A Journey Into The Issue Of Salvation

A Journey into the Issue of Salvation

Wayne Logan McDaniel

 Wayne McDaniel, 2002 [email protected] All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the author.

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION

3

PART I: THE FOOTHILLS

5

SALVATION

6

MY HOPE: A GREAT HARVEST

7

ADDENDUM TO SALVATION

10

PART II: THE HIMALAYAS

11

THE ULTIMATE VICTORY OF GOD

12

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL RESTORATION

14

THE PROBLEM OF HELL

15

A BRIEF HISTORY OF HELL

16

THE NATURE OF JUDGEMENT

18

TRUE JUSTICE

21

IMPLIED CONSENT

22

PROBLEM SCRIPTURES

23

FREE WILL

28

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EMOTIONAL BARRIERS

31

CONCLUSION

34

AFTER THOUGHTS

37

BIBLIOGRAPHY

38

2

Introduction Over the past five years, I have embarked on a journey which has had a profound effect upon my life. My theology has changed, my worldview has changed, my understanding and view of God has changed and most important of all, my love for God and people has increased. I grew up attending a Presbyterian Church and was “born again” at a summer youth camp around age 12. In high school, I became involved with a group of Catholic Charismatics and, after several months of researching the topic from a theological perspective, was “Baptized in the Spirit.” I then attended Oral Roberts University and have, all my adult life (I am now 46) attended theologically conservative churches. Given my background, prior to embarking upon this journey, I could well be described as a Conservative, somewhat Fundamental Christian with Calvinistic tendencies. Accordingly, I believed that if one did not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, they were destined to spend eternity suffering torment in hell. I recognized that there were millions who had never heard the Gospel and for them I hoped that there might be some leeway, but ultimately everyone would be judged. The way to eternal life was narrow and few would find it. I cannot say that I was entirely comfortable with this view, but this is what I believed the Bible taught and I accepted the Bible as the inspired Word of God. My dogmas, however, were challenged at a most unlikely place. While at the Promise Keepers National Convention in Washington, DC in 1997, I was handed a booklet by a “Pseudo-Christian Cult.” Out of curiosity, I read their publication. What struck me was they had an entirely different view of salvation based upon the redemptive act of Jesus. (Incidentally, I do not agree with their view—either then or now.) Since they documented every point with scripture, I began to wonder about my own beliefs. I wondered if I believed what I believed because it is what the Bible taught or because it is what I was told the Bible taught. In other words, I wondered whether or not biases had influenced my beliefs regarding salvation and judgment. Therefore, I began a research project. I decided to read the entire New Testament and parts of the Old as much as possible without bias. I made notes of every verse and passage which seemed to relate to salvation and judgment. I decided to consult no commentaries or books until I had completed this phase of the research, as I did not want my reading to be tarnished by someone else’s bias. Once I completed this phase, I began to read commentaries and books related to the subject. The very first thing which struck me early on in my reading was that God is entirely just and there will be no one in hell who does not deserve to be there and that the justice of the act will be readily apparent to all. This greatly increased my faith in God, because there was always this nagging sense in the back of my mind that something was not quite just in the way God planned all this (i.e., with millions of people who would be suffering in hell due to their ignorance) and it impeded my ability to fully trust Him. As time went on and I read more my beliefs were again and again challenged—not by liberals and skeptics, but by scriptures and sincere, godly Christians.

3

I felt almost driven by a passion to know and understand the truth in this matter. At various points, I virtually gave up, concluding that it was impossible to know. Then I would read something which would spark my interest again. The issue became connected to the meaning of life, pain and suffering. I became acutely aware of inconsistencies in logic and belief. However, the attempt to resolve these inconsistencies was not easy. I had to remain true to the scriptures—I could not accept a theological concept as truth no matter how much it appealed to me, if it was not consistent with Biblical teaching. Furthermore, I had a great deal of emotional and psychological baggage bound to my belief system which makes it difficult to change. There were many times in which I would study a passage in which understanding would allude me and I would have to set it aside and ask God to show me. In every case, at some point, it would be explained to me so it made sense. Every time I completed some aspect of my journey or realized some breakthrough in thought, I wrote a short article. What follows, in chronological order, are my writings on the subject. I have chosen to present it in this way because you can follow the change in my own thinking. There are two parts. Part I, The Foothills, summarizes my initial research and conclusions into Salvation. Part II, The Himalayas, represents the full theology of salvation as I have come to understand it. It was written during the first six months of 2002. Part II gave me a systematic theology upon which to pin my hopes from Part I. I write this now as though my Journey into the issue of salvation were complete. From a broad sense, I think it is. There are still many aspects of this mystery which I do not understand. But, what initiated the Journey was a sense of disharmony in my belief system. I have finally arrived at a belief system which is Biblically sound, internally consistent, logical and which brings much to light in terms of the meaning of life. The disharmony, illogically and disconnectedness which characterized my former belief (and which is endemic, though largely unrecognized, within Conservative Christian theology) is gone. Therefore, unless an inconsistency is brought to my attention, I believe this Journey is over. Now comes the fun part—living in the abundant life and grace of our Lord. I want to thank my wife, Jude, who loves God as much as anyone I know. She has been very patient with me through this process. She had more at risk than I. For to me, while this has been a challenging Journey, it has been very freeing. But to Jude, it represented the unknown; the possibility of her husband falling into apostasy and winding up with a mate whose beliefs are so at odds with hers that the relationship and even marriage are threatened. But, I hope that time will show that her husband, as he has come to appreciate the love and grace of Jesus Christ, his Lord and Savior, more fully, has become a more loving man, reflecting better the perfect love of God. Wayne McDaniel, June, 2002

4

Part I The Foothills

5

Salvation Due to various requests and my own need to crystallize thought, I am preparing this brief summary of my current understanding regarding the scriptural teachings of Salvation. Salvation is totally by God’s grace (Eph. 2:8,9). Not one of us deserves salvation, but it is the gift of God. Salvation only comes through Jesus Christ, there is no other way to approach God (John 14:6). It is by his death and resurrection that we are saved. It is received by faith in God. However, faith is not just believing. Satan and his demons believe and tremble (James 2:19). Faith is not just claiming by your words that Jesus is Lord (Matt. 7:21); nor is it evidenced by miraculous works done in the name of Jesus (Matt. 7:22-23). Rather, the faith that saves is faith that is evidenced by the good works we do. Faith is completed by our actions (James 2:14-26). By their fruit and love, Jesus said, his followers will be known. Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love God, and the second to love our neighbor. The second is a direct reflection of the first. God has shown us what is required: to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8). It is both the attitude of the heart and the actions of our lives that God is concerned with. We will be judged by our works (Rev. 20:12f) and our words (Matt.12:36,37), as they are the empirical evidence of our faith. God has given each person light by which to see and understand (John 1:4, Romans 1:19,29: 2:14-16). No one is without excuse for not following God, regardless of whether or not they have clearly heard the Gospel. Likewise, no one will be held responsible for what they did not know or have the opportunity to come to know. Each will only be responsible for their actions and faith based upon their knowledge (parable of the talents, Matt. 25:14-30). God is just. No one will go to hell who does not belong there. This understanding of faith puts everyone on a level playing field. It has both broad and narrow application. It is narrow in that it should put the fear of God in some Christians whose lives show little evidence of the faith they claim. It is broad in that it allows for the salvation of innocent children and those who have not heard or understood the Gospel, but have lived to honor God to the best of their knowledge. The redemption of Jesus is not limited to those who have heard and believed, but applies to all those who truly live in faith. Wayne McDaniel May, 1998 with minor subsequent revisions.

