I agree with your definition above. I believe that part of us thinks that we can choose reality and define truth based on which doctrines we hold to. In essence, what I am saying is that people try to determine truth subjectively (our opinions on salvation) instead of relying on the object itself (God’s chosen mode of salvation). Do you think that I applied the term incorrectly?

It is rather ironic given the recent dealings with Bell; however, I think it makes sense if you really think about it. A lot of opposing viewpoints arise from applying concepts in different ways. That’s exactly why Paul had to be so intentional about correcting people when they used his teachings in the wrong way (“Should we continue to sin that grace may abound?“).

In this case, the five points of calvinism are applied to the doctrine of salvation, but with one slight alteration. Total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints are all applied without alteration. The limited atonement though is qualified. Universalists agree with limited atonement in that the atonement is only offered to those who God elects, but they also suggest that God’s election includes everyone.

When I was reading about universalism, it was quite surprising that all of the major theologians who held to universalism were either reformed or brought up in the reformed church. Friedrich Schleiermacher and George MacDonald are good examples of this. Some have also criticized Karl Barth for holding a belief in universalism and being vague when he discusses the issue.

Perhaps the reason why the reformed church is so up in arms about Rob Bell and his new book is because of the link between reformed theology and universalism through history.

There are bound to be disagreements within the church. I am not prepared to make a claim that all controversies would be solved in favor of a particular side if only we stuck to the scripture. There are inevitably going to be differences in the way that we understand scripture. The main point that I am trying to make is that, when we attempt to come to the proper understanding of scripture, we leave our own personal opinions and biases at the door. What we would like to be true should never dictate our views on doctrine.

In terms of the subject of communion, the depth and specificity surrounding doctrines such as transubstantiation and consubstantiation are almost entirely extrabiblical. I believe that we need to be honest with how much of this discussion truly comes from scripture. Most of the discussion really comes from theological reasoning which is applied to scripture. Personally, I think that Luther’s reasoning on this issue is valid, though this is not a subject that I have researched in great depth.

“Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, ‘This is my body’, even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word ‘this’ indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a ‘sacramental union’, because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union.”
- Martin Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper

What a refreshing article. Someone actually saying the words “absolute truth.” God Bless you sir!

You bring up a good point. The idea that God will punish people in hell for a set time and then “destroy” them in a sense of annihilation is called “Conditionalism.” I have thought about the concept of Conditionalism some, but don’t feel prepared to really challenge this point. I think that Sinclair Furgison does a much better job than I could anyway. You can see where he speaks of Conditionalism about 2/3 of the way through this sermon: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/universalism-and-the-reality-of-eternal-punishment-the-biblical-basis-of-the-doctrine-of-eternal-punishment#/listen/full

Thank you for the link. I greatly appreciate your style and depth of writing and you have given me a lot to think about regarding biblical authority in light of postmodernism. I will de finitely be spending some time on your sources as well.

In reference to your comment, I think you may have misunderstood me just a bit. While I do suggest that universalism has roots in postmodern thought, I am not suggesting that the inverse relationship holds true. A person may very easily be a postmodernist without being universalist. Also, I tried to make it clear that this “type” of postmodern thought is only existent in a certain form. It appears to me that those who hold to universalism often have postmodern tendencies, not a fully developed understanding of postmodernism.

I must say though that I do wonder how you understand the biblical authority to be infallible without communicating objective truth. It would seem to me that, if we deconstruct a passage in scripture to the point of irreducibly contradictory interpretations, at least some of those interpretations must be fallible.

Also, while I understand that the origins of Christianity would not qualify as a meta-narrative, that certainly wouldn’t still apply today. Christianity is no longer just a marginalized voice in the Roman empire. Much of Christian theology has been developed in a position of power and authority, which has often been used to silence the Other. If we are to embrace the skepticism toward the Meta-narrative and offer favor to the Other, then on what grounds would we suggest that universalism is not helpful?

 PS – I wrote a quick article based on our interactions here.  I am pointing people towards your post and posted our conversation on my site.

 Thanks for spending time in this conversation and for giving us a plug on your blog. It is greatly appreciated!

