Theology in the Raw - Understanding Evangelical Universalism: Dr. Robin Parry

Episode Date: March 17, 2025

Dr. Robin Parry is the minor canon for eco-spirituality at Worcester Cathedral, UK. He is also an academic book editor for Wipf and Stock Publishers and the author of several books and articles including The Evangelical Universalist (under the name Gregory MacDonald) and an important article on Christian Universalism in the Four Views on Hell book, which I edited. In this conversation, I didn't bring Robin on for a debate but for him to unpack his biblical case for Christian Universalism. Register for the Exiles and Babylon conference: theologyintheraw.com  -- If you've enjoyed this content, please subscribe to my channel! Support Theology in the Raw through Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theologyintheraw Or you can support me directly through Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Visit my personal website: https://www.prestonsprinkle.com For questions about faith, sexuality & gender: https://www.centerforfaith.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey friends, the Exiles in Babylon conference is right around the corner. April 3rd to 5th. You are not going to want to miss it. This is going to be a barn burner of a conference. We have loads of awesome speakers, breakouts, several after parties, including watching Greg Boyd and his rock band, not dead yet, play on Friday night at a local bar and grill. Can't wait for that one actually. And lots of other things happening. April 30th, theologianraw.com. All the information is there. Oh yeah, it's in Minneapolis too. You can attend live in person or if you're not going to be in the Minneapolis area, you can watch it virtually. My guest today is Dr. Robby Perry, who is the Dr. Robert Perry, who is the minor canon. Sounds like a big gun, but that's some spiritual position for eco spirituality at Worchester cathedral in the UK. He is also the academic

book editor for Whippenstock publishers and the author of several books and articles, including the evangelical universalist. And he contributed an article on this book here, the four views on hell Book that I edited. He contributed the chapter arguing for a Christian universalist position. I invited Robin on the show because I wanted him, who is one of the, I would say, most thoughtful, most evangelical, biblically centered Christian universalists that I know. Or, you know, another term for this view is ultimate reconciliation, the view that in the end God will reconcile all people to himself through the blood and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So, this is to distinguish Christian universalism

or ultimate reconciliation from other forms of universalism that say that Jesus is one of many ways. All roads lead to heaven kind of thing. That is not what he is arguing for. So, I just want to make that clear upfront. I want to have Robin on to explain his view and help us understand where does he get this view from the text of scripture. I honestly think nobody does this better than Robin Perry. Now, some people can say you're platforming a heretic and how can you give air time to this view? And I just, if you've listened to theology and Rothenborn in five minutes, you know that that whole concern or fear just doesn't, I just don't believe in that at all. So I'm a big fan of if you're going to understand

a certain viewpoint, then it's best to listen to somebody who holds that viewpoint and to present that viewpoint with honesty and thoroughness and integrity and so on and so forth. We need to understand before we refute. So I didn't bring Robin on to debate. While this is sort of an area of my research, it's been several years since I really wrestled with the universalist position. So I'm not fresh up and all the pushbacks I can give. We do deal with some, but I do raise some pushbacks towards the end and really appreciated how he humbly and thoughtfully responded to those pushbacks. But my main goal here is that you would get a chance to hear how in the world somebody could be a Christian, let alone evangelical universalist. This is not a

contradiction in terms. And I will let you decide whether you think it is or not after you listen to that viewpoint being presented by somebody who actually holds it. So without further ado, that was a long ado, but without further ado, please welcome to the show for the first time, the one and only Dr. Robin Perry. ["The One and Only Dr. Robin Perry"]

Welcome to theology in the raw. It's good to have you on. Thank you. It's lovely to be here. I've actually wanted to have you on for a long time. I don't know if you remember, but you published the first book that me and Michael bird co-edited the faith of Jesus Christ. Do you remember that? Yeah. Yeah. I remember. Yeah. So I remember a pro or not me. I was like hiding behind Mike bird. We were, you know, I was still a PhD student. He had just finished. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I went to Aberdeen and met you there. I bet you don't remember that. I did. Yeah. I'm pretty sure I went to Aberdeen and I met you when you were a student. I bet you don't remember that. I did. Yeah. I'm pretty sure I went to Anger Dean and I met you when you were a student. I think that was after, okay. And then the book was after that. Okay. Yeah. The book, cause we talked to you at a conference. Um, I think

it was a British New Testament conference. And yeah, and I remember approaching you with this book proposal. I'm like, I'm a student. I'm not even a scholar or anything like this. He's going to laugh at us. And you were like really interested as like, we got like, we got a great lineup, like Francis Watson and James Dunn was even in their Campbell and yeah, yeah, yeah. Quite a range of views on a really tricky topic. I don't think I've thought about Pistis Christi since, yeah, right. All that. Anyway, my audience is probably like, what in the world are you talking about? I brought you in to talk about ultimate reconciliation. Do you prefer ultimate reconciliation or Christian universalism or do you care?

Don't mind. whatever you like. Okay. Because some people are really particular about like... Refine and describe what we're talking about, whatever label works. Yeah. I think ultimate, if it were me, if I was in your camp, I think I'd prefer ultimate reconciliation to avoid the association of Christian universalism with other forms of universalism that aren't Christian.

Of course, the Christian before universalism should do that, but some people just... Yeah, but people think they know what it is. So if you use Christian universalism, you have to spend a while explaining what you do and don't mean by that, which I usually do end up having to do. I suppose if you said ultimate reconciliation, I could have avoided all that. Why didn't I think of that years ago? I could have saved myself countless hours of time. Well, your book, the one main book that I read was titled The Evangelical Universalist. To push it even further, you got liberal, squishy, Bible-hating,

you know, liberal Christian. You're an evangelical universalist. Well, I was trying to be provocative. I wanted people to look at it and go, what the heck? Which is in fact the very first thing that happened, the very first time I saw anyone reference it was in, I think it was some editorial or something in Christianity Today magazine. And the guy hadn't read the book, he'd just seen the title and he said, can you believe it was about how evangelicalism had fallen. Can you believe it? There's even a book with a title like this. Obviously insane. I thought, yeah, well, that's, that's kind of cool. I kind of wanted people to notice it. But it was deliberate. I mean, it was deliberately

provocative, but also I felt it was descriptive of what I was trying to describe, which was a, which was a kind of universalism that was grounded in the gospel, and a high view of scripture. So I thought, well, I can use the term evangelical for that guy. High view of scripture and the gospel. I mean, what else do you want? Well, that's what I wanted anyway. That's what I meant by it. Well, one thing I appreciate about your work is that it's so rooted in scripture, and not just so rooted in Scripture, and not just quoting text or whatever, but like, you clearly have a deep, deep reverence and knowledge of the biblical text. You know, you're aware of the context of all the verses you're quoting, and you draw on biblical, theological themes, and like, you come at it from, you know, from, I mean, apart from your conclusion, which might throw some people

off, your theological or exegetical method is profoundly evangelical. I mean, it's what I learned from Master Seminary from John MacArthur and his friends, you know, like it was... Right, right. So, I'm driving the right car, I just ended up at the wrong destination. Your GPS is off. You got the right petrol to take. Yeah, and I've got the right tools to go in the right place. If only I could see straight. Okay, let's dive in. Give us a good, crisp summary of what your view is. I'll just interchange ultimate reconciliation, Christian, like explain to us from a biblical, theological standpoint, how you get to your

