Take a photo of a barcode or cover
davehershey's review against another edition
5.0
About a month ago David Bentley Hart's book arguing that ultimately all humans will be reconciled to God (That All Shall Be Saved) was published to about as much fanfare as a book by a theologian will get (i.e., in circles of people who read such books, quite a lot of fanfare, but outside of that did anyone really notice?). I noticed a few reviewers criticizing Hart for not having many footnotes or for, basically, not writing an exhaustive theological work on the history of universal salvation. Of course, if you read Hart's intro, it is clear that is not the book he was setting out to write. His book is basically four essays making his argument. For a theologian and a scholar, his book is as close to a popular level pastoral book as you are to get.
All that to say, if you want a deeper understanding of the history of universal salvation in the Christian church, then this book by Illaria Ramelli is for you. It could be advertised as: "You've read Hart and you're wondering about his allusions to Maximus, Gregory and others? Ramelli fills in the gaps!"
That said, this is not a history of eschatology in the early church. Ramelli often refers to such books that do exist (such as Brian Daley's The Hope of the Early Church). Ramelli is only offering a history of universal salvation. She demonstrates that the hope that ultimately God will be reconciled to all creation through Jesus Christ was close to, if not was, the majority view in the early centuries of the church. Augustine even commented that in his day there were many who believed this idea. Ramelli shows that Augustine himself, in his anti-Manichean writings, appeared to lean this direction until turning against it in his anti-Pelagian writings.
Ramelli argues that the early Christian universalists rooted their arguments in scripture as opposed to the idea they were merely borrowing ideas from Greek philosophy. Irenaeus' theology of recapitulation, though not explicitly universalist, pointed in that direction. Of course, it was Origen who plays the largest role in this story. Ramelli takes pains to demonstrate that centuries later it was "Origenist" ideas that were condemned and not Origen himself, with most of the Origenist beliefs condemned were not even ones Origen himself held. Further, Origen was tremendously influential on pretty much all the champions of orthodox belief (Athanasius, the Cappadocians).
From Origen, we see either implicit or explicit belief in universal reconciliation in everyone: Gregory the Wonderworker, Pamphilius, Methodius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius, Didymus the Blind, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Jerome (early in his career), Rufinus, Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus the Confessor, Isaac of Ninevah and John Scotus Eriugena. It took Augustine (and his failure to read Greek) to build the case for an eternal unending hell combined with the political power Christianity gained with Christendom to create the "traditional" view of hell that we have known and feared for centuries.
Ramelli's book is not arguing that universal reconciliation is correct. Her argument is that those who first argued it rooted their arguments in scripture and their faith in Jesus. Universal reconciliation, for the first centuries of Christianity, was not a fringe view.
Of course, none of this makes it correct. Perhaps Tertullian and Augustine were correct and what became the traditional view, even if it was a minority view, rightly won out. You can find plenty of books and people arguing that hell will certainly last forever. But at the very least, Ramelli's book (along with the work of Hart, Brad Jersak and that aforementioned Brian Daley book) clearly demonstrate there is more room for conversation then we who grew up just assuming the traditional view is true once realized. I'd even go so far as to say that familiarity with these arguments ought to be required before entering future debates on the subject. We're past the point when we should defer to tradition because Augustine, Jonathan Edwards or our favorite Calvinist writer says so.
All that to say, if you want a deeper understanding of the history of universal salvation in the Christian church, then this book by Illaria Ramelli is for you. It could be advertised as: "You've read Hart and you're wondering about his allusions to Maximus, Gregory and others? Ramelli fills in the gaps!"
That said, this is not a history of eschatology in the early church. Ramelli often refers to such books that do exist (such as Brian Daley's The Hope of the Early Church). Ramelli is only offering a history of universal salvation. She demonstrates that the hope that ultimately God will be reconciled to all creation through Jesus Christ was close to, if not was, the majority view in the early centuries of the church. Augustine even commented that in his day there were many who believed this idea. Ramelli shows that Augustine himself, in his anti-Manichean writings, appeared to lean this direction until turning against it in his anti-Pelagian writings.
Ramelli argues that the early Christian universalists rooted their arguments in scripture as opposed to the idea they were merely borrowing ideas from Greek philosophy. Irenaeus' theology of recapitulation, though not explicitly universalist, pointed in that direction. Of course, it was Origen who plays the largest role in this story. Ramelli takes pains to demonstrate that centuries later it was "Origenist" ideas that were condemned and not Origen himself, with most of the Origenist beliefs condemned were not even ones Origen himself held. Further, Origen was tremendously influential on pretty much all the champions of orthodox belief (Athanasius, the Cappadocians).
From Origen, we see either implicit or explicit belief in universal reconciliation in everyone: Gregory the Wonderworker, Pamphilius, Methodius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius, Didymus the Blind, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Jerome (early in his career), Rufinus, Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus the Confessor, Isaac of Ninevah and John Scotus Eriugena. It took Augustine (and his failure to read Greek) to build the case for an eternal unending hell combined with the political power Christianity gained with Christendom to create the "traditional" view of hell that we have known and feared for centuries.
Ramelli's book is not arguing that universal reconciliation is correct. Her argument is that those who first argued it rooted their arguments in scripture and their faith in Jesus. Universal reconciliation, for the first centuries of Christianity, was not a fringe view.
Of course, none of this makes it correct. Perhaps Tertullian and Augustine were correct and what became the traditional view, even if it was a minority view, rightly won out. You can find plenty of books and people arguing that hell will certainly last forever. But at the very least, Ramelli's book (along with the work of Hart, Brad Jersak and that aforementioned Brian Daley book) clearly demonstrate there is more room for conversation then we who grew up just assuming the traditional view is true once realized. I'd even go so far as to say that familiarity with these arguments ought to be required before entering future debates on the subject. We're past the point when we should defer to tradition because Augustine, Jonathan Edwards or our favorite Calvinist writer says so.
revderek77's review against another edition
5.0
What if "eternal" does not mean what you think it means?
Ramelli's book is not only an exploration of universalist themes from the Bible through the Middle Ages, but it is a powerful study on the idea of eternity itself.
As the Church begins to come back around to the idea of Universal salvation, this book will be remembered as one that helped fuel the renaissance of grace in Christian theology.
Ramelli's book is not only an exploration of universalist themes from the Bible through the Middle Ages, but it is a powerful study on the idea of eternity itself.
As the Church begins to come back around to the idea of Universal salvation, this book will be remembered as one that helped fuel the renaissance of grace in Christian theology.
terryjstokes's review against another edition
5.0
Ramelli presents the biblical and historical support for universal salvation in such a way that it becomes so clearly the most coherent and well-attested doctrine of the scope of Christ's saving work.