Christian Universalism is Biblically False

(A) Clarifying My PositionI am writing this argument to a particular audience of Christian adherents who resort to the theological (mostly soteriological) position of Christian Universalism, and will be defending my own view of what’s known as “Christian Exclusivism”. In contrast to what I hold, Universalism can be defined as the “chief claim that God is revealed to all and related to all in some way” (R. Plantinga, “Christianity and Plurality”; cp. 1999, p. 6). To make this matter most exemplified, Plantinga goes on to write: "Whether or not a person is conscious of a saving relationship with the divine or wills such a relationship, salvation will come to all without question" (Ibid. 6). As such, most universalists will pay special attention to certain attributes of God or just doctrines of God to be more general. For instance, unconditional love or divine justice mixed with expansive divine mercy, the doctrine of Christ and the all-encompassing nature of the atonement, and so on. To introduce my argument then, I hope to write this respectfully to those who hold this theological position and turn them to a more biblical, and ecclesiocentric (“Church-centered”) position. Not only from this presupposition here, but also provide a defense of the traditional view of hell and its eternality. In doing so, I hope to show the adherent of Christian Universalism and their denial to some degree of the traditional view of hell to not match most of what we find in the historical realms of Christian orthodoxy. (B) What is Exclusivism? When trying to answer questions in regards to the doctrine of salvation a few things from the beginning have to be asked: Who is saved? Who is not saved? How are people saved? and so on. Positions regarding those questions have been developed to show the relationship between Christ and redemption. A few them run as the following: Exclusivism or ‘Particularism’ Inclusivism Pluralism Universalism In regards to the first position, the definition is almost self-evident in the term used. Namely, that in its full scope divine revelation has been uniquely, or “exclusively” given to Christianity. To be a bit more blatant from Plantinga, “It thus concludes that ultimate truth is an exclusive Christian domain” (Ibid. 5). Therefore, the exclusivistic Christian puts a wide and heavy emphasis on Jesus’s statement in John 14:6 where he says: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (NIV). Such a position is Christocentric and ecclesiocentric (from the Greek term for church: ekklesia), since the atoning merit of Christ is made exclusively available from the Christian Church (biblical support will be offered further down). The other view in contrast, is known as “Inclusivism”, with a slight variation on Exclusivism. John Sanders writes: “Inclusivism holds that although Christianity is the true religion and Jesus the only way to salvation, more people are saved through Christ than the church traditionally has thought. Accordingly, God forgives followers of the world’s religions on the basis of their response to the revelation they have” (J. Sanders, “No Other Name”; cp. 1992, p. 215) To finish even with the words of Plantinga again (to clarify, Plantinga’s book is a great resource for this subject which I recommend. It includes other theological writings on the subject from Church fathers and theologians from varying traditions of Protestantism and Catholicism; I will refer to this work throughout this debate): “Other traditions are included in God’s plan of salvation for the world, although salvation must somehow finally be accomplished through the atoning work of Christ” (R. Plantinga, p. 5) This position of inclusivism then, is Christocentric but not ecclesiocentric. The demerit of this view is found nicely in Bruce Ware’s book, “The One Way” (2008): “…even though Christ is the only Savior, people do not have to know about or believe in Christ to be saved” (B. Ware, Tabletalk, June 2008, p. 19) Since I designated this section of the post to be more inclined to define Exclusivism, I will skip the definition of pluralism and focus on my position more particularly in the biblical and historical sense as it has been used throughout the writings of early church fathers and Patricistic (100-500 AD) as well as predominately Medieval era (500-1350 AD).With this, I now move on to biblical support.(C) A Brief Biblical Defense of ExclusivismChristianity by its very nature as it seems to me has always been a very exclusivistic religion, especially even more so with its religious sister, Judaism (cf. John 4:22). As Paul writes in Ephesians 3: Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 3:2-6, NIV) In light of the New Testament, Paul is addressing here most famously in Ephesians 3 that salvation is no longer exclusive to the Jews only, but now is available to Gentiles; even more broadly, “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). Also in Romans 1:14 we see, “I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome” (Romans 1:14-15, NIV). And lastly, in chapter 9 we see also: What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory – even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (Romans (9:23-24) As Luke records with his famous words in the book of Acts, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31, NIV). More over, as I had mentioned before, Jesus also says, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6, NIV). However, Paul recognized in Romans 9 and other passages that not all will or even could be saved. What evidence is there of this? In verse 22 we see Paul write: “What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction” (Romans 9:22)?(D) Concluding ThoughtsAs such, the existence of hell and the biblical support I have offered serve as a counter-factual to the doctrine of Universalism. Biblically, the position is not supported anywhere in virtue of New Testament soteriology. I urge a vote in the affirmation and consider the Orthodox position of Exclusivism to be more substantiable.