That All Shall Be Saved
Considering David Bentley Hart’s Universalism
Christians have long disagreed about how God will deal with unbelievers on the Day of Judgment. Some think God will ultimately save all people. Some think life is conditional and that unbelievers will have their life-privileges rescinded. The most widely held view is that God will judge unbelievers with everlasting torment.
David Bentley Hart makes his position clear by his book’s title: “That All Shall Be Saved”. While the book is fundamentally an argument for universalism, Hart emphasizes his disdain for the belief in everlasting throughout the book. On this issue, Hart and I are in full agreement. Consequently, I will pause only momentarily to address everlasting torment.
Biblical support for everlasting torment is surprisingly scant. One favorite reference comes from the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, in which we find the rich man tormented in the flames of hades. Serious scholars recognize the story as a parable or an allegory. Identifying the story as a kind of extended metaphor precludes the possibility of cherry picking literal factoids from its narrative. The main setting of the story is, itself, a literal impossibility. Even so, people seem to find the image of the rich man in the flames compelling, and have used it to argue that such is the destiny of all unbelievers.
The other favorite verses are those that use the phrases, “everlasting fire” or “where the worm does not die”. These phrases are typically interpreted as speaking of everlasting torture. But these interpolations, which have settled into corporate habit, skirt the obvious implications of the phrases. When a person is thrown into an everlasting (or unquenchable) fire, as opposed to, say, a campfire, the fire will consume him. The fire is called everlasting but all experience tells us that the person will not be. A similar idea is presented by the worm that doesn’t die. This is an image of a corpse that has its flesh devoured by worms until there is nothing left but bones. These metaphors are not about torture—they are pictures of destruction.
Once we understand these verses appropriately, there is very little biblical support left for the idea of everlasting torment.
Universalism’s Appeal
Hart argues that God’s love and grace are so central to his being that God would never permit any person to fail to reach his intended place of unity with God. This argument is supported by Scripture’s constant teaching about God’s grace. For example, Jesus says in Matthew 5, verses 44-48: I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers,what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Even for believers, salvation is a gift of God’s grace: By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God. (Ephesians 2.8). Orthodox Christians generally believe that only a limited number of people will come to possess saving faith, but they also recognize that those who are saved are no more deserving of salvation than those who do not. For Hart the logic is clear: if God is good, he cannot be arbitrary. Therefore, his grace will be extended to all.
We also see in the Bible that God’s grace is accompanied by unrelenting pursuit. Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, “Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.” I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. (Luke 15.4-7). If even lowly shepherds can act with determination to recover their lost sheep, how much more will the all-powerful God persist in retrieving his?
There are numerous historical examples of God’s pursuit. He found Moses, a refugee, hiding out in the desert. God endured Moses’ excuses and prevailed on him in order that Moses would serve in the liberation of Israel. We see his pursuit on the cross when a Jewish insurrectionist turns in faith to Jesus even as both are being tortured to death. We see it in the Apostle Paul who was attempting to destroy the Christian church when Jesus struck him blind on the road to Damascus, reversing Paul’s life’s mission. There can be no question that the Bible presents God as loving and gracious, and as one who pursues even those who seem uninterested in him.
Hart also argues for universalism from a human perspective. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” (Revelation 21.4). Hart points out that all of us live in the contexts of our human relationships. It is likely that all Christians know and love people who are not Christians. He is sure it is not possible for Christians to be happy in heaven knowing that those loved ones have not been saved. He argues against the idea that God will do a memory wash, which he characterizes a kind of dehumanizing lobotomy.
Hart also looks to various passages that he believes have been read blindly, due to the tendency to interpret “difficult” passages in ways that fit with predetermined theological frameworks. Hart is correct, of course, that people read the Bible (and all writings) with a tendency to adjust them to their preconceptions. His raising the issue does not settle which view is due to prejudice and which comes from careful examination, however.
