Answering Twelve Challenges to Universalism

[St. SteVen]

Here are the questions:​

1. “How should we interpret Jesus’s words regarding ‘hell’ or ‘Gehenna,’ ‘the outer darkness,’ ‘the fire that is not quenched,’ ‘the worm that does not die,’ and the like?”​

2. “If hell is a temporary state but heaven is a forever state, then why are both denoted by the same word as ‘eternal’?”​

3. “What about the ‘two ways’ theme in the Old and New Testaments?”​

4. “Why did Jesus need to die such a horrible, agonizing death on the cross for our sins?”​

5. “How should we interpret the end-times teaching of Revelation?”​

6. “Doesn’t the New Testament show that salvation is connected to faith?”​

7. “What’s the historic teaching on final salvation in the major branches of Christendom?”​

8. “What would happen if Christian congregations or denominations embraced universalism?”​

9. “What’s the final destiny of Satan and demons?”​

10. “Can sinful people make atonement or satisfaction for their own sins through their own sufferings?​

11. “Is it plausible to believe there will be a ‘second chance’ for salvation after death?”​

12. “Is universalism compatible with the Christian mandate to preach the gospel, practice self-denial, and suffer for Christ and the gospel?”​

I will probably respond to these questions myself. (shoot from the hip)
But there are comprehensive answers at this link.

Answering Twelve Challenges to Universalism

[

 

[St. SteVen]

1. “How should we interpret Jesus’s words regarding ‘hell’ or ‘Gehenna,’ ‘the outer darkness,’ ‘the fire that is not quenched,’ ‘the worm that does not die,’ and the like?”

There are many references to things regarding the afterlife. Like many things, they are both biblical and contradictory.
And some of them are more likely in reference to things NOT in the afterlife. So, much mystery surrounds the subject.
A person can certainly destroy their lives in the here and now.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

2. “If hell is a temporary state but heaven is a forever state, then why are both denoted by the same word as ‘eternal’?”

Aionios. Which can mean either age-long, or eternal. (in English)
The age of restoration will only require one age because it will reach completion.
After that one age can follow the next for all eternity.

Strong's Concordance
aiónios: agelong, eternal
Original Word: αἰώνιος, ία, ιον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: aiónios
Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-o'-nee-os)
Definition: agelong, eternal
Usage: age-long, and therefore: practically eternal, unending; partaking of the character of that which lasts for an age, as contrasted with that which is brief and fleeting.

HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 166 aiṓnios (an adjective, derived from 165 /aiṓn ("an age, having a particular character and quality") – properly, "age-like" ("like-an-age"), i.e. an "age-characteristic" (the quality describing a particular age); (figuratively) the unique quality (reality) of God's life at work in the believer, i.e. as the Lord manifests His self-existent life (as it is in His sinless abode of heaven). "Eternal (166 /aiṓnios) life operates simultaneously outside of time, inside of time, and beyond time – i.e. what gives time its everlasting meaning for the believer through faith, yet is also time-independent. See 165 (aiōn).

[166 (aiṓnios) does not focus on the future per se, but rather on the quality of the age (165 /aiṓn) it relates to. Thus believers live in "eternal (166 /aiṓnios) life" right now, experiencing this quality of God's life now as a present possession. (Note the Gk present tense of having eternal life in Jn 3:36, 5:24, 6:47; cf. Ro 6:23.)]

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from aión
Definition
agelong, eternal
NASB Translation
eternal (66), eternity (1), forever (1).

 

[St. SteVen]

3. “What about the ‘two ways’ theme in the Old and New Testaments?”

We don't need to wait for the judgment to see that there are consequences for choices we make in the here and now.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

4. “Why did Jesus need to die such a horrible, agonizing death on the cross for our sins?”

This question assumes that UR nullifies the Atonement. Not true.

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

5. “How should we interpret the end-times teaching of Revelation?”

Not sure, Eschatology is not really my thing.
However, Revelation does speak about the healing of the nations.
That's a huge UR theme.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

6. “Doesn’t the New Testament show that salvation is connected to faith?”

Yes, sometimes it is, in the NT. But not always.

But UR shows that faith will be important in the age of restoration.
Every knee will bow and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus is Lord.

