Answering Twelve Challenges to Universalism

[St. SteVen]

7. “What’s the historic teaching on final salvation in the major branches of Christendom?”
​

It’s important to keep in mind that doctrinal truth is not properly determined merely by counting heads or taking a vote. As most Christians properly acknowledge, there have undoubtedly been times throughout church history during which various important theological truths have been more or less obscured or eclipsed, and in his infinite wisdom God has allowed this to take place at times, for whatever mysterious reason. The fact that universal salvation has not been the ubiquitous belief of the church throughout its history, does not make it a false doctrine. It is a non-sequitur to conclude it is untrue on the basis of its supposed lack of historical popularity.

Having said this, however, it is also worth pointing out that universal salvation was arguably a much more widespread belief in the early church than infernalists such as McClymond are willing to admit. Basil of Caesarea (329-379) once reported: “The mass of men say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished.”7 Jerome (346-420) likewise said: “I know that most persons understand by the story of Nineveh and its king the ultimate forgiveness of the devil and all rational creatures.”8 Augustine (354-430) also acknowledged: “There are very many in our day, who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments.”9 Notice the force of these phrases: “the mass of men,” “most persons,” “very many.” Do these descriptions sound at all like references to a mere “minority group” and “a tolerated, private opinion” as McClymond asserted? Obviously they do not.

Patristics scholar Ilaria Ramelli has thoroughly sifted through and presented much of the relevant primary source evidence in her 900-page monograph The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, and has compellingly shown that numerous significant theologians and fathers of the early church affirmed the doctrine of universal salvation and rejected the doctrine of endless torment. These include “Clement, Bardaisan, Didymus, Anthony, Pamphilus Martyr, Methodius, Macrina, Evagrius Ponticus, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John of Jerusalem, Rufinus, Cassian, John of Dalyatha, Ps. Dionysius the Areopagite, John the Scot Eriugena, and many others.”10 Interestingly, McClymond includes only a hasty and dismissive reference to Origen, Nyssen, and Isaac, failing to mention even one of these many other universalists in the early church.

Regarding McClymond’s assertion that “in the ancient church, the number of nonuniversalist writers far outnumbers the universalists, by a factor of about 10 or 12 to 1,” this is demonstrably an inflated and misleading figure. In a thorough refutation of this claim, Ramelli explains the following:

Of course there were anti-universalists also in the ancient church, but scholars must be careful not to list among them—as is the case with the list of “the sixty-eight” anti-universalists, cited by McClymond on the basis of [Daley’s] The Hope of the Early Church—an author just because he uses πῦρ αἰώνιον (“aionial” fire), κόλασις αἰώνιος (“aionial” punishment), θάνατος αἰώνιος (“aionial” death), or the like, since these biblical expressions do not necessarily refer to eternal damnation. Indeed, all universalists, from Origen to Gregory of Nyssa to Evagrius, used these phrases without problems, for universalists understood these expressions as “otherworldly” or “long-lasting” fire, educative punishment, and death, and not “eternal” punishment, etc., which would have contrasted with their doctrine of apokatastasis. Thus, the mere presence of such phrases is not enough to conclude that a patristic thinker “affirmed the idea of everlasting punishment.”11

Later in the same paper, Ramelli observes:

It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it.” Not only were “the sixty-eight” in fact fewer than sixty-eight, and not only did many of McClymond’s “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of anti-universalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri archōn and Aquinas’ Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the sixty-eight” (and mostly ignorant of Greek).12

Lastly, another question I would pose for infernalists to consider is: if eternal conscious torment is and has been an essential and universally-held belief of the church from its inception, why is it that such a notable and consequential doctrine is entirely absent from the earliest and most significant creeds of the church (viz., the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed)? Why did they neglect to even mention it?

[

 

[St. SteVen]

8. “What would happen if Christian congregations or denominations embraced universalism?”
​

The argument McClymond makes in this section has already been thoroughly refuted by Robin Parry in a paper titled “A Response to Michael McClymond’s Theological Critique of Universalism,” in which Parry explains:

The historical argument McClymond offers is, I would argue, based on a misunderstanding of the journey of the Universalist denomination. His assumption is that their trust that God will save all people was directly connected to their rejection of atonement, Trinity, Christ’s divinity, etc., and that once they tipped over the first domino in the chain the rest (inevitably?) followed in due course… The actual story seems to me to be much more complicated than that. The connection between their embracing of salvation for all and some of these other moves was indirect. The link was not primarily the belief in universal restoration itself but the attitude of mind that was willing to contemplate it being true… None of this gradual transformation within the Universalist denomination was a direct implication of universal salvation. The [domino] analogy is entirely inappropriate unless one can show precisely how that doctrine leads to the abandonment of doctrines x, y, and z. But I have been unable to find any persuasive arguments in McClymond’s book that show how the doctrine of salvation for all has implications that lead to the abandonment of any of the other doctrines he thinks are at risk.13

In addition to these problems, it is also worth pointing out the overall weakness of McClymond’s argumentation here. He claims that “history suggests” the “conclusion” that “universalism is a church-destroying doctrine,” and then proceeds to describe (and misinterpret) one single case—that of the Universalist denomination in America—as if it definitively proves his point. Simply put, this is quite a shallow argument.