The God of Love Must Save
Hart’s primary argument is that a God of love would save all the humans he has created. Consider 2 Peter 3.9: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. This certainly seems like God intends to save everyone. But the context is one of warning. The warning implies that it is possible to perish in spite of God’s desire that none do. How can this be? How would God permit what he does not desire?
I don’t see that Scriptures have laid out a clear answer for us on this question, so we are left to infer what we may, making our best efforts not to contradict any truths we have been given. Most of us, perhaps all of us, have set our hearts on others. Our desires in such cases are that the ones we long for will reciprocate. We have also experienced disappointments in that regard. We have learned that love is a decision one must make. But no one can decide for another what person they will love. There are obligations to love, no doubt, such as the obligation of parents to love their children. Most parents accept the obligation intuitively, but not all do. Even parents must decide to love their children. Can God make us love him? I think Hart would say, “Yes”, on the basis that once we come to know him well we will not be able to do otherwise. Perhaps this is correct, but will God make certain all people will come to know him well?
God is able to love us without us loving him back. At least it is clear that he loves us first. But is it clear he will love us forever no matter what we do? Does God say he will love all humans forever, or does he say he will not love forever those who turn their backs on him? Is it not true that if God gives humans agency, some humans will decide to love him and some will decide otherwise?
Hart envisions a God who is the proverbial hound of heaven, who will pursue those who try to escape him until, in their exhaustion, they they surrender. No doubt, God is able to do this. But, while there are biblical instances where this seems to happen, this picture of the pursuing hound is dwarfed by the many passages that emphasize human agency. Hart assumes that all people must be overwhelmed by truth through the passage of time and experience. C.S. Lewis provides a different perspective in his book, The Great Divorce. Essentially, Lewis sees the rebellious as self-absorbed. They are not only not interested in God, they also find people intolerable. Lewis sees rebellion against God as a persistent walk away from all relationships, illustrated by the ongoing habit of those in hell to continuously relocate to more remote dwellings. He describes a descent into isolation, and a kind of madness. Perhaps we recognize this tendency in ourselves or in others we know. People tend to hoard their histories, like piles of old magazines and worn out clothing, until their houses become impassable and unwelcoming. Time and experience ought to make us wiser and for some that is the case. But time and experience can just as easily set people in their ways, like cured cement. The old, knowing everything, become incapable of learning. This sad outcome is not a certainty, thankfully, but it is a human tendency that we all need to be wary of.
Before the time of Noah, people lived very long lives. Adam lived to 930, for example. The famous (because he lived so long) Methuselah lived to be 969. Noah lived to 950, but as we look at the individuals following Noah, we see their lifespans rapidly decreasing. In a few generations people were living more or less the durations we live today. God sent the flood on the earth because The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Genesis 6.5,6). This suggests that longevity does not necessarily lead to wisdom.
Exposure over and over to the truth, Hart says, will finally break us. But what we observe is callousness, hearts that should be made of flesh turning into hearts of stone, and people who have turned away from the true God because of their love of idols. Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. – Ephesians 4.17-19.
Love
Perhaps love is not exactly what we imagine it to be. I will venture to say that we should all admit we have much to learn about it. People who accuse God of being evil or, at least, of not stopping evil, are as common as mosquitos at sundown. P.J. O’Rourke joked about this tendency: “I still cursed God, as we all do when we get bad news and pain. Not even the most faith-impaired among us shouts, ‘Damn quantum mechanics!’ ‘Damn organic chemistry! ‘Damn chaos and coincidence!’” When we see wrong in God, what it means is that we are seeing him wrongly. All the accusational floodlights we may aim in his direction turn into shadows as they approach him. If we know anything of the truth it is because he has taught us truth. If we know anything of love, it is because he has taught us love.
When people say such things as, “How can I believe in a God who permits the holocaust?” they are judging on the basis of what God has taught us about justice, love, respect, care, edification, and sin. But how well do we comprehend the people are who are affected by such events? What do we know of their agency, accomplishments at death’s doorstep, lessons learned, or the rippling impacts of their lives? How many questions do we even fail to think of as we consider those involved? I ask these questions, not to cast confusion over a clear instance of evil running amok, but to point out that we humans observe what we may, but our perceptions only scratch surfaces. God does not say the holocaust is not evil; what he says is that all people serve him willingly or unwittingly. He will have new life spring forth even from the ashes of extermination camps.
