Universalism

[Guest]

Is anybody else encountering this doctrine? In the past few weeks, I seem to be encountering it often . Maybe someone here is a Universalist?

[Guest]

Christian Universalism, or "Universal Reconciliation," is the view that ultimately every moral being, human and angelic, will be reconciled to God. This does not mean that there is no hell, but only that those who go to hell will be purged and brought to repentance through the fire, and will then be restored to fellowship with God and the saints.

It is a very attractive concept, especially to those who have loved ones who die apart from Christ. Since Christians (like God) love all men, it should be an attractive option in the sight of all Christians, as well as for God Himself, who "desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim.2:4). Surprisingly, there are some Christians, especially Calvinists, who find the view repugnant--apparently because of their belief that God does not love all men and that He does not desire all to be saved.

Of course, the real issue here is not whether the belief in universal reconciliation is pleasant, but whether it is true. Growing up as an evangelical, I always thought of universalism as the view of liberals and Unitarians (which it is, of course), but, until recent years, I never heard of Bible-believing Christians who defended the view.

Universalism was held by Clement of Alexandria, in the second century, and by Origen, in the third. The reputable church Historian, Philip Schaff, has suggested that, at one time, it may have been the predominant view of the ancient church.

Rather than present the arguments for and against universalism here, I would rather direct you to two websites. There is a collection of interesting articles favorable to the doctrine at this site: http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/univart.html. For a rebuttal of the universalist arguments, see: http://www.carm.org/universalism.htm.

The essential biblical case for universalism rests upon verses like John 12:32/ Romans 11:32/ 1 Corinthians 15:22, 24-28/ 1 Timothy 2:4; 4:10/ Ephesians 1:9-10/ Isaiah 45:23-24/ Phil. 2:10-11; etc.

Theologically, the universalists argue that Christ is everywhere seen as the victor over Satan, and therefore, God must win against His arch-foe in the end. If God wished for all men to be saved, but Satan was able to bring about the eternal damnation of many for whom Christ died (they say), then Satan is the cosmic winner, and God the everlasting loser.

William Barclay (a universalist), put this argument rather powerfully, when he wrote: "If God was no more than a King or Judge, then it would be possible to speak of his triumph, if his enemies were agonizing in hell or were totally and completely obliterated and wiped out. But God is not only King and Judge, God is Father - he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family for ever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. "

Of course, universalists have their own way of explaining such passages as Matthew 25:46, which speaks of "everlasting punishment," and not every biblical student will find these explanations convincing. One serious defect in the doctrine would seem to be Jesus' comment that those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven "either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt.12:32).

You can see that I am not as alarmed by universalism as are some evangelicals. Frankly, I find there to be credible biblical cases to be made for various views of the fate of the wicked, whether eternal torment. conditional immortality (annihilationism), or universal reconciliation. To say that there are "credible biblical cases" for these views does not mean that any of them has an air-tight case in scripture, or that biblical arguments cannot be raised against each of them. I believe the ambiguity of scripture on this point is deliberate.

The Bible is not written for non-Christians. It is the covenant document for the church. It is not necessary for those who are saved to know the exact future disposition of those who die lost. Nor is God obliged to give the whole story to those who are lost, so that they might "weigh their options." It seems to me that the possibility of eternal torment or of annihilation looms as a credible, possible threat to those who presume to reject the grace of God in this life, so that they can have no comfort or security in their rebellion. Even if universaism proved to be correct, it does not eliminate the prospect of a hell of proportionate punishment for those who die hating God.

On the other hand, those verses that give rise to a universalist hope allow us to consider at least the possibility that Christ will eventually be able to present to His Father all that He paid for, and that our eternity may prove to be one of unmixed rejoicing. If I sound too wishy-washy on this point, I apologize. I have studied too much to be overly sure of myself.

[Guest]

But God is not only King and Judge, God is Father - he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family for ever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home.

I have a question about this statement... I always thought that only those in Christ had God as their Father. That the lost, unreconciled to God, were not his children. Is this an accurate way to view things?

-Rachel

[Guest]

In one sense (the most important sense) I think you are correct. Only those who have come to be "in the Son" possess the true spirit of adoption (Rom.8:15) and only "as many as received Him" are given the power to become the "sons of God" (John 1:12).

In another sense, all people are "His offspring" (Acts 17:28-29), just as Adam, the father of the whole race, was said to be "the son of God" by virtue of creation (Luke 3:38). This latter sense of sonship is barely acknowledged in scripture, because the fuller sense is what the Gospel is all about.

I suppose that the difference between the two ways of speaking about sonship may be illustrated in the story of the prodigal son. When he was away from his father, the prodigal was still beloved by the father as one of his offspring, but was alienated in terms of having any of the benefits of sonship. The sinner, who is alienated from God, has no part in the inheritance of God's sons, unless and until he/she repents and comes to Christ. But the heart of the Father toward His estranged "offspring" would seem to be similar to that of the father in the parable of the prodigal. Without coming to Christ, no one can receive the benefits of sonship.

In one sense, the unbeliever is a child of the devil (John 8:44/ 1 John 3:10), but this seems to use the father/son metaphor in the sense of moral affinity or likeness, as Abraham is said to be the "father" of all who have faith (Rom.4:11, 16), and the sons of Lamech were said to be the "fathers" of those who dwell in tents, herd cattle and play musical instruments (Gen.20-21).

