Who you callin' a Universalist? by Brad Jersak

Recently, a friend in ministry said to me, “Someone I know said he heard a rumor that you’re a Universalist. I don’t like gossip, so I thought I’d get it from the horse’s mouth. Are you a Universalist?” I so appreciated his heart to put the brakes on gossip or what the Bible calls, ‘Bearing false witness.’

No, I am not a Universalist. While there are some very inspiring and godly Christian universalists who I think need to be heard, the term is often just used pejoratively as a convenient and dismissive label. I know I'm not a universalist because I asked a real Universalist (Gary Amirault). Those who read Her Gates will Never be Shut or have seen Hellbound? ought to know that too. Or at least they will once we can rise above mudslinging and heresy-hunting to clarify the major Evangelical positions concerning hell, hope and divine judgment.

For the record, the only aspects of eschatology I hold as dogma were those laid out by the Nicene Creed. Namely, that "Jesus shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom shall have no end" and "I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come." This is what the Church required us to affirm (and ALL it required us to affirm) as Christian dogma. After that, the rest, such as the nature of Christ's coming, judgment or afterlife, is up for discussion and open to hope.  

In that discussion, I am currently most inclined to an Orthodox/Catholic position expressed by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (he calls it 'Hopeful Inclusivism') and RC theologian Hans Urs Von Baltasar (in his book, 'Dare We Hope?). You can see more details here, but basically, in that view, we don't presume that all are saved or that any are lost. Ware and Baltasar believe that all will pass through the fire of God's love and in the end, hope and pray that God's mercy will get the final word. Note the key words: possibility, judgment, hope, pray. The hope is not a wishful thinking but an earnest prayer and a confidence in Christ, the blessed redeemer and merciful judge. In other words, I believe God's Word gives us reason to be hopeful in the inclusivity of Christ's saving work, and that the love of God, the power of the Cross and the work of the Holy Spirit obligate us to this hope. But that's me. And many of the ancient Christian Fathers and Orthodox theologians. But what about you? 

The purpose of this article is to define simply the most common positions concerning divine judgment and to help readers ponder where they might lean on this continuum. Among Christians who call themselves ‘Evangelical,’ I am aware of seven theories. All of them claim some biblical basis. They are, briefly:

1. Pop Infernalism: Infernalism refers to the belief that those who do not receive Jesus as Lord and Saviour in this lifetime enter hell, defined as eternal conscious torment in the lake of fire, immediately upon death. Pop Infernalists regard unbelievers who have died to already be in hell now and forever. They cite the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) as their primary text to illustrate the immediacy and permanence of fiery judgment.

2. Final Judgment Infernalism: This position also holds that unbelievers who die without receiving Christ as Saviour are destined to eternal conscious torment, but only after the Day of Judgment at Christ’s Second Coming. F-J Infernalists disagree among themselves about what happens between death and the Last Day, but they agree that (a.) death is the deadline for salvation and (b.) that all will be resurrected, judged and cast into the Lake of Fire at that time. They cite Rev. 20:12-15 and Matt 25:31-46.

3. Annihilationism: Annihilationists agree that those who do not receive Christ as Saviour in this life have made an irreversible decision and will be resurrected on the Last Day to face their final judgment. Having not found their names in the Lamb’s Book of Life, they will be cast into the Lake of Fire. However, rather than experiencing eternal conscious torment, the damned will be completely consumed by the fire and they will be destroyed or annihilated. Scriptures used to verify this view include Mal. 4:3, Matt. 10:28 and Heb. 10:27.

4. Conditional Immortality: Those who believe in conditional immortality agree that unbelievers have no further opportunity to enter eternal life once they die. However, they do not believe that the damned will be resurrected for final judgment—resurrection of any type is solely for believers. Thus, death itself will be the final judgment and the whole person will simply ‘perish.’ Some key texts that focus on ‘eternal (i.e. permanent) perishing’ of the soul with the body at death include Isa. 26:14, John 3:16-17 and 1 Cor. 15:50-54.

5. Ultimate Redemption: Some believe that at the Last Day, unbelievers will experience divine judgement consistent with their rejection of Christ in this life. The hell in this judgment is pictured as exclusion from the City of God (Rev. 21:27; 22:15). But with exclusion is an ongoing invitation and opportunity to respond to Christ and to enter the gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:24-26; 22:14, 17). Ultimate Redemption is considered a real hope and possibility, but only to those who finally and freely choose to embrace Jesus.

6. Evangelical Universalism: Others profess that Christian faith includes confidence (not just hope) in the ultimate, universal salvation of all humankind through the work of Christ. This may involve either an extended process (as in Rev. 21-22) or a moment (at the Judgement Seat of Christ – 1 Cor. 3:12-15) whereby everyone passes through the refining, purifying fire of God’s love that ultimately cleanses and restores everyone to fellowship with God. They see this outcome as certain, not merely possible (Mal. 3:2-4; Mark 9:47-50). I want to be clear: the evangelical universalists I know do not presume. They believe. That is, the difference between hopeful inclusivism and evangelical universalism is the fine line between hope and faith. 

7. Pop Universalism: Pop Universalism says that all will be welcomed into eternal life at some point, because on the Cross, Christ has already met every condition for our salvation. Salvation was accomplished for all through his death and resurrection of Jesus. Those who do not appropriate eternal life by faith in this life will receive that revelation when they finally meet Christ face-to-face, because Christ died for all (e.g. Jn. 12:32; Rom. 5:18; 1 Tim. 4:10; 1 Jn. 2:2). However, pop universalism can be very un-evangelical in the sense that it is vulnerable to presumption and can tend to say that in this life, belief in Christ or the proclamation of the Gospel is unnecessary and even offensive.

Cause to Pause

As you can see, a great range of interpretations exists on this continuum. For each view, more Scriptures could be added and many other Scriptures can be employed in rebuttal. Such an array ought to give one pause on several fronts:

• We should not underestimate or dismiss the strengths of competing interpretations, lest we corner ourselves into ignoring or manipulating the Scriptures that don’t easily fit our theological system.

• We should not overestimate the strength of our own interpretation or presume that our view holds the monopoly on Evangelical truth. There are very serious biblical tensions surrounding every one of these proposals.

• We should beware of categorizing others or mislabeling them, as has been done with Rob Bell and I by those who have called us Universalists. For this reason, I will refrain from naming Evangelical teachers who I believe exemplify each view.

• We should beware of attacking others as heretics or false teachers if their interpretation of the text is different to our own, particularly on the basis of ‘biblical orthodoxy.’ Here is why:

Evangelicalism and biblical orthodoxy

Evangelicals who attack or exclude one another often set a standard they call ‘biblical orthodoxy.’ What does this phrase mean? Historically, ‘biblical orthodoxy’ was defined by the Church Fathers who canonized the New Testament and finalized the great creeds. Evangelicals tend to believe they are the modern day successors and stewards of that tradition.

In the current debate, an interesting dilemma confronts Infernalists intent on attacking or expelling teachers like Rob Bell. It begins with a little history:

The Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381), which perfected the Nicene Creed, was presided over by Gregory Nazianzen. Further, Gregory of Nyssa (known affectionately as the Father of the Fathers) composed its final form. Before any great schism in the Church, Gregory of Nyssa was famously ‘Orthodox’ in the highest and most technical sense. He was beloved for his tooth-and-nail defence of the creed against the Arians and other heretics. He knew a false teacher when he saw one. These men and their peers (including Gregory of Nyssa’s siblings, Basil the Great and Macrina the Teacher) defined biblical orthodoxy and sit as our judges as we engage in our modern doctrinal squabbles.

So what is the dilemma? Both Gregorys believed in (not just hoped for) the restoration of all things, including the eventual redemption of every man, woman and child in history. They firmly believed this, preaching it not as possibility as Bell does, but as the truth of what is inevitably going to happen. Gregory of Nyssa, commenting on the Psalms, once said,

“By which God shows that neither is sin from eternity nor will it last to eternity. Wickedness being thus destroyed, and its imprint being left in none, all shall be fashioned after Christ, and in all that one character shall shine, which originally was imprinted on our nature.”

In other words, he believed there is biblical warrant to hope and believe that the love of Christ will ultimately triumph, even over hell itself, and that God’s mercy will finally reach everyone. Moreover, as the Father of biblical orthodoxy, he was never condemned for believing this. In other words, Gregory could be completely wrong, but he was not a heretic. He was biblically orthodox… and deeply evangelical.

