UNIVERSAL SALVATION: BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS

BY

AMANUEL YONAS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO ETHIOPIAN

GRADUATING SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF MASTER OF ARTS IN
THEOLOGICAL AND BIBLICAL STUDIES

ADVISOR: CHRIS BERNARD

ETHIOPIAN GRADUATING SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

JULY 2021
 UNIVERSAL SALVATION: BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS

by

Amanuel Yonas

A Thesis Submitted to Ethiopian Graduating School of Theology

in Partial Fulfillment of Master of Arts in
Theological and Biblical Studies

Advisor: Chris Bernard

Ethiopian Graduating School of Theology

July 2021
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Page

INTRODUCTION

................................................................................................................................................

1..............................................................................................................................................

CHAPTER ONE

................................................................................................................................................

5
1.1. Biblical Arguments for Universalism

................................................................................................................................................

1.1.1. The Theo-centric Argument

....................................................................................................................................

1.1.2. The Christo-centric Argument

....................................................................................................................................

13

1.1.2.1. The Two “Adams” Argument

........................................................................................................................

14

1.1.2.2. The Reconciliation of all things in Christ

........................................................................................................................

15

1.1.2.3. So that God “Aay Be All in All”

........................................................................................................................

17

CHAPTER TWO

................................................................................................................................................

19
2.1. Analysis of the Arguments

................................................................................................................................................

19

2.2. Definition of Salvation

................................................................................................................................................

19

2.3. The Heat of the Theocentric Argument

................................................................................................................................................

21

2.4. The Hurt of the Universalist Argument: The Christo Centric Argument

................................................................................................................................................

26

CHAPTER THREE

................................................................................................................................................

30

CONCLUSION

................................................................................................................................................

30

REFERENCES

................................................................................................................................................

32
 B.Th. PAPER DECLARATION

A paper submitted to the Faculty of Mekane Yesus Seminary in Partial Fulfillment of the

requirement for the Degree of BACHELEOR OF THEOLOGY

Student’s Name: Amanuel Yonas

Division: Systematic Theology

Title of the Thesis: Universal Salvation: Biblical Argument

Name of the Advisor: Dr. Chris Bernard

Academic Year: 2013

I, Amanuel Yonas, hereby affirm to EGST that this thesis is my own work and all material

quoted from other sources are duly acknowledged and that it has not been submitted to any other

College or University for any academic awards.

Word Count (includes introduction, chapters, conclusion, footnotes, but not bibliography,

glossary, abbreviations,): 11,500

STUDENT’S SIGNATURE

Advisers name and Signature

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all I would like to thank the almighty God. I like to thank my brother Samuel Yonas for

his financial and other supports during my studies. I like to thank Dr. Chris, my advisor, for his

guidance and support. God bless all.

ii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

NIV New International Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

US Universal Salvation

NT New Testament

OT Old Testament

APL Apocryphal Literature

 INTRODUCTION

The term “Universalism” has been used in several different ways in the history of

Christian theology. For clarity’s sake, it is important to distinguish, at the outset, the

different ways the term has been used and how I will use it in this thesis.

First, the term “Universalism” is sometime used in Christian theology to refer to

the universal offer of the Christian Gospel. The Gospel is good news for all people

regardless of ethnicity, age, gender, color, socio-economic status, etc. All most all

Evangelicals are Universalists in this sense of the term. We can see this in the writings of

Luke, Luke is the primary historian of the New Testament. What we see there is for

Jesus, as we read in Luke 24, the Gospel is about the Incarnation, God becoming a man,

God is suffering for us (crucifixion), the resurrection, and the good news is to be

preached throughout the world. In the book of Acts the Gospel moved in two ways, first

geographically then for one culture to another, to be multicultural. As we see in the first

chapter of Acts on verses 6-8 the disciples did not understood the scope of the mission if

Jesus, they were still ethnocentric, there question show that they had not yet understood

the universal nature of the Gospel. But Jesus turned their attention inward, saying “when

you receive the Holy Spirit you will be my witness throughout the world.” In terms of

geographic expansion the narrative of Acts moves from Jerusalem, a Jewish center and

provincial capital at one end of the Mediterranean, to Rome, the center of the empire and

a gentile city. In the book of Acts we also see the gospel moving from one culture and

language into another. First in the event of Pentecost God showed the fact that he want all

to hear the good news in their language of the hurt, that God desire to speak to people in

their own language and culture is a basic missiological prospective. Secondly the whole

1
world was represented symbolically at the Pentecost. Thirdly, peter proclaimed that

Pentecost was the fulfillment of a prophecy. 1 This is what we call true and proper

universalism in main stream evangelicalism.2

There is also a second way that the term, “universalism”, is used. It is used to

refer to the view that that every major world religion, though they differ in many ways,

include a means to salvation.3 Each religion constitutes a different road, or path, to the

same goal, which is salivation.4 All the religions have a salvific value. We all are

climbing the same mountain but from different directions. However we will all meet at

the mountain peak. The best known contemporary proponent of this version of

Universalism is John Hick.5 Evangelicals have divided a bit, over this version of

Universalism. Traditional Evangelicals do not consider people who advocate this type of

Universalism to be Evangelicals. However, proponents this kind of Universalism

consider themselves to be genuine Evangelicals.6

The last major way the term “Universalism” is used is to refer to the view that

that everyone will, in the end, be saved. According to this theology none will perish. The

atoning death of Jesus is equally sufficient and effective for all that all will be saved.7

1
Paul E. Pierson, The Dynamics of Christian Mission: History through Missiological Perspective
(Pasadena, CA: William Carey International University Press, 2009), 9.
2
Ibid., 21–22.
3
Most contemporary theologians are concerned about using the term "salvation" when referring to ultimate
goal of every world religion. Not every religion involves the concept of salvation. It seems to be projecting
Christian theological categories onto religions that do not have those same categories. They state, for
example, some conceive of the ultimate goal of the religions as enlightenment. The terms "salvation" is so
broadly used in this discussion in a way that it includes the desired end-state of every world religion.
4
Christopher H. Partridge, ed., Universal Salvation?: The Current Debate (Grand Rapids, Mich: William
B. Eerdmans Pub, 2003), 21.
5
Ibid.
6
J.A.T. Robinson, 'Universalism: Is It Heretical?' Scottish Journal of Theology Vol. 2 No. 2, 139-155.
2 (1949), 139–155.
7
Partridge, Universal Salvation? 9.

2
This is the kind of Universalism that this paper is concerned with. Most of the

theologians who advocate this position contend that there is no hell and that everyone is

going to be reconciled to God at the end.

