Damned Nonsense! Series Conclusion: What's at Stake?

This post is part of the Damned Nonsense! series, a collection of posts exploring the Christian doctrine of salvation. It is named after a dissertation by Ravi Holy entitled "Damned Nonsense: An Argument for Universalism Consisting of a Critique of All the Alternatives to It." While some of the series' content is adapted from Holy's work, not all opinions expressed in this series are Holy's. Please check out all the posts in this series!

You know that last 40 minutes on a long flight that seems to take forever and drains every last ounce of your energy? That's how I feel about this last post. We have covered a lot of material in this little series and the mental gymnastics have left me quite fatigued. It hasn't been a perfect flight, there's been some turbulence here and there (and no snacks!), but it's been a good and worthwhile journey. I hope that you have found the trip worthy of your time and maybe you will want to visit again in the future. Nevertheless, it is important to bring this series in for a landing. And like many say, landing is the most important part. So in today's post I would like to focus on what is perhaps the most important part of this entire discussion.

What is at stake in the debate about Universalism is the doctrine of God itself. Underlying every doctrine of salvation is an implicit doctrine of God: who God is, how God relates to the world, what are God's purposes for the world, and what are God's promises to the world. When we discuss salvation, atonement, hell, and so forth, we are discussing the very nature of God. In other words, the universal salvation debate is not simply about the salvation of humankind, it is about the One Who Saves.

In this light, the traditional view of salvation implies not only a God who saves, but also a God who damns, rejects, or quits. It is for this reason that more and more people are not only abandoning hell, but God altogether. For millions of people there is a disconnect between God's love and hell. On this note, I particularly love Bob Dylan's lyric in the song "Pay in Blood":

I've been through Hell, What good did it do? 

You bastard! I'm supposed to respect you! 

I'll give you justice, I'll fatten your purse 

Show me your moral that you reversed

Jan Bonda captures this popular sentiment when he says, "The theologian who succeeds in convincing believers that the doctrine of eternal punishment does not lead to a terrifying image of God has yet to arise. ... For how many has this doctrine - that God wants the doom of the many, and that those who believe must simply accept this fact - been the main reason why they could stand it no longer in the church and why they lost their faith?" (Bonda, 27-28) Indeed, this is the sad truth of millions who have given up on the Christian faith.

Those who espouse the traditional view must say something similar to what Clark Pinnock has said: "There comes a point when God, who has done everything to bring sinners back to fellowship, gives up trying," (from his [misnomered] book, Unbounded Love). Hell implicates God, plain and simple. As soon as we say "hell" we are talking about the very nature of God. Therefore, the only way to change our thinking about hell is to change our thinking about God. This series has been an attempt to challenge what we think about God's nature, purposes, and promises. I have attempted to put forth a view of the God revealed in Jesus Christ that makes room for the *possibility* that all shall be saved. By providing some of the historical, philosophical, and biblical support for this view, I have argued that universal salvation deserves a seat at the table of Christian orthodoxy. Universalism is, at least, as flawed as the traditional views of Calvinism and Arminianism. 

In the final analysis, however, it all comes down to the doctrine of God. The question, What can we actually know about God? lies at the heart of this and all theology. In this series I have argued that we can know the following about the God revealed in Jesus Christ:

• God is sovereign creator, sustainer, and redeemer of creation.
• God's love and grace are unconditional.
• God desires the salvation of all.
• Jesus is God incarnate.
• Jesus died for all.
• Jesus defeated death and sin.
• Jesus is the Lord of the cosmos.

This much, I believe, we can know in the confidence of faith, hope, and love. And this much we can proclaim as good news for a world that is wounded and suffering! From here it is up to the individual to explore further the implications of such claims about God's nature, purposes, and promises. But I would not recommend exploration without due caution, for it is a dangerous thing to fall into the hands of the living God. One may find her entire theology turned upside down or his faith foundation violently shaken.

------------------------------------------------------

In the first century C.E. the nation of Israel yearned for their covenant God to bring salvation. Many Jews awaited the coming of a messianic figure, much like Moses, to deliver them. Some expected a warrior-king, a son of David who would bring a mighty military victory for Israel. Others anticipated a royal priest who would rebuild and reestablish the Jewish Temple as holy and undefiled. And still others anticipated a heavenly messiah who would bring judgment upon the wicked and vindicate the righteous. 

