Why I say Universal Salvation and not Universalism or Universalist

Currently anyway, I used to use those latter two terms more.  The issue is those terms do not clarify what it is I think is Universal.

I don't think "all religions lead to God", I believe Zero religions lead to God.  We are not Saved by finding God, we are Saved by The Good Shepherd finding His Lost Sheep.

I can't say with certainty that I think everyone's Ultimate Fate is exactly the same.  What I teach with certainty is that everyone will be Saved, and will ultimately be Happy with whatever their life in the New Creation winds up being.

By being Saved I mean we will be Resurrected, Body, Soul and Spirit, and won't be Annihilated and whatever Judgment/Punishment we may receive will be finite and for correction not endless.

You see people want to use against Universal Salvation verses that say certain people won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. But what they're blind to is that not everyone who's Saved enters the Kingdom (at least not right away), in Revelation 21-22 the Kingdom is New Jerusalem, and we're explicitly told that there are Nations of the Saved outside New Jerusalem.

The notion that Universal Salvation somehow contradicts Free Will is predicated on thinking Salvation equals being in New Jerusalem, it doesn't.  I don't think God will be "taking love that isn't freely given", I believe He's not going to punish people only for rejecting Him.  His invitation is for everyone and that invitation will never be rescinded, Revelation 21:25 makes clear the Gates of New Jerusalem are never shut.

A number of people seem to be insisting they don't believe in Universal Salvation, but then argue for "Hell" not being literally a place of Torment but simply Separation from God.  So if you think the Unsaved will still exist and are not really being tormented, how are they NOT Saved?

C.S. Lewis explicitly rejected the Universalism of George MacDonald who he admired, but in both The Great Divorce and The Final Battle he paints a picture some Universal Salvation preachers like Peter Hiett see as pretty compatible with their views for two reasons.

1, He allows After Death repentance, a doctrine clearly taught in 1 Peter.

2. He basically presents "hell" as simply not being in Heaven, and seems to think the only thing keeping sinners out of Heaven is their own choice not to enter.

Mormonism basically teaches a form of Universal Salvation (at least the scenario depicted in Doctrine and Covenants 76 does).  Yet most Evangelicals prefer to criticize them from the opposite direction, insisting they teach very few people are Saved, they read that scenario and act like you're only Saved if you're in the Celestial Kingdom, which ironically is the one level depicted here I see as not having an analogue in Revelation 21, the Celestial Kingdom is where you become a god starting your own Universe.

Perhaps this bizarre perception of what it means to be saved is why so many people think Zach Snyder's Superman never saves anyone?

I am optimistic that eventually everyone will accept the invitation to enter New Jerusalem.  But my point here is that's not what Salvation is and so is not what I'm certain about.

Pre-Nicea and Post-Nicea Universal Reconciliation

I don't need a doctrine to be supported by the "Early Church" for me to consider it true.  But I study the Early Church because history interests me, and I'd like to think that in every era there was someone somewhere who understood what I consider to be the True Gospel.

Here is a Website on Early Church History that doesn't agree with Universalism.

I definitely feel my fellow Universalists often overstate their case on this issue.  Outside of Origen I'm not currently aware of any Pre-Nicene fathers clearly indisputably expressing Universalist views.  However outside of maybe Tertulian and Tatian no one was clearly contradicting it either, and they were both influenced by Heretical movements.  The writings of the Pre-Niene Fathers were mostly either Apologetics or refuting Heresies, and yet Universalism was not ever listed among those Heresies, the Soterology they objected to was the Predestination of the Gnostics and Valentinians.

I can also understand why during the era of persecution Christians might have been less inclined to emphasize it, they found comfort in emphasizing the Judgment that will fall on their persecutors.

It's become popular in Protestant/Evangelical and Hebrew Roots circles to think anything that became more popular after the Edict of Milan must be bad.  But that's an oversimplification in my view.  For those who were already believers before, the weight of that threat being removed may have allowed them to dig into questions they weren't likely to before.

Not to mention how both Origen and whoever wrote the version of the Apocalypse of Peter that supports Universal Reconciliation held the view that this truth should be hidden from the casuals because fear is a good motivator.  This of course is another area where I disagree with Origen and don't like him being propped up as the standard bearer of Unviersalism.  Our motivation to do good should be Love not Fear.

The above linked to site concedes that Aionios and Aonion comes from words for Age and don't inherently mean Eternal.  But they try to insist it does mean that in the context of Aionios fire or punishment for reasons that I responded to in the post I made yesterday.

This site I feel overstates the extent to which Post-Origen Universalists held that view because they were influenced by him.  But of course I feel Pro-Unviersalists do the same thing.  Yes Gregory of Nyssa and Athanasius of Alexandria probably had read Origen.  But the fact is they clearly disagreed with Origen on issues like the Pre-Existence of Souls and and whether or not the Resurrection is of the Flesh.  And Origen's version of Apokastasis was tied to his views on those matters.  So the Universalism expressed by the Cappadocian Fathers and people of the Antiochian school was in-spite of not because of Origen.

As far as any Universalists who signed the Nicean Creed and opposed Arianism goes.  Many of them blamed the origins of Arianism in part on Origen's view that Jesus was originally just another Pre-Existent Human Soul that got untied to the Logos.

And evidence that it existed before Origen is implied in how Augustine described Origen as different from other Univeralists, saying he didn't go as far as them, not that they went further then he did.

But let's go on to some people who this site wants to insist weren't Universalist.

Theophilus of Antioch I can now agree can't clearly be proven to have been a Universalist.  But here is what this site says on him.

Theophilus

He quotes Theophilus as saying:

And God shewed great kindness to man, in this, that He did not suffer him to continue being in sin for ever; but, as it were, by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated, within an appointed time, the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards be recalled.

I didn't look this up. I'm sure he did say this. However, the context is clearly Adam to Christ, not the eternal kingdom. The punishment to man, being cast out of paradise, was not forever. Now, in Christ, paradise is offered again to us.
On the subject of eternity, here's what Theophilus said:

But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries, fornications, filthiness, covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the very end everlasting fire shall possess such men. Since you said, "Show me your God," this is my God, and I counsel you to fear him and to trust him.

That is the very last sentence of book 1 of To Autolycus.
To publicize the first quote while ignoring the second is the product either of ignorance—in which case this man shouldn't be writing on the subject—or dishonesty unworthy of a Christian.

For the latter quote, if Theophilus said Aionios/Aionion then he's just quoting what Scripture says and not interpreting it.

On the above quote being about "Adam to Christ" I agree what we don't know what Theophilus thought that meant.  The problem to me is what Paul said about contrasting Adam and Christ in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 should be viewed as unambiguously Universlaist.  In Adam all are made Sinners and in Jesus all are made Righteous.  If the number made righteous is less then the number made sinners then Jesus was lesser then Adam, which is clearly not what Paul taught.

His attempt to show Clement of Alexandria didn't teach Universal Salvation I also find similarly inadequate, they're quotes about the Judgment but do not prove it would be endless.

And likewise with the attempt to prove Methodius of Olympus believed in Eternal Punishment, it is again just a quote that proves the Judgment will happen.  And the article doesn't include every Methodius quote from On the Resurrection that can be interpreted as supporting Universal Reconciliation, only two of them.  Some others are

"The Scriptures usually call 'destruction' the turning to the better at some future time." 

 "The world shall be set on fire in order to purification and renewal."

 "Christ was crucified that he might be adored by all created things equally, for 'unto him every knee shall bow,'"

Not all believers, all Created things.

