, Luke"]… The Universalism as espoused by Bell and Parry, problematically teeters between “solution by universal order” and the “the solution by autonomous freedom”. Falling dangerously in other words between the idea that sin and evil are simply part of God’s larger plan or that sin and evil are the cost of our freedom.

…

It seems Parry and Bell in their eagerness to emphasize one of God’s primary characteristics, love, have overlooked the theological consequences. Evil cannot be simply subsumed into God’s love and neither can it be counted, in some sort of divine-cost-benefit analysis, for freedom. Hell is an expression of God’s defeat of sin and evil, but also God’s moral and ontological separation from sin and evil. I suspect as evangelical universalism is placed under closer scrutiny, it’s theodicy will not bear the weight and it will continue to be a regarded as a heresy.

A quick response:

1. No theological school, system or perspective has a perfect, watertight theodicy. There just isn’t one.
2. EU seems to offer better possibilities for a theodicy than many other systems, because in the end death and sin and evil are destroyed and every human being who ever lived - whatever suffering they have gone through - is healed, restored, forgiven and in perfect, joyful union with God.
3. Rob Bell is not an evangelical universalist… yet!

OK but in the traditional view, God’s defeat of sin and evil seems to be incomplete, since they are perpetuated forever. What kind of a defeat is that? Also the God we see in Christ and in the scriptures is not one who wants to maintain a moral and ontological separation, but one who intervenes directly and personally to engage the evil powers, defeat them and free and heal all their captives - not just the ones who are fortunate enough to arrive at an acceptable confession of faith before their death.
5. I believe EU will prove to be more robust and biblical than Luke suspects.

I am not clear about the two dangers we allegedly teeter between. Many Christians fall down on one side or the other of that divide. For instance, Calvinists usually see sin as part of God’s sovereign plan and Arminians see it as the cost of freedom. So orthodox Christians fall on both sides. How is teetering between the two in any way “dangerous”? And do we even teeter? Perhaps we find a way to navigate between them—and that may be a feather in our caps.

Have we overlooked the theological consequences of appreciating God’s love? No argument is given to suggest that we have—it is simply asserted. The author seems to imagine that Bell and Parry assume that God’s love sweeps evil under the carpet. But that is simply a misreading of both our books. We maintain both God’s defeat of evil and his ontological separation from sin. So we lose nothing of what the author wishes to maintain by his view of hell.

I look forward to the “closer scrutiny” the author refers to. If such scrutiny reveals that we are in fact mistaken and heretical then all well and good—the church will be healthier for understanding things more clearly. But, if I am permitted to do some suspecting of my own, I suspect that such scrutiny will in fact reveal that the reasons Christians have rejected universalism in the past are actually somewhat flimsy.

I guess one of the difficulties in talking about Universalism is its diversity, apart from that central idea about universal salvation there is no coherent theology of universalism, let alone evangelical universalism. I don’t mean this pejoratively, but as an observer trying to make sense of the ‘movement’. I agree that Universalism deserves greater scrutiny. However I don’t think teetering between those two options is a healthy place to be, because as Blocher explains, a Biblical theodicy balances the following three ideas; God is powerful, God is good and evil is evil without comprising any of them, as each of the other theodicies do. (Interestingly, I think you accuse traditional theology of holding the dialectic view (as Blocher calls it) on page 163 of TEU.)

Luke,

Thanks. You are right that there is no single universalist theology and that this makes assessment a tad tricky. That’s true. However, you did comment on two (different)* specific* versions and my point is that your objection does not apply to those versions.

I agree that God is powerful, God is good, and that evil is evil. I am unclear as to why you think any of those propositions is under threat from my kind of universalism. Indeed, one of my concerns with mainstream theology is precisely that it seems to require us to dilute either “God is powerful” (Arminianism) or “God is good” (Calvinism). I suggest that universalism allows us to follow Blocher’s advice better than the alternatives.

Robin

I’ve blogged a little more about why I think your “teetering” between those two positions, and why that’s problematic, based on my reading of TEU pages 157-162, it’ll be posted on my personal blog tomorrow morning (Hobart time!). (The OCD in me is loathe to have more one post a day.) If you prefer not comment there Alex can quote it here so I don’t break my self-declared ban on long posts.

