Universal Salvation… It’s not all bad!

Is “Universalism” really a four-letter word? asks Adam Couchman

I‘ve had reason lately to contemplate the suggestion of universal salvation - that is, everyone will be saved in the end.

No need for repentance, conversion or any sense of morality, you’re just “in”.

I’ve been thinking about this for no other reason than I take the words of The Army’s sixth doctrine very seriously… “made an atonement for the whole world”. Similarly, I look at passages such as Titus 2:11; “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people” (ESV), and ask myself the question “What does it mean to say all people?”.

How do we address that? Do we actually mean, “the whole world” or do we rationalise it in some way as needing a caveat clause: only those who go through some “initiation process” of some kind “get in” (be that a “sinners prayer” or otherwise)?

I recognise that there is a fairly weighty scriptural basis for the suggestion that some people are “in” and some people are “out”. The Bible does speak of a place of punishment, and a place of reward, and Paul frequently uses the phrase “in Christ” which suggests there are some who are “out of Christ”. But for me, as I said to a friend over coffee the other day, I’d much rather dance with a doctrine that said “all people are saved” than one that suggests that 75-80% of people in the world are going straight to hell. There’s a certain amount of attraction towards and comfort in universalism there. It says a lot about the extensiveness and extravagance of God’s love and grace.

I’m not a universalist, though. I’m still not convinced that it’s orthodox, and neither has the church been throughout its history. I’m with Karl Barth at this point, though, who when accused of being a universalist (which he wasn’t) he responded by saying “I’m not, but would it be so bad if I was?”

However, I do find that upon raising even the possibility of universalism there’s a certain amount of discomfort that arises in people almost immediately. Stop for a moment and assess your own thoughts and feelings as you’ve been reading this post. Are you disagreeing with any suggestion of universalism? Have you been considering a strongly worded rebuttal (which is welcomed by the way)? What’s going on inside your head at the mention of this word?

“Universalism” is just one of those theological dirty words (It’s a shame it’s not spelt with four letters). It seems to be one place of common ground as a “no-go zone” regardless of one’s particular theological bent in other areas.

I have to ask why is that so?

Again, would it be so bad if God did, in fact, save everyone in the end? Would it be so bad if God did say that “Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient for all, you don’t have to do anything, you don’t even have to be a particularly nice person, you’re all saved, you’re all in!” This is where the discomfort arises.

How would we feel if our next door neighbour in eternity was Adolf Hitler? Or Osama bin Laden? Or an axe-murderer? Or a child rapist? This, I suspect, is the underlying source of our discomfort with any suggestion of universalism. We want retributive justice. Like when we watch any movie based on a theme of “us” and “them” we want to know that the bad guy gets it in the end. Reminiscent of the scene in Bruce Almighty when he’s standing in the rain screaming at God, we know God can do some pretty good “smiting” and we’re looking forward to when he does that to “those evil people in the world” in the end (i.e. not “us” but “them”)…

Universalism, for all its faults, does have one thing going for it. It exposes within us the limits of our own love for others; particularly the love we have for our enemies.

What did Jesus say? “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love you neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:43-45 ESV). In the context of this discussion those words become particularly powerful.

When was the last time you prayed for Adolf Hitler, or Osama bin Laden, or much closer to home someone who insults me? When have you prayed for your enemy’s eternal salvation? I don’t think I’ve ever done that! “Lord, have mercy upon him/her.” It’s almost painful to type those words in reference to those “enemies”, let alone pray for them.

But doesn’t that say more about me than it does about God? Doesn’t that expose in me the extent of my ability to love my enemies, whilst at the same time showing just how far God goes to provide a means of salvation for all people. In the light of that, consider these words from Romans…

“For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person-though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die-but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.” (Romans 5:6-11)

We were “enemies of God”, Paul suggests, yet still at that time Christ died. It’s as if we are the terrorist, or the mass murderer, or the child rapist in our considerations above. We deserved God’s retributive justice (”Smite me Almighty Smiter!” as Bruce Almighty so aptly said), but instead of it being directed towards us it was directed towards Christ. God should have punished us. God should have destroyed us, yet because of his covenantal love and the faithfulness of Christ he fulfilled his promises to Abraham, Moses and David through Jesus Christ and now makes them available to all people, Jews and Gentiles, through Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit. This still amazes me and to be perfectly honest I still don’t fully understand it. But boy am I thankful!

