![\"universalism\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/385\/2017\/04\/universalism.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nWhen I was in high school I took a debate class because I was overly opinionated and loved to argue. One day the teacher flipped the tables on me after picking a debate topic: he made us switch sides and debate the opposite position than what we had signed up to do.<\/p>\n
The reason for the exercise, he explained, was that the best way to truly understand our own position is to dig deep into an alternative position. This also helps us understand that those with an alternative position aren\u2019t just ignorant fools, but probably have some really good points.<\/p>\n
Over the course of time I have written extensively on the issue of hell<\/a>. While I do not believe in the dominant evangelical\u00a0position on hell (eternal conscious torment), it is also true that I do not currently<\/em>\u00a0affirm the position of Christian Universalism. Instead, I have maintained my position on annihilationism, which is the belief that those who refuse to be reconciled to God die a second death, and it\u2019s as if they never existed in the first place.<\/p>\n However, this does not mean that Christian Universalism has a weak case. In a tribute to my 10th grade debate teacher, allow me to make my best case for Christian Universalism being true\u2013 and why my own position might<\/em> be wrong.<\/p>\n 1. Many of the earliest Christians held the position of Christian Universalism.<\/strong><\/p>\n Now, just because many early Christians held the position of universalism<\/a> doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s true. However, it does point to the fact that this is not some off-the-wall idea that only later, liberal Christians came up with. The fact that it was not unpopular with the patristics and in pre-Constantinian Christianity<\/a>, shows that there is a historical basis for this position that goes back to the earliest days of Christianity.<\/p>\n Again, this is not proof the position is true, but certainly it\u2019s is proof the concept is not at odds with historic Christianity.<\/p>\n 2. The Bible teaches that universal salvation is what God wants.<\/strong><\/p>\n There\u2019s the famous question from Rob Bell\u2019s book, Love Wins: Does God get what God wants<\/em>?<\/p>\n Unarguably, the Bible says that God is \u201cnot willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.\u201d (2 Peter 3:9) We also see in 1 Timothy 2:4 that God \u201cdesires all people to be saved.\u201d Thus, we know that God wants everyone who has ever lived to be saved in the end.<\/p>\n If God is truly all-powerful, one\u00a0can make a compelling argument that God can and does get what he wants in the end.<\/p>\n 3. Jesus seemed to hint at universal salvation.<\/strong><\/p>\n When Jesus predicted his death he said that he was about to drive the \u201cruler of this world out\u201d (Satan) and that as a result, he would \u201cdraw all people to himself.\u201d (John 12:32).<\/p>\n I think the visual contained in this passage is interesting: Jesus refers to Satan and says that his death will cast him out and deprive him of power. He then refers to humanity and says he will \u201c\u1f11\u03bb\u03ba\u1f7b\u03c3\u03c9\u201d them to himself, which literally means to drag off<\/em>. So, Jesus seemed to argue that he was about to defeat evil\u00a0and \u201cdrag off\u201d all of humanity\u2013 free from the clutches of Satan.<\/p>\n Furthermore, in John 3 Jesus claims he did not come to condemn the world but to \u201csave the world<\/em>.\u201d Notice he doesn\u2019t say save the \u201celect\u201d or save a few, but claims he is on a mission to save the\u00a0entire world.\u00a0<\/em>If universalism is untrue, one could argue Jesus failed in his mission and didn\u2019t save the whole world at all.<\/p>\n Also, as I pointed out the other day<\/a>, the Bible teaches that Jesus paid for the sins of the \u201cwhole world\u201d (1 John 2:2), and that he paid the ransom for \u201call\u201d people (1 Timothy 2:3-6). If universalism is untrue, this means that Jesus paid the price of redemption for everyone, but that some are still endlessly punished for sins that were already paid for<\/em>. This sounds like a case of \u201cdouble jeopardy\u201d to me and doesn\u2019t quite make sense.<\/p>\n 4. Biblical passages repeatedly use the word \u201call.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The key word in the above passages, and so many others, is\u00a0all.<\/em> We repeatedly see it used\u2013 and if universal salvation is untrue, Jesus and the biblical authors seem to be in error by saying \u201call\u201d people. We\u2019ve already seen that God desires \u201call\u201d to be saved and that Jesus claimed he was going to drag off \u201call\u201d people to himself. There are still others that use this language:<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:22 says that \u201call<\/em>\u201d will be made alive in Christ.<\/p>\n Colossians 1:19-20 says that through the sacrifice of Jesus, \u201call<\/em>\u201d things on earth and in heaven have been reconciled back to him.