Is Evangelical Universalism An Oxymoron?

Is Evangelical Universalism an Oxymoron?
By Stuart McEwing
Stuart McEwing is a Master's of Theology student at Laidlaw College, Auckland, New
Zealand, and cofounder of the evangelical apologetics ministry Thinking Matters
New Zealand.
Key Words: Evangelicalism, Universalism.
A tense relationship between the understanding of hell as eternal and the doctrine of
universal salvation has existed in Christianity since at least the Church Father Origin.
As such, when megachurch celebrity pastor Rob Bell released his book Love Wins: A
Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, suggesting
that teaching heterodoxy (if not outright heresy) was an acceptable option for his
readership, it understandably unleashed a controversy. What marks this current furor
is the promulgation and attempt at popularization of universalism within an
apparently evangelical1 sphere that has traditionally excluded such doctrines.2 Is it
both possible and permissible for an evangelical to hold and teach this controversial
eschatological and soteriological position of universalism?
The difficulty of assessing this question is exacerbated by the fact that I am not
working from an unbiased position, but consciously from within an evangelical
1
What this term denotes will be discussed in a later section of this paper.
2
Proponents of universalism who are also selfidentified evangelicals are not without
precedent. However, the proportionately few evangelicals who have been universalists have
been thought of as idiosyncratic and unorthodox.
1
framework. As Hilborn and Horrocks note, assessments on whether universalists can
be evangelical are prone to circular reasoning.3 This paper, therefore, will not be
focusing on the question of the truth or falsehood of the doctrine of universalism, but
instead exploring the relationship between this doctrine and evangelicalism, and
attempting an evaluation of the viability of combining both together. The questions
that will be asked are the following. To what extent is evangelicalism congruent with
universalism? Do either have implications that exclude the other? Are there
implications of either which are mutually reinforcing? Is it reasonable to be an
evangelical and hold to universalism? In short, is ‘evangelical universalism’, as we
shall discuss later, an oxymoron?
Evangelicalism
Before addressing those questions it is necessary to assess what is meant when the
term ‘evangelical’ is used.4 In this section I will look at a brief history of the
3
‘[F]or most evangelicals, and for many nonevangelicals besides, the very concept itself is
an oxymoron. However conservative a person's background and theological formation has
been, the historical evangelical norm is that once that person embraces universalism, he or she
de facto forfeits any authentic claim to the description “evangelical”.’ David Hilborn and Don
Horrocks, “Universalistic Trends in the Evangelical Tradition: An Historical Perspective,” in
Universal Salvation? The Current Debate (ed. R. A. Parry and C. H. Partridge; Cumbria:
William B. Eerdmans, 2003), 238.
4
David A Bebbington notes the use of the word evangelical (lowercase) can legitimately be
used to refer to those who are ‘of the gospel’, whereas when capitalized, Evangelicalism
refers to the specific movement which began in the 1730s. In this paper the use of the term
shall be in the latter capitalized sense, even though it shall not be capitalized. See David W.
Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History From the 1730s to the 1980s
(London: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 1.
2
movement and how the term has been used in the past and how it understood toady.
This will be to ensure the definition we shall use to assess the compatibility of
evangelicalism and universalism is recognizable to as broad a range of people as
possible, without losing an historical continuity. I will then propose a positive and
prescriptive definition.
Historical overview
Evangelicalism is a transdenominational and transnational movement conceived by a
longing for ‘a true religion of the heart’ latent in the seventeenth century, which
broadened and deepened in the eighteenth century,5 and was properly birthed in the
Protestant revivals of the 1730’s and 40’s. John Wesley (170391), George Whitefield
(171470), and Jonathan Edwards (170358) were among many other revivalists who
were the first of what today historians call ‘Evangelicals.’ Still, the usage of the term
extends right back to the beginnings of the religious ‘protest’ in Europe of the
sixteenth century.
Derived from the Greek word evangelion, from eu ‘good’ and angelion ‘message’,
essentially to be ‘evangelical’ is to preach the gospel (good news). The term was first
published in English in 1531 by William Tyndale (c. 1492-1536) saying, ‘He
exhorteth them to proceed constantly in the evangelical truth.’6 Sir Tomas Moore
wrote one year later, ‘Tyndale [and] his evangelical brother Barns’7 and was the first
to draw a theological distinctive with the term. For the Reformer Martin Luther
(14831546), ‘evangelicals’ were those who were the bearers of the ‘good news.’ He
5
Ted Campbell, The Religion of the Heart: European Religious Life in the Seventeenth and
Eighteenth Centuries (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991).
6
Phil Johnson, “The History of Evangelicalism (Part 1),” Pulpit Magazine (16 March, 2009):
24. [Italics mine]
7
Ibid. [Italics mine].
3
employed the term to distinguish between Protestant and Catholic, specifically
referring to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.8
Usage of the term ‘evangelicalism’ came into its own with the social reform of the
nineteenth century. William Wilberforce (17591833) is the prime example of an
evangelical, campaigning tirelessly for issues such as child labor, education, orphans
and widows, the improvement of conditions for factory workers, prisoners, the sick,
and most notably the abolition of the slave trade. He was at one point linked with
sixtynine separate groups dedicated to social improvement. According to his
biographer he performed the wedding ceremony between faith and culture.9
Applying the gospel’s ideas to culture, derisively called ‘dogoodism’,10 became
vogue during the Victorian Era. William Booth (18241912) and his wife Catherine
(182990), founders of the Salvation Army in 1865, were ‘evangelicals’ and displayed
an active concern towards ‘undesirables’ such as alcoholics, prostitutes and morphine
addicts. Unlike the Puritans who worked for churchstate purification, evangelicals
8
John H. Gerstner, “The Theological Boundaries of Evangelical Faith” in The Evangelicals
(ed. D. P. Wells and J. D. Woodbridge; Nashville: Abingdon Press 1975), 21–36. ‘Despite the
dominant usage of euangellismos in the New Testament, its derivative, evangelical, was not
widely or controversially employed until the Reformation period. Then it came into
prominence with Martin Luther precisely because he reasserted Paul's teaching on the
euangellismos as the indispensable message of salvation. Its light, he argued, was hidden
under a bushel of ecclesiastical authority, tradition, and liturgy. The essence of the saving
message for Luther was justification by faith alone, the article by which not only the church
stands or falls but each individual as well. Erasmus, Thomas More, and Johannes Eck
denigrated those who accepted this view and referred to them as “evangelicals.”’
9
Eric Metaxes, Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End
Slavery (Oxford: Monarch Books, 2007), xvi.
10
Ibid., xvii
4
were independentminded and content with church and state separation.11
Still a precise definition demarcating who is and is not an evangelical was not
accepted in general currency. Lord Shaftsbury (180185) once said ‘I know what
constituted an Evangelical in former times. . . I have no clear notion what constitutes
one now.’12 As we shall see further, this mimics the situation today. George Barna has
said, ‘almost nobody—including the people you might classify as evangelicals on the
basis of their beliefs and practices—knows what the term ‘evangelical’ means.’13
Cultural changes in the latter half of the nineteenth and into the twentieth century
posed a great challenge to Evangelicalism. While the impact of the church was on the
increase due to its involvement in the world missions and social causes, its influence
in the political arena was waning because of the secularization of the state.14
Christianity was ousted from the academy when the universities were secularized,
meaning it could no longer claim to be the cultural centre of society. Seeking to
redress the ignominy of being on the periphery, as well reacting against the perceived
ills that had bought this sea change about,15 there arose a cultic flavor of orthodoxy.16
11
Noll, American Evangelical Christianity, 13.
12
Edwin Hodder, The Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftsbury, K. G. (Michigan:
Cassell, 1887) cited in Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 1.
13
George Barna, The Barna Report 199293 (Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1992), 81.
14
Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought: From the Protestant Reformation to the
Twentieth Century (Nashville: Abington, 1987), 386.
15
Including the modernizing tendencies since the Enlightenment, perceived moral decline and
the challenges of Darwinian evolution and German Biblical criticism that helped make
theological liberalism attractive and popular.
16
E. J. Carnell called this ‘orthodoxy gone Cultic.’ Quoted in David Wells, “On Being
Evangelical: Some Theological Differences and Similarities” in Evangelicalism:
Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, the British Isles, and
5
This reaction was muted in Protestant Europe and Britain, but vociferous in
America,17 and came to be called Fundamentalism.18 Described by commentators as
having a tendency towards obscurantism, isolationism, biblical literalism and
obsessed with strict border control of prescribed beliefs, it was, during this time, often
mistaken for or conflated with evangelicalism.19
The president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, R. Albert Mohler, Jr.,
says that post World War II evangelicalism is, ‘[s]tanding apart from fundamentalism
in spirit and apart from liberal theology in substance’.20 This marks a decisively
different perspective to the head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Christian Life
Commission, Foy Valentine who when asked in 1976 if Baptists were evangelicals
said,
Southern Baptists are not evangelicals. They want to claim us because we are
big and successful and growing every year. But we have our own traditions, our
own hymns, and more students in our seminaries than they have in all theirs put
together. We don’t share politics or their fussy fundamentalism and we don’t
Beyond, 17001990 (ed. Mark A. Noll et al.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 404.
17
Ibid.
18
So called because of the five ‘fundamentals’ proclaimed at a conference in Niagara Falls in
1895. Those fundamentals were scriptural inerrancy, the virgin birth if Jesus, his
subtitutionary death, his physical resurrection, and his future return. See Gonzalez, A History
of Christian Thought: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century, 3845.