position. Oh, crumbs. Well, the position is, in a nutshell, God wins. That's where it's heading. But how you get there, I suppose, well, there's no one, you can start at various points. So there's no one place that you'd necessarily say, this is how you start and how that the argument develops. But the way I did it in the book that you edited, The Four Views of Hell, is I tried, I began with creation and tried to say, well, let's look at the store. Oh, there it is. Which I haven't looked at for a long time, but I did see more recently than the one I did in 2006, which I can hardly remember what I said. The evangelical universalist that is. Yeah, so I

began with creation and I talked about how actually, you know, if you tell the story of creation through Israel and incarnation, death, resurrection of Christ through the new creation, which is the way I've always thought ever since I became a Christian, this is the way my brain was wired, you think, how do you tell a story that makes sense of the doctrine of hell and so on? And I felt that actually most Christians were...so universalism, sorry, I'm not doing this very clearly, am I? Universalism in a nutshell is the idea that in the end God will bring about His purposes for all creation

and for us that involves our salvation, that involves God bringing us to the our salvation, that involves us, God bringing us to the destiny for which He created us. And in fact most Christians, I argued, are universalists about most aspects of the story. They believe that God created everything that isn't God, right? And that's a kind of universalism. It excludes nothing that is created. And then the doctrine of sin, we tend to be fairly maximalist about that and say that all things and all aspects of creation are affected by sin in one way or another. And all aspects of human

life are affected by sin. So that's fairly universalist. And the wages of sin is death. And we tend to be pretty universalist about that. I mean, everybody dies. And short of God's action in bringing creation to completion, there is no hope for us. So we can't. So God creates us, going back to creation, God creates us for union with God. This is the destiny that creation is directed to. It's

from God, it's through God and it's to God. So all things are made through Christ and for Christ, so we belong to Him. And our destiny, our telos, is for God's purposes, as images of God, which is what we are, to be completed. So we'll become like Christ. That is what it is to be, which is to be truly human, to be fully human. So that's the goal. Sin becomes a hindrance, a block to that, so that that goal can't be achieved and we're in a position that we can't bring this about, we can't, but God can. And so the story of God's work in Israel leading up to Christ and then on through the church is that in Christ God is reconciling the world himself, not counting people's sins against them

and so on. So Christ comes as our representative and in most Christian theologies, not all, so there would be some dispute here. Christ represents all human beings and I would say all creation, but let's just restrict it to human beings or human beings. So as the Messiah of Israel, he represents Israel. As the second Adam, he represents humanity. So he stands in his incarnation in solidarity with human beings. In the cross, he stands in solidarity with us even in the very darkest, the most final form, the most final end

that sin can take us, which is death, which is we can't, there's no escape. This is the end of the story. Christ goes into the end of the story and then the story carries on because we have resurrection. And so the resurrection, so Christ dies for everyone. So I'm not, I don't believe in limited atonement unless it's limited to everything. Which isn't limited at all, so why even bother saying that? Yeah, okay. So Christ dies for everyone and is resurrected similarly for everyone.

And so this is really important for the theologically the way I think about it, because the resurrection of Christ then is the resurrection of humanity. And so what the work of the Spirit is, as history goes on leading to the telos, is that the Spirit is joining people to Christ so that we come to participate in what God has already achieved for us in Christ. So by the Spirit we're participating, we're sharing in a salvation that God has already achieved in the resurrection of Christ. So a Universalist is simply saying that God will bring that story to the right conclusion. God will bring all people to participate in Christ in the

salvation that's already achieved. So to participate in Christ in the salvation that's already achieved. So from one perspective, in the resurrection of Christ, all creation is already saved. But that's not an experiential reality yet. We see Christ saved, as it were, resurrected in glory. We see that, and that is a promise. That is first fruits, a promise of the salvation, the creation itself will participate in it to come. So I think this is the reason why I call it evangelical universalism apart from the fact that I try and get it out of the Bible is I'm saying it begins, it's in the gospel, right? That the resurrection of Christ is God's promise of salvation for all humanity.

It's already happened. It's not like me going, well, God's nice. He's a nice bloke, isn't he? You know, and nice people like God don't send people to hell. And then people can rightly go, yeah, but that's just you projecting your nice things that you think are nice onto God, whereas God is just and holy. And of course God is just and holy. I mean, nobody's disputing that. My point is simply this.

I'm not trying to be presumptuous and tell God what God has to do, because of some kind of universalism. So God has to fit some thing that I impose upon God. God in the resurrection has made a promise, a declaration, and we proclaim this gospel. God is in Christ reconciling the world to himself. But we also make the appeal, you know, God makes his appeal to us, be reconciled to God so there's an imperative. So it's not, oh, it doesn't matter what you do, because we're all saved anyway, right? So who cares about sin, right? Who cares about whether you believe in Jesus, because all roads lead to God. I mean, that's not evangelical universalism, or neither is it any

version of Christian universalism that's existed historically. It's a very recent sort of mangled up liberal version of universalism, but it's not an actual version historically. So the Spirit's now at work drawing us to participate in Christ's resurrection and the hope then, the hope of the Gospel is that God will be all in all. All things will be submitted to Christ and Christ will submit to God and God will be all in all. All things will be submitted to Christ and Christ will submit to God and God will be all in all things. So the destiny of creation as I see it, and this is, I got this from Gregory of Nyssa, I rather like this when he's discussing 1 Corinthians 15 28, and his interest is in the question of if Christ, if Christ submits to God, because the text says, I can't remember the exact wording, all things would be submitted under Christ's

feet. And then, this isn't the exact wording, but this is the gist of it. And then Christ will submit to God, and then God will be all in all. So Gregory is worried about this. Does this mean that Christ isn't God? Because he's submitting to God, right? First Corinthians 15, 28 is, yeah. So when he has done this, then the Son Himself will be made subject or submit to Him who

put all things under Him so God may be all in all. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. So, all creation is subjected to Christ, to the Son. And then the Son, once that's happened, the Son will be subjected to the Father, and then God will be all in all. And so, Gregory says, well, this is talking about Christ qua human, Christ as the incarnate Christ, as the representative of creation. So on behalf of creation, Christ submits to the Father, bringing all of creation to perfect submission, and then God will be all in all. And what he understands by this is, if God is all in a creature, then that creature is

filled with God and that there is nothing in that creature's will that is directed against God. God can't be all in a creature if that creature is in rebellion, for example. So God will be all in all, but only at the point in the eschaton, when all creatures have been submitted to Christ and then Christ on their behalf as their representative on behalf of creation submits to God and then God is all in all. This is the final destiny of creation. This is the verse I want on my gravestone. Gold will be all in all. That's what it's all about in the end. So that's universalism. Gold will be all in all. That's what it's all about in the end. So that's universalism. Gold will be all in all.

You mentioned Gregory of Nyssa. Am I right to say he was a universalist? Yeah. Or is that, I think, like everything with the Church Fathers, it's always kind of debated. Is that very much debated or is that pretty established? No, it's not. You know, there are a few people who would argue against it, but the majority of patristic scholars say that he was a universalist. And for those who don't know, he was, I think, one of, if not the main architect of the Nicene Creed.

He was very significant in the development of creedal orthodoxy. I mean, not the only one, but he was entitled by a subsequent council, the father of the fathers. So he was very important within Trinitarian orthodoxy. I guess what I'm getting at, you can see where I'm going. Like if he was an open, people always say an open whatever, just to describe something really nasty, but an open universalist, that wasn't an issue for Christian orthodoxy in the fourth century? I mean, well, you know, not for him. I mean, he, and you know,

there are open questions about how widespread universalism was. So universalism seems to have been fairly widespread. I mean, sometimes we know this from comments that people who didn't like it made, like Augustine. Augustine was like, it's like pervasive, right? Yeah. But he did say it was lots of tender, you know, lots of tender hearted people think this, you know, but they're just too sentimental.

Oh really, even that 50 nutter years ago. You can say they're too sentimental. I mean, that's what he's kind of implying. But yeah, so it was, it seems from what little, I mean, we don't know what people on the ground thought. So we just have these little comments that suggest people on the ground thought, quite a few people on the ground thought this.

We know that, we only really know what some of the main figures thought and even then it's contested in places. I mean, I think Athanasius was a universalist and he's very important in Christological orthodoxy and arguments against Arianism. if neither of us are, we can move on, but there was one council. Was it Constantinople or even after that in the fifth century that was the first council to be elected? And I think that's a really interesting question. And I think that's a really interesting question. And I think that's a really interesting question.

And I think that's a really interesting question. And I think that's a really interesting question. And I think that's a really interesting question. And I think that's a really interesting question. And I think that's a really interesting question. And I think that's. So if neither of us are, we can move on. But there was one council, was it Constantinople or even after that in the fifth century that condemned? Yeah, the fifth century council. It condemned originism, which as I understand it, wasn't all forms of universalism,

but it was a certain kind of universalism that, again, I'm reaching back, was kind of almost like a reincarnation or something. There was some kind of form of originism, a view stemming from him that the early church declared to be aberrant and unorthodox, but it wasn't all forms of universalism. Am I getting that right? Yeah, I mean, that's my take on it. I mean, so exactly what was and wasn't condemned is again a question that's disputed. There's a really good article on this by Al Kimmel in his book, the title of which I always forget. Sorry, Al. I can see the cover. Anyway, the Fifth Ecumenical Council, it's online, his article on it. It's really terrific. He discusses, so basically, was universalism condemned as heretical at the

Fifth Ecumenical Council? Because often people think it was. And his argument is, no, it wasn't. Certain kinds of universalism were condemned as heretical, particularly those associated with what I guess you could call originists, who was several centuries after the time of origin. And certain monks, particularly in Palestine, had developed his ideas in some questionable directions. And it's their ideas that are being targeted. How many, how much of those, and often people attribute those ideas to origin, sort of, but he himself arguably didn't think many of, or any of the things that they were accused of thinking and that will condemn. He isn't explicitly named, but there they are anathemas against originism.

Yeah. I found the article. I have to be my own Jamie if you've ever watched Joe Rogan. History, the Fifth Ecumenical Council and Universal Salvation by Friar Aidan Kimmel. Is that sounding about right? Father Aidan Kimmel, yeah. Yeah, yeah. It's really good. It's a short, pretty short article. Oh, maybe it's a different, it's been had through several versions, so there's quite a long one. You know, this is just a blog,

so maybe this is a blog summary. He's got a ton of links here, so maybe he links to a more extensive article. Anyway, if people wanna check that out. I meet so many people who don't feel fulfilled in their current stage of life, but they start they struggle to make a change because they're just unsure of where to start and who to trust. If this is you, then I highly encourage you to check out an awesome opportunity for you to give the gift of English to the next generation of students in amazing places like Asia, the

Middle East, and North Africa. So for over 40 years, an organization called the English Language Institute in China, or ELIC, and it's not just in China anymore, ELIC has helped thousands of people like you take a leap of faith to live a purposeful life by teaching English and bringing hope to communities that don't have access to the gospel. ELIC teachers provide locals with quality English education. They build organic relationships with students, colleagues, and neighbors in the process. They have three unique ways to get involved. Summer English camps, which last just two to four weeks, or a nine month professional and personal development

program for recent college grads, and a year or more of teaching placement in one of the 12 countries that they serve. So if you have a heart, if you have a heart for reaching the nation's teaching or leading them, then you need to check out ELIC. You don't need an English or teaching degree to go. ELIC will train you. What, whatever experience you do or don't have, just go to ELIC.org

forward slash T I T R that's ELIC.org forward slash T I T R to learn more. Let's look at like some explicit bib because you go in a good kind of theological framework. Let's look at some like what are the, the kind of main biblical texts that people can have a concrete picture of, you know, where you would say these texts are really good. Give a strong argument for universalism. I'll just put the prime to pump. I mean, Romans 5, 18 is to me, from my vantage point, is one who doesn't hold the view, probably the best single verse for the view. As in Adam, all die. So then in Christ, all will be made alive.

That's not, that's almost exactly what it says. I might be tweaking some of these parts. Yeah, yeah. But everybody's going to say, if I ask how many people died in Adam, we have to say all of humanity. And then it's like, well, the same word all is used in the very next half of, it's the logic, you know, as in Adam all die. So also in Christ, all will be made alive. So those who don't hold the universalism

have to make the case that all means one thing in the first half of the verse and doesn't mean that in the second half of the verse. Again, exegetically, that's not impossible. It's just a difficult case to be made. Would you agree? I do. I mean, I think the most natural reading of Romans five is, I mean, I don't think it's the only way you can read Romans. Sorry. Yeah, that's all right. Romans five. 18.

Yeah. It's not the only way you can read Romans five. 12 following. But yeah, and in the book, I had quite a discussion on that. And I considered various alternative interpretations and argued that. I mean, one of the things, I mean, just to say, so I'm quite happy to talk about particular texts, and we can do that right now. But one of the things I was keen to get away from was proof texting. And so I deliberately made no mention at all of the text about Christ preaching to the dead at the time of Noah. And texts which are so contested and like what the heck is that about,

but had often been used. I mean, I thought I'm going to set that aside because people often think that's the proof text for universalism. And in fact, I was slightly gold to read one academic article that dismissed my book because I built the whole case on this verse. And I thought I didn't even mention the verse once. Did you not read the book? Clearly not. Clearly not. Clearly not. Anyway, so I used to get frustrated because it seemed like hell arguments were like, here's a bunch of texts. I mean, this was the problem in the book that we

the debate thing we had. The chapter defending Denny Burke's chapter on eternal hell was felt to me like proof texting. Here are 10 verses, each one of which on its own would be enough to establish the view and together they just demonstrate it beyond all doubt. So it felt like there's no need to consider anything else. Any other text, any other text we know can't mean what they look like because we've already established the truth on these texts and so on. So it was, and I just thought, I just don't read the Bible like that. You know, I'm always thinking, well, how does this text fit with this text? And so I didn't ever want to sort of go in and think we can settle this

