"Is Universalism an Evangelical Option?" conference reviews

[Alex_Smith]

@"On [christpantokrator.blogspot.com/2 ... alism.html

(http://christpantokrator.blogspot.com/2011/02/conference-summary-is-universalism.html), conference organiser, Terry Wright"]Yesterday, Spurgeon’s College in south London hosted a one-day conference, Is Universalism an Evangelical Option? Almost ninety delegates attended, representing a range of (how shall I put it?) evangelical persuasions or intensities; and of these, all those to whom I spoke thought that the day was very interesting and worthwhile.

Robin Parry’s good-humoured presentation was first on the programme. I missed the first ten or fifteen minutes of his talk, as I was welcoming latecomers and dealing with conference administration. But I still caught most of what Robin had to say. As anyone who has read The Evangelical Universalist will anticipate, Robin didn’t need to say much beyond what is already written in that book. The uniqueness of his lecture came through its layout: Robin took various objections to universalism – e.g., Doesn’t universalism undermine evangelism? – and attempted to show why these objections do not apply to his thesis. On the whole, I found Robin persuasive. Broadly speaking, I see no reason why universalism can’t be an evangelical option.

It was Derek Tidball’s task to challenge Robin’s position. After a series of preliminary comments about various things (apologies for my vagueness), he focussed on certain New Testament texts that could point either to universalism or the reality of eternal conscious torment or annihilationism. (Others who have read his books will no doubt confirm or refute this, but Derek seems to be in favour of annihilation, so to speak!) He argued that all the texts Robin supposed pointed to universalist readings (as discussed in The Evangelical Universalist) in fact did no such thing. I must admit that I was unconvinced by a lot of what Derek said. By discussing specific biblical texts, Derek approached the conference theme differently to Robin, who had limited himself to sketching a framework for reading Scripture and identifying commonalities between his account of universalism and general evangelical thought. Moreover, I didn’t think that Derek acknowledged as clearly as he could or should have done Robin’s own defence of his interpretations of these texts in The Evangelical Universalist. I wonder how many people in attendance yet to read this book thought that Derek had drawn Robin’s attention to a number of texts that he had neglected to consider. Still, Derek’s paper was interesting and presented in a way that did not belittle Robin or his views.

After lunch, Robin and Derek spent half an hour in free discussion, focussing on how one determines the ‘natural’ way of reading individual scriptural texts and so on. Following this, Graham Watts delivered a paper on universalism in the thought of P. T. Forsyth and T. F. Torrance. Graham thought that the differing views of these two theologians in part can be accounted for by their relation to Karl Barth’s doctrine of election. Forsyth’s thought was pre-Barthian in this respect, and so his leanings towards purgatory, prayers for the dead and so on should have lead inevitably to universalism – a conclusion with which Forsyth flirted, but one to which he did not finally commit himself. Thus Graham concluded that Forsyth is theologically incoherent on this score; Forsyth had no theological reason not to hold to universalism. However, T. F. Torrance, influenced directly by Barth, denied universalism as a real possibility on the basis that such a conclusion would deny God the freedom of God’s love; there can be no logico-causal connection between the statement that ‘Christ died for all’ and the conclusion that ‘all will be saved’. Even if all are elect in Christ, this does not mean that the Spirit will actualise faith in all, for only God in God’s freedom can determine the faith of individual people. Graham indicated that the Barthian–Torrance line is preferable to wholesale universalism (though in the final Q&A session, Robin argued that the intention to defend the freedom of God in fact presupposes that there is still a God behind God, in so far as God’s intentions of universal salvation revealed in Scripture are obscured by the divine freedom which could, in fact, mean that not all are actually saved). I thought Graham’s self-contained paper was outstanding, and I do hope that it finds publication at some point.

Finally (well, penultimately, but I’m not going to summarise the final Q&A session), Nigel Wright read a paper on Jürgen Moltmann and universalism. The main thing I took from this is Moltmann’s insistence that human decision cannot prevent God from making all things new in Christ. If people can refuse salvation, this makes the faculty of human decision-making triumphant over God’s power and intention to bless the world. Nigel, echoing the Barthian sentiments found in Graham’s paper, suggested that there is a difference between universalism (as proposed by Moltmann and Robin) and universal hope (as in Barth). He concluded by suggesting that Scripture is silent on the topic of universalism, or at least gives mixed signals, so that we don’t know how things will end. Personally, I think this is a via media too contrived: Robin is surely right to suppose that if Scripture gives hints that all will one day be saved, then we are entitled to attempt to fit these hints into some kind of interpretative framework by which they will make sense alongside other, perhaps contrary texts.