19
D. W. Cloud, What is the Emerging Church? (Way of Life Literature, 2009); See also
various interviews “Evangelicals v. Fundamentalists,” n.p. [Cited 25 July 2011]. Online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/evangelicals/vs.html
20
R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “Evangelical: What’s in a Name?” The Coming Evangelical Crisis:
Current Challenges to the Authority of Scripture and the Gospel (ed. John H. Armstrong;
Chicago: Moody Press, 1996) 31.
6
want to get involved in their theological witchhunts.21
Many observers were surprised at this unequivocal statement, including many
Southern Baptists who found the term ‘evangelical’ useful for selfidentification.
Valentine’s description makes it clear he was equating ‘evangelical’ with
‘fundamentalist.’ Still, the distinction between the two is not so easily grasped. What
differentiates fundamentalism with evangelicalism today is not necessarily its
doctrine, but an attitude by which it approaches culture and the counterperspectives
inside and outside the broader stream of Christianity with its doctrine. As such, it is
better to think of Fundamentalists as a subset of the evangelical community rather
than a separate entity.
Liberal theology, on the other hand, as Mohler notes ‘is substantively different to
evangelicalism.’ It imbibes the spirit of the Enlightenment that tends to towards
viewing miracles as impossible – or at least unbelievable. Accordingly, as traditional
Christian orthodoxy was syncretized with modernism, there was an increasing
willingness to interpret Scripture without preconceived notions of inspiration,
inerrancy and the correctness of church dogma.22 The influence of liberal theology on
evangelicalism is handed down chiefly through the work and influence of Karl Barth
(18661968) and his Dialectical school of theology.23 Richard Cizik, formerly of the
National Association of Evangelicals, notes the view of Scripture for an evangelical in
21
Kenneth L. Woodward et al., “Born Again!” Newsweek (25 October 1976): 76; quoted in
Robert H. Krapohl and Charles H. Lippy, eds., The Evangelicals: A Historical, Thematic, and
Biographical Guide (Wesport: Greenwood Press, 1999), 3.
22
H. Gruber, “Liberalism,” TCE 9:41832. See also Gary J. Dorrien (ed.), The Making of
American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion 1805–1900 (Westminster: John
Knox Press, 2001); The Making of American Liberal Theology: Idealism, Realism, and
Modernity, 19001950 (Westminster John Knox Press, 2003).
7
contradistinction to the mainline Protestant view. He states,
It is viewed as the objective authoritative word of God, as opposed to the
mainline Protestant view called neoorthodoxy which holds . . . that the Bible
becomes the word of God in a kind of existential encounter with it.24
Liberal theology also displays a willingness to reinterpret the life and ministry of
Jesus, including his miracles, bodily resurrection from the dead and personal return.
There is also a tendency to deny that Christ is the only way of salvation, and that the
Christian religion has an exclusive claim to religious truth.25
Although evangelicalism had lost its place of leadership in the cultural centres of
society during the nineteenth century, it did not become totally devoid of influence. In
the early twentieth century evangelicalism made significant advances that have
shaped the evangelicalism of today. The birth and rapid growth of Pentecostalism is
significant, as well as the increase of Bible schools offering higher education, led by
the Moody Bible Institute, the increase of Evangelical publishing houses such as
Baker, Eerdmans and Zondervan, the tidal wave of Christian radio, and in the 1940’s
the growing influence of interdenominational liberal arts schools such as Wheaton,
Westmont and Gordon.
23
Hilborn and Horrocks, “Universalistic Trends in the Evangelical Tradition: An Historical
Perspective,” in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, 23132; See also Roger E. Olson,
The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1999), 58.
24
Richard Cizik, “Evangelicals v. Mainline Protestants,” n.p. [cited 25 May 2011]. Online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/evangelicals/evmain.html#ixzz1Qhyi8
dX6
25
H. Gruber, “Liberalism,” TCE 9:41832.
8
From 1949 through to the 1980’s the ministry of Billy Graham (1918) shaped the
face of American evangelicalism. His emphasis on a personal religion and ecumenism
led to a conscious movement away from theology as definitive for evangelicalism.
The dense network of evangelical institutions surrounding Graham gave the
impression of a more monolithic, unified and cultureshaping movement. Though this
impression was a mirage, he was integral in shaping a new, more positive
evangelicalism after the fundamentalistmodernist controversy.26
Around Graham there arose a vocal and articulate generation mostly content with the
‘fundamentals’ of conservative evangelical doctrine, but with a positive spirituality
and intellectual incisiveness which had not typically been the hallmark of militant
fundamentalists. This ‘neoevangelicalism’, as it was popularly called during the
1950’s and 60’s, led to the reinvigoration and creation of many institutions.
Theological seminaries such as Fuller, GordonConwell, and Trinity, periodicals
including Christianity Today, and many new mission agencies were the fruits this
resurgence. Influential figures in America included Harold John Ockenga (190585),
E. J. Carnell (191967), and Carl Henry (19132003). British scholars such as F. F.
Bruce (191090), John R. W. Stott (19212011) and James I. Packer (1926) stand out
as significant through British’s InterVarsity Press.27 C. S. Lewis’s (18981963) Mere
Christianity, along with Dorothy Sayers (18931957) and G. K. Chesterton’s (1874
1936) writings made a profound impact on evangelicals beyond their homeland.
26
A specific instance in this controversy was the 1925 Scopes trial and the subsequent
ignominy it caused. Mark A. Noll, American Evangelical Christianity: An Introduction
(Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2001), 18.
27
Derek Tidball, Who Are the Evangelicals? Tracing the Roots of Today’s Movements
(London: Marshal Pickering, 1994).
9
Though this gives an impression of cohesion, evangelicalism was, and would remain,
profoundly pluralistic. Other groups, such as the mostly AfricanAmerican
Pentecostal denomination Church of God in Christ, were not connected to the Billy
Graham network and unable to feel at home in the mostly white North American
context that seemed to define the movement, yet were evangelical in conviction,
practice, heritage and disposition.28 Noll notes further changes in society that has
served to broaden the diversity in the Evangelical fold. These include the increasing
influence of universitybased intellectuals as arbiters of truth for the general culture,
the growing awareness of the world’s famines, wars, and other conflicts by
heightened media coverage, the attention given to the status of women,
multiculturalism, postmodernism, and the general secularization of public life.
Perceived moral decline has served to politicize evangelicals, especially with
reference to abortion on demand and school prayer. Changes in the religious domain
include the phenomenal growth of the Charismatic movement and non
denominational Protestant churches, as well as the decreasing influence of the
mainline Protestant churches and theological liberalism.29
The problem these changes create when attempting to formulate a prescriptive
definition of ‘evangelicalism’ today is evident: different approaches and alternative
solutions have generated greater evangelical diversity than ever before. To answer this
paper’s main question however, we require a working definition of what
28
Other examples include evangelicals in the majority world such as in South America, Asia
and Africa. Other groups only peripherally connected to Billy Graham were those associated
with the healing revivals of William Branham and Oral Roberts, Assemblies of God, Southern
Baptists, Mennonites, many Lutherans, other Holiness churches, the Christian Missionary
Alliance, Baptist Bible Fellowship. See Mark A. Noll, American Evangelical Christianity: An
Introduction (Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2001), 2122.
29
10
evangelicalism is. We also desire this definition have an historical continuity with
how the term has been used in the past, and be immediately recognizable for the
broadest range of people as possible. Our brief historical survey of the landscape of
evangelicalism has better equipped us for the former desire, but not the latter. To help
us formulate a definition that is broadly recognizable we shall now turn to popular
evangelical institutions and evaluate their different attempts at definition.
Towards a Definition for Today’s ‘Evangelicalism’
The Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), which has the same doctrinal statement
as the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS), sets forth their doctrinal basis
succinctly. It is an affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity and the inspiration of
Scripture in its entirety entailing inerrancy in the autographs.30 For clarification on
Inerrancy the society refers to the intent and meaning of the Chicago Statement on
Biblical Inerrancy31 (1978) and states it rests upon the ‘absolute trustworthiness
of God and Scripture's testimony to itself. . . . We reject approaches to
Scripture that deny that biblical truth claims are grounded in reality.’32
30
‘The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore
inerrant in the autographs.’ See “ETS Constitution,” n.p. The Evangelical Theological Society
[cited 25 July 2011]. Online: http://www.etsjets.org/about/constitution#A3
31
“The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (1978),” 7 pages. The Evangelical
Theological Society [cited 25 July 2011]. Online:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/documents/Chicago_Statement.pdf
32
“Membership Requirement,” n.p. The Evangelical Theological Society [cited 25 July
2011]. Online: http://www.etsjets.org/about/membership_requirements
11
The Lausanne Movement uses its own Lausanne Covenant33 (1974) and its companion
‘The Manilla Manifesto’,34 (1989) to assess what ‘evangelicals’ believe. It was
formulated at the first International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne,
Switzerland, which was organized with the cooperation of Billy Graham. It lists seven
major areas, including ‘the authority of Scripture; the nature of evangelism; Christian
social responsibility; the costliness and urgency of world mission; the problems in
culture; and spiritual warfare.’35
The two lengthy statements have much overlap, and are comprehensive both
theologically and practically. It proclaims a steadfastly compelling message rather
than an impelling message; drawn forward by the love of God rather than pushed
forward by the wrath of God. It is worth noting here that the urgency therein strongly
suggests those beliefs are antithetical to the ‘evangelical universalist’ proposal of
Robin Parry. We shall examine this proposal in a later section.
