What do you think?
Rate this book
The Evangelical Universalist
- Can an orthodox Christian, committed to the historic faith of the Church and the authority of the Bible, be a universalist?- Is it possible to believe that salvation is found only by grace, through faith in Christ, and yet to maintain that in the end all people will be saved?- Can one believe passionately in mission if one does not think that anyone will be lost forever?- Could universalism be consistent with the teachings of the Bible?Gregory MacDonald argues that the answer is yes to all of these questions. Weaving together philosophical, theological, and biblical considerations, MacDonald seeks to show that being a committed universalist is consistent with the central teachings of the biblical texts and of historic Christian theology.". . . [T]his passionate and lucid advocacy of an evangelical universalism . . . not only engages with key passages in the context of the overall biblical narrative but also treats clearly the profound theological and philosophical issues to which that narrative gives rise . . . readers . . . will find this book an excellent, accessible and indispensable aid in their own attempts to grapple with what its author describes as 'a hell of a problem' . . .”Andrew T. Lincoln, Portland Chair in New Testament Studies, University of Gloucestershire". . . I was struck by the persuasiveness of many of Gregory MacDonald's arguments, not least since they rest in an unusually adept interweaving of biblical exegesis with relevant philosophical and theological considerations . . .”Joel B. Green, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Asbury Theological Seminary"Gregory MacDonald's defense of universalism is well argued logically, theologically, and especially biblically . . . Evangelicals, among whom MacDonald would count himself, will find him a civil and insightfully critical dialogue partner.”Thomas F. Johnson, Professor of Biblical Theology, George Fox University"With this wonderful book, Gregory MacDonald joins the growing body of Evangelical Christians who now accept a doctrine of universal reconciliation. But I know of no one who has set forth an equally clear, thorough and compelling case for a universalist reading of the Bible as a whole . . .”Thomas Talbott, Professor of Philosophy, Willamette UniversityGregory MacDonald is a pseudonym.
Paperback
First published May 1, 2006
83 people are currently reading
713 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 - 30 of 57 reviews
November 28, 2012
This is a heavy read for those not theologically inclined. I was most struck by the philosophical arguments against hell and wondered how I ever personally held to the belief that God, whilst strong enough to save all, would deliberately choose not to, simply to respect free will - when that free will is irrational and detrimental to ones own health.
The authors theological arguments are also thorough and I feel as though I have a solid grounding for choosing to believe what I wanted to believe all along: that Jesus would leave the 99 to search for the last lost sheep until he brings each and every one home!
The authors theological arguments are also thorough and I feel as though I have a solid grounding for choosing to believe what I wanted to believe all along: that Jesus would leave the 99 to search for the last lost sheep until he brings each and every one home!
March 30, 2019
The title of the first chapter sums up why I continue to wrestle with this topic: Hell is "A Hell of a Problem."
I've been researching and attempting to think deeply about heaven, hell, justice, and mercy for at least ten years. It's difficult for many reasons, not least of which is because Christians often label and disfellowship with other Christians over even just slight variations concerning these issues. But what's become abundantly clear to me is that the traditional dichotomy of heaven and hell is not nearly as clearly taught in Scripture as is most often presented.
And this is kind of a big deal, to put it lightly. What we believe and teach about hell, due to the implications that it means for just about everyone we talk to, will have a huge impact on our evangelistic efforts, as well as our evangelistic results. So we would ideally be sure of what we believe the Bible says, and we would get it right.
When Rob Bell's book Love Wins was released several years ago, everyone was quick to say that while he didn't officially commit to a position, he certainly made his position known through his selection of biblical passages, and through questions. So many evangelicals rightly had many questions about his book and position.
When the most well-known evangelical response to Rob Bell was released in the form of Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle's book Erasing Hell, their argument also lead to more questions. While they articulated the traditional view using a different set of biblical passages, they seemed to admit that such a view ultimately only makes sense to God, because He's God and we're not. But this argument can really be used by those on either side of the debate.
Why can't anyone just say what they believe and support it with the whole of Scripture?
That's what this book does.
Robin Parry (writing under the pseudonym Gregory MacDonald) presents his view clearly. He takes verses on both sides seriously, and seeks to reconcile them. He treats people who disagree with him fairly, seeking to understand their arguments, and even admitting when he doesn't have something figured out. He is humble, honest, and thoroughly evangelical in his approach to Scripture and living out of the Christian faith.
To be sure, the author did not present a comprehensive analysis of every passage that could be addressed on this topic. But he does, rather successfully, give a great overview of the whole of Scripture from his framework. He shows how the commonly accepted arc of history (creation, fall, redemption, reconciliation) makes the most sense in the context of evangelical universalism. He also addresses some of the major problems with other frameworks (Calvinism/Arminianism) and attempts to show how his view solves many of these types of problems. One of the very best chapters, in my opinion, was the very last Appendix on Calvinism.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I love Robin Parry's transparency and heart, and share many of his criticisms of the traditional view, especially when it comes to God's victorious love. I cannot wholeheartedly embrace his understanding of Scripture regarding hell and postmortem salvation, but it is interesting, and I am thankful that he has encouraged me to continue striving to think biblically.
I do know one thing: God desires all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4), and He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). Any view that diminishes God's unending love for sinners cannot, in my estimation, be biblical.
I've been researching and attempting to think deeply about heaven, hell, justice, and mercy for at least ten years. It's difficult for many reasons, not least of which is because Christians often label and disfellowship with other Christians over even just slight variations concerning these issues. But what's become abundantly clear to me is that the traditional dichotomy of heaven and hell is not nearly as clearly taught in Scripture as is most often presented.
And this is kind of a big deal, to put it lightly. What we believe and teach about hell, due to the implications that it means for just about everyone we talk to, will have a huge impact on our evangelistic efforts, as well as our evangelistic results. So we would ideally be sure of what we believe the Bible says, and we would get it right.
When Rob Bell's book Love Wins was released several years ago, everyone was quick to say that while he didn't officially commit to a position, he certainly made his position known through his selection of biblical passages, and through questions. So many evangelicals rightly had many questions about his book and position.
When the most well-known evangelical response to Rob Bell was released in the form of Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle's book Erasing Hell, their argument also lead to more questions. While they articulated the traditional view using a different set of biblical passages, they seemed to admit that such a view ultimately only makes sense to God, because He's God and we're not. But this argument can really be used by those on either side of the debate.
Why can't anyone just say what they believe and support it with the whole of Scripture?
That's what this book does.
Robin Parry (writing under the pseudonym Gregory MacDonald) presents his view clearly. He takes verses on both sides seriously, and seeks to reconcile them. He treats people who disagree with him fairly, seeking to understand their arguments, and even admitting when he doesn't have something figured out. He is humble, honest, and thoroughly evangelical in his approach to Scripture and living out of the Christian faith.
To be sure, the author did not present a comprehensive analysis of every passage that could be addressed on this topic. But he does, rather successfully, give a great overview of the whole of Scripture from his framework. He shows how the commonly accepted arc of history (creation, fall, redemption, reconciliation) makes the most sense in the context of evangelical universalism. He also addresses some of the major problems with other frameworks (Calvinism/Arminianism) and attempts to show how his view solves many of these types of problems. One of the very best chapters, in my opinion, was the very last Appendix on Calvinism.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I love Robin Parry's transparency and heart, and share many of his criticisms of the traditional view, especially when it comes to God's victorious love. I cannot wholeheartedly embrace his understanding of Scripture regarding hell and postmortem salvation, but it is interesting, and I am thankful that he has encouraged me to continue striving to think biblically.
I do know one thing: God desires all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4), and He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). Any view that diminishes God's unending love for sinners cannot, in my estimation, be biblical.
August 16, 2020
Granted, part of the reason I loved this book is that I want universalism to be true (I would be greatly concerned if someone would NOT want it to be true). But the other reason I found it so good is that Gregory MacDonald/Robin Parry is such a brilliant communicator. He anticipates every objection to universalism I have ever heard, and more, and thoroughly addresses them. He is also honest about its limitations; for instance, there is one or two passages of Scripture that are hard to reconcile with universalism. But, as he wisely points out, any iteration of Christianity will have problem texts.
One thing I wish he would have talked about more is the idea of virtue having its own reward. It is my belief that everyone who really understands the Christlike life God intends for us will not have the slightest desire to sin.
Highly recommended whether you are sympathetic to universalism or not; even if you're not sympathetic, I predict you will find this treatise on universalism more convincing than some of the other recent works promoting universalism, such as David Bentley Hart's "That All Shall Be Saved," which, although also a fine book in my opinion, is far more pugilistic. (There are multiple versions of Universalism, by the way, and it might surprise you that that Robin Parry's version entails a hell, albeit a refining hell instead of endless, pointless torment; this too he argues well, not only through the low-hanging reason arguments, but also from Scripture.)