That’s my take on the day; I thoroughly enjoyed it. I must admit that I’m still more with Barth than with Robin, but I think Robin’s arguments need to be taken very seriously – and I need to reflect more on his comment that prioritising the freedom of God can actually run the risk of obscuring scriptural revelation. There has to be some coherence between the two, otherwise we could say that God is free to act arbitrarily or inconsistently.

@"On [evangelicaliberal.wordpress.com/ ... -oxymoron/

(http://evangelicaliberal.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/evangelical-universalism-an-oxymoron/), Henry Edser"]Evangelical Universalism: an oxymoron?
Sadly this is not my own title, but that of Robin Parry’s excellent opening presentation at yesterday’s conference Is Universalism an Evangelical Option? at Spurgeon’s College. … on behalf of the esteemed Mr Parry I would like to say that the surprising answer to my (and his) title question is apparently ‘no’. At least, that’s what he argued very persuasively and I’m inclined to agree; the other speakers also broadly conceded the point, so long as ‘universalism’ and ‘evangelical’ are both defined in particular and nuanced ways. (Universalism, it was pointed out, is not the same as either Inclusivism or Pluralism, in case that makes things any clearer. Universalists simply believe that God will ultimately save all people; Christian Universalists that God will do this through Christ.)

@"On [evangelicaliberal.wordpress.com/ ... -oxymoron/

(http://evangelicaliberal.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/evangelical-universalism-an-oxymoron/), Henry Edser"]At this stage I haven’t quite got as far as accepting definite (‘dogmatic’) universalism with Robin, but I’m definitely in the ‘hopeful’ camp. I found Robin’s arguments (and their starting points) considerably more persuasive than Derek Tidball’s, but I think I concur with Nigel Wright that it may be more helpful for us not to ‘close the circle’, since Scripture does seem to leave the tension perhaps deliberately open.

[amy]

Terry Wright wrote…Broadly speaking, I see no reason why universalism can’t be an evangelical option.

Wow, that’s too cool!

[Bob_Wilson]

Wow, it sounds as if the British participants, organizers, and reactions to the Spurgeon Conference are more welcoming of universalism as a possible and acceptable evangelical option than I’ve ever seen in an American evangical setting. What evangelical institutions here in the U.S. would even welcome a presentation of a case for universalism?

[Alex_Smith]

What evangelical institutions here in the U.S. would even welcome a presentation of a case for universalism?

The US will catch on eventually, hopefully well before Judgement Day!

[Alex_Smith]

(http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2011/02/provocative-thought-of-day-hell-and-god.html), Sue"]Thank you for your honesty, open mindedness and exploration. I enjoyed the conference on Thursday and am looking forward to reading your book. God bless you

(http://christpantokrator.blogspot.com/2011/02/conference-summary-is-universalism.html), NT"]Thanks Terry

your comments mirror my own feelings of how it went.

[Gregory_MacDonald]

Spurgeon’s College is an institution happy to explore the boundaries of evangelicalism. All the speakers and delegates were open to considering universalism (though I was the only speaker that affirmed it). Derek Tidball, my main “opponent”, argued that universalism is wrong but he was very gracious and warm—he understood the nuances of my version of universalism and he even agreed with most of my presentation.

And the delegates were also mostly very open to consider.

Not all UK evangelicals would be so open but, on the whole, I suspect we would be more open than some big chunks of US evangelicals.

Robin

[wmb2003]

Robin,
Found your book very helpful. It is one of the best out there expounding the universalist hope from an evangelical perspective.

I wonder if you ever looked into preterest eschatology, such as that found in J.S. Russel’s book, The Parousia of Christ, or Milton Terry’s book on Hermeneutics ?

It seems to me that preterism strengthens the universalist position as it places many of the so called “eternal torment” texts like Matt 25:41 in the past instead of reading them as prophecies of future judgment.