After explicitly excluding religious pluralism and stopping short in excluding
inclusivism, The Lausanne Covenant directly addresses the possibility of
universalism.
Yet those who reject Christ repudiate the joy of salvation and condemn
themselves to eternal separation from God. [emphasis mine]36
33
“The Lausanne Covenant,” n.p. The Lausanne Movement [cited 25 July 2011]. Online:
http://www.lausanne.org/covenant
34
“The Manilla Manifesto,” n.p. The Lausanne Movement [cited 25 July 2011]. Online:
http://www.lausanne.org/manila1989/manilamanifesto.html
35
“Statement of Faith,” n.p. The Lausanne Movement [cited 25 July 2011]. Online:
http://www.lausanne.org/about/statementoffaith.html
12
However, though the statements that immediately follow at first appear to exclude
universalism, a closer reading reveals it stops short of excluding the possibility of
universalism.37 There is therefore much that hangs upon the word ‘eternal’ above.
In discussing the importance of ‘evangelicalism’ as a term in politics Wheaton
professor Amy Black notes the ‘textbook’ theological commitments as: the Bible as
authoritative, the importance of the story of Jesus as the Messiah, the deity and
humanity of Christ and the centrality of his life, death and resurrection. She adds her
own distinctives, namely; the personal and individual nature of salvation, that there is
only one source of religious truth and therefore exclusivity in salvation, and the
emphasis on telling others to spread the news and make converts.38
The World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) has seven affirmations in their minimal
36
See “The Lausanne Covenant,” n.p. The Lausanne Movement [cited 25 July 2011]. Online:
http://www.lausanne.org/covenant
37
‘To proclaim Jesus as “the Saviour of the world” is not to affirm that all people are either
automatically or ultimately saved, still less to affirm that all religions offer salvation in Christ.
Rather it is to proclaim God's love for a world of sinners and to invite everyone to respond to
him as Saviour and Lord in the wholehearted personal commitment of repentance and faith.
Jesus Christ has been exalted above every other name; we long for the day when every knee
shall bow to him and every tongue shall confess him Lord.’ Ibid. It is possible that the
intended implication is exclusion of universalism. I maintain however that ‘not to affirm’ is
not the same as a denial, thus universal salvation is consistent with the Lausanne Covenant.
38
‘Evangelical Christians are going to be much more, I think, in unison telling you that
Christianity is the truth, and it is the way to eternal life, and it's not one of multiple options.
So if you believe Christianity is truth by definition, from an evangelical perspective, it means
that other understandings of the divine are false.’ Amy Black, “Interview Amy Black,” n.p.
The Jesus Factor [cited 25 July 2011]. Online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/black.html#ixzz1QYfDtFof.
13
Statement of Faith, the last on the Resurrection: the lost are raised ‘unto the
resurrection of damnation.’39 This gives a strong emphasis to the judgment of
God, yet is not necessarily inconsistent with Parry’s universalism. The interesting
thing however is the organization’s standards for membership. As well as ‘embracing’
only those whose identity and vocation are rooted in historic biblical
Christianity, they also ‘celebrate’ diverse practices and theological

emphases ‘consistent with the WEA Statement of Faith, recognizing
the existing dynamic tension between undeniable unity and
marvelous diversity.’40
The quadrilateral of David Bebbington identifies common hallmarks of
evangelicalism: activism, conversionism, biblicism and crucicentricism. Activism is
the term used to describe the philanthropic urge that manifests itself not only in the
‘quest for souls’ but also in sociopolitical causes. Simply stated, it is ‘the expression
of the gospel in effort’.41 Conversionism is the term used to explain the emphasis
evangelicals place on the need for an inner transformation and a changed life.
Biblicism expresses a ‘particular regard for the Bible’ as the authoritative source for
doctrine. Crucicentricism is the emphasis on ‘the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.’42
It is beneficial to pay close attention to Bebbington’s quadrilateral, since it is so
widely utilized. Praised for its brevity and clarity, it is not intended as a definition for
today, listing prescriptive essentials. Rather it is a descriptive list of qualities arrived
39
“Statement of Faith,” n.p. World Evangelical Alliance [cited 12 July 2011]. Online:
http://www.worldevangelicals.org/aboutwea/statementoffaith.htm
40
“Members,” n.p. World Evangelical Alliance [cited 12 July 2011]. Online:
http://www.worldevangelicals.org/members/
41
Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 3.
42
‘To make anything other than the cross the fulcrum of a theological system was to take a
step away from Evangelicalism.’ Ibid., 15.
14
at inductively through historical survey for Bebbington’s historiographic purpose. He
identifies these attributes as a ‘common core that has remained remarkably constant
throughout the centuries.’43 Mark Noll clarifies, ‘[t]hese evangelical traits have never
by themselves yielded cohesive, institutionally compact, or clearly demarcated groups
of Christians. But they do serve to identify a large family of churches and religious
enterprises.’44
Although Bebbington’s quadrilateral is not formulated to demarcate who is and is not
an evangelical today, it is interesting to note that when used as a prescriptive
definition, it represents a centred set model of theology.45 Such a scheme is in keeping
with Mohler’s distinction between evangelicalism and fundamentalism.
One would also be forgiven for thinking from the minimal descriptions above that are
usually given, that the four emphasizes are divided into half experiential or practical
concerns, and the other half theological. This however is a mistake. Bebbington
describes each core conviction with detail that underscores the theological emphases
within activism and conversionism. For activism he quotes Hannah More (17451833)
43
Ibid., 4.
44
45
Paul G. Heibert, “Sets and Structures: A Study of Church Patterns,” in New Horizons in
World Mission: Evangelicals and the Christian Mission in the 1980s: Papers and Responses
Prepared for the Consultation on Theology and Mission, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School,
School of World Mission and Evangelism, (ed. David J. Hesselgrave; Grand Rapids: Baker,
1979), 21727, 237. See also Roger E. Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty
Centuries of Unity and Diversity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 48; “Does
Evangelical Theology have a Future?” Christianity Today (9 February 1998): 40646;
Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).
15
who wrote, ‘[a]ction is the life of virtue . . . and the world is the theatre of action.’46
The gospel was good news and good news must be shared. To fail to do so was to fail
in the Lord’s Great Commission. Bebbington also clarifies ‘[c]onversionism was
bound up with major theological convictions.’47 These include justification by faith
alone and assurance of salvation.
When it comes to biblicism, Bebbington gives little more than the minimal
description of ‘a particular regard for the Bible.’ He says this is based on the belief
that all spiritual truth can be found there. He does however note the agreement that all
generations of evangelicals agree on the inspiration of the Bible, but that ‘[w]hen it
came to determining the implications of inspiration, however, there were notable
divergences.’48 These divergences were on views such as verbal inspiration, inerrancy
and the insistence on literal interpretations.49 Given the breadth of these divergences,
it is not expected any definition that encompasses the broadest range of evangelicals
would make the determination that extrabiblical doctrines are unacceptable.
Most important to take note of are the doctrines Robin Parry calls crucial for
Christianity and identifies evangelical essentials. These are; the Trinity, creation, sin,
atonement, the return of Christ, salvation through Christ alone, by grace alone,
through faith alone.50 It is interesting that Parry does not list some type of
46
Quoted in Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 12.
47
Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 6.
48
Ibid., 13.
49
It was the overriding aim of early evangelicals to encourage the devotional use Scripture
rather than develop a doctrine of Scripture, but the later Evangelicals disputes over disputes
over this doctrine almost caused a schism in the 1920’s. See Bebbington, Evangelicalism in
Modern Britain, 14.
50
Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2006), 6.
16
commitment to Scripture, even though the context does not give us cause to regard list
of essentials as exhaustive or the omission as deliberate.
In these examples above of popular definitions and institutions of evangelicals there
emerges a common core of theological beliefs. I therefore propose the following
definition of ‘evangelicalism’ today, which is a minimal theological description to
ensure it is immediately recognizable to the broadest range of evangelicals possible,
without compromising the historical continuity of how the term has been understood.
Evangelicalism is that transdenominational and transnational movement committed
to the Scripture as the source and norming norm for all theological beliefs, the Triune
God, the centrality of Jesus Christ and his atoning work on the cross, and
justification by faith alone. Evangelicals show their commitment to these beliefs with
a transformed life and certain practices, such as worshipping together, evangelism and
the advocacy of social justice.
Universalism
So far we have explored the heritage of evangelicalism and its shape in the modern
world, as well as how it is popularly defined by influential institutions and people. We
have then proposed a normative theological definition for evaluation against
universalism. In this next section we shall unfold some of the different variations of
Universalism, briefly explore the history of Universalism in the Christian church, and
then move on to closely scrutinize the ‘evangelical universalism’ of Robin Parry.
A Taxonomy for Universalism
Simply put, universalism is the belief that eventually all will be saved. There is
nothing in this summative definition that implies a timeline or method by which this
is accomplished. This means that it need not be limited to one religious tradition. We
17
however will be looking at how universalism is conceived in the Christian tradition,
and for clarity a taxonomy is required.
There is a sense in which all Christians can be called ‘universalists.’ Universalism
understood this way is the claim that those who are saved are composed of people
from all nations and races. We may call this view Multiracial universalism. This is
an uncontroversial thesis and not the subject under discussion here. A second sense in
which Christians can be ‘universalists’ is in the way Arminians affirm that God wants
all people to be saved. We may call this view Arminian universalism. This is made
controversial in Christian theology by the disputation of Calvinists, however this also
is not the sense in which the term will be used here. The third sense in which
Christians can be ‘universalists’ is what we may call Strong universalism. This is a
family of different views that can be subdivided into three distinct categories;
Pluralist universalism, Hopeful universalism, and Dogmatic universalism.
