We began this discussion by pointing out a Bible difficulty that has divided the Church for 400 years, the free will vs. predestination debate (or the Calvinist vs. Arminian debate, as some call it). Who is right?
Hopefully this essay has demonstrated that both are right on certain key arguments. The Arminians are right in their assertion that it is God's will to save all men without exception. The Calvinists are right in their assertion that God is a sovereign savior, that the final decision about who is saved and who isn't, is God's alone. It has to be because man of his own desire or effort is incapable of re-birthing himself. Being born again has to be a sovereign work of God. It has to be right because unless God can control who believes, HE has no assurance that anyone will believe. In that case he would cease to be sovereign.
The error, and cause of endless conflict, is in the unexamined common ground which assumes that Hell is eternal. When that proposition is subjected to the same scrutiny as God's sovereignty and His desire to save all men, it is found that "eternal hell" is the weak proposition. The doctrine of "eternal hell" depends on the arbitrary interpretation of the ambiguous Greek word "aion" and it's adjective "aionios" as well as reading into metaphorical passages things the passages just don't say. God has started unquenchable fires that have gone out. Permanence does not inevitably imply eternal.
Something has to give way. One of the three propositions here has to be wrong. Eternal hell is the weak proposition.
The strong case is that God is the sovereign savior of all men, but especially those who believe.
Those who believe in this age have a special superior salvation. They are saved from Hell completely and are made a part of the Bride of Christ though whom God will reveal His mercy for ages to come.
The salvation of the believer is a far better salvation than the ultimate salvation of the unbeliever. We have the certainty of our hope. The unbeliever has no hope or a false hope. The believer is promised that the second death (complete separation from God) has no power over him. He has the assurance of forgiveness and reconciliation with God. The unbeliever has no such assurance.
Still God will ultimately save all men without exception.
When it comes to how God will work all of this out in the ages to come, for now, we see through a glass darkly. That is not uncommon. No age past has seen with perfect clarity into the next. And here the questions are about God's post death methods of operation. We don't know the full details, but we shouldn't be surprised that we don't know.
What we do see clearly is an affirmation of God's infinite love and mercy to His entire creation, even His enemies who will be forgiven so as to reveal just how merciful God is.
God is a God of justice. Men are punished for their actions. But not justly so. We all deserve to be destroyed completely. No man will be. All will be redeemed. The end of God's revelation is that He _IS_ love.
My appeal here is to a rational dispassionate look at the texts using common methods of interpretation and exegesis.
There is no position without some difficulties. I am sure that I haven't addressed all of them. But it is critical to see that there is a forced choice here. To prove that one position has difficulties proves nothing. One has to find the proposition that has the fewest difficulties.
The universalist position starts with perhaps the most basic of all doctrines which is that Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. It adds to that the logical (and well proven biblically) arguments that God is a Sovereign savior and that God's desire is to save all men without exception. From there simple logic forces the conclusion that God will save all men.
This position doesn't deny the existence of a post death judgment or Hell. It recognizes both, but sees the purpose of judgment as one of correction and purification and ultimately redemption and restoration. That is the nature of all of God's judgments.
There is much more that could be said in defense of all of the truths presented in this essay. For that the reader will have to pursue his own studies. Hopefully there is enough here to get started with a clear understanding of the issues involved.
I would strongly encourage the reader to get a computer Bible program (if he doesn't have one) and do a word study on the words "eternal" and "hell" as they appear in the English Translations of the Bible. The goal is to see just how arbitrary the translation of those words are. An investigation of all the relevant texts in the Youngs Literal Translation is a real eye opener.
I plan to add some material as an addendum to this essay. There is always more to say. See the other files section at the bottom of the contents page for the latest.
The Lord rewards those who diligently seek him. Continue to diligently seek and may He lead you into all truth. Jim
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS RETURN HOME