Where do you lean and why does it matter?

Let’s do a check-up. I would invite you to join me in a thought experiment that requires us to lay aside liberal sentiments and to be objective with a scenario that plays out daily all over the world. The names and places are fictional, but the events are in every way true to real life. Using this story, we can get a sense of what we believe.

The setting is a smallish city called Anywhere. Anywhere could be in the American Midwest or in East Africa or in your own neighborhood. It’s August 2001 and your niece, 12-year-old Sally Jean, has just been invited to Vacation Bible School by a neighbor. Given her rough upbringing in the downtown core, she may not know exactly how to behave on her first church visit, but she’s flattered that Mary-Ann would bring her along. It’s a great experience! The songs, the crafts, the games: all very enjoyable. And hearing about Jesus is a wonderful surprise. When the speaker explained that God loves her and Jesus died for her, she felt an urge to respond with the other children who raised their hands and said ‘the prayer.’ But being a bit shy and it being her first time and knowing that Mom would not approve, she decides that she will decline for now. She’ll at least see how the week plays out before making such a big decision.

On her way home, Mary-Ann and Sally Jean parted company on their bicycles, right at the corner by the old market where they always bought candy. … Sally Jean was never heard from again. Her battered and decomposed body was not discovered until near Christmas, and by then, any trace of the one who’d abducted, raped and murdered her had been erased.

It’s a terrible story, but many of us have seen or heard of much worse. The self-examination question is, ‘What happens to Sally Jean?’ In the story, she is old enough to hear and understand the Gospel. She deliberately resists the urge to respond and declines the offer of salvation. Corresponding to the range of doctrines explained above:

1. Do you believe she is already in hell today, burning in the Lake of Fire forever and ever?
2. Do you believe her soul awaits the resurrection of her body on the Last Day, and at that time she will be cast into the Lake of Fire to burn all eternity? 
3. Do you believe she is going to be raised on the Last Day, cast into the Lake of Fire, and consumed completely by the flames?
4. Do you believe she is simply dead—her soul having perished along with her body?
5. Do you hope that she will still have an opportunity to freely say her yes or no to Christ once she understands who he really is and what he has done for her?
6. Are you convinced that the fire of God’s love will cleanse her completely so she can enter eternal life?
7. Or are you convinced that Jesus’ death and resurrection already saved her so she merely awaits that revelation when she meets Christ?

The answer you choose will help you discover where you stand in terms of personal eschatology. But for further reflection, I would recommend these follow-up questions for self-examination. These questions may function to ward off personal presumption and to help us listen more carefully to the Bible and to others’ interpretations of the Bible.

1. Why do I believe what I believe? When did I start believing that? Did I inherit that belief from someone who told me it was true before I discovered it myself? If I had been raised in a different family, or church, or culture, would I have still come to this position?

2. Why do I believe what I believe? Which Scriptures would verify my view? Which Scriptures do not conform easily to my belief? (We need to know these). How have I coped with these problem passages? Why do I give greater weight to the ones that confirm what I believe?

3. Why do I believe what I believe? Can I assume that when I speak of the damned, I am not talking about myself? Why? Do I assume that I know who will be excluded from eternal life? On what basis? Is there any reason I might want or need them to be excluded?

4. Why do I believe what I believe? Do I assume that God will save or has already saved everyone? Why? On what basis? It there any reason to believe this could be wishful thinking? If hell is real, how is it real? And how would that affect my life and faith?

5. Why do I believe what I believe? Do I find myself believing one doctrine but hoping for a different one (hopefully a ‘better’ one)? Why do I hope that? Would it be okay to hope that? Why or why not?

6. What dangers accompany my belief? How can I avoid these? How might presumption manifest in my belief? What would I be presuming? How can I guard my heart and mind from presumption? 

7. If someone else hopes or believes that God is more merciful than I believe he is, would God be okay with that? Or would that make him or her a false teacher? At what point are they excluded from fellowship? Or from eternal life? How much authority has Christ given me to make this call? When am I being a faithful watchman? When am I being an accuser of the brethren? How do I discern the difference? How will this regulate what I say or write?

