by James B. De Young

Universalism is a false teaching that has plagued the church for centuries. Recently this error has seen a resurgence in popular thought and theology, which is dangerous. James De Young has written a great guide to help people understand the dangers of this heresy and to construct a sound way to refute the associated errors. Below is my summary of his book. I hope it inspires you to read it for yourself and commit to further study of this important subject. Please note that De Young particularly addresses the influence and writings of three modern proponents of Christian Universalism: Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and Paul Young, the author of The Shack, which whom he has a personal acquaintance.

Pastor Pete Beck III

Introduction

The Beliefs of Universalism

De Young lists several distinct theological positions held by Christian universalists, which I will not list here. Afterward he gives the following summary.

The chief argument of universalism (as the reading of Young and Bell clearly shows) is the emotive appeal to God’s mercy and love so that he could not bring eternal suffering to any of his creatures. The argument is: How can a loving God torment untold billions of people forever in hell, the lake of fire, for failing to believe during a lifetime of a relatively few number of years? God’s justice is completely in the service of his love. Universalists also appeal to Scripture, and to history, but in the end these take second place to the appeal to a sense of fairness and justice qualified by God’s love in his dealing with people. God’s love is his supreme attribute. Love and justice are mutually exclusive. Yet, the matter of how God’s love relates to his justice cannot be a question occurring only to moderns. It is reflected throughout the pages of Scripture. Obviously, Jesus himself, Paul the Apostle, and others through the ages have certainly thought about these matters, the nature of God and the reality of hell. Yet they teach that God is both love and just (righteous), that all have a certain degree of knowledge of the true God as witnessed by the creation, that all have a conscience to discern right from wrong. And they assert that people are culpable and responsible for rejecting this knowledge (Romans chaps. 1– 3; 10: 4– 18). And so the debate is engaged between those who accept these biblical statements as authoritative and those who do not.  (De Young, James B.. Exposing Universalism: A Comprehensive Guide to the Faulty Appeals Made by Universalists Paul Young, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Others Past and Present to Promote a New Kind of Christianity (pp. 8-9). Resource Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.)

Addressing the general slipperiness associated with deception, the author writes.

It is interesting that there is a common reluctance among adherents to universalism to confess their universalism. It is a common practice of universalists to refuse to commit themselves. This agrees with the fact that it is an important element of the creed of universalism that no creed shall be imposed as a creedal test, that no adherent shall be required to “subscribe to any . .  .   particular religious belief or creed.” This allows universalists to say that they both believe and do not believe certain things. Yet over time universalists have published statements of what they believe. By comparing contemporary writers to these “creedal” statements one can uncover what they believe. (De Young, p.10, Kindle Edition)

Universalists Dispense with the Institutional Church

It may come as a surprise to many readers that one of the tenets (if this term is appropriate) of universalism is its opposition to the institutional evangelical church. Both of the writers of fiction, Young and McLaren, are subversive to the existing form of the institutional church, and argue for a new ecclesiology. Young has Sarayu (representing the Holy Spirit) assert that the institutional church is one of many demonic systems that hinder relationship with God. McLaren argues the case for the emergent church which “turns from doctrines to practices,” from what one professes to believe to “how one pursues truth and puts beliefs into action through practices.” In his history of universalism Robinson asserts that Unitarians and universalists were brought together because of their rejection of evangelical Protestantism. (De Young, p. 14 Kindle Edition)

McLaren’s new ecclesiology seems to have forgotten its moorings. Without the proclamation of the gospel, there is no reason for the church. Where is the church’s responsibility to proclaim faith in Jesus Christ, and the good news about salvation in him and deliverance from judgment for sin? What about the role of the church to preserve the truth of Christ? Universalists have gone to the heart of the gospel and redefined it. It is a serious error when the omissions, what writers such as Young and McLaren do not say, reveal what they view the role of the church is in the world. (De Young, p. 15 Kindle Edition)

