Thoughts on the Topic of Universal Salvation

“With God, all things are possible.” 

For most of my life, I associated universal salvation with a heretical, feelings-based faith. Universalism was a position held by those who did not care about what the Bible said, or indeed what Jesus said. I thought universalists were illogical, believing the things they did only because it made them feel good. But I was wrong. The arguments for universal salvation, so far from being illogical, are so logically ironclad that only willful blindness could prevent a man from embracing them. As for making its adherents feel good, this objection to universal salvation now seems totally backwards to me. Is it not the traditional, reformed view of hell that we should question, precisely because it makes us feel awful? Are we to believe that the God in whom we are to rejoice always, the God in whom there is no darkness at all, the God who can do more than we can ask or imagine, the God for whom all things are possible, the God whom Jesus called “Father” - I ask, are we to believe that THIS God intends to condemn his children to a dungeon of eternal torment? That THIS God will forever separate us from some of our brothers and friends, parents and children, that he will one day cease to love them, and that we must cease to love them too? To attribute such intentions to God is falsehood in the most monstrous and blasphemous degree, and I am ashamed that I ever believed as much. The Christian God is not the god of Jonathan Edwards. He is the God of Jesus Christ, who came not into the world to condemn it, but to save the world through him. 

The arguments in favor of universal salvation may be sorted into three categories: logical arguments, moral arguments, and biblical arguments. (There is of course much overlap between these categories, since all arguments are logical and all discussions of God are moral.) But before presenting these arguments, allow me to define my terms. 

By “universal salvation” I mean the belief that every person will, someday, repent of their sins, trust in the saving work of Jesus Christ, and be welcomed into heaven. This repentance and salvation may happen after the person dies, indeed it may happen eons after they die, maybe even after spending eons in hell. Nevertheless, each person will repent and be saved. I consider this view to be expressed, albeit only partially, in the book “The Great Divorce” by C.S. Lewis. I emphasize here that by universal salvation, I do not mean every person, upon death, instantly enters heaven. I mean only that the way to heaven is never shut. As long as a person exists, and in whatever realm they exist, they are capable of repentance. And if and when they repent, the Father will forgive them. 

The contrasting view to universalism is limited salvation, which I will refer to here as the reformed view of hell, so called because it is a view expressed by most Protestant denominations. When I say “reformed view of hell", I mean the following: when a person dies, if this person has not made a conscious decision to repent of his or her sins and trust in the saving work of Jesus Christ, this person is condemned to a dungeon of eternal, conscious torment. Once condemned, the die is cast, and this person cannot receive any mercy from God, even if they were to repent. They are forever trapped in hell. I consider this view to be expressed in an entirely fair and accurate way in the hair-raising sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards.

With these definitions in mind, let us proceed to the arguments. 

Part 1 - Logical arguments

Whatever punishment God may inflict upon the wicked, it cannot be of infinite duration, which is the central tenant of the reformed view of hell. There are many ways of demonstrating this point logically, but I have selected just a few here. 

Logical Argument 1: The reformed view of hell implies that God’s will is permanently defeated.

It is God’s will that everyone repent and be saved. Even if there were no passages in the Bible which affirmed this (and there are, as we shall see later), we could infer this truth solely on the basis of God’s goodness. A perfectly good God must desire good for his creatures, and God is perfectly good. The only coherent argument for why hell exists at all is that some of God’s creatures will things which are contrary to his will. In other words, they sin. Much ink has been spilled, and many fiery sermons preached, on the depravity of man' s sin, and this depravity is often portrayed as the justification for an eternal hell. Man’s wickedness is so great, so goes this reasoning, that justice requires God to lock him away forever. On this point, I will not gainsay the fire and brimstone preachers. Perhaps sinners really do deserve hellfire. The point is irrelevant. Whatever the sinner deserves, the fact remains that God loves him and wants him to repent and be saved. THAT is the relevant point. If a man is suffering in hell, however much he may deserve it, God wants to bring him out. The only thing that could possibly keep him there is the man’s own stubborn refusal to humble himself and repent. 

Therefore, in the case of hell, we have a situation in which man’s will has set itself up against God’s will, and a sort of stalemate has been reached, in which God’s will is, for the moment, thwarted. God loves the man as the father loved the prodigal son, and wants to welcome him home. But the man, due to his own selfish and unrepentant heart, will not be welcomed. Is it really plausible that this state of affairs could last forever? That God’s will could be eternally, permanently defeated? This is tantamount to saying that the will of an individual man has veto power over the will of God. How bizarre that the reformers, who so highly lauded the sovereignty of the Almighty, should turn out to be champions of the view that man is sovereign over God! 

Logical Argument 2: The reformed view of hell implies that Satan wins. 

A consistent theme throughout the new testament is the total defeat of the devil and all his works. Once again, we could infer this truth simply from God's goodness, with or without scripture. It is intuitively obvious that a good God would not permit evil to remain permanently in his universe.

This fact is a strong argument against an eternal hell all by itself. On the reformed view, there will forever be a part of the universe which is unredeemed, evil, and full of sin. But the problem is worse than that. 

The Bible portrays Satan as an evil power who is not merely responsible for sin, but serves as a sort of prince over the domain of sin, this domain being hell. Therefore Jesus says that when the pharisees convert one to their party, they make him a son of hell. He says to Peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against God’s church. Later in the New Testament, we read that the speech of man is “set on fire” by hell, a teaching which echoes the words of Jesus when he said that lies are the native language of the devil. 

Naturally, the Bible tells us that the works of hell (i.e. sins), along with the devil who champions them, will one day be completely defeated. Indeed, the Bible tells us that Satan’s works are defeated even as he does them, for God works all things together for good, and he frustrates Satan’s schemes by taking what the devil intended for evil and working it out for good. There is no greater example of this than the cross of Christ, wherein the murder of the Savior became the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. 

But on the reformed view, the devil and his works are never defeated. There will always be some souls, maybe even the majority of souls, over which Satan can say “these are mine.” Even in torment, the devil will have the satisfaction of knowing that he resisted the plans of God. Much as in the first argument, God’s will has been vetoed - and by the devil of hell, no less! The reformed view requires us to believe that there are some things which God cannot work together for good, that there are some souls against whom the gates of hell will in fact prevail, and that Satan, for all the punishment and divine wrath he may receive, will remain prince over his own rebel kingdom. 

Logical Argument 3: The reformed view of hell implies that God changes.

No Christian can honestly believe that God loves some people, but not others. There is a reason that John 3:16 is widely considered to be the single Bible verse most emblematic of the Christian faith. “For God so loved the world…” - the world. Not the righteous, not the church, not the elect, but the world. However, whatever lip service the reformers may have given to this passage, they denied it with their doctrines. For the reformers (meaning Calvin, Luther, and the rest), God had a special love for the elect (those he wills to be saved), a love which he did not have for the lost (whom he has positively willed to be lost). I could pursue this theological defect further, but that is not my aim. My criticism is not of reformed theology as a whole, but merely the reformed view of hell. Any modern Christian, reformed or no, would agree with the premise that God loves everyone, whatever beliefs they may hold about election or predestination or what have you. Let us take these Christians at their word. But if we so take them, we immediately see another problem with the reformed view of hell: God must change, going from loving a person one day, to hating him the next. 