Mike T. Dale also helpfully observes that, contrary to McClymond’s narrative, the church was, in fact, “most unified, holy, disciplined, and missions-focused” when belief in universal salvation was at its most prevalent (i.e., during the patristic period). He adds, “Once the doctrine of eternal hell became mainstream, the church entered the dark ages.”14 This undeniable fact brings to light an interesting, and quite damning, correlation for the eternal damnation view (no pun intended).

[

 

[St. SteVen]

9. “What’s the final destiny of Satan and demons?”
​

In this section, McClymond apparently attempts to frighten people away from universal salvation by invoking the seemingly worrisome prospect of the salvation of Satan and the demons (which he presumes is an ominously unorthodox and damning concept, thus titling his book on universalism, “The Devil’s Redemption”). The fact of the matter is, this complex question of the eventual redemption of the fallen angels is not nearly as simple or necessarily problematic as McClymond seems to assume it is. We will explore this further in the following paragraphs.

First, McClymond asserts that “there isn’t the slightest hint that Satan or the demons will ever be saved” in Scripture, and then cites Matthew 25:41 as if it proves the contrary (which it does not, given the aforementioned ambiguity of αἰώνιος ).15 In reality, appeal could be made to Colossians 1:16-20, at the very least, in which the same “all things” created by, through, and for Christ are the same “all things” ultimately reconciled through him. Are not even the angels that eventually fell (including Satan) part of this “all things” created by Jesus? In case the exhaustive universality is not clear, Paul explicitly tells us (Col. 1:16) that this includes the “principalities” and “powers” (terms usually associated with demonic forces). Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, yes, even these creatures are included in the “all things” that Christ “reconciles” to God the Father (Col. 1:20). The scope of creation and reconcilation are ultimately coextensive. Thus, a strong biblical case can, in fact, be made for the redemption of even the fallen angels.

Additionally, if the doctrine that even Satan will eventually be saved and redeemed is such a heterodox and problematic belief (as McClymond assumes), why was it unequivocally and unhesitatingly affirmed by Gregory of Nyssa, one of the most significant definers and defenders of Christian orthodoxy in the fourth century, who served as the final editor of the Nicene Creed, and was not only never condemned as a heretic but was even given the honorary title “father of fathers” by the seventh ecumenical council? He taught that Christ “accomplished all the results before mentioned, freeing both man from evil, and healing even the introducer of evil himself; for the chastisement, however painful, of moral disease is a healing of its weakness.”16

Also, McClymond’s claim that “there are no traditional Christian prayers for the salvation of Satan” is demonstrably false. To cite one example, the seventh century monk Isaac of Nineveh records a famous story, beloved in Eastern Orthodox tradition,17 of an early father who answered the question, “What is a merciful heart?” by saying it is, “The burning of the heart unto the whole creation, man, fowls and beasts, demons and whatever exists; so that by the recollection and the sight of them the eyes shed tears on account of the force of mercy which moves the heart by great compassion.”18

The brilliant 20th-century Russian Orthodox theologian Sergius Bulgakov, in the following excerpt, persuasively explains the problematic implications of the idea that Satan will remain forever a successful rebel to the end, persisting in unredeemed evil and sin:

[We must believe in the eventual conversion of even Satan] otherwise our only option is to admit the indestructibility of the devil in his satanism, before which divinity itself is impotent, to acknowledge the devil as the victor in this duel between absolute Good and created being—that is, we must acknowledge him to be mightier than God.19

In hastily dismissing this concept of the salvation of Satan and the demons, McClymond has demonstrated his own failure to carefully think through this important question. And as we have seen, his assertion that “Scripture and church practice give us no reason to assume Satan or demons will ever be saved” is not necessarily accurate—a fact that is confirmed by the previously mentioned quote from Jerome which evidences that this may even have been a majority belief at one point on the basis of biblical teaching: “I know that most persons understand by the story of Nineveh and its king the ultimate forgiveness of the devil and all rational creatures.”20 Much to the contrary of McClymond’s claim, I would assert that the Bible and church tradition certainly do not give us unmistakable reason to assume that the fallen angels won’t ever be saved from the corrupting effects of sin.