Such expressions do not speak of genealogical ancestry or origin. Though sinners may be "of [their] father, the devil," this does not mean that they owe their origins or existence to the devil. It is used in a different sense. It may suggest that their inheritance is with the devil (Matt.25:41), rather than that which God bequeaths to His sons.

I guess the presupposition underlying Barclay's comment is the belief that God loves all that He created, and desires all to be saved, just as a father would wish to see all of his children prosperous and well, and would be grieved to know that any of them were ultimately lost to Him.

I do not say that the argument is correct, only that it is potent. Calvinists, as I mentioned above, would not resonate with it at all. The idea that God loves all of His creatures and is desirous for all to be saved is foreign to that system.

One might argue (whether one is a Calvinist or not) that God does not love the devil, because the devil is incurably set against the purposes of God and is the persecutor of His true children. If this is granted, it might justly be extrapolated that those who wilfully align themselves with the devil, and are themselves incurably hostile to God are, in God's sight, just as the devil is, and are therefore not loved by God. This would be at least partially true, since the Bible sometimes speaks of God's hatred for certain people. But this hostility must be, I think, only a hostility to what these people do and what they have allowed themselves to become, but not cancelling His desire that they repent (Ezek.33:11/ 2 Pet.3:9), and His love for what He wishes for them to become.

In any case, unless we adopt the Calvinist idea of election, it seems appropriate to suggest that the love of the prodigal's father reflects the attitude of God toward all men--his desire that they be reconciled with Him (2 Cor.5:19) and His rejoicing over one sinner who repents (Luke 15:10).

This does not mean that universalism is true, of course--only that universalism would seemingly suit the sympathies of God the Father more than would the eternal torment view of final retribution. In terms of scriptural evidence, if we are to consider the alternatives to the doctrine of eternal torment, I see the case for conditional immortality as being stronger than the case for universalism. Notwithstanding, the truth of the matter does not rely upon my perceptions being accurate.

[Guest]

What makes me suspicous of the doctrine (if that's the correct word) of universalism is the zealousness with which it is espoused. I have seen many universalists use the term "calvinist", "pharisee" and "orthodox" with derrogatory intonation. And a calvinist I am not.

I also hear very little preaching of Christ resurrected from the mouths of universalists. They seem to prefer to tickle the ears of the listening world with this doctrine. Even after sharing this idea with pagans, I ask them "Who do you say Jesus is?" and they answer: "The same as Buddha, Zoaster, MOhammad, Ghandi or any other moral teacher."

Until I see more love and the preaching of Christ coming from that side of the fence, my inclination remains with orthodoxy.

Just my observations in discussions with universalists.

[Guest]

periwinkler

You know that this view doesn't hold any water whatsoever. First, Jesus (as you know) was not just a moral teacher or good for that matter, knowing that he claimed to be God. If he was just a good teacher , he wouldn't claim deity when he is not. Jesus is not the same as other teachers beacuse his life was predicted hundreds of years before he was born. If every religion lead you to God, that would be a logical contradiction. Jesus claims to be the Way, not a way. The TRUTH not a truth and the LIFE, no one comes to the father but by him.

[Guest]

After doing some more reading and research into the idea of universalism there are many questions it cannot answer, like:

verses that support sins of wicked being forgiven in the afterlife;
the unrepentant repenting in the afterlife; unrepentant accpeting Jesus Christ in the afterlife; avoiding judgment int he afterlife; having sins conditioned out of us in afterlife

those are just a few.

[Guest]

Steve, I'd just like to say how much I appreciate your thoughtful and fair response. Universalism is a doctrine that I've been wrestling through and trying to come to grips with. There is much in way of polarized viewpoints, so it's refreshing and helpful to read what you had to say.

[Guest]

First of all unbelievers generally could'nt care less about universalism because they don't believe anyway and complaints about a loving God sending people to hell i've found to be a strawman.
But i think the doctrine is quite possible and more scriptural than any alternative. There are dozens of verses that flat out say everyone will be saved yet we don't take them seriously because of our pre-suppositions and because we may not actually really "love our neighbors."
In the lake of fire first death is thrown in and Paul says "death is the last enemy to be destroyed" and afterwards, after death is destroyed unbelievers are thrown in. Nothing at all is said about them until Rev 22.17 when "the Spirit and the Bride (believers) say to whosoever come and drink the water of life freely." So it sounds like the Bride is speaking to unbelievers in the lake of fire who have repented and giving them perhaps a final opportunity.
At this point they are in the eternal state so this is past the unforgiveness that happened in this age and the age to come IMO.

[Guest]

One thing that has been brought to my attention through bible reading on universal salvation is this:

In the OT, on Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, did the high priest give sacrifices for all the world or for Israel only? The answer is in Deuteronomy.


Steve said in first reply: Even if universaism proved to be correct, it does not eliminate the prospect of a hell of proportionate punishment for those who die hating God.

My question is, how do you view sin? Proportionate punishment? Those are terms that unbelievers use. "Why would God punish me forever for my little sins? So what if I lie on my income taxes? Big deal."

Unbelievers do care about universal salvation for two reasons that I have gleaned: 1. because they don't have to change what they do. They can continue to mock Christ and "bible god" and they will be saved. 2. they can cause division and friction among believers on the topic of salvation. They bring it up and watch the fur fly.

Take that as a warning when discussing this topic around unbelievers. Don't go for the bait!