Everyone who has knees to bow and a tongue to speak, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (in the realm of the dead), will whole-heartedly, and without reservation, acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. No one can say that “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” you will be saved. Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (the reason for the bodily resurrection)

[

 

[St. SteVen]

7. “What’s the historic teaching on final salvation in the major branches of Christendom?”

It depends of WHAT historic teaching you are referring to.


"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge" by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96 German theologian- Philip Schaff, Editor: "In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."


The main Patristic supporters of the apokatastasis theory, such as Bardaisan, Clement, Origin, Didymus, St. Anthony, St. Pamphilus Martyr, Methodius, St. Macrina, St. Gregory of Nyssa (and probably the two other Cappadocians), St. Evagrius Ponticus, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, St. John of Jerusalem, Rufinus, St. Jerome and St. Augustine (at least initially) … Cassian, St. Issac of Nineveh, St. John of Dalyatha, Ps. Dionysius the Areopagite, probably St. Maximus the Confessor, up to John the Scot Eriugena, and many others, grounded their Christian doctrine of apokatastasis first of all in the Bible.
— Ramelli, Christian Doctrine, 11.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

8. “What would happen if Christian congregations or denominations embraced universalism?”

LOL (horrors)
Many good things would happen.
It would be the end of condemnatory Christianity. We would no longer look down on those outside the church.
And would be more likely to invite them in.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

9. “What’s the final destiny of Satan and demons?”

Hard to say for sure, but...

But if Jesus expects us to love our enemies, what should he do with his?

I expect an ABSOLUTE triumph of grace at the end of the age of restoration.

Acts 3:21 NIV
Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

10. “Can sinful people make atonement or satisfaction for their own sins through their own sufferings?

The Atonement is a done deal. Paid in full on the cross.

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

11. “Is it plausible to believe there will be a ‘second chance’ for salvation after death?”

Not everyone has even had a FIRST chance. - LOL

Nothing will be left to chance.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

12. “Is universalism compatible with the Christian mandate to preach the gospel, practice self-denial, and suffer for Christ and the gospel?”

Yes.
Those predestined as the Elect in this lifetime have a special role to play, both here and in the age of restoration.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Answering Twelve Challenges to Universalism ​

Historian of American Christianity Michael McClymond has recently written an article for The Gospel Coalition titled “12 Questions for the Would-Be Universalist,” in which he attempts to challenge universalism in a dozen ways. While the article does contain a few somewhat thought-provoking points, it also contains many more misrepresentations and baseless assertions, as will be demonstrated in what follows. Nonetheless, this all presents a helpful opportunity for Christian universalists such as myself to sharpen our arguments and clarify our beliefs. Thus I will be responding one-by-one to each of the twelve questions posed in the article. Along the way, I will also be posing a number of questions of my own for would-be infernalists to consider.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

1. “How should we interpret Jesus’s words regarding ‘hell’ or ‘Gehenna,’ ‘the outer darkness,’ ‘the fire that is not quenched,’ ‘the worm that does not die,’ and the like?”
​

The imagery used by Jesus in the gospels regarding gehenna can (and, I believe, should) be interpreted as referring to a serious and severe yet ultimately loving and restorative punishment of the lost. In fact, in a number of instances Christ’s language appears to clarify that the punishment of gehenna is temporary in its duration (i.e., it is only “until” a certain point, cf. Matt. 5:26, 18:30-32, Luke 12:59), and also that it is purifying in its purpose (i.e., those in Gehenna will be “salted” with fire, and “salt is good,” cf. Mark. 9:49-50). Also, it is important to keep in mind that many of the phrases above are borrowed from the metaphorical language of the prophets. For instance, in Isaiah 34:9-10 it is said that the fire of judgement poured out on Edom “shall not be quenched,” and yet, of course, the land of Edom is not literally still in flames today.

In this section of the article, McClymond observes a pattern of separation and division in the judgment language of the gospel of Matthew, and then claims, “But if universalism is true, there can be no truly lasting separation.” Not only is this simply an inaccurate claim (given that “truly lasting” is not the same as “everlasting”), it also betrays McClymond’s unwarranted presumption that the division and separation described in those texts somehow necessarily indicate an irreversible, final fate. In reality, the texts themselves contain no definitive indication of finality, eternality, or permanence: this is always simply assumed by infernalist interpreters. In Ephesians 1:10, the apostle Paul clarifies that God’s “plan for the fullness of time” is “to unite all things in him.” Thus, since universal unity is God’s plan for all time, division cannot be the end of the story.

