1. One’s eternal destiny is not fixed at death.
2. Those in hell can repent and throw themselves upon the mercy of God in Christ and thus be saved.
3. In the end everyone will do this.
MacDonald presents both philosophical and scriptural arguments for universalism. He is an engaging writer however I remain unconvinced. His philosophical stance is often one-sided and has several logical disconnects. His scriptural support relies on complex connections between passages, knowledge of original languages offering possible alternate definitions of key terms and awareness of the cultural realities of the time. He states that one cannot simply “read the Bible” and understand it without this type of external information. While this sort of knowledge can enhance our understanding of Scripture, I strongly reject the notion that the essential salvation message, of which consequences are an inherent part, is not fully available to those who don’t possess this additional information. Regarding MacDonald’s broader ideas, following are his key assumptions and points along with my responses:
He limits his debate to the traditional doctrine of hell as eternal conscious punishment.
Limiting his debate to one view of hell while two established doctrines exist, renders his arguments woefully incomplete. Annihilationism receives only passing mentions despite MacDonald identifying himself as a former annihilationist. This reader believes the doctrine of annihilationism effectively addresses the vast majority of MacDonald’s arguments – both philosophical and scriptural (for more detail on this doctrine see blog entry http://emetstone.blogspot.com/2011/12/death-life-biblically-based-exploration.html ).
Universalism is not an “essential” belief but rather another “option” for Christians
This is blatantly one sided. If universalism is true, believing that one’s eternity is fixed at death is harmless – the biggest “danger” is making a decision sooner than necessary. If on the other hand, death is the deadline for accepting Jesus, a belief in universalism may well result in missing this crucial date and suffering eternal separation from God. Clearly this is an “essential” belief.
Free will decisions are dependent on full information and rationality.
MacDonald holds that no fully informed, rational being would choose hell as an alternative to salvation. Again, this holds if hell is eternal conscious punishment. Annihilationism effectively counters this – we often see people making decisions in favor of death over life. Furthermore, the Bible states that those making this choice are fully informed (Romans 1:19-20, 32). Secondly, MacDonald’s view also includes the ultimate redemption of Satan. Is Satan also ignorant of the nature of hell?
Evangelism is still critical because hell is to be avoided “at all costs.”
Here’s where MacDonald’s philosophical argument really crumbles under its own assumptions. If indeed hell is to be avoided at all costs, it will be so avoided. In other words, if no fully informed, rational person will choose hell, then the moment this knowledge is realized all people will make a decision to accept salvation – no one will go to hell, period. If on the other hand, despite this knowledge people will still choose to go to hell for a period of time then in fact, hell is not to be avoided at all costs. These assumptions cannot co-exist – either no one goes to hell or hell is much milder than MacDonald assumes. The logical conclusion of MacDonald’s argument is that a person who has a penchant for sinful behavior can maximize his “pleasure” by indulging in sin in this life and accepting salvation after death but before punishment. In this sense, universalism completely undermines evangelism.
If God doesn’t achieve His “will” in saving all it is not a complete victory.
Another one-sided argument. Does God achieve victory if He seeks a free will relationship with us but designs us in such a way that we are incapable of resisting His love? Either scenario represents a “defeat”. So the question becomes which is the more important goal for God? Additionally, we know from the Bible that God does not force His will (Matt. 6:10).
Jesus and Paul omitted mention of Universalism to avoid diluting the urgency of accepting salvation.
Why would this urgency be any different today? If Jesus strategically wanted to keep us in the dark regarding the ultimate salvation of everyone, why would He be making this knowledge available at all? Additionally, the notion that Jesus would be so willfully misleading in His message flies squarely in the face of His repeated statements that He came to testify to the truth (John 18:37) – and was in fact, Himself the truth (John 14:6).
The sheer complexity of MacDonald’s scriptural case prohibits a comprehensive response, do however want to address verses he cites as seeming to explicitly teach universalism:
Rom 5:18: Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteousness act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
The word “gift” suggests something that can either be received or rejected.
1 Cor. 15:22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
He seems to be viewing the “all” in the second phrase as equal to the “all” in the first. The second phrase can also be viewed as, of those who accept Christ, all will be made alive.
Col. 1:20: and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
In explaining this verse, MacDonald uses the word “redemption” as a synonym for “reconcile”, it is no such thing. Reconciliation suggests different outcomes for different people. MacDonald rejects this view of reconciliation on the grounds that the verse goes on to speak of “peace” between God and all things and this peace cannot exist if people are suffering eternal conscious torment. Again annihilationism addresses this, if those at war with God no longer exist, there will indeed be peace.
Phil 2:11: and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
The demons also know and tremble (James 2:19). More specifically demons confess verbally that Jesus is Lord but without asking for forgiveness or redemption (Mark 5:6-13). The act of verbally acknowledging Jesus' Lordship always glorifyies God, but does not in and of itself result in salvation of the speaker.
MacDonald has devoted extensive thought and research to the presentation and defense of Christian Universalism. However, neither his philosophical nor scriptural arguments stand up well to scrutiny. Jesus spoke plainly about both salvation and consequences - He made this truth readily available to all.
Your comments are welcome. Thanks for reading.
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. John 8:32
I'm sure you would agree that it is at least possible that parts of the biblical message have been distorted over time, these past 2000 years? If you insist that the rejection of universalism is an essential part of the message and that without additional information the message can be fully understood from [the translation of] the bible, then there is clearly no room for universal reconciliation. One of the take-home messages of universal reconciliation is that it is certainly possible that essential parts of the message can be distorted over time and that this very distortian has occured in church history.
ReplyDeleteIt goes both ways, too. Without "additional information", the bible clearly teaches that it is Gods will that all people be saved and that no one be lost. In order to explain this in the context of the (in my view distorted) bible verses that speak of everlasting punishment, additional information is inserted: 'it is not about all people, just about all believers' and 'it is not about Gods will, just about his wish or his moral desires'. Furthermore, isn't a bible translation 'additional information'? We really should read the message in Hebrew and Greek.
Regarding annihilationism, there are arguments for UR that also reply to annihilationism, especially the fact that Christ conquered death and that it has no final power. If annihilationism were true, then death is victor at least over some and part of God's creation would be lost forever, directly contradicting many texts from scripture. Also: why would a sovereign, good, just and loving God choose either annihilation or endless punishment, when restorative punishment is also an option?
Re your statement on Romans 1, are you aware that Romans 1 is likely not a view of Paul, but Paul representing the view of a typical Jewish teacher?
Re your statement that universalism undermines evangelism because everyone would immediately turn to God in the afterlife, two counters: 1) you assume that everyone will gain and fully understand the full knowledge immediately - this need not be the case, it might be a process, there is still a free will that can resist to learn for a while. 2) do you really have a problem with sinners turning to God, even if it is very late? Read what Jesus said about that in his teachings. Of course it is much better if all people turn to God right now instead of then, and there are many reasons to do so, other than the threat of hell. But even then, is it a problem for you if it turns out that God actually saves all? (And even then, I personally believe it likely that there will be a just punishment at least for those that have done evil - since God will 'judge according to their works')
Re gift: the word gift only implies the possibility of rejection if you want it to imply that. Can you reject the gift of having been born? No you can't. You can kill yourself, but you will still have been born.
Re 1 Cor 15 "it can also be read as": no it can't, only if you insert extra words. Additionally, if I say at a party "I will give everyone a drink" and then "I will first give my family members a drink" does that imply that I really meant "I will give only my family members a drink"? No of course it doesn't. This is the mistake Francis Chan makes in his book.
Re what you wrote on Col 1: if what you say is true, why does God not annihilate everything right now? Much easier. However, if "all" refers to everything that has ever existed, then annihilationism is never true. What you do with this annihilationism is state that there will be a time T and everything that exists at that time T will have been reconciled. I think that distorts the bible greatly and it gives no hope whatsoever to anyone.
Emet: In a word, T H A N K YOU!!
ReplyDelete(Ok, two words), for putting up this blog! It is such a relief, really, to know that:
A) Billions of human beings, some of whom I really liked, are not now enduring trillions of years of torture administered by my gracious FATHER and loving SAVIOR. And,
B) I don't have to become a blogger,as long as you do this!! Yes, keep it up!
(Be advised that if you fail to keep it up, I may have to HUNT YOU DOWN, to find out wheather you were lynched by traditionalists or lobotomized by universalists)...
Those are both figures of speech, for all you literalists.
Chuck, Thanks for your kind words - appreciate the encouragement.
DeleteThanks for taking the time to read the book & for writing a review. I've let Robin know, however I know he's very busy finishing off the 2nd edition. One of the things he hopes to address better is annihilationism, so hopefully that will answer some of your questions (I'll try to let you know when the 2nd edition is available).
ReplyDeleteObviously we’d both prefer Robin to reply to your review, however, if he’s not able to, I’ll have a go when I get a chance :-)