Are All Doomed to Be Saved? The Rise of Modern Universalism Timothy K. Beougher

Timothy K. Beougher is Billy With none to heed their crying this position may disagree on the timing Graham Associate Professor of Evan- For life, and love, and light and the means of this final salvation, but gelism and Church Growth at The South- Unnumbered souls are dying they all claim (either hopefully or dogmati- ern Baptist Theological Seminary, where And pass into the night.1 cally) that it will take place. he has taught since 1996. Beougher This article will begin by defining uni- co-edited Accounts of Campus Revival Or do they? Do people who die with- versalism and explaining its appeal. Then and Evangelism for a Changing World, out acknowledging Christ as their Savior a brief survey of the history of universal- and is the author of several scholarly ar- really “pass into the night”? Or should ism will be set forth. Next, the teachings of ticles. He is currently at work on a biog- that hymn, which embodies orthodox universalism (both in its “hope-so” and raphy of Richard Baxter. Christian thought about the fate of those “dogmatic” forms) will be presented, fol- who die without Christ, be abandoned lowed by an evangelical critique. The ar- along with other “outdated” beliefs? ticle will end with concluding remarks and Should traditional Christian teaching con- suggestions about where we go from here. cerning the final judgment and an eternal N. T. Wright maintains universalism is hell be “brought up to date,” modified to “perhaps the greatest unspoken premise fit the tolerant spirit of the times? of modern thought within the Christian It has long been noted there are three church.”3 While his sweeping assertion possible positions concerning the extent may be debatable, the importance of the of the salvation of humankind: (1) none issue is not. The doctrine of universalism will be saved; (2) some will be saved; or involves more than a mere difference of (3) all will be saved. The traditional Chris- opinion concerning eschatology. As tian teaching concerning the hereafter has Ronald Blue points out, this debate been the second option: only some will be touches on several major doctrines of saved. Within this position debates are Christianity.4 ongoing as to exactly who will be saved (must one have explicit faith in Christ?) Defining Universalism: “Wide is and what the final condition of the lost the Road that Leads to Life” will be (will they suffer eternal conscious Universalism may be defined as the torment?). Previous SBJT articles have teaching that though hell may exist it will analyzed various challenges to traditional eventually empty as God’s will to save all Christian teaching on these issues.2 persons individually will finally tri- This article seeks to explain and critique umph.5 All human beings ultimately will the third option: all will be saved, which is be saved. Hell thereby becomes a “means also known as the doctrine of universal- of grace” where God’s love eventually ism. Though it is presented in many forms, wins everyone, even Judas (and some the basic teaching common to universalist would say even Satan), back to Himself. systems is that God will eventually bring The doctrine of universalism has been all people to salvation. The advocates of presented differently by those who have 6 advocated it throughout the centuries. in the evangelical theological view of sal- Some have claimed that no person is bad vation are discernible.10 He reports that enough to be rejected ultimately. Recent one of three “Evangelicals” surveyed held universalism stresses that God’s power the view that “the only hope for Heaven and love is so great that it will secure even- is through personal faith in Jesus Christ tually the salvation of the entire human except for those who have not had the race.6 As Richard Bauckham notes, “Only opportunity to hear of Jesus Christ.”11 the belief that ultimately all men will be Hunter notes these numbers signify a saved is common to all universalists.”7 dramatic shift from the perspective of his- How then does the universalistic posi- torical orthodoxy: tion work out in practice? While there are varying versions, universalists generally The significance of all of this is plain. The introduction of these qualifica- agree that those who leave this world in tions tempers the purity of the theo- unbelief will enter hell. But having en- logical exclusivism traditionally tered, they will sooner or later come out, held. Ultimate truth is not at issue here, only what people perceive to having been brought to their senses and be ultimate truth. Thus, the existence seeing their error in not acknowledging of such a sizable minority of Christ. While in hell they will make a posi- Evangelicals maintaining this stance represents a noteworthy shift away tive response to Christ because their suf- from the historical interpretations.12 fering will have opened their eyes to the truth. Thus hell is real, but is only tempo- This viewpoint is reflected in the com- rary. All will be saved eventually and ment made by former United States Presi- God’s universal salvific desire will have dent and current Southern Baptist Sunday come to pass. No one will be finally lost. School Teacher Jimmy Carter: “I cannot Hell will end up empty. imagine an innocent person being de- prived of God’s eternal blessing because The Appeal of Universalism they don’t have a chance to accept Universalism has a strong appeal in Christ.”13 Leighton Ford aptly illustrates cultures confronted by the pressures of this cultural pressure in his article entitled, pluralism. James D. Hunter notes that in “Do You Mean to Tell Me that In This the face of intense religious and cultural Modern, Humanistic, Pluralistic, Tolerant pluralism during the past century the Society You Still Believe in Hell?”14 pressures to deny Christianity’s exclusive Another appeal of universalism is that claims to truth have been “fantastic.”8 it appeases our feelings about persons be- George Barna’s 1993 survey of the beliefs ing lost. When someone we know dies with of Americans (appropriately titled Abso- his or her relationship to Christ in ques- lute Confusion) found that nearly two out tion, we begin to wonder if perhaps God of three persons believe that all religions might decide to save everyone in the end. teach basically the same thing and no one I once talked with a pastor who had is superior to the others.9 adopted universalism for this very reason. Even Evangelicals have not been im- This man’s father had never been inter- mune from yielding to the pressure of plu- ested in spiritual things, had never dark- ralism. Using the results of his Evangelical ened the door of a church, and yet was, in Academy Project, Hunter notes that shifts this pastor’s words, “a good man.” This 7 pastor told me, “The thought of my father tradition of the East. In the West, the com- being in hell was just too much for me to bined influence of Augustine’s writings bear. The more I reflected on his situation, against universalism and Origen’s hereti- the more I became convinced that hell was cal reputation insured that the Augustin- a myth and that all would be saved.” His ian version of the doctrine of hell theological shift came not from careful prevailed almost without question for study of the Scriptures but from his own many centuries.18 During the Middle Ages subjective experience and feelings. universalism was propounded in the Pla- A third appeal of universalism relates tonic system of John Scotus Erigena (810- to the struggles of the missionary task. 877).19 During the Reformation period Bernard Ramm argues that belief in uni- some of the radical Anabaptists and Spiri- versalism is on the rise because the “task tualists, notably John Denck, were univer- of world evangelism seems so hopeless.”15 salists.20 Others espousing universalism With countless millions of people still prior to 1800 included some among the unreached with the gospel, the concept of Cambridge Platonists and a few of the universalism appeals to many people. In German Pietists. other words, if you think you are losing, F. D. E. Schleiermacher was the first then simply change the rules of the game. prominent theologian of modern times But all sentiment aside, is the posi- to teach universalism.21 In The Christian tion of universalism a viable option for Faith, Schleiermacher taught absolute pre- the Christian? Do the universalists destination, rejecting any form of double present a convincing case? Before the predestination. All men are elected to sal- arguments for universalism are pre- vation in Christ, and God’s desire to save sented in greater detail, I will offer a all cannot fail. Schleiermacher argued brief history of universalism. against the traditional view of hell, claim- ing that the blessedness of the redeemed The History of Universalism16 would be severely marred by their sym- Church historians generally agree that pathy for the damned if the traditional universalism first appeared in the teaching were true. Alexandrian School, especially with Nineteenth-century England saw a Origen (A.D. 185-254). Based on his belief great deal of discussion on issues related that God’s ultimate purpose is to restore to the future life. In 1853, F. D. Maurice the original unity in creation, Origen was dismissed from his chair at King’s taught that all of the condemned and even College, London, for teaching a theory of the demons would eventually be brought, a “wider hope.”22 In 1862, for a tentative through a time of “purifying” punish- assertion of universalism in Essays and ment, into voluntary subjection to Reviews (1860), H. B. Wilson was con- Christ.17 Gregory of Nyssa, one of demned in the Court of Arches, judged Origen’s followers, taught salvation for all guilty of contradicting the Athanasian (including Satan!). Universalism was Creed.23 F. W. Farrar denied eternal pun- eventually condemned by the Synod of ishment in a series of sermons delivered Constantinople in 543. in Westminster Abbey in 1877, which were The condemnation of “Origenism” dis- subsequently published as Eternal Hope in credited universalism in the theological 1878.24 These sermons prompted a de- 8 fense of the traditional doctrine of hell by has made many theologians suspicious E. B. Pusey.25 about his opinion on the matter.31 He ap- Bauckham notes that dogmatic univer- peared to teach the divine predestination salism was less common in nineteenth-cen- of all human beings to salvation. tury England than “a general uneasiness The Barthian doctrine of reconciliation with the traditional doctrine of hell.”26 has also led to the suspicion of universal- Common to all these “wider hope” teach- ism. Barth, speaking of Christ, says, ings was the assertion that death was not the decisive break which traditional ortho- His death [includes] the totality of all sinful men, those living, those doxy had always taught: long dead, and those still to be born, Christians who necessarily know Repentance, conversion, moral and proclaim it, but also Jews and progress are still possible after death. heathen, whether they hear and re- This widespread belief was certainly ceive the news or whether they tried influenced by the common nine- and still try to escape it. His death teenth-century faith in evolutionary was the death of all: quite indepen- progress. Hell—or a modified ver- dently of their attitude or response sion of purgatory—could be under- to this event….32 stood in this context as the pain and suffering necessary to moral Bromiley detects in that doctrine “the growth.27 trend toward an ultimate universalism.”33 The universalist thesis does not belong Barthianism can also give the impression to only distant history, however. Twenti- that the world is already redeemed and eth-century advocates of some form of uni- that evangelism consists simply in mak- 34 versalism include Karl Barth, John A. T. ing known this fact. Robinson, Nels Ferré, and a host of lesser Barth perhaps can best be described as known theologians. Packer is right when a “hope-so universalist” (as opposed to a 35 he asserts that universalism “has come to dogmatic universalist). He refused dog- stay” as a guest of Christianity.28 And it is matically to expect universal salvation be- becoming more and more of a welcome cause of his desire to protect the guest in many circles. It has progressed sovereignty of God’s grace. Yet he still from being “the heresy” to a commonly claimed that universal salvation “remains held position.29 Richard Bauckham claims an open possibility for which we may 36 that since 1800 “no traditional Christian hope.” He asserts that we have “no theo- doctrine has been so widely abandoned as logical right to set any sort of limits to the that of eternal punishment.”30 loving-kindness of God which has ap- peared in Jesus Christ.”37 “Hope-so” Universalism Though Barth’s influence seems to It is indeed a truism to note that the sig- have waned in recent years, his teaching nificance of Karl Barth’s theology in the at this point continues to have adherents history of Christian thought has been tre- today. Carl Braaten, for example, asserts, mendous. Concerning the topic under dis- We would teach a highly nuanced cussion, most concur that Barth neither and qualified evangelical universal- affirmed nor denied the theory of univer- ism. It is not a dogma, not a piece of sal salvation. Nevertheless, with his recon- knowledge, not something to which humans have a right and a claim. struction of the doctrine of election, Barth Yet, it is something for which we 9 may cautiously and distinctly pray The Saving Desire of God and hope, that in spite of everything that seems to point conclusively in Paul says that God “desires all men to the opposite direction, God’s mercy be saved” (1 Ti 2:4).43 The apostle Peter 38 will not cast off his world forever. also expresses the saving desire of God, writing that the Lord does not wish “for Braaten concludes his essay by claim- any to perish but for all to come to repen- ing that tance” (2 Pe 3:9). Thus Glasson states,

The scale is tilted decidely [sic] to- And if God desires the salvation of ward the hope of universal reconcili- every soul He has made, it is scarcely ation on account of Christ. We agree credible that the accident of death with Barth that it cannot be denied changes His attitude to His children. that eternal reprobation is a possibil- Does the Good Shepherd abandon ity, but in the light of God’s verdict His search for the lost sheep as soon in the victory of Jesus Christ, it be- 39 as the border of earthly life is crossed, comes an “impossible possibility.” or will He ever cease to “go after that which is lost until he find it?”44 So “hope-so universalism,” as I have defined it, argues that while one cannot Universalists argue if God desires it, proclaim dogmatically the certainty of then it will happen ultimately. universal salvation, it remains an open possibility for which one may hope.40 The Saving Provision of God Included under this heading are the Dogmatic Universalism biblical passages which highlight the ap- Others go beyond Barth and Braaten parent universal value of the work of and assert with full confidence that all will Christ, such as John 12:32 (“draw all be saved. According to this viewpoint, we men”), 2 Corinthians 5:19 (“reconciling can not only hope for universal salvation, the world”), Titus 2:11 (“the grace of God we confidently can expect it to happen! has appeared, bringing salvation to all In this section I will set forth key argu- men”), Hebrews 2:9 (“He might taste ments used by those who argue for dog- death for every one”), and 1 John 2:2 (“for matic universalism by first looking at [the sins] of the whole world”). Such texts, biblical arguments, then moving to philo- claim the universalists, speak of Christ sophical/theological arguments. dying for all mankind. If Christ died for all, and His death effectively paid for the Biblical Arguments sins of everyone, then all eventually will The biblical arguments for universal- be saved. ism can be grouped into three major divi- sions: (1) The Saving Desire of God; (2) The Saving Promise of God The Saving Provision of God; and (3) The The third group of biblical texts used by Saving Promise of God.41 Due to space universalists are those which deal with the limitations, each separate verse used by consummation of God’s plan of redemp- those who espouse universalism cannot tion in history. Among those frequently be examined, but the central issues raised cited are Acts 3:21 (“restoration of all by the various grouping of texts will be things”), 1 Corinthians 15:26-28 (“when all answered in my critique.42 things [even death] are subjected to Him”), 10 Ephesians 1:10 (“the summing up of all Why then does Scripture say that things in Christ”), and Philippians 2:9-11 some will be lost? Why does it refer to a (“every knee should bow…”). literal hell? I will offer a summary critique of these Ferré says that the teaching about eter- arguments in the next section of the ar- nal damnation is in Scripture because ticle, but first I will explain additional ar- “preaching is existential. To preach to sin- guments universalists propose for their ners that all will be saved will not reach position, what I have called “philosophi- them on their level of fear and hate of God. cal/theological arguments.” It will only secure them in their sin and self-sufficiency. Therefore, headed as they Philosophical/Theological Arguments are away from God, they must be told: The first of these arguments is what Repent or perish!”49 could be called the argument from “Di- John A. T. Robinson claims that the New vine Love.” N. T. Wright explains the ba- Testament teaches two eschatological sic logic of this view, admittedly in “myths”: universal restoration (universal- abbreviated form: “There are two Biblical ism) and a final division into saved and ways of looking at salvation. One says that lost. He asserts that they represent the two only Christian believers will be saved; the sides of the truth that is in Jesus: “Though other says that all men will be saved. Since both are the truth, one [universal restora- the latter is more loving, it must be true, tion] is the truth as it is for God and as it is because God is love.”45 for faith the further side of decision; the Nels Ferré advocates universalism in other [heaven and hell] is the truth as it this manner by emphasizing agape. Ferré must be to the subject facing decision.”50 believes the Bible conveys three teachings Robinson argues that hell is a reality in concerning the eternal destiny of the the existential situation of the person fac- “lost”: eternal damnation, annihilation, ing the challenge of the Gospel; therefore and universalism. He claims that only the seriousness