It is important to here to see the difference between this form of Universalism and

the other form, which at times is called religious pluralism, described above where all

religions lead to salvation. The difference between them is two-fold. First, although all

religions provide a means of salvation, not all adherents of these religions will avail

themselves of the path to salvation provided by their religion. So, although every religion

provides a way to be saved, everyone will not be saved because many will simply fail to

take the path to salvation that their religion provides. Second, this view differs from the

previously described view in that it does not necessarily claim that all other religions

provide a means to be saved. So the two difference between these two positions center

on these two claims: one, everyone will be eventually saved and as the last view

describes, two, the former view states that all religions contain a means of salvation.

However, those who hold to this form of Universalism don’t always agree on

the details. There are differences and variations within those who considered themselves

Universalists in the sense just descried. Universalist theology has developed in various

theological traditions differently. It is beyond the scope of this paper to address them all.

I will limit my discussion in the following ways: First, this paper will analyze only the

Biblical arguments concerning Universalism that it excludes those theologians who

justify and defend their position on non-Biblical grounds. Second, this paper evaluates

arguments that are advanced by religious groups that do not deviate from the major

Christian doctrines like: the Trinity, orthodox Christology, Biblical Inspiration, etc.

3
Finally, this paper will not address all of the arguments advanced by Universalist

theologians throughout the history of the Church. The theological positions and

arguments that I will evaluate will be limited to contemporary advocates of Universalism.

In fact, the focus of this paper will be the position and arguments advanced by Tomas

Talbott I will focus on his theology because he is an outspoken and popular

representative of the camp, along the way, however, I will assess other arguments when

they are relevant or important.

The central question that I will examine in this thesis is: will everyone

eventually be saved.? I contend that the answer to this question is “no.” The Bible does

not teach us that everyone will be saved. I will proceed first by setting out and explaining

the Biblical arguments for Universalism in a fair and neutral manner. Then I will argue

that rational support for Universalism is weak and does not provide sufficient reason to

reject the classical Evangelical view of salvation.

4
 CHAPTER ONE

1.1. Biblical Arguments for Universalism

Despite of the fact that many Christians, especially Ethiopian Evangelicals,

believe that Universalism is a recent theological development, the truth is that there have

been advocates for Universalism even in the early church. Even though there have been

proponents of Universalism since in the church nearly for two millennia, it never been the

mainstream theological position of the Christian church. It has been a view.8

In recent years there has been a revival of Universalism for several reasons. The

major reason is that most mainline theologians and Christians are abandoning their belief

in hell and eternal Punishment, which has been the mainstream Christian view for nearly

2000 years.9,10 Richard Bauckham contends that, “no traditional Christian doctrine has

been so widely abandoned as that of eternal punishment.” 11 The trend has been to move

away from belief in hell towards acceptance of Universalism.

This can be seen, for example, in the writings of John Hick. Hick asserts that “the

doctrine of hell has its implied premise either that God does not desire to save all his

human creatures, in which case he is only limitedly good, or that His purpose has finally

failed in the case of some, in which he is limitedly sovereign. Alterative is available:

8
Bauckham Richard, 'Universalism: A Historical Survey,' Themelios . 4 No. 2, (1979), 48–54.
9
Cameron, N.M. Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell: Papers Presented at the Fourth Edinburgh
Conference on Christian Dogmatics, (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1991).
10
The list includes Donald Carson, Millard J. Erickson, Carl F. H. Henry, Roger Nicole, Ronald
Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, Karl Barth, C.H. Dodd, John A.T. Robinson, Nels F.S Frre. Thomas Talbott,
Billy Graham, Donald Guthrie, Kenneth Kantzer. C. S. Lewis, Leon Morris, J. I. Packer. F. F. Bruce in his
foreword to Edward W. Fudge, The Fire that Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of Final
Punishment (Fallbrook, CA: Verdict, 1982), viii; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers
Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1981),887-92; C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: Macmillan, 1962), 126;
Leon Morris, "Eternal Punishment," in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand
Rapids: Baker,1984), 369-70.
11
Richard, “'Universalism History’48–54.

5
namely that God will succeed in his purpose of winning all men to himself in faith and

love.”12 So, the fact that many people are abandoning the doctrine hell has a direct

connection to the corresponding increasing acceptance of Universalism.

One distinctive of Evangelical theology is a belief in the authority of the Bible. 13

As Evangelicals, the Universalist which is discussed in this chapter has a high view of the

scripture. The relevant dispute, then, centers on the Biblical arguments in support of

Universalism.

For the sake of clarity we will divide the arguments in two sections. The first

section deals with the theocentric argument. Theocentric arguments are arguments based

on the nature of God, the Father, and his plan. The argument is basically that God is

omnipotent and is able to do whatever he wants. The scripture is very clear that God

wants to save everyone, so everyone will be saved. They further claim that God’s plan is

not subject to change at all. If the plan of God is not subject to change and he is

omnipotent, then the fact the he wants to save everyone means that he will save everyone.

So, we will first examine how this particular argument is developed from the Bible.

The second argument that we will examine is Christo-centric. This argument

focuses on the nature and extent of the atonementi.e. the work Christ did in order to

save humanity. The basic argument here is that the death of Christ is sufficient to save

everyone. Furthermore, Christ died for everyone. So, if Christ died for all and his death

is sufficient for the salvation of all, then it follows that all will be saved as a result of

Christ’s redemptive work.

12
John Hick, Evil and the God of Love, 1st ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 378.
13
Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford, UK ; Cambridge, Mass., USA:
Blackwell, 1994), 143.

6
 In this chapter we will examine both of these arguments in some detail and pay

particular attention to their claims of Biblical support.

1.1.1. The Theo-centric Argument

The idea that everyone will be saved is often based on the traditional Christian

concept of grace. The early church taught that sinners will be saved by the free grace of

God. According to Augustine and John Calvin, this grace is totally free and irresistible. If

salvation is by grace and grace is both free and irresistible it follows that all who receive

the grace will be saved. According to this this line of reasoning, the fact that some are

not saved implies that they did not receive grace. If they had received grace, they would

definitely have been saved because the grace of God is irresistible. However, if they are

not saved, it follows that they were not given the grace they needed in order to be saved.

So, they cannot be blamed for not being saved. 14 This must be wrong, is the claim of

universalists, to say salivation is by grace, the grace is irresistible, and some will be lost,

if all this sentences are true then it will be God who is responsible for the lost once, since

He did not give them his grace.

In words of Thomas Talbott, “…whenever I tried to combine in my own mind this

doctrine of free and irresistible grace with the traditional understanding of hell, the idea

of grace seemed to evaporate altogether. For where is the grace in the doctrine of limited

election? Is God being gracious to an elect mother when he makes the baby she loves an

object of his sovereign hatred?”15 Contrary to Augustine and Calvin’s view of grace, God

14
Augustine, Admonition and Grace, Selections from the Works of the Fathers of the Church in Pamphlet
Form ; Pamphlet 12 (Boston, MA: St. Paul Editions, 196AD) page 25, 26 he said “For not only has God
given us our ability and helps it, but He even works [brings about] willing and acting in us; not that we do
not will or that we do not act, but that without His help we neither will anything good nor do it".
15
Talbott, Thomas “Towards a Better Understanding of Universalism,” in Universal Salvation? The
Current Debate (Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K: Paternoster Press, 2003), 3.

