The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The most persuasive arguments against universalism

Evangelical Universalism Arguments against Evangelical Universalism
#1

It’s been quite interesting for me lately. Though at one time I constantly was studying and trying to prove universal salvation, but I couldn’t find any peace as to it’s truth (meaning I saw the bad fruit associated with it, i.e. the arrogant attitude and almost obsession people have with it, as well as the universalist church of the 19th century eventually transforming into the pluralistic Unitarian Universalists of today) . Also I found that many if not most were turning to it for reasons I thought “sappy” and “emotional” instead of Scriptural and truthful (that is not to tear anyone down, but the “a good God would never do…” argument never impressed me and really makes me cringe today, since obviously a good God sent a world-wide flood according to Scripture). As someone who strongly believes in the Scriptures, I only have ever wanted the truth, I am convinced that all things were made for God’s glory and everything is to be done so as to exalt and magnify Jesus. Since I come from a Spirit-filled background I have great trust in the Spirit’s ability to guide me into all truth.

Here is the issue though, having walked away from universalism about a year ago, I have not yet been able to convince myself of eternal punishment. The arguments of universalism are too Scriptural, the philosophical cohesiveness is persuasive (espeically when united with the testimony of God’s word: His sovereign will and His unlimited atonement). I’m trying to disprove it, but I can’t! The only thing I can settle on is an uneasy annihilationism (which I still may adopt), but even this fails to take into account the full counsel of God. According to Philippians 2:9-11, it glorifies the Father for all to be saved. Honestly I don’t want to adopt universalism, but I feel trapped by the Scriptural weight of it (I know this sounds silly to some of you).

I’ve never been able to fully recover a belief in an eternal hell, most times I just bury my head in the sand and try to forget the clear statements of God’s Word, or the clear refutation of aionios meaning eternal (Romans 16:25-26, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). The reason why I don’t want to believe it is I fear it is the ultimate delusion, a clever trick to lull people into “peace and security” mindset, also I don’t wish to go against the grain of the majority of Christians throughout history and today. It feels like grave error, yet not a single argument seems to disarm the doctrine (once properly understood), every argument weakly fights and fails to disprove it. Most as laughably naive in their arguments against it, not having understood the great weight behind it, how much it makes sense of everything in Scripture. Predestination, grace, love, judgment, holiness, the eternal purpose of God, even the meaning of the Ekklesia.

The only argument I can think of that disproves the salvation of all men is Hebrews 10:26 which basically says for apostacy, “there remains no more sacrifice for sin” but only a fear of fiery judgment and indignation. Now if there is no more sacrifice for sin left, then how can salvation be accomplished? It would mean the blood of Christ is no longer effective, that there is no more hope for that person and so they are burned up (forever or annihilated). Even this verse seems inconclusive since there is much debate about its meaning (it says that willful sin has no more sacrifice, but we all agree that even sins of the will can be forgiven).

So I guess what I’m asking, in a long roundabout way, is what are the most persuasive arguments against universalism? How does someone argue against it from Scripture (without ignorantly assuming their translations and traditions are right)? I know since I am posing this question to those who believe in UR that we’re all in the same boat. But think with me for a moment, no matter how much comfort or secure you feel in this doctrine, if it is wrong then it is indeed the most deceptive and dare-I-say wicked teaching out there, because it gives false hope and represents lies as truth. If there is any way to disprove it then we should and not hesitate to do so, because souls and the name of God Almighty are on the line.

#2

I’m not aware of any ‘persuasive’ arguments out there against EU - though I guess it depends on the individual, what he/she finds to be persuasive.

#3

Hello awakeningaletheia

Sorry, but this is is simply not true. If Universalism is wrong, and unbelievers are indeed damned to eternal hell with no hope of escape, then a) scripture lies; and b) God is a heartless monster, and hence not God in any meaningful sense - hence we are all lost eternally, for there is no God. The ‘default position’ of ECT is evil and immoral, and not worth believing in. Any ‘souls’ who believe it are, in effect, damned by their own belief.

Cheers

Johnny

#4

Hello Johnny. Your comment displays exactly the type of thinking that drives me away from universalism. I did not say it was eternal hell or nothing, I’m open to all three views. However, I am no so arrogant to say to God, “You can do this or you can do that, but if you do something I think is wrong, then I am the moral one and you’re not”. God is God, you are man, as Paul would say, “Who are you O man to answer back to God?” I don’t mean to be insulting to you Johnny, but the comment above shows a rebellion to God’s word and truth. Even if universalism is true, that is a wrong attitude to have, and it is the typical attitude I run into when I read universalist’s writings, a sad and prideful humanism, man-centered in theology. Its wrong, very very wrong. You are in effect separating yourself from brothers and sisters in Christ when you take such an approach. Many believe in ETC because they think it is clearly revealed in the Word, and if it is revealed in the Word then we should not judge God (oh who could dare to be so bold?) but submit to His truth. I used to have the same spirit as the above comment, but I have repented of such a thing. All thing were made for Christ’s sake, not ours, we should meditate on that more often.

#5

Reawakening:

You said in an earlier post that you believed in EU for one reason: that scripture teaches it, from Genesis to Revelation.

Do you still hold to that?

#6

Hi AA (shorthand for a tricky name, hope you’ll forgive me :smiley: )

Don’t worry, I’m not insulted at all. I’m sorry if I came across as disrespectful or arrogant. I hear what you’re saying. But I don’t see that my stance is a “rebellion to God’s word and truth”. In fact I believe I am being true to God’s word. And if Universalism is true, how can I be in rebellion against God’s word?

My belief is that if Universalism is false, then Christianity as we know it is false. There is no God, Jesus is not the Son of God, and the Bible is a work of fiction. Hence there is no God to condemn me for my ‘wrong beliefs’, no God for me not to be respectful towards. I realise this might sound heretical to a non-Universalist, but it is what I believe.

You might say I might be wrong! And of course I am not so arrogant as to say I might not be. But the bottom line for me is that if I am wrong - if God is really a proponent of ECT - then I do not wish to know him, let alone worship him, and if he will send me to hell for being that way then to hell I will gladly go.

Does that explain things a bit better?

All the best

Johnny

#7

Hello awakeningaletheia.

Let me give you another perspective.

Like folks from rethinkinghell.com I believe that the eternity of the torment mentionned by Jesus can be traced back to Old Testament imageries meaning “utterly destroyed”.

I believe that the univesalist verses found in the NT mean that the offer is seriously meant for everyone truly and sincerely desiring God.

But if individuals like Hitler, Pol Pot, Fred Phelps and Cristopher Hitchen reject God (and thereby love and goodness too) they will be utterly destroyed and return to the dust of the earth.

I sum up my view here lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/201 … ebe-unten/ and I think they nicely fit the whole Biblical testimony, especially all the OT verses stating that man is not immortal by his nature.

Otherwise, I don’t think that Johny was being arrogant by saying that a God eternally torturing billions of His creatures would be a monster.

Having myself suffered several times under a severe depression, I can tell you that just surviving during the four next **hours ** in such a state is a true ordeal.
Now if I try to imagine what it is to endure that during the next 4 days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, and millions of years, I cannot describe the being responsible for that in another way than as a moral monster.

#8

I recommend “All You Want to Know About Hell” by Steve Gregg. Steve has done an incredible amount of research. He has read much literature by proponents of each of the three views, providing their best arguments. He then gives the best rebuttals he could find of each view.

Steve doesn’t push any of the views. He sees Eternal Torment as the view with the least scriptural support, and I think he personally rejects that view. But he is undecided as to whether annihilationism is correct or universal reconciliation.

If you go to this Amazon site, you can freely look inside the book, see the table of contents, and also read some of the pages.

amazon.ca/All-Want-Know-About-Hell/dp/1401678300

#9

Hi AA,

The “most persuasive arguments against universalism”, for me, is 1, the strong usage of the term “saved” for those who accept Christ by faith, and 2, the strong usage of the term “suffering” for those that are not saved. I do not hold the same view as many universalists here, in that I believe that there will be a distinction between the saved and unsaved, it just will not result in “eternal conscious punishment” inside a fiery pit of hell. I believe ‘hell’ is figurative language to say that we will not be happy with the Judgment God has for you if you willfully reject Christ. You will “forever” recognize that you betrayed your God and Father. Does that mean that God will not forgive such ones, at least partially, according to a fitting judgment? No. I think such ones will be reconciled to God, but they will not be given the same closeness to God that is rewarded to the faithful. That is my take on the subject. I’m not traditional anything (regarding denomination); which places me between a rock and a hard place. My comfort is in that God sees past all of our divisions and pettiness. :smiley:

Steve

P.S. I would want to love God with or without eternal punishment. It makes no difference to my wanting to be close to my Father. I will one day understand the things that now trouble me, I feel confident about that.

#10

Yes Johnny it is a bit hard to catch, AA will do, though feel free to call me Daniel (I haven’t been commenting on here regularly for some time, so that name [AA] is one I never use anymore). I understand completely where you are coming from Johnny, its where I once was as well, which is my reason for calling attention to it. Such an attitude is easy to have when someone believes in UR, because every other concept of God and understanding of Scripture seems inferior. I believe this happens when our view of life revolves around humanity and what happens to them. Many come to UR because they can’t conceive of a God who does what we consider “evil”. However, if we discover that the end of all being is not the happiness of man (humanism), but is instead the glory of God (true Christianity), then we find that God does as He wills. Its very hard for humans to accept that it’s not all about themselves, but instead God’s glory and praise. The only way universalism should be adopted is in the view that it glorifies God (in which case Philippians 2 says that it does).

Yet if God were to eternally damn some and save others, then I would not feel any such liberty to call Him “evil”. He is under no obligation to save us, and as I see it to “die in our sins” means to die as enemies of God, dying in rebellion to goodness and life, given over to such evil as to be in need of quarantine (hell) in the universe. It would be evil of God not to rid His creation of wickedness and by extention those who cling to their wickedness. Of course I have just given an argument used by many ECTers, the issue is I don’t see that view in Scripture, I either see as lotharson explains above, annihilation of all the wicked or the purification and reconciliation of the sinner. Yet whatever view is Scripture’s we should adopt that one, one which it teaches and which is solely for God’s glory.

That is why I said what you have written is in rebellions to God’s word and truth, not because it might not teach UR (it may), but because the Word is about God’s will and glory being supreme, and the your view is the antithesis of this. Yours is: if mankind is eternally unhappy (ECT and AN) then God is not worthy of worship, the Word’s view is in every circumstance we are to say “Bless the Lord, oh my soul and all that is within me!”

P.S. Also DaveB when and on what thread did I say that?

#11

Re: Hi, I’m Josh
Postby awakeningaletheia » Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:24 pm

Hey Josh, and welcome. I’m a universalist for one reason, because its Scriptural. Check it out, its in the bible from Genesis to Revelation :wink:

P.S. I thought you music was quite good
awakeningaletheia

P

#12

awakeningaletheia, I find the most cogent arguments against universalism to be:

  1. Free-will: God will for force himself upon anyone. He gives everyone the freedom to reject Him definitively and irrevocably. The free-will defense of hell is well presented in C. S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce and the chapter on hell in The Problem of Pain.

  2. The majority reading of Scripture: while folks here on this forum understandably claim that they are utterly convinced that universalism is the teaching of Scripture, the fact remains that the large majority of Christians have rejected universalism and affirmed some version of eternal punishment, based on their reading of the Bible. Perhaps one might argue that the majority have done so because that is how they have been taught by their churches. But today there are a number of Bible scholars out there who are not Christians. They are just academics who have chosen the field of scripture study. When they read the Bible, do they find that it clearly and plainly “teaches” universalism? I doubt it.

But may I suggest that it is not necessary for you to be utterly convinced of universalism. What I think is absolutely crucial is faith in the unconditional, infinite, and absolute love of God as revealed and enacted in Jesus Christ, risen and glorified. If you can believe this, then you can put your trust completely in God, knowing that he wills your good, the good of everyone you love, and the good of humanity and all creation.

Like you I have been disturbed by willingness of some to move away from orthodox Christianity after they have become convinced of universal salvation. I find it curious, because the only reason I know to be a universalist is because of the God who is self-revealed as eternal love in the communion of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Apart from this revelation, all talk about universal salvation is just speculation and private judgment.

Hence I would like to try to persuade you first of the unconditional and absolute love of God as revealed in his Son by the Spirit. If you can believe this, then I suggest that at least a hopeful universalism is eminently reasonable. For an Eastern Orthodox presentation of hopeful universalism, see Kallistos Ware, “Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All?”

#13

“the fact remains that the large majority of Christians have rejected universalism and affirmed some version of eternal punishment, based on their reading of the Bible.”

I don’t think the large majority have ever been exposed to the cogent scriptural arguments for EU.

And which Orthodoxy is it you say is being rejected? There is more than one.

And AA - have you changed from your earlier declaration, that I quoted above? Do you not find scriptural support now, whereas you did before?

#14

The answer is yes and no. Much of what I once saw as support for universalism may actually support another form of eschatology (such as postmillennialism). If this is true then many prooftexts are really speaking about something totally different than what most universalists think. Even many of the verses quoted in support of UR are taken out of context and can be interpreted in a non-UR way. However, there still remain many Scriptural passages that seem to support it, and biblical concepts. For instance: the purpose of God is to sum up all things in Christ, how does eternal hell fit in with that?

So why do you ask Dave?

#15

To understand, that’s all. You once took a strong stand for, and now you don’t, and I was interested as to why. You are not alone in this, of course, I myself have been all over the map on this and a myriad other subjects.
Blessings to you in your search.

