Is universalism biblical?

SpareOom (New Messages)
12

I don’t think I agree, though I do agree that it’s well and truly left the subject of Emeth; as a result, I’ve moved these messages into their own topic.

I don’t believe this is an accurate statement of Lewis’ belief. He wrote Mere Christianity, in which he undertook to explain to non-believers the common beliefs of all Christians, which he described as the hallway. But even in that book, he encouraged believers (and those who would become believers) to choose a room (that is, a particular denomination and church), as that’s where all the real fellowship and growth are. He did not hold, nor did he recommend to others, a belief limited to the greatest common denominator among all Christianity. And he is on record as discussing with a Roman Catholic what he perceived as the heresies of that church.

Agreed, and I’m not attempting particularly to argue for Calvinism. I posted because my “conversion” to Calvinism has changed my understanding of the Emeth situation, and in order for my post to (hopefully) make sense, I thought it would be helpful to articulate some of the distinctive Calvinist beliefs that were relevant to the discussion. In the ensuing discussion of universalism, I’m obviously responding from a Calvinist perspective, but I’m not especially intending to defend Calvinism so much as to show that universalism is unbiblical.

It’s unlikely that Mike will change my mind, or I his. Other readers, however, may be influenced in one direction or the other. As to the second point, if the Holy Spirit can use Simon & Garfunkel’s song “Mrs. Robinson” to save someone, I wouldn’t rule out anything!

In short, I believe subjects of theology (including this one) are appropriate to discuss here. It’s important, of course, that all such discussion be conducted in a spirit of charity; I believe I’ve done so (and would appreciate hearing if anyone disagrees with this), and I expect other participants to do so as well. Mike’s points deserve a more thorough response then I’ve yet had time to compose, though.

13

Well, I’m back home on the Oregon coast. What a change from the balmy tropics! Driving rain, cold weather, blustery winds.

While responding to Dan Brown’s posts on salvation as it relates to Calvinism and Arminianism, I made a mistake: I mentioned a book or two written by Gerry Beauchemin and I gave the web link hopebeyondhell.com. That is WRONG, and is something completely different! The correct web link is hopebeyondhell.net. Yet that site is confusing and very slow.

I think the best page for the more-scholarly tome called Hope Beyond Hell is https://hopeforallfellowship.com/learn/ . This page contains links to the free PDF and for ordering the physical book on Amazon. Confusingly, it does not contain a link to the simpler tome of his, called Hope For All. That page is https://hopeforallfellowship.com/order/ .

I think this is the most serious challenge to Christianity: the serious and disastrous misinterpretation of the salvation story that began with that utter disaster of a Christian, Augustine. He basically single-handedly sabotaged the gospel, turning it from Good News into a Horror Story. There is a lot of very instructional material on the views of the early church before Augustine at www.tentmaker.org .

I urge absolutely ALL my fellow SpareOomers to give a serious look at this material. The book, Hope Beyond Hell, contains numerous references to other great resources. God is not going to give up on his creation and sentence the majority to unending torment. That is a slanderous misinterpretation of who he is and what he is like.

I am convinced that Lewis did the best he could with the information available to him, and came up with the Emeth narrative, and allowed even for Susan to eventually get to the true Narnia. I believe, if he had this information, he would have seen the truth of it almost immediately. And while Dan says neither he nor I will change each others’ minds, I am not giving up on you, Dan! I believe that if you read this with an open mind, you will fall on your knees in amazement at what has been kept from you about God and the salvation he offers all men in this life, and how he will not abandon even those who he must further “refine by fire” after this life (something Lewis was very open to considering).

Let me end with one example. During a lengthy and wonderful discussion of the Greek word aionian, all-too-often translated “eternal” when it clearly does not mean that at all — in fact, it virtually NEVER means that, although it is often used in the N.T. in reference to the future age, when the “kingdom of heaven” is in full effect and God has restored all things — the scripture passage Matthew 25:46 is discussed. The much clearer and better translation, which takes into account that aionian when used of God refers to that which “comes forth” from the eternal God, should read “And these will go away into the chastisement of God, but the righteous into the life of God.” “Chastisement of God” rather than “eternal chastisement”; “Life of God” as opposed to “eternal life.”

I say once again, this is the most important and necessary correction for the church, which was horribly tarnished, along with the character of the Creator, since Augustine. And it has mostly just gotten worse since then, with some exceptions.

Michael, for the Love of God

Lord High Heretic of SpareOom

14

One doesn’t have to be a Calvinist to know universalism is a grievous error. That was recognized from the beginning of the church’s history. Too unbiblical to waste even a moment arguing about it.

As for C.S. Lewis… he was certainly aware of this heresy and never espoused it. And if he were still alive, he’d be too busy with constructive endeavors, to invest any energy in this fruitless subject.

Sorry, Michael, but it appears you’ve earned the title you proudly bear.

The answer to the question posed by this topic is a simple and virtually universal, “no.”

I have better things to do with my time than pursue discredited, unbiblical doctrines. So I’m no longer following this particular topic.

