Posted by: mystic444 | October 23, 2009

Christian Universalism

Christian Universalism

In the last few articles, I’ve talked about reincarnation in the Bible, and in relation to certain Biblical teachings. Reincarnationists obviously do not believe in the ‘everlasting damnation’ of anyone, but see life as a growth process – through many lifetimes – toward the attainment of all of the potential which is within us due to our nature as ‘children of God’. A good portion of Christians believed in this hopeful teaching from the very beginnings of Christianity.

However, even among those Christians who rejected the ‘many lifetimes’ idea, a large portion believed in Universal Salvation. This is the belief that ultimately every human being will be ‘saved’; the doctrine of ‘everlasting torment’ is a hideous distortion of the righteous judgment of God, and a complete denial of the all conquering love of God for His entire creation. Christian Universalists have found this truth to be easily demonstrated in the Bible, even though many of them (today, most of them) do not see reincarnation there. As the name Christian Universalism no doubt implies, they usually believe that salvation is to be understood in a strictly ‘Christian’ context: in order to be saved, one must believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior, and submit to his lordship. But as this is the predestined ‘end’ for every human being, those who die in ‘unbelief’ will nevertheless be saved somehow or other in the ‘afterlife’. How this is accomplished is usually left undefined; but they recognize that it is unbelievable that God should love a person, truly desire his salvation, and work to accomplish this desire right up until the time of the person’s death; and then, one second after the person dies, God should suddenly cease to desire and work for his salvation (assuming the person died ‘unsaved’). Even though most Christian Universalists today insist on Biblical inerrancy, and have many of the other fundamentalist beliefs that I have rejected, I still find it refreshing to read their writings, as they delight in the love of God for all of His creation and believe in the value and worth of every human being. No one is now, ever has been, or ever will be beyond this love of God. God’s righteous judgments are not designed simply as ‘punishment’, but as disciplinary ‘corrections’. The ‘fire of hell’ is purifying fire which destroys sin but not ‘the sinner’. This truth is seen in I Corinthians 3:12-15 – “Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw – the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.” Yes, ‘our God is a consuming fire’, but it is the evil deed that is consumed, not the person.

I’ll probably enter a bit more thoroughly, in a future article, into concepts and terms like ‘judgment’, ‘hell’, ‘eternal/everlasting’ and (hell)fire; but today I want to reproduce someone else’s article as an introduction to this subject of Universalism in the Bible. You can ‘beat me to the punch’ though, if you wish to, by going to any of the following writers’ sites. These are some of the ‘Christian Universalists’ I enjoy (even though all except one is still too ‘fundamentalist’ for me): Charles Slagle, Tom Talbott, J. Preston Eby, and John Gavazzoni. Also this Tentmaker site gives some good brief biographies and quotes from Christian Universalists from the 2nd century onward. Tom Talbott is the only one of those men who is not hampered by a belief in Biblical inerrancy, and the following is one of his articles.

Universalism, Calvinism, and Arminianism: Some Preliminary Reflections

“When I first began interpreting the New Testament along universalist lines, I was struck by how many regarded such an interpretation as not only mistaken, but utterly unreasonable and heretical as well. I found that a good many of my Calvinist friends, who did not regard Arminianism as heretical (only mistaken), and a good many of my Arminian friends, who did not regard Calvinism as heretical (only mistaken), were united in their conviction that universalism is both mistaken and heretical. This curious response started me thinking. Why should Calvinists regard universalism as any more heretical than Arminianism?–and why should Arminians regard it as any more heretical than Calvinism?

As I reflected upon these questions, I also began to reflect upon the following inconsistent set of propositions:

(1) It is God’s redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile all sinners to himself;

(2) It is within God’s power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;

(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether.

If this is indeed an inconsistent set of propositions, as I believe it is, then at least one of the propositions is false. Calvinists reject proposition (1); Arminians reject proposition (2); and universalists reject proposition (3). But in fact we can also find *prima facie* support in the Bible for each of the three propositions. So one day I sat down and, setting aside disputes over translation and sophisticated theological arguments, began to review the obvious.

In support of proposition (1), one might cite such texts as II Peter 3:9: “The Lord . . . is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance”; I Timothy 2:4: God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”; Romans 11:32: “For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all”; and Ezekiel 33:11: “As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn away from his way and live . . ..” All of these texts seem to suggest that God sincerely wants to achieve the reconciliation of all sinners, and that his failure to achieve this end would therefore be, in some important sense, a tragic defeat of one of his purposes.

