Orthodox layman Perry Robinson recently did a podcast arguing against universal salvation: ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/will_everyone_eventually_be_saved_universalism. I was hoping some of the brethren here might listen to it and share with us your responses to Robinson’s arguments. What do you find cogent? What do you find weak?
Akimel,
Listened to the broadcast. Robinson’s most interesting point was that for Origen, Clement, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus, their belief of the restoration of all things came from Plato:
*“Plato had these two ideas: He tells a story in his book “The Republic” that in the afterlife there’s this guy who actually people think is dead and they go to bury him and he comes back and says ‘Oh, I have this story to tell you, and bad people go to the underworld and they’re tormented and when they learn their lesson they see what they did was wrong and then they get out’.” “The other idea is that Plato has a view of the world where everything begins from oneness, and breaks into many different things and then eventually returns back to being one” *
“Two ideas from Platonism, that influence people like Origen and Clement”…“Their are lots of other church fathers who don’t take this view, who are very early, even earlier than Origen, like Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of Peter, Methodius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Its kind of like this intrusion of Platonic philosophy who said that everything started from God and then returns to God.”
He says that we should focus on the very best arguments for an opposing view, but then he himself focuses on weak arguments for universalism. He critiques Rob Bell rather unfairly, and mentions that there are more serious thinkers such as Talbott, “George” MacDonald (he meant Gregory), and Eric Reitan, but he ignores the excellent arguments Talbott gives in Inescapable Love and Universal Salvation: the Current Debate? I personally found his style very whiney and almost all of his arguments poor and unpersuasive. I wanted to say reread “The Current Debate” and then get back to me with a response to Talbott.
Interestingly he does mention that the Orthodox believe that people can be saved post-mortem.
The one thing that gives me a nagging doubt is what he said about Universalism in the early fathers being just an influx of Platonism. That makes sense, and I wonder what response anyone else has to the podcast and to this point specifically.
Caleb
The Alexandrian school (i.e. Origen, Gregory Nyssus and Nazianzus) did lean pretty heavily on Platonic (or neo-Platonic) philosophy, as that was part of their apologetic approach to Greco-Roman society.
The Antiochene school, however, was just as universalistic but rather less interested in that line of approach, and also generally didn’t go for the radically symbolic method of scriptural interpretation favored by the Alexandrian school (which, it must be said in fairness, was mirroring standard rabbinic techniques along the lines of the neo-Platonic Philo, a Jewish Alexandrian philosopher who lived contemporary with Christ). On the other hand, the Alexandrian school were the first (following Origen’s lead) to develop the text criticism principles of studying the scriptures. So they weren’t entirely married to the practice of ‘we don’t like how this sounds, so let’s come up with a better spiritual-sounding interpretation’.
Most post-patristic trinitarian universalists haven’t followed the Platonic philosophical model for justifying universal salvation, so even if the Platonic philosophical model is rejected for various reasons there are other rationales, both exegetical and theo-philosophical, to deal with.
Anyway, I downloaded the mp3 earlier today, and will listen in when I get the time and energy to do so.
So, topical time-map and comments from me.
5:28 – Perry gives a basic definition of (Christian) universalism; basic but fair enough.
6:20 – Complains about Rob Bell basing a lot of his book on rhetorical questions; so do I, in the first half of it. What isn’t fair is the implication, supported perhaps inadvertently by Perry, that Rob has nothing more than (sometimes very unfair in themselves) rhetorical challenges.
7:14 – Perry opines on why universalism seems most important undercurrent in evangelicalism today. Explains as reaction to resurgence of Calvinism, with UR being the other end of the spectrum. Arminianism, or the EOx version thereof, is positioned in the middle. Calvs would put that the other way around, with UR on the other side of Arminianism (whether Western or Eastern Catholic or Protestant). Perry doesn’t think in terms of a triangle; but then it would be easier to see Katholicism (Christian universalism) as the middle point incorporating both Arm and Calv doctrines.
8:20 – Perry also explains surge of UR as cultural evangelical move to make Christianity as palatable as possible. Host thinks Rob is aiming especially at Calv. (Not true, Rob aims strongly at Arm, too; much of his book is written to people who believe some kind of Arm soteriology, although sometimes about Calv soteriology. But Arminian scope of salvation is everywhere presumed to be accepted by the Christian reader.)
9:50 – Host asks question from Facebook about conflation between universalism and religious pluralism (no difference between religious beliefs). Perry distinguishes from pluralists. Mentions Talbott and MacDonald. (Says later they and Reitan are much more sophisticated than Rob.) Mentions different flavors of Kath (Armish and Calvish). Weirdly reduces God’s persistence to “God just gets lucky”, which is absolutely not what purgatorial universalists believe. Borg assimilation (“Resistance Is Futile”) description is a bit insulting but kind of apt if wildly oversimplified.
13:35 – Host shifts topic over to Patristic universalism. Quite different in principle from what Rob Bell (and modern universalists) are offering.
