By Maurice Smith
One of my favorite authors, A.W. Tozer, once observed, “The secret of life is theological and the key to heaven as well. We learn with difficulty, forget easily and suffer many distractions. Therefore we should set our hearts to study theology” (A. W. Tozer, “There Is No Substitute For Theology”). Tozer isn’t alone in his thoughts regarding theology. On the occasion of his 80th birthday Evangelical theologian J. I. Packer was asked what he regarded as the greatest need of the Church today. His response was simple. “The Church needs to catechize itself,” he replied. “The Church doesn’t know what it believes”.
While I basically agree with both Packer and Tozer on the importance of theology in the Christian life, the reality is that most of us are not theologians. Indeed, I suspect that most organic house church practitioners would rather be hung with low grade piano over a pit of poisoned bamboo spikes than spend significant time reading a good Systematic Theology (O.K., admit it. You were wondering where I was going with that!). But there comes a time even in the life of organic house church types when we must exercise our will power, lock the piano wire in a secure place where we won’t be tempted, and do the work of a theologian and an apologist. And this is one of those times.
Perhaps you remember the scene from “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”. King Theodan of Rohan tells Aragorn, “I will not risk open war”. Aragorn responds, “Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not.” Without being melodramatic, Evangelical Christianity – including the organic house church movement – is now engaged in open theological warfare with a resurgent doctrine of Christian Universalism. Open war is upon us, whether we would risk it or not.
I recently completed a two year writing project resulting in a book entitled “All Dogs Go To Heaven Don’t They: Biblical Reflections on Christian Universalism and Ultimate Reconciliation”. It was not my project of choice. It began “accidentally” as an e-mail discussion among a group of house church people with questions about what Scripture teaches about hell. The underlying theme of the discussion was that the traditional concept of hell as conscious eternal punishment was not Biblical because God is a loving God who wants to see all men redeemed and reconciled to Himself. Universalism in the form of Ultimate Reconciliation was openly promoted. When I reached the point where I thought my head was going to explode, I responded with a six page e-mail entitled “All Dogs Go To Heaven”. It was that written response and the responses which I received in return which formed the basis for the book. My “dog in this fight” is the organic house church movement. It is my belief, both Biblically and historically, that doctrines of Universal Salvation represent a serious doctrinal error and a potentially fatal blow to the message, the mission and the motivation of God’s people, including the organic house church movement.
One of my early intellectual mentors was Dr. John Warwick Montgomery. In 1970 he wrote a book entitled “The Suicide of Christian Theology” in which he demonstrated how doctrines of theological liberalism represented nothing less than the suicide of Biblical theology. I am convinced that doctrines of Universal Salvation, like the theological liberalism Dr. Montgomery critiqued some 40 years ago, represent a suicidal threat to genuine Christian faith. I believe this for four basic reasons:
First, if Universalism is true and everyone ends up in heaven regardless of what they believe in this life, then doctrine truly doesn’t matter and it doesn’t matter what you believe. The “new” Universalist mantra is, “Jesus is the only way to God, but there are many ways to Jesus”. In other words, you can be a Christian, a Mormon, a Buddhist, a Satanist or anything else you choose, because ultimately it doesn’t matter. You’ll end up in heaven regardless. If true (which it is not), then it really doesn’t matter what your doctrine or theology might be. Why? Because what you believe in this life is ultimately unrelated to whether or not you eventually get to heaven.
Second, if Universalism is true, then it represents the suicide of Biblical morality and ethics. There is no reason to live by Biblical morals (even though Jesus would like for you to), since how you live in this life is ultimately unrelated to whether or not you are going to heaven. Everyone eventually gets there, regardless of how they lived in this life and regardless of what fruit (if any) they produced in this life.
Third, if Universalism is true then it represents the suicide of evangelism and the gospel message. In the words of Universalist Clark Pinnock (paraphrasing someone else), “The good news is . . . there is no bad news”. If Pinnock, Talbot and other Universalists are right, then there is no good news to share because the “good news” of salvation presupposes the “bad news” of eternal punishment.
