Yes, “Salvation for me because I’m right and Damnation for you because you’re wrong” is a terrible way to view the world. Shoot, I was raised in a church that our motto was “We’re not sure we’re saved, but we’re sure that you’re not!” Thankfully, now I believe that not only am I saved by grace, but so are you. Hallelujah!
I don’t remember the exact context, but someone once remarked to George MacDonald, “That’s too good to be true!”
George MacDonald replied, “It’s just so good it must be true!”
My husband and I were discussing this today. EU seems to generate an irrationally hostile reaction.
I think the great Heresy about EU is that it denies the neverendingness of Hell, and the necessity of being saved before physical death. My church says in it’s statement of beliefs, “We believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead … of the unbeliever, who has persistently rejected Christ in the present life, to judgment, everlasting punishment, and separation forever from God.” (emphasis added)
In our mainstream Christianity (or at least, the Calvinistic type I’m most familiar with), Salvation is not about drawing near to God, or being saved from sin (except as a side issue) – it’s primarily about being saved from a sentence to Everlasting Hell. Take away Everlasting Hell, and you take away the ‘reason to be’ of Christianity.
People presented with the idea of EU say things like: "If everyone gets out of Hell eventually, then what’s the big deal? Why bother ‘getting saved’? or “…then why did Christ have to die?” or “…then why not just live however you want, it doesn’t matter, you still get to go to Heaven.”
It’s all about getting to “Heaven”. And it’s all about fear of “Hell”. (Or fear of never getting out of it anyway.) And that’s understandable–given the horrendous nature of a hopeless hell, it would tend to overshadow all other issues. So much so that people initially act like a shorter-duration Hell is No Big Deal–and comparatively speaking, it’s not, really. The lenses have to be adjusted, then you realise that Hell of any duration is still serious stuff. And if the Hell’s purpose is to elict true repentance … well that’s a lot harsher than just ‘doing time’ and then getting released.
The idea that repentance is only possible in this lifetime is strongly ingrained. Challenging that concept is tantamount to shaking a pillar of the faith. People ask, “Then what’s your motivation for evangelism?” (Hmmm, maybe because our Lord commands us? and because it is through the ‘foolishness of preaching’ that God saves? – I mean, how else will all those ‘alls’ get saved if we don’t do our job of spreading the message of salvation?)
And that may also stem from the idea that after we die Christians will be resurrected perfect and unable to sin–POOF!–with no effort on our part. I just have to struggle day to day with my sin nature till I’m done with this life (knowing that if I mess up a little, just now and then, it’s ok, really) and then I’ll be rewarded with an automatically sin-free new me. So the idea of salvation after this life hits a cognitive dissonance … will the unsaved also be raised with a sinless self, without having to repent and come to Christ? Or will they be raised still in their sinful body? If so, then will the saved-after-death people have their POOF! moment? They’ve already had their ‘resurrection’!
There’s some people who seem to have the attitude of the eldest son in the Prodigal parable, or the attitude of the laborers in the parable where the Master pays the same wages to all his workers, whether they worked only an hour or all day. “It’s not fair that they get to be saved too! They didn’t do as much as us!”
Another thing, when people hear “Universalist” they tend to think of an ‘all paths lead to God’ philosophy where anything goes. So a universalist is a threat to Christianity, saying (in their minds) that Christianity is just one of many valid paths to God. Hopefully that misconception will begin to change as Christian universalism begins to be more talked about.
Maybe there’s more issues too, but that’s what I’ve come up with so far.
If you have that meeting with your pastor, I’d like to hear how it goes… Hope you’ll share!
Sonia
I enjoyed other’s posts on this… isn’t it funny how we do this? I mean, why should we feel ‘guilty’ about questioning tradition? Yet I think I did too at first–like I was venturing into somewhere forbidden. But much more than that, I was afraid that I might be wrongly favoring universalism because of it’s emotional appeal. (I guess that’s the ‘too good to be true’ mentality!)
We all know that Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of his day for being stuck on tradition–yet now we, in our turn, rely on our own set of traditions. Jesus says, “Why do you not judge for yourselves??” We’re each responsible to seek truth–we’re responsible for what we believe–and if doubts are present, we should never bury them under fear, nor should we allow our quest for truth to be cowed by the imperious grandeur of Tradition.
May your journey be blessed,
Sonia
Hi Sonia,
I know I’m not the one that you asked about meeting with the pastor, but I’ve happened to have gone through that with my church recently. Well, it wasn’t just with the pastor but will all the elders.