When Christ was murdered on a cross, the cause of Christianity seemed lost when, in fact, it was won. The cross reveals that God accomplishes his ends in ways that we would not choose. His ways are often hard. From the Garden of Gethsemane and other biblical passages we know that the crucifixion was God’s will. It was a horror. Jesus submitted. His submission to his Father, overtly as submission to the Romans and the Jewish religious leaders, was the greatest act of love in history. We see behind the curtain and understand that his death brought life to an untold number of people. We cannot see behind the curtain of history’s brutalities, but the God of the crucifixion is the God of history.
Universalists look to the verse, He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away. (Revelation 21.4). They ask the question, “How can this be so if some of our loved ones, our children, our spouses, our friends, have been turned away by God and not granted everlasting life?” It’s a question that stings all of us who are motivated to see our loved ones freed from the bondage of sin and death.
Presumably, if universalism is wrong, there will exist in those in heaven a sense of sorrow over those they knew but have lost. Hart scoffs at the idea of a heavenly brainwashing that wipes away the memories that would cause tears. But I doubt that God intends to wipe out our memories. Our memories are inseparable from our identities. But does Revelation 21.4 promise to remove sad memories? Isn’t its meaning that there will be no new causes for sadness in the resurrected life?
Think for a moment about the ones you love. How many of them did you choose? When my children were born I was mystified: “Who is this beautiful young child?” Our siblings came into our lives or we into their lives with no permission one way or the other. We’ve chosen our friends but only by selecting them from a relatively small set of possibilities. The world holds billions; I know (to one degree or another) maybe a thousand. We’ve chosen our spouses but, in truth, we’ve only encountered maybe a dozen people in our lives, due to various circumstances and criteria, who could have qualified to be our spouse. We may say these are our loved ones, imagining that in some sense we own them, but these are the people God has given to us. And then we may be tempted to think that if they have been given to us that God is under obligation to give them to us forever. We should wonder about that. “But, knowing how important these people are to me, won’t God want to make me happy by letting me keep them?” God says he will make us happy. The identities of the loves he will put into our lives are not so clearly revealed. If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14.26). This is not to suggest that we should ever give up on our loved ones, decide to stop loving them, or stop laboring for their salvation. What it says is that our loved ones belong first to him and that we must trust that he will treat them in the most loving way. To be a Christian is to trust that God’s plans are better than ours. I heard a proponent of universalism complain that other Christians’ God was “too small.” It is a trap easily fallen into…that God must conform to our particular idea of the meaning of good. I don’t mean to say that his idea of good is foreign to ours, since we have our idea from him. But I mean to say that he simply sees so much more than we do that we should know better than to try to restrict his actions based on our experience and brain power. Serious Christian should be ashamed to think ill of God. It is the mistake Adam and Eve made.
What makes us think that the loss of our loved ones will be more painful to us than it is to him? He knows and loves our loved ones better than we do, surely. And even so, he proceeds with his plan. What can we say other than the goodness of his plan must be much better than how it appears?
Let’s consider for a moment that we now experience painful relationships with many of our loved ones. Our non-Christian loved ones hold us at spiritual arm’s length. They may be the ones we cuddled in their infancy, but today they do not look us in the eye, just as they resist the Holy Spirit. Conversations are framed by their boundaries. We play intellectual contortionists grasping after the inoffensive, hoping our voices will say more than the inane contents of our words. They are moving away from us now.
But relational distance will not exist in heaven. Our loves will be free. Our conversations will be fierce and probing. We will touch one another without shame. The pain of the arm’s length relationship is one of the sorrows that Revelation 21.4 proclaims will be gone.
