The Narrow Path Ministries

Because of my recently renewed efforts to fully research the various views of hell, I have gone back to read again all of the threads on this subject. As a result, I have the following observations to make, to which anyone may respond or disagree:

1. There is a lot of discussion about universalism, and little about conditional immortality, even though the two seem to have a similar number of adherents at this forum.

2. This seems to be because there is more vociferous resistance to universalism than to conditional immortality, and, in fact, traditionalists and annihilationists seem to join together in attacking universalism.

3. As a sweeping generality, attacking (as in "war") is a very appropriate word to describe what appears to characterize the great majority of anti-universalist posts, whereas the universalists seldom seem interested in attacking their opponents (though sometimes they do seem to be provoked into responding in kind).

4. Some of the anti-universalists do not actually seem to understand, nor correctly represent, the position of the universalists, though this ignorance, curiously, does not motivate them to seek understanding of the position before speaking against it (Homer, I think, would be a notable exception to this observation).

5. Some of those who attack universalism with the greatest verbosity keep giving the same misrepresentations of that view even after they have been corrected numerous times on the same point. This, along with other examples on the forum, has forced me to the conclusion (which I could hardly believe until the evidence was overwhelming) that there are some here who raise objections and even questions about views that they oppose, but simply do not bother to read the answers given to them before launching a fresh (equally misinformed) assault.

6. For reasons that I am incapable of guessing, this subject seems to arouse more anger in some of the traditionalists than does any other controversial topic, including the trinity, Calvinism, and eschatology. If the anger were coming from the other side, I would not find it so surprising, since one might reasonably be expected to be indignant when his father, whom he knows to be virtuous, is accused of being a monster. But why a person who sees his father as a severe judge would be angry at those who make the mistake of thinking him to be kind and generous, I cannot fathom.

7. In a thread discussing whether it might be dangerous to preach universalism, some were quick to affirm that it is indeed very dangerous to do so, though they provided no evidence, either logical or anecdotal, to show that anyone has ever suffered harm in hearing the view responsibly presented. By contrast, several universalists presented examples of the traditional view driving people away from God (and, therefore, being arguably dangerous). I found myself wondering from whence those who judged universalism to be dangerous derived those opinions, and how they could affirm with such confidence that this opinion was the case.

8. There is evident hostility in some of the anti-universalist' posts, and sarcasm, as if the person posting thinks that these people are deliberately opposing the gospel and are self-appointed deceivers, when, in fact, it seems obvious that each of the universalists who has written here is just as sincere as (and no less biblically astute than) the critic—as well as being less driven by emotionalism. I have never understood why someone who holds his view securely, and upon good biblical justification, can feel so threatened by a reasoned presentation of an alternative viewpoint. In my opinion, only someone who is irrationally threatened by someone else's theology (usually because he cannot effectively defend his own) would feel the need to demonize his opponent (instead of answering his arguments) and to fling desperate and irrelevant responses to arguments without first trying to understand what those arguments are.

9. Some traditionalists keep making statements like, "There is not one verse that affirms that a sinner can repent after death"—all the while ignoring the fact that there is not one scripture that says that postmortem repentance is impossible. From this observation, I get the impression that some traditionalists assume that the view that presents the character of God in the most insulting light, should be the default position, requiring no specific scriptures in its support, but that the view that presents God in the most favorable light, and brings Him the greatest honor, cannot be considered without its every aspect being confirmed by specific scriptural references. One poster even said that anything not specifically stated in scripture is necessarily false—apparently not realizing that this rule renders almost everything affirmed in his posts false, since most of his affirmations are merely an expression of his opinion (and emotions, apparently), and not supported by plain statements in the Bible.

10. At least one critic of universalism, apparently unable to do any better, had to resort to ad hominem argumentation, using guilt-by-association. He cut-and-pasted something from elsewhere on the internet, where someone whose opinions we are apparently expected to respect (though there was no scripture given to validate them) defined the elements of "liberalism" as the favoring of the following:

* diversity of opinion
* less emphasis on the literal interpretation of Scripture
* an intimate, personal, and sometimes ambiguous view of God
* wider scope in their views on salvation (including universalist beliefs)
* non-traditional views on heaven and hell
* an emphasis on inclusive fellowship and community
* an embracing of higher criticism of the Bible.

Wow! I always considered myself an evangelical, and non-liberal, but six of the seven points describe me! I do not embrace the last one on the list, which is the only one that I would have used in a definition of "theological liberalism." If all of these things are a part of being a liberal, I am going to have to reassess whether I think "liberal" is as bad a thing as my Sunday School teachers told me it was.

11. Many of the objections to universalism concerned the imagined negative impact the view might have on some people in the present life. The objectors did not apparently realize that Christian Universalism is primarily a view of the next life—a subject about which the Bible is relatively silent. It is a kinder, gentler view of God and of hell, just as conditional immortality is. People of all views might be found to practice slackness and comprise in their Christian behavior, and the majority of those church "Christians" that we would call "lukewarm" would probably profess a belief in the eternal torment view, if asked. It seems absolutely irrelevant to talk, hypothetically, about how some people might make a wrong use of universalism, as if it inherently contained elements that would discourage Christian commitment and behavior. The irony is, that no one can credibly suggest that this doctrine has had adverse effects upon the Christian commitment or behavior of Danny, Don, Mike, or others, who have been strongest in their insistence upon the correctness of the doctrine. This reminded me of one of my "assured principles" of doctrinal assessment: "I have no right to consider any doctrine innately dangerous if it does not prevent its followers from being better Christians than me."

In re-reading these threads, (and also in my reading of half a dozen books by scholars espousing the traditional view) my desire to distance myself from the traditional view has increased. This is not only because of the relative strength or weakness of the relevant exegesis, but also due to the irrational means by which some of its advocates defend it, and their gratuitous hostility toward those with whom they disagree on this topic. Their viewpoint could be right, but their approach certainly does not encourage one to side with them.

These remarks do not apply to every contributor who defends the traditional or the annihilationist views (in fact, I am not sure that I am not in one of these camps). They do apply, however, to some whose posts give the most color to the discussion.

Perhaps I am the only one who sees these things this way.

steve wrote:In re-reading these threads, (and also in my reading of half a dozen books by scholars espousing the traditional view) my desire to distance myself from the traditional view has increased.

Steve,

I remember re-listening to the ‘refuse to be offended’ tape a few months ago, in which you make the statement that we all deserve hell anyway (or words to that effect). I had wondered if these days you might wish to express yourself differently, given that you’ve stated the traditional view of hell has the least amount of biblical support (at least I think you said this, but at any rate, you’re undecided).

Yesterday, however, on the radio responding to the lady about suffering, you again said you thought your sins were deserving of hell. Given that this is usually understood by most people to mean never-ending literal torment, I’m curious that you don’t feel uncomfortable to be seemingly affirming a view which you are actually questioning. Or perhaps the teaching is so deeply ingrained in most of us it just slips out unawares? (I have no hesitation in acknowledging that my own sins are certainly deserving of death).

thanks,

Well, Steve, I have a question, but Suzana got in first with a better one and now I'm curious about how you'll answer hers. I'll post mine, but I'm more keen to see what you write to her.

You said:

Perhaps I am the only one who sees these things this way.

You're not the only one. I noticed the points you made last year when the debates were raging, as well. Out of frustration and confusion, I even made a post that I'm a little ashamed of now.

Do you think it is just a coincidence that the objections to universalism are so vehement here, or do you think it's representative of the debate at large?

I don't know...I happen to be pretty convinced that the annihilation view is the most biblical, but it doesn't seem to be worth all the arguing. If it turns out that universal reconciliation is true, I think it would just be one more surprising thing about God that would make me rejoice. If it turns out that God has planned all along to eternally torment millions of people, I don't think it would make a difference in my faith. I trust Him to be perfectly just, and that wouldn't change. It seems to me that some debaters here felt that buying into some of the non-traditional views would be the start on a downward spiral leading past liberalism into apostasy. I don't see it.

I agree with Michelle, and think Steve you nailed it in item 11.

Steve, you've noted this before, I think, but I think those who object without objective reason should seriously examine their hearts -- why would it matter if someone didn't "get theirs" in the end ? I think for many, this is similar to the question you sometimes raise as to whether people would live the Christian life and trust in Jesus if there was no heaven or hell. I think a lot of people (maybe myself earlier in my life) believe for purely self-preservation motives, and if they confront this they might learn they don't believe for the right reasons or don't so much follow Christ for His benefit as they hold on to their "ticket to heaven" for their own benefit.

Hi Suzana,

You wrote:

you again said you thought your sins were deserving of hell. Given that this is usually understood by most people to mean never-ending literal torment, I’m curious that you don’t feel uncomfortable to be seemingly affirming a view which you are actually questioning.

Thanks for writing. I don't have any problem saying that my sins deserve hell (whatever hell may actually be). I see three different views of hell competing with each other for acceptance. As I have said, I am not sure which one should ultimately win the competition—though I increasingly think I know which one should lose!

In any case, one of the views of hell is probably correct, and whichever one that turns out to be is the one I deserve, apart from grace. I hope that those who hear me speak of hell (it is a hard word to get out of a Christian vocabulary) will remember that I am aware of three different definitions of the word.


Hi Michelle,

You asked:

Do you think it is just a coincidence that the objections to universalism are so vehement here, or do you think it's representative of the debate at large?

That is an interesting question. It seems that 90% of the published controversy over hell is a fight between traditionalism (eternal torment) and conditionalism (annihilationism). There have been a few books in which universalism seems to be the focus of controversy, like "Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell" (edited by Nigel M. de S. Cameron) and "Universal Salvation? The Current Debate" (Eerdmans), in which Thomas Talbot takes on a bevy of traditionalists and conditionalists who critique his writings. To be honest, though they are in my stack, I have not yet gotten to reading them, and can't comment on their tone until I do so.

As I said, most traditionalists want to attack Fudge, Stott, Pinnock, and other conditionalists—often leaving the question of universalism altogether untouched, as if it wasn't even there! Thus, "Four Views on Hell" (William Crockett, ed.) does not even include universalism as one of the four! They include conditionalism (represented ably by Pinnock), but the other three views are all different forms of traditionalism (i.e., is it "literal fire," "symbolic fire," and/or is there a purgatory, as per Roman Catholicism?). All three affirm eternal torment. Likewise, the book, "Two Views of Hell," (IVP) is merely a traditionalist (Peterson) trading off chapters with a conditionalist (Fudge).

A book presenting three views of hell, including the universalist option, has not, apparently, even been contemplated. The existing literature hits all around the mark, but no one has yet really identified and fairly represented the real contestants in the debate. That's what I hope to do.

It is possible that the animus between traditionalists and conditionalists, which is the most visible controversy in the literature, pales in comparison to both camps' hostility toward universalism, and that this explains the snubbing of it in the majority of books. Perhaps they either fear it to the point of not wanting people to consider the arguments in its favor, or, alternatively, they hold it in such contempt that they do not wish to dignify it with a rebuttal.

On the whole, though, I have thus far encountered greater hostility of traditionalism toward universalism right here at this forum, more than in the literature that I have read, up to this point. And that surprises me. First, because I generally think of this forum, more than most, as a place where cooler heads prevail, doctrinal humility is the order of the day, and charity toward others trumps vitriol over disagreements. It is only on this topic that I really have found the lapse of charity and maturity—and this is what (as I said above) puzzles me.

Darin wrote:

why would it matter if someone didn't "get theirs" in the end ?

Obviously, my judgment about other people's motives carries no canonical weight, so I just give my opinion for what it's worth, prepared to be corrected. My opinion is that the above stated concern is a small-minded and ungracious attitude, which I associate with spiritual immaturity (there, I said it—but I also said it is merely my opinion). Not all traditionalists suffer from this immature attitude. Some (including myself for many years) would have been delighted to embrace conditionalism or universalism, but retain traditional beliefs strictly because this is what they believe to be required by fidelity to scripture. My comments about immaturity do not apply to such—and some of those are here.

On the other hand, in some people's posts, it is hard to miss the attitude that universalism is abhorrent to them, apparently because sinners (on the view of the critic) would be getting away with their life of sin, if God would forgive them postmortem. I simply cannot wrap my mind around this kind of thinking. Do these people think that, since they have now converted and been forgiven, we should object to their having "gotten away with" their previous sinful lives? Presumably, if we were to hear that Charles Manson died in prison, but that he had sincerely repented and found peace with God six months before his death, we would all rejoice that this lost sheep had been found (wouldn't we? I certainly would!). But how could such rejoicing be in any way consistent with the disappointment some express at the possibility of Charles Manson being repentant and forgiven in the midst of purifying fire after his death? Beats me. I suppose consistency is not a human trait.

I taught the three views by simply presenting the top verses used by each camp. I let the discussion go where the students took it. Almost without fail (in the various contexts I've taught this) the reaction is as follows

1) The traditional view is on way more shaky ground than I realized
2) The conditional immortality view makes sense
3) The universalist view verses are better understood in a non-universalist sense

Of course, I don't pretend that it's impossible that my bias didn't come through at all. I started my study of the 3 views in the traditional camp. I ended pretty solidly in the conditional immortality camp. If I had the rank the views in the order of which I find them likely to be true, I'd still go CI, ET, UR.

I think UR is more of a philisophical hope based on one's understanding of the nature of God than anything else. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. It is my opinion, though, that the CI view makes the most sense of the most verses.

Matt wrote:

I think UR is more of a philisophical hope based on one's understanding of the nature of God than anything else. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. It is my opinion, though, that the CI view makes the most sense of the most verses.

I can't say that I disagree with you. I have always taken the UR verses in non-UR ways, though I would have to admit that this may have been because it never occurred to me to think of UR as even an option to consider, so I was compelled to find alternate ways of interpreting them. Many of them, once you decide not to rule it out, do provide at least prima facie evidence for UR.

I also wonder whether, perhaps, we would do better if all of our theology began with the character of God, as revealed in Christ, and then interpreted individual verses in light of that.

I think it's unfortunate if CI hasn't been argued for thoroughly here. I'm about to go to bed, but my simplest argument for the CI view is as follows

1) God alone is immortal
2) God gifts eternal life to those 'in Christ'
3) Not everyone is 'in Christ'

mattrose wrote:I think it's unfortunate if CI hasn't been argued for thoroughly here. I'm about to go to bed, but my simplest argument for the CI view is as follows

1) God alone is immortal
2) God gifts eternal life to those 'in Christ'
3) Not everyone is 'in Christ'

Matt,

While this would make sense from a traditional or CI viewpoint I would like to point out a couple of things from a UR viewpoint.

Firstly, you make an assumption that the term "eternal life" means living forever. The Bible has another term for this which is "immortality". From my perspective, the term "eternal life" is mostly used to describe the life one enjoys by knowing God (John 17:3). The word "eternal" descibes the source of the life not the length - it is a the kind of life one enjoys who is "in Christ" (the Eternal One).

Secondly, you say that not everyone is in Christ. While that may be true today, the UR advocate would say that God won't give up on any soul until all are in Christ.

Todd

Steve wrote:6. For reasons that I am incapable of guessing, this subject seems to arouse more anger in some of the traditionalists than does any other controversial topic, including the trinity, Calvinism, and eschatology. If the anger were coming from the other side, I would not find it so surprising, since one might reasonably be expected to be indignant when his father, whom he knows to be virtuous, is accused of being a monster. But why a person who sees his father as a severe judge would be angry at those who make the mistake of thinking him to be kind and generous, I cannot fathom.

When a close relative of mine learned that I believed in the eventual reconciliation of all to God, she was upset. Her comment was, "That wouldn't be fair!" Perhaps she thought it unfair if all those who lived wickedly throughout their lives ultimately end up in the same blessed state with the Lord as those who have lived righteously throughout their lives.

I read the following from some early fundamentalist (and I cannot locate the exact quote or its author). I find this so repugnant that I can scarcely write it:

"One of the greatest joys of the redeemed in heaven will be watching the lost in hell writhing in pain."

Could it possibly be that some of those who express such anger with the idea of universal reconcilation are concerned that if it were true, they would be deprived of one of their greatest joys when they get heaven?

I did find a somewhat similar idea in Jonathan Edwards' sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God":

You shall be tormented in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and when you shall be in this state of suffering, the glorious inhabitants of heaven shall go forth and look on the awful spectacle, that they may see what the wrath and fierceness of the Almighty is; and when they have seen it, they will fall down and adore that great power and majesty.