...the history in the doctrine

"The Salvation Conspiracy: How Hell Became Eternal"

By Ken R. Vincent

Universal Salvation is the theological position that ALL people will be saved. This concept, present from the earliest days of Christianity, is supported by numerous verses in the Bible, second in number only to those advocating Salvation by Good Works. Universalists do not reject the undeniable fact that Hell is in the Bible but contend that the function of Hell is for purification. Much later in the Christian story, when some claimed that Hell was a place for everlasting punishment, Universalists countered with their conviction that God was too good to condemn anyone to Eternal Hell! Today’s world news is saturated with the tragedies resulting from religions that insist on their own “exclusive” path to God, and Universalists are reasserting the relevance of that loving doctrine known to the earliest Christians — Salvation for ALL.

In this paper, I will attempt to make the following points clear: 1) For the first 500 years of Christianity, Christians and Christian theologians were broadly Universalist, 2) Translation/Mistranslation of the Scriptures from Greek to Latin contributed the reinterpretation of the nature of Hell, 3) Merging of Church and State fostered the corruption of Universalist thought, 4) Modern archeological findings and Biblical scholarship confirm Universalist thought among early Christians, and 5) Contemporary Christian scholars find Universalist theology most authentic to Jesus.

To examine Universal Salvation during the first 500 years of Christianity, the works of three scholars are indisputably the finest: Hosea Ballou II’s Ancient History of Universalism (1842), Edward Beecher’s History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution (1878), and John Wesley Hanson’s Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Church for its First 500 Years (1899). I have used all these resources but have broadened Universalist history to include 20th Century discoveries and scholarship pertinent to Universalist Christianity.

IN THE BEGINNING

At its beginning, Christianity was a hopeful religion. In the words of St. Paul, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). Communal meals, a culture of sharing and a tradition of helping others were the hallmarks of the early church. Despite a paternalistic culture, women were Apostles (Lk 8:2-3) and ministers (Rom 16:1).

One of the best clues to early Christian theology is in artwork discovered at the Catacombs in Rome. Graves of common people were adorned with drawings of Jesus as the Good Shepherd — beardless and virtually indistinguishable from the Greco-Roman savior figure Orpheus. Other popular images there were the Last Supper and the Magi at the birth of Jesus. Occasionally in early Christian art, Jesus is shown working miracles using a magic wand! Significantly, the crucifix is noticeably absent from early art, as is any depiction of judgment scenes or Hell.


Origen, great Universalist theologian

As we move into the middle of the 2nd Century, a shift takes place from writing works considered “Holy Scripture” to interpretations of it. The first writer on the theology on Christian Universalism whose works survive is St. Clement of Alexandria (150 – 215 CE). He was the head of the theology school at Alexandria which, until it closed at the end of the 4th Century, was a bastion of Universalist thought. His pupil, Origen (185 – 254 CE), wrote the first complete presentation of Christianity as a system, and Universalism was at its core. Origen was the first to produce a parallel Old Testament that included Hebrew, a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and three other Greek translations. He was also the first to recognize that some parts of the Bible should be taken literally and others metaphorically. He wrote a defense of Christianity in response to a pagan writer’s denigration of it.

Prior to the Roman Catholic Church’s condemnation of all of Universalist thought in the 6th Century, Church authority had already reached back in time to pick out several of Origen’s ideas they deemed unacceptable. Some that found disfavor were his insistence that the Devil would be saved at the end of time, the pre-existence of human souls, the reincarnation of the wicked, and his claim that the purification of souls could go on for many eons. Finally, he was condemned by the Church because his concept of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit did not agree with the “official” Doctrine of the Trinity formulated a century after his death! After the 6th Century, much of his work was destroyed; fortunately, some of it survived.

According to Edward Beecher, a Congregationalist theologian, there were six theology schools in Christendom during its early years — four were Universalist (Alexandria, Cesarea, Antioch, and Edessa). One advocated annihilation (Ephesus) and one advocated Eternal Hell (the Latin Church of North Africa). Most of the Universalists throughout Christendom followed the teachings of Origen. Later, Theodora of Mopsuestia had a different theological basis for Universal Salvation, and his view continued in the break-away Church of the East (Nestorian) where his Universalist ideas still exist in its liturgy today.

“HARROWING OF HELL” IN CANON AND APOCRYPHA

One of the primary beliefs of the early Christians was that Jesus descended into Sheol/Hades in order to preach to the dead and rescue all of those, as it clearly says in I Peter 3:20, “who in former times did not obey.” This terminology is familiar to anyone who has recited the Apostle’s Creed which states that Jesus descended to Hell after his death, before his resurrection. Known as the “Harrowing of Hell,” this is a major theme in Universalism because it underscores the early belief that judgment at the end of life is not final and that all souls can be saved after death. Interestingly, in the early Church there were not only prayers for the dead, but St. Paul notes there were also baptisms for the dead (I Cor 15: 29).

In later times, the church attempted to reinterpret the text to narrow the categories of people saved from Hell to the Jewish prophets and the righteous pagans. Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan take this approach in their latest book, The Last Week. (Curiously, they omit the key verse “those who in former times did not obey.”) However, in his earlier book, The Cross That Spoke, John Dominic Crossan is more favorable to the Universalist view. For example, he relates a story from the non-canonical Gospel of Peter in which two angels come down from Heaven to get Jesus out of the tomb on Easter morning. As they are carrying him out and are about to ascend to Heaven, a voice from Heaven asks them, “Hast thou preached to them that sleep?” The wooden cross that is somehow following them out of the tomb speaks and says, “Yes!” In discussing Jesus’ decent into Hell, Crossan also sites another classic Universalist text, I Peter 4:6 which says, “For this is why the Gospel was preached even to the dead, that though they were judged in flesh like men they might live in the spirit like God.” He also notes that in Colossians 2:15, Jesus, “disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them,” and in Ephesians 4:8-9:

Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high, he made captivity itself a captive; he gave gifts to his people.” (When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all heavens, so that he might fill all things.”)

Understanding the role of the “Harrowing of Hell” has been expanded by recent archeological findings and modern Biblical scholarship. Among the discoveries over the past 100 years is the Apocalypse of Peter, written about 135 C.E. (not to be confused with the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1947). For a time, it was considered for inclusion into the New Testament instead of the Revelation to John. It is referred to in the Muratorian Canon of the early Church, as well as in the writings of St. Clement of Alexandria. (It should be noted that the Universalist passage from the Apocalypse of Peter is found in the Ethiopian text but is not part of the fragment text found at Akhmim, Egypt.) In the Ethiopic copy, Peter asks Jesus to have pity on the people in Hell, and Jesus says they will eventually all be saved. Later, Peter (who is writing to Clement) says to keep that knowledge a secret so that foolish men may not see it. This same theme is repeated in the Second Book of the Sibyline Oracles in which the saved behold the sinners in Hell and ask that mercy be shown them. Here, the sinners are saved by the prayers of the righteous.

Another 2nd Century work, The Epistle to the Apostles, also states that our prayers for the dead can affect their forgiveness by God. The 2nd Century Odes of Solomon, which was discovered in the early 20th Century, was for a time considered to be Jewish, then Gnostic, and more recently, early Christian. Its theme is that Jesus saves the dead when they come to him in Hell and cry out, “Son of God, have pity on us!” In the 4th/6th Century Syriac Book of the Cave of Treasures, Jesus “preached the resurrection to those who were lying in the dust” and “pardoned those who had sinned against the Law.” In the Gospel of Nicodemus (a.k.a. Acts of Pilate), a 4th /5th Century apocryphal gospel, Jesus saves everyone in the Greek version but rescues only the righteous pre-Christians in the Latin translation. In What is Gnosticism?, Karen King identifies the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Truth as teaching Universal Salvation; she states that The Apocryphon of John (a.k.a. The Secret Book of John) declares all will be saved except apostates. In the Coptic Book of the Resurrection, all but Satan and his ministers are pardoned.

Interestingly, belief in the “Harrowing of Hell” has had some validation by modern day near-death experiencers (people who have been resuscitated following a period of clinical death). While most near-death experiencers report a “heavenly” experience of Light and overwhelming love, many of those whose experience begins in “hellish” turmoil and darkness say that their descent was reversed when they called out to God or Jesus.

THE CHURCH-STATE CONUNDRUM

The 6th Century Emperor Justinian — NOT the Bishop of Rome — called the Church council where Universalism was condemned.
Many think that Christianity was at its best during its first 300 years — a time of immense diversity of opinion, creativity, and expectation. Although the official sanction of governments provided the Church with some very critical benefits (like not feeding Christians to lions!), some of the vitality of the young Church was inevitably compromised. Its legitimization in the 4th Century, first by the king of Armenia, then by Constantine of Rome, and finally by the king of Ethiopia, led to a new era for Christianity. Constantine, being a military man, wanted standardization in all things. The Emperor called the Counsel of Nicea because at the time, the Bishop of Rome was not yet Pope (in the way we think of him today). According to Roman Catholic scholar Jean-Guy Vaillancourt, the Pope did not become the head of the Roman Church until 752 CE. At that time, Charlemagne recognized the Bishop of Rome as the singular Pope, and Pope Leo III reciprocated by legitimizing Charlemagne as the Holy Roman Emperor. It should be noted that the 6th Century Emperor Justinian — NOT the Bishop of Rome — called the Church council where Universalism was condemned.

JESUS SEMINAR “ENDORSES” CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM

Of all modern Biblical scholars, none have gained so much publicity and been so readily accessible to the lay reader than a group called the Jesus Seminar. Over 150 Biblical scholars pooled their knowledge for the express purpose of analyzing the Gospels to determine which words and deeds were authentic to Jesus. Their resulting “Scholars’ Editions” of the Gospels were remarkable for the few passages that were thought to be original to Jesus. For Universalists, the most significant result of the Seminar’s scrutiny was their inadvertent highlighting of many Universalist passages. By far, verses advocating Universal Salvation received the most endorsement from the Jesus Seminar as authentic to Jesus. While they rejected some of the “zingers” (e.g., Jn 12:32), virtually all Jesus’ classic parables that have been interpreted as Universalist since the beginning of Christian theology were judged by the Jesus Seminar to be genuine to him, including: The Parable of the Lost Sheep (Matt 18:12-13; Lk 15:4-6), The Workers in the Vineyard (Matt 20:1-15), The Parable of the Lost Coin (Lk 15:8-9), and the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:11-32). Also, the verses relating to the fact that Hell is not permanent and used only for rehabilitation/purification were determined authentic by the Jesus Seminar. They are: Settle with Your Opponent (Matt 5:25-26; Lk 12:58-59) and the Parable of the Wicked Servant (Matt 18:23-34). Finally, although it was mutilated in part by the Jesus Seminar scholars, Jesus’ teaching to be like God and love our enemies as God is good to the just and the unjust (Matt 5:44-46) was voted genuine to Jesus.

It is noteworthy that the Seminar rejected all of the verses relating to the “Jesus Saves” theology as original to Jesus. John Calvin’s Predestination fared only slightly better with only two verses seen as original to Jesus (Matt 6:10, 10:29). Some classic sayings of Jesus on Good Works were deemed authentic, such as Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-35), Jesus on forgiveness (Matt 6:12), and the Parable of the Sower (Mk 4:3-8; Matt 13:3-8; Lk 8:5-8).

MISTRANSLATIONS AND MISANTHROPES

One of the essential tenants of Universalism is that all punishment in Hell is remedial, curative, and purifying. As long as Western Christianity was mainly Greek — the language of the New Testament — it was Universalist.

Interestingly, NONE of the Greek-speaking Universalists ever felt the need to explain Greek words such as “aion” and “aionion.” In Greek, an aion (in English, usually spelled “eon”) is an indefinite period of time, usually of long duration. When it was translated into Latin Vulgate, “aion” became “aeternam” which means “eternal.” These translation errors were the basis for much of what was written about Eternal Hell.

The first person to write about Eternal Hell was the Latin North African Tertullian who is considered the Father of the Latin Church. As most people reason, Hell is a place for people you don’t like to go! Tertullian fantasized that not only the wicked would be in Hell but also every philosopher and theologian who ever argued with him! He envisioned a time when he would look down from Heaven at those people in Hell and laugh with glee!


Augustine, influential Damnationist theologian

By far, the main person responsible for making Hell eternal in the Western Church was St. Augustine (354-430 CE). Augustine’s Christian mother did not kick him out of her house for not marrying the girlfriend he got pregnant, but she did oust him when he became a Manichean Gnostic. Later, he renounced Manichaeism and returned to the Roman Church where he was made Bishop of Hippo in North Africa. He did not know Greek, had tried to study it, but stated that he hated it. Sadly, it is his misunderstanding of Greek that cemented the concept of Eternal Hell in the Western Church. Augustine not only said that Hell was eternal for the wicked but also for anyone who wasn’t a Christian. So complete was his concept of God’s exclusion of non-Christians that he considered un-baptized babies as damned; when these babies died, Augustine softened slightly to declare that they would be sent to the “upper level” of Hell. Augustine is also the inventor the concept of “Hell Lite”, a.k.a. Purgatory, which he developed to accommodate some of the Universalist verses in the Bible. Augustine acknowledged the Universalists whom he called “tender-hearted,” and curiously, included them among the “orthodox.”

At this point, it should be noted that many in the early Church who were Universalist cautioned others to be careful whom they told about Universalism, as it might cause some of the weaker ones to sin. This has always been a criticism of Universalism by those who think that people will sin with abandon if there is no threat of eternal punishment. In fact, modern psychology has affirmed that love is a much more powerful motivator than fear, and knowing that God loves each and every person on the planet as much as God loves you does not promote delinquency. Conversely, it is Christian exclusivity that leads to the marginalization of other human beings and the thinking that war and cruelty to the “other” are justified since they’re going to Hell anyway! This kind of twisted thinking led to the persecution of the pagans, the witch hunts, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust.

UNIVERSALISM IN THE EAST AND ZOROASTRIAN ROOTS

A slightly different type of Universalist theology was taught in the Aramaic speaking Church of the East (Nestorian). Virtually all of the Greek-speaking Universalists built on Origen’s system that emphasizes free will. Origen saw an endless round of purification and relapse, but that in the end, God’s love would draw all back to God. According to Dr. Beecher, Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428 CE) saw, “sin as an unavoidable part of the development and education of man; that some carry it to a greater extent than others, but that God will finally overrule it for their final establishment in good.” Theodore of Mopsuestia was known in the Nestorian Church as “The Interpreter.” The 5th Century with its ongoing feuding councils saw major splits in the Christian Church. The Coptic Church of Egypt and Ethiopia split in 451CE; the Armenian Church left about the same time; the Church of the East (Nestorian) left in 486 CE. At the time of the split, the Nestorian Church was larger in numbers than the Roman Church. It included the all of the Sasanian Persian Empire (which stretched from the Euphrates to India), along the Silk Road through modern Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, through Tibet, Mongolia, and into China. Additionally, it had established Christian churches in the south of India by the end of the 2nd Century. While it suffered under Moslem invasion in the 7th Century, it continued to grow in the Far East until being virtually annihilated by Tamerlane in the 14th Century. Today, only a quarter-million remain. The Nestorian Church continued to be Universalist for most of its history, and a Universalist liturgy written by Theodore of Mopsuestia is still in use today. Also, the Book of the Bee written in the 13th Century by Bishop Solomon of Basra includes the Universalist teachings of Isaac, Diodorus, and Theodore in Chapter 60. We know from Martin Palmer in the Jesus Sutras that the Nestorians who proselytized in China in the early days had only two Christian books: the Gospel of Matthew and an early Christian prayer book known as the Didache or The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles. The appeal of Christianity in the Far East was that Jesus could save you and take you to Paradise, avoiding the risk of an undesired reincarnation.

Christopher Buck notes in his article, “The Universality of the Church of the East: How Persian Was Persian Christianity?” that the success of Christian conversions in the East may have been the affinity of Christianity with Zoroastrianism. Unlike Manichaeism and other Gnostic Christianity, Zoroastrianism (like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) maintains that the world was created good and was corrupted by evil. In Zoroastrianism, the basic tenants are: God-Satan, Good-Evil, Light-Darkness, Angels-Demons, Death-Judgment, Heaven-Hell, and at the end of time, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. Zoroaster was a Universalist, as he says in his Hymns to God, “If you understand these laws of happiness and pain which God has ordained, O Mortals, there is a long period of punishment for the wicked and reward for the pious, but thereafter Eternal Joy shall rein forever” (Y 30:11 emphasis added). In Zoroastrianism, while God is wholly good, there is no doctrine of forgiveness; your good deeds must always outnumber your bad deeds in order to avoid purification in Hell. Christianity brought Jesus’ message that God forgives sins for the asking! Also, one doesn’t need a priest as an intercessor or a sacrifice to obtain God’s grace. This affinity is best illustrated in a 13th Century Christmas liturgy of the Nestorian Church which states that, “The Magi (Zoroastrian priests) came … they opened their treasures and offered him (Jesus) their offerings as they were commanded by their teacher Zoroaster who prophesized to them.” What is implicit in the Gospel of Matthew is explicit in this Nestorian liturgy. Zoroaster had predicted the coming of future saviors “from the nations” (e.g., countries other than Persia). If you wanted to make converts in a Zoroastrian world, the story of the Magi at the birth of Jesus was your entree.

UNIVERSALISM OFFICIALLY CONDEMNED IN THE WEST

Although the Roman Church had condemned some of Origen’s other ideas, his Universalism was never questioned, nor were the writings of any other Universalist. There were even Universalists among the Gnostics; although Gnosticism had been condemned heartily by the Church, Universalism had never been listed among their errors. If Universal Salvation were heretical, how could the Church explain all those avowed Universalists who had already been made Saints (St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Macrina the Younger and her brother, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and others)? As mentioned earlier, it was the Emperor Justinian who initiated the deed.

Universalism had never been officially condemned prior to Justinian’s convening the Council of Constantinople in 553CE, but this momentous decision was made against a background of turmoil in the Church and Western civilization. Latin-speaking Christians in the Church began to overshadow the Greek-speakers, and the Nestorian Church of the East had recently split from the Catholic West. (In all fairness, the Latin Church was doing well to have anyone who could read Latin — much less Greek.) Less than eighty years earlier, the Western Roman Empire had fallen to pagan barbarians. The Roman Church had long before become the handmaiden of the State. What could be better for control in an age of superstition and fear than to make Hell eternal and Salvation possible only through the Church? Less than a century later, all of Christianity (Latin, Greek, Armenian, Coptic, as well as the Nestorian Church of the East) would be either partially or totally overrun by Moslem conquerors.

CONCLUSION

Compare the hopeful, positive art of the early Church in the Catacombs with the scenes of Hell and damnation on the wall of almost every Medieval Catholic Cathedral. These scenes were made even more terrifying by the Latin mistranslation of Jesus’ Parable of the Sheep and Goats (Matt 25:31-46). In the West, Augustine trumped Origen, and what was an “eon” in the original Greek became “eternal” in Latin.

While Universalism continued in the Church of the East, in the West from the 6th Century forward, it was relegated to the realm of mystics until the Reformation when the idea of Universal Salvation was resurrected. Universalism continues today as a theological position among a fair number of Christians in a variety of denominations. It is ripe for revival.

This article appeared in the July/August 2006 issue of The Universalist Herald. Ken R. Vincent, Ed.D., is Webmaster of Universalist-Herald.net. He is the author of The Golden Thread: God’s Promise of Universal Salvation. Dr. Vincent served as a founding Board member of the Christian Universalist Association.

Further Reading

Naomi's 'theological babble' :) and conclusions 
In Light and Love

“Was the translation process from original languages into English of 1611 A.D. protected from error by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit? "KJV only" advocates say yes! The Facts say NO!”
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm

600+ Scripture Compiled by Harold Lovelace in support of Universal Salvation

http://haroldlovelace.com/lovelacelist.php

“Abraham Lincoln Stands Up”

http://www.mercifultruth.com/lincoln.html

“Eclectic Orthodoxy. Universal Salvation: What are the Odds?”

http://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/universal-salvation-what-are-the-odds/

...in Light and Love

Having spent a great deal of time over the last few years in sincere prayer and objective study surrounding the Hebrew and Greek languages of particular controversial words and phrases, and many varying theological positions (within Christianity) on the afterlife and the fate of human souls, I've realized in the process that there is not one branch of Christian theology (and every other religion for that matter) that comes without the ‘dogma’ of its own as each claim inerrancy within their own and “false doctrine” on most of the rest. The big question at the end of all the ‘theological squabble’ is: ‘who really has full authority, save God and His Son Himself, to decide?’ And yet we have been arguing over these translations and interpretations for centuries.

I reason; we all agree that “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 1 John 4:8 and so; if the definition of Love is as scripture tells us (Corinthians 13:4-7): “⁴patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵ It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶ Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” and if we go on to understand in 1 John 4:18 “such love has no fear, because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of punishment, and this shows that we have not fully experienced his perfect love” then a fair question to every sincere Christian ought to be, why not leave it to ‘The Big Guy Upstairs’ to decide. Is it really necessary to make the afterlife for unbelievers such a focal point of our ministry? As the popular phrase goes: “What Would Jesus Do?”  

But we don’t really have to ask ourselves this question if we are remotely familiar with the teachings of Christ and the essence of His ministry. Did He walk around telling everyone to repent and accept Him as their Lord and Savior or else face His wrath in eternal torment of hell? No. We know that He “did not come to condemn the world but to save it”.  This is not to say that we ought not share our theologies, but when they reach a point where we are ultimately condemning ourselves by giving God no room inside His ‘tiny little box’ we've created for Him; when our own theologies become cause for division within the Body of Christ and the turning away and/or stumbling of unbelievers and believers alike—we must, must take a step back and reevaluate whom it is we are serving. Is it Christ or our own self-inflated, prideful egos? It's a battle for many of us if we are being honest with ourselves, myself included. Pride is the deadliest of all sins and for good reason. It pulls us further and further away from our desire and willingness to act in the charitable Love and hopefulness for others that we are called to as Christians. 

So given what the Bible tells me of His Love, then in the Spirit of the Love of Christ, I am led to be nothing but a ‘hopeful’ Universalist in my Christian faith as I strive to live-out and minister with a confident hope for all things and all souls past, present, and future to be restored unto Him, our Creator in the perfection of His Agape Love one day.

