my dear reader, the reasons why I started out in my faith as a confirmed believer
in the classical tradition of hell and ended up as what would call a 'strong hopeful
evangelical universalist'.
Introduction
First, I want to be perfectly clear. I once held the same fundamentalist conservative
doctrine of hell which the majority of Christians still seem to cling to.
I was just as certain of what I believed as you yourself may be right now.
But the problem appeared as I begin to delve deeper into a study of God's character,
nature and fundamental attributes.
The more I learned about God from Scripture and from my own personal life,
the less I could continue in agreement with the classical doctrine of hell.
This began to create a great turmoil within me, and I want it to be understood that
in no way was this decision of mine to change my theological position (on this topic among
others) an easy one. I feel I possibly have not made this point clear enough during the
preceding eight chapters.
To have one's theological beliefs stripped away and laid bare; to doubt the veracity
of what one has been taught and has believed since a young age is not a painless process.
There was much anxiety and anguish in mind and in spirit during the whole affair,
and it was only with a supreme amount of thinking, praying, studying and questioning
that my thoughts were truly restructured.
At some point I reached an ultimatum which you, if you have agreed with me on even
a few of the points made during the preceding chapters, may also reach during this chapter:
I could (1) Re-imagine my comprehension of God's nature, character and attributes which
very well could have led to my complete loss of faith for reasons we will explore
in detail, or (2) relinquish the classical doctrine of hell as I had always held it.
If you wish to follow along with me on this journey (and I hope that you are open-minded
enough to do so), then by all means take my hand and proceed.
However, if you are poised at the lip of this chasm with dread and feel that to continue
would violate some unstated principle you hold dear or that it would weaken your
faith in any way, shape, or form, I would rather you stopped reading here and we
part paths with nothing less than fondness in our hearts for one another.
Classical and Liberal Doctrines of Hell
There are many different imagines types of hell in Christian doctrine.
This is partially because any doctrine fragments into numerous spin-offs,
and partially because there are some very damaging philosophical weaknesses to
the classical doctrine(s) of hell which caused a shift in thought in the last several centuries
to create a more liberal (and more defensible) doctrine of hell.
For educational purposes, and to lay a foundation from which to discuss, we will
look at each general variety here.
The primary divisions of types of hell exist in the understanding of the following
two variables: the type(s) of suffering of the damned, and the reasons for their
damnation. Here I will borrow the outline and language of John Kronen and Eric
Reitan from 'God's Final Victory' to summarize.
This is an excellent book, by the way and goes quite far in doing what I cannot
do here, which is present a comparative philosophical analysis which strongly shows
that for any possible version of hell, there is always a philosophically stronger version
of universalism which is more plausible.
Here then, are the major types of hell:
Hell (1): The evils suffered by the damned include not only the lack of the presence
of God (and all that follows from it), but also other evils that do not.
(1a): The evils suffered by the damned include not only the lack of the presence
of God (and all that follows from it), but also other evils that are inflicted by God
as retribution for sin.
(1b): The evils suffered by the damned include not only the lack of the presence
of God (and all that follows from it), but also other evils that, while willed or permitted
by God, are not inflicted as retribution for sin.
Hell (2): The evils suffered by the damned do not include any evils other that the
lack of the presence of God (and all that follows from it).
This is followed by a general variety of the reasons for the damnation of those in hell:
Reason (1): The damned freely reject God, and although God never stops willing their
salvation as an end, He cannot save them either because (a) it is impossible for Him to
do so, or (b) all of the possible means of securing their salvation or morally impermissible.
Reason (2): If God willed the salvation of the damned as an end, it would be impossible
for Him to achieve this end through means that were morally permissible; but He does
not will their salvation as an end, either for (a) morally good but not compelling reasons,
or (b) morally compelling reasons.
We may keep these basic outlines in mind and revisit them as needed as we move into
a further dialogue regarding the large picture. Suffice to say, it is my purpose here
to make a strong case for there not being any variety of the above which is acceptable
given the axioms we have discussed in preceding chapters.
What is Universalism (From a Christian Perspective)?
Simply put, evangelical universalism is the position that:
1.) God desires to save all.
2.) God can save all.
3.) God will save all.
One of the differences between evangelical and non-evangelical universalism
is that the 'means' of salvation is established as the atoning work of Christ on the cross.
Many Christians may be inclined to already agree with premise (1) to a limited extent.
Generally the consensus is that upon death, the salvation of the damned ceases to be a
desire for God, or that it remains a desire albeit one that cannot be actualized
because to do so would be morally impermissible which leads into premise (2).
Premise (2) is where we meet the strongest resistance to the universalist
assertion. In the proceeding sections, we will attempt to critically examine
these objections and the typical arguments used to justify the classical and
liberal views of hell.
Scriptural Support for the Doctrine of Hell
Taken from a literalist approach to Scripture, at first glance it would appear
that this entire chapter is a massive waste of both my time and yours
and that we should just pack it up and go home.
This is because if we merely take the texts referring to hell by themselves
and enforce on them a literal reading of the strictest sense, then there seems
to be virtually no room for argument at all.
It is my purpose then to posit here that a literalist representation of Scripture
will not and can not work in this case (among others).