7
does not seem to be gracious in saving some by giving his irresistible grace and making

others an instrument of wrath by denying them the grace.16

But there is another option left open to us, namely, the Arminian view of God’s

grace. According to this view, God is not offering his grace to the elect in such a way that

they cannot resist, rather he offers it in such a way that the human will still plays an

important and crucial role.17 God gave human beings freewill, in a libertarian sense,18

meaning that they are totally free to do whatever they want to do. God will do everything

that he can to convince them to come to him and be saved. He provides every grace that

in necessary for the person to be saved. But in the end the person has a freedom,

independent of God’s grace to accept God’s offer or decline it. If he accepts he will be

saved, but if he denies it he will be lost. Then whether a person is saved or not is entirely

the individual’s responsibility. But even if this case is theologically and philosophically

appealing it just leads to a dead end, in Talbott’s view, because “according to Paul our

final destiny is already foreordained and not a matter of free choice at all.”19

16
This can be seen as another argument for universalism, but since my dialogue partner Talbott did not
pursue his line of reasoning in this way for the sake of presenting his arguments fairly and clearly as they
are it will not be treated independently. But this is clearly a third argument for universalism; one argument
is based on God’s nature, namely, his omnipotence. The other is based on the nature and extent of Christ’s
atonement. This one is based on the nature of God’s grace in salvation.
17
Contra to Talbott’s argument here one can see that it is not true that all Calvinists deny the role and
existence of free will. Not all who are rightfully classified as Calvinists accept this one feature of that
system. It is equally true that all Armenians are accepting the role and existence of freewill. Here, also
Talbott is a little unfair to Calvinists because they agree that the human will plays a critical role when it
comes to salvation. They just think that God’s grace has prepared the role beforehand, so that the decision
for Christ is inevitable. (Chafer. S Lewis, “For Whom Did Christ Die?,” in Vital Theological Issues (Grand
Rapid, Mich: Kregel, 1994), 92.)
18
Libertarians argue that free will includes the power to determine the will itself, so that a person with free
will can will more than one thing. Compatibilists typically view free will as the power to act in accordance
with one’s own will rather than being constrained by some external cause, allowing that the will itself may
ultimately be causally determined by something beyond the self. Hard determinists deny the existence of
free will altogether. Most Christian theologians agree that humans possess free will in some sense but
disagree about what kind of freedom is necessary. [Evans, C. Stephen: Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics &
Philosophy of Religion. (Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 2002) S. 46.]
19
Talbott “Undrstanding Universalism,” 4.

8
 If these two possibilities fail, then the Western theological tradition seems

confused and irrational, when it comes to this issue. On the one hand, God is unloving

and unjust. The God of Augustine and Calvin gives some the irresistible grace and saves

them. Others exist simply to perish forever by denying his grace. On the other hand, the

Arminian God, at best, is not the God of the New Testament, and at worst, is a defeated

God, wishing to save all but an able to do so.20

So, the search for the Biblical God, in terms of salvation and this issue, continues.

A God who really is love and wants to save all, and a real God who does not fail in what

he seeks to accomplish. However, that is precisely the conception of the Universalist

God, given Talbott’s view.

The Theo-centric argument, that tries to comprehend the Biblical God, was put

forward by Thomas Talbott can be put in schematic form in this way

Premise #1: God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally, in the
sense that he sincerely wills and desires the redemption of each one of them.
Premise #2: God is omnipotent and nothing can thwart Gods redemptive love or
resist it forever, so God will triumph in the end and successfully accomplish the
redemption of everyone whose redemption he wills or desires.
Premise#3: If God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally, in the
sense that he sincerely wills and desires the redemption of each one of them and
God is omnipotent and nothing can thwart Gods redemptive love or resist it
forever, so God will triumph in the end and successfully accomplish the
redemption of everyone whose redemption he wills or desires. Then everyone will
be saved.
Conclusion: Therefore, everyone will be saved. 21

As one can see, the reasoning here is valid, that is if premise one and two are true,

then the conclusion must be true. Talbott then moves on to giving scriptural evidence for

the claims contained in the premises of his argument. Talbott suggests the following

20
Talbott “Undrstanding Universalism,” 5.
21
Ibid., 6–11.

9
biblical passages support the truth of premise #1 of his argument, which states that God’s

redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally in the sense that he sincerely wills

and desires the redemption of each one of them:

2 Peter 3:9 “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.”22

As one commentary observed this text, it makes a clear claim that God’s delay,

as it is seen by some, is actually an indication of His plan that He is working on. The plan

without a question is that God wants sinners to be saved. “God “is not willing that any

should perish” (2 Peter 3:9). First Timothy 2:4 affirms that God “will have all men to be

saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” These verses give both the negative

and the positive, and together they assure us that God has no pleasure in the death of the

wicked (Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11).23

1 Timothy 2:4 “Who [God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the
knowledge of the truth.”

As it is seen by New Testament scholars, not all but the majority, this text is an

indication that it is God’s will that they may come to the acknowledgment of His truth,

that is, of the way of salvation that is being reveled in His Word. Such acknowledgment

that the text is speaking is just more than intellectual knowledge, having an information

of it. It is joyful recognition and acceptance of the way of salivation. As it is rightly said

“The purpose of prayer for all men, without distinction of rank, race, and nationality, is

that they may be saved, and may come to “full knowledge,” knowledge in which not only

22
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton : Standard Bible Society, 2001, S. 2 Pe 3:9
23
Wiersbe, Warren W.: The Bible Exposition Commentary. (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1996) 211.

10
the mind but also the heart partakes. The purpose of such praying corresponds with God’s

own sovereign desire.”24

Ezekiel 33:11 “Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure
in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn
back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?”

This was a call from God to his people that they may repent so that they could be

healed and restored. God is said clearly taking no pleasure in the death of the wicked, or

the sinner, so he was always careful to warn of judgment and to call for repentance so

that they may be saved from the coming judgment. 25

because as it is said in the Book of

Lamentation: Lamentation 3:22 and 3: 31-33 “he steadfast love of the LORD never ceases;

his mercies never come to an end; ……..31 For the Lord will not cast off forever, 32 but,

though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his

steadfast love; 33 for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men.”

These and many other texts in the Bible show that God wants to save the all

sinners. He does not want to reconcile with only few people but with all. As Paul

strongly infers in 2 Corinthians 5:19, “in Christ God was reconciling the world to

himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of

reconciliation.” Talbott contends that if God wanted to save everyone but was unable to

do so, this would call his omnipotence into question.26

24
Hendriksen, William; Kistemaker, Simon J.: New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Pastoral
Epistles. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001), 96.
25
Cooper, Lamar Eugene: Ezekiel. (Nashville : Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 295.
26
Talbott, “Understanding Universalism,” 9.

11
 In support of his second premise, which is, God is omnipotent and nothing can

thwart Gods redemptive love or resist it forever, so God will triumph in the end and

successfully accomplish the redemption of everyone whose redemption he wills or

desires, Talbott offers the following Biblical texts:

Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined

according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of
his will,”
Job 42:2 I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be
thwarted.
Psalms 115:3 Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.
Isaiah 46:10 I will accomplish all my purpose.

Additionally, Talbott cites other Biblical texts that seem to teach that God will, in

fact, accomplish his desire to save the whole of human race:

1 Corinthians 15: 27-28 “For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.
But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted
who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him,
then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection
under him, that God may be all in all.
Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one
act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Colossians 1:20 …and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on
earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.”

By citing these passages, Talbott claims that the Bible clearly teaches

Universalism. If premises one, two, and three are true, then the conclusion must also be

true. Talbott contends that the majority of Christian theologians and members of the

Christian church have, for many centuries, embraced a logically contradictory set of

theological teachings. He argues that the following set of traditiobal Christian teachings

are logically inconsistent:

12
 1. God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally in the sense that
he sincerely wills and desires the redemption of each one of them.
2. Because no one can finally defeat Gods redemptive love or resist it forever,
God will triumph at the end and successfully accomplish the redemption of
everyone whose redemption he wills or desires.
3. Some human sinners will never be redeemed but will instead be separated
from God forever.27

Talbott contends that these statements are logically inconsistent because it

follows from God’s omnipotence that he can save everyone, if he wants to and it follows

from the Bible passages cited above that God wants to save every human being. So, if

God can accomplish whatever he wants and he wants to accomplish the salvation of

every human, then it cannot be the case that some individuals will not be saved. The

traditional theologians cannot consistently hold all three of these teachings to be true. If

the first two positions are true, then the third one must be false.

1.1.2. The Christo-centric Argument

The Christo-centric argument is the argument for Universalism based on the

notion that the redemptive power of Christ's death is so vast that it is sufficient to save all

humans and its goal is so wide as to intend to save all humans.

Talbott provides three Christo-centric arguments. His first argument is based on

the teaching of Paul on Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. In these passages, Paul compares

and contrasts two “Adams.” He concludes this comparison by saying that that the second

“Adam brings life for all”. The second argument is based on the Biblical text that seems

to teach that at the end all things will be reconciled to God. Two Biblical texts play a key

role in the argument that God will reconcile everything in Christ to himself. The first

biblical verse that is being quoted here is Philippians 2:10-11, and the second one is

Colossians 1:20. Talbott’s final argument is based on Biblical passages that teach that
27
Talbott, “Understanding Universalism,” 8–11.

13
God will fully restore all of creations and, so that, in the end, God “will be all in all,” the

text is 1 Corinthians 15:22.

1.1.2.1. The Two “Adams” Argument

In Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 Paul compares two “Adams.” Paul's basic

point here is that God is making a need redeemed humanity on the remains of the old,

fallen humanity. The point of the comparison between Adam and Christ is that each is

the head of a group of humans--Adam is the head of the old fallen humanity and Christ is

the head of the new redeemed humanity, the first Adam Paul refers to is the first human,

the Adam of the book of Genesis. The second “Adam” that Paul refers to is Christ Jesus.

The first Adam brought death for all humanity and the second Adam brought life for the

whole humanity, if all died in the first Adam all will come to life in the second Adam

seems to the logic of this given texts. In the words of Talbott, “The very ones who came

under condemnation, as the result of the first Adam’s act of disobedience, will eventually

be brought to justification and life, as a result of the second Adam’s act of obedience.”28

This interpretation of Romans is advanced by some other New Testament scholars.

Defenders of this interpretation argue that,

“Verses 12–21 indicate the conclusion to be drawn from the previous sub-section.
The fact that there are those who, being justified by faith, are also now God’s
friend’s means that something has been accomplished by Christ which does not
just concern believers but is as universal in its effects as was the sin of Adam.”29
For clarity’s sake, let’s make the argument more explicit by putting it in
schematic form Premise #1: Just as all died because of one man’s disobedience,
the first Adam, so to will all be made alive through one man’s obedience, the
second Adam (i.e. Christ).

28
Talbott, “Christ Victorious,” in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate (Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K:
Paternoster Press, 2003), 19.
29
Cranfield, C. E. B.: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London; New
York : T&T Clark International, 2004), 269.

14
 Premise #2: If just as all died because of one man’s disobedience, the first Adam,
so to will all be made alive through one man’s obedience, the second Adam (i.e.
Christ), then all will be made alive through Christ (a fortiori from premise #1)
then
Premise #3: If all will be made alive through Christ, then all will be saved
(follows from the meaning of “made alive.”)
Conclusion: Therefore, everyone will be saved.

There are two weak options left for those who want to deny the Universalist

implications of this text, especially Romans 5:18-19. The first option is to say that Paul

did not have each and every single human being in mind when he talks about “all” being

made alive in Christ. However, this option looks unpromising because the parallelism

that Paul uses between the first and second Adams. The passage seems to imply that just

as each and every human being died in Adam, so to will each and every human being be

made alive in Christ. The second kind of reply that one might make to avoid the

Universalist conclusions from these passages is to say the text is not really talking about

the individual salvation of the souls of every human but it is referring to the redemption

of the group, even if some individual members of the group will not be saved. The

reasoning here might be akin to what Paul implies in Romans 11 when he teaches that the

tree of humanity as a whole will be saved even though individual branch will be pruned

off. So if both options fail universalism is the right teaching of these texts. 30

1.1.2.2. The Reconciliation of all things in Christ

The basic assumption of this argument is that God has to deal with sin and there is

no way that sin can escape the divine judgment. But the traditional alternative that the

Universalists rejected asserts that God will keep it forever that is being un-dealt with.

This is done by keeping the sinner forever in hell; if the sinner is forever in hell with his

sin God did not deal with the sin of that individual. But that does not seem to be the right
30
Talbott, “Christ,” 21.

15
teaching or the right way, because the Bible seems to imply for the Universalists, that

God will destroyed sin by saving the sinner, there will be no sin that He will keep in hell

with the sinner. That is to say by saving every sinner and by making them holy God will

deal with sin for once and for all at the end there will be no more sin that left un-dealt

with.

Two Biblical texts play a key role in the argument that God will reconcile

everything in Christ to himself. The first biblical verse that is being quoted here is

Philippians 2:10-11, the text says “at the name of Jesus every kneed should bend, in the

heaven and earth and under earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”

Here Paul is anticipating a time when all will be saved and confess the Lord ship of Jesus

Christ. He farther claims that everything that created, weather in heaven or earth, visible

and invisible, thrones and dominions, all will be reconciled to God. (Colossians 1:20).