just by looking at one text or two texts. And so when I discuss Romans five and so on, I always try and do it within a sort of framework that's trying to engage with these other issues, like, how does that link to this and what's it saying? Rather than thinking I can settle it all on Romans 5, I do think Romans 5, I just read the little bit you're talking about. Yeah, therefore, just as one man's trespass, this is Adam, just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness, this is Christ,

leads to justification and life for all. And the group, the all, are the same in both cases. 1 Corinthians 15 has a similar text, as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. That one's a bit more tricky and I discussed some of the tricky more tricky exegetical stuff with that for me and again, it's partly because of the My interest in how everything fits together. I used Colossians 1 the Christ him Yeah as a way of holding things together, because you've got this text

that holds, that puts creation and redemption together, and it's basically telling the story. And so it provides a framework in which to help me sort of think through the issues. And it talks about how through, look, from verse 15, 15, he Christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation for him, all things in heaven on earth were created. And to emphasize the evil thing is all things visible and invisible and any kind of drill drives it home, meaning everything, everything. And then the passage sort of ramps up with a parallel that says, for in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell and through him, God was pleased

to reconcile to himself all things. And the all things again is, it's not just humans, I mean, it's talking about principalities and powers, however we understand those. Everything that is created reconciled to himself whether on earth or in heaven making peace through his blood shed on the cross. So you've got a similar kind of parallel that all the things that have been created through Christ are now reconciled to God through Christ through his blood shed on the cross and making peace which doesn't sound like sort of squashing them. And, you know, it sounds salvific.

It sounds. I mean, the way Paul talks about reconciliation elsewhere, it's a positive thing, right? If you're reconciled, then the enmity is gone. Relationships have been restored. Now, I mean, this doesn't mean that, of course, there isn't need for a response. It becomes immediately clear when he talks about how he's reconciled you also, if, you know, but it's conditional on them being in Christ and them remaining in Christ, because salvation is achieved in Christ through union with Christ. If one is in union with Christ,

one shares in that. If one isn't, then the question is, are you saved or not? Well, yes and no. I think, yes, in that Christ is saved, that He is your representative, and in Him your salvation is achieved, but you are not participating in that, nor can you, until by the Holy Spirit you're joined to Christ. And I suppose the Arminian within me would say, and you could perhaps lose that salvation if you reject Christ, but even if you did, I'm a universalist, in the end you wouldn't do that forever. So the, so the, so the, the Armenian version, cause there's a, there's kind of a more Calvinist, Bardian version and more Armenian version, right?

The Armenian version would say, the response is still always on the lap of the human. It's just in the end, at the end of the day, everybody is just simply going to end up, who's going to want to sit in God's wrath? They're going to repent and confess and cling to Christ, whereas the Bardian might say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that it's God's agency that will overcome unbelief in the end, that the blood of Christ is so powerful, that God is so powerful, that He is sort of

the active agent in causing everybody to be reconciled to Him. And I think that's right. But even within the Arminian one, God is still the active agent. I mean, I think Wesley talks about sufficient saving grace. So, you need a prevenient grace to enable you to respond. Apart from the enabling of the Spirit, you couldn't respond positively to the gospel at all. But I suppose the Wesleyan version would say, but you could still, that doesn't guarantee, you know, that doesn't, you can still reject it. You can still reject it. And I always been somewhat on the fence over these two. And being a Universalist, in the end,

I don't need to decide. But I can live with not knowing. I don't know. I can never decide, because scripture is so ambiguous. There are some texts that really look like you can reject the thing that God's calling you to do this, and you don't do it, and God's really annoyed, and it looks like other times it looks like everything that's happening is God is bringing

about, using our choices, even our sinful choices, yeah, all of this is in the hands of God, and God is, and I feel torn in both ways because both of them are attractive, both of them affirm the freedom of the creature. Both of them affirm the necessity of divine action. And both of them have got a biblical case and I just can't make that point. And that's not a big part of your frame, right? I mean, it's like, yeah, you're dealing with a lot of ambiguity. No, because I could be a universal system, either one. Right. Yeah. And I'm going back to your

concern about proof text and I pre, you know, anyone who's done even a seminary degree or a PhD, I mean, that's, you're not allowed to, you're not allowed to proof text. I guess my point in asking about specific texts is, you know, I think sometimes individual passages, even verses, passages, paragraphs, can give us like a window into a broader theological framework that we've already established. And that's all I'm looking for. And I realize that's what you mean. Yeah, I realize that's what you mean. And so that for me was what Colossians 1 was. It was like a window that opened up a way of holding texts together. And so I think in the evangelical universalist,

because I structured that differently to the thing I wrote for you, I think in that I did it by having that as like the framework at the beginning and then going through and telling the story with like a chapter on Israel and Old Testament texts and the nations and Israel and how all that stuff worked. Yeah, in my book, and I would highly recommend, so in this book here, there's four views and Robin wrote the one on, what do we call it? Ultimate reconciliation, the universal issues. Yeah, uh, did we call it? What did we call it? Ultimate reconciliation? The university.

So you said, okay. Um, I should not be Christian, but you were my editor. You should have told me what to call it. I was stuck in a deck. I don't know if you know, a little inside scoopier. Um, when we received the essays, I think I was, yeah, I was working with, I won't name the, I was working with, you know, Zondervan editor, a brilliant scholar. And we got these essays that were like, dang, Rob, Robin's essay is really convincing.

Is this going to get us in trouble? Cause we're like, I mean, I, we don't think it's correct, but yeah, like it's just, it's really good. So I, yeah, I would have, if people are like, I just want to a short, concise summary of the best case, honestly, I think your essay in this, the here's a page. If you don't have time to read a whole book, you know, Robin's book is a great book, but yeah, I mean, it's, it's, it's a book, but this essay is, is a really, really concise, you know, 20 page summary of the case.

And yeah, basically the way you've kind of framed it here is how you do in the book, you lay out the creation, fall, redemption, and then go to individual passages, and then you adjust a lot of the pushbacks. And what I appreciated about the essay is you did so really humbly, and we're gonna get to some of the pushbacks.

But like, I remember when you came to second Thessalonians 2, you're like, yeah, this is a tough one for my case. Here's some interpretive options and here's red land. But you're not afraid to say, it's not like there's no text that like presents, you know, a hurdle for me, like in any view. So yeah, in fact, that's one of the things that's really helpful to me was, well, as I said with Arminianism and Calvinism, I've always sort of fluctuated back and forth because whatever view you take, there are texts in the Bible that seem to be really on your side. Yeah.

And then there's other ones you think come on what am I gonna do with that and I'm pretty much any view you take theologically on something there's gonna be bits in the Bible you think I don't know what to do with that you know I know it doesn't mean that you sort of become agnostic about your decision on a view but it just means you have to rest. Figuring out how to handle all the text is always an incomplete task. And with some of them, you have to recognize that face value, they're not saying what you're saying. And so you have to find ways to accommodate them. And it's tricky. So I's, so I think saying the matter

of humility is pretty essential. Can you go to the book of revelation? Cause a lot of people just assume, well, obviously the book of revelation is just an entire book against your case. I was, I think that was probably my, it was the most provocative part of your argument with the whole theme of the nations and the open gate and stuff. Do you recall enough to be able to summarize that on the spot? Yeah. Well, the Evangelical Universalist book has a whole chapter on revelation.

