1. Evangelical Universalism: Oxymoron?
Robin Parry
The aim of this talk is not to argue for the truth of universalism but to argue that universalism is compatible with evangelicalism

2. Can an evangelical be a universalist?
Universalists say that God will save all people
Historically almost all evangelicals have denied this and evangelical statements of faith seek to exclude it
Surely “evangelical universalism” is an oxymoron!
My claim: Evangelical opposition to universalism is contingent and not an entailment of evangelical commitment
“. . . Whilst the universalist view may suit the spirit of our age, we shall confirm that it is inconsistent with evangelical faith. In particular, we shall show that it diverges seriously from the doctrinal bases of those key evangelical bodies which constitute ACUTE” (The Nature of Hell, 4).
Some bases of faith are ECT: “. . . the eternal punishment of the wicked” (Young Life)
Some bases of faith are ECT or A: “. . . The eternal consequences of sin [Jesus will bring] eternal condemnation to the lost” (EA, 2005)
Some bases of faith are vaguer still: “The Lord Jesus will return in person, to judge everyone, to execute God’s just condemnation on those who have not repented” (UCCF, latest).
Universalism is a belief that evangelicals have not simply not held, they have actively rejected it. So the cards are stacked against me.

3. What is “evangelical” universalism?
Aside from affirming orthodox Christian faith and holding a high view of Scripture an EU holds two beliefs: EU1 and EU2
EU1: “in the end, God will reconcile all people to himself through Christ’s atoning work”
EU2: “EU1 is a biblical belief”
My version maintains most of the normal evangelical beliefs, with two adjustments: (a) a belief that people can be redeemed from hell, and (b) a belief that, in the end, all will be redeemed from hell
By “orthodox” I mean they affirm creedally orthodox faith. Evangelicals are (a) creedally orthodox and (b) have a high view of Scripture. They also tend to have certain distinctive clusters of emphases (e.g., salvation through Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone, the importance of mission, etc.). Hold three or four evangelical bases of faith next to each other (not the ETS one) and you’ll soon spot the common themes (as well as differences like views on the millennium, election, etc.)
NOTE: Christian universalism does not have to be set up in the way that I have set it up (e.g., John A. T. Robinson)

4. Why think universalism is essentially unevangelical?
Most evangelicals think that the Bible contradicts universalism
But universalists believe that their view is biblical
Even if they are mistaken their mistake would only exclude them from evangelicalism if it involved them affirming something incompatible with a central evangelical beliefs
If it does not then it can be tolerated as an evangelical-compatible error (like Calvinism )
So does universalism entail a denial of key evangelical belief?
The ACUTE book, The Nature of Hell, whilst generous in its discussion of universalism argues against universalist interpretations of biblical texts and theological themes to show that it is not (a) biblical, and therefore not (b) evangelical.
BUT evangelicals disagree on the interpretation of all sorts of texts and theological themes. Such disagreements lead some evangelicals to think other evangelicals are mistaken but not that they are thereby un-evangelical (e.g., Calvinists v. Arminians).

5. 1. Universalism undermines the seriousness of sin
“It does not matter what we do because God will save us all anyway”
EU has a strong view of human sin
But a high view of grace
“Where sin abounds grace abounds all the more”
Evangelical statements of faith all stress the universalist and seriousness of sin.
Evangelicals often assume that universalists claim that God simply overlooks sin and that sin “is not that bad really”
I am aware of no version of Christian universalism that diminishes the gravity of sin, but even if some did there is no reason why their universalism would require them to do so. You can come up with the most extreme assessment of the depravity of sin and there is no reason why a universalist could not hold it SO LONG AS they also believed that God was stronger, grace is wider, the cross is more powerful.
Tom Greggs speaks of “pessimistic universalism.” Responding to the charge that this universalism arises from an overly optimistic view of humanity that fails to take seriously evil and sin, or that it has an overly optimistic view of the omnipotence of God's love which impugns God's righteousness and undermines God's justice and holiness, the article advocates a pessimistic approach to Christian universalism, grounding the argument for universal salvation in the sin and unbelief of the Christian. The article draws on Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer to support this case, and concludes by pointing to non-absolute actualistic anthropology as a means for making sense of the Christian life alongside the co-sinfulness of the Christian and the non-Christian.
The problem is, arguably, not that universalists have too weak a view of sin but that mainstream evangelicals have too narrow (Calvinists) or too weak (Arminians) a view of grace.