Methodius died in 311 AD, two years before the Edict of Milian.  And he wrote On the Resurrection specifically against Origen defending the Resurrection as being Bodily.

Regardless of how long the Early Church Fathers thought God's Anger would last.  Psalm 30 defines His Anger as being but a moment.

Age of Ages

 I already used Scripture to interpret Scripture proving that Aionion/Aionios can't always mean Eternal.  And I also have my kind of rhetorical KJV only Universalism post.

So I was reading a website against Universalism yesterday that acknowledged that Aionion/Aionios doesn't inherently mean Eternal or Forever.  In fact they said something I hadn't seen before yet, that the phrase commonly translated "for ever and ever" (in verses like Revelation 14:11), which is two forms of Aion used side by side, would most literally be translated "Age of the Ages".

I found that pretty enlightening.  I know that some Secular ancient Greek usage of Aion seemingly used it as a term for all of Time, and this makes sense in that context.  The Eon with other smaller Eons within it is from when Time began in Genesis 1:1 (as well as John 1:1) to when Time as we currently know it at least will end either in the last verse of Revelation 20 or some point soon after New Jerusalem descends, possibly at Revelation 21:8&9.

This article however made the same objection I made back before I was a Universalist.  That the same word is used to define the Life of Believers, sometimes with the clear intent of contrasting them.

First of all my confidence in the never ending life of believers isn't dependent on Aionion/Aionios verses.  Jesus promised those who believe in Him that we will Never Die in John 11:26.

Meanwhile some of our promises of Aionion Life are specifically in the Aion to Come (world to Come in the KJV).  That future Aion will be one that doesn't end because it is ruled by God dwelling with Humanity. But the Judgment of the wicked is limited to the current Age of the Ages.

This notion that his judgment on the wicked must be equivalent to the life of believers ignores the clear teaching of passages like Psalm 30:5 that His Anger endures but a moment.

Fact is, it creates contradictions in The Bible to interpret Aionion verses as referring to endless punishment or annihilation, because we're told Sodom will be restored in Ezekiel 16, and that Jesus is the Savior of ALL not just Believers in 1 Timothy 4:10.

And now today I found a YouTube video on the Age of Ages phrase.

That video possibly suggests that the Age of the Ages is the coming age, which is also interesting.

Here is another.

When does All Mean All?

Here are at least four passages where the use of the word "all" is viewed as pretty significant by Evangelical Universalists such as myself.  By no means all of the "all" verses Unvierslaists would site, but I want to limit myself here to ones where the counterarguments are most difficult to make, and also to what I personally recall at this moment in time.

John 12:32

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

Romans 5:17-21

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)  Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.  For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.  Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

1 Corinthians 15:21-22

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

1 Timothy 4:10

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe."

But one could respond to that by pointing to many Bible Passages where the use of the word All does not preclude exceptions.  Here is a Calvanist questing if all ever means all, mostly for the purpose of responding to Arminiasm, in which context verses where All has at face value a Unvierslaist implication are part of his proof it can't mean "all".  There is an article by a skeptic called 10 Bible verses where "all" does not mean "all".  In both of those cases it involved a lot of cases where the qualifier is right there in the verse, all of something specific. But even then, was every single individual in Jerusalem upset about the Magi's arrival?  Probably not but that can't be proven.  In most of the verses I'm talking about the qualified classification is humanity.

Anthropos is the Greek for "Men" in each of these, so don't even think about saying it precludes women, if it meant only all males or adult males in the Greek it would have been Asren or Andros.

When "All" truly has an exception to it, it's a rare exception, maybe one only.  So no that can't be used to make these verses consistent with the usual position of Conservative Christians that the vast majority of Humanity will not be saved.

The verse in Timothy specifically rules out the possibility that the "all" in mind is only those that believe, as does 1 John 2:2 but it doesn't quite use the word all, in English at least.  Those verses at least destroy the Limited Atonement doctrine of Calvinism.

John's Gospel uses "all men" quite a few times.  Some in passages that you might say at face value imply all men become believers in this life which is demonstrably not true.  However I believe that is fulfilled by all men believing once they're Resurrected.

Speaking of which, 1 Corinthians 15 is specifically about the Resurrection.  So I know they'll say that we know from Revelation 20 all unbelievers will be Resurrected, to then immediately be sent to Burn for all Eternity or be Annihilated.  I feel that's inconsistent with the tone of what Paul says here, but traditionalists can say Unvierslaists' interpretations of passages on Judgment are inconsistent with their tone.  Revelation can be shown to be consistent with a Universalsit message, but that's for other posts.  What I can say in short is God many times says His Anger is what's limited, His Mercy endures forever.

The most important of the above passages is Romans 5.

There is one exception to all Men becoming sinners, that's Jesus.  Jesus however was able to be that Spotless Lamb because He was The Word of God made Flesh.  So to suggest that there could be an equivalent exception to Jesus making All men Righteous suggests there can be an entity who is equally as without righteousness as Jesus is without Sin.  That Satan is just as Sinful as God is Sinless.  And that is Dualism and thus Blasphemy.

Verse 19 is suddenly saying "many" instead of "all", but that goes for the statement about being condemned as sinners as well.  The fact remains that the same people who became sinners are now made righteous.  In fact in the Greek the definite article is used before both uses of "many", so it should be translated "the many", meaning they can't be referring to separate groups of "many".

Paul concludes the Chapter by saying that Grace abounds MORE then Sin did.

Free Will vs Predestination

Much of where I differ from other modern Evangelical Universalists may come down to how for most Origen is their favorite of the Early Church Fathers while I prefer the Church Fathers who were Universalists yet critical of Origen.  Because I'm concerned about the ways Origen anticipated things like Arianism via his Platonic ideas.

However my past uncomfortably with their tendency to reject Free Will isn't one of them.  Origen strongly taught Free Will and condemned those Gnostics who rejected it.  And so did Methodius of Olympus who was critical of Origen but possibly a fellow Universalist.  I do not however agree with Origen's desire to explain what Malachi says about Jacob and Esau via a Prexistence of Souls doctrine. 

I made a post on this blog already providing quotes about Free Will before Pelagius.  Pelagius's teaching may have included something I'd find heretical, I don't know, we know him only via what his critics said.  But the point is he didn't invent Free Will.

My perspective on the issue of Free Will and Predesintation has been, not changed so much as clarified since watching this video explaining what Calvin originally taught.

Calvin mentioned Universalism but without taking it seriously.  Because to him that was an absurdity. So he concluded that God must choose not to Save people in order to maintain God's Sovereignty.  Even though more then one passage in Scripture says it's not God's Will for any to Perish.  Matthew 18:14, 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:3-4.

Non Calvanist opponents of Unviersalism would respond that the context is explaining why the Parusia is being delayed and clearly implies those who aren't saved before the Parusia are screwed.  The validity of that argument depends on other passages.  Calvinists however need to convince themselves that those verses are only talking about the Elect even though the context clearly doesn't support that.

As far as the claim that Romans 1 talks about "Reprobates".  Much of Romans 1 is rhetorically laying the views of those Paul is about to scold.  The rest of the Epistle goes on to refute the notion that God gives up on Sinners.

I have come to realize that instead of putting Universalism into the context of the position I already had on the Free Will/Predestination conflict, I should rather view Universalism as the solution to that conflict.  The Bible clearly teaches both Free Will and Predestination, and it is only an assumption that some will not be saved that sees a conflict there.

Jesus says in John 12:32 that He will draw all men unto him, the Greek terminology clearly implies the one being drawn isn't in control. 

