My first encounter with a Universalist in 2014 was more than just a conversation. It was a profound awakening, a moment that sparked a deeper theological concern within me. It was the first time I truly grasped this doctrine’s seductive yet spiritually hazardous nature, which I had only known about in theory.
The Phantasm of Universal Reconciliation
Universalism, or more precisely Christian Universalism, presents a gossamer vision: that all people, regardless of belief or repentance, will ultimately be reconciled to God. At its core lies a deep desire to magnify God’s mercy and love. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines a universalist as “a person who believes that all humankind will eventually be saved.”¹ It is, in truth, a chimaera, a thing hoped for but tragically illusory.
The promise of universal salvation seems compassionate and even beautiful. However, its beauty is as fragile as mist. It does not withstand the weight of biblical testimony or the sagacious wisdom of orthodox Christianity. In contrast, the traditional doctrine of divine judgment is grounded in the entirety of Scripture and supported by centuries of faithful interpretation. It sees God’s justice and mercy not as competitors but as complementary aspects of His holy character.
Historical Echoes and Theological Continuity
Historically, Universalism has seduced many. From Origen in the third century to Gregory of Nyssa and onward to more modern voices like Richard Eddy, the idea has recurred like a flame refusing to go out.² These thinkers, while often earnest, wove theology more from speculative philosophy than from sound exegesis. They imagined God’s love so unbounded that it would dissolve even the most persistent rebellion, like a conflagration consuming every trace of sin. However, love stripped of holiness is no longer divine. It becomes permissive and even indulgent.
Robert Mackintosh described three faces of Universalism: the gospel offered to all, Christ’s death for all, and the salvation of all.³ Yet, as he noted, even Scripture’s most universalist-sounding passages are balanced, sometimes within the same book, by unflinching declarations of judgment. Christ died for all, yes (2 Cor. 5:15), but He also said plainly, “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14).
The New Testament does not merely hint at the reality of hell. It evinces it repeatedly. Jesus speaks often and gravely of “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” vivid imagery that scholars affirm includes both emotional and physical anguish.⁴ This is not a poetic metaphor. It is a sober warning. The traditionalist position takes Jesus’ words seriously and refuses to dismiss them as rhetorical flourishes.
Sagacious Theology and the Imperative of Judgment
The sagacious path honors both Scripture and the gravity of sin and recognizes that divine judgment is not merely punitive but redemptively just. James Edwin Odgers rightly argued that while the Universalist may hope for restoration, the biblical pattern is one of conditional grace. “The universality of salvation,” he wrote, “is conditioned; the promise is sub conditione fidei.”⁵ God is not willing that any should perish (2 Pet. 3:9), but this does not translate into a guarantee that none will. It is a gracious invitation, not a cosmic inevitability.⁶
Indeed, hypothetical Universalism, proposed by Amyraut and others, attempted a middle path by suggesting Christ’s death was sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect.⁷ Yet this still holds to the necessity of faith and repentance. Anything less becomes a denial of both human freedom and divine righteousness.
Universalism as Chimaera
To place one’s hope in Universalism is to chase a chimaera that ultimately collapses under the weight of Scripture’s clarity and the moral seriousness of God’s justice. The idea that all will be saved is not only theologically untenable, it fosters spiritual apathy that dulls the urgency of the gospel. If salvation is inevitable, why proclaim the cross? Why call sinners to repent? This idea is not just a theological abstraction. It strikes at the very heart of Christian mission.
Moreover, it casts doubt on the very holiness of God. If the wicked, unrepentant, and defiant even after death are finally embraced into eternal communion, then justice has been sacrificed at the altar of sentimentality. In such a vision, sin has no real consequence and righteousness has no real reward. What kind of kingdom is that?
Conclusion: A Gospel That Confronts and Redeems
My 2014 encounter with a Universalist was not just a conversation. It was a confrontation with a theological phantasm, an alluring but baseless idea that many want to believe but cannot stand in the light of biblical revelation. The gospel of Jesus Christ is indeed good news for all people, but it must be received, not assumed. It confronts before it comforts. It convicts before it reconciles.
The traditional doctrine of divine judgment is not a relic of fear-driven religion. It is the consequence of God’s perfect justice and holy love. In the conflagration of divine wrath against sin, we see the cross not as an abstract symbol but as the center of God’s redemptive plan.
References
- Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, eds., Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), s.v. “universalist.”
- Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1908–1914), 73.
- Robert Mackintosh, “Universalism,” in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels: Aaron to Zion, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh and New York: T&T Clark and Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906), 783–786.
- Zoltan L Erdey and Kevin G Smith, “‘Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth’—The Nature of the Suffering of the Wicked in Matthew,” Conspectus 15 (2013): 141–173.
- James Edwin Odgers, “Universalism,” in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, John A. Selbie, and Louis H. Gray (Edinburgh and New York: T. & T. Clark and Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908–1926), 529–535.
- Key Passages – Universalism (Acts 3:21; Rom. 5:12–19; 2 Pet. 3:9).
- Odgers, “Universalism,” Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 533–534.