There are quite a lot of misconceptions, and even complete myths, about universalism that are repeatedly propagated by fellow (usually well-meaning but misguided) Christians. In this post, I would like to refute these misconceptions, so that anyone who is studying the debate about universal reconciliation can erase these harmful and inaccurate depictions of universalism, and find out what universalists really believe. Here are some of the worst myths and misconceptions about universal reconciliation:
Universalists are religious pluralists
This is the most common and most damaging misconception about universalism. Christian universalism believes that all people will be saved through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and that there is judgment after death (and almost certainly punishment for some, although a few full preterists believe that all punishment was fulfilled in 70 AD), whereas religious pluralists believe that all religions (and non-religions) are equal pathways to God and all people will thereby enter ‘heaven’ immediately after death. Although some religious pluralists might call themselves ‘universalists’ in the sense that they believe all people are saved, Christian universalism is markedly different from religious pluralism.
Universalists don’t believe the Bible
This misconception is brought about by the belief that there are passages of scripture that unequivocally teach ‘eternal conscious torment’, and that universalists have to simply ignore those passages to believe that all people will be saved. Again, this is simply false. Rather than ignoring these passages, universalists recognize that the words translated ‘eternal’ in relation to punishment often simply mean ‘age-lasting’, and so interpret the judgment passages differently in their context than most infernalists do.
This doesn’t mean that universalists are ignoring the Bible, but rather that we choose to study it in its original language and within its proper context. I believe every word of the Bible in its original language and context, just as every other universalist I have spoken to does.
Another myth about universalism that is just as damaging is the idea that universalists force their own preconceptions about judgment and salvation onto the text in order to make it fit with universal salvation. This is also false; virtually all universalists that I know of grew up believing in eternal conscious torment, and only came to believe in universal reconciliation after intense study of scripture (myself included). On the contrary, I’ve found that people only start to believe in universalism when they let the Bible speak for itself, rather than making it conform to the orthodox doctrine of infernalism.
Universalists don’t believe in hell
This is actually very close to the truth. Many non-universalists use this as a ‘gotcha’ question, as if not believing in hell makes it impossible to believe the Bible. The problem is that virtually all universalists do believe that the punishment that Jesus called Gehenna will (or has already) come upon people; we simply recognize that Gehenna is very different from the modern conception of hell as eternal conscious torment. However, because infernalism automatically defines “hell” as eternal conscious torment, it would be correct in that sense to say that universalists (and annihilationists, for that matter) don’t believe in “hell”. This just isn’t the ‘gotcha’ question that infernalists think it is.
Universalism is a heresy, and universalists reject orthodoxy established in the time of the apostles
This myth is usually brought up by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, since they believe that all Church tradition can be traced back to the apostles. However, at least in the case of universalism, it’s not true that established tradition appeared this early on. Universal reconciliation was believed by the majority of Church leaders and theologians up to the beginning of the fifth century, and even Augustine of Hippo, an avowed anti-universalist, recognized as late as 420 that “indeed the vast majority” (immo quam plurimi) of Christians believed that punishment would end (Enchiridion 112).
Furthermore, universal reconciliation was never condemned as heresy, even at the fifth ecumenical council of Constantinople II. Although the emperor Justinian I did manage to posthumously anathematize Origen of Alexandria (a prominent third-century universalist) and his writings at this council, the fifteen anti-Origenist anathemas that supposedly condemned universalism were not discovered until the seventeenth century, and should likely be connected to a letter from Justinian to the council rather than the council itself. A few Catholic theologians remained outspoken about universal reconciliation even after this, including St. Maximus the Confessor, which shows that the fifth ecumenical council must not have officially condemned this doctrine.
So if you are a Catholic or Orthodox and are on the fence about universalism, make sure to recognize that this is a false misconception. You are free to come to your own conclusions about this topic without fear of anathematization, unless you believe that virtually the entire Church up to the fifth century should be anathematized as well.
Universalists ignore God’s wrath in favor of His love
Again, this is not true. Universalists believe that God will punish evildoers, and that He is just and wrathful as well as loving, since that is what scripture tells us. Denying eternal conscious torment does not mean that one must deny God’s justice or wrath. In fact, to believe in eternal conscious torment means that one must deny the fact that finite sin does not require infinite punishment (Matt. 5:26; 18:34-35; Lk. 12:59), or else infernalists would be the ones denying God’s justice.
Jesus warned about hell more than he spoke about heaven
Actually, Jesus didn’t talk about either ‘hell’ or ‘heaven’, at least not the modern conceptions of these places. His sermons were mostly concerned with entering the Messianic kingdom (the “kingdom of God/heaven”) and avoiding the punishment of having one’s dead body unceremoniously dumped into Gehenna and burned. But even if these passages were talking about the modern conceptions of ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’, Jesus actually talked about heaven three times more than hell. As one person found:
There are 1900 plus verses in the four Gospels that contain Jesus’ words. Surprisingly, only about 60 of those verses, or just three percent of them, might be construed as either directly or indirectly referring to Hell. On the other hand, there are more than three times as many verses in the Gospels in which Jesus references Heaven, eternal life, or his coming kingdom: 192 verses in all, or almost 10%. So, the evidence suggests that Jesus didn’t speak about Hell more than Heaven. In truth, he talked about Heaven three times more than He did about Hell!
