Why I Believe In Universal Salvation

What is Universal Salvation?

Also referred to as Universal Reconciliation or (Christian) Universalism, Universal Salvation is the theological doctrine that ‘all sinful and alienated human souls - because of divine love and mercy - will ultimately be reconciled to God’ (source). In other words, it’s the belief that everybody goes to heaven. Everybody. It competes with the more typical Christian belief that only Christians who have repented and believe wholly in Jesus Christ’s status as Lord and God will go to heaven when their time comes, and I have personally wrestled with both concepts, seeing both the Scriptural and moral reasoning behind the two.

Why do I believe in Universal Salvation?
I believe this for two reasons; morally and through the promises of Scripture. Firstly, Scripture.

Why wouldn’t everyone go to heaven? Well, in Isaiah 59:2, we learn that our sins have ‘hidden His (God’s) face’ from us. This implies that should we sin, God will turn from us and therefore nobody at all would go to heaven, as we all sin (see Romans 3:23). However, John 1:29 counters this idea in favour of heaven’s accessibility. ‘John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”’. If Jesus takes away the sin of the whole world, then the whole world has no reason to be separated from God.

The next logical question is what does ‘heaven' mean? Descriptions and signs of heaven are prevalent throughout the entire Bible, so I’ve picked out a select few that I feel sum it up. Isaiah 54:8 says that ‘“in a surge of anger I (God) hid my face from you for a moment, but with everlasting kindness I will have compassion on you”, says the Lord your Redeemer’. To me, this verse promises kindness both in this life and the next, as God and eternity are everlasting. The idea of eternity is echoed later, in the New Testament (John’s Gospel, chapter 17, verse 2 to be exact). This verse is a little tough to comprehend without context, so I’ve replaced the ‘You’s and ‘He’s with whom they are referring to. ‘For God granted Jesus authority over all people so that Jesus might give eternal life to all those God has given to Him’. If God has committed all things to Christ and Christ can give eternal life to all that God has given Him, then surely it makes sense for all things to have eternal life (in heaven). Revelations 21:4-5 are two of my favourite verses, as they provide such a vivid picture of heaven; ‘He (God) will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away’.

Then, we get to the tougher part: but is salvation for everybody? I think that Scripture says yes. ‘The Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples… destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations… swallow up death forever… wipe away the tears from al faces… remove His people’s disgrace from all the Earth’ (Isaiah 25:6-8). For all people. All people. He will eliminate death and remove the stain of all people’s sin. This notion of ‘all’ is repeated in John 12:32 (‘“And I (Jesus), when I am lifted up from the Earth, will draw all people to myself”’) and 1 Timothy 2:5-6 (‘the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all people’). If God wants all men to be saved, can His wants be thwarted? One final comment on the ‘all’ is the Parable of the Wandering Sheep in Matthew 18, telling us that like the man who owns 100 sheep and is unwilling to lose even one, God is not willing to lose one single person.

As a final point on Scripture and to sum up the entire belief of Universal Salvation, Romans 3:3-4 (‘What if some were unfaithful (to God)? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all!’).


Phew. Thanks for sticking around. Here’s the much shorter but just as important reason for my belief in Universal Salvation; morals.
Not morals as in ‘I want everyone to be happy, so I want them to all be happy in heaven’, although that is true of me honestly. If that was my only reason, that wouldn’t make either haven or Universal Salvation real, that would just make me compassionate. I mean morals as in I know God’s heart, I know He is loving and forgiving, compassionate and kind, and I know He wants the best for every single person, because He created them. He is your protector and sustainer who does not want to see you go without. He is infinite and eternal, with you in your past and present and future whether you feel like you know Him or not. He is wise and just and faithful, He will strengthen you and help you if you only ask. But most of all, God is Love.

If you know love, you know God. And believe me, He knows you.


For a more comprehensive list of the Scripture that supports the doctrine of Universal Salvation, visit this link.

Evidence for the Existence of God

Hi guys!
Before we start, I'd just like to apologise for how late this post is - I've been ill lately and haven't had the time or the energy to do anything that doesn't involve sleeping. But I'm (nearly) all better now, so on with last Sunday's post!

A while ago, I stumbled across a lecture given by William Lane Craig, an American philosopher and theologian, at Imperial College detailing scientific and historical arguments for the existence of God. He defines the lecture as explaining 'seven features of the world around us that point beyond the world'. The lecture is kind of long, so I've watched it so that you don't have to. Here's my attempt at summarising some (admittedly difficult to get your head around) hypotheses.

Contingency Argument
In A Nutshell: Why does anything at all exist? Why is there something rather than nothing?
Explained: If you found something, it'd be bizarre to think it just randomly existed. Everything that exists has an explanation of it's existence, either in necessity (numbers, abstract objects, sets) or from a cause (people, mountains, planets, galaxies). The universe must have an explanation too, and it must be an external (the cause can't have been within the universe because it created the universe), transcendent (the cause created space and time, so it must be beyond both) cause. The cause must either be abstract like a number or an intelligent mind. The cause can't be abstract because abstract things have no effect on real life things (e.g. the number 7 cannot create or destroy anything, it has no effect on anything). Therefore, the cause of the universe must be an intelligent mind.
My Opinion: I like this argument, I think it's pretty solid. Everything is logical and not based on assumptions, but abstract ideas always confuse me so it isn't the most straightforward argument.


Cosmological Argument
In A Nutshell: Origin of the universe - does it have a beginning? Or does it just go back forever, eternal and uncaused?
Explained: The idea of an infinite past is problematic - the number of past events being infinite gets a little complex. Infinity minus infinity equals any number from zero to infinity, as inverse operations are impossible in infinite terms. The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, it's role is solely that of an idea. There must be a finite number of past events, so the universe must have an absolute beginning of some sort a finite time ago. (This is confirmed by astronomy and astrophysics). Out of nothing, nothing comes. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. So the universe must have a cause. This cause must be uncaused (can't have an infinite chain of causes), changeless, timeless (it created time), and immaterial (it created space) being. It must be a 'personal agent endowed with freedom of the will'.
My Opinion: This one got complicated, with infinities and minus-ing and many many causes. However, I still think it makes sense, and it seems more valid because part of it is 100% confirmed by scientists who are not necessarily theists.


Teleological Argument
In A Nutshell: The universe is perfectly fine-tuned for intelligent life.
Explained: Intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the big bang itself, it is balanced on a knife's edge of fineness to an incomprehensible degree. Were any of these qualities to be altered by the smallest possible degree, life wouldn't exist. This gives three possibilities:

1. Physical necessity - it had to be that way, there was no chance of the universe not being life permitting
1. Implausible - qualities of existence are independent of the laws of nature, so life isn't a certainty at all.
2. Chance - it was an accident and entirely due to chance that life exists
1. The odds against life are so incomprehensibly great, that this possibility can't be reasonably faced.
3. Design - rejects both other arguments, intelligent mind designing the universe and life within it
1. Therefore, this is the only other possibility

My Opinion: This is a massively plausible and logical argument form my point of view. Life is so finely balanced, just like gravity and the makeup of air and the way that rainforests/eyes/hearts work.


Moral Argument
In A Nutshell: Can objective moral values exist without God?
Explained: (Objective moral values = values that lie outside the individual's ethics - e.g. the actions of the Nazis would continue to be wrong even if they succeeded in brainwashing everyone, or winning the war. The idea that there is a definitive right and wrong). The death of God is the destruction of value in life, and without God there is no absolute right or wrong. Objective moral values and duties do exist, as some things are inherently good/bad, right/wrong. Therefore logically, God exists.
My Opinion: This makes sense to me, as I'm a firm believer that there are some things which are absolute wrongs, or are never acceptable. Plus, I agree that God is a sort of marker for these objective moral values.


Ontological Argument
In A Nutshell: Is it possible for God to exist?
Explained: (Possible world = used by philosophers to describe a way the world might have been, a description of reality that might have been true. Actual world = reality, true description). God is maximally great, He is the greatest conceivable being. If you pictured something greater than God, then that would be God. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and therefore would be existing in every possible world. If a maximally great being exists in any possible world, He exists in all of them (that's what t means to be maximally great), so if God's existence is at all possible, He exists in any possible world, and therefore in the actual world.
My Opinion: Basically what this is saying, is if God's existence is even slightly possible in any conceivable world, then it is a certainty that He exists in the actual real world too.


The Resurrection of Jesus
In A Nutshell: Does the Resurrection of Jesus prove God's existence?
Explained: This is based on the historical facts of the story of Jesus of Nazareth's resurrection.

1. Empty tomb
1. Discovered by Jesus' female followers
2. Historically almost impossible to disprove
2. Jesus' postmortem appearances
1. Historical certainty that Peter and the disciples saw Jesus as the risen Christ
2. He was seen not only by believers, but also by sceptics, unbelievers, and even enemies of the early Christian movement
3. Origin of disciples' belief in Jesus' resurrection
1. They had a sudden and sincere belief in the resurrection of Jesus despite every predisposition to the contrary that they had been taught by the Jewish society 
2. They were willing to die for the truth of that belief

It's very hard to explain the fast rise of Christianity without the resurrection being fact. If God raised Jesus from the dead, then He must exist.

My Opinion: The resurrection is one of my favourite parts of the Gospel that people try to prove or disprove, and I think that it has many solid factual, historical, points that to me, directly prove the existence of a God.


The Immediate Experience of God
In A Nutshell: You can believe in God without arguments.
Explained: This isn't an argument, but an idea. You can personally experience God, knowing that He exists wholly without arguments (this is how people in the Old Testament knew God). God is not an idea adopted by the mind, but an experienced reality. The belief is formed in the context of certain experiences and is a natural formed, grounded belief. Could arguments distract us from knowing God personally?
My Opinion: I love this. I think it's so important that believers in God have faith in it's truest sense (not a blind faith, but a trust within themselves). Although it's imperative to question everything, sometimes you don't need to outright prove everything. Just believe.


If, after all this, you'd like to watch the video yourself to find out more, then just click here.

See you soon!