What no one expected was a prophet who would invite sinners and pagans into the community of God. 

What no one expected was a suffering messiah who would die at the hands of Israel's enemy.

What no one expected was a crucified Christ who would cry, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

What no one expected was that the crucified Christ would be raised from the dead in order to proclaim this messiah's Lordship and this salvation of God for the world.

... What do you expect?

----------------------------------------------------

This is not a conclusion. This is not the end. It is a layover. A time to rest before your next flight. Grab a beer or a coffee and relax. Find one of those charging stations and get your iLife all charged up for the next flight. This is just the beginning. Further reflection and journeying await. My hope is that this series has provided nourishment for the journey that lies ahead. May God lead you through the wilderness and protect you in the storm. May God bring you home rejoicing at the wonders God has shown you.

Love wins.
- jmw


Recommended flight destinations...


WEBSITES:

EvangelicalUniversalist.com

Tentmaker.com

Rethinking Hell

Christian Universalist

Hellbound the Movie


BOOKS:

The One Purpose of God - Jan Bonda

The Inescapable Love of God - Thomas Talbott

Universal Salvation: The Current Debate

The Last Word & the Word After That - Brian McLaren

Love Wins - Rob Bell

Hell: A Hard Look at a Hard Question - David Powys

Damned Nonsense! Post #12: William Barclay, 'Convinced' Universalist

Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at Glasgow University and the author of many Biblical commentaries and books, including a translation of the New Testament, "Barclay New Testament," and "The Daily Study Bible Series."

I am a convinced universalist. I believe that in the end all men will be gathered into the love of God. In the early days Origen was the great name connected with universalism. I would believe with Origen that universalism is no easy thing. Origen believed that after death there were many who would need prolonged instruction, the sternest discipline, even the severest punishment before they were fit for the presence of God. Origen did not eliminate hell; he believed that some people would have to go to heaven via hell. He believed that even at the end of the day there would be some on whom the scars remained. He did not believe in eternal punishment, but he did see the possibility of eternal penalty. And so the choice is whether we accept God's offer and invitation willingly, or take the long and terrible way round through ages of purification.

Gregory of Nyssa offered three reasons why he believed in universalism. First, he believed in it because of the character of God. "Being good, God entertains pity for fallen man; being wise, he is not ignorant of the means for his recovery." Second, he believed in it because of the nature of evil. Evil must in the end be moved out of existence, "so that the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all." Evil is essentially negative and doomed to non-existence. Third, he believed in it because of the purpose of punishment. The purpose of punishment is always remedial. Its aim is "to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness." Punishment will hurt, but it is like the fire which separates the alloy from the gold; it is like the surgery which removes the diseased thing; it is like the cautery which burns out that which cannot be removed any other way.

But I want to set down not the arguments of others but the thoughts which have persuaded me personally of universal salvation.

First, there is the fact that there are things in the New Testament which more than justify this belief. Jesus said: "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself" (John 12:32). Paul writes to the Romans: "God has consigned all men to disobedience that he may have mercy on all" (Rom. 11:32). He writes to the Corinthians: "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22); and he looks to the final total triumph when God will be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 15:28). In the First Letter to Timothy we read of God "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," and of Christ Jesus "who gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:4-6). The New Testament itself is not in the least afraid of the word all.

Second, one of the key passages is Matthew 25:46 where it is said that the rejected go away to eternal punishment, and the righteous to eternal life. The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment. The word for eternal is aionios. It means more than everlasting, for Plato - who may have invented the word - plainly says that a thing may be everlasting and still not be aionios. The simplest way to out it is that aionios cannot be used properly of anyone but God; it is the word uniquely, as Plato saw it, of God. Eternal punishment is then literally that kind of remedial punishment which it befits God to give and which only God can give.

Third, I believe that it is impossible to set limits to the grace of God. I believe that not only in this world, but in any other world there may be, the grace of God is still effective, still operative, still at work. I do not believe that the operation of the grace of God is limited to this world. I believe that the grace of God is as wide as the universe.

