An Examination
of the Biblical Proof
of the Doctrine of Universal Reconciliation
by Eric Landström
© 2000,2001
Contents
1) History and Background of Universalism
The Synagogue of Satan
2) A Look at the Salvation of All
Objections
3) To Die in Your Sins
4) 1 Timothy 4:10 Revisited
Objections
5) How Do Non Universalists Interpret the Declaration That God is Love?
Objections
6) Love Never Fails
7) On Salvation
Would God Be a Failure If All are not Saved?
Called or Chosen
How can you know Your Saved?
Is it possible For a Person Not to Believe?
8) Problems Facing Universalist Theology
9) The Hebrew Concept of Time and "aionios" and "aion"
Six Objections
Conclusion
10) The Severity of God
11) The Omnipresence of God in Hell
Let us give answer to the gainsayer
12) The Denial of the Lake of Fire
There shall Be a Final Judgment
13) Diversionary Tactics
Danté's Hell
The Difference Between Hades and Hell
Calvinism and Arminianism
Limited Atonement Confusion
The Usual Suspects
Unity of Spirit
Universalist Debate Techniques
Appendix
Listing of Universalist Proof Verses
Arguments Under Construction
Translators and Theologians
Verses in Contradiction of Universalism
Sources
Special Thanks
History and Background of Universalism
Christian universalists, unlike Unitarian universalists, believe that the only path to the Father in heaven is through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Like Unitarian universalists, the basic doctrine of Christian universalism centers around the belief that all men will finally be saved without the emphasis of religious relativism of the Unitarian beliefs. The Christian universalist believes those who die a temporal death without receiving Jesus Christ as their Savior will come to repentance in the many ages to come in the after life. Christian universalism claims that God's qualities of divine love and sovereignty demand satisfaction and that the only way this can be accomplished is through the salvation of all peoples throughout history. Christian universalism also advances the like idea, that since universalism is true, then, the doctrine of an eternal conscious hell is false.
Within Christian universalism there exist three different views as to how the ultimate salvation of all peoples is accomplished. The majority view is that the wicked dead are placed in the lake of fire either for a set duration (an age) determined beforehand at a judgment, or until they repent of their sins and receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior in submission onto God. The minority view within Christian universalism denies the lake of fire altogether with proponents stating that wicked man will be slowly purified in the age to come through the transcendence of ages to come until which time they may fully join with God. It is at this time that God shall be "all in all" (ref. 1 Corinthians 15:28). Yet another faction of universalism which denies the existence of a literal hell holds that the punishment of sin is administered in this life and that God's role in our lives is for the purpose of purifying all of mankind through correction. These same universalists also hold that this process of purification is nothing of our own merit and is not counted towards our actual salvation which has already been attested to through the work on the cross. Rather a persons receptiveness towards God's purifying ministrations will determine their eternal rewards in heaven, with those who did not receive Christ as their Savior receiving less that those whom have and obey His voice.
The doctrine of universalism is of ancient origin and has existed among many schools of Christianity that also held to gnosticism. There are biblical passages in both the Old and New Testaments that are interpreted as furnishing Scriptural authority for the belief. Men such as Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Diodorus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and others laid the foundations for the belief system. They taught that punishment was remedial, that the nature of God was love, and that the Divine mercy could not be satisfied with partial salvation or everlasting punishment.
The doctrine of universalism was condemned as heretical at the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in the sixth century (553 A.D.) and was largely neglected during the Middle Ages. It was revived during the latter part of the 18th century and was transported to the New England colonies where it was organized into a church largely through the efforts of George DeBenneville, a physician, John Murray, an excommunicated Wesleyan evangelist, and by Hosea Ballou. Ballou wrote a work entitled Trestise of the Atonement (1885), which gave Universalists their basic philosophy of belief. Ballou based his doctrine on the errors of the Unitarians. Universalism has became wide-spread during the 19th and 20th centuries.
The modern movement of Christian universalism originated in England, being a logical development of anti-Calvinistic teaching. It carried the Wesleyan system of free grace to the point where the grace of God would be accepted by all. (ref. Encyclopedia of Religion, ed., Vergilius Ferm, Philosophical Library, New York, 1945, p. 805.)
It is interesting to note that the doctrinal belief of universalism, the eventual salvation of all, agrees with and embraces the lie that Satan told Eve in the garden. Satan said unto Eve, "Ye shall not surely die" (Genesis 3:4b). This same lie, told by Satan, becomes the foundational belief in the doctrine of universalism. Investigation shows the how this lie came to be included in the beliefs of those whom call themselves Christians and whom also believe in the doctrine of universalism.
In the second chapter of Revelation we find the apostle John quoting Jesus who acknowledges the blasphemies of certain Jews at Smyrna. These sacrilegious Jews were described by Jesus as being of "the synagogue of Satan."
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan (Revelation 2:9).
When a survey is conducted of this period for a concentration of blasphemous Jews whose thought and philosophy are later incorporated into Christian circles -a discovery is made. A census of the Egyptian city of Alexandria made during the second century reveals that over 40 percent of the city's 800,000 residents were Jewish. In fact, at the time it was the largest concentration of Jews in the world.
The historical fulfillment of Revelation 2:9 is striking when you consider the words, "the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not," for this points directly to a group of apostate Jews. If one believes the Scriptures, Moses foretold in Deuteronomy 28:68 of the Jews flight back to Egypt to avoid Divine chastisement. This "flight to freedom" is spoken of as being fulfilled in Jeremiah chapters 42 and 43 by ever growing larger waves of immigration to the city of Alexandria. No doubt, Alexandria proved irresistible with her thriving economic climate, palaces, theaters, schools, and her library.
However, as history repeatedly records, as a society becomes fat on the land, it's morality slips (ref. Luke 12:18). Herodas reports of the city:
Alexandria is the house of Aphrodite, and everything is to be found there -wealth, playgrounds, a large army, a serene sky, public displays, philosophers, precious metals, fine young men, a good royal house, an academy of science, exquisite wines, and beautiful women.
Durant adds, "The city was notorious for the generosity of its women and the number of its step-daughters of joy." The implications of such a statement are obvious when faced with the idea that a culture cannot exceed the virtue of its women. Certainly Alexandria was a city were everything could be gotten except snow, and the pursuits of the flesh and money came to be the peoples god.
However, pursuits of the carnal flesh were not the only things that concerned the citizenry of the city of Alexandria. Durant comments that "books had to meet the tastes of a learned and critical audience, sophisticated by science and history." H.G. Wells, the famed humanist, commented on the dysfunctional intellectuals of the scholastic community:
Wisdom passed away from Alexandria and left pedantry behind. For the use of books was substituted the worship of books. Very speedily the learned became a specialized queer class with unpleasant characteristics of its own. The Museum had not existed for half a dozen generations before Alexandria was familiar with a new type of human being; shy, eccentric, unpractical, incapable of essentials, strangely fierce upon trivialities of literary detail, as bitterly jealous of the colleague within as of the unlearned without -the scholarly man. He was as intolerant as a priest, though he had no altar; as obscurantist as a magician, though he had no cave. For him no method of copying was sufficiently tedious and no rare book sufficiently inaccessible. He was a sort of by-product of the intellectual process of mankind. For many precious generations the new[ly]-lit fires of the human intelligence were to be seriously banked down by this by-product.
In the Hellenistic age, the city of Alexandria was a model to base other cities of the world upon except for one point: Inevitably, when you leave God out of any society, the population will increasingly slide into sin and misery.
It was in this corrupted climate that Philo (20 B.C. - 50A.D.), tempted by the intellectualism of Greek philosophy founded a theological school to promote the merger of Old Testament Judaism with Greek philosophy. Of this Albert Newman writes:
He [Philo] was of the opinion that the Greeks had derived from the Jewish Scriptures all that was wise, true and lofty in their thinking. It was his task, as it had been the task of others of his type, to show the complete harmony of the Divine revelation of the Old Testament with all that is best in Greek philosophy The fact is that his modes of thought and views of life were fundamentally those of Greek philosophy (a composite of Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Stoicism), and he undertook to show by applying the allegorical system of interpretation to the Scriptures that these were not as they seemed to be, simple, unsophisticated narratives of the dealings of God with his people, but that underneath the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic representations of God and the uncouth representations of the sins and follies of the heroes and worthies of Hebrew history, everything that was wise and exalted in Greek philosophy lay concealed.
One commentator elaborated on the errors of Philo's allegoric method:
Everything became symbolic in his hands, if it suited his purpose: numbers, beasts, birds, fowls, creeping things, plants, stones, elements, substances, conditions, even sex -and so a term or an expression might even have several and contradictory meanings, from which the interpreter was at liberty to choose.
Philo's school must be acknowledged as a very unusual university because somehow it morphed from paganism to Christianity after Philo's death. Newman explains:
The Alexandrian theologians with whom the scientific spirit had its birth were Platonists Not that they had been simply brought up Platonists (as were Justin and Athenagorus, who yet, after they adopted Christianity, rejected Platonism as the work of demons); but they remained Platonists, and sought to explain Christianity according to the Platonic categories, in somewhat the same way in which Philo had, two centuries earlier, attempted to explain Judaism. In fact these Christian Platonists were greatly indebted to Philo.