We don't have Free Will in terms of Salvation, God won't allow us to destroy ourselves, nor destroy us for rejecting Him.  But we do have Free Will in terms of being a Believer in this Life, being a Citizen of the Kingdom, entering a Relationship with Him.  God makes the first move as Luther would say, because he's made that first move towards everyone, it's now on us to accept it.

1 John 2:2 destroys limited Atonement "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.".  As does 1 Timothy 2:6 "Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.".

1 Timothy 4:10 "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe.".

Protestants spend so much time emphasizing the importance of us not having any reason to boast of our works.  But we do so in denial that Faith is itself a Work.  We consider it important that we do not think we contribute to our Salvation, yet will still think the Salvation of others is dependent on our Evangelism.

We're supposed to preach the Good News, not an Ultimatum.  We were told to Be A Witness, not to force our beliefs on people.  There is no Biblical Basis for door to door soul winning.

Here is one more Link I want to share.
http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2016/08/robin-parry-on-hope-for-israel-and.html

The Resurrection in The Torah.

In Matthew 22:31-32 Jesus proves The Resurrection of The Dead from The Torah to the Sadducces.

"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Josephus tells us a few important things about the Sadducees that this part of The Gospel narrative verifies.  They denied The Resurrection, as well as The Afterlife.  And they limited the Canon to just the Torah.  That's why Jesus didn't just prove it by quoting Ezekiel 37, Isaiah 26, Daniel 12, or Psalm 16:10.

While the Sadducees of the First Century were wiped out in 70 AD, there are some just like them around today.  Like the website TheDesertTabernacle.com.  And the YouTube Channel Remember The Commands.

While by definition no Christians can be strictly Torah only, there are some within the Hebrew Roots movement that get pretty close, the gateway drug is Rob Skiba calling the Torah "The Bible of The Bible", but others go further then that, often deciding to do things like reject David as a tyrant.

Since most today don't have The Torah as memorized as Jesus immediate listeners in Matthew 22 did, I want to break down Jesus argument here.  I think there is more then one verse of The Torah being utilized.

Strictly speaking he's directly quoting Exodus 3:6 (as well as 3:15-16 and 4:5), where the voice from the Burning Bush calls Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  With terminology that is clearly present tense.

However what he says was also bound to bring to mind Deuteronomy 5:26.  The KJV's reading of that verse is.

"For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?"

Yahuah being called the "Living God" here could be interpreted as carrying the meaning of "God of the Living" and thus part of the basis of Jesus' argument.

If it was only one of either the Afterlife or Resurrection the Sadducees were denying, Jesus argument here wouldn't quite be so destructive to them.  It's that they denied both that made God proclaiming himself in the present tense to be the God of those three individuals long dead by Moses time, that proves their lives are not simply over and done with.

That was Jesus argument for the Resurrection in The Torah.  The Talmud (composed by descendants of the Hillel Pharisees) has it's own.  Referencing Exodus 15:1, and also possibly Deuteronomy 32.

“Rabbi Meir asked, whence is the Resurrection derived from the Torah? As it is said, ‘Then will Moses and the children of Israel sing this song unto the Lord.’ It is not said ‘sang’ but will sing; hence the Resurrection is deducible from the Torah” (Sanhedrin 90b).

I'm not sure that argument will hold up under scrutiny as well as Jesus' argument.  But it's interesting to us Christians since Revelation 15:3 seems to refer back to this same Torah subject.

The Samaritans are also a Torah as the only real Canon community, and they affirm The Resurrection based on Deuteronomy 32:39.

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

Genesis 22 implies Abraham believed Isaac would be resurrected, God had earlier promised him he'd have many descendants specifically through Isaac.  And in verse 5 he tells the servants that he and Isaac both will be back.

Also the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine is partly built on seeing Moses blessing on Joseph in Deuteronomy 33 as implying Josephus or someone of Joseph will be sacrificed and then resurrected.

I normally talk about the doctrine of the Resurrection on my Prophecy Blog. But I do have an earlier post on this Blog responding to Lex Meyer's book.

Since I tie my belief in The Resurrection to my belief in Universal Salvation, perhaps this is a good time to discus proving Universal Salvation from The Torah.  I made a thread on the subject in a Facebook group recently, so I've gathered some thoughts on that.

In Genesis 12:3 God promises Abraham that in him will "All the Families of the Earth be Blessed", families could be translated peoples.  Genesis 22:18 says in Abraham's Seed shall "all the Nations of the Earth be blessed", nations could also be translated gentiles.

A lot of other arguments are more typological, like the Law of the Jubilee.

There is also an important message to be learned from the Image of the Burning Bush itself.  What caught Moses attention was that it was a bush that was on fire yet the fire did not consume it.

I was suggested an article about the story of Joseph's Brothers being used to make the case for the redemption of Judas, who Jesus defined as more damned then anyone else.  And also a website called God's Kingdom ministries.

And then there is the fact that Dispensationists love to go on and on about how God's promise to Abraham was not dependent on Obedience. Well I do believe God will literally fulfill that Covenant.  But perhaps it's also a picture of God's love for Humanity as a whole and every individual Human.  He intends to Save us regardless of our obedience or faithfulness.

Jesus' Instruction about Forgiveness, and Universal Salvation.

Matthew chapter 18, verses 21 through 35 (the last verse of the chapter) are refereed to as the "Instruction about Forgiveness".   Verse 22 is the famous 70 times 7 times quote.  And starting in verse 23 is a parable, explicitly likened unto The Kingdom.

The King forgives a a servant the debt they owed him.  That servant goes on to prove unwilling to forgive someone who owed him a debt.  When the King heard of this, he was very upset and scolded him and then comes the last two verses

"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.  So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses."

Now, back when I was just arguing for Eternal Security, this would have been an issue to me.  I can see those teaching Salvation can be lost using part of this story's ending out of context.  But what I emphasized in Bold is the key, it was clearly not an endless punishment.

The fact that I've shown Aionios doesn't always mean Eternal.  Means we can clearly apply this to The Lake of Fire.

And before anyone tries to argue this is only for Believers who fail to forgive.  The tone of this story is clearly that this person being someone who the Lord had already forgiven and shown mercy on, made him more angry.  So it seems illogical to suggest a non Believer's punishment for their debt would be worse.

According to Ezekiel 16, Sodom will be restored.

This fact about Ezekiel 16 has been relevant to my Universal Salvation argument in three prior posts on this Blog.  Words Translated Eternal, KJV only Universalism and My Evangelical Universalism does not contradict Free Will.  Typically also referencing Jude's use of the word Aionios in reference to the Fire that consumed Sodom.

The context is God scolding Judah, foretelling Judgment that will come upon Judah.  And He references both Samaria (The Northern Kingdom) and Sodom as earlier nations He judged.  Saying Samaria had less excuse then Sodom, and Judah has less excuse then Samaria.  But He also promises Judah will eventually be restored, just as Samaria and Sodom will be.  Verses 53-55

When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them: That thou mayest bear thine own shame, and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, in that thou art a comfort unto them. When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.

Genesis 18-19 clearly tells us Sodom and Gomorrah had no righteous people in them, and so they were completely destroyed with no Survivors.  Lot and his Family were taken out, but they were up to this very day still considered foreigners living among them by the Sodomites.  And Lot's descendants became their own nations living in a different geographical region, Moab and Ammon.

So Sodom's restoration can't be via bringing their descendants back, as we traditionally assume Judah and Samaria's restorations will be.  Sodom's restoration can only be via The Resurrection of the Dead.  And because of Ezekiel 37, I believe that is what Judah and Samaria's restorations are ultimately about as well.

So there is no way an aboslutly Literal interpretation of Ezekiel 16 can get around it's obvious Universalist implications.

And yet, the only valid typolocial or allegorical interpretation, is even more Universalist.  As that says the three nations in question here must somehow represent all of Humanity.

You can't argue that even Sodom represents a type of believer.  Because even going off only what this passage says about Sodom, they are clearly people who never had a relationship with Yahuah.

The only valid typological interpretation, is that Sodom represents people who never believed, Samaria people who believed and then fell away, and Judah people who remained believers, but still even the best of us have our failings.  And our knowledge of God's Word only makes us more accountable for our Sins.

Therefore the Universalist implications of Ezekiel 16 are unavoidable.

Update April 13th 2018: Younger Sister?

I've become aware of an objection to the Universalist use of this passage by pointing out in verse 46 how Sodom is called a Younger Sister of Judah.  "This name must be a poetic idiom or something since literal Sodom clearly came before Judah or Samaria", they say.

Here is the problem with that.  Samaria is definitely called Judah's older Sister.  Even though the Northern Kingdom split off from Solomon.  And Joseph the dominate tribe of the North was literally younger then Judah the dominate tribe of the South in terms of their respective patriarchs.  And Samaria specifically was founded during the reign of Omri but never became the sole chief capital till Jehu.

In Exodus and Hosea Israel as a whole is proclaimed Yahuah's Firstborn when He brought them out of Egypt.  And Joseph received the Firstborn inheritance because of Jacob's love for Rachel though Judah got the Kingship.

What's not literal in that verse is the sibling terminology, not what Nations are being refereed to.

It is still implied in the narrative of the passage that Sodom came first because the Judgment of Sodom was the warning Samaria failed to heed, while Judah failed to heed both warnings.

Update November 10th 2018: Fortunes

I've been presented with another objection, that God is only saying the Fortunes of Sodom will be restored.   Well "Fortunes" isn't used the KJV but I guess they're referring to their Estates.  The passage also refers to the Daughters of Samaria.  The point remains it's the same as Samaria and Jerusalem's restorations.

They actually suggest it's fulfilled in Jerusalem's restoration because of when Jerusalem is called Spiritually Sodom and Egypt.  I find that kind of semantics laughable. 

Fact is it's also part of what YHWH says here that Jersalem's Wickedness was worse then Sodom or Samaria's, and that's why Jerusalem is compared to Sodom in places like Revelation 11.  So it would make Him Unjust to not restore Sodom, instead he chronologically will restore Sodom first.

My Evangelical Universalism does not contradict Free Will

I made a brief post on Free Will before Pelegius once.  I decided that I didn't need much of a separate post proving Free Will Biblically because those Church Fathers themselves quoted Scripture in those quotes.

Since then I've become a Universalist.  And in the Evangelical Universalism group on Facebook I joined, there seems to be a lot of hostility towards Free Will.  My differences from a lot of other modern Universalists I think has a lot to do with my not being as fond of Origen and closer to agreeing with the Antiochian school.  Though at the same time Origen did refer to Free Will.  It is still the Platonic influence on the Early Church he reflects that allows rejection of Free Will to seep in.

The Pagan Greek mindset always rejected Free Will.  The Oedipus Legend is all about how Man can't escape the Fate that the gods decreed for him.

I do believe there is a difference between those who Believe in Jesus in this Life and those who didn't.  I believe only those who enter a Covenant Relationship with Him become Citizens of His Kingdom, and eligible to become Co-Rulers.  Revelation 21-22 refers to "Nations of the Saved" outside New Jerusalem.

The idea that you must be rejecting Free Will if you don't think God is going to punish unbelievers  eternally for their choice I think is an abuse of what Free Will means.  Traditional Arminians believe in theoretical Free Will, but they don't actually believe God respects it, because they say if you make the Wrong Choice he will either annihilate or eternally torment you for it.

My point is, True Free Will is ONLY believed in by those who reject Eternal Punishment.  The same passages in The Bible that I consider the strongest proofs of Unviersalism, also clearly show that people will make different Choices.  Like Sodom being Restored (Ezekiel 16), and that verse from John 12 I made a post on recently.

It is God's Will that none should Perish.  I unlike Calvansits and Amrinians believe that can be accomplished without rejecting Man's Free Will. We won't Perish, but we do have choices.

John 12:46-48

"I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.  He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

More on The Early Church Fathers and Universalism

It may be outright annoying how much I talk about the Early Church Fathers when I also make a point of rejecting their authority.

Thing is in addition to being a Christian I'm also a Historian, an amateur one but a Historian none the less.  I'd like to know what they thought, regardless of how much it matters.  And today we have on every issue advocates of every position imaginable wanting to make it sound like the Early Church Fathers agreed with them, when they didn't even allways agree with each other.

With the "Apostolic Fathers" especially, they were never even concerned with interpreting The Bible, they were usually just repeating and paraphrasing it.  And so what they say can be as open for interpretation as The Bible is, or more so since each one wrote far less (that has survived at least) then Paul did.  And it is in that context that what The Bible says shall be very relevant to this post, as well as that these quotes are some of them quoting Scripture.  And I've already made my main Sola Scirptura arguments for Universalism.  And I may do more.

In fact since I became a Universalsit I've written entire posts on this blog that to someone who doesn't know what else I believe could be interpreted as consistent with Eternal Torment, or even assumed to lean that way by those who just assume that's the default view.  Like most recently What does Lawlessness mean in The New Testament.  Where I say those condemned for Lawlessness are those trying to justify themselves by the Law, since they inevitably fail.  I never clarified what they were being condemned to, but obviously those who know this blog know I didn't meant unending torment.

And also I wasn't always a Universalist, I changed my mind on that over time.  And since I've shown many pagan belief systems believed in eternal suffering, how many young Christians even in the earliest generation made assumptions that their study of Scripture would later refute?  And then there was a transitional phase where I most posts where I intentionally avoided the subject.  And my blog mainly about Prophecy I almost never directly allude to my Soterology.

Much of what I say in this post is a response to this article.  Were the Church Father Unviersalists.  This is a very Mainline Protestant website, and so as someone who also doesn't give the Church Fathers that much reverence, I have to agree with the comments about it's Protestant Arrogance.  The first comment left there will also be addressed in this post later.  It's not possible to leave new comments now.

Clement of Rome

‘Let us fix our thoughts on the Blood of Christ; and reflect how precious that Blood is in God’s eyes, inasmuch as its outpouring for our salvation has opened the race of repentance to all mankind. 25-6
38 Again, God says to Him, Sit down at my right hand, until I make your enemies a cushion for your feet. Who are these enemies? Why, wicked persons who set themselves against His will. 38

I'm assuming this is first Clement, the other Clementine literature is all fraudulent and later.  The first quote is really strange here since it sounds like the main Clement quote a Universalist would cite.  As for the second, which is him quoting Psalm 2, them being His Footstool is an idiom of him ruling them.  God also calls the Earth his Footstool.

Ignatius

‘Regarding the rest of mankind, you should pray for them unceasingly, for we can always hope that repentance may enable them to find their way to God’. 64
’…..how much more when a man’s subversive doctrines defile the God-given Faith for which Jesus Christ was crucified. Such a wretch in his uncleanness is bound for the unquenchable fire, and so is anyone else who gives him a hearing.’ 65
‘….the Cross which so greatly offends the unbelievers, but is salvation and eternal life to us’ 65-6
‘To profess any other name than that is to be lost to God….’72
‘Flee for your very life from these men; they are poisonous growths with a deadly fruit, and one taste of it is speedily fatal.’ 81
‘His passion was no unreal illusion, as some skeptics aver who are all unreality themselves. The fate of those wretches will match their unbelief, for one day they will similarly become phantoms without substance themselves.’101
‘For let nobody be under any delusion; there is judgment in store even for the hosts of heaven, the very angels in glory, the visible and invisible powers themselves, if they have no faith in the blood of Christ’.102

Once again there is nothing a Unvierslaist wouldn't say.  We do define the Fire as Unquenchable because it comes from God.  It's unquenchable so it will consume the Sin.  Saying there will be judgment does not prove how long it will last.

