Chapter 17 – Refinery: Challenges and Caveats

Every theological system has difficult texts to explain and ultimate restoration is no different. We have already considered several exclusionary passages, but there are more challenges to consider.

Blasphemy

Jesus gives a warning in the Gospels that seems to shut the door on any hope of future forgiveness:

And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matt 12:31–32)

On the surface, this statement seems to refute a universal conclusion—something will not be forgiven “in this age or in the age to come.” Intriguingly, though, this harsh warning implies that forgiveness is possible in the age to come. It also offers an almost universal pardon: “every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but . . .” Rather than attempting to explain these verses, allow me to make a simple observation: Jesus gave this warning, but he didn’t accuse anyone of committing this sin.[i]

More challenging verses could be added, but here’s the point: no one should claim to have an air-tight theological system, especially when it comes to end time events. As Paul says, “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Cor 13:12). We simply can’t see with perfect clarity into the distant future.

The Human Will

In addition to facing difficult verses, Christian universalism must address a stubborn topic—the human will. What if some people don’t want to go to heaven? Will God force them to accept him? C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) captures the obstinacy of the human will in his famous quote, “the doors of hell are locked on the inside.”[ii] Will God break down the doors and take people to heaven against their will?

Hopeful Universalism

The mystery of the human will divides hopeful universalists from convinced universalists. As a hopeful universalist, Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905–1988), writes:

The question, to which no final answer is given or can be given, is this: Will he who refuses it now refuse it to the last?

To this there are two possible answers: the first says simply “Yes.” It is the answer of the infernalists. The second says: I do not know, but I think it permissible to hope . . . that the light of divine love will ultimately be able to penetrate every human darkness and refusal.[iii]

Likewise, Bradley Jersak does not presume to know the final answer, but he sees a sign of hope at the end of the Bible. Although the wicked are thrown into the lake of fire in Revelation 20, in Revelation 22 they are outside the gates of the city—the home of the righteous. John writes, “Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood” (v. 15). If they were thrown into the lake of fire, what are they doing outside the gates of the city?

But there’s more. The city gates will never be shut (Rev 21:25) and “the Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’” (22:17). Jersak concludes that the Spirit and the bride must be welcoming those outside the gates.[iv]

Gregory MacDonald sees another sign of hope at the end of Revelation. The “kings of the earth” are bad guys in the Bible’s final book. They hide in caves, fearful of divine judgment (6:15), commit adultery with Babylon “the great prostitute” (17:2), and gather to wage war against the rider on the white horse, called the Word of God (19:19). But they are defeated and killed. Shockingly, however, after describing the Holy City coming down out of heaven, shining with God’s glory, with gates of pearl and streets of gold, John says, “the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it” (21:24).[v] Why are the earthly kings allowed to enter the New Jerusalem?

Before proceeding to the more confident version of Christian universalism, it’s important to underscore this point: “The hope that all will be saved is precisely that, a hope. It is not a doctrine, never mind a dogma.”[vi] And yet this hope is also not mere wishful thinking.

Hopeful universalists believe we have strong reasons to express such hope, including the nature of love, which “always hopes” (1 Cor 13:7). It’s worth mentioning that at times, this hope is expressed in terms that sound as close to certainty as possible. Balthasar ends his book with a lengthy quote from Edith Stein (1891–1942) who says,

All-merciful love can thus descend to everyone. We believe that it does so. And now, can we assume that there are souls that remain perpetually closed to such love? As a possibility in principle, this cannot be rejected. In reality, it can become infinitely improbable—precisely through what preparatory grace is capable of effecting in the soul.[vii]   

I like Stein’s distinction between “in principle” and “in reality,” but what does “infinitely improbable” mean? If she’s not certain about this reality, she is not even a hairsbreadth away from such certainty.

Confident Universalism

Those who go beyond hope emphasize God’s power and love more than the human will. For example, Thomas Talbott argues that God will triumph in the end.

But the New Testament picture nonetheless warrants, I believe, a stronger view, what some have called necessary universalism: the view that, given the nature of God’s love, wisdom, and power, it is logically impossible that his grace should fail to reconcile all sinners to himself.[viii]

Jürgen Moltmann asserts that the idea of a double outcome in judgment “is the expression of a tremendous self-confidence on the part of human beings,” while universal salvation is the “expression of boundless confidence in God.”[ix] What is stronger, our stubborn will or God’s unstoppable transcendent love?