An example of the allegoric method that came directly from Philo's influence is illustrated by Fee and Stuart:
Thus as great and brilliant a scholar as Augustine [is, he] offers the following interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan:
A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho = Adam
Jerusalem = the heavenly city of peace, from which Adam fell
Jericho = the moon, and thereby signifies Adam's mortality
Thieves = the devil and his angels
Stripped him = namely, of his immortality
Beat him = be persuading him to sin
And left him half dead = as a man he lives, but he died spiritually, therefore he is half-dead
The priest and Levite = the priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament
The Samaritan = is said to mean Guardian; therefore Christ himself is meant
Bound his wounds = means binding the restraint of sin
Oil = comfort and good hope
Wine = exhortation to work with a fervent spirit
Beast = the flesh of Christ's incarnation
Inn = the church
The morrow = after the resurrection
Two-pence = promise of this life and the life to come
Innkeeper = PaulAs novel and interesting as all of this might be, one can be sure that it is not what Jesus intended. After all, the context clearly calls for an understanding of human relationships ("Who is my neighbor?"), not divine to human; and there is no reason to think Jesus would predict the church and Paul in this obtuse fashion!
Rather than accept, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one" (Job 14:4), Clement of Alexandria traveled to the city of his namesake and studied under Pantaenus in this school that combined Greek philosophy with theology because "the Alexandrian teachers met the educated heathen on their own ground." It was in Alexandria that "they recognized in the teaching of the Greek sages materials which Christian teachers might accept and assimilate" instead of pouring out invectives as Tertullian did against the Greek philosophers and their philosophies.
Clement of Alexandria depicted his mentor Pantaenus as "the deepest gnostic" who possessed a perfect insight into the significance of Christianity. Indeed, Clement himself claimed the honored title of gnostic often. It was upon this axiom that Alexandria would became the brain of Christendom; while it's heart was yet beating at Antioch because Clement continued the Alexandrian propensity for compromise. Commenting on this, Dr. Fisher states:
Clement, the first of the Alexandrian teachers whose writings have come down to us, is full of the thought that the mission of the Christian theologian is to build a bridge between the Gospel and Gentile wisdom, to point out the relations of Christianity to universal knowledge, to give to the religion of Christ a scientific form, to show how the believer may rise to the position of the true 'Gnostic.'
Clement apparently chose to disregard, or missed entirely 1 Corinthians 1:19 where is written: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
The chairman of the ASV committee (1901), Philip Schaff, confirms the Alexandrian ideology, writing:
From this catechetical school proceeded a peculiar theology, the most learned and genial representative of which were Cement and Origen. This theology is, on one hand, a regenerated Christian form of the Alexandrian Jewish religious philosophy of Philo. The Alexandrian theology aims at a reconciliation of Christianity with philosophy but seeks this union upon the basis of the Bible, and the doctrine of the church.
The secular world at large is painfully perceptive of the hypocrisy within professing Christendom. Therefore, let us consider the following excerpt from the secular New Standard Encyclopedia:
Alexandrian school, a name given to various groups of persons engaged in artistic and intellectual activities in Alexandria, Egypt, during the Hellenistic and Roman eras The blending of western and eastern knowledge and thought was the distinguishing feature of the schools Literature of the Alexandrian school was based on scholarship rather than on originality. The writers working in the Museum and Library catalogued, analyzed and edited more than they wrote.
As the Christian Era began, the Alexandrian Jew, Philo, combining Jewish religious ideas with Greek philosophy, emphasized the mystical quality of man's relationship to god. Philo influenced two late second century Greek fathers of the church, Clement of Alexandria and his pupil, Origen. These two in turn headed Alexandria's catechetical school, where both Christian and pagan writings were studied and where the philosophy later known as Neoplatonism evolved although Neoplatonism was a pagan philosophy and Origen, after his death, was disowned by the church as a heretic, much of the mysticism of the Alexandrian school of theology was absorbed into Christian thinking.
Overall Clement wasn't as heretical as those who would follow in his footsteps, but he laid the foundations to go off the deep end (heretically speaking) for his star pupil Origen who studied eleven years with the neoplatonist Ammonius Saccas. From Clement's writings we can understand that sinners have any number of paths to salvation in direct conflict with what Jesus said in John 14:6. Clement believed a sinner could achieve personal salvation through baptism, philosophy, repentance, overcoming carnality, faith and works, faith alone through blood, church membership, and all requiring a gradual process. In consideration that Clement embraced both Greek philosophy and the Apocrypha as divinely inspired, he was bound to have problems with his soteriology.
Because Clement also followed in the interpretive allegorical tradition began by Philo, the sky became the limit literally. Clement speaking of the Gentiles affirmed:
God gave them for worship the sun and the stars which God made for the nations, saith the law (Deuteronomy 4:19), that they might not be wholly godless, and so wholly perish.
As an apologist, what can I say, but ask whatever happened to Acts 7:42 or Romans 1:25? Chairman Schaff said of Clement: "His theology, however, is not a unit, but a confused, eclectic mixture of true Christian elements with many Stoic, Platonic, and Philonic ingredients." Yet despite acknowledging the fruits of the school as the cause of a great number of errors, the legacy of combining Greek philosophy with Scripture persists to this day.
As you can see, the basis of universalism iwas being lain by this church father. But universalism didn't come fully to fruition until the writings of Origen Adamantius who will become the patriarch of the universalist church.
Origen desired to provide his students with a superior education. Thereby he endeavored the study of the most celebrated pagans in the land. Considering such Scripture as "Learn not the way of the heathen" (Jeremiah 10:2), Origen:
felt it necessary to make himself more extensively acquainted with the doctrines of the Grecian schools, that he might meet his opponents upon their own ground, and for this purpose he attended the prelections of Ammonius Saccas, at that time in high repute at Alexandria as an expounder of the neoplatonic philosophy, of which school he has generally been considered the founder. The influence which the study of philosophical speculations exerted upon the mind of Origen may be traced in the whole course of his after-development, and proved the fruitful source of many errors which were afterwards laid to his charge, and the controversies arising out of which disturbed the peace of the Church during the following centuries.
Origen pilfered many errors that give rise to the utmost suspicion, but one the lighter side, Origen's perverted interpretation of Matthew 19:12 led him to castrate himself. This is the most unlikely application of the passage -especially if he had read Deuteronomy 23:1. Edward Gibbons, concerning himself with Origen's preference for allegorical interpretation, made the ironic observation of, "It seems unfortunate that, in this instance only, he should have adopted the literal sense."
It is interesting to note that when Origen often applied the allegorical method of interpretation that he was often way off the mark. Commenting on John 2:6, he wrote:
And six water-vessels are reasonably (appropriate) to those who are purified in the world, which was made in six days--the perfect number.
This exemplifies Origen's basic ignorance of biblical numerology. However, that is a small error considering that Origen denied the eternality of the Holy Spirit, writing:
For even although something else existed before the Holy Spirit, it was not be progressive advancement that He came to be the Holy Spirit.
Origen plainly taught that the Holy Spirit was a created being:
We therefore, as the more pious and truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ.
Origen also denied salvation by grace in contradiction of Romans 4:4, writing:
After these points, also, the apostolic teaching is that the soul, having a substance and life of it's own, shall, after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness , if it's actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this.
Origen writes elsewhere:
For as we see it not to be the case with rational natures, that some of them have lived in a condition of degradation owing to their sins, while others have been called to a state of happiness on account of their merits.
It almost looks as though Origen believed that the fate of the wicked would be to spend their eternal existence in the lake of fire doesn't it? As with the Origen's modern equivalent, the Christian universalist, it is a case of duplicity and double-speaking. Origen writes:
But in the meantime, both in those temporal worlds which are seen, as well as in those eternal worlds which are invisible, all those beings are arranged, according to a regular plan, in the order and degree of their merits; so that some of them in the first, others in the second, some even in the last times, after having undergone heavier and more severe punishments, endured for a lengthened period, and for many ages, so to speak, improved by this stern method of training, and restored at first by the instruction of the angels, and subsequently by the powers of a higher grade, and thus advancing through each stage to a better condition, reach even to that which is invisible and eternal, having traveled through, by a kind of training, every single office of the heavenly powers.
To translate: this means that Origen taught that people would subsequently become more and more holy through subsequent ages to come until which time God would become "all in all" -the universalist interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:28. Origen expands on this doctrine of purgatory:
Heaven, in which heaven and earth, the end and perfection of all things, may be safely and most confidently placed, -where, viz., these, after their apprehension and their chastisement for the offences which they have undergone by way of purgation, may, after having fulfilled and discharged every obligation, deserve a habitation in that land.
While the notion of an ultimate salvation of all isn't unique to the world's religions, combining Christianity with the philosophy of universal salvation in the ages to come was Origen's idea. Origen writes:
But those who have been removed from their primal state of blessedness have not been removed irrevocably.
Origen affirms this, writing:
The end of the world, then, and the final consummation, will take place when every one shall be subjected to punishment for his sins; a time which God alone knows, when He will bestow on each one what he deserves. We think, indeed, that the goodness of God, through His Christ, may recall all His creatures to one end, even His enemies being conquered and subdued.
The problem with Origen's position of universal salvation is that it is not to be found in the Scriptures and it slaps Christ in the face. For Origen illustrates a works righteousness apart from Christ and the belief that He alone saves.
Grady points out other heresies that Origen embraced: "the preexistence of the human soul (i.e., John the Baptist was previously an angel), baptismal regeneration (beginning with sprinkling infants) and transubstantiation, that Christ's death was paid as a ransom to Satan to allow the new birth to be entered by a "mystical kiss," while denying both the coming "bodily" resurrection and the millennial kingdom."
