What do you think?
Rate this book
Universal Salvation?: The Current Debate
Foreword by Gabriel Fackre
Will God one day save all people through Christ?'s atoning work? That is the question at the heart of the debate in this volume -- a debate sure to challenge readers, whatever their current perspective.
Featuring evangelical writers of exceptional insight and sensitivity, "Universal Salvation?" offers a conversation worth everyone?'s attention. The volume opens with a rigorous three-part defense of Christian universalism by philosopher Thomas Talbott, who argues that Scripture teaches the ultimate salvation of all people, including those in hell. Gabriel Fackre in his foreword calls Talbott?'s work the most thoughtfully wrought argument for universalism to date from within the contemporary evangelical community. The rest of the book gathers incisive responses to Talbott by Christian scholars from different disciplines, who evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Talbott?'s arguments, take his thought in new directions, or explain why they think he is mistaken. Talbott then responds to his critics.
The aim of this volume is not to persuade people that universalism is true but to open up a fairer debate on a controversial subject of continuing importance to theologians and nontheologians alike. By exploring universal salvation from biblical, philosophical, theological, and historical perspectives, the book helps readers think through the issues more carefully than has been possible with resources previously available.
Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2003
10 people are currently reading
193 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
December 21, 2022
Talbott puts forth three inconsistent propositions – three propositions that each have prima facie evidence in the Bible. However, he suggests to his readers only two can be true…1) God desires all humans be saved, 2) God’s redemptive goals cannot be defeated and 3) some humans will not be saved.
Arminians & Open Theists hold 1 & 3. Calvinists hold 2 & 3. And finally, universalists hold 1 & 2.
This is a brilliant, succinct summary of 2,000 years of debate within Christianity.
The book begins with Talbott’s three-chapter case for Universalism, followed by 8 chapters of responses and then finally a brief rebuttal from Talbott. I appreciated the well curated collection of counter arguments to Talbott’s case from biblical, philosophical, theological and historical angles.
In the end, I came away with a more robust and respectful understanding of Universalism. I find Talbott’s case surprisingly coherent and biblically defensible. In particular, I found his third chapter, “A Pauline Interpretation of Divine Judgement”, to be worth the price of the book all by itself. He presents a strong case for how judgement and mercy are two sides of the same coin, making his case largely from Romans 5-11, culminating in Rom. 11:31-32 (“…God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all”).
I found Daniel Strange’s (Calvinist) chapter to contain the most significant counter arguments to Talbott’s case. In particular, I found his point about the incompatibility of a) penal substitutionary atonement and b) judgment & mercy being different sides of the same coin, to be significant. If penal substitution is true, then it makes God’s judgment/wrath/justice seem, at least sometimes, retributive rather than always restorative (as Talbott would claim).
Also, Strange makes a good point about Talbott’s view seemingly necessitating God to save everyone because he is compelled by his nature, as opposed to God freely choosing one way or the other. Shouldn’t God freely be able to choose to do whatever he wants? He's God after all! Or is he constrained by his own nature? Believing God necessarily has to do…well…anything...feels uncomfortable to assert with humility.
In summary, I found this a very helpful entry point into the deep and vast conversation about the mechanics of salvation within Christianity. I will not discount the case for Universalism moving forward, nor do I think it's adherents (in the same vein of Talbott at least) should be ostracized as heretics.
Arminians & Open Theists hold 1 & 3. Calvinists hold 2 & 3. And finally, universalists hold 1 & 2.
This is a brilliant, succinct summary of 2,000 years of debate within Christianity.
The book begins with Talbott’s three-chapter case for Universalism, followed by 8 chapters of responses and then finally a brief rebuttal from Talbott. I appreciated the well curated collection of counter arguments to Talbott’s case from biblical, philosophical, theological and historical angles.
In the end, I came away with a more robust and respectful understanding of Universalism. I find Talbott’s case surprisingly coherent and biblically defensible. In particular, I found his third chapter, “A Pauline Interpretation of Divine Judgement”, to be worth the price of the book all by itself. He presents a strong case for how judgement and mercy are two sides of the same coin, making his case largely from Romans 5-11, culminating in Rom. 11:31-32 (“…God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all”).
I found Daniel Strange’s (Calvinist) chapter to contain the most significant counter arguments to Talbott’s case. In particular, I found his point about the incompatibility of a) penal substitutionary atonement and b) judgment & mercy being different sides of the same coin, to be significant. If penal substitution is true, then it makes God’s judgment/wrath/justice seem, at least sometimes, retributive rather than always restorative (as Talbott would claim).
Also, Strange makes a good point about Talbott’s view seemingly necessitating God to save everyone because he is compelled by his nature, as opposed to God freely choosing one way or the other. Shouldn’t God freely be able to choose to do whatever he wants? He's God after all! Or is he constrained by his own nature? Believing God necessarily has to do…well…anything...feels uncomfortable to assert with humility.
In summary, I found this a very helpful entry point into the deep and vast conversation about the mechanics of salvation within Christianity. I will not discount the case for Universalism moving forward, nor do I think it's adherents (in the same vein of Talbott at least) should be ostracized as heretics.
September 2, 2012
Prior to the publication of Rob Bell's *Love Wins*, Thomas Talbott and other Christian philosophers and theologians had argued that universalism was true:
(U) All human persons will eventually be fully reconciled with God
So understood, Universalism is logically incompatible both with the traditional doctrine of Hell and the somewhat more contemporary Annihilationism:
(H) Some human persons will never be fully reconciled with God, but will instead spend eternity in a state of conscious torment
(A) Some human persons will never be fully reconciled with God, but will instead be made non-existent by God
I familiarized myself with Talbott's defense of Universalism while in college. Several of my classmates entertained Universalism very seriously, and I spent my time finding ways to render Hell more plausible in response to Talbott's criticisms. It was Keith DeRose's essay "Universalism and the Bible" along with Eric Reitan's work on Universalism that I eventually came to believe that Universalism was morally desirable and, more controversially, theologically desirable in certain ways.
Though I do not embrace Universalism (in fact, I'm inclined to think it's false), I regard it as a thesis of theological significance, and this book goes a long way in spelling out the various ways in which it is significant. My understanding is that Roman Catholicism, one of the greatest ecumenical traditions, holds that it is not heretical and is in fact worthwhile to hope and pray that Universalism is true. This book might be seen as fostering a healthy hope of that sort, while simultaneously emphasizing the potentially solemn implications of the falsity of Universalism.
(U) All human persons will eventually be fully reconciled with God
So understood, Universalism is logically incompatible both with the traditional doctrine of Hell and the somewhat more contemporary Annihilationism:
(H) Some human persons will never be fully reconciled with God, but will instead spend eternity in a state of conscious torment
(A) Some human persons will never be fully reconciled with God, but will instead be made non-existent by God
I familiarized myself with Talbott's defense of Universalism while in college. Several of my classmates entertained Universalism very seriously, and I spent my time finding ways to render Hell more plausible in response to Talbott's criticisms. It was Keith DeRose's essay "Universalism and the Bible" along with Eric Reitan's work on Universalism that I eventually came to believe that Universalism was morally desirable and, more controversially, theologically desirable in certain ways.
Though I do not embrace Universalism (in fact, I'm inclined to think it's false), I regard it as a thesis of theological significance, and this book goes a long way in spelling out the various ways in which it is significant. My understanding is that Roman Catholicism, one of the greatest ecumenical traditions, holds that it is not heretical and is in fact worthwhile to hope and pray that Universalism is true. This book might be seen as fostering a healthy hope of that sort, while simultaneously emphasizing the potentially solemn implications of the falsity of Universalism.
March 11, 2012
An essential read! But AFTER reading 'The Inescapable Love of God' by Thomas Talbott...Because various christian theologians of various creeds/denominations take on Talbotts view (which is Christian Universalism, and is elegantly explained in the previously recommended book), they debate him on various doctrinal/theological points they feel prove Christian Universalism to be a false teaching. (some express it as a heretical teaching, others as a well-wishing but ultimately incorrect view.)
In my humble opinion Talbott wins the debate clearly vs. these objectors, his final responses to each critique address all the critical concerns that are brought up about his own book/belief and with a level of comprehension I rarely see in Christian doctrinal debates, using scripture and not the empty rhetoric, fear-mongering, or appeal to people's greed/pride of popular mainstream theology; The ending summary/conclusion of this book where it compares the Arminist, Calvanist and Universalist christian viewpoints/perspectives is so utterly convincing and illuminating to me that's it's difficult for me to imagine anyone being sympathetic (after reading this) to the opposing views at all.
In my humble opinion Talbott wins the debate clearly vs. these objectors, his final responses to each critique address all the critical concerns that are brought up about his own book/belief and with a level of comprehension I rarely see in Christian doctrinal debates, using scripture and not the empty rhetoric, fear-mongering, or appeal to people's greed/pride of popular mainstream theology; The ending summary/conclusion of this book where it compares the Arminist, Calvanist and Universalist christian viewpoints/perspectives is so utterly convincing and illuminating to me that's it's difficult for me to imagine anyone being sympathetic (after reading this) to the opposing views at all.
