God's Final Victory: A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism (Continuum Studies in Philosophy of Religion)

I bought this book with mild expectations. I didn't think a philosophical case for a religious doctrine could provide solid grounds for embracing a doctrine. My thought was that exegetical arguments are what matter, and that a philosophical argument, at best, could rationalize a doctrine reached via sound exegesis. Reading God's Final Victory (hereafter "GFV") has completely altered my hermeneutic.The authors, Kronen and Reitan, think the plainest interpretations of individual texts within the Bible provide prima facie evidence for DH (doctrine of hell) *and* DU (doctrine of universalism). Their case for DU does not involve looking at individual DH proof texts, analyzing their contexts, and offering alternate interpretations of what the texts 'really' are saying. Their case for DU is based on finding consistency with core Christian principles. "our aim is to show that, granted core Christian principles, no form of DH is as plausible as some form of DU. We call this a 'comparative' defence of DU." (p 1). "it is reason which tells us when a certain reading of Scripture, however plain it may seem, is incompatible with broad scriptural themes and stable doctrines derived from centuries of critical engagement with Scripture". "even though certain scriptural texts seem to teach it, DH is at odds with broad scriptural themes". (p 6).The authors use what they describe as a Lutheran framework (p 67). "In general terms, if we find ourselves unable to find an interpretation of a scriptural passage that is consistent with the core message that we are saved through Christ's redemptive work, Luther would advise us to leave it out of our theology rather than distort the gospel." "Luther's point is that we are more faithful to Scripture when we reject those passages that, given our best interpretive efforts, conflict with the gospel message of redemption through Christ than we are when we allow devotion to inerrancy to distort the message." (63) I think the authors do a decent job setting the stage for their case for DU, which makes up the rest of the book. However, I think the appeal of their framework could have been bolstered if in Chapter 4 they had provided texts whose plainest interpretations are widely rejected by "hellists" and universalists alike. Off the top of my head, one example they could have used: both hellists and universalists often take the position that blasphemy against the Spirit (the 'unpardonable sin') is impenitence at death, even though nothing about the context suggests that.I will not cover each argument the authors make for DU, but I will cover one that I thought was especially solid: "an argument from God's Love for the Blessed". In "The Inescapable Love of God" (TILOG) by Thomas Talbott, Talbott rejects the 'spiritual lobotomy' theory suggested by some defenders of DH. This is the theory is that God 'shields' people in heaven from knowledge that some people are hopelessly punished. As I noted in my review of TILOG, I didn't think Talbott did a sufficient job explaining why this theory is implausible. Kronen and Reitan have stepped up. Sticking with an orthodox Christian belief about heaven, that heaven is communion with God, the authors find serious problems with the spiritual lobotomy theory: if God shields the blessed from knowing an important part of Him then neither the blessed nor the damned have communion with God; "there are only degrees of separation." (p 87). I suppose a DH defender could argue that how God responds to a certain amount of sin (by hopelessly punishing the perpetrators) is not an important part of God, but I find that notion dubious. The authors, citing Aquinas, believe supreme happiness (that is, what the blessed experience in heaven) and blissful ignorance are fundamentally at odds with one another.In the latter part of the book, the authors' focus shifts from the question of 'should God save everyone?' to 'can God save everyone?' They argue that it is neither metaphysically impossible nor does it require God to behave in a way that is morally impermissible. The authors propose two theories on how God could achieve universal salvation: (1) "Argument from Efficacious Grace" (AEG) and (2) "Argument from Infinite Opportunity" (AIO). The authors prefer AIO (as do I), but that does not mean AEG is implausible. Having only read GFV once, my main problem with AEG is that it may be hard if not impossible to reconcile with AWS. I should note here that AEG is *not* heteronomy, or, "mind control" whereby God 'takes over' a person's consciousness and forces them to accept Him. My issue with AEG is that if God could bestow efficacious grace, (which saves the sinner), why not do it on Earth for everyone? Why wait for so many creatures to live their whole lives as sinners and then biologically die as sinners before bestowing efficacious grace? Perhaps I just need to re-read the chapter on AEG and therein will find my answer, but the AEG did not leave a strong impression on me, at least in comparison to AIO. AIO holds that God will never withdraw grace from a creature. As long as God exists, sinners will exist (preserved in existence by God), with an open offer of salvation; there is no point at which God would lose patience with a creature and remove all opportunity from the creature from experiencing the beatific vision. I like this theory a lot. What's good about Kronen and Reitan's defense of it is that they address the question of whether or not it conflicts with free will. They conclude it does not. I'm inclined to agree. Hellists may argue that God giving a creature the option to choose an eternal destiny apart from Him, so that the creature can never change his mind, is the only way He can respect a creature's autonomy. The authors disagree, believing that making salvation a "limited time offer" is no more a violation of autonomy than leaving salvation an unlimited time offer. "Notice ... that this way of setting up the choice is itself an autonomy minimizing strategy. According to this approach, at time T1 I am to choose between communion with God at all times and alienation from God at all times. This means the choice is set up at T1 so that, if my choice is accepted at T1, I am deprived of all future choice on the matter. Only if my choice is rejected at T1 (and my autonomy is therefore directly violated) do I still have a choice on the matter at T2. Set up in this way, there is an inevitable restriction of autonomy whether my choice is accepted or not." (p 173). I still think the DH options, which allow a creature to choose an eternal destiny apart from God is, in a sense, more 'pro-freedom' than what Kronen and Reitan have proposed for DU, but I think there is a problem with the DH argument that the authors do not identify: why does God not grant sinful these creatures their wish immediately? Surely there have been cases where people, while biologically alive, have had such hate for God that they wanted an eternal destiny apart from God -- who repented before biological death. Why doesn't God grant these creatures their wish the moment they want an eternal destiny apart from Him? The idea that God grants people some time to change their minds about eternally rejecting Him, but not infinite time, seems totally arbitrary.One final thing I will say that I like about GFV is that it seems 'eschatology neutral'. What I mean by that is the arguments do not need any particular eschatology to be true for them to be valid. Since the arguments are about God's nature and sin's essence, I think they are valid whether you're a futurist (as most Christians are) or a preterist (as I am). I would be interested in knowing if the authors concur with my conclusion that their work is eschatology neutral.GFV's arguments for DU tend to assume 'orthodox' Christian doctrines (trinitarianism; hypostatic union) more than TILOG's arguments do. However, if you're not an orthodox Christian, the authors' orthodoxy should not deter you from reading this book. Though I think TILOG is better (I consider TILOG the gold standard of universalist literature), GFV is excellent too, in many places expanding Talbott's arguments.