Because of Origen's scholarly pride common
to Alexandria, and his acceptance of the allegorical interpretation
methods first begun by Philo the Jew (as opposed to literal interpretive
methods), his rejection of basic fundamental Christian beliefs
-the legacy he has left behind has led others to: consummate the
idea of evolution in the fourth century (later to be picked up
and expanded upon by Darwin and Huxley in the 19th century); include
a wide variety of heresies against the teachings of Scripture,
and due to textual criticism has led many a Christian to say,
"Yea, hath God said?" Recall that is Satan's first recorded
lie. Further, not only did Origen doubt the authenticity of the
Word of God, by embracing universalism he fully adopted Satan's
second lie as well, which is as Genesis 3:4 records: "Ye
shall not surely die." Therefore, we have discovered that
heretical Jews, the synagogue of Satan, have infused itself within
Christian thought and lead to the doctrine of universalism.
A Look at the Salvation of All
If one asked Christian universalists to select one verse from the Bible that best described their belief in universalism -without a doubt, there would be a stampede to 1st Timothy 4:10, where it is written, "we trust in the living God who is the Saviour of all men." This one verse best describes the passion the Christian universalist holds in their sincere belief that there will come to pass an ultimate reconciliation of all manner of men onto God, and that indeed God, at this time, truly will be "all in all" in the fullest of the expression when this comes to fruition. Therefore, lets take a look at 1 Timothy 4:10 as an example of the rest of the universalist all list:
1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Nobody denies the language used in the verse. But looking at the verse gives rise to asking a question:
Who are the "all"?
The universalist has looked at the verse, then asked the question, "Who are the all?" In answering, the universalist concluded that the "all" is everybody, and because it is everybody, reasoned that everybody shall be saved. Thus, we know the universalist has asked this question beforehand and answered it. But, we should ask ourselves if the focus to explain the verse should be the "Saviour of all men" part, or should we take into account that passage lays in the context of "specially those that believe" within the verse? While the universalist correctly affirms that the "all" mentioned in 1 Timothy 4:10 as with many of the other "all" verses must include all peoples, as Christ's substitutionary atonement was indeed done for all people. The universalist fails to rightly divide the truths of Scripture. I say this because salvation is more than just being justified. To be saved, one must receive eternal life. Therefore, let us be honest with ourselves, because from looking at this verse, as well as the other "all" verses, we don't know with any certainty that the truth it conveys is that all peoples whom have ever lived shall be given eternal life and dwell with the Lord in heaven. More likely, based upon biblical theology looked upon as a whole (systematic theology), and word studies of the word specially, as well as understanding the historical times and people to whom the verse was originally written to -that this verse states that God shall save all people from destruction, or the annihilation that they rightly deserve. This is supported by Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29; and Acts 24:15, all of which affirm that the resurrection applies to both the saints and the wicked. The basic premise of this being God's loving nature to save. As Romans 3:22-23 teaches, all have fallen short of the glory of God and deserve to be destroyed. But it would be contrary of God's nature (see the reply to God is Love below) to destroy us all, His creation. Therefore because existence is better than non existence, or something is better than nothing, all are resurrected to appear before the Lord for judgment.
To interpret the meaning of 1 Timothy
4:10, we note that, as with most of the "all" verses
used to support universalism, the verse includes a qualifier.
In the case of 1 Timothy 4:10 for instance, the qualifier or clue
as to whom the saved are is the "specially of those that
believe" part. Looking at the qualifier leads us to ask the
question: "Who are those that believe?" Reading through
our Bible, brings to remembrance verses such as John 3:15-18,
36; 11:26; Mark 16:16; et cetra, which causes us to remember and
say, "those who live and believe in Christ Jesus as their
Lord and Savior are those whom have received eternal life, have
entered into the kingdom of heaven, and are therefore saved."
This is very important: If you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God given to us by the mutterings of the Holy Spirit and written by the Lord's faithful servants, then look at John 3:16-18: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son. (What happened? God loved us so much he gave His only Son to die as atonement for our sins.) That whosoever believeth in him (what Jesus died for) should not perish (another words those that don't believe will perish), but have everlasting life. (So we know IN ORDER TO HAVE everlasting life, you've got to believe and have faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ.) 17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world (Why not? Because the world is already condemned -we know this from Romans 3:10, 23 and Genesis chapter 3 where God has already condemned sin); but that the world through him might be saved. (So now we know we're all damned and we must have belief in Christ's work on the cross to be saved. This is reinforced by verses like Romans 6:23. Further, we know it is only through Jesus Christ that we are to receive eternal life, ref. Matthew 7:13-14, John 14:6.) 18. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (This is a wonderful summery of verses 16 and 17. Those alone who believe in the atonement Christ's life made are saved. Everybody else is not saved because they are condemned already, because they didn't have faith in the name of Christ Jesus. If these words from the Bible are true, and they are, how can universalism be correct?).
If you believe the words of the Bible, you can logically conclude that only those who have received Christ as their Savior are saved and receive eternal life with the Lord in heaven. Therefore, 1 Timothy 4:10 isn't saying that all peoples are saved and receive eternal life, rather, it is saying that all are justified to stand before the Lord, and in addition, to receive eternal life, one must believe. Again for clarity, 1st Timothy 4:10 says that Christ's sacrificial atonement on the cross was to atone for the sins of all people, but that in order to gain eternal life one must believe (ref. 1 Corinthians 15:22). Therefore the spiritual truth that 1 Timothy 4:10 presents to us is that Christ, who is God, is the Savior of all men -be it one man, or all men. The verse further tells us that those whom believe are saved and will receive eternal life to dwell with the Lord in heaven. The word "specially" used in the verse designates the position in the household of God a believer holds rather than their relationship to God (see called or chosen below). Any attempt on the part of the universalist to refute this would mean that men can be saved apart from Jesus, who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). The apostle Paul affirmed this as well when he wrote: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). Further, the writer of Hebrews agreed, affirming of Christ, "For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrews 9:26). And "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God... For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Hebrews 10:12, 14). As the apostle Luke recorded when he wrote the book of Acts, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
The universalist will acknowledge that belief in Jesus Christ is a requirement for salvation but will quickly affirm of the after life, that the unsaved will be granted all the opportunity necessary to come into the fold and be saved by Christ's blood. Not only does this directly contradict Jesus' own words of "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die," as recorded in John 11:26, but there are ample reasons to outright reject the reasoning of any sort of after life salvation.
The defenders of Christian universalism
along with many cults claim that God shall grant a second chance
to receive salvation. Universalists further explain that the "length"
of this second chance will be "as long as is needed."
Orthodox Christians outright reject this notion. The Bible clearly
declares in Hebrews 9:27: "it is appointed unto men once
to die, but after this the judgment." Notice that this doesn't
imply more than one judgment -as in a judgment that is one of
many as many parole hearings may be, but that this is the judgment.
This urgency to accept Christ as Lord and Savior right now is
supported by the many parables Jesus Himself taught that speak
of the urgency to accept Him as the Savior in the here and now.
All of which indicate that one must make the decision to do so
now and not in the after life. Looking about at the glory of all
creation dictates that God has so many ways to reveal Himself
to unbelievers before their deaths, that it is unnecessary He
do so in death. Further, if we are saved by divine grace through
faith -where is faith when it is made plain to the observer? Did
not Jesus declare unto doubting Thomas: "Thomas, because
thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have
not seen, and yet have believed" (John 20:29). The spiritual
truth of this verse, as a man once pointed out to me, "When
the author of the play gets on the stage, you can be sure the
show is over." But more than that, the belief in a second
chance (or chances) undermines the missionary mandate. For what
purpose is the Great Commission, given in Matthew 28:18-20, if
people can be saved apart from receiving Christ as their personal
Lord and Savior in this life? There is no real evidence of an
afterlife salvation as I shall demonstrate later, so why perpetuate
the idea?
Objections
The universalist counters the argument that universalism undermines the Great Commission by stating:
Those converts who do believe in Universalism are practically guaranteed to have come into Christ out of a desire for truth and love, and not out of fear of hell. In other words, a universalist convert will tend to be more sincere than a convert made by the preaching of eternal hell. The one who came in out of fear of eternal torment is apt to consider his confession of Christ simply as some kind of 'fire insurance' -Kris Rhodes.
The orthodox Christian is not swayed by this reply. Does sincerity have anything to do with truth? The answer of course, is no because people will and can be sincerely wrong. For example, I can sincerely believe that my white Ford is a red Ferrari. Though my belief may be very sincere, it would have no basis on truth. In fact, by presenting this objection, the universalist says that because of their spiritual enlightenment, they are a better believer because they have not sought the Lord through the fear of the consequence of an eternal conscious hell, but have sought God by their love. This is nothing more than the manifestation of spiritual pride disguised as a form of righteousness covered in love, for it is written that the fear of the Lord is the beginnings of knowledge and wisdom (Proverbs 1:7, 29; 2:5; 9:10; Isaiah 11:2; 33:6). This is likened onto the Pharisee whom thanked God that he wasn't as other men, except instead of pronouncing his righteousness before God, the universalist is counting upon his love which implies that they possess something others do not and is a form of legalism (ref. Luke 18:10-14).