Polycarp

‘All things in heaven and earth have been made subject to Him; everything that breathes mays Him homage; He comes to judge the living and the dead, and God will require His blood at the hands of any who refuse him allegiance’ 119

Again, only that there will be Judgment.

The Martydom of Polycarp

‘The other said again, “If you do not recant, I will have your burnt to death, since you think so lightly of wild beasts”. Polycarp rejoined, “The fire you threaten me with cannot go on burning for very long; after a while it goes out. But what you are unaware of are the flames of future judgment and everlasting torment which are in store for the ungodly. Why do you go on wasting time? Bring out whatever you have a mind to” ’.128

This one is another example of what Aionios means being the issue.  Because even 1 year in the Lake of Fire would dwarf how long Polycarp wold have burned, heck a full day might dwarf it.  Not that his point even was a fear of going there, the point of Martyrdom is to demonstrate your Faith in your Eternal Life.  Besides that the Martyrdom of Polycarp is not a reliable historical source, he probably never said this.

Barnabas

‘For when the Lord judges the world there is going to be no partiality; everyone will be recompensed in proportion to what he has done. If he is a good man, his righteousness will make the way smooth before him; but if he is a bad man, the wages of his wickedness will be waiting to confront him.’163
‘For the man who does this, there will be glory in the kingdom of God; but one who prefers the other Way will perish together with his works. 181-2

The Epistle of Barnabas was not written by Barnabas, it is known Pseudopigrapha.  It's not only not authoritative it's anti-authoritative.  That it's lying about who wrote it would make it a surprise to me if it wasn't teaching some dangerous demonic doctrine.  And elsewhere it certainly does as it's perhaps the earliest expression of Anti-Semitism within The Church.

Regardless, the second quote here sounds more like Annihilationism then Eternal Torment.  But even then, depending on what one means by "perish" there are reasons a Universalist might consider it's usage consistent.  It could be an idiom for not being in the Kingdom, or for just entering the Lake of Fire at all no matter how long it is.

The first quote is a good segway to Bible Quotes that allude to the coming Judgment being not the same for all Sinners.  How can there be some equivalent exchange between the amount of Sin and amount of Punishment if the Minimum sentence is forever?  No, to me these kinds of passages work against the endless torment position.  And perhaps equally so against Annihilationism.

The Didache

‘After that, all humankind will come up for their fiery trial; multitudes of them will stumble and perish, but such as remain steadfast in the faith will be saved by the Curse’ 198
[These extracts are from Early Christian Writings, trans. Maxwell Staniforth, revised and provided with Introductions and new editorial material by Andrew Louth. (Penguin Books, 1987)]

Again the word perish comes up.  But in this context it sounds like the saved and unsaved both enter the fire???  We don't know who wrote the Didache, and I suspect this writer was the worst at expressing themselves of all the ones mentioned here.

Now I shall quote the writer of this Article itself.

"Isn’t it extremely odd that a controversially-minded writer such as Augustine, writing in the fifth century, did not spot any such deviancy of the theological schools of his day or of the past from what he, at least, regarded as Christian orthodoxy, particularism and a clear teaching regarding heaven and hell?"

I'm confused by this?  Is he acting like Augustine was unaware of Unviersalim existing?  Because I did a post all about how Augustine talked about there being many Unviersalists in his day.

And now to the comment that was talking about a "rule of faith" attested in both Ireneaus and Tertullian.

Irenaeus writes,
1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess”to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,”and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. (Against Heresies Book 1, ch.10.1; emphasis added).
Irenaeus is very clear in the section following this quote (1.10.2) that this is church doctrine taught throughout the church wherever it has spread. Including Germany, Spain, Gaul, the East, Egypt, Libya, etc.

With Irenaeus who wrote in Greek, it is again a mater of what Aionios meant.  And Origen who taught a form of Universalism (but distinct from mine) also used the word Aionos to describe the judgment of the Lake of Fire.  The mere use of that word proves nothing, just look at how Jude used it talking about Sodom and Gomorrah.

Tertullian writes,
Now, with regard to this rule of faith—that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend—it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics. (On Prescription against Heretics, ch.13; emphasis added)

Tertulian wrote in Latin, and because of that some Universalists see him as the origin of mistranslating Aionios.  But I recently argued that perhaps even what Eternal meant isn't what we always assume and maybe even Tertulian wasn't clearly teaching unending punishment.  It's the fire that is described as Eternal here, God is a Consuming Fire, in Malachi chapter 3 God explains that His Fire will purify the sons of Levi and Purge them like Gold and Silver.

Tertulian did not list Unvierslaism among the Heresies he condemned.  Yet at the same time enemies of Universalism keep saying heretics like Marcion and Valentinius and other early Gnostics taught it that early.

In his Treatise on The Soul Chapter 7, he said only the Ungodly went to Hades.  The Saints went directly to God's Throne if they were Martryd (probably based on the Fifth Seal in Revelation 6), and the rest to Abraham's Bosom, based on the Rich Man and Lazurus parable of Luke 16.  In the last chapter of that, 58, he talks about the coming Judgment that will come after the Resurrection.  But his objective here is to argue against Soul Sleep, and while I also am skeptical of the Soul Sleep doctrine, I know that we can't build doctrine on that Luke 16 parable.

Point is, whether or not the Coming Judgment is without end is not addressed there.  But I still need to read more on Tertulian to solidly conclude anything.

The most Universalist Christians of antiquity were of the School of Antioch.

There were a variety of views in The Early Church

Back when I just believed in Eternal Security, I expressed annoyance at those who act like a view didn't exist in the Early Church if apparently no "Early Church Fathers" advocated for it.  When those same people refereed to lots of views existing besides their own.

There is no Biblical support for a notion that the majority will be right.  But even so who's to say the Church Fathers were the majority?  The warning against the Doctrine of the Nicolatians tells me that those who'd obtain that title should not be inherently more trusted.  But they were the only ones who could write and so their sides of the arguments are what were preserved.  We have no way of knowing how much the people in their own flocks even agreed with them.

I want to quote from a "Church Father" who I disagree with possibly the most of anyone, who's soterology certainly is not mine, being the prototype of Calvinism.

 St Augustine (c.354-43): "There are very many ('imo quam plurimi', which can be translated majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." (Enchiria, ad Laurent. c. 29)

This is backed up by Basil.

St. Basil the Great: (c. 329-379): "The mass of men say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished." (De Asceticis)

Augustine of Hippo in his work City of God: Book 21 Chapters 17-22 describes six views on eternal punishment he disagrees with.  The first two are forms of what we would today call Universal Reconciliation.  The next three are forms of "Once Saved Always Saved".  The last one is something of a works salvation view.

Chapter 17.— Of Those Who Fancy that No Men Shall Be Punished Eternally.

