tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31323111658954327882024-02-19T10:32:05.230-05:00The Evangelical UniversalistGregory MacDonald, author of The Evangelical Universalist (Cascade Books, 2006 & SPCK, 2008), does the odd bit of blogging and interacts with anyone who is interested in a chatting about issues surrounding universalism.Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-56105443308637500822010-09-24T04:57:00.000-04:002010-09-24T04:58:08.900-04:00"All Shall Be Well" - cover and blurb<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrkEFBBfvTp3HC9oBBkKiwCZ8AjNHQgBE-3aE6khlRykqzQMRCmkXXyHgQjNZTjPZOXecRfSVd85KnDJSWt2q8ds68YNRlat7qeWzYBqIr5hRXptBF14xGyIOkkvRACtoEuSrMlx7GWTc/s1600/allshallbewell+cover.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 267px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrkEFBBfvTp3HC9oBBkKiwCZ8AjNHQgBE-3aE6khlRykqzQMRCmkXXyHgQjNZTjPZOXecRfSVd85KnDJSWt2q8ds68YNRlat7qeWzYBqIr5hRXptBF14xGyIOkkvRACtoEuSrMlx7GWTc/s400/allshallbewell+cover.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5520400318372832770" /></a><br />“All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”<br />Lady Julian of Norwich<br /><br />Universalism runs like a slender thread through the history of Christian theology. It has always been a minority report and has often been regarded as heresy, but it has proven to be a surprisingly resilient “idea.” Over the centuries Christian universalism, in one form or another, has been reinvented time and time again. <br /><br />In this book an international team of scholars explore the diverse universalisms of Christian thinkers from the Origen to Moltmann. In the introduction Gregory MacDonald argues that theologies of universal salvation occupy a space between heresy and dogma. Therefore disagreements about whether all will be saved should not be thought of as debates between “the orthodox” and “heretics” but rather as “in-house” debates between Christians.<br /><br />The studies that follow aim, in the first instance, to hear, understand, and explain the eschatological claims of a range of Christians from the third to the twenty-first centuries. They also offer some constructive, critical engagement with those claims.<br /> <br />• Origen (Tom Greggs)<br />• Gregory of Nyssa (Steve Harmon)<br />• Julian of Norwich (Robert Sweetman)<br />• The Cambridge Platonists (Louise Hickman)<br />• James Relly (Wayne K. Clymer)<br />• Elhanan Winchester (Robin Parry)<br />• Friedrich Schliermacher (Murray Rae)<br />• Thomas Erskine (Don Horrocks)<br />• George MacDonald (Thomas Talbott)<br />• P. T. Forsyth (Jason Goroncy)<br />• Sergius Bulgakov (Paul Gavrilyuk)<br />• Karl Barth (Oliver Crisp)<br />• Jaques Ellul (Andrew Goddard)<br />• J. A. T. Robinson (Trevor Hart)<br />• Hans Urs von Balthasar (Edward T. Oakes, SJ)<br />• John Hick (Lindsay Hall)<br />• Jürgen Moltmann (Nik Ansell)Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-48267755211681065462010-09-08T15:36:00.001-04:002010-09-08T15:36:46.031-04:00Details on the New BookFor those of you interested in historical theology or universalism there is a forthcoming book that may appeal to you.<br /><br />Gregory MacDonald (ed.), <span style="font-style:italic;">"All Shall Be Well": Explorations in Universalism and Christian Theology, from Origen to Moltmann</span>. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2010.<br /><br />Here is the contents page<br /><br />1. Introduction: Between Heresy and Dogma—Gregory MacDonald <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">I. Third to Fifteenth Centuries</span><br />2. <span style="font-style:italic;">Apokatastasis</span>: Particularist Universalism in <span style="font-weight:bold;">Origen</span> (c.185–c.254)—Tom Greggs<br />3. The Subjection of All Things in Christ: The Christocentric Universalism in <span style="font-weight:bold;">Gregory of Nyssa</span> (331/340–c.395)—Steve Harmon <br />4. Sin has its Place, But All Shall Be Well: The Universalism of Hope in <span style="font-weight:bold;">Julian of Norwich</span> (c.1342–c.1416)—Robert Sweetman <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">II. Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries</span><br />5. Love is all and God is Love: Universalism in <span style="font-weight:bold;">Peter Sterry</span> (1613–1672) and <span style="font-weight:bold;">Jeremiah White</span> (1630–1707)—Louise Hickman <br />6. Union with Christ: The Calvinist Universalism of <span style="font-weight:bold;">James Relly</span> (1722–1778)—Wayne K. Clymer <br />7. Between Calvinism and Arminianism: The Evangelical Universalism of <span style="font-weight:bold;">Elhanan Winchester </span>(1751–1797)—Robin Parry <br />8. Salvation-in-Community: The Tentative Universalism of <span style="font-weight:bold;">Friedrich Schliermacher </span>(1768–1834)—Murray Rae <br />9. Postmortem Education: Universal Salvation in <span style="font-weight:bold;">Thomas Erskine</span> (1788–1870)—Don Horrocks <br />10. The Just Mercy of God: Universal Salvation in <span style="font-weight:bold;">George MacDonald</span> (1824–1905)—Thomas Talbott <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">III. Twentieth Century</span><br />11. The Final Sanity is Complete Sanctity: Universal Holiness in the Soteriology of <span style="font-weight:bold;">P. T. Forsyth </span>(1848–1921)—Jason Goroncy <br />12. The Judgment of Love: The Ontological Universalism of <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sergius Bulgakov</span> (1871–1944)—Paul Gavrilyuk <br />13. I do teach it, but I also do not teach it: The Universalism of <span style="font-weight:bold;">Karl Barth</span> (1886–1968)—Oliver Crisp <br />14. The Totality of Condemnation Fell on Christ: Universal Salvation in <span style="font-weight:bold;">Jaques Ellul</span> (1912–1994)—Andrew Goddard <br />15. In the End, God . . . :The Christian Universalism of <span style="font-weight:bold;">J. A. T. Robinson</span> (1919–1983)—Trevor Hart <br />16. Christ’s Descent into Hell: The Hopeful Universalism of <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hans Urs von Balthasar</span> (1905–1988)—Edward T. Oakes, SJ <br />17. Hell and the God of Love: Universalism in the Philosophy of <span style="font-weight:bold;">John Hick</span> (1922–)—Lindsay Hall <br />18. The Annihilation of Hell and the Perfection of Freedom: Universal Salvation in the Theology of <span style="font-weight:bold;">Jürgen Moltmann </span>(1926–)—Nik Ansell<br /><br />I am hopeful that the book will be out in November. All that I can say is that it realy is an excellent book! (Shameless plug!)Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-71085135732934153462009-10-18T09:30:00.000-04:002009-10-18T09:31:17.111-04:00Evangelical Universalism Radio discussion<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXc6uv9o3TcCfDe6LCrQEsh7rXDxxqF5B82FpT41LTz5PnwH5u5n0lyMQ8WnBX1ZGelk2LXyrpDwJFd_ZOqmJuaPy6SbmqV7cIpvWDbySVU2ehYkBvnRm0dGaykuTFqS6pnS8867Et0xU/s1600-h/unbelievable.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 87px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXc6uv9o3TcCfDe6LCrQEsh7rXDxxqF5B82FpT41LTz5PnwH5u5n0lyMQ8WnBX1ZGelk2LXyrpDwJFd_ZOqmJuaPy6SbmqV7cIpvWDbySVU2ehYkBvnRm0dGaykuTFqS6pnS8867Et0xU/s400/unbelievable.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5393931014006961026" /></a><br />On Sat 17th October Premier Radio broadcast a discussion on <em>The Evangelical Universalist</em>. I was in discussion with Laurence Blanchard on Justin Brierly's radio show "Unbelievable". Click <a href="http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={EBFC677D-C40C-4FD8-8F41-FE89061ACF98}">here</a> if you want to hear it.<br /><br />Laurence is a pastor from California. His PhD was on universalism and it will be published by Paternoster next year. He is a good Christian brother and one of few traditionalist theologians who really understands universalism. <br /><br />The discussion is a good 'issue-opening' one. Of course, Laurence and I would warn anyone who wanted to listen to it that the requirements of the radio format meant that we had to skip through subjects fairly fast. As a result sometimes I had the last word on a topic and sometimes Laurence did. Much as we'd both have loved the chance to pursue these lines of thought more rigorously that would have been inappropriate. So don't expect the debate to settle anything. <br /><br />I would like to honour Laurence for defending the traditional view of Hell in an unwavering yet very gracious way. I hope that this discussion models how Christians can disagree in love.Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-86383862566085783332009-08-29T10:16:00.002-04:002009-08-29T10:18:49.758-04:00Gregory MacDonald reveals his true identityAt last Gregory MacDonald's true identity is revealed!<br /><br />His real name is <a href="http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2009/08/i-am-evangelical-universalist.html">***** *****</a>Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-80003722642129213782009-08-17T04:37:00.006-04:002009-08-17T09:34:02.596-04:00Charles Chauncy (1705-1787) on 'death' in 1 Corinthians 15Charles Chauncy was minister of First Church in Boston for decades. He was very influential and is best known as an opponent of the Great Awakening (standing against men like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, et al). So that does not make him an obvious person for an evangelical to turn to for inspiration.<br /><br />However, Chauncy was a firm Bible-believing Christian and whilst he sadly came to doubt and then reject the classical doctrine of the Trinity we must stress that he did so because he believed it to be unbiblical (it was not uncommon in this period for Bible-based Christians to reject the Trinity as unbiblical).<br /><br />Anyway, of interest here is that Chauncy became a universalist because he believed it to be the only view consistent with Scripture. In 1762 he preached a sermon entitled "All Nations Blessing Christ" which was the first hint at this new view. But the main work he wrote is a very scholarly (I'm not joking about the scholarly part) book published anonymously in 1784 entitled <em>The Mystery hid from Ages and Generations, made manifest by the Gospel-Revelation: or, The Salvation of All Men: The Grand Thing aimed at in the scheme of God </em>(they loved short and snappy titles in theose days)<br /><br /><em>The Salvation of all Men </em>(1784) is a very impressive work - one of the more impressive works from the history of universalist theology. It provoked a book-length response from Jonathan Edwards himself entitled <em>The Salvation of all Men Strictly Examined: and the endless punishment of those who die impenitent, argued and defended against the objections and reasoning of the late Rev Doctor Chauncy, of Boston, in his book entitled "The Salvation of all Men"</em>. See what I mean about snappy titles! At least you knew what the book was all about! It does what it says on the can. (for those who are interested you can download both books online. Here is <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/mysteryhidfromag00chau">Chauncy</a> and here is <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/salvationofallme00edwa">Edwards</a>).<br /><br />Anyway, all I wanted to do was to draw attention to one of Chauncy's arguments regarding 1 Corinthians 15. The relevant text reads (in the ESV)<br /><blockquote>22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: <br />Christ the firstfruits, <br />then at his coming those who belong to Christ. <br />24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. <br />25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. </blockquote><br />Against the majority view Chauncy argues that Paul sees a temporal gap - perhaps a very long one - between the end of v. 23 and the start of v. 24 (p. 208). He reasons that Paul has in mind the Second Death when he speaks of 'death' in v. 26. Consequently, until the Second Death is destroyed (which is effected when all those condemned to Hell are redeemed) Christ has not defeated death.<br /><br />Now I find CC's case unconvincing as an attempt to exegete what Paul meant (not least because his arguments, which I will not set out here, depend on interpreting Paul's meaning through the Book of Revelation). <br /><br />However, there might be a theological argument from CC's reading of Paul that is suggestive. CC reasons that the grounds for thinking that death is an enemy <em>would also apply to the Second Death </em>- indeed more so. If death is an enemy of Christ that needs to be destroyed <em>then the Second Death is more so</em>. Both are divine punishments on sin that cause humans to fall short of God's ultimate intentions for them. If one was inclined to agree with such logoc then Paul's argument in 1 Cor 15 would require an extension beyond what Paul was talking about (i.e., the first death) so as to apply to the Second Death. In other words Paul has provided a theological argument that has an even bigger implication that he draws out explicitly (but one fully consistent with his universalist intro in 15:22).<br /><br />Now CC also has a fall-back argument in case any readers have not been persuaded that Paul is speaking of the Second Death. It too is interesting. He points out that the <em>kind</em> of resurrection that would count (for Paul) as a defeat for the first death is not a mere restoration to life. Rather only a resurrection to glory and immortality would do the job. 1 Cor 15 makes that clear: only when 'the corruptable shall have put on incorruption' shall it come to pass that 'death is swallowed up in victory'. So until <em>all</em> have attained <em>such</em> a resurrection it cannot be the case that the first death has been fully defeated (and 1 Cor 15 requires that it is <em>fully</em> defeated).<br /><br />Now this is an interesting argument - one I have never considered before. I am not sure that it would count as a straightforward exegesis of what Paul 'had in mind'. But it surely counts as a sensible reflection on the implications of Paul's reasoning. I don't think that Paul's concern in 1 Cor 15 was the salvation of all. I do believe that he asserted the salvation of all in 15:22 but his focus is on how that applies to believers. The damned don't appear in his scheme except in the gaps and by implication. But I think that CC helps us see how a theological reading of 1 Cor 15 that takes Paul's logic seriously can lead in universalist directions.Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-56882612044800452332009-07-16T12:39:00.002-04:002009-07-16T12:53:58.055-04:00Who is Gregory MacDonald?Will I reveal my real identity? Yes. <br /><br />When? Not in the immediate future but certainly in the medium term future.<br /><br />But to quash some rumours<br /><br />1. I am not Donald Carson.<br />2. I am not Greg Boyd.<br />3. You have almost certainly not heard of me, so don't get too excited! (This means that I am also not the Cookie Monster)<br />4. I am <em>not</em> hiding my identity to protect my job.<br />5. I am (mostly) not hiding my identity to protect my reputation (although I would be lying if I said that this was <em>never</em> a factor in my thoughts).<br />6. I am <em>not</em> hiding my identity because I am scared of facing my critics.<br />7. I am not hiding my identity because I cannot recall my real name.<br /><br />I am hiding my identity for two reasons<br /> (a) to protect my employer from hassle<br /> (b) to protect the ministry of other books that I have written which God is using to bless Christians that would - sadly - not look at them if they thought I was a heretic (which I am not).<br /><br />Exatly how and when I will reveal my identity remains a mystery. Mostly that is because I am still considering how best to do it. To be honest most of me wants to say, 'Gregory MacDonald is really [Jon Bon Jovi?]' but whenever I get close to doing that God seems to foil my plans so I suspect that he has other plans re: timing. <br /><br />I must also confess that there is a naughty little boy in me who likes to play with a pseudonym. I am much more interesting when you don't know who I am. But fun and games can only last for a season.<br /><br />More later<br /><br />Rick Warren (whoops!)Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-21445402029937288292009-07-16T12:29:00.002-04:002009-07-16T12:37:09.303-04:00All Will Be Well. Book update.Here is some more information about the forthcoming book.<br /><br />The goal is to have chapters on different Christian theological thinkers who were (or arguably ought to have been) universalists. (By 'ought to have been' I mean that whilst certain thinkers denied being universalists, the logic of their 'systematic theology' pointed in universalist directions. I have people like Barth and Forsyth in mind.) The chapters would seek to show how universalism fitted into their wider theological ‘systems’, explore what aspects of their wider theology led them in that direction and to offer some evaluative comments on the strengths and weaknesses of their universalist theology. <br /><br />In a nutshell, the thought is that instead of simply noting that they were universalists, or treating their universalism as an item on a list of things they believed, the aim is to treat it in its wider theological context so as to join the dots with the rest of each thinker's theological ideas. <br /><br />So here is the outline<br /><br />Introduction<br />(Gregory MacDonald)<br /><br /><strong>3rd-15th Centuries</strong><br />Origen (c.185-c.254)<br />(Tom Greggs)<br /><br />Gregory of Nyssa (330-394)<br />(Steve Harmon)<br /><br />Julian of Norwich (c.1342-1416)<br />(Robert Sweetman)<br /><br /><strong>17th-19th Centuries</strong><br />The Cambridge Platonists – (Peter Sterry and Jeremiah White, 17th C)<br />(Louise Hickman)<br /><br />Elhanan Winchester (1751-1797)<br />(Robin Parry)<br /><br />Friedrich Schliermacher (1768-1834)<br />(Murray Rae)<br /><br />Thomas Erskine (1788-1870)<br />(Don Horrocks)<br /><br />George MacDonald (1824-1905) <br />(Tom Talbott) <br /><br /><strong>20th Century</strong><br />P. T. Forsyth (1848-1921)<br />(Jason Goroncy) <br /><br />Sergius Bulgakov (1871-1944)<br />(Paul Gavrilyuk)<br /><br />Karl Barth (1886-1968) <br />(Oliver Crisp)<br /><br />Herbert Henry Farmer (1892-1981)<br />(Christopher Partridge) <br /><br />Jaques Ellul (1912-1994)<br />(tbc)<br /> <br />John A. T. Robinson (1919-1983)<br />(Trevor Hart) <br /><br />Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905-1988)<br />(Father Edward Oakes)<br /><br />John Hick (1922-)<br />(Lindsay Hall) <br /><br />Jürgen Moltmann (1926-)<br />(Nik Ansell)<br /><br />I am very excited about this project. To the best of my knowledge a project of this kind (surveying the theology of a range of universalists and almost-universalists) had never been attempted before.Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-74238293140691576592009-01-29T09:00:00.000-05:002009-01-29T09:00:10.463-05:00New Gregory MacDonald book in 2010/11OK, I know it is a long time off but there will be a second Gregory MacDonald book in late 2010 or early 2011. In fact, I am not writing this one but merely editing it.<br /><br />The book is provisionally entitled<br /><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#cc0000;">"All Will be Well"</span></em><br /><em><span style="font-size:130%;color:#cc0000;">Universalism and Systematic Theology</span></em><br /><br />The publisher will be Cascade Books.<br /><br />Essentially there will be a range of chapters on various Christian theologians who happened to be either (a) dogmatic universalists, (b) hopeful universalists, or (c) almost universalists. (By 'almost universalists' I mean theologians whose systematic theology pointed to a clear universalist conclusion but they pulled away from the implications of it and denied being universalists. I have in mind people like P.T Forsyth and Karl Barth.)<br /><br />The idea is to get scholars who know the work of the selected theologians well and to invite them to reflect on the way in which universalism was integrated into their theological 'system' (for want of a better word). The goal is to see different ways in which universalism has found a home within Christian theology and to offer some kind of assessment of these ways.<br /><br />The kinds of people we shall be looking at include, amongst others, Origen, St Gregory of Nyssa, Schliermacher, Thomas Erskine, P.T. Forsyth, Sergius Bulgakov, Karl Barth, H. H. Farmer, Jaques Ellul, J.A.T. Robinson, Hand Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner, John Hick, Jurgen Moltmann.<br /><br />We have a great line up of authors (to be revealed once the line up is complete).<br /><br />This is, as far as I am aware, the first book of its kind and we hope that it will be of service to both the academy and the Church.<br /><br />I am very much looking forward to the editing process. I think that there will be a lot I will learn from the team of scholars we have.Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-11498581463211722082008-10-11T15:36:00.002-04:002008-10-11T15:40:09.206-04:00Join the Conversations! New Web Discussion GroupA new online discussion forum called "The Evangelical Universalist" (<a href="http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/">www.evangelicaluniversalist.com</a>) has recently been set up and is running very well. There are all sorts of diverse discussions going on over at the site. So if you are remotely interested in discussing issues surrounding universalism that is the place to be. Very recommended!Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-55301621011672247182008-09-20T15:49:00.002-04:002008-09-20T15:57:42.466-04:00Will Hitler be Saved?Will Hitler be saved? If I had money for every time this issue was raised I would be a rich person!<br /><br />Let's be unambiguous here:<br /><br />1. Hitler does not deserve to be saved so if he is saved it would have to be by grace alone.<br /><br />2. Hitler does not deserve to be saved so if he is to be saved then it would have to be through Christ's mediatorial work<br /><br />3. If Hitler is to be saved it will only be through deep, heart-felt repentance, through Spirit-inspired faith in Christ and through a renewed mind and a transformed life in the Spirit.<br /><br />4. If Hitler is to be saved it will involve not merely reconciliation with God but also with his victims. And reconciliation will not be about saying, "Oh never mind! It didn't really matter!"<br /><br />5. If this is to happen it has to happen in and through God. It is not humanly possible.<br /><br />Will Hitler be saved? I think so. Where sin abounds grace abounds all the more.<br /><br />What Christians would object to is the idea that God might treat Hitler as if what he did wasn't really that bad. It was that bad! It was unspeakably dreadful! But suppose that 1-5 above were the case. What <em>Christian</em> grounds are there for objecting to God's saving Hitler in those conditions? Isn't divine grace wide enough? Isn't the cross effective enough? Isn't the Spirit powerful enough?Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-42462155102318618902008-09-01T13:20:00.003-04:002008-09-01T13:36:35.288-04:00Eulogy for a Non-Christian Friend<em>Denver wrote: "Gregory, at the funeral that you mentioned, did you express your universalist perspective when you gave the eulogy? If not, how did it affect your words? If so, what did you say? And, if you did, was that a surprise to your friend's family?"</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>Here is an edited version of what I said (with the personal stories and comments removed). I have changed my friend's name to 'Alan'. </em><br /><em></em><br /><em>This was a very personal eulogy and was not written for public consumption, but I offer up parts of it here if it might be helpful to some people. I feel somewhat uncomfortable about doing so but it shows one way in which universalism can inform such situations. I think that it enabled me to offer real hope without compromising the gospel.</em><br /><br />How can you sum up the life of a person? Of someone so unique and so special? The texture of a human life is too subtle – too complicated. Words fail us. Even to try and capture what Alan meant to my family is an impossible task. So many memories, ... so many thoughts. We can feel paralysed. But speak we must. So I offer just a few reflections from my family in honour of Alan ...<br /><br /><div align="center">[the main body of the eulogy was here]</div><br />Finally, I would like to offer two brief reflections speaking as a Christian. The first is that I have no idea why God would allow Alan to suffer as much as he did. For all the world, it looks cruel and pointless and I offer no excuses for God. The Bible is full of complaints and accusations against God and I simply wanted to say that blaming God is a biblical thing to do. One day we will understand God’s reasons for allowing this but for now, if we feel angry with God, that’s OK.<br /><br />The second springs from the fact that for Christians this week is Holy Week. This week Christians celebrate a God who did not stand aloof from our suffering and pain but who became a human being – the man Jesus. And on the cross this human person – this God –entered into our experiences of suffering and death … and then he was resurrected. <br /><br />In the story of Jesus Christians see the human story, our stories, writ small – death <em>then</em> resurrection. Darkness <em>then</em> light. Grief <em>then </em>joy. The resurrection means that that death is not the end of a story but a chapter in it. And all Christian hope in the face of death is based on Jesus’ resurrection. The God of the cross and resurrection is the one who will not let death have the last word; who will not allow it to separate people from him.<br /><br />So I believe that this is not the end of Alan’s story. Alan was not a Christian himself – not yet anyway – but Jesus said that God is a shepherd who keeps on looking for his sheep ‘until he finds it’. And I believe that he will find Alan and that Alan’s future is one of resurrection and eternal life in a relationship with God.<br /><br />I believe that Alan will be whole again and that God will bring to perfection all those distinctive character traits that are so distinctively him.<br /><br />So Alan. There is a hole in the world without you. An Alan-shaped hole that can never be filled by anything else, because nothing else could be like you. There is an empty space now that feels like it should not be there. One day, friend, one day it will be filled again. Don’t think you’ve seen the last of us. And the next time we meet it will be in far better circumstances – ‘a new dawn, a new day’ (Nina Simone). But for now – ‘cheers’, ‘thanks’, and ‘goodbye’ . . . until next time.Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-2431932460209973272008-08-25T14:59:00.003-04:002008-08-25T15:05:54.531-04:00NEWS: Possible Christian Universalist ForumGene Pineda and a few others will be will be opening a forum site dedicated to Christian Universalism. The website, when it goes live, will be.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">www.evangelicaluniversalist.com</a><br /><br />Gene would like to here from any interested in guidlines for the Forum.<br /><br />One suggested list for a 'doctrinal basis' for the discussion group was the following:<br />1) Jesus Christ is the only incarnation of God<br />2) The teaching of the Trinity according to the Nicene Creed accurately interprets the Christian Bible<br />3) Christ is the only way to salvation<br />4. "The original manuscripts of the Bible are the canonical written Word of God and all of the teachings in the Bible are true."<br />5) Christ commands His followers to fulfill the Great Commission<br />6) Christ will gloriously return to earth<br />7) Christ redeems people from hell<br /><br />It may be that there are some problems with this list so now is the time to add your bit.<br /><br />Gene writes, "If no one is interested than I simply will not purchase the forum. But if people would like to have a more dedicated community then I'll give it a go."<br /><br />So - do register your thoughtsGregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com31tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-44930812842501922902008-08-18T13:48:00.007-04:002008-08-18T14:31:21.623-04:00How Universalism Has Impacted my LifeDenver raised a good point. He wrote:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;color:#000099;">"Your autobiographical sketch in TEU stops at your 'conversion' to universalism. How have you changed since believing in universalism? How has your relationship with God changed (especially since before your shift you found yourself unable to worship God)? How has it affected your daily life?"</span><br /><br />Here are a few reflections off the top of my head.<br /><br />It has impacted my understanding of God and thus also my prayer life and worship life. The vision of God and his purposes that I now hold is inspiring and makes me want to worship. The final paragraph of the book sums it up for me:<br /><div align="justify"><br /><span style="font-size:85%;color:#000099;">In conclusion, let me ask you to hold in your mind traditional Christian visions of the future, in which many, perhaps the majority of humanity, are excluded from salvation forever. Alongside that hold the universalist vision, in which God achieves his loving purpose of redeeming the whole creation. Which vision has the strongest view of divine love? Which story has the most powerful narrative of God’s victory over evil? Which picture lifts the atoning efficacy of the cross of Christ to the greatest heights? Which perspective best emphasizes the triumph of grace over sin? Which view most inspires worship and love of God bringing him honor and glory? Which has the most satisfactory understanding of divine wrath? Which narrative inspires hope in the human spirit? To my mind the answer to all these questions is clear, and that is why I am a Christian universalist.</span></div><br />This God is amazing! Exciting! Awesome! I have a stronger sense of his love, his soverignty, his purity, his integrity, his fidelity, his power to save, his grace, and his mercy than I had before. And I do not have doxological crises on the Hell issue now (though, being honest, I still have them for other reasons periodically, e.g., why God commanded the slaughter of the Canaanites).<br /><br />It has increased my joy for the future. I find that when situations look bleak I can draw hope that history is the the hands of <em>this</em> omnibenevolent, omnipotent God with these good and cosmic purposes. I have a much stronger sense of the final victory of God and this takes the edge of the sometimes tragic events in life.<br /><br />Oddly, the reality and importance of Hell impresses itself upon me more now than it did before I was a universalist. Perhaps because ECT was <em>so very terrible</em> I tried not to think about it and tended to sideline it in my theology (and my experience of lots of Christians is that they do the same). But I am now freed up to accept Hell and I feel that the church needs to recover the place of divine judgement in our theology and praxis. Ironic, huh?<br /><br />I have found it to be pastorally helpful. Recently someone close to my family died after a painful and protracted illness. He was a wonderful man but not a believer and I was asked by his family to speak at his funeral. Before becoming a universalist I confess that if I was honest I would have thought his chances of being saved were very slim indeed. <em>Just possibly</em> he found faith in his final moments. <em>Just possibly</em> God might let him through (because judgement is in God's hands and not ours). But let's be honest, he had not accepted the gospel and that is that. He's missed his chance. That kind of message is little consolation to a grieving family. But my universalism allowed me to hold out solid hope of resurrection and salvation for him without in any way compromising the imperative of embracing the gospel message.<br /><br />It has not impacted my evangelism in the sense that I do not present universalism to people when I explain the gospel. I do not have any formula for how I present the gospel (like the 4 spiritual laws) but I still address the sin issue and, when the situation is right, I speak of Hell and judgement. I do not tell people that Hell is not the end (though, if it was appropriate in a specific situation I would do so). Like Jesus and the prophets I would want the utter seriousness of the coming judgement to impact people and I would urge them to avoid it. The number of those saved in the end (i.e., all) is not part of the gospel message itself and some people might use it as an excuse not to take the warnings seriously. I am open to mentioning it but only in the right circumstances. So if you heard me explaining the gospel you may well not realize that I was a universalist.<br /><br />Pax<br /><br />GregoryGregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-4848745978745939812008-08-06T09:16:00.002-04:002008-08-06T09:18:39.874-04:00N. T. Wright on Hell and UniversalismI thought that you might be interested in this insightful critique of Tom Wright's theology of Hell.<br /><br /><a href="http://poserorprophet.livejournal.com/133982.html">http://poserorprophet.livejournal.com/133982.html</a><br /><br />Feel free to join the discussion. I hold Tom Wright in high regard so I'd be interested to know his response.<br /><br />GregoryGregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-8893986829217935102008-08-05T16:03:00.003-04:002008-08-05T16:14:46.384-04:00Universalism and Heresy in Sergius BulgakovI recently read an interesting article called "Universal Salvation in the Eschatology of Sergius Bulgakov" by Paul L. Gavrilyuk (<em>JTS</em> 57.1, April 2006). Bulgakov was an influential 20th C Orthodox priest and thinker. Here is an extract (and a footnote).<br /><br />"As it is to be expected from an Eastern Orthodox priest and theologian, patristic tradition was a springboard for Bulgakov’s own theological deliberations. He observes in <em>The Bride of the Lamb</em> that in pondering the final destiny of humankind patristic tradition followed two distinct trajectories: one associated with the universalist ideas of Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, the other espoused by the opponents of the doctrine of universal salvation. It should be noted that Bulgakov’s knowledge of the relevant patristic material was largely based upon the dissertation of M. F. Oksiiuk, <em>Eschatology of St Gregory of Nyssa</em> (1914), which provided a comprehensive survey of patristic views on eschatology up to the time of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553).<br /><br />Bulgakov recognized that the claim that all, including the fallen angels, would ultimately be saved represented a minority opinion, suspect of heresy on the grounds of its association with Origen. At the same time the Russian theologian emphasized that the Church had not issued any dogmatic definition on the subject of the final outcome of the last judgment and the eternity of hell beyond what was stated in the Nicene creed. According to Bulgakov, in the absence of a conciliar definition, consensus patrum, even if it could be presumed to exist on this issue, was not enough to settle a dogmatic dispute. In an important article ‘Dogma and Dogmatics’ (1937), written concurrently with <em>The Bride of the Lamb</em>, Bulgakov argued that only the doctrine of the trinity enshrined in the creed and the doctrine of the incarnation stated in the definitions of the seven ecumenical councils enjoyed the status of the dogma binding upon all members of the Orthodox Church. He relegated all other doctrinal questions, such as the veneration of the Mother of God and of the saints, sacramental theology, pneumatology, atonement theories, and eschatology, to the sphere of theologoumena, that is, of more or less authoritative patristic opinions. Bulgakov stressed that in the area of eschatology in particular no ecumenical council had ever condemned Gregory of Nyssa’s version of universalism. It is a matter of historical fact that in the Eastern Orthodox tradition the doctrine of eternal damnation did not achieve the level of explicit articulation that it later found in the Roman Catholic conciliar definitions and Protestant confessions."<br /><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-size:85%;">A version of the Origenist doctrine of apocatastasis was condemned by the <em>local</em> council of Constantinople in 543. <em>Whether the bishops of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) anathematized this aspect of Origen’s theology explicitly is a murky question</em>. Up to the late nineteenth century it was widely assumed that this ecumenical council did condemn universalism. See J. Daniélou, ‘L’apocatastase chez Saint Grégoire de Nysse’, Recherches de science religieuse 30 (1940), 328-47; Brian Daley, The Hope of the Early Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 190; J. Sachs, ‘Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology’, Theological Studies 54 (1993), 620-1.</span></div>Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-60654941935589503002008-08-01T10:38:00.002-04:002008-08-01T10:49:49.616-04:00The Evangelical Universalist Struck Dumb!Dear Bloggerites,<br /><br />Sorry that I have not been blogging recently. The simple fact is that I have something of a problem - Namely that I cannot think of anything to blog about.<br /><br />Why is this? Well, by its very nature this is a single-issue blog dealing only with matters to do with universalism. I decided at the start not to repeat material from the book and therein lies my problem. You see most of my thoughts about universalism are already published in the book. If I am not going to repeat those then what am I to talk about? I don't actually have a lot left to say about universalism.<br /><br />My fear is that I will just end up space-filling and not writing anything of value.<br /><br />So I have decided that, unless I have a sudden rush of new thoughts on universalism (which is not likely as I do not have any time to do any new research), I will leave this blog open for another month for people to discuss and then I shall delete it.<br /><br />Anyone is most welcome to contact me by email if they wish to chat about universalist issues.<br /><br />Pax<br /><br />Gregory MacDonaldGregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-18301656012347647892008-07-21T12:42:00.005-04:002008-07-22T13:20:29.692-04:00Steve Hays RespondsIt may interest some people that Steve Hays has responded to my four part response to him. In the interests of fairness you may wish to read it.<br /><br />In summary: he still disagrees with me and still things I am a bad and dangerous person.<br />Oh dear. Never mind.<br /><br /><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/search?q=gregory+macdonald">http://triablogue.blogspot.com/search?q=gregory+macdonald</a><br /><br />I have already said that I will not be responding to it (not because I cannot but because I judge it to be fruitless). Readers must judge for themselves the merits of our respective arguments.<br /><br />It simply remains to thank Steve for all the hours he has put into reading my book, and responding to it. It is an honor to be taken seriously, even if only in order to be 'refuted'.<br /><br />I also thank Steve for making the book more widely known and inadvertantly communicating that its arguments warrant serious consideration. I hope that others follow his lead in reading and considering the case for universalism. Perhaps he has increased the sales a little. :-)Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-13288513255976679462008-07-17T07:58:00.002-04:002008-07-17T09:40:30.080-04:00The Trinity and why it is a big issueBobby asked me a really good question - Why do I think that the Trinity is such a big issue?<br /><br />It was never my intention that this blog should be a forum for discussing such a topic but, given the fact that Unitarians have had an historic link with universalism, I guess it was inevitable.<br /><br />To start, I think that it is important to point out that all the Christian thinkers who thrashed out the doctrine of the Trinity from 2nd to 5th centuries did not think that they were 'inventing' new truths or adding to revelation. They were simply seeking to find ways of <em>doing justice to the divine self-revelation testified to in Scripture</em>. They wanted to preserve the fine balances required to appreciate the God revealed in Christ. Indeed, for them the debate was never about abstract and irrelevant theological talk - though it may <em>look</em> that way to us at first glance - it was always about the God of the gospel.<br /><br />I personally take the Christian tradition very seriously and in my view the fact that the ecumenical creeds have governed Christian belief in all three major streams of the Church for centuries gives them <em>prima facie</em> authority. As Christians we'd need very strong reasons to reject them. So I am not starting from a neutral place in this discussion.<br /><br />Is the idea biblical? Some people never tire of pointing out that the word "Trinity" does not occur in the Bible. But that is simply irrelevant. If the concept is the best way of doing justice to biblical revelation then the Trinity is biblical even if the word is a later label used for convenience.<br /><br />Where to start? I simply intend to make a few, simple and provisional remarks as the topic is VAST!<br /><br />All the early Christians were good monotheistic Jews. For them there was one God and to worship any other deity was to commit the primal sin of idolatry. But here's the funny thing: As far as we can tell from the extant evidence <em>the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus offered to their Messiah the worship due to God alone and they did not think that in so doing they were compromising their monotheism</em>. (Richard Bauckham's book <em>God Crucified</em> and Larry Hurtado's book <em>Lord Jesus Christ</em> explore this issue at length).<br /><br />Worship of Christ goes back to the earliest levels of the tradition that we can access. Given the robust monotheism of those who worshipped Jesus this is an extraordinary fact that needs accounting for. How could solid monotheistic Jews worship Jesus in good conscience?<br /><br />In early Christian worship and theology Jesus was approached as the one though whom God made all created things (e.g., Jn 1:3; Col 1:16); the one who sits upon the very same throne as God (e.g. Rev 22:3); the one who receives the worship of God (e.g., Phil 2:10-11, note the allusion to Isa 45:23); as one who bears God's own name (Phil 2:9); as one who is even called "God"on occasion (e.g., Jn 20:28; Heb 1:8). Old Testament texts about YHWH are applied to Jesus (e.g., Isa 45:23 in Phil 2:10-11 or Ps 45:6-7 in Heb 1:8). Jesus' human body is the divine temple in which the very glory of God dwells (Jn 1:14). And so on and so forth. If Jesus did not participate in the identity of the one God of Israel then all this was idolatry.<br /><br />And yet the early Christians were very clear that Jesus' identification with YHWH was not such that Jesus was <em>identical</em> with his Father in heaven. God (the Father) created all things <em>through</em> his Word (1 Cor 8:6 - which, incidentally, is a Christian expansion of the Jewish <em>shema</em> from Deut 6:4); the throne in heaven is "the throne <em>of God and</em> of the Lamb" (Rev 22:3); and when Jesus prayed to his Father in heaven he was not talking to himself.<br /><br />So in the very earliest Christian responses to God in the light of the Christ-event we find a tension. Jesus shares in the identity of Israel's one God and yet is not identical with the Father. Trinitarian theology is the attempt to clarify this tension and to guard it again those who would deny the deity of Christ (Arianism) and those who would say that Jesus and the Father are the same 'Person' in different disguises (Modalism). It also guards against a whole range of other unbalancing theologies. The aim is not to <em>explain</em> God or to put God in a box and <em>understand</em> him. God is mysterious - and this assertion is not an attempt to dodge hard philosophical issues but a simple admission that God's bigger than our little brains. The aim of the systematic formulations of Trinitarian theology is to protect certain fundamental Christian claims about God and the gospel from being lost. It is to preserve the delecate balances of the divine self-revelation.<br /><br />A similar process took place with the Holy Spirit after the controversies over the person of Christ had died down. Perhaps people might like to pick that up in conversations (this blog does not wish to outstay its welcome).<br /><br />But it is not just a matter about how to interpret certain texts. Issues surrounding the deity of Christ had theological import.<br /><br />All of the Father's interaction with the universe - from creation through to new creation - is mediated through the Son and in the Spirit. If Son and Spirit are creatures (even highly exalted creatures) then <em>God has no direct contact with his universe at all</em>. God disappears off into the distance leaving us to engage with super-beings (the Son and the Spirit) instead. But Trinitarian theology, by insisting that Son and Spirit participate in the identity of the one God, puts God right at the heart of all creative and redemptive action. When Christ is saving us from sin God is saving us from sin. When Christ is with us God is with us. When the Spirit draws us through Christ to the Father God is drawing us through God to God. It's God all the way down.<br /><br />Of course, please do not think I underplay the humanity of Christ - it is simply that this post is not on that issue. Christ is able to fully <strong><em>save</em> </strong>us because he is divine but he is able to save <em><strong>us</strong></em> because he is fully human and can represent humanity.<br /><br />Universalism does not require Trinitarian theology (it does not even require theistic theology). <em>Christian</em> universalism, I think, does. I know that in saying this I will anger a whole load of blog readers. Oh well. I'm getting used to upsetting people.Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com75tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-2737116540822293602008-07-12T15:05:00.007-04:002008-07-14T04:11:16.027-04:00A Trinitarian Universalist PrayerHere is a prayer if you feel happy praying it:<br /><br />Holy Father, you created all things through your powerful Word and your life-giving Spirit.<br />All that exists is <em>from </em>you and <em>through</em> you and <em>for</em> you and <em>to</em> you. You are the origin and destiny of this beautiful world.<br />Your creation is good and in your love, sovereign God, you will perfect that which you have made.<br />We are so grateful that the future of the world ultimately rests in your hands and not ours.<br /><br />Lord Jesus Christ, Word of God, we give you praise that through you the Father was reconciling the world to himself. In you there is healing, life, restoration, salvation, new creation.<br />Lord Jesus - our representative before heaven's throne - your life, your death, your resurrection and your ascension are our salvation.<br /><br />Spirit of Life, we thank you that you entice all creation towards its destiny in Christ. You are the power of resurrection and of new creation. You are leading our world to Jesus and, through him, back to the Father.<br /><br />Triune Lord - we have been created and are redeemed by the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit. We hope for the restoration of all things to God, through God and in God. Ancient of Days, from start to finish it is all about you.<br /><br />AmenGregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-59947955139882563252008-07-11T09:00:00.001-04:002008-07-11T09:00:18.573-04:00Gregory MacDonald Really is Bad, part 4 (he lacks a grasp of theological basics)Steve continues:<br /><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;">As a universalist, you fail to appreciate either divine mercy or divine justice. You lack a basic grasp of law or gospel.</span><br /><br />Oh? I am not sure how to reply to this one so I thought I would very quickly sketch how I understand those terms currently. Obviously the words have specific nuances in specific biblical contexts but as a starting point here are my broad brush-stroke definitions:<br /><br /><em>Divine mercy</em> is God giving us what we do not deserve and witholding what we do deserve (i.e., punishment).<br /><br /><em>Divine justice</em> is quite a wide category in the Bible that covers both God's action to punish sin and to save his people.<br /><br /><em>Law</em> is (usually) the divine Torah given to Moses. It reflects the character of the holy God who gave it. (I confess not to having yet sorted out my views on the place of the Torah in the Christian life but I incline in the Calvinist direction on that issue. The NT texts are so complex that my little brain gets confused).<br /><br /><em>Gospel </em>is the message about how God has acted in Christ's life, death, resurrection and ascension to redeem Israel and the world. It calls for trust in and allegiance to this Messiah, recognition of his Lordship, and repentance.<br /><br />Of course, there is far more to all of these categories than the above but this should put you in the right ball park for understanding my views. I imagine that Steve would not disagree with what I have said above (though he may wish to add some more). So whence the disagreement?I think that it is rooted in my understanding of God's unity/integrity. Let me explain:<br /><br /><em>A doctrine of the unity/integrity of God's attributes:</em> God is a unity in perfect harmony with himself. Consequently God's justice must be compatible with his love. <em>All</em> God's actions are loving and just. His love is a just love. His justice is a loving justice. So I claim that all God's acts of just punishment of sinners - including Hell - must be compatible with his love. And God's merciful treatment of his people - inclusing forgiveness and salvation - must be compatible with his justice.<br /><br />I suspect that this is where Steve and I disagree. It seems to me that any doctrine of Hell that is incompatible with God's love for the ones punished falls foul of the theology of divine integrity. I imagine that Steve solves that problem by arguing that God does not love those in Hell (except in the weaker sense of having shown them common grace in this life). But my problem with this move is that it is, to my mind, fundamentally problematic (see my post on "Calvinism, the Trinity, and God's Universal Love").<br /><br />So that's where I am at. If it reflects my faiure to understand these fundamental categories then I apologize.<br /><br />There ends my self-defence.Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-21294616283057641122008-07-09T10:48:00.001-04:002008-07-09T10:48:00.511-04:00Gregory MacDonald Really is Bad, part 3 (he's only orthodox by chance)Steve continues<br /><br /><span style="color:#3333ff;">It’s just a coincidence that you’re theism happens to be as nominally orthodox as it turns out to be. The Trinity doesn’t conflict with universalism, so you just so happen to affirm the Trinity.Your universalism is heretical, and where your remaining theology is orthodox, it’s orthodox by chance. Like being accidentally innocent of murder because the gun misfired.</span><br /><br />Ouch! On non-universalist theological issues I am only orthodox "by chance" and thus only "nominally orthodox" (on universalist issues I am simply a heretic). I think that Steve's point is that he believes that my <em>deepest</em> convictions about God are idolatrous and where my <em>surface</em> beliefs appear to be orthodox this is simply a matter of convenience (because they do not contradict my deeper, universalist convictions). As a result they are not expressions of genuine faith but mere nominal faith.<br /><br />I must confess to being somewhat surprised that Steve, who does not know me <em>at all</em>, feels so confident in his analysis of my inner life as to be able to make such claims. I hope that if he knew me <em>personally</em> then he would come to see that he is quite mistaken. One day he will know me personally and we'll have heartfelt fellowship. For now I can only made claims which he may simply not believe. However, for the record, here goes ...<br /><br />The revelation of God as triune - Father, Son and Spirit - is <em>far more fundamental</em> to my faith than universalism was, is, or ever will be. It is the heart of my Christianity and I would surrender universalist theology any day before surrendering trinitarian theology. It is not something I believe by accident or as a mater of convenience, and it is not nominal.<br /><br />I hope that helps.<br /><br />However, I am make no apology for being thrilled that the beautiful, glorious God and Father of our Lord Jesus is the one who is reconciling the whole world to himself through Christ and in the Spirit. Universalism <em>is </em>compatible with orthodox trinitarian faith - deal with it!Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-52872349884881664382008-07-06T10:45:00.006-04:002008-07-06T11:32:28.197-04:00Gregory MacDonald Really is Bad, part 2 (he trivializes evil)<span style="color:#000000;">Steve continues his critique of me as follows:</span><br /><span style="color:#000066;"><blockquote><span style="color:#000066;">You say I’ve leveled an exceptionally serious charge against<br />you. But there are no exceptionally serious charges in universalism.<br />Universalism trivializes every evil. If universalism is true, I could flay you<br />alive with a penknife, say three Hail Marys after I die, or do 1000 hours of<br />postmortem community service, then head for heaven. In universalism, all is<br />forgiven since all are forgiven.</span><br /></blockquote></span><span style="color:#000000;">Yikes! Best not to think too hard about the hypothetical case study! Eeeek! I don't think I will sleep well tonight!!!!</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">What is the charge here? That universalism trivializes every evil. But why on earth suppose that this is the case? Of course, in Steve's <em>caricature </em>of my view it is. There I commit my evil act and then just go through the motions to get my "Get out of Jail" card. <em>That</em> trivializes evil. But <em>that</em> is not my view. </span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">My view is that there is no forgiveness except through the atoning death of Christ and heart-felt repentance and faith on the part of the sinner. This forgiveness comes at the cost of Christ's death on the cross. There is no trivializing of evil in that. The sinner is ashamed at what they have done and repudiates it. There is no sense in which their evil "doesn't really matter." </span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">So unless Steve is prepared to say that if God forgives a repentant sinner then God has trivialized their evil I really do not see how his criticism can get off the ground.</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">I do not trivialize sin. I simply believe that where sin abounds grace abounds all the more.</span>Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-68490085192079827902008-07-04T10:22:00.018-04:002008-07-06T11:33:57.131-04:00Gregory MacDonald really is Bad, pt 1 (a bleeding-heart, limousine liberal, idolator)<span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;">All, </span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;"><br /><span style="color:#000000;">Steve Hays has, as you may know, accused me of idolatry. I replied briefly to his accusation and Steve has now responded to my defence (see link). </span></span><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/idolatrous-universalism.html"><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000066;">http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/idolatrous-universalism.html</span></a><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000066;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;">So here is my last ditch attempt (in 4 parts) to defend myself. After that I go silent. You must decide for yourselves. Steve writes:<br /></span><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;"></span><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;"><span style="color:#000066;"><blockquote><span style="color:#000066;">True, you then spend chaps. 2-6 trying to make an exegetical<br />case for universalism. However, these come with a tacit disclaimer. Given what<br />you said in chap. 1</span> [GM - he is referring to two passages in which I<br />describe my struggles over Hell - see link to read them], <span style="color:#000066;">you will only believe in the self-revelation of God in Scripture<br />on condition that Scripture teach universalism. Your faith in Biblical theism is<br />contingent on universalism. That’s the escape clause in your contract. So, you<br />subordinate the authority of Scripture to your extrascriptural preconception of<br />divine worthiness.<br /></span></blockquote></span></span><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;">Do I subordinate divine revelation to my own pre-conceived ideas about what God ought to be like? Do I think that my human reason trumps divine revelation? That's Steve's legitimate worry. The answer is 'No' (unless I am far more self-deceived than I imagine).<br /><br />I think that it is clear in the book that I present the philosophical arguments not to settle the issue of whether universalism is true or false but to show that traditional interpretations of biblical teaching on Hell are deeply problematic and that this should prompt us to ask ourselves whether we have misunderstood the Bible.<br /><br />But there is nothing unusual about that way of thinking theologically. It is no different from claiming that empirical evidence that the earth is not stationary and is not the centre of the solar system should cause us to rethink biblical texts which <em>seem</em> to suggest otherwise. I imagine that Steve himself interprets the Bible in the light of some insights from Copernicus and Galileo. Nobody would suggest that by doing this he is subordinating revelation to reason. </span><br /></span><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;"><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;"><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;">Furthermore, I state unambiguously that, </span><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;"><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;">"<span style="color:#000066;">Scripture must retain its place as the primary locus of authority in any hermeneutical spiral of understanding; so if such a review<br />of the Bible does not plausibly yield a universalist interpretation, then we must return to the philosophy and try to see how we can make sense of the everlasting damnation of the lost"</span> (p. 41). </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;">So I hope that it should be clear that Steve has misunderstood my position. <strong>If I was convinced that universalism was unbiblical I would stop being a universalist. </strong>I have no interest whatsoever in making up theological ideas to make me feel better. I want to know the sober truth. I happen to be fairly convinced that universalism is the sober truth.