- Feb 5, 2002
- 166,485
- 56,168
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
“To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him forever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell.’” (CCC 1033)
Universalism is the Protestant, Muslim and gnostic idea that regardless of what anyone wants, does or cheers for, everyone must go to Heaven, nolens volens –– against his will. No one has a choice. Murderer and victim. Burglar and burgled. Drunk and teetotaler.
Let’s break down the arguments against this pernicious and baseless notion:
1. If universalism is correct, it would mean Jesus was wrong. And not just merely wrong in the conventual sense as in “missed the mark,” but rather in the sense of being a spectacularly crazed lunatic. I’m very wary of Christians who say, explicitly or implicitly, “Had Jesus only had the common sense and decency to have consulted me, I could have explained to Him why He was so dreadfully wrong.” There’s no doubt God wants us all in Heaven (Psalm 98:3, Psalm 67:2, Isaiah 45:22, Zechariah 8:7, Luke 13:23, John 5:34, Romans 11:26, Romans 10:1, 1 Timothy 2:4). But each time God or his mouthpieces announced his desire that all may be saved, he added a proviso. “Repent!” “Be holy as I am holy!” He never said, “Sin and sin boldly!” or “Knock yourselves out! I didn’t expect anyone to take this stuff seriously!”
2. Universalism cheapens not only Christ’s message but also casts doubt upon who and what Jesus is. Why trust anyone who is so wrong about his own message? But the truth is twofold: (1) We have no proof that Jesus was wrong about Christian ecclesiology –– he’s God and he has always told us the truth (Genesis 22:16). Why come to doubt him now? (2) We have absolutely zero proof that universalism is correct. Why would a universalist ignore more than 100 references to Hell in the New Testament alone? Could Jesus be that wrong or is it just the universalists who are wrong?
Continued below.
Dare We Admit That Not All Will Be Saved?
Universalism is the Protestant, Muslim and gnostic idea that regardless of what anyone wants, does or cheers for, everyone must go to Heaven, nolens volens –– against his will. No one has a choice. Murderer and victim. Burglar and burgled. Drunk and teetotaler.
Let’s break down the arguments against this pernicious and baseless notion:
1. If universalism is correct, it would mean Jesus was wrong. And not just merely wrong in the conventual sense as in “missed the mark,” but rather in the sense of being a spectacularly crazed lunatic. I’m very wary of Christians who say, explicitly or implicitly, “Had Jesus only had the common sense and decency to have consulted me, I could have explained to Him why He was so dreadfully wrong.” There’s no doubt God wants us all in Heaven (Psalm 98:3, Psalm 67:2, Isaiah 45:22, Zechariah 8:7, Luke 13:23, John 5:34, Romans 11:26, Romans 10:1, 1 Timothy 2:4). But each time God or his mouthpieces announced his desire that all may be saved, he added a proviso. “Repent!” “Be holy as I am holy!” He never said, “Sin and sin boldly!” or “Knock yourselves out! I didn’t expect anyone to take this stuff seriously!”
2. Universalism cheapens not only Christ’s message but also casts doubt upon who and what Jesus is. Why trust anyone who is so wrong about his own message? But the truth is twofold: (1) We have no proof that Jesus was wrong about Christian ecclesiology –– he’s God and he has always told us the truth (Genesis 22:16). Why come to doubt him now? (2) We have absolutely zero proof that universalism is correct. Why would a universalist ignore more than 100 references to Hell in the New Testament alone? Could Jesus be that wrong or is it just the universalists who are wrong?
Continued below.
Dare We Admit That Not All Will Be Saved?
