In an age of denial of “absolute moral truth,” how can Christians, in this day and age, maintain their claim that salvation is only found in Jesus Christ? Did John the Evangelist not say that the true light [Jesus Christ] gives light to every man coming into the world (John 1:9) and that God would draw all peoples to himself? (12:32). Does God’s saving grace not reach out to all people as Paul indicated? (Titus 2:11). Surely, since God wants everyone to be saved (1 Tim 2:4), surely he must allow everyone to be saved!
Evangelical Christianity preserves the fundamental position that salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone is the only way—Exclusivity (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Opposing the argument that salvation can only be attained by faith in Jesus Christ alone, a belief in universal salvation has gained prominence even among the evangelical community—Universalism. This belief, with its various interpretations, holds that all humanity has been included in the atoning work of Jesus Christ—Inclusivity. However, no consensus exists on how this universal redemption will come about. This is a theory about the outcome, but it leaves open how this outcome might be attained.
The history of universalism is complex, with its intricate details and the interplay of various theological concepts. This is partly because of the rejection of Hell and the relationship between Jesus’s love, justice, and final judgment. Universalists do not view their doctrine as a novel concept, asserting that it was a widely accepted belief among the Church Fathers, particularly Origen (AD 185–254 ). However, it’s crucial to note that the second Council of Constantinople officially denounced the doctrine of universalism in AD 544. Origen was branded a heretic, underscoring the weight of its early historical controversy.[1]
The apparent really “good news” is promulgated by the Christian Universalist Association (2007), which teaches that there is overwhelming evidence that “all” are reconciled to God as revealed in Christ Jesus. One view is that God will continue extending second chances to repent and believe beyond death because God is love, and his justice is remedial—Restorationism. Consequently, while there may be a Hell of some kind, it is not a place of endless suffering; the soul in Hell remains free to repent and be restored to God. The premise is that because God wants all to be saved, in the end, he will get what he wants, and everyone will eventually be saved, whether in this lifetime, purgatory, or rescued from Hell. As a result, the concept of “love wins” (Bell 2011, 119) is a beacon of hope, emphasizing the ultimate victory of love and salvation, inspiring us to believe in the triumph of God’s love.
Perhaps the most influential book on the subject is Gregory MacDonald’s “The Evangelical Universalist” (2012), which has already made significant inroads into evangelical thinking. According to MacDonald, Universalism does not entail denying central evangelical doctrines like the Trinity, creation, fall, inspiration of Scripture, the incarnation, salvation, or world evangelism. His only real point of departure is the view that Hell is not an eternal condition (Wheeler 2014). The theological underpinning is that God is love and not a combination of love and wrath; accordingly, wrath must be a temporary tactic of his divine love. This premise is a distorted humanistic view of God’s benevolence—the goodness of God’s love is defined by what it can do for men. God is good because he saves humanity. Supposedly, if God did not save humanity, he would not be good (Bettis 1970, 338).
Karl Barth underscores the doctrinal complexity by emphasizing that certain aspects of the atonement are so incomparably divine that they cannot be conformed to human reasoning and formulations. Accordingly, he avoided setting forth a logical theory of atonement (Barth cited in Falconer 2013, 57). His dogmatism has left the impression that his contradictory atonement theories lead to universalism. He rejects this claim simultaneously, claiming that we have no theological right to limit the loving-kindness of God that has appeared in Jesus Christ. Barth’s most famous statement on universalism is, “I don’t teach it [universalism], but I don’t not teach it.” Remaining optimistic, he takes no position for or against universalism.
An extension of universal inclusivity is the belief that salvation is not solely dependent on the person and work of Jesus. Thus, it cannot be confined to the boundaries of Christianity and declares all religions equally valid—Pluralism; however, some are merging their positions. A case in point is promulgated by Stravinskas, cited in Pfandl (n.d., 1), that “Men may be saved in any religion, if they are sincerely following the voice of conscience; when such people are saved, they are saved – whether they know it or not – by Jesus Christ and his Church.”
Universalists undermine the Bible’s plain teaching that salvation is by faith in Christ alone. This error, among others, isolates and inflates two verses in the Book of Romans with a universalist hermeneutic (2:14–16; 5:12–21). The misinterpretation from 5:12–21 is primarily due to the parallelism in verse 18 between Jesus and Adam and the reference to “all” people, which is taken to mean that “all” will be saved. Stravinskas’s argument that if people follow their conscience, they will be saved is based on 2:14–16. In short, pluralistic universalism would justify their view since all people have a sense of God’s moral requirements because they do by nature what the Law requires (v. 14). Consequently, they can act according to the Law from their God-given consciences (v. 15); thus, all can attain salvation on the day of judgment (v. 16).
The Word of God affirms that Jesus Christ is the way, truth, and life and that no one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6). John restates that he who has the Son [Jesus Christ] has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life (1 John 5:12), meaning that eternal life is through the only true God Jesus Christ, whom the Father sent (John 17:3). Paul records that to be without Christ is to be without hope (Eph 2:12). According to Peter, salvation was only possible through Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12); “Peter does not appear to be referring to Jesus merely as the ontological ground of salvation – that is, as the sole source of atonement. Rather, he is indicating what must be acknowledged about Jesus before one can be saved.” (Pfandl n.d., 2–3).
What about Stravinskas interpretation of Romans 2? Does it express another possibility? Is his interpretation congruent with the overarching message of the Book of Romans? Part two of this Blog aims to evaluate the claims for Universalism from Romans 2:14–16. It asserts that an interpretive analysis of the passage in biblical context and Paul’s discourse flow does not support such an interpretation.
Works Cited
Falconer, Robert. 2013. “A Theological and Biblical Examination and the Synthesis of Penal Substitution and Christus Victor Motifs: Implications for African Metaphysics.” PhD diss., South African Theological Seminary.
Bell, Rob. 2011. Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. San Francisco: HarperOne.
Bettis, Joseph. 1970. “A Critique of the Doctrine of Universal Salvation.” Religious Studies, 6(4):329–344.
Pfandl, Gerhard. n.d. “Romans 2 and the Salvation of the Heathen.” Online article. Accessed from https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org
Wheeler, Steve. 2014.“Evaluating an Evangelical Universalist Interpretation of Romans 5:12–21.” MTh diss., South African Theological Seminary.
[1] For a comprehensive, two-volume history and interpretation of Christian Universalism, consult “The Devil’s Redemption: A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism” by Michael McClymond (2018).
This is John’s assertion. So I suggest you say Does the Bibe not…The second part of the sentence is the Lord’s saying and so you may ask that as a different question. That is, break the question into two, one based on John’s words and the other in Jesus’ words. End with a question mark [IB1]