#16

Daniel,

The arguments Akimel and Steve have suggested are significant. BUT if I knew of any convincing arguments against universalism, I wouldn’t believe in universal reconciliation. I was an annihilationist before I came to universalism and an infernalist before that. I can go back if I see convincing reasons to do so. I want the truth as Father has revealed it in His Word, Jesus Christ and in the scriptures. The thing is, that I’m here BECAUSE the evidence points toward universalism. So I can’t help in convincing you otherwise. I believe I would be lying.

Love, Cindy

#17

This is from the Epistle to the Hebrews - the sacrifice for sin being spoken of is the Temple cultus, the blood of sacrificial animals. The passage does not speak of Christ’s death. It is telling Jewish Christians that the Temple cultus is not an adequate remedy for sin and wrath (it is a mere shadowing of Christ). So the wilful sin spoken of here is still putting your trust in the Temple Sacrifices while professing to follow Christ (the sacrifices are not effective for reconciliation and you end up in a last state worst than the first by the self deceit involved in serving two masters).

Well that’s my take on the context.

All the best

Dick :slight_smile:

#18

While I don’t see ECT as within the character of God, and much can be said about the character of God that directly affects our belief one way or another, I haven’t decided completely if UR is valid, though I hope it to be true. The only other option, by default, is annhiliation. Ecclesiates says, “For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.” It may be that the judgement of God is non-existence for the wicked, providing that resurrection to life is not available to them. Yet I believe that in order for God to be just, He must rightly judge the righteous and the wicked. Athiests believe that there is no God and therefore when they are dead there is no more consciousness, you’re just dead. They may get their wish, but not before they know there is a God and receive whatever reward is due them from God at the Last Judgement. I cannot believe in a God who would give a pass without the unbelieving, unrepentent sinner first being subjected to the judgment of God before annhiliation. For a fair Judge will give them their exact due before their final demise, however long that will be, but certainly not forever, for that would not be just.

I’m also quite terrified that even those that profess Christ as true believers might experience some form of purification process akin to going through a fiery process of under the Holiness of God’s Presence in order to bring complete salvation to those who have trusted Christ. Though our sins might not be accounted to our account, the effects of sin to our soul might be such that change must take place to present us a a pure Bride for the Groom that bought us. I’m not sure if we are going to be scot free of our past before we are fit for our future.

But I am also open to a merciful God who will forgive the unbeliever in due time as well, even if not given the chance to do so in the short span of life here, if God deems that soul to be salvagable and redeemable to be fit for the kingdom of heaven. Maybe some will not be salvagable, maybe there will be Hitlers who’s souls have gone past the point of remedy, I don’t know. But I strongly suspect that that the unsalvagable ones are ***far less ***in number than the billions of souls, indeed the majority of the whole earth’s population, whom mainstream Christianity surmises will spent eternity in the wastes of hell.

Otherwise, where is the victory??? Where is God glorifed if in not in His creation, which includes all humanity??!! To whom is God’s victory shown to, if not to the beings he created? Would He really be satified that the bulk of the human race was a failed venture? If He is glorified AS A HUMAN, in the Person of Jesus Christ, who is supposedly the Savior of the World, how could He not weep eternally, rather than rejoice in His supposed accomplishments (???), if most of His humans whom He created are perished??!! Where is the glory in that? There is no victory if the Devil has outgained God.

Of course, in our human minds, minds given to us by God to be rationally intelligent about the matter, we would like to believe in Total Victory. That would be the Greatest Accompishment of God to save the entire human race. That is where we as proponents of UR place our hope in…a God that is able to do more than we can think or say can do. And it is the kind of God whom we believe will give all grace as far as He is able to give it right down to the last holdout, if necessary, so that God may be ALL IN ALL!!!

#19

I had never previously encountered this interpretation, Dick. I found it quite fascinating and went to the passage to see whether this interpretation made sense in the context. But I don’t see that it does.

#20

You are right Paiadion - absolutely :laughing: My post was actually a rushed and unfocussed attempt at trying to say something rather different. So I’ll say what I meant to say and say it tentatively :slight_smile:

Hebrews does focus on the abolition of Temple sacrifice by Christ’s sacrifice - it’s the overarching theme.

Sacrifice begins reconciliation between God and man but also between man and man.

In this passage fire consumes adversaries - so it appears to be also about violence breaking out between people because they do not take to heart Christ’s Cross that has abolished the old sacrificial system.

Sorry for lack of clarity (done too much posting on cherems of late :slight_smile: ).