Given the Christ-centered hermeneutic endorsed in my earlier chapter regarding
the doctrine of inerrancy, I will pay special attention to the verses in Scripture
wherein Jesus offers personal commentary on the nature and qualities of hell.
No Text Exists in a Vacuum
I want to start by making the statement that no Scriptural text or verse exists
in a vacuum. This should be easy to discern, but for some reason it is not.
Many times passages and verses of Scripture are cited without a care in the world
given to how those passages and verses fit into the larger context of the
chapter, the book, or a holistic account of the bible, or to the background
of contemporary teachings, arguments, and social structure in which those
passages were written.
To insist on citing single verse references or even several verse 'blocks'
as authoritative when they quite boldly contradict a holistic truth or theme
running throughout the entire Scripture would be a sophistry of the worst sort.
Arguments Assuming the Perspective(s) of Contemporaries
Secondly I want to point out that Jesus made a habit of starting with the assumption
that the position of those He was arguing against was valid, and then utilizing
the unique position from the 'inside' of their argument to make a point.
In a less specific sense, He frequently seems to have made use of contemporary
understanding of Scripture and theology commonly held by the scribes, Pharisees and
Saducees of the time to lend relevance and weight to a point He was attempting to
make without offering specific commentary on the validity (or lack thereof)
of those beliefs themselves.
A prime example would be John 10:34-38.
Many take Jesus' declaration here that the Scripture cannot be broken to be
His personal commentary on the inerrancy of the bible.
However if we look a little closer at what was actually said, what we find is that
Jesus was making use of a particularly clever form of argumentation.
Those attempting to defame Jesus were accusing Him of blasphemy (in that
He put Himself in God's place of authority).
So Jesus appeals to Psalm 82, the standard interpretation of which at the time
was that the Israelites at Sinai were referred to as 'gods' (those to whom the word came).
Jesus in essence, was using their own Scriptures against them to undermine
their argument. He begins the sentence of verse 35 with the conditional 'if', and
makes it part of a clause (if He called them gods... and the scripture cannot be broken...).
Jesus is not stating that Scripture cannot be annulled (at least in this passage),
He is rather assuming His opponent's perspective for the sake of debate.
Yet many inerrantists to this day attempt to use the above passage as a concrete
verification of their doctrine. This seems to be little more than an argument from
silence, another fine example of which would be Jesus' commendation of the
centurion's faith in Luke 7:1-10.
Many proponents of just war theory have tried quite hard to build a case
for Jesus promoting service in the military as a Christian based upon His
commendation of the faith of the centurion in this passage.
However the centurion's service (or lack thereof) in military activities was not
the target of Jesus' words of praise, but his faith.
To make any such argument is to assert much like a three-year old who is attempting
to justify their actions, that just because He didn't say it wasn't okay, it must be okay.
Unfortunately, this is not a good pattern of exegesis to follow.
We find the Gospel accounts also decidedly lacking in rules specifying the types
of toppings one should or should not put on their pizza. Should we take from the Gospels
lack of a statement that Jesus favored green olives and onions? I think not.
To take this principle and apply it to the various hell texts, let us examine the
one involving the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16.
First it is important to note that in taking the statements of Jesus regarding hell
as described here, one ought to look at the greater impact and purpose of Jesus'
statements in the entire chapter, which are not regarding hell at all, but are instead
directed at greed.
The next thing it would be important to note is that there are unavoidable
parallels between the essence of this story and numerous similar tales
circulating about in Egypt, Rome, Greece, and Israel at this time period;
tales which would have been readily available and likely well-known to both
Jesus and His listeners.
The conclusion becomes hard to deny. This parable is not about specifics
of the afterlife at all. It is about justice and reversal of roles. It is also about
greed and the warning of Jesus against serving mammon (or gain) in the first
portion of this chapter.
When one looks at the passage from this perspective, it no longer seems so
clear-cut, as it seems it was not Jesus' intention to offer direct commentary on
the afterlife at all here, merely to use popular literature to emphasize a separate
point altogether.
Mixing Metaphors
Jesus made frequent use of metaphor in His messages.
Anyone who denies the fact that He did so is probably under numerous contradictory
apprehensions such as that Jesus Himself is a wooden door, and that the kingdom of
heaven is simultaneously a farmer, a mustard seed, a king, a fish net, a merchant, and
a bottle of yeast among other things.
Proving that Jesus did not engage in any metaphorical language in His
words on hell would be a difficult task at best.
He employed descriptive terms for hell that evoke confusing imagery in some
cases and seeming contradictory imagery in others.
Hell is described as eternal fire (Matt 18:8; Matt 25:41),
unquenchable fire (Mark 9:48), accompanied by undying worms (Mark 9:48),
the physical location of Gehenna (an actual place in Israel) (Matt 23:33),
a place of judgment (Matt 12:41-42), condemnation (Mat 23:33), eternal punishment (Matt 25:46), divine wrath (Matt 3:7, 12; Luk 3:7, 17), outer darkness (Matt 8:12; Matt 22:13; Matt 25:30;
Matt 25:41), including weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Gehenna refers to the actual valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem which had become
associated with unrighteousness and ritual burning, sacrifice and slaughter.
