A Non-Universal Story

Posted on July 15, 2011 by TwoFriars

What is the best possible ending for the biblical story?

More specifically, does universal salvation provide a better ending for the story than the more common view of limited entrance into the eternal Kingdom of God?

I have to say at the outset that, despite my arguments against universalism, I feel the force of the question and at times find myself drawn toward a more universalistic anticipation of the future. Those thoughts are driven, not by a denial of how badly humans have gotten God’s story wrong here on earth, but by an affirmation of the largess of God’s saving grace: if saving some is good, how much better is saving all?

But when I step back from this, I consider that the better ending of God’s saving story is not numerically universal in scope. (If I use the term “universalism” in this discussion, it will mean “every human being who has ever lived entering into the eternal salvation, in resurrected bodies upon the new creation, that was accomplished in Christ.”)

I have two main thoughts about why a limited final salvation, which seems to me to be better attested in scripture than its alternatives, is a better ending to the story than universalism. Both of these thoughts have to do, in some respect, with the idea that stories are immanently more compelling when their scenes are connected and related to one another.

In the end, deus ex machina renders the antecedent story irrelevant.

Life Echoing to Eternity

Jesus’ first words of public proclamation are, “Repent, for the Reign of God has drawn near!” The Reign (or Kingdom) of God is sometimes depicted as what is arriving with Jesus’ advent, and sometimes as what we wait for in the restoration of all things.

With this, we catch a clear indication that the present as it has been inaugurated in Christ is inseparable from the future that God is bringing about through him. Or, in the words of Maximus the Gladiator, “What we do in life echoes in eternity.”

This connection between the works of this life and our eternal destiny is a consistent theme in the message of the New Testament in general and in Jesus’ teaching in particular. The famous sheep and goats scene of Matthew 25 speaks of a final judgment in which visiting the prisoner, feeding the hungry, and giving drink to the thirsty are indications, on earth, of being children of the kingdom—which means entering the kingdom of the king for all eternity.

Two things are worth pointing out here, as we’ll return to the second point in a bit. The first is the connection between this life and the next. The second is that despite the continuity the final judgment comes as a surprise to everyone

The idea that there is drastic, dramatic discontinuity is more Gnostic than Christian. In this particular discussion, I am presenting what is probably perceived by most as a more “traditional” or conservative position on the world to come. But the idea of continuity is one that folks to my right are guilty of as well. The idea that we are saved by faith alone has often borne fruit in a theology that says what we do while on earth does not matter for the final judgment—we are saved solely by the work of Christ. The idea that God introduces dramatic discontinuity between this world and the next has borne fruit in the notion that what we do to the earth we are on does not matter—the earth will have to be remade completely.

Both of these non-Christian ideas derive from a failure to recognize the continuity between this life and the next. And, the plea for universalism indicates a similar failure. The way the Christian story works, as all good stories do, is by a measure of continuity between one scene and the next – even when we recognize the presence of a hero who comes in and rescues people from what would otherwise be the natural course of their actions.

So reason one why I am not a universalist is because the story indicates a continuity between this life and the next such that there are those who demonstrate themselves to be children of the kingdom and those who are demonstrating themselves to not be so (re)born.

Freedom and Responsibility

A second reason I am hesitant to see universalism as the outcome of the story is that I see it coming together with one other popular idea to validate what I see as a typically western, especially American, mentality.

One of the foundational theological premises of popular western, especially American, theologizing, is the notion of free will. It doesn’t matter that the phrase “free will” is never spoken of as a determining factor in a person’s relationship with God in the entire Bible or that election and predestination are so invoked on numerous occasions, the basic premise of Bible-believing Christians is that we have free will and God doesn’t control us, make us puppets, etc.

I thus find it interesting that from the people for whom free will is a non-negotiable in all our dealings with God that universalism is an increasingly popular option. It seems as though we want to eat our cake and have it. After asserting that everything is entirely up to us, that God would never force anyone to choose God or love God, in the end we are not willing to accept that there might be grave, even eternal consequences to this act of freedom. In the end, we are asking for God to overcome our freedom by a mighty act of universal election.

