I came across James K.A. Smith’s response to what he is terming “the new universalism” on his blog today and thought I’d post the link here for your viewing. He is a professor of philosophy at Calvin College in Michigan and an interesting thinker as he melds Reformed theology with Pentecostal thought. I’m assuming he would lump Robin Parry, Thomas Talbott, and Nik Ansell under his umbrella of “new universalism.” Here’s the link:
forsclavigera.blogspot.com/2011/04/can-hope-be-wrong-on-new-universalism.html
I’ve also responded to him in my own posts that which I would love feedback on:
randyboswell.com/2011/04/25/a-strong-refutation-of-the-new-universalism-part-one/
randyboswell.com/2011/04/25/a-strong-refutation-of-the-new-universalism-part-two/
I didn’t find his tone overly denigrating, but at the same time I don’t think he went deep enough into the hermeneutical issues surrounding universalism. He seems out of hand to dismiss all universalists exegesis as forcing a particular framework onto Scripture; he fails to note the ever growing amount of exegesis in support of universalism that are derived from particularly good exegesis.
What are you guys thoughts on his post and my response?