If only there was some term for the doctrines of the visible and invisible church, that denoted household inclusion in the community of believers, while also calling for individual faith and repentance... Oh, right- there is!
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Ch. 9: 3. The flesh, therefore, when destitute of the Spirit of God, is dead, not having life, and cannot possess the kingdom of God: [it is as] irrational blood, like water poured out upon the ground. And therefore he says, “As is the earthy, such are they that are earthy.” (1Co_15:48) But where the Spirit of the Father is, there is a living man; [there is] the rational blood preserved by God for the avenging [of those that shed it]; [there is] the flesh possessed by the Spirit, forgetful indeed of what belongs to it, and adopting the quality of the Spirit, being made conformable to the Word of God. And on this account he (the apostle) declares, “As we have borne the image of him who is of the earth, we shall also bear the image of Him who is from heaven.” (1Co_15:49) What, therefore, is the earthly? That which was fashioned. And what is the heavenly? The Spirit. As therefore he says, when we were destitute of the celestial Spirit, we walked in former times in the oldness of the flesh, not obeying God; so now let us, receiving the Spirit, walk in newness of life, obeying God. Inasmuch, therefore, as without the Spirit of God we cannot be saved, the apostle exhorts us through faith and chaste conversation to preserve the Spirit of God, lest, having become non-participators of the Divine Spirit, we lose the kingdom of heaven; and he exclaims, that flesh in itself, and blood, cannot possess the kingdom God. Ch. 10: 1. This truth, therefore, [he declares], in order that we may not reject the engrafting of the Spirit while pampering the flesh. “But thou, being a wild olive-tree,” he says, “hast been grafted into the good olive-tree, and been made a partaker of the fatness of the olive-tree.” (Rom_11:17) As, therefore, when the wild olive has been engrafted, if it remain in its former condition, viz., a wild olive, it is “cut off, and cast into the fire;” (Mat_7:19) but if it takes kindly to the graft, and is changed into the good olive-tree, it becomes a fruit-bearing olive... 2. But as the engrafted wild olive does not certainly lose the substance of its wood, but changes the quality of its fruit, and receives another name, being now not a wild olive, but a fruit-bearing olive, and is called so; so also, when man is grafted in by faith and receives the Spirit of God, he certainly does not lose the substance of flesh, but changes the quality of the fruit [brought forth, i.e.,] of his works, and receives another name, (Rev_2:17) showing that he has become changed for the better, being now not [mere] flesh and blood, but a spiritual man, and is called such. Then, again, as the wild olive, if it be not grafted in, remains useless to its lord because of its woody quality, and is cut down as a tree bearing no fruit, and cast into the fire; so also man, if he does not receive through faith the engrafting of the Spirit, remains in his old condition, and being [mere] flesh and blood, he cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Rightly therefore does the apostle declare, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;” (1Co_15:50) and, “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God:” (Rom_13:8) not repudiating [by these words] the substance of flesh, but showing that into it the Spirit must be infused.15 And for this reason, he says, “This mortal must put on immortality, and this corruptible must put on incorruption.” (1Co_15:53) And again he declares, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” (Rom_8:9) He sets this forth still more plainly, where he says, “The body indeed is dead, because of sin; but the Spirit is life, because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, because of His Spirit dwelling in you.” (Rom_8:10, etc.) And again he says, in the Epistle to the Romans, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die.” (Rom_8:13) [Now by these words] he does not prohibit them from living their lives in the flesh, for he was himself in the flesh when he wrote to them; but he cuts away the lusts of the flesh, those which bring death upon a man. And for this reason he says in continuation, “But if ye through the Spirit do mortify the works of the flesh, ye shall live. For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.” Irenaeus taught, based on scripture, that anyone who did not have the Holy Spirit by grace through persevering faith could not inherit the kingdom of God and would be cast into the fire (in other words, given over to destruction). Irenaeus was teaching against heresies. The belief that unregenerate men could inherit God's kingdom and be saved from destruction was, and is, a heresy. Irenaeus' teaching continues in Book 5, Ch. 27: 1. ...For “He came to divide a man against his father, and the daughter against the mother, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law;” (Mat_10:25) and when two are in one bed, to take the one, and to leave the other; and of two women grinding at the mill, to take one and leave the other: (Luk_17:34) [also] at the time of the end, to order the reapers to collect first the tares together, and bind them in bundles, and burn them with unquenchable fire, but to gather up the wheat into the barn; (Mat_13:30) and to call the lambs into the kingdom prepared for them, but to send the goats into everlasting fire, which has been prepared by His Father for the devil and his angels. (Mat_25:33, etc.) And why is this? Has the Word come for the ruin and for the resurrection of many? For the ruin, certainly, of those who do not believe Him, to whom also He has threatened a greater damnation in the judgment-day than that of Sodom and Gomorrah; (Luk_10:12) but for the resurrection of believers, and those who do the will of His Father in heaven. If then the advent of the Son comes indeed alike to all, but is for the purpose of judging, and separating the believing from the unbelieving, since, as those who believe do His will agreeably to their own choice, and as, [also] agreeably to their own choice, the disobedient do not consent to His doctrine; it is manifest that His Father has made all in a like condition, each person having a choice of his own, and a free understanding; and that He has regard to all things, and exercises a providence over all, “making His sun to rise upon the evil and on the good, and sending rain upon the just and unjust.” (Mat_5:45) 2. And to as many as continue in their love towards God, does He grant communion with Him. But communion with God is life and light, and the enjoyment of all the benefits which He has in store. But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God. He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending. It is in this matter just as occurs in the case of a flood of light: those who have blinded themselves, or have been blinded by others, are for ever deprived of the enjoyment of light. It is not, [however], that the light has inflicted upon them the penalty of blindness, but it is that the blindness itself has brought calamity upon them: and therefore the Lord declared, “He that believeth in Me is not condemned,” (Joh_3:18, Joh_3:21) that is, is not separated from God, for he is united to God through faith. On the other hand, He says, “He that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God;” that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord. Here we see the early church's understanding that an unbeliever's condemnation is never-ending. Not just for an age, but for ever and ever.
I enjoyed this interview of Fr. Aidan Kimel discussing his discovery and acceptance of the truth of Universalism.
Here is another interesting passage, this time from William Barclay, the late scholar, minister of the Church of Scotland, and Professor of Divinity at the University of Glasgow, explaining why he was a convinced Unuversalist: "I am a convinced universalist. I believe that in the end all men will be gathered into the love of God. In the early days Origen was the great name connected with universalism. I would believe with Origen that universalism is no easy thing. Origen believed that after death there were many who would need prolonged instruction, the sternest discipline, even the severest punishment before they were fit for the presence of God. Origen did not eliminate hell; he believed that some people would have to go to heaven via hell. He believed that even at the end of the day there would be some on whom the scars remained. He did not believe in eternal punishment, but he did see the possibility of eternal penalty. And so the choice is whether we accept God's offer and invitation willingly, or take the long and terrible way round through ages of purification. Gregory of Nyssa offered three reasons why he believed in universalism. First, he believed in it because of the character of God. "Being good, God entertains pity for fallen man; being wise, he is not ignorant of the means for his recovery." Second, he believed in it because of the nature of evil. Evil must in the end be moved out of existence, "so that the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all." Evil is essentially negative and doomed to non-existence. Third, he believed in it because of the purpose of punishment. The purpose of punishment is always remedial. Its aim is "to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness." Punishment will hurt, but it is like the fire which separates the alloy from the gold; it is like the surgery which removes the diseased thing; it is like the cautery which burns out that which cannot be removed any other way. But I want to set down not the arguments of others but the thoughts which have persuaded me personally of universal salvation. First, there is the fact that there are things in the New Testament which more than justify this belief. Jesus said: "I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself" (John 12:32). Paul writes to the Romans: "God has consigned all men to disobedience that he may have mercy on all" (Rom. 11:32). He writes to the Corinthians: "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22); and he looks to the final total triumph when God will be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 15:28). In the First Letter to Timothy we read of God "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," and of Christ Jesus "who gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:4-6). The New Testament itself is not in the least afraid of the word all. Second, one of the key passages is Matthew 25:46 where it is said that the rejected go away to eternal punishment, and the righteous to eternal life. The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment. The word for eternal is aionios. It means more than everlasting, for Plato - who may have invented the word - plainly says that a thing may be everlasting and still not be aionios. The simplest way to out it is that aionios cannot be used properly of anyone but God; it is the word uniquely, as Plato saw it, of God. Eternal punishment is then literally that kind of remedial punishment which it befits God to give and which only God can give. Third, I believe that it is impossible to set limits to the grace of God. I believe that not only in this world, but in any other world there may be, the grace of God is still effective, still operative, still at work. I do not believe that the operation of the grace of God is limited to this world. I believe that the grace of God is as wide as the universe. Fourth, I believe implicitly in the ultimate and complete triumph of God, the time when all things will be subject to him, and when God will be everything to everyone (1 Cor. 15:24-28). For me this has certain consequences. If one man remains outside the love of God at the end of time, it means that that one man has defeated the love of God - and that is impossible. Further, there is only one way in which we can think of the triumph of God. If God was no more than a King or Judge, then it would be possible to speak of his triumph, if his enemies were agonizing in hell or were totally and completely obliterated and wiped out. But God is not only King and Judge, God is Father - he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family for ever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. The only victory love can enjoy is the day when its offer of love is answered by the return of love. The only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God." [Quoted from William Barclay: A Spiritual Autobiography, pg 65-67, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1977.]
I'm seeing that the universalist concept includes extreme punishment for many who've rejected Christ in this life, with the alleged goal being to change their minds. Universalists essentially turn God into a Being who would torture an individual into compliance. Picture someone being waterboarded and told that the agony will cease if they'll agree to Jesus being their Lord. My God allows people to make their own choice, but requires that they abide by their choice. He is not a God of involuntary compulsion. He does not force people by extreme torture into loving Him for all eternity. When people reject Him throughout their lives and want nothing to do with Him, He honors their wishes for all time. Our God is fair-minded, just, and holy.
Heb 9:27-28 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. We get one chance, one crack at life. After death, we receive final judgment. Christ's salvation is for "them that look for Him," not for those who refused His gift. Imagine if someone adamantly wanted nothing from God and nothing to do with Him, yet God demanded love and respect to the point that He tortured the person in agony for an aeon to obtain submission. If God said to you, "I'll make you suffer horribly for centuries, but if you will come around and agree to accept My saving grace and agree to adore me, I'll make it stop," would you respect and love Him for that?
A phrase that appears in Holy Scripture no less than 41 times is: "His mercy endures forever". But the infernalist does not believe that to be the case. For the infernalist, there will be a time when mercy ends, when the gate closes and all those left on the wrong side of it will know nothing but God's neverending wrath, torment, and punishment forever and ever.
As a preliminary to examining these scripture verses, one should ask oneself in each instance what the writer was trying to convey. Is there any one of these passages wherein in can be said that universalism is the writer's main point (the thing he is trying to get across)? Or is he making some other point? If the latter, is it possible (or even likely) that universalism is not even on the writer's 'radar' when he makes the statement that is being construed by some, after the fact, as possible support for universalism? In John 12:32, the context shows that Jesus' purpose was not to teach universalism, but to signify the manner in which He would be put to death. In Romans 11, Paul's purpose is to teach that God has not abandoned the Jews in His acceptance of the Gentiles; any person, whether Gentile or Jew, may come to Christ, with the caveat that we do so by faith (belief) in Him. See the preceding verses for context: Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. The only way for a branch to be grafted to Christ our vine is by ceasing to abide in unbelief. This is something we can do only during this life, for faith or unbelief are "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen." Faith how we respond to the unseen God; once we see Him in all His glory, we will know for certain that "He is and He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him," and there will be no more room for faith (belief) or the lack thereof. In 1 Cor. 15, Paul's writes to prove, not that all will be with God in His Kingdom forever, but that all will be raised from the dead. As he writes 2 verses later, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?" In 1 Timothy, Paul is counseling Timothy to pray for all people in this life, so they might do "what is good and acceptable" before God in this life. God desires all men to be saved and to come to know the truth, and those are things that happen in this life. Therefore, says Paul, we should pray and 'live right.' When? In this life. Paul isn't trying to make any point about universalism or about the fate of sinners in the next life. All of these scriptures which are being used to support universalism are better understood has having other implications or meanings. Pulling them out of context and weaving them together to support a doctrine which other scriptures clearly contradict is no better a practice than the 'name it and claim it' bunch combining Mark 11:23-24 with a couple of other verses to 'prove' that we can have whatever we ask if we just believe hard enough. Universalists are engaging in the same sort of fuzzy interpretation method, pulling scriptures out of their settings and building a house of cards.
I do not think that the orthodox doctrine of hell contradicts God's mercy enduring forever... It is not a question of his mercy, because of course he doesn't stop loving or having mercy The issue is, the people don't want it As CS. Lewis has said, the gates of hell are locked *from the inside* The people hate God, they don't want to come out
Which is the more merciful act: to compel someone to love you, or to leave them free from any compulsion? Picture a handsome billionaire who loves a young woman, but the woman does not reciprocate. Let us postulate that the woman, were she to marry the billionaire, would have a delightful, happy life, but that by refusing his marriage proposal she dooms herself to a life of drudgery, sadness, perhaps even (unbeknown to her) horrific pain and terror. Let us further suppose that the billionaire is a visionary who has foreseen all of this. Should the man compel the woman to marry him for her own good? Or should he honor and respect her choice to have nothing to do with him and his love? The universalist would call the billionaire an "infernal" person for causing the woman such grief. The non-heretical Christian recognizes that the woman's choice should be honored, and the billionaire is not to be blamed for her free will choice but is himself more honorable for exercising restraint, though it pains him to see her suffer. Might the woman change her mind? Perhaps; but only while she lives.
In regard to "eternal punishment" in Matt. 25:46, I'd like to share what Albert Barnes wrote in his commentary for this passage. It's a point I've made before, but it bears repeating: In regard to the meaning of the word “everlasting” in this place, it is to be observed: 1. That the literal meaning of the word expresses absolute eternity - “always belong,” Mat_18:8; Mat_19:16; Mar_3:29; Rom_2:7; Heb_5:9. 2. That the obvious and plain interpretation of the word demands this signification in this place. The original word - αἰώνιον aionion - is employed in the New Testament 66 times. Of these, in 51 instances it is used of the happiness of the righteous; in two, of God’s existence; in six, of the church and the Messiah’s kingdom; and in the remaining seven, of the future punishment of the wicked. If in these seven instances we attach to the word the idea of limited duration, consistency requires that the same idea of limited duration should be given it in the 51 cases of its application to the future glory of the righteous, and the two instances of its application to God’s existence, and the six eases of its appropriation to the future reign of the Messiah and the glory and perpetuity of the church. But no one will presume to deny that in these instances it denotes unlimited duration, and therefore, in accordance with the sound laws of interpretation and of language itself, the same sense of unlimited duration must be given it when used of future punishment - Owen, in loc.
If we want to know God's intent concerning the afterlife, of course our first source is the Bible. But within the Bible we don't go first to teachings on other subjects. Instead, we go to teachings on the afterlife. Best of all are teachings on the afterlife which Jesus personally spoke. In Matt. 25, Jesus discusses the fate of the wicked and the fate of the righteous. He says the latter go into eternal life and the former into eternal punishment. In John 3 and other chapters of John, we learn that Jesus stressed the requirement of faith in Him for eternal life, and He said that when people don't have faith in Him they (v. 18) condemn themselves (by implication, they condemn themselves to "perish" and to forego eternal life with God, v.15). In Mark 16, Jesus instructs the disciples to spread the Gospel, and the important reason given is that he who believes not will be damned but he who believes will be saved. When Jesus spoke of people's fates in the afterlife, He always taught that there are two distinct groups meeting two drastically different results. The sheep enter in, the goats stay without. The wise virgins enter in, the foolish virgins are locked out. And so on. Paul taught the same when he wrote about the afterlife: 2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; Notice that the punishment involves separation from God's presence and from His power. God is the sustainer and provider of all that is good, pure, and beautiful; the punishment of the wicked is to be deprived of His presence, His sustenance, His provision, His protection, His peace, His glory, and so on. The unbelievers will be subject to the torments of Satan for all eternity, for they will not have God's protection from Satan and his fallen angels. You see, it isn't as if God is going to be towering over them with a whip, causing them pain and torment. Remember, if God did not place in each person (while in this life) "the measure of faith" that enables us to make the choice to believe in Him, we would not have any ability to come to Him. Right? So, what do you suppose happens after an unredeemed person dies? That "measure of faith" is a portion of "the glory of His power," from which the deceased unbeliever has been separated. He cannot come to faith after death; he hasn't the capacity. Instead, the unbeliever will feel the consciousness of his own uncleanness, and in this state he could no more tolerate to dwell in God's holy presence than could a leopard change its spots. By his own choice He will remain where he is, because the torments of Satan will be less than the torment he'd feel of his own filthiness and unworthiness in God's glorious presence.
I don't quite understand that logic @anglican74 but I think you're missing the point by CS Lewis' quote. I recommend reading The Great Divorce where he expounds on this. Because hell is locked from the inside, those in hell have the ability to leave once they can face the ultimate reality of God and their own frailty and sinfulness in His presence.
Even if we take Lewis’ description here literally - despite its obviously being a metaphor - it does not follow that because one can do a thing that one must do that thing.
It does. Is there any reason to presume that one cannot be saved after physical death? I don't believe so.
1 Corinthians 15:20-29 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; 22for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. 23But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For ‘God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection’, it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all. Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? The destruction of death and it's meaning for us seems to be a significant concept. As I have said earlier, I am not a Universalist per se, however I certainly can see some of what they argue. I am certainly not about to start telling God who he can and can't save, nor when he can and cant save. Yet I still accept and embrace something of the urgency of the Gospel.