6

My Hope: A Great Harvest In my initial paper on Salvation, I addressed the question of what constitutes saving faith, built upon a consistent and comprehensive scriptural understanding. In this paper, I will expound upon the issue by addressing the question of “How many will be saved?” This is a more difficult issue. One can be fairly confident of their personal salvation if they have the type of faith described in the Salvation paper. But, what if they don’t? Or, what if they are marginal? Are they automatically condemned for eternity? When asked the question point blank (Lord, will only a few be saved? Luke 13:23), Jesus skirts the question. First, he turns it back upon the inquirer by exhorting him to make sure he is saved. Then he proceeds to tell the illustration of the narrow door, stating few will find the path to life, followed by the illustration of the feast in which many are saved and those who thought they were are excluded. Therefore, the question remains. It is not possible to build an airtight definitive answer from the knowledge we have been given in scripture. However, I think it is possible to draw some tentative conclusions from the light we have. But first, why did Jesus decline to answer the question? God could have easily cleared up this issue with a straightforward reply. Other than turning the questioners focus back to personal responsibility, did God have another motive for evading the question? We don’t know and I can only speculate, which I will do in this paragraph. If only a few are saved, there is no reason to skirt the issue—make sure you are on the narrow path! But, if vast multitudes—or, for the sake of argument, if everyone is saved, then God has plenty of reasons for keeping that a secret or mystery. If you knew you would be saved regardless of how you lived, then there is less motivation to live a holy and righteous life. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you will die and go to heaven. Yet, we know that God desires a different kind of life—a life of love and kindness and devotion. Therefore, perhaps the reason for the evasive answer is because many will be saved and God did not want to give us an excuse for complacency and selfindulgence! So much for speculation. All are sinners and deserving of damnation. All of us like sheep have gone astray. Each one of us has gone his own way. Not one of us truly seeks God. Even when we think we are, our motives are not pure, we are still self-centered. We desire to experience the presence of God for our own benefit. Therefore, not one of us can claim to have any perfect righteousness within ourselves. Salvation is a gift from God. The Gospel is the good news that Jesus died to redeem mankind. He came into the world not to condemn the world, but to save the world (John 3:17). Just as in Adam all men die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive (I Cor. 15:22). God desires all men to be saved (I Tim. 2:4) and is the Savior of all men (Tim. 4:10). These and other scriptures affirm that God’s grace is expansive. Some (Origen and William Barclay, for example) have come to the conclusion that all mankind will ultimately be saved. This is an enticing thought, but it is difficult to interpret the many words and parables of Jesus regarding damnation as not meaning that some will perish. Therefore, I do not concur with that interpretation. At issue is the question, “How expansive is the grace of God?” It does appear to me to be entirely scriptural to believe that all people are initially covered by grace, from the point of conception. Even those who hold the restrictive

7

view that one can only be saved by personal knowledge of and faith in Jesus Christ usually cede to this point (which is an inconsistency in their position). To believe otherwise would condemn children to hell because they died before they had an opportunity to hear and believe. This goes against most Christian’s (and nonChristian’s) sense of Justice. Therefore, the doctrine of “age of accountability” was developed, which basically states that one is covered by grace until they reach the age where they can be held accountable for their wrongdoing. Whatever this age is and exactly when one crosses the line, no one can tell, though it is generally considered to be somewhere around age 10 to 12. There are problems with this concept. If one accepts the idea that once one passes the age of accountability, has not accepted Jesus and then dies they go to hell, then Christians ought to be staunch supporters of abortion and should do nothing to eliminate starvation and disease amongst children in impoverished areas. After all, they are better off dying and going to heaven than living and probably going to hell. Why would God desire children to live if to do so would condemn most of them? My viewpoint is that the grace of God extends beyond the supposed “age of accountability.” Take for example, the child who grows up and is a happy go lucky kind of fellow, never hears the gospel, never even really thinks about the meaning of life, never really intentionally does harm to another person, but dies in a car accident when 17? Is he condemned for his ignorance? What about the child who grows up in a severely dysfunctional home? In his quest for love and acceptance, he falls into the wrong crowd, never hears about the love of God and dies of a gun shot wound. Is he condemned for his birth into unfortunate circumstances? Is one condemned because he, like all of us, do not really seek God? Many Christians extend the grace of God to the mentally incompetent. Again, when does one become competent enough? What about the person who was mentally competent, but due to disease or accident loses their mental abilities? What about people to whom the West “evangelized” by bringing the gospel along with imperialism? What about those people who rejected the Gospel because of the hypocritical medium in which it was delivered? Are they condemned to hell because of Christian’s sins? What about people who reject Jesus because of the preaching of a false gospel, legalism or other distortion of the Christian message? These issues, when considered, reveal that they do not make sense and make a mockery of God’s Justice. The salvation of many becomes dependent upon the ability of a few to overcome their frailty. Jesus is the image of God. While on the earth, he accepted people of all nations, religions and backgrounds when they came to him. He was less concerned with their theology than he was their faith. When I look at the vast differences of opinion within the “Christian” faith and related sects, I see significant differences in doctrine. Of course they are not all true, for truth cannot contradict itself. But, does God reject one because they have a false theology, but faith in the true God? Of course not! God is greater than our theological constructs and overlooks a great deal of ignorance on our part.

8

Consider compassionate ministry. Why should Mother Theresa give love and care to those who are dying and not ask them to accept Jesus as their Savior? Was she not doing the work of God? (See the parable of the sheep and the goats.) Did the mercy and love of God stop at their death? Or were their hearts encouraged and opened so they could, perhaps, accept the grace of God offered to them after they died? The grace of God is far reaching and, I believe goes beyond our ignorance. Some of the parables of Jesus (wedding feast, for example) indicate that everyone, good and bad, are invited to the feast and the only ones rejected are those who refuse to come and wear the garments God provides. These and other scriptures indicate that God never gives up on a person—he seeks and calls after the lost lamb his entire life. God desires everyone to be saved. I believe it is impossible to know whether or not one will be saved by their lack of acceptance or by their rejection of Jesus. To believe in a broad application of grace does not negate the reality of judgment. It is clear that there is a judgment and some will be saved and some will be condemned. It is also apparent that there are degrees of punishment (Matt. 10:15, Luke 12:47-48) and both Christians and non-Christians will suffer loss for wrong doing (I Cor. 13:11-47, II Cor. 5:10-11). Likewise, there appears to be rewards for doing what is right (Matt. 6:20, Matt 16:27). Therefore, the all or nothing concept of salvation or condemnation is incomplete (Matt. 5:19). God wants us to act in kindness and in love--but all of us will face judgment, and some condemnation. What kind of victory did Christ win if only a few are saved? Can God really say he won and the devil lost? I hope and believe that many people will be saved, Christians and non-Christians, based upon the principles of “faith” and “grace.” I am not alone amongst thinking Christians in this matter, as Justin Martyr, John Wesley, C. S. Lewis, and John Stott all shared similar beliefs. But, what about missions? If one can be saved apart from personal knowledge of Jesus Christ, why have missions? To bring the Good News of God’s redemption and freedom from bondage here on earth; to bring healing and peace and the power of the Spirit of Life. And, to bring salvation to those who are on the road to hell. In conclusion, all people start out life under the Grace of God. At what point in time one walks out from under that Grace, no one can know. Nor can we know at what point one walks back under the Grace of God, apart from a sincere faith in Jesus Christ. However, I believe that His Grace is very expansive and goes beyond our own ignorance. While the scriptures do not definitively state it (nor do they deny it), I have hope that a great number, probably the majority and possibly all but a few stubborn and reprobate souls will ultimately be saved. I have found this understanding of salvation to be very freeing. I no longer have to “defend” God’s justice in condemnation of the ignorant. There is no less passion for the spreading the Gospel, as I desire all to know the wonder of God’s love in this life. I also have a renewed appreciation of just how wide and deep the love of God is. His Grace overwhelms me. God is a God of love who loved the world so much that he gave His only Son, not to judge the world, but to save the world. Wayne McDaniel, January, 2000