For my part, the story prompted me to ask myself, in my very real and seething anger towards those who brutalize children (all over the world, every day), do I so need to see this rapist-murderer fry in hell that I would hold to a theology of justice that puts Sally Jean there with him? God's perfect justice? Or is hell hotter for some? And what if the rapist-murderer were caught, sent to death row, then accepted Christ on the day he was given a lethal injection? After all, he only needs to acknowledge his sin and receive God's forgiveness, right? 

I found these questions very challenging. They have knocked some of the dogmatic wind from my sails. Hopefully they’ve made me less presumptuous and a lot more charitable. They’ve also left me more troubled and more hopeful in the right ways. If asked sincerely, they may even point the way to discussions where the light of seeking truth outshines the heat of being right.

Comments

[Tim]

To understand Universalism we need to go back to the foundation of our faith. As people of faith, we need to remember what that means. It means we work as hard as we can to understand our purpose and mandate, meanwhile trusting God with the big picture, including final judgement. if we could possibly accurately articulate the fate of others, then maybe God could delegate the eternal assessment to us. So, what do we know about God and our calling?
1. God is loving (which by the way doesn't always mean yes in our parenting course) 2. God is Holy 3. God is just 4. God is merciful. this seems like a paradox. The other paradox is the age old Calvin vs Armenian discussion. I.e if they don't hear the gospel will they be damned for it, or will we be for not taking it? Historically the church has been healthiest in terms of growth and substance when its held both in tension without trying to claim conclusions that it cant substantiate.
So, my suspicion is that God is keeping on track with our crowd of witnesses (Hebrews 11) and the early church (1 Cor 13) who had to journey by faith in the Word of God, and be content to see and prophesy in part. accordingly, with Christ as the Head of the church, it shouldn't be surprising that us 'parts' of the body don't possess the full understanding required for final judgement. We cant deny that Hell is clearly described in both Testaments, its our job to try to keep people out, but ultimately its Gods call.

[Robert J Enbody]

I believe the entire hell argument breaks down with the understanding that God is a loving God, or as it's stated more than once, God IS love. This is on its face clearly illogical, to start, but I find it implausible to prove or justify with a comprehensive reading of the gospels and New Testament, not just picking and choosing a few verses. In fact, growing up Assembly of God, hell and brimstone, it was when the pastor challenged us to really read the Bible. I did, lots of times and in different versions. I found it completely lacking in the hell and brimstone that pastor preached. Thus began a long, painful road of questioning.

It is now my contention that God’s being loving and the existence of a hell for we, weak and simple humans is logically fallacious. I say this because of His supposed requirement that we believe in Him and that the Bible is an accurate history. If the latter is true, God cannot be loving.

No loving being would purposely create a world full of evidence (rock solid evidence in the form of a geological record, fossils, and the certainty that we evolved into our current homosapien selves) to the contrary of His written account, keep Himself hidden, and having not been seen in His human form in 2000+ years, though His book screams out to me that Jesus promised the second coming within the natural lives of the apostles in Matthew 24.

Now providing a world full of rock solid evidence to the contrary, not providing an unmistakable understanding that He truly was the Mashiach, leaving generations of His chosen people destined for hell, keeping Himself hidden, not returning for much longer than promised; all these things that fly in the face so perfectly and rationally, using the very intellect He blessed us with, of the accuracy and validity of the Bible, if He is love and is so loving as stated in:

1 John 4:7-8

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

He could not both be love and hold us to account at such an unimaginable price. Many say He is just, thus hell, but justice requires both sides of evidence be available to the defendant.

I truly believe the verse above, He has shown Himself to me as such. I also believe that the hell I was taught to fear as a child is an imaginary tool, one that has been historically and currently used by men seeking ever greater power and congregation sizes, used for political power and personal enrichment. It has nothing to do with the beautiful, kind and loving good news that Christ brought, and I'm willing to risk my soul on that. I have no wish to spend eternity with such a cruel and petty being, anyway.

I follow Christ because I've found that a life of loving all people as He loves us, not burdened by concerning myself with judgement of other people's supposed sin or shortcomings, or fear for my soul, makes loving in a Christ like way so easy and a completely joyful way to live. I'm not perfect, but I don’t have to be.