Pluralist universalism understands that all religious systems equally lead to the same
goal. This is the view expounded by John Hick (1922–).51 The consequence of this
view for our understanding of Jesus and his atoning work on the cross is that these
doctrines become merely one route for salvation. It is no longer the case that Jesus is
central on this proposal. It is also a consequence on this view that justification by faith
alone is false. Accordingly, though other critiques can be launched, on the basis of our
proposed definition alone we may regard pluralist universalism as nonevangelical.
Hopeful universalism is the view that there is reason in Scripture to believe that every
individual will be saved, and that the arguments for this are possibly cogent. That is,
hopeful universalists believe it is possible that all will be saved, yet remain
51
John Hick’s pluralist universalism was hopeful rather than dogmatic. These categories are
not necessarily mutually exclusive.
18
unconvinced that all will be saved, either due to the counterbalancing of arguments
for the traditional understanding that some will inhabit hell forever, or due to the
undercutting effect of arguments posed against the certainty of universal salvation.
Accordingly, hopeful universalism is better described as agnosticism with respect to
the fate of all.
Dogmatic universalism is the belief that all people will certainly be saved. They are
convinced that the arguments in favor of Universalism are cogent and the counter
arguments are not. Somehow, in some way, God’s purposes of saving every
individual will be achieved.
Often when people seek to include universalism of some form into their theology it is
accompanied by other highly questionable views. What this means is that those
wanting to dismiss or refute particular theological schemes that are universalistic,
have also tended to condemn universalism as well with everything else. One must
resist this temptation however, for these accompanying doctrines may not be integral
to sustaining universalism in their system of thought. There may also be other
universalists who disagree with these extra doctrines.
Indeed, as we shall see, there is a great variety of things that universalists disagree on,
in areas such as interpretation, soteriology and eschatology. This diversity includes;
whether Satan and other demons will be saved or not, whether hell is merely a
possibility that is deserved but will never eventuate or is real but only temporary,
whether universalism is the only permissible Christian position or if other positions
are permissible too, whether salvation through Christ by faith must be conscious or
could be unconscious, whether human freedom is compatibilistic or libertarian,
19
whether punishment is restorative or retributive or both, and whether the New
Testament is consistent in its universalism or not.52
The History of Universalism
With these categories in mind, we are ready to survey the history of Christian thought
on universalism. As we shall see, there has always been, more or less, a constant
presence of universalistic belief, albeit on the periphery of doctrinal orthodoxy.
Early Church Fathers
The first Christian to clearly propound universalism was Origen (c. 185254). Among
the influences for his eschatology were Gnosticism, Stoicism, Greek philosophy and,
most importantly, the Bible.53 From Gnosticism came the idea of life as a period of
discipleship in which one grows in the true knowledge of God, and from Greek
philosophy the idea that punishment is medicinal. Combining these ideas of
punishment and education allowed him to explain hell as a reformative and temporary
state rather than retributive and everlasting. Stoicism provided the idea of a
restoration of the cosmos to its original state. The Greek astronomical term for this
was apokatastasis, which was conceptually linked by Origen to the end of the age
from Peter’s sermon in Acts 3:21, ‘the time of the restoration of all things’
(apokatastaseõs pantõn), and gained its soteriological implications in his interpretation
of 1 Corinthians 15:28 where God is ‘all in all’ (panta en pasin).54 The term generally
refers today to the idea that all of creation, including the Devil, will be saved, though
52
Robin A. Parry and Christopher H. Partridge, eds., Universal Salvation? The Current
Debate (Carlisle: William B. Eerdmans, 2003), xxiixxiii.
53
Morwenna Ludlow, “Universalism in the History of Christianity” in Universal Salvation?
The Current Debate (ed. R. A. Parry and C. H. Partridge; Cumbria: William B. Eerdmans,
2003), 215.
54
Origen, De Prinicipiis, 3.6.3.
20
for Origen it also meant everything returns to its original state.55 Ultimately, it was the
Scriptures that provided Origen the grounds for his beliefs, however his use of
allegorical interpretation left a door wide open for doubt and heavy criticism.
Origen reasoned that all created beings were good and equal, but through the misuse
of their freedom fell from the state of perfection that they previously had with God.
Those who fell the furthest became demons, and those who fell to a lesser degree
became the souls of people incarnated into human bodies. The restoration of all these
souls is through the amendment and correction of the material world and continues on
into the afterlife. Eventually when death is destroyed, every human and every demon
will be restored to the state they were in before they fell.56
Origen did not include this in his list of clear and certain doctrines in the prologue of
On First Principles. Accordingly, even though he grounded his view here as far as
possible in Scripture and expressed it with apparent certitude, we are to regard it as
his speculation.57
Shortly afterwards came Gregory of Nyssa (c.335395). Perhaps aware of growing
opposition to Origen’s theology, he was particularly interested in grounding his views
55
Apokatastasis is used today as a synonym for universal salvation, however technically one
can be a universalist and not believe in the salvation of the Devil. See Justo L. González,
Essential Theological Terms (Louiseville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 12. There is
debate if this is the way that Origen should be interpreted. He seems to be open to other
soteriological possibilities. See John Anthony McGuckin (ed.), “Apokatastasis” The
Westminster Handbook to Origen (Louiseville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 5962.
56
Origen, De Prinicipiis, 3.6.6
57
The Current Debate, 193; B. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1993), 58.
21
in Scripture. With 1 Corinthians 15:28, he used Philippians 2:10: ‘So that at the name
of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and
every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.’
He tentatively suggests the words, ‘under the earth’ refers to demons that will be
saved.58 With allegorical interpretation of Psalm 59, the feast of the tabernacles, and
the Egyptian plague of darkness, he derived universalistic ideas.59 Although his whole
theology is directed toward universal salvation, he shows a similar circumspection to
Origen, sometimes attributing the ideas to other characters, or with the preface that
‘some people claim’.
Opposition to Origenism arose from Epiphanius of Salamis (315403), Theophilus of
Alexandria (d. 412) and Jerome (c. 345420), however their critiques were never
purely about his universalism, but against other elements such as the preexistence of
souls and the salvation of the devil. Though Origen grew popular in the Eastern
Church, his universalism never did. It was the critique of Augustine of Hippo (354
430) that proved most influential in western theology, and laid the groundwork for its
anathematization. With a respectful tone and regarding it as an inhouse debate, he
said,
I am aware that I now have to engage in a debate, devoid of rancor, those
compassionate Christians who refuse to believe that the punishment of hell will
58
Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection, W. Moore (tr.), Nicene and Post
Nicene Fathers Series, vol. V, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), 444.
59
Gregory of Nyssa, Treatise on the Inscrptions of the Psalms, R. Heine (tr.), (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1995), 21112; On the Soul and the Resurrection, W. Moore (tr.), Nicene
and PostNicene Fathers Series, vol. V, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), 461; The Life of
Moses, A.J. Malherbe & E Ferguson (trs.), Classics of Western Spirituality, (New York:
Paulist Press, 1978), Part II, section 82.
22
be everlasting either in the case of all those men whom the completely just
Judge accounts deserving of that chastisement, or at least in the case of some of
them; they hold that they are to be set free after fixed limits of time have been
passed, the periods being longer or shorter in proportion to the magnitude
offences. On this subject the most compassionate of all was Origen who
believed that the Devil himself and his angels will be rescued from their
torments and brought into the company of the holy angels, after the more severe
and more lasting chastisements appropriate to their deserts.60
Apokatastasis was officially condemned by Jusintian in 543, and again at the Fifth
Council of Constantinople in 553. The second time more in connection with the
associated doctrines of Origenism than with apokatatasis specifically. As a result,
understandably few were willing to propound universalism in the following centuries.
Reformation and Enlightenment
It was the political and religious upheaval of the Reformation and Enlightenment that
would overturn the soil that would allow the seeds of universalism to germinate.
Those that scattered the seeds drew upon those universalist thinkers of the past.
In the early Reformation Hans Denck (c. 14951527) was a young scholar who
traveled, and was often expelled from, various Germanic cities. He was accused of
teaching universalism in the style of Origen on at least three occasions, but it is not
clear that he or other teachers associated with the radical reformation actually did.61
Denck’s teaching was perhaps confused as universalistic because of his stress on
freedom, divinization and sin as punishment that can lead to repentance. Also,
60
St. Augustine of Hippo, City of God 21.17 (trans. Bettenson)
61
Further research is required to determine whether the allegations that Zeigler, Bader and
Pockuet were in fact universalists, or whether their teaching stopped short of that conclusion.
23
teaching that God willed all to be saved, that Christ lived and dies for all, and only
hinting that some might be able to resist salvation, it may have been difficult for those
entrenched in the irresistible grace of the Augustinian tradition to not draw
universalistic conclusions. What we do see in Denck is mysticism and liberal
humanist rationalism germinating the ideas of God’s Spirit being accessible to all
people, the importance of human freedom and of universal salvation as a feature of
theodicy. In the following centuries these elements would continue to develop.