Fourth, and finally, if Universalism is true, then it represents the suicide of missions for the Church. Why should anyone (i.e., the Taylors, the Careys, the Livingstons, the Stanleys, the Elliots and countless others) risk life, health, persecution and material comfort to take non-existent good news to people who are going to be saved anyway, regardless of any mission or message?
Doctrine, you see, really does matter. Anyone failing to understand Universalism as the suicide of Christian theology doesn’t fully grasp either the nature or the implications of Universalist doctrine. If left unchecked, doctrines of Universal Salvation will have profound negative effects upon the life of the Church. Not the least of these effects will be the teaching of a false hope, namely, that those who die without Christ in this life will be given a second chance after death. I cannot think of a more insidious ploy of the Adversary of our souls (who is a liar and who comes to kill, steal and destroy) than to convince a generation of people that there is no need or urgency either to proclaim or to believe in the good news of the gospel in this life, because regardless of our choices (or lack of choices) God loves us so much that He will eventually redeem us, in spite of ourselves.
Maurice Smith is an organic house church practitioner and author of “All Dogs Go To Heaven Don’t They?: Biblical Reflections on Christian Universalism and Ultimate Reconciliation”. He resides in Spokane, Washington where he lives with Gale, his wife of 32 years. He can be contacted via e-mail at [email protected]. You can blog with him at http://parousianetworkcybercafe.blogspot.com/ or visit his Facebook page for “All Dogs Go To Heaven”.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Some food for thought: http://www.tentmaker.org/FAQ/index.html
Maurice, I always enjoyed your newsletter, and admire your convictions. There is a quote that a mind and spirit grow in the space they’re allowed to operate. If you believe the creator of the universe can be contained within the 66 books of the Bible, then that’s where GOD will stay. This ideal of course then completely contradicts the current LK10 movement of CO2 and the Virkler & Sashet methods of communicating with GOD since the bible contains the COMPLETE and inerrant word of GOD. Nothing more needed.
What about prevenient grace that sustained us until we came the the knowledge of the saving grace of GOD in Christ Jesus? What if we die during this time and have not been exposed to the gospel. You’re preaching that some are created to burn in hell forever? Simply Absurd.
Neil Young sang –
Was he thinking about my country,
or the colour of my skin?
Was he thinking about my religion,
and the way I worshipped him?
Did he create just me in his image,
or every living thing?
When God made me.
When God made me.
Was he planning only for believers,
or for those who just had faith?
Did he envision all wars
that were fought in his name?
Did he say there was only one way
to be close to him?
When God made me.
When God made me.
Were all born reaping seeds we didn’t sow. A rebellious damnable nature. To alcoholic and addicted parents, in geographical areas where Bibles are forbid. I guess what these circumstances wrought just keep Hell supplied and provide opportunities to glorify GOD when the 1% find a way out.
You limit GOD, and just as Stephen was stoned for saying “GOD does not live in houses built by the hands of men,” among other things, your desire to reign in the movement of house churches who are moving with the wind of the Spirit that you’re unable to grasp. Missional groups that include any belief, but benefit all of man kind and in the end bring glory to GOD. I ask, who does the work of the Father? Those who say they do and don’t or those who say they wont but do?
It does not murder morality. Do we need biblical morality to be one that is obeyed out of fear? Or should it be a morality that is demonstrated out of love and admiration? You’re taking us right back onto hard pews and teaching us to pray, pay and obey while we sit and and sit and sit and sit……
It does NOT in any way shape or form stop missions. Whether a mission is humanitarian or evangelical, the pure water you provide to drink, provides the open door for the living water of Christ. Why should they GO? Because they can’t not go. Not because they’re commanded to go.
Thank GOD, Martin Luther broke away when he saw the light. Thank GOD we’ve broken away from the old school of thought that has all the answers and knows all there is to know about GOD.
How can we ever change the perception Ghandi related? – “We love your Jesus, we don’t like your Christians.”
Sinners in the hands of an angry GOD is no longer effective or tolerable.
I’m not tickling ears, I’m serving the kingdom in awe and wonder because I cant contain it, because I love and admire it, because I have found no better way of existing in the interest of self, mankind and kingdom of GOD.