 @simwaves1:disqus ,

This is fun!  I don’t know how many rounds I am gonna last, considering I am no expert on philosophy and well, you make me think too much!!!!

Okay, first you talk about the fallacy of association.  I must say this without being a rude jerk… that kind of jargon about logic and reasoning doesn’t really peak my interest.  I am not a formal debater, just a young theologian / pastor type.  So, I have found it helpful to point to folks more credible than I to demonstrate I am not on my own.  I would venture to say, that you are probably a traditional reformed guy and that may be the gap between us on this   I am an Anabaptist arminian, so we may just be coming from different angles on this…. (side note: we both agree that Universalism is not good for the church, so we agree more than we disagree).

Second, I believe that the only “objective truth” that exists is God… but that we can never know him absolutely as he absolutely know us.  We will only catch a glimpse of him.  And even though I believe that he is Truth, I also know that such a conviction is fully dependent on a relational epistemology… I know truth insofar that my experiential grid, influenced by the Holy Spirit (I hope!), tells me such convictions are true.  This is completely subjective.  I can never know something, if I am being intellectually honest, with absolute certainty.  If I did, faith would not matter too much I suppose.  And based on your remarks to me, it seems that our language may be the only thing keeping us at odds on this point

Third, Universal Truth is fine but it cant be “proven.”  God is a universalizing truth but again, as I said in my above comment, that is my belief about an absolute Being whom I will only know in part, like staring in a dim glass.

Fourth, on biblical authority.  I believe that biblical authority is more demonstrated by the way that the Scripture is exorcized as authoritative in one’s life… intellectual authority is second to that.  I do, as best as I understand, hold to infallibility (although I recognize that this is a term that the Bible does not use of itself).  I make a distinction from infallibility and inerrancy.  I don’t believe in an inerrant Bible.  You can see my view on this here: http://www.thepangeablog.com/2011/01/24/dear-reader-thinking-out-loud-about-biblical-inspiration/ 

On your final point, I honestly don’t know where you are coming from.  Meta-narrative for me has more to do with actions and less to do with abstract theologizing.  I guess on your issue of constructing theology… we must admit that all theology is constructed and must have the bravery to constantly deconstruct the supposed “right answers.”  When we have deconstructed all we can, it means we are close to the truth I suppose.  I believe that I am on the right path, but I do so through a grid of humility (as I am sure you do as well).

Finally, I am not a universalist as I said before.  But, lets be clear that universalism can be traced back to the second century! This is hardly a result of relativism or the kind of postmodernism your post critiques.

Ultimately, my concern is with anyone who uses the label “postmodern” and associates it with “bad theology.”  That is taking a broad term and unilaterally applying it.  This is why so many conservatives are so afraid of that word.  I think you could have been more nuanced and instead of saying “The Dangers of Postmodernism in the Church” you could have said “the dangers of relativism” or something else.  Why dismiss the whole when it is only a certain form that can be bad.

A couple of good reads for this discussion of epistemology.

1) My friend Carson Clark’s post on post-foundationalism: http://carsontclark.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/i-think-im-a-postfoundationalist-evangelical-christian/#comment-1585

2) NT Wright’s “the Bible for a PostModern World” http://www.biblicaltheology.ca/blue_files/The%20Bible%20for%20the%20Post%20Modern%20World.pdf

Grace and Peace!!!!
- Kurt

You make some valid points here.  I think we agree quite a bit.  Honestly, it has been since 08 that I have engaged this stuff on any legitimate level.  I am rusty on philosophy. I hope you will at least read “Whose afraid of Postmodernism.” Most helpful book I’ve read on this subject…. 

Anyway, you are a great conversation partner and its late so I will simply say goodnight and I will look forward to future conversations!!!!!!!

Grace and peace to you bro!

Eric, as a decidedly non-Postmodernist who has significant problems with the “orthodox” doctrines of hell, I think you may be mixing two not-quite-related topics here.   While you are correct (I believe) that many Postmoderns are attracted to theologies that minimize hell and maximize Universalism because it feels a whole lot “nicer” and “open-minded” and such, it is inaccurate to paint the entire current discussion with a Postmodernist brush and therewith dismiss it.