Referencing Revelation 1:18, Heath Bradley writes, “While I agree with C. S. Lewis that the gates of hell are locked from the inside, I also agree with John that Christ has the power to open those gates with the keys of his omnipotent love.”[x] Note the emphasis on the character of God in these arguments. For these thinkers, God’s power and love tips the scales in favor of confident universalism.

How do things change when we consider annihilationism? Hart replies:

Nor does the arithmetic change very much—at least, not nearly as much as one might hope—if one gives up on the idea of a hell of eternal torment and poses in its place a final ‘hell’ consisting in the ultimate annihilation of evildoers at the end of days. Admittedly, the latter idea is considerably more palatable than the former; and, for what it is worth, it also appears to accord somewhat better with the large majority of scriptural metaphors, the dominical metaphors in particular, for final damnation. But such an eventuality would still be an irreducible price exacted, a sacrifice eternally preserved in the economy of God’s Kingdom.[xi]

So Hart, an outspoken Christian universalist, concedes the following points to annihilationism: (1) it is “considerably more palatable” than eternal torment (2) in comparison with eternal torment it corresponds better with many scriptural metaphors for final damnation. However, in the end, it doesn’t change things “very much.” Why not?

We are still left with cosmic dualism, which means that in order to get people to eternal bliss, God decided that other people would be lost, whether by eternal conscious torment or obliteration. Why, then, did God create knowing the final loss that would ensue? Because God thought the ultimate loss was worth the gain of those who would be glorified. This loss, then, is the price God was willing to pay to establish his eternal kingdom. Eternal bliss could only be attained alongside eternal prison chamber or an afterlife incinerator. Either way, heaven is, in a sense, built on hell.

But God was not forced to create anything. And if he refrained from creating no one would have perished. Why then did God go ahead with this plan? What can we say about a Creator who was willing to lose a part of his creation forever in the process of salvation?

Hart is not alone in these thoughts. Isaac of Nineveh explains:

It is not the way of the compassionate Maker to create rational beings in order to deliver them over mercilessly to unending affliction in punishment for things of which He knew even before they were fashioned, aware how they would turn out when he created them—and whom nonetheless He created.[xii]

For Isaac of Nineveh, God’s compassionate nature rules out the possibility of “unending affliction.” Again, everything hinges on the character of God, “the compassionate Maker.”

Moreover, what is a free will? Is our will free apart from Christ? Jesus said, “everyone who sins is a slave to sin” (Jn 8:34). About eighteen hundred years ago, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “no one prefers evil as evil; but induced by the pleasure that is in it, and imagining it good, considers it desirable.”[xiii] Hence we choose evil because it looks good to us. The fundamental problem, then, is with our perception. The serpent in the garden enticed and deceived Eve into thinking that eating the fruit would be good for her. So “she took some and ate it” and Adam ate as well (Gen 3:6). When our perception is distorted, our actions are not truly free. How do we get out of this mess? Our vision must be healed so that we can see things clearly and choose rightly.

Regarding the free will defense of hell, Hart contends,

It makes no more sense, then, to say that God allows creatures to damn themselves out of his love for them or out of his respect for their freedom than to say a father might reasonably allow his deranged child to thrust her face into a fire out of a tender regard for her moral autonomy.[xiv]

Hart believes that God will liberate us to see him clearly, and when he does, he will be irresistible to us. When our perception is healed we will no longer misjudge good and evil. Then we will move toward God inexorably because we will finally see clearly that he is our highest good, the one who fulfills our deepest longings.[xv] Perhaps we can hold out temporarily, but could we do so forever? When the morning sunlight blasts into your car you can adjust the visor, but can you block out all of it? We are talking about omnipotent love, unstoppable light, the source of all life, and the beauty of our magnificent Creator.

Apathy

The biggest challenge to Christian universalism may not come from individual verses or the human will but from the attitude it may engender. I am thinking of the apathetic fatalism that says, “We know God will save everyone in the end, so we don’t have to be too concerned about others.” Of course, no one says that explicitly, but this perspective can seep into our thinking when we only look at a final universal conclusion. We saw in the previous chapter that apathy is one thing Paul could never be accused of. He was passionate about reaching others, and he demonstrated that passion in his actions, emotions, and prayers.

Christ-Centered Evangelism

At this point, I should reiterate two things. First, Christian universalism must boldly proclaim the essential role of Christ in salvation: “Salvation is found in no one else” (Acts 4:12). This is precisely what makes Christian universalism Christian.

