Will Everyone Go to Heaven? (Understanding Universalism)

Approximate Reading Time: 37 minutes

This is the first of three articles that explores the various views of Hell. These articles will try to be fair and accurate to each belief, so don’t be surprised if all three end up sounding fully possible or filled with issues. My goal isn’t to persuade people to one belief or another, but to examine them all and help readers determine which has been truly revealed through God’s word.

This article is part of a series called “Understanding Hell and the Afterlife.” However, it’s important to remember that Hell is a temporary holding area and not the final destination for God’s enemies. See this article and podcast episode to understand the difference between Hell and the Lake of Fire. 

What Is Universalism?

Broadly speaking, Universalism believes that everyone will be redeemed through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For some, this means that everyone goes to Heaven when they die. For others, it means that there is a sort of “cleansing period” where people have to be made right with God by being disciplined. Regardless of what’s involved, the end result will be that every person who has ever existed will experience a sinless eternity with God.

Strengths of Universalism

There are many appealing aspects of Universalism. As you’ll see below, perhaps its greatest strength is that it calls for an uncomplicated reading of the Bible. It lets certain verses stand on their own, doesn’t force us to explain or excuse God, and makes sense with our own experiences. The first two points will be rather thorough, but they lay important groundwork for the shorter points that follow.

All means all

If nothing else, the Bible seems pretty straightforward about who will be saved by the work of Christ. Let’s look at a few passages that clearly state that all people will, eventually, spend eternity with Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (Romans 5:18)

This is perhaps one of the strongest arguments. Other beliefs would say that “justification and life for all men” really means “all kinds of men” or that Christ’s sacrifice “has a potential to lead to justification and life for all men.” However, the word “all” isn’t used that way at the beginning of this sentence, so why should we assume “all” has two different meanings?

In other words, “one trespass led to condemnation for all men” means that Adam’s sin condemned absolutely everyone without exception. It naturally follows that Christ’s work on the cross likewise justifies absolutely everyone without exception. How can we say that Paul means two different things when he uses the same word in the same sentence?

For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. (Romans 11:32)

Similar to the previous point, “all” is used twice in this verse. If we agree that all people are disobedient, it’s irresponsible to change the second meaning of “all” to mean “all kinds.”

Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself. (John 12:31-32)

If we’re reading this plainly, Christ speaks of a future time when He will bring everyone to Himself.

For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. (Romans 1:30-32)

Similar to Romans 5:18, this gives a clear indication that God gives up all people to disobedience, but He will also have mercy on all people.

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)

God is the Savior of all people. How is He especially a savior of those who believe? Perhaps there is some benefit to believing in this life, rather than believing after death. But in the end, this shows that God isn’t just the Savior of a few.

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:19-20)

And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” (Revelation 21:5a)

As we’ll discuss in another point, Christ’s death on the cross was powerful and complete. And just like the heavens and Earth are still under the curse until Christ makes all things new, there’s no reason not to include sinners who die in unbelief in “all things.”

In all of these cases, it’s very clear that when the Bible says all people will be saved, we should assume that all people will be saved.

A potential mistranslation still allows for punishment

And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (Matthew 25:46)

This passage is often used to dismiss Universalism. After all, Christ clearly states that some people will be punished forever. However, some Universalists would argue that the confusion comes from misunderstanding the words “eternal” and “punishment.”

William Barclay is often referenced to explain this, though I’m sure the explanation goes further back. The words in question are aionios (eternal) and kolasis (punishment). Both of these are examples of what happens when we impose our own English meanings on words that have been translated from Greek.

Remember that translators constantly make important decisions when any language is translated into another. While a word may be well known to the original Greek speakers when the contents of the New Testament were written, those words can get lost when translated for English speakers living thousands of years later. That’s not necessarily a fault of the translators or even a particular Bible translation – that’s just the nature of translating any language into another.

First, let’s discuss kolasis, which is often translated as punishment. While that’s a fair translation, the word “punish” has different, subtle meanings. The meaning we often ascribe is associated with vengeance or payback, where we give someone what they deserve (like punishing a murderer with the death penalty). Another meaning of punishment is to cause suffering with the goal of improvement or reform (like punishing a child with limited phone time to teach them not to lie about finishing their homework). 

In Greek, several words can be translated as “punishment,” and all have subtle differences. But of all the words that could be chosen, kolasis seems to carry the idea of correction. Outside of the Bible, it may have been used to discuss how someone trims trees to help them grow better. Thus, a kolasis kind of punishment is actually good for the one receiving it, as it corrects future behavior. 

Second, let’s discuss aionios. Barclay argues that this word is only reserved for God’s eternality, meaning that an “aoinios punishment” is better understood as “a punishment from an eternal God.” However, to further strengthen this argument, other commentators (and Barclay as well) look at the root of aionios. 

The word occurs 70 times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “eternal.” However, there’s one particular use that may help us better understand what was originally meant:

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages [aionios] (Romans 16:25)

We know Paul isn’t saying that the mystery of the gospel has been kept a secret for an endless eternity. Instead, it was kept secret for a period of time. And when we realize that the root of aionios is where we get “aeon,” or “an age of time,” this may help us better understand why translating it as “eternal” may not always be best.

The eternal punishment in Matthew 24:46 may be better understood as “corrective punishment that will last for an age.” Just as a child’s timeout is meant to last long enough to teach them a lesson, so God’s punishment of the wicked is meant to last long enough to fulfill His goal of purging them of wickedness.

Thus, Universalism doesn’t necessarily mean God ignores people’s evil. Rather, He sets out to correct their evil. A proper interpretation of this important passage in Matthew demonstrates why this is the case.

Hell isn’t erased

When we understand that God’s punishment is meant for correction instead of vengeance, then the Bible’s references to Hell make sense. People can still be in Hell now and in the future, but that doesn’t mean it has to be forever. Eventually, when God’s plan is fully completed, all people will spend eternity with Christ.

It demonstrates God’s love

Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. (1 John 4:8-9)

Universalists are often accused of overemphasizing God’s love. However, it can’t be ignored that God is love, and it’s difficult to reconcile that with believing that God punishes people for not making the right decision during their few decades on Earth. It becomes increasingly difficult when we consider those who never hear the gospel or die as a child. 

Could God really punish these people forever and still be a God of love? After all, we’re made in His image and humans have spent thousands of years struggling to understand how perfect love can desire the cruelty of eternal punishment. Perhaps this constant struggle is because God’s image-bearers inherently understand that perfect love cannot be reconciled with the classic understanding of Hell and eternal punishment. 

With a Universalist understanding, God’s love is demonstrated even through the corrective punishment of Hell.

It proves God’s justice and righteousness

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. (1 Timothy 2:5-6)

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Justice demands that a crime only be punished once. It demands that when a debt is paid in full, it cannot be collected again. To do otherwise would be incredibly unjust.

If God has already punished Christ for everyone’s sins, how can He still punish those who die without Christ? They haven’t asked Christ to save them, but whatever they were guilty of was already punished on the cross. Likewise, if Christ already paid their ransom to the Father, how are they still treated as though their ransom hasn’t been paid?

Universalism shows that God is perfectly just and righteous because He won’t pour out His wrath for sin already paid for on the cross.

It magnifies God’s power

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

Both of these passages reveal God’s will. God isn’t just waiting around hoping that people will choose Him – He desires it and can make it happen. 

Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases. (Psalm 115:3)

For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? (Isaiah 14:27)

When we consider God’s omnipotence, we need to consider a simple question: Would it please God for all people to be saved? If so, then what is stopping Him from accomplishing His plans? If we believe that God is all-powerful, then there should be no reason to think He can’t set out to do what He wants. And since He clearly wants all people to be saved, we must assume that all people will be saved.

Christ alone, just not how we think

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:13)

A major criticism of Universalism is that it ignores the Bible’s clear teaching about Christ being the only way to Heaven. After all, how can someone who’s never heard the gospel call upon Christ in this life? The problem may not be with Universalism, but with what we assume about Christ’s sacrifice.

In this life, we can certainly call upon the name of the Lord to be saved. However, that doesn’t mean that the value and power of Christ’s sacrifice don’t extend beyond this life. Rather, we can argue that Christ indeed paid the penalty for all sin, and all people will be made right with God through Christ. However, Universalism allows us to be justified through Christ after correction in Hell.

Every tongue will confess

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:10-11)

Salvation comes when we confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Understanding this, Paul tells us what will happen at the end of this age. Every tongue will do what is required for salvation – they will confess that Jesus is Lord. All people will fulfill what is required for salvation in Romans 10:9, and thus all people will be saved.

Inclusivity vs. exclusivity – which makes more sense?

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” (John 14:6-7)

Christ’s statement in John 14:6 isn’t about salvation. If you read the bigger context of what He says in John 14, He’s responding to Thomas saying they won’t know how to reunite with Christ after He leaves. Christ’s response is that He will allow them to see the Father. It’s not about “salvation through Christ alone,” but that He builds a way for all people to see the Father without everyone requiring corrective punishment. 

A different take on Universalism is that Christ’s statements weren’t meant to be taken as literally as many Christians assume. Rather, Christ is the way to God, but not the only way to Heaven. This broader take on salvation denies that God would be so narrow in scope that He would only accept people who were fortunate enough to hear the gospel and respond. Instead, all paths inevitably lead to God without any need for faith or works on our part. However, it may be possible for people to fully reject salvation after having the full reality of God presented to them in Heaven.

This is commonly known as the “Gospel of Inclusion.” It’s worth noting that not all Universalists seem to hold to this since it makes little of God’s corrective punishment for those who die in unbelief. However, it’s worth noting that this view may align more with the world’s growing understanding of the evils of exclusivism. 

Weaknesses of Universalism

On its own, it’s no surprise that Universalism is steadily gaining traction in modern-day Christianity. But while I’ve tried to accurately represent the belief as its supporters present it, there are also a number of flaws that don’t just exist alongside Universalism, but exist in many of the arguments themselves. Below are responses to each of the above points and a few other issues faced by this belief.

“All” isn’t meant to be accurate (answering “All means all”)

Most writing on Universalism follows a similar pattern. They point out that when we use the word all today, it means all items in a group. Thus, when biblical writers use the word, it is likewise interpreted as an all-encompassing term. There’s an assumption that when a verse uses “all” in two ways, we must be dealing with mathematically-precise numbers.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (Romans 5:18)

Universalists assume that both “all” statements are the sum of every born individual. If 50 billion people are born from Adam until the final judgment, then we must interpret this verse as “As one trespass led to condemnation for 50 billion people, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for 50 billion people.”

The issue, of course, is that biblical writers often use this word to convey “the whole of something,” rather than counting all individuals in that group.

This becomes readily apparent if we pay attention to how New Testament writers use the word “all” (pas in Greek).

When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him (Matthew 2:3)

Obviously, every single individual in Jerusalem at that time wasn’t troubled. 

Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. (Matthew 3:5)

Responsible reading informs us that John didn’t baptize every citizen of these areas, but instead a large group of people from these regions.

I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy (Philippians 1:3-4)

Is it possible that Paul thanked God during every single prayer he ever prayed? Of course. However, it wouldn’t make Paul a liar if there was one prayer where he didn’t pray for this individual church. 

For more, click here for over 1,200 uses of the Greek word pas. If you do, you’ll notice something interesting – sometimes it’s not meant to count individuals, but sometimes it is. The original writers show us that this single word is flexible, based on how they use it.

To understand what “all” means, we must look at both context and the rest of Scripture. Does the rest of the Bible allow us to interpret “all” in the way Universalists want to? As we’ll see throughout the rest of this article and the next two views on Hell, the Bible appears to strongly create a separation between those who will receive mercy and those who won’t. 

So what do we make of verses like Romans 5:18? We interpret it in light of the rest of God’s word. 

Just as one trespass led to condemnation for all humanity, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all humanity.

This is speaking about the effectiveness, completeness, and uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice. Adam’s sin was enough to condemn all of us, and likewise only Christ’s sacrifice is enough to justify all of us. However, just because Christ’s sacrifice has the capacity to justify everyone doesn’t mean it will. And that understanding becomes much clearer when we stop trying to force “all” to fit our modern usage of the word.

“Eternal” needs to be consistent (answering “A potential mistranslation…”)

And these will go away into eternal [aionios] punishment [kolasis], but the righteous into eternal [aionios] life. (Matthew 25:46)

This verse is central to anyone’s understanding of our eternal destiny. Universalism does the responsible work of trying to understand this verse in light of original languages, but it falls short in a few critical ways.

You’ll recall that commentators like William Barclay argue for two understandings of aionios. The first is based on how Plato reserves the word for God’s unique eternality. This argument is fairly weak when considering its other use throughout the Bible.

The other attempt to define aionios is to look at its relationship to the word aeon, which means “a span of time.” This definition violates a few important rules of language. First, we must avoid the temptation to be clever by finding connections that the original writers didn’t make. Just because aeon can be found in the word aionios doesn’t mean the two define one another any more than finding butter in the word butterfly tells us the function of the insect. To understand this biblically, the word fear in Psalm 19:9 doesn’t mean a sense of terror as we use it today, even though that’s how “fear” has changed its definition over time.

Whether or not aeon developed from the word aionios does nothing to tell us how aionios was used at that point in history. Language evolves, and we cannot assign meaning to one word based on another. When we look at its use throughout the Bible, it becomes clear that it far more often implies eternity. 

A final issue with aionios is its consistency in the verse itself. If we argue that people are only meant to undergo punishment “for a span of time,” we must also conclude that we will only gain life “for a span of time.” I’ve yet to see a Universalist argue that eternal life is only meant to be temporary, yet the comparison of life and punishment in Matthew 25:46 demands that both life and punishment be unending or temporary, not one and the other.

The nature of eternal punishment (answering “A potential mistranslation…”)

And these will go away into eternal [aionios] punishment [kolasis], but the righteous into eternal [aionios] life. (Matthew 25:46)

A consistent defense of this passage is that kolasis is a corrective kind of punishment, like punishing a child so they’ll correct their behavior. However, if we apply this logic to the only other place kolasis is used, this kind of thinking doesn’t make sense.

By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. (1 John 4:17-18)

Consider the contrast being discussed. Those loved by God will have confidence during the judgment in Revelation 20:11-15. However, those without God must fear judgment and punishment. It’s odd that the opposite of love has to deal with corrective punishment, especially if that corrective punishment is done because God is love. 

We’ll discuss separation language in a future point, but it’s also worth mentioning that this creates a very clear divide between those who have God’s love and those who do not.

The timing of eternal punishment (answering “A potential mistranslation…”)

The reasoning behind the temporary and corrective nature of eternal punishment seems to ignore when this eternal punishment occurs. Remember that those in Hell today aren’t there for the punishment of sin. Hell is a miserable experience (as we see of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31), but it’s merely a holding area for those waiting for judgment. After this judgment is the Lake of Fire, which eternal punishment refers to. 

Refer to my article on Hell to see this more thoroughly explained. However, the short criticism here is that those without Christ will be judged according to their lawbreaking, then cast into the Lake of Fire. Christ paid for our sins at the cross, so when we stand before the judge, He won’t have any crimes to punish. It’s at this point that we’ll fully experience eternal life.

Under a Universalist interpretation, this sequence of events doesn’t work. Consider the journey a Christian and unbeliever experience according to Universalism:

Death – Heaven or Eternal Punishment – Resurrection and Judgment – Eternal Life

Compare this with the sequence of events laid out in the Bible:

Death – Wait in Heaven or Hell – Resurrection and Judgment – Eternal Life or Eternal Punishment

The argument for eternal punishment may seem valid when looking at a single verse, but the interpretation of that verse must match the rest of Scripture. The only way to make Universalism work with the Bible’s timeline is to say that God punishes people after Christ’s death has been applied at the judgment. Unfortunately, the warnings and promises throughout the New Testament don’t allow for that.

God is love, not niceness (answering “It demonstrates God’s love”)

Although many will have different motivations for making this argument, the root of it is likely the same for everyone. People like the idea of a generous, kind, all-loving God. And as God reveals Himself in the Bible, we see that He is, indeed, love.

However, we must exercise great care in allowing God to define love, not us. It’s popular to assume that love is ever-accepting. Love is a sense of niceness that would never make someone feel bad about themselves. In our culture, love is the opposite of negative feelings. Thus, we assume “God is love” means God would never intentionally bring negativity to His creation.

But this is the same God who wiped out almost all humanity in Genesis 6. God chose Israel instead of all other nations after scattering them at Babel in Genesis 11-12. God eventually called Israel to the conquest and slaughter of nations. The God we see in Revelation is filled with righteous wrath and judgment.

God didn’t just demonstrate less love and more wrath in these situations. God is always perfectly loving white being perfectly righteous, and He cannot compromise one aspect just because it makes us uncomfortable. Thus, we must be cautious when saying God must do something because He is love while ignoring or minimizing what He does because of His other attributes.

What was Christ punished for? (Answering “It proves God’s justice”)

The timing of eternal punishment isn’t the only conundrum faced by Universalism. They must also answer why anyone must be punished at all.

Consider this

1. If God is righteous and just, then He will only punish what deserves to be punished
2. On the cross, Christ took our place under the Father’s wrath and was punished for our sins, so we are no longer guilty before Him
3. People are sent to Hell to face punishment for their sins

The problem may not be immediately apparent, but this line of thinking either makes Christ’s death worthless or makes God an unjust monster. 

Christ’s worthless death?

If people can have their sins somehow purged in Hell, then what did Christ really do? What was the value of God entering into His own creation, perfectly obeying the Law, being beaten and killed, then having the perfect fellowship of the Trinity broken when the Father could not look on the Son because of our sin upon Him? Under Universalism, Christ’s sacrifice is little more than a VIP pass that allows Christians to enter into the Father’s presence a little sooner. 

God, the unjust monster?

If God punished Christ for the sin of all people, then what punishment do people need to pay for when they die? Mark 10:45 says Christ gave His life “as a ransom for many.” This ransom was given to the Father to secure our justification by paying off our debt of sin. Yet if God was satisfied with Christ’s sacrifice, how can He still hold people guilty if they die without asking Christ to save them? For God to demand payment beyond Christ’s payment on the cross makes God unjust.

In either case, God is compromised due to Universalism’s necessary conclusions. 

Misunderstanding omnipotence (answering “It magnifies God’s power”)

As humans, our will is limited by our power. We do things that are within our power, yet the things we don’t do are often because we simply cannot do them. We also believe that if we had unlimited power, we’d be able to do anything we desired. However, because we live within our human limitations, we confuse God’s “will of decree” and His “will of desire.”

To see the difference between these two, compare God’s decree for Abraham’s son and His desire for our sexual purity. 

Abraham and Sarah were beyond natural child-bearing years. When God promised them a child, Sarah laughed at what she thought was an absurd statement. However, God wasn’t too worried about His plans being ruined.

Is anything too hard for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you, about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son. (Genesis 18:14)

As we see in Genesis 21:1, God fulfilled His promise. We see God making similar promises throughout the Bible, and never once is He unable to do what He says He will.

Contrast this with God’s desire that His children never give in to sexual immorality:

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality (1 Thessalonians 4:3)

In our pornography-laden world, I suspect everyone has at least one Christian in their life who is guilty of sexual immorality. Yet despite God’s desire that men and women stay away from pornography, the sad presence of it in many lives doesn’t mean God is weak or incapable.

God isn’t like us. His desires don’t come true simply because He lacks the power to see them through. God says that some things will happen because He decrees it, while others are desires that He allows to go unfulfilled. 

Yes, God is all-powerful and cannot have His decrees thwarted.

Yes, God desires all people to be saved.

However, that doesn’t mean that all people will be saved any more than God’s people will reject sin for the rest of their lives. God can do all things, but that doesn’t mean He will force His desires to be fulfilled.

God is all of His attributes at once

The various appeals to God’s attributes fall under a similar misunderstanding. The arguments assume that God chooses to exercise more or less of a single attribute, or perhaps that God will ignore one attribute (righteousness) in order to magnify another (love). However, this would demand that “God is love” doesn’t mean love is an undeniable characteristic of God, but instead that love is something outside of God that He exercises to varying degrees.

One of the most difficult things for us to understand about God is something theologians call “Divine Simplicity.” Because God created time, space, and matter, He must necessarily exist outside of them. If that’s true, then God doesn’t exist in a defined space, being made of certain parts, existing from one moment to the next. God isn’t complex (being made of divisible parts or attributes), but is simple (meaning that God is all of His attributes, fully and equally at all times).

That is likely confusing because there’s nothing in our existence that we can liken to Divine Simplicity. We can’t explain it by saying “Well, it’s like this or that.” We can only understand things we’ve encountered; thus, it’s impossible to fully understand God’s simplicity because He is so unlike anything else within His creation.

That confusion leads us to overemphasize one of God’s attributes over another. After all, we are complex beings who choose to use or ignore various aspects of our personalities. We aren’t love because we can emphasize, diminish, or outright refuse to exercise love. Love exists outside of us; thus, its perfect and endless exercise isn’t a necessary quality of our existence. In other words, we don’t stop being who we are simply because we don’t love perfectly. We can exercise all aspects of humanity in different measures across our lives, but to have too much or too little of one doesn’t change the basic makeup of who we are.

God isn’t a being who chooses to exercise love, righteousness, omnipotence, or any other attribute. He is those things, all at once and all done perfectly. God is perfectly loving, so everything He does will be according to His nature. However, God is also perfectly righteousness, and thus will act according to His righteousness and love. 

God cannot love at the expense of His righteousness. He cannot be righteous at the expense of His grace and mercy. He can do nothing that isn’t perfectly in line with every single one of His attributes, because He is every single one of His attributes at all times. To do otherwise would make Him stop being God.

Thus, we cannot insist that a loving God wouldn’t send anyone to Hell or the Lake of Fire any more than we can say a righteous God must only give people what they deserve. Instead, we must recognize that God exercises all His attributes equally, at all times, because God is all of His attributes equally and at all times.

Rewriting justification and atonement (answering “Christ alone…”)

There’s no question that Christ’s sacrifice had the potential to make all people right with God. Christ could have taken the wrath for each sin every person will ever commit for all time. However, not only does this not seem implied in Scripture, but this may not be what Universalism believes.

One difficulty in discussing views on Hell is that it also requires us to acknowledge views on justification (being made right before God) and atonement (how Christ made that happen). History is filled with ideas on what exactly Christ did on the cross, and to dig into each is beyond the scope of this discussion. 

One assumption we must make is that God holds us individually guilty for our individual sins. Just as a judge must review and punish every instance of lawbreaking for a criminal, God is the perfect judge of sinners. Consider Christ’s warnings:

Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. (Revelation 22:12)

For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. (Matthew 16:27)

People will be judged according to their works. But we must remember that God is a judge, not an accountant. He doesn’t weigh us at the end of life to see if our good outweighs our bad. Instead, no matter how much supposed good we do, God will judge us according to our evil deeds. 

Likewise, consider that Christ’s model prayer in Matthew 6:9-13 includes “forgive us our debts.” This creates a familiar picture for people of that time, which is one person who must repay another. Consider that language alongside what John writes:

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10) 

Propitiation means to satisfy a debt. Today, whenever we send in a payment for our credit cards, we propitiate the credit card company by paying a debt we owe. Our debt isn’t paid if we don’t send in enough, nor would we pay more than we owe. Instead, we pay the exact amount needed to consider our debt paid in full.

For those who like big theology terms, we call this understanding of Christ’s sacrifice “penal substitutionary atonement.”

If we must be judged and punished according to our individual deeds, Christ also had to take the punishment for our individual deeds when He suffered the Father’s wrath on the cross. If our sins are pictured as a debt to God, then Christ satisfied this debt by paying its exact amount.

Universalism can’t treat Christ’s sacrifice and our redemption in this way. It needs to rewrite what God’s wrath entailed, what our guilt meant, what Christ did, and how we’re made right before God. 

Going against one particular view of atonement doesn’t make Universalism inherently wrong. After all, we should never call a belief wrong purely because it goes against tradition. However, there’s a reason that penal substitutionary atonement (Christ paying the exact penalty for our sin) is widely held – it fits with the pattern shown throughout the Old and New Testaments.

Ultimately, all of our beliefs need to function together to create a single system that doesn’t conflict with itself. For Universalism to be true, it must also reconcile what Christ accomplished on the cross with many other aspects.

The danger of pattern recognition (answering “Every tongue will confess”)

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:10-11)

Linking these verses together creates two issues that may not be readily apparent.

First, Paul’s discussion on salvation isn’t just the act of saying “Jesus is Lord,” especially when Matthew 7:22 reminds us that many will call Him Lord, yet Christ will say He never knew them. What’s present in the Romans passage but missing in Philippians is that there’s a belief in what it means that Christ is Lord. If we continue reading the Romans passage, we’ll see that the emphasis is on what we believe, with our confession being a natural reaction to that belief.

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” (Romans 10:9-11)

Understanding this, we see the second issue. The same word appearing in two different places doesn’t mean we can apply the same meaning to that word. Context and the author’s intent are vital considerations.

In Romans, this confession comes from a belief in Christ as Savior and Messiah. When we realize the wickedness of our sins and our inability to save ourselves, our trust and reliance on Christ alone for salvation makes us “confess” (openly declare) that He is our personal Lord (literally “master”). This passage deals with personal beliefs, and thus the confession is also personal.

Meanwhile, the Philippians passage takes place in a comparison of Christ coming as a servant and being raised up by God as Lord. In this context, people aren’t proclaiming that Christ is their master, but instead that He’s the master of all. This is revealed in Colossians 1:15-20 and all throughout Revelation as we see Christ declared the heir of all things. In the end, even Christ’s enemies must confess (admit) that Christ truly is Lord of all creation.

Exclusivity isn’t evil (answering “Inclusivity vs. exclusivity”)

For many, the idea of eternal life being reserved for a select few grates against our modern sensibilities. We live in a culture that dedicates itself to exposing and undoing the evils of hurting one group for the benefit of another. It views the world as a wicked system built on oppression that isn’t aligned with God.

For many, historic Christianity is a primary offender of oppression. So when it comes to salvation, the idea of “haves” and “have nots” seems like an outdated set of beliefs built on the oppressor-oppressed system. Thus, for many, universalism seeks to free people from that poor understanding.

But as I discussed above in “God is love, not niceness,” God has frequently chosen some at the expense of others. God has even called for the destruction of some for the sake of His people. 

If Universalism is an answer to the oppression of Christianity’s past, it must also deal with God Himself and how He has shown favor and exclusivity throughout history. 

Universalism can make us the judge of God

Many of Universalism’s issues can be distilled into a single point: it’s appealing because a non-Universalist belief makes us uncomfortable. We like Universalism because God suddenly becomes someone who doesn’t embarrass us in front of modern thinkers, nor do we have to wrestle with the uncomfortable realities that are easily swept away by God’s love conquering all.

However, what this really does is bring God down to our level. It begins with the struggle of “I don’t understand how God can be this way,” and then seeks to lower His majesty to the degree that we can then say “I’m okay with a God like this.” It starts with the assumption that we wouldn’t condemn people to eternal punishment if we were God. And if we wouldn’t do it, how can we accept that God would?

Universalism is wildly appealing because we no longer have to love and worship a God who seems barbaric and evil by our modern standards, nor do we have to trust God despite not understanding Him. But by lowering Him to a level that we understand and like, we become the judges of Him. We say we can only love and worship Him if He fits a certain mold. It sets our standards over His, and that’s problematic.

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Romans 9:19-21)

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me. (Job 38:1-3)

God is no stranger to people questioning Him. As He reveals Himself to His people, we see a necessary reminder to those who would hold God under judgment: He is God and we are not. God doesn’t exist to serve us, nor are our standards something He must strive to be worthy to meet. 

If Universalism is true because it’s clearly taught in God’s word, then we must hold to it. However, if Universalism seems true because we like it more, then what we’re really saying is that the true God of the Bible isn’t sufficient for us. We want some aspects of God, but not all of who He is. If we approach Universalism with that mindset, we’ve ultimately created a false deity that simply shares the name of the one true God.

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

God doesn’t answer to us. We cannot seek out belief systems that suit our desires, but must instead seek to understand how God has fully revealed Himself. We must let God’s word judge the validity our beliefs, rather than our preferences judging the acceptability of God.

Division language lacks sense

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. (Matthew 25:31-34)

Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, “Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.” (Matthew 13:30)

The New Testament is filled with the idea of separate groups. These always drive home the point that people will find themselves in one or the other. When we look at these divisions together, it’s difficult to argue that all people will find themselves in a single group. Likewise, we don’t see mention of the two groups eventually ending up with the same eternity. One group receives God’s mercy while the other receives His wrath.

Christ tells the fate of Christians and unbelievers

Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear. (Matthew 13:40-43)

“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matthew 7:13-14)

Christ is clear on the eternity of His followers compared to those who reject Him. There’s a reason He used division language, and it becomes even more evident when He uses those divisions to talk about where they end up after the judgment.

The gospel has no urgency

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. (Mark 9:37-38)

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36)

All beliefs have to offer explanations for passages or teachings that seem contradictory. However, sometimes it’s not enough to supply an explanation for what’s there. Instead, it can be important to consider if that passage or teaching ought to be different if our belief is true.

Specifically, does Universalism’s belief that all people will have eternal life align with the New Testament’s urgency to tell people about salvation through Christ? 

After all, what does the gospel really do in this life? It’s the equivalent of someone walking in the rain. We can offer one person an umbrella and tell them about the sidewalk while letting others get soaked and trudge through the mud. Certainly one will have a better experience than the other, but all people will ultimately reach the same destination and end up dry and comfortable.

With salvation offering a smoother ride into eternal life, it’s certainly good to tell others about it. But why sacrifice our time, money, and even lives? Why were all the apostles brutally murdered for proclaiming the gospel? Why do people in gospel-hating countries die every day to serve Jesus Christ and tell others about Him?

Universalism can answer this by saying “Well, the Bible tells us to tell people about Jesus in this life.” But if Universalism is true, then why does the Bible place such emphasis on believing Christ in this life, even laying down our lives to tell others about Him, if it all shakes out in the end?

Under Universalism, the Bible’s urgency to share the gospel doesn’t match the lack of necessity for trusting Christ today.

It ignores the finality in Revelation and possibly Christ’s humanity

And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.” (Revelation 14:9-11)

And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:9-15)

Universalism doesn’t just say that everyone today and in the past will have eternal life. It claims that everyone who will ever exist will not experience literal eternal punishment. However, what we see in Revelation gives an entirely different picture.

In Revelation 14, we see that those who worship the Beast will go somewhere and be tormented forever. However, this can’t be the “temporary forever” that Universalism talks about. That’s because in Revelation 20, we see that the Beast, False Prophet, and Satan are thrown into the exact same place for the exact same duration of “day and night, forever and ever.” And as we discussed in the previous point “The timing of eternal punishment,” this punishment takes place after the judgment. 

Once again, we see that a simple claim by Universalism has far-reaching consequences. If the punishment faced by the Beast’s worshippers and anyone whose name isn’t in the Book of Life is just a temporary correction, then it also stands to reason that the Beast, False Prophet, and Satan’s promised punishment is also corrective and temporary. But for that to be true, Christ’s sacrifice would also have had to be sufficient for angels.

However, God became human to redeem humans, not all creatures.

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. (Galatians 4:4-5)

God didn’t come as a spirit, goat, or tree to die for our sins. He had to come as a human under the Law to redeem humans who were under the Law. Christ lived as a perfect human and took our punishment as a human so that He could give us His righteousness. All of this is bound up in Christ being uniquely human and nothing else.

What does this mean with Revelation? If the punishment faced by Satan is the same punishment faced by those who reject Christ in this life, then we must be consistent with its purpose and duration. In the end, claiming that this “forever and ever” punishment is only temporary requires us to completely ignore the finality portrayed in Revelation and the purpose of Christ’s humanity.

Final thoughts

Universalism is in no way a new belief. Even some Christians in the earliest centuries argued a form of it. However, it seems to have only recently come back into focus. But is it popular because it’s a return to a true biblical understanding of salvation, or because Universalism can be submitted to the world’s standards and be deemed acceptable and tolerant?

Universalism has a lot going for it. The God presented is more comfortable, easier to understand, and matches our own expectations of love and justice. While the classic understanding of Hell has pushed so many people away from Christianity, Universalism argues that those people didn’t reject God, but our poor interpretation of Him. Although many argue for Universalism based on emotion, others seek to consider original languages and themes throughout the Bible. In the end, Universalism desires to understand how God’s perfect and boundless love will ultimately triumph over our evil.

However, we’ve seen that Universalism creates many more problems in how it interprets the Bible and understands certain aspects of God. Even its language arguments, while convincing at first, may be victims of various fallacies. The God presented in Universalism meets certain expectations we have, but in doing so we must also acknowledge the danger of not only elevating ourselves over God, but making a false god that suits our own desires. And in the end, it also rewrites many beliefs that have been thoroughly defended from the Bible throughout history.

When we think about the strengths and weaknesses of Universalism, our ultimate decider cannot be whether we prefer the version of God taught by Universalism, but whether that God is the one we truly see revealed in the Bible.