The Narrow Path Ministries

Steve,

Thanks much for sending me your book on hell. Now I am educated on universalism...well, actually, there wasn't a lot that hasn't been discussed here.

I was surprised that the book was not a more even-handed presentation of the three views. As I was reading through the book I noticed that the cross-examinations seemed to be quite different for the traditional and the universalist views. I wondered if it was just an impression of mine so I undertook a line by line analysis of the traditional and universalist cross - examinations, the two where the contrast seemed most obvious. I went through the universalist first, categorizing each line as positive (supportive), neutral, or negative (against) for the particular view. By my count, the cross examination of the universalist view was positive 480 lines and negative 224 lines. I then did the same for the traditional view and did not find enough in its favor to make it worth counting; it was almost entirely negative argument (against) the traditional view. You are consistent; this is the pattern you have followed here at the forum.

I was surprised that you included "Talbott's Template" under "Restoration is Logical", p. 240, where there are "three theological statements - all of which are affirmed by one or another mainstream group, but at least one of which must be logically rejected, if the other two are valid".

The three propositions are:

1. It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore His will) to reconcile all sinners to Himself.

2. It is within God's power to achieve His redemptive purpose for the world.

3. Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefor either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether.

Then the following paragraph states: "That these three propositions cannot all be true is self-evident and is acknowledged by all. No theological system attempts to harmonize them, but every system must jettison one or the other, retaining the other two, in order to maintain its own internal coherence."

Talbott is very misleading. If the first statement is written to fully reflect what almost all Christians believe, then a great many, probably a majority, of Christians can easily affirm all three statements.

Statement revised:

1.It is God's redemptive plan for the world (and therefore His will) to reconcile all sinners to himself who repent during this life. (note: this statement could say trust in Jesus, place their faith in God, etc.)

I have not been much impressed with the work of Talbott.

Enough for now, and again thanks for the book.

Hi Homer,

Thanks for your review. I would like to clarify a few things.

A "cross-examination" does not promise to be a net rejection. What I endeavored to do in my book was to consider and to cross-examine every argument for each view. In each case, I provided the following:

1) the arguments in favor of a given view;
2) whatever exegetical or logical criticisms can be raised against those arguments; and
3) any answer defenders of the view might reasonably make to those criticisms.

Points in category #1 are found in the chapters defending each view; while points under #2 and #3 are found in the cross-examinations of each.

As near as I can tell, I left nothing out. If, upon cross-examination, every argument for the traditional view was critiqued as faulty, and the traditionalists had no answer back, this is how I was obliged to leave the matter in my treatment. I included every argument for traditionalism that I could find in the literature. If the view came up short, then I would blame the defenders of the view for not having provided a better case. I can't invent strengths for a case that I can't find in scripture or in the writings of its defenders. Please tell me what responses you, if you were a traditionalist, would have raised to the criticisms in my cross-examination of that view. Perhaps I can include them in my next edition.

As for my cross-examinations of conditionalism and restorationism, I am not aware of omitting any of the criticisms of these views that are in the literature. It so happens, in many cases, that the criticisms are transparently invalid. My book could not be regarded as a thorough treatment of the topic if it included only the criticisms of each view, and neglected the obvious answers to those criticisms.

You may need to read again the disclaimers I gave on pages 14-16, where (among other things) I wrote:

I have attempted to provide the very best biblical arguments that I can find in the literature defending each viewpoint, including the traditional one. If any one view comes out sounding more credible than another as a result, I trust it may not be due to any prejudicial treatment by this author, but only to the fact that its biblical arguments are more sound and unassailable.

I did not promise that none of the views would come out looking more (or less) credible than another. To promise such an outcome would require that each view be equally valid and supportable. I don't believe this to be so. To artificially pretend that an inferior view has as much right to be respected as a stronger view has would be to follow that politically-correct policy of giving all students the same grade, or calling each sports team the "winner," regardless of performance. In a debate, if a viewpoint wishes to command respect, it must put up respectable arguments.

I promised to provide the strongest case available for each view. You have not mentioned whether you feel I have done this or not. I think my chapter defending traditionalism was as persuasive as is that found in any of the traditionalists' own literature. Do you disagree?

My book has mostly been criticized by traditionalists. My answer to them is, "If you have better arguments for your view than those I presented for it, then please bring them forward. Those who have written the books defending that view have neglected to mention them."

As for Talbott's template, I think he states it clearly and accurately enough. The first proposition is that God wants all people to be saved. This is the view of almost every non-Calvinist, and it is the non-Calvinist that he is representing in that remark. You want it to be changed to say that God only wants all repentant believers to be saved. This modification seems calculated to suggest that those who remain unbelievers were people whom God did not desire to save. This is precisely the Calvinist position.

Talbott is seeking, in the first proposition, to represent the Arminian view. He represents the Calvinist position in his second proposition. It is not legitimate for you to turn the first proposition into a Calvinist statement as well, unless only Calvinistic statements are considered valid. You (probably inadvertently, since you claim not to be a Calvinist) have made all three statements conformable to Calvinism, in order to make them say three things that you believe. The need to do so suggests that you are apparently more of a Calvinist than you have previously admitted.

Your proposed modification suggests that you do not think God wants to save all people. I know of nothing more distinctively Calvinistic than that. Most Christians believe that Jesus came with the intention of saving the world.

Hi Steve,

What I meant to say, and perhaps did not say as well as I could, is that God wants all people saved, but not unconditionally. I do not believe it is accurate to say that God's purpose is to save sinners who do not meet the qualifications He has established: repent or perish. That this (repentance) must occur in this life is a given to most Christians.

Something else that came to mind as I was reading the book was your discussion of the historical view of the early church. Numerous times on your program, and in your book, p. 128, you have mentioned Phillip Schaff, the church historian in regard to the claims made about the six theological schools of the early church, four of which are said to be universalist. As I had previously mentioned to you, this statement is found in the Schaff - Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge in the article on Universalism, written by a universalist, as you acknowledge in your book. Elsewhere in this encyclopedia, in the article on Apocatastasis, there is the statement that "the writers defending the apocatastasis are decidedly in the minority". You state in your book that it would be unlikely that Schaff, as editor, would allow the statement about the six schools into the encyclopedia if not credible. But Schaff is not listed as the editor in my set. I am unsure how his name became associated with the encyclopedia; the editor-in-chief was Samual Macauley Jackson, unless there was another version? Jackson states that he worked on the encyclopedia for over eight years.

I have recently obtained Schaff's "History of the Christian Church", eight volumes. In volume II, p. 606, there is an article "After Judgment. Future Punishment." where Schaff discusses the three views presented in your book. Schaff states that: "Everlasting Punishment of the wicked always was, and always will be the orthodox theory...the majority of the fathers who speak plainly on this terrible subject, favor this view". Do you know of any actual statement elsewhere in his church history, or any other place that would associate Schaff with the idea that belief in universalism ever predominated? As you are aware, Richard Bauckham, in his "Universalism: A Historical Survey" also discredits the idea that universalism was ever the dominant view. I am wondering how historically credible the claims of the universalists are. Schaff doesn't even regard Clement of Alexandria as a universalist.

What I meant to say, and perhaps did not say as well as I could, is that God wants all people saved, but not unconditionally. I do not believe it is accurate to say that God's purpose is to save sinners who do not meet the qualifications He has established: repent or perish.

Evangelical Universalists agree with this statement. However, they believe that God wants all men to be saved, and that He is under no obligation to limit the opportunities for people to meet the qualifications to any particular timeframe. They regard God as sovereign, and victorious over Satan's works (e.g., 1 John 3:8). They consider that what Jesus accomplished for the human race exceeds what Satan (through Adam) accomplished for its destruction (e.g., Rom.5:15).

That this (repentance) must occur in this life is a given to most Christians.

True. The idea of infant baptism was the almost universal view of all Christians for over 1000 years. It is amazing how long a tradition without any scriptural support can dominate the Christian populus.

Something else that came to mind as I was reading the book was your discussion of the historical view of the early church. Numerous times on your program, and in your book, p. 128, you have mentioned Phillip Schaff, the church historian in regard to the claims made about the six theological schools of the early church, four of which are said to be universalist. As I had previously mentioned to you, this statement is found in the Schaff - Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge in the article on Universalism, written by a universalist, as you acknowledge in your book. Elsewhere in this encyclopedia, in the article on Apocatastasis, there is the statement that "the writers defending the apocatastasis are decidedly in the minority".

This is no doubt the case. The majority of Christians living in any age leave little or no written record of their beliefs. Only a few ancient Christians specifically "defended" universalism. Then again, very few church fathers, prior to Augustine, "defended" the traditional view in writing. What the majority believed is unknown. However, Augustine (a century and a half after Origen) certainly felt that universalism, in his day, was a dominant alternative to his own (traditional) view, and said that it was the view of "very many" Christians.

What the universalist writers point out is that Origen and Gregory of Nyssa were both outspoken universalists, and were considered orthodox by (apparently) the whole church during their lifetimes, and for considerable time after their deaths. The former was the most respected theologian of his time, and the latter was posthumously dubbed the "Father of Fathers." The fact that their universalistic views were not condemned suggests that those views were not considered unorthodox—and may well have been embraced by most of those familiar with their theology. Once universalism is presented to Christians, very little prevents them from accepting it, other than the fear that it is "heretical." Since the view was never denounced as heresy until the sixth century (by the same people who would have condemned many of your beliefs), it seems very possible that most of those who heard Origen and Gregory would have found their views biblically compelling (as many do today).

Neither Scaff, nor Bauckham, nor you or I know what the majority of Christians believed in an age where few left written records. We all have to make educated guesses, but we are not stretching the credulity too far in suggesting that the majority probably believed what their most influential theologians believed.

You state in your book that it would be unlikely that Schaff, as editor, would allow the statement about the six schools into the encyclopedia if not credible. But Schaff is not listed as the editor in my set. I am unsure how his name became associated with the encyclopedia; the editor-in-chief was Samual Macauley Jackson, unless there was another version? Jackson states that he worked on the encyclopedia for over eight years.

I assumed Schaff to have had an editorial role of some kind in a work bearing his name. In any case, the information about the six schools is confirmed by Beecher, as I point out in my book.

I have recently obtained Schaff's "History of the Christian Church", eight volumes. In volume II, p. 606, there is an article "After Judgment. Future Punishment." where Schaff discusses the three views presented in your book. Schaff states that: "Everlasting Punishment of the wicked always was, and always will be the orthodox theory...the majority of the fathers who speak plainly on this terrible subject, favor this view".

My guess is that, before Augustine, you find very few fathers speaking "plainly" of the view. Traditionalists, as I mention in my book, often include, as supporting their position, fathers (like Irenaeus) who said nothing about eternal torment, but only repeated the scriptural phrase "aionios fire." This is often the sole basis for claiming that a church father supported eternal torment. Yet (as I pointed out in my book), all three views use the term "aionios fire." It is not enough to go on.

Do you know of any actual statement elsewhere in his church history, or any other place that would associate Schaff with the idea that belief in universalism ever predominated? As you are aware, Richard Bauckham, in his "Universalism: A Historical Survey" also discredits the idea that universalism was ever the dominant view.

Schaff and Bauckham are reputable scholars. However, even good scholars often claim to know what no one can know—jumping to conclusions from inadequate evidence. See my longest response, above.

I am wondering how historically credible the claims of the universalists are.

I have no reason to place their competence or honesty on a level below that of traditionalists scholars—especially the prestigious traditionalists that I read in researching for my book—Gerstner, Morey, Peterson, Packer, et al. What a group of sloppy thinkers and exegetes these men prove to be, when dealing with this subject! Fortunately, however, we do not have to depend on the competence level of such scholars. We have the scriptures, after all.

Schaff doesn't even regard Clement of Alexandria as a universalist.

The quotes from Clement, quoted in my book, sound very universalist to me. It seems that scholars, like everyone else, can only see what they are willing to see. I am willing to see anything anyone wishes to show me in the fathers. Traditionalists often are not willing to see things that undermine the traditions.

Hi Steve,

In your initial reply you wrote:

As near as I can tell, I left nothing out. If, upon cross-examination, every argument for the traditional view was critiqued as faulty, and the traditionalists had no answer back, this is how I was obliged to leave the matter in my treatment. I included every argument for traditionalism that I could find in the literature. If the view came up short, then I would blame the defenders of the view for not having provided a better case. I can't invent strengths for a case that I can't find in scripture or in the writings of its defenders. Please tell me what responses you, if you were a traditionalist, would have raised to the criticisms in my cross-examination of that view. Perhaps I can include them in my next edition.

Since I obtained Schaff's Church History I have found a strong argument against universalism that I had not heard presented so forcefully before, and I had it all this time in Lange's Commentary on Ecclesiastes, of all places. Schaff referred to an excursis in Lange, on "Olamic or Aeonian Words in Scripture", written by Prof. Tayler Lewis, LL.D. Following is the part pertinent to the universalist argument:

It may be thought that this view (of olam and aion not in themselves denoting absolute endlessness).....must weaken the force of certain passages in the New Testament, especially of that most solemn sentence, Matthew 25:46.This, however comes from a wrong view of what constitutes the real power of the impressive language there employed. The preacher, in contending with the Universalist, or Restorationist, would commit an error, and it may be, suffer a failure in his argument, should he lay the whole stress of it on the etymological or historical significance of the words, aion, aionios, and attempt to prove that, of themselves, they necessarily carry the meaning of endless duration. There is another method by which the conclusion is reached in a much more impressive and cavil-silencing manner. It is by insisting on that dread aspect of finality that appears not in a single word merely, but in the power and vividness of the language taken as a whole. The parabolic images evidently represent a closing scene. It is the last great act in the drama of human existence, the human world, or aion, we may say, if not the cosmical. At all events, our race, the Adamic race, the human aion, or world, is judged; whether that judgment occupy a solar day of twenty-four hours, or a much longer historic period. There comes at last the end. Sentence is pronounced. The condemned go away, eis kolasis aionios- the righteous eis zoe aionios. Both states are expressed in language precisely parallel, and so presented that we cannot exegetically make any difference in the force and extent of the terms. Aionios, from its adjective form, may perhaps mean an existence, a duration, measured by aions, or worlds (taken as a measuring unit), just as our present world, or aion, is measured by years or centuries. But it would be more in accordance with the plainest etymological usage to give it simply the sense of olamic or aionic, or to regard it as denoting, like the Jewish olam habba, the world to come. These shall go away into the punishment [the restraint, imprisonment] of the world to come, and these into the life of the world to come. That is all we can make etymologically or exegetically in this passage. And so it is ever in the old Syriac Version, where the one rendering is still more unmistakably clear: "these shall go away to the pain of the olam, and these to the life of the olam - the world to come.
(Note: Here Lewis references the same Syriac expression in numerous places in that New Testament where it is rendered "that which belongs to the olam, singular.)
They shall go away - the one here, the other there. The two classes so long mingled are divided, no more, as it would seem, to be again together. The "wheat is gathered into the garner," the "tares are cast into the fire." The harvest is over; there is no more to follow; at least, the language gives us no intimation of anything beyond. The catastrophe has come; the drama has ended; the curtain drops. Shall it never rise again? Is this solemn close forever in the sense of irreversibility? Who is authorized to say there will ever be an arrest of this judgment, or a new trial ever granted? Everything in the awful scene so graphically depicted seems to favor the one thought of finality. Rash minds may indulge the thought of some change, some dispensation in still remoter "worlds to come", but there is no warrant for it in any of the language employed. If there is allowed the thought of change, it may be inferred of the one state as well as the other. The zoe aionios may have its interruption, its renewed probation, and exposure to evil; exegetically this may be as well sustained as the other. (Note: As Origin speculated.) To rebut any such presumption, we have, too, our Saviour's words, John xiv. 2: "If it were not so, I would have told you." There would have been a similar ground for such language here as when He said, "Let not your hearts be troubled; in my Father's house are many mansions;" there would have been the same reason for allaying fears of change on the one hand, or preventing despair on the other, had there not been the intention of to impress that thought of finality which the whole dramatic presentation so vividly conveys: If there were ages of change coming somewhere in the vast future, in the infinite flow of the "ages of ages", when the zoe should cease, or the kolasis be intermitted, "I would have told you". He has not told us; and no man should have the audacity to raise the veil He has so solemnly dropped before the vision of both sense and reason. Let it remain for a new revelation, when He chooses to make it. Till then it stands: They shall go away, the one into life, the other into the imprisonment, of the world to come. There is no more, let no one add to it; let no one take away.

Words to the wise, indeed.

You also wrote:

Evangelical Universalists agree with this statement. However, they believe that God wants all men to be saved, and that He is under no obligation to limit the opportunities for people to meet the qualifications to any particular timeframe.

I would agree with this statement. But that would have nothing to do with God setting a limit Himself, which most all Christians believe He has done.

Hi Homer,

Thanks for these quotes. Those at the beginning could be added to the other scholarly assessments of the meaning of olam and aionios which I included in my chapter on that subject. Of course, I included these very definitions among the possibilities. I hope that this writer's points will cure some of restorationism's critics of the tendency to lean entirely on the words olam and aionios for their points (notice how often this is done in past discussions at this forum). Remember this in future discussions:

The preacher, in contending with the Universalist, or Restorationist, would commit an error, and it may be, suffer a failure in his argument, should he lay the whole stress of it on the etymological or historical significance of the words, aion, aionios, and attempt to prove that, of themselves, they necessarily carry the meaning of endless duration.

The argument otherwise is very weak. Dogmatic affirmations are not the same thing as strong arguments. The writer says that the parable of the sheep and the goats "seems" to depict a final end. So it does. It depicts the final end of the present age, and its conclusion in the judgment. The writer thinks it audacious to suggest that there may be some reversal at some point afterward, since this particular parable gives no such intimation.

In answer, I think it audacious to demand so much from a single parable. This parable tells of the judgment—which is apparently its full intention. Other passages throughout scripture raise serious questions as to whether any changes may occur in the destinies of men at some later point. The restorationist does not depend (as the traditionalist does) on the contents of a single parable and a few symbolic statements in Revelation, but on consideration of the whole counsel of God.

Steve,

One of the critical ideas in your book in support of the universalist argument is the idea that people condemned to hell will repent, every last one, eventually, and that this repentance will render them acceptable to God and that they will thus be reconciled to Him and enjoy His presence forever. Universalism is false if this is not true. On p.220 you wrote:

Universalists believe, however, that there is no force or authority above God that would prevent Him from extending to sinners the opportunity for repentance beyond the grave, if He wished to do so. Until some scriptural or logical reason can be presented for placing such a limit on God....

And on p.261 you wrote regarding repentance after death:

To say there is some power or authority higher than God that forbids His continuing to seek His objective beyond the grave is to insist upon what the bible does not assert.

These are straw man statements. Who would argue against them? God is sovereign, and according to His good pleasure He has fixed a time beyond which repentance is of no avail. It will be too late.

Consider:

Luke 14:15-24, New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15. When one of those who were reclining at the table with Him heard this, he said to Him, “Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!” 16. But He said to him, “A man was giving a big dinner, and he invited many; 17. and at the dinner hour he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come; for everything is ready now.’ 18. But they all alike began to make excuses. The first one said to him, ‘I have bought a piece of land and I need to go out and look at it; please consider me excused.’ 19. Another one said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to try them out; please consider me excused.’ 20. Another one said, ‘I have married a wife, and for that reason I cannot come.’ 21. And the slave came back and reported this to his master. Then the head of the household became angry and said to his slave, ‘Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the city and bring in here the poor and crippled and blind and lame.’ 22. And the slave said, ‘Master, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.’
23. And the master said to the slave, ‘Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled.

So Jesus is dining at the home of one of the leaders of the Pharisees and He addresses a parable to the Pharisees and scribes present informing them that those who scorn the grace He offers to them will find themselves replaced at His eschatological dinner. And he concludes with this statement addressed to those who heard (the "you" is plural) this parable:

24. For I tell you (plural), none of those men who were invited shall taste (in the future) of my dinner.’”

Their exclusion is irrevocable.

The same theme is presented in the parable of the ten virgins, Matthew 25:1-13. It is too late, the door is closed, and will not be opened though they plead to be let in. So much for post mortem repentance; it is of no avail.

And consider warning by the author of Hebrews:

Hebrews 12:15-17, New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15. See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled; 16. that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. 17. For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.

The whole point of the warning is the irrevocable loss by Esau of his blessing and inheritance. Whether you believe, as I do, that the "repentance" sought was a change of mind by his father Isaac, or Esau's own repentance, the point still stands as a warning: do not come short of the grace of God; your place in the end will be irrevocable.

Hi Homer,

A universalist could answer your objections according to his understanding, but the point I would make is that you act as if the universalist arguments are being argued by me in the book, rather than by the universalists. You will notice that I argue for the traditional view in one chapter, using the writers from that view, and I argue for conditionalism in one chapter, using quotes from that camp. The chapter from which you are drawing quotes is in the chapter defending universalism, using arguments from that camp. The fact that there are ways of answering the arguments of each camp is seen in the chapters (one each) that cross-examine each view. The book, as a whole does not argue for one particular view.

Hi Steve,

I would like to see from you or any of the universalists, what there answers would be to the "too late" theme.

Blessings to you and all this Easter!

This doesn't seem like a hard question.

Too late to reign with Christ. This life is the qualifying ground. Those who fail the finals do not qualify. It is like a timed exam. Once the bell goes off, there is no more time to get the answers right. The judgment day is the bell going off. There is no more time to get in on the graduation and promotion celebration after that.

Those who miss it, as Paul put it, "will not inherit the kingdom of God." That is, they do not inherit a position of ruling—as Adonijah did not inherit the kingdom of David. That doesn't mean, of course, that Adonijah was not a citizen, or a subject in that kingdom. If some are said to reign, there must be some who are reigned over.