The Evangelical Universalist Forum

List of those of who reject traditional hellism

Hi Dick

I think you’re right about Dr Johnson. I recall reading how he brooded about hell, and the possibility that he might end up there. But as Matt says, I’m sure he nursed at least some hope that Universalism was true. And let’s be honest, shouldn’t every Christian do likewise? Isn’t it our express duty to desire and pray for the salvation of all people? So in that sense the good doctor probably was a hopeful Universalist.

As you guys probably know, cynic that I am, not only do I think far too many Christians don’t do this, but I think some - perhaps even a lot - actually desire the exact opposite. This is explicit in the misanthropic ravings of some of the most egregious Calvinist / Augustinian theologians of yesteryear (eg Tertullian, a sadist to make Polpot weep, or Jonathan Edwards, had all the compassion for helpless sinners of a block of concrete; a horrible, spiteful man.

I guess where I stand on this is that any Christian worthy of the name is actually a hopeful Universalist - a Universalist lite, as it were. So for me, the only ‘brand’ of Universalism proper is dogmatic, full fat Universalism (although I label myself a hopeful dogmatic (Arminian) Universalist because I hope that God exists, but I’m sure, I’m utterly dogmatic about the fact that if He does exist, He will indeed save all of us - eventually (that’s where the Arminian bit comes in).

P&L

Iohnny

Well, I’m only self-published. :wink: So I don’t really count any more than other people here. (That’s why I declined the site creators’ offer to include my name on the masthead and to have a category for myself along with the other authors.)

But that’s a bit of a porous category now. So, sure, why not. :slight_smile: I very much appreciate the thought. :smiley:

Interesting!–I wonder if Jeremiah White (contemporary Christian systematic universalist author and chaplain to Cromwell) knew about him.

Has anyone mentioned Elhanan Winchester (1751-1797)?

Sonia

Don’t know if you guys are interested in conditionalists but some (in Pog’s cool style):

John Wenham (1913 - 1996):
“I believe that endless torment is a hideous and unscriptural doctrine which has been a terrible burden on the mind of the church for many centuries and a terrible blot on her presentation of the gospel. I should indeed be happy if, before I die, I could help in sweeping it away”

John Stott ():
“Emotionally, I find the concept [of eternal conscious torment] intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterizing their feelings or cracking under the strain. But our emotions are a fluctuating, unreliable guide to truth and must not be exalted to the place of supreme authority in determining it . . . my question must be—and is—not what does my heart tell me, but what does God’s word say?”

Glenn Peoples:
“Not only am I an annihilationist, but I think that all evangelical Christians should be annihilationists, because
the biblical case for annihilationism is very strong, and I think the arguments against annihilationism are very
weak in comparison.”

Convinced Universalists

Paul Dean (1789–1860) was a student of John Murray and was the only prominent trinitarian universalist of his generation. He pastored a Unitarian church (the only Unitarian pastor do have remained trinitarian) and co-founded the Massachusetts Association of Universal Restorationists (MAUR) with his very close friend Adin Ballou after they left/were ousted from the mainline ultra-universalist churches for their Restorationism (Purgatorial-universalism). When they became estranged over Adin’s radical social ideals, MAUR essentially disbanded, which I suspect contributed to the general decline in purgatorial universalism. He was ecumenical towards non-universalists (over the generally schismatic attitude of the ultra-Us), and was theologically conservative/evangelical, although he did reject impassibility (which isn’t really that radical either).

Adin Ballou (1803–1890) was, like his close friend Dean, a convinced universalist. He had some rather fascinating ideas, albeit peculiar and unorthodox, but was a truly inspirational fellow. He was an exemplary abolitionist, radical pacifist and socialist (greatly influencing the Christian anarchist thought of Tolstoy, who regarded him as the greatest American writer!). Ballou ran a truly remarkable race — he delivered eight to nine thousand sermons, married one thousand couples, wrote about five hundred articles, edited a journal and founded a utopian community.

This is a cool project, but I wonder whether the title should be changed from “infernalism”. In my mind, infernalism is highly offensive or completely meaningless — either signifying that the person is, as an infernalist, abominable/diabolical for not believing in universalism, or signifies that they simply believe in some abode of the dead, or some post-mortem “punishment” (and if so, so what? So does Dean, Ballou and myself). You don’t have to change it on my account, and I don’t mean to be pedantic, but I do find it offensive and/or meaningless.