Free Will
Hart is very interested in the meaning of “free will”. His exploration is a counter-argument to the orthodox Christian claim that God did not make people to be automatons. They argue that if God had programmed us, our failures would be his failures. If we sin it could only be because he made us badly. There would be no grounds for him to punish us in this case.
It’s worth noting here that the idea of free will is a difficulty in itself. For the materialist, it is an impossibility. For the materialist, we all must do according to our biological history, in combination with the environmental factors of our experience. For the materialist, it only appears that we make choices when our choices are determined by precedents. It’s a bit of an irony that these ideological rebels against God, rebel for the sake of independence, when the implication of their belief is that independence is a fiction.
Hart says, “To be free is to be joined to that end for which our natures were originally framed, and whatever separates us from that end–-including even our own personal choices–-is a form of bondage. We are free, that is to say, not because we can choose, but only when we have chosen well.” He argues that freedom is not about the right to make choices, that it is the wisdom to make right choices. If there are no reasons for making the choices we make, what we call “freedom” is merely chaos, and our choices will be arbitrary, and mostly disastrous. The wiser we, are the more free we are. Hart uses this perspective to argue against eternal torment for the wicked. “Given the dynamism of human nature, given its primordial longing for the Good, given the inherent emptiness of evil, given the finitude of evil’s satisfactions and configurations and resources, no rational nature could freely persist forever in its apostasy from the Good.”
I believe Hart is right that all humans can do no other than choose what they believe is the right or good choice. Even so, we frequently make bad choices. How does this work? The answer is that we are clever at convincing ourselves that evil actions are good actions. We are highly skilled at concocting “justifications”. Sin finds ways to make logic its servant. Good-sounding false premises will allow pure logic to take us wherever our hearts desire.
Paul complained bitterly about his own struggle with sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (Romans 7.15-24).
In the beatitudes we read, Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God. (Matthew 5.8). Another translation reads, Blessed are the single-minded…” Herein lies a difficulty that Hart doesn’t seem to consider. Humans have the capacity to be double-minded and self-deceiving. And, as I argued earlier, we are inclined to double down on our pasts. We find ways to suppress the truth no matter how many times it grabs us by the scruff of the neck. Whether we have the capacity to make bad choices eternally, I cannot say, but what we observe is that sin forms ruts, like a car in soft mud. The more we spin our tires the less we move, until our car is up to its chassis, making a great ruckus but moving no more than a shudder.
Another shortcoming in understanding freedom, as Hart presents it, has to do with its ultimate achievement. Hart seems to think that we will become free when we have been fully exposed to all there is to know, so that we will always know the right decision to make. His explanation evokes a static heaven, the final arrival. It is a vision of a heaven in which our perfect unity with God is a kind of absorption into his being. We have arrived and we are finished. This, I believe, is to mistake what is meant by being a glorified human and to underestimate what it means to be God. As finite beings, we will never learn all there is to know. We will never find ourselves in a place where we know all that is necessary to make the right decisions. We will always have to put our trust in God to help us make good decisions. We will always be dependent on his grace, even though we will be freed from sin. We will always bring him the sticks we find in the yard, saying, “See, Father, the fine work of art I have made for you.” And he will respond, “Thank you so much, my son. I love this. By the way, the two of us are going to spend some time later this week working in the wood shop.” Freedom is not the conclusion of the quest; it is the necessary preparation for greater quests.
Freedom is like faith. As Tim Keller puts it, “Strong faith in a weak branch is fatally inferior to weak faith in a strong branch.” Freedom comes when, We know that for those who love God all things work together for good. – Romans 8.28. Freedom is not a function of having tried all roads until the right road becomes obvious. Freedom is understanding who we are because we know who God is. By faith we will know he is good and that he is Lord of all; through faith we will be free.