The writings of Jakob Boehme (15751624) against the Reformed doctrines of
election and reprobation, believing them incompatible with the Scriptures portrayal of
a God engaged in universal revelation and renewal,62 proved influential. Although not
a dogmatic universalist, his ideas were read extensively and extrapolated into
universalistic systematic theologies by people such as Peter Sterrey (161372), who
was a chaplain of Oliver Cromwell, and Sterrey’s protégé Jeremiah White (1630
1707). Boehme’s conviction that God’s supreme attribute of love would not finally be
withheld from any of his creatures moved many Pietists and an idea that is present in
many proponents of universalism today.63
Universalist Congregations in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries
The emergence of universalist congregations in America and Britain was a complex
one, as Morwenna Ludlow notes, partly because of the controversial nature of
universalism, and partly because such sectarian groups and had a tendency to
62
R. Waterfield. ed., Jacob Boehme: Essential Readings, (Wellinborough: Crucible Books for
the Aquarian Press, 1989).
63
See for instance, Talbott and Parry.
24
proliferate, split and reunite with great rapidity.64 Using a scheme adopted by
Rowell65 she does identify two different forms of universalistic thought in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The first form is dubbed ‘purgatorial
universalism’, which included the necessity of postmortem punishment for
reconciliation to God, 66 and stressed God’s goodness and the importance of human
free will. The second form she calls ‘hyperCalvinist universalism’, which applied
unconditional election with an unlimited atonement.
Among the purgatorial universalists was Elhanan Winchester (17581816), author of
Dialogues on The Universal Restoration (1788) and an American missionary to
Britain. William Vindler (17581816) was one of his converts, and took the leadership
of the Universalist church he founded in London, later converting with the
congregation to Unitarianism. Among the hyperCalvinists were James Relly (1722
88) and his disciple John Murray (17411815), whose interlocutor was Winchester
while in Britain and Charles Chauncy (b. 1704) after he traveled to America and
founded the First Universalist Church in Massachusetts.
Initially the small size of this movement and the considerably larger opposition from
mainstream churches muted the debates between these two forms. For the next
generation the ‘Restoration controversy’ (1812 to c. 1831) caused a more serious
disturbance. This was between Hosea Ballou (17711852) and his restorationists
opponents such as Edward Turner (17761853). Ballou in fact opposed both forms of
64
The Current Debate, 204.
65
G. Rowell, “The Origins and History of Universalist Societies in Britain 17501850,”
Journal of Ecclesiastical History 22, 1971.
66
This view is called restorationism or sometimes restitutionism. This view implies post
mortem evangelization.
25
Universalism, as well as the doctrine of the Trinity and Christ’s vicarious atonement,
advocating instead what became known as ‘Ultra Universalism’, whereby at death all
would be transformed so they could participate in the kingdom. His influence as the
principle American expositor of universalism during the controversy led some
Universalist churches to become Unitarian congregations. After his death and by the
end of the nineteenth century however, most universalists believed in the necessity of
some form of punishment after death.
Given these associations it is understandable that universalism would be considered
outside the rank and file of Christian orthodoxy for much of the twentieth century. We
have seen the increasing currency of universalism in Christian thought, from its early
stages in the Patristic period, in the reformation period through to the enlightenment,
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Thus far in our survey however, universalism has
only been a small voice and always on the periphery. We shall now look at the
influential individuals in history who have propounded universalism and helped raise
the status that the doctrine has today.
Popular exponents of Universalism in the Nineteenth Century
Friedrich Schleiermacher (17681834) was the first person to popularly propound the
doctrine since the Patristic period. His boyhood intuition led him to question if eternal
punishment could fit with the ‘eternal fatherly love of God’.67 In later life the ‘Father
of liberal theology’ taught that the biblical evidence for eternal damnation was
inconclusive, that good punishment is always reformatory, and that the state of the
67
‘Ewige Höllenstrafen’, Theologische Zeitschrift 1 (Berlin, 1819), 109. cited in G. Müller,
‘Die Idee einer Apokatastasis ton panton in der europaischen Theologie von Schleiermacher
bis Barth’ in Zeitschrift fur Religions und Geistesgeschichte 16:1, (1964), 3; Morwenna
Ludlow, “Universalism in the History of Christianity” in Universal Salvation? The Current
Debate, 207.
26
blessed is rendered imperfect if there are eternally damned (with or without
knowledge of it). He occasionally cites Origen and the influence of Gregory of Nyssa
is also apparent. Schleiermacher’s influenced his pupils, including Zurich professor
Alexander Schweitzer (180888) and the Danish theologian Henrick Nikolai Clasen
(17931877), but especially theologians affiliated with liberal Protestantism in
Germany. It was through them that Schleiermacher’s thought would be disseminated
globally.
Søren Kierkegaard (181355) hoped for universal salvation based solely on faith in
Christ and his saving power. He famously wrote in his journals, ‘If others for to hell,
then I will go too. But I do not believe that; on the contrary I believe that all will be
saved, myself with them – something which arouses my deepest amazement.’68 His
influence on philosophers and theologians of later times was profound, though how
much of his universalism was part of this influence is indeterminable.
In the persons of F. D. Maurice (180572), H. B. Wilson (180388), F. W. Farrar
(18311903) we see discussion of universalism becoming more exposed to the larger
church. Maurice was dismissed from King’s College in 1853 for supposedly affirming
universal salvation in his Theological Essays,69 though it appears now he was only
expressing the hope. From him comes the idea that ‘eternal death’ refers to something
of the quality and nature of divine punishment, and not necessarily to an endless
state.70 Wilson’s contribution to the controversial Essays and Reviews (published
1860) was to express a hope that after death the unregenerate would grow and mature
68
Søren Kierkegaard's Journals and Papers, (ed. H. V. Hong et al.; trans. E. H. Hong et el.; 6
vols.; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978), 4:123.
69
F. D. Maurice, “Concluding Essay: Eternal Life and Eternal Death” in Theological Essays,
(Cambridge: Macmillan & Co, 1853), 442478.
70
Ibid., 4756.
27
to eventually be restored.71 Farrar preached five sermons at Westminster Abbey in
1877 on the subject of hell, in which he stated there was ‘nothing in Scripture or
anywhere to prove [that] the fate of any man is, at death, irrevocably determined.’72
Each of these men evoked a vociferous reaction by propounding a postdeath
purification process towards restoration.
Twentieth Century to the Present
In the twentieth century the topography of the debate changed. The two world wars,
with the social changes and scientific development that attended them, led theologians
to be more reflective in general on the nature of soteriology and eschatology. For
example, theologians were suddenly faced with the bleak reality of the human
capacity for evil, as well the need to explain how God could allow such gratuitous
evil: surely God had some vastly overriding good outcome. The breakdown of
colonialism, largescale emigration from those colonies and communication from
travel and media all brought Christians closer to different cultures and religions than
71
Essays and Reviews (1860) was considered more controversial in Victorian England than
Darwin’s Origin of Species. Wilson was embroiled in a court case on the charge that he taught
hell was a myth. Subsequently, most reviews of Wilson have interpreted his work through
statements made during the trial. Bertrand Russell, in his famous essay “Why I am not a
Christian” delivered to the National Secular Society, South London Branch, 6 March 1927,
stated ‘Belief in eternal hell fire was an essential item of Christian belief until recent times. In
this country, as you know, it ceased to be an essential item because of a decision of the Privy
Council, and from that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York
dissented; but in this country our religion is settled by Act of Parliament, and therefore the
Privy council was able to override Their Graces and hell was no longer necessary to a
Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell.’
72
F. W. Farrar, Eternal Hope: Five Sermons (London: Macmillan, 1878), 82; quoted in
Morwenna Ludlow, “Universalism in the History of Christianity,” Universal Salvation? The
Current Debate, 210.
28
ever before. 73 Furthermore, although the doctrine remained controversial, no longer
were those who espoused it likely to face dismissal from university posts or public
outrage. Those from more conservative churches might have faced censure, but the
tone of the discussion was dialed down. Even the Roman Catholic Church, so
vehemently opposed in the eighteenth century, could now tolerate hopeful
universalists as long as apokatastasis was denied.
Hopeful universalism is perhaps the most distinctive feature of twentieth century
universalism.74 Two notable hopeful universalists of this period are Jürgen Moltmann
(1926–) and Hans Urs von Balthasar (190588). The confidence with which they
elucidate their views can give a false impression they advocate dogmatic
universalism. Moltmann is probably the most confident of these, grounding the hope
in his theology of the cross. The image of Christ as the allpowerful judge must,
according to him, be viewed with the image of Christ crucified in solidarity with all
people. The Christian eschatological hope therefore becomes no longer retaliatory or
causing division, but creative and the consummation of his redemptive work.
Balthasar grounded his hope in the overwhelming depth of God’s love, as evidenced
by his entering into the depth of human experience and Godforsakenness on the cross
and his decent into hell on Easter Saturday. Universal salvation is by no means certain
for him, for all depend on how humans will use their freedom. Still, God’s love gives
us the right to hope.75
73
Morwenna Ludlow, “Universalism in the History of Christianity,” Universal Salvation?
The Current Debate, 21011.
74
Ibid., 211.
75
H. U. von Balthasar, Dare We hope ‘That all Men be Saved?’ with A Short Discourse on
Hell, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988); Mysterium Paschale, Edinburgh: T & T Clark),
Ch. 2.
29
It is hotly debated whether Karl Barth (18861968) believed in, or merely hoped for,
universal salvation. He wanted to show that God’s selfrevelation presents itself to
humanity as something that has chosen us. That is, we are elect in Christ, the elected
one. Barth applies both election to salvation and election to damnation to one person:
Christ, who died for all, and that all have died in him. The expected corollary is that
Christ rose for all, and that all will rise in him, but Barth never draws this conclusion.