15

I have read - I have - this book, and can recommend it. It is
full of Scripture references and corrections on faulty
translations of certain words. Since reading it, and learning to
hear from God, rather than just trusting theologians ( from
Augustine on) , I have deeper peace than in all my life before,
and a deeper joy in the Lord. This comes out in a deeper love for
my fellow humans.

  Jesus said, My Peace I give to you. I believe the peace I have

now is His peace, and it is founded on Scripture, not on
theologians’ interpretations.

  Blessings to all, and a joyful and hopeful Christmas, as we wait

for His Coming.

Carolyn in OZ.

16

Dear Rob, but your second sentence is completely false! Augustine, centuries after Christ, is pretty much the beginning of the "eternal torment for most” doctrine. A few early fathers, like Irenaeus, were annihilists (those not saved cease to exist), but the preaching of ETERNAL TORTURE simply was not common, not even in the epistles of the N.T., let alone the vast majority of the teachings we know about for the first several centuries. So, what you are calling “unbiblical” and “a waste” to even look into, is actually the key to a healthy and robust Christian and Christ-like spirituality. The truth will set you — the whole world — free. God will not fail. Love never fails. No one here, neither I nor Carolyn (great to hear from you again, Carolyn!) is saying that everyone just goes straight to glory without passing through a time of God’s refining fire. But God’s will for them to come to salvation is not thwarted by their managing to escape such refining in this earthly realm. Our God is the god of all realms. You can’t even go to hell to escape him! (And by hell, I mean as the words hades and gehenna are used in the bible.)

To all, I urge. Put aside your fear of what you may learn, that your life-long learning of a small god may be overthrown as the utter magnitude of God’s love for all his creation overwhelms and amazes you. Don’t be afraid. Look…

Michael

Proudly the Lord High Heretic of this realm, if being a heretic is to see clearly just how large and powerful a love God has for us

17

You’ve said this a couple of times now, but even aside from whatever the Bible itself may say on the subject, this site would appear to put the lie to this claim:

Unless its quotes are simply fabricated, it cites 15 of the church fathers who appear to have taught eternal torment pretty specifically. Here are a few examples:

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD):

how much more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God. for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him.

Clement of Rome (c. 150 AD):

But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory to their God saying, ‘There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart!’

Tatian (c. 160 AD):

We who are now easily susceptible to death, will afterwards receive immortality with either enjoyment or with pain.

Irenaeus (c. 189 AD):

The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . [I]t is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,’ they will be damned forever

All these (except perhaps Irenaeus, depending on when Augustine was writing) predate Augustine by minimally 200 years, thus Augustine cannot be said to have originated the concept of eternal torment (and “for most” is not, and never has been, the issue; the issue is that some will be eternally saved, while others will be eternally condemned, the relative proportions of each group being irrelevant so long as each is non-zero). They may all be wrong, but they certainly aren’t following Augustine.

This article:

…paints a decidedly different picture, but contains a whopper of a historical error:

Had our old English Bibles been translated directly out of the Greek instead of Latin, it’s very probable that the doctrine of eternal torment would never have found its way into our modern Bibles and theology at all.

They were. I can’t speak to the English translations before the KJV, but it was most certainly translated from the Greek. Latin manuscripts were available as well, of course, but they weren’t translating from them, rather from the Greek manuscripts available at the time. The magnitude of this error casts serious doubt on the entire article.

Edit: and that error isn’t alone. The article makes much of

St. Gregory of Nyssa, who lived from 335 to 395 AD.

…and says of him that:

This is a man who attended the first ever council of the Church in Nicaea.

Whether they mean that he attended the first ever church council, or the first such council at Nicaea, they’re wrong either way. The first ever church council is recounted in Acts 15, and took place in Jerusalem around 50 AD. The Council of Nicaea took place in 325 AD, 10 years before Gregory was born.

The credited author of that piece is “Brazen Church”–and while they’re certainly brazen, they don’t show much concern for historical accuracy.

1 Like
18

Thanks for responding, Dan. The medium.com link you provided is actually a VERY good article, and I encourage all to read it. But you (I assume inadvertently) mischaracterized the portion you quoted. The article clearly states that for a thousand years the Latin vulgate was pretty much the only known translation (from Latin) up and until the KJV. That was indeed translated from the Greek, but the translators did not stray from the tendency of the vulgate to identify “aionian” with eternal whenever punishment was in view.

From the same medium.com article: “Out of the six theological schools in Tertullian’s day and beyond (170–430 A.D.), the only school that taught the doctrine of eternal torment or hell to its students was the Latin (Roman) school in Carthage, Africa. Four of the other five taught that, through the death and resurrection of Christ, all people would be saved through restorative judgment and reconciliation in a plan of Ages.” Aionian being “ages.”