If our view of hell shifts from the traditional view, though, what is our motivation for sharing the good news of Jesus with others? If the conscious suffering is not everlasting, why bother to encourage people to receive salvation in Christ?

As Christ’s followers we should be motivated by his commands. After he rose from the dead, Jesus commanded his followers to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28:19). Additionally, it is natural to share good news with others. When something good happens to you, how often do you keep it to yourself? Good news is exciting. We almost automatically express it. Lastly, we don’t want people to suffer or be destroyed after death. Both annihilationism and ultimate reconciliation affirm afterlife suffering and loss for sinners. Would you want someone you love to go to prison even if it was only for a ten-year sentence? Of course not. Moreover, we are talking about suffering in the age to come and we know very little about what that means.

Postmortem Correction

Second, postmortem correction must be included. Clement and Gregory were right: the system of universal salvation only works if afterlife discipline and repentance are built in. We can’t have one group of people who have repented and expressed faith in Christ during their earthly lives hanging out with another group of people who see no need for repentance and who continue to reject Christ. That won’t be heaven. If universalism is true, afterlife correction is required. And Christian universalists, such as George MacDonald, do not shy away from describing the agony of this process.

Endless must be our terror, until we come heart to heart with the fire-core of the universe, the first and the last of the Living One.[xvi]

Such is the mercy of God that He will hold His children in the consuming fire of His distance until they pay the uttermost farthing, until they drop the purse of selfishness with all the dross that is in it, and rush home to the Father and the Son and the many brethren—rush inside the center of the life-giving fire whose outer circles burn.[xvii]

MacDonald’s use of the word “until” parallels Jesus’ statements in Matthew. “Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” (5:26). “In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed” (18:34). Hence judgment is not indefinite or endless; it has a limit.

While saints will be enjoying the light of God’s love, that same light will be painful, for a time, to self-absorbed people. As Paul says, “for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil” (Rom 2:8–9). In his parables Jesus mentions this distress and loss. Instead of celebrating, some will experience “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” And those who do not feed the hungry or clothe the naked will be thrown into the “eternal fire” or the “fire of the Age” (Matt 25:41), where they will experience “eternal punishment” or the “chastening of the Age” (25:46). We don’t know precisely what this means, but it doesn’t sound pleasant. We do know, however, that this punishment or chastening flows from the love of God. But here’s the key point: Christian universalists should be careful not to skip over the purging fire of love and rush to the end goal of ultimate salvation in their thinking.

Summary

Imagine a criminal who has inflicted an incredible amount of pain on others. Perhaps he has committed burglary, kidnapping, torture, murder, etc. Years later he’s arrested and sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison. While incarcerated, he experiences no remorse for his actions. He blames others and justifies himself—he believes he had to do what he did. One day, he dies in that mental state then meets God, the Jesus-like God. Instantly, he realizes that God is pure love. His Maker is the complete opposite of him. Suddenly, his entire life is revealed as a self-centered lie.

Do you understand the pain he will feel? It will be searing. He will feel like he is on fire. It’s not that God is torturing him. He is being confronted with perfect love, which is revealing his deepest flaws.

Now he will have the choice to resist or repent. What will he do? Hopeful Christian universalists say we shouldn’t presume to know the answer to that question, but we have strong reasons to hope that he will repent and be saved. Christian universalists go the next step by confidently affirming that God’s love in Christ will win over his heart.

—————-

[i] Talbott discusses this passage in Inescapable Love, chap. 6.

[ii] C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: HarperCollins, 1940), chap. 8.

[iii] Balthasar, 101.

[iv] Jersak, 170.

[v] See MacDonald, chap. 5.

[vi] Neuhaus, “Will All Be Saved?”

[vii] Balthasar, 124.

[viii] Talbott, 191.

[ix] Moltmann, Kindle, 3530.

[x] Bradley, 96.

[xi] Ibid., 86.

[xii] Ibid., 63.

[xiii] Stromata I.17. The Complete Works of Clement of Alexandria by Philip Schaff, (Omaha: Patristic Publishing, 2020).

[xiv] Ibid., 80.

[xv] Hart, That All Shall Be Saved, 41.

[xvi] C. S. Lewis ed., George MacDonald: 365 Readings (New York: Macmillan, 1947), 64.

[xvii] Lewis, MacDonald, 91.