The Problem of Hell

Andrew Slay

Stand Alone • Sermon • Submitted 4 months ago • Presented 4 months ago

0 ratings

· 3 views

Notes

Transcript

Introduction

No one likes to hear or talk about the doctrine of hell. After all, who would ever delight in discussing a place where human beings will face eternal judgment, never-ending flames, where the worm does not wither and the smoke is never put out?

Yet, as Christians, we must talk about hell for two main reasons. . .

First, the Bible teaches that hell is a reality.

Second, our Savior, Jesus Christ, spoke about the reality of hell more than heaven and just about any other topic.

Therefore, as much as we don’t like talking or thinking about the doctrine of hell, if we are going to be faithful Christians who can give a defense for our faith to believers who doubt and skeptics who question. . . we must be able to give an answer to the problem of hell.

Why is the doctrine of hell a problem?

The doctrine of hell is posed as a problem for Christians because it seems to put characteristics of God against one another.

The problem of hell has been famously posed by Marylin McCord Adams, a Christian who holds to universalism.

She gives her argument as follows:

(i) God exists and is essentially omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.

(ii) Some created persons will be consigned to hell forever.

The logical incompossibility of (i) with (ii) are as follows:

(1) If God existed and were omnipotent, He would be able to avoid (ii).

(2) If God existed and were omniscient, He would know how to avoid (ii).

(3) If God existed and were perfectly good, He would want to avoid (ii).

(4) Therefore, if (i), not (ii).

Essentially the traditional doctrine of hell seems to conflict with God’s goodness and justice.

The reason for this conflict is due to how God could be just if he condemns someone to an eternal punishment if they have only committed a finite number of sins.

The punishment does not seem to fit the crime.

Also, the traditional doctrine of hell seems to conflict with God’s love. . . for how could a loving God allow someone to suffer in hell for all eternity. . . especially a person that he created in his own image?

So, there is a clear issue or problem that must be answered when it comes to the doctrine of hell. . . but before we try to answer this problem, we must define a few terms.

The questions posed against how the traditional view of hell and the traditional view of God can co-exist require us to actually know how the Bible describes both the person of God and the place of hell.

It is to these two definitions to where we will turn next. . .

Who is God and Why Does He Have the Right to Judge?

By definition, God reveals himself in the Scriptures as the creator and sustainer of everyone and everything.

He is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his power and perfections, goodness and glory, wisdom, justice, and truth.

There is nothing that happens except through him and by his will.

God is a necessary being, meaning that he must exist, and he is not contingent upon anyone and anything.

He has no counselors, nor does he submit to any other standard beyond himself (Job 36:22-23; Rom. 11:33-35).

As previously stated, one of God’s defining attributes is his goodness.

Because God is good, he will always do what is just and right.

For example:

In Gen. 18:25 he is called the “judge of all the earth who will do what is right.”

In Deut. 32:4 he is called the rock, all of who’s ways are just, a God of faithfulness without injustice, righteous and upright is he.

In Ps. 103:6 he works righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed

And in Dan. 4:37, Nebuchadnezzar says that all of God’s works are right and all his ways are just.

If God is good and loves goodness, he must logically despise and detest what is evil. Therefore, if he is a good God, he must punish evil. . . which implies that he must righteously judge sin.

Based on these truths, that God is the creator and sustainer of all things, God has the right to judge us and hold us accountable for our actions.

His omnipresence allows him to be at all places at all times and to exact perfect cosmic justice.

His omniscience allows him to see and know all things that happen in this world and in the hearts of every human being to exact perfect justice.

His omnipotence gives him sovereign power and control over all things to righteously exact justice and hold his creation accountable.

His eternality qualifies him to judge all created things since there was a never a time when he did not exist in history.

Lastly, because God does not change, his righteous character will always remain the same. Therefore, he is the perfect judge who will always judge what is right. . . since the standard that he judges us is based on his own unchanging nature and character.

So, to summarize, God is qualified to judge us because. . .

He is our good and loving creator.

