Case for universal redemption booklet by David Galina

The Case for

Universal Redemption Briefly Stated

An Introduction to Christian Universalism

David Favager

The Case for Universal Redemption Briefly Stated Greater Hope for the Restoration of All Things

With a summary of

Hell to Pay? The Blasphemous Absurdity of Damnationism

Dr David Favager LTh, PhD, ThD

‘Behold, I make all things new’ (Revelation 21.5)

Contents The Case for Universal Redemption Briefly Stated         

The Horrific Claims of Damnationist Christianity p2 Biblical Support for Universalism p6 Damnationist Proof Texts p14 Damnationism makes God a Moral Monster p16 Damnationism Denies God’s Omnipotence p21 Damnationism Denies the Efficacy of the Cross p24 The Pharisaic Motivation of Damnationism p27 A Non-Scriptural Case for Universal Redemption p29 The Damnable Doctrine of Damnationism or the Blessed Hope of Universalism? p35  The Pillars of Universalism and Damnationism p41  Summary p44  Bibliography p45

Hell to Pay? Summary        

Introduction Chapter Summary p56 The First Pillar: Scripture Chapter Summary p58 The Second Pillar: Morality Chapter Summary p60 The Third Pillar: Atonement Chapter Summary p63 The Fourth Pillar: Theodicy Chapter Summary p65 Conclusion Chapter Summary p67 Appendix 1: Universalist Professions p69 Appendix 5: Summary of the Case for Universalism p72

The Horrific Claims of Damnationist Christianity

Rev Spurgeon – hardened Calvinistic damnationist

When you die your soul will be tormented alone; that will be a hell for it: but at the day of judgment your body will join your soul, and then you will have twin hells, your soul sweating drops of blood, and your body suffused with agony. In fire, exactly like that we have on earth, your body will lie, asbestos like, for ever unconsumed, all your veins roads for the feet of pain to travel on, every nerve a string, on which the devil shall for ever play his diabolical tune of hell's unutterable lament. (Rev. C.H. Spurgeon in his Sermon on the Resurrection of the Dead )

Most modern Christians will have parents, wives, children, friends or other relations who are not believers, either because of indifference or adherence to another faith or even hostility to religion in general. If traditional ‘damnationist’ theology (theology that asserts the ever-lasting punishment of the damned, also known as ‘eternal conscious torment or ‘ETC’)) is correct all these loved ones will be eternally lost and will suffer the torments of Hell, separated from the love of God for ever: The bodies of the damned shall be crowded together in hell, like grapes in a wine-press, which press one another till they burst; every distinct sense and organ shall be assailed with its own appropriate and most exquisite sufferings. (Jeremy Taylor, Anglican)

At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians (Tertullian, early church father)

Four extreme damnationists from across the centuries â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Tertullian, Peter Lombard, Johann Gerhard and Rev. Jonathan Edwards; do they really preach the love of God? What is more, we are assured by many writers that the saved will be able to see the damned in their distress and will feel no compassion for them at all:

…the Blessed will see their friends and relations among the damned as often as they like but without the least of compassion. (Johann Gerhard, early modern Protestant) Therefore the elect shall go forth…to see the torments of the impious, seeing which they will not be grieved, but will be satiated with joy at the sight of the unutterable calamity of the impious. (Peter Lombard, medieval theologian) The view of the misery of the damned will double the ardour of the love and gratitude of the saints of heaven … The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever ... Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell … I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss. (Jonathan Edwards, eighteenth century Evangelical) Husbands shall see their wives, parents shall see their children tormented before their eyes… (Jeremy Taylor) Let us be clear – this is not simply outdated Medieval nonsense, these opinions are propounded week in, week out in conservative evangelical churches across the world and even the more restrained who feel uncomfortable with descriptions of hellfire and torture only offer the prospect of a grim, Godless existence, for ever without any hope of reprieve. They justify this by such arguments as ‘Hell is locked from the inside’ implying that the lost are wilfully refusing to leave the place of their misery or claiming that they have committed an infinite sin and so deserve an infinite punishment or that they are so hardened in their wickedness that they cannot respond to any offer of grace. The lost will include everyone who has not made an explicit commitment to Jesus before their death. That means the overwhelming majority of people who have ever lived unless we assume that a large proportion come to some sort of decision at the very moment of death itself. If we insist that only certain types of Christian belief are valid it would decrease the number of the saved even further. It means too that Torquemada, head of the Spanish Inquisition, could be in Heaven and Gandhi will be in Hell. The fate of the mentally defective and children is uncertain. That the blessed saved really could be at peace in the presence of the Lamb while the smoke of their roasting loved ones rises up seems

inconceivable unless all memories of their earthly lives have been wiped clean.

Torquemada, a professed Christian and head of the Spanish Inquisition, is in Heaven while Gandhi, a renowned pacifist, burns for ever in Hell? This Dantean vision of the Inferno may be unpalatable to many Christians (and many more non-Christians) but the fact that something is unpalatable does not make it untrue. Fortunately there are good (Biblical and non-Biblical) grounds to believe that damnationism is not only repugnant but actually unscriptural.

Dark Age Irish scholar John Scotus Erigena denied that punishment or evil could be eternal.

Biblical Support for Universalism Biblical universalists argue that the claim that all will be saved can be shown simply enough by a syllogism, three statements, the third of which follows inevitably from the first two: 1. God wills all to be saved 2. God’s will is sovereign 3. All will be saved

John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius – founders of major schools of Reformed theology Calvinists deny the first of these statements and argue that there are Biblical texts that prove that only a small elect will be saved and that God does not love or desire to redeem anyone else – Jesus only died for the elect. Arminians (perhaps a majority view in the Protestant churches today) agree with Universalists that God wills everyone to be saved but, while Calvinists and Universalists agree that God’s will is in fact brought to pass, Arminians believe that the fulfilment of God’s wish to save all depends ultimately on the free choice of the individual to accept His offer of grace. Thus Calvinists reject the conclusion that all will be saved on the basis that God does not will that outcome and Arminians reject it on the grounds that God wills it but will not enforce it. Universalists uphold the conclusion on the basis of upholding both the first two statements, neither of which is in itself heretical and each of which 6

is accepted by one of the main schools of Protestant theology. Arminians and Calvinists accept each other as orthodox (if incorrect) yet they still insist that Universalism is a heresy! Both the Arminian and the Calvinist positions are faced with serious problems as both are contradicted by explicit Biblical teaching. Calvinism recognises God’s sovereignty and ignores His unfailing love; Arminianism does the exact opposite. In contrast, we can see that Universalism acknowledges both and that each stage of the Universalist case is supported by clear and numerous scriptural texts.

Does either Calvin or Arminius truly represent the teaching of Jesus?

Firstly, the Bible teaches us that God loves all Mankind and wants them all to be saved:  Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? (Malachi 2:10)  He is good! For His mercy endures forever. (Psalm 107:1)  God our Saviour…will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1Timothy 2:3-4)  Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him. (Ephesians 1:9-10)  The Lord is not slack concerning His promise…but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9) 7

Damnationists argue that these texts only refer to Israel or believers in Christ but while some individual verses may perhaps bear that sense, taken together all the verses quoted by Universalists present a very powerful case. God’s will to save all is to be understood not as some vague wish in the sense of ‘would quite like it if …’, it is an indication of divine sovereign intent. We are left in no doubt that What God Wills, He Achieves:  Whatever His soul desires, that He does. (Job 23:13)  He does according to His will…No one can restrain His hand. (Daniel 4:35)  Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, and as I have purposed, so it shall stand. (Isaiah 14:24) Calvinists argue that God’s decreed (secret) will is different to His moral or perceptive (revealed) will; to make such a distinction is nothing other than an assertion of divine duplicity (cf. I am the way, the truth ….) which renders everything in scripture unreliable and necessitates a total scepticism with regard to it. The whole question of the two wills is a baffling and convoluted one and the fact that the two supposed wills have been conceptualised in so many different ways might alert us to the possibility that the whole theory amounts to an attempt to shore up a weak position arising from the contradictions within scripture and arising from certain conceptions of divine sovereignty. Piper, an advocate of the distinction, notes: This distinction in the way God wills has been expressed in various ways throughout the centuries. It is not a new contrivance. For example, theologians have spoken of sovereign will and moral will, efficient will and permissive will, secret will and revealed will, will of decree and will of command, decretive will and preceptive will, voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure), etc. (http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god)

Rather than pursue this involved question I will simply quote from one response to Piper’s article:

Here at the outset we find the foundational problem with Piper's particular theory of the two wills in God. This theory is necessitated by another theory: unconditional election. He has constructed a theoretical house of cards. If one is proven false, then the whole house falls. As a matter of fact, the only way for Piper's particular theory of the two wills in God to be valid is if the theory of unconditional election can be proven true… If God needed to create some people for hell, so that He could be glorified for His alleged attribute of wrath, then God could not have desired, in any manner possible, the salvation of those whom He decreed to create for hell. If God needs the non-elect to experience His wrath in hell for eternity so that He can be glorified, then He cannot, if we want to maintain any semblance of consistency or sanity, also desire their salvation, because it is their damnation which will ultimately bring Him glory. The two wills in God theory is an inept attempt at trying to talk out of both sides of one's mouth without appearing that he or she is doing so. (http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=birch.John-Piper.Are-ThereTwo-Wills-in-God.A-Response) Whereas Calvinism cannot accommodate any subversion of God’s will, Universalism can allow Him to permit a degree of human free will at least for a limited time. The New Testament appears to be explicit that Jesus Came to Save All Humanity:  There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. (John 1:7)  The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (John 1:29)  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:17)  And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (John 12:32) 9

 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. (John 12:47)  Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5:18)  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (I Corinthians 15:22)  And that he died for all … God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:14,19)  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all. (1Timothy 2:5-6)  We trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (I Timothy 4:10)  He … is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. (1John 2:2)  The Father has sent the Son as Saviour of the world. (1John 4:14) And there can be no doubt either that Jesus Succeeded in his Mission:  I have accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do. (John 17:4) Therefore we can conclude that All will be Reconciled to God  And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined …

He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it. (Isaiah 25:6,8)  And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh. (Joel 2:28)  All flesh shall see the salvation of God. (Luke 3:6)  Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. (Acts 3:21)  And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. (Colossians 1:19-20)  The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men. (Titus 2:11)  Behold, I make all things new … these words are true and faithful. (Revelation 21:5)

That this is the real message of the Gospel and not merely a misreading of verses taken out of context is supported by a study of three parables: the Prodigal Son, the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin. The Good Shepherd goes in search of the missing sheep, the lady searches for the lost coin and neither gives up till they have found them. The father of the prodigal son loves the wayward child and the elder son equally and has already forgiven the former before he is aware of his contrition – in God there is no

partiality and no half-heartedness that gives up before the task is complete.

