How long does Universalism suggest souls will be in Hell before they are purified? Those who have died thousands of years ago have already suffered that long, right? From what I have been able to find so far, Universalism says that relative to how much others suffer, people in Hell suffer in proportion to their sins or crimes, but how about relative to the sins or crimes themselves? Does anyone address that?
For example, does anyone suggest that people were released from Hell before Jesus came? Or that after the necessary purification, waiting in Hell isn’t all that bad?
There are a few universalists I’ve read who teach that the length spent in purgative hell is proportionate to the crime (Stonehouse comes to mind from the late 1700s–he concentrated a lot on trying to assign literal and precise amounts of years to each of the various phrases like “into the eon” and “into the eons of the eons”), but most universalists I’ve read and met don’t believe that. Certainly I don’t.
I believe like most of us that if there is post-mortem punishment (and some of us don’t believe that at all although I do, as do probably the majority here) the length is determined by a refusal to repent. So long as someone holds impenitently to a sin, the punishment continues; the quality and character of the punishment would be connected to the sin, but the continuance of the punishment is connected to the impenitence.
If a soul is impenitent into the eons of the eons, the punishment continues, too, in parallel. That’s a worst case scenario, and usually the scriptures talk about the worst-case scenario, which is prudently wise, but that doesn’t mean everyone is a worst-case scenario. A stern talking-to or the equivalent thereof, exposing the truth of the sin, will be enough for most people I expect, and they’ll be able to move along from there.
So after the general resurrection we may have people who have hardly any need to be further salted by the Holy Spirit, having been cooperating so far as they could, and easily repenting of their sins once their psycho-physical conditions are healed, even having followed Christ without realizing Who He is (e.g. the sheep in the judgment of Matt 25); and other people who were slain as impenitent rebels against Christ who have repented of their sins and are using their example to lead other people to Christ now (like the kings of the earth in Rev 21); and then others still outside the fellowship of Christ who still impenitently fondle their various sins even though they are being evangelized by the Church in cooperation with the Holy Spirit exhorting them to repent and slake their thirst and wash and eat and be healed in Christ (as in Rev 22). The unquenchable fire salts everyone, but so long as there is willful resistance instead of willful cooperation, there’s also friction, so to speak.
Insofar as those who died thousands of years ago, we’re talking about a God Whose actions transcend any temporal framework, and Who descends to evangelize the stubborn. So long as they’re still stubborn they’re still in punishment, whether as spirits or in the general resurrection to come; if not, they’re no longer in punishment, whether as spirits or in the general resurrection to come. I also expect that time doesn’t run experientially the same way in disembodied nature as in embodied nature: someone who died thousands of years ago by our reckoning might only seem to be punished (so far as that’s even necessary for impenitence) for a brief time before the resurrection, others who died only a short time before the resurrection might seem to have been punished for thousands of years from their own perspectives. This idea seems to me to reconcile the various indications in scripture about soul sleep on one hand and conscious spiritual experience (before the general resurrection) on the other hand. I fully expect in many cases the consciousness is tunneled (so to speak) straight on to the general resurrection of the body so that while on earth we may have to spend a lifetime apart from our loved ones, once dead we are all resurrected simultaneously – except where there are special purposes involved, such as helping evangelize, administrate and arbitrate during the millennium rule (if a literal millennial rule theory turns out to be true). But there could be special punitive purposes as well as special honor purposes, too.
The New Testament scriptures seem to indicate that waiting in hades is equivalent to “paradise” for those in the right relationship with God already, and equivalent to Gehenna for those who are not. I don’t know if there is any testimony to a transfer between those states before the coming and descent of Christ – whereas I can recall at least a little testimony pointing otherwise (such as the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus) – but I strongly suspect that’s a way of portraying a time-transcendent action: it is not at one time that the omnipresent Son descends into hades, but at all times, although those being impenitent about their sins (as for example Dives in the parable) might not recognize the presence of God (as the consuming fire for example) and/or might still struggle to oppose it (as Dives does, for example). If that’s so, then the question isn’t about waiting for Christ to arrive and evangelize, because He’s doing that already, salting with the Holy Spirit, but about when the impenitent sinner will recognize and face up to and cooperate with what’s happening. No one can cross the gulf but God, but where God is accepted, even in hades, there is where paradise is until the resurrection. No one can enter the New Jerusalem, even after the general resurrection, unless their names are written in the Lamb’s book of life; but the gates are never closed and the river of life (a Biblical figure for the Son) goes out with the Bride (the Church) and the Holy Spirit to provide for entry to those who are willing to walk in the light of Christ, wash clean and drink from the freely given water of life, and eat of the “log” of life (a figure of the cross) Whose leaves are for the healing of the nations. There is no residency or even entry into the New Jerusalem without acceptance of the living water and the cross, but neither is it withheld except to those who refuse to accept.
Some other Christian universalists will have some relatively minor differences of belief or expression about all that. Others of us have more major differences – some of us go for soul sleep for example, others for no post-mortem punishment at all. There is a rather wide range of opinion and belief among us as to how God goes about it, because there are a lot of factors involved, and a lot of scriptural testimony some of it seeming to be at odds. The description I’m giving above is how I try to account in as much of the data as possible. I’m open to improvement and correction; but less detailed explanations, which don’t account for various factors and testimonies, are proportionately less likely to convince me.
The short answer would be, it depends. Depends on the person, their own theology, speculations, etc.
My opinion: we don’t know. We don’t know whether people who die “go directly to hell” or go to sleep or really what happens to them at all at that moment. I personally follow Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (more or less), and so I don’t see that as a picture of the immediate afterlife (or the afterlife at all).
I don’t see hell so much as punishment (though doubtless it functions that way in the eyes of the unrepentant person experiencing it). I see it as treatment. Rx. The punishment is integral since it must be unpleasant – at least as unpleasant as required for the subject to understand the pain s/he has put others through – but punishment per se’ isn’t the point. The point is to heal them from their inequities and teach them to be good and obedient children of our Father, and loving, pleasant, safe and kind brothers and sisters to all their fellow human beings. As to how long it takes, I’m going to go all ambiguous on you and say that it simply takes as long as it takes. When the person is cured, it’s over.
God is the judge and the healer. Maybe He’s even the ‘hell’ as our God is a consuming fire. When all the bad stuff is “burned” away, the ‘hell’ turns heavenly. That’s my take on it. You can’t assign a list with proscribed ‘punishments’ . . . three years for theft (you stole three times, so that’s nine); Fifty years for rape and torture . . . so on. I’m pretty sure our Father isn’t like that. He will do the precise right thing for those in His care; both perp and victim (are we are ALL of us BOTH those people).
You see, Jesus already died for the sins of the world, so the unrepentant sinner isn’t paying for anything. He’s being re-formed, which as followers of Jesus, is our job in this age – to submit to being conformed into the image of Christ.
But of course there are others who have an entirely different view. The main thing that holds us together is the common belief (or at the very least the common hope) that all will in God’s time be reconciled to Him through His Son, Jesus.
To Jason Pratt and Cindy Skillman – Jason first: I appreciate your very detailed response. I have just finished a book, “Eternal Hell: Heaven’s Loving Purpose” (self published; maybe 50 copies sold) and am still struggling to figure out if I am a Universalist. Your response makes me think I might be, because you acknowledge that resistance might continue into the eons of eons. I had thought I wasn’t because I had read that universalists think Hell will become empty but Rev 20:10 and 14:11 tell me otherwise. Especially in light of Psalm 109:4-5, which says “for my love they are my adversaries”. How is it possible for a soul to do that even for a moment? If that is possible, what is going to change to keep souls from doing that forever? But your acknowledgment seems a compromise between the two positions, a feat I had not thought possible.
As to my original question, about Hell’s “torments” being proportionate to the crime, your solution involving the relativity of time makes too much sense to refute. I would like to fairly characterize “the position” of Universalism, but as you say it’s all over the map, unlike Protestant tradition which may not answer much but at least its consistent about what Hell is. There is only variety in attempts to rationalize it.
Should I say Universalists have many opinions about whether punishment is proportionate to the crime? Or that they are generally agreed that it is but have many opinions about how it is possible? Or that many do not address the question?
I have just posted a Youtube review of my book (youtu.be/NXno1wYAyAM) which said this about Universalism: “…the Universalist view, that all escape Hell but only after possibly ‘thousands of years’ of horribly disproportionate punishment.”
But after posting it I thought maybe I ought to do a more thorough job of documenting that characterization. It was based on Universalist writings I found several years ago that suggested “thousands of years” might pass in Hell to accomplish “purification”. I recently tried to confirm that on the internet and found these:
tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html The candid historian Robertson gives an accurate statement of Origen’s eschatology, … "All punishment, he holds, is merely corrective and remedial, being ordained in order that all creatures may be restored to their original perfection. … although thousands of years may elapse before their suffering shall have wrought its due effect on them. …
archive.org/stream/anexamination … g_djvu.txt
170 AN EXAMINATION Of UNIVERSALISM. … there is
something very repulsive in the thought of going into a state
of nonentity, perhaps for thousands of years, before heavenly
bliss can be, enjoyed…(I think this sentence is meant to characterize Universalism.)
My book is summarized at createspace.com/Preview/1125690 I will be glad to send you a copy, electronic or paper, if you will review it.
To Cindy Skillman: What a wonderful name, Cindy! I love it so much that I gave it to my daughter! Not that I’m a Moslem or anything, but when I was looking it up in the baby book it said it means “belonging to the moon”. What is that contraption in your picture?
Your answer encourages me that my one phrase characterization in my video is fair: the word “possibly” reflects the divergence of views. As to the answer I find in the Bible, this is from the latest draft of my book jacket:
“What I find in Scripture is a place of proportionate punishment, where the most notorious offender suffers only “twice” what he has done to others. (Rev 18:3-6. See also Isa 40:2, 61:7, Jer 16:18, 17:18, Zec 9:12, Pr 24:12, Mt 16:27, 2Ti 4:14, Gal 6:7.) When that “debt” has been “paid”, Hell releases him. (Mat 18:34.) But Hell will never be empty because some will hate God’s love forever. (Rev 20:10, 14:11, Ps 109:4-5.)”
I also find evidence in Luke 6:38 that what “fire” is a metaphor of is having done to you precisely what you have done to others. See also Deut 19:16-20.
Jason, please can you explain how you interpret this, as a UR. Do you believe that all people’s names are in the book of life (except perhaps any who will always resist God), or that names are added as people repent (“wash clean”, etc) and ultimately all names will be in the book, or some other explanation?
Many of us here believe it is theoretically possible for people to continue to reject God for eons, but I think it highly unlikely that anyone will. If God is able to change hearts of stone into hearts of flesh, open blind eyes and deaf ears, winnow out our chaff, and destroy our impurities in the refiner’s fire – surely it won’t take Him eons to do so! Then again, I don’t really know, and I don’t think we’re given enough info in Scripture to be definitive about how things will play out. The best we can talk about are possibilities and opinions.
In regards to your original question, I believe God’s kolasis is directed primarily at the impurities within us which are the root of our “crimes” – not necessarily at the individual criminal act. The fire burns until everything which can be consumed is gone.
1 Cor 3:12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
I think it may be a mistake to assume that in the afterlife we will experience time as linear, one way and only going at one speed. Particularly any attempt to connect “now” as we experience it with “now” for the dead may be equivalent to asking “how many fish make one banana?”
I’m inclined to believe in soul sleep, so actually nobody has been judged yet, judgment will occur at the second ressurection in front of the white throne.
Concerning the duration of punishment I had the followings thoughts, I came to the conclusion that “eternal” primarily means “timeless” and that punishment in some sense is indeed eternal, this does not mean that it is endless though.
Imagine this, Hitler will be punished for his deeds, lets say even only for the 6 million Jews that died in the Shoa and he must watch the suffering of each murdered Jew for one hour, this would make almost 700 years.
If somebody like Hitler had to watch this in chronological order, he might in fact enjoy it, and if he were not totally ruthless and shocked at first, he might very well become dull over the years.
But if Hitler would experience the suffering he caused not in chronological order, not within time; but all at once in one moment and understand all the harm he did and all the connections between the victims and also his people, this experience might feel like an eternity - a boundless moment without perceived beginning or end - and be more effective than the other, yet it might last only a second measured in time, this punishment would be eternal in the sense that it could not be measured in time in real terms, yet it would not be endless. Maybe the movies “The Crow” and “Ghostrider” inspired me a bit by that thought, maybe you know one of the movies. I think the duration of punishment is not as important as its intensity.
Napoleon e.g. was banished to an remote island for life, to be banished to an remote island is most likely a more bearable punishment than maybe to be tortured for 30 years and then to be released.
I had a rather detailed discussion about this in another thread some years ago; it’s come up again since then in other threads, but I don’t recall where at the moment. I’ll be adding it to my Exegetical Commentary series of course. Eventually. God granting I live long enough. (I’m something like one tenth of one percent done with that. )
The short answer, and I’m away from my materials here at the house so I can’t go into detail, is that between the OT and the NT, the imagery involves people being blotted out of the book who are already written in, and being written into the book when they repent. I don’t recall if the implication of the imagery is that they’re written back in having been their originally from the beginning. Parallel imagery from St. Paul in Rom 11, involving being grafted in and out of the vine, would suggest some people are in the vine to start with and can be grafted out and back in again as God sees fit, and other people are outside the vine to start with but can be grafted in and out again and presumably back in again as God sees fit. However, the vine while related to the concept of the BoL seems to be a bit more particular, namely the promises and kingdom of Israel (the king being the vine == Christ).
There is also a question of how exactly to translate the Greek toward the end of RevJohn 21; I talk about that in my commentary (wherever it is ), with the conclusion after close examination that the grammar and terminology implies an open condition not merely a statement of descriptive fact: it should be rendered “not unless they” those who are currently outside and cannot come in “are written into the book of life”. But that implies they can be written back in after having been blotted out; certainly the surrounding contexts suggest it, too.
As far as I have ever been able to tell, the core distinguishing position of a Christian universalist (whether Protestant or Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) is that Christ persists in acting toward saving all sinners from sin.
By contrast any Arminianist (whether Protestant or RC or EOx) would agree that God acts toward saving all sinner but doesn’t persist at it.
So even though the final result might look the same, with some people never in fact being saved, technically there would be a big difference between someone who holds this but that God keeps on acting toward it anyway (as Rob Bell technically does in his Love Wins book by the way) and someone who holds this but that God doesn’t keep on acting toward it (as C. S. Lewis for example).
Most universalists expect more than that, myself included; but I first came to Christian universalism by adding up the logical implications of trinitarian theism (most of us don’t come to it by that route, but I know two others who did so, including Sonia here on the forum if I recall correctly) and realizing that I ought to thereby expect God to persist at saving whomever He originally intends to save (as Calvinists broadly agree despite their disagreements among themselves otherwise) and that God originally intends to save all sinners (as Arminians broadly agree despite their disagreements among themselves otherwise).
But since Calvs and Arms disagree with one another sharply on those two concepts (Arms against original continuing persistence, Calvs against scope–some Arms do affirm persistence but not original continuing persistence), that meant I wasn’t an Arminian anymore (because now I expected original persistence for everyone) and wasn’t a Calvinist (because now I expected original persistence for everyone).
And I knew what that meant. That meant I was technically a Christian universalist, something I totally did not expect when I started the study.
But at the time I did still expect that even though I should also bet on God and not the sinner, principally speaking, so far as final success went, I believed (and still believe) I couldn’t conclude for certain whether there was a final stalemate or not based only on the metaphysics. Theoretically there might be, and God might reveal what amounts to a final ongoing stalemate in the scriptures.
That was how I resolved apparent scriptural testimony against expecting a final total saving victory at the time, despite already knowing there were some things in the scriptures apparently pointing otherwise (which as I knew the Calvinists actually picked up and used on their side against Arminians: Calvinists do argue on metaphysics and from scriptural testimony for a final total saving victory for everyone God originally intends to save. They just think for various reasons God doesn’t originally intend to save all sinners. This total victory as much of a big selling point for some kind of Calvinism as the scope of God’s original intention is a big selling point for some kind of Arminianism.)
Shortly afterward I started a multi-year project of trying to get a better handle on scriptural testimony, one culmination of which was my Gospel harmonization project; and after several years I was seeing a lot more testimony in favor of an eventual total victory (even in RevJohn), and neutralizing apparent testimony of a non-victory, than I had originally expected.
But anyway: my point is that someone could expect an ongoing stalemate for whatever reasons and still be a Christian universalist technically and categorically compared to being some kind of Arminian (who has to believe God doesn’t keep persisting for at least some people but gives up or is defeated from trying further) or some kind of Calvinist (who has to believe God doesn’t originally persist for everyone). You could even be a convinced instead of hopeful universalist along that route. You could theoretically even go so far as to be a dogmatic universalist (where non-universalists aren’t really Christian yet) along that route.
(I verge pretty close to being a dogmatic Christian universalist myself – while I find more and more warnings especially from Christ against being in effect a non-universalist, I also recall warnings from Christ that we had better not disregard someone else as a Christian even though they aren’t following along with us. In fact that warning was given during an incident where Christ very strongly warns the apostles themselves that their pride is setting them up for Gehenna!–so I take the warning quite seriously not to disregard someone else’s Christianity. Amusingly this leads to a rather mindbending loop on whether those who disregard someone else’s Christianity can still actually be Christians themselves! But the principle suggests I had better cut that loop with charity in favor of someone else’s Christianity.)
Many thanks for your helpful response above (Proportionate to the crime?). I found your drawing of the parallel with the imagery of the vine in Rom 11 particularly valuable.
Regarding the BoL, there’s also this: I was just reading the new appendices in Robin Parry’s Evangelical Universalist and was reminded of something that I think I also read in Thomas Talbott’s The Inescapable Love of God. That is, what if there is only one name in the BoL: Jesus. If you are in Him, your name’s in the book and if you BECOME in Him, your name is in the book. If you fall away from Him, your name’s not there, but if you come back into Him, it’s there. Of all the explanations I’ve heard postulated, this one makes the most sense to me. Jason’s explanations are as likely as these to be true, but I like MINE BETTER.
Response to Jason: I guess I am not a Universalist by the popular characterization that everyone gets out of Hell and Hell is empty. But I could be, by your characterization that I could conclude “categorically” that there is a “final stalemate” - that Hell will never empty – and still be “technically and categorically” a “dogmatic universalist”. But I would be in the ultra minority of Universalists. And I am impressed by your observation that “ages of ages” (Rev 20:10) might still have an end, although I am nervous about that since that would create room for God, and ourselves, to have an end.
Certainly if my only choices are Arminian Protestantism and Universalism, and the judgment were made by which group would not spit on my application to teach their Sunday School class as they chuck it in the circular file, I am a Universalist.
I appreciate your patience in spending the hour or hours it must have taken you to address my question so thoroughly, a question about categories which rests on conclusions which rest on speculations about unknowns.
What you have concluded seems to have perched you on a hill between two categories. I resolved that dilemma by naming a new category: “Potential Purification”. It’s even listed as an option in the Wikipedia article, “The Problem of Hell”. Because of Rev 14:11 and 20:10, I conclude that Hell will never be entirely empty, but it will never be God holding people in, especially since “the lake of fire and brimstone” literally means, in Greek, “the lake of divine purification”.
As for the Calvinist dogma that God is sovereign and cannot fail to secure what He wills, applied to God’s desire that all be saved, perceived as fulfilled by God’s overcoming of a human will after trillions of years of sparring: if after so long God finally just takes over someone’s will and calls that victory, why wouldn’t it have been an even greater victory had God just taken over that human will the very instant it first took its eyes off God? My reflections on the eternity through which God has enabled consciousness to resist Him lead me to marvel that a human is able to turn away from God, good, light, Truth, reason, peace, etc. even for a moment. If it is possible even for a moment, what is to change to make it impossible forever?
As for judging other’s eternal destinies on the basis of intellectual beliefs, I don’t see where God does, although that assumption is a staple of Protestantism. “Faith” is dumbed down to “intellectual belief” despite James 2, which is further dumbed down to a few affirming words in a church service where there is no cost but only honor for saying them. I see so many avenues to Hell from the average life of an American Christian that like the apostles in Luke 18:26 I ask “who then can be saved?” and I take comfort in Jesus’ answer that it is possible with God!
Just look at this damning list of avenues to Hell which hardly any church warns its people about: From the back cover of my book: “But generally Hell hosts those (1) who will not double their talents through relieving the suffering of others, (Mat 25:14-46) (2) who do not weep for the sins of the land, Ezekiel 9 (3) who won’t “shine their light” (Mat 5:13-16) in darkness because darkness hates any light source, (John 3:19-21) and (4) who do not forgive others as they have been forgiven. (Mat 18:21-35, 6:15)”
Fortunately God takes into account our intentions, 1 Cor 4:5, our knowledge, Luke 12:47, and is thus able to compare us with people who have never even heard of a Bible, Romans 2. It really makes sense, if we theorize that God’s purpose in putting us through all these experiences and trials is a Bride which will never again choose to leave God, as God’s first created beings did! In that case, differences in knowledge and difficulties are not a factor, since those differences will not exist after we die.
That Greek phrase isn’t the reason I regard God’s eonian life as endless, nor the eonian life God shares with us. Anyone who acknowledges at least a Fall of man (much moreso a Fall of angels) has to consider whether those who fell were sharing God’s eonian life at the time, however. (I’ve seen theories either way, but I lean in the direction that they did.)
I don’t regard inferences from recognized, accepted and professed characteristics of the Trinity as “speculations about unknowns”, but I have to admit many people do even when they’re nominally trinitarians themselves.
The inferences may be invalid somewhere, or the characteristics may be in error, or not sufficiently included, but the process still wouldn’t be speculations about unknowns per se.
(Similarly, inferences from scriptural data are not speculations about unknowns per se, even if the inferences are invalid, inaccurate as to the data, and/or don’t contain enough data.)
It was only the same hill between (and incorporating) two categories that any Christian universalism stands on: both Calvinistic original persistence and also Arminian total scope.
Soteriology, if it follows at all logically from theology, should be primarily about what God does, not primarily about what those who need saving do. Primarily God acts persistently toward saving all sinners from sin in any Christian universalism, regardless of the variants from there, including whether God succeeds or (for some good reason) allows stalemate.
Still universalistic if God persistently acts in salvation toward all sinners, not giving up.
C. S. Lewis’ version of potential purification, on the other hand, involved God eventually giving up, so it wasn’t any kind of Christian universalism but rather a very generous Arminianism.
In the former God does keep holding people in (so to speak) because He continues acting toward their salvation; in the latter God does not keep holding people in and also stops acting toward their salvation. (Nor does He continue keeping them in existence, though, by the same token. Although Lewis was a little fuzzy about this.)
Because despite its fiery language purgatorial universalism isn’t about God forcibly taking over someone’s will. It’s about God leading and convincing sinners. Those like myself who recognize a high value as well as danger of free will would regard that as the greater victory than poofing them into compliance by acts of power.
Ultra-univeralists on the other hand do regard it as a greater victory for God to save people immediately post-mortem. As Christians they also typically recognize and respect human free will, but they think all sin is based on not knowing enough about reality, combined with physical corruptions, so once God heals and reveals Himself, the soul in its fully free and proper rationality will be able to properly accept the good and can be expected to certainly do so. (There aren’t many Christian ultra-u’s who go the route of God simply comporting people into shape by acts of power.)
I don’t find that anything simply changes it to make rebellion simply impossible forever. The freedom of true love isn’t like that.
Agreed.
Agreed!
Also true, although I have to fairly note that Paul goes both ways in Romans 2: those who have never heard of the Law can still be defended by their conscience in the day of judgment, but they can be convicted by their conscience, too. Gentile as well as Jew has hope, but also has no automatic total excuse.
I’m open to improvement and correction; but less detailed explanations, which don’t account for various factors and testimonies, are proportionately less likely to convince me. 
(I’m something like one tenth of one percent done with that. 
If it comes to that, no one’s current name (except for Jesus) can be found in the BoL anyway – we all get a new name in the New Jerusalem!