Is Hell Eternal?
For no one is cast off
by the Lord forever.
Though he brings grief, he will show compassion,
so great is his unfailing love.
For he does not willingly bring affliction
or grief to anyone." ~ Lamentations 3:31-33
For verification of how widespread this belief was in the early Church see A Larger Hope?, Volume 1: Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian of Norwich by Ilaria Ramelli. (See also Did the Fifth Ecumenical Council Condemn Universal Salvation? by Fr Kimel and Was Basil of Caesarea a Universalist? - Mark Chenoweth)
“But doesn't the Bible clearly teach eternal punishment?"
If the word which is translated as "eternal" in Matthew 25:46 was always translated as eternal, then I would say those who claim that the Bible teaches eternal torment have a very strong case. But it is not. The Greek word I am referring to in Matt 25:46 is the word aiônion. (Its lexical form is aiônios.) In the Septuagint (Koine Greek text of the Old Testament), there are many examples where aiônion does not mean eternal and is not translated as such. Strictly speaking, the Greek words aiônios and aiônion only mean “enduring forever" when referring to God and the life he gives1 (otherwise they refer to an undefined period of time, e.g. an age). It is also worth noting that the doctrine of eternal life is not dependant on Matt 25:46. Even if the verse did not exist, the doctrine would not be in doubt.
‘Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die...”’ (John 11:25, 26a).
Because we know that those who believe in Jesus will never die,2 it is acceptable to translate the words zoen aiônion in John 3:16 as “eternal life.” (As it accurately describes the life that God gives.) And we know God’s Kingdom never ends, therefore we can translate aiônion basileian in 2 Peter 1:11 as “eternal kingdom.” But what good reason do we have to translate kolasin aiônion as “eternal punishment”? The only reasons a translator would translate kolasin aiônion as eternal punishment is if they came to the text believing that the Bible teaches eternal torment, or if they believed that the word aiônion can only mean eternal. (I sincerely believe that most translators are trying to be faithful to the text; but they mistranslate the word because they are using lexicons which fail to give the full range of meanings of aiônios. The root of aiônios is aiôn. Aiôn means “age” or “eternity.” Aiôn is a noun and aiônios is an adjective. In both words aiôn holds the same meaning.)
“In the Greek New Testament, the word translated as “eternal” or “everlasting” is the adjective aiónios (αἰώνιος), derived from the noun aión (αἰών). This Greek word simply means an ‘age’ or ‘agelong’. It denotes an indeterminate period of time. We get the English word ‘eon’ from it. The Greek word never meant ‘endless’ or ‘perpetual’ by itself. These two meanings were picked up when the original Greek New Testament was translated into Latin. The translators chose the Latin term ‘aeternus’ which in fact does denote ‘endless’, ‘everlasting’, ‘eternal’, and ‘without end’. The confusion began there and continues to the present day.” (www.mercyonall.org/faq)
For examples of how aiônios and aiônion are used in the Septuagint and in Ancient Greek literature see Terms for Eternity: Aiônios and Aïdios in Classical and Christian Texts by Ramelli & Konstan.* (See also John Crowder’s video ‘The Sheep and the Goats - The Consuming Fire Episode 5 of 10,' “Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope” in Alvin Kimel's book, Destined for Joy and Aion Part 1 | Eternal Punishment is Not Biblical.)
*The text above is an extract from the page Why Hell?
“The Bible, a collection of ancient Jewish documents, is rich with metaphors, symbolism, figures of speech, allusions, parables, and allegories. These literary devices permeate the text, posing significant challenges for those not versed in the original languages, cultures, and historical contexts. This often leads to questionable interpretations and confusion among modern readers, especially Westerners unfamiliar with the Ancient Near East, Judaism, and the Hebrew and Greek languages.
Moreover, language is dynamic; it evolves, and the meanings of many words and phrases change over time. Most words in Hebrew and Greek have a spectrum of meanings, which context alone can clarify. Additionally, Hebrew operates on a fundamentally different linguistic structure than Germanic / Indo-European languages such as English. Its Semitic roots make it particularly resistant to full translation, as nuances and layers of meaning often elude capture. For example, Semitic languages such as Hebrew and Aramaic are unique compared to English because they primarily use root-based morphology, where most words are formed from three-consonant roots that convey core meanings. This allows for a rich and flexible derivation of related words, unlike English, which relies more on fixed prefixes and suffixes.
For instance, the "Serpent" in Genesis 3 is commonly perceived by English readers as a literal snake. Still, in Jewish tradition, it is often understood as a shining being or an angel of light who later lost his ability to fly or walk as punishment (Bereshit Rabbah 20:5). This interpretation arises from the Hebrew word "NACHASH," which is typically translated as "serpent" in English. However, "Nachash" is a three-letter Hebrew word that can also mean "copper," "shining," or "bronze," suggesting a luminescent and perhaps divine figure symbolizing the supernatural world rather than a talking reptile. Paul, a Jew, likely shared this perspective, as evident in his description of Satan as "an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). I provide numerous examples in another book, "Lost in Translation"; however, this one suffices to demonstrate that the content you read or comprehend in your English Bibles may not be exactly what I read or understand in my Hebrew Bible.
Additionally, some Semitic languages utilize patterns of vowel changes within these roots to convey grammatical nuances, making their structure markedly different from the more linear construction of English. In any event, the complexity of the biblical text requires meticulous translation decisions, which are undeniably shaped by the translators' pre-existing theological and religious views. This fact likely accounts for the existence of over 900 different translations of the Bible in English alone. Evidently, translation choices can have far-reaching repercussions that stem partly from inaccurate Bible translations and a failure to appreciate the nuances of language, culture, and context in which pivotal figures like Moses, Jesus, and Paul delivered their teachings.