He is righteous, and just in all he does.

He is eternal, self-existent, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and immutable in his nature.

What Does the Bible Teach About Hell?

Now, we will look at how Jesus and the Apostles defined the place of hell in the Bible.

Ben Skaug in his book How Could a Loving God Send Anyone to Hell? points out that that Jesus was the most loving and righteous person ever to walk the earth.

Therefore, when we read Jesus’ statements, we must remember that these statements are coming from someone who was and is the epitome of love and righteousness.

Jesus taught that. . .

Hell is the place of divine punishment where God dispenses universal judgment (Matt. 5:29; 8:11-12; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:22-30).

The punishment will be dispensed by God and is “God’s wrath.” (Matt. 10:28)

All unrepentant sinners will be rightly sentenced to hell by Jesus, who is the judge over hell (Luke 10:13-16; John 5:21-23).

The people in hell will be fully conscious and will feel the agony of God’s wrath (Luke 16:23-24; Mark 9:43)

The punishment of hell is eternal (Matt. 18:7-11; 25:41, 46)

Those in hell are banished and separated from God’s kingdom blessings and will know only God’s eternal wrath (Matt. 7:23; 25:30, 41; 22:13).

Those in hell will be in the process of destruction and in total ruin, but never annihilated (Mark 9:38-48).

Jesus’ apostles continued his teaching on hell and taught. . .

Hell is punishment for breaking God’s law (Rom. 1:18-2:16; 3:23; 6:23).

Hell is suffering and extremely painful (Heb. 10:27; 12:29; 10:31).

Hell is destruction (Rom. 9:22; 1 Tim. 6:9; Phil. 3:19)

Hell is deserved (2 Pet. 2:9; 3:10; 2:13).

Hell is the precise punishment required for God to maintain his holiness and righteousness (Revelation 16:5-7; 19:1-2)

God’s wrath in hell is just recompense and retribution of crimes committed against God (James 4:11-12; 2:13; 5:1)

Jesus is the One who dispenses God’s wrath in hell (2 Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 6:16-17).

Hell is the second death (Rev. 2:11).

Hell is eternal conscious punishment (2 Thess. 1:9-10; Rev. 14:11; 20:10, 13, 15; 21:8).

Although others may interpret these passages differently, the traditional view of hell can be summarized by Jonathan Kvanig as:

(H1) The Anti Universalism Thesis: some persons are consigned to hell;

(H2) The Existence Thesis: hell is a place where people exist, if they are consigned there;

(H3) The No Escape Thesis: there is no possibility of leaving hell, and nothing one can do, change, or become in order to get out of hell, once one is consigned there; and

(H4) The Retribution Thesis: The justification for and purpose of hell is retributive in nature, hell being constituted so as to mete out punishment to those whose earthly lives and behavior warrant it.

God is Morally Justified to Condemn Unrepentant Sinners to Hell

Now that we have defined the problem of hell and defined what hell is and why God has the right to judge. . . we can seek to address the problem of hell specifically.

To recap, the problem of hell questions how God can be just in sending human beings to an eternal punishment for only committing a finite number of sins. It also questions how God can be loving and send his creatures to an everlasting punishment.

In what follows, I will. . .

First argue that God is justified in condemning unrepentant sinners to hell. . . specifically because we have committed infinitely wrong acts and possess an infinitely bad character against an infinitely holy God.

Second, I will show that God’s goodness is actually magnified in condemning unrepentant sinners to hell.

Third, if time allows, I will briefly address the other options of annihilationism and universalism that have been proposed instead of the traditional view of hell and show how they are flawed.

Infinitely Wrong Acts

Most question God’s judgment and goodness in sending people to an eternal hell because the punishment does not seem to fit the crime.

How could God send people to an eternal punishment if they have only committed a finite number of sins?

To answer this question, we need to distinguish the difference between an infinite quality and an infinite quantity.

Quality refers to the character or seriousness of the offense. It is often related to the gravity of the sin or who the sin is against.

In contrast, quantity refers to the number or amount of times a sin is committed.

I believe that according to the Biblical data, human beings have sinned infinitely. . . both in quantity and in quality.

First, God’s eternal punishment is just because we will commit and infinite number of sins (continual sin response).

Let us suppose that if every day we sin, it warrants a day of punishment in hell. During our earthly life, we live to be 70 years old, and every day of our life, we do not love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (and therefore sin).

By rejecting God and worshipping ourselves, we are justly condemned to hell for eternity. Now, this seems unfair because we only sinned for 70 years.

Therefore, the just punishment should only be 70 years in hell.

However, because God is omniscient and knows what will occur in the future of our existence in hell, he knows that while in hell, we will continue in our rebellion against him.

He also knows this rebellion will continue every day throughout eternity. Hence, the only just punishment for someone who sins every day of their life on earth and in eternity is an eternal one.

Scripture testifies to the wicked continuing in their sin for eternity in hell when Jesus says that in hell there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12).

Perhaps this “gnashing of teeth” is not from the wicked’s suffering and pain, but rather it is out of hatred, rebellion, and anger against God and his righteous saints which will continue throughout eternity (Ps. 35:15-16; 37:12; 112:10; Acts 7:54; Rev. 16:9, 11, 21).

Benjamin Skaug concludes, “In this way, the wicked will endure eternal punishment by God because of their lifetime of sins committed against him as well as those they continue to commit against him in hell. Seen in this manner, one’s sins are never finite but continue throughout eternity in hell. Thus [,] God’s punishment is right and just and never excessive.”

Second, God’s eternal punishment is just because we will commit sins that are infinitely serious in quality.

As was stated earlier, God, not man, is the arbiter of justice and determines how we should view character and acts, and God does not judge based only on the quantity of sins or attitudes committed but also on their quality or intensity. The quality or seriousness of sin is directly related to the person who is sinned against.

We know that the punishment for a crime is not based on how many infractions someone commits or how long it takes to commit them, but rather the punishment hinges upon the seriousness of the crime and who it is committed against.

For example, it only takes a few seconds to murder someone with a gun, and theft sometimes requires hours. But the former is the greater crime and receives the greater punishment even though it took less time than the latter.

Even atheist Stephen Kershnar differentiates between scratching a model’s car and cutting her face in weighing what crime is more serious, showing that the seriousness of the crime is not based on quantity but on the quality, rights, and value of the person offended.

In his magnum opus, Dogmatic Theology, William G.T. Shedd illuminates this truth:

Endless punishment is rational because sin is an infinite evil: infinite, not because committed by an infinite being, but against one. We reason invariably upon this principle. To torture a beast is a crime; to torture a man is a greater crime. To steal from one’s own mother is more heinous than to steal from a fellow citizen. The person who transgresses is the same in each instance; but the different worth and dignity of the objects upon whom his action terminates makes the difference in the gravity of the two offenses. David’s adultery was a finite evil in reference to Uriah, but an infinite evil in reference to God. “Against you only have I sinned” was the feeling of the sinner in this case. Had the patriarch Joseph yielded, he would have sinned against Potiphar. But the greatness of the sin as related to the fellow creature is lost in its enormity as related to the Creator, and his only question is “how can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?

Therefore, when a person sins against God in character or actions, they commit high treason against the King of the universe, who is infinitely holy, infinitely righteous, and infinitely good.

Skip Edwards and go to “Infinitely Bad Character.”

In his sermon, “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners,” Jonathan Edwards describes the infinite character of God:

But God is a being infinitely lovely, because he hath infinite excellency and beauty. To have infinite excellency and beauty, is the same thing as to have infinite loveliness. He is a being of infinite greatness, majesty, and glory; and therefore he is infinitely honourable. He is infinitely exalted above the greatest potentates of the earth, and highest angels in heaven; and therefore he is infinitely more honourable than they. His authority over us is infinite; and the ground of his right to our obedience is infinitely strong; for he is infinitely worthy to be obeyed himself, and we have an absolute, universal, and infinite dependence upon him.

Therefore, any sinful attitude or act against the infinite God warrants infinite punishment.

Infinitely Bad Character

So God is just to condemn us to eternal punishment because we have committed an infinite amount of sins, both in quantity and quality.

But we also deserve an eternal punishment due to our infinitely bad character.

Since the fall of humanity into sin, the Bible says that every person has been born into sin and has a corrupted nature and character (Gen 6:4; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:10-18; Eph 2:1-3).

This means that from the beginning of a person’s life, they have a sinful character that hates God and is rebellious towards his commands (Rom. 1:30; Titus 3:3).

Unless the grace of God intervenes and the person repents and trusts in Christ, their evil and obstinate heart will continue to grow in wickedness and be continually hardened towards God.

Philosopher and Pastor Jeremy Evans states, “When we sin, something in our character is shaped; what Scripture is indicating is that sin deforms our character. . . it is not the case that an individual transgression yields a heart that is utterly bent against God; rather, it is persistence in transgressions that ultimately yields a heart hardened against God.”

Once this person reaches this hardening stage, God will no longer pursue them, and he will give them over to express the full amount of their evil desires (Rom. 1:24-28).

This means that a person’s character is now fixed and will not change and will continue both for the rest of his earthly life and on through eternity in the afterlife.

Therefore, if a person has always had a wicked heart bent against God from birth all the way until death, has increased in wickedness and evil by the continual rejection of God, and will continue through eternity as long as they have life, then their character can be deemed infinitely bad, and God is just to warrant an infinite punishment.

God’s Goodness is Magnified in Condemning Unrepentant Sinners to Hell.

In the previous section, I have proven that God is morally justified in condemning unrepentant sinners to never-ending punishment in hell.

In this next section, I want to provide three ways that demonstrate how God’s goodness is actually magnified (not maligned) in punishing unrepentant sinners in hell.

God’s Love for Goodness

First, the TVH shows God’s love for goodness in his hatred for evil.

The doctrine of eternal damnation seems to pit God’s love against God’s justice and holiness. First John 4:8 tells us that “God is love,” and if God is loving, how could he punish for all eternity human beings he has made in his image?

Clark Pinnock argues that God’s love and TVH are incompatible because it makes God a “bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die.”

But unlike contemporary evangelicals, Christopher Morgan argues that “for the biblical authors, hell answered (not raised) the ultimate questions related to the justice [and goodness] of God.”

Morgan goes on to say that TVH was used as strong encouragement for Christians who were persecuted for their faith (Paul in 2 Thess. 1:5-11; Peter in 2 Peter 2; and John in Rev. 6:10).

It was the goodness of God’s justice that would come on their persecutors on the day of judgment which prevented these saints from exacting vengeance and allowed them to persevere in their faith.

Despite those who claim God’s love and wrath are pitted against one another, Thomas McCall argues that it is someone’s wrath towards evil that magnifies how deep their love is for the person.

God’s love was most clearly demonstrated through Jesus taking on the just wrath of God for the sins of the world (Rom. 5:8).

Therefore, God’s love is seen alongside, not against, his justice and hatred for sin. God’s holy love for goodness is demonstrated in TVH because it shows his hatred for what is evil and wicked.

Contrary to Pinnock, the opposite of God’s love is not his wrath but his indifference.

If God did not righteously punish unrepentant sinners in hell, it would demonstrate his lack of love for righteousness, that he is not bothered by evil, and that he can lower his standards of holiness.

But because God righteously punishes unrepentant sinners in hell, it proves his wrath is not in tension with his love, but that God’s righteous wrath is the expression of his holy love, a love for goodness that makes up his essence.