A second objection the universalist may
offer is that there is no definite article ("the") complementing
the Greek word for judgment in the passage, and because of this,
we cannot rule out the possibility of multiple judgments. Regarding
this point, the universalist is correct, but to base one's theology
upon the notion of multiple judgments, the universalist should
be able to cite an example of a person being judged more than
once in the after life from Scripture or their argument is based
more upon wishful thinking and speculation than fact.
To Die in Your Sins
Most universalists fail to clarify, or understand, what is meant by dying in your sins. Jesus said in John 8:24: "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." What did Jesus mean when he said that? Tom Talbott, who is a professor of philosophy at Willamette University in Oregon, and the author of "The Inescapable Love of God," a book that affirms universalism as true, once agreed with me that to die in your sins is to be separated from the Lord when he wrote to me:
As for the question about Romans 6:23, I assume that by "death" Paul meant spiritual death or separation from God. The wages of sin--that is, the inevitable consequence of sin--is separation from God.
Tom then went on to say that the separation lasted only as long as the sin lasted inferring his presumption that the sin can removed in some form or fashion in the after life (see Tom Talbott (universalist, UR) vs. Eric Landstrom (evangelical)). This is the idea that the universalist clings to, that in some form or fashion the sins of the wicked can be somehow removed or purged. But where is the proof of this? Certainly not in the Scriptures, for if there was, and I had missed it, an apologist for universalism would have long ago pointed it out to me. And though disagreeing with the idea of universalism, I would have had to accept that universal reconciliation was a possible theological viewpoint based upon evidence provided by the Scriptures.
Tom Logan, commenting on Tom Talbott's
thoughts regarding this passage stated: "all universalists
must indulge in purgatorialism. They posit man can and must atone
for sin by suffering [in the lake of fire]. This is autosoteriology
and a denial of the vicarious sufferings of Christ. Since the
sin is not pardoned they must posit that man can and does atone
for this sin through personal suffering. Of course the idea is
unbiblical, never appears in the bible and is all out assault
on the necessity of Christ's sacrifice. [Therefore,] It is heresy
which denies the foundational doctrines of Christianity."
Mr. Logan's observation brings to the forefront a problem that
universal reconciliation presents: for it downplays the sacrificial
atoning work on the cross in behalf of mankind's sins that Christ
accomplished. This would directly conflict with Jesus' prayer
to the Father "that, if it were possible, the hour might
pass from him" (Mark 14:35). Indeed if there were another
way onto salvation do you think the Father in heaven would have
allowed Jesus to endure such agony on the cross?
1 Timothy 4:10 Revisited
However, because of the fact that the universalists are very fond of 1 Timothy 4:10 in support of universalism, I should point out that there is yet another way of refuting this verse in particular. Let's look at the verse again:
1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
If we simply paraphrase the verse the universalist's argument fades: For God we will both work for and suffer rebuttal because we trust in Christ Jesus resurrected who is the savior of all men; all those that believe. The paraphrase holds true to the thought that the author meant to convey (see Overcoming "aionios" and "aion," fifth objection, second paragraph).
1 Timothy 4:10 does not say God gives eternal life to be spent with Him to all peoples. Rather, 1 Timothy 4:10 teaches us that God is the savior of all who are sons of God (see called or chosen). Remember John 6:37-40. All the those that the Father gives to the Son, the Son will save each and everyone. Though the Father desires all to come to repentance and salvation, we must ask ourselves if God always gets His will or desire because many of the proof verses universalists use hinge on the idea that God MUST get His every will or desire. The presumption, on the part of the universalist, to use any Scripture that speaks of God's will as the deciding factor for the salvation of all is that this argument ultimately must preclude any form of free moral agency (freewill or self-determination). In this light, the universalist shows that he is a hard determinist. Hard determinism states that everything that God knows in His omniscience must come to pass, rather than the soft self-determinist's view, that God knows all potential occurrences in His omniscience. With this view the hard determinist believes that people only believe they have freewill, but in actuality, there is no freewill whatsoever. In light of this assumption on the part of the universalist, it is good that we visit the philosophical dilemma they have introduced by way of the Scriptures to see if the universalist's position is correct. Therefore, does God always get His will or desire? He doesn't if you believe your Bible. Lets take a look:
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. By this verse we confirm what the universalist believes; that God does not will or desire that any would perish.
2 Thessalonians 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. But here in this verse we find that some do indeed perish. Remember, if you believe that the Bible is true, then you've got to believe the words of this verse.
Revelation 16:11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds. And by this verse we see that God does not get the desire of His heart, for He desires none to blaspheme Him.
We ought not ask if God gets His will, but if God grants man freewill. If man indeed does have freewill then one cannot escape the fact that man will at times not fulfill God's will for him. If man has not freewill then God Himself is the author of the sin he hates (God forbid!). The fact that sin exists makes it illogical and contrary to say God always gets His will and desires. Therefore, the lake of fire is God's compliment to man's freewill. By choosing not to seek God, either actively or passively, you are indeed choosing damnation.
Imagine if you had freewill and turned your back on God all your lifeonly to be dragged to heaven to spend eternity with God. If that was the case, then heaven would be hell for you as you had no choice. Further, God cannot do that which is contrary to His nature. Forcing a person to do something freely is a contradiction in terms. If something is free, then it is not forced. And if something is forced, then it is not freefor God desires none to sin. Therefore, it is God's respect of a person's God given choice (not ethnic background) that demands an eternal hell since God cannot contradict His loving nature by forcing them into heaven against their will.
Tom Logan exposed the hypocrisy of the universalists whom use any proof based upon God's will for all to be saved as verification of their position. Tom's argument presents that in light of God's desire that none should endure pain or suffering, right from the start, the fact that some do enter the lake of fire disproves the universalist argument based upon the deterministic will of God. However, those who are hard determinists must posit that God has determined some to be destined for the lake of fire. Because of this, they must further posit that either men acquire freedom of will in the lake of fire and are punished only until they repent -something which God had not allowed previously. Or they must admit it was simply God's desire to determine that men enter the lake of fire and suffer for a period of time and afterwards to save them. This of course denies 2 Peter 3:9, which reads: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." To call God love, yet attribute that He desires his rational creatures to endure suffrage is obscene. Yet those universalists which reject the determinist's position and argue for universal reconciliation and self-determinism must posit that men entered into the lake of fire of their own choice. This position then makes them inconsistent and belies their argument for the salvation of all based upon proof verses that follow the deterministic will of God. Therefore, the universalists who are not deterministic argue against their own belief when they argue based on God's desire or wish.
Either way universalists are unbiblical and inconsistent in either case they present for the salvation of all be it based upon determinism or self-determinism. Hence, any argument based upon a deterministic will of God runs aground.
The argument against a God of Love concerning hell is that a loving God would not torment his creation forever. Thus the reasoning goes that a loving God will not do so as God loves us as sinful creatures in a benevolent way. And the argument goes that if God is really loving; there would be no hell. Those whom run their theology along these lines make the error that forgets or de-emphasizes that first and foremost God is a righteous and just God. Why? Because all of God's godly emotions are tempered by the fact that God cannot sin. Even when God is filled with wrath He will not sin. We have all been angry and done something in a state of wrath that we feel foolish about later or caused harm to something or someone that got in our way. God's wrath is not like our wrath. God's wrath is without sin, it is a godly wrath, and it is this sinless wrath that makes the sheen on God's justice all the brighter and all the more awesome. This is what God has revealed about Himself in His letter to us, the Bible (see the Declaration that God is Love and the Severity of God).
The objection that the universalist offers to this argument is:
Universalists affirm that God is both loving and just. But let's think about whether God's justice would require that men suffer eternal torment. We often conceptualize justice with the idea of "an eye for an eye," in other words, people must receive a punishment which is somehow equal to the crime. If one thinks of justice in this way, it is clear to see that no finite sin committed by a finite human being can merit infinite punishment. Some say at this point that men are given infinite punishment because their sins are against an infinite God. But if a court of law were to give greater punishments to those who had committed crimes against the rich and powerful, and substantially lesser punishments to those who committed crimes against the poor and weak, that court would be universally considered to be unjust. This same principal applies to say that crimes against an infinite God, against whom crimes would presumably have the least possible effect, require an infinitely severe punishment, is to give voice to an unjust principal, not a just one -Kris Rhodes.
The underlying flaw of this objection is that the universalist must makes the comparison of things that are finite to a Being that is infinite. This is called the finite fallacy. The sin a finite creature commits isn't a finite sin when applied to an infinite Being.
How Do Non Universalists Interpret the Declaration That God is Love? (referencing I John 4:8, 16)
When we begin to discuss the qualities of God, we must realize that while other beings may have these qualities -God is these qualities. Only the characteristic varies when applied to a finite being. Since finite beings are restricted by their nature of finiteness, it is not unusual for them to describe a necessary infinite Being by comparison and analogy. Therefore, things are like God in their actuality, but not in their potential, since God has no potentiality. In drawing an analogy between the finite and the infinite, we must isolate the univocal attribute or quality that both share in order to understand how the attribute relates to God. Thus when I say "I love" and that "God is love" I must be careful of my definition of "love" lest my meaning be not understood as I hoped to convey it. Therefore, when we speak of God being love, we must ask ourselves the question of what kind of love? Is it a brotherly love? a sexual love? A covetous love? Or a moral love?
I would say that when it is said that God is love, that the Scriptures are speaking of a moral love. A moral love that doesn't describe God as an attribute He possesses, but rather is. Certainly Scriptures tell us there is none more holy than God, and that God cannot sin.