<br /></span><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;"><span style="color:#000066;"><blockquote><span style="color:#000066;">And, yes, that’s the very definition of idolatry. You begin,<br />not with revelation, but with your preconception of God. If the Bible happens to<br />agree with your preconception, then that’s a bonus point for Scripture—but if<br />the Bible teaches everlasting punishment, then you jettison Biblical theism. So<br />you most definitely assert the primacy of your extrascriptural preconception. </span>[GM - see above] <span style="color:#000066;">For you, the Bible is expendable.<br />You were able to reinterpret Scripture consistent with your preconception. But<br />had you been unable to do so, then—by your own admission—you would no longer be<br />a Christian. </span></blockquote></span></span><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;">I said nothing of the sort, nor would I have because it is not true. (However, I am pleased that Steve thinks I did manage to show that the Bible can be read in a way that is consistent with universalism. :-) I am interested that at no point does he engage with any of my five chapters of biblical arguments. <em>Even if</em>, as Steve thinks, my motivation for reading the Bible in a new way was questionable that need not mean that my biblical arguments are no good. Those arguments still deserve to be taken seriously. I do not think that they are all equally strong but <em>overall</em> I think my case has merit.)<br /></span></span></span><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;"><span style="color:#000066;"><blockquote><span style="color:#000066;">Actually, I wouldn’t dignify it with the label of “reason.”<br />It’s simply emotion. The bathos of the bleeding-heart, limousine liberal. It’s a<br />secularized Christian conscience. You’re very compassionate behind your tinted<br />windows.<br /></span></blockquote></span></span><span style="font-family:georgia;color:#000000;">A bleeding-heart, limousine liberal? Ouch! In brief, just two points:<br /><br />1. My philosophical arguments are surely not <em>so bad</em> that they cannot even be dignified with the label "reason". I have had feedback from several professional Christian philosophers and all of them were positive about the philosophical case (even if they disagreed with my final conclusions). Steve does not agree with my arguments but his reaction here perhaps errs on the side of being an over-emotional as opposed to a rational one. :-)<br /><br />2. Emotion has a very important place in theological and ethical rationality so I make no apology for caring about those in Hell. I am just sorry that Steve is able to consider the whole matter from a non-emotional perspective.</span><br /></span></span>Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-51942427276515231212008-06-26T12:58:00.003-04:002008-06-26T13:13:24.494-04:00The Judas Tree by Ruth EtchellsThis is a lovely poem I came across some years ago. I am not entirely sure how to respond to it. On the one hand I want to say, "Yes! Yes! Yes!" On the other I want to ask, "Does it take seriously the very dire warnings that Jesus made that it would be better for Judas had he never been born?" Now I do not think that such language rules out Judas' eventual salvation but I worry that the poem somewhat undercuts it. Or does it? The image of Judas forever hanging on a tree of his own despair is indeed very dark. What do you think?<br /><br />Any reflections on Judas and salvation just post 'em up! But for now - the poem. How do you respond to it?<br /><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">In Hell there grew a Judas Tree</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Where Judas hanged and died</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Because he could not bear to see</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">His master crucified</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Our Lord descended into Hell</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">And found his Judas there</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">For ever haning on the tree</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Grown from his own despair</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">So Jesus cut his Judas down</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">And took him in his arms</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">"It was for this I came" he said</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">"And not to do you harm</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">My Father gave me twelve good men</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">And all of them I kept</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Though one betrayed and one denied</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Some fled and others slept</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">In three days' time I must return</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">To make the others glad</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">But first I had to come to Hell</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">And share the death you had</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">My tree will grow in place of yours</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Its roots lie here as well</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">There is no final victory</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Without this soul from Hell"</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">So when we all condemned him</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">As of every traitor worst</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Remember that of all his men</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">Our Lord forgave him first</span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;">D. Ruth Etchells</span>Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3132311165895432788.post-19884092679002340442008-06-12T09:00:00.002-04:002008-06-12T11:59:57.291-04:00Gregory MacDonald worships a false godDear Blog Readers,<br /><br />Here is the first <em>very </em>critical review of my book (to be precise it is a review of chapter 1 and a part of chapter 7). It is by a Christian brother called Steve Hays. I have to warn you that is is VERY long and will take about 45 minutes to read properly<br /><br /><a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/all-dogs-go-to-heaven.html">http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/all-dogs-go-to-heaven.html</a><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">It is certainly worth a look. It seems that I am 'an idolater' who has worshipped a false god since even before I became a universalist. Oh dear. </span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">For those who are interested I felt that the arguments ranged from good to worthy-of-taking-seriously-but-mistaken to poor. However, I have no intention of replying to the arguments in the review. Not because I cannot but beause I do not have enough time and it would be a wasted effort. As the author himself confesses,</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-size:85%;">I’m a Calvinist. And I’ve been doing apologetics for several years now, so my beliefs are battle-hardened. There’s no opening in my belief-system for him to exploit. No crack in the wall.</span> </span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">As they say, 'know thyself'. Reading the review I judge that Steve does indeed know himself and that consequently discussion is futile. </span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">Nevertheless the review is recommended reading because I think that it may actually serve to expose the nature of the theology that Steve defends. Perhaps it illustrates better than any argument I could mount how one's view of God will impact one's attitude towards other human beings and the way that one treats them. Steve's review did not, to my mind, reflect so much love for the world as a deep dislike of humanity. Maybe I am not being fair here so you'd better read it yourselves and make your own minds up. I felt sad for Steve as I read it (though he would not want my pity). I do pray God's blessing on him.</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">Pax</span><br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;">Gregory</span>Gregory MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06753627679140008475noreply@blogger.com9