Similarly, from the tentmaker.org article (link provided below): Previous to A.D. 200 three different opinions were held among Christians–endless punishment, annihilation, and universal salvation; but, so far as the literature of the times shows, the subject was never one of controversy, and the last-named doctrine prevailed most, if the assertions of it in literature are any test of its acceptance by the people. For a hundred and fifty years, A.D. 250 to 400, though Origen and his heresies on many points are frequently attacked and condemned, there is scarcely a whisper on record against his Universalism. On the other hand, to be called an Origenist was a high honor, from 260 to 290. A.D. 300 on, the doctrine of endless punishment began to be more explicitly stated, notably by Arnobius and Lactantius. And thenceforward to 370, while some of the fathers taught endless punishment, and others annihilation, the doctrine of most is not stated. One fact, however, is conspicuous: though all kinds of heresy were attacked, Universalism was not considered sufficiently heretical to entitle it to censure.

The “Cold Case Christianity” site strikes me as rather simplistic. No discussion of the meaning of aionian that I saw, and so it just quotes the father’s as though they said and meant “eternal” and “everlasting” when a more nuanced exploration will show that it is not so. It’s like citing Bible verses in English as though that proves “everlasting torment.” It is ignoring the question of whether their words should be translated into English as “everlasting”! For example, you would think the quote of Irenaeus by the Cold Case article would be conclusive, BUT IRENAEUS WAS A STAUNCH TEACHER OF ANNIHILATION! I don’t have the time to do this study for you.

The whole point of the books I have referenced is that they prove from the Bible itself that such an interpretation is virtually impossible! So I really am reluctant to try to persuade on this topic by simply relying on the early church, since so much of their writings has either been destroyed, misquoted by opponents, or lied about by historians. The books by Beauchemin rely on the bible to interpret the bible.

Nevertheless, the tentmaker.org I talked about has a wealth of information regarding the early fathers. Here is a couple of paragraphs from the very long and well-documented link from that site (https://www.tentmaker.org/books/DoctrineOfRetribution.html#AT) on the development of the doctrine of Christian Retribution, with a discussion of the Greek word often translated “everlasting” in the KJV and others:

*******Quote

The first Christians, it will be seen, said in their creeds, “I believe in the æonian life;” later, they modified the phrase “æonian life,” to “the life of the coming æon,” showing that the phrases are equivalent. But not a word of endless punishment. “The life of the age to come” was the first Christian creed, and later, Origen himself declares his belief in æonian punishment, and in æonian life beyond. How, then, could æonian punishment have been regarded as endless?

The differences of opinion that existed among the early Christians are easily accounted for, when we remember that they had been Jews or Heathens, who had brought from their previous religious associations all sorts of ideas, and were disposed to retain them and reconcile them with their new religion. Faith in Christ, and the acceptance of his teachings, could not at once eradicate the old opinions, which, in some cases, remained long, and caused honest Christians to differ from each other. As will be shown, while the Sibylline Oracles predisposed some of the fathers of Universalism, Philo gave others a tendency to the doctrine of annihilation, and Enoch to endless punishment.

*******End quote

It is very telling that the Emperor Justinian, directed Mennas, the Patriarch of Constantinople, to call a local council in the year 544 to condemn errors of Origen, especially the doctrine of ultimate universal salvation. In doing so, Mennas decided he could not make a convincing argument by using the word aionios alone, and uses the modifier ateleutetos, so that his language reads like: "The Holy Church of Christ teaches an endless aionian life to the righteous and endless punishment to the wicked.” He gets rid of the word ionios completely when speaking of punishment, because it weakens his case.

For those of you who wish a few more salient quotes, rather than read the long tentmaker article yourself, I will provide a few more examples. The first is about Methodius, bishop of Tyre (A.D. 293).

*******Quote

His writings, like so many of the works of the early fathers, have been lost, but Epiphanius and Photius have preserved extracts from his work on the resurrection. He says: “God, for this cause, pronounced him (man) mortal, and clothed him with mortality, that man might not be an undying evil, in order that by the dissolution of the body, sin might be destroyed root and branch from beneath, that there might not be left even the smallest particle of root, from which new shoots of sin might break forth.” Again, “Christ was crucified that he might be adored by all created things equally, for ‘unto him every knee shall bow,’” etc. Again: “The Scriptures usually call ‘destruction’ the turning to the better at some future time.” Again: “The world shall be set on fire in order to purification and renewal.”

*******End quote

Then there is Theodore of Mopsuestia (early 400s A.D.)

*******Quote

“The wicked who have committed evil the whole period of their lives shall be punished till they learn that, by continuing in sin, they only continue in misery. And when, by this means, they shall have been brought to fear God, and to regard him with good will, they shall obtain the enjoyment of his grace. For he never would have said, ‘until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing,’ unless we can be released from suffering after having suffered adequately for sin; nor would he have said, ‘he shall be beaten with many stripes,’ and again, ‘he shall be beaten with few stripes,’ unless the punishment to be endured for sin will have an end.”

*******End quote

It is important to know that while some kind of ultimate universal salvation was common among the fathers, the reasons for it were not consistent. When Origen, Theodore, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Gregory of Nyssa (and others) were condemn (anathematized) after the Augustinian revolution (infection?), most of these fathers’ writing were destroyed. And inestimable loss.

Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, one of the great Cappadocian Fathers (who were mostly universalists) accepted by Catholicism, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, is one whose writings were not so thoroughly destroyed. The tentmaker article states:

*******Quote

Gregory was devoted to the memory of Origen as his spiritual godfather, and teacher, as were his saintly brother and sister. He has well been called “the flower of orthodoxy.” He declared that Christ “frees mankind from their wickedness, healing the very inventor of wickedness.” He asks: "What is then the scope of St. Paul’s argument in this place? That the nature of evil shall one day be wholly exterminated, and divine, immortal goodness embrace within itself all intelligent natures; so that of all who were made by God, not one shall be exiled from his kingdom; when all the alloy of evil that like a corrupt matter is mingled in things, shall be dissolved, and consumed in the furnace of purifying fire, and everything that had its origin from God shall be restored to its pristine state of purity." "This is the end of our hope, that nothing shall be left contrary to the good, but that the divine life, penetrating all things, shall absolutely destroy death from existing things, sin having been previously destroyed…

"For it is evident that God will in truth be ‘in all’ when there shall be no evil in existence, when every created being is at harmony with itself, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; when every creature shall have been made one body. Now the body of Christ, as I have often said, is the whole of humanity.”

*******End quote

The medium.com article you linked to, Dan, also mentions the importance of Gregory, and quotes him thusly:

*******Quote

Wherefore, that at the same time liberty of free-will should be left to nature and yet the evil be purged away, the wisdom of God discovered this plan; to suffer man to do what he would, that having tasted the evil which he desired, and learning by experience for what wretchedness he had bartered away the blessings he had, he might of his own will hasten back with desire to the first blessedness …either being purged in this life through prayer and discipline, or after his departure hence through the furnace of cleansing fire.

*******End quote

On the off chance that ANY of you SpareOomers are still with me, here, from the tentmaker article, are citations regarding two more fathers who are important in this regard.

*******Quote

Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, (died, A.D. 368), is said by Jerome to have translated nearly 40,000 lines of Origen. On Luke xv: 4, he says: “This one sheep (lost) is man, and by one man the entire race is to be understood; the ninety and nine are the heavenly angels… and by us (mankind) who are all one, the number of the heavenly church is to be filled up. And therefore it is that every creature awaits the revelation of the sons of God.” On Psalm. lxix: 32,33: “Even the abode of hell is to praise God.” Also, "‘As thou hast given him power over all flesh in order that he should give eternal life to all that thou hast given him,’ … so the Father gave all things, and the Son accepted all things, … and honored by the Father was to honor the Father, and to employ the power received in giving eternity of life to all flesh.

********End quote

Finally, closer to the time of Augustine:

*******Quote

John Cassian, A.D. 390-440. This celebrated man was educated in the monastery in Bethlehem, and was the founder of two monasteries in Marseilles. He wrote much, and drew the fire of Augustine, whose doctrines he strenuously assailed. Neander declares of him, that his views of the divine love extended to all men, "which wills the salvation of all, and refers everything to this; even subordinating the punishment of the wicked to this simple end.

*******End quote

But again, to Dan and everyone: I am not staking my view on the opinions of the admittedly varying opinions of the early fathers. On the other hand, it may be helpful to know that the claim that the early church was simply devoted to endless and eternal punishment of non-believers IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

I pray that the Spirit of God will guide you into all truth. To the extent I may of help toward that end, I am your willing servant.

Michael

Lord High Heretic of SpareOom and lowly denizen of the central Oregon coast

19

It directly addresses (and conclusively refutes) your claim that belief in eternal torment originated with Augustine, a claim that is also contradicted by your citation from tentmaker.org.

Did I? I quoted, directly from that article:

Had our old English Bibles been translated directly out of the Greek instead of Latin,

That necessarily includes an assertion that our “old English Bibles”[1] were not “translated directly out of the Greek instead of Latin.” And that assertion is simply (and demonstrably) false, as is their assertion that Gregory of Nyssa attended the Council of Nicaea, which took place ten years before he was born (unless they instead meant the Council of Jerusalem, which took place nearly 300 years before he was born–in neither case is there any possibility of their assertion being correct). Such obvious (and easily-refutable) historical errors render the entire piece suspect at best.

You made the first reference to the early church, in claiming that eternal torment was Augustine’s invention. That claim is demonstrably incorrect; the view was explicitly taught at least 200 years earlier, as your own link demonstrates. Whether it was a majority or a minority view isn’t particularly relevant to your claim.

As to the question about the proper translation of aionian, a position that requires that virtually every translator of the text, into any language, over the past 2000 years, has got it wrong, is suspect at best.

  1. Which translations they mean by this aren’t specified; I can only assume they refer to the KJV due to its near-universal use among English-speaking Christians for over 300 years. If they instead mean the Tyndale Bible, which predated the KJV by nearly 100 years, and was the first translation into something we’d recognize as English, they’re still wrong, as that was also translated from the Greek and Hebrew. ↩︎

20

I did not say it FIRST began with Augustine, but that it primarily became predominant with him. If you read the post you are replying to, you will see numerous quotes that show that eternal damnation, while a minority view, existed in the early church. I’m replying quickly (so much going on in my life!) so sorry if that escaped your notice. You seem to be willing to ignore the elephant in the room to pick at the gnat on the countertop.