If we are going to so stridently insist on a God who is willing that his creatures choose or reject God in freedom, I think we need to have the courage to posit a God who is willing to live with the consequences of that freedom—a God who, in the end, is willing to say to us who have rejected God, “Your will be done.”

We’re approaching this question of universalism by asking what makes for the best ending to the story. I think that we want our stories to have continuity. I have not focused on the issue of justice in the sense of avenging wrongs that go unpunished in the world. One might also raise the question of whether it isn’t our position as essentially empowered people that gives us the luxury of not demanding a setting of all things to rights by exclusion of some from God’s kingdom at the End. I do believe that is important, but that it is only one facet of a larger storyline that will issue forth in some sort of continuity between this age and the age to come.

Surprise

Having said all this, however, I want to return to a point I made above.

I anticipate that the end will be a time of surprise. Surprise endings are the stuff of good stories. Continuity does not entail predictability. The only thing I think we can predict with safety is that the actual playing out of “the End” will be unpredictable.

As a New Testament scholar, I am regularly made aware of how the first coming of Jesus caused his followers to reread the Old Testament and to provide new interpretations to the old texts. I anticipate that the same is in store for us in the future.

One such surprise, I think, will in fact be the breadth of those who are embraced into the quintessential human task of glorifying God. The appearance at the end of Revelation of the kings of the earth, bringing in the glory of the nations, perhaps provides a hint that the judgment will not leave behind anything so neatly circumscribed as “the church.”

Dr. JR Daniel Kirk

is a New Testament professor at Fuller Seminary in Northern California and the author of Unlocking Romans as well as Jesus Have I Loved, But Paul?, which is due to be released later this year. He brews his own beer, listens to the Mountain Goats almost obsessively, and blogs daily at Storied Theology.

This entry was posted in Bible, Theology and tagged Aric Clark, Doug Hagler, Eschatology, Narrative Theology, Nick Larson, Salvation. Bookmark the permalink.

Tracy

Since you’re using an aesthetic measure of the “best” ending to the Christian story, it might be well to include a couple of perspectives from the history of literary criticism.

First, Shakespeare’s All’s Well that Ends Well is highly relevant here. In that play there is a happy ending for Bertram, a scoundrel. In Harold Bloom’s words, “Like Dr. Johnson, we cannot abide the Bertram, the caddish young nobleman whom the evidently admirable Helena loves.” (Shakespeare The Invention of the Human: 345) When good things happen to bad people it is an aesthetic affront. So this is a challenge to Universalism.

But a second related challenge follows. All’s Well that Ends Well flouted classic theatrical categories, which had no tradition of depicting good things happening to bad people. (Tragedy: bad things happening to good people. Comedy: bad things happening to bad people. From Aristotle’s Poetics.) But very interestingly, neither did it have a tradition of depicting good things happening to good people. Apparently that’s just boring, despite the the moral and aesthetic “continuity.” So Classic tradition that makes good things happening to bad persons an aesthetic affront, also makes the continuity Dr. Kirk sides with on behalf of limited salvation an affront.

The unhappy dilemma from which the theological aesthetician needs to free herself seems to be this: boring continuity (good leads to good) on the one hand and moral disconnect (bad leads to good) on the other.

Thanks so much for this wonderful forum! It never would have occurred to me to wonder about how the gospel story might split the horns of this dilemma. It seems that that is just what is required for aesthetic/theological resolution. And I have no clue where this might go, as I’ve literally never thought a jot about it…

I look forward to the essayists’ further inspiring thoughts!

Tracy

A quick addition. I see, after re-reading Dr. Beck’s essay, that he argued that “Our description of the best…has to be judged by Christian aesthetical standards.”

That could be seen as a dismissal of a broader consideration of literary aesthetics, but I think not. “Christian theology” is a wholly legitimate category; “Christian mathematics” is wholly illegitimate; and it seems to me that “Christian aesthetics” is a middle ground in that it will have some things in common with the more general category, and will add some distinctive elements of its own. Thus, it would be an extension of more basic “human” aesthetics. So I think the dilemma drawn from Classical categories is instructive as an interpretive perspective, even within a wider Christian framework.
Anonymous

Man. Terry Pratchet, Shakespeare and Aristotle. This comment thread is off to a good start.