That God must change is evident in this: if a person is in hell forever, and it is God’s will that they be in hell (contrary to my first logical argument), then he cannot love that person. To love someone is, among other things, to desire that person’s good. But to be in hell is to be deprived of all good. It is self-evidently obvious that the statements “God loves Mr. Smith” and “God has condemned Mr. Smith to eternal torment” cannot both be true. But while Mr. Smith was alive, did God love him then? His pastor, his friends, his parents all told him so. Indeed, Jesus Christ told him so, for did not Jesus say he came not to call the righteous, but sinners? Did he not say that he came to find one sheep and leave the ninety-nine? To seek and save the lost? Undoubtedly, God loved Mr. Smith while was on earth. But on the reformed view of hell, something changed in God when Mr. Smith died, and God no longer loves him, but rather hates him, seeing him like the “loathsome insect” of Jonathan Edwards infamous sermon. God, who was Mr. Smith’s loving Father, has become like Lord Hategood of Pilgrim’s Progress, a judge who sentences without mercy. 

Part 2 - Moral Arguments

Any normal person feels, and ought to feel, a certain moral repugnance at the idea of an eternal hell. This sense of repugnance should not be dismissed as mere wishful thinking. The human heart may be wicked, but it is nevertheless made in the image of the God of truth. The heart of good man recoils from falsehood, and the heart of every good Christian recoils from the idea of an eternal hell. 

Moral Argument 1: God’s love is not inferior to human love.

In the previous argument, I criticized the reformed view of hell for implying that God changes. But this criticism can be taken much further. If one grants the point that God no longer loves the people he has sent to an eternal hell (and this point seems completely undeniable to me), a number of absurd, morally abhorrent conclusions follow. To illustrate these conclusions, I wish to draw attention to the affairs of a good friend of mine, whom I will refer to as Austin. Several years ago, Austin was devastated to learn that his sister, Nina, had committed suicide. Now it is a matter beyond doubt that Nina was not a Christian, had not made any profession of faith, and indeed had hardly set foot in a church her whole life. On the reformed view, Nina is in hell. I know there are many Christians who would object that only God knows the fate of an individual, but I say again, on the reformed view, which requires a conscious decision to trust in Christ in order for a person to be saved, Nina is in an eternal hell. 

Now it is bad enough that God has apparently stopped loving Nina. But what are we to make of Austin, who even now, several years later, is still grieving the loss of his sister? He loved her, and still loves her. Indeed, it seems that Austin now loves his sister more than God does. Austin would joyfully bring his sister back to life if he could. The god of the reformers would not. Is Austin wrong to love his sister so? Surely not! No person is ever wrong to love another, and no person, no matter how depraved, is completely unlovable. The god who presides over an eternal hell is therefore a morally defective god, inferior to even the lowest of his creatures, for even the tax collectors and sinners love their family. 

Moral Argument 2: God’s punishment is always for the benefit of the person punished. 

The Bible describes God with various titles, including creator, judge, and king. But in referring to God, Jesus exclusively used the title “Father.” Therefore God’s punishment should not be thought of as a judge’s punishment, or a king’s punishment, but as a father’s punishment. That being the case, when God punishes his children, he does so for their good, just as any father worth the name would do. God is love, and there is no action he takes, not even his punishment, which is done without love. Indeed, it is precisely because God loves sinners that he punishes them. The most loving thing that can be done for a sinner is to show him that he is in fact a sinner, and for the hardened, conscience-seared individual, this showing must take the form of punishment. I repeat: the most loving thing that God, or anyone else for that matter, can do for a wicked man is to punish him, even to punish him with the searing fire of hell if no other shock of pain can waken the man to a desire for righteousness. 

But how could that hell fire be eternal and still be for the man’s benefit? How could a punishment of infinite duration be administered in love? It cannot be. The God of mercy may very well say to a man, “I will punish you because you are not righteous,” but only because he actually wants the man to be righteous. He could not want that, could not be a father who cares for his children, if he ever said to one of them, “I will never allow you to be righteous. You will be a wretched sinner forever.” In brief, a father punishes in order to bring his children back into the right. As an eternal hell is a punishment which prevents its recipient from ever coming right, it is not a punishment worthy of a father, certainly not the Father of Heavenly Lights.

Moral Argument 3: The doctrine of an eternal hell is so odious, Christians have been forced to make numerous exceptions to it. 

In Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, Jonathan Edwards states, almost casually, that the majority of people who have ever lived have gone to hell. He further implies that the majority of those currently living (indeed, the majority of his audience) will follow them to perdition. But while Edwards had no qualms when it came to reading aloud the sentence of damnation, his descendants are not so bold. Modern Christians may give lip service to the idea that people are going to hell, but they are oddly hesitant to give specifics. Just who among us, exactly, is condemned? If, as the reformers taught, conscious repentance and faith before death are required for escape from damnation, then it does indeed follow that the majority of the race are lost. Children, the mentally ill, and those living in far-off countries who have never heard the gospel - all of these, in addition to your average run-of-the-mill reprobates, are doomed. 

But such a doctrine is just too odious, too obviously false to be believed by a child of God. Hence, modern Christians make exceptions. If any personal friend or family member dies, the Christian consoles himself by hoping that the person spoke with God in their last moments of earthly thought. They say things like “no one knows” when asked about what happened to old-so-and-so, who was well known as a fool and a wanton. Somehow these Christians, who claim that every act and intention of God is good, are either afraid or ashamed to mention one of these acts: the condemnation of one of their fellows. 

And it is not just their own personal friends and family that modern Christians want to make exceptions for. It is commonly believed in some circles that God allows children into heaven without any conscious faith, along with the mentally ill, and even (in some cases) those who have never heard the gospel. Does it not seem strange that God’s judgment is so malleable? Are we really to believe that the majority of the human race will be condemned to an eternal hell, but that those lucky enough to die in infancy, or to be stricken with a crippling mental disability, will be spared? And if God is really willing to be so generous (strange use for such a word!), why does he not make exceptions for everyone? If God is willing to let off infants and lunatics without repentance, why will he not let me off? Doubtless, a reader will object “but infants and lunatics do not understand that they are sinning, and you do.” Do I? Does anyone, when they are tempted by the deceitful pleasures of sin, or swept up in a tide of evil far beyond their control, truly understand that they are sinning? Perhaps some people do, but evidently not all, for Jesus prayed for those who crucified him “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” I submit that if a man can crucify the son of God in ignorance, there is many another sin he might commit in ignorance also. 

With all that said, my aim is not to dispute the exact degree of responsibility each man bears for his own sins. Rather, my point is this: the reformed view of hell cannot be believed without making numerous exceptions, and this reveals its falsity. Even the supporters of this doctrine cannot stomach it, and so they water it down as much as possible. But watered down poison is still poison, and this evil doctrine is still evil. 

Part 3 - Biblical Arguments

Christians have wrangled for centuries over the proper ways to interpret the scriptures. However, it seems obvious to me that every Christian should be able to agree on at least one basic, hermeneutical principle: any interpretation of scripture which depicts God as immoral or flawed must be a false interpretation. The arguments made in the previous sections show that even if the Bible affirmed the reformed view of hell, we would still be forced to say “that cannot be the correct interpretation,” because the reformed view of hell depicts God as morally deficient. However, as it happens, the Bible does not support the reformed view of Hell, as we shall see. 

Biblical Argument 1: The New Testament affirms that universal salvation is God’s will.

God’s desire for absolute, universal salvation is supported in numerous places in the Bible, including in the words of Christ himself. Dozens of examples could be given, but consider the few shown here (emphasis mine):

[God] will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:4

[The Lord is] not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

2 Peter 3:9

Having made known unto us the mystery of [Christ’s] will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Ephesians 1:9-10

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. How think ye? If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Matthew 18:11-14

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Colossians 1:19

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

John 3:17

Somehow, in spite of all the Bible verses affirming God’s desire to save all people, his great and unfailing love for all mankind, and his determination to send forth the Good Shepherd to rescue every lost sheep - in spite of all this, I say, an astonishing number of people persist in believing that God is an infernal jailkeeper, hellbent on locking away the majority of the human race in a tormenting prison. But the Bible makes it clear that hell, whatever duration it may be, is not the result of God’s perfect will, but man’s own defective will. God is not willing that any should perish. 

Now the fact that God desires all men to be saved raises some profound questions. First of all, we may ask, is it possible for God to desire a thing and not attain it? Can God himself be eternally disappointed? On the reformed view of hell, it would appear so. As stated previously, it would appear that man’s will has veto power over God’s. But there are even more bizarre implications which arise. For if it is God's will that all should be saved, what are we to make of the Lord's command to pray “thy will be done” to the Father? As concerns the lost, God’s will is that all should come to the knowledge of the truth, come to repentance, and be saved. Does this mean that Jesus commanded us to pray for something that would never come to pass, and that he knew would never come to pass? Jesus said that with God, all things are possible. Did he really mean (oh absurd and blasphemous thought!) that all things are possible for God, except for this thing? The thing which he specifically told us to pray for? It cannot be. Such a belief is insulting not just to the mercy but to the intelligence of Jesus Christ. Let no one who claims to be his follower hold it. 

Biblical Argument 2: The New Testament teaches that universal salvation will in fact occur.

Finally, I put forward my last argument in support of universal salvation against the reformed view of hell. To state the matter plainly, the Bible teaches that everyone will be saved. Consider the veritable battery of New Testament passages which affirm this:

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Romans 5:18

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:22

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Romans 11:32

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

1 Timothy 2:5-6

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.

Titus 2:11

Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus

Colossians 1:20

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.Philippians 2:10-11

And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Colossians 1:20

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 2:2

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.1 Timothy 4:10

There is not the slightest hint in any of these passages that their universal language applies only to a small subset of people, or that when Paul says “all” will be made alive he means anything other than ALL people. It is only the bias of reformed theology, darkening the words like a murky lens, that could cause us to see the clause “except for those who are trapped in hell” at the end of each verse. 

In conclusion, the reformed view of hell, which teaches that the majority of our fellow men will be lost forever, is false. It is logically unsound, morally abhorrent, and biblically unsupported. It is God’s plan to save the whole universe of his creatures, and he will not cease his redemptive work until he has succeeded. 

——————————————————————————————————

Appendix: A counterargument concerning the Greek word “Aion”

In these pages, I have not devoted much space to arguments in favor of the reformed view of hell. However, there is one argument in particular I would like to address. About the strongest biblical evidence that can be adduced in support of the reformed view is found in Matthew 25:46, where Jesus ends the parable of the sheep and the goats by saying “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” Here I have two responses, which are, in brief: 

1. Even if Jesus were saying that hell were of an infinite duration, that would still not be conclusive evidence in support of the reformed view. 

Jesus said many things that must be interpreted and understood correctly. He said that no one could follow him unless he hated his father and mother. He said that only those who ate his flesh and drank his blood had any life in them. He said that we should always give to those who want to borrow from us. But in all those cases, Christians acknowledge context, nuance, and the other teachings of Christ when considering his words. We should do the same with any alleged teaching on an eternal hell. 

2. The words “everlasting” and “eternal” in these verses are very likely a mistranslation. 

The Greek word translated as “eternal” in the New Testament is “aionion.” This is derived from the Greek (and now also English) word “aion.” But the meaning of the word aion is something like “an indefinitely long period of time” or “an age.” It CAN mean eternal, or having infinite duration, but it certainly does not do so all the time, not even all the time in the Bible. (For example, Paul says that he is glad Onesimus was returned to Philemon “eternally” (aionion) no longer as a slave, but as a brother). 

I make no pretensions to be an expert in Biblical Greek, but I only point out here what anyone with common sense should be able to see: there is interpretive wiggle room concerning the passages alleged to support an eternal hell. Christians are by no means obligated to hold to the reformed view. And if they are not obligated to hold it, they should positively not, for the view is morally repugnant.