This Agape Love by nature and definition is a feeling only secondary to an action and therefore cannot come to an end without having fulfilled its purpose. In other words, God’s Love is ‘first’ and foremost by Biblical definition, ‘patient’ and purposefully so as the essence of patience is ongoing and sees no end until its purpose has been fulfilled which is why we say that God's Love is infinite and lasts forever; if it were not so then none of us would be guaranteed 'saved' from total destruction. We should be confidently hopeful that we are all like the prodigal son, at one point in Heaven with Him and therefore on a journey back to Him being drawn by His Love; unless of course we do not hold to the view of the preexistence of the soul and our eternal nature only starts once we are born a physical birth.

Nonetheless, we would still need to revise God's Biblical definition of Agape Love--unless we intend to suggest that His patience can and will in fact run out (for eternity) and that the ultimate ‘purpose’ of His Agape Love is in fact meant to be fulfilled through the eternal torment of those who did not choose His Son and eternal bliss for those who did.

We argue that His Love is not imposed or forced on us. It cannot be or it is not True Love. His gift of Agape Love and great sacrifice on the cross also came with the gift of free will to make a ‘choice’. And it is here, where we may say, ‘lies the conundrum’. It is here where the two, that is: God’s Highest Agape Love for His own creation and His gift of ‘free’-will to the human soul must meet and harmonize. If He is omnipresent, all knowing, all-foreseeing, a fair argument might be, ‘why’ create beings for the very purpose of tormenting them in the end, knowing that’s where they’d end up forever?

And furthermore we can argue, what is ‘choice’ made ‘freely’? What guidelines have we set forth and established for the rational ‘free’ agent? Do infants constitute as ‘rational’ beings?  Unless in our own theological view, we understand that we are not actually saved by 'Grace' but rather 'predetermined destination' (e.g.‘favoritism’)  on God's behalf, presuming, as many Calvinists do, that God sent His Son to die only for the ‘elect’ knowing full well whom they’d be and that He had no intention of saving the rest (a theology that poses a number of problems and the need for many revisions of Scripture); with such theology set aside, what do we make of this free ‘choice’ He has given the rest of us as it pertains to the final dwelling place of our souls? Does that ‘choice’ truly come with a time-frame?

“If I am ignorant of, or deceived about, the true consequences of my choices, then I am in no position to embrace those consequences freely; and similarly, if I suffer from an illusion that conceals from me the true nature of God, or the true import of union with God, then I am again in no position to reject God freely” Thomas Talbott (The Inescapable Love of God, p. 187). ).  Talbott also argues that for a free rational agent to decisively and definitively reject his supreme good is seemingly incoherent. “For no one rational enough to qualify as a free moral agent could possibly prefer an objective horror—the outer darkness, for example—to eternal bliss, nor could any such person both experience the horror of separation from God and continue to regard it as a desirable state” ("Towards a Better Understanding of Universalism,” in Universal Salvation?, p. 5).

For me to go deeper into understanding His Love as it was intended for me to know and ultimately to experience’; to be able to ‘defend’ my faith and answer the many questions thrown at me from my closest friends and acquaintances over the years, it became vital that I thrust myself into this ‘theological’ and doctrinal study as it stood historically and evolved in due time. In all the years of growing up in the church, this was something I had never done for myself. 

Having done this, I realized that I am not a fundamentalist Christian at all. The deeper I've sensed His inescapable and inevitable Love, the more eclectic I've become in my faith. By every sense of the word, I am a ‘mystified-by-God-in-all-His-mysterious-and-Loving ways’ Christian, who couldn't stand firm on anything more than His Agape Love that casts out all binding fear. Instead I am unbound in Spirit in the healthy, reverent Fear of a Supreme and Loving, Sovereign Creator who is capable of anything and everything that serves His greater Glory and Highest purpose for His Creation. Far be it from me to place limitations on His capabilities and will for humanity.

I believe in the consequences of sin and rebellion; the consequences (good or bad) of the choices we make while here on earth. And as strongly as I believe in heaven, I believe in the reality of hell as the Bible makes no confusion to its existence, but I continuously fall back on the question:

“To what purpose might the promise or threat of eternal torment (of any created-Being) serve the Supreme Creator—Thee Ultimate Loving Father?”  This question may be posed in earthly terms. What purpose would it serve us as mothers and fathers to punish our children without end for mistakes made in ignorance or flat out disobedience? Do we say: 'Sorry kid, I know you're hungry and thirsty but remember you sent yourself to time-out for eternity by your own choices and now I have to allow you to stay there; it breaks my heart to see you rot away, but its only because I love you that I must leave you there'. Could this be true Love; the Love God has called us to? Again, what purpose would it serve? 

But the fundamental orthodox Christian might sincerely argue: "although we may not understand it and ultimately God only knows who is really saved, we have to believe in the eternal status of it because the Bible clearly states that the "goats and sheep" will be separated in the end for all of eternity". Matt.25:46. True. The most popular Bibles today do indeed read it this way, but there are those less popular, still highly regarded (difficult to read at times), literal translation such as Rotherham's Emphasized Bible or 'Robert Young's Literal Translation' in addition to 'Young's Analytical Concordance'that never suggest the original Greek word 'aion' to be anything more than an 'age', 'age-abiding', or (the literal English translation) 'eon' as today we might attribute a 1,000 years to (nonetheless an indefinite period of time); knowing that "a day is like a thousand years to the Lord and a thousand years is like a day" 
 2 Peter 3:8. 

It's also necessary to put the doctrine into perspective regarding its history and when it first surfaced in theological 'orthodox' writings hundreds of years after Christ's death and resurrection.

