Christian Universalism

Faith & Science Conversation
,
182

Hello. If anyone from the Universalist point of view visiting your page here would like to know what the latest arguments are against universalism in favor of annihilationism, please see my free online PDF book “Hell is Made Holy”. The book adds to the overall discussion what will very likely be some of the hardest scripturally based arguments for the universalist view to defeat. So universalists may want to be aware of these. The book can be downloaded at: David Aaron Beaty – Writing Ministry

Hello St Roymond and Mervin. Sorry about that, sure I can show some content that relates to the universalism topic from the book. One topic that I cover extensively in the book is the subject of the “second death” as it appears in Revelation. There is a very strong body of evidence supporting the idea that the phrase “second death” was a well known ancient Jewish religious concept which originated from the content of the ancient Aramaic Targums. This content would have very likely been known by John’s ancient audience of Revelation. The Revelation and Targum passages below are some of that evidence. Notice how the Revelation passages and the targum passages share common symbolism or themes:

[Revelation 2:11 WEB] He who has an ear, let him hear what
the Spirit says to the assemblies. He who overcomes won’t
be harmed by the second death.

[Revelation 2:17 WEB] He who has an ear, let him hear what
the Spirit says to the assemblies. To him who overcomes, to
him I will give of the hidden manna, and I will give him a
white stone, and on the stone a new name written, which no
one knows but he who receives it.

[Isaiah 22:14 Targum Jonathan] The prophet said, With my
ears I was hearing when this was decreed before the LORD
God of hosts: “Surely this sin will not be forgiven you until
you die the second death,” says the LORD God of hosts.

[Isaiah 65:15 Targum Jonathan] You shall leave your name
to my chosen for an oath, and the LORD God will slay you with the second death; but his servants, the righteous, he
will call by a different name.

Here in Jeremiah 51 below it may also be revealing what Hebrew text is being translated and interpreted in the corresponding targum passage which I also show below:

[Jeremiah 51:39, 57 Targum Jonathan] 39 Bring distress
upon them, and they shall be like drunken men, so that they
shall not be strong; and they shall die the second death,
and shall not live for the world to come, says the Lord. … 57
And I will make her princes and her wise men drunk, her
governors and her tyrants and her mighty men; and they
shall die the second death and not live for the world to
come." says the King; the Lord of Hosts is his Name.

[Jeremiah 51:39,57 WEB Hebrew] 39 When they are heated,
I will make their feast, and I will make them drunk, that they
may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake up,"
says Yahweh … 57 I will make her princes, her wise men, her
governors, her deputies, and her mighty men drunk. They
will sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake up," says the
King, whose name is Yahweh of Armies.

The content that I’m showing here from the targums is the most likely candidate to reveal how John’s ancient audience of Revelation would have understood the second death before they read Revelation. As you can see, it is not restoration or refining while spending a time in something like the purgatory that universalism assumes. It’s just death, not living. If this were the only time that we saw this in scripture, maybe there would be other passages which could balance it out in favor of universalism, but this type of content just piles up and up and up as we continue to look for it throughout the scripture. These passages are examples:

[Hebrews 10:26-27, 39 ESV] 26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. … 39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

The author of Hebrews above is using the phrase “fire that will consume the adversaries” to intentionally contextualize his wording, “preserve their souls” in verse 39 above. Look below in Isaiah where the author of Hebrews is borrowing this fiery phrase from:

[Isaiah 26:11, 14, 19 CSB] 11 LORD, your hand is lifted up to take action, but they do not see it. Let them see your zeal for your people and be put to shame. Let fire consume your adversaries. … 14 The dead do not live; departed spirits do not rise up. Indeed, you have punished and destroyed them; you have wiped out all memory of them. … 19 Your dead will live; their bodies will rise. Awake and sing, you who dwell in the dust! For you will be covered with the morning dew, and the earth will bring out the departed spirits.

The content of Isaiah 26 above sounds a lot like Jesus in Matthew here:

[Matthew 10:28 NASB20] 28 “And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

And then here’s the inspiration of God saying almost the same thing as Jesus above through Isaiah below in regard to those who side with antichrist during the tribulation:

[Isaiah 10:17-18 NASB20] 17 And the Light of Israel will become a fire and Israel’s Holy One a flame, And it will burn and devour his thorns and his briars in a single day. 18 And He will destroy the glory of his forest and of his fruitful garden, both soul and body, And it will be as when a sick person wastes away.

And then considering the content of the passages I’ve just shown, is it possible that these Thessalonians verses below are translated properly, expressing the same concept? The Thessalonians verses below are about the day of the Lord, just as Isaiah 26 and Isaiah 10 above are:

[1 Thessalonians 5:2-3, 23 LSB] 2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. 3 While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman who is pregnant, and they will never escape. … 23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And then we might see James adding onto the same theme here:

[James 5:19-20 NASB20] 19 My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you strays from the truth and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that the one who has turned a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

James above sounds a lot like Ezekiel here from the Septuagint:

[Ezekiel 18:4, 27 Lexham English Septuagint] 4 For all lives are mine; the way is the life of the father, so also the life of the son; they are mine; the soul that sins, this is the one that will die. ……. 27 But when a lawless person turns back from his lawlessness which he committed, and he does justice and righteousness, this one has kept his soul.

There’s just too much here to conform to universalism. All the additional questions which these passages are raising and the additional supporting evidence and details can be found in the free pdf book that I mentioned near the beginning of my post. Thank you again St Roymond and Mervin. I hope what I’ve posted here is enough to generate some discussion.

183

Posts should contribute to the discussion. Can you share some points from the book?

2 Likes
184

@St.Roymond is right … the powers that be here like it if the forum isn’t just used as a platform to self-promote or to steer people away from the forum - especially if we don’t really know you yet. That said, it might help if, as was suggested, maybe you bring up a main point or two, or at least a teaser for people to react to or chew on here. Then you might generate more interest (or not! - it’s a risk either way!) that may draw some to want to check out your book!

Either way - welcome to the forum! Whether we agree or disagree even on important things, you’ll hopefully get a chance for some respectful dialogue with other thinkers. Or at least we try to encourage our forum in those directions. You can edit any prior posts you make by clicking the grey pencil beneath any past post of yours.

2 Likes
185

I was raised up in a family that believed mostly in eternal conscious torment. Early 20s I got big into conditional immortality/ annihilationism. I read and still own books by Edward Fudge and I went through over 400 hours ofthe rethinking hell podcast and was in a group ave talked several times with Chris Date.

I believe it’s quite easy to read universalism into these statements. A man who is no longer here, Klax, was very influential with my studying this. Everyone I meet believes they have this solid proof text but the reality is that many of us have heard them. Especially when we move through beliefs and learn in part through debates.

What’s the top 2 arguments you have?

2 Likes
186

Thanks for opening this conversation, St. Roymond. I’ve encountered the growing interest in Christian universalism too, and I understand the appeal—it emphasizes God’s love, mercy, and ultimate restoration. But while I deeply believe in God’s boundless love, I also believe truth and love must be held together, and that’s where I struggle with universalism.

From my perspective, Scripture doesn’t leave room for the idea that all will ultimately be saved, regardless of repentance or response to Christ. Jesus spoke repeatedly about the reality and finality of judgment (Matthew 7:13–14; 25:46; John 3:36). The apostles echoed it—Paul talked about “everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9), and John described the “second death” (Revelation 20:14–15). These aren’t temporary conditions; they’re presented as final outcomes.

What I think gets overlooked in the universalist framework is the gravity of human will in rejecting God. Love that forces salvation on those who reject Christ—even postmortem—no longer resembles biblical love. God honors the free choice of man, even when that choice leads away from Him.

I agree that universalism isn’t the same as relativism or antinomianism. Most serious proponents try to be faithful to Scripture and holy living. But if Scripture is to remain the final authority (and for me, it must), I can’t embrace a view that contradicts so many of its warnings and calls to urgent repentance. God’s mercy is immense, but it operates through Christ—received through faith, not imposed upon all regardless of belief.

3 Likes
187

I also feel the same way now … Though in the opposite direction (at least for that last bit … The love of God is an eternal reality that is imposed on us all at least insofar as it will continue to exist regardless of our rejection of it. And the wrath of God too, but unlike the love, the wrath only persists as long as it is necessary.) After reading George MacDonald I can’t unsee the whole of scriptures now, which in my perspective, narrates a God that cannot possibly be a god that delivers eternal conscious torment with no other purpose than retributive vengeance. The very same kind of vengeance and wrath that are revealed as unrighteous were they found in any of us. I will not worship any god that is less righteous than even the poorest of earth parents on one of their very bad days. In Him no darkness is found … At least no darkness devoid of ultimately redemptive purpose.

2 Likes
188

On a side note, I really like the 2nd verse of In Christ Alone, but a lot of arrangements leave it out because of the phrase “the wrath of God satisfied.” Makes me sad, though I can see why they do it that way.
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=in+christ+alone+lyrics&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

2 Likes
189

Don’t stop with verse 2 though! Whatever theories of atonement may have been passed along to us, verses 3 and 4 express a Love that won’t be scared away by denial.

