Why I lean toward Universalism…

I often say that I’m a Christian Agnostic with Universalist leanings. Many would say that these things are somehow opposed… I don’t agree. I think a bit of agnosticism is healthy… it fuels the questions of our faith that help us to better understand God and Christ…

I do, however, have to say that I never dreamed of a day when I would flirt with Universalism… “Everyone saved?” I would balk… “Not possible.” But as the years have gone on, I’m realizing that there are a few things about our faith that can only be explained through a Universalist lens. Such as...


1. What happens to the billions of people who have never, or will never, hear the Gospel? Some say that this is explained in Romans 1:18-21 where it says that “They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." (NLT)

More simply stated, there are people who believe that those who haven’t heard of Christ should automatically understand the Christian God by viewing nature… Variations of this belief assert that the non-evangelized will be considered righteous by discovering that there is a God and trying to live holy with that revelation in mind. Without Christ, however, these folks would still be under the law and would, therefore, be sent to hell for transgressing the law, unless they keep it perfectly. Of course, this is a faulty argument because no man or woman can keep the Mosaic law perfectly, which ultimately means that those who have never heard the Gospel and don’t experience a divine revelation of Christ on their own will be lost according to this theology.

This is problematic for three reasons: (a) it suggests that Christ isn’t really needed for salvation after all… (b) it places people under the law again, which is an impossible laundry list of rules to keep, and (c) it requires people who have never been exposed to our God to miraculously come to a revelation of him, without discussing what happens to those who don’t.

2. Why would an intelligent God make his “path” so confusing? We tell people that they must accept Jesus in order to be saved… but then the question becomes, which Gospel is the one that actually saves? Is it (a) the mainline evangelical gospel that requires a sinner’s prayer only, (b) the Jesus-only non-Pentecostal gospel that requires baptism in Jesus’ name and repentance, (c) the Jesus-only Pentecostal way that requires baptism in Jesus’ name, speaking in tongues, and “holy” living, or (d) a Catholic faith experience involving works and forgiveness by their saints / clergy system?

As you can tell, new believers are faced with quite a conundrum. “Which way is the way?” And more importantly, “Will I be tossed into a pit of fire for inadvertently choosing the wrong one?” There are oodles of Gospels, and they can all be supported by Christian scripture. For this reason, biblical scholars spend years unraveling the various paths to salvation found in Christendom. Is it realistic to expect every human being to embark on this kind of spiritual journey? Before you say, “Yes,” ask yourself: Is it realistic to expect those with limited resources and limited literacy to all find “the only way?” More importantly, has God really made it this hard? Would a God who “desires that no one would perish” make it this confusing? Could it be that he has made it easier than we really believe?

3. There are some very convincing arguments out there about the meaning of “eternity,” “hell,” and “perish.” For instance, there is a ministry called Tentmaker that says the concept of “hell” would have been foreign to Jesus and his followers. Likewise, the word “perish,” when translated properly, describes the concept of being lost… as in “not yet found by Christ,” but not a state of eternal damnation. I used to openly reject such thoughts, but their claims seem pretty solid when those words are reviewed in context.

So with these three arguments in mind, I often wonder if Christ’s work on the cross could have been designed to reconcile all men, as the Universalists teach. This makes more sense than it does to believe that God would penalize people for what they don’t know, don’t understand, or simply cannot stretch their imaginations far enough to believe. And that’s why I lean toward Universalism… Not a Universalist (yet)… But I have seriously considered joining the fold.