Is there sin in Hell?

Just as glory is a useful matrix for understanding the eschatology of Heaven, "remorse," says Blocher, is a useful matrix for understanding the eschatology of Hell. Blocher rightly argues there is no sin in Hell. Some evangelical constructions of Hell, in order not to make God responsible for punishment over-emphasize human freedom. There is some truth in the notion that sinners "persevere in their hatred against God ... and draw upon themselves the punishment they deserve." However sin does not continue past death into Hell. The bowing of every knee is not salvation or "hypocritical agreement" but a recognition of God's truth. "The sinner's own conscience will 'bear witness' and approve of the condemning sentence." If the memory of sin continues on the other side of Heavenly resurrection (Jesus' scars) then the bitter memory of sin will continue in Hell. To paraphrase Augustine, those in Heaven won't have the desire to sin and those in Hell won't have the ability. Blocher concludes by writing "what is cast into hell is  not the man living, but the man dead."

['Garden of Earthly Delights' by Hieronymus Bosch]
[From pages 283-312 in 'Everlasting Punishment and the Problem of Evil' by Henri Blocher]

Universalism?

I've assembled a document which forms a page in the tab above.   It's aim is to provide short answers to the major questions and statements Universalism raises.  The document isn't designed to win back Universalists to protestant orthodoxy by sheer argument alone but contribute to the debate, to show that for all the questions Universalism raises there exist good traditional answers!  My prayer is that those who are Universalists will come round, and that this pamphlet contributes positively to that turnaround because ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who brings people to the truth of who Jesus is and what he's done.  

The use of "rehabilitative" and "retributive" in relation to universalism

While not exhaustive, this google book search for the terms "rehabilitative", "retributive" and "universalism" show us that in the post-Puritan hey-day of early evangelicalism "retributive" was a term more commonly employed than the "rehabilitative" but then almost in parallel with the Industrial Revolution "retributive" fell out of favour and rehabilitative became more common. But what's most fascinating is that "universalism" has a similar upward trajectory to "rehabilitative" and then peaks shortly after "rehabilitative" peaks! This correlation is no doubt due to the fact that Universalism emphasises God's rehabilitative judgement.  (Only printed material is included in the search.)

An Evangelical Universalist theodicy?

I've become an occasional contributor at the EFAC (Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion) blog.  For my first post I outlined my concerns about the theodicy presented by Bell (Love Wins) and Parry (The Evangelical Universalist).  (This is the second major problem facing Universalism that I alluded to in a previous post.) However I've been prompted to outline my case against Parry in some more detail.

Although clues about Parry's theodicy could be gleaned from the book overall (it frustratingly lacks an index) he directly address the problem of evil at the beginning of chapter seven.  Parry suggests an Irenaen theodicy, called a "solution by autonomous freedom" by Blocher in Evil and the Cross, is made more preferable by Universalism.  He then goes on to give the example of a mother suffering the death of her daughter.  Parry says traditional theology (of the type Blocher would represent I guess) devalues both the mother's suffering the girl herself but on the other hand;

"Now this problem is easily removed on universalism, because the daughter's suffering and death can also be used by God for her own salvation after death.  Thus God can use the suffering of any person to contribute not simply to the good of others but also to their own good. It is no coincidence that John Hick, one of the chief contemporary exponents of Irenaean theodicies, is a universalist." (page 158)

Parry doesn't commit himself entirely to this theodicy.  Instead he seems to slid in the next passage into what Blocher labels the "solution by universal order."  Parry writes that "God knows how to defeat evil by weaving it into many good and creative plots.  ... So by integrating horrendous evil into one's relationship with God, one confers a positive aspect upon such experience." (page 159)

Although Parry appears approving of both alternatives he seems undecided about which his universalism commits him to; which lead me to describe him in my EFAC blog post as "teetering" between the two options. However, as Blocher points out, neither is ultimately the option presented by Scripture.  The "solution by autonomous" freedom limits God's sovereignty to make space for independent human action. The "solution by universal order" makes evil part of God.  But evil is evil, distinct and morally separate from God.  God is also sovereign, with human responsibility part of the way he works in the world not a separate activity.

Bell, Bashir and Bird

It's a fierce interview, but no ruder than say the Australian political talk show, Q and A.  At one level there are debates about the place of universalism in the church, does it have a valid interpretative tradition and should it have a place in contemporary orthodox theology?  Then there are discussions about a whole swag of Scriptures, both those that seem to support the idea of Universalism and those that seem to leave no room at all for Universalism.  But beyond both those lines of thought are the two most important questions, the first one big and philosophical, the second one practical.

The first is about the ultimate nature of God and evil, 'is evil ultimately part of God', but I'll unpack that one more fully in a later blogpost! The second is asked by Martin Bashir, the host in the clip above; "does my response to Jesus in this life matter?"  An acquaintance from my old church said to Dad recently that his newfound universalism meant he no longer cared about evangelism.  But God's organization of the cosmos means that both our destination and what we do along the way matters.  Thankfully Christ's sacrificial death and obedient life are counted as ours, otherwise they'd be slim pickings on the tree when it came time to harvest.  This in turn made me think of what Michael Bird pointed out a little while ago:

"we should avoid ragging on these with the charge of "synergism" because any soteriology that includes a human response is in some sense synergistic. A better way to evaluate soteriologies (ancient or modern) is to look at the type of divine action, its efficacy, and the human response that makes it effective in a particular scheme."

Bird explains it better than I but basically God's made it so our response is significant, it's not that he's trying to cope with our choices or guess them but that they matter because he made it so they'd matter. 

Was Rob Bell just misunderstood? "No", says Tim Challies.