The remaining volumes of his Church Dogmatics were to be on his doctrine of
redemption, but this project was incomplete when he died. He did consistently deny
universalism was a feature of his systematic theology; however, he also denies any
doctrine that attempts to predict the outcome of God’s actions. Human speculation
should not, as Barth contends, predict that God will accomplish universal salvation,
nor should it predict that he would not, for this is to risk ‘arrogating to ourselves that
which can be given and received only as a free gift.’76
Roger Olson notes that Karl Barth was very influential on the ‘selfidentified
progressive evangelicals who reject fundamentalism and liberal theology.’77 Included
among these were Bernard Ramm (191692) and Donald Bloesch (19282010).
After Ramm spent a sabbatical year under at Basel under Barth in 195758 he sought
to assimilate the insights he gained there into a selfconsciously evangelical
framework.78 Though he was not a universalist himself, he was concerned that
76
Barth, Church Dogmatics (trans. G.W. Bromley and T. F. Torrence; 13 vols.; Edinburgh: T
& T Clark, 195676), IV:3:477.
77
Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and
Reform (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 58; quoted in Hilborn and Horrocks,
“Universalistic Trends in the Evangelical Tradition: An Historical Perspective,” in Universal
Salvation? The Current Debate, 232.
30
evangelicals not counter the universalistic impulse with a ‘stony response to the
lostness of billions of human beings’.79 He insisted,
Every sensitive evangelical is a universalist at heart. He agrees with Peter when
he wrote that ‘the Lord. . .is not wishing that any should perish, but that all
should reach repentance’ (2 Pet. 3:9). . . No person on the face of the earth
wants everybody in heaven more than an evangelical. Only an evangelical really
knows in depth the meaning of sin, the wrath of God, the reconciliation of the
cross, the victory of the resurrection, the tragedy of judgment, and the glory of
the New Jerusalem. Every person who fails of the last beatitude can only be of
pain to him.80
His thought represents a clear shift in the typical evangelical emphasis in damnation
yet still upholds the reality of hell and the validity, contra Barth, of preaching it on
occasion. The implication is that hell is only for those who persist in rejecting God’s
offer.
Bloesch encountered Barth studying theology in 1950’s at Chicago Theological
Seminary. He reflects and intensifies Ramm’s implication that hell is only for those
78
Perspective,” in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, 232. For a discussion of the
influence of Barth on the thought of Ramm see M. J. Erickson, The Evangelical Left:
Encountering Postconservative Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker/Carlisle:
Pasternoter Press, 1997), 2328; also K. Vanhoozer, ‘Bernard Ramm’ in W. A. Elwell (ed.),
Handbook of Evangelical Theologians (Grand Rapids: Backer, 1993), 290306.
79
Bernard Ramm, After Fundamentalism: The Future of Evangelical Theology (San
Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1983), 171.
80
Bernard Ramm, The Evangelical Heritage (Waco: Word, 1973), 1367.
31
who persistently reject God’s call by taking Barth’s optimism and suggesting the
possibility of postmortem reconciliation.81
The foremost contemporary proponent of dogmatic universalism is Thomas Talbott,
Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Willamette University, Oregon, and author of
The Inescapable Love of God (1999).82 He does not offer himself as a straightforward
‘testcase’ of an Evangelical, eschewing institutional Christian labels and avoiding the
question of evangelical identity and parameters in his published work.83 This position
belongs squarely to Robin Parry, author of The Evangelical Universalist.84 To him
and his thesis we shall turn in the next section.
81
‘We do not wish to put fences around God’s grace. . . and we do not preclude the possibility
that some in hell might finally be translated to heaven. The gates of the holy city are depicted
as being open day and night (Isa. 60:11; Rev 21:25), and this means that open access to the
throne of grace is possible continuously. The gates of hell are locked, bbut they are locked
from within. . . Hell is not outside the compass of God’s mercy nor the spheres of his
kingdom, and in this sense we call it the last refuge of the sinner. Edward Pusey voices our
own sentiments: ‘We know absolutely nothing of the proportion of the saved to the lost or
who will be lost; but we do know, that none will be lost, who do not obstinately to the end
and in the end refuse God.’ D. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology: Life, Ministry
and Hope, vol. 2 (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), 22628.
82
See Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, (Parkland, Fla: Universal Publishers,
1999); Robin A. Parry and Christopher H. Partridge, eds., Universal Salvation? The Current
Debate (Carlisle, Cumbria: William B. Eerdmans, 2003).
83
Perspective,” in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, 220, 241.
84
Written under the pseudonym Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist (Eugene:
Cascade Books, 2006).
32
Our survey has by no means been comprehensive. It has only admitted prominent and
outspoken proponents of universalism, omitting the indeterminate amount of
theologicians who have refused to declare their universalistic beliefs or hopes
publicly. This has been comprehensive enough to show how the doctrine of universal
salvation has slowly moved from the periphery towards the centre of acceptable
theological discourse. Hopeful universalism has been more popular than the dogmatic
variety. Even though the reception in general is no longer as cold as it once was, the
dominant attitude today remains unfavorably disposed towards universalism. As Rob
Bell’s book has decisively shown, universalism is still able to cause controversy.
Armed with a definition for evangelicalism, and a better appreciation of universalism
throughout the history of the church, we move on to our assessment of the
compatibility of evangelicalism and universalism. For this assessment, we turn to the
arguments of Robin Parry.
The Coherence of Evangelical Universalism
Robin Parry describes himself as a Hopeful Dogmatic Universalist. This is to say he
offers Dogmatic Universalism with humility, given he is uncertain that the salvation
of all is certain. The main thesis he defends is that Dogmatic Universalism is
compatible with Evangelicalism.85 That is to say, ‘Evangelical universalism’ is not an
oxymoron. He proceeds by defending two contentions. First, that there is no good
reason to think that dogmatic universalism is unevangelical. Second, that there are
good reasons to think that universalism is compatible with evangelicalism.86
85
Robin Parry, “Evangelical Universalism: Oxymoron?” (a talk delivered at the Spurgeon’s
College, 3 February 2011). This paper’s title is the inspiration for the title of this paper.
33
In defense of his first contention he refutes ten common objections against
universalism.87 The viability of this strategy relies heavily upon the doctrine of post
mortem evangelization being evangelicalcompatible. To say an idea is evangelical
compatible is to say that the idea must be sourced from the biblical material or else
not contradict the biblical material or the other affirmations in our definition of
evangelicalism. Space does not permit a thorough treatment on the doctrine of the
postmortem evangelism. However, on the basis of Parry’s use of the words ‘unusual’
and ‘atypical’88 and the absence of biblical support in his paper, we may at least
tentatively conclude it is not derived from the biblical material. We do also have some
reason to suspect that it does contradict the expectation of Scripture that this life is the
only time for decisionmaking.89
86
The following critique is based upon an unpublished paper that is based upon his talk (see
footnote above). Robin Parry, “Evangelical Universalism: Oxymoron?” unpublished.
87
These objections are universalism (1) is unbiblical, (2) undermines the seriousness of sin,
(3) undermines divine justice and wrath, (4) undermines hell, (5) undermines Christ’s role in
salvation, (6) undermines the importance of faith in Christ, (7) undermines mission and
evangelism, (8) undermines the Trinity, (9) was decaled anathema by the church, (10) has
historically been rejected by evangelicals.
88
Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist, 6; Robin Parry, “Evangelical
Universalism: Oxymoron?” unpublished, 2.
89
'Beyond these considerations, these are definite statements to the contrary. A finality
attaches to the biblical depictions of the sentence rendered at the final judgment; for example,
“Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his
angels” (Matt. 25:41). The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:1931), although it
relates to the intermediate rather than the final state, makes clear that their condition is
absolute. It is not even possible to travel between the different states: “And besides all this,
between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to
you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us” (v. 26). We must therefore conclude
that restorationism, the idea of a second chance, must be rejected.' Millard J. Erickson,
34
For his second contention he proffers two lines of defense. First, that evangelical
universalism grows from reflection on common evangelical convictions, and second,
from the evangel itself.
For the first line of defense Parry presents a fivestep syllogism built upon premises
that are acceptable for different evangelicals.
1. God, being omnipotent, could cause all people to freely accept Christ.
2. God, being omniscient, would know how to cause all people to freely accept Christ.
3. God, being omnibenevolent, would want to cause all people to freely accept Christ.
4. God will cause all people to freely accept Christ.
5. All people will freely accept Christ.
Premises 1 and 2 are given from a Calvinist perspective, and premise 3 from an
Arminian perspective. The conclusion in 5 is the universalist’s position. He asks,
should universalism be considered unevangelical when it was arrived at by
evangelicalcompatible premises?
The main problem here is that the argument proceeds on an equivocation of what it
means to freely accept Christ. The Calvinist and Arminian conception of freedom is
not the same.90 This makes the argument informally logical fallacious, so it can hardly
Christian Theology (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 1244. See also Leon Morris, The
Biblical Doctrine of Judgement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 66. 'The fact that the same
word is used in Mat. 25:46 to describe both the suffering of the wicked and the happiness of
the righteous shows that the misery of the lost is eternal, in the same sense as the life of God
to the blessedness of the saved. ' Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology, 1045.
35
be expected to count as evidence that universalism is evangelicalcompatible – that is,
unless it is acceptable for evangelicals to reason fallaciously.
