Is Universalism A Heresy?
I tell my students that universalism is the least heretical of all heresies. But is it even a heresy? It certainly is in some Christian churches. A problem with calling it a heresy is that at least Gregory of Nyssa, an Orthodox Church father, was a universalist. And in recent times, orthodox Christians such as Karl Barth and Juergen Moltmann have been universalists. David Bentley Hart is one. I know of others who would not want to be named here who are evangelical universalists.
I make a distinction between two types of universalism among people who identify as Christians. The first is belief that all will be saved BECAUSE of the ministry of Jesus Christ in his life, death and resurrection. The second is belief that God is too nice to send anyone to hell. The second is what I believe liberal theologians believe even if they would not say it in those words.
The gap between the two types is grace as supernatural and grace as simply “given” without any supernatural intervention by God—in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The second way treats salvation as somehow automatic; the first way treats salvation as by no means automatic because many, if not all, deserve damnation.
The liberal view seems to imply that even without Jesus Christ, all people would be saved (whatever “saved” means, exactly). That is heresy, in my humble opinion. For conservative, orthodox Christian universalists, people can only be saved through Jesus Christ and his cross.
That is a huge difference and one that makes the first one perhaps heterodox but not heretical enough to count a person who believes it “outside” of authentic, “real Christianity.” To believe that all would be saved even without the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is unchristian.
*Note: If you choose to comment, make sure your comment is relatively brief (no more than 100 words), on topic, addressed to me, civil and respectful (not hostile or argumentative), and devoid of pictures or links.*
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In