To those whose minds are not closed, I encourage you to read my entire post and follow up some of the links…not so much on the early church, which is more subject to debate, but rather the links to interpreting scripture by means of scripture.

21

Just coming with my two cents worth. Try CS Lewis “The Great Divorce”. A viable theory is that universal salvation is available to all, but some will not don the wedding garment provided by the bridegroom. In other words they refuse the offer of salvation for whatever reason for example Hitler might refuse when he found that Jews are welcome in the kingdom. Lewis has an example of this in the Black Dwarves who refuse to see the banquet set before them as they are so busy fighting over the garbage which is all they can see. God, by his own rules cannot force us to be saved, but his generosity and grace offers salvation to all. One thing is very clear to me Christ died for all, not just for those who believe in him. St Paul rated faith a long way behind love, those who feed the hungry and clothe the naked, help the prisoners are far more advanced on the road to salvation than those who sit smugly bastioned behind their faith, in other words the pharisees.

22

Really?

(emphasis added)

If you mis-spoke, fine; it happens to all of us, but I can hardly be responsible for your failure to say what you mean. If we’re agreed that belief in eternal torment was present in the first- and second-century church, we need not discuss the point further.

The point, however, is not insignificant. It it were the case that there was no recorded belief in eternal torment before Augustine wrote The City of God in 410 AD, then I’d agree that defenders of that position would be in a harder place. The question does really come down to the teaching of scripture, of course, not the beliefs of the early church (to the extent they can be ascertained), but nonetheless early beliefs are relevant to show how they understood scripture.

23

Mike, I’m focusing on this question because I believe it’s foundational, and also because I haven’t had time to compose a thorough response to all your points. You seem to be viewing God’s salvation as resulting in some way from an obligation on his part to his creation, though as yet you’ve refused to say exactly what you think God owes his creation, and on what scriptural basis, though you don’t hesitate to put words in my mouth. And if you think there’s obligation involved, we have a fundamental disconnect that discussion of, e.g., 2 Peter 3:9 or 1 Timothy 2:4 won’t address.

God’s obligation

Though to this point you’ve falsely attributed to me words I haven’t written, you have accurately surmised my position–my answer to the question I posed to you is that God owes his creation exactly nothing. Not even an electronic sausage. I say this, first, because “owes” necessarily indicates an external, superior authority to impose the obligation. I hope we can agree that there is no authority external to God that is superior to him. Secondly, I say this because he himself says this[1]. Your crack that this can only be “if God has no morals” falls flat–God is, by definition, good; he is not bound by your, my, or anyone else’s sense of “morals”. Anything he gives his creation is a gracious gift, not something he owes it.

God is not obligated to love any of his creation, though he does. Having loved some, he is not obligated to love all, though again he does. Having loved all, he is not obligated to love them all in the same way or to the same extent, and both his express statements[2] and biblical history[3] demonstrate that he does not in fact do this. And the metaphor of Christ as the bridegroom supports this as well–would we call a man who loved all women in the same way, and to the same degree, a good husband?

How does God love all his creation? Well, he gives us air to breathe:

Food, water, other necessities of life, and physical comforts are perhaps the most obvious examples[4]. He’s put his law in our hearts, so that we have a pretty good sense of right and wrong even without the Bible (though we can suppress that if we work hard enough, as western culture seems to be doing). He restrains sin, protecting us from the full extent of man’s wickedness. This isn’t exhaustive, of course, but I think it gets the idea across.

God’s sovereignty

I turn next to the point of God’s sovereignty, because understanding this will be critical to making sense of the rest of my position. Quite simply, God is sovereign over everything that happens, from the greatest to the least. See Psalm 33:11[5], Eph. 1:11[6]. As R.C. Sproul was fond of saying, “there are no stray molecules in the universe.”

Yes, this position (at least expressed this absolutely) is a minority view among Christians, even if it isn’t entirely unique to thoroughgoing Calvinists. I’m convinced, however, that it’s thoroughly Biblical.

God’s morality

God is the source of morality. In addition to writing his law on our hearts (which is a large part of Lewis’s argument for at least theism in Mere Christianity ), he’s also laid it out in the Bible, most clearly, albeit in summary, in the Ten Commandments.

The “conflict”

It’s obvious that there is sin in the world. If God ordains all that happens, this must mean that he ordains those sinful acts. But this isn’t simply an inference; it’s the express statement of scripture. See Genesis 50:19-21[7], Isaiah 10:5-11[8], Acts 2:23[9]. In this sense God can be said to have two wills which aren’t consistent with each other. Reformed theologians speak of the distinction between between God’s “decree” and his “command”; I don’t find that phrasing very helpful because the two terms sound synonymous. I instead prefer the phrasing of “God’s moral will” and “God’s sovereign will,” as I think it makes the distinction clearer. But the upshot, however phrased, is that God desires and commands his creatures to behave in a certain way (his moral will), and at the same time sovereignly ordains that, in some cases, they will not behave in that way (his sovereign will).

