Monergism :: The Aseity (Self-Existence) of God

via monergism.com

Studying the Theology Program Trinitarianism, the self-existance or Aseity of God

Is Jesus God?

Appreciating the Clarity here, and the errors that some seek to force from the Early Church writings.

DJR

From time to time scholars suggest the divinity of Jesus is a later invention of the Church. Jesus, they claim, did not believe himself to be God, nor did he claim to be. His first followers, and the early church, likewise did not believe he was God but rather thought of him as a good teacher and moral example. The Da Vinci Code echoes such sentiments by declaring that “Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal.” He was not considered to be God until the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.

The problem with this view, however, is that the NT records clearly and repeatedly state otherwise. Paul, writing in the A.D. 50s, said Jesus is the “Christ, who is God over all, forever praised” (Rom. 9:5). Equally clear is his statement, penned in the early A.D. 60s, that “Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (Phil. 2:6). Similarly, he noted that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col. 2:9). Elsewhere, he spoke of “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:13).

The Gospels uniformly attest to Jesus’ claim to be God and to his followers’ belief that he was God. Peter confessed that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Mark wrote “the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). Before the Jewish high priest at his trial, when charged under oath by the living God to state whether he was the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus responded, “Yes, it is as you say. But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One . . .” (Matt. 26:63–64).

Perhaps the clearest affirmations of Jesus as God in any of the Gospels are found in the Gospel of John. In the opening verse, John identifies “the Word” (i.e. Jesus) as God (John 1:1). Jesus’ claim to be God was clearly understood by his opponents during his earthly ministry, as is made clear in John 5:18: “For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”

In John 8:58, Jesus claims, “before Abraham was born, I am,” using the OT name of God. Again, this implicit claim to deity was clearly understood by Jesus’ Jewish opponents, who picked up stones to stone him for blasphemy. Later, Jesus is recorded as saying, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and Thomas confesses him as his Lord and God (John 20:28). Finally, in his first epistle John wrote, “And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.”

We could go on and cite additional NT evidence (such as Heb. 1:3, 8 or 2 Pet. 1:1), but the above examples show that there is ample biblical support for the belief that Jesus knew himself to be God and claimed to be God during his earthly ministry and that his first followers—as well as his opponents—clearly understood him to claim divinity for himself. In fact, all but one of the Twelve and many other early Christians suffered martyrdom for this belief.

For further study, see my recently released booklet on The Da Vinci Code. See also Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Baker, 1992). I am also working on a book tentatively titled Father, Son, and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel (NSBT; IVP, forthcoming), in which I will deal with Jesus’ deity in light of first-century Jewish monotheism.

by Andreas Köstenberger - March 27th, 2006.
Filed under: Bible, Theology.

One Comments to “Is Jesus God?”
Andreas Kostenberger says:
April 20, 2006 at 11:03 am
A reader responded to Dr. Köstenberger’s blog, “Is Jesus God?”

The reader claims that Jesus is begotten, that is, created, and that, since God is One, not Three, Jesus had a beginning.

He also claims that Jesus is only the Son of God, not God. He says Jesus never referred to himself as God. Rather, Jesus called God his “God” or “Father.”

Dr. Köstenberger’s response:

Thank you for your reply to my blog.

I completely agree that, as you say, “We must allow Scripture to be our only source for truth, even if it goes against what our beloved pastors and teachers have taught us.” I would challenge you to live by this maxim of yours and to consider carefully the following Scripture passages in each of which Jesus is clearly called “God.”

• Romans 9:5: “Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.”
• Philippians 2:6: “Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature God.”
• Titus 2:13: “our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
• Matthew 1:23: “they will call him Immanuel, which means, ‘God with us.’ “
• Hebrews 1:8: “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever.’ ”
• 2 Peter 1:1: “our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
• John 20:28: [Thomas worshipping Jesus:] “My Lord and my God!”
• 1 John 5:20: “even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God . . .”

Note that in all these passages Jesus is not merely called “the Son of God” but “God.” Note also that these passages span the entire New Testament, including Matthew, John, Paul, Peter, and the author of Hebrews. Note, finally, that the early Christians, like Thomas, worshipped Jesus as God. This is the testimony of Scripture.

Sincerely,

Andreas J. Köstenberger

1 Thessalonians 2:13 and an Emerging Canon Consciousness

1 Thessalonians 2:13 and an Emerging Canon Consciousness

Daniel B. Wallace

Having been occcupied with this topic lately , the thought of the emerging Canon being in the mind of the NT authors, here Paul is very striking.
DJR

“And so we too constantly thank God that when you received God’s message that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human message, but as it truly is, God’s message, which is at work among you who believe” (NET).

“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers” (ESV).

“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe” (TNIV).

On the surface, 1 Thess 2:13 includes some of the major elements of bibliology: dual authorship—human personality involved in delivering God’s message, though God is the effective cause; canonicity—the Thessalonians accepted the Pauline teaching as the word of God; illumination/transformation—ἐνεργεῖται (this message is now working in those who believe). The point about canonicity is clearer in the ESV and the TNIV than in the NET because the NET has translated λόγον θεοῦ as ‘God’s message’ while the ESV and TNIV translate it as ‘the word of God.’
Does this verse mean that Paul really knew that he was speaking and writing scripture? If so, it is the earliest reference to such canon consciousness within the New Testament. And if that is the case, then we have an excellent basis for seeing this emerging canon consciousness as something that was from the beginning.

If we compare this statement to Peter’s admonition (1 Pet 4.11) about spiritual gifts, however, we may get a different take on things: “Whoever speaks must do so as one speaking the very words of God” (NRSV); “If you speak, you should do so as one who speaks the very words of God” (NET) [εἴ τις λαλεῖ, ὡς λόγια θεοῦ]. Should we say that those with teaching gifts are uttering new revelation when they teach? Even minimally, are their words inspired? Yet Peter’s statement comes at least a dozen years after Paul’s. Has he retreated from Paul’s self-conscious inscripturating activity? Or has he included countless unnamed individuals to the list of those who penned scripture?

It might be argued that a different word for ‘word’ is used in 1 Peter 4: λόγια instead of λόγος. This is true, but probably irrelevant since, if anything, λόγια is a stronger, more specific term than λόγος.
But to keep to the exact phrase, we do see in the New Testament that many are said to proclaim the ‘word of God.’ Consider the following texts (every reference has λόγος θεοῦ in Greek; the translation is that of the NET):

Acts 4:31—“they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God courageously”

Acts 6:7—“The word of God continued to spread, the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly, and a large group of priests became obedient to the faith.”

Acts 8:14—“Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.”

Acts 13:5—“When they arrived in Salamis, they began to proclaim the word of God in the Jewish synagogues.”

Acts 13:46—“Both Paul and Barnabas replied courageously, “It was necessary to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we are turning to the Gentiles.”

Acts 17:13—“But when the Jews from Thessalonica heard that Paul had also proclaimed the word of God in Berea, they came there too, inciting and disturbing the crowds.”

2 Cor 2:17—“For we are not like so many others, hucksters who peddle the word of God for profit, but we are speaking in Christ before God as persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God.”

2 Tim 2:9—“for which I suffer hardship to the point of imprisonment as a criminal, but God’s message is not imprisoned!”

Heb 13:7—“Remember your leaders, who spoke God’s message to you; reflect on the outcome of their lives and imitate their faith.”

Rev 1:9—“I, John, your brother and the one who shares with you in the persecution, kingdom, and endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony about Jesus.”

Rev 6:9—“Now when the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been violently killed because of the word of God and because of the testimony they had given.”

It is evident in most of these passages that ‘the word of God’ is speaking about the Christian message. The standard lexicon by Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich, in fact, says that each of these passages, and plenty more, is speaking about the Christian message rather than the Bible. To be sure, there are some passages in the New Testament in which ‘word of God’ refers to the written word of God, that is, the Old Testament (e.g., Matt 15:6; John 10:35; Rom 9:6), but this is a far less common meaning.
What should be recognized in at least the majority of the texts quoted above is that, on the one hand, the apostolic witness to Christ regarded itself as verbalizing the word of God—or the message from God about Christ—because the ultimate revelation was in Jesus. When Paul speaks of “carrying out the proclamation of the word of God” (Col 1.25) he is not speaking about proclaiming scripture (which would have been the Old Testament) but proclaiming the message about Jesus. Even in 1 Thess 2.13, this must be the case: the ‘word of God’ that Paul is referring to is the proclamation he and Silas made in Thessalonica, not the letter of 1 Thessalonians since he is referring to what he and Silas proclaimed in person before this letter was ever penned. Hence, we must not think that ‘word of God’ = Bible as a rule. On the other hand, Paul recognized that his message originated with God, not with himself. And at some point, it was a natural development for the early church to regard the apostolic writings as scripture, though this did not seem to explicitly happen, except in isolated instances, until the latter half of the second century.
There is thus an emerging ‘canon consciousness’ with respect to the apostolic writings. By AD 50, it is not yet there. There are two passages in the New Testament, both written much later, that are often cited as proof texts that the New Testament writers were self-consciously writing scripture, or at least that they were calling other portions of the New Testament ‘scripture.’ We will examine those in another study, but for now the question that we are raising is this: When did the early church begin to see the writings of the New Testament as scripture? When did they begin to place them explicitly on the same level of authority as the Old Testament? Did it take place within the pages of the New Testament itself, or only later? And, if later, how much later? All of this is part and parcel to the theological development within the New Testament (and beyond) that begins with the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is that radical event that ultimately changed how a small band of Jews would think of God, scripture, the people of God and, above all, the Messiah.

More of Christ! More of Christ!

More of Christ! More of Christ!

by James Smith, 1860

What is it my soul, which causes this uneasiness, this dissatisfaction, this deep inward yearning after something which you have not, or do not at present enjoy? I am not at rest. I am not rejoicing in God. I am not singing from the heights of Zion. Yet, I have no slavish fears, I have no gloomy doubts of my saving interest in Christ, I have no actual dread of death or the judgment. But I feel a desire to climb higher, to know more, and to enjoy the power of religion within — as I have not of late. It seems to me that all myneeds lead me to Christ, and all my desires go out toward Christ. I want — well, what do I want?

I want to feel more of my NEED of Christ. I have imagined at times, that I could not have a deeper sense of my need of Christ, and of all that Christ is, and has — than I have already experienced. But I am persuaded now that I may, and that only in proportion as I daily feel my need of Christ — shall I desire to know him, trust in him, and enjoy him. I know theoretically, that I need Christ in every office which he sustains, in every relationship which he fills, and in every character which he has assumed. I need him not only to rescue me from death — but to feed me, clothe me, teach me, keep me, guide me, and comfort me. I need him to do all for me, and all within me — which either God, or my circumstances require. O to feel more of my need of Jesus, that I may not be happy one moment — but only as I look to him, lean on him, and receive from him!

I want to KNOW more of Christ. O how little do I really know of Christ! I have thought of him, spoken of him, and wrote about him — but how little I really know of him. I want to know more of the person of Christ, more of thegrace of Christ, and more of the work of Christ. I want to know more of Christ for me, and more of Christ within me. I want to know more of thewords of Christ, and more of the heart of Christ. I want to know Jesus as God's Christ — and as my Christ. I want so to know Christ, as never to doubt his love, question his veracity, or to fear his coming. Yes, so to know him — as to devote myself wholly to him, and be ready at any time to depart and be with him!

I want more AFFECTION for Christ. Yes, I want to love Jesus — and to feel that I love him. I want to love him — and to prove by my conversation, conduct, and spirit — that I do so love him. There ought to be no doubt on my own mind on this point — but I should be ready to say, "I love him — because he first loved me." There ought to be no cause or occasion for any who know me, to question whether I love him. O no, his love should so influence my conduct, and his love should so season my conversation — that all about me may feel sure, that if I love anyone, I love Jesus. O that the Holy Spirit would shed abroad the love of Christ in my heart more and more — that my love to him may be as strong as death!

I want to realize more sensibly my UNION with Christ. Christ is the head of the church, and all the true members of that church are in union with him. I cannot but believe that I am one with Christ. I often feel as if I could not live without Christ. But I want daily and hourly to live under the impression — that Christ and my soul are one. That I am a member of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. What privilege can exceed this — to be united to Christ! Then, because he lives — I shall live also. Then he will use his influence for me, spend his wealth upon me, and desire to have me with him to behold his glory. O Jesus, dwell more sensibly in my heart, and let me dwell more sensibly in you!

I want more COMMUNION with Christ. Communion flows from union — and proves its vitality. No union to Christ — no communion with Christ. And if there is no communion with Christ — then there is no evidence of union to Christ. The branch being one with the vine — receives its life, sap, and nourishment from the vine. Just so, we being one with Christ — receive our spiritual life, holiness, and happiness from Christ. The member lives, grows, and is strong — because it is in union with the head. Just so, the believer lives, grows, and is strong — because he is in union with Christ, the head. In proportion as we realize our union with Christ, will be the sweetness and constancy of our communion with Christ. And in proportion to the sweetness and constancy of our communion with Christ — will be the assurance of ourunion to Christ. O for more sweet, sanctifying, and soul-ennobling communion with Jesus!

I want more ASSIMILATION to Christ. What I see in Christ I admire, and I admire all that I see in Christ. But admiration is not enough. I want to be likeJesus, just like him — altogether like him. The more I am with him, and the more I see of him — the more I sigh, cry, and long to be like him! I think one may live at such a distance from Christ, and have so little to do with Christ — that he may not be very anxious or desirous to be like him. But I am sure that we cannot be much in his company, or be led by the Holy Spirit, to see much of his moral and spiritual beauty — but we shall desire to be fully like him. At times, this seems to be the one thing needful with me, the one thing that I desire of the Lord — that I may be like Jesus. But it is not always so, it is not sufficiently so — therefore I cannot but wish for moreassimilation to Christ.

I want to be fully POSSESSED of Christ. Not only to be like him — but to bewith him — not only with him in grace — but with him in glory! I am sure that I shall never be perfectly satisfied — until I have Christ always with me — until I am always with him in his Father's home and kingdom. This is promised me, I must believe the promise, and wait for its fulfillment. Soon it will be true in my experience, "Absent from the body — present with the Lord." I shall "depart and be with Christ — which is far better" than being here, distant from him, and so often sighing for the enjoyment of him! Then I shall possess Christ! Then I shall be fully satisfied with the presence of Christ.

O Lord, let me have a deeper sense of my saving interest in Christ now, let me enjoy more of him while on earth — and then I know that I shall be satisfied when I awake up in his glorious likeness!

Now it seems to me that these things go together, or naturally follow each other:

In proportion as I feel my need of Christ — I shall desire to know Christ — to know him fully, to know him experimentally.

In proportion as I know Christ — shall I desire to set my affections on Christ, and to love him with an unquenchable love.

Just in proportion to my love to him — will be my desire to realize close and vital union to him.

In proportion as I realize my union to Christ — shall I want to have and enjoy communion with Christ.

In proportion as I enjoy communion with Christ — shall I long for assimilationto Christ.

And as I long for assimilation to Christ — shall I desire fully to possess him, and to be forever with him!

Reader, do you know anything about these things? I have written these lines out of my own heart, and they express the feelings and desires of my soul.

If I know anything — I do know in a degree my need of Christ.

If I desire anything — I do desire to know Christ.

If I wish to love at all — I wish to love Christ supremely.

If I prize anything — I prize union to Christ.

If I desire anything — I desire communion with Christ.

If I aspire to anything — I aspire to be like Christ.

If I am persuaded that I shall be satisfied with anything — I am persuaded that I shall be satisfied with the presence and possession of Christ.

All my religion finds its center in Christ!

My whole creed begins, goes on, and ends with Christ!

I value doctrines — but I set more value on Christ!

I prize ordinances — but I think more highly of Christ!

With me it is — Christ first, Christ middle, Christ last!

Reader, is it so with you?

Future Punishment: Its Character and Duration

STEM Publishing: The writings of F. B. Hole: Future Punishment: Its Character and Duration

Future Punishment: Its Character and Duration

F. B. Hole.

There is no point within the whole compass of Divine truth where human thoughts and opinions are of any value. But at no point is it more necessary to rigidly exclude them than from the solemn subject which is now to occupy us. Immediately the punishment of sin is in question we are all of us alert and inclined to make our voices heard. We are none of us disinterested spectators, but rather in the position of a criminal in the dock being tried for his life. Now a criminal is never an unprejudiced judge of his own case, neither are we in this matter of future punishment. So let us begin by recognizing the very natural warp of our fallen reason In relation to this theme, and resolving to close our minds to our own thoughts as to what ought to be, and to listen to the plain declarations of what is going to be, given to us in Scripture by God the Judge of all.

It may be well to begin at the very beginning and enquire if the Bible indicates that there is to be such a thing as punishment at all? There are not wanting those who would do away with the whole idea in relation to God's government of His creatures, just as there are also those who are always inclined to bewail the bitter fate of the assassin when brought face to face with justice, whilst having scant sympathy, or none at all, to spare for his victim!

Read carefully Romans 2: 1 to 16, and you will find that Scripture testifies with no uncertain sound to the reality of future punishment. There is such a thing as "the judgment of God." That judgment is going to be expressed in "wrath" in the coming "day of wrath." It is going to probe beneath the surface of things in that day and deal with "the secrets of men." And if any should enquire what exactly "wrath" may mean, we are told in further detail when it is said that to those contentious, and who do not obey the truth, God will render "indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish" (ver. 9), and that without any respect of persons.

There is nothing surprising in these statements. They are guise after the analogy of those dealings of God's government which are visible to us. He most evidently has attached temporal penalties to sins, which are often clearly to be seen in this life. Why not, then, the full and proper penalties in the life to come?

Another question now comes up for settlement. Granted that the future punishment of sin is a reality, what is to be its character? Is it remedial and reformatory, or is it penal and retributory? A very important question, for the answer to it will go a long way towards settlement of the subsequent question as to its duration. If punishment in the life to come is with the object of making its subjects better, it stands to reason that it cannot be for ever.

Is future punishment spoken of in Scripture as an instrument of reformation? Is hell to be a great penitentiary, designed to effect that betterment in recalcitrant mankind which the preaching of grace never effected? We unhesitatingly answer, No.

Not only do we answer, No, but we go further and assert that at no time do we find reformation produced by God's dealings in judgment. In Egypt God dealt with Pharaoh, increasing the severity of His strokes. Was his heart softened? No, it was hardened. Later, God dealt in the same way with His apostate people Israel as He said He would in Leviticus 26. After foretelling some of the dreadful calamities to come He says in verse 23, "If ye will not be reformed by Me in these things . . . then will I . . . punish you yet seven times for your sins." Were they reformed? No; the extremes" punishments indicated came upon them as a nation. Concerning future judgment we read in Revelation 16: 11 how men will blaspheme the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and will not repent of their deeds.

Today, thank God, men do repent, but why? Because, as Romans 2: 4 tells us, it is "the goodness of God" that leads to repentance. But it is this very chapter that asserts that if men do not suffer the goodness of God to take them by the hand and lead them to repentance, they will find themselves seized by the severity of God and haled to judgment.

We do not need to go outside that passage to discover what character the judgment of God bears. It is said to be "against them which commit such things," for they are "worthy of death" according to the last verse of Romans 1. The sinner is asked if he thinks that he shall "escape the judgment of God." This language is not that which befits reformation but points clearly to retribution.

The fact is, this idea that hell is a kind of penitentiary, which is hardly distinguishable from the purgatory of the Romanist, cuts right at the roots of the Gospel. Salvation never has been, is not today, and never will be by reformation. Salvation is by faith and on the ground of the penalty and retribution of sin having been borne — of old typically in connection with the sacrifices, now borne really and fully by the sacrifice of Christ Himself upon the Cross.

Salvation by a reformation which, it is claimed, the fires of hell will produce, might be conceivable IF it were accomplished today by a reformation which the Gospel produces. Since, however, it is to-day only to be found in the bearing of sin's righteous penalty and retribution by another, the Lord Jesus Christ, it could only be found in eternity by a similar bearing of the penalty, and this will never be; for Christ will not suffer again, and no sinner can take up the penalty and exhaust it. If a sinner passes under sin's penalty, under it he must remain forever.

No Scripture referring to future punishment treats it as a matter of reformation, and a great many of the passages are so worded as clearly to negative that idea, and show it is a matter of retribution As an instance of this latter class take 1 Peter 4: 17, 18. That Apostle asks, "If it [judgment] first begin at us [Christians] what shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God? and if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" He evidently knew well enough that no one with any show of truth could turn round and say, "Why, of course, the end of those that obey not the Gospel will be just the same as that of those who obey: the ungodly and sinners will ultimately appear, refined by age-long fires, in the same heaven as the godly and the saints."

That which lies ahead of the ungodly and sinners as their end is "judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries" (Heb. 10: 27).

Now we approach the fateful question: —

Does Scripture indicate that this coming fiery indignation of God against sinners will be forever? The answer is that it clearly does so.

Take as one example out of many scriptures, Matthew 25: 46. The words we allude to were spoken by the Lord Himself as the climax of His description of the judgment He will execute on the living nations assembled before Him, as He begins His millennial reign. "These shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

That particular judgment, then, will have a twofold issue. It will be either life or punishment. Life in its full and proper sense will embrace all that aggregate of privileges, relationships, and blessings, the crown of all being the knowledge of the Lord, of which the earth will then be full. Punishment will embrace all those woes and penalties which are appropriate to the state of sin in which men generally are found, and to the individual sins of those in question, including the crowning one of the rejection of the Divine testimony through those whom the King acknowledges as His brethren. And both the life and the punishment are eternal. No one seems anxious to prove that eternal life is not eternal. Multitudes labour to explain that eternal punishment is not eternal. Why? It is simply a case of the prisoner in the dock revolting against his sentence! Apart from such prejudice — natural enough, but very fatal if indulged in — there is no reason for denying to eternal in the first half of the sentence what is freely admitted as to it in the second. Scripturally both parts stand or fall together.

This scripture is only one out of many that might be cited, from the solemn warnings of our Lord as to the worm that never dies and "the fire that never shall be quenched," in the Gospels, to the awful words as to "the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death," in the last book of the New Testament. There really is no doubt as to what is the testimony of Scripture on the point, though the attempts to juggle with its words and make them give another voice have been, and still continue to be, without number.

With all the ingenuity that has been expended and wasted in this way only two alternatives to eternal punishment have ever been imagined. The one is that in some way or other all will finally be saved. This is known as "universalism." The other is that man naturally just dies as the beasts that perish and that endless being and existence are only his as born again and in Christ. This is known as "annihilationism" or the "conditional immortality" theory.

Now one verse of Scripture — John 3: 36 — utterly destroys both theories. We read: " He that believeth not the Son shall not see life." The universalist theory is that ultimately, no matter how remote the age may be, he shall see life. The Lord Jesus says he shall NOT. He added, "But the wrath of God abideth on him." According to the annihilationist he is non-existent and therefore not there for the wrath of God to abide upon. According to the Lord Jesus he is there and upon him the wrath abides, without any hint of a moment when it ceases to abide.

The Lord Jesus thus, with Divine foreknowledge, negatived these specious theories of a later age.

By this denial of the two rival theories, therefore, we come back to the solemn fact, so abundantly stated in a positive way in Scripture, that there is such a thing as future punishment, that it is in the nature of solemn retribution for sin, and that once falling it endures for ever.

That the punishment of sin should be eternal is a dreadful thought. Can it be defended as just, and therefore right?

It is truly a dreadful thought, and the reality will be more dreadful still; but, then, sin is a dreadful thing. Who can measure sin's demerit? Can we embrace within our finite minds the full bearing, the uttermost ramifications, of an act of lawless rebellion against God? No, indeed. That would be as impossible as to embrace within our arms the solar system of which this earth is a very insignificant part. Who are we, then, to form and express opinions as to what may be the just and proper punishment to fit the case?

God is "the Judge of all the earth" and He will do right. Let us quit the folly of attempting to pronounce upon what He ought to do, and rather pay attention to what He has stated in the Scriptures that He will do; for that, and that alone, will ultimately stand.

Is it, however, quite certain that the Greek word rendered "eternal" and "everlasting" in our version really has the force of "endless"? May it not just mean "age-long," as its derivation would indicate?

As we have before observed, the derivation of a word settles little or nothing; it is its usage that matters. It is quite true that the Greek adjective aionios is built up from aion — an age, hence age-lasting may have been one of its meanings. The word, however, acquired the sense of eternal, and this is its sense in Scripture, as a good concordance will easily show you. It is used in regard to God, the Spirit, salvation, redemption, life, and many other great verities of the faith. So that we may say that except it does denote endlessness we know of nothing at all that is endless.