 

[St. SteVen]

2. “If hell is a temporary state but heaven is a forever state, then why are both denoted by the same word as ‘eternal’?”
​

Fr. Alvin F. Kimel explains:

The argument seems initially plausible, even compelling, given the parallelism [in Matthew 25:46]; but the inference does not necessarily obtain. Aiónios is an adjective: it modifies the noun to which it is connected. Adjectives often vary in meaning when the nouns they qualify signify different categories of things, states, or events. When we read the sentence “Jack is a tall man standing in front of a tall building,” we do not jump to the conclusion that Jack is as tall as the building. We recognize the relativity of height with respect to both. When Jesus states that the wicked are sent to aiónios punishment, we should not assume that it refers to a state of perpetual punishing or that the loss is irretrievable. Jesus is not necessarily threatening interminable suffering.1

The faulty premise assumed by McClymond here is that the word αἰώνιος always refers to duration—and he seems to think (mistakenly) that universalists grant this premise and only argue that the word can mean “age-long” and thus “temporary” duration. This assumption, that αἰώνιος only ever indicates duration, is a common one, but it is inaccurate nonetheless, as the scholarship of David Konstan and Ilaria Ramelli, for instance, has demonstrated. Adjectivally, αἰώνιος often has a qualitative denotation (“what kind of life and punishment?”), rather than a temporally quantitative denotation (“how long does the life and punishment last?”). Arguably, αἰώνιος in Matthew 25:46 is best understood as indicating that the life and punishment is that “of the coming age,” that is, it is eschatological, otherworldly life and punishment, rather than mere earthly life and punishment. The duration thereof is not necessarily the focus or concern in this text at all.

So, do we then have no basis for believing that “heaven is a forever state”? Much like McClymond, Douglas Potter argues, “If we give up the everlasting torment of hell, then we must also dismiss the everlasting happiness of heaven, for the same word is used of both dominions.”2 This reasoning is fallacious in many ways. First of all, we know the life we have in Christ is eternal not through lexical semantics, but through theological doctrine. That is to say, we know life in Jesus is eternal not because of any one word used to describe it, but because of the nature of that life in Christ by definition. Throughout Scripture we are taught that God (and hence Christ) is immutable, and salvation is understood to be union with this unchanging and ever-faithful redeemer.

Additionally, even if one insists on having a particular word that clearly indicates the permanence of life in Christ, that would not necessarily be αἰώνιος, but rather ἄφθαρτος (“imperishable”) which is used repeatedly in the New Testament to describe salvation in Christ. Analogously speaking, this term indicates that salvation has no ‘expiration date.’ Paul says that our reward is “imperishable” (ἄφθαρτον, 1 Cor. 9:25), that “the dead will be raised imperishable” (ἄφθαρτοι, 1 Cor. 15:52); and keep in mind, this is the same word Paul used to describe God’s own imperishability in Romans 1:23 and 1 Timothy 1:17. Likewise, when Peter intends to emphasize the permanence of our salvific inheritance, he does not use the word αἰώνιος at all, rather he states that we have been granted “an inheritance that is imperishable (ἄφθαρτον), undefiled (ἀμίαντον), and unfading (ἀμάραντον)” (1 Peter 1:4, cf. 1:23, 3:4). Interestingly, these words are never used to describe the punishment or damnation of the lost.

A related question I would pose to infernalists is, if the scope of reconciliation is limited but that of creation is universal, then why are both denoted by the same term ‘all things’ (Col. 1:16-20)? Likewise, if the scope of redemption is limited but that of sin is universal, then why are both denoted by the same term ‘all men’ (Rom. 5:18, cf. 5:19, 11:32, 1 Cor. 15:22)? These universalist texts seem to contain even stronger ‘unbreakable parallels,’ and are much more numerous as well.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

3. “What about the ‘two ways’ theme in the Old and New Testaments?”
​

In this section of the article, McClymond claims that “the universalist idea of only one outcome for everyone regardless of choices made…runs against the whole thrust of Old and New Testament teachings.” The primary issue here is that he is inaccurately portraying universalism as the belief that everyone receives the exact same post-mortem inheritance and that there are no real consequences for choices. This would be a valid criticism if he were referring only to hyper/ultra-universalism (which entails that all people go straight to heaven immediately after death regardless of their status of belief or unbelief), but it is invalid as a broad-brush critique of universal salvation as a whole.

