Gospel Guidebook: Getting and Keeping It Right 
Thoughts on Christian Universalism
Introduction
I first encountered Christian Universalism through the teachings of A.E. Knoch of the Concordant Publishing Concern. He taught a form of Christian Universalism called Universal Reconciliation. According to Knoch, the Greek words aion and aionios, which are often translated "eternity" and "eternal" in our English New Testament, should actually be translated as "eon" and "eonian" to indicate indefinite periods of time. Knoch wasn't the first person to suggest this. For example, Robert Young, in his popular Young's Literal Version, translated these words as "age" and "age-during," respectively. The typical Universalist explanation is that the ages are the periods of time through which God accomplishes His age-during plan, consummating in the eventual reconciliation of all things (Col. 1:20) when God becomes all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). People who don't get saved during this life will ultimately get saved some time during the ages. The Universalist theory is intriguing, and for several years, I believed it and taught it, but after reevaluating many of my core beliefs, I have come to understand that it is not biblical. In this article, I'll provide what I think are some of the weaknesses of Christian Universalism.
Before beginning, I must make some clarifications. In this article, I am not claiming to know what awaits unbelievers in the afterlife other than it won't be good, which is something that I think most Universalists would agree with. In other words, the afterlife for unbelievers won't be favorable, but at the same time, we must not let our imaginations run wild with vivid images of people getting tortured in the most excruciating ways. There will be torment, but the torment will be tolerable (or untolerable) to varying degrees. In fact, there are some Bible verses that seem to suggest that the afterlife for some unbelievers will be relatively bearable and preferred to a sentence of annihilation, if such an option were available. For example, when Jesus spoke of Judas, saying that it would be better if he had not been born, this kind of insinuates that the state of most men isn't so bad that it would have been better if they had not been born. In other words, Judas' case was extreme compared to other men. Along these lines, when Jesus warned that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven in this age or the age to come, He seems to be suggesting that there will be some sort of forgiveness or leniency in the age to come for less grievous sins. Be that as it may, I am not suggesting that unbelievers will be saved in the afterlife. I no longer believe that for the reasons given below. My current opinion (and this is only an opinion) is that the eternal state of the least of all believers will always be infinitely more blessed than that of the best of all unbelievers. At the same time, I think the eternal state of the best of all unbelievers will be infinitely more bearable than that of the worst of all unbelievers. I don't want to say anything beyond this. I spent years saying and teaching things that I shouldn't have. I have sorrow, anxiety, and regret in my heart for presuming to know things or speaking lightly about things that are far beyond me. All I know is that God will do what God wants to do without regard to the opinions of men. "And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Daniel 4:35). We must always remember that He spared not the angels who sinned, so why should we think that sinful men "who know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" will be spared?
My flip-flopping on Universalism and simultaneous struggles to eliminate inconsistencies within the soteriological paradigms of Reformed, Free Grace, and Universalist theologies have not been without benefit. I was searching for a righteousness through those systems of soteriology, just not God's, but when I suddenly found the righteousness of God which I was not searching for, it appeared to me entirely different from what I was searching for. And now that I have found it, I must proclaim it, and that is why this website has undergone a massive renovation the past several months. With this introduction out of the way, I will now give six reasons why I don't think it is possible to believe in Christian Universalism.
Six Reasons Why I am No Longer a Universalist
First, the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation goes beyond the boundaries of Scripture. It is based largely on speculation about the afterlife. The truth is, however, that there is no firm evidence in Scripture that anyone gets saved in the afterlife. In contrast, the unrighteous enter the same fire as the devil, who is said to be tormented for ever (see my sixth point below for more on the meaning of the Greek terms aion and aionios). To a lot of Universalists, this fire is a sort of purgatory, and this is where speculation abounds. But if it is purgatory, then what about those spirits who were disobedient in the days of Noah? By the time of the Apostles, they had already spent thousands of years in prison. If thousands of years in prison is not enough to purge a person's sins, why should we think that ten thousand or a million years will be enough?
Second, in relation to my last point, if the ages of the ages last thousands or millions of years, as most Universalists admit they might, is there really much of a difference between age-during punishment and eternal punishment? Of course, thousands or millions of years are a drop in the bucket compared to eternity, but if God could potentially punish someone for that long, why should we think it strange if He punishes someone for eternity? Many Universalists complain that it would be unjust for God to punish someone for eternity, but strangely, have no problem suggesting that God could do it for thousands or millions of years.
Third, the only reason Universalists can accept a period of punishment that lasts thousands or millions of years is because they view punishment as corrective instead of retributive. Although I think it might be necessary to question the effectiveness of a corrective that could potentially take thousands or millions of years to accomplish its purpose, perhaps a bigger problem is that corrective punishment actually disregards justice altogether because it moves the subject of punishment out of the realm of receiving what he deserves and transfers him into the non-judicial realm of therapy. In this regard, I highly recommend watching this 20-minute video by C.S. Lewis.
Fourth, most Universalists hold to a form of atonement known as Christus Victor. According to this view of the atonement, Christ's victory over evil and death set people free so that they can live righteously. Christus Victor basically amounts to salvation by sanctification. Since most Christians themselves are not sufficiently sanctified by the time of death, this viewpoint often requires Christians to experience purgatory in the afterlife. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Priest Seraphim Rose explained it as follows: "...the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed, are cleansed of these sins either in the trial of death itself with its fear, or after death, when they are confined (but not permanently) in hell, by the prayers and Liturgies of the Church and good deeds performed for them by the faithful." This view of the afterlife based on Christus Victor lacks scriptural support and requires imaginative interpretations about being "saved through fire" or "hurt by the second death." More importantly, it seems to badly contradict the overall tenor of the New Testament, namely that glory awaits all believers upon death. Also, it is hard to see how this view can be reconciled with the doctrine of justification by faith, unless of course faith is defined in such a way as to include a life of good works. But if this is the case, then faith is works, and salvation must be by works. This is not a problem for Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox adherents, but it is a problem for people who are incapable of producing their own righteousness.
(As a side note, the only way penal substitutionary atonement could work with unlimited atonement is if all people enter heaven immediately upon death, regardless of whether they were believers or not. Any punishment in the afterlife, even for a second, would nullify either PSA or unlimited atonement or both. Therefore, it is really impossible to be a Universalist and hold to PSA because the biblical data doesn't support the idea that everyone goes straight to heaven upon death. But if PSA isn't true, then double imputation, i.e., the imputation of our sins to Christ and the imputation of Christ's righteous to us, doesn't work. And if double imputation doesn't work, then salvation through faith apart from works doesn't work.)
Fifth, the Bible verses that seem to suggest that Universalism might be true, if read in context, appear to point elsewhere. For example, the contrasts between Adam and Christ, rather than teaching that all people will be saved, more naturally suggest that two humanities are under consideration. The emphasis is not on salvation primarily, but on God's new creation in Christ. In Adam, all die. That is the destiny of the first humanity. In contrast, in Christ, all live. That is the destiny of the second (and last) humanity. These verses do not teach that everyone in Adam gets transferred into Christ. They tell us about two classes of humanity where it should not be assumed that everyone in the former constitute everyone in the latter. Colossians 1:20 and 1 Corinthians 15:28, quoted in the first paragraph of this article, can also be considered from the viewpoint of the new humanity in Christ. Similarly, the Bible verses that speak of "all people" are in the context of Jew and Gentile, as well as social class distinctions. This means that all people probably doesn't refer to all individuals without exception, but to ethnicities and classes of people.
Sixth, as mentioned above, Universalists often suggest that the Greek words aion and aionios should not be translated as "eternity" and "eternal." However, there are several important passages in Scripture where aion and aionios clearly refer to things that are everlasting due to their usage in contexts where other time indicators signify their neverendingness. Since much of the Universalist doctrine hinges on the translation of these words, I think it is appropriate to end this article with some examples.
Daniel 7:14
In Daniel 7:14, we read, "And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." In the Septuagint, the Greek word translated "everlasting" here is aionios. In this verse, "age-during" (or "eonian") just doesn't work, for the meaning of "everlasting" is immediately explained as being something that "shall not pass away." In other words, the Son of Man's dominion is literally everlasting. It won't end. The translation "Age-during" (capital "A") is only acceptable when it is understood that this "age" is the "Age of Christ," literally having no end.
Luke 1:33
In Luke 1:33, we read, "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Here we have the prepositional phrase eis tous aionas being translated as "for ever." Like Daniel 7:14, we have the explanatory information that "for ever" signifies having no end. "Reign" and "kingdom" are cognates, so we know these two clauses go together. Universalists usually translate this as "for the ages" or "to the ages." The noun aion here is plural, and perhaps this can be understood as the "ages" that exist within the "Age of Christ." Notice that in Ephesians 3:21, we have "generations" existing within the "age of the ages," so it is plausible that the endless Age of Christ will in fact contain a subset of ages. At any rate, the translation "for ever" is correct because these ages when viewed as a successive stream or as a whole within the Age of Christ have no end.
In relation to Luke 1:33, if I remember correctly, A.E. Knoch used to say that 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 taught that Christ's reign had an end, whereas the kingdom itself continued under the rule of the Father. In particular, verse 25 says that "he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet." The key word here being "till." Knoch used these verses to interpret Luke 1:33 in such a manner that "he reigns over the house of Jacob for the ages" until the ages end when God becomes all in all. At that point, His kingdom still continues endlessly under the reign of the Father. However, this interpretation seems mistaken. The context makes it clear that 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 is referring only the conquering aspect of Christ's reign. Conquering comes to an end when all His enemies are subjected under His feet, but this does not preclude Him from continuing to reign as the victorious conqueror. When an earthly prince subjugates a people, upon his return to the king he doesn't become a peasant or common man. He continues to reign victorious with the king. It is the same with Christ. He reigns for ever.
John 6:50-51
In John 6:50-51, we read, "50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." In verse 50, we have Jesus saying that anyone who eats the heavenly bread will not die. In verse 51, he says anyone who eats the heavenly bread will live forever (Gr. eis ton aiona). Living forever means not dying. This is significant because when Jesus speaks of eternal life in the immediate context (see verses 47 and 54), he is not simply talking about life for an age or ages, but everlasting life, i.e., a life that is no longer susceptible to death. In these verses the translation "eternal life" and "live for ever" are correct. Again, "age-during" and "live for the age" would only make sense if we are talking about the endless Age of Christ. In such a case, they would mean the same thing as "eternal" and "live for ever."
2 Corinthians 4:18
In 2 Corinthians 4:18, we read, "for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." This verse really doesn't make sense unless aionios is translated as "eternal." If aionios only meant "age-during" in the sense of it being transitory, then it would still be temporal, regardless of how long it lasted. In order for the contrast with temporal things to work, aionios must mean eternal.
Hebrews 7:16-17
In Hebrews 7:16-17, we read, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Similar to the verses in Daniel and Luke, we have the Greek prepositional phrase eis ton aiona in verse 17 being explained by verse 16. In this instance, eis ton aiona refers back to an "endless life." As a result, it is only reasonable that it be translated as "for ever." The translation "for [a transitory] age" just doesn't work here.
In addition to the above, I believe a similar observations can be made by carefully examining Hebrews 7:23-24, Romans 5:21, 1 Peter 1:24-25, and 1 John 2:17.