The Question Of Hell And Salvation -- By: Stephen N. Williams

Journal: Tyndale Bulletin
Volume: TYNBUL 57:2 (NA 2006)
Article: The Question Of Hell And Salvation
Author: Stephen N. Williams


The Question Of Hell And Salvation

Is There A Fourth View?

Stephen Williams

Summary

This article is a revised version of the 2005 Tyndale Lecture in Christian Doctrine. It sets forward a fourth view on the question of salvation and final judgement, supplementing the three familiar positions of eternal torment, annihilation and universalism. This is a view found in the work of five nineteenth- and early twentieth-century theologians: James Orr, J. R. Illingworth, Langton Clarke, T. R. Birks and Samuel Garratt. Griffith Thomas historically identified it as a fourth view, but it is argued in this article that there are significant differences between the proponents. Nevertheless, they share a conviction that the biblical data does not yield any one of the three traditional positions and that it is possible to envisage the reconciliation with God of those who are under eternal judgement, even if they do not enjoy eternal salvation. As this position is scarcely known in contemporary theology, the article describes rather than evaluates the positions in question.

1. The Spectre Of A Fourth View

Debate over the boundaries of evangelicalism is at present very heated, especially in North America. Against such a background, presenting a somewhat novel viewpoint on the question of hell and salvation, in an evangelical context, may appear to constitute needless provocation. John Stott’s tentative advocacy of a form of annihilationism, and his plea that it certainly be regarded as an evangelical option, provoked some clamant and adverse reaction.1 Thomas Talbott’s advocacy of

universalism as an authentically evangelical and biblically grounded position is not so tentative.2 Brian McLaren, of ‘emergent church’ fame, completed the trilogy that began with A New Kind of Christian by producing a volume largely concerned with the question of hell.3 If this article sets out a fourth position alongside (a) unending, consciously endured punishment, (b) annihilation and (c) universalism, are we not dangerously multiplying options already – some will protest – too numerous for evangelical health?

What follows is not in the service of theological novelty for its own sake. On this of all topics, such an enterprise would be thoroughly unworthy and distasteful. It is because of the intrinsic importance of the issues at stake that a fourth position is described here. The strand of theological thinking identified in what follows, located in the second half of t...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()