In the end, all arguments lead to we can not prove anything, but we have this HOPE. We have radically transformed lives that testify to the validity of our claims held in the Bible. but we can prove nothing. We cling to HOPE that any of it is TRUTH.
** IF you preface your statements, with ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, then you have solid ground to stand on for your theology. But if you’re not a literalist and believe that the Creator of the universe can not be contained in anything that is of man, including a collection of books, then it don’t hold water.
I wonder how many truths we’ve been taught and how many have honestly, authentically been revealed to us directly from GOD. Not through reading the Bible, but from the One who Created EVERY THING! Surely, this GOD is capable of clearing up any thing and everything directly to the inquirer without reference to ancient writings of any sort.
I don’t believe in extraterrestrial life, as in ET’s as in aliens and space ships, because I’ve never encountered or experienced it. Yet some will go to their graves claiming it as TRUTH.
I guess I’m just going to hell for that.
Re: “Sinners in the hands of an angry GOD”
I’ve never found that sermon to reflect the God of the Bible, and see it’s use here as a bit of a straw man. Just because I don’t agree with J.E. on that point does not mean everything he ever said or thought was wrong.
.-= PaulB´s last blog ..Listen first- then fix =-.
I was very glad to read this article. Recently, I had the opportunity to exchange email with a friend who, though a Christian, had fallen into the trap of Universalism. It had been some time since I had really interacted with someone with such convictions. As I read her email I began to consider how many others who are “good” Christians, have fallen into this misconception? I will recommend the book to her and to others. Thanks for the article.
Let me begin by apologizing for not responding immediately to the two posts on my article, but I wanted to reflect on the responses before answering, and I had some house keeping to attend to – like choosing an Avatar/picture. When the webmaster encouraged me to do this, he suggested I “step things up” a little. So I chose as my Avatar a Klingon warrior. I did this for several reason. First, I haven’t looked this good in years. Second, I appreciate the Klingon low tolerance threshold for foolishness combined with a tendency to incinerate people (I’ll try to restrain myself). Third, it lets me get away with saying things like, “Buy the book, Dorothy, or I’ll incinerate Toto” (you have to admit, that’s fun!). There are drawbacks, of course. I have to behave myself and not respond to silly arguments with personal affronts like, “Your mother has a smooth forehead”. All kidding aside, I want to treat a serious topic, but attempt to do it in a way that is engaging, “non-religious” and definitely “outside the box”. These responses raise several issues which deserve a thoughtful response, so that’s what I’ll try to do.
First, I agree that the Creator of the Universe cannot be contained in the 66 books of the Bible. I believe that in the fullness of the Kingdom of God in the Age to Come we will discover things about our awesome God which we never knew nor dreamt possible. But the Bible never claims to provide us with EXHAUSTIVE knowledge of God – or even of Jesus dealings during his 33 years on earth (see John 21:25). Rather, the Bible claims to give us accurate SUFFICIENT knowledge of God and His dealings with men. The knowledge the Bible gives us is sufficient for us to believe and to guide us in life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). So, is the Bible EXHAUSTIVE? No. Is it SUFFICIENT? Most certainly. The “accusation” that I or others are “limiting” God is inaccurate. God is the one who establishes the limits. God Himself sets the boundaries of His dealings with men.
Unfortunately, the history of the Church is filled with examples of shipwrecked faiths on the part of people who refused to acknowledge these boundaries and accept the authority of Scripture (I think of the story of Charles Townsend related by Lee Strobel in “The Case For Christ”). Indeed, the person who first involved me in this debate regarding Universalism has now become another personal example of a shipwrecked faith. This person rejected the authority of Scripture (I have their quote on pages 21-22 of my book), embraced Universalism, then embraced “transmillennialism” (think Preterism-on-steroids) and has since abandoned their children and spouse in favor of someone else. This path is so common as to be predictable. DON’T GO THERE – PLEASE! (O.K. I deal with this in more detail in my book, starting on page 21. So, “Buy the book, Dorothy, or I’ll incinerate Toto”)
Second, there is no conflict between the view expressed in the above position and the Luke 10 principles of evangelism. Indeed, it is Universalism that raises a conflict at this point. If Universalism is true and everyone will eventually be reconciled and redeemed, why all the fuss about evangelism, praying for laborers in the harvest, finding people of peace, etc. They’ll be fine whether you do any of that or not. So chill. Go to Starbucks. Get a cup of coffee – personally roasted by Klingon friends of mine, giving their coffee that fine, incinerated taste that people across the galaxy have come to expect and appreciate. Ooopps. Sorry.