The evangelical church needs to recognize that the very heart and soul, the meaning, of evangelical faith is at stake. Evangelical faith and its doctrines, including the person of Christ and his view of hell, are under attack by universalism. Universalists have come to their convictions because they believe that the evangelical position on hell and other doctrines is responsible for all kinds of society’s ills, including war and injustice. In The Last Word McLaren blames belief in the doctrine of original sin for the shift in focus away from injustice on earth (for example, racism) to individual salvation . The emphasis on individual sin makes people let social injustice continue . Like the Pharisees, evangelicals adopt a view of hell that “marginalizes the poor by shifting focus from their poverty on earth to their destination in heaven”. Conservatives twist the understanding of the gospel so that “their earthly plans won’t be too inconvenienced”. McLaren embraces a “post-Protestant” church; his characters are “recovering fundamentalists”. He does not use the term “evangelical” because it has been captured by the “religious right” and “so is of little use to anyone else”. McLaren and Young (The Shack, 182; Lies, chap. 5) are agreed in not liking the term “Christian” either, and prefer to be known as followers of Jesus. McLaren identifies evangelicalism as really “neofundamentalism”; he prefers to be called (like Jim Wallis) a “postevangelical” or a “19th century evangelical.” Bell attacks evangelicals as having a “shriveled imagination”. Young rejects his “modern evangelical Christian fundamentalism” roots (Lies, 236). (De Young, p.16, Kindle Edition)

The Universalist “New Man”

All of these writers proclaim that embracing universalism has changed their lives and their preaching. Their new thinking about hell has transformed them into more loving people. They have a greater love for God and their neighbors (Young, UR, 32; Lies, chap. 28; McLaren, 175, 198). Their new theology affects all that they think, in particular the doctrines of salvation, Scripture, Christ, the atonement, the afterlife, the nature of the church, and most of all, the nature of God (Young, UR, 33; Lies, chap. 28; McLaren, 186; Bell, 178– 88). McLaren (18) and Young (UR, 32) acknowledge that they had departed first from the exclusivist view and had begun embracing universalism initially without any biblical basis for doing so. In effect, this means that something, such as emotion or logic, but not the Bible, led them to embrace new beliefs. This is a key point! (De Young, pp.16-17, Kindle Edition)

Universalism Is Not a Minor Threat to the Church

It is clear, then, that universal reconciliation is not a minor distortion of doctrine. It goes to the heart of evangelical faith— who God is; what he accomplished at the cross; what sin is; who Jesus is; how and when people are saved (or if they need to be saved!); what the nature of the judgment after death is; the witness of the history of the church; the meaning of the institutional church, and other matters. (De Young, pp.17, Kindle Edition)

De Young provides a brief overview of universalism’s impact on the church in recent history.

There is a long history of conflict between evangelical faith and universal reconciliation. In more recent years universalism joined with rationalism and liberalism in its acceptance of German higher criticism to undermine and almost destroy evangelical faith on the continent of Europe and in England in the 19th century (as universalism acknowledges and boasts). In early America, it opposed the evangelical Great Awakening under Edwards and Whitefield— an awakening that brought one out of every six people to personal faith, and strengthened the moral foundation for the new Republic. In later years, universalism joined with liberalism and Unitarianism to undermine evangelical faith. In 1960, the Unitarians (who are anti-trinitarian) and universalists joined together to form one “denomination.” What brought them together was their “liberal doctrine.” The present writing of universalism, including its fiction, continues this conflict. It is more seductive than a direct assault on the evangelical understanding of hell would be. Universalism in the emergent church and its embrace until recent years in various organizations such as Young Life make this critique all the more urgent. From being on the sidelines of evangelical faith universalism is attempting to join the team. (De Young, pp.17-18, Kindle Edition)

The Procedure of This Study

De Young next outlines how he has put together the remainder of his book.

In the first section of these pages I present the case for universalism as argued by universalists themselves, and I include my response to each of their points. I cite both nonfiction material and the fictional material in order to evaluate universalism from biblical and exegetical grounds, from history and theology, and from rational and emotive considerations. All of these areas are the same ones that universal reconciliation uses in its claims to be the truth. 42 In the second section of this study I bring universalism under the spotlight of the Bible to show how Christians can deal with universalism in their churches and in their personal encounters. I discuss major texts of Scripture, from Jesus and the Apostles, that universalism for the most part ignores or inadequately discusses or distorts in light of the contexts. These texts oppose the position of universal reconciliation. In the next part of this second section I compose questions that raise theological obstacles to universalism’s view of hell. I show why hell must be everlasting for Satan and unbelievers. Then I cite the fatal consequences inherent within universalism— the harm that comes to the church and its message of hope for the world. Then I show how universalism is subversive to the institutions of society including the church, marriage, and government. Finally, I make some concluding observations about how to deal with universal reconciliation in its many forms in contemporary society. I draw upon the witness of those who in the history of Christianity in America have had to deal with universalism in their day. In the Epilogue, I cite a powerful text dealing with the reality of sin and the consequences of dismissing or denying it, and make a final appeal to readers of this book. The following pages show that universalism departs from the true and actual meaning of the Bible and from Christian faith and doctrine. It also distorts the record of the history of Christianity. I draw upon my many years of teaching the interpretation of the New Testament, the Greek language, the Greek Old Testament (called the Septuagint, or the LXX), and the early Apostolic Fathers of Christian history (who wrote in Greek). I also draw upon my personal acquaintance with Paul Young and his departure from evangelical faith. Throughout, my concern is that the Spirit of God will guide us into the truth, as Jesus promised he would do (John 14: 26). We need to have no fear in exposing falsehood in pursuing the truth. As Jesus promised, the truth will make us free (John 8: 32). We also affirm the love of God as immeasurable and vast and unrelenting and unfailing, as also revealed “in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8: 28– 39). (De Young, pp.18-20, Kindle Edition)

Section 1: Refuting the Appeals of Universal Reconciliation

The Four Appeals of Universal Reconciliation

• Appeal to the meanings of biblical language in order to redefine words: aion, hell, and the afterlife.

After studying universalism’s position dealing with “age” and “forever” several far-reaching observations summarize the preceding discussion. (1) Universalism is basically uninformed on how to do word studies, since by and large it neglects context as the determiner of meaning. Also, there is the unscholarly assumption that the same Greek word should always be translated by the same English word (the idea behind the Concordant version, often cited). This is the error called “root fallacy.” No reputable linguist or biblical interpreter affirms this approach. Actually, words in Greek and English have multiple meanings or a wide field of meaning, and there are no true synonyms and no exact equivalents between languages. Hence one context may call for a different translation as compared to another context. For example, the Greek word logos has fifty-two English translations (including “repute,” “show,” as well as the familiar idea of “word”). To argue that aiōn should have the same translation, “eon” or “age,” everywhere is not credible. It must always be context, context, context as the determiner of meaning. (De Young, p.45, Kindle Edition)

• Appeal to reason and emotion regarding fairness, justice, mercy, and love.

The weight of the statement is that one’s belief should be fashioned finally not by the authority of Scripture but by emotional (“ sentiment”) and rational (“ reason”) concerns. This perspective still shows up in the fictions and nonfictions of Young, McLaren, and Rob Bell. It is distinctive of evangelical faith that the final authority for belief is the Bible plainly interpreted, not emotions or reasons— not subjective thoughts about God. (De Young, pp.40-41, Kindle Edition)

• Appeal to history with the claim that universal reconciliation (UR) was the predominant position of the church for the first 500 years. This point will be addressed later in the Excursus near the end of this article.
• Appeal to specific texts of Scripture.

