- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism,” by James B. De Young
Is there hope for our loved ones who lived and died in their lost condition without receiving Christ? Nearly all Christians have been taught that the moment one’s heart stops beating, all hope of salvation is forever lost, and this has caused torment and despair in the hearts of many whose loved ones died before saying the sinner’s prayer. Dante’s famous 14th century fiction novel, “The Divine Comedy,” graphically describing his medieval version of hell, had a great impact upon the Christian mindset which prevails to this very day. In his novel he said that over the gate leading into hell appears the words, “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’inatre,” which means “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”
If Dante is right, unless we are so self-centered and calloused that we are beyond feeling, we who have loved ones who died outside of Christ would have much grounds for continuing anguish and despair. Also, everything we have seen in the previous chapters concerning the final restoration of all would be impossible, since the vast majority of mankind either didn’t hear the gospel or else failed to respond to it before taking their last breath. But does the Bible actually teach us that all hope of salvation forever ceases at death, or is this merely a deeply ingrained theological presupposition handed down to us from the days of Saint Augustine?
Many are surprised to discover that there is no verse in Scripture which actually teaches that salvation is impossible beyond the grave. The only verse presented in support of this doctrine is Hebrews 9:27 which simply says: “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.” However, this verse only states what both Traditionalists and Universalists agree upon - that men must face judgment upon dying. In this judgment, those outside of Christ will be judged “according to their works” – receiving “their part” in the Lake of Fire, some receiving “few stripes” while others receive “many stripes,” not getting out of there “until” they have paid in full (Rev 20:12; 21:8; Luke 12:47; Matt 5:26; 18:34-35). None of these expressions are compatible with eternal punishment.
De Young says: “There is no hint that anyone can exercise faith after death” (p.217). However, to me it is more significant that there is no hint that one loses his ability to believe upon dying. We lose our bodies upon dying, not our capacity to understand and believe. While it is not explicitly stated that one can believe after death, it is necessitated by the fact that eventually every knee will bow, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord. How can this happen without faith? How can the whole world be saved with all being reconciled and restored if indeed it is not possible to exercise faith after death, given that most are not saved and restored in this life? While faith after death may not be explicitly stated in Scripture, it is everywhere assumed. More importantly, there is no hint that one cannot exercise faith after death. If such were the case, we would expect it to be emphasized over and over in Scripture.
In spite of the multiple passages of Scripture which declare a universal restoration of all, De Young insists that there is not even one text supporting our belief that those who did not hear, or even those who heard but did not respond to the gospel in life can be saved after death. He says:
“They (Universalists) argue that it is the spirit of man that is of central importance to God, and there is no reason why God can’t provide salvation after one’s body has died. The only problem with this argument, an argument from silence, is that there is ‘not one text’ that supports the claim of universalism.” p. 88 (parenthesis mine)
I see several problems with this statement. In the first place, Universalists are correct in stating that the spirit of man is more important to God, who is spirit, than one’s body. For example, Paul commanded the Corinthians to deliver the sinning brother over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh in order that his spirit might be saved in the Day of the Lord (1Cor 5:5). While salvation is of the entire man – spirit, soul and body, God is Spirit, and we have communion with Him and worship Him with our spirit and therefore it is our spirit which is of utmost importance to Him.
Secondly, Universalists do not speak of some future provision of salvation, but base the salvation of all upon Christ’s finished work on the cross 2,000 years ago. Nowhere in Scripture do we see that His provision for salvation ends at death or at the Second Coming of Christ. Our Savior Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain for all from eternity. The gospel is referred to as “the everlasting gospel.” Whatever that means, it certainly means that it doesn’t cease to be good news the moment one dies, or Christ returns. Christ’s priesthood is eternal, and He is able to save to the uttermost all who come to Him since He ever lives to make intercession for them (Heb 7:25). But who will be in need of His intercessory ministry after the Church has already been glorified and free from sin if not those who died in their sins and need His intercession in order to be able to come to the Father through Him?
Finally, De Young’s statement that Universalists argue for salvation after death from silence could just as easily be leveled against the Traditionalists, since the Scriptures nowhere state that salvation is only possible in this life. And while Scriptures do not directly speak to this issue, a deductive study of all pertinent texts require salvation after death. If all are to be restored and only a few elect are restored in this age, then salvation after death must be assumed. If Jesus will draw all unto Himself, seeking and saving until the last lost sheep has been found, then He must continue drawing, seeking and saving after one’s death, since most die in a lost state (Acts 3:21; Jn 12:32; Luke 15:4, 19:10). If all will be subjected to Christ, resulting in God being all in all, then the conviction of the Spirit resulting in repentance, bowing the knee to Christ and confessing Him as Lord, must continue after one’s death, since not all will have become subjected to Him in this age (Isa 45:22-24; 1Cor 15:25-28; Heb 2:8).
One could continue, giving text after text which deductively require salvation after death without the need for a direct statement to that effect. In reality, it is more significant that Traditionalists cannot present any text which says that all opportunity for one’s salvation ends at death. Christ is the Savior of the whole world and not just the elect firstfruits. He gave His life a ransom for all and He declares that He will seek and save the lost until all are safe in the fold (Jn 1:29, 4:42, 10:16; 1Jn 2:2, 4:14; Matt 20:28; 1Tim 2:6, 4:10, etc.). Also, taking into account all we have seen in previous chapters concerning the corrective and temporal nature of God’s judgments and Christ’s enduring intercessory ministry, how can we still insist that Christ’s saving work forever ends at death?
There are also numerous passages which actually indicate that salvation continues even after the Great White Throne Judgment and after the New Jerusalem has descended upon the new earth. First, it says this of the New Jerusalem after having descended upon the new earth:
“By its light shall the nations walk; and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it, 25 and its gates shall never be shut by day - and there shall be no night there; 26 they shall bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. 27 But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life. 22:1 Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations... 14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood… 17 The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price." (Rev 21:24-22:2,14,17 RSV)
Here we see that the gates of the New Jerusalem will always be open. Although the New Jerusalem is the exclusive habitation of Christ and His Bride, those of the nations who are saved subsequent to the Second Coming will walk in her light and will be able to enter. The only ones excluded are those outside who continue in sin and have not yet washed their robes. But they are called upon to wash their robes so as to have their names written in the book of life, allowing them to enter and partake of the leaves of the tree of life which are for their healing. Typical of Traditionalists, De Young supposes that the sinners outside her gates will never be able to enter. He says:
“Finally, the future state of the new heavens and new earth still has the existence of the wicked outside the holy city.” p.88
Traditionalists assume that God’s story for the ages begins with the creation of man and ends with the elect saints forever in the New Jerusalem and the sinners forever outside in fiery torments. However, God’s glorious creation story does not end in eternal ruin for the majority, but rather in the restoration of all. The White Throne Judgment, as with all His judgments throughout history, although resulting in a condemnatory sentence for some, are corrective in nature and therefore always culminate in their ultimate restoration.
If the condemned outside the gates in the Lake of Fire were eternally condemned, they wouldn’t be enjoined to wash their robes so as to be able to enter into the New Jerusalem. God’s mercy endures forever, and Christ ever lives to intercede for sinners. Although without holiness no one can see the Lord, the gates are always open to all those outside if they wash their robes so as to be able to enter. And the Bride and the Spirit during that time will be extending to them the invitation saying to them, “‘Come.’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price.”
That this invitation is in a post-Great White Throne context is evident since the Church doesn’t become the Bride, the wife of the Lamb until the wedding feast at Christ’s Second Coming. [1] Then, only after the Millennium does the Bride descend in the New Jerusalem upon the new earth (Rev 21:9-10). She, along with the Spirit, invites those outside the New Jerusalem who are thirsty to enter and drink of the water of life which flows from the throne of God within the city.
Also, if all possibility of restoration ended with the Great White Throne Judgment, why are the leaves of the tree of life within said to be “for the healing of the nations?” As long as there are still those outside who need healing, God will continue the process of restoration. The dispensation of the fullness of the times does not come to a close until all in heaven, on earth and under the earth have been reunited in Christ and God becomes all in all (Eph 1:10; Phil 2:10-11; Rev 5:13; 1Cor 15:28).
De Young says: “The text never says that anyone from the lake of fire ever gets out in order to enter the city” (p. 60). While it is true that it is not directly stated, it is clearly implied by such phrases as “their part” or “portion” (Rev 21:8 Gr. meros); not getting out “until” (Matt 5:26, 18:30) and Jesus’ words to the Pharisees, saying to them: “tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you” (Matt 21:31), as well as His reference to “few stripes” and “many stripes.” All of these qualifying phrases rule out a never-ending hell, as well as the annihilation of the lost. Additionally, the Lake of Fire is said to be the “second death.” In Revelation 2:11 it is said of the overcomers that they will not be “hurt by” the second death. This also implies limited duration.
Also, since the last enemy to be destroyed is death, when death is destroyed there will “be no more death” (1Cor 15:26; Rev 21:4). Are we to believe that somehow there will be no more death while the majority are suffering an unending death? Would that not be an eternal paradox? Paul clearly states that all who died in Adam (which includes all without exception) will be made alive in Christ, the Last Adam, thereby destroying death forever (1Cor 15:22,26).
In the last article we saw that the English phrase “forever and ever” is eis tous aiónas ton aiónon, which simply means “into the ages of the ages” and does not speak of eternity, but rather a series of ages. The preposition “into” (eis) only speaks of an open-ended entrance into the ages of the ages without specifying the duration within that time-period. The preposition eis could be rendered as “in” without altering its essential meaning. Each will be judged “according to their works” and will receive “their part” within the purifying Lake of Fire which is the second death to self which they didn’t undergo in life. The length of time each individual will remain in the Lake of Fire in the ages of the ages depends upon “their part” “according to their works.” They will remain there “until” they have paid the last penny (Matt 5:26). Rightly understood, the very purpose and nature of the Lake of Fire rules out an eternal duration. I explain this in my blog: “Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire.”
De Young asks the question: “If universalism teaches that those in hell will repent and believe the gospel, who will be there to preach it?” (p.229). The answer is that we, the elect firstfruits will. And we will not be the first to do it – Jesus was (1Peter 3:19). Where does it say that the Church will preach the gospel to those outside in outer darkness? We already saw that the Spirit along with us the Bride, will be inviting all those outside who are thirsty to enter and drink freely of the water of life (Rev 22:17).
In Ephesians 2:6-10 we see that we were seated with Christ in heaven, being His workmanship (poema) of grace in order that through us He might show the riches of His grace in the coming ages. To whom would He put us on display as His workmanship? To whom are our transformed lives a testimony of God’s grace in this age? To the lost who need to discover His grace. Then, to whom will He make His grace known in the coming ages if not to the lost who need to be found and saved by grace?
The elect Church of this age is merely the firstfruits of His new creation (James 1:18); those who first trusted in Christ (Eph 1:12); the Church of the firstborn ones (pl. prototokon) (Heb 12:23). The “residue of men” or the “rest of mankind” will not be harvested until the Deliverer comes out of Zion (Acts 15:16-17).
A passage of Scripture which to me clearly speaks of the Church as making Christ known to all the rest of mankind when correctly translated is Ephesians 3:21. However, its meaning was hidden from us in the King James Version. It reads:
“Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen (tou aiónos ton aiónon).” (Eph 3:21 KJV)
As we saw in the previous chapter, it should read as we see it in the Concordant Literal Version which reads:
“to Him be the glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus for all the generations of the eon of the eons! Amen!” (Concordant Literal Version)
Or, taking into account the conjunction “and” (kai) and expressing the full sense of the word “generations” (genos) one could say:
“to Him be the glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all descendants of all generations, into the Age of the ages, Amen!”
The conjunction “and” (kai) is included in most translations, based upon the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, and further clarifies that both Christ Jesus and the Church will be revealing the glory of God to coming generations (c.f. Isa 60:1-3). Also, a more precise translation reveals who will be seeing the glory of God revealed in Christ and in His Church. It will not just be the angels. The phrase “throughout all generations” indicates that it will be revealed in the Church and in Christ Jesus “to all descendants of all generations up to and including those of the final Age of ages.” The word “generations” refers to descendants or generations – not so much as to a period of time as to those born or generated. Angels do not generate and therefore do not have generations. Therefore, it is saying that in the Age of ages all will see the glory of God as displayed in Christ and His Bride, the Church. The prophecies of Scripture speak of a time coming when all people of all generations will see the Glory of the Lord, and here we see that it will be revealed in Christ and in His Church, the bride:
“The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” (Isa 40:5)
“For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” (Hab 2:14)
“Arise, shine; for your light has come! And the glory of the Lord is risen upon you. 2 For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and deep darkness the people; But the Lord will arise over you, and His glory will be seen upon you. 3 The Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.” (Isa 60:1-3)
It is the glory of the Lord upon the Church of the firstborn ones which will cause the residue of men to be drawn to Christ. His glory will be revealed and “all flesh” shall see it. The whole earth will be filled with the experiential knowledge (LXX ginosko) of His glory as the waters cover the sea.
So, Christ is the Savior of all men - especially of those who believe, to be sure, but also of those who didn’t believe in this life and died in a lost state (1Tim 4:10). Eventually every knee shall bow and every tongue in heaven, on earth and even under the earth, shall confess Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of God the Father, resulting in God being all in all (Phil 2:10-11; 1Cor 15:28).
[1] The term “bride” (numphe) refers to the bride at the marriage ceremony in the bridechamber (numphon), or to the subsequent young wife and is never used of the Church before the wedding feast. Before the wedding feast we are said to be “betrothed” or “espoused” (2Cor 11:2 Gr. harmoso) but not yet the Bride.
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism,” by James B. De Young
Is there hope for our loved ones who lived and died in their lost condition without receiving Christ? Nearly all Christians have been taught that the moment one’s heart stops beating, all hope of salvation is forever lost, and this has caused torment and despair in the hearts of many whose loved ones died before saying the sinner’s prayer. Dante’s famous 14th century fiction novel, “The Divine Comedy,” graphically describing his medieval version of hell, had a great impact upon the Christian mindset which prevails to this very day. In his novel he said that over the gate leading into hell appears the words, “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’inatre,” which means “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”
If Dante is right, unless we are so self-centered and calloused that we are beyond feeling, we who have loved ones who died outside of Christ would have much grounds for continuing anguish and despair. Also, everything we have seen in the previous chapters concerning the final restoration of all would be impossible, since the vast majority of mankind either didn’t hear the gospel or else failed to respond to it before taking their last breath. But does the Bible actually teach us that all hope of salvation forever ceases at death, or is this merely a deeply ingrained theological presupposition handed down to us from the days of Saint Augustine?
Many are surprised to discover that there is no verse in Scripture which actually teaches that salvation is impossible beyond the grave. The only verse presented in support of this doctrine is Hebrews 9:27 which simply says: “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.” However, this verse only states what both Traditionalists and Universalists agree upon - that men must face judgment upon dying. In this judgment, those outside of Christ will be judged “according to their works” – receiving “their part” in the Lake of Fire, some receiving “few stripes” while others receive “many stripes,” not getting out of there “until” they have paid in full (Rev 20:12; 21:8; Luke 12:47; Matt 5:26; 18:34-35). None of these expressions are compatible with eternal punishment.
De Young says: “There is no hint that anyone can exercise faith after death” (p.217). However, to me it is more significant that there is no hint that one loses his ability to believe upon dying. We lose our bodies upon dying, not our capacity to understand and believe. While it is not explicitly stated that one can believe after death, it is necessitated by the fact that eventually every knee will bow, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord. How can this happen without faith? How can the whole world be saved with all being reconciled and restored if indeed it is not possible to exercise faith after death, given that most are not saved and restored in this life? While faith after death may not be explicitly stated in Scripture, it is everywhere assumed. More importantly, there is no hint that one cannot exercise faith after death. If such were the case, we would expect it to be emphasized over and over in Scripture.
In spite of the multiple passages of Scripture which declare a universal restoration of all, De Young insists that there is not even one text supporting our belief that those who did not hear, or even those who heard but did not respond to the gospel in life can be saved after death. He says:
“They (Universalists) argue that it is the spirit of man that is of central importance to God, and there is no reason why God can’t provide salvation after one’s body has died. The only problem with this argument, an argument from silence, is that there is ‘not one text’ that supports the claim of universalism.” p. 88 (parenthesis mine)
I see several problems with this statement. In the first place, Universalists are correct in stating that the spirit of man is more important to God, who is spirit, than one’s body. For example, Paul commanded the Corinthians to deliver the sinning brother over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh in order that his spirit might be saved in the Day of the Lord (1Cor 5:5). While salvation is of the entire man – spirit, soul and body, God is Spirit, and we have communion with Him and worship Him with our spirit and therefore it is our spirit which is of utmost importance to Him.
Secondly, Universalists do not speak of some future provision of salvation, but base the salvation of all upon Christ’s finished work on the cross 2,000 years ago. Nowhere in Scripture do we see that His provision for salvation ends at death or at the Second Coming of Christ. Our Savior Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain for all from eternity. The gospel is referred to as “the everlasting gospel.” Whatever that means, it certainly means that it doesn’t cease to be good news the moment one dies, or Christ returns. Christ’s priesthood is eternal, and He is able to save to the uttermost all who come to Him since He ever lives to make intercession for them (Heb 7:25). But who will be in need of His intercessory ministry after the Church has already been glorified and free from sin if not those who died in their sins and need His intercession in order to be able to come to the Father through Him?
Finally, De Young’s statement that Universalists argue for salvation after death from silence could just as easily be leveled against the Traditionalists, since the Scriptures nowhere state that salvation is only possible in this life. And while Scriptures do not directly speak to this issue, a deductive study of all pertinent texts require salvation after death. If all are to be restored and only a few elect are restored in this age, then salvation after death must be assumed. If Jesus will draw all unto Himself, seeking and saving until the last lost sheep has been found, then He must continue drawing, seeking and saving after one’s death, since most die in a lost state (Acts 3:21; Jn 12:32; Luke 15:4, 19:10). If all will be subjected to Christ, resulting in God being all in all, then the conviction of the Spirit resulting in repentance, bowing the knee to Christ and confessing Him as Lord, must continue after one’s death, since not all will have become subjected to Him in this age (Isa 45:22-24; 1Cor 15:25-28; Heb 2:8).
One could continue, giving text after text which deductively require salvation after death without the need for a direct statement to that effect. In reality, it is more significant that Traditionalists cannot present any text which says that all opportunity for one’s salvation ends at death. Christ is the Savior of the whole world and not just the elect firstfruits. He gave His life a ransom for all and He declares that He will seek and save the lost until all are safe in the fold (Jn 1:29, 4:42, 10:16; 1Jn 2:2, 4:14; Matt 20:28; 1Tim 2:6, 4:10, etc.). Also, taking into account all we have seen in previous chapters concerning the corrective and temporal nature of God’s judgments and Christ’s enduring intercessory ministry, how can we still insist that Christ’s saving work forever ends at death?
There are also numerous passages which actually indicate that salvation continues even after the Great White Throne Judgment and after the New Jerusalem has descended upon the new earth. First, it says this of the New Jerusalem after having descended upon the new earth:
“By its light shall the nations walk; and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it, 25 and its gates shall never be shut by day - and there shall be no night there; 26 they shall bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. 27 But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life. 22:1 Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations... 14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood… 17 The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price." (Rev 21:24-22:2,14,17 RSV)
Here we see that the gates of the New Jerusalem will always be open. Although the New Jerusalem is the exclusive habitation of Christ and His Bride, those of the nations who are saved subsequent to the Second Coming will walk in her light and will be able to enter. The only ones excluded are those outside who continue in sin and have not yet washed their robes. But they are called upon to wash their robes so as to have their names written in the book of life, allowing them to enter and partake of the leaves of the tree of life which are for their healing. Typical of Traditionalists, De Young supposes that the sinners outside her gates will never be able to enter. He says:
“Finally, the future state of the new heavens and new earth still has the existence of the wicked outside the holy city.” p.88
Traditionalists assume that God’s story for the ages begins with the creation of man and ends with the elect saints forever in the New Jerusalem and the sinners forever outside in fiery torments. However, God’s glorious creation story does not end in eternal ruin for the majority, but rather in the restoration of all. The White Throne Judgment, as with all His judgments throughout history, although resulting in a condemnatory sentence for some, are corrective in nature and therefore always culminate in their ultimate restoration.
If the condemned outside the gates in the Lake of Fire were eternally condemned, they wouldn’t be enjoined to wash their robes so as to be able to enter into the New Jerusalem. God’s mercy endures forever, and Christ ever lives to intercede for sinners. Although without holiness no one can see the Lord, the gates are always open to all those outside if they wash their robes so as to be able to enter. And the Bride and the Spirit during that time will be extending to them the invitation saying to them, “‘Come.’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price.”
That this invitation is in a post-Great White Throne context is evident since the Church doesn’t become the Bride, the wife of the Lamb until the wedding feast at Christ’s Second Coming. [1] Then, only after the Millennium does the Bride descend in the New Jerusalem upon the new earth (Rev 21:9-10). She, along with the Spirit, invites those outside the New Jerusalem who are thirsty to enter and drink of the water of life which flows from the throne of God within the city.
Also, if all possibility of restoration ended with the Great White Throne Judgment, why are the leaves of the tree of life within said to be “for the healing of the nations?” As long as there are still those outside who need healing, God will continue the process of restoration. The dispensation of the fullness of the times does not come to a close until all in heaven, on earth and under the earth have been reunited in Christ and God becomes all in all (Eph 1:10; Phil 2:10-11; Rev 5:13; 1Cor 15:28).
De Young says: “The text never says that anyone from the lake of fire ever gets out in order to enter the city” (p. 60). While it is true that it is not directly stated, it is clearly implied by such phrases as “their part” or “portion” (Rev 21:8 Gr. meros); not getting out “until” (Matt 5:26, 18:30) and Jesus’ words to the Pharisees, saying to them: “tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you” (Matt 21:31), as well as His reference to “few stripes” and “many stripes.” All of these qualifying phrases rule out a never-ending hell, as well as the annihilation of the lost. Additionally, the Lake of Fire is said to be the “second death.” In Revelation 2:11 it is said of the overcomers that they will not be “hurt by” the second death. This also implies limited duration.
Also, since the last enemy to be destroyed is death, when death is destroyed there will “be no more death” (1Cor 15:26; Rev 21:4). Are we to believe that somehow there will be no more death while the majority are suffering an unending death? Would that not be an eternal paradox? Paul clearly states that all who died in Adam (which includes all without exception) will be made alive in Christ, the Last Adam, thereby destroying death forever (1Cor 15:22,26).
In the last article we saw that the English phrase “forever and ever” is eis tous aiónas ton aiónon, which simply means “into the ages of the ages” and does not speak of eternity, but rather a series of ages. The preposition “into” (eis) only speaks of an open-ended entrance into the ages of the ages without specifying the duration within that time-period. The preposition eis could be rendered as “in” without altering its essential meaning. Each will be judged “according to their works” and will receive “their part” within the purifying Lake of Fire which is the second death to self which they didn’t undergo in life. The length of time each individual will remain in the Lake of Fire in the ages of the ages depends upon “their part” “according to their works.” They will remain there “until” they have paid the last penny (Matt 5:26). Rightly understood, the very purpose and nature of the Lake of Fire rules out an eternal duration. I explain this in my blog: “Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire.”
De Young asks the question: “If universalism teaches that those in hell will repent and believe the gospel, who will be there to preach it?” (p.229). The answer is that we, the elect firstfruits will. And we will not be the first to do it – Jesus was (1Peter 3:19). Where does it say that the Church will preach the gospel to those outside in outer darkness? We already saw that the Spirit along with us the Bride, will be inviting all those outside who are thirsty to enter and drink freely of the water of life (Rev 22:17).
In Ephesians 2:6-10 we see that we were seated with Christ in heaven, being His workmanship (poema) of grace in order that through us He might show the riches of His grace in the coming ages. To whom would He put us on display as His workmanship? To whom are our transformed lives a testimony of God’s grace in this age? To the lost who need to discover His grace. Then, to whom will He make His grace known in the coming ages if not to the lost who need to be found and saved by grace?
The elect Church of this age is merely the firstfruits of His new creation (James 1:18); those who first trusted in Christ (Eph 1:12); the Church of the firstborn ones (pl. prototokon) (Heb 12:23). The “residue of men” or the “rest of mankind” will not be harvested until the Deliverer comes out of Zion (Acts 15:16-17).
A passage of Scripture which to me clearly speaks of the Church as making Christ known to all the rest of mankind when correctly translated is Ephesians 3:21. However, its meaning was hidden from us in the King James Version. It reads:
“Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen (tou aiónos ton aiónon).” (Eph 3:21 KJV)
As we saw in the previous chapter, it should read as we see it in the Concordant Literal Version which reads:
“to Him be the glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus for all the generations of the eon of the eons! Amen!” (Concordant Literal Version)
Or, taking into account the conjunction “and” (kai) and expressing the full sense of the word “generations” (genos) one could say:
“to Him be the glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all descendants of all generations, into the Age of the ages, Amen!”
The conjunction “and” (kai) is included in most translations, based upon the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, and further clarifies that both Christ Jesus and the Church will be revealing the glory of God to coming generations (c.f. Isa 60:1-3). Also, a more precise translation reveals who will be seeing the glory of God revealed in Christ and in His Church. It will not just be the angels. The phrase “throughout all generations” indicates that it will be revealed in the Church and in Christ Jesus “to all descendants of all generations up to and including those of the final Age of ages.” The word “generations” refers to descendants or generations – not so much as to a period of time as to those born or generated. Angels do not generate and therefore do not have generations. Therefore, it is saying that in the Age of ages all will see the glory of God as displayed in Christ and His Bride, the Church. The prophecies of Scripture speak of a time coming when all people of all generations will see the Glory of the Lord, and here we see that it will be revealed in Christ and in His Church, the bride:
“The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” (Isa 40:5)
“For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” (Hab 2:14)
“Arise, shine; for your light has come! And the glory of the Lord is risen upon you. 2 For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and deep darkness the people; But the Lord will arise over you, and His glory will be seen upon you. 3 The Gentiles shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.” (Isa 60:1-3)
It is the glory of the Lord upon the Church of the firstborn ones which will cause the residue of men to be drawn to Christ. His glory will be revealed and “all flesh” shall see it. The whole earth will be filled with the experiential knowledge (LXX ginosko) of His glory as the waters cover the sea.
So, Christ is the Savior of all men - especially of those who believe, to be sure, but also of those who didn’t believe in this life and died in a lost state (1Tim 4:10). Eventually every knee shall bow and every tongue in heaven, on earth and even under the earth, shall confess Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of God the Father, resulting in God being all in all (Phil 2:10-11; 1Cor 15:28).
[1] The term “bride” (numphe) refers to the bride at the marriage ceremony in the bridechamber (numphon), or to the subsequent young wife and is never used of the Church before the wedding feast. Before the wedding feast we are said to be “betrothed” or “espoused” (2Cor 11:2 Gr. harmoso) but not yet the Bride.
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism,” by James B. De Young
For years I was aware of some passages which clearly seemed to speak of a universal restoration of all, but I discounted Universalism, since I had been taught that it was only a recent belief held by a few Liberals. Since I have a high view of Scripture, that was enough to deter me from any serious consideration of the possibility that Jesus would actually successfully fulfill His mission to save the whole world.
However, as I became aware of an ever-increasing number of passages which clearly seemed to teach the final salvation of all, I was emboldened to do some serious investigation outside of the traditional box. I was wonderfully surprised to discover that the majority of the Early Greek Church Fathers held to the apocatastasis or the universal restoration of all, up until Augustine in the 5th century.
When I was in seminary I studied Church history. In this ultra-conservative seminary, the historian Philip Schaff was considered to be the last word on matters of Church history. While he makes it clear that he was not himself a Universalist, he nevertheless states in no uncertain terms that the belief in the final restoration of all was the majority position in the Early Church. He says:
“In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria… Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is unknown.” [i]
“Under the instruction of these great teachers [Clement, Origen, Gregory, and Theodore of Mopsuestia] many other theologians believed in universal salvation; and indeed the whole Eastern Church until after AD 500 was inclined to it.” [ii]
It is hard for Traditionalists to discount such a respected authority on the history of the Church. Yet he clearly concedes that Universalism was the prevailing belief during that time. Indeed, if only the Romanized school of Carthage taught eternal torment, then who can reasonably insist that the majority position of that time was that of eternal torment?
J.W. Hanson, who made an in-depth study of the writings of the early Church fathers which he extensively documents in his book: “Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years,” comes to the same conclusion as Schaff. He says:
“The school in Northern Africa (Carthage) favored the doctrine of endless punishment; that in Asia Minor annihilation. The two in Alexandria and Caesarea were Universalistic of the school of Origen; those at Antioch and Edessa were Universalistic of the school of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus.” [iii]
Typical of Traditionalists, De Young seems to be in denial concerning these informed witnesses when he says:
“The claim made by many universalists that universalism was the position of four out of six schools of theology in the early church needs to be clarified as well. In truth this is not the case. p.107
However, he avoids any mention of, or quote from, the historian Philip Schaff, and nowhere in his book does he demonstrate why it is not the case. In order to stamp out Universalism, the Roman church destroyed all the writings of the Early Church Fathers they could find affirming the universal restoration, and to this day the defenders of everlasting punishment likewise seek to suppress or discount their writings. But even our most notable Church historians, who were not themselves Universalists, concede that it was the majority view in the Early Church. The Church historian Johann Gieseler says of that time:
“The belief in the inalienable capacity of improvement in all rational beings, and the limited duration of future punishment, was so general, even in the West (Carthage and Rome), and among the opponents of Origen, that, even if it may not be said to have arisen without the influence of Origen’s school, it had become entirely independent of his system.” [iv]
Even Saint Augustine, (AD 354 to AD 430) who popularized the doctrine of everlasting torment, acknowledged that a great number of his colleagues held to the doctrine of universal restoration. He said:
“There are very many in our day who, though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments.” [v]
“And now I see I must have a gentle disputation with certain tender hearts of our own religion, who are unwilling to believe that everlasting punishment will be inflicted, either on all those whom the just Judge shall condemn to the pains of hell, or even on some of them, but who think that after certain periods of time, longer or shorter according to the proportion of their crimes, they shall be delivered out of that state.” [vi]
What do the early Church Fathers say about the apocatastasis or universal restoration of all? Since what remained of the great library of Alexandria was finally destroyed by Pope Theophilus, the 23rd pope of Alexandria, who sought to wipe out Origenism, destroying most of Origen’s works as well as the works of other Universalists, and because the Church of the Dark Ages subsequently destroyed all materials deemed to be heretical, very few writings of the early Church Fathers remain today.
In addition to that, many of those who believed in universal restoration in that epoch practiced what they called “reserve,” only sharing this teaching among those whom they considered mature and therefore less apt to convert the grace of God into a license for immorality. They often justified this practice of reserve by passages such as 1Corinthians 2:6,7 which says: “However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature… we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory.” Origen said:
“all that might be said on this theme is not expedient to explain now, or to all. For the masses need no further teaching on account of those who hardly through the fear of eternal punishment restrain their recklessness.” [vii]
“But we must still remember that the Apostle would have this text accounted as a secret, so that the faithful and perfect may keep their perceptions of it as one of God's secrets in silence among themselves, and not divulge it everywhere to the imperfect and those less capable of receiving it.” [viii]
Due to the practice of reserve on the part of some, their references to universal restoration are not very abundant in their writings. Some of their public sermons do not make any mention of it or at best only make a few indirect references to that doctrine.
Nevertheless, in spite of the above-mentioned reasons, there are references to universal restoration which are sufficiently clear and abundant so as to establish that they believed in the restoration of all. Below are some quotes from the most prominent fathers of the early Church which, for obvious reasons go without mention in De Young’s book. While few of their writings survived the purges of Romanism, those which did speak for themselves, so I will simply quote those which I consider to be the clearest without comment.
Clement of Alexandria AD 150 to AD 215.
“The Lord, he says, is a propitiation, ‘not for our sins only,' that is, of the faithful, ‘but also for the whole world.’ Therefore He indeed saves all universally; but some as converted by punishments, others by voluntary submission, thus obtaining the honor and dignity, that ‘to Him every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,’ that is angels, and men, and souls who departed this life before His coming into the world.” [ix]
“If in this life there are so many ways for purification and repentance, how much more should there be after death! The purification of souls, when separated from the body, will be easier. We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer; to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, is his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life.” [x]
“Punishment is, in its operation, like medicine; it dissolves the hard heart, purges away the filth of uncleanness, and reduces the swellings of pride and haughtiness; thus restoring its subject to a sound and healthful state.” [xi]
“God's punishments are saving and disciplinary leading to conversion…and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh.” [xii]
Origen AD 184 to AD 254.
“But our belief is that the Word shall prevail over the entire rational creation, and change every soul into his own perfection; in which will choose what he desires, and obtain what he chooses. For although, in the diseases and wounds of the body, there are some which no medical skill can cure, yet we hold that in the mind there is no evil so strong that it may not be overcome by the Supreme Word and God. For stronger than all the evils in the soul is the Word, and the healing power that dwells in him; and this healing he applies, according to the will of God, to every man. The consummation of all things is the destruction of evil…” [xiii]
“But he that despises the purification of the word of God and the doctrine of the Gospel only keeps himself for dreadful and penal purifications afterward; that so the fire of hell may purge him in torments whom neither apostolical doctrine nor gospel preaching has cleansed, according to that which is written of being “purified by fire.” But how long this purification which is wrought out by penal fire shall endure, or for how many periods or ages it shall torment sinners, He only knows to whom all judgment is committed by the Father.” [xiv]
Theofilus of Antioch AD 186.
“And God showed great kindness to man, in this, that He did not suffer him to continue being in sin forever; but, as it were, by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated, within an appointed time, the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards be recalled. Wherefore also, when man had been formed in this world, it is mystically written in Genesis, as if he had been twice placed in Paradise; so that the one was fulfilled after the resurrection and judgment. Nay further, just as a vessel, when on being fashioned it has some flaw, is remolded or re-made, that it may become new and entire; so also it happens to man by death. For he is broken up by force, that in the resurrection he may be found whole, I mean spotless, and righteous, and immortal.” [xv]
Irenaeus AD 182.
“Wherefore also He drove him out of Paradise, and removed him far from the tree of life, not because He wanted to deprive him of the tree of life, as some dare to assert, but because He pitied him, (and desired) that he should not continue always a sinner, and that the sin which surrounded him should not be immortal, and the evil interminable and irremediable.” [xvi]
Ambrose of Milan AD 340 to AD 397.
Commenting on Ephesians 1, Ambrose says the following: “This seemed good to God … to manifest in Christ the mystery of His will … namely, that He should be merciful to all who had strayed, whether in Heaven or in earth … Every being, then, in the heavens and on earth, while it learns the knowledge of Christ, is being restored to that which it was created,” [xvii]
In his commentary on 1Corinthians 15:27 he says, “When every creature learns that Christ is its head, and that Christ’s head is God the Father, then God is all in all; that is to say, that every creature should believe alike, that with one voice every tongue of things in Heaven and earth and under the earth, should confess that there is one God from Whom are all things.” [xviii]
“It is necessary that all should be proved by fire, whosoever they are that desire to return to Paradise. For not in vain is it written, that, when Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise, God placed at the outlet a flaming sword which turned every way. All therefore must pass through these fires, whether it be that Evangelist John whom the Lord so loved . . . or Peter, who received the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” [xix]
“Our Savior has appointed two kinds of resurrection, in accordance with which John says, in the Apocalypse, ‘Blessed is he that hath part in the first resurrection’; for such come to grace without the judgment. As for those who do not come to the first, but are reserved until the second resurrection, these shall be burnt, until they fulfill their appointed times, between the first and the second resurrection; or, if they should not have fulfilled them then, they shall remain still longer in punishment.” [xx]
Gregory of Nyssa AD 330 to AD 394.
“Wherefore that at the same time liberty of free-will should be left to nature and yet the evil be purged away, the wisdom of God discovered this plan, to suffer man to do what he would, that having tasted the evil which he desired, and learning by experience for what wretchedness he had bartered away the blessings he had, he might of his own will hasten back with desire to the first blessedness, . . . either being purged in this life through prayer and discipline, or after his departure hence through the furnace of cleansing fire.” [xxi]
“For it is needful that evil should someday be wholly and absolutely removed out of the circle of being. For inasmuch as it is not in the nature of evil to exist without the will, when every will comes to be in God, will not evil go on to absolute extinction, by reason of there being no receptacle of it left?” [xxii]
“the One who both delivers man from evil, and who heals the inventor of evil himself.” [xxiii]
“When every created being is at harmony with itself … and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; when every creature shall have been made one body … Now the body of Christ, as I have often said, is the whole of humanity. And again he writes, Everything shall be subdued to Christ, and they shall be subdued by a full knowledge of Him, and by a remodeling. … Now God will be all in all at the time of restitution.” [xxiv]
Gregory Nazianzen AD 328 to AD 389.