17:21 – Did councils reject salvation of devils only, or universalism totally? (Host may have intended to ask if what they rejected were the grounds for salvation. Perry answers more former than latter “to be fair”, isn’t clear about whether he means they rejected grounds.)
17:45 – Back to Platonism. Perry thinks Platonism drives every form of universalism sooner or later. So for example that people do what is wrong out of ignorance. (Certainly not my position on sin. 
)
18:30 – Apart from Platonism (finally), Biblical source texts and arguments of Patristics. Perry mentions Col 1; thinks this is undermined by not everyone being already a believer (Perry knows universalists don’t teach that either, doesn’t mention that we connect this with St. Paul’s emphatic declaration in Romans that if we are reconciled by blood of Christ, we shall certainly be saved into life of Christ). 1 Cor 15; Perry thinks the presence of God explains “all in all” as continuing punishment (favorably quotes Lewis’ Screwtape), doesn’t deal with full Kath contextual argument at all. Thinks being made subject to Christ as Christ is subject to the Father could involve subjection of impenitent sinners to an imperial conqueror (which is how Christ is subject to the Father???) Phil 2; Perry thinks bowing need not be loyal acclamation and worship, that God will accept false acclamation. (Terminology used by Paul and Isaiah whom he cites indicates true worship and praise for mighty saving victories.) Perry thinks demonic testimony about Christ’s purposes should be counted as accurately true. Perry thinks if passage talks about those under the earth worshiping God, this must refer to those who remain under the earth impenitently (but this rebuttal would deny resurrection of evil as well as good–the reference to under the earth is scope including those currently dead and/or in prison). Perry doesn’t mention that 1 Cor 15 does talk about resurrection of evil as well as good. Acts 3:21; Perry thinks “restoration of all things” means… [pause]
24:13 – Host acknowledges that restorative/therapeutic punishment is an appealing idea. Perry back to Acts 3:21; restoration of all things means instead “restoration to a state where death can no longer happen anymore”. But if death came by sin, wouldn’t that mean sinners don’t sin anymore?! Perry thinks restoration only means sin cannot bring death anymore, agrees that Christ unites all people by taking up human flesh in the Incarnation. Apparently sinners can be immortal now as part of Christ’s body. “Sin has lost its power, no more death after this, no more threat of death”, but how does that merely by itself mean sin has lost its power?! Very cheap shallow notion of restoration, leaves Christ with impenitent sin forever.
25:12 – Back to remedial punishment, Perry thinks early universalists only got this from Plato, not from anywhere in scripture (like 1 Cor 15!!) or Christian theology. Thinks remedial punishment would mean people never willingly do wrong. (Is that what he thinks of remedial punishment for people God ends up saving?!–it wasn’t for anything they had willingly done wrong?!?)
26:30 – Perry thinks James passage about mercy triumphing over judgment doesn’t apply to people who don’t want to be forgiven. (But that would tend to imply God only shows mercy on people who first want to be forgiven; certainly not what Paul says in Romans or elsewhere!) Doesn’t see punishment as itself being mercy (because then it would be remedial punishment?)
27:20 – Perry appeals to example of people who hit what seems rock bottom and still don’t repent. (But that’s very short term thinking; also involves appeal to a situation with factors that could be healed by God but which are major barriers to repentance in this life.) Thinks power of self-determination should mean sinners as sinners should have final say over what happens to them. (Doesn’t mesh well with doctrine of God nevertheless forcing an all-in-all status on them that they don’t want to suffer from !) Thinks if Jesus never gives up His scars (where was that revealed…??) this indicates real final tragedy. No reason given why they wouldn’t be a permanent sign of loving sacrifice for total victory instead (which is certainly how Christian tradition has often positively presented them, at least in partial salvation).
28:34 – Back to centrality of free will; Perry thinks God can only fully respect free will of sinners, and avoid taking away their will, by taking it away from sinners or allowing them (or other sinners) to take it away eventually (typical Arminian problem). Host brings up this problem via audience pre-question. Perry admits it’s a hard problem but thinks universalists don’t get out of it either. Appeals to soul-making theodicy (and Lewis from Screwtape again). Perry insists God cannot (morally) get rid of freedom of choice (but then has no way to explain why God doesn’t continually persist at leading sinners to repent). Perry does (I think correctly) note that if God was simply going to make people so that they couldn’t sin, He’d have done that at our creation. Acknowledges that God can bring good things out of evil intentions, cites Joseph’s brothers (who are reconciled to Joseph and to God!–not his best example for his position. ) Doesn’t seem to notice that his complaint about removing free will (which he thinks universalism certainly does) doesn’t avoid problem (which he calls “difficult to answer”) of God removing free will from sinners later and locking them in unrighteousness. (Quotes with approval Maximus the Confessor on this; which is ironic as he’s generally classed as universalistic himself. )
Somewhere in here he moves to accusing the people who don’t believe God will live with impenitent evil in His body, and Who doesn’t have any part with darkness, of having a position where God lives permanently with impenitent evil, and of Manichean dualism (God/Anti-God). How he gets there must be one of those apophatic mysteries the Eastern Orthodox are so (in)famous for. 