I really like you point here, and below, about good things happening to bad people being an aesthetic affront in the classic sense – that angle would definitely make sense of Paul calling the Gospel a scandal & things like the Servant Songs of Isaiah where God’s salvific work is thought “ugly”.

That said, there are endings I don’t think your rubric covers – A bad person becoming a good person – redemption in other words.

Tracy

You’re right, Aric.

The Aristotelian categories are static. They leave no room for the very real possibility of redemption, or other movements from bad to good: rags to riches, ignorant to informed, beginning violin player to virtuoso, etc. In all such narratives persons make themselves “better.”

How the gospel, often viewed as a passive means of redemption, is affected by your point is the question of real interest. Perhaps Universalism has an important advantage in leaving open the possibility of a more active role in one’s own redemption. It at least holds promise of setting up a middle way between the Aristotelian categories.

But I’m not feigning not having thought this through. So the passive role is my better way forward now. Thanks for setting this up.

Jim Scott

“How the gospel, often viewed as a passive means of redemption, is affected by your point is the question of real interest. Perhaps Universalism has an important advantage in leaving open the possibility of a more active role in one’s own redemption.”

I am somewhat amazed that redemption is ever assumed to be “passive,” or that anyone’s redemption is considered a result of their own actions. God is always the “author of our faith” and our savior… it is always his ACTIVE role.

Tracy

Hi Jim,

The Message glosses the familiar Ephesians 2 passage this way: “…we neither make nor save ourselves. God does both the making and the saving.” WE, who cannot “make” ourselves acceptable to God by this view, are passive with respect to God’s saving and redeeming grace.

BJ Gensic

I have a lot of things flowing through my head right now, so I’m not sure how much continuity this post will have. My apologies up front. Having said that, let me also say that although I am not a Universalist, over the last few years I have had to admit that Universalists make many good points and ask many good questions, so nothing I am about to say should be taken as an attack on Universalism. Okay…so my thoughts.

As an American Christian myself, I have to wonder how my own culture presuppositions affect my thinking about the “end of the story.” Specifically, American culture often times sees inclusion as the ultimate good. Now I’m certainly not trying to say that inclusion is bad. So, as our thinking goes, inclusion is good. God is better than good, so God must be inclusive. Therefore, the opposite must also be true. Exclusion is against the love of God (and for transparency sake, I think exclusion is against the love of God).

However, I have some questions about this reasoning. First of all, what is God’s goal? If we think that the ultimate goal is for we humans to have eternal life, than eternal life becomes a reward, a cookie given after death. If, instead, the goal is to restore creation, to bring into being the new heaven and earth where righteousness is at home, then the driving question is not how we earn our way in, but rather how we learn to live in that new reality, not after our death (which breaks continuity), but in this life. After all, the New Testament authors seem to think that Jesus’ resurrection is evidence that the Kingdom of God (God’s new creation) has broken into this world now, no matter that it is yet an incomplete manifestation. What this makes me wonder is, if individuals are not included in the fulfilled Kingdom of God yet to come, is that punishment or evidence that they have been preparing themselves in such a way that they do not know how to live in the Kingdom of God? Continuity seems to argue for the later.

As I think about this, I also can’t help but think of Jesus walking to Jerusalem and cursing the fig tree. The issue of the fig tree is not the fig tree. The fig tree is metaphor for Jerusalem and the Jewish system (the Law to use Paul’s language) that has failed to bear fruit. Jesus’s curse on the fig tree is in fact his judgment on Jerusalem. The temple will be torn down (figuratively, and a few decades later, literally) and replaced with Jesus himself. This brings me back to my thoughts about exclusion being against the nature of God. If Jesus, the Word become flesh, can “exclude” the Jewish system (and let’s acknowledge that systems are not independent of the people who perpetuate them), is exclusion really against the nature of God?