When I first started attending the church over a year ago, I met with the pastor for breakfast several times and part of what I shared with him was my research into UR. In short he let me know that that is not what he or anyone else in the church believes but he didn’t see it as something that should keep me and my family from being full members of the church. So we started participating in the church and I continued my studies, came to believe UR, and only shared my beliefs/studies primarily with other leaders in the church, or when a conversation on Hell came up (once). I in no way tried to persuade anyone to change their beliefs.
And then a couple of months ago in a men’s fellowship, a couple of the brothers, including an elder, started talking about how we needed more preaching on Hell. I pollitely disagreed and shared a little of why I’ve come to believe that Hell is not actually taught in scripture. A few weeks later, an old “Statement of Faith” was ressurected, one that the elders did not even remember having. It included a statement about the certainty of damnation for some of humanity that I couldn’t agree with. It was reinstituted as a requirement for membership and I found myself no longer a member. It was a very sad and trying time for me and my family. Of course, this is the short version.
We stayed in the church anyhow, and a couple of months later I finally met with the elders. Their biggest concerns were not whether or not scripture actually supports the concept of Hell but: 1) how UR might upset some of the members, 2) how UR might negatively effect “non-existant” evangelistic efforts, and 3) how my beliefs in UR is costing me the respect and love of others. In short, after a lengthy discussion, I agreed that as long as we continued to attend there to be more reserved than I already was in sharing about UR and that if the conversation did come up and someone was interested in studying it that I’d let the pastor participate in the study also. I wasn’t looking to promote UR anyhow so I agreed to these “terms” and have honored them. But sadly, we’ve felt an increasing distance between us (my wife and I) and the leadership in the church; and Sunday has become the most painfilled day of the week for us both. So we’ve just decided to not go back, which was a very difficult decision for us because we truly love these people and value these relationships. Our hearts are really broken over this. But we trust that God has a reason for allowing all this to happen.
I suppose, one of the things I was most disappointed about was that none of the elders wanted to study out the issue with me. I mean, doesn’t it make sense that if they really believe that UR is so terrible that they’d be concerned enough to study scripture with me to show me where I’m misunderstanding it? What I find though is that most believers are content to just believe what they’ve always believed, and denounce anyone who believes differently, often assuming evil of them.
Well, for now it looks like we’ll simply quietly attend a larger church in our community and soon start a small fellowship at our house on Saturday night and see what happens. It’s very heartbreaking though for us to leave the relationships we’ve developed there. But I’ve come to understand that one simply cannot productively pour new wine into old wineskins.
Thanks for sharing that Sherman. That’s pretty typical of the stories I’ve heard. I’ve been puzzled by the more-than-lack of interest people have in investigating the possibility of UR as demonstrated by the eagerness of Christians from all variations of theological opinion to simply dismiss the issue without a second glance, calling it heresy, and it’s proponents as sentimental wishful thinkers or worse.
Last night my husband brought up the issue of my universalism with one of the pastors at our church. It had been discussed very briefly several years ago, before my husband had much interest in the topic, and before this pastor knew us at all, but not brought up since. My husband was asking him which one, if any of our church’s small groups/bible studies would be good for us to participate in given my views, and my husband’s tentative leanings in that direction as well. Well, the pastor–also a friend of ours–said he’d pray about it and get back to us on it. LOL I’m not sure what’ll come of this, and not exactly sure what my husband told him about what I believe, but I’m glad it’s been brought up more openly–but wondering what kind of response will come. In any case, neither of us are at all interested in causing strife or undermining the church’s teachings with our beliefs.
Sonia
Speaking in their defense, I think a lot of it amounts to a version of Pascal’s Wager: it’s better to expect and plan pessimistically for the worst, and then be pleasantly surprised if things turn out better than they dared to hope (much less believe). That way disappointment is minimized.
That’s far from an irrational way of taking a position on the topic. It’s also very energy-efficient, as it doesn’t require time and brainpower spent trudging through hundreds of verses and thorny theological metaphysics, which could be profitably spent elsewhere–especially when many, many other people who have been trained and paid to do this professionally seem to have agreed against it in various ways (often wildly disagreeing with one another in agreeing against it, but still agreeing against it. 
)
As for those people who have spent time and brainpower trudging through it all again and coming up with some variety of hopelessness again (where they haven’t simply relied on someone else in prior authority telling them so–though that still wouldn’t be irrational of them to do): aside from feeling like their own competency is at stake (which on this topic is unavoidably true), it may seem like such an obvious truth that they feel like they can just toss a few prooftexts at the notion of hope and that ought to bowl it over. And if that doesn’t work, then it only shows how ignorant, foolish, desperate, deluded and/or outright evil the opponents must be not to see the obvious truth from even such simple infallible proofs! So why bother working harder at it? Again, it isn’t time or energy-efficient for them to do so.
All of which is why I am concerned to watch out against doing the exact same thing to them.
Thanks eveyone for your insights and encouragement.
Jason, thanks for your exhortations. While I understand that Error=Heresy I don’t see why EU=“Damnable Heresy” in many peoples minds. I can’t help but think that they must believe that EU either advances pluralism or in some way denies the need to trust in the finished work of Christ.
Great point Sonia:
In any approach (Calvinist, Arminian, or Evangelical Universalist), Faith/Repentance is still the only way. “Doing time” doesn’t cut it.
Thanks for your openness Sherman. I am sorry to hear of your former churches reaction. I wish you the best and will pray for you as you find new avenues for fellowship.
I still have not talked to my Pastor. He is very open to talking but needs a a couple days notice to arrange a time. Unfortunately, I am extremely busy right now and it is difficult to open up a block of time I can schedule in advance. We’ll talk soon.
But keep in mind that most believers have been taught that heresy of any kind is damnable. They aren’t taught any distinction between error and the sin of heresy; the latter of which I quite agree is damnable. (Even if no more hopelessly damnable than any other sin. But it’s just as quasi-permanently damnable as any other sin, too, so long as it is impenitently held to and fondled.)
Whereas, I know many hardcore universalists (mainly Ultra-Us) have become universalists precisely because they trusted so hard in the finished work of Christ. 
Personally, I would recommend trusting in Christ personally, not primarily in the work of Christ (finished or otherwise). George MacDonald had some strong things to say about that, too.
But anyway, I think you’re right that they worry people will be led to not accept God’s salvation from sin and so be hopelessly lost from Christ.
Thanks, FirU. Keep us updated!
I’ve had a similar, though less “public” experience than you have Sherman. I began sharing the book “Hope Beyond Hell” with a few selected individuals a couple of years ago, including a copy that for whatever reason never found its way to the pastor until one of the friends I’d shared it with brought up some good points from it in our Sunday morning class. The pastor never discussed it with me personally, even though I’d left him a note inviting him to do precisely that. What this led to was a four week sermon series on Universalism and why it couldn’t possibly be right or true. Normally, this pastor speaks with a lot of wisdom, but this sermon series, particularly the first installment, was some of the worst, most unbelievably blind, inconsistent (and rife with so many logical fallacies, including appeals to emotion, which he accused universalists of doing in the same sermon!) “stuff” I’ve ever heard come out of his mouth. I doubt he even read the book. It was clear from the sermon(s) that his mind was made up.
We’ve stayed at the church, mainly because we’ve been there so long and have so many otherwise good relationships, but we have kept very quiet about our views since.
I lost a lot of respect for our pastor that day (and month) and I have not regained much of it. He’s a great guy and you can tell he loves God, but he is so blinded on this it boggles the mind.
Hi Mel and thanks for sharing. For several months as I was studying scripture concerning UR and Hell, I was openly sharing my research with others whom I respected in the hopes that if I was getting off track that God would use someone to show me the error in my interpretation of scripture or logic. The most common response I got was indifference; most Christians, sadly so, just do not study scripture; and fewer still ever read or study material that is outside of their traditional beliefs.
The second most common response I heard was some expression of fear, for example: “Well, if all are saved, then why should anyone follow Jesus?” or “If all are saved, won’t that negatively effect missions giving?” or “If all are saved, then why evangelize?” or “If you teach that all are saved then won’t people just continue to sin?” or “If allow this discussed openly then it will cause division in the church.”
Scripture says that God does not give us a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power, love, and sound thinking. Yet when the subject of Jesus really being the savior of all humanity comes up, many believers react setting aside love and reason and irrationally responding in fear and even hostility. The Thesselonians responded the same way when Paul presented the Gospel to them. They listened a little while, but quickly rejected his message and started attacking him.
I’ve found few people who respond like the Bereans who were open hearted towards Paul, open minded to new information, and diligent to study scripture to see if what Paul shared was correct. Note that they did not study to see if they could Prove Paul wrong, but to see if what he shared was true. They approached scripture with an open mind, open to seeing if what Paul said was true.
Most believers I’ve shared with are indifferent, satisfied with what they believe, and do not care to study anything challenging or new-to-them. The next most numerous response I’ve received are based in irrational fear and quickly devolve into personal attacks of me. I’ve only found a few who are open minded, will invest the time and effort to diligently study scripture, and seriously consider the possibility that Jesus really is the Savior of all humanity. And usually these are people are under 30. It seems that the older a person gets the less open he is to new-to-him concepts. And most established churches are made up of and especially led by people who’s average age is 50 or 60+, people who are set in their beliefs and unwilling, even afraid, to consider something radically new-to-them.
Also, I’m a Charismatic and Charismatics and Pentecostals value personal experience as a source of revelation. And one of the things I’ve run into is believers who rely more on their feelings than upon scripture. They trust their feelings more than their scholarship in scripture. And when I share with such people verifiable scriptural evidence as to why I’ve changed my beliefs, they get nervous inside and attribute that to me teaching something wrong as opposed to recognizing that it could be irrational fear in their own hearts, afraid to have been wrong for so many years, afraid that without the fear of hell many people will just live like they want to, afraid that…
These people also appeal to the many people who have had NDEs and experienced Hell, blindly accepting the testimonies and interpretations of those experiences presented by the Mary Baxters and others who claim such divine revelation. They fail to consider though that some people actually get saved during their NDE, and others get saved soon after their NDE of “hell”.
My son is currently studying the scriptures that Bill Weise quotes as affirming his interpretation of his vision/experience “23 Minutes in Hell”. And my son has found that over 80% of the scriptures this guy quotes as support for his interpretation of his experience have absolutely nothing to do with punishment in the afterlife, and the other 20% mostly speak of temporal punishment of sin. Weise reads Hell “INTO” all of these scriptures. He uses his vision as a lense through which he interprets scripture, instead of using scripture as a lense through which to interpret his vision.
Well, I’ve ranted enough for now. I suppose I’m just a little ticked today at some of the false accusations and negative responses of people whom I assumed would not act so irrationally and negatively towards me. And I wanted to vent a little. These people are 55+ and almost ignorant concerning scripture, but they’ve declared me a heretic, prideful, and a deceiver, using scripture for my own personal gain - as if coming to believe UR and openly confess such has gotten me anything but trouble. Well, thanks for listening.
Blessings,
Sherman
I totally hear you, Sherman. The typical reactions are a very frustrating experience, to be sure. I’ve encountered all of the ones you’ve mentioned. And you’re absolutely right; way too few believers actually study scriptures. Most are content to be 100% confident in what their pastor tells them, and being a Berean (when it goes against the tide) is generally frowned upon.
Was the protestant reformation for nothing? Sheesh… 
I can’t help feeling this is something like what Paul ran up against when he was trying to convince the Jewish Christians that the Gentiles didn’t need to become Jewish to be Christian. He was most persecuted by Christian Jews.
Sonia
As an agnostic I find the reply of ‘why should we bother to spread the good news or be good ourselves etc… if everyone will be saved anyway’ astonishing. To me it reveals the hearts of these people, their true nature so to speak, which is - we are only doing this Christianity thing for our own benefit - if there is no palpable difference between us and those non-christians over there then why are we bothering? What do they think the ‘especially of believers’ passage means?. What happened to God’s laws being written on the heart i.e. a true repentance and a turning away from former sin? If one is only being righteous because one feels one has to be then surely that is a form of trying to be righteous under the external law - where’s the difference to the Pharisees?
That attitude speaks more of bending the knee in subjugation and fear of reprisal than in love of God don’t you think?
Jeff, that’s a very good point; thanks for pointing it out. “If all are ultimately saved by Grace then why be good” reveals that the primary or only reason the person is good is to be saved. Thus deep down inside to them salvation is dependant upon their goodness, not upon Grace.
And the statement “If all are ultimately saved by Grace then why evangelize”, reveals that without the threat of Hell for others, then a person wouldn’t have any motivation to share to share the gospel. Of course, the reality is that most Christians do not share the traditional “gospel” anyhow. Less than 10% have shared the gospel in the last year with any unbeliever. So this is really a non-issue, and most people who raise this question are not active in sharing the traditional bad news.
Maybe the reason so few Christians share their faith is because deep down inside they realize that the traditional message is not “Good News” at all, but is really “Bad News” for most of humanity. “God loves you, but if you do not put your faith in Him and repent from sin He will burn you forever in Hell; it’s a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God!” The traditional message is actually very tyranical. It sounds like something Saddam Hussein might say; “If you’re loyal to me I’ll reward you hansomely, but if not, well it’s torture for you; in my book that’s what you really deserve anyhow!” “You’re wicked and evil to the core, nothing good about you at all, worthless, a worm only fit for endless torture! But you know, God is so good that He loves you anyhow, you worthless maggot.”
