God and hell: Putting it all together
That was a lot.
It took a lot for me to write it out. But I'm glad I did, because now that I have, I'm more convinced of universal salvation than I ever have been. But that doesn't mean that I'm certain.
The rational case for universal salvation
The history of universal salvation
Would it surprise you to learn that the early church was mostly universalists?
The doctrine of universal salvation has been around almost as long as the church itself - and it may have been around since the very beginning, but records of the first-century church are scant. What we do know is that, by the second and third century, universal salvation was the predominant view within the Christian church. Considering the fact that the early church read the Bible almost exclusively in Greek, this doesn't surprise me at all.
The father of theology was Origen of Alexandria, a Greek philosopher and Bible scholar who held at least to a hopeful universal salvation. Some historians think he taught universal salvation, while others think he never taught universal salvation at all. The truth seems to be that, like most universalists today, he held hope in the eventual redemption of all beings. The school he led also taught universal salvation.
Speaking of Christian schools, there were six schools of early Christian theology. According to historians, one taught eternal conscious torment, one taught annihilationism, and four of those schools taught universal salvation, including the one at which Origen was dean.
The doctrine of universal salvation was widely embraced by early Christians; in the fourth century, St. Augustine (a fierce proponent of eternal conscious torment) wrote that believers in universal salvation were "indeed very many". The doctrine wasn't formally condemned by a major Christian organization until the middle of the sixth century.
Historically, the hope of universal salvation was the default position in the Christian church for roughly its first 500 years.
Modern universal salvation
Most universalists aren't hardline universalists, and I don't quite consider myself one either. Most universalists consider themselves hopeful universalists, meaning that they have hope that one day, God will save all of humanity. But most universalists fall back to either annihilationism or eternal conscious torment when their hope runs low. Since most universalists won't even fully commit to the idea, is it really that supported by the biblical evidence?
I think it is. I haven't mentioned this yet because I wanted to lay out the case for universal salvation in isolation from any denominational biases, but did you know that there is a major global denomination that holds to the idea of hopeful universal salvation?
The Eastern Orthodox Church.
We don't get much exposure to the ideas of the Eastern Orthodox Church here in the West. The main players here are Protestantism and Catholicism. I always disregarded the Eastern Orthodox Church as just an offshoot of the Roman Catholic Church that disagreed on who was Pope, but it turns out the difference is much deeper than that.
In early christendom, the Roman church translated the Bible into Latin. This introduced a lot of changes to the way we understand the Bible today. For example, when the Greek word αἰώνιος (aionios, "age-enduring" or "of the age") was translated into Latin, the word used was aeternus ("eternal"). You can see how this would cause a problem! The Latin Bible quickly became the standard Bible used throughout the Western church. Later, the Protestant understanding of scripture retained a heavy Latin influence. The Eastern Orthodox Church, on the other hand, did not switch to the Latin Bible. Instead, they continued studying the scriptures in Greek.
The Eastern Orthodox Church is the only major church denomination that still bases its core Bible study on the original Greek scriptures. Sure, Bible translators today use Greek and Hebrew to create translations, as they should. But their understanding of the scriptures is rooted firmly in Western orthodoxy, which is tied inextricably to the Latin translation of the scriptures, and this influences their translation. Any time a translator drifts too far away from the accepted Latin interpretation of the Greek scriptures, the Western orthodoxy cries "Liberal! Progressive!" and decries that translation as heresy.
Think long and hard about this: Do you really think that the one church that stayed faithful to the original Greek scriptures got their core theology wrong? No one understands the Greek scriptures better than the church that never left them, and one of the core beliefs of the Eastern Orthodox Church is hopeful universal salvation. Let that sink in.
Hopeful universalism vs. firm universalism
Both modern and historical universalism is replete with universalists who hope for universal salvation, but don't formally adopt it as creed. Why do I adopt universal salvation as my primary creed, even if I stop short of declaring it as absolutely true?
Many Christians, both today and yesterday, believe the Bible is God's Word. They believe that only the Bible should have the ability to influence our theology (or, if not Protestant, other holy writings of the church also qualify). When limiting theology to the Bible, the case for universal salvation is strong but not overwhelming. But because I don't believe the Bible is God's literal word, I believe that philosophy can provide additional logical evidence for certain doctrines. I'm not the only one, either - many conservative theologians, who tend to believe that the Bible is God's literal word, are also much more likely to accept the idea of natural theology, which is the belief that reason alone provides sufficient evidence for the existence and attributes of God. The case for universal salvation shines most brightly when applying philosophy to scripture, which is a process that many conservative theologians support in practice.
Who really believes in an eternal hell?
I don't think most Christians really, actually believe in an eternal hell. I have devised four categories of people who believe in eternal conscious torment: the ignorant, the sadist, the Calvinist, and the street preacher.
The ignorant
Some people who believe in an eternal hell simply haven't thought it through to conclusion. They've never imagined burning in a lake of fire, hotter than the core of a star, nonstop, day and night, for all eternity. In a billion years, your agony will just be beginning. Most Christians who believe this simply haven't thought about it, because if they did, they would turn away at the horror.
The sadist
Some people actively want others to go to hell. (Jonathan Edwards comes to mind.) I remember many years ago, I was driving in my car when another driver pulled out in front of me. I slammed on the brakes and I was able to stop in time; no one was hurt, and there was no accident. As I drove away, I remember feeling a savage pleasure at the thought that, even though there was nothing I could do, the offending driver was most likely going to go to hell. She pulled out in front of me, and in my anger, I relished in her eventual torture. I'll never forget the way I felt in that moment, and I hope I never let myself feel that way again.
The Calvinist
Some Christians believe that God simply chose to send everyone to hell, but made a few exceptions for the saved. It's not that the saved are saved because they chose to follow Jesus or pray the prayer; they're saved because God saved them, for whatever reason that pleased him, and nothing they did brought this about. The "election of the saints" is how I've heard it described over the years. They believe in eternal hell and all it entails, but they believe there's nothing anyone can do about it.
The street preacher
The only Christians who actually, genuinely believe in the doctrine of eternal hell are the street preachers. They understand hell, they understand the stakes, and they believe that God made a way for everyone to escape. They know that every moment they're not preaching, another person dies and goes to hell for all eternity. If someone (other than a Calvinist) actually believed in hell, this is the only valid response. But even most Christians recoil from street preachers, discounting them as zealots and fanatics.
Which one are you?
So? Which one are you? Have you just never really thought about it? Or, if you genuinely believe that every lost soul is going to burn in hell for all eternity, does the thought make you giddy? Do you think there's anything anyone can do to change their eternal destiny, or do you think God already decided all our fates before time began and we're just living out his will? Or have you decided which street corner you're going to take up residence on, shouting until your voice is raw about the fearful destination of all the passersby? If you're going to carry on believing in eternal hell, those are your choices.
As for me, I know what I believe. I believe that a God who taught proportionate punishment from the very beginning wouldn't endlessly torture souls who committed finite wrongs. I believe that a God who expects his followers to love their enemies and forgive those who wrong them would be an example for his followers, not an exception to his own rules. God loves us and is not willing that any should perish. In the end, God's love will win out over any failing of man. Praise God!