For instance, both Hebrew and Greek terms often rendered as 'eternal' in English can also be translated as "age-abiding" or "age-during"; similarly, the Greek word often translated as 'punishment' might also mean “correction,” and the term often translated as 'torment' also describes the purification process of testing or forging metals with a touchstone. While these idioms were clear in their original context and culture, they often lack the same clarity today.
Speaking of idioms in the original context and culture, one of the most significant challenges and a popular fallacy in modern-day Bible interpretation is the Anachronism Fallacy. This fallacy occurs when an interpretation places ideas, theological concepts, events, customs, etc., in a historical period where they do not belong, leading to distorted conclusions. This involves projecting contemporary ideas, knowledge, or concepts onto past texts, events, or figures. For instance, the term "gay" had a completely different meaning a century ago than it does today. Reading the word in a book written a hundred years ago and applying the modern meaning would be an example of the Anachronism Fallacy. It will soon become evident that the Anachronism Fallacy is frequently employed in Christian teachings about sin, salvation, and hell.” (Taken from the introduction of HELL: A Jewish Perspective on a Christian Doctrine by Eitan Bar, Independently published, used with permission.)
The following is taken from an interview between David Artman and Curt Parton.
David: “One of the things that really influenced me was Luke 15. And those three parables there. Because in each of those parables, it seems like the thing that is lost in the Greek is apollumi. It seems like it's destroyed [apollumi means lost or destroyed. See Ep. 15 of the Grace Saves All Podcast “Hell Pt. 2 - Destruction, Apollumi, and Christian Universalism”]. But in each case, the destroyed thing is found. In two cases, the coin and the sheep, they don't do anything to be found.
Curt: That's right.
David: And they are restored, and then a party is thrown. Well, we're seeing a pattern here. And then in the third one, the son is destroyed, is lost—apollumi—is also understood to be dead by the father. But when he comes back home, he's found and he's alive again. He's been completely restored. And of course, the older brother doesn't like this, and the parable ends provocatively with the father out in the field trying to explain this. But it's not like the father is in the party and opens the window and says, “Hey, you dummy, get into the party!” And then shuts the door. He goes out to him. The parable ends with the father in the outer darkness with the elder son. And do we think that the father is going to give up on the elder son?
Curt: It's amazing. One of the things that I really appreciated, Steve Gregg brought this out really well…
David: Yeh, his book is really good on that. I've interviewed him and you reference his book.
Curt: Yeah. And I really appreciate that because it was a great insight that when you look at it, you have those three stories, one after the other, the lost sheep, the lost coin and then the lost son. In each of those, who is the one who has experienced the loss? When the sheep is lost, who experienced the loss? The shepherd experienced the loss and he's seeking to restore...
David: Right, you can't be lost unless you belong.
Curt: That's right. Who has lost the coin? The woman lost the coin.
David: Who owns the coin? It's her coin.
Curt: Exactly! And she is the one who is seeking to restore the coin to herself. The father is seeking to restore his lost son to himself. And are we saying that God is going to eternally suffer that loss, that he will never restore to himself what he has lost?” (From Grace Saves All: Christianity and Universal Salvation: Ep. 161 Curt Parton - author of "Until the Last One's Found: An introduction to Universal Reconciliation and Restoration")
Will God have a pain in his heart for all eternity?
An interview with Gerry Beauchemin - author of Hope Beyond Hell
If some of your children did not love you, would you work for their good? Or would you only work for the good of those children who love you? (Is God the greatest conceivable being?)
We must not limit God to his promises. The promises only tell us the minimum he will do.
Here is the full sermon. Hell - Three Christian Views Lecture by Steve Gregg (and the Q&A).
Many scholars are beginning to warm to the idea that Hell will eventually come to an end (see Greg Boyd’s interview with David Artman on episode 166 of the “Grace Saves All” podcast).
But doesn't the Bible say it would have been better if Judas had never been born?
So how should Christians think about Hell?
For an in-depth look at the scriptural and philosophical problems with eternal conscious torment see Once Loved Always Loved by Andrew Hronich.
God is not going to give up on anyone. See "Are all people children of God?" (Yes, and here's why)
Ultimately this is not a debate about the authority of the Bible. This is a debate about the interpretation of Scripture. See David Artman's podcasts Ep. 130 Danish Lutheran theologian Lars Sandbeck - Exploring the intersection of Lutheranism and Universal Salvation in Christ and Ep. 146 Josh Martin and Marty Height (from the Tattoos and Jesus Podcast) on Deconstruction, Conditional Immortality, and Universal Reconciliation. See also The Inescapable Love of God (2nd edition) by Thomas Talbott3; The New Testament Witness in John Mortimer’s book, The Purest Gospel; and Presuppositions and Interpretations in Confessions of a Tomboy Grandma: On the Eternal Destiny of the Human Race by Diane Perkins Castro. ("Presuppositions and Interpretations" is made available as a PDF by permission of the author.) It's also worth checking out the following interviews on the Grace Saves All pocast "Ep. 164 Jonathan Mitchell - Part. 1 : Jesus and Universal Reconciliation (or Evidence in the Gospels for Christian Universalism)" and "Ep. 33 George Sarris - author of Heaven's Doors: Wider Than You Ever Believed!"
If a person had never heard of the doctrine of universal reconciliation, could they arrive at the conclusion that this is what the Bible teaches simply by studying the Bible? Many have. (And this despite translators reading eternal torment into the text. See the video below and links above.)
So what persuaded Robin Parry that the Bible does indeed teach that God will ultimately reconcile all people to himself? This Parry explains in the following video. (Thomas Talbott’s book, The Inescapable Love of God did not persuade him that God would ultimately reconcile all people; but it did cause him to think that it might have more biblical support than the doctrines of eternal torment or conditional immortality. See also Robin Parry Responds to Michael McClymond's Theological Critique of Universalism)
“For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.” (Romans 11:32)
“...brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written,
“Out of Zion will come the Deliverer:
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.”
27 “And this is my covenant with them,
when I take away their sins.”As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. 32 For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all. (Rom 11:25b-32)
Each in their own time. See “The Salvation of the Church and of the World” (ch 4) in The One Purpose of God: An Answer to the Doctrine of Eternal Punishment by Jan Bonda. (Most of the book argues from the book of Romans and the Old Testament that once the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (the Church), God will miraculously save all Israel. After this, God will use the Church and Israel to bring the people of the nations to repentance, so they can enter through the gates of the new Jerusalem.) The elect are but the first fruits.
Now just to be clear, the Bible does teach that there is suffering in the life to come for the unrepentant. That is not up for debate. Whether or not the suffering in Hell never ends, is.
Christians must be careful about what they teach. Many lies have been spread by honest people. We must learn from the Bereans in Acts 17.
“Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” (Acts 17:11)
Most of the verses which tell us that there is suffering in Hell, say nothing about how long those in Hell will suffer for. So when it comes to the debate about how long the suffering in Hell lasts, those verses don't count. We must only use the verses which seem to teach never ending suffering and those verses which seem to teach universal reconciliation. (And these in light of God's character as revealed in Christ. See What is the Gospel? See also Episode 152 of David Artman's podcast, 'Grace Saves All' where Hunter Coates and David respond to Andrew Slay's critique of Christian Universalism. )
Given that there are far more verses which seem to teach universal reconciliation, than there are verses which seem to teach eternal torment, it would be wise for church leaders to stop interpreting the verses which seem to teach universal reconciliation in light of the verses which seem to teach eternal torment, and start interpreting the verses which seem to teach eternal torment in light of the verses which seem to teach universal reconciliation. (It would also be prudent for church leaders to revisit the Fifth Ecumenical Council and the events which surrounded it. See the chapter “Did the Fifth Ecumenical Council Condemn Universal Salvation?” in Alvin Kimel’s book Destined for Joy: The Gospel of Universal Salvation.)
"But what about free will?"
Many Christians object to the idea that God will ultimately save all by appealing to free will, but they never seem to notice that more criminals come to Christ in prison than before prison. They never seem to consider that the prodigal may not have come home if he never ran out of money. (See The Gift of Hell and Ep. 24 Christian Universalism and the Hurdles of Mystery and Free Will — Pt. 2 in David Artman's podcast Grace Saves All: Christianity and Universal Salvation.)
“You may be certain that as long as someone is in hell, Christ will remain there with him.” ~ Saint Sophrony of Essex
It’s impossible to know what God is really like and not love him. Anyone who rejects God, rejects him because they do not know how good he is.
“To see the good truly is to desire it insatiably; not to desire it is not to have known it, and so never to have been free to choose it.” ~ David Bentley Hart
See also Was Maximus the Confessor a Universalist? - Jordan Daniel Wood
But does God have the ability to save all people? If you think anyone can resist God’s love forever, you have more faith in people than you have in God. See Destined for Joy by Alvin Kimel. (For an in-depth discussion regarding free will and other philosophical objections to Universal Reconciliation see David Artman's interview with Andrew Hronich in Ep. 122 of Artman's podcast, Grace Saves All: Christianity and Universal Salvation)
Abraham Lincoln is believed to have said, “Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”
God will destroy his enemies.
God will destroy sin and death by bringing people to the point where they really see what God is like and will therefore see sin as he sees it, then they will love what God loves and hate what he hates. (Those who welcome the process, will rejoice in the process. Those who resist God, will literally suffer in the presence of Jesus and the Holy Angels. See "From" or "Away from the Presence of the Lord? Hell is the penultimate condition of the self-centred.)
“For love loves unto purity. Love has ever in view the absolute loveliness of that which it beholds. Where loveliness is incomplete, and love cannot love its fill of loving, it spends itself to make more lovely, that it may love more; it strives for perfection, even that itself may be perfected—not in itself, but in the object. As it was love that first created humanity, so even human love, in proportion to its divinity, will go on creating the beautiful for its own outpouring. There is nothing eternal but that which loves and can be loved, and love is ever climbing towards the consummation when such shall be the universe, imperishable, divine.
Therefore all that is not beautiful in the beloved, all that comes between and is not of love’s kind, must be destroyed.
And our God is a consuming fire.” (George MacDonald, Unspoken Sermons)
See also Libertarian Free Will and Universal Reconciliation, Our Freedom of Choice is Sacred & Absolute-ly Limited and The Truth Will Set You Free - Ric Machuga
It is also important to note that punishment cannot save a person, however sometimes a person has to hit rock bottom before their eyes are finally opened to the horror of sin, and to their need of being saved from their sins. When they know they need saving, they will be willing to accept the Saviour. Sometimes people need “the eye-opening power of pain” in order to come to their senses. (We should not be surprised at this. Many, many people have come to Christ after suffering the consequences of their sin. Btw, wanting to be saved from pain, is not the same as wanting to be saved from sin. See Justice in George MacDonald’s Unspoken Sermons. See also David Artman’s interview with Robin Parry, ‘Ep. 69 A Reposting of my interview with Robin Parry where he responds to Michael McClymond's Theological Critique of Universalism’ for more on the nature and purpose of God's punishment.)
"But doesn't God's justice require never ending punishment?"
When discussing God's justice, we must be careful not to project on to God mankind's idea of justice. Laws which govern societies on this earth, must by necessity enforce punishments when those laws are violated. An example must be set. Crime must be discouraged. Without punishments a government's law is simply not law. This is true whether the laws were created by people or given by God (such as the laws to govern Israel). But God's justice, regarding the judgment to come, is very different.
Do those in Heaven need an example to be set? Would they be tempted to sin if those in Hell did not suffer endlessly? Not at all. Those in Heaven obey God out of love for him. They do not need the fear of punishment to keep them from sinning. Endless suffering in Hell would not please God, and it would be of no use to those who suffer. Endless suffering serves no good purpose. Because it is evil, it is something God would never allow.4
The Bible clearly teaches that God's nature is love, and his love is eternal and unconditional. It cannot be earned or lost. He loves us not because of who we are, but because of who he is. In 1 Corinthians 13 we are told what the nature of perfect love is: it always hopes, always perseveres, and it never fails. Some argue against these things by saying that if God always loves a person, he is not free. They argue that love is a choice, and to be truly free God must be free not to love people (or at least be free to stop loving people). But isn't the trait of love simply a part of his character?
Does God have to choose to be just? Is he free if he “must” always be just? God is always just because of who God is. He is not violating his free will by always being just. And he is not violating his free will by always loving people. (If you have trouble with this you might find the following interview with Robin Parry helpful.)
“But if Hell is not eternal, Jesus would not have suffered and died on the cross to save people from going there.”
If you believe that, how would you answer the following question?
Suppose that all those who go to Hell suffer no less, and no more than one million years, Do you believe Jesus would have suffered and died to save people from going there?
Most parents (because they love their children) would willingly suffer a painful injustice to keep one of their children from going to prison for ten years. How much greater is God’s love? His love for us is perfect. He was willing to suffer and die on the cross to save you, and me, from suffering in Hell unnecessarily5—even if that suffering only lasted a single day.6
A good parent is willing to suffer for the sake of their child. (See “The Gospel as Story and Promise” in Destined for Joy by Alvin Kimel). When we believe that God does everything for our good, we will no longer fear his punishment. When you are in a very intimate relationship with someone, you do not fear what they will do to you, you only fear doing something which will hurt them. Whenever we sin (e.g. whenever we are cruel, unkind, or inconsiderate), it hurts God, because our sins destroy us and make us into something less than we ought to be.
God is not merely good—He is the greatest conceivable being. (For an in-depth look at what that means see That All Shall Be Saved by David Bentley Hart. See also.)
The better I believe God to be, the more I will love him, and the more I will obey him. That is why these things are of the utmost importance.
Unfortunately, some Christians are not willing to take a closer look at Scripture because they find the doctrine of eternal torment appealing.7
“At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause." - (Tertullian, De Spectaculis, Chapter XXX)
“ The view of the misery of the damned will double the ardour of the love and gratitude of the saints of heaven.”
“ The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. . .Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell. . . I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss. (Jonathon Edwards,"The Eternity of Hell Torments" (Sermon), April 1739 & Discourses on Various Important Subjects, 1738]
Why do some people take such pleasure in the suffering of others?
“ ... the satisfaction we feel when wrong comes to grief. Why do we feel this satisfaction? Because we hate wrong, but, not being righteous ourselves, more or less hate the wronger as well as his wrong, hence are not only righteously pleased to behold the law’s disapproval proclaimed in his punishment, but unrighteously pleased with his suffering, because of the impact upon us of his wrong. In this way the inborn justice of our nature passes over to evil. It is no pleasure to God, as it so often is to us, to see the wicked suffer.” ~ George MacDonald, Unspoken Sermons
The doctrine of eternal torment is delicious; it appeals to the worst in human nature. Many who believe it think they will go straight to Heaven when they die; and those who reject their message will suffer in Hell forever. They have projected onto God their own twisted view of justice and in the process misrepresented the God whom they claim to worship. (God's justice is not like man's justice. See Grace Saves All: The Necessity of Christian Universalism by David Artman and David Bentley Hart’s book That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, And Universal Salvation. See also "Justice" in George MacDonald's Unspoken Sermons. The book is available on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library. A sample of MacDonald's chapter can be read here.)
If you love a person, you desire their happiness, not their suffering, no matter how wicked they are. Suffering may be needed to help open their eyes, but love never punishes more than is absolutely necessary. A good parent only ever punishes for their child's good; a good parent only ever punishes because of love. But unlike human parents, God knows exactly how much a person must suffer before they begin to see how their self-centred ways have harmed others and been destroying their own soul.
“While men take part with their sins, while they feel as if, separated from their sins, they would be no longer themselves, how can they understand that the lightning word is a Saviour—that word which pierces to the dividing between the man and the evil, which will slay the sin and give life to the sinner? Can it be any comfort to them to be told that God loves them so that he will burn them clean. Can the cleansing of the fire appear to them anything beyond what it must always, more or less, be—a process of torture? They do not want to be clean, and they cannot bear to be tortured. Can they then do other, or can we desire that they should do other, than fear God, even with the fear of the wicked, until they learn to love him with the love of the holy. To them Mount Sinai is crowned with the signs of vengeance. And is not God ready to do unto them even as they fear, though with another feeling and a different end from any which they are capable of supposing? He is against sin: in so far as, and while, they and sin are one, he is against them—against their desires, their aims, their fears, and their hopes; and thus he is altogether and always for them. That thunder and lightning and tempest, that blackness torn with the sound of a trumpet, that visible horror billowed with the voice of words, was all but a faint image to the senses of the slaves of what God thinks and feels against vileness and selfishness, of the unrest of unassuageable repulsion with which he regards such conditions; that so the stupid people, fearing somewhat to do as they would, might leave a little room for that grace to grow in them, which would at length make them see that evil, and not fire, is the fearful thing; yea, so transform them that they would gladly rush up into the trumpet-blast of Sinai to escape the flutes around the golden calf. Could they have understood this, they would have needed no Mount Sinai. It was a true, and of necessity a partial revelation—partial in order to be true.” ~ “The Consuming Fire,” Unspoken Sermons
Because we live in an age of weak fathers, it is hard for most people to understand that God’s love will often take forms that self-centred people do not like. God is not weak. He punishes no more than necessary, but He also punishes no less than is necessary (see The Gift of Hell). He knows how to bring about the best possible outcome for all of creation. It will take time, but His will will be done.
Because we are so short sighted, we tend to think that a person’s comfort is what is most important. But if we could see more clearly, we would know that the more human a person is, the more divine. (We call evil behaviour inhuman.) We are made in God’s image, but the image is marred. Only one person has reflected that image perfectly—the God man—Jesus Christ. To be truly free, we must become brave, honest, and kind. We must be made like Christ. We must be freed from sin (see What is the Gospel?).
“To regard any suffering with satisfaction, save it be sympathetically with its curative quality, comes of evil, is inhuman because undivine, is a thing God is incapable of. His nature is always to forgive, and just because he forgives, he punishes. Because God is so altogether alien to wrong, because it is to him a heart-pain and trouble that one of his little ones should do the evil thing, there is, I believe, no extreme of suffering to which, for the sake of destroying the evil thing in them, he would not subject them. A man might flatter, or bribe, or coax a tyrant; but there is no refuge from the love of God; that love will, for very love, insist upon the uttermost farthing.” ~ George MacDonald, Unspoken Sermons
“there is… no extreme of suffering to which, for the sake of destroying the evil thing in them, he would not subject them.” 8,9
God takes no pleasure in the suffering of anyone, and when God has finished making us, neither will we.
“There's a channel I like on YouTube called ‘History Valley.’ And recently they started to do a philosophical judgments of Christianity. So it’s two atheist scholars, I think a masters student and a New Testament scholarship as well, and what they’re doing is they are judging Christianity on a purely a philosophical basis. Like let’s put aside what the Bible says, they believe that you know most of it is later tradition (blah blah blah), it’s all contrived—well let’s look at the philosophical basis. And for them, these three atheist scholars, two atheist scholars and one masters student, on this very big YouTube channel, they all came to the conclusion that because Christianity teaches eternal hell, Christianity must fundamentally be implausible and wrong. What if we say that it doesn’t teach that? What if we say that it doesn’t teach that. What if that is taken away, and such that their credence to Christianity is true would heighten so so much. Cause I watched the video, and their arguments are all like “Yeh, this is a good argument against it ye know. Life after death doesn’t seem to be rooted in a lot of religions. Maybe that decreases our idea that it’s true, or rather that life after death in a non-reincarnated state is not rooted in a lot of religions,” but then they go, “The main philosophical problem is the idea of eternal hell.” And I think that one of them says something like, “Well some Christians don’t believe this.” And the other one shuts them down and goes, “Well this is what Christianity teaches!” Right! So, what if we say this isn’t what Christianity teaches? What if we say this isn’t what the earliest Christians believed? What if we say this isn’t what those who founded the faith believed? How much would that increase evangelist efforts?” (Hunter Coates, Episode 152 of ‘Grace Saves All’ podcast)
The doctrine of endless suffering in Hell makes God look like a monster. It turns people away from the God who loves them.10
“...I think no other doctrine can even compete with "no further chances" in terms of the following three factors. No doctrine even comes close to a) being so strongly believed by so many evangelicals despite b) being so utterly disastrous in its consequences and c) having so little by way of Scriptural support.” - Keith DeRose
How "utterly disastrous in its consequences"?
Most Christians who believe that those who die without turning to Christ suffer endlessly in Hell, are in a state of denial. Few are as honest as the Japanese Christians that George Sarris mentions in the video above. If someone close to you died as an unbeliever, and you think they are suffering endless torment in Hell, take the time to imagine—as often as you remember them—how much they must be suffering right now. (Such mental anguish befits those who believe God could be so callous and cruel.)
The doctrine of eternal torment has not only caused much anguish and emotional distress amongst Christians, it has also led many confessing Christians to ignore Christ's teaching and persecute those they think are leading others astray. (See A Legacy of Fear and Persecution in Thomas Talbott's book, The Inescapable Love of God for a closer look at how the doctrine of eternal torment caused Christians to commit crimes against their fellow human beings. Chapter used with permission.)
Do you believe the doctrine but are uncomfortable with it? How do you know that that's not the Holy Spirit trying to get you to take a closer look? 11
See also John Chaffee’s interview with David Artman on the 154th episode of the Grace Saves All podcast.
Are you really sure that God will not make you repent of some things after you die? Such a thought certainly does not tickle the ears. (Just because the repentant will be in paradise with God does not mean it’s all going to be a bed of roses. We have all built some things of “wood, hay or straw.” See 1 Cor 3:12-15. There will still be many things that we Christians need to repent of. I will have to repent of sins I’m aware of, and sins I’m not yet aware of. I imagine it will be something like what is portrayed in the movie The Shack. No one will escape this. We must all pass through the fire.)
God will not allow evil to exist in his creation for all eternity. We all have to die to self-centredness. The foolish, distorted, and twisted self must die an eternal death so the person God had in mind when he created us can live. Those who identify with their sin and resist God will have a very hard time of it, but they too will come to love and trust God in the end.
But what about all those verses which say God will destroy the wicked? Does conditional immortality have more biblical support than universal reconciliation? See Destruction, Apollumi, and Restoration. (See also How One Biblical Annihilationist Became a Biblical Universalist. For an in-depth look at the scriptural and philosophical problems with conditional immortality see Once Loved Always Loved by Andrew Hronich.)12
So what does this all mean for Christians? Will they still share the gospel if they believe that all will be saved in the end? They should—because they believe that people are only saved from Hell through hearing the good news. A person has to hear the good news before they can respond to it. If we believe in Christ, and we believe that some will be saved from going to Hell, and others will be saved out of Hell, we ought to tell people about Jesus. (Particularly if we believe Hell is a place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. How can we say we care if we don’t tell people about Jesus? If a person is filled with the Spirit of Christ, shouldn’t they at least hope that God will eventually bring all people into an intimate relationship with him?)13
What does it mean for Christians when it says we will inherit all things? Does that include all the people we love?
Why are the gates of the New Jerusalem never shut? (See Revelation 21 and 22.)
Can people be given new names in the life to come? Are these the names they are given after they “wash their robes,” i.e., repent? Are the new names the names written in the Lamb's book of life?
What does it mean when it says God will be all in all?14 (See 1 Cor 15:28)
What does God mean when he says he is going to make everything new? (See Rev 21:5)
If the majority of today’s Christians believed that God will ultimately reconcile all, what effects might it have on the Church? Robin Parry explains here.
Why create this page?
Because we are commanded to teach that Jesus is the Saviour of all people.
10 That is why we labour and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, and especially of those who believe.
11 Command and teach these things. (1 Tim 4:10, 11)
Some people think that the words “all people” only refer to Christians, but that makes no sense. (Jesus is the Saviour of all believers and especially of believers?) Verse 10 only makes sense if the believers are a subset of “all people.”
We are not commanded to teach that God will condemn, abandon, or allow most of humanity to suffer without end, but we are commanded to teach that Jesus is the Saviour of all people.
---
1. See Aiônios in William Barclay’s New Testament Words, Westminster John Knox Press, 1974, p.36-37. Who was William Barclay? See the YouTube video William Barclay: Liberal Evangelical and Universalist (See also Universalism Debunked? and Christian Universalism: Eternal Life vs Eternal Punishment)
2. "Believers are made immortal when the Lord returns (1 Cor. 15:50-57). When one has been made immortal, death is impossible. In the Greek Scriptures endlessness is never expressed in terms of eons or of that which is eonian. The Scriptures never speak of “the endless eons of eternity.” Endlessness is expressed by the use of negatives: “not,” “no not,” “un,” “less.” For example: “Of His kingdom there shall be no end” (ouk estai telos) (Luke 1:33); “endless life” (akatalutou) (Heb. 7:16); “endless genealogies” (aperantois) (1 Tim. 1:4); “nevermore” (ou me eti) (Rev. 18:21-23)." taken from www.mercyonall.org/eons-of-the-bible
3. If everyone involved in this debate read chapter 4 in The Inescapable Love of God, there'd be a lot less heat and a greater willingness to listen to what others have to say.
4. These last two paragraphs appear elsewhere on this site.
5. Suffering only becomes necessary when a person refuses to admit they were in the wrong. (See The Gift of Hell.)
Some argue that once a person is locked into an eternal state of being, they cannot change, and therefore, cannot repent. If this is granted, it does not change the fact that the Bible teaches that Hades will be destroyed. It is not eternal, and therefore exists in time. (The Bible also teaches that there is at least one age—perhaps more—to come.) Might it be possible to suffer in time (perhaps till the end of time)—repent, and then in the timeless state at the end of time, spend eternity with God? Peter Hiett certainly thinks so. See here.
6. I am not saying that the suffering in Hell lasts a single day. I am merely making a point about the nature of God's love.
7. To be fair, most Christians are very uncomfortable with the doctrine of eternal torment. They accept it reluctantly because they believe that this is what the Bible teaches. But this does not mean there is no division between them. There is much division within the Church as to why God will not save all people.
The Arminians believe God wants to save all people but is unable to save them; and the Calvinists believe that God is able to save all people, but he does not want to. Both groups lack faith in God. They argue between themselves (often bitterly) because neither group believes that God wants to save all people and is able to save all those He desires to save. They are so wedded to the belief that God will not save all people, that they refuse to re-examine the scriptures to see if they have misinterpreted what they have read, and consequently underestimate God. (Like the Pharisees of old, they seem to believe in their own inerrancy when it comes to interpretation. It has never occurred to them that they may have been misled by more intelligent—and usually well-meaning—but misguided men.) But to their credit, most of them do not believe that God delights in the suffering of the wicked.
8. Is God always doing his best for each and every person? If so, is it fair to say he has forgiven everyone?
If you have wronged someone, yet they love you unconditionally, and they are always doing their very best for you, would you say that they have forgiven you? Of course you would. God holds no ill will towards any of us. In this sense God has forgiven all of us. This is the sense in which MacDonald is talking about forgiveness in the first part of the quote above. (See also footnote 9)
9. God wants us to forgive as he forgives—unconditionally (not requiring any payment). Whether they are repentant or not, we are to forgive them. With this in mind, what are we to make of the second “if” in Luke 17:3?
“If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.” (Luke 17:3)
So like God, we should always forgive unconditionally, and yet, only forgive a brother or sister who sins against us “if” they repent. (The only difference is God has the right to punish and will if necessary. As Christians we should not punish an unrepentant brother or sister, but only rebuke them and then go through the process outlined in Matt 18:15-17.) Why should we forgive only “if they repent”? Because that is the nature of love. It cannot condone the disharmony that results from sin, and will do all in its power to restore relationships. (Sin is simply the failure to love God and one’s neighbour as oneself.) If you have truly forgiven someone you will act in their best interest, not holding any ill will toward them. God forgives conditionally because he has already forgiven unconditionally. There are two types of genuine forgiveness in the Bible. God does both and he wants us to follow his example.
True love demands that we go the extra mile to win our brother or sister over. Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins. Salvation begins when we start to trust and obey him. (All sorts of problems arise when we try to explain Jesus death within a legal framework. For an interesting discussion on why Jesus died see “When Justice and Mercy Kiss” in Once Loved Always Loved by Andrew Hronich. As to how to deal with a sinning brother or sister see The Sinning Brother.)
10. Some of the most influential atheists in history (such as Voltaire and Nietzsche) gave the doctrine of eternal torment as one of their main reasons for rejecting the God of the Bible. See here.
It is also worth noting that the Islamic view of Hell as endless punishment, is at the root of the horror that has been committed in the name of Islam. To be fair, it is worth noting that there is a minority within Islam that believes Hell is not endless. See Universalism in Islam? - Mohammad Hassan Khalil.
It is a mistake to think that religion is the problem. It is not religion, but particular doctrines which are the problem. (For an example of how particular doctrines can lead to violence and persecution see Theocracy and the book The Third Choice by Mark Durie. I strongly encourage all Muslims to read the preface of Durie's book.)
11. David Artman (a minister), who after finishing his Doctor of Ministry degree in 1996, firmly believed that universal reconciliation was not the view of Hell which had the most Biblical support. He believed this because he thought he had heard the best arguments for universal reconciliation and they came up short. He wrote: "The topic of my thesis for this degree touched on the three main understandings of hell in the history of Christianity—those being: hell as a place of eternal torment, hell as a place of final annihilation, and hell as a place of restoration." But after further research came to a very different conclusion. He tells his story in his book, Grace Saves All: The Necessity of Christian Universalism (a sample from the book can be read here). Preston Sprinkle, who coauthored Erasing Hell with Francis Chan, first concluded that eternal torment is biblical; but after further research also came to a different conclusion. (It is only a matter of time before he—and those who have come to the same conclusion—realise that when a wicked person repents, and is finally made like Christ, that wicked person ceases to exist. See Bearing the Curse of Hell—Preston Sprinkle).
If you take the time to investigate the biblical evidence for the doctrine of eternal torment, I'm sure you will come to the same conclusion that this man did. See No Proof of Eternal Torment
12. The debate between Biblical Annihilationists and Biblical Universalists is the debate of the future. Which view you favour will to some degree depend on what you think the word “death” means in the Bible, who or what you think the greatest enemy of humankind is, and what the nature of suffering in Hell is like.
There are three kinds of death in the Bible: Physical death, death to self (selfishness), and sin that results in being spiritually dead (i.e. perishing. Many will continue to perish after judgement day; and will continue to perish until they wash their robes—i.e.repent). Much of the confusion in the Church today results from not understanding which is which, and what leads to what.
There is also some confusion about what the greatest enemy of humankind is. Is it death? Or is it sin that results in death?
“The notion that the salvation of Jesus is a salvation from the consequences of our sins, is a false, mean, low notion. The salvation of Christ is salvation from the smallest tendency or leaning to sin. It is a deliverance into the pure air of God’s ways of thinking and feeling. It is a salvation that makes the heart pure, with the will and choice of the heart to be pure. To such a heart, sin is disgusting. It sees a thing as it is,—that is, as God sees it, for God sees everything as it is.” ~ George MacDonald, Justice.
The Bible clearly teaches that the greatest enemy of each of us is sin that results in death. Therefore, the greatest possible thing God can do for any of us is save us from sin (which naturally saves us from the consequences of sin). Once sin is destroyed and is no more, the last enemy of humankind—death, will be no more. Then God will be all in all. Sinful people will no longer exist. All things will have been made new.
We must all die to selfishness. The effect of this death to self will be eternal in nature—eternal life with Christ—in that sense, no one escapes the result of this death. Sin and death will be destroyed in the consuming fire of God’s love. Only after a person is made like Christ, will the fire of God’s love cease to burn them.
All the verses which are used to support conditional immortality, make perfect sense (in fact make more sense) when interpreted in light of the verses which clearly teach universal reconciliation.
"But won’t those in Heaven be miserable while some that they love are in Hell?"
Those in Heaven will be happy knowing that everything God does for a person is for their good, and that no one can resist his perfect love forever. (This is the only pleasure the righteous will get from the suffering of the wicked.) What happens to each person in Hell is for their highest possible good; it is not as if they are being unjustly persecuted by the cruel and wicked. (God will no longer allow people to be cruel towards each other.) They will be suffering the natural consequences of being in the presence of the Consuming Fire. See From or away from
“Sitting at the gate of heaven, sitting on the footstool of the throne itself, yea, clasping the knees of the Father, you could not be at peace, except in their every vital movement, in every their smallest point of consciousness, your heart, your soul, your mind, your brain, your body, were one with the living God. If you had one brooding thought that was not a joy in him, you would not be at peace; if you had one desire you could not leave absolutely to his will you would not be at peace…” ~ George MacDonald, Unspoken Sermons
The rightful King came to save all sinners, and he will accomplish that which he set out to do. He will completely undo the works of the Devil. Love will conquer all. This is the Victorious Gospel.
13. If we will only tell people about Jesus if we are convinced that the suffering in Hell is never ending, and we don't even hope God will eventually save all people, we don’t care much more than Puddy in the following episode of Seinfeld. See Elaine Steals Puddy's Jesus Fish | The Burning
Christians—if motivated by love—ought to at least hope that God will eventually save all people. Hoping that God will save all better reflects God’s love than refusing to even entertain such a thought. However, hoping God will save all people has a problem of its own.
“As far as I am concerned, anyone who hopes for the universal reconciliation of creatures with God must already believe that this would be the best possible ending to the Christian story; and such a person has then no excuse for imagining that God could bring any but the best possible ending to pass without thereby being in some sense a failed creator. The position I want to attempt to argue, therefore, to see how well it holds together, is far more extreme: to wit, that, if Christianity is in any way true, Christians dare not doubt the salvation of all, and that any understanding of what God accomplished in Christ that does not include the assurance of a final apokatastasis in which all things created are redeemed and joined to God is ultimately entirely incoherent and unworthy of rational faith.” (Hart, David Bentley. That All Shall Be Saved (p. 66). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition. )
14. Does all in this context mean all without distinction? Or all without exception? All always means all unless there is some quantifier to limit the domain of the “all” which is being talked about. And even then, it still means all within that limited domain. In 1 Cor 15:22, Col 1:19-20, and Romans 5:18 the domain is "all" people. In other words, all these verses refer to all people without exception. See here.
Note: If I find a video, url, or book that I think worth sharing I will add it to this page.
Recommended
Essential Doctrine According To Christian Universalism
Take Your Time Thinking Through Universalism - Robin Parry
12 Questions for the Would-Be Universalist
What is the Lake of Fire, Sulfur and Smoke in the Book of Revelation?
How Jesus Reconciles All Things as Prophet, Priest and King
The section “The Fatherhood of God“ in chapter one of Once Loved Always Loved: The Logic of Apokatastasis by Andrew Hronich. I recommend this section because of the importance of God's universal fatherhood and because it is easy to follow. The book is brilliant but can be hard going as his target audience is intellectuals (particularly intellectuals among Calvinists).
'Abba, Father' George MacDonald
Should Christians call themselves Universalists?
On the Soul and the Resurrection by St. Gregory of Nyssa (This small book is profound, but it's hard going. Available in Select Works of Gregory of Nyssa)
Andrew Hronich responds to Lee Strobel's critique of Christian Universalism in The Case for Heaven
A Review of Michael McClymond’s book, The Devil's Redemption
Is Christian Universalism a slippery slope? The answer given to this question in the first 10 minutes of the following interview is interesting. Ep. 124 Eric Reitan - Prof. of Philosophy at Oklahoma State Univ. and co-author with John Kronen of God's Final Victory: A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism
A Review of David Bentley Hart's book, That All Shall Be Saved
Universalism: A Summary Defense - Richard Beck
Happy Slaves and Miserable Despots
An interview with John MacMurray, author of A Spiritual Evolution
The Inescapable Universal Love of God for ALL
An Interview with David Artman
100 Scriptural Proofs That Jesus Christ Will Save All Mankind
The Necessity of Christian Universalism
The Fifth Ecumenical Council (Pt.1 of 3) For a more in-depth look at this issue see the chapter "Did the Fifth Ecumenical Council Condemn Universal Salvation?" in Destined for Joy: The Gospel of Universal Salvation by Alvin F. Kimel, Jr. For a brief discussion of what is in that chapter see the following interview. "Did the Fifth Ecumenical Council Condemn Universal Salvation?"
An Interview with Diane Perkins Castro
Pastor #MikeWinger & Universal Salvation: A Response
Christian Universalism Proven True by One Greek Word and Some Math
150 Reasons for Believing in the Final Salvation of All Mankind - Erasmus Manford (Audiobook)
Ultimate Reconciliation not Universal Salvation
A note regarding the last URL: In a very real sense Tarek is right that not all are saved, and yet in another sense he is wrong. There is a paradox here. You are not saved until you believe you have been saved. In other words, we have to enter into God’s salvation. We have to repent (change our minds) and believe. Each and every one of us has been forgiven, but we cannot enjoy intimacy with God and begin to be set free from our self-destructive ways until we believe that we are forgiven and are unconditionally loved. (See the last 20 minutes of the following interview with David Artman. Ep. 93 Scott Klaudt - Pastor of Zootown Church in Missoula, Montana)
“But if all are forgiven, why are some people punished?”
There are two types of forgiveness from God; one is conditional, one is unconditional.
If someone is always doing their very best for you, you would have to conclude that they love you and are not holding anything against you. You would have to conclude that they have forgiven you.
“Man finds it hard to get what he wants, because he does not want the best; God finds it hard to give, because He would give the best, and man will not take it.” ~ George MacDonald
God's forgiveness is expressed differently for different people. He is always doing his best to set each individual free from sin. His kindness and his punishments, are both motivated by love.
“His nature is always to forgive, and just because he forgives, he punishes.” ~ George MacDonald
MacDonald continues.
“Because God is so altogether alien to wrong, because it is to him a heart-pain and trouble that one of his little ones should do the evil thing, there is, I believe, no extreme of suffering to which, for the sake of destroying the evil thing in them, he would not subject them. A man might flatter, or bribe, or coax a tyrant; but there is no refuge from the love of God; that love will, for very love, insist upon the uttermost farthing.”
His wrath burns because of his love. He will destroy the sin that destroys sinners whom he loves. He will eventually bring all to repentance. He will make all things new. “Love never fails.”
Mercy in the Phrase "I Never Knew You"
The Justice of God by George Sidney Hurd
Irrefutable Proof of Universal Reconciliation
Confessions of a Tomboy Grandma: On the Eternal Destiny of the Human Race
How Much Faith Do You Need to be Saved?
Blocking the Door... the Christian Pharisee
A Discussion on the Book of Romans (See also this interview with Douglas Campbell and Dr. Chris Tilling co-host of the OnScript Podcast and author of Beyond Old and New Perspectives on Paul: Reflections on the Work of Douglas Campbell)
The State Should Not be the Enforcement Arm of the Church
Note: Just because I've shared the above links it does not mean that I agree with everything the speakers or authors say. If you wish to know my views you can browse this site or contact me here.
"From" or "Away from" the presence of the Lord?
What's Wrong with the Innocent Dying for the Guilty?