Beautiful hymn!

2 Likes
190

Hmmm… having the mission of BioLogos raised in the other thread makes me wonder how it can be applied in this thread also.

I am all for looking into the impact of evolution on Christian theology.

So what do you think? Does evolution or other findings of science have any impact on this question of universalism?

I think the impact is more on the question of pluralism. That it is not about the specifics of our cultural or even biological context, but that God works in all things reaching out to those who will listen.

1 Like
191

I think the whole concept of niches (which might be considered the opportunistic flip side of provision of resources back into the environment to help meet other species’ needs) is kind of a beautiful picture or template for a creation in which nothing is lost or wasted. And how much more so human lives?

1 Like
192

I think Christian Universalism is more to do with negating the exclusivity clauses of traditional Christianity than it is claiming that Hell does not exist.

I also thnk that is is not easy to summrise in a few lines or so.

The main point being the objection to sumary judgement for not being a Christian, and the flip side of assuming that being a Christian (by claim) is enough to avoid judgment. IOW we are very good at telling God who is or is not suitable instead of understanding God through all of Scripture rather than just Paul.

Richard

Edit
It also challenges the Reformation view of sin and its abundance.

1 Like
193

Isaiah 34:8-12
New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition
8 For the Lord has a day of vengeance,
a year of vindication for Zion’s cause.
9 And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch
and her soil into sulfur;
her land shall become burning pitch.
10 Night and day it shall not be quenched;
its smoke shall go up forever.
From generation to generation it shall lie waste;
no one shall pass through it forever and ever.
11 But the desert owl and the screech owl shall possess it;
the great owl and the raven shall live in it.
He shall stretch the line of confusion
and the plummet of chaos over it.
12 They shall call its nobles No Kingdom There,
and all its princes shall be nothing.

Those verses mentions that fire will be there forever and no human shall pass through it. Yet Edom, which is a place in southern Jordan had people living there and is not eternally on fire.

So it’s obviously not meant to be read literally. So that means it’s metaphorical and not literal. So the next question is does metaphorical speech of destruction, such as the destruction of the temple which was the body of Chris, means destroyed forever, or to be restored.

Can fire , even burning away, mean more than destruction? Such as the refining fire?

Malachi 3:2
2 But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.

1 Like
194

Well of course not – I’m not aware of any universalism that would see it that way.

I’d balance that by people overlooking the determination of God to have us all in His family.

True. That’s why the universalism with which I’m familiar emphasizes divine patience.

But there you’re not talking about Christian universalism but some other brand.

This reminds me of something I once though about: that those in heaven would not be able to see those in Hell, but those in Hell would be able to view those in heaven. Why? Because those in either place viewing the other would be torment, and while Hell involves torment heaven doesn’t! A realm of eternal torture would be bad, but one where it was possible (or even mandatory) to see those in the realm with eternal bliss would be horrendous!
But that very connection should lead to the possibility of choosing to leave the realm of torment and seek the realm of bliss. I don’t recall if any of the Fathers made this argument, but I do know that at least some pointed out that judgment would involve knowing how it could have been avoided and thus awareness of the other option, from which point it was argued that eventually the offer of divine love would overcome the desire to be one’s own god.
How long is “eventually”? Well, it fits one definition of an “age” in the ancient concept, which is whatever period is necessary for something to be accomplished. That would mean that the “age of post-death redemption” (or whatever label seems suitable) could be a trillion years long – if there are humans who are that stubborn.
At least one of the Fathers tied this to the Prodigal Son (though as I recall he called it “the Parable of the Welcoming Father”), maintaining that eventually the prodigal would repent, the only question being how long that would take and how far he must descend.

In this context, the “second death” isn’t annihilation, it’s an even deeper disconnect from God than anyone experiences in this world. I’m not sure how or if that can be squared with scripture, but the Fathers who went with universalism seemed to agree that if any were ultimately lost then that would be a victory for the Foe, and if the Foe got any victory at all then Christ’s victory would not be complete.

I think it was Gregory of Nyssa who noted that our very existence is a matter of grace, so that to say that the love of God sustains us isn’t merely speaking of believers and our life in Christ but of existence itself, and thus it is the love of God that sustains even the wicked – the difference being that in the case of believers “love of God” is both objective and subjective, love towards God and love from God, whereas with the wicked it is only love from God.
In that case the only real options become annihilation or universalism: either God’s love is cut off and existence ends, or God’s love continues and eventually triumphs.

Yes – on the grounds above, of God’s love, which would not sustain the existence of someone merely for purpose of inflicting agony, but also because such suffering is unjust – the same justice that demands suffering demands also that it “fit the crime”.

All Abraham’s children will be saved – and that includes, according to the promise, all the nations.

I more and more lean towards universalism.

Let’s have the video–

At a “Full Love in Christ” 'non-denominational church I heard the objectionable line changed to “The love of God was glorified”.

BTW, that song fits perfectly with a 16th-century hymn tune . . . I just have to remember which one it is!

2 Likes
195

There in is a question debated by some of the Fathers: even if the “lake of fire” is meant for the Foe and his angels, does that limit God to not using it differently for humans?
(And then a few Fathers argued that even Satan will eventually be brought back.)

I welcome a cleansing fire!

(Though sometimes that strikes me as laziness, expecting God to purify me rather than put in the effort myself.)

196

Love triumphs but there is still that choice of annihilation. God in His infinite wisdom and forethought would not create someone that would ultimately choose death… and certainly not eternal torment if that were true.

197

Mervin, I really appreciate the honesty and passion in your response—it’s clear you’re wrestling sincerely with the character of God, especially in light of love, justice, and redemption. I get that. I’ve wrestled too, and I don’t take lightly the weight of eternal realities or the heart behind universalist leanings. I think many who move toward Christian universalism do so out of a deep sensitivity to God’s love, and a desire to honor that love without distortion. I respect that.

But here’s where I land: I can’t make peace with a view that neutralizes the clear and repeated warnings of Jesus and the apostles. To me, love that forces restoration—regardless of the human response—ceases to be the kind of love we see God demonstrate throughout Scripture. God’s love always invites, compels, and pursues—but it doesn’t override human will. That would turn relationship into coercion, and that’s not consistent with the cross. If hell is stripped of its eternal weight, the urgency of the gospel begins to evaporate. Why would Jesus speak so starkly of “outer darkness,” “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” and a “broad way that leads to destruction,” if none of that really meant final separation?

You mentioned George MacDonald, and I’ve read some of his thoughts too—he paints a God who seems more nurturing than judging. But I can’t ignore the way Paul describes God’s wrath as just, not petulant (Romans 2:5–6), or how Jesus Himself affirms that some will go into “everlasting punishment” while others to “life eternal” (Matthew 25:46). Those are parallel structures—same word for “eternal” in both cases. If eternal life is everlasting, so is eternal separation.

Ultimately, I trust God’s justice because I trust His character. I don’t have to understand every detail of how that justice unfolds to know it’s not cruel or flawed—it’s holy. And that holiness isn’t in conflict with His love; it’s what gives His love weight. If there’s no consequence for rejecting Christ, then the cross loses its depth, and grace becomes unnecessary. I believe God is better than we imagine, but not always in the ways we expect. His goodness includes judgment—not because He’s vindictive, but because He’s holy and just—and that makes the gospel not only beautiful, but urgent.

1 Like
198

But yet you could live a million years and like me, probably still not overcome sin. You’ll sin until the day you die just like me and just like everyone else. You’ll always be too lazy to be Christ’s equal. We all fall short. Getting closer still jeans we need to be saved just as much as the arrow that only made it half as far.

199

But that’s not an element of universalism as I’ve ever heard it.

My point was to not fall into spiritual laziness of not even trying.

200

So you mentioned eternal punishment and eternal salvation. A few things to consider. The word aiōnios there is the one being used for eternal correct?

So what does the same word mean here.

Romans 16:25-27

25 Now to God who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever!

In verse 25 we see “mystery that was kept secret for long ages”. That word long ages is also aiōnios. Yet we now know that secret. So it’s not eternal. So both words could be ages in Ronans snd the agelessness for one does not bean the same for the other.

Secondly you used the word separation instead of punishment. Thats your word, not the Bible’s. Why should it mean separation as opposed to kolasis meaning something else. Does this age of punishment automatically mean no restoration? Gods punishment is often restorative.

We have to consider the nature of Jesus. When it comes to forgiveness Jesus says forgive them 70x7 which means forgive them every time. So did Jesus want us to be more forgiving than himself?

What about this verse.

1 Corinthians 15:22 states, "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” die it mean everyone with Adam but not everyone with Christ?

2 Peter 3:9-15

New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

9 The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance.10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be destroyed with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.

Says Gods will is for none to perish. Says Christ came for the whole world. That all of creation is waiting.

1 Like
201

Sure. My point is that even with all your trying you failed just like those who did not try. Same for me.

If I say put out the fire to save your home. If you don’t get 100% of it then the fire will come back until nothing is left. So getting only 90% of it out or 10% still means it will come back. Jesus puts all of it out regardless.