August 11, 2025
Almost all contributing authors are clear they have a high view of Scripture. The primary debate is whether or not Christ's death and resurrection paid for ALL humanity or just a portion of humanity.
It took me a lot of mental energy to follow many of the formal arguments, which is a really good thing. I needed the mental workout and the issue at stake requires analysis of history, theology, logic, and of course, the Bible. My general takeaway is that there is a lot of room for universalist interpretations of the Bible. I'm not firmly planted in the universalist camp after reading this, but it encouraged me to know how many Bible scholars are investigating the idea and in some cases, advocating for it.
If you are limited on time, the closing chapter is a phenomenal summary of the main arguments and rebuttals. There are a ton of resources in the footnotes, which I will look into when time allows. I don't think it's an accident that my reading of this overlapped with reading"The Irrational Season" by Madeleine L'Engle: a book that also touches on similar ideas in an artistic way.
It took me a lot of mental energy to follow many of the formal arguments, which is a really good thing. I needed the mental workout and the issue at stake requires analysis of history, theology, logic, and of course, the Bible. My general takeaway is that there is a lot of room for universalist interpretations of the Bible. I'm not firmly planted in the universalist camp after reading this, but it encouraged me to know how many Bible scholars are investigating the idea and in some cases, advocating for it.
If you are limited on time, the closing chapter is a phenomenal summary of the main arguments and rebuttals. There are a ton of resources in the footnotes, which I will look into when time allows. I don't think it's an accident that my reading of this overlapped with reading"The Irrational Season" by Madeleine L'Engle: a book that also touches on similar ideas in an artistic way.
January 8, 2018
Good book, with caveats
I would say several things regarding this book. First, the Kindle formatting is unforgivably poor, especially as regards the footnotes, and it looks as if someone simply scanned the hard copy in. However, as I am reviewing the book, not the formatting, it seems foolish to deduct stars for this. Still, I would hope the formatting would be improved in the future.
To really get everything possible from this book, it is advisable that the reader first purchase and read Thomas Talbot’s book The Inescapable Love of God, where he most fully fleshes out his universalism, as this book is essentially the evangelical response to him.
The evangelical response, while predictably firm, is surprisingly weak on evidence. Walls for example tries to argue that it is normal that Augustinians and Arminians bore each other as simply mistaken, while universalism is viewed by both camps as heretical. Yet, as Talbot correctly points out, both camps hold things to be dearly true that the other side firmly rejects. They hold things to be true, as having strong biblical evidence, that the other side forthrightly denies.Therefore, it is more than a little perplexing, and more than a bit hypocritical, to say that these are simple mistakes, and to come down so hard on universalism.
Many of the arguments seem to come down to begging the question, assuming the conclusion, argument from silence, or pot attempts to avoid the actual argument. For example, again using Walls as the example, Walls attempts to argue from the perspective of a libertarian free will how we can freely and rationally choose hello. Yet, in the end he is forced to admit that any choice to remain in hell must ultimately be in a rational decision, which is to give the argument to Talbot. Another author, trying to show how God can change our perception of loved ones in Hell so that we do not eternally agonize over their fate, compares it to how God is going to have to help married people adjust in heaven, where there is no marriage, and the marital relationship of necessity will be different. Talbot, in the notes and the final section, found this rather amusing. I would have to agree with him. Can we truly compare the reality of learning to love all people equally, a growth in love, with the reality of people we truly care about suffering forever? It is such an odd argument to make, and yet it is attempted. Yet another offer tried to make the comparison between temporal and eternal suffering, as if that would pose a problem to the arguments post by Talbot, even though Talbot in several places especially mentions harm that cannot be undone. But perhaps the most telling evidence comes from Daniel Strange, a Calvinist, who starts his essay with a story about a fishing companion rejecting universalism, a clearly absurd attempt to poison the well before we even begin is essay on universalism. He then goes on to tell us that he is not even sure he understands Talbot’s position. If he doesn’t understand the position, how does he find himself qualified to critique it?
Universalism is growing in popularity in all streams of the faith. The critiques of the position in this book demonstrate why, as the opposition doesn’t seem to have any good arguments. Anybody want to learn more about universalism, to see how strong the case really is, from biblical, philosophical, theological, and historical positions, will benefit from this collection.
I would say several things regarding this book. First, the Kindle formatting is unforgivably poor, especially as regards the footnotes, and it looks as if someone simply scanned the hard copy in. However, as I am reviewing the book, not the formatting, it seems foolish to deduct stars for this. Still, I would hope the formatting would be improved in the future.
To really get everything possible from this book, it is advisable that the reader first purchase and read Thomas Talbot’s book The Inescapable Love of God, where he most fully fleshes out his universalism, as this book is essentially the evangelical response to him.
The evangelical response, while predictably firm, is surprisingly weak on evidence. Walls for example tries to argue that it is normal that Augustinians and Arminians bore each other as simply mistaken, while universalism is viewed by both camps as heretical. Yet, as Talbot correctly points out, both camps hold things to be dearly true that the other side firmly rejects. They hold things to be true, as having strong biblical evidence, that the other side forthrightly denies.Therefore, it is more than a little perplexing, and more than a bit hypocritical, to say that these are simple mistakes, and to come down so hard on universalism.
Many of the arguments seem to come down to begging the question, assuming the conclusion, argument from silence, or pot attempts to avoid the actual argument. For example, again using Walls as the example, Walls attempts to argue from the perspective of a libertarian free will how we can freely and rationally choose hello. Yet, in the end he is forced to admit that any choice to remain in hell must ultimately be in a rational decision, which is to give the argument to Talbot. Another author, trying to show how God can change our perception of loved ones in Hell so that we do not eternally agonize over their fate, compares it to how God is going to have to help married people adjust in heaven, where there is no marriage, and the marital relationship of necessity will be different. Talbot, in the notes and the final section, found this rather amusing. I would have to agree with him. Can we truly compare the reality of learning to love all people equally, a growth in love, with the reality of people we truly care about suffering forever? It is such an odd argument to make, and yet it is attempted. Yet another offer tried to make the comparison between temporal and eternal suffering, as if that would pose a problem to the arguments post by Talbot, even though Talbot in several places especially mentions harm that cannot be undone. But perhaps the most telling evidence comes from Daniel Strange, a Calvinist, who starts his essay with a story about a fishing companion rejecting universalism, a clearly absurd attempt to poison the well before we even begin is essay on universalism. He then goes on to tell us that he is not even sure he understands Talbot’s position. If he doesn’t understand the position, how does he find himself qualified to critique it?
Universalism is growing in popularity in all streams of the faith. The critiques of the position in this book demonstrate why, as the opposition doesn’t seem to have any good arguments. Anybody want to learn more about universalism, to see how strong the case really is, from biblical, philosophical, theological, and historical positions, will benefit from this collection.
January 22, 2022
Talbott makes a convincing case in the opening three chapters and in his response to the other authors' arguments. It's not airtight in the condensed form presented here, but it remains highly compelling.
The two historical chapters are nice.
Now I'll list the remaining chapters in descending order of convincingness, with some brief impressions copied from the notes I wrote at the end of each chapter, even though I usually don't like it when people write in books. I guess I treated it like a textbook for a course. Maybe I should write an essay on it. Perhaps I will. Probably not, though.
Chapter 7: "Human Freedom and the Impossibility of Eternal Damnation." Reitan groks Talbott's argument much deeper than Walls. I don't think the chapter is totally conclusive because one could take issue with the penny analogy. But it makes sense.
Chapter 9: "A Freewill Theist's Response to Talbott's Universalism." Starts off kind of weak, but eventually gets relatively convincing. Certainly the best of the critical responses to Talbott. All hung up on creaturely freedom, prioritizing it over God's saving love. But some good points worth engaging. Though Sanders talks past Talbott for a lot of it, as do the other contributors.
Chapter 6: "A Philosophical Critique of Talbott's Universalism." Grasping at straws to defend a nonsensical notion Walls feels obligated to believe. Based on a strawman, so far as I can tell. But at least worthy of careful consideration and rebuttal. Philippians 2:10–11 might make it all fall to pieces. Or simply the observation that Talbott demands "freedom from all ignorance and deception," including self-deception, for a choice to be truly free, and further claims that God will provide everyone with such freedom from falsehood, torpedoing Walls's whole argument to the extent that it is based on his statement that "Those who remain in hell because they take it in some way to be better than heaven are deeply self-deceived."
Chapter 5: "A Wideness in God's Mercy: Universalism in the Bible." Too weak and tentative for my taste. If God can't save everyone, how could he save me? Or…if God won't save everyone, why would he save me?
Chapter 4: "The New Testament Does Not Teach Universal Salvation." Unconvincing. As Talbott notes in his response, begs the question. Misunderstands the heart of Talbott's position. I'd say that 2 Corinthians 4:4 applies to this author. Also, this chapter seemed like a basically Arminian argument relying uneasily on Calvinist talking points.
Chapter 8: "A Calvinist Response to Talbott's Universalism." Predictable Calvinist superstition. Not worthy of a response.
So anyway, as you might expect, I found the universalist arguments the strongest, but some of the other authors made some good, mildly troubling points that I must address. And I know even more strongly now that I'm incapable of believing in the bad news of Calvinism. I mean, if something is supposed to be good news, it should be better than atheism, right? But now I'm starting to rant, as usual.
The two historical chapters are nice.
Now I'll list the remaining chapters in descending order of convincingness, with some brief impressions copied from the notes I wrote at the end of each chapter, even though I usually don't like it when people write in books. I guess I treated it like a textbook for a course. Maybe I should write an essay on it. Perhaps I will. Probably not, though.
Chapter 7: "Human Freedom and the Impossibility of Eternal Damnation." Reitan groks Talbott's argument much deeper than Walls. I don't think the chapter is totally conclusive because one could take issue with the penny analogy. But it makes sense.
Chapter 9: "A Freewill Theist's Response to Talbott's Universalism." Starts off kind of weak, but eventually gets relatively convincing. Certainly the best of the critical responses to Talbott. All hung up on creaturely freedom, prioritizing it over God's saving love. But some good points worth engaging. Though Sanders talks past Talbott for a lot of it, as do the other contributors.
Chapter 6: "A Philosophical Critique of Talbott's Universalism." Grasping at straws to defend a nonsensical notion Walls feels obligated to believe. Based on a strawman, so far as I can tell. But at least worthy of careful consideration and rebuttal. Philippians 2:10–11 might make it all fall to pieces. Or simply the observation that Talbott demands "freedom from all ignorance and deception," including self-deception, for a choice to be truly free, and further claims that God will provide everyone with such freedom from falsehood, torpedoing Walls's whole argument to the extent that it is based on his statement that "Those who remain in hell because they take it in some way to be better than heaven are deeply self-deceived."
Chapter 5: "A Wideness in God's Mercy: Universalism in the Bible." Too weak and tentative for my taste. If God can't save everyone, how could he save me? Or…if God won't save everyone, why would he save me?
Chapter 4: "The New Testament Does Not Teach Universal Salvation." Unconvincing. As Talbott notes in his response, begs the question. Misunderstands the heart of Talbott's position. I'd say that 2 Corinthians 4:4 applies to this author. Also, this chapter seemed like a basically Arminian argument relying uneasily on Calvinist talking points.
Chapter 8: "A Calvinist Response to Talbott's Universalism." Predictable Calvinist superstition. Not worthy of a response.
So anyway, as you might expect, I found the universalist arguments the strongest, but some of the other authors made some good, mildly troubling points that I must address. And I know even more strongly now that I'm incapable of believing in the bad news of Calvinism. I mean, if something is supposed to be good news, it should be better than atheism, right? But now I'm starting to rant, as usual.
March 20, 2019
This book is a good contribution to the debate around Christian Universalism. In the first 3 sections, Thomas Talbott (author of The Inescapable Love of God) lays out a condensed version of his case for universalism. This is followed by 8 replies from fellow biblical scholars, philosophers, theologians, and church historians; one or two are supportive of Talbott's position, but most are critical. All are worth reading and thinking carefully about. The best response is that of philosopher Jerry Walls, who precisely refines Talbott's idea of human freedom in an attempt to undermine the rationale for universalism. Ultimately it comes down to a judgment about the nature of human freedom, and Walls admits that there is just "a hair's breadth of difference" between his own view and Talbott's. After the critiques, Talbott is given a chance to close the book by replying to his interlocutors, and for the most part he successfully dismantles the case that they have made against his view.
October 3, 2011
This book provides all of the best contenders for different positions regarding universal reconciliation all in one (relatively) easy-to-read survey.
August 5, 2012
Good introduction to the issue. But I think Parry (Gregory MacDonald) does a better job than Talbott in presenting a humble/honest overview in Evangelical Universalist.
August 8, 2012
Excellent!...Definitely a must read!
July 11, 2012
An excellent dialogue about the topic of universalism. The range of scholars is impressive, the arguments on big sides are respectful, and there is much to be learned.
April 21, 2013
While dense, this was a good read. The format which allowed both sides (or, all three) space was refreshing and felt quite even handed.
April 3, 2013
Well, I guess I'm not a a universalist.
January 6, 2014
A challenging book, set up in a "debate" style format, that presents opposing viewpoints on the question of can/will God save all people.
Read
August 21, 2014I
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews