Some Who Held This View
Due to the doctrine of the reconciliation of all things rarely being taught in the churches today, many Christians have mistakenly assumed that it must be a new teaching. Some have even asked me if I am the only one who believes and teaches these things. I am very happy to respond by pointing the saints to the great antiquity of this doctrine, and the many who have embraced it as truth.
Augustine (often referred to as Saint Augustine) lived from 354-430 A.D.. He is widely hailed as the father of Roman Catholic doctrine. Augustine was a believer in eternal torment, but acknowledged that this was not the universal view of the day in which he lived. Augustine made mention of Christians who embraced the doctrine of the reconciliation of all things to God, and of a limited duration to God’s punishments of sinners in hell, or the lake of fire.
I must now, I see, enter the lists of amicable (friendly) controversy with those tender-hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or that all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or shorter according to the amount of each man’s sin. In respect of this matter, Origen was even more indulgent; for he believed that even the devil himself and his angels, after suffering those more severe and prolonged pains which their sins deserved, should be delivered from their torments… Very different, however, is the error we speak of, which is dictated by the tenderness of these Christians who suppose that the sufferings of those who are condemned in the judgment will be temporary…
[Augustine, The City of God, Book 21, Ch 17 ]
Augustine referenced Origen, one of the early church fathers, who dwelt in Alexandria, Egypt. Origen had a wide influence upon the doctrine of the early church. Origen lived nearly two centuries before Augustine, his life spanning the years of 184-253 A.D.. Origen was less than two centuries distant from the time of Christ’s bodily ministry, and he wrote and taught in support of the doctrine of the reconciliation of all things to God through Christ.
Origen was a pupil of an even earlier church father, Clement of Alexandria (Clemens Alexandrinus), who lived from 150-215 A.D.. Clement also taught the doctrine of the reconciliation of all things in the catechetical school in Alexandria, which was a type of early seminary, or Bible college. These men in turn pointed to the teachings of the apostles of Christ in setting forth their beliefs, even as I have done in this writing. The great antiquity of this doctrine is well documented. It is not a new teaching as some suppose.
In more recent times there have been a number of notable saints that have believed in the universal reconciliation of all. Among them are Jane Leade, author of A Revelation of the Everlasting Gospel Message; William Law, in A Humble Earnest and Affectionate Address to the Clergy (John and Charles Wesley made William Law required reading for the Methodists); Hannah Hurnard who wrote Hinds’ Feet on High Places (In her book Unveiled Glory, Hannah Hurnard discusses her belief in this doctrine); Hannah Whitall Smith, author of The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life (It was in her autobiography titled The Unselfishness of God that she discusses her belief in the reconciliation of all. Several chapters were devoted to this topic, but have been removed by others from later re-prints of her book.); and Sadhu Sundar Singh.
I have previously cited Andrew Jukes, a minister in England who wrote The Restitution of All Things in the year 1876, and J. Preston Eby who penned the worthy teaching series titled The Savior of the World. These represent some of the saints who have held to this teaching in these latter days, demonstrating that this doctrine has never been extinguished. It has always been held by a remnant of God’s people.
In 1895 a Biblical encyclopedia was published that included an entry on the origin and history of the doctrine of universal reconciliation. The authors of the encyclopedia were Reverend John McClintock, and James Strong. This is the same James Strong who compiled Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Neither of these men were adherents of a belief in the restitution of all things, but they provided an unbiased account of the history of this doctrine, and of some who taught this view. The Biblical encyclopedia is now out of copyright, and is in the public domain, so I am including the majority of the text from the article in this addendum.
McClintock and Strong did not provide an exhaustive history of this doctrine, nor name all of those who have taught this truth, but what they did provide is well researched and serves to provide an understanding that this is not some new teaching that has recently appeared. As you read this article, I would draw your attention to the persecutions suffered by many who taught this view, and note the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the suppression of this doctrine. The Roman Church is not known to be a champion of truth, but has frequently been the persecutor, and executioner, of men and women of conscience who have sought to walk in the light of truth.
The following is taken from the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume 10, 1895, pp. 109-133, Rev. John McClintock and James Strong.
I. Origin and History. –
(I.) Informal. –
1. In Former Centuries…. In 195 Clemens Alexandrinus, who was president of the Catechetical School at Alexandria, advocated Universalism on the ground of the remedial character of all punishment. His pupil and successor in the school, Origen Adamantius, famous alike for his learning, piety, and zeal, taught Universalism on the ground of the ever-continuing freedom of the will, the deep mental and spiritual anguish occasioned by the light and knowledge of the truth until it leads to repentance, and then the harmony of the soul with God. Origen’s position, abilities, and untiring efforts for the spread of the Gospel gave him great influence with his pupils, and with the Church at large, in whose behalf he became a voluminous writer. In addition to his position and work in the school of Alexandria, he also had care for several years, in connection with Pamphilius, of the theological school at Caesarea, one of whose distinguished pupils was the celebrated Gregory Thaumaturgus, a great admirer of his master’s theories, and finally, about A.D. 235, his strong defender and ardent eulogist. Pamphilius, and Eusebius, the first Church historian, also defended Origen’s doctrines from charges brought against them by the Western Church, and in answering the complaint that he denied all future punishment they quote from his writings in contradiction thereof, not only his positive assurances of future and severe punishment, but his equally positive assertion that such correction is purifying and salutary. In A.D. 364, Titus, bishop of Bostra, wrote in advocacy of Universalism, contending that, although there are torments in the abyss of hell, they are not eternal, but that their great severity will lead the wicked to repentance and so to salvation. Gregory of Nyssa, A.D. 380, also advocated Universalism on the same grounds. Contemporary with him was the justly celebrated defender of orthodoxy, Didymus the Blind, a successor of Origen in the school at Alexandria, and a zealous Universalist. Prominent among his scholars was Jerome, eminent alike for his abilities, his inconsistencies, and instability. Universalism as taught by Origen is clearly and ably set forth by Jerome in his commentaries on the epistles, and in his letters. John, bishop of Jerusalem at this period, was also an advocate of Universalism on Origen’s theory. Another contemporary, Diodorus, a teacher of great repute in the school at Antioch, and afterwards bishop of Jerusalem, was also a Universalist, who, in opposition to the then general prevalence of allegorical interpretation, strictly adhered to the natural import of the text in his many commentaries on the Scriptures. He defended Universalism on the ground that the divine mercy far exceeds all the effects and all the desserts of sin. His pupil and successor in the school, Theodore of Mopsuestia, A.D. 420, called “the crown and climax of the school of Antioch,” and by the Nestorians, whose sect he founded, “the interpreter of the Word of God,” and whose writings were text-books in the schools of Eastern Syria, was a prominent and influential Universalist. His theory was that sin is an incidental part of the development and education of the human race; that, while sore are more involved in it than others, God will overrule it to the final establishment of all in good. He is the reputed author of the liturgy used by the Nestorians, a Church which at one time equaled, in its membership the combined adherents of both the Greek and Latin communions, and which has had no rival in military zeal. In the addresses and prayers of this liturgy Universalism is distinctly avowed. Theodoret, A.D. 430, bishop of Cyprus in Syria, a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia, was also a Universalist, holding the doctrine on the theory advocated by the Antiochian school. For some time prior to this, certain opinions of Origen on pre-existence and on the salvation of the devil had been in dispute and pronounced heretical by a synod; but his doctrine of the universal salvation of the human race had not been involved in this condemnation. At a local council called by the emperor Justinian at Constantinople, A.D. 544, Origen’s doctrine of universal salvation was declared heretical. Nine years later another council was held by the same authority at the same place, when condemnation was pronounced on the Nestorians, although their belief in Universalism was not mentioned. It has been common to call this an ecumenical council, but without warrant (see the action of the Latin Church in refusing to recognize it or to send a legate to it). Doderlein, in his Institutes of Christian Theology, after quoting the decree of Justinian against Origen, says, “That was not the belief of all, and in proportion as any one was eminent in learning in Christian antiquity, the more did he cherish and defend the hope of the termination of future “torments.” Drexelius, in his defense of eternal punishment, gives this testimony, “That God should doom the apostate angels and men at the day of retribution to eternal torments seemed so hard and incredible a doctrine to some persons that even Origen himself who was mighty in the Scriptures, and no less famous for his admirable wit and excellent learning, presumed to maintain in his book of principles that both the devils and the damned, after a certain period of years, the fire having purged or cleansed them from their pollutions, should be restored to grace. Augustine and others set forth his error and condemned him for it. But, notwithstanding their condemnation, this error has found a great many in the world who have given it a kind of civil reception. The Anti heretics so called, dispersed this error throughout all Spain under various interpretations.” Gieseler, the ecclesiastical historian, says, “The belief in the inalienable capacity of improvement in all rational beings and the limited duration of future punishment, was so general, even in the West, and among the opponents of Origen, that, even if it may not be said to have arisen without the influence of Origen’s school, it had become entirely independent of his system.” And Augustine bears this testimony: “Some – nay, very many – from human sympathy commiserate the eternal punishment of the damned and their perpetual torture without intermission, and thus do not believe in it; not, indeed, by opposing the Holy Scriptures, but by softening all the severe things according to their own feelings, and giving a milder meaning to those things which they think are said in them more terribly than truly.” Universalism almost wholly disappeared during the period known as the Dark Ages, although there are occasional glimpses of it even in the mutilated records which the papal Church has permitted to descend to us. In the 7th century, Maximus, the Greek monk and confessor taught Universalism; in the 8th, Clement of Ireland was deposed from the priesthood for teaching that when Christ descended into hell he restored all the damned; while in the 9th, John Scotus Erigena, a famous philosopher who stood at the head of the learned of the court of France, was a bold defender of Universalism. In the 11th century, the Albigenses were, according to papal authorities, Universalists; In the 12th, Raynold, abbot of St. Martin’s, in France, was charged before a council with holding “that all men will eventually be saved;”. In the 13th, Solomon, bishop of Bassorah, discussed the question of universal salvation, answering it in the affirmative. The Lollards in the 14th century taught Universalism in Bohemia and Austria; and at the same period a council convened by Langman, archbishop of Canterbury, gave judgment against Universalism as one of the heresies then taught in that province. In the early part of the 15th century, a sect called “Men of Understanding” taught Universalism in Flanders, advocating it on the ground of the German Mystics, as did Tauler of Strasburg, and John Wessel, who, with others, have been called “the Reformers before the Reformation,” whose writings Luther industriously studied and greatly admired.
2. In Modern Times. – With the Reformation, Universalism made a fresh appearance early in the 16th century, chiefly among some of the Anabaptist sects. The seventeenth article of the Augustine Confession, 1530, was expressly framed to “condemn the Anabaptists, who maintain that there shall be an end: to the punishments of the damned and of the devils.” Denk, Hetzer, and Stanislaus Pannonius were the most eminent defenders of Universalism at this period. Later in the century, Samuel Huber, divinity professor at Wittenberg, taught Universalism, it is alleged by Spanheim; and because, says Musheim, he would not go back to the old methods of teaching, “he was compelled to relinquish his office and go into exile.” Early in the 17th century, Ernest Sonner, professor of philosophy at Altorf, published “a theological and philosophical demonstration that the endless punishment of the wicked would argue, not the justice, but the injustice, of God.” John William Petersen, at one time court preacher at Lutin, and subsequently superintendent at Lunenberg, adopted and defended Universalism with such zeal that he was cited before the consistory, and, as he could not conscientiously renounce his convictions, was deprived of his office and forced into private life. In his retirement he wrote and published three folio volumes on Universalism, entitled Musterion Apokatastaseos Paltan, in which he mentions many who had defended that doctrine. The volumes appeared between the years 1700 and 1710. They opened a century of spirited controversy, of which Mosheim says, “The points of theology which had been controverted in the 17th century were destined to excite keener disputes in the 18th, such ‘as the eternity of hell torments, and the final restoration of all intelligent beings to order, perfection, and happiness.” Dietelmair, an opponent of Universalism, wrote on its history about the middle of this century. In the preface to his work he speaks of the contests which raged vehemently enough within the very bounds of the orthodox Church in the end of the last century ‘the’ beginning of the present.” Among the defenses of Universalism contained in the first volume of Petersen’s work was the Everlasting Gospel, attributed to Paul Siegvolk, which was but an assumed name of George Klein-Nicolai, deposed for his Universalism as preacher of Friessdorf. He published other works in defense of Universalism, but the most rapid and lasting popularity belonged to the Everlasting Gospel, which in forty-five years passed through five editions in Germany. In 1726 John Henry Haug, professor at Strasburg, having procured the assistance of Dr. Ernest Christoph Hochman, Christian Dippel, Count De Marcey, and others, commenced the publication of the Berleburger Bibel, an entirely new translation and commentary of the Holy Scriptures. They made themselves familiar with all the writings of the Mystics, and in their great work taught and defended Universalism from the Mystical standpoint. Their work fills eight large folio volumes, the last of which was published in 1742. Strong persecution assailing them, and no printer being willing to risk his office in doing their work, they were compelled to purchase their own type and a small press. When the Church they had established was at last broken up by their enemies, the members fled to America, taking their press with them, and it was set up by Christopher Sower in Germantown, Pa. One of De Marcey’s intimate friends was George De Benneville, born of French parents in London in 1703. Before he was twenty years of age he commenced preaching in France, where he was arrested and condemned to die, but was reprieved on the scaffold by Louis XV. Making his way into Germany, he ‘there preached Universalism several years, and then came to America. In 1727 appeared Ludvig Gerhard’s Complete System of the Everlasting Gospel of the Restoration of All Things, together with the Baseless Opposite Doctrine of Eternal Damnation. The author was at one time professor of theology in the University of Rostock, and his publication called forth, according to Walch, no less than fourteen volumes in reply. Jung, Stilling in the latter part of the 18th century, an able defender of Christianity against German rationalism, was an ardent and eminent Universalist. Prof. Tholuck wrote, in 1835, that this doctrine “came particularly into notice through Jung-Stilling, that eminent man who was a particular instrument in the hand of God for keeping up evangelical truth in the latter part of the former century, and at the same time a strong patron to that doctrine.” During the present century, Universalism has made rapid progress in Germany. Olshausen says of it that it ‘”has, no doubt, a deep root in noble minds, and is the expression of a heart-felt desire for a perfect harmony of the creation.” Dr. Dwight wrote in 1829, “The doctrine of the eternity of future punishment is almost universally rejected…”
In England the Protestants, in drawing up their Forty-two Articles of Religion, in 1552, condemned Universalism. Ten years later, when the convocation revised the doctrines of the Church, the number of articles was reduced to thirty-nine, omitting, among others, the one condemning Universalism. Since that time Universalism has not been a forbidden doctrine in the Church of England, but has been advocated and defended by some of the most eminent members of its communion-such men as Dr. Henry More, Sir George Stonehouse, Bp. Thomas Newton, Dr. David Hartley, William Whiston, Dr. Thomas Burnet, Revs. Frederick W. Robertson, Charles Kingsley, Stopford Brooke, and canon Farrar, and indirectly by archbishop Tillotson. The Presbyterian Parliament of 1648, which temporarily overthrew Episcopacy, passed a law against all heresies, punishing the persistent holders of some with death, and of others with imprisonment. “That all men shall be saved” was among the heresies punishable in the latter manner. This law was not long operative, for the Independents, headed by Cromwell, soon overthrew the law-makers. Gerard Willstanley published a work in advocacy of Universalism only a few days after the passage of the law, which was soon followed by similar works from his pen. William Earbury fearlessly preached Universalism. Richard Coppin was active in its advocacy, publishing largely in its exposition and defense, and was several times tried for his offence. Samuel Richardson, an eminent Baptist, also wrote strongly in its behalf. Sir Henry Vane (the younger), member of the Parliament dissolved by Cromwell, and in 1636 governor of Massachusetts, was a Universalist. Jeremy White, one of Cromwell’s chaplains, preached Universalism, and published a work which has passed through several editions. Jane Lead, a. Mystic, was the author of several Universalist books. Henry Brooke, a literary writer, avowed his belief in Universalism in his Fool of Quality, and in a poem on the Messiah. William Law, author of the Serious Call, declared in his Letters, “As for the purification of all human nature, I fully believe it, either in this world or some after ages.” The English literary reviews of the last century contain many notices of works in defense of Universalism. In 1750 James Relly, who had been a preacher in Whitefield’s connection, shocked at the doctrine of reprobation, was by meditation and study led into another scheme of redemption, some of the peculiarities of which may be said to have had their origin with him. Accepting as true the common theory that all men, having sinned in Adam, justly incurred eternal damnation, and that Christ had borne this infinite guilt and punishment in behalf of all who should be saved, Relly was moved to find, if possible, some ground of justice in such a scheme. The divine law explicitly declares that “the soul which sinneth, it shall die,” and that the innocent shall not suffer for the guilty. How could a transfer of human sin and penalty to Christ be consistent with that law? How could it be reconciled with equity? The divine sovereignty, without regard to inherent justice in the plan, could not account for it for the absoluteness that could set justice aside might just as easily, and more mercifully, have gone straight to its aim by remitting instead of transferring sin and its deserts. To say that the sufferings of Christ were merely accepted as satisfaction for human deserts, only reckoned as such, by God’s sovereign pleasure, was no adequate explanation, since they were thus only a fictitious, not a real, satisfaction; and, further, any sufferings whatsoever, even those of a man, would have answered just as well as an arbitrary acceptance of the coequal of God. The perfect consistency of God’s procedure, its absolute harmony with justice and equity, Relly found, as he claimed, in such a real and thorough union of Christ with the human race as made their acts his, and his theirs. All men, he held, were really in Adam and sinned in him, not by a fictitious imputation, but by-actual participation; equally so are all men in the second Adam, “the head of every man,” and he is as justly accountable for what they do as is the head in the natural body, accountable for the deeds of all the members united to that head. Accordingly Christ, in his corporate capacity, was truly guilty of the offence of the ‘human race, and could be, as he actually was, justly punished for it; and the race, because of this’ union, really suffered in him all the penalty which he endured, and thus fully satisfied justice. There is no more punishment, therefore, due for sin, nor any further occasion for declaring the demands of the law, except to make men feel their inability to obey, and thus compel them to an exclusive reliance on Christ the head. He has effected a complete and finished justification of the whole world. When man believes this he is freed from the sense of guilt, freed also from all doubt and fear. Until he believes it he is, whether in this world or in another, under the condemnation of unbelief and darkness, the only condemnation now possible to the human race. In illustration and defense of this theory, Relly wrote and published several books, preached zealously in London and vicinity, and gathered a congregation in the metropolis. After his death in 1778, two societies were formed from his congregation; but both have now ceased to exist, as has the society gathered by Winchester about 1789, and the Church founded by David Thom, D.D., in Liverpool in 1825. The Unitarians in England are all believers in Universalism, as are also many of the Congregationalists.
3. In America Universalism is the result of the proclamation of a variety of theories, some of them at a very early date, all resulting in one conclusion – the final holiness of the human race. Sir Henry Vane as was said above, was a Universalist. It is not known that while in America he made any public avowal of that belief; but the presumption is that he did not stand alone. In July, 1684, Joseph Gatchell, of Marblehead, Mass., was brought before the Suffolk County Court for discoursing “that all men should be saved,” and, being convicted, was sentenced “to the pillory and to have his tongue drawn forth and-pierced with a hot iron.” Dr. George De Benneville, also mentioned above, came to America in 1741, expressly called of God, as he believed, to preach the Gospel in the New World. For more than fifty years he preached in various parts of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas. He was not an organizer, but simply a preacher, and quite a voluminous writer, though only a few of his productions were published. For several years he was welcomed to the pulpits of the “Brethren” (Dunkers). It was no doubt at his suggestion that Siegvolk’s Everlasting Gospel was translated into English, and published by Christopher Sower, printed, probably, on the identical press on which the Berleburger Bibel had been struck off. This edition was reviewed by Rev. N. Pomp, a German minister in Philadelphia. Alexander Mack, an eminent preacher among the Dunkers, replied to Pomp, defending Siegvolk’s views. This work was never published, but the MS. is still preserved. There was found among Dr. De Bonneville’s papers, after his death, in 1793, a Commentary on the Apocalypse, which was printed in German, at Lebanon, Pa., in 1808. There was also Universalism in the Episcopal Church. Rev. Richard Clarke, rector of St. Philip’s in Charleston, S. C., from 1754 to 1759, was a pronounced advocate of it; as was Rev. John Tyler, rector of the Church in Norwich, Conn., who wrote a work in its defense, which was published by some one to whom he had loaned his MS., about 1787. Some of the Congregationalists of New England were believers in Universalism; among them Dr. Jonathan Mayhew, minister of the West Church in Boston from 1747 to 1766, who distinctly avowed his belief in it in a published Thanksgiving Sermon, Dec. 9, 1762. Dr. Charles Chauncy, minister of the First Church in Boston from 1727 to 1787, issued a pamphlet on the subject in 1782, which was reviewed by Dr. Samuel Mather. In 1784 his larger work The Salvation-of All Men was published, a second edition following in 1787. Dr. Joseph Huntington, minister in Coventry, Conn., from 1762 to 1794, left a work in favor of Universalism, entitled Calvinism Improved, which was published in 1796.
Should any desire to read further, I recommend the following as some of the most thorough writings documenting the history of this teaching.
Ancient history of Universalism: from the time of the apostles to the fifth general council, with an appendix tracing the doctrine to the Reformation
by Hosea Ballou. This book consists of 313 pages.
Following closely on this writing was one by a different author.
The Modern History of Universalism: from the era of the Reformation to the Present Time. This book is 458 pages in length and was written by Thomas Whittemore. It should be pointed out that “the Present Time” is a reference to the year 1830 in which this book was published. These two books together provide perhaps the most comprehensive history of the doctrine of universal reconciliation as can be found today. Both of these books can be read online, or freely downloaded from Google Books.
Final Note: Today, the term Universalism is used to denote a wide array of very diverse views, and often incompatible, views. Some have asked me if I consider myself to be an Universalist. Following is a reply I recently gave to one who asked this question.
It is necessary to define what you mean by the term “Universalism” as the word means very different things to different people. Some who consider themselves “Universalists” are clearly heretical in their beliefs. The Unitarian Universalist church is an example of this. They believe that all religions provide various paths that lead to God.
What I proclaim is that there is only ONE Mediator between God and man, and that is Yahshua, the Son of God. He is THE gate through which ALL MEN must enter. There is no other name given under heaven by which men must be saved.
There are many who are called Universalists who deny the uniqueness of Christ. Like thieves and robbers they seek to enter by another way. I would not want to in any way be associated with such false doctrines and beliefs.
For this reason, I find it expedient to avoid labels. I do not call myself an Universalist. I am a son of God who believes that Christ has been given the singular role to reconcile the creation back to the Father. I believe His power is sufficient to subject all things unto Himself, and by extension, unto the Father. I believe Christ’s reconciling work will not be complete until every enemy has been brought to repentance, and every knee bows before the Father. I believe that what God has sworn is true. Every tongue will confess “Surely in Yahweh I HAVE righteousness and strength,” and all who were incensed with Him will be ashamed.
This is what I teach, for it is what has been delivered to the saints by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.
May you be blessed with peace and understanding in these days,
Joseph Herrin (November 25, 2011)
Heart4God Website: http://www.heart4god.ws
Parables Blog: www.parablesblog.blogspot.com
P.O. Box 804
Montezuma, GA 31063
In light of the doctrine of the restitution of all things (TROAT), does this not require a reassessment of how we view the teachings by so many preachers of the "Prosperity Doctrine," Catholicism and, for that matter, almost every organized Christian faith tradition?
Are they not also preaching a type of universality in that they recognize, perhaps for the wrong reasons, that God is in fact an unlimited and boundless God and that He wills that ALL be saved? For example: While they may preach eternal damnation for those who deny Christ they also preach the salvation of even the most sinful of believers using the doctrine of “Once Saved Always Saved.” And so, those they “lose” in the first case are yet still saved by the second— if only they believe.
Even though I would think that we both would find these teachings in gross error on their face knowing what we believe about how God wants us to push and strive for Him, but given TROAT, are they not correct in the final analysis? Doesn’t it become a case of “Ye’ll take the high road and I’ll take the low road and I’ll be Scotland (Heaven) afore ye?”
A few questions:
1) Given TROAT, aren’t all who profess faith in Christ now reconciled?
2) Given TROAT, aren’t arguments over doctrines now vain after one comes to believe that Christ did come to save all through His sacrifice on the cross?
3) Given TROAT, isn’t the rest of doctrine, albeit significant to you and me, become mere detail when compared to the fact that He does not relegate unbelievers to eternal damnation and that all will be saved in their season?
If the answers to these are “yes”, are we not to show others that the pain and suffering that their ego will bring them can be removed through their faith and that future pain and suffering can be eliminated—yet they will be saved no matter what? Wouldn’t this bring so many more to salvation if it were communicated that they are destined to become “begotten children” because before Him “every knee shall bend.”
What now, are we fighting fore if all will be saved? Are we not now simply praying for our brothers and sisters to stop their hardheadedness and self punishment in their denial of their true identity as God’s children?
Your premise here seems to be one of confusion. You suggest that those preaching eternal damnation are somehow actually preaching the reconciliation of all things to God. I am unable to follow your logic, or agree with your conclusions.
For example, you say that the prosperity crowd preaches the salvation of even the most sinful of believers, which basically makes them proponents of TROAT. A correct understanding of the God's plan of the ages must include the truth that carnal Christians will not be saved from the lake of fire. God will not be mocked. These ones will suffer great loss as they share a place with the unbelievers.
Whereas it is true that no man will remain in the lake of fire forever, I believe it is wrong minded to conclude that there is any harmony between the teachings of apostate Christianity and the doctrine of Christ and His apostles.
In your question section, you asked a few questions, and from your conclusion at the end it seems you would infer a positive response to them. I would most definitely answer the first two questions with a resounding "NO!"
Question 1: No! All who profess faith in Christ are not reconciled. Christ said that many will stand before Him in judgment and expect entrance into His Father's kingdom. He will reply, "Depart from Me. I never knew you, you workers of lawlessness."
There is a vast number of people today who honor God with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him. These one cannot be judged to be reconciled to God. Christ is certainly not "all" in these saints lives. He does not fill all things. They have not come near to a mature man, to the fulness of the stature that belongs to Christ." God will not be mocked. These are not reconciled, for their actions speak otherwise.
Question 2 is also a resounding "NO!" Doctrine becomes more important than ever. To be fully reconciled to God one must walk in truth. We are to increase in the true knowledge of God, and depart from error. As we come to know God better we will lay aside the error we once walked in. There are so many Scriptures proclaiming the importance of right doctrine that it is quite impossible to answer your second question affirmatively.
Paul states that in the last days men will not endure sound doctrine. Many have concluded exactly what you have suggested; they declare that doctrine is not important. Even the uniqueness of Christ is deemed irrelevant by some. We must teach sound doctrine.
Regarding question three, I cannot agree that all other doctrine has become irrelevant to mankind. I believe you are on the wrong track with this line of reasoning. The goal of Christianity is conformity to Christ, not escape from hell. This conformity will only come with sound doctrine, teaching the message of the disciple's cross and the foundations of the faith. There must be growth in obedience to Christ and in the knowledge of the truth.
First, thank you for taking the time to set the record straight and to rightly discern where the lines are when it comes to TROAT.
You are probably right that my questions were born of confusion, but not mine, but of the teachings of others because it is very common to preach the salvation of all believers using Once Saved Always Saved "OSAS" which does exactly what I set forth in my question. The do not teach TROAT but they, on the one hand, teach the Lake of Fire in the context of eternal torment or outright destruction for those who deny or do not accept Christ; but, on the other hand, teach that once a persona accepts Christ they are saved from punishment and enter Grace and Salvation and Redemption from the Tribulation via the Rapture.
To me, this doctrine represents one of the great schisms in Christianity today. Those who argue for the loss of salvation through sin and those who proclaim OSAS. Both have it wrong. TROAT resolves these errors and the schism created between them while proclaiming an even greater love and logic as you have so eloquently set forth in your current series.
I read a tremendous amount of the teachings of others, and I read so many messages that gloss over the real message of Christ and preach OSAS "Once Saved Always Saved." This cannot be the case because we all can think of scenarios that God would hate and would indeed punish. While this would contradict OSAS it does not contradict TROAT. Because the sinner, while professing Christ, would still be punished and still yet saved through TROAT, in the final analysis.
The fact that ALL are saved and will come to Christ in the final analysis can lead many to believe that there is no consequence for their choices here in time and space. The fact remains that the Lake of Fire is the final place of real tribulation (almost a euphemism) if not outright torment that will yield even the greatest of sinners to confess and proclaim their error and accept Christ as Savior.
And so it is this that we all must try to convey to our family and friends and all who have an ear to hear: That while they will be saved by Christ they will also see trouble and pain before being saved and reconciled to Him. Their only choice in the matter is whether to voluntarily take up The Cross and suffer their affliction in time and space now or to wait and have the tribulation come to them in a manner that none of us can really appreciate.
This is the real value of TROAT. It resolves so many contradictions in faith and so greatly strengthens the love the Christ has for each and every one of us.
Again, thank you for taking these questions.
Thank you for your patient follow-up to the previous comments. I am blessed to observe you, or any saint, thinking deeply about these topics. They are very important.
I would share something that I wrote to another brother recently. I think it is important to really understand terms. You mentioned the doctrine of "once saved always saved." What does salvation truly refer unto?
I believe the most common conception in the minds of Christians today is that salvation implies that they have been saved from hell. In other words, they have received a get out of hell free card by professing faith in Christ now and getting baptized. Of course, there is much more to salvation, otherwise Paul would not have urged the saints to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." What this salvation is, is discussed in a recent blog.
I think one appropriate answer to the question "What are they saved from" is "they are saved from the wrath of God."
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, WE SHALL BE SAVED FROM THE WRATH OF GOD THROUGH HIM. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
As long as men continue in sin, they are subject to wrath.
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, AND WERE BY NATURE CHILDREN OF WRATH, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
There are multitudes of Christians who will experience the wrath of God, being cast into the lake of fire, because they did not depart from sin and yield their bodies as a living sacrifice to God when they had the opportunity. I do not believe it can truly be said that such ones are "saved." They surely are not saved from the wrath of God, for God will not be mocked. All men will reap according to what they have sown. Those who sow to the flesh will reap in wrath.
If we understand this, then we will have no difficulty understanding the apostle's exhortation to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." Paul said that Christians are "being saved." Salvation is not a one time event such as walking through a door. There is also a path to be walked out if one would attain to life.
May you be blessed with peace and understanding in these days.
Thank you for your quick response.
I feel that we are so close that I have little time left to bring myself to Him.