Neither the Good Shepherd (previous page) nor the lady who lost a coin gives up before they find what is lost nor does the Father of the Prodigal Son ever withdraw his love for either son In Revelation we are told that the gates of the New Jerusalem remain open (21:25) and that inside there is a plant for the healing of the nations, presumably those still outside awaiting final redemption (22:2): In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. Damnationists have to insist that in the verses quoted above ‘all’ does not actually mean ‘all’ but ‘some’ or ‘all kinds of’ and even where the parallelism is most clear (‘as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive’) they deny the obvious sense in a terrifyingly ‘Orwellian’ twisting of meaning: Wright asks ‘How much clearer could it be?’ He goes on: When exegetes avoid the plain force of these texts by arguing that they refer to ‘all kinds of people’ rather than ‘all people’ they simply indicate that their theological system has taken over from the Bible. This in turn indicates that there is something wrong with their system. (Quoted in Hope Beyond Hell)

It has been suggested that post-resurrection teachings (of Jesus, Paul and others) are more explicitly universalist in some dispensationalist sort of way though this would require the assumption of some sort of contrast of emphasis if not contradiction between what Jesus taught before his death and what he, and his apostles, taught after his resurrection. The idea is interesting but probably should not be pressed too far. There is, in fact, very little in Scripture as a whole about eternal punishment in Hell. The Old Testament knows of nothing of the sort and issues no warnings about it and neither Jesus nor Paul nor any of the other disciples appears to regard it as a priority to warn people of such a dire fate awaiting them. Paul tells us all he knows of God’s message (Acts 20:27) but he does not tell us about eternal Hell, in fact Talbott presents a strong case for seeing Paul as an out and out universalist for whom Christ’s victory is far greater than Adam’s transgression (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15:55). The Beatitudes can imply that various categories of people will receive rewards hereafter without any necessity for faith being stipulated (how else can the wrongs done on earth be vindicated?) and we are openly told that that the priests and religious leaders who actively rejected Jesus will get into the Kingdom eventually, though not before the prostitutes and tax collectors (and the saying is not obviously intended ironically): Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. (Matthew 21:31)

Left: Saint Paul – perhaps a far more radical figure than evangelicals would admit. Right: Harlots – they will precede the Pharisees into the Kingdom 13

Damnationist Proof Texts

Damnationists make much of texts such as the Parables of the Rich man and Lazarus and the Sheep and the Goats but they must ensure that they interpret them correctly There are indeed verses that are problematic for Universalists and damnationists are quick to point to these in support of their position. They interpret the Universalist texts in the light of their own proof texts (and then accuse Universalists of doing likewise with theirs) but in fact their case collapses when the pillar that upholds it (their erroneous interpretation of Scripture) is removed. For instance, the story of Dives and Lazarus, cited by many as evidence of the eternity of Hell, is in fact quite irrelevant as it is set before the Last Judgement and in any case is a clever reversal of a traditional tale rather than a precisely argued doctrinal position. Damnationism depends entirely for its force on a few key words and passages of hyperbole or symbolism which have to be interpreted and translated with extreme care. Some of the terms where taking the usual translation at face value is very misleading include:  Eternal – the Greek term aionios (from aion, an age, Hebrew olam) actually means ‘of an age’ and not everlasting  Punishment – kolasis in Greek often implies a pruning, remedial action rather than a destruction  Destruction – apollumi is a crucial word and its natural sense seems to favour an annihilationist reading of ‘utterly wipe out’ more than a damnationist sense of a ‘perpetually 14

   

inconclusive process of perishing’ but we find that Scripture actually refers to things which are ‘destroyed’ only to be subsequently saved. Damnation – the more correct modern sense is ‘judgement’ Fire – the word pyr implies a refining force and in the Old Testament even unquenchable fires go out when their purpose has been served Torment – the root sense in most passages is to test something (from basanos, a touchstone) rather than implying endless punishment Hell – this word translates three NT terms – Gehenna, Hades (= Sheol = simply ‘grave’ where all go on death) and Tartaros. None of these has the same sense as our ‘Hell’. Apparently referring allegorically to Gehenna, Jesus says: I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last (Luke 12:59). Much of the imagery of Hell originates in paganism or Zoroastrianism and was found only in apocryphal Jewish works of the inter-testamental period, the sort of myths Paul advises his readers to reject (Titus 1:14).

For full details about these terms readers are referred to the resources listed below, especially Hope Beyond Hell Chapter 1 and Appendix V and Larger Hope pp54ff where key damnationist texts are discussed in much fuller detail (see also www.tentmaker.org/books/RichManandLazarus-Patching.html on the Rich Man and Lazarus). If it can be accepted that the majority of supposedly damnationist verses may not mean anything like what they have been taken to mean the damnationist case collapses. Zoroaster – the ancient Persian prophet may have influenced Jewish ideas about Hell

Damnationism makes God a Moral Monster Nothing is more contrariant to the divine nature and attributes than for God to bestow existence on any being, whose destiny He fore knows must terminate in wretchedness without recovery. (Bishop Newton, Final State of Man) Damnationists seem to take delight in denying the love of God for His creation. They restrict the name of Father to believers not realising that by acknowledging Him as creator they concede the greater responsibility while repudiating the lesser. Some even go so far as to assert that God chose to damn the reprobate to enhance His own glory (though in whose eyes this would be glorious is unclear as is the reason why a self-sufficient deity should need to act in such a way, more reminiscent of an Assyrian emperor than a good shepherd). Scripture teaches that Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mercy is everlasting and that He is unchanging: The LORDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s loyal kindness never ceases; his compassions never end (Lamentation 3:22).

Could a loving and merciful God whose nature is reflected in the life and death of Jesus really assign countless billions to eternal conscious torment? 16

No moderately caring human parent would subject their children to irredeemable harm or would place a time limit on their willingness to forgive them yet that is what damnationists ask us to believe about God for whom the loss of even one soul is the loss of a child made in His own image. In much the same way, it is equally obvious to many today that the traditional view of hell as eternal torment is ‘plainly sadistic and therefore incompatible with a God who loves humanity. (Pinnock and Brown quoted by Holy in Damned Nonsense) Everlasting torment is intolerable from a moral point of view because it makes God into a bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die. (Pinnock The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent) If damnationism is right, how can there be joy at the birth of a new baby or sorrow at the growing number of abortions? Given the risk of the child growing up and rejecting the gospel the kindest course would be not to start a family at all! How trivial even the worst human atrocities appear in comparison with everlasting torment in Hell! One would not even condemn a dog to such a fate. Allin in Christ Triumphant tells the following anecdote: In a certain quarter of London one of the many evangelists employed for that purpose had gone forth to preach to the people. When he had concluded an eloquent address he was thus accosted by one of his hearers: ‘Sir’, said the man, ‘may I ask you one or two questions?’ ‘Surely’, said the preacher. ‘Your have told us that God's love for us is very great and very strong.’ ‘Yes’. ‘That He sent His Son on purpose to save us, and that I may be saved this moment, if I will.’ ‘Yes’. ‘But, that if I go away without an immediate acceptance of this offer, and if, a few minutes after I were to be by any accident killed on my way home, I should find myself in hell for ever and ever.’ ‘Yes’. ‘Then’, said the man, ‘if so, I don't want to have anything to do with a Being Whose love for me can change so completely in five minutes’. Nothing, not even death, can separate us from the love of God. God’s love does not, therefore, cease when we die as we can see from the fact that Jesus went down into Hell to rescue the souls imprisoned there: Jesus ‘went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God 17

waited patiently in the days of Noah….’ (1Peter 3:19–20) and the gospel was ‘proclaimed even to the dead…’ (‘εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη…’ 1Peter 4:6). Ephesians 4:8–10 has been read as indicating that Jesus not only addressed the dead but freed them though this interpretation is contentious: ‘When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men’. We need not rely on the evidence of mystics and near death experiences offered by Vincent to accept that death is not the end of all hope of redemption.

Left: The Harrowing of Hell – the Apostles’ Creed tells us that Jesus ‘descended into Hell’ and Peter tells us that it was to preach the gospel to the dead. Right: John Stuart Mill We can be sure that God is not a hypocrite, that He does not demand of us more than He does of Himself, that when we are told He is ‘good’ that it means ‘good’ in a sense we can understand, indeed more good than we can appreciate – His ways are not our ways not because they are less merciful but because they are more! If this were not so and ‘good’ could actually mean ‘evil’ then none of the moral terms used in the Bible (including ‘true’) could be relied on at all. This is not to attempt to use some external standard to judge God but merely to accept that God has made it possible for us to use moral terms in a meaningful way that reflects, at least in part, the absolute standards He 18

constitutes. Otherwise we must agree with the observation by John Stuart Mill: ‘To say that God’s goodness may be different in kind from man’s goodness, what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly not be good?’ God tells us to love our enemies, Jesus asked for those who killed him to be forgiven, we are told to forgive seven times seventy times … will God do any less? Could not even Judas therefore eventually be reconciled? Shall not the judge of all the earth do right? (Genesis 18:25) As we have already indicated, Damnationists argue that Hell is necessary because God cannot tolerate sin in His presence, because a sin against an infinite being merits infinite punishment or because sinners become so hardened they become incapable of receiving grace however long God waits. These arguments do not stand up to even a brief examination. Punishment to be just must be relative to the offence and serve some purpose; eternal torment in Hell meets neither of these criteria of justice. There is no scriptural support whatsoever for the absurd medieval notion that any act of disobedience against God is infinitely culpable and much against it and it is equally clearly untrue that God cannot tolerate the proximity of sinners – how otherwise could Jesus have lived among Humans – and even if He could not that does not necessitate eternal torment! If the damned are so hardened in sin as to reject grace for eternity, how can Jesus’ death be said to have dealt with sin effectively? In fact punishment in the Bible is often (if not always explicitly) redemptive and followed by restoration; even Sodom will one day be restored:

Even Sodom (left) and Samaria (right) will ultimately be restored 19

I will restore their fortunes, the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters, and the fortunes of Samaria and her daughters (along with your fortunes among them) (Ezekiel 16:53) Divine love and justice are not in conflict but complete accord; Hell (whatever it really means) and judgement are not to be taken lightly but they are not pointless acts of vindictiveness, rather, like death itself, they are part of God’s redemptive plan. His loving mercy may require severity for a time (perhaps a long time, an ‘age’) but the ultimate outcome will be redemption and reconciliation. Only by faith in the ultimate restoration of all things can we offer a satisfactory explanation for God’s temporary tolerance of evil, for the death of infants, for the fact that many people live lives of utter misery; the only credible theodicy is one that insists that God will not allow evil to triumph but will turn it to greater good. Equally, the morally challenging passages in the Bible, especially but not exclusively in the Old Testament, may be rendered less problematic if we have faith in universal restoration. How else other than by faith in universal restoration can we account for the fact that Jesus taught in parables lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them (Mark 4:11) unless we accept the dreadful Calvinist doctrine of election? Some Definitions Hard (or ‘true’) Damnationism: approves and even celebrates the eternal conscious torment of the unsaved as the justified penalty for sin and unbelief. Soft Damnationism: mitigates the harshness of Hell by toning down the pain (‘Hell lite’), portraying it as a choice made by the damned themselves or limiting the number of its inmates and equivocating on the fate of groups such as infants or the mentally deficient; essentially a resort for the squeamish who not able to face up to the full implications of their exclusivist position. Annihilationism: a less horrific alternative to damnationism which is closely related to the idea of conditional immortality and which presents the gospel as the good news that the unsaved will be utterly destroyed, perhaps having been temporarily resurrected to face judgement and punishment for their sins. It is more compassionate but fails to address many of the flaws in damnationism. See the work of Edward Fudge for a statement of the case. Necessary universalism: the belief that the redemption of all must be true. Hopeful or contingent universalism: allows at least the theoretical possibility that not everyone will be saved but hopes they will be.

