Defending the Traditional Doctrine of Hell: Part 2
Universalism
Evangelical universalism - or “universal reconciliation” or “restorationism” - is the view that God intends to save every person since they are made in His image, and nothing can prevent Him from fulfilling this intent. It is a view that reaches as far back as Clement and his successor, Origen. Clement “believed in the possibility that the souls of the lost could be reformed and purged in hell, resulting in their repentance and restoration to God.”[6] “Hell is understood by Origen as purification, not punishment. Eternal punishment is not necessary because the wicked will come around at some point, and all things will be restored to their original condition.”[7]
Universalism is distinct from the Catholic notion of purgatory in that it does not offer a third state between heaven and hell. Generally speaking (although there are notable exceptions), universalism is not pluralistic; belief is in Christ alone. There is no belief that atonement can be made via other religions or general good works. Like other evangelical belief systems, the blood of Christ is regarded as necessary for atonement.[8] “The outstanding distinctive of the restorationist doctrine is that God may continue to draw sinners to Himself, not only in this life-time, but also after they have died and are in hell.”[9]
Evangelical universalism acknowledges that pain and suffering probably do occur in hell, but they are not infinite, meaningless, nor destructive. The pain and suffering experienced by the impenitent have the positive result of working toward the repentance and restoration of the sufferer. “‘Origen did not eliminate hell; he believed that some people would have to go to heaven via hell…. And so the choice is whether we accept God’s offer and invitation willingly, or take the long and terrible way round through the ages of purification.’”[10]
Most telling about the Universalist’s position is that even Origen “admits that the grammatical sense of the scriptural terms teaches an everlasting and inextinguishable fire; but considers this an intentional and gracious deceit on the part of God to deter men from sinning.”[11] No clearer sentiment demonstrates the root of the Universalist’s theology on hell. He simply does not want the traditional interpretation to be true. He finds it incred-ulous to believe a loving God would punish sinners for an eternity and so instead accuses God of trickery. Our desire to emphasize the “softer” virtues has resulted in Evangelical Universalists put-ting themselves in a position over and above God’s Word.
A cursory evaluation of the passages often cited by Universalists is in order. Citing God’s desire to save all, Universalists appeal to 1 Timothy 2:3-4: “God our Savior… Wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth.”[12] As opposed to teaching that all will be saved in the end, this passage expresses God’s will for the gospel to reach everyone. They look to Romans 5:18 to establish that Christ’s saving work has an unlimited outcome: “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.” One only has to look at the following verse (Rom 5:19) to see that many will be made righteous, not all. It is a strain of the passages to make a Universalist claim. Finally, Uni-versalists claim that in 1 Corinthians 15:22 Paul teaches the re-storation of all people: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” The very next verse (1 Cor. 15:23) makes it clear that only “those who belong to Him” will join Christ upon His return.
Lest one believe the doctrine has become better supported or better nuanced since its inception, we need only consider the following from Yale philosopher and theologian Marilyn Adams:
… I draw two conclusions: first, that [a human adult,
impaired as we are] is no more competent to be en-
trusted with its (individual or collective) eternal destiny
than a two year old…is to be allowed choices that could
result in its death or serious physical impairment; and
second, that the fact that the choices of such impaired
agents come between the divine creator the environment
and their infernal outcome no more reduces divine re sponsibility for the damnation than two-year-old agency
reduces the responsibility of the adult caretaker.[13]
Like a petulant child, Adams asserts that we can no more handle our spiritual life than a toddler can care for himself and that God Himself shoulders the responsibility for our damnation. Thus, unless He is unloving, “the least that we must say, surely, is that God will never cease to desire and actively work for the salvation of each created person. He will never abandon any as irredeemably evil. However long an individual may reject his Maker, salvation will remain an open possibility to which God is ever trying to draw him.”[14]
Problems with Universalism
While there are several problems with universalism, we will just look at three. John Hick’s own words are very helpful regarding two of them:
It is quite unnecessary for a person to know about or to
believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved, but strictly
speaking, quite unnecessary also for Christ to have lived
or died…. A person can be saved apart from Jesus Christ
altogether…. The cross of Jesus is no longer accorded any
objective atoning significance. Rather, salvation is to be
had, via various religious traditions, within the context of a
general divine-human relationship in which ‘if we are truly
penitent we can ask for and receive forgiveness and new
life’ (John Hick, The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, 32).
The precise role of Jesus or his death in this, for those
belonging to the Christian tradition, is reduced to that of
an example of self-giving love.[15]
John Hick’s brand of universalism is one of the notable exceptions mentioned before that is pluralistic. It is a slippery slope indeed, and it is not a stretch to get there from the Universalist perspective. After all, if God is determined to save everyone, that would necessarily include those of other faiths or no faith at all. I am curious how the atheist develops a penitent mindset and of whom he asks forgiveness and from whom he receives new life.
But obviously, the most glaring heresy here is that the Atonement is rendered as no more than an example of sacrificial love. To be sure, Christ’s death on the cross is that, but it is no more than that on this view. A parent who sacrifices his life to get his child out of the way of a speeding car does as much as Christ. The Atonement, if it can even be called that on this view, has been sanitized of its meaning and, therefore, the very corner-stone of the Christian faith removed.
The moral concepts of justice and freedom are egregiously overlooked within universalism. God’s justice seems essential to His character if He is holy and perfect. Yet where is the justice when the saint and the sinner ultimately enjoy the same reward? What does that say about God’s character? And if we are created in His image, and God enjoys total freedom, where is man’s ability to exercise his freedom to not believe, to not conform? Again, these are characteristics that seem to be essential to the Creator and the created. True love can flourish only in an environment in which it is free to do so. As paradoxical as it sounds, no one can come to truly love God without the absolute freedom to reject Him.
In our next post we'll look at Conditional Immortality, also known as Annihilationism.
[6] Steve Greg, All You Want to Know About Hell: Three Christian Views of God’s Final Solution to the Problem of Evil (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2013), 117.
[7] Dixon, The Other Side of the Good News, 35.
[8] Greg, All You Want to Know About Hell, 238.
[9] Ibid., 239.
[10] William Barclay: A Spiritual Autobiography (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977), 65-67, cited in Greg, All You Want to Know About Hell, 239.
[11] Reimensynder quoted in Friesen, “Critical Analysis,” 48-49, in Dixon, The Other Side of the Good News, 35, emphasis mine.
[12] Biblical citations/quotes are from the NIV, unless otherwise noted.
[13] Marilyn Adams, “The Problem of Hell: A Problem of Evil for Christians,” in Reasoned Faith, ed. Eleonore Stump (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993), 313, quoted in Michael J. Murray, ed. Reason for the Hope Within (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 312, original formatting, grammar and spelling maintained.
[14] John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 343, emphasis mine.
[15] Trevor Hart, “Universalism: Two Distinct Types,” Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 13-14, quoted in Robert A. Peterson, Hell on Trial: the Case for Eternal Punishment (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1995), 149, original emphasis and format.