The Evangelical Universalist Forum

"Towards a Biblical View of Universalism" by N.T. Wright

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

A friend of mine recently pointed me to the following article, written by N.T. Wright in 1977:

s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/j … Wright.pdf

I read it and while I haven’t had time to really dig into it, I’ve found it to be one of the better anti-universalist arguments I’ve come across.

I would love to hear people’s thoughts on this. Do his arguments stand up? If not, where do they fail? Does his interpretation that “all” in Romans 5 means “Jews and Gentiles alike” make sense?

I think he perhaps reduces Biblical Universalism as just a handful of proof-texts taken out of context and then argues against that, when from what I’ve seen and read, Biblical Universalism is a lot more than that.

Anyway, I’d really appreciate any thoughts on this article.

#2

Hello felkor,

I haven’t read it yet, but wouldn’t “Jews and Gentiles alike” include everyone? :sunglasses:

Sonia

#3

Hi Sonia, I think by that, Wright means “everyone without distinction” rather than “everyone without exception”. He’s arguing that “all” means “people from both groups” rather than “every individual from both groups.”

#4

I know that’s the usual interpretation–and that’s what I’d do if I was going to argue against a universalist interpretation; I just don’t think it’s justified. :sunglasses: But I’ll find time to read it sometime today and comment further.

Sonia

#5

I like, appreciate, and respect N.T. Wright. But his arguments and judgments against UR just don’t seem to hold water. As I work through his article I’ll record my thoughts.

Wright – “The proponents of universalism admit very readily that their doctrine conflicts with much biblical teaching. What they are attempting, however, is Sachkritik, the criticism (and rejection) of one part of scripture on the basis of another.” Page 55, paragraph 1

Maybe this is what he’s experienced, but I have not found this to be true, and do not believe that UR conflicts with any (much less “much”) biblical teaching. Then Wright launches into a brief discussion affirming that Jesus warned of “eternal punishment”, but I understand Jesus’ warnings concerning Gehenna to not warn of ECT, but to warn of remedial and justifiable punishment in the life to come, aionian chastizement, chastizement of the age to come. It was studying what Jesus actually said concerning Gehenna and aionian chastizement in its literary, historical, and Jewish context that freed me to accept in faith that He will ultimately draw all humanity to Himself!

Wright – “Universalism of this kind, therefore, has the worst of both worlds; no clear doctrine of justification by faith, and hense no assurance of salvation.” Page 55 – para. 3

Again Wright seems not to understand what UR presents. We clearly affirm that people are justified through faith in Christ; it’s just we believe that ultimately all will come to have faith in Christ. So those who have faith in Christ can be assured of their personal salvation and the salvation of everyone they know and love. UR is the only one with true assurance of faith in Christ for one’s personal salvation and the salvation of all of one’s loved ones. In Calvinism one doesn’t really know for sure one is one of the chosen. And in Arminianism, one doesn’t know for sure one makes it into heaven because one always runs the potential of falling away because salvation is not ultimately based on God but upon man.

Wright – “If we were to maintain, on the basis of the word ‘all’ in Romans 5 and 22, that Paul was a universalist, we would do so in the teeth of (eg) Romans 2:6-16, 14:11-12 and such other passages as 2 Thessalonians 2:7-10.”

Notice that Wright is doing exactly what he accuses UR of doing in para. 1, Sachkritik. He’s saying that “all” in Rom. 5 just cannot mean “all” because of other passages. Thus he is rejecting (explaining away) Rom. 5 in favor of Rom. 2.

Well, that’s all I have time for right now. I’ll try to get back to it later.

#6

In short, No! Paul compares the effect of the sin of Adam with the effect of the sacrifice of Christ and affirms that the effect sacrifice of Christ is even greater. The sin of Adam plunged all of humanity into sin, death, and destruction - universally! Even on Jesus was laid our sins. Even Jesus suffered death and destruction on our behalf. No one escaped the devestation wrought by the sin of Adam. Why then would we think that the effect of the sacrifice of Christ would be any less, when Paul affirms that it is even greater.

As he noted in his article, he just cannot accept that “all” means “all” because he interprets other scriptures concerning judgment and punishment of sin to affirm the certainty that some shall be lost!

Yes, Biblical Universalism IS much more than that! It’s a theme that can be seen throughout scripture, from Genesis to Revelations! Even the nations in Rev. who once worshipped the Beast, worship God after the Lake of Fire!

#7

Thanks for responding, Sherman! I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on the article.

#8

Unless NTW had a change of view on this himself later (the article here is over 30 years old), this is very amusing: NTW is famous for, among other things, being very gung ho about punishment texts in the Gospels (and the NT more broadly) applying primarily or even solely to the upcoming historical downfall of Jerusalem.