It is more than reasonable to affirm that God’s defeat of evil will be total: he must entirely destroy the devil (such that he is no longer ‘the evil one’) and completely eradicate his works (cf. Heb. 2:14, 1 John 3:8), thus redeeming creation in its entirety, bringing about the “restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21), fallen angels as well as fallen men (cf. Col. 1:16-20, Rom. 5:18-21).

[

 

[St. SteVen]

10. “Can sinful people make atonement or satisfaction for their own sins through their own sufferings?
​

Here McClymond essentially repeats his argument in question #4, but in a slightly different form. He claims that belief in Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement on the cross is incompatible with universal salvation because universalists believe the lost are eventually saved by atoning for their own sins in hell instead of being saved through Christ’s atoning sacrifice on their behalf. The problem is, this simply isn’t what the vast majority of Christian universalists throughout history have actually believed. McClymond is again misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting the view he attempts to refute.

In reality, evangelical universalists such as myself affirm that the lost are ultimately saved, not by their own purgatorial suffering, but by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and the suffering they experience in hell is for the purpose of bringing them to recognize their need for Jesus (and his atoning death on their behalf) such that they eventually repent and are saved by and through him; much like how God often uses suffering in this life to bring people to faith. Their suffering is a means of conversion and regeneration (in addition to serving as a form of accountability), not the source of their salvation itself—that’s the role of Christ’s death and resurrection alone. Thus McClymond’s objections again fall flat.

Additionally, the discussion of “ultra-universalism” in this section is unhelpful, since it has always been a relatively rare view among universalists historically. Also, McClymond’s concluding statement that ultra-universalism and a denial of Christ’s sufficiency “are the only two options for the universalist,” is another classic example of a false dichotomy based on a misconstrual of universalist doctrine. Contrary to McClymond’s portrayal, most Christian universalists throughout history have consistently affirmed both the reality of post-mortem punishment, and the sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive work on behalf of sinners, while remaining committed to belief in the eventual redemption of all. At the end of the day, it is not all that difficult to affirm that Christ’s atonement is ultimately effectually applied to everyone for whom it was intended, even those who remain lost for a time in the next life.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

11. “Is it plausible to believe there will be a ‘second chance’ for salvation after death?”
​

Here McClymond claims, “If there is such a ‘second chance’ for salvation after death, then it’s never clearly presented or described in Scripture.” This is not necessarily accurate. While one could try to dispute the ‘clarity’ of the following examples, there are a number of passages in Scripture which plainly affirm or imply that, at least in some cases, there is indeed opportunity for repentance and salvation after death.

For instance, the apostle Peter explains, “this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead: that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does” (1 Peter 4:6). And, no, you cannot dismiss this text by interpreting it as a reference to those who who heard and believed the gospel during their earthly lifetime and are now dead. If Peter were merely teaching that there are Christians who have been evangelized and have since died, first of all, this would hardly be worth noting as it would be a basic benign fact that wouldn’t need mentioning, and, second, there would be no apparent reason for Peter’s designation of a unique or distinct category by the use of the word καὶ here (“also” or “even” the dead).

In addition to this, the apostle Paul references (without criticism) the practice of baptism “on behalf of the dead” (1 Cor. 15:29), a concept which would make no sense at all if the dead are fixed in their state. Likewise, Jesus implies that some sins can be “forgiven…in the age to come” (Matt. 12:32). And, as mentioned earlier, Paul also teaches that “every tongue,” including those of the people “under the earth” (i.e., those in ‘hades,’ the realm of the dead), will eventually “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil. 2:10-11), which Paul elsewhere equates with professing saving faith in Christ (cf. Rom. 10:9, 1 Cor. 12:3). Not to mention, Christ teaches that he goes after the lost one “until he finds it” (Luke 15:4), he does not give up pursuing the lost after their death, for death is no barrier to his saving power, as he proclaims, “I have the keys of death and hades” (Rev. 1:18).

Of the two texts McClymond cites in support of his view (Matt. 25:1-13, Luke 13:23-24), neither of them necessarily indicate that death is a ‘point of no return,’ rather they simply exemplify the pattern and theme of urgency in the gospel warnings. No inferences about eternal finality or a supposed lack of post-mortem opportunity for repentance can be properly drawn from the details of these highly metaphorical passages. Additionally, keep in mind that Jesus’ conclusion at the end of the latter discourse is that “some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last” (Luke 13:30). This basic fact that some will experience exclusion for a time and thus will be “last” when they expected to be “first,” does not at all mean that they will never enter into paradise for all of eternity. This is merely an assumption made by infernalists such as McClymond.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

12. “Is universalism compatible with the Christian mandate to preach the gospel, practice self-denial, and suffer for Christ and the gospel?”
​

Here in the final section, McClymond invokes one of the most common objections to the doctrine of universal salvation, namely, that it is “likely to engender complacency or indifference.” First, it is worth point out in passing that this same objection could just as reasonably be raised against a Calvinist view (due to the implications of God’s sovereign predetermination of each individual’s final fate) as well as arguably even an Arminian view (due to the immutability of God’s foreknowledge of each individual’s final fate). But this is beside the point.