Damnationism Denies God’s Omnipotence A belief in eternal torment carries with it many other intermeshing doctrines and assumptions. It implies a yielding of God‘s sovereignty to man‘s free-will, a semi-sovereign devil, a denial of God‘s infinite knowledge, a conditional love on the part of God, no legal and lawful liability for the fall of man on the part of God, and among many other things, an inability on God‘s part to control the affairs of men. (D. Scott Reichard The Trilogy – he assumes an Arminian theology)

Christ the Victor and Ruler of All (Pantocrator) Having undermined His benevolence by making Him responsible for eternal torment, Arminian damnationists proceed to undermine God’s sovereign power (Calvinists, of course, are not guilty of this blasphemy). They do this in the name of free will, arguing that God will not override the freedom of humans to reject His grace (while accepting the imposition of Hell on helpless sinners). They deny that they are guilty of the semi-Pelagian heresy by making humans the responsible for their own salvation but this denial only leaves them exposed to the accusation that they have fallen back into a Calvinistic doctrine of election, as why else do some respond to

Good’s grace and so are saved and not others if it is neither by human effort nor divine selection? The notion of complete free will is probably fallacious – we were not free to choose whether to be born or into what circumstances, our life experiences shape our decisions – so we should be wary of placing too much weight on free will as an obstacle to God’s grace (especially as Scripture provides little to support the idea the concept of ‘original sin’ has little respect for free will and in many passages God is said to have hardened someone’s heart). It may be possible for God to so shape our experiences, in this life or the next, that we all can freely accept His grace but even if it were logically possible to continue to reject God’s grace freely and rationally given the opportunity to make a fully informed decision, we are explicitly told that nothing can separate us from God’s love. Why then should He allow human folly, sin and wilfulness to do just that – separate us for ever from His presence and thereby do irreparable harm to His creation? The supposedly more merciful annihilationist position allows Him to override free will to the extent of utterly wiping out the lost in a holocaust described in the same language as Hitler’s ‘final solution’ for the Jews! The Gospel tells us that Jesus will draw all men to him; if they do not come to him voluntarily is that not a breach of free will? C. S. Lewis seeks to avoid the need to have God impose Hell on humanity by suggesting that Hell is locked from the inside and may not seem all that bad to its inmates; besides there being absolutely no scriptural support for this suggestion, ‘Lewis’s own account of hell excludes … the very thing [awareness on the part of the sinner that he is an utter failure] that Lewis says justice requires’ (Talbott quoted by Holy p23). To allow human will to obstruct God’s explicitly stated intent is to undermine His sovereignty and to negate His omnipotence. Damnationism in effect accepts a dualism where evil remains undefeated and God has to settle for tucking it away out of sight like the man who tidies his house by sweeping all the most rotting garbage under the carpet. Think, too, how grotesque a parody of the divine justice it is to say, as the popular creed does, that God requires obedience and righteousness here, but if He cannot have these, He will he satisfied with endless disobedience and sin hereafter as a substitute. We are gravely told that if the wrong be not righted within a specified time, justice will be satisfied to increase the

wrong infinitely, and perpetuate it to all eternity. (Allin, Christ Triumphant) In the battle between good and evil, God has to accept a partial but nevertheless very significant defeat. To the question ‘Oh death, where is thy sting’ Satan can justly answer – ‘here with me in Hell – millions of them!’

C. S. Lewis – his Hell ‘locked from within’ concedes a partial victory to the Devil somewhat at odds with a belief in Christ the Victor and Ruler of All (Pantocrator)

Damnationism Denies the Efficacy of the Cross If the damned continue in their sinful rejection of grace then the very point of Jesus’ death – to take away the sin of the world – has been nullified! The worst, most obstinate sinners remain in their sin and the work of the cross has been defeated by sinful human will. Not so – say the Calvinists; Jesus saves all those the Father has chosen, his ‘elect’. In effect they make the crucifixion an utter irrelevance to the vast majority of human beings who have ever lived except perhaps in so far as it makes their guilt worse. Not only does this appalling doctrine fail to appreciate that in the Old Testament the elect (Israel especially) are chosen to be a blessing to the non-elect but it ignores the clear Scriptural evidence against it and renders God an arbitrary ‘cosmic despot’. The faithful of the church are the ‘first fruits’ but the ‘lump is also holy’ (Romans 11:16). Partial redemption appears to be an impossibility given the organic unity of humanity implied throughout Scripture.

The Crucifixion and Resurrection: according to the Calvinists, an irrelevance to most of humanity and according to the Arminians a dismal failure Arminians accept that Jesus died for the sins of all people but then negate the sufficiency of that sacrifice by making its effectiveness depend on each individual’s acceptance of its redemptive power, in effect rendering it void. Jesus can hardly be considered the Saviour of the World unless he actually does save all the world; a 24

lifeguard who throws a drowning baby a life jacket would hardly merit the description of rescuer if the baby, unable to put it on, sank to its death before his eyes! If by dying on the cross Jesus has paid the price, the ransom, for the sins of every human being then it is an injustice to exact that penalty a second time. If I pay your debt of £50m to the Inland Revenue they cannot then send in the bailiffs; whether you accept my gift or not, the debt has been paid. Either Jesus’ death is sufficient to take away the sins of the world or it is not and requires some response on our part to complete the work of redemption; either he has paid the full price on our behalf or he has not. That does not mean that we do not need to respond in order to benefit fully; faith is not the condition for redemption but the means to take advantage of it - we are saved by grace through faith – not by faith as if salvation were some reward for our belief. To argue otherwise is to advocate salvation by works. Arminians may protest that merely believing / responding to the gospel is not a work but surely this is desperate semanticism? It seems indisputable to me, as it does to Borg, that if our salvation depends ultimately on anything that we have to do, then we are saved by works – or by a work at least. (Holy p9) To say ‘Yes, you have to do something to be saved but you are not saved by anything you do’ is simply nonsensical. This irrationality belies, I suggest, the ‘incoherence and internal confusion’ of Arminianism (Holy p11) When [it] is understood [as ‘You must believe x, y and z in order to be saved’] faith becomes a work’. (Borg quoted in Holy p9) God redeemed humanity because He already loved humanity not in order that He might love them, as the universalist writer Hosea Ballou stated: What the Mediator (Jesus) did for sinners was the consequence and not the cause of God’s love to us. Damnationists agree ‘That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father’ (Philippians 2.10-11). They refuse to see this as evidence of universal redemption, of all 25

ultimately accepting Jesus as Lord, and interpret it as God enforcing unwilling but obedient submission on the lost. If that were His aim (and it is hard to see how such an act of despotism could match the true glory that would come from the willing repentance of all humanity) then it would not require the death of Jesus on a cross; God has more than enough power to enforce such a submission without ‘taking the form of a slave’. The leader of North Korea would probably not be fully satisfied with the thought that his people’s adulation was fake, no caring parent would regard enforced expressions of love from a child as worth anything – are we to believe that God would be satisfied with such a grotesque travesty of worship, or that the damned would be prepared to submit knowing that their fate if they did not could hardly be made any worse? God Himself tells us in Hosea 6.6 that empty and insincere ritual means nothing to Him: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

The Pharisaic Motivation of Damnationism

Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees – a by-word for hypocritical self-righteousness and exclusiveness, today exemplified by the self-satisfaction of the more fundamentalist churches While they may speak of it with ‘glibness which almost appears to be … glee’ (Stott), how many evangelicals really live as if they believe in the reality of eternal Hell? Very few it would seem (and, as we have said already, certainly not Jesus, Paul or Peter). The story is told of a damnationist preacher delivering a particularly powerful ‘fire and brimstone’ sermon then turning to the congregation and reminding them to bring golf clubs and pastries to the church picnic! If damnationists really did believe that most of their neighbours were facing an eternity of dreadful torment they would not rest in their efforts to evangelise them; they would certainly not be prioritising the annual barbeque. And there seems little real sense in worrying too much about the material well-being of the unconverted given the disproportionately greater question of the suffering facing them after their death. It would be wrong to deny that damnationists are motivated by genuine concern to spread the gospel as they see it (and many have suffered dreadful persecution or even death to do so) but it is also easy to see how such a belief can lead naturally, though not inevitably, to the mentality of persecution and crusade that stained the history of the church for over a thousand years. Happily the church has moved on from such atrocities and in order to make their position even remotely acceptable today damnationists are forced to resort to compromising their insistence on the doctrine of salvation by ‘faith alone’ (sola fide); some accept that the unevangelised may be judged according to the light they had, that babies, children and the mentally disadvantaged may

come to salvation without having faith in Jesus’ atoning death. That they have to make such compromises should alert them to the possibility that their position is seriously flawed; that it does not may be down to the fact that while damnationists make their formal case on the basis of scriptural proof texts their real motivation is often a sort of Pharisaic resentment of the suggestion that those who are not Christians might get something that they feel should be exclusively available to people like themselves (‘God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are …’ Luke 18:13). Do they fear that they have ‘wasted their time’ being Christians if everyone is saved in the end? This seems to be the sort of attitude addressed in the parable of the labourers who get the same pay for an hour’s work as for a full day (though this parable does not in itself support Universalism). It is rather sad that anyone should think in this way but it is obvious that many do; it implies that they regard their faith not as a present comfort and the assurance of future joy unbounded but as an inconvenience they tolerate for a long term benefit. Surely the more loving attitude is to welcome the prospect that everyone will be reconciled. What would be the better outcome for the Jewish victims of the holocaust – that Hitler be tortured for ever in Hell or that he come to repentance and be truly reconciled with God and his victims? There is no doubt at all which is more in accord with the teaching of Jesus.

Might not even Hitler, Judas and Satan himself ultimately be redeemed or must evil endure for ever?