[Henry]

True universalism is not biblical....it says that in the end everyone gets in apart from the cross....Jesus is not God, et al. But what is strange to me is how many people serve a very weak God...They say with their mouths that God is all-powerful, that He is totally sovereign., then make an abrupt U-turn and tell us that there's no way He can save everyone. He's essentially put godhood into the hands of man and is up there somewhere waiting for people to decide for Him. Really? Jesus said NO ONE can come to Him unless the Father draws them. There is no verse of scripture anywhere that says that the door of God's mercy is shut forever once you breathe you last here. Jesus also said that if He was lifted up from the earth (which He was) that He would draw ALL men to himself. I guess that must surely mean something else. In most cases all means all, not just 2%. We can be as generous as we want to be if HE said he would restore ALL things, we just need to believe it. On the practical side, I've never yet met a believer who believed in eternal punishment. If you let your mind wander for just 30 seconds and think about the dark, horrible prospect of burning endlessly without reprieve, you would sell yourself totally to the kingdom, leaving no stones unturned. You would live on bare minimum if it meant pulling one more sinner from the fire. I've NEVER met anyone like that. You see, you only walk what you really believe!!

[Corey]

Good overview, very helpful. Note of correction: Annihilation definition needs to be switched with conditional immortality definition. Most outside the discussion confuse the two. I'm Advent Christian, we've held the Conditional immortality distinction since our founding in the 1800's. Conditionalists believe in the resurrection of both the righteous and wicked and ina period of punishing that leads to ultimate destruction. Annihilationists like the Jehovah's Witness believe when you're dead your dead, no resurrection of the wicked I believe.

[brad]

I have been called a 'hopeful inclusivist.'

I was asked again today if I'm a universalist. So again, no.

I've been described as a 'hopeful inclusivist.' What this means is that while I see good reason in numerous passages of the Bible to hope that God might ultimately redeem everyone, at the same time, I also see very real warnings in the Bible that apart from Christ, the wicked (whoever that is) will perish (whatever that means).

Thus, rather than presumptuously saying that all MUST be saved or dogmatically proclaiming that most MUST burn in eternal hell, I choose to put my firm hope in the mercy of Christ alone for our eternal salvation and I freely and joyfully invite others with me to place their hope in Christ.

[Keith DeRose]

I know I'm late: I found this now b/c a facebook friend linked to it. Thanks, a couple of years late, for a thoughtful & helpful post.
One worry: I wonder why it's specified that on Annihilationism (#3) one's fate (heaven or annhil.) is set by what happens before one's death? Don't a lot of annihiliationists allow for post-mortem salvation, with those who continue to resist eventually being annihilated? That would be the position of Jon Kvanvig (THE PROBLEM OF HELL), but I think lots of further-chancers-after-death tend to think that annihilation is the fate of those who decisively and finally choose against God. (Not to venture any interpretation of C.S. Lewis on these matters, but some elements of his writings are likely to push some influenced by him in such directions.) On your taxonomy, these folks seem to be a mash-up of your positions #3 and #5, perhaps best viewed as a version of 5 with a 3-like annihilationist account of what happens to those who are not eventually reconciled.
Your question "Do I so need to see this rapist-murderer fry in hell that I would hold to a theology of justice that puts Sally Jean there with him?," is a powerful one. As a universalist, I've noticed that infernalists of various stripes *love* to talk about the likes of Hitler (and I'm happy to talk about that, too, as here: http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2011/05/hoping-all-will-3.html ). And when they do so, they often sound like it's concern for the victims that's largely driving them. But they tend to have views that put many of Hitler's victims in hell with him, and you can get interesting responses when you point that out.

[Brad]

To the one whose earthly father is in hell without an exit, I wonder ... is this a torment to you? or as with some children, a comfort?

Is the belief that there is no exit something you were indoctrinated with? Is it a theology you find necessary to believe? And what of the passages (some referenced in the article) that ALSO say he is not in hell, but has been annihilated? Or the other passages that say he is outside the city being invited in through the ever open gates? It seems that the sure knowledge that there is no exit comes unaware of the last two chapters of the Bible, or of the fairly straightforward hope of Romans 5, etc.

Could it be that there is biblical warrant at least for hope. Would such hope encourage you? Trouble you?

[Tim Wright]

Hi,

I believe my earthly father is in hell and there is no exit. I believe My heavenly Father is loving in allowing my earthly fathering to experience what he always wanted, a life with out God. Peace.