In reality, contrary to McClymond’s pragmatic speculations and accusations regarding the supposed psychological effects of belief in universal salvation, universalism is indeed entirely compatible with all of the above Christian mandates regarding evangelism, self-denial, and suffering. In fact, I would argue that, when properly understood, the doctrine of universal salvation actually inspires zeal for the gospel.

When this question is raised, in most cases it’s almost as though the objector is assuming that without the threat of eternal damnation there would be no point in following Jesus or living in obedience to his calling for us. This brings to light the problematic fact that many infernalists seem to view Jesus merely (or at least chiefly) as a ‘get out of hell free’ card, so to speak—remove the real possibility of everlasting hell, and these individuals would apparently say ‘forget Jesus.’ This, of course, is not a proper understanding of gospel motivation.

The reason we ought to follow Jesus and proclaim the gospel without delay, is not primarily for fear of damnation as a consequence if we don’t, but rather because Jesus is inherently worthy of our devotion and obedience, and the gospel is inherently good news worth proclaiming! The second-century early church father (and universalist) Clement of Alexandria put it well, “We must then, according to my view, have recourse to the word of salvation neither from fear of punishment nor promise of a gift, but on account of the Good itself.”21 Along the same lines, the apostle John wrote, “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:18-19).

Later in this section, after describing a few instances of courageous evangelism, McClymond asks, “Can anyone imagine a Christian universalist doing this? Is there a single case of such a universalist missionary-martyr?” In response, I would assert: yes and yes. In fact, there have been many courageous missionaries and evangelists who were universalists (for instance: George de Benneville, Elhanan Winchester, and Nicolaus Zinzendorf) as well as unwavering martyrs who have likewise affirmed the doctrine of universal salvation (including Pamphilus, Methodius, and even Origen who died of wounds received while being tortured for his Christian faith, not to mention Paul the apostle, on whom see the following discussion). If one cannot imagine a Christian universalist boldly pursuing gospel ministry for Christ, then, in addition to being uncharitable and presumptive, such a person is most likely uninformed about much of church history.

The apostle Paul and his teaching on this subject provides a helpful case study here. For instance, in 1 Timothy 4:10, he teaches that our “hope in the living God” as the “Savior of all people” is (or ought to be) the motivating basis for “why we toil and strive.” Far from stifling evangelism, Paul affirms that the doctrine of universal salvation, properly understood, functions as a catalyst for gospel ministry. Similarly, in Colossians 1, after proclaiming that God ultimately “reconciles all things to himself” (1:20), he expresses his passion for reaching all people with the good news of Christ: “Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ” (1:28). Similarly, in 2 Corinthians 5, Paul points to God’s universal redemptive love as the basis for evangelistic zeal: “For the love of Christ compels us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died” (5:14). He goes on to connect the doctrine of universal reconciliation with our role as God’s missionary ambassadors: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (5:18-20). Clearly, Paul did not view the universal scope of salvation as a hindrance to missions work, but rather a catalyst for it.

Additionally, one related question I would pose to infernalists is: have you ever considered why it is that the doctrine of eternal conscious torment has, as a matter of practical fact, failed to motivate most people to turn to Christ, and has likewise failed to motivate most Christians to consistently evangelize? Could this be because most of us, at least deep-down, recognize that it is an inherently absurd and incoherent concept, and thus, is a threat that we recognize does not deserve to be taken seriously? But I digress.

Having now responded quite thoroughly to all twelve of Michael McClymond’s “questions for would-be universalists,” we can conclude that not a single one of the dozen challenges presented poses a formidable problem for the doctrine of universal salvation. Though McClymond has indeed succeeded in tearing down many strawmen, the real substance of Christian universalism remains standing unaffected. Considering how much time and energy McClymond has devoted to attempting to oppose universalism at every turn, his frequent misrepresentations and shallow arguments demonstrate a surprising ignorance on his part of the actual beliefs of Christian universalists, if not a willingness to deliberately distort universalist teaching in many instances. Nonetheless, as mentioned in the introduction, the questions posed in McClymond’s article do helpfully grant us universalists another opportunity to further refine our theological argumentation, and clarify what Christian universalism does and does not actually entail.22 For this I am grateful.

[