Usually this false teaching is supported through fallacies of sentimental extension related to God's love and tolerance. Or it is supported through a refusal to separate any part of the atonement's generous provision, from it's pragmatic effectual-ness interpreted as a causal agent for saving faith. (The apostle Paul on the other hand, says in Rom 10 that "faith comes by hearing the word of God." And the emphasis is on the declaring of the gospel.) Lately universalism seems also to be supported from a belief in God's commitment to relativism, and religious diversity, as well as our (and "therefore" God's) repugnancy with the doctrine of hell. It is a rather circular argument, but it sells books.
Christians struggle with the doctrine of hell also. John R.W. Stott recently has published that he knows one thing for sure about hell's duration, and that is that it ISN'T forever. And Stott is agnostic whether it's duration is a lifetime or longer or simply a micro-second. While I firmly disagree with Stott's conclusions, it does illustrate even evangelicals are often noncommital, confused, and/or filled with squeamishness about hell.
Why Should Christians in general and Evangelicals in particular continue to REJECT Universalism?
1. James rejects it, affirming the existence of hell in James 3:6. One would assume that if it (hell) exits, it exists for a purpose. Hypothetically one could say it exists only for the devil and his fallen angels, but among universalists who believe in such personal entities, they tend toward believing these too will ultimately be reconciled to God somehow. But James has hell existing for some purpose.
2. Jude rejected universalism speaking of groups of people who are and will be judged in Jude 1:4-13. I think it is safe for folks with a high view of the authority of the Bible to assume that this is part of the purpose for which James speaks of the existence of hell.
3. Peter rejected universalism clearly and strongly in his letter, 2Pet.2:4-9.
4. Paul rejects universalism strongly in 2Thess.1:8-9 and in several other passages.
5. In the entire Bible, Jesus is the biggest advocate of the doctrine of hell and of the certainty that people will go there. He speaks of "bringing a sword", "wanting the fire to start", saying He's "sorry but he never knew groups of people who name His name", "worms of torment never die", "weeping and gnashing of teeth", "unless people believe He is who He is they will die in their sin", "nobody comes to the Father but through Him", and a "broad road to destruction that is highly populated and a narrow road to life that few find", etc. We may like to think of these as the hard and rare statements of Jesus but the truth is they are commonplace in his discourses and unapologetic so.
6. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John reject universalism because they embraced Jesus' teaching and had opportunity to "clean up" his talk on hell in their gospels, but they did not alter His teaching a bit.
7. In summary, the entire New Testament and all it's writers who address the subject and it's principle character, Jesus Christ, reject universalism clearly and totally.
Slippage:
The most popular modern advocate of universalism within christendom has been Karl Barth. Karl took the "how much more" clauses of Romans 5 and it's description of the superiority of Christ's headship to that of Adam and made it a numerical superiority. Frankly this seems absurd because if Adam's sin brought ALL humanity into the fallen state, then for Jesus to save numerically more, then an additional human would have to exist who has never existed. And this human (unlike Jesus Himself) would need to be saved, yet without being a sinner who needed saving. And even that would give simply one more than billions and not the "how much more" triumphal tone, if the passage must be understood numerically.
A simple understanding of "how much more" as qualitative, not quantitative would solve the issue. And this interpretation makes more sense in the context of the argument and this same letter by Paul. Who can read Romans chapters 2, or 3, or 9 and conclude that Paul is teaching universalism or even that the remnant of Believers is larger than the non-remnant for that matter!
Further, is it not EASIER to kill, and to bring to death and entice to sin, than it is to be holy, or brought into newness of life, or brought back to life, after death! Indeed that is a case of "how much more" in Christ is life extended! And it is quality, not quantity that is in view.
In House Struggles:
IVP recently published a book where "inclusionism" is seen as an evangelical option for responding to the question "What About Those Who Have Never Heard?" Inclusionism is variously defined and can be a slippery concept to understand, but it does seem to flirt with the edges of universalism, and it does so for some of the same reasons.
One also wonders if the world-wide apparent lack of much concern about abortion for instance, is because we have on a large scale been convinced of an age of accountability. I also lean toward this view of an age of accountability. It is especially helpful and useful when in counsel during rough times of crisis. These few hinting texts bring some hope while ultimately our hope is in the God who is fair. But I must admit the scriptural support for this understanding is far weaker than that for the doctrine of original sin, hell, and the necessity of the new birth.
At the Urbana missions convention there were folks who wanted to have a worldwide outreach for reaching the unborn. Most evangelicals would believe the child in the womb is human, and the accounts of pre-birth activities in the womb would have many believe they have a soul from conception onward as well. I am one who has these convictions.
However it appears that such a mission to 1.5 million in the USA yearly, who seem statistically doomed to abortion, and more in the C.I.S., and more yet in India and China, is not likely to be considered a mission at Urbana. The case for such a mission is similar to preventative healthcare. In this missionary "diagnosis not to treat" case, we seem to reveal a unanimous conviction that all these intentionally destroyed lives are in fact being saved every year! In fact the abortionist is probably the greatest evangelist the world has ever known!
I have very serious reservations about that kind of missionary understanding and absurdity as I'm sure would anyone who gave the matter serious thought. Frankly, if all who've never heard, and all who die young are going to heaven, what advantage is there to living and hearing the good news, salvifically speaking? Not that one is seeking an advantage or the woe of unfortunates. It does seem a disadvantage in this paradigm, but again we are absurd.
IVP also published John R.W. Stott's commentary on Romans. On pages 158f Stott claims Paul is teaching a numeric superiority of headship. Stott states emphatically that he is not a universalist, and he apparently is not. However he does say that MORE people will be finally saved, than are finally lost. He claims to be in the tradition of John Calvin and Charles Hodge with such a view. He clearly believes that more people are saved than lost. That seems magnanimous enough, but is even this (slightly more orthodox than universalism) position true?
Some Questions:
As you look back in world history, has there EVER been a time when more people have been in living relationship with God than those who were lost? If believing in Jesus has ANYTHING to do with it, then one would have to highly doubt it. Even with the proliferation of the gospel in the 20th century, Patrick Johnson's book "Operation World" shows no individual country where even 50% would claim to be evangelical, or even active christians! The HIGHEST percentages of self-described christians is only 25%. Believe it or not, the USA is one of those countries! Are one in four on your campus born again? Are one in four indwelt with the Holy Spirit and have a living faith in Jesus as Lord?!
Jesus said in Matthew 7 that among the "self-described" active Believers in HIM "many will say Lord, Lord, we did miracles, ... in your name" to which He will respond "I never knew you." So even in this remnant of only 25% "many" are at risk and this doesn't take into account countries with huge populations with less than two or even one percent of self-professed christians, like for example India.
Conclusions:
The lost are lost, and they are legion. The Old Testament wisely states "there is a way that seems right to all the human race, but it ends in destruction" (Proverbs 14:12). As you look out over your campus prayerfully today, are faithful Believers a remnant or the moral majority? Jesus said it best when describing a broad road that MANY are on that leads to death and destruction. Then he describes a narrow way that few can find, that leads to life (Matthew 7:13-14). Jesus also tells us to "go and make disciples of all peoples..." (Matthew 28). Again, there are reasons why He said that. It is not simply a test of faith's obedience though that is included. It is because the lost are lost and they are legion. And it is because there is a vast harvest ready to be harvested and may spoil soon (John 4). Note the rejoicing and urgency in Jesus' words and the vastness not smallness, of the task and opportunity. Did He not press on to "preach in other cities also" even as throngs appeared to accept Him in Capernaum?
Another reason for rejecting universalism is His model, "I came to seek and save the lost." We cannot spiritually save anyone. Jesus is the savior from start to finish. But Jesus did say He also came to SEEK them. I am confident that our Lord would have us seeking them also. I am also assured from the whole counsel of God in Scripture, and from the clear and weighty (in volume and content) teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, that we don't need to seek very hard to find MANY in desperate need of Him.
Joe Whitchurch jbw7@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~jbw7
Note: There are several points in both the IVCF and the IFES statements of faith that clearly rule out universalism. Of course the deity of Jesus would imply His truthful teaching, and the "entire trustworthiness" of Scripture would also imply this. The point on the regeneration of the Believer through the Holy Spirit, when coupled with Roman's 8 and other passages that teach if one has not the Spirit, they do not belong to Christ is useful in defeating this erroneous teaching. The IFES statement has reference to the universality of the Fall of humanity, and God's sovereignty in judgment, and wrath being deserved. I would encourage serious study of these statements of faith and the Scriptures for all who are lured by the popularity of universalism.
Use the back arrow to return to apologetics.