Tim

[Russellhewett]

Great article Brad! I've been thinking lately about how we've used hell to scare people into the kingdom, and then keep them there. If this is what we have reduced the gospel to, how far we have fallen...

I ask people, "If hell did not exist, how would it change the way you live?" and, "If anything would change, what does that say about the reason(s) you follow Jesus?"

I submit that fear is the reason slaves follow their masters, but not the reason sons follow their fathers.
Be blessed!

[Andrew Klager]

@Brian

You just described the Eastern Orthodox view of 'hell' as divine love and mercy. This is a 2000 year old understanding and is deeply 'Traditional'. You can check out my piece entitled "Orthodox Eschatology and St. Gregory of Nyssa's De Vita Moysis: Transfiguration, Cosmic Unity, and Compassion" in the forthcoming book, 'Compassionate Eschatology: The Future as Friend,' ed. Ted Grimsrud (Wipf & Stock 2011) for a fuller exposition.

But, for now, a quote from one of the most respected living Orthodox theologians, Fr. Thomas Hopko:

"[I]t is precisely the presence of God’s mercy and love which cause the torment of the wicked. God does not punish; he forgives. … In a word, God has mercy on all, whether all like it or not. If we like it, it is paradise; if we do not, it is hell. Every knee will bend before the Lord. Everything will be subject to Him. God in Christ will indeed be 'all and in all,' with boundless mercy and unconditional pardon. But not all will rejoice in God’s gift of forgiveness, and that choice will be judgment, the self-inflicted source of their sorrow and pain" (Fr. Thomas Hopko, “Foreword,” in Bulgakov, Orthodox Church, xiii).

[Florian Berndt]

Hi Everybody,
I am reading this journal for ages now but never really bothered to reply. Not only do I love this article but also 'Her Gates Will Never Be Shut' - fantastic book. The question of hell has put me on a journey about 7 years ago after an experience of Father's love that made it impossible for me to hold on to my traditions as I simply couldn't see them in scripture anymore. What actually happened was that I came back to my first love before I entered religious indoctrination.

I not only love the article but also the comments. In my own experience I found that our Heavenly Father is indeed an all-consuming Fire to those who spitefully want to use others. We should also remember that Christ is the Light that enlightens every person born itto the world and fire was the only light there was when this was written. (No electricity...)

For myself, hell is experienced in the Presence of the Lamb and His angels when the Lighe of Him Who is Love shines right into our darkness and we discover where we have betrayed His Image in us and others. The question that remains is how long it will take till the fire of His love has changed me and how much change I need. This will tertermine how long and how much torment anyone of us can and will experience in His Presence.

I am reminded of how the demons were tormented in and by the Presence of Jesus - when Perfect Love walked the earth in human flesh. And I guess the religious folks were tormentd by Him as well as He exposed their shallow lives with His loving Presence. So for me, that's how judgement and mercy go togther, how we can reconcile unconditional love and justice. Every man will have to give account and every deed will receive its just recompense as we are all judged - saltet by fire - in the light of self-giving love of Christ - so beatuifully exemplified in the cross.

That's why the call is everyday upon us to take our cross upon ourselves and follow Him with the admonition 'repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand'. But then again, that's only my two cents, for what they are worth. (I love the humility I see in all the writers here. Sorry if I was rambling on...)

Florian,
Germany

[Brian Zahnd]

Maguyton,

"Plus the subordinationism of dividing God the (angry) Father from Jesus the (merciful) Son. Plus the problem with God changing his mind. Etc."

Indeed! Something is happening. It's early in the game, but something is happening for sure. I don't know what to call it, but it's underway. And I bless it! Something new is being born, and it could well be as important as that game-changer of five hundred years ago.

[eric h janzen]

@ Brian:
Whoa...you may have just 'rambled', but you just blew my mind...for before I experienced the presence and love of Jesus I found his presence excrutiating...it made me want to run and hide...I did not know what his love and mercy were, but when I did, when I discovered what he was really like after tearing down some serious blockages, I found his presence and love to be the most wonderful, the most amazing things ever...I don't want to leave them ever and do my best to remain there all the time...I think there is truth in what you have said, for whatever my opinion is worth.
cheers,
ehj

[Maguyton]

Yeah, WORD on what Brian said. So when did you guys figure this out? It hit me about two years ago. I think it's the prevenient grace of Wesleyan theology taken to its logical conclusion plus the fact that justification by faith can't be justification by faith if "faith" is a work that God is evaluating. Plus the subordinationism of dividing God the (angry) Father from Jesus the (merciful) Son. Plus the problem with God changing his mind. Etc. I really didn't know that anybody else thought like this, so I kind of kept it to myself. Are we living through the second reformation or something?