I must now, I see, enter the lists of amicable controversy with those tender-hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or that all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or shorter according to the amount of each man's sin. In respect of this matter, Origen was even more indulgent; for he believed that even the devil himself and his angels, after suffering those more severe and prolonged pains which their sins deserved, should be delivered from their torments, and associated with the holy angels. But the Church, not without reason, condemned him for this and other errors, especially for his theory of the ceaseless alternation of happiness and misery, and the interminable transitions from the one state to the other at fixed periods of ages; for in this theory he lost even the credit of being merciful, by allotting to the saints real miseries for the expiation of their sins, and false happiness, which brought them no true and secure joy, that is, no fearless assurance of eternal blessedness. Very different, however, is the error we speak of, which is dictated by the tenderness of these Christians who suppose that the sufferings of those who are condemned in the judgment will be temporary, while the blessedness of all who are sooner or later set free will be eternal. Which opinion, if it is good and true because it is merciful, will be so much the better and truer in proportion as it becomes more merciful. Let, then, this fountain of mercy be extended, and flow forth even to the lost angels, and let them also be set free, at least after as many and long ages as seem fit! Why does this stream of mercy flow to all the human race, and dry up as soon as it reaches the angelic? And yet they dare not extend their pity further, and propose the deliverance of the devil himself. Or if any one is bold enough to do so, he does indeed put to shame their charity, but is himself convicted of error that is more unsightly, and a wresting of God's truth that is more perverse, in proportion as his clemency of sentiment seems to be greater.

He mentions Origen, but distinguishes Origen from most who hold views like this for reasons partly similar to what I expressed in the supplemental part of the post I made yesterday.

Now when I had long ago on forums dealt with enemies of Eternal Security on the subject of the parts I'll get to later, one who emphasized the "Pre-Nicean Fathers" said Augustine is post-Nicean.  In this case we see with Origen that who he speaks of existed before Nicea and Constantine.  And expressed things in a way where it seems like Origen's version didn't come first, since he went further with it.  If Origen came before the others he'd have said they didn't go as far.

There is no source outside Augustine for saying Origen was condemned for this.  He wasn't formally condemned at all till later then Augustine.  And Origen's earliest critics were far more concerned with his other more Platonic teachings.  It is in those areas that Augustine rather resembles Origen suspiciously enough.

Chapter 18.— Of Those Who Fancy That, on Account of the Saints' Intercession, Man Shall Be Damned in the Last Judgment.

There are others, again, with whose opinions I have become acquainted in conversation, who, though they seem to reverence the holy Scriptures, are yet of reprehensible life, and who accordingly, in their own interest, attribute to God a still greater compassion towards men. For they acknowledge that it is truly predicted in the divine word that the wicked and unbelieving are worthy of punishment, but they assert that, when the judgment comes, mercy will prevail. For, say they, God, having compassion on them, will give them up to the prayers and intercessions of His saints. For if the saints used to pray for them when they suffered from their cruel hatred, how much more will they do so when they see them prostrate and humble suppliants? For we cannot, they say, believe that the saints shall lose their bowels of compassion when they have attained the most perfect and complete holiness; so that they who, when still sinners, prayed for their enemies, should now, when they are freed from sin, withhold from interceding for their suppliants. Or shall God refuse to listen to so many of His beloved children, when their holiness has purged their prayers of all hindrance to His answering them? And the passage of the psalm which is cited by those who admit that wicked men and infidels shall be punished for a long time, though in the end delivered from all sufferings, is claimed also by the persons we are now speaking of as making much more for them. The verse runs: Shall God forget to be gracious? Shall He in anger shut up His tender mercies? His anger, they say, would condemn all that are unworthy of everlasting happiness to endless punishment. But if He suffer them to be punished for a long time, or even at all, must He not shut up His tender mercies, which the Psalmist implies He will not do? For he does not say, Shall He in anger shut up His tender mercies for a long period? But he implies that He will not shut them up at all.
And they deny that thus God's threat of judgment is proved to be false even though He condemn no man, any more than we can say that His threat to overthrow Nineveh was false, though the destruction which was absolutely predicted was not accomplished. For He did not say, Nineveh shall be overthrown if they do not repent and amend their ways, but without any such condition He foretold that the city should be overthrown. And this prediction, they maintain, was true because God predicted the punishment which they deserved, although He was not to inflict it. For though He spared them on their repentance yet He was certainly aware that they would repent, and, notwithstanding, absolutely and definitely predicted that the city should be overthrown. This was true, they say, in the truth of severity, because they were worthy of it; but in respect of the compassion which checked His anger, so that He spared the suppliants from the punishment with which He had threatened the rebellious, it was not true. If, then, He spared those whom His own holy prophet was provoked at His sparing, how much more shall He spare those more wretched suppliants for whom all His saints shall intercede? And they suppose that this conjecture of theirs is not hinted at in Scripture, for the sake of stimulating many to reformation of life through fear of very protracted or eternal sufferings, and of stimulating others to pray for those who have not reformed. However, they think that the divine oracles are not altogether silent on this point; for they ask to what purpose is it said, How great is Your goodness which You have hidden for them that fear You, if it be not to teach us that the great and hidden sweetness of God's mercy is concealed in order that men may fear? To the same purpose they think the apostle said, For God has concluded all men in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all, Romans 11:32 signifying that no one should be condemned by God. And yet they who hold this opinion do not extend it to the acquittal or liberation of the devil and his angels. Their human tenderness is moved only towards men, and they plead chiefly their own cause, holding out false hopes of impunity to their own depraved lives by means of this quasi compassion of God to the whole race. Consequently they who promise this impunity even to the prince of the devils and his satellites make a still fuller exhibition of the mercy of God.

This view seems to be based on saying no one even temporarily enters the Lake of Fire.  The logic of it I do like and understand and can play a role in my argument.  But I'm still more like the first group.

Augustine seems to be confused by the notion of allowing Universal Reconciliation to all humans but not including The Devil and Fallen Angels.  I'm not entirely sure what I think on that issue.  But the difference between them and Human Beings is Human Beings are Blood Relations of Jesus as children of Adam.

Chapter 19.— Of Those Who Promise Impunity from All Sins Even to Heretics, Through Virtue of Their Participation of the Body of Christ.

So, too, there are others who promise this deliverance from eternal punishment, not, indeed, to all men, but only to those who have been washed in Christian baptism, and who become partakers of the body of Christ, no matter how they have lived, or what heresy or impiety they have fallen into. They ground this opinion on the saying of Jesus, This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. John 6:50-51 Therefore, say they, it follows that these persons must be delivered from death eternal, and at one time or other be introduced to everlasting life.

Chapter 20.— Of Those Who Promise This Indulgence Not to All, But Only to Those Who Have Been Baptized as Catholics, Though Afterwards They Have Broken Out into Many Crimes and Heresies.

There are others still who make this promise not even to all who have received the sacraments of the baptism of Christ and of His body, but only to the Catholics, however badly they have lived. For these have eaten the body of Christ, not only sacramentally but really, being incorporated in His body, as the apostle says, We, being many, are one bread, one body; 1 Corinthians 10:17 so that, though they have afterwards lapsed into some heresy, or even into heathenism and idolatry, yet by virtue of this one thing, that they have received the baptism of Christ, and eaten the body of Christ, in the body of Christ, that is to say, in the Catholic Church, they shall not die eternally, but at one time or other obtain eternal life; and all that wickedness of theirs shall not avail to make their punishment eternal, but only proportionately long and severe.

Chapter 21.— Of Those Who Assert that All Catholics Who Continue in the Faith Even Though by the Depravity of Their Lives They Have Merited Hell Fire, Shall Be Saved on Account of the Foundation Of Their Faith.

There are some, too, who found upon the expression of Scripture, He that endures to the end shall be saved, Matthew 24:13 and who promise salvation only to those who continue in the Catholic Church; and though such persons have lived badly, yet, say they, they shall be saved as by fire through virtue of the foundation of which the apostle says, For other foundation has no man laid than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day of the Lord shall declare it, for it shall be revealed by fire; and each man's work shall be proved of what sort it is. If any man's work shall endure which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. But if any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 They say, accordingly, that the Catholic Christian, no matter what his life be, has Christ as his foundation, while this foundation is not possessed by any heresy which is separated from the unity of His body.  And therefore, through virtue of this foundation, even though the Catholic Christian by the inconsistency of his life has been as one building up wood, hay, stubble, upon it, they believe that he shall be saved by fire, in other words, that he shall be delivered after tasting the pain of that fire to which the wicked shall be condemned at the last judgment.

Now to the people I alluded to before who say this doesn't prove Eternal Security existed before Nicea.  Well for one I have a quote of Origen I'd mentioned in an old post where he attacks people who seemed to believe in some form of Eternal Security.

But I'd also say that Augustine wasn't that long after Nicea, it's silly to suggest three different forms of this could develop entirely in that short a period of time and become significant enough for Augustine to find worth addressing.

Chapter 22.— Of Those Who Fancy that the Sins Which are Intermingled with Alms-Deeds Shall Not Be Charged at the Day of Judgment.

I have also met with some who are of opinion that such only as neglect to cover their sins with almsdeeds shall be punished in everlasting fire; and they cite the words of the Apostle James, He shall have judgment without mercy who has shown no mercy. James 2:13 Therefore, say they, he who has not amended his ways, but yet has intermingled his profligate and wicked actions with works of mercy, shall receive mercy in the judgment, so that he shall either quite escape condemnation, or shall be liberated from his doom after some time shorter or longer. They suppose that this was the reason why the Judge Himself of quick and dead declined to mention anything else than works of mercy done or omitted, when awarding to those on His right hand life eternal, and to those on His left everlasting punishment. Matthew 25:33 To the same purpose, they say, is the daily petition we make in the Lord's prayer, Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Matthew 6:12 For, no doubt, whoever pardons the person who has wronged him does a charitable action. And this has been so highly commended by the Lord Himself, that He says, For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 6:14-15 And so it is to this kind of almsdeeds that the saying of the Apostle James refers, He shall have judgment without mercy that has shown no mercy. And our Lord, they say, made no distinction of great and small sins, but Your Father will forgive your sins, if you forgive men theirs. Consequently they conclude that, though a man has led an abandoned life up to the last day of it, yet whatsoever his sins have been, they are all remitted by virtue of this daily prayer, if only he has been mindful to attend to this one thing, that when they who have done him any injury ask his pardon, he forgive them from his heart.

And that last one is a works Salvation view basically.  Easy enough to refute.  But Augustine's objection to it is the opposite of mine.

Chapters 23-27 are Augustine giving his counter arguments to these.  I don't feel like addressing those here, maybe in a future follow up post.  Needless to say much of it comes down to Augustine not knowing Greek and going by flawed Latin translations of Aionion as Eternal.

My objective today is just to show that a variety of views existed.

KJV Only Universal Salvation!!!

I've already done a post on the Words Translated Eternal.  But that is obviously not going to matter to the most absolute KJV onlyists.  And this remains the top reason that KJV onlyists are among the most difficult to convince of a Universalsit argument.

This post isn't just for KJV only people however, but anyone who refuses to accept the specific Translation Error arguments that Universal Salvation proponents make.  These issues all have their roots in the Vulgate and were inherited by Luther's German Bible and all early English Bibles, and probably also French Bibles.  So I can understand refusing to accept that the True Gospel was inherently incompatible with the only Bibles the Western Church had for well over a Thousand years.

The KJV says "Endless" only twice, in neither does it refer to judgment or punishment or torment. 1 Timothy 1:4 is about genealogies and Hebrews 7:16 is about Endless Life.  And it is only things like Jesus' Kingdom that are described as being "without end".

It is still in the KJV that "Hell" is cast into the Lake of Fire and yet elsewhere the Lake of Fire seems to be what is called "Hell".   There is more then one Bethlehem in he KJV, and more then one Kadesh.  So likewise there can be more then one place called "Hell".

What we've overlooked is that there are different ways to define "Eternal" and Everlasting which is a synonym for Eternal in the KJV.  I've seen many non Universalist Christians (like Chuck Missler) define "Eternity" as being not unlimited or endless time but as being outside of time.  And so remembering how I showed back before I was a Unviersalsit that the fire of the Lake of Fire comes from God.  Perhaps there is room to define the Fire of Gehenna and the coming Judgment as Eternal because it comes from Eternity, and not as an indication of how long it lasts.

Which can again be backed up by how the KJV translates Jude 7.

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

That Fire is not still raging in the Dead Sea area today.  And again Ezekiel 16 assures us that Sodom will be restored.  And Jude 6 uses Everlasting of the angels' chains while also telling us that imprisonment will have an end.

If it's the Fire being described as Eternal or Everlasting, that's because the Fire is from God in Revelation 14, God is a Consuming Fire.  But Malachi 3 explains the fire is to purify and purge, same as 1 Corinthians 3.

And in some verses maybe the key to the Universal Salvation interpretation isn't even how Aionion is translated but how to understand other words in those passages.  Take the KJV of Matthew 25:46.

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

This verse doesn't even mention fire or Gehenna it just says the Punishment (for other verses remember Damnation meant judgment or punishment in 1611) is everlasting.  Well in the Ancient world a common Punishment was Exile or Banishment.  Which is consistent with my argument that "Outer Darkness" means outside New Jerusalem.  Now the fire is mentioned earlier in verse 41, but again sometimes exile or banishment was in addition to a more brief physical chastisement.

Other options for the Punishment or Judgment could be a loss of Citizenship or inheritance, or maybe losing a reward you'd previously earned.  Whatever it is it needs to be understood in the context of the KJV telling us in Habakkuk 1:12 that God's Judgment is for Correction, and Psalm 30 that his anger is for but a moment.

Even in the KJV no Torment or Torture is ever directly described as Eternal or Everlasting.

And the only place where "for ever and ever" is used in connection to the judgment of normal humans is Revelation 14:11 where it says the Smoke goes up forever, terminology also used of the Judgment on Babylon in Revelation 19:3 drawing on Isaiah 34:10 showing it can be used of a temporal judgment.   It is in Revelation 20:10 only used directly of the Devil's sentence to the Lake of Fire, though The Beast and False Prophet being there is mentioned.

And a lot of popular Universalist Proof texts I absolutely default to quoting in their KJV version, from Romans 5&11 to the things Jesus said. And as such my other posts on this blog tend to use the KJV when I quote them, or I had the KJV in mind if I only referenced them without directly quoting.  In fact with 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4 the KJV version is the most explicitly Universalist version, other translations of those verses try to allow some wiggle room, but the KJV says God "Will have All Men to be Saved" and is "not willing that any should perish" no ifs ands or buts about it.

Luke 2:14 is also very Universalsit in the KJV in a way that's undermined by how others say it should be translated.

KJV onliers who oppose Universal Salvation arguably have a little hypocrisy on this issue.  Because most KJV onliers, especially if they're also Baptists, teach that we're not under The Law anymore, that it was done away with because it was Fulfilled by Jesus.   But the KJV of the Pentateuch and other parts of the Hebrew Bible tend to say The Law and the Aaronic Priesthood and the Feasts and the Sabbath will be "forever" or "perpetual".  The Hebrew uses Olam, the Hebrew equivalent of Aion which means Age, and so many of us point that out, but the KJV onliers can't do that.  But the KJV in the New Testament has Jesus say that the Law and the Prophets were until John, and Paul says that we're now in the age or dispensation of Grace not the Law, and that the Law was a curse and imperfect.