And the imagery of it is directly borrowed here from the text of Isaiah 66:24, which
vividly describes the valley of Hinnom filled with corpses that are actively being consumed
by worms and fire. Important to note that in Isaiah, clearly the ones being consumed
by flame and by worm are already dead; they are not suffering the sort of eternal
conscious torment which is commonly preached as being a part of the traditional doctrine
of hell.
How exact, how concrete, or how certain can our exegesis of these passages
referring to the afterlife be when one considers even the remotest possibility
that Christ is speaking with metaphorical language in any of these places?
Lost in Translation
Perhaps most importantly of all though, is the fact that we rely on our
literal rendering of these verses through the lens of translation that has been
delivered to us from the original Hebrew and Greek tongues, which itself was
quite possibly clouded by prior renderings of these Scriptures by such eminent
scholars as Augustine, who is thought by some to have been one of the authors
of the classical doctrine of hell. Quite simply, forever often does not really
mean forever. At least not in the originally Greek (brief essays may be read
here; in addition details regarding Augustine's idea development can
be read in brief here; a good comprehensive case for the transition in
translation of eternity can be read here).
To make things quite brief, since I am not qualified nor capable of entertaining
a truly thorough treatment of these topics here, the Greek word translated for
eternity aiōnios (αἰώνιος), is quite the ambiguous term.
Quite often it was used to refer to an age (time, era, epoch) of limited duration.
However, it is always rendered in the english translations as representing
eternity or a period of unending duration such as the classic text of Matthew
25:46 which us often used as a proof text for the everlasting nature of the suffering
of the damned.
There is at least one instance in the New Testament where the same exact
word (aiōnios), is translated to mean two different things within the same sentence.
Consider the following cases.
(Mat 25:46)
"These will go away into eternal (aiōnios) punishment, but the righteous into eternal (aiōnios) life."
(Tit 1:2) in the hope of eternal (aiōnios) life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages (aiōnios) ago,
Everything that I have found in my related searches and inquiries on this topic
seems to indicate the (especially in recent times) the weight of scholastic research
on this topic leans precariously in favor of those who hold to universal reconciliation.
When we consider this, the case for hell as everlasting torment seems significantly
weakened. Fortunately, weakening the case for everlasting torment is all that
I need to do in order to build a strong case for evangelical universalism.
Tit-for-Tat
In the end, all attempts to prove or disprove a doctrine dealing with such a weighty
topic as the salvation or damnation of human beings strictly from literal renditions of
Scripture fall flat. This is because those affirming the classical or liberal doctrine of hell
will line up on one side of the invisible line in the sand and shout their texts, and
those affirming the doctrine of universal reconciliation will line up on the other
side and also shout their texts and never the twain shall meet.
We will effectively just be arguing past one another, and all subsequent efforts to build
a concrete foundation for doctrine from Scripture alone will inevitably regress into who
can scream his or her viewpoint louder.
If our argument is based solely on such childish precepts as the sheer volume
of literal readings of Scripture which support our doctrine, then those that hold
to classical hell may find that references in favor of universalism outweigh
the references in favor of hell as eternal conscious torment.
Because of this, as I stated from the outset any doctrine must be based upon
a holistic examination of Scripture. If it cannot form a coherent picture with the
vast body of knowledge dealing with what we know of God from Scripture and
from personal revelation, then something is very badly wrong.
And it is here we shall proceed forthwith in an examination of the doctrine
of hell in light of what we know to be true about God.
An Argument From God's Nature
It is my position that no version of the traditional doctrine of hell
that presents a coherent picture in concordance with our understanding
of God's nature and attributes. In order bring this assertion into focus,
we will put forward several arguments none of which are particularly
new or unique, but all of which are highly effective.
(Love) Argument From Divine Benevolence
1.) Benevolence is an essential divine attribute.
2.) If (1) then God's benevolence generates within Him an internal motivation to will
what is best for every rational creature.
3.) Therefore, God's benevolence generates within Him an internal motivation to will
what is best for every rational creature (1, 2).
4.) If (3) the unless there is a divine attribute that could generate within God an internal
motivation not to will what is best for every rational creature, God does will what is best
for every rational creature.
5.) There is no divine attribute that could generate within God an internal motivation
not to will what is best for every rational creature.
6.) Therefore, God wills what is best for every rational creature.
7.) If (6) then God wills that every rational creature will be saved.
8.) Therefore, God wills that every rational creature be saved (6, 7).
9.) If God wills that every rational creature be saved, then all will be saved unless either
it is impossible for God to bring this about or all the means available to God for bringing
this about are morally impermissible.
10.) It is not impossible for God to bring it about that all rational creatures are saved,
and there are some means God could use to do this that are morally permissible.
11.) Therefore, all rational creatures will be saved (8, 9, 10).
(Love) Argument From Divine Complacent Love
1.) Perfect complacent love is an essential divine attribute.
2.) If (1) then there is in God an internal motivation of His willing that every rational
creature has the necessary prerequisites for achieving what it is naturally ordered to achieve.
3.) Therefore, there is in God an internal motivation of His willing that every rational
creature has the necessary prerequisites for achieving what it is naturally ordered
to achieve (1, 2).