A moral love is something that non Christians have difficulty understanding. A moral love is a love without sin, without blemish, and without misrepresentation. For example I have a moral love for those whom believe in universal reconciliation -yet at the same time I do not love the errors that they promote. Another example: I love my neighbor whom is a murderer, but I do not love his sin.
A moral love is that which loves the sinner but not the sin. Therefore when a moral love is applied onto God Himself; we begin to understand both the holiness of the Lord in heaven, our own depravity, and the need to separate ourselves from sin if we are to gather together onto the Lord in heaven. Since we are all sinners, and in this temporal life sin is inevitable, we on our own accord are completely unable to separate ourselves of sin -thus, our need of a redeemer. When one is born again from above, he is brought into a standing which never afterwards varies: he is "accepted in the Beloved." His sin and also his sins have all been imputed to Christ, and now the righteousness of Christ is imputed to him. He enters into the blessedness of a man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin" (ref. Romans 4:5-8). Thus, by what some have called "the higher ethic of the cross," the righteous God was able to impute His own righteousness unto His sinning people (2 Corinthians 5:19, 21).
When we discuss a moral love we understand this love to be a confluence between two paradoxical impulses: the hunger for the desired object and the desire to do good for that which is loved. One impulse takes and the other impulse gives. In kione Greek the passion to possess is called eros, whereas the self-sacrificing love is called agape. These two functions of love are held in tension in all human love. Any attempt at separating these two dimensions of love will result in an incomplete understanding of love, for they both work together to strengthen each other. Catherine of Genoa astutely observed that both aspects involve a prizing: eros prizes the object of love so longingly that it cannot rest without possessing it, yet at the same time agape cannot withhold any gift or service from the beloved. One is self-serving, the other, self-sacrificing. Both eros and agape involve a yearning: eros seeks self fulfillment through another, whereas agape seek the object of love's fulfillment even at personal cost (Catherine of Genoa, Purgation and Purgatory, pp. 71-72).
Discussing God's love towards humanity, the differences of eros love and agape love and their union in God, Thomas Oden concluded, "God is love in these two sensesenjoyment of the beloved, and self giving for the beloved's goodin perfect fullness, balance, harmony, and completeness. God feels the worth of creatures and longs to do them good. Because God loves in both of these ways in full and fitting balance, we say that God is love" (Thomas Oden, The Living God, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, p. 121, emphasis his).
The Scriptures reveal that God desires to possess, and indeed will have, a people to call His own that willingly love Him. Therefore, when a universalist argues for the eventual salvation of all from God's omnipotence, I would be remise in my stewardship if I did not raise two points in response. First, God's attributes do not operate in contradiction to each other. God is internally consistent in His nature. This is why the Bible insists that "It is impossible for God to lie" (Hebrews 6:18). This is also the reason that God's power must be exercised in accordance with His love. That is, God cannot do what is unloving. Second, it is unloving to force people to love Him. Forced love is a contradiction, and God cannot do what is contradictory. Love cannot work coercively but only persuasively. And if some refuse to be persuaded, as the Bible says some will, then God will not coerce them into His kingdom. The Universalist would have God do exactly this by having God "condition sin" out of the wicked in the lake of fire or in some transcendent reality of ages to come. Therefore, even when one argues for free-will and universalism, I must come to the conclusion that free-will cannot thrive if universalism were true -for it would not be a moral love God would exhibit if resistance to his will was futile, rather instead it would be rape. For example, if I were to place you in conditions that were of your greatest dislike, with the idea that all you needed to do to remove yourself from these conditions was to accept something that was contrary to your nature, then my motives for placing you in such a situation would be contrary to the nature of a loving God regardless of the outcome of your response. God doesn't force Himself upon people, for if He did, there would be no room for self-determination. Further, if there were no room for self-determination and all was predetermined, then why would God hold us accountable for things which are beyond our control? If that is indeed the case, then God would be violating His loving nature (God Forbid!).
Thomas Oden writes of love, "The one who best understands that it is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35) is the one who learns truly to love" (Thomas Oden, The Living God, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, p. 120). Yet it must be observed that completely unreturned love, even a love that never ceases, is still love, for love is not dependant upon its being reciprocated. Hence love never does fail, but love is not defeated if it is never returned because God is not dependant upon the love of His creatures. Nevertheless, the circle of God's love is completed only with the answering love for Him by His beloved. It is at this time when the heart of man and his life joyfully reflect the beauty and image of God's holiness.
The universalist presents the objection that it is logically inconsistent to claim that a person could choose to reject God forever and ever if he had been truly unblinded and has been freed from all bondage in the after life. The universalist offers this to the argument the orthodox Christian presents, that if freewill were to thrive in the age to come, one could continue to reject God for all eternity. Therefore, we should dwell on this and reason this out together. First, it is conceivable that if freewill does exist in the after life that one could choose bondage rather than freedom just as a junkie who is all cleaned up returns to the bondage of drugs. Therefore, without grace being forced upon the wicked, what would prevent them from returning to a separated and sinful state? Second, we have an example from the Scriptures of an entire group of rational creatures, the fallen angels, falling from grace through the exercise of their freewill, though beforehand they had believed (James 2:19) and did not have the sinful nature we humans have. This further illustrates and exemplifies that unless one has the imputed righteousness of Christ, that one can fall from grace. Therefore, the basic premise of the universalist's objection rests upon speculation and not fact.
Love Never Fails (1 Corinthians Chapter 13:8a)
Universalists fail to grasp what the overall picture that 1st Corinthians teaches. Universalists posit that since "God is love" (from 1 John 4:8 and 4:16), that when 1st Corinthians 13:8 declares that "love never fails," they rationalize that this is a strong argument for the doctrine of ultimate reconciliation. After all, it is written that we are to "trust in the living God who is the Saviour of all men" (1 Timothy 4:10). Thus, the universalist interprets that the "love" spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13:8a must refer to God Himself. If that is the case, it is then both rational and biblical to conclude that the doctrine of universal reconciliation is true, because if God never fails, then all peoples shall eventually be saved--no matter how much they resist him. However, in coming to this conclusion, the universalist has failed to interpret what the overall "big pictures" are from these passages. Since I have covered 1st John 4:8 and 16 as well as visited 1st Timothy 4:10 twice (see, "How Do Non Universalists Interpret the Declaration That God is Love?," "A Look at the Salvation of All," and "1 Timothy 4:10 Revisited"), I shall focus on chapter 13 of 1st Corinthians where it is writen "Love never fails."
The universalist, in support of their beliefs, has taken their attention from the overall context of the chapter and placed it upon 13:8a where it is writen, "Love never fails." However, in any proper study, the surrounding context of the passage must be taken into account before an interpretation can be summarized. Furthermore, it should be asked why the author (Paul in this case) wrote what he did?
Though the church of Corinth was gifted and growing, it was plagued by moral and ethical, doctrinal and practical, and corporate and private problems that worked to destroy the Christian testimony because of immorality and disunity. Paul wrote the epistle to the church of Corinth to deal with some of these problems as well as to answer certain questions that the Christians at Corinth had asked when the church had sent a deligation of three men to Paul (1 Cor. 16:17). Thus the theme of the epistle is the application of Christian principles on a personal and social level to promote spiritual maturity and unity among believers in their relationships and worship.
Chapter 13, which is often read at weddings, has proven to people around the world as the best definition of love ever penned. It is this chapter that clearly displays that love is the greatest gift of all. But chapter thirteen lays within the context of chapters 11:2-14:40 in which the apostle Paul is addressing the affairs concerning public worship, which includes improper observance of the Lord's supper and the selfish use of spiritual gifts. Specifically, gifts were to be used unselfishly to edify others to the Lord and in the Lord. In chapter thirteen Paul defines what love is and is not:
| Love is: | Love is Not: |
| 1) Patient 2) Kind 3) Rejoices with truth 4) Bears all things 5) Believes all things 6) Hopes all things 7) Endures all things 8) Never fails |
1) Jealous 2) Brag 3) Arrogant 4) Acting unbecomingly 5) Seek its own (selfish) 6) Provoked 7) Take into account a wrong suffered 8) Rejoicing in unrighteousness |
From this contrast we should wonder if Paul is speaking about God's being love, or rather is Paul teaching what love is and what love is not? To better understand the big picture that Paul is illuminating, lets break chapter thirteen down:
Verses 1-3:
The importance of love.
Verses 4-8a: The characteristics of love
Verses 8b-10: The partial and the complete
Verses 11-12: Two illustrations of the partial and complete
Verse 13: The greatness of love.
|
A child (young Christian) seeks: Knowledge |
An adult (mature Christian) has: Faith (from knowledge) |
The greatest of these is love. Why is this so? Because the sharing of the Gospel is a greater gift (i.e., through communication, language, tongues) of love. If you recall what John 5:20 and John 14:12 teach us (i.e., greater works of faith) Christians whom believe will do greater works than Jesus. Recall now that the last thing Jesus told us to do was the Great Commission, to witness the Gospel to all peoples. What greater act of love can a believer do than stand and witness the Gospel? Further, the unity and fellowshiping of believers through communication for their edification and praise of our Lord in heaven is an act and display of love.