Similarly, in support of proposition (2), one might cite such texts as Ephesians 1:11: God “accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his own will”; Job 42:2: “I know that thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of thine can be thwarted”; Psalm 115:3: “Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases”; and Isaiah 46:10b & 11b: “My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose . . . I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.” These texts seem to imply that God is able to accomplish all of his purposes–including, therefore, all of his redemptive purposes. And in addition to these texts, a number of others seem to imply that God has both the will and the power to bring all things into subjection to Christ (I Corinthians 15:27-28), to reconcile all things in Christ (Colossians 1:20), and to bring acquittal and life to all persons through Christ (Romans 5:18).

But finally, in support of proposition (3), one might also cite such texts as Matthew 25:46: “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life”; II Thessalonians 1:9: “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might . . .”; and Ephesians 5:5: “Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” These texts may seem to imply that at least some persons will be lost forever and thus never be reconciled to God.

After a quick review of these texts in my own mind, one point struck me as altogether obvious: Anyone who takes a position with respect to our three propositions–whether the person be a Calvinist, an Arminian, or a universalist–will end up denying a proposition for which there is at least some prima facie biblical support. And in that respect universalism is no different from either Calvinism or Arminianism. So I found myself, at this point, wanting to put several questions to those who would simply dismiss universalism as heretical: If it is not heretical for the Arminians to believe that God, being unlimited in love, at least wills (or sincerely desires) the salvation of all (proposition (1)), why should it be heretical for the universalists to believe this as well?–and if it is not heretical for the Calvinists to believe that God, being almighty, will in the end accomplish all of his redemptive purposes (proposition (2)), why should it be heretical for the universalists to believe this as well? And finally, if it is not heretical to accept proposition (1), as the Arminians do, and not heretical to accept proposition (2), as the Calvinists do, why should it be heretical to accept both (1) and (2)?

Now as a matter of logic, there is a possible answer to this last question. If the biblical warrant for proposition (3), or a doctrine of everlasting separation, were overwhelmingly greater than that for the other two propositions, then one might conclude that only (3) could not reasonably be rejected. But nothing like that seems to be true at all, and here, at least, is how I see the matter. The biblical warrant for proposition (1), that God wills the salvation of all, is simply overwhelming–so overwhelming that those who worry about heresy, as I do not, ought to regard Calvinism, not universalism, as heretical. The biblical warrant for proposition (2), that almighty God will eventually accomplish all of his redemptive purposes, is likewise exceedingly strong, as the Calvinists have always insisted. And proposition (3) is the weakest of the three. For only (3) seems to rest upon controversial *translations* as well as controversial interpretations; and whereas (1) and (2) seem to rest upon systematic teachings in Paul, the texts cited on behalf of (3) are typically lifted from contexts of parable, hyperbole, and great symbolism.

Others will no doubt assess matters differently. But to those who claim, as many do, that everlasting punishment is clearly and unmistakably taught in the New Testament, I would put this question: Which of our other two propositions would you then reject? Would you deny that God wills (or sincerely desires) the salvation of all human beings?–or would you deny that he has the power to accomplish his will in this matter? And finally, why do you believe that the biblical warrant for proposition (3) is stronger than that for propositions (1) and (2)? It is not enough, in other words, merely to cite the standard proof-texts in support of (3). For if (3) is true, then either (1) or (2) is false. To provide a full biblical defense for a doctrine of everlasting punishment, therefore, one must show that the biblical warrant for (3) is stronger than that for (1) or stronger than that for (2)–a daunting task indeed! And I know of no one who has even tried to build any such comparative case as that. So why do so many regard it as heretical to reject a doctrine of everlasting punishment, but not heretical to limit God’s love or to limit his power? Which view does more, in the end, to undermine the glory and the majesty of God?”



  1. Well, it’s not that daunting a task to show that Jesus rejected the doctrine of Hell…as long as you’re willing accept 99% of what he taught, and not allow the few instances where the term “Hell” was placed on his lips to throw you off track.

    I’ve actually written an entire book on this topic–“Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There’s No Such Place As Hell,” (for anyone interested, you can get a free Ecopy of my book at my website:, but if I may, let me share one of the many points I make in it to explain what I’m talking about.

    If one is willing to look, there’s substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: “You don’t know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!” Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it.

    So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY!

    True, there are a few statements that made their way into the gospels which place Hell on Jesus lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.

    • Thanks, Rick, for that very interesting comment on my article. That is a very intriguing point you made about the ‘calling down fire’ episode. I’ll look forward to downloading your e-book tomorrow; it’s kind of late tonight. I also expect to post another article in this series on Christian Universalism in the morning. It will be interesting to compare my thoughts with your book.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: