No Hell = No Jesus?

This is a good quick way into why many evangelicals are skeptical about universalism: "Without Hell, can Jesus have any value, any meaning, as our savior?". I think Christian Beyer is right in picking up this characterisation; it fits with the way that I have heard a lot of 'everyday evos' characterise their position. However, he doesn't then really wrestle with the force of the position in articulating his own universalism, which is a shame because there is a more christological way to respond which holds strongly to the idea that the Cross really did accomplish something.

You see, the force of the position he characterises in the quote above, I believe, is that there has to be some purpose to the cross, and if it isn't salvation (by implication from hell) then what is it? It is hard to see it as other than a martyrdom which achieves something by its witness and ability to evoke sympathy or commitment. This seems to me to be a fair, even strong, position which has roots in scripture and subsequent Christian thinking.

An evangelical universalism, if there is to be such a thing, must surely be based on something that the Cross (and by that I mean the whole salvific action of Incarnation, Passion, death and Resurrection, in actual fact) has indeed created a salvation. The salvific universalist in an Evangelical mold would surely be saying that the salvation that the Cross has achieved is ultimately one which ultimately destroys hell by emptying it of occupants: no-one could find release from hell were it not for what Christ did. The main difference between that position and the more usual Evangelical positions is in the numbers -and perhaps the estimation of how efficacious the salvific events may be in relation to the problem of sin.

TheOOZE beta | evolving spirituality. � No Hell = No Jesus (by Christian Beyer):