Fourth, I believe implicitly in the ultimate and complete triumph of God, the time when all things will be subject to him, and when God will be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 15:24-28). For me this has certain consequences. If one man remains outside the love of God at the end of time, it means that that one man has defeated the love of God - and that is impossible. Further, there is only one way in which we can think of the triumph of God. If God was no more than a King or Judge, then it would be possible to speak of his triumph, if his enemies were agonizing in hell or were totally and completely obliterated and wiped out. But God is not only King and Judge, God is Father - he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family for ever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. The only victory love can enjoy is the day when its offer of love is answered by the return of love. The only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God.

[Quoted from William Barclay: A Spiritual Autobiography, pg 65-67, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1977.]

Damned Nonsense! Post #10: The Orthodox View

This post is part of the Damned Nonsense! series, a collection of posts exploring the Christian doctrine of salvation. It is named after a dissertation by Ravi Holy entitled "Damned Nonsense: An Argument for Universalism Consisting of a Critique of All the Alternatives to It." While some of the series' content is adapted from Holy's work, not all opinions expressed in this series are Holy's. Please check out all the posts in this series!

Let's take a break from all this heavy reading and watch a video. In today's post Orthodox Christian priest, Steve Robinson, explains the difference between the popular Protestant view of salvation and the Orthodox view. Enjoy.




"And now, there is no place where God is not.
There is no place to escape the love of God.
There is no place that we can hide from God's love for us
that flows from His heart like a river of fire." 

"Steve Robinson is an Orthodox Christian living in Phoenix Arizona and owns his own construction company. Prior to becoming Orthodox, he was an evangelical pastor and church leader. More recently, he established one of the most popular Orthodox podcasts on the planet – Our Life in Christ– which he hosts with his friend Bill Gould."

- jmw

Tomorrow's Post: Universalism & Missions

Damned Nonsense! Post #8: What to do with hell... (Part 2)

This post is part of the Damned Nonsense! series, a collection of posts exploring the Christian doctrine of salvation. It is named after a dissertation by Ravi Holy entitled "Damned Nonsense: An Argument for Universalism Consisting of a Critique of All the Alternatives to It." While some of the series' content is adapted from Holy's work, not all opinions expressed in this series are Holy's. Please check out all the posts in this series!

In yesterday's post I explained that Jesus' teaching about hell (Gehenna) was not about an afterlife destination but rather a present, this-world reality. Specifically, Jesus warned Israel that her current praxis would turn the whole city of Jerusalem into a burning pile of rubble where men, women, and children would weep and gnash their teeth. Does this mean that there is no hell beyond this life? Does this mean that there is no afterlife? Does this mean that there is no final judgment or ultimate justice? It is to these questions that I would like to turn in today's post.

Universalism does not necessarily jettison the belief in a postmortem hell. It does, however, jettison an everlasting hell that is torturous beyond punitive purposes. Universalism emphasizes ultimate justice and thereby makes room for a kind of hell. One of the reasons that we have long held on to the concept of hell is because human beings have an innate orientation toward justice. Socrates argued that "if death were a release from everything, it would be a boon for the wicked, because by dying they would be released not only from the body but also from their own wickedness together with the soul," (McLaren, 79). In the tradition of Socrates, humankind has long affirmed the necessity for ultimate justice, heaven/hell, reward/punishment.

However, Universalism contends that the Gospel of Jesus Christ reveals God's justice, not humanity's, and that justice is expressed in the salvation of all. The Gospel reveals God's desire that all be saved and God's willingness to die in place of humanity so that his may be accomplished. Thus, while a kind of postmortem hell may indeed exist for those who have refused God in this life, it is certainly not the traditional view of hell offered in Calvinism or Arminianism.

Hell as Purification 
Universalism offers an alternative vision of postmortem hell as a kind of purification or penal education so that persons are made capable of entering the kingdom of God. Universalists find biblical grounds for arguing that God's judgment is itself salvific (Isa. 48:9-11; Jer. 9:25; 30:11-17; 31:10-37; Ezek. 16; Hos. 6:1; 11:-13; Rom. 14:10-12). As K.F. Keil writes, "Judgments of the Old Testament must not be viewed as eternal punishments; they leave the possibility for future salvation."

There is one particularly paradigmatic passage in the New Testament that deserves quoting here. In his first letter to the church in Corinth, Paul writes:

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the fire. (1 Cor. 3: 10-15)

Paul makes clear that not building upon the foundation of Jesus is a grave mistake: those who do not do so will suffer loss. But Paul also makes room for salvation after this suffering. It is not eternal damnation for the sake of 'justice'; it is God's punitive cleansing for our benefit. Let the reader be sharp about what this means: it does not mean that hell is without pain, suffering and, in Paul's words, "loss" (which, in the Greek, denotes injury and damage). Hell is indeed a terrible thought. It brings to mind the tragedy suffered by the servant in the vision of Julian of Norwhich. Building one's life on gods other than Jesus Christ brings real suffering and loss.

However, this suffering - this "hell" - does not have the final word in much of the Bible. Judgment in the Old Testament, including God's "eternal fire" is not the final word but rather a means to reconciliation with God (e.g. compare Jer. 17:4 to Jer. 31). Many of the Old Testament passages that speak of God's wrath/judgment contain nothing of the "unending punishment" that is endorsed by traditional views today. In many places we have read the modern meaning of "eternal" back into the text. The Hebrew word, olam, which is often translated "forever" and "everlasting" did not carry the same meaning in the Hebrew worldview. The word possessed connotations of intensity, not time. It was used qualitatively, not quantitatively.

In addition to the passage in 1 Corinthians 3, there are interesting wordplays in the book of Revelation that might indicate God's punishment as a purification. Though these text-critical studies are beyond the scope of this post, I will note two here. In various visions (14:10, 19:20, 20:10, 21:8) John sees the wicked being thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone to be tormented. The word for "brimstone" in Greek is theion, which closely resembles the word for God, theos. Because of this the word theion often meant "divine fire" or "fire from heaven." This wordplay between God and stone also occurs in the gospels as it applies to Jesus: the Hebrew for "stone" (eben) is applied to the "son" (ben) in the parable of the vineyard (Mark 12:10-11). In addition to these figurative meanings, the literal usage of theion was for burning a divine incense that had the power to purify and ward off disease (see lexicon image below). 

The word translated for "torment" is basanidzo. As the lexicon image shows, this word's primary meaning had to do with testing precious metals by use of a touchstone so that the metals could be purified. This does not rule out additional meanings, but it is interesting to consider what meaning it has in conjunction with theion. To give you an alternate reading allow me to paraphrase 14:10b as follows: "They will be tested and purified by a divine fire while in the presence of the Lamb."

By no means do these two words provide conclusive evidence that the lake of fire and brimstone is God's means for purifying sinners. It is nevertheless fascinating to explore. After all, God is referred to as a "consuming fire" on more than one occasion. Could Jesus be the divine fire or the touchstone that purifies? The author of Revelation describes him as having eyes like fire. And isn't it interesting that the lake of fire and brimstone in 14:10 is in the presence of the Lamb? Perhaps it is not all that far-fetched to imagine that the unsaved will, in fact, be saved - "even though only as one escaping through fire," (1 Cor. 3:15).

Many who espouse the traditional view find the Universalist version of postmortem hell dissatisfying (which is a bit scary if you think about it). Like Socrates, the traditionalists see ultimate universal salvation as an unfair gift to those who live their earthly lives in disobedience to God (see post #5). In response to this argument we might consider McLaren's words:

"What could be more serious than standing in front of your Creator - the Creator of the universe - and finding out that you had wasted your life, squandered your inheritance, caused others pain and sorrow, worked against the good plans and desires of God? What could be more serious than that? To have to face the real, eternal, unavoidable, absolute, naked truth about yourself, what you've done, what you've become?" (Last Word, 110)

Perhaps there is no greater punishment than an unavoidable encounter with the Truth.  And perhaps it is this very Truth that shall set us free.

At this point I want to insert a very important caveat to what has been said about hell as purification. There is a tendency among Christians to hold discussions about hell as if we were only talking about "them" and not "us." I want to include myself in the category of those who will be judged and purified by God. Although I have been baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus, I am not outside the judgment of the Lord. In fact, it is precisely the judgment of Jesus, the merciful one, that I am under. If this entails a kind of hell as purification, I know that I certainly need it in order to participate fully in the Trinitarian love of God.

Second Death?
The "second death" is another concept used to oppose universal salvation, particularly in the form of annihilationism. There really isn't room enough to discuss it here, but I do want to offer an alternative interpretation simply for the sake of exploration. Remember, this series is not to "prove" universalism, but to allow the reader to explore it.