Christian universalists historically have affirmed that there will indeed be judgement, and thus real consequences for individual human actions and choices; the simple difference is that, unlike infernalists, we do not assume that this judgement and these consequences must necessarily be everlasting and irreversible. Simply put, the biblical teaching that all will ultimately be reconciled to God (e.g., Col. 1:20) in no way contradicts the biblical teaching that God will justly hold each person accountable for their deeds (e.g., Rev. 20:13). Those who affirm universal salvation do not flatten-out the fate of all such that there are no unique consequences for human choices and actions, rather we recognize that there are unique rewards and punishments, distinct routes and journeys, as well as genuine accountability for each individual.

Mike T. Dale analogously explains:

There are two ways to learn not to touch a hot stove: believe your father when he tells you not to touch it, or touch it and get burned. In both cases you learn the father was right and trust him. God said “all will know me” [Jeremiah 31:34], some will touch the stove and will be saved through fire [1 Corinthians 3:15].3

One question I would pose to infernalists is, what about the repeated thematic emphasis throughout Scripture on the temporariness of God’s wrath? For example, in reference to God’s judgments, the prophet Jeremiah confidently proclaims, “For the Lord will not cast off forever: but though he cause grief, yet he will have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies; for he does not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men” (Lam. 3:31-33). Similarly, the prophet Micah insists that God “does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in mercy” (Mic. 7:18). Likewise, David is assured that the Lord “will not always chide, neither will he keep his anger forever” (Psalm 103:9), “for his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime; weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning” (Psalm 30:5). Affirming that “joy” and “favor” always get the final word in the end, as David here does, in no way requires that one deny or reject the reality of genuine “weeping” and “anger” as consequences of sin in the mean time.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

4. “Why did Jesus need to die such a horrible, agonizing death on the cross for our sins?”
​

Questioning whether the atonement would be necessary if all will be saved, as McClymond does here, is a lot like asking, ‘if all cancer patients will be cured by this cancer treatment, what would be the point of developing the treatment?’ Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection is the means by which death is totally defeated (Heb. 2:14), sin is entirely done away with (John 1:29), all things are reconciled to God (Col. 1:20), and all people are drawn to Jesus (John 12:32). Universalists simply affirm that Jesus successfully and victoriously accomplishes these purposes, and ultimately applies the atonement effectually to everyone for whom it was made.

Also, McClymond’s central argument in this section seems to be based on a key misunderstanding, namely: that universalists think sin is not all that grave or serious—and this is simply false. Believing that God ultimately eradicates sin entirely, by means of Christ’s death on the cross, in no way entails a denial of sin’s seriousness. Rather, it involves (and is rooted in) a confident faith in God’s infinite goodness and power.

Additionally, McClymond claims that “the logic of atonement and the logic of hell are intertwined,” yet, ironically, he doesn’t seem to be aware that these two become entirely contradictory when the premise of an everlasting hell is accepted. If the punishment we all merit is eternal conscious torment, then Christ did not actually receive the penalty we deserve for our sin, since he did not experience everlasting torment, but instead died and rose on the third day. I’m well aware of the attempts that have made to account for this, yet the prima facie logical inconsistency remains.

As for McClymond’s statement that “the cross satisfied justice and demonstrated love,” this in no way undermines universalism, yet, interestingly, it does undermine one common anti-universalist argument: that God allows some to not be saved in order to demonstrate his justice, while, in contrast, he displays his love in the case of the limited number who are saved. For instance, Calvinist theologian Scott Christensen argues, “God’s mercy and grace (and thus his glory) are magnified more fully against the backdrop of his justice being executed against vessels of wrath rightly deserving judgment; without the display of justice against the vast host of sinners, God’s mercy and grace toward the elect are viewed as normal and expected, thereby domesticating God’s extrinsic glory.”4 Similarly, John Piper explains, “What does God will more than saving all?…The manifestation of the full range of God’s glory in wrath and mercy.”5

Robin Parry counters this line of reasoning as follows:

