Originally written under the pseudonym “Gregory MacDonald” for reasons Robin has shared publicly elsewhere and also mentions here in this interview, The Evangelical Universalist has been a great resource for many who have allowed themselves to imagine a God who does ultimately reconcile all of mankind to himself in the end.

While this episode does not seek to defend Ultimate Reconciliation (we’ve devoted a number of episodes to that in the past), the discussion revolves more around the controversy (or surprising lack of it!) regarding Christian Universalism, the direction in which evangelicalism might be headed now that there is a wider acceptance of what some view as out-and-out heresy, and even some pressing questions from Steve regarding other possible pseudonyms of Robin Parry.

Apologies for a Skype connection that sometimes made it challenging to catch all of Robin’s thoughts, but the overall content of the episode will certainly encourage many who are on a similar path of understanding Christian Universalism.

Thanks Kevin for talking with us. We look forward to the movie!

Visit Michael Hardin’s website preachingpeace.org and check out the book Compassionate Eschatology.

To download these tracks below, if you wish, right-click on the link and select “Save Link As…” (or similar command).

What Child Is This?
Silent Night
Away in a Manger

Ray and Steve discuss this question and the need for real-life relationships to be a part of anything taking place in the kingdom.  Your thoughts in response are welcome either here or on the Facebook page.

Michael Hardin’s Negative and Positive Mimesis Chart

After talking about the etymology of hell and the two traditions surrounding the word “gehenna”, Brad and Ray continue by talking about the location of the wicked in Revelation 21-22, what to make of near-death experiences and visions of hell, listener questions, and much more. Thanks again to Brad for taking the time to join us for this conversation. Make sure to visit Brad’s website and check out his book Her Gates Will Never Be Shut.

More than just a response to the Jersak episodes, the conversation takes a lot of turns and covers various topics.  Enjoy!

While Ray and Steve attempted to record their reactions and thoughts on the entire interview at the conclusion of the episode, they ended up recording for quite a while, so their fuller thoughts and reactions will appear next time in an episode of their own, but in the meantime, you are welcome to comment yourself on all that is shared here.

You are welcome to visit Brad at his website (bradjersak.com). We so appreciate Brad’s time in coming on the show, and look forward to another interview that will be posted sometime in the future where Ray and Brad talked about Brad’s book “Her Gates Will Never Be Shut”.

Bringing insight to some passages that are often skimmed over, Brad shares thoughts about the atonement that are sure to make you think! While the Penal Substitution theory of the atonement posits that the Father poured all of his wrath out on his own Son during the crucifixion, Brad offers thoughts that maintain a consistency between a Father who is very loving and compassionate and a Son’s death that is brutal and violent.

Isaiah 53 says that we esteemed him (Jesus) stricken by God. In other words, it appears that is not the correct view, but rather our misunderstanding of what took place.  That phrase serves as the basis for Brad’s book and this discussion.

In a very friendly conversation between Preston and Steve, the topics of hell and Ultimate Reconciliation are explored even further, but with the added enjoyment of slightly different perspectives and mutual pushbacks. Hoping to model a very civil dialog about a very sensitive subject, Preston and Steve dig into several key passages in the discussion and challenge each other in an effort to pursue proper exegesis of the passages at hand.

A very special thank you to Preston for coming on to the podcast, even though he knew from listening to our critique episodes that we didn’t agree with his and Francis Chan’s conclusions! It is our prayer that, even when disagreeing with each other, all of us in the body of Christ can approach subjects like this with friendliness and mutual respect.

Despite the fact that the Athanasian Creed neither has a definite origin (although most agree that Athanasius did not write it), nor was mentioned by or sanctioned by any official council, its language has been used throughout the centuries as a “litmus test” for salvation and orthodoxy.

Some would claim that this doctrine is clearly visible in Scripture, just not by name. Others would say that it is a doctrine derived from Scripture, but not clearly taught in Scripture.

In this episode, Ray and Steve discuss the ramifications of this doctrine and its emphasis as a test of orthodoxy.  Should a doctrine that is not even clearly preached by the apostles be considered a test of any sort?  Must one understand and embrace this doctrine in order to be saved?

Picking up where the last episode ended, the discussion ranges from different ways of looking at the term “gehenna” to concern over the way that Chan dealt with “frequently asked questions” in his book. This discussion demonstrates that one’s view of the Father, view of the atonement, and view of hell are all intertwined.

While Ray and Steve are critical of much in Francis Chan’s book, you are encouraged to read the book yourself and draw your own conclusions. Feel free to discuss your thoughts in the comments section below.

Once the book was released, however, we read it, and are now ready to respond to the actual content of the book.  (Please note that in the episodes responding to the video, we tried very hard to stay within the confines of only responding to what was in the video, and not what we thought Chan might write in his book.  These two episodes now are a response to what is actually in the book.)

Chan writes some things in this book that disturb Ray and Steve, and they don’t hold back too much on their opinion about those things. And while ultimately, Ray and Steve do not endorse the teaching of the book itself, you are still encouraged to read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Part 2 will be posted within a few days.  Stay tuned.

Both Ray and Steve wish to thank Sharon for taking so much time to share her thoughts with our audience. And we hope that you, our listeners, have enjoyed this new venture for Beyond the Box. If you have some suggestions of others that you’d like us to try to interview on this show, feel free to send them along or post them in the comments section here or on our Idea Submission page.

In this first part (second part will be posted within a few days), Ray and Sharon go down several rabbit trails, taking time to camp out on various topics relating to forgiveness, justice, and possible cultural impacts on the way people in the Old Testament understood God.

The situation at Elevation is merely a jumping point, however, into discussion about institutional church in general and some of the many faults that Ray and Steve find with that system.  As former pastors, both Ray and Steve share personal experiences related to their life inside the institution and their feelings experienced now from outside that institution.

More than just this story, however, the questions become more general and the rabbit trails happily lead Ray and Steve into yet another two-part episode (rapidly becoming the norm for this podcast!). Part 2 will be posted in a day or two, so check back soon!

There may be more (and possibly even different) discussion once Chan’s book comes out and we can see exactly where he goes with his thoughts.  But it is important to note that Ray and Steve are not responding to what they think Chan will write about.  They are merely responding to the actual statements made in the video.

Can we know the Father? Or is our finite, sin-infused mind incapable of knowing what God is like. When we say God is “just”, can we know what that means? Is the “justice” of God at all related to our human understanding of the concept of “justice”? Or is it in a completely different category altogether?