A number of bloggers it seemed jumped the gun, condemning Rob Bell for hersey before the book was released based on some preview chapters, a video and Bell's previous track record for confusing theological statements. There are two questions: was Bell just misunderstood and is he wrong?  Tim Challies reviews his latest book Love Wins: A book about Heaven, Hell and the fate of every person who has ever believed, and finds that no, he wasn't and yes he is.  I think it's good to think about the questions Bell raises, because they go to the heart of several topics I'm interested in such as the nature of sin, the scope of salvation and the question of theodicy.

Tim Challies notes that Rob Bell over-realizes his eschatology, the focus says Bell, of Heaven and Hell are now.  This is no doubt in reaction to those who keep Heaven and Hell as completely separate to our present reality.  But the truth is somewhere in the middle, as Oscar Cullerman correctly noted, the battle of Normandy is won but VE-day hasn't taken place yet.  According to Challies, Bell wants to raise the questions and then slide away into ambiguities and confusion.  There's nothing wrong with asking good questions but what's wrong with making a clear case? As Challies notes the book's tag line, "love wins" is misguided.  "God's holy love wins", otherwise love is reduced to a Jedi-like force in the universe.

[Update]  I think I jumped the gun on the reviews; Challies' review is supeceded by a much more comprehensive and clearly outlined review by Kevin DeYoung, about as far from Bell on the ecclesiastical spectrum as you can get.  In many ways this controversy highlights the diverging streams of Evangelicalism more than anything else.  There is Bell setting up shop outside the traditional church and DeYoung seeking to transform things from the inside.  In some ways Bell is to be applauded for provoking such a controversy, these questions need to be discussed and so I'm grateful for DeYoung's response.

[Second Update] Bird conforms something I predicted about this controversy and teaches me something.  Bird says Bell's book will ultimately be "a flash in the pan".  Not the deeper, larger more potent issues of salvation, but Bell's method of presenting them. (I think if anything Bell's method highlights growing fragmentation within Evangelicalism.) But Bird's observations highlight the value of taking the time to consider something, he finds criticisms of Love Wins that both Challies and DeYoung overlooked: for example Bell overlooks Jesus first century Jewish context.

Blog previews of Rob Bell's new Book: Love Wins

I think "we're facing a classic storm-in-a-teacup-scenario."  Rob Bell of Mars Hill church, once the nice ('nicer' than Driscoll anyway, of a different Mars Hill) young face of the now defunct Emerging Church movement and now a mega-church leader in his own right is about to release a book about universalism: Love Wins.

Based on a few pre-released chapters, a promotional video and the publisher's blurb blogger Justin Taylor sounds the alarm.  "Don't be so suspicious and judgmental" clammers some in the blogeshphere.  The storm in the tea-cup has been partly created by John Piper's breathless condemnation of Bell on Twitter, hardly the location for in-depth analysis or calm reaction.   However Justin is a careful blogger, a real American-evangelical-standout and if you read his article carefully you notice he gives his suspicions but reserves his judgment for the full release later in March.

[Update] Then again come March, I suspect Trevin Wax who blogs at Kingdom People may be right:

Until the book comes out, I don’t think we can accurately label Rob a “universalist.” Based on Rob’s tendency to ask edgy questions and then pull back, I expect that somewhere in the book, Rob will affirm that people who don’t want to be part of God’s kingdom won’t be forced to. In the end, Rob will land somewhere between optimistic inclusivism (most everyone will be saved) and universalism (all will be saved).

This is probably accurate because Bell is often frustratingly fuzzy, Gandalf would not have been impressed!

How Evangelical is Universalism? A brief review of 'The Evangelical Universalist'

The Evangelical Universalist is by Gregory MacDonald, which is a puesdoynom for Robin Parry, who is also the author of Worshipping Trinity.  In many ways the book covers much of the same territory as Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God (overall argument and then key passages)  but without the negative straw-man critique, a more consciously biblical approach and I think a more coherently argued case.  However Parry is attempting two things at once and only pulls off one of them.  He is first and foremost making the biblical case for Universalism, so he looks at the larger argument across Scripture, key passages and then how a Universalist reading of Revelation makes the best sense.  Although I found the arguments unconvincing, he made a stirling effort at presenting the biblical evidence for Universalism. (This is essentially because I would qualify the "all" passages differently, plot the trajectory of the biblical meta-narrative with more of an emphasis on glory and sin, have a slightly different definition of God and be comfortable with predestination as a doctrine.)

Parry's second task is to self-consciously make the "evangelical" (MacDonald, 6) case for Universalism.  He asks "could a Christian theology that is grounded in the Bible be universalist?" (MacDonald, 34)  Here Parry stumbles more noticeably, it's far from clear if Universalism sits in evangelical Christian theology.  Clearly if one accepts unique salvation through Christ and a miraculous triune Godhead your an orthodox Christian.  If Universalism were ever to deny these things it couldn't be regarded as Christian (I'm curious now about Parry's other book.) but Evangelicalism draws a tighter circle.  Parry doesn't provide a definition so let me set some parameters although there is admittedly no definitive definition for this rather disparate movement.  Evangelism is both something doctrinal (bible, salvation, activity) and something observable through history (flowing out of the Reformation via the Puritans).  Alex was telling me that last century there was a groundswell of Universalists who sadly became Unitarians.  Parry it seems wants to carve out a place for Universalism not just within orthodoxy (by saying everyone will be saved, but only through faith in Jesus (MacDonald, 47)) but deeper within evangelicalism. For example unlike Talbott who attempts a more philosophical approach, Parry deliberately makes a biblical case linked carefully into a wider biblical meta-narrative.

Although I think this is only the beginning of a Universalist movement to make it a mainstream Christian idea, I think ultimately too much doctrine is changed by the premise of everyone being saved for Universalism to ever be regarded as Evangelical or even mainstream.  While I acknowledge the evangelical movement is a giant and fragmented tent, the Universalist changes to hermeneutics, doctrine of God, sin, predestination, judgement and eschatology will be too great for the Evangelical movement to sallow. Being a fan of systematic theology I find these changes very worrying and can already see the early signs of cracking in both Talbott and Parry's work.  In conclusion the lineup of famous Universalists from Parry's new book is very telling.  There aren't many Evangelical heroes in that list!

[My holidays are finishing soon so this will be my last post on universalism for a while, however I invite my readers to comment in this particular thread on the place of Universalism in Christian theology (and the possible future of universalism), but not get involved at this stage in verse-trench-warfare.]

3 thoughts about the discussion about Universalism

After chatting with Alex offline today I think there are three issues that should shape the contours of our discussion about Universalism.

1. All passages need to be explained and qualified. Sets of 'problem passages' exist for Universalism and traditional theology, both these and other apparently clear passages need explanation.  (I'm not saying Scripture is entirely unclear but that the work of putting things in context belongs to both camps.) 
2. How much of the larger theological framework is changed by Universalism?  Although Universalism and traditional theology come in number of shades it's important to realize that the central premise of Universalism changes a number of other doctrines.  
3. How mainstream is the Universalist interpretation? Through Church History has the Universalist position been a consistent minority, an infrequent fringe or always outside the traditional camp? 

'The Inescapable Love of God': Section Two - Context?

Talbott starts section two by setting up a straw man of alleged Augustinian inconsistency.  But then says these significant words about how Christians interpret Scripture: "For as I have said, every Christian thinker must reject a proposition for which there is at least some prima facie biblical support; so as almost a practical necessity, virtually every Christian thinker (who looks to the Bible as an authority) will end up interpreting some texts, some documents, and some authors in light of others." (Talbott, 48)

Talbott is very right, no interpretation of Scripture occurs in a vacuum. You need to stop and reread Talbott's quote, everyone interprets Scripture based on their own set of ideas and assumptions and will always, always be casting one piece of scripture in the light of another.  But Talbott immediately forgets his own observation in the very next example where he bizarrely accuses Augustine of misinterpreting the scope of "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4, based on get this, a misuse of context!  Hang on Mr Talbott, doesn't every Christian thinker end up interpreting some texts, some documents, and some authors in light of others?

This is where Talbott and I become completely unstuck.  At almost every instance he wants to reserve the right to interpret Scripture in context only as far as he sees fit.  Back on page 48 I agreed everyone interprets Scripture in the light of other scriptures but Talbott refuses to take his own medicine. Although at the end of chapter five he concedes that Romans 5:18 could be read in the light of 2 Thess 1:8-9.  It also should be noted that Talbott makes a lot of the argument that in each of the "all" passages the universalist reading is a possibility. (e.g.Talbott, 79)  Therefore, he claims it cannot be simply dismissed by an appeal to other contradictory texts. This is partially true but not insurmountable for the traditional viewpoint, if you concede, as I've blogged about before, that the collective weight of the whole of Scripture correctly interpreted through church tradition determines which verses have primacy.

I'll blog later about chapters six to nine where Talbott offers his explanation of the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46), the definition of 'eternal' and the nature of God.

Clearer criticism of 'The Inescapable Love of God'

My commentator, cousin, dear friend and in this case theological sparring partner, Alex referred my blog post to Mr Thomas Talbott himself and in the insuring exchange I've realized my criticisms of the Inescapable Love of God weren't clear enough. (Thanks for sharpening me up Alex!) So I've laid out my argument more clearly below in both a summary and more detailed form.  The outcome is still unfortunately the same, Talbott is laying the 'emotional' foundation against traditional theology, in other words saying: "Boy, those traditional theologians are nasty," before making, in the next section, his own theological case for universalism.  "In the following chapters, therefore, I shall try to create a context - biblical, theological, and philosophical - in which the grounds for hope and the groundlessness of our fears might be more evident to us" (Talbott, 39).

Talbott argues

Predestination is a loveless theology that leads to a demonic picture of God. Augustine and Calvin are representatives of this theology and also theological villains whose theology of fear lead to their deadly persecution of heretics which makes their theology unbiblical and so it follows that predestination is wrong.  

But ...


#1 Talbott hasn't proved Predestination is a loveless theology and only states without argument that it leads to a demonic picture of God.
#2 Talbott misrepresents history by casting Augustine and Calvin as theological villains.
#3 The theological systems of Augustine and Calvin do not necessarily lead to their more unfavorable actions.

Talbott's argument and my criticisms in lots of detail

Predestination is a loveless theology that leads to a demonic picture of God. ["Clark's view was no aberration at all; he had simply made explicit, and with greater consistency, a demonic picture of God that pervades Western Theology."(Talbott, 8)] Augustine ["Augustine's defense of the use of terror" (Talbott, 28)] and Calvin ["Calvin's willingness to have his adversary put to death" (Talbott, 26)] are representatives of this theology ["Wherever I turned ..." (Talbott, 7)] and also theological villains whose theology of fear ["Against the many religious doctrines that appeal to and cultivate fear" (Talbott, 1)] lead to their deadly persecution of heretics ["the use of the sword in coercing heretics back into the State Church is justified"(Talbott, 28)] which makes their theology unbiblical ["a symptom of unsound doctrine or theological error" (Talbott, 24)].

#1  Talbott hasn't proved Predestination is a loveless theology and only states without argument that it leads to a demonic picture of God.

Talbott argues that traditional theology is loveless by using pejorative language, describing predestination as "narrow", "exclusive" where "God restricts his mercy to a chosen few" (Talbott, 6).  After quoting from an author in favor of predestination he writes "I was utterly dumfounded when I read such passages as these and searched in vain for at least an echo of the love of God" (Talbott, 7). Talbott labels the author a "hyper-Calvinist" who believes in "double-predestination" eschewing the more accurate label of 'election and reprobation' (Talbott, 6).