I remember that. I remember that it probably should have been edited more strict. It was a bit rambling and not quite sure where it was going, but it kind of went off in all sorts of directions. And I felt like in the midst of all that, there was some good insights, I'm sure, but I just can't remember what they are now. However, I do remember one of the main ones, which basically the reason Revelation is interesting to me is that the two most explicit eternal conscious torment texts are in the book of Revelation, Chapter 14, Chapter 20.

And this is the fire and the smoke that ascends forever and ever in chapter 14. And then in chapter 20, you've got the lake of fire and the devil and the false prophet and our throne and the smoke of their torment arises forever and ever. So it really looks like eternal torment. And those two texts are the most explicit. I mean, I don't think any of the gospel texts present the kind of, or the, and certainly the Pauline texts, I don't think any of them present the kind of challenge that those texts do. So what struck me as interesting is that I was looking at the structure of the Book of Revelation and both, and this is not in the

thing I did for you, this is in the longer book. In the structure of the book, both of those texts occur before this climactic scene that sort of wraps up the section it's in. So they're kind of towards the end of sections and then you have the end of a section. And so both of these hell texts are followed by, on the face of it, look like universalist texts. So if I can remember right, this is going back to the early 2000s. So, chapter 14, which has the fire and so on.

Verses 9 to 11, if people want to check it out for themselves. Revelation 14, 9 to 11, it's kind of like, I would say that verse in and of itself seems to advocate for an eternal conscious torment viewpoint. I think it's the strongest passage for that. And then the section sort of wraps up with this vision of the saints around the sea. This is in chapter 15. I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass with fire and those who'd conquered the beast in the image and the number of its name standing be a sea of glass with fire and those who'd conquered the beast in the image and the number of its name standing beside the sea of glass with hearts in their hands and they were singing the song of Moses, servant of God and the song of the lamb. So yeah, okay. They've now been saved because the nations, this is an Old Testament motif. The nations are judged who are

oppressing Israel and now Israel are saved. So here the saints are from every tribe and nation are saved. And this is what they say, great and amazing are your deeds, Lord God Almighty, just and true are your ways, King of the nations, Lord, who will not fear and glorify your name for you alone are holy. All the nations will come and worship before you for your judgments have been revealed.

And there's various Old Testament texts being alluded to there, but what's interesting is that the nations that will come and worship before you, according to the saints, are the ones all through the book, are the baddies. The nations and the kings of the earth are consistently the people who oppose the church and wear the mark of the beast and so on and so forth. And it seems, arguably, could be understood, face value seem to be the ones whose smokers are rising forever and ever because, you know, then you get exactly the same thing at the end of the book, just after the... And just to be clear, too, the word is, all nations will come and worship before you.

Because some people, like the Philippians 2 passage, I think is a little less clear in favor of your position when it says, every knee will bow, every tongue will confess. That could be an acknowledgement of Christ's lordship from a position of defeat, maybe even? Matthew 18 Well, let's come back to that. Adam Lerner Okay, but this one says worship, proskone, this is, they will worship Him, not simply bow the knee in defeat or something, right? Matthew 18 Yeah. And even Greg Deal, who is an excellent commentary, I mean, I think he's a magnificent scholar and he says this word is only ever used of

positive worship, Israel. And I'm going, yeah, but look who's worshipping. It's the baddies. Right, right. Okay. And that's what you get at the end of the book. You have the judgment and you have the lake of fire and all of this kind of stuff and then you have this vision of the new Jerusalem in chapter 21 and in verse 24 the nations will walk

by its light the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it its gates will never be shut there'll be no night there and so on so i'm'm thinking, well, it's not, this isn't just wishful thinking. The book of Revelation has set up, if you track through, who are the kings of the earth, who are the nations, we know who they are. They are bad consistently. So here, and again I'm recalling from a long time ago, I think Greg Beale says, well these are the, this is, the reference has changed now, these are the Christian nations and the Christian kings of the earth. Well, yes, of course, because they've washed

their robes in the blood of the lamb and so on. But anyone reading this book, those terms will trigger what the referent has been all the way through. And the referent is the bad people who have, the church is people who have been called out from the nations. They're not the nations. They're distinct from the nations in the book. And so we know who these guys are. These are the guys in the lake of fire, right? But here they are. So I'm saying, of course, this is apocalyptic imagery and you know, you need to be careful how you handle this stuff. So I'm saying, of course, this is apocalyptic imagery and you know, you need to be careful how you handle this stuff. So I don't want to overplay it.

All I'm saying is, it's not as cut and dried as it looks. And the imagery is suggesting, perhaps provocatively, in ways it didn't need to be provocative, the lake of fire might not be the end of your story, but you can wash your robes in the blood of the lamb and enter the New Jerusalem because the gates never shut. They're constantly open for pilgrimage of the nations into it. And the city is the community of God. The city is made up of the 12 apostles and the 12 tribes. So it's the community of God in eschatology,

in time form, and here people are coming into it. Now, you could say I'm over reading it, but I'm saying, well, this imagery is at least provocative and invites us to look back at the texts about the lake of fire and so on, and to ask how we interpret them. And I think it's an invitation to interpret them as ways that are not necessarily the end of the story,

but a penultimate. Yeah, I mean, that, yeah, I don't know what to do with that one, honestly. And I haven't looked into, I haven't examined your argument very thoroughly, other than when I edited it eight years ago. Actually, yeah, I don't know if you did bring that up in the, maybe I'm thinking of your book.

No, I did mention it briefly. Yeah, I mentioned that, but I didn't mention chapter 14 and 15 or anything about the structure. I just mentioned... Yeah, you did. Yeah, you mentioned that you look at it and say every time the nations and kings of the earth are referenced, they are opposing God, except in chapter 15, where they're going to end up being redeemed and then in chapter 21, where they are clearly in God's favour. And so, going back to Philippians 2, which was the other text you mentioned, I mean, I think,

I think that text is actually quite suggestive. Oh, actually, let me have a look at it. Yeah, let's go there. Because it's referencing Isaiah 45. Right. And in Isaiah, so when it says, every knee will bow and every tongue confess, this is drawing on a text from Isaiah 45. Let me have a look. Where did they put the book of Isaiah?