Which brings me to my last thought (sorry for such a long comment). A major theme in both the Old Testament and New Testament, and certainly in Jesus’s ministry, is that of God’s justice. Now, over and over again, the Biblical authors are very concerned with showing that “justice” and “punishment” are not the same thing. God showed his justice in forbearance when dealing with human fallen-ness. This would seem to support the idea of Universalism. However, even though punishment does not equate justice, justice is still setting things right, and that implies a certain level of accountability. Now, how God will set things right when creation is so messed up that I don’t understand over half the dumb stuff I do, let alone what other people do, is beyond me.

Again, sorry for the long post. I’m enjoying this series. Thanks for putting all this together.

Anonymous

Never apologize for a long comment. Glad to have your input. I’ll take a stab at responding to one piece of your comment.

I would say that American culture sees “opportunity” as the highest good rather than inclusion. That is we don’t actually have a society that ensures or even strives for everyone’s inclusion in all social goods. We have a society that strives for everyone to have an “opportunity” to achieve social goods. It is a merit-based, works-based society. On that basis I would say the most “American” eschatology is an evangelical/Arminian one in which every person has the opportunity to accept Christ and work for their own salvation.

BJ Gensic

I can totally see your point about opportunity rather than “inclusion.” Thanks for the response.

http://twitter.com/jrdkirk Daniel Kirk

There’s another point at which I wonder if our Western, privileged context draws us toward universalism: we tend to occupy the place of the people who dole out the types of systematic injustice that the early Jewish and NT writers saw overcome in their visions of final judgment. We live the story of systematic injustice (what the final judgment is supposed to fix) much less than did our predecessors who wrote books such as Daniel, 2 Maccabees, and Revelation. It’s worth considering, as a matter of honest self-reflection, whether we subconsciously hope for universalism because as a people we stand closer to the unjust judged than the vindicated righteous?

Also, I see from the homepage that my head shot is much too traditional and corporate looking. I need to use a cooler photo.

Anonymous

Definitely. I think that most of the “judgment” passages of scripture should terrify those of us living in the 1st world, especially America, and ESPECIALLY those of us in this country who are white, educated, and financially comfortable. I think that fear of judgment is a strong impetus behind universalism – it’s possibly our only hope if, like the Rich Young Ruler we find ourselves walking away shaking our head from the challenge of setting aside our privilege.

John Yates

Towards the end of Terry Pratchett’s novel “The Truth,” Death (who speaks in ALL CAPS) comments on the mis-spent life of one of the villains, Mr Tulip. The conversation ends with this:

Mr Tulip raised a trembling hand. ‘Is this the bit where my whole life passes in front of my eyes?’ he said.
NO, THAT WAS THE BIT JUST NOW.
‘Which bit?’
THE BIT, said Death, BETWEEN YOUR BEING BORN AND YOUR DYING. NO, THIS . . . MR TULIP, THIS IS YOUR WHOLE LIFE AS IT PASSED BEFORE OTHER PEOPLE’S EYES . . .
[p. 267, ellipses in the original]

The implication is that Mr Tulip subsequently experiences all his evil deeds from the other side. Nor is that the end of Mr Tulip’s story, which resumes on p. 287 with Death’s comment: THERE, WASN’T THAT INTERESTING. WHAT NEXT, MR TULIP. ARE YOU READY TO GO?

It would be a very harsh, but very just, judgment to go through what Mr Tulip experienced. It leads me to wonder if such a Hell could function in God’s hands as a kind of healing purgatory.

Anonymous

A conversation is nearly always improved by referencing Terry Prachett.

This is very close to my understanding of what judgment day entails. It is what Paul means by seeing in a mirror dimly vs. seeing face to face – a full awareness of our nature. I would amend this to say that the perspective we are ultimately granted a glimpse of is God’s perspective which sees our sin in unflinching clarity, but also that in us which God called good – and seeing others through that same lens.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Douglas-Hagler/848645164 Douglas Hagler

I don’t like the idea that seeing our sin in unflinching clarity would more strongly convict us, honestly. There seems to be so little in our lives that is actually, even primarily, our choice. I wonder how much we are ultimately responsible for. Neurologically, decisions are an argument between competing parts of the brain. Our social position, religion, culture, language, and economic status are almost entirely determined by complete accident of birth. Whether we are happy, sad, fat, afraid, courageous, generous or stingy is at least partially determined by genetics and environment interacting with each other.

