Search
Latest Blog Posts
-
November 17th, 2017 @ 9:17 am by Kevin
“Hellrazed?” is now available for purchase! -
February 5th, 2014 @ 8:28 am by Kevin
My new documentary is now available for purchase -
January 29th, 2014 @ 8:39 pm by Kevin
Here’s where you can watch my new documentary -
January 29th, 2014 @ 8:35 pm by Kevin
52-minute version of “Hellbound?” now available -
November 21st, 2013 @ 5:18 pm by Kevin
Black Friday DVD sale!
Categories
Archives
- November 2017
- February 2014
- January 2014
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
-
2April 30th, 2012 @ 8:50 am by Kevin
These all come from David Congdon’s excellent response to Calvin College professor James K. A. Smith’s critique of the new universalism:
- Lay bare your hermeneutical presuppositions. When you confront the conflict between universalist and dualist texts in scripture, what drives your interpretive conclusions?
- Explain the relation between Christ and salvation. Is there a difference between reconciliation, salvation, redemption, and other concepts? In what sense is Jesus our savior? What is the relation between past, present, and future? Is salvation finally realized in the cross and/or resurrection, in a pretemporal act of election, in the present-tense decision of faith, in some future eschatological act of God, or in some other way?
- Get your terminology and distinctions correct. Christian universalism is different from pluralistic universalism, but evangelical universalism is not the only version of Christian universalism. There are various ways of articulating a Christian universal salvation, and the evangelical model is not the only “new universalism.” If this is news to you, then start to read up on the debate before you make pronouncements that might come back to hurt you.
- Stop with the overly simplistic and superficial dichotomies—for example, exegesis vs. theology, text vs. hermeneutic, love vs. justice, particularity vs. universality, grace vs. judgment, etc. These are the theological equivalent of biblical proof-texting. They are a sign of, to borrow from Eberhard Jüngel, an “unwillingness to read and an inability to think.”
- Recognize the distinction between the old and new universalisms—but don’t treat it as a meaningless distinction. Recognize that the differences are crucial, that the basis for the new universalist claims is not the same as before. But at the same time, open yourself to seeing ways in which even the older liberal universalists were a lot more biblically- and theologically-nuanced than perhaps you were led to believe. Not every liberal universalist is a Unitarian, in case that’s news to you.
- Finally, for the love of God, please stop breaking out the old rusty hatchet that claims universalists are unwilling to be disciplined by scripture or that they do not recognize the authority of scripture. This is bogus and frankly offensive. It impugns the faith of brothers and sisters in Christ and shuts down any possibility of meaningful dialogue.
Beautiful points. Well, well said. I aspire to being able to engage this conversation with such adept! (still working on that) Might I use as an example for #3 the term “Restorationism”. After all, that term, I believe, most exactly defines the thrust of Paul’s evangel.
Thanks Dan. Lest there be any confusion, the points come from the article, not me.