<\/p>\n In these cases, the match always goes to the universalists, because their position takes the text at face value, allowing \u201call\u201d to mean literally \u201call.\u201d Those who do not hold to the universalist position are forced to either argue that \u201call\u201d\u00a0really<\/em> means \u201cjust some\u201d or to divert attention back to verses where the stronger case goes to positions other than universalism.<\/p>\n Point being: the strongest and most logical case is that \u201call\u201d actually means \u201call.\u201d<\/p>\n 5. Universalism makes more sense of hell & God\u2019s loving character.<\/strong><\/p>\n I think most people reject universalism before hearing the full\u00a0case because they are aware that the Bible does in fact, quite clearly describe some sort of consequences in the afterlife for refusing to be reconciled to God in this life. They mistakenly believe that being a Christian universalist means that one rejects the concept of hell or some sort of divine punishment. This in fact, is totally untrue.<\/p>\n One of the advantages of universalism is that it can affirm passages that seem to speak about punishment in the afterlife, and it can affirm them in a way that better reflects the love and character of God. In\u00a0universalism one can argue compellingly\u00a0that the intent and outcome of God\u2019s discipline is restoration of relationship<\/em>, instead of endless punishment or permanent separation. It\u2019s a difference of restorative justice instead of simply punitive justice\u2013 and that difference better reflects the character of God which is loving and always<\/em> inviting reconciliation.<\/p>\n The three major positions on hell would look like this:<\/p>\n ETC\u00a0position<\/strong>: hells is torment and it goes on forever. It is an endless punishment<\/em>.<\/p>\n Annihilationist position<\/strong>: hell is a place where the soul goes and dies. It is a\u00a0time limited, but permanent punishment<\/em>.<\/p>\n Universalist<\/strong>: hell has elements of appropriate punishment and correction, with the goal of producing a change of heart and repentance. It is a restorative punishment that lasts as long as needed,\u00a0<\/em>whether that\u2019s one day or a million years. This position is most consistent with a loving parent who corrects and disciplines, but does so not out of vengeance\u2013 but to\u00a0to encourage a change of heart and behavior.<\/p>\n The Bible also describes heaven as a place where the gates are \u201cnever shut\u201d which is also a compelling argument that perhaps, the number in heaven will constantly be growing in eternity as people repent and are reconciled to God.<\/p>\n Thus, in the universalist position we see not an angry God torturing people endlessly in hell with no hope, or who gives up and executes everyone, but a loving God who continues to guide, correct, invite repentance and restoration, and who will continue loving and inviting for billions of years if necessary, until all finally do come to repentance and are saved.<\/p>\n And the Bible once again hints that this will be how the story will end: it says that \u201cEvery knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.\u201d If we know that\u2019s the will of God, the desire of God, and the goal of God, would it not make sense that ultimately God convinces everyone to confess Jesus as Lord?<\/p>\n \u2026<\/p>\n Christian universalism is not the same thing as an \u201canything goes\u201d religion where we can all believe what we want, do what we want, and all end up in the same place at the same time.<\/p>\n Instead, it is a belief in the power of Jesus to atone for the sins of the entire world. It is a belief that Jesus truly has reconciled all things and all people to himself.\u00a0It\u2019s a belief that God\u2019s loving nature is so endless, that even those who stubbornly refuse to be reconciled in this life will still find themselves pursued by God\u2019s love and invited to have a change of heart,\u00a0until every last one of them turns back to God\u2013 and hell is empty.<\/p>\n The case for universalism is not weak or some liberal nonsense, but actually fits God\u2019s character and the biblical narrative quite convincingly.<\/p>\n Universalism is a solidly Christian belief, with solid reasons and solid biblical support.<\/p>\n True, I\u2019m not a universalist, but now that I\u2019ve argued the case for them, I\u2019m rethinking that.<\/p>\n Thanks, Mr. Finnegan.<\/p>\n Be sure to check out his new blog, right here<\/a>, and follow on Facebook<\/a>:<\/p>\n
\nDr. Benjamin L. Corey<\/a> is a public theologian and cultural anthropologist who is a two-time graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary with graduate degrees in the fields of Theology and International Culture, and holds a doctorate in Intercultural Studies from Fuller Theological Seminary.\u00a0He is also the author of the new book, Unafraid: Moving Beyond Fear-Based Faith, which is available wherever good books\u00a0are sold. www.Unafraid-book.com.\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n