Talbott completely fails to explain why God only extending his mercy "to a chosen few" (Talbott, 7) isn't an expression of love.  While I don't agree with Clark's comment implying God is the author of evil, his presentation of election and reprobation is unremarkable, simply a reflection of the type of theology expressed in Romans 9 or Ephesians 1:5.  Talbott offers no logical argument for why predestination is loveless, relying instead on his pejorative description of Clark. Talbott also has no logical or even emotional argument for why predestination makes God demonic, he simply entitles that part of the chapter "a demonic picture of God" (Talbott, 5), leaving the emotional inference to the reader.

#2 Talbott misrepresents history by casting Augustine and Calvin as theological villains. 


Talbott seeks to cast Calvin in a villainous light by highlighting his role in the capture, trial and execution of Servetus.  Talbott says Calvin had desired the death of Servetus for many years (Talbott, 25) and then gives a bloodthirsty quote from Calvin about Servetus "I will never let him depart alive, if I have any authority" (Talbott, 26).  Talbott then interestingly finishes by highlighting Calvin's defense of Servetus' execution (Talbott, 26) and leaves the story at that, adding later only one comment about his motivation.

I don't condone the death penalty for heresy and agree that while cultures and circumstances differ from place to place and time to time, our biblical idea of not killing most people should of held sway over Calvin.  But Talbott seeking to show the villainy of Calvin doesn't give this episode any more historical context ["Calvin's precise role in the Servetus affair is not my present concern." (Talbott, 25)].  Servetus, was a smart man (he discovered the circulation of blood) and the author of anti-Trinitarian literature, who also argued with Calvin by correspondence.  "Protestant and Catholic theologians alike joined in condemning Servetus attack on the Trinity" (The European Reformations, Lindberg, 267).  Roman Catholic crowds even burned an effigy of Servetus.  Calvin eventually passed on his correspondence to a friend in Lyon who alerted the Roman Catholic Inquisition, who then captured Servetus (Lindberg, 268). Servetus escaped and then in strange move travelled to Geneva, where he was recognized and arrested.  "Servetus' fate was sealed by the Genevan magistracy even before the unanimous denunciations of him poured in from Basle, Bern, Schaffhausen and Zuich. ... Bucer had demanded the death penalty already in 1531 after the appearance of Servetus' first tract on the trinity" (Lindberg, 268-269). Lindberg then goes on to comment that Servetus' execution was widely approved of and that in our modern world of philosophical relativism "the sixteenth-century concern for truth appears strange" (Lindberg, 269).  At the time Servetus died, Anabaptists were being executed by Calvinists and Calvinists were being executed by Roman Catholics.  "The modern toleration of religious pluralism is anachronistic for the sixteenth century." (Lindberg, 270)  Interestingly Calvin, at the time of Servetus' execution, had less power and sway over Geneva than after the Servetus incident (Lindberg, 270).

But Talbott doesn't mention any of this; to show that Servetus was persecuted by the Roman Catholics, point out that Calvin only played a part in the whole incident and remark on the general blood-thirsty cultural climate would put a dampener on his villainous portrait of Calvin.  How do we judge the crew of the Enola Gay, who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima? Carefully and in-context, they don't become the villains of the evil imperialism of the American war machine, though they had important part in that horrible event.

Augustine is next.  Here Talbott is able to draw a closer (but still misguided) link between theology, persecution and eternal judgement.  "In another place he [Augustine] again asks: 'Why, therefore, should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their destruction [i.e., to eternal death]?" (Talbott, 28) Talbott goes on to write "But Augstine's defense of the use of terror against them remains one of the most appalling aspects of his thinking, and it is important to see that this defense was not an isolated quirk in his thinking" (Talbott, 28).  Talbott's central contention is that Augustine regarded heresy as worse than murder (Talbott, 28-29) and this makes him a brutal torturer (Talbott, 28).

Again while I don't believe torture and death are morally sound ways of dealing with heresy, Augustine's rhetoric should be seen in historical context.  Based on Talbott's presentation you'd be forgiven for thinking of Augustine as an arch villain bent on finding ways to kill and torture Donatists.  Again this suits the direction of  Talbott's argument which seeks to cast these central figures of traditional theology as villains.  The actual historical circumstances is little more complex than Talbott's portrait and doesn't support the idea of Augustine being a brutal villain of church history.

Prior to 410, the Donatists (a sect demanding purity in heritage) in were the ascendancy in Numidia.  They were an organized church of their own, having their own bishops and congregations, being the popular denomination of the North African peasants.  The Catholics on the other hand were in the minority, limited to the coastal cities and some of the land-owners.  Interestingly the Donatists had their own schisms and at one point used Imperial edicts to force their schismatic brethren back into the fold.  Tensions with the Catholics were high and sometimes roving bands of armed Donatists called "circumcellions" would either attack Catholic majority towns or defend Donatist towns against Catholic gangs. At one point even Augustine himself was targeted and ambushed by some circumcellions.  Prior to the sixth century the place of the Catholicism was by no means entirely settled. Even in North Africa, Donatists were only one threat among several, paganism was still strong and other heresies such as Pelagianism or Arianism ran amuck across the Christian world.  As bishop of Hippo Augustine sort to establish an orthodoxy that could meet the challenges of Paganism while also resist heresies such as Pelaginism let alone deal with the conservative Donatists.  Augustine was first and foremast a scholar, skilled in rhetoric and polemical argument, he'd often write stridently only to nuance it in a later publication. His development of the doctrine of original sin is an example of this.  Brown in his biography of Augustine shows how Augustine focused on using written propaganda to discredit the Donatists.  But Augstine was only one player in a larger conflict.  The dissident Donatists drawing on a inland peasant power-base were ultimately on the losing side. Catholic landowners and bishops used imperial edicts to dis-enfranchise Donatist bishops and churches.  Eventually the ever-present background of violence increased as the Donatists were forcibly amalgamated into the Catholic church, some resting violently others more peaceably but still reluctantly. Unfortunately at this time (400's) Augustine wrote in favor of state suppression of the Donatists. (Historical summary drawn from Augustine of Hippo: A biography by Peter Brown)

This was the post-Constantine era of growing church and state cooperation but that does not excuse Augustine from supporting the persecution of the Donatists.  To Augustine's credit he worked hard both before and after the Imperial edicts against the Donastists to bring them into line through non-violent means. "Despite Augustine's conscientious behavior, violence could not be avoided" (Brown, 237).  Talbott wants to cast Augustine as pro-violence but Brown reads the evidence differently stating "Augustine opposed the death-penalty in principle, for it excluded the possibility of repentance" (Brown, 238).  A more likely scenario is that Augustine misused his authority as a bishop in advocating state suppression of the Donatists.  To read his actions as some sort of cruel outworking of his theology overlooks both the wider historical context and Augustine's own personal context.  But to place Augustine's actions in more context would detract from Talbott's simplistic portrayal of Augustine as a theological villain. 

#3 The theological systems of Augustine and Calvin do not necessarily lead to their more unfavorable actions.

I said in my earlier post that Talbott commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which basically means correlation does not equal causation.  Does Calvin's role in Servetus' execution really spring from his theological intolerance is it more probably the result of human sinfulness, living in the sixteenth century, dealing with that particular situation and being fiercely zealous for truth? Talbott concedes he was the product of an intolerant age but hastily adds that "it does not explain the theological roots of the intolerance" (Talbott, 26)

Talbott somewhat tenuously wants us to connect his interpretation of Matthew 7:18-20 (he somewhat interestingly omits any reference to verse 19!) connecting trees that do not bear good fruit with traditional western theology. "Part of the suggestion here seems to be that a sound doctrine, soundly interpreted, will not bear evil fruit in the lives of those who sincerely embrace it, it will, to the contrary, bear good fruit" (Talbott, 24).  He goes to state  "So if a sound doctrine, soundly interpreted, does not produce evil fruit in the lives of those who sincerely embrace it, then we are entitled, I believe, to regard acts of persecution with the Christian Church as a symptom of unsound doctrine or theological error." ( Talbott, 24)

This line of argument taken to its logical conclusion would support sinless perfectionism, that true Christians are perfect and without sin, because a single shard of bad fruit would go against Talbott's interpretation of Matthew 7:18-20.  Is Talbott's own bad fruit seen in his pejorative and judgmental language, a "symptom of unsound doctrine or theological error" perhaps?  Talbott ignores the complexity of humans and their historical circumstances, his line of argument would ban fatherhood because of the actions of some fathers in the name of fatherhood.  It's overly simplistic to draw line between someone's more negative actions and their theology or ideology.  This doesn't mean those connections don't exist in some form but it's fraught with far more complexity then Talbott's argument allows for.

Finally and importantly Talbott doesn't clearly show the connection between the negative actions of Calvin and Augustine and their wider systems of theological thought. Calvin may have been wrong to support the death penalty but why must that be lumped with his views on predestination.  Talbott of course has no explanation for this preferring to lump  his thinking together, avoiding making these type of distinctions in Calvin's wide ranging theological system.  Talbott does attempt a connection between Augustine's support of Donatist persecution and his wider theological system.  "But Augustine's defense of the use of terror against them remains one of the most appalling aspects of his thinking, and it is important to see that this defense was not an isolated quirk in his thinking. Indeed, within the context of his own assumptions, his argument is perfectly reasonable. If you suppose, as Augustine did, that heresy leads to eternal damnation and that like a deadly germ, the heretic tends to infect others with heresy, then you have every reason to terrorize and even murder heretics. " (Talbott, 28).  Talbott claims that Augstuine's approval of the Donatists persecution wasn't an "an isolated quirk in his thinking" but doesn't show how his punishment of heretics is connected to other parts of his theology.  In fact all Talbott does is label it as "brutal" (Talbott, 28) and let the reader assume Augustine's theology must be flawed, somehow.  This is quite ironic because Talbott only a few pages later makes the very same argument I'm making against him against Bertrand Russell! "He fails to distinguish carefully enough, in other words between different dogmatic beliefs" (p31)

Conclusion

Talbott's goal is to condemn the traditional Biblical understanding of scripture: "In the end, I decided [after reading Romans 9] I could no longer be a Christian in any orthodox sense. If Paul really taught, as Augustine and many of the Protestant Reformers insist he did, that God restricts his mercy to a chosen few, than Paul was, if not an outright fraud, just another confused and small-minded religious zealot" (Talbott, 9).  And hold up universalism by false contrast as somehow purer and more loving. "Here at last, was a religious writer [George MacDonald] who seemed to appeal not to fear or guilt or mean-spiritedness" (Talbott, 12).  On second thoughts this section of the Insescaple Love of God is more flawed than I first assumed. 

The Inescapable Love of God

I'm reading, on Alex's recommendation, The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott.  It is in Talbott's words "a real book, by which I mean that in it I have tried to reach the most demanding audience of all: that of non-educated specialists.  The book is in part an intellectual autobiography , in part the elaboration of an argument, and in part an attempt at persuasive writing." (pi) This is promising start, readable and clear, I know where he's going and what he's trying to achieve.  The book has three sections, Part One "Some Autobiographical Reflections", Part Two "Universal Reconciliation and the New Testament" and Part Three "The Logic of Divine Love."