[1]Clark Pinnock, “The Destruction of the Impenitent,” CTR 4 (Spring 1990), 253, quoted in Morgan, “Annihilationlism,” 207. [2]Morgan, “Annihilationlism,” 208. [3] Ibid, 208. [4]Is. 61:2 says that a “day of vengeance” is also a part of God’s good proclamation and another example of God’s righteous retribution against sin being good and praiseworthy. [5]Also, understanding hell will help us understand more fully the wrath of God towards sin, which will then extol the great love he demonstrated by sending Jesus to the cross to take this hellish wrath for all those who trust in him. Thomas McCall, Against God and Nature: The Doctrine of Sin (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 326. [6] Hab. 1:13; Ps. 5:4; 1 Jn. 1:5; Prov. 6:16-19; Ex. 34:7. [7]McCall clarifies that the wrath of God is not an attribute of God but a contingent action in response to evil that flows from his goodness and justice. McCall, Against God and Nature, 338.

God’s Love for Human Beings

TVH not only extols God’s love for goodness but also amplifies his love for human beings. This is seen through God honoring the dignity of human beings who are made in his image and whom he has given the freedom to make real choices. Jeremy Evans summarizes how TVH emphasizes God’s love for human beings:

God’s love is expressed through his advocacy of making amends and honoring the dignity with which he created human beings—a dignity that is derived from being made in his image. One manner of recognizing the inherent dignity of persons is to permit their choices to go through and to expect an account of those choices. As for love, we are to love God and others, as well as ourselves (Matt 22:39). Failing to love God and others is a failure to love oneself, which is an ironic turn for the problem of hell. It is not that hell is God’s failure to love us; it is the failure of the impenitent to love others, especially God, but also themselves.[1]

God honors humans’ free will to choose to reject and rebel against him, and he expresses his love by upholding their dignity by keeping his word that their real choices have real consequences, albeit dire.[2]

[1]Jeremy Evans, The Problem of Evil (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2013), 109. [2] As C.S. Lewis says, “There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, ‘thy will be done.’”

Greater Understanding and Appreciation of the Cross

The last way TVH demonstrates the goodness of God is its relation to the sacrifice Christ gave on the cross. If God is not just in punishing unrepentant sinners for an infinite time in hell, that would mean that our sin is not infinitely evil, and we are not infinitely guilty.

But if we are not infinitely guilty, then why was it necessary for God the Son, who is infinitely worthy and eternal, to die for our sins on the cross? However, if our guilt is infinite, then it would make perfect sense that only someone of infinite worth and infinite existence could pay an infinite value and take our place on the cross.

Therefore, if God’s justice for the requital of humanity’s sin demanded an infinitely worthy sacrifice through Christ, then it warrants that the just punishment for sin be infinite.[1]

William Shedd agrees that the substitutionary death of Christ is one of the strongest arguments for the eternity of hell:

The incarnation and vicarious satisfaction for sin by one of the persons of the Godhead demonstrates the infinity of the evil. It is incredible that the eternal Trinity should have submitted to such a stupendous self-sacrifice to remove a merely finite and temporal evil. The doctrine of Christ’s vicarious atonement, logically, stands or falls with that of endless punishment. Historically, it has stood or fallen with it.[2]

TVH shows why it was necessary for the infinite worth of the Son to be given for the infinite evil of humanity’s sin because the just punishment for sin is infinite.

By knowing that sin is deserving of eternal punishment, we can truly grasp the immensity of God’s love that was displayed for us through the infinite sacrifice of Christ’s death in our place.

[1] Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1863), 466. [2]Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 925.

Other Options?

Some Christians in church history have offered other options or interpretations to the Bible’s teaching on the eternal conscious torment view of hell.

The two main views are annihilationism and universalism.

These views have been the minority throughout church history.

I don’t have time to address these issues right now. . . but am happy to discuss them in the Q and A portion if one desires. . . but needless to say I believe that both views fall short of the testimony of Scripture and should be discarded.

Conclusion

Most people believe that if God is all-good, he will not send people to hell because an infinite punishment would warrant that humans possess an infinitely bad character or have committed infinitely bad acts.

Since humans do not possess these traits, eternal hell is unwarranted and unnecessary. I have argued that this view is wrong.

Human beings have committed infinitely serious acts because the quality of their acts is infinite by sinning against a supreme being with infinite worth.

The quality of their character is also infinitely evil because they have been in rebellion against the infinite goodness of God since their inception.

Therefore, God is morally justified in condemning unrepentant sinners to hell.

I have also demonstrated that exacting this punishment emphasizes God’s goodness because the TVH illustrates God’s love for goodness and the dignity of human beings.

TVH also helps one see the reason why Jesus had to die on the cross as a propitiation for the sins of the world and that it was only through the death of the infinite Son of God that he could pay for the infinite evil of humanity’s sin.

The doctrine of hell is still a hard pill to swallow and is not something that we should take lightly. When looking at the doctrine from our perspective, it is easy to think that an eternal hell is unreasonable, and if we have no right to exact eternal punishment on someone, God has no right to either.

However, we must understand this doctrine from God’s perspective through how he has revealed himself in the Scriptures.

He is the infinitely holy uncreated being, and we are finite, sinful created beings. He is the potter, and we are the clay.

Therefore, we have no right to question the just punishment for sin.

Instead, we must trust in how he has revealed himself in his Word, that he is the righteous judge of all the universe, and the judge of all the earth will always do what is right, which includes condemning unrepentant sinners to hell.

This doctrine should burden our hearts to share the gospel with everyone we can so that they can escape the wrath of God through repentance and faith in Jesus before it is too late.

Questions??

Notes on Annihilationism

Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Answering Arguments from Scripture)

Answering Arguments from Scripture.

When examined carefully in context, none of the above passages proves annihilationism. At some points language may permit such a construction, but nowhere does the text demand annihilationism. In context and comparison with other Scriptures, the concept must be rejected in every case.

Separation, Not Extinction. The first death is simply the separation of the soul from the body (James 2:26), not the annihilation of the soul. Scripture presents death as conscious separation. Adam and Eve died spiritually the moment they sinned, yet they still existed and could hear God’s voice (Gen. 3:10). Before one is saved, he is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1), and yet he still carries God’s image (Gen. 1:27; cf. Gen. 9:6; James 3:9). Though unable to come to Christ without the intervention of God, the “spiritually dead” are sufficiently aware that Scripture holds them accountable to believe (Acts 16:31), and repent (Acts 17:30). Continued awareness, but with separation from God and the inability to save oneself—these constitute Scripture’s vision of the second death.

Destruction, Not Nonexistence. “Everlasting” destruction would not be annihilation, which only takes an instant and is over. If someone undergoes everlasting destruction, then they have to have everlasting existence. The cars in a junkyard have been destroyed, but they are not annihilated. They are simply beyond repair or unredeemable. So are the people in hell.

Since the word perdition means to die, perish, or to come to ruin, the same objections apply. In 2 Peter 3:7 perdition is used in the context of judgment, clearly implying consciousness. In our junkyard analogy, ruined cars have perished, but they are still junkyard cars. In this connection, Jesus spoke of hell as a dump where the fire would not cease and where a person’s resurrected body would not be consumed (Mark 9:48).

In addition to comments on death and perdition above, it should be noted that the Hebrew word used to describe the wicked perishing in the Old Testament (abad) is also used to describe the righteous perishing (see Isa. 57:1; Micah 7:2). But even the annihilationists admit that the righteous are not snuffed out of existence. That being the case, they should not conclude that the wicked will cease to exist based on this term.

The same word (abad) is used to describe things that are merely lost but then later found (Deut. 22:3), which proves that lost does not mean nonexistent.

“It Would Have Been Better.…” When he says that it would have been better if Judas had not been born, Jesus is not comparing Judas’s perdition to his nonexistence before conception but to his existence before birth. This hyperbolic figure of speech would almost certainly indicate the severity of his punishment, not a statement about the superiority of nonbeing over being. In a parallel condemnation on the Pharisees, Jesus said Sodom and Gomorrah would have repented had they seen his miracles (Matt. 11:23–24). This does not mean that they actually would have repented or God would surely have shown them these miracles—2 Peter 3:9. It is simply a powerful figure of speech indicating that their sin was so great that “it would be more tolerable” in the day of judgment for Sodom than for them (vs. 24).