9

Addendum to Salvation As time has passed since my original penning of the previous two articles, little has happened to change my viewpoint. However, as I from time to time pondered the same question, God has gently pointed out to me that it is not for me to know. Indeed, he has reminded me of my own ignorance and sin and how easy it is to be wrong. He is God and I am but a fallible human being. Rather than focus on this unanswerable question, God has said, focus upon spreading the freeing message of the Gospel. For how can they believe, except they hear? Also, I have been reminded of the evil within the heart of man. While in my article, I emphasized the breadth of God’s grace, we also need to be reminded of the intentional evil within mankind. Man deliberately inflicts pain and suffering upon his fellow man. We need not look to personalities such as Hitler or Stalin, look within our own families. Is divorce, child abuse, lying, and stealing any less an indication of the condition of our heart? How often do we hurt those we love by our words? How often, in a fit of anger, do we think evil thoughts, even if we do not carry them out? Do we ever repay kindness for evil? While God’s Grace is a wonderful present, God will not override man’s free will. Many a person has deliberately turned their back on God. All have intentionally hurt those made in the image of God. Will God “force” his grace upon unrepentant persons? Of course not! This would be a violation of God’s nature and an intrusion into the free will of mankind. God will not require anyone to live in His presence who does not desire to. Therefore, what shall we say? One plants. Another waters, but God gives the growth. We do not know who will be saved and what the result of the sharing of the Gospel will be with any individual. That is not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to share the Good News that God has given us and leave the rest up to God. Wayne McDaniel October, 2000

10

Part II The Himalayas

11

The Ultimate Victory of God The Bible has a message that somehow Christianity has diluted of its full meaning. In the end, God will be fully victorious. He will be all in all. He will restore all things to himself. “He has made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fullness—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.” (Eph. 1:9-10). “He is the image of the invisible God…all things were created by him and for him….in him all things hold together….in everything he might have supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him to reconcile all things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.” (Col. 1:15-20). “…at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on hearth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil. 2:10-11) “God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.” (II Cor. 5:19) “Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death…..so that God may be all in all.” (I Cor. 15:24-28) These scriptures clearly teach that God’s purpose in Christ was to reconcile the world to himself. Death will be destroyed and in the end God will be all in all. God’s objective was not to save a tiny remnant, but the whole of creation. (See also Romans 8:21. “… creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”) Reconciliation of the entire world is the primary purpose of Jesus’ life on earth, for “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (John 3:17). This message is further confirmed by the many scriptures which proclaim the universal salvation brought to humankind through Christ: “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.” (Rom. 5:18) “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” (I Cor. 15:22) ”He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (I John 2:2) “…God, our Savior,…wants all men to be saved….gave himself as a ransom for all men.” (I Tim. 2:3-4)

12

“…the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.” (I Tim. 4:10) Whereas the Jews held an exclusionary view that they alone were God’s Chosen People, the Gospel blasted away that view. The “mystery” Paul speaks of so often was that God has come to rescue all men, not just the Jews. As Jesus said, “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” (John 12:32) The traditional view has always explained away these and other verses, limiting their application to “some” men (the elect) on the basis of judgment resulting in the damnation of the many. Yet, how can some be tormented forever in hell and God be all in all? How can hell exist when all opposition is destroyed? How can God reconcile all things and yet not all things be reconciled? If the act of one man (Adam) brought death to all and the Bible says that the act of one man (Jesus) also brought life to all, how can we say that all means all when it applies to death, but means some when it applies to life? The traditional view is wrought with inconsistencies. As Christians, we tend to deny the simple truth of these statements, not because they are incorrect, but because they do not fit our doctrine. Therefore, we re-interpret them, stripping them of their power, to adjust them to the view we have been taught. Our doctrine of salvation and judgment, unfortunately, as it became Romanized after Constantine in the Fourth Century, was greatly influenced by the prevailing pagan teaching on hell and damnation. Accordingly, we view these scriptures through colored glass and miss the beauty and promise of their true meaning, which is peace and goodwill towards all men (Luke 2:14). The doctrine which teaches the universality of God’s Grace and Reconciliation is called the “Doctrine of Universal Restoration.”

13

History of the Doctrine of Universal Restoration It is valuable to observe that the Doctrine of Universal Restoration was widely held in the early church. Proponents included Clement of Alexandria (140 - c. 220), Origen (185 - 254) John Chrysostom (347 - 407), Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330 - c. 395) and many others. Out of six theological schools which existed during Origen’s life, four taught this doctrine exclusively; one taught the dualistic view of eternal heaven and hell; and one taught annihilation of the wicked. It was not until well after Augustine (354 - 430) the traditional view became the official view of the church. Augustine, who did not accept Restorationism, admitted that “very many” Christians believe it. Also, Jerome (337 420) stated that most Christians believe it. 1 Church historian Gieseler, church historian and non-Restorationist, commenting upon early church history says, “the belief in the inalienable capability of improvement in all rational beings, and the limited duration of future punishment, was so general, even in the West…” It was only after pagan influences had well infiltrated the church and at the insistence of a half-heathen emperor, Justinian, that the church declared Universal Restoration heretical in the year 553 AD. It was said that Justinian was "neither beloved in his life, nor regretted at his death." The age of Justinian is said to be one of the vilest of the Christian centuries. Therefore, to argue against this doctrine on the basis of the historic Christian tradition is to be ignorant of early Christian history. 2 Even amongst early Christians who did not believe in Universal Salvation, there was a widespread belief that one’s fate was not sealed at death. Rather, it was believed that Christ descended into Hades, preached the Gospel, and released the captives (See I Peter 3 and 4).3 Understanding the early Christians belief that there was hope after death, also sheds light on that otherwise mysterious verse regarding Christians being baptized for the dead (I Cor. 15:29). It is my belief that the doctrine does not find its origin in the Second Century, but in the scriptures themselves and was a core teaching of the Apostle Paul. This is, of course, where Protestantism should rally. The Protestant position has always been “sola scriptoria” when it comes to doctrine. It is on these grounds that I build my case for Universal Restoration.

At one point in time, Jerome was a Universalist. Commenting on Galatians 2:2, he said, “No rational creature before God will perish forever. However, later in life he took sides against the doctrine. 2 J.W. Hanson, D.D., Universalism the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During its First Five Hundred Years (Boston and Chicago: Universalist Publishing House, 1899). It has been reproduced in electronic form and may be found at www.tentmaker.org. All of the above historical information may be found in this publication. 3 John Sanders, editor, What About Those Who Have Never Heard? (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995) pages 86-87. 1

14

The Problem of Hell In recent years, there has been a growing voice amongst Evangelicals to redefine the doctrine of Hell, not for the purpose of “tickling of the ears,” but to rid the doctrine of mistaken ancient and middle age concepts. While the more fundamentalists resist any change in interpretation, many honest Evangelicals admit that it is hard to imagine why God would allow masses of people to suffer endlessly in hell. Accordingly, theologians are addressing the issue in one of three directions. The first is a redefinition of the nature of hell. Hell is defined as a place where people do not know God, remain in a state of rebellion against him, but are largely unaware of how terrible their torment. They have become used to hell and what those in heaven would consider torment, those in hell consider normal.4 This, it seems to me, is a watering down of the basic teachings of the Bible in regards to judgment, described as torment. The second route, which has gained a considerable following within the Anglican church and which has been adopted by John Stott, is annihilation, or conditional mortality. Rather than force sinners to be tormented forever and ever with no way out, sinners are annihilated—they cease to exist. This teaching is based upon a number of scriptures referring to the unrepentant “perishing.” In my opinion, this is a more scriptural view than the first. The third approach is universal restoration. Of the three, this is resisted most by Conservative Evangelicals because of its radically different understanding of the extent and applicability of Christ’s sacrifice. It is equated with liberalism and frequently rejected outright without consideration of the evidence. However, as I am attempting to show within this paper, I believe this is the most scriptural view.

Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000). Chapter 6, interview with J. P. Moreland, PhD. 4

15

A Brief History of Hell The Old Testament is surprisingly quiet in regards to the after-life. It uses the term “Sheol” to denote the abode of the dead. However, this term is neutral regarding punishment or rewards. Sheol was thought of as sort of a nether-world of ghosts and spirits. In fact, the Old Testament says nothing of everlasting torment of the evil. However, at the time of Christ, it was widely taught by the Pharisees and was part of popular Judaism. If it was not taught in the Law and the Prophets, then how did the doctrine develop within the religion in existence amongst the Jews? There are several apocryphal books written during the four hundred years prior to Christ. Many of these books, such as the Book of Enoch, depict the unending punishment of the wicked. At the time of Christ, the Cannon had not yet been officially established so some of these books carried substantial weight in theological thinking. But, we have to ask, where did the apocryphal writers come up with this idea? As far as we can tell, it was the Egyptians who originally developed the concept of everlasting torment in hell for the evil about 2000 BC. This later was adopted by the Babylonians and by the Greeks. As admitted by Plato, Aristotle, Seneca and others, hell was used by those in power to maintain some degree of control over the masses. 5 Hence, the ruler was often declared to be a god. If you do not obey this god, then you will suffer eternally in hell. Therefore, the doctrine of everlasting punishment in hell did not originally derive itself from the Jewish scriptures, but from pagan sources. That alone should be enough to cause a Christian to at least pause and consider their beliefs in regards to hell. The fact that it was taught by pagans does not negate the possibility of it being true. After all, Paul teaches that certain things regarding God are evident to all, Jews and Gentiles alike (Romans 1:20). However, such a foundational teaching of traditional Christianity ought to have its basis in Scripture and not pagan fables. Of course, there is the New Testament. In the New Testament, there are three words sometimes translated hell in the New Testament. The first is the Greek word hades. Hades is the place of the dead and is similar to Shoel. In context, within the New Testament, it is frequently associated with punishment and, hence translated hell. Gehenna is the second word translated hell. Gehenna literally was the name of a well known garbage dump outside Jerusalem, the Valley of Hinnom. The fires in Gehenna continuously burned and worms inhabited the garbage. So, when translated hell, it is assumed that Gehenna is used as a metaphor for hell. Neither of these words necessarily refers to hell as we currently understand the term. They could refer to the place of the dead (prior to judgment), the grave, a place of punishment, a place of torment or a garbage dump. The third word translated hell is tartarus. The Greeks used this word to signify a place of everlasting torment like the current popular notion of hell. It is used in only one place (II Peter 2:4) by Peter, quoting the well known non-canonical Book of Enoch. Enoch teaches that God sent angels who sinned to hell and Peter uses this example along with several others to emphasize the point that God will bring judgment. His use of a Thomas B. Thayer, The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment (Boston: Universalist Publishing House, 1855). Available online at www.tentmaker.org 5

16

well known illustration to make a point does not necessarily endorse the teachings of Enoch. My purpose in the above brief exposition of Greek terms is to demonstrate that the word hell actually appears only once in the New Testament. The more frequent occurrence of the word in modern translations is due to contextual interpretation. This is important to the extent that church culture and paganism has influenced our perception of what hell is, as well as the theological perspective of the translators. The Bible clearly teaches judgment and punishment. The experience of that judgment or punishment is what we call hell. However, the Biblical concept of hell is very different than the popular Christian concept.

17

The Nature of Judgment Biblical commentators are divided as to whether hell (as the experience of God’s judgment) is a place or state of mind. For our purpose, it does not matter. In either case, the Bible teaches that it is an existence of horrible torment. It uses graphic terms, such as “unquenchable fire,” “utter darkness,” and “where the worm does not die” to described the awfulness of the condition. At issue here is not whether hell is real or not, but rather its duration and purpose. My premise is that pagans taught unending punishment and torment while the Bible teaches that it is limited in duration and with the express purpose of correction. The Bible says that “man is destined to die once. And after that to face judgment.” (Hebrews 9:27) It says that we will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ (II Cor. 5:10) So, judgment is not just of the wicked, but all. To judge means to render a verdict, which may be favorable or unfavorable. No place in the Bible does it state that man has irrevocably sealed his fate after death. To the contrary, it offers hope. Jesus tells a parable in Luke 12:42-48 which is useful in understanding judgment. It is about a manager who puts his servants in charge of his possessions while he goes away. When he returns and finds the servants misbehaving, he says, “He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.” This passage tells us a lot about the nature of judgment. This is judgment against God’s servants who do evil. Jesus uses the same type of terminology he uses in describing the end of the wicked man—he will be cut into pieces. This is not a literal description, but symbolizes the harsh results of the servant’s disobedience. The servant is then assigned to a place with unbelievers. In other words, the evil servant’s judgment is of the same nature as the unbeliever’s judgment. Jesus then describes the nature of this judgment further by stating that the severity of the punishment will depend upon the nature of the offense. The punishment may be with few or many blows. The blows are numbered and do not last indefinitely. Rather, there is an end to them. The duration will depend upon how many blows are needed. This is the lot of the evil believer and the unbeliever. There is severe punishment, but not unending punishment. Jesus also states that the punishment of Sodom will be less than that of cities which reject him (Luke 10:12). Not everyone who is condemned receives the same level of punishment. Jesus told a parable in which the verdict was favorable for some but unfavorable for others in the parable of the sheep and the goats. The sheep are offered “eternal life”, but the rejected are said to “go away to eternal punishment.” (Matt. 25:46) While this passage, appears to support unending punishment of the wicked, Greek scholar William Barclay explains it in this way:

18

“The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment. The word for eternal is aionios. It means more than everlasting, for Plato —who may have invented the word—plainly says that a thing may be everlasting and still not be aionios. The simplest way to out it is that aionios cannot be used properly of anyone but God; it is the word uniquely, as Plato says it, of God. Eternal punishment is then literally that kind of remedial punishment which it befits God to give and which only God can give.”6 In other words, “eternal punishment” means God’s extreme pruning. Eternal refers as much to the quality as to the quantity. We sometimes use eternal in the same way as well. For example, we may speak of the eternal beauty of diamonds. This does not mean the diamond or its beauty lasts forever, but that its beauty is of an exquisite quality. Or, we may refer to a boring speech as going on forever. It is evident that we do not mean the phrase to be taken literally. A misunderstanding of the term eternal has resulted in a misunderstanding of the duration of hell and judgment. It is eternal in its quality, but not unending. In fact, had Jesus wanted to propagate the Pharisetical teaching of unending punishment, he would have used the language the Pharisees used, which were completely different Greek words used specifically for that teaching.7 Why is it that on earth God’s anger lasts but for a moment and his favor lasts a lifetime (Psalm 30:5), but after death we are taught that Gods favor lasts but for a moment and his anger forever (towards unbelievers)? Surely this is an inconsistency and a misunderstanding. Fire in the Bible is understood as a cleansing agent. God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29). In speaking of the day of judgment, Malachi says, “But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver.” (Malachi 3:2-3). God’s judgment is like a fire. Its purpose is to purify. His judgment is like soap, to make clean. The purpose of God’s judgment is not to destroy the person, but to destroy or consume the evil within the person. When fire is used in describing hell or judgment, it is used as a symbol of the painful, but purifying process of cleansing. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ (Rom. 8:1), but there is judgment, especially against those who were in Christ, but no longer are. Paul speaks of it in I Cor. 3:10-15. Referring to how one builds his life, Paul says, “…his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.” God’s judgment, like a fire, removes that which is not holy. William Barclay, A Spiritual Autobiography (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977.) page 65-67 7 J. W. Hanson, D.D., Universalism, The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years (Boston and Chicago: Universalist Publishing House, 1899) Chapter III, Origin of Endless Punishment. The author lists several words used by Jews in their own writings from Jesus’ time. Hanson’s publication was put into electronic format by Glade Swope in 1999 and is available online at www.tentmaker.org 6

19

I Timothy 3:6 is a difficult verse regarding judgment. Speaking of Overseers, Paul says, “He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.” What is that judgment? Surely, the judgment against a Christian’s conceit is not everlasting separation from God! At the most, it is temporary separation as God deals with that sin in the person’s life. In more than one place, Paul speaks of handing people over to Satan that they might be taught not to blaspheme (I Tim. 1:20, I Cor. 5:5). The interesting aspect of I Timothy 3:6 is that Paul refers to the Christian’s judgment as being the same as the devil’s. If this judgment is not for the ultimate purpose of restoration, then there is little hope for any of us. In conclusion, God’s judgment is not for the purpose of applying unending torment to evil and unbelieving souls. Rather, it is to apply eternal pressure until the soul is willing to repent and accept the forgiveness of God and be reconciled to his Creator. This may take a very long time for some. God’s judgment and punishment is the perfect expression of his mercy and grace upon the unrepentant sinner. Proud and evil persons do not easily give up their sin, but God is like the Good Shepherd who will chase them down until he finds them. He is Love and Hope which never fails. In the end, it is his judgment which will bring forth his righteousness in all of creation and restore all things, whether in heaven or earth to himself.

