The Narrow Path Ministries

Much has been written here both for and against universalism. I have believed for some time that it is a dangerous doctrine - dangerous to the souls of men. I have been negligent because I never really explained why I believe this is so. I believe it is dangerous because it fails to appeal to men as they are as a result of the fall.

Many centuries ago Bernard of Clairvaux described what is called the “four-step ladder of love”:

1. man loves himself for his own sake--then
2. man loves God for man's own sake--then
3. man loves God for God's sake--then
4. man loves himself for God's sake only.

Step one on this ladder is the state of the unregenerate person, a state of selfishness which is inherent in man. There is no point in saying that man should be above step one. Being unregenerate, he is unable to do so apart from the gospel, that power that can move him to step two.

Step two represents the typical state of a person who hears the gospel and is motivated by his self-interest to turn to Christ in repentance. The scriptures repeatedly appeal to this self interest. Peter urged "repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins" and "save yourselves". Jesus urged "except you repent, you shall all likewise perish". Surely these are seen as appeals, among many in the scriptures, to self-interest.

It is my belief that virtually no one comes to Christ any higher on Bernard's ladder than step two. They are not able to do so; as stated, they are not regenerate persons. They do not have the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in them when they are considering that life changing step that brings salvation: accepting Jesus on His terms.

Now, consider the unregenerate person who is pondering Jesus. What to do about Him? Does the Universalist dare to preach his message to him? Let's say he does inform the man of his doctrine. The man is intrigued and begins to study the Universalist teachings. He is informed that "every knee shall bow and tongue confess Jesus as Lord", and that this will bring salvation. Even in the next life. He is informed that in the age to come sinners undergo a severe and painful "correction", not punishment, solely intended to bring them to the place of making this confession. He is informed by some that this will take many ages, and by others that the confession will occur when the man faces Christ. The man studies the scriptures to see which so. He can find nothing that informs him that he will be either unable or will be prevented from confessing Christ at any point in the world to come. He has been informed that there is no punishment, only correction, and he reasons he can avoid even that by confessing Jesus on the spot. He sees no need to even move to step two on Bernard's ladder, the only step he can choose. His nature is at step one.

Curiously, the Universalist feels compelled to teach that the unsaved must undergo a long period of painful "correction". They cannot show from scripture that this correction will, of necessity, be long or short. That there is anything preventing an immediate confession. Indeed, given their position that God does not punish, but only corrects, it would seem they would happily accept the shortest possible correction. But they are compelled to fit it in with their unorthodox understanding of aionios, unless they ignore or explain it away. Such tangled webs they weave! And what is the unregenrate man likely to do?

Of course, if you are a Calvinist, this argument loses its force. The man can be regenerated at step one and move directly to step three!

Hi Homer,

Long time since we interacted. As usual we see things a little differently. Thanks for sharing your view and doing it graciously, as just your view rather than dogma. I find it hard to endure those who think they have all the answers.

My own view with respect to whether the doctrine of universalism is dangerous or not is that it can be, but not necessarily. For whatever reason God seems to allow very different views about Him to persist. Yet He still seems to accomplish His purposes. It is interesting to me that He uses us fallible creatures to perform His work rather than just doing it Himself. I imagine we both agree He could do it better than we can.

God had a plan when He created the universe. My own view is that His plan is exactly on track. He WILL accomplish what He set out to do. It is a "fait accompli", in that He has decided what the final result will be and nothing can prevent it from happening. Why He allows certain things to happen along the way that to us seem to be heading in a different direction from His desired goal only shows our inability to see the bigger picture.

I am not trying to say that I believe God meticulously controls all things, or that He has decreed from the beginning everything that will ever happen. This may be, but I do not hold to that. Rather, I just believe that God has determined the end, and is working through all things, including us fallible creatures, to arrive at His desired end. And how glorious that end will be (I suspect!).

So what may be a dangerous doctrine for some, in that it prevents them from moving up the 4 step ladder of love you brought up, may be used of God in another person to actually draw him/her closer to God and up the steps of that ladder. (I think it has for me, anyway).

Thanks again for sharing your view. I always find your views to be well thought through, and generally presented clearly and graciously.

Blessings!
Mike

Hi Homer,

Your thesis appears to be that unregenerate man will not see a need to make the right choices unless the penalties for wrong choices are painted in sufficiently foreboding colors, and that anything short of eternal torment (or at least annihilation) fails to provide sufficient incentive for repentance and personal reformation.

While I am sure that the universalists' threat of postmortem correction (or even punishment prior to restoration) will not suffice to frighten all sinners to repentance, it is equally clear that belief even in eternal torment is not sufficient to bring about this change in many. Thus we might conclude that threats of punishment affect some people, but not others—and this is the case regardless of the severity of the punishment threatened. Many a man will avoid running a red light for fear of the relatively light punishment of a fine or the temporary loss of a license to drive. Other men will not be restrained even from murder, despite the threat of capital punishment. It seems to me that the problem lies, not in the magnitude of the punishment threatened, but in the disposition of a man either to fear or else to ignore the threat of any punishment whatsoever.

To say that a man will not repent when told that there is a temporal punishment to the disobedient, but that the same man would repent if threatened with annihilation or eternal torment, is to speculate concerning an untestable theory. Such considerations never seemed to have occurred to the apostles, who preached to sinners without reference to any specific punishment at all.

There are apparently some unbelievers who are "nearer" to the kingdom than are others (Mark 12:34). These may be the ones who reach the second or third rung on Bernard's ladder prior to conversion, and who may repent upon the suggestion of slight punishment, or even without reference to any punishment at all. Those who linger around the first rung may well be those who will never respond to God in this present life, regardless what kind of threats are presented to them.

Steve, you have expressed almost exactly my own thoughts about the matter.

In addition, I have found in talking to non-Christians, that the threat of eternal torment is the chief obstacle to many of them even considering the claims of Christ. I have heard some of them say that if God is going to do to most people what they wouldn't do to their most hated enemy, then they wanted nothing to do with Him! Some were adamant that they would never serve a God like that! Since many non-Christians think Christianity is no more than superstition anyway, why should the threat of eternal torment from within the teachings of that superstition have any impact on them? (other than to strengthen their position that Christianity is ludicrous, and that Christian leaders use fear to control those whom they have duped)

So which teaching proves to be more "dangerous to the souls of men"? ---- that of eternal torment? --- or that of universal reconciliation to God?

Steve, I'm in agreement with Paidon regarding you summation. I think you summed up the situation very well. I think much of this type of thinking regarding the intrinsic versus imposed nature of punishment fails to recognize clearly that God is reconciled with man through Christ.

It is our job now to be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ.

BTW, I still think Kohlberg was even more precise in his levels:

KOHLBERG'S SIX STAGES

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. Kohlberg's stage 1 is similar to Piaget's first stage of moral thought. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey. To the Heinz dilemma, the child typically says that Heinz was wrong to steal the drug because "It's against the law," or "It's bad to steal," as if this were all there were to it. When asked to elaborate, the child usually responds in terms of the consequences involved, explaining that stealing is bad "because you'll get punished" (Kohlberg, 1958b).

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints. "Heinz," they might point out, "might think it's right to take the drug, the druggist would not." Since everything is relative, each person is free to pursue his or her individual interests. One boy said that Heinz might steal the drug if he wanted his wife to live, but that he doesn't have to if he wants to marry someone younger and better-looking (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 24).

Level II. Conventional Morality

Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. At this stage children--who are by now usually entering their teens--see morality as more than simple deals. They believe that people should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in "good" ways. Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others. Heinz, they typically argue, was right to steal the drug because "He was a good man for wanting to save her," and "His intentions were good, that of saving the life of someone he loves." Even if Heinz doesn't love his wife, these subjects often say, he should steal the drug because "I don't think any husband should sit back and watch his wife die" (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 36-42; Kohlberg, 1958b).

Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. Stage 3 reasoning works best in two-person relationships with family members or close friends, where one can make a real effort to get to know the other's feelings and needs and try to help. At stage 4, in contrast, the respondent becomes more broadly concerned with society as a whole. Now the emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one's duties so that the social order is maintained. In response to the Heinz story, many subjects say they understand that Heinz's motives were good, but they cannot condone the theft. What would happen if we all started breaking the laws whenever we felt we had a good reason? The result would be chaos; society couldn't function. As one subject explained,

I don't want to sound like Spiro Agnew, law and order and wave the flag, but if everybody did as he wanted to do, set up his own beliefs as to right and wrong, then I think you would have chaos. The only thing I think we have in civilization nowadays is some sort of legal structure which people are sort of bound to follow. [Society needs] a centralizing framework. (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 140-41)

Level III. Postconventional Morality

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. At stage 4, people want to keep society functioning. However, a smoothly functioning society is not necessarily a good one. A totalitarian society might be well-organized, but it is hardly the moral ideal. At stage 5, people begin to ask, "What makes for a good society?" They begin to think about society in a very theoretical way, stepping back from their own society and considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold. They then evaluate existing societies in terms of these prior considerations. They are said to take a "prior-to-society" perspective (Colby and Kohlberg, 1983, p. 22).

Stage 6: Universal Principles. Stage 5 respondents are working toward a conception of the good society. They suggest that we need to (a) protect certain individual rights and (b) settle disputes through democratic processes. However, democratic processes alone do not always result in outcomes that we intuitively sense are just. A majority, for example, may vote for a law that hinders a minority. Thus, Kohlberg believes that there must be a higher stage--stage 6--which defines the principles by which we achieve justice.

Kohlberg's conception of justice follows that of the philosophers Kant and Rawls, as well as great moral leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. According to these people, the principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity, of all people as individuals. The principles of justice are therefore universal; they apply to all. Thus, for example, we would not vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others. The principles of justice guide us toward decisions based on an equal respect for all.

Curiously, the Universalist feels compelled to teach that the unsaved must undergo a long period of painful "correction". They cannot show from scripture that this correction will, of necessity, be long or short. That there is anything preventing an immediate confession. Indeed, given their position that God does not punish, but only corrects, it would seem they would happily accept the shortest possible correction. But they are compelled to fit it in with their unorthodox understanding of aionios, unless they ignore or explain it away. Such tangled webs they weave! And what is the unregenrate man likely to do?





It's interesting Homer that a truly evil person can on their deathbed confess Jesus as their Lord and spend eternity in heaven with apparently no punishment ever for this person yet this scenerio does'nt trouble you.
Sure friend do whatever you want during this life , just make sure before you die that you say "Jesus is my Lord." On the other hand CU believes in some kind of balance between what a person sows and what a person reaps which sounds more like justice then the deathbed confession. And in fact Paul did say this very thing that we "reap what you sow."
And in fact i'm sure painfull correction contains large elements of punishment in it to be effective or why would it be painful. However long hell may be , however difficult it may be is scary to me because as a finite human the thought of spending thousands of years in hell is terrifying.
I really don't think we as humans can even conceptualize the difference between eternity in hell or thousands of years in hell, it's the image of just being there and the uncertainty of how long it will take that is the most terrifying. In fact the uncertainty of the length of time spent there once you realize you are in hell that may be quite excruciating mentally and emotionally.
But at least in the CU scenerio we can perceive a God who takes everything into consideration and dispenses justice while in the ET scenerio all sinners from Hitler down to the typical Joe who never hurt anyone but did'nt make Jesus his Lord are forever in a hellhole. I can not find find justice nor mercy nor love in the ET scenerio yet these attributes define God therefore either the attributes of God are false or the ET scenerio is false IMO.

Good post, Steve 7150.

You wrote:And in fact i'm sure painfull correction contains large elements of punishment in it to be effective or why would it be painful.

I was just wondering what differences you understand there to be between "correction" and "punishment".

As I see it, one can be just as painful as the other. In studying the various views of punishment, we find that "correction" is one of three main views of "punishment". It is called "the reformatory or rehabilitation view" of punishment. Another is the "retributive theory" of punishment. That is the one I associate most with the word "punishment". A third is the "deterrance theory" of punishment.

In an earlier post

I wrote:In addition, I have found in talking to non-Christians, that the threat of eternal torment is the chief obstacle to many of them even considering the claims of Christ. I have heard some of them say that if God is going to do to most people what they wouldn't do to their most hated enemy, then they wanted nothing to do with Him! Some were adamant that they would never serve a God like that!

Today, I discovered that it was the eternal torment issue which stumbled Charles Darwin, dissuading him from becoming a Christian.

Charles Darwin(1809-1882) wrote:I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brothers, and almost all my friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine

Darwin was right! Through this damnable doctrine, souls are in peril!

Steve, Paidion, et al,

Steve wrote:

It seems to me that the problem lies, not in the magnitude of the punishment threatened, but in the disposition of a man either to fear or else to ignore the threat of any punishment whatsoever.

I would say the problem is unbelief.

To say that a man will not repent when told that there is a temporal punishment to the disobedient, but that the same man would repent if threatened with annihilation or eternal torment, is to speculate concerning an untestable theory.

The problem for the Universalist is that they can not show that any punishment at all will be needed to bring about a confession of Jesus as Lord.

Such considerations never seemed to have occurred to the apostles, who preached to sinners without reference to any specific punishment at all.

They had no need to. The consequences of unforgiven sin were commonly understood (see quotes of Edersheim following). They certainly preached salvation and the forgiveness of sins, which necessarily implies release from consequences.

Paidion wrote,

Darwin was right! Through this damnable doctrine, souls are in peril!

Since this doctrine was commonly held by the Jews of Jesus day, why do you suppose Jesus, among His many challenges to their teachings, felt no compulsion to challenge this one, but left the impression that He agreed with them and their understanding of Daniel 12:2?

From appendix 18, "The Life and Times of Jesus", Alfred Eidersheim

"Before adverting, however briefly, to the New Testament teaching, it seems desirable with some fulness to set forth the Jewish views on this subject. For the views held at the time of Christ, whatever they were must have been those which the hearers of Christ entertained; and whatever views, Christ did not at least directly, contradict or, so far as we can infer, intend to correct them.1 And here we have happily sufficient materials for a history of Jewish opinions at different periods on the Eternity Punishment; and it seems the more desirable carefully to set it forth, as statements both inaccurate and incomplete have been put forward on the subject."

"...the first Rabbinic utterances come to us from the time immediately before that of Christ, from the Schools of Shammai and Hillel (Rosh haSh. 16 b last four lines, and 17 a).2 The former arranged all mankind into three classes: the perfectly righteous, who are 'immediately written and sealed to eternal life;' the perfectly wicked, who are 'immediately written and sealed to Gehenna;' and an intermediate class. 'who go down to Gehinnom, and moan, and come up again,' according to Zech. xiii. 9, and which seemed also indicated in certain words in the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. ii. 6). The careful reader will notice that this statement implies belief in Eternal Punishment on the part of the School of Shammai. For (1) The perfectly wicked are spoken of as 'written and sealed unto Gehenna;' (2) The school of Shammai expressly quotes, in support of what it teaches about these wicked, Dan xii. 2, a passage which undoubtedly refers to the final judgment after the Resurrection; (3) The perfectly wicked, so punished, are expressly distinguished from the third, or intermediate class, who merely 'go down to Gehinnom,' but are not 'written and sealed,' and 'come up again.' "

"Substantially the same, as regards Eternity of Punishment, is the view of the School of Hillel.......However, therefore the School of Hillel might accentuate the mercy of God, or limit the number of those who would suffer Eternal Punishment, it did teach Eternal Punishment in the case of some. And this is the point in question."

"But, since the Schools of Shammai and Hillel represented the theological teaching in the time of Christ and His Apostles, it follows, that the doctrine of Eternal Punishment was that held in the days of our Lord, however it may afterwards have been modified."
"The doctrine of the Eternity of Punishments seems to have been held by the Synagogue throughout the whole first century of our era. This will appear from the sayings of the Teachers who flourished during its course."

Steve7150 wrote:

It's interesting Homer that a truly evil person can on their deathbed confess Jesus as their Lord and spend eternity in heaven with apparently no punishment ever for this person yet this scenerio does'nt trouble you.

The efficacy of the atonement of our Lord knows no limits. Are you suggesting that the thief on the cross should have gone into your purgatory? No matter how the Universalist spins it, a kind of purgatory is what it amounts to. You make a distinction without a difference.

I have a suggeation for the Universalists: Since "eternal torment" is a predudicial and inaccurate description of what many Christians believe, let us just say we belive in "eternal consequences" and let it go at that. This term would then include the anihilationist view also.

Hi Homer,

"Eternal consequences" would not only include the traditional view and annihilationism, but would also include the form of universalism that I would be most likely to embrace, if I were a universalist. The unbeliever at the time of death would experience the eternal loss of the privileges that Christians have been promised, the rewards of obedience, reigning with Christ, etc. Those are eternal consequences. Such eternal forfeiture might even result in weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Edersheim does not present the whole picture of contemporary Jewish belief in the time of Christ. In the book, The Fire That Consumes, Fudge surveys the various views held at the time. Responding, in another book, to the traditionalists' use of Edersheim, he writes:

This resulted in a twofold error. First, traditionalists ignored the rich Old Testament background of the teaching of Jesus and failed to take his teaching on its own terms. Second, they mistakenly assumed from secondary and dubious sources that Jewish intertestamental thought was united on this subject The simple fact is that these intertestamental Jews were living, breathing, thinking folks who sometimes disagreed on theological subjects. Informed scholars today acknowledge this fact and reject the older notion that Jesus' contemporaries all held one opinion about the destiny of the lost. (from Two Views of Hell, Peterson and Fudge, p.34)

Some rabbis did teach the eternal torment view, it is true. Some did not. The question for the Christian is: Did Jesus teach it? There were many rabbinical beliefs about various subjects, which Jesus did not mention or refute—sometimes because they were on topics He did not have occasion to address. One thing Jesus rarely addressed was the ultimate punishment of sinners after the judgment. I do not see His teaching on Gehenna as addressing this, since I believe Gehenna was the Valley of Hinnom, where rebels' corpses were disposed of in AD 70.

The only passages that I can think of (at the moment) where Jesus seems to be talking about the final punishment of sinners, would be found in seven parables (all in Matthew): 1) the wheat and tares (13:41-42); 2) the dragnet and the fish (13:49-50) 3) the guest without a wedding garment (22:13); 4) the unfaithful servant, who is cut in two at his master's return (24:51); 5) the ten virgins (25:12); 6) the talents, and the similar parable of the minas (25:30); 7) the sheep and the goats (25:41, 46). If there are others, they elude me at the moment.

Some of these might not even be about the final judgment, as (according to some preterists) they may have an AD 70 fulfillment. One thing that can be said about these teachings is that they are all parables—not straightforward doctrinal discourses (the only one that is not technically a parable is the servant who is cut in two—Matt.24:51—but which we might not feel compelled to take as a literal description of his punishment). Of these examples, some speak of a furnace of fire (which could be for either annihilation or for purging dross); some speak of "outer darkness" and/or "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (though no passage describes these torments as eternal); and one passage describes "everlasting fire" and "eternal punishment." This last passage and these phrases have been much discussed at this forum, and it is the only passage in the teaching of Jesus that might appear to support the rabbinic teaching of eternal torment. However, as has often been discussed previously, the words are not exactly the same in meaning as "eternal torment."

It seems that Jesus spoke only seldom about this topic that we are discussing here, and when He did, He used a wide range of images, some of them seemingly conflicting, depending upon the milieu of the parable: e.g. cutting a man in two, casting bad stewards and ill-attired wedding guests out into the darkness of night, naughty bridesmaids being told that the bridegroom does not acknowledge them, burning up bad fish and chaff in a furnace, consigning people to sorrow and anger ("weeping and gnashing of teeth"), casting goats into eternal punishment. It would be hard to argue that, taken together, this array of images entirely supports any one of the rabbinic opinions about the fate of the lost.

Steve 7150 made a good point that I don't think you really addressed, though you did quote him. You seemed concerned that the universalist message would give the sinner encouragement to wait until after death to repent. Steve 7150 pointed out that a belief in deathbed repentance might as easily give the sinner encouragement to wait until his deathbed to repent. Yet we believe the latter doctrine, regardless how it may be abused in the life of the sinner. Apparently, the prospect of a rebel abusing the truth to his own hurt does not have to determine what we recognize or present as the truth.