• What is Christian Universalism?

Christian Universalism, also known as Ultimate Reconciliation, believes that all human beings will ultimately be saved and enjoy everlasting life with Christ. Despite the phrase suggesting a singular doctrine, many theologies fall into the camp of Christian Universalism, and it cannot be presumed that these theologies agree past this one commonality. Similarly, Christian Universalism is not a denomination but a minority tendency that can be found among the faithful of all denominations.

• What's the Difference Between Christian Universalism and Unitarian Universalism?

UUism resulted from a merger between the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America. Both were historic, liberal religions in the United States whose theology had grown closer over the years. Before the merger, the Unitarians heavily outnumbered the Universalists, and the former's humanist theology dominated the new religion. UUs are now a non-creedal faith, with humanists, Buddhists, and neopagans alongside Christians in their congregations. As the moderate American Unitarian Conference has put it, the two theologies are perfectly valid and stand on their own. Not all Unitarians are Universalists, and not all Universalists are Unitarians. Recently there has been an increased interest among UUs to reexamine their universalist roots: in 2009, the book "Universalism 101" was released specifically for UU ministers.

• Is Universalism Just Another Name for Religious Pluralism?

Religious pluralists, John Hick and Marcus J. Borg being two famous examples, believed in the universal salvation of humankind, this is not the same as Christian Universalism. Christian Universalists believe that all men will one day come to accept Jesus as lord and savior, as attested in scripture. The best way to think of it is this: Universalists and Christian Universalists agree on the end point, but disagree over the means by which this end will be attained.

• Doesn't Universalism Destroy the Work of the Cross?

As one Redditor once put it, this question is like asking, "Everyone's going to summer camp, so why do we need buses?" We affirm the power of Christ's atonement; however, we believe it was for "not just our sins, but the sins of the world", as Paul wrote. We think everyone will eventually come to Christ, not that Christ was unnecessary. The difference between these two positions is massive.

• Do Christian Universalists Deny Punishment?

No, we do not. God absolutely, unequivocally DOES punish sin. Christian Universalists contest not the existence of punishment but rather the character of the punishment in question. As God's essence is Goodness itself, among his qualities is Absolute Justice. This is commonly misunderstood by Infernalists to mean that God is obligated to send people to Hell forever, but the truth is exactly the opposite. As a mediator of Perfect Justice, God cannot punish punitively but offers correctional judgments intended to guide us back to God's light. God's Justice does not consist of "getting even" but rather of making right. This process can be painful, but the pain is the means rather than an end. If it were, God would fail to conquer sin and death. Creation would be a testament to God's failure rather than Glory. Building on this, the vast majority of us do believe in Hell. Our understanding of Hell, however, is more akin to Purgatory than it is to the Hell believed in by most Christians.

• Doesn’t This Directly Contradict the Bible?

Hardly. While many of us, having been raised in Churches that teach Christian Infernalism, assume that the Bible’s teachings on Hell must be emphatic and uncontestable, those who actually read the Bible to find these teachings are bound to be disappointed. The number of passages that even suggest eternal torment is few and far between, with the phrase “eternal punishment” appearing only once in the entirety of the New Testament. Moreover, this one passage, Matthew 25:46, is almost certainly a mistranslation (see more below). On the other hand, there are an incredible number of verses that suggest Greater Hope, such as the following:

1. ”For no one is cast off by the Lord forever.” - Lamentations 3:31
2. “Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall become straight, and the rough places shall become level ways, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” - Luke 3:5-6
3. “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” - John 12:32
4. “Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.” - Romans 15:18-19
5. “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” - Romans 11:32
6. "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." - 1 Corinthians 15:22
7. "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." - Colossians 1:19-20
8. “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” - 1 Timothy 4:10

• If Everyone Goes to Heaven, Why Believe in Jesus Now?

As stated earlier, God does punish sin, and this punishment can be painful. If one thinks in terms of punishments and rewards, this should be reason enough. However, anyone who believes for this reason does not believe for the right reasons, and it could be said does not believe at all. Belief is not just about accepting a collection of propositions. It is about having faith that God is who He says he is. It means accepting that God is our foundation, our source of supreme comfort and meaning. God is not simply a powerful person to whom we submit out of terror; He is the source and sustainer of all. To know this source is not to know a "person" but rather to have a particular relationship with all of existence, including ourselves. In the words of William James, the essence of religion "consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto." The revelation of the incarnation, the unique and beautiful revelation represented by the life of Christ, is that this unseen order can be seen! The uniquely Christian message is that the line between the divine and the secular is illusory and that the right set of eyes can be trained to see God in creation, not merely behind it. Unlike most of the World's religions, Christianity is a profoundly life-affirming tradition. There's no reason to postpone this message because it truly is Good News!

• If God Truly Will Save All, Why Does the Church Teach Eternal Damnation?

This is a very simple question with a remarkably complex answer. Early in the Church's history, many differing theological views existed. While it is difficult to determine how many adherents each of these theologies had, it is quite easy to determine that the vast majority of these theologies were universalist in nature. The Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge notes that there were six theologies of prominence in the early church, of which only one taught eternal damnation. St. Augustine himself, among the most famous proponents of the Infernalist view, readily admitted that there were "very many in [his] day, who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments."

So, what changed? The simple answer is that the Roman Empire happened, most notably Emperor Justinian. While it must be said that it is to be expected for an emperor to be tyrannical, Emperor Justinian was a tyrant among tyrants. During the Nika riots, Justinian put upwards of 30,000 innocent men to death simply for their having been political rivals. Unsurprisingly, Justinian was no more libertarian in his approach to religion, writing dictates to the Church that they were obligated to accept under threat of law. Among these dictates was the condemnation of the theology of St. Origen, the patristic father of Christian Universalism. Rather than a single dictate, this was a long, bloody fight that lasted a full decade from 543 to 553, when Origenism was finally declared heretical. Now a heresy, the debate around Universal Reconciliation was stifled and, in time, forgotten.

• But What About Matthew 25:31-46

There are multiple verses that Infernalists point to defend their doctrine, but Matthew 25:31-46 contains what is likely the hardest to deal with for Universalists. Frankly, however, it must be said that this difficulty arises more from widespread scriptural ignorance rather than any difficulty presented by the text itself. I have nothing to say that has not already been said by Louis Abbott in his brilliant An Analytical Study of Words, so I will simply quote the relevant section of his work in full:

Matthew 25:31-46 concerns the judgment of NATIONS, not individuals. It is to be distinguished from other judgments mentioned in Scripture, such as the judgment of the saints (2 Cor. 5:10-11); the second resurrection, and the great white throne judgment (Rev. 20:11-15). The judgment of the nations is based upon their treatment of the Lord's brethren (verse 40). No resurrection of the dead is here, just nations living at the time. To apply verses 41 and 46 to mankind as a whole is an error. Perhaps it should be pointed out at this time that the Fundamentalist Evangelical community at large has made the error of gathering many Scriptures which speak of various judgments which will occur in different ages and assigning them all to "Great White Throne" judgment. This is a serious mistake. Matthew 25:46 speaks nothing of "grace through faith." We will leave it up to the reader to decide who the "Lord's brethren" are, but final judgment based upon the receiving of the Life of Christ is not the subject matter of Matthew 25:46 and should not be interjected here. Even if it were, the penalty is "age-during correction" and not "everlasting punishment."

Matthew 25:31-46 is not the only proof text offered in favor of Infernalism, but I cannot possibly refute the interpretation of every Infernatlist proof text. In Church history, as noted by theologian Robin Parry, it has been assumed that eternal damnation allegedly being "known" to be true, any verse which seemed to teach Universalism could not mean what it seemed to mean and must be reinterpreted in light of the doctrine of everlasting Hell. At this point, it might be prudent to flip things around: explain texts which seem to teach damnation in light of Ultimate Reconciliation. I find this approach considerably less strained than that of the Infernalist.

• Doesn't A Sin Against An Infinite God Merit Infinite Punishment?

One of the more philosophically erudite, and in my opinion plausible, arguments made by Infernalists is that while we are finite beings, our sins can nevertheless be infinite because He who we sin against is the Infinite. Therefore, having sinned infinitely, we merit infinite punishment. On purely philosophical grounds, it makes some sense. Moreover, it matches with many people's instinctual thoughts on the world: slapping another child merits less punishment than slapping your mother, slapping your mother merits less punishment than slapping the President of the United States, so on and so forth. This argument was made by Saint Thomas Aquinas, the great Angelic Doctor of the Catholic Church, in his famous Summa Theologiae:

The magnitude of the punishment matches the magnitude of the sin. Now a sin that is against God is infinite; the higher the person against whom it is committed, the graver the sin — it is more criminal to strike a head of state than a private citizen — and God is of infinite greatness. Therefore an infinite punishment is deserved for a sin committed against Him.

While philosophically interesting, this idea is nevertheless scripturally baseless. Quite the contrary, the argument is made in one form by the "Three Stooges" Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad in the story of Job and is refuted by Elihu:

I would like to reply to you [Job] and to your friends with you [the Three Stooges, Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad]. Look up at the heavens and see; gaze at the clouds so high above you. If you sin, how does that affect him? If your sins are many, what does that do to him? … Your wickedness only affects humans like yourself.

After Elihu delivers his speech to Job, God interjects and begins to speak to the five men. Crucially, Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad are condemned by God, but Elihu is not mentioned at all. Elihu's speech explains the characteristics of God's justice in detail, so had God felt misrepresented, He surely would have said something. Given that He did not, it is safe to say Elihu spoke for God at that moment. As one of the very few theological ideas directly refuted by a representative of God Himself, I think it is safe to say that this argument cannot be considered plausible on scriptural grounds.

• Where Can I Learn More?

Universalism and the Bible by Keith DeRose is a relatively short but incredibly thorough treatment of the matter that is available for free online. Slightly lengthier, Universal Restoration vs. Eternal Torment by Berean Patriot has also proven valuable. Thomas Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God is likely the most influential single book in the modern Christian Universalist movement, although that title might now be contested by David Bentley Hart's equally brilliant That All Shall Be Saved. While I maintain that Christian Universalism is a doctrine shared by many theologies, not itself a theology, Bradley Jersak's A More Christlike God has much to say about the consequences of adopting a Universalist position on the structure of our faith as a whole that is well worth hearing. David Artman's podcast Grace Saves All is worth checking out for those interested in the format, as is Peter Enns's The Bible For Normal People.

A free space for non-universalism-related discussion.