Introduction
Francis Chan is one of the most
heartfelt and genuine preachers I have encountered over the years. His love for
God and God’s people is infectious, daring us to embody Christ in every aspect
of our lives. This book was recommended to me by a friend after we had some
discussion on the nature of hell and eternity. As an Evangelical Universalist,
I had infrequently come across what I thought were good arguments against
Universalism from philosophical or Scriptural perspectives, and so with Francis
being someone I respect who wrote a book (with Preston Sprinkle) that targeted Universalism, it piqued my interest. It was an easy read and covered
a number of discussion points, namely: several selected Universalist Scriptures, a
hell in Scripture survey, and a valuable discussion on the sovereignty of God. As we explore these topics, the creature/Creator distinction needs to be maintained in our discussions to keep us humble. Yet, while there were some intriguing/challenging points, the book demonstrates a
current lack of argumentative rigor that doesn’t seem to readily deal with
Universalist perspectives, for a Universalist anyway.
Evangelical Universalism is more
or less the belief in the restoration of all people to God, only through Jesus,
and doesn’t necessarily deny the existence of hell, just its eternality.
Valuable Points:
I will say first that I
appreciated some challenging points that Chan made regarding the historical
context of what Jesus and Paul was speaking into about “hell”. He claims that
Jewish thinkers of the time clearly believed in an eternal place of punishment.
If this is true, this is troubling, because Jesus and Paul did not clearly
qualify what they meant by “eternal hell” in the Scriptures, and if they were
preaching something different to the Jewish idea then they probably should have
articulated very clearly the difference. However, we will see later on that the
Hebrew word/concept, “olam”, and the Greek word, “aion”, often had a variety of
meanings, and so may have the 1st Century Jews.
Another valuable point he had
against Universalism was the depiction of the dead at the end of Isaiah which
could be said to be the “end” judgement. Universalists have answers for this
passage but answers to it is not in the scope of this review.
A valuable point in the positive
for Universalism I learnt from the book is that some people claim the word for “punishment”
is related to the concept of pruning. Chan argued to the contrary, but I need
to explore more the times when fire is used as a purification device in
Scripture, rather than destruction. This would potentially heavily influence
the narrative around hell fire towards Universalism.
“All Alive”
Chapter 1 is where he wrestles
with 1 Corinthians 15:22, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all
be made alive”, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Colossian 1:19-20, and 1 Timothy 2:4. I
understand he may have been using these verses as primary representatives for
the Universalist perspective, but these are not exhaustive. Mercy on All
provides many instances of Universalism as a theme throughout Scripture - MercyOnAll.org.
I find that Chan doesn’t apply the same “rigor” of textual criticism to the
verse on “eternal” hell that he does on these Universalist verses. For example,
he claims that it is obvious that the context of 1 Cor 15:22 refers to the
believers at Jesus second coming. He says that Paul is not referring to
literally “all” people in 15:22. I don’t see any necessary reason to come to
this conclusion. A fuller context suggests that all things anti-God will be
ended:
“20 But Christ
has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen
asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead
comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be
made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes,
those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the
kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and
power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26
The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under
his feet.”
As you can see from this passage,
Paul is not limiting salvation to just those who are believers (at His coming);
Paul is simply talking about a staged process of gradual restoration with the “firstfruits;
then, when He comes, those who belong to Him”. The rest of the passage reemphasises
the totality of v22 “in Christ all will be made alive”, through God destroying
ALL dominion, authority, and power. DEATH will be destroyed. Now, that is a
strange thing to say when in an eternal conscious torment (ECT) perspective, death would reign in the dominion of hell under the authority of Satan for
eternity. Chan also says that “all be made alive” in verse 22 doesn’t mean
literally “all” and could mean “most”. True, but the immediate context of “in
Adam all die” is a mirror image. But by the Christian doctrine of total
depravity, it is likely to mean literally “all” in intent. Logically from this
passage, it is equivocal for all to die in Adam AND all to be raised in Christ.
“Every Knee”
Chan also raises Isaiah 45 and posits that it doesn’t claim
that every knee should bow in a salvific sense. He says that it is clear that
some continue to resist God, though it seems to clearly state the opposite:
“Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.
23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.
24 They will say of me, ‘In the
Lord alone
are deliverance and strength.’”
All who have raged against him
will come to him and be put to shame.
25 But all the descendants of
Israel
will find deliverance in the Lord
and will make their boast in him.
He might be referring to v 24, “All
who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame”, but this is
past tense, not ongoing. Chan does bring up the end of the book of Isaiah and
makes a more difficult case for Universalists with that passage. I think Chan would
do better sticking to those passages that seem to support an ECT perspective
rather than potentially discrediting himself by saying other passages like
Isaiah 45 clearly state something when it doesn’t.
God’s Desires
Chan also claims that God has two
wills - one being moral and the other decreed. This is fair
considering that is one of the few ways, really, to answer 1 Timothy 2:4 (from
an ECT perspective), which posits that God wants all to be saved. I find though
that Chan’s love of the sovereignty of God limits itself here by suggesting
that God doesn’t get what He wants all the time. For example, he seems to claim
that God values freewill over saving all people because that would make us “puppets”.
However, other widely held Christian doctrines do not seem to posit freewill as
necessary for salvation. It is widely held by the church historically that
children below the age of accountability, if they die, will be saved. This
negates the whole necessary “freewill defense” of why God doesn’t save
everyone. Wouldn’t it be far better if God took the life of every child here on
earth to save them from a life of eternal conscious torment, or even encourage
parents to not have children because few will find the narrow path and many won’t?
Certainly not, and that is why God is likely to have a Universal restoration
plan as claimed frequently in Scripture.
Heresy
Heresy is a big term that is
widely used but not clearly defined. It is important to define it because
people have died over this term in the past. I am a little confused on Chan’s
use of the word. For example, he states clearly in the main pages of his book
that Universalism is a heresy, however, when I read his footnotes, he states
that it shouldn’t be historically considered a heresy due to it being addressed
to one theologian – Origen – and part of a politically driven church council in
553 AD. I am glad he included this historical fact, but I think Chan needs to
be clearer here what he means by heresy, and it would be helpful having a
fuller historical explanation in the main pages, rather than reserving it for the
footnotes.
Olam And Aion
The word in Greek, “aion”, or “eternal”
in English, has a wide range of meanings. Chan admits this. However,
interestingly he uses a similar argument that he uses against 1 Corinthians
15:22 that “all” only refers to those who believe in Christ, but a different “all”
when talking about Adam. He claims that the mirroring of eternal hell and
eternal life in different passages means that they must have the same meaning.
The fear is that if eternal hell didn’t mean eternal, then by mirroring, eternal
life cannot mean eternal either. I can’t help but feel that Chan is appealing
to consequence here by trying to hold onto a literal “eternal life” as a
consequence. But this is not necessary. From the studies I have done on “olam”
and “aion”, the duration of the time is often connected to the context of its
connection. From my understanding, olam (usually translated as “aion” in the Septuagint)
is a Jewish word derived from a concept of seeing over a horizon (JewishRoots.net ).
In other words, we don’t know the end, not that it is literally forever. It is
an INDEFINITE period of time dictated by the immediate context the word is
found in. We have reason based on many Scriptures to believe that hell is an
indefinite period of time because of the promises of God restoring all things
to Himself. On the contrary, we have no reason to think that eternal life will
end. God never promises to end the righteous or destroy all His creation. Therefore,
the best way to reconcile the verses on eternal hell, and the ones on universal
reconciliation, is to adhere to the historical grammatical language our English
is translated from.
Good Father
Chan frequently asserts that he
wants all people to be saved, and I hope that he does, but I hope he takes a
longer look at the arguments from Evangelical Universalists with more of an
open mind. Chan writes a beautiful but limiting chapter on the sovereignty of
God. He focuses on the famous/infamous Romans 9. He explains that God can do
what He likes whether we like it or not – including eternal hell – and we
should not question Him. However, admirable as this is, this is not a necessary
conclusion. I agree that God’s ways are higher than our ways, and we will not
always understand God’s actions (this is very helpful when it comes to bearing
with suffering), however Jesus also expects us to have an understanding of what
a “good” father might be. Luke 7:
“9 Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 So if you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets. "
God is frequently portrayed as our father in Scripture. The idea of a “good father” is
comprehensible to us. A father who sends estranged sons to an eternal torture
prison doesn’t really fit the bill. From our understanding (let me know if you
disagree), a good Father will always be willing to accept His estranged
children back, provided they are willing to live according to the ways of righteousness.
This is the message of the parable of the “Prodigal Son”. No matter how far we
have gone, God will welcome us with open arms as a good father would do, even
into eternity.
Conclusion
Overall, the book was a helpful
read, and I recommend it alongside other Universalist literature. It alerted me
to key arguments against Universalism and gave me opportunity to test my own
understanding of the topic. Some challenging points were made such as the end
of Isaiah, and the historical Jewish understanding of “eternal hell”, however, most
of the arguments were underdeveloped or didn’t address the main points of
Universalism satisfactorily. As much as I believe that God expects us to understand how He is good, I acknowledge that He is God and we are mere creatures. If I am wrong and ECT is real, I hope God will be gracious and give us understanding.