The language that Paul uses here, “reconciled,” is a redemptive language. 31 So Paul is

envisioning here a time when all will be reconciled to God in full redemptive sense.

The Philippians text has been seen in the same eye by one major commentator of

the New Testament. He said

The purpose of the exaltation is: in order that in the name of Jesus, that is, not
in the name “Jesus” but in the full name with which Jesus is now rewarded and
which he now bears — a name which trembles on Paul’s lips but which even now
he does not yet fully mention but reserves as a climax — every kneed should
bend, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth.
At his return in glory Jesus will be worshiped by “the whole body of created
intelligent beings in all the departments of the universe” (M. R. Vincent). Angels
and redeemed human beings will do this joyfully; the damned will do it ruefully,
remorsefully (not penitently), see Rev. 6:12–17. But so great will be his glory that
all will feel impelled to render homage to him (cf. Isa. 45:23; Rom. 14:11; I Cor.
15:24; Eph. 1:20–22; Heb. 2:8; Rev. 5:13).

31
Talboot, Universal Salvation?: The Current Debate (Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub,
2003), 22.

16
 Note the three classes of created intelligent beings:
(1) Those in heaven: the cherubim and seraphim, yes all the ten thousand times
ten thousand good angels, including archangels; also, of course, all redeemed
human beings who have departed from this earthly life (Eph. 1:21; 3:10; I
Peter 3:22; Rev. 4:8–11; 5:8–12).
(2) Those on earth: all human beings on earth (I Cor. 15:40).
(3) Those under the earth: all the damned in hell, both human beings and the evil
angels or demons (for if the adjective heavenly refers, among others, to the
good angels, then its antonym, which literally means under-earthly, a word
occurring only here in the New Testament, in all probability includes the evil
angels).32

God is not going to reconcile all by force against their will, but according these

verses it is power of the death of Jesus, it is the cross at the center of the reconciliation.

Talbott says, “so the blood of the cross does bring peace, but not the artificial kind that

some tyrannical power might impose: it brings true peace, the kind that springs from

within and requires reconciliation in the full redemptive sense. It seems to me without a

question therefor, that Paul envisioned a time when all persons would be reconciled to

God in full redemptive sense.”33

1.1.2.3. So that God “Aay Be All in All”

The other claim for the Universalist position is the explicit statement of Paul on 1

Corinthians 15:22 it says “for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made

alive”. When the Universalists read this text it is very clear for them that it teaches that all

who died in Adam shall certainly come to life in Christ so that God may be all in all. The

single parallelism that Paul draws here is between Christ the second Adam and Adam the

first. The subject is all human beings; all human beings who died in the first Adam shall

come to life in the second Adam.34

32
Hendriksen, William; Kistemaker, Simon J.: New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Philippians.
Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 5), S. 115
33
Talbott, “Christ,” 25.
34
Ibid., 26.

17
 Now the central question here is that “how does become all in all.”? According to

the Universalist interpretation of the Biblical texts and their arguments God become all in

all by ultimate victory. God will become all in all by having a victory over death, evil,

and sin. God will not have victory by sending them to hell, he does that by regenerating

the evil once themselves, by regenerating the sinners themselves, by restoring the whole

creation.35

In the words of Tomas Talbott “so herein lies the Christian universalist‘s

understanding of God’s ultimate victory, which is also a key to a proper understanding of

divine judgment. God is too pure and too loving to allow evil of any kind to survive for

ever in his creation. He will not, therefor, merely quarantine evil in hell, but will instead

destroy it altogether even as he generates the evil ones themselves.”36

As far as we have gone we can see that the Universalists have developed their

arguments on the biblical bases by claiming that this is the faithful interpretation and

position of the scripture. Seen from both divine economy perspective and human nature

they assume that believing that God at the end will save everyone is a more reasonable

position. But there is a serious of defects in this kind of reasoning, the next chapter is

devoted to show the defects of the Universalist arguments.

35
Talbott, “Christ,” 28.
36
Ibid.

18
 CHAPTER TWO

2.1. Analysis of the Arguments

In this part of the paper we will analyze the arguments that are Biblical, by the

Universalists in support of their claim that the Bible teaches the salvation of all. The first

thing we start with is the meaning of salvation, if salvation meant only escape from hell

then the discussion can continue, but if salvation is something more than escape from hell

then the whole discussion start to crack, since the whole project of Talbott assumes that

salvation is escaping hell and eternal punishment. That is what we will do first, then

moves on showing step by step that both the theocentric and the Christo-centric

arguments that he provided are weak and are not compelling once to change our

theology.

There two extremes that needs to be avoided if justice is to be done to the New

Testament teaching of the nature and scope of salivation. On the one hand there are some

scholars, who are basically Calvinists who insist on the limited atonement, predestination,

and election in a way that argues for the salvation of few elects only. And on the other

end of the extreme is the Universalist teaching that all will be saved. I think the truth is

somewhere in the middle, not at the end of one extreme.

2.2. Definition of Salvation

We need to define salvation because it has been understood in different Christian

traditions differently; when all are using the same word they are saying different things. It

19
has been wonderfully observed by Demarest when he said “The nature of salvation has

been variously interpreted by the different traditions within Christendom.”37

Since Talbott and others are talking about universalism by claiming to be

evangelicals, then the type of definition that they give to salvation was supposed to be an

Evangelical one. According to the Evangelical understanding of the term “Salvation is a

Christian term for God’s work in delivering human beings from the power of sin and the

devil through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. In a broader sense salvation may

refer to God’s restoration of the whole of the created order to its intended purposes.” 38

But these salvations by its nature have border perspective. It is more than escaping hell; it

is “A broad term referring to God’s activity on behalf of creation and especially humans

in bringing all things to God’s intended goal. More specifically, salvation entails God’s

deliverance of humans from the power and effects of sin and the fall through the work of

Jesus Christ so that creation in general and humans in particular can enjoy the fullness of

life intended for what God has made. 39 But the Universal understand this term in a very

narrow sense of escaping hell.

Just on the start one can see that though they claim be an evangelical they have a

working definition of salivation which is not evangelical at all.

2.3. The Heat of the Theocentric Argument

Talbott himself put his theocentric by stating that since the loving hurt of God

wills the salvation of all sinners and no one can triumph God’s will then all will be saved.
37
Demarest, Bruce A.: The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway
Books, 1997) 31.
38
Evans, C. Stephen: Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 2002) 104.
39
Grenz, Stanley; Guretzki, David; Nordling, Cherith Fee: Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms.
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999) 105.

20
One can notice that this argument is based on the will of God. For the sake of clarity we

can put it in schematic form,

Premise #1 God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally in the
sense that he sincerely wills and desires the redemption of each one of them.
Premise #2 Because no one can finally defeat Gods redemptive love or resist it
forever, God will triumph at the end and successfully accomplish the redemption
of everyone whose redemption he wills or desires.
Therefore everyone will be saved.40

What one has to do here is to show the traditional approach holds water here, it is

best described my McGrath this way

“The decision to accept or reject God remains our decision, a decision for which
we and we alone are responsible. God gives us every assistance possible to make
the decision he wants us to make, but he cannot make that decision for us. God
enables us to accept his offer of forgiveness and renewal by removing or
disarming every obstacle in its path – obstacles such as spiritual blindness,
arrogance, confusion, a compromised freedom of the will, and so forth. But, in the
end, God cannot and does not make that decision for us. To affirm human dignity
is to affirm our ability to say “No!” to God – an affirmation the New Testament
and the Christian tradition have no hesitation in making. Universalism perverts
the gospel of the love of God into an obscene scene of theological rape quite
unworthy of the God whom we encounter in the face of Jesus Christ.”41

Now, as it is said earlier if all the above premises, that is one and two, are true it

seems as if there is no way to escape the universalist conclusion, that is three. It seems at

the surface that all of them have some Biblical proof texts that Talbott correctly quoted.

In the case of premise one, where he stated that Gods love and wish of saving

extends to all, all evangelical will agree with him. God is love by his nature there no hate

in him. So He loves all his creation and he wants to save all.

40
Talbott, “Undrstanding Universalism,” 6–11.
41
McGrath, A.E. (1988) Justification by Faith (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie), 106.

21
 But when it comes to premise two where he stated that, since Gods plan and will

are triumph all the time, there comes the problem. Are Gods wish and plans happen all

the time? Well the answer is no.

Here it is important to remember the two wills of God; traditionally the divine

wills are divided into efficacious and permissive. The efficacious will is a will that is not

subject to any change at all. It determines the event like physical and material causes;

such events are the motions of the heavenly bodies and the phenomena of the material

world generally: as it is said in the scripture “He made a decree for the rain and a way for

the lightning of the thunder” (Job 28:26). The other will that we call the permissive will

relates only to moral evil. Sin is the sole and solitary object of this species of decree. It

renders the event infallibly certain, but not by immediately acting upon and in the finite

will, as in the case of the efficacious decree. God does not work in man or angel “to will

and to do,” when man or angel wills and acts antagonistically to him: this the case where

the scripture speaks “Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways”

(Acts 14:16); “the times of this ignorance God overlooked” (17:30); “he gave them their

own desire” (Ps. 78:18).

As one scholar has noted it, one needs to be careful in not overriding the essence

of divine sovereignty in affirming these divisions. “It establishes divine sovereignty over

the entire universe. By reason of his permissive decree, God has absolute control over

moral evil, while yet he is not the author of it and forbids it. Unless he permitted sin, it

could not come to pass. Should he decide to preserve the will of the holy angel or the

holy man from lapsing, the man or the angel would persevere in holiness.42

42
Shedd, William Greenough Thayer; Gomes, Alan W.: Dogmatic Theology. 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, N.J.:P &
R Pub., 2003), 318.

22
 What is being affirmed here is that Evangelicals hold it to be true that human

beings have a will, as it sated this way “The created image of God carries with it

awesome responsibility and glory. It includes the ability to make meaningful moral

choices (Gen. 1:26–27; 2:16–17). By grace, the freedom to use a created will as a moral

agent is one of the key biblical distinctions between humans and the rest of the created

order. The sovereignty of God is deepened in a radically personal way when creation is

climaxed by persons who possess wills that can choose to either obey or disobey, to love

or not to love. True sovereignty is neither arbitrary nor coercive; it allows other wills.”43

If human beings have to have freewill either to choose and reject God, it is a

logical necessity that they should have a will to be saved or not to be saved. If they are

saved despite of their will only by the will of God then they cannot be said free beings.

Will this rob the sovereignty of God, and make us say that God is not in control?

No. God has his own will that He wants to achieve through history, but robing human

freedom is not one of them. Reconciling the freewill of human beings with the divine

sovereignty and all knowingness of God has never been an easy task. That is why D.A.

Carson called his book the difficult doctrine of the love of God. It is difficult to see how

things work clearly here, but difficulty does not mean that it is wrong.

Here it is good to note that there are several attempts at explaining how the

permissive will and efficacious will of God work together when it comes to sin and

rejection if God’s way, but it has to be said that they are inadequate:

1. God exerts positive efficiency upon the finite will, as he does in the origination of

holiness. He makes sin certain by causing it. But this contradicts the following texts:

43
Elwell, Walter A.; Elwell, Walter A.: Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. electronic ed. (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997, c1996) (Baker Reference Library; Logos Library System)

23
 “Neither tempts he any man” (James 1:13); “God is light, and in him is no darkness at

all” (1 John 1:5); “God made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions”

(Eccles. 7:29). It also contradicts the Christian consciousness.

2. God places the creature in such circumstances as render his sinning certain. But the

will of the creature is not subject to circumstances. It can resist them. Circumstances

act only from the outside. But the conversion of the will cannot be accounted for by

circumstances, and neither can its apostasy.

3. God presents motives to the will. But a motive derives its motive power from the

existing inclination or bias of the will. There is no certainty of action in view of a

motive, unless the previous inclination of the will agrees with the motive; and the

motive cannot produce this inclination or bias.

4. God decides not to bestow that special degree of grace which prevents apostasy. But

this does not make apostasy certain, because holy Adam had power to stand with that

degree of grace with which his Creator had already endowed him. It was, indeed, not

certain that he would stand; but neither was it certain that he would fall, if reference

be had only to the degree of grace given in creation. When God decides not to hinder

a holy being from sinning, he is inactive in this reference; and inaction is not

causative.

5. God causes the matter but not the form of sin. There is a difference between the act

and the viciousness of the act. The act of casting stones when Achan was slain was

the same act materially as when Stephen was martyred; but the formal element,

namely, the intention, was totally different. God concurs with the act and causes it,

but not with the intent or viciousness of the act. But the form or “viciousness” of the

24
 act is the whole of the sin; and God’s concursus does not extend to this. Charnock

regards it as a valid explanation of the permissive decree.44

Through we cannot fully explain how the unchanging and will and plan of God

relate to the freewill of human beings we cannot deny that both of them exist there in the

Bible. God can plan and wish to save all but human beings have all the right to decline

his will, since they are free binges.

So we can state the argument of Talbott is a more Biblical way by shaping it more

in a traditional Christian way,

1. Since God’s eternal nature is perfect love, he sincerely extends his grace to all
his human creatures and does everything he can to elicit from them a free
response of trust and love.
2. Although free creatures can decline Gods love, his ultimate purpose of
glorifying himself cannot be defeated since his love is demonstrated whether
it is accepted or rejected.
3. Some sinners will never accept God’s love and will be forever separated from
him.45
As one can see by restating the Biblical position this way one can also escape
the guilt of contradiction that Talbott attached to the evangelical position.

Since premise two is wrong as Talbott’s argument have been analyzed then his

conclusion that all will be saved will also be wrong. That is to say the conclusion that he

puts forward that all will be saved because God wills the salivation of all and no one

triumph the will of God at the end is based on wrong premise, premise #2, that the

argument is not sound. So it is more rational to avoid a Universalist conclusion based on

the will of God.

44
Shedd, William Greenough Thayer; Gomes, Alan W.: Dogmatic Theology. 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, N.J.:P &
R Pub., 2003), 318.
45
Partridge, 'Universal Salvation?', 123.

25
 2.4. The Hurt of the Universalist Argument: The Christo Centric Argument

For Talbott especially, and other Universalists included, Romans 5:12-21 has

become a kind of a lens through which they read the rest of the Bible. The argument

based on the two Adams has become their central argument. This texts supported by the 1

Corinthians 15, where also Paul talks about the two Adams, is the nucleus of the debate

in regard to weather Christ’s death will save all or not. One cannot deny that the teaching

of Paul in both texts regarding the two Adams, one brings universal death and the other

or the second Adam reversed that, is a complex and debatable issue in the contemporary

New Testament scholarship.46

The response that Howard I. Marshall gave in a book debating Talbott is that this

text is showing us two things. First, it shows us that “to make credible that the action of

one person Christ is efficacious for all, by arguing from the universal effect of Adam’s

action,” and “Christ’s action is the only base for justification and life for all people but

that it is made operative through faith.”47 So, if the demand to believe is attached to the

salivation that Christ brought the only one to be saved are those who believed in him.

Even though Marshall got the hurt of the text very well he did not make his point in

strong and clear manner.

Talbott’s argument was this:

Premise one: All died because of one man’s disobedience, the first Adam.

46
Partridge, 'Universal Salvation?', 61.
47
Ibid., 63-64.

26
Premise two: If all died because of one man’s act of disobedience then all can come to

life with the obedience of one man.

Premise three: One man has indeed obeyed and has brought life for all

Therefore all will be saved.

Now here on this argument the key word that comes again and again is the word

“all” all died and all saved, what one has to do in responding to Talbott is to show that

this “all” is not a “all” without exception. If there is an exception in the “all” of the

textual argument then the whole thing will fail.

I think Thomas Wright explains the heart of this Christological argument, on the

following long quotation.

There [in Romans 8], Paul outlines and celebrates the hope that one day the entire
cosmos will have its own great exodus, its liberation from bondage to decay. The
point is this: the covenant between God and Israel was always designed to be
God’s means of saving the whole world. It was never supposed to be the means
whereby God would have a private little group of people who would be saved
while the rest of the world went to hell (whatever you might mean by that). Thus,
when God is faithful to the covenant in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ
and in the work of the Spirit, it makes nonsense of the Pauline gospel to imagine
that the be-all and end-all of this operation is so that God can have another,
merely different, private little group of people who are saved while the world is
consigned to the cosmic waste-paper basket. It is not insignificant that the critical
passages at this point, the middle of Romans 8 and the middle of 1 Corinthians
15, have themselves often been consigned to a kind of exegetical and theological
limbo with Protestant exegesis in particular appearing quite unsure what to do
with them…. If it is true that God intends to renew the whole cosmos through
Christ and by the Spirit – and if that isn’t true then Paul is indeed talking nonsense
in Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 15…. if the Church is commanded and authorized
to announce that gospel, it cannot rest content – for exegetical as well as
theological reasons – with anything less than this complete vision.48
In order to demonstrate that the traditional Christian position is right what one has

to do is to show that God did not plan the death of Jesus to save all, but to save those who

believe in Him, Jesus. We have apple Biblical evidences for that.

48
Wright, N.T. (1997) What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity?
(Oxford: Lion Publishing), 163-164.

27
 But first one needs to be clear on the matter of faith, “Faith is the reception of

grace.” The familiar phrase “justification by faith” may become misleading insofar as it

suggests that our faith rather than God’s grace saves. The faithful are justified by grace,

not by their own faith.”49 According to the evangelical tradition faith is the only and

necessary pre-condition that is required for a true reconciling with God.

Without faith it is impossible to receive God’s saving gifts at all. There is no

substitute for it. Faith is the primary condition for the reception of every subsequent stage

of God’s saving activity, the inward pivot of the Christian teaching of salvation. 50 If there

is no salvation without faith the Universalists are day dreaming about their hope of all

being saved, since all do not believe in Jesus.

On both texts that are sighted above to come up with the Universalist conclusion

is about the Adam-Christ analogy in Rom. 5 and 1 Corinthian. It is not a perfect analogy,

and analogy is not perfect always, but what we can say is that. Those who are “in Christ”

are described as “those who receive” eternal life, there is a qualifier to the all in the text

itself, on 5:17: “If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man,

much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of

righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.” Rom. 3-5 describes

“receiving” in terms of faith and believing, Rom 6 as “being baptized into Christ.” The

same holds true for the two Adams of 1 Corinthians 15, “all” in v.22 refers to “those in

Christ” v.23. 51
So if there is a qualifier to the all in the text, then all is not without an

49
Oden, Thomas C.: Life in the Spirit: Systematic Theology, Vol. III. (San Francisco, CA:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992) 128.
50
Ibid., 131
51
Ben Witherington, The Many Faces of the Christ: The Christologies of the New Testament and Beyond,
Companions to the New Testament (New York: Crossroad Pub, 1998).

28
exception as the universalist have tried to argue. This is not a falir on God’s side; it is just

that he is respecting human frewoll.

Talbott’s other argument is that God intended the reconciliation of all things to

himself through Christ. He thinks texts like Philippians 2 and Colossians 1 teach that

there is a day for the reconciliation of all. But the readings of those texts seem to be very

much of a subjective one. For example if we take the Philippians text, there we cannot

conceive this worship and praise to be other than genuine. Consequently, all men are

embraced in the purpose of salvation which raised Christ from the grave to the throne.

But this by no means implies that all men will actually be saved. And, as we shall Pahul

himself explained in the same epistle, Ph. 3:19, Paul did not expect that all men will

eventually be saved. The harmony of the two passages is found in the truth that God has

made the fulfillment of His own purpose of mercy contingent on man’s submission and

faith. 52 We can say here that rather than reading the texts as a whole the Universalists are

reading their own theology in to the text.

The arguments that are based on the notion of Christology, that the death of Jesus

brings the salivation and the reconciliation of all to God is based on a wrong exegesis, the

foundation is not the right one to build on once theology. Then the theologies of

Universalism based on this kind of exegesis are acceptable to evangelicals.

52
Beet, Joseph Agar: Beet's Commentaries: Philippians. (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1999), 21.

29
 CHAPTER THREE

CONCLUSION

In recent theological playground the discussion on the traditional doctrine of hell

has been revived, theologians from every mainstream Christianity are having a fresh look

at it in light of contemporary philosophical and theological scholarship. The result had

been that many evangelicals are reshaping their understanding of the doctrine or

abandoning it totally. The decline on the belief of the doctrine of hell had shown to have

brought a revival in to another doctrine, namely universalism. When people start to

abandon their belief in hell at times they are coming to the conclusion that all will be

saved.

In light of this fact the present research had attempted to deal with the rising

theology of universalism by showing its Biblical arguments and the weakness of it. As

we have seen by taking one major proponent of universalism in the contemporary

discussion, namely Thomas Talbott, the proponents claim to have a better biblical

position when it comes to answering the question ‘who will be saved?’.

The argument that Talbott put forward in support of his Universalist conclusion

has two parts, one was the Theo-centric arguments which goes like this

Premise #1: God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally, in the
sense that he sincerely wills and desires the redemption of each one of them.
Premise #2: God is omnipotent and nothing can thwart Gods redemptive love or
resist it forever, so God will triumph in the end and successfully accomplish the
redemption of everyone whose redemption he wills or desires.
Premise#3: If God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally, in the
sense that he sincerely wills and desires the redemption of each one of them and
God is omnipotent and nothing can thwart Gods redemptive love or resist it
forever, so God will triumph in the end and successfully accomplish the

30
 redemption of everyone whose redemption he wills or desires. Then everyone will
be saved.
Conclusion: Therefore, everyone will be saved.53

As we have said earlier that the reasoning is valid one, yet the premise # 2 is said

have a problem. It states that God is omnipotent and nothing can thwart Gods redemptive

love or resist it forever, so God will triumph in the end and successfully accomplish the

redemption of everyone whose redemption he wills or desires. The problem with this

with this premise is that it fails to recognize the fact that evangelical theology makes a

distinction between God’s permissive will and His efficacious will. God’s permissive will

is that part of his will that he voluntarily does not force it to happen because His free

creatures, human beings may have a freedom. This freedom is that they may accept or

decline His offer of salivation, or a repentance that leads to life. So that His will that

everyone may come to know him and get saved is his permissive will, that a human

agents can decline using their will, God given will.

The other part of the argument that Talbott advances for his Universalist theology

is the Christological arguments. The Christo-centric argument is the argument for

Universalism based on the notion that the redemptive power of Christ's death is so vast

that it is sufficient to save all humans and its goal is so wide as to intend to save all

humans. But as it seen in the paper this argument lucks a clear and strong Biblical

support to hold water.

53
Talbott, “Understanding Universalism,” 6–11.

31
 REFERENCES

Books

Beet, Joseph Agar: Beet's Commentaries: Philippians. Albany, OR: Ages Software,
1999.

Cameron, N.M. de S. Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell: Papers Presented at the
Fourth Edinburgh Conference on Christian Dogmatics, Carlisle, Cumbria:
Paternoster Press, 1992.

Christopher H. Partridge, ed., Universal Salvation?: The Current Debate, Grand Rapids,
Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2003.

Cooper, Lamar Eugene: Ezekiel. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001.

Cranfield, C. E. B.: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.
London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004.

Demarest, Bruce A.: The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation. Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway Books, 1997.

Edwards, D.L. and Stott, J. Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue. London: Hodder

& Stoughton, 1988.

Fudge, Edward W. The Fire that Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of Final
Punishment .Fallbrook, CA: Verdict, 1982.

Guthrie, Donald, New Testament Theology. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1981.

Hendriksen, William; Kistemaker, Simon J.: New Testament Commentary: Exposition of

the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001.

Hick, John, Evil and the God of Love, 1st ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.

Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. New York: Macmillan, 1962.

_________, Death and Eternal Life. Glasgow: Collins, 1979.

_________, The Great Divorce. Glasgow: Collins, 1977.

_________, The Problem of Pain (Glasgow: Collins, 1977).

_________, Surprised by Joy (London: Fount, 1998.

Lewis, Chafer. S, “For Whom Did Christ Die?,” in Vital Theological Issues (Grand
Rapid, Mich: Kregel, 1994)

32
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford, UK ; Cambridge,
Mass., USA: Blackwell, 1994).

________________, Justification by Faith (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie, 1988).

Oden, Thomas C.: Life in the Spirit : Systematic Theology, Vol. III. (San Francisco, CA :
HarperSanFrancisco, 1992)

Robinson, J.A.T. In the End God: A Study of the Christian Doctrine of the Last Things
(London: James Clarke & Co. 1950).

Sanders, E.P. Paul: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).

Shedd, William Greenough Thayer; Gomes, Alan W.: Dogmatic Theology. 3rd ed.
( Phillipsburg, N.J. : P & R Pub., 2003).

Wiersbe, Warren W.: The Bible Exposition Commentary.( Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books,
1996, c1989).

Wright, N.T. (1997) What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of
Christianity? (Oxford: Lion Publishing) 163-164.

Witherington, Ben The Many Faces of the Christ: The Christologies of the New
Testament and Beyond, Companions to the New Testament (New York:
Crossroad Pub, 1998).

_______________, Conflict and Community in Corinth: a Socio-rhetorical Commentary

on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich. : Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans ;
Paternoster Press, 1995).

Dictionaries

Elwell, Walter A.; Elwell, Walter A.: Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997.

Grenz, Stanley; Guretzki, David; Nordling, Cherith Fee: Pocket Dictionary of

Theological Terms. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Evans, C. Stephen: Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion. Downers

Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

33
Journal Articles

Bauckham, R. ‘Universalism: A Historical Survey’ Themelios Vol. 4 No. 2, (1979) 48-

54.

Bettis, J.D. ‘Is Karl Barth a Universalist?’ Scottish Journal of Theology Vol. 20 No. 4,
(1967) 423-36.

Blum, E.A. ‘Shall You Not Surely Die?’ Themelios Vol. 4 No. 2, (1979) 58-61.

Robinson, J.A.T. ‘Universalism: Is It Heretical?’ Scottish Journal of Theology Vol. 2

No. 2, (1949a) 139-155.

Robinson, J.A.T. ‘Universalism: A Reply’ Scottish Journal of Theology Vol. 2 No. 4,

(1949b) 378-380.

Talbott, T. The Love of God and the Heresy of Exclusivism’ Christian Scholar’s Review
Vol. 27 No. 1, (1997) 99-112.

Thomas, P.W. ‘To Hell with Hell’ in Church Times No 73. (2003) 7345.

Torrance, T.F. ‘Universalism or Election’ Scottish Journal of Theology Vol. 2 No. 3,

(1949) 310-318.

Wright, N.T. ‘Towards a Biblical View of Universalism’ in Themelios Vol. 4 No. 2,

(1979) 54-58.

34