It’s no wonder why most (90%+) Christians rarely, if ever, share the traditional so-called “good news”!
I agree–excellent point, Jeff, and nice reply, Sherman.
In my circles, the question would be “If all are ultimately saved, why bother accepting Christ?” My church emphasises salvation by grace, with good works resulting from the work of the Spirit in the believer’s life.
The implication of the question is that the person sees salvation as merely a pass to get out of hell. If everyone’s going to get out anyway, why dedicate your life to following Christ? It’s as if the sheep say, “Since we know all the flock is going to end up safe in the fold, so we may as well run off and lose ourselves in the hills.” (In the mean time, we’ll fall off cilffs or into pits, be attacked by predators, be cold and thirsty and hungry …)
The mistake is that, while I’m saying ‘everyone will eventually be saved’, I’m not saying that anyone will just get out automatically, after they ‘do their time.’ As I believe (and some here may disagree), everyone must come to genuine repentance–both from their evil deeds, and from the pride of thinking they can achieve the righteousness of God by their own works (as opposed to the work of God)–and to faith in God.
To say that all will be saved from their sin is a prophecy that looks ahead to their repentance and inclusion in the body and life of Christ. The saved join with God in Christ to carry out the ministry of reconciliation. We become shepherds with Christ, laboring alongside to bring the lost home.
Sonia
The church I was raised in almost exclusively equated salvation with making into heaven. We would not even say that we are now “saved”. Instead we’d say that we are in a “safe condition”. Salvation was not about having a relationship with God, participating in the kingdom of God, or any current benefits. It was all about the “sweet bye-and-bye”, some day seeing Jesus and not going to Hell. There was very little, if any, present reality of relationship with God. And salvation, eventually making it into heaven, was very much dependant upon how one actually lived. I don’t know how many times when discussing salvation with those who believe in “faith only” I’d bring up the scripture that says “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling!”
Of course, when I came to have faith in Christ for salvation for myself, trusting in His sacrifice to cover all my sins, past, present, and future, I came to be excluded from the church of my youth. This exclusion from them was trying but not nearly as trying as the exclusion I’ve experienced through coming to have faith in the sacrifice of Christ for everyone, not just myself. In the first change of faith I moved from a very small exclusive group of believers and was included in a very large exclusive group of believers. But now I’ve moved from a very large “exclusive” group to a very very small “inclusive” group; and everyone in both the small and large “exclusive” groups now reject me to some degree. And the small “inclusive” group I now identify with is so small that there is not a fellowship of them in my area that I know of.
It’s very encouraging reading through this forum, although sad at times to hear people’s accounts of rejection particularly by people who are meant to Christ-like in loving their neighbours and even their enemies.
Anyway, like firedup2000, I’m facing the prospect of “coming out” about my belief in EU. I am weighing up when and how to do it. Like Sonia implied, it’s hard to bottle up the joy
About 10 years ago I came across universalism, but unfortunately at that time didn’t have the resources to defend it and hence felt I had to “denounce” it to be able to continue in my Evangelical Presbyterian church. Fortunately, about 6 months ago, Luke invited me to watch “Collision” (tentmaker.org/articles/unive … erose.html) which then pointed me to Talbott and Parry’s books.
Now that’s I’ve read the those two books, I want everyone around me to read them too! Some have (e.g. Luke, my brother, my dad & my wife) and I have one or two friends at church, although highly skeptical (which is good), are at least willing to read one book. I think that my best approach will be to ask the leadership to read “The Evangelical Universalist” and see what happens…
Has anyone had any luck with this approach?
There’s been some talk of home churches, which is interesting as I’ve been the host for one for over a year now. This is going to make it particularly tricky if I get excommunicated! 
Hi Alex,
I discovered biblical universalism while I was an unpaid Assemblies of God (AG) minister, and I needed to waive my right to teach universalism or resign from the AG. I searched around for charismatic/Pentecostal churches that would work with me, and I found a regional leader in Vineyard USA who would work with me as long as I wouldn’t get militant about my universalistic eschatology. I also found a couple of other churches with similar values that would work with me.
Perhaps you could confidentially talk to other pastors in your area to see if any would tolerate biblical universalism, before you expose yourself to the possibility of excommunication. I’ll keep you in prayer.