Let’s not forget that this is where we’ve come from and in the light of that consider where we’re going, and also who’s coming with us. Do we just want it to be “the lost, the last and the least” (as important and absolutely vital as they are). It’s interesting that often that phrase is said by those who are “the found, the first, and the finest”.

Or should we also be desparately seeking “the worst, the woeful and the wicked”? To coin a completely overused phrase… what would Jesus do?

“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.”

Writer: Captain Adam Couchman is currently the Director for the School for Christian Studies at Booth College, Australia Eastern Territory. He loves reading, talking, discussing, thinking, and re-thinking all things theological. Most of all, he just wants to “be Holy as God is holy”. Adam is married to Megan and together they have two girls - Brielle and Annabelle.

12 Comments to Universal Salvation… It’s not all bad!

1. Adam

   I am a universalist in that I believe God has provided salvation for the whole world and all mankind. The only caveat is that we need to as individuals accept that salvation.

   How we accept that salvation is the prime question.

   I do not believe that it is only those who have taken “the sawdust trail” who will be saved. Being born again is greater than just the concept of recognizing I am a sinner, confessing that sin and acknowledging Jesus as Lord and Master. The family of God is wider than many of who are evangelicals believe.

   And yes I ponder whether people like Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, Stalin, Lenin and a host of others will be in heaven with me.

   Thanks Adam, for the intellectual challenges you bring to us in your writings.

   John S.
John Stephenson on August 11th, 2010

2. Thanks Adam for a great piece on a difficult topic.

   The concept of ‘who’s in and who’s out’ in relation to a loving God has troubled me for a while now. In my work and the area I live I come across many lovely, devout, and pious Muslims (more lovely, devout and pious than some Christians I know) and i’ve wrestled with the notion that these guys miss out on eternal salvation just because they have grown up playing for the wrong team?

   I’m not sure Universal Salvation is the best answer to the issues around salvation. I totally believe with all my heart that salvation has been made possible by Christ and Christ alone, but is it only for those who have professed his name? That leaves a hell of alot (excuse the pun) of the earth’s humanity who will miss out.

   There are other concepts, such as Karl Rahner’s ‘Anonymous Christians’ etc that perhaps can shed some light on this important conversation but thanks heaps for getting it going Adam.

   Matt C
Matt Cairns on August 11th, 2010

3. I think one reason the Church has reacted so strongly against universalism is that it easily leads to a morally unserious fatalism of grace — no matter what I do, I’m ‘in,’ so I may as well have fun sinning! It’s like the popular ‘eternal security’ doctrine on steroids.

   It could also easily lead to laziness in evangelism by Christians. Origen, the great father of universalism, wrote that this doctrine should be kept a secret so as not to discourage non-Christians from seeking salvation. Also, ’salvation’ is more than a ticket out of hell — it’s Christoformity.

   If Hitler is in heaven, God will have changed him to the point that my Jewish uncle will feel safe living beside him. As for 80% of humanity going to hell, I agree with Matt C that inclusivism is a good alternative to both universalism and exclusivism. I would favor the inclusivistic views of John Wesley and C. S. Lewis, though, over Rahner’s view, which seems to downplay sin too much.

   Jerome V.
Jerome VK on August 12th, 2010

4. If hell actually exists as a place of eternal punishment and suffering, then the being that allows people to go there is evil.

   Forget about whatever Christian cliches that get bandied around about God’s ‘perfect justice’ and things along those lines. no-one deserves eternal punishment.

   What possible purpose does it serve? If hell does exist in this form, then let’s stop talking about the love of God - a God who sends those that do not meet a specific criteria is a monster to be feared. Those of us who have been in the church for a long time have had it drilled into us that we all deserve hell, and that it is only by repentance and faith that we can avoid it. I completely disagree.

   So is universalism the answer? How about simply annihalation for the souls that don’t make the heaven list? Maybe temporary punishment for their sins then entry to heaven? Perhaps this life is it - when we die we just cease to exist and our ’soul’ dies with our body.

   Jack S.
jack on August 12th, 2010

5. I’m not exactly a universalist - but I think I would be accused of being pretty close to one.

   When I was in training (I am a former officer), one of my doctrine teachers (then Major Graham Harris) used to quite often quote ‘they shall be judged according to the light given them’ which was a translation from the original Greek of 1 Peter 4:5-6 ‘5But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.’ He used to tell us that in other words, we will be judged by God, according to the way we have understood the revelation of God - whatever that revelation may have been. (I say here that the major was a converted Jew, who had an extremely good understanding of Jewish literature, and studdied extensively under an extremely highly respected Rabbi - so he probably understood Jewish literature (which the Bible is part of) better than most)

   This raises a lot of questions - and answers. At this point, we begin to see the merit in Universalism. The article ponders whether Adolf Hitler etc., will be in heaven. Let me remind us that the church supported Hitler and his concentration camps. They saw it as biblical. Priests turned many people over to SS officers knowing they would be killed or sent to camps. These are not isolated stories - it was the norm. Many of the ‘really bad’ dicatators in history truly believed they were doing God’s work. Many Christians and Christian leaders in history who today would be considered completely ungodly, believed they were doing God’s work. Remember, it was the church who fully supported slavery, genocide in various places (it was even practiced by ‘God’s people’ in the bible). What about the Christian leader who murders an abortion worker?

   Not everyone has or ever will receive the same revelation of ‘the light’ as everyone else. In fact, not everyone has the same gospel available to them. And those that do, it is revealed differently. Therefore - there is no straight-forward answer to who will or will not be saved. That is left up to the great judge, who will judge according to the way in which they have received and understood the revelation of God - whatever that may be. That may mean that Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Agnostics, even Atheists, gay, straight, men, women, slave, free, criminal, righteous, even despotic dictators will all be in heaven with us. There is no one-size-fits-all doctrine - except to say that the one attoning sacrifice applies to us all and saves us all. How we understand that will differ from person to person.

   But this is not universalism…….

   Yours in Christ,
   Graeme
Graeme Randall on August 12th, 2010

6. I once heard Miroslav Volf answer a question as to whether or not he was a universalist. He said that he hoped everyone would be saved, but he wasn’t sure that this was what scripture said. I thought that was an interesting response, and it sort of gets at what you’re saying, Adam. We shouldn’t be angered at the prospect of universal salvation, but neither can we usurp God’s place in pronouncing judgment by saying that all will be saved.

   As for the question of other religions, Wesley had started to wrestle with this question later in his life, and he appealed to the same phrase that Graeme mentions, “according to the light given them.”

   Here’s a relevant passage from Sermon 91, “On Charity,” which uses the phrase [section I.3].

   “But it may be asked, “If there be no true love of our neighbour, but that which springs from the love of God; and if the love of God flows from no other fountain than faith in the Son of God; does it not follow, that the whole heathen world is excluded from all possibility of salvation? Seeing they are cut off from faith; for faith cometh by hearing; and how shall they hear without a preacher?” I answer, St. Paul’s words, spoken on another occasion, are applicable to this: “What the law speaketh, it speaketh to them that are under the law.” Accordingly, that sentence, “He that believeth not shall be damned,” is spoken of them to whom the Gospel is preached. Others it does not concern; and we are not required to determine any thing touching their final state. How it will please God, the Judge of all, to deal with them, we may leave to God himself. But this we know, that he is not the God of the Christians only, but the God of the Heathens also; that he is “rich in mercy to all that call upon him,” according to the light they have; and that “in every nation, he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him.”

   You can read the rest here:
   http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/sermons/091.htm.

   The Bicentennial edition of Wesley’s works references Romans 12:6 as a source for the phrase “according to the light they have,” though in most versions Rom. 12:6 reads “according to the grace they have received.” The text of Romans 12 obviously doesn’t relate directly to what he’s talking about here, but the premise is that each of us should serve according to the grace that God has given us, so it could be extended in other ways.

   For Wesley, God’s grace must be active beyond the bounds of the Church, because we see real evidence of the “love of neighbour” in people who are not Christian. Because he believed in total depravity, he would have to say that this love which is evidenced in non-Christians comes from God (it is not “natural” or innate in humans in their fallen state to love one another, therefore any love that we see is evidence that God is at work in some way, overcoming human depravity and working good in people’s lives). Some people speak of this in terms of an “optimism of grace.” God’s grace is everywhere, always at work in people, whether they know it or not, and God’s judgment will be based on how people have responded to the measure of grace that they have received. For Christians this means one thing, and for others it will mean something else. And this can be affirmed without denying that salvation ultimately comes through Christ alone, as Graeme has said.

   Of course it would be anacrhonistic to say that Wesley had an “inclusivist” theology of religions, but there are some hints in that direction. Many Wesleyan evangelicals won’t be willing to go there. However I do think it is interesting that the resources are there within the Wesleyan tradition to think about salvation in a way that is not strictly exclusive to those who explicitly profess faith in Christ.

   James
James on August 13th, 2010

7. Who was it that said (something like) “I’m not a universalist, but God might well be one…”?

   Jason D-K
Jason Davies-Kildea on August 13th, 2010

8. Thanks for the thoughtful responses everyone. I appreciate it.

   This is really one part of a whole heap of issues I’m thinking about at the moment, all related to the issue of “What do we mean by ‘all’?”. Related to this is the “how much more” comparison between ‘Adam’ and ‘Christ’ in Romans 5 (if you’re going to rely on Augustine’s concept of original sin then this is an important question to deal with as well)…

   Rather than responding to each comment, I will take everything that’s been provided (for which I’m very grateful) and use it to contribute to further posts.

   Thanks
   Adam
Adam Couchman on August 15th, 2010

9. Hmmm. Thought provoking stuff Adam, well done!

   Two quotes that may or may not add something to the discussion:

   “One does not miss heaven by a hair” (Dallas Willard).

   Also, Robert Mulholland Jr. would say that God’s redeeming love is in everyone - conversion is our awakening to that love or as he says: “spirituality is a pilgrimage of deepening responsiveness to God’s control of our life and being.” One of the great gifts of God to humanity is our ability to say no. It appears that God allows us to say ‘no’ to him and respects our decision and that in some way, annihalation or hell or something else, our ‘no’ has eternal consequences. As to who has said ‘no’ to God, I’m just going to trust God that he has heard everybody correctly.

   Grant SB
Grant on August 16th, 2010

10. This discussion is also being discussed in parallell on another site ‘Former Salvation Army Officers’. In the private site for members only - one of the members has said he is a universalist for no other reason than this - ‘I would not send anyone to hell, and I can’t believe that I am more loving or merciful than God’. Very sobering comment.

    Graeme Randall
Graeme Randall on August 17th, 2010

11. I think Karl Barth also said (in response to the charge he was a universalist) “Let’s just say that I think there will be a lot of surprises on Judgment Day.”

    Cameron H.
Cameron on August 18th, 2010

12. As a Christian Universalist believing in a common salvation, God our great Creator is giving us all a full hands-on, no-holds-barred experience with sin and death, and has duly redeemed us all out of this situation through His son Jesus, as a ransom sacrifice, all to be testified in due time. Our given example is Saul - a murderous,jack-booted little Hitler - completely changed to Paul, a dedicated disciple. Jesus told the Jews who were about to stone him to death that they were Gods —– and that the scripture could not be broken. Paul told the disbelieving, philosophical Athenians that they were ‘in God’. God’s sworn oath is that all knees shall bow to Him and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God (this will be brought about in due time).

    Does this include Lucifer in his role as Satan? You bet it does! This is what is meant by ‘Love your enemies’.

    Yours in Him,

    Stan
Stan Barling on August 27th, 2010

Leave a comment