"One of the essential tenants of Universalism is that all punishment in Hell is remedial, curative, and purifying. As long as Western Christianity was mainly Greek — the language of the New Testament — it was Universalist.

Interestingly, NONE of the Greek-speaking Universalists ever felt the need to explain Greek words such as “aion” and “aionion.” In Greek, an aion (in English, usually spelled “eon”) is an indefinite period of time, usually of long duration. When it was translated into Latin Vulgate, “aion” became “aeternam” which means “eternal.” These translation errors were the basis for much of what was written about Eternal Hell.

The first person to write about Eternal Hell was the Latin North African Tertullian who is considered the Father of the Latin Church. As most people reason, Hell is a place for people you don’t like to go! Tertullian fantasized that not only the wicked would be in Hell but also every philosopher and theologian who ever argued with him! He envisioned a time when he would look down from Heaven at those people in Hell and laugh with glee!" "The Salvation Conspiracy: How Hell Became Eternal" by Ken R. Vincent 

With a study done on the history of the King James Version of the Bible (the first English translation by which almost all others followed), we would find that the New Testament translation was taken from the Latin Catholic Vulgate (e.g. 'aeternam'/ 'eternal') to definitively imply such a status to the word. 

So then the argument to this, one might say, is that it would have to work both ways; that is, if hell is not eternal then neither is heaven. As Christians can we honestly believe this to be true? How might that also come with the need for revision or removal of many scriptures in the Bible? A fair argument. 

Perhaps the answer to this question also lies in the gift of 'Free-Will' that comes with His Agape Love; a gift He gave that He will never take back because His Love is not forced. Perhaps there will always, for the rest of time, exist a place in which a soul may depart to, should he choose separation from God and therefore the 'eternal' status as we know it to be would more appropriately fall in line with 'age-abiding' status. That 'age' may be infinite and 'eternal' but just as much as God would not force a 'truly-repented' soul to remain in hell for ever, He would not force a free-rational soul to remain in heaven either. 'Free-will' being the component that is always at the foundation of His Love.  

Those of us living in anticipation of the second coming of our Lord Jesus;or all of us for that matter (in our respective beliefs and religions) who have experienced the Life-giving Love of God would find this concept preposterous and naturally so. The 'likeliness' that anyone would 'choose' separation from Him after experiencing the splendor and depth of Joy in being with Him, seems hardly comprehensible. 

All this should go without saying that these are only my theological reflections on the 'could-be' explanation.  

Nonetheless, and regardless of any of our individual theologies on what could be, we all agree that Jesus Himself said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through Me".
John 14:6. 

In this regard we must take Him at His word quite literally, but how can we claim to ever understand His ways in those lives around us, be it in this life or the afterlife. How can we claim to know who is really "saved" now or who might be later on?

Why might I not believe in His capabilities and willingness to rescue whomever He sees fit out of the gates of hell, which He himself has said “will not prevail”? Those stories of the many near-death experiences confirming such instances only reassure me of this hope I have for all. They further convey that 'hell' like heaven may have an inconceivable number of realms of existence and not all "fire and brimstone" as we are led to believe. 

And how can I claim that all those people who have died without ‘professing’ His name are ‘without a doubt’ immediately suffering the consequences of that choice in hell. And if I jump on the theological band wagon that begins to make exceptions for this group (e.g. babies that die) or that group (e.g. drug attics, the mentally disabled, those ‘who have never heard the message’ etc.) but not 'everyone' alike, everything starts to become vaguely ambiguous.

And if I take the opposite approach on the other end of eternal torment doctrine to say that ‘without a doubt’ even Satan and his demons will be reconciled to Christ as some of the earliest renowned Christian fathers (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa and Origen) held to; can I say it with 100% certainty based on the biblical support of those same scriptures by which every other dogma has taken measure to interpret, having come to extremely different conclusions? Although I may argue the case that the majority of Scripture (when read quite 'literally') stands more in favor with Universalism than opposing theologies, I still must admit that only God really knows.

Many have argued (in so many words); “Right we’re all just going to be hanging out with Hitler and the Devil in heaven, having a grand old time rehashing about earlier days on earth…and our ministry on earth was all in vain since we all end up together in the end?”

I suppose that’s one way of looking at it. But I also know that as certain as I am of His promise that I, Naomi will be made a ‘New’ being having done away with the 'old' me, I can hardly jump on that wagon that would say ‘It’s not possible that God is able to do that for Hitler and Satan himself’. After all, what does ‘reconcile’ mean? To ‘make’ or ‘restore’ ‘friendly' relations. Before we knew him as Satan, as the destroyer of all that is good and innocent; before we knew him to be synonymous with evil, was he not Lucifer the “Light Bearer”; the “Morning Star”; God’s ‘head honcho’ and highest ranking angel of them all? 

As for our ministry being in 'vain' on earth if we all end up together anyway, I would have to argue the question: 'What is our motive for serving Christ'? If we are most concerned with 'hell fire' and separation from God for the unbeliever and therefore strictly concerned with the 'number' who accept Jesus into their heart, then should it really make a difference to us whether that suffering will last eternally or 'just' perhaps (say) a thousand to two thousand years? 

Now I don't believe this is the case as God is a Just God and our punishments fit our crimes (be it in this life or the afterlife), but let's say hypothetically that we could guarantee that every soul (upon leaving their earthly body) would end up in a blissful heaven, but the suffering and quality of life was no different (than it is now) before that point. Drug addictions, sex addictions, murder, war, perverse evil etc.still exists. Would it be enough motive for us as Christians to continue serving Christ and spreading the Gospel for the sake of transforming lives in the 'here and now' regardless of the afterlife? As Christ followers, I believe our collective answer to that question should be a resounding 'yes!'.  It ought to be an honor and privilege to serve our Lord and to be that vessel in which He operates and transforms a broken heart and a broken life. Regardless of His plan for the fate of our souls in the afterlife, we are living  in the 'here and now' today where people are desperate for Love...they are desperate for Him and they don't even know it. 

Sadly, this is not the case for a large chunk of Christianity. Our response to the question is not a resounding 'Yes'. We have been limiting ourselves with our own theologies for hundreds of years. But if we stripped away all the different theologies about the afterlife, what are we left with? 

Simply Jesus. 

Many have a hard time even imagining that we ought to ‘Love’such an enemy as Satan, but do we assume just because we can’t fathom it, that God doesn't think fondly of Him on those earlier ‘days’ in heaven when He was one in Spirit and Love with God; when he was God’s right-hand-man? Has God so much ‘hatred’ for Lucifer that He cannot Love him while hating what he has done and continues to do? If we are being honest and sincere in our Christianity, we must be able (in some degree) to wrestle with these tough questions. Wasn't it the very message of Christ to ‘hate’ the sin and evil of the man, but ‘Love’ the man himself as one created by God to be Loved in the same way as ourselves? But how are we to Love as God loves when we don't like someone, and for 'good reason'? How can I 'Love' the man who has robbed the innocence of a child when that is the worst of evils in my book? As C.S. Lewis would respond: 

“Some Christian writers use the word charity to describe not only Christian love between human beings, but also God’s love for man and man’s love for God. About the second of these two, people are often worried. They are told they ought to love God. They cannot find any such feeling in themselves. The answer is the same as before. Act as if you did. Do not sit trying to manufacture feelings. Ask yourself, ‘If I were sure that I loved God, what would I do? When you have found the answer go and do it.” 'Mere Christianity' pg.132

So truly ‘loving’ someone we may not 'feel' love for (e.g. God Himself) and the pesky, rude, demeaning neighbor we find extremely unlovable; thank the Lord-- is not based on our own self-attempted manufactured feelings-- as much as those feelings of 'disliking'someone are natural and not a sin in and of themselves. It is what we do with those feelings that determine the effectiveness of our ability to Love as His Highest Love demands; that is to ‘act’ as He would act (in charity) to each and every individual alike regardless.   

Acting in True Love is the charitable ‘action at work’ and perhaps the greatest surprises happen when we choose to abide in this Love and that person we liked the very least becomes someone we inevitably come to 'like' and even better; to 'feel' Love for; as we begin to see them as God’s children, created by Him and made to be loved we begin to break away from the Pride in our hearts that hinders our Spiritual growth and understanding. The action of Love changes us from the inside out and it can break even the coldest heart of evil. This is why Christ taught us to demonstrate love ‘through action’ for those who persecute us and to forgive our enemies. We are to be His Peacemakers of the Earth and so this call to ‘Love’ must be decided in our own hearts. Most likely our response to it will reflect the level of Pride we maintain in ourselves and our own fixed-views. But from a Divine Cosmic perspective the question of ultimate reconciliation may be posed. 

To reiterate; wasn't it Christ's message to ‘forgive’ our enemies? Should Satan, Lucifer, ever have a ‘break through’ moment and fall flat on His face in sincere anguish and sorrow over all he’s done; should he plead for forgiveness while remaining willing to suffer the wrath of God as he is due, would not the Mercy of God be that much more demonstrated in its Victory over sin and evil and death (e.g. “separation” from God) with such a reconciliation? Would not the angels and all of Heaven rejoice with God for such a change in the most evil one of all?

The truth is, I do not have the ‘absolute’ answers to the ultimate fate of every soul, including the Devil, because I am but only a created-being; a vessel to be used by my Lord Jesus; for His own glory. To veer away from the essence of His heart and teachings and take on any ‘absolute’ approach in theology is self-righteously (as I strongly feel) claiming to know God’s Mind and Ways which no one can ever fully do. The Pharisees in the Bible did so and as a result, their hearts were hardened and blinded to the Truth of Christ and the true Love demanded by God. By all means I must never compromise what I know to be the Truth of His atoning sacrifice on the cross; I can never and will never deny the Truth of my Savior, but having studied to the length that I have, I cannot claim any one branch of Christian theology (with total confidence) on the afterlife and that’s perfectly ok with me.

But I can and will, to no fault, remain hopeful for all of His Creation…the Devil included.

I'm hopeful that in the very moment in which Christ fulfilled the work of the cross, Salvation (e.g. ‘to be rescued from destruction’) was given to every past, present, and future soul that ever walked the earth and ever will. Like the parable of the lost sheep who were saved but didn't seem to know it, so is every soul having been atoned through Jesus, the only One who paid our debt. While the ‘reconciliation’ component (e.g. ‘repentance’) is based on our own free will and would therefore likely happen at very different times and/or within different realms of life, it has not negated the ‘gift’ of Salvation itself, freely given when His blood was shed. 

I can think of it in this hypothetical scenario to elaborate; I get a call from the post office and they tell me that I have a package with my “name on it” but there is no return address so they cannot tell me who it is from. The package regardless belongs to me. It was sent to me irrespective of my choice to pick it up or not. The gift-giver did not send a ‘stipulation’ with the package stating that it was only mine if I opened it and called to say “thanks”. In this regard, the package itself (e.g. Christ) is my ‘salvation’ but I am currently ignorant of this and certainly cannot reap the benefits of the package until I open it and receive the gift inside. As of now, I am living in total turmoil--until circumstances may lead me to take the time to drive to the post office and pick up/open my package. 

You should also know here, that I am someone who is struggling to get through life and keep my head above the water. I find myself in such an extreme amount of debt that I see no way out of. I stress every day. I worry constantly that debt collections will be showing up sooner or later to evict me from my home. I am hopeless and begin to see ‘suicide’ as the only way out of this desperation and miserable anxiety surrounding my finances.

