withallyourmind.net

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.