The Narrow Path Ministries

I've seen different folks on this forum state something along the following lines (paraphrased):

I'm intrigued and hopeful about the idea of Universal Reconciliation, but I just can't bring myself to commit to it...

What is it that holds you back?
Is there a fatal flaw in the idea?
Or is there just not enough explicit Scriptural support?

I ask not to debate your particular reasons, but to understand and consider that which gives you pause regarding the idea of Universal Reconciliation.

If I'm missing a thread where this has already been queried and discussed, please point me to it.

I can't remember the philosopher. Others can name him.

If god doesn't exist, but you act like he does, you've lost nothing.

If god exists, but you haven't chosen to live for him, you've lost everything.

Same with universal reconciliation. Especially evangelism.

If, as a believer, I decide universal reconciliation is the biblical view and don't evangelize because everyone will be in heaven anyway, but in reality, hell is a consequence for not serving him, then I have failed to share the gospel so that others might be saved.

Or is there just not enough explicit Scriptural support?






I think there is plenty of support but we have certain verses like,


the unforgivable sin and to Judas , it would have been better for him if he were never born.

morbo3000,

I can't remember the philosopher. Others can name him.

If god doesn't exist, but you act like he does, you've lost nothing.

If god exists, but you haven't chosen to live for him, you've lost everything.

That was Pascal. It's sometimes called "Pascal's Wager," though in a slightly different form.

Same with universal reconciliation. Especially evangelism.

If, as a believer, I decide universal reconciliation is the biblical view and don't evangelize because everyone will be in heaven anyway, but in reality, hell is a consequence for not serving him, then I have failed to share the gospel so that others might be saved.

While I agree with your point, I would clarify that a belief in universal reconciliation would not diminish the legitimate motivation for evangelism. Even if people after a life of sin could be saved after death (as we know they could be at any time prior to death) this would still leave God deprived of the fulfillment of His purpose in the life of those people.

For me, there are 2 main reasons why I am only 'hopeful' that eventual restoration might turn out to be true

First, I lean toward open theism.... so the future restoration of all people is literally an open question. 'Hopeful' is, thus, the appropriate posture.

Second, I find a good Scriptural case (and I actually consider it a bit stronger of a case) may be made for eventual extinction too.

My reasons have very little to do with how the UR position could hinder evangelism. Frankly, I feel like a bigger emphasis on God's loving power and ultimate victory would be beneficial to the cause.

I agree with Steve's point "that a belief in universal reconciliation would not diminish the legitimate motivation for evangelism."

Furthermore, even if we want to promote evangelism for the self-serving reason of avoiding hell, that motivation would still hold for those who believe in UR.
Suppose Joe, a believer in UR, has a non-Christian grandmother. Will he say, "Well, there's no need to talk to her about following Christ. She's old now, and is going to end up in heaven anyway. Even if she has to spend a thousand years or so in the flames, she'll end up in the right place." I'm sure any loving grandson would want to save his grandmother from this discomfort. This attitude of non-concern would be comparable to not saving one's Christian grandmother from a house fire, because she's going to end up in heaven anyway (and all the sooner).

Steve wrote:

While I agree with your point, I would clarify that a belief in universal reconciliation would not diminish the legitimate motivation for evangelism. Even if people after a life of sin could be saved after death (as we know they could be at any time prior to death) this would still leave God deprived of the fulfillment of His purpose in the life of those people.

Agreed. I think I was typing that in haste when I got up this morning.

A life outside of God's purposes is no life.. eternal or not.

I guess that any person's reasons for accepting/rejecting/considering UR will be more or less the same as his reasons for rejecting or accepting or allowing for the possibility of any other doctrine - perceived inconsistencies, not enough Scriptural support, etc.

It might also be that some find it difficult to accept that so many Christians have gotten it so wrong for 1,600 years. I can understand that, and there is some humility in that.

Steve Gregg...Your thoughts on the initial question would be appreciated.

mattrose wrote: Second, I find a good Scriptural case (and I actually consider it a bit stronger of a case) may be made for eventual extinction too.

Given the idea that a majority of people would face extinction, how do you understand the apparent result where the Devil/sin/evil destroys a good portion of God's creation and effectively hollows out any victory ultimately claimed by God?