The second problem is that premise 4 is not ‘entailed’ by premise 1 through 3, as
Parry claims. Intuitively, it is suggestive that God will cause all people to freely
accept Christ, however this entailment is formally logically fallacious. To arrive at 4
nonfallaciously, one needs to disclose the hidden premise that states whatever God
can do and wants to do, he will do. To affirm this however is a denial of divine
freedom. It is little comfort that the argument is not meant to be a proof for
universalism but to show that universalism can be motivated by widely accepted
evangelical beliefs, since divine freedom–not its denial–is a widely accepted
evangelical belief.91
Parry’s second line of defense for universalism being compatible with evangelicalism
is to seek to demonstrate that, through theological reflection on the evangel (the good
news itself) and Jesus Christ as the definitive revelation of God, universalism makes
more sense than traditional views of Hell.92 He confesses his worry that on the
traditional views of hell which all involve an irreversible destruction, something other
90
Calvinism is compatibilistic with respect to human freedom and divine determination, and
Arminianism conceives human freedom as libertarian. These conceptions are mutually
exclusive. Parry is thus equivocating in premises 1 through 3, by using a word in such a way
as to have two meanings.
91
Even Parry seems to commit himself to divine freedom. ‘God has already shown his hand
in the story of Jesus. He has already chosen, in his freedom, to “be our God”.’ Robin Parry,
“Evangelical Universalism: Oxymoron?” unpublished, 12.
92
Again, this is not to show that universalism is true, but that it is acceptable for
evangelicalism, since it flows from prime evangelical concerns.
36
than Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection becomes definitive for the ‘shape of the
future’ and governs ‘God’s triumph’.93
Parry does not unfold clearly what that something is, but the implication is that it is
human freedom that is preventing God from asserting his total control over
humanity’s eternal destiny.94 However this is not a worry for Calvinism, since
compatibilistic freedom falls within the scope of God’s determination. Neither is it a
worry for the Arminian theology, since not impinging on humanity’s libertarian
freedom is God’s will and desire. Thus, on both theological systems, nothing other
than God’s will keeps the damned in hell where they are. Parry’s reaction is more
directed to the Calvinistic response. It is that God irrevocably damning people he
could just have easily redeemed is, to his mind, an imperfection.95 Parry’s reaction to
93
Robin Parry, “Evangelical Universalism: Oxymoron?” unpublished, 12.
94
Parry argues, ‘[t]he idea that God will ‘reconcile’ some creatures by forcing them to
acknowledge that he is the boss and then destroying them is, to my universalist ear, a call to
allow the theological concept of ‘reconciliation’ to wander free from its anchoring in the
gospel and Scripture.’ See “Evangelical Universalism: Oxymoron?” unpublished, 12.
However, as Shultz has argued, this is to conflate reconciliation with salvation. The scope of
reconciliation is universal (See 2 Cor 5:1821 and Col 1:1920), but different groups
experience reconciliation in different ways. For believers reconciliation is a saving
relationship with God. For unbelievers reconciliation is coming into a full knowledge of
God’s glorious will and ways, yet being unwilling to repent of their sins and seek relationship
with God through Jesus Christ will spend eternity in a state of remorse. See Gary L. Shultz,
Jr., “The Reconciliation of All things in Christ” Bibliotheca Sacra 167:668 (October 2010):
44259. This interpretation of reconciliation does not disprove Parry’s thesis that evangelical
universalism proceeds from evangelical emphases. What is does do is remove Parry’s sole
argument from scriptural grounds, and hence unconnected to our evangelical definition.
95
Robin Parry, “Evangelical Universalism: Oxymoron?” unpublished, 1213. A sentiment I
am inclined to agree with. However, the Calvinist could insist that God’s choice to regenerate
37
the Arminian response seems to be that for God to allow irrevocable damnation does
not correspond with the picture of Jesus on the cross and his resurrection triumphing
over sin.96
In response one might point out that a doctrine of annihilationism97 would equally
resolve the problem he uses universalism to solve. Alternatively, one could suggest
that to simply make it possible for sin to be finally eliminated by universal
reconciliation is enough for God–he need not make it so. To insist on this, in the
manner of a dogmatic universalist, is to deny the libertarian freedom on which the
proposal was built. As Van Oosterzee reminds us, ‘[t]his freedom involves in itself
the terrible possibility of an endless resistance, which equally endlessly punishes
itself.’98 Therefore, either we redound upon unconditional election or else, with the
some and not others is amorally arbitrary.
96
Ibid., 13.
97
There are different forms of annhilationism, including pure mortalism, conditional
immortality and annihilationism proper. Conditional immortality affirms that humans are by
nature mortal, and are granted eternal life. There are variations within conditional
immortality. Some affirm death is the absolute end, others that unregenerate persons will be
restored to life in the resurrection to be judged and then annihilated, others that some time
after death God will allow them to pass out of existence. For more see Millard J. Erickson,
Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 1237.
98
Van Oosterzee, Church Dogmatics (trans. J. W. Watson and M. J. Evans; 2 vols.;
Michigan: Armstrong & Co. 1874), 2:8079; quoted in Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic
Theology, (8 vols.; Grand Rapids: Dunham, 1948), 4:423. Also, ‘[u]pon the theory of human
freedom just mentioned, no motives which God can use will certainly accomplish the
salvation of all moral creatures. The soul which resists Christ here may resist him forever.'
Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1907), 1040.
38
British New Testament scholar Andrew Lincoln, incline towards hopeful universalism
and away from dogmatic universalism.99
Parry takes pains to say he is not grounding his theology in a ‘sentimentalized view of
God’s niceness.’100 He believes it is the gospel story itself which grounds evangelical
universalism, but it is strange that an evangelical would let their ‘eschatological
reflections and speculations… be utterly reconfigured around Jesus’101 without taking
into account what Jesus himself taught about hell and the eschaton. The point here is
that Jesus communicated through the Scriptures and Parry’s reflections here are not
buttressed by the primal evangelical source. He uses, for example, phrases such as;
‘sounds to me like’, ‘to my universalist ear’ and ‘to my mind’.102 This creates the
suspicion a prior ‘sentimentalized’ theology is directing his ‘reflections and
speculations’.
Consider Lewis Sperry Chafer’s biting remark, ‘[w]ith all others of this belief, the
restitutionist builds on human sentiment and reason more than upon the Word of
God.’103
99
Though he does so on the basis on certain biblical texts and themes, not philosophical
theology. See Hilborn and Horrocks, “Universalistic Trends in the Evangelical Tradition: An
Historical Perspective,” in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, 236, 243. He mentions
this only in scattered references. See Andrew Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical
Commentary, (Waco: Word, 1990); Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the
Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought, With Special Reference to His Eschatology, (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1991), 3244.
100
Robin Parry, “Evangelical Universalism: Oxymoron?” unpublished, 12.
101
Ibid.
102
Ibid., 1213.
103
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:426.
39
Conclusion
This brings us to the central question of this paper: is Evangelical universalism, in
fact, an oxymoron?
Parry’s arguments for the compatibility of evangelicalism and dogmatic universalism
leave us sympathetic but doubtful. His first contention – that there is no good reason
to think that dogmatic universalism is not compatible with evangelicalism – relies
upon a controversial doctrine of postmortem evangelization that is doubtfully
biblical. His second contention – that there are good reasons to think that dogmatic
universalism is compatible with evangelicalism – is defended with two arguments
that, in my evaluation, are not persuasive. The first falls flat for being both formally
and informally invalid, and the second is suspicious for lack of biblical referencing
and philosophically can admit only hopeful universalism – not dogmatic universalism.
Although he has failed to convince, we are better informed of the state of the current
debate and are satisfied that much of what evangelicals affirm is congruent or
compatible with his some versions of universalism.
Our historical survey of evangelicalism led us to give a minimal theological
description with which we can evaluate. This definition included a commitment to the
Scripture as the source and norming norm for theological beliefs, the Triune God, the
centrality of Jesus Christ and his atoning work on the cross, and justification by faith
alone. We have already seen how this definition can be used to determine the pluralist
universalism of John Hick is nonevangelical. However it is not immediately apparent
that it can be utilized to determine all varieties of universalism as nonevangelical,
especially hopeful universalism and the dogmatic universalism of Parry.
40
This conclusion raises the question of whether evangelicals collectively need to
clarify evangelical identity with a theological definition that utilizes more numerous,
precise and exclusive terms. Should we fail in such a task, we may speculate that the
term will, if it has not already, become so hopelessly diverse and fragmented that it no
longer is of practical use as a descriptor for the contemporary Christian scene.104 Is
this acceptable? Or may we speculate further that this fragmentation will be beneficial
in some way?105
It also raises the question of how evangelicals use and approach the Bible. Is it
enough for evangelicals to believe their theological position is biblical, or must it also
be the biblical position? What role or significance do we give to extrabiblical
doctrines in our theological system? What hermeneutical principles must an
evangelical commit to in biblical interpretation? And what consequences do these
principles have when we structure our beliefs? For instance, do these principles
commit one to internal coherence? Do they permit fallacious arguments when
theologizing? Do they imply what the ETS and EPS make explicit: that is, do they
104
To recall Bebbington’s distinction made in footnote three, there is no reason I can see
which would diminish the usage of the term in the former lowercase sense, that being the
minimal description ‘of the gospel’.
105
Noll, for instance, has observed a repositioning of old religious and ideological
antagonisms between evangelicals and once sectarian groups such as the SeventhDay
Adventists and the World Wide Church of God, as they move towards more traditional
Christian affirmations. At the end of the twentieth century there has even been improved
relations between some evangelicals and Mormon, whom most have considered far beyond
the pale. See Noll, American Evangelical Christianity, 24. Is it possible that a corollary to
evangelical diversity and fragmentation is a leavening effect on doctrinally unorthodox
groups? Can we hope that this will also mean the evangelization of Mormon and Catholic
churches?