I think Steve Gregg also holds that view.

Dr. Beck shared an article on here recently where he described himself as a hopeful dogmatic universalist:

viewtopic.php?f=74&t=3815&p=53746#p53746

And I kind of agree with Andrew, might be good to change the topic title, maybe switch it from infernalism to eternal torment or something.

Hi pog

Respect to you for taking on this very worthwhile task. I’ll chip in when I can. Here’s a couple of entries:

convinced universalist
Hick, John (1922-2012) English theologian and philosopher. “In wrestling with the problem of evil I had concluded that any viable Christian theodicy must affirm the ultimate salvation of all God’s creatures.” (Evil and the Love of God)

hopeful universalist
Farrer, Austin (1904-1968) English theologian and philosopher, chaplain of Trinity College, Oxford. “Cannot everlasting mercy save from the everlasting fire or let the irreconcilable perish in it?” (Saving Belief)

I too would switch the title of the thread. If nothing else, a lot of Universalists do not deny the existence of ‘hell’ in some senses. How about something positive, along the lines of “list of people who affirm the truth of Universalism, or allow the possibility of it being true”. That’s a horrible clunker obviously, but I’m sure you or somebody here can come up with something more succinct!

Cheers

Johnny

I do love Mother Julian Dick. I’m reading her Revelations now. Surprised she wasn’t denounced as a heretic, when she at times calls God our mother.

Must say I don’t particularly find infernalism offensive. Think I would’ve proudly held that title back when I was trying my best to be a Calvinist. I guess you could argue it’s unhelpful if it rattles people, but I cannot help but feel some will be rattled by any title you produce for such a topic.

Personally I find ECT so abhorrent, that I have no issue calling it cosmic child abuse etc. I think it is so vile, that in this case a spade needs to be called a spade. That said, care must be taken that it is the logical conclusions of these beliefs that are vile, not the adherents themselves

That’s pretty true. Even Matt/Edward’s suggestion “Eternal Torment” offends me, and I subscribe to the possibility of an eternal consequence. Eternal torment or even eternal punishment implies it’s a condition actively decreed from God. That I definitely do not subscribe to. I’m with Johnny on this. I think focusing on the affirmed belief of these people (i.e. universalism) would be more relevant and less offensive for everyone.

Andrew Jukes wrote the restitution of all things.

Hi JLS

Love your new avatar pic. You is well glam :slight_smile: .

With you all the way on this. Personally I’m pretty fed up with pussyfooting around, giving ECT some kind of break because it’s ‘seemingly’ scriptural. It isn’t, and by every other criterion it is despicable, unjust, unfair, immoral, blasphemous, sadistic garbage. And I for one will no longer give it any house room whatsoever. I grind my teeth in angry despair whenever I hear ECT being espoused in the name of the God who is love. But then I grit my teeth and remind myself I used to believe it, albeit reluctantly and questioningly, myself. You’re of course correct that we shouldn’t condemn ECTers as vile JLS - except for those who actually want it to be true, because they are.

Cheers

Johnny

Pog, I think Derek is a hopeful Universalist. You could always PM him to ask. His user name is sharktacos. Guess you could ask James too.

J

space saving

space

Add:
Peter the Apostle
John the Revelator

My book Conditional Futurism argues that Peter the Apostle and John the Revelator taught about Christ-centered postmortem conversions for those who dies lost.

Note: “eternal conscious suffering” would be my suggestion.

Many Christians who hold to an otherwise “traditional” notion of hell now deny (against long-running super-majority tradition, ironically enough :wink: ) that God actively causes the suffering; but if they don’t include some kind of unavoidable inconvenience then the sinners might as well be in heaven (except as sinners!) “Suffering” would cover inconvenience inflicted by God or not.

I too find it ironic that many Christians who believe in Hell try and affirm that Hell is “chosen” by those who go there. And yet, in the passages in scripture that are traditionally believed to speak of Hell it is God that casts people there. People are consigned to punishment; they don’t choose it!

Quite so. We can’t lock ourselves in, firstly because “Christ holds the keys to death and hell” (not us), and secondly because He is in the very serious business of setting captives free. (But hey. Let’s not let that get in the way of a good theory.)