One thing I wish he would have talked about more is the idea of virtue having its own reward. It is my belief that everyone who really understands the Christlike life God intends for us will not have the slightest desire to sin.
Highly recommended whether you are sympathetic to universalism or not; even if you're not sympathetic, I predict you will find this treatise on universalism more convincing than some of the other recent works promoting universalism, such as David Bentley Hart's "That All Shall Be Saved," which, although also a fine book in my opinion, is far more pugilistic. (There are multiple versions of Universalism, by the way, and it might surprise you that that Robin Parry's version entails a hell, albeit a refining hell instead of endless, pointless torment; this too he argues well, not only through the low-hanging reason arguments, but also from Scripture.)
January 5, 2012
In his paradigm shaking work, Gregory MacDonald (AKA Robin Parry) challenges the traditional view of hell for a kind of universalism that eventually leads to the ultimate reconciliation of the whole world. Bringing careful biblical exegesis and philosophical precision to the debate, MacDonald argues persuasively that universalism, at the very least, is a viable option for evangelicals, and at best, establishes a greater vision of God's love.
While not denying the existence of hell, the contrast with tradition lies in how MacDonald understands its duration and purpose. For MacDonald, hell is not the final destination for the unregenerate. Locating his thoughts within the metanarrative of Scripture (so as to avoid proof-texting), MacDonald advocates hope of post-mortem repentance for unbelievers.
With this view in mind, hell is not retributive per se, but more so educative. It is meant to elucidate the unbeliever to the true nature of the gospel through a kind of "tough love," ultimately leading to their eventual salvation.
The Evangelical Universalist comes against caricatures of God that make Him look more like a petty deity who gets even with sinners in hell, and instead, offers us a picture of God who refuses to give up on His image-bearers.
In reading this book, you'll find your thinking challenged, and your view of God deepened.
While not denying the existence of hell, the contrast with tradition lies in how MacDonald understands its duration and purpose. For MacDonald, hell is not the final destination for the unregenerate. Locating his thoughts within the metanarrative of Scripture (so as to avoid proof-texting), MacDonald advocates hope of post-mortem repentance for unbelievers.
With this view in mind, hell is not retributive per se, but more so educative. It is meant to elucidate the unbeliever to the true nature of the gospel through a kind of "tough love," ultimately leading to their eventual salvation.
The Evangelical Universalist comes against caricatures of God that make Him look more like a petty deity who gets even with sinners in hell, and instead, offers us a picture of God who refuses to give up on His image-bearers.
In reading this book, you'll find your thinking challenged, and your view of God deepened.
September 3, 2015
Summary: This book provides the biblical, philosophical and theological arguments for why the view that all will finally be saved is consistent with evangelical theology and also includes additional appendices responding to issues raised since the book’s first edition.
One of the most difficult challenges to the Christian faith is the existence of hell, which often calls into question how a loving God could permit eternal punishment. More than this, I know few people who relish the thought of anyone they know, less any human being, being consigned to hell for eternity, whatever one’s idea of hell might be. Gregory MacDonald argues that this is in fact inconsistent with the Christian idea of God’s redemptive purposes and acts as revealed in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament. MacDonald would argue for salvation through Christ alone by grace alone as well as real judgment for the unrepentant, and thus would claim that his position is in fact “evangelical.”
First for a few pieces of housekeeping. One is that Gregory MacDonald is a pen name for Robin A. Parry, an editor at Wipf and Stock Publishers. For the sake of this review I will use the name under which the book is published and refer you to the author’s explanation for the use of this name. Second, I should say upfront that I differ with the author in that I would affirm the eternal condemnation of the unrepentant, and continue to hold this view after reading MacDonald’s argument. That said, I would number MacDonald among the more articulate and thoughtful exponents of this view.
MacDonald begins with the “problem” of hell and the logical inconsistency of an all-powerful, and all-loving God who has effected a cosmic redemption in Christ of all things, and yet those who do not believe in Christ are eternally damned. He would contend that final universal salvation of all in Christ is the best resolution of this problem. He contends that this may be biblically argued to be the case if it has positive support from scriptures and does not conflict with the explicit teaching of scripture.
Turning from logic to scripture, he observes God’s treatment of Israel and the nations in the Old Testament and Christ, Israel, and the nations in the New Testament to show that the metanarrative of scripture is consonant with a vision of universal final salvation. In particular, he gives weight to the “all” passages including Romans 5:12-21, I Corinthians 15:22, Colossians 1:20, and Philippians 2:5-11, arguing that “all” means “all without exception” rather than “all without distinction”.
He turns to Revelation, which has some of the most clear descriptions of hell and observes that judgment texts are followed by salvation texts in such a way that he would argue that hell is a real, but temporary judgment followed by the final salvation of all. Lastly, he considers the gospel texts dealing with hell, some of which he observes remain problematic for his view. He writes:
“Clearly my interpretation is underdetermined by the texts, so I cannot claim that it is obviously the only way to interpret that matter. I am not so much exegeting the texts as trying to draw out the logic of New Testament theology as I understand it and its implications for those texts. In the process I may be offering ways of reading the texts that go beyond what their authors had in mind. When that is the case, I am seeking to remain true to what they did have in mind, even if I feel compelled by the wider canon of Scripture to say more.” (p. 140)
MacDonald then concludes his argument by arguing the advantages of Christian universalism: (a) it makes the problem of evil less difficult, (b) it enables us to hold together important Christian teachings that pull apart with a traditional view of hell, (c) it adds an inspirational dimension to our ecclesiology, worship, and mission, and (d) it has significant pastoral benefits.
The book closes with a series of appendices detailing responses to his critics, his thoughts on the contribution of Rob Bell’s Love Wins to the discussion, and his engagement with Calvinist ideas of election and moral formation. Most of these have been added to the second edition of the book.
What I appreciated about the book was both the serious attempt to argue a biblical and evangelical case for universalism that sought to be God honoring and evinced a personal humility on the part of the writer. At the same time, I found myself unpersuaded, and it seems appropriate to articulate some of the reasons why I found this so:
1.The insistence on logical consistency is a recurring theme of heterodoxy in Christianity, in which orthodoxy often involves holding apparently contradictory truths in tension, such as is the case with the incarnation, the Trinity, divine sovereignty and human free will, and more. That we see both a wideness of God’s mercy and judgment against unrepentant wickedness should not surprise us.
2. I found the case he made from scripture an inferential one that went from some statements of apparent universalism to saying what other passages speaking of apparently eternal judgment must really mean. The block quote above is a telling admission of how this approach glosses over texts that are at variance with the inference of universalism, and a kind of a rejection of the evangelical hermeneutic of interpreting scripture by scripture.
3. His argument that everlasting judgment being a failure of God’s purposes begs the question of “why hell at all?” Can’t it be argued on his terms that God’s inability to save all within their lifetime on earth is itself a similar failure? And how is it a victory of God for people to believe to escape the protracted consequences of sin in MacDonald’s version of temporary hell?
4. I also wonder whether he gives sufficient credence to the hardening of the human heart and the effects of deliberate unrepentance. C.S. Lewis in The Great Divorce explores the scenario of the possibility of post-mortem salvation and the hardened refusal of many to accept this.
Yet MacDonald opens a conversation that is important to be had. In truth, many in pastoral counsel to the grieving seem to imply some form of post-mortem salvation for some and others in apologetics cede the possibility of some form of post-mortem salvation for those who have never heard the message of Christ in their lives. How might we intimate the possibility of salvation for some and not allow the ultimate salvation of all?
I still think at the end of the day that the safer course is that of Deuteronomy 29:29:
“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”
Among the things revealed are the truths of how we might have abounding and everlasting life in Christ, the commission of God’s people to proclaim this truth to the nations, and the warnings of judgment for those who neglect and refuse this truth. While God will do as he wills, I don’t feel at liberty to go beyond the things revealed, even if doing so would relieve certain tensions. Truthfully, I’ve enough on my hands to live faithfully according to what I do know.
_____________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
One of the most difficult challenges to the Christian faith is the existence of hell, which often calls into question how a loving God could permit eternal punishment. More than this, I know few people who relish the thought of anyone they know, less any human being, being consigned to hell for eternity, whatever one’s idea of hell might be. Gregory MacDonald argues that this is in fact inconsistent with the Christian idea of God’s redemptive purposes and acts as revealed in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament. MacDonald would argue for salvation through Christ alone by grace alone as well as real judgment for the unrepentant, and thus would claim that his position is in fact “evangelical.”
First for a few pieces of housekeeping. One is that Gregory MacDonald is a pen name for Robin A. Parry, an editor at Wipf and Stock Publishers. For the sake of this review I will use the name under which the book is published and refer you to the author’s explanation for the use of this name. Second, I should say upfront that I differ with the author in that I would affirm the eternal condemnation of the unrepentant, and continue to hold this view after reading MacDonald’s argument. That said, I would number MacDonald among the more articulate and thoughtful exponents of this view.