I don’t see a reason to assume why, seeing in a mirror clearly for the first time, our hearts wouldn’t be broken by grief and compassion. When the fantasy of personal responsibility shatters, I think that what remains is more merciful, not less.

Anonymous

I like your description, and I agree that seeing clearly will be a more merciful experience, not a less merciful experience than the way we currently see. That said, I think there is some both-and here. Every person’s experience will likely be different, but plenty of us will probably be convicted by some of what we see. To me it is a necessary step toward that horizontal person to person reconciliation – realizing the responsibility we bear for other people’s suffering.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-Kellam-Scott/100000580213713 Barbara Kellam-Scott

(and to aric’s reply) No matter what you may think of the rest of his ideas from interviewing those with “near-death” experiences, Raymond Moody in the 1960s? found that full awareness, along with an awareness of being forgiven all of it and loved despite it and logic, and no longer able to do anything differently, to be the definition of Hell.

Jim Scott

A big thank you to Dr. Kirk for his article here. I very much appreciate that he would take the time to offer his opinions in such an open-hearted manner. As he bases his argument around two interesting points I would just like to make a few observations concerning them.

Life Echoing Eternity: This connection between the works of this life and our eternal destiny is a consistent theme in the message of the New Testament…”

Here Dr. Kirk essentially advocates “salvation by works,” which he certainly has the right to believe in, but which I see as contradicting scripture.

Eph. 2:8 We are saved by grace, through faith, and that NOT of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works so that no one can boast.

The traditional Christian notion behind salvation is nothing other than a boast that they essentially “saved themselves” — “chose to have faith,” “saw the light,” “repented,” etc., etc. — in order to EARN God’s grace, while scripture declares exactly the opposite. God does not “save” (unblind, restore, redeem, regenerate) us based on our actions but by His loving grace. No one can “believe” without God’s direct interaction with them (1Cor. 12:3), and so no one can act on those beliefs (in order to do the “good” works which Dr. Kirk advocates) without God giving them the power to do so.

Freedom and Responsibility: “I thus find it interesting that from the people for whom free will is a non-negotiable in all our dealings with God that universalism is an increasingly popular option.”

As one who agrees with Dr. Beck’s view of the “end of the story,” I find it interesting that Dr. Kirk seems to think that we universalists tend to believe in “free will.” Actually I have found that many, if not most like myself, do not. That is an Arminian notion, and one that requires that those who make “bad” use of their “free will” should suffer eternal consequences for it. “Free will” implies that there is no influence (place of birth, parents beliefs, culture, etc,. etc.) on our choices, and that we are truly “free” to “choose” to follow Christ or not. Again this notion is completely contradicted in scripture, as even Dr. Kirk seems to point out, so to use an argument that most universalists would disagree with is rather short-sighted on his part (or perhaps just ignorant). It is interesting as well that Dr. Kirk would choose to mention election and predestination, which might be taken as the suggestion that he is Calvinist in his theology. He further supports this suggestion when he says that “there are those who demonstrate themselves to be children of the kingdom and those who are demonstrating themselves to not be so (re)born.” Here he is either implying that we must “choose” to be “reborn” (or suffer the consequences), or is again advocating predestination. If he does adhere to Calvinist theology, any argument on his part promoting “free will” would be a direct contradiction to those beliefs.

One area that I would wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Kirk is in his desire for continuity, and it is exactly there that I see the “universal” notion of salvation playing out. In the beginning God said, “Behold, I make ALL things.” And in the end God will say, “Behold, I make ALL things NEW.” I do not see a single soul as being beyond God’s power and desire to redeem and restore; to (re)create anew; for we will ALL be made new creations in what I see as the end of the story. Dr. Kirk, on the other hand, seems to promote the notion that we must “choose” to be reborn (or if he is Calvinistic – have been “chosen” to be reborn), as if we had a choice to be born the first time.

http://twitter.com/jrdkirk Daniel Kirk

Hi, Jim,

To your two points.

First, the univocal testimony of scripture is that the final judgment will be based on works. Jesus in Mt 25 bases this on feeding, giving drink, visiting those in need. Paul says in 2 Cor 5 that each one of us will be recompensed according to what we have done in the body, whether good or bad; in Rom 2 he says that God will render to each according to what we have done; in the books of life at the end of Revelation final judgment is in accordance with the works we’ve done. Somehow, the way in which we put together salvation without works has to find a way to confirm what the rest of the Bible says about the final judgment based on works.

With regard to free will, I think that Aric, for one, likes to hold onto both. There are different ways of holding together universalism and the work of God in Christ and its affects on us and even who we are in the first place. For Schleiermacher, the only way to affirm Jesus’ Lordship is to see him and in some earnest way be confronted with his person and/or work. But, to see him and be confronted with his person, love, etc., was to find oneself in a place so overwhelming with love that it would be impossible to refuse. And, the only way for God to be a just judge was to enable everyone to stand in the presence of this love before passing judgment.

Is this a concession to free will–but in the hands of a God who knows what everyone will choose? Is it an all-inclusive election of each person? Some combination?

At any rate, I was pointing out one way that some of us might want to eat our cake and still have it.

Jim Scott

Thanks Daniel, I appreciate your response and clarification.

As I said, it is certainly your right to believe in salvation by works and to take literally the scriptures which may seem to point to that conclusion. As to the final judgment: In the Old Testament, “When God’s judgments are on the earth, ALL its inhabitants will learn righteousness” seems to me to lead to God doing more than just destroying his unbelieving children by correcting their misconceptions and ignorance and bringing them into the righteousness of Christ as revealed in the New Testament…. But that’s only my opinion, and you are always free to disagree.

As to “free will” I certainly agree with what you are pointing out — that too many “Christians” want to take credit for their own salvation while still trying to claim God’s sovereignty. It is a contradiction as so many “Christian” beliefs are. The Arminians contradict God’s sovereignty with free will, and the Calvinists do the same thing with their notion of “compatibilism.” While each is trying to give God all of the credit, they both want man to be responsible so that we can be blamed for ending up in hell. It’s nonsense either way, but that is the unfortunate result of religion — making the nonsensical acceptable by claiming that “it’s a mystery” is a reasonable answer to theological questions.

As to see Jesus “and be confronted with his person, love, etc.,” and “to find oneself in a place so overwhelming with love that it would be impossible to refuse,” I would have to say, “Yes, that’s how it worked for me.” To see it any other way would be to admit that His love is NOT overwhelming… something that I am unable to do but which may be what a non-universal story would require.

Thanks for your insights.

antandcharmi-spare

Thanks everyone for some really interesting and lucidly put thoughts.
I really do not want to extend a long discussion, but just to grab hold of one tiny point and offer an opinion on it:
I do not see God’s sovereignty contradicted by free will, because it was by that sovereignty he gave us the free will in the first place, and by that same sovereignty our free will is guarded currently. If the King binds himself with an oath, is he still sovereign? And is he free to do whatever he likes? I would say, Yes to the first, but No to the second.

Anonymous

As a presbyterian where “works-righteousness” is a reflexive slur tossed against anyone who advocates any kind of ethics it is very refreshing to hear you stand up for the role of works in final judgment.

Anonymous

Daniel,

Would you please clarify/explain whether “every knee shall bow” can become a consequence of each human’s personal decision to give honor to God? How would this statement relate to those who those who might ultimately prefer to remain outside the saving sovereignty of God?

One possibility: Revealed eschatological glory of the Lord may be so radiantly overwhelming that bowing knees is naturally reflexive for every mortal that encounters divine glory firsthand–similar to the transfiguration accounts in the Synoptic Gospels. The bowing action would thus be inclusive and not necessarily decision-based.

–John

http://twitter.com/jrdkirk Daniel Kirk

I do think that’s possible, John. Most folks in biblical literature who come into the presence of God (or even God’s angels) fall on their faces from stark terror. There might be something akin to that in the bowing of all people before the throne of the resurrected Christ.

http://perichoreticlife.blogspot.com/ Michael

I like the tension that exists between your points about continuity and surprise. Lots to explore there!
Joe Dan Shelton

Hello Dr. Kirk. I came here from Dr. Becks blog, and am enjoying myself immensely.