[Brian Zahnd]

Hello Brad Jersak!

You know I love “Her Gates Will Never Be Shut”—so just some rambling thoughts...

God is love. It’s a daring statement that John makes. But the Apostle dares to make it—twice!

So what if hell is the love of God?

Consider...

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by doing so you will heap burning coals on his head.” –Romans 12:20

The Apostle Paul (quoting from Proverbs) says that loving your enemy will result in a fiery torment for the enemy. (This statement is made in the context of a discussion on the wrath of God.)

But think about how this phenomenon of burning coals works—this kindling of fire upon enemy heads.

If Brad Jersak is my enemy and I hate him, his love in the form of a table laden with food and drink becomes a source of fiery torment for me. I am in hell.

But if I accept Brad’s offer of love and reconciliation, what was previously a source of fiery torment becomes the shared meal of mutual friendship. I am in heaven.

Brad hasn’t changed, but I have. So instead of experiencing his love as torment, it becomes a delight. Burning coals on my head becomes, "Pass the roast beef, please." The wrath of Brad has become the love of Brad; but not because Brad has changed—I am the one who has changed.

What if this is something like how the love and wrath of God work?

The ocean of God’s love is a lake of fire for those rejecting that love. And it’s forever. Until it isn’t. The rejection of God’s love and kindness that leads to repentance always has the possibility of being forever. Such is the radical nature of God’s sovereign choice to confer freewill upon his image-bearing creatures. But to receive the love of God as love can never be torment, but only beatific delight.

Furthermore...

Jesus can save anyone he likes whenever he likes. Period. And why? Because he is Lord! Satan is not Lord. Death is not Lord. Justicia (that blindfolded goddess with her scales and sword) is not Lord. Jesus is Lord! Jesus has the keys of Hades and Death, and he can do with those keys as he pleases.

Finally...

Because Jesus is Lord my hope can be as audacious as Christ is gracious.

BZ

[Maguyton]

I think I'm on the pessimistic end of category # 5. I believe that hell is the prison of self-justification that is an inherent inertia we fall into as rational creatures who have eaten the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. We need to make sense to ourselves so we try to rationalize the things we do that hurt other people. This keeps us in a permanently dissonant state of being that can only be resolved if we're given the space to admit we're wrong which is opened up by Christ's atonement. Romans 11:32 says that "God has imprisoned us all to disobedience so that He might show mercy to all." Allow yourself a moment to absorb the implications of this verse. God deliberately keeps us from being perfect so that we will not fall into the trap of thinking that we're gods who don't need His mercy.

It's important to recognize that God's mercy is not just blanket forgiveness and the fawning acceptance of a pushover, but a paternalistic gesture that puts us in our place which will be extremely painful and humiliating to us unless we have recognize our utter dependence on Him as creatures who can do nothing without Him. To recognize God's sovereignty over every ounce of goodness that we have ever received or performed is about as counterintuitive as it could possibly be in our context of free market values where we're conditioned to be self-sufficient meritocrats. After a lifetime of being socialized under capitalism into thinking of reality in terms of rights that we have earned and rewards we deserve, I'm not sure that we will be capable of entering God's merciful presence without hating His aristocratic magnanimity unless we have put our trust in Christ's atonement and have thus been liberated from the need to beam with pride and claim as our own accomplishments the goodness that God has had the mercy to let us participate in.

The doctrinal loyalty tests of contemporary evangelicalism are the modern-day analogue of what circumcision meant to the Galatians. Paul would write us a blistering letter if he were around to see the mess we've created using his very words to undermine the point that he was trying to make. We cannot be saved until we stop trying to prove our worth to God whether it's through helping old ladies across the street, taking communion faithfully at mass each week, or having a perfectly orthodox doctrine. All these things are works; just because doctrinal correctness is intellectual doesn't mean it's not a work; it is our damnation to cling to doctrinal correctness if we do so in lieu of trusting in Christ's justification.