But he might not have come to believe this yet. (And this is not really a critique of his argument per se.)

It would probably be better in any case to find more recent material from him on this topic; if he says “I’d argue pretty much the same as I did back in 77” (or words to that effect), then have at it. :smiley:

#9

Jason,

My friend found the article because it is quoted from and referenced in Francis Chan’s upcoming “Erasing Hell” book. While N.T. Wright may or may not use the same arguments today, others are, or at least they are examining the article, so I think it’s worth investigating.

That said, I completely agree that we shouldn’t make judgements about Wright or his beliefs based on a 30 year old article. I would assume both Wright, and the prevailant universalist arguments in Christian circles that Wright is responding to, have changed over the past three decades.

#10

Wright’s article is the first opponent I chewed on, and in his recent video defending Bell, he repeated that he has always rejected universalism, and seems to publicly offer no modification, although as I’ve noted elsewhere here, he acknowledges again that TEU makes some provocative arguments, that leave some texts unreconciled for him.

#11

Wait–have we posted up a link to a video of NTW defending Rob??

(That might be interesting if we haven’t done so yet.)

Also, thanks for the confirmational info that NTW doesn’t seem to have substantially different arguments today on the topic.

Do you recall if he was so hugely preteristic back then, though?

#12

“Wait–have we posted up a link to a video of NTW defending Rob??”

I haven’t seen this - that would be great if someone posted it a link to it.

#13

Yes, hopefully one’s beliefs will change and grow over 30 years. I know mine have radically changed in the last 30 years. One thing I really appreciate about N.T.Wright is his introduction to classes he teaches. He apparently often says something along these lines, “I just want you to know that it’s likely that 30% of what I’ll share in this class is wrong; I just don’t know which 30%!” He says this to highlight that he is a student of the Word and has things to learn (an unlearn) as much as anyone else. None of us have the corner market on truth.

And thanks for pointing out that the article is 30 years old. Though it’s still useful to discuss the article, it’s merits and problems, it might not accurately reflect his beliefs today.

#14

Is this the one Wright on Hell & Bell?

#15

We should really collate a thread together somewhere with interviews concerning and/or featuring Rob on LW.

I nominate not-me! :mrgreen:

#16

What a great interview. It’s interesting, he affirms that he is not a universalist, because some people certainly reject God in this life, and then says that there are some passages that seem to draw this into question. And then he turns to:

  1. questioning Americans’ obsession with Hell and who is certainly going there.
  2. affirms that Bell is right in raising the questions that he did and “stirring up the pot”
  3. affirms that Bell’s message that God is incredibly gracious, merciful, loving, and good is a Good Message. God is not some Ogur just waiting to torture people.

So, why is it that American Christians have such an obsession with Hell, and other Christians from other countries are not so obsessed? I wonder.

#17

I think you need to be more specific when you lump “other countries” into the question. Wright’s response to the above question is specific for him in his native England (“Far more Americans ask me about hell than ever happens in my ouwn country.”, Wright says) . But since he is the former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, perhaps it would be instructive to know what the Church of England’s doctrine on hell is:

From Wiki on Annihilationism:

"The Church of England’s Doctrine Commission reported in February 1995 that Hell is not eternal torment. The report, entitled “The Mystery of Salvation” states, “Christians have professed appalling theologies which made God into a sadistic monster. … Hell is not eternal torment, but it is the final and irrevocable choosing of that which is opposed to God so completely and so absolutely that the only end is total non-being.”

Source: Church of England, “The Mystery of Salvation: The Doctrine Commission of the General Synod” (1995)

Thus, the punishment of hell isn’t apparently as severe in the Church of England as it is in the U.S., where hell is mostly described as ECT. I’m assuming. of course, that Wright holds to the same doctrine, but I haven’t really investicgated this.

On a broader scope, I’m wondering if the comparisions with the U.S and other countries, particularly less richer nations, might have something to do with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In prosperous nations such as the U.S, there is much more time given to think about eternal affairs than there would be in needy countries, where the primary thoughts are more down to earth in trying to survive life down here. And hence the focus is in trusting God for their daily bread rather than some absract promise of a better future.

#18

Good notes dondi. I thought the following was especially good.

#19

Sherman, you had mentioned earlier that kolasis was properly translated to mean remedial vs. retributive punishment. I have read only that itcould mean that and that it can mean retributive- any thoughts?

#20

I suppose that it depends on which “scholar” one reads. Also, doesn’t scripture say to not dispise the chastening of the Lord for He chastens those whom He loves Heb. 12.4-8ish. Of course, chastening here is a different word, but I think the concept is the same. How can we separate punishment from God from His character of love? So, even if kolasis can be translated as remedial or retributive punishment, to me, in regards to the punishment coming from God it seems that such would be remedial, with a positive purpose.