Third, “What about prevenient grace?” Yes, what about it. The doctrine of prevenient grace, as expressed by A.W. Tozer in “The Pursuit of God” simply says that God is always first, “Before a man can seek God, God must first have sought the man”. This is true. But your implication is that God in His prevenient grace is able to seek, but is unable to find the man prior to his death – so God needs more time to work on this person. This argument then leads to ideas of “post-mortem salvation”. I deal with this extensively in Chapter 2 of my book (starting on page 87). I would argue that the SUFFICIENT knowledge of Scripture contains NO evidence, example or teaching of God’s post-mortem dealings with men other than on the Day of Judgment. I believe that the God Who seeks the man is perfectly able to complete in this life what He begins in this life. Furthermore, I DO NOT teach or preach that “some are created to burn in hell forever”. That’s an ad hominem argument on the level of “And by the way, your mother has a smooth forehead”. Let’s not go there.
Fourth, the quote from musician Neil Young is interesting, but out of place. As a general rule I try to avoid building my theology on contemporary music lyrics (either pagan or Christian!). For example, I love “Suzanne” by Leonard Cohen – as sung by Judy Collins:
And Jesus was a sailor
When he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching
From his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
Only drowning men could see him
He said “All men will be sailors then
Until the sea shall free them”
But he himself was broken
Long before the sky would open
Forsaken, almost human
He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone
And you want to travel with him
And you want to travel blind
And you think maybe you’ll trust him
For he’s touched your perfect body with his mind.
Good stuff, but I wouldn’t build my Christology on it. The song may be a good touch point for starting a conversation about Jesus, but it isn’t a statement of spiritual truth that you or I should build our salvation on. If you disagree with this understanding, then we have a much deeper theological problem that cuts at the very root of your faith, but no time in this form to address it.
Fifth, the following statement caught my attention: “I wonder how many truths we’ve been taught and how many have honestly, authentically been revealed to us directly from GOD. Not through reading the Bible, but from the One who Created EVERY THING!” This statement assumes a contradiction between truth revealed through Scripture and truth communicated via direct divine revelation. For this statement to be valid then we must decide between the following: 1) Scripture is wrong and can’t be trusted or 2) the voice I’m hearing is wrong and cant’ be trusted or 3) God is inconsistent and self-contradictory. It raises the fundamental question of who or what is to provide your touchstone for truth. My view – which is the historic view of Evangelicalism – is that Scripture is our authority against which all competing claims of truth are to be compared. If what I think I’m hearing from God differs with the clear teaching of Scripture, then I must reject what I’m hearing as false (the product of the world, the flesh or the devil).
Finally, we need to face the reality described in the statement: How can we ever change the perception Ghandi related? – “We love your Jesus, we don’t like your Christians.” The answer is not to change our theology to accommodate those who don’t like us or disagree with us. The answer is to change our behavior. But we will have to save that discussion for another day.
P.S. To my knowledge, no goes to hell for what they post on this blog (Whew!). And I promise to resist the Klingon urge toward incineration.
You may not preach it, but its clearly implicated. This sense of urgency, limiting GOD and man to the time of breathing only… or would that from an evangelical position include the fetuses as well?
My point is, we look through a glass darkly. I fully appreciate some standard by which to compare, but can not limit it to what even then is perceived as part literal and part figurative. Even Paul points out this is advice from me not from the Lord. Post mortem evangelism is plausible and demonstrated when Jesus FIRST went through that trap door in the bottom of the tomb and got the keys and led the captives to freedom. Yeah, it wasn’t the living who saw the risen Christ first.
I rebel against the over educated conrolling forces that have made the poor representation by teaching the masses to act unacceptable by bashing everything that isnt hetero sexual, right wing republican or happening inside the walls of a place with a budget. I even have issues with anyone who is paid in service for the kingdom. But then, that’s my problem. If people want to leave the church because of budgets etc, and then want to attend a conference where people are paid to serve the kingdom, its leading back to the same old thing. Let’s organize and unite and get so big we need to create a denomination… here we go.
I’ll cite what Jesus told Nicodemus, another overly educated man – “forget everything you know and start all over. You hear the wind, but you know not where it came from or where it goes, so it is with the Spirit.”
I can not subscribe to universalism, but I can not rule out possibilities beyond this breathing life.
David, I appreciate your thoughts and your willingness to engage the issue. That speaks integrity on your part, and I appreciate that. My only response at this point would be to emphasize once again that the notion of “post-mortem” evangelism has NO biblical basis. I treat it extensively in Chapter 2 of my book (including the biblical references to Jesus descending into hades and preaching the gospel). Regardless of what you or I might want to “speculate” about concerning what might happen after death, I MUST limit my faith and my teachings to those things which are CLEARLY revealed and taught by Scripture. I CANNOT speculate with the salvation of others. And Scripture clearly teaches – in both Old and New Testaments – that death is the “line of demarcation” which makes permanent those spiritual choices made in this life.
Thank you, again, for your thoughtful responses.
David – you said “I can not subscribe to universalism, but I can not rule out possibilities beyond this breathing life.”
There are many things that are, scripturally speaking, thermostatically possible – no matter how improbable they may be. I fully expect to learn all kinds of new and amazing things when I am with Him – but not before. I figure God left us out of the loop on these things for a good reason, and I trust Him on that.
Is it possible that God might save some after death? I have too many scriptural problems with that – you really have to twist to the max to make that fit. But even if I found it possible, I would hardly want to risk anyone’s eternity on it.
.-= PaulB´s last blog ..Listen first- then fix =-.
I thought the post on Universalism by Maurice Smith was very good, true to the gospel message, and the teachings of the Bible. It seems to me that the strongest evidence against the teaching of Universalism is the cross of Calvary itself.
When Jesus hung on the cross between two thieves he was asked by one of them. “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” Jesus replied “verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
Now I am left with the question: where did the other thief who did not believe in Him go?
Did he go to Abraham’s bosom (paradise), or did he go to Sheol a place of torment? Did Jesus’ words about paradise include them both? I think not.
Jesus clearly believed in an eternal hell…. and went to the cross to keep us from going there…
The point I wish to make is… the cross reconciles mankind to God, but only those who cry (as it were)…”Lord remember me” will see paradise (heaven). Those who revile Him, reject Him, and do not receive him by faith as Savior will not ultimately benefit from what He did there.
You would simply have to not take God at His Word to believe in Universalism (because there is too much evidence of an eternal hell in scripture). Otherwise Rev. 19:20; 20:10; and 21:8 make no sense at all.
In addition, personally I cannot reconcile Universalism with the character, nature, and attributes of God. God is love, but He is also holy, righteous, and just. Although His mercy mitigates against His justice and His grace provided a way for all to be saved from His wrath through the cross, however only those who are reconciled to Him through faith in Christ will be saved from an eternal hell.
This is the message of the Bible. You cannot regard the scriptures as holy, authoritative, inerrant, infallible and inspired by God, and yet not come to the conclusion that hell is a real place and many will end up there.
How can the doctrine of Universalism flourish? When we abandon the scriptures or question their authority and inspiration, we open ourselves to many false doctrines that will cause many to be lost.
To believe the bible is to disbelieve the doctrine of Universalism (aka Ultimate Reconciliation, aka Inclusion).
Just my thoughts,
Charles
.-= Charles Smoot´s last blog ..The Godhead – Trinity or Oneness =-.
All good arguments above and on most days I believe that those who choose to know Jesus on earth, spend eternity with Him. I am just questioning that our loving Father sends people to ETERNAL damnation if they don’t get to know Him in the mere eighty or so years of life on earth? Just sayin ….
Good question, Sarah, and a common one. Indeed, it is one of the most common “retorts” among universalists: “How could a loving God . . . (fill in the blank)”. At its heart, this question has to do with the issue of “fairness”. Is it fair that God would condemn someone to conscious eternal punishment just because they didn’t get to know Him “in the mere eighty or so years of life on earth”? I respond to the issue of fairness in Chapter 1 of my book (page 71ff), and I remind everyone that (HOLD YOUR BREATH) God isn’t fair . . . but He is Just. In the words of Abraham, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” (Gen.18:25). Everything God does is Just. Simply put, this means that everything God does is RIGHT, and that He is incapable of acting otherwise. NO ONE is condemned to hell “unjustly”, regardless of how much or how little time they spend in this present life.
In addition, in my book I use the story of Cornelius in Acts 10 to point out the lengths to which God will go in order to satisfy the searching heart. At the risk of sounding pedantic (like that boat hasn’t already sailed!), let me quote from my book:
“Think about this for just a moment. In all the world there were only 12 Christian missionaries (11 of Jesus’ original disciples and one replacement – Matthias). Yet, in spite of that, God saw to it that a Gentile seeker named Cornelius, who genuinely wanted to know God, received both an angelic visitor to prepare the way and a human evangelist to bring the message of salvation to Cornelius and his household. How’s that for being fair?! It dawned on Peter (and hopefully it is also dawning on us) that if anyone anywhere (literally “in every nation”) is genuinely seeking after God, God will make a way for that person to hear the message of salvation in Jesus . . . even if He has to send angels to prepare the way! That’s God’s way of being “fair”.
Sarah, thanks again for your excellent thoughts, and I hope my thoughts will help you on your journey. Blessings, Maurice
Recently I’ve had the pleasure of being introduced to the exegetically focused ministry of Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. In listening to the various debates vs leading Mormons, Muslims, A-theists, so on and so forth, I encountered several debates between White, who happened to take the stance on Calvanism and many educated gentleman taking the stance of Armenianism. After listening to these debates it became clear to me that I had always been an Armenian and could no longer follow that type of thinking. I realized that this type of theology, presented in Dr. Norman Geisler’s “Chosen But Free” was essentially self contradictory and full of confusing non biblical flawed reasonings that I once unknowingly adopted. Along my journey (which I’m still on) to the Calvanist viewpoint I realized that for most of my life I bought into the peer pressure of believing that sinful man must have a “free choice” to come to God, or else God is bad (an utterly non scripture supported theme I might add). Along this line of personal-opinion-based theology rises the same appeal to emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies) that we find in Unitarianism. The same idea that seeds the habit for many Christians to take the liberty to insert the concept of a man enslaved to sin to have a “free will” into the bible is the same one that causes some to buy into the incoherent Universalist forgery. To read into the Bible these themes we must first adopt the presupposition that God can’t act arbitrarily, or of his own free will. I believe this idea to be a direct seed of the misunderstanding of the concept of justice Maurice just described. This July I had the opportunity to discuss the topic of absolute sovereignty with my Grandfather. The one point he contended vehemently was that since the Bible calls God a just God he surely cannot disallow for free will. I had quite a difficult time explaining to him that despite all of the scriptural rejection of that notion of a man slaved to sin would find the gospel attractive for any reason other than having his heart irresistibly changed by the Spirit, God would be just to send us all to hell in our sin as is with no questions asked. For a natural man to find anything of value in the crucifixion and therefore make a choice based on his own will to “take up his cross” is completely antithetical to all logical reasoning. It is truly a miracle that God would chose to elect and draw to himself any, and the right to do so belongs to non other than the sovereign Lord. As believers it ought to bring us a much greater appreciation to the true perfect grace our Lord has chosen to show us, without synergy, in our slavery to sin. We must understand the concept of the justice of God applies to vertically to God’s judgment in relation to an individuals own transgressions, it does not describe a teetering lateral balance whereby God must even out his treatment to each individual relative to the way he treats other creations.