"How are you a Universalist?" Tony Kriz interviews Paul Young

Why share the gospel if there's no hell? by Brad Jersak

I am frequently asked why anyone (including Jesus, the apostles and countless martyrs throughout the ages) would bother sharing the gospel if there is no hell. Before we even go there, I would hasten to ask, "Who told you there's no hell?" Of course there is.

Now as for the nature of hell, that's another matter. The idea of hell as 'eternal conscious torment' in an everlasting lake of fire is abhorrent to many who've experienced the fathomless depths of God's love, or have at least thought through the irrationality of its contradictions, or studied the competing images of divine judgment within Scripture. But that doesn't mean there is no hell. Have you been inside Burma's borders? Or experienced the front lines of a Middle East war zone? Or visited a sex-trafficking brothel? I know those who have and they assure me absolutely: hell exists.

I'm not a universalist, but I do believe in hopeful inclusivism. That is, we cannot presume that all will be saved, or that any would be lost, but love obligates us to hope and pray that the mercy of Christ would have the last word on the Day of Judgment. If so, what is the point of evangelism?

I think the difficulty in perceiving the point of evangelism if there is a hope that one day, every knee will bow and every tongue confess and glorify Christ as Lord exposes something awful about our perception of the Gospel and what Evangelism is.

These questions are the beginning of a renewed vision around all of that. First, let's start with this: If everything does finally "comes out in the wash," (i.e., that Christ does somehow accomplish "the restoration of all things," Acts 3:21), then sharing the Good News of God's love in Christ is the divinely appointed means whereby the restoration begins to happen in this age. That is, the Gospel is that Jesus is the Saviour of the World, the restorer of hope, the perfection of love, and the One who would embrace all and redeem everyone from our enslavement to Satan, sin and death. Telling the world this fabulous news and inviting them to it is integral to how Christ is restoring the cosmos. Moreover, now that Christ holds the keys of death and hades, apparently the power of death is broken and no longer creates a barrier or deadline before which Christ is powerless to continue his salvation project. I don't presume to know what that means exactly in the next life, but I'm not waiting until then to invite people to the benefits now.

Thus, the question, 'Why bother telling people" overlooks two critical facts:

1. People around the globe are already suffering spiritual, emotional and physical enslavement right now, and it's literally killing them. Anyone I ask can tell me exactly what the nature of their hell is today ... the condemnation that is already oppressing them. Jesus didn't need to come condemn the world--when he arrived he found it already in ruin and in need of his grace and life (John 3:16-18). Almost anyone can tell me about their deepest needs and most painful wounds. I don't need to tell them their problem. They consistently tell me. And unless they're attached to their self-pity, they tell me because they want some Good News.

2. But also, salvation is not just from something; it's for Someone. Why introduce people to the best thing that's ever happened to us? Why share the kindest Person we've ever met? Why offer deliverance from the fear of death and the offer of peace and well-being now? Perhaps Christians will be better able to answer this if they commit to knowing Christ for themselves before pushing their 'fire insurance' gospel on others. Even in an era when evangelists are perceived as ponzi scheme hucksters, I keep talking gospel because I've come to know Jesus is alive and he's wonderful and knowing him IS eternal life now. Sharing the gospel is not about trying to convince someone to give up their quality-of-life hedonism in exchange for a 'get out of jail free' card to a hypothetical eternal Auschwitz down the road. Rather, it's an invitation to a family of love feasting on the presence of Love Himself.

Free Will, the Nous and Divine Judgment: A Critical Analysis of Three Visions of Universalism -- by Brad Jersak

I’ll say it again at the outset. I’m not a universalist. But some of my friends are … some of my evangelical friends, some of my Orthodox friends. So I ask them questions about that. This is not flirting (as Lewis and Barth were accused of), but simply being fair. In the name of ‘discernment,’ I’ve encountered a LOT of name-calling, dismissiveness, intentional misrepresentation and caricaturing. “Earth to Matilda!” – that’s not discernment. We can and must do better than that. Surely we could at least build bridges (from both ends of the chasm!) long enough so that listening could displace lobbing.   

In this article, I’m trying to address fairly and critique carefully three brands of universalism, which I’ll call popular universalism, Reformed universalism and apokatastasis. Although I personally self-identify as a ‘hopeful inclusivist’ (cf. Kallistos Ware and Hans Urs Von Balthasar), I think it’s important to fairly distinguish and assess these points on the universalist spectrum, for they represent quite a broad range and some extremely different convictions about Christ, redemption and human response.

It’s also an important exercise for me: can I fairly represent a view to which I don’t hold with both enough charity and accuracy such that the universalist (in this case), can say, “Yes, that was fair.” Or at least, “not exactly, let me explain.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE