Universalism, or the idea that eventually the entire world will be saved, isn’t a new idea. It isn’t as old as many might assume (and we will address this later), but it’s often posed as a modern, softer approach to salvation. As a doctrine that tends to reappear every so many generations, I’m asked about it frequently. What is it? Why does it appeal? Is there any support for it? Most importantly, is it a doctrine we should believe?
What is Universalism?
Universalism is the belief that all the world will be “saved,” able to live in eternity or eternally. It denies the existence of a literal or figurative hell, rejecting the concept of eternal torment. The principles of Universalism are not universal, contrary to what some might say. The only two religions with a comprehensive doctrine of Universalism are the Baha’i Faith and Unitarian Universalism. While some scholars attempt to explain the views of other groups (such as Buddhists or Hindus) through a universalist lens, such fails to properly understand the doctrinal precepts of those groups. When most speak of Universalism, they are speaking of a modern variant of Christian Universalism.
Christian Universalism has a spurious history. Some believe it dates back to the Early Church Fathers, but the texts many argue in defense of Universalism are inconclusive. (We will look at some of these later). Most scholars agree Christian Universalism started in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It rose in response to Calvin’s doctrine of limited atonement (sometimes called predestination). John Calvin’s belief that only a limited number of people could and would be saved, with the rest subject to eternal hellfire, represented an imbalanced perspective on spiritual reconciliation that led to others believing such was incompatible with a loving God. From this understanding came Universalism: the idea that the entire world will be saved, regardless of what an individual may choose to do or believe.
Secondary Universalist beliefs
As Universalism is a theoretical belief system, there isn’t a singular set of Universalist ideas. As a concept, it has a number of subheadings that fall under the major belief. These include:
- Hell, due to translation understandings, is a reference only to the grave.
- Nobody, regardless of any action, can be separated from the love of God.
- God is a loving parent of all people, not just believers.
- Jesus Christ is the spiritual leader of all humanity, revealing the very nature and character of God. Many reject His divinity.
- The soul of human beings is immortal in one of two ways: it is either eternal, or will be resurrected at a future time, preserved by God in memory after mortal death.
- Sin is handled through corrective punishment, none of which will be eternal (whether in this life or in the next).
Differences among Universalists
There are differing degrees of Universalism. Conditional Universalism believes all will be saved who come to Jesus or, in some sense, God’s holiness. They believe such will stand even if they return to their own religion of origin. Others believe eternity is open to those who find the way of goodness or who live by a certain level of conduct, regardless of religious beliefs. Others believe everyone will be saved, whether or not they desire to be, including the devil and his angels (demons). Such believe God will reconcile all, even the purveyors of the deepest forms of evil (such as Hitler or Stalin).
Were the Early Church Fathers Universalists?
The Early Church Fathers were a collective group of men whose thoughts and writings influenced the early centuries of Christianity. We don’t know where many of them came from, how they rose to prominence, or what, if any, training some of them had. Some were of far more renown than others. While they are certainly of interest, their doctrinal views vary greatly from one another. By most modern standards, many of their teachings would be considered questionable. They might form an interesting historical basis for the evolution of Christian form and idea, but they certainly do not represent a singular, united form of doctrine.
That, by itself, should lend insight to using them to defend any doctrinal point. Anyone who has studied the history of Christianity knows it took awhile for central belief to solidify, and that down through the ages, even some of that has changed. In my personal opinion, whether or not the Early Church Fathers were Universalists doesn’t lend credibility to the Universalist argument. It’s very possible different church fathers saw matters differently, especially on the afterlife. There is not, however, a singular consensus from them about such matters.
Would they have identified as such?
It’s also important to say that given Universalism’s history, it’s unlikely the Early Church Fathers would have used any such language to define their positions on salvation. Universalism rose in response to Calvinism, which didn’t exist in the early centuries of the church. What we do know of the early church is that they believed one of four different things about eternity:
- Traditional view: Salvation is limited to those in Christ; the majority of the world’s population will go to a literal hellfire.
- Annihilationism: The wicked will, at some point in time, cease to exist.
- Resurrection denial: The dead will never be raised, are permanently dead.
- Apokatastasis: The idea that the majority of people will go to hell, where they will be purged of sin. After, the wicked will convert, join others in heaven/paradise, and evil will cease to exist.
Such different ideas were explored because the early church had enough sense to know that nobody knows all the details of what’s to come in death, the afterlife, or after Jesus returns. As such beliefs weren’t seen to contradict with the essentials of faith, differing views were permissible. In those days, the specifics of the afterlife wasn’t a priority.
Questions raised by Universalism
Universalists are correct in saying that the word translated as “hell’ in Scripture often refers to an old term for “the grave” in Hebrew. This isn’t the only definition of the words translated as “hell,” however. The Bible also mentions Abraham’s Bosom, Gehenna, Tartarus, heaven, and the Lake of Fire. Each of these different images served to describe different aspects of the afterlife, influenced by Hebrew, Greek, Egyptian, and Persian ideas. They are also correct in saying certain ancient words can have more than one meaning, such as “age” versus “eternity.” But, once again, this does not prove their theological arguments.
Many view Universalism as more enlightened or intellectual theologically, but it raises more questions than it answers.While it does sound “scholarly,” there are some basic points it doesn’t address satisfactorily.
Don’t want to be saved?
For one, what if someone doesn’t want to be saved? While it’s definitely nice to think nobody would want to reject God, what if someone does? The idea that God would force someone to spend eternity with Him and others when they don’t desire to do so sounds a lot like limited atonement in reverse. Instead of God limiting salvation, it sounds as if He is forcing it.
Whether we like to admit it or not, all religions are not the same. The pursuit of all religious belief is not to find God. If that’s not someone’s pursuit, why should they be forced (either now or later) to accept it? If the basic argument is that a loving God wouldn’t do something, why would God force anyone to be with Him that doesn’t want to be?
On the same path?
Universalists see humans as being on a singular path, one that leads to the same destination. This nullifies the differences that exist between religious groups, not to mention the differences that exist within human desires. Not everyone desires the same results, same path, or same destiny. As we have seen throughout history, God does not override human will (although He does utilize it, but that is a different matter). God is not going to force everyone to follow a singular way, especially if that’s not the path they desire.
Is eternal torment literal?
If we have one thing in common with the ancients, it’s that we don’t agree on the literal nature of hell. Some believe hell is literally a fiery inferno that will burn the unsaved, wicked, or both, forever. Others believe the fires of hell are an image provided as a metaphor of purification, representative of the world’s cleansing from evil. The basic idea of hell isn’t torture, but the idea that there is some place in the universe where God doesn’t exist. If someone doesn’t want to be with God, such a place exists to offer that desired eternal separation.
What about consequences?
Perhaps the greatest issue with Universalism is the way it attempts to erase consequence for both choice and behavior. In the doctrine of hell (no matter how you might perceive it), we learn the fundamental truth: actions have consequences. Some consequences, whether it’s comfortable to accept or not, have long-term or eternal ramifications. By learning about hell, we learn to take our behavior – and decisions – seriously. It does matter what we believe and what we do, recognizing our need for salvation and to turn our lives around within the will of God.
What about belief?
Like it or not, Scripture doesn’t reveal a spiritual history where “anything goes.” The various strains of ancient religion involving idols, witchcraft, sorcery, and necromancy were all condemned. The Israelites were strongly prohibited from following such systems. When they did, they experienced the consequences of their actions through occupation. In the New Testament, Christians were likewise prohibited from indulging in idolatrous religious practices. It does matter what we believe. In that end, we also believe that everyone does not share the same fate.
God is love – but He is also just
It’s safe to say that specific details on the afterlife are up for debate. We don’t know everything that’s to come, nor the way everything will work out. But perhaps the greatest argument against Universalism is that it overlooks the justice and righteousness of God. There’s no question that God is love, but that love also bears justice and righteousness with it. Our greatest promise of the afterlife is that even if things weren’t worked out this side of heaven, they can be resolved in eternity. The Bible doesn’t promise us that everyone will be saved, but that all will be made right. For now, we take comfort in that promise. It might not be the most technical view, but it assures us that God is vindicator, standing over every theological view as we try to sort out things only He knows for certain.
Then I saw a great white throne and Him Who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from His presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:11-15, NIV)
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In