MacDonald begins with the “problem” of hell and the logical inconsistency of an all-powerful, and all-loving God who has effected a cosmic redemption in Christ of all things, and yet those who do not believe in Christ are eternally damned. He would contend that final universal salvation of all in Christ is the best resolution of this problem. He contends that this may be biblically argued to be the case if it has positive support from scriptures and does not conflict with the explicit teaching of scripture.
Turning from logic to scripture, he observes God’s treatment of Israel and the nations in the Old Testament and Christ, Israel, and the nations in the New Testament to show that the metanarrative of scripture is consonant with a vision of universal final salvation. In particular, he gives weight to the “all” passages including Romans 5:12-21, I Corinthians 15:22, Colossians 1:20, and Philippians 2:5-11, arguing that “all” means “all without exception” rather than “all without distinction”.
He turns to Revelation, which has some of the most clear descriptions of hell and observes that judgment texts are followed by salvation texts in such a way that he would argue that hell is a real, but temporary judgment followed by the final salvation of all. Lastly, he considers the gospel texts dealing with hell, some of which he observes remain problematic for his view. He writes:
“Clearly my interpretation is underdetermined by the texts, so I cannot claim that it is obviously the only way to interpret that matter. I am not so much exegeting the texts as trying to draw out the logic of New Testament theology as I understand it and its implications for those texts. In the process I may be offering ways of reading the texts that go beyond what their authors had in mind. When that is the case, I am seeking to remain true to what they did have in mind, even if I feel compelled by the wider canon of Scripture to say more.” (p. 140)
MacDonald then concludes his argument by arguing the advantages of Christian universalism: (a) it makes the problem of evil less difficult, (b) it enables us to hold together important Christian teachings that pull apart with a traditional view of hell, (c) it adds an inspirational dimension to our ecclesiology, worship, and mission, and (d) it has significant pastoral benefits.
The book closes with a series of appendices detailing responses to his critics, his thoughts on the contribution of Rob Bell’s Love Wins to the discussion, and his engagement with Calvinist ideas of election and moral formation. Most of these have been added to the second edition of the book.
What I appreciated about the book was both the serious attempt to argue a biblical and evangelical case for universalism that sought to be God honoring and evinced a personal humility on the part of the writer. At the same time, I found myself unpersuaded, and it seems appropriate to articulate some of the reasons why I found this so:
1.The insistence on logical consistency is a recurring theme of heterodoxy in Christianity, in which orthodoxy often involves holding apparently contradictory truths in tension, such as is the case with the incarnation, the Trinity, divine sovereignty and human free will, and more. That we see both a wideness of God’s mercy and judgment against unrepentant wickedness should not surprise us.
2. I found the case he made from scripture an inferential one that went from some statements of apparent universalism to saying what other passages speaking of apparently eternal judgment must really mean. The block quote above is a telling admission of how this approach glosses over texts that are at variance with the inference of universalism, and a kind of a rejection of the evangelical hermeneutic of interpreting scripture by scripture.
3. His argument that everlasting judgment being a failure of God’s purposes begs the question of “why hell at all?” Can’t it be argued on his terms that God’s inability to save all within their lifetime on earth is itself a similar failure? And how is it a victory of God for people to believe to escape the protracted consequences of sin in MacDonald’s version of temporary hell?
4. I also wonder whether he gives sufficient credence to the hardening of the human heart and the effects of deliberate unrepentance. C.S. Lewis in The Great Divorce explores the scenario of the possibility of post-mortem salvation and the hardened refusal of many to accept this.
Yet MacDonald opens a conversation that is important to be had. In truth, many in pastoral counsel to the grieving seem to imply some form of post-mortem salvation for some and others in apologetics cede the possibility of some form of post-mortem salvation for those who have never heard the message of Christ in their lives. How might we intimate the possibility of salvation for some and not allow the ultimate salvation of all?
I still think at the end of the day that the safer course is that of Deuteronomy 29:29:
“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”
Among the things revealed are the truths of how we might have abounding and everlasting life in Christ, the commission of God’s people to proclaim this truth to the nations, and the warnings of judgment for those who neglect and refuse this truth. While God will do as he wills, I don’t feel at liberty to go beyond the things revealed, even if doing so would relieve certain tensions. Truthfully, I’ve enough on my hands to live faithfully according to what I do know.
_____________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
June 21, 2013
The best exegetical and theological case for Christological universalism.
May 17, 2014
I, thus far, have read only a few books in favor of Christian Universalism as well as a few against it. There are good books in each camp although its difficult to find a book against CU that doesn't strawman the paradigm and resort to dismissive assertions such as saying CU appeals to the emotions, not considering it may be a valid appeal to the conscience.
The author of this book is evidently a very humble man who could be much more arrogant and liberal considering the certainty he feels concerning the blessed hope. His arguments are not indisputable, as no one's beliefs are. Many disagree with him for many reasons. Most of which are probably much more emotional than they emotionally dismiss his assertions by labeling his reasoning as emotionally biased. He explains how these people feel like they are standing up for God by defending the doctrine of endless torments. They feel like it is them and God against the world. They are on "God's side." He is not sure if he should applaud their loyalty or pity them. I think he leans slightly toward the latter.
This book is very well written and well worth a second read. There are many highlights which I intend to expound on. He does an excellent job at writing a great book about a very sticky subject. Its not a popular thing to go against society's grain but the Bible definitely encourages us to test all things... especially orthodox (correct opinion). I look forward to going back over the different highlights in this book and writing pieces of my own. I have a dream that one day CU will be considered just as valid/acceptable of a paradigm as Calvinism and Arminianism. Indeed, it is the paradigm which mends all the tears the two paradigms above have caused throughout this age of grace. This book is a great one to read if one is genuinely seeking a better understanding of the doctrine's claims. Hope Beyond Hell is a great place to start. This book should be the second to read, not because its not as good but because it is better. This book delves into what Hope Beyond Hell introduces and is an essential stepping stone on the path to discovering God's unfailing love which gives a truely intimate understanding of the peace that surpasses all understanding. No, that last sentence is not "hyperbole."
Shalom.
The author of this book is evidently a very humble man who could be much more arrogant and liberal considering the certainty he feels concerning the blessed hope. His arguments are not indisputable, as no one's beliefs are. Many disagree with him for many reasons. Most of which are probably much more emotional than they emotionally dismiss his assertions by labeling his reasoning as emotionally biased. He explains how these people feel like they are standing up for God by defending the doctrine of endless torments. They feel like it is them and God against the world. They are on "God's side." He is not sure if he should applaud their loyalty or pity them. I think he leans slightly toward the latter.
This book is very well written and well worth a second read. There are many highlights which I intend to expound on. He does an excellent job at writing a great book about a very sticky subject. Its not a popular thing to go against society's grain but the Bible definitely encourages us to test all things... especially orthodox (correct opinion). I look forward to going back over the different highlights in this book and writing pieces of my own. I have a dream that one day CU will be considered just as valid/acceptable of a paradigm as Calvinism and Arminianism. Indeed, it is the paradigm which mends all the tears the two paradigms above have caused throughout this age of grace. This book is a great one to read if one is genuinely seeking a better understanding of the doctrine's claims. Hope Beyond Hell is a great place to start. This book should be the second to read, not because its not as good but because it is better. This book delves into what Hope Beyond Hell introduces and is an essential stepping stone on the path to discovering God's unfailing love which gives a truely intimate understanding of the peace that surpasses all understanding. No, that last sentence is not "hyperbole."
Shalom.
September 2, 2007
Being a missionary and teaching missions and Global Perspectives these past couple of years have taken me into an important and ongoing debate over Hell. I find much of the argument against eternal conscious torment rather sentimental and ill-conceived. But MacDonald (a pseudonym) has offered the evangelical community a studied, thoughtful, and objective challenge to the traditional view of hell and for a version of universalism that is not mere sentimentality but, he argues, the conclusion of exegesis. I'm not promoting the view, mind you. I'm just saying that this is where the debate is. Good luck.
April 6, 2022
4.5 stars, rounded up!