One of the most conclusive passages we can cite on this point is 2 Corinthians 4: 18, where the Apostle contrasts the things which are seen with those not seen. The former, he says, are "temporal," the latter, "eternal."

Here the word eternal MUST be used in the sense of "having no end," otherwise it would be no true contrast to temporal, which means "having an end." The seen things may endure for many thousands of years — for ages, as we speak. They may be age-long but they have an end. The unseen things abide not for ages merely, but for ever. They have no end.

Here, then, we shall surely find used the true and proper word for eternal if the Greek language possesses it, and not merely a word meaning "age-lasting." We turn up a Greek Testament, and what word do we find? —

Could proof be stronger that in Scripture usage aionios means eternal in its true and proper sense?

Some people think that eternal punishment cannot be reconciled with the fact that God is love, and therefore they refuse to believe it. Is there any force in this argument?

None whatever. The Scriptures reveal equally both facts, so that those who speak thus are really levelling their accusation of inconsistency at the Bible.

As a matter of fact, however, there is no inconsistency at all, but the very reverse. The strongest possible abhorrence is quite consistent with the strongest possible affection; we would indeed go further and say it is inseparable from it. It is impossible to regard any one with deep love and not heartily hate all that imperils that person in any way.

There is nothing, therefore, incompatible with God's love in His declared purpose to segregate all that is evil in eternity. At present good and evil seem hopelessly mixed in this world. A day is coming in which they will be finally disentangled. Good will bask in the sunshine of His favour. Evil will lie eternally beneath His frown. Thus, evil, eternally shut up in its own place, and enduring its just penalty, will no longer be able to threaten the peace and blessing of God's redeemed creation.

No one regards the isolation of small-pox patients or the still more sorrowful life-isolation of lepers as measures incompatible with benevolence amongst men. Why, then, object to God acting with similar intent in eternity?

Hell is sometimes painted in such lurid colours that minds are revolted. Is there foundation for this?

Imagination has, we fear, often run riot with this solemn subject, and people sometimes mistake Dante's Inferno for the hell of the Bible. This has furnished a useful handle to those who would deny the whole subject. The Bible speaks as ever in the language of reserve and restraint, yet the glimpses it gives are full of terror and it evidently is not intended that they should be otherwise.

To be incarcerated in sin's great prison-house for all eternity in conscious torment will be a fearful thing, and it is the kindness of God that plainly warns us of sin's consequences.

Moreover, it is evidently God's way to have a memorial of sin's effects, even when those effects are otherwise not visible. During the millennial age, for instance, when the face of the earth will be smiling with abundant fruitfulness, and mankind will be richly blessed, there will be certain spots of which it is written, "they shall not be healed; for they shall be given to salt" (Ezek. 47: 11), and also in some way "the carcases of the men that have transgressed" against the Lord will be preserved so that men shall "go forth and look, upon" them (Isa. 66: 23, 24). It will be salutary for those blessed in that delightful age to have before them reminders of sin's former havoc both in nature and amongst men.

May there not be an analogy between God's action in such matters and His action in the far greater matter of an eternal hell? Who can affirm that the solemn doom of the lost in the lake of fire may not have some such service to render throughout eternity?

Is it clear from Scripture that the souls of men are immortal? The doctrine of eternal punishment can hardly be maintained apart from that.

In Scripture the adjectives "mortal" and "immortal" are applied to man's body, and we do not find the phrase "immortal soul." Yet it is quite clear that the soul, or spiritual part of man, survives death. Our Lord said, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul" (Matt. 10: 28). He used here a word of strong force, meaning "to kill utterly or entirely." A feeble man may easily thus kill the body of another, but the soul is immortal and eludes him. The Lord added, "fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," and here He changed the word and used another, which means, "to mar or ruin, as regards the purpose for which a thing exists." It is the word used for perish in John 3: 16, and for the perishing of the bottles in Matthew 9: 17. It is also used in Matthew 27: 20, when we read of the leaders persuading the multitude "that they should ask Barabbas and destroy Jesus." A very clear proof this, that destruction does not mean annihilation.

The whole verse teaches, first, that the soul is not mortal like the body, and, second, that in hell God intends not to annihilate, but to bring down into ruin, the whole man, both soul and body.

The soul, therefore, IS immortal, for man has it in connection with spirit, receiving it by the Divine in-breathing as Genesis 2: 7 records. Becoming a "living soul" in this fashion, man is not as the; beasts which perish.

There are many who argue that just as death is ceasing to exist, so the lake of fire, which is the second death, must imply total cessation of existence. Is this reasoning sound?

Viewed as a piece of reasoning, it is about as feeble and fallacious as can be. Were we to reply in reasoning vein, we should simply observe that if death is ceasing to exist then there can be no second death. You can't cease to exist in any proper sense, and yet exist so as to cease to exist in a second death! What strange things men will say in their efforts to overthrow the plain truth of God.

Yet, superficially, the statement has the appearance of being a real objection. This is derived from the giving of a false value to one of the great words of Scripture, viz. death.

This word occurs first in Genesis 2: 17, and Genesis 3 is the record of how the death sentence fell on our first parents. Its use in the Bible is constant until we reach the last chapter but one of the New Testament, where we find "a new heaven and a new earth" where "there shall be no more death," and yet at the same time 'the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Now, right through, we affirm that death NEVER means "ceasing to exist," but always has the force of separation: either, the separation of the creature spiritually and morally from God, in which sense men are "dead in trespasses and sins;" or the separation of soul and spirit from the body, which is death physically; or yet again the final separation of the whole man, if unrepentant and unsaved, from God and all that is good and bright and worth possessing, in the lake of fire, and that is the second death.

The first use of the word death in Genesis 2 and 3 clearly bears this out. God threatened Adam with death on the day of his disobedience. Adam disobeyed and lived on to the age of nine hundred and thirty years. Was it, then, an idle threat? Not at all. The day he sinned he died, in the first sense of the word, i.e. he became totally separated and estranged from his Maker, "dead in sins." His physical death was deferred inasmuch as the Lord brought death that day upon some other denizen or denizens of the gar 'en and clothed the guilty sinners with their skins. Centuries after, physical death supervened. Adam then passed out of all touch with this world, but he exists as regards God. As the Lord Himself said, "all live unto Him" (Luke 20: 38).