I've just finished part one.  Positively, I appreciated the candor and directness of his writing. He also weaves theology, church history and personal anecdote together well in a way some American books don't.  However one third through I remain unpersuaded and a little unimpressed.  The essence of Talbott's argument in this section is an appeal to our emotions, which might make us feel one way or the other doesn't advance the argument for universalism.  For example he retells how during summer work he had a horrible boss, saying "And we have, I believe, a parable of the twisted gospel, the message of fear, that I encountered in the churches of my youth" (p36)  In fact the entire section reminded me of the that quote from The West Wing when President Bartlett says an argument he encounters during the show commits the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy which basically means correlation does not equal causation. Clearly the torture of the Donatists or the execution of Servetus doesn't automatically make Augustine or Calvin's theology wrong, that would have to be shown by theological reasoning not by an emotional appeal.  But this didn't make me unimpressed, I'll employ emotional tactics, rhetoric after all includes both logic and pathos.  It was Talbott's misuse of history that left me unimpressed. Hasn't he read Brown's magisterial biography of Augustine? The Donatists gave as good as they got, sweeping down in raiding parties from the mountains, terrorizing the Catholic coastlands.  Isn't he aware of Calvin's sometimes prickly relations with the civil authorities of Geneva and why doesn't he mention that Servetus would have probably faced the death penalty for his views on the Trinity under the Roman Catholics as well?

I'm worried this doesn't bode for the next two sections while I'm happy for Talbot to argue for God's "expression of love, ... a love that is both all-pervasive and in the end, inescapable" (p14).  I wonder if at some point Talbott will make "love" (what it *really* means) the essential attribute of God.  He then implies traditional theology makes God capricious but I think this is both a misrepresentation of  Augustine, Calvin, Edwards etc and a reading back into the doctrine of God by Talbott. I was also disappointed by his glib disposal of so-called "hyper-Calvinism' (p6-7) which puts him outside of traditional Reformed theology.  But he writes well and I look forward to the next two sections.

DA Carson on Universalism

How can God be loving yet send people to hell? from A Passion for Life on Vimeo.

[h/t Tim Challies]

Does Hell in the OT = national destruction?

One of my commenters, Allan, made this claim, so I thought it deserved it's own post.

The Claim
 In the OT, phrases like “weeping and gnashing of teeth”, “inextinguishable fire”, “worms that don't die”, “the fire of Gehenna”, are all used as metaphors for national destruction. (They're never used in the OT as metaphors for the eternal torment of individual immortal souls.)

A comment about evidence for Heaven and Hell in the Old Testament
I presume Allan is referring to Isaiah 66.  But before I examine the claim that these phrases describing eternal torment are *only* metaphors for national destruction, a word about Hell and Heaven in the Old Testament.  Regardless of the universalism debate, there isn't a great deal said in the Old Testament about life after death or eternity with God.  In one way this is because the Old Testament is generally concerned with "life under the Sun" and the actions of God in this world. Admittedly the New Testament shows similarly narrow focus by concentrating mainly on the Christian experience and only occasionally taking a cosmic viewpoint, although more often the the Old Testament. This shouldn't be alarming, the word Trinity isn't mentioned in the Bible but the evidence for that way of understanding God still exists there in the text.  So we have to carefully glean what we can from the Old Testament about what happens after death for both the wicked and the righteous.

For example: Daniel 12

There aren't many places where the Old Testament talks about the resurrection and interestingly in one of the few places it does, Daniel 12:1-3, eternal punishment is also mentioned. Again Daniel is a classic example of the prophetic style which describes both local and distant events, like a landscape depicting close valleys and distant vistas. 

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (12:2)

A warning about presuppositions 
Allan is uncomfortable with inerrancy and suggests we should be selective in our reading.  I on the other-hand affirm inerrancy because God is coherent and loving.  I also think given the sufficiency of Scripture, we should take a holistic approach to understanding the Bible.  Both Allan and I present our cases based on respective presuppositions, so you need to evaluate our arguments but also evaluate our presuppositions.

Isaiah 66
This section of Isaiah is about the future, not just the future of Israel but the future of the Cosmos.  You see this several times throughout Isaiah, a movement from prophecy about local events to prophecy about the distant future. Allan claimed that this section depicts "national destruction," the destruction of Israel.  However the viewpoint is clearly cosmic not tightly Middle Eastern:

          Thus says the Lord:
    “Heaven is my throne,
          and the earth is my footstool; (66:1)
Furthermore Isaiah only a few verses before had been describing the new heavens and the new earth.

      The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; (65:25)

So with this distant future in mind Isaiah then contrasts the righteous;

      he who is humble and contrite in spirit (66:2)

with the wicked;

      These have chosen their own ways, (66:3)

God therefore plans some-sort of retributive punishment for them:

      I also will choose harsh treatment for them (66:4)

It's only in verse 7 that Israel finally gets a mention.  Here Isaiah sets the rewarded Israel in comparison to the upcoming judgement of the wicked.  This isn't just the pathetic restoration at the end of the exile from Babylon but a glorious future restoration. 

      You shall see, and your heart shall rejoice;

         your bones shall flourish like the grass; (66:14)

But God goes on to warn the cosmos:

         gather all nations and tongues. (66:18)

and concludes the book of Isaiah with a description of how the wicked will be eternally tormented;

And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” (66:24)

Summary 

Given the style of Isaiah and the context of this chapter, the introductory verses and the comparison of the wicked and the righteous right after Isaiah has described the new heavens and the new earth, it is right to draw the conclusion that Isaiah, nationality aside, is describing the eternal destruction of the wicked.  

11 Reasons you shouldn't be a Universalist;

because Universalism ...