There are legitimate Biblical objections to classic hell doctrines: for example, the fact that Jesus’ teaching of hell tends to be directed largely, not at the “ignorant” or “unsaved,” but rather at those religious authorities who self-righteously “know” they are in with God.  It is also important to recognize–again based on Biblical authority alone–that there is not a single phrase or command or statement in the entire New Testament that links the eternal destiny of the lost with a command or duty to evangelize (these commands are usually linked to the fact of Jesus’ exalted authority).  Nor is eternal condemnation part of any evangelistic sermon we have recorded in or Acts.  The notion that we must “turn or burn” is a much later innovation and itself largely extrabiblical.

I would encourage you to be a little more careful in separating these disparate strands within the sloppy theology of today:  Universalism is taught as a feel-good, don’t-worry-be-happy notion of God.  This is not biblical and needs to be addressed.  Postmodernism can (note, “can,” not “always does”) lead to a lot of fuzzy thinking that tends to the “whatever works for you” hermaneutic.  This, too, is sloppy thought.

But along with both of these streams–which, frankly, have existed before if only with different names–there is also a re-examination of Biblical truth using Biblical authority, that likewise calls into question some pretty dearly-held beliefs of “orthodoxy.”  This latter path is important, and should not so lightly be dismissed.

Pax Christi!

I don’t have a problem with people questioning the orthodox beliefs regarding hell, I have a problem with people rejecting them. 

It seems that the primary issue that you are communicating is a rejection of the approach to the practical preaching of hell rather than the substance of what is being taught. I find this interesting because, to the best of my knowledge, there is not an established orthodoxy of when you should or should not bring up the doctrine of hell. It seems that you are taking issue with something that is more based on preference and common patterns of preaching rather than on orthodox beliefs. Of course, the fact that the “turn or burn” type of preaching was absent from the gospels and the rest of the new testament doesn’t mean that it wasn’t used. The new testament deals primarily with an audience of believers, so your observations regarding the preaching of hell is expected. On the other hand, a great portion of the old testament shows us that God certainly has no problem saying, “turn from your wicked ways or be judged.”

I also think you may be applying the term of orthodoxy a bit differently than I am. If you hold to the position of inclusivism or conditionalism as it seems from scanning over your blog articles, that may be a rejection of orthodox evangelical Christianity perhaps, but not orthodox Christianity. I believe that your opinion that my words in this article are directed toward you is mistaken.

Fair enough. In your interpretation, I would suggest that Christianity accepts too much of the Constantinian/Nicaean/Chalcedonian resolution without further critique…though I don’t dispute that they indeed so accept it.

I certainly grant that it is possible God might (as he has done throughout history) use deeply flawed processes to achieve his good outcomes.   I dispute, however, that this is what happened in the various fourth-century councils.

I come back to the position that even “settled doctrines” ought to be repeatedly re-examined in the light of scripture…and that is something few churches have the willingness or courage to do.

What is eternal condemnation if not judgement?

I am curious to how you interpret Romans 1. I’m not sure I accept that there is anyone who has never been given the chance to know God. Paul tells us that God has made Himself known to everyone.

All in all, we can both agree that God is just and no person will be punished out of proportion to what they deserve. Personally, I see no problem with that punishment being everlasting.

Oh, eternal condemnation is certainly judgment, but the converse is not necessarily true.  My objection was to the idea that all occurrences of “judgment” in the Bible are necessarily eternal condemnation.

Which actually is an important point for your question about Romans 1.  It’s interesting to look at what Paul is calling out in the  Romans 1 sinner.  These are people who fail to honor the God who has been revealed in creation, and instead worship the created, and also get wrapped up in all sorts of venal immorality.  Two points here:

1)  Those who worship a grand Creator because they’ve been able to see in the general revelation that the universe must exist due to a Creator, but who have not actually heard the names of Yahweh and Jesus, seem to me to be people who have, in fact, responded in humility to the very revelation they have been given.  As I’ve said in the past, the heavens declare the glory of God, but they do not give us his name.  I would suggest that to claim these folks are lost…who have responded to all the revelation they’ve received as faithfully as they can…is to go well beyond what is written.  This leads me to:

2)  The discussion about the rank immorality Paul describes in vv 24-32 is interesting, in that it’s unclear to what extent the depraved behavior is merely the willful sin of those unbelievers, and to what extent it’s actually part of the condemnation to which God “gave them over.”  Either way, this describes some, but definitely not all, who have never been properly exposed to the gospel of Christ.  It does not, however, describe people who have, as I said above, responded in humility to the general revelation of God in creation, derived a clear morality and live by it, and give glory to the God they have deduced must exist, whatever name they may give him (see Rom. 2:14-16).