20

True Justice The traditionalist explanation for everlasting punishment is that sin against a holy God requires unending separation as justice on the basis that even the smallest sin is infinite in consequence compared to the eternal holiness of God. Therefore, eternal separation is just. However, that argument is flawed on the basis of an understanding of justice. True justice does not demand punishment, but restitution or restoration. This is best illustrated by human examples. If someone steals your vehicle, justice is served only by restoration of that which was lost. Locking the thief up does not achieve justice. If someone defames your name, justice is served only by that person proclaiming the truth about you. If your child rebels and hurts you, justice is not served by catching and punishing the child, but by reconciliation. If someone harms you in any way, justice is served by restoration. The human response is punishment without restoration. Thomas Talbot explains this well in his book, The Inescapable Love of God.8 When restoration is not possible, in cases such as rape or murder, we punish. We punish because the offender has taken advantage of the victim and is therefore perceived to have gained some advantage. Therefore, since we do not have the ability to raise the dead or undo a heinous action, we remove some of the rights of the offender as an attempt to remove that perceived advantage. God, however, is able to restore the lost. He is able to heal the wounded. He is able to raise the dead. Therefore, in God’s system of justice he can achieve full and true justice: restitution, restoration and reconciliation. True justice for the sinner against a holy God is repentance on the part of the sinner and reconciliation with God. Until that has occurred, justice is not complete. No amount of punishment can remove the loss that God feels9 by that wayward child. Until that loss is obliterated, justice cannot be realized. Therefore, unending punishment in hell is not just. It becomes just when the person suffering in hell finally repents and comes home to be reconciled to his Creator.

Thomas Talbot, The Inescapable Love of God (Universal Publishers, 1999) It may be argued that God has lost nothing when a sin is committed on the basis that God is self sufficient. However, I believe that argument is weak in light of scriptures in which God is portrayed as mourning over his lost ones. Jesus said of Jerusalem, “…how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks.” (Matt. 23:37.) For God to feel no loss is to portray God as stoic, without emotion. Since God created man to have fellowship with God, God feels the loss of fellowship and hurts far more than any human. 8 9

21

Implied Consent If you have ever purchased a new car, you may have become aware of how many of the same type of cars are on the road. It is as if your eyes are suddenly opened to see what was there all the time. In a similar way, once one has accepted the possibility of universal salvation, many scriptures take on new and fresh meaning. They do not overtly proclaim the message of full reconciliation, but their meaning seems to come alive in light of universal interpretation. “For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” (Romans 11:32). Just as everyone of us have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory, so God will have mercy on everyone of us. This verse follows a passage in which Paul outright declares that “all Israel will be saved.” (Romans 11:26) Paul follows up this verse with a beautiful doxology praising God for the depth of his wisdom. Gods wisdom is higher than ours. We want evil people to suffer forever. God wants to extend mercy to them. “Love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:35-36) God does not ask us to do anything he does not do himself. He asks us to do good to the evil because he himself does good to them. “I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.” (Ephesians 3:17-19). God’s love goes far beyond what we can even comprehend. It is not exclusive. “I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39) There is nothing, not even hell that can separate one from the love of Christ. “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?” (Luke 15:4) God is not content to just allow a lost sinner to remain lost. Rather, the love of God compels him to seek him until he is found, regardless of how many eons that may take. “Love is patient,…it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs…it always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails…these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” (I Cor. 13:4-15) Love never fails. Hope always remains. God is love. How can these words be true if the love of God fails to bring even the worst of sinners into his fold? Can people resist God’s love forever? Love never fails.

22

Problem Scriptures Just as there are scriptures that are problems for the traditional view (as noted earlier in this paper), there are scriptures that are difficult for the Restorationist view. I am going to address the most difficult of these. Lazarus and the Rich Man. When I first began to research Universal Restoration, this was one of the primary problem scriptures. The parable very clearly states that there is no crossing over from one side to the other after death. I read this parable several times, prayed over it and finally set it aside and told God that if there was any truth to Universal Salvation, he would have to explain this passage to me. Several weeks later, I learned of two alternative explanations. Below is the account, in context, as recorded in Luke 16 beginning in verse 13 with Jesus talking: “You cannot serve both God and Money.” The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourself in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight. “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ “’No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

23

I included the parable in context because the context is crucial to the correct understanding of this parable. Jesus had been talking to the Pharisees and attacking them for their greed and exclusivity. He states that one cannot serve God and money. He states that up until this time the Law and the Prophets were proclaimed (of whom the Pharisees considered themselves the sacred guardians), but people were entering the Kingdom of God in hordes apart from the Law and the Prophets. In other words, a new way has come. Then, he drives home the point with this parable. It is also interesting to note that this parable was apparently not original with Jesus. It was recorded in the Babylonian Talmud and would have been very familiar to the Pharisees.10 Therefore, he was not teaching a new doctrine, but rather was repeating a story in a poignant way to his adversaries. Parables are symbolic. They are not to be read literally (think about the parable of the Sower and the Seed. It is not about farming). Furthermore, not everything in a parable necessarily has meaning. Rather, certain aspects may be just to add color. It may also be inconsistent to take one aspect of a parable symbolically and another literally. This parable cannot be about the fate of one after death. Because, if it is, then it runs contrary to the gospel. There is not indication of faith on the part of Lazarus, nor is there indication of lack of faith on the part of the Rich Man. In fact, if anything, the Rich Man shows compassion by thinking of his brothers who are still alive. One is not saved by being poor, nor is one condemned by being rich. In context, this is a parable directed towards the Pharisees. The Rich Man represents the Pharisees. He is richly robed, wearing clothes like the Pharisees. Lazarus is Latin for Eleazar. Eleazar was the nephew of Abraham, the one who would have inherited Abraham’s estate had he not had a son. Eleazar represents the Gentiles. This is further illustrated by the fact that he was outside the gate and could only receive crumbs from the Rich Man’s table. The Gentiles were not allowed inside the gate of the Temple. They could never partake of the fullness of God’s blessings. The dogs licking his wounds, emphasize the point even more, as Jews referred to the Gentiles as dogs. The Rich Man goes to hell, where the Pharisees taught that Gentiles would go and Lazarus goes to Abraham’s bosom (heaven), where the Pharisees, as Abraham’s children, assumed they would go. So, in the parable, the place of the Jews is taken by the Gentiles. Those who were supposed to be in Abraham’s bosum are displaced by those who were previously excluded. Jesus was teaching that the self-righteous Pharisees were going to have their role as God’s Own People taken from them and given to those who were once not a nation. That which was exalted will be humbled and that which was humbled will be exalted. As for the part about not crossing from one side to the other, this was what the Pharisees taught regarding hell. So, this was added to bring home the point that the Pharisees were going to find themselves excluded.

J. F. Witherell, The Five Pillars In the Temple of Partialism Shaken and Removed (Concord: Balm of Gilead, 1843). Chapter, “Rich Man and Lazarus.” Available online at www.tentmaker.org. I was unable to verify independently the accuracy of this statement. 10

24

Therefore, this parable is not at all about the after-life, but about Kingdom of God here on earth. However, if you cannot accept that this parable is symbolic and not literal, then I will offer an alternative explanation. When Jesus told this story, he had not yet conquered death and risen from the dead. Therefore, those who died prior to his victory, were in torment. There was no relief nor possibility of moving from hell to heaven. Yet, Jesus said he came to free the captives (Luke 4:18). Jesus has the keys to death and Hades (Rev. 1:18). Keys may be used to lock or unlocked. Since Jesus came to free, he has unlocked the gates of hell. He further said that the gates of hell will not overcome the church (Matt. 16:18). Gates are defensive, therefore he meant that his body (the church) will overcome the gates that keep the captives imprisoned. Indeed, Peter tells us that after death Christ preached to the spirits in prison (I Peter 3:19), who are dead that they might live in the spirit (I Peter 4:6). Therefore, if one wishes to take the parable literally, it does not provide a problem. At the time of the telling, the facts of the story were accurate. However, that was going to change soon, with Jesus’ redemptive death and triumph over it. Those imprisoned in hell can now be released and cross the chasm to heaven. The Unforgivable Sin. In Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus said: And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” This passage is a problem for all Christians. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not defined, so its meaning falls into the realm of speculation. Looking at the passage in context in Matthew’s Gospel, it follows a discourse in which the Pharisees are accusing Jesus of casting out demons by demonic power himself. Therefore, it would appear that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit may be akin to ascribing the power of God to Satan. An interesting aspect of this passage is that Jesus implies that every other sin may be forgiven in the next age as well as in this one, including words spoken against Jesus. But, this one sin cannot be forgiven. There are two reasonable explanations for this passage. One, Jesus could be speaking hyperbolically. He did not mean that the sin could not be forgiven, but wanted to emphasize how difficult it is to come to forgiveness of that particular sin. This would be similar to saying that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved (Matthew 19:24). No camel can go through the eye of a needle, but this is hyperbolic speech indicating how difficult it is. Similarly, Jesus said that one must hate his family if he is to follow him (Luke 14:26). No one takes this literally. We understand that Jesus is talking in comparison. Likewise, perhaps Jesus is using parabolic speech to communicate the seriousness of the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Another possible explanation is that the sin cannot be forgiven, but one must suffer the consequences, whatever they are. This would be similar to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 6:15 that unless you forgive, you will not be forgiven. One will not be forgiven

25

their own sins as long as they refuse to forgive others. It would also be similar to the lists that Paul makes of who will not inherit the Kingdom of God (adulterers, unbelievers, etc.). But, Paul states that some of us were guilty of those sins. As long as we engage in those sinful ways, we cannot inherit the Kingdom. But, once we repent, we can. Likewise, perhaps the meaning is that one cannot be forgiven the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as long as one persists in that sin. But, once one repents, then they can be forgiven. Lake of Fire. Revelation records the following verses regarding the lake of fire: If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on his forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name. (Rev. 14:9-11) The two of them [the beast and the false prophet] were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. (Rev. 19:20) And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Rev. 20:10) Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky 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 he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:11-15) But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death. (Rev. 21: 8) He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death. (Rev. 2:11) Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. (Rev. 20:6) First, it is very dangerous to build any doctrine from the book of Revelation. Revelation is a very symbolic book and scholars have debated its meaning for centuries. Symbolism, by its very nature refers to something other than the literal. No one, for example, believes that Jesus has a literal sword coming out of his mouth, as he is described in Revelation 1. Rather, the sword represents the Word of God, as the Book

26

of Revelation itself explains. Therefore, one has to understand that whatever is described is symbolic of something else. In Revelation 6:9, souls of martyrs are depicted as being under the altar. This is obviously symbolic and not a literal alter. If it were, it would be as if the souls were imprisoned. Likewise, the Lake of Fire should not be understood as a literal lake of fire. Rather, it would be better understood as the “Consuming Fire” of God, as mentioned in Hebrews 12:29. It is the Fire of Judgment. In fact, Revelation 14:10 states that fact clearly as “God’s fury...cup of his wrath.” The lake of fire is described as a fire of burning sulfur. The Greek word translated “sulfur” (or “brimstone” in some translations) is theion. This word also means “divine.” Sulfur was sacred to the Greeks and was used to purify or consecrate oneself before the gods. The verb derived from theion is theioo, which means to make holy or divine. Therefore, the lake of fire means a lake of divine purification.11 It is best understood as the Judgment of God, that refiner’s fire, which purifies man of his evil. The phrase, “forever and ever” emphasizes the eternal nature (God nature) of the judgment. The torment occurs in the presence of the Lamb. The very presence of the Lamb creates torment to the wicked. It is not that the Lamb is tormenting them (how can a Lamb torment?), but rather the unrighteous are tormented by being in the presence of the righteous! It is the deep conviction of God’s holy presence that is tormenting. The torment will continue until the sinner repents. It is also important to note that death and Hades are thrown into the fire. The second death is not like the first death. The second death is the death of death itself. Revelation 21:4 says there will be no more death. The second death is designed to eradicate everything which opposes God so that in the end, God is all in all and there is no more evil. Finally, we see that in the very end, (Rev. 22:13), God is the Alpha and the Omega, He is not only the First, but also the Last. He wins. But, his victory is not at the expense of his enemies, but at the restoration of His enemies. Forever Shut Out from the Presence of God. II Thessalonians 1:6-9 says: God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power.” The issue here is the phrase, “punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord.” We have already discussed punishment as corrective in nature. We have already addressed the issue of “everlasting” as referring to the eternal quality of God and, in this case of his punishment. “Destruction” refers to the eradication of the flesh, of that J. Preston Eby, The Savior of the World Series (online at www.tentmaker.org). Chapter titled, “The Lake of Fire.” Eby quotes Charles Pridgeon as authority on the Greek. 11

27

aspect of humankind which opposes God. Therefore, “punished with everlasting destruction” means the punishment which comes from the divine destruction of sin. The more difficult part of this verse is the phrase “shut out from the presence of the Lord. It seems to state that one will be forever separated from the presence of God. However, the problem seems to be more of translation than of substance. The problem is the Greek word which is translated “shut out from.” In actuality, the Greek contains only the word from. From can mean, depending upon the context, either “away from” or “coming from.” The translators chose (I believe based upon personal theological perspectives) to translate it “away from” or “shut out from.” However, it could just have easily been translated “coming from.” The King James Version translates verses 8 and 9 most directly without adding theological bias: In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. In fact, this translation makes much more sense. It is clear from the context that their punishment comes from God’s flaming fire, not away from it.12 Therefore, this passage is in complete accordance with the Universal Restoration perspective. God will punish those who oppose him with the eternal fire coming from his presence. The end is to destroy sin, not the sinner. In conclusion, these are the most difficult passages which are frequently used in arguments against Universal Restoration. There are others, though far less potent and which are answered in much the same way.

For a thorough discussion of this verse and the Greek translation, see Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God (Universal Publishers, 1999), 92-98. 12

28

Free Will One of the criticisms sometimes levied against Universal Salvation is that it requires a belief in predestination and eliminates free will. I am going to agree and disagree on different levels. To start with. Lets look at what Paul said about God’s pre-ordained plan in Ephesians 1:4-12: He chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. God, in his infinite wisdom, knew before he created the world that his created beings would rebel against him because of their free will. He did not ordain or predestine their rebellion, but he knew it would happen. But, he also created a plan whereby he would be able to draw back all of creation to him. They were allowed to rebel so that in the end they could serve him not because they had to, but because they wanted to—out of love, not obligation. Herein lies the essence of free will—that we freely love God. What about the person who does not want to love God—who hates him? As described in Romans 1, God will give the person over to his own depravity. Yet, the hound of heaven—God’s love, as manifested by fire of his judgment, will pursue the one that hates him to the very end. What is it that compels us to come to Christ in the first place? Is it not, for most of us, his love? What is it that causes us to remain with Christ? Is it not his love? When you take the most fierce God-hater, the most vile sinner, and analyze him psychologically, I believe you will find this person to be dysfunctional and lacking in loving relationships. Many who formerly opposed God were like this, yet when God revealed himself to them, they repented. It may not have been immediate, but as God worked in their life, they came to recognize the error of their ways—for it is the kindness of God which brings repentance (Romans 2:4). A person hates God not because they really want to —deep down inside each person is a desire to love and be loved—but because they are deceived (II Thes. 2:9-12) and the Good News has not yet been able to penetrate the veil which blocks their view (II Cor. 3:14-16). I can state that deep inside every person wants to love God, because, as the popular analogy goes, God has created a God-shaped vacuum inside each person. Everyone wants that vacuum filled, they just do not know that it can only be filled by God. My contention is that once one clearly sees the choice, they will choose God. Maybe not right away. It may take a lot of pain and suffering before they realize that they need

29

him. But, when the veil is removed, they will chose him not out of compulsion, but because he is the only one who offers a way out of their misery—and he offers the love they so desperately need and have run away from. If—and I do not believe this will happen—but if anyone after all “eternity” should remain in rebellion, embracing hell and refusing the grace freely offered by God, then I believe the only course remaining is annihilation. This is because in the end, the Bible teaches that all things will be brought together in God, with the elimination of death, hades, suffering, sin and pain. Hell cannot exist forever. Therefore, if anyone was to hold out against God, then he will be utterly destroyed. I believe it is a more scriptural view to say that hell will exist as long as rebellion exists and once all of God’s enemies have been won over (defeated), then hell will cease to exist. Hence, God has ordained (predestined) that all men will come to him in their own time and by their own free choice.

30

Psychological and Emotional Barriers To Acceptance of Universal Restoration There are two primary obstacles to the Conservative Christian to accepting the doctrine of Universal Restoration: theological and emotional/psychological. I have already addressed many of the theological. In this chapter, I will address the psychological and emotional aspects, because in some ways this is the most difficult. Theologically, a strong case can be made for Universal Restoration from the scriptures. However, even when presented with the evidence, it is very difficult for someone who as been taught something different to accept it. It requires a re-definition of the nature of God, judgment and the meaning of life. Accordingly, these are not easily accomplished in a short period of time. In my case, it took five years of research, prayer, reading, thinking and discussion. This article is in large part a biography of my spiritual struggle. In many cases, I could build or understand a concept intellectually, but emotionally it was difficult to accept. Below are several of the questions which arose in my own mind and which will be common to most Conservative Christians with the answers as I have derived them. It is too good to be true and therefore cannot be true. We have heard this all our life. The doctrine of Universal Restoration is such a wonderful concept that there is a tendency to reject it simply because it is too good. In Paul’s time, Christians were accused of promoting a “too good doctrine.” In Romans, Paul implies that Christians encouraged “sin that grace may abound.” The doctrine of unending punishment in hell for non-believers is so deeply ingrained in our Christian psyche that anything else surely cannot possibly be true. As it is, according to the traditional viewpoint, the Gospel is “Good News” only for believers. For non-believers it is definitely not a gospel. Yet, we have heard time and time again that “God is Good.” Therefore, it is truly short sighted to reject a doctrine simply because it is “too good.” Who better to author a doctrine of really Good News, other than Christ himself! If I accept this, I am creating a God in the image I want him to be and not as he is. This is a very serious concern, far more than the first. It is possible for anyone to hypothecate a view and then find scriptures (usually out of context) to support that view. That problem is compounded by the fact that a student is also relying upon the works of others to interpret Greek and Hebrew and for giving an accounting of history. Every author has a number of biases and those viewpoints may influence or distort his/her message, perhaps in ways which cannot be discerned by the reader. Therefore, in my own quest, I felt the need to read and re-read passages of scripture and many authors of differing points of view. The image of God that many conservative Christians have is that God is love, but he is also righteous and holy. This is, undoubtedly true. However, the image many also have is that the righteousness and holiness of God requires eternal damnation of a great many people. If one begins to dismantle the second part of this view, it raises the question of “who God is.” This is an issue I struggled with for a long time. Again, if the preponderance of evidence indicates that God is different or behaves differently than I previously conceived, then the case is not that I am creating a God in

31

my own image, but that I am learning to see Him more clearly. Previously, the image I had of God was as man created him. Fear of losing my salvation by straying from the “narrow path” and accepting a “different gospel.” This may not be a concern to those who believe “once saved, always saved.” But, I did not subscribe to this doctrine, so it was a concern to me. However, this concern was resolved relatively easily. If, in my research, I became convinced that the Bible teaches something different from what I believed, then my prior belief system is actually the one which is inaccurate and to the side of the “narrow path.” So, how can I lose my salvation by believing a truer gospel? How can so many Bible Scholars and church leaders over the centuries be wrong about something so basic as salvation? It is not so much a fact of being wrong, as being incomplete. St. Augustine formed the basic framework for the western church’s theology in the fifth century. His view on this matter became the accepted view and became so entrenched in church theology that any other view became virtually inconceivable. Furthermore, a cursory reading in translated versions of the Bible appears to support the doctrine of everlasting punishment. However, as already pointed out, this view was very prominent in the early church. After Christianity became the official religion of the state, paganism and worldly influences encroached upon the church. Greek (the original language of the New Testament) was replaced by Latin, whose words translated did not fully capture the meaning of the Greek in some instances pertaining to judgment. Pagan teaching regarding everlasting torment in hell was absorbed into the church. English and other modern languages do not always have words which properly transfer the meaning of the Greek and translators are influenced by their own theological biases. If Universal Restoration is true, then why has God allowed such a false and destructive heresy of eternal damnation to persist so long? This is perhaps best answered by Paul in Romans 11:32, “God has bound all men over to disobedience, so that he might have mercy on them all.” Israel, having been given the law, failed in her application of it and her failure to uphold the law opened the door for God to offer Grace. The church, too, has failed to live the life of Grace and so God has shown that all have disobeyed—that salvation is through the church no more than it is through Israel. In the end, our disobedience in purveying a distorted Gospel will result in an even greater display of God’s mercy (see Romans 9-11, substituting the Church for Israel as a parable to this explanation). God is content to be maligned so that he can show his kindness all the more through forgiving sinners, such as us. It is not the work of man (or the church) which saves sinners, but God and God alone. If one can be saved, regardless of their doctrine, then what difference does what one believes make, especially if they live a good and decent life? This is a troubling question, especially because as Conservative Christians it was drilled into our heads that one must believe or be damned. Now, it is being proposed that one may not believe and not be damned. So, what difference does it make? What advantage is there to believing? I think the answer is found in judgment. For those in Christ, there is no condemnation, no experience of hell. For those without Christ, the judgment may be severe. Therefore, there is every advantage to faith in Christ. This doctrine appears to be akin to liberalism and liberalism waters down the Gospel to the extent that it is ineffective. If I accept this doctrine, am I starting

32

down a slippery liberal slope towards other errors? If liberal churches are right in this aspect of doctrine, then why is there so little passion for Christ? Is it possible to hold this view and be a passionate and effective follower of Christ? I have lumped these together because they are all related. These are issues that I have struggled with and can only answer from personal experience. Liberalism and Universal Restoration are not the same. Liberalism rejects the authority of the scriptures. Liberalism may be inclined towards pluralism (there is more than one way to God). However, Univerisalism as presented in this paper accepts the scriptures as revealed word of God and, in fact relies entirely upon the Scriptures as the basis for this view. Restorationism becomes liberalism only if Christ is no longer the only way and the focal point of life. If passion is lost, it is lost due to loss of the focal point. It becomes liberalism if the Grace of God is used as an excuse for sin. However, the issue is far removed from liberalism vs. conservatism. Truth is neither liberal nor conservative. Truth is that which is true, regardless of its philosophical underpinnings. There have been many very godly people who have embraced the doctrine of Universal Restoration. Therefore, the acceptance of this doctrine in no way inhibits a dynamic relationship with Christ. From my own experience, I can say that when I adopted the wider hope (as discussed in Part I), my perspective of God grew and my love of God increased, as I saw that he was not unfair in any way. The doctrine of Universal Restoration has served primarily to give me a systematic theological basis for the wider hope. As I have reflected upon the expanse of God’s love, my own love for him and passion has increased. O that everyone would come to know the God who does not condemn but justifies, accepts and purifies.

33

Conclusion Is the case clearly cut in favor of Universal Restoration? Of course not. If it were, there would be no controversy. However, when all factors are considered, I believe the weight of evidence falls on the side of Universal Restoration. There are problem scriptures on both sides of the issue. Just as the Restorationist must explain the verses about eternal damnation, the traditionalist must explain the many scriptures clearly stating that all will be saved and that all will be reconciled. I find the Calvinist explanation that “all” means “all the elect” to be very inadequate and, in fact, a manipulation of scripture to support a view which I believe is contrary to the Biblical Gospel. In the traditional view, the nature of God is compromised. John tells us that God is Love. Paul tells us that Love never fails. Yet, if one sinner holds out against the love of God, then that sinner has defeated God and God’s love has failed. God plainly states that it is his will that all men be saved (I Timothy 2:4). Why is it that it is so easy for Christians to believe that God’s will is accomplished in other areas, but not this one? Does not Isaiah say that God’s word will accomplish all that which he desires? (Isaiah 55:11) If all are not saved according to God’s desire, then God must not have the ability. At this point, the Armenian would answer that God has the ability but will not over throw the free will of man. However, if man is not given the option to accept God’s grace and forgiveness after death, then God has overruled man’s will. God has usurped free will! Could it not also be true that God has all of eternity to seek and to save the lost and when that last sinner finally repents, there will be the biggest party in heaven of ever? Traditionalists tell us that sinners must go to hell and suffer there eternally because the holiness of God will not allow a sinner in his presence. Tell that to Jesus, who not only ate and drank with sinners, but forgave them their sins. He welcomed sinners into his presence. For God so loved the world that he embraced it in all its decadence by becoming a man and taking its sin on himself. The holiness of God does not reject sinners. Rather, the holiness of God cleanses sinners. I think it is unfortunate that Christianity has lost the meaning of the full and complete victory of Christ. Into the Roman world of despair, Christ brought hope. Hope for all. This is the Good News. As it has been twisted over the centuries, the Good News has become Bad News for millions of people. Many sensitive Christians have wrestled with the apparent lostness of the world without hope. Hannah Whitall Smith, evangelist and author of the popular book, “The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life” expressed this sense of despair for the unsaved. She said: In every human face I saw, there seemed to be unveiled before me the story of the misery and anguish caused by the entrance of sin into the world. I knew that God must see this with far clearer eyes than mine, and therefore I felt sure that the sufferings of this sight to Him must be infinitely beyond what it was to me, almost unbearable as that seemed. And I began to understand how it was that the least He could do would be to embrace with untold gladness anything that would help to deliver the being He had created for such awful misery.

34

It was a never to be forgotten insight into the world's anguish because of sin. How long it lasted I cannot remember, but, while it lasted, it almost crushed me. And as it always came afresh at the sight of a strange face, I found myself obliged to wear a thick veil whenever I went into the streets, in order that I might spare myself the awful realization. However, one day that veil was removed: One day I was riding on a tram-car along Market Street, Philadelphia, when I saw two men come in and seat themselves opposite to me. I saw them dimly through a veil, but congratulated myself that it was only dimly, as I was thus spared the wave of anguish that had so often swept over me at the full sight of a strange face. The conductor came for his fare, and I was obliged to raise my veil in order to count it out. As I raised it I got a sight of the faces of those two men, and with an overwhelming flood of anguish, I seemed to catch a fresh and clearer revelation of the depth of the misery that had been caused to human beings by sin. It was more than I could bear. I clenched my hands and cried out in my soul, "O, God, how canst thou bear it? Thou mightest have prevented it, but didst not. Thou mightest even now change it, but Thou dost not. I do not see how Thou canst go on living, and endure it." I upbraided God. And I felt I was justified in doing so. Then suddenly God seemed to answer me. An inward voice said, in tones of infinite love and tenderness, "He shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied." "Satisfied!" I cried in my heart, "Christ is to be satisfied! He will be able to look at the world's misery, and then at the travail through which He has passed because of it, and will be satisfied with the result; If I were Christ, nothing could satisfy me but that every human being should in the end be saved, and therefore I am sure that nothing less will satisfy Him." And with this a veil seemed to be withdrawn from before the plans of the universe, and I saw that it was true, as the Bible says, that "as in Adam all die -even so in Christ should all be made alive." As was the first, even so was the second. The "all" in one case could not in fairness mean less than the "all" in the other. I saw therefore that the remedy must necessarily be equal to the disease, the salvation must be as universal as the fall. 13 The Good News is truly Good News for all people of all times. I realize that many Conservative Christians will disagree with me on my interpretation of Scripture. I do not from this paper alone expect to persuade anyone. From the time I first started to investigate the theology of salvation until I fully accepted the doctrine of Universal Restoration, nearly five years elapsed. Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first to present his case seems right, til another comes forward and questions him.” We have been taught only one side of the issue. In my research, I read books presenting all sides of the issue. In fact, I read more opposed to the doctrine than I did in favor of the doctrine. I hope that I have presented some information which will encourage Christians to read the Bible for themselves and ask the Holy Spirit for enlightenment.

13

Hannah Whitall Smith, The Unselfishness of God and How I Discovered It. Chapter XXII, “The Third Epoch of My Religious Life.” This chapter has been removed in recent reprintings of this book by the publisher. The original chapter can be read at www.tentmaker.org.

35

“I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe.” Ephesians 1:17-19.

36

After Thoughts If God is infinitely patient with people, then what excuse do I have for impatience? If God’s loving kindness never comes to an end, then what reason do I have for any lack thereof? If God never ceases to seek out the lost, then why should I ever give up? If God sees his redemptive Christ in every human being, then should I not also look for God’s gift in each person? If God became our servant, then how much more should I serve my brother? If God is so kind to my enemies, then how should I treat them? If God so loves the world, then I am overwhelmed with wonder. May I so love him back.

Romans 11:13-36 I Corinthians 13

37

Bibliography Four Views on Hell, edited by William Crockett, Zondervan Publishing House, 1992. In this book, four men defend four different views of hell: the literal, the metaphorical, purgatorial and conditional immortality (annihilationism). This book is good to get a sense of different perspectives on hell. Universalism is not discussed. In the End God, John A. T. Robinsion, Harper & Row, 1968. This is a rather dry theological book. However, in the last three chapters, he presents a very good and concise argument in favor of Universal Restoration. The Inescapable Love of God, by Thomas Talbott, Universal Publishers, 1999. This book makes a systematic presentation on the Universal Restoration perspective. I highly recommend it for those who want to learn more about the Biblical basis for Restorationism. The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ, by Philip Edgecombe Hughes, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989. This book is a comprehensive exposition of the gospel from the perspective that we were created in the image of God. It has chapters that deal with the issues of the immortality of the soul, the intermediate state, and conditional immortality. Hughes is an Anglican scholar, and believes in annihilationism. The book is superb from beginning to end and is useful not just for studying life after death, but also the purpose and meaning of life. This book should be in every Christian’s library, regardless of their eschatological perspective. What About Those Who Have Never Heard?, edited by John Sanders, InterVarsity Press, 1995. This book presents three different views on the destiny of the unevangelized: the traditional restrictivist position, the inclusiveness position and the divine perseverance position. It is useful for expanding ones horizons to other understandings and problems with various viewpoints. What Does the Bible Really Say About Hell?, by Randolph J. Klassen, Pandora Press, 2001. Klassen writes a very readable book on the subject. He set out on his research looking at each occasion in the Bible in which the Greek or Hebrew word is translated “hell.” His approach is more of an exploratory as opposed to dogmatic. Surprisingly, he does not get bogged down in a lot of details, which makes the book easy to read. He concludes that while the Bible does teach judgment, it does not teach everlasting torment. An excellent book especially for one beginning their research. Whatever Happened to Hell, by John Blanchard, Crossway Books, 1995. This book is a full-fledged defense of the traditional view of hell, and tries to answer all the arguments of all other views, including Universalism. If a traditionalist wants to know what they really believe and the implications thereof, this book pulls no punches. In fact, contrary to the author’s objective, this book sealed for me the decision that I could not accept the traditional view as God’s plan. I was depressed for two days after reading it.

38

www.tentmaker.org. This website has many articles, testimonies and online copies of publications pertaining to Universal Restoration, many of which are out of print. I highly recommend many of the resources on this site for further research. Other Papers by Wayne McDaniel Genesis One. An “objective” look at what Genesis One really means. I used to believe in a literal seven day creation. But, after I really examined the passage in detail for myself, I became convinced that this is not the way to read Genesis One. In Pursuit of Truth: What I Believe and Why. This is more or less a testimony of why I am a Christian, presenting both objective and subjective reasons. Embrace the Pain. A short paper on a God-centered perspective on pain and difficulties. My perspective has a long term historical foundation, but is contrary to the popular Christian view. Any of the above papers are available upon request free of charge. About the Author Wayne McDaniel, born in 1955, lives in Lawrence, Kansas in a beautiful log home. He is married with two children. Wayne and his wife Jude are independent financial planners. They attend a Wesleyan Church and are active in the Alpha ministry. His interest in spiritual and religious issues comes solely out of his love for Truth.

39