Thus the people whom contend that this passage is about the continuation of spiritual gifts are in missing the point, as the Corinthian church had far better spiritual gifts (as far as outwards signs go) than the church does today but the church of Corinth was immature. Those who contend that the gifts have failed because that which is perfect has come (i.e., a completed canon of Scripture) have also missed the point, for that which is perfect has not come though the manifestation of love is present with us today if we seek it. Thus, a Christian seeking maturity seeks Faith through knowledge, Hope through prophecy, and Love through language because these are the gifts that are superior and the gift of love is the greatest of these because it will endure to witness the glory of our Lord in heaven!
Universalists by their emphasizing that love never fails (i.e., God never fails) have missed the point of the teachings of the chapter. They fail to comprehend that verses 11 and 12 are two illustrations that Paul makes to illuminate the partial and the complete which is the immature and the mature traits of believers. Universalists often attempt to build a case that the partial represents only the few whom now realize that the Lord will save all and that the complete will come to pass when all know God and are saved in fulfillment of their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:28 (i.e., when God is "all in all"). This interpretation is not at all what Paul was teaching, nor does the context of the chapter surrounding it support this interpretation.
The underlying presumption on the part of the universalist is the idea that only a few at present know that God shall save all having already secured their salvation, but eventually all will come to this knowledge acknowledging the Lord in praise and worship of this wonderful gift in fulfillment of 1 Corinthians 15:28. The interpretive error the universalist has employed to come to this conclusion is allegory. They have equated the phrase "Love never fails" to really mean that "God never fails" and have applied God's desire that all peoples would come to repentance with God's divine attribute of omnipotence as the foundation on which to build the doctrine of universal reconciliation.
While it is true that God is omnipotent, it is also true that God requires faith or true belief in His sacrificial atoning work on the cross for salvation. Therefore, it should be noted that in the after life, or at the return of Jesus Christ, both faith and hope will come to an end having been fulfilled. For where is faith when it is made plain? And where is hope when that which is hoped for arrives? The love that has so long sought after by faith and hope come to fruition with the manifestation of the kingdom of God -but not for those who did not believe in the Son of God and have not washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb of God.
This allegorizing of Scripture is applied by universalists to other portions of Scripture as well (see Tom Talbott (universalist, UR) vs. Eric Landstrom (evangelical) in reference to Romans chapter 5).
Therefore, when a person tries to build a case for the salvation of all based upon God being love (true) and love never failing from 1st Corinthians chapter 13, they have failed to rightly divide the truth.
Indeed, the whole world would be saved if salvation were only forgiveness, or even justification (Romans 5:18, 19). But salvation is life; and the world is lost because it will not come to Him who offers life (John 5:39, 40; Romans 5:21; 6:23). The Bible does not teach universal salvation, but it does teach universal redemption. The blood was shed for all men (1 John 2:1, 2; Hebrews 2:9; 1 Timothy 4:10). Therefore, let us look at 2 Peter 2:20, 22:
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
These verses show us a warning to those who know the way of salvation and still reject it. There is no conceivable way for a dog or a sow to become a sheep except to be born again. And so there is no conceivable way for a sinner to become a child of God except to be born again. It is not enough to know the Gospel. The Gospel must be believed.
Would God Be a Failure If All are not Saved?
The question that I have asked of universalists in the past, is if God would be a failure if not all the people He desired to be saved were indeed saved? To those of you who would respond, that yes God would be a failure if He failed to save all those who He wished to save -you are in error. It is an error because the great triumph of the Gospel isn't mans salvation, but that God Himself is justified by succeeding in justifying sinful men! Therefore, if God only succeeded in the salvation of but one disgraceful sinner, then His glory would be sung through the heavens for all eternity!
In the past, I have been asked by universalists to differentiate between "called and chosen," To answer, I can go in a number of different directions: Those whom are called include people whom reject the invitation, and thus prove that they are not chosen. That was Spurgeon's argument, a man whom taught that Calvinism should be taught as the Gospel. An Arminian may respond that many are called to work in God's vineyard, but few retain the humility and submission onto God and begin to believe their righteousness is not of God, but of themselves -thus the falling away from the truth. But I tell you that called or chosen is a type because God does not adapt those whom are not his children already. In biblical times a boy was not called a son until he came of age; and then he was proclaimed as his father's son and heir in a ceremony called huiothesia. Therefore, a man may have many boys, but only the sons are chosen as his heirs. Therefore "chosen" is a word of position rather than of relationship. When a man is born again from above he moves from being a potential heir to the household of God to being a heir to the household of God. Thus, the chosen are indeed the "sons of God!" This gift is incomprehensible and the saints shall praise and glorify the Giver of this gift throughout all eternity!
There is a great and often overlooked lesson in 1 John 5:11-13, that we may know that we have eternal life: "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God" (emphasis, mine). To quote Jesus Christ Himself, "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"
Is it possible For a Person Not to Believe?
The solemn fact remains that it is possible for a doubting man to come to a place where he is unable to believe. In John 12:39 it is declared of certain people that "they could not believe." And in the next verse quoting from several verses from Isaiah, we read, "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." Therefore it is tragically possible for people to trifle with the word of God so long that their hearts become hardened and they are unable to believe. Unfortunately, the world is overflowing of living examples of this.
It is the Holy Spirit who gives us the ability to rightly divide and understand the Scriptures. Therefore, when we study the Bible we need to realize that to properly interpret the word of God we need to pray for God's help. Oftentimes, to understand a difficult passage we do not need more information, but more insight of the facts we already have at hand. This insight comes to us from the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14 and Eph. 1:17-19). Thus, no matter how intelligent we believe ourselves to be, if we do not diligently seek God through prayer during our studies, and approach Him with a repentant humble heart and an understanding mind, we break fellowship with the Lord. If we fail to consider the Lord and His ways, the teachings of Scripture will be misinterpreted and the truths it contains will be disbelieved before the preferences of the human heart which is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked (ref. Jer. 17:9). The word of God itself, unless it is believed, becomes a snare in this case, and through it the heart becomes hard and callous. Therfore, it is vital to remember that God never reveals any truth to a man except to have that man obey the truth. If a man goes on believing, God goes on revealing more truths to him -increasing his depth of knowledge and faith. But if a man disbelieves and continues to disbelieve truths when they are presented to him, then the time comes when God no longer reveals truth to him and the eyes of the man are blinded to the truth and his heart is hardened. In 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 we read of "them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." This is solemn language and we all would do well to heed it.
Problems Facing Universalist Theology
Despite the urgings of universalists, a systematic look through the Bible in its entirety reveals that there is not one verse that shows:
1) The sins of the wicked being forgiven in the after life.
2) The wicked repenting in the after life.
3) The wicked accepting Jesus Christ in the after life.
4) The wicked avoiding judgment in the after life.
5) The wicked having sin "conditioned" out of them in the after life.
6) The wicked getting out of the lake of fire.
7) The wicked getting their names written back into the book of life.
8) Nor can we find anywhere that God repents of His judgment on the wicked in the afterlife or that His judgment is anything short of final and fixed for all eternity.
While we must recognize that not all of the above is believed by every universalist, all of the above is believed by some Christian universalists. Therefore, we ought to ask for proof to be given by Christian Universalists to support these assertions because we can find no Scriptural evidence to support these beliefs despite the often long-winded explanations of universalists. Because none of the defenders of universal reconciliation have stepped forward to give a rational defense of their beliefs, I have been drawn to the conclusion that basically Christian universalists are religious fideists.
Religious fideism argues that matters of faith and belief need not be supported by facts and reason. Therefore, because we recognize that Christian universalists must be somehow internally consistent with their beliefs we must conclude that either the Christian universalist has not weighed all the Scriptural arguments and evidence against the theology of universal reconciliation, or that they have intentionally discarded evidence against their theology that is to be found in the Bible. If the latter is correct, then, the Christian universalist's belief may be internally consistent, but this internal consistency has no basis on the reality of Scripture. I have come to suspect that with many of the "mature" Christian universalists that it is a combination of both -if for the only reason, that the mature Christian universalists I've encountered are all into very liberal scholarship and textual criticism. However, lacking the necessary skills to understand such matters, these same Christian universalists parrot the standard universalist slogans of "All Bibles are wrong, you've been lied to!" as well as, "Only the originals are perfect," making reference to the manuscripts (MSS) in which both conservative and liberal scholars make their translations from. However, because none of the original MSS are in existence today, we rely on copies of them in which to translate our Bibles from. Because of this, the universalist places his faith in a non existent and non verifiable documents that exist only in his mind.
Therefore, because the Christian universalist does not really believe any Bible is the literal "Word of God," but rather, the "revelation" of God, they have no qualms disagreeing with the text when it disagrees with the theology of universal reconciliation. As a further consequence, their internal doctrines seemingly tend to float, and they will defend their position with arguments of convenience rather than conviction. The only thing a universalist is firm upon is their belief in the eventual salvation of all peoples, and if need be, other rational creatures.
This makes the case of universal reconciliation, or the eventual salvation of all, made all the more interesting, when you consider that a commonly held belief among Christian universalists is that even fallen angelic forms are all to be saved as well. Specifically this is Satan, called the devil, and his fallen angelic host. I reason that this belief came about long ago in Origen's day (whether Christian universalists are aware of it or not), when it was pointed out as an objection to the theological position of universal reconciliation that Satan and the fallen angels would not be saved but suffer eternal condemnation against the universalist's position of a God of love being the Savior of all. The rational of this argument would be that a loving God could not be truly loving if He allowed part of His rational creation lie in eternal torment and separation -therefore, why would God save all of fallen and sinful mankind if He won't save all the fallen angels? This argument would present an intrinsic problem for the universalist whom argues for the salvation of all based upon God's love and omnipotence. This same argument presented against universalism has in the past been mostly used against those whom believe in annihilation. If for example people are going to be annihilated rather than lay up in the eternal consciousness of the lake of fire separated from the Most High, why then is it that the beast and the false prophet have been waiting to be annihilated for 1000 years by the time Satan is cast into it? It is a hole in the argument for annihilation as well as a potential hole in the argument for the salvation of all unless Satan and the fallen angelic host are to be saved as well. Therefore, the Christian universalist has adapted the idea that fallen angels are also to be saved in this future "ultimate reconciliation" with God.