Nor does Paul’s discussion in Rom. 1 necessitate hell in any form.  The retribution and wrath Paul describes is entirely temporal depravity (Rom 1:24 and following), and death (Rom. 1:32 and 2:12).  The association of the condemnation in these passages with the “eternal conscious punishment” so dear to the hearts of American Evangelicals, is not in the text.

And finally, I appreciate and (mostly) agree with your closing comment: All in all, we can both agree that God is just and no person will be
punished out of proportion to what they deserve.   Unlike you, however, I do not believe that infinite torment can possibly be a just punishment for finite sins, no matter how great.  If  “everlasting” means “dead, annihilated, not coming back,” (and there is a Biblical case that can be made for this), I can accept it as just.  Eternal torture for temporal sin is not.  Hence my unqualified agreement with the MacDonald quote with which you opened your original post.

 What I am really trying to say is that, if God is comfortable with a very aggressive approach toward judgement in general, I don’t see a problem with a similar approach to the more specific form of judgement in hell.

You said in your previous comment that hell is not meant for people who have never been given a chance to meet God, but I don’t think such a person exists, and I think that is specifically why Paul starts the first three chapters of Romans the way that he does. The whole point is to lead us up to the conclusion of Romans 3:23. There is no denying that we are all lost. If God so wishes to condemn all who have not heard the gospel, then he is perfectly just in doing so. It is only by His grace that all of us don’t see the same condemnation.

What do you do, then, with the Romans 2:14-16 I referenced above?

I would suggest that the context of Romans 3 (the whole chapter) suggests that Paul’s “none righteous” statement has more to do with his argument that Judaism is no better than Gentiles (“Greeks”) cf. v. 9 of the same chapter).  It has been co-opted by classic Calvinist theology–in fact most Pauline writings have–but Paul’s message has a great deal more to do with the uniting of the division between Jew and Greek in Christ, than it does with the grand picture of sin & depravity that it’s often used to “prove.”  I was struck by this once when I read all of Paul’s epistles straight through in a couple days, and realized a continuity of message between them that I had not previously noticed.

However, I suspect this may be a place where–as brothers–we may simply agree to disagree (agreeably, I hope!).

Hey Dan, not to jump in on the conversation and do a lucha libre tag team… but I did want to make one comment in reference to Acts.  I would say that your observation may be very revealing in our modern day approach to Evangelism.  Many of us often talk about a lot of other things when talking about “Jesus.”  We tell them how He changed our lives, saved us from Hell, gave us the Holy Spirit… which is all good.  But Jesus makes it clear that we are supposed to present who He is; which is exactly what the early Church made a focus of doing.  Sharing who Jesus is.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that they did not have conversations about hell.  Although there is not that evangelical presentation in Acts, I don’t think we can throw in a level of importance like you are suggesting.  We do not have the sermon notes of Paul, Peter, Apollos, etc.  We have historical records of what they did.  In those records, if we are observing who the early church was speaking to I think it is very fair to say that many knew exactly what Hell was, and they knew what was at stake in terms of their spiritual lives.  For example, a Jew in a synagogue hearing about salvation… that person knows exactly what they are being saved from.  So I would say that we need to be careful when using that as a point, especially considering how clear Jesus was about Hell.

The way you presented it, it looks like you were merely typing some objections that people may have.  So I am guessing you are playing an advocate for the other half.  I just thought it was worthwhile to say something about that.

I don’t know Dan.  I just don’t know.  As I have been doing the work that I do, I have been asking myself a lot of questions.  What is the Church?  What is discipleship?  What is worship?  What is (fill in the blank)?  Pretty much sitting at the feet of God the best I can, and saying “teach me.”  

So as I have been doing that, I have been looking a lot at Acts, and Ephesians; with other parts of the NT mixed in there.  But God keeps bringing me back to those books.  One thing that has really stuck out to me, is that those books really are a “blueprint” to what discipleship and “Church” looks like.  

As I look at those towns, specifically Ephesus (because that is where I keep on getting drawn to), I do think I would have to say that the people did have an understanding of hell.  Having never been there during that time, it is difficult to say that.  However, without either one of us being experts, we can look at the information and say Jews were taught about hell.  Not only that but even those that worshipped Diana, they too, we could assume, would have a concept of hell.  Remember Paul pointed to God when he talked about the “unknown god” that the Athenians had set up.  These were a people of worship.  The question is:  what did they worship because there were many gods.  And, to what level did people focus on hell? Kind of like, a Roman Catholic, and if there focus is on a specific saint, Mary, Jesus, or God.  Where is the focus?  That we don’t know.

I don’t think that they talked about Hell in the same way we did, especially considering we have the printed Bible, and they were still receiving the letters hand written from Paul (amazing when I think about it).  But even Jew’s referenced Abraham’s bosom. I think the whole debate about resurrection versus non-resurrection between the Sadducees and Pharisees reflects a thought about hell (in my opinion).  So I am not at all suggesting that it is more important now versus back then.  I am saying it was equally important.  And I feel comfortable with saying that because Jesus confronted people with their heaven and hell on a regular basis.

I think what you are talking about, concerning the “fear-factor” evangelism is a reflection that fire and brimstone can be sexy evangelism.  What do I mean?  Well, it is the easiest way for the evangelist or preacher to see results.  People raise hands, cry, and feel convicted when they are confronted with the idea of eternal death.  I will not be the one to say why a person preaches what they do.  I will however, always suggest for a person to check their hearts and see if it is for the glory of God.  One thing that God has corrected my heart in is that we can throw out tons of seeds, but if we aren’t focusing on making disciples, we are not following His commission.  

I think that Hell can be taught in complete context of pointing back to God and His righteous Love, but often times people leave it at the fire… and that is not where Jesus left it at all.  Which in some ways is what you are saying in your post about salvation.  It doesn’t end there.  I do think people need to be confronted with Hell because it is real.  And I do believe that it should be a part of the M.O. for discipleship because it is a very real thing that Jesus taught.  The way I see it is if Jesus taught it on the Mount, we should be teaching it and let the Holy Spirit do the convicting.

Well, I have said a lot for starting with “I don’t know.”  So I will leave my thoughts there.  Thanks for sharing the Gospel, and being faithful as you stepped into the mission field!  And blessings to you (and not at all in the cliche way!)

I think you guys have given me the necessary details for another complete blog post…I’ll see what I can do.  But in the meantime, the short answer, to me, is that we’re looking at a category mistake in claiming that Romans, or John 14:6, or any of the usual suspects are making the claim that “you must accept in your mind the religion we now call Christianity, or you will suffer an unending agony in a place we call hell.”

Jesus is king, having been made so by his Father following his death & resurrection.  Our king has directed us to recruit followers into his kingdom.  This I do not dispute, nor will I relent from it.

There remain, however, legitimate questions about what it means to join that kingdom.  Whatever consequences there may be for those who do not (whether by ignorance or by default or by deliberate rejection), are not as clear, either, as we often make them out to be.  The intersection of God’s law and God’s mercy, also, is not as clear-cut as we usually represent it.  None of these is necessarily an issue of “universalism,” but they all militate against the absolute “my religion or burn” mentality that characterizes far too much “evangelism.”

And I think we need to be more candid about what, in these interpretations, derives from an extrabiblical filter being superimposed on the texts.  There is a big difference between what can be independently derived from the text alone, and what can be claimed as a systematic theory and then purport to be supported by the text.  Most soteriology I have seen falls in the latter category, not the former.

@be23488c32e3cdcd11165719d9d6bf48:disqus , drop me an email at dwm gmail com and I’ll send the notes to you…Dan