« The Journey to the East by Herman Hesse (1956) - Ron Dart | Main | Why we need the language of hell - Kevin Miller »

August 10, 2012



I think the problem universalism and annhilationism had/has is that when people hear those words they hear "no hell." And well, whatever your position on hell is, you can't deny that the Bible talks about a place called "hell." Thus, when most people hear you are a universalist or annhilationist all they see you doing is outright denying what the Bible says.

However, once people learn more about evangelical universalism and annhilationism and learn that they don't deny hell, they just deny a certain understanding of hell,they realize the positions aren't as radical and blatantly "denying" the Bible as they once thought.

That's why I think annhilationism is much more accepted now and why I think evangelical universalism Robin Parry style will become much more accepted.

However, the position that Hell just doesn't exist at all I think will forever be a position in the "liberal camp."

Florian Berndt

Great articel! I found that one argues from the Bible about universal reconciliation a lot of traditionalists say that this is not a traditional position and must therefore be rejected.

When one argues from church history the accusation that one believes in the mere words of mortal men instead in the authority of Scripture is very quickly dished out. So you can never win.

This is not always the case but most of the time, I found. Having read most of Pinnock's works just recently I am still amazed that he never brought up the possibility of universal restoration and seemed to be quite opposed to it in some was.

But then again, I think it makes kind of sens in the light of how he viewed 'free will'. Still love his focus on the relational nature of God.



The comments to this entry are closed.