I do very much agree that sin is how we misuse what God graciously grants us to use, with the capability of using or misusing it either way.
36:25 – Host goes back to anathema of universalism; was it really and finally condemned at council, or was only a universalism following from Platonic grounds condemned? Perry thinks the Gregories weren’t named in condemnation out of honor of their contributions to defending trinitarian orthodoxy. Condemnations continued in councils into 11th and 12th century. Still doesn’t clarify whether the condemnations were of specific Platonic grounds or of the position more broadly. Goes to arguing that Fathers are not infallible (unless a council specifically calls them out as having taught a position infallibly), and (his) reason doesn’t add up to universalism as worse than EOx Arminianistic soteriology.
40:25 – Perry brings up (so-called) Unitarian Universalists as though they represent inevitable doctrinal decline following from universalism. But then turns around (after saying not an accident they ended up like this from starting out universalists) to say he doesn’t want to invoke the slippery slope fallacy. (??) Important not to take out a doctrine (I agree); important to keep to the faith delivered by the apostles (I agree–whole other question who didn’t keep to the faith and when; also how far apostles didn’t keep to the faith delivered to them!)
42:48 – Perry goes back to talking about modern philosophical approach (favored by Parry and Talbott, btw) that once God cures and instructs, no one would choose against salvation and righteousness. Same basic criticism (I agree with), that if God only needed that He’d have done that already.
44:00 – Perry thinks persistent impenitence of devils up to now means there will be no “defections” later, considers silence about defections to be significant: if punishment was remedial, why hasn’t it worked? (But 1 Peter 3 & 4 may indicate it has worked for some formerly impenitent rebels prior to judgment; judgment at resurrection of evil and good indicates some conversions post-mortem.) Why punishment for eons if punishment works? (Free will means it could take eons of eons for God to convince an impenitent sinner.)
45:35 – Host brings up Rob’s rejection of straw-man version of Satan and hell, this is discussed for a while. (I agree, at least half the book could be trimmed of this kind of rhetoric from Rob; I outright call it “cheating” myself. Rob does have much stronger material in second half, though, and this is purely glossed over and ignored.)
50:20 – Perry talks about EOx concept of hell sheol/hades/Gehenna as spirituals states: hell is presence of God for those not prepared to live in His presence (I agree). 1 Peter only means Christ liberated previously righteous souls (disagree on exegetical grounds). Gehenna is borrowed from literal situation as image of really bad reality (I agree). Eonian means for an age that lasts forever (kind of disagree on application, but I’m not gung-ho about it always meaning only for a limited age either).
53:08 – Host briefly brings up annihilationism through pre-recorded call (Michael from Illinois); Perry responds on this for a while. Perry agrees (explicitly with universalists) that “wiping someone out of existence isn’t poster child of [mercy and] infinite love”! EOx says God wills man to exist forever (heavily disputed by annis, of course, but Perry is responding briefly). Perry says “EOx teaching” is that the devil actually wants man to be annihilated by God for sinning!! (That’s news to me, as far as “EOx teaching” goes, but hey Perry says he doesn’t teach his own opinion only what the teaching of “the Church” is. ) Perry’s position comes back around again to the notion that what God is primarily concerned with is making sure mankind lives forever, even as impenitent sinners, in conjunction with Himself! “How people spend forever is up to how they use their free will” – but Perry’s theology doesn’t leave room for them to use their free will to finally repent and accept God’s salvation from sin.
55:55 – Host asks why EOx have prayers for dead if fate of dead is fixed at death? Perry says it isn’t clear to him that the (EOx) Church actually teaches everyone’s fate is sealed at death; but some post-mortem salvation doesn’t mean all post-mortem salvation. Does think some people (via sin of Holy Spirit) seal themselves before death or at death. Host quotes EOx father to the effect that God can even pardon people thrown into hell at final judgment, but Perry doesn’t seem to notice exactly what is being talked about there.
Talks about post-mortem mercy for people who die apostate for honest mistakes or due to rejecting perverted ideas of Christ.
Finishes out with idea (again) that universalism is worse; grass looks greener because it’s “well-fertilized” (i.e. with BS).
My thanks to Jason and Caleb for listening to Perry Robinson’s podcast and for their responses.
I honestly don’t know what to do with the criticism that Origen and Gregory Nyssen were unduly influenced by Platonism. Errrr, like, so what?
St Isaac of Ninevah was also a convinced universalist, and he clearly preferred the Antiochians over the Alexandrians. Was he also a neo-Platonist?
If Perry is betting all his chips on the 553 Council of Constantinople, then he is going to lose.
I love the bit in Romans: “For from him and through him and to him are all things.”
Everything that came from God through Christ will return to God through Christ.
Seems clear enough to me.
Perhaps Paul was influenced unduly by Plato as well… 
maybe Plato got a dose of inspiration from the Holy Spirit there? it’s not impossible!
Here are a couple of interesting links regarding Paul and Plato