Agency
Why does it matter who and how God will save, anyway? Hart argues that freedom must eventually come upon us all, as a consequence of being exposed to reality, in combination with our inherent nature that always seeks the good. I wonder, though, whether Hart is missing the point of human free will. The importance of agency is not that it lets God off the hook, as many Christians imply when they advocate for human freedom of the will. The importance of human agency is the quality of God’s work in humans. As a human I make choices every minute. I choose letters as I type. If I don’t exercise control over my choices I end up typing the same kind of gibberish you get when you put a thousand monkeys together with a thousand typewriters, leaving them in a room for a thousand days. You get crap. Literally. The monkeys will baptize the typewriters in excrement and fail to produce as much as one four-letter word. Forget Shakespeare.
I express thoughts through the human conventions of written language. I make choices about the food I eat; the company I keep; the kinds of work I do; the kinds of learning I pursue; how I spend leisure time; where I live; what culture I embrace; what truth I embrace; and how I treat my family, friends, neighbors, and strangers. The list could be much longer but, this is the list I’ve chosen. We live as if we have agency. We live as if our choices are important. In fact, it is clear that we make decisions every day that are important. I can skip eating and drinking today but I can only do so for so long before my body begins to shut down. I can avoid work. Some people mooch off their parents or their friends or the government but, after a time, mooching leads to living under bridges, or to institutionalization. How I approach stairs is critical to my health, as is my approach to stop lights. The people we see around us? As hard as this is to believe, they are mostly making good decisions.
All of this only confirms what Hart says. But Hart also says that God’s heart demands that all the humans must eventually see the light and turn to him in faith. This is not clear. God made the mountains. They are majestic and inspiring but they are inorganic and they have no agency. He made the trees and the plants. They are alive, they are beautiful, and they wonderfully enhance the lives of humans. But as far as I can see, they have no agency. God made the animals. They have many human-like characteristics but as G.K.Chesterton put it, “The startling thing is not how like man is to the brutes, but how unlike he is. It is the monstrous scale of his divergence that requires an explanation.” The point is, God poured his love into humans in ways that are more wondrous than he did for all the rest of creation. (I do not speak here of heavenly creatures that I know nothing about.)
He didn’t have to do for humans what he did. We learn in Genesis that we were made, at least physically, out of the same stuff that is common on the earth. The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. (Genesis 2.7). Jesus underscored this reality during his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Some Pharisees urged Jesus to rebuke the crowd for shouting and calling out, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord!” Jesus responded, “If these people were silenced, the very stones would sing.” (Luke 19.40). But he did make humans different from the rest of creation. In Genesis we read that God saw what he had made and he considered it (quite good, thank you).
All that being said, God can make the mountains and love the mountains. God can make the plants and love the plants. God can make the animals and love the animals. God can make people who consider him to be their enemy and God can still love these people. But God’s love does not have to express itself in the same way for all people. Jesus also said, “To the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” (Matthew 13.12). Life on earth is a gift, in and of itself. It seems there are many who say they are content with this. They look forward to dying and no longer existing. I think they must be mad. Even so, they have been blessed with life for a time. Interestingly, many who will not be born again have blessed those who have. Those blessings will continue forever to bless the living. This will not comfort the dead but it will bless the living, who will take comfort in all that was experienced on earth.
When I read the book of Job, the very heart of it is exposed at the beginning. Satan says to God, “Sure, Job loves you because you smother him with wealth, health, comforts, safety, and joyous family life. Take away these blessings and he will curse you to your face.” God says, “Okay. Let’s see.” So God put Job through the wringer. Was God trying to make a point to Satan? No. God was making a point to Job, and to all of Job’s spiritual progeny. God was proving that he had made Job out of character-stuff. He was proving that he had put his Spirit into Job. Job understood righteousness, and love. He understood that all that is good depends on the goodness of God himself.
I become frustrated with Christians who think it is spiritual maturity to think of themselves as worms. But I am a worm, and no man; A reproach of men, and despised of the people. (Psalm 22.6). Psalm 22 is a Messianic Psalm in which Jesus is talking about how people perceive him. His appearance was dreadful, certainly, but his action on the cross was the greatest, best labor of human history. This was no ordinary crucifixion in which the victim was helpless. Jesus’ supernatural effort was to remain on the cross until death. This is the Worm that became the Butterfly.