A Non-Scriptural Case for Universal Redemption While it may be possible that the damnationist proof texts have all been misunderstood (with the mistranslation perhaps going back beyond the Reformation to the translators with limited Greek in the days of Augustine and Jerome) it has to be admitted that not all the universalist interpretations are fully persuasive and that it would be a very difficult task to explain away every Biblical indication that some will be excluded for ever from God’s presence. (See Wade’s Universalism: A Biblical and Theological Critique for a reasonably fair critical assessment of the Universalist reading of key texts.) The same problem exists for the damnationists – their attempts to deny the Biblical support for God’s universal saving will are equally unconvincing – but it is impossible for damantionists to accept the possibility of any contradiction in Scripture as their case is wholly dependent on the claim that the Bible unambiguously and inerrantly teaches eternal Hell. By contrast, while many Christian Universalists do seek to maintain allegiance to Biblical inerrancy, it is not necessary to do so in order to maintain the cause of ‘none left behind’. A case can be made which relies only on the relative historical accuracy of the Bible as a purely human document together with the indisputable facts of creation, sin and the existence of the Christian church. Briefly, there is strong evidence (especially but not exclusively from design and the reality of absolute moral standards) that the universe was created by God; the notion of divine self-sufficiency, the presence of goodness and beauty, the ministry and death of Jesus and ultimately his resurrection suggest that despite the real presence of evil God created the universe out of divine benevolence and purely to express His loving nature. This in turn implies that the beneficiaries of creation are human beings, created to be ‘sons of God’; if that is so then it seems inconceivable that God’s plan would involve anything less than the wholly successful redemption of His creation, the ‘fall’ of which was surely not some unforeseen and unwelcome eventuality to be remedied as best as possible but an essential feature of the plan from the start. It is the existence of the Christian church, flawed, divided and mistaken as it often is, that more than anything else confirms our faith in the loving and simultaneously just nature of God’s providence; it is virtually impossible to explain the existence of the church unless we accept the reality of the resurrection and

the resurrection is the ultimate vindication of Jesus’ teaching and work which we can reliably accept to have been focused on love, forgiveness, non-violence, repentance and the coming of the Kingdom. His purpose as the ‘suffering servant’ was to save the world from sin and his resurrection indicates that he was successful. He taught that we should love God with all our heart – something that would be quite impossible if we knew that our loved ones (who might have been saved had God willed it) were damned to eternal torment.

The King James Bible – some extreme fundamentalists ascribe divine inspiration to this (flawed but beautiful) translation; damnationism depends on simplistic over-literal readings of scriptural texts whereas Universalism does not require a belief in inerrancy or plenary inspiration in order to be convincing. Certainly this case cannot be proven; it is based on a number of fundamental assumptions that will seem to most theists reasonable enough if not obvious: • The benevolence of God (with concepts such as ‘love’, ‘mercy’ and ‘justice’ being applicable to God in a sense that has at least some connection with their conventional use. 30

• That the nature of God is seen in the life, teaching and death of Jesus and that central to his ministry was the importance of forgiveness with an emphasis on defeating evil not by violence but by love. He came to seek and save the lost and succeeded in his mission. • That the crucifixion and resurrection are significantly and beneficially relevant to all men and women who have ever lived. • That the gospel is Good News in a meaningful sense for all and not seriously bad news for a very significant proportion of them • That God’s victory over evil involves more than simply confining (most) sinners in Hell for ever but rather in utterly eradicating it by a process of redemption. • That God’s true glory is the redemption of all of His creation and not just a small part and certainly not a process of creating millions of people with the primary purpose of damning them in order to show His justice while allowing a few to be saved to show His mercy. • That God deals with people as individuals and not as mere components of ‘nations’ as the Old Testament in particular often teaches. • That salvation is by grace not works (which includes holding certain beliefs or ‘making a decision for Jesus’) and that grace will be abounding to sinners in a way that is not inequitable to any.

The non-scriptural case for universalism is strengthened by the fact that both Calvinism and Arminianism are untenable and that can be shown without having to rely on scriptural inerrancy. To maintain a Calvinistic damnationism requires acceptance of the following syllogism: • God does not will all to be saved • God’s will is done • Therefore not all are saved

To maintain the first premise two things have to be shown: 1. That scripture unambiguously asserts limited atonement 2. That scripture is doctrinally inerrant Neither of these claims can be persuasively established. 1. Scripture can only be made to assert limited atonement unambiguously by reading into the text a pre-existing assumption in favour of it. The fact that a clear majority of the mainstream Christian churches including such champions of orthodoxy as Athanasius (not to mention Luther and even perhaps Calvin in later years) have asserted unlimited atonement proves beyond any credible doubt that scripture cannot be unambiguously in favour of limited atonement. Certainly the church is rarely heard to preach an explicit doctrine of election and limited atonement! To avoid conceding the inevitable Calvinists either assign unobvious meaning to words like ‘all’, ‘world’ et cetera, thereby accepting a lack of unambiguous perspicuity or they resort the alternative sophistry of God’s two wills. Either this is a reference to the fact that human free will sometimes defeats God’s moral will (thereby admitting Arminianism) or to His secret will (thereby accepting that scripture may not actually convey any reliable account of God’s true will at all!) Either way Calvinists cannot convincingly assert point 1. 2. It is not possible to assert scriptural doctrinal inerrancy without resort to circularity. Historical evidence can never prove it (though it could support it) and lack of contradiction (which if established would be a major support) can only be established by begging the question as a neutral reading of scripture does not support noncontradiction (as this debate proves). The case made using prophetic accuracy is intriguing but not conclusive so the best case that can be made for the inerrancy of scripture is to argue that it is inspired and that that implies inerrancy and the best (relatively non-circular) argument for this is to rely on the use made by Jesus of Old Testament texts as authoritative but this argument relies (probably reasonably) on the assumption that Jesus’ use of the Old Testament has been accurately and respresentatively reported and that his use of the Old Testament can be applied by analogy to the New Testament and that is less certain. And it also assumes that Jesus was inerrant – but that too is subject to dispute as, for instance, it has been claimed that he 32

expected the apocalypse imminently and he openly admitted to ignorance on some points. Thus neither of the two essential planks in the Calvinist case is secure and the first is very doubtful. There are further arguments that can be deployed against Calvinism: 1. It is hardly unadulterated ‘Good News’. 2. It would logically lead to a ‘live for today’ immorality as people could quite rationally conclude that if they are one of the elect salvation is assured and with it sanctification and if they are among the reprobate damnation is unavoidable and so they may as well enjoy what life is left to them. 3. It would make celibacy the world’s greatest virtue. 4. It would make child killing a public service if there was even a chance that infants might be more likely to escape damnation (you may insist on deontological ethics but any system of morality that takes no account at all of the consequences in terms of human suffering is unsustainable – it is wrong to kill but not to administer morphine to ease pain in people not far from death; it would be a moral duty to do anything that spared a soul eternal torment!) 5. Their doctrine of the two divine wills is unsustainable. 6. It makes it impossible to love God with all one’s heart. The Arminian, on the other hand, needs to assert this alternative syllogism on the basis of doctrinally inerrant scripture: • God wills all to be saved • God’s will is not necessarily done • Therefore not all will be saved We have seen that the Bible is ambiguous on the first premise so there is no need to repeat the argument. Regarding the second there is no difficulty suggesting that humans do not always do God’s will so their position might appear to be at least plausible, however as we have already seen they run into a further insurmountable obstacle (besides the obvious unfairness of the fact that some people have a far better chance to hear the gospel than others). Either they have to alter the second premise to read ‘God’s sovereign will is not necessarily done’, thereby robbing God 33

of omnipotence and denying the inerrancy of the scriptural passages that assert it, or they have to accept that justification is not by grace alone but requires a human contribution, thereby denying the accuracy of those verses that assert the opposite and so again undermining the inerrancy and perspicuity their position depends on. They also have to accept that Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s great plan for salvation and redemption has been a dismal failure. In short, Arminianism fails to offer a solution to the problem of sin beyond calling on sinners to repent and turn from their sin â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the very thing they cannot do! The inevitable resort to some element of divine initiative in salvation raises the obvious question of why God so acts for some but not others and we find ourselves back with the Calvnistic doctrine of an arbitrary limited atonement. There is no way out of these dilemmas for either Calvinists or Arminians in both of which theologies sin is not dealt with but simply shut up out of sight and the fact that the debate remains unresolved after four hundred years would suggest that neither side is correct. Universalism may also suffer from similar difficulties but it can put forward a credible extra-Biblical case and the benevolent intentions of God are not dependent on acceptance of a doctrine of Biblical doctrinal inerrancy.

The Damnable Doctrine of Damnationism or the Blessed Hope of Universalism?

Pictures supposedly of Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa, - early advocates of universal salvation Eternal Hell is not found in the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, foundational statements of early Christianity. In the early church there was a widespread assumption of the ‘greater hope’ for the restoration of all things, especially by those whose first language was Greek not Latin. Saint Augustine (no friend to universalism) admitted that many of the faithful (and not just those of heterodox views as Origen had been) were believers in universal salvation (several of the sources in the Bibliography give lists, more or less reliable, of church fathers who expressed sympathy for universal salvation). Epiphanius (c.315-403) the ‘hammer of heretics’ listed 80 heresies of his time but did not list universalism among them and indeed four out of six theological schools from 170 AD to 430 AD taught universal salvation while the only one that taught Hell was in Carthage where Latin not Greek was the first language. Whether or not universalism and, as it happens, annihilationism, were declared anathema at the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 553 AD is unclear (Allin refutes the claim but Hope is happy to assert it as a fact quoting McGinley, J. (1996) The Decline of the Belief in Hell: An Analysis of the Theological and Philosophical Debates – a dissertation by a student) but what is quite clear is that despite the near complete acceptance of damnationism between 600 AD and 1800 AD the ‘Golden Thread’ of the wider hope has remained throughout a light in the darkness.

Left and Centre: St. Macrina the Younger and Bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia –who also advocated universal restoration in the early centuries of the church. Right: Augustine – a key damnationist The first Reformation, though flawed, restored the grace of a sovereign God to the centre of Christian theology; a second reformation is now needed that will place alongside it an equal concern for God’s unfailing and unlimited love and will respect both the rich and diverse traditions of the church and the reality of alternative religious faiths. There are signs that ‘Copernican revolution’ in theology may already be happening: Since 1800 this situation [the assumption of eternal punishment as a core doctrine] has entirely changed, and no traditional Christian doctrine has been so widely abandoned as that of eternal punishment. Its advocates among theologians today must be fewer than ever before. The alternative interpretation of hell as annihilation seems to have prevailed even among many of the more conservative theologians. Among the less conservative, universal salvation, either as hope or as dogma, is now so widely accepted that many theologians assume it virtually without argument. [Richard Bauckham, Universalism: a historical survey] Universalists do not agree on the details of their theology; major questions about the nature of atonement, salvation, restoration, theosis and punishment, about the role of good works, the status of other religions, theodicy and the inerrancy of scripture remain unresolved – but these problems have not been resolved by damnationist theology and in several cases are more difficult to resolve satisfactorily on the basis of eternal punishment.

Hosea Balou, John Murray, Karl Barth, Hans Urs Von Balthasar – ‘Dare We Hope that all Men be Saved?’ All these scholars did! Universalism can, it seems, be respectably presented as a remote possibility, a hope to be prayed for, without risk of being frowned upon by the more orthodox or regarded as dangerously liberal by the more narrowly-minded evangelical; to assert it as a probability or a certainty remains unacceptable to large numbers of conservative Christians of all denominations who are nevertheless quite prepared to tolerate far less Biblical concepts such as annihilationism and Lewis’s self-imposed Hell. There are, though, many today in our churches who in their hearts know damnationism cannot be true and who find annihilationism a depressingly inadequate attempt to avoid the obvious conclusion – the ultimate salvation of all humanity – but the dead hand of tradition and indoctrination still prevents many from thinking for themselves – or expressing their doubts if they do so. They are afraid of the response they will get from the bigot and Pharisee in their churches. It is high time for them to take courage and to admit – to themselves as well as to their brothers and sisters in the faith – that only in universal redemption can the true meaning of the gospel be found. A growing number already have – evangelists such as Rob Bell (while not all ‘coming out’ fully as Universalists) have spoken out in favour of a wider hope and a Christian Universalist Association has been founded to promote the truth that ultimately no one will be left behind.

Universalists are starting to organise but still remain divided

Universalism, with its message of judgement, punishment and redemption, provides a far more credible position for evangelism in the modern world than preaching eternal Hell which is so extreme as to be unbelievable and unlikely to convince anyone in an age not only of human rights but also of computers and space travel. It allows a constructive response to other faiths, not a naive pluralism which accepts every religion as a valid route to God but an inclusivism that recognises that Jesus has other sheep … not of this fold (John 10:16) and that the random vagaries of geography, history and family do not inevitably condemn one to eternal damnation. Religious dividing lines should not be drawn vertically between religions but horizontally across them; any version of a religion that asserts monotheism is true in that respect and if it asserts ethical conduct, salvation by grace, life after death, judgement and God’s love and justice, is it not propounding at least some of the truth?

Left: Jesus – did he really preach eternal conscious torment for the unsaved? Who were the ‘other sheep not of this fold’? Right: Did God really create humanity knowing that most of them were destined for an eternity in Hell? (For more on the history of Universalism, from an unsympathetic writer, see: www.christianuniversalist.org/articles/history.html.)

A Old Web Page of the Christian Universalist Association Universalism offers the prospect of a coherent theology of mercy, justice, grace, free will and hope; it allows God to be worshipped in love and not out of fear, it offers a gospel that is truly good news, it satisfies people’s consciences and deepest spiritual yearnings, offers them real consolation at times of bereavement and removes their greatest anxieties. It is not a gospel that treats sin, judgement and atonement lightly but it is a gospel of the purest grace. Universalism is the only belief system that even begins to offer a credible religious faith in the twenty-first century – but ultimately it remains (for now at least) a faith, a ‘blessed hope’. We can show beyond reasonable doubt that damnationism must be false; if we cannot ultimately prove the redemption of all to be assured it is a ‘blessed hope’ and we can certainly pray for it with a reasonable degree even of confidence – something damnationists are neither able nor willing to do. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. (1 John 4:18) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. (Revelation 21:4)

Leaders of the second Reformation? Gary Amirault, Julie Ferwerda, Rev. Eric Stetson, Rev. Kalen Fristad, Bishop Carlton Pearson, Gerry Beauchemin, Thomas Talbott and Rob Bell

The New Jerusalem where there will be no more death or sorrow and where Jesus and his elect will rule over the nations in righteousness for ever- a place where, in Rob Bell’s words, ‘love wins’.

The Pillars of Universalism and Damnationism

The case for damnationism ultimately rests on a single intellectual pillar â&#x20AC;&#x201C; deployment of proof texts based on a biblicist (over-literal) reading of Scripture which often ignores the latest scholarship and which prioritises traditional understandings of the Bible over a proper appreciation of the love and mercy of God. This approach to Scripture is founded on slavish adherence to outmoded attitudes and on a self-righteous pharisaism which condemns those who do not believe to an eternity of torment. The result is pride in oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own salvation, bigotry towards those of other faiths and an obscurantist refusal to consider other points of view. The whole structure is inherently unstable and its two main forms, Calvinism and Arminianism are fundamentally flawed and even incoherent. Neither offers a coherent theology â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the former

denying God’s goodness, the latter placing too much weight on human effort thereby allowing God’s plan for redemption to fail. Damnationism is unable to answer convincingly the many difficult questions about the unevangelised, those who die in infancy, those with ‘special needs’ and those whose experience of institutional Christianity has been wholly negative; about the plausibility of a deity who creates a humanity so prone to selfdestruction; and about the existence of moral and natural evils, including the numerous and troubling instances found in the pages of the Old Testament where they are seemingly divinely authorised. It is high time to recognise that the damnationist doctrine of eternal conscious torment is beyond saving – it should be left to the oblivion and opprobrium reserved for other long outdated and offensive religious beliefs such as witchcraft, ritual suicide and human sacrifice.

By contrast the Universalist doctrine is considerably more robust in so far as it does not rely on a single (flawed) pillar but on four. A Christian theology of redemption must be based on Scripture but interpreted in the light of reason and conscience; like Gandhi, we must not believe anything, however learned its advocates, that is repugnant to reason or, especially, morality. The four pillars of universal redemption are the sovereign goodness of God which desires all to be saved, the Biblical texts that explicitly assert the restoration of all things, the logic of atonement whereby sin has been effectively dealt with at the cross and a theodicy which sees in the ultimate restoration of all creation the only acceptable response to the problem of evil given the ultimate responsibility of God as Father and Creator for the creation of a humanity capable of sin. The only viable theology of redemption is therefore Universalism. It cannot resolve all the theological problems that face ethical monotheists but it does offer a far more promising basis for attempting to do so and renders some of the difficulties considerably less pressing. Given the utter inadequacy of its rivals â&#x20AC;&#x201C; inadequacy on both the moral and intellectual level - we can enter its portals with faith and confident hope.

The Last Judgement â&#x20AC;&#x201C; but according to Universalism not the End of all Hope

Summary  The prospect of eternal Hell for unbelievers is horrific but mercifully unreal  Since God wills all to be saved and since God’s will is sovereign we can be confident in the restoration of all things  Many Biblical texts support universal restoration  Verses which are taken to imply eternal damnation may have been misunderstood as key terminology (including ‘eternal’, ‘punishment’, ‘Hell’) has been mistranslated  God’s love is unchanging and His mercy endures for ever  Judgement and punishment therefore are not pointless and vindictive but will serve a redemptive purpose  An eternal Hell full of unrepentant sinners represents a victory for evil and reflects an unbiblical dualism  If one sinner remains in Hell Jesus cannot be called the ‘Saviour of the World’  Human free will cannot frustrate God’s loving redemptive purpose; the Arminian insistence on a human response (effectively a form of salvation by works) renders the work of the cross insufficient  Universalism makes for more credible Biblical interpretation  Universalism offers a more credible theodicy  Damnationism leads to persecution and intolerance and can reflect pharisaic attitudes  Universalism was widely accepted in the early church  A case can be made for Universalism that does not require acceptance of Biblical inerrancy by assuming the benevolence of God from creation, incarnation and resurrection  The case for Universalism is strengthened by the incoherence of both the major alternative theologies Calvinism and Arminianism  Universalism offers an open, compelling, coherent theology of love, justice and redemption  Universalism is truly a Gospel of Good News

Bibliography This statement of the case for Universalism is not a thorough scholarly treatise but an outline of the key arguments. Readers are referred to the following resources for full citations and detailed discussion.

Books and Articles

Aiken, M. and Amirault, M. Honest Questions and Answers about Hell www.tentmaker.org/articles/ifhellisreal.htm Allin, T. Christ Triumphant or Universalism Asserted as the Hope of the Gospel on the Authority of Reason, the Fathers, and Holy Scripture www.tentmaker.org/books/ChristTriumphant.htm Amirault, G. Adam Succeeded, Will Christ? www.tentmaker.org/articles/adam_succeeded_will_christ.pdf Amirault, G. Is Salvation A Deliverance From Hell or Eternal Death? www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/FromHellsEternalDeath.htm Baer, J. What the Hell

Ballou, H. A Short Essay on Universalism www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/ballou.html Balthasar, H. Urs Von Dare We Hope that all Men be Saved? http://www.ldysinger.com/@texts2/1961_balthasar/Dare_introdconcl.pdf Bauckham, R. ‘Universalism: a historical survey’ Themelios 4.2 (September 1978) pp47-54. www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/article_universalism_bauckham.htm l Beauchemin, G. Hope beyond Hell www.hopebeyondhell.net/pdf/Hope_Beyond_Hell_Unabridged.pdf Favager, D.J. Hell to Pay? The Blasphemous Absurdity of Damnationism Ferwerda, J. Raising Hell www.hellhoax.com/Resources/raisinghell.pdf Fristad, K. Destined for Salvation Fudge, E. ‘The Final End of the Wicked’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27.3 pp325-34 www.etsjets.org/files/JETSPDFs/27/27-3/27-3-pp325-334_JETS.pdf Fudge, E. Hell: A Final Word Paperback Gomes, A.W. ‘Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell, Part One’ Christian Research Journal Spring 1991 pp14ff www.bibleresearcher.com/hell4.html Gomes, A.W. ‘Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell, Part Two’ Christian Research Journal Summer 1991 pp8ff http://www.bibleresearcher.com/hell5.html Holy, R. Damned Nonsense www.christianuniversalist.org/articles/damnednonsense.doc Johnson, A.E. Larger Hope www.hopebeyondhell.net/pdf/Larger_Hope_Book.pdf

Kvanvig, J. L. The Problem of Hell MacDonald, G. The Evangelical Universalist Olson, R. Against Calvinism Zondervan Pearson, C. The Gospel of Inclusion: Reaching Beyond Religious Fundamentalism to the True Love of God Peterson, R.A. Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment Pridgeon, C. Is Hell Eternal? Or Will God's Plan Fail? www.tentmaker.org/books/is_hell_eternal/is_hell_eternal_index.ht ml Slagle, C. God Never Gives Up -- Not Ever! www.christianuniversalist.org/articles/godnevergivesup.html Stetson, E. Christian Universalism: God's Good News For All People Talbott, T. The Inescapable Love of God (selected chapters available at www.thomastalbott.com) Talbott, T. ‘The entry on Universalism’ in Jerry Walls ed. The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology (Uncorrected page proofs on line at: www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/Universalism.pdf) Vincent, K. R. The Golden Thread God’s Promise of Universal Salvation http://neardeath.com/kenrvincent/hidden/articles/The%20Golden%20Thread %20-%20Gods%20Promise%20of%20Universal%20Salvation.doc Wade, R. Universalism: A Biblical and Theological Critique http://www.probe.org/atf/cf/%7B3db354b7-83ad-49c0-95c3d23bb106154d%7D/UNIVERSALISM.PDF

Web Sites: Christian Universalist Association http://www.christianuniversalist.org/ Eric Stetsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Site http://www.christian-universalism.com Ken Allenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Site http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/chr-univ.html Links to Numerous Articles http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/univart.html Tentmaker (Gary and Michelle Amirault) http://www.tentmaker.org Destined for Salvation (Rev. Kalen Fristad) http://www.destinedforsalvation.org Christian Universalism http://www.christianuniversalism.com/ Thomas Talbott http://www.thomastalbott.com/

Some Key Modern Works on Christian Universalism

Audio-Visual Resources

A Man Fell In A Hole www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WCTltHR-Hg Craig v Bradley (1994) Can a Loving God Send People to Hell? www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-bradley-canada Dulles, A. Cardinal (2002) The Population of Hell http://digital.library.fordham.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/Dulles/id /4 Fristad, K. (2011) Lecture at Open Circle Unitarian Universalist Fellowship http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTOoRCGdA6k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjwBRz_e3g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ss3CA0hs6U Fudge, E. (2011) Lecture: A Fire that Consumes www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHUPpmbTOV4 Fudge, E. (2012) Hell: A Final Word Parts 1 and 2 www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAj7zwlnb98 www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY3tmabszNg Gregg, S. (2013) Episode 40: All You Want to Know About Hell Rethinking Hell www.rethinkinghell.com/2013/10/episode-40-all-you-want-to-knowabout-hell-with-steve-gregg/ Gregg, S. (2014) Three Views of Hell Parts 1 and 2 The Narrow Path www.thenarrowpath.com/topical_lectures.php#ThreeViewsOfHell Kvanvig, J. (2013) Bell's Hell www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q38VfB8PYFk Stetson, (2007) Eric Stetson speaks at UUCF conference Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship 2007 Annual Conference in Cleveland, Ohio, November 2, 2007. (23:33). www.christianuniversalism.com/UUCF%20Stetson%20speech%2011-2-07.MP3 49

Stetson, E. (2008) Eric Stetson debates with Calvinist professor Premier Christian Radio (U.K.), Unbelievable? with Justin Brierley, March 15, 2008, "Christian Universalism - Will everyone be saved?" (66:43). www.christian-universalism.com/Stetson%20vs%20Strange%20315-08.MP3

All web links were live in early 2014.

Hell to Pay? The Blasphemous Absurdity of Damnationism A Short Introduction to Universal Redemption Summary Version

D.J.Favager

‘Behold, I make all things new’ (Revelation 21:5) ‘Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire’ (Matthew 25:41)

I must understand in order to believe, and by doubting come to questioning and by questioning perceive the truth Abelard

ÂŠ

Summary Version 2017

This book is dedicated to: Tom (an ardent and eloquent damnationist) Lee Peter and Jenny Roy and Margaret John And the rest of the Church Family at Holy Trinity This is a polemical book – please don’t be offended by it but rather seek to refute its arguments. Damnationism – the good news that Hell is a real place where the unsaved are subjected to eternal torment Annihilationism – the good news that rather than suffering an eternity in Hell the unsaved will be completely obliterated and utterly cease to exist Universalism – the good news that ultimately all will be reconciled to God and that eventually Hell, if it exists, will be empty

The full version of this book is available as a paperback or Kindle e-book on Amazon.

Proceeds from the sale of this book will be donated to the work of The Barnabas Fund which works to help Christians who are suffering from persecution.

Contents Introduction Chapter Summary 1. The First Pillar: Scripture Chapter Summary 2. The Second Pillar: Morality Chapter Summary 3. The Third Pillar: Atonement Chapter Summary 4. The Fourth Pillar: Theodicy Chapter Summary Conclusion Chapter Summary Appendices Appendix 1: Universalist Professions Appendix 5: Summary of the Case for Universalism

Introduction Abandon Hope Damnationism refers to the belief that the unsaved (generally, unbelievers) will suffer eternal conscious punishment in Hell and is found particularly in the mainstream denominations of Christianity and Islam. Not all adherents to these faiths are damnationists but the Dantean vision of Hell as a place of dreadful torment is not just a hangover from medieval times, it is alive and well in many contemporary churches and conservative evangelical Protestants, while differing on the details, still generally regard Hell as a sphere of everlasting punishment and anguish. Damnationists are usually happy to pronounce with absolute certainty on the wretched fate of adults who do not adhere to their particular religious doctrines but they become rather more equivocal or even agnostic as to the fate of dead infants, a fact that exposes a basic weakness of their position as it would be a monstrous injustice to damn them but if they were all saved it would render infanticide an act of kindness. Since the enlightenment scepticism about the traditional Hell has become increasingly prominent but it is unclear whether the burden of proof should lie with those who advocate departing from the mainstream view that Hell is eternal or on those who support such a shocking notion. Whatever the case, the standard of proof attainable is unlikely to go beyond a decision ‘on the balance of probability’. In essence the debate hinges on the nature of God and for damnationists (as well as annihilationists) the single independent pillar of their argument is their reading of Scripture which they need to be both unambiguous and authoritative in order to bear the weight they place on it. McTaggart has argued that any deity malicious enough to damn souls to Hell could not be trusted to provide reliable information but even without this dilemma such a fundamentalist reading of the Bible is far from secure and damnationists need to resort to claims to special insight from the Holy Spirit to maintain their position. Neither tradition nor theological arguments amount to an independent foundation for the idea of eternal Hell as both ultimately rest on Scripture and the former has often been in error and has, historically, been rejected by Protestants as a source of spiritual authority. Damnationism is thus based first and foremost on Biblicism and subsequently on a number of derived and to some extent mutually contradictory principles: the priority of God’s justice over His mercy and love; a specific understanding of His glory drawn from ancient near eastern despotisms; the notion of God’s supposed ‘two wills’; an anthropology in which sin is central and deserving of infinite punishment; justification by explicit pre-mortem faith alone; either free will or

election; a dualist eternal â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;bifurcationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of the saved and the damned. While even the more liberal universalists rely to a great extent on scriptural support the case for universalism rests on four pillars (Scripture, morality, atonement, theodicy) which, though interlinked, are, to some extent at least, autonomous and universalism is not totally dependent on particular readings of Scripture as it can present a case that is not only scripturally but ethically, theologically and philosophically convincing and which is fundamentally compatible with, and implied by, ethical monotheism in a way which damnatonism is not. As ethical monotheism is not dependent on the authority of the Bible, neither is universalism. Universalism assumes that benevolence is a fundamental attribute of God and that the life of Jesus was a manifestation of divine love and forgiveness; that Jesus came to seek and save the lost and succeeded in his mission to defeat (and finally eradicate) sin; that the cross is relevant to all humanity; that Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s glory is seen not in the imposition of vindictive penalties for sin but in the redemption of all creation; that salvation is by grace not merit. The glibness and even glee with which damnationists often defend the doctrine of Hell cannot be explained simply by their respect for Scripture or by their adherence to tradition or even by their vulnerability to peer pressure; it serves deeper psychological needs such as providing a badge of group identity over against more liberal theologies and satisfying a desire to see justice meted out while supporting a pharisaic sense of spiritual superiority. The willingness to believe in vindictive divine punishment often goes hand in hand with great personal kindness but it can also be a small step from belief in Hell to cruelty, bigotry and persecution. The golden thread of universalism has come down through the ages as an alternative minority tradition and there is reason to think that better knowledge and education along with modern technology and globalisation will render damnationism increasingly untenable.

1. The First Pillar: Scripture The Letter Kills but the Spirit Gives Life If God wills all to be saved and if He is omnipotent, universalists argue that it follows that all will indeed be saved. Calvinists deny the first premise in this syllogism, Arminians the second but the Bible teaches that God loves all mankind, wants all to be redeemed, is sovereign and achieves what He wills; it also teaches that Jesus came to save the world and succeeded and that all will be reconciled to God. Parables such as the Prodigal Son, the Lost Coin and the Lost Sheep, passages in Revelation where the gates of the New Jerusalem remain open and there is a plant for the healing of the nations and possibly even the letters of Paul support the universalist interpretation. There is relatively little in the Bible about Hell as a place of eternal torment. The damnationist response is firstly to deny the obvious meaning of verses which appear to have a universalist sense, insisting that ‘all’ means ‘all kinds of’ or ‘all the elect’ or simply ‘some’ and that terms like ‘the world’ and ‘salvation’ have particular meaning in such verses. Secondly they propose that God has ‘two wills’ (variously termed) so that He can decree what He forbids and will universal salvation and also not will it without contradiction. Thirdly they prioritise damnationist texts over universalistic ones with no obviously sound reason to justify so doing except that, as well as sourcing ‘proof texts’ from the gospels and Revelation, they see the whole tenor of Scripture as supporting eternal separation, though many of the passages cited are either irrelevant (Lazarus and Dives) or inconclusive. Annihilationists agree that the traditional view is untenable (Fudge rejects all four of what he terms the ‘pillars of damnationism’) but reject universalism on the basis of Scripture, arguing that human souls are only conditionally immortal and that Scripture speaks clearly about the ultimate destruction of the finally impenitent. If Heaven is the fullness of God’s presence the fate of the lost is the exact opposite – non-existence. The ‘issuant conception of Hell’ in which Hell, like Heaven, is a reflection of divine love, has been applied to make annihilation a free choice on the part of the lost but Scripture is not unambiguously annihilationist (destruction is sometimes followed by restoration) and it would be a poor end for God to have destroy a large part of His creation. Annihilationism is more caring than damnationism but ultimately offers no more hope. The meaning of key Greek terms (‘eternal’, ‘punishment’, ‘fire’, ‘damnation’, ‘torment’, ‘Hell’, ‘destruction’, ‘death’, ‘separation’) can be endlessly debated but no party can claim a clear victory. Damnationists note that Jesus utters the strongest statements in support of eternal Hell but many of his teachings were inadequately understood by his followers and he was

given to using hyperbole and metaphor, exaggerated language to press urgent warnings on his listeners. Jesus said things that pose problems for all sides. In short, Scripture is ambiguous and contains passages which are irreconcilable. A proper understanding of the Bible requires that we go beyond the letter to the spirit. Scripture is not sufficiently infallible to place complete reliance on it and on its own the exchange of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;proof textsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is not going to allow any definitive conclusion to be reached.