1. Makes the need for salvation superfluous because everyone will be saved eventually
2. Weakens the urgency of salvation
3. Changes the nature of sin (If it's the worst thing shouldn't it deserve the worst thing?)
4. Changes the nature of sin (If it's personal and uniquely human how can God be joined to it?)
5. By making judgment remedial relativizes evil in the world
6. By making judgement remedial weakens the idea of atonement
7. Forgets that 'Eternal Punishment' has been a longstanding doctrine of the church
8. Requires an earth-like second-chance-style purgatory
9. Requires a redefinition of other biblical themes (eg anger and selectivity of God)
10. Is reductionistic about the nature of God, making one attribute (love) the essential nature of God
11. Is selective, wants to qualify some passages (eg Matt 25:46) but not others (Rom 5:18)

The four main proof texts of universalism

This article comes from the universalist site, which one of my commenters recommended. In this article 'Universalism and the Bible' the author Keith DeRose cites the four passages below as good examples of the universalist interpretation of Scripture and representative of the doctrine that everyone will (eventually) be saved. As I've noted before the larger theological issues of the nature of God and sin and the uniqueness and urgency of salvation and even the way we *do theology* will influence our interpretation of these passages.  I think that while these passages might make us say; "hang on what's going on here?" They are not enough to overturn the ancient and morally significant doctrine of eternal punishment.

Summary:

• The verses don't always contain enough information to be interpreted by themselves (1 Cor 15:22)
• The Apostle Paul doesn't contradict himself (1 Col 1:19-20)
• Paul wants to assure us of either being in sin or being in Christ, different to Atonement (Rom 5:18)
• Sometimes the verses need to be read in the light of the preceding argument (Rom 11:32)

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

DeRose argues if the first about Adam is true then it should follow equally with Christ. 

Although the parallels between Adam and Christ are inescapable (e.g. the relationship between the collective and the individual) the consequences of the comparison are radically different. Chapter 15 shows that Adam's action brought defeat and death while Christ's action brought victory and life.  This chapter gives us theological framework for understanding what being made alive in Christ looks like, however it's incomplete, we need to go Luke 24:43 to understand that we'll be physical enough in the new creation to eat fish.  Nor does chapter 15 mention judgement surely an important biblical concept, so we have reconstruct how the cosmos will end using chapter 15 as just one of our building blocks. Quite possibly the Lordship of Christ will mean even the wicked will be given resurrected bodies of some sort, but just as we need to bring Luke 24:43 into the equation to make sense of the new-creation we'd also have to bring other passages into the equation to understand how exactly in what sense everyone will be made alive in Christ.

Colossians 1:19-20 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

De Rose emphasizes that if all things including people are reconciled then it must mean everyone will be saved.

In the next chapter Paul describes how God will have "disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him [Christ]." (2:15) Because God isn't schizophrenic, the universalist argument has to build up a complex picture of a second-chance purgatory to make these two passages fit together by making 1:19-20 come after 2:15. An alternative explanation that makes better sense of both passages together is that the Lordship of Jesus (which also makes sense of the fullness of God phrase) brings universal peace/Shalom that subdues all opposition.

Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

DeRose says that the "all men" in this verse is very persuasive, everyone will be acquitted and have life.

Chapter 5 of Romans is about Salvation, with verses 1-11 focusing on the benefits (peace with God 5:1) and verses 12-21 focussing on why we needed salvation in the first place (sin entered the world 5:12).  In this verse it shows an exact correspondence between the actions of both, although admittedly the quality (condemnation verses justification) of outcomes is very different!  Does this mean everyone will be justified?  No, because of these two reasons: firstly that Paul doesn't mention the Atonement which was clearly on his mind earlier in the chapter (5:6-8), as something that has any parallel with Adam's action. Secondly Paul is forcefully arguing for assurance, assurance that you're a sinner or assurance that if you are justified you will live.  Under what circumstances you're justified isn't specified in this particular verse. Universalism also ignores overall idea of verses 12-21 which compares the 'collective' similarity of Adam and Christ but then distinguishes the 'individual' consequences.

Romans 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

DeRose argues that the all in this verse means "all without exception."

The all refers to all the different groups Paul has referred to in the preceding passages.  Another thing to keep in mind is that the two big concepts of chapters 9 to 11 have been God's sovereignty and Israel's election.  There is a lengthy progression to Paul's argument from the way God decides who he will save and who he won't in chapter 9 to the question of how Israel will be saved, which culminates in this passage.  It disrespectful to the cumulative way Paul builds his argument to assume everything needed for this verse's translation is contained in this verse.  A more respectful reading is that God has imprisoned in disobedience first the gentiles and now the Jews so that he might bestow mercy on each of these groups of humanity, how that will occur is not explicitly spelled out in this particular passage (Moo, Romans, 737).

A Universalist Myth: Hell wasn't a doctrine of the early Church

I'm worried that some of my commenters have been taken in by this universalist website, which wrongly claims that "'Hell' was not a Doctrine of the Early Church." I've entitled this post 'A Universalist Myth,' I don't mean to be rude to my universalist commenters but because when you actually look at the evidence you see that universalism was the exception, and some sort of eternal punishment was the norm. So I've briefly organised in rough chronological order, some of the evidence for the what the early church really believed about Hell and judgment.

Ignatius (50-117 AD)

Living almost in the time of Jesus and Paul, Ignatius describes "Hell" as the final destination of false teachers 

(The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians) a warning he repeats in his Epistle to the Philadelphians.

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD)

One of the earliest church fathers was quite happy to refer to "eternal punishment"(Dialogue with Trypho, A Jew) long before universalism came onto the scene and before the doctrine of Hell was formalized. 

Tertullian (160-220 AD)

Tertullian  in his Apolegeticus describes how Pagans mock Christians for their belief in Hell. 

And so we are ridiculed because we proclaim that God is going to judge the world. ... In the same way if we threaten Gehenna, which is a store of underground fire for the purposes of punishment, we are received with howls of derision.





Theophilus of Antioch (c180 AD)
The tentmaker site makes the very unusual claim that Hell was invented later by the Latin speaking church who didn't understand the Greek of the New Testament!  However Theophilus of Antioch seems to have no trouble in his treatise ad Autolycum, were he discusses conditional morality and observes that; if humanity inclined towards those things which relate to immortality by keeping the commandments of God, then it would receive immortality by keeping the commandments of God, then it would receive immortality was a reward from God, ... on the other hand, if humanity should incline towards those things which relate to death by disobeying God, then humanity would be the cause of its own death. 