Luke"]I’ve become an occasional contributor at the EFAC (Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion) blog. For my first post I outlined my concerns about the theodicy presented by Bell (Love Wins) and Parry (The Evangelical Universalist). (This is the second major problem facing Universalism that I alluded to in a previous post.) However I’ve been prompted to outline my case against Parry in some more detail.

Although clues about Parry’s theodicy could be gleaned from the book overall (it frustratingly lacks an index) he directly address the problem of evil at the beginning of chapter seven. Parry suggests an Irenaen theodicy, called a “solution by autonomous freedom” by Blocher in Evil and the Cross, is made more preferable by Universalism. He then goes on to give the example of a mother suffering the death of her daughter. Parry says traditional theology (of the type Blocher would represent I guess) devalues both the mother’s suffering the girl herself but on the other hand;

Parry doesn’t commit himself entirely to this theodicy. Instead he seems to slid in the next passage into what Blocher labels the “solution by universal order.”

Although Parry appears approving of both alternatives he seems undecided about which his universalism commits him to; which lead me to describe him in my EFAC blog post as “teetering” between the two options. However, as Blocher points out, neither is ultimately the option presented by Scripture. The “solution by autonomous” freedom limits God’s sovereignty to make space for independent human action. The “solution by universal order” makes evil part of God. But evil is evil, distinct and morally separate from God. God is also sovereign, with human responsibility part of the way he works in the world not a separate activity.

I don’t see how any ECT theology avoids this problem, because it enshrines “death” (eternal punishment) as God’s attitude toward a vast number of humanity for all eternity. (At least, growing up I was taught to understand “death” in the Bible as ECT when it’s used as a consequence of sin) Death is clearly the result of sin, and sin is evil. God will end all evil, restoring everything that has been destroyed by evil–surely ECTers believe that? What does it mean that “death is swallowed up in victory” and “the last enemy to be abolished is death?” Could it mean that God eternally uses a form of death to relate to a huge portion of the people he created? That seems logically incoherent to me.

Isn’t it a contradiction to say “God will triumph over evil and death” but then to believe that God will eternally do the very thing he commands us not to do? Jesus says in Matt 5:43-48 and Luke 6:35-36 that it’s a sin to hate and pay back your enemies because we’re God’s children and he himself doesn’t do it. Every clear biblical statement of the separation of sin/death/evil from God is a strike against the eternal punitive nature of hell.

Exactly, RevDrew.

I realize Luke is properly engaging professional published authors here; but I wanted to add that, regardless of particular critiques on how the theodicy is worked out, I agree with Robin (“Gregory MacDonald” is “Robin Parry” in case new visitors or members here didn’t know) that if a theodicy must hold those three points to be Biblical, then so far as that goes, evangelical universalism (including trinitarian Christian universalism, which EU usually is, even when EUers don’t directly connect or derive universalist soteriology from trinitarianism) must be Biblical.

Obviously there must be more to being a Biblical theodicy than that, and obviously not less. But one can hardly coherently claim that a soteriology where God is both good and powerful to persist in saving all evildoers from doing evil, denies (1) God is powerful, (2) God is good and/or (3) evil is evil!

If evil wasn’t evil, God wouldn’t be saving evildoers from doing evil. If God wasn’t good, God wouldn’t be saving evildoers from doing evil. If God wasn’t powerful, God wouldn’t be able to save all (or even any) evildoers from doing evil!

Luke’s problem, as a proponent of Calvinistic soteriology, has to be the Christian universalist’s scope of God’s salvation (through and as Christ) actively and intentionally (as well as persistently) including all sinners. If there are Biblical problems with this scope, however, the scope (whether by systematic exegesis or by metaphysical principle analysis) doesn’t have the problem of denying any of those three points.

This seems to me a very bewildering accusation to make given that it comes from a system of thought which literally immortalizes evil in the form of ECT. That seems to me absurd; it is beyond ludicrous to imagine that hell in any way separates God from sin and evil.

The fact that God redeems all evil (as Universalism holds) need not mean evil was inevitable or necessary. That we may be mystified how God brings ultimate good from evil need not detract at all from Universalism’s insistence that He does.

While I’m not entirely satisfied with most explanations of freedom’s role in all this, I think the most promising explanation (Talbott’s) involves realizing that free will has it’s limits.

But from my perspective anyway, the view of ECT/hell presents a much more daunting problem for freedom as it is incomprehensible to me that God is not seriously vulnerable to the charge that He is being worshipped out of fear – not freedom. Rather than thinking that Universalism has a theodicy problem to solve, my view is that Universalism is by far the most comprehensive solution to the theodicy problem.

When God promises that sin will be no more, by far the most effective way of doing this is by convincing for all time all those minds which rebelled in the first place. Killing/torturing them for eternity merely perpetuates the very thing He’s insisted He is against. Evil is evil to be sure, but the effectiveness of it’s eradication seems far greater and more thorough under Universalism than ECT.

TotalVictory
Bobx3

Although I see “Evangelical universalism” as an insult, just another attack on the evangelical church and that universalism is heresy because it changes the character and nature of God. I see this blog as disjointed, oversimplified and just too much philosophy with nothing to support his side. I have no clue as to how theodicy or lack thereof makes universalism a heresy? God Bless!

Luke,

I’m not seeing why you think universalism’s view that evil will be overcome, thus ultimately magnifying God’s glory the most, is the least satisfying theodicy. My education at Fuller emphasized Calvin’s explanation, but I could never make sense of how it did not make evil part of God, or how it triumphed over evil’s persistent power. Could you compare the universalist and reformed theodicies, to illustrate and clarify how you see the latter as better?

Thanks for representing an important classic view,

Bob

, Robin Parry"]Luke

Hello again. I am still a bit confused as to what precisely you find problematic about my view (apart from the fact that it is not taught by Blocher?).

I try to find some insights in Irenaean theodicies. You do not like this because it limits God’s sovereignty. Why does it do that? I see no reason why some version of such a theodicy is not compatible with an ultra-strong view of sovereignty. I may be mistaken but you’d need to explain to me why.

I then, a bit more cautiously, try to find insights from Marilyn Adams’ reflections on “horrendous evils.” You do not like those because they feel like an “appeal to universal order.”

I suspect here that you are trying to squeeze Adams into a preconceived typology of theodicies provided by Blocher because the language of “universal order” does not sound to me anything like what Adams is on about.

Anyway, whether that be the case or not, your concern is that this approach makes evil part of God’s plan. But that is not the case. Adams is speaking about how God works redemptively in the midst of evil so that “all things can work together for the good of those who love God.” She need make no claims that God plans evil for our good — only that he can turn even that which is horrible into an part of the fabric of an ultimately worthwhile life.

Indeed, part of Adams’ whole approach is to recognize the truly evil nature of certain evils, what she calls “horrendous evil.” So I don’t think she is in danger of denying the evilness of evil.

But I am now confused about Blocher’s own view. I have not read the book in question but from what you say it sounds like he wants to affirm:

1. That God controls everything that happens

2. That evil is not part of God’s plan nor is it used by God within his plan

But this sounds to me like affirminig incompatible propositions.

So it sounds to me like the problems remain with those who deny universalism rather than with those who affirm it.

, Luke"]Robin,

I guess what’s problematic is that you argue for the grand (in a large overarching sense) premise that everyone will be saved but don’t give an adequate explanation of the theodicy that flows from it. Universalism has ultimate consequences, everyone is saved, so what then is the ultimate place of evil in Universalist scheme of things? While granted there are ambiguities and mysterious on this side of eternity, the ultimate and final claim of universalism requires a more comprehensive and clearer theodicy then the two options you offer. Now, I admit I’m placing them into preconceived (Blocher) categories but this isn’t philosophically unusual. For example the secular Norwegian philosopher Lars Svendsen makes a similar reduction (A Philosophy of Evil by Lars Svendsen, 44).

Hmm, maybe Adam’s need more critical analysis but the point you seem to draw from that section that I quoted in the post above: “So by integrating horrendous evil into one’s relationship with God, one confers a positive aspect upon such experience.” (page 159) Seems to make evil worthwhile, tying it into God’s good plans for the world.

