AN EVANGELICAL UNIVERSALIST THEODICY

Beginning with this installment, we will be uploading a series of blogs dealing with Christian Theodicy from an Evangelical Universalist perspective.

Why Does Evil Exist?

John Frame calls the existence of evil the most serious problem for Christians to answer. The atheist asserts; if God is omnipotent and omni-benevolent evil cannot possibly exist. Yet evil does exist. Therefore how can there be an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God?

Renowned Christian apologist, Greg Bahnsen, rebutted this assertion with the rejoinder, that if the Christian cannot explain how evil can exist, the atheist is even worse off. He cannot define evil at all, for, in rejecting the word of God, he has rejected the only standard upon which to judge anything either evil or good. At least, says Bahnsen, the Christian can properly identify and categorize evil. The Christian has the Scriptures to tell him what is and is not evil. Without it we are left with nothing more than subjective appraisal, and what one deems evil another may call good.

Many find this to be a clever response, and indeed it does turn the tables on the unbeliever and put the Christian on the offensive. However, it does not answer the question at hand. The fact that the atheist has no way of dealing with evil does not explain how evil can exist if God is both all good and all powerful.

This problem of evil has been the basis for the theological division between the Calvinists and the Arminians, (or the Augustinians and the Pelagians, to put it in more ancient terms.). Therefore, with an eye toward Christian unity, it behooves us to see if we can find a resolution to this problem. But is resolution possible? Many theologians have answered this in the negative. Among them are Cornelius Van Til, who calls it an irresolvable apparent contradiction, and J. I. Packer, who calls it an antinomy. The Calvinist, recognizing the omnipotence of God generally seeks resolution by way of minimizing the benevolence of God. The Arminian, firmly clinging to the benevolence of God, denigrates his omnipotence. Van Til, Packer, and Calvin all insisted that both divine omnipotence, and divine benevolence must be maintained and therefore, throw up their hands and declare antinomy!

Some, including the present writer, are more optimistic. Jay E. Addams, in his The Grand Demonstration, finds the resolution in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans chapter nine. The rather ambitious sub-title of his book, “The resolution to the so-called problem of evil”, promises much. The reason evil exists, says Addams, is so that God may demonstrate his attributes of mercy and justice. Alas, as John Frame notes, this is hardly the final resolution we were promised. In the final analysis, Addams is simply adhering to the Calvinist party line and has really not offered anything of value to address the Arminian’s concern.

It is true enough, so far as it goes, but it does not resolve the problem fully. It does not show us how God can be vindicated as just simply because he desires to demonstrate his attributes. And in fact, if that were the only answer, it fails in achieving its purported purpose, since God’s benevolence is not demonstrated but rather his lack thereof. According to the Calvinist, God is not omni-benevolent, but limited in his benevolence. His mercy, say they, is limited to the elect. The rest, God has predestined to fail, to fall and to ultimately burn in the exquisite torments of hell forever according to his good pleasure.

Frame, comes closer to a resolution in a number of his works but, as a Calvinist, his presupposition of the doctrine of endless torment makes him incapable of taking the necessary logical steps required to truly reach a resolution. He notes that the best resolution to the problem lies in some sort of “greater good” resolution. But there can be no greater good if the end result remains the same. This is why ancient church father and noted Universalist, Gregory of Nyssa, insisted that in the end evil must cease to exist. Otherwise God remains either less than all powerful or less than all good.

So then, if, Frame’s assessment is correct, which the present writer believes, and the greater good hypothesis offers the best possible resolution, how must this hypothesis be formulated in order to truly resolve the entire dilemma and offer comfort to both Arminians and Calvinists?

_________________________________

The remainder of this little essay will deal with the answer to this question and then, we shall seek to demonstrate that the answer offered is not only logical, and philosophically acceptable but also comports with the teaching of scripture as well.

Evil exists to glorify God by demonstrating his goodness and holiness in contrast to it’s opposite. Addams was correct thus far. But it also exists so that we may see firsthand the importance of holiness and the horror of ungodliness. God in his infinite wisdom deemed that this important lesson could not be taught better than in this manner of first hand experience and exposure. Could he have simply instilled this knowledge, fully formed within us without requiring us to experience the horrors of evil? Yes he could have, but the fact that he did not do so requires us to understand that there is a certain quality involved in actually experiencing these horrors which makes this the best of all possible worlds, to steal a phrase from Spinoza. That, the present writer cannot identify what that certain something is does not negate the necessity of positing its existence. Nor does it militate against it.