We are saved FROM trying to prove our worth to God because doing that perpetuates our imprisonment to self-justification. We are not saved by agreeing with the right doctrines about Jesus; we are saved FROM thinking that we have to do that BY trusting that Jesus has atoned for our ignorance, confusion, arrogance, and whatever else stands between us and God.

[Kevin Miller]

Great piece, Brad. You did such a good job of summing things up that it made me wonder why I'm making a documentary on this topic. Then I smacked myself in my (considerably large and rapidly expanding) forehead: "Oh yeah, b/c most people can't be bothered to read!"

At any rate, your gracious, inquisitive, conversational and humble approach to this issue is a great example for the rest of us to follow--a tone I will strive to emulate in "Hellbound?"

Too often I feel like those who ask questions and seek conversation are really just masking deep-seated animosity toward those who disagree with them. I don't feel that coming through your work at all.

Which brings me to my final point: I think the way we talk about hell is just as (if not more) important than what we believe about the topic.

[Derek]

Thanks for the categories. Hell and final judgement are mysterious. When we see them mentioned in the Scripture they are often cloaked in metaphor and unclear imagery. So you are right to open the door to a variety of evangelical interpretations of hell. However the exegetical basis for some interpretations are stronger than others. Furthermore some interpretations have a stronger historical tradition than others. With the said, your point is well taken....we need to keep the conversation open.

[Eric H Janzen]

While this topic usually makes me groan and want to hide, not because I don't think it's important but because it seems to lead to conflict, I thought I'd add an observation: Behind the question(s) seems to be a latent concern with consequence. We tend to believe that for our actions there should be consequences, whether good or bad.

Using your fictional example I'm sure that most people would feel deep compassion for this girl whose life was taken from her in such a traumatic and tragic way and would not be overly opposed to her 'getting in'. The more challenging issue lies with the unknown attacker, the monster who brutalized and murdered her, a person whose actions show them to be evil in heart. We, with a sense of wanting justice (and perhaps some revenge), naturally want there to be a meaningful consequence for their evil. It is a distinct challenge, from a human perspective, to consider the story beyond the example you have given: the rapist and murderer later in life receives Christ and 'gets in', while the girl whose life was taken from her before she could make the decision does not. How quickly the debate can take complex turns!

For my part, I have to confess a certain uncertainty, which bothers me because I'm me. I like to understand things and have concrete answers. Alas, the Bible does not seem to offer one on this topic as exemplified in your description of the varying views. Worse, each is in some way defensible. I can make a personal decision on what I want to believe, but there is seemingly no way to make a decision based on a clear answer. So I feel like I'm in the weeds, as they say. Perhaps this is the real reason why I don't like the debate.

What does seem clear to me is that on the whole we do not grasp the extent of God's love and mercy. The Gospel when studied is so radical and counter intuitive that most of us fail to really take in the depth of the love of our Creator. The Kingdom of Heaven is indeed 'upside down' when compared to human nature. I suspect that when we all stand before the judgment seat we will, from the purest saint to the worst sinner (Paul the Apostle apparently) be utterly shocked.

Lately, I have landed on the only ground I can: God knows what he will do and I trust him completely. Therein is my peace where I have no ultimate answer to give.

Hope this doesn't muddy the waters further.

cheers,
ehj

[Jean]

I think we need to ask more questions ) and I read your book it's awesome, I believe the saving grace is up to Christ not us and I pray God will have mercy on me being that I'm saved by grace too. I really like the part in the Bible where the Spirit and Bride say come. Before the new world was discovered I'm sure Columbus was called a heretic

[Ronnie]

It appears that you reversed the definitions of 3 and 4. Historically, conditionalists avoided the label "annihilationism", because that term was adopted by those who denied the resurrection of the lost.

Those strong distinctions no longer hold and "annihilationism" and "conditional immortality" are used more or less synonymously by evangelicals who believe that the unsaved will one day be no more. That's because annihilationism presupposes that immortality is not innate (or unconditional), and if immortality is only bestowed on condition (faith in Christ), it follows that everyone else will eventually cease to exist (be "annihilated").

[jan]

Thank you for a response that is very useful and enlightening!

Amen to the last paragraph in particular!

Blessings!