We therefore repeat with emphasis: Death, in Scripture, does not mean "ceasing to exist."

So many people, apparently true Christians, cannot accept the teaching of eternal punishment. Is it of such great moment whether they do or whether they do not?

Seeing that all the items of God's truth are not so many isolated fragments, but one whole, each item being like a stone of an arch, it matters much. Knock out one stone and you never know which will go next.

Suppose that, after all, eternal punishment is a mistake, then whichever alternative view we adopt we must at least conclude that sin is a matter much less grave than we had supposed; that its demerit, though perhaps considerable, cannot be infinite. That being so, we need not suppose that an infinite sacrifice is needed to atone for it, nor, consequently, that it must be necessary for a Person of infinite worth and value to become that sacrifice. Logically, therefore, we can abandon without difficulty the great truth of Atonement by blood, and of the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. We could quite consistently and conveniently become of Unitarian persuasion.

And as a matter of fact and history, it is to Unitarianism, full-blown, that the denial of eternal punishment has always led, though not all advance to the final conclusions with giant strides.

That is why the denial of eternal punishment is a matter of such gravity.

via stempublishing.com

Sound ministry in response to the errors of Universalism. The disproportionate number of Early Church Fathers holding this error has led me to this consideration

Don Raymond

Universalism

Found this list while searching for materials on the topics of figures of speech...

Believers and Supporters of Christian Universalism

---

Christian Universalism: The belief that everything in heaven and on earth will ulitmately be reconciled back to the Creator through the work of Jesus Christ, his Son. In plain language, no one is going to be endlessly tortured as has been commonly taught. The teaching has been in the church since its inception. The ancient church fathers called it in by its name found in the Greek New Testament, apokatastasis, the is, the "restoration of all things." (Acts 3:21) It has also be known simply by the name universalism, sometimes it's called "Biblical Universalism. It's been known by Ultimate Reconciliation, Universal Salvation, Universal Restoration, The Larger Hope, The Greater Faith, the Doctrine of Inclusion. I, Gary Amirault, like to call it the "Victorious Gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul, the apostle called it the "Glorious Gospel." When Christians once again embrace this teaching in great numbers, Christian will once again shine like a city of a hill and draw those to it that could never embrace a God who said he was love and all-powerful and yet managed to lose most of mankind which is what the present-day church teaches.
Famous people throughout the centuries who have declared publicly or strongly hinted that they believe all mankind will ultimately be saved. Remember, during most of Church history, openly declaring this belief often cost one their lives. The list includes early Church Fathers and leaders, theologians, scholars, historians, royalty, writers, poets, statesmen, humanitarians, scientists, and other streams of life. While some may not be well known to Americans living in the twentieth century, they are well known in the countries and times in which they lived. These men and women left written evidence behind declaring their views. Behind them stand millions who, while not having left behind a written record of their beliefs on earth, nevertheless, will one day brightly manifest to all creation as a Great Cloud of Witnesses.
This list was compiled from several sources among which are: "A Cloud of Witnesses" by J.W. Hanson, first published in 1885 and reprinted by Concordant Publishing Concern; "Mercy and Judgment" by Canon F.W. Farrar, published in 1881; "Christ Triumphant" by Thomas Allin, first published in 1890, reprinted by Concordant Publishing Concern; and "Universal Reconciliation and the Evangelical Covenant Church." Dean Hough, Editor ofUnsearchable Riches also contributed greatly to the list.
We are currently updating this list. Please click on names for additional biographical information. Check back with us from time to time. If you know of names that should be on this list, email them to us at info@tentmaker.org

• All the Hebrew Prophets who prophesied of the coming of the Messiah
• Jesus Christ (John 12:32)
• Paul, the Apostle (never used the word "Hell" once) (1 Tim. 4:9-11)
• John the Apostle (John 4:42)
• The Didascalia (the Catechetical school of Alexandria)
• Pantaenus, first head of catechetical school at Alexandria
• Clement of Alexandria, second head of catechetical school at Alexandria
• Origen, greatest scholar of the early church
• Athenasius, Archbishop of Alexandria
• Didymus
• Ambrose, Bishop
• Ephraim
• Chrysostum
• Gregory of Nyssa, Bishop
• Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop and President of the second Church council
• Titus, Bishop of Bostra
• Asterius, Bishop of Amasea
• Cyril
• Methodius, Bishop of Tyre
• Eusibius, early church historian
• Hillary, Bishop of Poictiers
• Victorinus
• Macrina, the younger
• Erigena
• Dionysius
• Barsudaili, Abbott of Edessa
• Diodore, Bishop of Tarsus and Jerusalem
• Theodore of Mopsuestia
• John Cassian
• Maximus of Turin
• Proclus, Bishop of Constantinoplus
• Theodoret the Blessed, Bishop of Cyrrhus
• Peter Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna
• Theophylact, Archbishop of Achrida
• Anselm
• Hermes Trisgistus
• Joachim of Flora
• Thomas Hobbes
• Francis Quarles
• Sir Harry Vane
• La Fontaine
• Sir Isaac Newton
• Daniel Defoe
• Joseph Addison
• Isaac Watts
• Dr. Edward Young
• Chevalier Ramsay
• William King, Archbishop of Dublin
• William Duncombe
• Bishop Joseph Butler
• John Donne
• James Thompson
• Dr. Philip Doddridge
• Peter Bohler
• Dr. David Hartley
• Thomas Say
• Samuel Johnson
• Jean Jacques Rousseau
• Frederick the Great
• Ferdinand Oliver Petitpiere
• Henry Brooke
• Mark Akenside
• Immanuel Kant
• Thomas Gainesborough
• William Cowper
• James Neckar
• Dr. Joseph Priestley
• Jung Stilling
• John Frederick Oberlin
• Alison Rutherford Cockburn
• Johann Kasper Lavater
• Anna Letitia Barbauld
• Dr. John Prior Estlin
• Samuel Parr
• T. W. Goethe
• Thomas Belsham
• Rev. Robert Aspland
• George Crabbe
• Ralph Cudworth
• Henry Moore
• Erbury
• Samuel Richardson
• Bishop Rust
• Jeremy White
• Bishop Stillingfleet
• Dr. Burnet, Master of the Charter House
• William Whiston
• Bishop Newton
• William Law
• J. Windet
• R. Clark
• Cooke
• J. Relly
• Sir George Stonehouse
• W. Dudgeon
• Capel Berrow
• C. Charnay
• Elhanan Winchester
• John Murry
• Ershine of Linlathen
• Anne Bronte
• Whittier
• Robert and Elizabeth Browning
• Robert Burns
• Johann Schiller
• Joanna Baillie
• Samuel Rogers
• Sir James Mackintosh
• Alexander Von Humboldt
• Samuel Taylor Coleridge
• John Foster
• Whitman
• Edna Lyall
• George MacDonald
• Mrs. Oliphant
• James Hinton
• C. Bronte
• Emily Bronte
• Gen. Gordon
• Miss Mulock
• Alexander Pope
• William Wordsworth
• James Montgomery
• Thomas Dick
• James Hogg
• Robert Southey
• Fredericka Bremer
• Ellice Hopkins
• Hesba Stretton
• Florence Nightingale
• F. Schlegel
• Ralph Waldo Emerson
• Bishop Ewing of Argyll
• Canon Kingsley
• John F.D. Maurice
• Dr. Samuel Cox
• Baldwin Brown
• Bishop Westcott
• F. W. Robertson
• Sir G. W. Cox
• Andrew Jukes
• Rev. Lucius R. Paige
• Thomas Whittimore
• J. H. Hanson
• Archer Gurney
• Phillips Brooks
• Professor Mayor
• Canon F. W. Farrar
• Principal Caird, the Bishop of Meath
• Dean Church
• Johann A. W. Neander
• Martensen
• Friedrich A.G. Tholuck, German Professor
• E.A. Thomas Rawson Birks, secretary to Evangelical Alliance
• Erik Jakob Ekman, author
• Karl Johan Nyvall, author
• Peter Paul Waldenstrom
• Reuss
• Spener
• Kristofer Jakob Bostrom, prof. of Philosophy, University of Uppsala
• Johna Wilhelm Personne, Swedish Lutheran Bishop, author
• Nils Ignell, pastor, author
• Rev. Dr. Littledale
• Rev. H. B. Wilson
• Bishop Forbes of Brechin
• Bishop Moorhouse of Melbourne
• Dean Stanley
• Rev. Prof. Challis
• Archdeacon Reichel D. D.
• Rev. Prof. J. B. Mayor
• A.J. Beresford-Hope
• Rev. T. Griffith, Prebendary of St. Paul's
• Archbishop Tillotson
• Richard Coppin
• Gerard Winstanley
• R. Stafford
• Bishop Stillingfleet
• Rev. Dr. Thomas Burnet
• Dr. Doddridge
• Archdeacon Paley
• Rev. Dr. Hey, Prof. of Divinity
• Dr. Cheyne
• Rev. Presbendary Constable, M.A.
• Rev. R. W. Dale
• Rev. Edward White
• Rev. Henry Allon D. D.
• M. Guillaume Monad
• Nathaniel Scarlett
• Paul Chatfield
• Helen Maria Williams
• F. W. Faber
• Charles Lamb
• Mrs. Mary M. Sherwood
• F. W. T. Schelling
• Sarah Flower Adams
• Walter Savage Landor
• Henry Crabb Robinson
• Thomas Campbell
• Horace Smith
• William Ellery Channing
• Rev. L. Carpenter L.L.D.
• F. De La Mennais
• Washington Irving
• Bernard Barton
• Leigh Hunt
• Thomas De Quincey
• John Pierpont
• John Wilson
• Prof. Espy
• Dr. T. Southwood Smith
• Lord Byron
• Lady Byron
• H. H. Milman
• Percy B. Shelley
• Felicia Dorothea Hemans
• William Cullen Bryant
• William Whewell
• J. G. Percival
• Horace Mann
• Hartley Coleridge
• T. C. Lockhart
• Gerritt Smith
• Theophilus Parsons
• Thomas Hood
• McDonald Clarke
• Dr. F Hase, professor of theology
• Chauncey Townsend
• Frederika Bremer
• Johann Peter Lange
• Dr. C. F. Kling
• Lydia Maria Child
• William Leggell
• Thomas Guthrie
• Bishop Ewing
• George Sand
• Nathaniel Hawthorne
• Mary Bowitt
• T. P. Nichol L.L.D.
• James Marlineau
• Hans Christian Andersen
• John Stuart Mill
• Rev. J. C. Street
• Rev. T. Latham
• Emile Giradin
• Elizabeth Oakes Smith
• N. T. Willis
• John Sterling
• Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
• John Greenleaf Whittier
• Rev. L. C. Marvin
• Abel C. Thomas
• Christian Edward Baumstark
• Caroline E. S. Norton
• John R. Thompson
• Ross Winans
• Oliver Wendell Holmes
• Alfred Tennyson
• Richard Milnes
• Prof. J. S. Blackie
• John R. Beard D.D.
• Edward Clodd
• Mary Carpenter
• Theodore Parker
• Margaret Fuller Ossoli
• J. S. Taylor
• George Moore
• Martin Tupper
• Charles Sumner
• Horace Greeley
• W. M. Thackery
• J. H. Scholten
• Harriet Beecher Stowe
• Norman MacLeod D.D.
• Charles Mackay
• Charles Dickens
• Lewis Carroll
• Henry Ward Beecher
• J. Ross Browne
• Sylvester Judd
• Rev. C. A. Bartol
• Rev. Fergus Ferguson
• Caroline M. Sawyer
• Daniel Schenkel
• Franz Delitsch
• Johann Tauler
• Jean De Ruysbroek
• Johann Arndt
• Sonner
• Denk
• Hetzer
• Johann Wilhelm Petersen
• Matthew Reuz
• Johan Conrad (Christian) Dippel
• John Henry Haug, Prof. at Strasburg
• Dr. Ernest Christoph Hockman
• Count De Marcy
• Francesco Giorgi
• Postel
• Curione
• David Joris
• Campanella
• George Klein-Nikolai, author
• Anna Letitia Barbauld, English poet and writer
• Sarah Flowers Adams, hymnist
• Elisabeth Arundel Charles, hymnist, writer
• Elisabeth C. Clephane, hymnist
• Eliza Scudder
• Alison Rutherford Cockburn, writer
• Joanna Beitte, author
• Mary M. Sherwood, writer
• Lydia Child, writer
• Caroline Norton, writer
• Mary Carpenter, English philanthropist
• Margaret Fuller Ossoli, writer
• Caroline Sawyer, writer
• Sarah G. Edgarton Mayo, writer
• Francis Power Cobbe, author
• Lucy Larcom, writer
• Dinah Muloch Craik
• Mrs. Bloomfield, writer
• Mrs. E.H.J. Cleveland
• Helen L. Bostwick
• Julia H. Scott, writer
• Fredrika Bremer, Swedish novelist
• Woelner
• Seebach
• Steinbart
• Rev. Alexander Schweizer
• Rev. John Page Hoppe
• Rev. G. Vance Smith D.D. Ph. D.
• Bishop Colenso
• Jules Francois Suisse Simon, French Statesman
• George Dawson
• Charles Reade
• John Cooper Vail
• Philip James Bailey
• James Gaylord Clark
• John Sare
• J. A. Fronde
• Acton Warburton
• James Russel Lowell
• Dr. R. A. Lipsins, Prof. of Theology
• John Ruskin
• Arther Hugh Clough
• Walt Whitman
• Louis Figuier, French Scientist
• Charles Kingsley
• J. C. Holland
• Sarah G. Edgarton Mayo
• Prof. E. H. Plumptre
• William Howard Russell
• W. R. Greg
• Stopford A. Brooke, chaplain to the Queen
• G. Campbell
• Leopold Scheffer
• Matthew Arnold
• Frances Power Cobbe
• J. H. Duganne
• T. W. Higginson
• Thomas L. Harris
• George Rust
• Rev. John Wallace
• Mrs. A. D. T. Whitney
• S. Baring Gould
• Lucy Larcom
• Thomas Griffith
• Adelaide A. Procter
• Bayard Taylor
• Dinah Mulock Graik
• Elizabeth Arundel Charles
• Henry James
• S. A. Tipple
• Quillen H. Shinn, evangelist
• John Brown, M. D.
• Mrs. Bloomfield
• Eliza Scudder
• Charles G. Ames
• Joseph John Murphy
• James Hinton
• Mrs. E. H. J. Cleaveland
• Gerald Massey
• Theodore Winthrop
• Alexander Smith
• Albert Laighton
• Jean Jugelow
• Edwin Arnold
• Robert Bulwer Lytton
• William Morris
• Rev. John Orr, Prof. Biblical Criticism
• J. B. Munroe
• N. C. Wilkins
• Bret Harte
• Rev. William Archer Butler
• Elizabeth C. Clephane
• Rev. Albert Reville D. D.
• Dr. S. Fillmore Bennett
• Robert Ingersoll
• William Wallace
• John Hay
• Helen Bostwick
• Robert Buchaman
• Hattie Griswold
• Sharon Turner
• Seba Smith
• Julia H. Kinney Scott
• Joaquin Miller
• Principle Caird
• The Cary Sisters
• M. B. Smedley
• Paul Janet
• Rev. John Monsell L.L.D.
• Thomas Aird
• Ronald Cower
• J. Fenimore Cooper
• Victor Hugo
• Appleton Oaksith
• Sir James Stephen
• Thomas Carlyle
• Allan Cunningham
• John Young L.L.D
• Thomas Erskine of Lintathen
• Schleiermacher
• Bengel
• Eberhard
• Lavater
• J Macleod Campbell, Dean of Wells
• Canon Wilberforce
• Pastor Oberlin
• Bishop Ken
• Thomas Allin
• Hannah Whitall Smith, Evangelist and Bible teacher
• Clara Barton
• Christopher Sauer (Sower, Saur), Bible Publisher
• Charles Chauncy
• Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence
• William Sargent
• Hosea Ballou
• Christopher Marshall
• George de Benneville
• Marie Huber
• Jane Leade
• Philipp Jakob Spener
• Johanna Eleonora von und zu Merlau
• Abraham Lincoln
• Benjamin Franklin, encouraged the first Universalist Church in Philadelphia
• George Washington, defended a Universalist chaplain in his army when attacked by "Orthodox" ministers
• Joseph S. Johnston, writer
• Rev. Charles A. Pridgeon, President Pittsburgh Bible Institute
• Rev. E. L. Clementson, theologian
• John A. T. Robinson, theologian
• Jacques Ellul, theologian
• William Barclay, theologian and translator
• Robert Short, author
• A.E. Knoch, Bible student and translator
• Dean Hough, pastor, writer, editor
• J. Preston Eby, writer
• Ray Prinzing, writer
• A.E. Saxby, author
• Warren Young Kimball, author
• Adlai Loudy, author
• John H. Paton, author
• Guy Marks, author
• Vladimir Gelesnoff, author
• Dr. Ernest L. Martin, author
• Morton Kelsey, author
• Ruth Carter Stapleton, Billy Carter's sister
• Walter Kunneth
• Paul Althaus, theologian
• Nels Ferre, theologian
• Herbert Farmer, theologian
• Nicolai Berdyaev, theologian
• Hendrikus Berkof, theologian
• H. Dodd, theologian
• H. H. Farmer, theologian
• Vernard Eller, professor
• P. T. Forsythe, theologian
• Karl Heim, theologian
• John Hick, theologian
• F. D. Moule, professor
• T. Niles, church leader
• Mathias Rissi, theologian
• Ethelbert Stauffer, theologian
• Thomas Talbott, Professor
• David L. Watson, professor
• Karl Barth, theologian
• Madelein L Engle, author
• Tom Harpur, journalist
• Richard John Neuhaus
• Carlton Pearson, bishop, pastor, author, singer
• Robert Rutherford, pastor
• Dick King, pastor
• Rhett Ellis, author
• Kalen Fristadt, author
• Mark T. Chamberlain, author
• Brian McLaren, author
• Jeff Priddy, author
• Harold Lovelace, author, speaker
• Keith DeRose, Yale Professor
• Gary Amirault, author, internet host
• Charles M. Schultz, cartoonist (famous for Peanuts and Charlie Brown)

See also: Believers in Universal Salvation (Universalism, Ultimate Reconciliation, Universal Restoration, Doctrine of Inclusion, The Larger Hope, The Greater Faith, apokatastasis, etc.)