In Rev. 20:14 John sees a vision in which "death and Hades [are] thrown in to the lake of fire," as well as those "whose name was not found written in the book of life." This "second death" has traditionally been understood as the final annihilation of the damned. However, a universalist interpretation argues that the text itself explains the nature of the second death. In 20:14 we read, "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death." Then, in 21:8, we read again that the wicked will be thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone and "THIS is the second death." What, then, is the second death? Being thrown into the lake of fire. What is the lake of fire? We already discussed this above, it is the divine fire of purification. 

Why this "second death" is necessary is because not all have died with Christ (as in baptism, see Romans 6:6). Thus explains Andrew Jukes: 

The "second death" (Rev. xx. 14.) therefore, so far from being, as some think, the hopeless shutting up of man for ever in the curse of disobedience, will, if I err not, be God's way to free those who in no other way than by such a death can be delivered out of the dark world, whose life they live in. The saints have died with Christ, not only "to the elements of this world," (Col. ii. 20.) but also "to sin," (Rom. vi. 10.) that is, the dark spirit-world. By the first they are freed from the bondage of sense; by the second, from the bondage of sin, in all its forms of wrath, pride, envy, and selfishness.

The ungodly have not so died to sin. At the death of the body therefore, and still more when they are raised to judgment, because their spirit yet lives, they are still within the limits of that dark and fiery world, the life of which has been and is the life of their spirit. To get out of this world there is but one way, death; not the first, for that has passed, but the second death. 

Furthermore, not only is the second death the fire of purification, the second death is the death of death itself! As Paul writes in 1 Cor. 15:26, "The last enemy to be defeated is death."

Do We Need Hell for Justice's Sake?
As you may have guessed, not all agree with the view of hell as purification. In a rather simplistic analogy, N.T. Wright suggests that life is more than a "game of chess" in which we are free to play however we like and afterward God will put all the pieces back in order. Universalism, he argues, trivializes the consequences of choices in this life. But what is Wright really saying here? Is he saying that God's universal forgiveness toward those who have wasted their earthly life trivializes the consequences of their choices or somehow minimizes "divine justice"? Once again I think we are witnessing traces of 'original ungrace.'

First of all, human begins are not pieces on a chess board! Wright's illustration fails to take seriously that human beings are living and becoming beings, not static pieces of marble. Secondly, the illustration fails to comprehend the nature of forgiveness. Forgiveness is never a return to a prior state, as if wiping a chalkboard clean or putting chess pieces back into place. Forgiveness is, in fact, a moving forward into a deeper understanding of relationship. That which has been forgiven continues to have meaning in the context of relationship. This point merits an illustration.

I recently got into a fight with a good friend. I said things that I should not have said and I hurt her feelings. Our relationship was fractured. Fortunately, we were able to reconcile after I apologized and asked for forgiveness. Now, did my friend's forgiveness trivialize the consequences of my actions? Absolutely not! The forgiveness that I received transformed my sinful behavior and gave it meaning for our relationship and it will continue to "live" in our relationship forever. It was precisely because of forgiveness that I could re-appropriate my sinful behavior into an understanding of how to exist in loving relationship. Is this not what Jesus taught Simon the Pharisee? Those who have a larger debt to be forgiven are all the more able to understand the nature of forgiveness.

Thirdly, Wright oversimplifies the idea of consequences. Unlike the simple, one-to-one chain of consequences in, say, chess, the consequences we suffer in real life are complicated. Although no one is innocent, we all suffer from undeserved and unforeseen consequences as well. This is why many today argue that all sin stems from woundedness. For example, a person who commits a crime in adulthood may be acting out of the wounds from a traumatic childhood event. Much Christian psychology has helped shed light on the woundedness behind the cyclical nature of sin.

Along with the oversimplification of consequences, Wright's argument assumes that those who disobey God in this life do not suffer consequences in the present. The Bible consistently teaches that those who disobey God suffer real consequences in the present; this is precisely what Jesus' warnings were about (see post #7). It is difficult to see how those who do not follow Jesus do not reap here and now the consequences of their actions. Is Wright saying that these consequences are not enough? Perhaps. But then again, the Universalist version of hell as punitive "cleansing" seems to speak to this dilemma.