Oh, yeah. Oh yeah. So this is, so what we have is a scenario where Israel is in exile, the nations that have opposed Israel, who are idolaters, are judged. And then the survivors of that. Real quick, what's the Isaiah reference? This is Isaiah 45. Yeah. This is Isaiah 45, yeah, and so God then says to the survivors of the nations, turn to me and be saved all the ends of the earth. For I am God and there is no other. By myself I

have sworn from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return. To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. So this is a call to the nations to be saved to turn from their idolatry and to be saved. I mean, there are some exegetical issues that we need to sort out with this that could that could be pushed back. And in the book, I discussed that and why it doesn't work. But I won't bore you with that now. The only point I wanted to make here is, so you've got this text then, but the bearing of the knee and the taking oath, swearing oaths in the name of the Lord is framed in the context of a salvific turning and being saved. And

of course, Paul is taking this text, which is about the Lord, and applying it to Jesus. So, Jesus, I mean, this is a radical claim about who Jesus is, that a text about God is fulfilled in people bearing their knee to Jesus and so on. But at least the text that Paul is using is one which the bearing of the knee and the swearing of oaths is salvific. And in Philippians 2 it appears to be that as well. So yeah, every knee will bear every tongue can trust. So this confession of Christ, Jesus Christ is Lord, the confession of Jesus Christ is Lord in Paul's theology is something that you can't do except by the Holy Spirit. And if

you do and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you will be saved. So, this is a salvific thing. And again, the language used, I don't have the Greek text here, but I... It's ex amelugaisete. So, it's from, yeah, it means, because in my translation, the NIV says acknowledge, every tongue will acknowledge, but the word, as far as I can tell, means confess. Yeah, and it's usage in the Psalms, as I recall, again, I did document it in the longer book, and it's a long time ago. But it's usage in the Psalms is always positive. It's

always about praising and confessing. There are no instances, as I recall, where it's used of forced confession against someone's will so that they're being compelled to... So because of the need, I think, we often feel theologically to have not everyone saved. We impose on a text like this, a theology, where, again, I don't think you can resolve the issue from this text alone, but I think the text alone, face value, feels more natural, fits more naturally in terms of the text it's using and in terms of the language of the text itself, in terms of a universal salvation of every knee bearing and every tongue confessing, there's nothing about being forced against your will. I mean, a similar thing in Colossians

one, somebody said to me, but in Colossians one, you know, some people are reconciled to God by being saved and other people are reconciled to God by being sent to hell. So everything's put right, which is what they took reconciliation. Come on. You're a freak, man. That's not what reconciling... You can't make text me anything you like.

That's just, that's not a good idea. This episode is sponsored by Green Chef, the number one meal kit for clean eating. Green Chef delivers pre-portioned and prepared quality whole foods with limited processed ingredients. And that last part is really important. I know everybody today is talking about the problems with eating food with processed ingredients, and it's nearly impossible to avoid processed food altogether, but we can and we really should cut down on it as much as we can. So Green Chef sends organic, fresh produce,

responsibly sourced proteins, and chef-designed recipes in every box for satisfying, nourishing, and convenient meals that make it easy to stick to a clean eating routine. So for me, two things are true in my life. I try to eat healthy, and I often find myself on the go. Now with Green Chef, you can still eat healthy without spending hours in the kitchen.

Green Chef provides you with salads that are ready in five minutes or less. They have ready to blend smoothies and they have grab and go protein packed breakfasts that are super good for you and actually taste really good. Whether you're starting a weight loss journey or maybe you're looking to maintain one, Green Chef has you covered with a curated assortment

of dietitian-approved recipes that offer fiber support, they're lower in saturated fat, and they come in under 700 calories per serving. Eating healthy does not have to taste terrible, okay? And it doesn't need to take up hours of your day in preparation. You can thrive all year with clean, easy meals from Green Chef. Just go to greenchef.com forward slash TITR free

and use the code TITR free to get started with free salads for two months plus 50% off your first box. Go check it out. All right. We take it a lot of time. So I want to make sure we get to all of the pushbacks to your view. Because so far people might be convinced that I'm an universalist. I appreciate Robin's view. And I'll, let me say this, I've said this publicly many times, I'm surprised I've not gotten flak for this. So I shame on you for not you, but people not giving me flack for this statement that I'm about to say. I think there's a stronger biblical case for Christian universalism than there is for eternal conscious torment. If I was just going like, oh yeah, I mean, that's just a biblical observation that I can back up by just looking at passages,

which I've done. So, ECT, you have Revelation 14, 9 to 11 here. I'm going to add up verses. So it's going to sound like I'm proof texting, but I'm trying to see how many windows do we have here? ECT, you have Revelation 14, 9 to 11, which the whole context is tricky too. I mean, but okay, let's just chalk that one up. Matthew, the famous Matthew 25, 46, that one's not a problem to me, but if you just took that verse in isolation, I could see where people would say ECT. And then possibly Revelation 20, even though it's the devil, the beast, and the false prophet that are tormented and nothing is said about the nature of the punishment for actual humans. They're just thrown about the nature of the punishment for actual

humans. They're just thrown into the lake of fire. So aside from those, every other verse that people quote at me are, to me, are pretty, I don't think they at all suggest ECT. So you have two, maybe three ECT passages. We've already looked at several that, man, again, in and of themselves, I think, make a strong case towards universalism. Now, the reason why I'm not a universalist is because I'm an annihilationist, which I think the annihilation view is the strongest view and that logically rules out. To me, if you believe in eternal conscious torment, I think the burden of proof is on you to argue against universalism.

You have to make a case that somebody is suffering, is conscious, will never die, and they either will never repent and turn to God, or if they do repent, because they're conscious, right? We're dealing with conscious people. That's what the term means, eternal conscious torment. You're, ah, this is, you know, you're in your right mind, you're feeling the suffering, and you're either still not repenting or you're like, okay, I repent! And God's like, no, I'm not going to accept your repentance. You have to have a version of God that post-mortem is no longer a God that accepts repentance, or that humans won't repent. Like, it's just, it creates kind of a bizarre

theological trap, which it's a hurdle. You have to get over it. I'm saying it's the hurdle for the ECT crowd that has to do that. I don't have to do that. There is no God withholding repentance, or not acknowledging someone's repentance when they're suffering forever and ever. Okay, here's my main, I guess, call to pushback. I want to make a genuine question, not like, aha, but like, and you've heard this for 20 years, so I'm not telling you anything you don't know. Just the pervasive language of judgment described in terms of death, destruction, perish. The language seems to suggest finality, and there's so many texts we can go to. Or even, you know,

Jesus uses images of not a refining fire, but a consuming fire. You know, it can't even be quenched and things they are thrown in there are just seem to be obliterated. It's a really gruesome image. Actually, he uses several of his parables that are chopped up into little pieces and stuff. It just seems that the pervasive language used to describe judgment doesn't seem to suggest a refinement, but some sort of like, this is kind of it for you, like this is a final state. How do you respond to those passages?

Yeah, well, okay. I mean, I guess in two different ways. I mean, this is, I'm talking about existential orientation. So I want those texts, I want those texts to threaten me. Not because I like a challenge, you know, I want to feel the force of the judgment that is being warned against because the prophets of Israel or Jesus or Paul or whoever's doing it is deliberately provoking repentance, or trying to, you know, a call to repentance,

a call to, it's a call to expose the seriousness of sin and its consequences. And the proper existential response to that is not to spend your time trying to dismiss it. It's to feel that and to repent. So at one level, I don't want to spend my time defusing bombs, I want them to explode in my face. At the same time, of course, I do need to make some sense

of these texts and how they can fit alongside the other stuff. And some of it actually is precisely through that realizing that these partly realizing why I call the rhetoric of Roth. I don't know if I called it that in that thing. I read the rhetoric of what rhetoric of Roth. Okay, Roth, Roth, Roth, Roth, Roth, Roth, Roth, Roth, Roth, wrath, wrath, wrath, wrath. The rhetoric of Roth. So this is the way that so I talk about and I give various examples of how the prophets will use really strong, destructive language about God will bring judgment and make it so that you've never been, will eradicate you, you know, your big ashes, there'll just be vapor and then God will restore you and

stuff and this kind of idea where you get, well, in fact, of Israel, death, then resurrection, then you get for often for very powerful rhetorical purposes, God is calling people to repentance. And he uses this language of finality. This is the end, you will be destroyed and no more. And then God will have mercy. God will. So there's lots and lots of examples of Israel and Moab and Ammon and where you get this pen, God will wound you and then heal you, you die, you'll run, you'll be destroyed. So I have this basic orientation to try and understand, not to over read.