This is the book and these men are the philosophers whom the advocates of eternal torment do not wish to debate.Warning: this book is a profound piece of philosophical scholarship and it requires slow and attentive reading to get all the nuances of the arguments for universalism. That said, it is a simply wonderful defense of God's universal love which destroys the prevailing attitude of God as full of anger and revenge. (aka Dante's Inferno - the descriptions of which are still popular among more traditionalist Catholics).John Kronen and Eric Reitan take pains to present every argument for eternal damnation and then slowly and systematically dismantle them. Because it is so scholarly, I will be reading and studying it for some time to come, but the basic defenses come through the writing and you will be able to get a good foundation on Universalism by reading this book.

More than half way through and it's not an easy read.. definitely not for the lay man but helps understand the logic as to why Christians should hold to some form of Christian universalism Instead of eternal torment or the destruction of the soul. The Early church mainly believed in the immortality of the soul and universalism makes the best sense than the other two positions. It also in a way helps understand the justice of God being restorative and God being Equitable and not strictly Just. .

I am not sure whether writing a review is helpful. My guess is that those who do not share my worldview are unlikely to care about what I write, and those who do share it are unlikely to read this book in the first place. But it may be helpful for me to look back on, at least, so what the heck.Through the vast majority of human history, the people of God have held to the revealed Word of God as authoritative in some sense. A very helpful outcome of this fact is that it provides an external, objective document to examine, interpret, and discuss. Obviously, this does not eliminate disagreements, but it does provide a common starting point from which to argue a position, and a common authority to correct errant teachings, if their opponents can persuasively show them to be wrong.The biggest problem with "God's Final Victory" is that the authors up front reject the authority of Scripture, and thus are left with nothing to build their case upon other than their own opinions. I think the book could fairly be summarized by: "it does not make sense to the authors that God would send people to hell." They spend much time exploring the nuances of arguments both for and against this position, but in the end, they are arguing only about what makes sense to them. Unsurprisingly, this was utterly unconvincing to me, as someone who takes the Bible seriously and considers it authoritative.In all fairness, the book was probably not aimed at someone like me. It is aimed more towards those who consider philosophy more important and more persuasive than Biblical exegesis. Unfortunately, that also seems to be the only "scholarship" with which the authors are familiar -- that of liberal, semi-Christian philosophers. Although the authors frequently address the views of other writers, they often find themselves stumped by conundrums which have been exhaustively addressed (and sometimes have quite simple explanations) by more mainstream Christian writers and thinkers. To me, as someone more familiar with that world of writing, the authors sometimes come across as sadly isolated and forced into their view of hell by their lack of familiarity with the Biblical view of God that would make sense of it.All of that said, there are some positives about "God's Final Victory". Several arguments for minor points are interesting and helpful. The chapter about their view of Scripture contains some valid warnings against the dangers of a simplistic literalism. This may seem like a backhanded compliment, but I sincerely did appreciate how honest and up-front the authors were about the weakness of Scriptural support for their position, even calling "strained" the interpretation that they are forced into for many texts.As a whole, I cannot imagine this book will be convincing for anyone that takes the Bible seriously, nor is it really aimed at them. I think it would really only be helpful for bolstering the arguments of those who already agree with the conclusions of the authors. It is an interesting read, and I appreciate the work that must have gone into it, but ultimately I cannot help finding the entire premise wrong-headed.

The book took 6 weeks longer to receive than originally forecast due to postal service slow-down here in Canada thanks to COVID-19 but the book finally arrived today. I've skimmed the contents and am now proceeding to read it through thoroughly. For anyone wanting to understand how Christian universalism works Kronon and Reitan have provided perhaps the most cogent case available today. I have wanted to read their work for a long time but have found it difficult to acquire. This vendor came through. Kudos.