Summary
This topic is unbelievably complex and much more could be said. If you want to research more on this topic, I highly recommend David Powys' book Hell: A Hard Look at a Hard Question. At this point, let us summarize what I have put forth in today's post:

1. Universalism does not necessarily jettison the concept of hell.
2. Hell, according to universalism, is a transitional phase for the lost to be purified for life in the Trinitarian Love of God
3. There is biblical support for the idea that the unsaved shall be saved through fire.
4. The second death is literally the death of death.
5. Universalism does not trivialize consequences.

In conclusion, I'd like to offer two concise statements to recapitulate what has been put forth in this two-part post on hell.

Whatever you mean when you use the word "hell," know this:

1. The God of the Bible detests hell. 

2. The God of the Bible will bring an end to hell.

Amen.

-JMW

Next post will be Monday and will concern the dilemma of freedom.

Damned Nonsense! Post #6: How about Universalism?

This post is part of the Damned Nonsense! series, a collection of posts exploring the Christian doctrine of salvation. It is named after a dissertation by Ravi Holy entitled "Damned Nonsense: An Argument for Universalism Consisting of a Critique of All the Alternatives to It." While some of the series' content is adapted from Holy's work, not all opinions expressed in this series are Holy's. Please check out all the posts in this series!

In today's post I'd like to put forth the basic support for Universalism. Admittedly, this post may seem a bit underwhelming for some readers. I say this for a few reasons.  First, I have already presented a lot of support for Universalism in the form of arguments against Calvinsism, Arminianism, Annihilationism, Lewisim, and Original Sin (see posts 1-5).  Second, I will not deal with hell in today's post. That will be in post #'s 7 and 8. Third, the reader may be looking for something that does not exist, that is, a flawless argument for Universalism. I have noticed that many skeptics of Universalism expect its proponents to offer some kind of clear-cut answer to 'prove' that it is undeniably true. This is unfortunate and I can tell you that you will not find 'proof' in this blog series. The point is not for universalism to "win the day," but to lose its false caricature as heresy. Whether or not you discover enough material to consider Universalism as a hopeful alternative to the traditional views is up to you and God. At the end of the day, I simply wish to put forward some good thoughts on this topic and allow you the reader to explore. So let's get to it.

I concluded yesterday's post on 'Original Ungrace" with this: 

If grace is grace, and if there is nothing we can do to make God love us more or less, than how is it that some end up in heaven and others in hell? It would seem that there are only two options. Option 1: Those who end up in hell are not wanted by God (Calvinism).  Option 2: Those who end up in hell did not do their part to receive their "free grace" (Arminianism). Or maybe there is an option 3? 

Option 3 is, of course, Universalism. More specifically, option 3 is the belief that nobody remains in hell forever because the God who desires all to be saved has given pure grace to all through Christ and will therefore save all. Thus, the major point that I want to put forward in today's post is that Universalism hinges upon two biblical/orthodox claims about God: 1) God desires the salvation of all. 2) God is sovereign.

In the book Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, the Calvinist theologian Daniel Strange writes that "Talbott is indeed correct that if Christ died for everyone then everyone will be saved," (p.160, original italics). Contrary to Calvinism and Arminianism, this is exactly what Universalism champions. Christ died for all and therefore all will be saved. Let us therefore begin by examining where Universalists find support for the claim that Christ died for all.

As with any theology rightly to be named Christian, they begin with the Gospels' witness to the Incarnation of God in Jesus of Nazareth (Heb. 1:3). Firstly, let us ask if there is any indication that the God revealed by Jesus desires the salvation of all. In his life and ministry Jesus actively pursued those who were "lost" and "un-elect" (e.g. Matt. 9:9-13; Mark 5:24-34; Luke 6:27-29, John 4:7ff). One does not have to read very far into the Gospels to see that Jesus reveals a God who desires the inclusion of all and sundry. In a series of parables Jesus compares God to a shepherd who pursues a lost sheep until he finds it; to a woman who pursues a lost coin until she finds it; and to a father who breaks social norms, forgives beyond measure, and embraces his lost son because he has been found (Luke 15)! Jesus himself referred to his ministry as the year of radical debt-forgiveness (Luke 4:19) and his own death as the means to "draw all men" to himself (John 12:32). Because of this Universalists believe that Jesus unequivocally desires the salvation of all.