So one day, weeks later (weeks longer) of continued consequential suffering in my circumstances of life, I happen to be driving by the post office sobbing my eyes out, seriously contemplating running the red light in hopes of being hit and dying on impact (with the obvious emotional instability to even think rationally on the fact that I may kill another in the process). But as if out of the thin air, something speaks to me and tells me to look to my left wherein the Post Office lies and I suddenly remember the call I received. I turn into the parking lot to pick up the package.

I get back into my car and open the package. In it is a letter stating my debts have been paid in full which include my car loan, credit card bills, and the mortgage on my home, all by an anonymous donor. The letter also told me to live as though every moment of my life (rain or shine) were a gift not to be taken for granted; to count all things (even those difficult and overwhelming tragedies) as a gift and to know that life doesn't ever end because ‘Life’ itself is an eternal gift; to live selflessly; to love and be generous to that person whom I have counted as my greatest of all enemies.

Holding this package in my hand in this very moment, I am in full, unfathomable gratitude that this gift was sent to me. I do not feel worthy to receive it, but I am assured that I am indeed worthy of it. I am aware that Love for me is at the foundation of this gift I hold in my hands.  I feel as light as a feather as the burden of debt, fear, and worry I was made captive to is released and beyond that, I am given ‘new’ sight, ‘new’ vision to see things as I never saw them before. In this moment, I know without a doubt that God is real and that He is holding me in the palm of His hand calling me to live a ‘New’ life.

As I stiffed through the many varying theologies; as I studied the history of eternal torment doctrine and the history of the first English translation (KJV) all that kept coming to mind was the game ‘telephone’. We've all played it. Sitting in a circle, one starts the ‘message’ and whispers into the ear of the next as the ‘message’ makes its way through the group. Now the one who first spoke the message, by all accounts is the authentic bearer, original author of that message but even the slightest change in tone, verbiage, and ‘interpretation’ of that message is likely to produce an increasingly skewed ‘received’ message as it makes its way to the very end of the ‘line’ or the last ‘receiver’ of the message. Now at any point in time, the originator of the message can certainly yell out the message loud enough for all to hear (to clear up any possible confusion) but then what ‘game’ is left to play?

And so it goes (as far as I can tell) with religion and theology. It’s like the ‘game’ of telephone—fun to play and entertain ourselves with, if only out of our own human attempt to make sense of God and the world around us, but we cannot seize to remember that the True Author of the authentic message is present within this entire conversation searching for the purest of hearts and those acting within the 'goodness' and love of the Spirit of that message (not the 'theology' of the message), even though the message may have been completely altered at the end of the line. Does he hold that end-of-the-line message-receiver to the same standard as the first to receive the message? Only He has full authority to decide that. 

It is not a matter of “right” and/or “wrong". If we are all being perfectly honest with ourselves, we know that we are all going to stand before our Creator one day. Do we have so much pride in ourselves to believe that any of us are going to be found flawless in our understanding of God and His Divine Doctrine? As many things as we are bound to get ‘right’ we are equally bound to get ‘wrong’ so that ‘message’ in the game of ‘telephone’ must become relative to what we have received and chosen to believe in the sincerity of faith. How can the ‘right’ choice as He sees fit be made without taking into account those aspects that make us truly ‘free’ rational agents? 

And so the ‘good, better, best’ may look something like this in the game:

The ‘good’ is at the very end of the ‘line’ (the farthest away from the original message and potentially the most ‘skewed’ received message); the ‘better’ is somewhere in the middle and the Best starts with the Author of that message in the beginning of the game. That Author is God the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit Himself through Christ (e.g. The 'Word'/ the 'Logos' of God made manifest in the flesh). He is the ‘Best’ because He IS the Way, the Truth, and the Life who freely paid for the sins of the world. While at the very end of the line, the message may or may not have been totally butchered, He is still present in the conversation nonetheless as He is present in all His Creation and searching for those who are serving Him (even if they don’t realize it) in the Spirit of ‘goodness, love, and mercy’ for God and others, especially their' enemies.

My father once said to me, and I have to say that coming from him this was very profound; he said “Naomi, in my life I have met atheists who are more ‘Christian’ than myself”. Now he is not a Universalist in the sense of the word so much as a humble, created-being who places God at the forefront of ‘Salvation Authority’ who can and will save anyone He chooses to, and there’s no real way for any of us to know ‘exactly’ whom those people are. It is only our job to share the love, and the Gospel/‘Good News’ of Christ.

If we all had this outlook as Christians (regardless of our theologies) how might our message, in conveying the heart and ministry of Christ be transformed in our own lives and in turn--in the lives of others. How might the message (collectively) shift in the direction more spiritually in tune with Christ?

Plagued with a conscience and curiosity that often leaves me wrestling with some of these deeper mysteries and challenges, I am learning how to ‘let go’ and ‘let God’ freely work in me and transform me daily with the ‘renewing’ of my mind by His Holy Spirit. My prayer for myself and the destiny of all humanity alike is for a continuous ever-maturing and spiritually evolving Agape Love that does not seize to rest. The Love that goes deeper and deeper by the day, the hour, the second. As the Body of Christ in this world, my prayer is that we would experience a revival in our own hearts and a hope that is unbound by any limitation or restriction theology may attempt to place on it as we continue to be God’s ‘salt’ of the earth.

I pray that our Spirits would be awakened and united; may the eyes of our souls be opened---seeing more clearly with every passing day.

For further reading, visit the previous post history in the doctrine... for a paper written by Ken R. Vincent titled: "The Salvation Conspiracy: How Hell Became Eternal". 

And May You Be Blessed in His Light and Love today and always!