Irenaeus (c202 AD)
An important early church father, refers to Hell several times as the final destination of the wicked.

Cyprian (? - 258 AD)

Augustine's predecessor had this to say: He [God] has prepared heaven, but He has also prepared hell, but not just as a temporary purgatory because later he says God might destroy both body and soul in hell. (Epistle, Treatise)

Origen (185-254 AD)
Origen is cited as an early universalist but this is the result of his Platonic philosophy which saw the material world being a place of preparation for the spiritual world, rather than a clear exposition of Scripture or an adherence to what the church was teaching. (Bauckham, Themelios 4/2) This means Origen saw judgement as remedial and not retributive putting him at odds with some of the very earliest church fathers who followed the Apostles.  For example Justin Martyr describes Christ as "cursed"  for our sins, clearly he has retributive not remedial justice in mind.  What tentmaker.org doesn't mention is that Origen is probably more important for making the church sort out what it believed than actually shaping what the church believed, furthermore it's important when quoting Origen to note at what point in life he was writing because during his lifetime he moved in and out of heretical groups, sometimes making more or less sense depending on who he was hanging out with at the time.

The Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed
In both of these creeds, there is the idea that the world concludes with Jesus' judgement:

He will come again to judge the living and the dead. (Apostles Creed)

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. (Nicene Creed)

Note very carefully that the idea of judgment, contra Origen, is clearly retributive. The Early church fathers keep talking about Jesus being cursed for our sins. For example Eusebius of Caesarea (275-339) and Hilary of Poitiers (300-368) living and writing at about the time these creeds were formalized use the language of Jesus being "cursed" on the cross.  For universalism to be a viable theory it requires judgement to be remedial, a concept clearly not in view when the early church fathers described Jesus' final judgement.

Athanasius (293-373)
Interestingly while Athanasius isn't as strong with the "curse" vocabulary, he's quite happy to describe Hell in these sharp terms: but for those that practice evil outer darkness and the eternal fire, (Incarnation)









Then, and this is all before Augustine mind you, there are lots of minor early church fathers who think Hell is a place of eternal punishment. I just got tired of scrolling through all the results to list them here.  The only major early church father, universalist Keith DeRose mentions, is the eccentric and sometimes heretical Origen.  Buackham in his historical survey of universalism observes that universalism is a minority position until the rise of liberal theology in the nineteenth century. (Bauckham, Themelios 4/2)

"Eternal" punishment

I'm reluctant to deal with individual verses before the larger issues (uniqueness of salvation, nature of God and sin etc) are resolved but this came up in the comments of the last post.  I'm no Greek genius but the evidence seems very clear.

Matthew 25:46

"And these will go away into eternal (αιωνιον) punishment (κολασιν) but the righteous into eternal (αιωνιον) life.”


According to BDAG, (the gold standard of this sort of stuff)  κολασιν means retributive punishment and αιωνιον means a period of unending duration, without end.  These meanings make sense of the wider context, chapter 25, where Jesus gives an extended description of the final judgement.  Furthermore αιων, which I presume our English word for eon/age comes from, is a slightly different word and of course includes the meaning of a limited age (Mt 13:22) but can also mean "the Aeon person" (Eph 2:2) or a non-specific period of time (Lk 1:70).  In addition in Matt 25:46, it'd be nearly impossible for αιωνιον the same word, used in conceptual parallel, to have opposite meanings!



[Updated post: Greek Font display fixed, thanks Marc, such an obvious solution! You should all regardless of browsers see the words in Koine Greek, in Koine Greek!]

Five Arguments against Universalism

These are five large-scale arguments against universalism.  Like any good theological debate there is a fair bit of trench-warfare regarding individual verses. However, arguments regarding individual verses or even whole subsets of verses don't mean much if these five larger arguments aren't meaningfully engaged with.

1. Ultimately everyone gets saved?
A trillion years is still a shorter time period than eternity.  Furthermore if your ultimately guaranteed salvation, there is no need for unique salvation in Christ. To put it another way if I was dying a horrible death from poisoning and some fellow offered me the antidote, I wouldn't have to take it because he'd eventually ram it down my throat anyway.


2. All Doctrine is a construction
Theology is all about assembling the biblical evidence within the context of particular church tradition.  The stinger here is that everyone constructs doctrine; those who believe universalism and those that don't. Good doctrine should simply be a recap of what the Bible says anyway, but no-one except God has that inside track on the pure knowledge, everyone constructs doctrine.

3. Theology is like a woolen jumper, it can come unravelled
Doctrine is all interconnected, what you believe about one thing affects another thing.  Ideas have consequences, universalism can't be held in isolation from other doctrines. Admittedly there are small scale ideas and large scale ideas, so somethings are more important than others.  However universalism involves big important ideas about God and salvation, changes in one place causes unravelling elsewhere.

4. If sin is against God then it has God-sized properties
While there isn't a direct correlation between the size of the person and the size of the offense, the nature of an offense is connected to the person offended.  This goes to the nature of sin, it's directed against God and therefore would be met with a corresponding judgement.

5. By which value system is Hell being evaluated?
During the course of biblical history God directs or permits violence.  These exceptions upset us because we're using an overall Biblical system of ethics that would ordinarily condemn such activity.  If Hell is repugnant then we need to sort out by what ethical standard.  Which value system is being employed?

All that said, I appreciate the challenge of universalism, orthodoxy gets fat and flabby if it's not taken outside and exercised.  I can also see some of the benefits of the universalist argument; a truly sovereign God who completely expunges all evil.  However the counter-arguments are too potent to make universalism a viable argument.