THREE BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST UNIVERSALISM
Peter Grice
Below are three biblical arguments against universalism (and an extra one for further reading!). While they offer more than simple proof texts, it would take a much longer article to develop them more fully. Even so, I trust that you will find them useful and persuasive. Let’s first look at some relevant context, and then dive into the arguments themselves.
Personal eschatology—the study of the final fate of human beings—should be embedded within cosmic eschatology, the study of the final state of God’s created order. God is redeeming the cosmos, and human beings within it (see Rom 8:18-25). Universalists and conditionalists both agree that God will redeem the cosmos as a whole. But universalists also claim that God will eventually redeem every human being that will have ever lived, while our claim as conditionalists is that God’s work of “new creation” purposefully excludes some human beings. Despite knowing enough about the immortal God and realizing that they ultimately deserve death, they still reject him (Rom 1:18-23; 32). They disobey the gospel (1 Pet 4:17; 2 Thess 1:8; Rom 10:16), and so fail to respond obediently in repentance and faith to the knowledge of God and his offer of salvation (Acts 6:7; Rom 1:5; 16:26). They love sin rather than goodness, themselves rather than God, and are “disqualified regarding the faith” (John 3:20; 2 Tim 3:2-8).
A related difference between the two views is that conditionalists see judgment day as a time already fixed for their destruction, making their subsequent regret and change of heart impossible (they no longer exist), whereas universalists typically see an open-ended opportunity for unsaved sinners to repent, long after judgment day. This is the common form of universalism that I’m arguing against, although my arguments may still work against other, minority forms. Typically, universalists (especially evangelicals) hold that people are judged by being cast into a hell of some description, perhaps to undergo chastisements, or at least to reflect on their predicament, during which time they may still be saved, as indeed all are due to eventually coming to repentance. Despite the difference in penultimate history between the universalist and conditionalist camps, both scenarios ultimately envision a state of comprehensive reconciliation of the cosmos and of redeemed humanity; God’s completed work of creation, untainted by any evil and triumphant over it.
Argument from the defeat of God’s last remaining enemy in 1 Corinthians 15:26
This argument states that after all of God’s enemies are defeated with the defeat of the last enemy, death, leading to God becoming “all in all” over a redeemed creation, no enemies can still exist as such—including human “enemies of the cross” (Phil 3:18)—nor can there be any post-defeat defeat of death in their case anyway. Universalism is ruled out because the Bible links the timing and mode of this defeat of death to the immortalizing resurrection of believers.
According to 1 Corinthians 15:42-55, the believer’s resurrection, when “the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality,” is the moment when death itself is defeated, that is, “swallowed up in victory.”1 This conquest is grounded in the vision of new creation, when there “will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Rev 21:4 cf. Isa 25:8).
But as 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 makes clear, “The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (v26), leaving no more enemies in existence. We are told in this passage that Jesus is right now reigning over “all things,” until he has finally “put all his enemies under his feet” (v25). Only after “destroying every rule and every authority and every power” (v24) does the consummation of salvation history occur, when Jesus submits himself and his rule to God the Father, “that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28 cf. 24). This is precipitated, we are told, by the victory over death demonstrated in the immortalization of believers, which makes them fit for eternal life in the new creation, signaling the destruction of the final enemy, death.
The fact that death is utterly defeated at this point means that it is not subsequently defeated gradually, as unbelievers—who were already resurrected but not made immortal in a victory over death—progressively confess Christ. On universalism, they still remain in mortal corruption, just as they are now. Moreover, since all enemies are destroyed by the time Jesus hands cosmic rule over “all things” to the Father, to have been among the “enemies of the cross” (Phil 3:18) is to have already been destroyed.
Therefore, the mode and timing of the defeat of God’s last remaining enemy in 1 Corinthians 15:26, and the commensurate absence of any enemy in a fully reconciled creation, rules out universalism.
Argument from the rationale for the limited delay of Judgment Day in 2 Peter 3:9
This argument states that since the rationale given in 2 Peter 3:9 is that God is being patient by delaying the day of judgment, “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance,” this delay expires when judgment day occurs, along with the related opportunity for repentance, thus ruling out universalism.2
In 2 Peter 3, the apostle encourages believers to pursue holiness while “waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God,” the dawning of “the day of eternity” (2 Pet 3:12, 18). This eternal age will fulfil God’s promises of “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells,” given through the prophets and apostles (2 Pet 3:13 cf. 2-4).3 God is patient rather than slow, and we are to “count the patience of our Lord as salvation” (v15).
The purpose of the delay, then, is so that more may repent and not perish. In theory, the delay could have been indefinite, so that all may eventually repent (universalism) and none may perish—but the logic of the passage indicates that in practice God’s will is more particular and conditional. Paul taught that God “has fixed a day on which he will judge the world” (Acts 17:31). Jesus taught that the day of the Lord would take many by surprise, and would come like a thief in the night (Matt 24:36-44). This is reiterated in Revelation 16:15, and 1 Thessalonians 5:2-4, where like a thief in the night the day of the Lord will overtake those who are in darkness, and “sudden destruction will come upon them . . . they will not escape.” It is also reiterated right here, immediately after Peter explains the delay: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief . . . ” (2 Pet 3:10).
Therefore, the rationale for a limited postponement of “the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly” (2 Pet 3:7), as given in 2 Peter 3:9, rules out the opportunity for repentance beyond that same event, and hence rules out universalism as well.
Postscript: Although this is not part of my argument here, we should note how chapters two and three speak of this destruction: false prophets and teachers lead many astray, “bringing upon themselves swift destruction . . . their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep” (2 Pet 2:1-3). They, “like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing” (2 Pet 2:12, 13). But the true teaching is found in the Scriptures, “which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction” (2 Pet 3:16). These are the false teachers who scoff about the return of the Lord, and who will be unready and overtaken by “the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly” (2 Pet 3:7). According to the flow of the passage, they are designated for destruction/perishing in order that the new creation era may commence and be characterized by righteousness (2 Pet 3:13 cf. Matt 13:43). Or, in the language of Hebrews 12:27, “in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain.” This explanation from the broader context includes the conditionalist argument that 2 Peter 2:5-7 says point blank that just as God destroyed the ancient world of the ungodly but saved the righteous Noah, God also destroyed the land of Sodom and Gomorrah (by the agency of “eternal fire,” cf. Jude 7) but rescued righteous Lot, and this extinction is “an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly” in the end (see also Luke 17:26-33)—but the godly will again be rescued and remain, this time forever.
Argument from the “removal” of what cannot “remain” in Hebrews 12:27
This argument states that a crisis of judgment between the present age and the coming age results, according to Hebrews 12:27, in the “removal” of everything that does not belong to the eternal “kingdom that cannot be shaken,” “in order that” everything that does belong “may remain.” Among human beings, only believers belong to the unshakable kingdom; hence, all others are excluded from the age to come, and universalism is ruled out.
Peter Grice
Below are three biblical arguments against universalism (and an extra one for further reading!). While they offer more than simple proof texts, it would take a much longer article to develop them more fully. Even so, I trust that you will find them useful and persuasive. Let’s first look at some relevant context, and then dive into the arguments themselves.
Personal eschatology—the study of the final fate of human beings—should be embedded within cosmic eschatology, the study of the final state of God’s created order. God is redeeming the cosmos, and human beings within it (see Rom 8:18-25). Universalists and conditionalists both agree that God will redeem the cosmos as a whole. But universalists also claim that God will eventually redeem every human being that will have ever lived, while our claim as conditionalists is that God’s work of “new creation” purposefully excludes some human beings. Despite knowing enough about the immortal God and realizing that they ultimately deserve death, they still reject him (Rom 1:18-23; 32). They disobey the gospel (1 Pet 4:17; 2 Thess 1:8; Rom 10:16), and so fail to respond obediently in repentance and faith to the knowledge of God and his offer of salvation (Acts 6:7; Rom 1:5; 16:26). They love sin rather than goodness, themselves rather than God, and are “disqualified regarding the faith” (John 3:20; 2 Tim 3:2-8).
A related difference between the two views is that conditionalists see judgment day as a time already fixed for their destruction, making their subsequent regret and change of heart impossible (they no longer exist), whereas universalists typically see an open-ended opportunity for unsaved sinners to repent, long after judgment day. This is the common form of universalism that I’m arguing against, although my arguments may still work against other, minority forms. Typically, universalists (especially evangelicals) hold that people are judged by being cast into a hell of some description, perhaps to undergo chastisements, or at least to reflect on their predicament, during which time they may still be saved, as indeed all are due to eventually coming to repentance. Despite the difference in penultimate history between the universalist and conditionalist camps, both scenarios ultimately envision a state of comprehensive reconciliation of the cosmos and of redeemed humanity; God’s completed work of creation, untainted by any evil and triumphant over it.
Argument from the defeat of God’s last remaining enemy in 1 Corinthians 15:26
This argument states that after all of God’s enemies are defeated with the defeat of the last enemy, death, leading to God becoming “all in all” over a redeemed creation, no enemies can still exist as such—including human “enemies of the cross” (Phil 3:18)—nor can there be any post-defeat defeat of death in their case anyway. Universalism is ruled out because the Bible links the timing and mode of this defeat of death to the immortalizing resurrection of believers.
According to 1 Corinthians 15:42-55, the believer’s resurrection, when “the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality,” is the moment when death itself is defeated, that is, “swallowed up in victory.”1 This conquest is grounded in the vision of new creation, when there “will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Rev 21:4 cf. Isa 25:8).
But as 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 makes clear, “The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (v26), leaving no more enemies in existence. We are told in this passage that Jesus is right now reigning over “all things,” until he has finally “put all his enemies under his feet” (v25). Only after “destroying every rule and every authority and every power” (v24) does the consummation of salvation history occur, when Jesus submits himself and his rule to God the Father, “that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28 cf. 24). This is precipitated, we are told, by the victory over death demonstrated in the immortalization of believers, which makes them fit for eternal life in the new creation, signaling the destruction of the final enemy, death.
The fact that death is utterly defeated at this point means that it is not subsequently defeated gradually, as unbelievers—who were already resurrected but not made immortal in a victory over death—progressively confess Christ. On universalism, they still remain in mortal corruption, just as they are now. Moreover, since all enemies are destroyed by the time Jesus hands cosmic rule over “all things” to the Father, to have been among the “enemies of the cross” (Phil 3:18) is to have already been destroyed.
Therefore, the mode and timing of the defeat of God’s last remaining enemy in 1 Corinthians 15:26, and the commensurate absence of any enemy in a fully reconciled creation, rules out universalism.
Argument from the rationale for the limited delay of Judgment Day in 2 Peter 3:9
This argument states that since the rationale given in 2 Peter 3:9 is that God is being patient by delaying the day of judgment, “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance,” this delay expires when judgment day occurs, along with the related opportunity for repentance, thus ruling out universalism.2
In 2 Peter 3, the apostle encourages believers to pursue holiness while “waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God,” the dawning of “the day of eternity” (2 Pet 3:12, 18). This eternal age will fulfil God’s promises of “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells,” given through the prophets and apostles (2 Pet 3:13 cf. 2-4).3 God is patient rather than slow, and we are to “count the patience of our Lord as salvation” (v15).
The purpose of the delay, then, is so that more may repent and not perish. In theory, the delay could have been indefinite, so that all may eventually repent (universalism) and none may perish—but the logic of the passage indicates that in practice God’s will is more particular and conditional. Paul taught that God “has fixed a day on which he will judge the world” (Acts 17:31). Jesus taught that the day of the Lord would take many by surprise, and would come like a thief in the night (Matt 24:36-44). This is reiterated in Revelation 16:15, and 1 Thessalonians 5:2-4, where like a thief in the night the day of the Lord will overtake those who are in darkness, and “sudden destruction will come upon them . . . they will not escape.” It is also reiterated right here, immediately after Peter explains the delay: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief . . . ” (2 Pet 3:10).
Therefore, the rationale for a limited postponement of “the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly” (2 Pet 3:7), as given in 2 Peter 3:9, rules out the opportunity for repentance beyond that same event, and hence rules out universalism as well.
Postscript: Although this is not part of my argument here, we should note how chapters two and three speak of this destruction: false prophets and teachers lead many astray, “bringing upon themselves swift destruction . . . their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep” (2 Pet 2:1-3). They, “like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing” (2 Pet 2:12, 13). But the true teaching is found in the Scriptures, “which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction” (2 Pet 3:16). These are the false teachers who scoff about the return of the Lord, and who will be unready and overtaken by “the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly” (2 Pet 3:7). According to the flow of the passage, they are designated for destruction/perishing in order that the new creation era may commence and be characterized by righteousness (2 Pet 3:13 cf. Matt 13:43). Or, in the language of Hebrews 12:27, “in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain.” This explanation from the broader context includes the conditionalist argument that 2 Peter 2:5-7 says point blank that just as God destroyed the ancient world of the ungodly but saved the righteous Noah, God also destroyed the land of Sodom and Gomorrah (by the agency of “eternal fire,” cf. Jude 7) but rescued righteous Lot, and this extinction is “an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly” in the end (see also Luke 17:26-33)—but the godly will again be rescued and remain, this time forever.
Argument from the “removal” of what cannot “remain” in Hebrews 12:27
This argument states that a crisis of judgment between the present age and the coming age results, according to Hebrews 12:27, in the “removal” of everything that does not belong to the eternal “kingdom that cannot be shaken,” “in order that” everything that does belong “may remain.” Among human beings, only believers belong to the unshakable kingdom; hence, all others are excluded from the age to come, and universalism is ruled out.
Three Biblical Arguments Against Universalism | Rethinking Hell
Below are three biblical arguments against universalism (and an extra one for further reading!). While they offer more than simple proof texts, it would take a much longer article to develop them more…
rethinkinghell.com