4.) If (3) then -- unless there is in God an attribute which could generate in Him a motivation
not to will that every rational creature has whatever is necessary for it to achieve what it
is naturally ordered to achieve -- God does will that every rational creature has these
necessary prerequisites.
5.) There is no attribute in God which generates in Him a motivation not to will that every
rational creature achieve what it is naturally ordered to achieve.
6.) Every rational creature is naturally ordered towards union with God.
7.) A necessary prerequisite for a rational creature to achieve union with God is that it
experiences the beatific vision.
8.) Therefore, God wills that every rational creature experience the beatific vision
(3, 4, 5, 6, 7).
9.) If (8) then -- unless either: (a) it is impossible for God to bring it about that every rational
creature experiences the beatific vision, or (b) all the means God could use to achieve this
are morally impermissible -- every rational creature will experience that beatific vision.
10.) It is not impossible for God to bring it about that every rational creature experiences
the beatific vision, and there are some means God could use to do this that are morally
permissible.
11.) Therefore, every rational creature will experience the beatific vision (8, 9, 10).
12.) Every creature that experiences the beatific vision is saved.
13.) Therefore, every rational creature is saved (11, 12).
(Love) Argument From God's Love For the Blessed
1.) Anyone in a state of eternal blessedness possesses both perfect bliss and universal love
for all persons.
2.) Anyone who possesses universal love for all persons and who is aware that some persons
are eternally damned cannot possess perfect bliss.
3.) Therefore, anyone who is aware that some persons are eternally damned cannot possess
eternal blessedness (1, 2).
4.) If anyone is eternally damned, anyone who possesses eternal blessedness would be aware
of this.
5.) Thus, if anyone is eternally damned, then none possess eternal blessedness (3, 4).
6.) God, out of benevolent love for His creatures, confers blessedness at least on those
who earnestly repent and seek communion with Him.
7.) Therefore, God does not eternally damn anyone (5, 6).
Without going into the possible objections and rebuttals of those objections
to each of these three arguments, I would simply encourage you to read
'God's Final Victory' for a more comprehensive treatment of each.
That being said, these arguments are fairly strong on their own without any
fortification given that we agree that God's nature is composed of attributes
which impel Him to love and desire the salvation of all, which many Christians
do (apart from strong Calvinists).
Indeed one could draw some less than confidence-inspiring conclusions about the brand
of Christianity subscribed to by an individual who fails to affirm the basic idea that
God is motivated by (1) His love, (2) the atonement of Christ, (3) His complacent love
in that He values Himself properly, just as (4) He values all beings to a lesser extent
(including human beings who posses intrinsic value).
The natural objection to any argument for universalism from God's nature
of love inevitably involve some appeal to the warring attributes I briefly mentioned
in Chapter I. The defender of the doctrine of hell appeals to God's holiness (which includes
His justice) as overriding His love in some way.
I already pointed out the patent absurdity in insisting this in the first chapter, but
let us consider for a moment an example. Suppose that you are a father (you may very
well be) and that you are forced to discipline your child (whom you love very much).
In doing so, do you no longer love your child? Of course not.
Even if your sense of moral obligation requires you to 'teach your child a value
lesson', in disciplining them you are still demonstrating love in that you are
wounded by the punishment inflicted and are inflicting the punishment for a greater
purpose. This line of reasoning is strongly supported with Scriptural cases as referenced
further below.
Of course all of this presupposes that a retributive model of hell is actually reasonable and just.
But is it?
(Justice) Confirming the Damned in Eternal Wickedness
First, a retributive model of hell would seem to directly detract from the value
of the atonement of Christ on the cross.
If it is theoretically possible to pay for your sins by suffering indefinitely in hell, then it
would stand to reason that it is also theoretically within someone's power to earn
salvation by conducting a certain set amount of good during their lifetime.
One is hard pressed to assert one without implicitly asserting the other.
Of course very few Christians are inclined to make this assertion since few
actually believe in salvation by works. Such a theological framework seems
bankrupt since it inherently devalues the sacrifice of Christ. Which is the point being made here.
It is also important to see that the atonement of Christ is purported to be valuable
and potent only during the infinitesimally small segment of time in which
the human life takes place; thereafter it is rendered useless to the damned
who may never take hold of hope.
Second, most Christians consider sin to be a crime against God and against
His perfectly good moral nature.
Sin is in essence a misapprehension of priorities in that the sinner, in failing to ascribe appropriate
worth to his relationship with God, and an over-inflated worth to his possessions, habits,
addictions, etc.
The doctrine of hell mandates that either that (a) God no longer loves the damned
(which raises some serious questions as to the nature of God's love),
or (b) God still loves the damned but refuses to ever let them
repent of their sin; in essence confirming them in their sinful nature(s).
Herein lies a major problem. For if God is essentially confirming the damned eternally
in their sinful nature(s), then we must honestly and objectively ask what concept
of justice it is that is truly satisfied by punishing a criminal for their crime by forcing them
to commit that crime forever. Who wins in this image?
Certainly not God! He, Himself is trapped in the agony of eternally loving
those He cannot save, and perpetuating the very affront against His nature that
He sentenced them for! How does this portrait not paint God in the worst light possible?
In the words of John Kronen and Eric Reitan:
"That God is the one who, according to classical hell, does this thing only adds a level ofIf this is, indeed the case then how would it not be more just for God to simply
incoherence to the act. It would be as if a parent required of her child that she vacuum
her room, providing her with a vacuum for that purpose; and when the child refuses,
the parent punishes the child by taking away all access to vacuums, though the parent
still remains sincerely adamant that the child vacuum, insisting the child is still obligated
to do so. "You are absolutely and unconditionally ordered to vacuum your room!"
the parent declares. "I absolutely and permanently bar you from any access to vacuums,
but I haven't changed my mind about vacuuming. I order you to do it. Now!
It is intolerable that you aren't doing it, but under no condition will I make it possible
for you to do it."
...In short, there appear to be two ways to view this situation: either the continued disobedience of the child ceases to speak ill of her and speaks ill only of the parent, or her continued disobedience continues to constitute a moral failing on her part, but one in which the parent is implicated.
By analogy, it seems that either the continued disobedience of the damned ceases to speak ill of them but speaks ill only of God, or God is implicated in their moral failures.
Neither alternative is remotely tolerable for theists."
-John Kronen and Eric Reitan, 'God's Final Victory'
withdraw the common grace He bestows upon everything in the universe to allow
its continued being, since according to many theologians God does exactly this
in the tradition of Hebrews; 'holding all things together by the power of His Word.'
This viewpoint is commonly known as annihilationism, and in light of the
preceding philosophical problems, would seem more just.
But the problems with the justice of hell do not end here.
(Justice) The Weakness of Retributivist Theories of Justice
What evidence do we have that God's judgment is ever strictly for the purposes
of retributive punishment and utterly devoid of a rehabilitative component?
I would have to argue that we have very little if any, and conversely much evidence to indicate just the opposite (Psa 19:9; Psa 36:6; Psa 62:12; Psa 96:13; Act 17:31; Lam 3:31-33;
Mic 7:18; Psa 66:10-12; Isa 26:9; Hab 1:12; Job 5:17-18; Psa 89:31-33; Psa 119:71;
Psa 119:67; Isa 4:4; Deu 4:30-31; Jer 9:6-8; Jer 30:24; Jer 32:37-39; Zep 3:8-9;
Mal 3:2-3; John 12:31-32; Prov 3:11-12; Heb 12:5-11).
However, if we agree that God's judgments are directed towards a rehabilitative end, what
rehabilitative purpose could there possibly be in eternally confirming the damned
in their sinful nature(s) with no chance or hope of repentance?
And if there is even the most miniscule chance of repentance, how could one
make a forceful argument that even the most willfully obstinate sinner would
remain unconvinced by an omnipotent God with nearly infinite resources to work
with, and an infinite length of time in which to conduct His work?
The entire concept seems untenable; even borderline ludicrous.
Further still, we are not certain that retributive violence is noble, or that it truly serves any purpose at all. Indeed it seems that crude retributive violence appeals to some less than attractive
features of human nature.
Thomas Aquinas himself has been quoted as stating that 'the elect rejoice' in the
torture of the damned 'when they see God's justice in [the torments of the damned]
and realize that they have escaped them'.
This statement on first blush seems to depend on a savage glee at having escaped
the 'just tortures' that have befallen other human beings.
Given the fact that many theologians believe that as we draw into closer
unity with God's essence in the beatific vision we are also drawn into
a perfect love of Him and of others, how do we make any sense of this sort of
opportunistic gloating?
Furthermore of what inherent use is torturing sinners strictly for the virtue of the violence itself?
From whence does the justice of this action stem? For true justice to come from
punishment, one would assume that the following characteristics would be desired:
1.) The sinner should truly grieve for and repent of their sin.
2.) The sinner should try to sincerely make amends for their sin.
3.) The sinner should strive to proceed in a manner which does not lead them into further sin.
How does tormenting a conscious human being eternally prove a constructive method of conversion?
According to retributive models of judgment, the underlying problem with any crime
committed by a rational moral agent against another is that the criminal somehow failed to
acknowledge the intrinsic boundless value and dignity of their victim.
Since this is the case, abusing the criminal simply for the pleasure of abusing them
is entirely pointless, since it does not do any of the following:
1.) Render them aware of the intrinsic value and dignity of their victim.
2.) Fill them with grief for what they have done and stimulate genuine repentance.
3.) Return the value or dignity stolen back to the victim.
In fact in addition to not being capable of fulfilling any of these things, mindless
retributive violence actually steals value and dignity away from the
criminal, thus contributing to an endless self-perpetuating cycle of violence.
This, at its core, is why reciprocity never works.
Here, Thomas Aquinas offers a rather feeble defense of retributive justice in appealing
to the basic instinctive response of animals that are inclined to automatically defend
themselves by striking back at an aggressor. I concede the point.
This does indeed, seem to be an ingrained instinctive response in both animals and in men.
However does the popularity of this intuition render it just or make it correct?
"It is also 'natural', after all, for us to hate our enemies, love inordinate praise,In an earlier chapter we discussed how we see a consistent vein running through the
resent correction, and so on... The view that love should be reserved for friends is a widely distributed intuition that Jesus emphatically challenged; and the retributive intuition has some things in common with the intuitive truncation of love to exclude enemies.
Why should we trust this intuition, when it is so deeply entangled with our more
bloodthirsty impulses to exact vengeance on our enemies?"
-John Kronen and Eric Reitan, 'God's Final Victory'
teachings of Christ on the kingdom of God; how it is not ushered in through the methodology
of coercive violence, but through the inner conversion of individuals.
This is the method chosen by Jesus. If Jesus Christ, the exact image of the Father, chose
this sort of means in acting in history even in His direct intervention, how does it
follow that in the afterlife He suddenly dons a different mask, rolls up his sleeves and
becomes the divine torturer?
The Means of Conversion
Here those who favor a libertarian view of free will can intervene with the objection
that God will not act in morally impermissible ways by violating human free will, and so
is unable to save all. But this is not the classical doctrine of hell, but the softer and more liberal
version of hell taken by most theologians in recent years, most likely due to some of the
inescapable problems plaguing classical hell.
Those who claim that God cannot violate free will must hold a skewed sort of view of
freedom of choice that in essence leaves God no other option except to cease to exist.
Because most of us will acknowledge that by His very nature, God affects everything in the
universe much as the sun affects all who receive its rays. It is because He is that we are at all.
How then can we make any sort of coherent or rational argument that says that God
cannot affect anyone, otherwise He infringes upon their freedom of choice?
I am particularly fond of the analogy offered up in 'God's Final Victory' which I will
borrow to illustrate our point:
"...Jenny grows up in a dystopian future where children are fed an addictive drug from infancy.
They are taught (falsely) to believe that the drug is a medicine they need to stay healthy, while in fact the tyrannical regime uses it to control the people.
Given her addiction and beliefs, Jenny's motives converge on the choice to continue taking the drug; but insofar as this choice is governed by deception and addiction, it is not [technically] free.
However, suppose a resistance group reveals to Jenny the truth. She now knows the drug is harmful but remains addicted.
Hence, she has reason-based motives to stop taking the drug, but these are
impotent due to her addiction. Now suppose the resistance gives her a counter-drug that weakens but does not stop her cravings. Whenever she is near the drug she faces an internal struggle.
Sometimes, with the right support (and some luck), she resists her craving; but usually she falls prey to it, weeping in shame at her weakness. At this point,we might say that she has some measure of freedom -- but it remains constrained by the hold the drug continues to exert on her.
However, imagine that the resistance finds a way to break her addiction.
Now she neither craves the drug nor thinks taking it is a good idea.
Let us suppose, furthermore, that she has no other motive to continue taking it but many reasons not to: concern for her health and continued sobriety, gratitude to her liberators, a desire to oppose the unjust regime,and so forth. Suppose, in short, that once freed of her addiction, all her motives converge on the choice not to take the drug. Would we not say now, at last, her choice is truly free -- even if, as Talbott and Aquinas believe, her rejecting the drug is now inevitable?"
John Kronen and Eric Reitan, 'God's Final Victory'
The writers of 'God's Final Victory' posit a possible rapid conversion of sinners
through what they refer to as 'efficaceous grace', a demonstration of which would be
made manifest above. For a number of personal reasons, I tend to subscribe to what they
refer to as the Argument from Infinite Opportunity, rather than the Argument from Efficaceous
Grace. One of those reasons is that I believe that God has shown a pattern throughout history
of desiring (out of love for His creation) for us to achieve ultimate happiness through a culmination
of personal development which cannot take place instantaneously, but over a period of time
during which we come to our own inevitable conclusions when faced with the truth.
This Argument from Infinite Opportunity falls in line with an earlier remark I made
about God having nigh infinite resources and infinite time with which to work with the
individual following death.
Once we accept a model of sin as given earlier (that of an undervaluation of God and a
commensurate overvaluation of other things), and given the fact that we as human beings are
so engineered by God as to be drawn into an apex of personal development which involves union
with Him, and thereby ultimate satisfaction and bliss, how could one argue that upon post-mortem
exposure to the resplendent locus of truth and goodness of the universe, a human being could
possibly remain utterly unmoved and recalcitrant even as their very essence resonated in synch
with the heartbeat of the Lord of life?
Such a argument, at least to my thinking is beyond comprehension.
Endorsement of a Kingdom Based Upon Fear
I would also like to lend a brief paragraph or two to the damage (psychological and otherwise)
that traditional doctrines of hell cause in human beings.
We are witness every day to the way in which the kingdom of our adversary works.
It functions through fear, deception, hatred, manipulation, and death.
The kingdom of our Lord conversely operates through hope, truth, love, inner conversion
wrought by the power of relationship with our God, and the promise of eternal life
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Hell as it has been introduced as a doctrine for centuries, especially to small children
who are incapable of even grasping with their unscarred minds the horrendous reality
of the torture, mutilation and violence that hell represents, is a tool of fear.
It is designed to 'put the fear of God' into hearts and minds and to obtain conversion.
If it were not we would not have ideas from antiquity such as the infamous Pascal's Wager.
The very idea that someone would convert to Christianity as a glorified 'fire escape' is
almost sickening. Christianity is supposed to be about an intimate relationship and discipleship
based upon love and commitment; not fear. Perfect love casts out fear.
But fear seems to be exactly what hell is intended to invoke, and what things like Pascal's
Wager are predicated on.
Justification of Atrocities
Throughout the ages, terrible injustices and monstrous acts of cruelty have been rationalized
away and/or excused because of hell.
Better to inflict temporary and finite torment on someone (or so the argument goes) and obtain
conversion of the immortal soul than to allow them to be consigned to eternal torment
of a much more severe intensity.
If we cannot objectively look upon such argumentation as being profane and morally
repugnant, then our moral sensitivity might be called into question.
To believe that traditional doctrine(s) of hell did not play a significant part in furthering
this sort of primitive and savage mentality would be facile at best.
Scriptural Support for the Doctrine of Evangelical Universalism
I made mention earlier that to engage in a Scriptural tug of war between hell texts and universalist
readings would be rather silly. However I will list a few of the universalist passages here
as an introduction to what I personally view as the strongest Scriptural argument for
universalism. In this manner we will have begun the chapter with a discussion of Scripture and
concluded it with a discussion of Scripture.
This list is in no way comprehensive: (1 Sa 2:6; 2 Sa 14:14; 1 Chr 16:34; Job 23:13; Job 42:2;
Psa 22:27; Psa 22:29; Psa 30:5; Psa 49:15; Psa 65:2-3; Psa 66:3-4; Psa 67:1-4; Psa 72:11; Psa 72:17;
Psa 82:8; Psa 86:9; Psa 90:3; Psa 98:6-9; Psa 103:8-9; Psa 107:1; Psa 138:4; Psa 139:8;
Psa 145:7-10; Psa 145:14-16; Isa 25:6-8; Isa 26:9; Isa 45:21-25; Isa 46:10-11; Isa 48:10;
Isa 49:6; Isa 50:2; Isa 52:10; Isa 54:8; Isa 55:7-8; Isa 57:16;
Jer 3:17; Jer 31:33-34; Lam 3:31-33; Ezek 36:26-27; Ezek 18:4; Dan 7:14; Hos 13:14;
Mic 7:18-19; Mark 9:49; Mark 10:26-27; Luk 2:10; Luk 3:6; Luk 9:56;
John 1:7-9; John 1:29; John 3:17; John 4:42; John 6:33; John 6:51; John 8:12;
John 12:32; John 12:47; Rom 5:17-18; Rom 8:21; Rom 11:32-33; Rom 11:36;
Rom 14:11; 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Cor 15:22; 1 Cor 15:28; 2 Cor 5:14; 2 Cor 5:19;
Eph 1:9-11; Phil 3:21; Col 1:19-20; 1 Ti 2:3-4, 6; 1 Ti 4:9-11; Tit 2:11; Heb 2:14-15;
Jas 2:13; 2 Pet 3:9; 1 Jn 2:2; 1 Jn 4:14; Rev 1:17-18; Rev 5:13; Rev 21:5; Rev 22:3)
An Eschatological Case For Universalism
In the last chapter, we took a good look at an Old Testament case for inclusivism
which involved a deep analysis of the book of Isaiah.
It seems only natural and fitting that we continue this analysis now, since
the book of Revelation borrows from the 'vision' and 'language' of Isaiah
more than from any other source.
In using this case study, which is not my own work I give a nod to
Gregory MacDonald (Robin A. Parry), the author of 'The Evangelical Universalist',
which is an excellent volume in addition to the one cited elsewhere in this
chapter for those who are interested in a more involved reading on this topic.
Ironically, it is the selfsame book of Revelation that is often used by
defenders of the doctrine of hell to 'sink' both annihilationist and universalist
arguments. The texts which are used to do so are Rev 14:9-11 and Rev 20:10-15.
First, it is I think, important to note that we see a emergent pattern of
judgment and salvation in the following passages:
Rev 6:12-17 <> Rev 7:9-17
Rev 11:18a <> Rev 11:18b
Rev 14:6-20 <> Rev 15:2-4
Rev 16:17-18:24 <> Rev 19:1-10
Rev 20:7-15 <> Rev 21:1-22:5
This is important precisely because we continually see a pattern of
salvation following judgment. The final punishment of the beast and his followers
Rev 14:9-11 is not an isolated text, but is followed chronologically by
the celebration of Rev 15:2-4. Why is this important? Wait for it.
(Rev 15:2) And I saw something like a sea of glass mixed with fire, and those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, holding harps of God.It's been argued that the vision presented here is merely a part of the Seven Plagues
(Rev 15:3) And they *sang the song of Moses, the bond-servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, "Great and marvelous are Your works, O Lord God, the Almighty; Righteous and true are Your ways, King of the nations!
(Rev 15:4) "Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy; For ALL THE NATIONS WILL COME AND WORSHIP BEFORE YOU, FOR YOUR RIGHTEOUS ACTS HAVE BEEN REVEALED."
rather than a climax following the preceding section due to the introduction of the new
section prior to this celebratory text. However, this is a well-known literary technique
referred to as 'interlocking' in which a section of the book both concludes one section and
introduces the next and is also seen in Rev 8:2-5; Rev 11:19; Rev 17:1-3; Rev 19:9-10 and
Rev 22:9-10.
The beast's defeat is finalized by the celebratory passage above and the saints rejoice
in the final victory of God.
What we see in this descriptive passage borrows a pattern of Old Testament imagery
(Isa 51:9-11; Psa 74:12-15; Ezek 32:2) as the saints sing a hymn of praise which
directly borrows from the Song of Moses from Exodus 15:1-8.
However, the content of the song is not derived from Exodus but from later Old
Testament texts that reflect on the first exodus (Psa 110; Psa 111:2-4).
What's important is verse four in which the saints worship the Lord and proclaim
that all the nations will come and worship because of the revelation of the righteousness
of God. Why this has so much weight is due to the fact that in the book of Revelation
(especially) the nations represent the unrepentant world that will be judged for their deeds.
Mention to them is given in Rev 4:11; Rev 13:7; Rev 14:8; Rev 17:15; Rev 18:3, 23;
Rev 16:19; Rev 10:11; Rev 14:6; Rev 11:12; Rev 20:3; Rev 20:8; Rev 11:9;
Rev 12:5; Rev 19:15.
The saints are never identified with the nations, being instead identified as having
been redeemed from among the nations to form a new kingdom.
There can be no doubt that the same nations referred to in Rev 15:4 are the same
apostate nations the smoke of whose torment rises forever and ever.
Why then are they all coming to worship before God?
Many attempts have been made to avoid this universalist reading, but they seem
to be based on weak arguments asserting that figures of speech have been used
and that we should simply dismiss the consistent use of John's language used throughout
the rest of the book.
Another argument put forth is essentially the same one used in the rendering of Isaiah 45:20-25,
that the nations will be forced to acknowledge and worship God before
their summary judgment. This interpretation suffers from severe strain, since
the Greek word proskuneō (προσκυνέω) used here for worship is elsewhere in the book
of Revelation used only for voluntary worship of either God or the beast.
If we follow this reading to its logical conclusion, we are forced (regardless of
presuppositions) to understand from it that the same nations which were judged
and cast into the lake of fire, at some point exit and are redeemed.
A claim which is only further substantiated by chapters 21 and 22, wherein we read
that those whose names are not written in the Lamb's book of life are cast into
the lake of fire (Rev 20:10-15), after which we see the nations walking by the
light of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:24) bringing their worship into it (Rev 21:26),
and that they are healed by the fruits of the tree of life (Rev 22:2).
...John moves on to a vision of the New Jerusalem in Rev 21:9, and it is here thatOf course there are objections and rebuttals to be had here, but rather than engage
we find what looks very much like a universalist hope.
Rev 21:12-21 give a very elaborate description of the walls of the City.
In the ancient world the walls of a city were essential for the protection of the inhabitants,
but that this is not the function of these walls is clear from the fact that the wicked
are no longer in a position to attack the city, and thus the gates are left open
perpetually (Rev 21:25).
So what is the wall for? Rissi maintains that it serves as a boundary marker between those inside the City (the redeemed) and those outside the City (who inhabit the lake of fire).
This interpretation is supported by Rev 22:14-15...
...To be outside the city walls is to be in the lake of fire (Rev 21:8); and nothing and
nobody unclean can enter the city, but only those written in the Lamb's book of life
(Rev 21:27). It is the City wall that marks the boundary between the two: "a sign of separation."
So far, this hardly seems encouraging for the universalist; but then we read... Rev 21:23-27...
Now we have a vision in which the nations, whom we have already established have been thrown into the lake of fire, enter the New Jerusalem via the permanently open gates!
There is a continuous flow from outside of the City (clearly the lake of fire in the light
of Rev 21:8; Rev 21:27; Rev 22:15) into the City...
...In the oracle of Isaiah 60 on which this vision is based we read that the gates
were left open for the purpose of allowing the nations to enter (Isa 60:11), and that is
the case here too: the open doors are not just a symbol of security but primarily a symbol
of the God who excludes no one from His presence forever...
...notice (Rev 22:17). The Spirit and the bride issue three invitations to come.
Now the metaphor of a bride has only been used in Revelation of the church in its state
of eschatological glory (Rev 19:7; Rev 21:2).
This bride, then, is the glorified church-prophetic. But to whom does she speak?
One plausible audience is those in the lake of fire (after all who else is there?).
The promise of the water of life is made by Christ to the church in Rev 21:6.
In Rev 22:17 it seems that the bride of Christ, the glorified church, offers this life
to those in the lake of fire. If they wash their robes, they can enter the city and drink
from the river."
-Gregory MacDonald, 'The Evangelical Universalist'
them, I will leave a full treatment of them to those who wish to explore this
topic further in the aforementioned volumes.
For the purposes of my entry here, my job in building as robust a case as
possible for a viewpoint of evangelical universalism is complete.
Conclusion
I think it only fitting, in light of the inspiring passages above to conclude
with the glorious promise from the end of Revelation, which from a universalist
reading of these verses could apply to all of humanity!
(Rev 21:3) And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them,
(Rev 21:4) and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."
(Rev 21:5) And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And He *said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true."
(Rev 21:6) Then He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.
(Rev 21:7) "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.
What more glorious victory could there possibly be for our Lord and Savior than
to finally have the entire chorus of redeemed humanity; all who have been cleansed
from their guilt and the torment of their misdeeds assembled together giving
continuous praise to the Lamb in an endless fusillade?
Personally, I can think of none. 'Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.'