The question of salvation

So with that as background, let’s look at some of those passages (which Mike hasn’t quite gotten around to citing) that “clearly teach” universal salvation. Since he hasn’t bothered to cite them, I can only speculate, but two good candidates would be 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4. Here’s 2 Peter 3:8-10:

8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

The desire “that all should reach repentance” is certainly part of God’s moral will[10]. But is it his sovereign will? It would certainly seem to make Christ’s warning in Luke 12:4-5[11] moot.

As an alternative view, the “any” and “all” in verse 9 could be taken (again, in a more distinctly Calvinist view) to refer to God’s elect. Under that view, God is delaying his arrival in judgment until the full number of those he has chosen have come to faith and repentance.

Here’s 1 Timothy 2:1-4:

1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The same two possible interpretations above could be applied here, and there’s also a third possibility. The “all people” in verse 1 is clarified in verse 2 (later in the same sentence; the verse numbers of course didn’t exist until 1551) to mean all kinds of people, specifically kings and others in high places (despite the persecution they were visiting on the church at the time). It isn’t difficult to imagine that when Paul uses the same phrase in the next sentence, he means the same thing.

The justice of eternal punishment

You ask how a loving God could eternally punish some of his people. I’ve previously pointed out that love isn’t God’s only, or even primary, attribute. Also, love does not preclude just punishment. And what is the just punishment for rebellion against an infinite God? Because that’s what we are. R.C. Sproul described sin as “cosmic treason”; Lewis says that “Fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs improvement: he is a rebel who must lay down his arms.” The just punishment for an infinite offense would itself be infinite.

  1. See, e.g., Job 41:11 (“Who has first given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine.”), Romans 11:35 (same) ↩︎

  2. Romans 9:13, previously cited; Mal. 1:2-3 (same); pretty much the whole book of Hosea ↩︎

  3. To cite just a few examples, God’s choice of Abram/Abraham, his choice of Isaac above Ishmael, his choice to make Israel his people in a special way not shared by the rest of the nations. ↩︎

  4. See, e.g., Matthew 5:44-45, Acts 17:25. ↩︎

  5. 10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing;
    he frustrates the plans of the peoples.
    11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever,
    the plans of his heart to all generations. ↩︎

  6. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will , (emphasis added) ↩︎

  7. 19 But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? 20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. 21 So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones.” Thus he comforted them and spoke kindly to them. ↩︎

  8. 5 Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger;
    the staff in their hands is my fury!
    6 Against a godless nation I send him,
    and against the people of my wrath I command him,
    to take spoil and seize plunder,
    and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
    7 But he does not so intend,
    and his heart does not so think;
    but it is in his heart to destroy,
    and to cut off nations not a few;
    8 for he says:
    “Are not my commanders all kings?
    9 Is not Calno like Carchemish?
    Is not Hamath like Arpad?
    Is not Samaria like Damascus?
    10 As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols,
    whose carved images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria,
    11 shall I not do to Jerusalem and her idols
    as I have done to Samaria and her images?” ↩︎

  9. this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. ↩︎

  10. Acts 17:30-31: "30The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” ↩︎

  11. 4I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. 5But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!
    Casting into hell here is clearly distinct from simple death, so the understanding of “hell = hades = the grave” doesn’t explain this passage–under that understanding, “those who kill the body” would “cast into hell,” but we’re clearly told that they don’t and can’t. ↩︎

24

Dan, the focus on what God “owes” his creation is not a focus of mine, and is misplaced in any case. Virtually all of scripture that talks about God not being “obligated” to do this or that are not at all in the same context of the very many places in scripture that speak of God’s promise to ultimately redeem all mankind. I find it similarly silly that you spent so much effort to parse my words about Augustine being the beginning of the primacy of eternal and everlasting punishment in the church. Well, he WAS! I didn’t mean to imply that no one had ever had that thought ever before, but simply that it was not largely accepted, whereas the idea that God would ultimately redeem all of his creation - all souls, eventually, by his refining fire - WAS the predominant view. Surely this is obvious at this point.

I do most definitely disagree with you when you say that while God is love, he is not primarily love. Yes, he is primarily love, and in the end his love will conquer all, and he will be all in all, and all creation will be subject to him. And it says such things all throughout scripture. It’s only “not clear” when these scriptures are subjected to the interpretive filter of certain systematic theologies. These filters also generate the need for speculating on different kinds of God’s will, whereas it is not a problem for me! God’s will WILL BE accomplished, ultimately! (The role of God as a bridegroom speaks narrowly of his special relationship to the church in this earthly realm, to whom he has given the spirit, and whom he will put in places of honor in the kingdom to come; it does not relate to who is ultimately saved in the end.)

THE MAIN POINT is that any kind of robust study of words in the original languages as they are used in all of scripture simply makes it CLEAR AS HELL (pardon the pun) that aionios simply should NOT EVER be translated as “everlasting” in virtually all cases. And that “unquenchable” fire is a fire that no one can put out EXCEPT God himself, when it’s refining purpose is complete.

And Dan, when you say:

The desire “that all should reach repentance” is certainly part of God’s moral will[10]. But is it his sovereign will? It would certainly seem to make Christ’s warning in Luke 12:4-5[11] moot.

It simply shows that you are either not paying attention, or have no ability to comprehend what I have been saying. **Verse 5 ends with "**Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.” How can you even possibly think this is some kind of challenge to my thinking on this subject??? Really, I am at a loss. Are you even paying attention, or reading at all with comprehension? Do you really think that the words “throw you into hell” undo me? If so, then you really need to read some of the fathers I quoted and the books I have linked to. Plus, it simply begs the question! Hell is not eternal punishment without end! It is the refining fire of God to purge sin and rebellion from those who are subjected to it. Really, Dan, I thought that was, er, obvious as hell…

25

I agree with almost everything you say, Elizabeth Lee. The only way I tend to not agree is that Hitler could ultimately prove so stubborn that even an almighty, super-loving and intelligent and persistent God would ultimately fail to instruct him and correct him “no matter how long it took.” Yeah, I just don’t see that. I believe that Lewis came up with final caveat that really only those who continually choose not to accept salvation are those who do not enter the life of God in Christ, because he accepted the corrupt view of Augustine that eternal punishment and exclusion from such God-life was orthodox. But if that were so, and Augustine was right, then Christ could never deliver “all things” to the Father so that God becomes “all in all.”

26

I do wish you’d cite these “very many places in scripture” that you think promise this–as yet, the only scripture you’ve cited in this entire discussion is to make a passing reference to Matthew 25:46, which, well, doesn’t say this at all. I’ve cited more scripture to support your position than you have.

Yes, he is primarily love,

(citation needed)

God’s will WILL BE accomplished, ultimately!

God’s moral will demonstrably is not accomplished in many cases. Even on the view that all are ultimately saved, that does not undo the wrong they did, nor does it accomplish the good they left undone. If God’s law is truly a reflection of his will, then it is kept or broken in time, and cannot be retroactively un-broken after having been broken.

aionios simply should NOT EVER be translated as “everlasting” in virtually all cases.

…and thus virtually every translator of the Bible, into any language, has it wrong. This is an extraordinary claim, Mike, and it requires extraordinary proof. I’ll admit that I’m not a scholar of biblical Greek (and, unless I miss my guess, neither are you), but I’d note that my Greek lexicon (Gingrich and Danker, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed.) gives as the first definition for αἰών:

very long time, eternity: in the past, earliest times, ages long past Lk 1:70; since the world began J 9:32. In the future to eternity, in perpetuity J 6:51, 58. forevermore Ro 16:27; Hb 13:21

Thus, they would appear to disagree with you.

After stripping away the rhetoric, your position is that hell is a place of purification, after which its inhabitants will be ultimately (and surely, because you believe all will be saved) translated to glory. I leave it to the reader to decide whether Christ’s repeated and emphatic warning to fear the one who can send you there makes sense under this interpretation.

27

Dan, Dan, Dan… I often quote scripture without citing reference numbers. Are you next going to accuse Jesus of “not citing scripture” in his preaching because he didn’t give chapter and verse? Lol. I have provided a link to the book Hope Beyond Hell, and Carolyn has confirmed that the book is chock full of references, so if you are interested enough and have an open mind, I urge you to read it. If you did, you would not make silly arguments against what I have written by citing a greek New Testament lexicon! You’re kidding, right? The definitions from such a book are simply going to reflect the 1500 years of translation history! Again, it’s begging the question of whether those Augustinian emphases are off base. And if you read the book, you’d see that – if you let actual word usage in scripture be your guide, modern scholarship is mostly tragically wrong when it comes to aionios. YOU would see it.

But only if you look. And really, I have taken the time to gather and organize and post all of this for those who want to explore it. Those who think there is a problem with the teaching on this subject. Those whom the Spirit is showing that God is bigger and more powerful and more full of love than they’ve been led to believe by the traditions of men…the traditions of theologians.

I don’t expect you to explore these robust resources, because — so you have stated — you are convinced of the correctness of your opinion in this matter. I, however, am ALWAYS willing to change my mind. I just need to see some compelling evidence.

Where you have really shown (to me, at least) how wrongheaded your position is, is when you say:

Even on the view that all are ultimately saved, that does not undo the wrong they did, nor does it accomplish the good they left undone. If God’s law is truly a reflection of his will, then it is kept or broken in time, and cannot be retroactively un-broken after having been broken.

It’s all about ETERNAL vengeance with you, isn’t it. The Law applies to God’s people (Israel) and the penalties for violating it are not eternal. And even the judgements promised Israel for violating the law are not immutable; repentance can bring God’s redemption. You also keep harping on how the concept of “fearing” God somehow argues against my position. How do you arrive at that? I do not really want to suffer his refining fire, his judgment, even if it doesn’t last forever.

There are many people who are afraid of God too much. They are unable to rest even in their own personal salvation, ultimately. They are deathly afraid that God’s love may not cover their sins. And we all sin.

I think, then, that I have done all I can do. I hope my contributions prove, not just helpful, but restorative for some of you.