Universalism appeals to texts to teach that God wills all to repent and to be saved, that Jesus has died for all, that atonement and reconciliation have already been made for all, that all will confess Jesus as Lord. If all people do not realize this salvation before they die, then God will use the corrective fires of hell to convince people and fallen angels to repent. God’s love to draw all people does not end with their dying. At some point in the future even hell and the lake of fire will cease to exist. Obviously the name “universal reconciliation” derives from these sorts of texts that incorporate the term “all” or “reconciliation.” (De Young, p.22, Kindle Edition)

Section 2: Correctly Interpreting the Bible

De Young spends a great deal of time addressing numerous texts and passages of Scripture in order to examine and refute universalist arguments. I will not take the time to cite these here. Chapter 12 covers the parables of Jesus. Chapter 13 looks at the apostolic teachings on judgment and hell. Chapter 14 asks sixteen questions that expose universalism’s false beliefs about hell. (p.236) His concluding paragraph is quoted below.

In summary, the texts cited by universalists do not teach universal salvation but have other possible explanations. 269 They may refer to the following. (1) God’s universal desire that none perish, not to a universal plan to save all. (2) God’s universal purpose through the atonement to provide “the blessings of common grace to all.” That is, all humanity without exception experience the providence of God, as the Bible teaches in many places (e.g., Matt 5: 45; 6: 25– 33; Acts 17: 24– 28). (3) The universal sufficiency of Christ’s atonement for all. (4) The universal pacification that disarms forces of evil but does not lead them to Christ (Col 2: 15; Phil 2: 9). (5) Christ’s being the savior of the world, but this means only that Christ has provided sufficient salvation for the world. Its realization is limited to those who respond in repentance and faith. (De Young, pp.241-242, Kindle Edition)

Chapter 15 addresses eight fatal consequences belonging to universal reconciliation and gives a summary of nine errors, which I here quote in their entirety.

The following are the fatal dangers that arise if one is going to embrace universalism. These consequences amount to a redefinition of the gospel taught by our Lord Jesus and his Apostles.

1.  In adopting universalism, one rejects the traditional view of the church through the ages, and embraces what the community of faith has identified as heresy (it is rejected by the Eastern, Roman, and Protestant churches). Universalism has been close to Unitarianism in “sentiment and action.” The Unitarians have become increasingly humanistic and reject the trinity and the deity of Christ. In 1825 they declared that they are not a part of the Christian church. In 1959 they voted to merge with the universalists. The merger was accomplished in 1961. It is not surprising that Unitarians and universalists enjoy company, since they part company with the community of the faith over the destiny of the wicked. They end up disparaging the work of Christ. The more recent attempt to reform a Christian universalist denomination only reinforces the deliberate attempt to deceive the evangelical church.
2. Universalism disparages the love of God by rejecting, in the end, the value of the greatest act of God’s loving, namely the redemption secured by the sacrificial, substitutionary, atoning death of Jesus Christ. If in the end all people, and even Satan and his angels, are saved and enter heaven, what in the end is the value of Christ’s death? His death cannot help fallen angels and the devil. Upon serious reflection does it really matter that Jesus became incarnate and died if God is so loving that everyone without exception enters heaven? Does this view not subject God’s justice and holiness to his love, as universalists claim, so that they are distorted? In neutralizing justice one also neutralizes, indeed extinguishes, grace.
3. Ultimately the person of Jesus Christ is disparaged. His death and resurrection do not make a difference in the end. Yet he is worthy of all honor by all because of his death (Phil 2: 11). The very text claimed as a basis for universalism, the reconciling of all to God, counts for nothing in the end, as far as exalting Jesus on a par with God the Father (giving him the name that is above every name— the name Yahweh). The history of universalism witnesses to this increasingly humanistic trend. Universalists tend to focus on God the Father to the blasphemous neglect of Jesus Christ— just as “Papa” (representing the Father), rather than Jesus, occupies center stage in Young’s The Shack.
4. Evangelism is distorted. There is the real danger that the proclamation of the gospel will be considered less urgent because there is the ever-present option that people, all people, will ultimately be saved anyway. People are denied the knowledge that their rejection of Christ has everlasting consequences that cannot be altered after dying. The great commission is pointless; and the call to holiness is reduced in urgency as well. The meaning of John 3: 16 is abrogated. The promise that “whosoever believes in Christ might not perish but have everlasting life” is now understood in universalism to say that “perish” does not mean everlasting separation but that all will have a second chance after death and all will escape hell. The verse now reads:“ whosoever believes in Christ before or after death will not perish but have everlasting life.”
5. Universalism taints society’s own sense of justice and retribution. Universalism teaches that even the most incorrigible of persons, the most leprous specimens of society (think here of Hitler, Pol Pot of Cambodia, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, etc.), who have given themselves over to evil till the moment of death, still will be accepted one day into God’s heaven. Does this not debase our human conception of fairness, of right and wrong— of justice?
6. If there is a legitimate place for the imprecatory Psalms of the OT, that implore God’s judgment on his enemies, then it is possible to distinguish between the righteous and the wicked in this life and beyond. But universalism denies this. It maintains that all are God’s people and he loves them equally. All are already reconciled to God. Universalism extends this “equal love” to the devil and the fallen angels.
7. Promoters of universalism bear a special responsibility for promoting heresy. Writers of fiction (as McLaren and Young) are particularly clever to promote universalism to the unsuspecting who are caught up in the story. If tens of thousands, even millions, of people are reading their fiction books, and more recently the nonfiction of Bell and Young, should not the evangelical church warn the readers of the false doctrine that pervades them? Not since the time of the declaration of the universalist ministers of Boston in 1878, do these writers have the potential to do more to promote this heresy than any others in history.
8. Biblical interpretation, hermeneutics, is forever distorted if universalism is correct. There is the repeated appeal to the argument of silence. There is a disavowal of half of the nature of God as wholly just so that the content of the Bible on this topic is ignored or deemed irrelevant. There is the “root fallacy” of insisting that a Greek word (aiōn) should have always and only the same interpretation in English. There is a rejection of the rule of interpreting by the wider context. There is rejection of interpreting according to the analogy of the faith— what the vast majority of Christians have always believed— what is in the Bible from cover to cover. There is the distortion of historical theology. There is failure to interact with strong proponents of contrary views. There is failure to consult the modern standard dictionaries and commentaries. There is rejection of the rule that one should generally go with the simplest interpretation. There is rejection of the principle that one should generally go with the interpretation on which there is general consensus. If universalism is correct in its hermeneutics, the church will have to go back and argue over again all the decisions by the great councils of the church regarding the deity of Christ, his natures, and even the extent of the canon! Universalists, including Young and McLaren, are well informed advocates of universalism. Thereby they prove themselves unworthy interpreters of the Bible and teachers of falsehood and deceit. Their departure from the evangelical, apostolic faith proves that they are antichrists and deceivers (1 John 2: 18– 25; 4: 1– 6). What they do is to rape biblical faith.

SUMMARY OF THE NINE ERRORS OF UNIVERSAL RECONCILIATION

The claims of universalism rest on faulty bases.

1. There is no clear teaching in Scripture that affirms a “second chance” for people to alter their destinies after death, nor for the hearing of the gospel after death, nor for the exercise of faith in Christ after death, nor for repentance after death. Jesus himself is the strongest proponent (as in Luke 16; Matt 25) of eternal suffering in hell and thus the strongest opponent to universalism. The choice is to be either a disciple of Jesus Christ or of universalists. The choice is clear.
2. It is a falsehood that the church held universalism for the first five centuries. The earliest Apostolic Fathers do not support such a view. Instead, they affirm what the NT does: the wicked are lost in hell forever; they cannot change their destiny.
3. The only real basis of universalism is a distorted inference drawn from the love of God— distorted because, by its adherents’ own assertion, God’s justice must be subservient to God’s love. The universalist ministers of Boston said that God’s justice is “born of love and limited by love.” 276 Yet the death of Christ was a satisfaction of both love and justice (Rom 5: 6– 11; 3: 22– 26), and neither can be limited by the other without losing its true value. Jesus Christ “loves righteousness” (Heb 1: 9). The summary of OT faith is found in Micah 6: 8. God requires of his people that they “act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God.” It is not surprising that universalists never or rarely mention such verses! Universalism asserts that the love of God could not allow people to go to everlasting judgment. But if this is so, why did not God’s love constrain him at the beginning, to prevent the fall of humanity into sin and suffering and death and war and disease, etc., etc., over so many millennia? How could a loving God allow all of this?
4. Universalism is the new face of the old opposition taken by the creature who defies the Creator, accusing him of injustice (Rom 9: 14). The devil is the mouthpiece of universalism. When the latter asserts that there is not eternal death or judgment for the ungodly, they are saying as the serpent said to Eve: “You shall not surely die.” There are some things that God cannot do— to act contrary to his nature as God. If in the end even the devil and his angels are to be saved or reconciled into God’s favor and heaven, what becomes of hell? Why did God create Satan and allow him to fall, and bring such havoc into the world’s history, if in the end even he is brought back? Why is there such an infinite cost requiring the death of the incarnate Son if in the end all reach heaven anyway?
5. Universalism voids the accountability of every person to choose to accept forgiveness and reconciliation offered in Christ. It withholds from multitudes the opportunity to be saved so that they perish in hell. Another thing that God cannot do is to void his will that people have a will to choose contrary to his will, to disbelieve.
6. Universalism minimizes the death of Christ. In the lengthy statement of the universalist ministers of Boston there is no mention of placing faith in Christ in order to be reconciled to God— not one word. Yet God has exalted Christ so as to make him worthy of the title of Yahweh (Phil 2: 9). There is salvation in no other than in him alone (1 Tim 2: 5; John 14: 6). Even omnipotent love cannot transform the wicked into the righteous suitable for heaven, for the kind of righteousness required for heaven is only found by being justified by faith in Christ, a faith freely exercised without coercion or force by the fires of hell.
7. Universalism is wrong in its doctrine about the fallen angels. They cannot ever be restored. The Bible offers no atonement, no forgiveness, no hope, no reconciliation for the fallen angels and for Satan. Jesus became human to save people; he did not become angelic to save angels (Heb 2: 16). He died to save people by becoming the God-man. He did not die to save angels by becoming the God-angel. There is no Savior, no redeemer, no reconciler for them. They are lost forever. And if the fallen angels are lost forever, then hell (or the lake of fire) is forever or everlasting. It is a place where lost humanity who join the devil’s side will also go permanently. If hell is permanent for the devil and his angels (note that this is what Jesus asserted, Matt 25: 41), it must be permanent for human beings who choose their side.
8. Universalism fails to realize that “the fires of heaven . .  .   are hotter than the fires of hell” for those who have chosen to be God themselves. Universalism cannot draw back a step and say: “Let’s make hell the permanent place only for the fallen angels, not for people.” It cannot do this. For it argues that love limits God’s justice, that love triumphs over justice. It argues that if there is permanency of separation for any creature then love has not won, then God has been defeated. According to universalism, it has to be the restoration of all creatures or it is the restoration of no creatures. Universalism is stuck in a position that ultimately drives its adherents into an impossible, because it is immoral and untruthful, position.
9. Universalism’s distortion of God’s love bears its own demise. Such a concept holds God hostage to the enemies of Christ and the fallen angels and Satan. By this reckoning they win, not God. (De Young, pp. 243-248), Kindle Edition)

Chapter 16 shows how universalism subverts the institutions of society.

Giddens foresees the far reaching effects of opposing the institution of marriage on other institutions. But I think the priority lies with the church. Universalists, in refusing to be bound by rules, creeds, and institutions, embrace a similar scenario for their relationship with God as Giddens has traced it for marriage. I maintain that undermining the institution of the church, which sanctions government and marriage, will have even more severe consequences for society. I would argue that the very undermining of the institution of marriage presently going on by the gay community and the government is a result of the undermining and compromise of the church that preceded it. After all, it is the church that defines what is moral and sin, and homosexual behavior is condemned in Scripture. Yet many churches are embracing certain forms of same-sex behavior. It is these churches that are to blame for the erosion of the institution of marriage. (De Young, p.256, Kindle Edition)

Conclusion

De Young covers a lot of ground in the conclusion, including a salient paragraph by Oswald Chambers.

The Death of Jesus Christ is the performance in history of the very Mind of God. There is no room for looking on Jesus Christ as a martyr; His death was not something that happened to Him which might have been prevented: His death was the very reason why He came. Never build your preaching of forgiveness on the fact that God is our Father and He will forgive us because He loves us. It is untrue to Jesus Christ’s revelation of God; it makes the Cross unnecessary, and the Redemption “much ado about nothing.” If God does forgive sin, it is because of the Death of Christ. God could forgive men in no other way than by the death of His Son, and Jesus is exalted to be Saviour because of His death. “We see Jesus . .  .   because of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.” The greatest note of triumph that ever sounded in the ears of a startled universe was that sounded on the Cross of Christ—“ It is finished.” This is the last word in the redemption of man. Anything that belittles or obliterates the holiness of God by a false view of the love of God, is untrue to the revelation of God given by Jesus Christ. Never allow the thought that Jesus Christ stands with us against God out of pity and compassion; that He became a curse for us out of sympathy with us. Jesus Christ became a curse for us by the Divine decree. Our portion of realizing the terrific meaning of the curse is conviction of sin, the gift of shame and penitence is given us— this is the great mercy of God. Jesus Christ hates the wrong in man, and Calvary is the estimate of His hatred. (De Young, pp.263-264, Kindle Edition)

Excursus: The Doctrine of Endless Punishment by William G.T. Shedd

William G. T. Shedd was born to New England Puritan parents in 1820 and devoted his life to the teaching of theology. Among many works his The Doctrine of Endless Punishment was published in 1886, eight years before his death. He wrote this book because already universalism was being introduced into the Presbyterian church in Scotland and being accepted in America. Shedd’s work is a brilliant, persuasive defense of the doctrine of everlasting punishment. He is well acquainted with the history and influence of universalism and gives an able defense of the biblical truth from the standpoint of the Bible, reason, and history— the same three appeals that universalists use. (De Young, p.266, Kindle Edition)

In his first part, Shedd offers some new evidence for the historical reach of universalism (UR). As I tried to prove above, contrary to what UR asserts, the “common opinion in the Ancient church was that the future punishment of the impenitent was endless” (p. 1). Thus the claim of UR to the contrary is patently false. Shedd backs up his claim by noting that comparing this doctrine with that of the Trinity, there was far more dispute over the latter than over the former. Shedd notes that UR, having so little support in Scripture and reason, “gradually died out of the Ancient church by its own intrinsic mortality” (2). Neander in his history acknowledges that there was more “restorationism” in the period of 312-590, mainly due to the influence of the Alexandrian school under the influence of Clement and Origen, than earlier. Yet eternal punishment was the dominant view (2). Hagenbach agrees that during the period up to 250 most of the fathers held to eternal punishment. (p.268)

Shedd asserts that the views of Origen were strongly combatted by contemporary church leaders and subsequently by church leaders such as Epiphanius, Jerome, and Augustine (4). As far as the medieval church is concerned, it was virtually united in support of endless punishment. The Reformation churches, both Calvinistic and Lutheran, held the same position (4). (pp.268-269)

Since the Reformation many individuals and some sects have embraced various views of the afterlife: universalism, restorationism, and annihilation. Church denominations have never embraced these views, but some within them have done so. Evangelical churches have not embraced them [even into the 21st century, I would add]. Shedd notes that denial of endless punishment usually accompanies denial of original sin, vicarious atonement, and regeneration (5). [In the chapters above I’ve noted this same phenomena, which isn’t surprising]. (p.269)

Exposing Universalism is a great read for the serious student who wants a thorough understanding of the errors and dangers associated with the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation and how to combat them.