Universal Salvation in Christ: A Conversation with Douglas Campbell

This entry was posted in Eschatology. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Universal Salvation in Christ: A Conversation with Douglas Campbell

  1. pasnicar says:

    Dr Campbell refers to a book by Tom McLaughlin (?) on Resurrection in the Church Fathers (?). Could you confirm the author and title?

    Like

  2. Fr Aidan Kimel says:

    The book Campbell mentioned is Resurrection as Salvation by Thomas McGlothlin.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Wes says:

    I really enjoyed this interview, but was confused at points. Perhaps someone more familiar with Dr. Campbell’s work can help me. 1) If Paul is adamant that Christ’s work far exceeds Adam’s, and therefore that infernalism is clearly inconsistent with Paul’s argument, how is annihilationism much, if any, better? The extent of Christ’s work seems the same in both cases, so could this possibly have been what Paul had in mind? 2) Why think the parable of the sheep and goats encompasses only followers of Christ? 3) Why think that 1 Cor. 3 implies only a resurrection and judgment of Christ’s followers? Is it because only those who are saved are mentioned? But that would obviously be consistent with universalism as well.

    Like

    • Fr Aidan Kimel says:

      “. . . how is annihilationism much, if any, better?”

      Wes, I suspect that Dr Campbell might say that he is not saying that Paul’s annihilationism is better than universalism, only that it seems to be Paul’s view. Campbell discusses this in his Pauline Dogmatics.

      Like

      • Wes says:

        Father Kimel,

        I’m asking how annihilationism would be better than infernalism with respect to the extent of Christ’s work. Dr. Campbell here and in his interview with David Artman says that within the context of Paul’s argument in Romans, infernalism is makes no sense because Paul is so adamant about how the extent of Christ’s work so far exceeds Adam’s, and therefore it would be ridiculous to think Paul believed in infernalism, where God directly intervenes in Christ and yet the extent of salvation is still rather small in comparison with damnation. My point is that annihilationism doesn’t seem to solve that problem at all, because the extent of Christ’s saving work is the same as it was on infernalism. So if in the context of Paul’s argument infernalism makes no sense, why does annihilationism? And if annihilationism makes as little sense as infernalism within that context, why think Paul believed it?

        Also, do you happen to have any insight into the second and third points above?

        Like

  4. Don says:

    When asked in the very start “What is the Gospel according to the apostle Paul?” why does the guy go off and talk about scholars and ‘Lutheran’ understanding???

    Our Lord doesn’t require us scholars to read and believe the Bible and be saved, “We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.” (Romans 3:22)

    Like

Comments are closed.