“If God is love, then all God’s actions must be compatible with His love. This means that His holiness is loving, His justice is loving, and His wrath is loving. The traditional theologian often sets love up in contrast to justice and wrath. We are told that ‘God may be loving, but He is also just,’ as if the universalist has somehow forgotten about God’s justice! But ironically, this objection to universalism actually exposes the weakness of more traditional accounts. The universalist has an integrated account of the divine nature in which all God’s actions are manifestations of His ‘holy love.’ More traditional theology often seems less concerned about God’s holy love than about God’s holiness and God’s love. Certain actions are seen as loving actions (saving the lost) whilst other actions are manifestations of God’s holiness but most certainly not manifestations of His love (sending the lost to hell) . . . But any account of hell must see hell as a manifestation of divine love and mercy, even if it is a severe side of that mercy. The traditional theologian will not allow that it is possible for those in hell to find salvation; but, I ask, how . . . could God be love if he draws a line at death and says, ‘Beyond this point, I will look for the lost sheep no more; and even if they try to return, I shall turn them away.’ . . . I suggest that the problem is not that the universalist sentimentalizes God’s love and forgets His wrath but, rather, that the traditional theologians underestimate God’s love and unhelpfully disconnect it from His justice.”
More so than any other book that I have encountered thus far, The Evangelical Universalist soars in presenting a strong, cogent Biblical case for universal reconciliation. While I would regard The Inescapable Love of God by Tom Talbott as the optimal starting point for someone intrigued by the subject in that it provides a thorough and insightful overview—examining each applicable Bible verse while exploring Christian Universalist philosophy—The Evangelical Universalist is arguably even more convincing in that focuses on the story of the Bible as a whole, along with an even deeper exploration of the most relevant Biblical texts. Robin Parry is one of the best Bible scholars that I have ever encountered; I have never read a book as deeply exegetical as this one. And his exploration of the book of Revelation particularly blew my mind—such that I got out my Bible and commenced marking it up immediately after finishing this chapter! Parry ties the end-times narrative together beautifully—pointing out so many key details that often get overlooked and illustrating how its connections with the book of Isiah (or merely other parts of Revelation) oftentimes conjure redemptive connotations for the “damned.” I don’t think it’s any coincidence that God chose “the nations” and “the kings of the Earth” to be the two groups shown walking through the open gates of Heaven in John’s vision—two entities that are up to that point portrayed as enemies of God throughout Revelation.
Another thing that I love about The Evangelical Universalist is how transparent and honest Parry comes across as. He is more than willing to admit when he is not sure about something, or when a point he raises might merely be his own conjecture. Parry refers to himself as a “hopeful dogmatic Universalist”—which means that, while his system of theology demands Universal Reconciliation, he recognizes that his is not the only conceivable system of theology. He also asserts that his goal is not so much to convince others as illustrating that Universal Reconciliation has a strong enough Biblical case that it should not be considered outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy. And, from all the reviews that I have read, he seems to have succeeded in this area.
As I alluded to earlier, though, I wouldn’t say that The Evangelical Universalist is the best starting point for someone uninformed on Universal Reconciliation. Parry is more interested in providing an in-depth study on certain aspects/portions/storylines of scripture than he is in examining each and every potentially applicable passage. Parry ignores plenty of verses with Universalist implications, and there is no mention of the supposedly “unforgivable sin.” And the author never points out that the Hebrew word translated as “punishment” would be more precisely translated as “pruning.” Also, there is only a brief discussion as to how prevalent belief in Universal Reconciliation was in the early church; for me, personally, this has been a huge encouragement in that it illustrates that Universal Reconciliation hasn’t always been such a minority view. Another reason why I wouldn’t recommend the Evangelical Universalist as a starting would be how densely scriptural it is. It is clearly written primarily for people that are accustomed to thorough Biblical exegesis; as such, for your average layperson, it can be a bit overwhelming. Do such things serve as a critique for The Evangelical Universalist? Not necessarily. Parry differentiates his book from other works on the subject by having a unique focus. And, objectively, there seem to be fewer flaws in The Evangelical Universalist than in The Inescapable Love of God.
So one of my only objective critiques for The Evangelical Universalist would be the way that Parry handles the verse about Satan, the False Prophet, and the Beast getting tormented “forever and ever.” He poses the obvious question of how we can justify this with the “reconciliation of all things.” Wouldn’t at least Satan have been created “for God and through God?” As for the Beast, Parry points out that this is a corrupt government system, and something of a concept. Perhaps it gets thrown into the fire and destroyed metaphorically in much the same way as death gets destroyed in the fire, even if the individuals that composed the government are ultimately reconciled to God. Fair enough. That’s the way I would interpret this. But Parry is on very shaky footing when it comes to Satan’s potential redemption. He “very tentatively” poses two potential ways by which to understand this. Both of these I found a bit hard to buy—one of which being that Satan might conceivably not so much be a conscious being as a manifestation of evil. For someone who otherwise strives to appeal primarily to evangelicals and believers of inherency of scripture, I found this to be a bit of a stretch—and it can only cause him to lose considerable credibility with his base. I would much prefer him to merely acknowledge that he has little idea how to harmonize that verse with the reconciliation of all things.” As Parry points out in other parts of the book, no matter what viewpoint one comes to, there will be difficult passages to interpret.
Another issue with The Evangelical Universalist would be that it seems as if Parry often understates his case. Granted, I would much rather a rhetorical author understate their case than overstate it, but understating can prove nonetheless problematic in that it makes for a less convincing argument. For instance, Parry briefly discusses how all three views of the afterlife were common in the early church, but he provides little of the hard-hitting evidence that universal reconciliation may likely have, in fact, been the number one prevailing view. Likewise, I found Parry's exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 (a passage that, in my opinion, spells out universal reconciliation with nearly irrefutable clarity) not to be as hard-hitting as it could have been.
Despite one verse being handled particularly poorly and Parry occasionally understating his case, The Evangelical Universalist makes for the strongest book that I have encountered in making a scriptural case for universal reconciliation. Parry concludes the book with a series of key questions that I have pondered a great deal. He writes: “Hold in your mind traditional Christian visions of the future, in which . . . the majority of humanity is excluded from salvation forever. Alongside that hold the universalist vision, in which God achieves his loving purpose of redeeming the whole creation. Which vision has the strongest view of divine love . . . [and] God’s victory over evil? Which picture lifts the atoning efficacy of the cross of Christ to the greatest heights? Which perspective best emphasizes the triumph of grace over sin? Which view most inspires worship and love of God . . .? Which has the most satisfactory understanding of divine wrath . . . [and] inspires hope in the human spirit?” The more I think about it, the more I can’t help but feel that the original church largely held a vision of God that is far more beautiful than that which most churches hold today.
“If God is love, then all God’s actions must be compatible with His love. This means that His holiness is loving, His justice is loving, and His wrath is loving. The traditional theologian often sets love up in contrast to justice and wrath. We are told that ‘God may be loving, but He is also just,’ as if the universalist has somehow forgotten about God’s justice! But ironically, this objection to universalism actually exposes the weakness of more traditional accounts. The universalist has an integrated account of the divine nature in which all God’s actions are manifestations of His ‘holy love.’ More traditional theology often seems less concerned about God’s holy love than about God’s holiness and God’s love. Certain actions are seen as loving actions (saving the lost) whilst other actions are manifestations of God’s holiness but most certainly not manifestations of His love (sending the lost to hell) . . . But any account of hell must see hell as a manifestation of divine love and mercy, even if it is a severe side of that mercy. The traditional theologian will not allow that it is possible for those in hell to find salvation; but, I ask, how . . . could God be love if he draws a line at death and says, ‘Beyond this point, I will look for the lost sheep no more; and even if they try to return, I shall turn them away.’ . . . I suggest that the problem is not that the universalist sentimentalizes God’s love and forgets His wrath but, rather, that the traditional theologians underestimate God’s love and unhelpfully disconnect it from His justice.”
More so than any other book that I have encountered thus far, The Evangelical Universalist soars in presenting a strong, cogent Biblical case for universal reconciliation. While I would regard The Inescapable Love of God by Tom Talbott as the optimal starting point for someone intrigued by the subject in that it provides a thorough and insightful overview—examining each applicable Bible verse while exploring Christian Universalist philosophy—The Evangelical Universalist is arguably even more convincing in that focuses on the story of the Bible as a whole, along with an even deeper exploration of the most relevant Biblical texts. Robin Parry is one of the best Bible scholars that I have ever encountered; I have never read a book as deeply exegetical as this one. And his exploration of the book of Revelation particularly blew my mind—such that I got out my Bible and commenced marking it up immediately after finishing this chapter! Parry ties the end-times narrative together beautifully—pointing out so many key details that often get overlooked and illustrating how its connections with the book of Isiah (or merely other parts of Revelation) oftentimes conjure redemptive connotations for the “damned.” I don’t think it’s any coincidence that God chose “the nations” and “the kings of the Earth” to be the two groups shown walking through the open gates of Heaven in John’s vision—two entities that are up to that point portrayed as enemies of God throughout Revelation.
