, Kurt Willems"]Our theme this year will be “Conditional Immortality and the Challenge of Universal Salvation.” In selecting this theme, Rethinking Hell is promoting dialogue among evangelicals, by bringing our own view of conditional immortality (also called annihilationism), into conversation with universalism… we will hear from one of the leading universalist thinkers—Robin Parry—who authored the book “The Evangelical Universalist”
[size=150]Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California from June 18-20, 2015[/size]

More details at rethinkinghellconference.com/2015/

Anyone go to this then? How was it?

Several forum people went (not me, too much ‘work’ work), but unfortunately they all seem to have migrated to Facebook, so that’s where they talk about it.

I gather the conference was good spirited all around, and that a DVD of the main and secondary lectures will be available at some point.

I keep searching youtube daily for videos of Robin’s talks.

I did see this breakout session led by Peter Hiett:

youtu.be/f6EmTuIc9pg

Facebook

Yeah I just watched that. Some good (challenging) stuff in that.

Haven’t watched this one yet but it looks interesting - ‘Justification and Life for All? A Response to Universalist Exegesis of Rom 5:12-21’ youtube.com/watch?v=CMDZ1Za8IzQ

At the end of this talk on Romans 5, I am the one who challenged her conclusion. But Alison did not seem to grasp the critique I presented, and unfortunately the sound did not pick up the questions I was posing to her.

What were your questions, Bob?

Caleb, Alison conceded the universalist interpreter’s take (e.g. R. Bell & Hultgren) on not limiting the language of 5:18f, but argued that while it could mean universalism, that need not be its’ “most likely” interpretation. So I asked how Paul could be more definitive, than saying, “all people… will be made righteous”? Her only alternative explanation was that “justified” or acquitted can also mean “declared righteous,” which could be true of all people, while in distinction, they would not actually be “made righteous.” I pointed out that “declared righteous” was itself the historical terminology for who would be pronounced justified on judgment day (i.e. I’m unfamiliar with her distinction, and have never seen a commentary use that argument to explain why this text does not convey the justification of all people). Then I said her argument required that most translations (such as NIV), translating “made righteous,” were crucially incorrect. She said she didn’t know what the translations had here, but looked it up, and seemed surprised. I said, you then are saying that Douglas Moo (who she had often cited) and Gordon Fee, the leaders of the NIV translation committee, who needed to agree on any revisions, must be unaware of the supposedly critical distinction between “made” and “declared” righteous. Indeed, she had expressed that her degree was in systematic theology, rather than in Bible. My impression was that this was a classic case of an annihilationist theologian searching for a way to make the problematical text line up with her already assumed conclusion.

Interesting. Thanks, Bob!

Curious. More curious in that, if your report is accurate, she thought everyone might be declared righteous in a merely forensic or legal sense, yet not saved from their sins after all??

I could maybe understand what she was trying to do if she was going for the idea that all shall be saved who are not annihilated, i.e. only the saved exist – which is a standard anni attempt there – but I don’t see how she could be getting there from distinguishing all being merely declared legally righteous from all being saved from sin.

Though I suspect from your summary she’s going with the idea that all humans are declared only legally guilty whether they’ve sinned yet or not, and so a parallel merely legal justification in Christ is what Paul is talking about here. If so, aside from the former still involving a result of hopeless punishment, thus the latter would be less than parallel if it didn’t involve salvation, a mere parity of effect would not fit Paul’s exultation in the same chapter that where sin exceeds grace hyperexceeds for not as the sin is the grace!

On the other hand, I hadn’t considered before that Paul might be comparing the merely legal condemnation under sin with actual salvation from sin. Which would fit the concept of salvation in Christ exceeding condemnation in Adam. Hm…

Jason, I share your confusion, and may not have fully grasped the logic of what Alison was actually arguing. But I seem to recall her making an allusion to an apparent parallel notion in Colossians one, pointing out the whole creation is said to be already reconciled to God, yet Paul can turn and urge readers that they still need to “Be reconciled.” I think that reinforced my perception that she was reading Romans 5 to say that justification like reconciliation is provided for all people, but unless it is received (much attention to 5:17), the declaration of God relating to us as righteous will do us no good, since we lack the condition that allows us to become actually “made” righteous.

Robin Parry wrote a few thoughts on the conference runningheads.net/2015/06/30/ … hell-2015/

Thanks Mica for putting in the link to Peter Hiets presentation. It is an hour to watch but very thought provoking.

Yes, Peter Hiet’s presentation was good. His presentation of 3 Hells seems to me to be confusing. In short, Hiet says:

Hell #1 is Sheol and Hades; the problem with this is Sheol and Hades do not mean Hell, but death and realm of the dead.

Hell #3 is God’s judgment as revealed in Eternal Fire and the lake of fire and brimstone; I disagree with this though because judgment is not “Hell”.

And Hell #2 is Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, where Hell #1 and Hell #3 meet and Hell #1 is consumed by Hell #3. But Hinnom Valley is also metaphorical of God’s judgment, like the lake of fire (the Dead Sea) and eternal (aionian) fire.

When sharing that I’ve come to believe that Jesus really is “Savior of All”, in deed not just in title, I’ve found it best to be forthright that I do not believe in Hell, a place of ECT.

I do enjoy Hiet’s presentation though. It’s very good and I’d recommend it.

I find Peter Hiett’s material thought provoking.

I’m glad so many universalists went to the conference. Here’s another review of it:
thecrucifiedgod.blogspot.com.au/ … ughts.html