It's been a while since I posted on here, but I have resolved to get back into the habit.
I have several friends who hold to the doctrine of Universal Salvation, also known as Universal Reconciliation or Christian Universalism... it is essentially the view that all people will be saved and reconciled to God.
The type of Universalism that emerged in the 2nd century believed that there would be an age of punishment, followed by a cleansing, after which everyone would be saved... more modern Universalism denies any form of punishment, and instead believes everyone is already saved through Christ's work on the cross... they just don't know it yet.
The friends that I have who hold this view are great people, and as much as I joke with them about being heretics, I don't necessarily think their belief is dangerous. Recently however, one of the students in my youth ministry stumbled onto an anonymous website promoting Universal Salvation and I have felt much more urgency to correct this doctrine because I do believe the view can be dangerous to the less mature Christian or to someone who doesn't put much stock in the idea of living Kingdom lives in the current age.
Much of the biblical defense of universalism derives from the greek word "aionion"... so here's the first part of my research:
Since Universalism is the teaching that God will ultimately bring all people, in all times, and all places to a state of reconciliation with Him, it cannot allow the possibility of an eternal hell as a realistic biblical teaching.
To get around the problem of the English Bibles translating Greek words into "eternal," "forever," and forevermore" when describing fire (Matt. 18:8) or torment (Rev. 20:10), the universalists go to the Greek. The Greek word that is translated into eternal is "aionion." It comes from the Greek root "aion" meaning "age."
This fact combined with the various uses of Greek words derived from the root "aion," are what the universalists use to attempt to show that "aionion" does not always mean "eternal" but can refer to a finite period of time.
The truth is, they are right. It can be translated into a temporal sense as it is in Rom. 16:25: "Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages (aionios1) past." But the reason it is translated that way is because of context, and that is extremely important. Context determines meaning, as you will see later.
With the claim that "aionion" can be translated into something temporal and that its root means "age," the universalist then says that any reference to "eternal fire," "eternal torment," or "eternal punishment" is not really eternal. Instead of "eternal torment," it is "aionion torment." Instead of "eternal punishment," it is "aionion punishment." That way, to the universalist, there is no eternal hell, no eternal punishment, and no eternal damnation. Everyone will be saved.
This approach by the Universalists can be confusing to someone who doesn't understand Greek, and that is part of the reason that Universalism has followers. It is true that the root "aion" means age. But just because a root means age does not mean that every word derived from that root means a limited duration of time.
For example, consider this verse that is speaking about God: "who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen" (1 Tim. 6:16)
The context is obviously dealing with God's eternal nature. The word in Greek for "immortality" is "athanatos." The Greek word for death is "thanatos." The "a" in front of the word is the negator -- without, non, etc. It means that God is deathless; hence, immortal. This is an eternal quality of God. Likewise, the verse states that God has eternal dominion. The word for "eternal" is "aionios" which is derived from the Greek root "aion" which means age. But, God is not immortal for only an "age," nor is His dominion temporal. The word "eternal" is absolutely the best way to translate the Greek "aionion" because God is immortal and eternal. Therefore, it would be wrong to translate the verse by stating that God has "aionion" dominion. Rather, He has eternal dominion.
How is "aionion" used in the New Testament?
The following two sections are verses that contain the word "aionion" which is translated as "eternal." Notice how using the word "eternal" in the first group is no problem. But, it is the second group with which the Universalists object. Nevertheless, the same word is used in both. See for yourself.
John 6:47, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal (aionion) life.
John 20:28, "and I give eternal (aionion) life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand."
Acts 13:48, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal (aionion) life believed."
Romans 2:7, " to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal (aionion) life."
Romans 5:21, "that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal (aionion) life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Rom. 16:26, " but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal (aionion) God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith."
Gal. 6:8, "For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal (aionion) life."
1 Tim. 6:16, "who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal (aionion) dominion! Amen."
1 John 1:2, "and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal (aionion) life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us"
1 John 5:11, "And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal (aionion) life, and this life is in His Son."
The following set of scriptures divulge the nature of eternal damnation.
Matt. 18:8, "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal (aionion) fire.
Matt. 25:41, "Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal (aionion) fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;"
Matt. 25:46, "And these will go away into eternal (aionion) punishment, but the righteous into eternal (aionion) life."
Mark 3:29, "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal (aionion) sin."
Mark 10:30, "but that he shall receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal (aionion) life.
Luke 18:30, "who shall not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal (aionion) life."
2 Thess. 1:9, "And these will pay the penalty of eternal (aionion) destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,"
Jude 7, "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal (aionion) fire."
In my understanding, there is certainly punishment, that is either eternal, or a flame that is eternal which destroys whatever goes into it... I would argue that universalism is nothing more than a hopeful wish. The Universalists are not justified in picking and choosing the meaning of a word based upon their interpretations of "aion" that suits them and depending on which verse is used.
The next bit of my research will have to do with the stance of the early church and early apostles as I seem to be finding conflicting information about how early this doctrine arose and how many held to it.
Great post Nathanael!
ReplyDeleteHey Nate,
ReplyDeleteGlad to see you are taking the time to research this further. My question would be about the nature of solving theological grey areas. I would suggest that the theologians I referred you to in my email have considered all the points you are raising here, but have a sound answer for these. And, any further points you raise would simply be issues that have been previously considered and debated. Yet no single solution has been found, hence it is a grey area, with all 3 being legitimate beliefs (though of course, only one will prove to be correct, or a 4th that we have missed).
Which leads me to question the value of researching an area for the sake of changing the opinion of another Christian. I can see the value of researching theology for your own growth and understanding of God, but whence the desire to change the opinions of others? The youth whom you mentioned will obviously be less researched than yourself, and will stand no chance to hold his view in opposition to yours and still look intelligent. His only answer to your knowledge could be 'I don't know'.
I'm just not sure at what point we are sharing our wisdom with those who are growing their faith, and at what point we are conforming others to our beliefs. Perhaps it is whether or not the advice is solicited or not.
I'd love to chat further with you, and with the theology club, about this as it effects many, many areas of our faith.
Abe,
ReplyDeletewhat criteria are you using to suggest universal reconciliation is a legitimate belief?
It may be legitimate in the sense of 'actually held by some people' but not legitimate in the sense of validity. The church (officially speaking) of which you are a member does not recognize universal reconciliation as a legitimate belief(nor annihilationism for that matter Nate). So, why do you think it is a valid belief? What standard are you using to come to that conclusion?
As to your question about changing someone's opinion, the Bible is full of admonitions to do so, especially for leaders in the church. I find it hard to believe that you are unaware of these instructions.
And for that matter, one might ask you "why try to change the opinion Nate has that he should try and change another's opinion?"
Hi Jude,
ReplyDeleteThank you for suggesting that I am unaware of the content in the Bible. I am not. Instead, your second point about admonitions to correct hinges on your first point that the view is demonstrably incorrect. I will address the first point when I have a moment. Being as I haven't contradicted your second point, your third point is irrelevant.
Hi Jude,
ReplyDeleteThank you for suggesting that I am unaware of the content in the Bible. I am not. Instead, your second point about admonitions to correct hinges on your first point that the view is demonstrably incorrect. I will address the first point when I have a moment. Being as I haven't contradicted your second point, your third point is irrelevant.
Abe,
ReplyDeleteRead my post again. The suggestion is that you ARE aware of the content of the Bible, not that you are unaware. I am sure you know very well that the Bible admonishes us to correct people if they are mistaken. The suggestion is that you are asking questions that you already know the answers to. But maybe you really don't know the answers; I assumed that you did.
It seems obvious to me that the reason Nate would try and correct someone is because he believed they were incorrect. Unless you think Nate would attempt to correct someone he didn't think was wrong.
So,
1) You know the Bible encourages us to correct wrong beliefs.
2) You know Nate believes (whether right or wrong) that universal reconciliation is a wrong belief.
And yet, you ask Nate why where the desire to change someone's incorrect opinion comes from. And you question the value of studying Scripture for that purpose. Questions that I believe you know the answer to.
As to my third point, if you honestly don't know the value of changing someone's wrong opinion than I suggest you should not bother trying to change Nate's opinion that 'he should try and change other people's opinions'. Still relevant.
Again, I don't really believe you were questioning Nate's desire to change someone's opinion. You know why he wants to and you know why he values it.What I think you were questioning, in a round about way, was the veracity of his position.
If anything, I was giving you more credit than I should have.
Jude
Oooh, that last line sounds a bit harsh.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is that I believe you do know the Bible well and the suggestion that I was indicating you didn't is the exact opposite of my intention.
So here's what I'm thinking. We are indeed to correct false beliefs, and ensure that the People of God are all following the life Christ demonstrated to us and the Apostles explained to us. However, within this belief system there is a spectrum of beliefs, particularly things that we must believe, those that are grey, and those that we must not believe.
ReplyDeleteSo, such beliefs as one God, the Trinity, Christ died and rose again, etc. are doctrines that are not open to debate, and I believe these are what we are called to correct (Gal 2:11-14, 1 Tim 5:19-20). Similarly what is sinful and what is not is 95% not up for debate (some challenges arise when understanding modern applications, for example is it sinful to own a car, is it sinful to own 2 cars, is it sinful to own 23 sports cars, does it depend on the person's absolute income?).
This leaves the grey areas, which I would suggest include the doctrine of hell, Calvinism vs Arminianism, Covenantal vs Dispensational theology, perspectives on eschatology, and pretty much the rest of the topics from Theology Club. I would suggest that in any of these debates you could land on either side (or point, if there are more than 2 perspectives at debate) based on what makes most sense to you, but that you are unable to disprove the other perspective/s (greater minds than ours have attempted unsuccessfully to do so).
Therefore, my original challenge to Nate is based on my thoughts regarding what then we do with these grey areas. I believe that we should study them, we should expand our understanding, and we should debate them to push each other to grow (like many plants grow best with some stress applied); this is why I enjoy Theology Club. However, I think where we err is when we try to push our perspective of a grey area onto others. As Nate has expressed, it's ok to really push people when they are relative intellectual equals, but it seems somewhat unfair in my mind when someone in a position of authority attempts to change the minds of others on these grey issues (not the doctrines that should not be up for debate). It's at the point when Nate said he thought universal reconciliation is a belief that needs to be corrected that I got uncomfortable. It's an issue that should be explored, but I don't think any of the 3 prespectives are in a position to 'correct' each other.
I think PR is a great example of this. He has at times let slip his personal perspective on these debates, but he doesn't push these from the pulpit.
On another note, I imagine there are a number of these grey beliefs that I do not share with the church that I am a member of, yet I imagine that they accepted my membership is a sign that conformity is not essential to the body.
I don't have a problem with most of what you have said.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not think universal reconciliation is a 'grey' issue. I think it represents a 'different gospel' than the one espoused by Jesus and the apostles. This would obligate Nate to correct someone on this issue.
Which brings up my earlier question about why you think this doctrine is a valid belief. I don't think it is and I'd like to know why you think it is legitimate.
Also, Nate's responsibility is not just to correct wrong doctrine but he is also admonished to teach correct doctrine.
As to your membership, here is what the form you would have signed indicates:
(c) A member is expected to be in harmony with the doctrinal statement of this local assembly and its affiliation with the P.A.O.C.
Now, the question is whether or not universal reconciliation is 'in harmony' with CITO's doctrinal statement. I don't think it is but I admit I may be on the losing end of that argument; it wouldn't be the first time. :)
All I can really offer is the work of those who have studied this much more than myself.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tentmaker.org/articles/universalism-refuted.htm
http://richardwaynegarganta.com/first500years.htm
Tons more links can be found at http://www.christianheretic.com/2007/03/on-universal-reconciliation.html
I'm having trouble finding any of your favorite theologians refering to universal reconciliation as heresy, but if you have any links to this I would appreciate it.
Me again, I'm thinking that this statement from our beliefs might be a challenge:
ReplyDelete"Christ's Kingdom -- We believe that the overcoming saints will reign with Christ in the millennium and that all the believers in Christ will participate in the divine blessings in the New Jerusalem in the new heaven and new earth for eternity (Rev. 20:6, 21:2)."
though I guess it depends on how you define 'in the millennium' and at what point you count people as 'believers in Christ'.
Abe,
ReplyDeleteJohn Owen has written several books decrying Universal Reconciliation as heretical. You could start with him.
Also, many of the creeds and confessions which these men, and the evangelical church, hold to preclude belief in universal reconciliation. For instance, the Westminster Confession or something more recent like the Confessional Statement of The Gospel Coalition.
Are there any creeds or confessions that positively endorse universal reconciliation? There are many that preclude it as an option.
Hey Jude
ReplyDeleteThanks for the suggestion of JOhn Owen, I was kind of thinking of someone contemporary, like Carson, Grudem, or your other favorites.
I recognize that a number of the creeds preclude this, but a number do not. I also recognize that by pure vote I would lose the debate. However, I still stand by my proposal that both annihilationism and universal reconciliation are viable alternatives, as I believe they can be intelligently argued as valid based on scripture.
Sometimes silence speaks loudly.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in Grudem's Systematic Theology he explains in the introduction that he will mention competing evangelical doctrines that he disagrees with in each section along with his preferred doctrine. In the "Doctrine of the Future" section he espouses eternal punishment and discusses annihilationism (which he disagrees with) but universal reconciliation is not mentioned; he does not consider it in the realm of options. As mentioned, The Gospel Coalition's Confessional Statement, which Carson had a part in producing, precludes universal reconciliation. Piper, among others, is a council member of TGC. You can look up Sam Storm's doctrinal beliefs on this blog and see where he precludes it as an option. I don't think their silence on universal reconciliation is on of resigned acceptance.
Not all of the creeds preclude it but do any endorse it? Lots endorse eternal punishment. If not, again I would say the silence speaks loudly.
Also, in fairness, I have not read the info on the links you suggested as of yet. But, i doubt I will find them persuasive. Nevertheless, I will take a peak at them at some point.
ReplyDelete