of his or her decision must universalism is “finally consistent with not be watered down by any discussion God as agape.”46 According to Ferré, God of universalism. But since universal sal- cannot condemn a human being to hell vation is the reality that God wills, it will because that would violate His agape, therefore come to pass. Universalism will which never fails.47 Since God is sover- have the last word. Only universal resto- eign, his agape will insure that all will be ration is consistent with God’s nature as saved. Ferré writes, omnipotent love. Robinson concludes, “Christ, in Origen’s old words, remains The logic of the situation is simple. on the cross as long as one sinner remains Either God could not or would not save all. If He could not He is not sov- in hell. This is not speculation; it is a state- ereign; then not all things are possible ment grounded in the very necessity of with God. If He would not, again the God’s nature.”51 New Testament is wrong, for it openly claims that He would have all Universalists use strong language in to be saved. Nor would He be totally their condemnation of the traditional doc- good…. The total logic of the deep- trine of hell. Ferré asserts that to “attribute est message of the New Testament, namely that God both can and wants eternal hell to God is literally blasphemy, to save all, is unanswerable.48 the attributing of the worst to the best.”52 11 David Edwards says bluntly, “I would by proponents of universalism, and that rather be an atheist than believe in a God task has been accomplished quite compe- who accepts it as inevitable that hell (how- tently elsewhere.57 But in general one can ever conceived) is the inescapable destiny safely say that there are not sufficient of many, or of any of his children, even grounds for asserting that these verses when they are prepared to accept ‘all the teach universalism as explained by its blame.’”53 Charles Duthie argues the con- adherents. Why? Several arguments can clusion of universalism is “inescapable be set forth. [for] any serious grappling with the issue First, these verses all can be interpreted of man’s final destiny in the light of the legitimately in a non-universalistic man- revealed character of God.”54 ner.58 Second, and more important, the A second philosophical/theological authors of each of the above statements argument for universalism relates to clearly indicate that some persons will be God’s sovereignty. As I mentioned, pro- lost.59 Therefore, whatever these verses do ponents of universalism argue that if God mean, they cannot mean that ultimately is sovereign He can and will bring uni- all will be saved, for their contexts demand versal salvation to pass. God will use His another interpretation. As Wright notes, sovereign power and love to ensure that all persons eventually will be saved. Frequent appeal is made [by univer- salists] to Paul’s use of the word In addition to the arguments from “all” (e.g. in Rom. 5 and 11, and in 2 “love” and “sovereignty,” Duthie argues Cor. 5) with no apparent realisation for universalism from what he terms “the of the different shades of meaning that must be understood in the par- witness of the Christian heart.” By that he ticular contexts…. The word “all” refers to the aversion that sensitive Chris- has several clearly distinct biblical tians share concerning the thought of hu- uses (e.g. “all of some sorts,” “some of all sorts,” etc.), and to ignore this man beings suffering eternally in hell. frequently-noted fact is no aid to Duthie argues, “Although the last word clear thinking.60 cannot be with the Christian heart, what the Christian heart feels in this and in The basic problem with the universal- other matters must have some importance, ists’ use of these texts is that they sepa- since it is itself in some measure shaped rate them from their immediate context. For by the Spirit of God.”55 To emphasize this example, Paul’s assertion that “God was “witness of the human heart,” Duthie cites in Christ reconciling the world to Him- Paul’s statement in Romans 9:3, “I could self” (2 Co 5:19), is separated from that wish that I myself were accursed from which immediately follows: “Be recon- Christ for my brethren.”56 This “witness,” ciled to God” (v. 20). The exhortation is Duthie argues, adds powerful weight to not for the Corinthians merely to recognize the universalistic position. that they have been reconciled, but for them to become reconciled to God. Evangelical Critique of Universalism Finally, there is no biblical warrant to legitimize the notion of any subsequent Biblical Critique pleading of God with persons after death. Space constraints prohibit a careful ex- However one interprets 1 Peter 3:19, this egetical examination of each passage cited verse does not provide a basis for “assert- 12 ing that there will be a preaching of our trates this tendency quite well when he Lord after death to every soul in hell, nor argues, “To affirm that any [persons] are does it provide a basis for saying that such kept alive for ever in a state of misery, preaching will be successful.”61 Harold without hope of any kind, is indefensible Lindsell notes the tremendous alterations and is an affront to the human con- universalists must make to the biblical text: science.”65 Harold O. J. Brown summa- rizes this problem in universalism when The universalist must change the he comments that Apocalypse of John into a love feast, the threats of the lake of fire into the sea of glass, and the fire of judgment This view contains the arrogant hid- into the waters of the river of life. den assumption that God, if he is Brimstone must become attar of really to be God, must conform to roses, and blessing must be held out our expectations. This is one feature to those who are said to have no part that universalism has in common in the final resurrection. The judg- with feminist theology: it redefines ment of the great white throne, God in terms of its own ideas of which witnesses to the opening of what is acceptable in deity, regard- the book of life in which are to be less of what God has revealed about 66 found the names of men and ‘who- himself in Scripture. soever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of Universalists claim that love is God’s fire,’ becomes poetic imagery de- signed to frighten men into coming essential attribute. This position has sev- into the kingdom of God earlier, al- eral problems. First, is it legitimate to take though their failure to come now one single attribute and subsume all of will not keep them out later. And heaven, despite John’s contrary tes- God’s other attributes beneath it? Is any timony, will be populated by liars, one single attribute superior in the divine murderers, sorcerers, idolaters, the essence? Second, even if it is acknowl- unbelieving and the abominable. The lake of fire is imaginary for it edged to be legitimate to focus on one at- will be emptied of its occupants who tribute as superior, is love the best choice will flood the corridors of heaven and mingle with the holy, the true, for the overarching attribute of God? the righteous and the sanctified.62 Surely it would be just as possible, and in fact biblically preferable, to argue that Scripture clearly does not teach the holiness would be that attribute. When doctrine of universalism.63 confronted by the living God (see Is 6 and Rev 4), worshipers do not cry out “lov- Theological Critique ing, loving, loving!” but “holy, holy, holy!” How are we to evaluate the theologi- Third, even assuming love to be the con- cal/philosophical arguments set forth by trolling characteristic, do the universalists adherents of universalism? Perhaps the really do justice to God’s love as it is re- most common error made by universal- vealed in Scripture? Wright notes that ists is their practice of judging God and His actions by their standards instead of the great majority of the ‘hard say- ings,’ the passages which warn most by how God has chosen to reveal Himself clearly and unmistakeably of eternal in Scripture. Arthur Climenhaga says punishment, are found on the lips bluntly, “The issue of the new universal- of Jesus Himself. This is the point at which the usual argument comes ism is no longer ‘God hath spoken’ but dangerously close to cutting off the ‘Man hath reasoned.’”64 Glasson illus- branch it sits on. It says ‘God is love’: 13 but we know that principally (since of universalism has precipitated a corre- it is not self-evidently true) through 71 the life and death of Jesus Christ. We sponding breakdown of morals. He asks, cannot use that life and death as an appeal against itself—which is pre- And—if we want to—why not? If cisely what happens if we say that, Dr. [John A.T.] Robinson is right, if because God is love, the nature of in some future state ‘the sinner must salvation is not as it is revealed in yield,’ if individual souls ‘must all the teaching of Jesus and in the cross of them ultimately reach heaven,’if itself, the place where God has pro- freedom is a delusion, if the law of vided the one way of salvation.67 consequence is nugatory, Why not? If it is all the same in the end, why not enjoy the pleasures of sin for a The practice of judging God by human season? Why not fling to the winds standards returns at this point. Harold all restraint? Why not, as so many 72 Kuhn perceptively notes, are doing, go atheist all the way?

The supposed unthinkability of Universalism also has difficulty ex- eternal punishment rests, in gen- plaining major parts of the preaching of eral, upon what we believe to be a faulty human analogy. Universal- Christ and the Apostles. They warned ists tend to feel that the love of God people to turn; therefore their preaching must be like human love, raised to must be seen as either inept or immoral. the nth power.68 Either they were wrong or they knew bet- ter but “did evil that good might come.”73 Walter Martin adds that universalists Takunboh Adeyemo notes, “Unlike the “have set up their own standard of how Universalists, Jesus and the New Testa- God must act based upon what they be- ment writers take the issue of man’s des- lieve is justice.”69 Joseph Bettis summa- tiny seriously. They do not romanticise rizes this tendency by stating, “The real heaven and hell or exploit the doctrine question must be raised not about the merely to induce right action.”74 universalist’s premise that God’s love is Finally, if everyone will eventually at- good and sovereign, but about his conclu- tain salvation, then there is no motivation sion that the best way to describe the sov- to preach the gospel or to pray for the con- ereignty and goodness of God’s love is version of those who do not yet know universalism.”70 Christ.75 Therefore, “preaching” done by Another problem with the doctrine of universalists often focuses on temporal universalism is that it ignores the Bible’s issues. Note the following description of emphasis on the decisive nature of this what is taking place in many churches: life’s decision (e.g. Gal 6:7; 2 Co 5:10; Mt 25:46; Lk 16:26). The author of Hebrews People come to church seeking an- warns, “It is appointed unto men once to swers to their deep wonderings die and after this the judgment” (Heb about life and death. But they hear sermons about the need to boycott 9:27). There is no suggestion of a “second certain brands of chocolate bars or chance,” much less of a successful one in grapes. They hear about the injus- these verses. Eternal destinies are decided tice of America’s economic system. Timely topics, to be sure. But what in this life. relevance have they to a man whose The doctrine also undercuts the signifi- wife is dying of cancer, to a widow cance of real moral choices in this life. In- whose years are dwindling and is terrified by thoughts of approaching deed, Herbert Jones argues that the spread death?76 14 T. F. Torrance bluntly writes, “No doc- great gulf fixed—this is all directly taken from our Lord’s teaching. It is trine that cuts the nerve of that urgency from Jesus Christ that we learn the in the Gospel can be a doctrine of love, doctrine of eternal punishment.80 but only an abiding menace to the Gospel and to mankind.”77 Well said. Kenneth Kantzer echoes this sentiment when he writes that The Primacy of Scripture I have attempted to portray accurately So while I am deeply impressed by the arguments of brilliant thinkers and critique carefully the doctrine of uni- like Schleiermacher, Tillich, and oth- versal salvation. Universalism is clearly ers, I prefer our Lord’s words to unbiblical in its assertion that all will be theirs. Those who acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord cannot escape saved. Yet due to the pressures of plural- the clear, unambiguous language ism, many people, even professed with which he warns of the awful truth of eternal punishment. No uni- evangelicals, appear to be moving in the versalism, no annihilationism, no direction of belief in universal salvation. probation in the hereafter satisfies 81 Hunter’s conclusion from his massive re- his word. search project deserves careful scrutiny: The simple fact remains that if we can- Overall, this cohort of Evangelicals not trust Jesus Christ when He speaks has not, for all practical purposes, about hell and eternal punishment, then repudiated traditional Protestant theology on the matter of salvation. we cannot really trust Him when He A dynamic is at work nonetheless. speaks about heaven and eternal life. As with their view of the Bible, it How do we know that God is love? minimally represents a softening of earlier doctrinal certainties. Of their Through the person of Jesus Christ. No one own salvation, they are confident. It knows more about God’s love than Jesus is with regard to the salvation of oth- Christ. Do universalists dare presume they ers that there is ambiguity and doubt. The certainties characteristic can teach Jesus Christ something about of previous generations appear to be God’s love? The One who embodied God’s giving way to a measure of hesitancy love spent more time talking about the hor- and questioning.78 rors of hell than the glories of heaven. Hell But as attractive as universalism and is real, and hell is eternal. We have Jesus other theories that challenge the traditional Christ’s word on that. Christian teaching on heaven and hell But what about the issue of justice? Is might appear, they fail to answer funda- hell fair? Early in the biblical record mental objections to changing our belief in Abraham asks, “Shall not the judge of the eternal punishment for those apart from earth do right?” (Ge 18:25) That question Christ. Of these objections, the most pow- was answered affirmatively. Revelation erful are the sayings of our Lord, sayings 16:7 adds, “Yes, Lord God Almighty, true which leave no room whatever for the and just are your judgments.” No one will universalist’s position.79 J. I. Packer notes, ever be able to say to God that He was unjust in His judgment. Every person re- All the language that strikes terror ceives one of two things from God: jus- into our hearts—weeping and 82 gnashing of teeth, outer darkness, tice or mercy. No one receives injustice. the worm, the fire, gehenna, the We do not yet have the perspective of 15 eternity to see life as God sees it. When saved” (Ac 4:12). we do, we will join with the chorus of those around the throne and exclaim, Conclusion: “Yes, Lord God Almighty, true and just are Where Do We Go From Here? your judgments” (Rev 16:7). In closing, let me suggest three re- In the final analysis, the issue comes sponses evangelicals should make to the back to the integrity of Scripture.83 doctrine of universalism. First, we must Kantzer notes, rediscover and preach “the exceeding sin- fulness of sin.” G. K. Chesterton once said I wish I could say that God is too lov- it is surprising that people have rejected ing, too kind, and too generous to condemn any soul to eternal punish- the doctrine of original sin because it is ment. I would like to believe that hell the only doctrine that can be empirically can only be the anteroom to heaven, verified. We live in a culture that tries to a temporary and frightful discipline to bring the unregenerate to final sidestep the issue of sin. In Whatever Be- moral perfection…. On this all- came of Sin? Karl Menninger states, “It important topic we have only two [sin] was once a strong word, an ominous alternatives—dismal, helpless igno- rance, or divine revelation.84 and serious word…. But the word went away. It has almost disappeared—the Can Scripture be trusted to give us the word along with the notion.”85 If truth about God, man, and salvation? Is it Menninger could write that in 1973, what not significant that a denial of eternal pun- would he say today? ishment has arisen during the same time I believe this is the crux of the prob- as questions are being raised about the lem of universalism and other challenges trustworthiness of the Bible? Yet, as his- to the orthodox view of judgment. Could tory demonstrates, doubting God’s Word some persons have accepted the idea that is the starting point for universalism. In people’s sinfulness is not serious enough Eden the serpent asked, “Has God said to merit so severe a punishment as an [you shall die]?” Then he told the woman, eternal hell? John Stott apparently has, for “You surely shall not die!” he has recently argued for a brand of The deceiver of mankind is still at annihilationism that allows sinners to work. His approach has not changed. cease to exist after having suffered “ap- Apparently, however, he is getting a propriately” for their sins. In his response greater audience today. “You surely shall to David Edwards concerning the issue not die!” is a message being propagated of eternal conscious torment, Stott asks, by many voices. “Would there not, then, be a serious dis- Yet against these many voices the voice proportion between sins consciously of Scripture states that persons who have committed in time and torment con- not trusted Christ are lost. John 3:18 says, sciously experienced throughout eter- “He who does not believe has been judged nity?”86 already, because he has not believed in the Jonathan Edwards answered this ob- name of the only begotten Son of God.” jection forcefully in his powerful sermon Likewise, Peter declares, “There is no “The Justice of God in the Damnation of other name under heaven that has been Sinners”: given among men, by which we must be 16 So that sin against God, being a vio- preached. We must challenge people not lation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and so only to flee from the wrath to come, but to deserving infinite punishment…. flee to the One who bore that wrath for The eternity of the punishment of lost and guilty sinners. If in the past there ungodly men renders it infinite…and therefore renders [it] no more than was too much fire and brimstone preach- proportionable to the heinousness of ing, today there is too little. The pendu- 87 what they are guilty of. lum has swung too far in the direction of “love drawing” and many people do not The lyricist Augustus M. Toplady sum- understand the perils of being in a lost marizes well the biblical viewpoint with state. Some Christian leaders are telling these lines from the hymn “Rock of Ages”: us today that people already know they are sinners—all they need to know is how Could my tears forever flow, could my zeal no respite know. to be saved. All for sin could not atone; Thou That statement is simply not true. A lot must save and Thou alone. of people understand something is wrong, Nothing in my hand I bring. Simply to Thy cross I cling. but they do not see themselves as guilty Naked, come to Thee for dress; sinners under condemnation from a holy Helpless, look to Thee for grace. Foul, I to the fountain fly; Wash me, God. Most people think they are basically Savior, or I die! good. They throw out platitudes such as “If God grades on the curve, I’ll make it” Second, we must teach and preach on or “I’m as good as the next person—I’ll hell and judgment. Our commitment must take my chances.” be to tell the truth, however unpopular it Baxter asks a question that we need to may seem to some. Telling the truth is in- ask today: How shall they call on a Savior deed the most “loving” thing one can do.88 until they know they need one? Baxter Public opinion must not be allowed to maintains, “We persuade men to believe change truth. Phillips Brooks challenges that they are sick, that they may go to the preachers with these words: Physician.”91 Baxter shares the following powerful illustration about the importance Courage…is the indispensable req- of people understanding sin and condem- uisite of any true ministry…. Cour- age is good everywhere, but it is nation before they can understand grace necessary here. If you are afraid of and the gospel: “A man on the gallows will men and a slave to their opinion, go be glad of a pardon; but a stander-by, that and do something else. Go and make shoes to fit them…. But do not keep thinks he is innocent, would not regard it, on all your life preaching sermons but take it for an accusation.”92 which shall say not what God sent Imagine a man on the gallows, with a you to declare, but what they hire you to say.89 rope around his neck, moments from be- ing hanged to death. A messenger from Our culture disdains what is termed the king rushes forward and hands the “fire and brimstone preaching.” But as the man a paper, declaring, “The king has great Puritan pastor Richard Baxter em- pardoned you! The king has pardoned phasized in his ministry, “fear must drive, you!” Would not that man receive that as love must draw.”90 Both emphases are news gladly and with rejoicing? found in Scripture and both must be But consider if that messenger were to 17 give that same message to a man in the man agents must be raised up by the Lord crowd, an “innocent bystander.” How to share the message. God has so willed would that man receive the news of a par- it. As J. Herbert Kane points out, “There don? That man most assuredly would re- is not a single line in the book of Acts to vile the messenger. “What are you doing suggest that God can save a human being giving this message to me?” he might an- without employing a human agent. On grily ask. “Up there—on the gallows— the contrary there are several examples of he’s the guilty party. He’s the one who God’s going to great lengths to secure the needs a pardon, not me.” A pardon offered active cooperation of one or another of His to an “innocent” bystander in the crowd servants.”95 If we truly believe in the re- would be considered an insult to him. ality of heaven and hell, we cannot say This illustration points out the wisdom we love people if we refuse to share the in the oft-quoted statement, “We must first gospel with them. This point is empha- get people lost before we can get them sized in a booklet titled “Tract Written by saved.” If any preacher needs more moti- an Atheist”: vation to do this, he need only study the preaching of Jesus. Jesus talked more Did I firmly believe, as millions say they do, that the knowledge and about hell than he did about heaven. For practice of religion in this life influ- example, in Matthew 10:28 he warned, ences destiny in another, religion “Do not fear those who can destroy the would mean to me everything. I would cast away earthly enjoyments body, but fear Him who can destroy body as dross, earthly cares as follies, and and soul in hell.” Jesus Christ was what earthly thoughts and feelings as van- some might call today a “fire and brim- ity. Religion would be my first wak- ing thought, and my last image stone preacher.” He was not afraid of before sleep sank me into uncon- making people afraid. sciousness. I should labour in its cause alone. I would take thought C. H. Spurgeon recognized the impor- for the morrow of Eternity alone. I tance of preaching on hell. He said, would esteem one soul gained for heaven worth a life of suffering. We rob the gospel of its power if we Earthly consequences should never leave out its threatenings of punish- stay my hand, nor seal my lips. ment. It is to be feared that the novel Earth, its joys and its griefs, would opinions upon annihilation and res- occupy no moment of my thoughts. toration which have afflicted the I would strive to look upon Eternity Church in these last days have alone, and on the Immortal Souls caused many ministers to be slow to around me, soon to be everlastingly speak concerning the last judgment happy or everlasting miserable. I and its issues, and consequently the would go forth to the world and terrors of the Lord have had small preach to it in season and out of sea- influence upon either preachers or son, and my text would be, ‘WHAT hearers. If this be so it cannot be too SHALL IT PROFIT A MAN IF HE GAIN THE WHOLE WORLD AND much regretted, for one great means 96 of conversion is thus left unused.93 LOSE HIS OWN SOUL?’