It’s time to put to rest this particularly pervasive myth that can be discredited by only a superficial examination of the four gospels.
There is no passage that says, “people will escape hell”
This objection usually relates to the Lake of Fire, since that is what most Christians think of when they think of ‘hell’. It is true that there is no verse that explicitly says that “people will escape the Lake of Fire”, just as it is true that there is no verse that explicitly says “the Messiah will be resurrected”; but, as Peter pointed out in Acts 2:24-31, the resurrection of the Messiah is a necessary inference from Old Testament prophecy. In the same way, the fact that people will leave the Lake of Fire is a necessary inference from scripture.
Premise 1: The Lake of Fire is called “the second death” (Rev. 20:14; 21:8).
Premise 2: Death will be abolished when all people are made alive in Christ (1 Cor. 15:20-28).
Conclusion: The Lake of Fire will cease to harm anyone when all people are made alive in Christ.
Or, for another deductive argument that does not rest on the assertion that the Lake of Fire comprises annihilation for those cast within (although it likely does), see below:
Premise 1: Those who are saved are not harmed by the Lake of Fire (Rev. 2:11 cf. Rev. 21:8).
Premise 2: All people will eventually be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-6; 4:10).
Conclusion: Eventually, no one will be harmed by the Lake of Fire.
Therefore, it is no problem for universalism that no passage explicitly says that anyone will leave the Lake of Fire. It is a necessary inference from scripture, just as the resurrection of the Christ was a necessary inference from the Old Testament.
If punishment isn’t eternal, then eternal life isn’t either
First of all, this is a false dichotomy; it’s not true that both punishment and life must be eternal, or else neither is. The adjective αιωνιος may not be describing the exact duration of time for both of these things. For example, it could be equally true to say that a person is tall and that a skyscraper is tall, but that doesn’t mean that both of them are equally tall. In the same way, it’s possible that the punishment described in scripture is lasts for a long time, but much shorter (or even infinitely shorter) than the life of believers.
Second, it’s highly probable that the reward of believers called ζωη αιωνιος (“life age-during”) is not eternal, but lasts only for the Messianic age. This is what I have come to believe after studying the use of this phrase in the New Testament. And at least in the case of Matthew 25:46, where this objection is most commonly raised, the Old Testament context shows that both the “age-during punishment” and “age-during life” are only concerned with which Gentiles are allowed to enter the Messianic kingdom, so both the punishment and the life last for only about a thousand years.
The fact that “age-during life” probably isn’t eternal does not mean that believers will eventually die after being resurrected. In fact, we are explicitly told by Jesus that those who attain the first resurrection will not die (Luke 20:36), and Paul says that we will become immortal and incorruptible (1 Cor. 15:51-55). It’s just that the phrase “age-during life” is not describing that specific aspect of the resurrection of believers; instead, it is describing our reign together with Christ (which will not be eternal) in His kingdom.
If universalism is true, why not sin?
There are a number of variations on this one misconception about universalism, varying from “if universalism is true, then Hitler/Stalin/etc. will be saved” to “if universalism is true, then killing people is okay”. I’m legitimately surprised by how many people seem to only be kept from murdering others by the fear of eternal conscious torment (and I hope they only bring it up for the sake of argument).
But that aside, this is technically true of any form of Christianity that prioritizes faith over works (i.e., any Pauline Christianity), especially those who believe in “Once Saved Always Saved”. Under these forms of Christianity, we are already justified by our faith, and our sins are no longer reckoned to us, so theoretically it would be possible to keep sinning (however unwise). Likewise, it is possible that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, or any number of serial killers chose to trust in Christ on their deathbed and so were saved.
Universalism just takes this one step further and says that all people will be saved eventually, and their sins no longer reckoned to them. Universalists like myself do not deny that there will be judgment and punishment for evil, but we believe the scriptural truth that this punishment will come to an end, and all beings will be reconciled to God. No one deserves salvation; no one’s works make them more or less worthy of salvation than anyone else. So if this is your problem with the idea that all people will be saved and reconciled, perhaps you should double-check to make sure your own idea of salvation is based on faith, and not works.
Conclusion
I hope that I have shown that many of the objections raised against universalism are actually misconceptions and myths, and aren’t legitimate arguments against universal reconciliation. I didn’t write the above to mock or belittle non-universalists who use these arguments, but rather in the hope that the debate surrounding universal salvation could be more fruitful, and that those who are honestly studying this issue could learn what universalists really believe without these inaccurate myths muddying the waters. So if you are just now learning about universalism, please take this post to heart, and don’t accidentally propagate these harmful misconceptions.
No comments:
Post a Comment