2. The Second Pillar: Morality God’s Sovereign Goodness Damnationism makes God responsible for the most horrific moral enormity imaginable, it denies His universal Fatherhood and grants Him completely arbitrary power over creation in a way that is completely at odds with the biblical teaching of God’s wholly undeserved care for humanity. It makes the saved souls in Heaven complicit in the rejoicing over the fate of the lost and it makes birth at best a terrible gamble and at worse a grave misfortune. By contrast the chief foundation of universalism is God’s everlasting love – He will wait as long as it takes (the Harrowing of Hell indicates, at least symbolically, that there is no arbitrary cut off at death) and any punishment He imposes is to be understood in the light of the fact that He can never act against the long term best interests of any of His creatures. The offer of salvation is never withdrawn, Hell is better seen as a place of purging rather than of vindictive pointless revenge; God calls on us to forgive – He is not a hypocrite and we can therefore be sure that the ‘judge of the Earth will do right’. Theodicies of Hell (attempts to justify eternal torment, sometimes by downplaying its dreadfulness) present damnation as either a good thing in itself or as a necessary if unfortunate price to be paid for some greater good. None is wholly convincing and all are rendered redundant by the sufficiency of atonement: 1. The claim that a holy God cannot tolerate sin is obviously untrue on biblical grounds and anyway does not justify eternal torment. 2. The claim that a sin against an infinite Being demands an eternal punishment is unbiblical, illogical and incoherent as an infinite penalty can never be paid leaving justice for ever denied and sin unresolved. Eternal punishment, even if not especially dreadful, is not justified by any sin of a finite being. 3. The claim that Hell serves God’s justice and glory is false in both respects – disproportionate penalties are not just and there is no glory in their imposition to no useful end. 4. The claim that terms such as ‘loving’, ‘good’ and ‘just’ do not have the same meaning when applied to God as they do in ordinary human discourse is undermined by biblical evidence that human conscience can know good from evil and renders any meaningful statements about God impossible.

5. The claim that the saved rejoice at the damnation of the lost because they have come to share God’s holy point of view suggests that they have been victims of a metaphysical lobotomy which obliterates all their memories of their loved ones and any sense of compassion for them. 6. The claim that the damned would never repent even if given a second chance or that such repentance would be either forced or insincere negates Jesus’ promise to draw all men to him and takes no account of the combination of limitless divine love and patience in the context of eternity. Retributivism by contrast asserts that in Hell the sinner will be made to face up to their sin in ways that make repentance inevitable in the long run. 7. Claims that Hell is actually not that bad (some form of loss, non-being, or exclusion) or has relatively few inhabitants while often ingenious have no biblical foundation and are a retreat from damnationism proper. 8. The claim that universalism is morally dangerous and that without the prospect of Hell life’s choices are trivialised as all will turn out well in the end is undermined by the obvious facts that fear does not promote true morality, that damnationism can show little evidence that it promotes goodness and that universalism does not deny significant (and quite possibly eternally significant) consequences for the way we live our lives. 9. The claim that there have to be damned for there to be saved because it is not possible to create a world in which circumstances allow that all come to salvation and that the eventual outcome will be the optimum possible balance between redeemed and lost does not offer an acceptable defence for the unjust imposition of such a dreadful fate on the latter whatever possible benefits might accrue to the former from the reality of eternal Hell. William Lane Craig’s version of this defence is based on conceptually weak notions such as God’s supposed ‘middle knowledge’ of everything that could possibly be and the idea of ‘transworld damnation’ by which some hapless souls could never be saved no matter what the circumstances of their lives. 10. The claim that free will is essential to personhood and that Hell is less a punishment imposed by God than a natural consequence of the choice to reject His grace is ultimately unconvincing as no one in full possession of the facts could rationally choose Hell over Heaven and any other sort of decision would not justify God abandoning anyone for eternity any more than a loving human parent would be justified leaving their child to 61

harm themselves on the basis that it is wrong to override their free will. If the damned remain under the power of their false value system and in their pride choose Hell then sin remains undefeated; if the damned remain under the illusion of happiness in a Hell that is not too dreadful then their belief that they could sin with (relative) impunity turned out to be true. Free will is a profoundly difficult idea; universalists as well as damnationists (Calvinist and Arminian) hold a range of different views on how it might be compatible, if at all, with moral responsibility and divine sovereignty. Even if real it would not justify damnation and, as an excuse for it, it takes no account of the central importance to salvation of grace and objective atonement. Traditional damnationism denies the goodness of God, His omnipotence or both â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the damnationist god is either evil or ineffectual. It is therefore blasphemous in that it asserts the triumph not of love but of sin and false in that the triumph of God through the redemption won on the cross means there cannot be even the theoretical possibility that Hell is for ever.

3. The Third Pillar: Atonement The Sufficiency of the Cross Atonement traditionally refers to the reconciliation of God to humanity (and vice versa), by means of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, following the alienation consequent on the Fall. Damnationism is inconsistent with a doctrine of effective atonement as sin is not finally dealt with, the impact of Jesus’ sacrifice is nullified and death is not defeated. Calvinists limit the effectiveness of atonement to an elect (whose salvation reveals God’s mercy while the fate of the damned reveals His justice) but this ‘satanic’ doctrine can be refuted on biblical, moral and theological grounds. God’s total sovereignty renders the concept of sin as rebellion incoherent and the sacrifice of the cross redundant and irrelevant to most of humanity. The modification made by so-called ‘Four Point’ Calvinists makes no difference in practice – salvation in both versions depends solely on election. Barth tried to make sense of election by suggesting that everyone (except Jesus) is elect but his theory has not won widespread support. Arminianism renders atonement ineffective by insisting that the objective justification achieved by the cross has to be appropriated by each individual sinner (subjective justification) but this synergistic doctrine makes nonsense of the claim that the cross is sufficient to take away the sin of the world and in effect replaces salvation by grace with salvation by works. Universalism alone does justice to God’s redemptive action, all the alternatives, annihilationism included, making no sense of it at all. Salvation, understood as the reconciliation of all in Jesus Christ, is not only the responsibility of God as Creator, it is essential if sin, understood as rebellion against God, is to be truly eliminated. Salvation cannot therefore ultimately depend on anything the sinner does and cannot be limited to an exclusive elite. Damnationists retort that universalism renders the death of Jesus unnecessary or too high a price for what is gained if Hell is not eternal (the essential alternative to salvation) but we simply cannot know what the cost-benefit analysis is and it may be that it was absolutely essential for Jesus to die as he did in order that evil be defeated and humanity granted eternal life (as opposed to merely being let off the full penalty for their sin.) Much of this criticism assumes that atonement is best understood as penal substitution, a theory held by some evangelical universalists and which, if true, actually renders eternal torment (or indeed any punishment at all) impossible if justice is to be served (as the penalty has, supposedly, already been paid by Jesus). Many universalists reject this model on the grounds that a benevolent God does not require to have His wrath assuaged by such a monstrous act of injustice and because

penal substitution does nothing to deal with the underlying problem of sin or address the subjective aspect of justification. Damnationists accuse universalists of underestimating the need to propitiate a holy and vengeful God but biblical teaching does not support the belief that God needs to be reconciled to humanity â&#x20AC;&#x201C; it was out of love that He sent His only son â&#x20AC;&#x201C; rather that it is man who needs to be reconciled to God. The criticism of universalism that it has no coherent doctrine of atonement is one that can also be made against damnationism and annihilationism but to refute damnationism it is not necessary to have a fully worked out system encompassing all the essential theological concepts connected with salvation, all that is necessary is to assume that Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plan to redeem mankind was a success.

4. The Fourth Pillar: Theodicy Suffering and the Purpose of Creation Theodicy is that branch of theology that attempts to explain how an omnipotent and benevolent God can allow evil (both natural and moral) and the consequent suffering to sentient creatures. A number of approaches have been taken. One is to deny the problem, arguing that it is only attachment to false values that causes suffering, that life is just as karma operates through a process of reincarnation or that evil is a mere negative, not a real thing at all. Another is to deny either God’s omnipotence (advocating some form of dualism, open theism or process theology) or His benevolence, but neither of these defences is compatible with the nature of God as sovereign, omniscient and loving which we find portrayed in Scripture. A better response is to look for morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil to continue: one is free will, which may be necessary for the development of a truly loving relationship with God and which may equally be misused, but free will may be an illusion and even if it is not it may not justify the extent of suffering in the real world. Another sufficient reason is termed ‘soul making’ (the ‘instrumental’ defence advocated by Hick); some suffering is necessary if life decisions are not to be inevitably wholly trivial and the spiritual development such suffering allows more than justifies the short term pain it causes. A third ‘sufficient’ reason has been termed ‘God’s megaphone’ in that pain causes sufferers to turn to God in a way that a comfortable existence never can. These reasons are only partially convincing and can appear to leave God ‘tainted’ so other theodicies look to the atoning victory of a God who suffered alongside us on the cross, a victory of love rather than power, or to the eschaton, in the sense that in the context of ultimate eternal joy the pain of this life will seem trivial. Any attempt to understand suffering must start from the purpose of creation and from the premise that creation reflects God’s love rather than His desire for selfglory and it must offer an understanding of the origin and nature of evil that does not lapse into dualism but rather is ‘relational’ allowing humans the freedom to reject God’s love without that inevitably implying their eternal damnation. Sin has to be seen as an essential part of the plan not an unforeseen misfortune; even accepting that humans are fundamentally selfish (perhaps the sense in which we can all be said to have sinned ‘in Adam’), the Augustinian theodicy in its traditional form, in which eternal Hell as the justified penalty for culpable rebellion by humanity enables the moral perfection of the universe to be restored, is untenable morally and theologically. Damnationism does not depend on the historical reality of the Fall but if it was not a real historical event the conservative

evangelical theological model as a whole begins to crumble. The Bible does not give an answer to the problem of suffering but damnationism cannot even begin to offer a persuasive theodicy as the evils of sin and pain never end and the wrongs done to the (unsaved) oppressed are never vindicated in a way that brings them any benefit. They have lived out lives of misery and Hell, where they end up, is the worst instance imaginable of pointless suffering. Annihilationism has nothing better to offer and for the annihilationist as for the damnationist truth is ultimately tragic â&#x20AC;&#x201C; only universalism offers hope that both the omnipotence and benevolence of God will be vindicated; it does not have all the answers but the light at the end of the tunnel is not the fire of Hell but the Kingdom of God.

Conclusion A Wider Hope? While a splendid vision, and far more suited to lead the church through the twenty-first century than traditional theologies, universalism faces a considerable number of unresolved problems. One objection is that while many if not most of the early Christian schools were apparently universalist and while universal redemption as such was never authoritatively condemned as heretical, the history of the church is overwhelmingly against it. This will concern anyone who believes in God’s providential guidance but it is patently obvious that the church can be, and often has been, divided, seriously in error and grossly failing in its duty to be the ‘body of Christ’. It is the vehicle through which the gospel is brought to the world but it is not inerrant; it has been continually rethinking its position on the most fundamental questions of faith and the progress made should not halt now. A second further objection, in so far as it is a genuine objection at all, is that universalism is counterproductive to evangelism and conversion in that there is far less urgency to motivate either. No only does this objection not address the truth or otherwise of universal redemption but it ignores the plain facts that most damnationists are not noticeably active evangelically and that some are zealous to the point of persecuting those they cannot convince. Fear of Hell is a very dubious motive for faith in Jesus, damnationism is less credible as a message of good news and there are many other motives for spreading that gospel apart from the desire to save souls from damnation. All sides need to recognise that declining church attendance figures are seriously worrying and that the relative success of some fundamentalist sects is not evidence of their possession of spiritual truth as we find similar trends in Islam and Hinduism as well as in certain pseudo-Christian sects. A third objection is that universalism is a house divided – some universalists are pantheists, some Unitarians, others evangelicals, inclusivists or liberal pluralists. They cannot all be right – but then damnationism is even more divided as is every significant religion on the planet. A fourth further criticism (or set of criticisms) is that universalism is a static and mechanistic theology, is humanistic, fails to give due seriousness to sin, tries to force God to be what we would like Him to be, is Gnostic in its outlook and offers a ‘fix it’ saviour in an idolatrous concern for our own personal fate. While many simple presentations of universalism no doubt display some of these characteristics, properly understood universalism does not propose a static account of salvation but rather a dynamic relationship between divinity and humanity. None of these objections is any more fatal to universalism than they would be to damnationism or

annihilationism. Damnationism can be shown to be false and incoherent on the basis of Scripture, morality, atonement and theodicy at least on the balance of probability if not beyond reasonable doubt and annihilationism, while less offensive to justice, is also not supported by arguments from atonement and theodicy. This in itself does not mean that universalism is true and on the basis of Scripture alone it cannot even be said to be the most likely option but on the basis of Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s benevolence it is the most credible option and in terms of atonement theology and theodicy it is the only credible option. Since universalism cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt on two of the four pillars it might seem that we should not go beyond a merely hopeful universalism but in fact ethical monotheism virtually requires universalism to be true as the alternatives are incompatible with the benevolence and omnipotence of God and so, unlike damnationism or annihilationism, it does not require an inerrantist view of Scripture to be convincing. Many damnationists are reluctant believers in eternal Hell, never having heard the case for the wider hope; others are simply guilty of being closed minded. The second (universalist) reformation has already begun to challenge such ignorant, pharisaic and blasphemous bigotry; its message of judgement, punishment and redemption is far better placed to counter the threat of secular atheism. Damnationism misses the true heart of the Christian message and no one should be expected to believe something as repugnant to the intellect as it is to any sense of morality. Universalism, on the other hand, can help to resolve the tension between philosophy and theology, can offer the prospect of a coherent theology which can take account of other faiths rather than simply dismissing them. It does not treat sin lightly but offers truly good news, a gospel of unconditional love and of the purest grace.

Appendix 1 Universalist Professions Articles of Faith (1790) Section 1 Of the holy Scriptures we believe the Scriptures of the old and new testaments to contain a revelation of the perfections and will of God, and the rule of faith and practice. Section 2 Of the supreme being we believe in one god, infinite in all his perfections; and that these perfections are all modifications of infinite, adorable, incomprehensible and unchangeable love. Section 3 Of the mediator we believe that there is one mediator between god and man, the man Jesus Christ, in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily; who, by giving himself a ransom for all, hath redeemed them to god by his blood; and who, by the merit of his death, and the efficacy of his spirit, will finally restore the whole human race to happiness. Section 4 Of the holy ghost we believe in the holy ghost, whose office it is to make known to sinners the truth of their [this] salvation, through the medium of the holy Scriptures, and to reconcile the hearts of the children of men to God, and thereby dispose them to genuine holiness. Section 5 Of good work we believe in the obligation of the moral law, as to the rule of life; and we hold that the love of God manifest to man in a Redeemer, is the best means of producing obedience to that law, and promoting a holy, active and useful life.

The Winchester Profession (1803) Article I. We believe that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain a revelation of the character of God, and of the duty, interest and final destination of mankind. Article II. We believe that there is one God, whose nature is Love, revealed in one Lord Jesus Christ, by one Holy Spirit of Grace, who will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness. Article III. We believe that holiness and true happiness are inseparably connected, and that believers ought to be careful to maintain order and practice good works; for these things are good and profitable unto men.

Rhode Island (Universalist) Catechism (1865) We believe in one God, the Creator of all things, and the Father of Mankind; in Jesus Christ his Son, who is the true Teacher, Example, and Savior of men; in the Holy Spirit, the Comforter; in the certainty of retribution; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of all men from the dead; and their final holiness and happiness in the immortal life.

The Five Principles of Faith (1899) 1. The universal Fatherhood of God 2. The spiritual authority and leadership of His Son Jesus Christ 3. The trustworthiness of the Bible as containing a revelation from God 4. The certainty of just retribution for sin 5. The final harmony of all souls with God

Universalist Creed (1903) I believe in God, the Father Almighty and Universal; and in Jesus Christ his Son, the true teacher, example, and Savior of the world. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the quickener and comforter of men. I believe in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as a revelation of righteousness, truth and love. I believe in the Holy Church Universal; in the communion of saints; in the certainty of punishment for transgression; in the forgiveness of sins; in the life immortal; in the final triumph of goodness and mercy; and in the union and harmony, at last, of all souls with God.

Two Universalist TULIPS D. Costen (2007) and J. Licitra (2014) Total depravity / total grace Total reconciliation Unconditional election Unlimited atonement Limited salvation (in this age) Love Irresistible grace through the ages Perseverance of God www.christianuniversalist.org/resources/articles/universalist-tulip/ www.christianheretic.com/2007/11/tulip.html

(One might suggest: Total dependence or reconciliation, Unconditional love, Limitless atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of God.)

Christian Universalist Association Statement of Faith (2014) 1. We believe in God, who is Love, Light, Truth, and Spirit, the Creator of the universe, whom we are called to seek, know, and love; and whose nature was revealed to the world in the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. 2. We believe that the universal commandment is to love and serve one another as we love ourselves. 3. We believe in the law of justice by which actions generate consequences, whether to be manifested in this life or the life to come; and that love, grace and forgiveness ultimately overcome the law of justice. 4. We believe in the full and final triumph of the grace of God over the powers of sin and death: that the mercy and forgiveness of God are victorious; that this victory of redemption is revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus; and that, therefore, no human being will be condemned or allowed to suffer pain and separation forever. 5. We believe every person is the divine offspring of God, created in the image of the Heavenly Parent of all; and that every person is destined to be raised up from imperfection to maturity according to the pattern of the archetypal Christ, the Son of God, the Perfect Human in whose image all humanity shall be transformed. 6. We believe in mysterious spiritual phenomena, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which transcend materialistic views of reality. 7. We believe that Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Holy Spirit has inspired numerous prophets, saints, philosophers, and mystics throughout history, in a variety of cultures and traditions; and that by reading the Bible and other great texts of spiritual and moral wisdom with a discerning mind, and meditating to connect to the Spirit within, we may all gain a greater understanding of truth, which should be applied for the betterment of ourselves and our world. www.christianuniversalist.org/about/beliefs/

Appendix 5 Summary of the Case for Universalism 1. The Bible holds out genuine hope for the restoration of all things. Some of the key passages which damnationism struggles to explain away are:  God our Saviour…will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1Timothy 2:3-4)  The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (John 1:29)  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)  We trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)  All flesh shall see the salvation of God. (Luke 3:6)  And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. (Colossians 1:19-20)  The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men. (Titus 2:11)  Behold, I make all things new … these words are true and faithful. (Revelation 21:5) 2. God as loving and omni-benevolent Creator and Father of humanity would not be so cruel as to impose the excessive and unjust penalty of infinite punishment for finite sins, especially if mankind was created inherently incapable of perfect righteousness. The damnationist claim that rebellion against an infinite Being deserves eternal punishment has no scriptural basis and would mean that justice would never be finally achieved. Further, it would be impossible truly to love a god who sent legions of souls to eternal Hell. It is a mistake to assume that divine justice is in some sense incompatible with divine mercy and that death ends the offer of salvation. 3. It is not possible for rational souls in full possession of the facts to freely choose Hell over Heaven and no decision that was not free or fully informed could be allowed by God to determine a person’s eternal destiny.

4. If God loves some He must by necessity love all. Since salvation is by grace not works (and the need to believe can be considered in this context as a ‘work’) it would be arbitrary to save some and not others. Furthermore, to love a person requires that one seek their complete wellbeing and the saved could not be truly at peace if their loved ones were suffering the torments of the damned, unless their memories are erased as part of the process of glorification. 5. If even a single soul remains unreconciled sin has not been defeated and the atoning work of Jesus on the cross would be a partial failure, something which is unthinkable given the omnipotence of God and His stated intention to have all men saved. Given infinite love and patience and an eternity to bring about His divine purpose we can be certain that ultimately God will indeed reconcile all things unto himself. 6. Unless all are ultimately saved no convincing theodicy can be proposed which will ensure that the suffering of countless millions is truly vindicated in a sense beyond merely the satisfaction of seeing the unrighteous tormented for eternity. 7. Exclusivist damnationism cannot offer coherent answers to the most basic questions about salvation such as the fate of infants, the unevangelised or the ‘righteous heathen’ and cannot in any sense be regarded as good news for all the people (and the same is true of annihilationism). Only universalism can hope to reconcile theology and philosophy and offer the assurance of salvation to all regardless of the accidents of history, geography, genetics and sociology. 8. Damnationism relies on partial, dubious, over-literal biblicist readings of Scripture and in neither of its main forms is it coherent or convincing, rather it is repugnant to both reason and morality. Universalism by contrast is not dependent on biblical inerrancy but on reason and morality as well as plausible if not necessarily compelling readings of Scripture. 9. Damnationism has always fostered a tendency to silence people as well as ideas but a tradition of universal redemption has survived from the days of the earliest church despite dreadful persecution and is again offering real hope to a troubled world, especially to those unconvinced by traditional Christian teaching. Ultimately a gospel of pure grace is more genuinely persuasive than one based on fear and superstition. 10. Despite an apparently pharisaic desire to limit salvation to a select few, most damnationists do not really seem to believe in hard 73

damnationism and so equivocate over the actual nature and extent of damnation and their practice in the conduct of their every day life is rarely consistent with their preaching. 11. In sum, the logic of ethical monotheism, the omnipotence and benevolence of God, means that universal redemption is not merely a possibility to pray for but a certainty to be confidently anticipated in faith and hope.

Hell to Pay? Is available as a Kindle e-book or as a traditional paperback on

If you are interested in learning more about the wider hope you might like to consider joining the Christian Universalist Association: http://www.christianuniversalist.org/

Christian Universalism Total reconciliation, Unconditional love, Limitless atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of God

ÂŠ 2013, 2017