Regarding Blocher, his three premises, that he sees making up a Scriptural theodicy are to be held in paradoxical tension. The formula laid down by Chalcedon isn’t much different in this regard. Being both man and God seems incompatible yet is regarded as Scripturally sound.

Isn’t “The ‘ultimate’ place of evil in the Universalist scheme of things” that it is so defeated and overcome that it no longer needs to have a place. And isn’t one person’s seeing truths as “paradoxical tensions” or “mysteries” that can’t be resolved (Luke) another person’s “incompatible propositions” (Parry)?

I’ve read it a few times and I don’t understand Luke’s point. I don’t mean that in a critical way - I just don’t see what he is getting at. I don’t see the problem. If anything UR makes much more sense of evil in that ultimately there is the **possibility **that each person who ever lived could look back, at even the worst of it and say, “it was all worth it”. Like the apostle Paul they could say that it was “a momentary light affliction” for even the most vile of events, when compared to an eternity of, what did God say in the Psalms “at my right hand there are pleasures forever”, well, it would be worth it.
Chris

Fun fact about evil.

Isaiah 45:6,7 That men may know from the east and the rising of the sun and from the west and the setting of the sun that there is no God besides Me. I am the Lord, and no one else. I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and I create evil [RA]; I am the Lord, Who does all these things.

**Amos 3:6 **When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When evil [RA] comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?

That word evil is the Hebrew word “RA” which is ultimate unethical and immoral evil. It is not the word “Eyd” which means calamity, distress, or burden.

RA is defined:bad, evil, bad, disagreeable, malignant, bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery), evil, displeasing, bad (of its kind - land, water, etc), bad (of value), worse than, worst (comparison), sad, unhappy, evil (hurtful), bad, unkind (vicious in disposition), bad, evil, wicked (ethically), in general, of persons, of thoughts, deeds, actions, evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity, evil, distress, adversity, evil, injury, wrong, evil (ethical), evil, misery, distress, injury, evil, misery, distress, evil, injury, wrong, evil (ethical).

God created evil and He has a purpose for it.

Isaiah 54:16 "Behold, I Myself have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and brings out a weapon for its work; and I have created the destroyer to ruin.

Jeremiah 18:11 The Lord fashioned evil [RA] against Israel [His chosen people] and devised a plan against them.

Lamatations 3:37-39 "No one speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it. It is from the mouth of the Most High that both good and evil [RA] go forth. No living mortal, or any man, should offer complaint in view of his sins "

I just see people have a limited understanding of what evil is, and what it is meant for.

Surely God did not invent sin, or wickedness, or methods of committing it. There would be no need to fight ETC, as an even greater terror would be found in the infinite heart of God. Sin. ETC would be just a normal expression of his heart.

, Luke"]Doesn’t everyone claim that their particular theology is Scriptural? (Blocher like Calvin is a Frenchman and like Calvin is Reformed although interestingly his argument for the transmission of Orignal Sin is that genetic transmission (realism) makes Federalism possible.) Parry is making the case that Universalism should at least be considered broadly Orthodox if not even a legitimate evangelical option. I’m not sure making a distinction between theological conflict and orthodoxy helps in this particular context. The battle between heresy and Orthodoxy is also a form of theological conflict. But in this particular case while I agree theodicy isn’t a tenant of Orthodoxy in the way say Christology is, Universalism doesn’t offer an adequate (or ultimately Scriptural) theodicy.

I still don’t understand his point! From what I’ve read so far, I don’t think he’s given an adequate explanation as to why he thinks this is so. What am I missing?

I think Luke is saying that if Parry, Bell or any other universalist contenders want to climb in the ring with the heavyweights they need to have a better theodicy. “Go back to the gym you seven stone weaklings!” Whether Luke is right or wrong, it seems odd that he has picked this particular issue, which many people think is one of the weakests aspect of “traditional” or “orthodox” christianity. How can there be a convincing and biblical theodicy which includes hell as traditionally understood? Perhaps Blocher has found one - I haven’t read him yet so I don’t know.
What I would say to Luke is that, face to face with a grieving widow or parent, I’ve got a hell of a lot more to offer now than I did when I was stuck with everlasting conscious torment.