In addition to the four gospels, the New Testament conveys a God who desires all to be saved. The support for this is found explicitly in Acts 3:21, 1 Tim. 2:1-4, 4:10, 2 Peter 3:9; and implicitly in Rom. 11:32; 1 Cor. 15:28; 2 Cor. 5:13-19; Eph. 1:7-10; 1 John 2:2 and many others (you get the point). Universalists interpret the New Testament as communicating a strong witness to God's desire to save all.

At this point Universalists are still in good company. Many people believe that God desires the salvation of all. What separates Universalists from others is that they actually believe that God will achieve the salvation of all. This belief is rooted in the second orthodox claim: God is sovereign. This claim needs little defense because it is the presupposition of most Christian theology: if God is God, then God achieves God's purposes. (Process theology presents a slightly different view of God's sovereignty, but that is another blog series entirely!)

However, in addition to the claim that God is sovereign and therefore achieves what God wills, Universalists find evidence in the New Testament that God actually achieved the salvation of all in the Christ Event (the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus).  I'm trying not to proof text too much, but the following are among several passages that are used to support this view:

• Romans 5:18 - Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
• Romans 11:32 - For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
• 2 Cor. 5:18-19 - All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
• Col. 1:19-20 - For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
• 1 John 2:2 - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
• 1 Tim. 2:6 - Christ Jesus "gave himself as a ransom for all men"
• Heb. 2:9 - Jesus tasted "death for everyone"

In other words, Universalists answer the question "Did Christ die for all?" with a "Yes." Not everyone agrees with this view. John Piper, for example, has written on the limited nature of Christ's atonement in several places such as here. Nevertheless, Universalism proposes that the death and resurrection of Christ is the ontological event of God's salvation of all. As I understand it, the Christ Event is the eschatological judgment and salvation of all of humankind. This is why the resurrection is the beginning of the New Creation, the eschatological beginning of the New Age. (This is how I *personally* understand the New Testament at this point in time) 

Though not a Universalist himself, N.T. Wright seems to agree with Universalism that the Christ Event is efficacious for the whole world:

"There [in Romans 8], Paul outlines and celebrates the hope that one day the entire cosmos will have its own great exodus, its liberation from bondage to decay. The point is this: the covenant between God and Israel was always designed to be God's means of saving the whole world. It was never supposed to be the means whereby God would have a private little group of people who would be saved while the rest of the world went to hell (whatever you might mean by that). Thus, when God is faithful to the covenant in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and in the work of the Spirit, it makes nonsense of the Pauline gospel to imagine that the be-all and end-all of this operation is so that God can have another, merely different private little group of people who are saved while the world is consigned to the cosmic wastepaper basket." (from What Saint Paul Really Said, 163-164)

It seems that the church father St. Athanasius interpreted the Christ Event similarly: "For He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father. ...For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection." (from The Incarnation of the Word)

Theologian Jürgen Moltmann is, in fact, a Universalist and claims that "the realistic consequence of the theology of the cross can only be the restoration of all things." According to Moltmann "Christ 'suffered the true and total hell of God-forsakenness' for all people on the cross. Therefore all people are already included in the new creation which began with the resurrection. Since Christ died for all when all were sinners, 'all will be made righteous without any merit on their part'." (Holy, 13. Moltmann quotes taken from The Coming of God)

It does not take a learned theologian to notice that Univeralism is totally centered around the unique and decisive events of Jesus the Christ. In this sense, Universalism is fundamentally Christian. It does not begin with the "feel good" belief that God will save all and then run back to the Bible to dig for support. On the contrary, Universalism is rooted in the New Testament texts that communicate that God not only desires the salvation of all, but also achieved this in the Christ Event.  

I think this is a good place to stop for today. The major points that I wanted to communicate in today's post are:

• Universalism hinges upon two biblical / orthodox claims about God: 1) God desires the salvation of all. 2) God is sovereign.
• At the heart of Universalism is the conditional proposal: if Christ died for all then all will be saved.
• Universalism begins with the biblical witness, especially the Christ Event, and concludes that God not only desires the salvation of all but has ontologically / eschatologically won the salvation of all in the Christ Event

I want to conclude today's post with some wisdom from the great 20th century theologian Karl Barth.  In his colossal Church Dogmatics he reminded us that even if we cannot argue the certainty of Universalism, "We are surely commanded the more definitely to hope and pray for it!" (CD vol. 4:3:1, 478)

If you don't hope and pray for it, why not?

- JMW

Next Post: What to do with hell... (part 1)