6. 2. Universalism undermines divine justice and wrath
Universalists sentimentalize God’s love and ignore God’s justice and wrath (“it’s God’s job to forgive us; he is too nice to damn anyone”)
EU seeks to have a biblical, Christ-shaped understanding of God’s love
EU does not ignore divine justice nor divine wrath and punishment
EU arguably has a more theologically satisfying understanding of the divine nature as holy love
This is a very common accusation but an unfair one. Universalists understand divine love in terms of the revelation of divine love in the biblical story of creation, God’s covenant with Israel, the sending of Christ, the cross and resurrection. We argue that it is precisely when you seek to understand God’s love biblically that one is drawn towards universalism. (See TEU, 100–104)
In reply, evangelicals say, “Of course, God is love BUT he is also just,” I would be rich if I got £1 every time I heard someone say that. There there are problems here:
(a) Evangelical Universalists do not deny God’s justice or wrath so the objection gets no grip anyway.
(b) Evangelical universalists do not divide the divine nature. We maintain that all God’s acts are acts of “holy love” (including salvation and hell). Trad. evangelicals tend to divide the divine nature such that some acts are acts of love and other acts (e.g., hell) are acts of justice but not love. But how can God be love in his nature and do things that are unloving?
Indeed, arguably, traditional evangelicals have underestimated the implications of the claim that “God is [in his very nature] love”

7. 3. Universalism undermines hell
The “hell” of universalists “ain’t a bad place to be” (the same objection is made to annihilationists)
If hell is only fearful if it maximally horrible then this objection stands . . .
But that something is not maximally horrible does not mean that it is not very horrible and to be avoided
(as an aside, the ECT vision of hell is riddled with problems so EU’s failure to affirm ECT is perhaps a strength)
The most common assumption is the universalists do not believe in hell. In fact, historically Christian universalists all believed in hell until recently when some have denied it. Evangelical universalists believe in hell.
The response is then that any hell that you can get out of cannot be that bad.
Consider Israel’s prophets warning the nation of coming wrath. Just because they believed that ultimate destruction for the nation was inconceivable and that the nation would eventually be restored that does not mean that they did not take the judgment seriously nor that they did not look forward to it with horror. (cf. warning about a dreadful disease that would ravage a body for some years before being cured.)
Problems with trad hell include:
Can a finite creature commit a sin big enough to warrant an eternal punishment?
If hell generates more sin and thus more punishment then God’s “solution” to sin is not to eradicate it but to perpetuate it for eternity!
The problem of a loving God inflicting pain forever when there are alternatives (e.g., salvation)
The problem if making death a point beyond which any change of salvation is gone. Why would justice or love require that?

8. 4. Universalism undermines Christ’s role in salvation
Universalism says that “all roads lead to God—Christ is only a way to the Father but not the way”
EU maintains that Christ is the only way to the Father and that salvation is only through union with Christ
EU can be inclusivist or exclusivist
The default assumption always used to be that universalists must be pluralists (even though historically no Christian universalists were pluralists)

9. 5. Universalism undermines the importance of faith in Christ
“Christ will save us all so it does not matter whether we believe in him or not”—the significance the NT attaches to faith is undermined
If one is an exclusivist EU then faith in Christ is a necessary condition for salvation
If one is an inclusivist EU then faith in Christ is relativised (though Christ’s role is not) but not unimportant (NOTE: the inclusivism, not the universalism, is the issue)
I regularly find those who assume that is universalists are not pluralists they must be inclusivists (explain).