“One such surprise, I think, will in fact be the breadth of those who are embraced into the quintessential human task of glorifying God. The appearance at the end of Revelation of the kings of the earth, bringing in the glory of the nations, perhaps provides a hint that the judgment will not leave behind anything so neatly circumscribed as “the church.”

Yup. I suspect we will be surprised (if we retain at all the ability to be surprised in the face of His overwhelming glory) by the unlikely characters who turn up at the end of this story.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-Kellam-Scott/100000580213713 Barbara Kellam-Scott

Not to in any way discount all the scholarship and reasoning that’s going on here, I don’t see what continuity has to do with it. We simply cannot know whether there will be continuity between mortal and postmortal life, or whether, if there even is a postmortal life, it will contain an individualized consciousness that gives a hoot about continuity with mortal life. I do not accept that the Bible writers and the interpreters through whose lenses we read the writers had a better handle on the question than we do. I do not care about salvation. I do not hear Jesus proclaiming that we need to be saved, by him or anybody else, from anything. I hear “the commonwealth of God has come near” and “go and sin no more” as ‘You are God’s beloved child. Go and live as though you know it.’

BTW, I see no discontinuity between the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. My favorite Greek passage on the postmortal is the story of that other Lazarus, the poor man, but not because he gets goodies and the rich man gets torment. I love it because Abraham, clutching poor Lazarus to his bosom, addresses his answer to the rich man with “Child, …” That, to me, is fine theological storytelling and the universalism for which I strive: no matter how cozy or superior or saved I might think I am, to address and regard every other creature of God’s as a fellow child, a member of my and God’s kindred.
Ericmclaughlin

Was directed here by Richard Beck’s blog. Excellent post. When you mentioned about free will and implications related to free will it made a lot of sense. From the Garden of Eden we see the value God places on the human freedom to choose with choice Adam and Eve had whether or not to eat the forbidden fruit. However, in the New Testament, the concept of free will just doesn’t show up. There is, however, a warning to not refuse God that is given in Hebrews as well as a strong warning to not be given to willful sin. So, it seems that choice still comes into play. But to say that choice is the deciding factor of who will or will not become a Christian almost puts the burden totally on humans, and neglects that God is actually doing the work of drawing people to Himself. It would seem that the notion of free will should be closely a related if not a result of the enlightenment, and the worldview espoused by the enlightenment in the words of NT Wright, is Epicurean. So at this point in my faith, I am increasingly suspicious of any faith tradition that came into being post-enlightenment. The path God has led me down has landed me squarely in the Reformed camp. Of course, I don’t totally buy everything Calvin, but it sure makes a lot more sense to have God in the center orchestrating everything ultimately.

Thank you for this thought provoking post.
Tom Johnson

I very much appreciate this balanced and biblical approach. A couple of questions: have you noticed that some universalists define hell in the most extreme terms (granted that it has been so defined in some conservative theologies), and that some non-universalists define universalism in similarly extreme terms? Isn’t there a lot of ground in between? In my study of whether the Bible taught anything like universalism (see “Universal Salvation: The Current Debate” edited by Robin Parry, et al.) I was surprised how much evidence there was that God wants all people to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4), and that in Christ God so acted as to provide universal forgiveness and reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:16-21). I found that the Bible supports neither the extreme view of hell nor the extreme view of universalism. This result is in agreement with what I read in this essay.
Tom Johnson
Anonymous

Disclaimer: NOT a theologian or even a person who has studied deeply.

I don’t understand how both can’t be true.
The Kingdom is at hand, but not actually here.
Maybe the end does not come until everyone has turned to God.
Maybe we need to focus on works so that we can speed the Kingdom – not get into it.
http://allthingsfulfilled.com William

I would like to know if you feel the kings of earth bring their glory and honor into the kingdom suggests they are not converted?
What would be your reasons for suggesting they are not?
Pingback: Radical Continuity | Two Friars and a Fool