“These, if they will, may go our way, which indeed is Christ's; but if not, let them go their own way. In another place perhaps they shall be baptized with fire, that last baptism, which is not only very painful, but enduring also; which eats up, as if it were hay, all defiled matter, and consumes all vanity and vice.” [xxv]
“For all things shall be subject to Him, and all things shall acknowledge His empire; and when God shall be all in all, those who now excite discords by revolts, having been quite pacified, shall praise God in peaceful concord.” [xxvi]
Marcellus of Ancyra AD 315 to AD 374.
“For what else do the words mean, ‘until the times of the restitution’ (Acts, iii: 21), but that the apostle designed to point out that time in which all things partake of that perfect restoration?” [xxvii]
Theodore of Mopsuestia AD 359 to AD 429.
“The wicked who have committed evil the whole period of their lives shall be punished till they learn that, by continuing in sin, they only continue in misery. And when, by this means, they shall have been brought to fear God, and to regard him with good will, they shall obtain the enjoyment of his grace. For he never would have said, ‘until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing,’ unless we can be released from suffering after having suffered adequately for sin; nor would he have said, 'he shall be beaten with many stripes,' and again, ‘he shall be beaten with few stripes,’ unless the punishment to be endured for sin will have an end.” [xxviii]
Titus of Bostra AD 338 to AD 378.
“The very abyss of torment is indeed the place of chastisement, but it is not eternal (aionioti) nor did it exist in the original constitution of nature. It was afterwards, as a remedy for sinners, that it might cure them. And the punishments are holy, as they are remedial and salutary in their effect on transgressors; for they are inflicted, not to preserve them in their wickedness, but to make them cease from their wickedness. The anguish of their suffering compels them to break off their vices…. If death were an evil, blame would rightfully fall on him who appointed it.” [xxix]
Ambrose of Milan AD 340 to AD 397.
“What then hinders our believing that he who is beaten small as the dust is not annihilated, but is changed for the better; so that, instead of an earthly man, he is made a spiritual man, and our believing that he who is destroyed, is so destroyed that all taint is removed, and there remains but what is pure and clean? And in God's saying of the adversaries of Jerusalem, 'They shall be as though they were not," you are to understand they shall exist substantially, and as converted, but shall not exist as enemies…. God gave death, not as a penalty, but as a remedy; death was given for a remedy as the end of evils…How shall the sinner exist in the future, seeing the place of sin cannot be of long continuance?” [xxx]
Marius Victorinus AD 300.
On 1Corinthians 15:28, he says: “All things shall be rendered spiritual at the consummation of the world. At the consummation all things shall be one… Therefore all things converted to him shall become one, i.e., spiritual; through the Son all things shall be made one, for all things are by him, for all things that exist are one, though they be different. For the body of the entire universe is not like a mere heap, which becomes a body, only by the contact of its particles; but it is a body chiefly in its several parts being closely and mutually bound together--it forms a continuous chain. For the chain is this, God: Jesus: the Spirit: the intellect: the soul: the angelic host: and lastly, all subordinate bodily existences.” [xxxi]
On Ephesians 1:4: “The mystery was completed by the Savior in order that, perfection having been completed throughout all things, and in all things by Christ, all universally should be made one through Christ and in Christ…. And because he (Christ) is the life, he is that by whom all things have been made, for all things cleansed by him return into eternal life.” [xxxii]
Jerome AD 347 to AD 420.
“Your enemies, O God, shall perish,…every man who has been Your enemy shall hereafter be made Your friend; the man shall not perish, the enemy shall perish.” [xxxiii]
“In the restitution of all things when Christ the true physician shall have come to heal the body of the universal church… every one… shall receive his proper place…. What I mean is, the fallen angel will begin to be that which he was created, and man who has been expelled from Paradise will be once more restored to the tilling of Paradise…. These things then will take place universally.” [xxxiv]
“Most persons regard the story of Jonah as teaching the ultimate forgiveness of all rational creatures, even the devil.” [xxxv]
“The apostate angels, and the prince of this world, and Lucifer, the morning star, though now ungovernable, licentiously wandering about, and plunging themselves into the depths of sin, shall in the end, embrace the happy dominion of Christ and his saints…. No rational creature before God will perish forever.” [xxxvi]
“Israel and all heretics, because they had the works of Sodom and Gomorrah, are overthrown like Sodom and Gomorrah, that they may be set free like a brand snatched from the burning. And this is the meaning of the prophet's words, ‘Sodom shall be restored as of old,’ that he who by his vice is as an inhabitant of Sodom, after the works of Sodom have been burnt in him, may be restored to his ancient state.” [xxxvii]
Theodore the Blessed AD 387 to AD 458.
Regarding Ephesians 1:23, Theodore wrote: “In the present life God is in all, for his nature is without limits, but is not all in all. But in the coming life, when mortality is at an end and immortality granted, and sin has no longer any place, God will be all in all. For the Lord, who loves man, punishes medicinally, that he may check the course of impiety.” [xxxviii]
Theodore Olympiodorus AD 495 to AD 570.
“Do not suppose that the soul is punished for endless eons. The soul is not punished to gratify the revenge of the divinity, but for the sake of healing. The soul is punished for an eonian period (aionios) calling its life and its allotted period of punishment its eon.” [xxxix]
These are just some of the quotes from the Early Greek Church Fathers which survived. You will never find them quoted in De Young’s book or for that matter any book defending the doctrine of eternal torment, since it is a strong testimony against the historicity of their doctrine within the Church.
Also, it should be noted that Universalism was never condemned by any legitimate Church council. The Roman Emperor Justinian condemned Universalism for the first time in Constantinople in 544 A.D. saying: “If anyone says or holds that the punishment of demons and impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, that there is a restoration of demons or impious men, he is accursed.” However, the Latin Church refused to convene with him or recognize it. He tried again and failed in A.D. 553. Sadly, today the Traditional Church condemns what even the Church in decline, entering into the Dark Ages, refused to condemn.
For a more in-depth consideration of the testimony of the Early Church, I recommend my book “The Triumph of Mercy” or for an even more exhaustive study you may wish to read J.W. Hanson’s, “Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years.”
[i] Schaff, Phillip, The New Chaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge – Vol 12, Baker Book House, 1950
[ii] Philip Schaff, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Vol XII, p.96.
[iii] J.W. Hanson D.D., Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years pp. 174,175
[iv] Gieseler, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1. para. 82.
[v] Enchiridion, Chapter 112
[vi] The City of God, Book XXI, Chapter 17
[vii] Origen, Quoted in Hanson, John Wesley, Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Vive Hundred Years, 1899. p. 56.
[viii] Origin, Commentary In Epist. Ad Rom. lib viii. cap. xi.
[ix] Clement de Alexandria, Comentary of 1John Adumbrat. in Ep. I Johan., printed at the end of his Treatise, Quis dives salvetur, p.1009, Potter´s Edit.
[x] Clement of Alexandria, Strom. lib. vi. cap. 6m p. 763, Ed. Potter.
[xi] Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1.8 as cited in Thayors Léxicon.
[xii] Clement of Alexandria, Hanson, John Wesley, Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years. p. 117
[xiii] Origin, Contra Selsum 8.72.
[xiv] Origin, Commentary In Epist. Ad Rom. lib viii. cap. xi.
[xv] http://www.tentmaker.org/books/
[xvi] Iranio, Contr. Hoer. lib. iii. c. 23, para. 6.
[xvii] Allin, Universalism Asserted, p. 133.
[xviii] Allin, Universalism Asserted, p. 133.
[xix] Ambrose, in Psalm i. para. 54, p. 763, Ed. Paris. 1686.
[xx] Psalm . i. para. 54, p. 763, Ed. Paris. 1686
[xxi] Gregorio de Niza, Orat. pro Mortuis, ad. fin. p. 634, Ed. Paris. 1638.
[xxii] Gregorio de Niza, Dial. de Anima et Resurrect. tom.iii. p. 227, Ed. Paris. 1638
[xxiii] Gregorio de Niza, Catechetical Oraciones, Cap. 26.
[xxiv] Gregorio de Niza, Catechetical Oraciones, (36)
[xxv] Gregorio, el Nazianceno, Orat. xxix. par.19, p.690. Ed. Paris 1778
[xxvi] Basil the Great (c. 329 – c. 379) Commentary on Isaiah
Crowder, John (2013-09-28). Cosmos Reborn : Happy Theology on the New Creation (Kindle Locations 3788-3789). Sons of Thunder Ministries & Publications - Digital version by Ten10 Ebooks. Kindle Edition.
[xxvii] Marcelo de Anicra, Hanson, John Wesley, Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During the First Five Hundred Years, Universalist Publishing House, Boston, 1899, p. 244
[xxviii] Gregorio el Nazianceno, Assemani Bib. Orient. Tom. iii.
[xxix] Tito de Bostra, Tillemont, p.
[xxx] Ambrosio de Milán, Hanson, pp. 245,246
[xxxi] Marius Victurinas, Hanson, p. 249
[xxxii] Marius Victurinas, Hanson, p. 249
[xxxiii] Jerome. In Ps. xcii. 9.22
[xxxiv] Allin, Universalism Asserted, p. 134.
[xxxv] Jerome. In Ps. xcii. 9.22
[xxxvi] Jerome. In Ps. xcii. 9.22
[xxxvii] J.W. HANSON, D. D. Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years. http://www.tentmaker.org/books/
[xxxviii] Teodoro el Bendecido, Hanson, p.254.
[xxxix] http://brazenchurch.com/how-hell-invaded-church-doctrine/
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism,” by James B. De Young
For years I was aware of some passages which clearly seemed to speak of a universal restoration of all, but I discounted Universalism, since I had been taught that it was only a recent belief held by a few Liberals. Since I have a high view of Scripture, that was enough to deter me from any serious consideration of the possibility that Jesus would actually successfully fulfill His mission to save the whole world.
However, as I became aware of an ever-increasing number of passages which clearly seemed to teach the final salvation of all, I was emboldened to do some serious investigation outside of the traditional box. I was wonderfully surprised to discover that the majority of the Early Greek Church Fathers held to the apocatastasis or the universal restoration of all, up until Augustine in the 5th century.
When I was in seminary I studied Church history. In this ultra-conservative seminary, the historian Philip Schaff was considered to be the last word on matters of Church history. While he makes it clear that he was not himself a Universalist, he nevertheless states in no uncertain terms that the belief in the final restoration of all was the majority position in the Early Church. He says:
“In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria… Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is unknown.” [i]
“Under the instruction of these great teachers [Clement, Origen, Gregory, and Theodore of Mopsuestia] many other theologians believed in universal salvation; and indeed the whole Eastern Church until after AD 500 was inclined to it.” [ii]
It is hard for Traditionalists to discount such a respected authority on the history of the Church. Yet he clearly concedes that Universalism was the prevailing belief during that time. Indeed, if only the Romanized school of Carthage taught eternal torment, then who can reasonably insist that the majority position of that time was that of eternal torment?
J.W. Hanson, who made an in-depth study of the writings of the early Church fathers which he extensively documents in his book: “Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years,” comes to the same conclusion as Schaff. He says:
“The school in Northern Africa (Carthage) favored the doctrine of endless punishment; that in Asia Minor annihilation. The two in Alexandria and Caesarea were Universalistic of the school of Origen; those at Antioch and Edessa were Universalistic of the school of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus.” [iii]
Typical of Traditionalists, De Young seems to be in denial concerning these informed witnesses when he says:
“The claim made by many universalists that universalism was the position of four out of six schools of theology in the early church needs to be clarified as well. In truth this is not the case. p.107
However, he avoids any mention of, or quote from, the historian Philip Schaff, and nowhere in his book does he demonstrate why it is not the case. In order to stamp out Universalism, the Roman church destroyed all the writings of the Early Church Fathers they could find affirming the universal restoration, and to this day the defenders of everlasting punishment likewise seek to suppress or discount their writings. But even our most notable Church historians, who were not themselves Universalists, concede that it was the majority view in the Early Church. The Church historian Johann Gieseler says of that time:
“The belief in the inalienable capacity of improvement in all rational beings, and the limited duration of future punishment, was so general, even in the West (Carthage and Rome), and among the opponents of Origen, that, even if it may not be said to have arisen without the influence of Origen’s school, it had become entirely independent of his system.” [iv]
Even Saint Augustine, (AD 354 to AD 430) who popularized the doctrine of everlasting torment, acknowledged that a great number of his colleagues held to the doctrine of universal restoration. He said:
“There are very many in our day who, though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments.” [v]
“And now I see I must have a gentle disputation with certain tender hearts of our own religion, who are unwilling to believe that everlasting punishment will be inflicted, either on all those whom the just Judge shall condemn to the pains of hell, or even on some of them, but who think that after certain periods of time, longer or shorter according to the proportion of their crimes, they shall be delivered out of that state.” [vi]
What do the early Church Fathers say about the apocatastasis or universal restoration of all? Since what remained of the great library of Alexandria was finally destroyed by Pope Theophilus, the 23rd pope of Alexandria, who sought to wipe out Origenism, destroying most of Origen’s works as well as the works of other Universalists, and because the Church of the Dark Ages subsequently destroyed all materials deemed to be heretical, very few writings of the early Church Fathers remain today.
In addition to that, many of those who believed in universal restoration in that epoch practiced what they called “reserve,” only sharing this teaching among those whom they considered mature and therefore less apt to convert the grace of God into a license for immorality. They often justified this practice of reserve by passages such as 1Corinthians 2:6,7 which says: “However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature… we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory.” Origen said:
“all that might be said on this theme is not expedient to explain now, or to all. For the masses need no further teaching on account of those who hardly through the fear of eternal punishment restrain their recklessness.” [vii]
“But we must still remember that the Apostle would have this text accounted as a secret, so that the faithful and perfect may keep their perceptions of it as one of God's secrets in silence among themselves, and not divulge it everywhere to the imperfect and those less capable of receiving it.” [viii]
Due to the practice of reserve on the part of some, their references to universal restoration are not very abundant in their writings. Some of their public sermons do not make any mention of it or at best only make a few indirect references to that doctrine.
Nevertheless, in spite of the above-mentioned reasons, there are references to universal restoration which are sufficiently clear and abundant so as to establish that they believed in the restoration of all. Below are some quotes from the most prominent fathers of the early Church which, for obvious reasons go without mention in De Young’s book. While few of their writings survived the purges of Romanism, those which did speak for themselves, so I will simply quote those which I consider to be the clearest without comment.
Clement of Alexandria AD 150 to AD 215.
“The Lord, he says, is a propitiation, ‘not for our sins only,' that is, of the faithful, ‘but also for the whole world.’ Therefore He indeed saves all universally; but some as converted by punishments, others by voluntary submission, thus obtaining the honor and dignity, that ‘to Him every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,’ that is angels, and men, and souls who departed this life before His coming into the world.” [ix]
“If in this life there are so many ways for purification and repentance, how much more should there be after death! The purification of souls, when separated from the body, will be easier. We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer; to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, is his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life.” [x]
“Punishment is, in its operation, like medicine; it dissolves the hard heart, purges away the filth of uncleanness, and reduces the swellings of pride and haughtiness; thus restoring its subject to a sound and healthful state.” [xi]
“God's punishments are saving and disciplinary leading to conversion…and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh.” [xii]
Origen AD 184 to AD 254.
“But our belief is that the Word shall prevail over the entire rational creation, and change every soul into his own perfection; in which will choose what he desires, and obtain what he chooses. For although, in the diseases and wounds of the body, there are some which no medical skill can cure, yet we hold that in the mind there is no evil so strong that it may not be overcome by the Supreme Word and God. For stronger than all the evils in the soul is the Word, and the healing power that dwells in him; and this healing he applies, according to the will of God, to every man. The consummation of all things is the destruction of evil…” [xiii]
“But he that despises the purification of the word of God and the doctrine of the Gospel only keeps himself for dreadful and penal purifications afterward; that so the fire of hell may purge him in torments whom neither apostolical doctrine nor gospel preaching has cleansed, according to that which is written of being “purified by fire.” But how long this purification which is wrought out by penal fire shall endure, or for how many periods or ages it shall torment sinners, He only knows to whom all judgment is committed by the Father.” [xiv]
Theofilus of Antioch AD 186.
“And God showed great kindness to man, in this, that He did not suffer him to continue being in sin forever; but, as it were, by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated, within an appointed time, the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards be recalled. Wherefore also, when man had been formed in this world, it is mystically written in Genesis, as if he had been twice placed in Paradise; so that the one was fulfilled after the resurrection and judgment. Nay further, just as a vessel, when on being fashioned it has some flaw, is remolded or re-made, that it may become new and entire; so also it happens to man by death. For he is broken up by force, that in the resurrection he may be found whole, I mean spotless, and righteous, and immortal.” [xv]
Irenaeus AD 182.
“Wherefore also He drove him out of Paradise, and removed him far from the tree of life, not because He wanted to deprive him of the tree of life, as some dare to assert, but because He pitied him, (and desired) that he should not continue always a sinner, and that the sin which surrounded him should not be immortal, and the evil interminable and irremediable.” [xvi]
Ambrose of Milan AD 340 to AD 397.
Commenting on Ephesians 1, Ambrose says the following: “This seemed good to God … to manifest in Christ the mystery of His will … namely, that He should be merciful to all who had strayed, whether in Heaven or in earth … Every being, then, in the heavens and on earth, while it learns the knowledge of Christ, is being restored to that which it was created,” [xvii]
In his commentary on 1Corinthians 15:27 he says, “When every creature learns that Christ is its head, and that Christ’s head is God the Father, then God is all in all; that is to say, that every creature should believe alike, that with one voice every tongue of things in Heaven and earth and under the earth, should confess that there is one God from Whom are all things.” [xviii]
“It is necessary that all should be proved by fire, whosoever they are that desire to return to Paradise. For not in vain is it written, that, when Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise, God placed at the outlet a flaming sword which turned every way. All therefore must pass through these fires, whether it be that Evangelist John whom the Lord so loved . . . or Peter, who received the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” [xix]
“Our Savior has appointed two kinds of resurrection, in accordance with which John says, in the Apocalypse, ‘Blessed is he that hath part in the first resurrection’; for such come to grace without the judgment. As for those who do not come to the first, but are reserved until the second resurrection, these shall be burnt, until they fulfill their appointed times, between the first and the second resurrection; or, if they should not have fulfilled them then, they shall remain still longer in punishment.” [xx]
Gregory of Nyssa AD 330 to AD 394.
“Wherefore that at the same time liberty of free-will should be left to nature and yet the evil be purged away, the wisdom of God discovered this plan, to suffer man to do what he would, that having tasted the evil which he desired, and learning by experience for what wretchedness he had bartered away the blessings he had, he might of his own will hasten back with desire to the first blessedness, . . . either being purged in this life through prayer and discipline, or after his departure hence through the furnace of cleansing fire.” [xxi]
“For it is needful that evil should someday be wholly and absolutely removed out of the circle of being. For inasmuch as it is not in the nature of evil to exist without the will, when every will comes to be in God, will not evil go on to absolute extinction, by reason of there being no receptacle of it left?” [xxii]
“the One who both delivers man from evil, and who heals the inventor of evil himself.” [xxiii]
“When every created being is at harmony with itself … and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; when every creature shall have been made one body … Now the body of Christ, as I have often said, is the whole of humanity. And again he writes, Everything shall be subdued to Christ, and they shall be subdued by a full knowledge of Him, and by a remodeling. … Now God will be all in all at the time of restitution.” [xxiv]
Gregory Nazianzen AD 328 to AD 389.
“These, if they will, may go our way, which indeed is Christ's; but if not, let them go their own way. In another place perhaps they shall be baptized with fire, that last baptism, which is not only very painful, but enduring also; which eats up, as if it were hay, all defiled matter, and consumes all vanity and vice.” [xxv]
“For all things shall be subject to Him, and all things shall acknowledge His empire; and when God shall be all in all, those who now excite discords by revolts, having been quite pacified, shall praise God in peaceful concord.” [xxvi]
Marcellus of Ancyra AD 315 to AD 374.
“For what else do the words mean, ‘until the times of the restitution’ (Acts, iii: 21), but that the apostle designed to point out that time in which all things partake of that perfect restoration?” [xxvii]
Theodore of Mopsuestia AD 359 to AD 429.
“The wicked who have committed evil the whole period of their lives shall be punished till they learn that, by continuing in sin, they only continue in misery. And when, by this means, they shall have been brought to fear God, and to regard him with good will, they shall obtain the enjoyment of his grace. For he never would have said, ‘until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing,’ unless we can be released from suffering after having suffered adequately for sin; nor would he have said, 'he shall be beaten with many stripes,' and again, ‘he shall be beaten with few stripes,’ unless the punishment to be endured for sin will have an end.” [xxviii]
Titus of Bostra AD 338 to AD 378.
“The very abyss of torment is indeed the place of chastisement, but it is not eternal (aionioti) nor did it exist in the original constitution of nature. It was afterwards, as a remedy for sinners, that it might cure them. And the punishments are holy, as they are remedial and salutary in their effect on transgressors; for they are inflicted, not to preserve them in their wickedness, but to make them cease from their wickedness. The anguish of their suffering compels them to break off their vices…. If death were an evil, blame would rightfully fall on him who appointed it.” [xxix]
Ambrose of Milan AD 340 to AD 397.
“What then hinders our believing that he who is beaten small as the dust is not annihilated, but is changed for the better; so that, instead of an earthly man, he is made a spiritual man, and our believing that he who is destroyed, is so destroyed that all taint is removed, and there remains but what is pure and clean? And in God's saying of the adversaries of Jerusalem, 'They shall be as though they were not," you are to understand they shall exist substantially, and as converted, but shall not exist as enemies…. God gave death, not as a penalty, but as a remedy; death was given for a remedy as the end of evils…How shall the sinner exist in the future, seeing the place of sin cannot be of long continuance?” [xxx]
Marius Victorinus AD 300.
On 1Corinthians 15:28, he says: “All things shall be rendered spiritual at the consummation of the world. At the consummation all things shall be one… Therefore all things converted to him shall become one, i.e., spiritual; through the Son all things shall be made one, for all things are by him, for all things that exist are one, though they be different. For the body of the entire universe is not like a mere heap, which becomes a body, only by the contact of its particles; but it is a body chiefly in its several parts being closely and mutually bound together--it forms a continuous chain. For the chain is this, God: Jesus: the Spirit: the intellect: the soul: the angelic host: and lastly, all subordinate bodily existences.” [xxxi]
On Ephesians 1:4: “The mystery was completed by the Savior in order that, perfection having been completed throughout all things, and in all things by Christ, all universally should be made one through Christ and in Christ…. And because he (Christ) is the life, he is that by whom all things have been made, for all things cleansed by him return into eternal life.” [xxxii]
Jerome AD 347 to AD 420.
“Your enemies, O God, shall perish,…every man who has been Your enemy shall hereafter be made Your friend; the man shall not perish, the enemy shall perish.” [xxxiii]
“In the restitution of all things when Christ the true physician shall have come to heal the body of the universal church… every one… shall receive his proper place…. What I mean is, the fallen angel will begin to be that which he was created, and man who has been expelled from Paradise will be once more restored to the tilling of Paradise…. These things then will take place universally.” [xxxiv]
“Most persons regard the story of Jonah as teaching the ultimate forgiveness of all rational creatures, even the devil.” [xxxv]
“The apostate angels, and the prince of this world, and Lucifer, the morning star, though now ungovernable, licentiously wandering about, and plunging themselves into the depths of sin, shall in the end, embrace the happy dominion of Christ and his saints…. No rational creature before God will perish forever.” [xxxvi]
“Israel and all heretics, because they had the works of Sodom and Gomorrah, are overthrown like Sodom and Gomorrah, that they may be set free like a brand snatched from the burning. And this is the meaning of the prophet's words, ‘Sodom shall be restored as of old,’ that he who by his vice is as an inhabitant of Sodom, after the works of Sodom have been burnt in him, may be restored to his ancient state.” [xxxvii]
Theodore the Blessed AD 387 to AD 458.
Regarding Ephesians 1:23, Theodore wrote: “In the present life God is in all, for his nature is without limits, but is not all in all. But in the coming life, when mortality is at an end and immortality granted, and sin has no longer any place, God will be all in all. For the Lord, who loves man, punishes medicinally, that he may check the course of impiety.” [xxxviii]
Theodore Olympiodorus AD 495 to AD 570.
“Do not suppose that the soul is punished for endless eons. The soul is not punished to gratify the revenge of the divinity, but for the sake of healing. The soul is punished for an eonian period (aionios) calling its life and its allotted period of punishment its eon.” [xxxix]
These are just some of the quotes from the Early Greek Church Fathers which survived. You will never find them quoted in De Young’s book or for that matter any book defending the doctrine of eternal torment, since it is a strong testimony against the historicity of their doctrine within the Church.
Also, it should be noted that Universalism was never condemned by any legitimate Church council. The Roman Emperor Justinian condemned Universalism for the first time in Constantinople in 544 A.D. saying: “If anyone says or holds that the punishment of demons and impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, that there is a restoration of demons or impious men, he is accursed.” However, the Latin Church refused to convene with him or recognize it. He tried again and failed in A.D. 553. Sadly, today the Traditional Church condemns what even the Church in decline, entering into the Dark Ages, refused to condemn.
For a more in-depth consideration of the testimony of the Early Church, I recommend my book “The Triumph of Mercy” or for an even more exhaustive study you may wish to read J.W. Hanson’s, “Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years.”
[i] Schaff, Phillip, The New Chaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge – Vol 12, Baker Book House, 1950
[ii] Philip Schaff, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Vol XII, p.96.
[iii] J.W. Hanson D.D., Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years pp. 174,175
[iv] Gieseler, Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1. para. 82.
[v] Enchiridion, Chapter 112
[vi] The City of God, Book XXI, Chapter 17
[vii] Origen, Quoted in Hanson, John Wesley, Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Vive Hundred Years, 1899. p. 56.
[viii] Origin, Commentary In Epist. Ad Rom. lib viii. cap. xi.
[ix] Clement de Alexandria, Comentary of 1John Adumbrat. in Ep. I Johan., printed at the end of his Treatise, Quis dives salvetur, p.1009, Potter´s Edit.
[x] Clement of Alexandria, Strom. lib. vi. cap. 6m p. 763, Ed. Potter.
[xi] Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1.8 as cited in Thayors Léxicon.
[xii] Clement of Alexandria, Hanson, John Wesley, Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years. p. 117
[xiii] Origin, Contra Selsum 8.72.
[xiv] Origin, Commentary In Epist. Ad Rom. lib viii. cap. xi.
[xv] http://www.tentmaker.org/books/
[xvi] Iranio, Contr. Hoer. lib. iii. c. 23, para. 6.
[xvii] Allin, Universalism Asserted, p. 133.
[xviii] Allin, Universalism Asserted, p. 133.
[xix] Ambrose, in Psalm i. para. 54, p. 763, Ed. Paris. 1686.
[xx] Psalm . i. para. 54, p. 763, Ed. Paris. 1686
[xxi] Gregorio de Niza, Orat. pro Mortuis, ad. fin. p. 634, Ed. Paris. 1638.
[xxii] Gregorio de Niza, Dial. de Anima et Resurrect. tom.iii. p. 227, Ed. Paris. 1638
[xxiii] Gregorio de Niza, Catechetical Oraciones, Cap. 26.
[xxiv] Gregorio de Niza, Catechetical Oraciones, (36)
[xxv] Gregorio, el Nazianceno, Orat. xxix. par.19, p.690. Ed. Paris 1778
[xxvi] Basil the Great (c. 329 – c. 379) Commentary on Isaiah
Crowder, John (2013-09-28). Cosmos Reborn : Happy Theology on the New Creation (Kindle Locations 3788-3789). Sons of Thunder Ministries & Publications - Digital version by Ten10 Ebooks. Kindle Edition.
[xxvii] Marcelo de Anicra, Hanson, John Wesley, Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During the First Five Hundred Years, Universalist Publishing House, Boston, 1899, p. 244
[xxviii] Gregorio el Nazianceno, Assemani Bib. Orient. Tom. iii.
[xxix] Tito de Bostra, Tillemont, p.
[xxx] Ambrosio de Milán, Hanson, pp. 245,246
[xxxi] Marius Victurinas, Hanson, p. 249
[xxxii] Marius Victurinas, Hanson, p. 249
[xxxiii] Jerome. In Ps. xcii. 9.22
[xxxiv] Allin, Universalism Asserted, p. 134.
[xxxv] Jerome. In Ps. xcii. 9.22
[xxxvi] Jerome. In Ps. xcii. 9.22
[xxxvii] J.W. HANSON, D. D. Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years. http://www.tentmaker.org/books/
[xxxviii] Teodoro el Bendecido, Hanson, p.254.
[xxxix] http://brazenchurch.com/how-hell-invaded-church-doctrine/
- Published on
by George Sidney Hurd
--
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism” by James B. De Young
While the logic of Universal Reconciliation is important and, in my opinion, quite substantial, I have kept it for last since it must be subordinate to divine revelation. By logic I don’t mean cold hard logic, separated from the revelation of God’s essential nature which is revealed in Scripture to be love (1Jn 4:8,16).
Traditionalists often defy love’s logic in order to maintain their heartless and barbaric traditional misinterpretations of Scripture which introduced the Church into the Dark Ages. When confronted with the unthinkable horrors of their doctrine they often appeal to Isaiah 55 which says:
“My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the Lord. 9 ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.’” (Isa 55:8-9)
However, reading this passage in its context it becomes evident that the transcendency God is speaking of here concerns His loving ways and thoughts toward us – not unimaginable tortures. In the previous verses God reveals that it is His goodness and mercy which is beyond our comprehension – not His punishments. Taking Isaiah 55:8 together with what precedes it He says in verse one:
“Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price… 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon. 8 FOR my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the Lord.” (Isa 55:1,7,8)
So, we see that God’s transcendent logic is love’s logic and not some incomprehensible unending torture which awaits most of mankind. In fact, Scripture repeatedly reveals that God will not always reject the children of men nor be angry with them forever, because it is His love and mercy – not His wrath, which endure forever (Lam 3:31-32; Isa 57:16; Ps 136; 1Cor 13:8; Rom 8:35-39; Eph 3:17-19, etc.).
In a similar manner, Traditionalists fail to apply love’s logic to God’s progressive revelation throughout time. When confronted with the fact that God never even mentions hell to Adam and Eve, or to Cain or anyone else in the Old Testament for that matter, they respond saying that God’s revelation is progressive. However, while love’s logic may conceive of revelation going from good to better and from glory to glory, it could never conceive of a loving God’s revelation going from bad to worse. It is inconceivable that our God who is love would hide from Adam and Eve the full consequences of their sin if indeed it involved being tortured forever. Such cold calculated and cruel logic may have been compatible with the gods of the Greek philosophers or other pagan deities, but it is totally incompatible with the God revealed in Scripture who so loved the world that He gave Himself a ransom for all.
In Scripture we see that not only is God love, but He also inhabits eternity and therefore has always seen the end from the beginning. He is omniscient and therefore eternally knows all, and because He is omnipotent nothing is beyond His control (Isa 14:24; 46:10-11; Eph 1:11; Acts 15:18, etc.). Knowing that God is infinite love, all knowing and all powerful, how is it conceivable that He would set in motion a plan, knowing that it culminates with most of mankind in perpetual torments which He Himself must inflict? And how could a loving holy God knowingly permit the entrance of ineradicable evil in His universe resulting in an eternal dualism?
A benevolent omniscient Creator would have never preordained a plan which allows for the fall that would not culminate in a total restoration of all His creation to a final state of glory far greater than it was in the beginning. Since He is benevolent and knows all, and works all things according to His preordained plan, the end of the matter must be greater than its beginning. What He begins He perfects. For a benevolent Creator to commence a plan which culminates an eternal torture chamber for some is a logical impossibility.
Traditionalists cannot logically explain why God would create and allow the entrance of evil, knowing that history’s story would have such a tragic never-ending end. When their cherished beliefs defy all logic, they typically appeal to a divine mystery which should be unquestionably embraced. Anyone who attempts to demonstrate the logical absurdities of these beliefs is called a blasphemer and a heretic. De Young, confronted by the moral dilemma of how a loving just God could allow evil, knowing He would have to torture most of them forever said:
“Why did not his love and justice prevent sin and all the resultant suffering from arising at all? It is not for us to speculate on what God could or should have done.” (p. 91)
While it is not for us to speculate, it is for us to investigate. Abraham even dared to question God, saying to Him, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen 18:25). Jesus at one point challenged His hearers saying: “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?” (Luke 12:57).
While we should never question God’s Word, His Word often transcends logic, yet it never defies logic or contradicts it. God’s ways are not illogical. If our understanding of His ways defies logic, we should go back to the Scriptures and reverently ask the Holy Spirit to clarify His Word to our hearts.
Traditionalists do not want us to investigate as to why a good God would commence something knowing that it would end so terribly for most because it defies all reason and our innate sense of justice. Many a sensitive soul has gone insane contemplating such a horrendous end for God’s creation story. But those who, while honoring Scripture, muster the courage to question the traditional doctrine of eternal torment in the light of Scripture, soon discover what James meant when he said: “You have seen the end of the Lord, how that the Lord is full of pity, and merciful.” (James 5:11 ASV). God’s creation redemption story ends in restoration – not eternal misery and ruin. “For God has committed all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on ALL…For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom 11:32,36)
The mental torment caused by any thoughtful reflection upon the dark doctrine of everlasting punishment is aptly expressed for us by Albert Barnes (1798 – 1870), a respected Bible scholar and the author of the commentary, “Barnes Notes.” He said:
“That any should suffer forever…that since God can save men, and will save a part, he has not purposed to save all; that, on the supposition that the atonement is ample, and that the blood of Christ can cleanse from all and every sin, it is not in fact applied to all.…These are real, not imaginary difficulties. They are probably felt by every mind that ever reflected on the subject; and they are unexplained, unmitigated, unremoved. I confess, for one, that I feel them, and feel them more sensibly and powerfully the more I look at them, and the longer I live. I do not understand these facts; and I make no advances towards understanding them…for my whole soul pants for light and relief on these questions. But I get neither; and, in the distress and anguish of my own spirit, I confess that I see no light whatever. I see not one ray to disclose to me the reason why sin came into the world; why the earth is strewed with the dying and the dead, and why man must suffer to all eternity. I have never seen a particle of light thrown on these subjects that has given a moment’s ease to my tortured mind; nor have I an explanation to offer, or a thought to suggest, which would be of relief to you.…I confess, when I look on a world of sinners and of sufferers; upon death-beds and grave-yards; upon the world of woe, filled with hosts to suffer forever; when I see my friends, my parents, my family, my people, my fellow-citizens; when I look upon a whole race, all involved in this sin and danger, and when I see the great mass of them wholly unconcerned, and when I feel that God only can save them, and yet he does not do it, I am struck dumb. It is all dark, dark, dark to my soul, and I cannot disguise it.” ²
If, instead of seeing that God’s wise plan for the ages culminates in all being restored back into relationship to Himself in a much more glorious way than that experienced by Adam and Eve in their innocent but immature state, one believes that the ages culminate in unending torture for most of mankind, all is dark, dark, dark indeed! May God open our eyes to see the mystery of His determinative will, which is to reunite all in heaven and on earth in Christ in the final dispensation of the fullness of the times (Eph 1:9-10).
De Young later poses a question which to me is perplexing. He asks: “Why did God create Satan and allow him to fall, and bring such havoc into the world’s history, if in the end even he is brought back?” (p.247) A better question would be: “Why would He create and include the fall and provide redemption through the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world if He didn’t have a glorious end in view? Why would a good God predetermine to allow the fall if He wasn’t going to restore those who fell to a much more glorious state in the end?” It is conceivable that a pagan deity would create beings in order to torture them, but not the God of love revealed in Scripture.
We don’t have to speculate concerning these matters because God has determined that every knee shall bow in heaven, on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the Father. I can’t even conceive of a pagan deity having a hell which always existed as De Young suggests. He says: “If heaven has always existed, then hell must have also.” (p.65) Apart from the fact that Jesus said that the eonian fire, as with all things in heaven and on earth, was created in time (Matt 25:41), such reasoning is totally incompatible with love’s logic, or any logic, for that matter, but apparently not to his traditional mindset. Again, this is the logic of pagan deities and the traditional doctrine of eternal torment, but it is totally incompatible with love’s logic.
De Young’s Logical Arguments against Universalism
Now let us consider some logical arguments presented against Universalism by De Young. Most of them can be easily responded to using deductive reasoning based upon the Scriptures themselves, rather than relying upon logic alone.
1) God’s holiness limits His Love
Traditionalists must divide God’s nature and attributes as though He were bipolar. They say: “Yes, God is love, but He is also holy.” De Young reflects this bipolar view of God’s nature when he comments: “…it is clear that universalists consistently subject God’s holiness to his love.” (p. 69) And also: “God’s love does not limit his justice; rather his righteousness limits his justice.” (p.225)
Granted, if it were not for the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world, who satisfied the justice of God for the sins of the whole world, His nature would be in a tension between His love and His obligations as a just Judge (Rev 13:8; Jn 1:29; 1Jn 2:2). Because He is holy, He cannot simply ignore sin. But because of the cross we see in Scripture that He can now be just while at the same time, in love, justifying the ungodly:
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Rom 3:23-26, cf. 4:5)
Because of the Lamb slain from eternity, God’s loving nature has never been in conflict with His holiness. Because Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice is ever before Him, He has always been able to justly justify the sinner based upon that propitiation. Therefore, His holiness has never been in conflict with His love. Here in Romans 3:24-26 we see that God was demonstrated before men and angels to have been righteous in passing over sins previously committed prior to the cross when Christ actually took away the sins of the world. In His eyes, seeing from eternity, the just payment for the sins of the world was an eternally accomplished reality, enabling Him to show grace and mercy even before the cross.
Indeed, true holiness is inseparable from love. Holiness is love and love is holiness (Matt 22:37-39; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14). It was the Pharisee’s false holiness void of love which crucified the Lord of glory, and it is a holiness divorced from love which is at the heart of the traditional doctrine of eternal torment. True love is demonstrated in Jesus who gave His life as a ransom for all and seeks and saves until the last lost sheep is safe in the fold (Matt 20:28, cf. 1Tim 2:6; Jn 10:15; Luke 19:10, 15:4).
De Young seems to see Christ as bipolar when he says: “Jesus taught as one ‘having authority,’ not as having love.” (p.76) He seems to be saying that Jesus either spoke authoritatively or else in love, instead of seeing Him as speaking authoritatively in love. All that Jesus did or will ever do – even including the severe judgments at His Second Coming, will ultimately be seen to be consistent with His essential nature which is love.
Love is not indifferent and therefore gets angry when there is sin and rebellion, just as any loving parent is angered by the rebellion of his children. Love is not negligent and therefore disciplines and scourges when necessary (Heb 12:6). Love will even reject the object of His love when they do not respond to His discipline but love never rejects forever because His love never ceases (Lam 3:31-33; 1Cor 13:8). God’s wrath, ‘hatred,’[1] and even His patience, mercy and grace are temporal manifestations of His love in the presence of evil (Isa 57:16). While God hates sin and is angered by it, He will not be angry forever since sin will not exist forever, contrary to what Traditionalists believe (Isa 25:7-8; Rev 21:4-5).
De Young is technically mistaken when he says: “For all eternity into the future the saints will be experiencing the grace and mercy of God….” (p.89) Grace and mercy are manifestations of God’s love shown towards undeserving sinners. There will no longer be sin in heaven. Therefore, sinners, rather than the glorified saints, are those who will experience His grace and mercy in the coming ages. God is love – not love, hate plus wrath, mercy, grace or patience. God is not divided. These are temporal manifestations of His essential nature which is love. These manifestations of His love will only remain in our memories as an invaluable treasure once God becomes all in all and evil is once and for all eradicated. Traditionalists who hold to an eternal dualism say that His mercy is forever but will only be extended to those no longer in need of mercy, while being denied to the lost who are still in need of it.
2) The Lake of Fire must exist Forever since it appears after Jesus said that He made all things New.
Concerning the Lake of Fire, De Young says: “…the lake of fire continues to exist (21:8) after God makes all things new (21:5). It continues on forever.” (p.59) However, there are several problems with this statement. In the first place, the book of Revelation is not written in chronological order so it cannot be determined whether or not any event is prior to another just because it was mentioned first. I demonstrate this in more detail in my book, “Focusing in on End-Time Events.”
Secondly, Jesus declared in 21:5 “I am making all things new” (present tense). The new creation is a process which began with the resurrection and continues until absolutely all has been made new – not all except for the Lake of Fire and the majority of mankind. We become a part of the new creation when we are saved and our spirits are born again, but He continues making all new until absolutely all people and all things have been made new. The fact that some are still in the Lake of Fire only means that Christ hasn’t finished His re-creation - making all new. When He says He is making all new, He is emphasizing absolutely all without exception. [2]
Thirdly, the Lake of Fire is called the “second death.” The last enemy to be destroyed by Christ is death (1Cor 15:26). Therefore, Christ’s reign in which He makes all new must continue until both the first and the last death have been forever destroyed, since in the end there will be no more death (Rev 21:4). Could we logically say that there is no more death at the same time that 90% of mankind, plus a third of the angels are in an unending state of death?
3) Punishment for Sins must continue Forever because the Lost will continue Sinning Forever.
We, as Universalists, argue that it would be unjust to inflict an infinite penalty for a finite offense. Our lifetime is not even a nanosecond in the light of eternity. To punish someone eternally for a brief lifetime of sin, no matter how horrendous one’s sins may have been, defies all sense of justice. Jesus said that we are evil fathers in comparison to our heavenly Father. But what earthly father would whip his child for a whole day? Imagine a father whipping his child for a whole year. Imagine him whipping him year after year until he finally dies. Would we consider that to be a just punishment? If God were to inform you that He was going to beat His children forever, wouldn’t you want to protest as did Abraham: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Would God who limits punishment to 40 lashes and no more, saying that anything beyond that would be excessive and inhumane, whip His children forever? (Deut 25:1-3).
This has been a moral dilemma for Traditionalists. In the 11th century the philosopher Anselm put forward the argument that infinite holiness requires infinite punishment. This seemed to be a satisfactory explanation in that day since all were accustomed to the medieval caste system where one could be put to death for simply stealing a loaf of bread if it happened to belong to nobility. While it is still common to hear this justification for an eternal hell, more and more recognize that such an explanation is not worthy of a loving God who doesn’t take into account a wrong suffered (1Cor 13:5).
De Young has taken the increasingly popular position that continuing sin requires God to continue punishing forever. He says:
“It is claimed that it is unjust for God to leave the wicked in hell suffering punishment forever when they committed unbelief only during a human lifetime. Yet such punishment is not unjust if the unbelief and rejection continue for eternity.” P.238
So, according to De Young, God will be seen to be just in torturing people in hell forever because they will continue rejecting Him forever. To me, this presents more moral problems than it solves. Since each one will be judged according to their works, receiving their part or apportioned punishment, let us suppose that at the judgment one receives the maximum sentence of 40 lashes. According to the traditional model, could he repent, believe and receive Christ during that time and be restored after the sentence has been fulfilled? No. According to Traditionalists it is no longer possible for one to believe and confess Jesus as Lord for salvation. So, they end up with God punishing people forever for not repenting and receiving Christ, which, according to them, they could not do even if they wanted to.
According to De Young’s model, God rejects the condemned forever, even after having bowed the knee, confessing Jesus as Lord. And then He tortures those He rejected forever for rejecting Him in return. We only exist because He sustains us (Acts 17:28). If He knew they were going to reject Him forever, making it necessary for Him to torture them forever, why would He continue sustaining them with life? Wouldn’t both love and justice cry out saying, “enough,” and simply put them out of their misery?
How could we, the Church of Jesus Christ, sink so low as to present our loving Father as setting in motion a plan which “ends” in never-ending torture, inflicted by the all-wise God of love Himself upon those who don’t receive Him before dying? We must keep in mind that God has always seen the end from the beginning and works all things according to the council of His will (Eph 1:11). Is it conceivable that God who is Love predetermined that He would Himself torture forever most of those created in His image and likeness for not receiving Him promptly? Most never even heard the gospel during their lifetime. Should we not rather accept His word when He promises to restore all? Shouldn’t we confess with the Samaritans that Jesus is “indeed” the Savior of the world? (Jn 4:42).
4) Restoration by Corrective Punishment in Hell amounts to Divine Coercion.
Biblical Universalists understand the Scriptures as teaching that the postmortem punishment of those who die and are condemned in a lost state are not eternally condemned, and that the punishment is not merely penal but primarily corrective, designed to lead to repentance and restoration. This is not only biblical, but our own penal systems operate in a similar manner. While the offender is being punished for his crime, the underlying ultimate goal is that of restoring the offender and reintroducing him into society.
While De Young sees no problem with God tormenting souls forever for rejecting Him, he rejects the idea of God’s punishments being corrective, saying that afflicting them in order to produce repentance would amount to divine coercion. He says:
“If the suffering of pain and torment in hell constrains the wicked to repent and believe, does this not amount to divine coercion?” p.238
In response to this I would ask: “Does His corrective punishment in this life, designed to lead us to repentance amount to divine coercion?” The Psalmist said: “Before I was afflicted I went astray,
But now I keep Your word.” (Ps 119:67). Does this amount to divine coercion? What about when Jesus appeared to Paul and knocked him off his high horse? Was that divine coercion? If this amounts to divine coercion, aren’t you grateful that He uses it for your correction when necessary instead of abandoning you to your own “free will?”
Isaiah said of God: “For when Your judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.” (Isa 26:9). If the earth’s inhabitants learn righteousness through God’s corrective judgments, what will prevent those judged even more severely in the Great White Throne judgment from learning righteousness? I heartily agree with Clement of Alexandria (AD 150 to AD 215) when he said:
“If in this life there are so many ways for purification and repentance, how much more should there be after death! The purification of souls, when separated from the body, will be easier. We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer; to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, is his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life.” [3]
Also, Origin says concerning postmortem judgments:
“But he that despises the purification of the word of God and the doctrine of the Gospel only keeps himself for dreadful and penal purifications afterward; so that the fire of hell may purge him in torments whom neither apostolical doctrine nor gospel preaching has cleansed, according to that which is written of being “purified by fire.” But how long this purification which is wrought out by penal fire shall endure, or for how many periods or ages it shall torment sinners, He only knows to whom all judgment is committed by the Father.” [4]
Surely, if God’s love never ceases and His mercies never come to an end, as soon as His corrective judgments have accomplished their purpose, He will draw all unto Himself, just as He did for us in life. He is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe in this life - not exclusively of those who believe (1Tim 4:10). De Young says of postmortem corrective punishment: “Somehow, it does not occur to universalists that this is no longer love, but rather determinism and coercion.” (p.182). But does his love which disciplines and scourges now end when one dies? If His mercy endures forever is it not also available to those who repent under His postmortem judgments?
De Young fails to understand the redemptive purpose of God’s judgments when he says: “Why and how are we to believe that entering hell will make the wicked respond different?” (p.229) We see all throughout Scripture how God’s severe judgments brought even the most proud and arrogant, like king Nebuchadnezzar, to repentance. Why would man be less inclined to repent in hell where all fleshly comforts and distractions are removed? It is like asking why we should expect someone confined to a correctional institution to respond differently after having served his sentence than he previously did on the streets. The primary purpose of such correctional punishment is restoration.
He also asks: “If the suffering of pain and torment in hell becomes the catalyst for faith, isn’t there the danger that suffering becomes the means of salvation, so that salvation comes about by works rather than by faith?” (p.238). Could the suffering that leads to repentance and faith in this life be somehow considered meritorious? I suffered many things as a consequence of my sinful lifestyle and when I reached bottom, the Lord revealed Himself to me. I would never consider my suffering to have been meritorious. But looking back I can see how God used my suffering to bring me to an end of myself so I would put my faith in Jesus. The destruction of the flesh leads to our spirit being saved in the day of the Lord, but it is the suffering of Christ which obtained our salvation - not our suffering. De Young asks: “Is it a loving thing to begin beating my child until she changes her mind and accepts the gift?” (p. 89). To this I would respond: “Is it more loving to beat your child forever because she failed to accept your gift on the same day you offered it to her?”
This has been a brief consideration of just a few logical arguments for a universal reconciliation in response to De Young. For a more extensive, scholarly consideration of the philosophical arguments in favor of Universalism I recommend “The Inescapable Love of God” by Thomas Talbott, professor of Philosophy in the University of Willamette in Oregon.
In closing I would like to reemphasize the need to distinguish between Biblical Universalism and that of the Liberal and Progressive theologies which deny such vital doctrines as the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, the deity of Christ and His penal substitutionary atonement. This departure from the Scriptures - the faith once delivered to the saints, is a Church-wide problem which should not be tagged as Universalism. De Young throws all the Church’s dirty laundry in the Universalist basket and categorizes us all as heretics. He misapplies 2Thessalonians 1:7,8 which says:
“and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thess 1:7-8)
From this passage he claims that there is a special reward awaiting those who oppose “the heresy of Universalism.” He says:
“There is a clear implication here. Believers who resist the heresy of universalism will be recompensed, rewarded, in the future day of Christ’s return. The universalists themselves will receive deserved retribution for they know not God and do not obey the gospel.” p.226
Whatever may be the correct application of 2Thessalonians 1:7-8, it certainly is not condemning those who simply take God at His word when He says that He will restore all unto Himself, resulting in Him being all in all. If anybody denies the gospel it would be the one who denies that Jesus is indeed the Savior of the world. It would be the one who insists that Jesus will fail to do what He came to do, which was to draw all unto Himself - to seek and save the lost until the last lost sheep is safe in the fold.
[1] The Hebrew word for hatred in the Old Testament passages is sané. Vines Expository Dictionary of Old Testament Words, reveals that there are two different senses in which the word is employed:
“Sané represents an emotion ranging from intense ‘hatred’ to the much weaker ‘set against’ and is used of persons and things (including ideas, words, inanimate objects).” [1]
God’s hatred towards sinners is obviously in the milder sense of being “set against” an individual because of his sin and rebelliousness. Understanding it in this sense we can readily identify with this emotion even towards our own children when they defy us or misbehave.
[2] Our English word “things” does not have an equivalent in Greek. Neither does the neuter form in Greek always indicate objects as in English.
[3] Clement of Alexandria, Strom. lib. vi. cap. 6m p. 763, Ed. Potter.
[4] Origin, Commentary In Epist. Ad Rom. lib viii. cap. xi.
--
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism” by James B. De Young
While the logic of Universal Reconciliation is important and, in my opinion, quite substantial, I have kept it for last since it must be subordinate to divine revelation. By logic I don’t mean cold hard logic, separated from the revelation of God’s essential nature which is revealed in Scripture to be love (1Jn 4:8,16).
Traditionalists often defy love’s logic in order to maintain their heartless and barbaric traditional misinterpretations of Scripture which introduced the Church into the Dark Ages. When confronted with the unthinkable horrors of their doctrine they often appeal to Isaiah 55 which says:
“My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the Lord. 9 ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.’” (Isa 55:8-9)
However, reading this passage in its context it becomes evident that the transcendency God is speaking of here concerns His loving ways and thoughts toward us – not unimaginable tortures. In the previous verses God reveals that it is His goodness and mercy which is beyond our comprehension – not His punishments. Taking Isaiah 55:8 together with what precedes it He says in verse one:
“Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price… 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon. 8 FOR my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the Lord.” (Isa 55:1,7,8)
So, we see that God’s transcendent logic is love’s logic and not some incomprehensible unending torture which awaits most of mankind. In fact, Scripture repeatedly reveals that God will not always reject the children of men nor be angry with them forever, because it is His love and mercy – not His wrath, which endure forever (Lam 3:31-32; Isa 57:16; Ps 136; 1Cor 13:8; Rom 8:35-39; Eph 3:17-19, etc.).
In a similar manner, Traditionalists fail to apply love’s logic to God’s progressive revelation throughout time. When confronted with the fact that God never even mentions hell to Adam and Eve, or to Cain or anyone else in the Old Testament for that matter, they respond saying that God’s revelation is progressive. However, while love’s logic may conceive of revelation going from good to better and from glory to glory, it could never conceive of a loving God’s revelation going from bad to worse. It is inconceivable that our God who is love would hide from Adam and Eve the full consequences of their sin if indeed it involved being tortured forever. Such cold calculated and cruel logic may have been compatible with the gods of the Greek philosophers or other pagan deities, but it is totally incompatible with the God revealed in Scripture who so loved the world that He gave Himself a ransom for all.
In Scripture we see that not only is God love, but He also inhabits eternity and therefore has always seen the end from the beginning. He is omniscient and therefore eternally knows all, and because He is omnipotent nothing is beyond His control (Isa 14:24; 46:10-11; Eph 1:11; Acts 15:18, etc.). Knowing that God is infinite love, all knowing and all powerful, how is it conceivable that He would set in motion a plan, knowing that it culminates with most of mankind in perpetual torments which He Himself must inflict? And how could a loving holy God knowingly permit the entrance of ineradicable evil in His universe resulting in an eternal dualism?
A benevolent omniscient Creator would have never preordained a plan which allows for the fall that would not culminate in a total restoration of all His creation to a final state of glory far greater than it was in the beginning. Since He is benevolent and knows all, and works all things according to His preordained plan, the end of the matter must be greater than its beginning. What He begins He perfects. For a benevolent Creator to commence a plan which culminates an eternal torture chamber for some is a logical impossibility.
Traditionalists cannot logically explain why God would create and allow the entrance of evil, knowing that history’s story would have such a tragic never-ending end. When their cherished beliefs defy all logic, they typically appeal to a divine mystery which should be unquestionably embraced. Anyone who attempts to demonstrate the logical absurdities of these beliefs is called a blasphemer and a heretic. De Young, confronted by the moral dilemma of how a loving just God could allow evil, knowing He would have to torture most of them forever said:
“Why did not his love and justice prevent sin and all the resultant suffering from arising at all? It is not for us to speculate on what God could or should have done.” (p. 91)
While it is not for us to speculate, it is for us to investigate. Abraham even dared to question God, saying to Him, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen 18:25). Jesus at one point challenged His hearers saying: “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?” (Luke 12:57).
While we should never question God’s Word, His Word often transcends logic, yet it never defies logic or contradicts it. God’s ways are not illogical. If our understanding of His ways defies logic, we should go back to the Scriptures and reverently ask the Holy Spirit to clarify His Word to our hearts.
Traditionalists do not want us to investigate as to why a good God would commence something knowing that it would end so terribly for most because it defies all reason and our innate sense of justice. Many a sensitive soul has gone insane contemplating such a horrendous end for God’s creation story. But those who, while honoring Scripture, muster the courage to question the traditional doctrine of eternal torment in the light of Scripture, soon discover what James meant when he said: “You have seen the end of the Lord, how that the Lord is full of pity, and merciful.” (James 5:11 ASV). God’s creation redemption story ends in restoration – not eternal misery and ruin. “For God has committed all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on ALL…For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom 11:32,36)
The mental torment caused by any thoughtful reflection upon the dark doctrine of everlasting punishment is aptly expressed for us by Albert Barnes (1798 – 1870), a respected Bible scholar and the author of the commentary, “Barnes Notes.” He said:
“That any should suffer forever…that since God can save men, and will save a part, he has not purposed to save all; that, on the supposition that the atonement is ample, and that the blood of Christ can cleanse from all and every sin, it is not in fact applied to all.…These are real, not imaginary difficulties. They are probably felt by every mind that ever reflected on the subject; and they are unexplained, unmitigated, unremoved. I confess, for one, that I feel them, and feel them more sensibly and powerfully the more I look at them, and the longer I live. I do not understand these facts; and I make no advances towards understanding them…for my whole soul pants for light and relief on these questions. But I get neither; and, in the distress and anguish of my own spirit, I confess that I see no light whatever. I see not one ray to disclose to me the reason why sin came into the world; why the earth is strewed with the dying and the dead, and why man must suffer to all eternity. I have never seen a particle of light thrown on these subjects that has given a moment’s ease to my tortured mind; nor have I an explanation to offer, or a thought to suggest, which would be of relief to you.…I confess, when I look on a world of sinners and of sufferers; upon death-beds and grave-yards; upon the world of woe, filled with hosts to suffer forever; when I see my friends, my parents, my family, my people, my fellow-citizens; when I look upon a whole race, all involved in this sin and danger, and when I see the great mass of them wholly unconcerned, and when I feel that God only can save them, and yet he does not do it, I am struck dumb. It is all dark, dark, dark to my soul, and I cannot disguise it.” ²
If, instead of seeing that God’s wise plan for the ages culminates in all being restored back into relationship to Himself in a much more glorious way than that experienced by Adam and Eve in their innocent but immature state, one believes that the ages culminate in unending torture for most of mankind, all is dark, dark, dark indeed! May God open our eyes to see the mystery of His determinative will, which is to reunite all in heaven and on earth in Christ in the final dispensation of the fullness of the times (Eph 1:9-10).
De Young later poses a question which to me is perplexing. He asks: “Why did God create Satan and allow him to fall, and bring such havoc into the world’s history, if in the end even he is brought back?” (p.247) A better question would be: “Why would He create and include the fall and provide redemption through the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world if He didn’t have a glorious end in view? Why would a good God predetermine to allow the fall if He wasn’t going to restore those who fell to a much more glorious state in the end?” It is conceivable that a pagan deity would create beings in order to torture them, but not the God of love revealed in Scripture.
We don’t have to speculate concerning these matters because God has determined that every knee shall bow in heaven, on earth and under the earth, and every tongue shall confess Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the Father. I can’t even conceive of a pagan deity having a hell which always existed as De Young suggests. He says: “If heaven has always existed, then hell must have also.” (p.65) Apart from the fact that Jesus said that the eonian fire, as with all things in heaven and on earth, was created in time (Matt 25:41), such reasoning is totally incompatible with love’s logic, or any logic, for that matter, but apparently not to his traditional mindset. Again, this is the logic of pagan deities and the traditional doctrine of eternal torment, but it is totally incompatible with love’s logic.
De Young’s Logical Arguments against Universalism
Now let us consider some logical arguments presented against Universalism by De Young. Most of them can be easily responded to using deductive reasoning based upon the Scriptures themselves, rather than relying upon logic alone.
1) God’s holiness limits His Love
Traditionalists must divide God’s nature and attributes as though He were bipolar. They say: “Yes, God is love, but He is also holy.” De Young reflects this bipolar view of God’s nature when he comments: “…it is clear that universalists consistently subject God’s holiness to his love.” (p. 69) And also: “God’s love does not limit his justice; rather his righteousness limits his justice.” (p.225)
Granted, if it were not for the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world, who satisfied the justice of God for the sins of the whole world, His nature would be in a tension between His love and His obligations as a just Judge (Rev 13:8; Jn 1:29; 1Jn 2:2). Because He is holy, He cannot simply ignore sin. But because of the cross we see in Scripture that He can now be just while at the same time, in love, justifying the ungodly:
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Rom 3:23-26, cf. 4:5)
Because of the Lamb slain from eternity, God’s loving nature has never been in conflict with His holiness. Because Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice is ever before Him, He has always been able to justly justify the sinner based upon that propitiation. Therefore, His holiness has never been in conflict with His love. Here in Romans 3:24-26 we see that God was demonstrated before men and angels to have been righteous in passing over sins previously committed prior to the cross when Christ actually took away the sins of the world. In His eyes, seeing from eternity, the just payment for the sins of the world was an eternally accomplished reality, enabling Him to show grace and mercy even before the cross.
Indeed, true holiness is inseparable from love. Holiness is love and love is holiness (Matt 22:37-39; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14). It was the Pharisee’s false holiness void of love which crucified the Lord of glory, and it is a holiness divorced from love which is at the heart of the traditional doctrine of eternal torment. True love is demonstrated in Jesus who gave His life as a ransom for all and seeks and saves until the last lost sheep is safe in the fold (Matt 20:28, cf. 1Tim 2:6; Jn 10:15; Luke 19:10, 15:4).
De Young seems to see Christ as bipolar when he says: “Jesus taught as one ‘having authority,’ not as having love.” (p.76) He seems to be saying that Jesus either spoke authoritatively or else in love, instead of seeing Him as speaking authoritatively in love. All that Jesus did or will ever do – even including the severe judgments at His Second Coming, will ultimately be seen to be consistent with His essential nature which is love.
Love is not indifferent and therefore gets angry when there is sin and rebellion, just as any loving parent is angered by the rebellion of his children. Love is not negligent and therefore disciplines and scourges when necessary (Heb 12:6). Love will even reject the object of His love when they do not respond to His discipline but love never rejects forever because His love never ceases (Lam 3:31-33; 1Cor 13:8). God’s wrath, ‘hatred,’[1] and even His patience, mercy and grace are temporal manifestations of His love in the presence of evil (Isa 57:16). While God hates sin and is angered by it, He will not be angry forever since sin will not exist forever, contrary to what Traditionalists believe (Isa 25:7-8; Rev 21:4-5).
De Young is technically mistaken when he says: “For all eternity into the future the saints will be experiencing the grace and mercy of God….” (p.89) Grace and mercy are manifestations of God’s love shown towards undeserving sinners. There will no longer be sin in heaven. Therefore, sinners, rather than the glorified saints, are those who will experience His grace and mercy in the coming ages. God is love – not love, hate plus wrath, mercy, grace or patience. God is not divided. These are temporal manifestations of His essential nature which is love. These manifestations of His love will only remain in our memories as an invaluable treasure once God becomes all in all and evil is once and for all eradicated. Traditionalists who hold to an eternal dualism say that His mercy is forever but will only be extended to those no longer in need of mercy, while being denied to the lost who are still in need of it.
2) The Lake of Fire must exist Forever since it appears after Jesus said that He made all things New.
Concerning the Lake of Fire, De Young says: “…the lake of fire continues to exist (21:8) after God makes all things new (21:5). It continues on forever.” (p.59) However, there are several problems with this statement. In the first place, the book of Revelation is not written in chronological order so it cannot be determined whether or not any event is prior to another just because it was mentioned first. I demonstrate this in more detail in my book, “Focusing in on End-Time Events.”
Secondly, Jesus declared in 21:5 “I am making all things new” (present tense). The new creation is a process which began with the resurrection and continues until absolutely all has been made new – not all except for the Lake of Fire and the majority of mankind. We become a part of the new creation when we are saved and our spirits are born again, but He continues making all new until absolutely all people and all things have been made new. The fact that some are still in the Lake of Fire only means that Christ hasn’t finished His re-creation - making all new. When He says He is making all new, He is emphasizing absolutely all without exception. [2]
Thirdly, the Lake of Fire is called the “second death.” The last enemy to be destroyed by Christ is death (1Cor 15:26). Therefore, Christ’s reign in which He makes all new must continue until both the first and the last death have been forever destroyed, since in the end there will be no more death (Rev 21:4). Could we logically say that there is no more death at the same time that 90% of mankind, plus a third of the angels are in an unending state of death?
3) Punishment for Sins must continue Forever because the Lost will continue Sinning Forever.
We, as Universalists, argue that it would be unjust to inflict an infinite penalty for a finite offense. Our lifetime is not even a nanosecond in the light of eternity. To punish someone eternally for a brief lifetime of sin, no matter how horrendous one’s sins may have been, defies all sense of justice. Jesus said that we are evil fathers in comparison to our heavenly Father. But what earthly father would whip his child for a whole day? Imagine a father whipping his child for a whole year. Imagine him whipping him year after year until he finally dies. Would we consider that to be a just punishment? If God were to inform you that He was going to beat His children forever, wouldn’t you want to protest as did Abraham: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Would God who limits punishment to 40 lashes and no more, saying that anything beyond that would be excessive and inhumane, whip His children forever? (Deut 25:1-3).
This has been a moral dilemma for Traditionalists. In the 11th century the philosopher Anselm put forward the argument that infinite holiness requires infinite punishment. This seemed to be a satisfactory explanation in that day since all were accustomed to the medieval caste system where one could be put to death for simply stealing a loaf of bread if it happened to belong to nobility. While it is still common to hear this justification for an eternal hell, more and more recognize that such an explanation is not worthy of a loving God who doesn’t take into account a wrong suffered (1Cor 13:5).
De Young has taken the increasingly popular position that continuing sin requires God to continue punishing forever. He says:
“It is claimed that it is unjust for God to leave the wicked in hell suffering punishment forever when they committed unbelief only during a human lifetime. Yet such punishment is not unjust if the unbelief and rejection continue for eternity.” P.238
So, according to De Young, God will be seen to be just in torturing people in hell forever because they will continue rejecting Him forever. To me, this presents more moral problems than it solves. Since each one will be judged according to their works, receiving their part or apportioned punishment, let us suppose that at the judgment one receives the maximum sentence of 40 lashes. According to the traditional model, could he repent, believe and receive Christ during that time and be restored after the sentence has been fulfilled? No. According to Traditionalists it is no longer possible for one to believe and confess Jesus as Lord for salvation. So, they end up with God punishing people forever for not repenting and receiving Christ, which, according to them, they could not do even if they wanted to.
According to De Young’s model, God rejects the condemned forever, even after having bowed the knee, confessing Jesus as Lord. And then He tortures those He rejected forever for rejecting Him in return. We only exist because He sustains us (Acts 17:28). If He knew they were going to reject Him forever, making it necessary for Him to torture them forever, why would He continue sustaining them with life? Wouldn’t both love and justice cry out saying, “enough,” and simply put them out of their misery?
How could we, the Church of Jesus Christ, sink so low as to present our loving Father as setting in motion a plan which “ends” in never-ending torture, inflicted by the all-wise God of love Himself upon those who don’t receive Him before dying? We must keep in mind that God has always seen the end from the beginning and works all things according to the council of His will (Eph 1:11). Is it conceivable that God who is Love predetermined that He would Himself torture forever most of those created in His image and likeness for not receiving Him promptly? Most never even heard the gospel during their lifetime. Should we not rather accept His word when He promises to restore all? Shouldn’t we confess with the Samaritans that Jesus is “indeed” the Savior of the world? (Jn 4:42).
4) Restoration by Corrective Punishment in Hell amounts to Divine Coercion.
Biblical Universalists understand the Scriptures as teaching that the postmortem punishment of those who die and are condemned in a lost state are not eternally condemned, and that the punishment is not merely penal but primarily corrective, designed to lead to repentance and restoration. This is not only biblical, but our own penal systems operate in a similar manner. While the offender is being punished for his crime, the underlying ultimate goal is that of restoring the offender and reintroducing him into society.
While De Young sees no problem with God tormenting souls forever for rejecting Him, he rejects the idea of God’s punishments being corrective, saying that afflicting them in order to produce repentance would amount to divine coercion. He says:
“If the suffering of pain and torment in hell constrains the wicked to repent and believe, does this not amount to divine coercion?” p.238
In response to this I would ask: “Does His corrective punishment in this life, designed to lead us to repentance amount to divine coercion?” The Psalmist said: “Before I was afflicted I went astray,
But now I keep Your word.” (Ps 119:67). Does this amount to divine coercion? What about when Jesus appeared to Paul and knocked him off his high horse? Was that divine coercion? If this amounts to divine coercion, aren’t you grateful that He uses it for your correction when necessary instead of abandoning you to your own “free will?”
Isaiah said of God: “For when Your judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.” (Isa 26:9). If the earth’s inhabitants learn righteousness through God’s corrective judgments, what will prevent those judged even more severely in the Great White Throne judgment from learning righteousness? I heartily agree with Clement of Alexandria (AD 150 to AD 215) when he said:
“If in this life there are so many ways for purification and repentance, how much more should there be after death! The purification of souls, when separated from the body, will be easier. We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer; to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, is his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life.” [3]
Also, Origin says concerning postmortem judgments:
“But he that despises the purification of the word of God and the doctrine of the Gospel only keeps himself for dreadful and penal purifications afterward; so that the fire of hell may purge him in torments whom neither apostolical doctrine nor gospel preaching has cleansed, according to that which is written of being “purified by fire.” But how long this purification which is wrought out by penal fire shall endure, or for how many periods or ages it shall torment sinners, He only knows to whom all judgment is committed by the Father.” [4]
Surely, if God’s love never ceases and His mercies never come to an end, as soon as His corrective judgments have accomplished their purpose, He will draw all unto Himself, just as He did for us in life. He is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe in this life - not exclusively of those who believe (1Tim 4:10). De Young says of postmortem corrective punishment: “Somehow, it does not occur to universalists that this is no longer love, but rather determinism and coercion.” (p.182). But does his love which disciplines and scourges now end when one dies? If His mercy endures forever is it not also available to those who repent under His postmortem judgments?
De Young fails to understand the redemptive purpose of God’s judgments when he says: “Why and how are we to believe that entering hell will make the wicked respond different?” (p.229) We see all throughout Scripture how God’s severe judgments brought even the most proud and arrogant, like king Nebuchadnezzar, to repentance. Why would man be less inclined to repent in hell where all fleshly comforts and distractions are removed? It is like asking why we should expect someone confined to a correctional institution to respond differently after having served his sentence than he previously did on the streets. The primary purpose of such correctional punishment is restoration.
He also asks: “If the suffering of pain and torment in hell becomes the catalyst for faith, isn’t there the danger that suffering becomes the means of salvation, so that salvation comes about by works rather than by faith?” (p.238). Could the suffering that leads to repentance and faith in this life be somehow considered meritorious? I suffered many things as a consequence of my sinful lifestyle and when I reached bottom, the Lord revealed Himself to me. I would never consider my suffering to have been meritorious. But looking back I can see how God used my suffering to bring me to an end of myself so I would put my faith in Jesus. The destruction of the flesh leads to our spirit being saved in the day of the Lord, but it is the suffering of Christ which obtained our salvation - not our suffering. De Young asks: “Is it a loving thing to begin beating my child until she changes her mind and accepts the gift?” (p. 89). To this I would respond: “Is it more loving to beat your child forever because she failed to accept your gift on the same day you offered it to her?”
This has been a brief consideration of just a few logical arguments for a universal reconciliation in response to De Young. For a more extensive, scholarly consideration of the philosophical arguments in favor of Universalism I recommend “The Inescapable Love of God” by Thomas Talbott, professor of Philosophy in the University of Willamette in Oregon.
In closing I would like to reemphasize the need to distinguish between Biblical Universalism and that of the Liberal and Progressive theologies which deny such vital doctrines as the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, the deity of Christ and His penal substitutionary atonement. This departure from the Scriptures - the faith once delivered to the saints, is a Church-wide problem which should not be tagged as Universalism. De Young throws all the Church’s dirty laundry in the Universalist basket and categorizes us all as heretics. He misapplies 2Thessalonians 1:7,8 which says:
“and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thess 1:7-8)
From this passage he claims that there is a special reward awaiting those who oppose “the heresy of Universalism.” He says:
“There is a clear implication here. Believers who resist the heresy of universalism will be recompensed, rewarded, in the future day of Christ’s return. The universalists themselves will receive deserved retribution for they know not God and do not obey the gospel.” p.226
Whatever may be the correct application of 2Thessalonians 1:7-8, it certainly is not condemning those who simply take God at His word when He says that He will restore all unto Himself, resulting in Him being all in all. If anybody denies the gospel it would be the one who denies that Jesus is indeed the Savior of the world. It would be the one who insists that Jesus will fail to do what He came to do, which was to draw all unto Himself - to seek and save the lost until the last lost sheep is safe in the fold.
[1] The Hebrew word for hatred in the Old Testament passages is sané. Vines Expository Dictionary of Old Testament Words, reveals that there are two different senses in which the word is employed:
“Sané represents an emotion ranging from intense ‘hatred’ to the much weaker ‘set against’ and is used of persons and things (including ideas, words, inanimate objects).” [1]
God’s hatred towards sinners is obviously in the milder sense of being “set against” an individual because of his sin and rebelliousness. Understanding it in this sense we can readily identify with this emotion even towards our own children when they defy us or misbehave.
[2] Our English word “things” does not have an equivalent in Greek. Neither does the neuter form in Greek always indicate objects as in English.
[3] Clement of Alexandria, Strom. lib. vi. cap. 6m p. 763, Ed. Potter.
[4] Origin, Commentary In Epist. Ad Rom. lib viii. cap. xi.
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
by George Sidney Hurd
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism” by James B. De Young
In the previous session we saw that the restoration of all referred to in Acts 3:19-21, primarily speaks of the restoration of all people to God. De Young’s claim that it only refers to restoring creation to a pre-fall “condition” fails to capture God’s redemptive heart which is primarily focused upon restoring mankind to a relationship of oneness with Himself.
The theme of this article - reconciliation, is integrally related to what we have seen concerning God’s restoration of mankind unto Himself. In order to restore any relationship that has been broken there must first be a reconciliation on the part of both parties. Just as both husband and wife must be reconciled one to another before the relationship can be restored, so it is in our relationship with God.
God, however, took the initiative, sending His Son as a propitiatory sacrifice, thereby satisfying the justice of God for the sins of the whole world (1Jn 2:2). Because of His propitiatory sacrifice God can now be just and at the same time justify the ungodly who take refuge in Christ – our propitiatory Lamb who was sacrificed out of love for us (Rom 3:25-26; 4:5; 8:1; 1Cor 5:7).
As with any broken relationship, one party always initiates reconciliation before the other corresponds. While we were yet His enemies and dead in our trespasses and sins, God reconciled us to Himself by the blood of the cross of Christ. As Paul says in Romans 5:10, when we were still enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son. Christ’s expiatory sacrifice of Himself 2,000 years ago on the cross made propitiation, satisfying God’s justice, not only for the sins of the elect of this age but also for the sins of the whole world (kosmos) or universe, including all in heaven, on earth and even under the earth (1Jn 2:2; Col 1:16,20; Phil 1:10-11).
Some, overlooking God’s holiness, deny the need for Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. In human interpersonal relationships reconciliation comes about when we simply forgive. Indeed, the Scriptures command it. However, even a human judge cannot simply forgive without satisfying justice.
What would we think of a Judge who pardoned his son for a crime based solely upon his love for him? Wouldn’t that be considered favoritism and a breach of justice? How much less could God, the just Judge of all creation, simply out of love allow injustices to go unpunished. However, God is not only a holy and just Judge, but He is also a loving Father who loves us so much that in Christ He satisfied His own justice, taking our due punishment upon Himself, thereby giving Him the legal right to forgive the objects of His love.
However, it must be understood that, although Christ died for all and in time all will be made alive in Him, God can only justly justify and make alive those who come to Him through Jesus whom God has set forth as a propitiation (Rom 3:25). That is why, although justification, reconciliation and salvation were obtained for all upon the cross, one does not experience justification, reconciliation or salvation until they receive Christ, being born-again and thereby becoming a part of the new creation in Him.
Some point out that in the parable of the Father and the Prodigal Son the father’s acceptance was an unconditional embrace without any mention of satisfying justice. However, the fact that the father unconditionally embraces the repentant son doesn’t mean that our Father didn’t have to pay a great price to be able to be just and at the same time embrace the objects of His love. Jesus Himself, who gave us this parable, said that He had come to give Himself a ransom for all and that no one could come to the Father except through Him (Matt 20:28, cf. 1Tim 2:6; John 14:6).
While God made reconciliation once and for all 2,000 years ago by the blood of His cross, it is evident that most have not yet corresponded to that reconciliation, being reconciled to God in their hearts. That is why we are commissioned to proclaim Christ’s consummated substitutionary death, bringing reconciliation to the rest of the world who are presently lost and at enmity towards God:
“Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor 5:18-21)
In Romans 5:10 Paul said that we were reconciled, past tense. When did that reconciliation take place? He says that it was by the death of His Son which places our moment of reconciliation 2,000 years ago at the cross, long before we became reconciled unto God in our hearts. Here Paul reveals that at that moment God was in Christ reconciling the whole world unto Himself. Some mistakenly assume that God’s reconciliation cannot be an accomplished fact, since some people are not yet actually reconciled and restored. De Young seems to question whether God’s reconciliation was accomplished once and for all at the cross. He says:
“If reconciliation for all is already accomplished in the death of Christ at the cross, why would he have to exhort people to become reconciled?” p.168
To me, this statement not only seems to minimize what Christ accomplished on the cross but also demonstrates a failure to understand the very nature of reconciliation. In a broken relationship both parties must take the appropriate action in order for the relationship to be restored. God reconciled us to Himself through His propitiatory sacrifice upon the cross. Now, the ministry of reconciliation which has been commended to us as ambassadors for Christ is to declare the good news: “God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself. Now therefore, be reconciled to God.”
De Young here manifests a common failure of many Traditionalists to distinguish between “already” and “not yet.” The full redemptive work was consummated at the cross and the victory sealed. However, Christ must reign until all have subjected themselves to Him and only then will God be all in all (1Cor 15:25-28). This “already” and “not yet” is illustrated for us by the writer of Hebrews:
“You have put all things [1] in subjection under his feet. For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do NOT YET see all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for EVERYONE.” (Heb 2:8-9)
Did Jesus taste death for everyone on the cross? Was He victorious? Should we doubt the universal scope of His victory on the cross simply because we do not yet see it fully carried out in time? Here, as in 1Corinthians 15, we see that Christ will reign until that which He accomplished upon the cross for everyone is fully realized by all becoming subject to Him, and then He will in turn subject Himself to the Father that God may be all in all (1Cor 15:22-28). De Young says:
“It is clear that everyone could not be reconciled to God if it is central to Paul’s ministry to exhort people to be reconciled to God.” p.211
As I understand it, he seems to be saying that if Christ actually reconciled all to God through His death, then Paul wouldn’t have been going around persuading people to be reconciled to God. But let’s apply this to Christ’s reign. Were all things subjected unto Him? Then why does He continue reigning until all become subjected to Him?
The reason is the same in both cases. Although God has made reconciliation for all, and He is determined that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord, reconciliation, by its very nature must be willingly received by both parties in order to be experienced, and the subjection on the part of all, which Christ will bring about in the end, results in God being all in all which is not descriptive of a forced subjugation, contrary to what the Traditionalists would have us believe. On the contrary, He seeks the lost until the last lost sheep is safe in the fold, and He continues His reign until the last knee bows in humble adoration. Only then will God truly be all in all.
De Young argues that His enemies will not willingly submit unto Him since they will be his footstool (Heb 1:13). He understands that to mean that they will always remain hostile to Him, but in order to display His power He retains them in torments under His feet as a footstool. He says:
“If universalism is correct, who will serve as the footstool of his throne?” p.233
However, this assumes that one must be God’s enemy in order to serve as a footstool. That is not what we see in the Scriptures. The imagery of a footstool in the Bible often refers to the habitation of God. The ark of the covenant and the temple where He manifested Himself to the people are referred to as His footstool (1Chron 28:2; Ps 132:7). In Isaiah 60 He says that He will make His footstool glorious (Isa 60:13). Moving into the New Testament, we see that we ourselves, who were once enemies in our minds by wicked works, are now His temple or His footstool (Col 1:21; 1Cor 3:16). The references to His enemies becoming His footstool speak of willful subjection – not forced subjugation. So, in answer to De Young’s question: “who will serve as the footstool of his throne?” the glorious answer is, “we will!” As those who were once enemies, we will fall at His feet and worship Him in humble adoration, overwhelmed by His glory and grace.
Perhaps one of the clearest and most unequivocal declarations concerning the universal reconciliation of all creation unto God through Christ’s death on the cross is found in the first chapter of Colossians:
“For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him… 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” (Col 1:16,20)
Here Paul does not spare detail in emphasizing that “all” means absolutely “all,” including all in heaven and on earth, whether visible or invisible - even including invisible thrones, dominions principalities and powers. All – absolutely all, was created by Christ and for Christ. But he doesn’t stop there. In verse 20 we see that the very same all, whether on earth or in heaven, was reconciled unto Himself at the cross.
There is no way that Traditionalists can limit the reconciliation described in this passage to only the elect or in a way which excludes many from the reconciliation accomplished by the blood of Christ on the cross 2,000 years ago. All they can do is deny that it means what it obviously does mean – that absolutely all creation was reconciled unto God at the cross.
De Young seems undecided as to what to do with this passage. At one point he suggests from Romans 8 that it only applies to “inanimate” creation, which would even exclude the animal kingdom. [2] However, it not only says in Romans 8 that “all creation” will be set free and restored, but also that creation groans and eagerly awaits the moment they will be delivered from bondage. Such characteristics are not attributable to inanimate objects. Also, this shows a misunderstanding of what reconciliation actually means. It is exclusively a relational term, referring to the restoration of broken relationships. Only fallen rational moral beings are in need of reconciliation with God.
At another point he suggests that it refers to the reconciliation of only the “non-human creation,” which would include the animal kingdom. He says:
“When Paul speaks of the whole creation being reconciled does he not explicitly define this as all non-human creation, since it was subjected to frustration or bondage because of human sin?” p.237
While this would explain why creation waits and groans, since animals are rational emotional beings in contrast to inanimate objects which neither think nor feel, it still fails to explain how animals could be at enmity with God so as to require that Christ’s blood be shed for them in order to bring about their reconciliation and make peace where there once was enmity. “Reconciliation” is needed to restore moral rational beings who are at enmity with God and therefore need to be reconciled in order to restore communion with their Creator. The animal kingdom only benefits indirectly from the reconciliation of moral beings since they were unwillingly subjected to vanity on our account, and they will be restored along with the rest of creation in the times of the restoration of all.
In yet another twist of logic De Young even argues that the reconciliation is universal but those who refuse to exercise faith will be reconciled by force. He says concerning Colossians 1:20:
“In 1:20 Paul includes in his words of ‘universal reconciliation’ not only those who believe the gospel (such as the Colossians, explained in vv.21-23) but also those who are reconciled by conquest and become the footstool of Jesus Christ’s future reign. They are conquered opponents who have refused to exercise faith.” p.210 (emphasis mine)
Once again, this demonstrates a total misunderstanding of what is meant by reconciliation. That may be subjugation, but it isn’t reconciliation, making peace by the blood of His cross by any stretch of the imagination. While it is true that only those who believe will benefit from His reconciliation, since reconciliation requires a positive response from both parties, God promises that eventually everyone will believe and confess Him as Lord – even those presently “under the earth” (Phil 2:10-11).
De Young at one point argues that only inanimate creation will be reconciled; then he expands that to include the animal kingdom, and finally he argues here that all will be reconciled, albeit some against their will. He here presents God’s enemies as “reconciled” while at the same time cursing Him in an eternal lake of fire which is referred to by him as God’s footstool. To me that greatly depreciates what Christ actually accomplished by His shed blood upon the cross for all.
Finally, towards the end of his book, De Young gets to the crux of the problem, revealing why they are unwilling to accept the plain obvious meaning of Colossians 2:20. He says:
“There cannot be universal reconciliation if some are permanently (v.9): ‘eternal destruction’) the objects of God’s retributive justice.” p.224
He is here referring to 2Thessalonians 1:9 which in the King James Version reads: “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” Why do Traditionalists typically deny or ignore the plain declarations of Scripture concerning the final salvation of all, and why do they have to divide God’s nature into love and mercy vs. hatred and wrath as if they were opposite poles, rather than viewing them all as manifestations of His love? Because they base their entire theology upon a few poorly translated verses which give the impression that hell is forever. While the duration and purpose of hell will be the subject of another article, this verse clearly doesn’t mean what they take it to mean.
In the first place, it says: “eonian destruction,” not “eternal destroying.” The morphology of the Greek word “destruction” (olethros) indicates that it is a noun which speaks of the result of an action rather than the action itself, just as our ending –ion does in English. [3] Even if the action should continue for ages, it must come to an end because the suffix -ion emphasizes the end result and not the process. However, as I will demonstrate in another article, the word translated “eternal” (aionios) does not mean “eternal” but rather it is a time-word referring to a long period of time, but time, nonetheless. Our English equivalent is eonian. An eon is a long time, but it is not forever - much less eternal, since eternity is timeless. Any literal translation will correct this misunderstanding, as we see with Youngs Literal Translation:
“who shall suffer justice (Gr. dike)--destruction age-during (aionios)--from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his strength.” (2Thess 1:9 YLT)
While more will be said about this later, we see that dike means “justice” rather than “punishment” and aionios means “age-during” rather than “eternal.” Traditionalists have mistranslated passages referring to judgment and hell and denied or ignored all the passages concerning universal reconciliation.
There are many other passages which clearly indicate a universal reconciliation which is inclusive of all rational creatures without even using the word “reconciliation” itself. Ephesians 1 speaks of a future dispensation, which according to Ephesians 2:7 will last for the coming ages, until the final “Age of ages” (lit. “tou aionos ton aiónon,” Eph 3:21). In this coming dispensation, also known as the times of the restoration of all, all will be reunited in Christ:
“having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together (anakephalaiomai) in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth — in Him.” (Eph 1:9,10)
The phrase: “gather together in one” is a composite word made up of ana which normally means “again” and kephalaioo, and is best translated as “to reunite or unite again under one head,” since only this rendering retains the meaning or the prefix ana. [4] Thayer’s Greek Lexicon actually comments as to the meaning of the word in this context, saying:
“God is said…to bring together again for himself (note the middle) all things and beings (hitherto disunited by sin) into one combined state of fellowship in Christ.” [5] (emphasis mine)
The terms “gather together” or “bring together again” when referring to those formerly at enmity, as is the case with mankind towards God, is relational and inseparable from reconciliation. Therefore, this passage, just as Colossians 1:16-20, clearly speaks of a universal reconciliation. The mystery of His will which is being revealed here in Ephesians 1:9,10 is the final restoration of all when all creation will be eternally reunited in Christ and God will then be all in all (1Cor 15:28).
This is also what Paul declared in summary form in Romans 11:36: “For of (ek “out of”) Him and through (dia) Him and to (eis “into”) Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” As Colossians 1:16 says, everything and everyone was created by Him. Then in verse 20 it says that this same “all” was reconciled to (eis “into”) Him through the cross. In Ephesians 1:9,10 it says that all will be finally reunited in Him in the dispensation of the fullness of time. “For of Him and through Him and TO (eis “into”) Him are all things.” Paul couldn’t have made it any clearer.
The one scandalous truth revealed in these passages and especially in Colossians 1:16-20 is that even Satan and the fallen angels are included in the reconciliation accomplished at the cross. When Paul includes invisible thrones, dominions, principalities and powers in the reconciliation, he clearly means to include them as well, since there are no invisible thrones, dominions, principalities or powers in need of reconciliation apart from Satan and the fallen angels. Additionally, if they were excluded it could not be truthfully said that God will be all in all or that all which came out of Him will be reunited in Him.
The argument presented against a total reconciliation and restoration of all which would include even Satan and the fallen angels, is stated by De Young when he says:
“The Bible offers no atonement, no forgiveness, no hope, no reconciliation for the fallen angels and for Satan.” p.247 (emphasis mine)
In response to this, I would first point out that his denial that reconciliation is offered to Satan and the fallen angels is a blatant denial of what is clearly stated in Colossians 1:16-20. As to atonement and forgiveness, reconciliation is not possible without forgiveness and it isn’t possible for a holy God to forgive without atonement. So, reconciliation with God presupposes atonement and forgiveness. While reconciliation isn’t actually realized in experience until one repents and turns to God, God, in love, made legal provision for the reconciliation of all of creation and has sworn by Himself that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, including even those presently in rebellion in heaven and under the earth.
At this point Traditionalists will usually quote Hebrews 2:14-18. However, this passage focuses only upon what Christ did to rescue mankind from Satan’s power. It says that He took upon Himself a human body and died in order to deliver those who were being held in fear of death and to come to the aid of those tempted by Satan. Since the focus is upon man and not upon Satan and the fallen angels it neither denies nor affirms that His death will ultimately provide a way for the restoration of all of creation as well, including even Satan and fallen angels. But the other restoration passages, and particularly Colossians 1:16-20, are not at all ambiguous.
Man, created in God’s own image and likeness, is the primary motive and focus of both creation and restoration. But all the rest of creation participates in man’s restoration. Hell is both penal and correctional, but it is not eternal, since, as with any just penal system, its final goal and outcome is restoration. All the rest of creation awaits the manifestation of the sons of God at which time the times of the restoration of all or the dispensation of the fullness of the times commences (Rom 8:19-22). And this final dispensation consummates with all having been reunited in Christ and God being all in all before finally entering eternity.
The Early Greek-speaking Church Fathers understood this and plainly declared that the restoration of all, including Satan and the fallen angels, was the teaching of the Scriptures.
Clement of Alexandria (AD 150 to AD 215) said: “Therefore He indeed saves all universally; but some as converted by punishments, others by voluntary submission, thus obtaining the honor and dignity, that ‘to Him every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,' that is angels, and men, and souls who departed this life before His coming into the world.” [6]
Origin, the successor of Clement, whose writings have been the most read of all the Church Fathers with the exception of Saint Augustine, said: “It is our conviction that the Word will prevail over all the intelligent creation.” [7] Commenting on Ephesians 1, Ambrose of Milan (AD 340 to AD 397), said: “This seemed well to God…to manifest in Christ His will… specifically that He would be merciful to all who had been lost, whether it be in heaven or on earth…. Every being, then, in the heavens and on the earth are being restored as they were created until they come to know Christ.” In his commentary on 1Corinthians 15:27 he says: “When every creature learns that Christ is his head, and that the head of Christ is the Father, then God will be all in all; that is to say that every creature will believe in the same way, and that of one voice every tongue of the things in heaven, on the earth and beneath the earth will confess that there is one God of whom are all things.” [8]
Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330 to AD 394) wrote: “Christ… not only delivers man from evil, but also heals the very inventor of evil.” [9] Jerome (AD 347 to AD 420) said: “The cross of Christ has benefited not only the earth but also heaven… and every creature has been purified by the blood of his Lord. Therefore in the restoration of all things, when the true physician, Jesus Christ, has come to heal the body of the whole church, every being…will receive his due place…What I am saying is, the fallen angels will become as they were created, and humanity which has been expelled from paradise, will be once again restored to the place of caring for paradise. These things, then, will take place on a universal level.” [10] “MOST persons regard the story of Jonah as teaching the ultimate forgiveness of all rational creatures, even the devil.” [11] “The apostate angels, and the prince of this world, and Lucifer, the morning star, though now ungovernable, licentiously wandering about, and plunging themselves into the depths of sin, shall in the end, embrace the happy dominion of Christ and his saints…. No rational creature before God will perish forever.” [12]
Even Augustine himself admitted that his opponents based their belief in the final restoration of all upon the Scriptures themselves. It is those who defend the Traditional doctrine of eternal torments who must ignore or negate the obvious meaning of multiple passages of Scripture in order to deny the promised restoration of all, prophesied since the beginning of time.
This subject is dealt with more fully in my book: “The Triumph of Mercy” which is an in-depth examination of the Scriptural, logical and historical evidences for the temporary nature of hell and the final restoration of all. Here I would just like to point out that what Traditionalists are left with upon denying all of the restoration passages is an eternal dualism in which evil and its resulting death, pain and tears, never come to an end, contrary to the clear declarations of Scripture (Rev 21:4-5; Isa 25:8; 1Cor 15:22,26,28, etc.).
[1] Our English word “things” does not have an equivalent in Greek. Neither does the neuter form in Greek always indicate objects as in English. When the translators insert “things” in contexts that are evidently referring primarily to persons and not inanimate objects I take the liberty to cross it out in order to keep the focus where it belongs.
[2] “So how can the traditional, evangelical view respond? From Romans 8 it is clear that only the inanimate creation is awaiting deliverance from its unwilling subjection to bondage (Satan and his angels are excluded, since they willingly revolted against God and did so prior to humanity’s fall).” p.231
[3] Robertson, A. T.. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Kindle Location 2847). Kindle Edition.
[4] Other examples of composite words with ana prefixed where ana clearly means “again or re…” are as follows: anagennao, “to be born again”; anaginosko, lit. “to know again,” or “to read”; anagnosis, “(the act of) reading”;
anazao, “to live again”; anazopureo, to re-enkindle; anathallo, “to revive”; anakainoo, “to renew”; anamnesis, “to remember”; ananeoo, “to reform”; anastauroo, to recrucify, crucify again”; anapsuxis, “a recovery of breath, (figuratively) revival” anapsucho, “to relieve.”
[5] Thayer's Greek Lexicon: NT. 346
[6] Clement of Alexandria, Comentary of 1John Adumbrat. in Ep. I Johan., printed at the end of his Treatise, Quis dives salvetur, p.1009, Potter´s Edit.
[7] Origin, Against Selsum 8.72.
[8] Allin, Universalism Asserted, p. 133.
[9] Gregory of Nissa, Catechetical Oraciones, Cap. 26.
[10] Allin, Universalism Asserted, p. 134.
[11] Jerome. In Ps. xcii. 9.22
[12] Jerome. In Ps. xcii. 9.22
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism” by James B. De Young
In the previous session we saw that the restoration of all referred to in Acts 3:19-21, primarily speaks of the restoration of all people to God. De Young’s claim that it only refers to restoring creation to a pre-fall “condition” fails to capture God’s redemptive heart which is primarily focused upon restoring mankind to a relationship of oneness with Himself.
The theme of this article - reconciliation, is integrally related to what we have seen concerning God’s restoration of mankind unto Himself. In order to restore any relationship that has been broken there must first be a reconciliation on the part of both parties. Just as both husband and wife must be reconciled one to another before the relationship can be restored, so it is in our relationship with God.
God, however, took the initiative, sending His Son as a propitiatory sacrifice, thereby satisfying the justice of God for the sins of the whole world (1Jn 2:2). Because of His propitiatory sacrifice God can now be just and at the same time justify the ungodly who take refuge in Christ – our propitiatory Lamb who was sacrificed out of love for us (Rom 3:25-26; 4:5; 8:1; 1Cor 5:7).
As with any broken relationship, one party always initiates reconciliation before the other corresponds. While we were yet His enemies and dead in our trespasses and sins, God reconciled us to Himself by the blood of the cross of Christ. As Paul says in Romans 5:10, when we were still enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son. Christ’s expiatory sacrifice of Himself 2,000 years ago on the cross made propitiation, satisfying God’s justice, not only for the sins of the elect of this age but also for the sins of the whole world (kosmos) or universe, including all in heaven, on earth and even under the earth (1Jn 2:2; Col 1:16,20; Phil 1:10-11).
Some, overlooking God’s holiness, deny the need for Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. In human interpersonal relationships reconciliation comes about when we simply forgive. Indeed, the Scriptures command it. However, even a human judge cannot simply forgive without satisfying justice.
What would we think of a Judge who pardoned his son for a crime based solely upon his love for him? Wouldn’t that be considered favoritism and a breach of justice? How much less could God, the just Judge of all creation, simply out of love allow injustices to go unpunished. However, God is not only a holy and just Judge, but He is also a loving Father who loves us so much that in Christ He satisfied His own justice, taking our due punishment upon Himself, thereby giving Him the legal right to forgive the objects of His love.
However, it must be understood that, although Christ died for all and in time all will be made alive in Him, God can only justly justify and make alive those who come to Him through Jesus whom God has set forth as a propitiation (Rom 3:25). That is why, although justification, reconciliation and salvation were obtained for all upon the cross, one does not experience justification, reconciliation or salvation until they receive Christ, being born-again and thereby becoming a part of the new creation in Him.
Some point out that in the parable of the Father and the Prodigal Son the father’s acceptance was an unconditional embrace without any mention of satisfying justice. However, the fact that the father unconditionally embraces the repentant son doesn’t mean that our Father didn’t have to pay a great price to be able to be just and at the same time embrace the objects of His love. Jesus Himself, who gave us this parable, said that He had come to give Himself a ransom for all and that no one could come to the Father except through Him (Matt 20:28, cf. 1Tim 2:6; John 14:6).
While God made reconciliation once and for all 2,000 years ago by the blood of His cross, it is evident that most have not yet corresponded to that reconciliation, being reconciled to God in their hearts. That is why we are commissioned to proclaim Christ’s consummated substitutionary death, bringing reconciliation to the rest of the world who are presently lost and at enmity towards God:
“Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor 5:18-21)
In Romans 5:10 Paul said that we were reconciled, past tense. When did that reconciliation take place? He says that it was by the death of His Son which places our moment of reconciliation 2,000 years ago at the cross, long before we became reconciled unto God in our hearts. Here Paul reveals that at that moment God was in Christ reconciling the whole world unto Himself. Some mistakenly assume that God’s reconciliation cannot be an accomplished fact, since some people are not yet actually reconciled and restored. De Young seems to question whether God’s reconciliation was accomplished once and for all at the cross. He says:
“If reconciliation for all is already accomplished in the death of Christ at the cross, why would he have to exhort people to become reconciled?” p.168
To me, this statement not only seems to minimize what Christ accomplished on the cross but also demonstrates a failure to understand the very nature of reconciliation. In a broken relationship both parties must take the appropriate action in order for the relationship to be restored. God reconciled us to Himself through His propitiatory sacrifice upon the cross. Now, the ministry of reconciliation which has been commended to us as ambassadors for Christ is to declare the good news: “God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself. Now therefore, be reconciled to God.”
De Young here manifests a common failure of many Traditionalists to distinguish between “already” and “not yet.” The full redemptive work was consummated at the cross and the victory sealed. However, Christ must reign until all have subjected themselves to Him and only then will God be all in all (1Cor 15:25-28). This “already” and “not yet” is illustrated for us by the writer of Hebrews:
“You have put all things [1] in subjection under his feet. For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do NOT YET see all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for EVERYONE.” (Heb 2:8-9)
Did Jesus taste death for everyone on the cross? Was He victorious? Should we doubt the universal scope of His victory on the cross simply because we do not yet see it fully carried out in time? Here, as in 1Corinthians 15, we see that Christ will reign until that which He accomplished upon the cross for everyone is fully realized by all becoming subject to Him, and then He will in turn subject Himself to the Father that God may be all in all (1Cor 15:22-28). De Young says:
“It is clear that everyone could not be reconciled to God if it is central to Paul’s ministry to exhort people to be reconciled to God.” p.211
As I understand it, he seems to be saying that if Christ actually reconciled all to God through His death, then Paul wouldn’t have been going around persuading people to be reconciled to God. But let’s apply this to Christ’s reign. Were all things subjected unto Him? Then why does He continue reigning until all become subjected to Him?
The reason is the same in both cases. Although God has made reconciliation for all, and He is determined that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord, reconciliation, by its very nature must be willingly received by both parties in order to be experienced, and the subjection on the part of all, which Christ will bring about in the end, results in God being all in all which is not descriptive of a forced subjugation, contrary to what the Traditionalists would have us believe. On the contrary, He seeks the lost until the last lost sheep is safe in the fold, and He continues His reign until the last knee bows in humble adoration. Only then will God truly be all in all.
De Young argues that His enemies will not willingly submit unto Him since they will be his footstool (Heb 1:13). He understands that to mean that they will always remain hostile to Him, but in order to display His power He retains them in torments under His feet as a footstool. He says:
“If universalism is correct, who will serve as the footstool of his throne?” p.233
However, this assumes that one must be God’s enemy in order to serve as a footstool. That is not what we see in the Scriptures. The imagery of a footstool in the Bible often refers to the habitation of God. The ark of the covenant and the temple where He manifested Himself to the people are referred to as His footstool (1Chron 28:2; Ps 132:7). In Isaiah 60 He says that He will make His footstool glorious (Isa 60:13). Moving into the New Testament, we see that we ourselves, who were once enemies in our minds by wicked works, are now His temple or His footstool (Col 1:21; 1Cor 3:16). The references to His enemies becoming His footstool speak of willful subjection – not forced subjugation. So, in answer to De Young’s question: “who will serve as the footstool of his throne?” the glorious answer is, “we will!” As those who were once enemies, we will fall at His feet and worship Him in humble adoration, overwhelmed by His glory and grace.
Perhaps one of the clearest and most unequivocal declarations concerning the universal reconciliation of all creation unto God through Christ’s death on the cross is found in the first chapter of Colossians:
“For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him… 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” (Col 1:16,20)
Here Paul does not spare detail in emphasizing that “all” means absolutely “all,” including all in heaven and on earth, whether visible or invisible - even including invisible thrones, dominions principalities and powers. All – absolutely all, was created by Christ and for Christ. But he doesn’t stop there. In verse 20 we see that the very same all, whether on earth or in heaven, was reconciled unto Himself at the cross.
There is no way that Traditionalists can limit the reconciliation described in this passage to only the elect or in a way which excludes many from the reconciliation accomplished by the blood of Christ on the cross 2,000 years ago. All they can do is deny that it means what it obviously does mean – that absolutely all creation was reconciled unto God at the cross.
De Young seems undecided as to what to do with this passage. At one point he suggests from Romans 8 that it only applies to “inanimate” creation, which would even exclude the animal kingdom. [2] However, it not only says in Romans 8 that “all creation” will be set free and restored, but also that creation groans and eagerly awaits the moment they will be delivered from bondage. Such characteristics are not attributable to inanimate objects. Also, this shows a misunderstanding of what reconciliation actually means. It is exclusively a relational term, referring to the restoration of broken relationships. Only fallen rational moral beings are in need of reconciliation with God.
At another point he suggests that it refers to the reconciliation of only the “non-human creation,” which would include the animal kingdom. He says:
“When Paul speaks of the whole creation being reconciled does he not explicitly define this as all non-human creation, since it was subjected to frustration or bondage because of human sin?” p.237
While this would explain why creation waits and groans, since animals are rational emotional beings in contrast to inanimate objects which neither think nor feel, it still fails to explain how animals could be at enmity with God so as to require that Christ’s blood be shed for them in order to bring about their reconciliation and make peace where there once was enmity. “Reconciliation” is needed to restore moral rational beings who are at enmity with God and therefore need to be reconciled in order to restore communion with their Creator. The animal kingdom only benefits indirectly from the reconciliation of moral beings since they were unwillingly subjected to vanity on our account, and they will be restored along with the rest of creation in the times of the restoration of all.
In yet another twist of logic De Young even argues that the reconciliation is universal but those who refuse to exercise faith will be reconciled by force. He says concerning Colossians 1:20:
“In 1:20 Paul includes in his words of ‘universal reconciliation’ not only those who believe the gospel (such as the Colossians, explained in vv.21-23) but also those who are reconciled by conquest and become the footstool of Jesus Christ’s future reign. They are conquered opponents who have refused to exercise faith.” p.210 (emphasis mine)
Once again, this demonstrates a total misunderstanding of what is meant by reconciliation. That may be subjugation, but it isn’t reconciliation, making peace by the blood of His cross by any stretch of the imagination. While it is true that only those who believe will benefit from His reconciliation, since reconciliation requires a positive response from both parties, God promises that eventually everyone will believe and confess Him as Lord – even those presently “under the earth” (Phil 2:10-11).
De Young at one point argues that only inanimate creation will be reconciled; then he expands that to include the animal kingdom, and finally he argues here that all will be reconciled, albeit some against their will. He here presents God’s enemies as “reconciled” while at the same time cursing Him in an eternal lake of fire which is referred to by him as God’s footstool. To me that greatly depreciates what Christ actually accomplished by His shed blood upon the cross for all.
Finally, towards the end of his book, De Young gets to the crux of the problem, revealing why they are unwilling to accept the plain obvious meaning of Colossians 2:20. He says:
“There cannot be universal reconciliation if some are permanently (v.9): ‘eternal destruction’) the objects of God’s retributive justice.” p.224
He is here referring to 2Thessalonians 1:9 which in the King James Version reads: “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” Why do Traditionalists typically deny or ignore the plain declarations of Scripture concerning the final salvation of all, and why do they have to divide God’s nature into love and mercy vs. hatred and wrath as if they were opposite poles, rather than viewing them all as manifestations of His love? Because they base their entire theology upon a few poorly translated verses which give the impression that hell is forever. While the duration and purpose of hell will be the subject of another article, this verse clearly doesn’t mean what they take it to mean.
In the first place, it says: “eonian destruction,” not “eternal destroying.” The morphology of the Greek word “destruction” (olethros) indicates that it is a noun which speaks of the result of an action rather than the action itself, just as our ending –ion does in English. [3] Even if the action should continue for ages, it must come to an end because the suffix -ion emphasizes the end result and not the process. However, as I will demonstrate in another article, the word translated “eternal” (aionios) does not mean “eternal” but rather it is a time-word referring to a long period of time, but time, nonetheless. Our English equivalent is eonian. An eon is a long time, but it is not forever - much less eternal, since eternity is timeless. Any literal translation will correct this misunderstanding, as we see with Youngs Literal Translation:
“who shall suffer justice (Gr. dike)--destruction age-during (aionios)--from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his strength.” (2Thess 1:9 YLT)
While more will be said about this later, we see that dike means “justice” rather than “punishment” and aionios means “age-during” rather than “eternal.” Traditionalists have mistranslated passages referring to judgment and hell and denied or ignored all the passages concerning universal reconciliation.
There are many other passages which clearly indicate a universal reconciliation which is inclusive of all rational creatures without even using the word “reconciliation” itself. Ephesians 1 speaks of a future dispensation, which according to Ephesians 2:7 will last for the coming ages, until the final “Age of ages” (lit. “tou aionos ton aiónon,” Eph 3:21). In this coming dispensation, also known as the times of the restoration of all, all will be reunited in Christ:
“having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together (anakephalaiomai) in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth — in Him.” (Eph 1:9,10)
The phrase: “gather together in one” is a composite word made up of ana which normally means “again” and kephalaioo, and is best translated as “to reunite or unite again under one head,” since only this rendering retains the meaning or the prefix ana. [4] Thayer’s Greek Lexicon actually comments as to the meaning of the word in this context, saying:
“God is said…to bring together again for himself (note the middle) all things and beings (hitherto disunited by sin) into one combined state of fellowship in Christ.” [5] (emphasis mine)
The terms “gather together” or “bring together again” when referring to those formerly at enmity, as is the case with mankind towards God, is relational and inseparable from reconciliation. Therefore, this passage, just as Colossians 1:16-20, clearly speaks of a universal reconciliation. The mystery of His will which is being revealed here in Ephesians 1:9,10 is the final restoration of all when all creation will be eternally reunited in Christ and God will then be all in all (1Cor 15:28).
This is also what Paul declared in summary form in Romans 11:36: “For of (ek “out of”) Him and through (dia) Him and to (eis “into”) Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” As Colossians 1:16 says, everything and everyone was created by Him. Then in verse 20 it says that this same “all” was reconciled to (eis “into”) Him through the cross. In Ephesians 1:9,10 it says that all will be finally reunited in Him in the dispensation of the fullness of time. “For of Him and through Him and TO (eis “into”) Him are all things.” Paul couldn’t have made it any clearer.
The one scandalous truth revealed in these passages and especially in Colossians 1:16-20 is that even Satan and the fallen angels are included in the reconciliation accomplished at the cross. When Paul includes invisible thrones, dominions, principalities and powers in the reconciliation, he clearly means to include them as well, since there are no invisible thrones, dominions, principalities or powers in need of reconciliation apart from Satan and the fallen angels. Additionally, if they were excluded it could not be truthfully said that God will be all in all or that all which came out of Him will be reunited in Him.
The argument presented against a total reconciliation and restoration of all which would include even Satan and the fallen angels, is stated by De Young when he says:
“The Bible offers no atonement, no forgiveness, no hope, no reconciliation for the fallen angels and for Satan.” p.247 (emphasis mine)
In response to this, I would first point out that his denial that reconciliation is offered to Satan and the fallen angels is a blatant denial of what is clearly stated in Colossians 1:16-20. As to atonement and forgiveness, reconciliation is not possible without forgiveness and it isn’t possible for a holy God to forgive without atonement. So, reconciliation with God presupposes atonement and forgiveness. While reconciliation isn’t actually realized in experience until one repents and turns to God, God, in love, made legal provision for the reconciliation of all of creation and has sworn by Himself that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, including even those presently in rebellion in heaven and under the earth.
At this point Traditionalists will usually quote Hebrews 2:14-18. However, this passage focuses only upon what Christ did to rescue mankind from Satan’s power. It says that He took upon Himself a human body and died in order to deliver those who were being held in fear of death and to come to the aid of those tempted by Satan. Since the focus is upon man and not upon Satan and the fallen angels it neither denies nor affirms that His death will ultimately provide a way for the restoration of all of creation as well, including even Satan and fallen angels. But the other restoration passages, and particularly Colossians 1:16-20, are not at all ambiguous.
Man, created in God’s own image and likeness, is the primary motive and focus of both creation and restoration. But all the rest of creation participates in man’s restoration. Hell is both penal and correctional, but it is not eternal, since, as with any just penal system, its final goal and outcome is restoration. All the rest of creation awaits the manifestation of the sons of God at which time the times of the restoration of all or the dispensation of the fullness of the times commences (Rom 8:19-22). And this final dispensation consummates with all having been reunited in Christ and God being all in all before finally entering eternity.
The Early Greek-speaking Church Fathers understood this and plainly declared that the restoration of all, including Satan and the fallen angels, was the teaching of the Scriptures.
Clement of Alexandria (AD 150 to AD 215) said: “Therefore He indeed saves all universally; but some as converted by punishments, others by voluntary submission, thus obtaining the honor and dignity, that ‘to Him every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,' that is angels, and men, and souls who departed this life before His coming into the world.” [6]
Origin, the successor of Clement, whose writings have been the most read of all the Church Fathers with the exception of Saint Augustine, said: “It is our conviction that the Word will prevail over all the intelligent creation.” [7] Commenting on Ephesians 1, Ambrose of Milan (AD 340 to AD 397), said: “This seemed well to God…to manifest in Christ His will… specifically that He would be merciful to all who had been lost, whether it be in heaven or on earth…. Every being, then, in the heavens and on the earth are being restored as they were created until they come to know Christ.” In his commentary on 1Corinthians 15:27 he says: “When every creature learns that Christ is his head, and that the head of Christ is the Father, then God will be all in all; that is to say that every creature will believe in the same way, and that of one voice every tongue of the things in heaven, on the earth and beneath the earth will confess that there is one God of whom are all things.” [8]
Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330 to AD 394) wrote: “Christ… not only delivers man from evil, but also heals the very inventor of evil.” [9] Jerome (AD 347 to AD 420) said: “The cross of Christ has benefited not only the earth but also heaven… and every creature has been purified by the blood of his Lord. Therefore in the restoration of all things, when the true physician, Jesus Christ, has come to heal the body of the whole church, every being…will receive his due place…What I am saying is, the fallen angels will become as they were created, and humanity which has been expelled from paradise, will be once again restored to the place of caring for paradise. These things, then, will take place on a universal level.” [10] “MOST persons regard the story of Jonah as teaching the ultimate forgiveness of all rational creatures, even the devil.” [11] “The apostate angels, and the prince of this world, and Lucifer, the morning star, though now ungovernable, licentiously wandering about, and plunging themselves into the depths of sin, shall in the end, embrace the happy dominion of Christ and his saints…. No rational creature before God will perish forever.” [12]
Even Augustine himself admitted that his opponents based their belief in the final restoration of all upon the Scriptures themselves. It is those who defend the Traditional doctrine of eternal torments who must ignore or negate the obvious meaning of multiple passages of Scripture in order to deny the promised restoration of all, prophesied since the beginning of time.
This subject is dealt with more fully in my book: “The Triumph of Mercy” which is an in-depth examination of the Scriptural, logical and historical evidences for the temporary nature of hell and the final restoration of all. Here I would just like to point out that what Traditionalists are left with upon denying all of the restoration passages is an eternal dualism in which evil and its resulting death, pain and tears, never come to an end, contrary to the clear declarations of Scripture (Rev 21:4-5; Isa 25:8; 1Cor 15:22,26,28, etc.).
[1] Our English word “things” does not have an equivalent in Greek. Neither does the neuter form in Greek always indicate objects as in English. When the translators insert “things” in contexts that are evidently referring primarily to persons and not inanimate objects I take the liberty to cross it out in order to keep the focus where it belongs.
[2] “So how can the traditional, evangelical view respond? From Romans 8 it is clear that only the inanimate creation is awaiting deliverance from its unwilling subjection to bondage (Satan and his angels are excluded, since they willingly revolted against God and did so prior to humanity’s fall).” p.231
[3] Robertson, A. T.. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Kindle Location 2847). Kindle Edition.
[4] Other examples of composite words with ana prefixed where ana clearly means “again or re…” are as follows: anagennao, “to be born again”; anaginosko, lit. “to know again,” or “to read”; anagnosis, “(the act of) reading”;
anazao, “to live again”; anazopureo, to re-enkindle; anathallo, “to revive”; anakainoo, “to renew”; anamnesis, “to remember”; ananeoo, “to reform”; anastauroo, to recrucify, crucify again”; anapsuxis, “a recovery of breath, (figuratively) revival” anapsucho, “to relieve.”
[5] Thayer's Greek Lexicon: NT. 346
[6] Clement of Alexandria, Comentary of 1John Adumbrat. in Ep. I Johan., printed at the end of his Treatise, Quis dives salvetur, p.1009, Potter´s Edit.
[7] Origin, Against Selsum 8.72.
[8] Allin, Universalism Asserted, p. 133.
[9] Gregory of Nissa, Catechetical Oraciones, Cap. 26.
[10] Allin, Universalism Asserted, p. 134.
[11] Jerome. In Ps. xcii. 9.22
[12] Jerome. In Ps. xcii. 9.22
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
by George Sidney Hurd
--
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism” by James B. De Young
In the last session we saw the universal scope of the reconciliation accomplished by Christ’s propitiatory death upon the cross. While all have not yet responded to that reconciliation, bowing the knee to Him and confessing Him as Lord, God was in Christ reconciling the whole world (cosmos) unto Himself at the cross and not merely the elect or those who happen to believe before taking their last breath. Jesus is the Savior of all men and not only of those who are privileged to hear the gospel and believe in this life (1Tim 4:10).
Not only did Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross and His subsequent resurrection bring reconciliation for all, but all mankind who were the passive recipients of original sin in Adam with its resultant sin nature, death, judgment and condemnation, also passively received life, justification and righteousness in Christ - the Last Adam, 2,000 years ago through the substitutionary atonement consummated on the cross:
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, MUCH MORE the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded (periseuo “super-abound”) to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, MUCH MORE those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to ALL MEN, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to ALL MEN, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience (the) many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience (the) many will be made righteous...where sin abounded, grace abounded MUCH MORE (huperperiseuo “super, super-abounded”).” (Rom 5:12,15-20)
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” (1Cor 15:22)
Paul, in these two passages draws a contrast between that which “all” received in Adam and that which the same “all” received in Christ - the Last Adam. His use of the words periseuo, “super-abound” and huperperiseuo “super, super-abound,” lays emphasis upon the fact that that which Christ accomplished for all mankind goes far, far beyond a full reversal of man’s fall in Adam.
So how does De Young get around the obvious implications of this passage? He argues that, while the first “all” of Paul’s parallel comparison refers to the whole world of humanity that sinned and die in Adam, the second “all” only includes those who believe during their lifetime. He says:
“‘All in Christ’ is not the same number as the ‘all’ in Adam. Those in Christ are a smaller number and come to be in him by way of exercising faith.” p.213
However, there are several reasons why this cannot be the correct understanding of these passages. In the first place, in Romans 5:18 it doesn’t say “all in Christ,” but simply “all men.” The same “all men” who are condemned in Adam are justified in Christ. The phrase: “the free gift came,” in verse 18 was added by the King James Translators, giving the impression that justification was simply offered as a gift to all men. Most translations eliminate this addition as we see in the New International Version:
“So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.” (Rom 5:18 NASU)
In the second place, the parallel comparison “as” – “even so” requires that the second group be equal in number to the first group. If the “all” of the second group is not the same “all” in the first group, then it wouldn’t make sense to use the parallel comparison “as…even so…” For the sake of illustration, let us imagine that someone was to rob $100,000 from you and it was all you had to your name. Then upon catching the thief you were to say to him: “As you took all I had, even so I want you to give it all back.” What would you be demanding of him? A tithe? No. The expression “even so” following “as” means the last must be equal to the first. In the commentary Barne’s Notes, he, although not himself a Universalist, agrees. He comments on 1Corinthians 15:22 saying:
“If this passage means, that in Adam, or by him, all people became sinners, then the correspondent declaration ‘all shall be made alive’ must mean that all people shall become righteous, or that all shall be saved. This would be the natural and obvious interpretation; since the words ‘be made alive’ must have reference to the words ‘all die,’ and must affirm the co-relative and opposite fact. If the phrase ‘all die’ there means all become sinners, then the phrase ‘all be made alive’ must mean all shall be made holy, or be recovered from their spiritual death; and thus an obvious argument is furnished for the doctrine of universal salvation, which it is difficult, if not impossible, to meet. It is not a sufficient answer to this to say, that the word ‘all,’ in the latter part of the sentence, means all the elect, or all the righteous; for its most natural and obvious meaning is, that it is co-extensive with the word ‘all’ in the former part of the verse.” [1]
Some point out that in Romans 5:19 it says “many” and not all shall be made righteous in Christ. However, when Paul uses the word “many” in place of “all,” it is not speaking of something less than “all.” When he says, “all sinned” (Rom 5:12), he is not contradicting himself by saying later “many were made sinners” (Rom 5:19). He is just emphasizing that the one individual – Adam, made the many sinners, but the other one individual – Christ, made the same many righteous. The contrast is between the one and the many. The definite article is used in both cases making it say, “the many.” The same many that were made sinners by the one – Adam, are also the many made righteous by the one - Christ.
Finally, if in the end more remain in a state of sin and death in Adam than are made alive in Christ, then how can grace be said to have super-abounded over sin? In such a scenario, would not the opposite be true: “where grace abounded sin much more abounded?” To quote Marvin Vincent: “The effect of the second Adam cannot fall behind that of the first.” [2]
De Young points to Romans 5:18 as the key to understanding the entire passage. He says:
“This is the most important verse in the passage, since it affirms that identity in Christ the second Adam comes only to those who ‘receive’ the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness. It is they, not ‘all’ who shall reign in life.” (p.167)
However, as we see throughout this entire passage, the contrast is between that which all men receive in Adam and that which all men receive in Christ - the Last Adam (cf. v.19). The word “receive” is the Greek word lambano, which has two distinct usages: 1) to actively take or receive, or 2) to receive as a passive recipient. The context must determine whether the receiving is passive or active. For example, in several New Testament passages we see that the recipient must receive something he did not even desire to receive, such as a just reward for his disobedience (Heb 2:2), or a greater judgment (Luke 20:47). In other instances, the recipient receives that which he was not even anticipating. For example, everyone in Cornelius’ house was surprised when the Gentiles suddenly received the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47). In these examples it is obvious that the recipient is passive.
The highly esteemed Greek scholar Marvin Vincent correctly applies the passive meaning to Romans 5:17. He says: “They which receive (hoi lambanontes). Not ‘believingly accept,’ but simply ‘the recipients.” [3] Although he does not go into further detail, his rendering of lambano in the passive sense is necessitated by the context. The contrast throughout is between what all men receive in Adam as opposed to what all men receive in Christ - the Last Adam. As all men passively receive death, condemnation and bondage to sin through the one man’s disobedience, even so all receive life, justification, and dominion restored, through the one man, Christ.
However, that being said, even as not every man experientially entered into Adam’s death, condemnation and bondage to sin at the moment Adam sinned, in like manner, not everyone experientially received life, justification or dominion restored at the moment when Christ - the Last Adam, died and rose from the dead. Even as man must be born into Adam to experience the death, condemnation and bondage to sin he brought upon us all, so also must every man be made alive or born again before experientially entering into that justification and dominion which every man received when Christ the Last Adam died and rose again. Of the Last Adam’s death and resurrection, it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (1Cor 15:45). And again, “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” (1Cor 15:22).
To me, once again, much of De Young’s confusion is due to his failure to distinguish between “already” and “not yet.” Christ already tasted death for everyone and reconciled the world unto Himself (Heb 2:9; 2Cor 5:14,19). While it is true that no one personally and experientially receives the benefits of justification, sanctification or being made alive in Christ until they have believed on Him for salvation, what we see is that all, in due time, will come to faith in Christ and will submit to Him. Every tongue will eventually confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God. In Christ all will eventually be made alive. At present only those who receive Him are born again and justified and are being sanctified to be received unto Him at His coming, but in due time all will be reunited in Christ – justified, sanctified and subjected to Him as Lord.
De Young rightly points out according to Romans 6 that no individual can be said to be “in Christ” until he has believed and been baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit. However, Romans 5 is referring to Christ’s one-time sacrifice for Adam’s race when He took away the sins of the whole world 2,000 years ago. All humanity was in Christ at the cross even though one is not yet in Him experientially until the day of his visitation. De Young reads Romans 5 and 1Corinthians 15:22 as though it read “all in Christ” rather than “in Christ all.” If you are looking at the present state, obviously all have not yet been baptized into Christ. However, “in Christ all” who were condemned and died in Adam will be justified and made alive once all have been reunited in Christ in the dispensation of the fullness of the times (Eph 1:10).
That Romans 5 declares a universal reversal of the fall, resulting in the final restoration of all, is even more evident when we consider 1Corinthians 15:22 in its context. He uses the same “as” – “even so” comparison to contrast what the first Adam lost for all, with what Christ, the Last Adam restored to the same all:
“For as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ ALL shall be made alive.” (1 Cor 15:22)
The obvious meaning is that the same all who died in Adam will also be made alive in Christ. This is even more evident when we consider the end result of Christ’s reign. After saying that Christ will reign until all enemies are under His feet (which we have already seen in the previous session to be speaking of willful submission on the part of His enemies), Paul concludes by telling us that Christ will then in turn subject Himself to the Father with the final result that God will be all in all.
“Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” (1Cor 15:28)
Obviously, it isn’t possible for God to be “all in all” without a universal reversal of the fall, with all who had their beginning in Him returning to Him (Rom 11:36) - without all first being reunited in Christ (Eph 1:10) and restored (Acts 3:21). So, how does De Young attempt to resolve this obvious contradiction for the Traditional doctrine of eternal torments? Just as with Romans 5, he argues that the “all” who will be made alive in Christ is less than the “all” who die in Adam. He says:
“…the ‘all’ (‘in Christ all will be made alive’) must refer only to those who have believed in Christ.” p. 168
So, based upon the Traditional presupposition that many are eternally lost, in spite of the obvious parallel language (“as all – even so all”), he must argue that the second “all” only refers those of Adam’s race who have truly believed in Christ in a saving manner before dying.
However, since there is such a disparity between those who die in Adam and those who receive Christ during their lifetime, he seeks to mitigate the disastrous implications by minimizing the number of those who have died in history without believing on Him. He says:
“Statistics show that about 2.7 billion are Christians today…probably well over 50% of the world’s population, now and in the past, will or have gone to heaven. It may be well over 70%.” p.240
This is a common Traditionalist argument. However, it is riddled with problems. In the first place, De Young himself recognizes that one must be born again in order to be in Christ and saved. [4] We all know that the majority of professing Christians have never truly been born again and therefore die in a lost state in spite of their profession. When you add to that those throughout history who never heard the gospel or rejected the gospel, we would be generous in saying that 10% of mankind actually died in Christ.
Jesus Himself, when asked if only a few would be saved, implies that very few find the narrow gate leading to life this side of the grave (Matt 7:13-14; Luke 13:22-30). For them to argue that most will be saved in this life is to contradict Jesus’ own words and is inconsistent with what they themselves actually believe.
Also, if just one soul were to be tormented forever it would not make it less unthinkable and horrendous. And if even one were to be eternally lost and in a state of endless separation it could not be said of God that He is all in all. And if “all in all” really only means “all in some” then language becomes meaningless and we are wasting our time studying the Scriptures. Nevertheless, De Young at one point attempts to argue from the context that even the second all, in “all in all,” doesn’t have to mean literally “all.” He says:
“Even Scripture acknowledges explicitly that ‘all’ has exceptions. When Paul the Apostle writes that ‘all will be subjected to God (Christ?)’ (1 Cor 15:27) he goes on to immediately add: ‘But when he says all things are put in subjection,’ it is evident that he is excepted who put all things in subjection to him.’ In other words, when Scripture says that all things are subjected to Christ, God who subjects the ‘all things’ to Christ is an exception to these words.” p.186 (parenthesis mine)
I believe he meant to say, “all will be subjected to Christ” and not to God the Father (cf. Ps 8:5-6). However, this argument is erroneous in more than one way. It is a basic rule of language that all means “all” unless there is something specific in the context which would limit its scope. Also, when Paul says that the Father was the only exception to the all being subjected to Christ, it is actually an emphatic way of saying, “absolutely all of creation,” since it emphasizes that God the Father was the only exception to the “all” that will be subjected to Christ.
De Young, as with all Traditionalists, have great difficulty trying to reconcile this passage with eternal torment for the majority since it clearly teaches that all in Adam will be restored in Christ and become subject to Him, resulting in God being all in all. He seems to be undecided as to what to do with this passage. In the above quote he tries to argue that there is an exception to “all,” implying that it only includes some people or those who believe on Christ in this life. At another point he seems to switch to the argument that it doesn’t refer to people at all, but rather to an impersonal state or condition. He says:
“The verses say that when all things are subjected to Christ he will himself be subjected to the Father who caused all to be subjected to Christ ‘so that God may be all in all’ (vv. 26-28). These final words depict the final state; no other condition is foreseen. It means, therefore, that some are in everlasting subjection and conquest. This can hardly be a ‘loving embrace of Jesus Christ.’” p.220
If I understand Him, he seems to be saying that God becoming all in all is accomplished by all having been brought into subjection, either willingly or unwillingly. In that “final state” He will have received unto Himself those who willingly subjected themselves to Christ and the rest will be confined to eternal torments. So, once again we see that De Young depersonalizes the restoration of all, making it out to be nothing more than the restoration of an impersonal condition or state, rather than the restoration of all people as the result of Christ having drawn all unto Himself, just as Jesus Himself said He would do (Jn 12:32).
If God will not be all in all people but simply all in all things, how could God be said to be all in all that which is inanimate, given that evil and hell are inanimate? If He is all in all in every state and condition rather than all in all people, and hell and evil are an eternal state, will He then eternally inhabit evil and hell? To me, this creates more problems than it solves. No matter how Traditionalists look at it, they are confronted with an eternal dualism in which God Himself perpetuates evil in an unending hell. At least the Annihilationists resolve this dilemma by presenting God as exterminating the opposition, thereby becoming “all in all of those who survive.”
Another suggestion given by him as to the meaning of 1Corinthians 15:28 is also confusing to me but only illustrates the extremes to which Traditionalists will go in order to deny the restoration of all. He says:
“It is also possible that this text means that there is not eternal subjection, but at a point of “time” in the future God as Father, Son and Spirit is ‘all in all.’” p. 28
Apparently, what De Young is suggesting here is that once all has been subjected to Christ, there will be a brief moment when every knee bows, and for that brief moment, before those forced to bow to Him against their will are cast into an eternal hell, God will be all in all. But in what sense could God be said to be “all in” the unrepentant, even for that brief moment before casting them into hell? Will they also be forced to receive Him into their lives?
The obvious thrust of the passage is upon the restoration of all of mankind, reversing the fall and reuniting all back into oneness with God through Christ - the Last Adam. That the subjection of all is voluntary is also indicated by the fact that the same word used for the subjection of Christ to the Father (hupotaso) is used 4 other times in just 2 verses referring to all the rest who will become subject to Him:
“For He has put (subjected ‘Gr. hupotaso’) all things under His feet. But when He says ‘all things are put (hupotaso) under Him,’ it is evident that He who put (hupotaso) all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject (hupotaso) to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject (hupotaso) to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” (1Cor 15:27,28)
It follows that if the subjection is voluntary on the part of Christ, then it will also be voluntary on the part of all the others. That the subjection of all which results in God being all in all is a voluntary subjection, is also seen by the progression of the entire passage. It begins by saying: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order” (1 Cor 15:22-23a). This speaks of an order or succession of individuals who will be made alive when their ordained time comes, just as we see in Acts 13:48 where it says: “And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Both words “order” and “appointed” refer to a prearranged order or succession. Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved but we do not truly call upon Him until we are at the end of ourselves. Each individual has his own order. Some are more self-willed and obstinate than others and for that reason some are slower to respond to the gospel since God waits until we are at the end of ourselves and only then draws us unto Himself.
The traditional interpretation doesn’t acknowledge this order or succession. They only include the rest of the verse which says: “Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming.”
This does not fulfill the statement: “each one in his own order.” This only speaks of Christ the firstfruits and the Church or the Firstfruits Company, who will take part in the first resurrection. (James 1:18) We are the first to trust in Christ and the “firstborn ones” of the new creation (Eph 1:12; Heb 12:23 lit.). The phrase, “each one in his own order,” refers to the residue of men or the rest of mankind who will be made alive individually when it is their time.
The following verse says: “Then comes the end (telos), when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.” The word translated “end” is telos which means: end, conclusion, fulfillment or final result. I think that perhaps the best way to understand “the end,” telos in this context is, “then comes the fulfillment.” In other words, it speaks of the fulfillment of the declaration that all will be made alive in Christ and not just the firstfruits or those that are Christ’s at His coming. This is verified by looking at the verses that follow, declaring that Christ will continue reigning until every enemy has been destroyed (Gr. katargéo “render null or void” v.26), and all have become subject to Him. It says that the last enemy to be destroyed will be death. That cannot happen until all have been made alive in Christ.
Traditionalists are shortsighted when they try to cut the timeline short at the Second Coming of Christ, or even after the millennium. In 1Corinthians 15 we see that Christ will continue reigning until all have been made subject to Him and God becomes all in all. That will hardly be the case at the Second Coming of Christ or even after the Millennium which is followed by Satan’s final rebellion and the White Throne Judgment (Rev 20:7-9). Actually, we see that the times of the restoration of all doesn’t even begin until the Second Coming of Christ (Acts 3:21). It is in the dispensation of the fullness of the times that all are reunited in Him (Eph 1:10) and not before His return. It is in the coming ages that the Church – the firstfruits, will be put on display to show God’s grace to the rest of creation through us (Eph 2:7).
So, we have seen that Christ’s work on the cross was a universal reversal of the results of the one act of disobedience that caused the fall, the entrance of sin, death and condemnation to all Adam’s race. Christ, the Last Adam, restores all that the first Adam lost and much, much more. All who died in Adam will finally be made alive because of the cross. It is something “already” accomplished but “not yet” since not all have subjected themselves to Christ. However, all will be made alive, reversing the fall, but “each one in his own order.” It is precisely because the subjection must be voluntary and not obligated that all have “not yet” been restored.
[1] from Barnes' Notes on1Corinthians 15:22
[2] Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, Romans 5:17
[3] Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, Romans 5:17
[4] De Young says: “One needs merely to be born to be in Adam and under judgment; but one needs to be born again to be in the kingdom of Christ (John 3:5-8).” p.213
--
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism” by James B. De Young
In the last session we saw the universal scope of the reconciliation accomplished by Christ’s propitiatory death upon the cross. While all have not yet responded to that reconciliation, bowing the knee to Him and confessing Him as Lord, God was in Christ reconciling the whole world (cosmos) unto Himself at the cross and not merely the elect or those who happen to believe before taking their last breath. Jesus is the Savior of all men and not only of those who are privileged to hear the gospel and believe in this life (1Tim 4:10).
Not only did Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross and His subsequent resurrection bring reconciliation for all, but all mankind who were the passive recipients of original sin in Adam with its resultant sin nature, death, judgment and condemnation, also passively received life, justification and righteousness in Christ - the Last Adam, 2,000 years ago through the substitutionary atonement consummated on the cross:
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, MUCH MORE the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded (periseuo “super-abound”) to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, MUCH MORE those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to ALL MEN, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to ALL MEN, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience (the) many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience (the) many will be made righteous...where sin abounded, grace abounded MUCH MORE (huperperiseuo “super, super-abounded”).” (Rom 5:12,15-20)
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” (1Cor 15:22)
Paul, in these two passages draws a contrast between that which “all” received in Adam and that which the same “all” received in Christ - the Last Adam. His use of the words periseuo, “super-abound” and huperperiseuo “super, super-abound,” lays emphasis upon the fact that that which Christ accomplished for all mankind goes far, far beyond a full reversal of man’s fall in Adam.
So how does De Young get around the obvious implications of this passage? He argues that, while the first “all” of Paul’s parallel comparison refers to the whole world of humanity that sinned and die in Adam, the second “all” only includes those who believe during their lifetime. He says:
“‘All in Christ’ is not the same number as the ‘all’ in Adam. Those in Christ are a smaller number and come to be in him by way of exercising faith.” p.213
However, there are several reasons why this cannot be the correct understanding of these passages. In the first place, in Romans 5:18 it doesn’t say “all in Christ,” but simply “all men.” The same “all men” who are condemned in Adam are justified in Christ. The phrase: “the free gift came,” in verse 18 was added by the King James Translators, giving the impression that justification was simply offered as a gift to all men. Most translations eliminate this addition as we see in the New International Version:
“So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.” (Rom 5:18 NASU)
In the second place, the parallel comparison “as” – “even so” requires that the second group be equal in number to the first group. If the “all” of the second group is not the same “all” in the first group, then it wouldn’t make sense to use the parallel comparison “as…even so…” For the sake of illustration, let us imagine that someone was to rob $100,000 from you and it was all you had to your name. Then upon catching the thief you were to say to him: “As you took all I had, even so I want you to give it all back.” What would you be demanding of him? A tithe? No. The expression “even so” following “as” means the last must be equal to the first. In the commentary Barne’s Notes, he, although not himself a Universalist, agrees. He comments on 1Corinthians 15:22 saying:
“If this passage means, that in Adam, or by him, all people became sinners, then the correspondent declaration ‘all shall be made alive’ must mean that all people shall become righteous, or that all shall be saved. This would be the natural and obvious interpretation; since the words ‘be made alive’ must have reference to the words ‘all die,’ and must affirm the co-relative and opposite fact. If the phrase ‘all die’ there means all become sinners, then the phrase ‘all be made alive’ must mean all shall be made holy, or be recovered from their spiritual death; and thus an obvious argument is furnished for the doctrine of universal salvation, which it is difficult, if not impossible, to meet. It is not a sufficient answer to this to say, that the word ‘all,’ in the latter part of the sentence, means all the elect, or all the righteous; for its most natural and obvious meaning is, that it is co-extensive with the word ‘all’ in the former part of the verse.” [1]
Some point out that in Romans 5:19 it says “many” and not all shall be made righteous in Christ. However, when Paul uses the word “many” in place of “all,” it is not speaking of something less than “all.” When he says, “all sinned” (Rom 5:12), he is not contradicting himself by saying later “many were made sinners” (Rom 5:19). He is just emphasizing that the one individual – Adam, made the many sinners, but the other one individual – Christ, made the same many righteous. The contrast is between the one and the many. The definite article is used in both cases making it say, “the many.” The same many that were made sinners by the one – Adam, are also the many made righteous by the one - Christ.
Finally, if in the end more remain in a state of sin and death in Adam than are made alive in Christ, then how can grace be said to have super-abounded over sin? In such a scenario, would not the opposite be true: “where grace abounded sin much more abounded?” To quote Marvin Vincent: “The effect of the second Adam cannot fall behind that of the first.” [2]
De Young points to Romans 5:18 as the key to understanding the entire passage. He says:
“This is the most important verse in the passage, since it affirms that identity in Christ the second Adam comes only to those who ‘receive’ the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness. It is they, not ‘all’ who shall reign in life.” (p.167)
However, as we see throughout this entire passage, the contrast is between that which all men receive in Adam and that which all men receive in Christ - the Last Adam (cf. v.19). The word “receive” is the Greek word lambano, which has two distinct usages: 1) to actively take or receive, or 2) to receive as a passive recipient. The context must determine whether the receiving is passive or active. For example, in several New Testament passages we see that the recipient must receive something he did not even desire to receive, such as a just reward for his disobedience (Heb 2:2), or a greater judgment (Luke 20:47). In other instances, the recipient receives that which he was not even anticipating. For example, everyone in Cornelius’ house was surprised when the Gentiles suddenly received the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47). In these examples it is obvious that the recipient is passive.
The highly esteemed Greek scholar Marvin Vincent correctly applies the passive meaning to Romans 5:17. He says: “They which receive (hoi lambanontes). Not ‘believingly accept,’ but simply ‘the recipients.” [3] Although he does not go into further detail, his rendering of lambano in the passive sense is necessitated by the context. The contrast throughout is between what all men receive in Adam as opposed to what all men receive in Christ - the Last Adam. As all men passively receive death, condemnation and bondage to sin through the one man’s disobedience, even so all receive life, justification, and dominion restored, through the one man, Christ.
However, that being said, even as not every man experientially entered into Adam’s death, condemnation and bondage to sin at the moment Adam sinned, in like manner, not everyone experientially received life, justification or dominion restored at the moment when Christ - the Last Adam, died and rose from the dead. Even as man must be born into Adam to experience the death, condemnation and bondage to sin he brought upon us all, so also must every man be made alive or born again before experientially entering into that justification and dominion which every man received when Christ the Last Adam died and rose again. Of the Last Adam’s death and resurrection, it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (1Cor 15:45). And again, “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” (1Cor 15:22).
To me, once again, much of De Young’s confusion is due to his failure to distinguish between “already” and “not yet.” Christ already tasted death for everyone and reconciled the world unto Himself (Heb 2:9; 2Cor 5:14,19). While it is true that no one personally and experientially receives the benefits of justification, sanctification or being made alive in Christ until they have believed on Him for salvation, what we see is that all, in due time, will come to faith in Christ and will submit to Him. Every tongue will eventually confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God. In Christ all will eventually be made alive. At present only those who receive Him are born again and justified and are being sanctified to be received unto Him at His coming, but in due time all will be reunited in Christ – justified, sanctified and subjected to Him as Lord.
De Young rightly points out according to Romans 6 that no individual can be said to be “in Christ” until he has believed and been baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit. However, Romans 5 is referring to Christ’s one-time sacrifice for Adam’s race when He took away the sins of the whole world 2,000 years ago. All humanity was in Christ at the cross even though one is not yet in Him experientially until the day of his visitation. De Young reads Romans 5 and 1Corinthians 15:22 as though it read “all in Christ” rather than “in Christ all.” If you are looking at the present state, obviously all have not yet been baptized into Christ. However, “in Christ all” who were condemned and died in Adam will be justified and made alive once all have been reunited in Christ in the dispensation of the fullness of the times (Eph 1:10).
That Romans 5 declares a universal reversal of the fall, resulting in the final restoration of all, is even more evident when we consider 1Corinthians 15:22 in its context. He uses the same “as” – “even so” comparison to contrast what the first Adam lost for all, with what Christ, the Last Adam restored to the same all:
“For as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ ALL shall be made alive.” (1 Cor 15:22)
The obvious meaning is that the same all who died in Adam will also be made alive in Christ. This is even more evident when we consider the end result of Christ’s reign. After saying that Christ will reign until all enemies are under His feet (which we have already seen in the previous session to be speaking of willful submission on the part of His enemies), Paul concludes by telling us that Christ will then in turn subject Himself to the Father with the final result that God will be all in all.
“Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” (1Cor 15:28)
Obviously, it isn’t possible for God to be “all in all” without a universal reversal of the fall, with all who had their beginning in Him returning to Him (Rom 11:36) - without all first being reunited in Christ (Eph 1:10) and restored (Acts 3:21). So, how does De Young attempt to resolve this obvious contradiction for the Traditional doctrine of eternal torments? Just as with Romans 5, he argues that the “all” who will be made alive in Christ is less than the “all” who die in Adam. He says:
“…the ‘all’ (‘in Christ all will be made alive’) must refer only to those who have believed in Christ.” p. 168
So, based upon the Traditional presupposition that many are eternally lost, in spite of the obvious parallel language (“as all – even so all”), he must argue that the second “all” only refers those of Adam’s race who have truly believed in Christ in a saving manner before dying.
However, since there is such a disparity between those who die in Adam and those who receive Christ during their lifetime, he seeks to mitigate the disastrous implications by minimizing the number of those who have died in history without believing on Him. He says:
“Statistics show that about 2.7 billion are Christians today…probably well over 50% of the world’s population, now and in the past, will or have gone to heaven. It may be well over 70%.” p.240
This is a common Traditionalist argument. However, it is riddled with problems. In the first place, De Young himself recognizes that one must be born again in order to be in Christ and saved. [4] We all know that the majority of professing Christians have never truly been born again and therefore die in a lost state in spite of their profession. When you add to that those throughout history who never heard the gospel or rejected the gospel, we would be generous in saying that 10% of mankind actually died in Christ.
Jesus Himself, when asked if only a few would be saved, implies that very few find the narrow gate leading to life this side of the grave (Matt 7:13-14; Luke 13:22-30). For them to argue that most will be saved in this life is to contradict Jesus’ own words and is inconsistent with what they themselves actually believe.
Also, if just one soul were to be tormented forever it would not make it less unthinkable and horrendous. And if even one were to be eternally lost and in a state of endless separation it could not be said of God that He is all in all. And if “all in all” really only means “all in some” then language becomes meaningless and we are wasting our time studying the Scriptures. Nevertheless, De Young at one point attempts to argue from the context that even the second all, in “all in all,” doesn’t have to mean literally “all.” He says:
“Even Scripture acknowledges explicitly that ‘all’ has exceptions. When Paul the Apostle writes that ‘all will be subjected to God (Christ?)’ (1 Cor 15:27) he goes on to immediately add: ‘But when he says all things are put in subjection,’ it is evident that he is excepted who put all things in subjection to him.’ In other words, when Scripture says that all things are subjected to Christ, God who subjects the ‘all things’ to Christ is an exception to these words.” p.186 (parenthesis mine)
I believe he meant to say, “all will be subjected to Christ” and not to God the Father (cf. Ps 8:5-6). However, this argument is erroneous in more than one way. It is a basic rule of language that all means “all” unless there is something specific in the context which would limit its scope. Also, when Paul says that the Father was the only exception to the all being subjected to Christ, it is actually an emphatic way of saying, “absolutely all of creation,” since it emphasizes that God the Father was the only exception to the “all” that will be subjected to Christ.
De Young, as with all Traditionalists, have great difficulty trying to reconcile this passage with eternal torment for the majority since it clearly teaches that all in Adam will be restored in Christ and become subject to Him, resulting in God being all in all. He seems to be undecided as to what to do with this passage. In the above quote he tries to argue that there is an exception to “all,” implying that it only includes some people or those who believe on Christ in this life. At another point he seems to switch to the argument that it doesn’t refer to people at all, but rather to an impersonal state or condition. He says:
“The verses say that when all things are subjected to Christ he will himself be subjected to the Father who caused all to be subjected to Christ ‘so that God may be all in all’ (vv. 26-28). These final words depict the final state; no other condition is foreseen. It means, therefore, that some are in everlasting subjection and conquest. This can hardly be a ‘loving embrace of Jesus Christ.’” p.220
If I understand Him, he seems to be saying that God becoming all in all is accomplished by all having been brought into subjection, either willingly or unwillingly. In that “final state” He will have received unto Himself those who willingly subjected themselves to Christ and the rest will be confined to eternal torments. So, once again we see that De Young depersonalizes the restoration of all, making it out to be nothing more than the restoration of an impersonal condition or state, rather than the restoration of all people as the result of Christ having drawn all unto Himself, just as Jesus Himself said He would do (Jn 12:32).
If God will not be all in all people but simply all in all things, how could God be said to be all in all that which is inanimate, given that evil and hell are inanimate? If He is all in all in every state and condition rather than all in all people, and hell and evil are an eternal state, will He then eternally inhabit evil and hell? To me, this creates more problems than it solves. No matter how Traditionalists look at it, they are confronted with an eternal dualism in which God Himself perpetuates evil in an unending hell. At least the Annihilationists resolve this dilemma by presenting God as exterminating the opposition, thereby becoming “all in all of those who survive.”
Another suggestion given by him as to the meaning of 1Corinthians 15:28 is also confusing to me but only illustrates the extremes to which Traditionalists will go in order to deny the restoration of all. He says:
“It is also possible that this text means that there is not eternal subjection, but at a point of “time” in the future God as Father, Son and Spirit is ‘all in all.’” p. 28
Apparently, what De Young is suggesting here is that once all has been subjected to Christ, there will be a brief moment when every knee bows, and for that brief moment, before those forced to bow to Him against their will are cast into an eternal hell, God will be all in all. But in what sense could God be said to be “all in” the unrepentant, even for that brief moment before casting them into hell? Will they also be forced to receive Him into their lives?
The obvious thrust of the passage is upon the restoration of all of mankind, reversing the fall and reuniting all back into oneness with God through Christ - the Last Adam. That the subjection of all is voluntary is also indicated by the fact that the same word used for the subjection of Christ to the Father (hupotaso) is used 4 other times in just 2 verses referring to all the rest who will become subject to Him:
“For He has put (subjected ‘Gr. hupotaso’) all things under His feet. But when He says ‘all things are put (hupotaso) under Him,’ it is evident that He who put (hupotaso) all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject (hupotaso) to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject (hupotaso) to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” (1Cor 15:27,28)
It follows that if the subjection is voluntary on the part of Christ, then it will also be voluntary on the part of all the others. That the subjection of all which results in God being all in all is a voluntary subjection, is also seen by the progression of the entire passage. It begins by saying: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order” (1 Cor 15:22-23a). This speaks of an order or succession of individuals who will be made alive when their ordained time comes, just as we see in Acts 13:48 where it says: “And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Both words “order” and “appointed” refer to a prearranged order or succession. Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved but we do not truly call upon Him until we are at the end of ourselves. Each individual has his own order. Some are more self-willed and obstinate than others and for that reason some are slower to respond to the gospel since God waits until we are at the end of ourselves and only then draws us unto Himself.
The traditional interpretation doesn’t acknowledge this order or succession. They only include the rest of the verse which says: “Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming.”
This does not fulfill the statement: “each one in his own order.” This only speaks of Christ the firstfruits and the Church or the Firstfruits Company, who will take part in the first resurrection. (James 1:18) We are the first to trust in Christ and the “firstborn ones” of the new creation (Eph 1:12; Heb 12:23 lit.). The phrase, “each one in his own order,” refers to the residue of men or the rest of mankind who will be made alive individually when it is their time.
The following verse says: “Then comes the end (telos), when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.” The word translated “end” is telos which means: end, conclusion, fulfillment or final result. I think that perhaps the best way to understand “the end,” telos in this context is, “then comes the fulfillment.” In other words, it speaks of the fulfillment of the declaration that all will be made alive in Christ and not just the firstfruits or those that are Christ’s at His coming. This is verified by looking at the verses that follow, declaring that Christ will continue reigning until every enemy has been destroyed (Gr. katargéo “render null or void” v.26), and all have become subject to Him. It says that the last enemy to be destroyed will be death. That cannot happen until all have been made alive in Christ.
Traditionalists are shortsighted when they try to cut the timeline short at the Second Coming of Christ, or even after the millennium. In 1Corinthians 15 we see that Christ will continue reigning until all have been made subject to Him and God becomes all in all. That will hardly be the case at the Second Coming of Christ or even after the Millennium which is followed by Satan’s final rebellion and the White Throne Judgment (Rev 20:7-9). Actually, we see that the times of the restoration of all doesn’t even begin until the Second Coming of Christ (Acts 3:21). It is in the dispensation of the fullness of the times that all are reunited in Him (Eph 1:10) and not before His return. It is in the coming ages that the Church – the firstfruits, will be put on display to show God’s grace to the rest of creation through us (Eph 2:7).
So, we have seen that Christ’s work on the cross was a universal reversal of the results of the one act of disobedience that caused the fall, the entrance of sin, death and condemnation to all Adam’s race. Christ, the Last Adam, restores all that the first Adam lost and much, much more. All who died in Adam will finally be made alive because of the cross. It is something “already” accomplished but “not yet” since not all have subjected themselves to Christ. However, all will be made alive, reversing the fall, but “each one in his own order.” It is precisely because the subjection must be voluntary and not obligated that all have “not yet” been restored.
[1] from Barnes' Notes on1Corinthians 15:22
[2] Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, Romans 5:17
[3] Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, Romans 5:17
[4] De Young says: “One needs merely to be born to be in Adam and under judgment; but one needs to be born again to be in the kingdom of Christ (John 3:5-8).” p.213
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
by George Sidney Hurd
--
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism” by James B. De Young
In previous articles we have seen the universality of God’s restoration, having reconciled all unto Himself by the blood of the cross of Christ. We saw that all who sinned, died and were condemned in Adam are made alive, justified and reunited to God in Christ – the Last Adam.
Another term which is universally applied to all of mankind in Scripture is “salvation.” Jesus is the “Savior of the world” (Jn 4:42). This was the declaration made by the Samaritans after listening to Jesus’ own words. The Samaritans understood what many fail to see to this very day. The Jews of that time thought that the Messiah would only be the Savior of Israel. Likewise, many within the Church today believe He is only the Savior of the Church - the elect firstfruits of this age. But these despised Samaritans seem to have been the first to really understand that Jesus is “indeed” the Savior of the whole world and not just the elect.
In spite of so many clear declarations of Scripture concerning the salvation of the whole world, Traditionalists limit salvation so as to only include those who are privileged to hear, perceive and respond to the gospel in this age. In order to do this, they must limit the words “all” and “world” every time they are used in reference to Christ’s work on the cross. De Young says concerning the word “all” in these contexts: “‘all’ really means ‘many’ or ‘all who believe’” (p.186). However, we have already seen that “all” always means “all” unless there is a qualifying statement in the context which limits “all.” For example, when Jesus said, “all who are weary and burdened,” or “all who are in the house” it is clearly limited to all within a subgroup of humanity. But in the absence of such limiting categorizations within the immediate context we normally understand that “all” means “all without exception.” However, the passages we are considering concerning the universal scope of Christ’s work upon the cross are so emphatically and specifically inclusive of “all” in the absolute sense of the word as to make any attempt to limit “all” to “some” irrational. Rather than interpreting the text, we end up manipulating the text, thereby invalidating the Scriptures in order to maintain our traditions.
In the same manner that he attempts to limit “all” to only mean “some” when referring to the scope of Christ’s redemptive work on the cross, De Young also seems to limit the term “world” in such a way as to only include those who believe and receive Christ in this life. He says:
“He gave himself in Christ, his unique Son, to reconcile the world to himself; and this purpose is accomplished for the ‘world’ that will believe and receive Christ.” p.239 (emphasis mine)
Here, commenting on 2Corinthians 5:18-21, he seeks to limit the reconciliation accomplished for the “world” so as to only include “the ‘world’ that will believe.” However, in the context it is clear that the reconciliation was accomplished for the whole world and not merely those who are privileged to hear and believe the gospel in this life. We see that the whole world was reconciled unto God at the cross and we as believers are only a subgroup of the world who have been called out and commissioned to make the good news of God’s accomplished reconciliatory work known to the rest of the world, calling upon all to correspond to God’s reconciliation by becoming reconciled unto God in their hearts.
While it is true that reconciliation will not be fully realized until all are reconciled unto God in their hearts, God has sworn by Himself that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord and will swear saying, “Surely in the Lord I have righteousness and strength.” (Phil 2:10-11; Isa 45:24). While not all have yet responded, Christ remains the propitiatory sacrifice which opened the way of reconciliation – not only for our sins (elect believers of this age) but for the sins of the “whole world” (1John 2:2). This is reiterated for us by Paul in no uncertain terms in 1Timothy 4:9-11 where he says:
“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. 10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe (pistôn “believers”). 11 These things command and teach.” (1Tim 4:9-11)
This is a very difficult verse for Partialists who insist that only the elect believers of this age will ever be saved. It clearly says that, although believers are saved in a special sense, God will nevertheless save all men and not just those who believe in this age.
In what sense is the salvation of those who are believers in this life special as compared with the rest? In every way! In the first place they have the privilege of being the firstfruits, taking part in the first resurrection which occurs at the Second Coming of Christ (Rev 20:5-6). They will then reign with Christ over the sheep of the nations for 1,000 years while the goats, who were not believers and did not aid Christ’s brethren in tribulation, must undergo eonian correction (kolasin aionion) in eonian fire (pur aionion) in hades along with the rest of the unbelieving dead (Matt 25:41,46).
When the thousand years are ended, death and hades will give up the dead for judgment and those not found written in the book of life at that time will be cast into the purifying Lake of Fire in order to undergo the second death which believers already submitted themselves to in life (John 12:25; Rev 2:11). The Lake of Fire, rightly understood, is not a literal lake of fire but rather the Refiner’s crucible. I explain this in more detail in my blog: “Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire.” They will be judged each one “according to their works” receiving “their part” in the Lake of Fire. They will not get out “until” they have fulfilled their part. Some will receive “few lashes” and others “many lashes” but no one will receive eternal lashes (Luke 12:47-48). The end of the Lord is restoration – not eternal torture.
Therefore, while God finally saves all, blessed are those who undergo the second death to self and the flesh in this life and have part in the first resurrection. While it is true that all will ultimately be saved, who in their right mind would choose to forfeit the first resurrection, having to undergo eonian correction and the second death before finally being restored sometime after the age to come or the Millennium? God is the Savior of all men, but especially of believers.
De Young poses a couple of options to accepting this passage at face value. First, He attempts to argue that the word “especially” could be rendered as “namely” or “I mean,” thereby presenting Paul as pausing mid-sentence to clarify that he didn’t really mean to say that absolutely “all” would be saved but only those who believe. He says:
“the word for ‘especially’ may be better rendered ‘namely, I mean’; and this meaning fits with all its other occurrences in the Pastoral Epistles. Hence, the verse would read: the Savior of all people, namely of those who believe.’” p.172 (emphasis mine)
However, De Young is here attempting to force a meaning upon the word “especially” (Gr. malista) which is foreign to the real meaning of the word. The word malista is the superlative of mala which means “very.” For this reason, no Greek lexicon presents “namely” or “I mean” as alternate meanings for malista, since such a meaning is completely distinct.
Secondly, it is not true that “namely” or “I mean” can be made to fit the other occurrences of the word in Paul’s epistles or in any other of its occurrences in the New Testament. The word appears 12 times in the New Testament and 9 times in Paul’s epistles. In every instance it is obvious that the reading “namely” or “I mean” would alter the intended meaning. Here are just a few examples:
“As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially (“I mean?”) unto them who are of the household of faith.” (Gal 6:10)
“All the saints greet you, but especially (“I mean?”) those who are of Caesar's household.” (Phil 4:22)
“no longer as a slave but more than a slave — a beloved brother, especially (“I mean?”) to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” (Philem 16)
While one may be able to insert “I mean” instead of “especially” in some of the passages where malista occurs, it cannot be done without changing the intended meaning. De Young seems to recognize this and in a desperate attempt to make the passage say something less than the salvation of all, says:
“Alternately, the word ‘Savior’ may refer, not to personal salvation in a redemptive sense, but to Jesus Christ as the Lord of all, by forceful confession, parallel to Philippians 2:10,11.” p.215 (emphasis mine)
It should be obvious that He is not the “Savior” of someone whom He does not save but rather forces to call Him Savior before being cast away from His presence forever. And neither does Philippians 2:10-11 refer to a forced confession since Paul says that no one can call Jesus Lord except by the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12:3). Will the Holy Spirit enable the condemned to confess Him as Lord only to cast them away forever? Wouldn’t the revelation that Jesus is Lord and Savior result in one’s confession unto salvation?
That Paul meant to say that God was the Savior of all men, especially of believers rather than exclusively of believers is also made clear by Paul’s earlier reference to the universal scope of salvation in chapter two of the same epistle. He said:
“who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom FOR ALL, to be testified in due time.” (1Tim 2:4-6)
I establish in my book, “The Triumph of Mercy,” that God’s will for the salvation of all mankind referred to here is not merely a wish or a desire but is rather a determinative will, which ultimately cannot be frustrated. Also, we see that, to that end, Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all, albeit not testified to and applied to all at once but to each individual in due time. At present we do “not yet” see all mankind as redeemed, but in “due time” we will all understand that all were redeemed at the cross. De Young’s statement, “God’s redemptive or salvific work must be limited to those who receive Christ” (p.186), will one day be shown to be only a half-truth, because all shall one day receive Him in the day of their visitation.
Another universal salvation passage which Traditionalists haven’t been able to reconcile with their belief that most will be eternally lost is John 12:32. Jesus said:
“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” (John 12:32)
There are several ways in which Traditionalists attempt to avoid the obvious conclusion of this verse. Here, the Calvinist translators for the New King James Version added the word “peoples” to “all,” enabling them to say that Jesus only meant that He would effectually draw some from all peoples or people groups unto Himself. The King James Version only adds “men,” to “all,” which is preferable since it would include all mankind, resulting in all being reunited in Christ in the end, in the dispensation of the fulness of the times (Eph 1:10). However, since this would imply universal salvation, many Traditionalists seek to diminish the efficacy of Christ’s drawing power.
De Young argues that the word “draw” (helkô) is not an effectual drawing but merely “the pull on a person’s inner life” (p.167) which can be resisted, and indeed, according to Traditionalists, will be successfully resisted by most until they die, at which time His drawing ministry forever ceases.
However, defining helkô as merely a resistible pull on one’s inner life fails to capture the true significance of the word. All of the eight occurrences of the word helkô in the New Testament speak of something or someone being drawn by a force greater than their/its ability to resist. Here are a few examples:
“Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken.” (John 21:11)
“… they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities.” (Acts 16:19)
“…. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts?” (James 2:6)
“Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear.” (John 18:10)
In every instance the force which is drawing is greater than the resistance of the person or object being drawn. There is one other instance where helkô is used referring to people who are seen to be drawn in an effectual and irresistible way, clearly resulting in salvation. Jesus said:
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.45 …Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” (John 6:44,45)
Most would understand this to be an effectual drawing or irresistible grace which without fail results in salvation since all who are drawn come to Him and will be raised up at the last day. Yet this is the same word helkô used to speak of Christ drawing all unto Himself in John 12:32. All of mankind are equally lost and in need of God’s effectual drawing and irresistible grace in order to be saved. And in His time God will remove the veil covering all people and not merely the elect of this age (Isa 25:6-8).
Jesus, as the Good Shepherd, came to seek out and save all those who are lost (Luke 19:10). Will Christ somehow settle for finding and saving only some of the lost? Jesus is very emphatic in stating that He will continue seeking until he has found the very last lost sheep:
“What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?” (Luke 15:4)
In spite of this clear declaration that Jesus will continue seeking and saving until He finds the last lost sheep, De Young denies that Jesus actually meant that He would persist in seeking the lost until all are in the fold. He says:
“The idea…that the Seeker continues to seek until he finds… goes beyond the parable which only expresses the Lord’s intent or purpose.” p.181 (emphasis mine)
Does he mean to say by this that Christ will somehow not be able to accomplish His intent and purpose to find and save every lost sheep? I see in Jesus’ words a determination to continue seeking and saving until all have been drawn unto Himself and the last lost soul has been saved, confessing Him as Lord.
Jesus said that the thief of the sheep comes to rob, kill and destroy His sheep, but He came that His sheep might have life – a life that “super-abounds” (perissos) (John 10:10). This corresponds with Romans 5:15-21 where Paul uses cognates of the same word: (perisseuo, “super-abound” and huperperisseuo “super, super-abound), to describe the exceeding greatness of the universal reversal to that which was lost in Adam through the seduction of Satan - the thief of the sheep. In and through Christ - the Last Adam and the Good Shepherd, all who were lost in Adam will in the end be found and restored safe in His fold.
While Christ’s sheep of this age only consist of the elect firstfruits, Jesus said that He had other sheep who were not yet of His fold:
“And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” (John 10:16)
Once the Good Shepherd has sought and found the last lost sheep, there will only be one flock because Jesus will have drawn all mankind unto Himself! This refers to “the residue of men” or “the rest of mankind” who will be reunited in Christ in the dispensation of the fullness of the times or the times of the restoration of all, which goes beyond what we are seeing in this present age, and begins when the Deliverer comes out of Zion and restores Israel:
“Now if their (Israel’s) fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!... 15 For if their (Israel’s) being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (Rom 11:12,15)
“After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up; 17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord who does all these things. 18 Known to God from eternity are all His works.” (Acts 15:16-18)
If Israel’s fall is bringing about the fullness of the elect Gentiles of this present age, how much more, says Paul, will their full restitution bring salvation to the rest of the Gentiles? Acts 15 prophecies concerning this time when Christ will return, and worship will be restored in Jerusalem “so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord even all the Gentiles who are called by His Name.” And how many will be called by His name in the end? All – absolutely all will turn to the Lord in those days, as the Psalmist declares:
“All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and ALL THE FAMILIES of the nations shall worship before You.” (Psalm 22:27)
In Conclusion, while it must be emphasized that there is only one way back to the Father and there is only one name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12), in the end all will have been drawn unto Christ, confessing Him as Lord. De Young misrepresents Biblical Universalism when he generalizes, saying: “By its very definition, ‘universalism’ reaches beyond any one way of salvation” p.251. This is not true. Conservative Evangelical Universalists firmly believe that Jesus is the only way. But they also believe that Jesus will successfully draw all unto Himself and will find and save even the last solitary lost sheep. We believe that Jesus will successfully accomplish what He came to do – He is truly the Savior of the world.
De Young asks: “Why is there such an infinite cost requiring the death of the incarnate Son if in the end all reach heaven anyway?” p.247. The answer to this question should be obvious. If He hadn’t given His life a ransom for all, taking away the sins of the world, not even the greatest saint could ever reach heaven, since we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. But if He made propitiation for the whole world, and He is mighty to save, then why wouldn’t He seek out and save all?
De Young assumes that Jesus would eternally exclude some. While I consider the texts which seem to exclude some in my book, “The Triumph of Mercy,” and space doesn’t allow me to enter into detail in this blog, I would like to consider just one more statement made by De Young. He mentions what he calls “an out group” in Matthew 7:21 which speaks of many who will be initially excluded from the kingdom, and then says:
“Thus universalism is more inclusive than Jesus is for he would exclude the Pharisees but universalism would include them.” p. 77
While exclusion from the kingdom is the subject of another article, the exclusion cannot be eternal since Jesus elsewhere indicates that even the Pharisees, who are initially excluded from the kingdom, will eventually enter it. Jesus said to them:
“Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God BEFORE YOU. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him.” (Matt 21:31-32)
Jesus here tells the Pharisees that the tax collectors and harlots will precede them into the kingdom of God. The word “before” is proago, which is defined in Strong’s as, “to precede in place or time.” Would Jesus tell the Pharisees that the tax collectors and harlots would enter the kingdom “before them” if in reality they would never enter into the kingdom of God at all? Is Jesus only the Savior of those who, like the tax collectors and harlots, believe within their lifetime, or is He the Savior of all, albeit especially of believers? He is indeed the Savior of the whole world, and in due time all will look to Him and be saved! (Isa 45:22).
--
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism” by James B. De Young
In previous articles we have seen the universality of God’s restoration, having reconciled all unto Himself by the blood of the cross of Christ. We saw that all who sinned, died and were condemned in Adam are made alive, justified and reunited to God in Christ – the Last Adam.
Another term which is universally applied to all of mankind in Scripture is “salvation.” Jesus is the “Savior of the world” (Jn 4:42). This was the declaration made by the Samaritans after listening to Jesus’ own words. The Samaritans understood what many fail to see to this very day. The Jews of that time thought that the Messiah would only be the Savior of Israel. Likewise, many within the Church today believe He is only the Savior of the Church - the elect firstfruits of this age. But these despised Samaritans seem to have been the first to really understand that Jesus is “indeed” the Savior of the whole world and not just the elect.
In spite of so many clear declarations of Scripture concerning the salvation of the whole world, Traditionalists limit salvation so as to only include those who are privileged to hear, perceive and respond to the gospel in this age. In order to do this, they must limit the words “all” and “world” every time they are used in reference to Christ’s work on the cross. De Young says concerning the word “all” in these contexts: “‘all’ really means ‘many’ or ‘all who believe’” (p.186). However, we have already seen that “all” always means “all” unless there is a qualifying statement in the context which limits “all.” For example, when Jesus said, “all who are weary and burdened,” or “all who are in the house” it is clearly limited to all within a subgroup of humanity. But in the absence of such limiting categorizations within the immediate context we normally understand that “all” means “all without exception.” However, the passages we are considering concerning the universal scope of Christ’s work upon the cross are so emphatically and specifically inclusive of “all” in the absolute sense of the word as to make any attempt to limit “all” to “some” irrational. Rather than interpreting the text, we end up manipulating the text, thereby invalidating the Scriptures in order to maintain our traditions.
In the same manner that he attempts to limit “all” to only mean “some” when referring to the scope of Christ’s redemptive work on the cross, De Young also seems to limit the term “world” in such a way as to only include those who believe and receive Christ in this life. He says:
“He gave himself in Christ, his unique Son, to reconcile the world to himself; and this purpose is accomplished for the ‘world’ that will believe and receive Christ.” p.239 (emphasis mine)
Here, commenting on 2Corinthians 5:18-21, he seeks to limit the reconciliation accomplished for the “world” so as to only include “the ‘world’ that will believe.” However, in the context it is clear that the reconciliation was accomplished for the whole world and not merely those who are privileged to hear and believe the gospel in this life. We see that the whole world was reconciled unto God at the cross and we as believers are only a subgroup of the world who have been called out and commissioned to make the good news of God’s accomplished reconciliatory work known to the rest of the world, calling upon all to correspond to God’s reconciliation by becoming reconciled unto God in their hearts.
While it is true that reconciliation will not be fully realized until all are reconciled unto God in their hearts, God has sworn by Himself that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord and will swear saying, “Surely in the Lord I have righteousness and strength.” (Phil 2:10-11; Isa 45:24). While not all have yet responded, Christ remains the propitiatory sacrifice which opened the way of reconciliation – not only for our sins (elect believers of this age) but for the sins of the “whole world” (1John 2:2). This is reiterated for us by Paul in no uncertain terms in 1Timothy 4:9-11 where he says:
“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. 10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe (pistôn “believers”). 11 These things command and teach.” (1Tim 4:9-11)
This is a very difficult verse for Partialists who insist that only the elect believers of this age will ever be saved. It clearly says that, although believers are saved in a special sense, God will nevertheless save all men and not just those who believe in this age.
In what sense is the salvation of those who are believers in this life special as compared with the rest? In every way! In the first place they have the privilege of being the firstfruits, taking part in the first resurrection which occurs at the Second Coming of Christ (Rev 20:5-6). They will then reign with Christ over the sheep of the nations for 1,000 years while the goats, who were not believers and did not aid Christ’s brethren in tribulation, must undergo eonian correction (kolasin aionion) in eonian fire (pur aionion) in hades along with the rest of the unbelieving dead (Matt 25:41,46).
When the thousand years are ended, death and hades will give up the dead for judgment and those not found written in the book of life at that time will be cast into the purifying Lake of Fire in order to undergo the second death which believers already submitted themselves to in life (John 12:25; Rev 2:11). The Lake of Fire, rightly understood, is not a literal lake of fire but rather the Refiner’s crucible. I explain this in more detail in my blog: “Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire.” They will be judged each one “according to their works” receiving “their part” in the Lake of Fire. They will not get out “until” they have fulfilled their part. Some will receive “few lashes” and others “many lashes” but no one will receive eternal lashes (Luke 12:47-48). The end of the Lord is restoration – not eternal torture.
Therefore, while God finally saves all, blessed are those who undergo the second death to self and the flesh in this life and have part in the first resurrection. While it is true that all will ultimately be saved, who in their right mind would choose to forfeit the first resurrection, having to undergo eonian correction and the second death before finally being restored sometime after the age to come or the Millennium? God is the Savior of all men, but especially of believers.
De Young poses a couple of options to accepting this passage at face value. First, He attempts to argue that the word “especially” could be rendered as “namely” or “I mean,” thereby presenting Paul as pausing mid-sentence to clarify that he didn’t really mean to say that absolutely “all” would be saved but only those who believe. He says:
“the word for ‘especially’ may be better rendered ‘namely, I mean’; and this meaning fits with all its other occurrences in the Pastoral Epistles. Hence, the verse would read: the Savior of all people, namely of those who believe.’” p.172 (emphasis mine)
However, De Young is here attempting to force a meaning upon the word “especially” (Gr. malista) which is foreign to the real meaning of the word. The word malista is the superlative of mala which means “very.” For this reason, no Greek lexicon presents “namely” or “I mean” as alternate meanings for malista, since such a meaning is completely distinct.
Secondly, it is not true that “namely” or “I mean” can be made to fit the other occurrences of the word in Paul’s epistles or in any other of its occurrences in the New Testament. The word appears 12 times in the New Testament and 9 times in Paul’s epistles. In every instance it is obvious that the reading “namely” or “I mean” would alter the intended meaning. Here are just a few examples:
“As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially (“I mean?”) unto them who are of the household of faith.” (Gal 6:10)
- Clearly, he means “all men” but “especially” believers and not “namely,” since that would exclude “all men” except for believers.
“All the saints greet you, but especially (“I mean?”) those who are of Caesar's household.” (Phil 4:22)
- Why would he bother to say “all the saints” if he only meant those in one household?
“no longer as a slave but more than a slave — a beloved brother, especially (“I mean?”) to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” (Philem 16)
- Was Onesimus, who was Philemon’s runaway slave, returning to Philemon, a beloved brother only to Paul and not to Philemon, or to both but especially to Paul, since he introduced him to the Lord in prison?
While one may be able to insert “I mean” instead of “especially” in some of the passages where malista occurs, it cannot be done without changing the intended meaning. De Young seems to recognize this and in a desperate attempt to make the passage say something less than the salvation of all, says:
“Alternately, the word ‘Savior’ may refer, not to personal salvation in a redemptive sense, but to Jesus Christ as the Lord of all, by forceful confession, parallel to Philippians 2:10,11.” p.215 (emphasis mine)
It should be obvious that He is not the “Savior” of someone whom He does not save but rather forces to call Him Savior before being cast away from His presence forever. And neither does Philippians 2:10-11 refer to a forced confession since Paul says that no one can call Jesus Lord except by the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12:3). Will the Holy Spirit enable the condemned to confess Him as Lord only to cast them away forever? Wouldn’t the revelation that Jesus is Lord and Savior result in one’s confession unto salvation?
That Paul meant to say that God was the Savior of all men, especially of believers rather than exclusively of believers is also made clear by Paul’s earlier reference to the universal scope of salvation in chapter two of the same epistle. He said:
“who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom FOR ALL, to be testified in due time.” (1Tim 2:4-6)
I establish in my book, “The Triumph of Mercy,” that God’s will for the salvation of all mankind referred to here is not merely a wish or a desire but is rather a determinative will, which ultimately cannot be frustrated. Also, we see that, to that end, Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all, albeit not testified to and applied to all at once but to each individual in due time. At present we do “not yet” see all mankind as redeemed, but in “due time” we will all understand that all were redeemed at the cross. De Young’s statement, “God’s redemptive or salvific work must be limited to those who receive Christ” (p.186), will one day be shown to be only a half-truth, because all shall one day receive Him in the day of their visitation.
Another universal salvation passage which Traditionalists haven’t been able to reconcile with their belief that most will be eternally lost is John 12:32. Jesus said:
“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” (John 12:32)
There are several ways in which Traditionalists attempt to avoid the obvious conclusion of this verse. Here, the Calvinist translators for the New King James Version added the word “peoples” to “all,” enabling them to say that Jesus only meant that He would effectually draw some from all peoples or people groups unto Himself. The King James Version only adds “men,” to “all,” which is preferable since it would include all mankind, resulting in all being reunited in Christ in the end, in the dispensation of the fulness of the times (Eph 1:10). However, since this would imply universal salvation, many Traditionalists seek to diminish the efficacy of Christ’s drawing power.
De Young argues that the word “draw” (helkô) is not an effectual drawing but merely “the pull on a person’s inner life” (p.167) which can be resisted, and indeed, according to Traditionalists, will be successfully resisted by most until they die, at which time His drawing ministry forever ceases.
However, defining helkô as merely a resistible pull on one’s inner life fails to capture the true significance of the word. All of the eight occurrences of the word helkô in the New Testament speak of something or someone being drawn by a force greater than their/its ability to resist. Here are a few examples:
“Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken.” (John 21:11)
“… they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities.” (Acts 16:19)
“…. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts?” (James 2:6)
“Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear.” (John 18:10)
In every instance the force which is drawing is greater than the resistance of the person or object being drawn. There is one other instance where helkô is used referring to people who are seen to be drawn in an effectual and irresistible way, clearly resulting in salvation. Jesus said:
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.45 …Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” (John 6:44,45)
Most would understand this to be an effectual drawing or irresistible grace which without fail results in salvation since all who are drawn come to Him and will be raised up at the last day. Yet this is the same word helkô used to speak of Christ drawing all unto Himself in John 12:32. All of mankind are equally lost and in need of God’s effectual drawing and irresistible grace in order to be saved. And in His time God will remove the veil covering all people and not merely the elect of this age (Isa 25:6-8).
Jesus, as the Good Shepherd, came to seek out and save all those who are lost (Luke 19:10). Will Christ somehow settle for finding and saving only some of the lost? Jesus is very emphatic in stating that He will continue seeking until he has found the very last lost sheep:
“What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?” (Luke 15:4)
In spite of this clear declaration that Jesus will continue seeking and saving until He finds the last lost sheep, De Young denies that Jesus actually meant that He would persist in seeking the lost until all are in the fold. He says:
“The idea…that the Seeker continues to seek until he finds… goes beyond the parable which only expresses the Lord’s intent or purpose.” p.181 (emphasis mine)
Does he mean to say by this that Christ will somehow not be able to accomplish His intent and purpose to find and save every lost sheep? I see in Jesus’ words a determination to continue seeking and saving until all have been drawn unto Himself and the last lost soul has been saved, confessing Him as Lord.
Jesus said that the thief of the sheep comes to rob, kill and destroy His sheep, but He came that His sheep might have life – a life that “super-abounds” (perissos) (John 10:10). This corresponds with Romans 5:15-21 where Paul uses cognates of the same word: (perisseuo, “super-abound” and huperperisseuo “super, super-abound), to describe the exceeding greatness of the universal reversal to that which was lost in Adam through the seduction of Satan - the thief of the sheep. In and through Christ - the Last Adam and the Good Shepherd, all who were lost in Adam will in the end be found and restored safe in His fold.
While Christ’s sheep of this age only consist of the elect firstfruits, Jesus said that He had other sheep who were not yet of His fold:
“And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” (John 10:16)
Once the Good Shepherd has sought and found the last lost sheep, there will only be one flock because Jesus will have drawn all mankind unto Himself! This refers to “the residue of men” or “the rest of mankind” who will be reunited in Christ in the dispensation of the fullness of the times or the times of the restoration of all, which goes beyond what we are seeing in this present age, and begins when the Deliverer comes out of Zion and restores Israel:
“Now if their (Israel’s) fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!... 15 For if their (Israel’s) being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (Rom 11:12,15)
“After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up; 17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord who does all these things. 18 Known to God from eternity are all His works.” (Acts 15:16-18)
If Israel’s fall is bringing about the fullness of the elect Gentiles of this present age, how much more, says Paul, will their full restitution bring salvation to the rest of the Gentiles? Acts 15 prophecies concerning this time when Christ will return, and worship will be restored in Jerusalem “so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord even all the Gentiles who are called by His Name.” And how many will be called by His name in the end? All – absolutely all will turn to the Lord in those days, as the Psalmist declares:
“All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and ALL THE FAMILIES of the nations shall worship before You.” (Psalm 22:27)
In Conclusion, while it must be emphasized that there is only one way back to the Father and there is only one name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (John 14:6; Acts 4:12), in the end all will have been drawn unto Christ, confessing Him as Lord. De Young misrepresents Biblical Universalism when he generalizes, saying: “By its very definition, ‘universalism’ reaches beyond any one way of salvation” p.251. This is not true. Conservative Evangelical Universalists firmly believe that Jesus is the only way. But they also believe that Jesus will successfully draw all unto Himself and will find and save even the last solitary lost sheep. We believe that Jesus will successfully accomplish what He came to do – He is truly the Savior of the world.
De Young asks: “Why is there such an infinite cost requiring the death of the incarnate Son if in the end all reach heaven anyway?” p.247. The answer to this question should be obvious. If He hadn’t given His life a ransom for all, taking away the sins of the world, not even the greatest saint could ever reach heaven, since we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. But if He made propitiation for the whole world, and He is mighty to save, then why wouldn’t He seek out and save all?
De Young assumes that Jesus would eternally exclude some. While I consider the texts which seem to exclude some in my book, “The Triumph of Mercy,” and space doesn’t allow me to enter into detail in this blog, I would like to consider just one more statement made by De Young. He mentions what he calls “an out group” in Matthew 7:21 which speaks of many who will be initially excluded from the kingdom, and then says:
“Thus universalism is more inclusive than Jesus is for he would exclude the Pharisees but universalism would include them.” p. 77
While exclusion from the kingdom is the subject of another article, the exclusion cannot be eternal since Jesus elsewhere indicates that even the Pharisees, who are initially excluded from the kingdom, will eventually enter it. Jesus said to them:
“Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God BEFORE YOU. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him.” (Matt 21:31-32)
Jesus here tells the Pharisees that the tax collectors and harlots will precede them into the kingdom of God. The word “before” is proago, which is defined in Strong’s as, “to precede in place or time.” Would Jesus tell the Pharisees that the tax collectors and harlots would enter the kingdom “before them” if in reality they would never enter into the kingdom of God at all? Is Jesus only the Savior of those who, like the tax collectors and harlots, believe within their lifetime, or is He the Savior of all, albeit especially of believers? He is indeed the Savior of the whole world, and in due time all will look to Him and be saved! (Isa 45:22).
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
by George Sidney Hurd
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism,” by James B. De Young
What we have been considering in the previous sessions concerning the universal restoration, reconciliation, reversal of the fall and final salvation of all, is only a few of the many passages of Scripture which, to me, clearly speak of a glorious finale for God’s eternal plan for the ages which culminates in Him becoming all in all, and not just all in some, while the vast majority of mankind, created His image and likeness, suffer in perpetual torments. I included in the appendix of my book, “The Triumph of Mercy,” nearly one-hundred passages which either clearly declare or imply the final restoration of all and another fifty passages which imply that punishment will not be eternal.
In spite of this glorious theme of the final restoration of all which is repeatedly set forth in clear terms throughout the entirety of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, many still find it hard to believe that the outworking of God’s eternal plan actually culminates in the final restoration of all where all live happily ever after. The greatest obstacle to embracing a divine story that ends so well for all is one English word: “eternal.” The common English rendering of time-words such as olam in Hebrew and aion with its adjective aionios in Greek as, “eternal,” “forever,” “forever and ever,” “everlasting” or “perpetual,” when referring to postmortem punishment, has greatly distorted our perception of God’s very nature and kept many at a distance, in bondage to fear and often despair.
What many are unaware of or fail to consider is that our modern concept of “eternity” wasn’t even thought of by man until the Greek philosopher Plato set it forth in the third century before Christ. The Jews weren’t introduced to Plato’s concept of eternity until Philo, a Jewish philosopher and contemporary of Jesus, began to popularize it. Plato’s concept of eternity wasn’t articulated by Christian theologians until Augustine, entering into the fifth century. Therefore, in the Scriptures there was no word equivalent to our English word “eternal.” Both olam in Hebrew and aion/aionios in Greek were time-words. [1]
Olam in the Old Testament was used to express an indefinite time period beyond the horizon. At times it was used to refer to indefinite time beyond the past horizon, while other times it referred to indefinite duration of time in the future, but it always spoke of time and not eternity since human language did not yet have a word for eternity. The Encyclopedia of the Bible, Ediciones Garriga S.A. defines olam as follows:
“Olam in the line of duration, indicates times undetermined, remote, obscure, whether it be past or future, the duration of the life of a man or a long extension which comes to designate indefinite duration…. It does not express the platonic and modern concept of eternity.” [2]
Moving forward into the New Testament, the Greek word aion and its adjective aionios continue expressing time and not eternity. Our English equivalents are “eon” and “eonian,” The Merriam – Webster’s Dictionary defines eon as: “an immeasurably or indefinitely long period of time.” Eon has retained to this very day the same basic meaning as it’s Greek derivative aion in the New Testament and in the LXX Greek version of the Old Testament used by Jesus and the Apostles. It refers to the longest measurement of time, but time nonetheless, and not eternity. In contrast, our word “eternal” is from the later Latin aeternus and is defined as “everlasting, perpetual, timeless.” But it can be demonstrated that not even the Latin aeternus exclusively meant eternal until after Augustine’s time.
One of the most distinguished Greek scholars of recent times, Marvin Vincent, D.D. in His Greek commentary, Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, explains the following about aión and aionios:
“Aión transliterated ‘aeon,’ is a period of time of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle...says: ‘The period which includes the whole time of each one's life is called the aeon of each one.’ Hence, it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one's life aión is said to leave him or to consume away... It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millennium; the mythological period before the beginnings of history. The word has not ‘a stationary and mechanical value.’ It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There are as many aeons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities. There is one aeon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow's life, another of an oak's life. The length of the aeon depends on the subject to which it is attached… The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting...
The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of ‘endless or everlasting.’ They may acquire that sense by their connotation, as, on the other hand, aidíos, which means ‘everlasting,’ has its meaning limited to a given point of time in Jude 6. Aionios means ‘enduring through or pertaining to a period of time.’ Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods. Thus, the phrase eis ton aiona, habitually rendered ‘forever,’ is often used of duration which is limited in the very nature of the case... The same is true of aionios. Out of 150 instances in the Septuagint, four-fifths imply limited duration... Words which are ‘habitually’ applied to things temporal or material cannot carry in themselves the sense of endlessness. Even when applied to God, we are not forced to render aionios ‘everlasting.’ Of course the life of God is endless; but the question is whether, in describing God as aionios it was intended to describe the duration of his being, or whether some different and larger idea was not contemplated.” [3]
G. Campbell Morgan, also a renowned scholar said:
“Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how we use the word “eternity.” We have fallen into great error in our constant use of that word. There is no word in the whole Book of God corresponding with our ‘eternal,’ which, as commonly used among us, means absolutely without end. The strongest Scripture word used with reference to the existence of God is— ‘unto the ages of the ages,’ (KJV “forever and ever”) which does not literally mean eternally.” [4] (parenthesis mine)
Hasting’s Dictionary of the New Testament says:
“There is no word either in the O.T. Hebrew or in the N.T. Greek to express the abstract idea of eternity. Nonetheless ‘eternal’ is misleading, inasmuch as it has come in the English to connote the idea of ‘endlessly existing,’ and thus to be practically a synonym for ‘everlasting. But this is not an adequate rendering of aionios which varies in meaning with the variations of the noun aion from which it comes. The chronos aioniois (times of the ages) moreover, are not to be thought of as stretching backward everlastingly, as it is proved by the pro chronon aionion (before the times of the ages) of 2Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2 (parenthesis added) [5]
While space doesn’t allow me here, in my book, “The Triumph of Mercy,” I demonstrate from numerous Old Testament and New Testament passages that these lexicographers have based their conclusions upon a careful objective consideration of the actual meanings of these time-words olam, aion and aionios in their own scriptural contexts, rather than being influenced by our more modern concept of eternity which was engrafted into the Scriptures by Traditional translators. Many newer translations have corrected this mistranslation in numerous passages, while all the literal translations, such as Youngs Literal Translation and Concordant Literal Version, have eliminated the words “eternal” “everlasting” and “perpetual” altogether, replacing them with “eon,” “eonian,” “age during” and “into the ages of the ages,” instead of the oxymoronic phrase, “forever and ever.”
While the Early Greek Church Fathers were familiar with Plato’s concept of eternity, they did not understand aion and its adjective aionios to be referring to the Greek philosophical concept of eternity when they appear in the Scriptures but rather to a long indefinite period of time. That they didn’t understand aion and aionios as referring to eternity is everywhere evident – especially when speaking of postmortem judgment.
Origin (184 A.D to 254 A.D.) said: “But how long this purification which is wrought out by penal fire shall endure, or for how many periods or ages it shall torment sinners, He only knows to whom all judgment is committed by the Father.” [6] Ambrose, (340 A.D. to 397 A.D.) said: “As for those who do not come to the first (resurrection), but are reserved until the second resurrection, these shall be burnt, until they fulfill their appointed times, between the first and the second resurrection; or, if they should not have fulfilled them then, they shall remain still longer in punishment.” [7] He here says that those who do not have part in the first resurrection will be subjected to purifying fire in the age to come (aion), and if necessary, even after the White Throne Judgment in the Lake of Fire, if their names are still not found written in the book of life.
Theodore of Mopsuestia (AD 359 to AD 429) said: “The wicked who have committed evil the whole period of their lives shall be punished till they learn that, by continuing in sin, they only continue in misery. And when, by this means, they shall have been brought to fear God, and to regard him with good will, they shall obtain the enjoyment of his grace. For he never would have said, ‘until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing,’ unless we can be released from suffering after having suffered adequately for sin; nor would he have said, 'he shall be beaten with many stripes,' and again, ‘he shall be beaten with few stripes,’ unless the punishment to be endured for sin will have an end.” [8]
Obviously, if these Greek speaking Early Church Fathers understood aión and aiónios as meaning “eternal” as most do today, they would have never referred to punishment as temporal and corrective. Even those of the early Greek Church Fathers who were Annihilationists and therefore did not believe in the final restoration of all, understood aiónios as referring to an indefinite time period rather than everlasting. Justin Martyr (100 A.D to 165 A.D) taught that there was an “eonian punishment” of the wicked in “eonian fire” which ended with their final annihilation. He speaks of the wicked being destroyed and ceasing to exist:
“Wherefore God delays causing the confusion and destruction of the whole world, by which the wicked angels and demons and men shall cease to exist.” [9]
Traditionalists often misunderstand Justin Martyr to be affirming the doctrine of eternal torments, thinking that he is emphasizing that punishment is eternal and not temporary in duration when he says:
“and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting (aiónios) punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.” [10]
However, he is contrasting his belief in an eonian period of punishment which ends in annihilation with Plato’s claim that some of the dead return to life after a period of eonian “intoxication” lasting a thousand years. [11] Both Justin Martyr and Plato saw the duration as eonian rather than eternal. The difference was that Justin Martyr believed that it ended in one’s final annihilation, in contrast with Plato who speculated that they came back to life after a thousand years.
De Young repeatedly complains that Universalists do not quote from some of the more modern lexicons, since they normally include “eternal” “forever” and “everlasting” in their definitions of aión and aiónios. (pp. 42,43,44) However, the sources cited above are among the most respected scholars of all time and are considered by all to be the most reliable.
Also, it must be recognized that even lexicographers have their own doctrinal biases which can influence their interpretations of certain passages and one can often detect their own particular theological bias in their definitions of certain words. Some lexical definitions are more influenced by theology than etymology. That is why it is often necessary for one to do an independent word study, examining each occurrence of a given word in its context throughout Scripture in order to determine its actual meaning. This is especially true in the case of the time-words olam, aión and aiónios, since the debate between universal reconciliation and eternal torment has become so polarized as to make objective unbiased resources less and less common.
Actually, the lexicons we should give the greatest credence to are the oldest and not the newest, as De Young insists. The oldest surviving Greek lexicon is that of Hesychius of Alexandria, which was compiled sometime between the 4th and 6th century. It includes more than 50,000 entries and defines aión thus: “The life of a man, the time of life.” Theodoret of Antioch (393 A.D. to 457 A.D.) said concerning aión: “aión is not any existing thing, but an interval denoting time, sometimes infinite when spoken of God, sometimes proportioned to the duration of the creation, and sometimes the life of a man.” [12] John of Damascus (646 A.D. to 749 A.D.) said: “The life of every man is called aión… The whole duration or life of this world is called aión. The life after the resurrection is called ‘the aión to come’” [13]
None of these definitions at this early date include the concept of eternity since it had not yet been attached to this time-word. The word most commonly used to express “eternity” at that time was aidíos and not aiónios. However, aidíos is never used in the Scriptures to refer to the punishment of the wicked.
It wasn’t until the 16th century that Phavorinus first included “eternal” in the definition of aión. However, even then he clarified that it was a theological definition rather than a strictly lexical definition. He said: “Aión, time, also life, also habit or way of life. Aión is also the eternal endless AS IT SEEMS TO THE THEOLOGIAN.” [14] So, the first time any lexicon included “eternity” in the definition of aión it was admittedly not the actual lexical meaning, but a meaning imposed upon the word by theologians.
The expression “forever and ever” is another mistranslation found in our English versions. It was contrived by Traditionalists as an emphatic expression for eternity. But the expression in Greek is eis tous aiónas ton aiónon which simply means “into the ages of the ages.” Adding ages to ages speaks of a very long time but it is nevertheless time, and not eternity. It is a common misconception to think of eternity as an infinite succession of ages. But if that were so, the Scriptures would not speak of the “end of the ages” (Heb 9:26 lit. sunteleia ton aionon). Every age has its end, and when the last age, or “the Age of ages” ends, (Eph 3:21) time will then be no more, and eternity is all that remains.
De Young says that “forever and ever” is an emphatic way of speaking of endless duration. He says:
“the words may be rendered “forever and ever” as an emphatic way of speaking of endless duration….” p. 37
However, apart from the fact that the Scriptures speak of the end of the ages which rules out the possibility that the ages of the ages refer to infinite time, there are other problems with rendering “into the ages of the ages” as “forever and ever.” In the first place, adding “and ever” to “forever” is redundancy and actually diminishes “forever,” rather than accentuating it. It implies that “forever” is not an adequate expression of infinite duration, requiring “and ever” in order to extend “forever” further into the future. It is a tautology similar to translating the plural of aión as “eternities” rather than “ages.” De Young actually contradicts himself when he says:
“There is no age after the present one except the era of fulfillment, of reckoning and judgment, in which the wicked are still seen as wicked (Isa 66:24).” p. 36
If there is no age after the present one apart from the “era of fulfillment” then how can there be an infinite number of ages in the future, as he claims eis tous aiónas ton aiónon speaks of? That there is more than one future age is also evident in Ephesians 2:7 where Paul speaks of “the ages to come.” This requires two or more future ages.
Another problem with rendering “into the ages of the ages” (eis tous aiónas ton aiónon) as “forever and ever” is that the preposition eis which they translate as “for” in “forever” does not express duration but merely “entrance into.” The prepositional phrase “eis tous aiónas ton aiónon” literally has reference to a non-specific amount of time within the ages of the ages and not necessarily the entirety of all future ages. The phrase, when introduced by eis, only indicates open-ended entrance into the ages of the ages without specifying duration. The preposition eis is defined in Strong’s as: “to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.)” I meticulously examined all 1,767 occurrences of the preposition eis in the New Testament and in each case, although variously translated, it is always used to express the idea of “to” or “into,” just as Strong’s defines it. When used of time, it always has reference to time of indefinite duration. Although it is often translated as “for,” the only idea expressed is entrance “into” an indefinite time-span without specifying one’s duration within that time span. Not everyone who enters into the eonian punishment will remain in the lake of fire for the full amount of time indicated by “the ages of the ages.” Therefore, the expression “into the ages of the ages” (“forever and ever”) only indicates that the punishment of the wicked will take place within the timespan referred to as the “ages of the ages” and therefore is not in conflict with the scriptural doctrine of the final restoration of all.
It is said of Jesus that He will reign “forever and ever” but only until all have become subject to Him and restored. At that time, He will also become subject to the Father, resulting in God being all in all entering into eternity (Rev 11:15; Heb 1:13;1Cor 15:25-28).
Finally, it is not without significance that Paul once used another phrase which is distinct from the double plural “ages of the ages.” In Ephesians 3:21 it is not “the ages of the ages” but rather “the Age of the ages.” (tou aiónos ton aiónon) The King James Version renders it “world without end,” but the verse should be translated as we find it in the literal translations:
“to Him be the glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus for all the generations of the eon of the eons! Amen!” (Concordant Literal Version)
Although traditional translations make no distinction between “the ages of the ages” and “the Age of the ages,” we know that it was intentional and not just an orthographic error made by Paul, and there is a great difference between “the ages of the ages” and “the Age of the ages.” When we use the singular followed by the same word in plural in this manner, we are expressing the idea that that which is in singular form has preeminence over that which appears in plural. In every instance where we find this construction in the Bible, we understand that the first, which appears in singular form, is singular in importance, significance or eminence, compared to the rest which follow in the plural form. When we say, “King of kings,” or “Lord of lords,” we understand that it is saying that that particular King is preeminent over all other kings. The expression “Song of songs” means the most outstanding Song of all songs. The same is true with the “Holy of holies” which is usually translated “the Most Holy”:
When we understand that the Age of the ages is the age which is preeminent among all others - the culmination of all ages, then the full import of the passage in which it is employed, is revealed:
“to Him be the glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus for all the generations of the eon of the eons! Amen!” (Concordant Literal Version)
Or expressing the full sense of the word “generations” (genos) one could say:
“to Him be the glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all descendants of all generations, into the Age of the ages, Amen!”
The mistranslation of “the ages of the ages” and “the Age of ages” as “forever and ever” or “world without end” veils the glorious truth that Christ and His Church will continue reigning in “the ages of the ages” or “the ages to come” until the final “Age of ages” when all descendants of all generations will have subjected themselves to Christ, being reunited in Him in the dispensation of the fullness of the times, resulting in God being all in all (Eph 1:10; 1Cor 15:25-28). The “ages of the ages” are preeminent over all previous ages since Christ will be reigning, and the “Age of ages” is the greatest of all ages because it culminates with God being all in all.
While it is not possible to consider all the texts of Scripture which have been misunderstood to be teaching eternal torments due to the mistranslation of the time-words olam, aión and aiónios in this session, I would like to consider Matthew 25:46 which is the most popular proof-text used by Traditionalists for eternal punishment:
“And these will go away into everlasting punishment (kolasin aiónion), but the righteous into eternal life (zoen aiónion).” (Matt 25:46)
It is argued from this verse that if the punishment of the goats is not eternal, then neither is the life of the sheep eternal, since the same word aiónios is used of both life and punishment. However, there are several reasons why this reasoning is erroneous. In the first place, it is a basic law of grammar that an adjective cannot have a greater force than the noun it modifies. A big leaf is not the same size as a big tree. A long day is not the same length as a long year. Aiónios is the adjective of aión which means a long but indefinite length of time. Therefore, aiónios as the adjective of aión would mean “long lasting” or “age enduring.” The duration of aiónios would depend upon the nature of the noun it modifies. If we were to say, “the eonian hills belong to the eonian God,” we would not mean to say that the hills are as enduring as God. Likewise, the duration of eonian life depends upon the nature of the life entered into, while the duration of eonian punishment depends upon the nature of the punishment entered into.
Marvin Vincent, in Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, says the following concerning the eonian life and eonian punishment in this verse:
“Zooee aionios ‘eternal life,’ which occurs 42 times in the New Testament, but not in the Septuagint, is not endless life, but life pertaining to a certain age or aeon, or continuing during that aeon. I repeat, life may be endless. The life in union with Christ is endless, but the fact is not expressed by aionios.
Kolasis aionios, rendered ‘everlasting punishment’ (Matt 25:46), is the punishment peculiar to an aeon other than that in which Christ is speaking.” [15]
The very meaning of the word “punishment” (kolasis) rules out the possibility of it being eternal. The Greek word kolasis speaks of “corrective punishment” in contrast with timoreo which often expresses “vindictive punishment or torture.” William Barclay, a Greek scholar, in his commentary, The Daily Study Bible and New Testament Words says the following of kolasis:
“The Greek word for punishment here [Mt. 25:46] is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment.” [16]
The great Greek scholar Archbishop trench in Trench's New Testament Synonyms, also explains the difference between the vindictive punishment timoria and the corrective punishment kolasis:
“Punishment: timoria, kolasis
Timoria…. The classical use of timoria emphasizes the vindictive character of punishment. It was punishment that satisfied the inflictor’s sense of outraged justice and that defended his own honor or that of the violated law. The meaning of timoria, then, agrees with its etymology.
Kolasis refers to punishment that is designed to correct and better the offender. Thus, Plato uses kolasis and noutheteseis together. Several times in one passage in the Protagoras, Plato's use illustrates the distinction we have drawn.” [17]
If God’s punishment were purely vindictive and for His own benefit and pleasure, then one might argue that His punishment could last forever, although eternal vengeance would still be unjust, excessive and contrary to God’s loving nature. However, seeing that the word Jesus used is “correction” (kolasis), it is evident that it could not last forever. A punishment for the purpose of correction only lasts until the desired result has been achieved – the correction of the offender. Once corrected, the eonian correction ceases. It may last a very long time or a rather short time, depending upon the time necessary to accomplish its purpose. In Jonah’s case it lasted for an eon of just three days. Justice always suspends punishment when the correction has been achieved. According to the meaning of the word kolasis, we see that the punishment in Scriptures is always a measured punishment according to the works of each one. Even in the apocalyptic lake of fire each one receives only that which is his part:
“But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part (meros) in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (Rev 21:8)
The expression “their part” (meros) does not correspond with an infinite punishment. That which is “a part” is a measured punishment. Therefore, the common rendering “everlasting punishment” is erroneous.
Most misunderstand the passage concerning the separation of the sheep nations from the goat nations in Matthew 25. It does not refer to some general judgment at the close of the Millennium but rather to a separation of the sheep nations at Christ’s Second Coming who treated “Christ’s brethren” well, from the goat nations who did not help them in their tribulation. (vv. 31,32) The sheep are nowhere said to be born-again believers or Christ’s brethren. His brethren are distinct from them. (v. 40) His brethren were caught up to meet the Lord in the air prior to this separation. The sheep and the goats are mortals among the nations who are either granted entrance into the eonian life of the Millennial age or sent to an eonian corrective punishment. They are nowhere said to be immortalized or glorified, but simply granted or denied entrance into the eonian kingdom. The sheep will be allowed to continue living and will repopulate the Millennial earth with mortals, many of whom will side with Satan in rebellion against Christ at the end of the 1,000 years (Rev 21:7-10). I realize that many reading this may be Amillennialists or Preterists who do not interpret these passages in the same manner as I do. I present my reasons for being a Futurist as opposed to Preterism in my book entitled “Last Days – Past or Present?” available through Amazon.
Therefore, as I see it, in Matthew 25:46, neither the eonian life (i.e. the life of the age to come), nor the eonian punishment are eternal. The life granted is the continuance of their mortal lives in the millennial kingdom age, whereas the punishment is said to be in “eonian fire (pur aiónion) prepared for de devil and his angels.” Consistent with the word aiónios and kolasis, this purifying fire is enduring but not eternal. De Young attempts to argue that the eonian fire is eternal, based upon the use of the perfect tense which should read “having been cursed” and “having been prepared.” He says:
“Matt 25:41 cursed into eternal fire prepared. ‘cursed’ and ‘prepared’ are in perfect tense indicating permanent state. This grammatical point goes unrecognized by universalists.” p. 35
However, he is here reading too much into the idea expressed by the perfect tense. Perfect tense simply refers to an action completed in the past whose results continue at the time of writing. He is making a great and unjustifiable leap from presently continuing results to a perpetual “permanent state.” [18]
In conclusion, it can be said that a careful consideration of the meaning of time-words such as olam, aión and aiónios, in combination with such words as kolasis which speak of corrective punishment and not merely vindictive punishment, as well as other expressions such as “his part” “until,” “many stripes” or “few stripes,” all indicate that punishment is corrective in nature and not eternal as commonly understood. It should be kept in mind that in order to be in harmony with the numerous restoration passages it is only necessary to demonstrate that the time-words olam, aión and aiónios in Scripture do not always mean eternal. Nevertheless, we see that they are strictly time-words which in and of themselves do not express the modern concept of eternity nor everlastingness.
[1] The Word aidíos was used by the Pharisees and the Greek philosophers to refer to everlasting punishment but the only occurrences of aidíos in the New Testament are Romans 1:20 and Jude 6 where they are best understood as “invisible” or “imperceptible” as rendered in the Concordant Literal Version.
[2] La Enciclopedia de la Biblia de Ediciones Garriga S.A.
[3] Marvin Vincent D.D. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament
[4] G. Campbell Morgan, God’s Methods with Man
[5] Hasting’s Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. I, p. 542 art. Christ and the Godpels): Eternity
[6] Origin, Commentary In Epist. Ad Rom. lib viii. cap. xi.
[7] Psalm . i. para. 54, p. 763, Ed. Paris. 1686
[8] Gregorio el Nazianceno, Assemani Bib. Orient. Tom. iii.
[9] Justin Martyr, Second apology; Chapter 7
[10] Justin Martyr, First apology; Chapter 8
[11] John Wesley Hanson, Aión – Aiónios https://tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament - Additional note on aion and aionios in 2Thessalonians 1:9
[16] William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible and New Testament Words
[17] Trench's New Testament Synonyms: Punishment
[18] “The perfect presents a completed state or condition. When the action was completed the perfect tense does not say. It is still complete at the time of the use of the tense by speaker or writer.” (Robertson, A. T.. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research).
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism,” by James B. De Young
What we have been considering in the previous sessions concerning the universal restoration, reconciliation, reversal of the fall and final salvation of all, is only a few of the many passages of Scripture which, to me, clearly speak of a glorious finale for God’s eternal plan for the ages which culminates in Him becoming all in all, and not just all in some, while the vast majority of mankind, created His image and likeness, suffer in perpetual torments. I included in the appendix of my book, “The Triumph of Mercy,” nearly one-hundred passages which either clearly declare or imply the final restoration of all and another fifty passages which imply that punishment will not be eternal.
In spite of this glorious theme of the final restoration of all which is repeatedly set forth in clear terms throughout the entirety of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, many still find it hard to believe that the outworking of God’s eternal plan actually culminates in the final restoration of all where all live happily ever after. The greatest obstacle to embracing a divine story that ends so well for all is one English word: “eternal.” The common English rendering of time-words such as olam in Hebrew and aion with its adjective aionios in Greek as, “eternal,” “forever,” “forever and ever,” “everlasting” or “perpetual,” when referring to postmortem punishment, has greatly distorted our perception of God’s very nature and kept many at a distance, in bondage to fear and often despair.
What many are unaware of or fail to consider is that our modern concept of “eternity” wasn’t even thought of by man until the Greek philosopher Plato set it forth in the third century before Christ. The Jews weren’t introduced to Plato’s concept of eternity until Philo, a Jewish philosopher and contemporary of Jesus, began to popularize it. Plato’s concept of eternity wasn’t articulated by Christian theologians until Augustine, entering into the fifth century. Therefore, in the Scriptures there was no word equivalent to our English word “eternal.” Both olam in Hebrew and aion/aionios in Greek were time-words. [1]
Olam in the Old Testament was used to express an indefinite time period beyond the horizon. At times it was used to refer to indefinite time beyond the past horizon, while other times it referred to indefinite duration of time in the future, but it always spoke of time and not eternity since human language did not yet have a word for eternity. The Encyclopedia of the Bible, Ediciones Garriga S.A. defines olam as follows:
“Olam in the line of duration, indicates times undetermined, remote, obscure, whether it be past or future, the duration of the life of a man or a long extension which comes to designate indefinite duration…. It does not express the platonic and modern concept of eternity.” [2]
Moving forward into the New Testament, the Greek word aion and its adjective aionios continue expressing time and not eternity. Our English equivalents are “eon” and “eonian,” The Merriam – Webster’s Dictionary defines eon as: “an immeasurably or indefinitely long period of time.” Eon has retained to this very day the same basic meaning as it’s Greek derivative aion in the New Testament and in the LXX Greek version of the Old Testament used by Jesus and the Apostles. It refers to the longest measurement of time, but time nonetheless, and not eternity. In contrast, our word “eternal” is from the later Latin aeternus and is defined as “everlasting, perpetual, timeless.” But it can be demonstrated that not even the Latin aeternus exclusively meant eternal until after Augustine’s time.
One of the most distinguished Greek scholars of recent times, Marvin Vincent, D.D. in His Greek commentary, Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, explains the following about aión and aionios:
“Aión transliterated ‘aeon,’ is a period of time of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle...says: ‘The period which includes the whole time of each one's life is called the aeon of each one.’ Hence, it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one's life aión is said to leave him or to consume away... It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millennium; the mythological period before the beginnings of history. The word has not ‘a stationary and mechanical value.’ It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There are as many aeons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities. There is one aeon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow's life, another of an oak's life. The length of the aeon depends on the subject to which it is attached… The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting...
The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of ‘endless or everlasting.’ They may acquire that sense by their connotation, as, on the other hand, aidíos, which means ‘everlasting,’ has its meaning limited to a given point of time in Jude 6. Aionios means ‘enduring through or pertaining to a period of time.’ Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods. Thus, the phrase eis ton aiona, habitually rendered ‘forever,’ is often used of duration which is limited in the very nature of the case... The same is true of aionios. Out of 150 instances in the Septuagint, four-fifths imply limited duration... Words which are ‘habitually’ applied to things temporal or material cannot carry in themselves the sense of endlessness. Even when applied to God, we are not forced to render aionios ‘everlasting.’ Of course the life of God is endless; but the question is whether, in describing God as aionios it was intended to describe the duration of his being, or whether some different and larger idea was not contemplated.” [3]
G. Campbell Morgan, also a renowned scholar said:
“Let me say to Bible students that we must be very careful how we use the word “eternity.” We have fallen into great error in our constant use of that word. There is no word in the whole Book of God corresponding with our ‘eternal,’ which, as commonly used among us, means absolutely without end. The strongest Scripture word used with reference to the existence of God is— ‘unto the ages of the ages,’ (KJV “forever and ever”) which does not literally mean eternally.” [4] (parenthesis mine)
Hasting’s Dictionary of the New Testament says:
“There is no word either in the O.T. Hebrew or in the N.T. Greek to express the abstract idea of eternity. Nonetheless ‘eternal’ is misleading, inasmuch as it has come in the English to connote the idea of ‘endlessly existing,’ and thus to be practically a synonym for ‘everlasting. But this is not an adequate rendering of aionios which varies in meaning with the variations of the noun aion from which it comes. The chronos aioniois (times of the ages) moreover, are not to be thought of as stretching backward everlastingly, as it is proved by the pro chronon aionion (before the times of the ages) of 2Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2 (parenthesis added) [5]
While space doesn’t allow me here, in my book, “The Triumph of Mercy,” I demonstrate from numerous Old Testament and New Testament passages that these lexicographers have based their conclusions upon a careful objective consideration of the actual meanings of these time-words olam, aion and aionios in their own scriptural contexts, rather than being influenced by our more modern concept of eternity which was engrafted into the Scriptures by Traditional translators. Many newer translations have corrected this mistranslation in numerous passages, while all the literal translations, such as Youngs Literal Translation and Concordant Literal Version, have eliminated the words “eternal” “everlasting” and “perpetual” altogether, replacing them with “eon,” “eonian,” “age during” and “into the ages of the ages,” instead of the oxymoronic phrase, “forever and ever.”
While the Early Greek Church Fathers were familiar with Plato’s concept of eternity, they did not understand aion and its adjective aionios to be referring to the Greek philosophical concept of eternity when they appear in the Scriptures but rather to a long indefinite period of time. That they didn’t understand aion and aionios as referring to eternity is everywhere evident – especially when speaking of postmortem judgment.
Origin (184 A.D to 254 A.D.) said: “But how long this purification which is wrought out by penal fire shall endure, or for how many periods or ages it shall torment sinners, He only knows to whom all judgment is committed by the Father.” [6] Ambrose, (340 A.D. to 397 A.D.) said: “As for those who do not come to the first (resurrection), but are reserved until the second resurrection, these shall be burnt, until they fulfill their appointed times, between the first and the second resurrection; or, if they should not have fulfilled them then, they shall remain still longer in punishment.” [7] He here says that those who do not have part in the first resurrection will be subjected to purifying fire in the age to come (aion), and if necessary, even after the White Throne Judgment in the Lake of Fire, if their names are still not found written in the book of life.
Theodore of Mopsuestia (AD 359 to AD 429) said: “The wicked who have committed evil the whole period of their lives shall be punished till they learn that, by continuing in sin, they only continue in misery. And when, by this means, they shall have been brought to fear God, and to regard him with good will, they shall obtain the enjoyment of his grace. For he never would have said, ‘until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing,’ unless we can be released from suffering after having suffered adequately for sin; nor would he have said, 'he shall be beaten with many stripes,' and again, ‘he shall be beaten with few stripes,’ unless the punishment to be endured for sin will have an end.” [8]
Obviously, if these Greek speaking Early Church Fathers understood aión and aiónios as meaning “eternal” as most do today, they would have never referred to punishment as temporal and corrective. Even those of the early Greek Church Fathers who were Annihilationists and therefore did not believe in the final restoration of all, understood aiónios as referring to an indefinite time period rather than everlasting. Justin Martyr (100 A.D to 165 A.D) taught that there was an “eonian punishment” of the wicked in “eonian fire” which ended with their final annihilation. He speaks of the wicked being destroyed and ceasing to exist:
“Wherefore God delays causing the confusion and destruction of the whole world, by which the wicked angels and demons and men shall cease to exist.” [9]
Traditionalists often misunderstand Justin Martyr to be affirming the doctrine of eternal torments, thinking that he is emphasizing that punishment is eternal and not temporary in duration when he says:
“and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting (aiónios) punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.” [10]
However, he is contrasting his belief in an eonian period of punishment which ends in annihilation with Plato’s claim that some of the dead return to life after a period of eonian “intoxication” lasting a thousand years. [11] Both Justin Martyr and Plato saw the duration as eonian rather than eternal. The difference was that Justin Martyr believed that it ended in one’s final annihilation, in contrast with Plato who speculated that they came back to life after a thousand years.
De Young repeatedly complains that Universalists do not quote from some of the more modern lexicons, since they normally include “eternal” “forever” and “everlasting” in their definitions of aión and aiónios. (pp. 42,43,44) However, the sources cited above are among the most respected scholars of all time and are considered by all to be the most reliable.
Also, it must be recognized that even lexicographers have their own doctrinal biases which can influence their interpretations of certain passages and one can often detect their own particular theological bias in their definitions of certain words. Some lexical definitions are more influenced by theology than etymology. That is why it is often necessary for one to do an independent word study, examining each occurrence of a given word in its context throughout Scripture in order to determine its actual meaning. This is especially true in the case of the time-words olam, aión and aiónios, since the debate between universal reconciliation and eternal torment has become so polarized as to make objective unbiased resources less and less common.
Actually, the lexicons we should give the greatest credence to are the oldest and not the newest, as De Young insists. The oldest surviving Greek lexicon is that of Hesychius of Alexandria, which was compiled sometime between the 4th and 6th century. It includes more than 50,000 entries and defines aión thus: “The life of a man, the time of life.” Theodoret of Antioch (393 A.D. to 457 A.D.) said concerning aión: “aión is not any existing thing, but an interval denoting time, sometimes infinite when spoken of God, sometimes proportioned to the duration of the creation, and sometimes the life of a man.” [12] John of Damascus (646 A.D. to 749 A.D.) said: “The life of every man is called aión… The whole duration or life of this world is called aión. The life after the resurrection is called ‘the aión to come’” [13]
None of these definitions at this early date include the concept of eternity since it had not yet been attached to this time-word. The word most commonly used to express “eternity” at that time was aidíos and not aiónios. However, aidíos is never used in the Scriptures to refer to the punishment of the wicked.
It wasn’t until the 16th century that Phavorinus first included “eternal” in the definition of aión. However, even then he clarified that it was a theological definition rather than a strictly lexical definition. He said: “Aión, time, also life, also habit or way of life. Aión is also the eternal endless AS IT SEEMS TO THE THEOLOGIAN.” [14] So, the first time any lexicon included “eternity” in the definition of aión it was admittedly not the actual lexical meaning, but a meaning imposed upon the word by theologians.
The expression “forever and ever” is another mistranslation found in our English versions. It was contrived by Traditionalists as an emphatic expression for eternity. But the expression in Greek is eis tous aiónas ton aiónon which simply means “into the ages of the ages.” Adding ages to ages speaks of a very long time but it is nevertheless time, and not eternity. It is a common misconception to think of eternity as an infinite succession of ages. But if that were so, the Scriptures would not speak of the “end of the ages” (Heb 9:26 lit. sunteleia ton aionon). Every age has its end, and when the last age, or “the Age of ages” ends, (Eph 3:21) time will then be no more, and eternity is all that remains.
De Young says that “forever and ever” is an emphatic way of speaking of endless duration. He says:
“the words may be rendered “forever and ever” as an emphatic way of speaking of endless duration….” p. 37
However, apart from the fact that the Scriptures speak of the end of the ages which rules out the possibility that the ages of the ages refer to infinite time, there are other problems with rendering “into the ages of the ages” as “forever and ever.” In the first place, adding “and ever” to “forever” is redundancy and actually diminishes “forever,” rather than accentuating it. It implies that “forever” is not an adequate expression of infinite duration, requiring “and ever” in order to extend “forever” further into the future. It is a tautology similar to translating the plural of aión as “eternities” rather than “ages.” De Young actually contradicts himself when he says:
“There is no age after the present one except the era of fulfillment, of reckoning and judgment, in which the wicked are still seen as wicked (Isa 66:24).” p. 36
If there is no age after the present one apart from the “era of fulfillment” then how can there be an infinite number of ages in the future, as he claims eis tous aiónas ton aiónon speaks of? That there is more than one future age is also evident in Ephesians 2:7 where Paul speaks of “the ages to come.” This requires two or more future ages.
Another problem with rendering “into the ages of the ages” (eis tous aiónas ton aiónon) as “forever and ever” is that the preposition eis which they translate as “for” in “forever” does not express duration but merely “entrance into.” The prepositional phrase “eis tous aiónas ton aiónon” literally has reference to a non-specific amount of time within the ages of the ages and not necessarily the entirety of all future ages. The phrase, when introduced by eis, only indicates open-ended entrance into the ages of the ages without specifying duration. The preposition eis is defined in Strong’s as: “to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.)” I meticulously examined all 1,767 occurrences of the preposition eis in the New Testament and in each case, although variously translated, it is always used to express the idea of “to” or “into,” just as Strong’s defines it. When used of time, it always has reference to time of indefinite duration. Although it is often translated as “for,” the only idea expressed is entrance “into” an indefinite time-span without specifying one’s duration within that time span. Not everyone who enters into the eonian punishment will remain in the lake of fire for the full amount of time indicated by “the ages of the ages.” Therefore, the expression “into the ages of the ages” (“forever and ever”) only indicates that the punishment of the wicked will take place within the timespan referred to as the “ages of the ages” and therefore is not in conflict with the scriptural doctrine of the final restoration of all.
It is said of Jesus that He will reign “forever and ever” but only until all have become subject to Him and restored. At that time, He will also become subject to the Father, resulting in God being all in all entering into eternity (Rev 11:15; Heb 1:13;1Cor 15:25-28).
Finally, it is not without significance that Paul once used another phrase which is distinct from the double plural “ages of the ages.” In Ephesians 3:21 it is not “the ages of the ages” but rather “the Age of the ages.” (tou aiónos ton aiónon) The King James Version renders it “world without end,” but the verse should be translated as we find it in the literal translations:
“to Him be the glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus for all the generations of the eon of the eons! Amen!” (Concordant Literal Version)
Although traditional translations make no distinction between “the ages of the ages” and “the Age of the ages,” we know that it was intentional and not just an orthographic error made by Paul, and there is a great difference between “the ages of the ages” and “the Age of the ages.” When we use the singular followed by the same word in plural in this manner, we are expressing the idea that that which is in singular form has preeminence over that which appears in plural. In every instance where we find this construction in the Bible, we understand that the first, which appears in singular form, is singular in importance, significance or eminence, compared to the rest which follow in the plural form. When we say, “King of kings,” or “Lord of lords,” we understand that it is saying that that particular King is preeminent over all other kings. The expression “Song of songs” means the most outstanding Song of all songs. The same is true with the “Holy of holies” which is usually translated “the Most Holy”:
When we understand that the Age of the ages is the age which is preeminent among all others - the culmination of all ages, then the full import of the passage in which it is employed, is revealed:
“to Him be the glory in the ecclesia and in Christ Jesus for all the generations of the eon of the eons! Amen!” (Concordant Literal Version)
Or expressing the full sense of the word “generations” (genos) one could say:
“to Him be the glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all descendants of all generations, into the Age of the ages, Amen!”
The mistranslation of “the ages of the ages” and “the Age of ages” as “forever and ever” or “world without end” veils the glorious truth that Christ and His Church will continue reigning in “the ages of the ages” or “the ages to come” until the final “Age of ages” when all descendants of all generations will have subjected themselves to Christ, being reunited in Him in the dispensation of the fullness of the times, resulting in God being all in all (Eph 1:10; 1Cor 15:25-28). The “ages of the ages” are preeminent over all previous ages since Christ will be reigning, and the “Age of ages” is the greatest of all ages because it culminates with God being all in all.
While it is not possible to consider all the texts of Scripture which have been misunderstood to be teaching eternal torments due to the mistranslation of the time-words olam, aión and aiónios in this session, I would like to consider Matthew 25:46 which is the most popular proof-text used by Traditionalists for eternal punishment:
“And these will go away into everlasting punishment (kolasin aiónion), but the righteous into eternal life (zoen aiónion).” (Matt 25:46)
It is argued from this verse that if the punishment of the goats is not eternal, then neither is the life of the sheep eternal, since the same word aiónios is used of both life and punishment. However, there are several reasons why this reasoning is erroneous. In the first place, it is a basic law of grammar that an adjective cannot have a greater force than the noun it modifies. A big leaf is not the same size as a big tree. A long day is not the same length as a long year. Aiónios is the adjective of aión which means a long but indefinite length of time. Therefore, aiónios as the adjective of aión would mean “long lasting” or “age enduring.” The duration of aiónios would depend upon the nature of the noun it modifies. If we were to say, “the eonian hills belong to the eonian God,” we would not mean to say that the hills are as enduring as God. Likewise, the duration of eonian life depends upon the nature of the life entered into, while the duration of eonian punishment depends upon the nature of the punishment entered into.
Marvin Vincent, in Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, says the following concerning the eonian life and eonian punishment in this verse:
“Zooee aionios ‘eternal life,’ which occurs 42 times in the New Testament, but not in the Septuagint, is not endless life, but life pertaining to a certain age or aeon, or continuing during that aeon. I repeat, life may be endless. The life in union with Christ is endless, but the fact is not expressed by aionios.
Kolasis aionios, rendered ‘everlasting punishment’ (Matt 25:46), is the punishment peculiar to an aeon other than that in which Christ is speaking.” [15]
The very meaning of the word “punishment” (kolasis) rules out the possibility of it being eternal. The Greek word kolasis speaks of “corrective punishment” in contrast with timoreo which often expresses “vindictive punishment or torture.” William Barclay, a Greek scholar, in his commentary, The Daily Study Bible and New Testament Words says the following of kolasis:
“The Greek word for punishment here [Mt. 25:46] is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment.” [16]
The great Greek scholar Archbishop trench in Trench's New Testament Synonyms, also explains the difference between the vindictive punishment timoria and the corrective punishment kolasis:
“Punishment: timoria, kolasis
Timoria…. The classical use of timoria emphasizes the vindictive character of punishment. It was punishment that satisfied the inflictor’s sense of outraged justice and that defended his own honor or that of the violated law. The meaning of timoria, then, agrees with its etymology.
Kolasis refers to punishment that is designed to correct and better the offender. Thus, Plato uses kolasis and noutheteseis together. Several times in one passage in the Protagoras, Plato's use illustrates the distinction we have drawn.” [17]
If God’s punishment were purely vindictive and for His own benefit and pleasure, then one might argue that His punishment could last forever, although eternal vengeance would still be unjust, excessive and contrary to God’s loving nature. However, seeing that the word Jesus used is “correction” (kolasis), it is evident that it could not last forever. A punishment for the purpose of correction only lasts until the desired result has been achieved – the correction of the offender. Once corrected, the eonian correction ceases. It may last a very long time or a rather short time, depending upon the time necessary to accomplish its purpose. In Jonah’s case it lasted for an eon of just three days. Justice always suspends punishment when the correction has been achieved. According to the meaning of the word kolasis, we see that the punishment in Scriptures is always a measured punishment according to the works of each one. Even in the apocalyptic lake of fire each one receives only that which is his part:
“But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part (meros) in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (Rev 21:8)
The expression “their part” (meros) does not correspond with an infinite punishment. That which is “a part” is a measured punishment. Therefore, the common rendering “everlasting punishment” is erroneous.
Most misunderstand the passage concerning the separation of the sheep nations from the goat nations in Matthew 25. It does not refer to some general judgment at the close of the Millennium but rather to a separation of the sheep nations at Christ’s Second Coming who treated “Christ’s brethren” well, from the goat nations who did not help them in their tribulation. (vv. 31,32) The sheep are nowhere said to be born-again believers or Christ’s brethren. His brethren are distinct from them. (v. 40) His brethren were caught up to meet the Lord in the air prior to this separation. The sheep and the goats are mortals among the nations who are either granted entrance into the eonian life of the Millennial age or sent to an eonian corrective punishment. They are nowhere said to be immortalized or glorified, but simply granted or denied entrance into the eonian kingdom. The sheep will be allowed to continue living and will repopulate the Millennial earth with mortals, many of whom will side with Satan in rebellion against Christ at the end of the 1,000 years (Rev 21:7-10). I realize that many reading this may be Amillennialists or Preterists who do not interpret these passages in the same manner as I do. I present my reasons for being a Futurist as opposed to Preterism in my book entitled “Last Days – Past or Present?” available through Amazon.
Therefore, as I see it, in Matthew 25:46, neither the eonian life (i.e. the life of the age to come), nor the eonian punishment are eternal. The life granted is the continuance of their mortal lives in the millennial kingdom age, whereas the punishment is said to be in “eonian fire (pur aiónion) prepared for de devil and his angels.” Consistent with the word aiónios and kolasis, this purifying fire is enduring but not eternal. De Young attempts to argue that the eonian fire is eternal, based upon the use of the perfect tense which should read “having been cursed” and “having been prepared.” He says:
“Matt 25:41 cursed into eternal fire prepared. ‘cursed’ and ‘prepared’ are in perfect tense indicating permanent state. This grammatical point goes unrecognized by universalists.” p. 35
However, he is here reading too much into the idea expressed by the perfect tense. Perfect tense simply refers to an action completed in the past whose results continue at the time of writing. He is making a great and unjustifiable leap from presently continuing results to a perpetual “permanent state.” [18]
In conclusion, it can be said that a careful consideration of the meaning of time-words such as olam, aión and aiónios, in combination with such words as kolasis which speak of corrective punishment and not merely vindictive punishment, as well as other expressions such as “his part” “until,” “many stripes” or “few stripes,” all indicate that punishment is corrective in nature and not eternal as commonly understood. It should be kept in mind that in order to be in harmony with the numerous restoration passages it is only necessary to demonstrate that the time-words olam, aión and aiónios in Scripture do not always mean eternal. Nevertheless, we see that they are strictly time-words which in and of themselves do not express the modern concept of eternity nor everlastingness.
[1] The Word aidíos was used by the Pharisees and the Greek philosophers to refer to everlasting punishment but the only occurrences of aidíos in the New Testament are Romans 1:20 and Jude 6 where they are best understood as “invisible” or “imperceptible” as rendered in the Concordant Literal Version.
[2] La Enciclopedia de la Biblia de Ediciones Garriga S.A.
[3] Marvin Vincent D.D. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament
[4] G. Campbell Morgan, God’s Methods with Man
[5] Hasting’s Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. I, p. 542 art. Christ and the Godpels): Eternity
[6] Origin, Commentary In Epist. Ad Rom. lib viii. cap. xi.
[7] Psalm . i. para. 54, p. 763, Ed. Paris. 1686
[8] Gregorio el Nazianceno, Assemani Bib. Orient. Tom. iii.
[9] Justin Martyr, Second apology; Chapter 7
[10] Justin Martyr, First apology; Chapter 8
[11] John Wesley Hanson, Aión – Aiónios https://tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament - Additional note on aion and aionios in 2Thessalonians 1:9
[16] William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible and New Testament Words
[17] Trench's New Testament Synonyms: Punishment
[18] “The perfect presents a completed state or condition. When the action was completed the perfect tense does not say. It is still complete at the time of the use of the tense by speaker or writer.” (Robertson, A. T.. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research).
- Published on
00:00
00:00
Chapter 0
by George Sidney Hurd
--
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism” by James B. De Young
You may be among a growing number of people who have discovered numerous passages of Scripture which seem to clearly indicate that all will finally be restored back to God, resulting in Him being all in all at the consummation of the ages. Can such declarations be seen to harmonize with the New Testament teaching concerning a future judgment and hell? Many say no.
Some insist upon an interpretation of the hell passages which negates the restoration passages, while others insist upon the restoration passages without doing justice to the passages speaking of judgment and hell.
Obviously, if we believe that all Scripture is given by Inspiration of God we cannot simply pick and choose. Our doctrine of future judgment and hell must be understood in a way which complements, rather than negates, the truth of the final restoration of all.
After years of careful and prayerful study of the Scriptures on this subject I have come to the conclusion that all of Scripture can be seen to harmonize with the final restoration of all in a way not possible with the traditional doctrine which sees God’s plan for the ages as culminating in eternal torments for the majority.
I read every book I could find challenging my conclusions, such as “The Doctrine of Endless Punishment” by William G. T. Shedd and Francis Chan’s book, “Erasing Hell.” However, although they did well at exposing some errors held by less than conservative Universalists, they only danced around the numerous texts which declare a universal restoration, without offering any viable alternate interpretations. Most of the restoration texts they ignored altogether.
When I came upon James B. De Young’s 288-page book entitled, “Exposing Universalism” I couldn’t wait to read it to see if he would attempt to explain some of the restoration passages in the light of eternal torment. He made creative attempts to reconcile some of them with eternal torment which I hadn’t heard from other authors, and we will be examining them in the course of this and the following articles.
However, as with the other books written on the subject, I was disappointed to see that he categorizes all Universalists as Liberals or Progressives who deny the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ, the need for one to put their faith in Christ and be regenerated in order to be saved, among other things. To me this misrepresentation of Universalism is summarized when he says:
“Virtually all of the areas of systematic theology and biblical theology are distorted by universalism.” p.249
While sadly this may be true of those he is denouncing in his book, the only area of systematic theology which radically changed for me was eschatology as it pertains to the final culmination of God’s eternal plan for the ages. I was even able to retain the TULIP of Calvinism by simply changing the L for Limited Atonement to Limitless Atonement, which many modified Calvinists do anyway.
I use the five points of Calvinism in my book entitled, “The Universal Solution” to compare Universalism with Calvinism and Arminianism. I demonstrate that Universalism is the most biblical and least contradictory of the three theological schools.
De Young acknowledges, that during and after the Reformation, some of the Anabaptists and most Moravians were Universalists. Both groups were conservative brethren who based their beliefs solely upon their understanding of the Scriptures. They were often persecuted by the Reformers for rejecting traditional doctrines as unbiblical, such as infant baptism and the sacraments, insisting upon adhering to the Scriptures alone.
Even Saint Augustine, who popularized the doctrine of eternal torment, acknowledged that those who believed in the apokatastasis or the final restoration of all, did so based upon their understanding of the Scriptures. Augustine said:
“There are VERY MANY in our day who, though NOT DENYING THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, do not believe in endless torments.”
It would be admirable if the defenders of the traditional Augustinian doctrine of eternal torments would extend the same grace towards Conservative Universalists today.
It should be acknowledged that Rationalism and Relativism have caused many to depart from the high view of Scripture as presented to us by Jesus and the Apostles in every branch of Christianity, and not only among the Universalists. The doctrinal deviations De Young opposes are not exclusive to the Universalists but are also promoted by many Annihilationists and Traditionalists.
I recently published a book entitled: “The Ways of God” (as seen through the eyes of a Conservative Restorationist). This book confronts some of the same deviations from Scripture addressed by De Young, while pointing out that it is not just a problem among Universalists but is rather a Church-wide problem which needs to be recognized and addressed.
In “Exposing Universalism” De Young attempts to discredit Universalism by first appealing to Church history, then to logic and finally to the Scriptures. Since I primarily base my belief in universal restoration upon the Scriptures and only secondarily Church history and logic, in the next few articles I will begin with the Scriptures and afterwards consider his arguments from Church history and from logic.
De Young’s response to restoration texts.
So how does De Young explain the passages which seem to teach a universal restoration? The theme verse from which Early Church Fathers like Clement, Origin, Gregory of Nyssa and others derived their name apokatastasis or “restoration” is Acts 3:19-21 which says:
“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration (apokatástasis) of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.”
Here Peter speaks of coming times of refreshing and the times of the restoration of all, which commences at the Second Coming of Christ. The use of the plural “times” implies that it is a process of restoration, probably involving more than one age.
How does De Young respond to this verse? At first, I thought that he failed to make any comment on it in his book since he said nothing about it in the main text of the book. However, in a footnote he said concerning Acts 3:19-21:
“It probably refers to the restoration of all the conditions in which people live because of sin, not the restoration of every person to fellowship with God.” p.20 footnote 16
However, there are numerous reasons why this restoration should be understood as primarily referring to all people. In the first place, the Early Greek Church Fathers, who still spoke the original language, understood it as including all rational creatures. If the language of the text actually militated against it referring to people, their opponents would have been quick to point out their error.
The insertion of our English word “things” is misleading. The Greek language didn’t have a word equivalent to our word “things” and when the translators insert the word “things” it can be misleading since our word “things” refers to inanimate objects. This probably contributed to De Young’s conclusion that it refers to a “condition” rather than to the restoration of people. However, the Early Greek Fathers who thought and spoke in Greek understood it to be referring to people.
The second reason why I believe it is primarily referring to people is that the restoration of all which was spoken by the mouth of the prophets since the very beginning, primarily speaks of mankind’s restoration. The one example Peter gives three verses later is the promise given to Abraham. He quoted the promise to Abraham which says:
“And in your seed ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH shall be blessed.” (Acts 3:25)
If we reflect upon this verse, we can see that it implies the restoration of all. Every family of the earth would include all mankind since Adam and Eve until the consummation. If just one member of one family will be in eternal torments, could that family be said to be blessed?
Probably the first allusion to the final restoration of all goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden where God essentially promises Eve that her seed (Christ) would destroy the enemy and restore all as it was before the fall. But as Peter said, God has repeatedly spoken concerning the restoration of all. The following are just some examples:
“All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and ALL THE FAMILIES of the nations shall worship before You.” (Psalm 22:27)
All the families of the whole world shall remember and turn to the Lord and will worship Him. This clearly speaks of a universal restoration of all people and not just the elect.
Some argue that when we see “all” and “world” in these passages on universal restoration, it is just hyperbolic speech and shouldn’t be taken literally. They cite examples of exaggerated speech in the Bible such as:
“Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:5)
Obviously, Mark didn’t mean for us to understand by “all” that literally everyone was baptized by John in the Jordan, including the unrepentant, the infants and the bed-ridden. However, common sense tells us whether one is speaking literally or hyperbolically. If I were to say: “All of San Francisco came to the meeting,” or “the whole world knows that she is the best singer,” we instantly know that it is exaggerated, hyperbolic speech used for greater impact.
On the other hand, if the captain of a sinking ship were to say to those aboard: “The ship is sinking, but don’t worry, you will all be saved,” could we still rationally say it is hyperbole? Will God someday reveal to us that His promises to save and restore all are deliberate exaggerations? Of course not! How could we even attribute such a deception to God?
Let’s look at another universal restoration passage:
“Say to God, ‘how awesome are Your works! Through the greatness of Your power your enemies shall submit themselves to You. 4 All the earth shall WORSHIP You and SING PRAISES to You; they shall sing praises to Your name.” (Psalm 66:3-4)
De Young insists that it will be a forced submission for many. But would those forced to submit against their will worship the Lord and sing praises to Him? And if their worship was obligated, would such worship be acceptable to God?
“All nations whom You have made shall come and WORSHIP before You, O Lord, and shall glorify Your name.” (Psalm 86:9)
Could the saying, “all nations whom You have made,” possibly exclude billions who will be burning in hell-fire forever cursing Him throughout all eternity? Or will they be forced to worship Him before finally being cast into the Lake of Fire? Could forced worship be seen as “glorifying His name?” This reminds me of Philippians where it says that everyone shall bow before Him:
“at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil 2:10-11)
Here, as in Psalms 86, we see that absolutely everyone whom God has made will one day worship Him “to the glory of God the Father.” How could God receive glory from forced worship?
Another Psalm where all are seen to be restored is Psalm 145:
“Jehovah is gracious, and merciful; slow to anger, and of great loving-kindness. 9 Jehovah is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all his works. 10 All thy works SHALL GIVE THANKS UNTO THEE, O Jehovah; and thy saints shall bless thee.” (Ps 145:8-10 ASV)
Don’t the expressions, “all” and “all thy works” include all of humanity and indeed all of creation?
Some say that His enemies will be obligated to bow the knee to Him against their will. Will they also be obligated to give thanks to Him before He casts them into an unending lake of literal fire? What do the Scriptures say concerning His enemies?
“Through the greatness of Your power your enemies shall submit themselves to You. 4 All the earth shall WORSHIP You and SING PRAISES to You…" (Psalm 66:3-4)
Can you imagine a scene where God forces His enemies on their knees and commands them to worship Him and sing praises to Him? Clearly His enemies will worship and praise Him because He conquered them with His love – not by an exercise of brute force. These declarations are not compatible with the eternal dualism of the Traditional doctrine of an eternal hell.
“And in this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all people a feast of choice pieces, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of well-refined wines on the lees. 7 And He will destroy on this mountain the surface of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations. 8 He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces…” (Isa 25:6-8)
Does this not clearly prophecy of the final restoration of all, when the veil blinding the eyes of all peoples will have been removed – when death – both the first death and the second death, are swallowed up forever and there are no more tears? How can this be explained in the light of the Traditional doctrine of hell where the majority of mankind, according to them, will be weeping and gnashing their teeth forever and ever?
When God wants to emphasize something in a very emphatic way, He swears by Himself. God has sworn by Himself that sooner or later all will look to Him and be saved:
“Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. 23 I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath 24 saying (Septuagint λεγων), ‘Surely in the Lord I have righteousness and strength.’ To Him men shall come, and all shall be ashamed who are incensed against Him.” (Isa 45:22-24)
Here we see the Lord calling upon all to look to Him and be saved. Then He swears by Himself that eventually every knee will bow, confessing that in Him they have righteousness and strength. This is not in violation of anyone’s will. Rather, when the veil which is spread over all the nations is removed, His enemies will be ashamed and in repentance they will return to Him, saying: “Surely in the Lord I have righteousness and strength.” We see in Philippians 2:10,11 that even those in heaven and under the earth will confess Jesus as Lord in due time.
At this point it is common to hear someone retort, “do you mean to say that even someone like Adolf Hitler will eventually repent and be saved? What about Sodom and Gomorrah who were destroyed with eternal fire for their immorality?” Well, what do the Scriptures say about the future of Sodom? God says in Ezekiel 16:
“I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your (Judah’s) fortunes along with them, 54 so that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done in giving them comfort. 55 And your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to what they were before; and you and your daughters will return to what you were before…. Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. 61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your sisters, both those who are older than you (Sodom and her daughters) and those who are younger (Samaria and her daughters). I will give them to you as daughters, but not on the basis of my covenant with you.” (Ezek 16:53-55; 60,61 NIV Parenthesis mine)
Here, shortly before Jerusalem was sieged and Judah taken into captivity to Babylon, God is promising them that after having judged them He will finally restore them along with the other ten tribes of Israel (Samaria and her daughters) who had been scattered among the nations because of their abominations, and He will also restore Sodom and her daughters (i.e. Gomorrah and the other four cities) as they were before. Then Judah will be ashamed because her sins were even greater than those of Sodom and Samaria.
I have yet to find this passage of Scripture even mentioned in a book opposing Universalism. I quote from the New International Version because the King James Version inserted “when I” instead of “I will” at the beginning of verses 53 and 55 in order to remove its fulfillment from the realm of certainty. Most recent translations, however, correct this apparently deliberate alteration of the text.
Ezekiel was clearly referring to the restoration of the actual people destroyed in Sodom in the days of Lot since there were no survivors to continue their name. If the restoration of all includes even Sodom, then who could possibly be excluded? Those before the flood? If they are excluded, then why did Jesus go and preach to them?
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water… 4:6 For this reason the gospel was preached (εὐαγγελίζω) also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” (1Peter 3:18-20; 4:6)
Here we see that Jesus went and preached the gospel to those who were dead and imprisoned for their former disobedience in order that they might live to God even though they had been previously judged according to the flesh. And who were these who had formerly been disobedient? They were the very ones who had corrupted themselves to such a degree that God had to destroy them in the flood, much as He did with Sodom.
And how does De Young respond to this? He says the following:
“The text of 1 Peter 3:18-4:6 better means that Christ went by the Spirit to those now in prison, in hell, in the days of Noah and preached to the wicked then in the preaching of Noah. There was not a subsequent preaching. Even if there were a preaching by Jesus between his death and resurrection, it is more likely that it was a proclamation of triumph, not an invitation to believe the gospel.” p.221
De Young says that, instead of Peter saying that Jesus went and preached to those who were dead and imprisoned in hades after His victory over death and hades, he meant to say that Jesus had already preached through Noah to the people who were destroyed in the flood some 2,000 years earlier while they were still alive.
This is the same answer I gave as a young pastor when asked to explain this passage, but It is obviously not the straightforward meaning of the text. Both verbs “preached” in 3:19 and 4:6 are in the aorist indicative form which indicates that the preaching was a one-time event rather than Noah’s 120 years of continuous preaching. Nevertheless, such a forced interpretation is necessary in order for them to be able to deny the promised restoration of all – including even those who perished in the flood. Also, we see that the gospel was not preached to the living before the flood but rather to those who are dead, in order that they might live unto God in the spirit even though they had been previously judged in the flesh.
The most logical meaning of the passage is that after His death He went and preached the gospel (Gr. euaggelizo 4:6) to those who were disobedient to the preaching of Noah, and as a result were destroyed in the flood and were imprisoned in hades. After Christ’s victory He took possession of the keys of hades and death according to Revelation 1:18. Through His shed blood He now had the authority to free Satan’s captives and so He went and preached the good news to them, so that even though they had been judged in the flesh they might live to God in the spirit.
Although De Young seeks to discount the testimony of the Early Greek Church Fathers, this was the belief of many at that time. For example, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, who lived between 296 and 373 A.D. said:
“While the devil thought to kill one, he is deprived of all, cast out of Hades and sitting by the gates, sees all the fettered beings led forth by the courage of the Savior.”
Gregory Nazianzen, who lived from 330 and 390 A D, wrote:
“Until He loosed by His blood all who groan under Tartarean chains.”
And again, he says:
“Today salvation has been brought to the universe to whatsoever is visible and whatsoever is invisible…the gates of Hades are thrown open.”
While it is the subject of another article, those like De Young who defend the Traditional doctrine of eternal torment, typically seek to minimize, discredit or suppress the clear testimony of prominent Early Greek Church Fathers as well as the testimony of the most respected Church historians such as Eusebius, Johann Gieseler and Philip Schaff.
In the next article we will continue our critique of De Young’s rebuttals to the texts which we understand to be speaking of a universal restoration. It is certainly not my intention to demean him in any way or single him out. The only reason I selected his book “Exposing Universalism” as the topic for these articles is because It is the most thoughtful attempt to refute Universalism I have seen so far. Actually, I agree with him on many points which don’t directly apply to Biblical Universalism.
--
A Universalist’s Response to “Exposing Universalism” by James B. De Young
You may be among a growing number of people who have discovered numerous passages of Scripture which seem to clearly indicate that all will finally be restored back to God, resulting in Him being all in all at the consummation of the ages. Can such declarations be seen to harmonize with the New Testament teaching concerning a future judgment and hell? Many say no.
Some insist upon an interpretation of the hell passages which negates the restoration passages, while others insist upon the restoration passages without doing justice to the passages speaking of judgment and hell.
Obviously, if we believe that all Scripture is given by Inspiration of God we cannot simply pick and choose. Our doctrine of future judgment and hell must be understood in a way which complements, rather than negates, the truth of the final restoration of all.
After years of careful and prayerful study of the Scriptures on this subject I have come to the conclusion that all of Scripture can be seen to harmonize with the final restoration of all in a way not possible with the traditional doctrine which sees God’s plan for the ages as culminating in eternal torments for the majority.
I read every book I could find challenging my conclusions, such as “The Doctrine of Endless Punishment” by William G. T. Shedd and Francis Chan’s book, “Erasing Hell.” However, although they did well at exposing some errors held by less than conservative Universalists, they only danced around the numerous texts which declare a universal restoration, without offering any viable alternate interpretations. Most of the restoration texts they ignored altogether.
When I came upon James B. De Young’s 288-page book entitled, “Exposing Universalism” I couldn’t wait to read it to see if he would attempt to explain some of the restoration passages in the light of eternal torment. He made creative attempts to reconcile some of them with eternal torment which I hadn’t heard from other authors, and we will be examining them in the course of this and the following articles.
However, as with the other books written on the subject, I was disappointed to see that he categorizes all Universalists as Liberals or Progressives who deny the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ, the need for one to put their faith in Christ and be regenerated in order to be saved, among other things. To me this misrepresentation of Universalism is summarized when he says:
“Virtually all of the areas of systematic theology and biblical theology are distorted by universalism.” p.249
While sadly this may be true of those he is denouncing in his book, the only area of systematic theology which radically changed for me was eschatology as it pertains to the final culmination of God’s eternal plan for the ages. I was even able to retain the TULIP of Calvinism by simply changing the L for Limited Atonement to Limitless Atonement, which many modified Calvinists do anyway.
I use the five points of Calvinism in my book entitled, “The Universal Solution” to compare Universalism with Calvinism and Arminianism. I demonstrate that Universalism is the most biblical and least contradictory of the three theological schools.
De Young acknowledges, that during and after the Reformation, some of the Anabaptists and most Moravians were Universalists. Both groups were conservative brethren who based their beliefs solely upon their understanding of the Scriptures. They were often persecuted by the Reformers for rejecting traditional doctrines as unbiblical, such as infant baptism and the sacraments, insisting upon adhering to the Scriptures alone.
Even Saint Augustine, who popularized the doctrine of eternal torment, acknowledged that those who believed in the apokatastasis or the final restoration of all, did so based upon their understanding of the Scriptures. Augustine said:
“There are VERY MANY in our day who, though NOT DENYING THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, do not believe in endless torments.”
It would be admirable if the defenders of the traditional Augustinian doctrine of eternal torments would extend the same grace towards Conservative Universalists today.
It should be acknowledged that Rationalism and Relativism have caused many to depart from the high view of Scripture as presented to us by Jesus and the Apostles in every branch of Christianity, and not only among the Universalists. The doctrinal deviations De Young opposes are not exclusive to the Universalists but are also promoted by many Annihilationists and Traditionalists.
I recently published a book entitled: “The Ways of God” (as seen through the eyes of a Conservative Restorationist). This book confronts some of the same deviations from Scripture addressed by De Young, while pointing out that it is not just a problem among Universalists but is rather a Church-wide problem which needs to be recognized and addressed.
In “Exposing Universalism” De Young attempts to discredit Universalism by first appealing to Church history, then to logic and finally to the Scriptures. Since I primarily base my belief in universal restoration upon the Scriptures and only secondarily Church history and logic, in the next few articles I will begin with the Scriptures and afterwards consider his arguments from Church history and from logic.
De Young’s response to restoration texts.
So how does De Young explain the passages which seem to teach a universal restoration? The theme verse from which Early Church Fathers like Clement, Origin, Gregory of Nyssa and others derived their name apokatastasis or “restoration” is Acts 3:19-21 which says:
“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration (apokatástasis) of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.”
Here Peter speaks of coming times of refreshing and the times of the restoration of all, which commences at the Second Coming of Christ. The use of the plural “times” implies that it is a process of restoration, probably involving more than one age.
How does De Young respond to this verse? At first, I thought that he failed to make any comment on it in his book since he said nothing about it in the main text of the book. However, in a footnote he said concerning Acts 3:19-21:
“It probably refers to the restoration of all the conditions in which people live because of sin, not the restoration of every person to fellowship with God.” p.20 footnote 16
However, there are numerous reasons why this restoration should be understood as primarily referring to all people. In the first place, the Early Greek Church Fathers, who still spoke the original language, understood it as including all rational creatures. If the language of the text actually militated against it referring to people, their opponents would have been quick to point out their error.
The insertion of our English word “things” is misleading. The Greek language didn’t have a word equivalent to our word “things” and when the translators insert the word “things” it can be misleading since our word “things” refers to inanimate objects. This probably contributed to De Young’s conclusion that it refers to a “condition” rather than to the restoration of people. However, the Early Greek Fathers who thought and spoke in Greek understood it to be referring to people.
The second reason why I believe it is primarily referring to people is that the restoration of all which was spoken by the mouth of the prophets since the very beginning, primarily speaks of mankind’s restoration. The one example Peter gives three verses later is the promise given to Abraham. He quoted the promise to Abraham which says:
“And in your seed ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH shall be blessed.” (Acts 3:25)
If we reflect upon this verse, we can see that it implies the restoration of all. Every family of the earth would include all mankind since Adam and Eve until the consummation. If just one member of one family will be in eternal torments, could that family be said to be blessed?
Probably the first allusion to the final restoration of all goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden where God essentially promises Eve that her seed (Christ) would destroy the enemy and restore all as it was before the fall. But as Peter said, God has repeatedly spoken concerning the restoration of all. The following are just some examples:
“All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and ALL THE FAMILIES of the nations shall worship before You.” (Psalm 22:27)
All the families of the whole world shall remember and turn to the Lord and will worship Him. This clearly speaks of a universal restoration of all people and not just the elect.
Some argue that when we see “all” and “world” in these passages on universal restoration, it is just hyperbolic speech and shouldn’t be taken literally. They cite examples of exaggerated speech in the Bible such as:
“Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:5)
Obviously, Mark didn’t mean for us to understand by “all” that literally everyone was baptized by John in the Jordan, including the unrepentant, the infants and the bed-ridden. However, common sense tells us whether one is speaking literally or hyperbolically. If I were to say: “All of San Francisco came to the meeting,” or “the whole world knows that she is the best singer,” we instantly know that it is exaggerated, hyperbolic speech used for greater impact.
On the other hand, if the captain of a sinking ship were to say to those aboard: “The ship is sinking, but don’t worry, you will all be saved,” could we still rationally say it is hyperbole? Will God someday reveal to us that His promises to save and restore all are deliberate exaggerations? Of course not! How could we even attribute such a deception to God?
Let’s look at another universal restoration passage:
“Say to God, ‘how awesome are Your works! Through the greatness of Your power your enemies shall submit themselves to You. 4 All the earth shall WORSHIP You and SING PRAISES to You; they shall sing praises to Your name.” (Psalm 66:3-4)
De Young insists that it will be a forced submission for many. But would those forced to submit against their will worship the Lord and sing praises to Him? And if their worship was obligated, would such worship be acceptable to God?
“All nations whom You have made shall come and WORSHIP before You, O Lord, and shall glorify Your name.” (Psalm 86:9)
Could the saying, “all nations whom You have made,” possibly exclude billions who will be burning in hell-fire forever cursing Him throughout all eternity? Or will they be forced to worship Him before finally being cast into the Lake of Fire? Could forced worship be seen as “glorifying His name?” This reminds me of Philippians where it says that everyone shall bow before Him:
“at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil 2:10-11)
Here, as in Psalms 86, we see that absolutely everyone whom God has made will one day worship Him “to the glory of God the Father.” How could God receive glory from forced worship?
Another Psalm where all are seen to be restored is Psalm 145:
“Jehovah is gracious, and merciful; slow to anger, and of great loving-kindness. 9 Jehovah is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all his works. 10 All thy works SHALL GIVE THANKS UNTO THEE, O Jehovah; and thy saints shall bless thee.” (Ps 145:8-10 ASV)
Don’t the expressions, “all” and “all thy works” include all of humanity and indeed all of creation?
Some say that His enemies will be obligated to bow the knee to Him against their will. Will they also be obligated to give thanks to Him before He casts them into an unending lake of literal fire? What do the Scriptures say concerning His enemies?
“Through the greatness of Your power your enemies shall submit themselves to You. 4 All the earth shall WORSHIP You and SING PRAISES to You…" (Psalm 66:3-4)
Can you imagine a scene where God forces His enemies on their knees and commands them to worship Him and sing praises to Him? Clearly His enemies will worship and praise Him because He conquered them with His love – not by an exercise of brute force. These declarations are not compatible with the eternal dualism of the Traditional doctrine of an eternal hell.
“And in this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all people a feast of choice pieces, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of well-refined wines on the lees. 7 And He will destroy on this mountain the surface of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations. 8 He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces…” (Isa 25:6-8)
Does this not clearly prophecy of the final restoration of all, when the veil blinding the eyes of all peoples will have been removed – when death – both the first death and the second death, are swallowed up forever and there are no more tears? How can this be explained in the light of the Traditional doctrine of hell where the majority of mankind, according to them, will be weeping and gnashing their teeth forever and ever?
When God wants to emphasize something in a very emphatic way, He swears by Himself. God has sworn by Himself that sooner or later all will look to Him and be saved:
“Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. 23 I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath 24 saying (Septuagint λεγων), ‘Surely in the Lord I have righteousness and strength.’ To Him men shall come, and all shall be ashamed who are incensed against Him.” (Isa 45:22-24)
Here we see the Lord calling upon all to look to Him and be saved. Then He swears by Himself that eventually every knee will bow, confessing that in Him they have righteousness and strength. This is not in violation of anyone’s will. Rather, when the veil which is spread over all the nations is removed, His enemies will be ashamed and in repentance they will return to Him, saying: “Surely in the Lord I have righteousness and strength.” We see in Philippians 2:10,11 that even those in heaven and under the earth will confess Jesus as Lord in due time.
At this point it is common to hear someone retort, “do you mean to say that even someone like Adolf Hitler will eventually repent and be saved? What about Sodom and Gomorrah who were destroyed with eternal fire for their immorality?” Well, what do the Scriptures say about the future of Sodom? God says in Ezekiel 16:
“I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your (Judah’s) fortunes along with them, 54 so that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done in giving them comfort. 55 And your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to what they were before; and you and your daughters will return to what you were before…. Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. 61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your sisters, both those who are older than you (Sodom and her daughters) and those who are younger (Samaria and her daughters). I will give them to you as daughters, but not on the basis of my covenant with you.” (Ezek 16:53-55; 60,61 NIV Parenthesis mine)
Here, shortly before Jerusalem was sieged and Judah taken into captivity to Babylon, God is promising them that after having judged them He will finally restore them along with the other ten tribes of Israel (Samaria and her daughters) who had been scattered among the nations because of their abominations, and He will also restore Sodom and her daughters (i.e. Gomorrah and the other four cities) as they were before. Then Judah will be ashamed because her sins were even greater than those of Sodom and Samaria.
I have yet to find this passage of Scripture even mentioned in a book opposing Universalism. I quote from the New International Version because the King James Version inserted “when I” instead of “I will” at the beginning of verses 53 and 55 in order to remove its fulfillment from the realm of certainty. Most recent translations, however, correct this apparently deliberate alteration of the text.
Ezekiel was clearly referring to the restoration of the actual people destroyed in Sodom in the days of Lot since there were no survivors to continue their name. If the restoration of all includes even Sodom, then who could possibly be excluded? Those before the flood? If they are excluded, then why did Jesus go and preach to them?
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water… 4:6 For this reason the gospel was preached (εὐαγγελίζω) also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.” (1Peter 3:18-20; 4:6)
Here we see that Jesus went and preached the gospel to those who were dead and imprisoned for their former disobedience in order that they might live to God even though they had been previously judged according to the flesh. And who were these who had formerly been disobedient? They were the very ones who had corrupted themselves to such a degree that God had to destroy them in the flood, much as He did with Sodom.
And how does De Young respond to this? He says the following:
“The text of 1 Peter 3:18-4:6 better means that Christ went by the Spirit to those now in prison, in hell, in the days of Noah and preached to the wicked then in the preaching of Noah. There was not a subsequent preaching. Even if there were a preaching by Jesus between his death and resurrection, it is more likely that it was a proclamation of triumph, not an invitation to believe the gospel.” p.221
De Young says that, instead of Peter saying that Jesus went and preached to those who were dead and imprisoned in hades after His victory over death and hades, he meant to say that Jesus had already preached through Noah to the people who were destroyed in the flood some 2,000 years earlier while they were still alive.
This is the same answer I gave as a young pastor when asked to explain this passage, but It is obviously not the straightforward meaning of the text. Both verbs “preached” in 3:19 and 4:6 are in the aorist indicative form which indicates that the preaching was a one-time event rather than Noah’s 120 years of continuous preaching. Nevertheless, such a forced interpretation is necessary in order for them to be able to deny the promised restoration of all – including even those who perished in the flood. Also, we see that the gospel was not preached to the living before the flood but rather to those who are dead, in order that they might live unto God in the spirit even though they had been previously judged in the flesh.
The most logical meaning of the passage is that after His death He went and preached the gospel (Gr. euaggelizo 4:6) to those who were disobedient to the preaching of Noah, and as a result were destroyed in the flood and were imprisoned in hades. After Christ’s victory He took possession of the keys of hades and death according to Revelation 1:18. Through His shed blood He now had the authority to free Satan’s captives and so He went and preached the good news to them, so that even though they had been judged in the flesh they might live to God in the spirit.
Although De Young seeks to discount the testimony of the Early Greek Church Fathers, this was the belief of many at that time. For example, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, who lived between 296 and 373 A.D. said:
“While the devil thought to kill one, he is deprived of all, cast out of Hades and sitting by the gates, sees all the fettered beings led forth by the courage of the Savior.”
Gregory Nazianzen, who lived from 330 and 390 A D, wrote:
“Until He loosed by His blood all who groan under Tartarean chains.”
And again, he says:
“Today salvation has been brought to the universe to whatsoever is visible and whatsoever is invisible…the gates of Hades are thrown open.”
While it is the subject of another article, those like De Young who defend the Traditional doctrine of eternal torment, typically seek to minimize, discredit or suppress the clear testimony of prominent Early Greek Church Fathers as well as the testimony of the most respected Church historians such as Eusebius, Johann Gieseler and Philip Schaff.
In the next article we will continue our critique of De Young’s rebuttals to the texts which we understand to be speaking of a universal restoration. It is certainly not my intention to demean him in any way or single him out. The only reason I selected his book “Exposing Universalism” as the topic for these articles is because It is the most thoughtful attempt to refute Universalism I have seen so far. Actually, I agree with him on many points which don’t directly apply to Biblical Universalism.