10. 6. Universalism undermines evangelism
“Why proclaim the gospel to people if they will be saved anyway?” Universalism undermines evangelism
The gospel is God’s means for saving people—so we proclaim it (cf. Calvinism)
Arminian universalists do have fear of hell as a motivation for evangelism (hell is more of a motivation for them than for the Calvinist)
Fear of hell is not the only motive for gospel-proclamation (indeed universalism adds its own motivations)
“If all people are, in the title of a nineteenth-century tract, ‘Doomed to be Saved,’ then it follows that the decisiveness of decisions made in this life, and the urgency of evangelism here in this life, immediately, are undermined You can see what the missionary implications of this are going to be. What is the main job of the Christian missionary witness? To win men to Christian faith? Or to do something else for them? Universalism prompts the latter view Universalist speculation at the present time is a very great evil, calculated to blight a ministry, and, as the older evangelicals used to think, ‘guaranteed to ruin souls.’” J. I. Packer (see TEU, 168–72)
As an aside, how many evangelical preachers today are motivated by the same fear of hell as in times past (even though they officially believe in it)?
Universalists do need to heed this warning and do need to cultivate motivation for mission

11. 7. Universalism undermines the doctrine of the Trinity
Universalism is often linked with Unitarianism: one heresy often leads to another
The link is partial: Trinitarian Universalism is older and longer-lasting
The link is historically contingent: nothing about universalism entails Unitarianism

12. 8. Universalism was declared a “anathema” by the Church
Universalism was declared heresy by an ecumenical church council so universalists are “unorthodox” and hence “unevangelical”
Only a specific version of universalism (Origenism) was declared anathema by the church, not universalism per se
Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553. Fifteen anathemas against Origen added after main session (though some patristic scholars argue that they were not added by the council but were added later).
But
What is anathematized is not apokatastasis per se but apokatastasis as associated with other, questionable, doctrines such as pre-existence of souls and pantheistic eschatology
Gregory of Nyssa not condemned (indeed honoured at Seventh Ecumencal Council in 787)
When the council did condemn Origen in the main text it was linked to his Christology not his universalism
Universalism is compatible with all the claims of the Creeds and the Rule of Faith

13. 9. Historically evangelicalism has rejected universalism
True (almost)
But I claim that this rejection is contingent and not necessary so on its own it is not decisive
Evangelicalism is a living tradition with capacity for healthy development
Which central evangelical beliefs do “evangelical” universalists deny?
EU arises from evangelical convictions: the saving will of God, the redeeming power of the Christ’s atonement, the efficacious work of the Spirit, a belief that in the end Christ triumphs, etc.
The question is whether a proposed development within the tradition is in accord with the heart of the tradition. Does it deny fundamental aspects of the tradition? Does it arise from reflection on central aspects of the tradition?
I maintain that evangelical universalism is a healthy development within the tradition and not a mutation of it, bending it out of shape.

14. Elhanan Winchester (1751–1797)
Baptist—revivalist preacher in USA
Came to believe in “universal restoration”
Founded Universalist Baptist Church in Philadelphia and another in London
Remained evangelical in his theology of Trinity, atonement, Bible, evangelism, etc.
Remained active in gospel-preaching

15. EU grows from common evangelical conviction
Arminian: God loves all people, wants to save all people, and sent Christ to die for all people to achieve this goal
Calvinist: God will achieve all his purposes in salvation; all for whom Christ died will be saved
Both A and C are evangelical so are EUs unevangelical for holding both belief-sets?
A & C combined entail universalism . . .
. . . or must evangelicals believe that either (a) cannot save all, or (b) does not want to save all?

16. EU grows from the evangel
Our eschatology must be grounded in God’s revelation in Christ
At Calvary we see hell (which turns out to be neither annihilation nor eternal torment)
In the resurrection we see new creation
In the resurrection of the Second Adam, all humanity has already been saved
The eschaton—end of the story—is already revealed in Christ (this is why I am not just a “hopeful” universalist)
Christ was not annihilated (if he was there would be problems for the Trinity or, if only the human nature died, for the incarnation).
Christ did not suffer ECT
To the reply that he could suffer an infinite punishment in a finite amount of time in his divine nature we counter-reply that
The punishment has to be suffered by the humanity of Christ (what is not assumed was not healed)
If Christ could experience an infinite punishment in a nano-second why drag the suffering out far longer than necessary?
The “end” is already revealed. God has shown his hand.

17. EU and Bebbington’s Quadrilateral
EU is consistent with Bebbington’s quadrilateral:
Biblicism
Crucicentrism
Conversionism
Activism

18. Evangelical Universalism
Creedal orthodoxy and high view of Scripture
Christocentric
Trinitarian
Evangel-focused
Missional
Biblically rooted
My Question: What else does one have to be to count as “evangelical”?