Why Not Everyone?

I've never really given much weight to the theological concept of universalism, but that may be because until recently I wasn't aware that it could be nuanced in such a way as to almost seem Scripturally plausible. I know that there have been "big name" theologians I advocating universalism in some form or fashion since the early Church Fathers, but again I never bothered to pay close attention to it or its historical development. Naturally, I blame my Calvinism for the oversight since given Calvinism, and its notions of the elect and the reprobate, universalism just doesn't come up in discussion very often. Christian universalism comes in several flavors but I wish to focus on one in particular: Evangelical or Trinitarian Universalism (TU from now on).

Whether you lean towards a dispensational view of Scripture or a covenantal view of Scripture, you can still find yourself embracing TU. Why? Because it's theologically flexible enough to fit both hermeneutical models. The core elements of TU are deceptively straightforward making them easy to adopt uncritically. First and foremost, TU teaches that God is love. Love isn't just the primary attribute of God, rather God is fundamentally (read ontologically) love; the essence of God is love, the I AM is love. This is not to say that love trumps other characteristics of God (i.e., justice, holiness, etc.) but it is to argue that these characteristics flow out of who and what He is, namely love. The relationship within the Trinity itself perfectly displays the truth that God is love. Second, TU teaches that man's reconciliation to God is through the work of Jesus in His life, death, resurrection and ascension. Because Jesus is fully man and fully God, and because through Him all things were created, it stands to reason that through His work all things (which includes all human beings) will be reconciled. That is, all things participate in His death and resurrection because He is, in some form or fashion, tied together with all things.

TU doesn't deny the existence of hell and the reality of God's judgment against sin, rather it sees them as abiding only for as long as it takes for the receiving individual to realize the error of his ways. In this sense it is not unlike the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory, except that in the RC view purgatory is for those who die in God's grace but who have not yet been purified enough for entrance into heaven. Under the TU view, there's no purgatory but hell functions in a similar roll for all non-believers. The non-believer receives judgment and punishment in hell until he decides to accept the grace and mercy offered in the gospel, which he will eventually do. This is a very brief and basic sketch of TU; you can find a more detailed outline and articles for further research on Wikipedia's entry. My intent is not to interact with TU comprehensively, but concisely on its main points of (1) God is love and (2) the reconciliation of all things, including all humans, is brought about by the work of Jesus.

To say that God is love ontologically and/or essentially seems to really miss the bigger picture. God is just. God is holy. God is righteous. God is word. God is creator. God is almighty. God is truth. God is. Given the Bible, is it possible to say that God is love and that all of these other "God is" statements merely flow from God being love? It seems clear from the creation account and from how God reveals Himself to Moses that God is, first and foremost, existence. Genesis 1:1-3 teach us primarily that God exists (v. 1) has, or is, a Spirit (v. 2) and speaks (v. 3). Now, these three verses teach much more once we dig into the implications of each, but it begs the question to argue that God's existence, His Spirit and His language are a result of His being love. When Moses finally comes along we are first told, by God Himself, what He is to be called: YHWH (Yahweh). God tells Moses "This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation" (Exodus 3:15). While YHWH can be translated several different ways, the same meaning carries through each of them, namely that God is because He is. We learn here that God doesn't just exist, but that He is existence.

Now, none of this is contradictory to the notion that God is love. It is important to note that we are saying something much more profound and substantial when we affirm that "God is" than we are when we affirm that "Love is." In the phrase "God is love" the "is" cannot be a verbal representation of the mathematical concept of equality; to say "God is love" is not to say that "God = Love." The reason for this is because if we substitute "Love" for "God" we begin making love an idol. Let me try an experiment with the notion of equality: Love is God. Justice is God. Holiness is God. Righeousness is God. Doing this we begin sounding like the Pharisees. There are cases where this equality works: Creator is God. Word is God. Almighty is God. And even the above cases work to a certain extent when we understand that "Love is God" does not mean "Love = God" (or that "God is just" does not mean "Justice is God", etc.). This may seem nit-picky but its a vital point in the TU discussion.

On the TU account of man's reconciliation, all men are eventually brought into heaven. Why? Because God is Love (that is, according to TU, God = Love) and, as such, He will not allow any of His creation/creatures to be eternally tormented. A God that is love would not punish temporal shortcomings (sin) with eternal judgment. The Biblical passages certainly are persuasive too (emphasis mine):

Luke 3:4-6 - As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: "A voice of one calling in the desert, 'prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him. Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight, the rough ways smooth. And all mankind will see God's salvation.'

John 1:6-7, 29 - There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him [Jesus] all men might believe... The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

Romans 5:18 - Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

Romans 11:32 - For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy and them all.

1 Corinthians 15:22 - For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all.

2 Corinthians 5:18-19 - All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

Ephesians 1:9-10 - And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

Colossians 1:17-20 - He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

1 Timothy 4:9-10 - This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

This phenomenon, TU maintains, is not limited only to the New Testament. We find numerous passages in the Old Testament speaking of how God will bring all nations and all people to Himself. I certainly won't deny that these passages exist but I'm not going to list them here; if you're interested, a google search will net you all the proof-texts you could want. The problem is not with the Scriptural support for TU, or any other view that is theologically suspect for that matter. I can come up with an equal (actually greater) number of proof-texts which are contrary to the ones above; contrary in as much as a universalist approach is concernd at least. Again I won't list them because a google search here will also net you all the texts you could want. So what is the problem? The problem is in how these passages fit into the framework of Biblical theology as a whole.

We've already seen that God is not love in the sense that TU requires for universal reconciliation. Orthodox Christianity teaches of the second coming and of the final judgment Christ brings upon His return. We find in these eschatological passages that there are two types of people. Jesus uses sheep (His disciples) and goats (the worldly) in the Olivet discorse, Paul uses righteous and wicked, John uses light and darkness, Peter uses chosen and (by implication) not-chosen. This is actually a theme that runs throughout the entire Bible: Eve and the Serpent, Cain and Able (or Seth), Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Moses and Pharaoh, Israel and the Gentiles, the Church and the world. Even in Revelation we find the divide between those written in the book of Life and those not. We find that the final resurrection at the throne of judgment (which is also supposedly final) is of some unto everlasting life and others unto the second death. In what sense is this judgment final if it is possible for those participating in the second death to be saved at some point in the future? TU wreaks some interesting havoc on biblical eschatology.

TU also seems to undermine the very purpose of the Church. What pressing need is there of believers to go and make disciples if everyone will eventually gain entrance into heaven anyway? This question is sometimes leveled at those who believe in predestination but predestinarians have a plausible answer. As a Calvinist I believe in the sharp distinction between the elect and the non-elect. I also believe that none of the elect shall perish and that all of the non-elect will perish. However, this is not tantamount to fatalism because I believe that God brings salvation to His elect through the work of the Holy Spirit and the spreading of the word by those who are believers. Hypothetically, if believers did not share the gospel and God did not proclaim His majesty through creation, then the elect would meet the same end as the non-elect. As Paul says, "How shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear if there is no preacher?" (Rom. 10:14). This is irrelevant on the TU model because in the end Jesus Himself preaches the word to those in Hell and it's only a matter of time before they come around. In other words, TU is closer kin to fatalism than Calvinistic predestination. There's no sense of urgency under the TU model that presses the Church to be vigilant in seeking opportunities to spread the gospel.

Lastly, and perhaps most seriously, TU underestimates the depth of sin. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man comes immediately to mind. Not because we seem to find in this passage an argument for the existence of hell and the impossibility of crossing the chasm from hell to heaven, but because of Abraham's words at the end of the story:

Luke 16:27-31 - "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' He said to him, 'if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Sin so deeply corrupts the non-believer that even if someone rises from the dead (viz. Jesus) they will not be convinced. Where does this leave TU? No amount of wishing or hoping from me (or any believer) can weaken or loosen the chains of sin. Of course, this is by no means a comprehensive engagement with TU; much more could be written. I just wanted to write a few things, maybe as a starting point for further discussion. I see these few words as the begining or opening of a dialogue should one be so inclined to participate. Universalism can appeal to us (and I know it does to me) on a very dangerous level that can foster a false hope. Nevertheless, let God be true, and every man a liar.