False Comfort: The Treacherous Gospel of Wrathless Universalism

[Michie]

An increasing number of Christian books, podcasts and blog posts tell us that we shouldn’t believe in a God who judges and punishes sinners—especially on the Cross of Jesus or eternally in Hell. Sooner or later, they assure us, everybody will be saved.

Here are 10 questions to ask when you encounter such theology:

1. Does it take God’s holiness seriously enough?​

Sin creates all kinds of problems for us with ourselves, with the world and with the devil. But the biggest problem it creates for us is that it makes us unable to approach God himself. Our sins separate us from our holy God (Is 59:2) and he responds to them by barring our approach: with flaming swords (Gen 3:24 c.f. 4;16); with storm and darkness (Ex 19); with curtains and smoke (Lev 16). If none of that deters us he is likely to kill us (1Sam 6:19-20).

Sin creates all kinds of problems for us with ourselves, with the world and with the devil. But the biggest problem is that it makes us unable to approach God himself.

Some writers recoil from this. Heaven forbid that we should need to be saved from God. Isn’t God always close to us? (c.f. Ps 139:7-8; Acts 17:27) Didn’t Jesus come close to sinners without destroying them? Indeed. But these are modes of God’s presence where his radiant glory is concealed so that he can show us other aspects of his nature—namely, his mercy and patience (see more below). If we want to endure in God’s presence—if we want to survive when he reveals himself in his glory—then we need atonement. We need the sacrifice and blood of Jesus to secure our eternal redemption (Heb 9:12); to forgive our sins (v 22); to enter the holy presence of God (Heb 10:19-22).

2. Does it take sin seriously enough?​

Continued below.

False Comfort: The Treacherous Gospel of Wrathless Universalism - The Gospel Coalition | Australia

An increasing number of Christian books, podcasts and blog posts tell us that we shouldn’t believe in a God who judges and punishes sinners—especially on the Cross of Jesus or...

au.thegospelcoalition.org

 

[PloverWing]

I will address some of these 10 questions from the point of view of a particular version of universalism, namely, the idea that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ will save all of humankind (and perhaps all of creation), even those who do not understand what Christ did.

1. "Does it take God's holiness seriously enough?": Yes. I have no disagreement with Moody's statement that "We need the sacrifice and blood of Jesus to secure our eternal redemption (Heb 9:12); to forgive our sins (v 22); to enter the holy presence of God (Heb 10:19-22)."

2. "Does it take sin seriously enough?": Moody asserts that because it is hard to quantify what, exactly, would constitute adequate vengeance for the crimes of a Bundy or an Epstein, that we therefore have no grounds to object if God carries out infinite vengeance on them. I think this approach renders meaningless the assertion that "God is good". True, I do not have a perfect understanding of goodness. But I have some understanding of goodness. If God's actions are too far from the human understanding of goodness, then it becomes meaningless to say that God is good.

3. "Does it abuse hermeneutics and theology to get around difficult passages?": The Bible is not totally consistent in its description of the afterlife. All of us have to "get around" some passages; we just disagree on which passages those are. Question 6 (church history) is similar.

8. "Does it muddle God’s love?": Moody asserts that "those who make it usually fail to see that God’s eternal and essential love is not his general good-will for us, but his love for his Son. It is Jesus—not us—who stands at the centre of God’s affection and plans." So, I'll agree that the Trinity is a picture of God's eternal love for God's self, and that God's self is more worthy of being loved than I am. Still, the idea that God's love is chiefly self-centered is an odd picture of love.

Two closing observations:

Moody, in his exploration of question 1, says this: "Heaven forbid that we should need to be saved from God." This is one of the most important critiques of Moody's position, and Moody should not dismiss it too quickly.

And, I'm not sure Moody pays enough attention to the idea of judgment as salvation. If group X is oppressing person Y, then one way of saving Y from oppression is to forcibly put an end to X's acts of oppression and all the structures that support it -- bring down the empire, destroy the kingdom, etc. There's a lot of that in the prophets' descriptions of judgment and wrath. This is going to be pretty painful for X, though I'll note that it has the effect of saving X from being able to carry out any further acts of oppression in the former manner, so there's spiritual benefit for X in this too. It would have been better if X could have been persuaded, but if not, then God will act with force to end X's evil. All this is consistent with universal reconciliation.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Ultimate reconciliation results in most people having their personalities wiped by the lake of fire and then cared for by the saints since their spiritual minds and bodies are already adults.

In terms of God's perception of hierarchy, the saints would be providing service, and thus "greater" than those who needed to be cleansed in the lake of fire for "ages and ages"

Wrath's there, it's just not talked about as much.