Another thing that I love about The Evangelical Universalist is how transparent and honest Parry comes across as. He is more than willing to admit when he is not sure about something, or when a point he raises might merely be his own conjecture. Parry refers to himself as a “hopeful dogmatic Universalist”—which means that, while his system of theology demands Universal Reconciliation, he recognizes that his is not the only conceivable system of theology. He also asserts that his goal is not so much to convince others as illustrating that Universal Reconciliation has a strong enough Biblical case that it should not be considered outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy. And, from all the reviews that I have read, he seems to have succeeded in this area.
As I alluded to earlier, though, I wouldn’t say that The Evangelical Universalist is the best starting point for someone uninformed on Universal Reconciliation. Parry is more interested in providing an in-depth study on certain aspects/portions/storylines of scripture than he is in examining each and every potentially applicable passage. Parry ignores plenty of verses with Universalist implications, and there is no mention of the supposedly “unforgivable sin.” And the author never points out that the Hebrew word translated as “punishment” would be more precisely translated as “pruning.” Also, there is only a brief discussion as to how prevalent belief in Universal Reconciliation was in the early church; for me, personally, this has been a huge encouragement in that it illustrates that Universal Reconciliation hasn’t always been such a minority view. Another reason why I wouldn’t recommend the Evangelical Universalist as a starting would be how densely scriptural it is. It is clearly written primarily for people that are accustomed to thorough Biblical exegesis; as such, for your average layperson, it can be a bit overwhelming. Do such things serve as a critique for The Evangelical Universalist? Not necessarily. Parry differentiates his book from other works on the subject by having a unique focus. And, objectively, there seem to be fewer flaws in The Evangelical Universalist than in The Inescapable Love of God.
So one of my only objective critiques for The Evangelical Universalist would be the way that Parry handles the verse about Satan, the False Prophet, and the Beast getting tormented “forever and ever.” He poses the obvious question of how we can justify this with the “reconciliation of all things.” Wouldn’t at least Satan have been created “for God and through God?” As for the Beast, Parry points out that this is a corrupt government system, and something of a concept. Perhaps it gets thrown into the fire and destroyed metaphorically in much the same way as death gets destroyed in the fire, even if the individuals that composed the government are ultimately reconciled to God. Fair enough. That’s the way I would interpret this. But Parry is on very shaky footing when it comes to Satan’s potential redemption. He “very tentatively” poses two potential ways by which to understand this. Both of these I found a bit hard to buy—one of which being that Satan might conceivably not so much be a conscious being as a manifestation of evil. For someone who otherwise strives to appeal primarily to evangelicals and believers of inherency of scripture, I found this to be a bit of a stretch—and it can only cause him to lose considerable credibility with his base. I would much prefer him to merely acknowledge that he has little idea how to harmonize that verse with the reconciliation of all things.” As Parry points out in other parts of the book, no matter what viewpoint one comes to, there will be difficult passages to interpret.
Another issue with The Evangelical Universalist would be that it seems as if Parry often understates his case. Granted, I would much rather a rhetorical author understate their case than overstate it, but understating can prove nonetheless problematic in that it makes for a less convincing argument. For instance, Parry briefly discusses how all three views of the afterlife were common in the early church, but he provides little of the hard-hitting evidence that universal reconciliation may likely have, in fact, been the number one prevailing view. Likewise, I found Parry's exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 (a passage that, in my opinion, spells out universal reconciliation with nearly irrefutable clarity) not to be as hard-hitting as it could have been.
Despite one verse being handled particularly poorly and Parry occasionally understating his case, The Evangelical Universalist makes for the strongest book that I have encountered in making a scriptural case for universal reconciliation. Parry concludes the book with a series of key questions that I have pondered a great deal. He writes: “Hold in your mind traditional Christian visions of the future, in which . . . the majority of humanity is excluded from salvation forever. Alongside that hold the universalist vision, in which God achieves his loving purpose of redeeming the whole creation. Which vision has the strongest view of divine love . . . [and] God’s victory over evil? Which picture lifts the atoning efficacy of the cross of Christ to the greatest heights? Which perspective best emphasizes the triumph of grace over sin? Which view most inspires worship and love of God . . .? Which has the most satisfactory understanding of divine wrath . . . [and] inspires hope in the human spirit?” The more I think about it, the more I can’t help but feel that the original church largely held a vision of God that is far more beautiful than that which most churches hold today.
September 26, 2022
Thorough and winsome, still not completely convinced he’s right, but he’s definitely orthodox, and I hope he is right. Get the second edition if you can, the essays at the back are great.
April 15, 2023
A thoughtful, significant contribution to a topic that has long intrigued me.
Parry presents a rich, Biblically and theologically engaging defense of the position that all will—in the end—be saved through the redeeming work of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.
There’s much to ponder and engage with in this book. Highly recommend to anyone interested in this topic.
Parry presents a rich, Biblically and theologically engaging defense of the position that all will—in the end—be saved through the redeeming work of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.
There’s much to ponder and engage with in this book. Highly recommend to anyone interested in this topic.
September 26, 2025
it wasn't MY favorite book on the topic but I think it's the most accessible for the typical evangelical and would be the one I'd recommend to someone just getting their toes wet on the subject.
October 7, 2025
This is one of the best books for an Evangelical Christian Universalism. Everyone who is interested in exploring alternative to the traditional view of hell should read this book. I say this for two reasons.
First, the book does not make its case in just one area. That is, the author does not solely rely on theological or textual arguments. The book is split into a three-part argument: philosophical, theological, and textual. Many books in this debate tend to rely only on one of the three areas for a particular view of the afterlife. This is to the detriment of the debates on hell. Parry (the author's real name) presents the case for universalism on all fronts, which greatly bolsters his case.
Second, the book is a humble case for universalism. Parry understands that Christian Universalism is a minority view for a reason and that there are tensions and limitations to his view. However, he does a great job pointing out that all views on the table (annihilationism, eternal conscious torment) face similar issues. A key part of this book is Parry showing how each view faces theoretical trade-offs. It's not just universalism that has philosophical, theological, and textual difficulties. Rather, both annihilationism and eternal conscious torment have their own philosophical, theological, and textual trade-offs that don't have obvious solutions.
Parry is not only an excellent writer, but he also displays many intellectual virtues such as clarity, humility, and thoughtfulness. I highly recommend this book.
First, the book does not make its case in just one area. That is, the author does not solely rely on theological or textual arguments. The book is split into a three-part argument: philosophical, theological, and textual. Many books in this debate tend to rely only on one of the three areas for a particular view of the afterlife. This is to the detriment of the debates on hell. Parry (the author's real name) presents the case for universalism on all fronts, which greatly bolsters his case.
Second, the book is a humble case for universalism. Parry understands that Christian Universalism is a minority view for a reason and that there are tensions and limitations to his view. However, he does a great job pointing out that all views on the table (annihilationism, eternal conscious torment) face similar issues. A key part of this book is Parry showing how each view faces theoretical trade-offs. It's not just universalism that has philosophical, theological, and textual difficulties. Rather, both annihilationism and eternal conscious torment have their own philosophical, theological, and textual trade-offs that don't have obvious solutions.
Parry is not only an excellent writer, but he also displays many intellectual virtues such as clarity, humility, and thoughtfulness. I highly recommend this book.
March 24, 2022
This book demonstrates well that perhaps the only thing one can know with any certainty is that one can't know anything with any certainty. The wisest man is he who understands that he understands nothing.
But seriously, I bet no Christian universalist other than Parry/MacDonald (which should I call him?) himself (actually, given the uncertainty he expresses, he probably would, too) would find nothing at least slightly objectionable here. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but you can kind of tell that the book, as stated in the preface, was originally intended for the author's own use. Like, it describes the approach to theology Parry finds most plausible and how he deals with challenges thereto, and if some or most of his reasoning works for a given reader, too, then great, but he explicitly avoids stating anything overly dogmatically.
But avoiding dogmatism, I state dogmatically, is always a good thing. It only leads to conflict with those who disagree while not really doing anything useful for those who happen to agree to some extent. Now how can I phrase that in a way that I won't feel compelled to defend? Speaking of defending things, I keep finding myself in greater alignment with Kierkegaard's attack in The Sickness unto Death on Christian apologetics. You've really already lost the battle if you feel the need to defend something; good ideas always go on the attack and take minds by force (I have personally experienced this in multiple spheres of thinking, especially with universal salvation)—they inspire faith/belief and don't require justification. The problem there is that a lot of bad ideas seem to be similar, but since they're bad ideas, they're vulnerable to refutation, which makes one consider trying to refute any new idea to avoid accepting bad ones, and so the good ideas had better be defensible. Maybe real truth (or true reality?) is simply ultimately invincible and effectively defends itself when pondered properly.
Anyway, I think this book is useful for the overall framework it provides for interpreting the Bible in a universalist way and for generally promoting the gospel of universalism. It would definitely be a good book to read as one's first serious introduction to Christian universalism. In addition to finding it less philosophically "clean" than That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation in some unquantifiable way, I have a couple of minor criticisms that come to mind right now; let me tell you what they are.
I do not like Parry's repeated emphasis on "punishment," especially when he suggests that it has a retributive component rather than being solely a description of how the unrepentant experience God's saving love. As any sophisticated person can tell you, punishment for its own sake can never be justified; retribution is always wrong because it is purely destructive. So obviously anything that appears to speak of God actively punishing anyone in any way must be understood figuratively. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that God might do something that looks like nothing but punishment, but for merciful reasons, and we only think of it that way because we can't see the full picture. …OK, here's a reason to read the entirety of a book before reviewing it. Appendix 5, on pages 209 and 210, expresses pretty exactly my feelings on the matter at hand in the present paragraph. So Parry probably also understands retributive language completely metaphorically, or at least not in a nasty way. Still, I think he should have been clearer about that in the main text, but then again, I suppose technically opposing retributive punishment and penal substitution etc. isn't necessary for a universalist, even if those things are typically associated with infernalism. And in some sense we can say that sin creates a debt for which justice demands payment and that Jesus made that payment on behalf of all of us, but we must keep in mind that such a picture is an oversimplified, imprecise understanding of how things really are. Sort of theological training wheels that Calvinists never discard. Which is understandable. I didn't want to take the training wheels off my bike, either. Certain personalities don't need greater precision in their beliefs to satisfy their intellects, but trouble starts when these cartoonish understandings get used as the foundation of supposedly more rigorous theological schemes, because errors tend to propagate. And that's how you end up with absurdities like predestination. So, in conclusion, question all established beliefs, or you might miss the truth.
I'm inclined to enter into a debate over semantics regarding this book's use of the word "hell." What's the difference between Parry's notion of hell and a correct understanding of purgatory? I feel like it's the same thing and he should have just said "purgatory" to avoid confusion, because at least as I've been taught to think of it, "temporary hell" is pretty much an oxymoron. In the remainder of this review, I shall use the word "hell" for a bad experience that never ends, more or less, which departs from Parry. Regardless of what you call it, though, clearly any postmortem suffering can be only temporary, and redemption must lie on the far side of it even if not explicitly discussed. And we mustn't forget that presumably things will be quite unpleasant for quite a few people for quite a while once they've taken leave of their earthly bodies. Parry's discussion of a temporary "hell" is very useful in reinforcing those two points.
So what are the main points I want to remember from this book? Let's see…
The meta-point that the book doesn't really explicitly make is that debating is pointless, a waste of time, chasing after wind. You're never going to change someone's core beliefs; at best, you might help a person discover more fully what he already believes (as happened when I realized socialism was wrong and libertarianism was slightly less wrong), and you can do that without arguing. So I'm somewhat at peace now with the fact that others will disagree more vehemently with the contents of this book than I do; they can't help it, just like I can't help being a universalist. We're all mistaken somehow.
Hell just doesn't make any sense at all, which is sufficient reason to reject it without examining a single piece of scripture.
Colossians clearly teaches the absolute reconciliation of all creation through God's Anointed One, providing a background against which to interpret everything else in the Bible.
Jesus' death and resurrection parallel Israel's exile and return, which themselves parallel humanity's fall and restoration; in all cases, God's victory is total.
Sometimes we misread the New Testament as talking about hell, but it's actually talking about purgatory.
Universalism (in the sense of a belief in apokatastasis, not of a dogmatic theological system) just makes everything make more sense.
Oh, and universalism per se has absolutely no negative implications for evangelism/missions. Saying it has is grasping at straws, a smokescreen to disguise exactly how weak the case against universalism is; when properly understood, the true gospel demands to be shared.
I admit to skimming the appendices. They're useful as reference material, but I don't really care about the intricacies of Molinism (as I think it's mistaken anyway), and I already basically agree with what the book says, so I don't really need to examine replies to opposing arguments. I guess the appendix on election could be interesting; I haven't really looked at it yet. But I will have read it to my satisfaction before posting this review, so everything is fine. (I wrote that at, like, Thu 24 Mar 2022 03:45:52 PM CDT.)
(Thu 24 Mar 2022 06:10:06 PM CDT)
But seriously, I bet no Christian universalist other than Parry/MacDonald (which should I call him?) himself (actually, given the uncertainty he expresses, he probably would, too) would find nothing at least slightly objectionable here. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but you can kind of tell that the book, as stated in the preface, was originally intended for the author's own use. Like, it describes the approach to theology Parry finds most plausible and how he deals with challenges thereto, and if some or most of his reasoning works for a given reader, too, then great, but he explicitly avoids stating anything overly dogmatically.
But avoiding dogmatism, I state dogmatically, is always a good thing. It only leads to conflict with those who disagree while not really doing anything useful for those who happen to agree to some extent. Now how can I phrase that in a way that I won't feel compelled to defend? Speaking of defending things, I keep finding myself in greater alignment with Kierkegaard's attack in The Sickness unto Death on Christian apologetics. You've really already lost the battle if you feel the need to defend something; good ideas always go on the attack and take minds by force (I have personally experienced this in multiple spheres of thinking, especially with universal salvation)—they inspire faith/belief and don't require justification. The problem there is that a lot of bad ideas seem to be similar, but since they're bad ideas, they're vulnerable to refutation, which makes one consider trying to refute any new idea to avoid accepting bad ones, and so the good ideas had better be defensible. Maybe real truth (or true reality?) is simply ultimately invincible and effectively defends itself when pondered properly.
Anyway, I think this book is useful for the overall framework it provides for interpreting the Bible in a universalist way and for generally promoting the gospel of universalism. It would definitely be a good book to read as one's first serious introduction to Christian universalism. In addition to finding it less philosophically "clean" than That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation in some unquantifiable way, I have a couple of minor criticisms that come to mind right now; let me tell you what they are.
I do not like Parry's repeated emphasis on "punishment," especially when he suggests that it has a retributive component rather than being solely a description of how the unrepentant experience God's saving love. As any sophisticated person can tell you, punishment for its own sake can never be justified; retribution is always wrong because it is purely destructive. So obviously anything that appears to speak of God actively punishing anyone in any way must be understood figuratively. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that God might do something that looks like nothing but punishment, but for merciful reasons, and we only think of it that way because we can't see the full picture. …OK, here's a reason to read the entirety of a book before reviewing it. Appendix 5, on pages 209 and 210, expresses pretty exactly my feelings on the matter at hand in the present paragraph. So Parry probably also understands retributive language completely metaphorically, or at least not in a nasty way. Still, I think he should have been clearer about that in the main text, but then again, I suppose technically opposing retributive punishment and penal substitution etc. isn't necessary for a universalist, even if those things are typically associated with infernalism. And in some sense we can say that sin creates a debt for which justice demands payment and that Jesus made that payment on behalf of all of us, but we must keep in mind that such a picture is an oversimplified, imprecise understanding of how things really are. Sort of theological training wheels that Calvinists never discard. Which is understandable. I didn't want to take the training wheels off my bike, either. Certain personalities don't need greater precision in their beliefs to satisfy their intellects, but trouble starts when these cartoonish understandings get used as the foundation of supposedly more rigorous theological schemes, because errors tend to propagate. And that's how you end up with absurdities like predestination. So, in conclusion, question all established beliefs, or you might miss the truth.
I'm inclined to enter into a debate over semantics regarding this book's use of the word "hell." What's the difference between Parry's notion of hell and a correct understanding of purgatory? I feel like it's the same thing and he should have just said "purgatory" to avoid confusion, because at least as I've been taught to think of it, "temporary hell" is pretty much an oxymoron. In the remainder of this review, I shall use the word "hell" for a bad experience that never ends, more or less, which departs from Parry. Regardless of what you call it, though, clearly any postmortem suffering can be only temporary, and redemption must lie on the far side of it even if not explicitly discussed. And we mustn't forget that presumably things will be quite unpleasant for quite a few people for quite a while once they've taken leave of their earthly bodies. Parry's discussion of a temporary "hell" is very useful in reinforcing those two points.
So what are the main points I want to remember from this book? Let's see…
The meta-point that the book doesn't really explicitly make is that debating is pointless, a waste of time, chasing after wind. You're never going to change someone's core beliefs; at best, you might help a person discover more fully what he already believes (as happened when I realized socialism was wrong and libertarianism was slightly less wrong), and you can do that without arguing. So I'm somewhat at peace now with the fact that others will disagree more vehemently with the contents of this book than I do; they can't help it, just like I can't help being a universalist. We're all mistaken somehow.
Hell just doesn't make any sense at all, which is sufficient reason to reject it without examining a single piece of scripture.
Colossians clearly teaches the absolute reconciliation of all creation through God's Anointed One, providing a background against which to interpret everything else in the Bible.
Jesus' death and resurrection parallel Israel's exile and return, which themselves parallel humanity's fall and restoration; in all cases, God's victory is total.
Sometimes we misread the New Testament as talking about hell, but it's actually talking about purgatory.
Universalism (in the sense of a belief in apokatastasis, not of a dogmatic theological system) just makes everything make more sense.
Oh, and universalism per se has absolutely no negative implications for evangelism/missions. Saying it has is grasping at straws, a smokescreen to disguise exactly how weak the case against universalism is; when properly understood, the true gospel demands to be shared.
I admit to skimming the appendices. They're useful as reference material, but I don't really care about the intricacies of Molinism (as I think it's mistaken anyway), and I already basically agree with what the book says, so I don't really need to examine replies to opposing arguments. I guess the appendix on election could be interesting; I haven't really looked at it yet. But I will have read it to my satisfaction before posting this review, so everything is fine. (I wrote that at, like, Thu 24 Mar 2022 03:45:52 PM CDT.)
(Thu 24 Mar 2022 06:10:06 PM CDT)
August 30, 2010
The title alone suggests that this would be a controversial book in evangelical circles. Originally written under a pseudonym, the author has since revealed his identity as Dr Robin Parry, publishing editor of Paternoster Press and a member of City Church Worcester, part of the Salt and Light network of churches.
My initial response to the book is that I hope its central thesis is true - that in the end, all will be saved through faith in Christ, even those who enter hell. By that, I mean that the doctrine of endless punishment has, up to now, been a difficult doctrine for me to live with as I have stood at the gravesides of a growing number of my non-Christian extended family.
Such an emotional response does not of course mean that the doctrine of universal reconciliation is true. I do, however, intend to study the book more closely and try and come to a view on its message. Certainly, if nothing else, the book demands that all Bible-believing Christians think carefully about the “universalist” texts in Isaiah, Psalms, Paul’s letters and Revelation, which as MacDonald shows, are routinely read by evangelicals through the filter of the “hell texts” of the synoptic gospels. The author argues that we need to read the texts the other way round (filtering the hell texts through the universalist texts) in order to come to a view that does justice to the character and eternal purpose of God.
My initial response to the book is that I hope its central thesis is true - that in the end, all will be saved through faith in Christ, even those who enter hell. By that, I mean that the doctrine of endless punishment has, up to now, been a difficult doctrine for me to live with as I have stood at the gravesides of a growing number of my non-Christian extended family.
Such an emotional response does not of course mean that the doctrine of universal reconciliation is true. I do, however, intend to study the book more closely and try and come to a view on its message. Certainly, if nothing else, the book demands that all Bible-believing Christians think carefully about the “universalist” texts in Isaiah, Psalms, Paul’s letters and Revelation, which as MacDonald shows, are routinely read by evangelicals through the filter of the “hell texts” of the synoptic gospels. The author argues that we need to read the texts the other way round (filtering the hell texts through the universalist texts) in order to come to a view that does justice to the character and eternal purpose of God.
May 29, 2015
Whereas Rob Bell's Love Wins is more of a layman's look at this subject, Gregory MacDonald digs very deeply into the pros, cons, and rationale for a universalist theology. It is a thought provoking but extremely dense read - I don't often read this genre, so the process was a bit of a beating. But it was worth the time and I'm glad I read it.
January 31, 2017
SOOOO much to chew on. I want to believe there is always room for redemption. This helped me start opening my mind to new possibilities in Jesus
August 1, 2019
"I hope that this book may persuade some at least to tolerate evangelical universalism as a legitimate Christian position--a view that is true to the message of the gospel--even if they themselves feel unable to accept it."
As far as this goes, Gregory MacDonald succeeds with me. I believe the position has a lot of merit and this book is pretty well-argued, even if I'm not convinced.
I am a conditionalist / annihilationist, and I feel very confident that "eternal conscious torment" is false. Every system has its problem texts, MacDonald reminds us, but truth be told, I don't think "eternal conscious torment" has more than 1 single text in its favor (Revelation 10:20). All other texts are either neutral or imply destruction and death, which sounds far more like annihilation. MacDonald does succeed, however, in presenting a few such Bible texts that would imply "universal salvation" rather than its alternatives, but it's also evident that he's more focused on responding to ECT than annihilationism, and I think there are more of our concerns that he simply doesn't take into consideration. For instance, I never struggled with the text that "every knee will bow", even if it implies the salvation of all such knee-owners. I simply assumed (right or wrong) that those were the knees of survivors, the people who had not been annihilated. I'm intrigued by MacDonald's suggested interpretation, but also convinced that an annihilationist vision of the future is "universal" in its extent. Everything will someday be subjected to God's rule. He will be all in all (all that is left).
I think his case is particularly strong when it comes to Colossians and the book of Revelation. And this was the most interesting parts of the book to me--when he dived into the Bible texts and discussed how to interpret them.
I do wish that universalism was more respected in Christian circles. Because then we'd have more books to argue the case, and we could investigate it more openly.
The theology does make a lot of sense to me. It makes sense to me that God would heal and restore broken people who are "evil" because they were victims of evil themselves -- and what they need is not to be punished, but to finally experience restorative love. Given what I understand about psychology and trauma therapy, part of me does wonder "why won't God just do that rather than resurrect them to destruction?" Christian Universalist theology would have a satisfying answer to that--He will. My only obstacle, then, seems to be exegetical.
As far as this goes, Gregory MacDonald succeeds with me. I believe the position has a lot of merit and this book is pretty well-argued, even if I'm not convinced.
I am a conditionalist / annihilationist, and I feel very confident that "eternal conscious torment" is false. Every system has its problem texts, MacDonald reminds us, but truth be told, I don't think "eternal conscious torment" has more than 1 single text in its favor (Revelation 10:20). All other texts are either neutral or imply destruction and death, which sounds far more like annihilation. MacDonald does succeed, however, in presenting a few such Bible texts that would imply "universal salvation" rather than its alternatives, but it's also evident that he's more focused on responding to ECT than annihilationism, and I think there are more of our concerns that he simply doesn't take into consideration. For instance, I never struggled with the text that "every knee will bow", even if it implies the salvation of all such knee-owners. I simply assumed (right or wrong) that those were the knees of survivors, the people who had not been annihilated. I'm intrigued by MacDonald's suggested interpretation, but also convinced that an annihilationist vision of the future is "universal" in its extent. Everything will someday be subjected to God's rule. He will be all in all (all that is left).
I think his case is particularly strong when it comes to Colossians and the book of Revelation. And this was the most interesting parts of the book to me--when he dived into the Bible texts and discussed how to interpret them.
I do wish that universalism was more respected in Christian circles. Because then we'd have more books to argue the case, and we could investigate it more openly.
The theology does make a lot of sense to me. It makes sense to me that God would heal and restore broken people who are "evil" because they were victims of evil themselves -- and what they need is not to be punished, but to finally experience restorative love. Given what I understand about psychology and trauma therapy, part of me does wonder "why won't God just do that rather than resurrect them to destruction?" Christian Universalist theology would have a satisfying answer to that--He will. My only obstacle, then, seems to be exegetical.
March 20, 2019
This book, written by Robin Parry under the psuedonym Gregory MacDonald, presents a clear, biblical, humble, and irenic case for Christian Universalism, the view that God will save all people through Christ. As its title indicates, it works within a specifically evangelical framework, emphasizing the importance of respecting and correctly interpreting the Bible and (when possible) the wider Christian tradition. While lacking the philosophical sophistication and forcefulness of Thomas Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God, The Evangelical Universalist is an important and needed contribution to the discussion.
The best feature of this book is the carefully constructed whole-Bible framework that Parry presents. He argues convincingly that the entire biblical narrative contains a universal movement from Creation to Fall to judgment, with Redemption waiting on the far side of judgment; Christ represents Israel, which represents the entire world, so that Christ's death and resurrection is a model of the death and resurrection of all people. By attending to key passages and Greek words, Parry demonstrates that it is possible (though by no means necessary) to interpret hell as temporary and purgatorial, and to believe by way of the Bible itself that all people will one day be saved. He uses Revelation as a particular test case of what theology and exegesis would look like when filtered through his hermeneutic, and he is successful in presenting a plausible universalist interpretation of that book. Finally, Parry wraps things up with a well-thought out analysis of the advantages of Christian Universalism, taking care to refute common misconceptions about the view and its effects.
This is essential reading for anyone studying this topic.
The best feature of this book is the carefully constructed whole-Bible framework that Parry presents. He argues convincingly that the entire biblical narrative contains a universal movement from Creation to Fall to judgment, with Redemption waiting on the far side of judgment; Christ represents Israel, which represents the entire world, so that Christ's death and resurrection is a model of the death and resurrection of all people. By attending to key passages and Greek words, Parry demonstrates that it is possible (though by no means necessary) to interpret hell as temporary and purgatorial, and to believe by way of the Bible itself that all people will one day be saved. He uses Revelation as a particular test case of what theology and exegesis would look like when filtered through his hermeneutic, and he is successful in presenting a plausible universalist interpretation of that book. Finally, Parry wraps things up with a well-thought out analysis of the advantages of Christian Universalism, taking care to refute common misconceptions about the view and its effects.
This is essential reading for anyone studying this topic.
September 23, 2025
I found this book to be strongly biblical, well thought out, and very scholarly in its approach.
The author has good, biblical reasons for all the positions he puts forward, and usually makes a good case for them. He shows clearly, for instance, that there's a pretty consistent biblical pattern of judgement being followed by restoration.
I was also impressed that he didn't fudge the 'problem texts', but tackled them head on – e.g, he makes a strong argument that the nations that are cast into the 'lake of fire' in Revelation are the same nations that enter the city and are healed in the last 2 chapters.
His style is very clear, down-to-earth, and readable. I was also impressed by his humility: he doesn't claim to have cornered the market on truth, but simply offers his understanding of the texts for our consideration. And in his footnotes, he directs his readers not only to sources that he agrees with, but also places where they can read in full the sources he disagrees with.
He cites all his sources throughout, and there's an extensive bibliography in back.
I don't (at least at this time) agree with every point he puts forward. But in general, I found his reasoning to be biblical, consistent, and convincing. As a result of reading this book, I feel I can call myself a strongly hopeful universalist (in the sense that I hope I have correctly understood that this is what the completed work of Christ will ultimately accomplish).
I would definitely recommend that my fellow Christians not only read this book, but really engage with the content as honestly as they can. Even if they end up disagreeing, it should definitely give us all food for thought.
The author has good, biblical reasons for all the positions he puts forward, and usually makes a good case for them. He shows clearly, for instance, that there's a pretty consistent biblical pattern of judgement being followed by restoration.
I was also impressed that he didn't fudge the 'problem texts', but tackled them head on – e.g, he makes a strong argument that the nations that are cast into the 'lake of fire' in Revelation are the same nations that enter the city and are healed in the last 2 chapters.
His style is very clear, down-to-earth, and readable. I was also impressed by his humility: he doesn't claim to have cornered the market on truth, but simply offers his understanding of the texts for our consideration. And in his footnotes, he directs his readers not only to sources that he agrees with, but also places where they can read in full the sources he disagrees with.
He cites all his sources throughout, and there's an extensive bibliography in back.
I don't (at least at this time) agree with every point he puts forward. But in general, I found his reasoning to be biblical, consistent, and convincing. As a result of reading this book, I feel I can call myself a strongly hopeful universalist (in the sense that I hope I have correctly understood that this is what the completed work of Christ will ultimately accomplish).
I would definitely recommend that my fellow Christians not only read this book, but really engage with the content as honestly as they can. Even if they end up disagreeing, it should definitely give us all food for thought.
October 8, 2021
This is the most fun I've had with a nerdy theology book in a while. I'm an evangelical. Evangelicals typically hold that the fate of the unredeemed is eternal torment in hell. MacDonald is an evangelical, but he disagrees. He believes that the unredeemed may repent and in fact be redeemed even after they die. Yes there is a hell, but it isn’t forever.
MacDonald makes two arguments: a philosophical one and a biblical one. The philosophical section excels. It boils down to an incompatibility. How do we reconcile an omnibenevolent God with the idea that some people will be eternally damned? It's a tough question. One we must confront.
I'm not as persuaded by MacDonald's biblical arguments. He makes two big points. The first is that there are passages that teach universalism. Romans 5, Colossians 1, 1 Corinthians 15, etc. Then he deals with the passages historically taken to mean that hell is eternal. Methinks that his universalism passages have better alternative interpretations, and his answers to the "forever" verses fall short.
Still, this was much more rigorous than I expected. MacDonald had me thinking the whole way through, and his writing is excellent. Evangelical Universalist was quite good.
MacDonald makes two arguments: a philosophical one and a biblical one. The philosophical section excels. It boils down to an incompatibility. How do we reconcile an omnibenevolent God with the idea that some people will be eternally damned? It's a tough question. One we must confront.
I'm not as persuaded by MacDonald's biblical arguments. He makes two big points. The first is that there are passages that teach universalism. Romans 5, Colossians 1, 1 Corinthians 15, etc. Then he deals with the passages historically taken to mean that hell is eternal. Methinks that his universalism passages have better alternative interpretations, and his answers to the "forever" verses fall short.
Still, this was much more rigorous than I expected. MacDonald had me thinking the whole way through, and his writing is excellent. Evangelical Universalist was quite good.
July 25, 2020
Some might be excused for thinking the title signifies writing about some plot by certain right wing religious groups to impose their way on society. Such is the loaded nature of the word 'evangelical' for many these days.
Instead this is a thorough and thought provoking analysis of how someone who is a follower of Christ and takes the validity of the Bible very seriously, can believe that ultimately all of humanity will be saved through Christ.
Such a type of universalism is not seen possible as an optional belief to hold by many as 'orthodox' evangelicalism. Yet even if the author is wrong, he has a high view of the love of God and how such love shapes matters like justice or wrath, he affirms the call to share the good news about Christ and he sees looking at all the relevant Scripture passages as very important.
It has left me with much to ponder on.
Instead this is a thorough and thought provoking analysis of how someone who is a follower of Christ and takes the validity of the Bible very seriously, can believe that ultimately all of humanity will be saved through Christ.
Such a type of universalism is not seen possible as an optional belief to hold by many as 'orthodox' evangelicalism. Yet even if the author is wrong, he has a high view of the love of God and how such love shapes matters like justice or wrath, he affirms the call to share the good news about Christ and he sees looking at all the relevant Scripture passages as very important.
It has left me with much to ponder on.
June 24, 2017
Excellent book. Very humbly and thoroughly plots out a defence for Universalism from an evangelical perspective. He deals with every point in a very balanced way, accepting weakenesses in his argument and adressing them. Ultimately he comes to the conclusion that a form of universalism that incorporates temporary divine punishment best accounts for the texts in the Bible that indicate universalist themes, but intergrating them with texts that talk about divine punishment. very well written. Could have been improved with a more in-depth exegesis of some 'hell' passages in the new testament, but this doesn't majorly detract from the argument in general.
November 29, 2023
I will forever recommend this work of Robin Parry’s to all, not just those wondering about universalism-christian or unitarian. If you find yourself on the fence of christian universalism, read this book. If you find yourself as someone who hates even the thought of christian universalism, much less universalism, read this book. If you’re someone tormented by the thought of an everlasting hell, read this book. If you’re an atheist, read this book. I simply do not care who you are, read this book. Well worth the time, brilliantly put together, a through and through great read. Well done Robin Parry.
October 17, 2022
If you’d asked me 20 years ago, or even 10, if universalism is true I’d have said no and been reluctantly confident of my view. I’ve done more reading and thinking the past few years, and talking with others. Every objection people have raised to the view with me is helpfully discussed in his book. For reasons given in this book, and others, I think universalism is certainly a live option and is perhaps true. Whatever your view, this book is worth your time and close consideration.
January 4, 2018
An extremely compelling Biblical Theology for a theology of Universal Salvation. Some readings of Biblical texts are difficult but no view of eschatology and soteriology is without biblical texts that it is in tension with. Nevertheless MacDonald did a superb job of giving an overall Biblical theology, and not just a reinterpretation of some texts that we privilege over others
October 27, 2021
The book is fine in what it tries to do. There is no point in criticizing it for what it doesn't try to do (as some have). Its main idea is to give you reasons why Christian universalism should be an option on the table and not be dismissed right away. I doubt this book would change many people's minds, but it is still a valuable read, regardless of where you stand on the issue.
January 2, 2023
This book is really only useful if you are a staunch Calvinist. I appreciated his textual analysis, but I found his arguments about God's love and victory being more important than free will rather lacking. (I'm an Arminian, can you tell?) Also...this is an text for scholars, not lay people. So make sure you have your coffee ready when you read it.
May 1, 2025
I've wanted to be a universalist for a long time, but this book has given me hope that it might actually be true. I still have a few lingering objections, but I appreciated how biblical his reasoning was and all his arguments sounded plausible to me, even if I'm not as sure of his conclusions as he is.
It's not enough to convince me, but it's enough to give me hope.
It's not enough to convince me, but it's enough to give me hope.
August 15, 2019
Provides an incredibly strong case both biblically and philosophically for Christian Universalism. Covers arguments for and against and shows succinctly why he is for universal salvation. Can’t recommend it enough to people studying about Hell and eternal life/death.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews