by George Sidney Hurd
 
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God.” (1 John 4:1)
 
In recent years many have been traumatized by a deluge of books and videos graphically describing vivid terrifying accounts of visions of Hell. For the most part, those outside the Christian faith pass them off, pointing to them as one more justification for rejecting the Christian message.
 
The ones most adversely affected by visions of Hell are children and newborn believers who lack the full assurance of faith, not yet fully understanding that our salvation is not based upon our works but entirely upon the finished work of Christ on the cross.
 
When I first came to know the Lord in 1969, I remember reading certain verses out of context and feeling despair until I continued reading and could see the verse in context. There were no such videos nor internet at that time. I can’t even imagine what it would be like to be a new believer today, aware of your own shortcomings and hearing such graphic testimonies of Christians being tormented in Hell forever for sins you are still struggling with!
 
While some testimonies of Hell, such as the "Well to Hell" or "Siberian Hell Sounds" hoax
have since been exposed as fraudulent, I believe that most of them truly were supernatural visions. However, all too often the source of such supernatural encounters goes unquestioned in Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. Often, just calling into question a vision or a prophecy is treated as equivalent to blaspheming the Holy Spirit. In Scripture we are told not to believe every spirit, but to test the spirits to see whether they are of God. And we have the Scriptures by which to test them. As Peter said of the Scriptures, we have “a more sure word of prophecy” (2Peter 1:19-21). The written Word of God is the only objective standard by which to discern between what is true and what is false. Instead of the declarations of the prophets being beyond question, Paul said: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge” (1Cor 14:29-30).
 
While each of us must draw our own conclusions, in this article I will be presenting why I do not believe that these visions of Hell are of God: 1) They invalidate the gospel, 2) They present a different Christ, and 3) They do not Correspond with the Biblical Description.
.
 
1) They Invalidate the Gospel
 
The gospel of Jesus Christ is all about what He did for us, and nothing about what we have done or will do for Him. In 1Corinthians 15:1-4 Paul tells us that the gospel is that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose from the dead. When Christ cried out from the cross “it is finished” it was the declaration that He had paid the penalty for the sins of the world. Salvation is the gift of God, freely offered to mankind. We do not work for this gift – we simply receive it by faith. The moment we receive it, we are saved.
 
Some have mistakenly argued that our salvation isn’t consummated the moment we put our trust in Jesus. They point out that “whoever believes” in John 3:16 is present tense, and from that they argue that it should read “whoever continues believing.” Interpreted that way, one could never have assurance of salvation.
 
However, at the risk of becoming too technical, the phrase “whoever believes in Him” (πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτόν) in John 3:16 is a clear example of the gnomic present in Koine Greek. It expresses a timeless, universal truth. In other words, it means that anyone, at any time, who believes in Jesus will receive eternal life. This usage underscores the universal scope of salvation rather than continuous action of believing.
 
This is made even more clear by the example Jesus gave in the previous two verses. In John 3:14-15 Jesus said:
 
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”
 
Jesus was referring to Numbers 21 where the children of Israel sinned against the Lord and He sent deadly serpents against them. When Moses interceded for them, the Lord told him to make a bronze serpent and lift it up on a pole, saying that everyone who looked at the serpent would live. Jesus was saying that even as one look of faith at the bronze serpent gave life, even so, everyone who believes on Him will not perish but have everlasting life. Obviously, they didn’t have to keep their eyes on the serpent for the rest of their lives in order to live. In the same manner, the moment we believed we passed from death unto life. This is made even more clear a few verses later where Jesus said:
 
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” (John 5:24)
 
Here, just as in John 3:16, “hears” and “believes” are gnomic present tense participles, referring not to continually hearing, but to those in the category of hearers and believers. If you have heard the gospel and responded in faith, you already possess eternal life and will not come into judgment (i.e., go to Hell). The moment you heard the gospel and believed with your heart, your eternal destiny was sealed. Paul said:
 
“In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.” (Eph 1:13-14)
 
Upon hearing and believing we were sealed until Christ comes to receive us in glory. Paul said: “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Eph 4:30). If we sin, we grieve the Spirit and may come under chastisement, but God will not break His seal or unborn those who have been born of God. He will not unjustify those whom He has justified: that would be double jeopardy. He will not take back the gift of life once He has given it: “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).
 
The New Testament repeatedly emphasizes that salvation is a free gift of God that one receives upon believing, independent from works. Paul said:
 
“For by grace you have been saved (perfect passive) through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Eph 2:8-9)
 
Here we see that the moment we believed by grace in what Christ did for us, we were saved. The perfect passive, “have been saved,” indicates that salvation is something we passively received in the past with the enduring result that we remain in a saved state. We make no contribution whatsoever; salvation is entirely the gift of God. As we see in the next verse (Ephesians 2:10), every change within us after being saved is God’s workmanship. In this manner all grounds of boasting are removed. God who begins the good work in us is the one who brings it to perfection (Phil 1:6). He is the one who accomplishes our subsequent full sanctification. Paul says of our sanctification:
 
“Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.” (1 Thess 5:23-24)
 
Jude says that God our Savior is able to keep us from falling and to present us faultless before His throne of glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24-25). Praise His wonderful name! We can be at peace, knowing that we have been freely justified once and for all by grace apart from works (Rom 3:21-24; 4:4-5; 5:1). There remains no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1). No one, nor anything, will ever be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 8:38-39). Understanding these truths enables us to enter into His rest, ceasing from our own striving for salvation and trusting in His finished work of redemption (Heb 1:3; 4:10; 10:12,14).
 
The testimonies of visions of Hell seek to invalidate this good news of salvation, saying that they saw true born again believers in Hell. One testimony speaks of a pastor who went to hell because he died in an accident after leaving his house before reconciling with his wife after a disagreement. [1] In another testimony, a woman who was faithful and active in her church leadership for years said that she was shown that she would have been in Hell forever just for having supported her pastor’s ministry, knowing that he was beginning to focus more on his ministry than on Christ. [2] Many like Angelica Zambrano, were shown Christians in hell for things such as failing to tithe or listening to secular music. [3] Some who were members of legalistic churches said they saw women in Hell for wearing pants or jewelry and wearing makeup or dying their hair.
 
Mary Baxter’s book, A Divine Revelation of Hell, has sold over 1.3 million copies. In it she tells why born-again Christians were in Hell. One man was in Hell because he didn’t loan money to someone to pay for a funeral. [4] Another said he was in Hell for refusing to give an alcoholic money under the pretext of buying clothes and shoes for his boy. [5] Under these conditions, it would be impossible for anyone here in Latin America to avoid going to Hell, since people are continually asking for handouts, making it impossible to give to everyone who asks.
 
I could give many more examples where the visions of Hell describe born again believers as being in Hell because of one sin they committed without having repented on time. I am convinced that these visions come from the enemy masquerading as an angel of light in an attempt to invalidate the gospel of grace, causing believers to look to themselves for salvation rather than trusting in Christ’s finished work. In Romans 11:6, Paul is emphatically redundant in insisting that if it be by grace, it cannot be by works. He says:
 
“And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.”
 
Salvation is either by grace or by works; it cannot be both. It cannot be a 50/50 transaction: it can’t even be a 99/1 transaction. Salvation is 100% a gift of God’s grace. Subsequent works are the fruit of salvation, not that which obtains it. We are His workmanship, and “He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:6).
 
Visions of Hell have caused many a believer to take their eyes off of Jesus and focus on their own performance, as Paul said he did in Romans 7:9-25. The moment we take our eyes off of Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, we fall from the grace-walk into fleshly striving and self-condemnation. Satan is our accuser, and we need to be aware of his strategies. Paul addresses a similar situation in his epistle to the Galatians. Judaisers had “bewitched” the believers in Galatia, causing them to doubt the sufficiency of Christ, saying that if they wanted to be justified, they would have to add their own works. He made it clear that when works are added, it is no longer good news. He said:
 
“I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.”
“O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?”
“I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.” (Gal 1:6-7; 3:1-2; 2:21)
 
If Paul characterized the Judaizers’ addition of works to simple faith in Christ as being a perversion of the gospel, what would he say about the vivid and grotesque descriptions of born again believers in Hell because they lacked sufficient works, or died without having confessed every sin? The closer our walk with the Lord, the more we become aware of the fact that we sin daily in thought and deed. These modern visions of Hell don’t simply “trouble” believers, they often traumatize them, causing them to fall from the grace-walk, setting aside the grace of God, hoping to become righteous enough to escape the horrific everlasting Hell depicted in these demonic visions. Clearly, these visions of Hell invalidate the gospel of grace and are a stumbling block to many sincere Christians.
 
2) They present a Different Christ
 
In many of these testimonies concerning visions of Hell, they claim that Jesus personally took them on a guided tour of Hell. Many fear even considering the possibility that it is not the true Christ but a false Christ, a messenger of Satan disguised as a messenger of light (2Cor 11:14). Jesus warned us of these times, saying:
 
“For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Matt 24:24)
 
As I see it, the primary objective of these visions of Hell is to try to deceive the elect into thinking that their salvation depends upon their own works, rather than resting in the finished work of Christ. Jesus said that many would come in His name, saying “I am the Christ,” deceiving many (Matt 24:5). Most of the present-day appearances of those claiming to be “the Christ” are not a physical person, but are appearances in visions, so we must learn to test the spirits.
 
Several supposed encounters with Jesus in Hell, such as that of the hard rock musician, Tim Ehmann were experienced by non-believers while on drugs. [6]  While that in itself doesn’t rule out the possibility of Jesus actually appearing to someone on drugs, the likelihood that it was a deceiving spirit masquerading as a messenger of light greatly increases.
 
Most describe Jesus in a manner inconsistent with His character as revealed in Scripture. According to Mary Baxter, Jesus took her to Hell for 30 nights, showing her those who were in torments. When those in unspeakable torments cried out to Jesus for mercy, His often-repeated response was, “peace be still.” The only time the Jesus of the Gospels said “peace be still” was when He calmed the sea. To say peace be still to someone in torments, only to leave them in the same condition, would be a mockery and inconsistent with His nature. Also, those taken to Hell are often portrayed as having more compassion than Christ Himself. When Mary Baxter would want to alleviate their suffering, Jesus would say “it’s too late.” In contrast, the Jesus of Scripture says that He will draw all unto Himself, that He will seek and save the lost until the last lost sheep is safe in the fold (Jn 12:32; Luke 19:10; Matt 18:12). Is He not the God who said that He will not cast off any of the children of men forever? (Lam 3:31-33).
 
Also, common to the Jesus of these visions, He often leaves the one He takes to Hell alone to be subjected to the torments of hell so they can experience it for themselves. The following is only the beginning of increasingly horrendous tortures that the Jesus of Mary’s vision abandoned her to in the “jaws of Hell”:
 
“And then I felt my flesh and skin begin to fall off my bones! (For some reason, it seemed like I had flesh.) I screamed in abject horror. “O Jesus,” I called out, “where are You?” [7]
 
Her torments only got worse from here. She said that after being tormented in Hell she was ill and traumatized for several days afterwards. For me, it is hard to imagine the Jesus of the Gospels, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, subjecting anyone to such horrors, let alone a justified born again believer.   
 
Even worse is what Angelica Zambrano (who was only 18 years old at the time) said that Jesus did to her. According to her account, Jesus told her that on November 7, 2009, he was going to kill her and take her to Hell so she could see what it was like in order to warn others, but that afterwards he would raise her from the dead. She pleaded with him not to kill her, but He insisted that it was His will. She said that when she died and was going down into Hell she was horrified and asked the Lord to take her back, but he said it was necessary. In a manner similar to Mary Baxter, he left her alone to feel the torments of Hell firsthand. She said when he raised her from the dead after 23 hours laying on the floor that it took her two weeks to be able to get out of bed, and demons came into her room and tormented her. And that wasn’t the end of it. She said that Jesus took her to Hell three more times, although on those occasions she didn’t have to die. As could be expected, many have suffered PTSD as a result of what they experienced. I can’t imagine the Jesus of the Bible subjecting a young girl, whose only desire was to please Him, to such a hellish experience. According to her, Jesus even showed her children who were in Hell for having watched cartoons! [8]
 
Considering all of these details, and the fact that the visions present Jesus as negating the gospel by making salvation dependent upon what we do for Him, rather than what He did for us on the cross, I would say that the only logical conclusion we can come to is that the Jesus of these visions of Hell is not the Jesus of the Bible.
 
3) They do not Correspond with the Biblical Description
 
Another reason why I do not believe that these visions of Hell are of God is because there are numerous ways in which they do not correspond with what we see in Scripture. For brevity, I will not point out the distinction between Sheol or Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna fire or eonian fire.
 
            1. Jesus indicated that people will not be persuaded by someone who saw Hell
 
The reason that the Jesus of the visions gives for taking them to Hell is so that others will not go to that place of torment. However, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, when the rich man implored Abraham that Lazarus be sent back from the dead in order to warn others so that they would not go to that place of torment, Abraham’s reply presents a strong argument against their claim that Jesus took them to Hell and back in order that others would not go to that place of torment:
 
“Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.'  29 Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'  30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'  31 But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.'" (Luke 16:27-31)
 
If Jesus indicated in this parable that people would not believe even though one should rise from the dead to warn them, why would He be doing that today? Why subject His beloved children to such horrific torments?
 
Jesus is not wringing His hands, hoping that people will come to Him. He 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” (John 6:44). Man is so lost and blinded by sin that they could not believe, even if someone were to come back from the dead to warn them. The good news is that, although some will receive their part in the Lake of Fire, being hurt by the second death, in the final dispensation of the fullness of the times, He will have drawn all unto Himself, resulting in God being all in all (Jn 12:32; Eph 1:10; 1Cor 15:28). God has sworn by Himself that all the ends of the earth, including those presently under the earth, will look to Him and be saved, bowing the knee and confessing Jesus Christ as Lord (Isa 45:22-24, c.f. Phil 2:10-11). I further develop these points in my book, The Universal Solution.
 
Therefore, it is very unlikely that the Jesus of the Gospels would be sending His children to Hell and back so that they could warn others not to go there. It is more probable that it is another ploy of the enemy, intended to fill people’s hearts with fear, especially Christians, so that, instead of resting in Christ’s finished work, they will begin to frantically strive for salvation. They will also begin preaching the other gospel which Paul said was in reality not a gospel at all. The result is converts preaching a false gospel of works, making others twice as much a son of hell (Gehenna) as themselves (Matt 23:15).
 
            2. Satan and his demons are not in Hell
 
Many who claim to have been in Hell and back say that Satan himself was in charge and the demons were not in torments but rather were the tormentors. According to these visions, Satan and his demons are never tormented, but are the ones administering torments throughout all eternity. However, Satan and his demons are nowhere shown to even be in Hell at this time. The angels who left their proper abode are not with the dead, but bound in the abyss or Tartarus (Jude 6). Satan is presently the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2). It isn’t until Christ returns and sets up His millennial reign that Satan is cast into the abyss (Rev 20:1-3). The only places where demons are seen to be operating in Scripture is in the heavens and upon the earth (Eph 6:12; Luke 11:24). Jesus said in Matthew 25:41 that the eonian fire, equivalent to Gehenna and the Lake of Fire, was prepared for the devil and his angels, but they weren’t there yet. This we can see in Matthew 8:29 where the legion of demons in the demoniac of Gadara cried out to Jesus saying: “What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”
 
Additionally, when Jesus said that the eonian fire was prepared for the devil and his angels, it is obvious that He didn’t mean that God had prepared it as a kingdom for them to rule, as the visions of Hell portray it, but rather they themselves will undergo the fiery torments. They will not be the tormentors, but the tormented. The depiction of demons tormenting souls in Hell as we first see in later Christian literature, such as the 2nd century pseudo Apocalypse of Peter and further expanded upon in the 14th century Divine Comedy by Dante were not derived from Scripture, but from Greco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern sources. I believe that they are in reality doctrines of demons, overthrowing the faith of some.
 
            3. The descriptions of Hell are contradictory and not biblical
 
There are nearly as many different and conflicting descriptions of Hell as there are people who have had the visions. However, for space, I will simply give a few examples. In R. Cook’s vision he saw that Hell had nine levels spiraling downwards, just as described in Dante’s Divine Comedy.[9] In marked contrast Mary Baxter said that Hell was in the form of a human body and for thirty nights she was taken to different parts of the body of Hell. This is a quote from her book:
 
“Jesus said, ‘We are now about to enter a tunnel that will take us into the belly of hell. Hell is shaped like a human body lying in the center of the earth. The body is lying on its back, with both arms and both legs stretched out. As I have a body of believers, so hell has a body of sin and death. As the Christ-body is built up daily, so the hell-body is also built up daily.” [10]
 
She presents Jesus as saying that, just as Christ is building His body, so Satan is literally building his own body in Hell! It was in the jaws of the body of Hell that she claimed that Jesus had left her alone to be tortured so she could experience firsthand what it felt like to be tormented forever in Hell. However, when Jesus said that the eonian fire was prepared for the devil and his angels, He didn’t mean that Satan himself was the one preparing it (Matt 25:41).
 
In Bill Wiese’s book 23 Minutes in Hell, which has sold over a million copies and was on the New York Times Best Seller list, he said that he didn’t see any children in Hell, and he gave a scriptural explanation as to why there wouldn’t be any children in Hell. [11] However, others, such as Angelica Zambrano, say that they saw children who were in Hell for doing things like disrespecting their parents or watching cartoons! [12]
 
These are just a few brief examples of the inconsistencies between these different visions, but these should serve to demonstrate that we should not believe every spirit but should test the spirits to see if they are of God. Some fear questioning visions due to their supernatural nature. However, in Scripture visions and trances are often seen to be the deception of the enemy. Ezekiel says of the false prophets in Israel:
 
“Her prophets plastered them with untempered mortar, seeing false visions, and divining lies for them, saying, 'Thus says the Lord God,' when the Lord had not spoken.” (Ezek 22:28)
 
The false prophets had visions, but they were false visions. I am not questioning the reality of the visions of Hell or the sincerity of those having them. Some of them, like Mary Baxter and Bill Wiese have made millions from the sale of their books but that doesn’t mean that their motive for writing them was monetary. Nevertheless, the test of truth is the Scriptures, not the motives of those who claim to have experienced them.
 
I am not saying that all visions of heaven and Hell are lying visions. There is a Hell to be shunned and a heaven to be received. However, every vision and every prophecy must stand the test of Scripture. As I argue in my book, The Triumph of Mercy, and my article, Sulfur, Salt and the Refiner’s Fire, the Hell of Scripture, properly called the Lake (or pool) of Fire, is not comparable to Dante’s inferno nor Mary Baxter’s body of Hell. Properly understood, it is the Refiner’s crucible, and it does not last forever but only “until” (Matt 5:26; Rev 21:8; Luke 12:47). I demonstrate that aion and aionios, often erroneously translated “everlasting” or “eternal” when referring to punishment, means “eonian” or “age during” in my article, The Duration of Punishment.
 
In summary, judging the visions of Hell by their fruits, they are not in agreement with what the Scriptures present us concerning Hell, and they negate the gospel of grace, upsetting the faith of many a sincere Christian. I believe that Paul would say concerning them the same thing that he said to the believers at Corinth:
 
“But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” (2 Cor 11:3)
 


[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnqPEVo4b-A
 
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ_AXQIom3Y&list=PPSV
 
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KoTzVVBnAk&list=PLINRBYs9Hc-3qWtkjqtJ1TXYFxo3-F5pt
 
[4] Baxter, Mary K.. A Divine Revelation of Hell (p. 192). Whitaker House. Kindle Edition.
 
[5] Baxter, Mary K.. A Divine Revelation of Hell (p. 194). Whitaker House. Kindle Edition.
 
[6] Ehmann, Tim. I Met God in Hell (p. 76). BroadStreet Publishing Group LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[7] Baxter, Mary K.. A Divine Revelation of Hell (pp. 175-176). Whitaker House. Kindle Edition.
 
[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KoTzVVBnAk&list=PLINRBYs9Hc-3qWtkjqtJ1TXYFxo3-F5pt
 
[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78QEtegZ90g&t=25s
 
[10] Baxter, Mary K.. A Divine Revelation of Hell (p. 63). Whitaker House. Kindle Edition.
 
[11] Wiese, Bill. 23 Minutes In Hell: One Man's Story About What He Saw, Heard, and Felt in that Place of Torment . Strang Communications. Loc. 1496 - A. Kindle Edition.
 
[12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KoTzVVBnAk&list=PLINRBYs9Hc-3qWtkjqtJ1TXYFxo3-F5pt

by George Sidney Hurd
“Great King, how much wisdom thy precepts require! I need thee, not only to open my mouth, but also at times to keep it shut.” [1]                                              Charles Hadden Spurgeon
 
The discovery of the scriptural truth of the final restoration of all is so glorious and liberating that we often want to shout it out to the whole world. However, while we should by no means be closet Restorationists, we nevertheless need wisdom and discernment, not only to know to whom, but also when and how to share this precious pearl with others. While there is no substitute for being sensitive to the leading of the Spirit, I believe that there are certain general guidelines which can help us be better stewards of the truth that God has entrusted to us.
 
To whom should we share?
 
Some of the Early Church Fathers who believed in the final restoration of all, practiced reserve, only sharing this truth with those whom they considered to be sufficiently mature to properly receive it. Origen said concerning the restoration of all and the temporal corrective nature of postmortem punishment:
“But the remarks which might be made on this topic are neither to be made to all, nor to be uttered on the present occasion; for it is not unattended with danger to commit to writing the explanation of such subjects, seeing the multitude need no further instruction than that which relates to the punishment of sinners; while to ascend beyond this is not expedient, for the sake of those who are with difficulty restrained, even by fear of eonian punishment (aionios kolasis), from plunging into any degree of wickedness, and into the flood of evils which result from sin.” [2]
So, Origen generally omitted the truth of the final restoration of all when speaking to the masses, emphasizing only the severity of God’s punishment of sinners, believing that only fear of punishment would restrain the common person from his wickedness.  Likewise, his predecessor, Clement of Alexandria, justified the practice of reserve, basing it upon the fact that Jesus warned against casting our pearls before swine, speaking only to the multitudes in parables which He later explained to His disciples in private. Clement said:
“He (Jesus) certainly did not disclose to the many what did not belong to the many; but to the few to whom He knew that they belonged, who were capable of receiving and being moulded according to them.”  
“Some things I purposely omit, in the exercise of a wise selection, afraid to write what I guarded against speaking: not that I thought them to be wrong, but fearing for my readers, lest they should stumble by taking them in a wrong sense; and, as the proverb says, we should be found ‘reaching a sword to a child.’”  [3]
 
While we should never be deceptive concerning that which we believe, we need divine discretion in order to know whether or not an individual or group of people are ready to receive such a glorious revelation. While some Fathers, like Clement and Origen, may have practiced reserve to the extreme, yet as Jude and the Apostle Paul indicated, we nevertheless need to know how to distinguish between the obstinately rebellious, and those who are of a broken and contrite spirit, needing words of hope and comfort (Jude 22-23; 1Thess 5:14).
 
As Jude says, there are godless men who would change the grace of God into a license for immorality (Jude 4). On the other hand, there are those who are broken in spirit, like the Samaritan woman at the well, or the woman who knelt before Jesus, washing His feet with her tears (Luke 7:36-47). The psalmist said: “The secret of the Lord is with those who fear Him, and He will show them His covenant” (Ps 25:14). God doesn’t reveal His secrets to just anyone, and we need to be sensitive to His prompting.
 
Another group of people God withholds His secrets from are the proud and self-righteous who lean on their own understanding, rather than being receptive and teachable like the Bereans (Acts 17:11). God even conceals the mysteries of the kingdom from those who do not receive the love of the truth (2Thess 2:10-12). Jesus taught in parables since even when they heard the truth most did not hear with understanding. When His disciples came to Him and asked Him why He taught in parables, He said:
 
"Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given… Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” (Matt 13:11,13)
I am sure that Jesus would have explained the mysteries of the kingdom to anyone who came to Him and asked with a desire to understand and learn from Him. Jesus referred to all those who were receptive as being “babes” or His “little children,” saying:
“I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.” (Matt 11:25-26)
 
Just prior to this declaration of praise to the Father, Jesus had sent out His disciples to proclaim the kingdom of God, saying: “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet” (Matt 10:14). Another similar phrase which is often misunderstood is the imperative, “He who is unjust, let him be unjust still” (Rev 22:10-11). From these imperatives we learn that, when it becomes evident that someone is not receptive to a given truth, even though we know it to be true, we are not to persist, since they do not have ears to hear. The best we can do in such cases is to plant a seed and move on, trusting that in due time the Lord would cause it to take root and grow in their hearts. I consider this divine injunction further in my article: What Meaneth the Phrase, “Let the Unjust be Unjust Still”.
 
While Charles Hadden Spurgeon did not believe in the final restoration of all, he had some words of wisdom when it comes to sharing any precious truth with the unreceptive. Commenting on Matthew 7:6 he said:
 
“When men are evidently unable to perceive the purity of a great truth, do not set it before them… When you are in the midst of the vicious, who are like ‘swine,’ do not bring forth the precious mysteries of the faith, for they will despise them, and ‘trample them under their feet’ in the mire. You are not to needlessly provoke attack upon yourself, or upon the higher truths of the gospel. You are not to judge, but you are not to act without judgment.” [4]
 
When should we share?
 
A common mistake many make is to begin sharing their newfound belief in the final restoration of all with others prematurely before having taken the time to fully understand exactly what the Scriptures have to say on the subject. It is not enough that a teaching resonates with us or is logically appealing. We must carefully and diligently search the Scriptures to see exactly what God says. As Paul said:
 
“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing (ὀρθοτομέω, orthotomeō) the word of truth.” (2Tim 2:15)
 
To rightly divide (ὀρθοτομέω, orthotomeō) literally means “to rightly cut a straight line.” The idea is to properly exegete the word of truth, carefully drawing our understanding from the Scriptures themselves, instead of reading our own biased understanding into them – something technically known as eisegesis.
 
The antonym for orthotomeō is στρεβλόω (strebloō), which means “to bend or twist.” Peter used this word to describe the way in which some had handled Paul’s epistles, saying that “untaught and unstable people twist (strebloō) them to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2Peter 3:16).
 
Before we share our beliefs with others on any doctrine, we first need to do a diligent study of the relevant Scriptures themselves in order to rediscover the straightforward teaching of Scripture, as opposed to doctrines of men which have been imposed upon the Scriptures. This often requires considerable time and diligence due to our own inherited doctrinal biases.
 
I didn’t even share the truth of Universal Reconciliation with my wife and children until after nearly a year of studying and prayerfully meditating on the subject day and night for nearly a year, and I didn’t share it with the congregation I was pastoring until after three years had passed and I had written my first book on the subject, The Triumph of Mercy. After publishing it so that they could read it and then doing a series of teachings on the subject, they all likewise became convinced that God’s plan for the ages culminates in the final restoration of all, rather than an eternal dualism with God sustaining the majority of mankind in everlasting torments.
 
In addition to our inherited bias, the fact that there are so many unbiblical varieties of Universalism being promoted can make the task of discerning truth from error seem even more daunting. Much of what is presented on the subject these days in books and on social media fails the test of Scripture in one way or another. The only way to sift through it all and come to a clear understanding of the truth is to test every truth-claim according to what is written in God’s Word. Jesus said of the Scriptures, “Your word is truth” (Jn 17:17). Much of that which is promoted today in social media is not biblical, and for that reason they often seek to undermine the reliability and authority of Scripture as the inspired Word of God. But if we hold the Holy Scriptures in the same esteem as did Jesus and the Apostles, the Holy Spirit who inspired them will lead us into all truth.
 
Peter said that we should always be ready to give a defense (ἀπολογία, apologia) to everyone who asks us to explain the hope that is in us, with meekness and fear (1Peter 3:15). We derived our word apologetics from the word apologia. We should all be apologists, capable of giving a scriptural reasoned defense of our convictions to anyone who asks for it. Social media offers us a great opportunity to glean understanding from others. However, many have become lackadaisical, substituting YouTube and AI for their own personal Bible study. I have found that, while these sources can be helpful, true deep conviction only comes from a personal study of the Scriptures. When you discover a truth in Scripture it becomes a part of you in a way not possible by other means. As Paul said, faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:17).
 
So, while we naturally want to shout it from the rooftops, it is usually more wise to exercise restraint until one has come to the point of having a firm conviction of the scriptural validity of the doctrine, being able to distinguish Biblical Universalism from its other heterodox variations of it and capable of giving a reasoned defense of the doctrine to others.
 
How should we share?
 
More important than when or to whom we share the good news of universal reconciliation is the manner in which we do it. We should be knowledgeable enough to be able to give a reasoned explanation for the hope that is in us, but more important than knowledge is the spirit in which we share it. Our primary motivation should be a love for truth the person we are sharing it with. All too often our pride gets in the way, and it becomes more a matter of winning an argument than sharing a precious pearl. Our motive should not be to demonstrate our knowledge, but to bless our hearers. As Paul said: “We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies” (1 Cor 8:1).
 
While we should be uncompromising with truth, we should always speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). We shouldn’t force our own convictions on anyone. As most of us know by experience, long held beliefs are mental strongholds that ultimately only the Holy Spirit can penetrate, and even then, it took most of us a lot of time for the truth to sink in. I have found that very few have been so prepared by the Lord beforehand that they immediately embrace the truth of universal reconciliation the first time it is presented to them. Even those who are open to considering it usually have many objections which need to be resolved from Scripture over an extended period of time. Often in our zeal for truth we try to force-feed people rather than presenting our beliefs to them in a way that awakens in them a desire to receive it. I believe that is what Paul had in mind when he said:
 
“Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.” (Col 4:6)
 
Finally, however pure our motives may be in sharing this glorious truth with others, we should be prepared to experience rejection. I have been a missionary here in the Colombian Amazon for many years. When the news of my belief in the final restoration of all spread to the churches that supported us in the United States, our monthly support dropped drastically. However, for me personally, that was a small price to pay for such a precious truth, and we have learned through the years that the Lord is our provider and He is always faithful to meet our needs.
 
May the Lord grant to each of us the grace to know when, how and to whom we should share this wonderful news of universal salvation.
 

[1] Charles Spurgeon, Commentary on Matthew, 7:6.
 
[2] Origen, Contra Celsius. VI. 25.
 
[3] Clement of Alexandria, Stramata, book I, chapter 1
 
[4] Charles Spurgeon, Commentary on Matthew, 7:3-5

 
by George Sidney Hurd
 
George MacDonald was born in Scottland in 1824.  As a young man he decided to pursue the pastorate and in 1850 at age 26 he was appointed minister of Trinity Congregational Church in Arundel England. However, even before entering into the ministry he had rejected many tenets of the dogmatic hyper-Calvinism of the Congregational Church he pastored, especially the belief in the predestination of all the non-elect to eternal damnation, considering such doctrines to be incompatible with the love of God.  He was not well received by his congregation due to his contempt for doctrinal teaching, calling it mere theory, void of duty. He emphasized a more mystical experiential theology saying: “I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. To no system would I subscribe. [1] After three years of rejection by his congregation he resigned the pastorate, dedicating the rest of his life to writing fantasy novels and poetry.
 
Also, no longer having a pulpit from which to preach, He wrote three series of sermons entitled, Unspoken Sermons. It is from these sermons that I will be considering his views on the atonement (or the lack thereof). Throughout his Unspoken Sermons he is notoriously vocal about the doctrines he rejects, while at the same time refusing to clearly set forth his own beliefs. After vehemently rejecting the doctrine of Christ’s vicarious substitutionary atonement for our sins, he said:
 
“Well, then,’ will many say, ‘if you thus unceremoniously cast to the winds the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice, what theory do you propose to substitute in its stead?’ ‘In the name of the truth,’ I answer, None.”  [2]
 
While this unwillingness to clearly state his beliefs concerning the atonement makes it more difficult to determine exactly what he believed, as I hope to demonstrate, his theory can be ascertained from statements he made throughout his series of Unspoken Sermons. Here we will be determining his view of the atonement considering 1) His definition of atonement, 2) His denial of Christ’s vicarious substitutionary sacrifice, 3) His Denial of Justification through Christ’s Imputed Righteousness. All of these elements taken together make it abundantly clear that his understanding of the atonement is diametrically opposed to the actual Atonement of Christ presented to us in Scripture.
 
1) His Definition of Atonement
 
George MacDonald rejected the historic belief in the atonement as Christ having born in Himself the just penalty due to us for our sins as our substitute, calling it “a low invention,” “a lie” and “a vulgar insult to God.” Instead, he based his understanding of the atonement upon the literal meaning of our English word “atonement” which was a 16th century invention, expressing the idea of at-one-ment or reconciliation. In response to those who believed in Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement he said:
 
“In what you call the atonement, in what you mean by the word, what I have already written must make it plain enough I do not believe… But, as the word was used by the best English writers at the time when the translation of the Bible was made – with all my heart, and soul, and strength, and mind, I believe in the atonement, call it the a-tone-ment, or the at-one-ment, as you please.” [3]
 
However, as I point out in my article Defining Atonement, the correct definition of the Hebrew word כִּפֶּר (kippur) and its cognates which were rendered in English translations as “atonement,” do not in themselves mean reconciliation or at-one-ment, but rather “to cover, to expiate or propitiate.” The equivalent for kippur used in the Greek LXX is ἱλασμός (hilasmos) and its cognates, which translate as, “propitiation, appeasement or satisfaction.” In the Old Testament the sacrifices were necessary in order to make propitiation or expiation (kippur) for the sins of the people. The at-one-ment was a secondary result of the sacrifice. Without the substitutionary sacrifice on behalf of the people, making propitiation for their sins before God, at-one-ment or reconciliation would not have been possible (Lev 17:11). In Leviticus 16:34 the Concordant Literal Version expresses well what the Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) sacrifice accomplished. It reads:
 
This will come to be for you as an eonian statute to make a propitiatory shelter over the sons of Israel because of all their sins, once a year. And he did just as Yahweh had instructed Moses.”
 
The sacrifice was necessary in order to cover or make propitiation for their sins, thereby making possible reconciliation or at-one-ment between God and the sinner. Without the shedding of blood there was no expiation, no atonement, no remission of sins (Lev 17:11; Heb 9:22; Matt 26:28). We were reconciled unto God by nothing less than the blood of His cross (Col 1:20).
 
How does George MacDonald respond to this biblical requirement of a substitutionary blood sacrifice in order to make atonement or expiation for sin? He rejects it outright, calling the Levitical sacrificial system a mere human invention. He said of the atoning sacrifices:
 
“God took up and made use of the sacrifices men had…invented as a way of pleasing him.” [4]
 
MacDonald not only redefines kippur (expiation) so as to simply mean reconciliation or at-one-ment, but he denies that God was the one who instituted the blood sacrifices for the remission of sin, saying that God simply accommodated their human invention. However, in order for him to do this, he must deny the authority of Scripture, since repeatedly throughout the Old Testament we see that it was God Himself who instituted the sacrificial system. God said:
 
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement (expiation) for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement (expiation) for the soul.” (Lev 17:11)
 
In spite of the fact that God Himself says that He gave the children of Israel the sacrificial system in order to make expiation or propitiation for their sins; and Hebrews 9:22 says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission; and in spite of the fact that Jesus said that the reason why He shed His blood was for the remission of our sins (Matt 26:28), MacDonald denied that Christ’s atoning death was necessary for the remission of our sins. To those who believed that Christ’s atoning sacrifice was necessary in order to satisfy God’s immutable justice he said:
 
“But you do not believe that the sufferings of Christ, as sufferings, justified the supreme ruler in doing anything which he would not have been at liberty to do but for those sufferings?’ I do not… he is bound in his own divinely willed nature to forgive. No atonement is necessary to him but that men should leave their sins and come back to his heart.” [5]
 
This is a total repudiation of what Paul presents in Romans 3:25-26 explaining why Christ’s atoning sacrifice (propitiation) was necessary:
 
“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.”
 
Paul here explains that the propitiation that Christ accomplished by shedding His blood for mankind demonstrates how God could be seen to have been just while letting sins committed prior to the cross go unpunished, and also how at the present time He can declare guilty sinners who put their trust in Jesus to be just or righteous and free from guilt without violating His justice. It is because of the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world that God can justly show mercy without being in violation of His own immutable justice (Rev 13:8; Num 14:18).  
 
If MacDonald denied that Christ’s atoning sacrifice as the Lamb of God took away the sins of the world, enabling God to be just and at the same time justify the ungodly through faith, then what did he believe the atonement involved? He believed in self-at-one-ment. He believed in a Moral Influence model of the atonement in which Christ’s example of unconditional forgiveness helps us at-one ourselves to God and others. He said:
 
“I will and can make atonement, thanks be to him who is my atonement, making me at one with God and my fellows! …in the sense of the atonement being a making-up for the evil done by men toward God, I believe in the atonement.” [6]
 
So, if the atonement is simply us making ourselves at-one with God, what role did he believe that Christ played in our atonement? MacDonald presents Christ as the head and mediator, showing us how we ourselves can make at-one-ment with God and our fellow man. He said of Christ’s role:
 
“He is the head and leader, the prince of the atonement. He could not do it without us, but he leads us up to the Father’s knee: he makes us make atonement.” [7]
 
So, working from the faulty English word at-one-ment, MacDonald presents an atonement that Christ could not have made without our participation. He presents Christ as simply going before us, showing us how it is done and helping us make our own atonement. This notion of the atonement would not have been possible in any other language. All Spanish versions correctly render kippur as expiación (expiation), as also do the French versions. Likewise, in German kippur is rendered sühne, and katallagē or reconciliation, versöhnung, thereby maintaining a clear distinction between expiation for sins and its resulting reconciliation.
 
Some have mistakenly concluded that MacDonald held to the Christus Victor theory of the atonement. However, the Christus Victor theory teaches that Christ’s atonement gained victory over Satan and the evil powers of the world 2000 years ago at the cross. The statement MacDonald made which has led some to conclude that he held to the Christus Victor model is where he said:
 
“Did he not foil and slay evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound-spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease? Verily, he made atonement!” [8]
 
Taken alone out of context this does sound similar to the Christus Victor model. However, that quote is in the context of MacDonald saying that it is we ourselves who must make atonement by following His example, thereby overcoming evil with good. Here is a more complete quote, showing the context:
 
“Did he not thus lay down his life persuading us to lay down ours at the feet of the Father?... Did he not foil and slay evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound-spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease? Verily, he made atonement! We sacrifice to God! – it is God who has sacrificed his own son to us.”
 
So, what he is really saying is that Christ facilitated our at-one-ment by setting an example, persuading us to overcome evil through self-denial, not returning evil for evil, just as He as our forerunner modeled to us. In this way evil is conquered by us as we follow His example. As I explain in my article, Complementary Views of the Atonement, there are truths contained in the Christus Victor and Moral Influence theories of the atonement. However, the central truth of the atonement is that “Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures” (1Cor 15:3). Therefore, any theory of the atonement which omits Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice for our sins is at best incomplete.
 
2) His Denial of Christ’s Vicarious Substitutionary Sacrifice
 
George MacDonald viewed Christ’s atonement as nothing more than Him suffering evil at the hands of wicked men without sin or retaliation, thereby setting an example for us to follow in making our own atonement or at-one-ment with God. He vehemently repudiated the doctrine of Christ’s substitutionary death, in which He vicariously bore the penalty for our sins on the Cross. He rejected the idea that God’s justice could be satisfied by an innocent man suffering in the place of the guilty. He said:
 
“Rather than believe in a justice that…could be any satisfaction for the wrong-doing of a man that a man who did no wrong should suffer, I would be driven from among men, and dwell with the wild beasts that have not reason enough to be unreasonable. What! God, the father of Jesus Christ, like that! His justice contented with direst injustice! The anger of him who will nowise clear the guilty, appeased by the suffering of the innocent!” [9]
 
Apart from this statement revealing his misapprehension of the atonement as a Triune endeavor, essentially dividing the Trinity, this is also a repudiation of clear statements of Scripture. In Christ there was no sin. Yet in Isaiah 53:6 it says of Christ that, “The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” Peter said:
 
“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.” (1 Peter 3:18)
 
Christ, the innocent and spotless Lamb of God, bore our sins on the cross (Isa 53:12; 1Peter 2:24; Heb 9:28). Paul said of that transfer of our guilt upon the sinless Son of God:
 
“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 5:21)
 
Because Christ bore our sins, the just for the unjust, being made to be sin for us, we have been justified or declared to be the righteousness of God in Him. Having been justified by His blood, we have been saved from the eschatological wrath of God through Him (Rom 5:8-9). The transactional truth of 2Corinthians 5:21 is beautifully expressed in the 2nd century Epistle to Diognetus:
 
“He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous... O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!” [10]
 
MacDonald argues that it is not possible for God’s justice to be satisfied by punishing an innocent victim in the place of the guilty.  However, what he fails to consider is the fact that Jesus was not merely an innocent victim. He was not some independent third party suffering on behalf of the guilty. He was God the Son Himself in flesh, bearing our sins and dying in our place as our representative head. The atonement was a Triune endeavor. God the Father was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, and Christ through the eternal Spirit vicariously offered Himself without spot to God (2Cor 5:19; Jn 10:17-18; Heb 9:14). He was the spotless Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world (Jn 1:29).
 
MacDonald rejects Christ’s substitutionary death as a myth in the same way that he regarded as a mere human invention the sacrifices that God instituted to foreshadow Christ’s death in our place as the Lamb of God without spot or blemish. In my article, The Early Fathers and Penal Substitutionary Atonement, I cite numerous Fathers dating from the time of the Apostles, demonstrating that they all affirmed what the Scriptures teach: that Christ bore the penalty for our sins as our substitute, the just for the unjust. In spite of the historicity of the doctrine, MacDonald rejects it, saying that God simply accommodated man’s mistaken notions, just as he claims He did with the sacrifices which were given to foreshadow Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice. He said:
 
“If it be asked how, if it be false, the doctrine of substitution can have been permitted to remain so long an article of faith to so many, I answer, On the same principle on which God took up and made use of the sacrifices men had, in their lack of faith, invented as a way of pleasing him.” [11] “They invented a satisfaction for sin which was an insult to God.” [12]
 
The claim that Christ’s atoning sacrifice in which He made propitiation (satisfaction of justice) for our sins is merely a human invention is a denial of Scripture itself. Romans 3:25 says of Christ’s atoning sacrifice: “whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood.” Far from it being man’s invention, it is seen to be God’s provision. MacDonald has no qualms about rejecting the Scriptures when they don’t align with his view of divine justice. To those who challenged his view of justice, saying that God is just in punishing sin, he replied:
 
“You say he does, for the Bible says so. I say, if the Bible said so, the Bible would lie…” [13]
 
3) His Denial of Justification through Christ’s Imputed Righteousness
 
Strangely, in MacDonald’s volume entitled, Justice, he doesn’t mention the words “justify” or “justification” even once. In fact, they don’t appear even once in his entire three volume set of Unspoken Sermons. This is in marked contrast to the Apostle Paul who mentions justification 18 times in the epistle of Romans alone: 16 times he uses “justify” (dikaióo), 14 of which refer to God justifying sinners (Rom 3:20,24,26,28,30; 4:2,5; 5:1,9; 6:7; 8:30,30b; 8:33), and two times he uses the word “justification or acquittal” (dikaíosis) Rom 4:25; 5:18).
 
The reason why he didn’t mention justification is because he did not believe in it. He believed in salvation by one’s own righteousness, whereas “justification” (dikaíosis) by definition means “acquittal or removal of guilt.” [14] It is something that must be received, not achieved. We were justified the moment we believed. As Paul said:
 
“Therefore, having been justified (perfect passive) by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom 5:1)
 
Justification in Scripture is not something we attain unto after a lifetime of sanctification, it is something we received the moment we believed. It is a free gift, not the result of works of righteousness which we have done (Titus 3:5-6). In Romans 3:23-24 it says: “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.”
 
I personally find MacDonald’s repudiation of God’s free gift of justification through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness shocking. He said:
 
“Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am.” [15]
 
Equally strange is his claim that that the word “imputed” is used only once in the New Testament. He said:
 
“We have the word imputed just once in the New Testament. Whether the evil doctrine may have sprung from any possible misunderstanding of the passage where it occurs, I hardly care to inquire.” [16]
 
The one instance he refers to is Romans 4:3 where it says: "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him (logizomai) for righteousness.”  I find it particularly strange that he would say that, considering that he was supposedly familiar with the New Testament Greek, and logízomai, which means, “to account as or  impute,” is used by Paul in Romans alone 18 times, 12 of which refer to our justification in which Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us (Rom 4:3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,22,23,24; 6:11).
 
MacDonald not only ignores the recurring theme of Christ’s imputed righteousness in Scripture, but he even goes to the extreme of calling it satanic. He said:
 
“And any system which tends to persuade men that…a man is saved by having his sins hidden under a robe of imputed righteousness – that system, so far as this tendency, is of the devil and not of God.” [17] “He will impute to him nothing that he has not.” [18]
 
To say that God will not impute anything to us that we are not is a direct repudiation of the gospel of justification by faith alone apart from works. For brevity, I will just cite one example where we see that even when we were yet ungodly, the moment we believed we were justified, having Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. Our sins were covered, being clothed in the robe of Christ’s imputed righteousness. In Romans 4:4-8 Paul said:
 
“Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted (logizomai) for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes (logizomai) righteousness apart from works: 7 ‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute (logizomai) sin.”
 
Here we see two opposite imputations: we have either been justified by faith, having God’s righteousness imputed to us (v. 5), or we are under condemnation, having our sins imputed to us (v. 8). MacDonald said: “Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am.” [19] In contrast, Paul says: “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.” To this MacDonald retorts: “It would be the worst of all wrongs to the guilty to treat them as innocent.” [20] Who are we going to believe, the Bible or George MacDonald? MacDonald said that if the Bible did not agree with his understanding of justice, the Bible would lie. In contrast, Paul said, “let God be true but every man a liar.” (Rom 3:4).
 
George MacDonald makes numerous other interrelated claims which I believe to be equally contrary to Scripture, such as his denial that God can be both Father and Judge (cf. 1Peter 1:17), that His immutable justice requires a just recompense for every infraction (Heb 2:2) or that God’s justice is indistinguishable from His mercy (Heb 10:28; James 2:13). It is only because of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world that God’s justice has never been in conflict with His mercy. I had intended to consider these additional points here. However, due to space, I will have to leave it for another article.
 
The good news is that Christ died for our sins, was buried and was raised because of our justification (Rom 4:24-25; 1Cor 15:1-3). Sadly, no such gospel can be found in the writings of George MacDonald.
 
[1] Greville MacDonald, George MacDonald and His Wife (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1924), 155.
 
[2] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 198). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[3] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (pp. 199-200). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[4] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 195). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[5] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III (p. 201). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[6] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 200). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[7] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 200). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[8] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 200). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[9] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 194). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[10] Mathetes, The Epistle to Diognetus, Chapter 9
 
[11] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 195). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[12] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 195). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[13] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 188). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[14] James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
 
[15] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Righteousness (p. 216). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[16] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III (p. 216). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[17] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, The Last Farthing (p. 100). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[18] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 197). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[19] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Righteousness (p. 216). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
[20] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III, Justice (p. 196). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.