There are many verses in the Bible in which saints lament their sinful habits, of course. These laments speak of a universal truth: we must be delivered from corruption of both body and soul. But this deliverance is a work that God is accomplishing in his people through Christ by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I will give you ia new heart, and ia new spirit I will put within you. iAnd I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. (Ezekiel 36.26).
Christians are rightly wary of human pride. The last thing we need to do is run about, huffing on our nails and proclaiming, “See how wonderfully God has made me”. Such behavior would be strong evidence that we have no idea of who God is. But God has made us wonderfully. His promise to rescue us from sin and death is a great, great rescue that includes our promotion from something wonderful into something glorious. This is no reason for us to be proud; what we are is what God has given us. We should be amazed, and grateful.
Is it possible for God to preordain all things and still give humans agency? It is a paradox to which I must say, “Yes”.
If we do not have agency, if heaven is the destiny of all, our lives are mere props in a grand historical drama. It makes no difference whether I embrace my brother or shoot him between the eyes—we will both end up in the same glorious state of being. If we live forever it makes little difference whether we “graduate” on time or arrive a few thousand years late. Universalism renders life on earth as fundamentally without purpose. It seems, too, to suggest that that God is not accomplishing anything through us or in us.
Hart’s vision of God makes God rather paternalistic. He is the heavenly father who does his children’s homework. It is the grade that matters, not the learning. He must escort all humans into an everlasting state of perfect being. It means that individuals are free to do evil with no concern for the consequences of their sins. The reality that our sins harm not only ourselves but others is swept under the rug. Hart contends that God eventually makes all people see the error of their ways, leading them to repentance and into holy living. But this is different from saying that all sin is a problem now. Universalism lacks urgency, which puts it at odds with God’s commandments.
It is apparent that God does not bring all people to himself during their lives on earth. I suppose Hitler and his henchmen may have repented of their sins before they offed themselves, but there is no evidence or reason to think so. So many people die whose spirits are filled with anger or apathy or terror. All indications suggest than many die with no faith in Christ and no hope for their own resurrection.
The universalist solution to this problem is a purgatorial time extension. Where this idea comes from, I do not know. There is a necessity for it in order for universalism to work, but biblical support for it is miniscule. In any case, it is a salvation via purification which reflects Hinduism fairly well but does not represent the salvation by grace that characterizes Christianity.
But let us return to consider God’s sovereignty and human agency. God’s revelations seem to insist on both. For us, this is a paradox. As I pointed out earlier, human agency is a paradox we live by. It is also reasonable to assume God is sovereign over all creation. It is reasonable to think so because God has said so. It is reasonable to think so because all human knowledge of the universe screams that it was designed by a brilliant mind. It is reasonable to think so because human interest in such things as righteousness and love are not explained by the natural world. The so-called key of evolutionary theory is the drive for survival, but the theory fails to answer why there is such a drive. Why shouldn’t organic material be perfectly happy to be a rock? It is reasonable to think so because human agency is only possible in a universe that is designed by a transcendent, all-powerful God.
Where does this lead us, then? To two things. We must acknowledge and submit to the sovereign God. He is all wisdom and love and power. And we must be energized by the knowledge that God has granted us agency. The agency God has given us tells us that he has made us capable of responsibility. God has provided us with a moral framework that gives shape to what that means. We can see, too, in the very abilities he has given us, further guidance about what it means to live responsibly. And he has put questions before us. We do not know what we can do but it is our adventure to find out. In our adventures we remember that we are the branches and Jesus is the vine. Apart from him we can do nothing. But he has given us the glorious privilege of doing something.
Prooftexts
Hart is not averse to biblical texts, but the focus of his book is reasoning. However, Hart is not the only Christian in the world who holds a to a universalist view. As a mini-research project I looked to universalists to supply some of the verses they lean on. I selected several that seemed to most clearly state the universalist views. These verses are listed below, in no particular order, followed by other nearby verses that speak to the same questions. Let’s take a look at how these verses impact each other.
The Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. (1 John 4:14). Does this means Jesus saves all people in the world? Less than a chapter later we read, Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5.12).
We trust in the living God, Who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. (1 Tim. 4:10). It seems here that God intends to save all men, no matter what. But then later in the same letter we read, Those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. (1Timothy 6.9).
[Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. (1 John 2:2). But then we read, No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. (1 John 3.9,10).
[Jesus] did not come to judge the world but to save the world. (John 12:47). Then the next verse: The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. – John 12.48.
At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should gladly confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:10:11). One chapter later: Many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction…but our citizenship is in heaven…(Phil. 3.18-20).
And I, [Jesus] if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all mankind unto Myself. (John 12:32). A few verses later John writes: They could not believe. For again Isaiah said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.” (John 12.40).
Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation of all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. (Rom. 5:18). The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Rom.8.6,7).
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is long-suffering towards us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9). There are some things in [Paul’s letters], that the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3.16).
Since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all died, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22). When we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. (1Corinthians 11.32).
Every creature that is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever and ever. (Rev. 5:13). But then we read, The sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20.13-15).
[God’s Spirit] will be poured out on all flesh. (Joel 2:28). But while the pouring out may be on all flesh, it doesn’t seem that all flesh receive the outpouring. It shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the Lord has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the Lord calls. ( Joel 2.32).
All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before You. All those who go down to the dust (death) shall bow before You. (Ps. 22:27, 29). Those who are far from you shall perish; you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you. (Psalm 73.27).
Through the greatness of your power your enemies shall submit themselves to you. All the earth shall worship You and sing praises to you. (Ps. 66:3, 4). God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered; and those who hate him shall flee before him! As smoke is driven away, so you shall drive them away; as wax melts before fire, so the wicked shall perish before God! (Psalm 68.1,2).
But God would not take away a life; He would devise plans so that the one banished from Him does not remain banished. (2 Sam. 14:14) (This is a quote from a woman named Tekoa, who represented Joab, as he schemed to convince David to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem. This is a historical account and we have no reason to trust that Tekoa’s words were given by God.)
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. (Romans 11.32). To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury…for all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. (Romans 2.7,8,12).
Many of the verses referenced by universalists seem strong and clear. This has lead universalists to suggest that the orthodox Church glosses over these verses, reading into them ideas based on tradition rather than the texts. The verse comparison done above contradicts the universalist claim that orthodoxy derives from tradition. I suppose it remains possible for the universalist to interpret the second set of verses in light of the first set but it seems to me it requires less contortion to do the reverse.
For example, we must look carefully at what is referenced when the word, “all” is used. When John 12.32 records that Jesus will draw all mankind to himself, the reading seems to be reigned in by verse 40, which says there are those who “could not believe”. We must assume the verses are not contradictory, which means we must see one or the other verse as clarifying the other. The universalist might argue that verse 40 is a temporary state and that eventually verse 32 trumps it. The weakness of this argument is that, while the scriptures make clear that those who believe must have their eyes opened by God, where we encounter instances of those who have heard the Word and actively dug in their heels in opposition to it, the thematic consequence is condemnation, not a wearing down under the tide of Truth. It is much easier to interpret verse 32 in light of verse 40. Such an interpretation would be something on the lines of “all peoples”. In other words, when Jesus refers to all mankind he is talking about how his gospel will traverse the earth and be made available to all people groups and nations. This fits with Jesus’ early command that the gospel must be taken out to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the world.
First Corinthians 15.22 seems like an irrefutable argument when it compares Jesus’ life-giving to all, just as the sin of Adam had the effect of bringing death on all mankind. But when we read a few chapters earlier that Christians are being disciplined, unlike those of the world, who are to be condemned, it becomes necessary to understand the “all” of 15.22 to refer to all of those Jesus has called to himself. Furthermore, it is clear that chapter 15 has Paul speaking directly to Corinthian Christians who are unclear about the resurrection. The whole chapter is about how resurrection will come to those Christians. Non-Christians are not even in the picture.