[Gregory_MacDonald]

WMB 2003

I have considered preterism and I am open to it. It does make universalism easier in some respects. My stratergy is to take the harder route to see if universalism works without preterism (with the hope of persuading non-preterists). If it does than it will certainly work with it.

I am not a preterist although I am inclined to see a fair number of “hell” texts as, in fact, referring to historical punishments.

Robin

[Gregory_MacDonald]

On the issue if British audiences being more open than US audiences . . . I guess that is true. But I think that the whole issue is just about to get big in the US with the forthcoming publication of Rob Bell’s book Love Wins.
Check it out when it is published as I am sure it will raise the profile of the issue.

[amy]

I really hope Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, will open the way for more dialogue. However, most people I know think he is a heretic and would never consider reading one of his books.

[Alex_Smith]

I am very sorry to announce that although the technology was set up properly and the talks from the recent universalism conference appeared to be recording, nothing was actually recorded. The Business Manager at Spurgeon’s College offers his most sincere apologies to those who were looking forward to obtaining these recordings.

[SLJ]

I really hope Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, will open the way for more dialogue. However, most people I know think he is a heretic and would never consider reading one of his books.

That’s my thought too. Actually, I’d never even heard of him until he was mentioned here on the forum recently. But looking around the internet, he seems to be generally considered dangerously liberal and heretical by the standards of the Christian types that I’ve usually been surrounded by.

Then again, Bell has a huge following, so there’s obviously a lot of Christians–of a kind I don’t get much exposure to–who think differently.

Sonia

[revdrew61]

We use Rob Bell’s resources a lot, especially his book (with Don Golden) “Jesus wants to save Christians” and the “Nooma” dvds. I’ll be interested to see how firm and clear his conclusions are in the new book. Both he and Brian McLaren have generally been careful to avoid the “Universalist” stigma, even though that is obviously the direction their work points in. I pray for Rob that he can ride out the inevitable criticism and name calling and keep on seeking and teaching the truth. It must be hard when you are so high profile. What I think the USA needs is a high profile convert to EU, someone like John Piper to come out and say “I was wrong, Love does win after all!” I was really disappointed that “Gregory MacDonald” didn’t turn out to be JP. Sorry Robin!

[Alex_Smith]

I agree, although I’d also settle with Packer or Driscoll

Glad to hear Bell’s resources are being used. I hope they continue to be!

[revdrew61]

[JasonPratt]

What I think the USA needs is a high profile convert to EU.

Billy Graham came awfully close in his final years. Too bad he didn’t live a bit longer.

I have a strong suspicion that Beth Moore is one–but if so, she’s keeping quiet so as not to jeopardize her hard-won ministry efforts among Southern Baptists (much as she’s very careful not to be officially ‘teaching’ to men. Some SBs wouldn’t have any problem with that, but many of them would.)

[Alex_Smith]

A good review of the conference: Evangelicals toy with the concept of a heavenly reward for all

The Revd Dr Derek Tidball, Visiting Scholar at Spurgeon’s, in response to Dr Parry’s presentation, acknowledged that some Evangel­icals, over the years, had “flirted with universalism and [have] argued it is not incompatible with core Evangel­ical convictions.”

Dr Tidball said that Dr Parry’s was “a particularly subtle form of universalism”. Evangelicals tended to “prefer things in black and white”, and, while Dr Parry’s position “deserves a fair hearing”, it “may be automatically rejected in some [Evangelical] circles”.
He emphasised the importance of hermeneutics, stating that “we can’t just claim to read the Bible.” While many Evangelicals believed scripture was inerrant, “our interpretations of scripture are not inerrant”.

Dr Tidball said that Dr Parry, in his book, had attempted “to join the dots up” to argue for universalism from the Bible, but was “making all sorts of assumptions that are not hinted at in scripture”.

In response, Dr Parry said: “I join the dots in a certain way, but everybody does. Nobody just reads the Bible.” He said that a universalist interpretation of the biblical texts had seemed “impossible” before [he was a universalist], but “now I read them as blindingly obvious.”

“Every Evangelical reading scripture has a problem text,” he said, not just universalists.

[wmb2003]

I can’t see why universalism wouldn’t works with any eschatology including dispensationalism. I wonder if you’ve ever read James Stuart Russel’s Parousia of Christ? R.C. Sproul references it in his the Last Days According to Christ.