Then if I read some language that's very powerful, I don't necessarily feel obliged to read it wouldn't we? I feel, well, let's sort of explore other ways that this language of outer darkness and consuming fire and thing works in texts where we can see that it's actually not the end, even though it looks like the end. It looks not the end. And so I suppose the question for me then, so because you've got a text where you've got language where it looks like the end, is that enough to settle the issue and say,

well, that means it's the end? Or are there reasons to sort of say, actually, we need to treat this language a bit more loosely, but still open our hearts to be hit by it? Which is really what scripture's for, right? It's transformative. So I don't want to tame the Bible. I want the Bible to come and shred me. So I want the challenge and I'm cagey about defusing it. And I defuse it only to the extent that I say, I don't want to read this, wouldn't

I? So I don't think Jesus, I think there's one text in Mark 9 where Jesus possibly mitigates his warnings on judgment. We talked about being salted with fire, which could be understood in terms of purification. But I think it's, there's a case for that, but it's hardly determinative and nowhere else did Jesus mitigate it. It's always, you need to repent because there are consequences. You need to repent because there's two ways, life or death. You choose life.

So that's the challenge Scripture faces us with. I mean, it is then interesting, and I've often wondered about this because this is why this is an ongoing debate, because you have different sets of texts in Scripture. you've got ones that i suppose you could call damn final judgment texts and you've got ones that seem to be universalist and there they are sometimes in the same books side by side what do you do with that what do you do with that so you either there's several strategies you take and there's a case for all of them. You either do the thing, the traditional thing and you go, well, here are the hell texts. We know what they mean.

So whatever all this other stuff means, it has to fit around that. So you kind of lock that down. We do the opposite. You go, here are the universalist texts. We know what they mean. Everything else can fit around that, you lock that down. But then, even then, how do you fit them together if you're going to hold them together? Do you go, oh, they're just incompatible, scripture doesn't teach one thing, and there

are people who argue that. But I've never felt comfortable with that. I can't go with that. So there is one approach to doing that that I think I could live with, which has always fascinated me, though I've never embraced it, was John A.T. Robinson made a case for universalism. He argued that the hell texts really do teach eternal conscious torment, right, and the universalist texts really do teach universalism. And they're all true because when you're confronted with the gospel, when the gospel comes and confronts someone, they face

a real choice and the choice they make has real consequences. If you pursue this path of rejecting God, there are real consequences. It cannot lead anywhere other than death. But on the other hand, and equally true, if God is to be the God revealed in the gospel, the ending of the story has to be that all will be saved. Anything else is to say that something other than the gospel is defining the end of the story. So he says, in that moment when you're confronted by the gospel, these real choice is a real choice with real consequences. In fact, in reality, the end of the story that God will

bring about is that nobody is in that second category. And I think, well, that's interesting, because that's a way of saying, actually, those texts really do teach, but it won't actually be the actual fate of anyone. My more of my tendency is to go, no, they're both true. Some people really will go to hell or whatever, if we don't want to use that language, fine. But hell isn't eternal and we find ways of reading the text that fit with that. But it's an open question, I think. And all of us face it.

If you're not going to be a universalist, then you have to think, how do we deal with these texts? Everyone's got tricky texts here. It just seems like, is that like a false threat from God then saying, if you don't do this, I'm going to do this? And again, we're not talking like, what are you tired? This is like a pervasive theme. So it's almost like, you know, as, you know, my son comes home after curfew, he's late. And we say, all right, if you do this again, and we're gonna take away the keys to your car, you know, and I turn to my wife,

we're not gonna take away the keys to this car. We're just, you know, I'm just talking crap to scare him a little bit, you know? I know, but you might, you would take the, I mean, so God, right. I mean, I know what you're saying, and would take the cut. I mean, so God, right. I mean, I know what you're saying and that is the risk. I suppose you'd say, and this is not the view I ever argued, but I've always found it intriguing,

partly because it allows a text to be really threatening, is I suppose you're saying, no, that really is. What would happen if you followed this road to the end, it can end nowhere else. And you need to know that. That is actually where it would end. You don't say, and so this is why I think Jesus doesn't mitigate his warnings. And actually in the early church, as an aside, Origen didn't and Gregory didn't often, they

would preach hell and they wouldn't mitigate it. Because they thought people were going, oh, it's all right then. Don't matter, does it? Because it'll all pan out in the end. And they weren't spiritually mature enough to realize that actually it will pan out in the end. But sometimes it's not rhetorically prudent to say that at the time. It's only maybe later on that you can say, actually, you know, you never really would have chosen that in the end. You never really could have. Well, I just kind of found a solution. I mean, this is, should be obvious. But I mean, if you read all these texts, not as annihilation, but as eternal conscious torment, then that solves it.

There's no false threat because you will go and you will go to a place. You will not die. You will be there, but you're still alive. I mean, you can be suffering and suffering, suffering unto the ages, you know, in the, the, the, the wrath and the end time, you know, you're going to, you're going to face that. But then the, the, the ultimate reconciliation passages can say, come alongside and say, but there will always be an opportunity for you to also escape that never ending place of torment. So it really is that the tension is only if you assume, I think the correct reading of this passage, that they would say finality, that the final judgment is irreversible, not that there's going to be ongoing torment. Yeah. Yeah. And I, I agree with, I mean, I agree with you. I, on, on that I wasn't an,

I was an eternal conscious tormentor. Then I was an annihilationist for some years and then I was a universalist. So this is what I don't like about that though. Cause people are going to say, see Preston, you went ECT to annihilation. That's a slippery slope. You're going to end up endorsing gay marriage and people marrying their couches and you're going to be a Christian Universalist. I don't know. I know that's a common trajectory.

Well, for me, yeah, but it's certainly not one that you have to carry through. There's no logical reason why. No, no, no, no, no. The only logic is that, well, some of the arguments that show why eternal conscious torment interpretations of passages don't work, some of the arguments I use are annihilationist arguments. I mean, like Matthew 25, I think, doesn't show eternal conscious torment and some of the reasons I have.

Those will go into eternal life and the others will go into, it says, I mean, some translations, eternal punishment. Yeah. And, well, I kind of draw on annihilationist arguments, maybe not the ones that you'd use to make my case. So some of the arguments, I suppose the trajectory is some of the reasons I rejected eternal conscious torment were theological arguments, not just straight biblical exegetical ones. Because every hellology implies a theology, doesn't it? Everything you you say about hell you're saying something about God simultaneously

You're saying something about God's ability to bring about God's purposes or you're saying something about whether God loves the creatures He's created Some of the theological reasons I had for rejecting eternal conscious torment that is not just but it's not loving that is the were also Some of the thoughts that led me to universal salvation. Interesting. Yeah, I can see that. I can see that. And I think what once, take it for what it is, just my opinion, I think so many people believe in ECT because they come at it with

an assumption that this is the Orthodox Christian view, every other view is heresy. And then when they go examine the issue, if they do, you know, not many people do, but those who do, it's kind of like, we already know this is Orthodox. So if I want to be an Orthodox Christian, I have to show why these other views are incorrect. So your whole kind of psychological approach is already kind of not open to ECT being wrong. And then you kind of find arguments and you typically kind of straw man or just don't deal with counter arguments. So all that to say, if somebody does have an open enough mind in a positive way to say, no, I'm going to examine these three issues, I could see where someone would say, oh, the annihilation seems to have biblical weight. And then you're also

open to, well, let's check out universalism. I would probably prefer that. I mean, most people would prefer that. I mean, I don't think that's really disputed. We're all hopeful universalism. Yeah. I mean, everyone would like it to be true. Well, I know some people who wouldn't, but if you're a Christian, you want it to be true. I so appreciate you saying this is not about emotions. It's not about, obviously universalism is true, so I need to make sure God fits into my view of how judgment should take place.

The way you described how you got here is exactly how I got to annihilation. You know, I'm kind of a, you know, God said it, I believe it, that settles it kind of. You know, like, I don't, if the text says God tormented people forever and ever, then God, that's the view of God we need to begin with, not try to correct, you know. So, I do have, and I've gone there a couple of minutes, but we talked offline just briefly and I would have, and I've gone there a couple of minutes, but we talked offline just briefly and I would like to raise it because it's a question I haven't really thought of, but the Bible seems to clearly say that there is one resurrection of, you know, the resurrection of Christ, then, you know, Jesus comes back, raises the living and the dead, John 5, and then,

and Matthew 25, and then they face final judgment, and then they go to their two respected places, New Creation and whatever you want to say, Gehenna, Lake of Fire. It seems that the universalist position necessitates almost like a second resurrection after that, right? Like the first resurrection, they go to the lake of fire, but it's in that place, metaphor, whatever that is, whatever that outer darkness, lake of fire, weep in a gnashing of teeth, and then it's there that they repent and turn to God. Do they have another resurrection? Because I don't think the, there's no evidence of like a second resurrection, post first resurrection, or does their first

resurrected state just kind of carry them out of the lake of fire and then I'll need a second? You know, I don't want to get too like in the weeds of like, well, demanding too much of the text, but the resurrection is just such a central piece in any biblical eschatology and it just seems like your view tweaks that a little, or I don't know. Well, that is a very interesting question, which I hadn't really thought about until you mentioned it earlier. And I deliberately didn't think about it when you mentioned it earlier so that I could make up something.

So the short answer is, I don't know the answer. So that's the short one. So let's begin and we'll also end with that. But in between, what I suppose what confuses me more is what it would mean to talk about setting aside second resurrections, those who are going into judgment, what would it mean to talk about them being resurrected? Because when we when I at least when I think about the resurrection body and the way Paul talks about it in first Corinthians 15, it's a pneumatic body, it's a spiritual body animated by the Holy Spirit. It's imperishable, you

know, it's, you know, everlasting, it's sort of super durable. It's like the resurrection body of Christ, it's new creation. I mean, so the concept of resurrection body is totally tied in with the concept of new creation. And it's totally tied in with the resurrection of Jesus. I mean, his resurrection body is the template of new creation. So I totally get well, as far as anyone can. We don't know what these things, what it will be like. We don't know what we will be, but we know that we shall be like him for we will see him as he is. So as far as we can understand it, I understand my resurrection

body will be a participation in Christ's resurrection body, which is new creation, which is eternal life, which is the life of the God, the Holy Spirit in me animating and transforming my mortal body and so on and so forth. Great. But in what sense could somebody who's not yet been united to Christ by the Spirit be resurrected? What kind of body have they got? Because it seems a bit weird to think that they have a spirit animated everlasting body You know, there's part of the new creation and all of this because if you think well if they've got that Only isn't that kind of? their glorification

So what if they go? If you believe in ECT, you would say the the resurrection of the damned or the wicked is to give them a body that can last, they can endure the term forever and ever. Augustine in the City of God has this discussion about how God makes special, durable bodies. Oh, is that okay? So, specifically so that he can keep torturing them forever and they don't break. Okay, that's what that comes from. All things lead to Augustine. Yeah. It's not. So I suppose you'd have to say it's not really a, is it a resurrection? It's not a resurrection

body as a sort of, Oh, right. Here's not in the first Corinthians 15 cents. No, it can't be. Can it doesn't make sense to me. That's interesting. I haven't thought about that. Yeah. No, I hadn't. So I don't know the answer. It might be, though this doesn't feel right at all, that everyone gets this sort of resurrection body, but some of them... No, it doesn't make any sense. Anyway, some of them go to hell and then move across. They still want to cross the lake of fire. They get like a halfway house, like an Augustine. Some of Augustine's en route to the resurrection body. It's sort of, yeah, because it talks about

the resurrection of the dead, doesn't it? And you kind of in Revelation, and you think they've all got the same kind of body. Some go there and some go over there. And John 5 too, I mean, in Daniel 12th, where it all comes from. Same kind of body. But that first Corinthians 15, I mean, maybe Paul's just describing the resurrected body of the believers. He's not thinking about the other thing, but he clearly correlates the resurrected body with its heavenly spiritual animation, like you said. Yeah. So I suppose if it is that they've got like phase one of the resurrection body, then you'd still need this, the life of the spirit in you to... So I don't know, because I have trouble understanding what this resurrection body is

in the first instance for people who... So not knowing that, I'm not quite sure how to describe the second instance. And I'm great at being an agnostic, actually. I mean, I don't know most of the stuff I'd like to know about how God's going to get everything to pan out. But I know whom I have beleaguered. So in the end, you know, I, in the end, I think, well, God will figure it out. Well, Robin, I appreciate your humility, your honesty, and your thorough knowledge of these passages and stuff. And just so people know, like, this isn't something you've even really

thought about for over, I mean, only when people are thinking about it. last several years at least. You're reaching back, you know, Yeah, I do eco stuff mostly. So I do think about creation. Okay, just not as much as destruction. Well, I appreciate you coming on The Elder Eye, Robin. Thanks for having me. Hey, so I'm launching a new season on the podcast, The Doctor and the Nurse.

World renowned brain coach, Dr. Daniel Amon, joins me as a co-host as we dive deep into the mind and the brain of everything high performance. I've been fascinated for years as I've worked with top athletes, high powered CEOs, Hollywood actors and all high performers in all types of different fields of how they break through pressure, ignite drive, how they overcome distractions, how they put fear on the bench, how they tap into flow state and just dominate all these different areas

of high performance. So on this season, my good friend, Dr. Daniel Lehmann will break down what is actually going on in the brain in these different areas and I will give actionable tools to be able to use and apply in your life. So buckle up, the doctor and the nurse on The David Nurse Show coming at you.

Hey friends, Rachel Grohl here from the Hearing Jesus podcast. Do you ever wonder if you're truly hearing from God? Are you tired of trying to figure it all out on your own? The Hearing Jesus podcast is here to help you live out your faith every single day. And together we will break down these walls by digging deeply into God's Word in a way that you can really understand it. If this sounds like the kind of journey you want to go on, please join us on the Hearing Jesus Podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.