I can’t imagine a man really enjoying a book and reading it only once.
- The Letters of C. S. Lewis to Arthur Greeves (February 1932), p. 439
Clearly one must read every good book at least once every ten years.
- The Letters of C. S. Lewis to Arthur Greeves (17 August 1933), p. 458
One hundred ten years ago, a little girl asked the New York Sun a simple question and got a classic reply from editorial writer Francis P. Church. It was first published Sept. 21, 1897. Here is the reply:
We take pleasure in answering at once and this prominently the communication below, expressing at the same time our great gratification that its faithful author is numbered among the friends of the Sun:
Dear Editor: I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, “If you see it in The Sun, it’s so.” Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus?
VIRGINIA O’HANLON
115 W. 95th Street
Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except what they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world, there is nothing else real and abiding.
No Santa Claus! Thank God he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.
Just a hurried line… to tell a story which puts the contrast between our feast of the Nativity and all this ghastly “Xmas” racket at its lowest. My brother heard a woman on a bus say, as the bus passed a church with a Crib outside it, “Oh Lor’! They bring religion into everything. Look - they’re dragging it even into Christmas now!”
- C. S. Lewis, Letters to an American Lady (29 Dec 1958), p. 80
In this final post of this series on Christian universalism, I will briefly address some theological/philosophical issues.
Advocates of universal salvation argue that since God is love, he would never allow any of his creatures to perish. God does love the world and He does not desire for any to perish. However, in contradiction to the reasoning of the universalists, God’s love nature demands that he not force His love on anyone (cf. Matthew 23:37). Wayne Grudem argues that…
… the same difficulty in reconciling God’s love with eternal punishment would seem to be present in reconciling God’s love with the idea of divine punishment at all.
Indeed, if this objection succeeds, it would seem God’s love would also be irreconcilable with Noah’s flood and God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah.
The argument from God’s omnipotence in support of universalism also fails. The omnipotence of God does not entail that he can do something against his own nature (e.g., God cannot lie). His attributes do not operate in contradiction to each other. It certainly is reasonable to believe that God could not lovingly force another to love him. Perhaps, free will and universal salvation are not logically compatible. Free will may be thought to be of such high moral worth that God allows some to reject Him and suffer eternal torment.
Some question how eternal torment for temporal sins can be reconciled with the justice of God. However, Scripture is clear that God’s justice demands that a penalty be paid for sin. (Lev 17:11; Ezek 18:20) Eternal punishment is not deemed excessive when one realizes that the offense is against That which is infinitely and eternally good and loving.
In conclusion, the doctrine of the universal salvation of all human beings cannot be adequately supported philosophically, theologically, scripturally, or historically. God has created human beings with free will, and in His love, He will not coerce others to believe. Those who choose not to believe cannot be forced to do so. They will, by their choosing, spend eternity separated from God. In the words of C. S. Lewis:
I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of hell… but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved.
In my last two posts, I gave evidence opposing the claim of universalists that universalism was the predominant view in early church history. I also examined a number of scriptures which clearly undercut universalist teaching. Today, I will look at the scriptures which are often used in support of universalism.
Scripture such as Psalm 110:1, 1 Corinthian 15:24-25 and Philippians 2:10-11, which speak of Christ’s enemies eventually submitting to him, in no way support universalism. Psalm 110:1 clearly identifies these who submit as Christ’s enemies. That “every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” does not entail the salvation of those who confess and bow. James 2:19 tells us that the devils believe, but they are not saved. One must not only believe and confess the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord, but one must entrust their lives to Him as Lord. These passages speak more of a subjugation of Christ’s enemies than a submission and restoration of His followers.
How about Acts 3:21 which refers to the “restoration of all things?” Nowhere in this passage is the ultimate salvation of all human beings taught. Norman Geisler argues that, in context, this restoration of all things is the restoration of all things to Israel, not the salvation of all people. The verse explicitly qualifies the “all things” to those things spoken of by the holy prophets.
Universalists use Romans 5:18-19 which speaks of Christ bringing life for all men to infer the guarantee of salvation for all. This, once again, goes far beyond what the scripture itself actually states. Geisler argues that the atonement is…
… unlimited in its extent (Christ died for all), but limited in its application, since not all believe.
Even if one could interpret this, or any, passage to imply universal salvation, if there is an available alternative interpretation, the passage should be interpreted in light of the clear teaching of other scriptures (which oppose universalism).
Colossians 1:20, which states that God was pleased to reconcile all things unto himself, is likewise used to support the apokastastasis doctrine. Whatever this reconciliation of all things means, it obviously does not contradict the unmistakable teaching of Scripture that some souls will be eternally punished. Archer takes this verse to mean that all things are brought into harmony with God’s sovereignty, which is a plausible understanding of this passage.
Next post, I offer a few more thoughts and some concluding remarks.
In my last post, I briefly dealt with the claim that universalism was a doctrine held by many in the early church. Now I turn to a brief examination of relevant scripture.
Christian universalism appeals to a number of scriptural passages to support the doctrine of apokastastasis. I have enumerated several in an earlier post. A full evaluation of each of these passages is beyond the scope of this series, but a brief appraisal of some of these and the biblical principles necessary to understand them will be offered.
I begin by pointing out that much of the attraction of universalism results from uneasiness with the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell. However, there is an abundance of scripture which straightforwardly teaches this doctrine.
Matthew 25:41 states:
Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Matthew 25:46 continues that those who are condemned…
… will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous, into eternal life.
Jesus refers to hell as “the unquenchable fire” (Mark 9:43) and “where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:48).
Revelation 14:11 states:
And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image.
Revelation 19:3 and 20:10 also speak of torment “for ever and ever.”
So, what do the universalsists do with these passages which clearly teach the eternal punishment of those who reject Christ? Although more prominently advocated prior to the twentieth century, one approach in dealing with these passages is still often found among universalists. This approach is an exegetical one and centers on the meaning of aionios (translated as eternal in the previous passages). Universalists argue that the word can mean “a very long period of time,” after which the sinner will emerge to salvation. The primary problem with this line of reasoning is that the same Greek word is used in reference to heaven being everlasting. The universalist is inconsistent in his application of this argument in that he does not apply this meaning in reference to heaven. The usage is obviously parallel, however, and most exegetes today do not give much credence to this argument, today.
Some, therefore, have simply taken a liberal view of Scripture and consider themselves no longer bound to the letter of the New Testament. Others, approach these passages in a more existential and postmodern way. I will not be able to address these approaches here as it is beyond the scope of this series.
Next, a continued look at scripture.
In this and the following posts, I hope to show that the doctrine of universal salvation is not well supported scripturally, nor did it ever enjoy widespread acceptance as orthodox theology. It has been opposed throughout church history on solid theological and philosophical grounds. Today, I’ll look at some historical evidence.
Contrary to the appeals of universalists which claim that universalism was the dominant belief of the early church, the evidence proves otherwise. Norman Geisler states:
With rare exceptions (like Origen), it is difficult to find significant fathers in the long centuries of the church, up to and throughout the Reformation, who embraced this unorthodox teaching.
The doctrine of apokastastasis (universal salvation) was routinely condemned by orthodox theologians and councils. Among the early Fathers, there is almost universal support for the teaching that some humans will undergo eternal, conscious punishment. Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165) stated:
… that (Satan) would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold.
Irenaeus (c. 125 – c. 202) claimed that the lake of fire…
… is called Gehenna, which the Lord styled eternal fire. ‘And if any one’, it is said, ‘was not found written in the book of life, he was sent into the lake of fire.
Cyprian (200-258) argued that although God has prepared heaven…
… He has also prepared hell… eternal punishment… the vast and eternal gloom of perpetual night.
Lactantius (c. 240 – c. 320) stated…
… immortality is promised to the righteous, and everlasting punishment is threatened to the unrighteous.
The medieval fathers also rejected universalism. I have already alluded to Augustine’s (354-430) influence in the West. Augustine stated:
It is in vain, then, that some, indeed very many, make moan over the eternal punishment, and perpetual, unintermitted torments of the lost, and say they do not believe it shall be so; not, indeed, that they directly oppose themselves to Holy Scripture, but, at the suggestion of their own feelings soften down everything that seems hard, and give a milder turn to statements they think are rather designed to terrify than to be received as literally true.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), standing near the end of the medieval period, stated:
Now a venial sin deserves eternal punishment if it be united to a mortal sin in a lost soul, because in hell there is no remission of sins.
Next, a look at scriptural evidence.
In this post, I will provide several scriptural passages which are used in support of the doctrine of Christian Universalism. Then, I will look at an argument from history to which universalists often appeal.
Several scriptural passages are offered in support of the doctrine of universal salvation (apokastastasis). Among these are the following :
Romans 11:32 – “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.”
John 12:32 – “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
Colossians 1:19-20 – “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.”
1 John 2:2 – “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Philippians 2:10-11 – “so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
2 Peter 3:9 – “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”
Acts 3:21 – “whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things (apokastastasis) about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.”
Advocates of universalism also appeal to church history, arguing that the dominant view among the early believers was universalism. In support of this assertion, appeals are most often made to Origen, the most famous and most influential universalist in the early church. Origen held that punishment is always remedial and eventually all souls will return to God (even Satan himself). His teachings were influenced heavily by Platonic thought. According to Origen:
There is a resurrection of the dead, and there is punishment, but not everlasting. For when the body is punished the soul is gradually purified, and so is restored to its ancient rank. For all wicked men, and for demons, too, punishment has an end, and both wicked men and demons shall be restored to their former rank.
Other early Christians cited as embracing universalism include Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus.
Origen’s universalism was condemned in 543 A.D. at a council in Constantinople (and probably the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 A.D.), serving to discredit universalism in the East. In the West, Augustine’s teachings on hell prevailed, in opposition to universalism. Subsequently, throughout the Middle Ages, universalists were rare. Beginning with the sixteenth century, one finds a few more who hold to the doctrine of universal salvation.
The first great modern theologian to teach universalism was F. D. E. Schleiermacher, who taught a reformed view of universalism in which all men are elected to salvation in Christ. Karl Barth was at least open to universalism. J. A. T. Robinson and John Hick are among the most recent who argue for universalism. Hick’s universalism is impacted by his concern for theodicy, for only universal salvation can vindicate God for allowing evil to exist in this world.
In my first two posts, I have primarily provided positive arguments for universalism. Beginning in my next post, I will show why Christian universalism fails.
This is the first part of a short series discussing “Christian Universalism.”
“Universalism is that doctrine which asserts that all men will eventually be reconciled to God,” according to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. There exists a variety of teaching which would be included under the umbrella of universalism. Broadly speaking, one could divide such thought into two categories. Pluralistic universalism regards all religions and religious systems as being equally valid and true. One religion is not to be preferred over the other and to claim that Christianity alone, for example, is true is intolerant, or even immoral. Each religion has some access and insight into the ultimate. It is not this pluralistic form with which I shall be concerned. The focus here is Christian universalism, by which I mean the doctrine that teaches:
1) All of mankind will be ultimately saved.
2) That salvation is appropriated through Christ. Christ’s atonement is unlimited and extends to all.
Arguments for Universalism
The case for universalism is predicated on several basic premises.
1. God’s character, specifically his omnibenevolence, (“God is Love” 1 John 4:8) is incompatible with eternal human suffering.
2. God’s omnipotence is incompatible with eternal human suffering since God surely has it within his power to save everyone.
3. Scripture clearly teaches that it is God’s sovereign will and purpose that all should be saved. 2 Peter 3:9 states that God is “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”
4. It would be impossible for those who have been saved to experience eternal bliss knowing that some were suffering eternal torments.
5. Tolerance demands that one not hold to such arrogant doctrines as that only those who believe according to one particular religion’s teachings can be saved.
6. Some, such as John Hick, argue that universalism is the only way to make sense of the suffering in this present life.
Even among Christian universalists, one finds a variety of approaches. Some are more pluralistic in their approach, holding that all who sincerely follow their religion, whatever that might be, will be saved by doing so. Others hold to a purgatorial type of hell in which unbelievers eventually, through punishment, embrace Christ as their Savior. Some even embrace a form of reincarnation through which all men are ultimately saved.
Most Christian universalists attempt to justify their beliefs with Scripture, while others take a more liberal approach and either reject the text or freely reinterpret it. About the only thing in common with all these alternatives is a belief that ultimately all will be saved. An attempt to exhaustively address every brand of universalism would be exceedingly lengthy and complex. A number of difficult and heavily debated theological issues are involved, including hell, predestination, free will, the validity of retributive punishment, the authority of the Bible, the nature of God, and God’s love and justice. A related doctrine, annihilationism, the belief that the unsaved will simply cease to exist, will not be directly addressed here, although many arguments offered against universalism will be equally valid against annihilationism.
For those interested in more material regarding The Golden Compass: LeaderU, an excellent resource for many theological, apologetic, and philosophical issues, has three good articles on this new film:
The Golden Compass — A Briefing for Concerned Christians, by Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr, whose insights I always find helpful.
The Golden Compass: A Primer on Atheism, by Russ Wise.
Atheism for Kids, by Gene Edward Veith .
I provide some of Mohler’s advice for Christians:
A good first step would be to take a deep breath. The Christian faith is not about to be toppled by a film, nor by a series of fantasy books. Pullman has an agenda that is clear, and Christians need to inform themselves of what this agenda is and what it means. At the same time, nothing would serve his agenda better than to have Christians speaking recklessly or unintelligently about the film or the books.
This is about the battle of ideas and worldviews. While Christians will not celebrate the release of this film, we should recognize the mixture of challenge and opportunity that comes with millions of persons watching this film and talking about the issues it raises. When the movie is mentioned in the workplace, in school, on the playground, or in the college campus, this is a great opportunity to show that Christians are not afraid of the battle of ideas.
We should recognize that the Christian Church has some very embarrassing moments in its history - moments when it has failed to represent the truth of the Gospel and the love of Christ. Authors like Philip Pullman take advantage of these failures in order to paint the entire Christian Church as a conspiracy against human happiness and freedom. Of course, that charge will not stand close scrutiny, and we can face it head-on with a thoughtful response.
Philip Pullman has an agenda, but so do we. Our agenda is the Gospel of Christ — a message infinitely more powerful than that of The Golden Compass. Pullman’s worldview of unrestricted human autonomy would be nightmarish if ever achieved. His story promises liberation but would enslave human beings to themselves and destroy all transcendent value.
The biblical story of the Fall is true, after all, and our only rescue is through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The curse of sin was not reversed by adolescents playing at sex in a garden, but by the Son of God shedding His blood on a cross.
So let’s get our bearings straight as we think and talk about The Golden Compass. This movie does represent a great challenge, but a challenge that Christians should always be ready to meet.