Michael

LHH

28

You may “often” do that, but you haven’t done it once in this discussion. You’ve made vague references to your characterization of “many passages” with no further reference whatsoever, and you haven’t quoted a thing. I don’t think I need to remind you that chapter and verse numbers didn’t exist until 1200 (in the case of chapters) and 1500 (in the case of verses) years after Christ’s ascension, respectively, but he did at least quote the scripture he was referring to, something you have yet to do. And since chapter and verse numbers have been in common (and standard) usage for centuries, and you have Google (or other search engine of choice) to help you if your memory fails you for specifics, you really have no excuse for not giving specific citations. Unless the references aren’t as many, or as clear, as you have represented them to be.

Yes, I believe my belief is correct, but that’s tautological, isn’t it? You similarly believe that your belief is correct. I’m willing to consider biblical argument to the contrary–I’ve done it before (and changed my position), and no doubt I’ll do it again. But you haven’t given any–you’ve given “read this book” and “guess what scripture I have in mind,” with a side of “virtually every translator of the Bible ever, into any language, has translated a key term incorrectly.”

Well, I haven’t read the book. I have, however, read the article that you praised as “VERY good” on medium.com, and contained multiple, inexcusable historical errors. If there are such serious errors there in the things I already knew, I can’t trust it as a source for information I didn’t already know. And if that’s your standard for a “VERY good” resource, well, I don’t have much faith in your judgment on what constitutes a good resource.

And you accuse me of not reading what you write. Not a word of what you quoted has anything to do with eternal anything; it’s simply a statement of the truth that God’s moral will (i.e., the moral portion of his law) often is not done. Even if you wrongly believe that God’s moral law applied only to Israel, pretty much the entire Old Testament from Exodus forward is the record of Israel repeatedly violating God’s moral law. When you sin, you break God’s moral law. When you break God’s moral law, God’s moral will is not done. That your sin is forgiven, that you are redeemed, that you are washed, purified, justified, glorified, are all great things–praise be to God–but they do not change the fact that God’s moral will was not accomplished when you sinned.

I think we can agree on one thing, though: God will not fail to save to the utmost every one of those he intends to save.

29

Bless you, Michael, for trying. I’ve given up, and simply pray
that the Lord will show to His children, the Truth. Because I have
found that argument doesn’t. Why else do we have centuries of
learned argument, resulting too often in violence and persecution
of one side or another, but so very rarely, consensus? It is the
role of the Holy Spirit to teach us; relying on human teachings,
however saintly and learned, has brought us to a state where it is
easier to make up our own minds than LISTEN to the Spirit. We have
the mind of Christ only insofar as we listen to Him. May He be
heard, and may He bless us all in this time of remembrance of His
sacrifice for all.

Carolyn in OZ

30

Okay, so I don’t expect Dan to take the 15 minutes to do this, and he pretends ignorance of all the many, many scriptures that talk about how God PLAINLY offers salvation to all people. Since it would be a copyright violation to do this, and I simply don’t have the time to rewrite it all in my own wording, here is a simple but really terrific listing of many (not all) of the most significant scriptures re this, and they are SO CLEAR and SO CONVINCING that the only way to deny them is to engage in theological mumbo jumbo to explain them away!

All one needs do is look at pages 79 through 84 of the FREE BOOK Hope For All. 6 pages. 6 easy pages, not crammed with small type. Surely that is worth your time if there is any chance that what I am saying is true? I am telling you, along with Carolyn, that doing this will make you fall in love with God all over again! And your jaw drop in amazement at God’s plan for saving mankind.

You can read it right now for free at https://hopeforallfellowship.com

Sincerely,

Michael

31

Once again you misrepresent me. You know perfectly well that “the many, many scriptures that talk about how God PLAINLY offers salvation to all people” have never been mentioned in this discussion until this post of yours a few hours ago. I’m aware of many passages (they may or may not be the same ones you’re thinking of–I can’t read your mind, and you persist in refusing to cite them) that promise that God will save those who turn to him in faith and repentance, and offers salvation to all people on those terms. But unless you’ve done an exceptionally poor job of stating your position, or I’ve done an exceptionally poor job of understanding it, that isn’t the question here. Rather, the question is your position that

I have become convinced over my lifetime that my Father in heaven is the Father of all, and loves all, and will not fail to ultimately save all.

I’ll now do what you continue to refuse to do, and list every citation on pages 79-84 of the ebook you cite: Quoted are Romans 5:15,18-20, 11:26,32; 1 Cor 15:22, 26-28, 54-55; Phil 2:9-11; Eph. 1:9-11; Col. 1:19-20; 1 Tim 2:3-6, 4:9-11,12-15. Summarized are Luke 2:10, 3:6; Acts 3:21,25-26; Gal 3:8; Titus 2:11; Hebrews 8:10-12; Rev. 15:4,21:5. Was that really so hard?

At a casual glance, a couple of red flags are immediately apparent:

  • The author freely hops around among translations, quoting whichever one suits the desired interpretation
  • The author also heavily edits the quotations, both by adding words in brackets (some of which are justified, others not) and by removing them with ellipses.

Those don’t give me much hope for sound exegesis in the text, but that will need to wait for further study.