41
reject approaches to Scripture that deny that biblical truth claims
are grounded in reality?
The survey of the history of both evangelicalism and universalism has led to me to
suggest that the growing diversity of evangelicalism has played a significant role in
the growing acceptability of universalism, and that in the future greater numbers will
embrace the doctrine, but not with greater confidence. For myself, it has called into
question the influence culture has on the evangelical mind, and whether indeed the
Bible’s truth remains today evangelicalism’s bedrock.
As Bernard Ramm explained, evangelicals understand the impulse and attractiveness
of universalism. In this way they are both mutually reinforcing. However, large and
important questions loom over the biblical foundations for universalism. In particular
over whether it is biblically permissible to believe a secondchance is provided to
those who die in their sins. Is it not the case that this life is the time allotted for
decisionmaking? Isn’t God’s ‘final judgment’ final?
The remaining question that all this has raised is whether we are asking the right
questions? As D. A. Carson states in another context, evangelicals should be asking
‘not what evangelicalism can tolerate, but what Scripture authorizes and forbids.’106
Should evangelicals simply be lovers of God’s truth as revealed in Scripture: a
religion of the heart and mind, and on this basis proceed, in the style of Augustine and
the way the WEA’s standards for membership suggests, to engage in friendly in
house discussion?
106
D. A. Carson, “Is Sacrifice Passé?” Christianity Today, (19 Feb 1990): 15; quoted in R.
Albert Mohler, Jr., “Evangelical: What’s in a Name?” The Coming Evangelical Crisis:
Current Challenges to the Authority of Scripture and the Gospel, 36.
42
Accordingly, while it is not immediately apparent that universalism is non
evangelical, with closer examination we may be able to determine on evangelical
premises that there is no reason to believe there is hope all will be saved. For
example, since the most vocal proponents of hopeful universalism, with the exception
of Kierkegaard, are all predicated upon some form of restorationism, to show from
Scripture that there is no secondchance after death would be a sufficient refutation.107
Is evangelicalism compatible with universalism? To echo the final words of David
Wells, ‘[w]ell, that all depends.’108
107
A preliminary case is outlined in footnote 84.
108
David Wells, “On Being Evangelical: Some Differences and Similarities” in
Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North America, the British
Isles, and Beyond, 17001990 (eds. Mark A. Noll et al.; New York: Oxford University Press,
1994), 407.
43
Bibliography
Armstrong, John H., ed., The Coming Evangelical Crisis: Current Challenges to the
Authority of Scripture and the Gospel. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1996.
Balthasar, H. U. von., Dare We Hope 'That All Men Be Saved'? With a Short Discourse on
Hell. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986.
Bauckham, Richard, “Universalism: A Historical Survey,” Themelios 4.2, (September 1978):
4754.
Bebbington, David W., Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History From the 1730s to the
1980s. London: Unwin Hyman, 1989.
Black, Amy. “Interviews: Amy Black" No Pages. Frontline: The Jesus Factor, Cited 25 July
2011. Online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/black.html#ixzz1QYfDtFof.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry., Systematic Theology, 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Dunham, 1948.
Bloesch, D. G., The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory. Christian Foundations;
Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004.
Cameron, N. M. de S., ed., Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell: Papers Presented at the
Fourth Edinburgh Conference in Christian Dogmatics, 1991. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Carson, D. A. "Response to Sets and structures, Paul G. Hiebert." Pages 22832 in New
Horizon in world mission: Evangelicals and the Christian Mission in the 1980s: Papers and
44
Responses Prepared for the Consultation on Theology and Mission, Trinity Evangelical
Divintiy School, School of World Mission and Evangelism, Edited by D. J. Hesselgrave.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.
Chapman, Roger., “Cognitive Categories and Our Mission Approach,” Journal of Applied
Missiology 6:2 (October 1995); Cited 25 July 2011. Online:
http://www.bible.acu.edu/ministry/centers_institutes/missions/page.asp?ID=461
Craig, William Lane, "'No Other Name': A middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity
of Salvation Through Christ" Faith and Philosophy 6 (1989): 297308.
Engen, Charles Van., Mission on the Way: Issues in Mission Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1996.
Dayton, Donald W., Discovering an Evangelical Heritage. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988.
Erickson, Millard J., Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.
Geisler, Norman L. and H. Wayne House, The Battle For God: Responding to the Challenge
of Neotheism. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2001.
Gonzalez, Justo L., A History of Christian Thought: From the Protestant Reformation to the
Twentieth Century, 3 vols. Nashville: Abington, 1987.
Grenz, Stanley J., “Die Begrenzte Gemeinschaft (‘the Boundaried People’) and the Character
of Evangelical Theology.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45 (2002): 306
318.
Gruber, H., “Liberalism.” Pages 418–32 in vol. 9 of The Catholic Encyclopedia. Edited by K.
45
Knight. 15 vols. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910.
Guretzki, David, “Depart from Me: Eternal Judgment in Christological Perspective."
Canadian Evangelical Review. 3637 (Fall 2008 – Spring 2009): 1737
Hart, D. G., Deconstructing Evangelicalism: Conservative Protestantism in the Age of Billy
Graham. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.
Harris, Brian, "Straddling the Tasman: The Relevance of Grenz’s Revisioned Evangelical
Theology in the Australasian Context." The Princeton Theological Review XII:1 (Spring
2006): 510; Cited 25 July 2011. Online:
http://www.princetontheologicalreview.org/issues_pdf/34.pdf
Heibert, Paul G. "Sets and Structures: A Study of Church Patterns." Pages 21727 in New
Horizon in world mission: Evangelicals and the Christian Mission in the 1980s: Papers and
Responses Prepared for the Consultation on Theology and Mission, Trinity Evangelical
Divintiy School, School of World Mission and Evangelism, Edited by D. J. Hesselgrave.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.
__________. "Conversion, Culture and Cognitive Categories." Gospel in Context (October
1978): 2429.
Hick, J., Death and Eternal Life. New York: Harper & Row, 1976.
________, Evil and the God of Love (rev. ed.; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977)
Hitchen, John M., “What it Means to be an Evangelical Today An Antipodean Perspective:
Part 2,” Evangelical Quarterly 76:2 (April 2004): 112.
Klassen, Randy. What Does the Bible Really Say About Hell?: Wrestling with the Traditional
View, Living Issues Discussion Series 2; Telford, Pennsylvania: Pandora Press, 2001.
Krapohl, Robert H., and Charles H. Lippy, The Evangelicals: A Historical, Thematic, and
46
Biographical Guide. Wesport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1999.
Kvanvig, Jonathan L., "Heaven and Hell," No Pages. The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Cited 25 July 2011. Online:
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/heavenhell
________________. The Problem of Hell. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Larsen, Timothy, D. W. Bebbington, Mark A. Noll, and Steve Carter, eds. Biographical
Dictionary of Evangelicals. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
MacDonald, Gregory, The Evangelical Universalist. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2006.
Metaxes, Eric, Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End
Slavery. Oxford: Monarch Books, 2007.
Moreland, J. P., and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian
Worldview. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Niewold, Jack W., "Set Theory and Leadership: Reflections of Missional Communities in the
Light of Ephesians 4:1112" Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership; Cited 25 July
2010. Online:
http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/jbpl/vol2no1/Niewold_Jack_Final.pdf
Noll, Mark A., American Evangelical Christianity: An Introduction. Malden: Blackwell,
2001.
Olson, Roger E., The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Parry, Robin A., and Christopher H. Partridge, eds. Universal Salvation? The Current
47
Debate. Carlisle: William B. Eerdmans, 2003.
Powys, David J., “Hell”: A Hard Look at a Hard Question: The Fate of the Unrighteous in
New Testament Thought. Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster, 1997.
Robinson, J. A. T., In the End God. New York: Harper & Row, 1968.
Shultz Jr., Gary L., “The Reconciliation of All things in Christ,” Bibliotheca Sacra 167:668
(December 2010): 44259.
Strong, Augustus Hopkins., Systematic Theology. London: Pickering & Inglis, 1907.
Talbott, Thomas. "The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment," Faith and Philosophy 7 (1990):
1943.
_____________. "Craig on the Possibility of Eternal Damnation," Religious Studies 28
(1992): 495510.
_____________. "Punishment, Forgiveness, and Divine Justice," Religious Studies 29 (1993):
151168.
Tiessen, T. L., “Universalism,” ed. William A. Dyrness and ed. VeliMatti Karkkainen,
Global Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
Walls, Jerry. Hell: The Logic of Damnation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1992.
Wells, David "On Being Evangelicalical: Some Theological Differences and Similarities."
Page 389410 in Evangelicalism: Comparative Studies of Popular Protestantism in North
America, the British Isles, and Beyond, 17001990. Edited by Noll, Mark A., David W.
Bebbington, and George A. Rawlyk. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
48

Is Evangelical Universalism An Oxymoron?

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Is Evangelical Universalism An Oxymoron?

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Is Evangelical Universalism an Oxymoron?

of God and Scripture's testimony to itself. . . . We reject approaches to

only those whose identity and vocation are rooted in historic biblical

Christianity, they also ‘celebrate’ diverse practices and theological

The Coherence of Evangelical Universalism

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen