cemented status as an untouchable belief for many. Even if people are willing to discuss this issue, it is with almost insurmountable pressupositions in place. This is why I feel like deconstructing the picture of the history of eschatological thought generally given is actually an important starting point.
What do other people here think it will take to open up substantative conversations on the issue?
And now back to reading Luther/Calvin on reprobation and eternal damnationβ¦.
2 THessalonians 1 “5 All this is evidence that Godβs judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.”
Of coarse people can read “everlasting destruction” many ways and I see it meaning, complete Annihilation. To not exist, when others are in the kingdom, experiencing the close relational presence of the supreme good community of divine friends, knowing that you will literally lose your life forever by going out of existence, when you could have had the source of life as a friend – HORROR and Ultimate Punishment.
Something that is often missed in these discussions, but that is far more integral to Hell vs. Universalism, round n+1, is the Medieval impact. I don’t know that Randy meant to bring it up quite this way, with his “proof” tag about Luther and Calvin, but so much more of this debate is bound up in questions of an afterlife decided by the positive analogy of ecclesial justice with human justice, and therefore of divine justice with ecclesial justice. Hell is a matter of natural law theory! We take the fact that everyone in the ancient world believed in a place where the dead go, and practically nobody believed in a very good one, and we use the penal system of justice to create the reprobation and eternal damnation of divine judgment toward hell. And we therefore reserve the justice of Christ for the just — however we determine justice among human objects of divine judgment.
Hell is easy to find — but show me heaven in scripture, as we have imagined it as eternal reward and afterlife! The kingdom of the heavens is a righteous rule upon the earth. The parousia is a return to earth of divine kingship, and a righting of wrongs. People complain that the doctrine of the trinity is external to the witness of scripture — but they swallow an extra-scriptural heavenly afterlife without blinking! Who is taken up into the heavens, in scripture?
I also thank you for these discussions. I remember when bin Laden was killed and I started doing some looking at salvation/damnation, and I too was surprised to learn that Universal Salvation is not a condemned heresy. I have not read Parry, but think I need to–it sounds like what I’ve been trying to wrap my head around for some time.
@Randy,
Thank you for your input! I look forward to gleaning more from your continued research in this area; I also look forward to your findings on the history of interpretation relative to “reprobation,” and how that might impinge on this very loci.
I agree with you about the power of the ‘Trad’ presuppositions, and how that will w/o a doubt stand in the way of fruitful (Evangelical, Reformed) dialogue in this area. In fact it will never have a chance to get off the ground in this environment; although you never know. I’ve come to the conclusion, with “my” Evangelical Calvinism; that it’s not about making in-roads with institutions of belief (like for me with so called ‘classic’ Calvinists), but instead the hope is always there that there are individual people within whatever tribe that will be open to discuss and at least talk about such things (like Evangelical Universalism) in non-partisan tones.
I know of the history prior to Augustine—who cemented a whole bunch of stuff, eh?—and think that this needs to be brought to light since, for the Evangelical, history usually only ever consists of about (at most) a hundred years back; and for the Reformed, back 500 years. The history of interpretation should never be neglected, and thus your research in this area is definitely need and an integral part to deconstructing and reifying presently held presuppositions amongst Evangelicals (at least to problematize).
I also agree with you on the import of eschatology, and of course this really takes us full circle to the most important foci of this discussion; viz. the life of God, which is, as you know, JAT Robinson’s primary premise—that God is love in se/ad extra. This, to me, is the greatest hurdle to overcome amongst Evangelicals, esp. Reformed Calvinist and Arminian ones. I.e. to overcome the Trad framing of God’s so called ‘Divine Simplicity’, wherein God’s love simply becomes another attribute of the basket of attributes that make up God’s “simple” composition (so that His love and justice-wrath can be played against one another in dualistic ways).
Anyway, good reading . . .
PS. I plan on, as I have time, continuing to post from Parry’s book. Have you read his: Gregory MacDonald (ed.), “All Shall Be Well”: Explorations in Universalism and Christian Theology, from Origen to Moltmann. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2010? Our own (contributor to our forthcoming book) contributed to this book. I really need to get my hands on this, and give it a read through (maybe I’ll request a review copy of this too π ).
@Kenny,
Yes, this is a Pauline locus classicus on this issue; one that I appeal to myself. Of course there is an exegetical response to this. I think I shall share that from Parry, in the near future; stay tuned. Usually the response is that everlasting is a relative term, and thus not absolute. The appeal is made to OT usages of the term in re. to the prophetic pronouncements against the Nations (like Babylon, Assyria, Tyre, Edom, etc.); that when everlasting fire, or some such convention is used, that it is obviously not referring to literally being everlasting, but instead it is used to intensify God’s real judgment in hyperbolic language.
@Matt,
Your perspective is well noted, and one that Evangelical Universalists take full notice of; no doubt! I do agree that the medieval is hugely impactful here, and yet of course there are passages of Scripture that at least seem to suggest something like what the medievals assumed (i.e. Matt. 10:28) on this topic. I think on the “justice” front, again, you’re right, and this brings up some needed distinctions amongst “justices,” like retributive (the Trad) V. or with restorative justice (which Parry develops in his book).
Your appeal to Wright, on heaven coming to earth; is also not lost on me, and one that I don’t disagree with. I think this paradigm of thinking changes all kinds of theological/biblical emphases. And of course it retards the usual neo-platonic reading of things.
@Ken R.,
I think you would enjoy Parry’s book! You should pick it up when you have the chance. Let me know what you think of it when you do.
I think the thrust of paul’s point is to see the destruction of the non believers as eternal witness, similar to the nations that god wanted the israelites to wipe out in the old t. Point seems to be that these people like the nations will cease to exist because of a new people taking the land and the memory of them being judged will cause deep praise of God for his justice.
Kenny,
Robin Parry argues, cogently, that the “Nations,” pace the book of Revelation are indeed representative of those who are against God’s People (the Church, the “firstfruits”); but that in the end these very Nations will enter into the New Jerusalem (Heaven), and participate as full-fledged redeemed. He argues this point from Rev 21–22, and the fact that the Nations (the same ones prior to this in the narrative of Revelation itself, who opposed God’s people) are seen entering into the Heavenly kingdom post White Throne judgment.
I obviously don’t follow you on the classic Divine Simplicity—and so the playing off of His justice vis-a-vis his love/mercy—so my interpretation will, of course, be different than yours.