Further, nothing cannot be better than something, since they have nothing in common to compare them. So nonbeing cannot be actually better than being. To assume otherwise is a category mistake.

Notes on Universalism

Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Basis for Universalism)

Biblical Support for Universalism.

A number of biblical texts have been used to support the claim of universalists. It should be noted at the start of this survey that the Bible does not contradict itself (see BIBLE, ALLEGED ERRORS IN). Texts that can be interpreted in more than one way must be understood in the light of those that cannot:

Psalm 110:1. David said and Christ repeated (Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44): “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’ ”

The enemies, literally of the Christ, are here referred to as subjugated, not saved. They are called the Lord’s “footstool”—hardly an appropriate description of saints who are joint heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17; Eph. 1:3). In Psalm 110, David is speaking of the visitation of God’s wrath on his enemies, not of blessings on his people.

Acts 3:21. Peter speaks of Jesus who “must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.” This reference to the “restoration of all things” is taken by universalists to mean the restoration of all to God.

However, the context does not support such a conclusion. Acts 3:20–21 does not even remotely hint that there will be a total salvation. Other passages totally refute such an idea. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church (Matt. 16:18). He also promised his followers, “Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matt. 28:20).

Jesus could not be with his followers to the end of the age if the entire church had gone into complete apostasy soon after its founding. In Ephesians 3:21, the apostle Paul says, “To him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever.” How could God be glorified in the church throughout all ages if there was no church for many centuries? Ephesians 4:11–16 speaks of the church growing to spiritual maturity, not degeneracy.

What then does “the restoration of all things” mean?

Peter is speaking to the Jews and refers to the “restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21). Here is the “covenant which God made with our [Jewish] fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed’ ” (vs. 25). This Abrahamic covenant was unconditional and included the promises of possessing the land of Palestine “forever” (Gen. 13:15). Peter refers to the future fulfillment of this Abrahamic covenant, the restoration of all things to Israel. Paul affirms the same in Romans 11 (see vss. 23–26).

Romans 5:18–19. Paul wrote: “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18–19).

From these verses universalists infer that Christ’s death for all guarantees salvation for all. This conclusion, however, is contrary to the context and certainly to the message of Romans as a whole. This is explicitly in the context of being justified by faith (5:1), not automatically. In the preceding verse he declares that salvation comes to those “who receive … the gift of righteousness” (5:17).

The rest of Romans makes it unmistakably clear that not everyone will be saved. Romans 1–2 speaks of the heathen, who are “without excuse” (Rom. 1:19). Upon them the wrath of God falls (1:18). It declares that “as many as have sinned without the law will also perish without law” (Rom. 2:12). At the heart of his argument, Paul concludes that, apart from justification by faith, the world is “guilty before God” (Rom. 3:19). Speaking of the destiny of both saved and lost, Paul affirms that “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Likewise, Paul recognized that, in spite of his prayers, not all of his kinsmen would be saved (Romans 11) but would be “accursed” (Rom. 9:3). The whole point of Romans is to show that only those who believe will be justified (Rom. 1:17; cf. 3:21–26). Romans 9 leaves no doubt that only the elect not everyone will be saved. The rest are “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (Rom. 9:22).

Outside of Romans are numerous passages that speak of the eternal destiny of lost people, including the vivid passage at the end of Revelation 10:11-15.

2 Corinthians 5:19. Universalists also use 2 Corinthians 5:19, in which Paul told the Corinthians “that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.” It is argued that “the world” was reconciled to God by Christ’s work. Thus, all are saved on the basis of Jesus’ work on the Cross.

The context clarifies the meaning of “the world.” First, reconciliation is regarded as a process according to God’s purpose, not an accomplished universal fact. God desires to save all (2 Peter 3:9), but all will not be saved (Matt. 7:13–14; Rev. 20:11–15). Second, the context indicates that actual reconciliation is only for those “in Christ,” not for all (vs. 17). If all were already saved, then Paul’s exhortation to be “ambassadors for Christ” and to “plead” with the world to “be reconciled to God” is senseless. They already are reconciled. All are made savable by Christ’s reconciliation, but not all are thereby saved.

Ephesians 1:10. Also misconstrued by universalists is Paul’s statement that in “the fullness of the times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are under the earth—in Him” (Eph. 1:10 NKJV). A careful examination of this text reveals that Paul is speaking only of believers. First, the context is those “he chose in Him before the foundation of the world” (1:4). Second, the phrase “in Christ” is never used in Scripture of anyone but believers. That unbelievers are excluded is further clarified by the omission of those “under the earth,” which Paul elsewhere uses to speak of the lost (Phil 2:10).

Philippians 2:10–11. Paul predicts that one day “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and the every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10–11). Here, the universalists insist, unbelievers are clearly in view in the phrase “under the earth.”

No one denies that unbelievers will eventually confess Jesus is Lord, but that does not mean they will be saved. Even demons believe that Jesus is Lord, but they refuse to submit to him (cf. James 2:19). Believing that Jesus is Lord will not save anyone. Only belief in Christ (James 2:21–26) saves. “Those under the earth” (= the lost) in this text, make a confession from their mouth, but this acknowledgment will not be from the heart. For salvation, Paul insisted, one must both confess and “believe in your heart” (Rom. 10:9).

1 Corinthians 15:25–28. Of the eschaton or culmination of history, Paul affirmed in 1 Corinthians 15:25–28 that “then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. He must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.… And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

On this text Origen wrote, “But if even that unreserved declaration of the apostle do not sufficiently inform us what is meant by ‘enemies being placed under his feet,’ listen to what he says in the following words, ‘For all things must be put under Him.’ What, then, is this ‘putting under’ by which all things must be made subject to Christ?” He added, “I am of opinion that it is this very subjection by which we also wish to be subject to Him, by which the apostles also were subject, and all the saints who have been followers of Christ” (Origen, 1.6.1)

This interpretation ignores both the content and context of this passage. Paul is not speaking of the salvation of the lost but, rather their condemnation. This is evident in such phrases as destroy, put under his feet, and put an end to all rule. This is the language of subjugation (see vss. 24, 27, 28). Those in view are spoken of as God’s “enemies,” not his friends or children. They are subjugated enemies, not saved friends. That God will be “all in all” (vs. 28) does not mean that all will be in God. He will reign supreme in all the universe after ending the rebellion against him. The phrase all things must be understood in its context. All things are made subject to Christ (vs. 28). But these “all things” are enemies (vs. 25). The phrase is used in parallel with enemies in successive verses (vss. 26–27).

Heaven is not a place where God overpowers the will of his enemies and forces them into the fold. So, there is not a hint in such passages of salvation for all unbelievers.

Conclusion.

Not only is there a lack of support for universalism, but there are decisive arguments against it.

Universalism is contrary to the implications of being created in the image of God. God made humankind in his image (Gen. 1:27) which included freedom. For everyone to be saved, those who refuse to love God would be forced to love him against their will. Forced “freedom” is not freedom. A corollary to this is that universalism is contrary to God’s love. Forced love is not love, but a kind of rape. No truly loving being forces himself on another.

Universalism is contrary to God’s perfection and justice. God is absolutely holy. And as such he must separate himself from and punish sin. Hence, as long as there is someone living in sin and rebellion against God, God must punish them. The Bible identifies this place of separation and punishment as hell (see Matthew 5; 10; 25).

Universalism is based on Scriptures wrenched out of context, and it ignores other clear passages.

Universalism is based on a kind of Freudian illusion. Sigmund Freud called any belief based on a mere wish to be an illusion. We do not wish anyone to suffer in hell forever, and this strong wish seems to be a primary impulse in the universalist thinking. But it is an illusion to believe that all wishes will be fulfilled.

Related Media

Related Sermons