Maybe God's Judgment/Punishment/Damnation(Which meant Judgment in 1611) on Sinners is described as seemingly forever for the same reason The Law was?  A Judge can issue a Life sentence that is latter commuted, but that doesn't make it wrong to say the sentence was for life.

Or if you argue all those Torah Laws are still Forever because they are Fulfilled in Jesus, then the entire point of the Penal Substitutionary view of Atonement is that all the ordained Punishment for All Sin is fulfilled in full in what Jesus suffered on The Cross.

And I find it interesting in this context that the post Reformation revival of Unviersalsit thinking largley started in the English Speaking world, after the KJV was published.  With men like Gerrard Winstanley.  Many claim the Geneva Bible was still popular during this era, but being as that was a Calvinist production I highly doubt it translated Aionion/Aionos or the Hell verses differently then the KJV.

[Update December 2024: I've defended form a Universalist perspective the use of the word Lake.]

So, I think a Universalist interpretation of even specifically the KJV is perfectly viable.

Everything below this point is really not the main topic of this post and is really a giant Post Script.

Is Universal Salvation Pagan?

Naturally, enemies of Universal Salvation want to make it sound like a Pagan belief system.  But this is a manipulation of the facts.  I can say firmly that few if any Ancient Pagans believed in what I mean by Universal Salvation.

In Egyptian mythology the souls of the sinful were devoured by Ammit.

Greek mythology taught the opposite of Unviersalism, it taught that there was no hope of escape from Hades for anyone.  That is the ultimate moral of the story of Orpheus.  And my refutation of those Christ-Mythers who say the Christian doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell is just copying Orpheus, is to say that Orpheus failed to free his Bride from Hades, Jesus succeeded.

Now you can call that "Universalist" by looking at it as everyone has the same fate basically.  But The Gospel as I view it was originally a deliberate rejection of the philosophy that death is a natural part of life we just need to accept, which was also the moral of the Epic of Gilgamesh, or Izanami's fate in Japanese mythology.  The Gospel is the promise that ALL will be freed from Sheol.  Paul declared in 1 Corinthians 15 that Death had no Sting and Hades has no Victory.

And this is part of why I view Tolkien and Lewis as very Paganized Christians, both have death existing even among races supposedly not effected by The Fall.  In Tolkien's Arda mythology Death is Man's Gift not a punishment, which the Eldar seem to envy even though they can die, they just aren't guaranteed to.  And with Lewis, Out of The Silent Planet is supposed to present his view of what an unfallen world would be like, and depicts Death as a natural part of creation.

And people also want to link Universalism to Plato, even though the most openly Platonic Church Father, Augustine, was also the harshest enemy of Universalism.  Plato taught a form of post death punishment in Gorgias, but I've heard conflicting things on if it was endless.  But the key philosophical error either way is it ties into Socrates teaching of the Soul being separated from the Body at death, there was no Resurrection.

Platonic philosophy is tied to Gnosticism and any other belief that there is no Physical Bodily Resurrection, that the Resurrection merely refers to the liberation of our Spirit/Soul from the material world.  In counterpart to that Webster Tarpley, a Catholic and Plato fanboy, accuses Gerrard Winstanley of believing in "Dead Souls", what he leaves out is Gerrard Winstanley was a Universalist, he believed all will be Resurrected to Eternal Life.  I don't think one's view on how conscious the Soul is between death and resurrection is that important, it's one's view on the Resurrection that is vitally important.  Platonic philosophy allows no bodily resurrection, and Augustine as the first Amillenial laid the groundwork for a Christian version of that.  Plato (like Origen) may have been nicer then Augustine in not condemning some Souls to eternal torment, but he didn't allow any a true Resurrection.

The understanding of the After Life held by casual Christianity, which forgets that our ultimate goal is the restoration of this world, that simply sees it as the good go to heaven and the bad to hell.  Is actually Zoroastrian in origin.

Islam is totally incompatible with true Unviersalism.  The closest they can come is believing that Jews and Christians, the People of the Book, can achieve Salvation without becoming Muslims.  But they allow no such hope for people outside of the Abrahamic tradition.

The ability of modern Pagans (and I define modern here as starting with the Renaissance), including the modern understanding of Shintoism that we often see reflected in Anime, to be willing to be Universalist is something I view as possible only because of Christianity's influence on the world.  But even then the idea that Death is a natural intended part of how the world works often remains.

The Gospel According to JaredMithrandir Olorin

Words translated Eternal

Aionion, Aionios, Aioniou, are different forms of Strong Number 166.  It is often translated in Latin, English and other translations as Eternal or Everlasting in many key verses.  And ultimately the enemies of Universalism are entirely dependent on that translation being accurate.

I don't want to get too deep into the linguistic arguments others have made, starting with how they come from Aion which means Age (Eon comes from Aion), which makes the use of it's Hebrew equivalent Olam in Daniel 12 the same issue.

That same Hebrew word for Eternal/Everlasting/Perpetual is used to describe how long the Aaronic Priesthood will last (Exodus 29:9, 40:13-15, Numbers 25:10-13).  But we know from the book of Hebrews that the Aaronic Priesthood has now been done away with and replaced with Jesus, Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek.

A better Hebrew word for Eternal would be Qedem (Strong number 6924) used of God in Deuteronomy 33:27. and Habakkuk 1:12.

The point today is to use Scripture to interpret Scripture, to show two places, two confirming witnesses, where Scripture uses this word in a way that in context totally contradicts it meaning eternal.  Naturally these verses aren't the occurrences of the word used to build the doctrine of Eternal punishment.

Romans 16:25 in the KJV.

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

In the Greek the last two words are Aionion and a word that means "kept secret".  Aionion is translated "since the world began".   The very next verse says "but now is made manifest".  Proving that it can refer to a time period that will expire.  There are other places where Aion is translated world rather then Age, like Paul calling Satan the "God of this World", it should be Age not World there as we know in the future Jesus will take ruler-ship of the Kosmos from Satan.

The other key verse is Jude verse 7.

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

"Eternal fire" there is Aioniou fire.  There it is used in the exact same form it is in Mark 3:29, John 6:68, Hebrews 6:2.

Obviously the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah isn't still raging by the Dead Sea.

But also important is that Ezekiel 16:53 says that Sodom will be restored just as Samaria and Jerusalem are promised to be restored.  Sodom had no survivors, they considered Lot a foreigner living among them even on their last day, and Lot's descendants became their own nations, Moab and Amon.  And no one was a believer who perished in Sodom's destruction.  Sodom can only be restored if eventually Jesus shed Blood redeems even the Sodomites.

In Revelation 22, those who were cast into the Lake of Fire are now just outside New Jerusalem.

And in in the Sheep and Goats Judgment of Matthew 25, people overlook that neither the Sheep or Goats were those who believed in Jesus in this life.  We are the brethren.  Chuck Missler likes to say they are the Jews here (and argue this isn't the same judgment as the White Throne judgment).  But earlier in Matthew Jesus had effectively disowned His mother, brothers and sisters and said His real Brethren are those who believe in Him not biological relations.

Luke 3:6 says that all mankind will see God's Salvation.  Romans 5:18-19 says that as by one Man's Sin all are condemned, so by one Man's righteousness all men are Justified.   Romans 11:32 says all Men are bound to Disobedience so that he might have Mercy on ALL men.  1 Corinthians 15:22 says as in Adam all die so in Christ ALL shall be made alive.  And Peter tells us it is God's preference that none shall perish.