Thank you for replying on here. I will indeed buy the book and have a read when the essays are done

OK, so perhaps living a lie was a little strong, but this is a blog.. I do see your point and sympathise that you’d want to avoid a Chalkegate. However, I would remind my brother (hey, perhaps you are my sister!) in Christ of Romans 8:28 and of the many people who have suffered in the name of truth. Yes, your ministry may suffer along with you but, if it is the truth, then the God of truth will be with you. This is of course far harder to live out in reality than it is to type it from my nice chair!

As far as wright is concerned then I do know of his refutation of universalism. However, I find that his new-perspectives views undermine his refutation somewhat, especially with his views on Sola Fide and his arguments about what Paul really said when he was refuting the Judiaisers.

When I have read your book, I’ll pass on some comments to Phil to send to you, if that’s OK with you both.

What I would find funny is if, when it does all come out, it’s during a lecture you’re giving at LST

Phil, thanks for being the go-between! Do you have any of these books in stock?

To Phil:
What can I say without it sounding trivial? Of course, I think that with humans this is impossible but with God all things are possible. But to flesh that out I would need to reflect a lot more on the nature of reconciliation and the truly horrendous nature of the crimes you have in mind. Chris Marshall’s book, Beyond Retribution has a very helpful discussion on reconciliation. I think I may begin my reflections there. But I would say that God would not achieve such reconciliation by ignoring or trivializing the offences committed nor by by-passing the victims. But in the end my view of God’s redeeming power is such that I do think we will see the kinds of reconciliation that our human minds understandably balk at.

to Leigh Porter:
Perhaps you should be surprised at the influence of N.T. Wright because Wright has tried at length (and, in my view, failed) to refute universalism on several occasions. I will reply to the rest of your comments when you have read the book and are not simply judging it by the title. I don’t imagine you’ll agree with me but you may become more sympathetic. Even the prince of Calvinists, Oliver Crisp, liked the book (even though he is one of those I criticize). Try it.

With regard to the pseudonym. You have something of a point although ‘living a lie’ is rather strong. The real me never claims to believe anything that either denies or entails a denial of universalism. In other words, I do not lie … I just hold my tongue on occasion.

The reasons for the pseudonym are explained in the interview. I regret that it is necessary but sadly there are some people in the world who would start throwing out babies with bathwater if it was widely known that I was a universalist. I don’t mind that, as far as my own reputation goes, but I do think that I have some important things from God to say (not universalist stuff) and I do not wish those messages undermined.

It will all come out in the medium term anyway and I am afraid that you will be disappointed. You will say, “Oh! We thought he was someone famous and significant! It is only some dude we have never heard of! Yawn.”

to Turretin Fan:
I discuss those texts in the book.

(Comments sent by email; posted on Gregory’s behalf by Phil Groom)

I find it a little worrying that somebody who says they are Christs is apparently doing what appears to me to be living a lie. Secretly publishing books with doctrines they do not want to be associated with.

Soli Deo Gloria

Moreover, Paul clearly states that those who do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ will be punished with “everlasting destruction” (ολεθρον αιωνιον) in 2 Thessalonians 1:9.

While we must preach the gospel without regard to how many God chooses to save, we may be touched in our empathy for our fellow sinners and spurred on to spread the gospel, by the fact that those who do not repent and believe will perish forever and by our knowledge that the means to their salvation is the preached Gospel of Christ.

-TurretinFan

What also did not surprise me is the name of N.T. Wright being mentioned again. Now, Wright is owed a debt by the evangelical community because of his superb and strong defense of the historicity of Christ and of the Resurrection.

What is troubling about Wright is his support for the new perspectives on Paul. In His book “What St Paul Really Said” (which I just purchased from Phil’s fine shop) he attacks the historical protestant doctrine of Sola Fide by almost completely redefining the gospel.

I’ll not go into a review of the book here as the point I wish to make is that the name N.T. Wright seems to appear on many of the recent attacks on many of the historical doctrines that define evangelicalism. One particular book of note that received a lovely supporting comment from Wright inside the front cover is Steve Chalke’s “The Lost Message of Jesus” which is yet another attack on what is perhaps one of the most important doctrines of Christianity.

This book is but the latest in the line of recent repeats of heresies that have popped up at various points in history. I have no desire to attack the anonymous author of a book I have not read (Perhaps Phil would let me borrow one for review but I fear the title gives away the contents.

Don makes an interesting point.
“Shall we just accept the spirit of God saying that He is the Savior of all people and not come up with some bias suggesting that He is only a potential Savior?”

This notion of a potential savior is typical semi-pelagian soteriology, and I agree that is it faulty. Christ is no potential savior, He is the efficacious savior of His church.

Soli Deo Gloria

Especially = malista which obviously does not mean exclusively. Shall we just accept the spirit of God saying that He is the Savior of all people and not come up with some bias suggesting that He is only a potential Savior?

Don