The Salvation of Angels
The inclusion of fallen angels into the doctrine of universalism introduces more problems than it hoped to solve for the universalist. This is because the Bible makes it very clear that the angels who rebelled and all unrepentant sinners will be punished forever.
Jude 1:5-7 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
2 Peter 2:4-9 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.
The Hebrew concept of time and "aionios" and "aion"
Universalists all promote that unsaved sinful man can come into a state of salvation in the after life. Yet this belief would directly conflict with Scripture. The strongest proof against this belief is a comparison of Revelation 14:11; 19:3; 20:10 and 20:15, which leads the reader to believe that those whom are cast into the lake of fire remain there for ever. To refute this understanding, universalists are fond of reaching right past their Bibles to extra biblical works to support their refutation of the problem overcoming the Greek word for "eternal." They quote such and such said this and who and who thinks this, and so on and so forth. They exhaust all their resources to refute this, because quite literally if the word does indeed mean eternal, in regards to the after life -the age to come, the case for Christian universalism evaporates before their very eyes. However, it is wise to note that anything that is extra biblical is just that -extra biblical. As such we are not to base our doctrines upon the musings and words of uninspired men. Commentators are only useful in so much as to draw our attention to a doctrine that either is or is not represented in the Scriptures. However, if you are not educated enough to use Greek as a vehicle for study, you must trust that God did not fail to deliver the Scriptures to you in a language that you can understand. Furthermore, the argument the universalists promote, this ages of ages business, flies in the face of the Hebrew concept of time. When taking into account the different concepts of time that Western civilization holds in comparison to the Hebrew concept of time, the rendering of the Hebrew and Greek into "for ever and ever" and the like is correct when it refers to the age to come. Anything different is scholarly pride and ambition as if to say, "Look everybody else is wrong, this should be 'ages of ages.'" Doing this amounts to nothing more than a half truth as I will explain below.
Remember when you mix truth with lie, you still end up with a lie. The more truth you mix with your lie, the better the lie is because it is likely more people will believe your lie is the truth. Furthermore, the longer and the louder you say a lie as the truth the more likely people are going to believe it is the truth. This works because people are basically sinners, and as such desire to hear what they want to hear which is not necessarily the truth. But the facts remain: Truth is more than our subjective feelings of what we feel is right. It has objective existence. It has common application.
Truth is true -even if no one knows it.
Truth is true -even if no one admits it.
Truth is true -even if no one agrees what it is.
Truth is true -even if no one follows it.
Truth is true -even if no one but God grasps it fully.
Since none of the universalists I've discussed this with possess a working knowledge of Greek, they are in no position to determine who is right regarding this issue. As such, unless they gain the knowledge to make an informed call of judgment, they should stick with what they can verify themselves rather than parroting the uninspired words of men -which happens to be the universalist party line.
Something that is within their ability to understand
is the Hebrew concept of time. To understand the Hebrew concept
of time, you must grasp the idea that the Hebrew mind did not
think of the passage of time as a medium onto itself like the
Greek mind or how western civilization views time. Rather, to
a Hebrew, the passage of time was life. God's plan, in
the Hebrew mind, consisted that man participated in two great
ages. One age was this temporal in nature, the other great age
was the age to come. Each of these great ages were divided up
into smaller ages by events that occurred through life. Ultimately
the sum of the temporal age was finite, and the sum of the age
to come was infinite, which is to say, everlasting. Hence, the
rendering of "ages of ages" while technically correct,
completely fails to convey the meaning to the western reader.
Therefore, to render the English as "for ever and ever"
is correct, because this does explain the idea of the passage.
However, if you are a universalist whom disbelieves this explanation,
I encourage that you don't trust me, instead learn of the truth
for yourselves from an expert. To accomplish this, I ask that
you seek out your local synagogue and speak with the rabbi you
find there. For starters, the rabbi is a completely neutral source
of information; because his view will most likely be that we are
both members of a really big cult called Christendom, and as such,
he won't care one way or another. Get the rabbi to explain how
Old Testament Hebrews viewed time. While ages of ages is a correct
possible grammatical construction from an Old Testament Hebrew's
point of view -this means "forever and ever" to the
same Old Testament Hebrew when it refers to the age to come, the
after life. Thus any translator interested in translating what
is meant by the phrase in the original language will render the
Greek "for ever and ever" or the like when applicable
in English.
The objections of Universalists
Universalists have raised six objections to understanding aionios and aion properly rendered to convey the meaning of the words in English. The first of these is that only the scholarly can understand it. This is fallacious thinking. There is no need to be a scholar to understand the Hebrew concept of time, but having no knowledge precludes any information of special revelation. It is written in the Book of Hosea, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." (Hosea 4:6). As a Christian in the pursuit of maturity, your profession is to gain more knowledge of the Lord and to freely share that knowledge with others. Secondly, if you need to be a scholar to properly understand this, then you are not placing your trust in God, but in people whom are most agreeable to your theology.
The second objection involves the figurative fallacy on the part of the universalist. The Figurative Fallacy is: Either (1) mistaking literal language for figurative language or (2)mistaking figurative language for literal language. The question is not, "Should we interpret the passage literally or symbolically?" The question is "Which part must be interpreted literally and which part symbolically?" Like onto that, universalists further error by failing to discern that the Bible often times speaks of spiritual things rather than temporal things. In a nutshell, the only rebuttal the universalist offers with this argument against rendering these words as to mean "endlessness" and the like, is from verses where the rendering "forever" or "endless" is obviously figurative or spiritual. The universalist, by making this argument insults both the reader and their own intelligence in a desperate attempt to cling to their unscriptural position.
The third objection is that there are alternate theories available as to what the Hebrew concept of time is and that these alternate theories would tend to support the universalist position. Obviously when the authors wrote the epistles and Gospels they were to be understood by the author's intended audience. Since for the most part they were written to the Jews first and to the Gentiles second, we really should leap the historical gap between our cultures and understand the Hebrew concept of time rather than tickle our ears with theories.
Since the Hebrew concept of time has been preserved by an entire nation of Jews, it is rather easy to find out what they thought then and still what the non westernized Jews think now rather than attempt to lay the foundations of our faith on the sand of theory and speculation. Before the fact of what the Hebrews did believe then, and do believe now, the alternate theories argument evaporates.
The fourth objection universalists present is that several verses point to there being "ages" for believers yet to come in the after life, citing Ephesians 2:7 for example. The Bible refers to past ages in order to exalt God in His knowledge as the divine Creator in parallel with human ignorance (Isaiah 64:4; Deut. 4:32). The New Testament reveals the hidden wisdom of God, the Gospel, is a mystery that is revealed after long ages (1 Corinthians 2:7; Colossians 1:26; Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2).
With that in mind, the present era is the end of the ages according to 1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 9:26; and 1 Peter 1:20. In reference to Ephesians 2:7, the church as it lives in this age looks forward to the age of future consummation. Though the saved exist in this age, they are born from above as new creatures at the moment of their salvation. Now is a the dawn of a new age for them while they live in an age that is yet to end. These believers also look forward to the next age in which they will be incorruptible, conformed to the image of Christ (ref. Romans 8:29). Therefore when Ephesians 2:7 speaks of ages to Christians, it speaks righteously because Christians whom are born from above participate in two ages with the blessings of the Lord -the end of this age, and the coming kingdom of God.
Hence, Ephesians 2:7 isn't speaking of multiple ages that take place in the coming kingdom of God in the after life as the universalists must have occur to support their unscriptural position of purgatory.
The fifth objection is based on the semantic range of the Greek words. While it is technically true that the words need not always be rendered forever and the like, this is only true when the Greek word refers to this world age. Therefore, I'm not arguing that the Greek, when referring to this temporal world or age, means eternal -that is not the point of contention. The point of contention is how long is the age to come going to last. The universalists insist that the next age is also finite to support their doctrine of purgatory. This is what the universalist argument supports, and their argument has no basis outside of the semantic range of the grammar.
If for example if I say to you, "bar," what am I talking about? A salad bar? A drinking establishment? Atmospheric pressure? A metal bar? What? Just because the semantic range of a word encompasses several different meanings doesn't allow you to say the text alone determines meaning. Rather the author alone determines the meaning of the text. Therefore, we must jump the historical gap and understand the Hebrew concept of time, which is understood to be that the next age is without end in order to properly understand the message that was to be conveyed.
The sixth objection universalists raise, like onto the fifth objection, is that the Greek word that is translated into eternal is "aionion." It comes from the Greek root "aion" meaning "age" which while true is not a reasonable objection because, while technically the word does mean "age," linguistically with the intent to convey the meaning the word "age" had to a Hebrew of the biblical period it should be understood as to mean eternity. As Tom Logan rightly pointed out the beliefs of an Old Testament Hebrew; "Man lives his life in two periods or worlds. There is the temporal here and now. This of course is finite and an age or ages in this life are of necessity finite. Then there is the afterlife which takes in man's existence after death. Since these are the only two forms of existence man participates in and God has made provision for an unending existence for man; the age i.e. duration or ages of this period is infinite."