But what does sacred scripture say on this matter? Stay tuned to find out!

James Stuart Russell

J. Stuart Russell

Early life and ministry

James Stuart Russell M.A., D.Div., (1816-1895) was a pastor and author of The Parousia. The book was originally published in 1878 with the title, The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord's Second Coming. A second edition followed in 1887.

To recieve a FREE copy of this monumental work on THE RETURN OF CHRIST go HERE.

James Stuart Russell - Undated Photograph, colorized by Virgil Vaduva

James Stuart Russell, the son of a pious Scotsman, was born at Elgin, Morayshire, on November 28, 1816. He entered King's College, University of Aberdeen, at the age of twelve and when eighteen he completed his M.A. degree. His religious decision dates from about his sixteenth year under the influence of his older brother. For a time he served in a law office. Then to prepare for a Christian ministry he studied in the Theological Halls of Edinburgh and Glasgow, ultimately finding his way to Cheshunt College.

In June 1843 Russell became an assistant minister at the Congregationalist Church in Great Yarmouth before taking over as minister. In 1857 Russell transferred to the Congregational Church in Tottenham and Edmonton. While holding this position, Russell visited Belfast to observe the working of the great Irish Revival and came under its influence. On his return a similar awakening occurred in his own church.

After a stay of five years in his second church, Russell was attracted to a new church in the rapidly growing Bayswater, whose chapel in Lancaster Road was built in 1866. Here he continued to serve until his years and failing health led to retirement near the end of 1888.

Russell was not only an able preacher, but also a man of kindly deportment. He was gifted with winning personal characteristics, which secured for him a devoted following. His pleasant manners and genial spirit, his native humor and genuine wit, his extensive reading and wide knowledge and most retentive memory, made conversations with him agreeable and profitable.

Russell's fervor stretched beyond the limits of his own pastorate. He was present, in 1843, at the formation of the Evangelical Alliance, with whose aim and operations he remained in warm and active sympathy to the last. He had an ever deepening sense of the importance of the temperance movement, and he was the first chairman of the Congregational Total Abstinence Association. Both the National Temperance League and the United Kingdom Alliance counted him among their members. His advocacy of the good cause was in frequent demand for meetings in London and the suburbs.

Publishing The Parousia

But it is as an author that Russell is most widely known and will be longest remembered. He had held the doctrine of the past second Advent (Preterism) for many years before writing or even speaking on the subject. He used to describe how the matter came to him as a sort of revelation. On discovering the key to the mystery, the whole theme gradually unfolded. It was to him a source of constant delight to see one point after another fall into harmony with what he believed to be the central truth. Accordingly, in 1878, he published anonymously his now celebrated, The Parousia, containing an elaborate exegesis on these lines of New Testament teaching concerning the second coming of Jesus Christ. Another edition followed with the author's name attached.

This work, a rare specimen of serious exposition and logical acumen, drew much attention to the subject on both sides of the Atlantic. The University of Aberdeen soon signalled its appreciation of the book by conferring on the author a well earned diploma in divinity, which he valued all the more highly because it came from his alma mater.

The argument of this consummate piece of Biblical criticism has had the effect of leading many to believe that Christ's second advent actually took place in the first century of the Christian era. Often Russell would have joy from the open adherence of one person after another to the views set forth in his work. His masterly disquisition must hold its own as an authority in its particular department, which all who propose to explore the same field are bound to consult. To his independent yet reverent pen the Church at large stands indebted for a valuable contribution to the range of Scripture study and sacred thought.

Late life

Russell's later years clouded with bodily infirmity and painful disease. He bore his sufferings, to the admiration of attendants and medical advisers, with a manly and even cheerful patience, upheld by his Christian faith. Again and again he repeated the words, "On Christ the solid rock I stand!" Moreover, his physical trials were happily relieved, as those of his sainted wife had been, by the tender solicitude and untiring devotion of an only daughter. From her arms and those of her one brother, the father passed peacefully away on October 5, 1895, in the 79th year of his age and the fifty-second year of his ministry. Russell is buried in the Kensal Green Cemetery.

Scholarship Recognition

In addition to the recognition Russell received from the University of Aberdeen for his theological work, a number of both contemporary and modern scholars have recognized his work.

Charles Spurgeon

While Charles Spurgeon did not share the eschatological views of J. Stuart Russell or the final conclusions of his book, in the 1878 issue of his magazine The Sword and the Trowel, Spurgeon wrote a short review of The Parousia: The second coming of Christ according to this volume had its fulfilment in the destruction of Jerusalem and the establishment of the gospel dispensation. That the parables and predictions of our Lord had a more direct and exclusive reference to that period than is generally supposed, we readily admit; but we were not prepared for the assignment of all references to a second coming in the New Testament, and even in the Apocalypse itself, to so early a fulfillment. All that could be said has been said in support of this theory, and much more than ought to have been said. In this the reasoning fails. In order to concentrate the whole prophecies of the Book of Revelation upon the period of the destruction of Jerusalem it was needful to assume this book to have been written prior to that event, although the earliest ecclesiastical historians agree that John was banished to the isle of Patmos, where the book was written, by Domitian, who reigned after Titus, by whom Jerusalem was destroyed. Apart from this consideration, the compression of all the Apocalyptic visions and prophecies into so narrow a space requires more ingenuity and strength than that of men and angels combined. Too much stress is laid upon such phrases as 'The time is at hand,' 'Behold I come quickly,' whereas many prophecies of Scripture are delivered as present or past, as 'unto us a child is born,' etc., and 'Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.' Amidst the many comings of Christ spoken of in the New Testament that which is spoken of as a second, must, we think, be personal, and thus similar to the first; and such too must be the meaning of 'his appearing.' Though the author's theory is carried too far, it has so much of truth in it, and throws so much new light upon obscure portions of the Scriptures, and is accompanied with so much critical research and close reasoning, that it can be injurious to none and may be profitable to all.

Gary DeMar

Gary DeMar, the president and founder of American Vision wrote: How many times have you struggled with the interpretation of certain Biblical texts related to the time of Jesus' return because they did not fit with a preconceived system of eschatology? Russell's Parousia takes the Bible seriously when it tells us of the nearness of Christ's return. Those who claim to interpret the Bible literally, trip over the obvious meaning of these time texts by making Scripture mean the opposite of what it unequivocally declares. Reading Russell is a breath of fresh air in a room filled with smoke and mirror hermeneutics.

Dr. R. C. Sproul

The founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries, Dr. R. C. Sproul also wrote regarding The Parousia: I believe that Russell's work is one of the most important treatments on Biblical eschatology that is available to the church today. The issues raised in this volume with respect to the time-frame references of the New Testament to the Parousia are vitally important not only for eschatology but for the future debate over the credibility of Sacred Scripture

Dr. Kenneth Gentry

While remaining reserved about the final conclusions of The Parousia, Dr. Kenneth Gentry a theologian and a professor at Bahnsen Theological Seminary concluded: Although I do not agree with all the conclusions of J. Stuart Russell's The Parousia, I highly recommend this well-organized, carefully argued, and compellingly written defense of Preterism to serious and mature students of the Bible. It is one of the most persuasive and challenging books I have read on the subject of eschatology and has had a great impact on my own thinking. Russell's biblico-theological study of New Testament eschatology sets a standard of excellence.

PRETERISM AND EVANGELICAL UNIVERSALISM

Much of the reason why evangelicals have trouble regarding evangelical universalists as true Christians lies in the gross misunderstanding of what the Bible actually teaches regarding eschatology (last things).

After all, universalism is essentially a difference of opinion regarding what the Bible teaches about the final disposition of the lost. It is a difference of opinion with orthodoxy on the personal eschatology of the unconverted. Thus it is entirely an eschatological subject.

Christian orthodoxy has been predominantly "futurist" in its approach to the subject of eschatology for over a thousand years.

As James Stuart Russell demonstrates in his work, The Parousia of Christ this was not always so. Russell makes the case that long ago the Church Fathers knew that many prophecies regarding the return of Christ that contemporary theologians believe refer to yet unfulfilled events were actually fulfilled almost two thousand years ago!

Erroneous futurist eschatology is what makes it impossible for many evangelical Christians to understand what the Bible actually says regarding the final redemption of mankind.

To recieve a FREE copy of this monumental work on THE RETURN OF CHRIST go HERE.