The Calvinist may argue that God chooses to display his glory in creation and that he displays both the glory of his love and the glory of his justice. His love is displayed in his treatment of the elect and his justice in the treatment of the damned. Both demonstrate the glory of God, and hell is thus a necessity to display the fullness of that glory. However, it is somewhat ironic that construing Calvinism in such a way that God has to show the glory of his justice by punishing many in hell seems to limit God’s sovereign freedom to save all should he so desire. On top of that, this traditional line of argument is unsuccessful as a defense of hell. According to Calvinists all people deserve hell. However, God has acted in the cross of Christ in such a way as to enable the elect to be saved. Calvinists usually hold to a penal substitutionary view of the atonement, according to which God places the punishment for our sins upon Christ instead of upon us. In this way God can save the elect because their sins have already been paid for. In the cross justice is served (sin is punished) and love is shown (a way of salvation is opened). But on this view God could save everyone whilst still showing the glory of his love and his justice at Calvary. All he need do is make Christ’s death sufficient and efficient for all. Hell then becomes unnecessary for the display of the fullness of God’s glory, and the argument collapses in on itself. Justice is no impediment to God’s saving everyone.6

 

[St. SteVen]

5. “How should we interpret the end-times teaching of Revelation?”
​

Right off the bat in this section, McClymond resorts to crude misrepresentation, claiming that “universalists generally understand God as a loving being who doesn’t exercise judgment toward sin or sinners,” and thus supposedly struggle with the book of Revelation for this reason. This is simply an absurd accusation which presumes a false dichotomy. Statements like this make me wonder whether McClymond has ever actually understood (or even read) the works of major Christian universalists through the centuries—such as Thomas Talbott, George MacDonald, Gregory of Nyssa, and Origen—all of whom emphatically affirm (and warn of) the severe judgment of God toward sin and sinners. In fact, the universalist Puritan Jeremiah White has an entire chapter in his book (The Restoration of All Things) called “A Warning to Sinners.” McClymond apparently thinks he can get away with straw-manning universalism as if it’s a soft and sentimental belief that God is all love and no justice. Again, this is simply inaccurate and dishonest.

Here also he embarks on an attempt to counter Robin Parry’s universalist interpretation of the book of Revelation in The Evangelical Universalist, yet the best he can muster is to attribute to Parry a single disputable claim (one which I have not been able to find anywhere in Parry’s actual writings, and thus may be another blatant misrepresentation), and then hastily dismiss it without ever actually dealing with any of Parry’s many formidable exegetical arguments in his 31-page chapter on the subject. All he can do is misconstrue Parry’s exegesis and then claim that it “twists the meaning of Scripture.” The fact that McClymond resorts to futile and baseless accusations like this, demonstrates the weakness of his objections.

McClymond also fails to account for what it means that the gates to the New Jerusalem “are never shut” (Rev. 21:25), that the once-wicked “nations” and “kings of the earth” will eventually enter in (Rev. 21:24), that the leaves of the tree of life are “for the healing of the nations” (Rev. 22:2), that “death and hades” are “cast into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:14), that “every creature” (Rev. 5:13) and “all nations” will ultimately “come and worship” (Rev. 15:4), and that Christ is indeed “making all things new” (Rev. 21:5). These and a number of other key details, all of which are arguably suggestive of universalism, McClymond fails to address or explain.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

6. “Doesn’t the New Testament show that salvation is connected to faith?”
​

It is undeniably true that the New Testament does indeed emphasize a connection between salvation and belief in Christ; however, this poses no problem whatsoever for Christian universalism, which affirms that all will eventually be saved because all will eventually believe, even if only in the next life. Paul teaches that whoever “confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord…will be saved” (Rom. 10:9) and that “no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3), yet this same apostle confidently teaches also that “every tongue,” even those of the individuals “under the earth” (i.e., in the realm of the dead), will one day “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil. 2:10-11). McClymond offers no substantive response to the post-mortem faith suggestion here, but simply says, “see #11.” So we will address his counterarguments when we get there.

But here in this section, McClymond lists three solutions (two of which are very rarely, if ever, suggested by universalists) and simply dismisses them with another bald assertion: “None of these three options is congruent with Scripture.” The shallowness and misrepresentations continue when McClymond says, “Some universalists believe God saves people who don’t believe and don’t want to be saved; this sounds a lot like coerced salvation.” That does indeed sound a lot like coerced salvation, yet, in reality, there has not been a single Christian universalist (at least that I know of) who has ever said that God saves people against their will, and since McClymond fails to cite even one example, this can be properly designated as yet another strawman.

[