As Tom continued, "The fact is as lexicons acknowledge the respective cultures (Greek and Hebrew), both had a belief in an endless afterlife and used terms based on aion and olam to refer to it."
The universalist argues that age implies that it is a period of time that comes to and end. To really examine if the universalists interpretation of age carries weight, we ought to be consistent with their application and meaning of the word "age." Therefore if we apply their argument consistently, all of the following shall also come to an end:
Greek word "aion" used of God's glory
1. Philippians 4:20 "Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen."
2. 1 Timothy 1:17 "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen."Greek word "aion" used of God's throne
Hebrews 1:8 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
Greek word "aion" used of God's duration
1. 1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
2. 1 Peter 4:11 "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."
3. Revelation 1:6 "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."Greek word "aion" used of the saints
1 John 2:17 "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."
Greek word "aion" used of heaven
Matthew 25:46 "but the righteous into life eternal."
Greek word "aion" used of hell
1. Matthew 25:46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."
2. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 "these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord."
3. Matthew 25:41 "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"
4. Jude 13 "for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever"Greek word "aionios" used of heaven
Luke 18:30 "in the age to come, eternal life."
Greek word "aionios" used of hell
1. Revelation 14:11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night."
2. Revelation 20:10 "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
Despite the efforts of men to override the clear teaching of the Bible, the Bible is clear about the eternal nature of the punishment of the wicked. "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal" (Matt. 25:46). It is easy to see that Life is the same in duration as is the Punishment of the wicked. If one is temporary, so is the other. If the punishment of those held within the lake of fire is temporary, heaven is also temporary.
The New Testament use of the words eternal and everlasting makes it clear what they mean. It is "everlasting punishment" (Matt. 25:46). The fire is "everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41). There will be "eternal damnation" for some (Mark 3:29). For emphasis, consider how other verses use these words:
1. God is everlasting. "According to the commandment of the everlasting God" (ref. Romans 16:26). Does everlasting mean unending or temporary? Will God cease to exist?
2. The Holy Spirit is eternal. "Who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God" (ref. Hebrews 9:14). Is the Holy Spirit temporary? When the lake of fire gives up her dead, will He go out of existence?
3. Redemption is eternal. "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (Hebrews 9:12) Is Christ's work of eternal redemption completed or was it for just a brief time?
4. Salvation is eternal. "He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" ( ref. Hebrews 5:9). Will salvation also be temporary as well?
5. The kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. The faithful will be in "the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:11). Will the end to the suffrage of the wicked in the lake of fire also earmark the end of the kingdom of God?
The same words in both Greek and English are used to describe the future punishment of the wicked that are used to describe God, the Spirit, salvation, and the kingdom. "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41). Therefore, the fallacy with even arguing how long the duration of "aion" and "aionios" as to mean an age or duration of time less than forever and ever and to mean something other than time everlasting to support the doctrine of universal reconciliation is that then the same argument can be applied to heaven, God, and the everlasting life of the saints. In this the universalist is not consistent with their argument of what these words mean. Further, any objections to aion and aionius being rendered as "for ever" in English and not specifically covered here will be based on such scanty factual evidence or philosophical reasoning as to be made untenable to be the basis of one's belief in universalism.
"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works" (Titus 2:11-14).
Theological Issues
1. Is there really a second chance
for salvation after physical death?
2. Is one's salvation based on one's level of light/desire
for God, or is salvation based on a true knowledge of and repentant
response to the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus
Christ in a person's normal lifetime?
3. Does Scripture teach the ultimate reconciliation
of all things in such a way that the ongoing, eternal existence
of hell, Satan, demons, and unbelievers would be a contradiction
or that would militate against God's full glory (cf. John 12:32;
1 Cor 15:28; Eph1:10; Phil 2:10-11)?
Key Words
aiwn /aiwniov (aion, aionios)
1. Context strongly determines the meaning of eternity/eternal,
whether it be "for an extremely long time" or "forever."
2. With rare exceptions (e.g., Rev 19:3), the plural
is always used in
the sense of "forever."
3. Would not Rev 14:11 indicate an eternal experience
not just eternal
results, as also the lake of fire experience (Rev 20:10)?
4. The use of the plural aiwna (aiona)
in Jude 13 to describe the
experience of "black darkness" is utterly unexpected
and
unnecessary if universalism were in view (cf. 2 Pet 2:17 where
aiona is not used).
Also see The Hebrew Concept of Time
The Severity of God (Romans 11:22)
(Write an introduction. This section needs to explain the purpose of judgment and the order of events surrounding it.)
Pondering upon the justice of God gives rise to the question: what is the object of God's wrath? The answer is sin. Likewise, what is the object of God's love? To have us set apart from sin. As a parent disciplines a child, so God disciplines us to set us apart from sin. God does this to His glory because He is set apart from sin. God desires us to be holy because He is holy. Therefore, does a just and righteous judge leave evil alone? Does a good judge refuse to dispense justice? The result of the answers to these questions is that God would not be good if He didn't punish the wicked.
But the question remains, what of those who have rejected Christ? You will recall that all will know who God is when they are resurrected together (Dan 12:2; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; in his own company 1 Cor. 15:23) to give account to God as 2 Corinthians 5:10 says:
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
It is at this judgment that it is clearly written all will give knee to God after the resurrection in Romans 14:10-12:
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Clearly this passage tells us that all bow and give knee to God at judgment. Universalists argue that it is at this time when all give knee to the Creator that all are saved, and that God is truly "all in all." But does one need to be saved in order to bow in recognition of the power and authority of the court that will issue righteous judgment to all? The answer is: no, one does not need to be saved to recognize the authority of the judgment seat, just as a defendant in a court of law that will later be found guilty need not be exonerated before the trial to accept the ruling of the court. However, if the universalist doesn't accept this argument; it can be pointed out that after the judgment there are two groups -all the saints and all the wicked. Therefore, we can conclude that there are two different "all's": All the wicked and all the saints. We know the saint's are happily with God, but can we show how the wicked can get to God by getting out of the lake of fire which they were sent and by getting their names entered back into the book of life?
The universalist would try to explain that everyone gets out of the lake of fire at Revelation 20:13, but a careful look at this verse shows fallacious reasoning and dishonestly toward the Holy Spirit by declaring in the name of God something He never meant to convey. This is because a careful look reveals that it is death and hades that are delivered up before the judgment of the Lord, which is to say, everybody is resurrected to appear before the judgment seat of God. Therefore, it is shown that the wicked are not removed from the lake of fire, called hell, but are removed from hades to appear before the Lord. This is what Revelation 20:13 is talking about and not the wicked being raised from the lake of fire.
When a universalist proclaims that God shall be "all in all" (referencing 1 Corinthians 15:28), it would be wise to also look at 1 Corinthians 12:6 and Ephesians 1:23 where the same phrase, "all in all" is rendered from the Greek panta en pasin. The phrase "all in all" does not, as the universalist asserts, point to a time when all peoples are saved. Rather the phrase points to the unity in Spirit that believers possess. As noted earlier, Ephesians 4:13 says, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." The "perfect man" doesn't refer a person who is saved in a time when God is "all in all" as commonly the universalist would assert. Rather, the perfect man is Jesus Christ as He shall be when His church is completed and manifested as His Body, "the fulness of him that filleth all in all" (ref. Ephesians 1:23).
But it need not be that in order for God to be "all in all" that all must be in God. If we examine the context of the passage that the universalist basis' his claim from (1 Corinthians 15:24-28), through careful exegesis it is revealed that Paul is not speaking of the salvation of all peoples, but rather of condemnation. This is evident in such phrases as destroy, put under his feet, and put an end to all rule. This is the language of subjugation (see verses 24, 27, 28). Those in view are spoken of as God's "enemies," not His friends or children. They are subjugated enemies, not saved friends. That God will be "all in all" (verse 28) does not mean that all will be in God. He will reign supreme in all the universe after ending the rebellion against Him. The phrase all things must be understood in its context. All things are made subject to Christ (verse 28). But these "all things" are enemies (verse 25). The phrase is used in parallel with enemies in successive verses (verses 26-27). It is fallacious logic, as some universalists have reasoned, that in order to be subjugated one must be saved. Need a criminal be proven innocent to be subjugated to the ruling of the court that will administer his punishment? The answer, of course, is no. Therefore when all enemies are subjugated and put under God does not mean that they must all be saved in order for this to come to pass.
With this in mind, we ought to wonder if the lake of fire is the final fate of the wicked. Searching among the many verses that teach us that the fate of the wicked is eternal separation from the Lord, we find two verses that stand out:
The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet (Nahum 1:3).
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still (Revelation 22:11).
What the verse from Nahum teaches us, is that in all of God's power and authority, even God Himself shall not ever acquit the wicked. To say that God will acquit the wicked is in direct contradiction to this verse.
The verse from Revelation 22:11 is particularly damaging to universalism because if this verse speaks the truth (and it does), no matter where it is placed, it means the unjust stay unjust and the righteous stay righteous. For example, if this verse is placed after judgment, then no matter what -the unjust stay unjust and the righteous stay righteous. If Revelation 22:11 is placed after the resurrection, but before the judgment then even after the judgment the un