And this is more in tune with the tenor of the Bible, isn’t it? Consider:
The Lord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book.” ( Exodus 32.52).
You do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. (John 10.26-28).
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7.21-23).
And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us. (Luke 16.26).
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3.18).
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. (John 5.28,29).
It is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power. (2 Thessalonians 1.6-9).
But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. (Hebrews 9.26-28).
Conclusions
After the dust of this debate settles, does the answer matter? Can a Christian believe that God saves all people? It is understandable and appropriate that Christians long to see their loved ones alive in the kingdom of heaven. The universalist answer to this longing is attractive to all Christians. However, the longing does not necessarily make universalism true. We all long for things and people we cannot have and/or should not have.
There is reasoning in universalism, and there are numerous biblical references that support universalism, as we have seen. But the reasoning of universalism seems to depend on several unsupported assumptions. Furthermore, universalist Bible references do not stand up well to the larger body of biblical texts.
Is universalism heretical? I will defer my answer to our Lord Jesus, should he choose to comment on it at some time in the future. My opinion is that those who are quick to call others heretics should think longer and speak more slowly. Christianity has its boundaries, certainly. It is important for us to give some thought to what they are. It is also important for us to be careful about taking on God’s job as Judge. It is more fitting for us to gently rebuke, when we are reasonably sure a rebuke is warranted. We should also keep in mind that every person who passes through the Pearly Gates will be carrying some theological baggage that he or she will be relieved of before passing through the Gatehouse.
That being said, universalism is burdened by serious problems. It seems to vacuum the value out of history, as well as to eliminate the possibility of human agency, to the diminishment of God’s work in humans. Further, it relies on a purgatorial existence for those who don’t turn to Christ in their earthly lifetimes. This entire concept seems to be a fabrication of universalist logic, rather than something given to us by God.
Does universalism lend itself to passivity? This is a concern. If God will save everyone no matter what any one of us does, it’s certainly demotivating if we think it makes little difference when we get around to obeying him. The Bible, in contrast, comes to us with a sense of urgency. Conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel. (Philippians 1.27). Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men. (Colossians 3:23-24). Let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. (Galatians 6.9).
Does universalism lend itself to licentiousness? This, too, is a concern. If it is clear that God will save us no matter what kind of sin we commit, then why would we walk away from sins we find attractive? We could even contend, when confronted with the damages our sins cause others, with: “God will rescue them, too. I have no need to worry for their sakes.” The universalist might argue that Paul covers this in Romans, chapter 6, when he insists that Christians may not sin for the sake of increasing God’s grace. But Paul’s exhortation becomes hollow in the context of universalism.
Human agency has a real part to play in God’s plan of salvation. God calls on us to believe in him, and then to act consistently with that belief. We are God’s agents. If there is anything to learn from universalism it is that its shortcomings remind us to honor our calling to live as God’s representatives on the earth. If we are concerned for our loved ones we must pray for them, we must love them, we must speak to them as opportunity arises, and with all the tact we can muster. We wait patiently on the Lord, but he calls us to be hard at work while we wait.
I have never previously given serious thought to the question of universalism. This alone is enough to make me hesitate to proclaim certainty on the question. In any case, it seems to me bad policy for us to come to final conclusions on most questions. Humility and honesty demand that we keep our minds open enough that we recognize and adopt good clarifications as they come to us. I wonder if Hart read this paper whether he would say once, or a few times, “That’s not what I said,” or “That’s not what I meant!” I suspect so. I wish I could see a serious critique from him. I suspect it would be helpful, even if the two of us would likely not come to a place of agreement.
This subject does seem a bit sketchy in the Bible, which is why there is disagreement in the first place. Is this a subject left vague for a reason? Is it a subject in which the angels fear to tread? Perhaps so, and another reason to take what I will call a flexible stand. Still, as I have stated above, while there is comfort to be had in universalism, there are also inherent dangers. It is not idle activity to think about these things if the thoughts lead to more faithfully living out our lives.
Recent Comments