Because eternal judgment is part of the Our Lord’s commission constrains us truth of God, we must proclaim it.94 to be faithful to take the gospel to the ends Third, we must display a passion for of the earth, beginning in our own neigh- lost souls. How will lost people hear the borhoods. unique message of hope in Christ? Hu- As John Stott has written, 18 They Really Lost?” Bibliotheca Sacra 138 Universalism, fashionable as it is to- (October-December 1981) 341. day, is incompatible with the teach- 5 ing of Christ and His apostles, and Fred Carl Kuehner summarizes the is a deadly enemy of evangelism. The view as “all men are doomed to be true universalism of the Bible is the saved.” See Kuehner, “Heaven or call to universal evangelism in obedience to Christ’s universal commission. It is Hell?” in Fundamentals of the Faith, ed. the conviction not that all men will Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: be saved in the end, but that all men Zondervan, 1969) 242. must hear the gospel of salvation before the end, as Jesus said (Matt. 6 Someone aptly has summarized the 24:14), in order that they may have shift in viewpoints as follows: a chance to believe and be saved (Ro- Older forms of universalism: Man is mans 10:13-15).97 too good for God to damn. May we all prove to be thoroughgoing Newer forms of universalism: God is universalists in this sense. too good to damn man. 7 Richard J. Bauckham, “Universalism: A Historical Survey,” Themelios 4 (1979) 49. ENDNOTES 8 James Davison Hunter, Evangelicalism: 1 “We Face a Task Unfinished,” lyrics by The Coming Generation (Chicago: Univ. George J. Webb. of Chicago Press, 1987) 34. 2 E.g., D. A. Carson, “The Challenges of 9 George Barna, Absolute Confusion Contemporary Pluralism,” SBJT 1/2 (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1993) 15. (Summer 1997) 4-37; A. B. Caneday, 10Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming “’Evangelical Inclusivism’ and the Generation, 35. The Evangelical Acad- Exclusivisity of the Gospel: A Review emy project was a 1982-1985 attitudi- of John Sanders’s No Other Name,” nal survey of students and faculty at SBJT 1/4 (Winter 1997) 24-39; and Tho- nine liberal arts colleges and seven mas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and evangelical seminaries. Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” 11Ibid., 35. It must be noted, as Hunter SBJT 2/1 (Spring 1998) 32-62. does, that “it is important to recall that 3 N. T. Wright, “Universalism and the the majority still hold the traditional World-Wide Community,” Churchman approach to the problem of salvation. 89 (July-September 1975) 200. J. I. Yet as the interviews suggest, even Packer laments, “I am afraid that many among these there is a pervasive un- of us have slipped into the practice of easiness about the nature of hell and living and behaving as if universalism about who is relegated to it. It is an un- were true, even though we would easiness which may portend a greater never subscribe to it in writing.” See cultural accommodation.” See Hunter, Packer, “All Men Won’t Be Saved,” Evangelicalism, 47-48. Eternity 16 (November 1965) 16. 12Ibid., 38. A survey taken at the 1967 4 In addition to eschatology, Blue lists Urbana Missions Conference bears this theology proper, Christology, out. Out of five thousand replies to soteriology, biblical anthropology, over eight thousand questionnaires hamartiology, and ecclesiology. See distributed, only 37 percent believed Ronald J. Blue, “Untold Billions: Are that “a person who doesn’t hear the 19 gospel is eternally lost.” Only 42 “Death and Destiny,” Churchman 95 the historic one of the church. But percent believed that “unbelievers (1981) 313-325. T. F. Glasson dislikes the term will be punished in a literal hell of 17For a differing perspective on “modification,” preferring instead fire,” and 25 percent believed that Origen which defends his ortho- to say that “elements which have “man will be saved or lost on the doxy on the doctrine of universal all along been present in the N.T. basis of how well he followed salvation, see Frederick W. Norris, and in some parts of our Christian what he did know.” See Arthur P. “Universal Salvation in Origen heritage have now come into their Johnston, “Focus Comment,” Trin- and Maximus,” in Universalism rightful place.” See Glasson, “Hu- ity World Forum 1 (Fall 1975) 3. and the Doctrine of Hell, ed. Nigel man Destiny: Has Christian Teach- 13Jimmy Carter, quoted in “Power M. de S. Cameron (Grand Rapids: ing Changed?” Modern Churchman and Higher Power: Carter’s Jour- Baker Book House, 1992) 35-72. 12 (July 1969) 291. When he wrote ney,” The New York Times (Decem- 18Bauckham, “Universalism: A His- this article, Glasson was Lecturer ber 15, 1996) 16. Note Carter’s use torical Survey,” 50. in New Testament Studies, New of the term “innocent” in his quo- 19Note the description of Erigena’s College, London. tation, implying a denial of the teaching in Christianity Today 31 31Note the article by Joseph D. Bettis, universality of sin and depravity. (March 20, 1987) 39. “Is Karl Barth a Universalist?” Scot- 14Leighton Ford, Worldwide Chal- 20Bauckham, “Universalism: A His- tish Journal of Theology 20 (Decem- lenge (September/October 1983) torical Survey,” 50. ber 1967) 423-436. Bettis argues that 20. David Wells notes the doctrine 21Ibid. it is illegitimate to label Barth a of hell is being abandoned “not 22Ibid., 51. universalist because Barth himself because of new light from the 23Ibid. Bauckham notes that the “consistently rejects universalism Bible but because of new darkness judgment was subsequently re- as a doctrine.” Bettis also notes, from the culture.” See David F. versed on appeal by the Lord however, that Barth leaves open Wells, “Foreword,” in Robert A. Chancellor. the possibility that within God’s Peterson, Hell on Trial: The Case for 24Ibid. Bauckham notes that Farrar freedom all men may indeed be Eternal Punishment (Phillipsburg, remained “agnostic as to the alter- saved. See Bettis, 427. NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed natives.” 32Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV, Pt. I, Publishing, 1995) x. 25Ibid. Pusey’s work was titled,What trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: 15See Bernard Ramm, “Will All Men is of Faith as to Everlasting Punish- T. & T. Clark, 1956) 295. Be Finally Saved?” Eternity (Au- ment (London: James Parker and 33G. W. Bromiley, “Karl Barth,” in gust 1964) 22. Harold O. J. Brown Co., 1880). Creative Minds in Contemporary The- makes this same point in “Will Ev- 26Ibid. ology, ed. Philip Hughes (Grand eryone Be Saved?” Pastoral Re- 27Ibid. Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966) 54. newal 11 (June 1987) 13. 28James I. Packer, “The Way of Sal- 34Barth, Church Dogmatics, 164f. See 16This is by no means a comprehen- vation. Part III: The Problems of also G. C. Berkouwer, The Triumph sive history of universalism. For a Universalism,” Bibliotheca Sacra of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth more detailed presentation, see Ri- (Jan-March 1973) 4. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956) chard J. Bauckham, “Universalism: 29Herbert G. Jones, “Universalism 292-296. Emilio Antonio Núñez A Historical Survey,” Themelios 4 and Morals,” Scottish Journal of says, “The least that can be said of (1979) 47-54; Henri Blocher, “The Theology 3 (1950) 27. Karl Barth is that in his teaching Scope of Redemption in Modern 30Bauckham, “Universalism: A His- about election and reconciliation Theology,” Scottish Bulletin of Evan- torical Survey,” 48. Those who ar- he opens himself dangerously to gelical Theology 9 (Autumn 1991) gue in favor of universalism universalism.” See Núñez, “Uni- 80-103; and Alan M. Fairhurst, acknowledge their position is not versalism,” in Walvoord: A Tribute, 20 ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: cent work, Crucial Questions about 48Ferré, Evil and the Christian Faith Moody, 1982) 173. Hell. N. T. Wright makes an inter- (New York: Harper & Brothers, 35See Donald Bloesch, “The Legacy esting observation concerning the 1947) 118. Lindsell answers this of Karl Barth,” TSF Bulletin 9 universalists’ use of Scripture, “unanswerable logic” by saying, (1986) 7. Note that Barth’s view usually from the Pauline corpus. “When Ferré says that if God does not stem from man’s partici- Wright says, “An odd inversion, could not save all He is not sover- pation in “religion,” but from this, of the old liberal position eign, his own logic can be turned God’s overwhelming grace. where Jesus was the teacher of against him by saying that if God Bauckham notes that this “hope- heavenly truths and Paul the cannot send anyone to eternal per- ful” universalism has had more cross-grained dogmatic bigot.” See dition then He is also not sover- appeal to conservative Christians Wright, “Towards a Biblical View eign! In either statement (Ferré’s than dogmatic universalism, be- of Universalism,” Themelios 4 or its opposite), one is left with a cause it allows them to “hope for (1979) 55. finite God. Therefore there is a the salvation of all men without 43Unless otherwise noted, all Scrip- standoff. Assuming either argu- presuming to know something ture quotations are from the NASB. ment, God is finite.” See Harold which God has not revealed.” 44Glasson, “Human Destiny: Has Lindsell, “Universalism Today: Bauckham, “Universalism: A His- Christian Teaching Changed?” 296. Part Two,” Bibliotheca Sacra 122 torical Survey,” 52. 45Wright, “Towards a Biblical View (January-March 1965) 32. 36Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV, Pt. III, of Universalism,” 54. Wright is not 49Ferré, “Universalism: Pro and 478. Thus my labeling of Barth as espousing this view, merely pre- Con,” 24. Apparently the logic of a “Hope-so Universalist.” senting it. Wright’s article argues what this does to Ferré’s concept 37Barth, The Humanity of God against universalism. of a loving God escapes him. Is it (Richmond, VA: John Knox 46Nels F. S. Ferré, “Universalism: loving to deceive people deliber- Press, 1960) 62. Pro and Con,” Christianity Today 7 ately to get them to act in a certain 38Carl E. Braaten, “The Meaning of (March 1, 1963) 24. Ferré criticizes way? Blum notes, “The idea of Evangelism in the Context of P. T. Forsyth for making holiness scaring people with notions that God’s Universal Grace,” Journal of God’s dominant attribute, yet, as God knows to be untrue even if it the Academy for Evangelism in Theo- Kenneth Hamilton points out, results in a good end is unworthy logical Education 3 (1987-88) 16. Ferré’s criticism can apply equally of God.” See Edwin A. Blum, 39Ibid., 17. to his own view that love is God’s “Shall You Not Surely Die?” 40Ajith Fernando utilizes the term dominant attribute. See Kenneth Themelios 4 (1979) 59. “wishful universalists.” See his Hamilton, “Love or Holy Love? 50John A. T. Robinson, In the End Crucial Questions about Hell Nels Ferré versus P. T. Forsyth,” God (New York: Harper & Row, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, Canadian Journal of Theology 8 (Oc- 1968) 130. 1991) 22. tober 1962) 229. 51Robinson, “Universalism: Is It He- 41I am indebted to Emilio Núñez 47Ferré claims, “That such a doctrine retical?” Scottish Journal of Theology for this helpful grouping. See [hell] could be conceived, not to 2 (1949) 155. Packer correctly Núñez, 173. mention believed, shows how far notes, “But it is a speculation, of 42For an in-depth exegetical treat- from any understanding of the course; all statements about ‘the ment of these texts from an evan- love of God many people once necessity of God’s nature’ which gelical perspective, see Fernando, were and, alas, still are!” See Ferré, go beyond Scripture are specula- A Universal Homecoming? (Madras, The Christian Understanding of God tive.” See J. I. Packer, “Universal- India: Evangelical Literature Ser- (New York: Harper & Brothers, ism and Evangelism,” in One Race, vice, 1982) and also his more re- 1951) 228. One Gospel, One Task: Vol. 2, ed. 21 Carl F. H. Henry and W. Stanley Lindsell, “Universalism Today: we have no right to make pro- Mooneyham (Minneapolis: World Part Two,” 36. nouncements as to whether all will Wide Publications, 1967) 183. 60Wright, “Universalism and the be saved or not. Barth must be 52Ferré, “Universalism: Pro and World-Wide Community,” 200. lauded for his emphasis on the sov- Con,” 24. 61Packer, “All Men Won’t Be ereignty of God. But if the sover- 53David L. Edwards, Evangelical Es- Saved,” 17. eign God has disclosed to sentials: A Liberal/Evangelical Dia- 62Lindsell, “Universalism Today: humanity what he will do, then the logue. With a response by John Stott Part Two,” 39. appropriate response to his sover- (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity 63Packer claims that many univer- eignty is to believe what he has re- Press, 1988) 295. salists have seen the futility of the vealed. God has revealed 54Charles S. Duthie, “Ultimate Tri- above exegetical arguments, and unmistakably in the Scriptures that umph,” Scottish Journal of Theology that therefore they have moved there will be some who will be lost 14 (1961) 168. from exegetical to philosophical/ eternally. Therefore, it is Barth who 55Ibid., 157. theological arguments. See has been disrespectful of God’s 56Ibid., 169. Duthie has overlooked, Packer, “All Men Won’t Be sovereignty by denying that we however, the fact that Paul defi- Saved,” 17. Bauckham concurs, cannot know the answer to a ques- nitely believed people would be saying that in the twentieth cen- tion which God has answered for accursed if they rejected Christ! To tury, “exegesis has turned deci- us.” See Fernando, Crucial Ques- use Paul as an example of a sively against the universalist tions About Hell, 121-122. “universalist’s heart” certainly case.” See Bauckham, “Universal- 71Jones, “Universalism and Morals,” gives back more than it takes. ism: A Historical Survey,” 52. 27. 57See Fernando, “A Critique of Ex- 64Arthur M. Climenhaga, “The New 72Ibid., 29. egetical Arguments for Universal- Universalism,” United Evangelical 73Paul Helm argues that if “it is im- ism,” Unpublished Th.M. Thesis, Action 23 (December 1964) 18. moral to punish the impenitent in Fuller Theological Seminary, 1976. 65Glasson, “Human Destiny: Has hell then it is immoral genuinely 58Packer argues that the non-univer- Christian Teaching Changed?” 294 to threaten such punishment.” See salistic interpretation of these texts [emphasis mine]. Paul Helm, “Universalism and the is “more germane to their context 66Harold O. J. Brown, “Will Every- Threat of Hell,” Trinity Journal 4 than the universalist one.” See one Be Saved?” 13. (Spring 1983) 43. Packer, “All Men Won’t Be 67Wright, “Towards a Biblical View 74Tokunboh Adeyemo, “The Salva- Saved,” 17. of Universalism,” 55. tion Debate and Evangelical Re- 59E.g. John 5:28-29; John 10; Romans 68Harold B. Kuhn, “Universalism in sponse: Part Two,” East Africa 2:9, 12; 2 Corinthians 13:5; 1 Today’s Theology,” Christianity To- Journal of Evangelical Theology 2 Corinthians 15:1; Ephesians 5:5; 1 day (September 16, 1957) 10-11. (1983) 11. Packer notes that ac- John 5:14-15; 2 Peter 2. Note that 69Walter R. Martin, “Universal Sal- cording to the Gospel of Univer- some of these assertions are found vation: Does the Bible Teach It?” salism, Paul would have added to within the same passage as that Eternity 7 (September 1956) 39. his assertion to the Philippian which supposedly teaches univer- 70Bettis, “Critique of the Doctrine of jailer: “And if you don’t believe salism! Harold Lindsell notes that Universal Salvation,” Religious you will be saved anyway, but it an objective observer will be Studies 6 (December 1970) 336. will hurt badly, and I would like “struck by the amount of data Fernando critiques Barth’s use of to spare you that.” See Packer, against universalism when con- God’s sovereignty as an argument “The Way of Salvation, Part III: trasted with the few references for universalism: “Barth’s point is The Problems of Universalism,” 3. which seem to favor it.” See that God will do as he chooses, and 75Harold Lindsell argues statistics 22 bear this out quite well: “Perhaps Destiny: Has Christian Teaching Kantzer, “The Claims of Christ and the best way to show how dra- Changed?” 292. Glasson’s argu- Religious Pluralism,” in Evangelism matic the missionary retreat has ment is theologically and histori- on the Cutting Edge, ed. Robert E. been is to look at the percentage cally flawed. Coleman (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming decline in the number of overseas 76Charles W. Keysor, “What Has Be- H. Revell Co., 1986) 15-29. missionaries among some of the come of Eternity?” Pastoral Re- 82For an excellent discussion of this major denominations between newal (April 1985) 132. issue see R. C. Sproul, Chosen by 1962 and 1979: Episcopal Church, 77T. F. Torrance, “Universalism God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 79 percent decline; Lutheran or Election?” Scottish Journal of 1986) 38ff. Church of America, 70 percent; Theology 2 (1949) 318. 83William Hendriksen says, “The United Presbyterian Church in the 78Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming passages in which this doctrine of U.S.A., 72 percent; United Church Generation, 40. everlasting punishment…is taught of Christ, 68 percent; Christian 79N. T. Wright notes that universal- are so numerous that one actually Church Disciples, 66 percent; ists approach these texts in one of stands aghast that in spite of all United Methodist Church, 46 per- three ways: (1) ignore them and this there are people today who af- cent; American Lutheran Church, base their theology on a supposed firm that they accept Scripture and 44 percent.” See Lindsell, “The overview of the gospels or on who, nevertheless, reject the idea Major Denominations Are Jump- philosophical ideas instead; (2) of never-ending torment.” See ing Ship,” Christianity Today 25 claim they were not the actual Hendriksen, The Bible on the Life (September 18, 1981) 16. The ar- words of Jesus; (3) claim Jesus was Hereafter (1959; rpt. Grand Rapids: ticle concludes, “Though many mistaken in what He said about Baker, 1975) 197-198. Fernando ar- factors contributed to this decline, hell. Obviously, when someone gues that evangelicals do not gen- it is legitimate to reckon that these adopts any of these three ap- erally reject the doctrine of eternal figures are a rough index of the proaches, they have already de- punishment, they simply neglect to depth of conviction about basic parted from historic orthodoxy in mention it in their preaching and Christian doctrine—the nature of their methodology, even before teaching. Fernando fears that if the gospel, the lostness of man- getting to their conclusion. See “one generation of evangelicals kind apart from Christ, and the Wright, “Universalism and the neglects these doctrines, it is quite necessity of obeying biblical man- World-Wide Community,” 202. likely that the next generation will dates calling for sacrifice and dis- 80Packer, “All Men Won’t Be Saved,” reject it. People will grow up with- cipline for the sake of advancing 156. William G. T. Shedd agrees: out the serious side of the gospel the kingdom of Christ.” T. F. “Jesus Christ is the Person who is as part of their worldview.” See Glasson tries to counter such responsible for the doctrine of Eter- Fernando, “Rediscovering the charges: “It used to be said that nal Perdition. He is the Being with Doctrine of Lostness—Part 1,” the very lever of missionary en- whom all opponents of this theo- World Evangelization 13 (Novem- deavour would be broken if there logical tenet are in conflict…. The ber/December 1987) 21-22. were any deviation from the old Christian ministry never would 84Kantzer, “Troublesome Ques- eschatology. But this has proved to have invented it in all the Christian tions,” 45. be untrue. Our grandfathers were centuries.” See Shedd, Dogmatic 85Karl Menninger, Whatever Became impressed with the horror that Theology: Vol. 2, 2nd ed. (Grand of Sin? (New York: Hawthorn men should die without Christ. Rapids: Zondervan, 1953) 680. Books, 1973) 14. We are more concerned with the 81Kenneth S. Kantzer, “Troublesome 86Stott, Evangelical Essentials, 318. tragedy that they should live with- Questions,” Christianity Today 31 87Jonathan Edwards, “The Justice of out Him.” See Glasson, “Human (March 20, 1987) 45. See also God in the Damnation of Sinners,” 23 in The Works of Jonathan Edwards: Press, 1993); Tim Keller, “Preach- Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth ing Hell in a Tolerant Age,” Leader- Trust, 1974) 669. See also Edwards’ ship (Fall 1997) 42-48; and Kenneth sermon, “The Eternity of Hell Tor- S. Kantzer, “Do You Believe in ments,” Works, Vol. 2, 83-89. Hell?” Christianity Today 30 (Feb- 88Roger Nicole observes, “If a per- ruary 21, 1986) 12. son is struck with a deadly disease 95J. Herbert Kane, Understanding for which there is a known cure, it Christian Missions (Grand Rapids: is neither wise nor loving to try Baker, 1974) 102. As G. C. and convince him that nothing is Berkouwer asserts, “The Church is wrong.” See Nicole, “Universal- not to speculate but to preach.” See ism: Will Everyone Be Saved?” Berkouwer, “Universalism,” Chris- Christianity Today 31 (March 20, tianity Today 1 (May 13, 1957) 6. 1987) 38. 96Norman P. Grubb, C. T. Studd (Fort 89Phillips Brooks, Lectures on Preach- Washington, PA: Christian Litera- ing (New York: E. P. Dutton and ture Crusade, 1982) 35-36. Co., 1877) 59. 97Stott, “Response to Bishop Mortimer 90Richard Baxter, “The Life of Faith” Arias,” International Review of Mis- (1669), in The Practical Works of Ri- sions 65 (1976) 33 [emphasis mine]. J. chard Baxter, Vol. 3 (London: I. Packer similarly describes “bibli- George Virtue, 1838) 665. cal” universalism in terms of its uni- 91Baxter, Catholick Theologie: II versal claim (Ro 1:16), its universal (1675) 221. summons (Ac 17:30), and its univer- 92Baxter, “Directions and Persua- sal mission (Mt 28:19). See Packer, sions to a Sound Conversion” “All Men Won’t Be Saved,” 15. (1658), in The Practical Works of Ri- chard Baxter, Vol. 2 (London: George Virtue, 1838) 603. 93C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Stu- dents (1875; rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977) 339. 94Fernando wisely cautions that “because many have preached about hell in the wrong way, we must not avoid preaching about it. Misuse does not warrant disuse.” See Fernando, “Rediscovering the Doctrine of Lostness—Part 2,” World Evangelization 14 (January/ February 1988) 14. For additional material in preaching on hell and judgment see John Blanchard, Whatever Happened to Hell? (Durham, England: Evangelical 24